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

by J. N. Larned

town, and were cheered by the people. ... It is estimated
that, of the populace, about 200 were killed: 187 received a
public funeral. No accurate account of the wounded can be
obtained. ... Of the troops, according to the official
returns, there fell 3 officers and 17 non-commissioned
officers and privates; of wounded there were 14 officers, 14
non-commissioned officers, and 225 privates, and 1 surgeon.
... The king's object was to divert popular enthusiasm into
another channel; he therefore assumed the lead in the
regeneration of Germany. On the 21st he issued a proclamation,
enlarging on these views, and rode through the streets with
the proscribed German tricolor on his helmet, and was
vociferously cheered as he passed along. Prussia was not the
first of the German states where the old order of things was
overturned. During the whole of the month of March, Germany
underwent the process of revolution. ... On the 3d of March
... the new order of things ... began at Wurtemberg. The Duke
of Hesse-Darmstadt abdicated. In Bavaria, things took a more
practical turn. The people insisted on the dismissal of the
king's mistress, Lola Montez: she was sent away, but, trusting
to the king's dotage, she came back, police or no police--was
received by the king--he created her Countess of Lansfeldt.
This was a climax to which the people were not prepared to
submit. ... The king was compelled to expel her, to annul her
patent of naturalization, and resume the grant he had made of
property in her favour. This was more than he could stand, and
he shortly after abdicated in favour of his heir. In Saxony
the king gave way, after his troops had refused to act, and
the freedom of the press was established, and other popular
demands granted. In Vienna, the old system of Metternich was
abolished, after a revolution which was little more than a
street row. The king of Hanover refused to move, but was
eventually induced to receive Stube as one of his ministers,
who had been previously in prison for his opinions. However,
he was firmer than most of his brother monarchs, and his
country suffered less than the rest of Germany in
consequence."
E. S. Cayley,
The European Revolutions of 1848,
volume 2: Germany, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
C. E. Maurice,
The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-9,
chapter 7.
GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (March-September).
Election and meeting of the National Assembly at Frankfort.
Resignation of the Diet.
Election of Archduke John to be Administrator of Germany.
Powerlessness of the new government.
Troubles rising from the Schleswig-Holstein question.
Outbreak at Frankfort.
The setting in of Reaction.
"In south-western Germany the liberal party set itself at the
head of the movement. ... The Heidelberg assembly of March
5th, consisting of the former opposition leaders in the
various Chambers, issued a call to the German nation, and
chose a commission of seven men, who were to make propositions
with regard to a permanent parliament and to summon a
preliminary parliament at Frankfort. This preliminary
parliament assembled in St. Paul's church, March 31st. ... The
majority, consisting of constitutional monarchists, resolved
that an assembly chosen by direct vote of the people ...
should meet in the month of May, with full and sovereign power
to frame a constitution for all Germany. ... These measures
did not satisfy the radical party, whose leaders were Hecker
and Struve. As their proposition to set up a sovereign
assembly, and republicanize Germany, was rejected, they left
Frankfort, and held in the highlands of Baden popular meetings
at which they demanded the proclamation of the republic.
{1535}
A Hesse-Darmstadt corps under Frederic von Gagern ... was sent
to disperse them. An engagement took place at Kandern, in
which Gagern was shot, but Hecker and his followers were put
to flight. ... The disturbances in Odenwald, and in the Main
and Tauber districts, once the home of the peasant war, were
of a different description. There the country people rose
against the landed proprietors, destroyed the archives, with
the odious tithe and rental books, and demolished a few
castles. The Diet, which in the meantime continued its
illusory existence, thought to extricate itself from the
present difficulties by a few concessions. It ... invited the
governments to send confidential delegates to undertake, along
with its members, a revision of the constitution of the
confederation. ... These confidential delegates, among them
the poet Uhland, from Würtemberg, began their work on the 30th
of March. The elections for the National Assembly stirred to
their innermost fibres the German people, dreaming of the
restoration of their former greatness. May 18th about 320
delegates assembled in the Imperial Hall, in the Römer (the
Rathhaus), at Frankfort. ... Never has a political assembly
contained a greater number of intellectual and scholarly
men--men of character and capable of self-sacrifice; but it
certainly was not the forte of these numerous professors and
jurists to conduct practical politics. The moderate party was
decidedly in the majority. ... It was decided ... that a
provisional central executive should be created in the place
of the Diet, and created, not by the National Assembly in
concert with the princes, but by the National Assembly alone.
June 27th, following out the bold conception of its president,
the assembly decided to appoint an irresponsible
administrator, with a responsible ministry; and June 29th,
Archduke John of Austria was chosen Administrator of Germany
by 436 votes out of 546. He made his entry into Frankfort July
11th, and entered upon his office on the following day. The
hour of the Diet had struck, apparently for the last time. It
resigned its authority into the hands of the Administrator,
and, after an existence of 32 years, left the stage unmourned.
Archduke John was a popular prince, who found more pleasure in
the mountain air of Tyrol and Styria than in the perfumed
atmosphere of the Vienna court. But, as a novice 66 years of
age, he was not equal to the task of governing, and as a
thorough Austrian he lacked a heart for all Germany. The main
question for him and for the National Assembly was, what force
they could apply in case the individual governments refused
obedience to the decrees issued in the name of the National
Assembly. This was the Achilles's heel of the German
revolution. ... Orders were issued by the federal minister of
war that all the troops of the Confederation should swear
allegiance to the federal administrator on the 6th of August;
but Prussia and Austria, with the exception of the Vienna
garrison, paid no attention to these orders; Ernest Augustus,
in Hanover, successfully set his hard head against them, and
only the lesser states obeyed. ... There certainly was no
other way out of the difficulty than by the formation of a
parliamentary army. ... Instead of meeting these dangers
resolutely, and in a common-sense way, the Assembly left
matters to go as they would, outside of Frankfort. One
humiliation was submitted to after another, while the
Assembly, busying itself for months with a theoretical
question, as if it were a juristic faculty, entered into a
detailed consideration of the fundamental rights of the German
people. The Schleswig-Holstein question, which had just
entered upon a new phase of its existence, was the first
matter of any importance to manifest the disagreement between
the central administration and the separate governments; and
it opened, as well, a dangerous gulf in the Assembly itself.
The question at issue was one of succession [see SCANDINAVIAN
STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862]. ... The Estates of the
duchies [Schleswig and Holstein] established a provisional
government, applied at Frankfort for the admission of
Schleswig into the German confederation, and besought armed
assistance both there and at Berlin. The preliminary
parliament [this having occurred in April, before the meeting
of the National Assembly] approved the application of
Schleswig for admission, and commissioned Prussia, in
conjunction with the 10th army corps of the Confederation, to
occupy Schleswig and Holstein. On the 21st of April, 1848,
General Wrangel crossed the Eider as commander of the forces
of the Confederation; and on the 23d, in conjunction with the
Schleswig-Holstein troops, he drove the Danes out of the
Danewerk. On the following day the Danes were defeated at
Oeversee by the 10th army corps, and all Schleswig-Holstein
was free. Wrangel entered Jutland and imposed a war tax of
3,000,000 thalers (about $2,250,000). He meant to occupy this
province until the Danes--who, owing to the inexcusable
smallness of the Prussian navy, were in a position unhindered
to injure the commerce of the Baltic--had indemnified Prussia
for her losses; but Prussia, touched to the quick by the
destruction of her commerce, and intimidated by the
threatening attitude of Russia, Sweden, and England, recalled
her troops, and concluded an armistice at Malmö, in Sweden, on
the 26th of August. All measures of the provisional government
were pronounced invalid; a common government for the duchies
was to be appointed, one half by Denmark, and the other by the
German confederation; the Schleswig troops were to be
separated from those of Holstein; and the war was not to be
renewed before the 1st of April, 1849--i. e., not in the
winter, a time unfavorable for the Danes. This treaty was
unquestionably no masterpiece on the part of the Prussians.
All the advantage was on the side of the conquered Danes. ...
It was not merely the radicals who urged, if not the final
rejection, at least a provisional cessation of the armistice,
and the countermanding of the order to retreat. ... A bill to
that effect, demanded by the honor of Germany, had scarcely
been passed by the majority, on the 5th of September, when the
moderate party reflected that such action, involving a breach
with Prussia, must lead to civil war and revolution, and call
into play the wildest passions of the already excited people.
In consequence of this the previous vote was rescinded, and
the armistice of Malmö accepted by the Assembly, after the
most excited debates, September 16th. This gave the radicals a
welcome opportunity to appeal to the fists of the lower
classes, and imitate the June outbreak of the social democrats
in Paris. ...
{1536}
A collision ensued [September 18]; barricades were erected,
but were carried by the troops without much bloodshed. ...
General Auerswald and Prince Lichnowsky, riding on horseback
near the city, were followed by a mob. They took refuge in a
gardener's house on the Bornheimer-heide, but were dragged out
and murdered with the most disgraceful atrocities. Thereupon
the city was declared in a state of siege, all societies were
forbidden, and strong measures were taken for the maintenance
of order. The March revolution had passed its season, and
reaction was again beginning to bloom. ... Reaction drew
moderate men to its side, and then used them as
stepping-stones to immoderation."
W. Müller,
Political History of Recent Times,
section 17.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapter 53.
GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Revolutionary risings in Austria and Hungary.
Bombardment of Vienna.
The war in Hungary.
Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
Accession of Francis Joseph.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
The Prussian National Assembly, and its dissolution.
The work and the failure of the National Assembly of
Frankfort.
Refusal of the imperial crown by the King of Prussia.
End of the movement for Germanic unity.
"The elections for the new Prussian Constituent Assembly, as
well as for the Frankfort Parliament, were to take place (May
1). The Prussian National Assembly was to meet May 22. The
Prussian people, under the new election law, if left to
themselves, would have quietly chosen a body of competent
representatives; but the revolutionary party thought nothing
could be done without the ax and the musket. ... The people of
Berlin, from March to October, were ... really in the hands of
the mob. ... The newly-elected Prussian National Assembly was
opened by the king, May 21. ... One of the first resolutions
proceeded from Behrend of the Extreme Left. 'The Assembly
recognizes the revolution, and declares that the combatants
who fought at the barricades, on March 18 and 19, merit the
thanks of the country.' ... The motion was rejected. On
issuing from the building into the street, after the sitting,
the members who had voted against it, were received by the mob
with threats and insults. ... In the evening of the same day,
in consequence of the rejection of the Behrend resolution, the
arsenal was attacked by a large body of laborers. The
burgher-guard were not prepared, and made a feeble defense.
There was a great riot. The building was stormed and partially
plundered. ... The sketch of a constitution proposed by the
king was now laid before the Assembly. It provided two
Chambers--a House of Lords, and a House of Commons. The last
to be elected by the democratic electoral law; the first to
consist of all the princes of the royal house in their own
right, and, in addition, 60 members from the wealthiest of the
kingdom to be selected by the king, their office hereditary.
This constitution was immediately rejected. On the rejection
of the constitution the ministry Camphausen resigned. ... The
Assembly, elected exclusively to frame a constitution, instead
of performing its duty ... attempted to legislate, with
despotic power, on subjects over which it had no jurisdiction.
As the drama drew nearer its close, the Assembly became more
open in its intention to overthrow the monarchy. On October 12
discussions began upon a resolution to strike from the king's
title the words, 'By the grace of God,' and to abolish all
titles of nobility and distinctions of rank. The Assembly
building, during the sitting, was generally surrounded by
threatening crowds. ... Of course, during this period business
was suspended, and want, beggary, and drunkenness, as well as
lawless disorder, increased. ... The writer was one day alone
in the diplomatic box, following an excited debate. A speaker
in the tribune was urging the overthrow of the monarchy, when
suddenly the entire Assembly was struck mute with
stupefaction. The Prince of Prussia, the late Emperor William
I., supposed to be in England, in terror for his life,
appeared at the door, accompanied by two officers, all three
in full uniform, and marched directly up to the tribune. The
Assembly could not have been more astounded had old Barbarossa
himself, with his seven-hundred-years-long beard, marched into
the hall out of his mountain cave. ... After a slight delay,
the President, Mr. von Grabow, accorded the tribune to the
prince. He ascended and made a short address, which was
listened to, with breathless attention, by every individual
present. He spoke with the assurance of an heir to a throne
which was not in the slightest danger of being abolished; but
he spoke with the modesty and good sense of a prince who
frankly accepted the vast transformation which the government
had undergone, and who intended honestly to endeavor to carry
out the will of the whole nation. ... This was one of many
occasions on which the honesty and superiority of the prince's
character made itself felt even by his enemies. ... Berlin was
now thoroughly tired of street tumults and the horn of the
burgher-guard. ... The Prussian troops which had been engaged
in the Schleswig-Holstein war, were now placed under General
Wrangel. ... He proceeded without delay to encircle the city
with the 25,000 troops. At the same time, a cabinet order of
the king (September 21) named a new ministry. ... At this
moment, the revolution over all Europe was nearly exhausted.
Cavaignac had put down the June insurrection. The Prussian
flag waved above the flag of Germany. The Frankfort Parliament
was rapidly dying out. ... On November 2, Count Brandenburg
stated to the Assembly that the king had requested him to form
a new ministry. ... On the same day, Count Brandenburg, with
his colleagues, appeared in the hall of the Prussian National
Assembly, and announced his desire to read a message from his
Majesty the King. ... 'As the debates are no longer free in
Berlin, the Assembly is hereby adjourned to November 27. It
will then meet, and thereafter hold its meetings, not in
Berlin, but in Brandenburg' (fifty miles from Berlin). After
reading the message, Count Brandenburg, his colleagues, and
all the members of the Right retired. ... The Assembly ...
adjourned, and met again in the evening. ... On November 10,
the Assembly met again. Their debates were interrupted by
General Wrangel, who had entered Berlin by the Brandenburg
gate, at the head of 25,000 troops. ... An officer from
General Wrangel entered the hall and politely announced that
he had received orders to disperse the Assembly. The members
submitted, and left the hall. ...
{1537}
An order was now issued dissolving the burgher-guard. On the
12th, Berlin was declared in a state of siege. ... During the
state of siege, the Assembly met again under the presidency of
Mr. von Unruh. A body of troops entered the hall, and
commanded the persons present to leave it. President von Unruh
declared he could not consistently obey the order. There was,
he said, no power higher than the Assembly. The soldiers did
not fire on him, or cut him down with their sabers; but
good-naturedly lifted his chair with him in it, and gently
deposited both in the street. ... On November 27, Count
Brandenburg went to Brandenburg to open the Assembly; but he
could not find any. It had split into two parts. ... There was
no longer a quorum. Thus the Prussian National Assembly
disappeared. On December 5; appeared a royal decree,
dissolving the National Assembly. ... Then appeared a
provisional octroyirte electoral law, for the election of two
Chambers. ... The new Chambers met February 26, 1849. ...
Prussia had thus closed the revolution of 1848, as far as she
was concerned. Bismarck was elected member of the Second
Chamber." Meantime, in the Frankfort Parliament, "the great
question, Austria's position with regard to the new Germany,
came up in the early part of November, 1848. Among many
propositions, we mention three: I. Austria should abandon her
German provinces. ... II. Austria should remain as a separate
whole, with all her provinces. ... III. The Austrian plan. All
the German States, and all the Austrian provinces (German and
non-German), should be united into one gigantic empire ...
with Austria at the head. ... Meanwhile, the debates went on
upon the questions: What shall be the form, and who shall be
the chief of what may be called the Prussian-Germany? Among
the various propositions (all rejected) were the following: 1.
A Directory, consisting of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria,
Würtemberg, and Saxony. II. The King of Prussia and Emperor of
Austria to alternate in succession every six years, as
Emperor. III. A chief magistracy, to which every German
citizen might aspire. IV. Revival of the old Bundestag, with
certain improvements. On January 23, 1849, the resolution that
one of the reigning German princes should be elected, with the
title of Emperor of Germany, was adopted (258 against 211). As
it was plain the throne could be offered to no one but
Prussia, this was a breach between the Parliament and Austria.
... The first reading of the constitution was completed,
February 3, 1849. The middle and smaller German States
declared themselves ready to accept it, but the kingdoms
remained silent. ... The real question before the Parliament
was, whether Prussia or Austria should be leader of Germany.
... On March 27, the hereditability passed by a majority of
four. On March 28, the constitution, with the democratic
electoral law, universal suffrage, the ballot, and the
suspensive veto, was voted and accepted. ... President Simson
then called the name of each member to vote upon the question
of the Emperor. There were 290 votes for Frederic William IV.
... A deputation, consisting of 30 of the most distinguished
members, was immediately sent to Berlin to communicate to the
king his election as Emperor. ... To the offer of the crown,
his Majesty replied he 'could not accept without the consent
of all the governments, and without having more carefully
examined the constitution.' ... Austria instantly rejected the
constitution, protested against the authority of the
Parliament, and recalled all her representatives from
Frankfort. The King of Würtemberg accepted; but rejected the
House of Hohenzollern as head of the Empire. Bavaria, Hanover,
Saxony, rejected; 28 of the smaller German States accepted. In
these were included the free-cities Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck.
... On April 28, Prussia addressed a circular note to the
governments, inviting them to send representatives to Berlin,
for the purpose of framing a new constitution. The note added:
In case of any attempt to force the Frankfort constitution
upon the country, Prussia was ready to render to the
governments all necessary assistance. ... On May 3, an
insurrection broke out in Saxony. ... On May 6, Prussian
troops appeared, called by the Saxon government, and attacked
the barricades. The battle lasted three days. ... The
insurgents abandoned the city. Dresden was declared in a state
of siege. ... The King of Prussia now recalled [from the
Frankfort Parliament] all the Prussian representatives. ... By
the gradual disappearance of most of the moderate members ...
the Parliament, now a mere revolutionary committee, dwindled
down to about 100 members. A resolution, proposed by Carl
Vogt, was passed to transfer the sittings to Stuttgart. ... On
June 6, the Rump Parliament in Stuttgart elected a central
government of its own. ... The Assembly was then dispersed.
... The German revolutions commenced and ended in the Grand
Duchy of Baden. ... By a mutiny in the regular army, it
intrenched itself in the first-class fortress, Rastadt. There
were, in all, three attempts at revolution in Baden [and one
in the Palatinate]. ... A large number of the leaders were
tried and shot. ... It was for taking part in this
insurrection that Gottfried Kinkel was sentenced to
imprisonment for life in the fortress of Spandau. Carl Schurz
aided him in escaping."
T. S. Fay,
The Three Germanys,
chapters 25-26 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 3, chapter 2.
H. von Sybel,
The Founding of the German Empire,
books 2-5 (volumes 1-2).
See, also, CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.
GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1862.
Opening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
War with Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
GERMANY: A. D. 1853-1875.
Commercial treaties with Austria and France.
Progress towards free trade.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.
GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
Advent of King William I. and Prince Bismarck in Prussia.
Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
Conquest of the duchies by Prussia and Austria.
Consequent quarrel and war.
"King Frederic William IV. [of Prussia], never a man of strong
head, had for years been growing weaker and more eccentric.
... In the early part of 1857, symptoms of softening of the
brain began to show themselves. That disorder so developed
itself that in October, 1857, he gave a delegation to the
Prince of Prussia [his brother] to act as regent; but the
first commission was only for three months. ... The Prince's
temporary commission was renewed from time to time; but it
soon became apparent that Frederic William's case was
hopeless, and his brother was formally installed as Regent in
October, 1858.
{1538}
Ultimately, the King died in January, 1861, and his brother
succeeded to the throne as William I." In September, 1862,
Otto von Bismarck became the new King's chief minister, with
General Roon for Minister of War, appointed to carry out a
reorganization of the Prussian army which King William had
determined to effect. Bismarck found his first opportunity for
the aggrandizement of Prussia in a reopening of the
Schleswig-Holstein question, which came about in November,
1863, when "Frederic of Denmark died, and Prince Christian
succeeded to the throne of that kingdom. Already before his
accession, the duchies were possessions of the Danish
monarchy, but had in certain respects a separate
administrative existence. This Denmark, in the year of
Christian's accession, had materially infringed in the case of
Sleswig, by a law which virtually incorporated that duchy with
the Danish monarchy. The German Confederation protested
against this 'Danification' of Sleswig, and having pronounced
a decree of Federal execution against the new King of Denmark
as Duke of Holstein and, in virtue of that duchy, a member of
the German Confederation, sent into Holstein Federal troops
belonging to the smaller States of the Confederation. The
Confederation, as a collective body, favoured the
establishment of the independence of the duchies, and had with
it the wishes probably of the great mass of the German nation.
