History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba

by J. N. Larned

[Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide
continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.
1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
brackets "{123}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.
2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
without surrounding empty lines.
3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
between subjects.
5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
with spaces and newlines.
6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
(as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
immediately follow the main title.
Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
spaces.
References to other articles in this work are in all upper case
(as in the original) and indented six spaces. They usually
begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".
Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
and in italics, as in the original. The bibliography in
APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details, including
URLs of available internet versions.
----------Subject: End----------
indicates the end of a long group of subheadings or other
large block.
End Transcriber's Notes.]
-----------------------------------------------------------

History For Ready Reference, Volume 1 of 6
From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists
Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History
For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,
And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better
And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language
By J. N. Larned
With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies
And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley
In Five Volumes
Volume I--A To Elba
Springfield, Massachusetts.
The C. A. Nichols Company., Publishers
MDCCCXCV
Copyright,1893,
By J. N. Larned.
The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
United States Of AmericaPrinted by H. O. Houghton & Company.
Preface.
This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better
Literature of History in the English language, and to give it
an organized body--a system--adapted to the greatest
convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading,
for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.
The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily
distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of
books,--embracing the whole range (in the English language) of
standard historical writing, both general and special: the
biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the
social investigations, the archeological researches, the
ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important
tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical
knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits,
careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found,
and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired.
The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples,
and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are
faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair
selection from its fruits.
History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its
scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have
searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its
meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words.
If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but
slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is
presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its
topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their
large relations, both national and international.
For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the
broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could
possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common
to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many
styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light
which shines directly from the pens that have made History
luminous by their interpretations.
Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the
finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which
are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must
sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully
chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important
of such documents--charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions,
covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions
of many countries--have been accordingly introduced and are easily
to be found.
The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical,
and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed,
and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the
same alphabetical and chronological order.
Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully
but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and
consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler
discussion by references from each caption under which it may be
sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of
five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number,
at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of
encyclopedic works.
Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general
sketch of the history of Europe, and in what I have called the
"Logical Outlines" of a number of national histories, which are
printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been
dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work
represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt
warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without
permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from
books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or
deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those,
authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or
denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received
the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and
count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly
letters of permission which have come to me from authors and
publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific
acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.
The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of
property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been
taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by
omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional
interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by
paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is
shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of
different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for
each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the
divergences between English and American orthography; but, since
much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions
of English books, and since both copyists and printers have
worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not
have governed with strict consistency throughout.
J. N. L.
The Buffalo Library,
Buffalo, New York, December, 1893.
Acknowledgments.
In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy
and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I
have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now
proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those
persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind
permissions. They are as follows:
Authors.
Professor Evelyn Abbott;
President Charles Kendall Adams;
Professor Herbert B. Adams;
Professor Joseph H. Allen;
Sir William Anson, Bart.;
Reverend Henry M. Baird;
Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;
Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;
Mr. Walter Besant;
Professor Albert S. Bolles;
John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;
Mr. Henry Bradley;
Reverend James Franck Bright;
Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;
Professor William Hand Browne;
Professor George Bryce;
Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;
J. B. Bury, M. A.;
Mr. Lucien Carr;
Gen. Henry B. Carrington;
Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;
Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;
Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;
Professor Henry Coppée;
Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;
Gen. Jacob Dolson Cox;
Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the
late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);
Professor Thomas F. Crane;
Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;
Honorable J. L. M. Curry;
Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;
Professor Robert K. Douglas;
J. A. Doyle, M. A.;
Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;
Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;
Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;
Mr. Charles Henry Eden;
Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;
Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;
Mr. Loyall Farragut;
The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;
Professor George Park Fisher;
Professor John Fiske;
Mr. William. E. Foster;
Professor William Warde Fowler;
Professor Edward A. Freeman;
Professor James Anthony Froude;
Mr. James Gairdner;
Arthur Gilman, M. A.;
Mr. Parke Godwin;
Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the
Army of Virginia under Gen. Pope," by the late Gen. George H.
Gordon);
Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;
Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late Gen. Grant);
Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those
of the late John Richard Green);
William Greswell, M. B.;
Major Arthur Griffiths;
Frederic Harrison, M. A.;
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;
Mr. William Heaton;
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;
Professor B. A. Hinsdale;
Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late
Mr. George Hooper);
Reverend Robert F. Horton;
Professor James K. Hosmer;
Colonel Henry M. Hozier;
Reverend William Hunt;
Sir William Wilson Hunter;
Professor Edmund James;
Mr. Rossiter Johnson;
Mr. John Foster Kirk;
The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;
Colonel Thomas W. Knox;
Mr. J. S. Landon;
Honorable Emily Lawless;
William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;
Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"
by the late Dr. Leone Levi);
Professor Charlton T. Lewis;
The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;
Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;
Richard Lodge, M. A.;
Reverend W. J. Loftie;
Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by
the late Gen. A. L. Long);
Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);
Charles Lowe, M. A.;
Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;
Justin McCarthy, M. P.;
Professor John Bach McMaster;
Honorable Edward McPherson,
Professor John P. Mahaffy;
Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;
Colonel George B. Malleson;
Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;
Professor David Masson;
The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;
Professor John Henry Middleton;
Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;
William R. Morfill, M. A.;
Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;
Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;
Sir William Muir;
Mr. Harold Murdock;
Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;
Miss Kate Norgate;
C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;
Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late
John Gorham Palfrey);
Francis Parkman, LL. D.;
Edward James Payne, M. A.;
Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;
Mr. James Breck Perkins;
Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the
late James Phelan);
Colonel George E. Pond;
Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;
Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;
William F. Poole, LL. D.;
Major John W. Powell;
Mr. John W. Probyn;
Professor John Clark Ridpath;
Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;
Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;
Mr. John Codman Ropes;
J. H. Rose, M. A.;
Professor Josiah Royce;
Reverend Philip Schaff;
James Schouler, LL. D.;
Honorable Carl Schurz;
Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;
Professor J. R. Seeley;
Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;
Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;
Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late Gen. Sheridan);
Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late Gen. Sherman);
Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;
Professor Goldwin Smith;
Professor James Russell Soley;
Mr. Edward Stanwood;
Leslie Stephen, M. A.;
H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;
Mr. Simon Sterne;
Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;
Sir John Strachey;
Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;
Professor William Graham Sumner;
Professor Frank William Taussig;
Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;
Professor Robert H. Thurston;
Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;
Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;
Gen. R. de Trobriand;
Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;
Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;
Professor Herbert Tuttle;
Professor Arminius Vambéry;
Mr. Henri Van Laun;
Gen. Francis A. Walker;
Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;
Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;
Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;
Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;
Mr. Arthur Silva White;
Sir Monier Monier-Williams;
Justin Winsor, LL. D.;
Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;
John Yeats, LL: D.;
Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.
Publishers.
London:
Messrs.
W. H. Allen & Company;
Asher & Company;
George Bell & Sons;
Richard Bentley & Son;
Bickers & Sons;
A. & C. Black;
Cassell & Company;
Chapman & Hall;
Chatto & Windus:
Thomas De La Rue & Company;
H. Grevel & Company;
Griffith, Farran & Company;
William Heinemann:
Hodder & Stoughton;
Macmillan & Company;
Methuen & Company;
John Murray;
John C. Nimmo;
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;
George Philip & Son;
The Religious Tract Society;
George Routledge & Sons;
Seeley & Company;
Smith, Elder & Company;
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;
Edward Stanford;
Stevens & Haynes;
Henry Stevens & Son;
Elliot Stock;
Swan Sonnenschein & Company;
The Times;
T. Fisher Unwin;
Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;
Frederick Warne & Company;
Williams & Norgate.
New York:
Messrs.
D. Appleton & Company;
Armstrong & Company;
A. S. Barnes & Company;
The Century Company;
T. Y. Crowell & Company;
Derby & Miller:
Dick & Fitzgerald;
Dodd, Mead & Company;
Harper & Brothers;
Henry Holt & Company;
Townsend MacCoun;
G. P. Putnam's Sons;
Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;
D. J. Sadler & Company;
Charles Scribner's Sons;
Charles L. Webster & Company;
Edinburgh:
Messrs.
William Blackwood & Sons;
W. & R. Chambers;
David Douglas;
Thomas Nelson & Sons;
W. P. Nimmo;
Hay & Mitchell;
The Scottish Reformation Society.
Philadelphia:
Messrs.
L. H. Everts & Company;
J. B. Lippincott Company;
Oldach & Company;
Porter & Coates.
Boston:
Messrs.
Estes & Lauriat;
Houghton, Mifflin & Company;
Little, Brown & Company;
D. Lothrop Company;
Roberts Brothers.
Dublin:
Messrs.
James Duffy & Company;
Hodges, Figgis & Company;
J. J. Lalor.
Chicago:
Messrs.
Callaghan & Company;
A. C. McClurg & Company;
Cincinnati:
Messrs.
Robert Clarke & Company;
Jones Brothers Publishing Company;
Hartford, Connecticut:
Messrs.
O. D. Case & Company;
S. S. Scranton & Company;
Albany:
Messrs.
Joel Munsell's Sons.
Cambridge, England:
The University Press.
Norwich, Connecticut:
The Henry Bill Publishing Company;
Oxford:
The Clarendon Press.
Providence, R. I.
J. A. & R. A. Reid.
A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I
am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of
eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the
proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their
suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance
given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.
In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I
owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among
whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond,
Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no
feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which
places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of
which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is
the head.
I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with
that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and
drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes
have been produced.
J. N. Larned.
List Of Maps And Plans.
'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'
Preceding the title-page.
Map of American Discovery and Settlement,
To follow page 46
Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,
On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,
On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,
To follow page 196
Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,
On page 197
Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,
To follow page 242
Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during
the present century,
On page 244
Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,
To follow page 332
Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,
To follow page 432
Logical Outlines, In Colors.
Athenian and Greek history, To follow page 144.
Austrian history, To follow page 198.
Chronological Tables.
The Seventeenth Century:
First half and second half, To follow page 208.
To the Peloponnesian War, and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,
To follow page 166.
Appendices To Volume I.
A. Notes to Ethnographic map;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
D. Notes to map showing the diffusion of Christianity;
Mr. A. C. Reiley.
E. Notes on the American Aborigines;
by Major J. W. Powell and
Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.
F. Bibliography of America
(Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology, and Ethnology),
and of Austria.
{1}
History For Ready Reference.
A. C. Ante Christum;
used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,
B. C.--Before Christ.
A. D. Anno Domini;
The Year of Our Lord.
See ERA, CHRISTIAN.
A. E. I. O. U.
"The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used
by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate,
books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est
Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist
Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not
safe in an inch of his dominions."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, volume 2, page 89, foot-note.
A. H. Anno Hejiræ.
See ERA, MAHOMETAN.
A. M.
"Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the
beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted
chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.
A. U. C., OR U. C.
"Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno
urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the
Year of Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 753.
AACHEN.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.
AARAU, Peace of (1712).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
ABÆ, Oracle of.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
ABBAS I. (called The Great), Shah of Persia; A. D. 1582-1627
Abbas II., A. D. 1641-1666.
Abbas III., A. D. 1732-1736.
