History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

EASTERN EUROPE IN 1715.
SHOWING SOME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES.
HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
DANISH AND NORWEGIAN POSSESSIONS.
SWEDISH POSSESSIONS.
RUSSIA.
POLAND.
THE EASTERN BOUNDARY UP THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN
BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
The reigns of Catherine I., Peter II., and Anne Ivanovna.
Fruitless war with Turkey.
Depredations in the Crimea.
"The death of Peter found the Russian Court divided into two
powerful factions. The reactionary party, filled with Russians
of the old school, who had looked upon the reforms of Peter
with no favourable eye, such as the Golitsins and the
Dolgorukis, were anxious to raise to the throne Peter, the son
of Alexis [Peter the Great's son, whom he had caused to be put
to death], a mere boy; whereas the party of progress, led by
Menshikov, wished that Catherine, the Tsar's widow, should
succeed. … The party of reform finally triumphed. Catherine
was elected the successor of her husband, and the chief
authority fell into the hands of Alexander Menshikov. … The
brief reign of Catherine is distinguished only by two events
which added any glory to Russia. The Academy of Sciences was
founded in 1726, and Behring, a Dane, was sent on an exploring
expedition to Kamchatka. He has left his name indelibly
written on the geography of the world. … The Empress died on
the 17th of May, 1727, a little more than two years after her
accession to the throne, aged about 39 years. … A ukase of
Peter permitted Catherine to choose her successor. She
accordingly nominated Peter, the son of the unfortunate
Alexis, and, in default of Peter and his issue, Elizabeth and
Anne, her daughters. Anne died in 1728, the year after her
mother; she had married Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein,
… and was the mother of the unfortunate Peter III. Menshikov
was appointed the guardian of the young Tsar till he had
reached the age of 17." In four months Menshikov was in
disgrace and the young Tsar had signed a ukase which condemned
him to Siberian banishment. He died in 1729, and was followed
to the grave a year later by the boy autocrat whose fiat had
been his ruin. On the death of Peter II., the will of
Catherine, in favor of her daughters, was set aside, and the
Council of the Empire conferred the crown on Anne [Anne
Ivanovna], the widowed Duchess of Courland, who was a daughter
of Ivan, elder brother of Peter the Great. An attempt was made
to impose on her a constitution, somewhat resembling the Pacta
Conventa of the Poles, but she evaded it. "The Empress threw
herself entirely into the hands of German favourites,
especially a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, said
to have been the son of a groom. … The Empress was a woman of
vulgar mind, and the Court was given up to unrefined orgies. …
{2763}
Her reign was not an important one for Russia either as
regards internal or foreign affairs. The right of
primogeniture which had been introduced into the Russian law
of real property by Peter the Great, was abolished; it was
altogether alien to the spirit of Slavonic institutions. A
four years' war with Turkey led to no important results."
W. R. Morfill,
The Story of Russia,
chapter 8.
"The Russians could have no difficulty in finding a pretence
for the war [with Turkey], because the khan of the Turkish
allies and dependents, the Tatars on the coast of the Black
Sea and the Sea of Asof, and in the Crimea, could never wholly
restrain his wandering hordes from committing depredations and
making incursions into the neighbouring pasture-lands of
Russia. … In 1735 a Russian corps marched into the Crimea,
ravaged a part of the country, and killed a great number of
Tatars; but having ventured too far without a sufficient stock
of provisions, they were obliged to retreat, and sustained so
great a loss in men that what had been accomplished bore no
proportion to this misfortune. The almost total failure of
this first attempt, which had cost the Russians 10,000 men, by
no means deterred them from pursuing their designs of
conquest. Count Munich marched with a large army from the
Ukraine into the Crimea (1730). The Tatars … suffered the
Russian troops to advance unmolested, thinking themselves safe
behind their entrenchments. … But entrenchments of that kind
were unable to resist the impetuosity of the Russian troops.
They were surmounted; the Tatars repulsed; and a great part of
the Crimea lay at the mercy of the conquerors. In the month of
June they entered the Crimean fortress of Perekop. The Russian
troops now retaliated the devastations committed by the Tatars
in the Empire; but they found it impossible to remain long. …
Whatever the army was in want of had to be fetched with
extreme difficulty from the Ukraine; so that Munich at length
found himself, towards autumn, under the necessity of
withdrawing with his troops by the shortest way to the
Ukraine. … While Munich was in the Crimea, endeavouring to
chastise the Tatars for their depredations, Lascy had
proceeded with another army against Asof. The attack proved
successful; and on the 1st of July the fort of Asof had
already submitted to his arms. … The Ottomans published a
manifesto against Russia, but they were neither able
afterwards to protect the Crimea nor Moldavia, for they were
soon threatened with an attack from Austria also. By the
treaty with Russia, the emperor was bound to furnish 30,000
auxiliaries in case of a war with the Turks; but a party in
the Austrian cabinet persuaded the emperor that it would be
more advantageous to make war himself. … In the year 1737 a
new expedition was undertaken from the Ukraine at an immense
cost. … A new treaty had been concluded with Austria before
this campaign, in which the two empires agreed to carry on the
war in common, according to a stipulated plan. In order to
gain a pretence for the war, Austria had previously acted as
if she wished to force her mediation upon the Turks. The first
year's campaign was so unfortunate that the Austrians were
obliged to give up all idea of prosecuting their operations,
and to think of the protection and defence of their own
frontiers." But "the Russians were every where victorious, and
made the names of their armies a terror both in the east and
the west. Lascy undertook a new raid into the Crimea. Munich
first threatened Bender, then reduced Otchakof without much
difficulty, and left a few troops behind him when he withdrew
… who were there besieged by a large combined army of Turks
and Tatars, supported by a fleet. The Russians not only
maintained the fortress, which was, properly speaking,
untenable, but they forced the Turks to retire with a loss of
10,000 men. The Russian campaign in 1738 was as fruitless, and
cost quite as many men, as the Austrian, but it was at least
the means of bringing them some military renown." In 1739, the
Russians, under Munich, advanced in the direction of Moldavia,
violating Polish territory. "The Turkish and Tatar army which
was opposed to the Russians was beaten and routed [at
Stavoutchani] on the first attack. … Immediately afterwards
the whole garrison, struck with a panic, forsook the fortress
of Khotzim, which had never been once attacked, and it was
taken possession of by the Russians, who were astonished at
the ease of the conquest. Jassy was also taken, and Munich
even wished to attack Bender, when the news of the peace of
Belgrade … made him infuriate, because he saw clearly enough
that Russia alone was not equal to carry on the war. … By the
peace of Belgrade, Austria not only suffered shame and
disgrace, but lost all the possessions which had been gained
by Eugene in the last war, her best military frontier, and her
most considerable fortresses. … By virtue of this treaty,
Austria restored to Turkey Belgrade, Shabacz, the whole of
Servia, that portion of Bosnia which had been acquired in the
last war, and Austrian Vallachia. Russia was also obliged to
evacuate Khotzim and Otchakof; the fortifications of the
latter were, however, blown up; as well as those of Perekop;
Russia retained Asof, and a boundary line was determined,
which offered the Russians the most favourable opportunities
for extending their vast empire southward, at the cost of the
Tatars and Turks."
W. K. Kelly,
History of Russia,
chapter 33 (volume 1).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1726-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
Interference in the election of king of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
Two regencies and two revolutions.
The reign of Empress Elizabeth.
The Empress Anne died in 1740. Her deceased sister, Catherine,
had left a daughter, Anna, married to Anthony Ulrich, Prince
of Brunswick, and this daughter had an infant son, Ivan. By
the will of the Empress the child Ivan was named as her
successor, and Biren was appointed Regent. He enjoyed the
regency but a short time, when he was overcome by a palace
conspiracy and sent in banishment to Siberia. The mother of
the infant Czar was now made Regent; but her rule was brief.
Another revolution, in the latter part of 1741, consigned her,
with her son and husband, to a prison, and raised the Princess
Elizabeth, second daughter of Peter the Great, to the Russian
throne. "The Empress Anna might have ruled without control,
and probably have transmitted the throne to her son Ivan, had
Elizabeth been left to the quiet enjoyment
of her sensual propensities.
{2764}
Elizabeth indulged without concealment or restraint in amours
with subalterns, and even privates of the guard whose barracks
lay near her residence; she was addicted, like them, to strong
drink, and had entirely gained their favour by her good humour
and joviality. Her indolence made her utterly averse to
business, and she would never have thought of encumbering
herself with the cares of government had she not been
restricted in her amusements, reproved for her behaviour, and,
what was worst of all, threatened with a compulsory marriage
with the ugly and disagreeable Anthony Ulrich, of Brunswick
Bevern, brother of the Regent's husband. At the instigation,
and with the money, of the French ambassador, La Chétardie, a
revolution was effected. … Elizabeth, in the manifest which
she published on the day of her accession, declared that the
throne belonged to her by right of birth, in face of the
celebrated ukase issued by her father in 1722, which empowered
the reigning sovereign to name his successor. … On
communicating her accession to the Swedish Government [which
had lately declared war and invaded Finland with no success],
she expressed her desire for peace, and her wish to restore
matters to the footing on which they had been placed by the
Treaty of Nystadt. The Swedes, who took credit for having
assisted the revolution which raised her to the throne,
demanded from the gratitude of the Empress the restitution of
all Finnland, with the town of Wiborg and part of Carelia; but
Elizabeth, with whom it was a point of honour to cede none of
the conquests of her father, would consent to nothing further
than the re-establishment of the Peace of Nystadt. On the
renewal of the war the Swedes were again unsuccessful in every
rencounter, as they had been before."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 3 (volume 3).
"This war had no result except to show the weakness of the
Sweden of Charles XII. against regenerate Russia. The
Scandinavian armies proved themselves very unworthy of their
former reputation. Elizabeth's generals, Lascy and Keith,
subdued all the forts in Finland. At Helsingfors 17,000 Swedes
laid down their arms before a hardly more numerous Russian
force. By the treaty of Abo [August 17, 1743], the Empress
acquired South Finland as far as the river Kiümen, and caused
Adolphus Frederic, Administrator of the Duchy of Holstein, and
one of her allies, to be elected Prince Royal of Sweden, in
place of the Prince Royal of Denmark. … In her internal policy
… Elizabeth continued the traditions of the great Emperor. She
developed the material prosperity of the country, reformed the
legislation, and created new centres of population; she gave
an energetic impulse to science and the national literature;
she prepared the way for the alliance of France and Russia,
emancipated from the German yoke; while in foreign affairs she
put a stop to the threatening advance of Prussia." Elizabeth
died in January, 1762.
A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 6.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1743.
Acquisition of part of Finland from Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1755.
Intrigue with Austria and Saxony against Frederick the Great.
Causes of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1758.
Invasion of Prussia.
Defeat at Zorndorf.
Retreat.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1759.
Renewed invasion of Prussia.
Victory at Kunersdorf.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
Brief reign of Peter III.
His peace with Frederick the Great.
His deposition and death.
His queen, Catherine II., on the throne.
"Charles Peter Ulric, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth
had nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek
religion, and who, at his baptism, had received the name of
Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived at St. Petersburg immediately
after her accession: he was then in his fourteenth year. The
education of this unfortunate prince was neglected. … Military
exercises were the only occupation for which he had any
relish, and in them he was indulged. … His potations, which
were frequent and long, were encouraged by his companions;
and, in a few years, he became a complete bacchanalian." In
1744 the young prince was married to "Sophia Augusta, daughter
of the prince of Anhalt Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the
Greek faith,—a necessary preliminary to her marriage,—had
received the baptismal name of Catherine. This union was
entitled to the more attention, as in its consequences it
powerfully affected, not only the whole of Russia, but the
whole of Europe. Shortly before its completion, Peter was
seized with the small-pox, which left hideous traces on his
countenance. The sight of him is said so far to have affected
Catherine that she fainted away. But though she was only in
her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more
influence than the tender passion, and she smothered her
repugnance. Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the
husband were not of a kind to remove the ill impression: if he
bore her any affection, which appears doubtful, his manners
were rude, even vulgar. … What was still worse, she soon
learned to despise his understanding; and it required little
penetration to foresee that, whatever might be his title after
Elizabeth's death, the power must rest with Catherine. Hence
the courtiers in general were more assiduous in their
attentions to her than to him,—a circumstance which did not
much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new
domestic circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions;
his orgies became frequent; and Catherine was completely
neglected. Hence her indifference was exchanged into absolute
dislike. … Without moral principles; little deterred by the
fear of worldly censure, in a court where the empress herself
was any thing but a model of chastity; and burning with hatred
towards her husband,—she soon dishonoured his bed." Elizabeth
died on the 29th of December, 1761, and Peter III. succeeded
to the throne without opposition. The plotting against him on
behalf of his wife, had long been active, but no plans were
ripe for execution. He was suffered to reign for a year and a
half; but the power which he received at the beginning slipped
quickly away from him. He was humane in disposition, and
adopted some excellent measures. He suppressed the secret
chancery—an inquisitorial court said to be as abominable as
the Spanish inquisition. He emancipated the nobles from the
servility to the crown which Peter the Great had imposed on
them.
{2765}
He improved the discipline of the army, and gave encouragement
to trade. But the good will which these measures might have
won for him was more than cancelled by his undisguised
contempt for Russia and the Russians, and especially for their
religion, and by his excessive admiration for Frederick the
Great, of Prussia, with whom his predecessor had been at war
[but with whom he entered into alliance.]
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
The clergy and the army were both alienated from him, and were
easily persuaded to support the revolution, which Catherine
and her favorites planned for his overthrow. Their scheme was
carried out on the morning of the 19th of July, 1762, when
Peter was in the midst of one of his orgies at Oranienbaum,
some miles from the capital. Catherine went to the barracks of
the troops, and regiment after regiment declared for her.
"Accompanied by about 2,000 soldiers, with five times that
number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign of
Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kasan. Here
every thing was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of
Novogorod, with a host of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the
altar; she swore to observe the laws and religion of the
empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head; she was
proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand-duke Paul her
successor." The dethroned czar, when the news of these events
reached him, doubted and hesitated until he lost even the
opportunity to take to flight. On the day following
Catherine's coronation he signed an act of abdication. Within
a week he was dead. According to accounts commonly credited,
he was poisoned, and then strangled, because the poison did
its deadly work too slowly. "Whether Catherine commanded this
deed of blood, has been much disputed. There can be little
doubt that she did. None of the conspirators would have
ventured to such an extremity unless distinctly authorised by
her." Two years later Catherine added another murder to her
crimes by directing the assassination of Ivan, who had been
dethroned as an infant by Elizabeth in 1741, and who had grown
to manhood in hopeless imprisonment.
History of Russia
(Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia),
volume 2, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
History of the Reign of Peter III. and Catherine II.,
volume 1.
A. Rabbe and J. Duncan,
History of Russia,
volume 1, pages 203-221.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.
Character and reign of Catherine II.
Partition of Poland.
Wars with the Turks.
Acquisition of the Crimea and part of the Caucasus.
Extension of boundaries to the Dnieper.
"Thus was inaugurated the reign of Catherine II., a woman
whose capacities were early felt to be great, but were great
for evil as well as for good. … She was without scruple in the
gratification of her passions, and without delicacy in their
concealment; and a succession of lovers, installed
ostentatiously in her palace, proclaimed to the world the
shamelessness of their mistress. Yet she was great undoubtedly
as a sovereign. With a clear and cultivated intellect, with
high aims and breadth of views, and fearless because despising
the opinions of others, she could plan and she could achieve
her country's greatness; and in the extended dominions and
improved civilization which she bequeathed to her successor is
found a true claim to the gratitude of her subjects. The
foreign transactions of the reign begin with the history of
Poland. With Frederick of Prussia, Catherine may be said to
have shared both the scheme of partition and the spoils that
followed.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
If it is doubtful which originated the transaction, there is
at least no doubt but that Russian policy had prepared the way
for such a measure. … The war with Turkey [see TURKS: A. D.
1768-1774] was closed with equal profit and yet greater glory
to the Russian Empire. The Russian armies had fought and
conquered upon the soil of Moldavia, and had invaded and
occupied the Crimea. At the same time the Russian fleets, no
longer confining themselves to the Baltic or Black Seas, had
sailed round Europe, and had appeared in the Archipelago. An
insurrection of the Greeks had aided their design; and for a
time the Bosphorus and Constantinople had been threatened. The
great Empress of the North had dazzled Europe by the vastness
of her power and designs; and Turkey, exhausted and unequal to
further contest, was constrained to purchase peace. The
possession of Azof, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, the free
navigation of the Euxine and the Mediterranean, were the
immediate gains of Russia. A stipulation for the better
treatment of the Principalities, and for the rights of
remonstrance, both in their behalf, and in that of the Greek
church at Constantinople, gave the opening for future
advantages. Another clause assured the independence of the
Khan of the Crimea, and of the Tartars inhabiting the northern
shores of the Black Sea. Under the name of liberty, these
tribes were now, like Poland, deprived of every strength
except their own; and the way was prepared for their
annexation by Russia. The Peace of Kainardji, as this
settlement was called, was signed in 1774. Within ten years
dissensions had arisen within the Crimea, and both Turks and
Russians had appeared upon the scene. The forces of Catherine
passed the isthmus as allies of the reigning Khan; but they
remained to receive his abdication, and to become the masters
of his country.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
At the same time the Kuban was entered and subdued by
Souvarof, and thus already the Caucasus was reached. Catherine
was now at the height of her power. In a triumphant progress
she visited her new dominions, and gave the august name of
Sebastopol to a new city which was already destined to be the
scourge of the Turkish Empire. She believed herself to be upon
the road to Constantinople; and, in the interviews which she
held with the Emperor Joseph II., she began to scheme for the
partition of Turkey, as she had done for that of Poland. … The
Empress now found herself assailed in two distinct quarters.
Gustavus III. of Sweden, allying with the Sultan, invaded
Finland; and in her palace at St. Petersburg the Empress heard
the Swedish guns.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
She was relieved, however, on the north by the dissension in
the Swedish army, which compelled the King to an inglorious
retreat; and she became able to give an undivided attention to
the affairs of the south. While an Austrian army, which
supported her, was threatening the north-west of Turkey, her
own forces conquered in the north-east. Under Souvarof the
town of Oczakof was taken, and the battle of Rimnik was won.
{2766}
Ismail, that gave the key of the Danube, next fell, and in the
horrors of its fall drew forth a cry from Europe. The triumph
of Catherine was assured; but already the clouds of revolution
had risen in the west; Austria, too busy with the affairs of
the Netherlands, had withdrawn from the fight; and the Empress
herself, disquieted, and satisfied for the time with her
successes, concluded the Peace of Jassy, which extended her
frontiers to the Dniester, and gave her the coast on which so
soon arose the rich city of Odessa. The acquisitions of
Catherine upon the south were completed. Those upon the west
had still to receive important additions. Poland, already once
partitioned was again to yield new provinces to Russia.
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792, and 1793-1796.
The internal government of the Empire was meant undoubtedly to
rival these foreign successes, but unhappily fell short of
them. … The long meditated secularization of the estates of
the clergy was at last accomplished; the freedom of the serfs
was now first urged; and, as a unique experiment in Russian
history, the convoking of a kind of States General was made to
discuss the project. But both project and parliament came to
nothing. … There was much that was unreal in everything, and
Europe, as well as the great Empress herself, was deceived.
And so it came to pass that at the close of the reign there
was the spectacle of much that had been begun but little
finished. Before the death of Catherine [1796], in fact, her
greatness may be said to have passed away."
C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 6.
"The activity of Catherine was prodigious, and her autocratic
instincts extremely strong, and these impulses, affected by
the French doctrines, which we must not forget set up
despotism, if enlightened, as the perfection of wisdom, made
her government attempt to accomplish all things and to meddle
in every department of the national life. She tried to force
civilisation into premature growths; established modern
institutions of many kinds in a backward and half-barbaric
empire; arranged industrial and economic projects and works in
the minutest details; and rigidly prescribed even court dress
and fashions. Ségur thus describes this omni-present and
ubiquitous interference:—'It is sought to create at the same
time a third estate, to attract foreign commerce, to establish
all kinds of manufactures, to extend agriculture, to increase
paper money, to raise the exchanges, to reduce the interest of
money, to found cities, to people deserts, to cover the Black
Sea with a new navy, to conquer one neighbour and circumvent
another, and finally to extend Russian influence all over
Europe.' These liberal reforms and grand aspirations came,
however, for the most part to nothing; and Catherine's
internal government grew by degrees into a grievous, cruel and
prying despotism. … The antithesis of the liberalism in words
and of the tyranny in deeds in Catherine's reign may be
attributed to four main causes. She gradually found out that
reform and progress were impossible in the Russian Empire—half
Asiatic, backward and corrupt—and she swung back to the old
tyranny of the past. The great rising of the serfs under
Pugacheff, too—a servile outbreak of the worst kind —changed
to a great extent the type of her government, and gave it a
harsh and cruel complexion:—'The domestic policy of Catherine
bore, until the end, the traces of those terrible years, and
showed, as it were, the bloody cicatrices of the blows given
and received in a death struggle.' … The foreign policy of
Catherine was more successful than her government and
administration at home, and the reasons are sufficiently
plain. She found grand opportunities to extend her power in
the long quarrels between France and England, in the alliance
she maintained with Frederick the Great—an alliance she clung
to, though she felt the burden—in the instability and weakness
of the Austrian councils, in the confusion and strife of the
French Revolution, above all in the decay of Islam; and
Russia justly hailed her as a great conqueror. … The
Muscovite race would not see her misdeeds in the march of
conquest she opened for it; and her reputation has steadily
increased in its eyes. 'The spirit of the people passes, in
its fulness, into her. It was this that enabled her to make a
complete conquest of her empire, and by this we do not mean
the power which she wrested from the weakness, the cowardice,
and the folly of Peter III.; but the position which this
German woman attained at the close of her life, and especially
after her death, in the history, and the national life, and
development of a foreign and hostile race. For it may be said
that it is since her death, above all, that she has become
what she appears now—the sublime figure, colossal alike and
splendid, majestic and attractive, before which incline, with
an equal impulse of gratitude, the humble Moujik and the man
of letters, who shakes the dust of reminiscences and legends
already a century old.' In one particular, Catherine gave
proof of being far in advance of the ideas of her day, and of
extraordinary craft and adroitness. She anticipated the
growing power of opinion in Europe, and skilfully turned it to
her side by the patronage of the philosophers of France. In
Napoleon's phrase, she did not spike the battery, she seized
it and directed its fire; she had Voltaire, Diderot, and
D'Alembert, admiring mouthpieces, to apologise for, nay to
extol, her government. This great force had prodigious
influence in throwing a glamour over the evil deeds of her
reign, and in deceiving the world as to parts of her conduct:
—'All this forms part of a system—a system due to the
wonderful intuition of a woman, born in a petty German court,
and placed on the most despotic throne of Europe; due, too—and
so better—to her clear apprehension of the great power of the
modern world—public opinion. It is, we do not hesitate to
believe and affirm, because Catherine discovered this force,
and resolved to make use of it, that she was able to play the
part she played in history. Half of her reputation in Europe
was caused by the admiration of Voltaire, solicited, won,
managed by her with infinite art, nay, paid for when
necessary.'"
The Empress Catherine II.
(Edinburgh Review, July, 1893).
"In 1781 Catherine had already sent to Grimm the following
resume of the history of her reign, set forth by her new
secretary and factotum, Besborodko, in the fantastic form of
an inventory:
Governments instituted according to the new form, 29;
Towns built, 144;
Treaties made, 30;
Victories won, 78;
Notable edicts, decreeing laws, 88;
Edicts on behalf of the people, 123;
Total, 492.
