History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

SPAIN AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY
EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE.
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA.
EMIRATE OF CORDOVA.
DURING THIS PERIOD THE BASIN OF THE DOURA
RIVER WAS UNDER LITTLE ORGANIZED RULE. THE RIVER
FORMS MERELY A NOMINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA AND THE EMIRATE OF CORDOVA
SPAIN IN 1035,
SHOWING THE DIVISIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF NAVARRE AFTER THE DEATH
OF SANCHO THE GREAT (1035) AND OF THE MOHAMEDAN TERRITORIES ON
THE EXTINCTION OF THE CORDOVAN CALIPHATE (1031).
DIVISIONS OF SANCHO'S KINGDOM
NAVARRE
CASTILE
ARAGON AND RIBAGORCA
FRANCE
THE DATES UNDER A NUMBER OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CITIES INDICATE THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES UP TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE
OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.
SPAIN AT ABOUT THE YEAR 1150.
NAVARRE.
LEON.
CASTILE.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
EMPIRE OF THE ALMOHADES.
SPAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
CASTILE AND LEON.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
GRANADA.
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REMAINED
PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED UP TO THE LATTER PART OF THE FIFTEENTH
CENTURY.
SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
Petty and short-lived Moorish kingdoms.
"The decline and dissolution of the Mohammedan monarchy, or
western caliphate, afforded the ambitious local governors
throughout the Peninsula the opportunity for which they had
long sighed—that of openly asserting their independence of
Cordova, and of assuming the title of kings. The wali of
Seville, Mohammed ben Ismail ben Abid, … appears to have been
the first to assume the powers of royalty; … he declared war
against the self-elected king of Carmona, Mohammed ben
Abdalla, on whose cities, Carmona and Ecija, he had cast a
covetous eye. The brother of Yahia, Edris ben Ali, the son of
Hamud, governed Malaga with equal independence. Algeziras had
also its sovereigns. Elvira and Granada obeyed Habus ben
Maksan: Valencia had for its king Abdelasis Abul Hassan,
Almeria had Zohair, and Denia had Mugehid; but these two petty
states were soon absorbed in the rising sphere of Valencia.
Huesca and Saragossa were also subject to rulers, who though
slow to assume the title of kings were not the less
independent, since their sway extended over most of Aragon.
{2977}
The sovereign of Badajos, Abdalla Muslema ben Alaftas, was the
acknowledged head of all the confederated governors of Algarve
and Lusitania; and Toledo was subject to the powerful Ismail
ben Dyluun, who, like the king of Seville, secretly aspired to
the government of all Mohammedan Spain."
S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 1, chapter 1 (volume 2).
"These petty kings were sometimes fighting against each other,
and sometimes joining hands to oppose the down-coming of
Christians, until they were startled by a new incursion from
Africa … which, in consolidating Islam, threatened destruction
to the existing kingdoms by the absorption of everyone of them
in this African vortex. I refer to the coming of the
Almoravides."
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 2 (volume 2).
SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
The Rise of the Kingdom of Aragon.
The province of Aragon, with Navarre to the west of it and
Catalonia to the east, was included in the Spanish March of
Charlemagne. Navarre took the lead among these provinces in
acquiring independence, and Aragon became for a time a
lordship dependent on the Navarrese monarchy. "The Navarre of
Sancho the Great [the same who gathered Castile among his
possessions, making it a kingdom, and who reigned from 970 to
1035] stretched some way beyond the Ebro; to the west it took
in the ocean lands of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, with the original
Castile; to the east it took in Aragon, Ripacurcia and
Sobrarbe. … At the death of Sancho the Great [A. D. 1035] his
momentary dominion broke up. … Out of the break-up of the
dominion of Sancho came the separate kingdom of Navarre, and
the new kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Sobrarbe. Of these
the two last were presently united, thus beginning the advance
of Aragon. … The power of Aragon grew, partly by conquests
from the Mussulmans, partly by union with the French fiefs to
the east. The first union between the crown of Aragon and the
county of Barcelona [by marriage, 1131] led to the great
growth of the power of Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees
and even beyond the Rhone. This power was broken by the
overthrow of King Pedro at Muret—[Pedro II. of Aragon, who
allied himself with the Albigenses—see ALBIGENSES: A. D.
1210-1213—and was defeated and slain by Simon de Montfort, at
Muret, near Toulouse. September 12, 1213]. But by the final
arrangement which freed Barcelona, Roussillon, and Cerdagne,
from all homage to France [A. D. 1258], all trace of foreign
superiority passed away from Christian Spain. The independent
kingdom of Aragon stretched on both sides of the Pyrenees, a
faint reminder of the days of the West-Gothic kings."
E. A. Freeman,
History Geography of Europe,
chapter 12, section 1.
ALSO IN:
S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 2, chapter 4.
See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
SPAIN: A. D. 1086-1147.
Domination of the Almoravides.
See ALMORAVIDES.
SPAIN: A. D. 1140.
Separation of Portugal from Castile.
Its erection into an independent kingdom.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
Invasion and dominion of the Almohades and the
decisive battle of Tolosa.
The invasion of Spain by the Moorish Almohades (see
ALMOHADES), and their struggle for dominion with the
Almoravides, produced, at the outset, great alarm in
Christendom, but was productive in the end of many
opportunities for the advancement of the Christian cause. In
the year 1212 Pope Innocent III. was moved by an appeal from
Alfonso VIII. of Castile to call on all Christian people to
give aid to their brethren in Spain, proclaiming a plenary
indulgence to those who would take up arms in the holy cause.
Thousands joined the crusade thus preached, and flocked to the
Castilian standards at Toledo. The chief of the Almohades
retorted on his side by proclaiming the Algihed or Holy War,
which summoned every Moslem in his dominions to the field.
Thus the utmost frenzy of zeal was animated on both sides, and
the shock of conflict could hardly fail to be decisive, under
the circumstances. Substantially it proved to be so, and the
fate of Mahometanism in Spain is thought to have been sealed
on Las Navas de Tolosa—the Plains of Tolosa—where the two
great hosts came to their encounter in July, 1212. The rout of
the Moors was complete; "the pursuit lasted till nightfall,
and was only impeded by the Moslem corpses."
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 4 (volume 2).
SPAIN: 12-15th Centuries.
The old monarchical constitution.
The Castilian and Aragonese Cortes.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
SPAIN: A. D. 12-16th Centuries.
Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.
See BARCELONA: 12-16TH CENTURIES.
SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
Progress of the arms of Castile, Leon, and Aragon.
Succession of the count of Champagne to the throne of Navarre.
Permanent union of the crowns of Leon and Castile.
The founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
Castilian conquest of Cordova.
Alfonso of Castile died two years after his great victory [of
'las navas de Tolosa']. He left his crown to his only son
Henry, a boy of eleven, and the regency to his daughter
Berenguela, queen of Leon, who was separated, upon the almost
always available plea of too near consanguinity, from her
husband Alfonso. Berenguela administered her delegated power
ably, but held it only three years: at the end of that time
the young king was accidentally killed by a tile falling upon
his head. Berenguela was her brother's natural heiress; but
idolizing her only son, Ferdinand, whom she had nursed and
educated herself, she immediately renounced her claim to the
throne in his favour, … and caused Ferdinand III. to be
acknowledged king: Alfonso IX., however, long continued to
disturb his wife and son's government. The king of Aragon
[Pedro II.] was recalled immediately after the great battle to
the concerns of his French dominions," where he joined his
kinsman, the count of Toulouse, as stated above, in resisting
the Albigensian crusade, and fell (1213) at Muret. "Whilst
Pedro's uncles and brothers were struggling for his
succession, the queen·dowager obtained from the Pope an order
to Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade, to deliver
her son [whom the father had given up as hostage before he
resolved to commit himself to war with the crusaders] into her
hands. Having thus got possession of the rightful heir, she
procured the assembling of the Cortes of Aragon, to whom she
presented the young king, when nobles, clergy, and town
deputies voluntarily swore allegiance to him.
{2978}
This was the first time such an oath was taken in Aragon, the
most limited of monarchies. It had been usual for the
Aragonese kings at their coronation to swear observance of the
laws, but not to receive in return an oath of fidelity from
the people. Henceforward this corresponding oath of fidelity
was regularly taken under the following form, celebrated for
its singularly bold liberty. 'We, who are as good as you, make
you our king to preserve our rights; if not, not.' The
Catalans followed the example of their Aragonese brethren in
proclaiming James king; but many years elapsed ere he could
sufficiently allay the disorders excited by his ambitious
uncles to prosecute the war against the Moors. At length the
several kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, were
ready, unconnectedly, to invade Mussulman Spain, where
Almohade princes and Mohammed aben Hud, a descendant of the
kings of Saragossa, were contending for the sovereignty, and
many 'walis' were struggling for independent royalty; all far
more intent upon gratifying their mutual jealousies and
enmities than upon resisting the common foe, with whom, on the
contrary, all were willing to enter into alliance in
furtherance of their separate views. Under these
circumstances, James of Aragon made himself master of the
greater part of Valencia, and of the island of Majorca [and
subsequently of Minorca]; Ferdinand of Castile extended his
conquests in Andalusia; Alfonso of Leon his in Estremadura:
and Sancho II. of Portugal, who had lately succeeded to his
father Alfonso II., acquired the city of Elvas, … Sancho of
Navarre took no part in these wars. After … the battle of 'las
navas de Tolosa' he quitted the career of arms, devoting
himself wholly to the internal administration of his kingdom.
He had no children, neither had his eldest sister, the queen
of England [Berengaria, wife of Richard Cœur de Lion], any.
Thence his youngest sister's son, Thibalt, count of Champagne,
became his natural heir. But Sancho, judging that the distance
between Navarre and Champagne unfitted the two states for
being governed by one prince, adopted his kinsman, James of
Aragon, and to him, as heir, the Navarese clergy and nobility,
and the count of Champagne himself, prospectively swore
fealty. Upon Sancho's death, in 1234, however, the Navarrese,
preferring independence under the lineal heir to an union with
Aragon, entreated king James to release them from their oaths.
He was then engaged in the conquest of Valencia; and
unwilling, it may be hoped, to turn his arms from Mahometan
enemies against his fellow-Christians, he complied with the
request, and Thibalt was proclaimed king of Navarre. Thibalt
neglected the wars carried on by his Spanish brother kings
against the Mahometans, to accept the command of a crusade for
the recovery of Jerusalem. The expedition was unsuccessful,
but the reputation of the leader did not, suffer. Upon his
return, Thibalt followed the example of his uncle in studying
only to promote the internal welfare of the country. He
introduced the cultivation of the grape and the manufacture of
wine into Navarre, with other agricultural improvements.
Thibalt is more known as one of the most celebrated
troubadours or poets of his day. Prior to Thibalt's accession,
the conquering progress of Leon and Castile had been
temporarily interrupted. Alfonso of Leon died in 1230, and by
his will divided Leon and Galicia between two daughters of his
first marriage, wholly overlooking his son Ferdinand. … By
negociation, however, and the influence which the acknowledged
wisdom and virtues of queen Berenguela appear to have given
her over everyone but her husband, the superior claims of
Ferdinand were admitted. The two infantas were amply endowed,
and the crowns of Leon and Castile were thenceforward
permanently united, With power thus augmented, Ferdinand III.
renewed his invasion of the Mussulman states, about the time
that Yahie, the last of the Almohade candidates for
sovereignty, died, bequeathing his pretensions to Mohammed abu
Abdallah aben Alhamar, an enterprising leader, who, in the
general confusion, had established himself as king of Jaen,
and was the sworn enemy of Yahie's chief rival, Abdallah aben
Hud. Ferdinand invaded the dominions of Abdallah, and Mohammed
took that opportunity of materially enlarging his own. After a
few years of general war, Abdallah aben Hud was assassinated
by the partisans of the king of Jaen, and his brother Aly, who
succeeded to his pretensions, met a similar fate. Mohammed ben
Alhamar was immediately received into the city of Granada,
which he made his capital; and thus, in 1238, founded the
kingdom of Granada, the last bright relic of Moorish
domination in Spain, and the favourite scene of Spanish
romance. Had Mohammed succeeded to the Almohade sovereignty in
Spain, and his authority been acknowledged by all his
Mussulman countrymen, so able and active a monarch might
probably have offered effective resistance to Christian
conquest. But his dominions consisted only of what is still
called the kingdom of Granada, and a small part of Andalusia.
The remaining Mahometan portions of Andalusia, Valencia, and
Estremadura, as well as Murcia and Algarve, swarmed with
independent 'walis' or kings. James of Aragon completed the
subjugation of Valencia the following year. Cordova, so long
the Moorish capital, was taken by Ferdinand [1235], with other
places of inferior note. The Murcian princes avoided invasion
by freely offering to become Castilian vassals; and now the
conquering troops of Castile and Leon poured into the
territories of Mohammed. The king of Granada, unsupported by
his natural allies, found himself unequal to the contest, and
submitted to become, like his Murcian neighbours, the vassal
of Ferdinand. In that capacity he was compelled to assist his
Christian liege lord in conquering Mussulman Seville."
M. M. Busk,
History of Spain and Portugal,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
Chronicle of James I., King of Aragon,
Surnamed the Conqueror;
translated by J. Forster.
SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
The Moorish kingdom of Granada.
The building of the Alhambra.
"A new era had begun in the fortunes of the Moors. Reft of
their two magnificent capitals at Cordova and Seville, they
had gathered into the extreme south, under the able and
beneficent rule of Aben-al-Hamar, who, though a tributary to
Castille, termed himself Sultan and Emir of the Faithful, and
is usually called King of Granada. Karnattah, as the Arabs had
named it, meant the Cream of the West. The Spaniards in later
times, deceived by the likeness of the word to Granada, a
pomegranate, fancied it to have been thence named, and took
the fruit as its emblem.
{2979}
The kingdom was a mere fragment, and did not even reach to the
Straits; for Algesira, the green island, and its great
fortresses, belonged to the Africans; and it had in it
elements of no small danger, containing as it did the remnants
of no less than thirty-two Arab and Moorish tribes, many of
them at deadly feud with one another, and divided by their
never-ending national enmities. The two great tribes of
Abencerrages, or sons of Zeragh, and the Zegris, or refugees
from Aragon, were destined to become the most famous of these.
The king himself, Mohammed-Abou-Said, was of the old Arabian
tribe of Al Hamar, by whose name he is usually called. He was
of the best old Arabic type-prudent, just, moderate,
temperate, and active, and so upright as to be worthy to
belong to this age of great kings, and his plans for his
little kingdom were favoured by the peace in which his
Christian neighbours left him; while Alfonso X. of Castille
was vainly endeavouring to become, not Emperor of Spain alone,
but Roman Emperor. The Almohides of Algarve obeyed neither
Alfonso nor Al Hamar, and they united to subdue them. Ten
cities were surrendered by the governor on condition that he
should enjoy the estates of the King's Garden at Seville, and
the tenth of the oil of an oliveyard. There was still a
mar·gin of petty walis who preferred a brief independence to a
secure tenure of existence as tributaries, and these one by
one fell a prey to the Castilians, the inhabitants of their
cities being expelled, and adding to the Granadine population.
AI Hamar received them kindly, but made them work vigorously
for their maintenance. Every nook of soil was in full
cultivation; the mountain-sides terraced with vineyards; new
modes of irrigation invented; the breeds of horses and cattle
carefully attended to; rewards instituted for the best
farmers, shepherds, and artisans. The manufacture of silk and
wool was actively carried on, also leather-work and
sword-cutlery. Hospitals and homes for the sick and infirm
were everywhere; and in the schools of Granada the remnants of
the scholarship of Cordova and Seville were collected. Granada
itself stood in the midst of the Vega, around two hills, each
crowned by a fortress: Albayzin, so called by the fugitives
from Baeza; and the Al Hâmra [or Alhambra], or Red Fortress.
The wall was extended so as to take in its constantly
increasing population, and the king began to render the Al
Hâmra one of the strongest and most beautiful places in
existence. Though begun by Al Hamar it was not completed for
several generations, each adding to the unrivalled beauty of
the interior, for, as usual in Arabian architecture, the
outside has no beauty, being a strong fortification of heavy
red walls. … Mohammed Aben-Al-Hamar died 1273, and his son
Mohammed II. followed in his steps."
C. M. Yonge,
The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
The Alhambra.
J. C. Murphy,
Arabian Antiquities of Spain.
SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
The conquest of Seville.
The reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned,
and their three successors in Castile.
Seville, which had become the second city of Moslem Spain, its
schools and universities rivalling those of Cordova, shared
the fate of the latter and surrendered to the Christians on
the 22d of December, 1248. "This was the achievement of King
Ferdinand III., under whom the crowns of Castile and Leon had
become united. His territory extended from the Bay of Biscay
to the Guadalquiver, and from the borders of Portugal as far
as Arragon and Valencia. His glory was great in the estimation
of his countrymen for his conquests over the Moors, and four
centuries afterwards he was canonized by the Pope, and is now
known as Saint Ferdinand. … Ferdinand lived at the same time
with another king who was also canonized—Louis IX. of France,
who became Saint Louis. … The two kings, in fact, were
cousins, and the grandmother of both of them was Eleanor,
daughter of Henry II. of England. … The son of Saint Ferdinand
was Alfonso X., called 'El Sabio,' the learned, and not, as it
is sometimes translated, 'the wise.' He certainly was not very
wise, for he did an immense number of foolish things; but he
was such a strange man that it would be interesting to know
more about him than it is easy to do. It was a period when not
only commerce and industry but literature and art were taking
a new start in Europe—the time of Roger Bacon and Dante.
Alfonso loved his books, and dabbled in science, and was
really one of the learned men of his time. … His mind was very
naturally disturbed by a glimpse he had of being emperor of
Germany [or, to speak accurately, of the Holy Roman Empire]. …
The dignity was elective," and Alfonso became the candidate of
one party among the German electors; but he did not obtain the
dignity.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
"Ferdinand de la Cerda, the son and heir of Alfonso, died
during the lifetime of his father, and a difficulty arose
about the succession which extended over a long time. A Cortes
was assembled to decide the question, and it was agreed that
Sancho, brother to Ferdinand de la Cerda, should be heir to
the crown, to the exclusion of the children of Ferdinand,
grandchildren of Alfonso. This decision displeased the king of
France," who was the uncle of the children set aside. Alfonso
"declared in favor of his son Sancho, and came near having a
war with France in consequence." Yet Sancho, soon afterwards,
was persuaded to rebel against his father, and the latter was
reduced to sore straits, having no allies among his neighbors
except the king of Morocco. "At last the goaded king assembled
his few remaining adherents in Seville, and, in a solemn act,
not only disinherited his rebel son Sancho, but called down
maledictions on his head. In the same act he instituted his
grandsons, the infantes de la Cerda, as his heirs, and after
them, in default of issue, the kings of France." But Sancho
fell ill after this, and the fondness of his old father
revived with such intensity that he sickened of anxiety and
grief. "Sancho recovered and was soon as well as ever; but the
king grew worse, and soon died [1284], full of grief and
affection for his son. He had not, however, revoked his will.
Nobody minded the will, and Sancho was proclaimed king. He
reigned, and his son and grandson reigned after him." The son
was Ferdinand IV., who came to the throne in 1295; the
grandson was Alfonso XI., who followed him in 1312. The latter
was succeeded in 1350 by his son Pedro, or Peter, surnamed the
Cruel, and quite eminent under that sinister designation,
especially through the unfortunate connection of the English
Black Prince with his later evil fortunes.
E. E. and S. Hale,
The Story of Spain,
chapter 18.
{2980}
SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
The slow crumbling of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
The founder of the kingdom of Granada, Aben-Al-Hamar, or
Ibnu-l-ahmar, died in 1273. He was "succeeded by his son, Abú
Abdillah, known as Mohammed II. Obeying his father's
injunctions, he called upon Yahúb, the Sultan of the Beni
Merines at Fez, to come to his aid, and captured Algeçiras, to
serve as a receptacle and magazine for these African allies.
He also presented Tarifa to Yahúb. The two allied forces then
went out to meet Nuño de Lam with the Christian frontier
troops, and routed him. But Mohammed was soon prevailed upon
by his fears to renew the Christian alliance; and the
Christian troops, thus freed from one enemy, soon wrested
Algeçiras, Tarifa [1291], Ronda, and other towns, from the
Beni Merines, who were, all but a small remnant, driven back
into Africa. … Mohammed II. died in 1302, and was succeeded by
a greater king,—Mohammed III., another Abú Abdillah, …
dethroned by a revolt of his brother, Nasr; but when, in 1312,
Nasr in turn was forced to abdicate, he was succeeded by
Isma'il Abú-l-Waled, after whom came Mohammed IV., in 1315.
Meantime the Christian monarchs were always pressing the
Moorish frontier. In 1309, Ferdinand IV. of Castile succeeded
in taking Gibraltar, while the troops of Aragon besieged
Almeria, and thus the circle was ever narrowing, but not
without bloody dispute. When Don Pedro, Infante of Castile,
made his great effort against Granada in 1319, he was wofully
defeated in the battle of Elvira, and his rich camp despoiled
by the Moors. Mohammed IV. succeeded in retaking Gibraltar
from the Christians [or, rather, according to Condé, it was
taken in 1331 by Mohammed's ally, the king of Fez, to whom
Mohammed was forced to cede it]. … He was assassinated by his
African allies, and succeeded by his brother Yúsuf in 1333.
Prompted purely by self-interest, Abu-l-has, another leader,
with 60,000 men, beside the contingent from Granada,
encountered the Christians near Tarifa in the year 1340, and
was defeated with immense loss [in the battle of the
Guadacelito or the Salado]. Yúsuf was assassinated by a madman
in 1354, and was succeeded by Mohammed V. … Driven from his
throne by a revolt of his half-brother Isma'il, he first fled
for his life to Guadix, and then to Africa, in the year 1359.
And all these intestine quarrels were playing into the
Christians' hands. Isma'il, the usurper, held the nominal
power less than a year, when he was dethroned and put to
death. His successor, Mohammed VI., surrounded by
difficulties, came to the strange determination to place
himself and his kingdom under the protection of that King
Pedro of Castile whom history has named 'el cruel,' but whom
his adherents called 'el justiciero,' the doer of justice. The
Castilian king vindicated his claim to the historic title by
putting Mohammed to death, and seizing 'the countless
treasures which he and the chiefs who composed his suite
brought with them.' To the throne, thus once more vacant by
assassination, Mohammed V. returned, and ruled a second time,
from 1362 to 1391. … Then came the reigns of Yúsuf II. and
Mohammed VII., uneventful, except that, in the words of the
Arabian chronicler, 'the Mohammedan empire still went on
decaying, until it became an easy prey to the infidels, who
surrounded it on every side, like a pack of hungry wolves.'
Many portents of ruin were displayed, and the public mind was
already contemplating the entire success of the Christians." A
century of confused struggles ensued, in the course of which
Gibraltar was several times besieged by the Christians, and
was finally taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1460. Other
strongholds of the Moors fell, one by one, and they "were
being more and more restricted to their little kingdom of
Granada, and the Christians were strengthening to dislodge and
expel them."
H. Coppée,
History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. A. Condé,
History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain,
part 4, chapters 9-33.
SPAIN: (Aragon): A. D. 1282-1300.
Acquisition of Sicily by King Peter.
It passes as a separate kingdom to his younger son.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
Pedro the Cruel of Castile and
the invasion of the English Black Prince.
"Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile at this time (1350-1369),
had earned his title by a series of murders, which dated from
the time he was sixteen years old, and comprised his wife, his
step-mother, two of his half-brothers, and a great number of
the chief nobles of his kingdom. He was on bad terms with the
pope, for he was the friend of Moors and Jews, and had
plundered bishops and monasteries; he was hated in the court
of France, for his murdered queen was the king's cousin,
Blanche de Bourbon; he was at war with the King of Arragon.
Instigated by this monarch and by the King of Navarre, the
eldest of Pedro's half-brothers, Don Henry of Trastamere, who
had been serving for some time with the Free Companions in
Languedoc, conceived the idea of uniting them in a grand
enterprise against the kingdom of Castile. Charles V. [of
France] approved the project, and lent money and his best
captain, Du Guesclin; Pope Urban V. contributed his blessing
and money; and the Free Lances eagerly embraced a scheme which
promised them the plunder of a new country." The expedition
"succeeded without bloodshed. The people rose to welcome it,
and Don Pedro was forced to escape through Portugal, and take
ship hastily at Corunna. Don Henry was crowned in his palace
at Burgos (April 1366). In his distress Don Pedro applied to
the Prince of Wales [the Black Prince, then holding the
government of Aquitaine] for support. There was no reason why
England or Aquitaine should be mixed up in Spanish politics.
Both countries required rest after an exhausting war. … But
Pedro was a skilful diplomatist. He bribed the Prince of Wales
by a promise to cede the province of Biscay." With the consent
of his father, King Edward III. of England, the Prince took up
the cause of the odious Don Pedro, and led an army of 24,000
horse, besides great numbers of archers, into Spain (A. D.
1367). At the decisive battle of Navarette the Spaniards and
their allies were overwhelmingly defeated, Du Guesclin was
taken prisoner, Don Henry fled, and Pedro was reinstated on
the Castilian throne. "Then came disappointment. The prince
demanded performance of the promises Don Pedro had made, and
proposed to stay in Spain till they were acquitted. … For some
months Edward vainly awaited the performance of his ally's
promises.
{2981}
Then, as his troops were wasting away with dysentery and other
diseases caused by the strange climate, till it was said
scarcely a fifth remained alive, Edward resolved to remove
into Aquitaine, which Don Henry was attacking, and was glad to
find that the passes of the Pyrenees were left open to him by
the Kings of Arragon and Navarre (August 1367). … The results
of Edward's mischievous policy soon became evident. All he had
achieved in Spain was almost instantly undone by Don Henry,
who crossed the Pyrenees a few weeks only after Edward had
left Spain (September 1367) recovered his kingdom in the
course of the next year, and captured and killed Don Pedro a
little later (March 1369). The whole power of Castile, which
was far from being contemptible at sea, was then thrown into
the scale against England."
C. H. Pearson,
English History in the Fourteenth Century,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
J. Froissart,
Chronicles
(translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapters 230-245.
P. Merimée,
History of Peter the Cruel,
volume 2, chapters 7-11.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
Castile under the House of Trastamere.
Discord and civil war.
Triumph of Queen Isabella.
The Castilian dynasty in Aragon.
Marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.
"A more fortunate period began [in Castile] with the accession
of Henry [of Trastamare, or Henry II.]. His own reign was
hardly disturbed by any rebellion; and though his successors,
John I. [1379] and Henry III. [1390], were not altogether so
unmolested, especially the latter, who ascended the throne in
his minority, yet the troubles of their time were slight, in
comparison with those formerly excited by the houses of Lara
and Haro, both of which were now happily extinct. Though Henry
II. 's illegitimacy left him no title but popular choice, his
queen was sole representative of the Cerdas, the offspring …
of Sancho IV. 's elder brother. … No kingdom could be worse
prepared to meet the disorders of a minority than Castile, and
in none did the circumstances so frequently recur. John II.
was but fourteen months old at his accession [1406]; and but
for the disinterestedness of his uncle Ferdinand, the nobility
would have been inclined to avert the danger by placing that
prince upon the throne. In this instance, however, Castile
suffered less from faction during the infancy of her sovereign
than in his maturity. The queen dowager, at first jointly with
Ferdinand, and solely after his accession to the crown of
Aragon, administered the government with credit. … In external
affairs their reigns were not what is considered as glorious.
They were generally at peace with Aragon and Granada, but one
memorable defeat by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota [August 14,
1385] disgraces the annals of John I., whose cause [attempting
the conquest of Portugal] was as unjust as his arms were
unsuccessful. This comparatively golden period ceases at the
majority of John II. His reign was filled up by a series of
conspiracies and civil wars, headed by his cousins John and
Henry, the infants of Aragon, who enjoyed very extensive
territories in Castile, by the testament of their father
Ferdinand. Their brother the king of Aragon frequently lent
the assistance of his arms. … These conspiracies were all
ostensibly directed against the favourite of John II., Alvaro
de Luna, who retained for 35 years an absolute control over
his feeble master. … His fate is among the memorable lessons
of history. After a life of troubles endured for the sake of
this favourite, sometimes a fugitive, sometimes a prisoner,
his son heading rebellions against him, John II. suddenly
yielded to an intrigue of the palace, and adopted sentiments
of dislike towards the man he had so long loved. … Alvaro de
Luna was brought to a summary trial and beheaded; his estates
were confiscated. He met his death with the intrepidity of
Strafford, to whom he seems to have borne some resemblance in
character. John II. did not long survive his minister, dying
in 1454, after a reign that may be considered as inglorious,
compared with any except that of his successor. If the father
was not respected, the son fell completely into contempt. He
had been governed by Pacheco, marquis of Villena, as
implicitly as John by Alvaro de Luna. This influence lasted
for some time afterwards. But the king inclining to transfer
his confidence to the queen, Joanna of Portugal, and to one
Bertrand de Cueva, upon whom common fame had fixed as her
paramour, a powerful confederacy of disaffected nobles was
formed against the royal authority. … They deposed Henry in an
assembly of their faction at Avila with a sort of theatrical
pageantry which has often been described. … The confederates
set up Alfonso, the king's brother, and a civil war of some
duration ensued, in which they had the support of Aragon. The
queen of Castile had at this time borne a daughter, whom the
enemies of Henry IV., and indeed no small part of his
adherents, were determined to treat as spurious. Accordingly,
after the death of Alfonso, his sister Isabel was considered
as heiress of the kingdom. … Avoiding the odium of a contest
with her brother, Isabel agreed to a treaty by which the
succession was absolutely settled upon her [1469]. This
arrangement was not long afterwards followed by the union of
that princess with Ferdinand, son of the king of Aragon. This
marriage was by no means acceptable to a part of the Castilian
oligarchy, who had preferred a connexion with Portugal. And as
Henry had never lost sight of the interests of one whom he
considered, or pretended to consider, as his daughter, he took
the first opportunity of revoking his forced disposition of
the crown and restoring the direct line of succession in
favour of the princess Joanna. Upon his death, in 1474, the
right was to be decided by arms. Joanna had on her side the
common presumptions of law, the testamentary disposition of
the late king, the support of Alfonso king of Portugal, to
whom she was betrothed, and of several considerable leaders
among the nobility. … For Isabella were the general belief of
Joanna's illegitimacy, the assistance of Aragon, the adherence
of a majority both among the nobles and people, and, more than
all, the reputation of ability which both she and her husband
had deservedly acquired. The scale was, however, pretty
equally balanced, till the king of Portugal having been
defeated at Toro in 1476, Joanna's party discovered their
inability to prosecute the war by themselves, and successively
made their submission to Ferdinand and Isabella." Ferdinand of
Aragon, by whose marriage with Isabella of Castile the two
kingdoms became practically united, was himself of Castilian
descent, being the grandson of that magnanimous Ferdinand who
has been mentioned above, as the uncle and joint guardian of
John II. of Castile.
{2982}
In 1410, on the death of King Martin, the right of succession
to the throne of Aragon had been in dispute, and Ferdinand was
one of several claimants. Instead of resorting to arms, the
contending parties were wisely persuaded to submit the
question to a special tribunal, composed of three Aragonese,
three Catalans, and three Valencians. "A month was passed in
hearing arguments; a second was allotted to considering them;
and at the expiration of the prescribed time it was announced
to the people … that Ferdinand of Castile had ascended the
throne. In this decision it is impossible not to suspect that
the judges were swayed rather by politic considerations than a
strict sense of hereditary right. It was therefore by no
means universally popular, especially in Catalonia. …
Ferdinand however was well received in Aragon. … Ferdinand's
successor was his son Alfonso V., more distinguished in the
history of Italy than of Spain. For all the latter years of
his life he never quitted the kingdom that he had acquired by
his arms.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447;
Enchanted by the delicious air of Naples, intrusted the
government of his patrimonial territories to the care of a
brother and an heir. John II., upon whom they devolved by the
death of Alfonso without legitimate progeny, had been engaged
during his youth in the turbulent revolutions of Castile, as
the head of a strong party that opposed the domination of
Alvaro de Luna. By marriage with the heiress of Navarre he was
entitled, according to the usage of those times, to assume the
title of king, and administration of government, during her
life. But his ambitious retention of power still longer
produced events which are the chief stain on his memory.
Charles, prince of Viana, was, by the constitution of Navarre,
entitled to succeed his mother [1442]. She had requested him
in her testament not to assume the government without his
father's consent. That consent was always withheld. The prince
raised what we ought not to call a rebellion; but was made
prisoner. … After a life of perpetual oppression, chiefly
passed in exile or captivity, the prince of Viana died in
Catalonia [1461], at a moment when that province was in open
insurrection upon his account. Though it hardly seems that the
Catalans had any more general provocations, they persevered
for more than ten years [until the capitulation of Barcelona,
after a long siege, in 1472] with inveterate obstinacy in
their rebellion, offering the sovereignty first to a prince of
Portugal, and afterwards to Regnier duke of Anjou, who was
destined to pass his life in unsuccessful competition for
kingdoms." Ferdinand, who married Isabella of Castile, was a
younger half-brother of prince Charles of Viana, and succeeded
his father, John II., on the throne of Aragon, in 1479.
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 4 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
part 1, chapters 1-5.
See, also, NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
SPAIN: A. D. 1458.
Separation of the crown of Naples
from those of Aragon and Sicily.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
The last struggle of the Moors.
Fall of the city and kingdom of Granada.
"The days of the Moorish kingdom were already numbered when,
in 1466, Aboul Hacem succeeded Ismael; but the disturbances in
Castille emboldened him, and when, in 1476, the regular demand
for tribute was made, he answered: 'Those who coined gold for
you are dead. Nothing is made at Granada for the Christians
but sword-blades and lance-points.' Such was the last
proclamation of war from the Moors. Even the Imaums
disapproved, and preached in the mosques of Granada. 'Woe to
the Moslems in Andalusia!' 'The end is come,' they said; 'the
ruins will fall on our heads!' Nevertheless, Aboul Hacem
surprised the Aragonese city of Zahara with 60,000
inhabitants, and put them all to the sword or sold them into
slavery; but he was not welcomed, evil was predicted, and he
became more and more hated when he put four of the
Abencerrages to death. The king and queen [Ferdinand, or
Fernando, and Isabella] now began to prepare the whole
strength of their kingdom for a final effort, not to be
relaxed till Spain should be wholly a Christian land. … Don
Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, who had become Marquis of Cadiz, made a
sudden night attack upon Alhama, only eight leagues from
Granada, and though the inhabitants fought from street to
street he mastered it. … Alhama was a terrible loss to the
Moors, and was bewailed in the ballad, 'Ay de me Al Hama,'
which so moved the hearts of the people that it was forbidden
to be sung in the streets of Granada. It has been translated
by Byron, who has in fact united two ballads. … Alhama had
once before been taken by St. Fernando, but could not then be
kept, and a council was held by the 'Reyes Catolicos'
[Ferdinand and Isabella], in which it was declared that it
would take 5,000 mules' burthen of provisions sent several
times a year, to support a garrison thus in the heart of the
enemy's country. The high spirit of the queen, however,
carried the day. She declared that the right thing to do was
to take Loja to support Alhama, and, after causing the three
chief mosques to be purified as Christian churches, she
strained every effort [1482] to equip an army with which
Fernando was to besiege Loja. On the day before he set out
Isabel gave birth to twins—one dead, the other a daughter: and
this was viewed as an ill omen. … Ali Atar, one of the bravest
of the Moors, defeated Fernando and forced him to retreat with
the loss of his baggage. Aboul Hacem was prevented from
following up his success by the struggles of the women in his
harem. His favourite wife was a Christian by birth, named
Isabel de Solis, the daughter of the Alcayde of Bedmar; but
she had become a renegade, and was commonly called Zoraya, or
the Morning Star. Childless herself, she was vehemently set on
the promotion of Abou-Abd-Allah, son of another wife, Ayescha,
who is generally known by the Spanish contraction of his name,
Boabdil; also in Arabic as Al Zaquir, the little, and in
Spanish as 'el Rey Chico.' Such disaffection was raised that
Aboul Hacem was forced to return home, where he imprisoned
Ayescha and her son; but they let themselves down from the
window with a rope twisted of the veils of the Sultana's
women, and, escaping to the palace or Albaycin, there held out
against him, supported by the Abencerrages. The Zegris held by
Aboul Hacem, and the streets of Granada ran red with the blood
shed by the two factions till, in 1482, while the elder king
was gone to relieve Loja, the younger one seized the Alhamra;
and Aboul Hacem, finding the gates closed against him, was
obliged to betake himself to Malaga, where his brother Abd
Allah, called Al Zagal, or the young, was the Alcayde."
C. M. Yonge,
The Story of the Christians and Moors in Spain,
chapter 24.
{2983}
"The illegal power of Boabdil was contested by his uncle,
Az-Zagal (El Zagal), who held a precarious sway for four
years, until 1487, when Boabdil again came to the throne. This
was rendered more easy by the fact that, in a battle between
the Moors and Christians in the territory of Lucena, not long
after his accession, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the
Christian forces. By a stroke of policy, the Christian king
released his royal prisoner, in the hope that through him he
might make a treaty. Boabdil went to Loja, which was at once
besieged by Ferdinand, and this time captured, and with it the
Moorish king again fell into the Christian hands. Again
released, after many difficulties he came into power. The
Christian conquests were not stayed by these circumstances. In
1487, they captured Velez Malaga, on the coast a short
distance east of Malaga, and received the submission of many
neighboring towns. In the same year Malaga was besieged and
taken. In 1489, Baeza followed; then the important city of
Almeria, and at last the city of Granada stood alone to
represent the Mohammedan dominion in the Peninsula. The strife
between Boabdil and El Zagal now came to an end; and the
latter, perhaps foreseeing the fatal issue, embarked for
Africa, leaving the nominal rule and the inevitable surrender
to his rival. … The army of Ferdinand and Isabella was in
splendid condition, and reinforcements were arriving from day
to day. System and order prevailed, and the troops, elated
with victory, acknowledged no possibility of failure. Very
different was the condition of things and very depressed the
spirit of the people in Granada. Besides its own disordered
population, it was crowded with disheartened fugitives,
anxious for peace on any terms. The more warlike and ambitious
representatives of the tribes were still quarrelling in the
face of the common ruin, but all parties joined in bitter
denunciations of their king. When he had been released by
Ferdinand after the capture of Loja, he had promised that when
Guadix should be taken and the power of El Zagal destroyed, he
would surrender Granada to the Christian king, and retire to
some seignory, as duke or marquis. But now that the 'casus'
had arrived, he found … that the people would not permit him
to keep his promise. … The only way in which Boabdil could
appease the people was by an immediate declaration of war
against the Christians. This was in the year 1490. When this
was made known, Ferdinand and Isabella were at Seville,
celebrating the marriage of the Infanta Isabel with Alfonso,
crown prince of Portugal. The omen was a happy one. The armies
of Spain and Portugal were immediately joined to put an end to
the crusade. With 5,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot, the Spanish
king advanced to the Sierra Elvira, overlooking the original
site of the Granadine capital. The epic and romantic details
of the conquest may be read elsewhere. … There were sorties on
the part of the Moors, and chivalrous duels between
individuals, until the coming of winter, when, leaving proper
guards and garrisons, the principal Christian force retired to
Cordova, to make ready for the spring. El Zagal had returned
from Africa, and was now fighting in the Christian ranks. It
was an imposing army which was reviewed by Ferdinand on the
26th of April, 1491, in the beautiful Vega, about six miles
from the city of Granada; the force consisted of 10,000 horse
and 40,000 foot, ready to take position in the final siege. …
It was no part of the Spanish king's purpose to assault the
place. … He laid his siege in the Vega, but used his troops in
devastating the surrounding country, taking prisoners and
capturing cattle. … Meantime the Christian camp grew like a
city, and when Queen Isabella came with her train of beauty
and grace, it was also a court city in miniature." In July, an
accidental fire destroyed the whole encampment, and roused
great hopes among the Moors. But a city of wood (which the
pious queen called Santa Fé—the Holy Faith) soon took the
place of the tents, and "the momentary elation of the Moors
gave way to profound depression; and this induced them to
capitulate. The last hour had indeed struck on the great
horologe of history; and on the 25th of November the armistice
was announced for making a treaty of peace and occupancy."