ABBASSIDES, The rise, decline and fall of the.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 715-750; 763; and 815-945;
also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
ABBEY.--ABBOT.--ABBESS.
See MONASTERY.
ABDALLEES, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
ABDALMELIK, Caliph, A. D. 684-705.
ABD-EL-KADER,
The War of the French in Algiers with.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
ABDICATIONS.
Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.
See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.
Amadeo of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
Charles V. Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561,
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
Charles X. King of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
Charles Albert, King of Sardinia.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Christina, Regent of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
Christina, Queen of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
Diocletian, Emperor.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
Louis Philippe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
Milan, King of Servia.
See SERVIA: A. D. 1882-1889.
Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, and King of Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889,
and BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
Ptolemy I. of Egypt.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.
Victor Emanuel I.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
William I., King of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
ABDUL-AZIZ, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1861-1876.
ABDUL-HAMID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1774-1789.
Abdul-Hamid II., 1876-.
ABDUL-MEDJID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1839-1861.
ABEL, King of Denmark, A. D. 1250-1252.
ABENCERRAGES, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273, and 1476-1492.
ABENSBURG, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ABERCROMBIE'S CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A.D. 1758.
ABERDEEN MINISTRY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852, and 1855.
ABIPONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
ABJURATION OF HENRY IV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
ABNAKIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.
ABO, Treaty of (1743).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
ABOLITIONISM IN AMERICA, The Rise of.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.
ABORIGINES, AMERICAN.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
ABOUKIR, Naval Battle of (or Battle of the Nile).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
Land-battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
ABRAHAM, The Plains of.
That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable
victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so
called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham,
who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the
colony."
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 2, page 289.
For an account of the battle which gave distinction to the
Plains of Abraham,
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759, (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
ABSENTEEISM IN IRELAND.
In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live
on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do
not live in the country. ... Absenteeism is an old evil, and
in very early times received attention from the government.
... Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from
the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are
apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly
poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is
a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. ... I
am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the
country and the people. ... It is too much to attribute to it
all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is,
however, an important consideration that the people regard it
as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions
of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely
or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."
D. B. King, The Irish Question, pages 5-11.
{2}
ABSOROKOS, OR CROWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ABU-BEKR, Caliph, A. D. 632-634.
ABU KLEA, Battle of (1885).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
ABUL ABBAS, Caliph, A. D. 750-754.
ABUNA OF ABYSSINIA.
"Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity
into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of
Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the
church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"--or
Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."
H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
page 4.
ABURY, OR AVEBURY.--STONEHENGE.--CARNAC.
"The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and
Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200,
are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible
relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing
group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is
that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred
by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the
beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of
unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by
a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of
earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of
stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded
long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton,
and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in
another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the
largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130
feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second
to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the
pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful
parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the
ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty
are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed
among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge
on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury,
since not only are some of the stones used in its construction
worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than
those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a
circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen
stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into
each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet
within this was a circle of small foreign stones ... and
within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a
horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet
high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called
the altar-stone. ... At a distance of 100 feet from the outer
line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer
circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and
includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date
than some of the barrows of the district."
W. B. Dawkins; Early Man in Britain, chapter 10.
"Stonehenge ... may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the
Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time,
the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being
probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the
stones are all in their natural condition, while those of
Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude
that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the
close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of
Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as
temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved
to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be
described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by
a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus,
sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone
circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany,
consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly
both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground,
while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues
originally extended for several miles, but at present they are
very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for
agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are
several detached portions, which, however, have the same
general direction, and appear to have been connected together.
... Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the
Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as
having been erected during the same period."
Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapter 5.
ABYDOS.
An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont,
mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in
alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is
supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at
different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and
Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the
Hellespont--the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero
and Leander--nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in
the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge
of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an
important victory over the Peloponnesians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480, and 411-407.
ABYDOS, Tablet of.
One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in
the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It
gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his
ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when
found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M.
Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the
first.
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,
volume 1, book 3.
ABYSSINIA: Embraced in ancient Ethiopia.
See ETHIOPIA.
ABYSSINIA: Fourth Century.
Conversion to Christianity.
"Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native
country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer,
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would
appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or
Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early
in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for
the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he
and his companions were attacked at a place where they had
landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two
youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of
Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who
advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be
his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who
left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of
the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the
prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he
became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such
Christian traders as visited the country, had already
introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia,
repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and
... Athanasius ... consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum
[the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus
founded continues to this day subject to the see of
Alexandria."
J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church,
book 2, chapter 6.
{3}
ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.
Wars in Arabia.
Struggle with the Mahometans.
Isolation from the Christian world.
"The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in
Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians,
under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show
their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The
prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a
zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging
the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to
suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants
who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes
of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be
murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this
a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered
Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a
Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But
at the death of the latter, which happened soon after,
Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a
natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now
became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before.
... Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign
of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the
undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and
was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the
Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent
empire of the Homerites, and established a new government
favourable to the Christians."
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, second period, section 1.
"In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the
dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power
seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire,
sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed
themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority
in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of
it."
"It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their
acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way
to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon
afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia,
spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated
the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile
Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of
Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith;
presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous
followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and
incessant wars ravaged her territories. ... She lost her
commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital
threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. ...
There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk
under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the
Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable
moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."
M. Russell, Nubia and Abyssinia, chapter 3.
"When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia,
ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of
its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut
off from communication with the rest of Christendom. ... They
[the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a
semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely
mixed with Jewish customs."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 5.
ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.
European Attempts at Intercourse.
Intrusion of the Gallas.
Intestine conflicts.
"About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in
contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed
at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at
Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the
Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an
impress upon Ethiopia. ... Prince Henry of Portugal ... next
opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a
route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:
A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached
without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to
discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues
derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an
ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was
not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or
Negus, or Nagash--the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He
married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.
He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince
Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the
Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected
the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended
their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the
Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,
on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened
to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with
the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They
were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the
Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese
fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was
maintained for some time between the against the Turks.
{4}
Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them
"In the middle of the 16th century ... a
migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and
over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and
fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion
and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to
dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A
large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper
Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment
here they have for the most part embraced the creed of
Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian
Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts
by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a
firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which
had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.
Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp
of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in
the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission
arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For
nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the
trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. ... But the same
fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized
lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit
missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the
prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits
which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,
and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,
Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]
from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish
governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of
Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who
attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with
cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks
and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence
and civilization. ... After the expulsion of the Jesuits,
Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed
by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and
confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,
and the inhabitants sold into slavery. ... Towards the middle
of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased
considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia
their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country
political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early
years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted
English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the
Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into
Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.
In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was
not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and
commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.
Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty
of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."
H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
Introduction.
ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
Advent of King Theodore.
His English captives and the Expedition which released them.
"Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when
he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras
Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose
name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the
boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better
known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old
family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land
begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated
in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a
considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life
was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla
bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and
plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the
life of a freebooter. ... Adventurers flocked to his standard;
his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras
Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central
Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now
resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent
of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself
crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking
the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared
that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr.
Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with
admiration of his talents and character, and became his
counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his
life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several
misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The
British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden,
immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of
Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was
entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to
the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter,
duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the
Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made.
Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences
of the indifference of the British Government to his
overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and
imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same
time he was still further offended by certain passages in a
book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary
named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the
latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging
and torture. The first step taken by the British Government,
when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England,
was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a
letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the
captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made
its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore
seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised
freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became
filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's
credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and
intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was
drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken
cogitations was a determination to detain the mission--at any
rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of
skilled artisans and machinery from England."
{5}
Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into
confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were
allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation
known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be
sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was
actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil
engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery
and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the
release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year
was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until
September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000
British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert
Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian
to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous
difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and
transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868,
to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where
Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400
miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed
to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with
no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when
it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by
the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a
few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was
simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and
when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on
the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance
left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the
captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an
unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from
the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which
he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused
these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and
stormed by the British troops--slight resistance being
made--he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the
place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in
himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June
the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was
sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."
Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
volume 9, chapter 28.
"The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore
failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the
front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and
afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th
March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or
Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek
of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment
of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral ... promises a new era
for Abyssinia."
T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, chapter 9.
ALSO IN
H. A. Stern, The Captive Missionary.
H. M. Stanley, Coomassie and Magdala, part 2.
ACABA, the Pledges of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ACADEMY, The Athenian.
"The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens,
was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the
school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty
plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle
stream rolled through it."
G. H. Lewes, Biog. History of Philosophy, 6th Epoch.
The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose
for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which
were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different
quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance
of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily
exercises and athletic feats. ... Before long several of the
schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even
took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the
Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at
home. Gradually we find the traces of some material
provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the
different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the
sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy,
which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There
lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. ...
Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum,
in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably
possessed the house and garden which after his death came into
the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."

W. W. Capes, University life in Ancient Athens,
pages. 31-33.
For a description of the Academy, the Lyceum, and other
gymnasia of Athens.
See GYMNASIA GREEK.
Concerning the suppression of the Academy,
See ATHENS: A. D. 529.
ACADIA.
See NOVA SCOTIA.
ACADIANS, The, and the British Government.
Their expulsion.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730; 1749-1755, and 1755.
ACARNANIANS.
See AKARNANIANS.
ACAWOIOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
ACCAD.--ACCADIANS.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
ACCOLADE.
"The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order
of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the
cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body,
the neck, whereon it was struck. ... Many writers have
imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier
might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is
not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as
the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to
trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the
religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only
ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of
battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not
allow of many ceremonies."
C. Mills, History of Chivalry, page 1, 53, and foot-note.
ACHÆAN CITIES, League of the.
This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League"
of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements
in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the
towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with
its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa,
Terina and Pyxus. ... The language of Polybius regarding the
Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to
these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and
friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and
the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of
the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 10.
{6}
ACHÆAN LEAGUE.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ACHÆMENIDS, The.
The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings
of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an
ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian
tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King
Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family
have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we
have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was
Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of
Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis,
the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called
Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the
tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger
branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had
two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger
Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of
Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that
eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not
correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and
that he was the ninth king."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, volume 5, book 8, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to
book 7 of Herodotus.
See, also, PERSIA, ANCIENT.
ACHAIA:
"Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast
of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller
would pass into Achaia--a name which designated the narrow
strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities
between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the
peninsula. ... Achaean cities--twelve in number at least, if
not more--divided this long strip of land amongst them, from
the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on
one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on
the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends
and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once
occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had
expelled."
G. Grote, History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).
After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian
League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then
organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and
Epirus.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
"In the Homeric poems, where ... the 'Hellenes' only appear in
one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed
by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But
the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian
people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the
opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later
time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were
nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock.
... [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its
earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the
special name of a population dwelling in the north of the
Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."
Georg Friedrich Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, Introduction.
"The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the
Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national
body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or
independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear
neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest
and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the
Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians.
Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always
regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. ...