{2767}
Four hundred and ninety-two active measures! This astonishing
piece of book-keeping, which betrays so naïvely all that there
was of romantic, extravagant, childish, and very feminine, in
the extraordinary genius that swayed Russia, and in some sort
Europe, during thirty-four years, will no doubt make the
reader smile. It corresponds, however, truly enough, to a
sum-total of great things accomplished under her direct
inspiration. … In the management of men … she is simply
marvellous. She employs all the resources of a trained
diplomatist, of a subtle psychologist, and of a woman who
knows the art of fascination; she employs them together or
apart, she handles them with unequalled 'maestria.' If it is
true that she sometimes takes her lovers for generals and
statesmen, it is no less true that she treats on occasion her
generals and statesmen as lovers. When the sovereign can do
nothing, the Circe intervenes. If it avails nothing to
command, to threaten, or to punish, she becomes coaxing and
wheedling. Towards the soldiers that she sends to death,
bidding them only win for her victory, she has delicate
attentions, flattering forethought, adorable little ways. …
Should fortune smile upon the efforts she has thus provoked
and stimulated, she is profusely grateful: honours, pensions,
gifts of money, of peasants, of land, rain upon the artisans
of her glory. But she does not abandon those who have had the
misfortune to be unlucky. … Catherine's art of ruling was not,
however, without its shortcomings, some of which were due to
the mere fact of her sex, whose dependences and weaknesses she
was powerless to overcome. 'Ah!' she cried one day, 'if heaven
had only granted me breeches instead of petticoats, I could do
anything. It is with eyes and arms that one rules, and a woman
has only ears.' The petticoats were not solely responsible for
her difficulties. We have already referred to a defect which
bore heavily upon the conduct of affairs during her reign:
this great leader of men, who knew so well how to make use of
them, did not know how to choose them. … It seems that her
vision of men in general was disturbed, in this respect, by
the breath of passion which influenced all her life. The
general, the statesman, of whom she had need, she seemed to
see only through the male whom she liked or disliked. … These
mistakes of judgment were frequent. But Catherine did more
than this, and worse. With the obstinacy which characterised
her, and the infatuation that her successes gave her, she came
little by little to translate this capital defect into a
'parti pris,' to formulate it as a system; one man was worth
another, in her eyes, so long as he was docile and prompt to
obey. … And her idea that one man is worth as much as another
causes her, for a mere nothing, for a word that offends her,
for a cast of countenance that she finds unpleasing, or even
without motive, for the pleasure of change and the delight of
having to do with some one new, as she avows naïvely in a
letter to Grimm, to set aside, disgraced or merely cashiered,
one or another of her most devoted servants."
R. Waliszewski,
Romance of an Empress,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
W. Tooke,
Life of Catherine II.
Memoirs of Catherine II., by herself.
Princess Daschkaw,
Memoirs.
S. Menzies,
Royal Favourites.
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volumes 4-7.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1786.
Establishment of the Jewish Pale.
See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1791-1793.
Joined in the Coalitions against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1796.
Accession of Paul.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1798-1799.
The war of the Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1799.
Suwarrow's victorious campaign in Italy
and failure in Switzerland.
Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
Its disastrous ending.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
(AUGUST-DECEMBER); and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1800.
Desertion of the Coalition by the Czar.
His alliance with Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1800-1801.
War with England.
The Northern Maritime League and its sudden overthrow
at Copenhagen by the British fleet.
Peace with England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
Paul's despotism and assassination.
Accession of Alexander I.
The Emperor Paul's "choice of his Ministers was always
directed by one dominant idea—that of surrounding himself with
servants on whom he could entirely rely; for from the moment
of his accession he foresaw and dreaded a Palace revolution. …
He erred in the selection, and especially in the extent, of
the means which he employed to save his life and his power;
they only precipitated his deplorable end. Among the men whom
he suspected, he persecuted some with implacable rigour, while
he retained others at their posts and endeavoured to secure
their fidelity by presents; this, however, only made them
ungrateful. Never was there a sovereign more terrible in his
severity, or more liberal when he was in a generous mood. But
there was no certainty in his favour. A single word uttered
intentionally or by accident in a conversation, the shadow of
a suspicion, sufficed to make him persecute those whom he had
protected. The greatest favourites of to-day feared to be
driven from the Court on the morrow, and banished to a distant
province. Yet the Emperor wished to be just. … All who
belonged to the Court or came before the Emperor were thus in
a state of continual fear." This fear, and the hatred which it
inspired, produced in due time a conspiracy, headed by Counts
Panin and Pahlen, of the Emperor's Council. Purporting to have
for its object only the deposition of the Czar, the conspiracy
was known and acquiesced in by the heir to the throne, the
Grand-Duke Alexander, who had been persuaded to look upon it
as a necessary measure for rescuing Russia from a demented
ruler. "Paul was precipitating his country into incalculable
disasters, and into a complete disorganisation and
deterioration of the Government machine. … Although everybody
sympathised with the conspiracy, nothing was done until
Alexander had given his consent to his father's deposition."
Then it was hurried to its accomplishment. The conspirators,
including a large number of military and civil officials,
supped together, on the evening of March 3, 1801. At midnight,
most of them being then intoxicated, they went in a body to
the palace, made their way to the Emperor's
bed-chamber—resisted by only one young valet—and found him, in
his night-clothes, hiding in the folds of a curtain. "They
dragged him out in his shirt, more dead than alive; the terror
he had inspired was now repaid to him with usury. …
{2768}
He was placed on a chair before a desk. The long, thin, pale,
and angular form of General Bennigsen just admitted to the conspiracy, but who had taken the lead
when others showed signs of faltering], with his hat on his
head and a drawn sword in his hand, must have seemed to him a
terrible spectre. 'Sire,' said the General, 'you are my
prisoner and have ceased to reign; you will now at once write
and sign a deed of abdication in favour of the Grand-Duke
Alexander.' Paul was still unable to speak, and a pen was put
in his hand. Trembling and almost unconscious, he was about to
obey, when more cries were heard. General Bennigsen then left
the room, as he has often assured me, to ascertain what these
cries meant, and to take steps for securing the safety of the
palace and of the Imperial family. He had only just gone out
when a terrible scene began. The unfortunate Paul remained
alone with men who were maddened by a furious hatred of him. …
One of the conspirators took off his official scarf and tied
it round the Emperor's throat. Paul struggled. … But the
conspirators seized the hand with which he was striving to
prolong his life, and furiously tugged at both ends of the
scarf. The unhappy emperor had already breathed his last, and
yet they tightened the knot and dragged along the dead body,
striking it with their bands and feet." When Alexander learned
that an assassination instead of a forced abdication had
vacated the throne for him, he "was prostrated with grief and
despair. … The idea of having caused the death of his father
filled him with horror, and he felt that his reputation had
received a stain which could never be effaced. … During the
first years of his reign, Alexander's position with regard to
his father's murderers was an extremely difficult and painful
one. For a few months he believed himself to be at their
mercy, but it was chiefly his conscience and a feeling of
natural equity which prevented him from giving up to justice
the most guilty of the conspirators. … The assassins all
perished miserably."
Prince Adam Czartoryski,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 9 and 11.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
The Third Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1806-1807.
War with Napoleon in aid of Prussia.
Battle of Eylau.
Treaty of Bartenstein with Prussia.
Decisive defeat at Friedland.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
1806-1807; and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1807.
Ineffective operations of England as an ally against Turkey.
Treaty of Tilsit.
Secret understandings of Napoleon with the Czar.
See TURKS: A. D.1806-1807;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1807-1810.
Northern fruits of the Peace of Tilsit.
English seizure of the Danish fleet.
War with England and Sweden.
Conquest of Finland.
Peculiar annexation of the Grand Duchy to the Empire.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1808.
Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1809.
Cession of Eastern Galicia by the Emperor of Austria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1809-1812.
War with Turkey.
Treaty of Bucharest.
Acquisition of Bessarabia.
See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1810.
Grievances against France.
Desertion of the Continental System.
Resumption of commerce with Great Britain.
Rupture with Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (June-September).
Napoleon's invasion.
Battles of Smolensk and Borodino.
The French advance to Moscow.
"With the military resources of France, which then counted 130
departments, with the contingents of her Italian kingdoms, of
the Confederation of the Rhine, of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw,
and with the auxiliary forces of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon
could bring a formidable army into the field. On the first of
June the Grand Army amounted to 678,000 men, 356,000 of whom
were French, and 322,000 foreigners. It included not only
Belgians, Dutchmen, Hanoverians, Hanseats, Piedmontese, and
Romans, then confounded under the name of Frenchmen, but also
the Italian army, the Neapolitan army, the Spanish regiments,
natives of Germany. … Besides Napoleon's marshals, it had at
its head Eugene, Viceroy of Italy; Murat, King of Naples;
Jerome, King of Westphalia; the princes royal and heirs of
nearly all the houses in Europe. The Poles alone in this war,
which recalled to them that of 1612, mustered 60,000 men under
their standards. Other Slavs from the Illyrian provinces,
Carinthians, Dalmatians, and Croats, were led to assault the
great Slav empire. It was indeed the 'army of twenty nations,'
as it is still called by the Russian people. Napoleon
transported all these races from the West to the East by a
movement similar to that of the great invasions, and swept
them like a human avalanche against Russia. When the Grand
Army prepared to cross the Niemen, it was arranged thus:—To
the left, before Tilsit, Macdonald with 10,000 French and
20,000 Prussians under General York of Wartenburg; before
Kovno, Napoleon with the corps of Davoust, Oudinot, Ney, the
Guard commanded by Bessières, the immense reserve cavalry
under Murat—in all a total of 180,000 men; before Pilony,
Eugène with 50,000 Italians and Bavarians; before Grodno,
Jerome Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Westphalians and Saxons,
&c. We must add to these the 30,000 Austrians of
Schwartzenberg, who were to fight in Gallicia as mildly
against the Russians as the Russians had against the Austrians
in 1809. Victor guarded the Vistula and the Oder with 30,000
men, Augereau the Elbe with 50,000. Without reckoning the
divisions of Macdonald, Schwartzenberg, Victor, and Augereau,
it was with about 290,000 men, half of whom were French, that
Napoleon marched to cross the Niemen and threaten the centre
of Russia. Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men,
commanded by Bagration; on the Bug, tributary to the Vistula,
60,000 men, commanded by Barclay de Tolly; those were what
were called the Northern army and the army of the South. On
the extreme right, Wittgenstein with 30,000 men was to oppose
Macdonald almost throughout the campaign; on the extreme left,
to occupy the Austrian Schwartzenberg as harmlessly as
possible, Tormassof was placed with 40,000.
{2769}
Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men from the
Danube, became formidable, and was destined, under Admiral
Tchitchagof, seriously to embarrass the retreat of the French.
In the rear of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000
men—Cossacks and militia. … In reality, to the 290,000 men
Napoleon had mustered under his hand, the Emperor of Russia
could only oppose the 150,000 of Bagration and Barclay de
Tolly. … At the opening of the campaign the head-quarters of
Alexander were at Wilna. … They deliberated and argued much.
To attack Napoleon was to furnish him with the opportunity he
wished; to retire into the interior, as Barclay had advised in
1807, seemed hard and humiliating. A middle course was sought
by adopting the scheme of Pfühl—to establish an intrenched
camp at Drissa, on the Dwina, and to make it a Russian Torres
Vedras. The events in the Peninsula filled all minds. Pfühl
desired to act like Wellington at Torres Vedras." But his
intrenched camp was badly placed; it was easily turned, and
was speedily abandoned when Napoleon advanced beyond the
Niemen, which he did on the 24th of June. The Russian armies
fell back. "Napoleon made his entry into Wilna, the ancient
capital of the Lithuanian Gedimin. He had said in his second
proclamation, 'The second Polish war has begun!' The Diet of
Warsaw had pronounced the re-establishment of the kingdom of
Poland, and sent a deputation to Wilna to demand the adhesion
of Lithuania, and to obtain the protection of the Emperor. …
Napoleon, whether to please Austria, whether to preserve the
possibility of peace with Russia, or whether he was afraid to
make Poland too strong, only took half measures. He gave
Lithuania an administration distinct from that of Poland. … A
last attempt to negotiate a peace had failed. … Napoleon had
proposed two unacceptable conditions—the abandonment of
Lithuania, and the declaration of war against Great Britain.
If Napoleon, instead of plunging into Russia, had contented
himself with organising and defending the ancient principality
of Lithuania, no power on earth could have prevented the
reestablishment of the Polish-Lithuanian State within its
former limits. The destinies of France and Europe would have
been changed. … Napoleon feared to penetrate into the
interior; he would have liked to gain some brilliant success
not far from the Lithuanian frontier, and seize one of the two
Russian armies. The vast spaces, the bad roads, the
misunderstandings, the growing disorganisation of the army,
caused all his movements to fail. Barclay de Tolly, after
having given battle at Ostrovno and Vitepsk, fell back on
Smolensk; Bagration fought at Mohilef and Orcha, and in order
to rejoin Barclay retreated to Smolensk. There the two Russian
generals held council. Their troops were exasperated by this
continual retreat, and Barclay, a good tactician, with a clear
and methodical mind, did not agree with Bagration, impetuous,
like a true pupil of Souvorof. The one held firmly for a
retreat, in which the Russian army would become stronger and
stronger, and the French army weaker and weaker, as they
advanced into the interior; the other wished to act on the
offensive, full of risk as it was. The army was on the side of
Bagration, and Barclay, a German of the Baltic provinces, was
suspected and all but insulted. He consented to take the
initiative against Murat, who had arrived at Krasnoé, and a
bloody battle was fought (August 14). On the 16th, 17th, and
18th of August, another desperate fight took place at
Smolensk, which was burnt, and 20,000 men perished. Barclay
still retired, drawing with him Bagration. In his retreat
Bagration fought Ney at Valoutina; it was a lesser Eylau:
15,000 men of both armies remained on the field of battle.
Napoleon felt that he was being enticed into the interior of
Russia. The Russians still retreated, laying waste all behind
them. … The Grand Army melted before their very eyes. From the
Niemen to Wilna, without ever having seen the enemy, it had
lost 50,000 men from sickness, desertion and marauding; from
Wilna to Mohilef nearly 100,000. … In the Russian army, the
discontent grew with the retreating movement; … they began to
murmur as much against Bagration as against Barclay. It was
then that Alexander united the two armies under the supreme
command of Koutouzof. … Koutouzof halted at Borodino. He had
then 72,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry, 7,000 Cossacks,
10,000 opoltchénié or militiamen, and 640 guns served by
14,000 artillerymen or pioneers; in all, 121,000 men. Napoleon
had only been able to concentrate 86,000 infantry, 28,000
cavalry, and 587 guns, served by 16,000 pioneers or
artillerymen. … On the 5th of September the French took the
redoubt of Chevardino; the 7th was the day of the great
battle: this was known as the battle of Borodino among the
Russians, as that of the Moskowa in the bulletins of Napoleon,
though the Moskowa flows at some distance from the field of
carnage. … The battle began by a frightful cannonade of 1,200
guns, which was heard 30 leagues round. Then the French, with
an irresistible charge, took Borodino on one side and the
redoubts on the other; Ney and Murat crossed the ravine of
Semenevskoé, and cut the Russian army nearly in two. At ten
o'clock the battle seemed won, but Napoleon refused to carry
out his first success by employing the reserve, and the
Russian generals had time to bring up new troops in line. They
recaptured the great redoubt, and Platof, the Cossack, made an
incursion on the rear of the Italian army; an obstinate fight
took place at the outworks. At last Napoleon made his reserve
troops advance; again Murat's cavalry swept the ravine;
Caulaincourt's cuirassiers assaulted the great redoubt from
behind, and flung themselves on it like a tempest, while
Eugène of Italy scaled the ramparts. Again the Russians had
lost their outworks. Then Koutouzof gave the signal to
retreat. … The French had lost 30,000 men, the Russians
40,000. … Koutouzof retired in good order, announcing to
Alexander that they had made a steady resistance, but were
retreating to protect Moscow." But after a council of war, he
decided to leave Moscow to its fate, and the retreating
Russian army passed through and beyond the city, and the
French entered it at their heels.
A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 12.
{2770}
"The facts prove beyond doubt that Napoleon did not foresee
the danger of an advance upon Moscow, and that Alexander I.
and the Russian generals never dreamed of trying to draw him
into the heart of the country. Napoleon was led on, not by any
plan,—a plan had never been thought of,—but by the intrigues,
quarrels, and ambition of men who unconsciously played a part
in this terrible war and never foresaw that the result would
be the safety of Russia. … Amid these quarrels and intrigues,
we are trying to meet the French, although ignorant of their
whereabouts. The French encounter Neverovski's division, and
approach the walls of Smolensk. It is impossible not to give
battle at Smolensk. We must maintain our communications. The
battle takes place, and thousands of men on both sides are
killed. Contrary to the wishes of the tsar and the people, our
generals abandon Smolensk. The inhabitants of Smolensk,
betrayed by their governor, set fire to the city, and, with
this example to other Russian towns, they take refuge in
Moscow, deploring their losses and sowing on every side the
seeds of hate against the enemy. Napoleon advances and we
retreat, and the result is that we take exactly the measures
necessary to conquer the French."
Count L. Tolstoi,
The Physiology of War: Napoleon and the Russian Campaign,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 4.
Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 18 (volume 3).
Count P. de Segur,
History of the Expedition to Russia,
books 1-8 (volumes 1-2).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (September).
The French in Moscow.
The burning of the city.
"With rapid steps the French army advanced towards the heights
whence they hoped to perceive at length the great city of
Moscow; and, if the Russians were filled with the utmost
sadness, the hearts of the French were equally inspired with
feelings of joy and triumph, and the most brilliant illusions.
Reduced from 420,000 (which was its number at the passage of
the Niemen) to 100,000, and utterly exhausted, our army forgot
all its troubles on its approach to the brilliant capital of
Muscovy. … Imagination … was strongly excited within them at
the idea of entering Moscow, after having entered all the
other capitals of Europe with the exception of London,
protected by the sea. Whilst Prince Eugene advanced on the
left of the army, and Prince Poniatowski on its right, the
bulk of the army, with Murat at its head, Davout and Ney in
the centre, and the Guard in the rear, followed the great
Smolensk road. Napoleon was in the midst of his troops, who,
as they gazed upon him and drew near to Moscow, forgot the
days of discontent, and uttered loud shouts in honour of his
glory and their own. The proposal submitted by Miloradovitch
was readily accepted, for the French had no desire to destroy
Moscow, and it was agreed that not a shot should be fired
during the evacuation, on condition that the Russian army
should continue to defile across the city without a moment's
halt. … The Russian rear-guard defiled rapidly to yield the

ground to our advanced guard, and the King of Naples, followed
by his staff and a detachment of cavalry, plunged into the
streets of Moscow, and, traversing by turns the humblest
quarters and the wealthiest, perceived everywhere the most
profound solitude, and seemed to have entered a city of the
dead. … The information which was now obtained—that the whole
population of the city had fled—saddened the exultation of the
commanders of our advanced guard, who had flattered themselves
that they would have had the pleasure of surprising the
inhabitants by their kindness. … On the morning of the 15th
September, Napoleon entered Moscow, at the head of his
invincible legions, but passed through a deserted city, and
his soldiers were now, for the first time on entering a
capital, the sole witnesses of their own glory. Their feelings
on the occasion were sad ones. As soon as Napoleon had reached
the Kremlin, he hastened to ascend the lofty tower of the
great Ivan, and to survey from its elevation the magnificent
city he had conquered. … A sullen silence, broken only by the
tramp of the cavalry, had replaced that populous life which
during the very previous evening had rendered the city one of
the most animated in the world. The army was distributed
through the various quarters of Moscow, Prince Eugene
occupying the northwest quarter, Marshal Davout the southwest,
and Prince Poniatowski the southeast. Marshal Ney, who had
traversed Moscow from west to east, established his troops in
the district comprised between the Riazan and Wladimir roads;
and the Guard was naturally posted at the Kremlin and in its
environs. The houses were full of provisions of every kind,
and the first necessities of the troops were readily
satisfied. The Superior officers were received at the gates of
palaces by numerous servants in livery, eager in offering a
brilliant hospitality; for the owners of these palaces,
perfectly unaware that Moscow was about to perish, had taken
great pains, although they fully shared the national hatred
against the French, to procure protectors for their rich
dwellings by receiving into them French officers. … From their
splendid lodgings, the officers of the French army wandered
with equal delight through the midst of the city, which
resembled a Tartar camp sown with Italian palaces. They
contemplated with wonder the numerous towns of which the
capital is composed, and which are placed in concentric
circles, the one within the other. … A few days before, Moscow
had contained a population of 300,000 souls, of whom scarcely
a sixth part now remained, and of these the greater number
were concealed in their houses or prostrated at the foot of
the altars. The streets were deserts, and only echoed with the
footsteps of our soldiers. … But although the solitude of the
city was a source of great vexation to them, they had no
suspicion of any approaching catastrophe, for the Russian
army, which alone had hitherto devastated their country, had
departed, and there appeared to be no fear of fire. The French
army hoped, therefore, to enjoy comfort in Moscow, to obtain,
probably, peace by means of its possession, and at least good
winter-cantonments in case the war should be prolonged. But,
on the afternoon they had entered, columns of flame arose from
a vast building containing … quantities of spirits, and just
as our soldiers had almost succeeded in mastering the fire in
this spot, a violent conflagration suddenly burst forth in a
collection of buildings called the Bazaar, situated to the
northeast of the Kremlin, and containing the richest
magazines, abounding in stores of the exquisite tissues of
India and Persia, the rarities of Europe, colonial produce,
and precious wines. The troops of the Guard immediately
hastened up and attempted to subdue the flames; but their
energetic efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the
immense riches of the establishment fell a prey to the fire,
with the exception of some portions which our men were able to
snatch from the devouring element.
{2771}
This fresh accident was again attributed to natural causes,
and considered as easily explicable in the tumult of an
evacuation. During the night of the 15th of September,
however, a sudden change came over the scene; for then as
though every species of misfortune were to fall at the same
moment on the ancient Muscovite capital, the equinoctial gales
suddenly arose with the extreme violence usual to the season
and in countries where widespread plains offer no resistance
to the storm. This wind, blowing first from the east, carried
the fire to the west into the streets comprised between the
Iwer and Smolensk routes, which were the most beautiful and
the richest in all Moscow. Within some hours the fire,
spreading with frightful rapidity, and throwing out long
arrows of flame, spread to the other westward quarters. And
soon rockets were observed in the air, and wretches were
seized in the act of spreading the conflagration. Interrogated
under threat of instant death, they revealed the frightful
secret,—the order given by Count Rostopschin for the burning
of the city of Moscow as though it had been a simple village
on the Moscow route. This information filled the whole army
with consternation. Napoleon ordered that military commissions
should be formed in each quarter of the city for the purpose
of judging, shooting, and hanging incendiaries taken in the
act, and that all the available troops should be employed in
extinguishing the flames. Immediate recourse was had to the
pumps, but it was found they had been removed; and this latter
circumstance would have proved, if indeed any doubt on the
matter had remained, the terrible determination with which
Moscow had been given to the flames. In the mean time, the
wind, increasing in violence every moment, rendered the
efforts of the whole army ineffectual, and, suddenly changing,
with the abruptness peculiar to equinoctial gales, from the
east to the northwest, it carried the torrent of flame into
quarters which the hands of the incendiaries had not yet been
able to fire. After having blown during some hours from the
northwest, the wind once more changed its direction, and blew
from the southwest, as though it had a cruel pleasure in
spreading ruin and death over the unhappy city, or, rather,
over our army. By this change of the wind to the southwest the
Kremlin was placed in extreme peril. More than 400 ammunition
wagons were in the court of the Kremlin, and the arsenal
contained some 400,000 pounds of powder. There was imminent
danger, therefore, that Napoleon with his Guard, and the
palace of the Czars, might be blown up into the air. …
Napoleon, therefore, followed by some of his lieutenants,
descended from the Kremlin to the quay of the Moskowa, where
he found his horses ready for him, and had much difficulty in
threading the streets, which, towards the northwest (in which
direction he proceeded), were already in flames. The terrified
army set out from Moscow. The divisions of Prince Eugene and
Marshal Ney fell back upon the Zwenigarod and St. Petersburg
roads, those of Marshal Davout fell back upon the Smolensk
route, and, with the exception of the Guard, which was left
around the Kremlin to dispute its possession with the flames,
our troops drew back in horror from before the fire, which,
after flaming up to heaven, darted back towards them as though
it wished to devour them. The few inhabitants who had remained
in Moscow, and had hitherto lain concealed in their dwellings,
now fled, carrying away such of their possessions as they
valued most highly, uttering lamentable cries of distress,
and, in many instances, falling victims to the brigands whom
Rostopochin had let loose, and who now exulted in the midst of
the conflagration, as the genius of evil in the midst of
chaos. Napoleon took up his quarters at the Château of
Petrowskoié, a league's distance from Moscow on the St.
Petersburg route, in the centre of the cantonments of the
troops under Prince Eugene, awaiting there the subsidence of
the conflagration, which had now reached such a height that it
was beyond human power either to increase or extinguish it. As
a final misfortune the wind changed on the following day from
southwest to direct west, and then the torrents of flame were
carried towards the eastern quarters of the city, the streets
Messnitskaia and Bassmanaia, and the summer palace. As the
conflagration reached its terrible height, frightful crashes
were heard every moment,—roofs crushing inward, and stately
façades crumbling headlong into the streets as their supports
became consumed in the flames. The sky was scarcely visible
through the thick cloud of smoke which overshadowed it, and
the sun was only apparent as a blood-red globe. For three
successive days—the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th of
September—this terrific scene continued, and in unabated
intensity. At length, after having devoured four-fifths of the
city, the fire ceased, gradually quenched by the rain, which,
as is usually the case, succeeded the violence of the
equinoctial gales. As the flames subsided, only the spectre,
as it were, of what had once been a magnificent city was
visible; and, indeed, the Kremlin, and about a fifth part of
the city, were alone saved,—their preservation being chiefly
due to the exertions of the Imperial Guard. As the inhabitants
of Moscow themselves entered the ruins, seeking what property
still remained in them undestroyed, it was scarcely possible
to prevent our soldiers from acting in the same manner. … Of
this horrible scene the chiefest horror of all remains to be
told: the Russians had left 15,000 wounded in Moscow, and,
incapable of escaping, they had perished, victims of
Rostopschin's barbarous patriotism."