But the independence of Sleswig and Holstein scarcely suited
the views of Bismarck. He desired the annexation to Prussia of
at all events Holstein, because in Holstein is the great
harbour of Kiel, all important in view of the new fleet with
which he purposed equipping Prussia; if Sleswig could be
compassed along with Holstein, so much the better. But there
were two difficulties in Bismarck's way. Prussia was a
co-signatory of the Treaty of London. If he were to grasp at
the duchies single-handed, a host of enemies might confront
him. England was burning to take up arms in the cause of the
father of the beautiful princess she had adopted as her own.
The German Confederation would oppose Prussia's naked effort
to aggrandise herself; and Austria, in the double character of
a party to the Treaty of London and of a member of the
Confederation, would rejoice in the opportunity to strike a
blow at a power of whose rising pretensions she had begun to
be jealous. The wily Bismarck had to dissemble. He made the
proposal to Austria that the two states should ignore their
participation as individual States in the Treaty of London,
and that as corporate members of the German Confederation they
should constitute themselves the executors of the Federal
decree, and put aside the minor states whose troops had been
charged with that office. Austria acceded. It was a bad hour
for her when she did, yet she moves no compassion for the
misfortunes which befell her as the issue. ... The Diet had to
submit. The Austro-Prussian troops marched through Holstein
into Sleswig, and on the 2nd of February, 1864, struck at the
Danes occupying the Dannewerke. ... The venerable Marshal
Wrangel was commander-in-chief of the combined forces until
after the fall of Düppel, when Prince Frederic Charles
succeeded him in that position; but throughout the campaign
the control of the dispositions was mainly exercised by the
Red Prince. But neither strategy nor tactics were very
strenuously brought into use for the discomfiture of the
unfortunate Danes. Their ruin was wrought partly because of
the overwhelmingly superior force of their allied opponents,
partly because of their own unpreparedness for war in almost
everything save the possession of heroic bravery; but most of
all by the fire of the needle-gun and the Prussian advantage
in the possession of rifled artillery. Only part of the
Prussian infantry had used the needle-gun in the reduction of
the Baden insurrection in 1848; now, however, the whole army
was equipped with it. ... In their retreat from the Dannewerke
into the Düppel position, the Danes suffered severely from the
inclemency of the weather, and fought a desperate rear-guard
engagement with the Austrians. ... The Prussians undertook the
task of reducing Düppel; the Austrians marched northward into
Jutland, and driving back the Danish troops they encountered
in their march, sat down before the fortress of Fredericia,
and swept the Little Belt with their cannon. The sieges, both
of Düppel and of Fredericia, were conducted with extreme
inertness." But the former was taken and the latter abandoned.
"The Danish war was terminated by the Treaty of Vienna on the
30th October, 1864, under which the duchies of Sleswig,
Holstein, and Lauenburg were handed over to the sovereigns of
Austria and Prussia. ... Out of the Danish war of 1864 grew
almost inevitably the war of 1866, between Prussia and
Austria. The wolves quite naturally wrangled over the carcase,
and the astuter wolf had so much the better of the wrangle
that the duller one, unless he chose to be partly bullied,
partly tricked out of his share, had no alternative but to
fight for it, with the result that he clean lost that and a
great deal more besides. The future of the Elbe Duchies was
played at pitch and toss with between Prussia and Austria for
the best part of a year; the details of the game were too
intricate to be followed here. The condominium of the two
Powers in the duchies produced constant friction, which was
probably Bismarck's intention, especially as Prussia had taken
care to keep stationed in them twice as many troops as Austria
had left there. Relations were becoming very strained when in
August, 1865, the Emperor Francis Joseph and King William met
at the little watering-place of Gastein, and from their
interview originated the short-lived arrangement known as the
Convention of Gastein. By that compact, while the two Powers
preserved the common sovereignty over the duchies, Austria
accepted the administration of Holstein, Prussia undertaking
that of Sleswig. Prussia was to have rights of way through
Holstein to Sleswig, was given over the right of construction
of a North Sea and Baltic Canal; and while Kiel was
constituted a Federal harbour, Prussia was authorised to
construct there the requisite fortifications and marine
establishments, and to maintain an adequate force for the
protection of these. Assuming the arrangement to be
provisional, as on all hands it was regarded, Prussia clearly
had the advantage under it. ... But the Gastein Convention
contained another provision--that Austria should sell to
Prussia all her rights in the duchy of Lauenburg (an outlying
appanage of Holstein) for the sum of 2,500,000 thalers: thus
making market of rights of which she was but a trustee for the
German Confederation.
{1539}
The Convention of Gastein pleased nobody, but that mattered
little to Bismarck. ... Bickerings recommenced before the year
1865 was out, and early in 1866 Austria began to arm. ... In
March, 1866, a secret treaty was formed between Italy and
Prussia. ... Prussia threw the Convention of Gastein to the
winds by civilly but masterfully turning the Austrian brigade
of occupation out of Holstein. Then Austria in the Federal
Diet, complaining that by this act Prussia had disturbed the
peace of the German Confederation, moved for a decree of
Federal execution against that state, to be enforced by the
Confederation's armed strength. On the 14th June, Austria's
motion was carried by the Diet, its last act; for Prussia next
day wrecked the flimsy organisation of the German Confederation,
by declaring war against three of its component members,
Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony. There was no formal declaration of
war between Austria and Prussia, only a notification of
intended hostile action sent by the Prussian commanders to the
Austrian foreposts. On the 17th the Emperor Francis Joseph
published his war manifesto; King William on the 18th emitted
his to 'My People;' on the 20th, Italy declared war against
Austria and Bavaria."
A. Forbes,
William of Germany,
chapters 7-8.
ALSO IN:
H. von Sybel,
The Founding of the German Empire,
books 9-16 (volumes 3-4).
C. Lowe,
Prince Bismarck,
chapters 5-7 (volume 1),
and appendices. A, B, C (volume 2).
J. G. L. Hesekiel,
Life of Bismarck,
book 5, chapter 3.
Count von Beust,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 22-28.
GERMANY: A. D. 1862.
The Schleswig-Holstein question.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Defeat of Austria.
Victory and Supremacy of Prussia.
Her Absorption of Hanover, Hesse, Nassau, Frankfort and
Schleswig-Holstein.
Formation of the North German Confederation.
Exclusion of Austria from the Germanic organization.
"Prussia had built excellent railroads throughout the country,
and quietly placed her troops on the frontier; within 14 days
she had 500,000 men under arms. By the end of May they were on
the frontiers ready for action, while Austria was only half
prepared, and her allies only beginning to arm. On the 14th of
June the diet, by a vote of nine to six, had ordered the
immediate mobilization of a federal army; whereupon Prussia
declared the federal compact dissolved and extinguished. In
Vienna and the petty courts men said, 'Within fourteen days
after the outbreak of hostilities the allied armies will enter
Berlin in triumph and dictate peace; the power of Prussia will
be broken by two blows.' The Legitimists were exultant; even
the majority of the democracy in South Germany joined with the
Ultramontane party in shouting for Austria. On the 10th of June,
Bismark laid before the German governments the outlines of a
new federal constitution, but was not listened to; on the 15th
he made proposals to the states in the immediate neighborhood
of Prussia for a peace on these foundations, and demanded
their neutrality, adding that if they declined his peaceful
offers he would treat them as enemies. The cabinets of Dresden
and Hanover, of Cassel and Wiesbaden, declined them.
Immediately, on the night of the 15th and 16th of June,
Prussian troops entered Hanover, Hesse and Saxony. In four or
five days Prussia had disarmed all North Germany, and broken
all resistance from the North Sea to the Main. On the 18th of
June, the Prussian general Bayer entered Cassel; the Elector
was surprised at Wilhelmshöhe. As he still refused all terms
he was arrested by the direct order of the king of Prussia and
sent as a prisoner to Stettin. On the 17th, General Vogel von
Falkenstein entered Hanover. King George with his army of
18,000 men sought to escape to South Germany. After a gallant
struggle at Langensalza on the 27th, his brave troops were
surrounded. The King capitulated on the 29th. His army was
disbanded, he himself allowed to go to Vienna. On the 18th the
Prussians were in Dresden; on the 19th, in Leipzig; by the
20th, all Saxony except the fortress of Königstein was in
their hands. The king and army of Saxony, on the approach of
the Prussians, had left the country by the railroads to
Bohemia to form a junction with the Austrians. The Saxon army
consisted of 23,000 men and 60 cannon. Everyone had expected
Austria to occupy a country of such strategic value as Saxony
before the Prussians could touch it. The Austrian army
consisted of seven corps, 180,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry,
762 guns. The popular opinion had forced the emperor to make
Benedek the commander-in-chief in Bohemia. Everything there
was new to him. The Prussians were divided into three armies:
the army of the Elbe, 40,000 men, under Herwarth von
Bittenfeld; the first army, 100,000 men, under Prince
Frederick Charles; the second or Silesian army under the Crown
Prince, 116,000 strong. The reserve consisted of 24,000
Landwehr. The whole force in this quarter numbered 280,000 men
and 800 guns. ... The Prussians knew what they were fighting
for. To the Austrians the idea of this war was something
strange. At Vienna, Benedek had spoken against war; after the
first Prussian successes, he had in confidence advised the
emperor to make peace as soon as possible. As he was unable,
from want of means, to attack, he concentrated his army
between Josephstadt and the county of Glatz. He thought only
of defence. ... On the 23rd of June the great Prussian army
commenced contemporaneously its march to Bohemia from the
Riesengebirge, from Lusatia, from Dresden. It advanced from
four points to Josephstadt-Koniggrätz, where the junction was
to take place. Bismarck had ordered, from financial as well as
political reasons, that the war must be short. The Prussian
armies had at all points debouched from the passes and entered
Bohemia before a single Austrian corps had come near these
passes. ... In a couple of days Benedek lost in a series of
fights against the three Prussian advancing armies nearly
35,000 men; five of his seven corps had been beaten. He
concentrated these seven corps at Koniggrätz in the ground
before this fortress; he determined to accept battle between
the Elbe and the Bistritz. He had, however, previously
reported to the emperor that his army after its losses was not
in a condition for a pitched battle. He wished to retire to
Moravia and avoid a battle till he had received
reinforcements. This telegram of Benedek arrived in the middle
of the exultation which filled the court of Vienna after
hearing of the victory over the Italians at Custozza.
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
{1540}
The emperor replied by ordering him briefly to give battle
immediately. Benedek, on the 1st of July, again sent word to
the emperor, 'Your majesty must conclude peace.' Yet on these
repeated warnings came the order to fight at once. Benedek had
provided for such an answer by his arrangements for July the
2nd. He had placed his 500 guns in the most favorable
positions, and occupied the country between the Elbe and the
little river Bistritz for the extent of a league. As soon as
the Prussians heard of this movement they resolved to attack
the Austrians on the 3d. On the 2d the king, accompanied by
Count Bismarck, Von Roon and Von Moltke, had joined the army.
He assumed command of the three armies. The Crown Prince and
Herwarth were ordered to advance against Königgrätz. Part of
the Crown Prince's army were still five German miles from the
intended battle ground. Prince Frederick Charles and Herwarth
had alone sustained the whole force of Austria in the struggle
around Sadowa, which began at 8 o'clock in the morning.
Frederick Charles attacked in the centre over against Sadowa;
Herwarth on the right at Nechanitz; the Crown Prince was to
advance on the left from Königinhof. The Crown Prince received
orders at four o'clock in the morning; he could not in all
probability reach the field before one or two o'clock after
noon. All depended on his arrival in good time. Prince
Frederick Charles forced the passage of the Bistritz and took
Sadowa and other places, but could not take the heights. His
troops suffered terribly from the awful fire of the Austrian
batteries. The King himself and his staff came under fire,
from which the earnest entreaties of Bismarck induced him to
retire. About one o'clock the danger in the Prussian centre
was great. After five hours of fighting they could not
advance, and began to talk of retreat. On the right, things
were better. Herwarth had defeated the Saxons, and threatened
the Austrian left. Yet, if the army of the Crown Prince did
not arrive, the battle was lost, for the Prussian centre was
broken. But the Crown Prince brought the expected succor.
About two o'clock came the news that a part of the Crown
Prince's army had been engaged since one o'clock. The
Austrians, attacked on their right flank and rear, had to give
way in front. Under loud shouts of 'Forward,' Prince Frederick
Charles took the Wood of Sadowa at three, and the heights of
Lipa at four o'clock. At this very time, four o'clock, Benedek
had already given orders to retreat. ... From the ... first
the Prussians were superior to the Austrians in ammunition,
provisions and supplies. They had a better organization,
better preparation, and the needle-gun, which proved very
destructive to the Austrians. The Austrian troops fought with
thorough gallantry. ... Respecting this campaign, an Austrian
writes: 'Given in Vienna a powerful coterie which reserves to
itself all the high commands and regards the army as its
private estate for its own private benefit, and defeat is
inevitable.' The Austrians lost at Sadowa, according to the
official accounts at Vienna, 174 cannon, 18,000 prisoners. 11
colors, 4,190 killed, 11,900 wounded, 21,400 missing,
including the prisoners. The Prussians acknowledged a loss of
only 10,000 men. The result of the battle was heavier for
Austria than the loss in the action and the retreat. The
armistice which Benedek asked for on the 4th of July was
refused by the Prussians: a second request on the 10th was
also rejected. On the 5th of July the emperor of Austria
sought the mediation of France to restore peace. ... All
further movements were put a stop to by the five days'
armistice, which began on the 22d of July at noon, and was
followed by an armistice for four weeks. ... Hostilities were
at an end on Austrian territory when the war began on the Main
against the allies of Austria. The Bavarian army, under the
aged Prince Charles, distinguished itself by being driven by
the less numerous forces of Prussia under General Falkenstein
across the Saale and the Main. ... The eighth federal army
corps of 50,000 men, composed of contingents from Baden,
Würtemberg, Electoral Hesse, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, and
12,000 Austrians under Prince Alexander of Hesse, was so
mismanaged that the Würtemberg contingent believed itself sold
and betrayed. ... On the 16th of July, in the evening,
Falkenstein entered Frankfort, and in the name of the king of
Prussia took possession of this Free City, of Upper Hesse and
Nassau. Frankfort, on account of its Austrian sympathies, had
to pay a contribution of six millions of gulden to
Falkenstein, and on the 19th of July a further sum of nineteen
millions to Manteuffel, the successor of Falkenstein. The
latter sum was remitted when the hitherto Free City became a
Prussian city. Manteuffel, in several actions from the 23d to
the 26th of July, drove the federal army back to Würzburg;
Göben defeated the army of Baden at Werbach, and that of
Würtemberg at Tauberbischofsheim; before this the eighth
federal army corps joined the Bavarian army, and on the 25th
and 26th of July the united forces were defeated at Gerschheim
and Rossbrunn, and on the 27th, the citadel of Würzburg was
invested. The court of Vienna had abandoned its South German
allies when it concluded the armistice; it had not included
its allies either in the armistice or the truce. ... On the
29th of July, the Baden troops marched off homewards in the
night, the Austrians marched to Bohemia, the Bavarians
purchased an armistice by surrendering Würzburg to the
Prussians. Thus of the eighth army corps, the Würtembergers
and Hessians alone kept the field. On the 2d of August these
remains of the eighth army corps were included in the
armistice of Nicholsburg. ... On the 23d of August peace was
signed between Austria and Prussia at Prague. Bismarck treated
Austria with great consideration, and demanded only twenty
millions of thalers as war indemnity; Würtemberg had to pay
eight millions of gulden, Baden six millions, Hesse-Darmstadt
three millions, Bavaria thirty millions of gulden. The
Würtemberg minister, Varnbüler, and the Baden minister,
Freydorf, offered to form an offensive and defensive alliance
with Prussia for the purpose of saving the ruling families,
and in alarm lest Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt might seek in
their territories compensation for cessions to Prussia.
Bavaria also formed an alliance with Prussia, and ceded a
small district in the north. Hesse-Darmstadt ceded
Hesse-Homburg and some pieces of territory, and entered the
North German Confederation, giving to Prussia the right of
keeping a garrison in Mainz.
{1541}
Austria renounced her claims on Schleswig and Holstein,
acknowledged the dissolution of the German Confederation and a
modification of Germany by which Austria was excluded. It
recognized the creation of the North German Confederation, the
union of Venetia to Italy, the territorial alterations in
North Germany. Prussia acknowledged the territorial
possessions of Austria with the sole exception of Venetia; and
also of Saxony; and undertook to obtain the assent of the King
of Italy to the peace. Prussia announced the incorporation of
Schleswig-Holstein, the Free City of Frankfort, the Kingdom of
Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse, and the Duchy of Nassau,
subject to the payment of annual incomes to the deposed
princes. The Kingdom of Saxony, the two Mecklenburgs, the
Hanse-towns, Oldenburg, Brunswick, and the Thuringian states
entered the North German Confederation. Prussia now contained
twenty-four millions of inhabitants, or including the Northern
Confederation, twenty-nine millions. The military forces of
the Confederation were placed under the command of Prussia.
The states north of the Main were at liberty to form a
Southern Confederation, the connection of which with the
Northern Confederation was to be a subject of future
discussion. Moreover, Bavaria, Baden and Würtemberg had
engaged 'in case of war to place their whole military force at
the disposal of Prussia,' and Prussia guaranteed their
sovereignty and the integrity of their territory. Saxony paid
ten millions of thalers as a war indemnity. Prussia received
on the whole, as war indemnities, eighty-two millions of
gulden. Thus ended in the year 1866 the struggle [known as the
Seven Weeks War] between Austria and Prussia for the
leadership of Germany."
W. Zimmermann,
Popular History of Germany,
book 6, chapter 3 (v. 4).
ALSO IN:
H. von Sybel,
The Founding of the German Empire,
books 17-20 (volume 5).
Major C. Adams,
Great Campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870,
chapter 10.
Count von Beust,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 29-34.
G. B. Malleson,
The Refounding of the German Empire,
chapters 6-10.

GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1867.
Foreshadowings of the new Empire.
"We may make the statement that in the autumn of 1866 the
German Empire was founded. ... The Southern States were not
yet members of the Confederation, but were already, to use an
old expression, relatives of the Confederation
(Bundesverwandte) in virtue of the offensive and defensive
alliances with Prussia and of the new organization of the
Tariff-Union. ... The natural and inevitable course of events
must here irresistibly break its way, unless some circumstance
not to be foreseen should throw down the barriers beforehand.
How soon such a crisis might take place no one could at that
time estimate. But in regard to the certainty of the final
result there was in Germany no longer any doubt. ...
Three-fourths of the territory of this Empire was dominated by
a Government that was in the first place efficient in military
organization, guided by the firm hand of King William,
counselled by the representatives of the North German
Sovereigns, and recognized by all the Powers of Europe. The
opening of that Parliament was near at hand, that should in
common with this Government determine the limitations to be
placed upon the powers of the Confederation in its relation to
the individual states and also the functions of the new
Reichstag in the legislation and in the control of the
finances of the Confederation. ... It was, in the first place,
certain that the functions of the future supreme Confederate
authority would be in general the same as those specified in
the Imperial Constitution of 1849. ... The most radical
difference between 1849 and 1866 consisted in the form of the
Confederate Government. The former period aimed at the
appointment of a Constitutional and hereditary emperor, with
responsible ministers, to the utter exclusion of the German
sovereigns: whereas now the plan included all of these
sovereigns in a Confederate Council (Bundesrath) organized
after the fashion of the old Confederate Diet, with committees
for the various branches of the administration, and under the
presidency of the King of Prussia, who should occupy a
superior position in virtue of the conduct, placed in his
hands once for all, of the foreign policy, the army and the
navy, but who otherwise in the Confederate Council, in spite
of the increase of his votes, could be outvoted like every
other prince by a decree of the Majority. ... Before the time
of the peace-conferences, when all definite arrangements of
Germany's future seemed suspended in the balance and
undecided, the Crown Prince Frederick William, who in general
had in mind for the supreme head of the Confederation a higher
rank and position of power than did the Ring, maintained that
his father should bear the title of King of Germany. Bismarck
reminded him that there were other Kings in Germany: the Kings
of Hanover, of Saxony, etc. 'These,' was the reply, 'will then
take the title of Dukes.' 'But they will not agree to that.'
