History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves

by J. N. Larned

CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF VERDUN 843 A. D.
CENTRAL EUROPE 888 A. D.
----------------------------------
FRATRES MINORES.
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
FRATRICELLI, The.
See BEGUINES, ETC.
FRAZIER'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
FREDERICIA, Battle of (1849).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
FREDERICIA, Siege of (1864).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
FREDERICK I.
(called Barbarossa), Emperor, A. D. 1155-1190;
King of Germany, 1152-1190;
King of Italy, 1155-1190.
Frederick I., King of Denmark and Norway, 1523-1533.
Frederick I., King of Prussia, 1701-1713;
Frederick III., Elector of Brandenburg, 1688-1713.
Frederick I., Elector of Brandenburg, 1417-1440.
Frederick II.,
Emperor, 1220-1250;
King of Germany, 1212-1250.
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
Frederick II., King of Denmark and Norway, 1558-1588.
Frederick II., King of Naples, 1496-1503.
Frederick II. (called The Great),
King of Prussia, 1740-1786.
Frederick II., King of Sicily, 1295-1337.
Frederick II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1440-1470.
Frederick III., Emperor, and King of Germany, 1440-1493.
Frederick III., German Emperor and King of Prussia,
1888, March-June.
Frederick III., King of Denmark and Norway, 1648-1670.
Frederick III., King of Sicily, 1355-1377.
Frederick IV., King of Denmark and Norway, 1609-1730.
Frederick V., King of Denmark and Norway, 1746-1766.
Frederick V., Elector of the Palatinate
(and King-elect of Bohemia),
and the Thirty Years' War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, 1620, 1621-1623,
1631-1632, and 1648.
Frederick VI.,
King of Denmark and Norway, 1808-1814;
King of Denmark, 1814-1839.
Frederick VII., King of Denmark, 1848-1863.
Frederick Augustus I.,
Elector of Saxony, 1694-1733;
King of Poland,1697-1704 (deposed), and 1709-1733.
Frederick Augustus II.,
Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, 1733-1763.
Frederick Henry, Stadtholder of the United Provinces,
1625-1647.
Frederick William (called The Great Elector),
Elector of Brandenburg, 1640-1688.
Frederick William I., King of Prussia, 1713-1740.
Frederick William II., King of Prussia, 1786-1797.
Frederick William III., King of Prussia, 1797-1840.
Frederick William IV., King of Prussia, 1840-1861.
----------FREDERICK: End----------
FREDERICKSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1862 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).
FREDERICKSBURG:
Sedgwick's demonstration against.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).
----------FREDERICKSBURG: End----------
FREDERICKSHALL.
Siege by the Swedes.
Death of Charles XII. (1718).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
FREDERICKSHAMM, Peace of (1809).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
FREDLINGEN, Battle of (1703).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
FREE CITIES.
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.
FREE COMPANIES, The.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
FREE LANCES.
See LANCES, FREE.
FREE MASONS.
"The fall of the Knights Templars has been connected with the
origin of the Freemasons, and the idea has prevailed that the
only secret purpose of the latter was the reestablishment of
the suppressed order. Jacques de Molai, while a prisoner in
Paris, is said to have created four new lodges, and the day
after his execution, eight knights, disguised as masons, are
said to have gone to gather up the ashes of their late Grand
Master. To conceal their designs, the new Templars assumed the
symbols of the trade, but took, it is said, the name of Francs
'Maçons' to distinguish themselves from ordinary craftsmen,
and also in memory of the general appellation given to them in
Palestine. Even the allegories of Freemasonry, and the ceremonies
of its initiations, have been explained by a reference to the
history of the persecutions of the Templars. The Abbé Barruel
says, that 'every thing--the signs, the language, the names of
grand master, of knight, of temple--all, in a word, betray the
Freemasons as descendants of the proscribed knights.' Lessing,
in Germany, gave some authority to this opinion, by asserting
positively that 'the lodges of the Templars were in the very
highest repute in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and
that out of such a lodge, which had been constantly kept up in
London, was established the society of Freemasons, in the
seventeenth century, by Sir Christopher Wren.'
{1406}
Lessing is of opinion that the name Mason has nothing to do
with the English meaning of the word, but comes from
Massonney, a 'lodge' of the Knights Templars. This idea may
have caused the Freemasons to amalgamate the external ritual
of the Templars with their own, and to found the higher French
degrees which have given colour to the very hypothesis which
gave rise to their introduction. But the whole story appears
to be most improbable, and only rests upon the slight
foundation of fancied or accidental analogies. Attempts have
also been made to show that the Freemasons are only a
continuation of the fraternities of architects which are
supposed to have originated at the time of the building of
Solomon's Temple. The Egyptian priests are supposed to have
taught those who were initiated a secret and sacred system of
architecture; this is said to have been transmitted to the
Dionysiac architects, of whom the first historical traces are
to be found in Asia Minor, where they were organized into a
secret fraternity. ... It is, however; a mere matter of
speculation whether the Jewish and Dionysiac architects were
closely connected, but there is some analogy between the
latter and the Roman guilds, which Numa is said to have first
introduced, and which were probably the prototypes of the
later associations of masons which flourished until the end of
the Roman Empire. The hordes of barbarians which then
ruthlessly swept away whatever bore the semblance of luxury
and elegance, did not spare the noblest specimens of art, and
it was only when they became converted to Christianity, that
the guilds were re-established. During the Lombard rule they
became numerous in Italy. ... As their numbers increased,
Lombardy no longer sufficed for the exercise of their art, and
they travelled into all the countries where Christianity, only
recently established, required religious buildings. ... These
associations, however, became nearly crushed by the power of
the monastic institutions, so that in the early part of the
Middle Ages the words artist and priest became nearly
synonymous; but in the twelfth century they emancipated
themselves, and sprang into new life. The names of the authors
of the great architectural creations of this period are almost
all unknown; for these were not the work of individuals, but
of fraternities. ... In England guilds of masons are said to
have existed in the year 926, but this tradition is not
supported by history; in Scotland similar associations were
established towards the end of the fifteenth century. The Abbé
Grandidier regards Freemasonry as nothing more than a servile
imitation of the ancient and useful fraternity of true masons
established during the building of the Cathedral of Strasburg,
one of the masterpieces of Gothic architecture, and which caused
the fame of its builders to spread throughout Europe. In many
towns similar fraternities were established. ... The origin of
the Freemasons of the present day is not to be attributed to
these fraternities, but to the Rosicrucians [see ROSICRUCIANS]
who first appeared at the beginning of the seventeenth
century."
A. P. Marras,
Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
chapters 7-8.
ALSO IN:
J. G. Findel,
History of Freemasonry.
C. W. Heckethorn,
Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries,
book 8 (volume 1).
FREE-SOIL PARTY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
FREE SPIRIT, Brethren and Sisters of the.
See BEGUINES.
FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839;
1842; 1845-1846; and 1846-1879.
FREEDMEN OF THE SOUTH.
The emancipated slaves of the United States of America.
FREEDMEN'S BUREAU, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of the Censorship law in England.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1695.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
Zenger's trial at New York.
Vindication of the rights of the colonial Press.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1755.
Liberty attained in Massachusetts.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1762-1764.
Prosecution of John Wilkes.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
Last contest of the British Parliament with the Press.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
The trials of William Hone.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
----------FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: End----------
FREEHOLD.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
FREEMAN'S FARM, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
FREGELLÆ.
Fregellæ, a Latin colony, founded by the Romans, B. C. 329, in
the Volscian territory, on the Liris, revolted in B. C. 125.
and was totally destroyed. A Roman colony, named Fabrateria,
was founded near the site.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 17.
FREIBURG (in the Breisgau).
Freiburg became a free city in 1120, but lost its freedom a
century later, and passed, in 1368, under the domination of
the Hapsburgs.
FREIBURG: A. D. 1638.
Capture by Duke Bernhard.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
FREIBURG: A. D. 1644.
Siege and capture by the Imperialists.
Attempted recovery by Condé and Turenne.
The three days battle.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
FREIBURG: A. D. 1677.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
FREIBURG: A. D. 1679.
Retained by France.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
FREIBURG: A. D. 1697.
Restored to Germany.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
FREIBURG: A. D. 1713-1714.
Taken and given up by the French.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
FREIBURG: A. D. 1744-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Germany.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
----------FREIBURG: End----------
FREJUS, Origin of.
See FORUM JULII.
FREMONT, General John C.,
The conquest of California.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Command in the west.
Proclamation of Freedom.
Removal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI),
and (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).
Command in West Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
{1407}
FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR.
The four intercolonial wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, in
America, commonly known, respectively, as "King William's
War," "Queen Anne's War," "King George's War," and the French
and Indian War, were all of them conflicts with the French and
Indians of Canada, or New France; but the last of the series
(coincident with the "Seven Years War" in Europe) became
especially characterized in the colonies by that designation.
Its causes and chief events are to be found related under the
following headings:
CANADA: A.D. 1750-1753,1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758,
1759,1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755, 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;
also, for an account of the accompanying Cherokee War,
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
FRENCH FURY, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
FRENCHTOWN (now Monroe, Mich.), Battle at.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
FRENTANIANS, The.
See SABINES.
FRIARS.
"Carmelite Friars,"
"White Friars."
See CARMELITE FRIARS.
Austin Friars;
See AUSTIN CANONS.
"Preaching Friars,"
"Begging Friars,"
"Minor Friars,"
"Black Friars,"
"Grey Friars."
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
FRIEDLAND, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
FRIEDLINGEN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.
FRIENDS, The Society of.
See QUAKERS.
FRIENDS OF THE PEOPLE; The Society of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
FRIESLAND.
Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy (1430).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.
FRIGIDUS, Battle of the (A. D. 394).
See ROME: A. D. 379-395.
FRILING, The.
See LÆTI.
FRIMAIRE, The month.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
FRISIANS, The.
"Beyond the Batavians, upon the north, dwelt the great Frisian
family, occupying the regions between the Rhine and Ems. The
Zuyder Zee and the Dollart, both caused by the terrific
inundations of the 13th century, and not existing at this
period [the early Roman Empire], did not then interpose
boundaries between kindred tribes."
J. L. Motley,
Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section. 2.
"The Frisians, adjoining [the Batavi] ... in the coast
district that is still named after them, as far as the lower
Ems, submitted to Drusus and obtained a position similar to
that of the Batavi. There was imposed on them instead of
tribute simply the delivery of a number of bullocks' hides for
the wants of the army; on the other hand they had to furnish
comparatively large numbers of men for the Roman service. They
were the most faithful allies of Drusus as afterwards of
Germanicus."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 4.
FRISIANS: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
FRITH-GUILDS.
See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.
FROEBEL AND THE KINDERGARTEN.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: 1816-1892.
FROG'S POINT, Battle At.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
FRONDE, FRONDEURS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648, 1649, 1650-1651, 1651-1653;
and BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
FRONT ROYAL, Stonewall Jackson's capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
FRONTENAC, Count, in New France.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687, to 1696.
FRONTENAC, Fort.
See KINGSTON, CANADA.
FRUCTIDOR, The Month.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
FRUCTIDOR: The Coup d'Etat of the Eighteenth of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
FRUELA I.,
King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 757-768.
Fruela II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
A. D. 923-925.
FRUMENTARIAN LAW, The First.
See ROME: B. C. 133-121.
FUEGIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.
FUENTES D'ONORO, Battle of (1811).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
FUFIAN LAW, The.
See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.
FUGGERS, The.
"Hans Fugger was the founder of the Fugger family, whose
members still possess extensive estates and authority as
princes and counts in Bavaria and Wurtemburg. He came to
Augsburg in 1365 as a poor but energetic weaver's apprentice,
acquired citizenship by marrying a burgher's daughter, and,
after completing an excellent masterpiece, was admitted into
the guild of weavers. ... Hans Fugger died in 1409, leaving
behind him a fortune of 3,000 florins, which he had made by
his skill and diligence. This was a considerable sum in those
days, for the gold mines of the New World had not yet been
opened up, and the necessaries of life sold for very low
prices. The sons carried on their father's business, and with
so much skill and success that they were always called the
rich Fuggers. The importance and wealth of the family
increased every day. By the year 1500 it was not easy to find
a frequented route by sea or land where Fugger's wares were
not to be seen. On one occasion the powerful Hanseatic league
seized twenty of their ships, which were sailing with a cargo
of Hungarian copper, down the Vistula to Cracow and Dantzic.
Below ground the miner worked for Fugger, above it the
artisan. In 1448 they lent 150,000 florins to the then
Archdukes of Austria, the Emperor Frederick the Third (father
of Maximilian) and his brother Albert. In 1509 a century had
passed since the weaver Hans Fugger had died leaving his
fortune of 3,000 florins, acquired by his laborious industry.
His grand-children were now the richest merchants in Europe;
without the aid of their money the mightiest princes of the
continent could not complete any important enterprise, and
their family was connected with the noblest houses by the ties
of relationship. They were raised to the rank of noblemen and
endowed with honourable privileges by the Emperor Maximilian
the First."
A. W. Grube,
Heroes of History and Legend,
chapter 13.
{1408}
FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND ITS REPEAL.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1850, and 1864 (JUNE).
FULAHS, The.
See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
FULFORD, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).
FULTON'S FIRST STEAMBOAT.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.
FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT OF NEW HAVEN.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF CONNECTICUT.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
FUORUSCITI.
In Italy, during the Guelf and Ghibelline contests of the 13th
and 14th centuries (see ITALY: A. D. 1215-1293), "almost every
city had its body of 'fuorusciti';--literally, 'those who had
gone out';--proscripts and exiles, in fact, who represented
the minorities ... in the different communities;--Ghibelline
fuorusciti from Guelph cities, and Guelph fuorusciti from
Ghibelline cities."
T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
volume 1, page 380.
FÜRST.
Prince; the equivalent German title.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
FURY, The French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
FURY, The Spanish.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
FUSILLADES.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
FUTTEH ALI SHAH,
Shah of Persia, A. D. 1798-1834.
FUTTEHPORE, Battle of (1857).
See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
FYLFOT-CROSS, The.
See TRI-SKELION.
FYRD, The.
"The one national army [in Saxon England, before the Norman
Conquest] was the fyrd, a force which had already received in
the Karolingian legislation the name of landwehr by which the
German knows it still. The fyrd was in fact composed of the
whole mass of free landowners who formed the folk: and to the
last it could only be summoned by the voice of the folk-moot.
In theory therefore such a host represented the whole
available force of the country. But in actual warfare its
attendance at the king's war-call was limited by practical
difficulties. Arms were costly; and the greater part of the
fyrd came equipped with bludgeons and hedge-stakes, which
could do little to meet the spear and battleaxe of the
invader."
J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
p. 133.
G.
GA, The.
See GAU.
GABELLE The.
"In the spring of the year 1343, the king [Philip de Valois,
king of France] published an ordinance by which no one was
allowed to sell salt in France unless he bought it from the
store-houses of the crown, which gave him the power of
committing any degree of extortion in an article that was of
the utmost necessity to his subjects. This obnoxious tax,
which at a subsequent period became one of the chief sources
of the revenue of the crown of France, was termed a gabelle, a
word of Frankish or Teutonic origin, which had been in use
from the earliest period to signify a tax in general, but
which was from this time almost restricted to the
extraordinary duty on salt. ... This word gabelle is the same
as the Anglo-Saxon word 'gafol,' a tax."
T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 1, page 364, and foot-note.
See, also, TAILEE AND GABELLE.
GABINIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B.C. 69-63.
GACHUPINES AND GUADALUPES.
In the last days of Spanish rule in Mexico, the Spanish
official party bore the name of Gachupines, while the native
party, which prepared for revolution, were called Guadalupes.
E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
p. 303.
The name of the Guadalupes was adopted by the Mexicans "in
honour of 'Our Lady of Guadalupe,' the tutelar protectress of
Mexico;" while that of the Gachupines "was a sobriquet
gratuitously bestowed upon the Spanish faction."
W. H. Chynoweth,
The Fall of Maximilian,
page 3.
GADEBUSCH, Battle of (1712).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
GADENI, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
GADES (Modern Cadiz); Ancient commerce of.
"At this period [early in the last century before Christ]
Gades was undoubtedly one of the most important emporiums of
trade in the world: her citizens having absorbed a large part
of the commerce that had previously belonged to Carthage. In
the time of Strabo they still retained almost the whole trade
with the Outer Sea, or Atlantic coasts."
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 18, section 6 (volume 2).
See, also, UTICA.
GADSDEN PURCHASE, The.
See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
GAEL.
See CELTS.
GAETA: A. D. 1805-1806.
Siege and Capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
GAETA: A. D. 1848.
The refuge of Pope Pius IX.
See ITALY: A.. D. 1848-1849.
GAFOL.
A payment in money, or kind, or work, rendered in the way of
rent by a villein-tenant to his lord, among the Saxons and
early English. The word signified tribute.
F. Seebohm,
English Village Community,
chapters 2 and 5.
GAG, The Atherton.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
GAGE, General Thomas, in the command and government at Boston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
1775 (APRIL), (APRIL-MAY), and (JUNE).
GAI SABER, El.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
GAINAS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
GAINES' MILL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
GALATA, The Genoese colony.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299;
also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453, and 1348-1355.
{1409}
GALATÆ, The.
See GAULS.
GALATIA.-GALATIANS.
In 280 B. C. a body of Gauls, or Celts, invaded Greece, under
Brennus, and in the following year three tribes of them
crossed into Asia Minor. There, as in Greece, they committed
terrible ravages, and were a desolating scourge to the land,
sometimes employed as mercenaries by one and another of the
princes who fought over the fragments of Alexander's Empire,
and sometimes roaming for plunder on their own account.
Antiochus, son of Seleueus, of Syria, is said to have won a
great victory over them; but it was not until 239 B. C. that
they were seriously checked by Attalus, King of Pergamus, who
defeated them in a great battle and forced them to settle in
the part of ancient Phrygia which afterwards took its name
from them, being called Galatia, or Gallo-Græcia, or Eastern
Gaul. When the Romans subjugated Asia Minor they found the
Galatæ among their most formidable enemies. The latter were
permitted for a time to retain a certain degree of
independence, under tetrarchs, and afterwards under kings of
their own. But finally Galatia became a Roman province. "When
St. Paul preached among them, they seemed fused into the
Hellenistic world, speaking Greek like the rest of Asia; yet
the Celtic language long lingered among them and St. Jerome
says he found the country people still using it in his day
(fourth century A. D.)."
J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 8.
See, also, GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
INVASION OF GREECE.
GALBA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 68-69.
GALEAZZO MARIO, Duke of Milan, A.D. 1466-1476.
GALERIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-311.
GALICIA (Spain), Settlement of Sueves and Vandals in.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
GALILEE.
The Hebrew name Galil, applied originally to a little section
of country, became in the Roman age, as Galilæa, the name of
the whole region in Palestine north of Samaria and west of the
river Jordan and the Sea of Galilee. Ewald interprets the name
as meaning the "march" or frontier land; but in Smith's
"Dictionary of the Bible" it is said to signify a "circle" or
"circuit." It had many heathen inhabitants and was called
Galilee of the Gentiles.
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 1.
GALLAS, The.
See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES;
and ABYSSINIA: 15th-19th CENTURIES.
GALLATIN, Albert, Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
GALLDACHT.
See PALE, THE ENGLISH.
GALLEON OR GALEON.--GALERA.--GALEAZA.--GALEASSES.
See CARAVELS;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1588;
also, PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.
GALLI, The.
See GAULS.
GALLIA.
See GAUL.
GALLIA BRACCATA, COMATA AND TOGATA.
"The antient historians make some allusion to another division
of Gaul, perhaps introduced by the soldiers, for it was
founded solely upon the costume of the inhabitants. Gallia
Togata, near the Rhone, comprehended the Gauls who had adopted
the toga and the Roman manners. In Gallia Comata, to the north
of the Loire, the inhabitants wore long plaited hair, which we
find to this day among the Bas Britons. Gallia Bracata, to the
south of the Loire, wore, for the national costume, trousers
reaching from the hips to the ancles, called 'braccæ.'"
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
translated by Bellingham,
chapter 2, note.
GALLIA CISALPINA.
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1268.
The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1438.
The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., affirming some of the
decrees of the reforming Council of Basel.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1438.
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1515-1518.
Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction.
The Concordat of Bologna.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1653-1713.
The conflict of Jesuits and Jansenists.
Persecution of the latter.
The Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1791-1792.
The civil constitution of the clergy.
The oath prescribed by the National Assembly.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1790-1791;
and 1791-1792.
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1793.
Suppression of Christian worship in Paris and other parts of
France.
The worship of Reason.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1802.
The Concordat of Napoleon.
Its Ultramontane influence.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1833-1880.
The Church and the Schools.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1889.
----------GALLICAN CHURCH: End----------
GALLICIA, The kingdom of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.
GALLIENUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253-268.
GALLOGLASSES.
The heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the
Irish in their battles with the
English during the 14th century.
See, also, RAPPAREE.
GALLS.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.
GALLUS, Trebonianus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 251-253.
GAMA, Voyage of Vasco da.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.
GAMBETTA AND THE DEFENSE OF FRANCE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
and 1870-1871.
GAMMADION, The.
See TRI-SKELION.
GAMORI.
See GEOMORI.
GANAWESE OR KANAWHAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
GANDARIANS, The.
See GEDROSIANS.
GANDASTOGUES, OR CONESTOGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
GANGANI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
{1410}
GANGWAY, The.
On the floor of the English House of Commons, "the long lines
of seats rise gradually on each side of the chair--those to
the Speaker's right being occupied by the upholders of the
Government, and those to the left accommodating the
Opposition. One length of seating runs in an unbroken line
beneath each of the side galleries, and these are known as the
'back benches.' The other lengths are divided into two nearly
equal parts by an unseated gap of about a yard wide. This is
'the gangway.' Though nothing more than a convenient means of
access for members, this space has come to be regarded as the
barrier that separates the thick and thin supporters of the
rival leaders from their less fettered colleagues--that is to
say, the steady men from the Radicals, Nationalists, and
free-lances generally."
Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure,
page 6.
GAON.-THE GAONATE.
See JEWS: 7th CENTURY.
GARAMANTES, The.
The ancient inhabitants of the north African region now called
Fezzan, were known as the Garamantes.
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 8, section 1.
GARCIA,
King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 910-914.
Garcia I., King of Navarre, 885-891.
Garcia II., King of Spain, 925-970.
Garcia III., King of Navarre, 1035-1054.
Garcia IV., King of Navarre, 1134-1150.
GARFIELD, General James A.
Campaign in Kentucky.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY; KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
Presidential election.
Administration.
Assassination.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880, and 1881.
GARIBALD, King of the Lombards, A. D. 672-673.
GARIBALDI'S ITALIAN CAMPAIGNS.
See ITALY; A. D. 1848-:1849; 1856-1859;
1859-1861; 1862-1866; and 1867-1870.
GARIGLIANO, Battle of the (1503).
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
GARITIES, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
GARRISON, William Lloyd, and the American Abolitionists.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.
GARTER, Knights of the Order of the.
"About this time [A. D. 1343] the king of England [Edward
III.] resolved to rebuild and embellish the great castle of
Windsor, which king Arthur had first founded in time past, and
where he had erected and established that noble round table
from whence so many gallant knights had issued forth, and
displayed the valiant prowess of their deeds at arms over the
world. King Edward, therefore, determined to establish an
order of knighthood, consisting of himself, his children, and
the most gallant knights in Christendom, to the number of
forty. He ordered it to be denominated 'knights of the blue
garter,' and that the feast should be celebrated every year at
Windsor, upon St. George's day. He summoned, therefore, all
the earls, barons, and knights of his realm, to inform them of
his intentions; they heard it with great pleasure; for it
appeared to them highly honourable, and capable of increasing
love and friendship. Forty knights were then elected,
according to report and estimation the bravest in Christendom,
who sealed, and swore to maintain and keep the feast and the
statutes which had been made. The king founded a chapel at
Windsor, in honour of St. George, and established canons,
there to serve God, with a handsome endowment. He then issued
his proclamation for this feast by his heralds, whom he sent
to France, Scotland, Burgundy, Hainault, Flanders, Brabant,
and the empire of Germany, and offered to all knights and
squires, that might come to this ceremony, passports to last
for fifteen days after it was over. The celebration of this
order was fixed for St. George's day next ensuing, to be held
at Windsor, 1344."
Froissart (Johnes),
Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 100.
"The popular tradition, derived from Polydore Vergil, is that,
having a festival at Court, a lady chanced to drop her garter,
when it was picked up by the King. Observing that the incident
made the bye-standers smile significantly, Edward exclaimed in
a tone of rebuke, 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'--'Dishonoured
be he who thinks evil of it': and to prevent any further
innuendos, he tied the garter round his own knee. This
anecdote, it is true, has been characterized by some as an
improbable fable; why, we know not. ... Be the origin of the
institution, however, what it may, no Order in Europe is so
ancient, none so illustrious, for 'it exceeds in majesty,
honour and fame all chivalrous fraternities in the world.' ...
By a Statute passed on the 17th January, 1805, the Order is to
consist of the Sovereign and twenty-five Knights Companions,
together with such lineal descendants of George III. as may be
elected, always excepting the Prince of Wales, who is a
constituent part of the original institution. Special Statutes
have since, at different times, been proclaimed for the
admission of Sovereigns and extra Knights."
Sir B. Burke,
Book of Orders of Knighthood,
page 98.
ALSO IN:
J. Buswell,
Historical Account of the Knights of the Garter.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
2d series, chapter 3.
GARUMNI, The Tribe of the.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
GASCONY.--GASCONS: Origin.
See AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.
GASCONY: A. D. 778.
The ambuscade at Roncesvalles.
See SPAIN: A. D. 778.
GASCONY: A. D. 781.
Embraced in Aquitaine.
See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
GASCONY: 11th Century.
The Founding of the Dukedom.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
----------GASCONY: End----------
GASIND, The.
See COMITATUS.
GASPE, The burning of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
GASTEIN, Convention of (1865).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
GATES, General Horatio, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1777 (JULY-OCTOBER);
1777-1778; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781.
GATH.
See PHILISTINES.
GATHAS, The.
See ZOROASTRIANS.
{1411}
GAU, OR GA, The.
"Next [after the Mark, in the settlements of the Germanic
peoples] in order of constitution, if not of time, is the
union of two, three, or more Marks in a federal bond for
purposes of a religious, judicial, or even political
character. The technical name for such a union is in Germany a
Gau or Bant; in England the ancient name Ga has been almost
universally superseded by that of Scir or Shire. For the most
part the natural divisions of the country are the divisions
also of the Ga; and the size of this depends upon such
accidental limits as well as upon the character and
dispositions of the several collective bodies which we have
called Marks. The Ga is the second and final form of unsevered
possession; for every larger aggregate is but the result of a
gradual reduction of such districts, under a higher political
or administrative unity, different only in degree and not in
kind from what prevailed individually in each. The kingdom is
only a larger Ga than ordinary; indeed the Ga itself was the
original kingdom. ... Some of the modern shire-divisions of
England in all probability have remained unchanged from the
earliest times; so that here and there a now existent Shire
may be identical in territory with an ancient Ga. But it may
be doubted whether this observation can be very extensively
applied."
J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England.
book 1, chapter 8.
GAUGAMELA, OR ARBELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 384-380.
GAUL: described by Cæsar.
"Gallia, in the widest sense of the term, is divided into
three parts, one part occupied by the Belgae, a second by the
Aquitani, and a third by a people whom the Romans name Galli,
but in their own tongue they are named Celtae. These three
people differ in language and social institutions. The Garumna
(Garonne) is the boundary between the Aquitani and the Celtae:
the rivers Matrona (Marne, a branch of the Seine) and the
Sequana (Seine) separate the Celtae from the Belgae. ... That
part of Gallia which is occupied by the Celtae begins at the
river Rhone: it is bounded by the Garonne, the Ocean and the
territory of the Belgae; on the side of the Sequani and the
Helvetii it also extends to the Rhine. It looks to the north.
The territory of the Belgae begins where that of the Celtae
ends: it extends to the lower part of the Rhine; it looks
towards the north and the rising sun. Aquitania extends from
the Garonne to the Pyrenean mountains and that part of the
Ocean which borders on Spain. It looks in a direction between
the setting sun and the north."
Julius Cæsar,
Gallic Wars,
book 1, chapter 1;
translated by G. Long
(Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 8, chapter 22).
GAUL: B. C. 125-121.
First Roman conquests.
See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.
GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
Cæsar's conquest.
Cæsar was consul for the year 695 A. U. (B. C. 59). At the
expiration of his consulship he secured, by vote of the
people, the government of the two Gauls (see ROME: B. C.
68-58), not for one year, which was the customary term, but
for five years--afterwards extended to ten. Cisalpine Gaul
(northern Italy) had been fully subjugated and was tranquil;
Transalpine Gaul (Gaul west and north of the Alps, or modern
France, Switzerland and Belgium) was troubled and threatening.
In Transalpine Gaul the Romans had made no conquests beyond
the Rhone, as yet, except along the coast at the south. The
country between the Alps and the Rhone, excepting certain
territories of Massilia (Marseilles) which still continued to
be a free city, in alliance with Rome, had been fully
appropriated and organized as a province--the Provence of
later times. The territory between the Rhone and the Cevennes
mountains was less fully occupied and controlled. Cæsar's
first proceeding as proconsul in Gaul was to arrest the
migration of the Helvetii, who had determined to abandon their
Swiss valleys and to seize some new territory in Gaul. He blocked
their passage through Roman Gaul, then followed them in their
movement eastward of the Rhone, attacked and defeated them
with great slaughter, and forced the small remnant to return
to their deserted mountain homes. The same year (B. C. 58) he
drove out of Gaul a formidable body of Suevic Germans who had
crossed the Rhine some years before under their king,
Ariovistus. They were almost annihilated. The next year (B. C.
57) he reduced to submission the powerful tribes of the
Belgian region, who had provoked attack by leaguing themselves
against the Roman intrusion in Gaul. The most obstinate of
those tribes--the Nervii--were destroyed. In the following
year (B. C. 56) Cæsar attacked and nearly exterminated the
Veneti, a remarkable maritime people, who occupied part of
Armorica (modern Brittany); he also reduced the coast tribes
northwards to submission, while one of his lieutenants,
Crassus, made a conquest of Aquitania. The conquest of Gaul
was now apparently complete, and next year (B. C. 55), after
routing and cutting to pieces another horde of Germanic
invaders--the Usipetes and Tenctheri--who had ventured across
the lower Rhine, Cæsar traversed the channel and invaded
Britain. This first invasion, which had been little more than
a reconnoissance, was repeated the year following (B. C. 54),
with a larger force. It was an expedition having small
results, and Cæsar returned from it in the early autumn to
find his power in Gaul undermined everywhere by rebellious
conspiracies. The first outbreak occurred among the Belgæ, and
found its vigorous leader in a young chief of the Eburones,
Ambiorix by name. Two legions, stationed in the midst of the
Eburones, were cut to pieces while attempting to retreat. But
the effect of this great disaster was broken by the bold
energy of Cæsar, who led two legions, numbering barely 7,000
men, to the rescue of his lieutenant Cicero (brother of the
orator) whose single legion, camped in the Nervian territory,
was surrounded and besieged by 60,000 of the enemy. Cæsar and
his 7,000 veterans sufficed to rout the 60,000 Belgians.
Proceeding with similar vigor to further operations, and
raising new legions to increase his force, the proconsul had
stamped the rebellion out before the close of the year 58 B.
C., and the Eburones, who led in it, had ceased to exist. But
the next year (B. C. 52) brought upon him a still more serious
rising, of the Gallic tribes in central Gaul, leagued with the
Belgians. Its leader was Vercingetorix, a gallant and able
young chief of the Arverni. It was begun by the Carnutes, who
massacred the Roman settlers in their town of Genabum
(probably modern Orleans, but some say Gien, farther up the
Loire). Cæsar was on the Italian side of the Alps when the
news reached him, and the Gauls expected to be able to prevent
his joining the scattered Roman forces in their country. But
his energy baffled them, as it had baffled them many times
before. He was across the Alps, across the Rhone, over the
Cevennes--through six feet of snow in the passes--and in
their midst, with such troops as he could gather in the
Province, before they dreamed of lying in wait for him. Then,
leaving most of these forces with Decimus Brutus, in a strong
position, he stole away secretly, recrossed the Cevennes, put
himself at the head of a small body of cavalry at Vienne on
the Rhone, and rode straight through the country of the

insurgents to join his veteran legions, first at Langres and
afterwards at Sens.
{1412}
In a few weeks he was at the head of a strong army, had taken
the guilty town of Genabum and had given it up to fire and the
sword. A little later the capital of the Bituriges, Avaricum
(modern Bourges), suffered the same fate. Next, attempting to
reduce the Arvernian town of Gergovia, he met with a check and
was placed in a serious strait. But with the able help of his
lieutenant Labienus, who defeated a powerful combination of
the Gauls near Lutetia (modern Paris), he broke the toils,
reunited his army, which he had divided, routed Vercingetorix
in a great battle fought in the valley of the Vingeanne, and
shut him up, with 80,000 men, in the city of Alesia. The siege
of Alesia (modern Alise-Sainte-Reine, west of Dijon) which
followed, was the most extraordinary of Cæsar's military
exploits in Gaul. Holding his circumvallation of the town,
against 80,000 within its walls and thrice as many swarming
outside of it, he scattered the latter and forced the
surrender of the former. His triumph was his greatest shame.
Like a very savage, he dragged the knightly Vercingetorix in
his captive train, exhibited him at a subsequent "triumph" in
Rome, and then sent him to be put to death in the ghastly
Tullianum. The fall of Alesia practically ended the revolt;
although even the next year found some fighting to be done,
and one stronghold of the Cadurci, Uxellodunum (modern
Puy-d'Issolu, near Vayrac), held out with great obstinacy. It
was taken by tapping with a tunnel the spring which supplied
the besieged with water, and Cæsar punished the obstinacy of
the garrison by cutting off their hands. Gaul was then deemed
to be conquered and pacified, and Cæsar was prepared for the
final contest with his rivals and enemies at Rome.
Cæsar,
Gallic War.
ALSO IN:
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 6-7, 10, and 12 (volumes 1-2).
T. A. Dodge,
Cæsar,
chapters 4-25.
GAUL: 2d-3d Century.
Introduction of Christianity.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (GAUL).
GAUL: A. D. 277.
The invaders driven back by Probus.
"The most important service which Probus [Roman Emperor, A. D.
276-282] rendered to the republic was the deliverance of Gaul,
and the recovery of seventy flourishing cities oppressed by
the barbarians of Germany, who, since the death of Aurelian,
had ravaged that great province with impunity. Among the
various multitude of those fierce invaders, we may
distinguish, with some degree of clearness, three great
armies, or rather nations, successively vanquished by the
valour of Probus. He drove back the Franks into their
morasses; a descriptive circumstance from whence we may infer
that the confederacy known by the manly appellation of 'Free'
already occupied the flat maritime country, intersected and
almost overflown by the stagnating waters of the Rhine, and
that several tribes of the Frisians and Batavians had acceded
to their alliance. He vanquished the Burgundians [and the
Lygians]. ... The deliverance of Gaul is reported to have cost
the lives of 400,000 of the invaders--a work of labour to the
Romans, and of expense to the emperor, who gave a piece of
gold for the head of every barbarian."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 12.
See, also, LYGIANS.
GAUL: A. D. 287.
Insurrection of the Bagauds.
See BAGAUDS;
also, DEDITITIUS.
GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
Julian's recovery of the province from the barbarians.
During the civil wars and religious quarrels which followed
the death of Constantine the Great--more especially in the
three years of the usurpation of Magnentius, in the west (A.
D. 350-353), Gaul was not only abandoned, for the most part,
to the barbarians of Germany, but Franks and Alemanni were
invited by Constantius to enter it. "In a little while a large
part of the north and east of Gaul were in their almost
undisputed possession. The Alamans seized upon the countries
which are now called Alsace and Lorraine; the Franks secured
for themselves Batavia and Toxandria: forty-five flourishing
cities, among them Cologne, Treves, Spires, Worms, and
Strasburg, were ravaged; and, in short, from the sources of
the Rhine to its mouth, forty miles inland, there remained no
safety for the population but in the strongly fortified
towns." In this condition of the Gallic provinces, Julian, the
young nephew of the emperor, was raised to the rank of Cæsar
and sent thither with a trifling force of men to take the
command. "During an administration of six years [A. D.
355-361] this latest Cæsar revived in Gaul the memory of the
indefatigable exploits and the vigorous rule of the first
Cæsar. Insufficient and ill-disciplined as his forces were,
and baffled and betrayed as he was by those who should have
been his aids, he drove the fierce and powerful tribes of the
Alamans, who were now the hydra of the western provinces,
beyond the Upper Rhine; the Chamaves, another warlike tribe,
he pursued into the heart of their native forests; while the
still fiercer and more warlike Franks were dislodged from
their habitations on the Meuse, to accept of conditions from
his hands. ... A part of these, called the Salians, and
destined to figure hereafter, were allowed to settle in
permanence in Toxandria, between the Meuse and the Scheld,
near the modern Tongres. ... By three successful expeditions
beyond the Rhine [he] restored to their friends a multitude of
Roman captives, recovered the broken and down-trodden lines of
the empire, humiliated many of the proud chiefs of the
Germans, and impressed a salutary awe and respect upon their
truculent followers. ... He spent the intervals of peace which
his valor procured in recuperating the wasted energies of the
inhabitants. Their dilapidated cities were repaired, the
excesses of taxation retrenched, the deficient harvests
compensated by large importations of corn from Britain, and
the resources of suspended industry stimulated into new
action. Once more, says Libanius, the Gauls ascended from the
tombs to marry, to travel, to enjoy the festivals, and to
celebrate the public games."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 19.
GAUL: A. D. 365-367.
Expulsion of the Alemanni by Valentinian.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
GAUL: A. D. 378.
Invasion of the Alemanni.
Their destruction by Gratian.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
{1413}
GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
The breaking of the Rhine barrier.
The same year (A. D. 406) in which Radagaisus, with his motley
barbaric horde, invaded Italy and was destroyed by Stilicho, a
more fatal assault was made upon Gaul. Two armies, in which
were gathered up a vast multitude of Suevi, Vandals, Alans and
Burgundians, passed the Rhine. The Franks opposed them as
faithful allies of the Roman power, and defeated a Vandal army
in one great battle, where 20,000 of the invaders were slain;
but the Alans came opportunely to the rescue of their friends
and forced the Frank defenders of Gaul to give way. "The
victorious confederates pursued their march, and on the last
day of the year, in a season when the waters of the Rhine were
most probably frozen, they entered without opposition the
defenceless provinces of Gaul. This memorable passage of the
Suevi, the Vandals, the Alani, and the Burgundians, who never
afterwards retreated, may be considered as the fall of the
Roman empire in the countries beyond the Alps; and the
barriers which had so long separated the savage and the
civilized nations of the earth were, from that fatal moment,
levelled with the ground. ... The flourishing city of Mentz
was surprised and destroyed, and many thousand Christians were
inhumanly massacred in the church. Worms perished after a long
and obstinate siege; Strasburg, Spires, Rheims, Tournay,
Arras, Amiens, experienced the cruel oppression of the German
yoke; and the consuming flames of war spread from the banks of
the Rhine over the greatest part of the seventeen provinces of
Gaul. That rich and extensive country, as far as the ocean,
the Alps, and the Pyrenees, was delivered to the barbarians,
who drove before them in a promiscuous crowd the bishop, the
senator, and the virgin, laden with the spoils of their houses
and altars."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30.
GAUL: A. D. 407-411.
Reign of the usurper Constantine.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
GAUL: A. D. 410-419.
Establishment of the Visigoths in the kingdom of Toulouse.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.
GAUL: A. D. 410-420.
The Franks join in the attack on Gaul.
See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.
GAUL: 5th-8th Centuries.
Barbarities of the Frank conquest.
The conquests of the Franks in Gaul, under Clovis, began in
486 and ended with his death in 511 (see FRANKS: A. D.
481-511). "In the year 532, Theoderik, one of the sons and
successors of Chlodowig, said to those Frankish warriors whom
he commanded: 'Follow me as far as Auvergne, and I will make
you enter a country where you will take as much gold and
silver as you possibly can desire; where you can carry away in
abundance flocks, slaves, and garments.' The Franks took up
arms and once more crossing the Loire, they advanced on the
territory of the Bituriges and Arvernes. These paid with
interest for the resistance they had dared to the first
invasion. Everything amongst them was devastated; the churches
and monasteries were razed to their foundations. The young men
and women were dragged, their hands bound, after the luggage
to be sold as slaves. The inhabitants of this unfortunate
country perished in large numbers or were ruined by the
pillage. Nothing was left them of what they had possessed,
says an ancient chronicle, except the land, which the
barbarians could not carry away. Such were the neighbourly
relations kept up by the Franks with the Gallic populations
which had remained beyond their limits. Their conduct with
respect to the natives of the northern provinces was hardly
less hostile. When Hilperik, the son of Chlother, wished, in
the year 584, to send his daughter in marriage to the king of
the West Goths, or Visigoths, settled in Spain, he came to
Paris and carried away from the houses belonging to the 'fisc'
a great number of men and women, who were heaped up in
chariots to accompany and serve the bride elect. Those who
refused to depart, and wept, were put in prison: several
strangled themselves in despair. Many people of the best
families enlisted by force into this procession, made their
will, and gave their property to the churches. 'The son,' says
a contemporary, 'was separated from his father, the mother
from her daughter; they departed sobbing, and pronouncing deep
curses; so many persons in Paris were in tears that it might
be compared to the desolation of Egypt.' In their domestic
misfortunes the kings of the Franks sometimes felt remorse,
and trembled at the evil they had done. ... But this momentary
repentance soon yielded to the love of riches, the most
violent passion of the Franks. Their incursions into the south
of Gaul recommenced as soon as that country, recovered from its
terrors and defeats, no longer admitted their garrisons nor
tax collectors. Karle, to whom the fear of his arms gave the
surname of Marteau, made an inroad as far as Marseilles; he
took possession of Lyons, Arles, and Vienne, and carried off
an immense booty to the territory of the Franks. When this
same Karle, to insure his frontiers, went to fight the
Saracens in Aquitania, he put the whole country to fire and
sword; he burnt Bérgiers, Agde, and Nûnes; the arenas of the
latter city still bear traces of the fire. At death of Karle,
his two sons, Karlemann and Peppin, continued the great
enterprise of replacing the inhabitants of the south, to whom
the name of Romans was still given, under the yoke of the
Franks. ... Southern Gaul was to the sons of the Franks what
entire Gaul had been to their fathers; a country, the riches
and climate of which attracted them incessantly, and saw them
return as enemies, as soon as it did not purchase peace of
them."
A. Thierry,
Narratives of the Merovingian Era, Historical Essays, etc.,
essay 24.
GAUL: 5th-10th Centuries.
The conquerors and the conquered.
State of society under the barbarian rule.
The evolution of Feudalism.
"After the conclusion of the great struggles which took place
in the fourth and fifth centuries, whether between the German
conquerors and the last forces of the empire, or between the
nations which had occupied different portions of Gaul, until
the Franks remained sole masters of the country, two races,
two populations, which had nothing in common but religion,
appear forcibly brought together, and, as it were, face to
face with each other, in one political community. The
Gallo-Roman population presents under the same law very
different and very unequal conditions; the barbarian
population comprises, together with its own peculiar
classifications of ranks and conditions, distinct laws and
nationalities. In the first we find citizens absolutely free,
coloni, or husbandmen belonging to the lands of a proprietor,
and domestic slaves deprived of all civil rights; in the
second, we see the Frankish race divided into two tribes, each
having its own peculiar law [the law of the Salic Franks or Salic
law, and the law of the Ripuarian Franks or Ripuarian law];
the Burgundians, the Goths, and the rest of the Teutonic
races, who became subjected, either of their own accord or by
force, to, the Frankish empire, governed by other and entirely
different laws; but among them all, as well as among the
Franks, we find at least three social conditions--two degrees
of liberty, and slavery.
{1414}
Among these incongruous states of existence, the criminal law
of the dominant race established, by means of the scale of
damages for crime or personal injury, a kind of hierarchy--
the starting-point of that movement towards an assimilation
and gradual transformation, which, after the lapse of four
centuries, from the fifth to the tenth, gave rise to the
society of the feudal times. The first rank in the civil order
belonged to the man of Frankish origin, and to the Barbarian who
lived under the law of the Franks; in the second rank was
placed the Barbarian, who lived under the law of his own
country; next came the native freeman and proprietor, the
Roman possessor, and, in the same degree, the Lidus or German
colonus; after them, the Roman tributary--i. e., the native
colonus; and, last of all, the slave, without distinction of
origin. These various classes, separated on the one hand by
distance of rank, on the other by difference of laws, manners,
and language, were far from being equally distributed between
the cities and the rural districts. All that was elevated in
the Gallo-Roman population, of whatever character it might be,
was found in the cities, where its noble, rich, and
industrious families dwelt, surrounded by their domestic
slaves; and, among the people of that race, the only constant
residents in the country were the half-servile coloni and the
agricultural slaves. On the contrary, the superior class of
the German population established itself in the country, where
each family, independent and proprietary, was maintained on
its own domain by the labour of the Lidi whom it had brought
thither, or of the old race of coloni who belonged to the
soil. The only Germans who resided in the cities were a small
number of officers in the service of the Crown, and of
individuals without family and patrimony, who, in spite of
their original habits, sought a livelihood by following some
employment. The social superiority of the dominant race rooted
itself firmly in the localities inhabited by them, and passed,
as has been already remarked, from the cities to the rural
districts. By degrees, also, it came to pass that the latter
drew off from the former the upper portion of their
population, who, in order to raise themselves still higher,
and to mix with the conquerors, imitated, as far as they were
able, their mode of life. ... While Barbarism was thus
occupying or usurping all the vantage points of the social
state, and civil life in the intermediate classes was arrested
in its progress, and sinking gradually to the lowest
condition, even to that of personal servitude, an ameliorating
movement already commenced before the fall of the empire,
still continued, and declared itself more and more loudly. The
dogma of a common brotherhood in the eyes of God, and of one
sole redemption for all mankind, preached by the Church to the
faithful of every race, touched the heart and awakened the
mind in favour of the slave, and, in consequence,
enfranchisements became more frequent, or a treatment more
humane was adopted on the part of the masters, whether Gauls
or Germans by origin. The latter, moreover, had imported from
their country, where the mode of life was simple and without
luxury, usages favourable to a modified slavery. The rich
barbarian was waited upon by free persons--by the children of
his relatives, his clients and his friends; the tendency of
his national manners, different from that of the Roman,
induced him to send the slave out of his house, and to
establish him as a labourer or artisan on some portion of land
to which he then became permanently attached, and the
destination of which he followed, whether it were inherited or
sold. ... Domestic slavery made the man a chattel, a mere
piece of moveable property. The slave, settled on a spot of
land, from that time entered into the category of real
property. At the same time that this last class, which
properly bore the name of serfs, was increased at the expense
of the first, the classes of the coloni and Lidi would
naturally multiply simultaneously, by the very casualties of
ruin and adverse circumstances which, at a period of incessant
commotions, injured the condition of the freemen. ... In the
very heart of the Barbarian society, the class of small
proprietors, which had originally formed its strength and
glory, decreased, and finally became extinct by sinking into
vassalage, or a state of still more ignoble dependence, which
partook more or less of the character of actual servitude. ...