The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast
of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible
to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people
originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact
anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the
main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families,
from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression
'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
M. Duncker, History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2.
See, also,
ACHAIA,
and
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.
Mediæval Principality.
Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in
Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a
major part of the Peloponnesus--then beginning to be called
the Morea--by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted
by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger--nephew and namesake
of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the
conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was
invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as
it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him
in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally
succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks,
who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the
Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a
destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently
the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and
Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the
title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of
Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the
Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and
ravages.
G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the
Crusaders, chapter 8.
ACHMET I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1603-1617.
Achmet II., 1691-1695.
Achmet III., 1703-1730.
ACHRADINA.
A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the
"outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the
island, which was the "inner city."
ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.
After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to
the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle
for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four
brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save
one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a
soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the
title of king. His authority was established over the greater
part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and
Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern
Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The
suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the
Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018,
when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were
surrendered to him.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to
1057, book 2, chapter 2, section 2.
{7}
ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
ACOLAHUS, The.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.
ACOLYTH, The.
See VARANGIAN or WARING GUARD.
ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.
After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to
deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of
which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in
the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion.
The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and
those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The
pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.
Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 7.
ACRABATTENE, Battle of.
A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews
under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 8.
ACRAGAS.
See AGRIGENTUM.
ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
ACRE: A. D.1187.
Taken from the Christians by Saladin.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.
The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.
Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.
See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.
ACRE: A. D. 1291.
The Final triumph of the Moslems.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
ACRE: 18th Century.
Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.
"Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the
history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of
Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost
entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored
its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway
comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by
the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and
adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique
marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."
M. Malte-Brun, System of Univ. Geog., book 28 (volume 1).
ACRE: A. D. 1799.--Unsuccessful Siege by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.
See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.
ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.
See KORKYRA.
ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS, The.
"A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered
practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the
Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the
Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years,
during the administration of Pericles. ... On entering through
the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and
beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings
anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less
elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and
exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of
alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or
fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice
known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the
Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an
Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in
the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator
might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their
dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary
sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or
modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our
best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor
collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods
and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of
the arts."
J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4.
"Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the
Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur,
surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks,
and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of
which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one
great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the ...
sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of
Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on
the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets.
This would not have been consonant either with the customs or
the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica
crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,
and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the
necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained
uninhabited. ... The western end of the Acropolis, which
furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one
hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow
that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to
fill up the space with a single building which should serve
the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a
suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and
sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the
Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in
Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution,
surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. ... It may be
defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on
both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."
W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 8.
See, also, ATTICA.
ACT OF ABJURATION, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
ACT OF MEDIATION, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
ACT OF SECURITY.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
{8}
ACT RESCISSORY.
See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.
ACTIUM: B. C. 434.
Naval Battle of the Greeks.
A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
Peloponnesian War.
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 1.
ACTIUM: B. C. 31.
The Victory of Octavius.
See ROME: B. C. 31.
ACTS OF SUPREMACY.
See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.
ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559 and 1662-1665.
ACULCO, Battle of (1810).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
ACZ, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.
ADALOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 616-626.
ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).
In diplomatic service.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1796-1801.
ADAMS, John Quincy.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1829.
ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773;
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.
ADDA, Battle of the (A. D. 490).
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
AD DECIMUS, Battle of (A. D. 533).
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.
ADEL.--ADALING.--ATHEL.
"The homestead of the original settler, his house,
farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the
share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the
northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel;
the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the
owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified
also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman.
Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the
same name."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24.
See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.
ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
ADELANTADOS.-ADELANTAMIENTOS.
"Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts
[in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of
Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by
further conquests."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520.
ADEODATUS II., Pope, A. D. 672-676.
ADIABENE.
A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of
country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was
originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with
Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary
kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was
seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently
held.
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, page 140.
ADIRONDACKS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADIRONDACKS.
ADIS, Battle of (B. C. 256).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ADITES, The.
"The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in
the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their
progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History, book 7, chapter 2.
See ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.
ADJUTATORS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ADLIYAH, The.
See ISLAM.
ADOLPH (of Nassau), King of Germany, A. D. 1291-1298.
ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, King of Sweden, A. D. 1751-1771.
ADOPTIONISM.
A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century,
which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not
truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma
is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop,
Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne
took active measures to suppress the heresy.
J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 12.
ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.
ADRIAN VI., Pope, A. D. 1522-1523.
ADRIANOPLE.--HADRIANOPLE.
A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated
by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over
Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the
defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS
(VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the
capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389).
It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878
(see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave
its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and
the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).
ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1177, and 14TH CENTURY.
ADRUMETUM.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
ADUATUCI, The.
See BELGÆ.
ADULLAM, Cave of.
When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he
sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the
Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from
Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to
Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now
feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. ... Besides
these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some
of the original Canaanites--of whom the name of one at least
has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast
columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean
palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system
gathered round the hero of the coming age."
Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish
Church, lecture 22.
ADULLAMITES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
{9}
ADWALTON MOOR, Battle of (A. D. 1643).
This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.
C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 11.
ÆAKIDS (Æacids).
The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson
was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,
and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those
claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.
ÆDHILING.
See ETHEL.
ÆDILES, Roman.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
ÆDUI.--ARVERNI.--ALLOBROGES.
"The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or
Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies
between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river
was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The
Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town
was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121]
the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the
supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous
country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile
valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of
the Allier and the Loire. ... They were on friendly terms with
the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who
occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère).
... In order to break the formidable combination of the
Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui,
who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni.
... A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier
between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their
new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and
kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which
the Romans practiced when it was useful."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21.
See, also, GAULS.
Ægæ.
See EDESSA (MACEDONIA).
ÆGATIAN ISLES, Naval Battle of the (B. C. 241).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ÆGEAN, The.
"The Ægean, or White Sea, ... as distinguished from the
Euxine."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
page 413, and foot-note.
ÆGIALEA.--ÆGIALEANS.
The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and
its inhabitants.
See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ÆGIKOREIS.
See PHYLÆ.
ÆGINA.
A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and
Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied
by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to
Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power
and commercial importance, and became for a time the most
brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian
war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the
Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the
allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they
offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians
thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to
interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages
to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See
GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great
extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor
with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence
to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and
in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking
possession of their discomfited rival.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 14.
Also in
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, volume 4, chapter 36.
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.--Defeat
and subjugation.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
Their settlement at Thyrea.
See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
ÆGINA: B. C. 210. Desolation by the Romans.
The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they
entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was
signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city
having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was
reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings
of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government,
chapter 8, section 2.
ÆGINETAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).
A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in
his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.
Thucydides, History, book 3, section 97.
ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
ÆLFRED.
See ALFRED.
ÆLIA CAPITOLINA.
The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.
See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS, The.
"The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of
which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. ...
enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved,
or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law
prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the
assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for
watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was
held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 16.
ÆMILIAN WAY, The.
"M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. ...
constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian
Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to
Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great
north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to
Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the
colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across
the Appenines to Arretium."
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.
ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.
{10}
ÆOLIANS, The.
"The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according
to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to
obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into
three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. ... All
the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and
of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common
name of Æolians--a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was
incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among
which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be
assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the
two former races, though even these were scarcely in any
quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be
found a single original stock, to which others had merely been
attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples
assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is
recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is
found between the several members of this race as between
Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood
nearer to the former, others to the latter. ... A thorough and
careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that
the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main
races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian,
while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater
number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."
G. F. Schöman, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 1, chapter 2.
In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians,
appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is
represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were
Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and
Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike,
Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be
distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon,
as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and
presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them
to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes
even by defiance."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 6.
See, also, THESSALY, DORIANS AND IONIANS,
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
ÆQUIANS, The.
See OSCANS; also LATIUM;
and ROME; B. C. 458.
ÆRARIANS.
Roman citizens who had no political rights.
See CENSORS, ROMAN.
ÆRARIUM, The.
See FISCUS.
ÆSOPUS INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
ÆSTII, or ÆSTYI, The.
"At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the
Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii,
whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the
Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They
worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol
the device of a wild boar. ... They often use clubs, iron
weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn
and other produce than might be expected from the general
indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and
are the only people who gather amber, which they call
glesum."--"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to
the north-east of the Vistula. ... The name still survives in
the form Estonia."
Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
with note.
See, also, PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.
ÆSYMNETÆ, An.
Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried
not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring
tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power,
under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of
æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the
title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which
succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an
extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of
protector or dictator."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.
ÆTHEL.--ÆTHELING.
See ETHEL, and ADEL.
ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.
See ETHELBERT, etc.
ÆTOLIA.--ÆTOLIANS.
"Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early
times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a
savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an
Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized.
The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the
most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes
and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life
being preferred universally. ... It was not till the wars
which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians
formed a real political union, and became an important power
in Greece."
G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 3.
See also,
AKARNANIANS, and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE, The.
"The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions
been written down in the shape of a formal document, would
have presented but few varieties of importance. The same
general form of government prevailed in both; each was
federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly,
its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head
of all. The differences between the two are merely those
differences of detail which will always arise between any two
political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from
the other. ... If therefore federal states or democratic
states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or
strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should
see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral
characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political
conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some
faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political
conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in
which we know it best [last half of third and first half of
second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. ... The
counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to
mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political
aggrandisement."
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 6.
The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in
continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and
they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their
agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it
was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle
with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end,
B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its
nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 7-9.
ALSO IN C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63-66.
{11}
AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
Founding of Herat and Candahar.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;
and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.
In the Syrian Empire.
See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: 310-301 and after.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.
The Ghaznevide Empire.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.
Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.
Conquest by Timour.
See Timour.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1504.
Conquest by Babar.
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1722.
Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.
Conquest by Nadir Shah.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
His Conquests in India.
See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
English interference.
"Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed
Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth
had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a
wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit,
who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was
lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance
that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in
1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh
ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor,
which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England,
and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at
length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at
length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and
in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After
the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a
prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in
making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man
thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863,
uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British
occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the
legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan
was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one
sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one
of the youngest. ... Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed
was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and
dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been
addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation
of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost
Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the
Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs,
no longer truculent, but courteous. ... There was a fine
rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine
chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our
hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty
to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the
second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in
Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His
schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that
certain arrangements were entered into between him and the
Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's
part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian
Government replied that to afford him assistance would be
inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the
Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed
financially toward his undertaking by granting him four
months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a
scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne,
but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a
successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on
Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in
extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it,
and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed
Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his
artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the
south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the
Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the
Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part
availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of
British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression,
he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by
a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had
crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded
Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March,
1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his
lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of
the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other
independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was
soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of
disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia
which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered
in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly
undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says
Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger
entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to
Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission,
which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without
definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious
man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the
Persian army began the siege of Herat. ... The Dost made no
concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia,
in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for
assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the
Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations
with the western powers if he were given reason to expect
countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian
Government. ... The situation of Burnes in relation to the
Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a
Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose
credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if
that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to
Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took
small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes
that he cared for no connection except with the English, and
Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in
the sincerity of those declarations.
{12}
But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed
to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to
indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence.