'They will have to!' cried His Royal Highness. After the
further course of events, the Crown Prince indeed gave up his
project; but in the early part of 1867 he asserted that the
King should assume the title of German Emperor, arguing that
the people would connect no tangible idea with the title of
President of the Confederation, whereas the renewal of the
imperial dignity would represent to them the actual
incorporation of the unity finally attained, and the
remembrance of the old glory and power of the Empire would
kindle all hearts. This idea, as we have experienced and
continue to experience its realization, was in itself
perfectly correct: But it was evidently at that time
premature: a North German empire would have aroused no
enthusiasm in the north, and would have seriously hindered the
accomplishment of the national aim in the south. King William
rejected this proposition very decidedly: in his own simple
way he wished to be nothing more than Confederate
Commander-in-chief and the first among his peers."
H. von Sybel,
The Founding of the German Empire by William I.,
book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5).
{1542}
GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.
Territorial concessions demanded by France.
Rapid progress of German unification.
The Zollparlament.
The Luxemburg question.
French determination for war.
"The conditions of peace ... left it open to the Southern
States to choose what relationship they would form with the
Northern Confederation. This was a compromise between Bismarck
and Napoleon, the latter fearing a United Germany, the former
preferring to restrict himself to what was attainable at the
time, and taking care not to humiliate or seriously to injure
Austria, whose friendship he foresaw that Germany would need.
Meanwhile Napoleon's interference continued. Scarcely had
Benedetti, who had followed Bismarck to the battle-fields,
returned to Berlin, when he received orders from his
Government to demand not less than the left bank of the Rhine
as a compensation for Prussia's increase of territory. For
this purpose he submitted the draft of a treaty by which
Prussia was even to bind herself to lend an active support to
the cession of the Bavarian and Hessian possessions west of
the Rhine! ... Bismarck would listen to no mention of ceding
German territory. 'Si vous refusez,' said the conceited
Corsican, 'c'est la guerre.'--'Eh bien, la guerre,' replied
Bismarck calmly. Just as little success had Benedetti with
King William. 'Not a clod of German soil, not a chimney of a
German village,' was William's kingly reply. Napoleon was not
disposed at the time to carry out his threat. He disavowed
Benedetti's action, declaring that the instructions had been
obtained from him during his illness and that he wished to
live in peace and friendship with Prussia. Napoleon's
covetousness had at least one good effect: it furthered the
work of German union. Bavaria and Würtemberg, who during the
war had sided with Austria, had at first appealed to Napoleon
to mediate between them and Prussia. But when the Ministers of
the four South German States appeared at Berlin to negotiate
with Bismarck, and Benedetti's draft-treaty was communicated
to them, there was a complete change of disposition. They then
wished to go much further than the Prussian Statesman was
prepared to go: they asked, in order to be protected from
French encroachments, to be admitted into the North German
Confederation. But Bismarck would not depart from the
stipulations of the Treaty of Nikolsburg. The most important
result of the negotiations was that secret treaties were
concluded by which the Southern States bound themselves to an
alliance with the Northern Confederation for the defence of
Germany, and engaged to place their troops under the supreme
command of the Prussian King in the event of any attack by a
foreign Power. In a military sense Klein-Deutschland was now
one, though not yet politically. ... That Prussia was the
truly representative German State had been obvious to the
thoughtful long before: the fact now stood out in clear light
to all who would open their eyes to see. Progress had
meanwhile been made with the construction of the North German
Confederation, which embraced all the States to the north of
the river Main. Its affairs were to be regulated by a
Reichstag elected by universal suffrage and by a Federal
Council formed of the representatives of the North German
Governments. In a military sense it was a Single State,
politically a Confederate State, with the King of Prussia as
President. This arrangement was not of course regarded as
final: and in his speech from the throne to the North German
Reichstag, King William emphasized the declaration that
Germany, so long torn, so long powerless, so long the theatre
of war for foreign nations, would henceforth strive to recover
the greatness of her past. ... A first step towards 'bridging
over the Main,' i. e., causing South and North to join hands
again, was taken by the creation of a Zollparlament, or
'Customs Parliament, which was elected by the whole of
Klein-Deutschland, and met at Berlin, henceforth the capital
of Germany. It was also a step in advance that Baden and
Hesse-Darmstadt signed conventions, by which their military
system was put on the same footing as that of the North German
Confederation. Baden indeed would willingly have entered into
political union with the North, had the same disposition
prevailed at the time in the other South German States. The
National Liberals however had to contend with strong
opposition from the Democrats in Würtemberg, and from the
Ultramontanes in Bavaria. The latter were hostile to Prussia
on account of her Protestantism, the former on account of the
stern principles and severe discipline that pervaded her
administration. ... In the work of German unification the
Bonapartes have an important share. ... By outraging the
principle of nationality, Napoleon I. had re-awakened the
feeling of nationality among Germans: Napoleon III., by
attempting to prevent the unification of Germany, actually
hastened it on. ... When King William had replied that he
would not yield up an inch of German soil, 'patriotic pangs'
at Prussian successes and the thirst for 'compensation'
continued to disturb the sleep of the French Emperor, and as
he was unwilling to appear baffled in his purpose, he returned
to the charge. On the 16th of August, 1866, through his
Ambassador Benedetti, he demanded 'the cession of Landau,
Saarbrücken, Saarlouis, and Luxemburg, together with Prussia's
consent to the annexation of Belgium by France. If that could
not be obtained, he would be satisfied with Luxemburg and
Belgium; he would even exclude Antwerp from the territory
claimed that it might be created a free town. Thus he hoped to
spare the susceptibilities of England. As a gracious return he
offered the alliance of France. After his first interview
Benedetti gave up his demand for the three German towns, and
submitted a new scheme, according to which Germany should
induce the King of the Netherlands to a cession of Luxemburg,
and should support France in the conquest of Belgium; whilst,
on his part, Napoleon would permit the formation of a federal
union between the Northern Confederation and the South German
States, and would enter into a defensive and offensive
alliance with Germany. Count Bismarck treated these
propositions, as he himself has stated, 'in a dilatory
manner,' that is to say, he did not reject them, but he took
good care not to make any definite promises. When the Prussian
Prime Minister returned from his furlough to Berlin, towards
the end of 1866, Benedetti resumed his negotiations, but now
only with regard to Luxemburg, still garrisoned by Prussian
troops as at the time of the old Germanic Confederation.
Though the Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg did not belong to the new
North German Confederation, Bismarck was not willing to allow
it to be annexed by France. Moltke moreover declared that the
fortress could only be evacuated by the Prussian troops if the
fortifications were razed. But without its fortifications
Napoleon would not have it. And when, with regard to the
Emperor's intentions upon Belgium, Prussia offered no active
support, but only promised observance of neutrality, France
renounced the idea of an alliance with Prussia, and entered
into direct negotiations with the King of Holland, as
Grand-Duke of Luxemburg.
{1543}
Great excitement was thereby caused in Germany, and, as a
timely warning to France, Bismarck surprised the world with
the publication of the secret treaties between Prussia and the
South German States. But when it became known that the King of
Holland was actually consenting to the sale of his rights in
Luxemburg to Napoleon, there was so loud a cry of indignation
in all parts of Germany, there was so powerful a protest in
the North German Parliament against any sale of German
territory by the King of Holland, that Count Bismarck, himself
surprised at the vigour of the patriotic outburst, declared to
the Government of the Hague that the cession of Luxemburg
would be considered a casus belli. This peremptory declaration
had the desired effect: the cession did not take place. This
was the first success in European politics of a united
Germany, united not yet politically, but in spirit. That was
satisfactory. A Conference of the Great Powers then met in
London [May, 1867]: by its decision, Luxemburg was separated
from Germany, and,--to give some kind of satisfaction to the
Emperor of the French,--was formed into a neutral State. From
a national point of view, that was unsatisfactory. ... The
danger of an outbreak of war between France and Germany had
only been warded off for a time by the international
settlement of the Luxemburg question. ... In the early part of
July, 1870, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, at the
request of the Spanish Government; became a candidate for the
Spanish throne. Napoleon III. seized the occasion to carry
into effect his hostile intentions against Germany."
G. Krause,
The Growth of German Unity,
chapter 13-14.
ALSO IN:
E. Simon,
The Emperor William and his Reign,
chapter 9-10 (volume l).
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 3, chapter 5-6.
GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
"The Hohenzollern incident."
French Declaration of War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).
GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (September-December).
The Germanic Confederation completed.
Federative treaties with the states of South Germany.
Suggestion of the Empire.
"Having decided on taking Strasburg and Metz from France"
Prussia "could only justify that conquest by considerations of
the safety of South Germany, and she could only defend these
interests by effecting the union of North and South. She found
it necessary to realise this union at any price, even by some
concessions in favour of the autonomy of those States, and
especially of Bavaria. Such was the spirit in which
negotiations were opened, in the middle of September, 1870,
between Bavaria and Prussia, with the participation of Baden,
Wurtemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt. ... Prussia asked at first for
entire and unreserved adhesion to the Northern Confederation,
a solution acceptable to Baden, Wurtemberg and
Hesse-Darmstadt, but not to Bavaria, who demanded for herself
the preservation of certain rights, and for her King a
privileged position in the future Confederation next to the
King of Prussia. The negotiations with Baden and
Hesse-Darmstadt came to a conclusion on the 15th of November;
and on the 25th, Wurtemberg accepted the same arrangement.
These three States agreed to the constitution, slightly
modified, of the Northern Confederation; the new treaties were
completed by military conventions, establishing the fusion of
the respective Corps d'Armée with the Federal Army of the
North, under the command of the King of Prussia. The Treaty
with Bavaria was signed at Versailles on the 23rd of November.
The concessions obtained by the Cabinet of Munich were reduced
to mere trifles. ... The King of Bavaria was allowed the
command of his army in time of peace. He was granted the
administration of the Post-Office and partial autonomy of
indirect contributions. A committee was conceded, in the
Federal Council, for Foreign Affairs, under the Presidency of
Bavaria. The right of the King of Prussia, as President of
this Council, to declare war, was made conditional on its
consent. Such were the Treaties submitted on the 24th of
November to the sanction of the Parliament of the North,
assembled in an Extraordinary Session. They met with intense
opposition from the National Liberal and from the Progressive
Party," but "the Parliament sanctioned the treaties on the
10th of December. According to the Treaties, the new
association received the title of Germanic Confederation, and
the King of Prussia that of its President. These titles were
soon to undergo an important alteration. The King of Bavaria,
satisfied with the concessions, more apparent than real, made
by the Prussian Cabinet to his rights of sovereignty,
consented to defer to the wishes of King William. On the 4th
of December, King Louis addressed him [King William] a letter,
informing him that he had invited the Confederate sovereigns
to revive the German Empire and confer the title of Emperor on
the President of the Confederation. ... The sovereigns
immediately gave their consent, so that the Imperial titles
could be introduced into the new Constitution before the final
ote of the Parliament of the North. ... To tell the truth, King
William attached slight importance to the votes of the various
Chambers. He was not desirous of receiving his new dignity
from the hands of a Parliament; the assent of the sovereigns
was in his eyes far more essential."
E. Simon,
The Emperor William and his Reign,
chapter 13 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
G. Freytag,
The Crown Prince and the Imperial Crown.
GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1871.
Victorious war with France.
Siege of Paris.
Occupation of the city.
Enormous indemnity exacted.
Acquisition of Alsace and part of Lorraine.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST)
to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (January).
Assumption of the Imperial dignity by King William,
at Versailles.
"Early in December the proposition came from King Ludwig of
Bavaria to King William, that the possession of the
presidential rights of the Confederacy vested in the Prussian
monarch should be coupled with the imperial title. The King of
Saxony spoke to the same purport; and in one day a measure
providing for the amendment of the Constitution by the
substitution of the words 'Emperor' and 'Empire' for
'President' and 'Confederation' was passed through the North
German Parliament, which voted also an address to his Majesty,
from which the following is an extract: 'The North German
Parliament, in unison with the Princes of Germany, approaches
with the prayer that your Majesty will deign to consecrate the
work of unification by accepting the Imperial Crown of Germany.
{1544}
The Teutonic Crown on the head of your Majesty will
inaugurate, for the re-established Empire of the German
nation, an era of power, of peace, of well-being, and of
liberty secured under the protection of the laws.' The address
of the German Parliament was presented to the King at
Versailles on Sunday, the 18th of December, by its speaker,
Herr Simson, who, as speaker of the Frankfort Parliament in
1848, had made the identical proffer to William's brother and
predecessor [see above: A. D. 1848-1850]. ... The formal
ratification of assent to the Prussian King's assumption of
the imperial dignity had yet to be received from the minor
German States; but this was a foregone conclusion, and the
unification of Germany really dates from that 18th of
December, and from the solemn ceremonial in the prefecture of
Versailles."
A. Forbes,
William of Germany,
chapter 12.
King William's formal assumption of the Imperial dignity took
place on the 18th of January, 1871. "The Crown Prince was
entrusted with all the preparations for the ceremony. Every
regiment in the army of investment was instructed to send its
colours in charge of an officer and two non-commissioned
officers to Versailles, and all the higher officers who could
be spared from duty were ordered to attend, for the army was
to represent the German nation at this memorable scene. The
Crown Prince escorted his father from the Prefecture to the
palace of Versailles, where all the German Princes or their
representatives were assembled in the Galerie des Glaces. A
special service was read by the military chaplains, and then
the Emperor, mounting on the dais, announced his assumption of
Imperial authority, and instructed his Chancellor to read the
Proclamation issued to the whole German nation. Then the Crown
Prince, as the first subject of the Empire, came forward and
performed the solemn act of homage, kneeling down before his
Imperial Father. The Emperor raised him and clasped to his
arms the son who had toiled and fought and borne so great a
share in achieving what many generations had desired in vain."
R. Rodd,
Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
C. Lowe,
Prince Bismarck,
chapter 9 (volume 1).
GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (April).
The Constitution of the new Empire.
By a proclamation dated April 16, 1871, the German Emperor
ordered, "in the name of the German Empire, by and with the
consent of the Council of the Confederation and of the
Imperial Diet," that "in the place of the Constitution of the
German Confederation," as agreed to in November 1870, there be
substituted a Constitution for the German Empire,--the text of
which appeared as an appendix to this imperial decree. For a
full translation of the text of the Constitution,
See CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.
ALSO IN:
E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 3, Number 442.
C. Lowe,
Prince Bismarck,
appendix F. (volume 2).
GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as an
imperial province.
"How to garner the territorial harvest of the
war--Alsace-Lorraine--was a question which greatly vexed the
parliamentary mind. Several possible solutions had presented
themselves. The conquered provinces might be made neutral
territory, which, with Belgium on one side, and Switzerland on
the other, would thus interpose a continuous barrier against
French aggression from the mouth of the Rhine to its source.
But one fatal objection, among several others, to the adoption
of this course, was the utter lack, in the Alsace-Lorrainers,
of the primary condition of the existence of all neutral
States--a determination on the part of the neutralised people
themselves to be and remain neutral. And none knew better than
Bismarck that it would take years of the most careful nursing
to reconcile the kidnapped children of France to their
adoptive parent. For him, the only serious question was
whether Alsace-Lorraine should be annexed to Prussia, or be
made an immediate Reichsland (Imperial Province). 'From the
very first,' he said, 'I was most decidedly for the latter
alternative, first--because there is no reason why dynastic
questions should be mixed up with political ones; and,
secondly--because I think it will be easier for the Alsatians
to take to the name of "German" than to that at of "Prussian,"
the latter being detested in France in comparison with the
other.' In its first session, accordingly, the Diet was asked
to pass a law incorporating Alsace-Lorraine with the Empire,
and placing the annexed provinces under a provisional
dictatorship till the 1st January, 1874, when they would enter
into the enjoyment of constitutional rights in common with the
rest of the nation. But the latter clause provoked much
controversy. ... A compromise was ultimately effected by which
the duration of the dictatorship, or period within which the
Imperial Government alone was to have the right of making laws
for Alsace-Lorraine, was shortened till 1st January, 1873;
while the Diet, on the other hand, was only to have
supervision of such loans or guarantees as affected the
Empire. In the following year, however, the Diet came to the
conclusion that, after all, the original term fixed for the
dictatorship was the more advisable of the two, and prolonged
it accordingly. For the next three years, therefore, the
Reichsland was governed from the Wilhelmstrasse, as India is
ruled from Downing Street. ... In the beginning of 1874 ...
fifteen deputies from Alsace-Lorraine--now thus far admitted
within the pale of the Constitution--took their seats in the
second German Parliament. Of these fifteen deputies, five were
out-and-out French Protesters, and the rest Clericals--seven
of the latter being clergymen, including the Bishops of Metz
and Strasburg. They entered the Diet in a body, with much
theatrical pomp, the clergy wearing their robes; and one of
the French Protesters--bearing the unfortunate name of
Teutsch--immediately tabled a motion that the inhabitants of
Alsace-Lorraine, having been annexed to Germany without being
themselves consulted, should now be granted an opportunity of
expressing their opinion on the subject by a plebiscite. ...
The motion of French Mr. Teutsch, who spoke fluent German, was
of course rejected; whereupon he and several of his
compatriots straightway returned home, and left the Diet to
deal with the interests of their constituents as it liked.
Those of his colleagues who remained behind only did so to
complain of the 'intolerable tyranny' under which the
provinces were groaning, and to move for the repeal of the law
(of December, 1871) which invested the local Government with
dictatorial powers. ...
{1545}
Believing home-rule to be one of the best guarantees of
federal cohesion, Bismarck determined to try the effect of
this cementing agency on the newest part of the Imperial
edifice; and, in the autumn of 1874, he advised the Emperor to
grant the Alsace-Lorrainers (not by law, but by ordinance,
which could easily be revoked) a previous voice on all bills
to be submitted to the Reichstag on the domestic and fiscal
affairs of the provinces. ... In the following summer (June,
1875), therefore, there met at Strasburg the first
Landesausschuss, or Provincial Committee, composed of
delegates, thirty in number, from the administrative District
Councils. ... So well, indeed, on the whole, did this
arrangement work, that within two years of its creation the
Landesausschuss was invested with much broader powers. ...
Thus it came about that, while the Reichsland continued to be
governed from Berlin, the making of its laws was more and more
confined to Strasburg. ... The party of the Irreconcilables
had been gradually giving way to the Autonomists, or those who
subordinated the question of nationality to that of home-rule.
Rapidly gaining in strength, this latter party at last (in the
spring of 1879) petitioned the Reichstag for an independent
Government, with its seat in Strasburg, for the representation
of the Reichsland in the Federal Council, and for an
enlargement of the functions of the Provincial Committee.
Nothing could have been more gratifying to Bismarck than this
request, amounting, as it did, to a reluctant recognition of
the Treaty of Frankfort on the part of the Alsace-Lorrainers.
He therefore replied that he was quite willing to confer on
the provinces 'the highest degree of independence compatible
with the military security of the Empire.' The Diet, without
distinction of party, applauded his words; and not only that,
but it hastened to pass a bill embodying ideas at which the
Chancellor himself had hinted in the previous year. By this
bill, the government of Alsace-Lorraine was to centre in a
Statthalter, or Imperial Viceroy, living at Strasburg, instead
of, as heretofore, in the chancellor. ... Without being a
Sovereign, this Statthalter was to exercise all but sovereign
rights. ... For this high office the Emperor selected the
brilliant soldier-statesman, Marshal Manteuffel. ...
Certainly, His Majesty could not possibly have chosen a better
man for the responsible office, which the Marshal assumed on
the 1st October, 1879. Henceforth, the conquered provinces
entered an entirely new phase of their existence. ... Whether
the Reichsland will ever ripen into an integral part of
Prussia, or into a regular Federal State with a Prussian
prince for its Sovereign, the future alone can show."
C. Lowe,
Prince Bismarck,
chapter 14 (volume 2).
GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
The Culturkampf.
The "May Laws" and their repeal.
"The German Culturkampf, or civilization-fight, as its
illustrious chief promoter is said to have named it, may
equally well be styled the religion combat, or education
strife. ... The arena of the Culturkampf in Germany is,
strictly speaking, Prussia and Hesse Darmstadt--pre-eminently
the former. According to the last census, taken December 1,
1880, the population of Prussia is 27,278,911. Of these, the
Protestants are 17,645,462, being 64.7 per cent., and the
Catholics 9,205,136, or 34.1 per cent., of the total
population. The remainder are principally Jews, amounting to
363,790, or 1.334 per cent. It was on the 9th of January,
1873, that Dr. Falk, Minister of Public Worship, first
introduced into the Prussian Diet the bills, which were
afterwards to be known as the May Laws [so called because they
were generally passed in the month of May, although in
different years, but also called the Falk Laws, from the
Minister who framed them]. These laws, which, for the future,
were to regulate the relations of Church and State, purported
to apply to the Evangelical or united Protestant State Church
of Prussia ... as well as to the Catholic Church. Their
professed main objects were: first, to insure greater liberty
to individual lay members of those churches; secondly, to
secure a German and national, rather than an 'Ultramontane'
and non-national, training for the clergy; and, thirdly, to
protect the inferior clergy against the tyranny of their
superiors--which simply meant, as proved in the sequel, the
withdrawal of priests and people, in matters spiritual, from
the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the separation of
Catholic Prussia from the Centre of Unity; thus substituting a
local or national Church, bound hand and foot, under State
regulation, for a flourishing branch of the Universal Church.