The freemen depressed towards servitude met the slave who had
reached a sort of half liberty. Thus, through the whole extent
of Gaul, was formed a vast body of agricultural labourers and
rural artisans, whose lot, though never uniform, was brought
more and more to a level of equality; and the creative wants
of society produced a new sphere of industry in the country,
while the cities remained stationary, or sank more and more
into decay. ... On every large estate where improvement
flourished, the cabins of those employed, Lidi, coloni or
slaves, grouped as necessity or convenience suggested, were
multiplied and peopled more numerously, till they assumed the
form of a hamlet. When these hamlets were situated in a
favourable position ... they continued to increase till they
became villages. ... The building of a church soon raised the
village to the rank of a parish; and, as a consequence, the
new parish took its place among the rural circonscriptions.
... Thence sprung, altogether spontaneously, under the
sanction of the intendant, joined to that of the priest, rude
outlines of a municipal organization, in which the church
became the depository of the acts which, in accordance with
the Roman law, were inscribed on the registers of the city. It
is in this way that beyond the towns, the cities, and the
boroughs, where the remains of the old social condition
lingered in an increasing state of degradation, elements of
future improvement were formed. ... This modification, already
considerably advanced in the ninth century, was completed in
the course of the tenth. At that period, the last class of the
Gallo-Frankish society disappeared--viz., that of persons
held as chattels, bought, exchanged, transferred from one
place to another, like any other kind of moveable goods. The
slave now belonged to the soil rather than to the person; his
service, hitherto arbitrary, was changed into customary dues
and regulated employment; he had a settled abode, and, in
consequence, a right of possession in the soil on which he was
dependent. This is the earliest form in which we distinctly
trace the first impress of the modern world upon the civil
state.
{1415}
The word serf henceforward took its definite meaning; it
became the generic name of a mixed condition of servitude and
freedom, in which we find blended together the states of the
colonus and Lidus--two names which occur less and less
frequently in the tenth century, till they entirely disappear.
This century, the point to which all the social efforts of the
four preceding ones which had elapsed since the Frankish
conquest had been tending, saw the intestine struggle between
the Roman and German manners brought to a conclusion by an
important revolution. The latter definitively prevailed, and
from their triumph arose the feudal system; that is to say, a
new form of the state, a new constitution of property and
domestic life, a parcelling out of the sovereignty and
jurisdiction, all the public powers transformed into demesnial
privileges, the idea of nobility devoted to the profession of
arms, and that of ignobility to industry and labour. By a
remarkable coincidence, the complete establishment of this
system is the epoch when the distinction of races terminates
in Frankish Gaul--when all the legal consequences of
diversity of origin between Barbarians and Romans, conquerors
and subjects, disappear. The law ceases to be personal, and
becomes local; the German codes and the Roman code itself are
replaced by custom; it is the territory and not the descent
which distinguishes the inhabitant of the Gallic soil;
finally, instead of national distinctions, one mixed
population appears, to which the historian is able
henceforward to give the name of French."
A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
volume 1, chapter 1.
GAUL: A. D. 412-453.
The mixed administration, Roman and barbarian.
"A prætorian prefect still resided at Trèves; a vicar of the
seventeen Gallic provinces at Aries: each of these provinces
had its Roman duke; each of the hundred and fifteen cities of
Gaul had its count; each city its curia, or municipality. But,
collaterally with this Roman organisation, the barbarians,
assembled in their 'mallum,' of which their kings were
presidents, decided on peace and war, made laws, or
administered justice. Each division of the army had its Graf
Jarl, or Count; each subdivision its centenary, or
hundred-man; and all these fractions of the free population
had the same right of deciding by suffrage in their own
mallums, or peculiar courts, all their common affairs. In
cases of opposition between the barbarian and the Roman
jurisdiction, the overbearing arrogance of the one, and the
abject baseness of the other, soon decided the question of
supremacy. In some provinces the two powers were not
concurrent: there were no barbarians between the Loire and the
Meuse, nor between the Alps and the Rhone; but the feebleness
of the Roman government was only the more conspicuous. A few
great proprietors cultivated a part of the province with the
aid of slaves; the rest was desert, or only inhabited by
Bagaudæ, runaway slaves, who lived by robbery. Some towns
still maintained a show of opulence, but not one gave the
slightest sign of strength; not one enrolled its militia, nor
repaired its fortifications. ... Honorius wished to confer on
the cities of southern Gaul a diet, at which they might have
deliberated on public affairs: he did not even find public
spirit enough to accept the offered privilege."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
GAUL: A. D. 451.
Attila's invasion.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
GAUL: A. D. 453-484.
Extension of the Visigothic kingdom.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484.
GAUL: A. D. 457-486.
The last Roman sovereignty.
The last definite survival of Roman sovereignty in Gaul
lingered until 486 in a district north of the Seine, between
the Marne and the Oise, which had Soissons for its capital. It
was maintained there, in the first instance, by Ægidius, a
Gallic noble whom Marjorian, one of the last of the emperors
at Rome, made Master-General of Gaul. The respect commanded by
Ægidius among the surrounding barbarians was so great that the
Salian Franks invited him to rule over them, in place of a
licentious young king, Childeric, whom they had driven into
exile. He was king of these Franks, according to Gregory of
Tours, for eight years (457-464), until he died. Childeric
then returned, was reinstated in his kingdom and became the
father of Clovis (or Chlodwig), the founder of the great Frank
monarchy. But a son of Ægidius, named Syagrius, was still the
inheritor of a kingdom, known as, the "Kingdom of Syagrius,"
embracing, as has been said, the country around Soissons,
between the Seine, the Marne and the Oise, and also including,
in the opinion of some writers, Troyes and Auxerre. The first
exploit of Clovis--the beginning of his career of
conquest--was the overthrow of this "king of the Romans," as
Syagrius was called, in a decisive battle fought at Soissons,
A. D. 486, and the incorporation of his kingdom into the Frank
dominions. Syagrius escaped to Toulouse, but was surrendered
to Clovis and put to death.
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2.
GAUL: A. D. 474.
Invasion of Ostrogoths.
See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-474.
GAUL: A. D. 507-509.
Expulsion of the Visigoths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.
GAUL: A. D. 540.
Formal relinquishment of the country to the Franks by
Justinian.
See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.
GAULS.
"The Gauls, properly so called, the Galatæ of the Greeks, the
Galli of the Romans, and the Gael of modern history, formed
the van of the great Celtic migration which had poured
westward at various intervals during many hundred years. ...
Having overrun the south of Gaul and penetrated into Spain,
they lost a part of the territory thus acquired, and the
restoration of the Iberian fugitives to Aquitania placed a
barrier between the Celts in Spain and their brethren whom
they had left behind them in the north. In the time of the
Romans the Galli were found established in the centre and east
of the country denominated Gaul, forming for the most part a
great confederation, at the head of which stood the Arverni.
It was the policy of the Romans to raise the Ædui into
competition with this dominant tribe. ... The Arverni, whose
name is retained in the modern appellation of Auvergne,
occupied a large district in the middle and south of Gaul, and
were surrounded by tributary or dependent clans. The Ædui lay
more to the north and east, and the centre of their
possessions is marked by the position of their capital
Bibracte, the modern Autun, situated in the highlands which
separate the waters of the Loire, the Seine and the Saone. ...
{1416}
Other Gallic tribes stretched beyond the Saone: the Sequani,
who afterwards made an attempt to usurp this coveted
preeminence (the valley of the Doubs formed the centre of the
Sequanese territory, which reached to the Jura and the Rhine);
the Helvetii and other mountain races, whose scanty pastures
extended to the sources of the Rhine; the Allobroges, who
dwelt upon the Isere and Rhone, and who were the first of
their race to meet and the first to succumb before the prowess
of the Roman legions. According to the classification both of
Cæsar and Strabo, the Turones, Pictones and Santones must be
comprised under the same general denomination."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
See, also, CELTS.
GAUL: B. C. 390-347.
Invasions of Italy.
Destruction of Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
GAUL: B. C. 295-191.
Roman conquest of the Cisalpine tribes.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
GAUL: B. C. 280-279.
Invasion of Greece.
In the year 280 B. C. the Gauls, who had long before passed
from northern Italy around the Adriatic to its eastern coast,
made their first appearance in Macedonia and northern Greece.
The Macedonian throne was occupied at the time by the infamous
usurper, Ptolemy Ceraunus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280), and
the Celtic savages did one good service to Greece by slaying
him, in the single battle that was fought. The whole open
country was abandoned to them, for a time, and they swept it,
as far southward as the valley of the Peneus, in Thessaly; but
the walled cities were safe. After ravaging the country for
some months the Gauls appear to have retired; but it was only
to return again the next year in more formidable numbers and
under a chief, Brennus, of more vigor and capability. On this
occasion the country suffered fearfully from the barbaric
swarm, but defended itself with something like the spirit of
the Greece of two centuries before. The Ætolians were
conspicuous in the struggle; the Peloponnesian states gave
little assistance. The policy of defense was much the same as
at the time of the Persian invasion, and the enemy was
confronted in force at the pass of Thermopylæ. Brennus made a
more desperate attempt to force the pass than Xerxes had done
and was beaten back with a tremendous slaughter of his Gauls.
But he found traitors, as Xerxes had done, to guide him over
the mountains, and the Greeks at Thermopylæ, surrounded by the
enemy, could only escape by sea. The Gauls marched on Delphi,
eager for the plunder of the great temple, and there they met
with some fatal disaster. Precisely what occurred is not
known. According to the Greeks, the god protected his
sanctuary, and the accounts they have left are full of
miracles and prodigies--of earthquakes, lightnings, tempests,
and disease. The only clear facts seem to be that Delphi was
successfully defended; that the Gauls retreated in disorder
and were destroyed in vast numbers before the remnant of them
got away from the country. Brennus is said to have killed
himself to escape the wrath of his people for the failure of
the expedition. One large body of the great army had separated
from the rest and gone eastward into Thrace, before the
catastrophe occurred. These subsequently passed over to Asia
and pursued there an adventurous career, leaving a historic
name in the country.
See GALATIA.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60.
----------GAUL: End----------
GAULS, Præfect of the.
See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.
GAUSARAPOS, OR GUUCHIES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
GAVELKIND, Irish.
"The Irish law of succession in landed property, known as that
of Irish gavelkind, was a logical consequence of the theory of
tribal ownership. If a member of the tribe died, his piece of
land did not descend by right to his eldest son, or even to
all his children equally. Originally, it reverted to its sole
absolute owner, the tribe, every member of which had a right
to use proportionate to his tribal status. This was
undoubtedly the essential principle of inheritance by
gavelkind."
S. Bryant,
Celtic Ireland,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
Sir H. Maine,
Early History of Institutions,
lecture 7.
GAVELKIND, Kentish.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
GAVEREN, Battle of (1453).
See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.
GAZA: Early history.
See PHILISTINES.
GAZA: B. C. 332.
Siege by Alexander.
In his march from Phœnicia to Egypt (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C.
334-330), Alexander the Great was compelled to pause for
several months and lay siege to the ancient Philistine city of
Gaza. It was defended for the Persian king by a brave eunuch
named Batis. In the course of the siege, Alexander received a
severe wound in the shoulder, which irritated his savage
temper. When the town was at length taken by storm, he gave no
quarter. Its male inhabitants were put to the sword and the
women and children sold to slavery. The eunuch Batis, being
captured alive, but wounded, was dragged by the feet at the
tail of a chariot, driven at full speed by Alexander himself.
The "greatest of conquerors" proved himself often enough, in
this way, to be the greatest of barbarians--in his age.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 93.
GAZA: B. C. 312.
Battle between Ptolemy and Demetrius.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.
GAZA: B. C. 100.
Destruction by Alexander Jannæus.
Gaza having sided with the Egyptian king, in a war between
Alexander Jannæus, one of the Asmonean kings of the Jews, and
Ptolemy Lathyrus of Egypt and Cyprus, the former laid siege to
the city, about 100 B. C., and acquired possession of it after
several months, through treachery. He took his revenge by
massacring the inhabitants and reducing the city to ruins. It
was rebuilt not long afterwards by the Romans.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 9.
GAZA: A. D. 1516.
Defeat of the Mamelukes by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
----------GAZA: End----------
GAZACA.
See ECBATANA.
GAZARI, The.
See CATHARISTS.
GAZNEVIDES, OR GHAZNEVIDES.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
GEARY ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
GEDDES, Jenny, and her stool.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
{1417}
GEDROSIANS, The.
"Close to the Indus, and beyond the bare, hot, treeless shores
of the ocean, the southern part of the plain [of eastern Iran]
consists of sandy flats, in which nothing grows but prickly
herbs and a few palms. The springs are a day's journey from
each other, and often more. This region was possessed by a
people whom Herodotus calls Sattagydæ and the companions of
Alexander of Macedonia, Gedrosians. ... Neighbours of the
Gandarians, who, as we know, dwelt on the right bank of the
Indus down to the Cabul, the Gedrosians led a wandering,
predatory life; under the Persian kings, they were united into
one satrapy with the Gandarians."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).
GEIZA II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1141-1160.
GELA, Founding of.
See SYRACUSE, FOUNDING OF.
GELASIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1118-1119.
GELEONTES.
See PHYLÆ.
GELHEIM, Battle of (1298).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
GELONI, The.
An ancient colony of Greeks intermixed with natives which
shared the country of the Budini, on the steppes between the
Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea.
G. Grote, History of Greece,
part 2, volume 3, chapter 17.
GELVES, Battle of (1510).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
GEMARA, The.
See TALMUD.
GEMBLOURS, Battle of (1578).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
GEMEINDE.--GEMEINDERATH.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
GEMOT.
A meeting, assembly, council, moot.
See WITENAGEMOT.
GENABUM, OR CENABUM.
The principal town of the Gallic tribe called the Carnutes;
identified by most archæologists with the modern city of
Orleans, France, though some think its site was at Gien.
See GAUL, CÆSAR'S CONQUEST OF.
GENAUNI, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
GENERALS, Execution of the Athenian.
See GREECE: B. C. 406.
GENET, "Citizen," the mission of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
GENEVA: Beginnings of the city.
See HELVETII, THE ARRESTED MIGRATION OF THE.
GENEVA: A. D. 500.
Under the Burgundians.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
GENEVA: 10th Century.
In the kingdom of Arles.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
GENEVA: A. D. 1401.
Acquisition of the Genevois, or County, by the House of Savoy.
The city surrounded.
See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.
GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
The emancipation of the city from the Vidomme and the
Prince-Bishop.
Triumph of the Reformation.
"Geneva was nominally a free city of the Empire, but had in
reality been governed for some centuries by its own bishop,
associated with a committee of lay-assessors, and controlled
by the general body of the citizens, in whose hands the
ultimate power of taxation, and of election of the magistrates
and regulation of the police, rested. The prince-bishop did
not exercise his temporal jurisdiction directly, but through
an officer called the Vidomme (vice-dominus), whose rights had
in the 15th century become hereditary in the dukes of Savoy.
These rights appear to have been exercised without any
considerable attempt at encroachment till the beginning of the
following century, when Charles III. succeeded to the ducal
crown (1504). To his ambition the bishop, John, a weak and
willing tool of the Savoy family, to which he was nearly
allied, ceded everything; and the result was a tyrannical
attempt to destroy the liberties of the Genevese. The Assembly
of the citizens rose in arms; a bitter and sanguinary contest
ensued between the Eidgenossen [Confederates] or Patriot party
on the one side, and the Mamelukes or monarchical party on the
other side. By the help of the free Helvetian states,
particularly Berne and Friburg, the Patriots triumphed, the
friends of Savoy were banished, the Vidommate abolished, and
its powers transferred to a board of magistrates. The conduct
of the bishops in this conflict ... helped greatly, as may be
imagined, to shake the old hierarchical authority in Geneva;
and when, in 1532, Farel first made his appearance in the
city, he found a party not indisposed to join him in his eager
and zealous projects of reform. He had a hard fight for it,
however, and was at first obliged to yield, and leave the city
for a time; and it was not till August 1535 that he and Viret
and Froment succeeded in abolishing the mass, and establishing
the Protestant faith."
J. Tulloch,
Leaders of the Reformation,
pages 161-162.
ALSO IN:
J. Planta,
History of the Helvetic Confederacy,
book 2, chapter 6 (volume 2).
I. Spon,
History of the City and State of Geneva,
book 2.
See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
GENEVA: A. D. 1536.
The coming of Calvin.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
Calvin's Ecclesiastical State.
"Humanly speaking, it was a mere accident which caused Calvin
to yield to the entreaties of his friends to remain in the
city where he was to begin his renowned efforts in the cause
of reform. Geneva had been from ancient times one of the most
flourishing imperial cities of the Burgundian territory; it
was situated on the frontiers of several countries where the
cross roads of various nationalities met. The city, which in
itself was remarkable, belonged originally to the German
empire; the language of its inhabitants was Romanic; it was
bounded on one side by Burgundy, on the other by German
Switzerland. ... Geneva was apparently in a state of
political, ecclesiastical, and moral decay. With the
puritanical strictness of Geneva, as it afterwards became,
before the mind's eye, it is difficult to picture the Geneva
of that day. An unbridled love of pleasure, a reckless
wantonness, a licentious frivolity had taken possession of
Genevan life, while the State was the plaything of intestine
and foreign feuds. ... Reformers had already appeared in the
city: Vinet, Farel, Theodore Beza; they were Frenchmen, Farel
a near neighbour of Geneva. These French Reformers are of
quite a different stamp from our Germans, who, according as
Luther or Melancthon is taken as their type, have either a
plebeian popular, or learned theological character. They are
either popular orators of great power and little polish, or
they belong to the learned circles, and keep strictly to this
character. In France they were mostly men belonging not to the
lower, but to the middle and higher ranks of society, refined
and cultivated; and in this fact lay the weakness of
Calvinism, which knew well how to rule the masses, but never
to gain their affection. ...
{1418}
His [Calvin's] greatness ... was shown in the fanatical zeal
with which he entered the city, ready to stake his life for
his cause. He began to teach, to found a school, to labour on
the structure which was the idea of his life, to introduce
reforms in doctrine, worship, the constitution and discipline
of the Church, and he preached with that powerful eloquence
only possessed by those in whom character and teaching are in
unison. The purified worship was to take place within bare,
unadorned walls; no picture of Christ, nor pomp of any kind,
was to disturb the aspirations of the soul. Life outside the
temple was also to be a service of God; games, swearing,
dancing, singing, worldly amusements, and pleasure were
regarded by him as sins, as much as real vice and crime. He
began to form little congregations, like those in the early
ages of the Church, and it need scarcely be said that even in
this worldly and pleasure-loving city the apparition of this
man, in the full vigour of life, all conviction and
determination, half prophet and half tribune, produced a
powerful impression. The number of his outward followers
increased, but they were outward followers only. Most of them
thought it would be well to make use of the bold Reformer to
oppose the bishop, and that he would find means of
establishing a new and independent Church, but they seemed to
regard freedom as libertinism. Calvin therefore regarded the
course things were taking with profound dissatisfaction. ...
So he delivered some extremely severe sermons, which half
frightened and half estranged his hearers; and at Easter,
1538, when the congregation came to partake of the Lord's
Supper, he took the unheard-of step of sending them all back
from the altar, saying, 'You are not worthy to partake of the
Lord's body; you are just what you were before; your
sentiments, your morals, and your conduct are unchanged.' This
was more than could be hazarded without peril to his life. The
effect was indescribable; his own friends disapproved of the
step. But that did not dismay him. He had barely time to flee
for his life, and he had to leave Geneva in a state of
transition--a chaos which justified a saying of his own, that
defection from one Church is not renovation by another. He was
now once more an exile. He wandered about on the frontiers of
his country, in the German cities of Strasburg, Basle, &c.,
and we several times meet with him in the religious
discussions between 1540 and 1550. ... But a time came when
they wished him back at Geneva. ... In September, 1541, he
returned and began his celebrated labours. Endowed with
supreme power, like Lycurgus at Sparta, he set to work to make
Geneva a city of the Lord--to found an ecclesiastical state in
which religion, public life, government, and the worship of
God were to be all of a piece, and an extraordinary task it
was. Calvinistic Geneva became the school of reform for
western Europe, and scattered far and wide the germs of
similar institutions. In times when Protestantism elsewhere
had become cool, this school carried on the conflict with the
mediæval Church. Calvin was implacable in his determination to
purify the worship of God of all needless adjuncts. All that
was calculated to charm and affect the senses was abolished;
spiritual worship should be independent of all earthly things,
and should consist of edification by the word, and simple
spiritual songs. All the traditional externals that Luther had
retained--altars, pictures, ceremonials, and decorations of
every kind--were dispensed with. ... Calvin next established a
system of Church discipline which controlled the individual in
every relation of life, and ruled him from the cradle to the
grave. He retained all the means by which ecclesiastical
authority enforced obedience on the faithful in the Middle
Ages--baptism, education up to confirmation, penance, penal
discipline, and excommunication. ... Calvin began his labours
late in the autumn of 1541, and he acquired and maintained
more power than was ever exercised by the most powerful popes.
He was indeed only the 'preacher of the word,' but through his
great influence he was the lawgiver, the administrator, the
dictator of the State of Geneva. There was nothing in the
commonwealth that had not been ordained by him, and this
indicates a remarkable aspect of his character. The
organization of the State of Geneva began with the ordinances
of the 2nd of January, 1542. There were four orders of
officials--pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. The
Consistory was formed of the pastors and elders. ... It was
the special duty of the Consistory, which was composed of the
clergy and twelve laymen, to see that the ordinances were duly
observed, and it was the supreme tribunal of morals. The
twelve laymen were elected for a year, by the council of two
hundred, on the nomination by the clergy. The Consistory met
every Thursday to see that everything in the church was in
order. They had the power of excommunication, but this only
consisted in exclusion from the community of the faithful, and
the loss of the privilege of partaking of the Lord's Supper.
It also decided questions relating to marriage. The deacons
had the care of the poor and of almsgiving. Calvin himself was
the soul of the whole organization. But he was a cold, stiff,
almost gloomy being, and his character produces a very
different impression from the genial warmth of Luther, who
could be cheerful and merry with his family. Half Old
Testament prophet, half Republican demagogue, Calvin could do
anything in his State, but it was by means of his personal
influence, the authority of his words, 'the majesty of his
character,' as was said by a magistrate of Geneva after his
death. He was to the last the simple minister, whose frugal
mode of life appeared to his enemies like niggardliness. After
a reign of twenty-three years, he left behind him the
possessions of a mendicant monk. ... No other reformer
established so rigid a church discipline. ... All noisy games,
games of chance, dancing, singing of profane songs, cursing
and swearing, were forbidden, and ... church-going and
Sabbath-keeping were strictly enjoined. The moral police took
account of everything. Every citizen had to be at home by nine
o'clock, under heavy penalties. Adultery, which had previously
been punished by a few days' imprisonment and a small fine,
was now punished by death. ... At a time when Europe had no
solid results of reform to show, this little State of Geneva
stood up as a great power; year by year it sent forth apostles
into the world, who preached its doctrines everywhere, and it
became the most dreaded counterpoise to Rome, when Rome no
longer had any bulwark to defend her. ... It formed a weighty
counterpoise to the desperate efforts which the ancient Church
and monarchical power were making to crush the spirit of the
Reformation.
{1419}
It was impossible to oppose Caraffa, Philip II., and the
Stuarts, with Luther's passive resistance; men were wanted who
were ready to wage war to the knife, and such was the
Calvinistic school. It everywhere accepted the challenge;
throughout all the conflicts for political and religious
liberty, up to the time of the first emigration to America, in
France, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland, we recognise
the Genevan school. A little bit of the world's history was
enacted in Geneva, which forms the proudest portion of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries."
L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
P. Henry,
Life and Times of Calvin,
parts 2-3.
J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
History of the Reformation in the time of Calvin,
books 9 and 11.
F. P. Guizot,
Calvin,
chapters 12-22.
L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 16th-17th Centuries,
chapter 8.
GENEVA: A. D. 1570.
Treaty with the Duke of Savoy.
Agreement of non-molestation.
See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.
GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.
The escalade of the Savoyards and its repulse.
Treaty of St. Julien.
Finding a pretext in some hostile manifestations which had
appeared among the Genevese during a conflict between the
French king and himself, Charles Emanuel I., duke of Savoy,
chose to consider himself at war with Geneva, and "determined
to fight out his quarrel without further notice. The night of
the 11th to the 12th of December, 1602.. is forever memorable
in the annals of Geneva. 4,000 Savoyards, aided by darkness,
attempted the escalade of its walls; an unforeseen accident
disconcerted them; the citizens exhibited the most heroic
presence of mind; the ladders by which the aggressors ascended
were shot down by a random cannon-ball; the troops outside
fell into confusion; those who had already entered the town
were either mowed down in fight or hung on the scaffold on the
morrow; thus the whole enterprise miscarried. It was in vain
that the Duke came forward with his whole host, and tried to
prevail by open force where stratagem had failed. He was
thwarted by the intervention of the French and Swiss, and
compelled by their threats to sign the Treaty of St. Julien
(July 21st, 1603), which secured the independence of the
Genevese. Charles nevertheless did not, to his last day, give
up his designs upon that city."
A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 3, chapter 2.
GENEVA: A. D. 1798.
Forcibly united to the French Republic.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
GENEVA: A. D. 1814.
United with the Swiss Confederation.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
GENEVA: A. D. 1815.
United as a canton to the Swiss Confederation, by the Congress
of Vienna.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
----------GENEVA: End----------
GENEVA CONVENTION, The.

See RED CROSS.
GENEVA TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871, and 1871-1872.
GENEVOIS, The.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.
GENGHIS KHAN, The conquests of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
GENOA:
Origin and rise of the city.
"Genoa, anciently Genua, was the chief maritime city of
Liguria, and afterwards a Roman municipium. Under the Lombards
the constant invasions of the Saracens united the professions
of trade and war, and its greatest merchants became also its
greatest generals, while its naval captains were also
merchants. The Crusades were of great advantage to Genoa [see
CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111] in enabling it to establish trading
settlements as far as the Black Sea; but the power of Pisa in
the East, as well as its possession of Corsica and Sardinia,
led to wars between it and Genoa, in which the Genoese took
Corsica [see CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY] and drove the Pisans out
of Sardinia. By land the Genoese territory was extended to
Nice on one side and to Spezia on the other."
A. J. C. Hare,
Cities of Northern and Central Italy,
volume 1, page 30.
GENOA: A. D. 1256-1257.
Battles with the Venetians at Acre.
See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.
GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
The supplanting of Venice at Constantinople and in the Black
Sea trade.
Colonies in the Crimea.
Wars with Venice.
Victory at Curzola and favorable treaty of peace.
During the Latin dynasty in Constantinople the Genoese never
gained the first place in the commerce of the Black Sea. ...
It was Venice who held the key of all this commerce, at
Constantinople; when, after diverting the whole course of the
fourth Crusade, she induced Christendom to waste its energies
on subduing the Greek empire for her benefit [see BYZANTINE
EMPIRE: A.D. 1203-1204]. With the exiled Greek dynasty,
however, the Genoese were always on the best of terms, at
Trebizond, Nicea, and in Roumania; and recognizing that as
long as the Latins were all-powerful in Constantinople she
would have to relinquish the cream of the Black Sea commerce
to the Queen of the Adriatic, she at length determined to
strike a bold stroke and replace a Greek again on the throne."
This was accomplished in 1261, when Baldwin II. fled from the
Byzantine capital and Michael Paleologus took possession of
his throne and crown (see GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D.
1204-1261). For the assistance given in that revolution, the
Genoese obtained the treaty of Ninfeo, "which firmly
established their influence in the Black Sea. ... Thus did the
brave mariner-town of Genoa turn the scale of the vast, but
rotten, Eastern Empire; and her reward was manifold. The
grateful emperor gave her streets and quays in Constantinople,
immunity from tribute, and a free passage for her commerce.
... In addition to these excellent terms in the treaty of
Ninfeo, the emperor conceded to various Genoese private
families numerous islands in the Archipelago. ... But the
great nucleus of this power was the streets, churches, and
quays in Constantinople which were allotted to the Genoese,
and formed a vast emporium of strength and commerce, which
must have eventually led to entire possession of
Constantinople, had not the 'podesta,' or ruler of the Genoese
colony there, thought fit, from personal motives, or from large
offers made him by the Venetians, to attempt a restoration of
the Latin line. ... His conspiracy was discovered, and the
Genoese were sent away in a body to Eraclea. However, on
representation from home that it was none of their doing, and
that Guercio had been acting entirely on his own account, the
emperor yielded in perpetuity to the Genoese the town of Pera,
on the sole condition that the governors should do him homage
[see, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453]. ...
{1420}
Thus were the Genoese established in this commanding position;
here they had a separate government of their own, from here
they ruled the road of commerce from China to Europe; and,
taking advantage of the weakness of the emperors, they were
able to do much as they wished about building fortresses and
palaces, with gardens to the water's edge; and thus from Pera,
with its citadel of Galata behind it, they were enabled to
dictate what terms they pleased to ships passing to and from
the Bosphorus." In the Black Sea, "from time immemorial, the
small tongue of land now known as the Crimea, then as the
Tauric Chersonese, was the mart towards which all the caravan
trade of Asia was directed by this northern road, and upon
this tongue of land sprang up a group of noble cities which,
until finally seized by the Turks, were without exception
Genoese property. Of these, Caffa was the chief. When this
city was built on the ruins of Theodosia, and by whom, is
somewhat shrouded in mystery. Certain it is that Genoa had a
colony here soon after the first Crusade. ... Second only to
Caffa in importance, and better known to us by name, was the
town of Crim, which gave its name eventually to the whole
peninsula, which originally it had got from the Crim Tatars.
... Prior to its cession to the Genoese, it had been the
residence of a Tatar emperor. ... Here, then, in this narrow
tongue of land, which we now call the Crimea, was the kernel
of Genoese prosperity. As long as she flourished here she
flourished at home. And when at length the Turkish scourge
swept over this peninsula and swallowed up her colonies, the
Ligurian Republic, by a process of slow decay, withered like a
sapless tree." The supplanting of the Venetians at
Constantinople by the Genoese, and the great advantages gained
by the latter in the commerce of the Black Sea, led
necessarily to war between the rival republics. "To maintain
her newly acquired influence in the East, Genoa sent forth a
fleet under the joint command of Pierino Grimaldi, a noble,
and Perchelto Mallone, the people's representative. They
encountered the Venetian squadron at Malvasia [1263] which was
greatly inferior to their own. But as the combatants were just
warming to their work, Mallone, actuated by party spirit,
withdrew his ships and sailed away. The Venetians could
scarcely believe what they saw; they anticipated some deep
laid stratagem, and withdrew for a while from the contest.
When however they beheld Mallone's galleys fairly under sail,
they wonderingly attacked Grimaldi and his 13 ships and
obtained an easy victory. Grimaldi fell at his post. ... This
fatal day of Malvasia [sometimes called the battle of Sette
Pozzi] might easily have secured Venice her lost place in the
Black Sea had she been able to follow up her victory, but with
inexplicable want of vigour she remained inactive." Genoa,
meantime, recovered from the disaster and sent out another
fleet which captured a rich squadron of Venetian merchant
ships in the Adriatic, taking large booty. "It surprises us
immensely to find how for the next thirty years Genoa was able
to keep up a desultory warfare with Venice, when she was at
the height of her struggle with Pisa; and it surprises us
still more that Venice raised not a hand to assist Pisa,
though she was on most friendly terms with her, and when by so
doing she could have ruined Genoa. ... After the fall of Pisa
at Meloria, in 1296 [1284], Genoa could transfer her attention
with all the greater vigour to her contest against Venice.
Four years after this victory men's minds were again bent on
war. Venice cared not to pay a tax to her rival on all ships
which went to Caffa, Genoa resented the treatment she had
received in Cyprus, and thus the rivals prepared for another
and more determined contest for supremacy." The Venetians sent
a fleet to operate in the Black Sea. "Fire was set to the
houses of Galata, irreparable damage was done to Caffa, and in
the Archipelago everything Genoese was burnt, and then off
they sailed for Cyprus, whilst the Genoese were squabbling
amongst themselves. With much trouble the many rulers of Genoa
succeeded at length in adjusting their difference, and a
goodly array of 76 galleys was entrusted to the care of Lamba
D'Oria to punish the Venetians for their depredations. ...
Much larger was the force Venice produced for the contest, and
when the combatants met off Curzola, amongst the Dalmatian
islands, the Genoese were anxious to come to terms, and sought
them, but the Venetians haughtily refused. ... This battle of
Curzola [September 8, 1298] was a sharp and vehement struggle,
and resulted in terrible loss to the Venetians, four of whose
galleys alone escaped to tell the tale. ... Had Lamba D'Oria
but driven the contest home, Venice was ill-prepared to meet
him; as it was, he determined to sail off to Genoa, taking
with him the Venetian admiral ... Dandolo. Chained to the mast
of his own vessel, and unable to sustain the effects of his
humiliation, there, as he stood, Dandolo dashed his head
against the mast and died. ... The natural result of such a
victory was a most favourable peace for Genoa, signed under
the direction of Matteo Visconti, lord of Milan, in 1299; and
thus the century closed on Genoa as without doubt the most
powerful state in Italy, and unquestionably the mistress of
the Mediterranean. ... The next outbreak of war between the
two Republics had its origin in the occupation of the island
of Chios, in 1349," and Genoa in that struggle encountered not
the Venetians alone, but the Greeks and Catalans in alliance
with them.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
J. T. Bent,
Genoa: How the Republic rose and fell,
chapters 6 and 8.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Hazlitt,
History of the Venetian Republic,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
GENOA: A. D. 1282-1290.
War with Pisa.
The great victory of Meloria.
Capture of the chain of the Pisan harbor.
See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
GENOA: A. D. 1313.
Alliance with the Emperor Henry VII. against Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
GENOA: A. D. 1318-1319.
Feuds of the four great families.
Siege of the city by the exiles and the Lombard princes, and
its defense by the King of Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
GENOA: A. D. 1348-1355.
War with the Greeks, Venetians and Aragonese.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: AD. 1348-1355.
GENOA: A. D. 1353.
Annexed by the Visconti to their Milanese principality.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
GENOA: A. D. 1378-1379.
Renewed war with Venice.
The victory at Pola.
See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.
{1421}
GENOA: A. D. 1379-1381.
The disastrous war of Chioggia.
Venice triumphant.
See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.
GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
A succession of foreign masters.
The King of France, the Marquis of Monferrat
and the Duke of Milan.
The history of Genoa for more than a century after the
disastrous War of Chioggia "is one long and melancholy tissue
of internal and external troubles, coming faster and faster
upon one another as the inherent vitality of the Republic grew
weaker. ... During this period we have a constant and
unhealthy craving for foreign masters, be they Marquises of
Monferrato, Dukes of Milan, or the more formidable subverters
of freedom, the kings of France. ... In 1396 ... Adorno [then
doge of Genoa], finding himself unable to tyrannize as he
wished, decided on handing over the government to Charles VI.
of France. In this he was ably backed up by many members of
the old nobility, as the signatures to the treaty testify. The
king was to be entitled 'Defender of the Commune and People,'
and was to respect in every way the existing order of things.
So on the 27th of November, in that year, the great bell in
the tower of the ducal palace was rung, the French standard
was raised by the side of the red cross of Genoa, and in the
great council hall, where her rulers had sat for centuries,
now sat enthroned the French ambassadors, whilst Antoniotto
Adorno handed over to them the sceptre and keys of the city.
These symbols of government were graciously restored to him,
with the admonition that he should no longer be styled 'doge,'
but 'governor' in the name of France. Thus did Adorno sell his
country for the love of power, preferring to be the head of
many slaves, rather than to live as a subordinate in a free
community. The first two governors sent by France after
Adorno's death were unable to cope with the seething mass of
corruption they found within the city walls, until the Marshal
Boucicault was sent, whose name was far famed for cruelty in
Spain against the Moors, in Bulgaria against the Turks, and in
France against the rebels." The government of Boucicault was
hard and cruel, and "his name is handed down by the Genoese as
the most hateful of her many tyrants." In 1409 they took
advantage of his absence from the city to bring in the Marquis
of Monferrato, who established himself in his place. "It was
but for a brief period that the Genoese submitted to the
Marquis of Monferrato; they preferred to return to their doges
and internal quarrels. ... Throughout the city nothing was
heard but the din of arms. Brother fought against brother,
father against son, and for the whole of an unusually chill
December, in 1414, there was not a by-path in Genoa which was
not paved with lances, battle-axes and dead bodies. ... Out of
this fiery trial Genoa at length emerged with Tommaso
Campofregoso as her doge, one of the few bright lights which
illumined Liguria during the early part of this century. ...
The Genoese arms during this time of quiescence again shone
forth with something of their ancient brilliancy. Corsica was
subdued, and a substantial league was formed with Henry V. of
England, ... 1421, by which perpetual friendship and peace by
land and sea was sworn. Short, however, was the period during
which Genoa could rest contented at home. Campofregoso was
driven from the dogeship, and Filippo Maria, Visconti of
Milan, was appointed protector of the Republic [1422], and
through this allegiance the Genoese were drawn into an
unprofitable war for the succession in Naples, in which the
Duke of Milan and the Pope supported the claims of Queen
Joanna and her adopted son, Louis of Anjou, against Alphonso
of Aragon."
J. T. Bent,
Genoa,
chapter 9.
The Universal History,
chapter 73, sections 3-4 (volume 25).
GENOA: A. D. 1385-1386.
Residence of Pope Urban VI.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.
GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
The Bank of St. George.
"The Bank of St. George was founded in Genoa in the year 1407.
It was an immense success and a great support to the
government. It gradually became a republic within the
republic, more peaceful and better regulated than its
mistress." In 1448 the administration of Corsica and of the
Genoese colonies in the Levant was transferred to the Bank,
which thenceforward appointed governors and conducted colonial
affairs.
G. B. Malleson,
Studies from Genoese History,
page 75.
ALSO IN:
J. T. Bent,
Genoa,
chapter 11.
See, also,
CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY.
GENOA: A. D. 1421-1435.
Submission to the Duke of Milan, and recovery of the freedom
of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
Renewed struggles of domestic faction and changes of foreign
masters.
Submission to the Dukes of Milan.
"Genoa, wearied with internal convulsions, which followed each
other incessantly, had lost all influence over the rest of
Italy; continually oppressed by faction, it no longer
preserved even the recollection of liberty. In 1458, it had
submitted to the king of France, then Charles VII.; and John
of Anjou, duke of Calabria, had come to exercise the functions
of governor in the king's name. He made it, at the same time,
his fortress, from whence to attack the kingdom of Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
But this war had worn out the patience of the Genoese; they
rose against the French; and, on the 17th of July, 1461,
destroyed the army sent to subdue them by René of Anjou. The
Genoese had no sooner thrown off a foreign yoke than they
became divided into two factions,--the Adorni and the Fregosi,
[severally partisans of two families of that name which
contended for the control of the republic]: both had at
different times, and more than once, given them a doge. The
more violent and tyrannical of these factious magistrates was
Paolo Fregoso, also archbishop of Genoa, who had returned to
his country, in 1462, as chief of banditti; and left it again,
two years afterwards, as chief of a band of pirates. The
Genoese, disgusted with their independence, which was
disgraced by so many crimes and disturbances, had, on the 13th
of April, 1464, yielded to Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan;
and afterwards remained subject to his son Galeazzo."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
B. Duffy,
The Tuscan Republics,
chapter 23.
GENOA: A. D. 1475.
Loss of possessions in the Crimea.
See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.
{1422}
GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
Capitulation to Louis XII. of France, conqueror of Milan.
Revolt and subjugation.
By the conquest of Milan (see ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500), Louis
XII. of France acquired the signoria of Genoa, which had been
held by the deposed duke, Ludovico Sforza. "According to the
capitulation, one half of the magistrates of Genoa should be
noble, the other half plebeian. They were to be chosen by the
suffrages of their fellow-citizens; they were to retain the
government of the whole of Liguria, and the administration of
their own finances, with the reservation of a fixed sum
payable yearly to the king of France. But the French could
never comprehend that nobles were on an equality with
villains; that a king was bound by conditions imposed by his
subjects; or that money could be refused to him who had force.
All the capitulations of Genoa were successively violated; while
the Genoese nobles ranged themselves on the side of a king
against their country: they were known to carry insolently
about them a dagger, on which was inscribed, 'Chastise
villains'; so impatient were they to separate themselves from
the people, even by meanness and assassination. That people
could not support the double yoke of a foreign master and of
nobles who betrayed their country. On the 7th of February,
1507, they revolted, drove out the French, proclaimed the
republic, and named a new doge; but time failed them to
organize their defence. On the 3d of April, Louis advanced
from Grenoble with a powerful army. He soon arrived before
Genoa: the newly-raised militia, unable to withstand veteran
troops, were defeated. Louis entered Genoa on the 29th of
April; and immediately sent the doge and the greater number of
the generous citizens, who had signalized themselves in the
defence of their country, to the scaffold."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 14.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
from 1494 to 1514,
page 260.
GENOA: A. D. 1527-1528.
French dominion momentarily restored and then overthrown by
Andrew Doria.
The republic revived.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
The conspiracy of Fiesco and its failure.
Revolt and recovery of Corsica.
"Sustained by the ability of Doria, and protected by the arms
of Charles V., the Republic, during near nineteen years
subsequent to this auspicious revolution, continued in the
enjoyment of dignified independence and repose. But, the
memorable conspiracy of Louis Fiesco, Count of Lavagna, the
Catiline of Liguria, had nearly subverted Genoa, and reduced
it anew to the obedience of France, or exposed it once more to
all the misfortunes of anarchy. The massacre of Doria and his
family constituted one of the primary objects of the plot;
while the dissimulation, intrepidity, and capacity, which
marked its leader ... have rendered the attempt one of the
most extraordinary related in modern history. It was
accompanied with complete success till the moment of its
termination. Jeannetin Doria, the heir of that house, having
perished by the dagger, and Andrew, his uncle, being with
difficulty saved by his servants, who transported him out of
the city, the Genoese Senate was about to submit
unconditionally to Fiesco, when that nobleman, by a sudden and
accidental death, at once rendered abortive his own hopes and
those of his followers. The government, resuming courage,
expelled the surviving conspirators; and Doria, on his return
to the city, sullied the lustre of his high character, by
proceeding to acts of cruelty against the brothers and
adherents of the Count of Lavagna. Notwithstanding this
culpable and vindictive excess, he continued invariably firm
to the political principles which he had inculcated, for
maintaining the freedom of the Commonwealth. Philip, Prince of
Spain, son of Charles V., having visited Genoa in the
succeeding year, attempted to induce the senate, under
specious pretences of securing their safety, to consent to the
construction of a citadel, garrisoned by Spaniards. But he found
in that assembly, as well as in Doria, an insurmountable
opposition to the measure, which was rejected with unanimous
indignation. The island of Corsica, which had been subjected
for ages to Genoa, and which was oppressed by a tyrannical
administration, took up arms at this period [1558-1559]; and
the French having aided the insurgents, they maintained a long
and successful struggle against their oppressors. But the
peace concluded at Cateau between Philip, King of Spain, and
Henry II., in which the Spanish court dictated terms to
France, obliged that nation to evacuate their Corsican
acquisitions, and to restore the island to the Genoese.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
Soon afterwards [1559], at the very advanced age of ninety,
Andrew Doria expired in his own palace, surrounded by the
people on whom he had conferred freedom and tranquillity;
leaving the Commonwealth in domestic repose and undisturbed by
foreign war."
Sir N. W. Wraxall,
History of France, 1574-1610,
volume 2, pages 43-44.
ALSO IN:
G. B. Malleson,
Studies from Genoese History,
chapter 1-3.
GENOA: A. D. 1625-1626.
Unsuccessful attack by France and Savoy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
GENOA: A. D. 1745.
The republic sides with Spain and France in the War of the
Austrian Succession.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
GENOA: A. D. 1746-1747.
Surrendered to the Austrians.
Popular rising.
Expulsion of the Austrian garrison.
Long siege and deliverance of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
GENOA: A. D. 1748.
Territory secured by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.
GENOA: A. D. 1768.
Cession of Corsica to France.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
GENOA: A. D. 1796.
Treaty of peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
GENOA: A. D. 1797.
Revolution forced by Bonaparte.
Creation of the Ligurian Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
GENOA: A. D. 1800.
Siege by the Austrians.
Masséna's defense.
Surrender of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
GENOA: A. D. 1805.
Surrender of independence.
Annexation to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
GENOA: A. D. 1814.
Reduction of the forts by English troops.
Surrender of the French garrison.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
GENOA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Annexation to the kingdom of Sardinia.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
----------GENOA: End----------
GENOLA, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
{1423}
GENS, GENTES, GENTILES.