It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became
hopeless. ... The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his
promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to
obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction,
and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the
Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian
minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit
at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been
discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about
the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which
Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation,
connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his
official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and
garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to
deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since
he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had
gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the
character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he
had no design of obstructing the existing situation in
Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date,
that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to
discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah
Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our
protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs
now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following
June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul,
escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no
explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our
frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central
Asia--a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the
most arduous marching ground in the known world. ... Lord
William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the
project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley
regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks
and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of
infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic
sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to
settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march
into that country."
A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, chapter 1.
ALSO IN;
J. P. Ferrier, History of the Afghans, chapter 10-20.
Mohan Lal, Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, volume 1.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
The revolt at Cabul.
Horrors of the British retreat.
Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
Sale's defence of Jellalabad.
"To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the
friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to
join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was
contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah
for the restoration of the banished house. The
expedition--which according to the original intention was to
have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of
Shah Soojah and the Sikhs--rapidly grew into an English
invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on
the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General
Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of
these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the
highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would
not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through
their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,-
the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length,
with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the
loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all
collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The
want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to
Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern
Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards
the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a
fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty
movements the English had left their battering train behind,
but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder,
and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor
did the English army encounter any important resistance
subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him,
and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo
Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah
Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the
fortress Palace of Cabul. ... For the moment the policy seemed
thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a
fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one
dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the
unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. ... Dost
Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English
envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family
to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was
there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both
the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he
had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a
victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their
policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that
the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their
successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led.
For while the English officials were blindly congratulating
themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to
an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all
sides visible. ... The removal of the strong rule of the
Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the
other families and tribes. The whole country was full of

intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the
English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders.
But they soon found that the hopes excited by these
negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had
bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be
disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did
not find that they derived any advantages from the
establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every
Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the
predominance of the English infidels.
{13}
But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of
sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in
spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the
people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion
that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold
upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived
himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a
portion of the English army, under General Sale, into
Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy
the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his
successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken
by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition
of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface
was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from
that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The
army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of
General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man.
But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul,
was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and
liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but
was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting
in the vigour and decision which his critical position was
likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English
Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had
persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances,
and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul
and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great
conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every
important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening
of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was
held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be
made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning
an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir
Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates,
and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's
army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The
evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and
rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at
once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's
house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance.
Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which
marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this
crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of
the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative
security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far
too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an
entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on
almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness
of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored
within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at
some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was
made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time
onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible
supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position.
The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy
and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some
flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of
helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might
even yet have been averted by a little firmness. ... But the
commander had already begun to despair, and before many days
had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy.
Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances
but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as
well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide
the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar
Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the
beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern
mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the
insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent
chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he
promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if
a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes.
... While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he
intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double
dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent
messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should
make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their
troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition
was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops
to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to
complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the
presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against
whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's
own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing
but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major
Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at
length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of
the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all
the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort
to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey
had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors
of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English
military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life
out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or
shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of
camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which
lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could,
had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is
uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd--it can scarcely be
called an army--was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of
the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with
Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the
married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two
generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope
that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."
J. F. Bright, History of England, volume 4, pages 61-66.
{14}
"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again.
Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before
very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to
lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling
remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass--a dark,
steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable
toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had
barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was
finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap;
the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped
from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to
Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their
own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the
number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by
straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached
Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon,
came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had
numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The
curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for
any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful
catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and
reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of
Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and
shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the
worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is
all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our
successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in
this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before
Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out
and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the
treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly
declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale
rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and
military commander with the knives at their throats.' General
Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold
this place on the part of Government until I receive its order
to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the
turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was
at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to
have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a
succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the
place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most
formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the
garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets,
re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the
gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every
attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at
length, when it became certain that General Pollock was
forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they
determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out
of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and
completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly
fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad
[April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and
dispersed. ... Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we
had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne
of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon
after the departure of the British, ... and his body, stripped
of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a
ditch."
J. McCarthy, History of our own Times,
volume 1, chapter 11.
ALSO IN
J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.
G. R. Gleig, Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan.
Lady Sale, Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan.
Mohan Lal, Life of Dost Mohammed,
chapters 15-18 (volume 2).
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
The British return to Cabul.
Restoration of Dost Mahomed.
It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain
permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to
advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to
do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at
Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one
writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be
cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of
the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood
which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet
pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for
two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now
the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other
leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the
British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and
defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After
one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he
could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their
mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on
his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and,
after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he
captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been
destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command
of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been
taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni,
the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed
the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as
it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough,
brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first
considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of
Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington
called it 'The Song of Triumph.' ... This proclamation, put
forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really
an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an
insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was
gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple
of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are
believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying
neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum
at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni
and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived
on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English
prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale),
who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were
brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp.
General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not
now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar
in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and
Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into
India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent
back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor.
{15}
Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. ... The war
being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son
of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when
his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position
that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly
afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom
we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in
India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as
king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which
he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war,
when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs,
and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur
to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab
forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly
terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a
friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power
would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his
kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we
declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the
advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian
encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short
time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between
England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims
over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained
independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed
attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom,
including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This
was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days
after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere
Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of
Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the
Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone,
asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin,
however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of
'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a
neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was
at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had
he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would
have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he
was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold
acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William
Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000
muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded
that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a
friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers
revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government
that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country
which he brought under his power. However, after various
changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two
brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son,
Abdurrahman."
P. F. Walker, Afghanistan, pages 45-51.
ALSO IN
J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.
G. B. Malleson, History of Afghanistan, chapters 11.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
The second war with the English and its causes.
The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle
of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice
royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord
Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly
inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the
dynastic quarrels of the Afghans ... and in attempting to
cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and
arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. ... Lord
Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his
successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in
1869. ... Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He
refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge
himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he
promised that he would not press for the admission of any
English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return
expected by England for this attitude of friendly
non-interference was that every other foreign state, and
especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly
or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our
interests were so closely involved. ... But a different view
was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was
supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir
Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as
contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them
desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta,
Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the
Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of
Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country.
In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir
Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was
ably maintained. ... A Viceroy whose views were more in
accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to
be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord
Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving
effect to the new policy. He was instructed. ... to continue
payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing
dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of
unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance
of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in
exchange for these advantages. ... Lord Lawrence and those who
thought with him in England prophesied from the first the
disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of
the Afghans. ... The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English
Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common
interest to the two Governments, was calculated ... to excite
feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere
Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. ...
Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and
consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and
Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. ... The English Commissioner was
instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of
the Treaty was the admission of an English representative
within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request
on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand
proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy
formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation.
{16}
Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave
him to understand that the English would proceed to secure
their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew
his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the
two countries were in this uncomfortable condition,
information reached India that a Russian mission had been
received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of
the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war
with Russia. ... As the despatch of a mission from Russia was
contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception
under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord
Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand
the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his
intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer
selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him
forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as
it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of
course the mission was not admitted. ... An outcry was raised
both in England and in India. ... Troops were hastily
collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was
thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier
at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the
formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing
aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of
England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct
territorial aggression. ... As had been foreseen by all
parties from the first, the English armies were entirely
successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. ... By the
close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the
Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in
January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the
resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken
to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was
drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as
regent. ... Yakoob readily granted the English demands,
consenting to place his foreign relations under British
control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably
more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the
rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He
received in exchange a promise of support by the British
Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the
conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley
withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to
establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in
July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and
eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad
story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and
scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious
uniformity--the English Resident with his little garrison
trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan
mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself
respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident,
the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save
their hatred of English interference, the people seething with
anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the
Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack
upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879]
after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his
entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the
previous war was avoided. The English troops which were
withdrawn from the country were still within reach. ... About
the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the
Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On
the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at
Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make
his formal entry into the city of Cabul. ... The Ameer was
deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the
people required under pain of death, and the country scoured
to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late
outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of
retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the
English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was
cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of
some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass.
... A new and formidable personage ... now made his appearance
on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the
late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had
sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported
by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take
place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to
20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. ... It was
thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and
southern province. ... The policy thus declared was carried
out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the
same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the
north signs were visible that the only possible successor to
the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. ... The Bengal army
under General Stewart was to march northwards, and,
suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the
Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The
first part of the programme was carried out. ... The second
part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious
disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the
withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. ...
Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's
friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to
accept their overtures. Though little was known about him,
rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee,
and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of
June [1880] his army started. ... But before the end of June
Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would
be assaulted. ... General Burrows found it necessary to fall back
to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called
Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of
the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the
position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th
of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of
this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force,
numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously
defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns,
about half the English troops returned to Candahar.
{17}
General Primrose, who was in command, had no
choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment,
and wait till he should be rescued. ... The troops at Cabul
were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster
reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army
under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered
city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry
out the intended withdrawal. ... With about 10,000 fighting
men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a
successful issue his remarkable enterprise, ... falling upon
the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short
distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the
forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British
force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively
refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent
occupation. ... The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob
continued for a while, and until it was over the English
troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been
several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881]
occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the
evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally
accepted as Ameer."
J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages
534-544.
ALSO IN
A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, part 2.
Duke of Argyll, The Afghan Question from 1841 to
1878.
G. B. Malleson, The Russo-Afghan Question.
----------AFGHANISTAN: End----------
AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.
See LIBYANS.
AFRICA: The Roman Province.
"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had
doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman
Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian
inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the
fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far,
all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the
developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim
of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of
North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. ... The
arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite
after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes
as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman
government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa,
and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the
kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia.
We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman
subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it
like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia
as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of
the native governments. ... As for the previous rulers, so
also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a
limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial
supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or
taking back of the frontier in Africa. ... The former
territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier
kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or,
as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until
the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name
[Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the
river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well
as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. ...
Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. ... The
Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the
Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed
it; but ... probably the whole south as far as the great
desert passed as imperial land."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 13.
See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.
AFRICA: The Mediæval City.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
AFRICA:
Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
and 908-1171;
also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
and SUDAN.
AFRICA:
Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.
The rounding of the Cape.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.
AFRICA:
Dutch and English Colonization.
See SOUTH AFRICA.
AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.
Settlement of Sierra Leone.
See SIERRA LEONE.
AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.
The founding of Liberia.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.
AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
Partition of the interior between European Powers.
"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin
Conference of 1884--85 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that
Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely
considered. ... The founding of the Congo Independent State
was probably the most important result of the Conference. ...
Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours,
Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to
their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea.
... The compromise ... arrived at placed the Mission Station
of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The
frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of
Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from
the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company,
constituted by a royal charter, ... "was given administrative
powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions
thereby placed under British protection ... apart from the Oil
Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown,
embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern
frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories
of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its
confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany
and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and
action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and
in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German
sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich.