A. Thiers,
History of the] Consulate and the Empire,
book 44 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
General Count M. Dumas,
Memoirs,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
J. Philippart,
Northern Campaigns, 1812-1813,
volume 1, pages 81-115.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (October-December).
The retreat from Moscow.
Its horrors.
"Napoleon waited in vain for propositions from the Czar; his
own were scornfully rejected. Meanwhile the Russians were
reorganizing their armies, and winter set in. On the 13th of
October, the first frost gave warning that it was time to
think of the retreat, which the enemy, already on the French
flank, was threatening to cut off. Leaving Mortier with 10,000
men in the Kremlin, the army quitted Moscow on the 19th of
October, thirty-five days after it had entered the city. It
still numbered 80,000 fighting men and 600 cannons, but was
encumbered with camp-followers and vehicles. At
Malo-Jaroslavetz a violent struggle took place on the 24th.
The town was captured and recaptured seven times. It was
finally left in the hands of the French. Here, however, the
route changed.
{2772}
The road became increasingly difficult, the cold grew intense,
the ground was covered with snow, and the confusion in the
quartermaster's department was terrible. When the army reached
Smolensk, there were only 50,000 men in the ranks (November
9). Napoleon had taken minute precautions to provide supplies
and reinforcements all along his line of retreat; but the
heedlessness of his subalterns, and the difficulty of being
obeyed at such distances and in such a country, rendered his
foresight useless. At Smolensk, where he hoped to find
provisions and supplies, everything had been squandered.
Meanwhile there was not a moment to lose; Wittgenstein, with
the army of the North, was coming up on the French right.
Tchitchagof was occupying Minsk behind the Beresina, with the
army which had just come from the banks of the Danube. Kutusof
was near at hand. The three Russian armies proposed to unite
and bar the Beresina, which the French were obliged to cross.
The French began their march, but the cold became suddenly
intense; all verdure had disappeared, and there being no food
for the horses, they died by the thousand. The cavalry was
forced to dismount; it became necessary to destroy or abandon
a large portion of the cannon and ammunition. The enemy
surrounded the French columns with a cloud of Cossacks, who
captured all stragglers. On the following days the temperature
moderated. Then arose another obstacle,—the mud, which
prevented the advance; and the famine was constant. Moreover,
the retreat was one continuous battle. Ney, 'the bravest of
the brave,' accomplished prodigies of valor. At Krasnoi the
Emperor himself was obliged to charge at the head of his
guard. When the Beresina was reached, the army was reduced to
40,000 fighting men, of whom one-third were Poles. The
Russians had burned the bridge of Borisof, and Tchitchagof, on
the other shore, barred the passage. Fortunately a ford was
found. The river was filled with enormous blocks of ice;
General Eblé and his pontoniers, plunged in the water up to
their shoulders, built and rebuilt bridges across it. Almost
all the pontoniers perished of cold or were drowned. Then,
while on the right of the river Ney and Oudinot held back the
army of Tchitchagof, and Victor on the left that of
Wittgenstein, the guard, with Napoleon, passed over. Victor,
after having killed or wounded 10,000 of Wittgenstein's
Russians, passed over during the night. When, in the morning,
the rear-guard began to cross the bridges, a crowd of
fugitives rushed upon them. They were soon filled with a
confused mass of cavalry, infantry, caissons, and fugitives.
The Russians came up and poured a shower of shells upon the
helpless crowd. This frightful scene has ever since been
famous as the passage of the Beresina. The governor of Minsk
had 24,000 dead bodies picked up and burned. Napoleon
conducted the retreat towards Wilna, where the French had
large magazines. At Smorgoni he left the army, to repair in
all haste to Paris, in order to prevent the disastrous effects
of the last events, and to form another army. The army which
he had left struggled on under Murat. The cold grew still more
intense, and 20,000 men perished in three days. Ney held the
enemy a long time in check with desperate valor; be was the
last to recross the Niemen (December 20). There the retreat
ended, and with it this fatal campaign. Beyond that river the
French left 300,000 soldiers, either dead or in captivity."
Victor Duruy,
History of France,
chapter 66.
"Thousands of horses soon lay groaning on the route, with
great pieces of flesh cut off their necks and most fleshy
parts by the passing soldiery for food; whilst thousands of
naked wretches were wandering like spectres, who seemed to
have no sight or sense, and who only kept reeling on till
frost, famine, or the Cossack lance put an end to their power
of motion. In that wretched state no nourishment could have
saved them. There were continual instances, even amongst the
Russians, of their lying down, dozing, and dying within a
quarter of an hour after a little bread had been supplied. All
prisoners, however, were immediately and invariably stripped
stark naked and marched in columns in that state, or turned
adrift to be the sport and the victims of the peasantry, who
would not always let them, as they sought to do, point and
hold the muzzles of the guns against their own heads or hearts
to terminate their suffering in the most certain and
expeditious manner; for the peasantry thought that this
mitigation of torture 'would be an offence against the
avenging God of Russia, and deprive them of his further
protection.' A remarkable instance of this cruel spirit of
retaliation was exhibited on the pursuit to Wiazma.
Milaradowitch, Beningsen, Korf, and the English General, with
various others, were proceeding on the high-road, about a mile
from the town, where they found a crowd of peasant-women, with
sticks in their hands, hopping round a felled pine-tree, on
each side of which lay about sixty naked prisoners, prostrate,
but with their heads on the tree, which those furies were
striking in accompaniment to a national air or song which they
were yelling in concert; while several hundred armed peasants
were quietly looking on as guardians of the direful orgies.
When the cavalcade approached, the sufferers uttered piercing
shrieks, and kept incessantly crying 'La mort, la mort, la
mort!' Near Dorogobouche a young and handsome Frenchwoman lay
naked, writhing in the snow, which was ensanguined all around
her. On hearing the sound of voices she raised her head, from
which extremely long black, shining hair flowed over the whole
person. Tossing her arms about with wildest expression of
agony, she kept frantically crying, 'Rendez moi mon
enfant'—Restore me my babe. When soothed sufficiently to
explain her story, she related, 'That on sinking from
weakness, a child newly born had been snatched away from her;
that she had been stripped by her associates, and then stabbed
to prevent her falling alive into the hands of their
pursuers.' … The slaughter of the prisoners with every
imaginable previous mode of torture by the peasantry still
continuing, the English General sent off a despatch to the
Emperor Alexander' to represent the horrors of these outrages
and propose a check.' The Emperor by an express courier
instantly transmitted an order 'to prohibit the parties under
the severest menaces of his displeasure and punishment;' at
the same time he directed 'a ducat in gold to be paid for any
prisoner delivered up by peasant or soldier to any civil
authority for safe custody.' The order was beneficial as well
as creditable, but still the conductors were offered a higher
price for their charge, and frequently were prevailed on to
surrender their trust, for they doubted the justifiable
validity of the order.
{2773}
Famine also ruthlessly decimated the enemy's ranks. Groups
were frequently overtaken, gathered round the burning or burnt
embers of buildings which had afforded cover for some wounded
or frozen; many in these groups were employed in peeling off
with their fingers and making a repast of the charred flesh of
their comrades' remains. The English General having asked a
grenadier of most martial expression, so occupied, 'if this
food was not loathsome to him?' 'Yes,' he said, 'it was; but
he did not eat it to preserve life—that he had sought in vain
to lose—only to lull gnawing agonies.' On giving the grenadier
a piece of food, which happened to be at command, he seized it
with voracity, as if he would devour it whole; but suddenly
checking himself, he appeared suffocating with emotion:
looking at the bread, then at the donor, tears rolled down his
cheeks; endeavouring to rise, and making an effort as if he
would catch at the hand which administered to his want, he
fell back and had expired before he could be reached.
Innumerable dogs crouched on the bodies of their former
masters, looking in their faces, and howling their hunger and
their loss; whilst others were tearing the still living flesh
from the feet, hands, and limbs of moaning wretches who could
not defend themselves, and whose torment was still greater, as
in many cases their consciousness and senses remained
unimpaired. The clinging of the dogs to their masters' corpses
was most remarkable and interesting. At the commencement of
the retreat, at a village near Selino, a detachment of fifty
of the enemy had been surprised. The peasants resolved to bury
them alive in a pit: a drummer boy bravely led the devoted
party and sprang into the grave. A dog belonging to one of the
victims could not be secured; every day, however, the dog went
to the neighbouring camp, and came back with a bit of food in
his mouth to sit and moan over the newly-turned earth. It was
a fortnight before he could be killed by the peasants, afraid
of discovery. The peasants showed the English General the spot
and related the occurrence with exultation, as if they had
performed a meritorious deed. The shots of the peasantry at
stragglers or prisoners rang continuously through the woods;
and altogether it was a complication of misery, of cruelty, of
desolation, and of disorder, that can never have been exceeded
in the history of mankind. Many incidents and crimes are
indeed too horrible or disgusting for relation."
General Sir R. Wilson,
Narrative of Events during the Invasion of Russia,
pages 255-261.
General Sir R. Wilson,
Private Journal,
volume 1, page 202-257.
When Napoleon abandoned the army, at Smorghoni, on the 6th of
December, the King of Naples was left in command. "They
marched with so much disorder and precipitation that it was
only when they arrived at Wilna that the soldiers were
informed of a departure as discouraging as it was unexpected.
'What!' said they among themselves, 'is it thus that he
abandons those of whom he calls himself the father? Where then
is that genius, who, in the height of prosperity, exhorted us
to bear our sufferings patiently? He who lavished our blood,
is he afraid to die with us? Will he treat us like the army of
Egypt, to whom, after having served him faithfully, he became
indifferent, when, by a shameful flight, he found himself free
from danger?' Such was the conversation of the soldiers, which
they accompanied by the most violent execrations. Never was
indignation more just, for never were a class of men so worthy
of pity. The presence of the emperor had kept the chiefs to
their duty, but when they heard of his departure, the greater
part of them followed his example, and shamefully abandoned
the remains of the regiments with which they had been
intrusted. … The road which we followed presented, at every
step, brave officers, covered with rags, supported by branches
of pine, their hair and beards stiffened by the ice. These
warriors, who, a short time before, were the terror of our
enemies, and the conquerors of Europe, having now lost their
fine appearance, crawled slowly along, and could scarcely
obtain a look of pity from the soldiers whom they had formerly
commanded. Their situation became still more dreadful, because
all who had not strength to march were abandoned, and every
one who was abandoned by his comrades, in an hour afterwards
inevitably perished. The next day every bivouac presented the
image of a field of battle. … The soldiers burnt whole houses
to avoid being frozen. We saw round the fires the
half-consumed bodies of many unfortunate men, who, having
advanced too near, in order to warm themselves, and being too
weak to recede, had become a prey to the flames. Some
miserable beings, blackened with smoke, and besmeared with the
blood of the horses which they had devoured, wandered like
ghosts round the burning houses. They gazed on the dead bodies
of their companions, and, too feeble to support themselves,
fell down, and died like them. … The route was covered with
soldiers who no longer retained the human form, and whom the
enemy disdained to make prisoners. Every day these miserable
men made us witnesses of scenes too dreadful to relate. Some
had lost their hearing, others their speech, and many, by
excessive cold and hunger, were reduced to a state of frantic
stupidity, in which they roasted the dead bodies of their
comrades for food, or even gnawed their own hands and arms.
Some were so weak that, unable to lift a piece of wood, or
roll a stone towards the fires which they had kindled, they
sat upon the dead bodies of their comrades, and, with a
haggard countenance, steadfastly gazed upon the burning coals.
No sooner was the fire extinguished, than these living
spectres, unable to rise, fell by the side of those on whom
they had sat. We saw many who were absolutely insane. To warm
their frozen feet, they plunged them naked into the middle of
the fire. Some, with a convulsive laugh, threw themselves into
the flames, and perished in the most horrid convulsions, and
uttering the most piercing cries; while others, equally
insane, immediately followed them, and experienced the same
fate."
E. Labaume,
Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
part 2, book 5.
ALSO IN:
Count P. de Segur,
History of the Expedition to Russia,
books 9-12 (volume 2).
C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 5.
Earl Stanhope,
The French Retreat from Moscow
(Historical Essays;
and, also,
Quarterly Review., October 1867, volume 123).
Baron de Marbot,
Memoirs, volume 2, chapters 28-32.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Treaty of Kalisch with Prussia.
The War of Liberation in Germany.
Alliance of Austria.
The driving of the French beyond the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1814.
{2774}
RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (January-April).
The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (May).
The Treaty of Paris.
Evacuation of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna.
Acquisitions in Poland.
Surrender of Eastern Galicia.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
Napoleon's return from Elba.
The Quadruple Alliance.
The Waterloo campaign and its results.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
The Allies again in France.
Second Treaty of Paris.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1817.
Expulsion of Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1820-1822.
The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1825.
Accession of Nicholas.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1827-1829.
Intervention on behalf of Greece.
Battle of Navarino.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1830-1832.
Polish revolt and its suppression.
Barbarous treatment of the insurgents.
See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1831-1846.
Joint occupation of Cracow.
Extinction of the republic.
Its annexation to Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1833-1840.
The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1839-1859.
Subjugation of the Caucasus.
See CAUCASUS.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1849.
Aid rendered to Austria against the Hungarian patriots.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854.
Causes of the Crimean War with Turkey, England and France.
"The immediate cause of the war which broke out in 1853 was a
dispute which had arisen between France and Russia upon the
custody of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The real cause was
the intention of Russia to hasten the dismemberment of the
Turkish Empire. Nicholas, in a memorable conversation,
actually suggested to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg
that England should receive Egypt and Crete as her own portion
of the spoil. This conversation, which took place in January
1853, was at once reported to the British Government. It
undoubtedly prepared the way for future trouble. … It had the
effect of rendering the British Ministry suspicious of his
intentions, at a moment when a good understanding with this
country was of the first importance to the Czar of Russia.
There can, then, be very little doubt that Nicholas committed
a grave error in suggesting a partition, which may have seemed
reasonable enough to Continental statesmen, but which was
regarded with horror by England. Almost at the same moment he
affronted France by declining to call Napoleon 'Monsieur mon
frère.' … Nicholas had the singular indiscretion to render a
British ministry suspicious of him, and a French emperor angry
with him, in the same month. Napoleon could easily avenge the
affront. … The Greek and Latin Churches both claimed the right
of protecting the Holy Places of Palestine. Both appealed to a
Mahometan arrangement in support of their claim: each declined
to admit the pretensions of the other. The Latin Church in
Palestine was under the protection of France; the Greek Church
was under the protection of Russia; and France and Russia had
constantly supported, one against the other, these rival
claims. In the beginning of 1853 France renewed the
controversy. She even threatened to settle the question by
force. The man whom Nicholas would not call 'mon frère' was
stirring a controversy thick with trouble for the Czar of
Russia. It happened, moreover, that the controversy was one
which, from its very nature, was certain to spread. Nearly
eighty years before, by the Treaty of Kainardji, the Porte had
undertaken to afford a constant protection to its Christian
subjects, and to place a new Greek Church at Constantinople,
which it undertook to erect, 'and the ministers who officiated
at it under the specific protection of the Russian Empire.'
The exact meaning of this famous article had always been
disputed. In Western Europe it had been usually held that it
applied only to the new Greek Church at Constantinople, and
the ministers who officiated at it. But Russian statesmen had
always contended that its meaning was much wider; and British
statesmen of repute had supported the contention. The general
undertaking which the Porte had given to Russia to afford a
constant protection to its Christian subjects gave Russia —so
they argued—the right to interfere when such protection was
not afforded. In such a country as Turkey, where chronic
misgovernment prevailed, opportunity was never wanting for
complaining that the Christians were inadequately protected.
The dispute about the Holy Places was soon superseded by a
general demand of Russia for the adequate protection of the
Christian subjects of the Porte; In the summer of 1853 the
demand took the shape of an ultimatum; and, when the Turkish
ministers declined to comply with the Russian demand, a
Russian army crossed the Pruth and occupied the
Principalities. In six months a miserable quarrel about the
custody of the Holy Places had assumed dimensions which were
clearly threatening war. At the advice of England the Porte
abstained from treating the occupation of the Principalities
as an act of war; and diplomacy consequently secured an
interval for arranging peace. The Austrian Government framed a
note, which is known as the Vienna Note, as a basis of a
settlement. England and the neutral powers assented to the
note; Russia accepted it; and it was then presented to the
Porte. But Turkey, with the obstinacy which has always
characterised its statesmen, declined to accept it. War might
even then have been prevented if the British Government had
boldly insisted on its acceptance, and had told Turkey that if
she modified the conditions she need not count on England's
assistance. One of the leading members of Lord Aberdeen's
Ministry wished to do this, and declared to the last hour of
his life that this course should have been taken.
{2775}
But the course was not taken. Turkey was permitted, or,
according to Baron Stockmar, encouraged to modify the Vienna
Note; the modifications were rejected by Russia; and the
Porte, on the 26th of September, delivered an ultimatum, and
on the 4th of October 1853 declared war. These events excited
a very widespread indignation in this country. The people,
indeed, were only imperfectly acquainted with the causes which
had produced the quarrel; many of them were unaware that the
complication had been originally introduced by the act of
France; others of them failed to reflect that the refusal of
the Porte to accept a note which the four Great Powers—of
which England was one—had agreed upon was the immediate cause
of hostilities. Those who were better informed thought that
the note was a mistake, and that the Turk had exercised a wise
discretion in rejecting it; while the whole nation
instinctively felt that Russia, throughout the negotiations,
had acted with unnecessary harshness. In October 1853,
therefore, the country was almost unanimously in favour of
supporting the Turk. The events of the next few weeks turned
this feeling into enthusiasm. The Turkish army, under Omar
Pasha, proved its mettle by winning one or two victories over
the Russian troops. The Turkish fleet at Sinope was suddenly
attacked and destroyed. Its destruction was, undoubtedly, an
act of war: it was distorted into an act of treachery; a
rupture between England and Russia became thenceforward
inevitable; and in March 1854 England and France declared
war."
S. Walpole,
Foreign Relations,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
A. W. Kinglake,
The Invasion of the Crimea,
volume l.
J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
volume 2, chapter 6.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September).
The Crimean War: Landing of the Allies.
Battle of the Alma.
Sufferings of the invading army.
"England, then, and France entered the war as allies. Lord
Raglan, formerly Lord Fitzroy Somerset, an old pupil of the
Great Duke in the Peninsular War, and who had lost his right
arm serving under Wellington at Waterloo, was appointed to
command the English forces. Marshal St. Arnaud, a bold,
brilliant soldier of fortune, was intrusted by the Emperor of
the French with the leadership of the soldiers of France. The
allied forces went out to the East and assembled at Varna, on
the Black Sea shore, from which they were to make their
descent on the Crimea. The war, meantime, had gone badly for
the Emperor of Russia in his attempt to crush the Turks. The
Turks had found in Omar Pasha a commander of remarkable
ability and energy; and they had in one or two instances
received the unexpected aid and counsel of clever and
successful Englishmen. … The invasion of the Danubian
provinces was already, to all intents, a failure. Mr. Kinglake
and other writers have argued that but for the ambition of the
Emperor of the French and the excited temper of the English
people the war might well have ended then and there. The
Emperor of Russia had found, it is contended, that he could
not maintain an invasion of European Turkey; his fleet was
confined to its ports in the Black Sea, and there was nothing
for him but to make peace. But we confess we do not see with
what propriety or wisdom the allies, having entered on the
enterprise at all, could have abandoned it at such a moment,
and allowed the Czar to escape thus merely scotched. … The
allies went on. They sailed from Varna for the Crimea. … There
is much discussion as to the original author of the project
for the invasion of the Crimea. The Emperor Napoleon has had
it ascribed to him; so has Lord Palmerston; so has the Duke of
Newcastle; so, according to Mr. Kinglake, has the 'Times'
newspaper. It does not much concern us to know in whom the
idea originated, but it is of some importance to know that it
was essentially a civilian's and not a soldier's idea. It took
possession almost simultaneously, as far as we can observe, of
the minds of several statesmen, and it had a sudden
fascination for the public. The Emperor Nicholas had raised
and sheltered his Black Sea fleet at Sebastopol. That fleet
had sallied forth from Sebastopol to commit what was called
the massacre of Sinope. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of
Russia. It was the point from which Turkey was threatened;
from which, it was universally believed, the embodied ambition
of Russia was one day to make its most formidable effort of
aggression. Within the fence of its vast sea-forts the fleet
of the Black Sea lay screened. From the moment when the
vessels of England and France entered the Euxine the Russian
fleet had withdrawn behind the curtain of these defences, and
was seen upon the open waves no more. If, therefore,
Sebastopol could be taken or destroyed, it would seem as if
the whole material fabric, put together at such cost and labor
for the execution of the schemes of Russia, would be shattered
at a blow. … The invasion of the Crimea, however, was not a
soldier's project. It was not welcomed by the English or the
French commander. It was undertaken by Lord Raglan out of
deference to the recommendations of the Government; and by
Marshal St. Arnaud out of deference to the Emperor of the
French, and because Lord Raglan, too, did not see his way to
decline the responsibility of it. The allied forces were,
therefore, conveyed to the south-western shore of the Crimea,
and effected a landing in Kalamita Bay, a short distance north
of the point at which the river Alma runs into the sea.
Sebastopol itself lies about 30 miles to the south; and then,
more southward still, divided by the bulk of a jutting
promontory from Sebastopol, is the harbor of Balaklava. The
disembarkation began on the morning of September 14th, 1854.
It was completed on the fifth day; and there were then some
27,000 English, 30,000 French, and 7,000 Turks landed on the
shores of Catherine the Great's Crimea. The landing was
effected without any opposition from the Russians. On
September 19th, the allies marched out of their encampments
and moved southward in the direction of Sebastopol. They had a
skirmish or two with a reconnoitring force of Russian cavalry
and Cossacks; but they had no business of genuine war until
they reached the nearer bank of the Alma. The Russians, in
great strength, had taken up a splendid position on the
heights that fringed the other side of the river. The allied
forces reached the Alma about noon on September 20th. They
found that they had to cross the river in the face of the
Russian batteries armed with heavy guns on the highest point
of the hills or bluffs, of scattered artillery, and of dense
masses of infantry which covered the hills. The Russians were
under the command of Prince Mentschikoff.
{2776}
It is certain that Prince Mentschikoff believed his position
unassailable, and was convinced that his enemies were
delivered into his hands when he saw the allies approach and
attempt to effect the crossing of the river. … The attack was
made with desperate courage on the part of the allies, but
without any great skill of leadership or tenacity of
discipline. It was rather a pell-mell sort of fight, in which
the headlong courage and the indomitable obstinacy of the
English and French troops carried all before them at last. A
study of the battle is of little profit to the ordinary
reader. It was an heroic scramble. There was little coherence
of action between the allied forces. But there was happily an
almost total absence of generalship on the part of the
Russians. The soldiers of the Czar fought stoutly and
stubbornly, as they have always done; but they could not stand
up against the blended vehemence and obstinacy of the English
and French. The river was crossed, the opposite heights were
mounted, Prince Mentschikoff's great redoubt was carried, the
Russians were driven from the field, the allies occupied their
ground; the victory was to the Western Powers. … The Russians
ought to have been pursued. They themselves fully expected a
pursuit. They retreated in something like utter confusion. …
But there was no pursuit. Lord Raglan was eager to follow up
the victory; but the French had as yet hardly any cavalry, and
Marshal St. Arnaud would not agree to any further enterprise
that day. Lord Raglan believed that he ought not to persist;
and nothing was done. … Except for the bravery of those who
fought, the battle was not much to boast of. … At this
distance of time it is almost touching to read some of the
heroic contemporaneous descriptions of the great scramble of
the Alma. … Very soon, however, a different note came to be
sounded. The campaign had been opened under conditions
differing from those of most campaigns that went before it.
Science had added many new discoveries to the art of war.
Literature had added one remarkable contribution of her own to
the conditions amidst which campaigns were to be carried on.
She had added the 'special correspondent.' … When the
expedition was leaving England it was accompanied by a special
correspondent from each of the great daily papers of London.
The 'Times' sent out a representative whose name almost
immediately became celebrated—Mr. William Howard Russell, the
'preux chevalier' of war correspondents in that day, as Mr.