To promote these objects, it was provided, that all
Ecclesiastical seminaries should be placed under State
control; and that all candidates for the priesthood should
pass a State examination in the usual subjects of a liberal
education; and it was further provided, that the State should
have the right to confirm or to reject all appointments of
clergy. These bills were readily passed: and all the religious
orders and congregations were suppressed, with the provisional
exception of those which devoted themselves to the care of the
sick; and all Catholic seminaries were closed. ... The Bishops
refused to obey the new laws, which in conscience they could
not accept; and they subscribed a collective declaration to
this effect, on the 26th of May 1873. On the 7th of August
following, Pope Pius IX. addressed a strong letter of
remonstrance to the Emperor William; but entirely without
effect, as may be seen in the Imperial reply of the 5th of
September. In punishment of their opposition, several of the
Bishops and great numbers of their clergy were fined,
imprisoned, exiled, and deprived of their salaries. Especially
notable among the victims of persecution, were the venerable
Archbishop of Cologne, Primate of Prussia, the Bishop of
Munster, the Prince Bishop of Breslau, the Bishop of
Paderborn, and Cardinal Ledochowski, Archbishop of Gnesen and
Posen, on whom, then in prison, a Cardinal's hat was conferred
by the Pope, in March 1875, as a mark of sympathy, encouragement,
and approval. ... The fifteen Catholic dioceses of Prussia
comprised, in January 1873, a Catholic aggregate of 8,711,535
souls. They were administered by 4,627 parish-priests, and
3,812 coadjutor-priests, or curates, being a total of 8,439
clergy. Eight years later, owing to the operation of the May
Laws, there were exiled or dead, without being replaced, 1,770
of these clergy, viz., 1,125 parish-priests, and 645,
coadjutor-priests; and there were 601 parishes, comprising
644,697 souls, quite destitute of clerical care, and 584
parishes, or 1,501,994 souls, partially destitute thereof.
Besides these 1,770 secular priests, dead or exiled, and not
replaced, there were the regular clergy (the members of
religious orders), all of whom had been expelled."
J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 29.
{1546}
"Why was the Kulturkampf undertaken? This is a question often
asked, and answered in different ways. That Ultramontanism is
a danger to the Empire is the usual explanation; but proof is
not producible. ... Ultramontanism, as it is understood in
France and Belgium, has never taken root in Germany. It was
represented by the Jesuits, and when they were got rid of,
Catholicism remained as a religion, but not as a political
factor. ... The real purpose of the Kulturkampf has been, I
conceive, centralisation. It has not been waged against the
Roman Church only, for the same process has been followed with
the Protestant Churches. It was intolerable in a strong
centralising Government to have a Calvinist and a Lutheran
Church side by side, and both to call themselves Protestant.
It interfered with systematic and neat account-keeping of
public expenditure for religious purposes. Consequently, in
1839, the King of Prussia suppressed Calvinism and
Lutheranism, and established a new Evangelical Church on their
ruins, with constitution and liturgy chiefly of his own
drawing up. The Protestant churches of Baden, Nassau, Hesse,
and the Bavarian Palatinate have also been fused and organised
on the Prussian pattern. In Schleswig-Holstein and in Hanover
existed pure Lutherans, but they, for uniformity's sake, have
been also recently unified and melted into the Landeskirche of
Prussia. A military government cannot tolerate any sort of
double allegiance in its subjects. Education and religion,
medicine and jurisprudence, telegraphs and post-office, must
be under the jurisdiction of the State. ... From the point of
view of a military despotism, the May laws are reasonable and
necessary. As Germany is a great camp, the clergy, Protestant
and Catholic, must be military chaplains amenable to the
general in command. ... I have no doubt whatever that this is
the real explanation of the Kulturkampf, and that all other
explanations are excuses and inventions. ... The Chancellor,
when he began the crusade, had probably no idea of the
opposition he would meet with, and when the opposition
manifested itself, it irritated him, and made him more dogged
in pursuing his scheme."
S. Baring-Gould,
Germany, Present and Past,
chapter 13 (volume 2).
"The passive resistance of the clergy and laity, standing on
their own ground, and acting together in complete agreement,
succeeded in the end. The laity had recognised their own
priests, even when suspended by government, and had resolutely
refused to receive others; and both priests and laity insisted
upon the Church regulating its own theological education.
Prussia and Baden became weary of the contest. In 1880 and
1881 the 'May Laws' were suspended, and, after negotiation
with Leo XIII., they were to a large extent repealed. By this
change, completed In April, 1887, the obligations of civil
marriage and the vesting of Catholic property in the hands of
lay trustees were retained, but the legislative interference
with the administration of the Church, including the education
required for the priesthood, was wholly abandoned. The
Prussian Government had entirely miscalculated its power with
the Church."
S. Baring-Gould,
The Church in Germany,
chapter 21.
By the Bill passed in 1887, "all religious congregations which
existed before the passing of the law of May 31, 1875, were to
be allowed to re-establish themselves, provided their objects
were purely religious, charitable, or contemplative. ... The
Society of Jesus, which is a teaching order, was not included
in this permission. But Prince Bismarck's determination never
to readmit the Jesuits is well known. ... The Bill left very
few vestiges of the May laws remaining."
Annual Register, 1887,
part 1, page 245.
ALSO IN:
C. Lowe,
Prince Bismarck,
chapters 12-13 (volume 2).
GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1879.
Prince Bismarck's economic revolution.
Adoption of the Protective policy.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.
GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1893.
The Socialist Parties.
See SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1882.
The Triple Alliance.
See TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1884-1889.
Colonization in Africa.
Territorial seizures.
The Berlin Conference.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
Death of the Emperor William I.
Accession and death of Frederick III.
Accession of William II.
The Emperor William died on the 9th of March, 1888. He was
succeeded by his son, proclaimed under the title of Frederick
III. The new Emperor was then at San Remo, undergoing
treatment for a mortal malady of the throat. He returned at
once to Berlin, where an unfavorable turn of the disease soon
appeared. "Consequently an Imperial decree, dated the 21st of
March, was addressed to the Crown Prince and published,
expressing the wish of the Emperor that the Prince should make
himself conversant with the affairs of State by immediate
participation therein. His Imperial Highness was accordingly
entrusted with the preparation and discharge of such State
business as the Emperor should assign to him, and he was
empowered in the performance of this duty to affix all
necessary signatures, as the representative of the Emperor,
without obtaining an especial authorisation on each occasion.
... The insidious malady from which the Emperor suffered
exhibited many fluctuations," but the end came on the 15th of
June, his reign having lasted only three months. He was
succeeded by his eldest son, who became Emperor William II.
Eminent Persons:
Biographies reprinted from The Times,
volume 4, pages 112-115.
ALSO IN:
R. Rodd,
Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor.
G. Freytag,
The Crown Prince.
GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
The end of the Free Cities.
"The last two cities to uphold the name and traditions of the
Hanseatic League, Hamburg and Bremen, have been incorporated
into the German Zoll Verein, thus finally surrendering their
old historical privileges as free ports. Lübeck took this step
some twenty-two years ago [1866], Hamburg and Bremen not till
October, 1888--so long had they resisted Prince Bismarck's
more or less gentle suasions to enter his Protection League.
... They, and Hamburg in particular, held out nobly, jealous,
and rightly jealous, of the curtailment of those privileges
which distinguished them from the other cities of the German
Empire. It was after the foundation of this empire that the
claim of the two cities to remain free ports was conceded and
ratified in the Imperial Constitution of April, 1871, though
the privilege, in the case of Hamburg, was restricted to the
city and port, and withdrawn from the rest of the State, which
extends to the mouth of the Elbe and embraces about 160 square
miles, while the free-port territory was reduced to 28 square
miles.
{1547}
This was the first serious interference with the city's
liberty, and others followed, perhaps rather of a petty,
annoying, than of a seriously aggressive, character, but
enough to show the direction in which the wind was blowing. It
was in 1880 that the proposal to include Hamburg in the
Customs Union was first politically discussed. ... In May,
1881, ... was drafted a proposal to the effect that the whole
of the city and port of Hamburg should be included in the Zoll
Verein." After long and earnest discussion the proposition was
adopted by the Senate and the House of Burgesses. "The details
for carrying into effect this conclusion have occupied seven
years, and the event was finally celebrated with great pomp,
the Emperor William II. coming in person to enhance the
solemnity of the sacrifice brought by the burghers of the erst
free city for the common weal of the German Fatherland. ...
The last and only privilege the three once powerful Hanseatic
cities retain is that of being entitled, like the greatest
States in the empire, to send their own representatives to the
Bundesrath and to the Reichstag."
H. Zimmern,
The Hansa Towns, period 3,
chapter 8, note.
GERMANY: A. D. 1888-1889.
Prussian Free School laws.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
PRUSSIA: 1885-1889.
GERMANY: A. D. 1889-1890.
Rupture between Emperor William II. and Chancellor Bismarck.
Retirement of the great Chancellor.
Soon after the accession of William II., signs of discord
between the young Emperor and the veteran statesman,
Chancellor Bismarck, began to appear. "In March, 1889, the
Minister of Finance had drawn up a Bill for the reform of the
income tax, which had been sanctioned by the Emperor; suddenly
Prince Bismarck interfered, declaring that it was against the
agrarian interest, and the Landtag, summoned expressly to vote
that Bill, was dismissed 're inacta.' Count Waldersee, the
Chief of the General Staff, an eminent and independent man,
and standing high in favour, had for years been a thorn in the
Chancellor's side, who looked upon him as a possible rival; he
had tried to overthrow him under Frederic III., but had not
succeeded, Moltke protesting that the general was
indispensable to the army. When Waldersee, in the summer of
1889, accompanied the Emperor to Norway, a letter appeared in
the Hamburger Nachrichten, to the effect that in a Memoir he
had directed his sovereign's attention to the threatening
character of the Russian armaments, and had advised, in
contradiction to the Chancellor's policy, the forcing of war
upon Russia. The Count from Trondhjem addressed a telegraphic
denial to the paper, stating that he had never presented such
a Memoir; but the Nachrichten registered this declaration in a
garbled form and in small type, and the Norddeutsche Zeitung,
which at the same time had published an article, to the effect
that according to General von Clausewitz, war is only the
continuation of a certain policy, and that therefore the Chief
of the General Staff must needs be under the order of the
Foreign Minister, took no notice of the Count's protest. ...
In the winter session of the Reichstag the Government
presented a Bill tending to make the law against
Social-Democracy a permanent one, but even the pliant National
Liberals objected to the clause that the police should be
entitled to expel Social-Democrats from the large towns. They
would have been ready to grant that permission for two years,
but the Government did not accept this, and the Bill fell to
the ground. The reason, which at that time was not generally
understood, was, that there existed already a hitch between
the policy of the Chancellor and that of the Emperor, who had
arrived at the conviction that the law against Social
Democrats was not only barren, but had increased their power.
This difference was accentuated by the Imperial decree of
February 4 in favour of the protection of children's and
women's labour, which the Chancellor had steadily resisted,
and by the invitation of an international conference for that
end. Prince Bismarck resigned the Ministry of Commerce, and
was replaced by Herr von Berlepsch, who was to preside at the
conference. The elections for the Reichstag were now at hand,
a new surprise was expected for maintaining the majority
obtained by the cry of 1887; but it did not come, and the
result was a crushing defeat of the Chancellor. Perhaps even
then the Emperor had discerned that he could not go on with
Bismarck, and that it would be difficult to get rid of him, if
he obtained another majority for five years. At least it seems
certain that William II. already in the beginning of February
had asked General von Caprivi whether he would be ready to
take the Chancellor's place. Affairs were now rapidly pushing
to a crisis. Bismarck asked the Emperor that, in virtue of a
Cabinet order of 1852, his colleagues should be bound to
submit beforehand to him any proposals of political importance
before bringing it to the cognizance of the Sovereign. The
Emperor refused, and insisted upon that order being cancelled.
The last drop which made the cup overflow was an interview of the
Chancellor with Windthorst. The Emperor, calling upon Bismarck
the next morning, asked to hear what had passed in that
conversation; the Chancellor declined to give any account of
it, as he could not submit his intercourse with deputies to
any control, and added that he was ready to resign."
The Change of Government in Germany
(Fortnightly Review, August, 1890),
pages 301-304.
"Early on the 17th of March the Emperor sent word that he was
waiting for Bismarck's resignation. The Prince refused to
resign, on grounds of conscience and of self-respect. ... The
Emperor must dismiss him. A second messenger came, in the
course of the day, with a direct order from the Emperor that
the Prince should send in his resignation within a given
number of hours. At the same time Bismarck was informed that
the Emperor intended to make him Duke of Lauenburg. The Prince
responded that he might have had that title before if he had
wished it. He was then assured (referring to the grounds on
which he had previously declined the title) that the Emperor
would pledge himself to secure such a legislative grant as
would suffice for the proper maintenance of the ducal dignity.
Bismarck declined this also, declaring that he could not be
expected to close such a career as his had been 'by running
after a gratuity such as is given to a faithful letter-carrier
at New Year's.' His resignation, of course, he would send in
as soon as possible, but he owed it to himself and to history
to draw up a proper memorial. This he took two days to write.
... He has since repeatedly demanded the publication of this
memorial, but without success. ... On March 20, the Emperor,
in a most graciously worded letter (which was immediately
published), accepted Bismarck's 'resignation.' ... The
immediate nomination of his successor [General von Caprivi]
forced Bismarck to quit the Chancellor's official residence in
such haste that ... 'Bismarck himself compared his exit to the
expulsion of a German family from Paris in 1870.'"
Nation, March 22, 1894 (reviewing 'Das Deutsche
Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks,' von Dr. Hans Blum).
{1548}
GERMANY: A. D. 1890.
Settlement of African claims with England.
Acquisition of Heligoland.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
GERMANY: A. D. 1894.
Reconciliation of Bismarck with the Emperor.
In January, 1894, the complete rupture of friendly relations
between Prince Bismarck and the Emperor, and the Emperor's
government, which had existed since the dismissal of the
former, was terminated by a dramatic reconciliation. The
Emperor made a peace-offering, upon the occasion of the
Prince's recovery from an illness, by sending his
congratulations, with a gift of wine. Prince Bismarck
responded amiably, and was then invited to Berlin, to be
entertained as a guest in the royal palace. The invitation was
accepted, the visit promptly made on the 26th of January, and
an enthusiastic reception was accorded to the venerable
ex-chancellor at the capital, by court and populace alike.
----------GERMANY: End----------
GERMINAL, The month.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
GERONA, Siege of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809. (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
GERONTES.
Spartan senators, or members of the Gerusia.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
GERONTOCRACY.
See HAYTI: A.D. 1804-1880.
GEROUSIA.
See GERUSIA.
GERRY, Elbridge, and the framing of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
GERRYMANDERING.
"In the composition of the House of Representatives [of the
Congress of the United States] the state legislatures play a
very important part. For the purposes of the election a state
is divided into districts corresponding to the number of
representatives the state is entitled to send to Congress.
These electoral districts are marked out by the legislature,
and the division is apt to be made by the preponderating party
with an unfairness that is at once shameful and ridiculous.
The aim, of course, is so to lay out the districts 'as to
secure in the greatest possible number of them a majority for
the party which conducts the operation. This is done sometimes
by throwing the greatest possible number of hostile voters
into a district which is anyhow certain to be hostile,
sometimes by adding to a district where parties are equally
divided some place in which the majority of friendly voters is
sufficient to turn the scale. There is a district in
Mississippi (the so-called Shoe-String District) 250 miles
long by 30 broad, and another in Pennsylvania resembling a
dumb-bell. ... In Missouri a district has been contrived
longer, if measured along its windings, than the state itself,
into which as large a number as possible of the negro voters
have been thrown.' This trick is called gerrymandering, from
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who was vice-president of
the United States from 1813 to 1817. It seems to have been
first devised in 1788 by the enemies of the Federal
Constitution in Virginia, in order to prevent the election of
James Madison to the first Congress, and fortunately it was
unsuccessful. It was introduced some years afterward into
Massachusetts. In 1812, while Gerry was governor of that
state, the Republican legislature redistributed the districts
in such wise that the shapes of the towns forming a single
district in Essex county gave to the district a somewhat
dragon-like contour. This was indicated upon a map of
Massachusetts which Benjamin Russell, an ardent Federalist and
editor of the 'Centinel,' hung up over the desk in his office.
The celebrated painter, Gilbert Stuart, coming into the office
one day and observing the uncouth figure, added with his
pencil a head, wings and claws, and exclaimed, 'That will do
for a salamander!' 'Better say a Gerrymander!' growled the
editor; and the outlandish name, thus duly coined, soon came
into general currency."
J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the U. S.,
pages 216-218.
ALSO IN:
J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
volume 1, page 121.
J. W. Dean,
The Gerrymander (New England History
and Genealogical Register, October, 1892).
GERSCHHEIM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
GERTRUYDENBERG: Prince Maurice's siege and capture of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
GERTRUYDENBERG: Conferences at.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1710.
GERUSIA, OR GEROUSIA, The.
"There is the strongest reason to believe that among the
Dorians, as in all the heroic states, there was, from time
immemorial, a council of elders. Not only is it utterly
incredible that the Spartan council (called the gerusia, or
senate) was first instituted by Lycurgus, it is not even clear
that he introduced any important alteration in its
constitution or functions. It was composed of thirty members,
corresponding to the number of the 'obes,' a division as
ancient as that of the tribes, which alone would suffice to
refute the legend that the first council was formed of the
thirty who aided Lycurgus in his enterprise, even without the
conclusive fact that two of the 'obes' were represented by the
kings. ... So far as we know, the twenty-eight colleagues of
the kings were always elected by the people, without regard to
any qualification besides age and personal merit. The mode of
election breathes a spirit of primitive simplicity: the
candidates, who were required to have reached the age of
sixty, presented themselves in succession to the assembly, and
were received with applause proportioned to the esteem in
which they were held by their fellow-citizens. These
manifestations of popular feeling were noted by persons
appointed for the purpose, who were shut up in an adjacent
room, where they could hear the shouts, but could not see the
competitors. He who in their judgment had been greeted with
the loudest plaudits, won the prize--the highest dignity in
the commonwealth next to the throne. The senators held their
office for life."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 8 (volume 1).
{1549}
ALSO IN:
G. F. Schöman,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1.
See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
GES TRIBES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
TUPI.
GUARANI.
TUPUYAS.
GESITHS.--GESITHCUND.
See COMITATUS;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
GESORIACUM.
The principal Roman port and naval station on the Gallic side
of the English Channel--afterwards called Bononia-modern
Boulogne. "Gesoriacum was the terminus of the great highway,
or military marching road, which had been constructed by
Agrippa across Gaul."
H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 4.
GETA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-212.
GETÆ, The.
See DACIA; THRACIANS; SARMATIA;
and GOTHS, ORIGIN OF.

GETTYSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).
GETULIANS, The.
See LIBYANS.
GEWISSAS, The.
This was the earlier name of the West Saxons.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
GHAZNEVIDES, OR GAZNEVIDES.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
GHENT: A. D. 1337.
Revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.
GHENT: A. D. 1345.
The end of Jacques Van Arteveld.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1345.
GHENT: A. D. 1379-1381.
The revolt of the White-Hoods.
The captaincy of Philip Van Arteveld.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
GHENT: A. D. 1382-1384.
Resistance to the Duke of Burgundy.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.
Revolt against the taxes of Philip of Burgundy.
In 1450, Philip, Duke of Burgundy, having exhausted his usual
revenues, rich as they were, by the unbounded extravagance of
his court, laid a heavy tax on salt in Flanders. The sturdy
men of Ghent were little disposed to submit to an imposition
so hateful as the French "gabelle"; still less when, the next
year, a new duty on grain was demanded from them. They rose in
revolt, put on their white hoods, and prepared for war. It was
an unfortunate contest for them. They were defeated in nearly
every engagement; each encounter was a massacre, with no
quarter given on either side; the surrounding country was laid
waste and depopulated. A final battle, fought at Gavre, or
Gaveren, July 22, 1453, went against them so murderously that
they submitted and went on their knees to the duke--not
metaphorically, but actually. "The citizens were deprived of
the banners of their guilds; and the duke was henceforward to
have an equal voice with them in the appointment of their
magistrates, whose judicial authority was considerably
abridged; the inhabitants likewise bound themselves to
liquidate the expenses of the war, and to pay the gabelle for
the future." The Hollanders and Zealanders lent their
assistance to the duke against Ghent, and were rewarded by
some important concessions.