... At present it allows the French Congo territories to
expand along the western bank of the M'bangi ... provided no
other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in
which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the
conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On
the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention
by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks
of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier
in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit
of the basin of the Casini.
{18}
On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which
France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left
to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for
German Colonization--Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count
Pfeil--quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha,
Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were
conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters ... armed
with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On
the 27th February, the day following the signature of the
General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief,
or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German
Colonization the territories ... acquired for them through Dr.
Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was
proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon
the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles
knew no bounds. ... Prior to 1884, the continental lands
facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British
influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and
the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of
the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and
the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty
of the Sultan. ... Still, Great Britain had no territorial
claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally
protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no
effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German
Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and
the British and German Governments arranged questions between
them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886,
which was afterwards superseded by the more definite
Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In
April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization
were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with
Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took
over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of
Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal
charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an
enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently
the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series
of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs,
whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over
vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and
Cape Frio. ... It was useless for the Cape colonists to
protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to
the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. ... On 3rd
August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa
was founded, and .... received the Imperial sanction for its
incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was
formed--the German West-Africa Company--and the
administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial
Commissioner. ... The intrusion of Germany into South-West
Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the
extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi.
Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer
insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had
adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land,
having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its
territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was
absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was
added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions.
Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection.
By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain
acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the
early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over
the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a
British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country
bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions
in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east,
and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at
this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having
obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the
British South Africa Company, ... On the 29th October 1889,
the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter.
It was declared in this charter that the principal field of
the operations of the British South African Company shall be
the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other
boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land
was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great
Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the
continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over
the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over
Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now
to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took
formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of
Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from
Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of
Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of
King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian
troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of
Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces,
except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the
result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th
September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and
its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and
Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891,
Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of
Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has
practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no
hold over Abyssinia. ... Italy has also succeeded in
establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties
concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh
(about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North
latitude)--a distance of 450 miles--were placed under Italian
protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her
Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. ... The
British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now
extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute
(43° 15' East longitude). ... The activity of France in her
Senegambian province, ... during the last hundred years ...
has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her
territory. ... The French have established a claim over the
country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia.
{19}
A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra
Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at
Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal
withdrew all rights over Dehomé. ... Recently, a French sphere
of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan
regions between Algeria and Senegambia. ... Declarations were
exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain]
with the following results: France became a consenting party
to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great
Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over
Madagascar. ... And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of
influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean
possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on
Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere
of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs
to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of
July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main
provisions the following definitions of territory: "The
Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention
of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria
Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to
the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the
western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to
be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro
within the British sphere. ... Treaties in that district were
made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr.
Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin
Pasha. ... (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of
influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally
drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence
it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores
of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River
Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was
continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the
Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern
frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River
and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of
influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of
Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile
watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her
Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on
the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the
islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the
Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south
latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line
was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give
Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.)
The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony
was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger
Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade
zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as
applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and
Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the
dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal
zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain,
however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have
since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany
within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia.
Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was
ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June,
1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain
acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion
of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the
Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted
passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the
confines of the Congo Independent State and German East
Africa. ... Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower
Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo
Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake
Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the
South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West
Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her
provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo
Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. ... On
May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an
end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent
State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the
country was equally divided between the disputants. ... Lord
Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very
wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by
the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of
goods through territories in which two or more powers are
indirectly interested."
A. S. White, The Development of Africa, Second Ed.,
Revised., 1892.
ALSO IN:
J. S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa, chapter 12-23.
See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.
AFRICA: The inhabiting races.
The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in
number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone,
stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who
comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs
(with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between
Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole
South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in
that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include
with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and
Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are
occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including
Abyssinians and Gallas.
A. H. Keane, The African Races (Stanford's Compendium:
Africa, appendix).
ALSO IN:
R. Brown, The Races of Mankind, volume 2-3.
R. N. Cust, Sketch of the Modern Languages of
Africa.
See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.
----------AFRICA: End----------
AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.
AGADE.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.
AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.
AGAS.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.
AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
AGE OF STONE.--AGE OF BRONZE, &c.
See STONE AGE.
{20}
AGELA.--AGELATAS.
The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly
trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of
which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the
Agelatas.
G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 2.
AGEMA, The.
The royal escort of Alexander the Great.
AGEN, Origin of.
See NITIOBRIGES.
AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.
See SENONES.
AGER PUBLICUS.
"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her
early history. ... Large tracts of country became Roman land,
the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager
publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this
land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which
it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most
curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. ... That
part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor
given remained public property, and it was occupied, according
to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a
Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this
occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took
what he could, and more than he could use profitably. ... We
should be more inclined to believe that this public land was
occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes;
but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them.
There was no survey made of the public land which was from
time to time acquired, but there were certainly general
boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had
become public property. The lands which were sold and given
were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. ... There
is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were
originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however,
that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least,
were due to the state."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 11.
AGGER.
See CASTRA.
AGGRAVIADOS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.
AGHLABITE DYNASTY.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D.715-750.
AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.
AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
AGINNUM.--Modern Agen.
See NITIOBRIGES.
AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
AGNATI.--AGNATIC.
See GENS, ROMAN.
AGNIERS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.
AGOGE, The.
The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the
ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the
young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.
G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, part 3, chapter 1.
AGORA, The.
The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the
centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even
earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with
the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it
generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of
the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest
part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of
commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here
even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation,
for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the
oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive
games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication,
both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and
states was carried on; from here started the processions which
continually passed between holy places of kindred origin,
though locally separated. Although originally all public
transactions were carried on in these market-places, special
local arrangements for contracting public business soon became
necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently
rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching
the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most
likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of
Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between
the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of
Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of
Athenian commerce. ... The description by Vitruvius of an
agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of
post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular
in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The
numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of
marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for
walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all
marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the
remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."
E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
translated by Hueffer, part 1, section 26.
In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was
called the Agora.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 20.
AGRÆI, The.
See AKARNANIANS.
AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.
"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman
laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these
laws all land was declared common property, and that at
certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and
made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It
is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences
of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known
to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were
thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian
laws were not private property, but the property of the state.
They were, originally, those public lands which had been the
domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any
City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an
Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in
whole or in part."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8.
See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.
{21}
AGRI DECUMATES, The.
"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a
triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the
confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an
enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and
presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river
to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most
part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman
defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an
enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of
Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many
of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original
inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to
have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The
intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered
in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the
district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri
Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially
connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt
made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much
later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of
Augustus]."
C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 36..
"Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
Decumates of the Roman writers."
R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.
See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.
AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
AGRIGENTUM.
Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek
colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older
colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid
cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified
by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious
tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was
destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by
Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and
grandeur.
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 3.
See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.
Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.
See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.
See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.
AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
AIGINA.
See ÆGINA.
AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
AIGUILLON, Siege of.
A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An
English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny,
held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of
the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.
J. Froissart, Chronicles, volume 1, book 1, chapter 120.
AIX, Origin of.
See SALYES.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE:
The Capital of Charlemagne.
The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of
Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the
French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of
the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome
arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia--palaces,
gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,--for the
erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid
under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe.
It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there
that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that
foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch
perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and
the improvement of music."
P. Godwin, History of France:
Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 17.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,
The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
Succession (1748).
The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
influence of England and Holland ... forced the peace upon
Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
Cape Breton. ... The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
remained with the Genoese.
{22}
For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
[the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
vexed questions had been set at rest. ... Of all the ambitious
projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
Frederick alone was substantially realized."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3.
"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin
and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many
conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe,
it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross
inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned
to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all
endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the
electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most
deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not
only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost
its own patrimonial possessions. ... The most trying problem
is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of
Hungary [Maria Theresa]. ... The verdict of history, as
expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of
writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice
of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was
formed against her."
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1745-1756, chapter 2.
ALSO IN
W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 30.
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
chapter 108 (volume 3).
See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.
"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least
important, but at the same time one of the most estimable
peoples in Greece ... our knowledge is only fragmentary. The
boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the
people spoken of as a political whole. ... Thucydides speaks,
by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an
institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had,
in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for
judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the
supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not
in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own
time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of
Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already
held there. ... Of the constitution of the League we know but
little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and
probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been
held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had
entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in
Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General
with high authority. ... The existence of coins bearing the
name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity
enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of
particular cities also occur."
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government.,
chapter 4, section 1.
AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).
The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the
ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours
in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between
the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf:
they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the
Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with
the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners,
sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and
half-Epirotic,--like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians.
Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were
subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in
unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of
plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be
unarmed. ... Notwithstanding this state of disunion and
insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose
political league among themselves. ... The Akarnanians appear
to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical
ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the
Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the
Grecian heroes,--Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and
Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and
other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to
be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the
Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman,
and so they seem to have continued with little alteration
until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of
them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter
enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact
of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian
accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in
socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that
this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the
Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the
Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,--a people the
most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the
Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in
marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the
Akarnanian character."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 24.
AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,
A. D. 1556-1605.
AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
AKKAD.--AKKADIANS.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
AKKARON.
See PHILISTINES.
AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.
See KORKYRA.
ALABAMA:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY;
CHEROKEES.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.
Traversed by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
{23}
ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
French occupation and first settlement.
The founding of Mobile.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.
Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
Partly embraced in West Florida.
See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.
Partly in dispute with Spain.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.
See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.
Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
Organized as a Territory.
Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.
"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi
Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3,
thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a
Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as
they now exist. ... By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress
authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form
a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed
into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same
footing as the original States.' ... The joint resolution of
congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by
President Monroe, December 14, 1819."
W. Brewer, Alabama, chapter 5.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.
General Mitchell's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL--MAY: ALABAMA).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
The Battle of Mobile Bay.
Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864(AUGUST: ALABAMA).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
The Fall of Mobile.
Wilson's Raid.
End of the Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------ALABAMA: End----------
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
In their Origin.
The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
Precursors of the Alabama.
The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially
commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the
government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the
progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a
proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April,
1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those
depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property
belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and
notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the
Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had
abandoned his flag, and the Sumter war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a
side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was
armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was
short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the
Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of
the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet
steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more
active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and
twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the
blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of
June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran
among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon
made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was
everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great
favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical
operations. She became the terror of the American merchant
service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent
out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at
the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British
guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora.
Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her
piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of
the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial
aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways,
especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators
determined to procure from those friends some powerful
piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and
construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a
ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British
Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and,
in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate
ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was
the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily.
Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well
satisfied from information received that she was designed for
the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British
government to the matter so early as the 18th of February,
1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed
and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to
Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off
Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The
blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H.
Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense
to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed
the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few
minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of
his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his
seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed
from the service without a hearing--an act which subsequent
events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December
the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical
cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. ... The name
of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."
B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Civil War,
volume 2, chapter 21.
{24}
The fate of the Florida is related below--A. D. 1862-1865.
R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 9-26.
ALSO IN
J. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
chapter 30-31 (volume 2).
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.
The Alabama, her career and her fate.