H. Coppée,
History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).
"After large discussion on both sides, the terms of
capitulation were definitively settled. … The inhabitants of
Granada were to retain possession of their mosques, with the
free exercise of their religion, with all its peculiar rights
and ceremonies; they were to be judged by their own laws,
under their own cadis or magistrates, subject to the general
control of the Castilian governor; they were to be unmolested
in their ancient usages, manners, language, and dress; to be
protected in the full enjoyment of their property, with the
right of disposing of it on their own account, and of
migrating when and where they would; and to be furnished with
vessels for the conveyance of such as chose within three years
to pass into Africa. No heavier taxes were to be imposed than
those customarily paid to their Arabian sovereigns, and none
whatever before the expiration of three years. King Abdallah
[Boabdil] was to reign over a specified territory in the
Alpuxarras, for which he was to do homage to the Castilian
crown. … The city was to be surrendered in 60 days from the
date of the capitulation;" but owing to popular disturbances
in Granada, the surrender was actually made on the 2d of
January, 1492. Boabdil soon tired of the petty sovereignty
assigned to him, sold it to Ferdinand and Isabella, passed
over to Fez, and perished in one of the battles of his
kinsmen.
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada.
SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1498.-
The reorganization of the Hermandad,
or Holy Brotherhood, in Castile.
See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.
SPAIN: A. D. 1481-1525.
Establishment and organization of the "Spanish Inquisition."
Its horrible work.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
SPAIN: A. D. 1492.
Expulsion of the Jews.
See JEWS; 8-15TH CENTURIES.
{2984}
SPAIN: A. D. 1492-1533.
Discovery of America.
First voyages, colonizations and conquests.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, 1493-1406, and after.
SPAIN: A. D. 1493.
The Papal grant of the New World.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
SPAIN: A. D. 1494.
The Treaty of Tordesillas.
Amended partition of the New World with Portugal.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
SPAIN: A. D. 1495.
Alliance with Naples, Venice, Germany and the Pope
against Charles VIII. of France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
Marriage of the Infanta Joanna to the
Austro-Burgundian Archduke Philip.
Birth of their son Charles, the heir of many crowns.
Insanity of Joanna.
Death of Queen Isabella.
Regency of Ferdinand.
His second marriage and his death.
Accession of Charles, the first of the
Austro-Spanish dynasty.
Joanna, second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married
in 1496 to "the archduke Philip, son of the emperor
Maximilian, and sovereign, in right of his mother [Mary of
Burgundy], of the Low Countries. The first fruit of this
marriage was the celebrated Charles V., born at Ghent,
February 24th, 1500, whose birth was no sooner announced to
Queen Isabella than she predicted that to this infant would
one day descend the rich inheritance of the Spanish monarchy.
The premature death of the heir apparent, Prince Miguel, not
long after [and also of the queen of Portugal, the elder
daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand], prepared the way for this
event by devolving the succession on Joanna, Charles's mother.
From that moment the sovereigns were pressing in their
entreaties that the archduke and his wife would visit Spain. …
In the latter part of 1501, Philip and Joanna, attended by a
numerous suite of Flemish courtiers, set out on their
journey," passing through France and being royally entertained
on the way. In Spain, they first received the usual oath of
fealty from the Castilian cortes, and then "were solemnly
recognized by the four 'arms' of Aragon as successors to the
crown, in default of male issue of King Ferdinand. The
circumstance is memorable as affording the first example of
the parliamentary recognition of a female heir apparent in
Aragonese history. Amidst all the honors so liberally lavished
on Philip, his bosom secretly swelled with discontent,
fomented still further by his followers, who pressed him to
hasten his return to Flanders, where the free and social
manners of the people were much more congenial to their tastes
than the reserve and stately ceremonial of the Spanish court.
… Ferdinand and Isabella saw with regret the frivolous
disposition of their son-in-law. … They beheld with
mortification his indifference to Joanna, who could boast few
personal attractions, and who cooled the affections of her
husband by alternations of excessive fondness and irritable
jealousy." Against the remonstrances of king, queen and
cortes, as well as in opposition to the wishes of his wife,
Philip set out for Flanders in December, again traveling
through France, and negotiating on the way a treaty with Louis
XII. which arranged for the marriage of the infant Charles
with princess Claude of France—a marriage which never
occurred. The unhappy Joanna, whom he left behind, was plunged
in the deepest dejection, and exhibited ere long decided
symptoms of insanity. On the 10th of March, 1503, she gave
birth to her second son, Ferdinand, and the next spring she
joined her husband in Flanders, but only to be worse treated
by him than before. Queen Isabella, already declining in
health, was deeply affected by the news of her daughter's
unhappiness and increasing disturbance of mind, and on the
26th of November, 1504, she died. By her will, she settled the
crown of Castile on the infanta Joanna as "queen proprietor,"

and the archduke Philip as her husband, and she appointed King
Ferdinand (who was henceforth king in Aragon, but not in
Castile), to be sole regent of Castile, in the event of the
absence or incapacity of Joanna, until the latter's son
Charles should attain his majority. On the day of the queen's
death Ferdinand resigned the crown of Castile, which he had
worn as her consort, only, and caused to be proclaimed the
accession of Joanna and Philip to the Castilian throne. "The
king of Aragon then publicly assumed the title of
administrator or governor of Castile, as provided by the
queen's testament." He next convened a cortes at Toro, in
January, 1505, which approved and ratified the provisions of
the will and "took the oaths of allegiance to Joanna as queen
and lady proprietor, and to Philip as her husband. They then
determined that the exigency contemplated in the testament, of
Joanna's incapacity, actually existed, and proceeded to tender
their homage to King Ferdinand, as the lawful governor of the
realm in her name." These arrangements were unsatisfactory to
many of the Castilian nobles, who opened a correspondence with
Philip, in the Netherlands, and persuaded him "to assert his
pretensions to undivided supremacy in Castile." Opposition to
Ferdinand's regency increased, and it was fomented not only by
Philip and his friends, but by the king of France, Louis XII.
To placate the latter enemy, Ferdinand sought in marriage a
niece of the French king, Germaine, daughter of Jean de Foix,
and negotiated a treaty, signed at Blois, October 12, 1505, in
which he resigned his claims on Naples to his intended bride
and her heirs. Louis was now detached from the interests of
Philip, and refused permission to the archduke to pass through
his kingdom. But Ferdinand, astute as he was, allowed himself
to be deceived by his son-in-law, who agreed to a compromise,
known as the concord of Salamanca, which provided for the
government of Castile in the joint names of Ferdinand, Philip,
and Joanna, while, at the same time, he was secretly preparing
to transfer his wife and himself to Spain by sea. On the first
attempt they were driven to England by a storm; but in April,
1506, Philip and Joanna landed at Coruña, in Spain, and in
June Ferdinand was forced to sign and swear to an agreement
"by which he surrendered the entire sovereignty of Castile to
Philip and Joanna, reserving to himself only the
grand-masterships of the military orders, and the revenues
secured by Isabella's testament." Philip took the government
into his own hands, endeavoring to obtain authority to place
his wife in confinement, as one insane; but this the
Castilians would not brook. Otherwise he carried things with a
high hand, surrounding himself with Flemish favorites, and
revolutionizing the government in every branch and the court
in every feature. His insolence, extravagance and frivolity
excited general disgust, and would probably have provoked
serious revolts, if the country had been called upon to endure
them long.
{2985}
But Philip's reign was brief. He sickened, suddenly, of a
fever, and died on the 25th of September, 1506. His demented
widow would not permit his body to be interred. A provisional
council of regency carried on the government until December.
After that it drifted, with no better authoritative guidance
than that of the poor insane queen, until July 1507, when
Ferdinand, who had been absent, in Naples, during the year
past, returned and was joyfully welcomed. His unfortunate
daughter "henceforth resigned herself to her father's will. "
Although she survived 47 years, she never quitted the walls of
her habitation; and although her name appeared jointly with
that of her son, Charles V., in all public acts, she never
afterwards could be induced to sign a paper, or take part in
any transactions of a public nature. … From this time the
Catholic king exercised an authority nearly as undisputed, and
far less limited and defined, than in the days of Isabella."
He exercised this authority for nine years, dying on the 23d
of January, 1516. By his last will he settled the succession
of Aragon and Naples on his daughter Joanna and her heirs,
thus uniting the sovereignty of those kingdoms with that of
Castile, in the same person. The administration of Castile
during Charles' absence was intrusted to Ximenes, and that of
Aragon to the king's natural son, the archbishop of Saragossa.
In September, 1517, Charles, the heir of many kingdoms,
arrived in Spain from the Netherlands, where his youth had
been spent. Two months later Cardinal Ximenes died, but not
before Charles had rudely and ungratefully dismissed him from
the government. The queen, Joanna, was still living; but her
arbitrary son had already commanded the proclamation of
himself as king.
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
part 2, chapters 12-13, 16-17,19-20, 24-25.
See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
SPAIN: A. D. 1501-1504.
Treaty of Ferdinand with Louis XII. for
the partition of Naples.
Their joint conquest.
Their quarrel and war.
The French expelled.
The Spaniards in possession.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
SPAIN: A. D. 1505-1510.
Conquests on the Barbary coast.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
SPAIN: A. D. 1508-1509.
The League of Cambrai against Venice.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
SPAIN: A. D. 1511-1513.
Ferdinand of Aragon in the Holy League against France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
SPAIN: A. D. 1512-1515.
Conquest of Navarre.
Its incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
SPAIN: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery of the Rio de la Plata and
colonization of Paraguay.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
SPAIN: A. D. 1516-1519.
The great dominion of Charles.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
SPAIN: A. D. 1517.
The Treaty of Noyon, between Charles and Francis I.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
Popular discontent.
Election of Charles to the German imperial throne.
Rebellion of the Holy Junta, and its failure.
Absolutism of the crown established.
Charles had not been long in Spain before "symptoms of
discontent … were every where visible. Charles spoke the
Spanish language imperfectly: his discourse was consequently
slow, and delivered with hesitation; and from that
circumstance many of the Spaniards were induced to regard him
as a prince of a slow and narrow genius. But the greatest
dissatisfaction arose from his attachment to his Flemish
favourites, who engrossed or exposed to sale every office of
honour or emolument, and whose rapacity was so unbounded that
they are said to have remitted to the Netherlands no less a
sum than 1,100,000 ducats in the space of ten months. … While
Spain, agitated by a general discontent, was ready for
rebellion, a spacious field was opened to the ambition of her
monarch. The death of the Emperor Maximilian [1519] had left
vacant the imperial throne of Germany. The Kings of Spain, of
France, and of England, offered themselves as candidates for
this high dignity," and Charles was chosen, entering now upon
his great career as the renowned Emperor, Charles V.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
"Charles received the news of his election to the imperial
throne with the joy that was natural to a young and aspiring
mind. But his elevation was far from affording the same
satisfaction to his Spanish subjects, who foresaw that their
blood and their treasures would be lavished in the support of
German politics." With great difficulty he obtained from the
Cortes money sufficient to enable him to proceed to Germany in
a suitable style. Having accomplished this, he sailed from
Corunna in May, 1520, leaving his old preceptor, now Cardinal
Adrian, of Utrecht, to be Regent during his absence. "As soon
as it was understood that, although the Cortes had voted him a
free gift, they had not obtained the redress of any grievance,
the indignation of the people became general and
uncontrollable. The citizens of Toledo took arms, attacked the
citadel, and compelled the governor to surrender. Having, in
the next place, established a democratical form of government,
composed of deputies from the several parishes of the city,
they levied troops, and appointed for their commander Don Juan
de Padilla, son of the Commendator of Castile, a young man of
an ambitious and daring spirit, and a great favourite with the
populace. Segovia, Burgos, Zamora, and several other cities,
followed the example of Toledo." Segovia was besieged by
Fonseca, commander-in-chief in Castile, who, previously,
destroyed a great part of the town of Medino del Campo by
fire, because its citizens refused to deliver to him a train
of artillery. Valladolid now rose in revolt, notwithstanding
the presence of the Regent in the city, and forced him to
disavow the proceedings of Fonseca.
J. Bigland,
History of Spain,
volume 1, chapter 12.
"In July [1520], deputies from the principal Castilian cities
met in Avila; and having formed an association called the
Santa Junta, or Holy League, proceeded to deliberate
concerning the proper methods of redressing the grievances of
the nation. The Junta declared the authority of Adrian
illegal, on the ground of his being a foreigner, and required
him to resign it; while Padilla, by a sudden march, seized the
person of Joanna at Tordesillas. The unfortunate queen
displayed an interval of reason, during which she authorised
Padilla to do all that was necessary for the safety of the
kingdom; but she soon relapsed into her former imbecility, and
could not be persuaded to sign any more papers.
{2986}
The Junta nevertheless carried on all their deliberations in
her name; and Padilla, marching with a considerable army to
Valladolid, seized the seals and public archives, and formally
deposed Adrian. Charles now issued from Germany circular
letters addressed to the Castilian cities, making great
concessions, which, however, were not deemed satisfactory by
the Junta; who, conscious of their power, proceeded to draw up
a remonstrance, containing a long list of grievances. …
Charles having refused to receive the remonstrance which was
forwarded to him in Germany, the Junta proceeded to levy open
war against him and the nobles; for the latter, who had at
first sided with the Junta, finding their own privileges
threatened as well as those of the King, began now to support
the royal authority. The army of the Junta, which numbered
about 20,000 men, was chiefly composed of mechanics and
persons unacquainted with the use of arms; Padilla was set
aside, and the command given to Don Pedro de Giron, a rash and
inexperienced young nobleman." From this time the insurrection
failed rapidly. In December, the royalists recovered
Tordesillas and the person of Queen Joanna; and in April,
1521, Padilla was defeated, taken prisoner and executed, near
Villalar. "This defeat proved the ruin of the Junta.
Valladolid and most of the other confederated towns now
submitted, but Toledo, animated by the grief and courage of
Padilla's widow, still held out." Even after the surrender of
the city, "Dona Maria retired to the citadel and held it four
months longer; but on the 10th February 1522, she was
compelled to surrender, and escaped in disguise to Portugal;
after which tranquillity was re-established in Castile."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).
"The insurrection was a failure; and the blow which crushed
the insurgents on the plains of Villalar deprived them [the
Spaniards at large] for ever of the few liberties which they
had been permitted to retain. They were excluded from all
share in the government, and were henceforth summoned to the
cortes only to swear allegiance to the heir apparent, or to
furnish subsidies for their master. … The nobles, who had
stood by their master in the struggle, fared no better. … They
gradually sunk into the unsubstantial though glittering
pageant of a court. Meanwhile the government of Castile,
assuming the powers of both making the laws and enforcing
their execution, became in its essential attributes nearly as
absolute as that of Turkey."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 6, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 3 (volume 2).
SPAIN: A. D. 1519-1524.
The conquest of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519, to 1524.
SPAIN: A. D. 1523.
The conspiracy of Charles V. with the Constable of
Bourbon against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
SPAIN: A. D. 1523-1527.
Double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with Charles.
The imperial revenge.
Capture and sack of Rome.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; and 1527.
SPAIN: A. D. 1524.
Disputes with Portugal in the division of the New World.
The voyage of Magellan and the Congress of Badajos.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
The Treaty of Madrid.
Perfidy of Francis I.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
Compulsory and nominal Conversion of the Moors,
or Moriscoes, completed.
See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
SPAIN: A. D. 1528-1542.
The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto in Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
SPAIN: A. D. 1531-1541.
Pizarro's conquest of Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, to 1533-1548.
SPAIN: A. D. 1535.
Conquest and vassalage of Tunis.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
SPAIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
Treaty of Crespy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
SPAIN: A. D. 1541.
Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.
SPAIN: A. D. 1556.
Abdication of Charles.
Accession of Philip II.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
SPAIN: A. D. 1556-1559.
War with France and the Pope.
Successes in Italy and northwestern France.
Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
Early measures of Philip II.
His stupid and stifling despotism.
His attempt to shut knowledge out of the kingdom.
His destruction of commerce and industry.
His choice of Madrid for a capital.
His building of the Escorial.
"In the beginning of his reign he [Philip II.] issued a most
extraordinary decree. … That document is a signal revelation
of the policy which Philip adopted as the very soul of his
Government. Determined to stop by all imaginable means the
infiltration into Spain of the doctrines of the religious
reformation which agitated Europe, it seems that he planned to
isolate her intellect from that of the rest of the world. …
For this purpose he ordered that none of his subjects, without
any exception whatever, should leave the Kingdom 'to learn, or
to teach, or to read anything,' or even 'reside' in any of the
universities, colleges or schools established in foreign
parts. To those who were thus engaged he prescribed that they
should return home within four months. Any ecclesiastic
violating this decree was to be denationalized and lose all
his temporalities; any layman was to be punished with the
confiscation of his property and perpetual exile. Thus a sort
of Chinese legislation and policy was adopted for Spain. There
was to be on her frontiers a line of custom-houses through
which the thought of man could not pass without examination.
No Spaniard was to receive or to communicate one idea without
the leave of Philip. … In 1560, the Cortes of Castile had
their second meeting under the reign of Philip. … The Cortes
presented to Philip one hundred and eleven petitions. … To
those petitions which aimed at something practicable and
judicious he gave some of his usual evasive answers, but he
granted very readily those which were absurd. For instance, he
promulgated sumptuary ordinances which were ridiculous, and
which could not possibly have any salutary effects. He also
published decrees which were restrictive of commerce, and
prohibited the exportation of gold, silver, grains, cattle and
other products of the soil, or of the manufacturing industry
of the country. …
{2987}
In the meantime, the financial condition of the Kingdom was
rapidly growing worse, and the deficit resulting from the
inequality of expenditure and revenue was assuming the most
alarming proportions. All the ordinary and extraordinary means
and resources had been exhausted. … Yet, on an average, Philip
received annually from his American Dominions alone more than
1,200,000 ducats—which was at least equivalent to $6,000,000
at the present epoch. The Council of Finances, or Hacienda,
after consulting with Philip, could not devise anything else,
to get out of difficulty, than to resort again to the sale of
titles of nobility, the sale of vassals and other Royal
property, the alienation of certain rights, and the concession
of privileges. … It is difficult to give an idea of the
wretched administration which had been introduced in Spain,
and of those abuses which, like venomous leeches, preyed upon
her vitals. Suffice it to say that in Castile, for instance,
according to a census made in 1541, there was a population of
near 800,000 souls, and that out of every eight men there was
one who was noble and exempt from taxation, thereby increasing
the weight of the burden on the shoulders of the rest; and as
if this evil was not already unbearable, Philip was selling
profusely letters patent of nobility. … In these conjunctures
[1560], Philip, who had shown, on all occasions, that he
preferred residing in Madrid, … determined to make that city
the permanent seat of the Court and of the Supreme Government,
and therefore the capital of the Monarchy. That barren and
insalubrious locality presented but one advantage, if it be
one of much value, that of being a central point. … Reason and
common sense condemned it from the beginning. … Shortly after
having selected Madrid as his capital, Philip had laid [1563]
with his own bands, in the vicinity of that city, the first
stone of the foundations of the Escorial, that eighth marvel
of the world, as it is called by the Spaniards."
C. Gayarré,
Philip II. of Spain,
chapter 4.
"The common tradition that Philip built the Escorial in
pursuance of a vow which he made at the time of the great
battle of St. Quentin, the 10th of August, 1557, has been
rejected by modern critics. … But a recently discovered
document leaves little doubt that such a vow was actually
made. However this may have been, it is certain that the king
designed to commemorate the event by this structure, as is
intimated by its dedication to St. Lawrence, the martyr on
whose day the victory was gained. The name given to the place
was 'El Sitio de San Lorenzo el Real.' But the monastery was
better known from the hamlet near which it stood—El Escurial,
or El Escorial—which latter soon became the orthography
generally adopted by the Castilians. … The erection of a
religious house on a magnificent scale, that would proclaim to
the world his devotion to the Faith, was the predominant idea
in the mind of Philip. It was, moreover, a part of his scheme
to combine in the plan a palace for himself. … The site which,
after careful examination, he selected for the building, was
among the mountains of the Guadarrama, on the borders of New
Castile, about eight leagues northwest of Madrid. … In 1584,
the masonry of the Escorial was completed. Twenty-one years
had elapsed since the first stone of the monastery was laid.
This certainly must be regarded as a short period for the
erection of so stupendous a pile. … Probably no single edifice
ever contained such an amount and variety of inestimable
treasures as the Escorial,—so many paintings and sculptures by
the greatest masters,—so many articles of exquisite
workmanship, composed of the most precious materials." It was
despoiled by the French in 1808, and in 1837 the finest works
of art surviving were removed to Madrid. "The Escorial ceased
to be a royal residence. Tenantless and unprotected, it was
left to the fury of the blasts which swept down the hills of
the Guadarrama."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).
SPAIN: A. D. 1560.
Disastrous expedition against Tripoli.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
SPAIN: A. D. 1563-1564.
Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
Capture of Penon de Velez.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
SPAIN: A. D. 1565.
The massacre of French Huguenots in Florida
and occupation of the country.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565; and 1567-1568.
SPAIN: A. D. 1566-1571.
Edict against the Moriscoes.
Their rebellion and its suppression.
See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
SPAIN: A. D. 1568-1610.
The Revolt o the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572, and after.
SPAIN: A. D. 1570-1571.
The Holy League with Venice and the Pope against the Turks.
Great battle and Victory of Lepanto.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
SPAIN: . D. 1572.
Rejoicing of Philip at the news of the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1573.
Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria, and its recovery,
with Goletta, by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1580.
Piratical warfare of England.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
SPAIN: A. D. 1580.
The crown of Portugal claimed by Philip II.
and secured by force.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
SPAIN: A. D. 1585.
Secret alliance with the Catholic League of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.
SPAIN: A. D. 1587-1588.
The expedition of the Armada, against England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1587-1588; and 1588.
SPAIN: A. D. 1590.
Aid rendered to the Catholic League in France.
Parma's deliverance of Paris.
Philip's ambition to wear the French crown.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
SPAIN: A. D. 1595-1598.
War with France.
The Peace of Vervins.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
Capture and plundering of Cadiz by the English and Dutch.
"In the beginning of 1596, Philip won an important triumph by
the capture of Calais. But this awoke the alarm of England and
of the Hollanders as much as of the French. A joint expedition
was equipped against Spain in which the English took the lead.
Lord Admiral Howard sailed with a fleet of 150 vessels against
Cadiz, and the Earl of Essex commanded the land forces. On
June 21 the Spanish ships which assembled for the defence of
the town were entirely defeated. Essex was the first to leap
on shore, and the English troops easily took the city.
{2988}
The clemency of the English soldiers contrasted favourably
with the terrible barbarities of the Spaniards in the
Netherlands. 'The mercy and the clemency that had been showed
here,' wrote Lord Howard, 'will be spoken of throughout the
world.' No man or woman was needlessly injured; but Cadiz was
sacked, and the shipping in its harbour destroyed. Essex
wished to follow up this exploit by a further attack upon
Spain; but Howard, who had accomplished the task for which he
had been sent, insisted on returning home."
M. Creighton,
The Age of Elizabeth,
book 7, chapter 3.
"The results of this expedition were considerable, for the
king's navy was crippled, a great city was destroyed, and some
millions of plunder had been obtained. But the permanent
possession of Cadiz, which, in such case, Essex hoped to
exchange for Calais, and the destruction of the fleet at the
Azores—possible achievements both, and unwisely neglected
—would have been far more profitable, at least to England."
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 32 (volume 3).
SPAIN: A. D. 1598.
Accession of Philip III.
SPAIN: A. D. 1598-1700.
The first century of decline and decay.
"Spain became united and consolidated under the Catholic kings
[Ferdinand and Isabella]; it became a cosmopolitan empire
under Charles; and in Philip, austere, bigoted, and
commanding, its height of glory was reached. Thenceforth the
Austrian supremacy in the peninsula—the star of the House of
Habsburg—declined, until a whiff of diplomacy was sufficient
to extinguish its lights in the person of the childless and
imbecile Charles II. Three reigns—Philip III. (1598-1621),
Philip IV. (1621-1665), and Charles II. (1665-1700)—fill this
century of national decline, full as it is of crowned idiocy,
hypochondria, and madness, the result of incestuous marriages,
or natural weakness. The splendid and prosperous Spanish
empire under the emperor and his son—its vast conquests,
discoveries and foreign wars,—becomes transformed into a
bauble for the caprice of favorites, under their successors. …
Amid its immeasurable wealth, Spain was bankrupt. The gold,
and silver, and precious stones of the West, emptied
themselves into a land the poorest and most debt-laden in
Europe, the most spiritually ignorant despite the countless
churches, the most notorious for its dissolute nobility, its
worthless officials, its ignoble family relations, its
horrible moral aberrations pervading all grades of the
population; and all in vain. The mighty fancy, the
enthusiastic loyalty, the fervid faith of the richly endowed
Spaniard were not counter-balanced by humbler but more
practical virtues, —love of industry, of agriculture, of
manufactures. The Castilians hated the doings of citizens and
peasants; the taint of the Arab and the Jew was on the
profession of money-getting. Thousands left their ploughs and
went to the Indies, found places in the police, or bought
themselves titles of nobility, which forthwith rendered all
work dishonorable. The land grew into a literal infatuation
with miracles, relics, cloisters, fraternities, pious
foundations of every description. The church was omnipotent.
Nobody cultivated the soil. Hundreds of thousands lived in the
convents. Begging soup at the monastery gates,—such is a type
of the famishing Spain of the 17th century. In economic,
political, physical, moral, and intellectual aspects, a decay
pervaded the peninsula under the later Habsburgers, such as no
civilized nation has ever undergone. The population declined
from 10,000,000 under Charles V. (Charles I. of Spain) to
6,000,000 under Charles II. The people had vanished from
hundreds of places in New Castile, Old Castile, Toledo,
Estremadura, and Andalusia. One might travel miles in the
lovely regions of the South, without seeing a solitary
cultivated field or dwelling. Seville was almost depopulated.
Pecuniary distress at the end of the 17th century reached an
unexampled height; the soldiers wandered through the cities
begging; nearly all the great fortresses from Barcelona to
Cadiz were ruinous; the king's servants ran away because they
were neither paid nor fed; more than once there was no money
to supply the royal table; the ministers were besieged by high
officials and officers seeking to extort their pay long due;
couriers charged with communications of the highest importance
lingered on the road for lack of means to continue their
journey. Finance was reduced to tricks of low deceit and
robbery. … The idiocy of the system of taxation was
unparalleled. Even in 1594 the cortes complained that the
merchant, out of every 1,000 ducats capital, had to pay 300
ducats in taxes; that no tenant-farmer could maintain himself,
however low his rent might be; and that the taxes exceeded the
income of numerous estates. Bad as the system was under Philip
II., it became worse under his Austrian successors. The tax
upon the sale of food, for instance, increased from ten to
fourteen per cent, Looms were most productive when they were
absolutely silent. Almost the entire household arrangements of
a Spanish family were the products of foreign industries. In
the beginning of the 17th century, five-sixths of the domestic
and nine-tenths of the foreign trade were in the hands of
aliens. In Castile, alone, there were 160,000 foreigners, who
had gained complete possession of the industrial and
manufacturing interests. 'We cannot clothe ourselves without
them, for we have neither linen nor cloth; we cannot write
without them, for we have no paper,' complains a Spaniard.
Hence, the enormous masses of gold and silver annually
transmitted from the colonies passed through Spain into
French, English, Italian, and Dutch pockets. Not a real, it is
said, of the 35,000,000 of ducats which Spain received from
the colonies in 1595, was found in Castile the following year.
In this indescribable retrogression, but one interest in any
way prospered—the Church. The more agriculture, industry,
trade declined, the more exclusively did the Catholic clergy
monopolize all economic and intellectual life."
J. A. Harrison,
Spain,
chapter 23.
ALSO IN:
R. Watson,
History of the Reign of Philip III.
J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain, during the Reigns
of Philip IV. and Charles II.
SPAIN: A. D. 1609.
Final expulsion of the Moriscoes.
The resulting ruin of the nation, materially and morally.
See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
SPAIN: A. D. 1619.
Alliance with the Emperor Ferdinand
against Frederick of Bohemia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
Accession of Philip IV.
SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
Renewal of war in the Netherlands.
End of the truce.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
{2989}
SPAIN: A. D. 1624-1626.
Hostile policy of Richelieu.
The Valtelline War in Northern Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
SPAIN: A. D. 1627-1631.
War with France in Northern Italy over the
succession to the duchy of Mantua.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
SPAIN: A. D. 1635.
New hostile alliances of France.
Declaration of war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1636.
The Cardinal Infant in the Netherlands.
His invasion of France.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1642.
The war with France and Savoy in Northern Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
The war on the French frontier.
Siege and battle of Fontarabia.
French invasion of Roussillon.
Causes of disaffection in Catalonia.
In 1637, a Spanish army, 12,000 strong, crossed the Pyrenees
under the command of the Duke of Medina del Rio-Seco, Admiral
of Castile. "He took St Jean-de-Luz without difficulty, and
was advancing to the siege of Bayonne, when the old Duke
d'Epernon, governor of Guienne, … threw himself into it. There
was little time for preparations; but the Spanish commander,
on being told he would find Bayonne destitute of defence,
replied that could not be said of any place which contained
the Duke d'Epernon. He accordingly refrained from laying siege
to Bayonne; and all his other enterprises having failed from
the vigilant activity of Epernon, he abandoned St Jean-de-Luz,
with some other posts in its neighbourhood, and the seat of
war was speedily transferred from Guienne to Languedoc:
Olivarez, in forming his plans against that province, had
expected a revolt among its numerous and often rebellious
inhabitants. … The hopes, however, entertained by Olivarez …
proved utterly fallacious." The Spanish army, under
Serbellone, invested Leucate, the first fortress reached on
entering Languedoc from Roussillon, and besieged it for a
month; but was attacked at the end of that time by the Duke de
Halluin, son of the late Mareschal Schomberg, and driven from
its works, with the loss of all its artillery, and 3,000 men.
"In the following season [1638] the French, in their turn,
attempted the invasion of Spain, but with as little success as
the Spaniards had obtained in Guienne or Languedoc. … An army,
amounting to not less than 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry,
under the orders of the Prince of Condé, the father of the
great Condé, and a devoted retainer of Richelieu, crossed the
frontier, took Irun, and laid siege to Fontarabia, which is
situated on a peninsula, jutting into the river Bidassoa. A
formidable French fleet was, at the same time, stationed on
the coast of Guipuscoa, to co-operate with this army," and,
after failing in one attack, it succeeded in destroying the
Spanish ships sent to the succor of Fontarabia. "Fontarabia
being considered as the key to Spain, on the entrance to the
kingdom from Bayonne, its natural strength had been greatly
improved by fortifications." Its garrison held out stoutly
until the arrival of a relieving army of 13,000, led by the
Admiral of Castile. Nearly a month elapsed before the latter
ventured to attack the besieging force; but when he did,
"while the Spaniards lost only 200 men, the French were
totally defeated, and precipitately driven forth from their
intrenchments. Many of them were killed in the attack, and a
still greater number were drowned in attempting to pass the
Bidassoa. Those who escaped fled with precipitation to
Bayonne. … But Spain was hardly relieved from the alarm of the
invasion of Navarre when she was threatened with a new danger,
on the side of Roussillon. The Prince of Condé … was again
entrusted with a military expedition against the Spanish
frontiers. … The small county of Roussillon, which had
hitherto belonged to Spain as an appendage of Catalonia, lies
on the French side of the higher Pyrenees; but a lower range
of mountains, called the Courbieres, branching off from them,
and extending within a league of the Mediterranean shore,
divides Roussillon from Languedoc. At the extremity of these
hills, and about a league from the sea, stood the fortress of
Salsas [or Salces], which was considered as the key of Spain
on the dangerous side of Roussillon and Catalonia." Salsas was
invested by the French, 1639, and taken after a siege of forty
days. But Olivarez, the Spanish minister, adopted measures for
the recovery of the important fortress, so energetic, so
peremptory, and so unmeasured in the exactions they made upon
the people of Catalonia, that Salsas was retaken in January,
1640. "The long campaign in the vicinity of Balsas, though it
proved ultimately prosperous to the Spanish arms, fostered in
the bosom of the kingdom the seeds of rebellion. Those
arbitrary measures which Olivarez enjoined to his Generals,
may have gained Salsas, but they lost Catalonia. The frequent
intercourse which took place between the Catalans and French
soldiery, added fuel to those flames nearly ready to burst
forth, and, shortly afterwards, excited the fatal insurrection
at Barcelona."
J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
Philip IV. and Charles II.,
volume 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 1, chapter 17.
SPAIN: A. D. 1639-1700.
War with the piratical Buccaneers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
SPAIN: A. D. 1640.
Revolution in Portugal
That country resumes its independence.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
Revolt of Catalonia and Portugal, with the aid of France.
French conquest of Roussillon.
After their defeat of Condé at Salces, Olivarez ordered the
Castilian troops to take up their winter quarters in
Catalonia; and, "commanding the Catalonians to raise and equip
6,000 soldiers for the wars of Italy, he assigned them their
proportion of the expenses of the state, enjoining the states
to raise it, by a decree of the king. Had the Castillian
troops remained tranquil and orderly, overawing the
Catalonians by their presence and their discipline, without
enraging them by their excesses and their insolence, perhaps
Olivarez might have carried through his bold design, and
annihilated, one by one, the destructive privileges of the
various provinces. But, on the contrary, they committed every
sort of violence and injustice. … The Catalonians, stirred up
to vengeance, sought retribution in chance combats, lost their
dread of the Castillian troops by frequent contests with them,
and were excited almost to frenzy by their violence and
rapine. In the mean time, the states of Catalonia refused to
obey the royal decree, and sent two deputies to remonstrate
with the king and his minister.
{2990}
These messengers unfortunately executed their commission in an
insolent and menacing tone; and Olivarez, of a haughty and
inflexible character, caused them instantly to be arrested.
These tidings reached Barcelona at the moment when some fresh
outrage, committed by the Castillian soldiers, had excited
popular indignation to the highest pitch; and a general
insurrection was the immediate consequence. The viceroy was
slain upon the spot, and a negotiation was instantly entered
into with France in order to procure support in rebellion. The
courage of Olivarez did not fail even under this fresh
misfortune: all the disposable troops in Spain were instantly
directed upon Catalonia; and all the other provinces, but more
especially Portugal, were ordered to arm for the suppression
of the revolt. Turbulent subjects and interested allies are
always sure to take advantage of the moment of difficulty. The
Portuguese, hating, with even more bitter animosity than the
Catalonians, the yoke of Castille, oppressed by Vasconcellos,
who ruled them under the vice-queen, duchess of Mantua, and
called upon to aid in suppressing an insurrection to which
they looked with pleasure and hope, now instantly threw off
the rule of Spain. A conspiracy burst forth, which had been
preparing under the knowledge and advice of Richelieu for more
than three years; and the duke of Braganza, a prince of no
great abilities, was proclaimed king. … In the mean time the
marquis de los Velez had taken the command of the army sent
against the Catalonian rebels; and a willing instrument of the
minister's vengeance, he exercised the most barbarous
cruelties as he marched on into the refractory province. The
town of Tortosa was taken and sacked by his soldiers, and the
people subjected to every sort of violence. Fire, massacre,
and desolation marked his progress; but, instead of inspiring
crouching terror, and trembling self-abandonment, his conduct
roused up lion-like revenge. Hurrying on the negotiations with
France, the Catalonians accepted any terms which Richelieu
chose to offer, declared themselves subject to the French
crown, and pronounced the authority of Spain at an end for
ever in Catalonia. A small corps of French troops was
immediately thrown forward from Roussillon, and advanced to
Taragona under the command of D'Espenan, a general who had
shown great skill and courage at Salces. The Catalonians, with
the usual bravado of their nation, had represented their army
as a thousand-fold stronger, both in numbers and discipline,
than it really was; and the French officers were in
consequence lamentably disappointed when they saw the militia
which was to support them, and still more disappointed when
they beheld that militia in face of an enemy. As a last
resource against the large Spanish force under Los Velez,
D'Espenan threw himself into Taragona, in opposition to the
advice of Besançon, who was employed, on the part of France,
in organizing the Catalonians. Here he was almost immediately
besieged; and, being destitute both of provisions and
ammunition, was soon forced to sign a capitulation, whereby he
agreed to evacuate the territory of Spain with all the troops
which had entered Catalonia from France. This convention he
executed, notwithstanding all remonstrances and petitions on
the part of the Catalonians; and, retreating at once from
Taragona to the French frontier, he abandoned the field to the
enemy. Had Olivarez now seized the favourable moment, …. it is
probable—it is more than probable—that Catalonia would at once
have been pacified, and that her dangerous privileges would in
part have been sacrificed to the desire and necessity of
peace. … But the count-duke sought revenge as much as
advantage. … Continued severity only produced a continuance of
resistance: the Catalonians sustained themselves till the
French forces returned in greater numbers, and with more
experienced commanders: the tide of success turned against the
Castillians; and Los Velez was recalled to give place to
Leganez. … In various engagements … the Spanish armies were
defeated by the French: the Catalonians themselves became
better soldiers under the severe discipline of necessity; and
though the Spanish fleet defeated the French off Taragona, and
saved that city from the enterprises of La Mothe, the general
result of the campaign was decidedly unfavourable to Spain. At
the same time, the French were making progress in Roussillon;
and in the year 1642 the king himself prepared to invade that
small territory, with the evident intention of dissevering it
from the Spanish crown. Several minor places having been
taken, siege was laid to Perpignan: the people of the country
were not at all unwilling to pass under the dominion of
France; and another serious misfortune threatened the ministry
of Olivarez. At this time was concerted the conspiracy of Cinq
Mars … and the count-duke eagerly entered into the views of
the French malecontents, and promised them every assistance
they demanded.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
The failure of the conspiracy, the arrest and execution of
some of the conspirators, and the fall of Perpignan, came
rapidly, one upon the other, showing the fortune of Richelieu
still triumphing over all the best laid schemes of his
adversaries."