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
"The city lost her jurisdiction, her dominion over the
surrounding country. She had no longer any subjects, was
reduced to a commune, and a commune, too, in ward two gates,
walled up forever, were to remind her of this grave change of
state. The sovereign banner of Ghent, and the trades' banners,
were handed over to Toison d'Or, who unceremoniously thrust
them into a sack and carried them off."
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 12, chapter 1 (volume 2).
GHENT: A. D. 1482-1488.
In trouble with the Austrian ducal guardian.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
The last peal of the great bell Roland.
Once more, in 1539, Ghent became the scene of a memorable
rising of the people against the oppressive exactions of their
foreign masters. "The origin of the present dispute between
the Ghenters and the court was the subsidy of 1,200,000
guilders, demanded by the governess [sister of the emperor
Charles V.] in 1536, which ... it was found impossible to levy
by a general tax throughout the provinces. It was therefore
divided in proportional shares to each; that of Flanders being
fixed at 400,000 guilders, or one-third of the whole. ... The
citizens of Ghent ... persisted in refusing the demand,
offering, instead, to serve the emperor as of old time, with
their own troops assembled under the great standard of the
town. ... The other cities of Flanders showed themselves
unwilling to espouse the cause of the Ghenters, who, finding
they had no hope of support from them, or of redress from the
emperor, took up arms, possessed themselves of the forts in
the vicinity of Ghent, and despatched an embassy to Paris to
offer the sovereignty of their city to the king." The French
king, Francis I., not only gave them no encouragement, but
permitted the emperor, then in Spain, to pass through France,
in order to reach the scene of disturbance more promptly. In
the winter of 1540, the latter presented himself before Ghent,
at the head of a German army, and the unhappy city could do
nothing but yield itself to him.
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).
At the time of this unsuccessful revolt and the submission of
the city to Charles V., "Ghent was, in all respects, one of
the most important cities in Europe. Erasmus, who, as a
Hollander and a courtier, was not likely to be partial to the
turbulent Flemings, asserted that there was no town in all
Christendom to be compared to it for size, power, political
constitution, or the culture of its inhabitants. It was, said
one of its inhabitants at the epoch of the insurrection,
rather a country than a city. ... Its streets and squares were
spacious and elegant, its churches and other public buildings
numerous and splendid. The sumptuous church of Saint John or
Saint Bavon, where Charles V. had been baptized, the ancient
castle whither Baldwin Bras de Fer had brought the daughter of
Charles the Bald [see FLANDERS: A. D. 863], the city hall with
its graceful Moorish front, the well-known belfry, where for
three centuries had perched the dragon sent by the Emperor
Baldwin of Flanders from Constantinople, and where swung the
famous Roland, whose iron tongue had called the citizens,
generation after generation, to arms, whether to win battles
over foreign kings at the head of their chivalry, or to plunge
their swords in each others' breasts, were all conspicuous in
the city and celebrated in the land. Especially the great bell
was the object of the burghers' affection, and, generally, of
the sovereign's hatred; while to all it seemed, as it were, a
living historical personage, endowed with the human powers and
passions which it had so long directed and inflamed. ...
Charles allowed a month of awful suspense to intervene between
his arrival and his vengeance.
{1550}
Despair and hope alternated during the interval. On the 17th
of March, the spell was broken by the execution of 19 persons,
who were beheaded as ringleaders. On the 29th of April, he
pronounced sentence upon the city. ... It annulled all the
charters, privileges, and laws of Ghent. It confiscated all
its public property, rents, revenues, houses, artillery,
munitions of war, and in general everything which the
corporation, or the traders, each and all, possessed in
common. In particular, the great bell Roland was condemned and
sentenced to immediate removal. It was decreed that the
400,000 florins, which had caused the revolt, should forthwith
be paid, together with an additional fine by Ghent of 150,000,
besides 6,000 a year, forever after."
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section 11.
GHENT: A. D. 1576.
The Spanish Fury.
The treaty of the "Pacification of Ghent."
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
GHENT: A. D. 1584.
Disgraceful surrender to the Spaniards.
Decline of the city.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
GHENT: A. D. 1678.
Siege and capture by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
GHENT: A. D. 1678.
Restored to Spain.
See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
GHENT: A. D. 1706.
Occupied by Marlborough.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
GHENT: A. D. 1708-1709.
Taken by the French and retaken by the Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
GHENT: A. D. 1745-1748.
Surrendered to the French, and restored to Austria.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D.1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.
GHENT: A. D. 1814.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and
the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
----------GHENT: End----------
GHERIAH, Battle of (1763).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
GHIBELINS.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.
GHILDE.
See GUILDS.
GHORKAS, OR GOORKAS, English war with the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
GIAN GALEAZZO,
Lord of Milan, A. D. 1378-1396;
Duke, 1396-1402.
Gian Galeazzo II., Duke of Milan, 1476-1494.
GIBBORIM, The.
King David's chosen band of six hundred, his heroes, his
"mighty men," his standing army.
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 3.
GIBEON, Battle of.
See BETH-HORON, BATTLES OF.
GIBEONITES, The.
The Gibeonites were a "remnant of the Amorites, and the
children of Israel had sworn unto them" (ii Samuel xxi., 2).
Saul violated the pledged faith of his nation to these people
and "sought to slay them." After Saul's death there came a
famine which was attributed to his crime against the
Gibeonites; whereupon David sought to make atonement to them.
They would accept nothing but the execution of vengeance upon
seven of Saul's family, and David gave up to them two sons of
Saul's concubine, Rizpah, and five sons of Michel, the
daughter of Saul, whom they hanged.
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 3.
GIBRALTAR, Origin of the name.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1309-1460.
Taken by the Christians, recovered by the Moors, and finally
wrested from them, after several sieges.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1704.
Capture by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1713.
Ceded by Spain to England.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1727.
Abortive siege by the Spaniards.
The lines of San Roque.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1780-1782.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and French.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
----------GIBRALTAR: End----------
GILBERT, Sir Humphrey:
Expedition to Newfoundland.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
GILBOA, Battles of.
See MEGIDDO.
GILDO, Revolt of.
See ROME: A. D. 396-398.
GILDS.
See GUILDS.
GILEAD.
See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
GILLMORE, General Q. A.
Siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
The siege of Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: S. CAROLINA),
and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
GIOVANNA.
See JOANNA.
GIOVANNI MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1402-1412.
GIPSIES.
See GYPSIES.
GIRONDINS.-GIRONDISTS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER); 1791-1792;
1792 (JUNE-AUGUST), (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1793 (MARCH-JUNE), (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER),
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
GIRTON COLLEGE.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: 1865-1883.
GITANOS.
See GYPSIES.
GIURGEVO, Battle of (1595).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).
GLADIATORS, Revolt of the.
See SPARTACUS.
GLADSTONE MINISTRIES.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870; 1873-1880 to 1885;
1885-1886; and 1892-1893.
GLATZ, Capture of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
GLENCO, Massacre of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
GLENDALE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
GLENDOWER'S REBELLION.
See WALES: A. D. 1402-1413.
GLENMALURE, Battle of (1580).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
GLEVUM.
Glevum was a large colonial city of the Romans in Britain,
represented by the modern city of Gloucester. It "was a town
of great importance, as standing not only on the Severn, near
the place where it opened out into the Bristol Channel, but
also as being close to the great Roman iron district of the
Forest of Dean."
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
{1551}
GLOGAU, The storming of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
GLOSSATORS, The.
See BOLOGNA: 11TH CENTURY.--SCHOOL OF LAW.
GLOUCESTER, Origin of.
See GLEVUM.
GLOUCESTER: A. D. 1643.
Siege of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
GLYCERIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 473-474.
GNOSTICS-GNOSTICISM.
"In a word ... Gnosticism was a philosophy of religion; but in
what sense was it this? The name of Gnosticism--Gnosis--does
not belong exclusively to the group of phenomena with whose
historical explanation we are here concerned. Gnosis is a
general idea; it is only as defined in one particular manner
that it signifies Christian Gnosticism in a special sense:
Gnosis is higher Knowledge, Knowledge that has a clear
perception of the foundations on which it rests, and the
manner in which its structure has been built up; a Knowledge
that is completely that which, as Knowledge, it is called to
be. In this sense it forms the natural antithesis to Pistis,
Faith [whence Pistics, believing Christians]: if it is desired
to denote Knowledge in its specific difference from faith, no
word will mark the distinction more significantly than Gnosis.
But we find that, even in this general sense, the Knowledge
termed Gnosis is a religious Knowledge rather than any other;
for it is not speculative Knowledge in general, but only such
as is concerned with religion. ... In its form and contents
Christian Gnosticism is the expansion and development of
Alexandrian religious philosophy; which was itself an offshoot
of Greek philosophy. ... The fundamental character of
Gnosticism in all its forms is dualistic. It is its
sharply-defined, all-pervading dualism that, more than
anything else, marks it directly for an offspring of paganism.
... In Gnosticism the two principles, spirit and matter, form
the great and general antithesis, within the bounds of which
the systems move with all that they contain. ... A further
leading Gnostic conception is the Demiurgus. The two highest
principles being spirit and matter, and the true conception of
a creation of the world being thus excluded, it follows in the
Gnostic systems, and is a characteristic feature of them, that
they separate the creator of the world from the supreme God,
and give him a position subordinate to the latter. He is
therefore rather the artificer than the creator of the world.
... The oldest Gnostic sects are without doubt those whose
name is not derived from a special founder, but only stand for
the general notion of Gnosticism. Such a name is that of the
Ophites or Naassenes. The Gnostics are called Ophites,
brethren of the Serpent, not after the serpent with which the
fathers compared Gnosticism, meaning to indicate the dangerous
poison of its doctrine, and to suggest that it was the hydra,
which as soon as it lost one head at once put forth another;
but because the serpent was the accepted symbol of their lofty
Knowledge. ... The first priests and supporters of the dogma
were, according to the author of the Philosophoumena, the
so-caned Naassenes--a name derived from the Hebrew name of
the serpent. They afterwards called themselves Gnostics,
because they asserted that they alone knew the things that are
deepest. From this root the one heresy divided into various
branches; for though these heretics all taught a like
doctrine, their dogmas were various."
F. C. Baur,
The Church History of the First Three Centuries,
volume 1, pages 187-202.
"Bigotry has destroyed their [the Gnostics'] writings so
thoroughly, that we know little of them except from hostile
sources. They called themselves Christians, but cared little
for the authority of bishops or apostles, and borrowed freely
from cabalists, Parsees, astrologers, and Greek philosophers,
in building up their fantastic systems. ... Much as we may
fear that the Gnostic literature was more remarkable for
boldness in speculation than for, clearness of reasoning or
respect for facts, it is a great pity that it should have been
almost entirely destroyed by ecclesiastical bigotry."
F. M. Holland,
The Rise of Intellectual Liberty,
chapter 3, section 6.
ALSO IN:
J. L. von Mosheim,
Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity,
century 1,
sections 60-70, century 2, sections 41-65.
C. W. King,
The Gnostics and their Remains.
A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 2.
See, also, DOCETISM.
GOA, Acquisition by the Portuguese (1510).
See INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
GODERICH MINISTRY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
GODFREY DE BOUILLON:
His crusade and his kingdom of Jerusalem.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.
GODOLO, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
GODOLPHIN AND THE ENGLISH TREASURY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
GODWINE, Earl: Ascendancy in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066.
GOIDEL, The.
See CELTS, THE.
GOITO, Battles of(1848).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
GOLD DISCOVERY IN AUSTRALIA.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.
GOLD DISCOVERY IN CALIFORNIA.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
GOLDEN BIBLE, The.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.
GOLDEN BOOK OF VENICE.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
GOLDEN BOUGH, The.
See ARICIAN GROVE.
GOLDEN BULL, Byzantine.
A document to which the emperor attached his golden seal was
called by the Byzantines, for that reason, a chrysobulum or
golden bull. The term was adopted in the Western or Holy Roman
Empire.
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
page 190.
GOLDEN BULL OF CHARLES IV., The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493;
and 13TH CENTURY.
GOLDEN BULL OF HUNGARY.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
GOLDEN CHERSONESE.
See CHRYSE.
{1552}
GOLDEN CIRCLE, Knights of the.
David Christy published his 'Cotton is King' in the year
[1856] in which Buchanan was elected [President of the United
States], and the Knights of the Golden Circle appear to have
organized about the same time. The Golden Circle had its
centre at Havana, Cuba, and with a radius of sixteen degrees
(about 1,200 miles) its circumference took in Baltimore, St.
Louis, about half of Mexico, all of Central America, and the
best portions of the coast along the Caribbean Sea. The
project was, to establish an empire with this circle for its
territory, and by controlling four great staples--rice,
tobacco, sugar, and cotton--practically govern the
commercial world. Just how great a part this secret
organization played in the scheme of secession, nobody that
was not in its counsels can say; but it is certain that it
boasted, probably with truth, a membership of many
thousands."
Rossiter Johnson,
Short History of the War of Secession,
page 24.
During the American Civil War, the Order of the Knights of
the Golden Circle was extended (1862-1864) through the
Northern States, as a secret treasonable organization, in aid
of the Southern Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
GOLDEN FLEECE, Knights of the Order of the.
"It was on the occasion of his marriage [A. D. 1430] that
Philip [Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders,
etc.], desirous of instituting a national order of knighthood,
chose for its insignia a 'golden fleece,' with the motto,
'Pretium non vile laborum,'--not to be condemned is the reward
of labour. ... For the first time labour was given heraldic
honours. The pride of the country had become laden with
industrial recollections, its hope full of industrial
triumphs; if feudalism would keep its hold, it must adopt or
affect the national feeling. No longer despised was the
recompense of toil; upon the honour of knighthood it should so
be sworn; nay knighthood would henceforth wear appended to its
collar of gold no other emblem than its earliest and most
valued object--a golden fleece."
W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
volume 2, chapter 10.
"This order of fraternity, of equality between nobles, in
which the duke was admonished, 'chaptered,' just the same as
any other, this council, to which he pretended to communicate
his affairs, was at bottom a tribunal where the haughtiest
found the duke their judge; he could honour or dishonour them
by a sentence of the order. Their scutcheon answered for them;
hung up in St. Jean's, Ghent, it could either be erased or
blackened. ... The great easily consoled themselves for
degradation at Paris by lawyers, when they were glorified by
the duke of Burgundy in a court of chivalry in which kings
took their seat."
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 12, chapter 4.
"The number of the members was originally fixed at 31,
including the sovereign, as the head and chief of the
institution. They were to be: 'Gentilshommes de nom et d'armes
sans reproche.' In 1516, Pope Leo X. consented to increase the
number to 52, including the head. After the accession of
Charles V., in 1556, the Austro-Spanish, or, rather, the
Spanish-Dutch line of the house of Austria, remained in
possession of the Order. In 1700, the Emperor Charles VI. and
King Philip of Spain both laid claim to it. ... It now passes
by the respective names of the Spanish or Austrian. 'Order of
the Golden Fleece,' according to the country where it is
issued."
Sir B. Burke,
Book of Orders of Knighthood,
page 6.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 1, chapter 2.
GOLDEN GATE, The.
"The Bay of San Francisco is separated by [from] the sea by
low mountain ranges. Looking from the peaks of the Sierra
Nevada, the coast mountains present an apparently continuous
line, with only a single gap, resembling a mountain pass. This
is the entrance to the great bay. ... On the south, the
bordering mountains come down in a narrow ridge of broken
hills, terminating in a precipitous point, against which the
sea breaks heavily. On the northern side, the mountain
presents a bold promontory, rising in a few miles to a height
of two or three thousand feet. Between these points is the
strait--about one mile broad in the narrowest part, and five
miles long from the sea to the bay. To this Gate I gave the
name of Chrysopylæ, or Golden Gate; for the same reasons that
the harbor of Byzantium (Constantinople afterwards), was
called Chrysoceras, or Golden Horn. Passing through this gate,
the bay opens to the right and left, extending in each
direction about 35 miles, making a total length of more than
70, and a coast of about 275 miles."
J. C. Fremont,
Memoirs of my life,
volume 1, page 512.
GOLDEN HORDE, The.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
GOLDEN HORN, The.
See BYZANTIUM.
GOLDEN HORSESHOE, Knights of the.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.
GOLDEN HOUSE, The.
The imperial palace at Rome, as restored by Nero after the
great fire, was called the Golden House. It was destroyed by
Vespasian.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 53 and 90.
GOLDEN, OR BORROMEAN, LEAGUE, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
GOLDEN SPUR, Order of the.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1550 by Pope Paul III.
GOLDSBORO, General Sherman's march to.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
and (FEBRUARY-MARCH: N. CAROLINA).
GOLIAD, Massacre at (1836).
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
GOLOWSTSCHIN, Battle of (1708).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
GOLYMIN, Battle of (1806).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
GOMER, OR OMER, The.
See EPHAH.
GOMERISTS. See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
GOMPHI.
Gomphi, a city on the border of Thessaly, shut its gates
against Cæsar, shortly before the battle of Pharsalia. He
halted one day in his march, stormed the town and gave it up
to his soldiers to be sacked.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 15.
GONDS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
GONFALONIERE.
See CARROCCIO.
GONZAGA, The House of.
"The house of Gonzaga held sovereign power at Mantua, first as
captains, then as marquesses, then as dukes, for nearly 400
years" (1328-1708).
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
volume 1, page 243.
GOOD ESTATE OF RIENZI, The.
See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
GOOD HOPE, Cape of:
The Discovery and the Name.
See PORTUGAL: A. D.1463-1498.
GOOD HOPE, Cape of:
The Colonization.
See SOUTH AFRICA.
{1553}
GOORKAS, OR GURKHAS, OR GHORKAS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and A. D. 1805-1816.
GOOROO, OR GURU.
See SIKHS.
GORDIAN I. and II., Roman Emperors, A. D. 238.
Gordian III., Roman Emperor, A. D. 238-244.
GORDIAN KNOT, Cutting the.
"It was about February or March 333 B. C., when Alexander
reached Gordium; where he appears to have halted for some
time, giving to the troops which had been with him in Pisidia
a repose doubtless needful. While at Gordium, he performed the
memorable exploit familiarly known as the cutting of the
Gordian knot. There was preserved in the citadel an ancient
waggon of rude structure, said by the legend to have once
belonged to the peasant Gordius and his son Midas--the
primitive rustic kings of Phrygia, designated as such by the
Gods and chosen by the people. The cord (composed of fibres
from the bark of the cornel tree), attaching the yoke of this
waggon to the pole, was so twisted and entangled as to form a
knot of singular complexity, which no one had ever been able
to untie. An oracle had pronounced, that to the person who
should untie it the empire of Asia was destined. ...
Alexander, on inspecting the knot, was as much perplexed as
others had been before him, until at length, in a fit of
impatience, he drew his sword and severed the cord in two. By
everyone this was accepted as a solution of the problem."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 93.
GORDON, General Charles George,
In China.
See CHINA: A. D.1850-1864.
In the Soudan.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.
GORDON RIOTS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
GORDYENE, OR CORDYENE, OR CORDUENE.
The tribes of the Carduchi which anciently occupied the region
of northern Mesopotamia, east of the Tigris, have given their
name permanently to the country, but in variously modified
forms. In the Greek and Roman period it was known as Gordyene,
Cordyene, Corduene; at the present day it is Kurdistan. Under
the Parthian domination in Asia, Gordyene was a tributary
kingdom. In the early part of the last century B. C. it was
conquered by Tigranes, king of Armenia, who chose a site
within it for building his vast new capital, Tigranocerta, to
populate which twelve Greek cities were stripped of
inhabitants. It was included among the conquests of Trajan for
the Romans, but relinquished by Hadrian.
G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 10, and after.
See, also, CARDUCHI, THE.
GORGES, Sir Ferdinando, and the colonization of Maine.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631, and 1635;
also MAINE: A. D. 1639.
GORM, King of Denmark, A. D. 883-941.
GOROSZLO, Battle of (1601).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES
(ROUMANIA, &c.).
GORTYN.
See CRETE.