"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the
Confederates] ... is thus described by Semmes, her commander:
'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet
in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and
coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was
barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to
carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. ... Her
engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an
apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the
fresh water that her crew might require. ... Her armament
consisted of eight guns.' ... The Alabama was built and, from
the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.'
The contract for her construction was signed by Captain
Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' ...
On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of
the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion,
and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the
month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The
purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was
notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an
object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at
that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence
on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. ... Early
in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the
British authorities--a point maintained throughout the
struggle--that they would originate nothing themselves for
the maintenance and performance of their international duties,
and that they would listen to no representations from the
officials of the United States which did not furnish technical
evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign
Enlistment Act. ... At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the
United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired
proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of
affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance
with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl
Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by
the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a
request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to
be ready for sea and might leave any hour. ... It ... appears
that notwithstanding this official information from the
Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers
until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so
clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under
these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in
the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion
of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her
Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the
Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool
saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and
left the port this morning.' ... After leaving the dock she
proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on
board, and also Bullock. ... The 290 slowly steamed on to
Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all
that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort
was made to seize her. ... When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay
her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the
Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only
stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for
Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of
August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail
was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the
'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six
guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.'
Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important
cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed
discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain
Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida,
whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in
Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes
and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There
were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some
stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a
part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in
transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was
not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was
hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went
back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under
that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"
The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151).
The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
westward, and making several captures, she approached within
200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
{25}
From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
vessel of the enemy. ... But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
their tonnage was about the same."
E. A. Pollard, The Lost Cause, pages 549.
Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer
Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on
the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June
19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department
that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off
this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from
Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart,
as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or
two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of
Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At
twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering
towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise,
we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was
attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to
and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her,
within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or
three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action
continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and
round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the
expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about
twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In
a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following
particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the
Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the
former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the
object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow
of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this
point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was
not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen,
shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats,
and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they
had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats
would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats
not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the
Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in
his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the
Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time,
when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the
Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats,
and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively,
and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost
immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was
actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from
shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and
others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as
comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the
Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the
commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an
act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means
to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work
rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was
mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and
others, and also the very officer who had come on board to
surrender."--In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the
following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated
she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious
damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken
effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and
rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having
been wounded. ... The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173
projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners'
accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded
18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the
coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine
room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken
effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by
explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."
Rebellion Record, volume 9, pages 221-225.
ALSO IN
J. R. Soley, The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in
the Civil War, volume 1), chapter 7.
J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne, The
Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).
R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 29-55.
J. D. Bullock, Secret Service of the Confederate States
in Europe, volume 1, chapter 5.
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.
Other Confederate cruisers.
"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to
prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became
quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included
the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which
made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which
made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was
captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by
a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins],
in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the
United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the
restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was
captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and
sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was
contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the
Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British
shipyards."
R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession,
chapter 24.
{26}
The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the
Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship--the Sea King--built
for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent,
Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned
(October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the
Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of
which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her
appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she
fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of
one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were
captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21
were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at
upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred ...
two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of
existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of
hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of
the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond;
yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way
southward he received information, August 2d, of the final
collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and
surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered
her to the United States.
J. R. Soley, The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and
Leaders, volume 4).
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
against Great Britain.
First stages of the Negotiation.
The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.
"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two
Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward
Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show ... what was intended by
these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used
on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence
between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the
20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape
of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under
instructions from the Government of the United States. In this
note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama,
and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the
directions which I have received from my Government to solicit
redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.'
... Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December,
1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing
out of the acts of the Alabama. ... As new losses from time to
time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were
brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were
lodged with the national and individual claims already
preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved
was by common consent deferred. ... The fact that the first
claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains
how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all
the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama
claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually
over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl
Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of
American vessels transferred to the British flag during the
war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing
from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is
multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going
on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation
with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the
ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as
vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the
effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' ... He
stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing
that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government
of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord
Russell ... said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties
of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured
by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United
States have sustained. ... Referring to the offer of
arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord
Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government
must decline either to make reparation and compensation for
the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to
any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the
negotiations between the two Governments. ... In the summer of
1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord
Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the
place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give
an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the
rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared
to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that,
should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might
possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by
instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call
Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,'
to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for
damages which were suffered by them during the period of the
civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United
States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is
neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and
unconciliatory toward Great Britain. ... Lord Stanley met this
overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which
he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a
reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found,
and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which
the arbitration shall apply.' ... As the first result of these
negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson
convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868.
It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United
States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the
14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the
Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr.
Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States
Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided
for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction
over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States
upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the
so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of
subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the
United States which may have been presented to either
government for its interposition with the other since the 26th
July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The
Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was
rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made
provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted
of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more
extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."
The Argument of the United States delivered to the
Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division
13, section 2.
{27}
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
Renewed Negotiations.
Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.
The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon
treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President
Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of
Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take
into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain;
and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign
Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw
cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the
British Government with the United States, and the
inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in
Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington
a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John
Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening
negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and
terms acceptable to Great Britain. ... Sir John Rose found the
United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of
good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly,
on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through
Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American
Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold
its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle
the various pending questions between the two Governments
affecting the British possessions in North America. To this
overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with
pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the
United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners
should be extended to other differences,--that is to say, to
include the differences growing out of incidents of the late
Civil War. ... The British Government promptly accepted this
proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The
joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed,
by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of
proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at
New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's
suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without
waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by
special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows:
"On the part of the United States were five persons,--Hamilton
Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood
Hoar, and George H. Williams,--eminently fit representatives
of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of
the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey
and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford
Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of
Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected
British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the
able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in
revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any
other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of
Professor Montague Bernard. ... In the face of many
difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871,
completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which
received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."
C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington,
pages 18-20, and 11-13.
ALSO IN
A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh, chapter 12 (volume 2).
A. Badeau, Grant in Peace, chapter 25.
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.
The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871,
and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the
17th day of the following June, set forth its principal
agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas
differences have arisen between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still
exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several
vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known
as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has
authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's
Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of
the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the
depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to
remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the
United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such
claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's
Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the
said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid
vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall
be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of
five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner,
that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the
United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty;
His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one;
the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to
name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be
requested to name one. ... The Arbitrators shall meet at
Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after
they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and
carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be
laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United
States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions
considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall
be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the
high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend
the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all
matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5
of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall
submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the
matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed
by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the
high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to
the case, and by such principles of international law not
inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to
have been applicable to the case:
{28}
A neutral Government is bound--First, to use due diligence to
prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its
jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to
believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a
Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like
diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of
any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such
vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part,
within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to
permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports
or waters as the base of naval operations against the other,
or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military
supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to
exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to
all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation
of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty
has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the
foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international
law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned
in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in
order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly
relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory
provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the
questions between the two countries arising out of those
claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's
Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth
in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to
observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to
bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to
invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive,
relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and
provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and
commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any
liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a
sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to
25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in
addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the
convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on
certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein
defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in
common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty
for given by either party of its wish to terminate the
arrangement] ... to take fish of every kind, except shell
fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours
and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of
the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being
restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to
land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also
upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are
hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19
secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of
fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the
United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude.
Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that
were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first
article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for
the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each
country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the
inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides
that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her
Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens
of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of
greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of
this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this
assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United
States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be
appointed to determine ... the amount of any compensation
which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of
the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty."
Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners,
one by the President of the United States, one by Her
Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her
Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three
months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian
Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and

their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles
24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal
privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the
other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon,
Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland,
St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the
transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one
country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32
extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to
Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary
laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of
Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date
of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration
of two years after either of the two high contracting parties
shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate
the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for
submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the
Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between
Vancouver's Island and the continent)--to complete the
settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.
Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other
Powers (ed. of 1889), pages 478-493.
ALSO IN
C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, appendix
{29}
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.
"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and
with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The
United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great
Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy
named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss
Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil,
the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed
Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great
Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the
case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva,
Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis
being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United
States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft
Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents,
by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing
of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of
April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the
convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion
should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next
day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing,
subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be
occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the
15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were
continued until the 14th of September following, when the
decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the
Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander
Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the
British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the
performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the
cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those
vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her
departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that
date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville,
the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the
Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the
duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels
called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston,
and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that
they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of
evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the
indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit
of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the
judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the
general expenses of the war carried on by the United States,"
and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any
sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision
put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective
earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following
language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable
compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is
necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses,
and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net
freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow
interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with
the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is
preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in
gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for
further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors,
as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal,
making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII
of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one,
awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five
hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid
by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of
all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal,
conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the
aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called
"indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential
losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the
Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were
dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the
Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a
statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not
constitute, upon the principles of international law
applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of
compensation or computation of damages between nations." This
declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of
the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.
C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington.
ALSO IN
F. Wharton, Digest of the International Law of
the U. S., chapter 21 (volume 3).
----------ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End----------
ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).
See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
ALAMANNI.
See ALEMANNI.
ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.
The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of
the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its
name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."
See ASSASSINS.
ALANS, OR ALANI, The.
"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B.
C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and
again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A
similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern
Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca
places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two
bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the
other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of
the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the
successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the
ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus
and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. ... The result
seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and
harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a
vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own
country."
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 17.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 6, note H.
"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the
Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched
their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais,
at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."
J. C. L. Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 3.
{30}
ALANS: A. D. 376.
Conquest by the Huns.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
ALANS: A. D. 406-409.
Final Invasion of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
ALANS: A. D. 409-414.
Settlement in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
ALANS: A. D. 429.
With the Vandals in Africa.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
ALANS: A. D. 451.
At the Battle of Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
----------ALANS: End----------
ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).
See ALMOHADES.
ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,
and ROME: A. D. 408-410.
ALARODIANS.--IBERIANS.--COLCHIANS.
"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires ... are
almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic
name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere
variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable
in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to
connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of
the Inscriptions. ... The name of Ararat is constantly used in
Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a
particular mountain. ... The connexion ... of Urarda with the
Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the
inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian
king ... ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or
Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the
mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians
were refugees of a later period driven northward by the
growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however,
is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the
tenor of the inscriptions."
H. C. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix 3.
"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds
closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was
[anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus
Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians
of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south,
probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the
neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must
be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other
side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as
Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and
fertility, were the Colchians,--dependents, but not exactly
subjects, of Persia."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.
ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
Purchase by the United States.
As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between
the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the
sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more
than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found
difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected
with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were
disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite
negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian
minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he
received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the
President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the
cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations,
privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any
associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate,
Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was
returned, stating that the minister believed himself
authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final
instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On
the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the
secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to
the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of
$7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the
treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or
negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20,
1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of
the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal
transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau
taking possession in the name of the Government of the United
States.
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 28,
chapter 28.
ALSO IN
W. H. Dall, Alaska and its Resources, part 2, chapter 2.
For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
ALATOONA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
ALBA.
Alban Mount.