"When Roman history begins, there were within the city, and
subordinate to the common city government, a large number of
smaller bodies, each of which preserved its individuality and
some semblance of governmental machinery. These were clans
[gens], and in prehistoric times each of them is taken to have
had an independent political existence, living apart, worshiping
its own gods, and ruled over by its own chieftain. This clan
organization is not supposed to have been peculiar at all to
Rome, but ancient society in general was composed of an
indefinite number of such bodies, which, at the outset,
treated with each other in a small way as nations might treat
with each other to-day. It needs to be noted, however, that,
at any rate, so far as Rome is concerned, this is a matter of
inference, not of historical proof. The earliest political
divisions in Latium of which we have any trace consisted of
such clans united into communities. If they ever existed,
separately, therefore their union must have been deliberate
and artificial, and the body thus formed was the canton
('civitas' or 'populus'). Each canton had a fixed common
stronghold ('capitolium,' 'height,' or 'arx'--cf. 'arceo'
--'citadel') situated on some central elevation. The clans
dwelt around in hamlets ('vici' or 'pagi') scattered through
the canton. Originally, the central stronghold was not a place
of residence like the 'pagi,' but a place of refuge ... and a
place of meeting. ... In all of this, therefore, the clan
seems to lie at the very foundation. ... Any clan in the
beginning, of course, must have been simply a family. When it
grew so large as to be divided into sections, the sections
were known as families ('familiæ') and their union was the
clan. In this view the family, as we find it existing in the
Roman state, was a subdivision of the clan. In other words,
historically, families did not unite to form clans, but the
clan was the primitive thing, and the families were its
branches. Men thus recognized kinship of a double character.
They were related to all the members of their clan as
'gentiles,' and again more closely to all the members of their
branch of the clan at once as 'gentiles' and also as 'agnati.'
As already stated, men belonged to the same family ('agnati')
when they could trace their descent through males from a
common ancestor who gave its name to the family, or, what is
the same thing, was its eponym. Between the members of a clan
the chief evidence of relationship in historical times was
tradition. ... We have thus outlined what is known as the
patriarchal theory of society, and hinted at its application
to certain facts in Roman history. It should be remembered,
however, that it is only a theory, and that it is open to some
apparent and to some real criticism."
A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 2.
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome, book 1,
chapter 5.
"The patricians were divided into certain private
associations, called Gentes, which we may translate Houses or
Clans. All the members of each Gens were called gentiles; and
they bore the same name, which always ended in -ius; as for
instance, every member of the Julian Gens was a Julius; every
member of the Cornelian Gens was a Cornelius, and so on. Now
in every Gens there were a number of Families which were
distinguished by a name added to the name of the Gens. Thus
the Scipios, Sullas, Cinnas, Cethegi, Lentuli, were all
families of the Cornelian Gens. Lastly, every person of every
Family was denoted by a name prefixed to the name of the Gens.
The name of the person was, in Latin, prænomen; that of the
Gens or House, nomen, that of the Family, cognomen. Thus Caius
Julius Cæsar was a person of the Cæsar Family in the Julian
Gens; Lucius Cornelius Scipio was a person of the Scipio
Family in the Cornelian Gens; and so forth."
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 3.
"There is no word in the English language which satisfactorily
renders the Latin word 'gens.' The term 'clan' is apt to
mislead; for the Scotch Highland clans were very different
from the Roman 'gentes.' The word 'House' is not quite
correct, for it always implies relationship, which was not
essential in the 'gens'; but for want of a better word we
shall use 'House' to express 'gens,' except where the spirit
of the language rejects the term and requires 'family'
instead. The German language has in the word 'Geschlecht' an
almost equivalent term for the Latin 'gens'."
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 13, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
Fustel de Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 2, chapter 10.
On the Greek gens, see PHYLÆ.
GENSERIC AND THE VANDALS.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
GENTILES.
See GENS.
GENUCIAN LAW, The.
A law which prohibited the taking of interest for loans is
said to have been adopted at Rome, B. C. 342, on the proposal
of the tribune Genucius; but modern historians are skeptical
as to the actual enactment of the law.
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 5.
GEOK TEPE, Siege and capture of (1881).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.
GEOMORI, OR GAMORI, The.
"As far as our imperfect information enables us to trace,
these early oligarchies of the Grecian states, against which
the first usurping despots contended, contained in themselves
more repulsive elements of inequality, and more mischievous
barriers between the component parts of the population, than
the oligarchies of later days. ... The oligarchy was not (like
the government so denominated in subsequent times) the
government of a rich few over the less rich and the poor, but
that of a peculiar order, sometimes a Patrician order, over
all the remaining society. ... The country-population, or
villagers who tilled the land, seem in these early times to
have been held to a painful dependence on the great
proprietors who lived in the fortified town, and to have been
distinguished by a dress and habits of their own, which often
drew upon them an unfriendly nickname. ... The governing
proprietors went by the name of the Gamori, or Geomori,
according as the Doric or Ionic dialect might be used in
describing them, since they were found in states belonging to
one race as well as to the other. They appear to have
constituted a close order, transmitting their privileges to
their children, but admitting no new members to a
participation. The principle called by Greek thinkers a
Timocracy (the apportionment of political rights and
privileges according to comparative property) seems to have
been little, if at all, applied in the earlier times. We know
no example of it earlier than Solon."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 9.
GEONIM, The.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
GEORGE I.,
King of England (first of the Hanoverian or Brunswick line),
A. D. 1714-1727.
George II., King of England," 1727-1760.
George III., King of England, 1760-1820.
George IV., King of England, 1820-1830.
George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia, 1458-1471.
George William, Elector of Brandenburg, 1619-1640.
----------GEORGE: End----------
{1424}
GEORGIA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES,
MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1539-1542.
Traversed by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
Clarendon, and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
Oglethorpe's colony.
"Among the members of Parliament during the rule of Sir Robert
Walpole was one almost unknown to us now, but deserving of
honour beyond most men of his time. His name was James
Oglethorpe. He was a soldier, and had fought against the Turks
and in the great Marlborough wars against Louis XIV. In
advanced life he became the friend of Samuel Johnson. Dr.
Johnson urged him to write some account of his adventures. 'I
know no one,' he said, 'whose life would be more interesting:
if I were furnished with materials I should be very glad to
write it.' Edmund Burke considered him 'a more extraordinary
person than any he had ever read of.' John Wesley 'blessed God
that ever he was born.' Oglethorpe attained the great age of
ninety-six, and died in the year 1785. ... In Oglethorpe's
time it was in the power of a creditor to imprison, according
to his pleasure, the man who owed him money and was not able
to pay it. It was a common circumstance that a man should be
imprisoned during a long series of years for a trifling debt.
Oglethorpe had a friend upon whom this hard fate had fallen.
His attention was thus painfully called to the cruelties which
were inflicted upon the unfortunate and helpless. He appealed
to Parliament, and after inquiry a partial remedy was
obtained. The benevolent exertions of Oglethorpe procured
liberty for multitudes who but for him might have ended their
lives in captivity. This, however, did not content him.
Liberty was an incomplete gift to men who had lost, or perhaps
had scarcely ever possessed, the faculty of earning their own
maintenance. Oglethorpe devised how lie might carry these
unfortunates to a new world, where, under happier auspices,
they might open a fresh career. He obtained [A. D. 1732] from
King George II. a charter by which the country between the
Savannah and the Alatamaha, and stretching westward to the
Pacific, was erected into the province of Georgia. It was to
be a refuge for the deserving poor, and next to them for
Protestants suffering persecution. Parliament voted £10,000 in
aid of the humane enterprise, and many benevolent persons were
liberal with their gifts. In November the first exodus of the
insolvent took place. Oglethorpe sailed with 120 emigrants,
mainly selected from the prisons--penniless, but of good
repute. He surveyed the coasts of Georgia, and chose a site
for the capital of his new State. He pitched his tent where
Savannah now stands, and at once proceeded to mark out the
line of streets and squares. Next year the colony was joined
by about a hundred German Protestants, who were then under
persecution for their beliefs. ... The fame of Oglethorpe's
enterprise spread over Europe. All struggling men, against
whom the battle of life went hard, looked to Georgia as a land
of promise. They were the men who most urgently required to
emigrate; but they were not always the men best fitted to
conquer the difficulties of the immigrant's life. The progress
of the colony was slow. The poor persons of whom it was
originally composed were honest but ineffective, and could not
in Georgia more than in England find out the way to become
self-supporting. Encouragements were given which drew from
Germany, from Switzerland, and from the Highlands of Scotland
men of firmer texture of mind--better fitted to subdue the
wilderness and bring forth its treasures. With Oglethorpe
there went out, on his second expedition to Georgia [1736],
the two brothers John and Charles Wesley. Charles went as
secretary to the Governor. John was even then, although a very
young man, a preacher of unusual promise. ... He spent two
years in Georgia, and these were unsuccessful years. His
character was unformed; his zeal out of proportion to his
discretion. The people felt that he preached 'personal
satires' at them. He involved himself in quarrels, and at last
had to leave the colony secretly, fearing arrest at the
instance of some whom he had offended. He returned to begin
his great career in England, with the feeling that his
residence in Georgia had been of much value to himself, but of
very little to the people whom he sought to benefit. Just as
Wesley reached England, his fellow-labourer George Whitefield
sailed for Georgia. ... He founded an Orphan-House at
Savannah, and supported it by contributions--obtained easily
from men under the power of his unequalled eloquence. He
visited Georgia very frequently, and his love for that colony
remained with him to the last. Slavery was, at the outset,
forbidden in Georgia. It was opposed to the gospel, Oglethorpe
said, and therefore not to be allowed. He foresaw, besides, what
has been so bitterly experienced since, that slavery must
degrade the poor white labourer. But soon a desire sprung up
among the less scrupulous of the settlers to have the use of
slaves. Within seven years from the first landing, slave-ships
were discharging their cargo at Savannah."
R. Mackenzie,
America: A History,
book 1, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
T. M. Harris,
Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe,
chapters 1-10.
R. Wright,
Memoir of General James Oglethorpe,
chapters 1-9.
For text of charter, etc., see in
G. White,
Historical Collections of Georgia,
pages. 1-20.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.
The settlement of the Salzburgers.
"As early as October the 12th, 1732, the 'Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge' expressed to the Trustees
a desire 'that the persecuted Salzburgers should have an
asylum provided for them in Georgia.' ... These Germans
belonged to the Archbishopric of Salzburg, then the most
eastern district of Bavaria; but now forming a detached
district in upper Austria, and called Salzburg from the broad
valley of the Salzer, which is made by the approximating of
the Norric and Rhetian Alps. Their ancestors, the Vallenges of
Piedmont, had been compelled by the barbarities of the Dukes
of Savoy, to find a shelter from the storms of persecution in
the Alpine passes and vales of Salzburg and the Tyrol, before
the Reformation; and frequently since had they been hunted out
by the hirelings and soldiery of the Church of Rome. ...
{1425}
The quietness which they had enjoyed for nearly half a century
was now rudely broken in upon by Leopold, Count of Firmian and
Archbishop of Salzburg, who determined to reduce them to the
Papal faith and power. He began in the year 1729, and, ere he
ended in 1732, not far from 30,000 had been driven from their
homes, to seek among the Protestant States of Europe that
charity and peace which were denied them in the glens and
fastnesses of their native Alps. More than two-thirds settled
in the Prussian States; the rest spread themselves over
England, Holland, and other Protestant countries. Thrilling is
the story of their exile. The march of these Salzburgers
constitutes an epoch in the history of Germany. ... The
sympathies of Reformed Christendom were awakened on their
behalf, and the most hospitable entertainment and assistance
were everywhere given them." Forty-two families, numbering 78
persons, accepted an invitation to settle in Georgia,
receiving allotments of land and provisions until they could
gather a harvest. They arrived at Savannah in March, 1734, and
were settled at a spot which they selected for themselves,
about thirty miles in the interior. "Oglethorpe marked out for
them a town; ordered workmen to assist in building houses; and
soon the whole body of Germans went up to their new home at
Ebenezer."
W. B. Stevens,
History of Georgia,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
F. Shoberl,
Persecutions of Popery,
chapter 9 (volume 2).
E. B. Speirs,
The Salzburgers
(English History Review, October, 1890).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
The Slavery question.
Original exclusion and subsequent admission of negro slaves.
Among the fundamental regulations of the Trustees was one
prohibiting negro slavery in the colony. "It was policy and
not philanthropy which prohibited slavery; for, though one of
the Trustees, in a sermon to recommend charity, declared, 'Let
avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in
humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of
our own species as our wealth and possessions'; and though
Oglethorpe himself, speaking of slavery as against 'the gospel
as well as the fundamental law of England', asserted, 'we
refused, as Trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid
crime'; yet in the official publications of that body its
inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not
on humane and liberal grounds; and even Oglethorpe owned a
plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina,
about forty miles above Savannah. ... Their [the Trustees']
design was to provide for poor but honest persons, to erect a
barrier between South Carolina and the Spanish settlements,
and to establish a wine and silk-growing colony. It was
thought by the Trustees that neither of these designs could be
secured if slavery was introduced. ... But while the Trustees
disallowed negroes, they instituted a system of white slavery
which was fraught with evil to the servants and to the colony.
These were white servants, consisting of Welch, English, or
German, males and females--families and individuals--who were
indented to individuals or the Trustees, for a period of from
four to fourteen years. ... On arriving in Georgia, their
service was sold for the term of indenture, or apportioned to
the inhabitants by the magistrates, as their necessities
required. ... Two years had not elapsed since the landing of
Oglethorpe before many complaints originated from this cause;
and in the summer of 1735 a petition, signed by seventeen
freeholders, setting forth the unprofitableness of white
servants, and the necessity for negroes, was carried by Mr.
Hugh Sterling to the Trustees, who, however, resented the
appeal as an insult to their honour. ... The plan for
substituting white for black labour failed through the
sparseness of the supply and the refractoriness of the
servants. As a consequence of the inability of the settlers to
procure adequate help, the lands granted them remained
uncleared, and even those which the temporary industry of the
first occupants prepared remained uncultivated. ... There
accumulated on the Trustees' hands a body of idle, clamourous,
mischief-making men, who employed their time in declaiming
against the very government whose charity both fed and clothed
them. ... For nearly fifteen years from 1735, the date of the
first petition for negroes, and the date of their express law
against their importation, the Trustees refused to listen to
any similar representations, except to condemn them," and they
were supported by the Salzburgers and the Highlanders, both of
whom opposed the introduction of negro slaves. But finally, in
1749, the firmness of the Trustees gave way and they yielded
to the clamor of the discontented colony. The importation of
black slaves was permitted, under certain regulations intended
to diminish the evils of the institution. "The change in the
tenure of grants, and the permission to hold slaves, had an
immediate effect on the prosperity of the colony."
W. B. Stevens,
History of Georgia,
book 2, chapter 9 (volume 1).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
War with the Spaniards of Florida.
Discontents in the colony.
"The assiento enjoyed under the treaty of Utrecht by the
English South Sea Company, the privilege, that is, of
transporting to the Spanish colonies a certain number of
slaves annually, ... was made a cover for an extensive
smuggling trade on the part of the English, into which private
merchants also entered. ... To guard against these systematic
infractions of their laws, the Spaniards maintained a numerous
fleet of vessels in the preventive service, known as 'guarda
costas,' by which some severities were occasionally exercised
on suspected or detected smugglers. These severities, grossly
exaggerated, and resounded throughout the British dominions,
served to revive in England and the colonies a hatred of the
Spaniards, which, since the time of Philip II., had never
wholly died out. Such was the temper and position of the two
nations when the colonization of Georgia was begun, of which
one avowed object was to erect a barrier against the
Spaniards, among whom the runaway slaves of South Carolina
were accustomed to find shelter, receiving in Florida an
assignment of lands, and being armed and organized into
companies, as a means of strengthening that feeble colony. A
message sent to St. Augustine to demand the surrender of the
South Carolina runaways met with a point blank refusal, and
the feeling against the Spaniards ran very high in
consequence. ... Oglethorpe ... returned from his second visit
to England [Sept. 1738], with a newly-enlisted regiment of
soldiers, and the appointment, also, of military commander for
Georgia and the Carolinas, with orders 'to give no offense,
but to repel force by force.' Both in Spain and England the
administrators of the government were anxious for peace. ...
The ferocious clamors of the merchants and the mob ...
absolutely forced Walpole into a war.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.--THE WAR OF JENKINS' EAR.
{1426}
Travelling 300 miles through the forests, Oglethorpe held at
Coweta, on the Chattahoochee, just below the present site of
Columbus, a new treaty with the Creeks, by which they
confirmed their former cessions, acknowledged themselves
subject to the King of Great Britain, and promised to exclude
from their territories all but English settlers. After
finishing the treaty, Oglethorpe returned through the woods by
way of Augusta to Savannah, where he found orders from England
to make an attack on Florida. He called at once on South
Carolina and the Creeks for aid, and in the mean time made an
expedition, in which he captured the Fort of Picolata, over
against St. Augustine, thus securing the navigation of the St.
John's, and cutting off the Spaniards from their forts at St.
Mark's and Pensacola. South Carolina entered very eagerly into
the enterprise. Money was voted; a regiment, 500 strong, was
enlisted, partly in North Carolina and Virginia. This addition
raised Oglethorpe's force to 1,200 men. The Indians that
joined him were as many more. Having marched into Florida, he
took a small fort or two, and, assisted by several ships of
war, laid siege to St. Augustine. But the garrison was 1,000
strong, besides militia. The fortifications proved more
formidable than had been expected. A considerable loss was
experienced by a sortie from the town, falling heavily on the
Highland Rangers. Presently the Indians deserted, followed by
part of the Carolina regiment, and Oglethorpe was obliged to
give over the enterprise. ... From the time of this repulse,
the good feeling of the Carolinians toward Oglethorpe came to
an end. Many of the disappointed Georgia emigrants had removed
to Charleston, and many calumnies against Oglethorpe were
propagated, and embodied in a pamphlet published there. The
Moravians also left Georgia, unwilling to violate their
consciences by bearing arms. Most unfortunately for the new
colony, the Spanish war withdrew the Highlanders and others of
the best settlers from their farms to convert them into
soldiers."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2).
"After the late incursion into Florida, the General kept
possession of a southern region which the Spaniards had
claimed as their own; and, as they had taken encouragement
from the successful defence of St. Augustine, and the
well-known dissensions on the English side, it was to be
expected that they would embrace the earliest opportunity of
taking their revenge. ... The storm, which had been so long
anticipated, burst upon the colony in the year 1742. The
Spaniards had ... fitted out, at Havana, a fleet said to
consist of 56 sail and 7,000 or 8,000 men. The force was
probably not quite so great; if it was, it did not all reach
its destination," being dispersed by a storm, "so that only a
part of the whole number succeeded in reaching St. Augustine.
The force was there placed under the command of Don Manuel de
Monteano, the Governor of that place. ... The fleet made its
appearance on the coast of Georgia on the 21st of June"; but
all its attempts, first to take possession of the Island of
Amelia, and afterwards to reduce the forts at Frederica, were
defeated by the vigor and skill of General Oglethorpe. After
losing heavily in a fight called the Battle of the Bloody
Marsh, the Spaniards retreated about the middle of July. The
following year they prepared another attempt; but Oglethorpe
anticipated it by a second demonstration on his own part
against St. Augustine, which had no other result than to
disconcert the plans of the enemy.
W. B. O. Peabody,
Life of Oglethorpe
(Library of American Biographies, 2d series, volume 2),
chapters 11-12.
"While Oglethorpe was engaged in repelling the Spaniards, the
trustees of Georgia had been fiercely assailed by their
discontented colonists. They sent Thomas Stevens to England
with a petition containing many charges of mismanagement,
extravagance, and peculation, to which the trustees put in an
answer. After a thorough examination of documents and
witnesses in committee of the whole, and hearing counsel, the
House of Commons resolved that 'the petition of Thomas Stevens
contains false, scandalous, and malicious charges'; in
consequence of which Stevens, the next day, was brought to the
bar, and reprimanded on his knees. ... Oglethorpe himself had
been a special mark of the malice and obloquy of the
discontented settlers. ... Presently his lieutenant colonel, a
man who owed everything to Oglethorpe's favor, re-echoing the
slanders of the colonists, lodged formal charges against him.
Oglethorpe proceeded to England to vindicate his character,
and the accuser, convicted by a court of inquiry of falsehood,
was disgraced and deprived of his commission. Appointed a
major general, ordered to join the army assembled to oppose
the landing of the Pretender, marrying also about this time,
Oglethorpe did not again return to Georgia. The former scheme
of administration having given rise to innumerable complaints,
the government of that colony was intrusted to a president and
four counselors."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter. 25 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. C. Jones,
History of Georgia,
chapters 17-22 (volume 1).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1743-1764.
Surrender to the Crown.
Government as a royal province.
"On Oglethorpe's departure [1743], William Stephens, the
secretary, was made President, and continued in office until
1751, when he was succeeded by Henry Parker. The colony, when
Stephens came into office, comprised about 1,500 persons. It
was almost at a stand-still. The brilliant prospects of the
early days were dissipated, and immigration had ceased, thanks
to the narrow policy and feeble government of the Trustees. An
Indian rising, in 1749, headed by Mary Musgrove, Oglethorpe's
Indian interpreter, and her husband, one Bosomworth, who laid
claim to the whole country, came near causing the destruction
of the colony, and was only repressed by much negotiation and
lavish bribes. The colony, thus feeble and threatened,
struggled on, until it was relieved from danger from the

Indians and from the restrictive laws, and encouraged by the
appointment of Parker, and the establishment of a
representative government. This produced a turn in the affairs
of Georgia. Trade revived, immigration was renewed, and
everything began to wear again a more hopeful look. Just at
this time, however, the original trust was on the point of
expiring by limitation.
{1427}
There was a party in the colony who desired a renewal of the
charter; but the Trustees felt that their scheme had failed in
every way, except perhaps as a defence to South Carolina, and
when the limit of the charter was reached, they turned the
colony over to the Crown. ... A form of government was
established similar to those of the other royal provinces, and
Captain John Reynolds was sent out as the first Governor." The
administration of Reynolds produced wide discontent, and in
1757 he was recalled, being "succeeded by Henry Ellis as
Lieutenant-governor. The change proved fortunate, and brought
rest to the colony. Ellis ruled peaceably and with general
respect for more than two years, and was then promoted to the
governorship of Nova Scotia. In the same year his successor
arrived at Savannah, in the person of James Wright, who
continued to govern the province until it was severed from
England by the Revolution. The feebleness of Georgia had
prevented her taking part in the union of the colonies, and
she was not represented in the Congress at Albany. Georgia
also escaped the ravages of the French war, partly by her
distant situation, and partly by the prudence of Governor
Ellis; and the conclusion of that war gave Florida to England,
and relieved the colony from the continual menace of Spanish
aggression. A great Congress of southern Governors and Indian
chiefs followed, in which Wright, more active than his
predecessor, took a prominent part. Under his energetic and
firm rule, the colony began to prosper greatly, and trade
increased rapidly; but the Governor gained at the same time so
much influence, and was a man of so much address, that he not
only held the colony down at the time of the Stamp Act, but
seriously hampered its action in the years which led to
revolution."
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies in America,
chapter 9.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1760-1775.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.
The end of royal government.
Constitutional organization of the state."
The news of the battle of Lexington reached Savannah on the
night of the 10th of May, 1775, and produced intense
excitement among all classes. On the night of the 11th, Noble
Wimberly Jones, Joseph Habersham, Edward Telfair, and a few
others, impressed with the necessity of securing all military
stores, and preserving them for colonial use, took from the
King's magazine, in Savannah, about 500 pounds of powder. ...
Tradition asserts that part of this powder was sent to Boston,
and used by the militia at the battle of Bunker Hill. ... The
activity of the Liberty party, and its rapid increase, ...
gave Governor Wright just cause for alarm; and he wrote to
General Gage, expressing his amazement that these southern
provinces should be left in the situation they are, and the
Governors and King's officers, and friends of Government,
naked and exposed to the resentment of an enraged people.' ...
The assistance so earnestly solicited in these letters would
have been promptly rendered, but that they never reached their
destination. The Committee of Safety at Charleston withdrew them
from their envelopes, as they passed through the port, and
substituted others, stating that Georgia was quiet, and there
existed no need either of troops or vessels." The position of
Governor Wright soon became one of complete powerlessness and
he begged to be recalled. In January, 1776, however, he was
placed under arrest, by order of the Council of Safety, and
gave his parole not to leave town, nor communicate with the
men-of-war which had just arrived at Tybee; notwithstanding
which he made his escape to one of the King's ships on the
11th of February. "The first effective organization of the
friends of liberty in the province took place among the
deputies from several parishes, who met in Savannah, on the
18th January, 1775, and formed what has been called 'A
Provincial Congress.' Guided by the action of the other
colonies, a 'Council of Safety' was created, on the 22d June,
1775, to whom was confided the general direction of the
measures proper to be pursued in carrying out resistance to
the tyrannical designs of the King and Parliament. William
Ewen was the first President of this Council of Safety, and
Seth John Cuthbert was the Secretary. On the 4th July, the
Provincial Congress (now properly called such, as every parish
and district was represented) met in Savannah, and elected as
its presiding officer Archibald Bulloch. This Congress
conferred upon the 'Council of Safety,' 'full power upon every
emergency during the recess of Congress.'" Soon finding the
need of a more definite order of government, the Provincial
Congress, on the 15th of April, 1776, adopted provisionally,
for six months, a series of "Rules and Regulations," under
which Archibald Bulloch was elected President and
Commander-in-chief of Georgia, and John Glen, Chief Justice.
After the Declaration of Independence, steps were taken toward
the settling of the government of the state on a permanent
basis. On the proclamation of President Bulloch a convention
was elected which met in Savannah in October, and which framed
a constitution that was ratified on the 5th of February, 1777.
W. B. Stevens,
History of Georgia,
book 4, chapter 2,
and book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1776-1778.
The war in the North.
The Articles of Confederation.
The alliance with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A.D. 1776, to 1778.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Savannah taken and the state subjugated by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1779.
Unsuccessful attack on Savannah by the French and Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1780.
Successes of the British arms in South Carolina.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
Greene's campaign in the South.
Lafayette and Washington in Virginia.
Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A. D. 1780, to 1783.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1802.
Cession of Western land claims to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786
and MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1816-1818.
The First Seminole War.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
{1428}
GEORGIA: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
Savannah threatened.
The Union forces in possession of the mouth of the river.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
Reduction of Fort Pulaski and sealing up of the port of
Savannah by the National Forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
Sherman's campaign against Atlanta.
The capture of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
Military occupation of Atlanta.
Removal of the inhabitants.
Hood's Raid to Sherman's rear.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (November-December).
Destruction of Atlanta.
Sherman's March to the Sea.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1865 (March-May).
Wilson's Raid.
Capture of Jefferson Davis.
End of the Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.
----------GEORGIA: End----------
GEOUGEN, The.
See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.
GEPIDÆ, The.
See GOTHS: ORIGIN OF;
HUNS; LOMBARDS: EARLY HISTORY;
and AVARS.
GERALDINES, The.
The Geraldines of Irish history were descendants of Maurice
and William Fitzgerald, two of the first among the
Anglo-Norman adventurers to engage in the conquest of
Ireland, A. D. 1169-1170. Their mother was a Welsh princess,
named Nest, or Nesta, who is said to have been the mistress
of Henry I. of England, and afterwards to have married the
Norman baron, Gerald Fitz Walter, who became the father of
the Fitzgeralds. "Maurice Fitzgerald, the eldest of the
brothers, became the ancestor both of the Earls of Kildare
and Desmond; William, the younger, obtained an immense grant
of land in Kerry from the McCarthys, indeed as time went on
the lordship of the Desmond Fitzgeralds grew larger and
larger, until it covered nearly as much ground as many a
small European kingdom. Nor was this all. The White Knight,
the Knight of Glyn, and the Knight of Kerry were all three
Fitzgeralds, all descended from the same root, and all owned
large tracts of country. The position of the Geraldines of
Kildare was even more important, on account of their close
proximity to Dublin. In later times their great keep at
Maynooth dominated the whole Pale, while their followers
swarmed everywhere, each man with a 'G' embroidered upon his
breast in token of his allegiance. By the beginning of the
16th century their power had reached to, perhaps, the highest
point ever attained in these islands by any subject. Whoever
might be called the Viceroy in Ireland it was the Earl of
Kildare who practically governed the country."
Hon. E. Lawless,
The Story of Ireland,
chapter 14.
See, also,
IRELAND: A. D. 1515;
and for some account of the subsequent rebellion and fall
of the Geraldines, see
IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
GERALDINES, League of the.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
GERBA, OR JERBA, The disaster at. (1560).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
GEREFA.
"The most general name for the fiscal, administrative and
executive officer among the Anglosaxons was Gerefa, or as it
is written, in very early documents geroefa: but the peculiar
functions of the individuals comprehended under it were
further defined by a prefix compounded with it, as scirgerefa,
the reeve of the shire or sheriff: tungerefa, the reeve of the
farm or bailiff. The exact meaning and etymology of this name
have hitherto eluded the researches of our best scholars."
J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).
See, also, SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.
GERGESENES, The.
One of the tribes of the Canaanites, whose territory is
believed by Lenormant to have "included all Decapolis and even
Galilee," and whose capital he places at Gerasa, now Djerash,
in Perea.
F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
Manual of Ancient History,
book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).
GERGITHIAN SIBYL.
See CUMÆ.
GERGITHIANS, The.
See TROJA;
and, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.
"The site of Gergovia of the Arverni is supposed to be a hill
on the bank of the Allier, two miles from the modern Clermont
in Auvergne. The Romans seem to have neglected Gergovia, and
to have founded the neighbouring city, to which they gave the
name Augustonemetum. The Roman city became known afterwards as
Civitas Arvernorum, in the middle ages Arverna, and then, from
the situation of its castle, clarus mons, Clermont."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 12 (volume 2, page 20, foot-note).
For an account of Cæsar's reverse at Gergovia of the Arverni,
See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
GERGOVIA OF THE BOIANS.
See BOIANS.
GERIZIM.
"The sacred centre of the Samaritans is Gerizim, the 'Mount of
Blessings.' On. its summit a sacred rock marks the site where,
according to their tradition, Joshua placed the Tabernacle and
afterwards built a temple, restored later by Sanballat on the
return of the Israelites from captivity. On the slope of the
mountain the Feast of the Passover is still celebrated in
accordance with the injunctions of the Law."
C. R. Conder,
Syrian Stone Lore,
chapter 4.
GERMAN, High and Low.
The distinction, made between High German and Low German is
that resulting from differences of language, etc., between the
Germanic peoples which dwelt anciently in the low, flat
countries along the German Ocean and the Baltic, and those
which occupied the higher regions of the upper Rhine, Elbe and
Danube.
GERMAN EAST AFRICAN AND WEST AFRICAN ASSOCIATIONS.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
GERMAN EMPIRE, The Constitution of the new.
See CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.
----------------------------------
A Logical Outline of German History
Ethnological
Social and political.
Intellectual, moral and religious.
Foreign.
IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.
3d-5th Centurles. The Wanderinag of the nations.
Germany was slow in finding the definite place in geography
and history that belongs to it at the present day. It was no
more at first than a name, applied with large vagueness to the
country beyond the Rhine and the Danube, where many restless
tribes, of kindred language and character, were unstably
distributed. In time, the tribes crowded one another into wide
wandering movements, were pushed and pressed together into
confederacies and nations, and went swarming over the Danube
and the Rhine into Roman provinces, to take possession of them
and to be the new masters of the European world; but it was
the Germans, not Germany, who began then to be historic.
5th-9th Centuries--Empire of the Franks.
As a fact in history, Germany emerged first with the Franks,
out of the dust-clouds of the wandering time and the darker
clouds of the Gallic conquest. Fast seated on the great
dividing river, the Rhine, the Franks reached backward into
the land which gave them birth, and forward into the land
which took their name, and gathered a broad empire out of
both. But always the two parts of it refused to be held
together. Neither by Clovis, the first conqueror, nor by
Charlemagne, after three hundred years, were the Kingdom of
the East Franks and the Kingdom of the West Franks bound fast
into one. Under Charlemagne's successors, the Kingdom of the
East Franks began to be Germany, in the growing of the fact as
well as the name.
A. D. 962.--The Holy Roman Empire.
But no sooner had a Kingdom of Germany been created than it
was strangely deprived of the distinctness needful to the
making of a nation. The adventurous Otho, its second Saxon
king, who reclaimed Italy and revived the imperial sovereignty
of Charlemagne, diminished the weight and dignity of his
Germanic realm as much as he advanced himself and his
successors in title and rank. By that elevation of its kings
to a pseudo-Roman throne, Germany lost its own proper place in
history, and was obscured by the shadow of an empire which
soon existed as a shadow only. Its elective kings, forsaking
the title of Kings of Germany, and calling themselves Kings of
the Romans, even while they waited for an imperial coronation
at the hands of the Pope, made the nationalizing of Germany,
as France was being nationalized, by its monarchy, impossible.
10th-18th Centuries.--Contests In Italy.
For three centuries, the ambitions and the interests of the
imperialized monarchy were ultramontane. Its Teutonic seat was
a mere resting-place between Italian expeditions. Its quarrels
with the Popes cast all questions of German politics into the
background. It took no root in German feeling, rallied no
national sentiment, gathered no increase of authority, sent
out from itself no centralizing influences, judicial or
administrative, to resist the dissolving forces of feudalism.
And nowhere else in Europe was the action of those forces so
destructive of political unity. That great Fatherland of the
German peoples, where the slow solidification of a nation
should have been going on as surely as in France, was crumbled
by them into petty principalities, which time only hardened in
their separateness.
A. D. 1273-1440--Rise of the House of Hapsburg.
When, at last, the crown came to be settled in one fast-rooted
and enduring House, it was not fortunately placed. Territorially
the Hapsburgs were planted on the verge of the Teutonic land,
where they fronted the Hungarians and the Svavs and were
threatened by the approaching Turks. Speaking figuratively,
they stood with their backs to Germany, facing their greater
dangers and their greater opportunities, east and south.
Their personal dominions were acquired for the most part
outside of the Teutonic line. Their immediate subjects were of
many alien races, with a few of Greman blood. Their kingship
of Hungary was more substantial in its political weight than
any Germanic sovereignty that they held. From the beginning of
its remarkable dynastic career, the House of Austria was in
all respects quite at one side of the great people whose crown
had unhappily passed to its keeping. The emperor-kings, throned
with less reality at Vienna than at Presburg and Prague, lost
more and more their German character, receded more and more
from the range of German influence. Thus Germany was robbed
again of the centralizing constraints which a vigorous, rising
monarchy of the true stamp, not falsified by a fictitious
imperialization, would have brought to bear upon it, for the
unifying of a great nation.
A. D. 1477-1496.--Burgundian and Spanish marriages.
The marriagcs which linked the Austrian House with the
sovereign families of Burgundy and Spain only drew it still
farther away, and made it more alien than before to the people
of the German North. The imperial government was brought then
under influences from Spain which opposed every tendency of
their feeling and thought. While the strong Teutonic mind
worked its slow way towards personal freedom,--towards
fearless inquiry and independent belief,--a contrary movement
went on in the Austrian court. Between Germany at large and
the circle in which Vienna stood really a center and a
capital, a widening inteliectual breach began when the
Hapsburg brain was narrowed by the astringent blood of
Castile. This appeared, not alone in the rupture of the
religious Reformation, but in all the advances that were made,
from the sixteenth century down, in science, philosophy,
literature and art.
Some advance was always made; but the modern impulses which
woke early in the German race were wastefully spent, during
many generations, for want of any national concentration. No
large channel opened to them; no worthy spirit directed them.
The pettiness of petty politics and courts belittled in most
ways, for a lamentable time, the workings of German energy and
genius.
A. D. 1618.--Brandenburg—Prussia.
The Thirty Years War made chaos in Germany complete. No
semblance of substance in the empire remained. The Kaiser had
become a sovereign less honored than the King of France,
and Vienna a capital less considered than Paris. But the
first nucleus of nationality took form in that chaos, when
Brandenburg drew Prussia to itself, in the union which
produced a new kingdom at the North. The rise of Prussia was
the rise of German nationality. It brought to bear on the
German people the first centralizing influence that had acted
upon them since their kings took the crown of Rome. For the
first time in their history they felt the pull of a force
which drew them towards common lines of action.
A. D. 1740-1786.--Frederick the Great.
A. D. 1800-1813.--Struggle with Napoleon.
The aggrandizement of Prussia by Frederick the Great, though
iniquitous when considered in itself, was splendid work for
Germany. It prepared, for the perils of the next generation, a
power which Napoleon could humble at the moment, but which he
could not crush. It gave footing for the great heroic rally of
the Germanic people, whereby they conquered their place in the
world and secured their future.
A. D. 1866.--The Seven Weeks War
A. D. 1870-1871.--The Franco-German War.
A. D. 1871.--The Empire.
In all that has come to pass since Leipsic and Waterloo, the
logical sequence is plainer than history is wont to show it.
From men of the first decade in this century, who put the
school and the camp side by side in Prussian training, there
came more than from Bismarck or Moltke of the power which
triumphed at Sadowa and Sedan, which has constructed a new and
true Empire of Germany, with its capital at Berlin, and which
has dismissed Austria from German reckonings as mistress or as
rival, but to make of her an ally and a friend.
Within the last third of the nineteenth century, the Germans
may be said to have opened a great national career, such as
the English, their kinsmen, had entered upon nearly two
hundred years before. The energies of their powerful race have
been centered at last, and are acting with new potency, in
commerce and colonization, abroad, and in all modes of human
advancement, at home.
----------End: A Logical Outline of German History ------
{1429}
GERMAN FLATS: A. D.1765.
Treaty with the Indians.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
GERMAN FLATS: A. D. 1778.
Destruction by Brant.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
GERMAN NATIONS, The wandering of.
See GOTHS; FRANKS; ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI;
QUADI; GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES; BURGUNDIANS;
VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS.
GERMAN UNIVERSITIES.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
GERMANIA.
"On the origin of the name Germania see Waitz D. V. G. i. 24;
he rejects all German derivations and concludes that it is
originally Gallic, the name given (as Tacitus indicates) by
the Gauls first to the Tungri, and afterwards to all the
kindred tribes. The meaning may be either 'good shouters'
(Grimm), or, according to other writers, 'East-men,' or
'neighbours.'"
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, page 17, note.
GERMANIANS, The.
See CARMANIANS.
GERMANIC CONFEDERATION,
The First.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
The Second.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
GERMANIC DIET, The.
See DIET, GERMANIC.
GERMANIC PEOPLES OF THE ALEMANNIC LEAGUE.
See ALEMANNI: A.-D. 213.
GERMANICUS, Campaigns of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.
GERMANTOWN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).
GERMANY:
The national name.
"The nations of the Germania had no common name recognised by
themselves, and were content, when, ages after, they had
realised their unity of tongue and descent, to speak of their
language simply as the Lingua Theotisca, the language of the
people (theod). ... Whence the name 'Deutsch.' Zeuss derives
it rather from the root of 'deuten,' to explain, so that
'theotisc' should mean 'significant.' But the root of 'theod'
and 'deuten' is the same. ... The general name by which the
Romans knew them [Germani] was one which they had received
from their Gallic neighbours."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 3, and foot-note.
"In Gothic we have 'thiuda,' people; 'thiudisks,' belonging to
the people. ... The High-German, which looks upon Sanskrit 't'
and Gothic 'th' as 'd,' possesses the same word, as 'diot,'
people; 'diutisc,' popularis; hence Deutsch, German, and
'deuten,' to explain, literally to Germanize."
F. Max Müller,
Lectures on the Science of Language,
2d series, lecture. 5.
The account which Tacitus gives of the origin of the name
Germany is this: "The name Germany ... they [the Germans] say,
is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes
which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are
now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was
the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed,
till all called themselves by this self-invented name of
Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire
terror."
Tacitus,
Germany;
translated by Church and Brodribb, chapter 2.
"It is only at the mouth of the Elbe that the Germany of the
really historical period begins: and this is a Germany only in
the eyes of scholars, antiquarians, and generalizing
ethnologists. Not one of the populations to whom the name is
here extended would have attached any meaning to the word,
except so far as they had been instructed by men who had
studied certain Latin writers. There was no name which was, at
one and the same time, native and general. There were native
names, but they were limited to special populations. There was
a general name, but it was one which was applied by strangers
and enemies. What this name was for the northern districts, we
know beforehand. It was that of Saxones and Saxonia in Latin;
of Sachsen and Sachsenland in the ordinary German. Evidence,
however, that any German population ever so named itself is
wholly wanting, though it is not impossible that some
unimportant tribe may have done so: the only one so called
being the Saxons of Ptolemy, who places them, along with
several others, in the small district between the Elbe and the
Eyder, and on three of the islands off the coast. ... The
Franks gave it its currency and generality; for, in the eyes
of a Frank, Saxony and Friesland contained all those parts of
Germany which, partly from their difference of dialect, partly
from their rudeness, partly from their paganism, and partly
from the obstinacy of their resistance, stood in contrast to
the Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. A Saxon was an
enemy whom the Franks had to coerce, a heathen whom they had
to convert. What more the term meant is uncertain."
R. G. Latham,
Introduction to Kemble's "Horæ Ferales."
See, also, TEUTONES.
GERMANY: As known to Tacitus.
"Germany is separated from the Galli, the Rhæti, and Pannonii,
by the rivers Rhine and Danube; mountain ranges, or the fear
which each feels for the other, divide it from the Sarmatæ and
Daci. Elsewhere ocean girds it, embracing broad peninsulas and
islands of unexplored extent, where certain tribes and
kingdoms are newly known to us, revealed by war. The Rhine
springs from a precipitous and inaccessible height of the
Rhætian Alps, bends slightly westward, and mingles with the
Northern Ocean. The Danube pours down from the gradual and
gently rising slope of Mount Abnoba, and visits many nations,
to force its way at last through six channels into the Pontus;
a seventh mouth is lost in marshes. The Germans themselves I
should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other
races through immigration or intercourse. For, in former
times, it was not by land but on shipboard that those who
sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to
speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail
from our world. And, besides the perils of rough and unknown
seas, who would leave Asia, or Africa, or Italy for Germany,
with its wild country, its inclement skies, its sullen manners
and aspect, unless indeed it were his home?
{1430}
In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or
recording the past, they celebrate an earth-born god, Tuisco,
and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their
founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names,
they say, the coast tribes are called Ingævones; those of the
interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istævones. Some, with the
freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the
god had several descendants, and the nation several
appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that
these are genuine old names. The name Germany, on the other
hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced."
Tacitus,
Germany:
translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
chapters 1-2.
GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.
Campaigns of Drusus.
The first serious advance of the Roman arms beyond the Rhine
was made in the reign of Augustus, by the emperor's step-son,
Drusus. Cæsar had crossed the river, only to chastise and
terrify the tribes on the right bank which threatened Gaul.
Agrippa, some years later, repeated the operation, and
withdrew, as Cæsar had done. But Drusus invaded Germany with
intentions of conquest and occupation. His first campaign was
undertaken in the spring of the year 12 B. C. He crossed the
Rhine and drove the Usipetes into their strongholds; after
which he embarked his legions on transport ships and moved
them down the river to the ocean, thence to coast northwards
to the mouth of the Ems, and so penetrate to the heart of the
enemy's country. To facilitate this bold movement, he had
caused a channel to be cut from the Rhine, at modern Arnheim,
to the Zuyder Zee, utilizing the river Yssel. The expedition
was not successful and retreated overland from the Frisian
coast after considerable disaster and loss. The next year,
Drusus returned to the attack, marching directly into the
German country and advancing to the banks of the Weser, but
retreating, again, with little to show of substantial results.
He established a fortified outpost, however, on the Lippe, and
named it Aliso. During the same summer, he is said to have
fixed another post in the country of the Chatti. Two years
then passed before Drusus was again permitted by the emperor
to cross the Rhine. On his third campaign he passed the Weser
and penetrated the Hercynian forest as far as the Elbe,--the
Germans declining everywhere to give him battle. Erecting a
trophy on the bank of the Elbe, he retraced his steps, but
suffered a fall from his horse, on the homeward march, which
caused his death. "If the Germans were neither reduced to
subjection, nor even overthrown in any decisive engagement, as
the Romans vainly pretended, yet their spirit of aggression
was finally checked and from thenceforth, for many
generations, they were fully occupied with the task of
defending themselves."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 36.
GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
Campaigns of Tiberius.
The work of Roman conquest in Germany, left unfinished by
Drusus, was taken up by his brother Tiberius (afterwards
emperor) under the direction of Augustus. Tiberius crossed the
Rhine, for the first time, B. C. 8. The frontier tribes made
no resistance, but offered submission at once. Tiberius sent
their chiefs to Augustus, then holding his court at Lugdunum
(Lyons), to make terms with the emperor in person, and
Augustus basely treated them as captives and threw them into
prison. The following year found the German tribes again under
arms, and Tiberius again crossed the Rhine; but it was only to
ravage the country, and not to remain. Then followed a period
of ten years, during which the emperor's step-son,
dissatisfied with his position and on ill terms with Augustus,
retired to Rhodes. In the summer of A. D. 4, he returned to
the command of the legions on the Rhine. Meantime, under other
generals,--Domitius and Vinicius,--they had made several
campaigns beyond the river; had momentarily crossed the Elbe;
had constructed a road to the outposts on the Weser; had
fought the Cherusci, with doubtful results, but had not
settled the Roman power in Germany. Tiberius invaded the
country once more, with a powerful force, and seems to have
crushed all resistance in the region between the lower Rhine
and the Weser. The following spring, he repeated, with more
success, the movement of Drusus by land and sea, sending a
flotilla around to the Elbe and up that stream, to a point
where it met and co-operated with a column moved overland,
through the wilderness. A single battle was fought and the
Germans defeated; but, once more, when winter approached, the
Romans retired and no permanent conquest was made. Two years
later (A. D. 6), Tiberius turned his arms against the powerful
nation of the Marcomanni, which had removed itself from the
German mark, or border, into the country formerly occupied, by
the Boii--modern Bohemia. Here, under their able chief Marbod,
or Maroboduus, they developed a formidable military
organization and became threatening to the Roman frontiers on
the Upper Danube. Two converging expeditions, from the Danube
and from the Rhine, were at the point of crushing the
Marcomanni between them, when news of the alarming revolt, in
Pannonia and Dalmatia, called the "Batonian War," caused the
making of a hasty peace with Maroboduus. The Batonian or
Pannonian war occupied Tiberius for nearly three years. He had
just brought it to a close, when intelligence reached Rome of
a disaster in Germany which filled the empire with horror and
dismay. The tribes in northwestern Germany, between the lower
Rhine and the Elbe, supposed to be cowed and submissive, had
now found a leader who could unite them and excite them to
disdain the Roman yoke. This leader was Arminius, or Hermann,
a young chief of the Cherusci, who had been trained in the
Roman military service and admitted to Roman citizenship, but
who hated the oppressors of his country with implacable
bitterness. The scheme of insurrection organized by Arminius
was made easy of execution by the insolent carelessness and
the incapacity of the Roman commander in Germany, L.