Archibald Forbes of the 'Daily News' is in this. … Mr. Russell
soon saw that there was confusion; and he had the soundness of
judgment to know that the confusion was that of a
breaking-down system. Therefore, while the fervor of delight
in the courage and success of our army was still fresh in the
minds of the public at home, while every music-hall was
ringing with the cheap rewards of valor, in the shape of
popular glorifications of our commanders and our soldiers, the
readers of the 'Times' began to learn that things were faring
badly indeed with the conquering army of the Alma. The ranks
were thinned by the ravages of cholera. The men were pursued
by cholera to the very battle-field, Lord Raglan himself said.
… The hospitals were in a wretchedly disorganized condition.
Stores of medicines and strengthening food were decaying in
places where no one wanted them or could well get at them,
while men were dying in hundreds among our tents in the Crimea
for lack of them. The system of clothing, of transport, of
feeding, of nursing—everything had broken down. Ample
provisions had been got together and paid for; and when they
came to be needed no one knew where to get at them. The
special correspondent of the 'Times' and other correspondents
continued to din these things into the ears of the public at
home. Exultation began to give way to a feeling of dismay. The
patriotic anger against the Russians was changed for a mood of
deep indignation against our own authorities and our own war
administration. It soon became apparent to everyone that the
whole campaign had been planned on the assumption that it was
to be like the career of the hero whom Byron laments, 'brief,
brave, and glorious.' Our military authorities here at home—we
do not speak of the commanders in the field—had made up their
minds that Sebastopol was to fall, like another Jericho, at
the sound of the war-trumpets' blast. Our commanders in the
field were, on the contrary, rather disposed to overrate than
to underrate the strength of the Russians. … It is very likely
that if a sudden dash had been made at Sebastopol by land and
sea, it might have been taken almost at the very opening of
the war. But the delay gave the Russians full warning, and
they did not neglect it. On the third day after the battle of
the Alma the Russians sank seven vessels of their Black Sea
fleet at the entrance of the harbor of Sebastopol. This was
done full in the sight of the allied fleets, who at first,
misunderstanding the movements going on among the enemy,
thought the Russian squadron were about to come out from their
shelter and try conclusions with the Western ships. But the
real purpose of the Russians became soon apparent. Under the
eyes of the allies the seven vessels slowly settled down and
sank in the water, until at last only the tops of their masts
were to be seen; and the entrance of the harbor was barred as
by sunken rocks against any approach of an enemy's ship. There
was an end to every dream of a sudden capture of Sebastopol."
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 27 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
General Sir E. Hamley,
The War in the Crimea,
chapters 2-3.
W. H. Russell,
The British Expedition to the Crimea,
books 1-2.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September-October).
Opening of the siege of Sebastopol.
Four days after the battle of the Alma the allies reached the
Belbek, so close to Sebastopol that "it became a matter of
necessity to decide upon their next step. It appears to have
been the wish of the English at once to take advantage of
their victory and assault the north side. It is now known that
such a step would almost certainly have been successful. … But
again St. Arnaud offered objections." It was then determined
"to undertake a flank march round the head of the harbour, and
to take possession of the heights on the south. It was a
difficult operation, for the country was unknown and rough,
and while in the act of marching the armies were open to any
assault upon their left flank. It was however carried out
unmolested. … On the 26th the English arrived at the little
landlocked harbour of Balaclava, at the foot of the steep
hills forming the eastern edge of the plateau. The fleet, duly
warned of the operation, had already arrived. …
{2777}
Canrobert … had now succeeded the dying St. Arnaud. … A
similar question to that which had arisen on the 24th now
again rose. Should Sebastopol be attacked at once or not?
Again it would appear that Lord Raglan, Sir Edmund Lyons, and
others, were desirous of immediate assault. Again the French,
more instructed in the technical rules of war, and supported
by the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who commanded the English
Engineers, declined the more vigorous suggestion, and it was
determined at least to wait till the siege guns from the fleet
were landed, and the artillery fire of the enemy weakened, in
preparation for the assault. In the light of subsequent
knowledge, and perhaps even with the knowledge then obtainable
if rightly used, it appears that in all the three instances
mentioned the bolder less regular course would have been the
true wisdom. For Menschikoff had adopted a somewhat strange
measure of defence. He had given up all hopes of using his
fleet to advantage. He had caused some of his vessels to be
sunk at the entrance of the harbour, which was thus closed;
and having drawn the crews, some 18,000 in number, from the
ships, he had intrusted to them the defence of the town, and
had marched away with his whole army. The garrison did not now
number more than 25,000, and they were quite unfit—being
sailors—for operations in the field. The defences were not
those of a regular fortress, but rather of an entrenched
position. … There were in Sebastopol two men who, working
together, made an extraordinary use of their opportunities.
Korniloff, the Admiral, forcing himself to the front by sheer
nobleness of character and enthusiasm, found in Colonel von
Todleben, at that time on a voluntary mission in the town, an
assistant of more than common genius. … The decision of the
allies to await the landing of their siege train was more
far-reaching than the generals at the time conceived, although
some few men appear to have understood its necessary result.
It in fact changed what was intended to be a rapid coup de
main into a regular siege—and a regular siege of an imperfect
and inefficient character, because the allied forces were not
strong enough to invest the town. … Preparation had not been
made to meet the change of circumstances. The work thrown upon
the administration was beyond its powers; the terrible
suffering of the army during the ensuing winter was the
inevitable result. … The bombardment of the suburb, including
the Malakoff and the Redan, fell to the English; the French
undertook to carry it out against the city itself, directing
their fire principally against the Flagstaff battery. … Slowly
the siege trains were landed and brought into position in the
batteries marked out by the engineers. … It was not till the
16th of October that these preparations were completed. … The
energy of Korniloff and the skill of Todleben had by this time
roused the temper of the garrison, and had rendered the
defences far more formidable; and in the beginning of October
means had been taken to persuade Menschikoff to allow
considerable bodies of troops to return to the town. … On the
17th the great bombardment began. The English batteries gained
the mastery over those opposed to them, but the efforts of the
French, much reduced by the fire of the besieged, were brought
to a speedy conclusion by a great explosion within their
lines. Canrobert sent word to Lord Raglan that he should be
unable to resume the fire for two days. The attack by the
fleet had been to little purpose. … Every day till the 25th of
October the fire of the allies was continued. But under cover
of this fire (always encountered by the ceaseless energy of
Todleben) the change had begun, and the French were attacking
the Flagstaff bastion by means of regular approaches. On that
day the siege was somewhat rudely interrupted. The presence of
the Russian army outside the walls and the defect in the
position of the allies became evident."
J. F. Bright,
History of England, 1837-1880,
pages 251-256.
ALSO IN:
A. W. Kinglake,
The Invasion of the Crimea,
volumes 3-4.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (October-November).
The Crimean War: Balaclava and Inkermann.
"The Russian general soon showed that he was determined not to
allow the allies to carry on their operations against the town
undisturbed. Large parties of Russian soldiers had for some
time been reconnoitring in the direction of Balaclava, showing
that an attack in that quarter was meditated. At length, on
the 25th of October, an army of 30,000 Russians advanced
against the English position, hoping to get possession of the
harbours and to cut the allies off from their supplies, or at
any rate to destroy the stores which had already been landed.
The part of the works on which the Russian troops first came
was occupied by redoubts, defended by a body of Turkish
recruits, recently arrived from Tunis, who, after offering a
very feeble resistance, fled in confusion. But when the
Russians, flushed with this first success, attempted to pursue
the advantage they had gained, they soon encountered a very
different foe in the Highlanders, commanded by Sir Colin
Campbell, who bore the brunt of the Russian attack with great
firmness. The British cavalry particularly distinguished
themselves in this action, routing a far superior force of
Russian cavalry. It was in the course of this engagement that
the unfortunate blunder occurred, in consequence of which 607
men [the 'Light Brigade' immortalized by Tennyson] galloped
forth against an army, and only 198 came back, the rest having
been killed, wounded, or made prisoners. A long,
unsatisfactory controversy was carried on some time after,
having for its object to decide who was to blame for throwing
away, in this foolish manner, the lives of so many gallant
men. It seems that the orders were not very clearly expressed,
and that the general—Lord Lucan—by whom they were received,
misapprehended them more completely than a man in his position
ought to have done. In the end, the Russians were forced to
retire, without having effected their object: but as they
retained some portion of the ground that had been occupied by
the allies at the commencement of the battle, they too claimed
the victory, and Te-Deums were sung all over Russia in honour
of this fragmentary success. However, the Russian commander
did not abandon the hope of being able to obtain possession of
Balaclava. On the very day following the affair which has just
been related, the Russians within the town made a sortie with
a force of about 6,000 men: but near the village of Inkermann
they encountered so strong a resistance from a far inferior
force, that they were obliged to retreat.
{2778}
The Russian army at Balaclava had been prepared to coöperate
with them; but the promptitude and vigour with which the
allies repelled the sortie prevented the Russians from
entrenching themselves at Inkermann, and thus frustrated the
plan of a combined attack on the allied position which had
probably been formed. The village of Inkermann, which was the
scene of this skirmish, shortly after witnessed a more deadly
and decisive contest. It was on the morning of Sunday,
November 5th, that the approach of the Russian army was heard,
while it was still concealed from view by the mists which
overhung the British position. That army had been greatly
increased by the arrival of large reinforcements, and every
effort had been made to exalt the courage of the soldiers:
they had been stimulated by religious services and
exhortations, as well as by an abundant supply of ardent
spirits; and they came on in the full confidence that they
would be able to sweep the comparatively small British force
from the position it occupied. That position was the centre of
a grand attack made by the whole Russian army. The obscurity
prevented the generals of the allies from discovering what was
going on, or from clearly discerning, among a series of
attacks on different parts of their position, which were real,
and which were mere feints. There was a good deal of confusion
in both armies; but the obscurity, on the whole, favoured the
Russians, who had received their instructions before they set
out, and were moving together in large masses. It was, in
fact, a battle fought pell-mell, man against man, and regiment
against regiment, with very little guidance or direction from
the commanding officers, and consequently one in which the
superior skill of the British gave them little advantage. The
principal point of attack throughout was the plateau of
Inkermann, occupied by the Guards and a few British regiments,
who maintained a long and unequal struggle against the main
body of the Russian army. It was, in fact, a hand-to-hand
contest between superior civilization on the one hand, and
superior numbers on the other, in which it is probable that
the small British force would have been eventually swept off
the field. Bosquet, the ablest of the French generals, with a
soldier's instinct at once divined, amid all the obscurity,
turmoil, and confusion, that the British position was the real
point of attack; and therefore, leaving a portion of his force
to defend his own position, he marched off to Inkermann, and
never halted till his troops charged the Russians with such
fury that they drove them down the hill, and decided the fate
of the battle in favour of the allies. … Meanwhile Mr. Sidney
Herbert, the minister at war, had succeeded in inducing Miss
Florence Nightingale, well known in London for her skilful and
self-denying benevolence, to go out and take charge of the
military hospitals in which the wounded soldiers were
received. Everything connected with the hospitals there was in
a state of the most chaotic confusion. The medical and other
stores which had been sent out were rotting in the holds of
vessels, or in places where they were not wanted. Provisions

had been despatched in abundance, and yet nothing could be
found to support men who were simply dying from exhaustion.
The system of check and counter-check, which had been devised
to prevent waste and extravagance in the time of peace, proved
to be the very cause of the most prodigious waste,
extravagance, and inefficiency in the great war in which
England was now embarked. The sort of dictatorial authority
which had been conferred on Miss Nightingale, supported by her
own admirable organising and administrative ability, enabled
her to substitute order for confusion, and procure for the
multitudes of wounded men who came under her care the comforts
as well as the medical attendance they needed. She arrived at
Scutari with her nurses on the very day of the battle of
Inkermann. Winter was setting-in in the Crimea with unusual
rigour and severity."
W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 3, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
E. H. Nolan,
Illustrated History of the War against Russia,
chapters 40-48 (volume 1).
Chambers' Pictorial History of the Russian War,
chapters 7-8.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855.
Siege and capture of Kars.
"Everywhere unsuccessful in Europe, the Russians were more
fortunate in Asia. Towards the close of 1854, the Turkish army
at Kars was in a wretched and demoralised condition. Its
unsatisfactory state, and the reverses it had experienced,
resulting, it was well known, from the misconduct of the
Turkish officials, induced the British government to appoint
Colonel Williams as a commissioner to examine into the causes
of previous failures, and endeavour to prevent a repetition of
them. … Colonel Williams, attended only by major Teesdale and
Dr. Sandwith, arrived at Kars at the latter end of September,
1854, where he was received with the honour due to his
position. Kars, in past times considered the key of Asia
Minor, is 'a true Asiatic town in all its picturesque
squalor,' and has a fortress partly in ruins, but once
considered most formidable. On inspecting the Turkish army
there, Colonel Williams found the men in rags; their pay
fifteen and even eighteen months in arrear; the horses
half-starved; discipline so relaxed that it could be scarcely
said to exist; and the officers addicted to the lowest vices
and most disorderly habits. … Though treated with an
unpardonable superciliousness and neglect by Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, Colonel
Williams succeeded in promoting a proper discipline, and in
securing the men from being plundered by their officers. In
the January of 1855, the Turkish government granted Colonel
Williams the rank of terik, or general in the Ottoman army,
together with the title of Williams Pasha. The inactivity of
the Russian army at Gumri excited much surprise; but
notwithstanding the condition of the Turks, they permitted
spring to pass away, and summer to arrive, before active
hostilities were resumed. … During this period, the Turks at
Kars had been employed, under the direction of colonel Lake,
in throwing up fortifications around the town, which gradually
assumed the appearance of a formidably intrenched camp. Early
in June the Russians left Gumri, and encamped within five
leagues of Kars. They were estimated at 40,000 men; while the
Turkish troops amounted to about 15,000 men, who had been
familiarised with defeat, and scourged by fever and the
scurvy. In addition to this, their provisions were
insufficient to enable them to sustain a siege of any
considerable duration, and their stock of ammunition was very
low The Russians made a partial attack on the town on the 16th
of June, but they met with a repulse. … The road to Erzeroum
was in their possession, and the supplies intended for the
Turks fell into their hands.
{2779}
In effect, they had blockaded Kars by drawing a cordon of
troops around it. A period of dreary inaction followed this
movement of the Russians, broken only by trivial skirmishes at
the outposts. Want was already felt within the town, and the
prospect of surrender or starvation was imminent. … Omar
Pasha, and a large body of Turkish troops from the Crimea, had
landed at Batoum, and it was expected that they would soon
arrive to raise the siege of Kars. This circumstance,
occurring shortly after the arrival of the news of the fall of
Sebastopol, induced many of the officers of the besieged army
to believe that the Russians were about to retire. This
surmise was strengthened by the fact, that, for several days,
large convoys of heavily laden waggons were observed leaving
the Russian camp. General Williams, however, was not deceived
by this artifice, and correctly regarded it as the prelude to
an extensive attack upon Kars. An hour before dawn on the 29th
of September, the tramp of troops and the rumble of artillery
wheels was heard in the distance, and the Turkish garrison
made hurried preparations to receive the foe. Soon the dim
moonlight revealed a dark moving mass in the valley. It was an
advancing column of the enemy, who had hoped to take the Turks
by surprise. In this they were deceived; for no sooner were
they within range, than a crushing shower of grape informed
them that the Moslems were on the alert. The battle commenced
almost immediately. The assailants rushed up the hill with a
shout, and advanced in close column on the breastworks and
redoubts. From these works a murderous fire of musketry and
rifles was poured forth, aided by showers of grape from the
great guns. This told with terrible effect upon the dense
masses of the foe, who fell in heaps. … Riddled with shot, the
Russians were completely broken, and sent headlong down the
hill, leaving hundreds of dead behind them. … Had not the
Turkish cavalry been destroyed by starvation—a circumstance
which rendered pursuit impossible—the Russian army might have
been almost annihilated. The Turks had obtained an unequivocal
victory, after a battle of nearly seven hours' duration. Their
loss did not exceed 463 killed, of whom 101 were townspeople,
and 631 wounded. That of the Russians was enormous; 6,300 of
them were left dead upon the field, and it is said that they
carried 7,000 wounded off the ground. Though the Russians had
suffered a severe reverse, they were not driven from the
position they held prior to the battle … and were enabled to
resume the blockade of the city with as much strictness as
before. The sufferings of the unhappy garrison and inhabitants
of Kars form one of the most terrible pictures incidental to
this war. Cholera and famine raged within the town; and those
who were enfeebled by the last frequently fell victims to the
first. The hospitals were crowded with the sick and wounded,
but the nourishment they required could not be obtained. The
flesh of starved horses had become a luxury, and the rations
of the soldiers consisted only of a small supply of coarse
bread, and a kind of broth made merely of flour and water. …
Children dropt and died in the streets; and every morning
skeleton-like corpses were found in various parts of the camp.
The soldiers deserted in large numbers, and discipline was
almost at an end. … As all hope of relief from Selim Pasha or
Omar Pasha had expired, general Williams resolved to put an
end to these miseries by surrendering the town to the foe. …
Articles of surrender were signed on the 25th of November. …
The fall of Kars was a disgrace and a scandal to all who might
have contributed to prevent it."
T. Gaspey,
History of England, George III.-Victoria,
chapter 56 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
T. H. Ward,
Humphrey Sandwith,
chapter 9.
S. Lane-Poole,
Life of Stratford Canning,
chapter 31 (volume 2).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
Unfruitful peace negotiations at Vienna.
Renewed bombardment of Sebastopol.
Battle of the Tchernaya.
Repulse of the English from the Redan.
Taking of the Malakhoff by the French.
The congress at Paris.
Peace.
In November, 1854, the Czar, Nicholas I., authorized
Gortschakoff, his Minister at Vienna, to signify to the
Western Powers his willingness to conclude peace on the basis
of "the four points" which the latter had laid down in the
previous spring. These "four points" were as follows:
"(1) The protectorate which Russia had hitherto exercised over
the Principalities was to be replaced by a collective
guarantee;
(2) the navigation of the mouths of the Danube was to be freed
from all impediments;
(3) the treaty of 1841 was to be revised in the interests of
the European equilibrium; and
(4) Russia was to renounce all official protectorate over the
Sultan's subjects, of whatever religion they might be. …
The Czar's new move was not entirely successful. It did not
prevent Austria from concluding a close arrangement with the
Western Powers, and it induced her, in concert with France and
England, to define more strictly the precise meaning attached
to the four points. With some disappointment, Russia was
doomed to find that every successive explanation of these
points involved some fresh sacrifice on her own part. The
freedom of the lower Danube, she was now told, could not be
secured unless she surrendered the territory between that
river and the Pruth which she had acquired at the treaty of
Adrianople; the revision of the treaty of 1841, she was
assured, must put an end to her preponderance in the Black
Sea. These new exactions, however, did not deter the Czar from
his desire to treat. By no other means was it possible to
prevent Austria from taking part against him; and a
conference, even if it ultimately proved abortive, would in
the interim confine her to neutrality. Under these
circumstances, Nicholas consented to negotiate. … The
conference which it was decided to hold in December did not
assemble till the following March. The negotiation which had
been agreed to by Aberdeen, was carried out under Palmerston;
and, with the double object of temporarily ridding himself of
an inconvenient colleague, and of assuring the presence of a
statesman of adequate rank at the conference, Palmerston
entrusted its conduct to Russell. While Russell was on his way
to Vienna, an event occurred of momentous importance. Sore
troubled at the events of the war, alarmed at the growing
strength of his enemies, the Emperor of Russia had neither
heart nor strength to struggle against a slight illness. His
sudden death [March 2, 1855] naturally made a profound
impression on the mind of Europe. …
{2780}
Alexander, his successor, a monarch whose reign commenced with
disaster and ended with outrage, at once announced his
adherence to the policy of his father. His accession,
therefore, did not interrupt the proceedings of the
Conference; and, in the first instance, the diplomatists who
assembled at Vienna succeeded in arriving at a welcome
agreement. On the first two of the four points all the Powers
admitted to the Conference were substantially in accord. On
the third point no such agreement was possible. The Western
Powers were determined that an effectual limitation should be
placed on the naval strength of Russia in the Black Sea; and
they defined this limit by a stipulation that she should not
add to the six ships of war which they had ascertained she had
still afloat. Russia, on the contrary, regarded any such
condition as injurious to her dignity and her rights, and
refused to assent to it. Russia, however, did not venture on
absolutely rejecting the proposal of the allies. Instead of
doing so, she offered either to consent to the opening of the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the ships of war of all
nations, or to allow the Sultan a discretion in determining
whether he would open them to the vessels either of the
Western Powers or of Russia. The Western Powers, however, were
firm in their determination to prevent the fleets of Russia
from passing into the Mediterranean, and refused the
alternative. With its rejection the Conference practically
terminated. After its members separated, however, Buol, the
Austrian Minister, endeavoured to evolve from the Russian
offer a possible compromise. …The rejection of the Austrian
alternative necessitated the continuance of the war. But the
struggle was resumed under conditions very different from
those on which it had previously been conducted. Austria,
indeed, considered that the rejection of her proposal released
her from the necessity of actively joining the Western Powers,
and, instead of taking part in the war, reduced her armaments.
But the Western Powers obtained other aid. The little State of
Sardinia sent a contingent to the Crimea; later on in the year
Sweden joined the alliance. Fresh contingents of troops
rapidly augmented the strength of the French and English
armies, and finer weather as well as better management
banished disease from the camp. Under these circumstances the
bombardment was renewed in April. In May a successful attack
on Kertch and Yenikale, at the extreme east of the Crimea,
proved the means of intercepting communication between
Sebastopol and the Caucasian provinces, and of destroying vast
stores intended for the sustenance of the garrison. In June
the French, to whose command Pelissier, a Marshal of more
robust fibre than Canrobert, had succeeded, made a successful
attack on the Mamelon, while the English concurrently seized
another vantage-ground. Men at home, cheered by the news of
these successes, fancied that they were witnessing the
beginning of the end. Yet the end was not to come immediately.
A great assault, delivered on the 18th of June, by the French
on the Malakhoff, by the English on the Redan, failed; and its
failure, among other consequences, broke the heart· of the old
soldier [Lord Raglan] who for nine months had commanded the
English army. … His capacity as a general does not suffer from
any comparison with that of his successor, General Simpson.
That officer had been sent out to the Crimea in the preceding
winter; he had served under Raglan as chief of the staff; and
he was now selected for the command. He had, at least, the
credit which attaches to any military man who holds a
responsible post in the crisis of an operation. For the crisis
of the campaign had now come. On both sides supreme efforts
were made to terminate the struggle. On the 16th of August the
Russian army in force crossed the Tchernaya, attacked the
French lines, but experienced a sharp repulse. On the 8th of
September the assault of June was repeated; and though the
British were again driven back from the Redan, the French
succeeded in carrying the Malakhoff. The Russians, recognising
the significance of the defeat, set Sebastopol and their
remaining ships on fire, and retreated to the northern bank of
the harbour. After operations, which had lasted for nearly a
year, the allies were masters of the south side of the city.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary to prolong any further the
narrative of operations which had little influence on history.
The story of the defence of Kars and of the bombardment of
Sweaborg have an interest of their own. But they had no effect
on the events which followed or on the peace which ensued.