"Cantons ... having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and
including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive
political unities with which Italian history begins. At what
period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in
Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a
matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban
range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to
settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the
most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the
new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above
Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the
Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was
universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock,
and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old
Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very
ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and
Tusculum. ... All these cantons were in primitive times
politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its
prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the
assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship
based on community of descent and of language not only
pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an
important religious and political institution--the perpetual
league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency
belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as
well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay
the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton
of Alba. ... The communities entitled to participate in the
league were in the beginning thirty. ... The rendezvous of
this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the
similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival'
(feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day
annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an
ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to
the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.
{31}
ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
ALBAIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
ALBAN, Kingdom of.
See ALBION;
also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ALBANI, The.
See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
ALBANIANS: Ancient.
See EPIRUS and ILLYRIANS.
ALBANIANS: Mediæval.
"From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the
bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first
half of the seventh century], we may ... venture to date the
earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the
Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now
called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of
the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more
particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an
important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of
the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece
with the Hellenic race can be found in history. ... It seems
very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation
without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition,
like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the
singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."
G. Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.
ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.
"John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of
Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other
petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign,
and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages
for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose
name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength
and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the
Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on
him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The
young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits
under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of
Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died,
Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son
constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over
this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by
Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to
escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his
patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief
secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at
his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish
commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver
that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the
Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened
to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance
and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith,
and declared his intention of defending the creed of his
forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native
land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner
and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly
twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power
of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and
his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."
Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 4.
"Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian
territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the
Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones
enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet
their involuntary reverence for his valour. ... His infant son
was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were
invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues
to flow in the noblest families of the realm."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 67.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN
A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, sections 11-25.
ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696.
Conquests by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------ALBANIANS: End----------
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1623.
The first Settlement.
In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had
established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a
trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle
Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the
present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was
carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a
more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected
on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany.
That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort
Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,'
after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son.
As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of
bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians
[Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the
Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa
Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship ... and
desired that they might come and have a constant free trade
with them, which was concluded upon.'"
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of N. Y., volume 1,
pages 55 and 151.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.-
Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
Occupied and named by the English.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
Again occupied by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
----------ALBANY, NEW YORK: End----------
ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
ALBANY REGENCY, The.
See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.
ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH
CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: N. CAROLINA).
ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
{32}
ALBERT,
King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.
Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.
Albert I., Duke of Austria and
King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.
Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and
Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;
King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.
ALBERTA, The District of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
ALBICI, The.
A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia
(Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in
the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend
their city against him.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 4.
ALBIGENSES, OR ALBIGEOIS, The.
"Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the
vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic,
half rationalistic theory of Christianity, ... appears almost
suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible
power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and
on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France,
in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees.
... The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France.
Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring
insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were,
at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the
Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in
some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain,
absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal
revolt from Latin Christianity. ... In no [other] European
country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so
deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church
more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
book 9, chapter 8.
"By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received
the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where
the agents of the church who came to combat them found them
mostly to abound,--the district around the town of Alba, or
Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the
commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general
denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended
together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a
predominant element among the people thus designated."
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, 5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3.
"Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and
Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy,
the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their
errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but
the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They
received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by
the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are
called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of
Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran,
Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also
held that the evil spirit created all visible things."
Johannes Baptist Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236.
https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo
"The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless
debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on
the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so
zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill
founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with
the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were
apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of
domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and
the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not
seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings,
and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries,
the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were
accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would
have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be
meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter
Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of
Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of
dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether
calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not
as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious
exaggeration."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7.
ALSO IN L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times.
See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
The First Crusade.
"Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the
Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de
Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to
those which had already elevated him to almost universal
dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy
and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and
of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute
in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of
the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in
the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the
Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of
Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and
unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;
he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief
of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all
the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred
on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should
enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise
of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of
his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the
terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated
themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal
freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,
underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against
his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond
Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain
success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was
occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a
question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the
Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill
them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will
easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one
human being within the walls was permitted to survive;
{33}
and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by
those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but
even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself
addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger
was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two
attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith
placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was
poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young
and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior
project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in
the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the
nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced
by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the
throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;
necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to
Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he
inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten
leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."
E. Smedley, History of France, chapter 4.
ALSO IN
J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Crusades against
the Albigenses, chapter 1.
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
book 9, chapter 8.
J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2,
epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3
https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo.
See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
The Second Crusade.
"The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed
than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism
of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux.
Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part
of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording
shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. ...
The unhappy Raymond was ... again excommunicated from the
Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the
champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn
that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of
Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of
heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted
land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each
successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may
not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics,
or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were
compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning
faggots. ... At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to
the city of Toulouse. ... Throwing himself into the place,
Raymond ... succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It
was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a
fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of
1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of
Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of
Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and
their united forces came into communication with each other at
Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from
Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213],
at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by
seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military
array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and
decisive. ... Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army,
deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of
the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the
sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse
immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of
Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently
held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and
twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged
as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other
counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.
ALSO IN
J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of Crusades against the
Albigenses, chapter 2.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
The Renewed Crusades.
Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.
Pacification of Languedoc.
"The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest
quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his
rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the
sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the
liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans
again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count
Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of
the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a
stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his
existence. ... Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to
cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was
unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip
[Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left
the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried
feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was
succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's
reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the
unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been
fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he
now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of
France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;
and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a
formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of
Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of
crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within
them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted
on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,
and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of
the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for
the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;
his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a
brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of
Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.
This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in
Languedoc. ... All submitted. Louis retired from his facile
conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by
an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The
monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at
Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was
succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a
boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,
Blanche of Castile.
{34}
"The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and
the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of
Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis
VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last
campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,
collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal
lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the
attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the
barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied
by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.
Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was
willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to
avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:
in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About
two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded
to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after
Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same
treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing
them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On
these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public
penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable
possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains
reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married
Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of
Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,
another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.
Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond
Berenger, count of Provence."
E. E. Crowe, History of France, volume 1, chapter 2-3.
"The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the
French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse
and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of
Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne,
Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to
the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the
crown fifty years later. ... The name of Toulouse, except as
the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new
acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name
of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and
Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they
became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the
French kingdom."
E. A. Freeman, History Geography of Europe, chapter 9.
The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.
"The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These
supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France.
The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with
calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates
transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the
slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify
nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long
succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more
numerous than had ever before been brought together in
European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know
that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and
unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay
nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the
sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at
their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the
merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the
landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and
castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been
massacred. ... Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the
European world had never mourned over a national disaster so
wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7.
----------ALBIGENSES: End----------
ALBION.
"The most ancient name known to have been given to this island
[Britain] is that of Albion. ... There is, however, another
allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back,
though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the
story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows
of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked
by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy.
Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were
Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation,
restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing,
undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the
sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them
sons of Neptune or the sea-god. ... Even in the time of Pliny,
Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with
Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts
themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they
are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word
in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the
kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be
a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of
it. ... It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that
has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which
it once applied."
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.
ALSO IN E. Guest, Origines Celticae, chapter 1.
See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ALBIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Elbe.
ALBOIN, King of the Lombards, A. D. 569-573.
ALCALDE.--ALGUAZIL.--CORREGIDOR.
"The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or
governor. ... Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the
law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and
criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the
Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii.
331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding
the two offices. ... An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable
or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and
criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius')
and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical
government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes.
ALCANIZ, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).
See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.
{35}
ALCANTARA, Knights of.
"Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of
Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,'
A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the
military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don
Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of
choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence
they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the
Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the
territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of
the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who
encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the
neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for
a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they
applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy
the place: that permission was readily granted: with his
assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers
erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by
other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire
fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the
foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St.
Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service
alike to king and church."
S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3,
section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.
ALCAZAR, OR "THE THREE KINGS," Battle of (1578 or 1579).
See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE.
ALCIBIADES, The career of.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418, and 411-407;
and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.
ALCLYDE.
Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the
victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock
in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman
town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English
for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan,
or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the
slightly modified form of Dumbarton. ... Alclyde was more than
once destroyed by the Northmen."
J. Rhys; Celtic Britain, chapter 4.
See, also, CUMBRIA.
ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.
See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
ALDIE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).
ALDINE PRESS, The.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
ALEMANNI, OR ALAMANNI: A. D. 213.
Origin and first appearance.
"Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe
war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was
waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is
named, which we here meet for the first time--the Alamanni.
Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a
little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the
appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as
well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes
comprehended under this name stand forth--more than is the
case among the other great Germanic peoples--in their separate
character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other
Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is
not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the
new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by
the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the
mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in
equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the
main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to
the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is
not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times
dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further
mention after the end of the second century, furnished a
strong contingent to the Alamanni."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.
"The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name
from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat
exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias,
who quotes Asinius Quadratus. ... Notwithstanding this, I
think it is an open question, whether the name may not have
been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of
Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic
allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,--parts of the Decumates
Agri--parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman,
or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case,
a name so German as to have given the present French and
Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a
population other than Germanic. I know the apparently
paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in
the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all'
by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the
'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner
or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and
'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).--Grimm, ii.
628.--Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that
the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in
Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other
words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in
'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of
importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the
parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time
of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through.
Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those
Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless,
indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits
that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no
tangible difference can be found."
R. G. Lathan, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 11.
ALSO IN T. Smith, Arminius, part 2, chapter 1.
See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
Invasion of Gaul and Italy.
The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire ...
increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of
Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of
Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered
the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni
penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into
the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and
displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight
of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger
rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue.
Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars--Valerian
in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however,
succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force
which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany
laden with spoil."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{36}
ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
Invasion of Italy.
Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the
reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from
the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils,
when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of
the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the
Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these
last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the
Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading
havoc as they went. It was only after three great
battles,--one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost
beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was
defeated), and a third near Pavia,--that the Germanic
invaders were destroyed.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.
Repulse by Julian.
See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
Invasion of Gaul.
The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread
ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great
spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the
Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman
forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian
auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted
energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the
invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them
back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later,
the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a
memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he
strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts,
fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors,
the Burgundians, which weakened both.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
Defeat by Gratian.

On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to
lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of
his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the
Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly
recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and
encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near
Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The
Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than
5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped.
Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his
troublesome neighbors in their own country.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
Overthrow by the Franks.
"In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that
career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any
intermission until the death of their warrior king. The
Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on
the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube,
had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into
collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of
Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and
defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood
of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then
established a considerable number of his Franks in the
territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are
found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."
V. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 2.
"Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts
of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and
forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be
overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat
overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he
bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a
Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic
faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ,
whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who
art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who
trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on
my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me
from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in
Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the
fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they
turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was
slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its
over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at
Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example.
"In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or
504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the
Alamanni. ... Clovis moved his army into their territories and
won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that
of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms
as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the
Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine,
the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was
taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district
received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia,
or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia.
The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and
dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of
Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here
they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground;
and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to
the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them.
... Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and
Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new
Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus
Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.
ALSO IN
P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 11.
See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;
and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank Dominion.
See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.
Final subjection to the Franks.