Quintilius Varus. It succeeded so well that Varus and his
army,--three entire legions, horse, foot and
auxiliaries,--probably 20,000 men in all,--were overwhelmed in
the Teutoburger Wald, north of the Lippe, and destroyed. Only
a few skulking fugitives reached the Rhine and escaped to tell
the fate of the rest. This was late in the summer of A. D. 9.
In the following spring Tiberius was sent again to the Rhine
frontier, with as powerful a levy of men and equipments as the
empire could collect. He was accompanied by his nephew,
Germanicus, son of Drusus, destined to be his successor in the
field of German conquest.
{1431}
But dread and fear were in the Roman heart, and the campaign
of Tiberius, delayed another twelve months, until A. D. 11,
was conducted too cautiously to accomplish any important
result. He traversed and ravaged a considerable region of the
German country, but withdrew again across the Rhine and left
it, apparently, unoccupied. This was his last campaign.
Returning to Rome, he waited only two years longer for the
imperial sovereignty to which he succeeded on the death of
Augustus, who had made him, by adoption, his son and his heir.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapters 36-38.
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 1.
Sir E. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
chapter 5.
T. Smith,
Arminius, part 1,
chapters 4-6.
GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.
Campaigns of Germanicus.
Germanicus--the son of Drusus--was given the command on the
Rhine at the beginning of the year 13 A. D. The following
year, Augustus died and Tiberius became emperor; whereupon
Germanicus found himself no longer restrained from crossing
the river and assuming the offensive against Arminius and his
tribes. His first movement, that autumn, was up the valley of
the Lippe, which he laid waste, far and wide. The next spring,
he led one column, from Mentz, against the Chatti, as far as
the upper branches of the Weser, while he sent another farther
north to chastise the Cherusci and the Marsi, surprising and
massacring the latter at their feast of Tanfana. Later in the
same year, he penetrated, by a double expedition,--moving by
sea and by land, as his father had done before,--to the
country between the Ems and the Lippe, and laid waste the
territory of the Bructeri, and their neighbors. He also
visited the spot where the army of Varus had perished, and
erected a monument to the dead. On the return from this
expedition, four legions, under Cæcina, were beset in the same
manner that Varus had been, and under like difficulties; but
their commander was of different stuff and brought them safely
through, after punishing his pursuers severely. But the army
had been given up as lost, and only the resolute opposition of
Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus, had prevented the Roman
commander at Vetera, on the Rhine, from destroying the bridge
there, and abandoning the legions to their supposed fate. In
the spring of A. D. 16, Germanicus again embarked his army,
80,000 strong, at the mouth of the Rhine, on board transports,
and moved it to the mouth of the Ems, where the fleet
remained. Thence he marched up the Ems and across to the
Weser, and was encountered, in the country of the Cherusci, by
a general levy of the German tribes, led by Arminius and
Inguiomerus. Two great battles were fought, in which the
Romans were victorious. But, when returning from this
campaign, the fleet encountered a storm in which so much of it
perished, with the troops on board, that the disaster threw a
heavy cloud of gloom over the triumph of Germanicus. The young
general was soon afterwards recalled, and three years later he
died,--of poison, as is supposed,--at Antioch. "The central
government ceased from this time to take any warm interest in
the subjugation of the Germans; and the dissensions of their
states and princes, which peace was not slow in developing,
attracted no Roman emissaries to the barbarian camps, and
rarely led the legions beyond the frontier, which was now
allowed to recede finally to the Rhine."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 42.
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 1.
T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 1, chapter 7.
GERMANY: 3d Century.
Beginning of the "Wandering of the Nations."
"Towards the middle of the third century, ... a change becomes
perceptible in the relations and attitude of the German
peoples. Many of the nations, which have been celebrated in
the annals of the classical writers, disappear silently from
history; new races, new combinations and confederacies start
into life, and the names which have achieved an imperishable
notoriety from their connection with the long decay and the
overthrow of the Roman Empire, come forward, and still
survive. On the soil whereon the Sigambri, Marsi, Chauci, and
Cherusci had struggled to preserve a rude independence, Franks
and Saxons lived free and formidable; Alemanni were gathered
along the foot of the Roman wall which connected the Danube
with the Rhine, and had, hitherto, preserved inviolate the
Agri decumates; while eastern Germany, allured by the hope of
spoil, or impelled by external pressure, precipitated itself
under the collective term of Goths upon the shrinking
settlements of the Dacia and the Danube. The new appellations
which appear in western Germany in the third century have not
unnaturally given rise to the presumption that unknown peoples
had penetrated through the land, and overpowered the ancient
tribes, and national vanity has contributed to the delusion.
As the Burgundians ... were flattered by being told they were
descendants of Roman colonists, so the barbarian writers of a
later period busied their imaginations in the solitude of
monastic life to enhance the glory of their countrymen, by the
invention of what their inkling of classical knowledge led
them to imagine a more illustrious origin. ... Fictions like
these may be referred to as an index of the time when the
young barbarian spirit, eager after fame, and incapable of
balancing probabilities, first gloated over the marvels of
classical literature, though its refined and delicate beauties
eluded their grosser taste; but they require no critical
examination; there are no grounds for believing that Franks,
Saxons, or Alemanni, were other than the original inhabitants
of the country, though there is a natural difficulty arising
from the want of written contemporary evidence in tracing the
transition, and determining the tribes of which the new
confederacies were formed. At the same time, though no
immigration of strangers was possible, a movement of a
particular tribe was not unfrequent. The constant internal
dissensions of the Germans, combined with their spirit of
warlike enterprise, led to frequent domestic wars; and the
vanquished sometimes chose rather to seek an asylum far from
their native soil, where they might live in freedom, than
continue as bondmen or tributaries to the conqueror. Of such a
nature were the wanderings of the Usipites and Teuchteri
[Tenchteri] in Cæsar's time, the removal of the Ubii from
Nassau to the neighbourhood of Cöln and Xanthen; and to this
must be ascribed the appearance of the Burgundians, who had
dwelt beyond the Oder, in the vicinity of the Main and the
Necker. Another class of national emigrations, were those
which implied a final abandonment of the native Germany with
the object of seeking a new settlement among the possessions
of the sinking empire.
{1432}
Those of the Goths, Vandals, Alans, Sueves, the second
movement of the Burgundians, may be included in this category;
the invasions of the Franks, Alemanni, and Saxons, on the
contrary, cannot be called national emigrations, for they
never abandoned, with their families, their original
birthplace; their outwanderings, like the emigrations of the
present day, were partial; their occupation of the enemy's
territory was, in character, military and progressive; and,
with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain,
their connection with the original stock was never
interrupted. In all the migrations of German peoples spoken of
from Cæsar downwards, the numbers of the emigrants appear to
be enormously exaggerated. The Usipites and Teuchteri are
estimated by Cæsar at 430,000 souls. How could such a
multitude find nourishment during a three years' wandering? If
80,000 Burgundian Wehrmen came to the Rhine to the assistance
of Valentinian, as Cassiodorius, Jerome, and other chroniclers
state, the numbers of the whole nation must have approached
400,000, and it is impossible to believe that such a mass
could obtain support in the narrow district lying between the
Alemanni, the Hermunduri, and the Chatti. In other cases,
vague expressions, and still more the wonderful achievements
of the Germans in the course of their emigrations, have led to
the supposition of enormous numbers; but Germany could not
find nourishment for the multitudes which have been ascribed
to it. Corn at that period was little cultivated; it was not
the food of the people, whose chief support was flesh. ... The
conquests of the barbarians may be ascribed as much to the
weakness of their adversaries, to their want of energy and
union, as to their own strength. There was, in fact, no enemy
to meet them in the field; and their domination was, at least,
as acceptable to the provincial inhabitants as that of the
imbecile, but rapacious ministers of the Roman government. ...
It was not the lust of wandering, but the influence of
external circumstances which brought them to the vicinity of
the Danube: at first the aggressions of the Romans, then the
pressure of the Huns and the Sclavonic tribes. The whole
intercourse of Germany with Rome must be considered as one
long war, which began with the invasion of Cæsar; which, long
restrained by the superior power of the enemy, warmed with his
growing weakness, and only ended with the extinction of the
Roman name. The wars of the third, fourth, and fifth
centuries, were only a continuance of the ancient hostility.
There might be partial truce, or occasional intermission; some
tribes might be almost extirpated by the sword; some, for a
time, bought off by money; but Rome was the universal enemy,
and much of the internal restlessness of the Germans was no
more than the natural movement towards the hostile borders. As
the invasion of northern Germany gave rise to the first great
northern union, so the conquest of Dacia brought Goths from
the Vistula to the south, while the erection of the giant wall
naturally gathered the Suevic tribes along its limits, only
waiting for the opportunity to break through. Step by step
this battle of centuries was fought; from the time of
Caracalla the flood turned, wave followed wave like the
encroaching tide, and the ancient landmarks receded bit by
bit, till Rome itself was buried beneath the waters. ... Three
great confederacies of German tribes, more or less united by
birth, position, interest, or language, may be discerned,
during this period, in immediate contact with the Romans---the
Alemanni, the Goths, and the Franks. A fourth, the Saxons, was
chiefly known from its maritime voyages off the coast of Gaul
and Britain. There were also many independent peoples which
cannot be enumerated among any of the political confederacies,
but which acted for themselves, and pursued their individual
ends: such were the Burgundians, the Alans, the Vandals, and
the Lombards."
T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
R. G. Latham,
Nationalities of Europe,
volume 2, chapter 21.
See, also,
ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI; QUADI; GOTHS;
GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES, FRANKS;
BURGUNDIANS; VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS;
and, also, Appendix A, volume 1.
GERMANY: A. D. 277.
Invasion by Probus.
The vigorous emperor Probus, who, in the year 277, drove from
Gaul the swarms of invaders that had ravaged the unhappy
province with impunity for two years past, then crossed the
Rhine and harried the country of the marauders, as far as the
Elbe and the Neckar. "Germany, exhausted by the ill success of
the last emigration, was astonished by his presence. Nine of
the most considerable princes repaired to his camp and fell
prostrate at his feet. Such a treaty was humbly received by
the Germans as it pleased the conqueror to dictate." Probus
then caused a stone wall, strengthened at intervals with
towers, to be built from the Danube, near Neustadt and
Ratisbon, to Wimpfen on the Neckar, and thence to the Rhine,
for the protection of the settlers of the "Agri Decumates."
But the wall was thrown down, a few years afterwards, by the
Alemanni.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 12.
GERMANY: 5th Century.
Conversion of the Franks.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
Acquisition of supremacy by the Franks.
The original dominions of Clovis, or Chlodwig--with whose
reign the career of the Franks as a consolidated people
began--corresponded nearly to the modern kingdom of Belgium.
His first conquests were from the Romans, in the neighboring
parts of Gaul, and when those were finished, "the king of the
Franks began to look round upon the other German nations
settled upon its soil, with a view to the further extension of
his power. A quarrel with the Alemanni supplied the first
opportunity for the gratification of his ambition. For more
than a century the Alemanni had been in undisturbed possession
of Alsace, and the adjoining districts; Mainz, Worms, Speyer,
Strasburg, Basel, Constanz, Bregenz, lay within their
territory. ... The Vosegen range was a bulwark on the side of
Gaul, waste lands separated them from the Burgundians, who
were settled about the Jura and in the south-west part of
Helvetia, and the Moselle divided them from the Ripuarian
Franks. It is unknown whether they formed a state distinct
from their brethren on the right of the Rhine; probably such
was the case, for the Alemanni, at all times, were divided
into separate tribes, between which, however, was generally a
common union; nor is it certain whether the Alsatian Alemanni
were under one or several Adelings; a single king is mentioned
as having fallen in the battle with Chlodwig, who may have
been merely an elected military leader.
{1433 and 1434 moved forward for continuity}
{1435}
Equally obscure is the cause of their war with Chlodwig,
though it has been assumed, perhaps too hastily, by all recent
historians, that the Frank king became involved in it as an
ally of the Ripuarians. The Ripuarian Franks were settled, as
the name imports, upon the banks of the Rhine, from the
Moselle downwards; their chief seat was the city of Cologne.
It is probable that they consisted of the remains of the
ancient Ubii, strengthened by the adventurers who crossed over
on the first invasion, and the name implies that they were
regarded by the Romans as a kind of limitanean soldiery. For,
in the common parlance of the Romans of that period, the tract
of land lying along the Rhine was called Ripa, in an absolute
sense, and even the river itself was not unfrequently
denominated by the same title. Ripuarii are Ripa-wehren,
Hreop, or Hrepa-wehren, defenders of the shore. About the
close of the fifth century these Ripuarii were under the
government of a king, named Sigebert, usually called 'the
lance.' The story told by modern writers is, that this
Sigebert, having fallen into dispute with the Alemanni, called
upon Chlodwig for assistance, a call which the young king
willingly listened to. The Alemanni had invaded the Ripuarian
territory, and advanced within a short distance of Cologne,
when Chlodwig and his Franks joined the Ripuarii; a battle
took place at Zülpich, about twenty-two English miles from
Cologne, which, after a fierce struggle, ended in the defeat
of the Alemanni. ... Chlodwig was following up his victory
over the Alemanni, perhaps with unnecessary ferocity, when he
was stopped in his course by a flattering embassy from the
great Theodorich. Many of the Alemanni had submitted, after
the death of their chief, on the field of battle. 'Spare us,'

they cried, 'for we are now thy people!' but there were many
who, abhorring the Frank yoke, fled towards the south, and
threw themselves under the protection of the Ostrogothic king,
who had possessed himself of the ancient Rhætia and
Vindelicia."
T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 2, chapter 4.
The sons of Clovis pushed their conquests on the Germanic as
well as on the Gallic side of the Rhine. Theodoric, or
Theuderik, who reigned at Metz, with the aid of his brother
Clotaire, or Chlother, of Soissons, subjugated the
Thuringians, between A. D. 515 and 528. "How he [Theuderik]
acquired authority over the Alemans and the Bavarians is not
known. Perhaps in the subjugation of Thuringia he had taken
occasion to extend his sway over other nations; but from this
time forth we find not only these, but the Saxons more to the
north, regarded as the associates or tributaries of the
Eastern or Ripuarian Franks. From the Elbe to the Meuse, and
from the Northern Ocean to the sources of the Rhine, a region
comprising a great part of ancient Germany, the ascendency of
the Franks was practically acknowledged, and a kingdom was
formed [Austrasia--Oster-rike--the Eastern Kingdom] which was
destined to overshadow all the other Mérovingian states; The
various tribes which composed its Germanic accretions, remote
and exempt from the influences of the Roman civilization,
retained their fierce customs and their rude superstitions,
and continued to be governed by their hereditary dukes; but
their wild masses marched under the standards of the Franks,
and conceded to those formidable conquerors a certain degree
of political supremacy." When, in 558, Clotaire, by the death
of his brothers, became the sole king of the Franks, his
empire embraced all Roman Gaul, except Septimania, still held
by the Visigoths, and Brittany, but slightly subjected; "while
in ancient Germany, from the Rhine to the Weser, the powerful
duchies of the Alemans, the Thuringians, the Bavarians, the
Frisons, and the Saxons, were regarded not entirely as
subject, and yet as tributary provinces." During the next
century and a half, the feebleness of the Merovingians lost
their hold upon these German tributaries. "As early as the
time of Chlother II. the Langobards had recovered their
freedom; under Dagobert [622-638], the Saxons; under Sighebert
II. [638-656], the Thuringians; and now, during the late
broils [670-687], the Alemans, the Bavarians and the Frisons."
But the vigorous Mayors of the Palace, Pepin Heristal and Karl
Martel, applied themselves resolutely to the restoration of
the Frank supremacy, in Germany as well as in Aquitaine. Pepin
"found the task nearly impossible. Time and again he assailed the
Frisons, the Saxons, the Bavarians, and the Alemans, but could
bind them to no truce nor peace for any length of time. No
less than ten times the Frisons resumed their arms, while the
revolts of the others were so incessant that he was compelled
to abandon all hope of recovering the southern or Roman part
of Gaul, in order to direct his attention exclusively to the
Germans. The aid which he received from the Christian
missionaries rendered him more successful among them. Those
intrepid propagandists pierced where his armies could not. ...
The Franks and the Popes of Rome had a common interest in this
work of the conversion of the Germans, the Franks to restrain
irruptions, and the Popes to carry their spiritual sway over
Europe." Pepin left these unfinished German wars to his son
Karl, the Hammer, and Karl prosecuted them with characteristic
energy during his first years of power. "Almost every month he
was forced into some expedition beyond the Rhine. ... The
Alemans, the Bavarians, and the Frisons, he succeeded in
subjecting to a formal confession at least of the Frankish
supremacy; but the turbulent and implacable Saxons baffled his
most strenuous efforts. Their wild tribes had become, within a
few years, a powerful and numerous nation; they had
appropriated the lands of the Thuringians and Hassi, or Catti,
and joined to themselves other confederations and tribes; and,
stretching from the Rhine to the Elbe, offered their marshes
and forests a free asylum to all the persecuted sectaries of
Odhinn, to all the lovers of native and savage independence.
Six times in succession the armies of Karl penetrated the
wilderness they called their home, ravaging their fields and
burning their cabins, but the Saxon war was still renewed. He
left it to the energetic labors of other conquerors, to
Christian missionaries, ... to break the way of civilization
into those rude and darkened realms." Karl's sons Pepin and
Karloman crushed revolts of the Alemans, or Suabians, and the
Bavarians in 742, and Karloman humbled the Saxons in a great
campaign (744), compelling them in large numbers to submit to
Christian baptism. After that, Germany waited for its first
entire master--Charlemagne.
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 12-15.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapters 2-6.
See, also,
FRANKS, and AUSTRASIA.
{1433 moved here for continuity}
FIFTH CENTURY.
CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.
* Uncertain date.
A. D. 402.
Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.
Birth of Phocion* (d. 317).
404.
Removal of the capital of the Western Empire from Rome to
Ravenna.*
Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom, from
Constantinople; burning of the Church of Saint Sophia.
406.
Barbarian inroad of Radagaisus into Italy.
Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes;
overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans, Suevi, and
Burgundians.
407.
Usurpation of Constantine in Britain and Gaul.
408.
Death of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius, and accession of
Theodosius II.
Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna;
massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy;
blockade of Rome by Alaric.
409.
Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Suevi, and Alans.
410.
Siege, capture and pillage of Rome by Alaric; his death.
Abandonment of Britain by the Empire.
The barbarian attack upon Gaul joined by the Franks.
412.
Gaul entered by the Visigoths
Cyril made Patriarch of Alexandria.
414.
Title of Augusta taken by Pulcheria at Constantinople.
415.
Visigothic conquest of Spain begun.
Persecution of Jews at Alexandria; death of Hypatia.
418.
Founding of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse in Aquitaine.
422.
War between Persia and the Eastern Empire
partition of Armenia.
423.
Death of Honorius, Emperor in the West;
usurpation of John the Notary.
425.
Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III., under the
regency of Placidia; formal and legal separation of the
Eastern and Western Empires.
428.
Conquests of the Vandals in Spain.
Nestorius made Patriarch of Constantinople.
429.
Vandal conquests in Africa begun.
430.
Siege of Hippo Regius in Africa;
death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.
431.
Third General Council of the Church, held at Ephesus.
433.
Beginning of the reign of Attila, king of the Huns. *
435.
Nestorius exiled to the Libyan desert.
439.
Carthage taken by the Vandals.
440.
Leo the Great elected Pope.
441.
Invasion of the Eastern Empire by Attila and the Huns.
443.
Conquest and settlement of Savoy by the Burgundians.
446.
Thermopylæ passed by the Huns;
humiliating purchase of peace with them by the Eastern
Emperor.
449.
Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa.*
Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.
450.
Death of the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II., and accession of
Pulcheria.
451.
Great defeat of the Huns at Chalons;
retreat of Attila from Gaul.
Fourth General Council of the Church, held at Chalcedon.
452.
Invasion of Italy by Attila; origin of Venice.
453.
Death of Attila; dissolution of his empire.
Death of Pulcheria, Empress in the East.
455.
Murder of Valentinian III., Emperor in the West;
usurpation of Maximus.
Rome pillaged by the Vandals.
Birth of Theodoric the Great (d. 526).
456.
Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian mercenaries,
in the Western Empire; Avitus deposed.
457.
Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer, raised to
the throne of the Western Empire.
Accession of Leo I., Emperor in the East.
461.
Marjorian deposed; Severus made Emperor in the West.
Death of Pope Leo the Great and election of Pope Hilarius.
467.
Anthemius made Emperor in the West.
472.
Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer;
death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer;
Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.
473.
Ostrogothic invasion of Italy diverted to Gaul.
474.
Julius Nepos Emperor in the West;
accession of Zeno in the Eastern Empire.
475.
Romulus Augustulus made Emperor in the West.
476.
Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer:
extinction for more than three centuries of the Western line
of emperors.
477.
Beginning of Saxon conquests in Britain.
480.
Birth of Saint Benedict (d. 543).
481.
Founding of the Frank kingdom by Clovis.
486.
Overthrow of the kingdom of Syagrius, the last Roman
sovereignty in Gaul.
488.
Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the Eastern
Emperor to invade Italy.
489.
Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Verona.
491.
Accession of Anastasius, Emperor in the East.
Capture of Anderida by the South Saxons.
492.
Election of Pope Gelasius I.
493.
Surrender of Odoacer at Ravenna;
his murder;
Theodoric king of Italy.
494. Landing of Cerdic and his band of Saxons in Britain. *
496.
Defeat of the Alemanni at Tolbiac by Clovis, king of the Franks;
baptism of Clovis.
{1434 moved here for continuity}
SIXTH CENTURY.
CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.
* Uncertain date.
A. D. 504.
Expulsion of the Alemanni from the Middle Rhine by the Franks.
505.
Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.
507.
Overthrow of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse by Clovis.
511.
Death of Clovis;
partition of the Frank kingdom among his sons.
Monophysite riot at Constantinople.
512.
Second Monophysite riot at Constantinople.
515.
Publication of the monastic rule of Saint Benedict.
518.
Death of the Eastern Emperor, Anastasius, and accession of
Justin I.
519.
Cerdic and Cynric become kings of the West Saxons.
525.
Execution of Boethius and Symmachus by Theodoric, king of
Italy.
526.
Death of Theodoric and accession of Athalaric.
Great earthquake at Antioch.
War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.
527.
Accession of Justinian in the Eastern Empire.
528.
Conquest of Thuringia by the Franks.
529.
Defeat of the Persians, at Dara, by the Roman general
Belisarius.
Closing of the schools at Athens.
Publication of the Code of Justinian.
531.
Accession of Chosroes, or Nushirvan, to the throne of Persia.
532.
End of War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.
Nika sedition at Constantinople.
533.
Overthrow of the Vandal kingdom in Africa by Belisarius.
Publication of the Pandects of Justinian.
534.
Conquest of the Burgundians by the Franks.
535.
Recovery of Sicily from the Goths by Belisarius.
536.
Rome taken from the Goths by Belisarius for Justinian.
537.
Unsuccessful siege of Rome by the Goths.
539.
Destruction of Milan by the Goths.
Invasion of Italy by the Franks.
540.
Surrender of Ravenna to Belisarius;
his removal from command.
Invasion of Syria by Chosroes, king of Persia;
storming and sacking of Antioch.
Formal relinquishment of Gaul to the Franks by Justinian.
Vigilius made Pope.
541.
Gothic successes under Totila, in Italy.
End of the succession of. Roman Consuls.
Defense of the East by Belisarius.
542.
Great Plague in the Roman Empire.
543.
Surrender of Naples to Totila.
Death of Saint Benedict.
Invasion of Spain by the Franks.
544.
Belisarius again in command in Italy.
546.
Totila's siege, capture and pillage of Rome.
547.
The city of Rome totally deserted for six weeks.
Founding of the kingdom of Bernicia (afterward included in
Northumberland) in England.
Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.
548.
Death of the Eastern Empress, Theodora.
549.
Second siege and capture of Rome by Totila.
Beginning of the Lazic War.
552.
Totila defeated and killed by the imperial army under Narses.
553.
End of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy;
restoration of the imperial sovereignty.
Fifth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople.
Establishment of the Exarch at Ravenna, representing the
Emperor at Constantinople.
555.
Pelagius I. made Pope.
558.
Reunion of the Frank empire under Clothaire I.
560.
John III. made Pope.
563.
Founding of the monastery of Iona, in Scotland, by Saint Columba.
565.
Death of Belisarius and of the Eastern Emperor Justinian;
accession of Justin II.
566.
Conquest of the Gepidæ in Dacia by the Lombards and Avars.
567.
Division of the Frank dominion into the three kingdoms of
Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.
568.
Invasion of Italy by the Lombards;
siege of Pavia.
570.
Birth of Mahomet. *
572.
Renewed war of the Eastern Empire with Persia.
573.
Murder of Alboin, king of the Lombards.
Subjugation of the Suevi by the Visigoths in Spain.
574.
Benedict I. made Pope.
578.
Accession of the Eastern Emperor Tiberius Constantinus.
Pelagius II. made Pope.
582.
Accession of Maurice, Emperor in the East.
588.
Kingdom of Northumberland, in England, founded by the union of
Bernicia and Deira under Æthelric.
589.
Abandonment of Arianism by the Goths in Spain.
590.
Gregory the Great elected Pope.
591.
Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.
597.
Mission of Saint Augustine to England.
Death of Saint Columba.
---------End of moved pages 1433 and 1434----------
{1436}
GERMANY: A. D. 687-800.
Rise of the Carolingians and the Empire of Charlemagne.
"Towards the close of the Merovingian period, ... the kingdom
of the Franks ... was divided into four great districts, or
kingdoms as they were called: Austrasia, or the eastern
kingdom, from the river Rhine to the Meuse, with Metz as its
principal city; Neustria, or the western kingdom, extending
from Austrasia to the ocean on the west, and to the Loire on
the south; Aquitaine, south of that river to the foot of the
Pyrenees; and Burgundy, from the Rhone to the Alps, including
Switzerland. These four kingdoms became, before the extinction
of the Merovingian race, consolidated into two,--viz., Austrasia
and Neustria, Eastern and Western Francia,--modern Germany
and modern France, roughly speaking,--of which the first was
to gain the pre-eminence, as it was the seat of the power of
that race of Charlemagne which seized upon the kingdoms of the
Merovingians. But in these kingdoms, while the family of
Clovis occupied them, the royal power became more and more
feeble as time went on, a condition which is illustrated by
the title given in history to these kings,--that of 'rois
fainéants.'... The most powerful officer of a Frankish king
was his steward, or, as he was called, the mayor of his
palace. ... In Austrasia the office had become hereditary in
the family of Pepin of Landen (a small village near Liège),
and under its guidance the degenerate children of Clovis in
that kingdom fought for the supremacy with those equally
degenerate in Neustria, at that time also under the real
control of another mayor of the palace, called Ebroin. The
result of this struggle, after much bloodshed and misery, was
reached in the year 687 at the battle of Testry, in which the
Austrasians completely defeated the Neustrians. ... The
Merovingian princes were still nominally kings, while all the
real power was in the hands of the descendants of Pepin of
Landen, mayors of the palace, and the policy of government was
as fully settled by them as if they had been kings de jure as
well as de facto. This family produced in its earlier days
some persons who have become among the most conspicuous
figures in history:--Pepin, the founder; Pepin le Gros, of
Héristal; Charles, his son, commonly called Martel, or the
Hammerer; Pepin le Bref, under whom the Carlovingian dynasty
was, by aid of the Pope, recognized as the lawful successor of
the Merovingians, even before the extinction of that race;
and, lastly, Charles, surnamed the Great, or Charlemagne, one
of the few men of the human race who, by common consent, have
occupied the foremost rank in history. ... The object of Pepin
of Héristal was two-fold,--to repress the disposition of the
turbulent nobles to encroach upon the royal authority, and to
bring again under the yoke of the Franks those tribes in
Germany who had revolted against the Frankish rule owing to
the weakness of the Merovingian government. He measurably
accomplished both objects. ... He seems to have had what
perhaps is the best test at all times of the claims of a man
to be a real statesman: some consciousness of the true nature
of his mission,--the establishment of order. ... His son and
successor, Charles Martel, was even more conspicuous for the
possession of this genius of statesmanship, but he exhibited
it in a somewhat different direction. He, too, strove to hold
the nobles in check, and to break the power of the Frisian and
the Saxon tribes; and he fought besides, fortunately for his
fame, one of the fifteen decisive battles in the history of
the world, that of Poitiers, in 732, by which the Saracens,
who had conquered Spain, and who had strong hopes of gaining
possession of the whole of Western Europe, were driven back
from Northern France, never to return. ... His son, Pepin le
Bref, is equally conspicuous with the rest in history, but in
a somewhat different way. He continued the never-ending wars
in Germany and in Gaul with the object of securing peace by
the sword, and with more or less success. But his career is
noteworthy principally because he completed the actual
deposition of the last of the Merovingian race, whose nominal
servants but real masters he and his predecessors, mayors of
the palace, had been, and because he sought and obtained the
sanction of the Church for this usurpation. ... The Pope's
position at this time was one of very great embarrassment.
Harassed by the Lombards, who were not only robbers, but who
were also Arians, and who admitted none of the Catholic clergy
to their councils,--with no succor from the Emperors at
Constantinople (whose subject he nominally was) against the
Lombards, and, indeed, in open revolt against them because as
bishop and patriarch of the West he had forbidden the
execution of the decree against the placing of images in the
churches,--for these and many such reasons he sorely needed
succor, and naturally in his necessity he turned to the
powerful King of the Franks. The coronation of Pepin le Bref,
first by St. Boniface, and then by the Pope himself, was the
first step in the fulfilment of the alliance on his part.
Pepin was soon called upon to do his share of the work. Twice
at the bidding of the Pope he descended from the Alps, and,
defeating the Lombards, was rewarded by him and the people of
Rome with the title of Patrician. ... On the death of Pepin,
the Lombards again took up arms and harassed the Church's
territory. Charlemagne, his successor, was called upon to come
to the rescue, and he swept the Lombard power in Italy out of
existence, annexing its territory to the Frankish kingdom, and
confirming the grant of the Exarchate and of the Pentapolis
which his father had made to the Popes. This was in the year
774. ... For twenty-five years Charlemagne ruled Rome
nominally as Patrician, under the supremacy, equally nominal,
of the Emperor at Constantinople. The true sovereign,
recognized as such, was the Pope or Bishop of Rome, but the
actual power was in the hands of the mob, who at one time
towards the close of the century, in the absence of both
Emperor and Patrician, assaulted the Pope while conducting a
procession, and forced him to abandon the city. This Pope,
Leo, with a fine instinct as to the quarter from which succor
could alone come, hurried to seek Charlemagne, who was then in
Germany engaged in one of his never-ending wars against the
Saxons. The appeal for aid was not made in vain, and Charles
descended once more from the Alps in the summer of 799, with
his Frankish hosts. On Christmas day, A. D. 800, in the Church
of St. Peter ... Pope Leo, during the mass, and after the
reading of the gospel, placed upon the brow of Charlemagne,
who had abandoned his northern furs for the dress of a Roman
patrician, the diadem of the Cæsars, and hailed him Imperator
Semper Augustus, while the multitude shouted, 'Carolo, Augusto
a Deo coronato magno et pacifico Imperatori Vita et Victoria.'
In that shout and from that moment one of the most fruitful
epochs of history begins."
C. J. Stillé,
Studies in Mediæval History,
chapter 3.
See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
{1437}
GERMANY: A. D. 800.
Charlemagne's restoration of the Roman Empire.
"Three hundred and twenty-four years had passed since the last
Cæsar of the West resigned his power into the hands of the
senate, and left to his Eastern brother the sole headship of
the Roman world. To the latter Italy had from that time been
nominally subject; but it was only during one brief interval,
between the death of Totila the last Ostrogothic king and the
descent of Alboin the first Lombard, that his power had been
really effective. In the further provinces, Gaul, Spain,
Britain, it was only a memory. But the idea of a Roman Empire
as a necessary part of the world's order had not vanished: it
had been admitted by those who seemed to be destroying it; it
had been cherished by the Church; was still recalled by laws
and customs; was dear to the subject populations, who fondly
looked back to the days when slavery was at least mitigated by
peace and order. ... Both the extinction of the Western Empire
in [A.D. 476] ... and its revival in A. D. 800 have been very
generally misunderstood in modern times. ... When Odoacer
compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, he did not
abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but caused it
to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from
that time there was, as there had been before Diocletian, a
single undivided Roman Empire. In A. D. 800 the very memory of
the separate Western Empire, as it had stood from the death of
Theodosius till Odoacer, had, so far as appears, been long
since lost, and neither Leo nor Charles nor anyone among their
advisers dreamt of reviving it. They, too, like their
predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible,
and proposed by the coronation of the Frankish king, not to
proclaim a severance of the East and West, but to reverse the
act of Constantine, and make Old Rome again the civil as well
as the ecclesiastical capital of the Empire that bore her
name. ... Although therefore we must in practice speak during
the next seven centuries (down till A. D. 1453, when
Constantinople fell before the Mohammedan) of an Eastern and a
Western Empire, the phrase is in strictness incorrect, and was
one which either court ought to have repudiated. The
Byzantines always did repudiate it; the Latins usually;
although, yielding to facts, they sometimes condescended to
employ it themselves. But their theory was always the same.
Charles was held to be the legitimate successor, not of
Romulus Augustulus, but of Basil, Heraclius, Justinian,
Arcadius, and all the Eastern line. ... North Italy and Rome
ceased for ever to own the supremacy of Byzantium; and while
the Eastern princes paid a shameful tribute to the Mussulman,
the Frankish Emperor--as the recognised head of
Christendom--received from the patriarch of Jerusalem the keys
of the Holy Sepulchre and the banner of Calvary; the gift of
the Sepulchre itself, says Eginhard, from Aaron king of the
Persians [the Caliph Haroun el Rashid]. ... Four centuries
later, when Papacy and Empire had been forced into the mortal
struggle by which the fate of both was decided, three distinct
theories regarding the coronation of Charles will be found
advocated by three different parties, all of them plausible,
all of them to some extent misleading. The Swabian Emperors
held the crown to have been won by their great predecessor as
the prize of conquest, and drew the conclusion that the
citizens and bishop of Rome had no rights as against
themselves. The patriotic party among the Romans, appealing to
the early history of the Empire, declared that by nothing but the
voice of their senate and people could an Emperor be lawfully
created, he being only their chief magistrate, the temporary
depositary of their authority. The Popes pointed to the
indisputable fact that Leo imposed the crown, and argued that
as God's earthly vicar it was then his, and must always
continue to be their right to give to whomsoever they would an
office which was created to be the handmaid of their own. Of
these three it was the last view that eventually prevailed."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 4-5.
ALSO IN:
J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
chapter 14.
See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
GERMANY: A. D. 805.
Conquest of the Avars.
Creation of the Austrian March.
See AVARS, and AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
GERMANY: A. D. 814-843.
Division of the Empire of Charlemagne.
"There was a manifest conflict, during his later years, in the
court, in the councils, in the mind of Charlemagne [who died
in 814], between the King of the Franks and the Emperor of the
West; between the dissociating, independent Teutonic
principle, and the Roman principle of one code, one dominion,
one sovereign. The Church, though Teutonic in descent, was
Roman in the sentiment of unity. ... That unity had been
threatened by the proclaimed division of the realm between the
sons of Charlemagne. The old Teutonic usage of equal
distribution seemed doomed to prevail over the august unity of
the Roman Empire. What may appear more extraordinary, the
kingdom of Italy was the inferior appanage: it carried not
with it the Empire, which was still to retain a certain
supremacy; that was reserved for the Teutonic sovereign. It
might seem as if this were but the continuation of the Lombard
kingdom, which Charlemagne still held by the right of
conquest. It was bestowed on Pepin; after his death entrusted
to Bernhard, Pepin's illegitimate but only son. Wiser counsels
prevailed. The two elder sons of Charlemagne died without
issue; Louis the third son was summoned from his kingdom of
Aquitaine, and solemnly crowned [813] at Aix-la-Chapelle, as
successor to the whole Empire."
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2).
{1438}
"Instead of being preoccupied with the care of keeping the
empire united, Louis divided it in the year 817 by giving
kingdoms to his three sons. The eldest, Lothaire, had Italy;
Louis, Bavaria; Pepin, Aquitaine. A nephew of the emperor,
Bernard, imagined himself wronged by this partition, and took
up arms to hold Italy. Vanquished without striking a blow, he
delivered himself up to his uncle, who caused his eyes to be
put out. He expired under that torture. Louis reproached
himself later for that cruel death, and to expiate it,
subjected himself to a public penance. In 823, there was born
to him a fourth son. To make him a sharer of his inheritance,
the emperor, annulling in 829 the partition of 817, gave him
Germany, thus depriving his elder sons of part of the
inheritance previously assigned them. This provoked the
resentment of those princes; they rose in rebellion against
their father, and the rest of the reign of Louis was only a
succession of impious contests with his turbulent sons. In
833, he deposed Pepin, and gave his kingdom of Aquitaine to
his youngest born, Charles. Twice deposed himself, and twice
restored, Louis only emerged from the cloister, for which he
was so well fitted, to repeat the same faults. When Louis the
Good-natured died in 840, it was not his cause only which he
had lost through his weakness, but that of the empire. Those
intestine quarrels presaged its dismemberment, which ere long
happened. The sons of Louis, to serve their own ambition, had
revived the national antipathies of the different races.
Lothaire placed himself at the head of the Italians; Louis
rallied the Germans round him, and Charles the Bald the Franks
of Gaul, who were henceforward called Frenchmen. Those three
peoples aspired to break up the union whose bond Charlemagne
had imposed upon them, as the three brothers aspired to form
each for himself a kingdom. The question was decided at the
great battle of Fontanet, near Auxerre, in 841. Lothaire, who
fought therein for the preservation of the empire and of his
authority, was conquered. By the treaty of Verdun [843--see
VERDUN, TREATY OF] it was decided that Louis should have
Germany to the east of the Rhine; Charles, France to the west
of the Scheld, the Meuse, the Saone, and the Rhone; finally,
Lothaire, Italy, with the long range of country comprised
between the Alps and the Cevennes, the Jura, the Saone, the
Rhine, and the Meuse, which from his name was called
Lotharingia. This designation is still to be traced in one of
the recently French provinces, Lorraine."
S. Menzies,
History of Europe from the Decadence of
the Western Empire to the Reformation,
chapter. 13.
GERMANY: A. D. 843.
Accession of Louis II.
GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
Treaty of Verdun.
Definite separation from France.
The kingdom of the East Franks.
The partition of the empire of Charlemagne among his three
grandsons, by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, gave to Charles
the Bald a kingdom which nearly coincided with France, as
afterwards existing under that name, "before its Burgundian
and German annexations.
See VERDUN, TREATY OF;
also, FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.
It also founded a kingdom which roughly answered to the later
Germany before its great extension to the East at the expense
of the Slavonic nations. And as the Western kingdom was formed
by the addition of Aquitaine to the Western Francia, so the
Eastern kingdom was formed by the addition of the Eastern
Francia to Bavaria. Lewis of Bavaria [surnamed 'the German']
became king of a kingdom which we are tempted to call the
kingdom of Germany. Still it would as yet be premature to
speak of France at all, or even to speak of Germany, except in
the geographical sense. The two kingdoms are severally the
kingdoms of the Eastern and of the Western Franks. ... The
Kings had no special titles, and their dominions had no
special names recognized in formal use. Every king who ruled
over any part of the ancient Francia was a king of the Franks.
... The Eastern part of the Frankish dominions, the lot of
Lewis the German and his successors, is thus called the
Eastern Kingdom, the Teutonic Kingdom. Its king is the King of
the East-Franks, sometimes simply the King of the Eastern men,
sometimes the King of Germany. ... The title of King of
Germany is often found in the ninth century as a description,
but it was not a formal title. The Eastern king, like other
kings, for the most part simply calls himself' Rex,' till the
time came when his rank as King of Germany, or of the
East-Franks, became simply a step towards the higher title of
Emperor of the Romans. ... This Eastern or German kingdom, as
it came out of the division of 887 [after the deposition of
Charles III., called Charles the Fat,. who came to the throne
in 881, and who had, momentarily reunited all the Frankish
crowns, except that of Burgundy], had, from north to south,.
nearly the same extent as the Germany of later times. It
stretched from the Alps to the Eider. Its southern boundaries
were somewhat fluctuating. Verona and Aquileia are sometimes
counted as a German march, and the boundary between, Germany
and Burgundy, crossing the modern Switzerland, often changed.
To the north-east the kingdom hardly stretched beyond the
Elbe, except in the small Saxon land between the Elbe and the
Eider [called 'Saxony beyond the Elbe'--modern Holstein]. The
great extension of the German power over the Slavonic lands
beyond the Elbe had hardly yet begun. To the southeast lay the
two border-lands or marks; the Eastern Mark, which grew into
the later duchy of, Oesterreich or the modern Austria, and to
the south of it the mark of Kärnthen or Carinthia. But the
main part of the kingdom consisted of the great duchies of
Saxony, Eastern Francia, Alemannia, and Bavaria. Of these the
two names of Saxony and Bavaria must be carefully marked as
having widely different meanings from those which they bear on
the modern map. Ancient Saxony lies, speaking roughly, between
the Eider, the Elbe, and the Rhine, though it never actually
touches the last-named river. To the south of Saxony lies the
Eastern Francia, the centre and kernel of the German kingdom.
The Main and the Neckar both join the Rhine within its
borders. To the south of Francia lie Alemannia and Bavaria.
This last, it must be remembered, borders on Italy, with
Bötzen for its frontier town. Alemannia is the land in which
both the Rhine and the Danube take their source; it stretches
on both sides of the Bodensee or Lake of Constanz, with the
Rætian Alps as its southern boundary. For several ages to
come, there is no distinction, national or even provincial,
between the lands north and south of the Bodensee."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1.
ALSO IN:
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volumes 1-2.
On the indefiniteness of the name of the Germanic kingdom in
this period,
See FRANCE: 9TH CENTURY.
GERMANY: A. D. 881.
Accession of Charles III. (called The Fat), afterwards King of
all the Franks and Emperor.
GERMANY: A. D. 888.
Accession of Arnulf, afterwards Emperor.
GERMANY: A. D. 899.
Accession of Louis III. (called The Child).
GERMANY: A. D. 911.
Election of Conrad I.
{1439}
GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.
Conrad the Franconian and Henry the Fowler.
Beginning of the Saxon line.
Hungarian invasion.
The building of towns.
In 911, on the death of Louis, surnamed the Child, the German
or East-Frank branch of the dynasty of Charlemagne had become
extinct. "There remained indeed Charles the Simple,
acknowledged as king in some parts of France, but rejected in
others, and possessing no personal claims to respect. The
Germans therefore wisely determined to chose a sovereign from
among themselves. They were at this time divided into five
nations, each under its own duke, and distinguished by
difference of laws, as well as of origin; the Franks, whose
territory, comprising Franconia and the modern Palatinate, was
considered as the cradle of the empire, and who seem to have
arrogated some superiority over the rest, the Suabians, the
Bavarians, the Saxons ... and the Lorrainers, who occupied the
left bank of the Rhine as far as its termination. The choice
of these nations in their general assembly fell upon Conrad,
duke of Franconia, according to some writers, or at least a
man of high rank, and descended through females from
Charlemagne. Conrad dying without male issue, the crown of
Germany was bestowed [A. D. 919] upon Henry the Fowler, duke
of Saxony, ancestor of the three Othos, who followed him in
direct succession. To Henry, and to the first Otho [A. D.
936-973], Germany was more indebted than to any sovereign
since Charlemagne."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 5.
"In 924, the Hungarians, who were as much dreaded as the angel
of destruction, re-appeared. They came from the grassy plains
of Hungary, mounted on small and ugly, but strong horses, and
swept along the Danube like a hailstorm. Wherever they came
they set fire to farms, hamlets, and towns, and killed all
living creatures or carried them off. And often they bound
their prisoners to the tails of their horses, and dragged them
along till they died from the dreadful torture. Their very
figures inspired disgust and terror, for their faces were
brown, and disfigured by scars to absolute hideousness; their
heads were shaven, and brutal ferocity and rapacity shone out
of their deep-set eyes. And though the Germans fought bravely,
these enemies always overmatched them, because they appeared
now here, now there, on their fleet horses, and fell upon
isolated districts before they were expected or could be
stopped. ... When on a sudden the terrible cry, 'The
Hungarians are coming, the Hungarians are coming,' resounded
through the land, all fled who could, as if the wild legions
of hell were marching through Saxony and Thuringia. King
Henry, however, would not fly, but encountered them in combat,
like a true knight. Yet he lost the battle, either because he
was ill, or because his soldiers were too few, and
unaccustomed to the enemy's mode of fighting, which enabled
them to conquer while they were fleeing. Henry was obliged to
shut himself up in the royal palace of Werla, near Goslar,
which he bravely defended. The Hungarians stormed it again and
again, but they could not scale the walls; while Henry's men
by a daring sally took a Hungarian chieftain prisoner, which
so terrified the besiegers that they concluded a truce for
nine years on condition that their chief should be released,
and that Henry should engage to pay a yearly tribute. Henry
submitted to the dishonourable sacrifice that he might husband
his strength for better times. ... How important it was to
have fortified places which could not be stormed by cavalry,
and therefore afforded a safe refuge to the neighbouring
peasantry, Henry recognised in 929, when the Hungarians
marched through Bavaria and Suabia to Lorraine, plundered the
time-honoured monastery of St. Gall, and burnt the suburbs of
Constance, but could not take the fortified town itself.