G. P. R. James,
Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
volume 2: Olivarez.
SPAIN: A. D. 1643.
Invasion of France from the Netherlands.
Defeat at Rocroi.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
SPAIN: A. D, 1644-1646.
The war in Catalonia.
Sieges of Lerida.
In 1644, Philip IV., "under the prudent and sagacious counsels
of Don Louis de Haro, was directing his principal efforts to
the recovery of Catalonia. … Don Philip de Sylva, an officer
of experience and determination, was put at the head of the
Castilian troops, and immediately advanced to the siege of the
strong town of Lerida, the king himself being nominally in
command of the army. The French troops in Catalonia were at
that time commanded by La Mothe Houdancourt, who no sooner
heard of the advance of the Spanish troops towards Lerida than
he marched with great rapidity to the relief of that place;"
but approached the enemy with so much carelessness that he was
attacked by Sylva and totally defeated, with a loss of 3,000
men and 12 guns. He then, for a diversion, laid siege to
Tarragona, and lost 3,000 more of his men, without
accomplishing the reduction of the place; being forced, in the
end, to retreat to Barcelona, while Lerida was surrendered to
the Spaniards. "La Mothe having been recalled and imprisoned,
… the Count de Harcourt was withdrawn from Savoy, and put at
the head of fresh forces, for the purpose of repairing the
disasters of the former general."
{2991}
Harcourt began operations (April, 1645) by laying siege to the
strong fortress of Rosas, or Roses, which commanded the
principal entrance to Catalonia from Roussillon. The fortress
surrendered the following month, and "the Count de Harcourt, …
after capturing some places of minor import, passed the Segre,
encountered the army of Cantelmo in the neighbourhood of
Llorens, and, gaining a complete victory, made himself master
of Balaguer." After these successes, the Count de Harcourt was
called away from Catalonia for a time, to act against the
insurgents at Barcelona, but returned in 1646 and undertook
the siege of Lerida. He was now opposed by the Marquis de
Leganez, whom he had successfully encountered in Ita]y, and
whom he was foolishly disposed to regard with contempt. While
he pressed his siege in careless security, Leganez surprised
him, in a night attack, and drove him in utter rout from his
lines. "This signal disaster caused the Count de Harcourt to
be recalled; and in order to recover all that had been lost in
Catalonia, the Prince de Condé was appointed to command in
that province, while a considerable part of the army of
Flanders was ordered to proceed towards the frontiers of Spain
to serve once more under his command." But Condé, too, was to
pay the penalty for despising his enemy. He reopened the siege
of Lerida with ostentatious gaiety, marching into the trenches
with music of violins, on the 14th of May. In little more than
a month he marched out again, without music, abandoning the
siege, having lost many men and obtained no sign of success.
G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 3.
SPAIN: A. D. 1645-1646.
French successes in Flanders.
Loss of Dunkirk.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1648.
Campaign against France in the Netherlands.
The defeat at Lens.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.
SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1654.
The revolt of Masaniello at Naples and its termination.
Attempts of the Duke of Guise and the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
SPAIN: A. D. 1648.
Conclusion of Peace with the United Provinces.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
Subjugation of Catalonia.
"During the four years which [in France] had been filled with
the troubles of the Fronde, Spain endeavored, and with
success, to reconquer the province which had abandoned her. In
1650, Mazarin had recognized the peril of Catalonia, and had
endeavored to send assistance in war and money. It was
possible, however, to do but little. In 1651 the Spanish
besieged Barcelona. After Marchin's desertion they hoped to
capture it at once, but it was defended with the courage and
constancy of the Catalonian people. La Mothe Houdancourt was
again put in command of the province. He had been unsuccessful
there when France was strong, and it could hardly have been
expected that he could rescue it when France was weak. He
succeeded, however, in forcing his way into Barcelona, and
defended the city with as much success as could, perhaps, have
been anticipated from the scanty means at his command. The
inhabitants endured, with constancy, the danger and want
caused by the siege, rather than surrender themselves to
Spain. Some French ships sailed for the rescue of the place,
but they acquitted themselves with little valor. Provisions
were sent into the town, but the commander claimed he was not
in condition for a conflict with the Spanish fleet, and he
retreated. Endeavors were made, both by the French troops and
those of the Catalonians, to raise the siege, but without
success. In October [1652], after a siege of fifteen months,
Barcelona surrendered. Roses was captured soon after. Leucate
was betrayed to Spain by its governor for 40,000 crowns. He
intended to enlist under Orleans, but learning the king had
reentered Paris, he made his peace, by agreeing to betray no
more. The Spanish granted an amnesty to the people of
Catalonia. The whole province fell into their hands, and
became again a part of the kingdom of Spain. The loss of
Catalonia was chiefly due to the turbulence and disloyalty of
Condé. Had it not been for the groundless rebellion which he
excited in the autumn of 1651, and which absorbed the energies
of the French armies during the next year, Catalonia might
have been saved for France and have remained a part of that
kingdom. … It was a national misfortune that Catalonia was
lost. This great and important province would have been a
valuable accession to France. Its brave and hardy population
would have become loyal and industrious Frenchmen, and have
added to the wealth and power of that kingdom. For the
Catalonians it was still more unfortunate that their lot
should thus have been determined. They were not closely
related to the people of Aragon or Castile. They were now left
to share in the slow decay of the Spanish kingdom, instead of
having an opportunity for development in intelligence and
prosperity as members of a great and progressive nation."
J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
SPAIN: A. D. 1650-1651.
Alliance with the New Fronde in France.
Defeat at Rethel.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
SPAIN: A. D. 1652.
Campaign on the Flemish frontier.
Invasion of France.
Recovery of Gravelines and Dunkirk.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
SPAIN: A. D. 1657-1658.
War with England in alliance with France.
Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.
SPAIN: A. D. 1659.
The Treaty of the Pyrenees.
Territorial cessions to France.
Marriage of the Infanta to Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
SPAIN: A. D. 1665.
Accession of Charles II.
SPAIN: A. D. 1667.
Conquests of Louis XIV. in the Netherlands.
The War of the Queen's Rights.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
Towns in Flanders ceded to Louis XIV.
Triple alliance and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
Peace with Portugal.
Recognition of its independence.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
SPAIN: A. D. 1673-1679.
The War of the Coalition to resist Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
SPAIN: A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
{2992}
SPAIN: A. D. 1690-1696.
The War of the League of Augsburg or the Grand Alliance
against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.
SPAIN: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
French conquests restored.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.-
The question of the Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.
The will of Charles ll.

As the 17th century approached its close, the king of Spain,
Charles II., was nearing the grave. "His days had been few and
evil. He had been unfortunate in all his wars, in every part
of his internal administration, and in all his domestic
relations. … He was childless; and his constitution was so
completely shattered that, at little more than thirty years of
age, he had given up all hopes of posterity. His mind was even
more distempered than his body. … His sufferings were
aggravated by the thought that his own dissolution might not
improbably be followed by the dissolution of his empire.
Several princes laid claim to the succession. The King's
eldest sister had married Lewis XIV. The Dauphin would,
therefore, in the common course of inheritance, have succeeded
to the crown. But the Infanta had, at the time of her
espousals, solemnly renounced, in her own name, and in that of
her posterity, all claim to the succession.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
This renunciation had been confirmed in due form by the
Cortes. A younger sister of the King had been the first wife
of Leopold, Emperor of Germany. She too had at her marriage
renounced her claims to the Spanish crown, but the Cortes had
not sanctioned the renunciation, and it was therefore
considered as invalid by the Spanish jurists. The fruit of
this marriage was a daughter, who had espoused the Elector of
Bavaria. The Electoral Prince of Bavaria inherited her claim
to the throne of Spain. The Emperor Leopold was son of a
daughter of Philip III., and was therefore first cousin to
Charles. No renunciation whatever had been exacted from his
mother at the time of her marriage. The question was certainly
very complicated. That claim which, according to the ordinary
rules of inheritance, was the strongest, had been barred by a
contract executed in the most binding form. The claim of the
Electoral Prince of Bavaria was weaker. But so also was the
contract which bound him not to prosecute his claim. The only
party against whom no instrument of renunciation could be
produced was the party who, in respect of blood, had the
weakest claim of all. As it was clear that great alarm would
be excited throughout Europe if either the Emperor or the
Dauphin should become King of Spain, each of those Princes
offered to waive his pretensions in favour of his second son;
the Emperor in favour of the Archduke Charles, the Dauphin in
favour of Philip, Duke of Anjou. Soon after the Peace of
Ryswick, William III. and Lewis XIV. determined to settle the
question of the succession without consulting either Charles
or the Emperor. France, England, and Holland, became parties
to a treaty [called the First Partition Treaty] by which it
was stipulated that the Electoral Prince of Bavaria should
succeed to Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands. The
Imperial family were to be bought off with the Milanese, and
the Dauphin was to have the Two Sicilies. The great object of
the King of Spain and of all his counsellors was to avert the
dismemberment of the monarchy. In the hope of attaining this
end, Charles determined to name a successor. A will was
accordingly framed by which the crown was bequeathed to the
Bavarian Prince. Unhappily, this will had scarcely been signed
when the Prince died. The question was again unsettled, and
presented greater difficulties than before. A new Treaty of
Partition was concluded between France, England, and Holland.
It was agreed that Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands,
should descend to the Archduke Charles. In return for this
great concession made by the Bourbons to a rival house, it was
agreed that France should have the Milanese, or an equivalent
in a more commodious situation. The equivalent in view was the
province of Lorraine. Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed
the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity.
Everybody must remember his description of the paroxysm of
rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his
runaway servant, Nick Frog, his clothier, John Bull, and his
old enemy, Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and
inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him.
… When the intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived
at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler
of a languishing state. The Spanish ambassador at the court of
London was directed to remonstrate with the government of
William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was
commanded to leave England. Charles retaliated by dismissing
the English and Dutch ambassadors. The French King, though the
chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the
whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself,
and in directing it against the two maritime powers. Those
powers had now no agent at Madrid. Their perfidious ally was
at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully
availed himself of this advantage." He availed himself of the
advantage so successfully, in fact, that when the Spanish king
died, November 3, 1700, he was found to have left a will,
bequeathing the whole Spanish monarchy to Philip, Duke of
Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. "Lewis acted as
the English ministers might have guessed that he would act.
With scarcely the show of hesitation, he broke through all the
obligations of the Partition Treaty, and accepted for his
grandson the splendid legacy of Charles. The new sovereign
hastened to take possession of his dominions."
Lord Macaulay,
Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays).
ALSO IN:
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV,
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 4.
J. W. Gerard,
The Peace of Utrecht,
chapters 6-10.
J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
volume 2, chapter 9.
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
volume 1, introduction, section 3.
SPAIN: A. D. 1700.
Accession of Philip V.
{2993}
SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
The Bourbon succession, and the European League against it.
"Louis XIV. having … resolved to accede to the will, Philip of
Anjou was proclaimed King by the Spaniards, and made his solemn
entry into Madrid on the 14th of April 1701. Most of the
European powers, such as the States of Italy, Sweden, England,
Holland, and the kingdoms of the North, acknowledged Philip
V.; the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy even concluded
treaties of alliance with him. Moreover, the situation of
political affairs in Germany, Hungary, and the North was such
that it would have been easy for Louis XIV., with prudent
management, to preserve the Spanish crown on the head of his
grandson; but he seemed, as if on purpose, to do everything to
raise all Europe against him. It was alleged that he aimed at
the chimerical project of universal monarchy, and the reunion
of France with Spain. Instead of trying to do away this
supposition, he gave it additional force, by issuing
letters-patent in favour of Philip, at the moment when he was
departing for Spain, to the effect of preserving his rights to
the throne of France. The Dutch dreaded nothing so much as to
see the French making encroachments on the Spanish
Netherlands, which they regarded as their natural barrier
against France; the preservation of which appeared to be
equally interesting to England. It would have been prudent in
Louis XIV. to give these maritime powers some security on this
point, who, since the elevation of William, Prince of Orange,
to the crown of Great Britain, held as it were in their hands
the balance of Europe. Without being swayed by this
consideration, he obtained authority from the Council of
Madrid to introduce a French army into the Spanish
Netherlands; and on this occasion the Dutch troops, who were
quartered in various places of the Netherlands, according to a
stipulation with the late King of Spain, were disarmed. This
circumstance became a powerful motive for King William to
rouse the States-General against France. He found some
difficulty, however, in drawing over the British Parliament to
his views, as a great majority in that House were averse to
mingle in the quarrels of the Continent; but the death of
James II. altered the minds and inclinations of the English.
Louis XIV. having formally acknowledged the son of that prince
as King of Great Britain, the English Parliament had no longer
any hesitation in joining the Dutch and the other enemies of
France. A new and powerful league [the Second Grand Alliance]
was formed against Louis. The Emperor, England, the United
Provinces, the Empire, the Kings of Portugal and Prussia, and
the Duke of Savoy, all joined it in succession. The allies
engaged to restore to Austria the Spanish Netherlands, the
duchy of Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the
ports of Tuscany; and never to permit the union of France with
Spain."
C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe, period 7.
ALSO IN:
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 25 (volume 5).
J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Marlborough,
chapter 9 (volume 1).
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 1-7.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Succession: Cadiz defended.
The treasure fleet lost in Vigo Bay.
The first approach to Spain of the War of the
Succession—already raging for months in Northern Italy and the
Spanish Netherlands—was in the form of an expedition against
Cadiz, undertaken in the autumn of 1702 by the English and
Dutch. "King William was the first to plan this expedition
against Cadiz and after his decease the project was resumed.
But had King William lived he would certainly not have
selected as chief the Duke of Ormond, a princely nobleman,
endowed with many amiable qualities, but destitute of the
skill and the energy which a great enterprise requires. Under
him Sir Henry Bellasys commanded the English and General Spaar
a contingent of Dutch troops, amounting together to 14,000
men. Admiral Sir George Rooke had the direction of the fleet.
Their proceedings have been related at full length in another
history [Lord Mahon's (Earl Stanhope's) 'War of the Succession
in Spain']—how the troops were set on shore near Cadiz in the
first days of September—how even before they landed angry
dissensions had sprung up between the Dutch and the English,
the landsmen and the seamen—and how these dissensions which
Ormond wanted the energy to control proved fatal, to the
enterprise. No discipline was kept, no spirit was displayed.
Week after week was lost. … Finally at the close of the month
it was discovered that nothing could be done, and a council of
war decided that the troops should reembark. … On their
return, and off the coast of Portugal, an opportunity arose to
recover in some part their lost fame. The Spanish galleons
from America, laden with treasure and making their yearly
voyage at this time, were bound by their laws of trade to
unload at Cadiz, but in apprehension of the English fleet they
had put into Vigo Bay. There Ormond determined to pursue them.
On the 22nd of October he neared that narrow inlet which winds
amidst the high Gallician mountains. The Spaniards, assisted
by some French frigates, which were the escort of the
galleons, had expected an attack and made the best
preparations in their power. They durst not disembark the
treasure without an express order from Madrid—and what order
from Madrid ever yet came in due time?—but they had called the
neighbouring peasantry to arms; they had manned their forts;
they had anchored their ships in line within the harbour; and
they had drawn a heavy boom across its mouth. None of these
means availed them. The English seamen broke through the boom;
Ormond at the head of 2,000 soldiers scaled the forts; and the
ships were all either taken or destroyed. The greater part of
the treasure was thrown overboard by direction of the French
and Spanish chiefs; but there remained enough to yield a large
amount of booty to the victors."
Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
Colonel A. Parnell,
War of the Succession in Spain,
chapters 3-4.
For the campaigns of the War of the Succession in other
quarters.
See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after.
SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
The War of the Succession: Charles III. claims the kingdom.
The English take Gibraltar.
"The Admiral of Castile, alienated from the cause of Philip V.
by having been dismissed from his office of Master of the
Horse, had retired into Portugal; and he succeeded in
persuading King Pedro II. to accede to the Grand Alliance, who
was enticed by the promise of the American provinces between
the Rio de la Plata and Brazil, as well as a part of
Estremadura and Galicia (May 6th). Pedro also entered into a
perpetual defensive league with Great Britain and the
States-General. In the following December, Paul Methuen, the
English minister at Lisbon, concluded the celebrated
commercial treaty between England and Portugal named after
himself.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.
{2994}
It is the most laconic treaty on record, containing only two
Articles, to the effect that Portugal was to admit British
cloths, and England to admit Portuguese wines, at one-third
less duty than those of France. Don Pedro's accession to the
Grand Alliance entirely changed the plans of the allies.
Instead of confining themselves to the procuring of a
reasonable indemnity for the Emperor, they now resolved to
drive Philip V. from the throne of Spain, and to place an
Austrian Archduke upon it in his stead. The Emperor and his
eldest son Joseph formally renounced their claims to the
throne of Spain in favour of the archduke Charles, Leopold's
second son, September 12th [1703]; and the Archduke was
proclaimed King of Spain, with the title of Charles III. The
new King was to proceed into Portugal, and, with the
assistance of Don Pedro, endeavour to obtain possession of
Spain. Charles accordingly proceeded to Holland, and embarked
for England in January 1704; whence, after paying a visit to
Queen Anne at Windsor, he finally set sail for Lisbon,
February 17th. … In March 1704, the Pretender, Charles III.,
together with an English and Dutch army of 12,000 men, landed
in Portugal, with the intention of entering Spain on that
side; but so far were they from accomplishing this plan that
the Spaniards, on the contrary, under the Duke of Berwick,
penetrated into Portugal, and even threatened Lisbon, but were
driven back by the Marquis das Minas. An English fleet under
Admiral Rooke, with troops under the Prince of Darmstadt, made
an ineffectual attempt on Barcelona; but were compensated for
their failure by the capture of Gibraltar on their return. The
importance of this fortress, the key of the Mediterranean, was
not then sufficiently esteemed, and its garrison had been
neglected by the Spanish Government. A party of English
sailors, taking advantage of a Saint's day, on which the
eastern portion of the fortress had been left unguarded,
scaled the almost inaccessible precipice, whilst at the same
time another party stormed the South Mole Head. The capture of
this important fortress was the work of a few hours (August
4th). Darmstadt would have claimed the place for King Charles
III., but Rooke took possession of it in the name of the Queen
of England. … The Spaniards, sensible of the importance of
Gibraltar, speedily made an effort to recover that fortress,
and as early as October 1704, it was invested by the Marquis
of Villadarias with an army of 8,000 men. The French Court
afterwards sent Marshal Tessé to supersede Villadarias, and
the siege continued till April 1705; but the brave defence of
the Prince of Darmstadt, and the defeat of the French
blockading squadron under Pointis by Admiral Leake, finally
compelled the raising of the siege."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5; chapter 6 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 9 (volume 2).
F. Sayer,
History of Gibraltar,
chapters 6-8.
SPAIN: A. D. 1704.
The War of the Succession: Blenheim.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
The War of the Succession: The capture of Barcelona.
As if to exhibit, upon a different theatre of the same great
warfare, the most remarkable contrast to the patience, the
caution, and the foresight of Marlborough, … Charles Mordaunt,
earl of Peterborough, took the command of an expedition to
Spain. Macaulay calls Peterborough 'the most extraordinary
character of that age, the king of Sweden himself not
excepted, … a polite, learned and amorous Charles XII.' He
sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1705, having the command of
5,000 men; unlimited authority over the land forces, and a
divided command with Sir Cloudesley Shovel at sea. At Lisbon,
Peterborough was reinforced, and he here took on board the
arch-duke Charles, and a numerous suite. At Gibraltar he
received two veteran battalions, in exchange for the same
number of recruits which he had brought from England. The
prince of Darmstadt also here joined Peterborough. The prince
and the arch-duke desired to besiege Barcelona. Peterborough
opposed the scheme of attempting, with 7,000 men, the
reduction of a place which required 30,000 men for a regular
siege. With the squadron under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the
fleet sailed from Gibraltar. A landing was effected near
Valencia; and here the people were found favourable to the
cause of the Austrian prince, who was proclaimed, upon the
surrender of the castle of Denia, as Charles III., king of
Spain and the Indies. Peterborough, encouraged by this
reception, conceived the enterprise of dashing upon the
capital, whilst all the Spanish forces were on the frontiers
of Portugal, or in Catalonia; and king Philip was at Madrid
with few troops. Such an exploit had every chance of success,
but Peterborough was overruled by a council of war. The troops
were landed before Barcelona on the 27th of August. In three
weeks there was nothing but dissensions amongst the great men
of this expedition. The prince of Darmstadt and the earl of
Peterborough had come to an open rupture. The Dutch officers
said their troops should not join in an enterprise so
manifestly impossible of success for a small force.
Peterborough conceived a plan of attack totally opposed to all
the routine modes of warfare. The citadel of Montjouich, built
on the summit of a ridge of hills skirting the sea, commanded
the town. Peterborough gave notice that he should raise the
siege; sent his heavy artillery on board the ships; and made
every preparation for embarking the troops. With 1,200 foot
soldiers, and 200 horse, he marched out of the camp on the
evening of the 13th of September, accompanied by the prince of
Darmstadt, whom he had invited to join him. They marched all
night by the side of the mountains; and before daybreak were
under the hill of Montjouich, and close to the outer works.
Peterborough told his officers that when they were discovered
at daylight, the enemy would descend into the outer ditch to
repel them, and that then was the time to receive their fire,
leap in upon them, drive them into the outer works, and gain
the fortress by following them close. The scheme succeeded,
and the English were soon masters of the bastion. … The
citadel held out for several days, but was finally reduced by
a bombardment from the hills, the cannon having been relanded
from the ships. The reduction of Montjouich by this
extraordinary act of daring, was very soon followed by the
surrender of Barcelona. … The possession of Barcelona, in
which king Charles III. was proclaimed with great solemnity,
was followed by the adhesion to his cause of the chief towns
of Catalonia. Peterborough was for following up his wonderful
success by other daring operations. The German ministers and
the Dutch officers opposed all his projects." He was able,
notwithstanding, to raise the siege of San Mateo and to save
Valencia from a threatened siege. "It was soon found that king
Charles was incompetent to follow up the successes which
Peterborough had accomplished for him."
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 38.
{2995}
The above is substantially, in brief, the account of
Peterborough's campaigns given by Mahon, Macaulay, and most of
the later historians of the War of the Succession, who drew
the narrative largely from a little book published in 1728,
called the "Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton." The
story has been recently told, however, in a very different way
and to a very different effect, by Colonel Arthur Parnell, who
declines to accept the Carleton Memoirs as authentic history.
Those Memoirs have been judged by some critics, in·deed, to be
a pure work of fiction and attributed to De Foe. They are
included, in fact, in several editions of De Foe's works.
Colonel Parnell, who seems to have investigated the matter
thoroughly, recognizes Captain Carleton as a real personality,
and concludes that he may have furnished some kind of a
note-book or diary that was the substratum of these alleged
Memoirs; but that somebody (he suspects Dean Swift), in the
interest of Peterborough, built up on that groundwork a fabric
of fiction which has most wrongfully become accepted history.
According to Colonel Parnell, it was not Peterborough, but
Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt (killed in the assault on
Montjouich) and De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, who were entitled
to the credit of the successes for which Peterborough has been
laurelled. "In order to extol a contemptible impostor, the
memory of this great Huguenot general [Ruvigny] has been
aspersed by Lord Macaulay and most English writers of the
present century."
Colonel A. Parnell,
The War of the Succession in Spain,
preface, chapters 12-18; and appendix C.
ALSO IN:
E. Warburton,
Memoir of Peterborough,
chapters 7-11 (volume 1).
F. S. Russell,
The Earl of Peterborough,
volume 1, chapters 7-9.
SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
The War of the Succession:
Rapid changing of kings and courts at Madrid.
"The Courts of Madrid and Versailles, exasperated and alarmed
by the fall of Barcelona, and by the revolt of the surrounding
country, determined to make a great effort. A large army,
nominally commanded by Philip, but really under the orders of
Marshal Tessé, entered Catalonia. A fleet under the Count of
Toulouse, one of the natural children of Lewis XIV., appeared
before the port of Barcelona. The city was attacked at once by
sea and land. The person of the Archduke was in considerable
danger. Peterborough, at the head of about 3,000 men, marched
with great rapidity from Valencia. To give battle, with so
small a force, to a great regular army under the conduct of a
Marshal of France, would have been madness. … His commission
from the British government gave him supreme power, not only
over the army, but, whenever he should be actually on board,
over the navy also. He put out to sea at night in an open
boat, without communicating his design to any person. He was
picked up, several leagues from the shore, by one of the ships
of the English squadron. As soon as he was on board, he
announced himself as first in command, and sent a pinnace with
his orders to the Admiral. Had these orders been given a few
hours earlier, it is probable that the whole French fleet
would have been taken. As it was, the Count of Toulouse put
out to sea. The port was open. The town was relieved. On the
following night the enemy raised the siege and retreated to
Roussillon. Peterborough returned to Valencia, a place which
he preferred to every other in Spain; and Philip, who had been
some weeks absent from his wife, could endure the misery of
separation no longer, and flew to rejoin her at Madrid. At
Madrid, however, it was impossible for him or for her to
remain. The splendid success which Peterborough had obtained
on the eastern coast of the Peninsula had inspired the
sluggish Galway with emulation. He advanced into the heart of
Spain. Berwick retreated. Alcantara, Ciuadad Rodrigo, and
Salamanca fell, and the conquerors marched towards the
capital. Philip was earnestly pressed by his advisers to
remove the seat of government to Burgos. … In the mean time
the invaders had entered Madrid in triumph, and had proclaimed
the Archduke in the streets of the imperial city. Arragon,
ever jealous of the Castilian ascendeney, followed the example
of Catalonia. Saragossa revolted without seeing an enemy. The
governor whom Philip had set over Carthagena betrayed his
trust, and surrendered to the Allies the best arsenal and the
last ships which Spain possessed. … It seemed that the
struggle had terminated in favour of the Archduke, and that
nothing remained for Philip but a prompt flight into the
dominions of his grandfather. So judged those who were
ignorant of the character and habits of the Spanish people.
There is no country in Europe which it is so easy to overrun
as Spain; there is no country in Europe which it is more
difficult to conquer. Nothing can be more contemptible than
the regular military resistance which Spain offers to an
invader; nothing more formidable than the energy which she
puts forth when her regular military resistance has been
beaten down. Her armies have long borne too much resemblance
to mobs; but her mobs have had, in an unusual degree, the
spirit of armies. … Castile, Leon, Andalusia, Estremadura,
rose at once; every peasant procured a firelock or a pike; the
Allies were masters only of the ground on which they trod. No
soldier could wander a hundred yards from the main body of the
invading army without imminent risk of being poinarded; the
country through which the conquerors had passed to Madrid, and
which, as they thought, they had subdued, was all in arms
behind them. Their communications with Portugal were cut off.
In the mean time, money began, for the first time, to flow
rapidly into the treasury of the fugitive king. … While the
Castilians were everywhere arming in the cause of Philip, the
Allies were serving that cause as effectually by their
mismanagement. Galway staid at Madrid, where his soldiers
indulged in such boundless licentiousness that one half of
them were in the hospitals. Charles remained dawdling in
Catalonia. Peterborough had taken Requena, and wished to march
from Valencia towards Madrid, and to effect a junction with
Galway; but the Archduke refused his consent to the plan.
{2996}
The indignant general remained accordingly in his favourite
city, on the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, reading
Don Quixote, giving balls and suppers, trying in vain to get
some good sport out of the Valencian bulls, and making love,
not in vain, to the Valencian women. At length the Archduke
advanced into Castile, and ordered Peterborough to join him.
But it was too late. Berwick had already compelled Galway to
evacuate Madrid; and, when the whole force of the Allies was
collected at Quadalaxara, it was found to be decidedly
inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. Peterborough formed
a plan for regaining possession of the capital. His plan was
rejected by Charles. The patience of the sensitive and
vain-glorious hero was worn out. He had none of that serenity
of temper which enabled Marlborough to act in perfect harmony
with Eugene, and to endure the vexatious interference of the
Dutch deputies. He demanded permission to leave the army,
Permission was readily granted; and he set out for Italy. …
From that moment to the end of the campaign, the tide of
fortune ran strong against the Austrian cause. Berwick had
placed his army between the Allies and the frontiers of
Portugal. They retreated on Valencia, and arrived in that
province, leaving about 10,000 prisoners in the hands of the
enemy."
Lord Macaulay,
Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays).
In the Netherlands the Allies won the important victory of
Ramillies, and in Italy, Prince Eugene inflicted a sore defeat
on the French and rescued Turin.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1706-1707;
and ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
ALSO IN:
C. T. Wilson,
The Duke of Berwick,
chapters 5-6.
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapter 14 (volume 1).
SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
The War of the Succession:
The fortunes of the Bourbons retrieved at Almanza.
"The enemy [the Allies] began to move again in February. After
some weeks of manœuvring on the confines of the kingdom of
Valencia and of New Castile, April 25, Galway and Las Minas,
wishing to anticipate the arrival of a reinforcement expected
from France, attacked Berwick at Almanza. Singularly enough,
the English were commanded by a French refugee (Ruvigni, Earl
of Galway), and the French by a royal bastard of England [the
Duke of Berwick, natural son of James II.]. The enemy
numbered, it is said, 26,000 foot and 7,000 horse; the
Franco-Castilians were somewhat inferior in infantry, somewhat
superior in cavalry and artillery." The battle, decided by the
cavalry, was disastrous to the Allies. "The English, Dutch and
Portuguese infantry were cut to pieces: the Portuguese foot
showed a courage less fortunate, but not less intrepid, than
the Spanish cavalry. Another corps had fought with still
greater fury, —the French refugees, commanded by Jean
Cavalier, the renowned Camisard chieftain. They had engaged a
French regiment, and the two corps had almost destroyed each
other. Six battalions were surrounded and taken in a body.
Thirteen other battalions, five English, five Dutch, and three
Portuguese, retired, at evening, to a wooded hill; seeing
themselves cut off from the mountains of Valencia, they
surrendered themselves prisoners the next morning. Hochstadt
[Blenheim] was fully avenged. Five thousand dead, nearly
10,000 prisoners, 24 cannon, 120 flags or standards, were
purchased on the part of the conquerors by the loss of only
about 2,000 men. Many Frenchmen, taken at Hochstadt or at
Ramillies, and enrolled by force in the ranks of the enemies,
were delivered by the victory. The Duke of Orleans reached the
army the next day. … He marched with Berwick on Valencia,
which surrendered, May 8, without striking a blow. The
generals of the enemies, both wounded, retired with the wrecks
of their armies towards the mouths of the Ebro. The whole
kingdom of Valencia submitted, with the exception of three or
four places. Berwick followed the enemy towards the mouth of
the Ebro, whilst Orleans returned to meet a French corps that
was coming by the way of Navarre, and with this corps entered
Aragon. Nearly all Aragon yielded without resistance. Berwick
joined Orleans by ascending the Ebro; they moved together on
the Segre and began the blockade of Lerida, the bulwark of
Catalonia." Lerida was taken by storm on the 12th of October,
and "pillaged with immense booty. … The castle of Lerida
surrendered, November 11. A great part of the Catalan
mountaineers laid down their arms. … Fortune had favored the
Franco-Castilians on the Portuguese frontier as in the States
of Aragon; Ciudad-Rodrigo had been taken by assault, October
4, with the loss of more than 3,000 men on the side of the
enemy. The news of Almanza had everywhere reanimated the
hearts of the French armies."
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Colonel A. Parnell,
The War of the Succession in Spain,
chapters 23-26.
C. T. Wilson,
The Duke of Berwick,
chapter 7.
SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
The War of the Succession:
Bourbon reverses and final triumph.
"In less than a month after the victory of Almanza, the
Bourbon troops had recovered all Arragon, with Valencia and
Murcia, excepting the ports of Denia and Alicant; but the war
still continued in Catalonia, where General Stanhope now
filled the double office of ambassador to Charles and general
of the English forces, and prince Staremberg was sent by the
emperor Joseph to take the command of the Austrian troops. The
Spanish government was reduced to still greater pecuniary
distress than it had suffered before, by the success of the
English squadron off Carthagena, under the command of Sir
Charles Wager, which took three of the great galleons and
dispersed fourteen, which were expected to furnish an unusual
supply of the precious metals from America. After a short
siege of Port Mahon, General Stanhope took possession of
Minorca and Majorca [A. D. 1708]; the count of Cifuentes
gained Sardinia; and all the efforts, spirit, and talents of
the duke of Orleans were insufficient to make the slightest
impression in Catalonia. He consequently complained, in his
letters to Versailles, that his operations were thwarted or
retarded by the intrigues of the Princess Orsini and the
ambassador Amelot. He was accused in return, and that not
without reason, of forming designs on the crown of Spain, and
corresponding with the enemies of Philip on the subject. The
fortunes of France and Spain still continued to decline, and
Louis felt that peace was the only measure which could stop
the progress of that ruin which menaced the house of Bourbon.
Conferences were accordingly opened at the Hague, and Louis
pretended that he was willing to give up the interest of
Philip; at the same time his grandson himself protested that
he would never quit Spain, or yield his title to its crown. …
{2997}
The disastrous campaign of 1710 rendered Louis more desirous
than ever of obtaining peace, and though his professions of
abandoning his grandson were insincere, he certainly would not
have scrupled to sacrifice the Spanish Netherlands and the
American commerce to Holland, as the price of an advantageous
peace to France. Meantime the Austrians had gained the
victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, and had once more driven
the Spanish court from Madrid. This time it fled to
Valladolid, and the king and queen talked of taking refuge in
America, and re-establishing the empire of Mexico or Peru,
rather than abandon their throne. But the Castilians once more
roused themselves to defend the king; the duke of Vendome's
arrival supplied their greatest want, that of a skilful
general; and the imprudence of the allies facilitated the
recovery of the capital. The disasters of the allies began
with their retreat; Staremburg, after a doubtful though bloody
battle [Villa Viciosa, December 10, 1710], at the end of which
he was victor, was yet obliged to retire with the
disadvantages of defeat; and Stanhope, with a small body of
English, after a desperate resistance [at Brihuega, December
9, 1710], was taken prisoner."
M. Callcott,
Short History of Spain,
chapter 22 (volume 2).
"As the result of the actions at Brihuega and Villa Viciosa
and the subsequent retreat, the Austrians lost 3,600 killed or
wounded, and 3,036 prisoners, or a total of 7,536 men; whilst
the Bourbon casualties were 6,700 placed hors-de-combat, and
100 captured, or in all 6,800 men. These operations
constituted a decisive victory for Vendôme, who thus, in less
than four months after the battle of Saragossa, had
re-established King Philip and the Bourbon cause."
Colonel A. Parnell,
The War of the Succession in Spain,
chapters 27-34.
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 15-18 (volumes 1-2).
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of the War of Succession in Spain,
chapters 6-8.
SPAIN: A. D. 1711.
The Austrian claimant of the throne becomes Emperor.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
The betrayal of the Catalans.
"Alone among the Spaniards the Catalans had real reason to
regret the peace. They had clung to the cause of Charles with
a desperate fidelity, and the Peace of Utrecht rang the
death-knell of provincial liberties to which they were
passionately attached. From the beginning of 1705 they had
been the steady and faithful allies of England; they had again
and again done eminent service in her cause; they had again
and again received from her ministers and generals the most
solemn assurances that they would never be abandoned. When
England first opened a separate negotiation for peace she
might easily have secured the Catalonian liberties by making
their recognition an indispensable preliminary of peace; but,
instead of this, the English ministers began by recognising
the title of Philip, and contented themselves with a simple
prayer that a general amnesty might be granted. When the
convention was signed for the evacuation of Catalonia by the
Imperial troops, the question of the provincial liberties was
referred to the definite peace, the Queen and the French King
promising at that time to interpose their good offices to
secure them. The Emperor, who was bound to the Catalans by the
strongest ties of gratitude and honour, could have easily
obtained a guarantee of their fueros at the price of an
acknowledgment of the title of Philip; but he was too proud
and too selfish for such a sacrifice. The English, it is true,
repeatedly urged the Spanish King to guarantee these
privileges, … but these were mere representations, supported
by no action, and were therefore peremptorily refused. The
English peace with Spain contained a clause granting the
Catalans a general armistice, and also a promise that they
should be placed in the same position as the Castilians, which
gave them the right of holding employments and carrying on a
direct trade with the West Indies, but it made no mention of
their provincial privileges. The Peace of Rastadt was equally
silent, for the dignity of the Emperor would not suffer him to
enter into any negotiations with Philip. The unhappy people,
abandoned by those whom they had so faithfully served, refused
to accept the position offered them by treaty, and, much to
the indignation of the English Government, they still
continued in arms, struggling with a desperate courage against
overwhelming odds. The King of Spam then called upon the
Queen, as a guarantee of the treaty of evacuation, 'to order a
squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their
obedience, and thereby complete the tranquillity of Spain and
of the Mediterranean commerce.' A fleet was actually
despatched, which would probably have been employed against
Barcelona, but for an urgent address of the House of Lords,
and the whole moral weight of England was thrown into the
scale against the insurgents. The conduct of the French was
more decided. Though the French King had engaged himself with
the Queen by the treaty of evacuation to use his good offices
in the most effectual manner in favour of the Catalan
liberties, he now sent an army to hasten the capture of
Barcelona. The blockade of that noble city lasted for more
than a year. The insurgents hung up over the high altar the
Queen's solemn declaration to protect them. They continued the
hopeless struggle till 14,000 bombs had been thrown into the
city; till a great part of it had been reduced to ashes; till
seven breaches had been made; till 10,000 of the besieging
army had been killed or wounded; and till famine had been
added to the horrors of war. At last, on September 11, 1714,
Barcelona was taken by storm. A frightful massacre took place
in the streets. Many of the inhabitants were afterwards
imprisoned or transported, and the old privileges of Catalonia
were finally abolished. Such was the last scene of this
disastrous war."