Soon after, the Vienna Conference was dissolved, indeed, it
became evident that the war was approaching its close. The
cost and the sacrifices which it involved were making the
French people weary of the struggle, and the accidental
circumstances, which gave them in August and September the
chief share in the glory, disposed them to make peace. The
reasons which made the French, however, eager for peace, did
not apply to the English. They, on the contrary, were
mortified at their failures. Their expectations had been
raised by the valour of their army at Alma, at Balaklava, and
at Inkerman. But, since the day of Inkerman, their own share
in the contest had added no new page of splendour to the
English story. The English troops had taken no part in the
battle of the Tchernaya; their assaulting columns had been
driven back on the 18th of June; they had been repulsed in the
final attack on the Redan; and the heroic conduct of their own
countrymen at Kars had not prevented the fall of that
fortress. Men at home, anxious to account for the failure of
their expectations, were beginning to say that England is like
the runner, never really ripe for the struggle till he has
gained his second wind. They were reluctant that she should
retire from the contest at the moment when, having repaired
her defective administration and reinforced her shattered
army, she was in a position to command a victory. Whatever
wishes, however, individual Englishmen might entertain,
responsible statesmen, as the autumn wore on, could not
conceal from themselves the necessity of finding some
honourable means for terminating the war. In October the
British Cabinet learned with dismay that the French Emperor
had decided on withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea. About
the same time the members of the Government learned with equal
alarm that, if war were to be continued at all, the French
public were demanding that France should secure some advantage
in Poland, in Italy, and on the left bank of the Rhine. In
November the French ministry took a much more extreme course,
and concerted with Austria terms of peace without the
knowledge of England. …
{2781}
It was impossible any longer to depend on the co-operation of
France, and … it was folly to continue the struggle without
her assistance. The protocol which Austria had drawn up, and
to which France had assented, was, with some modifications,
adopted by Britain and presented, as an ultimatum, to Russia
by Austria. In the middle of January, 1856, the ultimatum was
accepted by Russia; a Congress at which Clarendon, as Foreign
Minister, personally represented his country, was assembled at
Paris. The plenipotentiaries, meeting on the 25th of February,
at once agreed on a suspension of hostilities. Universally
disposed towards peace, they found no difficulty in
accommodating differences which had proved irreconcilable in
the previous year, and on the 30th of March, 1856, peace was
signed. The peace which was thus concluded admitted the right
of the Porte to participate in the advantages of the public
law of Europe; it pledged all the contracting parties, in the
case of any fresh misunderstanding with the Turk, to resort to
mediation before using force. It required the Sultan to issue
and to communicate to the Powers a firman ameliorating the
condition of his Christian subjects; it declared that the
communication of the firman gave the Powers no right, either
collectively or separately, to interfere between the Sultan
and his subjects; it neutralised the Black Sea, opening its
waters to the mercantile marine of every nation, but, with the
exception of a few vessels of light draught necessary for the
service of the coast, closing them to every vessel of war; it
forbade the establishment or maintenance of arsenals on the
shores of the Euxine; it established the free navigation of
the Danube; it set back the frontier of Russia from the
Danube; it guaranteed the privileges and immunities of the
Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; it similarly
guaranteed the privileges of Servia, though it gave the Sultan
the right of garrison in that province; and it undertook that
Russia and Turkey should restore the conquests which they had
made in Asia [Kars, etc.] one from another during the war.
Such were the terms on which the war was terminated. Before
the plenipotentiaries separated they were invited by Walewski,
the Foreign Minister and first representative of France, to
discuss the condition of Greece, of the Roman States, and of
the two Sicilies; to condemn the licence to which a free press
was lending itself in Belgium; and to concert measures for the
mitigation of some of the worst evils of maritime war."
See DECLARATION OF PARIS.
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 24.
ALSO IN:
E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 2, documents 263-272.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1855.
Accession of Alexander II.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1859.
Improved treatment of the Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
Conquests in Central Asia.
Subjugation of Bokhara, Khiva and Khokand.
"The original cause of Russia's appearance in Central Asia or
Turkestan may be considered either the turbulence of the
Kirghiz tribes, or the ambitions and clearly defined policy of
Peter the Great. … Although the Czarina Anne received in 1734
the formal surrender of all the Kirghiz hordes, it was not
until the present century had far advanced that the Russian
Government could so much as flatter itself that it had
effectually coerced them. … When the Kirghiz were subjugated
Russia found no difficulty in reaching the lower course of the
Jaxartes, on which [in 1849] … she established her advanced
post at Kazala, or Fort No. 1. With her ultimate task thus
simplified, nothing but the Crimean War prevented Russia's
immediate advance up the Jaxartes into Turkestan. … The
conquest of the Khanate of Turkestan began with the siege and
capture of the forts Chulak Kurgan and Yani Kurgan in 1859;
its successful progress was shown by the fall of the fortified
towns of Turkestan and Auliata in 1864; and it was brought to
a conclusion with the storming of Tashkent in 1865. The
conquest of this Khanate, which had been united early in the
century with that of Khokand, was thus speedily achieved, and
this rapid and remarkable triumph is identified with the name
of General Tchernaieff."
D. C. Boulger,
Central Asian Questions,
chapter 1.
"Khudayar Khan, the ruler of Khokand, a noted coward even in
Central Asia, had soon lost his spirits, and implored
Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan for assistance. Bokhara, reputed at that
time the very stronghold of moral and material strength in
Central Asia, was soon at hand with an army outnumbering the
Russian adventurers ten or fifteen times; an army in name
only, but consisting chiefly of a rabble, ill-armed, and
devoid of any military qualities. By dint of preponderating
numbers, the Bokhariots succeeded so far as to inflict a loss
upon the daring Russian general at Irdjar, who, constrained to
retreat upon Tashkend, was at once deposed by his superiors in
St. Petersburg, and, instead of praises being bestowed upon
him for the capture of Tashkend, he had to feel the weight of
Russian ingratitude. His successor, General Romanovsky, played
the part of a consolidator and a preparer, and as soon as this
duty was fulfilled he likewise was superseded by General
Kauffmann, a German from the Baltic Russian provinces, uniting
the qualities of his predecessors in one person, and doing
accordingly the work entrusted to him with pluck and luck in a
comparatively short time. In 1868 the Yaxartes valley,
together with Samarkand, the former capital of Timur, fell
into the hands of Russia, and General Kauffmann would have
proceeded to Bokhara, and even farther, if
Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan … had not voluntarily submitted and
begged for peace. At the treaty of Serpul, the Emir was
granted the free possession of the country which was left to
him, beginning beyond Kermineh, as far as Tchardjui in the
south. … Of course the Emir had to pledge himself to be a true
and faithful ally of Russia. He had to pay the heavy war
indemnity. … he had to place his sons under the tutorship of
the Czar in order to be brought up at St. Petersburg. … and
ultimately he had to cede three points on his southern
frontier—namely, Djam, Kerki, and Tchardjui. … Scarcely five
years had elapsed when Russia … cast her eyes beyond the Oxus
upon the Khan of Khiva. … A plea for a 'casus belli' was soon
unearthed. … The Russian preparations of war had been ready
for a long time, provisions were previously secured on
different points, and General Kauffmann, notoriously fond of
theatrical pageantries, marched through the most perilous
route across bottomless sands from the banks of the Yaxartes
to the Oxus [1873]. …
{2782}
Without fighting a single battle, the whole country on the
Lower Oxus was conquered. Russia again showed herself
magnanimous by replacing the young Khan upon the paternal
throne, after having taken away from him the whole country on
the right bank of the Oxus, and imposed upon his neck the
burden of a war indemnity which will weigh him down as long as
he lives, and cripple even his successors, if any such are to
come after him. Three more years passed, when Russia … again
began to extend the limits of her possessions in the Yaxartes
Valley towards the East. In July, 1876, one of the famous
Russian embassies of amity was casually (?) present at the
Court of Khudayar Khan at Khokand, when suddenly a rebellion
broke out, endangering not only the lives of the Russian
embassy but also of the allied ruler. No wonder, therefore,
that Russia had to take care of the friend in distress. An
army was despatched to Khokand, the rebellion was quelled,
and, as a natural consequence, the whole Khanate incorporated
into the dominions of the Czar. The Khokandians, especially
one portion of them called the Kiptchaks, did not surrender so
easily as their brethren in Bokhara and Khiva. The struggle
between the conquerer and the native people was a bloody and
protracted one; and the butchery at Namangan, an engagement in
which the afterwards famous General Skobeleff won his spurs,
surpasses all the accounts hitherto given of Russian cruelty.
Similar scenes occurred in Endidjan and other places, until
the power of the Kiptchaks, noted for their bravery all over
Central Asia, was broken, and 'peace,' a pendant to the famous
tableau of Vereshtchagin, 'Peace at Shipka,' prevailed
throughout the valleys of Ferghana, enabling the Russian eagle
to spread his wings undisturbedly over the whole of Central
Asia, beginning from the Caspian Sea in the west to the Issyk
Kul in the east, and from Siberia to the Turkoman sands in the
south."
A. Vambéry,
The Coming Struggle for India,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
F. von Hellwald,
The Russians in Central Asia,
chapters 7-11.
J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapters 12 and 18.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1860-1880.
The rise, spread and character of Nihilism.
See NIHILISM.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1861.
Emancipation of serfs.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN:
RUSSIAN SERFDOM.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1864.
Organization of Public Instruction.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—RUSSIA.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1867.
Sale of Alaska to the United States.
See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1869·1881.
Advance in Central Asia from the Caspian.
Capture of Geok Tepe.
Subjugation of the Turkomans.
Occupation of Merv.
"Down to 1869 the Russian advance into Central Asia was
conducted from Orenburg and the various military posts of
Western Siberia. Year by year the frontier was pushed to the
southward, and the map of the Asiatic possessions of Russia
required frequent revision. The long chain of the Altai
Mountains passed into the control of the Czar; the Aral Sea
became a Russian lake; and vast territories with a sparse
population were brought under Russian rule. … The Turcoman
country extends westward as far as the Caspian Sea. To put a
stop to the organized thieving of the Turcomans, and more
especially to increase the extent of territory under their
control, and open the land route to India, the Russians
occupied the eastern shore of the Caspian in 1869. A military
expedition was landed at Krasnovodsk, where it built a fort,
and took permanent possession of the country in the name of
the Czar. Points on the eastern coast of the Caspian had been
occupied during the time of Peter the Great, and again during
the reign of Nicholas I., but the occupation of the region was
only temporary. The force which established itself at
Krasnovodsk consisted of a few companies of infantry, two
sotnias of Cossacks, and half a dozen pieces of artillery.
Three men who afterwards obtained considerable prominence in
the affairs of Central Asia, and one of whom gained a
world-wide reputation as a soldier, were attached to this
expedition. The last was Skobeleff, the hero of Plevna and the
Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. The others were Stolietoff'
and Grodekoff. … The Yomut Turcomans in the Caspian region
made no resistance; they are far less warlike than the Tekke
Turcomans farther to the east, who afterwards became the
defenders of Geok Tepe. … From 1869 to 1873 there were
numerous skirmishes and reconnoitrings, during which the
steppes were pretty well explored as far as Kizil-Arvat.
General Stolietoff' was in command until 1872, when he was
succeeded by Colonel Markusoff, who pushed his explorations to
the wells of Igdy, then bending to the southwest, he passed
Kizil·Arvat on his return to Krasnovodsk. There appeared to be
no obstacle to a Russian advance into the heart of the
country. But when General Lomakin was ordered there during the
years between 1873 and 1879, he found that beyond Kizil-Arvat
were the Tekke Turcomans, who seemed determined to make a
decided opposition to the Muscovite designs. … He advanced
with 4,000 men and reached Geok Tepe without resistance, but
no sooner was he in front of it than the Turcomans fell upon
him. He was severely defeated and made a hasty retreat to
Krasnovodsk with the remnant of his army. General Tergukasoff
was next appointed to the command, but when he saw the
difficulties confronting him he resigned. He was succeeded by
General Petrussovitch under the chief command of Skobeleff.
Thus from Stolietoff to Skobeleff there were no fewer than
seven generals who had tried to conquer the Tekke Turcomans.
Skobeleff, seeing the vast difficulties of the situation,
matured a skilful and scientific plan of operations, for which
he obtained the imperial sanction. … Skobeleff's first work
[1880] was to secure a safe transport, establish a regular
line of steamers across the Caspian, to build suitable docks,
secure 20,000 camels, and build a railway from Michaelovsk to
Kizil-Arvat. Michaelovsk is a small bay near Krasnovodsk and
better suited as a harbor than the latter place. Skobeleff's
first reconnoitring convinced him that Geok Tepe could only be
taken by a regular siege. … Geok Tepe, sometimes called Goek
Tepe ('The Green Hills'), is situated on the Akhal oasis, in
the Turcoman steppes, 387 versts (250 miles), east of the
Caspian Sea. The chain of hills called the Kopet·Dag, lies
south and southwest of Geok Tepe, and on the other side it
touches the sandy desert of Kara Kum, with the hill of Geok on
the east. The Turcomans, or rather the Tekke Turcomans, who
held it are the most numerous of the nomad tribes in that
region.
{2783}
They are reported to count about 100,000 kibitkas, or tents;
reckoning 5 persons to a kibitka, this would give them a
strength of half a million. Their great strength in numbers
and their fighting abilities enabled them to choose their
position and settle on the most fertile oases along the
northern border of Persia for centuries. These oases have been
renowned for their productiveness, and in consequence of the
abundance of food, the Tekkes were a powerful race of men, and
were feared throughout all that part of Asia. … The fortress
of Geok Tepe at the time of the Russian advance consisted of
walls of mud 12 or 15 feet high towards the north and west,
and 6 or 8 feet thick. In front of these walls was a ditch, 6
feet deep, supplied by a running stream, and behind the walls
was a raised platform for the defenders. The space between the
first and second interior wall was from 50 to 60 feet wide,
and occupied by the kibitkas of the Tekke Turcomans and their
families. The second wall was exactly like the outer one." The
Russian siege was opened at the beginning of the year 1881.
"The first parallel, within 800 yards of the walls, was
successfully cut by January 4th. From that date it was a
regular siege, interrupted occasionally by sallies of the
Tekkes within the fort or attacks by those outside. In one of
these fights General Petrussovitch was killed. The besieging
army was about 10,000 strong, while the besieged were from
30,000, to 40,000. … Throughout the siege the Turcomans made
frequent sallies and there was almost continuous fighting.
Sometimes the Turcomans drove the Russians from the outposts,
and if they had been as well armed as their besiegers it is
highly probable that Skobeleff would have fared no better than
did Lomakin in his disastrous campaign. … The storming columns
were ordered to be ready for work on January 24th. … At 7
o'clock in the morning of the 24th, Gaidaroff advanced to
attack the first fortification on the south front, supported
by 36 guns. The wall had already been half crumbled down by an
explosion of powder and completely broken by the firing of a
dynamite mine. At 11.20 the assault took place, and during the
action the mine on the east front was exploded. It was laid
with 125 cwt: of gunpowder, and in its explosion completely
buried hundreds of Tekkes. … About 1.30 P. M. Gaidaroff
carried the southwestern part of the walls, and a battle raged
in the interior. Half an hour later the Russians were in
possession of Denghil-Tepe, the hill redoubt commanding the
fortress of Geok Tepe. The Tekkes then seemed to be
panic-stricken, and took to flight leaving their families and
all their goods behind. … The ditches to Geok Tepe were filled
with corpses, and there were 4, 000 dead in the interior of
the fortress. The loss of the enemy was enormous. In the
pursuit the Russians are said to have cut down no less than
8,000 fugitives. The total loss of the Tekkes during the
siege, capture, and pursuit was estimated at 40,000. …
Skobeleff pushed on in pursuit as far as Askabad, the capital
of the Akhal Tekkes, 27 miles east of Geok Tepe, and from
Askabad he sent Kuropatkin with a reconnoitring column
half-way across the desert to Merv. Skobeleff wanted to
capture Merv; but … he did not feel strong enough to make the
attempt. Kuropatkin was recalled to Askabad, which remained
the frontier post of the Russians for several months, until
circumstances favored the advance upon Sarakhs and the Tejend,
and the subsequent swoop upon Merv, with its bloodless capture
[February, 1884]. The siege and capture of Geok Tepe was the
most important victory ever achieved by the Russians in
Central Asia. It opened the way for the Russian advance to the
frontier of India, and carried the boundaries of the empire
southward to those of Persia. In the interest of humanity, it
was of the greatest importance, as it broke up the system of
man-stealing and its attendant cruelties, which the Turcomans
had practised for centuries. The people of Northern Persia no
longer live in constant terror of Turcoman raids; the slave
markets of Central Asia are closed, and doubtless forever."
T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
chapter 22.
"There is a vast tract of country in Central Asia that offers
great possibilities for settlement. Eastern Afghan, and
Western Turkestan, with an area of 1,500,000 square miles,
have a population which certainly does not exceed 15,000,000,
or ten to the square mile. Were they peopled as the Baltic
provinces of Russia are—no very extreme supposition—they would
support 90,000,000. It is conceivable that something like this
may be realized at no very distant date, when railroads are
carried across China, and when water—the great want of
Turkestan—is provided for by a system of canalisation and
artesian wells. Meanwhile it is important to observe that
whatever benefit is derived from an increase of population in
these regions will mostly fall to China. That empire possesses
the better two-thirds of Turkestan, and can pour in the
surplus of a population of 400,000,000. Russia can only
contribute the surplus of a population of about 100,000,000;
and though the Russian is a fearless and good colonist, there
are so many spaces in Russia in Europe to be filled up, so
many growing towns that need workmen, so many
counter-attractions in the gold bearing districts of Siberia,
that the work of peopling the outlying dependencies of the
empire is likely to be very gradual. Indeed it is reported
that Russia is encouraging Chinese colonists to settle in the
parts about Merv."
C. H. Pearson,
National Life and Character,
pages 43-44.
ALSO IN:
General Skobeleff,
Siege and Assault of Denghil-Tépé
(Geok-Tépé): Official Report.
C. Marvin,
The Russians at the Gates of Herat,
chapter 1-2.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1877-1878.
Successful war with Turkey.
Siege and reduction of Plevna.
Threatening advance towards Constantinople.-
Treaty of San Stefano.
Congress and Treaty of Berlin.
See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877; 1877-1878; and 1878.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1878-1880.
Movements in Afghanistan.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
{2784}
RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
Nihilist attempts against the life of the Czar Alexander II.
His assassination.
In November, 1879, "the Czar paid his annual visit to the
memorial church at Sevastopol, when a requiem was celebrated,
and he left the Crimea on November 30. The following
evening, as his train was entering Moscow, followed by another
carrying his baggage, an explosion took place under the
baggage train from a mine of dynamite below the rails, which
destroyed one carriage, and threw seven more off the line: He
was informed of the cause of the noise he had just heard, as
he stepped on to the platform at Moscow, and it proved to be
another Nihilist outrage [see NIHILISM], designed chiefly by
an ex-Jew, who escaped to France, and by Sophia Perovsky, who
was afterwards concerned in the Emperor's death. A similar
mine, of which the wire was accidentally cut by a passing cart
before the train arrived, had been laid further south at
Alexandrovsk; and another nearer to Odessa was discovered in
time by the officials, who reversed the usual position of the
Imperial trains, thereby probably saving the Czar's life. He
telegraphed the same night to the Empress at Cannes that he
had arrived safely at Moscow, but did not mention his escape,
which she learned from the newspapers, and from her
attendants. In her weak, nervous state, it is not surprising
that the effect was most injurious. … Another plot was
discovered to blow up the landing stage at Odessa when the
Emperor embarked for Yalta on his way from Warsaw in
September; but the arrest of the conspirators frustrated a
scheme by which hundreds as well as the sovereign might have
perished. … The Revolutionary Committee put forth a circular
acknowledging their part in the explosion, and calling on the
people to aid them against the Czar. … A formal sentence of
death was forwarded to him at Livadia by the Revolutionary
Committee in the autumn of 1879; and December 1 was evidently
selected for the Moscow attempt, being the anniversary of the
death of Alexander I.; therefore a fatal day for monarchs in
the eyes of the Nihilists. The Empress continued very ill, and
her desire to return to Russia increased. At last it was
decided to gratify her, as her case was pronounced hopeless. …
The Emperor joined her in the train three stations before she
arrived at St. Petersburg, and drove alone with her in the
closed carriage, in which she was removed from the station to
the Winter Palace. Only a fortnight later [February 17, 1880],
a diabolical attempt was made to destroy the whole Imperial
family. The hours when they assembled in the dining-room were
well known. … The Empress was confined to her room, only kept
alive by an artificial atmosphere being preserved in her
apartment, which was next to the dining-room. Her only
surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, had
arrived the same evening on a visit, and his letter to his
wife on the occasion describes the result of the plot: … 'We
were proceeding through a large corridor to His Majesty's
rooms, when suddenly a fearful thundering was heard. The
flooring was raised as if by an earthquake, the gas lamps were
extinguished, and we were left in total darkness. At the same
time a horrible dust and the smell of gunpowder or dynamite
filled the corridor. Some one shouted to us that the
chandelier had fallen down in the saloon where the table was
laid for the dinner of the Imperial family. I hastened thither
with the Czarovitz and the Grand-Duke Vladimir, while Count
Adlerberg, in doubt as to what might happen next, held back
the Emperor. We found all the windows broken, and the walls in
ruins. A mine had exploded under the room. The dinner was
delayed for half an hour by my arrival, and it was owing to
this that the Imperial family had not yet assembled in the
dining-hall.' One of the Princes remarked that it was a gas
explosion; but the Emperor, who fully retained his composure,
said, 'O no, I know what it is;' and it was subsequently
stated that for several weeks past he had found a sealed
black-bordered letter on his table every morning, always
containing the same threat, that he should not survive the 2nd
of March, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession. His
first care was to see that his daughter was safe, and he then
asked her to go to the Empress, and prevent her from being
alarmed, while he personally inspected the scene of the
catastrophe. General Todleben was of opinion that 144 lbs. of
dynamite must have been used; and one of the cooks —a
foreigner—and another official disappeared; but none of those
concerned in the plot was arrested at that time. Subsequent
information showed that the explosion was intended for the 2nd
of March, but hastened on account of the arrest of some one
acquainted with the plot. It was caused by machinery placed in
the flue, and set for 6 P. M. It killed and wounded two
servants and thirty-three brave soldiers of the Finnish Guard,
who were assembled in the hall under the dining-room and above
the flue where the dynamite was laid. … The Russian and
foreign newspapers teemed with advice to the Emperor to grant
a constitution, or abdicate in order to save his life; and it
is reported that in a Council of his Ministers and relations
he offered to hand over the sceptre at once to his eldest son,
if they agreed that it would be best for their own safety, and
for Russia; but that he was earnestly requested to continue in
power. However this might be, he took an extraordinary and
decisive step. He appointed an Armenian, General Melikof, a
man of 56 years of age, distinguished in the war with Turkey,
and subsequently as Governor of Charkof, to be the temporary
dictator of the Empire, with almost absolute powers, and over
the six Governors-General who in 1879 were established
throughout Russia. The Commission was for six months. … The
explosion in the Winter Palace caused the greatest panic in
St. Petersburg, and people would no longer take tickets for
the opera, till they ascertained that the Emperor was not
likely to be there. … The sad condition of the Empress, who
lingered, hardly conscious, between life and death, the
incessant Nihilist circulars which day after day were found
among his clothes, or on his writing table, with the real
attempts made to poison him in letters and other ways, and of
assassins to penetrate into the Palace under the guise of
sweeps, petitioners, fire-lighters, and guards, the danger to
which his nearest relations were exposed, and the precautions
which he looked upon as a humiliation that were taken to
ensure his safety, added to the cares of Empire, must have
rendered his [the Emperor's] existence hardly tolerable. It is
not surprising that at last he desired to be left to take his
chance. … He was again seen driving in the streets in an open
droschky, with only his coachman and one Cossack. … In May the
Court usually repaired to Gateschina for the summer manœuvres
of the troops. … The Empress, having somewhat rallied, desired
to go as usual to Gateschina. … But early in the morning of
June 3, she passed quietly away in her sleep. …
{2785}
It has been since ascertained that the Nihilists had planned
to blow up the bridge over which the funeral procession must
pass, so as to destroy all the mourners, including the foreign
princes, the Imperial hearse, and the numerous guards and
attendants; but a tremendous storm of rain and wind on the
previous night and morning, which raised the Neva to a level
with its banks, and threatened to postpone the ceremony,
prevented the last measures being taken to secure the success
of the plot. … On March 2, the Emperor, as usual, attended the
Requiem Mass for his father, and the service to celebrate his
own accession to the throne. During the last week of his life,
he lived in comparative retirement, as it was Lent, and he was
preparing for the Holy Communion, which he received with his
sons on the morning of Saturday, March 12. At 12 that day,
Melikof came to tell him of the capture of one of the
Nihilists concerned in the explosion in the Winter Palace.
This man refused to answer any questions, except that his
capture would not prevent the Emperor's certain assassination,
and that his Majesty would never see another Easter. Both
Melikof and the Czarovitz begged the Emperor in vain not to
attend the parade the next day. … After the Parade [Sunday,
March 13, 1881] the Emperor drove with his brother Michael to
the Michael Palace, the abode of their cousin, the widowed
Grand-Duchess Catherine; and, leaving his brother there, he
set off about two o'clock by the shortest way to the Winter
Palace, along the side of the Catherine Canal. There, in the
part where the road runs between the Summer Garden and the
Canal, a bombshell was hurled under the Imperial carriage, and
exploded in a shower of snow, throwing down two of the horses
of the escort, tearing off the back of the carriage, and
breaking the glass, upsetting two lamp-posts, and wounding one
of the Cossacks, and a baker's boy who was passing with a
basket on his head. As soon as he saw the two victims lying on
the pavement, the Emperor called to the coachman to stop, but
the last only drove on faster, having received private orders
from the Emperor's family to waive all ceremony, and to
prevent his master from going into dangerous situations, or
among crowds. However, the Emperor pulled the cord round the
coachman's arm till he stopped; and then, in spite of the
man's request to let himself be driven straight home, got out
to speak to the sufferers, and to give orders for their prompt
removal to the hospital, as the thermometer was below zero. …
The Emperor gave his directions, and seeing the man who had
thrown the bomb in the grasp of two soldiers, though still
struggling to point a revolver at his sovereign, he asked his
name, on which the aid-de-camp replied: 'He calls himself
Griaznof, and says he is a workman.' The Emperor made one or
two more remarks, and then turned to go back to his carriage.