Henry, accordingly, published an order throughout the land,
that at suitable places large fortresses should be built, in
which every ninth man from the neighbouring district must take
garrison duty. Certainly living in towns was contrary to the
customs of the North Germans, and here and there there was
much resistance; but they soon recognised the wisdom of the
royal order, and worked night and day with such diligence that
there soon arose throughout the land towns with stately towers
and strong walls, behind whose battlements the armed burghers
defiantly awaited the Hungarians. Hamburg was then fortified,
Itzehoe built, the walls of Magdeburg, Halle, and Erfurt
extended, for these towns had stood since the time of
Charlemagne. Quedlinburg, Merseburg, Meissen, Wittenberg,
Goslar, Soest, Nordhausen, Duderstadt, Gronau, Pölde, were
rebuilt, and many others of which the old chroniclers say
nothing. Those who dwelt in the cities were called burghers,
and in order that they might not be idle they began to
practise many kinds of industry, and to barter their goods
with the peasants. The emperor encouraged the building of
towns, and granted emancipation to every slave who repaired to
a town, allowed the towns to hold fairs and markets, granted
to them the right of coining money and levying taxes, and gave
them many landed estates and forests. Under such encouragement
town life rapidly developed, and the emperor, in his disputes
with the lawless nobility, always received loyal support from
his disciplined burghers. After a few centuries the towns,
which had now generally become republics, under the name of
'free imperial towns,' became the seats of the perfection of
European trade, science, and culture. ... These incalculable
benefits are due to Henry's order to build towns."
A. W. Grübe,
Heroes of History and Legend,
chapter 8.
At the expiration of the nine years truce, the Hungarians
resumed their attacks, and were defeated by Henry in two
bloody battles.
GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.
Restoration of the Roman Empire by
Otho I. called the Great.
"Otho the Great, son and successor of Henry I., added the
kingdom of Italy to the conquests of his father, and procured
also the Imperial dignity for himself, and his successors in
Germany. Italy had become a distinct kingdom since the
revolution, which happened (888) at the death of the Emperor
Charles the Fat. Ten princes in succession occupied the throne
during the space of seventy-three years. Several of these
princes, such as Guy, Lambert, Arnulf, Louis of Burgundy, and
Berenger I., were invested with the Imperial dignity. Berenger
I., having been assassinated (924), this latter dignity ceased
entirely, and the city of Rome was even dismembered from the
kingdom of Italy. The sovereignty of that city was seized by
the famous Marozia, widow of a nobleman named Alberic. She
raised her son to the pontificate by the title of John XI.;
and the better to establish her dominion, she espoused Hugo
King of Italy (932), who became, in consequence of this
marriage, master of Rome. But Alberic, another son of Marozia,
soon stirred up the people against this aspiring princess and
her husband Hugo.
{1440}
Having driven Hugo from the throne, and shut up his mother in
prison, he assumed to himself the sovereign authority, under
the title of Patrician of the Romans. At his death (954) he
transmitted the sovereignty to his son Octavian, who, though
only nineteen years of age, caused himself to be elected pope,
by the title of John XII. This epoch was one most disastrous
for Italy. The weakness of the government excited factions
among the nobility, gave birth to anarchy, and fresh
opportunity for the depredations of the Hungarians and Arabs,
who, at this period, were the scourge of Italy, which they
ravaged with impunity. Pavia, the capital of the kingdom, was
taken, and burnt by the Hungarians. These troubles increased
on the accession of Berenger II. (950), grandson of Berenger
I. That prince associated his son Adelbert with him in the
royal dignity; and the public voice accused them of having
caused the death of King Lothaire, son and successor of Hugo.
Lothaire left a young widow, named Adelaide, daughter of
Rodolph II., King of Burgundy and Italy. To avoid the
importunities of Berenger II., who wished to compel her to
marry his son Adelbert, this princess called in the King of
Germany to her aid. Otho complied with the solicitations of
the distressed queen; and, on this occasion, undertook his
first expedition into Italy (951). The city of Pavia, and
several other places, having fallen into his hands, he made
himself be proclaimed King of Italy, and married the young
queen, his protégée. Berenger and his son, being driven for
shelter to their strongholds, had recourse to negociation.
They succeeded in obtaining for themselves a confirmation of
the royal title of Italy, on condition of doing homage for it
to the King of Germany. ... It appears that it was not without
the regret, and even contrary to the wish of Adelaide, that
Otho agreed to enter into terms of accommodation with
Berenger. ... Afterwards; however, he lent a favourable ear to
the complaints which Pope John XII. and some Italian noblemen
had addressed to him against Berenger and his son; and took
occasion, on their account, to conduct a new army into Italy
(961). Berenger, too feeble to oppose him, retired a second
time within his fortifications. Otho marched from Pavia to
Milan, and there made himself be crowned King of Italy; from
thence he passed to Rome, about the commencement of the
following year. Pope John XII., who had himself invited him,
and again implored his protection against Berenger, gave him,
at first, a very brilliant reception; and revived the Imperial
dignity in his favour, which had been dormant for thirty-eight
years. It was on the 2d of February, 962, that the Pope
consecrated and crowned him Emperor; but he had soon cause to
repent of this proceeding. Otho, immediately after his
coronation at Rome, undertook the siege of St. Leon, a
fortress in Umbria, where Berenger and his queen had taken
refuge. While engaged in the siege, he received frequent
intimations from Rome, of the misconduct and immoralities of
the Pope. The remonstrances which he thought it his duty to
make on this subject, offended the young pontiff, who
resolved, in consequence, to break off union with the Emperor.
Hurried on by the impetuosity of his character, he entered
into a negociation with Adelbert; and even persuaded him to
come to Rome, in order to concert with him measures of
defence. On the first news of this event, Otho put himself at
the head of a large detachment, with which he marched directly
to Rome. The Pope, however, did not think it advisable to wait
his approach, but fled with the King, his new ally. Otho, on
arriving at the capital, exacted a solemn oath from the clergy
and the people, that henceforth they would elect no pope
without his counsel, and that of the Emperor and his
successors. Having then assembled a council, he caused Pope
John XII. to be deposed; and Leo VIII. was elected in his
place. This latter Pontiff was maintained in the papacy, in
spite of all the efforts which his adversary made to regain
it. Berenger II., after having sustained a long siege at St.
Leon, fell at length (964) into the hands of the conqueror,
who sent him into exile at Bamberg, and compelled his son,
Adelbert, to take refuge in the court of Constantinople. All
Italy, to the extent of the ancient kingdom of the Lombards,
fell under the dominion of the Germans; only a few maritime
towns in Lower Italy, with the greater part of Apulia and
Calabria, still remained in the power of the Greeks. This
kingdom, together with the Imperial dignity, Otho transmitted
to his successors on the throne of Germany. From this time the
Germans held it to be an inviolable principle, that as the
Imperial dignity was strictly united with the royalty of
Italy, kings elected by the German nation should, at the same
time, in virtue of that election, become Kings of Italy and
Emperors. The practice of this triple coronation, viz., of
Germany, Italy, and Rome, continued for many centuries; and
from Otho the Great, till Maximilian I. (1508), no king of
Germany took the title of Emperor, until after he had been
formally crowned by the Pope."
C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe,
period 3.
"At the first glance it would seem as if the relation in which
Otho now stood to the pope was the same as that occupied by
Charlemagne; on a closer inspection, however; we find a wide
difference. Charlemagne's connexion with the see of Rome was
produced by mutual need; it was the result of long epochs of
political combination embracing the development of various
nations; their mutual understanding rested on an internal
necessity, before which all opposing views and interests gave
way. The sovereignty of Otho the Great, on the contrary,
rested on a principle fundamentally opposed to the
encroachment of spiritual influences. The alliance was
momentary; the disruption of it inevitable. But when, soon
after, the same pope who had invoked his aid, John XII.,
placed himself at the head of a rebellious faction, Otho was
compelled to cause him to be formally deposed, and to crush
the faction that supported him by repeated, exertions of
force, before he could obtain perfect obedience; he was
obliged to raise to the papal chair a pope on whose
co-operation he could rely. The popes have often asserted that
they transferred the empire to the Germans; and if they
confined this assertion to the Carolingian race, they are not
entirely wrong. The coronation of Charlemagne was the result
of their free determination. But if they allude to the German
emperors, properly so called, the contrary of their statement
is just as true; not only Carlmann and Otho the Great, but
their successors, constantly had to conquer the imperial
throne, and to defend it, when conquered, sword in hand.
{1441}
It has been said that the Germans would have done more wisely
if they had not meddled with the empire; or, at least, if they
had first worked out their own internal political
institutions, and then, with matured minds, taken part in the

general affairs of Europe. But the things of this world are
not wont to develop themselves so methodically. A nation is
often compelled by circumstances to increase its territorial
extent, before its internal growth is completed. For was it of
slight importance to its inward progress that Germany thus
remained in unbroken connexion with Italy?--the depository of
all that remained of ancient civilisation, the source whence
all the forms of Christianity had been derived. The mind of
Germany has always unfolded itself by contact with the spirit
of antiquity, and of the nations of Roman origin. ... The
German imperial government revived the civilising and
Christianising tendencies which had distinguished the reigns
of Charles Martell and Charlemagne. Otho the Great, in
following the course marked out by his illustrious
predecessors, gave it a fresh national importance by planting
German colonies in Slavonian countries simultaneously with the
diffusion of Christianity. He Germanised as well as converted
the population he had subdued. He confirmed his father's
conquests on the Saale and the Elbe, by the establishment of
the bishoprics of Meissen and Osterland. After having
conquered the tribes on the other side the Elbe in those long
and perilous campaigns where he commanded in person, he
established there, too, three bishoprics, which for a time
gave an extraordinary impulse to the progress of conversion.
... And even where the project of Germanising the population
was out of the question, the supremacy of the German name was
firmly and actively maintained. In Bohemia and Poland
bishoprics were erected under German metropolitans; from
Hamburg Christianity found its way into the north;
missionaries from Passau traversed Hungary, nor is it
improbable that the influence of these vast and sublime
efforts extended even to Russia. The German empire was the
centre of the conquering religion; as itself advanced, it
extended the ecclesiastico-military State of which the Church
was an integral part; it was the chief representative of the
unity of western Christendom, and hence arose the necessity
under which it lay of acquiring a decided ascendancy over the
papacy. This secular and Germanic principle long retained the
predominancy it had triumphantly acquired. ... How magnificent
was the position now occupied by the German nation,
represented in the persons of the mightiest princes of Europe
and united under their sceptre; at the head of an advancing
civilisation, and of the whole of western Christendom; in the
fullness of youthful aspiring strength! We must here however
remark and confess, that Germany did not wholly understand her
position, nor fulfil her mission. Above all, she did not
succeed in giving complete reality to the idea of a western
empire, such as appeared about to be established under Otho I.
Independent and often hostile, though Christian powers arose
through all the borders of Germany; in Hungary and in Poland,
in the northern as well as in the southern possessions of the
Normans; England and France were snatched again from German
influence. Spain laughed at the German claims to a universal
supremacy; her kings thought themselves emperors; even the
enterprises nearest home--those across the Elbe--were for a
time stationary or retrograde. If we seek for the causes of
these unfavourable results, we need only turn our eyes on the
internal condition of the empire, where we find an incessant
and tempestuous struggle of all the forces of the nation.
Unfortunately the establishment of a fixed rule of succession
to the imperial crown was continually prevented by events."
L. Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
introduction.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 961-1039;
and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY.
GERMANY: A. D. 955.
Great defeat and repulse of the Hungarians by Otho I.
See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.
End of the Saxon line.
Election of the Franconians.
Reformation of the Papacy.
Contest of Henry IV. with the Head of the Church.
The question of Investitures.
"Otho II. had a short and troubled reign, 973-983 A. D.,
having to repress the Slavi, the Danes, the Greeks of Lower
Italy, and to defend Lorraine against the French. He died at
Rome in his twenty-eighth year. 983 A. D. Otho III. (aged
three years) succeeded under the regency of his mother,
Theophania (a Greek princess), who had to contend with the
rebellious nobles, the Slavi, the Poles, the Bohemians, and
with France, which desired to conquer Lorraine. This able lady
died 991 A. D. Otho III. made three expeditions into Italy,
and in 998 A. D. put down the republic of Rome, which had been
created by the patrician Crescentius. The resistance of
Crescentius had been pardoned the preceding year, but on this
occasion he was publicly beheaded on the battlements of Rome,
in view of the army and of the people. In 999 A. D. Otho
placed his tutor Gerbert in the papal chair as Sylvester II.
The tutor and the emperor were in advance of their age. The
former had gleaned from Saracen translations from the Greek,
as well as from Latin literature, and was master of the
science of the day. It is supposed that they had planned to
remove the seat of empire to Rome--a project which, had he
lived, he would not have been able to carry out, for the
centre of political power had long moved northward: he died at
the early age of twenty-two, 1002 A. D. Henry II. (the Holy),
Duke of Bavaria, was elected emperor, and had to battle, like
his predecessors, with rebellious nobles, with the Poles, and
Bohemians, and the Slavi. He was thrice in Italy, and died
1024 A. D. 'Perhaps, with the single exception of St. Louis
IX., there was no other prince of the middle ages so uniformly
swayed by justice.' Conrad II. (the Salic) of Franconia was
elected emperor in a diet in the plains between Mentz and
Worms, near Oppenheim, which was attended by princes, nobles,
and 50,000 people altogether. His reign was remarkable for the
justice and mercy which he always kept in view. The kingdom of
Aries and Burgundy was united to the empire, 1033 A. D. He
checked the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Lombards, and gave
Schleswiek to Denmark as a fief. In 1037 A. D. he granted to
the lower vassals of the empire the hereditary succession to
their offices and estates, and so extended the privileges of
the great nobles, as to make them almost independent of the
crown. Henry III. succeeded, 1039 A. D., and established the
imperial power with a high hand."
W. B. Boyce,
Introduction to the Study of History,
pages 230-231.
{1442}
"Henry III. was, as sovereign, able, upright, and resolute;
and his early death--for his reign was cut short by disasters
that preyed upon his health--is one of the calamities of
history. The cause of the Roman Court he judged with vigor and
good sense. His strong hand, more than any man's, dragged the
Church out of the slough it had fallen into [see ROME: A. D.
962-1057]. ... A few years before, in 1033, a child ten years
old, son of one of the noble houses, had been put on the papal
throne, under the name of Benedict IX.; and was restored to it
by force of arms, five years later, when he had grown into a
lewd, violent, and wilful boy of fifteen. At the age of
twenty-one he was weary of the struggle, and sold out, for a
large sum of money paid down, to a rich purchaser,--first
plundering the papal treasury of all the funds he could lay
his hands on. His successor, Gregory VI., naturally complained
of his hard bargain, which was made harder by another claimant
(Sylvester III.), elected by a different party; while no law
that could possibly be quoted or invented would make valid the
purchase and sale of the spiritual sovereignty of the world,
which in theory the Papacy still was. Gregory appears to have
been a respectable and even conscientious magistrate, by the
standard of that evil time. But his open purchase of the
dignity not only gave a shock to whatever right feeling there
was left, but it made the extraordinary dilemma and scandal of
three popes at once,--a knot which the German king, now
Emperor, was called in to cut. ... The worthless Benedict was
dismissed, as having betrayed his charge. The impotent
Sylvester was not recognized at all. The respectable Gregory
was duly convinced of his deep guilt of Simony,--because he
had 'thought that the gift of God could be purchased with
money,'--and was suffered as a penitent to end his days in
peace. A fourth, a German ecclesiastic, who was clean of all
these intrigues, was set in the chair of Peter, where he
reigned righteously for two years under the name of Clement
II."
J. H. Allen,
Christian History in its Three Great Periods:
Second period,
pages 57-58.
"With the popes of Henry's appointment a new and most powerful
force rose to the control of the papacy--a strong and earnest
movement for reformation which had arisen outside the circle
of papal influence during the darkest days of its degradation,
indeed, and entirely independent of the empire. This had
started from the monastery of Cluny, founded in 910, in
eastern France, as a reformation of the monastic life, but it
involved gradually ideas of a wider reformation throughout the
whole church. Two great sins of the time, as it regarded them,
were especially attacked, the marriage of priests and simony,
or the purchase of ecclesiastical preferment for money,
including also appointments to church offices by temporal
rulers. ... The earnest spirit of Henry III. was not out of
sympathy with the demand for a real reformation, and with the
third pope of his appointment, Leo IX., in 1048, the ideas of
Cluny obtained the direction of affairs. ... One apparently
insignificant act of Leo's had important consequences. He
brought back with him to Rome the monk Hildebrand. He had been
brought up in a monastery in Rome in the strictest ideas of
Cluny, had been a supporter of Gregory VI., one of the three
rival popes deposed by Henry, who, notwithstanding his
outright purchase of the papacy, represented the new reform
demand, and had gone with him into exile on his deposition. It
does not appear that he exercised any decisive influence
during the reign of Leo IX., but so great was his ability and
such the power of his personality that very soon he became the
directing spirit in the papal policy, though his influence
over the papacy before his own pontificate was not so great
nor so constant as it has sometimes been said to have been. So
long as Henry lived the balance of power was decidedly in favor
of the emperor, but in 1056 happened that disastrous event,
which occurred so many times at critical points of imperial
history, from Arnulf to Henry VI., the premature death of the
emperor. His son, Henry IV., was only six years old at his
father's death, and a minority followed just in the crisis of
time needed to enable the feudal princes of Germany to recover
and strengthen their independence against the central
government, and to give free hands to the papacy to carry out
its plans for throwing off the imperial control. Never again
did an emperor occupy, in respect either to Germany or the
papacy, the vantage-ground on which Henry III. had stood. ...
The triumph of the reform movement and of its ecclesiastical
theory is especially connected with the name of Hildebrand, or
Gregory VII., as he called himself when pope, and was very
largely, if not entirely, due to his indomitable spirit and
iron will, which would yield to no persuasion or threats or
actual force. He is one of the most interesting personalities
of history. ... The three chief points which the reform party
attempted to gain were the independence of the church from all
outside control in the election of the pope, the celibacy of
the clergy, and the abolition of simony or the purchase of
ecclesiastical preferment. The foundation for the first of
these was laid under Nicholas II. by assigning the selection
of the pope to the college of cardinals in Rome, though it was
only after some considerable time that this reform was fully
secured. The second point, the celibacy of the clergy, had
long been demanded by the church, but the requirement had not
been strictly enforced, and in many parts of Europe married
clergy were the rule. ... As interpreted by the reformers, the
third of their demands, the suppression of simony, was as great a
step in advance and as revolutionary as the first.
Technically, simony was the sin of securing an ecclesiastical
office by bribery, named from the incident recorded in the
eighth chapter of the Acts concerning Simon Magus. But at this
time the desire for the complete independence of the church
had given to it a new and wider meaning which made it include
all appointment to positions in the church by laymen,
including kings and the emperor. ... According to the
conception of the public law the bishop was an officer of the
state. He had, in the great majority of cases, political
duties to perform as important as his ecclesiastical duties.
The lands which formed the endowment of his office had always
been considered as being, still more directly than any other
feudal land, the property of the state. ...
{1443}
It was a matter of vital importance whether officers
exercising such important functions and controlling so large a
part of its area--probably everywhere as much as one-third of
the territory--should be selected by the state or by some
foreign power beyond its reach and having its own peculiar
interests to seek. But this question of lay investiture was as
vitally important for the church as for the state. ... It was
as necessary to the centralization and independence of the
church that it should choose these officers as that it should
elect the head of all--the pope. This was not a question for
Germany alone. Every northern state had to face the same
difficulty. ... The struggle was so much more bitter and
obstinate with the emperor than with any other sovereign
because of the close relation of the two powers one to
another, and because the whole question of their relative
rights was bound up with it. It was an act of rebellion on the
part of the papacy against the sovereign, who had controlled
it with almost absolute power for a century, and it was rising
into an equal, or even superior, place beside the emperor of
what was practically a new power, a rival for his imperial
position. ... It was absolutely impossible that a conflict
with these new claims should be avoided as soon as Henry IV.
arrived at an age to take the government into his own hands
and attempted to exercise his imperial rights as he understood
them."
G. B. Adams,
Civilization During the Middle Ages,
chapter 10.
"At Gregory's accession, he [Henry] was a young man of
twenty-three. His violence had already driven a whole district
into rebellion. ... The Pope sided with the insurgents. He
summoned the young king to his judgment-seat at Rome;
threatened at his refusal to 'cut him off as a rotten limb';
and passed on him the awful sentence of excommunication. The
double terror of rebellion at home and the Church's curse at
length broke down the passionate pride of Henry. Humbled and
helpless, he crossed the Alps in midwinter, groping among the
bleak precipices and ice-fields,--the peasants passing him in
a rude sledge of hide down those dreadful slopes,--and went
to beg absolution of Gregory at the mountain castle of
Canossa. History has few scenes more dramatic than that which
shows the proud, irascible, crest-fallen young sovereign
confronted with the fiery, little, indomitable old man. To
quote Gregory's own words:--'Here he came with few attendants,
and for three days before the gate--his royal apparel laid
aside, barefoot, clad in wool, and weeping abundantly--he
never ceased to implore the aid and comfort of apostolic
mercy, till all there present were moved with pity and
compassion; insomuch that, interceding for him with many
prayers and tears they all wondered at my strange severity,
and some even cried out that it was not so much the severe
dignity of an apostle as the cruel wrath of a tyrant. Overcome
at length by the urgency of his appeal and the entreaties of
all present, I relaxed the bond of anathema, and received him
to the favor of communion and the bosom of our holy Mother the
Church.' It was a truce which one party did not mean nor the
other hope to keep. It was policy, not real terror or
conviction, that had led Henry to humble himself before the
Pope. It was policy, not contrition or compassion, that had
led Gregory (against his better judgment, it is said) to
accept his Sovereign's penance. In the war of policy, the man
of the world prevailed. Freed of the Church's curse, he
quickly won back the strength he had lost. He overthrew in
battle the rival whom Gregory upheld. He swept his rebellious
lands with sword and flame. He carried his victorious army to
Rome, and was there crowned Emperor by a rival Pope [1084].
Gregory himself was only saved by his ferocious allies, Norman
and Saracen, at cost of the devastation of half the
capital,--that broad belt of ruin which still covers the half
mile between the Coliseum and the Lateran gate. Then, hardly
rescued from the popular wrath, he went away to die, defeated
and heart-broken, at Salerno, with the almost despairing words
on his lips: 'I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and
therefore I die in exile!' But 'a spirit hath not flesh or
bones,' as a body hath, and so it will not stay mangled and
bruised. The victory lay, after all, with the combatant who
could appeal to fanaticism as well as force."
J. H. Allen,
Christian History in its Three Great Periods:
second period,
pages 69-72.
"Meanwhile, the Saxons had recognized Hermann of Luxemburg as
their King, but in 1087 he resigned the crown: and another
claimant, Eckbert, Margrave of Meissen, was murdered. The
Saxons were now thoroughly' weary of strife, and as years and
bitter experience had softened the character of Henry, they
were the more willing to return to their allegiance. Peace was
therefore, for a time, restored in Germany. The Papacy did not
forgive Henry. He was excommunicated several times, and in
1091 his son Conrad was excited to rebel against him. In 1104
a more serious rebellion was headed by the Emperor's second
son Henry, who had been crowned King, on promising not to
seize the government during his father's lifetime, in 1099.
The Emperor was treated very cruelly, and had to sign his own
abdication at Ingelheim in 1105. A last effort was made on his
behalf by the Duke of Lotharingia; but worn out by his sorrows
and struggles, Henry died in August, 1106. His body lay in a
stone coffin in an unconsecrated chapel at Speyer for five
years. Not till 1111, when the sentence of excommunication was
removed, was it properly buried. Henry V. was not so obedient
to the Church as the Papal party had hoped. He stoutly
maintained the very point which had brought so much trouble on
his father. The right of investiture, he declared, had always
belonged to his predecessors, and he was not to give up what
they had handed on to him. In 1110 he went to Rome,
accompanied by a large army. Next year Pope Paschal II. was
forced to crown him Emperor: but as soon as the Germans had
crossed the Alps again Paschal renewed all his old demands.
The struggle soon spread to Germany. The Emperor was
excommunicated; and the discontented princes, as eager as ever
to break the royal power, sided with the Pope against him. Peace
was not restored till 1122, when Calixtus II. was Pope. In
that year, in a Diet held at Worms, both parties agreed to a
compromise, called the Concordat of Worms."
J. Sime,
History of Germany,
chapter 8.
{1444}
"The long-desired reconciliation was effected in the form of
the following concordat. The emperor renounced the right of
investiture with the ring and crosier, and conceded that all
bishoprics of the empire should be filled by canonical
election and free consecration; the election of the German
bishops (not of the Italian and Burgundian) should be held in
presence of the emperor; the bishops elect should receive
investiture, but only of their fiefs and regalia, by the
sceptre in Germany before, in Italy and in Burgundy after,
their consecration; for these grants they should promise
fidelity to the emperor; contested elections should be decided
by the emperor in favour of him who should be considered by
the provincial synod to possess the better right. Finally he
should restore to the Roman Church all the possessions and
regalia of St. Peter. This convention secured to the Church
many things, and above all, the freedom of ecclesiastical
elections. Hitherto, the different Churches had been compelled
to give their consent to elections that had been made by the
king; but now the king was pledged to consent to the elections
made by the Churches; and although these elections took place
in his presence, he could not refuse his consent and
investiture without violating the treaty, in which he had
promised that for the future elections should be according to
the canons. This, and the great difference, that the king,
when he gave the ring and crosier, invested the bishop elect
with his chief dignity, namely, his bishopric, but now granted
him by investiture with the sceptre, only the accessories,
namely the regalia, was felt by Lothaire, the successor of
Henry, when he required of pope Innocent II. the restoration
of the right of investiture. Upon one important point, the
homage which was to be sworn to the king, the concordat was
silent. By not speaking of it, Calixtus seemed to tolerate it,
and the Roman see therefore permitted it, although it had been
prohibited by Urban and Paschal. It is certain that Calixtus
was as fully convinced as his predecessors, that the condition
of vassals, to which bishops and abbots were reduced by their
oath of homage, could hardly be reconciled with the nature and
dignity of the episcopacy, or with the freedom of the Church,
but he perhaps foresaw, that by insisting too strongly upon
its discontinuance, he might awaken again the unholy war, and
without any hopes of benefit, inflict many evils upon the
Church. Sometime later Adrian endeavoured to free the Italian
bishops from the homage, instead of which, the emperor was to
be content with an oath of fidelity: but Frederick I. would
not renounce the homage unless they resigned the regalia. The
greatest concession made by the papal see in this concordat,
was, that by its silence it appeared to have admitted the
former pretensions of the emperors to take a part in the
election of the Roman pontiff. ... In the following year the
concordat was ratified in the great council of three hundred
bishops, the ninth general council of the Church, which was
convened by Calixtus in Rome."
J. J. I. Döllinger,
History of the Church,
volume 3, pages 345-347.
See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
CANOSSA; ROME: A. D. 1081-1084;
and SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.
ALSO IN:
A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory VII.,
book 2.
Comte C. F. Montalembert,
The Monks of the West,
book 19.
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
books 6-8.
W. R. W. Stephens,
Hildebrand and His Times.
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 4.
GERMANY: A. D. 1101.
Disastrous Crusade under Duke Welf of Bavaria.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
GERMANY: A. D. 1125.
Election of Lothaire II., King, afterwards Emperor.
GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
The rise of the College of Electors.
The election of Lothaire II., in 1125, when a great assembly
of nobles and church dignitaries was convened at Mentz, and
when certain of the chiefs made a selection of candidates to
be voted for, has been regarded by some historians--Hallam,
Comyn and Dunham, for example--as indicating the origin of the
German electoral college. They have held that a right of
"pretaxation," or preliminary choice, was gradually acquired
by certain princes, which grew into the finally settled
electoral right. But this view is now looked upon as more than
questionable, and is not supported by the best authorities.
"The phrase electoral princes (electores principes) first
occurs in the Privilegium majus Austriacum, which dates from
1156, but it does not appear what princes were intended, and
the accounts extant of the elections of the rival kings,
Philip and Otho (IV.) in 1198, show beyond question that the
right of election was not then limited to a few princes. The
election of Frederick II. (1213) is only described by the
authorities in general terms. They inform us that many princes
took part in the proceedings. The following brief passage
concerning the royal elections occurs in the Auctor Vetus de
Beneficiis: 'When the king elected by the Germans goes to Rome
to be 'consecrated (the) six princes who first cast their
votes for him shall by rights accompany him that the justice
of his election may be evident to the Pope.' The
Sachsenspiegel Lehurecht substantially copies this sentence,
but designates as the six princes: 'the Bishop of Mentz and of
Treves and of Cologne, and the Palsgrave of the Rhine, the
Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg.' The
Sachsenspiegel of Landrecht is still more explicit: 'In voting
for Emperor, the first shall be the Bishop of Mentz; the
second, the (Bishop) of Treves; the third, the (Bishop) of
Cologne. The first of the laymen to vote is the Palsgrave of
the Rhine, the steward of the Empire; the second, the Duke of
Saxony, the marshal; the third, the Margrave of Brandenburg,
the chamberlain. The butler of the Empire (is) the King of
Bohemia. He has no vote because he is not German.' The obvious
inference is that these three temporal princes voted before
the rest because they were respectively the steward, marshal,
and chamberlain. In the chronicle of Albert of Stade, the
inference is given as fact in these words: 'The Palsgrave
votes because he is steward, the Duke of Saxony because (he
is) marshal, and the Margrave of Brandenburg, because (he is)
chamberlain.' The mere fact that the right of casting the
first six votes attached to six particular princes implies
that their votes greatly outweighed those of their
fellow-princes, and this is well known to have been the case
in all the elections held in the thirteenth century subsequent
to that of Frederick II. Only two others were associated with
them in the double election of Richard of Cornwall and
Alphonso of Castile (1256), namely, the King of Bohemia and
the Duke of Bavaria. The whole number of participants was
therefore eight, yet Urban IV., in a letter written March 31,
1263, to Richard of Cornwall, mentions the King of Bohemia
alone as associated with them, and incidentally states that
the 'princes having a voice' in the royal elections were
'seven in number.' It seems as if this must have been the
statement of an idea rather than of a fact, although a college
of seven electors was a recognized institution ten years
later, as the circumstances attending the election of Rudolph
of Hapsburg, demonstrate."
S. E. Turner,
A Sketch of the Germanic Constitution,
chapter 4.
{1445}
The Mark of Brandenburg was raised to the rank of an
Electorate in 1356--not in 1152 as erroneously stated by
Carlyle. The Margraf then became Kurfürst--"one of the Seven
who have a right ... to choose, to 'kieren' the Romish Kaiser;
and who are therefore called Kur Princes, Kurfürste, or
Electors. ... Fürst (prince) I suppose is equivalent
originally to our noun of number, 'First.' The old verb
'kieren' (participle 'erkoren' still in use, not to mention
'Val-kyr' and other instances) is essentially the same word as
our 'choose,' being written 'kiesen' as well as 'kieren.' Nay,
say the etymologists, it is also written 'Küssen ('to
kiss,'--to choose with such emphasis!), and is not likely to
fall obsolete in that form.--The other Six Electoral
Dignitaries, who grew to Eight by degrees, and may be worth
noting once by the readers of this book, are:
1. Three Ecclesiastical, Mainz, Cöln, Trier (Mentz, Cologne,
Treves), Archbishops all. ...
2. Three Secular, Sachsen, Pfalz, Böhmen (Saxony, Palatinate,
Bohemia); of which the last, Böhmen, since it fell from being
a kingdom in itself, to being a Province of Austria, is not
very vocal in the Diets.
These Six, with Brandenburg, are the Seven Kurfürsts in old
time; Septemvirs of the Country, so to speak. But now Pfalz,
in the Thirty-Years War (under our Prince Rupert's Father,
whom the Germans call the 'Winter-King'), got abrogated, put
to the ban, so far as an indignant Kaiser could; and the vote
and Kur of Pfalz was given to his Cousin of Baiern
(Bavaria),--so far as an indignant Kaiser could.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
However, at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) it was found
incompetent to any Kaiser to abrogate Pfalz or the like of
Pfalz, a Kurfürst of the Empire. So, after jargon
inconceivable, it was settled, that Pfalz must be reinstated,
though with territories much clipped, and at the bottom of the
list, not the top as formerly; and that Baiern, who could not
stand to be balked after twenty-years possession, must be made
Eighth Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
The Ninth, we saw (Year 1692), was Gentleman Ernst of Hanover.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.
There never was any Tenth."
T. Carlyle,
Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 4.
"All the rules and requisites of the election were settled by
Charles the Fourth in the Golden Bull [A. D. 1356--see below:
A. D. 1347-1493], thenceforward a fundamental law of the
Empire."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 14.
GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
The house of Suabia, or the Hohenstaufen.
Its struggles in Germany and Italy, and its end.
The Factions of the
Guelfs and Ghibellines.
Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick the Second.
On the death of Henry V., in 1125, the male line of the house
of Franconia became extinct. Frederick, duke of Suabia, and
his brother Conrad, duke of the Franks, were grandchildren of
Henry IV. on their mother's side, and, inheriting the
patrimonial estates, were plainly the heirs of the crown, if
the crown was to be recognized as hereditary and dynastic. But
jealousy of their house and a desire to reassert the elective
dependence of the imperial office prevailed against their
claims and their ambition. At an election which was denounced
as irregular, the choice fell upon Lothaire of Saxony. The old
imperial family was not only set aside, but its bitterest
enemies were raised over it. The consequences were a feud and
a struggle which grew and widened into the long-lasting,
far-reaching, historical conflict of Guelfs and Ghibellines.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
also, SAXONY: DISSOLUTION OF THE OLD DUCHY.
The Saxon emperor Lothaire found his strongest support in the
great Wölf, Welf, or Guelf nobleman, Henry the Proud, duke of
Bavaria, to whom he (Lothaire) now gave his daughter in
marriage, together with the dukedom of Saxony, and whom he
intended to make his successor on the imperial throne. But the
scheme failed. On Lothaire's death, in 1138, the partisans of
the Suabian family carried the election of Conrad (the
Crusader--see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149), and the dynasty most
commonly called Hohenstaufen rose to power. It took the name
of Hohenstaufen from its original family seat on the lofty
hill of Staufen, in Suabia, overlooking the valley of the
Rems. Its party, in the wars and factions of the time,
received the name of the Waiblingen, from the birth-place of
the Suabian duke Frederick--the little town of Waiblingen in
Franconia. Under the tongue of the Italians, when these party
names and war-cries were carried across the Alps, Waiblingen
became Ghibelline and Welf became Guelf. During the first half
century of the reign of the Hohenstaufen, the history of
Germany is the history, for the most part, of the strife in
which the Guelf dukes, Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion, are
the central figures, and which ended in the breaking up of the
old powerful duchy of Saxony. But Italy was the great
historical field of the energies and the ambitions of the
Hohenstaufen emperors. There, Frederick Barbarossa (Frederick
Red beard, as the Italians called him), the second of the
line, and Frederick II., his adventurous grandson, fought
their long, losing battle with the popes and with the
city-republics of Lombardy and Tuscany.
U. Balzani,
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen.
Frederick Barbarossa, elected Emperor in 1152, passed into
Italy in 1154. "He came there on the invitation of the Pope,
of the Prince of Capua, and of the towns which had been
subjected to the ambition of Milan. He marched at the head of
his German feudatories, a splendid and imposing array. His
first object was to crush the power of Milan, and to exalt
that of Pavia, the head of a rival league. Nothing could stand
against him. At Viterbo he was compelled to hold the stirrup
of the Pope, and in return for this submission he received the
crown from the Pontiff's hands in the Basilica of St. Peter.
He returned northwards by the valley of the Tiber, dismissed
his army at Ancona, and with difficulty escaped safely into
Bavaria. His passage left little that was solid and durable
behind it. He had effected nothing against the King of Naples.
His friendship with the Pope was illusory and short-lived. The
dissensions of the North, which had been hushed for a moment
by his presence, broke out again as soon as his back was
turned. He had, however, received the crown of Charles the
Great from the hands of the successor of St. Peter. But
Frederick was not a man to brook easily the miscarriage of his
designs. In 1158 he collected another army at Ulm. Brescia was
quickly subdued; Lodi, which had been destroyed by the
Milanese, was rebuilt, and Milan itself was reduced to terms.
{1446}
This peace lasted but for a short time; Milan revolted, and
was placed under the ban of the Empire. The fate of Cremona
taught the Milanese what they had to expect from the clemency
of the Emperor. After a desultory warfare, regular siege was
laid to the town. On March 1, 1162, Milan, reduced by famine,
surrendered at discretion, and a fortnight later all the
inhabitants were ordered to leave the town. The circuit of the
walls was partitioned out among the most pitiless enemies of
its former greatness, and the inhabitants of Lodi, of Cremona,
of Pavia, of Novara, and of Como were encouraged to wreak
their vengeance on their defeated rival. For six days the
imperial army laboured to overturn the walls and public
buildings, and when the Emperor left for Pavia, on Palm Sunday
1162, not a fiftieth part of the city was standing. This terrible
vengeance produced a violent reaction. The homeless fugitives
were received by their ancient enemies, and local jealousies
were merged in common hatred of the common foe. Frederick had
already been excommunicated by Pope Alexander III. as the
supporter of his rival Victor. Verona undertook to be the
public vindicator of discontent. Five years after the
destruction of Milan the Lombard league numbered fifteen towns
amongst its members. Venice, Verona, Vicenza, Treviso,
Ferrara, Brescia, Bergamo, Cremona, Milan, Lodi, Piacenza,
Parma, Modena, and Bologna. The confederation solemnly engaged
to expel the Emperor from Italy. The towns on the frontier of
Piedmont asked and obtained admission to the league, and to
mark the dawn of freedom a new town was founded on the low
marshy ground which is drained by the Bormida and the Tanaro,
and which afterwards witnessed the victory of Marengo. It was
named by its founders Alessandria, in honour of the Pope, who
had vindicated their independence of the Empire. ... The
Lombard league had unfortunately a very imperfect
constitution. It had no common treasure, no uniform rules for
the apportionment of contributions; it existed solely for the
purposes of defence against the external foe. The time was not
yet come when self-sacrifice and self-abnegation could lay the
foundations of a united Italy. Frederick spent six years in
preparing vengeance. In 1174 he laid siege to the new
Alexandria, but did not succeed in taking it. A severe
struggle took place two years later. In 1176 a new army
arrived from Germany, and on May 29 Frederick Barbarossa was
entirely defeated at Legnano. In 1876 the seventh hundred
anniversary of the battle was celebrated on the spot where it
was gained, and it is still regarded as the birthday of
Italian freedom."
O. Browning,
Guelphs and Ghibellines,
chapter 1.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162 to 1174-1183.
"The end was that the Emperor had to make peace with both the
Pope and the cities, and in 1183 the rights of the cities were
acknowledged in a treaty or law of the Empire, passed at
Constanz or Constance in Swabia. In the last years of his
reign, Frederick went on the third Crusade, and died on the
way.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
Frederick was succeeded by his son Henry the Sixth, who had
already been chosen King, and who in the next year, 1191, was
crowned Emperor. The chief event of his reign was the conquest
of the Kingdom of Sicily, which he claimed in right of his
wife Constance, the daughter of the first King William. He
died in 1197, leaving his son Frederick a young child, who had
already been chosen King in Germany, and who succeeded as
hereditary King in Sicily. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily thus
came to an end, except so far as it was continued through
Frederick, who was descended from the Norman Kings through his
mother. On the death of the Emperor Henry, the election of
young Frederick seems to have been quite forgotten, and the
crown was disputed between his uncle Philip of Swabia and Otto
of Saxony. He was son of Henry the Lion, who had been Duke of
Saxony and Bavaria, but who had lost the more part of his
dominions in the time of Frederick Barbarossa. Otto's mother
was Matilda, daughter of Henry the Second of England. ... Both
Kings were crowned, and, after the death of Philip, Otto was
crowned Emperor in 1209. But presently young Frederick was
again chosen, and in 1220 he was crowned Emperor, and reigned
thirty years till his death in 1250. This Frederick the
Second, who joined together so many crowns, was called the
Wonder of the World. And he well deserved the name, for
perhaps no King that ever reigned had greater natural gifts,
and in thought and learning he was far above the age in which
he lived. In his own kingdom of Sicily he could do pretty much
as he pleased, and it flourished wonderfully in his time. But in
Germany and Italy he had constantly to struggle against
enemies of all kinds. In Germany he had to win the support of
the Princes by granting them privileges which did much to
undermine the royal power, and on the other hand he showed no
favour to the rising power of the cities. In Italy he had
endless strivings with one Pope after another, with Innocent
the Third; Honorius the Third, Gregory the Ninth, and Innocent
the Fourth; as well as with the Guelfic cities, which
withstood him much as they had withstood his grandfather. He
was more than once excommunicated by the Popes, and in 1245
Pope Innocent the Fourth held a Council at Lyons, in which he
professed to depose the Emperor. More than one King was chosen
in opposition to him in Germany, just as had been done in the
time of Henry the Fourth, and there were civil wars all his
time, both in Germany and in Italy, while a great part of the
Kingdom of Burgundy was beginning to slip away from the Empire
altogether."
E. A. Freeman,
General Sketch of European History,
chapter 11.
"It is probable that there never lived a human being endowed
with greater natural gifts, or whose natural gifts were,
according to the means afforded him by his age, more
sedulously cultivated, than the last Emperor of the House of
Swabia. There seems to be no aspect of human nature which was
not developed to the highest degree in his person. In
versatility of gifts, in what we may call manysidedness of
character, he appears as a sort of mediæval Alkibiadês, while
he was undoubtedly far removed from Alkibiadês' utter lack of
principle or steadiness of any kind. Warrior, statesman,
lawgiver, scholar, there was nothing in the compass of the
political or intellectual world of his age which he failed to
grasp. In an age of change, when, in every corner of Europe
and civilized Asia, old kingdoms, nations, systems, were
falling and new ones rising, Frederick was emphatically the
man of change, the author of things new and unheard of--he was
stupor mundi et immutator mirabilis.
{1447}
A suspected heretic, a suspected Mahometan, he was the subject
of all kinds of absurd and self-contradictory charges; but the
charges mark real features in the character of the man. He was
something unlike any other Emperor or any other man. ... Of
all men, Frederick the Second might have been expected to be
the founder of something, the beginner of some new era,
political or intellectual. He was a man to whom some great
institution might well have looked back as its creator, to
whom some large body of men, some sect or party or nation,
might well have looked back as their prophet or founder or
deliverer. But the most gifted of the sons of men has left
behind him no such memory, while men whose gifts cannot bear a
comparison with his are reverenced as founders by grateful
nations, churches, political and philosophical parties.
Frederick in fact founded nothing, and he sowed the seeds of
the destruction of many things. His great charters to the
spiritual and temporal princes of Germany dealt the death-blow
to the Imperial power, while he, to say the least, looked
coldly on the rising power of the cities and on those
commercial Leagues which were in his time the best element of
German political life. In fact, in whatever aspect we look at
Frederick the Second, we find him, not the first, but the
last, of every series to which he belongs. An English writer
[Capgrave], two hundred years after his time, had the
penetration to see that he was really the last Emperor. He was
the last Prince in whose style the Imperial titles do not seem
a mockery; he was the last under whose rule the three Imperial
kingdoms retained any practical connexion with one another and
with the ancient capital of all. ... He was not only the last
Emperor of the whole Empire; he might almost be called the
last King of its several Kingdoms. After his time Burgundy
vanishes as a kingdom. ... Italy too, after Frederick,
vanishes as a kingdom; any later exercise of the royal
authority in Italy was something which came and went wholly by
fits and starts. ... Germany did not utterly vanish, or utterly
split in pieces, like the sister kingdoms; but after Frederick
came the Great Interregnum, and after the Great Interregnum
the royal power in Germany never was what it had been before.
In his hereditary Kingdom of Sicily he was not absolutely the
last of his dynasty, for his son Manfred ruled prosperously
and gloriously for some years after his death. But it is none
the less clear that from Frederick's time the Sicilian Kingdom
was doomed. ... Still more conspicuously than all was
Frederick the last Christian King of Jerusalem, the last
baptized man who really ruled the Holy Land or wore a crown in
the Holy City. ... In the world of elegant letters Frederick
has some claim to be looked on as the founder of that modern
Italian language and literature which first assumed a
distinctive shape at his Sicilian court. But in the wider
field of political history Frederick appears nowhere as a
creator, but rather everywhere as an involuntary destroyer.
... Under Frederick the Empire and everything connected with
it seems to crumble and decay while preserving its external
splendour. As soon as its brilliant possessor is gone, it at
once falls asunder. It is a significant fact that one who in
mere genius, in mere accomplishments, was surely the greatest
prince who ever wore a crown, a prince who held the greatest
place on earth, and who was concerned during a long reign in
some of the greatest transactions of one of the greatest ages,
seems never, even from his own flatterers, to have received
that title of Great which has been so lavishly bestowed on far
smaller men. ... Many causes combined to produce this singular
result, that a man of the extraordinary genius of Frederick,
and possessed of every advantage of birth, office, and
opportunity, should have had so little direct effect upon the
world. It is not enough to attribute his failure to the many
and great faults of his moral character. Doubtless they were
one cause among others. But a man who influences future ages
is not necessarily a good man. ... The weak side in the
brilliant career of Frederick is one which seems to have been
partly inherent in his character, and partly the result of the
circumstances in which he found himself. Capable of every
part, and in fact playing every part by turns, he had no
single definite object, pursued honestly and steadfastly,
throughout his whole life. With all his powers, with all his
brilliancy, his course throughout life seems to have been in a
manner determined for him by others. He was ever drifting into
wars, into schemes of policy, which seem to be hardly ever of
his own choosing. He was the mightiest and most dangerous
adversary that the Papacy ever had. But he does not seem to
have withstood the Papacy from any personal choice, or as the
voluntary champion of any opposing principle. He became the
enemy of the Papacy, he planned schemes which involved the
utter overthrow of Papacy, yet he did so simply because he
found that no Pope would ever let him alone. ... The most
really successful feature in Frederick's career, his
acquisition of Jerusalem [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229], is
not only a mere episode in his life, but it is something that
was absolutely forced upon him against his will. ... With
other Crusaders the Holy War was, in some cases, the main
business of their lives; in all cases it was something
seriously undertaken as a matter either of policy or of
religious duty. But the Crusade of the man who actually did
recover the Holy City is simply a grotesque episode in his
life. Excommunicated for not going, excommunicated again for
going, excommunicated again for coming back, threatened on
every side, he still went, and he succeeded. What others had
failed to win by arms, he contrived to win by address, and all
that came of his success was that it was made the ground of
fresh accusations against him. ... For a man to influence his
age, he must in some sort belong to his age. He should be
above it, before it, but he should not be foreign to it. ...