W. E. R. Lecky,
History of England, 18th century,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
C. T. Wilson,
The Duke of Berwick,
chapter 21.
{2998}
SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
Continued war with the Emperor.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
The Peace of Vienna.
The Alliance of Hanover.
"The treaty of Utrecht, although it had tranquilized a great
part of Europe, was nevertheless defective, in as far as it
had not reconciled the Emperor and the King of Spain, the two
principal claimants to the Spanish succession. The Emperor
Charles VI. did not recognize Philip V. in his quality of King
of Spain; and Philip, in his turn [instigated by his queen,
Elizabeth Farnese—see ITALY:' A. D. 1715-1735] refused to
acquiesce in those partitions of the Spanish monarchy which
the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated in favour of the Emperor.
To defeat the projects and secret intrigues of the Spanish
minister [Cardinal Alberoni], the Duke of Orleans [Regent of
France], thought of courting an alliance with England, as
being the power most particularly interested in maintaining
the treaty of Utrecht, the fundamental articles of which had
been dictated by herself. That alliance, into which the United
Provinces also entered, was concluded at the Hague (January
4th, 1717). … Cardinal Alberoni, without being in the least
disconcerted by the Triple Alliance, persisted in his design
of recommencing the war. No sooner had he recruited the
Spanish forces, and equipped an expedition, than he attacked
Sardinia [1717], which he took from the Emperor. This conquest
was followed by that of Sicily, which the Spaniards took from
the Duke of Savoy (1718). France and England, indignant at the
infraction of a treaty which they regarded as their own work,
immediately concluded with the Emperor, at London (August 2nd,
1718) the famous Quadruple Alliance, which contained the plan
of a treaty of peace, to be made between the Emperor, the King
of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. The allied powers engaged to
obtain the consent of the parties interested in this proposal,
and, in case of refusal, to compel them by force of arms. The
Emperor was to renounce his right to the Spanish crown, and to
acknowledge Philip V. as the legitimate King of Spain, in
consideration of that prince renouncing the provinces of Italy
and the Netherlands, which the treaty of Utrecht and the
quadruple alliance adjudged to the Emperor. The Duke of Savoy
was to cede Sicily to Austria, receiving Sardinia in exchange,
which the King of Spam was to disclaim. The right of reversion
to the crown of Spain was transferred from Sicily to Sardinia.
That treaty likewise granted to Don Carlos, eldest son of
Philip V., by his second marriage, the eventual reversion and
investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, as well as
the grand duchy of Tuscany, on condition of holding them as
fiefs-male of the Emperor and the Empire after the decease of
the last male issue of the families of Farnese and Medici, who
were then in possession. …. The Duke of Savoy did not hesitate
to subscribe the conditions of the quadruple alliance; but it
was otherwise with the King of Spain, who persisted in his
refusal; when France and England declared war against him. The
French invaded the provinces of Guipuscoa and Catalonia [under
Berwick, A. D. 1710], while the English seized Gallicia and
the port of Vigo. These vigorous proceedings shook the
resolutions of the King of Spain. He signed the quadruple
alliance, and banished the Cardinal Alberoni from his court,
the adviser of those measures of which the allies complained.
The Spanish troops then evacuated Sicily and Sardinia, when
the Emperor took possession of the former and Victor Amadeus,
Duke of Savoy, of the latter. The war to all appearance was at
an end." But fresh difficulties arose, one following another.
The reversion of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, promised to
the Infant of Spain, was stoutly opposed in Italy. The Emperor
provoked commercial jealousies in England and Holland by
chartering a Company of Ostend (1722) with exclusive
privileges of trading to the East and West Indies and the
coasts of Africa. An attempted congress at Cambrai was long
retarded and finally broken up. Meantime the French court gave
mortal offense to the King of Spain by sending home his
daughter, who had been the intended bride of the young King
Louis XV., and marrying the latter to a Polish princess. The
final result was to draw the Emperor and the King of Spain—
the two original enemies in the embroilment—together, and a
treaty between them was concluded at Vienna, April 30, 1725.
"This treaty renewed the renunciation of Philip V. to the
provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, as well as that of the
Emperor to Spain and the Indies. The eventual investiture of
the duchies of Parma and Placentia, and that of the grand
duchy of Tuscany, were also confirmed. The only new clause
contained in the treaty was that by which the King of Spain
undertook to guarantee the famous Pragmatic Sanction of
Charles VI., which secured to the daughter of that prince the
succession of all his estates. It was chiefly on this account
that Philip V. became reconciled to the court of Vienna. The
peace of Vienna was accompanied by a defensive alliance
between the Emperor and the King of Spain." The terms of the
alliance were such as to alarm England for the security of her
hold on Gibraltar and Minorca, and Holland for her commerce,
besides giving uneasiness to France. By the action of the
latter, a league was set on foot "capable of counteracting
that of Vienna, which was concluded at Herrenhausen, near
Hanover, (September 3, 1725) and is known by the name of the
Alliance of Hanover. All Europe was divided between these two
alliances."
C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe, period 8.
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
volume 1, chapters 7-10.
G. P. R. James,
Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
volume 4: Alberoni.
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 22-30.
E. Armstrong,
Elisabeth Farnese. "The Termagant of Spain."
chapters 2-10.
SPAIN: A. D. 1714.
The Peace of Utrecht.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.
SPAIN: A. D. 1725-1740.
The Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.
SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
Fresh quarrels with England.
Siege of Gibraltar.
Treaty of Seville.
Second Treaty of Vienna.
Acquisition of the Italian Duchies.
"All Europe became divided between the alliances of Vienna and
Hanover; and though both sides pretended that these treaties
were only defensive, yet each made extensive preparations for
war. George I. entered into a treaty with the Landgrave of
Hesse Cassel for the supply of 12,000 men; manifests were
published, ambassadors withdrawn, armies put on foot; the sea
was covered with English fleets; an English squadron under
Admiral Hosier annoyed the trade of Spain; and in February
1727, the Spaniards laid siege to Gibraltar, and seized at
Vera Cruz a richly laden merchant vessel belonging to the
English South Sea Company. But all these vast preparations led
to no results of importance. Of all the European Powers, Spain
alone had any real desire for war. …
{2999}
The preliminaries of a general pacification were signed at
Paris, May 31st 1727, by the ministers of the Emperor, France,
Great Britain, and Holland, and a Congress was appointed to
assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle to arrange a definitive peace. But
Spain still held aloof and sought every opportunity to
temporise. The hopes of Philip being again awakened by the
death of George I. in July 1727, he renewed his intrigues with
the Jacobites, and instigated the Pretender to proceed to a
port in the Low Countries, and to seize an opportunity to pass
over into England. But these unfounded expectations were soon
dispelled by the quiet accession of George II. to the throne
and policy of his father. … The Spanish Queen [Elizabeth
Farnese], however, still held out; till, alarmed by the
dangerous state of Philip's health, whose death might
frustrate her favourite scheme of obtaining the Italian
duchies, and leave her a mere cypher without any political
influence, she induced her husband to accept the preliminaries
by the Act of the Pardo, March 6th 1728. A congress was now
opened at Soissons, to which place it had been transferred for
the convenience of Fleury [French minister], who was bishop of
that diocese. But though little remained to be arranged except
the satisfaction of Spain in the matter of the Italian
duchies, the negociations were tedious and protracted." In the
end they "became a mere farce, and the various
plenipotentiaries gradually withdrew from the Congress.
Meanwhile the birth of a Dauphin (September 4th 1729) having
dissipated the hopes of Philip V. and his Queen as to the
French succession, Elizabeth devoted herself all the more
warmly to the prosecution of her Italian schemes; and finding
all her efforts to separate France and England unavailing, she
at length determined to accept what they offered. … She
persuaded Philip to enter into a separate treaty with France
and England, which was concluded at Seville, November 9th
1729. England and Spain arranged their commercial and other
differences; the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian
duchies was guaranteed; and it was agreed that Leghorn, Porto
Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza should be garrisoned by 6,000
Spaniards, who, however, were not to interfere with the civil
government. Nothing more was said about Gibraltar. Philip,
indeed, seemed now to have abandoned all hope of recovering
that fortress; for he soon afterwards caused to be constructed
across the isthmus the strong lines of San Roque, and thus
completely isolated Gibraltar from his Spanish dominions. The
Dutch acceded to the Treaty of Seville shortly after its
execution, on the understanding that they should receive
entire satisfaction respecting the India Company established
by the Emperor at Ostend. Charles VI. was indignant at being
thus treated by Spain. … On the death of Antonio Farnese, Duke
of Parma, January 10th 1731, he took military possession of
that state. … The versatility of the cabinets of that age,
however, enabled the Emperor to attain his favourite object at
a moment when he least expected it. The Queen of Spain,
wearied with the slowness of Cardinal Fleury in carrying out
the provisions of the Treaty of Seville, suddenly declared, in
a fit of passion, that Spain was no longer bound by that
treaty (January 1731). Great Britain and the Dutch States, in
concert with the Spanish Court, without the concurrence of
France, now entered into negociations with the Emperor, which
were skilfully conducted by Lord Waldegrave, to induce him to
accede to the Treaty of Seville; and, on March 16th 1731, was
concluded what has been called the Second Treaty of Vienna.
Great Britain and the States guaranteed the Pragmatic
Sanction; and the Emperor, on his side, acceded to the
provisions of Seville respecting the Italian duchies, and
agreed to annihilate the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands
with the Indies by abolishing the obnoxious Ostend Company. He
also engaged not to bestow his daughter on a Bourbon prince,
or in any other way that might endanger the balance of power
in Europe. … In the following November an English squadron
disembarked at Leghorn 6,000 Spaniards, who took possession of
that place, as well as Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza, in
the name of Don Carlos, as Duke of Parma and presumptive heir
of Tuscany."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 1 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 14-15 (volume 2).
W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 88 (volume 3).
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 36-40 (volume 3).
E. Armstrong,
Elisabeth Farnese, "The Termagant of Spain,"
chapters 11-14.
SPAIN: A. D. 1733.
The First Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
SPAIN: A. D. 1734-1735.
Acquisition of Naples and Sicily,
as a kingdom for Don Carlos.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
SPAIN: A. D. 1739.
Outbreak of hostilities with England.
The War of Jenkins' Ear.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
SPAIN: A. D. 1740.
Unsuccessful attack of the English on Florida.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
SPAIN: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
SPAIN: A. D. 1741-1747.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Operations in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747.
SPAIN: A. D. 1743.
The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
Arrangements concerning Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1746.
Accession of Ferdinand VI.
SPAIN: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the
War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
SPAIN: A. D. 1759.

Accession of Charles III.
SPAIN: A. D. 1761-1762.
The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
England declares War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
SPAIN: A. D. 1762-1763.
Havana lost and recovered.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
SPAIN: A. D. 1763.
End and results of the Seven Years War.
Florida ceded to Great Britain.
Louisiana acquired from France.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
SPAIN: A. D. 1766-1769.
Occupation of Louisiana.
The revolt of New Orleans and its suppression.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.
SPAIN: A. D. 1767.
Suppression of the order of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1782.
The unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
{3000}
SPAIN: A. D. 1782.
Aims and interests in the settlement of peace between
Great Britain and the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1783-1800.
The question of Florida boundaries and of the navigation
of the Mississippi, in dispute with the United States.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
SPAIN: A. D. 1788.
Accession of Charles IV.
SPAIN: A. D. 1791-1793.
The Coalition against revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1793.
Successes on the French frontier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
SPAIN: A. D. 1794.
French successes in the Pyrenees.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
SPAIN: A. D. 1795.
Peace and alliance with the French Republic.
Cession of Spanish San Domingo.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
Naval defeat by the English off Cape St. Vincent.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
Cession of western part of Hayti, or San Domingo, to France.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
SPAIN: A. D. 1801.
Re-cession of Louisiana to France.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
SPAIN: A. D. 1802.
The Peace of Amiens.
Recovery of Minorca and Port Mahon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
SPAIN: A. D. 1805.
The naval defeat at Trafalgar.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's plots for the theft of the Spanish crown.
The popular rising.
Accession of Ferdinand VII.
"For more than ten years Spain had been drawn in the wake of
revolutionary France. To Napoleon from the beginning of his
reign she had been as subservient as Holland or Switzerland;
she had made war and peace at his bidding, had surrendered
Trinidad to make the treaty of Amiens, had given her fleet to
destruction at Trafalgar. In other states equally subservient,
such as Holland and the Italian Republic, Napoleon had
remodelled the government at his pleasure, and in the end had
put his own family at the head of it. After Tilsit he thought
himself strong enough to make a similar change in Spain, and
the occupation of Portugal seemed to afford the opportunity of
doing this. By two conventions signed at Fontainebleau on
October 27, the partition of Portugal was arranged with Spain.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
The Prince of the Peace was to become a sovereign prince of
the Algarves, the King of Spain was to have Brazil with the
title of Emperor of the two Americas, &c.; but the main
provision was that a French army was to stand on the threshold
of Spain ready to resist any intervention of England. The
occupation of Portugal took place soon after, Junot arriving
at Lisbon on November 30, just as the royal family with a
following of several thousands set sail for Brazil under
protection of the English fleet. At the same time there
commenced in defiance of all treaties a passage of French
troops into Spain, which continued until 80,000 had arrived,
and had taken quiet possession of a number of Spanish
fortresses. At last Murat was appointed to the command of the
army of Spain. He entered the country on March 1, 1808, and
marched on Madrid, calculating that the king would retire and
take refuge at Seville or Cadiz. This act revealed to the
world, and even to a large party among the French themselves,
the nature of the power which had been created at Tilsit. The
lawless acts of Napoleon's earlier life were palliated by the
name of the French Revolution, and since Brumaire he had
established a character for comparative moderation. But here
was naked violence without the excuse of fanaticism; and on
what a scale! One of the greater states of Europe was in the
hands of a burglar, who would moreover, if successful, become
king not only of Spain but of a boundless empire in the New
World. The sequel was worse even than this commencement,
although the course which events took seems to show that by
means of a little delay he might have attained his end without
such open defiance of law. The administration of Spain had
long been in the contemptible hands of Manuel Godoy, supposed
to be the queen's lover, yet at the same time high in the
favor of King Charles IV. Ferdinand, the heir apparent, headed
an opposition, but in character he was not better than the
trio he opposed, and he had lately been put under arrest on
suspicion of designs upon his father's life. To have fomented
this opposition without taking either side, and to have
rendered both sides equally contemptible to the Spanish
people, was Napoleon's game. The Spanish people, who
profoundly admired him, might then have been induced to ask
him for a king. Napoleon, however, perpetrated his crime
before the scandal of the palace broke out. The march of Murat
now brought it to a head. On March 17 a tumult broke out at
Aranjuez, which led to the fall of the favourite, and then to
the abdication of the king, and the proclamation of Ferdinand
amid universal truly Spanish enthusiasm. It was a fatal
mistake to have forced on this popular explosion, and Napoleon
has characteristically tried to conceal it by a supposititious
letter, dated March 29, in which he tries to throw the blame
upon Murat, to whom the letter professes to be addressed. It
warns Murat against rousing Spanish patriotism and creating an
opposition of the nobles and clergy, which will lead to a
'levée en masse,' and to a war without end. It predicts, in
short, all that took place, but it has every mark of
invention, and was certainly never received by Murat. The
reign of Ferdinand having thus begun, all that the French
could do was to abstain from acknowledging him, and to
encourage Charles to withdraw his abdication as given under
duress. By this means it became doubtful who was king of
Spain, and Napoleon, having carefully refrained from taking a
side, now presented himself as arbiter. Ferdinand was induced
to betake himself to Napoleon's presence at Bayonne, where he
arrived on April 21; his father and mother followed on the
30th. Violent scenes took place between father and son: news
arrived of an insurrection at Madrid and of the stern
suppression of it by Murat. In the end Napoleon succeeded in
extorting the abdication both of Charles and Ferdinand. It was
learned too late that the insurrection of Spain had not really
been suppressed.
{3001}
This crime, as clumsy as it was monstrous, brought on that
great popular insurrection of Europe against the universal
monarchy, which has profoundly modified all subsequent
history, and makes the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution an event of
the same order as the French Revolution. A rising unparalleled
for its suddenness and sublime spontaneousness took place
throughout Spain and speedily found a response in Germany. A
new impulse was given, out of which grew the great nationality
movement of the nineteenth century."
J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon I.,
chapter 5, lecture 1.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1800-1815,
chapter 52 (volume 11).
R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapters 2-5 (volume 1).
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapter 32.
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapters 4 and 6-8.
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (May-September).
The stolen crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte.
National revolt.
Organization of Juntas and planning of guerilla war.
French reverses.
Quick flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
Arrival of English forces to aid the people.
"Murat was disappointed of the crown of Spain, on which he had
fixed his hopes. It had been refused with surprise and
indignation by Napoleon's brother Louis, who wore reluctantly
even that of Holland, but was unwilling to exchange it for a
still deeper royal servitude. Joseph Bonaparte, however,
consented to abandon his more tranquil throne of Naples for
the dangers and discontents which surrounded that of Spain.
Napoleon, who had nominated him to it June 6th, was desirous
of procuring at least the apparent consent of the Spanish
nation. The Council of Castile, the chief political body of
Spain, when informed of the Treaties of Bayonne, was at last
induced to give a cold and reluctant assent to the accession
of Joseph. Its example was followed by the Supreme Junta and
the municipality of Madrid. There was, indeed, no alternative
but war. Ferdinand displayed on the occasion all the baseness
of his soul in its true colours. He not only wrote to Napoleon
to express his satisfaction at the elevation of Joseph, he
even addressed a letter of congratulation to the man who had
usurped his crown! thus testifying under his own hand his
utter unworthiness to wear it. A Junta of 150 Spanish
notables, which had been summoned to Bayonne, accepted a
constitution proposed by Napoleon, July 7th, and a day or two
after Joseph left Bayonne for Madrid. He had signed on the 5th
a treaty with his brother Napoleon, by which he renounced the
crown of Naples, made, as King of Spain, a perpetual offensive
alliance with France, fixed the number of troops and ships to
be provided by each nation, and agreed to the establishment of
a commercial system. By an act called Constitutional Statute,
July 15th, the vacant throne of Naples was bestowed upon
Joachim Murat. Ferdinand had found means to despatch from
Bayonne a proclamation addressed to the Asturians, and dated
May 8th, in which he called upon them to assert their
independence and never to submit to the perfidious enemy who
had deprived him of his rights. This letter naturally made a
great impression on a proud and sensitive people; nor was its
effect diminished by another proclamation which Ferdinand and
his brothers were compelled to sign at Bordeaux, May 12th,
calling upon the Spaniards not to oppose 'the beneficent
views' of Napoleon. At this last address, evidently extorted
from a prisoner, a general cry of indignation arose in Spain;
the people everywhere flew to arms, except where prevented by
the presence of French troops. The city of Valencia renounced
its obedience to the Government of Madrid, May 23rd; Seville
followed its example; and on the 27th, Joseph Palafox
organised at Saragossa the insurrection of Aragon. As these
insurrections were accompanied with frightful massacres,
principally of persons who had held high civil or military
posts under Charles IV., the better classes, to put an end to
these horrible scenes, established central Juntas in the
principal towns. … They proposed not to meet the enemy in
pitched battles in the open field, but to harass, wear out,
and overcome him by 'guerilla,' or the discursive and
incessant attacks of separate small bands. The Supreme Junta
issued instructions for conducting this mode of warfare.
Andalusia was better fitted for organising the revolt, if such
it can be called, than any other province of Spain. Its
population formed one-fifth of the whole nation, it possessed
the sole cannon-foundry in the kingdom, it contained half the
disposable Spanish army, and it could receive assistance from
the English both by means of Gibraltar and of Collingwood's
fleet that was cruising on the coast. One of the first feats
of arms of the Spaniards was to compel the surrender of five
French ships of the line and a frigate, which had remained in
the port of Cadiz ever since the battle of Trafalgar (June
14th). Marshal Moncey was repulsed towards the end of June in
an advance upon Valencia, and compelled to retreat upon Madrid
with a loss of one-third of his men. In the north-west the
Spaniards were less fortunate. Cuesta, with a corps of 25,000
men, was defeated by Marshal Bessières, July 14th, at Medina
del Rio Seco. The consequence of this victory was the
temporary submission of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora,
and Salamanca to the French. But this misfortune was more than
counterbalanced by the victory of General Castaños over the
French in Andalusia, a few days after. Generals Dupont and
Vedel had advanced into that province as far as Cordova, but
they were defeated by Castaños with the army of Andalusia at
Baylen, July 20th. On this occasion, the commencement of the
French reverses in Spain, 18,000 French soldiers laid down
their arms. Joseph Bonaparte found it prudent to leave Madrid
August 1st, which he had only entered on the day of the
battle, and fly to Burgos. This important victory not only
inspired the Spaniards with confidence, but also caused them
to be regarded in Europe as a substantive Power. On the day
after the battle Castaños issued a proclamation which does him
great honour. He invoked the Spaniards to show humanity
towards the French prisoners of war, and threatened to shoot
those who should maltreat them. Such, however, was the
exasperation of the people against their invaders, that
numbers of the French were massacred on their route to Cadiz
for embarkation, and the remainder were treated with barbarous
inhumanity. These cruelties had, however, been provoked by the
atrocities of the French at the capture and sack of Cordova.
The campaign in Aragon was still more glorious for the
Spaniards.
{3002}
Palafox, whether or not he was the poltroon described by
Napier, had at all events the merit of organising, out of
almost nothing, the means by which the French were repulsed in
several desperate assaults upon Saragossa, and at length
compelled to retreat after a siege of some weeks (August
14th). The patriot cause was soon after strengthened by the
arrival at Corunna of General La Romana, with 7,000 of his men
from Denmark (September 20th). Keats, the English admiral in
the Baltic, had in·formed him of the rising of his countrymen
and provided him the means to transport his troops from
Nyborg. The English Government, soon after the breaking out of
the insurrection, had proclaimed a peace with the Spanish
nation (July 4th 1808), and had prepared to assist them in
their heroic struggle. The example of Spain had also
encouraged the Portuguese to throw off the insufferable yoke
of the French. A Junta was established at Oporto, June 6th,
and an insurrection was organised in all parts of the kingdom
where the French forces were not predominant. Sir Arthur
Wellesley, with about 10,000 British troops, landed at Mondego
Bay, July 31st."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
T. Hamilton,
Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
volume 1, chapters 4-10.
Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 12 (volume 2).
General Foy,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
volume 2, part 1.
Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapters 23-28.
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (September-December).
Napoleon's overwhelming campaign against the Spanish armies.
Joseph reinstated at Madrid.
The French disasters in the Peninsula shook the belief in
Napoleon's invincibility which had prevailed throughout the
Continent, and the Emperor saw that he must crush the
Spaniards at once, before the English could advance from the
fortified base they had acquired on the flank of the Spanish
plains. To secure his power on the side of Germany, he had a
prolonged interview with the Czar at Erfurt. … On the 14th
October the two Emperors parted; and at the end of the month
Napoleon set out from Paris for Bayonne, and continued his
journey to Vitoria. In September the French had evacuated
Tudela and Burgos, and had been driven from Bilbao by General
Joachim Blake vast reinforcements had been poured across the Pyrenees, that
the French armies in Spain now numbered 250,000 men, and of
these 180,000 were drawn up behind the Ebro. On the last day
of October Lefevre re-took Bilbao; and Blake, after a defeat
at Tornosa, fell back upon Espinosa, where Napoleon, upon his
arrival, directed Marshal Victor … and Lefevre to assail him
with 40,000 men. The Spaniards, though numbering only 25,000,
held their ground till the morning of the second day's
fighting (11th November). With one part of the fugitives Blake
made a stand at Reynosa on the 13th against Marshal Soult, who
had achieved a victory over Belvedere at Burgos on the 10th;
but they were again broken, and fled to the mountains of the
Cantabrian chain. With the other part of the fugitives, about
10,000, the Marquis of La Romana made his way into Leon.
Castaños and Palafox had a united force of 43,000 men and 40
guns; but they were wrangling over their plans when Marshal
Lannes, the intrepid Duke of Montebello, … appeared with
35,000 men, and broke their centre at Tudela. But on the
Spanish left, the troops who had conquered at Baylen not only
maintained their ground with obstinacy, but drove back the
French. At length they were outnumbered, and Castaños fell
back in admirable order upon Madrid through Calatayud. The
right, under Palafox, retired in disorder to Saragossa; and
now the road to Madrid was blocked only by General San Juan
with 12,000 men, who had entrenched the Somo Sierra Pass. But
this post also was carried on the 30th November by the Polish
lancers of the Imperial Guard, who rode up and speared the
artillerymen at their guns. Aranjuez was at once abandoned by
the central Junta, and on the 2nd December the French vanguard
appeared on the heights north of Madrid. The capital became at
once a scene of tumult and confusion: barricades were erected,
and the bells sounded the alarm, but no discipline was visible
in the assembling bands; and when the heights of the Retiro,
overlooking the city, were carried by the French on the
morning of the 3rd December, the authorities sent out to
arrange a surrender. On the following morning … the French
entered the city, Joseph was again installed in the palace,
where deputations waited upon him to congratulate him and
renew their professions of devoted attachment, and the city
settled down once more to tranquil submission to the
foreigner."
H. R. Clinton,
The War in the Peninsula,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
General Vane (Marquis of Londonderry),
Story of the Peninsular War,
chapter 8.
SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (August-January).
Wellington's first campaign.
Convention of Cintra.
Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
Napoleon in the field.
Sir John Moore's advance into Spain.
His retreat.
His repulse of Soult at Corunna.
His death.
"Sir Arthur Wellesley's division comprised 9,000 men. Another
corps, under Sir John Moore, which had just arrived from the
Baltic, numbered 11,000 men. These two detachments were to
co-operate. But their united efforts were to be directed by
Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, two generals whose
exploits were better known in the private records of the Horse
Guards than in the annals of their country. … Sir Arthur
Wellesley landed his troops at Figuiera, a difficult task on
an iron coast. On the 7th of August, major-general Spencer's
corps joined the army. With 10,000 British and 5,000
Portuguese, Sir Arthur Wellesley then prepared to march
towards Lisbon. On the 17th he defeated at Roliça the French
under Laborde. On the 20th he was at Vimiero, having been
joined by General Anstruther and General Acland with their
corps. He had now an army of 17,000 men. Junot had joined
Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras, and their united force
was about 14,000 men, of whom 1,600 were cavalry. Early in the
morning of the 21st, the French attacked the British in their
position. Sir Harry Burrard had arrived on the night of the
20th, but did not land. The principal attack on the British
was on the centre and left; the sea being in their rear. The
attack was repulsed. Kellermann then attacked with the French
reserve, and he also was driven back. Junot's left wing and
centre were discomfited. The road of Torres Vedras, the
shortest road to Lisbon, was uncovered. When the action was
nearly over, Sir Harry Burrard had landed. In a private
letter, Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, 'The French got a terrible
beating on the 21st.
{3003}
They did not lose less, I believe, than 4,000 men, and they
would have been entirely destroyed, if Sir H. Burrard had not
prevented me from pursuing them. Indeed, since the arrival of
the great generals, we appear to have been palsied, and
everything has gone on wrong.' Sir John Moore arrived with his
corps on the 21st, and his troops were nearly all landed when
hostilities were suspended by the Convention of Cintra for the
evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir Arthur writes to
Lord Castlereagh, 'Although my name is affixed to this
instrument, I beg that you will not believe that I negotiated
it, that I approve of it, or that I had any hand in wording
it.' On the 5th of September, he writes, 'It is quite
impossible for me to continue any longer with this army; and I
wish, therefore, that you would allow me to return home and
resume the duties of my office.' Dalrymple, Burrard, and
Wellesley were all recalled home. Sir John Moore remained at
Lisbon, having been appointed to command the army. A Court of
Inquiry was ordered on the subject of 'the late transactions
in Portugal.' Wellesley had to bear much before the publicity
of those proceedings was to set him right in public opinion.
The Inquiry ended in a formal disapprobation of the armistice
and convention on the part of the king being communicated to
Sir How Dalrymple. Neither of the two 'great generals' was
again employed. One advantage was gained by the Convention.
The Russian fleet in the Tagus was delivered up to the
British. Sir John Moore, late in October, began his march into
Spain, 'to co-operate,' as his instructions set forth, 'with
the Spanish armies in the expulsion of the French.' He was to
lead the British forces in Portugal; and to be joined by Sir
David Baird, with 10,000 men to be landed at Corunna. Instead
of finding Spanish armies to co-operate with, he learned that
the French had routed and dispersed them. Napoleon had himself
come to command his troops; and had arrived at Bayonne on the
3rd of November. Moore was separated from Baird by a wide
tract of country. He had been led by false information to
divide his own army. He remained for some time at Salamanca,
inactive and uncertain. Madrid was soon in the hands of the
French. Moore made a forward movement against the advanced
corps of Soult; and then, learning that the French armies were
gathering all around him, he determined to retreat. Sir David
Baird had previously joined him. Moore had abandoned all hopes
of defending Portugal, and had directed his march towards
Corunna. He commenced his retreat from Sahagun on the evening
of the 24th of December. During this retreat, the retiring
army constantly turned upon the pursuers, always defeating
them, and on one occasion capturing General Lefebvre. The
winter had set in with terrible severity; the sufferings of
the troops were excessive; disorganization, the common
consequence of a retreat, added to their danger. Moore saved
his army from destruction by an overwhelming force when he
carried it across the Esla, effectually destroying the bridge
by which they passed the swollen stream. But Moore could not
save his men from their own excesses, which made enemies of
the inhabitants of every place through which they passed. At
Lugo, on the 7th of January, 1809, the British general halted
his exhausted troops, determined to give battle to Soult, to
whom Napoleon had given up the pursuit of the English army,
having received despatches which indicated that war with
Austria was close at hand. Soult declined the conflict; and on
the British marched to Corunna. On the 11th, when they had
ascended the heights from which Corunna was visible, there
were no transports in the bay. The troops met with a kind
reception in the town; and their general applied himself to
make his position as strong as possible, to resist the enemy
that was approaching. On the evening of the 14th the
transports arrived. The sick and wounded were got on board;
and a great part of the artillery. Fourteen thousand British
remained to fight, if their embarkation were molested. The
battle of Corunna began at two o'clock on the 16th of January.
Soult had 20,000 veterans, with numerous field-guns; and he
had planted a formidable battery on the rocks, commanding the
valley and the lower ridge of hills. Columns of French
infantry descended from the higher ridge; and there was soon a
close trial of strength between the combatants. From the lower
ridge Moore beheld the 42nd and 50th driving the enemy before
them through the village of Elvina. He sent a battalion of the
guards to support them; but through a misconception the 42nd
retired. Moore immediately dashed into the fight; exclaimed
'Forty-second, remember Egypt,' and sent them back to the
village. The British held their ground or drove off their
assailants; and victory was certain under the skilful
direction of the heroic commander, when he was dashed to the
earth by a shot from the rock battery. Sir David Baird, the
second in command, had also fallen. Moore was carried into
Corunna; and endured several hours of extreme torture before
he yielded up his great spirit. The command had devolved upon
General Hope, who thought that his first duty was now to
embark the troops. … When the sufferers in Moore's campaign
came home the hospitals were filled with wounded and sick; and
some of the troops brought back a pestilential fever."
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 57
(abridgment of chapter 28, volume 7,
of Popular History of England).
ALSO IN:
General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
books 2-4 (volume 1).
J. M. Wilson,
Memoirs of the Duke of Wellington,
volume 1, chapters 13-16.
Dispatches of the Duke of Wellington,
volume 4.
G. R. Gleig,
General Sir John Moore
(Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).
Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 13 (volume 2).
Duke de Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 2, part 2, chapters 2-3.
General Foy,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
volume 2, part 2.
SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (December-March).
The siege of Saragossa.
"When Moore was pursued by Napoleon, the Duke of Infantado,
who had rallied 20,000 men in New Castile after the fall of
Madrid, formed the Quixotic design of re-taking the capital.
Marshal Victor, Duke of Belluno, utterly crushed his force at
Ucles on the 13th January, 1809, where 1,500 Spaniards were
slain, and 9,000 men and all the stores and artillery were
taken. The French, in retaliation for the Spaniards having
hanged some soldiers who had been captured, murdered many of
the prisoners in cold blood, and perpetrated infamous
atrocities on the inhabitants of Ucles.
{3004}
The Spaniards, however, showed their extraordinary valour
behind walls in their second defence of Saragossa, the siege
of which [abandoned the previous August, after a fierce
struggle] was renewed by 35,000 French under Marshals Moncey
and Mortier, on the 20th December, 1808. The city was defended
by Palafox, who had retired into it after his defeat at
Tudela. The second siege of this renowned city—though the
defence eventually proved unsuccessful—crowns with everlasting
glory the Spanish War of Independence. … 'The citizens gave up
their goods, their houses, and their bodies to the war, and,
mingling with the peasants and soldiers, formed one mighty
garrison suited to the vast fortress they had formed. For
doors and windows were built up, house-fronts loopholed,
internal communications opened, streets trenched and crossed
by earthen ramparts mounted with cannon, and every strong
building was a separate fortification: there was no weak
point—there could be none in a city which was all fortress,
where the space covered by houses was the measure of the
ramparts' (Napier). All the trees outside the walls were cut
down, the houses destroyed, and the materials carried into the
town. … The public magazines were provisioned for six months,
and all the conventual communities and the inhabitants had
large private stores. Nearly 3,000 artillerymen and sappers,
and 30,000 men of the regular army, had taken refuge in the
city, and at least 20,000 citizens and fugitive peasants were
fit for arms. The popular leaders had recourse to all the aid
which superstition could give them: denunciations of the wrath
of Heaven were hurled on those who were suspected of wavering,
and the clergy readily recounted stories of miracles to
encourage the faithful. Saragossa was 'believed to be
invincible through the protection of Our Lady of the Pillar,
who had chosen it for the seat of her peculiar worship. … An
appearance in the sky, which at other times might have passed
unremembered, and perhaps unnoticed, had given strong
confirmation to the popular faith. About a month before the
commencement of the first siege, a white cloud appeared at
noon, and gradually assumed the form of a palm-tree; the sky
being in all other parts clear, except that a few specks of
fleecy cloud hovered about the larger one. It was first
observed over the church of N. Senora del Portillo, and moving
from thence till it seemed to be immediately above that of the
pillar, continued in the same form about half an hour, and
then dispersed. The inhabitants were in a state of such
excitement that crowds joined in the acclamation of the first
beholder, who cried out, "A miracle!"—and after the defeat of
the besiegers had confirmed the omen, a miracle it was
universally pronounced to have been, the people proclaiming
with exultation that the Virgin had by this token prefigured
the victory she had given them, and promised Zaragoza her
protection as long as the world should endure' (Southey). … At
daybreak on the 21st December, General Suchet carried the
works on the Monte Torrero; but Count Gazan de la Peyrière—a
general highly distinguished in the Swiss and Italian
campaigns—failed in his attack upon the suburbs on the left
bank of the Ebro, and the confidence of the Spaniards in their
leaders was restored. Three days later the town was completely
invested, the siege operations being directed by General La
Coste. On the 30th December, the trenches being completed, the
town was summoned to surrender, and the example of Madrid was
referred to; but Palafox replied proudly, 'If Madrid has
surrendered, Madrid has been sold: Saragossa will neither be
sold nor surrendered.' Marshal Moncey being recalled to
Madrid, Junot took command of his corps. The besieged
attempted several sallies, which were repulsed; and after a
heavy bombardment, the St. Joseph convent was carried by the
French on the 11th January, 1809. The Spanish leaders
maintained the courage of their countrymen by proclaiming a
forged despatch narrating the defeat of Napoleon. The
guerrilla bands began to gather in round the French, and their
condition was becoming perilous. But the command had now been
taken by the invincible Marshal Lannes, Duke of Montebello
(who had been detained by a long illness); the approaches were
steadily pushed on, the breaches in the walls became wider,
and on the 29th the French rushed forward and took possession
of the ramparts. 'Thus the walls of Zaragoza went to the
ground; but Zaragoza remained erect, and as the broken girdle
fell from the heroic city, the besiegers started at her naked
strength. The regular defences had crumbled, but the popular
resistance was instantly called with all its terrors into
action; and as if fortune had resolved to mark the exact
moment when the ordinary calculations of science should cease,
the chief engineers on both sides [La Coste and San Genis]
were simultaneously slain' (Napier). … The Junta was in no
degree cowed: they resolved on resistance to the last
extremity, and a row of gibbets was raised for any who should
dare to propose surrender. Additional barricades were
constructed, and alarm-bells were rung to summon the citizens
to the threatened points. As each house was in itself a fort
which had to be separately attacked, mining now was had
recourse to. In this art the skill of the French was
unquestioned, and room after room and house after house was
carried. But still the constancy of the besieged was unshaken,
and the French soldiers began to murmur at their excessive
toil. From so many of the women and children being huddled
together in the cellars of the city, for safety from the
shells and cannon-balls, a pestilence arose, and slowly spread
from the besieged to the besiegers. 'The strong and the weak,
the daring soldier and the shrinking child, fell before it
alike; and such was the predisposition to disease, that the
slightest wound gangrened and became incurable. In the
beginning of February the daily deaths were from four to five
hundred;—the living were unable to bury the dead; and
thousands of carcases, scattered about the streets and
courtyards, or piled in heaps at the doors of the churches,
were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up
by the flames of burning houses as the defence became
concentrated' (Napier). On the 18th February a great assault
took place, and so much of the town was carried that further
resistance was hopeless. Terms of capitulation were offered by
the besieged, but were rejected by Lannes, and on the 19th the
heavy guns opened from the batteries on the left bank of the
Ebro, to sweep the houses on the quays. On the 20th, when all
the great leaders were dead or prostrated with fever, and none
but the soldier-priest Ric remained to lead the diminished
and of heroes, Saragossa surrendered,—at discretion, according
to the French: on honourable terms, according to the
Spaniards.
{3005}
Such was the close of one of the most heroic defences in the
history of the world. If any conditions were really accepted,
they were ill observed by the victors: the churches were
plundered, and many of the clergy and monks were put to death.