It was observed he was deadly pale, and walked very slowly;
and as splashes of blood were found in the carriage, it was
afterwards supposed that he had already received slight
wounds. Several men had been placed at different points of the
road with explosive bombs, and hearing the first explosion,
two of these hurried up to see the effect. One of them flung a
bomb at the Emperor's feet when he had gone a few paces
towards his carriage, and it exploded, blowing off one leg,
and shattering the other to the top of the thigh, besides
mortally wounding the assassin himself, who fell with a shriek
to the ground, and injuring twenty foot passengers. The other
accomplice, according to his own evidence, put down his bomb,
and instinctively ran forward to help the Emperor, who did not
utter a sound, though his lips moved as if in prayer. He was
supporting himself with his back against a buttress by
grasping the rails on the canal. His helmet was blown off, his
clothes torn to rags, and his orders scattered about on the
snow, while the windows of houses 150 yards distant were
broken by the explosion, which raised a column of smoke and
snow, and was heard even at the Anitchkof Palace. … Besides
his shattered limbs, the Emperor had a frightful gash in the
abdomen, his left eyelid was burnt, and his sight gone, his
right hand was crushed, and the rings broken. … The Emperor
expired from loss of blood at five-and-twenty minutes to four.
… More than twenty persons were killed and injured by the two
bombs."
C. Joyneville,
Life of Alexander II.,
chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
Annual Register, 1879-1881.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1881.
Accession of Alexander III.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1881-1894.
Character and reign of Alexander III.
Persecution of Jews and unorthodox Christians.
Hostility to western civilization.
"According to an apparently authentic report in the Cracow
paper 'Czas,' confirmed by later publications, the Emperor
Alexander II. had signed the very morning of the day on which
he was murdered a Ukase addressed to the Senate, by which a
committee was to be appointed for realising Count Loris
Melikow's project of a general representative assembly
composed of delegates from the provincial assemblies. On March
20th Alexander III. convoked a grand council of the principal
dignitaries, asking their opinion on Loris Melikow's proposal.
A lively discussion took place, of which the 'Czas' gives a
detailed account. … The Emperor, thanking the members, said
that the majority had declared for the convening of an
assembly elected by the nation for discussing the affairs of
the State, adding, 'I share this opinion of the majority, and
wish that the reform Ukase shall be published as under the
patronage of my father, to whom the initiative of this reform
is due.' The Ukase, however, was not published, Podobenoszew
and Ignatiew having succeeded in discrediting it in the eyes
of the Czar, asserting that it would only create excitement
and increase the existing fermentation. On May 13th a
manifesto appeared, in which the Czar declared his will 'to
keep firmly the reins in obedience to the voice of God, and,
in the belief in the force and truth of autocratic power, to
fortify that power and to guard it against all encroachments.'
A few days later Count Ignatiew, the head of the Slavophil
party, was appointed Minister of the Interior, and by-and-by
the other more liberal Ministers of Alexander II. disappeared.
By far the most important personage under the present
government is Podobenoszew, High Procurator of the Holy Synod,
an office equivalent to a Minister of Public Worship for the
State Church. Laborious and of unblemished integrity, this man
is a fanatic by conviction. Under Alexander II., who was too
much of a European to like him, he had but a secondary
position, but under his pupil, the present Emperor, he has
become all-powerful, the more so because his orthodoxy wears
the national garb, and he insists that the break-down of the
Nicolas I. system was only caused through governing with
Ministers of German origin.
{2786}
He is seconded by Count Tolstoi, the Minister of Internal
Affairs (who replaced the more liberal Saburow), to whom
belong the questions concerning the foreign, i. e.,
non-orthodox, confessions. These two, supported by the
Minister of Justice, Manasseïn, have enacted persecutions
against Catholics, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews [see JEWS:
19TH CENTURY], which seem incredible in our age, but which are
well attested. Thousands of persons who have committed no
wrong other than that of being faithful to their inherited
creed have been driven from their homes, and exiled to
Siberia, or to distant regions without any means of
livelihood. As regards Catholics, these measures are
principally directed against the clergy; but the Uniates, i.
e., the Catholics who have the Slav liturgy, are unsparingly
deported if they refuse to have their children baptised by an
orthodox Pope, and this is done with men, women, and children,
peasants and merchants. Twenty thousand Uniates alone have
been removed from the western provinces to Szaratow. Those who
remain at home have Cossacks quartered upon them, and all
sorts of compulsory means are used to stamp out this sect. …
It is pretty certain that Alexander III. is ignorant of the
atrocities committed in his name, for he is not a man to
sanction deliberate injustice or to tolerate persons of
manifest impurity in important offices. Though the Czar
insists upon having personally honest Ministers, mere honesty
is not sufficient for governing a great empire. Truth does not
penetrate to the ear of the autocrat; the Russian Press does
not reflect public opinion with its currents, but is simply
the speaking-tube of the reigning coterie, which has
suppressed all papers opposed to it, while the foreign Press
is only allowed to enter mutilated by the censorship. Some
people have, indeed, the privilege to read foreign papers in
their original shape, but the Autocrat of All the Russias does
not belong to them. … The Emperor is peaceful and will not
hear of war: he has, in fact, submitted to many humiliations
arising from Russia's conduct towards Bulgaria. … With all
this, however, he is surrounded by Panslavists and allows them
to carry on an underground warfare against the Balkan States.
… He is strongly opposed to all Western ideas of civilisation,
very irritable, and unflinching in his personal dislikes, as
he has shown in the case of Prince Alexander of Battenberg;
and, with his narrow views, he is unable to calculate the
bearing of his words and actions, which often amount to direct
provocation against his neighbours. If, nevertheless,
tolerable relations with England, Austria, and Germany have
been maintained, this is for the most part the merit of M. de
Giers, the Foreign Secretary, an unpretending, cautious, and
personally reliable man of business, whose influence with the
Czar lies in the cleverness with which he appears not to
exercise any."
Professor Geffcken,
Russia under Alexander III.
(New Review, September, 1891).
ALSO IN:
H. von Samson-Himmelstierna,
Russia under Alexander III.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1894.
Death of Alexander III.
Accession of Nicholas II.
The Czar Alexander III. died on the 1st of November, 1894, at
Livadia, and the accession of his eldest son, who ascends the
throne as Nicholas II., was officially proclaimed at St.

Petersburg on the following day. The new autocrat was born in
1868. He is to wed the Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt.
----------RUSSIA: End--------
RUSSIA, Great, Little, White, and Black.
"Little Russia consists of the governments of Podolia,
Volhynia, Kief, Tchernigof, Poltava, and Kharkof. … To protect
Poland from Tartar raids, the Polish king entrusted to the
keeping of the Cossacks the whole south-east frontier of
Poland, the former Grand Duchy of Kief, which acquired the
name of Ukraine, 'borderland,' and also of Little Russia, in
contradistinction to the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Great
Russia. …
See COSSACKS.
The provinces of Moghilef, Minsk, and Vitebsk are popularly
known by the name of White Russia. … The peaceful,
industrious, good tempered White Russians are descendants of
the old Slav race of the Krevitchi. … The name of 'the land
of the Krevitchi,' by which White Russia was called in the
11th century, died out on the rise of the Principalities of
Polotsk, Misteslavsk, and Minsk, which belonged first to
Kief, next to Lithuania, and later still to Poland."
H. M. Chester,
Russia, Past and Present,
pages 225. 228, 270-271.
"The epithet of 'White,' applied also to the Muscovite
Russians in the sense of 'free,' at the time when they were
rescued from the Tatar yoke, has been the special designation
of the Russians of the Upper Dnieper only since the end of the
14th century. At first applied by the Poles to all the
Lithuanian possessions torn from the Muscovites, it was
afterwards used in a more restricted sense. Catherine II. gave
the name of White Russia to the present provinces of Vitebsk
and Moghilov, and Nicholas abolished the expression
altogether, since when it has lost all its political
significance, while preserving its ethnical value. … The term
'White' is generally supposed to refer to the colour of their
dress in contradistinction to the 'Black Russians,' between
the Pripet and Niemen, who form the ethnical transition from
the Little to the White Russians. … The terms Little Russia
(Malo-Russia, Lesser Russia), Ukrania, Ruthenia, have never
had any definite limits, constantly shifting with the
vicissitudes of history, and even with the administrative
divisions. … The name itself of Little Russia appears for the
first time in the Byzantine chronicles of the 13th century in
association with Galicia and Volhynia, after which it was
extended to the Middle Dnieper, or Kiyovia. In the same way
Ukrania—that is 'Frontier'—was first applied to Podolia to
distinguish it from Galicia, and afterwards to the southern
provinces of the Lithuanian state, between the Bug and
Dnieper."
É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
volume 5. pages 282-290.
RUSSIAN AMERICA.
See ALASKA.
RUSTCHUK, Battle of (1594).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).
RUTENI, The.
The Ruteni were a Gallic tribe, who bordered on the Roman
Gallia Provincia, between the Cevennes and the Cadurci
occupying the district of France called Rouergue before the
Revolution.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 17.
RUTENNU, The.
See ROTENNU.
{2787}
RÜTLI,
GRÜTLI, The Meadow of.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
RUTULIANS, The.
See LATIUM.
RUTUPIÆ.
The principal Kentish seaport of Roman Britain; now
Richborough. It was celebrated for its oysters.
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
C. Roach Smith,
Antiquities of Richborough.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
RUWARD OF BRABANT.
"This office was one of great historical dignity, but somewhat
anomalous in its functions. … A Ruward was not exactly
dictator, although his authority was universal. He was not
exactly protector, nor governor, nor stadholder. His functions
… were commonly conferred on the natural heir to the
sovereignty—therefore more lofty than those of ordinary
stadholders."
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic;
part 5, chapter 4.
RYE-HOUSE PLOT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
RYOTS OF BENGAL, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
RYSWICK, The Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696; and 1697.
S
SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN: United to France (1680).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
SABÆANS, The.
See ARABIA: ANCIENT SUCCESSION
AND FUSION OF RACES.
SABANA DE LA CRUZ, Battle of (1859).
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
SABBATHAISTS.
A Jewish sect, believers in the Messianic pretensions of one
Sabbathai Sevi, of Smyrna, who made an extraordinary commotion
in the Jewish world about the middle of the 17th century, and
who finally embraced Mahometanism.
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 28.
SABELLIANS, The.
See SABINES;
also, ITALY: ANCIENT.
SABELLIANS, The sect of the.
See NOËTIANS.
SABINE CROSS ROADS, OR MANSFIELD, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
SABINE WARS, The.
The Roman historians—Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and others—
gave credit to traditions of a long and dangerous war, or
series of wars, with the Sabines, following the expulsion of
the Tarquins from Rome and the founding of the Republic. But
modern skeptical criticism has left little ground for any part
of the story of these wars. It seems to have been derived from
the chronicles of an ancient family, the Valerian family, and,
as a recent writer has said, it is suspicious that "a Valerius
never holds a magistracy but there is a Sabine war." Ihne
conjectures that some annalist of the Valerian family used the
term Sabine in relating the wars of the Romans with the
Latins, and with the Tarquins, struggling to regain their lost
throne, and that this gave a start to the whole fictitious
narrative of Sabine wars.
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 12.
SABINE WOMEN, The Rape of the.
See ROME: B. C. 753-510.
SABINES, OR SABELLIANS, The.
"The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under
this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to
have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the
Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and
Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a
pastoral life, and therefore fixed their early settlements in
the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along
this central range, they penetrated downwards towards the Gulf
of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find
support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued
forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled
with the Opican and Pelasgian races of the south, and formed
new tribes known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and
Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the
Greek colonies on the coast. … It is certain that the nation
we call Roman was more than half Sabellian. Traditional
history … attributes the conquest of Rome to a Sabine tribe.
Some of her kings were Sabine; the name borne by her citizens
was Sabine; her religion was Sabine; most of her institutions
in war and peace were Sabine; and therefore it may be
concluded that the language of the Roman people differed from
that of Latium Proper by its Sabine elements, though this
difference died out again as the Latin communities were
gradually absorbed into the territory of Rome.'
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
introduction, section 2.
See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.
SABINIAN, Pope, A. D. 604-606.
SABRINA.
The ancient name of the Severn river.
SAC AND SOC.
A term used in early English and Norman times to signify
grants of jurisdiction to individual land-owners. The
manorial court-leets were the products of these grants.
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 73.
See, also, MANORS.
SAC, OR SAUK, INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, FOXES, ETC.
SACÆ, The.
"The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians,
and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells
us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and
that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all
the Scythians Sacæ."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 2 (volume 5).
See, also, SCYTHIANS.
SACERDOTES.
These were the public priests of the ancient Romans, who
performed the 'sacra publica' or religious rites for the
people, at public expense.
E. Guhl and W. Koner.
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103.
SACHEM.
SAGAMORE.
"Each totem of the Lenape [or Delaware Indians of North
America] recognized a chieftain, called sachem, 'sakima,' a
word found in most Algonkin dialects, with slight variations
(Chip., 'ogima,' Cree, 'okimaw, Pequot, 'sachimma '), and
derived from a root 'ŏki,' signifying above in space, and, by
a transfer frequent in all languages, above in power. …
{2789}
It appears from Mr. Morgan's inquiries, that at present and of
later years, 'the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens,
but elective among its members.' Loskiel, however, writing on
the excellent authority of Zeisberger, states explicitly that
the chief of each totem was selected and inaugurated by those
of the remaining two. By common and ancient consent, the chief
selected from the Turtle totem was head chief of the whole
Lenape nation. The chieftains were the 'peace chiefs.' They
could neither go to war themselves, nor send nor receive the
war belt—the ominous string of dark wampum, which indicated
that the tempest of strife was to be let loose. … War was
declared by the people at the instigation of the 'war
captains,' valorous braves of any birth or family who had
distinguished themselves by personal prowess."
D. G. Brinton,
The Lenape and their Legends,
chapter 3.
"At the institution of the League [of the Iroquois] fifty
permanent sachemships were created, with appropriate names;
and in the sachems who held these titles were vested the
supreme powers of the confederacy. … The sachems themselves
were equal in rank and authority, and instead of holding
separate territorial jurisdictions, their powers were joint,
and coextensive with the League. As a safeguard against
contention and fraud, each sachem was 'raised up' and invested
with his title by a council of all the sachems, with suitable
forms and ceremonies. … The sachemships were distributed
unequally between the five nations, but without thereby giving
to either a preponderance of political power. Nine of them
were assigned to the Mohawk nation, nine to the Oneida,
fourteen to the Onondaga, ten to the Cayuga and eight to the
Seneca. The sachems united formed the Council of the League,
the ruling body, in which resided the executive, legislative
and judicial authority."
L. H. Morgan,
The League of the Iroquois,
book 1, chapter 3.
"The New England Indians had functionaries; … the higher class
known as sachems, the subordinate, or those of inferior note
or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores. … This is the
distinction commonly made (Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I. 410).
But Williamson Maine, I. 494) reverses it; Dudley (Letter to
the Countess of Lincoln) says, 'Sagamore, so are the kings
with us called, as they are sachems southward' (that is, in
Plymouth); and Gookin (Massachusetts Historical Collection.,
1. 154) speaks of the two titles of office as equivalent."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.
SACHEVERELL, Henry: Impeachment of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
SACKETT'S HARBOR:
Naval headquarters in the war of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
SÄCKINGEN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SACRAMENTARIANS.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
SACRED BAND OF CARTHAGE.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
SACRED BAND OF THEBES.
See THEBES, GREECE: B. C. 378.
SACRED MONTH OF THE CHARTISTS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842.
SACRED MOUNT AT ROME, The.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
SACRED PROMONTORY, The.
The southwestern extremity of Spain—Cape St. Vincent—was
anciently called the Sacred Promontory, and supposed by early
geographers to be the extreme western point of the known
world.
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 28, part 1 (volume 2).
SACRED ROADS IN GREECE.
"After the chariot races came into vogue [at the sacred
festivals and games] these equally necessitated good carriage
roads, which it was not easy to make in a rocky locality like
Delphi. Thus arose the sacred roads, along which the gods
themselves were said to have first passed, as Apollo once came
through pathless tracks to Delphi. … Hence the art of
road-making and of building bridges, which deprived the wild
mountain streams of their dangers, took its first origin from
the national sanctuaries, especially from those of Apollo.
While the foot-paths led across the mountain ridges, the
carriage-roads followed the ravines which the water had
formed. The rocky surface was leveled, and ruts hollowed out
which, carefully smoothed, served as tracks in which the
wheels rolled on without obstruction. This style of roads made
it necessary, in order to a more extended intercourse, to
establish an equal gauge, since otherwise the festive as well
as the racing chariots would have been prevented from visiting
the various sanctuaries. And since as a matter of fact, as far
as the influence of Delphi extended in the Peloponnesus and in
central Greece, the same gauge of 5 ft. 4 in. demonstrably
prevailed, not merely the extension, but also the
equalization, of the net-work of Greek roads took its origin
from Delphi."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 4.
SACRED TRUCE, The.
See OLYMPIC GAMES.
----------SACRED WAR: Start--------
SACRED WAR, The First.
See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586,
and DELPHI.
SACRED WAR: The Second.
The Phocians, B. C. 449, counting on the support of Athens,
whose allies they were, undertook to acquire possession of the
sacred and wealthy city of Delphi. The Spartans sent an army
to the defense of the sanctuary and expelled them;· whereupon
the Athenians sent another and restored them.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 45.
SACRED WAR: The Ten Years.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
----------SACRED WAR: End--------
SACRED WAY AT ATHENS.
The road which led from the great gate of Athens called
Dipylum straight to Eleusis, along which the festive
processions moved, was called the Sacred Way.
W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
section 2.
SACRED WAY AT ROME, The.
See VIA SACRA.
SACRIPORTUS, Battle of (B. C. 83).
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
{2789}
SADDUCEES, The.
"There is a tradition that the name of Sadducee was derived
from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socko. But the
statement is not earlier than the seventh century after the
Christian Era, and the person seems too obscure to have
originated so widespread a title. It has been also ingeniously
conjectured that the name, as belonging to the whole priestly
class, is derived from the famous high priest of the time of
Solomon. But of this there is no trace in history or
tradition. It is more probable that, as the Pharisees derived
their name from the virtue of Isolation (pharishah) from the
Gentile world on which they most prided themselves, so the
Sadducees derived theirs from their own special virtue of
Righteousness (zadikah), that is, the fulfillment of the Law,
with which, as its guardians and representatives of the law,
they were specially concerned. The Sadducees—whatever be the
derivation of the word—were less of a sect than a class."
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 49.
"At the time when we first meet with them [the Sadducees] in
history, that is to say, under Jonathan the Asmonean [B. C.
159-144—see JEWS: B. C. 166-40], they were, though in a
modified form, the heirs and successors of the Hellenists [see
JEWS: B. C. 332-167]. … Hellenism was conquered under the
Asmoneans, and beaten out of the field, and a new gush of
Jewish patriotism and zeal for the law had taken its place.
The Sadducees, who from the first appear as a school suited
for the times, including the rich and educated statesmen,
adopted the prevailing tone among the people. They took part
in the services and sacrifices of the temple, practised
circumcision, observed the Sabbath, and so professed to be
real Jews and followers of the law, but the law rightly
understood, and restored to its simple text and literal sense.
They repudiated, they said, the authority of the new teachers
of the law (now the Pharisees), and of the body of tradition
with which they had encircled the law. In this tradition they
of course included all that was burdensome to themselves. …
The peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees obviously arose from
the workings of the Epicurean philosophy, which had found
special acceptance in Syria. They admitted indeed the
creation, as it seems, but denied all continuous operation of
God in the world. … The Sadducees proved they were real
followers of Epicurus, by denying the life of the soul after
death. The soul, they said, passes away with the body. … The
mass of the people stood aloof from the Sadducees, whom they
regarded with mistrust and aversion."
J. J. I. Döllinger,
The Gentile and the Jew in the
Courts of the Temple of Christ,
volume 2, page 302-303.
ALSO IN:
E. Schürer,
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
section 26 (division 2, volume 2).
SADOWA, OR KÖNIGGRÄTZ, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
SAFFARY DYNASTY, The.
See SAMANIDES.
SAGAMORE.
See SACHEM.
SAGAMOSO, Battle of (1819).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
SAGARTIANS, The.
A nomadic people, described by Herodotus, who wandered on the
western borders of the great Iranian desert—the desert region
of modern Persia.
SAGAS.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.
SAGGENASH, The.
See YANKEE.
SAGUENAY.
See CANADA: NAMES.
SAGUNTUM, Capture of, by Hannibal.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
SAHAPTINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.
SAHAY, Battle of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
SAILOR'S CREEK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).
SAIM.
See TIMAR.
SAINT ALBANS (England).
Origin of.
See VERULAMIUM.
SAINT ALBANS (England): A. D. 1455-1461.
Battles of York and Lancaster.
The town of St. Albans, in England, was the scene of two
battles in the lamentable Wars of the Roses. The first
collision of the long conflict between Lancaster and York
occurred in its streets on the 23d of May, 1455, when King
Henry VI. was taken prisoner by the Duke of York and 5,000 to
8,000 of his supporters were slain. Six years later, on the
17th of February, 1461, the contending forces met again in the
streets of St. Albans with a different result. The Yorkists
were put to flight by the Lancastrians under Queen Margaret.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
SAINT ALBANS CONFEDERATE RAID.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER) THE ST. ALBANS RAID.
SAINT ALBANS FENIAN RAID.
See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
SAINT ANDREW, The Russian order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.
SAINT ANDREW, The Scottish order of.
"To keep pace with other sovereigns, who affected forming
orders of knighthood, in which they themselves should preside,
like Arthur at his round table, or Charlemagne among his
paladins, James [IV. of Scotland, A. D. 1488-1513] established
the order of Saint Andrew, assuming the badge of the thistle,
which since that time has been the national emblem of
Scotland."
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 21.
SAINT ANDREWS, Siege of the Castle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
SAINT ANGELO, Castle.
See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Canons of.
See AUSTIN CANONS.
----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: Start--------
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1565.
Founded by the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1701.
Attack from South Carolina.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1740.
Unsuccessful attack by the English of Georgia and Carolina.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1862.
Temporary occupation by Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: End--------
SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY, The Massacre of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).
SAINT BRICE'S DAY, The Massacre of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
SAINT CHRISTOPHER, The Island:
Ceded to England (1713).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
{2790}
SAINT CLAIR, General Arthur.
Campaign against the Indians, and defeat.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
SAINT CLOUD DECREE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
SAINT DENIS (France), Battle of (1567).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
SAINT DENIS (Belgium), Battle of (1678).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SAINT DIDIER, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
SAINT DOMINGO, OR HAYTI, The Island.
See HAYTI.
SAINT DOMINGO, The Republic.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
SAINT GEORGE, Bank of.
See MONEY AND BANKING: GENOA;
also GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
SAINT GEORGE, The order of.
Founded by Catherine II. of Russia in 1769.
SAINT GERMAIN-EN-LAYE, Peace of (1570).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
SAINT GERMAINS, The French court.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.
SAINT GERMAINS, The Jacobite court.
When James II., driven from England by the Revolution of 1688,
took refuge in France, he was received with great hospitality
by Louis XIV., who assigned to the exiled king the palace of
Saint-Germains for his residence, with a pension or allowance
which enabled him to maintain a regal court of imposing
splendor. "There was scarcely in all Europe a residence more
enviably situated than that which the generous Lewis had
assigned to his suppliants. The woods were magnificent, the
air clear and salubrious, the prospects extensive and
cheerful. No charm of rural life was wanting; and the towers
of the greatest city of the Continent were visible in the
distance. The royal apartments were richly adorned with
tapestry and marquetry, vases of silver, and mirrors in gilded
frames. A pension of more than 40,000 pounds sterling was
annually paid to James from the French treasury. He had a
guard of honour composed of some of the finest soldiers in
Europe. … But over the mansion and the domain brooded a
constant gloom, the effect, partly of bitter regrets and of
deferred hopes, but chiefly of the abject superstition which
had taken complete possession of his own mind, and which was
affected by all those who aspired to his favour. His palace
wore the aspect of a monastery. … Thirty or forty
ecclesiastics were lodged in the building; and their
apartments were eyed with envy by noblemen and gentlemen who
had followed the fortunes of their Sovereign, and who thought
it hard that, when there was so much room under his roof, they
should be forced to sleep in the garrets of the neighbouring
town. … All the saints of the royal household were praying for
each other and backbiting each other from morning to night."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 20 (volume 4).