But Frederick belongs to no age; intellectually he is above
his own age, above every age; morally it can hardly be denied
that he was below his age; but in nothing was he of his age."
E. A. Freeman,
The Emperor Frederick the Second
(Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10).
For an account of Frederick's brilliant Sicilian court, and of
some of the distinguishing features of his reign in Southern
Italy, as well as of the end of his family, in the tragical
deaths of his son Manfred and his grandson Conradin (1268).
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.
ALSO IN:
T. L. Kington,
History of Frederick the Second.
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapters 10-13.
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 8, chapter 7, and book 9.
{1448}
GERMANY: A. D. 1142-1152.
Creation of the Electorate of Brandenburg.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
GERMANY: A. D. 1156.
The Margravate of Austria created a Duchy.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
GERMANY: A. D. 1180-1214.
Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine acquired by the house
of Wittelsbach.
See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.
GERMANY: A. D. 1196-1197.
The Fourth Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.
GERMANY: 13th Century.
The rise of the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
GERMANY: 13th Century.
Cause of the multiplication of petty principalities and
states.
"While the duchies and counties of Germany retained their
original character of offices or governments, they were of
course, even though considered as hereditary, not subject to
partition among children. When they acquired the nature of
fiefs, it was still consonant to the principles of a feudal
tenure that the eldest son should inherit according to the law
of primogeniture; an inferior provision or appanage, at most,
being reserved for the younger children. The law of England
favoured the eldest exclusively; that of France gave him great
advantages. But in Germany a different rule began to prevail
about the thirteenth century. An equal partition of the
inheritance, without the least regard to priority of birth,
was the general law of its principalities. Sometimes this was
effected by undivided possession, or tenancy in common; the
brothers residing together, and reigning jointly. This tended
to preserve the integrity of dominion; but as it was
frequently incommodious, a more usual practice was to divide
the territory. From such partitions are derived those numerous
independent principalities of the same house, many of which still
subsist in Germany. In 1589 there were eight reigning princes
of the Palatine family; and fourteen, in 1675, of that of
Saxony. Originally these partitions were in general absolute
and without reversion; but, as their effect in weakening
families became evident, a practice was introduced of making
compacts of reciprocal succession, by which a fief was
prevented from escheating to the empire, until all the male
posterity of the first feudatory should be extinct. Thus,
while the German empire survived, all the princes of Hesse or
of Saxony had reciprocal contingencies of succession, or what
our lawyers call cross-remainders, to each other's dominions.
A different system was gradually adopted. By the Golden Bull
of Charles IV. the electoral territory, that is, the
particular district to which the electoral suffrage was
inseparably attached, became incapable of partition, and was
to descend to the eldest son. In the 15th century the present
house of Brandenburg set the first example of establishing
primogeniture by law; the principalities of Anspach and
Bayreuth were dismembered from it for the benefit of younger
branches; but it was declared that all the other dominions of
the family should for the future belong exclusively to the
reigning elector. This politic measure was adopted in several
other families; but, even in the 16th century, the prejudice
was not removed, and some German princes denounced curses on
their posterity, if they should introduce the impious custom
of primogeniture. ... Weakened by these subdivisions, the
principalities of Germany in the 14th and 15th centuries
shrink to a more and more diminutive size in the scale of
nations."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 5 (volume 2).
See, also,
CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1212.
The Children's Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.
GERMANY: A. D. 1231-1315.
Relations of the Swiss Forest Cantons to the Empire and to the
House of Austria.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
Degradation of the Holy Roman Empire.
The Great Interregnum.
Anarchy and disorder universal.
Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.
"With Frederick [the Second] fell the Empire. From the ruin
that overwhelmed the greatest of its houses it emerged, living
indeed, and destined to a long life, but so shattered,
crippled, and degraded, that it could never more be to Europe
and to Germany what it once had been. ... The German kingdom
broke down beneath the weight of the Roman Empire. To be
universal sovereign Germany had sacrificed her own political
existence. The necessity which their projects in Italy and
disputes with the Pope laid the Emperors under of purchasing
by concessions the support of their own princes, the ease with
which in their absence the magnates could usurp, the
difficulty which the monarch returning found in resuming the
privileges of his crown, the temptation to revolt and set up
pretenders to the throne which the Holy See held out, these
were the causes whose steady action laid the foundation of
that territorial independence which rose into a stable fabric
at the era of the Great Interregnum. Frederick II. had, by two
Pragmatic Sanctions, A. D. 1220 and 1232, granted, or rather
confirmed, rights already customary, such as to give the
bishops and nobles legal sovereignty in their own towns and
territories, except when the Emperor should be present; and
thus his direct jurisdiction became restricted to his narrowed
domain, and to the cities immediately dependent on the crown.
With so much less to do, an Emperor became altogether a less
necessary personage; and hence the seven magnates of the
realm, now by law or custom sole electors, were in no haste to
fill up the place of Conrad IV., whom the supporters of his
father Frederick had acknowledged. William of Holland [A. D.
1254] was in the field, but rejected by the Swabian party: on
his death a new election was called for, and at last set on
foot. The archbishop of Cologne advised his brethren to choose
some one rich enough to support the dignity, not strong enough
to be feared by the electors: both requisites met in the
Plantagenet Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of the English
Henry III. He received three, eventually four votes, came to
Germany, and was crowned at Aachen [A. D. 1256]. But three of

the electors, finding that his bribe to them was lower than to
the others, seceded in disgust, and chose Alfonso X. of
Castile, who, shrewder than his competitor, continued to watch
the stars at Toledo, enjoying the splendours of his title
while troubling himself about it no further than to issue now
and then a proclamation. Meantime the condition of Germany was
frightful. The new Didius Julianus, the chosen of princes
baser than the prætorians whom they copied, had neither the
character nor the outward power and resources to make himself
respected. Every floodgate of anarchy was opened: prelates and
barons extended their domains by war: robber-knights infested
the highways and the rivers: the misery of the weak, the
tyranny and violence of the strong, were such as had not been
seen for centuries.
{1449}
Things were even worse than under the Saxon and Franconian
Emperors; for the petty nobles who had then been in some
measure controlled by their dukes were now, after the
extinction of the great houses, left without any feudal
superior. Only in the cities was shelter or peace to be found.
Those of the Rhine had already leagued themselves for mutual
defence, and maintained a struggle in the interests of
commerce and order against universal brigandage. At last, when
Richard had been some time dead, it was felt that such things
could not go on for ever: with no public law, and no courts of
justice, an Emperor, the embodiment of legal government, was
the only resource. The Pope himself, having now sufficiently
improved the weakness of his enemy, found the disorganization
of Germany beginning to tell upon his revenues, and threatened
that if the electors did not appoint an Emperor, he would.
Thus urged, they chose, in 1272 [1273?], Rudolf, count of
Hapsburg, founder of the house of Austria. From this point
there begins a new era. We have seen the Roman Empire revived
in A. D. 800, by a prince whose vast dominions gave ground to
his claim of universal monarchy; again erected, in A. D. 962,
on the narrower but firmer basis of the German kingdom. We
have seen Otto the Great and his successors during the three
following centuries, a line of monarchs of unrivalled vigour
and abilities, strain every nerve to make good the pretensions
of their office against the rebels in Italy and the
ecclesiastical power. Those efforts had now failed signally
and hopelessly. Each successive Emperor had entered the strife
with resources scantier than his predecessors, each had been
more decisively vanquished by the Pope, the cities, and the
princes. The Roman Empire might, and, so far as its practical
utility was concerned, ought now to have been suffered to
expire; nor could it have ended more gloriously than with the
last of the Hohenstaufen. That it did not so expire, but lived
on 600 years more, till it became a piece of antiquarianism
hardly more venerable than ridiculous--till, as Voltaire said,
all that could be said about it was that it was neither holy,
nor Roman, nor an empire--was owing partly indeed to the
belief, still unshaken, that it was a necessary part of the
world's order, yet chiefly to its connection, which was by
this time indissoluble, with the German kingdom. The Germans
had confounded the two characters of their sovereign so long,
and had grown so fond of the style and pretensions of a
dignity whose possession appeared to exalt them above the
other peoples of Europe, that it was now too late for them to
separate the local from the universal monarch. If a German
king was to be maintained at all, he must be Roman Emperor;
and a German king there must still be. ... That head, however,
was no longer what he had been. The relative position of
Germany and France was now exactly the reverse of that which
they had occupied two centuries earlier. Rudolf was as
conspicuously a weaker sovereign than Philip III. of France,
as the Franconian Emperor Henry III. had been stronger than
the Capetian Philip I. In every other state of Europe the
tendency of events had been to centralize the administration
and increase the power of the monarch, even in England not to
diminish it: in Germany alone had political union become
weaker, and the independence of the princes more confirmed."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 13.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
The first Hapsburg kings of the Romans, Rodolph and Albert.
The choice made (A. D. 1273) by the German Electors of Rodolph
of Hapsburg for King of the Romans (see AUSTRIA: A. D.
1246-1282), was duly approved and confirmed by Pope Gregory
X., who silenced, by his spiritual admonitions, the rival
claims of King Alfonso of Castile. But Rodolph, to secure this
papal confirmation of his title, found it necessary to
promise, through his ambassadors, a renewal of the
Capitulation of Otho IV., respecting the temporalities of the
Pope. This he repeated in person, on meeting the Pope at
Lausanne, in 1275, On that occasion, "an agreement was entered
into which afterwards ratified to the Church the long disputed
gift of Charlemagne, comprising Ravenna, Æmilia, Bobbio,
Cesena, Forumpopoli, Forli, Faenza, Imola, Bologna, Ferrara,
Comacchio, Adria, Rimini, Urbino, Monteferetro, and the
territory of Bagno. Rodolph also bound himself to protect the
privileges of the Church, and to maintain the freedom of
Episcopal elections, and the right of appeal in all
ecclesiastical causes; and having stipulated for receiving the
imperial crown in Rome he promised to undertake an expedition
to the holy land. If Rodolph were sincere in these last
engagements, the disturbed state of his German dominions
afforded him an apology for their present non-fulfilment: but
there is good reason for believing that he never intended to
visit either Rome or Palestine; and his indifference to Italy
has even been the theme of panegyric with his admirers. The
repeated and mortifying reverses of the two Frederics were
before his eyes; there was little to excite his sympathy with
the Italians; and though Lombardy seemed ready to acknowledge
his supremacy, the Tuscan cities evinced aspirations after
independence." During the early years of Rodolph's reign he
was employed in establishing his authority, as against the
contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia, and the Duke of Bavaria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
Meantime, Gregory X. and three short-lived successors in the
papal office passed away, and Nicholas III. had come to it
(1277). That vigorous pontiff called Rodolph to account for
not having yet surrendered the states of the Church in due
form, and whispered a hint of excommunication and interdict.
"Rodolph was too prudent to disregard this admonition: he
evaded the projected crusade and journey to Rome; but he took
care to send thither an emissary, who in his name surrendered
to the Pope the territory already agreed on. ... During his
entire reign Rodolph maintained his indifference towards
Italy." His views "were rather directed to the wilds of
Hungary and Germany than to the delicious regions of the
south. ... He compelled Philip, Count of Savoy, to surrender
Morat, Payerne, and Guminen, which had been usurped from the
Empire. By a successful expedition across the Jura, he brought
back to obedience Otho IV. Count of Burgundy; and forced him
to renounce the allegiance he had proffered to Philip III.
King of France. ... He crushed an insurrection headed by an
impostor, who had persuaded the infatuated multitude to
believe that he was the Emperor Frederic II.
{1450}
And he freed his dominions from rapine and desolation by the
destruction of several castles, whose owners infested the
country with their predatory incursions." Before his death, in
1291, Rodolph "grew anxious to secure to his son Albert the
succession to the throne, and his nomination by the Electors
ere the grave closed upon himself. ... But all his entreaties
were unavailing; he was coldly reminded that he himself was
still the 'King,' and that the Empire was too poor to support
two kings. Rodolph might now repent his neglect to assume the
imperial crown: but the character of Albert seems to have been
the real obstacle to his elevation. With many of the great
qualities of his father, this prince was deficient in his
milder virtues; and his personal bravery and perseverance were
tainted with pride, haughtiness; and avarice." On Rodolph's
death, the Electors chose for his successor Adolphus, Count of
Nassau, a choice of which they soon found reason to repent. By
taking pay from Edward I. of England, for an alliance with the
latter against the King of France, and by attempts to enforce
a purchased claim upon the Landgraviate of Thuringia, Adolphus
brought himself into contempt, and in 1298 he was solemnly
deposed by the Electors, who now conferred the kingship upon
Albert of Austria whom they had rejected six years before.
"The deposed sovereign was, however, strongly supported; and
he promptly collected his adherents, and marched at the head
of a vast army against Albert, who was not unprepared for his
reception. A great battle took place at Gelheim, near Worms;
and, after a bloody contest, the troops of Adolphus were
entirely defeated," and he himself was slain. But Albert, now
unopposed in Germany, found his title disputed at Rome.
Boniface VIII., the most arrogant of all popes, refused to
acknowledge the validity of his election, and drove him into a
close alliance with the Pope's implacable and finally
triumphant enemy, Philip IV. of France (see PAPACY: A. D.
1294-1348). He was soon at enmity, moreover, with a majority
of the Electors who had given the crown to him, and they,
stimulated by the Pope, were preparing to depose him, as they
had deposed Adolphus. But Albert's energy broke up their
plans. He humbled their leader, the Archbishop-Elector of
Mentz, and the rest became submissive. The Pope now came to
terms with him, and invited him to Rome to receive the
imperial crown; also offering to him the crown of France, if
he would take it from the head of the excommunicated Philip;
but while these proposals were under discussion, Boniface
suffered humiliations at the hands of the French king which
caused his death. During most of his reign, Albert was busy
with undertakings of ambition and rapacity which had no
success. He attempted to seize the counties of Holland,
Zealand, and Friesland, as fiefs reverting to the crown, on
the death of John, Count of Holland, in 1299. He claimed the
Bohemian crown in 1306, when Wenceslaus V., the young king,
was assassinated, and invaded the country; but only to be
beaten back. He was defeated at Lucka, in 1308, when
attempting to grasp the inheritance of the Landgrave of
Thuringia--under the very transaction which had chiefly caused
his predecessor Adolphus to be deposed, and he himself
invested with the Roman crown. Finally, he was in hostilities
with the Swiss Forest Cantons, and was leading his forces
against them, in May, 1308, when he was assassinated by
several nobles, including his cousin John, whose enmity he had
incurred.
Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapters 14-17 (volume 1).
ALSO IN;
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
GERMANY: A. D. 1282.
Acquisition of the duchy of Austria by the House of Hapsburg.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.
The reign of Henry of Luxemburg.
The king (subsequently crowned emperor) chosen to succeed
Albert was Count Henry of Luxemburg, an able and excellent
prince. The new sovereign was crowned as Henry VII. "Henry did
not make the extension of his private domains his object, yet
favoring fortune brought it to him in the largest measure.
Since the death of Wenzel III., the succession to the throne
of Bohemia had been a subject of constant struggles. A very
small party was in favor of Austria; but the chief power was
in the hands of Henry of Carinthia, husband of Anna, Wenzel's
eldest daughter. But he was hated by the people, whose hopes
turned more and more to Elizabeth, a younger daughter of
Wenzel; though she was kept in close confinement by Henry, who
was about to marry her, it was supposed, below her rank. She
escaped, fled to the emperor, and implored his aid. He gave
her in marriage to his young son John, sending him to Bohemia
in charge of Peter Aichspalter; to take possession of the
kingdom. He did so, and it remained for more than a century in
the Luxemburg family. This King John of Bohemia was a man of
mark. His life was spent in the ceaseless pursuit of
adventure--from tournament to tournament, from war to war,
from one enterprise to another. We meet him now in Avignon,
and now in Paris; then on the Rhine, in Prussia, Poland, or
Hungary, and then prosecuting large plans in Italy, but hardly
ever in his own kingdom. Yet his restless activity
accomplished very little, apart from some important
acquisitions in Silesia. Henry then gave attention to the
public peace; came to an understanding with Leopold and
Frederick, the proud sons of Albert, and put under the ban
Everard of Wirtemberg, long a fomenter of disturbances,
sending against him a strong imperial army. ... At the Diet of
Spires, in September, 1309, it was cheerfully resolved to
carry out Henry's cherished plan of reviving the traditional
dignity of the Roman emperors by an expedition to the Eternal
City. Henry expected thus to renew the authority of his title
at home, as well as in Italy, where, in the traditional view,
the imperial crown was as important and as necessary as in
Germany. Every thing here had gone to confusion and ruin since
the Hohenstaufens had succumbed to the bitter hostility of the
popes. The contending parties still called themselves Guelphs
and Ghibellines, though they retained little of the original
characteristics attached to these names. A formal embassy,
with Matteo Visconti at its head, invited Henry to Milan; and
the parties every where anticipated his coming with hope. The
great Florentine poet, Dante, hailed him as a saviour for
distracted Italy. Thus, with the pope's approval, he crossed
the Alps in the autumn of 1310, attended by a splendid escort
of princes of the empire.
{1451}
The news of his approach excited general wonder and
expectation, and his reception at Milan in December was like a
triumph. He was crowned King of Lombardy without opposition.
But when, in the true imperial spirit, he announced that he
had come to serve the nation, and not one or another party,
and proved his sincerity by treating both parties alike, all
whose selfish hopes were deceived conspired against him.
Brescia endured a frightful siege for four months, showing
that the national hatred of German rule still survived. At
length a union of all his adversaries was formed under King
Robert of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, who put
Conradin to death. Meanwhile Henry VII. went to Rome, May
1312, and received the crown of the Cæsars from four
cardinals, plenipotentiaries of the pope, in the church of St.
John Lateran, south of the Tiber, St. Peter's being occupied
by the Neapolitan troops. But many of his German soldiers left
him, and he retired, with a small army, to Pisa, after an
unsuccessful effort to take Florence. From the faithful city
of Pisa he proclaimed King Robert under the ban, and, in
concert with Frederick of Sicily, prepared for war by land and
sea. But the pope, now a mere tool of the King of France,
commanded an armistice; and when Henry, in an independent
spirit, hesitated to obey, Clement V. pronounced the ban of
the Church against him. It never reached the emperor, who died
suddenly in the monastery of Buon-Convento: poisoned, as the
German annalists assert, by a Dominican monk, in the
sacramental cup, August 24, 1313. He was buried at Pisa.
Meanwhile his army in Bohemia had been completely successful
in establishing King John on the throne."
C. T. Lewis,
A History of Germany,
book 3, chapter 10.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
Election of rival emperors, Lewis (Ludowic) of Bavaria and
Frederic of Austria.
Triumph of Lewis at the Battle of Mühldorf.
Papal interference and excommunication of Lewis.
Germany under interdict.
Unrelenting hostility of the Church.
"The death of Heinric [Henry] replunged Germany into horrors
to which, since the extinction of the Swabian line of
emperors, it had been a stranger. The Austrian princes, who
had never forgiven the elevation of the Luxemburg family,
espoused the interests of Frederic, their head; the Bohemians
as naturally opposed them. From the accession of John, the two
houses were of necessity hostile; and it was evident that
there could be no peace in Germany until one of them was
subjected to the other. The Bohemians, indeed, could not hope
to place their king on the vacant throne, since their project
would have found an insurmountable obstacle in the jealousy of
the electors; but they were at least resolved to support the
pretensions of a prince hostile to the Austrians. ... The diet
being convoked at Frankfort, the electors repaired thither,
but with very different views; for, as their suffrages were
already engaged, while the more numerous party proclaimed the
duke of Bavaria as Ludowic V., another no less eagerly
proclaimed Frederic. Although Ludowic was a member of the
Austro-Hapsburg family--his mother being a daughter of Rodolf
I.--he had always been the enemy of the Austrian princes, and
in the same degree the ally of the Luxemburg faction. The two
candidates being respectively crowned kings of the Romans,
Ludowic at Aix-la-Chapelle, by the archbishop of
Mentz--Frederic at Bonn, by the metropolitan of Cologne, a
civil war was inevitable: neither had virtue enough to
sacrifice his own rights to the good of the state. ... The
contest would have ended in favour of the Austrians, but for
the rashness of Frederic, who, in September 1322, without
waiting for the arrival of his brother Leopold, assailed
Ludowic between Mahldorf and Ettingen in Bavaria. ... The
battle was maintained with equal valour from the rising to the
setting sun; and was evidently in favour of the Austrians,
when an unexpected charge in flank by a body of cavalry under
the margrave of Nuremburg decided the fortune of the day.
Heinric of Austria was first taken prisoner; and Frederic
himself, who disdained to flee, was soon in the same
condition. To his everlasting honour, Ludowic received
Frederic with the highest assurances of esteem; and though the
latter was conveyed to the strong fortress of Trapnitz, in the
Upper Palatinate, he was treated with every indulgence
consistent with his safe custody. But the contest was not yet
decided; the valiant Leopold was still at the head of a
separate force; and pope John XXII., the natural enemy of the
Ghibelins, incensed at some succours which Ludowic sent to
that party in Lombardy, excommunicated the king of the Romans,
and declared him deposed from his dignity. Among the
ecclesiastics of the empire this iniquitous sentence had its
weight; but had not other events been disastrous to the king,
he might have safely despised it. By Leopold he was signally
defeated; he had the mortification to see the inconstant king
of Bohemia join the party of Austria; and the still heavier
misfortune to learn that the ecclesiastical and two or three
secular electors were proceeding to another choice--that of
Charles de Valois, whose interests were warmly supported by
the pope. In this emergency, his only chance of safety was a
reconciliation with his enemies; and Frederic was released on
condition of his renouncing all claim to the empire. But
though Frederic sincerely resolved to fulfil his share of the
compact, Leopold and the other princes of his family refused;
and their refusal was approved by the pope. With the
magnanimity of his character, Frederic, unable to execute the
engagements which he had made, voluntarily surrendered himself
to his enemy. But Ludowic, who would not be outdone in
generosity, received him, not as a prisoner, but a friend.
'They ate,' says a contemporary writer, 'at the same table,
slept on the same couch;' and when the King left Bavaria, the
administration of that duchy was confided to Frederic. Two
such men could not long remain even politically hostile; and
by another treaty, it was agreed that they should exercise
conjointly the government of the empire. When this arrangement
was condemned both by the pope and the electors, Ludowic
proposed to take Italy as his seat of government, and leave
Germany to Frederic. But the death [1326] of the war-like
Leopold--the great support of the Austrian cause--and the
continued opposition of the states to any compromise, enabled
Ludowic to retain the sceptre of the kingdom; and in 1329,
that of Frederic strengthened his party. But his reign was
destined to be one of troubles. ... His open warfare against
the head of the church did not much improve his affairs, the
vindictive pope, in addition to the former sentence, placing
all Germany under an interdict. ...
{1452}
In 1338, the diet of Frankfort issued a declaration for ever
memorable in the annals of freedom. That the imperial
authority depended on God alone; that the pope had no temporal
influence, direct or indirect, within the empire; ... it
concluded by empowering the emperor (Ludowic while in Italy
[see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330] had received the imperial crown
from the anti-pope whom he had created in opposition to John
XXII.) to raise, of his own authority, the interdict which,
during four years, had oppressed the country. Another diet,
held the following year, ratified this bold declaration. ...
But this conduct of the diet was above the comprehension of
the vulgar, who still regarded Ludowic as under the curse of
God and the church. ... Unfortunately for the national
independence, Ludowic himself contradicted the tenor of his
hitherto spirited conduct, by mean submissions, by humiliating
applications for absolution. They were unsuccessful; and he
had the mortification to see the king of Bohemia, who had
always acted an unaccountable part, become his bitter enemy.
... From this moment the fate of Ludowic was decided. In
conjunction with the pope and the French king, Charles of
Bohemia, who in 1346 succeeded to his father's kingdom and
antipathy, commenced a civil war; and in the midst of these
troubled scenes the emperor breathed his last [October 11,
1347]. Twelve months before the decease of Ludowic, Charles of
Bohemia [son of John, the blind king of Bohemia, who fell,
fighting for the French, at the battle of Crecy], assisted by
Clement VI., was elected king of the Romans."
S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
chapter 5.
J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 8, chapter 2, V. 7.
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
introduction, chapter 2.
GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
The Golden Bull of Charles IV.
The Luxemburg line of emperors, and the reappearance of the
Hapsburgs.
The Holy Roman Empire as it was at the end of the Middle Ages.
"John king of Bohemia did not himself wear the imperial crown;
but three of his descendants possessed it, with less
interruption than could have been expected. His son Charles
IV. succeeded Louis of Bavaria in 1347; not indeed without
opposition, for a double election and a civil war were matters
of course in Germany. Charles IV. has been treated with more
derision by his contemporaries, and consequently by later
writers, than almost any prince in history; yet he was
remarkably successful in the only objects that he seriously
pursued. Deficient in personal courage, insensible of
humiliation, bending without shame to the pope, to the
Italians, to the electors, so poor and so little reverenced as
to be arrested by a butcher at Worms for want of paying his
demand, Charles IV. affords a proof that a certain dexterity
and cold-blooded perseverance may occasionally supply, in a
sovereign, the want of more respectable qualities. He has been
reproached with neglecting the empire. But he never deigned to
trouble himself about the empire, except for his private'
ends. He did not neglect the kingdom of Bohemia, to which he
almost seemed to render Germany a province. Bohemia had been
long considered as a fief of the empire, and indeed could
pretend to an electoral vote by no other title. Charles,
however, gave the states by law the right of choosing a king,
on the extinction of the royal family, which seems derogatory
to the imperial prerogative. ... He constantly resided at
Prague, where he founded a celebrated university, and
embellished the city with buildings. This kingdom, augmented
also during his reign by the acquisition of Silesia, he
bequeathed to his son Wenceslaus, for whom, by pliancy towards
the electors and the court of Rome, he had procured, against
all recent example, the imperial succession. The reign of
Charles IV. is distinguished in the constitutional history of
the empire by his Golden Bull [1356]; an instrument which
finally ascertained the prerogatives of the electoral college.
See above: A. D. 1125-1152.
The Golden Bull terminated the disputes which had arisen
between different members of the same house as to their right
of suffrage, which was declared inherent in certain definite
territories. The number was absolutely restrained to seven.
The place of legal imperial elections was fixed at Frankfort;
of coronations, at Aix-la-Chapelle: and the latter ceremony
was to be performed by the arch-bishop of Cologne. These
regulations, though consonant to ancient usage, had not always
been observed, and their neglect had sometimes excited
questions as to the validity of elections. The dignity of
elector was enhanced by the Golden Bull as highly as an
imperial edict could carry it: they were declared equal to
kings, and conspiracy against their persons incurred the
penalty of high treason. Many other privileges are granted to
render them more completely sovereign within their dominions.
It seems extraordinary that Charles should have voluntarily
elevated an oligarchy, from whose pretensions his predecessors
had frequently suffered injury. But he had more to apprehend
from the two great families of Bavaria and Austria, whom he
relatively depressed by giving such a preponderance to the
seven electors, than from any members of the college. By his
compact with Brandenburg [see BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417] he
had a fair prospect of adding a second vote to his own. ...
The next reign, nevertheless, evinced the danger of investing
the electors with such preponderating authority. Wenceslaus
[elected in 1378], a supine and voluptuous man, less
respected, and more negligent of Germany, if possible, than
his father, was regularly deposed by a majority of the
electoral college in 1400. ... They chose Robert count
palatine instead of Wenceslaus; and though the latter did not
cease to have some adherents, Robert has generally been
counted among the lawful emperors. Upon his death [1410] the
empire returned to the house of Luxemburg; Wenceslaus himself
waiving his rights in favour of his brother Sigismund of
Hungary." On the death of Sigismund, in 1437, the house of
Austria regained the imperial throne, in the person of Albert,
duke of Austria, who had married Sigismund's only daughter,
the queen of Hungary and Bohemia. "He died in two years,
leaving his wife pregnant with a son, Ladislaus Posthumus, who
afterwards reigned in the two kingdoms just mentioned; and the
choice of the electors fell upon Frederic duke of Styria,
second-cousin of the last emperor, from whose posterity it
never departed, except in a single instance, upon the
extinction of his male line in 1740.
{1453}
Frederic III. reigned 53 years [1440-1493], a longer period
than any of his predecessors; and his personal character was
more insignificant. ... Frederic, always poor, and scarcely
able to protect himself in Austria from the seditions of his
subjects, or the inroads of the king of Hungary, was yet
another founder of his family, and left their fortunes
incomparably more prosperous than at his accession. The
marriage of his son Maximilian with the heiress of Burgundy
[see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477] began that aggrandizement of the
house of Austria which Frederic seems to have anticipated. The
electors, who had lost a good deal of their former spirit, and
were grown sensible of the necessity of choosing a powerful
sovereign, made no opposition to Maximilian's becoming king of
the Romans in his father's lifetime."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 5 (volume 2).
"It is important to remark that, for more than a century after
Charles IV. had fixed his seat in Bohemia, no emperor
appeared, endowed with the vigour necessary to uphold and
govern the empire. The bare fact that Charles's successor,
Wenceslas, was a prisoner in the hands of the Bohemians,
remained for a long time unknown in Germany: a simple decree
of the electors' sufficed to dethrone him. Rupert the Palatine
only escaped a similar fate by death. When Sigismund of
Luxemburg, (who, after many disputed elections, kept
possession of the field,) four years after his election,
entered the territory of the empire of which he was to be
crowned sovereign, he found so little sympathy that he was for
a moment inclined to return to Hungary without accomplishing
the object of his journey. The active part he took in the
affairs of Bohemia, and of Europe generally, has given him a
name; but in and for the empire, he did nothing worthy of
note. Between the years 1422 and 1430 he never made his
appearance beyond Vienna; from the autumn of 1431 to that of
1433 he was occupied with his coronation journey to Rome; and
during the three years from 1434 to his death he never got
beyond Bohemia and Moravia; nor did Albert II., who has been
the subject of such lavish eulogy, ever visit the dominions of
the empire. Frederic III., however, far outdid all his
predecessors. During seven-and-twenty years, from 1444 to
1471, he was never seen within the boundaries of the empire.
Hence it happened that the central action and the visible
manifestation of sovereignty, in as far as any such existed in
the empire, fell to the share of the princes, and more
especially of the prince-electors. In the reign of Sigismund
we find them convoking the diets, and leading the armies into
the field against the Hussites: the operations against the
Bohemians were attributed entirely to them. In this manner the
empire became, like the papacy, a power which acted from a
distance, and rested chiefly upon opinion. ... The emperor was
regarded, in the first place, as the supreme feudal lord, who
conferred on property its highest and most sacred sanction.
... Although he was regarded as the head and source of all
temporal jurisdiction, yet no tribunal found more doubtful
obedience than his own. The fact that royalty existed in
Germany had almost been suffered to fall into oblivion; even
the title had been lost. Henry VII. thought it an affront to
be called King of Germany, and not, as he had a right to be
called before any ceremony of coronation, King of the Romans.
In the 15th century the emperor was regarded pre-eminently as
the successor of the ancient Roman Cæsars, whose rights and
dignities had been transferred, first to the Greeks, and then
to the Germans in the persons of Charlemagne and Otho the
Great; as the true secular head of Christendom. ... The
opinion was confidently entertained in Germany that the other
sovereigns of Christendom, especially those of England, Spain,
and France, were legally subject to the crown of the empire:
the only controversy was, whether their disobedience was
venial, or ought to be regarded as sinful."
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
volume 1, pages 52-56.
ALSO IN:
Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 24 (volume l).
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 2, number 10.
See, also,
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364, to 1471-1491.
GERMANY: A. D. 1363-1364.
Tyrol acquired by the House of Austria, with the reversion of
the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
GERMANY: A. D. 1378.
Final surrender of the Arelate to France.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
GERMANY: A. D. 1386-1388.
Defeat of the Austrians by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
GERMANY: A. D. 1405-1434.
The Bohemian Reformation and the Hussite wars.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415, and 1419-1434.
GERMANY: A. D. 1414-1418.
Failure of demands for Church Reform in the Council of
Constance.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
GERMANY: A. D. 1417.
The Electorate of Brandenburg conferred on the Hohenzollerns.
"The March of Brandenburg is one of those districts which was
first peopled by the advance of the German nation towards the
east during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was in
the beginning, like Silesia, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Prussia,
and Livonia, a German colony settled upon an almost
uncultivated soil: from the very first, however, it seems to
have given the greatest promise of vigour. ... Possession was
taken of the soil upon the ground of the rights of the
princely Ascanian house--we know not whether these rights were
founded upon inheritance, purchase, or cession. The process of
occupation was so gradual that the institutions of the old
German provinces, like those constituting the northern march,
had time to take firm root in the newly-acquired territory;
and owing to the constant necessity for unsheathing the sword,
the colonists acquired warlike habits which tended to give them
spirit and energy. ... The Ascanians were a warlike but
cultivated race, incessantly acquiring new possessions, but
generous and openhanded; and new life followed in their
footsteps. They soon took up an important political position
among the German princely houses: their possessions extended
over a great part of Thuringia, Moravia, Lausitz, and Silesia;
the electoral dignity which they assumed gave to them and to
their country a high rank in the Empire. In the Neumark and in
Pomerelllen the Poles retreated before them, and on the
Pomeranian coasts they protected the towns founded by the
Teutonic order from the invasion of the Danes. It has been
asked whether this race might not have greatly extended its
power; but they were not destined even to make the attempt.
{1454}
It is said that at the beginning of the fourteenth century
nineteen members of this family were assembled on the
Margrave's Hill near Rathenau. In the year 1320, of all these
not one remained, or had even left an heir. ... In Brandenburg
... it really appeared as if the extinction of the ruling
family would entail ruin upon the country. It had formed a
close alliance with the imperial power--which at that moment
was the subject of contention between the two great families
of Wittelsbach and Luxemburg--was involved in the quarrels of
those two races, injured by all their alternations of fortune,
and sacrificed to their domestic and foreign policy, which was
totally at variance with the interests of Brandenburg. At the
very beginning of the struggle the March of Brandenburg lost
its dependencies. ... At length the Emperor Sigmund, the last
of the house of Luxemburg, found himself so fully occupied
with the disturbances in the Empire and the dissensions in the
Church, that he could no longer maintain his power in the
March, and intrusted the task to his friend and relation,
Frederick, Burgrave of Nürnberg, to whom he lay under very
great obligations, and who had assisted him with money at his
need. ... It was a great point gained, after so long a period
of anarchy, to find a powerful and prudent prince ready to
undertake the government of the province. He could do nothing
in the open field against the revolted nobles, but he assailed
and vanquished them in their hitherto impregnable strong-holds
surrounded with walls fifteen feet thick, which he demolished
with his clumsy but effective artillery. In a few years he had
so far succeeded that he was able to proclaim a Landfriede, or
public peace, according to which each and everyone who was an
enemy to him, or to those comprehended in the peace, was
considered and treated as the enemy of all. But the effect of
all this would have been but transient, had not the Emperor,
who had no son, and who was won by Frederick's numerous
services and by his talents for action, made the Electorate
hereditary in his family. ... The most important day in the
history of the March of Brandenburg and the family of Zollern
was the 18th of April, 1417, when in the market-place of
Constance the Emperor Sigmund formally invested the Burgrave
with the dignity of Elector, placed in his hands the flag with
the arms of the March and received from him the oath of
allegiance. From this moment a prospect was afforded to the
territory of Brandenburg of recovering its former prosperity
and increasing its importance, while to the house of Zollern a
career of glory and usefulness was opened worthy of powers
which were thus called into action."
L. von Ranke,
Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg,
book 1, chapter 2.
See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417;
and HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF.
GERMANY: A. D. 1467-1471.
Crusade against George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
GERMANY: A. D. 1467-1477.
Relations of Charles the Bold of Burgundy to the Empire.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467, and 1476-1477.
GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.
The Bundschuh insurrections of the Peasantry.
Several risings of the German peasantry, in the later part of
the 15th and early part of the 16th century, were named from
the Bundschuh, or peasants' clog, which the insurgents bore as
their emblem or pictured on their banners. "While the peasants
in the Rhætian Alps were gradually throwing off the yoke of
the nobles and forming the 'Graubund' [see SWITZERLAND: A. D.
1396-1499], a struggle, was going on between the neighbouring
peasantry of Kempten (to the east of Lake Constance) and their
feudal lord, the Abbot of Kempten. It began in 1423, and came
to an open rebellion in 1492. It was a rebellion against new
demands not sanctioned by ancient custom, and though it was
crushed, and ended in little good to the peasantry (many of
whom fled into Switzerland), yet it is worthy of note because
in it for the first time appears the banner of the Bundschuh.
The next rising was in Elsass (Alsace), in 1493, the peasants
finding allies in the burghers of the towns along the Rhine,
who had their own grievances. The Bundschuh was again their
banner, and it was to Switzerland that their anxious eyes were
turned for help. This movement also was prematurely discovered
and put down. Then, in 1501, other peasants, close neighbours
to those of Kempten, caught the infection, and in 1502, again
in Elsass, but this time further north, in the region about
Speyer and the Neckar, lower down the Rhine, nearer Franconia,
the Bundschuh was raised again. It numbered on its recruit
rolls many thousands of peasants from the country round, along
the Neckar and the Rhine. The wild notion was to rise in arms,
to make themselves free, like the Swiss, by the sword, to
acknowledge no superior but the Emperor, and all Germany was
to join the League. They were to pay no taxes or dues, and
commons, forests, and rivers were to be free to all. Here,
again, they mixed up religion with their demands, and 'Only
what is just before God' was the motto on the banner of the
Bundschuh. They, too, were betrayed, and in savage triumph the
Emperor Maximilian ordered their property to be confiscated,
their wives and children to be banished, and themselves to be
quartered alive. ... Few ... really fell victims to this cruel
order of the Emperor. The ringleaders dispersed, fleeing some
into Switzerland and some into the Black Forest. For ten years
now there was silence. The Bundschuh banner was furled, but
only for a while. In 1512 and 1513, on the east side of the
Rhine, in the Black Forest and the neighbouring districts of
Würtemberg, the movement was again on foot on a still larger
scale. It had found a leader in Joss Fritz. A soldier, with
commanding presence and great natural eloquence, ... he bided
his time. ... Again the League was betrayed ... and Joss
Fritz, with the banner under his clothes, had to fly for his
life to Switzerland. ... He returned after a while to the
Black Forest, went about his secret errands, and again bided
his time. In 1514 the peasantry of the Duke Ulrich of
Würtemberg rose to resist the tyranny of their lord [in a
combination called 'the League of Poor Conrad']. ... The same
year, in the valleys of the Austrian Alps, in Carinthia,
Styria, and Crain, similar risings of the peasantry took
place, all of them ending in the triumph of the nobles."
F. Seebohm,
The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
part 1, chapter 4.
See, also, below: A. D. 1524-1525.
GERMANY: A. D. 1493.
Maximilian I. becomes emperor.
{1455}
GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
The reign of Maximilian.
His personal importance and his imperial powerlessness.
Constitutional reforms in the Empire.
The Imperial Chamber.
The Circles.
The Aulic Council.
"Frederic [the Third] died in 1493, after a protracted and
inglorious reign of 53 years. ... On the death of his father,
Maximilian had been seven years king of the Romans; and his
accession to the imperial crown encountered no opposition. ...
Scarcely had he ascended the throne, when Charles VIII., king
of France, passed through the Milanese into the south of
Italy, and seized on Naples without opposition.
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
Maximilian endeavoured to rouse the German nation to a sense
of its danger, but in vain. ... With difficulty he was able to
despatch 3,000 men to aid the league, which Spain, the pope,
the Milanese, and the Venetians had formed, to expel the
ambitious intruders from Italy. To cement his alliance with
Fernando the Catholic, he married his son Philip to Juana, the
daughter of the Spaniard. The confederacy triumphed; not
through the efforts of Maximilian, but through the hatred of
the Italians to the Gallic yoke. ... Louis XII., who succeeded
to Charles (1498), ... forced Philip to do homage for
Flanders; surrendering, indeed, three inconsiderable towns,
that he might be at liberty to renew the designs of his house
on Lombardy and Naples. ... The French had little difficulty
in expelling Ludovico Moro, the usurper of Milan, and in
retaining possession of the country during the latter part of
Maximilian's reign.
See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
Louis, indeed, did homage for the duchy to the Germanic head;
but such homage was merely nominal: it involved no tribute, no
dependence. The occupation of this fine province by the French
made no impression on the Germans; they regarded it as a fief
of the house of Austria, not of the empire: but even if it had
stood in the latter relation, they would not have moved one
man, or voted one florin, to avert its fate. That the French
did not obtain similar possession of Naples, and thereby
become enabled to oppose Maximilian with greater effect, was
owing to the valour of the Spanish troops, who retained the
crown in the house of Aragon. His disputes with the Venetians
were inglorious to his arms; they defeated his armies, and
encroached considerably on his Italian possessions. He was
equally unsuccessful with the Swiss, whom he vainly persuaded
to acknowledge the supremacy of his house. ... For many of his
failures ... he is not to be blamed. To carry on his vast
enterprises he could command only the resources of Austria:
had he been able to wield those of the empire, his name would
have been more formidable to his enemies; and it is no slight
praise, that with means so contracted he could preserve the
Netherlands against the open violence, no less than the subtle
duplicity, of France. But the internal transactions of
Maximilian's reign are those only to which the attention of
the reader can be directed with pleasure. In 1495 we witness
the entire abolition of the right of diffidation [private
warfare, see LANDFRIEDE],--a right which from time immemorial
had been the curse of the empire. ... The passing of the
decree which for ever secured the public peace, by placing
under the ban of the empire, and fining at 2,000 marks in
gold, every city, every individual that should hereafter send
or accept a defiance, was nearly unanimous. In regard to the
long-proposed tribunal [to take cognizance of all violations
of the public tranquillity], which was to retain the name of
the Imperial chamber, Maximilian relaxed much from the
pretensions of his father. ... It was solemnly decreed that
the new court should consist of one grand judge, and of 16
assessors, who were presented by the states, and nominated by
the emperor. ... Though a new tribunal was formed, its
competency, its operation, its support, its constitution, the
enforcement of its decisions, were left to chance; and many
successive diets--even many generations--were passed before
anything like an organised system could be introduced into it.
For the execution of its decrees the Swabian league was soon
employed; then another new authority, the Council of Regency.
... But these authorities were insufficient to enforce the
execution of the decrees emanating from the chamber; and it
was found necessary to restore the proposition of the circles,
which had been agitated in the reign of Albert II. ...
Originally they comprised only--
1. Bavaria,
2. Franconia,
3. Saxony,
4. the Rhine,
5. Swabia, and
6. Westphalia; thus excluding the states of Austria and the
electorates. But this exclusion was the voluntary act of the
electors, who were jealous of a tribunal which might encroach
on their own privileges. In 1512, however, the opposition of
most appears to have been removed; for four new circles were
added.
7. The circle of Austria comprised the hereditary dominions of
that house.
8. That of Burgundy contained the states inherited from
Charles the Rash in Franche-Comté; and the Netherlands.
9. That of the Lower Rhine comprehended the three
ecclesiastical electorates and the Palatinate.
10. That of Upper Saxony extended over the electorate of that
name and the march of Brandenburg. ...
Bohemia and Prussia ... refused to be thus partitioned. Each
of these circles had its internal organisations, the elements
of which were promulgated in 1512, but which was considerably
improved by succeeding diets. Each had its hereditary
president, or director, and its hereditary prince convoked,
both offices being frequently vested in the same individual.
... Each circle had its military chief, elected by the local
states, whose duty it was to execute the decrees of the
imperial Chamber. Generally this office was held by the prince
director. ... The establishment of the Imperial Chamber was
... disagreeable to the emperor. To rescue from its
jurisdiction such causes as he considered lay more peculiarly
within the range of his prerogative, and to encroach by
degrees on the jurisdiction of this odious tribunal,
Maximilian, in 1501, laid the foundation of the celebrated
Aulic Council. But the competency of this tribunal was soon
extended; from political affairs, investitures, charters, and
the numerous matters which concerned the Imperial chancery, it
immediately passed to judicial crimes. ... By an imperial
edict of 1518, the Aulic Council was to consist of 18 members,
all nominated by the emperor. Five only were to be chosen from
the states of the empire, the rest from those of Austria.
About half were legists, the other half nobles, but all
dependent on their chief. ... When he [Maximilian] laboured to
make this council as arbitrary in the empire as in Austria, he
met with great opposition. ... But his purpose was that of
encroachment no less than of defence; and his example was so
well imitated by his successors, that in most cases the Aulic
Council was at length acknowledged to have a concurrent
jurisdiction with the Imperial Chamber, in many the right of
prevention over its rival."
S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).
{1456}
"The received opinion which recognises in [Maximilian] the
creative founder of the later constitution of the empire, must
be abandoned. ... He had not the power of keeping the princes
of the empire together; ... on the contrary, everything about
him split into parties. It followed of necessity that abroad
he rather lost than gained ground. ... The glory which
surrounds the memory of Maximilian, the high renown which he
enjoyed even among his contemporaries, were therefore not won
by the success of his enterprises, but by his personal
qualities. Every good gift of nature had been lavished upon
him in profusion. ... He was a man ... formed to excite
admiration, and to inspire enthusiastic attachment; formed to
be the romantic hero, the exhaustless theme of the people."
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
volume 1, pages 379-381.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
from 1494 to 1514,
book 1, chapter 3,
and book 2, chapters 2 and 4.
See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.
GERMANY: A. D.1496-1499.
The Swabian war.