See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
{37}
ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969.
Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was
recovered by the Byzantines in 969.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.
ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.
Destruction by the Mongols.
The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu
Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the
Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of
1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege
of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and
slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered
with corpses. ... It is said that 100,000 women and children
were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its
mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus
submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said,
the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great
Khan called him to the East.
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, pages 209-211.
ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.
Sack and Massacre by Timour.
See TIMOUR.
ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.
See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).
See ITALY: A. D. 1174--1183.
ALEUTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.
ALEXANDER
ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.
Conquests and Empire.
See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.
Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.
Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.--Abduction and Abdication.
See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886..
Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825..
Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.
Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.
Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.
Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214--1249..
Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.
Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.
Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.
Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254--1261.
Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410
(elected by the Council of Pisa).
Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.
Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.
Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.
Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.
ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332.
The Founding of the City.
"When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the
little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye
of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a
great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships
could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour
roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was
needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The
site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of
land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake
Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours,
which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by
the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel
with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake
Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles,
the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was
above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet
broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of
the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the
mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which
Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out.
The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but
the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a
Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on
the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The
situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best
Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port
connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural
emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now,
because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for
steamships of an unbroken sea route."
R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 12.--
See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330;
and EGYPT: B. C. 332.
ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
Greatness and splendor of the City.
Its Commerce.
Its Libraries.
Its Museum.
Its Schools.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the
throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it
in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded
by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy
Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It
was the first of those new foundations which are a marked
feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and
importance--above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris,
then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as
Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared.
... Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The
intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned
with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the
omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles
with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite
regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the
habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters,
one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there
in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians,
Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and
variable character to the population. Let us not forget the
vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom
trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where
the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had
opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and
Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships
on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China,
as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the
wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia,
the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the
silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of
Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece--a thousand
imports from all the Mediterranean--came to be exchanged for
the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of
India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes,
the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes.
Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to
the marvellous fertility and great population--it is said to
have been seven millions--of Egypt, they made all the profits
of this enormous carrying trade.
{38}
We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were
by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the
great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. ...
All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite.
Philadelphus was anything but that. ... It was he who opened
up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great
port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for
centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern
parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna
to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the
Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and
of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the
progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the
world's history, and we must separate his University and its
professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate
section. ... The history of the organization of the University
and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For
the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we
should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford
type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and
spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science,
and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities,
this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for
teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a
centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model
came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the
Academy of Plato, had a fixed property--a home with its
surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure,
it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and
where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed
stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the
successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a
property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and
so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius
the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus,
brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake
drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no
doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the
great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled
Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle
moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in
one central repository all that the world knew or could
produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a
proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the
great library, which in those days had a thousand times the
value a great library has now, but also observatories,
zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other
new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from
the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and
museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most
brilliant group of students in literature and science was
formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the
grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall
presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated
the process by which the size of the earth is determined
to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of
Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of
philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to
have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of
the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus,
Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who
mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to
this day. ... The vast collections of the library and museum
actually determined the whole character of the literature of
Alexandria. One word sums it all up--erudition, whether in
philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange
to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was
no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact
that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism.
Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious
words, were departments of research dear to them. In science
they did great things, so did they in geography. ... But were
they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to
the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next
generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus
developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its
place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the
credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in
literature--the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus;
the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas
and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of
our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk
songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of
Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was
fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was
far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for
ever."
J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13-14.
"There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
Matter, Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
seg., 237 seq.) It is not stated by any ancient writer
where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
{39}
Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
great Alexandrian library. ... Gibbon seems to think that the
whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
the Emperor Theodosius--see below]; but this was not the case.
It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
standing long afterwards."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the
Moslems,
See below: A. D. 641-646.
ALSO IN
O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 3.
S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7, 8 and 12.
See, also, NEOPLATONICS.
ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
Cæsar and Cleopatra.
The Rising against the Romans.
The Siege.
Destruction of the great Library.
Roman victory.
From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)
Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously
murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days
afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on
being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely
more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt
in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute
between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.
Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at
war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was
ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).
Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not
hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the
dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years
of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised
lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in
Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious
rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the
great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which
commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby
commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in
that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At
the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus
caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two
priceless libraries of Alexandria--the library of the
Museum--was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]
By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege
conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great
determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,
that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the
arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king
of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and
crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced
with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and
overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the
Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the
Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,
to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while
Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.
A. Hirtius, The Alexandrian War.
ALSO IN
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 20.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18.
S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 12.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.
Destruction of the Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 116.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.
Massacre by Caracalla.
"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the
capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the
murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]
was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly
those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene
of his rapine and cruelty. ... In the midst of peace, and upon
the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at
Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a
secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed
the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,
without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the
sufferers."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
Tumults of the Third Century.
"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,
united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the
superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling
occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the
neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency
in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any
time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast
multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.
After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made
prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the
insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,
the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage
of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre
of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and
suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut
off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every
street was polluted with blood, every building of strength
converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a
considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The
spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its
palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and
philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century
afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary
solitude."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.
Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.
After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the
Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion
there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the
Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,
and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in
his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's
war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in
Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great
quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus
Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted
everafter."
J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors,
book 27.
{40}
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
Siege by Diocletian.
A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire
occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the
desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of
Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of
war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian
and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,
on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of
the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,
rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged
multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and
vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by
the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,
but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many
thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,
and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a
sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of
Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of
Alexandria; those proud cities ... were utterly destroyed."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.
Great Earthquake.
See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.
Destruction of the Serapeum.
"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the
sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the
city and temple of Serapis. ... The archepiscopal throne of
Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of
peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were
alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious
indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. ... The
votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much
inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.
389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who
exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.
These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or
rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring
sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties
which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained
the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent
magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a
truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate
of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great
temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.
"The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;
and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty
shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator
whose mind was not totally darkened by religious
prejudice."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library
in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned
annotator, Dr. Smith.
See above: B. C. 282-246.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.
"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.
412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:
his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic
parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of
death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the
temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the
prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by
oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of
the sectaries. ... The toleration, and even the privileges of
the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were
secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long
prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.
Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the
patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to
the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews
were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were
levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after
rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled
from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps
he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their
deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently
shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would
have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in
this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the
guilty."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a
more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a
deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,
honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a
woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the
lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated
by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her
learning; her modesty commended both. ... Hypatia lived in
great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge
whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his
hostility to the patriarch. ... Some of Cyril's ferocious
partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and
with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then
rent her limb from limb."
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
book 2, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
C. Kingsley, Hypatia.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.
Taken by Chosroes.
See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
The Moslem Conquest.
The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by
Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William
Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.
641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either
once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they
pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be
that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,
as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking
and retaking of the city--641 and 646--have been much confused
in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the
first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously
treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its
fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the
commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great
Alexandrian Library--or so much of it as had escaped
destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian
patriarchs--is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited
the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in
Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his
narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of
repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by
Abulpharagus--that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the
Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with
the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they
were pernicious.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
{41}
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.
See CRETE: A. D. 823.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.
Captured by the French under Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
Battle of French and English.
Restoration to the Turks.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
Surrendered to the English.
The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.
Bombardment by the English.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
Bombardment by the English fleet.
Massacre of Europeans.
Destruction.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
----------ALEXANDRIA: End----------
ALEXANDRIA, LA., The Burning of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
ALEXANDRIA, VA., A. D. 1861 (May).
Occupation by Union troops.
Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.
ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.
Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.
Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1195-1203
Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1203-1204
Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1204.
ALFONSO
ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134
Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.
Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
A. D. 739-757.
Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.
Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.
Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.
Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.
Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.
Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.
Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.
Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.
Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.
Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.
Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.
Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.
Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.
Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.
Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.
Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.
Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.
Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.
Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.
Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.
Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.
Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.
Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.
ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.
ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.
"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was
derived from the original construction of its harbour, one
side of which was separated from the land."
M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, page 314.
For history, see BARBARY STATES.
ALGIHED, The.
The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to
be a Holy War.
ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.
ALGUAZIL.
See ALCALDE.
ALHAMA, The taking of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
ALHAMBRA, The building of the.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.
ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.
ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).
See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.
ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,
and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
ALKMAR, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.
ALLEGHANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.
ALLEMAGNE.
The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of
the Alemanni.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.
See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.
And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).
ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,--1645.)
See GERMANY: A.. D. 1640-1645.
ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.
ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
{42}
ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.
The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the
chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,
and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.
Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The
Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at
Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,
and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000
taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the
Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes
mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the
small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the
command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,
B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,
at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and
were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said
to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of
the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further
struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest
of that people was reserved for Cæsar.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21.
ALMA, Battle of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).
ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.
See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.
ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
ALMOHADES, The.
The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which
originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in
the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat
similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a
religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the
reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,
Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who
took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving
himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under
that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the
army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called
Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain
Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.
Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till
the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in
1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his
successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely
supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes
than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob
Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against
Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that
kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. ...
With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His
successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of
Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to
have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade
dynasty gradually declined. ... The Almohades, like the
Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a
scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to
attempt to remember."
E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5.
ALSO IN
H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 4
See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.
ALMONACID, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
ALMORAVIDES, The.
During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,
a missionary from Kairwan--one Abdallah--preaching the faith
of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a
religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."
"The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly
Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or
religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself
claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes
Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.
After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.
There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so
powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,
abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This
Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western
Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to
assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the
Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he
shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not
scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the
Moslems. ... The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,
like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian
prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,
A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of
Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of
Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of
Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern
Spain. ... The great cities of Andalusia were all brought
under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty
however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.
1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their
own" [the Almohades].
E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5.
ALSO IN
H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8,
chapter 2 and 4.
See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
ALOD.--ALODIAL
"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion
exists between the words odal and alod, but their
signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the
hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which
the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to
appear in the host and in the council. ... The land held in
full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or
otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate
created by legal process out of public land. Both these are
included in the more common term alod; but the former looks
for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the
witness of the community, while the latter can produce the
charter or· book by which it is created, and is called
bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their
historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer
became obsolete, and the use of written records took their
place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the
land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public
land."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, c
hapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36.
{43}
"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;
the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter
depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of
continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and
instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of
inheritance. . . . Hence, in the charters of the eleventh
century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."
H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1, note.
ALSO IN
J. M. Kemble, The Saxon in England, book 1, chapter 11.
See, also, FOLCLAND.
ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.
ALPHONSO.
See ALFONSO.
ALSACE.--ALSATIA:
The Name.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
ALSACE: 10th Century.
Joined to the Empire.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
ALSACE: 10th Century.
Origin of the House of Hapsburg.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246--1282.
ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
Revolt of the Peasants.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
Complete Absorption in France.
Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
Seizure of Strasburg.
Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
Invasion by the Austrians.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
Ceded to the German Empire by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
ALSACE: 1871-1879.
Organization of government as a German Impanel Province.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
----------ALSACE: End----------
ALTA CALIFORNIA.--Upper California.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
ALTHING, The.
See THING;
Also, NORMANS.--NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
ALTIS, The.
See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.
ALTMARCK.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
Burned by the Swedes.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.