SAINT GOTHARD, Battle of (1664).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
SAINT GREGORY, Order of.
Instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.
SAINT HELENA, Napoleon's captivity at.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
SAINT ILDEFONSO, Treaty of.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
SAINT ILDEFONSO, University of.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
SAINT JAGO, Knights of the order of.
See CALATRAVA.
SAINT JAMES, The Palace and Court of.
"Of the British Monarchy the official and diplomatic seat is
St. James', a dingy and shabby pile of brick, which by its
meanness, compared with the Tuileries and Versailles, aptly
symbolizes the relation of the power which built it to that of
the Monarchy of Louis XIV. … At St. James' are still held the
Levees. But those rooms having been found too small for the
prodigiously increasing crowds of ladies, foreign and
colonial, who pant, by passing under the eye of Royalty, to
obtain the baptism of fashion, the Drawing-Rooms are now held
in Buckingham Palace. … The modern town residence of Royalty,
Buckingham Palace, is large without being magnificent, and
devoid of interest of any kind, historical or architectural."
Goldwin Smith,
A Trip to England,
page 54.
SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELLA, Knights of.
See CALATRAVA.
SAINT JEAN D'ACRE.
See ACRE.
SAINT JOHN, Knights of; or Hospitallers.
See HOSPITALLERS.
SAINT JOHN OF THE LATERAN, Order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1560 by Pope Pius IV.
SAINT JUST,
and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).
SAINT LAWRENCE:
Discovery and naming of the River by Jacques Cartier.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
SAINT LAZARUS, Knights of.
"Some historians of the order of St. Lazarus have traced its
origin to a supposed association of Christians in the first
century against the persecution of their Jewish and Pagan
enemies. This account is fabulous. It appears certain,
however, that in very early times Christian charity founded
establishments for the sick. … Lazarus became their tutelary
saint and the buildings were styled Lazarettos. One of those
hospitals was in existence at Jerusalem at the time of the
first crusade. It was a religious order, as well as a
charitable institution, and followed the rule of St. Augustin.
For purposes of defence against the Muselman tyrants, the
members of the society became soldiers, and insensibly they
formed themselves into distinct bodies of those who attended
the sick, and those who mingled with the world. The cure of
lepers was their first object, and they not only received
lepers into their order, for the benefit of charity, but their
grand master was always to be a man who was afflicted with the
disorder, the removal whereof formed the purpose of their
institution. The cavaliers who were not lepers, and were in a
condition to bear arms, were the allies of the Christian kings
of Palestine. … The habits of those knights is not known; it
only appears that the crosses on their breasts were always
green, in opposition to those of the knights of St. John,
which were white, and the red crosses of the Templars. … But
neither the names nor the exploits of the knights of St.
Lazarus often appear in the history of the Crusades."
C. Mills,
History of the Crusades,
chapter 8, with foot-notes.
{2791}
SAINT LEGER'S EXPEDITION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1764.
The founding of the city.
"St. Louis had arisen out of the transfer of the east bank of
the Mississippi to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
Rather than live as aliens, under English laws, many French
settlers went with Pierre Laclede, across the Mississippi, to
a place already nicknamed by them Pain Court, where, in
February, 1764, they founded a new town with the name of St.
Louis, in honor of Louis XV. These people were mostly French
Canadians."
S. A. Drake,
The Making of the Great West,
page 179.
See, also, ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1861.
Events at the outbreak of the rebellion.
The capture of Camp Jackson.
See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1864.
General Price's attempt against.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
SAINT LOUIS, The Order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by Louis XIV. of
France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).
SAINT MAHÉ, Battle of.
A fierce naval fight, April 24, 1293, off St. Mahé, on the
coast of Brittany, between English and French fleets, both of
which were put afloat without open authority from their
respective governments. The French were beaten with a loss of
8,000 men and 180 ships.
C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 13.
SAINT MALO: Abortive English expeditions against.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
SAINT MARK, The winged lion of.
See LION OF ST. MARK,
and VENICE: A. D. 829.
SAINT MARKS, Jackson's capture of.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in France.
"Louis XI. [of France] determined on instituting an order of
chivalry himself. It was to be select in its membership,
limited in its number, generous in its professions, and he
fondly hoped the Garter and Fleece would soon sink into
insignificance compared to the Order of Saint Michael. The
first brethren were named from the highest families in France;
the remaining great feudatories, who had preserved some relics
of their hereditary independence, were fixed upon to wear this
mark of the suzerain's friendship. But when they came to read
the oaths of admission, they found that the Order of St.
Michael was in reality a bond of stronger obligation than the
feudal laws had ever enjoined. It was a solemn association for
the prevention of disobedience to the sovereign. … The
brotherhood of noble knights sank, in the degrading treatment
of its founder, into a confederation of spies."
J. White,
History of France,
chapter 7.
SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
SAINT MICHAEL AND SAINT GEORGE, The Order of.
A British Order of Knighthood, founded in 1818, "for the
purpose of bestowing marks of Royal favour on the most
meritorious of the Ionians [then under the protection of Great
Britain] and Maltese, as well as on British subjects who may
have served with distinction in the Ionian Isles or the
Mediterranean Sea."
Sir B. Burke,
Book of the Orders of Knighthood,
page 107.
SAINT OMER: A. D. 1638.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
SAINT OMER: A. D. 1677.
Taken by Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SAINT OMER: A. D. 1679.
Ceded to France.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
SAINT PATRICK, The order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1783 by George III. of
England.
SAINT PAUL, Republic of.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.
SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: ENGLAND.
SAINT PETER'S CHURCH AT ROME.
"The first church which existed on or near the site of the
present building was the oratory founded in A. D. 90, by
Anacletus, bishop of Rome, who is said to have been ordained
by St. Peter himself, and who thus marked the spot where many
Christian martyrs had suffered in the circus of Nero, and
where St. Peter was buried after his crucifixion. In 306
Constantine the Great yielded to the request of Pope
Sylvester, and began the erection of a basilica on this spot,
labouring with his own hands at the work. … Of the old
basilica, the crypt is now the only remnant. … Its destruction
was first planned by Nicholas V. (1450), but was not carried
out till the time of Julius II., who in 1506 began the new St.
Peter's from designs of Bramante. … The next Pope, Leo X.,
obtained a design for a church in the form of a Latin cross
from Raphael, which was changed, after his death (on account
of expense) to a Greek cross, by Baldassare Peruzzi, who only
lived to complete the tribune. Paul III. (1534) employed
Antonio di Sangallo as an architect, who returned to the
design of a Latin cross, but died before he could carry out
any of his intentions. Giulio Romano succeeded him and died
also. Then the pope, 'being inspired by God,' says Vasari,
sent for Michael Angelo, then in his seventy-second year, who
continued the work under Julius III., returning to the plan of
a Greek cross, enlarging the tribune and transepts, and
beginning the dome on a new plan, which he said would 'raise
the Pantheon in the air.' … The present dome is due to Giacomo
della Porta, who brought the great work to a conclusion in
1590, under Sixtus V. … The church was dedicated by Urban
VIII., November 18th, 1626; the colonnade added by Alexander
VII., 1667, the sacristy by Pius VI., in 1780. The building of
the present St. Peter's extended altogether over 176 years,
and its expenses were so great that Julius II. and Leo X. were
obliged to meet them by the sale of indulgences, which led to
the Reformation. The expense of the main building alone has
been estimated at £10,000,000. The annual expense of repairs
is £6,300."
A. J. C. Hare,
Walks in Rome,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
H. Grimm,
Life of Michael Angelo,
chapters 15-16.
{2792}
SAINT PETERSBURG: The founding of the city.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.
SAINT PRIVAT, OR GRAVELOTTE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
SAINT QUENTIN: Origin of the town.
See BELGÆ.
SAINT QUENTIN,
Battle and siege of (1557).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
Battle of (1871).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
SAINT SEBASTIAN, Siege and capture of (1813).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
SAINT STEPHEN, The Apostolic order.
This, the Hungarian national order of knighthood, was founded
by Maria Theresa, on the day (May 5, 1764) when the Archduke,
afterwards the Emperor Joseph II., was crowned King of Rome.
SAINT STEPHEN, The Crown of.
The crown of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
SAINT STEPHEN'S CHAPEL.
The Chamber of the House of Commons.
See WESTMINSTER PALACE.
SAINT THOMAS OF ACRE, The Knights of.
"This was a little body of men who had formed themselves into
a semi-religious order on the model of the Hospitallers. In
the third Crusade, one William, an English priest, chaplain to
Ralph de Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's, had devoted himself to the
work of burying the dead at Acre, as the Hospitallers had
given themselves at first to the work of tending the sick. He
had built himself a little chapel there, and bought ground for
a cemetery; like a thorough Londoner of the period, he had
called it after S. Thomas the Martyr; and, somehow or other,
as his design was better known, the family of the martyr seem
to have approved of it; the brother-in-law and sister of
Becket became founders and benefactors, and a Hospital of S.
Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, of Acre, was built in London
itself on the site of the house where the martyr was born. …
They [the knights] had their proper dress and cross: according
to Favin their habit was white, and the cross a full red cross
charged with a white scallop; but the existing cartulary of
the order describes the habit simply as a mantle with a cross
of red and white. … The Chronicle of the Teutonic knights, in
relating the capture of Acre, places the knights of S. Thomas
at the head of the 5,000 soldiers whom the king of England had
sent to Palestine, and Herman Corner, who however wrote a
century later, mentions them amongst the defenders of Acre. We
know from their cartulary that they had lands in Yorkshire,
Middlesex, Surrey, and Ireland."
W. Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History,
lecture 8.
SAINT VALERY.
The port, at the mouth of the Somme, from which the fleet of
William the Conqueror sailed for England, September 27, A. D.
1066.
SAINT VINCENT, Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
SAINTONGE, Origin of the name of.
See PICTONES.
SAIONES.
"The Saiones were apparently a class of men peculiar to the
Ostrogothic monarchy [of Theodoric, in Italy]. More honoured
than the Roman lictor (who was but a menial servant of the
magistrate), but hardly perhaps rising to the dignity of a
sheriff or a marshal, they were, so to speak, the arms by
which Royalty executed its will. If the Goths had to be
summoned to battle with the Franks, a Saio carried round the
stirring call to arms. If a Prætorian Prefect was abusing his
power to take away his neighbour's lands by violence, a Saio
was sent to remind him that under Theodoric not even Prætorian
Prefects should be allowed to transgress the law. … The
Saiones seem to have stood in a special relation to the King.
They are generally called 'our Saiones,' sometimes 'our brave
Saiones,' and the official virtue which is always credited to
them (like the 'Sublimity' or the 'Magnificence' of more
important personages) is 'Your Devotion.' One duty which was
frequently entrusted to the Saio was the 'tuitio' of some
wealthy and unwarlike Roman. It often happened that such a
person, unable to protect himself against the rude assaults of
sturdy Gothic neighbours, appealed to the King for protection.
… The chief visible sign of the King's protection, and the
most effective guarantee of its efficiency, was the stout
Gothic soldier who as Saio was quartered in the wealthy
Roman's house."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3).
SAJO, Battle of the (1241).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
SAKKARAH, Necropolis of.
The most ancient and important cemetery of Memphis, Egypt.
A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 86.
SAKKARAH, Tablet of.
An important list of Egyptian kings, found by M. Mariette and
now preserved in the Museum of Cairo.
F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).
SALADIN: The Empire of.
Among the revolutions which attended the breaking up of the
empire of the Seljuk Turks was one that brought about the rise
to power in Syria and Mesopotamia of a vigorous and capable
soldier named Zenghi or Zengui. Zenghi and his son Noureddin
acquired a wide dominion, with its capital, as it enlarged,
shifting from Mossoul to Aleppo, from Aleppo to Damascus, and
they were the first formidable enemies with whom the
Christians of the Crusade settlements in Syria had to contend.
The dynasty of sultans which they founded was one of those
called Atabecks, or Atabegs, signifying "governors of the
prince." Having found an opportunity (A. D. 1162-1168) to
interfere in the affairs of Egypt, where the Fatimite caliphs
were still nominally reigning, Noureddin sent thither one of
his most trusted officers, Shiracouh, or Shirkoh, a Koord, and
Shiracouh's nephew, Saladin,—then a young man, much addicted
to elegant society and the life of pleasure, at Damascus.
Shiracouh established his master's authority in Egypt—still
leaving the puppet caliph of the Fatimites on his throne—and
he was succeeded by Saladin, as the representative of the
sultan Noureddin, and grand vizier of the caliph. But in 1171,
the latter, being on his death-bed, was quietly deposed and
the sovereignty of the Abbaside caliph of Bagdad was
proclaimed. "This great 'coup d'etat,' which won Egypt over to
the Orthodox Mohammedan sect, and ultimately enabled Saladin
to grasp the independent sovereignty of the country, was
effected, as an Arab historian quaintly observes, 'so quietly,
that not a brace of goats butted over it.'"
{2793}
Saladin had now developed great talents as a ruler, and great
ambitions, as well. On the death of Nouraddin, in 1174, he was
prepared to seize the sultan's throne, and succeeded, after a
short period of civil war, in making himself master of the
whole Atabeg dominion. From that he went on to the conquest of
Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Christians from all
Palestine, except Tyre and a small strip of coast. By his
defense of that conquest against the crusaders of the Third
Crusade, and by the decided superiority of character which he
evinced, compared with his Christian antagonists, Richard Cœur
de Lion and the rest, Saladin acquired surpassing renown in
the western world and became a great figure in history. He
died at Damascus, in March, 1193, in his fifty-seventh year.
The dynasty which he founded was called the Ayoubite (or
Aiyubite) dynasty, from the name of Saladin's father, Ayoub
(Job), a native Koord of Davin.
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 16.
"Saladin gave no directions respecting the order of
succession, and by this want of foresight prepared the ruin of
his empire. One of his sons, Alaziz, who commanded in Egypt,
caused himself to be proclaimed sultan of Cairo; another took
possession of the sovereignty of Aleppo, and a third of the
principality of Amath. Malek-Adel [called Seïf Eddin, the
Sword of Religion, by which latter name, in the corrupted form
Saphadin, he was known commonly to the crusaders], the brother
of Saladin, assumed the throne of Mesopotamia and the
countries in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The principal
emirs, and all the princes of the race of the Ayoubites, made
themselves masters of the cities and provinces of which they
held the command. Afdhal [Almelek Alafdhal], eldest son of
Saladin, was proclaimed sultan of Damascus. Master of Syria,
and of the capital of a vast empire, sovereign of Jerusalem
and Palestine, he appeared to have preserved something of the
power of his father; but all fell into disorder and
confusion." After some years of disorder and of war between
the brothers, Malek Adel, or Saphadin, the more capable uncle
of the young princes, gathered the reins of power into his
hands and reunited most of the provinces of Saladin's empire.
On his death, in 1217, the divisions and the disorder
reappeared. The Ayoubite dynasty, however, held the throne at
Cairo (to the dominion of which Palestine belonged) until
1250, when the last of the line was killed by his Mamelukes.
The lesser princes of the divided empire were swept away soon
after by the Mongol invasion.
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
books 9, 12-14.
See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
SALADIN, The Tithe of.
"In England and in France, in order to defray expenses [of the
Third Crusade], a tax called the Tithe of Saladin, consisting
of a tenth part of all their goods, was levied on every person
who did not take the Cross. … In every parish the Tithe of
Saladin was raised in the presence of a priest, a Templar, a
Hospitaller, a king's man, a baron's man and clerk, and a
bishop's clerk."
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 15.
SALADO, OR GUADACELITO, Battle of (1340).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
SALAMANCA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
SALAMANCA, University of.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
SALAMIS, Cyprus,
Battle of (B. C. 449).
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
Battle of (B. C. 306).
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 610-600.
War of Athens and Megara for possession of the island.
See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 480.
Great battle between Greeks and Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480.
SALANKAMENT, Battle of (1691).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
SALCES, OR SALSAS: A. D. 1639-1640.
Siege and capture by the French.
Recovery by the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1628.
The first settlement.
See MASSACHUSETTS:
A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

Ministry and banishment of Roger Williams.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
The Witchcraft madness.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.
SALERNO, Principality of.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
SALERNO, School of Medicine.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.
SALIAN FRANKS, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.
----------SALIC LAW: Start--------
SALIC LAW, The.
"A greatly exaggerated importance has been attributed to the
Salic Law. You are acquainted with the reason of this error;
you know that at the accession of Philippe-le-Long, and during
the struggle of Philippe· de-Valois and Edward III. for the
crown of France, the Salic law was invoked in order to prevent
the succession of women, and that, from that time, it has been
celebrated by a crowd of writers as the first source of our
public law, as a law always in vigor, as the fundamental law
of monarchy. Those who have been the most free from this
illusion, as, for example, Montesquieu, have yet experienced,
to some degree, its influence, and have spoken of the Salic
law with a respect which it is assuredly difficult to feel
towards it when we attribute to it only the place that it
really holds in our history. … I pray you to recall that which
I have already told you touching the double origin and the
incoherence of the barbarous laws; they were, at once,
anterior and posterior to the invasion; at once, German and
Germano-Roman: they belonged to two different conditions of
society. This character has influenced all the controversies
of which the Salic law has been the object; it has given rise
to two hypotheses: according to one, this law was compiled in
Germany, upon the right bank of the Rhine, long before the
conquest, and in the language of the Franks. … According to
the other hypothesis, the Salic law was, on the contrary,
compiled after the conquest, upon the left bank of the Rhine,
in Belgium or in Gaul, perhaps in the seventh century, and in
Latin. … I believe, however, that the traditions which,
through so many contradictions and fables, appear in the
prefaces and epilogues annexed to the law, … indicate that,
from the eighth century, it was a general belief, a popular
tradition, that the customs of the Salian Franks were
anciently collected. …
{2794}
We are not obliged to believe that the Salic law, such as we
have it, is of a very remote date, nor that it was compiled as
recounted, nor even that it was ever written in the German
language; but that it was connected with customs collected and
transmitted from generation to generation, when the Franks
lived about the mouth of the Rhine, and modified, extended,
explained, reduced into law, at various times, from that epoch
down to the end of the eighth century—this, I think, is the
reasonable result to which this discussion should lead. … At
the first aspect it is impossible not to be struck with the
apparent utter chaos of the law. It treats of all things—of
political law, of civil law, of criminal law, of civil
procedure, of criminal procedure, of rural jurisdiction, all
mixed up together without any distinction or classification. …
When we examine this law more closely, we perceive that it is
essentially a penal regulation. … I say nothing of the
fragments of political law, civil law, or civil procedure,
which are found dispersed through it, nor even of that famous
article which orders that 'Salic land shall not fall to woman;
and that the inheritance shall devolve exclusively on the
males.' No person is now ignorant of its true meaning. … When,
in the fourteenth century, they invoked the Salic law, in
order to regulate the succession to the crown, it had
certainly been a long time since it had been spoken of, except
in remembrance, and upon some great occasion."
F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 9.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 10.
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 2, number 1.
SALIC LAW:
Applied to the regal succession in France.
Louis X., surnamed Hutin, king of France, died in 1316,
leaving a daughter, Jeanne, and his queen with child. The late
king's brother, Philip the Long, became regent; but when the
queen bore a son and the child died, this Philip "hastened to
Rheims, filled the Cathedral with his own followers, and
compelled the archbishop to consecrate him King [Philip V.].
Thence he returned to Paris, assembled the citizens, and, in
the presence of a great concourse of barons and notables of
the realm, declared that no female could succeed to the crown
of France. Thus began the so-called Salic Law of France,
through the determined violence of an unscrupulous man. The
lawyers round the throne, seeking to give to the act of might
the sanction of right, bethought them of that passage in the
law of the Salian Franks which declares 'That no part or
heritage of Salic land can fall to a woman'; and it is from
this that the law obtained the name of 'the Salic Law.'"
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 11, sections 1-2.
"In this contest [after the death of Louis X., as mentioned
above], every way memorable, but especially on account of that
which sprung out of it, the exclusion of females from the
throne of France was first publicly discussed. … It may be
fairly inferred that the Salic law, as it was called, was not
so fixed a principle at that time as has been contended. But
however this may be, it received at the accession of Philip
the Long a sanction which subsequent events more thoroughly
confirmed. Philip himself leaving only three daughters, his
brother Charles [IV.] mounted the throne; and upon his death
the rule was so unquestionably established, that his only
daughter was excluded by the count of Valois, grandson of
Philip the Bold. This prince first took the regency, the
queen-dowager being pregnant, and, upon her giving birth to a
daughter, was crowned king [Philip of Valois]. No competitor
or opponent appeared in France; but one more formidable than
any whom France could have produced was awaiting the occasion
to prosecute his imagined right with all the resources of
valour and genius, and to carry desolation over that great
kingdom with as little scruple as if he was preferring a suit
before a civil tribunal." This was King Edward III. of
England, whose mother Isabel was the sister of the last three
French kings, and who claimed through her a right to the
French crown.
H. Hallam,
The Middle Age,
chapter 1, part 1.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.
SALICE, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
SALICES, Ad, Battle of.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.
SALINÆ.
A Roman town in Britain, celebrated for its salt-works and
salt-baths. Its site is occupied by modern Droitwich.
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
SALINAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SALINAN FAMILY.
SALISBURY, Gemot of.
William the Conqueror, while establishing feudalism in
England, "broke into its 'most essential attribute, the
exclusive dependence of a vassal upon his lord,' by requiring
in accordance with the old English practice, that all
landowners, mesne tenants as well as tenants-in-chief, should
take the oath of fealty to the King. This was formally decreed
at the celebrated Gemot held on Salisbury Plain, on the 1st of
August, 1086, at which the Witan and all the landowners of
substance in England whose vassals soever they were, attended,
to the number, it is reported, of 60,000. The statute, as soon
as passed, was carried into immediate effect."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
page 55.
SALISBURY MINISTRIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885; 1885-1886; and 1892-1893.
SALISHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.
SALLUVIANS.
See SALYES.
SALON, Origin of the French.
See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.
SALONA, Ancient.
"Amidst the decay of the empire in the third century Dalmatia
suffered comparatively little; indeed, Salonae probably only
reached at that time its greatest prosperity. This, it is
true, was occasioned partly by the fact that the regenerator
of the Roman state, the emperor Diocletian, was by birth a
Dalmatian, and allowed his efforts, aimed at the
decapitalising of Rome, to redound chiefly to the benefit of
the capital of his native land; he built alongside of it the
huge palace from which the modern capital of the province
takes the name Spalato, within which it has for the most part
found a place, and the temples of which now serve it as
cathedral and as baptistery. Diocletian, however, did not make
Salonae a great city for the first time, but, because it was
such, chose it for his private residence; commerce,
navigation, and trade must at that time in these waters have
been concentrated chiefly at Aquileia and at Salonae, and the
city must have been one of the most populous and opulent towns
of the west."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 6.
ALSO IN;
E. A. Freeman,
Subject and Neighbor Lands of Venice.
T. G. Jackson,
Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
chapters 1-2 and 10-12 (volumes 1-2).
{2795}
SALONICA.
The modern name of ancient Thessalonica.
See THESSALONICA.
SALONIKI, The kingdom of.
The kingdom obtained by Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, in
the partition of the Byzantine Empire after its conquest by
the Crusaders, A. D. 1204, comprised the province of
Macedonia, with Thessalonica for its capital, and was called
the kingdom of Saloniki. Its duration was brief. In 1222 the
neighboring Greek despot of Epirus took Thessalonica and
conquered the whole kingdom. He then assumed the title of
emperor of Thessalonica, in rivalry with the Greek emperors of
Nicæa and Trebizond. The title of king of Saloniki was
cherished by the family of Montferrat for some generations;
but those who claimed it never made good their title by
possession of the kingdom.
G. Finlay,
History of Greece from the Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 5.
See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
SALOPIAN WARE.
Pottery manufactured by the Romans in Britain from the clay of
the Severn valley. Two sorts are found in considerable
abundance—one white, the other a light red color.
L. Jewitt,
Grave-Mounds,
page 164.
SALSBACH, Death of Turenne at (1675).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SALT, French tax on.
See TAILLE AND GABELLE.
SALT LAKE CITY: The founding of (1847).
See MORMONS: A. D. 1846-1848.
SALYES,
SALLUVIANS.