Practical separation of the Swiss Confederacy from the Empire.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
GERMANY: A. D. .1508-1509.
The League of Cambrai against Venice.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
GERMANY: A. D. 1513-1515.
The emperor in the pay of England.
Peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
GERMANY: A. D. 1516.
Abortive invasion of Milaness by Maximilian.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.
Beginning of the movement of Religious Reformation.
Papal Indulgences, and Luther's attack on them.
"The Reformation, like all other great social convulsions, was
long in preparation. It was one part of that general progress,
complex in its character, which marked the fifteenth century
and the opening of the sixteenth as the period of transition
from the Middle Ages to modern civilization. ... But while the
Reformation was one part of a change extending over the whole
sphere of human knowledge and activity, it had its own
specific origin and significance. These are still, to some
extent, a subject of controversy. ... One of its causes, as
well as one of the sources of its great power, was the
increasing discontent with the prevailing corruption and
misgovernment in the Church, and with papal interference in
civil affairs. ... The misconduct of the popes in the last
half of the fifteenth century was not more flagrant than that
of their predecessors in the tenth century. But the fifteenth
century was an age of light. What was done by the pontiffs was
not done in a corner, but under the eyes of all Europe.
Besides, there was now a deep-seated craving, especially in
the Teutonic peoples, who had so long been under the tutelage
of a legal, judaizing form of Christianity, for a more
spiritual type of religion. ... The Reformation may be viewed
in two aspects. On the one hand it is a religious revolution
affecting the beliefs, the rites, the ecclesiastical
organization of the Church, and the form of Christian life. On
the other hand, it is a great movement in which sovereigns and
nations are involved; the occasion of wars and treaties; the
close of an old, and the introduction of a new, period in the
history of culture and civilization. Germany, including the
Netherlands and Switzerland, was the stronghold of the
Reformation. It was natural that such a movement should spring
up and rise to its highest power among a people in whom a love of
independence was mingled with a yearning for a more spiritual
form of religion than was encouraged by mediæval
ecclesiasticism. Hegel has dwelt with eloquence upon the fact
that while the rest of the world was gone out to America or to
the Indies, in quest of riches and a dominion that should
encircle the globe, a simple monk, turning away from empty
forms and the things of sense, was finding him whom the
disciples once sought in a sepulchre of stone. Unquestionably
the hero of the Reformation was Martin Luther. ... As an
English writer has pointed out, Luther's whole nature was
identified with his great work, and while other leaders, like
Melancthon and even Calvin, can be separated in thought from
the Reformation, Luther, apart from the Reformation, would
cease to be Luther.' ... In 1517 John Tetzel, a hawker of
indulgences, the proceeds of which were to help pay for the
building of St. Peter's Church, appeared in the neighborhood
of Wittenberg. To persuade the people to buy his spiritual
wares, he told them, as Luther himself testifies, that as soon
as their money clinked in the bottom of the chest the souls of
their deceased friends forthwith went up to heaven. Luther was
so struck with the enormity of this traffic that he determined
to stop it. He preached against it, and on October 31, 1517,
he posted on the door of the Church of All Saints, at
Wittenberg, his ninety-five theses. [For the full text of
these, see PAPACY: A. D. 1517], relating to the doctrine and
practice of selling indulgences. Indulgences ... were at first
commutations of penance by the payment of money. The right to
issue them had gradually become the exclusive prerogative of
the popes. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted
or commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the
pope or his agents, by a grant of indulgences, to remove the

temporal or terminable penalties, which might extend into
purgatory. For the benefit of the needy he could draw upon the
treasury of merit stored up by Christ and the saints. Although
it was expressly declared by Pope Sixtus IV., that souls are
delivered from purgatorial fires in a way analogous to the
efficacy of prayer, and although contrition was theoretically
required of the recipient of an indulgence, it often appeared
to the people as a simple bargain, according to which, on
payment of a stipulated sum, the individual obtained a full
discharge from the penalties of sin, or procured the release
of a soul from the flames. Luther's theses assailed the
doctrines which made this baneful traffic possible. ...
Unconsciously to their author, they struck a blow at the
authority of Rome and of the priesthood. Luther had no thought
of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman Church. Even his
theses were only propositions, propounded for academic debate,
according to the custom in mediæval universities. He concluded
them with the solemn declaration that he affirmed nothing, but
left all to the judgment of the Church. ...
{1457}
The theses stirred up a commotion all over Germany. ... A
controversy arose between the new champion of reform and the
defenders of indulgences. It was during this dispute that
Luther began to realize that human authority was against him
and to see the necessity of planting himself more distinctly
on the Scriptures. His clear arguments and resolute attitude
won the respect of the Elector of Saxony, who, though he often
sought to restrain his vehemence, nevertheless protected him
from his enemies. This the elector was able to do because of
his political importance, which became still greater when,
after the death of Maximilian, he was made regent of Northern
Germany."
G. P. Fisher,
History of the Christian Church,
pages 287-293.
"At first neither Luther, nor others, saw to what the contest
about the indulgences would lead. The Humanists believed it to
be only a scholastic disputation, and Hutten laughed to see
theologians engaged in a fight with each other. It was not
till the Leipzig disputation (1519), where Luther stood
forward to defend his views against Eck, that the matter
assumed a grave aspect, took another turn, and after the
appearance of Luther's appeals 'To the Christian Nobility of
the German Nation,' 'On the Babylonian Captivity,' and against
Church abuses, that it assumed national importance. All the
combustible materials were ready, the spark was thrown among
them, and the flames broke out from every quarter. Hundreds of
thousands of German hearts glowed responsive to the complaints
which the Wittenberg monk flung against Papal Rome, in a
language whose sonorous splendour and iron strength were now
first heard in all the fulness, force, and beauty of the
German idiom. That was an imperishable service rendered to his
country by Luther. He wrote in German, and he wrote such
German. The papal ban hurled back against him in 1520 was
disregarded. He burnt it outside the gate of Wittenberg by the
leper hospital, in the place where the rags and plague-stained
garments of the lepers were wont to be consumed. The nobility,
the burghers, the peasants, all thrilled at his call. Now the
moment had come for a great emperor, a second Charlemagne, to
stand forward and regenerate at once religion and the empire.
There was, however, at the head of the state, only Charles V.,
the grandson of Maximilian, a man weak where he ought to have
been strong, and strong where he ought to have been weak, a
Spanish Burgundian prince, of Romance stock, who despised and
disliked the German tongue, the tongue of the people whose
imperial crown he bore, a prince whose policy was to combat
France and humble it. It was convenient for him, at the time,
to have the pope on his side, so he looked with dissatisfied
eyes on the agitation in Germany. The noblest hearts among the
princes bounded with hope that he would take the lead in the
new movement. The lesser nobility, the cities, the peasantry,
all expected of the emperor a reformation of the empire
politically and religiously. ... But all hopes were dashed.
Charles V. as little saw his occasion as had Maximilian. He
took up a hostile position to the new movement at once. He
was, however, brought by the influential friends of Luther,
among whom first of all was the Elector of Saxony, to hear
what the reformer had to say for himself, before he placed him
under the ban of the empire. Luther received the imperial
safe-conduct, and was summoned to the Diet of Worms, there to
defend himself. He went, notwithstanding that he was warned
and reminded of the fate of Huss. 'I will go to Worms,' said
he, 'even were as many devils set against me as there are
tiles on the roofs.' It was probably on this journey that the
thoughts entered his mind which afterwards (1530) found their
expression in that famous chorale, 'Eine feste Burg ist unser
Gott,' which became the battle-song of Protestants. Those were
memorable days, the 17th and 18th of April, 1521, in which a
poor monk stood up before the emperor and all the estates of
the empire, undazzled by their threatening splendour, and
conducted his own case. At that moment when he closed his
defence with the stirring words, 'Let me be contradicted out
of Holy Scripture--till that is done I will not recant. Here
stand I. I can do no other, so help me God, amen!' then he had
reached the pinnacle of his greatness. The result is well known.
The emperor and his papal adviser remained unmoved, and the
ban was pronounced against the heretic. Luther was carried off
by his protector, the Elector of Saxony, and concealed in the
Wartburg, where he worked at his translation of the Bible. ...
Brandenburg, Hesse, and Saxony declared in favour of reform.
In 1523 Magdeburg, Wismar, Rostock, Stettin, Danzig, Riga,
expelled the monks and priests, and appointed Lutheran
preachers. Nürnberg and Breslau hailed the Reformation with
delight."
S. Baring-Gould,
The Church in Germany,
chapter 18.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1522-1525.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany.
L. Hausser,
The Period of the Reformation.
J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
History of the Reformation.
M. J. Spaulding,
History of the Protestant Reformation.
F. Seebohm,
The Era of the Protestant Revolution.
P. Bayne,
Martin Luther.
C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation.
J. Köstlin,
Life of Luther.
GERMANY: A. D. 1519,
Contest for the imperial crown,
Three royal candidates in the field.
Election of Charles V., the Austro-Spanish monarch of many
thrones.
In his last years, Maximilian made great efforts to secure the
Imperial Crown for his grandson Charles, who had already
inherited, through his mother Joanna, of Spain, the kingdoms
of Castile, Aragon, and the Two Sicilies, and through his
father, Philip of Austria, the duchy of Burgundy and the many
lordships of the Netherlands. "In 1518 he obtained the consent
of the majority of the electors to the Roman crown being
bestowed on that prince. The electors of Treves and Saxony
alone opposed the project, on the ground that, as Maximilian
had never received the Imperial crown [but was styled Emperor
Elect] he was himself still King of the Romans, and that
consequently Charles could not assume a dignity that was not
vacant. To obviate this objection, Maximilian pressed Leo to
send the golden crown to Vienna; but this plan was defeated by
the intrigues of the French court. Francis, who intended to
become a candidate for the Imperial crown, intreated the Pope
not to commit himself by such an act; and while these
negociations were pending, Maximilian died at Wels, in Upper
Austria, January 12th 1519. ... Three candidates for the
Imperial crown appeared in the field: the Kings of Spain,
France, and England.
{1458}
Francis I. [of France] was now at the height of his
reputation. His enterprises had hitherto been crowned with
success, the popular test of ability, and the world
accordingly gave him credit for a political wisdom which he
was far from possessing. He appears to have gained three or
four of the Electors by the lavish distribution of his money,
which his agent, Bonnivet, was obliged to carry through
Germany on the backs of horses; for the Fuggers, the rich
bankers of Augsburg, were in the interest of Charles, and
refused to give the French any accommodation. But the bought
votes of these venal Electors could not be depended on, some
of whom sold themselves more than once to different parties.
The infamy of Albert, Elector of Mentz, in these transactions,
was particularly notorious. The chances of Henry VIII. [of
England] were throughout but slender. Henry's hopes, like
those of Francis, were chiefly founded on the corruptibility
of the Electors, and on the expectation that both his rivals,
from the very magnitude of their power, might be deemed
ineligible. Of the three candidates the claims of Charles
seemed the best founded and the most deserving of success. The
House of Austria had already furnished six emperors, of whom
the last three had reigned eighty years, as if by an
hereditary succession. Charles's Austrian possessions made him
a German prince, and from their situation constituted him the
natural protector of Germany against the Turks. The previous
canvass of Maximilian had been of some service to his cause,
and all these advantages he seconded, like his competitors, by
the free use of bribery. ... Leo X., the weight of whose
authority was sought both by Charles and Francis, though he
seemed to favour each, desired the success of neither. He
secretly advised the Electors to choose an emperor from among
their own body; and as this seemed an easy solution of the
difficulty, they unanimously offered the crown to Frederick
the Wise, Elector of Saxony. But Frederick magnanimously
refused it, and succeeded in uniting the suffrages of the
Electors in favour of Charles; principally on the ground that
he was the sovereign best qualified to meet the great danger
impending from the Turk. ... The new Emperor, now in his 20th
year, assumed the title of Charles V. ... He was proclaimed as
'Emperor Elect,' the title borne by his grandfather, which he
subsequently altered to that of 'Emperor Elect of the Romans,'
a designation adopted by his successors, with the omission of
the word 'elect,' down to the dissolution of the empire."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume l).
On his election to the Imperial throne, Charles ceded to his
younger brother, Ferdinand, all the German possessions of the
family. The latter, therefore, became Archduke of Austria, and
the German branch of the House of Austria was continued
through him; while Charles himself became the founder of a new
branch of the House--the Spanish.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
ALSO IN:
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 1.
J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 11 (volume 1).
J. Van Praet,
Essays on the Political History of the 15th-17th Centuries,
chapter 2, (volume 1).
GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.
The Capitulation of Charles V.
His first Diet, at Worms, and its political measures.
The election of Charles V. "was accompanied with a new and
essential alteration in the constitution of the empire.
Hitherto a general and verbal promise to confirm the Germanic
privileges had been deemed a sufficient security; but as the
enormous power and vast possessions of the new emperor
rendered him the object of greater jealousy and alarm than his
predecessors, the electors digested into a formal deed or
capitulation all their laws, customs, and privileges, which
the ambassadors of Charles signed before his election, and
which he himself ratified before his coronation; and this
example has been followed by his successors. It consisted of
36 articles, partly relating to the Germanic body in general,
and partly to the electors and states in particular. Of those
relating to the Germanic body in general, the most prominent
were, not to confer the escheated fiefs, but to re-unite and
consolidate them, for the benefit of the emperor and empire;
not to intrust the charges of the empire to any but Germans;
not to grant dispensations of the common law; to use the
German language in the proceedings of the chancery; and to put
no one arbitrarily to the ban, who had not been previously
condemned by the diet or imperial chamber. He was to maintain
the Germanic body in the exercise of its legislative powers,
in its right of declaring war and making peace, of passing
laws on commerce and coinage, of regulating the contingents,
imposing and directing the perception of ordinary
contributions, of establishing and superintending the superior
tribunals, and of judging the personal causes of the states.
Finally, he promised not to cite the members of the Germanic
body before any tribunal except those of the empire, and to
maintain them in their legitimate privileges of territorial
sovereignty. The articles which regarded the electors were of
the utmost importance, because they confirmed the rights which
had been long contested with the emperors. ... Besides these
concessions, be promised not to make any attempt to render the
imperial crown hereditary in his family, and to re-establish the
council of regency, in conformity with the advice of the
electors and great princes of the empire. On the 6th of
January, 1521, Charles assembled his first diet at Worms,
where he presided in person. At his proposition the states
passed regulations to terminate the troubles which had already
arisen during the short interval of the interregnum, and to
prevent the revival of similar disorders. ... The imperial
chamber was re-established in all its authority, and the
public peace again promulgated, and enforced by new penalties.
In order to direct the affairs of the empire during the
absence of Charles, a council of regency was established. ...
It was to consist of a lieutenant-general, appointed by the
emperor, and 22 assessors, of' whom 18 were nominated by the
states, and four by Charles, as possessor of the circles of
Burgundy and Austria. ... At the same time an aid of 20,000
foot and 4,000 horse was granted, to accompany the emperor in
his expedition to Rome; but the diet endeavoured to prevent
him from interfering, as Maximilian had done, in the affairs
of Italy, by stipulating that these troops were only to be
employed as an escort, and not for the purpose of aggression."
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 26 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).
{1459}
GERMANY: A. D. 1522-1525.
Systematic organization and adoption in northern Germany of
the Lutheran Reformation.
The Diets at Nuremberg.
The Catholic League of Ratisbon.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
The Peasants' War.
"A political ferment, very different from that produced by the
Gospel, had long been troubling the empire. The people,
weighed down under civil and ecclesiastical oppression,
attached in many places to the lands belonging to the lords,
and sold with them, threatened to rise, and furiously burst
their chains. In Holland, at the end of the preceding century,
the peasants had mustered around standards inscribed with the
words 'bread' and 'cheese,' to them the two necessaries of
life. In 1503 the 'Cobblers' League' ['Bundschuh'--see
GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514] had burst forth in the neighbourhood
of Spires. In 1513 this was renewed in Brisgau, and encouraged
by the priests. In 1514 Wurtemburg had witnessed 'the League
of poor Conrad,' the object of which was to uphold 'the
justice of God' by revolt. In 1515 terrible commotions had
taken place in Carinthia and Hungary. These insurrections were
stifled by torrents of blood, but no relief had been given to
the peoples. A political reform was as much wanted as a
religious one. The people had a right to it, but they were not
ripe to enjoy it. Since the commencement of the Reformation
these popular agitations had been suspended, the minds of men
being absorbed with other thoughts. ... But everything showed
that peace would not last long. ... The main dykes which had
hitherto kept the torrent back were broken, and nothing could
restrain its fury. Perhaps it must be admitted that the
movement communicated to the people by the Reform gave new
force to the discontent which was fermenting in the nation.
... Erasmus did not hesitate to say to Luther: 'We are now
reaping the fruits of the seed you have sown.' ... The evil
was augmented by the pretensions of certain fanatical men, who
laid claim to celestial inspirations. ... The most
distinguished of these enthusiasts was Thomas Münzer. ... His
first appearance was at Zwickau. He left Wittenberg after
Luther's return [from his concealment at Wartburg, 1522],
dissatisfied with the inferior part he had played, and he
became pastor of the little town of Alstadt in Thuringia.
There he could not long be at rest, and he accused the
reformers of founding a new papacy by their attachment to the
letter, and of forming churches which were not pure and holy.
He regarded himself as called of God to bear a remedy for so
great an evil. ... He maintained that to obey princes,
'destitute of reason,' was to serve God and Belial at the same
time. Then, marching at the head of his parishioners, to a
chapel which was visited by pilgrims from all quarters, he
pulled it to the ground. After this exploit he was obliged to
quit the country, wandered over Germany, and came to
Switzerland, spreading as he went, wherever people would hear
him, his plan for a universal revolution. In every place he
found elements ready for his purpose. He threw his powder upon
the burning coals, and a violent explosion soon followed. ...
The revolt commenced in those regions of the Black Forest, and
the sources of the Danube, which were so often the scene of
popular disturbances. On the 19th of July, 1524, the
Thurgovian peasantry rose against the Abbot of Reichenau, who
would not grant them an evangelical preacher. Thousands soon
gathered around the little town of Tengen, to liberate an
ecclesiastic who was imprisoned there. The revolt spread, with
inconceivable rapidity, from Suabia to the Rhine countries, to
Franconia, to Thuringia, and to Saxony. In January, 1525, the
whole of these countries were in insurrection. Towards the end
of that month the peasants published a declaration in twelve
articles, asking the liberty to choose their own pastors, the
abolition of petty tithes, serfdom, the duties on inheritance,
and liberty to hunt, fish, cut wood, &c., and each demand was
supported by a passage of Scripture."
J. H. Merle D'Aubigné,
The Story of the Reformation,
part 3, chapter 8,
(History of the Reformation, book 10, chapters 10-11).
"Had the feudal lords granted proper and fair reforms long
ago, they would never have heard of these twelve articles. But
they had refused reform, and they now had to meet revolution.
And they knew of but one way of meeting it, namely, by the
sword. The lords of the Swabian League sent their army of foot
and horsemen, under their captain, George Truchsess. The poor
peasants could not hold out against trained soldiers and
cavalry. Two battles on the Danube, in which thousands of
peasants were slain, or drowned in the river, and a third
equally bloody one in Algau, near the Boden See, crushed this
rebellion in Swabia, as former rebellions had so often been
crushed before. This was early in April 1525. But in the
meantime the revolution had spread further north. In the
valley of the Neckar a body of 6,000 peasants had come
together, enraged by the news of the slaughter of their fellow
peasants in the south of Swabia." They stormed the castle of the
young Count von Helfenstein, who had recently cut the throats
of some peasants who met him on the road, and put the Count to
death, with 60 of his companions. "A yell of horror was raised
through Germany at the news of the peasants' revenge. No yell
had risen when the Count cut peasants' throats, or the Swabian
lords slew thousands of peasant rebels. Europe had not yet
learned to mete out the same measure of justice to noble and
common blood. ... The revolution spread, and the reign of
terror spread with it. North and east of the valley of the
Neckar, among the little towns of Franconia, and in the
valleys of the Maine, other bands of peasants, mustering by
thousands, destroyed alike cloisters and castles. Two hundred
of these lighted the night with their flames during the few
weeks of their temporary triumph. And here another feature of
the revolution became prominent. The little towns were already
... passing through an internal revolution. The artisans were
rising against the wealthier burghers, overturning the town
councils, and electing committees of artisans in their place,
making sudden changes in religion, putting down the Mass,
unfrocking priests and monks, and in fact, in the interests of
what they thought to be the gospel, turning all things upside
down. ... It was during the Franconian rebellion that the
peasants chose the robber knight Goetz von Berlichingen as
their leader. It did them no good. More than a robber chief
was needed to cope with soldiers used to war. ... While all
this was going on in the valleys of the Maine, the revolution
had crossed the Rhine into Elsass and Lothringen, and the
Palatinate about Spires and Worms, and in the month of May had
been crushed in blood, as in Swabia and Franconia.
{1460}
South and east, in Bavaria, in the Tyrol, and in Carinthia
also, castles and monasteries went up in flames, and then,
when the tide of victory turned, the burning houses and farms
of the peasants lit up the night and their blood flowed
freely. Meanwhile Münzer, who had done so much to stir up the
peasantry in the south to rebel, had gone north into
Thuringia, and headed a revolution in the town of Mülhausen,
and became a sort of Savonarola of a madder kind. ... But the
end was coming. The princes, with their disciplined troops,
came nearer and nearer. What could Münzer do with his 8,000
peasants? He pointed to a rainbow and expected a miracle, but
no miracle came. The battle, of course, was lost; 5,000
peasants lay dead upon the field near the little town of
Frankenhausen, where it was fought. Münzer fled and concealed
himself in a bed, but was found and taken before the princes,
thrust into a dungeon, and afterwards beheaded. So ended the
wild career of this misguided, fanatical, self-deceived, but
yet, as we must think, earnest and in many ways heroic spirit.
... The princes and nobles now everywhere prevailed over the
insurgent peasants. Luther, writing on June 21, 1525,
says:--'It is a certain fact, that in Franconia 11,000
peasants have been slain. Markgraf Casimir is cruelly severe
upon his peasants, who have twice broken faith with him. In
the Duchy of Wurtemberg, 6,000 have been killed; in different
places in Swabia, 10,000. It is said that in Alsace the Duke
of Lorraine has slain 20,000. Thus everywhere the wretched
peasants are cut down.' ... Before the Peasants' War was ended
at least 100,000 perished, or twenty times as many as were put
to death in Paris during the Reign of Terror in 1793. ...
Luther, throughout the Peasants' War, sided with the ruling
powers. ... The reform he sought was by means of the civil
power; and in order to clear himself and his cause from all
participation in the wild doings of the peasantry, he publicly
exhorted the princes to crush their rebellion."
F. Seebohm,
The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
part 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).
P. Bayne,
Martin Luther: His Life and Work,
book 11 (volume 2).
J. Köstlin,
Life of Luther,
part 4, chapter 5.
C. W. C. Oman,
The German Peasant War of 1525
(English History Review, volume 5).
GERMANY: A. D. 1525-1529.
League of Torgau.
The Diets at Spires.
Legal recognition of the Reformed Religion, and the withdrawal
of it.
The Protest which gave rise to the name "Protestants."
See PAPACY: A. D.1525-1529.
GERMANY: A. D. 1529.
Turkish invasion of Austria.
Siege of Vienna.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
GERMANY: A. D. 1530.
The Diet at Augsburg.
The signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
The condemnatory decree.
Breach between the Protestants and the emperor.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
The Augsburg Decree.
Alarm of the Protestants.
Their League of Smalkalde and alliance with the king of
France.
Pacification of Nuremberg with the emperor.
Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.
The decree issued by the Diet at Augsburg was condemnatory of
most of the tenets peculiar to the protestants, "forbidding
any person to protect or tolerate such as taught them,
enjoining a strict observance of the established rites, and
prohibiting any farther innovation, under severe penalties.
All orders of men were required to assist with their persons
and fortunes in carrying this decree into execution; and such
as refused to obey it were declared incapable of acting as
judges, or of appearing as parties in the imperial chamber,
the supreme court of judicature in the empire. To all which
was subjoined a promise, that an application should be made to
the pope, requiring him to call a general council within six
months, in order to terminate all controversies by its
sovereign decisions. The severity of this decree, which was
considered as a prelude to the most violent persecution,
alarmed the protestants, and convinced them that the emperor
was resolved on their destruction." Under these circumstances,
the protestant princes met at Smalkalde, December 22, 1530,
and there "concluded a league of mutual defence against all
aggressors, by which they formed the protestant states of the
empire into one regular body, and, beginning already to
consider themselves as such, they resolved to apply to the
kings of France and England, and to implore them to patronise
and assist their new confederacy. An affair not connected with
religion furnished them with a pretence for courting the aid
of foreign princes.'" This was the election of the emperor's
brother, Ferdinand, to be King of the Romans, against, which
they had protested vigorously. "When the protestants, who
were' assembled a second time at Smalkalde [February, 1531],
received an account of this transaction, and heard, at the
same time, that prosecutions were commenced in the imperial
chamber against some of their number, on account of their
religious principles, they thought it necessary, not only to
renew their former confederacy, but immediately to despatch
their ambassadors into France and England." The king of France
"listened with the utmost eagerness to the complaints of the
protestant princes; and, without seeming to countenance their
religious opinions, determined secretly to cherish those
sparks of political discord which might be afterwards kindled
into a flame. For this purpose he sent William de Bellay, one
of the ablest negotiators in France, into Germany, who,
visiting the courts of the malecontent princes, and
heightening their ill-humour by various arts, concluded an
alliance between them, and his master, which, though concealed
at that time, and productive of no immediate effects, laid the
foundation of a union fatal on many occasions to Charles's
ambitious projects. ... The king of England [Henry VIII.],
highly incensed against Charles, in complaisance to whom, the
pope had long retarded, and now openly opposed, his divorce
[from Catharine of Aragon], was no less disposed than Francis
to strengthen a league which might be rendered so formidable
to the emperor. But his favourite project of the divorce led
him into such a labyrinth of schemes and negotiations, and he
was, at the same time, so intent on abolishing the papal
jurisdiction in England, that he had no leisure for foreign
affairs. This obliged him to rest satisfied with giving
general promises, together with a small supply in money, to
the confederates of Smalkalde. Meanwhile, many circumstances
convinced Charles that this was not a juncture" in which he
could afford to let his zeal for the church push him to
extremities with the protestants.
{1461}
"Negotiations were, accordingly, carried on by his direction
with the elector of Saxony and his associates; after many
delays ... terms of pacification were agreed upon at Nuremberg
[July 23], and ratified solemnly in the diet at Ratisbon
[August 3]. In this treaty it was stipulated: that universal
peace be established in Germany, until the meeting of a
general council, the convocation of which within six months
the emperor shall endeavour to procure; that no person shall
be molested on account of religion; that a stop shall be put
to all processes begun by the imperial chamber against
protestants, and the sentences already passed to their
detriment shall be declared void. On their part, the
protestants engaged to assist the emperor with all their
forces in resisting the invasion of the Turks. ... The
protestants of Germany, who had hitherto been viewed only as a
religious sect, came henceforth to be considered as a
political body of no small consequence. The intelligence which
Charles received of Solyman's having entered Hungary, at the
head of 300,000 men, brought the deliberations of the diet at
Ratisbon to a period. ... The protestants, as a testimony of
their gratitude to the emperor, exerted themselves with
extraordinary zeal, and brought into the field forces which
exceeded in number the quota imposed on them; and the
catholics imitating their example, one of the greatest and
best-appointed armies that had ever been levied in Germany
assembled near Vienna. ... It amounted in all to 90,000
disciplined foot, and 30,000 horse, besides a prodigious swarm
of irregulars. Of this vast army ... the emperor took the
command in person; and mankind waited in suspense the issue of
a decisive battle between the two greatest monarchs in the
world. But each of them dreading the other's power and good
fortune, they both conducted their operations with such
excessive caution, that a campaign for which such immense
preparations had been made ended without any memorable event.
Solyman, finding it impossible to gain ground upon an enemy
always attentive and on his guard, marched back to
Constantinople towards the end of autumn. ... About the
beginning of this campaign, the elector of Saxony died, and
was succeeded by his son John Frederick. ... Immediately after
the retreat of the Turks, Charles, impatient to revisit Spain,
set out, on his way thither, for Italy."
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 5.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 6, chapters 1-8 (volume 3).
H. Stebbing,
History of the Reformation,
chapters 12-13 (volume 2).
GERMANY: A. D. 1532-1536.
Fanaticism of the Anabaptists of Münster.
Siege and capture of the city.
See ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.
GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
Mercenary aspects of the Reformation.
Protestant intolerance.
Union with the Swiss Reformers.
The Catholic Holy League.
Preparations for war.
"During the next few years [after the peace concluded at
Nuremberg] there was no open hostility between the two
religious parties. ... But there was dissension enough. In the
first place there was much disputation as to the meaning of
the articles concluded at Nuremberg. The catholic princes,
under the pretext that, if no man was to be disturbed for his
faith, or for things depending on faith, he was still amenable
for certain offences against the church, which were purely of a
civil nature, were eager that the imperial chamber should take
cognisance of future cases, at least, where protestants should
seek to invade the temporalities of the church. ... But
nothing was effected; the tribunal was too powerless to
enforce its decrees. In 1534, the protestants, in a public
assembly, renounced all obedience to the chamber; yet they did
not cease to appropriate to themselves the property of such
monasteries and churches as, by the conversion of catholics to
their faith--and that faith was continually progressive--lay
within their jurisdiction. We need scarcely observe, that the
prospect of spoliation was often the most powerful inducement
with the princes and nobles to change their religion. When
they, or the magistracy of any particular city, renounced the
faith hitherto established, the people were expected to follow
the example: the moment Lutheranism was established in its place,
the ancient faith was abolished; nobody was allowed to profess
it; and, with one common accord, all who had any prospect of
benefiting by the change threw themselves on the domains of
the expelled clergy. That the latter should complain before
the only tribunal where justice could be expected, was
natural; nor can we be surprised that the plunderers should
soon deny, in religious affairs, the jurisdiction of that
tribunal. From the departure of the emperor to the year 1538,
some hundreds of domains were thus seized, and some hundreds
of complaints addressed to him by parties who resolved to
interpret the articles of Nuremberg in their own way. The
protestants declared, in a letter to him, that their
consciences would not allow them to tolerate any papist in
their states. ... By espousing the cause of the exiled duke of
Wittemberg, they procured a powerful ally. ... But a greater
advantage was the union of the sacramentarians [the Swiss
reformers, who accepted the doctrine of Zwingli respecting the
purely symbolical significance of the commemoration of the
Lord's Supper--see SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531] with the
Lutherans. Of such a result, at the diet of Augsburg, there
was not the least hope; but Bucer, being deputed by the
imperial cities to ascertain whether a union might not be
effected, laboured so zealously at the task that it was
effected. He consented to modify some of his former opinions;
or at least to wrap them in language so equivocal that they
might mean anything or nothing at the pleasure of the holder.
The Swiss, indeed, especially those of Zurich, refused to
sanction the articles on which Luther and Bucer had agreed.
Still, by the union of all protestant Germany under the same
banners, much was gained. ... In the meantime, the dissensions
between the two great parties augmented from day to day. To
pacify them, Charles sent fruitless embassies. Roused by the
apparent danger, in 1538, the catholic princes formed, at
Nuremberg, a counter league to that of Smalcald [calling it
the Holy League]. ... The death of Luther's old enemy, George,
duke of Saxony [1539], transferred the dominion of that
prince's states into the hands of [his brother Henry] a
Lutheran. Henry, duke of Brunswick, was now the only great
secular prince in the north of Germany who adhered to the
Roman catholic faith. ... A truce was concluded at Frankfort,
in 1539; but it could not remove the existing animosity, which
was daily augmented. Both parties were in the wrong. ...
{1462}
At the close of 1540, Worms was the scene of a conference very
different from that where, 20 years before, Luther had been
proscribed. There was an interminable theological disputation.
... As little good resulted, Charles, who was hastening from
the Low Countries to his German dominions, evoked the affair
before a diet at Ratisbon, in April, 1541. ... The diet of
Ratisbon was well attended; and never did prince exert himself
more zealously than Charles to make peace between his angry
subjects. But ... all that could be obtained was, that things
should be suffered to remain in their present state until a
future diet or a general council. The reduction of Buda,
however, by the Turks, rendered king Ferdinand, his brother,
and the whole of Germany, eager for an immediate settlement of
the dispute. ... Hence the diet of Spires in 1542. If, in
regard to religion, nothing definitive was arranged, except
the selection of Trent as the place most suitable for a
general council, one good end was secured--supplies for the
war with the Turks. The campaign, however, which passed
without an action, was inglorious to the Germans, who appear
to have been in a lamentable state of discipline. Nor was the
public satisfaction much increased by the disputes of the
Smalcald league with Henry of Brunswick. The duke was angry
with his subjects of Brunswick and Breslau, who adhered to the
protestant league; and though he had reason enough to be
dissatisfied with both, nothing could be more vexatious than
his conduct towards them. In revenge, the league of Smalcald
sent 19,000 men into the field,--a formidable display of
protestant power!--and Henry was expelled from his hereditary
states, which were seized by the victors. He invoked the aid
of the imperial chamber, which cited the chiefs of the league;
but as, in 1538, the competency of that tribunal had been
denied in religious, so now it was denied in civil matters.
... The following years exhibit on both sides the same
jealousy, the same duplicity, often the same violence where
the mask was no longer required, with as many ineffectual
attempts to procure a union between them. ... The progress of
events continued to favour the reformers. They had already two
votes in the electoral college,--those of Saxony and Brandenburg;
they were now to have the preponderance; for the elector
palatine and Herman archbishop of Cologne abjured their
religion, thus placing at the command of the reformed party
four votes against three. But this numerical superiority did
not long remain. ... The pope excommunicated the archbishop,
deposed him from his dignity, and ordered the chapter to
proceed to a new election; and when Herman refused to obey,
Charles sent troops to expel him, and to install the
archbishop elect, Count Adolf of Nassau. Herman retired to his
patrimonial estates, where he died in the profession of the
reformed religion. These events mortified the members of the
Smalcald league; but they were soon partially consoled by the
capture of Henry duke of Brunswick [1546], who had the
temerity to collect troops and invade his patrimonial
dominions. Their success gave umbrage to the emperor. ... He
knew that the confederates had already 20,000 men under arms,
and that they were actively, however secretly, augmenting
their forces. His first care was to cause troops to be as
secretly collected in his hereditary states; his second, to
seduce, if possible, some leaders of the protestants. With
Maurice duke of Saxony he was soon successful; and eventually
with the two margraves of Brandenburg, who agreed to make
preparations for a campaign and join him at the proper moment.
... His convocation of the diet at Ratisbon [1546], which
after a vain parade ended in nothing, was only to hide his
real designs. As he began to throw off the mask, the reformed
theologians precipitately withdrew; and both parties took the
field, but not until they had each published a manifesto to
justify this extreme proceeding. In each there was much truth,
and more falsehood."
S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 3).
GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1544.
War with Francis I. of France.
Battle of Cerisoles.
Treaty of Crespy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1563.
The beginning of the Roman Catholic reaction.
The Council of Trent.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
War of Charles against the Protestants.
The treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
The battle of Muhlberg.
The emperor's proposed "Interim" and its failure.
His reverse of fortune.
Protestantism triumphant.
The Treaty of Passau.
"Luther's death [which occurred in 1546] made no change in the
resolution which Charles had at last taken to crush the
Reformation in his German dominions by force of arms; on the
contrary, he was more than ever stimulated to carry out his
purpose by two occurrences: the adoption of the new religion
by one who was not only an Elector of the Empire, but one of
the chief prelates of the Church, the Prince-Archbishop of
Cologne. ... The other event that influenced him was the
refusal of the Protestants to accept as binding the decrees of
the Council of Trent, which was composed of scarcely any
members but a few Italian and Spanish prelates, and from which
they appealed to either a free general Council or a national
Council of the Empire; offering, at the same time, if Charles
should prefer it, to submit the whole question of religion to
a joint Commission, composed of divines of each party. These
remonstrances, however, the Emperor treated with contempt. He
had been for some time secretly raising troops in different
quarters; and, early in 1546, he made a fresh treaty with the
Pope, by which he bound himself instantly to commence warlike
operations, and which, though it had been negotiated, as a
secret treaty, Paul instantly published, to prevent any
retraction or delay on his part. War therefore now began,
though Charles professed to enter upon it, not for the purpose
of enforcing a particular religious belief on the recusants,
but for that of re-establishing the Imperial authority, which,
as he affirmed, many of the confederate princes had disowned.
Such a pretext he expected to sow disunion in the body, some
members of which were far from desirous to weaken the great
confederacy of the Empire: and, in effect, it did produce a
hesitation in their early steps that had the most important
consequences on the first campaign; for, in spite of the
length of time during which he had secretly been preparing for
war, when it came they were more ready than he. They at once
took the field with an army of 90,000 men and 120 guns, while
he, for the first few weeks after the declaration of war, had
hardly 10,000 men with him in Ratisbon. ...
{1463}
But the advantage of a single over a divided command was
perhaps never more clearly exemplified than in the first
operations of the two armies. He, as the weaker party, took up
a defensive position near Ingolstadt; but, though they
advanced within sight of his lines, they could not agree on
the mode of attack, or even on the prudence of attacking him
at all. ... At last, the confederates actually drew off, and
Charles, advancing, made himself master of many important
towns, which their irresolution alone had enabled him to
approach." Meanwhile the Emperor had won an important ally.
This was Duke Maurice, of the Albertine line of the House of
Saxony (see SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553), to whom several
opportune deaths had given the ducal seat unexpectedly, in
1541, and whose ambition now hungered for the Electorate,
which was held by the other (the Ernestine) branch of the
family. He conceived the idea of profiting by the troubles of
the time to win possession of it. "With this view, though he
also was a Protestant, he tendered his services to the
Emperor, who, in spite of his youth, discerned in him a
promise of very superior capacity, gladly accepted his aid,
and promised to reward him with the territories which he
coveted. The advantages which Protestantism eventually derived
from Maurice's success has blinded some historians to the
infamy of the conduct by which he achieved it. ... The Elector
[John Frederick] was his [second] cousin; the Landgrave of
Hesse was his father-in-law. Pleading an unwillingness while
so young (he was barely 21) to engage in the war, he
volunteered to undertake the protection of his cousin's
dominions during his absence in the field. His offer was
thankfully accepted; but he was no sooner installed in his
charge than he began to negotiate with the enemy to invade the
territories which he had bound himself to protect. And on
receiving from Charles a copy of a decree, called the Ban of
the Empire, which had just been issued against both the
Elector and the Landgrave, he at once raised a force of his
own, with which he overran one portion of [the Elector's]
dominions, while a division of the Imperial army attacked the
rest; and he would probably have succeeded at once in subduing
the whole Electorate, had the main body of the Protestants
been able to maintain the war on the Danube." But Charles's
successes there brought about a suspension ol hostilities
which enabled the Elector to return and "chastise Maurice for
his treachery; to drive him not only from the towns and
districts which he had seized, but to strip him also of the
greater part of the territory which belonged to him by
inheritance." Charles was unable, at first, to give any
assistance to his ally. The Elector, however, who was the
worst of generals, so scattered his forces that when, "on the
23d of April [1547], Charles reached the Elbe and prepared to
attack him, he had no advantage over his assailant but that of
position. That indeed was very strong. He lay at Muhlberg, on
the right bank of the river, which at that point is 300 yards
wide and more than four feet deep, with a stream so rapid as
to render the passage, even for horsemen, a task of great
difficulty and danger." Against the remonstrances of his
ablest general, the Duke of Alva, Charles, favored by a heavy
fog, led his army across the river and boldly attacked. The
Ejector attempted to retreat, but his retreat became a rout.
Many fell, but many more were taken prisoners, including the
Elector and the Landgrave of Hesse. The victory was decisive
for the time, and Charles used it without moderation or
generosity. He declared a forfeiture of the whole Electorate
of Saxony by John Frederick, and conferred it upon the
treacherous Maurice; and, "though Maurice was son-in-law of
the Landgrave of Hesse, he stripped that prince of his
territories, and, by a device scarcely removed from the tricks
of a kidnapper, threw him also into prison." Charles seemed
now to be completely master of the situation in Germany, and
there was little opposition to his will in a diet which he
convened at Augsburg.
C. D. Yonge,
Three Centuries of Modern History,
chapter 4.
"He opened the Diet of Augsburg (September 1, 1547), in the
hope of finally bringing about the union so long desired and
so frequently attempted, but which he despaired of effecting
through a council which the Protestants had rejected in
advance. ... By the famous 'Interim' of Augsburg--the joint
production of Julius von Pflug, Bishop of Naumberg; Michael
Helding, coadjutor of Mentz; and the wily and subtle John
Agricola, preacher to the Elector of Brandenburg--Protestants
were permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist under both kinds;
the Protestant clergy already married to retain their wives;
and a tacit approval given to the retention of property
already taken from the Church. This instrument was, from
beginning to end, a masterpiece of duplicity, and as such
satisfied no party. The Catholics of Germany, the Protestants,
and the Court of Rome, each took exception to it. ... Maurice,
the new Elector of Saxony, unwilling to give the Interim an
unconditional approval, consulted with a number of Protestant
theologians, headed by Melancthon, as to how far he might
accept its provisions with a safe conscience. In reply they
drew up what is known as the Leipsig Interim (1548), in which
they stated that questions of ritual and ceremony, and others
of minor importance, which they designated by the generic word
adiaphora, might be wholly overlooked; and even in points of a
strictly doctrinal character, they expressed themselves
favourable to concession and compromise. ... Such Lutheran
preachers as professed to be faithful followers of their
master, made a determined opposition to the 'Interim,' and
began a vigorous assault upon its adiaphoristic clauses. The
Anti-adiaphorists, as they were called, were headed by Flacius
Illyricus, who being an ardent disciple of Luther's, and
possessing somewhat of his courage and energy, repaired to
Magdeburg, whose bold citizens were as defiant of imperial
power as they were contemptuous of papal authority. But in
spite of this spirited opposition, the Interim was gradually
accepted by several Protestant countries and cities--a fact
which encouraged the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1550,
to make a final effort to have the Protestants attend the
sessions of the Council of Trent, again opened by Pope Julius
III. ... After a short delay, deputies from Brandenburg,
Würtemberg, and Saxony began to appear at Trent; and even the
Wittenberg theologians, headed by Melancthon, were already on
their way to the Council, when Maurice of Saxony, having
secured all the advantages he hoped to obtain by an alliance
with the Catholic party, and regardless of the obligations by
which he was bound, proceeded to betray both the emperor and
his country.
{1464}
Having received a commission to carry into effect the ban of
the empire passed upon Magdeburg, he was in a position to
assemble a large body of troops in Germany without exciting
suspicion, or revealing his ulterior purposes. Besides uniting
to himself, as confederates in his plot, John Albert, Duke of
Mecklenburg; Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg; and William,
Landgrave of Hesse, eldest son of Philip of Hesse, he entered
into a secret treaty (Oct. 5, 1551) with Henry II., King of
France, who, as was pretended, coming into Germany as the
saviour of the country, seized the cities of Metz, Toul, and
Verdun. Maurice also held out to Henry the prospect of
securing the imperial crown. Everything being in readiness for
action, Maurice advancing through Thuringia, seized the city
of Augsburg, and suddenly made his appearance before
Innspruck, whence the emperor, who lay sick of a severe attack
of the gout, was hastily conveyed on a litter, through the
passes of the mountains, to Villach, in Carinthia. While
Maurice was thus making himself master of Innspruck, the King
of the French was carrying out his part of the programme by
actively prosecuting the war in Lorraine. Charles V., now
destitute of the material resources necessary to carry on a
successful campaign against the combined armies of the French
king and the German princes, and despairing of putting an end
to the obstinate conflict by his personal endeavours, resolved
to re-establish, if possible, his waning power by peaceful
negotiations. To this end, he commissioned his brother
Ferdinand to conclude the Treaty of Passau (July 30, 1552),
which provided that Philip of Hesse should be set at liberty,
and gave pledges for the speedy settlement of all religious
and political differences by a Diet, to be summoned at an
early day. It further provided that neither the emperor nor
the Protestant princes should put any restraint upon freedom
of conscience, and that all questions arising in the interval
between the two parties should be referred for settlement to
an Imperial Commission, composed of an equal number of
Catholics and Protestants. In consequence of the war then
being carried on by the empire against France for the recovery
of the three bishoprics of Lorraine of which the French had
taken possession, the Diet did not convene until February 5,
1555."
J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, pages 276-279.
ALSO IN:
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
books 8-10 (volume 2-3).
L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
chapter 6.
E. E. Crowe,
Cardinal Granvelle and Maurice of Saxony
(Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1).
L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapters 15-17.
G. P. Fisher,
History of the Reformation,
chapter 5.
F. Kohlrausch,
History of Germany,
chapter 20.
GERMANY: A. D. 1547.
Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V., changing the relations of
the Netherland provinces to the Empire.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.
GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
Battle of Sievershausen and death of Maurice.
The Religious Peace of Augsburg.
Abdication of Charles V.
Succession of Ferdinand I.
The halting of the Reformation and the rally of Catholic
resistance.
By the treaty of Passau, Maurice of Saxony bound himself to
defend the empire against the French and the Turks. "He
accordingly took the field against the latter, but with little
success, the imperial commander, Castaldo, contravening all
his efforts by plundering Hungary and drawing upon himself the
hatred of the people. Charles, meanwhile, marched against the
French, and, without hesitation, again deposed the corporative
governments reinstated by Maurice, on his way through
Augsburg, Ulm, Esslingen, etc. Metz, valiantly defended by the
Duke de Guise, was vainly besieged for some months, and the
Emperor was at length forced to retreat. The French were,
nevertheless, driven out of Italy. The aged emperor now sighed
for peace. Ferdinand, averse to open warfare, placed his hopes
on the imperceptible effect of a consistently pursued system
of suppression and Jesuitical obscurantism. Maurice was
answerable for the continuance of the peace, the terms of
which he had prescribed. ... Albert the Wild [of Brandenburg]
was the only one among the princes who was still desirous of
war. Indifferent to aught else, he marched at the head of some
thousand followers through central Germany, murdering and
plundering as he passed along, with the intent of once more
laying the Franconian and Saxon bishoprics waste in the name
of the gospel. The princes at length formed the Heidelberg
confederacy against this monster and the emperor put him under
the bann of the empire, which Maurice undertook to execute,

although he had been his old friend and companion in arms.