… The other strongholds in Aragon, one after another,
surrendered to the French before the end of March. In
Catalonia the French, under General Gouvion St. Cyr, had met
with equal success. With 30,000 men St. Cyr had taken Rosas
after a month's siege—which was prolonged by the presence of
that brilliant naval commander, Lord Cochrane (afterwards Earl
of Dundonald), with an English frigate in the harbour—in
December, 1808, had routed Reding at Cardadeu, had relieved
Barcelona (where General Duhesme was shut up with 8,000
Frenchmen), and had again, on the 21st December, routed Reding
at Molinos del Hey, where all the Spanish stores, including
30,000 muskets from England, were taken. In the spring of 1809
Reding made another attempt to achieve the independence of the
north-east, and moved to relieve Saragossa; but on the 17th
February he was met by St. Cyr at Igualada, where Reding
himself was killed and his army was dispersed. The siege of
Gerona alone in the north-east of Spain remained to be
undertaken."
H. R. Clinton,
The War in the Peninsula,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
C. M. Yonge,
Book of Golden Deeds,
page 365.
R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapter 18 (volume 3).
Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 5, chapters 2-3 (volume 1).
Baron de Marbot,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapter 40.
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-June).
The war in Aragon.
Siege of Gerona.
"This decisive victory [of Igualada] terminated the regular
war in Catalonia; and St. Cyr, retiring to Vich, commenced
preparations for the siege of Gerona. The undertaking was for
some time delayed by the discord of St. Cyr and Verdier; but
in the beginning of May they appeared before the town, and on
the 1st of June the investment was completed. But the prowess
of the Spaniards nowhere appeared to greater advantage than in
the defence of their walled towns: it was not till 12th
August, after 37 days of open trenches, and two unsuccessful
assaults, that the French possessed themselves of the fort of
Monjuich, which commands the town: yet the gallant governor,
Alvarez, still held out, and the safe arrival of a convoy sent
by Blake reanimated the spirit of the garrison. The grand
assault of the lower town was given (September 17); but the
French were repulsed from the breach with the loss of 1,600
men; and St. Cyr, despairing of carrying the place by force,
converted the siege into a blockade. The capture of three
successive convoys, sent by Blake for their relief, reduced
the besieged at last to extremity; famine and pestilence
devastated the city; but it was not till the inhabitants were
reduced to the necessity of eating hair that the place was
yielded (December 12) to Augereau, who had superseded St. Cyr
in the command. A more memorable resistance is not on record;
but the heroic Alvarez, to the eternal disgrace of Augereau,
was immured in a dungeon at Figueras, where he soon afterwards
died. Junot, in the mean time, had been taken ill, and was
succeeded in the command in Aragon by Suchet, a young general
whose talents and success gave him a brilliant career in the
later years of the empire. His first essay, however, was
unfortunate; for the indefatigable Blake, encouraged by the
retreat of St. Cyr towards the Pyrenees, had again advanced
with 12,000 men; and an action ensued (May 23) at Alcaniz, in
which the French, seized with a panic, fled in confusion from
the field. This unwonted success emboldened Blake to approach
Saragossa; but the discipline and manœuvres of the French
asserted their wonted superiority in the plains; the Spaniards
were routed close to Saragossa (June 16), and more decisively
at Belchite the next day. The army of Blake was entirely
dispersed; and all regular resistance ceased in Aragon, as it
had done in Catalonia, after the fall of Gerona."
Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 566-567.
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
Wellington again in the English command.
The French advance into Portugal checked.
Passage of the Douro by the English.
Battle of Talavera.
"Napoleon, before Moore's corps had actually left Corunna,
conceived the war at an end, and, in issuing instructions to
his marshals, anticipated, with no unreasonable confidence,
the complete subjugation of the Peninsula. Excepting, indeed,
some isolated districts in the east, the only parts now in
possession of the Spaniards or their allies were Andalusia,
which had been saved by the precipitate recall of Napoleon to
the north; and Portugal, which, still in arms against the
French, was nominally occupied by a British corps of 10,000
men, left there under Sir John Cradock at the time of General
Moore's departure with the bulk of the army for Spain. The
proceedings of the French marshals for the recovery of the
entire Peninsula were speedily arranged. Lannes took the
direction of the siege of Saragossa, where the Spaniards,
fighting as usual with admirable constancy from behind stone
walls, were holding two French corps at bay. Lefebvre drove
one Spanish army into the recesses of the Sierra Morena, and
Victor chased another into the fastnesses of Murcia. Meantime
Soult, after recoiling awhile from the dying blows of Moore,
had promptly occupied Gallicia upon the departure of the
English, and was preparing to cross the Portuguese frontier on
his work of conquest. In aid of this design it was concerted
that while the last-named marshal advanced from the north,
Victor, by way of Elvas, and Lapisse by way of Almeida, should
converge together upon Portugal, and that when the English at
Lisbon had been driven to their ships the several corps should
unite for the final subjugation of the Peninsula by the
occupation of Andalusia. Accordingly, leaving Ney to maintain
the ground already won, Soult descended with 30,000 men upon
the Douro, and by the end of March was in secure possession of
Oporto. Had he continued his advance, it is not impossible
that the campaign might have had the termination he desired;
but at this point he waited for intelligence of the English in
his front and of Victor and Lapisse on his flank. His caution
saved Portugal, for, while he still hesitated on the brink of
the Douro, there again arrived in the Tagus that renowned
commander before whose genius the fortunes not only of the
marshals, but of their imperial master, were finally to fail.
England was now at the commencement of her greatest war.
{3006}
The system of small expeditions and insignificant diversions,
though not yet conclusively abandoned, was soon superseded by
the glories of a visible contest: and in a short time it was
known and felt by a great majority of the nation, that on the
field of the Peninsula England was fairly pitted against
France. … At the commencement of the year 1809, when the
prospects of Spanish independence were at their very gloomiest
point, the British Cabinet had proposed and concluded a
comprehensive treaty of alliance with the Provisional
Administration of Spain; and it was now resolved that the
contest in the Peninsula should be continued on a scale more
effectual than before, and that the principal, instead of the
secondary, part should be borne by England. … England’s
colonial requirements left her little to show against the
myriads of the continent. It was calculated at the time that
60,000 British soldiers might have been made disposable for
the Peninsular service, but at no period of the war was such a
force ever actually collected under the standards of
Wellington, while Napoleon could maintain his 300,000 warriors
in Spain, without materially disabling the arms of the Empire
on the Danube or the Rhine. We had allies, it is true, in the
troops of the country; but these at first were little better
than refractory recruits, requiring all the accessories of
discipline, equipment, and organisation; jealous of all
foreigners, even as friends, and not unreasonably suspicious
of supporters who could always find in their ships a refuge
which was denied to themselves. But above all these
difficulties was that arising from the inexperience of the
Government in continental warfare. … When, however, with these
ambiguous prospects, the Government did at length resolve on
the systematic prosecution of the Peninsular war, the eyes of
the nation were at once instinctively turned on Sir Arthur
Wellesley as the general to conduct it. … He stoutly declared
his opinion that Portugal was tenable against the French, even
if actual possessors of Spain, and that it offered ample
opportunities of influencing the great result of the war. With
these views he recommended that the Portuguese army should be
organised at its full strength; that it should be in part
taken into British pay and under the direction of British
officers, and that a force of not less than 30,000 English
troops should be despatched to keep this army together. … Such
was the prestige already attached to Wellesley’s name that his
arrival in the Tagus changed every feature of the scene. No
longer suspicious of our intentions, the Portuguese Government
gave prompt effect to the suggestions of the English
commander. … The command-in-chief of the native army was
intrusted to an English officer of great distinction, General
Beresford; and no time was lost in once more testing the
efficacy of the British arms. … Of the Spanish armies we need
only say that they had been repeatedly routed with invariable
certainty and more or less disgrace, though Cuesta still held
a nominal force together in the valley of the Tagus. There
were, therefore, two courses open to the British commander:
—either to repel the menaced advance of Soult by marching on
Oporto, or to effect a junction with Cuesta, and try the
result of a demonstration against Madrid. The latter of these
plans was wisely postponed for the moment, and, preference
having been decisively given to the former, the troops, at
once commenced their march upon the Douro. The British force
under Sir Arthur Wellesley’s command amounted at this time to
about 20,000 men, to which about 15,000 Portuguese, in a
respectable state of organisation, were added by the exertions
of Beresford. Of these about 24,000 were now led against
Soult, who, though not inferior in strength, no sooner
ascertained the advance of the English commander, than he
arranged for a retreat by detaching Loison with 6,000 men to
dislodge a Portuguese post from his left rear. Sir Arthur’s
intention was to envelope, if possible, the French corps by
pushing forward a strong force upon its left, and thus
intercepting its retreat toward Ney’s position, while the main
body assaulted Soult in his quarters at Oporto. The former of
these operations he intrusted to Beresford, the latter he
directed in person. On the 12th of May the troops reached the
southern bank of the Douro; the waters of’ which, 800 yards in
width, rolled between them and their adversaries. … Availing
himself of' a point where the river by a bend in its course
was not easily visible from the town, Sir Arthur determined on
transporting, if possible, a few troops to the northern bank,
and occupying an unfinished stone building, which he perceived
was capable of affording temporary cover. The means were soon
supplied by the activity of Colonel Waters—an officer whose
habitual audacity rendered him one of the heroes of this
memorable war. Crossing in a skiff to the opposite bank, he
returned with two or three boats, and in a few minutes a
company of the Buffs was established in the building.
Reinforcements quickly followed, but not without discovery.
The alarm was given, and presently the edifice was enveloped
by the eager battalions of the French. The British, however,
held their ground; a passage was effected at other points
during the struggle; the French, after an ineffectual
resistance, were fain to abandon the city in precipitation,
and Sir Arthur, after his unexampled feat of arms, sat down
that evening to the dinner which had been prepared for Soult.
… This brilliant operation being effected, Sir Arthur was now
at liberty to turn to the main project of the campaign—that to
which, in fact, the attack upon Soult had been subsidiary—the
defeat of Victor in Estremadura. … Cuesta would take no
advice, and insisted on the adoption of his own schemes with
such obstinacy, that Sir Arthur was compelled to frame his
plans accordingly. Instead, therefore, of circumventing Victor
as he had intended, be advanced into Spain at the beginning of
July, to effect a junction with Cuesta and feel his way
towards Madrid. The armies, when united, formed a mass of
78,000 combatants; but of these 56,000 were Spanish, and for
the brunt of war Sir Arthur could only reckon on his 22,000
British troops, Beresford’s Portuguese having been despatched
to the north of Portugal. On the other side, Victor’s force
had been strengthened by the succours which Joseph Bonaparte,
alarmed for the safety of Madrid, had hastily concentrated at
Toledo; and when the two armies at length confronted each
other at Talavera, it was found that 55,000 excellent French
troops were arrayed against Sir Arthur and his ally, while
nearly as many more were descending from the north on the line
of the British communications along the valley of the Tagus.
{3007}
On the 28th of July the British commander, after making the
best dispositions in his power, received the attack of the
French, directed by Joseph Bonaparte in person, with Victor
and Jourdan at his side, and after an engagement of great
severity, in which the Spaniards were virtually inactive, he
remained master of the field against double his numbers,
having repulsed the enemy at all points with heavy loss, and
having captured several hundred prisoners and 17 pieces of
cannon in this the first great pitched battle between the
French and English in the Peninsula. In this well fought field
of Talavera, the French had thrown, for the first time, their
whole disposable force upon the British army without success;
and Sir Arthur Wellesley inferred, with a justifiable
confidence, that the relative superiority of his troops to
those of the Emperor was practically decided. Jomini, the
French military historian, confesses almost as much; and the
opinions of Napoleon himself, as visible in his
correspondence, underwent from that moment a serious change."
Memoir of Wellington,
from "The Times" of September 15-16, 1852.
ALSO IN:
R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapters 22-24 (volumes 3-4).
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 62 (volume 13).
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-November).
Battles of Almonacid, Puerto de Baños, Ocana,
and Alba de Tormes.
Soon after Wellington's unfruitful victory at Talavera,
"Venegas had advanced as far as Aranjuez, and was besieging
Toledo; but the retreat of the British having set the French
armies at liberty, he was attacked and defeated after a sharp
action at Almonacid (August 11) by Dessoles and Sebastiani;
and Sir Robert Wilson, who had approached Madrid with 6,000
Spaniards and Portuguese, was encountered and driven back by
Ney (August 8) at Puerto de Banos. The British at length,
after lying a month at Deleitosa, were compelled, by the
scandalous failure of the Spanish authorities to furnish them
with supplies or provisions, to cross the mountains and fix
their headquarters at Badajos, after an angry correspondence
between Wellesley and Cuesta, who soon after was removed from
his command. A gleam of success at Tamanes, where Marchand was
routed with loss (October 24) by Romana's army under the Duke
del Parque, encouraged the Spaniards to make another effort
for the recovery of Madrid; and an army of 50,000 men,
including 7,000 horse and 60 pieces of cannon, advanced for
this purpose from the Sierra Morena, under General Areizaga.
The battle was fought (November 12) at Ocana, near Aranjuez;
but though the Spaniards behaved with considerable spirit, the
miserable incapacity of their commander counterbalanced all
their efforts, and an unparalleled rout was the result.
Pursued over the wide plains of Castile by the French cavalry,
20,000 prisoners were taken, with all the guns and stores: the
wreck was complete and irretrievable; and the defeat of the
Duke del Parque (November 25) at Alba de Tormes, dispersed the
last force which could be called a Spanish army. It was
evident from these events that Portugal was the only basis
from which the deliverance of the Peninsula could be
effected."
Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
section 576 (chapter 62, volume 13 of complete work).
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-December).
Wellington's difficulties.
His retreat into Portugal.
"In the course of the 29th, the army was reinforced by the
arrival of a troop of horse-artillery, and a brigade of light
troops from Lisbon, under General Crawford. Under the
circumstances of his situation, however, it was impossible for
Sir Arthur Wellesley to follow up his victory. The position he
occupied was still one of extreme peril. A powerful enemy was
advancing on his rear; and no reliance could be placed for the
supply of his army, either on the promises of the Spanish
General, or of the Junta. The army of Vanegas, which, in
obedience to the orders of the Supreme Junta, had advanced
from Madrilejos, was engaged, during the 28th and 29th, in
endeavouring to dislodge the French garrison from Toledo. His
advance pushed on during the night to the neighbourhood of
Madrid, and took prisoners some patroles of the enemy.
Vanegas, however no sooner learned from the prisoners that
Joseph and Sebastiani were approaching, than he … desisted
from any further offensive operations. The intelligence that
Vanegas had failed in executing the part allotted to him, was
speedily followed by information that Soult had with facility
driven the Spaniards from the passes leading from Salamanca to
Placentia. It was in consequence arranged between the
Generals, that the British army should immediately march to
attack Soult, and that Cuesta should remain in the position of
Talavera, to protect this movement from any operation of
Victor. The wounded likewise were to be left in charge of
Cuesta. … On the morning of the 3rd of August, the British
accordingly commenced their march on Oropesa. On his arrival
there, Sir Arthur Wellesley received intelligence that Soult

was already at Naval Moral. … Shortly after, a courier arrived
from Cuesta, announcing, that, as the enemy were stated to be
advancing on his flank, and as it was ascertained that the
corps of Ney and Mortier had been united under Soult, he had
determined on quitting his position, and joining the British
army at Oropesa. This movement was executed the same night;
and nearly the whole of the British wounded were left
unprotected in the town of Talavera. The conduct of Cuesta, in
this precipitate retreat, is altogether indefensible. … In
quitting the position of Talavera, Cuesta had abandoned the
only situation in which the advance of Victor on the British
rear could be resisted with any prospect of success. … The
whole calculations of Sir Arthur Wellesley were at once
overthrown. … Sir Arthur determined to throw his army across
the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobisbo. … Cuesta … followed the
British in their retreat to the bridge of Arzobisbo, and
leaving the Duke del Albuquerque with two divisions of
infantry and one of cavalry to defend it, he withdrew the
remainder of his army to Paraleda de Garben. The French,
however, having taken post on the opposite side of the river,
soon succeeded in discovering a ford by which they crossed,
and surprising the Spaniards, drove them at once from the
works, with the loss of 30 pieces of cannon. After this,
Cuesta with his whole force fell back on Deleytosa, while the
British moved to Xaraicejo. … Vanegas … remained with his army
in the neighbourhood of Aranjuez. On the 5th of August, he
succeeded in gaining a decided advantage over an advanced
division of the enemy. …
{3008}
Harassed by inconsistent orders, Vanegas was unfortunately
induced again to advance, and give battle to the corps of
Sebastiani at Almonacid. This engagement, though many of the
Spanish troops behaved with great gallantry, terminated in the
complete defeat of the army of Vanegas. It was driven to the
Sierra Morena, with the loss of all its baggage and artillery.
With this action terminated the campaign which had been
undertaken for the relief of Madrid, and the expulsion of the
enemy from the central provinces of Spain. The British army at
Xaraicejo, still served as a shield to the southern provinces,
and Sir Arthur Wellesley, (whom the gratitude of his country
had now ennobled,) [raising him to the peerage as Baron Duke
of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera] considered
it of importance to maintain the position he then occupied.
But the total failure of supplies rendered this impossible,
and about the 20th of August he fell back through Merida on
Badajos, in the neighbourhood of which he established his
army. At this period all operations in concert ceased between
the English and Spanish armies. The Supreme Junta complained
bitterly of the retreat of the former, which left the road to
Seville and Cadiz open to the enemy, while the Marquis
Wellesley, then ambassador in Spain, made strong
representations of the privations to which the British army
had been exposed, by the inattention and neglect of the
authorities. In the correspondence which ensued, it appeared
that the measure of retreat had been forced on Lord
Wellington, by the absolute impossibility of supporting his
army in the ground he occupied. … The year had closed in Spain
triumphantly for the French arms, as it had commenced. The
Spanish armies had sustained a series of unparalleled defeats.
The British had retired into Portugal; and the efforts of Lord
Wellington, were for the present, limited to the defence of
that kingdom."
T. Hamilton,
Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
chapters 7 and 9.
ALSO IN:
R. Waite,
Life of the Duke of Wellington,
chapter 6.
Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 8, chapters 7-9, book 9 (volume 2).
SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (October-September).
The Lines of Torres Vedras.
"Since Austria had laid down arms by signing the peace of
Vienna, and had thus proved the inefficiency of England's last
allies—since among the sovereigns of the Continent Napoleon
boasted none but courtiers or subjects, Wellington saw that
all the resources and all the efforts of his gigantic power
would be turned against the only country which still struggled
for the liberty of Europe. What could Spain achieve with her
bands of insurgents and her defeated armies, albeit so
persevering? or the small English army effect against so
formidable an adversary, aided by the combined forces of so
many nations? But during the very time when the world looked
upon all as lost, and Napoleon's proudest enemies were growing
weak, Wellington never despaired of the cause he had embraced.
Far from allowing himself to be cast down by the magnitude or
the imminence of the danger, he derived from that very
circumstance, not only the resolution of fighting to the last
extremity, but also the energy to conceive and to execute a
project which will continue to be the admiration of the world,
and an everlasting lesson to nations oppressed by foreign
rule. He had always thought that some day, sooner or later,
the whole of Europe would rise against Napoleon's tyranny,
provided that an opportunity for such a rising were afforded
to it by a prolonged resistance in certain points. The end to
aim at therefore was, in his opinion, not so much to drive the
French out of the Peninsula, as the tacticians of the central
junta wildly fancied, but rather to keep the contest there
alive at any cost, until the moment should arrive for so
inevitable and universal a revolt. In view of the new invasion
pouring into Spain, he could not dream of undertaking any
offensive operations against the French. Even if conducted
with genius, they would have rapidly exhausted his very
limited forces. His small army … could not have lasted a month
amidst the large masses of French troops then in Spain. He
therefore resolved to entrench it in strong positions,
rendered still more formidable by every resource of defensive
warfare, where he might defy superiority in numbers and the
risk of surprise, where he could also obtain supplies by sea,
and whence if necessary he might embark in case of disaster;
where, also, he might take advantage of the distances and the
difficulties of communication which were so rapidly exhausting
our troops, by creating around us a desert in which we should
find it impossible to live. To stand out under these
restricted but vigorously conceived conditions, and to resist
with indomitable obstinacy until Europe, ashamed to let him
succumb, should come to his succour, was the only course which
afforded Wellington some chance of success in view of the
feeble means at his disposal; and such, with equal firmness
and decision, was the one he now adopted. The necessity which
suggested it to him in no wise diminishes the merit or
originality of an operation which was, one may say, without
precedent in military history. The position he was seeking for
he found in the environs of Lisbon, in the peninsula formed by
the Tagus at its entrance to the sea. Protected on almost
every side either by the ocean or the river, which at this
point is nearly as wide as an inland sea, this peninsula was
accessible only on the north where it joined the mainland.
There, however, the prolongation of the Sierra d'Estrella
presented a series of rugged heights, craggy precipices and
deep ravines filled with torrents, forming a true natural
barrier, the strength of which had already struck more than
one military observer. … Wellington was the first who
conceived and executed the project of transforming the whole
peninsula into a colossal fortress, of more than a hundred
miles in circumference. He desired that this fortress should
be composed of three concentric enclosures, defended by
cannon, and large enough to contain not only his army and the
Portuguese allies—comprising the regular troops, the militia
and Ordenanzas—but the whole available population of the
Southern provinces of Portugal, with their harvests, their
cattle and their provisions, so that the country surrounding
Lisbon should offer no resource whatever to the invaders. He
at the same time secured his retreat by means of a spacious
and fortified port, in which, should any untoward accident
occur, the English army and even the Portuguese troops might
embark in safety.
{3009}
This immense citadel extended to the north from Zizembre and
the heights of Torres Vedras, which protected its front, as
far as Alemquer; thence to the east by Sobral and Alvera it
followed the counterforts of the Estrella which overhang the
Tagus, and extended to Lisbon, where it was covered alike by
the mouth of the river and by the ocean. … From the beginning
of the month of October, 1809, with the aid of Colonel
Fletcher of the Engineers, he had employed thousands of
workmen and peasants, without intermission, in throwing up
intrenchments, constructing redoubts, and forming sluices for
inundating the plain."
P. Lanfrey,
Life of Napoleon I.,
volume 4, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Maxwell,
Life of Wellington,
volume 2, chapters 9-12.
General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 11, chapter 8 (volume 2).
SPAIN: A D. 1810.
Revolt of the Argentine provinces.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
SPAIN: A D. 1810-1812.
The French advance into Portugal.
Their recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.
"By the spring of 1810, the French armies in Spain numbered
fully 350,000 men, and Napoleon had intended to cross the
Pyrenees, at the head of this enormous force. His marriage,
however, or more probably the innumerable toils and cares of
Empire prevented him from carrying out his purpose; and this
was one of the capital mistakes of his life, for his presence
was necessary on the scene of events. He still despised the
insurrection of Spain; he held Wellington cheap as a 'Sepoy
general'; strange as it may appear, he was wholly ignorant of
the existence of the Lines of Torres Vedras, and he persisted
in maintaining that the only real enemy in the Peninsula was
the British army, which he estimated at 25,000 men. He gave
Masséna 70,000, with orders 'to drive the English into the
sea'; and at the same time, he sent a great army to subdue
Andalusia and the South, false to his art in thus dividing his
forces. A contest followed renowned in history, and big with
memorable results for Europe. Massena took the fortresses on
the northeast of Portugal, and by the close of September had
entered Beira; he met a bloody reverse at Busaco [September
27], but he succeeded in turning Wellington's flank, and he
advanced, in high heart, from Coimbra, on Lisbon. To his
amazement, however, the impregnable lines, a gigantic obstacle
utterly unforeseen, rose before him, and brought the invaders
to a stand, and the 'spoiled child of victory,' daring as he
was, after vain efforts to find a vulnerable point, recoiled
from before the invincible rampart, baffled and indignant, but
as yet hopeful. Massena, with admirable skill, now chose a
formidable position near the Tagus, and held the British
commander in check. … But Wellington, with wise, if stern,
forethought, had wasted the adjoining region with fire and
sword; Napoleon, meditating a new war, was unable to despatch
a regiment from France; Soult, ordered to move from Andalusia
to the aid of his colleague, paused and hung back; and
Massena, his army literally starved out, and strengthened by a
small detachment only, was at last reluctantly forced to
retreat. The movement began in March, 1811; it was conducted
with no ordinary skill; but Wellington had attained his object
and the French general re-entered Spain with the wreck only of
a once noble force. Massena, however, would not confess
defeat; having restored and largely increased his army, he
attacked Wellington at Fuentes de Onoro, and possibly only
missed a victory, owing to the jealousies of inferior men.
This, nevertheless, was his last effort; he was superseded in
his command by Napoleon, unjust in this instance to his best
lieutenant, and Wellington's conduct of the war had been
completely justified. Torres Vedras permanently arrested
Napoleon's march of conquest; the French never entered
Portugal again. … Meantime, the never-ceasing insurrection of
Spain continued to waste the Imperial forces, and surrounded
them, as it were, with a circle of fire. It was all in vain
that another great army was struck down in the field at Ocana;
that Suchet invaded and held Valencia; that Soult ravaged
Andalusia; that Victor besieged Cadiz. The resistance of the
nation became more intense than ever; Saguntum, which had
defied Hannibal, Girona, Tortosa, and, above all, Tarragona,
defended their walls to the last; and not a village from
Asturias to Granada acknowledged Joseph at Madrid, as its
lawful king. … After Fuentes de Onoro the contest in Spain had
languished in 1811, though Marmont and Soult missed a great
chance of assailing Wellington, with very superior numbers. In
the following year the British commander pounced on Ciudad
Rodrigo, and Badajoz, the keys of Spain from the Portuguese
frontier, completely deceiving the distant Emperor, who would
direct operations from Paris; and he defeated Marmont in a
great battle, at Salamanca, beside the Tormes, which threw
open to him the gates of Madrid. Yet, in an effort made
against the communications of the French, the object he
steadily kept in view, he was baffled by the resistance of
Burgos, and before long he was in retreat on Portugal, having
just escaped from a great French army, so various were the
fortunes of this most instructive war."
W. O'C. Morris,
Napoleon,
chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
G. Hooper,
Wellington,
chapter 7.
J. H. Stocqueler,
Life of Wellington,
volume 1, chapters 4-10.
General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
volumes 2-3.
R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
volumes 4-5.
A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
book 42 (volume 4).
General Sir J. T. Jones,
Journal of the Sieges in Spain,
volume 1.
SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1821.
Revolt and achievement of independence in
Venezuela and New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
A. D. 1810-1825.
Revolt and independence of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1820-1826.
SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
Wellington's victory at Salamanca.
Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.
"In the month of May, 1812, that rupture took place [between
Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia] which was to determine,
by its issue, whether Europe should acknowledge one master;
and Napoleon, too confident in his own fortunes, put himself
at the head of his armies and marched on Moscow. The war in
Spain, which had hitherto occupied the first place in public
attention, became from that hour, as far as France was
concerned, a matter of minor consideration. Whatever effective
battalions were at the disposal of the war-minister, were
forwarded to the Vistula; while to recruit the regiments in
Spain, depôts were formed in the south, out of which, from
time to time, a body of conscripts were equipped and
dispatched to reinforce the French armies.
{3010}
Lord Wellington's army consisted of 60,000 men, Portuguese and
Spaniards included. Of these, 10,000 infantry, with about
1,200 cavalry, were cantoned on the Tagus at Almarez; while
the commander-in-chief, with the remainder, prepared to
operate, on the north of that river, against Marmont. The
capture of the redoubts at Almarez had, in some degree,
isolated the French marshal; and, although he was at the head
of 50,000 veterans, Lord Wellington felt himself in a
condition to cope with him. At the same time Lord Wellington
had to observe Soult, who, commanding the army of the south,
was around Seville and Cordova with 58,000 men—while Suchet
held the eastern provinces with 50,000 excellent troops—Souham
was in the north with 10,000—and the army of the centre,
probably 15,000 more, was disposed around the capital, and
kept open the communications between the detached corps. On
the other hand, there were on foot no Spanish armies deserving
of the name. Bands of guerrillas moved, indeed, hither and
thither, rendering the communications between the French
armies and their depots exceedingly insecure; but throughout
the north, and west, and centre of Spain, there was no single
corps in arms of any military respectability. In the east,
Generals Lacy and Sarsfield were at the head of corps which
did good service, and occupied Suchet pretty well; while
D'Eroles, more bold than prudent, committed himself at Rhonda
with General Rourke, in a combat which ended in his total
defeat and the dispersion of his troops. Yet were the French
far from being masters of the country. Few fortified towns,
Cadiz and Alicante excepted, continued to display the standard
of independence, but every Sierra and mountain range swarmed
with the enemies of oppression, out of whom an army,
formidable from its numbers, if not for its discipline, might
at any moment be formed. But it had never entered into the
counsels of the allies to furnish a nucleus round which such
an army might be gathered. … Meanwhile, the
commander-in-chief, after having given his army a few weeks'
repose, … broke up from his cantonments, and advanced in the
direction of Salamanca. On the 17th of June his divisions
crossed the Tormes, by the fords above and below the town,
and, finding no force in the field competent to resist them,
marched direct upon the capital of the province." Salamanca
was taken on the 27th of June, after a siege of ten days, and
a series of manœuvres—a great game of tactics between the
opposing commanders—ensued, which occupied their armies
without any serious collision, until the 22d of July, when the
decisive battle of Salamanca was fought. "The dispositions of
the French, though masterly against one less self-collected,
had been, throughout the day, in Wellington's opinion, full of
hazard. They aimed at too much—and, manœuvring to throw
themselves in force upon the English right, risked, as the
event proved fatally, the weakening of their own right and
centre. Lord Wellington saw that filing constantly in one
direction disconnected the divisions of Marmont's army, and
left an interval where he might strike to advantage. … It was
the first mistake that Marmont had made, and Wellington never
permitted him to retrieve it. Lord Wellington had dined amid
the ranks of the third division, and Packenham, its frank and
chivalrous leader, was one of those who shared his simple and
soldier-like meal. To him the commander-in-chief gave his
orders, somewhat in the following words: 'Do you see those
fellows on the hill, Packenham? Throw your division into
columns of battalions —at them directly—and drive them to the
devil.' Instantly the division was formed—and the order
executed admirably. … By this magnificent operation, the whole
of the enemy's left was destroyed. Upward of 3,000 prisoners
remained in the hands of the victors, while the rest, broken
and dispirited, fell back in utter confusion upon the
reserves, whom they swept away with them in their flight.
Meanwhile, in the centre, a fiercer contest was going on. …
Marmont, … struck down by the explosion of a shell, was
carried off the field early in the battle, with a broken arm
and two severe wounds in the side. The command then devolved
upon Clausel, who did all that man in his situation could do
to retrieve the fortune of the day. … But Lord Wellington was
not to be arrested in his success, nor could his troops be
restrained in their career of victory. … Seven thousand
prisoners, two eagles, with a number of cannon and other
trophies, remained in the hands of the English: 10,000 men, in
addition, either died on the field or were disabled by wounds;
whereas the loss on the part of the allies amounted to
scarcely 5,000 men. … After this disaster, Clausel continued
his retreat by forced marches. … Meanwhile, Joseph, ignorant
of the result of the late battle, was on his way, with 20,000
men, to join Marmont, and had arrived at the neighbourhood of
Arevolo before the intelligence of that officer's defeat was
communicated to him. He directed his columns instantly toward
Segovia. … On the 7th of August the British army moved; …
while Joseph, retreating with precipitation, left the passes
of the Guadarama open, and returned to Madrid, where the
confusion was now extreme. … Lord Wellington's march was
conducted with all the celerity and good order which
distinguished every movement of his now magnificent army. On
the 7th, he entered Segovia. … On the 12th [he] entered Madrid
in triumph. … The city exhibited the appearance of a carnival,
and the festivities were kept up till the dawn of the 13th
came in. … Immediately the new constitution was proclaimed;
Don Carlos D'Espana was appointed governor of the city, and
the people, still rejoicing, yet restrained from excesses of
every sort, returned to their usual employments."
General Vane (Marquess of Londonderry),
Story of the Peninsular War,
chapter 30.
ALSO IN:
General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 18 (volume 4).
Lieutenant Colonel Williams,
Life, and Times of Wellington,
volume 1, pages 275-290.
{3011}
SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
Final campaigns of the Peninsular War.
Expulsion of the French.
"The south and centre of Spain … seemed clear of enemies, but
the hold of the French was as yet shaken only, not broken; for
in fact though Wellington's march had forced his enemies in two
directions (Clausel, with the remainder of Marmont's army,
having retired north, while the king withdrew south-east),
such were their numbers that each division became the centre
of an army as powerful as his own. … Of the two armies against
which Wellington had to contend by far the largest was the army
of Soult, and the king, on the south-east. On the other hand,
Clausel's forces were beaten and retreating, so that it
appeared to the general better to leave a detachment under
Hill to cover Madrid, while he himself repaired with the bulk
of his army to strike a final blow at Clausel by the capture
of Burgos, intending to return at once and with his whole
combined forces fight a great battle with Soult and the king
before the capital. … The resistance offered by Burgos and the
deficiency of proper artillery proved greater obstacles than
had been expected. The delay thus caused allowed the French to
recover. … As Soult began to draw towards Madrid from
Valencia, thus threatening the safety of Hill, there was no
course left but to summon that general northward, and to make
a combined retreat towards Salamanca and Portugal. … This was
the last of Wellington's retreats. Events in Europe lessened
the power of his enemies; while fighting for his very
existence on the main continent of Europe, Napoleon could not
but regard the war in Spain as a very secondary concern, and a
great many old and valuable soldiers were withdrawn. The
jealousy which existed between Joseph and the generals, and
the dislike of the great generals to take upon themselves the
Spanish war, threw it into inferior hands for some little
while, and there is little more to chronicle than a succession
of hard-won victories. … A vigorous insurrection had arisen
all along the northern provinces; and it was this more than
anything else which decided Wellington's course of action.
While leaving troops to occupy the attention of the French in
the valley of the Tagus, he intended to march northwards, …
connect himself with the northern insurgents, and directly
threaten the communications with France. … As he had expected,
the French had to fall back before him; he compelled them to
evacuate Burgos and attempt to defend the Ebro. Their position
there was turned, and they had again to fall back into the
basin of Vittoria. This is the plain of the river Zadora,
which forms in its course almost a right angle at the
south-west corner of the plain, which it thus surrounds on two
sides. Across the plain and through Vittoria runs the high
road to France, the only one in the neighbourhood sufficiently
large to allow of the retreat of the French army, encumbered
with all its stores and baggage, and the accumulated wealth of
some years of occupation of Spain. While Wellington forced the
passage of the river in front south of the great bend, and
drove the enemy back to the town of Vittoria, Graham beyond
the town closed this road. The beaten enemy had to retreat as
best he could towards Salvatierra, leaving behind all the
artillery, stores, baggage, and equipments [June 21, 1813].
The offensive armies of France had now to assume the defensive
and to guard their own frontier. Before advancing to attack
them in the mountains, Wellington undertook the blockade of
Pampeluna and the siege of St. Sebastian. It was impossible
for the French any longer to regard diplomatic or dynastic
niceties. Joseph was superseded, and the defence of France
intrusted to Soult, with whom the king had hopelessly
quarrelled. He proved himself worthy of the charge. A series
of terrible battles was fought in the Pyrenees, but one by one
his positions were forced. With fearful bloodshed, St.
Sebastian was taken, the Bidasoa was crossed (October 7), the
battle of the Nivelle fought and won (November 10), and at
length, in February, the lower Adour was passed, Bayonne
invested, and Soult obliged to withdraw towards the east. But
by this time events on the other side of France had changed
the appearance of the war. … Napoleon was being constantly
driven backward upon the east. The effect could not but be
felt by the southern army, and Soult deserves great credit for
the skill with which he still held at bay the victorious
English. He was however defeated at Orthes (February 27), lost
Bordeaux (March 8), and was finally driven eastward towards
Toulouse, intending to act in union with Suchet, whose army in
Catalonia was as yet unbeaten. On the heights upon the east of
Toulouse, for Wellington had brought his army across the
Garonne, was fought, with somewhat doubtful result, the great
battle of Toulouse [April 10]. The victory has been claimed by
both parties; the aim of the English general was however won,
the Garonne was passed, the French position taken, Toulouse
evacuated and occupied by the victors. The triumph such as it
was had cost the victors 7,000 or 8,000 men, a loss of life
which might have been spared, for Napoleon had already
abdicated, and the battle was entirely useless."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages. 1317-1321.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapters 76-77 (volume 16).
Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapters 33-34.
General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the! Peninsula,
volumes 4-5.
SPAIN: A. D. 1813.
Possession of West Florida taken by the United States.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
SPAIN: A. D. 1813-1814 (December-May).
Restoration of Ferdinand and despotic government.
Abolition of the Cortes.
Re-establishment of the Inquisition.
Hostility of the people to freedom.
"The troops of the allies in Catalonia were paralyzed, when
just about to take their last measures against Suchet, and, as
they hoped, drive out the last of the French from Spain. An
envoy arrived from the captive Ferdinand, with the news that
Ferdinand and Napoleon had made a treaty, and that the
Spaniards might not fight the French any more, nor permit the
English to do so on their soil. Ferdinand had been a prisoner
at Valençay for five years and a half; and during that time he
had, by his own account, known nothing of what was doing in
Spain, but from the French newspapers. The notion uppermost in
his little mind at this time appears to have been that the
Cortes and the liberal party in Spain were 'Jacobins and
infidels,' and that it was all-important that he should
return, to restore absolutism and the Inquisition. In sending
to Spain the treaty he had made with Napoleon, he took no
notice whatever of the Cortes, but addressed himself solely to
the Regency: and with them, his business was to consult
whether he should adhere to the treaty or break through it;—
which he might easily do on the plea that it was an extorted
act, agreed to under deficient knowledge of the state of
Spain. Thus crooked was the policy, even at the moment of
restoration, of the foolish prince who seems to have had no
ability for any thing but mean and petty intrigue. The terms
of the treaty might easily be anticipated from the
circumstances under which it was made.