GOSHEN, Land of.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
GOSNOLD'S VOYAGE TO NEW ENGLAND.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
GOSPORT NAVY YARD, Abandonment and destruction of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
GOTHA, Origin of the Dukedom of.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
GOTHI MINORES, The.
See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.
GOTHIA, in central Europe.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
GOTHIA, in Gaul.
Septimania, the strip of land along the Mediterranean between
the Pyrenees and the Rhone, was the last possession of the
Goths in Gaul, and the name Gothia became for a time attached
to it.
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 5, section 5.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.
GOTHINI, The.
The Gotini or Gothini were a people of ancient Germany who
"are probably to be placed in Silesia, about Breslau." "The
Gotini and Osi [who held a part of modern Gallicia, under the
Carpathian mountains] are proved by their respective Gallic
and Pannonian tongues, as well as by the fact of their
enduring tribute, not to be Germans. ... The Gotini, to
complete their degradation, actually work iron mines."
Tacitus,
Minor Works,
translated by Church and Brodribb:
The Germany, with geographical notes.
GOTHLAND IN SWEDEN.
See GOTHS: ORIGIN OF THE.
GOTHONES, The.
A tribe in ancient Germany, mentioned by Tacitus. They
"probably dwelt on either side of the Vistula, the Baltic
being their northern boundary. Consequently, their settlements
would coincide with portions of Pomerania and Prussia. Dr.
Latham thinks they were identical with the Æstii."
Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.
See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.
GOTHS, Origin of the.
"The Scandinavian origin of the Goths has given rise to much
discussion, and has been denied by several eminent modern
scholars. The only reasons in favor of their Scandinavian
origin are the testimony of Jornandes and the existence of the
name of Gothland in Sweden; but the testimony of Jornandes
contains at the best only the tradition of the people
respecting their origin, which is never of much value; and the
mere fact of the existence of the name of Gothland in Sweden
is not sufficient to prove that this country was the original
abode of the people. When the Romans first saw the Goths, in
the reign of Caracalla, they dwelt in the land of the Getæ [on
the northern side of the lower Danube]. Hence Jornandes,
Procopius, and many other writers, both ancient and modern,
supposed the Goths to be the same as the Getæ of the earlier
historians. But the latter writers always regarded the Getæ as
Thracians; and if their opinion was correct, they could have
had no connection with the Goths. Still, it is a startling
fact that a nation called Gothi should have emigrated from
Germany, and settled accidentally in the country of a people
with a name so like their own as that of Getæ. This may have
happened by accident, but certainly all the probabilities are
against it. Two hypotheses have been brought forward in modern
times to meet this difficulty. One is that of Grimm, in his
History of the German Language, who supposes that there was no
migration of the Goths at all, that they were on the Lower
Danube from the beginning, and that they were known to the
earlier Greek and Latin writers as Getæ: but the great
objection to this opinion is the general belief of the earlier
writers that the Getæ were Thracians, and the latter were
certainly not Germans.
{1554}
The other is that of Latham, who supposes, with much
ingenuity, that the name of Get, or Goth, was the general name
given by the Slavonic nations to the Lithuanians. According to
this theory, the Goth-ones, or Guth-ones, at the mouth of the
Vistula, mentioned by Tacitus and Ptolemy, are Lithuanians,
and the Get-æ, on the Danube, belong to the same nation.
Latham also believes that the Goths of a later period were
Germans who migrated to the Danube, but that they did not bear
the name of Goths till they settled in the country of the
Getæ.
See Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus,
Epil., p. xxxviii., seq."
W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
"The first clear utterance of tradition among the Goths points
to Sweden as their home. It is true that this theory of the
Swedish origin of the Goths has of late been strenuously
combatted, but until it is actually disproved (if that be
possible) it seems better to accept it as a 'working
hypothesis,' and, at the very least, a legend which influenced
the thoughts and feelings of the nation itself. Condensing the
narrative of Jornandes ... we get some such results as these:
'The island of Scanzia [peninsula of Norway and Sweden] lies
in the Northern Ocean, opposite the mouths of the Vistula, in
shape like a cedar-leaf. In this island, a warehouse of
nations ("officina gentium"), dwelt the Goths, with many other
tribes,' whose uncouth names are for the most part forgotten,
though the Swedes, the Fins, the Heruli, are familiar to us.
'From this island the Goths, under their king Berig, set forth
in search of new homes. They had but three ships, and as one
of these during their passage always lagged behind, they
called her "Gepanta," "the torpid one," and her crew, who ever
after showed themselves more sluggish and clumsy than their
companions when they became a nation, bore a name derived from
this circumstance, Gepidae, the Loiterers'." Settling, first,
near the mouth of the Vistula, these Gothic wanderers
increased in numbers until they were forced once more to
migrate southward and eastward, seeking a larger and more
satisfactory home. In time, they reached the shores of the
Euxine. "The date of this migration of the Goths is uncertain;
but, as far as we can judge from the indications afforded by
contemporary Roman events, it was somewhere between 100 and
200 A. D. At any rate, by the middle of the third century, we
find them firmly planted in the South of Russia. They are now
divided into three nations, the Ostrogoths on the East, the
Visigoths on the West, the lazy Gepidae a little to the
rear--that is, to the North of both. ... It is important for
us to remember that these men are Teutons of the Teutons. ...
Moreover, the evidence of language shows that among the
Teutonic races they belonged to the Low German family of
peoples: more nearly allied, that is to say, to the Dutch, the
Frieslanders, and to our own Saxon forefathers, all of whom
dwelt by the flat shores of the German Ocean or the Baltic
Sea, than to the Suabians and other High German tribes who
dwelt among the hills."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
introduction, chapter 3 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 6.
T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 2, chapter 2.
See, also, VANDALS.
GOTHS:
Acquisition of Bosphorus.
"The little kingdom of Bosphorus; whose capital was situated
on the straits through which the Mæotis communicates itself to
the Euxine, was composed of degenerate Greeks and
half-civilized barbarians. It subsisted as an independent
state from the time of the Peloponnesian war, was at last
swallowed up by the ambition of Mithridates, and, with the
rest of his dominions, sunk under the weight of the Roman
arms. From the reign of Augustus the kings of Bosphorus were
the humble but not useless allies of the empire. By presents,
by arms, and by a slight fortification drawn across the
isthmus, they effectually guarded, against the roving
plunderers of Sarmatia, the access of a country which, from
its peculiar situation and convenient harbours, commanded the
Euxine Sea and Asia Minor. As long as the sceptre was
possessed by a lineal succession of kings, they acquitted
themselves of their important charge with vigilance and
success. Domestic factions, and the fears or private interest
of obscure usurpers who seized on the vacant throne, admitted
the Goths [already, in the third century, in possession of the
neighboring region about the mouth of the Dneiper] into the
heart of Bosphorus. With the acquisition of a superfluous
waste of fertile soil, the conquerors obtained the command of
a naval force sufficient to transport their armies to the
coast of Asia."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.
First invasions of the Roman Empire.
As early as the reign of Alexander Severus (A. D. 222-235) the
Goths, then inhabiting the Ukraine, had troubled Dacia with
incursions; but it was not until the time of the Emperor
Philip, called the Arabian (244-249), that they invaded the
Empire in force, passing through Dacia and crossing the Danube
into Mœsia (Bulgaria). They had been bribed by a subsidy to
refrain from pillaging Roman territory, but complained that
their "stipendia" had not been paid. They made their way
without opposition to the city of Marcianopolis, which Trajan
had founded in honor of his sister, and which was the capital
of one of the two provinces into which Mœsia had been divided.
The inhabitants ransomed themselves by the payment of a large
sum of money, and the barbarians retired. But their expedition
had been successful enough to tempt a speedy repetition of it,
and the year 250 found them, again, in Mœsia, ravaging the
country with little hindrance. The following year they crossed
the Hæmus or Balkan mountains and laid siege to the important
city of Philippopolis--capital of Thrace, founded by Philip of
Macedon. Now, however, a capable and vigorous emperor, Decius,
was briefly wearing the Roman purple. He met the Goths and
fought them so valiantly that 30,000 are said to have been
slain; yet the victory remained with the barbarians, and
Philippopolis was not saved. They took it by storm, put
100,000 of its inhabitants to the sword and left nothing in
the ruins of the city worth carrying away. Meantime the
enterprising Roman emperor had reanimated and recruited his
troops and had secured positions which cut off the retreat of
the Gothic host. The peril of the barbarians seemed so great,
in fact, that they offered to surrender their whole booty and
their captives, if they might, on so doing, march out of the
country undisturbed. Decius sternly rejected the proposition,
and so provoked his dangerous enemies to a despair which was
fatal to him. In a terrible battle that was fought before the
close of the year 251, at a place in Mœsia called Forum
Trebonii, the Roman emperor perished, with the greater part of
his army. The successor of Decius, Gallus, made haste to
arrange a payment of annual peace-money to the Goths, which
persuaded them to retire across the Danube.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
introduction, chapter 8 (volume 1).
{1555}
GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
Naval expeditions in the East.
Having acquired command of a port and a navy by their conquest
of or alliance with the little kingdom of Bosporus in the
Chersonesus Taurica (modern Crimea), the Goths launched forth
boldly upon a series of naval marauding expeditions, which
spread terror and destruction along the coasts of the Euxine,
the Ægean and the straits between. The first city to suffer
was Pityus, on the Euxine, which they totally destroyed, A. D.
258. The next was Trebizond, which fell a victim to the
negligence with which its strong walls were guarded. The Goths
loaded their ships with the enormous booty that they took from
Trebizond, and left it almost a ruined city of the dead.
Another expedition reached Bithynia, where the rich and
splendid cities of Chalcedon, Nicea, Nicomedia, Prusa, Apamæa,
nd others were pillaged and more or less wantonly destroyed. "In
the year 267, another fleet, consisting of 500 vessels, manned
chiefly by the Goths and Heruls [or Heruli], passed the
Bosphorus and the Hellespont. They seized Byzantium and
Chrysopolis, and advanced, plundering the islands and coasts
of the Ægean Sea, and laying waste many of the principal
cities of the Peloponnesus. Cyzicus, Lemnos, Skyros, Corinth,
Sparta, and Argos are named as having suffered by their
ravages. From the time of Sylla's conquest of Athens, a period
of nearly 350 years had elapsed, during which Attica had
escaped the evils of war; yet when the Athenians were called
upon to defend their homes against the Goths, they displayed a
spirit worthy of their ancient fame. An officer, named
Cleodamus, had been sent by the government from Byzantium to
Athens, in order to repair the fortifications, but a division
of these Goths landed at the Piræus and succeeded in carrying
Athens by storm, before any means were taken for its defence.
Dexippus, an Athenian of rank in the Roman service, soon
contrived to reassemble the garrison of the Acropolis; and by
joining to it such of the citizens as possessed some knowledge
of military discipline, or some spirit for warlike enterprise,
he formed a little army of 2,000 men. Choosing a strong
position in the Olive Grove, he circumscribed the movements of
the Goths, and so harassed them by a close blockade that they
were soon compelled to abandon Athens. Cleodamus, who was not
at Athens when it was surprised, had in the meantime assembled
a fleet and gained a naval victory over a division of the
barbarian fleet, These reverses were a prelude to the ruin of
the Goths. A Roman fleet entered the Archipelago, and a Roman
army, under the emperor Gaillenus, marched into Illyricum; the
separate divisions of the Gothic expedition were everywhere
overtaken by these forces, and destroyed in detail. During
this invasion of the empire, one of the divisions of the
Gothic army crossed the Hellespont into Asia, and succeeded in
plundering the cities of the Troad, and in destroying the
celebrated temple of Diana of Ephesus. ... The celebrity of
Athens, and the presence of the historian Dexippus, have given
to this incursion of the barbarians a prominent place in
history; but many expeditions are casually mentioned which
must have inflicted greater losses on the Greeks, and spread
devastation more widely over the country."
G. Finlay,
Greece Under the Romans,
chapter 1, section 14.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10.
GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.
Defeat by Claudius.
"Claudius II. and his successor Aurelian, notwithstanding the
shortness of their reigns, effectually dissipated the
mosquito-swarms of barbarian invaders and provincial usurpers
who were ruining the unhappy dominions of Gallienus. The two
campaigns (of 268 and 269) in which the Emperor Claudius
vanquished the barbarians are related with great brevity, and
in such a shape that it is not easy to harmonise even the
scanty details which are preserved for us. It seems clear,
however, that the Goths (both Ostrogoths and Visigoths), with
all their kindred tribes, poured themselves upon Thrace and
Macedonia in vaster numbers than ever. The previous movements
of these nations had been probably but robber-inroads: this
was a national immigration. ... A few years earlier, so vast
an irruption must inevitably have ruined the Roman Empire. But
now, under Claudius, the army, once more subjected to strict
discipline, had regained, or was rapidly regaining, its tone,
and the Gothic multitudes, vainly precipitating themselves
against it, by the very vastness of their unwieldy masses,
hastened their own destruction. A great battle was fought at
Naissus (Nisch, in Servia), a battle which was not a complete
victory, which according to one authority was even a defeat
for the Romans, but since the barbarians as an immediate
consequence of it lost 50,000 men, their doubtful victory may
fairly be counted as a defeat. In the next campaign they were
shut up in the intricate passes of the Balkans by the Roman
cavalry. Under the pressure of famine they killed and ate the
cattle that drew their waggons, so parting with their last
chance of return to their northern homes. ... At length the
remnants of the huge host seem to have disbanded, some to have
entered the service of their conqueror as 'foederati,' and
many to have remained as hired labourers to plough the fields
which they had once hoped to conquer. ... The vast number of
unburied corpses bred a pestilence, to which the Emperor fell
a victim. His successor Aurelian, the conqueror of Zenobia ...
made peace wisely as well as war bravely, and, prudently
determining on the final abandonment of the Roman province of
Dacia, he conceded to the Goths the undisturbed possession of
that region [A. D. 270], on condition of their not crossing
the Danube to molest Moesia. Translating these terms into the
language of modern geography, we may say, roughly, that the
repose of Servia and Bulgaria was guaranteed by the final
separation from the Roman Empire of Hungary, Transylvania,
Moldavia, and Wallachia, which became from this time forward
the acknowledged home of the Gothic nation. ... For about a
century (from 270 to 365) the Goths appear to have been with
little exception at peace with Rome."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
introduction, chapter 3.
{1556}
GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.
Conversion to Christianity.
The introduction of Christianity among the Goths seems to have
begun while they were yet on the northern side of the Danube
and the Black Sea. It first resulted, no doubt, from the
influence of many Christian captives who were swept from their
homes in Mœsia, Greece, and Asia Minor, and carried away to
spend their lives in slavery among the barbarians. To these
were probably added a considerable number of Christian
refugees from Roman persecution, before the period of
Constantine. But it was not until the time of Ulfilas, the
great apostle and bishop of the Goths (supposed to have held
the office of bishop among them from about A. D. 341 to 381),
that the development and organization of Christianity in the
Gothic nation assumed importance. Ulfilas is represented to
have been a descendant of one of the Christian captives
alluded to above. Either as an ambassador or as a hostage, he
seems to have passed some years in his early manhood at
Constantinople. There he acquired a familiar knowledge of the
Greek and Latin languages, and became fitted for his great
work--the reducing of the Gothic language to a written form,
with an alphabet partly invented, partly adapted from the
Greek, and the translation of the Bible into that tongue. The
early labors of Ulfilas among his countrymen beyond the Danube

were interrupted by an outbreak of persecution, which drove
him, with a considerable body of Christian Goths, to seek
shelter within the Roman empire. They were permitted to settle
in Mœsia, at the foot of the Balkans, round about Nicopolis,
and near the site of modern Tirnova. There they acquired the
name of the Gothi Minores, or Lesser Goths. From this Gothic
settlement of Ulfilas in Mœsia the alphabet and written
language to which he gave form have been called Mœso-Gothic.
The Bible of Ulfilas--the first missionary translation of the
Scriptures--with the personal labors of the apostle and his
disciples, were powerfully influential, without doubt, in the
Christianizing of the whole body of the Goths, and of their
German neighbors, likewise. But Ulfilas had imbibed the
doctrines of Arianism, or of Semi-Arianism, at Constantinople,
and he communicated that heresy (as it was branded by the
Athanasian triumph) to all the barbarian world within the
range of Gothic influence. It followed that, when the kingdoms
of the Goths, the Vandals, and the Burgundians were
established in the west, they had to contend with the
hostility of the orthodox or Catholic western church, and were
undermined by it. That hostility had much to do with the
breaking down of those states and with the better success of
the orthodox Franks.
C. A. A. Scott,
Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths.
See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths) A. D. 350-375.
The empire of Ermanaric or Hermanric.
"Ermanaric, who seems to have been chosen king about the year
350, was a great warrior, like many of his predecessors; but
his policy, and the objects for which he fought, were markedly
different from theirs. ... Ermanaric made no attempt to invade
the provinces of the Roman Empire; but he resolved to make his
Ostrogothic kingdom the centre of a great empire of his own.
The seat of his kingdom was, as tradition tells us, on the
banks of the Dnieper [and it extended to the Baltic]. ... A
Roman historian compares Ermanaric to Alexander the Great; and
many ages afterwards his fame survived in the poetic
traditions of Germans, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. ...
Ermanaric was the first king since Ostrogotha who belonged to
the Amaling family. ... Henceforward the kingship of the
Ostrogoths became hereditary among the descendants of
Ermanaric. During this time the Visigoths appear to have been
practically independent, divided into separate tribes ruled by
their own 'judges' or chieftains; but ... it is probable that in
theory they acknowledged the supremacy of the Ostrogothic
king. ... Ermanaric died in the year 375, and the Ostrogoths
were subdued by the Hunnish king Balamber. For a whole century
they remained subject to the Huns." One section of the
Ostrogothic nation escaped from the Hunnish conquest and
joined the Visigoths, who found a refuge on the Roman side of
the Danube. The bulk of the nation bore the yoke until the
death of the great Hun king, Attila, in 453, when the strife
between his sons gave them an opportunity to throw it off.
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapter 5.
"The forecast of European history which then [during the reign
of Hermanric] seemed probable would have been that a great
Teutonic Empire, stretching from the Danube to the Don, would
take the place which the colossal Slav Empire now holds in the
map of Europe, and would be ready, as a civilised and
Christianised power, to step into the place of Eastern Rome
when, in the fulness of centuries, the sceptre should drop
from the nerveless hands of the Cæsars of Byzantium."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 1.
GOTHS: (Visigoths) A. D. 376.
Admission into the Roman Empire.
"Let us suppose that we have arrived at the year (364) when
the feeble and timid Valens was placed on the Eastern throne
by his brother Valentinian. At that time, Ulfilas would be in
the fifty-third year of his age and the twenty-third of his
episcopate. Hermanric, king of the Ostrogoths, a centenarian
and more, was still the most important figure in the loosely
welded Gothic confederacy. His special royalty may possibly
have extended over Northern Hungary, Lithuania, and Southern
Russia. The 'torpid' Gepidæ, dwelt to the north of him, to the
south and west the Visigoths, whose settlements may perhaps
have occupied the modern countries of Roumania, Transylvania
and Southern Hungary. The two great nations, the Ostrogoths
and Visigoths, were known at this time to the Romans, perhaps
among themselves also, by the respective names of the
Gruthungi and Thervingi, but it will be more convenient to
disregard these appellations and speak of them by the names
which they made conspicuous in later history."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
introduction, chapter 3.
This was the situation of Gothia, or the Gothic Empire of
Central Europe, when the Huns made their appearance on the
scene. "An empire, formerly powerful, the first monarchy of
the Huns, had been overthrown by the Sienpi, at a distance of
500 leagues from the Roman frontier, and near to that of
China, in the first century of the Christian era. ... The
entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to the Sienpi its
ancient pastures bordering on China, had traversed the whole
north of Asia by a march of 1,300 leagues. This immense horde,
swelled by all the conquered nations whom it carried along in
its passage, bore down on the plains of the Alans, and
defeated them on the banks of the Tanais in a great battle.