Albert was engaged in plundering the archbishopric of
Magdeburg, when Maurice came up with him at Sievershausen. A
murderous engagement took place (A. D. 1553). Three of the
princes of Brunswick were slain. Albert was severely wounded,
and Maurice fell at the moment when victory declared in his
favour, in the 33d year of his age, in the midst of his
promising career. ... Every obstacle was now removed, and a
peace, known as the religious peace of Augsburg, was concluded
by the diet held in that city, A. D. 1555. This peace was
naturally a mere political agreement provisionally entered
into by the princes for the benefit, not of religion, but of
themselves. Popular opinion was dumb, knights, burgesses, and
peasants bending in lowly submission to the mandate of their
sovereigns. By this treaty, branded in history as the most
lawless ever concerted in Germany, the principle 'cujus regio,
ejus religio,' the faith of the prince must be that of the
people, was laid down, By it not only all the Reformed
subjects of a Catholic prince were exposed to the utmost
cruelty and tyranny, but the religion of each separate country
was rendered dependent on the caprice of the reigning prince;
of this the Pfalz offered a sad example, the religion of the
people being thus four times arbitrarily changed. ... Freedom
of belief, confined to the immediate subjects of the empire,
for instance, to the reigning princes, the free nobility, and
the city councillors, was monopolized by at most 20,000
privileged persons. ... The false peace concluded at Augsburg
was immediately followed by Charles V. 's abdication of his
numerous crowns [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555]. He would
willingly have resigned that of the empire to his son Philip,
had not the Spanish education of that prince, his gloomy and
bigoted character, inspired the Germans with an aversion as
unconquerable as that with which he beheld them.
{1465}
Ferdinand had, moreover, gained the favour of the German
princes. Charles, nevertheless, influenced by affection
towards his son, bestowed upon him one of the finest of the
German provinces, the Netherlands, besides Spain, Milan,
Naples, and the West Indies (America). Ferdinand received the
rest of the German hereditary possessions of his house,
besides Bohemia and Hungary. ... Ferdinand I., opposed in his
hereditary provinces by a predominating Protestant party,
which he was compelled to tolerate, was politically
overbalanced by his nephew, Philip II., in Spain and Italy,
where Catholicism flourished. The preponderance of the Spanish
over the Austrian branch of the house of Habsburg exercised
the most pernicious influence on the whole of Germany, by
securing to the Catholics a support which rendered
reconciliation impossible. ... The religious disputes and
petty egotism of the several estates of the empire had utterly
stifled every sentiment of patriotism, and not a dissentient
voice was raised against the will of Charles V., which
bestowed the whole of the Netherlands, one of the finest of
the provinces of Germany, upon Spain, the division and
consequent weakening of the powerful house of Habsburg being
regarded by the princes with delight. At the same time that
the power of the Protestant party was shaken by the peace of
Augsburg, Cardinal Caraffa mounted the pontifical throne as
Paul IV., the first pope who, following the plan of the
Jesuits, abandoned the system of defence for that of attack.
The Reformation no sooner ceased to progress, than a
preventive movement began [see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563]. ...
Ferdinand I. was in a difficult position. Paul IV. refused to
acknowledge him on account of the peace concluded between him
and the Protestants, whom he was unable to oppose, and whose
tenets he refused to embrace, notwithstanding the expressed
wish of the majority of his subjects. Like his brother, he
intrigued and diplomatized until his Jesuitical confessor,
Bobadilla, and the new pope, Pius IV., again placed him on
good terms with Rome, A. D. 1559. ... Augustus, elector of
Saxony, the brother of Maurice, alarmed at the fresh alliance
between the emperor and pope, convoked a meeting of the
Protestant leaders at Naumberg. His fears were, however,
allayed by the peaceful proposals of the emperor (A. D. 1561).
... A last attempt to save the unity of the German church, in
the event of its separation from that of Rome, was made by
Ferdinand, who convoked the spiritual electoral princes, the
archbishops and bishops, for that purpose to Vienna, but the
consideration with which he was compelled to treat the pope
rendered his efforts weak and ineffectual. ... The
Protestants, blind to the unity and strength resulting from
the policy of the Catholics, weakened themselves more and more
by division."
W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
sections 197-198 (volume 2).
GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1558.
Abdication of the emperor, Charles V., and election of his
brother, Ferdinand.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.
The degeneracy of the Reformation.
Internal hostilities of Protestantism.
Tolerant reigns of Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II.
Renewed persecution under Rudolf II.
The risings against him.
His cessions and abdications.
"Germany was externally at peace. When the peace was broken in
Protestant states, the Protestants themselves, that is, a part
of their divines, were the cause of' the disturbance. These
were 'frantic' Lutherans. The theologian Flacius, at Jena,
openly attacked Melancthon as a 'traitor to the church,' on
account of his strivings for peace. The religious
controversies in the bosom of the adherents of the Augsburg
Confession had been since Luther's death inflamed to madness
by a strict Lutheran party, by slaves of the letter, who raged
not only against the Zwinglian and Calvinistic reformations,
but against Melancthon and those who sympathized with him. The
theological pugilists disgraced Protestantism, and aroused such
a spirit of persecution that Melancthon died on the 19th of
April, 1560, 'weary and full of anxiety of soul about the
future of the Reformation and the German nation.' His
followers, 'Lutheran' preachers and professors, were
persecuted, banished, imprisoned, on account of suspicion of
being inclined to the 'Reformed' [Calvinistic] as
distinguished from 'Evangelical' views; prayers for the
'extirpation of heresy' were offered in the churches of
Saxony, and a medal struck 'to commemorate the victory of
Christ over the Devil and Reason,' that is, over Melancthon
and his moderate party. ... Each parson and professor held
himself to be a divinely inspired watchman of Zion, who had to
watch over purity of doctrine. ... The universal prevalence of
'trials for witchcraft' in Protestant districts, with their
chambers of torture and burnings at the stake, marked the new
priestcraft of Lutheran Protestantism in its debasement into a
dogmatizing church. This quickly degenerating Protestant Church
comprised a mass of separate churches, because the vanity and
selfishness of the court clergy at every court, and the
professors of every university, would have a church of their
own. ... Every misfortune to the 'Reformed' churches caused a
malevolent joy in the Lutheran camp, and every common measure
against the common enemy was rejected by the Lutheran clergy
from hatred to the 'Reformed.' ... The emperor Ferdinand I.
had long been convinced that some change was required in the
Church of Rome. As he wrote to his ambassador in Trent, 'If a
reform of the Church did not proceed from the Church herself,
he would undertake the charge of it in Germany.' He never
ceased to offer his mediation between the two religious
parties. He thought, and thought justly, that a compromise was
possible in Germany. ... The change which gradually took place
in the head and heart of Ferdinand had not extended to those
who sat in St. Peter's chair. Ferdinand I., to improve the
moral state of the old Church, insisted most strongly on the
abolition of the celibacy of the clergy; this the Pope
declared the most indispensable prop of the Papacy. As thus
his proposals came to naught, he attempted to introduce the
proposed reformation into his hereditary domains; but just as
he was beginning to be the Reformer of these provinces, death
removed him from the world, on the 25th of July, 1564. ... His
oldest son and successor, Maximilian II., ... was out and out
German. Growing up in the great movement of the time, the
Emperor Maximilian II. was warmly devoted to the new ideas. He
hated the Jesuits and the Papacy. ...
{1466}
He remained in the middle between Protestants and Catholics,'
but really above both. ... He favored the Reformation in his
Austrian dominions; at the very time when Philip II. of Spain,
the son of Charles V., had commenced the bloodiest persecution
against the Reformed Church in the Netherlands ... ; at the
very time when the French court, ruled and led by Jesuits, put
into execution the long-prepared conspiracy of St.
Bartholomew. ... He never ceased to call the kings of France
and Spain to gentleness and toleration. ... 'I have no power,'
said the emperor, 'over consciences, and may constrain no
man's faith.' The princes unanimously elected the son of
Maximilian as King of the Romans, and Max received another
gratification: he was elected king by the gallant nation of
the Poles. Thus the house of Austria was again powerfully
strengthened. Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, and Germany, united
under one ruler, formed a power which could meet Turkey and
Russia. The Turks and the Russians were pressing forward. The
Turkish wars, more than anything else, prevented Max from
carrying out his long-cherished plan and giving a constitution
to the empire and church of the Germans. He who towered high
above the Papal party and the miserable controversies of
Protestant divines, and whose clear mind saw what the times
required, would have had every qualification for such a task.
But in the midst of his great projects, Maximilian II. died,
in his 49th year, on the 12th of October, 1576; as emperor,
honest, mild and wise, and elevated above all religious
controversies to a degree that no prince has ever reached. He
had always been a rock of offence to the Catholic party. ...
But Rudolf [son of Maximilian II.], when he became emperor
[1576], surrounded by secret Jesuits who had been his teachers
and advisers, became the humblest slave of the order and let
it do what it would. Rudolf had been sent by his father for
the interests of his own house to the Spanish court; a
terrible punishment now followed this self-seeking. Rudolf
confirmed liberty of conscience only to the nobles, not to the
citizens or peasants. He forbade the two latter classes to
visit the Evangelical churches, he closed their schools,
ordered them to frequent Catholic churches, threatened
disobedience with banishment, and even in the case of nobles
he dismissed from his court charges all who were not strict
papists. The people of Vienna and Austria hated him for these
orders. ... Without any judicial investigation he threatened
free cities with 'execution.' Aix la Chapelle expelled his
troops. Gebhard, the elector of Cologne, married a Countess
von Mansfeld and went over to Protestantism. ... The
Protestants supported him badly; Lutherans and Calvinists were
at bitter feud with each other, and weakened themselves in the
struggle. ... It was a croaking of ravens, and a great field
of the dead was not far off. ... The Emperor Rudolf, ... on a
return journey from Rome, vowed to Our Lady of Loretto, 'his
Generalissima,' to extirpate heretics at the risk of his life.
In his hereditary estates he ordered all who were not papists
to leave the territory. Soon afterwards he pulled down the
Evangelical churches, and dispersed the citizens by arms. He
intended soon to begin the same proceedings in Hungary and
Bohemia; but in Hungary the nation rose in defence of its
liberty and faith. The receipt of the intelligence that the
Hungarian malcontents were progressing victoriously
produced--what there had been symptoms of before--insanity.
The members of the house of Austria assembled, and declared
'The Emperor Rudolf can be no longer head of the house,
because unfortunately it is too plain that his Roman Imperial
Majesty ... was not competent or fit to govern the kingdoms.'
The Archduke Matthias [eldest brother of Rudolf] was elected
head of the Austrian house [1606]. He collected an army of
20,000 men, and made known that he would depose the emperor
from the government of his hereditary domains. Rudolf's
Jesuitical flatterers had named him the 'Bohemian Solomon.' He
now, in terror, without drawing sword, ceded Hungary and Austria
to Matthias, and gave him also the government of Moravia.
Matthias guaranteed religious liberty to the Austrians. Rudolf
did the same to the Bohemians and Silesians by the 'Letters of
Majesty.' Rudolf, to escape deposition by Matthias, abdicated
the throne of Bohemia."
W. Zimmerman,
Popular History of Germany,
book 5, chapter 2 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
F. Kohlrausch,
History of Germany,
chapter 21.
GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
The Evangelical Union and the Catholic League.
The Jülich-Cleve contest.
Troubles in Bohemia.
The beginning of the Thirty Years War.
"Many Protestants were alarmed by the attempts Rudolf had made
to put them down, and especially by his allowing the Duke of
Bavaria to seize the free city of Donauwörth, formerly a
Bavarian town, and make it Catholic. In 1608 a number of
Protestants joined together and formed, for ten years, a
league called The Union. Its formation was due chiefly to the
exertions of Prince Christian of Anhalt, who had busily
intrigued with Henry IV. of France; but its head was the
Elector Palatine. As the latter belonged to the Reformed
Church, the Lutherans for the most part treated the Union
coldly; and the Elector of Saxony would have nothing to do
with it. It soon had an opportunity of acting. Duke William of
Jülich, who held Jülich, Cleve, and other lands, died in 1609.
John Sigmund, Elector of Brandenburg, and the Palsgrave of
Neuberg, both members of the Union, claimed to be his heirs,
and took possession of his lands. The Emperor Rudolf sent his
brother, the Archduke Leopold, Bishop of Passau, to drive out
these princes. The Union thereupon formed an alliance with
Henry IV. of France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610], and, coming
to the aid of its members, scattered the forces of the
Archduke in 1610. The Catholics now took fright, and hastened
to form a League which should hold the Union in check. It was
formed for nine years, and the supreme command was given to
Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria. The death of Henry IV. took away
from the Union its chief source of strength, so that it shrank
from a general war. The two princes, however, who had given
rise to the quarrel, kept for a time the Jülich-Cleve
territory. In 1611 [1618] the power of the Elector of
Brandenburg was further increased by his succeeding to the
Duchy of Prussia. From this time East Prussia was always
joined to the Mark or Electorate of Brandenburg. It was now,
therefore, that the house of Brandenburg laid the foundations
of its future greatness. Matthias, in order to pacify the
Austrian States, granted them full religious liberty.
{1467}
In 1609 the Bohemian States also obtained from Rudolf a Royal
Charter, called 'The Letter of Majesty,' conceding to
nobility, knights and towns perfect freedom in religious
matters, and the right to build Protestant churches and
schools on their own and on the royal lands. Bohemia showed no
gratitude for this favour. Suspecting his designs, the
Bohemians even shut Rudolf up in his castle at Prague in 1611,
and asked Matthias to come to their aid. He did so, and seized
the supreme power. Next year Rudolf died. Matthias was crowned
at Frankfurt with great pomp, but he was no better fitted for
the throne than his brother. He was compelled to yield much to
the Protestants, yet favoured the Jesuits in their continued
efforts to convert Germany. His government was so feeble that
his brothers at length made him accept Ferdinand, Duke of
Styria, as his coadjutor. In 1617 Ferdinand was elected as
Rudolf's successor to the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary, and
from this time all real power in the Habsburg possessions was
wielded by him. Ferdinand was a young man, but had already
given proof of great energy of character. ... The Protestants
looked forward with dread to his reign if he should receive
the Imperial crown. Styria had become almost wholly Lutheran.
When Ferdinand succeeded his father, he had driven out the
Protestant families, and made the land altogether Catholic. No
Catholic prince had ever shown himself more reckless as to the
means by which he served his church. The Protestants,
therefore, had good reason to fear that if he became Emperor
he would renew the policy of Charles V., and try to bring back
the old state of things, in which there was but one Church as
there was but one Empire. Events proved that these fears were
well founded. The last days of Matthias were very troubled.
Two Protestant churches were built in Bohemia, one in the
territory of the Archbishop of Prague, the other in that of
the Abbot of Braunau. These princes, with permission of the
Emperor, pulled down one of the churches and shut up the
other. The Protestants complained; but their appeal was met by
the reply that the Letter of Majesty did not permit them to
build churches on the lands of ecclesiastics. This answer
excited great indignation in Bohemia; and a rumour was got up
that it had not come from the Emperor, but had been written in
Prague. On May 23, 1618, a number of Protestants, headed by Count
Thurn, marched to the Council Hall of the Royal Castle, and
demanded to be told the real facts. When the councillors
hesitated, two of them, with the private secretary, were
seized and thrown out of the window.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
The Protestants then took possession of the Royal Castle,
drove the Jesuits out of Bohemia, and appointed a council of
thirty nobles to carry on the government." These events formed
the beginning of the "Thirty Years War."
J. Sime,
History of Germany,
chapter 14.
"The Thirty Years' War was the last struggle which marked the
progress of the Reformation. This war, whose direction and
object were equally undetermined, may be divided into four
distinct portions, in which the Elector Palatine, Denmark,
Sweden, and France played in succession the principal part. It
became more and more complicated, until it spread over the
whole of Europe. It was prolonged indefinitely by various
causes.
I. The intimate union between the two branches of the house of
Austria and of the Catholic party--their opponents, on the
other hand, were not homogeneous.
II. The inaction of England, the tardy intervention of France,
the poverty of Denmark and Sweden, &c. The armies which took
part in the Thirty Years' War were no longer feudal militias,
they were permanent armies, although their sovereigns were
incapable of supporting them. They lived at the expense of the
countries which they laid waste. The ruined peasant turned
soldier and sold himself to the first comer."
J. Michelet,
Summary of Modern History,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
A. Gindely,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
chapters 1-3 (volume 1).
T. Carlyle,
History of Frederick the Great,
book 3, chapter 14 (volume 1).
GERMANY: A. D. 1612.
Election of the Emperor Matthias.
GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
The Thirty Years War: Hostilities in Bohemia precipitated by
Ferdinand.
His election to the imperial throne and his deposition in
Bohemia.
Acceptance of the Bohemian crown by Frederick, the Palatine
Elector.
His unsupported situation.
The Treaty of Ulm.
"The emperor was not a little disconcerted when he received
the news of what was passing [in Bohemia]. For whence could he
receive the aid necessary to put down these revolutionary acts
and restore order in Bohemia? Discontent, indeed, was scarcely
less formidably expressed even in his Austrian territories,
whilst in Hungary its demonstration was equally as serious.
Conciliation appeared to be the only means of preserving to
the house of Austria that important country, and even the
confessor and usual counsellor of the emperor, Cardinal
Klesel, the most zealous opponent of the Protestants, advised
that course. But such considerations were most strenuously
opposed by young Ferdinand. ... At his instigation, and that
of the other archdukes, backed by the pope, the pacific
Cardinal Klesel was unexpectedly arrested, and charged with a
variety of crimes. The intention was to remove him from the
presence of the old and weak emperor, who was now without
support, and obliged to resign all to the archdukes. From this
moment the impotency of the emperor was complete, and all
hopes of an amicable pacification of Bohemia lost. The
Bohemians, likewise, took to arms, and possessed themselves of
every city in their country as far as Budweis and Pilsen,
which were still occupied by the imperial troops. They
obtained assistance, quite unlooked for, in the person of one
who may be regarded as one of the most remarkable heroes of
that day. ... Count Ernest of Mansfield, a warrior from his
youth, was of a bold and enterprising spirit; he had already
encountered many dangers, and had just been raising some
troops for the Duke of Savoy against the Spaniards. The duke,
who now no longer required them, gave him permission to serve
in the cause of the Evangelical Union in Germany; and by that
body he was despatched with 3,000 men to Bohemia, as having
apparently received his appointment from that country. He
appeared there quite unexpectedly, and immediately took from
the imperial army the important city of Pilsen [November 21,
1618]. ... The Emperor Matthias died on the 10th of March,
1619 ... and the Bohemians, who acknowledged his sovereignty
while living, now resolved to renounce his successor
Ferdinand, whose hostile intentions were already too clearly
expressed. Ferdinand attained the throne under circumstances
the most perplexing.
{1468}
Bohemia in arms, and threatening Vienna itself with invasion;
Silesia and Moravia in alliance with them; Austria much
disposed to unite with them; Hungary by no means firmly
attached, and externally menaced by the Turks; besides which,
encountering in every direction the hatred of the Protestants,
against whom his zeal was undisguised. ... Count Thurn
advanced upon Vienna with a Bohemian army. ... He came before
Vienna, and his men fired, even upon the imperial castle
itself, where Ferdinand, surrounded by open and secret foes,
had taken up his quarters. He dared not leave his capital, for
by so doing Austria, and with it the preservation of the
empire itself, must have been sacrificed. But his enemies
looked upon him as lost; and they already spoke of confining
him in a convent, and educating his children in the Protestant
faith. ... Count Thurn was obliged soon to return to Bohemia,
as Prague was menaced by the armies of Austria, and Ferdinand
availed himself of this moment in order to undertake another
hazardous and daring project. ... He ... resolved to proceed
to Frankfort to attend the election of emperor. The spiritual
electors had been gained over; Saxony also adhered closely to
the house of Austria; Brandenburg was not unfriendly; hence
the opposition of the palatinate alone against him could
accomplish nothing; accordingly Ferdinand was unanimously
chosen emperor on the 28th of August, 1619." Just two days
previously, on the 26th of August, the Bohemians, at a general
assembly of the states, had formally deposed Ferdinand from
the kingship of their nation, and proceeded to elect another
king in his place. "The Catholics proposed the Duke of Savoy
and Maximilian of Bavaria, whilst, in the Protestant interest,
the Elector John George of Saxony, and Frederick V., of the
palatinate, were put forward. The latter obtained the
election, being a son-in-law of King James I. of England, from
whom they expected assistance, and who personally was regarded
as resolute, magnanimous, and generous. The incorporated
provinces of Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia supported the
election, and even the Catholic states of Bohemia pledged
their fidelity and obedience. Frederick was warned against
accepting so dangerous a crown by Saxony, Bavaria, and even by
his father-in-law; but his chaplain, Scultetus, and his own
consort, Elizabeth, who as the daughter of a king aspired to a
royal crown, persuaded him with all their influence to accept
it. Frederick was accordingly ruled by them, received the
regal dignity in Bohemia, and was crowned at Prague with great
pomp on the 25th of October, 1619. ... Ferdinand in returning
from Frankfort passed on to Munich, and there concluded with
the Duke of Bavaria that important treaty which secured to him
the possession of Bohemia. These two princes had been
companions in youth, and the Evangelical Union had by several
incautious proceedings irritated the duke. Maximilian
undertook the chief command in the cause of the Catholic
party, and stipulated with the house of Austria that he should
be indemnified for every outlay and loss incurred, to the
extent even, if necessary, of the surrender of the territories
of Austria itself into his hands. With Spain, also, the
emperor succeeded in forming an alliance, and the Spanish
general, Spinola, received orders to invade the countries of
the palatinate from the Netherlands. Subsequently the Elector
of Mentz arranged a convention at Mülhausen with the Elector
John George of Saxony, the Elector of Cologne, and the
Landgrave Lewis of Darmstadt, wherein it was determined to
render all possible assistance to the emperor for the
maintenance of his kingdom and the imperial dignity.
Frederick, the new Bohemian king, was now left with no other
auxiliary but the Evangelical Union; for the Transylvanian
prince, Bethlen Gabor, was, notwithstanding all his promises,
a very dubious and uncertain ally, whilst the troops he sent
into Moravia and Bohemia were not unlike a horde of savage
banditti. Meanwhile the union commenced its preparations for
war, as well as the league. The whole of Germany resembled a
grand depot for recruiting. Every eye was directed to the
Swabian district, where the two armies were to meet; there,
however, at Ulm, on the 3rd of July, 1620, they unexpectedly
entered into a compact, in which the forces of the union
engaged to lay down their arms, and both parties pledged each
other to preserve peace and tranquillity. The unionists felt
themselves too weak to maintain the contest, since Saxony was
now likewise against them, and Spinola threatened them from
the Netherlands. It was, however, a great advantage for the
emperor, that Bohemia was excluded from this treaty, for, now
the forces of the league were at liberty to aid him in
subjugating his royal adversary. Maximilian of Bavaria,
therefore, immediately took his departure, and on his war
reduced the states of Upper Austria to the obedience due to
Ferdinand, joined the imperial army, and made a spirited
attack upon Bohemia. On the other side, the Elector of Saxony
took possession of Lusatia in the name of the emperor."
F. Kohlrausch,
History of Germany,
chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapters 29-32 (volume 3).
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapters 46-48 (volume 2).
Miss Benger,
Memoirs of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia,
chapters 6-9 (volumes 1-2).
GERMANY: A. D. 1620.
The Thirty Years War: Disappointment of the Bohemians in
their elected king.
Frederick's offensive Calvinism.
Defeat of his army before Prague.
Loss of Bohemian liberties.
Prostration of Protestantism.
"The defection of the Union accelerated the downfall of
Frederick; but its cordial support could scarcely have
hindered it. For the Bohemians had been disappointed in their
king, disappointed in the strength they had expected from him
through his connexions, equally disappointed in the man, and
in the hopes of protection and sympathy which they had
expected from him in the exercise of their religion. Within a
month of his coronation the metropolitan church was spoiled of
its images, the crucifix cut in pieces, the statues of the
saints cast out, broken, and burnt, the ornaments used in
divine service, and venerable in the eyes of Catholics and
Lutherans alike, scattered here and there, and turned upside
down with contempt and execration. These proceedings, which
were presumed, not without reason, to have the king's
authority--for during their enactment the court chaplain
addressed the people in praise of this purgation of the
temple--called forth loud complaints and increased the
disaffection which, more than any external force brought
against Frederick, produced his ruin.
{1469}
Early in November Maximilian appeared before Prague, and found
the Bohemians, under Christian van Anhalt, skilfully and
strongly posted on the Weissenberg [White Mountain] to offer
battle. The cautious Bucquoi would have declined the offer,
and attacked the city from another point; but an enthusiastic
friar who broke in upon the conference of the leaders, and,
exhibiting a mutilated image of the Virgin, reproached them
with their hesitation, put to flight all timid counsels. The
battle began at twelve o'clock. It was a Sunday, the octave of
the festival of All Saints [November 8, 1620]. ... In the
Catholic army Bucquoi was at the head of the Imperial
division. Tilly commanded in chief, and led the front to the
battle. He was received with a heavy fire; and for half an
hour the victory trembled in the balance: then the Hungarians,
who had been defeated by the Croats the day before, fled, and
all the efforts of the Duke of Saxe Weimar to rally them
proved fruitless. Soon the whole Bohemian army, Germans,
English, horse and foot, fled in disorder. One gallant little
band of Moravians only, under the Count of Thurn and the young
Count of Sehlick, maintained their position, and, with the
exception of their leaders, fell almost to a man. The battle
lasted only an hour; but the victory was not the less
complete. A hundred banners, ten guns, and a rich spoil fell
into the hands of the victors. Four thousand of the Bohemian
army, but scarcely as many hundreds of their opponents (if we
may believe their account), lay dead upon the field. ...
Frederick had returned from the army the day before, with the
intelligence that the Bavarians were only eight (English)
miles distant; but relying on the 28,000 men which he had to
cover his capital, he felt that night no uneasiness. ... He
had invited the English ambassadors to dine; and he remained
to entertain them. After dinner he mounted his horse to ride
to the Star Park; but before he could get out of the city
gate, he was met with the news of the total overthrow of his
army. His negotiations with Maximilian failing, or receiving
no answer, the next morning he prepared for flight. ...
Accompanied by his queen, Van Anhalt, the Prince of Hohenlohe,
and the Count of Thurn, he made a precipitate retreat from
Prague, leaving behind him the insignia of that monarchy which
he had not the wisdom to firmly establish, nor resolution to
defend to the last. It must be confessed, however, that his
position, after the defeat at Prague, was not altogether so
promising, and consequently his abandonment of his capital not
altogether so pusillanimous, as some have represented."
B. Chapman,
History of Gustavus Adolphus,
chapter 5.
"Frederick fled for his life through North Germany, till he
found a refuge at the Hague. The reign of the Bohemian
aristocracy was at an end. ... The chiefs perished on the
scaffold. Their lands were confiscated, and a new German and
Catholic nobility arose. ... The Royal Charter was declared to
have been forfeited by rebellion, and the Protestant churches
in the towns and on the royal estates had nothing to depend on
but the will of the conqueror. The ministers of one great body
--the Bohemian Brethren--were expelled at once. The Lutherans
were spared for a time."
S. R. Gardiner,
The Thirty Years' War,
chapter 3, section 1.
ALSO IN:
C. A. Peschek,
Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
volume 1, chapter 9.
See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648;
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
The Thirty Years War:
The Elector Palatine placed under the ban.
Dissolution of the Evangelical Union.
Invasion and conquest of the Palatinate.
Transfer of the electoral dignity to the Duke of Bavaria.
"Ferdinand, though firm, patient, and resigned in adversity,
was stern, vengeful, and overbearing in prosperity. He was
urged by many motives of resentment, policy, and zeal to
complete the ruin of the elector Palatine, and he did not
possess sufficient magnanimity to resist the temptation.
Having squandered away the confiscated property among his
Jesuits and favourites, he had still many allies and adherents
whose fidelity he was desirous to reward; he was anxious to
recover Upper Austria, which he had mortgaged to the duke of
Bavaria, as a pledge for the expenses of the war; he wished to
regain possession of Lusatia; and he was bound in honour to
satisfy the elector of Saxony for his opportune assistance.
... These motives overbearing an considerations of justice and
prudence, Ferdinand published the ban of the empire [January
22, 1621], of his own authority, against the elector Palatine
and his adherents the prince of Anhalt, the count of
Hohenlohe, and the duke of Jaegendorf. The execution of this
informal sentence he intrusted to the archduke Albert, as
possessor of the circle of Burgundy, and to the duke of
Bavaria, commanding the former to occupy the Lower, and the
latter the Upper Palatinate. This vigorous act was instantly
followed by the most decisive effects; for the Protestants
were terrified by the prospect of sharing the fate of the
unfortunate elector. The members of the union now felt the
fatal consequences of their own indecision and want of
foresight. ... Threatened at once by Spinola [commanding the
Spanish auxiliaries from the Netherlands] and the duke of
Bavaria, and confounded by the growing power of the emperor,
they vied in abandoning a confederacy which exposed them to
his vengeance. On the 12th of April, 1621, they concluded at
Mentz a treaty of neutrality, by which they promised not to
interfere in the affairs of the Palatinate, agreed to disband
their troops within a month, and to enter into no new
confederacy to the disadvantage of the emperor. This
dishonourable treaty was followed by the dissolution of the
union, which, on its expiration, was not renewed. During these
events, Spinola, having completed the reduction of the Lower
Palatinate, was occupied in the siege of Frankendahl, which
was on the point of surrendering, and its capture must have
been followed by the submission of Heidelberg and Manheim. The
duke of Bavaria had been still more successful in the Upper
Palatinate, and had rapidly subjugated the whole province,
together with the district of Cham. The elector Palatine,
deserted by the Protestant union, and almost abandoned by his
relatives, the kings of England and Denmark, owed the first
revival of his hopes of restoration to Mansfeld, an
illegitimate adventurer, with no other resources than plunder
and devastation. Christian of Brunswick, administrator of
Halberstadt, distinguished indeed by illustrious birth, but
equally an adventurer, and equally destitute of territory or
resources, espoused his cause, as well from ties of affinity
[he was the cousin of Elizabeth, the electress Palatine, or
queen of Bohemia, as she preferred to be called] as from a
chivalrous attachment to his beautiful consort; and George
Frederic, margrave of Baden, even abdicated his dignity to
devote himself to his support."
{1470}
Mansfeld, who had held his ground in Bohemia for nearly a year
after the battle of the White Mountain, now became hard
pressed there by Tilly, and suddenly escaped by forced marches
(October, 1621,) into the Lower Palatinate. "Here he found a
more favourable field of action; for Spinola being recalled
with the greater part of the Spanish forces, had left the
remainder to Gonzales de Cordova, who, after reducing several
minor fortresses, was pressing the siege of Frankendahl. The
name of the brave adventurer drew to his standard multitudes
of the troops, who had been disbanded by the Protestant union,
and he was joined by a party of English, who had been sent for
the defence of the Palatinate. Finding himself at the head of
20,000 men, he cleared the country in his passage, relieved
Frankendahl, and provided for the safety of Heidelberg and
Manheim. Unable, however, to subsist in a district so recently
the seat of war, he turned into Alsace, where he increased his
forces; from thence he invaded the neighbouring bishoprics of
Spire and Strasburgh, levying heavy contributions, and giving
up the rich domains of those sees to the devastations of his
troops. Encouraged by this gleam of hope, the elector Palatine
quitted his asylum in Holland, passed in disguise through
Loraine and Alsace, joined Mansfeld, and gave his name and
countenance to this predatory army." Mansfeld, recrossing the
Rhine, effected a junction with the margrave of Baden; and
Christian of Brunswick, after pillaging the rich sees of Lower
Saxony, was on his way with a considerable force to unite with
both. "At the same time the duke of Wirtemberg, the landgrave
of Hesse, and other Protestant princes, began to arm, and
hopes were even entertained of the revival of the Protestant
union. Tilly, who had followed Mansfeld from Bohemia, had in
vain endeavoured to prevent his junction with the margrave of
Baden. Defeated at Mingelsheim by Mansfeld, on the 29th of
April, 1622, he had been reduced to the defensive, and in this
situation saw a powerful combination rising on every side
against the house of Austria. He waited therefore for an
opportunity of attacking those enemies singly, whom he could
not resist when united, and that opportunity was presented by
the separation of the margrave of Baden from Mansfeld, and his
attempt to penetrate into Bavaria. Tilly suddenly drew
together the Spanish troops, and with this accession of force
defeated, on the 6th of May, the margrave at Wimpfen, with the
loss of half his army, and took his whole train of artillery
and military chest. Leaving Mansfeld employed in the siege of
Ladenburgh, he next directed his attention to Christian of
Brunswick, routed him on the 20th of June, at Hoechst
[Höchst], as he was crossing the Main, pursued him till his
junction with Mansfeld, and drove their united forces beyond
the Rhine, again to seek a refuge and subsistence in Alsace.
These successes revived the cause of Ferdinand; the margrave
of Baden retired from the contest; the duke of Wirtemberg and
the other Protestant princes suspended their armaments; and
although Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick laid siege to
Saverne, and evinced a resolution to maintain the contest to
the last extremity, yet the elector Palatine again gave way to
that weakness which had already lost him a crown." He was
persuaded by his witless father-in-law, James I. of England,
to trust his cause to negotiations in which the latter was
being duped by the emperor. He consented, accordingly, "to
disavow his intrepid defenders, to dismiss them from his
service, to retire again into Holland, and wait the mercy of
the emperor. By this disavowal, Mansfeld and Christian were
left without a name to countenance their operations; and after
various negotiations, feigned or real, for entering into the
service of the emperor, Spain, or France, they accepted the
overtures of the Prince of Orange and forced their way through
the Spanish army which attempted to oppose their passage, to
join at Breda the troops of the United Provinces. The places
in Alsace and the bishopric of Spire which had been occupied
by the enemy were recovered by the archduke Leopold; and
Tilly, having completed the conquest of the Palatinate by the
capture of Heidelberg and Manheim, directed his attacks
against the forces which Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick
had again assembled. After a short continuance in Holland,
Mansfeld, in November, had led his predatory army into the
rich province of East Friesland, conquered the principal
fortresses, and extorted enormous contributions from the duke,
who was in alliance with Spain. On the other hand, Christian,
passing into Lower Saxony, persuaded the states of the circle
to collect an army of observation amounting to 12,000 men, and
intrust him with the command; and he soon increased this army
to almost double that number, by the usual incitements of
pillage and plunder. These levies attracting the attention of
the emperor, his threats, together with the advance of Tilly,
compelled the Saxon states to dismiss Christian and his army.
Thus left a second time without authority, he pushed towards
Westphalia, with the hope of joining Mansfeld and renewing
hostilities in the Palatinate; his design was however
anticipated by Tilly, who overtook him at Loen [or Stadtlohn],
in the district of Munster, and defeated him with the loss of
6,000 killed and 4,000 prisoners, in August, 1623. The
victorious general then turned towards East Friesland; but
Mansfeld, who had hitherto maintained himself in that country,
avoided an unequal contest by disbanding his troops, and
withdrawing into Holland, in January, 1624. ... Having
despoiled the elector Palatine of all his dominions, and
delivered himself from his enemies in Germany, Ferdinand had
proceeded to carry his plans into execution, by transferring
the electoral dignity to the duke of Bavaria, and dividing the
conquered territories among his adherents. ... He gained the
elector of Saxony, by promising him the revenues and perhaps
the cession of Lusatia; and the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt,
by offering to favour his pretensions to the succession of
Marburgh, which he was contesting with the landgrave of Hesse
Cassel. ... Having thus gained those whose opposition was most
likely to frustrate his design, he paid little regard to the
feeble threats of James, and to the remonstrances of the king
of Denmark. ... He summoned, on the 25th of February, 1623, a
meeting of the electors and princes who were most devoted to
his cause at Ratisbon, and, in concurrence with the majority
of this irregular assembly, transferred the Palatine
electorate, with all its honours, privileges, and offices, to
Maximilian, duke of Bavaria.
{1471}
To keep up, however, the hopes of the elector Palatine and his
adherents, and not to drive his family and connections to
desperation, the whole extent of the plan was not developed;
the partition of his territories was deferred, the transfer of
the electorate was made only for the life of Maximilian, and
the rights of the sons and collateral heirs of the unfortunate
elector were expressly reserved."
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 49 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
A. Gindely,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
volume 1, chapter 7.
F. Schiller,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
book 2.
C. R. Markham,
The Fighting Veres;
part 2, chapter 3.
GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
The Thirty Years War:
Alliance of England, Holland, and Denmark to support the
Protestant cause.
Creation of the imperial army of Wallenstein, and its first
campaigns.
"Had the Emperor been as wise as he was resolute, it is
probable that, victorious in every direction, he might have
been able to conclude a permanent peace with the Protestant
Party. But the bigotry which was a very part of his nature was
spurred on by his easy triumphs to refuse to sheathe the sword
until heresy had been rooted out from the land. In vain did
the Protestant princes, who had maintained a selfish and
foolish neutrality, remonstrate against the continuance of
hostilities after the avowed object for which those
hostilities were undertaken had been gained. In the opinion of
Ferdinand II. the real object still remained to be
accomplished. Under these critical circumstances the
emigrants, now grown numerous [see BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648],
and the awakened Protestant princes, earnestly besought the
aid of a foreign power. It was their representations which at
length induced three nations of the reformed faith--England,
Holland, and Denmark--to ally themselves to assist their
oppressed brethren.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
England agreed to send subsidies, Holland to supply troops.
The command of the delivering army was confided to Christian
IV., King of Denmark (1625). He was to be supported in Germany
by the partisan Mansfeldt, by Prince Christian of Brunswick,
and by the Protestants of Lower Saxony, who had armed
themselves to resist the exactions of the Emperor. Ferdinand
II., after vainly endeavouring to ward off hostilities by
negotiations, despatched Tilly to the Weser to meet the enemy.
Tilly followed the course of that river as far as Minden,
causing to be occupied, as he marched, the places which
commanded its passage. Pursuing his course northwards, he
crossed the river at Neuburg (midway between Minden and
Bremen), and occupied the principality of Kalenberg. The King
of Denmark was near at hand, in the Duchy of Brunswick,
anxious, for the moment, to avoid a battle. Tilly, superior to
him in numbers, was as anxious to fight one. As though the
position of the King of Denmark were not already sufficiently
embarrassing, the Emperor proceeded at this period to make it
almost unendurable by launching upon him likewise an imperial
army. ... Up to the period of the complete overthrow and
expulsion from the Palatinate of Frederic V., ex-King of
Bohemia, Ferdinand had been indebted for all his successes to
Maximilian of Bavaria. It was Maximilian who, as head of the
Holy League, had reconquered Bohemia for the Emperor: it was
Maximilian's general, Tilly, who had driven the Protestant
armies from the Palatinate; and it was the same general who
was now opposing the Protestants of the north in the lands
watered by the Weser. Maximilian had been rewarded by the
cession to him of the Palatinate, but it was not advisable
that so near a neighbour of Austria should be made too strong.
It was this feeling, this jealousy of Maximilian, which now
prompted Ferdinand to raise, for the first time in this war,
an imperial army, and to send it to the north. This army was
raised by and at the expense of Albert Wenzel Eusebius of
Waldstein, known in history as Wallenstein. A Czech by
nationality, born in 1583 of noble parents, who belonged to
one of the most advanced sects of the reformers but who died
whilst their son was yet young, Wallenstein had, when yet a
child, been committed to the care of his uncle, Albert
Slavata, an adherent of the Jesuits, and by him educated at
Olmütz in the strictest Catholic faith." By marrying, first, a
rich widow, who soon died, and then an heiress, daughter of
Count Harrach, and by purchasing with the fortune thus
acquired many confiscated estates, he had become possessed of
enormous wealth. He had already won distinction as a soldier.
"For his faithful services, Ferdinand in 1623 nominated
Wallenstein to be Prince, a title changed, the year following,
into that of Duke of Friedland. At this time the yearly income
he derived from his various estates, all economically managed,
was calculated to be 30,000,000 florins--little short of
£2,500,000." Wallenstein now, in 1625, "divining his master's
wishes, and animated by the ambition born of natural ability,
offered to raise and maintain, at his own cost, an army of
50,000 men, and to lead it against the enemy. Ferdinand
eagerly accepted the offer. Named Generalissimo and Field
Marshal in July of the same year, Wallenstein marched at the
head of 30,000 men, a number which increased almost daily,
first to the Weser, thence, after noticing the positions of
Tilly and of King Christian, to the banks of the Elbe, where
he wintered. ... In the spring ... Mansfeldt, with the view to
prevent a junction between Tilly and Wallenstein, marched
against the latter, and, though his troops were fewer in
number, took up a position at Dessau in full view of the
imperial camp, and there intrenched himself. Here Wallenstein
attacked (25 April 1626) and completely defeated him. Not
discouraged by this overthrow, and still bearing in mind the
main object of the campaign, Mansfeldt fell back into
Brandenburg, recruited there his army, called to himself the
Duke of Saxe-Weimar and then suddenly dashed, by forced
marches, towards Silesia and Moravia, with the intention of
reaching Hungary, where Bethlen Gabor had promised to meet
him." Wallenstein followed and "pressed him so hard that,
though Mansfeldt did effect a junction with Bethlen Gabor, it
was with but the skeleton of his army. Despairing of success
against numbers vastly superior, Bethlen Gabor withdrew from
his new colleague, and Mansfeldt, reduced to despair,
disbanded his remaining soldiers, and sold his camp-equipage
to supply himself with the means of flight (September).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
{1472}
He died soon after (30th November). ... Wallenstein then
retraced his steps to the north. Meanwhile Tilly, left to deal
with Christian IV., had followed that prince into Lower
Saxony, had caught, attacked, and completely defeated him at
Lutter (am Barenberge), the 27th July 1626. This victory gave
him complete possession of that disaffected province, and,
despite a vigorous attempt made by the Margrave George
Frederic of Baden to wrest it from him, he held it till the
return of Wallenstein from the pursuit of Mansfeldt. As two
stars of so great a magnitude could not shine in the same
hemisphere, it was then decided that Tilly should carry the
war into Holland, whilst to Wallenstein should be left the
honour of dealing with the King of Denmark and the Protestant
princes of the north."
G. B. Malleson,
The Battle-fields of Germany,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
W. Zimmermann,
Popular History of Germany,
book 5, chapter 2 (volume 4).
GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
The Thirty Years War:
Wallenstein's campaign against the Danes.
His power and his oppression in Germany.
The country devoured by his army.
Unsuccessful siege of Stralsund.
First succor from the king of Sweden.
The Peace of Lubeck.
The Edict of Restitution.
"Wallenstein opened the campaign of 1627 at the head of a
refreshed and well-equipped army of 40,000 men. His first
effort was directed against Silesia; and the Danish troops,
few in number, and ill commanded, gave way at his approach. To
prevent the fugitives from infringing on the neutrality of
Brandenburg, he occupied the whole electorate. Mecklenburg and
Pomerania soon shared the same fate. Remonstrances and
assurances of perfect neutrality were treated with absolute
scorn; and Wallenstein declared, in his usual haughty style,
that 'the time had arrived for dispensing altogether with
electors; and that Germany ought to be governed like France
and Spain, by a single and absolute sovereign.' In his rapid
march towards the frontiers of Holstein, he acted fully up to
the principle he had laid down, and naturally exercised
despotic power, as the representative of the absolute monarch
of whom he spoke. ... He ... followed up the Danes, defeated
their armies in a series of actions near Heiligenhausen,
overran the whole peninsula of Jutland before the end of the
campaign, and forced the unhappy king to seek shelter, with
the wrecks of his army, in the islands beyond the Belt. ...
Brilliant as the campaign of 1627 proved in its general
result, few very striking feats of arms were performed during
its progress. ... Now it was that the princes and states of
Lower Germany began to feel the consequences of their
pusillanimous conduct; and the very provinces which had just
before refused to raise troops for their own protection, were
obliged to submit, without a murmur, to every species of
insult and exaction. Wallenstein's army, augmented to 100,000
men, occupied the whole country; and the lordly leader
following, on a far greater scale, the principle on which
Mansfeld had acted, made the war maintain the war, and
trampled alike on the rights of sovereigns and of subjects.
And terrible was the penalty now paid for the short-sighted
policy which avarice and cowardice had suggested, and which
cunning had vainly tried to disguise beneath affected
philanthropy, and a generous love of peace. Provided with
imperial authority, and at the head of a force that could no
longer be resisted, Wallenstein made the empire serve as a
vast storehouse, and wealthy treasury for the benefit of the
imperial army. He forbade even sovereigns and electors to
raise supplies in their own countries, and was justly termed
'the princes' scourge, and soldiers' idol.' The system of
living by contributions had completely demoralised the troops.
Honour and discipline were entirely gone; and it was only
beneath the eye of the stern and unrelenting commander, that
anything like order continued to be observed. Dissipation and
profligacy reigned in all ranks: bands of dissolute persons
accompanied every regiment, and helped to extinguish the last
sparks of morality in the breast of the soldier. The generals
levied arbitrary taxes; the inferior officers followed the
example of their superiors; and the privates, soon ceasing to
obey those whom they ceased to respect, plundered in every
direction; while blows, insults, or death awaited all who
dared to resist. ... The sums extorted, in this manner, prove
that Germany must have been a wealthy country in the 17th
century; for the money pressed out of some districts, by the
imperial troops, far exceeds anything which the same quarters
could now be made to furnish. Complaints against the author of
such evils were, of course, not wanting; but the man
complained of had rendered the Emperor all-powerful in
Germany: from the Adriatic to the Baltic, Ferdinand reigned
absolute, as no monarch had reigned since the days of the
Othos. This supremacy was due to Wallenstein alone; and what
could the voice of the humble and oppressed effect against
such an offender? Or when did the voice of suffering nations,
arrest the progress of power and ambition? During the winter
that followed on the campaign of 1627, Wallenstein repaired to