{3012}
Napoleon wanted to shake out the British from his southwestern
quarter; he was in great need of the veteran French troops who
were prisoners in Spain: and he had no longer any hope of
restoring his brother Joseph. The treaty of December, 1813,
therefore provided that Ferdinand and his successors should be
recognised as monarchs of Spain and of the Indies: that the
territory of Spain should be what it had been before the
war—the French giving up any hold they had there: that
Ferdinand should maintain the integrity of this territory,
clearing it completely of the British: that France and Spain
should ally themselves to maintain their maritime rights
against England: that all the Spaniards who had adhered to
King Joseph should be reinstated in whatever they had enjoyed
under him: that all prisoners on both sides should immediately
be sent home: and that Joseph and his wife should receive
large annuities from Spain. The General of the Spanish forces
in Catalonia, Copons, was in so much haste to conclude a
separate armistice for himself, with Suchet, without any
regard to his British comrades, that the Cortes had to act
with the utmost rapidity to prevent it. Since the Cortes had
invested themselves with executive, as well as legislative
power, the Regency had become a mere show: and now, when the
Cortes instantly quashed the treaty, the Regency followed the
example. On the 8th of January, the Regency let his Majesty
know how much he was beloved and desired; but also, how
impossible it was to ratify any act done by him while in a
state of captivity. As Napoleon could not get back his troops
from Spain in this way, he tried another. He released some of
Ferdinand's chief officers, and sent them to him, with
advocates of his own, to arrange about an end to the war, and
exchanging prisoners; and General Palafox, one of the late
captives, went to Madrid, where, however, he met with no
better success than his predecessor. By that time (the end of
January) it was settled that the Spanish treaty, whatever it
might be, was to be framed under the sanction of the Allies,
at the Congress of Chatillon. With the hope of paralyzing the
Spanish forces by division, Napoleon sent Ferdinand back to
Spain. He went through Catalonia, and arrived in his own
dominions on the 24th of March. … These intrigues and
negotiations caused extreme vexation to Wellington. They
suddenly stopped every attempt to expel the French from
Catalonia, and threatened to bring into the field against him
all the prisoners he had left behind him in Spain: and there
was no saying how the winding-up of the war might be delayed
or injured by the political quarrels which were sure to break
out whenever Ferdinand and the Cortes came into collision. …
He therefore lost no time: and the war was over before
Ferdinand entered Madrid. It was on the 14th of May that he
entered Madrid, his carriage drawn by the populace. As he went
through the city on foot, to show his confidence, the people
cheered him. They were aware of some suspicious arrests, but
were willing to hope that they were merely precautionary. Then
followed the complete restoration of the religious orders to
the predominance which had been found intolerable before; the
abolition of the Cortes; and the re-establishment of the
Inquisition. The Constitution had been rejected by the King
before his entry into Madrid. In a few weeks, the whole
country was distracted with discontent and fear; and, in a few
months, the prisons of Madrid were so overflowing with state
prisoners—ninety being arrested on one September night—that
convents were made into prisons for the safe-keeping of the
King's enemies. Patriots were driven into the mountains, and
became banditti, while Ferdinand was making arrests right and
left, coercing the press, and ceremoniously conveying to the
great square, to be there burned in ignominy, the registers of
the proceedings of the late Cortes."
H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 6.
"Ferdinand was a person of narrow mind, and his heart seems to
have been incapable of generous feeling; but he was not a
wicked man, nor would he have been a bad King if he had met
with wise ministers, and had ruled over an enlightened people.
On the two important subjects of civil and religious freedom
he and the great body of the nation were in perfect
sympathy,—both, upon both subjects, imbued with error to the
core; and the popular feeling in both cases outran his. The
word Liberty ('Libertad') appeared in large bronze letters
over the entrance of the Hall of the Cortes in Madrid. The
people of their own impulse hurried thither to remove it. …
The Stone of the Constitution, as it was called, was
everywhere removed. … The people at Seville deposed all the
existing authorities, elected others in their stead to all the
offices which had existed under the old system, and then
required those authorities to re-establish the Inquisition. In
reestablishing that accursed tribunal by a formal act of
government, in suppressing the freedom of the press, which had
been abused to its own destruction, and in continuing to
govern not merely as an absolute monarch, but as a despotic
one, Ferdinand undoubtedly complied with the wishes of the
Spanish nation. … But, in his treatment of the more
conspicuous persons among the 'Liberales,' whom he condemned
to strict and long imprisonment, many of them for life, he
brought upon himself an indelible reproach."
R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapter 46 (volume 6).
SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
The Constitution of 1812.
Abrogated by Ferdinand.
Restored by the Revolution of 1820.
Intervention of the Holy Alliance.
Absolutism and bigotry reinstated by the arms of France.
"During the war and the captivity of Ferdinand, the Cortès
had, in March 1812 established a new Constitution, by which
the royal authority was reduced to little more than a name. …
Ferdinand VII., after his return, immediately applied himself
to restore the ancient regime in all its unmitigated bigotry
and exclusiveness. He issued decrees, in May, 1814, by which
all Liberals and Free·masons, and all adherents of the Cortès,
and of the officers appointed by them, were either compelled
to fly, or subjected to imprisonment, or at least deposed. All
national property was wrested from the purchasers of it, not
only without compensation, but fines were even imposed upon
the holders. All dissolved convents were re-established. The
Inquisition was restored, and Mir Capillo, Bishop of Almeria,
appointed Grand Inquisitor, who acted with fanatical severity,
and is said to have incarcerated 50,000 persons for their
opinions, many of whom were subjected to torture. … Ten
thousand persons are computed to have fled into France. The
kingdom was governed by a Camarilla, consisting of the King's
favourites, selected from the lowest and most worthless of the
courtiers. … The French invasion of Spain had occasioned a
revolution in Spanish America.
See
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820;
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819;
MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819, and 1820-1826;
CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
PERU: A. D. 1820-18261.
{3013}
The loss of the American colonies, and a bad system of rural
economy, by which agriculture was neglected in favour of
sheep-breeding, had reduced Spain to great poverty. This state
of things naturally affected the finances; the troops were
left unpaid, and broke out into constant mutinies. A
successful insurrection of this kind, led by Colonels Quiroga
and Riego, occurred in 1820. Mina, who had distinguished
himself as a guerilla leader, but, having compromised himself
in a previous mutiny, had been compelled to fly into France,
now recrossed the Pyrenees to aid the movement. The
Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Saragossa; and the
cowardly Ferdinand … was also obliged to proclaim it at
Madrid, March 8th 1820. The Cortès was convened in July, when
Ferdinand opened the Assembly with an hypocritical speech;
remarkable for its exaggeration of Liberal sentiments. The
Cortès immediately proceeded again to dissolve the convents,
and even to seize the tithes of the secular clergy, on the
pretext that the money was required for the necessities of the
State. The Inquisition was once more abolished, the freedom of
the press ordained, the right of meeting and forming clubs
restored. … The Spanish revolutionists were divided into three
parties: the Decamisados, answering to the French
'Sans-culottes'; the Communeros, who were for a moderate
constitutional system; and the Anilleros, known by the symbol
of a ring; who, dreading the interference of the Holy
Alliance, endeavoured to conciliate the people with the crown.
On the whole, the insurgents used their victory with
moderation, and, with the exception of some few victims of
revenge, contented themselves with depriving their opponents,
the Serviles, of their places and emoluments. … The
revolution, though originated by the soldiery, was adopted by
the more educated class of citizens. On the other hand, the
clergy and the peasantry were bitterly opposed to it. In the
summer of 1821, guerilla bands were organised in the provinces
in the cause of Church and King, and obtained the name of
'Armies of the Faith.' … In these civil disturbances dreadful
atrocities were committed on both sides. … The French
Government, with the ulterior design of interfering in Spanish
affairs, seized the pretext of this disorder to place a cordon
of troops on the Pyrenees; to which the Spaniards opposed an
army of observation. Ferdinand, relying on the Army of the
Faith, and on his Foreign Minister, Martinez de la Rosa, a
Moderado, thought he might venture on a coup d'etat before the
appearance of the French; but his guards were worsted in a
street fight, July 7th 1822. … Ferdinand was now base enough
to applaud and thank the victors, to dismiss the Moderados
from the Ministry, and to replace them by Exaltados, or
Radicals. This state of things had attracted the attention of
the Holy Alliance. In October 1822, the three northern
monarchs assembled in congress at Verona, to adopt some
resolution respecting Spain. …
See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.
They addressed a note to the Spaniards requiring the
restoration of absolutism. … In the spring, the French army of
observation, which had been increased to 100,000 men, was
placed under the command of the Duke of Angoulême." The
Spanish troops "were few and ill disciplined; while in Old
Castile stood guerilla bands, under the priest Merino, ready
to aid the French invasion. An attempt on the part of
Ferdinand to dismiss his Liberal ministry induced the
ministers and the Cortès to remove him to Seville (March, 20th
1823), whither the Cortès were to follow. The Duke of
Angoulême addressed a proclamation to the Spaniards from
Bayonne, April 2nd, in which he told them that he did not
enter Spain as an enemy, but to liberate the captive King,
and, in conjunction with the friends of order, to re-establish
the altar and the throne. The French crossed the Bidassoa,
April 7th. The only serious resistance which they experienced
was from Mina [in Catalonia]. Ballasteros [in Navarre] was not
strong enough to oppose them, while the traitor O'Donnell
[commanding a reserve in New Castile] entered into
negociations with the enemy, and opened to them the road to
the capital. Ballasteros was compelled to retire into
Valencia, and the French entered Madrid, May 23rd. A Regency …
was now instituted till the King should be rescued. … A French
corps was despatched … against Seville, where the Cortès had
reopened their sittings; but on the advance of the French they
retired to Cadiz, June 12th, taking with them the King, whom
they declared of unsound mind, and a provisional Regency was
appointed." The French advanced and laid siege to Cadiz, which
capitulated October 1st, after a bombardment, the Cortès
escaping by sea. Mina, in Catalonia, gave up resistance in
November. "The Duke of Angoulême returned to Paris before the
end of the year, but Spain continued to be occupied by an army
of 40,000 French. The first act of Ferdinand after his release
was to publish a proclamation, October 1st, revoking all that
had been done since March 7th 1820. The Inquisition, indeed,
was not restored; but the vengeance exercised by the secular
tribunals was so atrocious that the Duke of Angoulême issued
an order prohibiting arrests not sanctioned by the French
commander: an act, however, which on the principle of
non-interference was disavowed by the French Government. … It
is computed that 40,000 Constitutionalists, chiefly of the
educated classes, were thrown into prison. The French remained
in Spain till 1827. M. Zea Bermudez, the new Minister,
endeavoured to rule with moderation. But he was opposed on all
sides. … His most dangerous enemy was the Apostolic Junta,
erected in 1824 for the purpose of carrying out to its full
extent, and independently of the Ministry, the victory of
bigotry and absolutism." In 1825, Bermudez was driven to
resign. "The Junta … in the spring of 1827 excited in
Catalonia an insurrection of the Serviles. The insurgents
styled themselves Aggraviados (aggrieved persons), because the
King did not restore the Inquisition, and because he sometimes
listened to his half Liberal ministers, or to the French and
English ambassadors, instead of suffering the Junta to rule
uncontrolled. The history of the revolt is obscure. … The
object seems to have been to dethrone Ferdinand in favour of
his brother Carlos." The insurrection was suppressed, "the
province disarmed, and many persons executed."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 8 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
E. Blaquiere,
Historical Review of the Spanish Revolution.
F. A. de Châteaubriand,
Memoirs: Congress of Verona,
volume 1.
S. Walpole,
History of England,
chapter 9 (volume 2).
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapters 7, and 11-12.
{3014}
SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
The Allies in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SPAIN: A. D. 1818.
Chile lost to the Spanish crown.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
SPAIN: A. D. 1821.
Mexican independence practically gained.
Iturbide's empire.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPAIN: A. D. 1822-1823.
The Congress of Verona.
French intervention approved.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
SPAIN: A. D. 1824.
Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPAIN: A. D. 1833.
Accession of Isabella II.
SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
The civil war of Carlists and Christinos.
Abdication of Christina.
Regency of Espartero.
Revolution of 1843.
Accession of Queen Isabella.
Louis Philippe and his Spanish marriages.
"The eyes of King Ferdinand VII. were scarcely closed,
September 29th, 1833, when the Apostolic party—whose strength
lay in the north of Spain, and especially in Navarre and the
Basque provinces —proclaimed his brother, Don Carlos, king
under the title of Charles V. In order to offer a successful
resistance to the Carlists, who were fighting for absolutism
and priestcraft, there was no other course for the regent,
Maria Christina, than to throw herself into the arms of the
liberal party. So the seven years' war between Carlists and
Christinos, from a war of succession, became a strife of
principles and a war of citizens. At the outset, owing to the
skill of General Zumalacarreguy, to whom the Christinos could
oppose no leader of equal ability, the Carlists had the
advantage in the field. Don Carlos threatened the Spanish
frontiers from Portugal, where he had been living in exile
with his dear nephew, Don Miguel. In this strait, Christina
applied to England and France, and between those two states
and Spain and Portugal was concluded the quadruple alliance of
April 22d, 1834, the aim of which was to uphold the
constitutional thrones of Isabella and Maria da Gloria, and to
drive out the two pretenders, Carlos and Miguel. In that year
both pretenders, who enjoyed to a high degree the favor of the
Pope and the Eastern powers, had to leave Portugal. Carlos
reached England on an English ship in June, but fled again in
July, and, after an adventurous journey through France,
appeared suddenly in Navarre, to inspire his followers with
courage by the royal presence. The war was conducted with
passion and cruelty on both sides. After the death of
Zumalacarreguy at the siege of Bilbao, June 14th, 1835, the
Christinos, who were superior in point of numbers, seemed to
have the advantage. … The turning-point was reached when the
command of the Christino army was committed to Espartero. In
1836 he defeated the Carlists in the murderous battle of
Luchana. In 1837, when Carlos advanced into the neighborhood
of Madrid, he hastened to the succor of the capital, and
compelled him to retreat. To these losses were added disunion
in the Carlist camp. The utterly incapable, dependent
pretender was the tool of his Camarilla, which made excellence
in the catechism a more important requisite for the chief
command than military science, and which deposed the most
capable generals to put its own creatures in command. The new
commander-in-chief, Guergué, said, bluntly, to Carlos, 'We,
the blockheads and ignoramuses, have yet to conduct your
Majesty to Madrid; and whoever does not belong in that
category is a traitor.' This Apostolic hero was defeated
several times by Espartero in 1838, and the enthusiasm of the
northern provinces gradually cooled down. He was deposed, and
the chief command intrusted to the cunning Maroto. … As he
[Maroto] did not succeed in winning victories over Espartero,
who overmatched him, he concluded, instead, August 31st, 1839,
the treaty of Vergara, in accordance with which he went over
to the Christinos, with his army, and by that means obtained
full amnesty, and the confirmation of the privileges of
Navarre and the Basque provinces. After this, Don Carlos's
cause was hopelessly lost. He fled, in September, to France,
with many of his followers, and was compelled to pass six
years in Bourges under police supervision. In 1845, after he
had resigned his claims in favor of his eldest son, the Duke
of Montemolin, he received permission to depart, and went to
Italy. He died in Trieste, March 10th, 1855. His followers,
under Cabrera, carried on the war for some time longer in
Catalonia. But they, too, were overcome by Espartero, and in
July, 1840, they fled, about 8,000 strong, to France, where
they were put under surveillance. The civil war was at an end,
but the strife of principles continued. Espartero, who had
been made Duke of Victory (Vittoria), was the most important
and popular personage in Spain, with whom the regent, as well
as everybody else, had to reckon. In the mean time Christina
had contrived to alienate the respect and affection of the
Spaniards, both by her private life and her political conduct.
Her liberal paroxysms were not serious, and gave way, as soon
as the momentary need was past, to the most opposite tendency.
… In 1836 the Progressists apprehended a reaction, and sought
to anticipate it. Insurrections were organized in the larger
cities, and the constitution of 1812 was made the programme of
the revolt. … Soldiers of the guard forced their way into the
palace, and compelled [Christina] to accept the constitution
of 1812. A constitutional assembly undertook a revision of
this, and therefrom resulted the new constitution of 1837.
Christina swore to it, but hoped, by controlling the
elections, to bring the Moderados into the Cortes and the
ministry. When she succeeded in this, in 1840, she issued a
municipal ordinance placing the appointment of the municipal
authorities in the hands of the administration. This
occasioned riots in Madrid and other cities; and when
Christina commissioned Espartero, who was just returning
victorious, to suppress the revolt in Madrid, he refused to
constitute himself the tool of an unpopular policy. But he was
the only man who could hold in check the revolution which
threatened to break out on all sides; and so, September 16th,
1840, he had to be named minister president. … Under such
circumstances the regency had but little charm for Christina,
and there were, moreover, other causes working with these to
the same result.
{3015}
Soon after the death of her husband, she had bestowed her
favor on a young lifeguardsman named Munoz, made him her
chamberlain, and been secretly married to him. This union soon
published itself in a rich blessing of offspring, but it was
not until the year 1844 that her public marriage with Munoz,
and his elevation to the rank of duke (of Rianzares) and
grandee of Spain took place. Having by this course of life
forfeited the fame of an honest woman, and exposed herself to
all sorts of attacks, she preferred to leave the country.
October 12th, she abdicated the regency, and journeyed to
France. May 8th, 1841, the newly elected Cortes named
Espartero regent of Spain, and guardian of Queen Isabella and
her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda. … Since he knew how
actively Christina, supported by Louis Philippe, was working
against him with gold and influence, he entered into closer
relations with England, whereupon his envious foes and rivals
accused him of the sale of Spanish commercial interests to
England. Because he quieted rebellious Barcelona by a
bombardment in 1842, he was accused of tyranny. In 1843 new
insurrections broke out in the south; Colonel Prim hastened to
Catalonia, and set himself at the head of the soldiers whom
Christina's agents had won over by a liberal use of money;
Espartero's deadliest foe, General Narvaez, landed in
Valencia, and marched into Madrid at the head of the troops.
Espartero, against whom Progressists and Moderados had
conspired together, found himself forsaken, and embarked at
Cadiz, July 26th 1843, for England, whence he did not dare to
return to his own country until 1848. In November, 1843, the
thirteen-year-old Isabella was declared of age. She assumed
the government, made Narvaez, now Duke of Valencia, minister
president, and recalled her mother. Thereby gate and doors
were opened to the French influence, and the game of intrigue
and reaction recommenced. In 1845 the constitution of 1837 was
altered in the interests of absolutism. … In order to secure
to his house a lasting influence in Spain, and acquire for it
the reversion of the Spanish throne, Louis Philippe, in
concert with Christina, effected, October 16th, 1846, the
marriage of Isabella with her kinsman Francis of Assis, and of
the Infanta Luisa with the Duke of Montpensier, his own
youngest son. (At first his plan was to marry Isabella also to
one of his sons, the Duke of Aumale, but he abandoned it on
account of the energetic protest of the Palmerston cabinet,
and, instead, chose for Isabella, in Francis of Assis, the
person who, by reason of his mental and physical weakness,
would be least likely to stand in the way of his son
Montpensier.) This secretly negotiated marriage cost Louis
Philippe the friendship of the English cabinet."
W. Müller,
Political History of Modern Times,
section 9.
ALSO IN:
W. Bollaert,
The Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain, 1826 to 1840,
volume 2.
C. F. Henningsen,
A Twelve Months' Campaign with Zumalacarregui.
Sir H. L. Bulwer (Lord Dalling),
Life of Palmerston,
volume 3, chapter 7.
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 6.
SPAIN: A. D. 1845-1860.
Cuba in danger from the United States.
Filibustering movements.
The Ostend Manifesto.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
SPAIN: A. D. 1861.
Allied intervention in Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
SPAIN: A. D. 1866.
War with Peru.
Repulse from Callao.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
Vices and misgovernment of Isabella.
Revolution of 1868.
Flight of the Queen.
Constitution of 1869.
Religious toleration.
Candidates for the vacant throne.
Election of Amadeo of Italy.
Unfriendliness of the nation to him.
His abdication.
"In January, 1866, occurred an insurrection headed by General
Prim, a leading officer of the army, which, failing, caused
his temporary exile. In June there originated in the barrack
of San Gil, a few hundred yards from the palace, a more
serious revolt, which extended over a great part of Madrid. In
October of the same year the Ministry, in a public

proclamation, alleged as a justification for an autocratic
exercise of power, that 'revolutionary tendencies constituted
an imposing organism with dangerous pretensions; that a
rebellion adverse to the fundamental institutions of the
country and the dynasty of Isabella, such as had never been
seen in Spain, had obtained possession of important
municipalities, and triumphed in the deputations from all the
provinces,' and that it was necessary to dissolve the
municipalities and renew the provisional deputations. … By
this arbitrary assumption Spain was under as complete a
despotism as existed in the neighboring empire of Morocco. The
dissatisfaction at such maladministration, such abuses in the
government, and the thinly disguised immoralities of the
Queen, soon found expression in audible murmurs and severe
criticism. These verbal protests were followed by machinations
for the overthrow or control of a sovereign subject to
ambitious priests and a venal coterie. Two exiles, Marshal
Serrano and Marshal Prim, united with Admiral Topete at Cadiz,
and began a revolution which soon had the sympathy and
co-operation of a large part of the army and the navy. A
provisional revolutionary junta of forty-one persons—a few
others, notably Sagasta and Martos, were afterwards added —was
appointed, which signed decrees and orders having the force
and effect of laws. In less than a month Francisco Serrano was
authorized by the junta to form a temporary ministry to rule
the country until the Cortes should meet. The defeat of the
royal troops near Alcolea prevented the return of Isabella to
Madrid, and on September 30, 1868, she fled across the border
into France. … With the flight of the Queen vanished for a
time the parliamentary monarchy, and, despite her impotent
proclamations from France, and offers of amnesty, a
provisional government was at once established. A decree of
the Government to take inventories of 'all the libraries,
collections of manuscripts, works of art, or objects of
historical value—a measure necessary to make useful and
available these treasures, and to prevent spoliation and
transfer —was peacefully executed except at Burgos. Here,
under instigation of the priests and aided by them, a mob
assembled, broke down the doors of the cathedral, assassinated
the Governor, wounded the chief of police, and expelled those
engaged in making the required examination and inventory. This
outbreak, attributed to a clerical and Carlist conspiracy,
awakened opposition and horror. A strong pressure was created
for the immediate establishment of freedom of worship.
{3016}
The atrocious butchery at Burgos aroused the inhabitants of
the capital. The Nuncio was so imperilled by the excited
populace that the diplomatic corps interposed for the safety
and protection of their colleague. Marshal Serrano quieted the
angry multitude gathered at his residence by saying that the
Government had prepared the project of a constitution to be
submitted to the Constitutional Assembly, one of whose first
articles was liberty of worship. On February 12, 1869, the
Constitutional Cortes convoked by the Provisional Government,
assembled with unusual pomp and ceremony and with striking
demonstrations of popular enthusiasm. … The Republicans, among
whom the eloquent Castelar was influential, were a compact
phalanx, and to them the independent Progresistas, led by
General Prim, made overtures which were accepted. On Sunday
June 5, 1869, the Constitution was promulgated. … While
recognizing the provinces and endowing them with important
functions, the Cortes rejected the plan of a federal republic,
and adhered to the monarchical form of government as
corresponding with and a concession to Spanish traditions, and
as most likely to secure a larger measure of the liberal
principles of the revolution. The Constitution, the legitimate
outgrowth of that popular uprising, recognized the natural and
inherent rights of man, and established an elective monarchy.
… Congress was chosen by universal suffrage. The provincial
assemblies and the municipal authorities were elected by the
people of their respective localities. The ancient privileges
of the aristocracy were annulled, and the equality of all men
before the law was recognized. … The Clerical party claimed
the continued maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church and the
exclusion of all other worship, but the country had outgrown
such intolerance. … The Catholic form of faith was retained in
the organic law as the religion of the State, but a larger
liberty of worship was secured to the people. In Article XXI.
the Catholic Apostolic Roman religion was declared the State
religion, and the obligation to maintain its worship and
ministers was imposed. Foreigners were granted toleration for
public and private worship under the limitations of the
universal rules of morals and right, and Spaniards, even,
professing another than the Catholic religion were to have the
like toleration. … Spain quietly passed from the anomalous
condition of a provisional into a regular constitutional
government, the title of Provisional Government having been
changed to that of Executive Power. In June a regency was
established, and Serrano was chosen by a vote of 193 to 45.
From June 16, 1869, the date of Prim's first cabinet, until
December 27, 1870, when he was shot [as he rode through the
street, by assassins, who escaped], he had four separate
ministries besides several changes of individual ministers;
and this instability is characteristic of Spanish politics. …
For the vacant throne some Spaniards turned to the Duke of
Montpensier; some to the Court of Portugal, and in default
thereof to the house of Savoy. … At the moment of greatest
embarrassment, the candidature of Leopold, Prince of
Hohenzollern, was proposed [—a proposal which led to the
Franco-German war: see FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY)]. …
Leopold's declension was a welcome relief. His candidacy being
removed, the strife for the throne became fiercer. On November
3, 1870, General Prim announced to the Cortes the Duke of
Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, as the Ministerial candidate
for the crown. Castelar impetuously denounced the attempt to
put a foreigner over Spaniards. On the 15th, Amadeo was
elected king, receiving on a vote by ballot a majority of
seventy-one of those present and a majority of eighteen in a
full house. … The choice excited no enthusiasm, elicited no
applause, nor was a viva given by the multitude outside the
building where the Cortes had made a sovereign. Thirty
thousand troops, discreetly posted in principal thoroughfares,
prevented any hostile demonstration, and the leading
Republicans, Figueras, Castelar, and Piyy Margall, advised
against any acts of violence. Many journals condemned the
Cortes. Grandees, protested, placards caricatured and
ridiculed. … Nevertheless, Zorrilla went to Italy to make the
formal tender of the crown, and on January 2, 1871, the prince
reached Madrid and took the prescribed oaths of office in the
presence of the regent, the Cortes, and the diplomatic corps.
The ceremony was brief and simple. The reception by the
populace was respectful and cold. The Provisional Government
resigned, and a new ministry was appointed, embracing such men
as, Serrano, Martos, Moret, Sagasta, and Zorrilla. … Amadeo
never had the friendship of the Carlists nor of the simon-pure
Monarchists. The dynasty was offensive to the adherents of Don
Carlos and of Alfonso, and to the Republicans, who were
opposed to any king. … Becoming [after two years] convinced
that the Opposition was irreconcilable, that factions were
inevitable, that a stable ministry was impossible, Amadeo,
resolved on the singular course of abdicating the royal
authority, and returning to the nation the powers with which
he had been intrusted;" and this abdication he performed on
the 11th of February, 1873.
J. L. M. Curry,
Constitutional Government in Spain,
chapters 3-4.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Harrison,
Spain,
chapters 27-28.
SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.
Reign of Alphonso XII., son of Queen Isabella.
On the abdication of King Amadeo, "a republic was declared by
the Cortes, and the gifted and eminent statesman, Castelar,
strove to give it a constitutional and conservative character.
But during the disorders of the last few years the Basque
provinces of Navarre and Biscay had been in a ferment excited
by the Carlists. The grandson of the Don Carlos who had
troubled Spain from 1833 to 1839 appeared in those provinces
which were still favourable to his cause, and this ardent
young champion of divine right of course received the support
of French legitimists. On the other hand, the doctrines of the
Paris Commune had found in the south of Spain many adherents,
who desired that their country should form a federation of
provincial republics. Malaga, Seville, Cadiz, Cartagena, and
Valencia revolted, and were reduced only after sharp fighting.
A group of generals then determined to offer the crown to
Alphonso, the young son of Isabella II, in whose favour she
had abdicated in 1868. Castelar, the moderate republican
statesman, reluctantly consented, and young Alphonso XII, on
landing in Spain, 1874, received the support of most
republicans and Carlists, disgusted by the excesses of their
extreme partisans.
{3017}
His generals gradually hemmed in the Carlists along the north
coast by battles near Bilbao and Irun; and when the rebels
shot a German subject Prince Bismarck sent German ships to aid
the Alphonsists. These in the spring of 1876 forced Don Carlos
and most of his supporters to cross the French frontier. The
Madrid Government now determined to put an end to the fueros
or local privileges of the Basque provinces, which they had
misused in openly preparing this revolt. So Biscay and Navarre
henceforth contributed to the general war expenses of Spain,
and their conscripts were incorporated with the regular army
of Spain. Thus the last municipal and provincial privileges of
the old Kingdom of Navarre vanished, and national unity became
more complete in Spain, as in every other country of Europe
except Austria and Turkey. The Basque provinces resisted the
change which placed them on a level with the rest of Spain,
and have not yet become reconciled to the Madrid Government.
The young King, Alphonso XII, had many other difficulties to
meet. The government was disorganised, the treasury empty, and
the country nearly ruined; but he had a trusty adviser in
Canovas del Castillo, a man of great prudence and talent, who,
whether prime minister or out of office, has really held power
in his hands. He succeeded in unifying the public debt, and by
lowering its rate of interest he averted State bankruptcy. He
also strove to free the administration from the habits of
bribe-taking which had long enfeebled and disgraced it; but in
this he met with less success, as also in striving for purity
of parliamentary election. … The Senate is composed of (1)
nobles, (2) deputies elected by the corporations and wealthy
classes, and (3) of life senators appointed by the crown. The
Chamber of Deputies is elected by universal suffrage, one
deputy for every 50,000 inhabitants. The king or either House
of Parliament has the right of proposing laws. In 1883 King
Alphonso paid a visit to Berlin, and was made honorary colonel
of a Uhlan regiment. For this he was hooted and threatened by
the Parisians on his visit to the French capital; and this
reception increased the coldness of Spain toward the French,
who had aggrieved their southern neighbour by designs on
Morocco. The good understanding between Spain and Germany was
over-clouded by a dispute about the Caroline Islands in the
Pacific, which Spain rightly regarded as her own. This
aggravated an illness of Alphonso, who died suddenly (November
25, 1885). His young widow, as queen-regent for her infant
child, has hitherto [1889] succeeded with marvellous tact."
J. H. Rose,
A Century of Continental History,
chapter 43.
SPAIN: A. D. 1885-1894.
Alphonso XIII.
At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the
queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name
of her young son, Alphonso XIII.
----------SPAIN: End--------
SPALATO.
See SALONA, ANCIENT.
----------SPANISH AMERICA: Start--------
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1517.
Discoveries and early settlements.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, to 1513-1517.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1524.
Discovery and conquest of Mexico.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
and MEXICO: 1519, to 1521-1524.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1527-1533.
Discovery and conquest or Peru.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
Conquest of the kingdom of Quito.
See ECUADOR.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
Spanish conquests in Chile.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
Conquest of New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568.
Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas,
New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.
See AUDIENCIAS.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1546-1724.
The Araucanian War.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1767.
The Jesuits in Paraguay.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
Formation of the government of Rio de La Plata.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
Creation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
and PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
Revolt, independence and
confederation of the Argentine Provinces.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1818.
Chilean independence achieved.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821.
The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
Paraguayan independence accomplished.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826.
The independence of Mexico.
Brief Empire of Iturbide.
The Federal Republic established.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
Independence acquired in the Central American States.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1826.
The Congress of Panama.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
----------SPANISH AMERICA: End--------
SPANISH ARMADA, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
SPANISH COINS.
"The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under
different names at different times. Thus during the
discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but
'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together
with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being
occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and
before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of
silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either
of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50
castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign
of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65
'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210
maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350,
there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of
Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440
maravedis.
{3018}
In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and
equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of
silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,'
whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one
time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West
Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark,
in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490
maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo,
was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one
third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was
first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the
weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of
coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United
States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion,
is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore
a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight,
equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon,
5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi,
100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a
doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming
the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was
equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high
value of silver as compared with gold at the period in
question."
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note.
SPANISH CONSPIRACY, The.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
SPANISH ERA, The.
See ERA, SPANISH.
SPANISH FURY, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
SPANISH INQUISITION, The.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
SPANISH MAIN, The.
"The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of
Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term
'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of
South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the
Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the
Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III.,
chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena,
and Porto Bello.
See TIERRA FIRME.
Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he
speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"
C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, page 35, foot-note.
SPANISH MARCH, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 778.
SPANISH MARRIAGES, The question of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
SPANISH SUCCESSION, The War of the.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
----------SPARTA: Start--------
SPARTA: The City.
Its situation, origin and growth.
Laconia.
"Hollow Lacedæmon."
"Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately
from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of
Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source
is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very
trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the
city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a
cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes
over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town
of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides,
and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the
town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow
Lacedæmon' of Homer."
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 4.
Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see
DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in
Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat
of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The
conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only
full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ
or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced
to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or
else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as
Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks,
composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural
and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually
stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far
beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants
of remoter points being on that account in any less degree
citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the
Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they
were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. …
Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ
there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact,
the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the
mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides
(hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than
trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the
incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains,
the precipitous declivities of which they made available by
means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free
proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to
primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The
country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of
the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably
consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been
conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on
the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of
handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important
portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several
risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos
was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this
is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally
prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived
the name of the Helots."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
volume 1, book. 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1.
{3019}
SPARTA:
The Constitution ascribed to Lycurgus.
"Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended
their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of
the progress of her power we have only the most meagre
information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early
period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad
government, a condition of affairs which was certainly
unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus
attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual
animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of
Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants
after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks
of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the
cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan
history that the condition of the country was for a long time
one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit
of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of
affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history.
Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as
the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her
peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of
his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides,
though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of
the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than
four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In
his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were
introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably
later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of
the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus,
when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess
as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that
the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The
Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their
peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to
connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their
authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately
transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were
given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any
reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at
Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good
government.' They were therefore the oldest political
ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found
a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the
tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia
with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time
to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward
and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme
power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a
public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the
community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and
Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the
first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the
admixture of external elements, were divided into three
tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that
some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal
arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of
which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have
been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including
the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that
each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the
two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The
Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time
to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. …
Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced
that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid
which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The
elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the
Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew
naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The
work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but
in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious
whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus
forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools
but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars
upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the
use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to
be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by
their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on
any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also
made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for
ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at
Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus.
The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to
diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and
to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life.
… About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus,
two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan
constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to
the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was
introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes
and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and
chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular
decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is
said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not
know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find
recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later
times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though
Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see
EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle
and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were
five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of
no great importance. But as they were intimately connected
with the commons, elected from and by them as their
representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a
concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation
for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time
the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the
state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the
council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings
were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing
dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the
increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the
ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The
kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always
took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of
Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only
should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom
for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time.
{3020}
The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and
no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but
as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for
failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of
the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the
dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a
feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many
attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a
fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was
allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is
perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent
two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a
chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights
should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the
Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which
of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and
arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical
connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan
citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In
historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No
speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons
duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given
by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace,
treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the
ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of
Sparta than her political constitution was the education and
training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not
exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was
trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his
life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of
the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader
ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the
life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance
were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender
himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections.
Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home;
his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him
at an early age to go through the same training in which he
himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of
sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in
the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal
freedom."
E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 6.
G. W. Cox,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 5.
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,
book 3 (volume 2).
SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.
The First and Second Messenian Wars.
Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.
"The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the
people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military
brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that
time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world.
Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate,
it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have
anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to
produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their
political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to
the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their
attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The
kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had
previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and
expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple
in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the
two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a
quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the
outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The
circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the
two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of
the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain
redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character,
but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on
the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their
country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies.
After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison
was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which
were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the
Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to
submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient
writers give long details of the events of this twenty years'
struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king
Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the
exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly
known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of
Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered
people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise
up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years'
duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented
as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own
life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the
later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by
declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have
been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name.
In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as
the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian
communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread
the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately,
however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the
days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian
territory.
See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.
To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of
the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The
Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern
frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent
communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and
Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With
these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some
severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though
they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the
position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians
wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of
territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea
down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th
century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole
area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000
square miles.
{3021}
To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in
extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly
insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and
strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her
power she never made any further addition to her possessions
in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable
natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a
social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community
could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages
in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about
the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having
asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an
active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside
the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to
Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the
Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the
Pisistratids."
C. H. Hanson,
The Land of Greece,
chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 9.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 7-8.
SPARTA: B. C. 509-506.
Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at
Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
SPARTA: B. C. 508.
Interference of King Cleomenes at Athens, and its failure.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
SPARTA: B. C. 501.
Refusal of aid to the Ionian revolt.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
SPARTA: B. C. 496.
War with Argos.
Prostration of the Argive state.
See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
SPARTA: B. C. 492-491.
Headship in Greece recognized.
Defiance of the Persian king.
Enforced unity of Greece for war.
See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.
SPARTA: B. C. 481-479.
Congress at Corinth.
Organized Hellenic Union against Persia.
The Spartan headship.
See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
SPARTA: B. C. 480.
The Persian War.
Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 THERMOPYLÆ.
SPARTA: B. C. 478.
Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens,
foiled by Themistocles.
See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
SPARTA: B. C. 478-477.
Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium.
Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks.
Loss of the leadership of the Greek world.
Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at
its head.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
SPARTA: B. C. 464-455.
The great Earthquake.
The Third Messenian War.
Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.
See MESSENIAN WARS: THE THIRD.
SPARTA: B. C. 462-458.
Embittered enmity at Athens.
Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party.
Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
SPARTA: B. C. 457.
Interference in Phocis.
Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
SPARTA: B. C.453.
Five years truce with Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
SPARTA: B. C. 449-445.
Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara
against Athenian rule or influence.
The Thirty Years Truce.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
SPARTA: B. C. 440.
Interference with Athens in Samos opposed by Corinth.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
SPARTA: B. C. 432-431.
Hearing of charges against Athens.
Congress of Allies.
Decision for war.
Theban attack on Platæa.
Opening of the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
SPARTA: B. C. 431-429.
First and second years of the Peloponnesian War:
Invasions of Attica.
Plague at Athens.
Death of Pericles.
See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
SPARTA: B. C. 429-427.
The Peloponnesian War: Siege of Platæa.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 SIEGE OF PLATÆA.
SPARTA: B. C. 428-427.
The Peloponnesian War:
Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans.
Its failure.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 PHORMIO'S SEA-FIGHTS.
SPARTA: B. C. 425.
The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria.
Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
SPARTA: B. C. 424-421.
Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice.
Athenian defeat at Delium.
Death of Brasidas.
Peace of Nikias.
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
SPARTA: B. C. 421-418.
The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations.
The Argive confederacy.
War in Argos and Arcadia.
Victory at Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
SPARTA: B. C. 415-413.
The Peloponnesian War:
Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
SPARTA: B. C. 413-412.
The Peloponnesian War:
Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
SPARTA: B. C. 413.
Negotiations with Persian satraps.
Subsidies for war against Athens.
Invasion of Attica.
The Decelian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
SPARTA: B. C. 411-407.
Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
Exploits of Alcibiades.
His return to Athens.
His second deposition and exile.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
SPARTA: B. C. 406.
The Peloponnesian War: Defeat at Arginusæ.
See GREECE: B. C. 406.
SPARTA: B. C. 405.
The Peloponnesian War: Decisive victory at Ægospotami.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
SPARTA: B. C. 404.