{1557}
It received into its body a part of the vanquished tribe,
accompanied by which it continued to advance towards the West;
while other Alans, too haughty to renounce their independence,
had retreated, some into Germany, whence we shall see them
afterwards pass into Gaul; others into the Caucasian
mountains, where they preserve their name to this day. The
Goths, who bordered on the Alans, had fertilised by their
labours the rich plains which lie to the north of the Danube
and of the Black Sea. More civilised than any of the kindred
Germanic tribes, they began to make rapid progress in the
social sciences. ... This comparatively fortunate state of
things was suddenly interrupted by the appearance of the
Huns,--the unlooked-for arrival of that savage nation,
which, from the moment it crossed the Borysthenes, or the
Dnieper, began to burn their villages and their crops; to
massacre, without pity, men, women, and children; to devastate
and destroy whatever came within the reach of a Scythian
horseman. ... The great Hermanric, whose kingdom extended from
the Baltic to the Black Sea, would not have abandoned his
sceptre to the Huns without a struggle; but at this very time
he was murdered by a domestic enemy. The nations he had
subjugated prepared on every side for rebellion. The
Ostrogoths, after a vain resistance, broke their alliance with
the Visigoths; while the latter, like an affrighted flock of
sheep, trooping together from all parts of their vast
territory to the right bank of the Danube, refused to combat
those superhuman beings by whom they were pursued. They
stretched out their supplicating hands to the Romans on the
other bank, entreating that they might be permitted to seek a
refuge from the butchery which threatened them, in those wilds
of Mœsia and Thrace which were, almost valueless to the
empire." Their prayer was granted by the Emperor Valens, on
the condition that they surrender their arms and that the sons
of their chief men be given as hostages to the Romans. The
great Visigothic nation was then (A. D. 376) transported
across the Danube to the Mœsian shore--200,000 warriors in
number, besides children and women and slaves in proportion.
But the Roman officers charged with the reception of the Goths
were so busy in plundering the goods and outraging the
daughters and wives of their guests that they neglected to
secure the arms of the grim warriors of the migration. Whence
great calamities ensued.
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 3 and 5 (volume 1).
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 378.
Defeat and destruction of Valens.
When the Visigothic nation was permitted to cross the Danube,
A. D. 376, to escape from the Huns, and was admitted into
Lower Mœsia, nothing seems to have been left undone that would
exasperate and make enemies of these unwelcome colonists.
Every possible extortion and outrage was practised upon them.
To buy food, they were driven to part, first, with their
slaves, then with their household goods, and finally with
their children, whom they sold. In despair, at last, they
showed signs of revolt, and the fatuous Roman commander
precipitated it by a murderous outrage at Marcianople (modern
Shumla). In a battle which soon followed near that town, the
Romans were disastrously beaten. The Visigoths were now joined
by a large body of Ostrogoths, who passed the Danube without
resistance, and received into their ranks, moreover, a
considerable force of Gothic soldiers who had long been in the
service of the empire. The open country of Mœsia and Thrace was
now fully exposed to them (the fortified cities they could not
reduce), and they devastated it for a time without restraint.
But Valens, the emperor in the east, and Gratian in the west,
exerted themselves in co-operation to gather forces against
them, and for two years there was a doubtful struggle carried
on. The most serious battle, that of The Willows (Ad Salices),
fought in the region now called the Dobrudscha, was a victory
to neither side. On the whole the Romans appear to have had
some advantage in these campaigns, and to have narrowed the
range of the Gothic depredations. But the host of the
barbarians was continually increased by fresh reinforcements
from beyond the Danube. Even their own ferocious enemies, Huns
and Alans, were permitted to join their standard. Yet, in face
of this fact, the folly and jealousy of the Emperor Valens led
him to stake all on the chances of a battle which he made
haste to rush into, when he learned that his nephew Gratian
was marching to his assistance from the west. He coveted the
sole honors of a victory; but death and infamy for himself and
an overwhelming calamity to the empire were what he achieved.
The battle was fought near Hadrianople, on the 9th day of
August, A. D. 378. Two-thirds of the Roman army perished on
the awful field, and the body of the emperor was never found.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 26.
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapter 8.
See, also, ROME: A. D, 363-379.
GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.
Settlement of the Goths by Theodosius, in Mœsia and Thrace.
"The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
terrible battle of Adrianople: more than 60,000 Roman soldiers
perished in the fight or in the pursuit; and the time was long
past when such a loss could have been easily repaired by fresh
levies. Nevertheless, even after this frightful massacre, the
walls of Adrianople still opposed an unconquerable resistance
to the barbarians. Valour may supply the place of military
science in the open field, but civilised nations recover all
the advantages of the art of war in the attack or defence of
fortified towns. ... The Goths, leaving Adrianople in their
rear, advanced, ravaging all around them, to the foot of the
walls of Constantinople; and, after some unimportant
skirmishes, returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus and
Dalmatia. From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was
marked by conflagration and blood. Whilst the European
provinces of the Greek empire sunk under these calamities, the
Asiatic provinces took a horrible vengeance on the authors of
them." The Gothic youths who had been required as hostages
when the nation crossed the Danube, and those who were
afterwards sold by their starving parents, were now gathered
together in different cities of the Asiatic provinces and
massacred in cold blood, at a given signal, on the same day
and hour. By this atrocious act, all possible reconciliation
with the Goths might well seem to be destroyed. The prospect
was discouraging enough to the new emperor who now ascended
the vacant throne of Valens (A. D. 379),--the soldier
Theodosius, son of Theodosius who delivered Britain from the
Scots.
{1558}
Chosen by the Emperor Gratian to be his colleague and Emperor
of the East, Theodosius undertook a most formidable task. "The
abandonment of the Danube had opened the entrance of the
empire, not only to the Goths, but to all the tribes of
Germany and Scythia. ... The blood of the young Goths which
had been shed in Asia was daily avenged with interest over all
that remained of Mœsian, Thrasian, Dalmatian, or Grecian race.
It was more particularly during these four years of
extermination that the Goths acquired the fatal celebrity
attached to their name, which is still that of the destroyers
of civilisation. Theodosius began by strengthening the
fortified cities, recruiting the garrisons, and exercising his
soldiers in small engagements whenever he felt assured of
success; he then waited to take advantage of circumstances; he
sought to divide his enemies by intrigue, and, above all,
strenuously disavowed the rapacity of the ministers of Valens,
or the cruelty of Julius; he took every occasion of declaring
his attachment and esteem for the Gothic people, and at length
succeeded in persuading them that his friendship was sincere.
... The very victories of the Goths, their pride, their
intemperance, at length impaired their energy. Fritigern, who,
in the most difficult moments, had led them on with so much
ability, was dead; the jealousies of independent tribes were
rekindled. ... It was by a series of treaties, with as many
independent chieftains, that the nation was at length induced
to lay down its arms: the last of these treaties was concluded
on the 30th of October, 382. It restored peace to the Eastern
empire, six years after the Goths crossed the Danube. This
formidable nation was thus finally established within the
boundary of the empire of the East. The vast regions they had
ravaged were abandoned to them, if not in absolute
sovereignty, at least on terms little at variance with their
independence. The Goths settled in the bosom of the empire had
no kings; their hereditary chiefs were consulted under the
name of judges, but their power was unchanged. ... The Goths
gave a vague sort of recognition to the sovereignty of the
Roman emperor; but they submitted neither to his laws, his
magistrates, nor his taxes. They engaged to maintain 40,000
men for the service of Theodosius; but they were to remain a
distinct army. ... It was, probably, at this period that their
apostle, bishop Ulphilas, who had translated the Gospels into
their tongue, invented the Mœso-Gothic character, which bears
the name of their new abode."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 26.
GOTHS: A. D. 395.
Alaric's invasion of Greece.
"The death of Theodosius [A. D. 395] threw the administration
of the Eastern Empire into the hands of Rufinus, the minister
of Arcadius; and that of the Western into those of Stilicho,
the guardian of Honorius. The discordant elements which
composed the Roman empire began to reveal all their
incongruities under these two ministers. ... The two ministers
hated one another with all the violence of aspiring ambition."
G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 2, section 8.
"The animosity existing between Stilicho and the successive
ministers of the Eastern Emperor (an animosity which does not
necessarily imply any fault on the part of the former) was one
most potent cause of the downfall of the Western Empire. ...
Alaric (the all-ruler) surnamed Baltha (the bold) was the
Visigothic chieftain whose genius taught him the means of
turning this estrangement between the two Empires to the best
account. He was probably born about 360. His birth-place was
the island Peuce, in the Delta of the Danube, apparently south
of what is now termed the Sulina mouth of that river. We have
already met with him crossing the Alps as a leader of
auxiliaries in the army of Theodosius."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 4.
"At this time [A. D. 395] Alaric, partly from disgust at not
receiving all the preferment which he expected, and partly in
the hope of compelling the government of the Eastern Empire to
agree to his terms, quitted the imperial service and retired
towards the frontiers, where he assembled a force sufficiently
large to enable him to act independently of all authority.
Availing himself of the disputes between the ministers of the
two emperors, and perhaps instigated by Rufinus or Stilicho to
aid their intrigues, he established himself in the provinces
to the south of the Danube. In the year 395 he advanced to the
walls of Constantinople; but the movement was evidently a
feint. ... After this demonstration, Alaric marched into
Thrace and Macedonia, and extended his ravages into Thessaly.
... When the Goth found the northern provinces exhausted, he
resolved to invade Greece and Peloponnesus, which had long
enjoyed profound tranquillity. ... Thermopylæ was left
unguarded, and Alaric entered Greece without encountering any
resistance. The ravages committed by Alaric's army have been
described in fearful terms; villages and towns were burnt, the
men were murdered, and the women and children carried away to
be sold as slaves by the Goths. ... The walls of Thebes had
been rebuilt, and it was in such a state of defence that
Alaric could not venture to besiege it, but hurried forward to
Athens. He concluded a treaty with the civil and military
authorities, which enabled him to enter that city without
opposition. ... Athens evidently owed its good treatment to
the condition of its population, and perhaps to the strength
of its walls, which imposed some respect on the Goths; for the
rest of Attica did not escape the usual fate of the districts
through which the barbarians marched. The town of Eleusis, and
the great temple of Ceres, were plundered and then destroyed.
... Alaric marched unopposed into the Peloponnesus, and, in a
short time, captured almost every city in it without meeting
with any resistance. Corinth, Argos, and Sparta were all
plundered by the Goths." Alaric wintered in the Peloponnesus;
in the following spring he was attacked, not only by the
forces of the Eastern Empire, whose subjects he had outraged,
but by Stilicho, the energetic minister of the Roman West.
Stilicho, in a vigorous campaign, drove the Goths into the
mountains on the borders of Elis and Arcadia; but they escaped
and reached Epirus, with their plunder (see ROME: A. D.
396-398). "The truth appears to be that Alaric availed himself
so ably of the jealousy with which the court of Constantinople
viewed the proceedings of Stilicho, as to negotiate a treaty,
by which he was received into the Roman service, and that he
really entered Epirus as a general of Arcadius. ... He
obtained the appointment of Commander-in-chief of the imperial
forces in Eastern' Illyricum, which be held for four years.
During this time he prepared his troops to seek his fortune in
the Western Empire."
G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 2, section 8.
{1559}
"The birth of Alaric, the glory of his past exploits, and the
confidence in his future designs, insensibly united the body
of the nation under his victorious standard; and, with the
unanimous consent of the barbarian chieftains, the
Master-general of Illyricum was elevated, according to ancient
custom, on a shield, and solemnly proclaimed king of the
Visigoths."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30.
GOTHS: A. D. 400.
Failure of Gainas at Constantinople.
His defeat and death.
See ROME: A. D. 400-518.
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 400-403.
Alaric's first invasion of Italy.
After Alaric had become a commissioned general of the Eastern
Empire and had been placed in command of the great præfecture
of Eastern Illyricum, he "remained quiet for three years,
arming and drilling his followers, and waiting for the
opportunity to make a bold stroke for a wider and more secure
dominion. In the autumn of the year 400, knowing that Stilicho
was absent on a campaign in Gaul, Alaric entered Italy. For
about a year and a half the Goths ranged almost unresisted
over the northern part of the peninsula. The emperor, whose
court was then at Milan, made preparations for taking refuge
in Gaul; and the walls of Rome were hurriedly repaired in
expectation of an attack. On the Easter Sunday of the year 402
(March 19), the camp of Alaric, near Pollentia, was surprised
by Stilicho, who rightly guessed that the Goths would be
engaged in worship, and would not imagine their Roman
fellow-Christians less observant of the sacred day than
themselves. Though unprepared for battle, the barbarians made
a desperate stand, but at last they were beaten. ... Alaric
was able to retreat in good order, and he soon after crossed
the Po with the intention of marching against Rome. However,
his troops began to desert in large numbers, and he had to
change his purpose. In the first place he thought of invading
Gaul, but Stilicho overtook him and defeated him heavily at
Verona [A. D. 403]. Alaric himself narrowly escaped capture by
the swiftness of his horse. Stilicho, however, was not very
anxious for the destruction of Alaric, as he thought he might
some day find him a convenient tool in his quarrels with the
ministers of Arcadius [the Emperor of the East]. So he offered
Alaric a handsome bribe to go away from Italy"--[back to
Illyria].
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 5.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30.
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 408-410.
Alaric's three sieges and sack of Rome.
His death.
See ROME: A. D. 408-410.
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 410-419.
Founding of the kingdom of Toulouse.
On the death of Alaric (A. D. 410), his brother-in-law,
Ataulphus, or Atawulfs, was chosen king by the wandering
Visigothic nation, and the new king succeeded in negotiating a
treaty of peace with the court at Ravenna. As the result of
it, the Goths moved northwards and, at the beginning of the
year 412, they passed out of Italy into Gaul. A number of
usurpers had risen in the western provinces, during the five
years since 407, encouraged by the disorders of the time, and
Ataulphus accepted a commission from Honorius to put them down
and to restore the imperial authority in southern Gaul. The
commission was faithfully executed in one of its parts; but
the authority which the Gothic king established was, rather,
his own, than that of the imperial puppet at Ravenna. Before
the end of 413, he was master of most of the Gallic region on
the Mediterranean (though Marseilles resisted him), and
westward to the Atlantic. Then, at Narbonne, he married Galla
Placidia, sister of Honorius, who had been a prisoner in the
camp of the Goths for four years, but who was gallantly wooed,
it would seem, and gently and truly won, by her Gothic lover.
Apparently still commissioned by the Roman emperor, though
half at war with him, and though his marriage with Placidia
was haughtily forbidden and unrecognized, Ataulphus next
carried his arms into Spain, already ravaged by Vandals, Alans
and Suevic bands. But there he was cut off in the midst of his
conquests, by assassination, in August, 415. The Goths,
however, pursued their career under another valiant king,
Wallia, who conquered the whole of Spain and meditated the
invasion of Africa; but was persuaded to give up both
conquests and prospects to Honorius, in exchange for a
dominion which embraced the fairest portions of Gaul. "His
victorious Goths, forty-three years after they had passed the
Danube, were established, according to the faith of treaties,
in the possession of the second Aquitaine, a maritime province
between the Garonne and the Loire, under the civil and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bordeaux. ... The Gothic limits
were enlarged by the additional gift of some neighboring
dioceses; and the successors of Alaric fixed their royal
residence at Toulouse, which included five populous quarters,
or cities, within the spacious circuit of its walls. ... The
Gothic limits contained the territories of seven
cities--namely, those of Bordeaux, Périgueux, Angoulême, Agen,
Saintes, Poitiers, and Toulouse. Hence the district obtained
the name of Septimania."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31 (with note by Dr. Wm. Smith).
It was at the end of the year 418, that the Goths settled
themselves in their new kingdom, of Toulouse. The next year,
Wallia died, and was succeeded by Theodoric, a valorous
soldier of the race of the Balthings, who played a
considerable part in the history of the next thirty years.
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapter 11-12.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 8 (volume 1).
GOTHS: (The Visigoths): A. D.419-451.
The Kingdom of Toulouse.
"By the peace which their king Wallia concluded with Honorius
(416) after the restoration of Placidia, they [the Visigoths]
had obtained legal possession of the district called Aquitania
Secunda, together with the territory round Toulouse, all of
which allotment went by the name of Septimania or Gothia. For
ten years (419-429) there had been firm peace between
Visigoths and Romans; then, for ten years more (429-439),
fierce and almost continued war, Theodoric, king of the
Visigoths, endeavouring to take Arles and Narbonne; Aetius and
his subordinate Litorius striving to take the Gothic capital
of Toulouse, and all but succeeding. And in these wars Aetius
had availed himself of his long-standing friendship with the
Huns to enlist them as auxiliaries against the warriors of
Theodoric, dangerous allies who plundered friends and enemies.
... For the last twelve years (439-451) there had been peace,
but scarcely friendship, between the Courts of Ravenna and
Toulouse."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).
{1560}
As the successor of Wallia, who died in 419, the Visigoths
chose Theoderic, "who seems to have been a Balthing, though
not related either to Wallia or to Atawulf. You must be
careful not to confound this Visigoth Theoderic, or his son of
the same name, with the great Theoderic the Amaling, who began
to reign over the Ostrogoths about the year 475. Theoderic the
Visigoth was not such a great man as his namesake, but he must
have been both a brave soldier and an able ruler, or he could
not have kept the affection and obedience of his people for
thirty-two years. His great object was to extend his kingdom,
which was hemmed in on the north by the Franks, ... and on the
west by another people of German invaders, the Burgunds; while
the Roman Empire still kept possession of some rich cities,
such as Arles and Narbonne [the first named of which Theoderic
besieged unsuccessfully in 425, the last named in 437], which
were temptingly close to the Gothic boundary on the south. ...
In the year 450 the Visigoths and the Romans were drawn more
closely together by the approach of a great common danger. ...
The Huns ... had, under their famous king, Attila, moved
westward, and were threatening to over-run both Gaul and
Italy."
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapter 12.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths and Visigoths): A. D. 451.
At the battle of Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 453.
Breaking the yoke of the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 453.
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 453-484.
Extension of the kingdom of Toulouse.
"The Visigoths were governed from 453 to 466 by Theodoric the
Second, son of Theodoric the First, and grandson of Alaric.
... The reign of Theodoric was distinguished by conquests. On
the one hand he drove the Suevians as far as the extremity of
Gallicia. ... On the other hand, in 462, he rendered himself
master of the town of Narbon, which was delivered up to him by
its count; he also carried his arms towards the Loire; but his
brother Frederic, whom he had charged with the conquest of the
Armorici, and who had taken possession of Chinon, was killed
in 463 near Orleans, in a battle which he gave to Count
Ægidius. Theodoric finally extended the dominion of the
Visigoths to the Rhone; he even attacked Arles and Marseille,
but he could not subjugate them. After a glorious reign of
thirteen years, he was killed in the month of August, 466, by
his brother Euric, by whom he was succeeded. ... Euric ...
attacked, in 473, the province of Auvergne. ... He conquered
it in 475 and caused his possession of it to be confirmed by
the emperor Nepos. He had at that period acquired the Loire
and the Rhone as frontiers; in Spain he subjected the whole of
the province of Taragon. ... He afterwards conquered Provence,
and was acknowledged a sovereign in Arles and at Marseille,
towards the year 480. No prince, whether civilized or
barbarian, was at that period so much feared as Euric; and,
had he lived longer, it would undoubtedly have been to the
Visigoths, and not to the Franks, that the honor would have
belonged of reconstituting the Gallic provinces; but he died
at Arles towards the end of the year 484, leaving an only son
of tender age, who was crowned under the name of Alaric the
Second."
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians;
translated by Bellingham, chapter 4.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 473-474.
Invasions of Italy and Gaul.
"The Ostrogothic brother-kings, who served under Attila at the
battle in Champagne, on the overthrow of the Hunnish Empire
obtained for themselves a goodly settlement in Pannonia, on
the western bank of the Danube. For near twenty years they had
been engaged in desultory hostilities with their barbarian
neighbours, with Sueves and Rugians on the north, with Huns
and Sarmatians on the south. Now, as their countryman,
Jornandes, tells us with admirable frankness, 'the spoils of
these neighbouring nations were dwindling, and food and
clothing began to fail the Goths.' ... They clustered round
their kings, and clamoured to be led forth to war--whither
they cared not, but war must be. Theodemir, the elder king,
took counsel with his brother Widemir, and they resolved to
commence a campaign against the Roman Empire. Theodemir, as
the more powerful chieftain, was to attack the stronger Empire
of the East; Widemir, with his weaker forces, was to enter
Italy. He did so, but, like so many of the northern
conquerors, he soon found a grave in the beautiful but deathly
land. His son, the younger Widemir, succeeded to his designs
of conquest, but Glycerius [Roman emperor, for the moment]
approached him with presents and smooth words, and was not
ashamed to suggest that he should transfer his arms to Gaul,
which was still in theory, and partially in fact, a province
of the Empire. The sturdy bands of Widemir's Ostrogoths
descended accordingly into the valleys of the Rhone and the
Loire; they speedily renewed the ancient alliance with the
Visigothic members of their scattered nationality, and helped
to ruin yet more utterly the already desperate cause of
Gallo-Roman freedom."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 473-488.