End of the Peloponnesian War: Surrender of Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404.
SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
The organizing of Spartan supremacy.
The Harmosts in power.
The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final
by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta
supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which
is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire.
The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens
were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He
availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system
of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic
confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of
men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so
elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were
established.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
{3022}
In order to give security and strength to those governing
bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their
side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again,
was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the
Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ
(i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold
sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict
subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently
also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans
had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection,
and how they at bottom designed to make no essential
difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and
the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise,
submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the
Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 5, chapter 1 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 72.
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1.
C. Sankey,
The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
chapter 1.
SPARTA: B. C. 399-387.
War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece.
Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus.
Restored independence of Athens.
The Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
SPARTA: B. C. 385.
Destruction of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 385.
SPARTA: B. C. 383.
Treacherous seizure of the Kadmeia of Thebes.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
SPARTA: B. C. 383-379.
Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy.
See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.
SPARTA: B. C. 379-371.
Liberation and triumph of Thebes.
Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
SPARTA: B. C. 371-362.
The conflict with Thebes.
Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city.
The battle of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
SPARTA: B. C. 353-331.
Independent attitude towards Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
SPARTA: B. C. 317.
Building of Walls.
It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the
distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great,
that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The
maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the
deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a
standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of
the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the
walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by
the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the
foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even
safety at home."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 96.
SPARTA: B. C. 272.
Siege by Pyrrhus.
Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the
city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious
Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown,
and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one,
marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272)
and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and
repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away
to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been
solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another
abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a
woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which
he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited
forces.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.
SPARTA: B. C. 227-221.
Downfall in the Cleomenic War.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SPARTA: A. D. 267.
Ravaged by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
SPARTA: A. D. 395.
Plundered by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
----------SPARTA: End--------
SPARTACUS, The Rising of.
Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the
barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were
numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these
schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose
parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced
into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them
for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of
these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators
escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They
had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved
to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing
himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by
other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under
his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him
were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with
captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern
Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved
toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way,
and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps;
but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the
proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward
again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be
blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus.
In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals
were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman
lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated
at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said
to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to
bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his
life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the
field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while
6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the
road between Capua and Rome.
G. Long,
Decline cf the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 2.
See, also, ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SPARTAN EMPIRE.
See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
SPARTAN TRAINING.
See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE;
also, SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
{3023}
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House
of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment,
nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally
extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject
to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only
upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence
occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large
patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end
of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of
£4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy
Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking
rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the
state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless
contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his
position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his
way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the
corridors used by members for passing to the committee,
library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for
anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his
family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is
outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching
them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the
chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business
matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all
members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the
side."
The Nation, August 17, 1893 (page 117).
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
SPECIE CIRCULAR, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS.
SPENCEANS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
SPEUSINII.
See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.
SPHACTERIA, Capture of.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
SPHINX, The.
"About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid
is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been
given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of
that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The
body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where
defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The
total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres,
equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches;
the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The
face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15
centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a
matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument
of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know
now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx
was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren)
gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It
must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image
of an Egyptian god called Armachis."
A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 70.
SPICHERN, OR FORBACH, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of the.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
----------SPIRES: Start--------
SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529.
The imperial Diets.
Legal recognition of the Reformed religion,
and its withdrawal.
Protest of Lutheran princes.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
SPIRES: A. D. 1689.
Destruction by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
SPIRES: A. D. 1713.
Taken by the French.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
----------SPIRES: End--------
SPOILS SYSTEM, The.
See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
SPOLETO: A. D. 1155.
Burned by Frederick Barbarossa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
SPOLIA OPIMA.
"The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima,
which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a
Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the
commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but
three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won
by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by
Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the
Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus,
a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated
to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 12.
SPOLIATION CLAIMS, French.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
SPORADES, The.
See CYCLADES.
SPOTTSYLVANIA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.
SPRING HILL, Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts: A. D. 1637.
The first settlement.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
SPURS, The Battle of the (1513).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
SPURS, The Day of the.
See COURTRAI, THE BATTLE OF.
SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
SQUIRE.
See CHIVALRY.
STAATEN-BUND.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
STADACONA.
See QUEBEC: A. D. 1535.
STADION, OR STADIUM, The.
See HIPPODROME.
STADIUM, OR STADE, The Greek.
"Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the
Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the
stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet.
This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by
Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure'
… republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of
Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may
be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in
reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the
circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just
about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a
degree."
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 6, note c.
STADTHOLDER.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
STAFFARDA, Battle of (1690).
See FRANCE: A. D, 1689-1691.
{3024}
STAHL, George E.: Influence upon Medical Science.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE:
17TH CENTURY. CLOSING PERIOD, &c.
STALLER AND HORDERE, The.
"In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers
of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the
Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The
Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect,
as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of
the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon
monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost
importance as the court became stationary and no longer
maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller
retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal
constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the
military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing
importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money
and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."
J. R. Green,
Conquest of England,
chapter 10, note.
"The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel
thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe,
Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes
Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume
that he had the general management of the royal property, as
well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The
Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was
properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon
titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and
Strator regis."
J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 2, chapter 3.
See, also, CONSTABLE.
STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.
During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders
of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among
them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the
distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government
which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of
their party than had been known before in the history of the
country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils
system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in
which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure
of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and
district,—became what was accurately described as a "political
machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought
under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions
of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected
to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of
candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which
controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics
acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the
name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican
opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored
Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked.
They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third
term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880,
however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the
nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when
their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of
Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the
Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President
when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is,
official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the
Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election,
and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination
of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the
angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public
life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.
J. C. Ridpath,
Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
chapters 10-12.
ALSO IN:
E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapters 24-25.
J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
chapters 60-65 (volume 2).
STAMBOUL.
"It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was
only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a
word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of
Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of
Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa,
Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states
that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves
called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to
have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to
reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera,
that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of
what was originally called Pera."
E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 7, foot-note.
STAMFORD, Battle of.
See LOSE-COAT FIELD.
STAMFORD BRIDGE, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).
STAMP ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765; and 1766.
STANDARD, The Battle of the (1138).
In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry
I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's
claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against
Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of
Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the
dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the
English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor
of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no
desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one
chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with
their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was
full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of
the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the
crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many
of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a
refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England
with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton
in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern
bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne
upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three
Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and
St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the
consecrated wafer.
{3025}
The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some
in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a
well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the
full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows,
which had now become the national weapon of the English;
11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great
standard above described, which probably resembled the
"Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at
Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 1, page 79.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.
STÄNDERATH, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
STANDING ARMY: The first in modern Europe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
STANDISH, Miles, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS PONIATOWSKI,
King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.
STANISLAUS LESZCZYNSKI,
King of Poland, A. D. 1704-1709.
STANWIX, Fort.
The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler,
near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.
STANWIX, Fort: A. D. 1768.
Boundary Treaty with the Six Nations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
STANZ, Battle of (1798).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
STANZ, Convention of.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1481-1501.
STAOUELI, Battles of.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.
STAPLE.
STAPLERS, The.
"A term which makes a great figure in the commercial
regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that
of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears
to have meant a particular port or other place to which
certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed
or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could
be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the
king's staple was said to be established. The articles of
English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were
wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were
accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the
kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the
Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least
recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a
charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of
the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels,
and they could be carried for sale to no other port in
Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed
altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places
within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at
Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in
1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and
thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all
staples were abolished and trade was set free from their
restriction; but these were of brief duration.
G. L. Craik,
History of British Commerce,
chapter 4 (volume 1).
"The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting
the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool,
woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most
prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the
staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time
of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple
before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to
which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or
exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this
was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais,
occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the
reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at
Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."
C. Gross,
The Gild Merchant,
pages 140-141.
ALSO IN:
A. Anderson,
History of Commerce,
volume 1, page 216. and after.
STAR, Knights of the.
"On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the
almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter,
and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St.
Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were
added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the
crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and
the same was embroidered on their mantles."
T. Johnes,
Note to Froissart's Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 152.
STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.
"In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was
in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber
(la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court
of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking
cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the
Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the
Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as
were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the
3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately
called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a
distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the
close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime,
probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction
of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for
judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court
erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the
Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the
Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the
administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart
Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were
inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this
court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal
extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it
was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
pages 181-183.
"The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its
power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank
was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance
sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the
men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of
the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the
Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.
{3026}
It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its
ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with
something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that
this august tribunal was merely the Council under another
name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots
of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early
encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under
Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial
authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of
Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no
little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was
unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary
as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to
itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may
imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,
that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet
exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to
crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency
to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is
more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which
intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood
confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too
weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was
unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,
but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain
facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of
Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council
interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,
indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very
ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police
magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."
A. V. Dicey,
The Privy Council,
part 3, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 1.
R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2).
STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.
An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861,
to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by
the British Crown.
Annual Register, 1861.
STAR SPANGLED BANNER:
The circumstances of the writing of the song.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
STAROSTS.
"Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.
Count Moltke,
Poland,
page 8.
See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.
STARRY CROSS, Order of the.
An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth,
by the dowager Empress Eleanora.
STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start--------
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
In the 14th Century.
"I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the
identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament
of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see
PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward
existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This
tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel
for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A.
D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as
follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were
not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to
make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order
forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface
himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he
might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical
rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy,
and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him
at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for
the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip
himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably
not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only
as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more,
before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the
States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax,
which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a
very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the
States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the
outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the
lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States
took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They
created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds
raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned
session in the following year to receive an accounting of the
Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356,
King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his
son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who
became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the
Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one
and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the
help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at
Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the
States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances
which gave them full power to check and control the royal
authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent
commission, from their own membership, charged with a general
superintendence of the administration of the government during
the intervals between sessions of the States-General
themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more
promise of free government in France than across the channel.
But the advantage which the national representatives acquired
was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and
discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels
among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the
deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as
the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end
by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers
of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then
ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the
Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty
recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of
footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series
of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and
successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the
power of the purse from the representatives of the people to
the ministers of the crown."
Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 10.
{3027}
"The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had
greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they
rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all
political influence, and for some centuries were only empty
shadows of national assemblies."
E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
period 4, book 2, chapter 3.
"One single result of importance was won for France by the
states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of
the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to
set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was
incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King
John, the states-general became one of the principles of
national right; a principle which did not disappear even when
it remained without application, and the prestige of which
survived even its reverses."
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 21.
ALSO IN:
A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
volume 1, chapters 2-3.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
The last States General before the Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
The States-General of 1789.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).
----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End--------
STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519,
and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.
----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start--------
STATES OF THE CHURCH:
Origin.
See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216.
The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.
The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.
Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.
Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378;
and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380.
Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.
Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513.
Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty
under Julius II.
See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513,
and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556.
Alienation of Parma and Placentia.
See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597.
Annexation of Ferrara.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631.
Annexation of Urbino.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.
Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the
Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.
Seizure by Napoleon.
Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.
Final incorporation with the French Empire.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815.
Papal Sovereignty restored.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: End--------
STATUTES.
See LAW.
STAURACIUS,
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 811.
STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
----------STEAM ENGINE: Start--------
STEAM ENGINE:
The beginning of its invention, before Watt.
"It is probable that the first contriver of a working
steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D.
1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years
[when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at
Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education
was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life
Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and
in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the
famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at
Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop,
wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works
executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the
hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied
with water. … It is probable that the planning and
construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute
the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of
experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to
the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No
description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables
modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle
and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it
in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not
leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and
adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced
it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's
lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the
same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir
Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II.
immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions
proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the
Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent
experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin."
Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four
years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and
received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment
of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection
that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an
apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and
consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment
of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His
success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as
a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the
attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a
large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam;
but his undertakings were not successful.
{3028}
He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate
motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion,
turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the
piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis.
"His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he
finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his
model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous
boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means
for the construction of another, and three years later he
died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working
steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with
much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but
slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable.
Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of
steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards
proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way
cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder.
The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been
demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine
had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all
that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power
to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas
Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the
first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at
Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of
his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession
of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time
in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing
contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these
was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power,
turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is
curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who
invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to
combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of
the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it
to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the
grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is
probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most
important invention by the circumstance of his having been
brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and
being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the
miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what
he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he
made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to
create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the
water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh
steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a
high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the
imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the
frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to
its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of
Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of
which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked
entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only
used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in
a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a
pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect,"
until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold
water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation
of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and
efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting
machine."
S. Smiles,
Lives of Boulton and Watt,
chapters 1-4.
"We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's
Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and
that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged
him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of
its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the
promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal
to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was
never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."
H. Dircks,
Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,
page 337.
STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
The improvements of James Watt.
After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was
effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of
Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736,
educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker,
and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years
later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his
attention first, with all his profound physical and
mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points
involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says
M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing
from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the
quantity of water which a given weight of coal could
vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke
of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the
quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the
cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a
certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at
different temperatures. All these investigations would have
occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt
brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a
conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the
labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under
very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water
into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the
steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly
cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and,
by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston,
lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam
rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the
cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently
been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was
immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain
its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up
to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great
expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful
contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this
contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the
steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate
vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with
a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be
desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to
render it complete.
{3029}
The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel
would give out its latent heat; this would raise the
temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water
vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the
atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected
water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and
spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt
attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump,
called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the
beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the
accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon
the power of the machine, but the total gain was
enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much
work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine.
This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did
not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the
top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the
pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the
name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to
Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the
cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston
through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover,
introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still
using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in
the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The
engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine;
it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in
it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the
vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less
striking in appearance, but of value in economising the
consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a
jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which
could be filled with steam. By this means the air was
prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to
cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode
of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected
by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared
on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements
which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr.
Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had
been called to the subject." Another two years had passed
before he found the means to introduce his invention into
practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck,
who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A
patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of
the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was
erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck],
with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately,
Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to
dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent,
but without the means of rendering it available." For five
years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put
aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which
he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr.
Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and
for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho
Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific
abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded
enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly
expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament,
where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund
Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily
supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made
wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of
the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first
consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved
steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining
speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now
yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at
first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping
water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be
rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius
of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it
new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known
as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the
engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted
to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in
point of the additional power gained, was more important than
the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of
time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was
introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in
the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the
quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,
and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all
the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the
steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt,
would occupy too much space."
Life of James Watt
(Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17).
"The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements
described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its
distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did
little more than improve it by altering the forms and
proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it
embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern
engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be
rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the
work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely,
if ever, real developments."
R. H. Thurston,
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
S. Smiles,
Lives of Boulton and Watt,
chapters 5-17.
J. P. Muirhead,
Life of James Watt.
J. P. Muirhead,
Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions
of James Watt.
----------STEAM ENGINE: End--------
STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
The beginning of Railroads.
"The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land
was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In
1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he
never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to
Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive
engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive
engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.
It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of
ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on
railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.
{3030}
After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in
vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by
means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and
feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,
made the important discovery that no such aids are required,
the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being
sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and
widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the
varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are
essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the
original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust
itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,
when required, be capable of being increased to many times the
rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary
engine of the same size; and that the surface through which
heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall
be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first
of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and
used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the
tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin
in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to
Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous
trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the
directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained
by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift
and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the
blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."
W. J. M. Rankine,
Manual of the Steam Engine,
pages xxv-xxvii.
George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and
self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed
engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the
following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to
undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he
called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had
already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from
the important improvements which he had effected in the
colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after
considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements,
he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a
locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the
West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the

colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though
quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of
the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first
engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr.
Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth
wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett
had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The
engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent
alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having
been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the
Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers
were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in
450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded
carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and
for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was
indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been
constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely
economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the
horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon
a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great
measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond
that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to
the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not
be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than
about three miles an hour. The result was anything but
decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as
useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the
steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders
of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace],
and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A
second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was
constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds.
"It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a
mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has
since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that,
although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily
use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited
comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson
was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton
Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three
locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line
was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with
great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the
chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line
took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had
offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best
locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and
the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which
attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial
of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that
Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down
by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.
S. Smiles,
Life of George Stephenson,
chapters 9-24.
"Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first
railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the
State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a
school history of the United States knows something of the
Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was
never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at
all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost
from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name
of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,
built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill
Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the
Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it
was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three
miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,
however, from the construction of the Granite railway,
Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly
energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of
her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was
this true of South Carolina.
{3031}
There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South
Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any
country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by
locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly
four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &
Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina
Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking
machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to
prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been
constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during
the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive
which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in
possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding
January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best
Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.
… In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,
had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on
the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,
indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.
There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing
a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …
About six months before …there had actually been a trial of
speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,
which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took
place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of
August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no
other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was
scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor
hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a
demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a
ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the
country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to
take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which
Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the
world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad
mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in
1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great
trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central
was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &
Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was
not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,
but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,
after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon
each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;
to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has
already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of
March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,
however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made
on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to
Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,
moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.
Brown."
C. F. Adams, Jr.,
Railroads: Their Origin and Problems,
chapter 1.
----------STEAM NAVIGATION: Start--------
STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.
"The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed
by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay,
in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account
seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful
results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to
drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied
the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine,
to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …
See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.
In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent
for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing
to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive
evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of
experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model,
which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his
prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded
by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay
on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given
to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like
those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each
side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable
essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier,
published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences
et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss
clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper
relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan
was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power,
and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship
propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were
made in the United States to solve this problem. … William
Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of
Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful
mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business,
where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new,
and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt.
He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to
driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the
construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763.
Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a
trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near
Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was
lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a
second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of
the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design,
presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John
Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an
acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry,
and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions
of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 …
Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study
the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and
protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the
first suggestion which afterward … made the young
portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In
France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to
perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine
more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more
regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last,
readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. …
{3032}
Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai,
friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested,
and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of
applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined
to attempt the realization of the plans which he had
conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained
from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and
formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was
commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in
September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night,
foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued,
D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of
D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to
Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by
the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished
mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were
adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by
Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine.
The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still
undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at
his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished
himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John
Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in
view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's
experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving
a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current
of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of
General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been
reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a
great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling
the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey
died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before
a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the
age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from
his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and
steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an
unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut
mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he
finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built
his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model]
was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels.
… In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American
Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he
had substituted an endless chain and floats for the
paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he
tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of
the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither
paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on
each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in
1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the
stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from
Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of
excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles
an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven
miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a
passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington,
Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the
boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no
serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch
commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was
never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United
States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in
1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796,
Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little
screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that
part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison.
This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like
that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made
engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this
time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable
future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in
the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in
Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an
interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led
to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that
country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced
experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple
hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts
of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he
placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in
1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next
year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But
for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In
the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides
Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas
Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and
William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the
latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to
make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion
of ships so completely successful that no interruption
subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of
water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The
first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to
have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready
for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte
Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those
who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the
importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry
Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the
first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built
in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed
several other boats in 1815, and with his success
steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated."
Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few
years in the United States, through the labors and exertions
of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and
Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803),
where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three
years later they renewed them in America, using an engine
ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of
1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was
launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East
River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in
successful operation.
{3033}
The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9
deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the
distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning
in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable
length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to
be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the
great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation
an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont
on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised
the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and
Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and
enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to
Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the
Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he
built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply
between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year
two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton
had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by
him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of
Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it
by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two
screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly
which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little
ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had
thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly
on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at
Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first
steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans.
"The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built
in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."
R. H. Thurston,
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
R. H. Thurston,
Robert Fulton.
C. D. Colden,
Life of Robert Fulton.
T. Westcott,
Life of John Fitch.
STEAM NAVIGATION:
On the Ocean.
"In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam.
This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear's
Hook, New York, August 22, 1818. She was built to ply between
New York and Savannah as a sailing packet. She was however,
purchased by Savannah merchants [by a Mr. Scarborough] and
fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being
constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in
use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left
Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days,
using steam 18 days. The log book, still preserved, notes
several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes.
In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made
to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah,
touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days.
Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her
original character as a sailing packet, and ended her days by
being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island. But
steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more
boldly. The Savannah's effort was an attempt in which steam
was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful
kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in
Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to
Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had
settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the
question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross
the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had
become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it
may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood
was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes
in America. … In 1836, under the influence of Brunel's bold
genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an
off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was
then Bristol." The Company's first ship was the Great Western.
She was of unprecedented size—236 feet length and 35 feet 4
inches breadth—"determined on by Brunei as being necessary for
the requisite power and coal carrying capacity. … The Great
Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from
Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was
the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838;
and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on
April 2d. In the meantime others had been struck with the
possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which
the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased
the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and
prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the
Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol
on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A. M. with 7 passengers on
board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon
of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor
(where she had touched en route from London) four days before
the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had
nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on
arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was
barely able to make harbor. It is needless to speak of the
reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event
which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had
practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the
Atlantic by half. … The Great Western started on her return
voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days,
though one was lost by a stoppage at sea." Within a few years
following several steamers were placed in the transatlantic
trade, among them the Royal William, the British Queen, the
President, the Liverpool, and the Great Britain, the latter a
screw steamer, built of iron and put afloat by the Great
Western Company. In 1840 the long famous Cunard line was
founded by Mr. Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in
company with Mr. George Burns of Glasgow and Mr. David McIver
of Liverpool. The screw propeller (taking the place of the
paddle-wheel), which made its first appearance in ocean
navigation with the Great Britain, obtained its practical
introduction through the labors of the great Swedish engineer,
John Ericsson, though an idea of it had been in the minds of
many inventors for a century and a half. Ericsson, induced by
Francis B. Ogden and Captain Robert F. Stockton, United States
Navy, came to the United States in 1839, and the introduction
of the screw-propeller occurred rapidly after that date, the
paddle-wheel disappearing from ocean steamships first, and
more slowly from the steamers engaged in lake and river
navigation.
F. E. Chadwick,
The Development of the Steamship
("Ocean Steamships," chapter 1).
ALSO IN:
A. J. Maginnis,
The Atlantic Ferry,
chapters 1-2.
R. H. Thurston,
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
chapter 5.
W. C. Church,
Life of Ericsson,
chapters 6-10 (volume 1).
{3034}
STEDMAN, FORT, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
STEEL BOYS.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
STEEL YARD, The Association of the.
See HANSA TOWNS.
STEENWYK: Siege and relief (1581).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
STEIN, Prussian reform measures of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
1807-1808; and 1808.
STEINKIRK, OR STEENKERKE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
STELA, OR STELE.
"This is one of the words most frequently used in Egyptian
archæology, because it designates a monument which is found in
hundreds. The stela is a rectangular fiat stone generally
rounded at the summit, and it was made use of by the Egyptians
for all sorts of inscriptions. These stelæ were, generally
speaking, used for epitaphs; they also served, however, to
transcribe texts which were to be preserved or exhibited to
the public, and in this latter case the stela became a sort of
monumental placard."
A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 29, foot-note.
STENAY: A. D. 1654.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
STENAY: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
STEPHANUS, OR ESTIENNE,
Robert and Henry, The Press of.
See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1496-1598.
STEPHEN
(of Blois), King of England, A. D. 1135-1154.
Stephen I., Pope, A. D. 752, March.
Stephen I. (called Saint), King of Hungary, 997-1038.
Stephen II., Pope, 752-757.
Stephen II., King of Hungary, 1114-1131.
Stephen III., Pope, 768-772.
Stephen III. and IV. (in rivalry),
Kings of Hungary, 1161-1173.
Stephen IV., Pope, 816-817.
Stephen V., Pope, 885-891.
Stephen V., King of Hungary, 1270-1272.
Stephen VI., Pope, 896-897.
Stephen VII., Pope, 929-931.
Stephen VIII., Pope, 939-942.
Stephen IX., Pope, 1057-1058.
Stephen Batory, King of Poland, 1575-1586.
Stephen Dushan, The Empire of.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356.
STEPHENS, Alexander H.
Opposition to Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
Election to the Vice-Presidency of the rebellious
"Confederate States."
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY).
STEPHENSON, George, and the beginning of railroads.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION.
STETTIN: A. D. 1630.
Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus and his Swedes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.
STETTIN: A. D. 1648.
Cession to Sweden in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
STETTIN: A. D. 1677.
Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
STETTIN: A. D. 1720.
Cession by Sweden to Prussia.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
STEUBEN, Baron,
in the Virginia campaign of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).
STEVENS, Thaddeus, and the Reconstruction Committee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL), to 1868-1870.
STEWART, Captain Charles, and the frigate Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.
STEWART DYNASTY, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603, to 1688.
STILICHO, Ministry of.
See ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 404-408.
STILLWATER, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
STIRLING, Earl of, The American grant to.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
STIRLING, General Lord, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
STIRLING, Wallace's victory at (1297).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
STIRLING CASTLE, Sieges of.
Stirling Castle was taken in 1303 by Edward I. of England,
after a three months' siege, which he conducted in person and
which he looked upon as his proudest military achievement.
Eleven years later, in 1314, it was besieged and recaptured by
the Scots, under Edward Bruce, and it was in a desperate
attempt of the English to relieve the castle at that time that
the battle of Bannockburn was fought.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 22-23 (volume 2).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314.
STOA, The.
"We have repeatedly mentioned the stoa or colonnade in
connection with other buildings; we now have to consider it as
a separate artistic erection [in ancient Greek cities]. … The
stoa, as an independent building, occurs both as an ornament
of streets and squares, and as a convenient locality for walks
and public meetings. Its simplest form is that of a colonnade
bounded by a wall. This back wall offers a splendid surface
for decorations, and is frequently adorned with pictures. A
stoa in the market-place of Athens contained illustrations of
the battle of Œnoë, of the fight of the Athenians against the
Amazons, of the destruction of Troy and of the battle of
Marathon. … The progress from this simple form to a further
extension is on a principle somewhat analogous to what we have
observed in the temple; that is, a row of columns was added on
the other side of the wall. The result was a double colonnade,
… as a specimen of which, Pausanias mentions the Korkyraic
stoa near the market place of Elis. As important we notice
Pausanias's remark that this stoa 'contained in the middle,
not columns, but a wall'; which shows that most of the double
colonnades contained columns in the centre as props of the
roof."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 27.
{3035}
STOCKACH, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.
STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1471.
Battle of the Brunkeberg.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1521-1523.
Siege by Gustavus Vasa.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1612.
Attacked by the Danes.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
STOCKHOLM, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAIL WAY.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
STOLA, The.
"The Roman ladies wore, by way of under garment, a long tunic
descending to the feet, and more particularly denominated
'stola.' This vestment assumed all the variety of modification
displayed in the corresponding attire of the Grecian females.
Over the stola, they also adopted the Grecian peplum, under
the name of palla."
T. Hope,
Costume of the Ancients,
volume 1, page 38.
STOLHOFEN, The breaking of the lines of (1707).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.
STONE AGE.
BRONZE AGE.
IRON AGE.
"Human relics of great antiquity occur, more or less
abundantly, in many parts of Europe. … The antiquities
referred to are of many kinds—dwelling-places, sepulchral and
other monuments, forts and camps, and a great harvest of
implements and ornaments of stone and metal. In seeking to
classify these relics and remains according to their relative
antiquity, archæologists have selected the implements and
ornaments as affording the most satisfactory basis for such an
arrangement, and they divide prehistoric time into three
periods, which are termed respectively the Stone Age, the
Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Of these periods the earliest
was the Stone Age, when implements and ornaments were formed
exclusively of stone, wood, horn, and bone. The use of metal
for such purposes was then quite unknown. To the Stone Age
succeeded the Age of Bronze, at which time cutting
instruments, such as swords and knives and axes, began to be
made of copper, and an alloy of that metal and tin. When in
the course of time iron replaced bronze for
cutting-instruments, the Bronze Age came to an end and the
Iron Age supervened. … The archæological periods are simply so
many phases of civilisation, and it is conceivable that Stone,
Bronze, and Iron Ages might have been contemporaneous in
different parts of one and the same continent. … It has been
found necessary within recent years to subdivide the Stone Age
into two periods, called respectively the Old Stone and New
Stone Ages; or, to employ the terms suggested by Sir John
Lubbock, and now generally adopted, the Palæolithic and
Neolithic Periods. The stone implements belonging to the older
of these periods show but little variety of form, and are very
rudely fashioned, being merely roughly chipped into shape, and
never ground or polished."
J. Geikie,
Prehistoric Europe,
pages 5-11.
STONE OF DESTINY, The.
See LIA-FAIL.
STONE RIVER, OR MURFREESBOROUGH, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
STONE STREET.
An old Roman road which runs from London to Chichester.
STONEHENGE.
See ABURY.
STONEMAN'S RAID.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
STONEY CREEK, The Surprise at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).
STONINGTON, Bombardment of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.
STONY POINT, The storming of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
STORTHING, The.
See THING;
also SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815;
and CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
STORY, Judge, and his judicial services.
See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1812.
STRAFFORD (Wentworth, Earl of) and Charles I.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, and 1640-1641;
also, IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.
STRALSUND: The founding of the city.
See HANSA TOWNS.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1628.
Unsuccessful siege by Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1678.
Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1715.
Siege and capture by the Danes and Prussians.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1720.
Restoration by Denmark to Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1809.
Occupied by the Patriot Schill.
Stormed and captured by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).
----------STRASBURG: Start--------
STRASBURG: A. D. 357.
Julian's victory.
The most serious battle in Julian's campaigns against the
Alemanni was fought in August, A. D. 357, at Strasburg (then a
Roman post called Argentoratum) where Chnodomar had crossed
the Rhine with 35,000 warriors. The result was a great victory
for the Romans.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 19.
See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
STRASBURG: A. D. 842.
The Oaths.
During the civil wars which occurred between the grandsons of
Charlemagne, in 842, the year following the great battle at
Fontainelles, the two younger of the rivals, Karl and Ludwig,
formed an alliance against Lothaire. Karl found his support in
Aquitaine and Neustria; Ludwig depended on the East Franks and
their German kindred. The armies of the two were assembled in
February at Strasburg (Argentaria) and a solemn oath of
friendship and fidelity was taken by the kings in the presence
of their people and repeated by the latter. The oath was
repeated in the German language, and in the Romance
language—then just acquiring form in southern Gaul,—and it has
been preserved in both. "In the Romance form of this oath, we
have the earliest monument of the tongue out of which the
modern French was formed."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French Under the Carlovingians,
translated by Bellingham,
chapter 8.
{3036}
STRASBURG: A. D. 1525.
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1529.
Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1674-1675.
The passage of the Rhine given to the Germans.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1681.
Seizure and annexation to France.
Overthrow of the independence of the town
as an Imperial city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1697.
Ceded to France by the Treaty of Ryswick.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1870.
Siege and capture by the Germans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
STRASBURG: A. D. 1871.
Acquisition (with Alsace) by Germany.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
----------STRASBURG: End--------
STRATEGI.
In ancient Sparta, the Strategi were military commanders
appointed for those armies which were not led by one of the
kings. At Athens, the whole direction of the military system
belonged to a board of ten Strategi.
G. Schumann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapters 1 and 3.
STRATHCLYDE.
See CUMBRIA;
also, SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
STRELITZ,
STRELTZE.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1698-1704.
STRONGBOW'S CONQUEST OF IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
STUART, General J. E. B., The Raid of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
STUARTS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
STUM, Battle of (1629).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
STUNDISTS, The.
In the neighborhood of Kherson, in southern Russia, the
Stundist religious movement arose, about 1858. As its name
implies, it "had a German origin. As far back as 1778 the
great Empress Catherine had colonized Kherson with peasants
from the Suabian land, who brought with them their religion,
their pastors, and their industrious, sober ways. For many
years national prejudices and the barriers of language kept
Russians and Germans apart from each other. But sooner or
later true life begins to tell. … Some of the Russian peasants
who had been helped in their poverty or ministered to in their
sickness by their German neighbours began to attend their
services —to keep the 'stunden,' or 'hours,' of praise and
prayer; they learned to read, were furnished with the New
Testament in their own language, and eventually some of them
found the deeper blessing of eternal life. In this simple
scriptural fashion this memorable movement began. Men told
their neighbours what God had done for their souls, and so the
heavenly contagion spread from cottage to cottage, from
village to village, and from province to province, till at
length the Russian Stundists were found in all the provinces
from the boundaries of the Austrian Empire in the West to the
land of the Don Cossack in the East, and were supposed to
number something like a quarter of a million souls. … M.
Dalton, a Lutheran clergyman, long resident in St. Petersburg,
and whose knowledge of religious movements in Russia is very
considerable, goes so far as to say that they are two millions
strong. But it is not alone to the actual number of professing
Stundists that we are to look in estimating the force and
extent of the movement which they have inaugurated in Russia.
… Compared with the enormous population of the Russian Empire,
the number of Stundists, whether two millions or only a
quarter of a million, is insignificant; but the spirit of
Stundism has spread, and is still spreading into regions as
ultra-Orthodox as the heart of the most bigoted Greek
Churchman could desire, and is slowly but surely leavening the
whole mass."
J. Brown, editor,
The Stundists,
preface and chapter. 14.
STUYVESANT, Peter, The administration of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664, to 1664.
STYRIA:
Origin, and annexation to Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
STYRIA:A. D. 1576.
Annexation of Croatia.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
STYRIA:17th Century.
Suppression of the Reformation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
SUABIA, The Imperial House of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1183-1250.
SUABIA AND SUABIANS, Ancient.
See SUEVI; and ALEMANNI.
SUABIAN BUND, OR LEAGUE, The.
See LANDFRIEDE, &c.;
also CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SUABIAN CIRCLE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519;
also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
SUABIAN WAR (1496-1499).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
SUARDONES, The.
See AVIONES.
SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.
The Pons Sublicius was the single bridge in ancient Rome with
which the Tiber was originally spanned. It was built of wood,
and constructed for easy removal when an enemy threatened. No
trace of it exists.
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
volume 2. page 103.
SUBLIME PORTE, The.
"The figurative language of the institutes of Mahomet II.
[Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481], still employed by his Successors,
describes the state under the martial metaphor of a tent. The
Lofty Gate of the Royal Tent (where Oriental rulers of old
sate to administer justice) denotes the chief seat of
government. The Italian translation of the phrase, 'La Porta
Sublima,' has been adopted by Western nations, with slight
modifications to suit their respective languages; and by 'The
Sublime Porte' we commonly mean the Imperial Otto·man
Government. The Turkish legists and historians depict the
details of their government by imagery drawn from the same
metaphor of a royal tent. The dome of the state is supported
by four pillars. These are formed by, 1st, the Viziers; 2nd,
the Kudiaskers (judges); 3rd, the Defterdars (treasurers); and
4th, the Nischandyis (the secretaries of state). Besides
these, there are the Outer Agas, that is to say, the military
rulers; and the Inner Agas, that is to say, the rulers
employed in the court.
{3037}
There is also the order of the Ulema, or men learned in the
law. The Viziers were regarded as constituting the most
important pillar that upheld the fabric of the state. In
Mahomet II.'s time the Viziers were four in number. Their
chief, the Grand Vizier, is the highest of all officers. … The
… high legal dignitaries (who were at that time next in rank
to the Kadiaskers) were, 1st, the Kho-dya, who was the tutor
of the Sultan and the Princes Royal; 2nd, the Mufti, the
authoritative expounder of the law; and, 3rdly, the Judge of
Constantinople. … The great council of state was named the
Divan; and, in the absence of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier was
its president. … The Divan was also attended by the
Reis-Effendi, a general secretary, whose power afterwards
became more important than that of the Nis-chandyis; by the
Grand Chamberlain, and the Grand Marshal, and a train of other
officers of the court."
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
pages 96-97.
See, also, PHARAOHS.
SUB-TREASURY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
SUBURA, at Rome, The.
"Between the converging points of the Quirinal and Esquiline
hills lay the Subura, a district of ill-fame, much abused by
the poets and historians of imperial times. It was one of the
most ancient district communities ('pagi') of Rome, and gave
name to one of the four most ancient regions. Nor was it
entirely occupied by the lowest class of people, as might be
inferred from the notices of it in Martial and Horace. Julius
Cæsar is said to have lived in a small house here. … The
Subura was a noisy, bustling part of Rome, full of small
shops, and disreputable places of various kinds."
H. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 6, part 1.
SUCCESSION, The Austrian: The Question and War of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740, and to 1744-1745;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
SUCCESSION, The Spanish:
The question and war of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, to 1713-1725;
and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SUCCOTH.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
----------SUDAN: Start--------
SUDAN, OR SOUDAN, The.
"Forming a natural frontier to the Great Desert is that
section of Africa known by the somewhat vague name of Sudan.
By this term is understood the region south of the Sahara,
limited on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean as far as
it reaches. From the Gulf of Guinea inland, there is no
definite southern border line. It may, however, be assumed at
the fifth degree of north latitude. … [The] Nile region is
generally taken as the eastern frontier of Sudan, although it
properly reaches to the foot of the Abyssinian highlands.
Hence modern maps have introduced the appropriate expression
'Egyptian Sudan' for those eastern districts comprising
Senaar, Kordofan, Darfur, and some others. Sudan is therefore,
strictly speaking, a broad tract of country reaching right
across the whole continent from the Atlantic seaboard almost
to the shores of the Red Sea, and is the true home of the
Negro races. When our knowledge of the interior has become
sufficiently extended to enable us accurately to fix the
geographical limits of the Negroes, it may become desirable to
make the term Sudan convertible with the whole region
inhabited by them."
Hellwald-Johnston,
Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
chapter 9.
SUDAN: A. D. 1870-1885.
Egyptian conquest.
General Gordon's government.
The Mahdi's rebellion.
The British campaign.
Death of Gordon.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883; and 1884-1885.
----------SUDAN: End--------
SUDOR ANGLICUS.
See SWEATING SICKNESS;
and PLAGUE: A. D. 1486-1593.
SUDRAS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
SUESSIONES, The.
See BELGÆ.
SUETONIUS PAULINUS: Campaigns in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
----------SUEVI: Start--------
SUEVI,
SUEBI, The.
"I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are
the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of
Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes
with names of their own, though they are called by the general
designation of 'Suevi.' A national peculiarity with them is to
twist their hair back and fasten it in a knot. This
distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also
does their own freeborn from their slaves."—"Suevia would seem
to have been a comprehensive name for the country between the
Elbe and the Vistula as far north as the Baltic. Tacitus and
Cæsar differ about the Suevi. Suabia is the same word as

Suevia."
Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb,
chapter. 38, with geographical note.
"The Suebi, that is the wandering people or nomads. … Cæsar's
Suebi were probably the Chatti; but that designation certainly
belonged in Cæsar's time, and even much later, to every other
German stock which could be described as a regularly wandering
one."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 7, with note.
"The name of the country called Suabia is a true ethnological
term, even as Franconia is one. The one means the country
occupied by the Suevi, the other the country occupied by the
Franks. … At what time the name first became an unequivocal
geographical designation of what now, in the way of politics,
coincides with the Grand Duchy of Baden and part of
Wurtemburg, and, in respect to its physical geography, is part
of the Black Forest, is uncertain. It was not, however, later
than the reign of Alexander Severus (ending A. D. 235). …
Therein, Alamannia and Suevia appear together —as terms for
that part of Germany which had previously gone under the name
of 'Decumates agri,' and the parts about the 'Limes Romanus.'
With this, then, begins the history of the Suevi of Suabia,
or, rather, of the Suabians. Their alliances were chiefly with
the Alamanni and Burgundians; their theatre the German side of
France, Switzerland, Italy, and (in conjunction with the
Visigoths) Spain. Their epoch is from the reign of Alexander
to that of Augustulus, in round numbers, from about A. D. 225
to A. D. 475."
R. G. Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus, epilegomena,
section 20.
See, also, ALEMANNI,
and BAVARIA: THE ETHNOLOGY.
{3038}
SUEVI: B. C. 58.
Expulsion from Gaul by Cæsar.
A large body of the Suevi, a formidable German tribe, the name
of which has survived in modern Suabia, crossed the Rhine and
entered Gaul about B. C. 61. They came at the invitation of
the Arverni and Sequani of Gaul, who were forming a league
against the Ædui, their rivals, and who sought the aid of the
German warriors. The latter responded eagerly to the call,
and, having lodged themselves in the country of the Sequani,
summoned fresh hordes of their countrymen to join them. The
Gauls soon found that they had brought troublesome neighbors
into their midst, and they all joined in praying Cæsar and his
Roman legions to expel the insolent intruders. Cæsar had then
just entered on the government of the Roman Gallic provinces
and had signalized his first appearance in the field by
stopping the attempted migration of the Helvetii, destroying
two thirds of them, and forcing the remnant back to their
mountains. He welcomed an opportunity to interfere further in
Gallic affairs and promptly addressed certain proposals to the
Suevic chieftain, Ariovistus, which the latter rejected with
disdain. Some negotiations followed, but both parties meant
war, and the question, which should make a conquest of Gaul,
was decided speedily at a great battle fought at some place
about 80 miles from Vesontio (modern Besançon) in the year 58
B. C. The Germans were routed, driven into the Rhine and
almost totally destroyed. Ariovistus, with a very few
followers, escaped across the river, and died soon afterwards.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
Cæsar, Gallic Wars,
book 1, chapters 31-53.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 4.
SUEVI: A. D. 406-409.
Final invasion of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
SUEVI: A. D. 409-414.
Settlement in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.
Their history in Spain.
"The Suevi kept their ground for more than half a century in
Spain, before they embraced the Christian religion and became
Arians. Being surrounded on all sides by the Visigoths, their
history contains merely an account of the wars which they had
to maintain against their neighbours: they were long and
bloody; 164 years were passed in fighting before they could be
brought to yield. In 573, Leovigild, king of the Visigoths,
united them to the monarchy of Spain."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7 (volume l).
See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 428,
and GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-712.
SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.
In Germany.
Those tribes of the Suevic confederacy which remained on the
German side of the Rhine, while their brethren pressed
southwards, along with the Vandals and Burgundians, in the
great invasive movement of 406, "dwelt in the south-west
corner of Germany, in the region which is now known as the
Black Forest, and away eastwards along the Upper Danube,
perhaps as far as the river Lech. They were already mingled
with the Alamanni of the mountains, a process which was no
doubt carried yet further when, some thirty years after the
time now reached by us [about 460] Clovis overthrew the
monarchy of the Alamanni [A. D. 496], whom he drove
remorselessly forth from all the lands north of the Neckar.
The result of these migrations and alliances was the formation
of the two great Duchies with which we are so familiar in the
mediaeval history of Germany—Suabia and Franconia. Suabia,
which is a convertible term with Alamannia, represents the
land left to the mingled Suevi and Alamanni; Franconia that
occupied east of the Rhine by the intrusive Franks."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 3).
See, also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
----------SUEVI: End--------
SUEVIC SEA.
The ancient name of the Baltic.
SUEZ CANAL, Opening of the (1869).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
SUFFERERS' LANDS, The.
See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.
SUFFETES.
"The original monarchical constitution [of Carthage]—doubtless
inherited from Tyre—was represented (practically in
Aristotle's time, and theoretically to the latest period) by
two supreme magistrates called by the Romans Suffetes. Their
name is the same as the Hebrew Shofetim, mistranslated in our
Bible, Judges. The Hamilcars and Hannos of Carthage were, like
their prototypes, the Gideons and the Samsons of the Book of
Judges, not so much the judges as the protectors and rulers of
their respective states."
R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 1.
See, also, JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
SUFFOLK RESOLVES, The.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
SUFFRAGE, Woman.
See WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
SUFIS.
A sect of Mahometan mystics. "The final object of the Sufi
devotee is to attain to the light of Heaven, towards which he
must press forward till perfect knowledge is reached in his
union with God, to be consummated, after death, in absorption
into the Divine Being."
J. W. H. Stobart,
Islam and its Founder,
chapter 10.
SUGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.
See USIPETES;
also FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.
SUGAR ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
SUGAR-HOUSE PRISONS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.
SUIONES, The.
"Next [on the Baltic] occur the communities of the Suiones,
seated in the very Ocean, who, besides their strength in men
and arms, also possess a naval force. … These people honour
wealth." "The Suiones inhabited Sweden and the Danish isles of
Funen, Langland, Zeeland, Laland, etc. From them and the
Cimbri were derived the Normans."
Tacitus,
Germany,
Oxford Translation,
chapter 44 and note.
SULIOTES, The.
"The heroic struggle of the little commonwealth over a number
of years, [1787-1804] against all the resources and ingenuity
of Ali Pacha [vizir of Jannina] is very stirring and full of
episode. … The origin of the Suliotes is lost in obscurity. …
The chief families traced their origin to different villages
and districts; and, though their language was Greek, they
appear to have consisted, for the most part, of Christian
Albanians, with a small admixture of Greeks, who, flying from
the oppression of the invaders, had taken refuge in the
well-nigh inaccessible mountains of Chamouri (Chimari) [in
Epirus], and had there established a curious patriarchal
community. … At the time when they became conspicuous in
history the Suliotes were possessed of four villages in the
great ravine of Suli, namely, Kiapha, Avariko, Samoniva, and
Kako-Suli, composing a group known as the Tetrachorion; and
seven villages in the plains, whose inhabitants, being
considered genuine Suliotes, were allowed to retire into the
mountain in time of war. …
{3039}
They also controlled between 50 and 60 tributary villages,
with a mixed population of Greeks and Albanians; but these
were abandoned to their fate in war. In the early part of the
last century the Suliotes are said not to have had more than
200 fighting-men, although they were almost always engaged in
petty warfare and marauding expeditions; and at the period of
their extraordinary successes the numbers of the Suliotes
proper never exceeded 5,000 souls, with a fighting strength d
1,500 men, who were, however, reinforced at need by the women.
Their government was purely patriarchal; they had neither
written laws nor law courts, and the family formed the
political unit of the State. The families were grouped
together in tribal alliances called Pharas, of which there
were 29 in the Tetrachorion and 18 in the Heptachorion. All
disputes were settled by arbitration by the heads of the
Pharas; and these 47 elders formed a sort of general Council,
the matter for discussion being almost exclusively war. As
they were gradually driven from the plains which had supported
them to the mountains, which produced nothing but pasture for
their flocks, they were of necessity compelled to support
themselves by marauding expeditions, which involved them in
perpetual difficulties with the surrounding Ottoman governors.
The historian of Suli enumerates no less than eight wars in
which the community was involved before their great struggle
with Ali."
R. Rodd,
The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece,
chapter 10.
SULLA, Proscriptions by and Dictatorship of.
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
SULLIVAN, General John,
and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (AUGUST); 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SULTAN, The Title.
Gibbon (chapter 57) represents that the title of Sultan was
first invented for Mahmud the Gaznevide, by the ambassador of
the Caliph of Bagdad, "who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic
word that signifies 'lord' and 'master.'" But Dr. William
Smith in a note to this passage in Gibbon, citing Weil, says:
"It is uncertain when the title of Sultan was first used, but
it seems at all events to have been older than the time of
Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi, under the reign of
Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed
by the Bowides."
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
SUMIR,
SHUMIR.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
SUMTER, The Confederate cruiser.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.
----------SUMTER, Fort: Start--------
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1860.
Occupied and held by Major Anderson, for the United
States Government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1861 (April).
Bombardment and reduction by the Rebel batteries.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 MARCH-APRIL).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
Attack and repulse of the Monitors.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
Bombardment and unsuccessful assault.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1865 (February-April).
Recovery by the nation.
The restoring of the flag.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
----------SUMTER, Fort: End--------
SUNNAH, The.
See ISLAM.
SUNNI SECT, The.
See ISLAM.
SUOVETAURILIA.
Expiatory sacrifices of pigs, sheep and oxen, offered by the
ancient Romans at the end of a lustrum and after a triumph.
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103.
SUPERIOR, Lake, The discovery of.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
SUPREMACY, The Acts of.
The first Act of Supremacy, which established the independence
of the Church of England and broke its relations with Rome,
was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Henry
VIII., in 1534. It enacted "that the King should be taken and
reputed 'the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of
England called Ecclesia Anglicana, and shall have and enjoy,
annexed and united to the imperial Crown of this realm, as
well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities,
pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities,
immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of
Supreme Head of the same church belonging and appertaining';
with full power to visit, reform, and correct all heresies,
errors, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities which, by
any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought to be
reformed or corrected."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 11.
The Act of Supremacy was repealed in the reign of Mary and
re-enacted with changes in that of Elizabeth, 1559.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, The.
"On the 24th day of September, 1789, the act organizing the
Supreme Court; was passed. The Court was constituted with a
Chief Justice and five associates. John Jay was appointed the
first Chief Justice by Washington. Webster said of him that
when the ermine fell upon his shoulders, it touched a being as
spotless as itself. The Court first convened in February,
1790, in New York. It does not appear from the reports that
any case then came before it. Jay remained Chief Justice until
1795, when he resigned to become governor of the State of New
York. A Chief Justice in our day would hardly do this. His
judicial duties were so few that he found time, in 1794, to
accept the mission to England to negotiate the treaty so
famous in history as 'Jay's Treaty.' John Rutledge of South
Carolina was appointed to succeed Jay, but he was so
pronounced in his opposition to the treaty, and so bitter in
his denunciation of Jay himself, that the federal Senate
refused to confirm him. William Cushing of Massachusetts, one
of the associate justices, was then nominated by Washington,
and was promptly confirmed; but he preferred to remain
associate justice, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was
made Chief Justice. He held the office until 1801, when John
Marshall of Virginia was appointed by President Adams.
Marshall held the office thirty-four years. He was known at
the time of his appointment as an ardent Federalist.
{3040}
In our time he is known as 'the great Chief Justice.' Roger B.
Taney was the next incumbent. He was appointed by President
Jackson. His political enemies styled him a renegade
Federalist, and said that his appointment was his reward for
his obsequious obedience, while Secretary of the Treasury, to
President Jackson. But Taney, despite the Dred Scott decision,
was an honest man and a great judge. His opinions are models
of lucid and orderly discussion, and are of admirable literary
form. He held the office for twenty-eight years, and upon his
death in 1864, President Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase, of
Ohio. Chief Justice Chase died in 1874. President Grant then
appointed Morrison R. Waite of Ohio. He died in 1888. Melville
W. Fuller, of Illinois, is the present [1889] incumbent, his
appointment having been made by President Cleveland. … In 1807
an associate judge was added by Congress; two more were added
in 1837, and one in 1863. They were added to enable the Court
to perform the work of the circuits, which increased with the
growth of the country."
J. S. Landon,
The Constitutional History and Government
of the United States,
lecture 10.
"The Supreme court is directly created by Article iii.,
section 1 of the Constitution, but with no provision as to the
number of its judges. Originally there were six; at present
there are nine, a chief justice, with a salary of $10,500
(£2,100), and eight associate judges (salary $10,000). The
justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. They hold office during good behaviour, i. e. they are
removable only by impeachment. They have thus a tenure even
more secure than that of English judges, for the latter may be
removed by the Crown on an address from both Houses of
Parliament. … The Fathers of the Constitution were extremely
anxious to secure the independence of their judiciary,
regarding it as a bulwark both for the people and for the
States against aggressions of either Congress or the
President. They affirmed the life tenure by an unanimous vote
in the Convention of 1787, because they deemed the risk of the
continuance in office of an incompetent judge a less evil than
the subserviency of all judges to the legislature, which might
flow from a tenure dependent on legislative will. The result
has justified their expectations. The judges have shown
themselves independent of Congress and of party, yet the
security of their position has rarely tempted them to breaches
of judicial duty. Impeachment has been four times resorted to,
once only against a justice of the Supreme court, and then
unsuccessfully. Attempts have been made, beginning from
Jefferson, who argued that judges should hold office for terms
of four or six years only, to alter the tenure of the Federal
judges, as that of the State judges has been altered in most
States; but Congress has always rejected the proposed
constitutional amendment. The Supreme court sits at Washington
from October till July in every year."
J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
part 1, chapter 22 (volume 1).
"It is, I believe, the only national tribunal in the world
which can sit in judgment on a national law, and can declare
an act of all the three powers of the Union to be null and
void. No such power does or can exist in England. Anyone of
the three powers of the state, King, Lords, or Commons, acting
alone, may act illegally; the three acting together cannot act
illegally. An act of parliament is final; it may be repealed
by the power which enacted it; it cannot be questioned by any
other power. For in England there is no written constitution;
the powers of Parliament, of King, Lords, and Commons, acting
together, are literally boundless. But in your Union, it is
not only possible that President, Senate, or House of
Representatives, acting alone, may act illegally; the three
acting together may act illegally. For their powers are not
boundless, they have no powers but such as the terms of the
constitution, that is, the original treaty between the States,
have given them. Congress may pass, the President may assent
to, a measure which contradicts the terms of the constitution.
If they so act, they act illegally, and the Supreme Court can
declare such an act to be null and void. This difference flows
directly from the difference between a written and an
unwritten constitution. It does not follow that every state
which has a written constitution need vest in its highest
court such powers as are vested in yours, though it certainly
seems to me that, in a federal constitution, such a power is
highly expedient. My point is simply that such a power can
exist where there is a written constitution; where there is no
written constitution, it cannot."
E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes:
Lectures to American Audiences,
pages 191-192.
SURA, Battle of (A. D. 530).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
SURENA.
The title of the commander-in-chief or field-marshal of the
Parthian armies, whose rank was second only to that of the
king. This title was sometimes mistaken by Greek writers for
an individual name, as in the case of the Parthian general who
defeated Crassus.
G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
page 23.
SURGERY.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE.
SURINAM.
See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.
SURPLUS, The distribution of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
SURRATT, Mrs.:
The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
SUSA.
SUSIANA.
SHUSHAN.
Originally the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elam,
Shushan, or Susiana, or Susa, as it has been variously called,
was in later times made the principal capital of the Persian
empire, and became the scene of the Biblical story of Esther.
A French expedition, directed by M. Dieulafoy and wife,
undertook an exploration of the ruins of Susa in 1885 and has
brought to light some remarkably interesting and important
remains of ancient art. The name Susiana was applied by the
Greeks to the country of Elam, as well as to the capital city,
and it is sometimes still used in that sense.
Z. A. Ragozin,
Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
appendix to chapter 10.
See, also, ELAM; and BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.
SUSIAN GATES.
A pass in the mountains which surrounded the plain of
Persepolis, the center of ancient Persia proper. Alexander had
difficulty in forcing the Gates.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 93.
SUSIANA.
See SUSA.
SUSMARSHAUSEN, Battle of(1648).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY, The.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.
SUSQUEHANNAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
{3041}
SUSSEX.
Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
conquerors of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries which
acquired the name of the South Saxons. It is nearly
represented in territory by the present counties of Sussex and
Surrey.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
SUTRIUM, Battle of.
A victory of the Romans over the Etruscans, among the exploits
ascribed to the veteran Q. Fabius Maximus.
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 10.
SUTTEE, Suppression of, in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
SUVARROF,
SUWARROW,
Campaigns of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796;
also FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
SVASTIKA, The.
See TRI-SKELION.
SWAANENDAEL.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
SWABIA.
See SUABIA.
SWAMP ANGEL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SWAN, The Order of the.
A Prussian order of knighthood, instituted in the 15th
century, which disappeared in the century following, and was
revived in 1843.
SWANS, The Road of the.
See NORMANS.
SWEATING SICKNESS, The.
The "Sudor Anglicus," or Sweating Sickness was a strange and
fearful epidemic which appeared in England in 1485 or 1486,
and again in 1507, 1518, 1529, and 1551. In the last three
instances it passed to the continent. Its first appearance was
always in England, from which fact it took one of its names.
Its peculiar characteristic was the profuse sweating which
accompanied the disease. The mortality from it was very great.
J. H. Baas,
Outlines of the History of Medicine,
pages 318-319.
See, also, PLAGUE, ETC.: A. D. 1485-1593.
SWEDEN: Early inhabitants.
See SUIONES.
SWEDEN: History.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.
SWEDEN: Constitution.
See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
SWEENEY, Peter B., and the Tweed Ring.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
SWERKER I., King of Sweden, A. D. 1155.
SWERKER II., King of Sweden, 1199-1210.
SWERKERSON.
See CHARLES SWERKERSON;
and JOHN SWERKERSON.
SWERRO, King of Norway, A. D. 1186-1202.
SWEYN I., King of Denmark, A. D. 991-1014.
Sweyn II., King of Denmark, 1047-1076.
Sweyn III., King of Denmark, 1156-1157.
Sweyn Canutson, King of Norway, 1030-1035.
SWISS CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890;
and CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.
----------SWITZERLAND: Start--------
SWITZERLAND:
Early inhabitants.
See HELVETII; ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451;
also, below: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
SWITZERLAND:
The Three Forest Cantons, their original Confederation
(Eidgenossenschaft), and their relations with the House of
Austria.
History divested of Legend.
"It is pretty clear that among those Helvetii with whom Cæsar
had his cruel struggle [see HELVETII, TUE ARRESTED MIGRATION
OF THE], and who subsequently became an integral portion of
the empire, there were no people from the Forest Cantons of
Schwytz, Uri, and Unterwalden. The men who defied the Roman
eagles were inhabitants of the mountain slopes between the
lakes of Geneva and Constance. On the North, the authority of
the Romans penetrated no farther in the direction of the
mountainous Oberland than to Zurich or Turicum. They, no
doubt, ascended far up the valley of the Rhone, where they
have left their mark in the speech of the people to this day;
but they did not climb the mountain passes leading across the
great chain of the Alps. It may be questioned if the higher
valleys of Switzerland were then, or for centuries after the
fall of the Western Empire, inhabited. … In the district of
these Forest Cantons no remains of lake inhabitancy have yet
been found. … Yet none of the places where they are met with
could have been more naturally suited for lake-dwellings than
these. The three Forest Cantons began the political history of
Switzerland, having established among themselves that
political centre round which the other Cantons clustered. In
ethnological history, they were the latest members of the
Swiss family, since their territory remained without occupants
after the more accessible portions of the country had been
peopled. In the same sense, the canton from which the
confederation derived its name—that of Schwytz—is the youngest
of all. When the Irish monk, afterwards canonised as St. Gall,
settled near the Lake of Constance in the 7th century, he had
gone as completely to the one extreme of the inhabited world,
as his brother Columba had gone to the other when he sailed to
Iona. If the districts of Thurgau, Appenzell, and St. Gall
were at that period becoming gradually inhabited, it is
supposed that Schwytz was not occupied by a permanent
population until the latter half of the 9th century. … M.
Rilliet [in 'Les Origines de la Confederation Suisse,' par
Albert Rilliet) is one of the first writers who has applied
himself to the study of … original documents [title-deeds of
property, the chartularies of religious houses, records of
litigation, etc.] as they are still preserved in Switzerland,
for the purpose of tracing the character and progress of the
Swiss people and of their free institutions. It was among the
accidents propitious to the efforts of the Forest Cantons,
that, among the high feudal or manorial rights existing within
their territory, a large proportion was in the hands of
monastic bodies. Throughout Europe the estates of the
ecclesiastics were the best husbanded, and inhabited by the
most prosperous vassals. These bodies ruled their vassals
through the aid of a secular officer, a Vogt or advocate, who
sometimes was the master, sometimes the servant, of the
community.
{3042}
In either case there was to some extent a division of rule,
and it was not the less so that in these Cantons the larger
estates were held by nuns. The various struggles for supremacy
in which emperors and competitors for empire, the successive
popes, and the potentates struggling for dominion, severally
figured, gave many opportunities to a brave and sagacious
people, ever on the watch for the protection of their
liberties; but the predominant feature in their policy—that,
indeed, which secured their final triumph—was their steady
adherence in such contests to the Empire, and their
acknowledgment of its supremacy. This is the more worthy of
notice since popular notions of Swiss history take the
opposite direction, and introduce us to the Emperor and his
ministers as the oppressors who drove an exasperated people to
arms. In fact, there still lurk in popular history many
fallacies and mistakes about the nature of the 'Holy Roman
Empire' as an institution of the middle ages [see ROMAN
EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. … It is not natural or easy indeed to
associate that mighty central organisation with popular
liberty and power; and yet in the feudal ages it was a strong
and effective protector of freedom. … Small republics and free
cities were scattered over central Europe and protected in the
heart of feudalism. … M. Rilliet aptly remarks, that in the
Swiss valleys, with their isolating mountains, and their
narrow strips of valuable pasture, political and local
conditions existed in some degree resembling those of a walled
city." The election, in 1273, of Rudolph of Hapsburg, as King
of the Romans, was an event of great importance in the history
of the Swiss Cantons, owing to their previous connexion with
the House of Hapsburg (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), "a
connexion geographically so close that the paternal domains,
whence that great family takes its ancient name, are part of
the Swiss territory at the present day." Such agencies as
belonged naturally to the most powerful family in the district
fell to the House of Hapsburg. Its chiefs were the chosen
advocates or champions of the religious communities neighbor
to them; and "under such imperial offices as are known by the
title Bailiff, Procurator, or Reichsvogt, they occasionally
exercised what power the Empire retained over its free
communities. Such offices conferred authority which easily
ripened into feudal superiorities, or other forms of
sovereignty. M. Rilliet attributes considerable, but not, it
seems to us, too much importance to a rescript bearing date
the 26th May, 1231. It is granted by Henry VII., King of the
Romans, or more properly of the aggregated German communities,
as acting for his father, the Emperor Frederic II. This
instrument revokes certain powers over the people of the
community of Uri, which had been granted at a previous time by
Frederic himself to the Count of Hapsburg. It addresses the
people of Uri by the term Universitas—high in class among the
enfranchised communities of the Empire—and promises to them
that they shall no more under any pretext be withdrawn from
the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. … The great point
reached through this piece of evidence, and corroborated by
others, is, that at this remote period the district which is
now the Canton of Uri was dealt with as a Roman Universitas—as
one of the communities of the Empire, exempt from the
immediate authority of any feudal chief. … M. Rilliet's
researches show that Uri is the Canton in which the character
of a free imperial community was first established, perhaps we
should rather say it was the Canton in which the privilege was
most completely preserved from the dangers that assailed it.
The Hapsburgs and their rivals had a stronger hold on Schwytz.
… In many of the documents relating to the rights of Rudolph
over this district, bearing date after he became Cæsar, it is
uncertain whether he acts as emperor or as immediate feudal
lord. … Rudolph, however, found it, from whatever cause, his
policy to attach the people of Schwytz to his interests as
emperor rather than as feudal lord; and he gave them charters
of franchise which seem ultimately to have made them, like
their neighbours of Uri, a free community of the Empire, or to
have certified their right to that character. In the
fragmentary records of the three Cantons, Unterwalden does not
hold rank as a free community of the Empire at so early a time
even as Schwytz. It is only known that in 1291 Unterwalden
acted with the other two as an independent community. In the
disputes for supremacy between the Empire and the Church all
three had been loyal to the Empire. There are some indications
that Rudolph had discovered the signal capacity of these
mountaineers for war, and that already there were bands of
Swiss among the imperial troops. The reign of Rudolph lasted
for 18 years. … During his 18 years of possession he changed
the character of the Cæsarship, and the change was felt by the
Swiss. In the early part of his reign he wooed them to the
Empire—before its end he was strengthening the territorial
power of his dynasty. … When Rudolph died in 1201, the
imperial crown was no longer a disputable prize for a chance
candidate. There was a conflict on the question whether his
descendants should take it as a hereditary right, or the
electors should show that they retained their power by another
choice. The three Cantons felt that there was danger to their
interests in the coming contest, and took a great step for
their own protection. They formed a league or confederacy
[Eidgenossenschaft] for mutual co-operation and protection.
Not only has it been handed down to us in literature, but the
very parchment has been preserved as a testimony to the early
independence of the Forest Cantons, the Magna Charter of
Switzerland. This document reveals the existence of
unexplained antecedents by calling itself a renewal of the old
league—the Antique Confederatio. … Thus we have a
Confederation of the Three Cantons, dated in 1201, and
referring to earlier alliances; while popular history sets
down the subsequent Confederation of 1314 as the earliest, for
the purpose of making the whole history of Swiss independence
arise out of the tragic events attributed to that period. If
this leads the way to the extinction of the story on which the
Confederation is based, there is compensation in finding the
Confederation in active existence a quarter of a century
earlier. But the reader will observe that the mere fact of the
existence of this anterior league overturns the whole received
history of Switzerland, and changes the character of the
alleged struggle with the House of Austria, prior to the
battle of Morgarten. There is nothing in this document or in
contemporary events breathing of disloyalty to the Empire.
{3043}
The two parties whom the Swiss held in fear were the Church,
endeavouring to usurp the old prerogatives of the Empire in
their fullness; and the feudal barons, who were encroaching on
the imperial authority. Among the three the Swiss chose the
chief who would be least of a master. … Two years before the
end of the 13th century [by the election of Albert, son of
Rudolph, the Hapsburg family] … again got possession of the
Empire, and retained it for ten years. It passed from them by
the well-known murder of the Emperor Albert. The Swiss and
that prince were ill-disposed to each other at the time of the
occurrence, and indeed the murder itself was perpetrated on
Swiss ground; yet it had no connexion with the cause of the
quarrel which was deepening between the House of Hapsburg and
the Cantons. … There exist in contemporary records no
instances of wanton outrage and insolence on the Hapsburg
side. It was the object of that power to obtain political
ascendancy, not to indulge its representatives in lust or
wanton insult. … There are plentiful records of disputes in
which the interests of the two powers were mixed up with those
of particular persons. Some of these were trifling and local,
relating to the patronage of benefices, the boundaries of
parishes, the use of meadows, the amount of toll duties, and
the like; others related to larger questions, as to the
commerce of the lake of the Four Cantons, or the transit of
goods across the Alps. But in these discussions the symptoms
of violence, as is natural enough, appear rather on the side
of the Swiss communities than on that of the aggrandising
imperial house. The Canton of Schwytz, indeed, appears to have
obtained by acts of violence and rapacity the notoriety which
made its name supreme among the Cantons. … We are now at a
critical point, the outbreak of the long War of Swiss
Independence, and it would be pleasant if we had more distinct
light than either history or record preserves of the immediate
motives which brought Austria to the point of invading the
Cantons. … The war was no doubt connected with the struggle
for the Empire [between Frederic of Austria and Louis of
Bavaria—see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347]; yet it is not clear how
Frederic, even had he been victorious over the three Cantons,
could have gained enough to repay him for so costly an
expedition. … We are simply told by one party among historical
writers that his army was sent against his rebellious subjects
to reduce them to obedience, and by the other that it was sent
to conquer for the House of Hapsburg the free Cantons. That a
magnificent army did march against them, and that it was
scattered and ruined by a small body of the Swiss at
Morgarten, on the 15th November, 1315, is an historical event
too clearly attested in all its grandeur to stand open to
dispute. After the battle, the victorious Cantons renewed
their Confederation of 1291, with some alterations appropriate
to the change of conditions. The first bond or confederation
comes to us in Latin, the second is in German. … Such was the
base around which the Cantons of the later Swiss Confederation
were gradually grouped. … To this conclusion we have followed
M. Rilliet without encountering William Tell, or the
triumvirate of the meadow of Rütli, and yet with no
consciousness that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the
play." According to the popular tradition, the people of the
Three Cantons were maddened by wanton outrages and insolences
on the part of the Austrian Dukes, until three bold leaders,
Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of the Melkthal, and Walter Fürst,
assembled them in nightly meetings on the little meadow of
Grütli or Rütli, in 1307, and bound them by oaths in a league
against Austria, which was the beginning of the Swiss
Confederation. This story, and the famous legend of William
Tell, connected with it, are fading out of authentic history
under the light which modern investigation has brought to bear
on it.
The Legend of Tell and Rütli
(Edinburg Review, January, 1869).
ALSO IN:
O. Delepierre,
Historical Difficulties.
J. Heywood,
The Establishment of Swiss Freedom, and the Scandinavian
Origin of the Legend of William Tell
(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 5).
SWITZERLAND: 4-11th Centuries.
See BURGUNDY.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1207-1401.
Extension of the dominions of the House of Savoy
beyond Lake Geneva.
The city of Geneva surrounded.
See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
The extension of the old Confederation,
or "Old League of High Germany."
The Three Cantons increased to Eight.
"All the original cantons were German in speech and feeling,
and the formal style of their union was 'the Old League of
High Germany.' But in strict geographical accuracy there was …
a small Burgundian element in the Confederation, if not from
the beginning, at least from its aggrandizement in the 13th
and 14th centuries. That is to say, part of the territory of
the states which formed the old Confederation lay
geographically within the kingdom of Burgundy, and a further
part lay within the Lesser Burgundy of the Dukes of Zähringen.
But, by the time when the history of the Confederation begins,
the kingdom of Burgundy was pretty well forgotten, and the
small German-speaking territory which it took in at its
extreme northeast corner may be looked on as practically
German ground. … It is specially needful to bear in mind,
first, that, till the last years of the 13th century, not even
the germ of modern Switzerland had appeared on the map of
Europe; secondly, that the Confederation did not formally
become an independent power till the 17th century; lastly,
that, though the Swiss name had been in common use for ages,
it did not become the formal style of the Confederation till
the 19th century. Nothing in the whole study of historical
geography is more necessary than to root out the notion that
there has always been a country of Switzerland, as there has
always been a country of Germany, Gaul, or Italy. And it is no
less needful to root out the notion that the Swiss of the
original cantons in any way represent the Helvetii of Cæsar.
The points to be borne in mind are that the Swiss
Confederation is simply one of many German Leagues, which was
more lasting and became more closely united than other German
Leagues—that it gradually split off from the German
Kingdom—that in the course of this process, the League and its
members obtained a large body of Italian and Burgundian allies
and subjects —lastly, that these allies and subjects have in
modern times been joined into one Federal body with the
original German Confederates.
{3044}
The three Swabian lands [the Three Forest Cantons] which
formed the kernel of the Old League lay at the point of union
of the three Imperial kingdoms, parts of all of which were to
become members of the Confederation in its later form. … The
Confederation grew for a while by the admission of
neighbouring lands and cities as members of a free German
Confederation, owning no superior but the Emperor. First of
all [1332], the city of Luzern joined the League. Then came
the Imperial city of Zurich [1351], which had already begun to
form a little dominion in the adjoining lands. Then [1352]
came the land of Glarus and the town of Zug with its small
territory. And lastly came the great city of Bern [1353],
which had already won a dominion over a considerable body of
detached and outlying allies and subjects. These confederate
lands and towns formed the Eight Ancient Cantons. Their close
alliance with each other helped the growth of each canton
separately, as well as that of the League as a whole. Those
cantons whose geographical position allowed them to do so,
were thus able to extend their power, in the form of various
shades of dominion and alliance, over the smaller lands and
towns in their neighbourhood. … Zurich, and yet more Bern,
each formed, after the manner of an ancient Greek city, what
in ancient Greece would have passed for an empire. In the 15th
century [1415-1460], large conquests were made at the expense
of the House of Austria, of which the earlier ones were made
by direct Imperial sanction. The Confederation, or some or
other of its members, had now extended its territory to the
Rhine and the Lake of Constanz. The lands thus won, Aargau,
Thurgau, and some other districts, were held as subject
territories in the hands of some or other of the Confederate
States. … No new states were admitted to the rank of
confederate cantons. Before the next group of cantons was
admitted, the general state of the Confederation and its
European position had greatly changed. It had ceased to be a
purely German power. The first extension beyond the original
German lands and those Burgundian lands which were practically
German began in the direction of Italy. Uri had, by the
annexation of Urseren, become the neighbour of the Duchy of
Milan, and in the middle of the 15th century, this canton
acquired some rights in the Val Levantina on the Italian side
of the Alps. This was the beginning of the extension of the
Confederation on Italian ground. But far more important than
this was the advance of the Confederates over the Burgundian
lands to the west."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 6.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
Austrian defeats at Sempach and Naefels.
"Seldom, if ever, has Switzerland seen a more eventful month
than that of July, 1386, for in that month she fought and won
the ever-memorable battle of Sempach. To set down all the
petty details as to the causes which led to this engagement
would be tedious indeed. It is sufficient to point out … that
there is seldom much love lost between oppressor and
oppressed, and Austria and the Swiss Confederation had for
some time held that relation to each other. A ten years' peace
had indeed been concluded between the two powers, but it was a
sham peace, and the interval had been used by both to prepare
for new conflicts. … Zurich laid siege to Rapperswyl with the
intent to destroy the odious Austrian toll-house; Lucerne
levelled with the ground the Austrian fort Rothenburg, and
entered into alliances with Entlebuch and Sempach to overthrow
the Austrian supremacy. This was equal to a declaration of
war, and war was indeed imminent. Duke Leopold III., of
Austria, was most anxious to bring the quarrel to an issue,
and to chastise the insolent Swiss citizens and peasantry. …
The nobles of Southern Germany rallied round the gallant
swordsman, and made him their leader in the expeditions
against the bourgeoisie and peasantry. And no sooner had the
truce expired (June, 1386), than they directed their first
attack on the bold Confederation. … Leopold's plan was to make
Lucerne the centre of his military operations, but in order to
draw away attention from his real object, he sent a division
of 5,000 men to Zurich to simulate an attack on that town.
Whilst the unsuspecting Confederates lay idle within the walls
of Zurich, he gathered reinforcements from Burgundy, Swabia,
and the Austro-Helvetian Cantons, the total force being
variously estimated at from 12,000 to 24,000 men. He marched
his army in the direction of Lucerne, but by a round-about
way, and seized upon Willisan, which he set on fire, intending
to punish Sempach 'en passant' for her desertion. But the
Confederates getting knowledge of his stratagem left Zurich to
defend herself, and struck straight across the country in
pursuit of the enemy. Climbing the heights of Sempach, … they
encamped at Meyersholz, a wood fringing the hilltop. The
Austrians leaving Sursee, for want of some more practicable
road towards Sempach, made their way slowly and painfully
along the path which leads from Sursee to the heights, and
then turns suddenly down upon Sempach. Great was their
surprise and consternation when at the junction of the Sursee
and Hiltisrieden roads they came suddenly upon the Swiss
force. … The Swiss … drew up in battle order, their force
taking a kind of wedge-shaped mass, the shorter edge foremost,
and the bravest men occupying the front positions. … The onset
was furious, and the Austrian Hotspurs, each eager to outstrip
his fellows in the race for honour, rushed on the Swiss, drove
them back a little, and then tried to encompass them and crush
them in their midst. … All the fortune of the battle seemed
against the Swiss, for their short weapons could not reach a
foe guarded by long lances. But suddenly the scene changed. 'A
good and pious man,' says the old chronicler, deeply mortified
by the misfortune of his country, stepped forward from the
ranks of the Swiss—Arnold von Winkelried. Shouting to his
comrades in arms, 'I will cut a road for you; take care of my
wife and children!' he dashed on the enemy, and, catching hold
of as many spears as his arms could encompass, he bore them to
the ground with the whole weight of his body. His comrades
rushed over his corpse, burst through the gap made in the
Austrian ranks, and began a fierce hand-to-hand encounter. … A
fearful carnage followed, in which no mercy was shown, and
there fell of the common soldiers 2,000 men, and no fewer than
700 of the nobility. The Swiss lost but 120 men. … This great
victory … gave to the Confederation independence, and far
greater military and political eminence. … The story of
Winkelried's heroic action has given rise to much fruitless
but interesting discussion.
{3045}
The truth of the tale, in fact, can neither be confirmed nor
denied, in the absence of any sufficient proof. But Winkelried
is no myth, whatever may be the case with the other great
Swiss hero, Tell. There is proof that a family of the name of
Winkelried lived at Unterwalden at the time of the battle. …
The victory of Naefels [April, 1388] forms a worthy pendant to
that of Sempach. … The Austrians, having recovered their
spirits after the terrible disaster," invaded the Glarus
valley in strong force, and met with another overthrow, losing
1,700 men. "In 1389 a seven years' peace was arranged. … This
peace was first prolonged for 20 years, and afterwards, in
1412, for 50 years."
Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
The Story of Switzerland,
chapter 15.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
The Grey Leagues.
Democratic Independence of Graubünden (Grisons) achieved.
Their Alliance with the Swiss Cantons.
The Swabian War.
Practical separation of the Confederacy from the Empire.
"It was precisely at this epoch [the later years of the 14th
century] that the common people of Graubünden [or the Grisons]
felt the necessity of standing for themselves alone against
the world. Threatened by the Habsburgs, suspicious of the See
of Chur [see TYROL], ill-governed by their decadent dynastic
nobles, encouraged by the example of the Forest Cantons, they
began to form leagues and alliances for mutual protection and
the preservation of peace within the province. Nearly a
century was occupied in the origination and consolidation of
those three Leagues which turned what we now call Graubünden
into an independent democratic state. … The town of Chur,
which had been steadily rising in power, together with the
immediate vassals of the See, took the lead. They combined
into an association, which assumed the name of the
Gotteshausbund; and of which the Engadine [the upper valley of