Rise of Theodoric.
The greater mass of the Ostrogoth nation who followed
Theodemir (or Theudemer) the elder of the royal brothers, into
the territories of the Eastern Empire, were rapidly successful
in their adventures. The Court at Constantinople made little
attempt to oppose them with arms, but bribed them to peace by
gifts of money and a large cession of territory in Macedonia.
"Amongst the cities which were abandoned to them was Pella,
famous as the birthplace of Alexander the Great. Just after
the conclusion of this treaty (in the year 474) Theudemer
died, and his son Theoderic, at the age of twenty years, began
his long and glorious reign as king of the Ostrogoths."
Theodoric had been reared in the imperial court at
Constantinople, from his eighth to his eighteenth year, his
father having pledged him to the emperor as a hostage for the
fulfilment of a treaty of peace. He understood, therefore, the
corrupt politics of the empire and its weakness, and he made the
most of his knowledge.
{1561}
Sometimes at peace with the reigning powers and sometimes at
war; sometimes ravaging the country to the very gates of the
impregnable capital, and sometimes settled quietly on lands
along the southern bank of the Danube which he had taken in
exchange for the Maeedonian tract; sometimes in league and
sometimes in furious rivalry with another Gothic chieftain and
adventurer, called Theodoric Strabo, whose origin and whose
power are somewhat of a mystery--the seriousness to the
Eastern Empire of the position and the strength of Theodoric
and his Ostrogoths went on developing until the year 488. That
year, the statesmen at Constantinople were illuminated by an
idea. They proposed to Theodoric to migrate with his nation
into Italy and to conquer a kingdom there. The Emperor Zeno,
to whom the Roman senate had surrendered the sovereignty of
the Western Roman Empire, and into whose hands the barbarian
who extinguished it, Odoacer, or Odovacar, had delivered the
purple robes--the Emperor Zeno, in the exercise of his
imperial function, authorized the conquest to be made.
Theodoric did not hesitate to accept a commission so
scrupulously legal.
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapters 14-15.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 488-526.
The kingdom of Theodoric in Italy.
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 493-525.
Theodoric in German legend.
See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 507-509.
The kingdom of Toulouse overthrown by the Franks.
"If the successors of Euric had been endowed with genius and
energy equal to his, it is possible that the Visigoths might
have made themselves masters of the whole Western world. But
there was in the kingdom one fatal element of weakness, which
perhaps not even a succession of rulers like Euric could have
long prevented from working the destruction of the State. The
Visigoth kings were Arians; the great mass of their subjects
in Gaul were Catholics, and the hatred between religious
parties was so great that it was almost impossible for a
sovereign to win the attachment of subjects who regarded him
as a heretic." After 496, when Clovis, the king of the Franks,
renounced his heathenism, professed Christianity, and was
baptized by a Catholic bishop, the Catholics of Southern Gaul
began almost openly to invite him to the conquest of their
country. In the year 507 he responded to the invitation, and
declared war against the Visigoth, giving simply as his ground
of war that it grieved him to see the fairest part of Gaul in
the hands of the Arians. "The rapidity of Clovis's advance was
something quite unexpected by the Visigoths. Alaric still
clung to the hope of being able to avoid a battle until the
arrival of Theodoric's Ostrogoths [from his great kinsman in
Italy] and wished to retreat," but the opinion of his officers
forced him to make a stand. "He drew up his army on 'the field
of Voclad' (the name still survives as Vouillé or Vouglé), on
the banks of the Clain, a few miles south of Poitiers, and
prepared to receive the attack of the Franks. The battle which
followed decided the fate of Gaul. The Visigoths were totally
defeated, and their king was killed. Alaric's son, Amalaric, a
child five years of age, was carried across the Pyrenees into
Spain. During the next two years Clovis conquered, with very
little resistance, almost all the Gaulish dominions of the
Visigoths, and added them to his own. The 'Kingdom of
Toulouse' was no more. ... But Clovis was not allowed to
fulfil his intention of thoroughly destroying their [the
Visigothic] power, for the great Theoderic of Italy took up
the cause of his grandson Amalaric. The final result of many
struggles between Theoderic and the Franks was that the
Visigoths were allowed to remain masters of Spain, and of a
strip of sea-coast bordering on the Gulf of Lyons. ... This
diminished kingdom ... lasted just 200 years."
H. Bradley,
The Story of the Goths,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9.
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 38.
See, also, ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 507-711.
The kingdom in Spain.
The conquests of Clovis, king of the Franks, reduced the
dominion of the Visigoths on the northern side of the Pyrenees
to a small strip of Roman Narbonensis, along the gulf of
Lyons; but most of Spain had come under their rule at that
time and remained so. Amalaric, son of Alaric II. (and
grandson, on the maternal side, of the great Ostrogothic king,
Theodoric, who ruled both Gothic kingdoms during the minority
of Amalaric), reigned after the death of Theodoric until 531,
when he was murdered. He had made Narbonne his capital, until
he was driven from it, in a war with one of the sons of
Clovis. It was recovered; but the seat of government became
fixed at Toledo. During the reign of his successor, the Franks
invaded Spain (A.D. 543), but were beaten back from the walls
of Cæsaraugusta (modern Saragossa), and retreated with
difficulty and disaster. The Visigoths were now able to hold
their ground against the conquerors of Gaul, and the limits of
their kingdom underwent little subsequent change, until the
coming of the Moors. "The Gothic kings, in spite of bloody
changes and fierce opposition from their nobility, succeeded
in identifying themselves with the land and the people whom
they had conquered. They guided the fortunes of the country
with a distinct purpose and vigorous hand. By Leovigild
(572-586) the power of the rebellious nobility was broken, and
the independence and name of the Sueves of Gallicia
extinguished. The still more dangerous religious conflict
between the Catholic population and the inherited Arianism of
the Goths was put down, but at the cost of the life of his
son, Herminigild, who had married a Frank and Catholic
princess, and who placed himself at the head of the Catholics.
But Leovigild was the last Arian king. This cause of
dissension was taken away by his son Reccared (568-601), who
solemnly abandoned Arianism, and embraced with zeal the
popular Catholic creed. He was followed by the greater part of
his Arian subjects, but the change throughout the land was not
accomplished without some fierce resistance. It led among
other things to the disappearance of the Gothic language, and
of all that recalled the Arian days, and to the destruction in
Spain of what there was of Gothic literature, such as the
translation of the Bible, supposed to be tainted with
Arianism. But it determined the complete fusion of the Gothic
and Latin population. After Reccared, two marked features of
the later Spanish character began to show themselves. One was
the great prominence in the state of the ecclesiastical
element. The Spanish kings sought in the clergy a counterpoise
to their turbulent nobility. The great church councils of
Toledo became the legislative assemblies of the nation; the
bishops in them took precedence of the nobles; laws were made
there as well as canons; and seventeen of these councils are
recorded between the end of the fourth century and the end of
the seventh.
{1562}
The other feature was that stern and systematic intolerance
which became characteristic of Spain. Under Sisebut (612-620),
took place the first expulsion of the Jews. ... The Gothic
realm of Spain was the most flourishing and the most advanced
of the new Teutonic kingdoms. ... But however the Goths in
Spain might have worked out their political career, their
course was rudely arrested. ... While the Goths had been
settling their laws, while their kings had been marshalling
their court after the order of Byzantium, the Saracens had
been drawing nearer and nearer."
R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapters 29-35.
S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 2.
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 2.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 535-553.
Fall of the kingdom of Theodoric.
Recovery of Italy by Justinian.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 553.
Their disappearance from History.
"Totila and Teia, last of the race of Ostrogoth kings, fell as
became their heroic blood, sword in hand, upon the field of
battle. Then occurred a singular phenomenon,--the
annihilation and disappearance of a great and powerful people
from the world's history. ... A great people, which had
organized an enlightened government, and sent 200,000 fighting
men into the field of battle, is annihilated and forgotten. A
wretched remnant, transported by Narses to Constantinople,
were soon absorbed in the miserable proletariat of a
metropolitan city. The rest fell by the sword, or were
gradually amalgamated with the mixed population of the
peninsula. The Visigoth kingdom in Gaul and Spain, which had
been overshadowed by the glories of the great Theodoric,
emerges into independent renown, and takes up the traditions
of the Gothic name. In the annals of Europe, the Ostrogoth is
heard of no more."
J. G. Sheppard,
The Fall of Rome,
lecture 6.
GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 711-713.
Fall of the kingdom in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
----------GOTHS: End----------
GOURGUES, Dominic de, The vengeance of.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568.
GOWRIE PLOT, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.
GRACCHI, The.
See ROME: B. C. 133-121.
GRACES OF CHARLES I. TO THE IRISH.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1625.
GRAF.-GRAFIO.
"The highest official dignitary of which the Salic law [law of
the Sulian Franks] makes mention is the Grafio (Graf, Count),
who was appointed by the king, and therefore protected by a
triple ... leodis [weregild]. His authority and jurisdiction
extended over a district answering to the gau (canton) of
later times, in which he acted as the representative of the
king, and was civil and military governor of the people."
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 10.
See, also, MARGRAVE.
GRAFTON-CHATHAM MINISTRY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D.1765-1768, and 1770.
GRAHAM'S DIKE.
See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
GRAMPIANS, OR MONS GRANPIUS.
Victoriously fought by the Romans under Agricola with the
tribes of Caledonia, A. D. 86. Mr. Skene fixes the battle
ground at the junction of the Isla with the Tay.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
GRAN CHACO, The.
"This tract of flat country, lying between the tropic and 29°
South, extends eastward to the Parana and Paraguay, and
westward to the province of Santiago del Estero. Its area is
180,000 square miles. About one-third belongs to Paraguay, and
a small part to Bolivia, but the bulk is in the Argentine
Republic. ... The Gran Chaco is no desert, but a rich alluvial
lowland, fitted for colonization, which is hindered by the
want of knowledge of the rivers and their shiftings."
The American Naturalist,
volume 23, page 799.
"In the Quitchoane language, which is the original language of
Peru, they call 'chacu,' those great flocks of deer, goats,
and such other wild animals, which the inhabitants of this
part of America drive together when they hunt them; and this
name was given to the country we speak of, because at the time
Francis Pizarro made himself master of a great part of the
Peruvian empire, a great number of its inhabitants took refuge
there. Of 'Chacu', which the Spaniards pronounce 'Chacou"
custom has made 'Chaco.' It appears that, at first, they
comprehended nothing under this name but the country lying
between the mountains of the Cordilliere, the Pilco Mayo, and
the Red River; and that they extended it, in process of time,
in proportion as other nations joined the Peruvians, who had
taken refuge there to defend their liberties against the
Spaniards."
Father Charlevoix,
History of Paraguay,
book 3 (volume l).
For an account of the tribes of the Gran Chaco,
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
GRANADA:
The rise of the city.
Granada "was small and unimportant until the year 1012. Before
that time, it was considered a dependency of Elvira [the
neighboring ancient Roman city of Illiberis]; but, little by
little, the people of Elvira migrated to it, and as it grew
Elvira dwindled into insignificance."
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 6, chapter 5, note (volume 2).
GRANADA: A. D. 711.
Taken by the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
GRANADA: A. D. 1238.
The founding of the Moorish kingdom.
Its vassalage to the King of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
GRANADA: A. D. 1238-1273.
The kingdom under its founder.
The building of the Alhambra.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
GRANADA: A. D. 1273-1460.
Slow decay and crumbling of the Moorish kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
GRANADA: A. D. 1476-1492.
The fall of the Moorish kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
----------GRANADA: End----------
GRANADA, Treaty of.
See ITALY: A. D: 1501-1504.
GRANADINE CONFEDERATION, The.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.
GRAND ALLIANCES against Louis XIV.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696;
SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
{1563}
GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC.
"The Grand Army of the Republic was organized April 6, 1866,
in Decatur, the county seat of Macon County, Illinois. Its
originator was Dr. Benjamin F. Stephenson, a physician of
Springfield, Illinois, who had served during the war as
surgeon of the 14th Illinois Infantry. He had spent many weeks
in study and plans so that the Order might be one that would
meet with the general approval of the surviving comrades of
the war, and thus insure their hearty co-operation. He made a
draft of a ritual, and sent it by Captain John S. Phelps to
Decatur, where two veterans, Messrs. Coltrin and Prior, had a
printing-office. These gentlemen, with their employees, who
had been in the service, were first obligated to secrecy, and
the ritual was then placed in type in their office. Captain
Phelps returned to Springfield with proofs of the ritual, but
the comrades in Decatur were so interested in the project,
that, with the active assistance of Captain M. F. Kanan and
Dr. J. W. Routh, a sufficient number of names were at once
secured to an application for charter, and these gentlemen
went to Springfield to request Dr. Stephenson to return with
them and organize a post at Decatur. The formation of a post
was under way in Springfield, but not being ready for muster,
Dr. Stephenson, accompanied by several comrades, proceeded to
Decatur, and, as stated, on April 6, 1866, mustered post No.1,
with General Isaac C. Pugh as post commander, and Captain
Kanan as adjutant. The latter gave material aid to Dr.
Stephenson in the work of organizing other posts, and Dr.
Routh served as chairman of a committee to revise the ritual.
The title, 'The Grand Army of the Republic, U. S.,' was
formally adopted that night. Soon after this, post No.2 was
organized at Springfield with General Jules C. Webber as
commander. ... Nothing was done in the Eastern States about
establishing posts until the opportunity was given for
consultation on this subject at a national soldiers' and
sailors' convention, held in Pittsburg in September, 1866,
when prominent representatives from Eastern States were
obligated and authorized to organize posts. The first posts so
established were posts Nos. 1 in Philadelphia, and 3 in
Pittsburg, by charters direct from the acting
commander-in-chief, Dr. Stephenson; and post 2, Philadelphia,
by charter received from General J. K. Proudfit, department
commander of Wisconsin. A department convention was held at
Springfield, Illinois, July 12, 1866, and adopted resolutions
declaring the objects of the G. A. R. General John W. Palmer
was elected the first Department Commander. ... The first
national convention was held at Indianapolis, Ind., November
20, 1866. ... General Stephen A. Hurlbut, of Illinois, was
elected Commander-in-Chief. General Thomas B. McKean, of New
York, Senior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; General Nathan Kimball,
of Indiana, Junior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; and Dr.
Stephenson, Adjutant-General. The objects of the Order cannot
be more briefly stated than from the articles and regulations.
1. To preserve and strengthen those kind and fraternal
feelings which bind together the Soldiers, Sailors, and
Marines who united to suppress the late Rebellion, and to
perpetuate the memory and history of the dead.
2. To assist such former comrades in arms as need help and
protection, and to extend needful aid to the widows and
orphans of those who have fallen.
3. To maintain true allegiance to the United States of
America, based upon a paramount respect for, and fidelity to,
its Constitution and laws, to discountenance whatever tends to
weaken loyalty, incites to insurrection, treason, or
rebellion, or in any manner impairs the efficiency and
permanency of our free institutions; and to encourage the
spread of universal liberty, equal rights, and justice to all
men.
Article IV. defines the qualifications of members in the
following terms: Soldiers and Sailors of the United States
Army, Navy, or Marine Corps who served between April 12, 1861,
and April 29, 1865, in the war for the suppression of the
Rebellion, and those having been honorably discharged
therefrom after such service, and of such State regiments as
were called into active service and subject to the orders of
United States general officers, between the dates mentioned,
shall be eligible to membership in the Grand Army of the
Republic. No person shall be eligible who has at any time
borne arms against the United States. ... The second national
encampment was held in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pa.,
January 15, 1868. ... General John A. Logan, of Illinois, was
elected Commander-in-Chief. ... That which tended most to
attract public attention to the organization was the issuance
of the order of General Logan early in his administration, in
1868, directing the observance of May 30th as Memorial Day.
... At the national encampment, held May 11, 1870, at
Washington, D. C., the following article was adopted as a part
of the rules and regulations: 'The national encampment hereby
establishes a Memorial Day, to be observed by the members of
the Grand Army of the Republic, on the 30th day of May
annually, in commemoration of the deeds of our fallen
comrades. When such day occurs on Sunday, the preceding day
shall be observed, except where, by legal enactment, the
succeeding day is made a legal holiday, when such day shall be
observed.' Memorial Day has been observed as such every year
since throughout the country wherever a post of the Grand Army

of the Republic has been established. In most of the States
the day has been designated as a holiday."
W. H. Ward, editor,
Records of Members of the
Grand Army of the Republic,
pages 6-9.
ALSO IN:
G. S. Merrill,
The Grand Army of the Republic
(New England Magazine, August, 1890).
GRAND ARMY REMONSTRANCE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
GRAND COUNCIL, The.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
GRAND MODEL, The.
The "fundamental constitutions" framed by the philosopher,
John Locke, for the Carolinas, were so called in their day.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
GRAND PENSIONARY, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.
GRAND REMONSTRANCE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (NOVEMBER).
GRAND SERJEANTY.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
GRAND SHUPANES.
See SHUPANES.
GRANDELLA, OR BENEVENTO, Battle of (1266).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
GRANDI OF FLORENCE, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
GRANGE, The.
Grangers.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
GRANICUS, Battle of the (B. C. 334).
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
{1564}
GRANSON, Battle of (1476).
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
GRANT, General Ulysses S.
First Battle at Belmont.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Capture of Forts Henry and Donelson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
Under Halleck at Corinth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
Command of the Armies of the Mississippi and Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
Iuka and Corinth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).
Campaign against Vicksburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI),
and (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
The Chattanooga campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
In chief command of the whole army.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-APRIL).
Last campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: VIRGINIA) to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).
Presidential election, re-election and Administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868
(NOVEMBER), to 1876-1877.
GRANVELLE'S MINISTRY IN THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, to 1562-1566.
GRASSHOPPER WAR, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.
GRATIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 367-383.
GRAUBUNDEN: Achievement of independence.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
The Valtelline revolt and war.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
Dismemberment by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
GRAVE: A. D. 1586.
Siege and capture by the Prince of Parma.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
GRAVE: A. D. 1593.
Capture by Prince Maurice.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
----------GRAVE: End----------
GRAVELINES: A. D. 1383.
Capture and destruction by the English.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
GRAVELINES: A. D. 1652.
Taken by the Spaniards.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
GRAVELINES: A. D. 1658.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
GRAVELINES: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
----------GRAVELINES: End----------
GRAVELOTTE, OR ST. PRIVAT, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
GRAYBACKS, BOYS IN GRAY.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
GREAT BELL ROLAND, The.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
GREAT BRIDGE, Battle at (1775).
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.
GREAT BRITAIN: Adoption of the name for the United Kingdoms of
England and Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
GREAT CAPTAIN, The.
This was the title commonly given to the Spanish general,
Gonsalvo de Cordova, after his campaign against the French in
Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
GREAT COMPANY, The.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
GREAT CONDÉ, The.
See CONDÉ.
GREAT DAYS OF AUVERGNE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.
GREAT ELECTOR, The.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
GREAT INTERREGNUM, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
GREAT KANAWHA, Battle of the.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
GREAT KING, The.
A title often applied to the kings of the ancient Persian
monarchy.
GREAT MEADOWS, Washington's first battle and capitulation at.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
GREAT MOGULS.
The Mongol sovereigns of India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
GREAT PEACE, The.
See BRETIGNY, TREATY OF.
GREAT POWERS, The.
The six larger and stronger nations of Europe,--England,
Germany, France, Austria, Russia and Italy,--are often
referred to as "the great powers." Until the rise of united
Italy, the "great powers" of Europe were five in number.
GREAT PRIVILEGE, or Great Charter of Holland, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1477, and after.
GREAT RUSSIA.
See RUSSIA, GREAT.
GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, The founding of.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.
GREAT SCHISM, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417;
and ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1378.
GREAT TREK, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA. A. D. 1806-1881.
GREAT WALL OF CHINA.
See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.
GREAT WEEK, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
GREAT YAHNI, Battle of (1877).
See TURKS: A.D. 1877-1878.
GREAVES.
The greaves which formed part of the armour of the ancient
Greeks were "leggings formed of a pewter-like metal, which
covered the lower limbs down to the instep; and they were
fastened by clasps. ... Homer designates them as 'flexible';
and he frequently speaks of the Greek soldiery as being
well-equipped with this important defence--not only, that is,
well provided with greaves, but also having them so well
formed and adjusted that they would protect the limbs of the
warrior without in any degree affecting his freedom of
movement and action. These greaves, as has been stated, appear
to have been formed of a metal resembling the alloy that we
know as pewter."
C. Boutell,
Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages,
chapter 2, section 3.