The Salyes or Saluvii or Salluvians, named Salvii Yalli in
Livy's Epitome, "were Ligurians or a mixed race of Celts
and Ligurians. They perhaps occupied part of the coast east
of Massilia: they certainly extended inland behind that
town to the Rhone on the west and to the north as far as
the river Druentia (Durance). They occupied the wide plain
which you may see from the highest point of the great
amphitheatre of Arelate (Arles) stretching east from
Tarascon and the Rhone as far as the eye can reach." The
Salyes were dangerous to Massilia and in 125 B. C. the
latter appealed to the Romans, as allies. The latter
responded promptly and sent Flaccus, one of the consuls, to
deal with the Salyes. He defeated them; but in two or three
years they were again in arms, and consul C. Sextius
Calvinius was sent against them. "The Salyes were again
defeated and their chief city taken, but it is uncertain
whether this capital was Arelate (ArIes) or the place
afterwards named Aquae Sextiae (Aix). … The Roman general
found in this arid country a pleasant valley well supplied
with water from the surrounding hills, and here he
established the colony named Aquae Sextiae." The chiefs of
the conquered Salyes took refuge with the Allobroges, and
that led to the subjugation of the latter (see ALLOBROGES).
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapters 17 and 21.
SALZBURG, Origin of.
"The foundation of a colony [by Hadrian] at Juvavium, or
Salzburg, which received the name of Forum Hadriani, attests
the vigilance which directed his view from the Rhine to the
Salza, and the taste, I would willingly add, which selected
for a town to bear his name the most enchanting site in
central Europe."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 66.
SALZBURGERS, The.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.
SALZWEDEL.
See BRANDENBURG.
SAM ADAMS REGIMENTS, The.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
SAMANA, The proposed cession of.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
SAMANIDES OR SAMANIANS, The.
"As the vigour of the Khalifate began to pass away, and
effeminate luxury crept imperceptibly into the palaces of
Baghdad, the distant lieutenants gradually aspired to
independence. At length, in 868 A. D., one Ya' kub-bin-Lais,
the son of a brasier in Sistan, rose in rebellion, subdued
Balkh, Kabul, and Fars, but died on his march to Baghdad. In
former days he would have been treated as an audacious rebel
against the authority of the Vicar of God; now the degenerate
Khalifah appointed his brother 'Amr his lieutenant on the
death of Ya' kub [A. D. 877], and allowed him to govern Fars,
as the founder of the Saffary, or Brasier, dynasty. Ever
fearful of the power of 'Amr, the Khalifah at length
instigated a Tatar lord, named Isma'il Samany, to raise an
army against the Saffaris, in Khurasan. 'Amr marched against
him, and crossed the Oxus, but he was entirely defeated; and
laughed heartily at a dog, who ran away with the little pot
that was preparing the humble meal of the fallen king. That
morning it had taken thirty camels to carry his kitchen
retinue. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, and put to death in 901 A.
D. Isma'il, who traced his descent from a Persian noble who
had rebelled against Khusru Parviz, now founded the Samany [or
Samanide] dynasty, which ruled over Khurasan and the north of
Persia, with their capital at Bukhara. The Dailamy [or
Dilemite or Bouide] dynasty ruled in Fars and the south of
Persia during the same period. To the Samanians Persia owes
the restoration of its nationality, which had been oppressed
and trodden under foot by the Arabian conquerors." The
Samanide dynasty was overthrown in 998 by the founder of the
Gaznevide Empire, which succeeded.
C. R. Markham,
General Sketch of the History of Persia,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN;
Sir J. Malcolm,
History of Persia,
volume 1, chapter 6
See, also, TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
SAMARAH, Battle of.
This was the battle in which the Roman emperor Julian was
killed (June 26, A. D. 363), during the retreat from his
ill·starred expedition beyond the Tigris, against the
Persians.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 10.
----------SAMARCAND: Start--------
SAMARCAND.
Ancient Maracanda, the capital city of Sogdiana.
See SOGDIANA;
and BOKHARA.
SAMARCAND: 6th Century.
Taken from the White Huns by the Turks.
See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1209-1220.
Capital of the Khuarezmian empire.
See KHUAREZM.
{2796}
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1221.
Conquest and destruction by Jingis Khan.
When Jingis Khan, the Mongol conqueror and devastator of
Central Asia, invaded the Khahrezmian Empire, Samarkand was
its capital and its most important city. "The fugitive
Khahrezmian prince had left behind him for the defence 110,000
men—i. e., 60,000 Turks and 50,000 Tadjiks—with twenty
elephants." But the Turkish mercenaries deserted in a body and
the town was surrendered after a siege of three days. "The
flourishing city of Samarkand and the fortress were laid even
with the ground; and the inhabitants; stripped of all they
possessed, shared the fate of their brethren of Bokhara. Those
who had contrived to escape were lured back by false promises;
all capable of bearing arms were compulsorily enrolled in the
Mongolian army; the artistic gardeners of the place were sent
off to the far East, where they were wanted to adorn the
future Mongolo-Chinese capital with pleasure-grounds, after
the fashion of those of Samarkand, and the celebrated
artisans, especially the silk and cotton weavers, were either
distributed as clever and useful slaves amongst the wives and
relations of Djenghiz, or else carried with him to Khorasan. A
few were sent as slaves to his sons Tchagatai and Oktai, who
were then marching on Khahrezm. This was the end, in the year
618 (1221), of Samarkand, which Arabian geographers have
described as the most brilliant and most flourishing spot on
the face of the earth."
A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 8.
"Samarkand was not only the capital of Trans-Oxiana, but also
one of the greatest entrepots of commerce in the world. Three
miles in circumference, it was surrounded with a wall having
castles at intervals, and pierced by twelve iron gates."
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 79.
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1371-1405.
The capital of Timour.
See TIMOUR, THE CONQUESTS OF.
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1868.
Seizure by the Russians.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
----------SAMARCAND: End--------
SAMARIA.
SAMARITANS:
Early history.
The Kingdom of Israel.
Overthrow by the Assyrians.
See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.
SAMARITANS:
Repopulation of the city and district by the Assyrian conqueror.
After the capture of the city of Samaria (B. C. 722) and the
deportation of a large part of its inhabitants by the Assyrian
conqueror (see as above), "these districts remained for many
years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun
with wild beasts. In the meantime King Asarhaddon, whom we
suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several
refractory towns about twenty years after the death of
Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the
favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large
bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted
regions. … A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the
former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city
of Cuthah, from which arose the name of Cutheans, often
applied in derision to the Samaritans by the later Jews. Other
settlers were sent from Babylon itself," and "from the cities
on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
volume 4, pages 215-216.
SAMARIA:
After the Exile.
In the second and third generations after the return of the
Judæans from exile, there began to be connections formed by
marriage with the neighboring peoples. These peoples,
"particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were
longing earnestly and truly to take part in the divine service
at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion
of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The
principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners
into the community, and the high priest of that time, either
Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes
into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the
Samaritans and other neighbouring people." But when Ezra and
his party came from Babylon (B. C. 459-458) bringing an access
of religious zeal and narrower interpretations of the law,
these marriages were condemned, and those who had contracted
them were forced to repudiate their foreign wives and the
children borne by such. This cruelly fanatical action changed
the friendly feeling of the Samaritans to hatred. Their
leader, Sanballat, was a man of power, and he began against
the restored Judæans a war which drove them from Jerusalem. It
was not until Nehemiah came from Susa, with the authority of
King Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls, that they recovered the
city. "The strict observance of the Law enjoined by Ezra was
followed out by Nehemiah; he strengthened the wall of
separation between Judæans and Gentiles so securely that it
was almost impossible to break through it." Sanballat, whose
son-in-law, a priest, had been exiled on account of his
Samaritan marriage, now "cunningly conceived the plan of
undermining the Judæan community, by the help of its own
members. How would it be were he to raise a temple to the God
of Israel, in rivalry to the one which held sway in
Jerusalem?" He executed his plan and the Samaritan temple was
raised on Mount Gerizim. Thus "the Samaritans had their
temple, around which they gathered; they had priests from the
house of Aaron; they compared Mount Gerizim … to Mount Moriah;
they drew the inference from the Book of the Law that God had
designed Mount Gerizim as a site for a sanctuary, and they
proudly called themselves Israelites. Sanballat and his
followers being intent upon attracting a great many Judæans to
their community, tempted them with the offer of houses and
land, and in every way helped to support them. Those who had
been guilty of crime and who feared punishment, were received
with open arms by the Samaritans. Out of such elements a new
semi-Judæan community or sect was formed. Their home was in
the somewhat limited district of Samaria, the centre of which
was either the city that gave its name to the province or the
town of Shechem. The members of the new community became an
active, vigorous, intelligent people, as if Sanballat, the
founder, had breathed his spirit into them. … They actually
tried to argue away the right of the Judæans to exist as a
community. They declared that they alone were the descendants
of Israel, and they denied the sanctity of Jerusalem and its
Temple, affirming that everything achieved by the Judæan
people was a debasement of the old Israelite character. … Upon
the Judæan side, the hatred against their Samaritan neighbours
was equally great. … The enmity between Jerusalem and Samaria
that existed in the time of the two kingdoms blazed out anew;
it no longer bore a political character, but one of a
religious tendency."
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
chapters 19-20 (volume 1).
{2797}
"While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans
as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by
Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own
traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and
Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this
people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder
and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return
from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean
form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although
by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still
predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for
the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of
tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below
their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The
later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show
that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means
complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable
supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the
remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly
and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell
by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted
country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the
ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period
[of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility
of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and
implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other
with more unmitigated bitterness."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 9.
SAMARIA:
Change of population by Alexander the Great.
After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B.
C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian
governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and
planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen
element in the motley population of Samaria."
P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
volume 3, chapter 34.
SAMARIA:
Rebuilding of the city by Herod.
One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself
outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he
did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength,
and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the
descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their
temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria,
however, to Sebaste—the August.
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 11.
SAMARIA:
Justinian's War.
The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565]
induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all
unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of
Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or
rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a
desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their
wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a
defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the
regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were
sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the
remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason
by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000
Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which
converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and
smoking wilderness."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47.
----------SAMARIA: End--------
SAMARKAND.
See SAMARCAND.
SAMBUCA, The.
A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of
huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together
and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The
Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use
when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 20.
SAMIAN WARE.
An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was
in great repute among the ancients.
SAMMARINESI, The.
The citizens of San Marino.
See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.
SAMNITE WARS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
SAMNITES, The.
"The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time
of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless
already been for a considerable period in possession of the
hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian
plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further
advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the
other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the
Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline
of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century
[B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and
now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even
moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their
appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name
of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of
the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and
the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was
wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B.
C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the
Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the
fourth century mention first occurs of the separate
confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from
the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a
colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with
many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to
resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of
Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse,
Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians
against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the
circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate.
Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with
difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of
arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality.
Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. …
About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into
the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in
possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few
unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 5.
SAMO, The Kingdom of.
See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.
{2798}
SAMOA.
Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic
islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator
Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of
13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude.
The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The
population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred
foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said
to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein,
in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them
in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years
the trade of the islands became important, and German traders
acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring
about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United
States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by
joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of
disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa
were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held
in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly
guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of
residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of
the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of
the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to
elect their chief or king and choose the form of their
government. The treaty created a supreme court, with
jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped
the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in
Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal
government for Apia, with an elected council under the
presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers.
Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations,
and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.
Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888 and 1889.
ALSO IN:
The Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.
R. L. Stevenson,
A Foot-note to History.
G. H. Bates,
Some Aspects of the Samoan Question,
and Our Relations to Samoa
(The Century, April and May, 1889).
----------SAMOS: Start--------
SAMOS.
SAMIANS.
The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia
Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known
as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about
eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which
separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of
a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important
members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek
communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and
advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in
the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became
subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper,
Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the
age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great
splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant
centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by
the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently
fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians
attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on
this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions
was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly
and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers
of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a
perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly
pursue its voyages without having first purchased a
safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be
something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all
attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval
power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating
a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the
coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute;
under his protection they united into a body, the interests
and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre
in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal
capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and
islands."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).
Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct,
for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater,
were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of
Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates,
treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject
to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of
Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes.
It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.
SAMOS: B. C. 440.
Revolt from Athens.
Siege and subjugation.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
SAMOS: B. C. 413.
Overthrow of the oligarchy.
Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
SAMOS: B. C. 33-32.
Antony and Cleopatra.
The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was
passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the
Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with
musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded
with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 28.
SAMOS: A. D. 1824.
Defeat of the Turks by the Greeks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------SAMOS: End--------
SAMOSATA.
See COMMAGENE.
SAMOTHRACE.
A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so
elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the
sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance
from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the
Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.
G. S. Faber,
Mysteries of the Cabiri
"The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of
union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of
the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the
Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy
Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the
Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the
Hellenic world."
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 1.
SAN.
See ZOAN.
SAN ANTONIO, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SAN CARLOS, Battle of.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.
See HAYTI.
{2799}
----------SAN FRANCISCO: Start--------
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1579.
Supposed visit by Drake.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781;
and AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776.
First exploration and naming of the Bay.
Founding of the Mission.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
Possession taken by the Americans.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
The naming of the Golden Gate.
The great Bay.
See GOLDEN GATE.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1848.
On the eve of the Gold discoveries.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1856.
The Vigilance Committee.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1877-1880.
Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
----------SAN FRANCISCO: End--------
SAN FRANCISCO, Battle of (1879).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
SAN JACINTO, Battle of (1836).
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN
WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.
The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question
left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory
of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for
submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary
question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made
in the Treaty of Washington.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.
"The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides
to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt,
personages among the most eminent of his subjects in
jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on
the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that
the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through
the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true
interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June,
1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This
Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872,
'confirms the United States in their claim to the important
archipelago of islands lying between the continent and
Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great
Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in
the history of the United States as a nation, without a
question of disputed boundary between our territory and the
possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"
C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington,
page 222.
The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is
a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of
considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The
combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The
archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and
the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the
west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of
Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is
commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore,
been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is
such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it
almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the
possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great
Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the
decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago
became part of the recognized territory of the United States.
Viscount Milton,
History of the San Juan Water Boundary Question [to 1869].
SAN MARINO, The Republic of.
"The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the
political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San
Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were
crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is
ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early
persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount
Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no
earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing
free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the
sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile
undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed
before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were
the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo,
Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and
his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared
the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess
Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation
the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land
was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of
Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give
sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The
sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the
Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much
claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was
included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the
Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed
the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because
he needed money to restore his church, partly because the
Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising
superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a
superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th
century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the
sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II.
considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of
Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is
therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the
mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally
lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would
willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their
State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the
Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. …
Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so
invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution
is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically,
sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of
old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus
has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the
Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser
than the Florentines. When the increase of population and
territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an
incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed
to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority
at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives
which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. …
It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in
1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally
altered. …
{2800}
The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which
was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was
established, to which was given one-third of the
representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,'
20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,'
agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by
general elections, for the Council is recruited by
co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two
Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign
authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small
salary, and during their six months of office are free from
all State burdens."
E. Armstrong,
A Political Survival
(Macmillan's Magazine, Jan., 1891).
"Between this miniature country and its institutions there is
a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has
for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is
a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and
fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in
Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities.
Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded
by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its
gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of
liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no
means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On
examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an
oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from
an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be
compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have
always really represented the mass of the people. It has been
a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited,
and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a
poor community, in which there were no powerful families to
fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an
enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their
hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat
of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in
1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling
establishments which had been made illegal in other countries.
The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public
spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That
the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost
unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little
states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have
long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them
all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first
place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its
borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by
their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte
invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any
part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to
you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which
might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand,
the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was
so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal
Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough
bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth
broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive
communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries,
without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the
freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of
potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of
the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom
of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the
map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which
Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a
situation comparable with that of the native states in India.
A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town;
the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may
be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and
precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee
criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents
are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national
plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized
by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the
state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own
local affairs, without any annoying interference from an
Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and
their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes
to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San
Marinese."
A. B. Hart,
The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino
(The Nation, February 1, 1894).
SAN MARTIN, General Jose de,
The liberation of Chile and Peru.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
SAN MARTINO, Battle of (1859).
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
SAN SALVADOR, Bahamas.
The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama
group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is
in dispute.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871.
Independence of Spain.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
Attempted Federations and their failure.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
SAN STEFANO, Treaty of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.
SANCHO I., King of Aragon, A. D. 1063-1094;
SANCHO IV. of Navarre, A. D. 1076-1094.
SANCHO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 955-967.
SANCHO I., King of Navarre, 905-925.
SANCHO I., King of Portugal, 1185-1211.
SANCHO II., King of Castile, 1065-1072.
SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035;
and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.
SANCHO II., King of Portugal, 1223-1244.
SANCHO III., King of Castile, 1157-1158.
Sancho III., King of Navarre, 1054-1076.
SANCHO IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1284-1295.
SANCHO V., King of Navarre, 1150-1194.

SANCHO VI., King of Navarre, 1194-1236.
SAND LOT PARTY, The.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
{2801}
SANDEMANIANS.
Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious
views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure
salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief
was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so
strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764
he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at
some other places, where his followers were called
'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. …
The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at
the time of the American Revolution], and many of them
emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."
C. W. Elliott,
The New England History.,
volume 2. page 370.
SANDJAKS,
SANJAKS.
See BEY; also TIMAR.
SANDJAR, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1116-1157.
SANDWICH ISLANDS, The.
See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
SANGALA.
An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the
easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He
took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the
inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 94.
SANHEDRIM, The.
"Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the
time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of
scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct
function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a
judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To
this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or
Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word
Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 50.
"The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of
all capital offences against the law; it had the power of
inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great
Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins
of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The
Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was
a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of
the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the
Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman
province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for
the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate
or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they
seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman
rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under
the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the
people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in
the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by
them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 12.
SANHIKANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SANITARY COMMISSION,
and Christian Commission, The United States.
"Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15,
1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for
75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they
termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did
not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that
they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the
armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested
themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much
good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough
organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the
government to give them recognition and moral support, and,
after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized
themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary
Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its
president. Their intention was to aid by their professional
advice the medical department of the government service; but
soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were
greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became
more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now
entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged
itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It
gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the
commission had an independent transportation of its own. It
had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad
ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of
better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It
secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier
from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon
had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a
surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its
energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It
divided its services into several departments of duty.
(1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection
department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined
thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition
and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had
also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the
general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their
reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of
the army.
(2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of
twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in
the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200
auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to
the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched.
One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,'
collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars;
another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a
quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the
distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally
supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick
and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.
(3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its
charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the
government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or
left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About
7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly
accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier
might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general,
or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time.
Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children
of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to
minister to his necessities might find protection, defense,
food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired
and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On
the great military lines these stations were permanently
established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the
Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for
transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded.
It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to
any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained
pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that
any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and
especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It
instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a
soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place
and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any
hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names.
Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United
States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville,
Salisbury, Richmond. …
{2802}
(4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to
minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish
bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the
surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in
the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies
of the East; another for the Military Department of the
Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.
(5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in
personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the
wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first
organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more
than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote
letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps,
newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by
reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary
Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the
people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than
three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came
from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of
supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were
derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of
dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns
comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs
more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission
emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary
Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance
of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and
spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office
was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large
towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed
the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along
the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying
man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It
gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves
of the dead. It had its religious services, its little
extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible
Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its
publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies
free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its
purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its
objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five
millions of dollars in money and supplies."
J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapter 87 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
L. P. Brockett,
Woman's Work in the Civil War.
Mrs. M, A. Livermore,
My Story of the War.
K. P. Wormeley,
The Other Side of the War.
The Sanitary Commission: its Works and Purposes.
J. S. Newberry,
The U. S. Sanitary Commission in the Mississippi Valley.
L. Moss,
Annals of the United States Christian Commission.
SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.
SANJAKS,
SANDJAKS.
See BEY; also TIMAR.
SANQUHAR DECLARATION, The.
The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross
of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles
II.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
SANS ARCS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SANSCULOTTES.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).
SANSCULOTTIDES. of the French Republican Calendar, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
SANSKRIT.
"The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the
Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated
form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch
of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon
became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal
races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into
the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who
settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab
and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta
Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus
moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i),
its principal later development being called Hindi, just as
the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England
was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India
which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken
language, when once its general form and character had been
settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the
learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by
the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became
more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified.
Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded
only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian
Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an
intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of
technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu'
with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or
'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial
designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed
speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar
purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and
literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the
original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the
common dialect."
M. Williams,
Indian Wisdom.,
introduction, page xxviii.
SANTA ANNA, The career of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826, to 1848-1861,
and TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
SANTA HERMANDAD.
See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.
SANTA INES, Battle of (1859).
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
{2803}
SANTA LUCIA, Battle of (1848).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
SANTALS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
SANTAREM, Battle of (1184).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
SANTEES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SANTIAGO, The founding of the city (1541).
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
SANTIAGO. OR ST. JAGO, Knights of the Order of.
See CALATRAVA.
SANTONES, The.
See PICTONES.
SAPAUDIA.
The early name of Savoy.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
SAPEIRES, The.
See IBERIANS, EASTERN.
SAPIENZA, OR PORTOLONGO; Battle of (1354).
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
SARACENIC EMPIRE.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.
SARACENIC SCHOOLS.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.
SARACENS, The name.
"From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were
confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general
appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and
Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a
larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the
wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more
plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish
character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most
popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p.
2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western
and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe
on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore,
allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by
strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a
foreign language."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 50, and note.
"Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing
contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word
from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the
children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from
Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St.
Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page
55."
H. Milman,
note to Gibbon, as above.
The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses,
Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the
East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to
Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling
between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was
in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the
time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1).
In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its
application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races
pretty generally.
See ROME: A. D. 96-138.
----------SARAGOSSA: Start--------
SARAGOSSA:
Origin.
See CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 543.
Siege by the Franks.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.
SARAGOSSA: A. D, 713.
Siege and conquest by the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D.711-713.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 778.
Siege by Charlemagne.
See SPAIN: A. D. 778.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1012-1146.
The seat of a Moorish kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1710.-
Defeat of the Spaniards by the Allies.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808.
Fruitless siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809.
Siege and capture by the French.
Extraordinary defense of the city.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
Siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
Battle and Spanish defeat.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
----------SARAGOSSA: End--------
SARANGIANS.
The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt
anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the
Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they
were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).
SARATOGA, Burgoyne's surrender at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SARATOGA, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
SARCEES (TINNEH).
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
BLACKFEET, AND ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
----------SARDINIA: Start--------
SARDINIA (The Island): Name and early history.
"The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability
from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human
footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to
which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched
themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive
population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there
when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain,
whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can
only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been
derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from
Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus;
from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and
south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax
has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient
architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the
form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the
thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are
scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western
parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in
any other part of the world; but they resemble most the
Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was
partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the
time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth
and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the
former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where
their manners receded towards barbarism."
J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia,
chapter 4, section 3.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1017.
Conquest from the Saracens by the Pisans and Genoese.
See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.
{2804}
SARDINIA: A. D. 1708.
Taken by the Allies.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to the Elector of Bavaria with the title of King.
See UTRECHT: A.D. 1712-1714.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1714.
Exchanged with the emperor for the Upper Palatinate.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1717.
Retaken by Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.
Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in
exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
----------SARDINIA: End--------
----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): Start--------
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742.
The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
Treaty of Worms, with Austria and England.
See ITALY: A. D. 1743.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.
See ITALY: A. D. 1744.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Overwhelming reverses.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
The French and Spaniards driven out.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792.
Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793.
Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1794.
Passes of the Alps secured by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1795.
French victory at Loano.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796.
Submission to the French under Bonaparte.
Treaty of peace.
Cession of Savoy to the Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798.
Piedmont taken by the French.
Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1799.
French evacuation of Piedmont.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1800.
Recovery of Piedmont by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1802.
Annexation of part of Piedmont to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815.
The king recovers his kingdom.
Annexation of Genoa.
Cession of part of Savoy to France.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF:
also FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1815.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821.
Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria.
The defeat at Novara.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831.
Death of Charles Felix.
Accession of Charles Albert.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849.
Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia.
War with Austria.
Defeat.
Abdication of Charles Albert.
Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855.
In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870.
The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel.
Liberation of the whole Peninsula and
creation of the kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, to 1867-1870.
----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): End--------
SARDIS.
When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the
overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first
enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was
directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous
king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in
wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired
to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid
city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured
and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen
days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom,
which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 7.
Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of
the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor
attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again
plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and
Athenians.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 14.
See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
SARGASSO SEA, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
SARISSA, The.
See PHALANX.
SARK, Battle of (1448).
This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an
English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy.
The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.
Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland.
chapter 19.
SARMATIA.
SARMATIANS.
"The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by
the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who
occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of
the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the
Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these
nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits,
military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and
Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were
nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian
dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other
side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women
among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than
the men."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 17.
The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region
of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them
to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the
modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have
understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps
part of the south of Russia."
Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
{2805}
SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.
It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the
inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the
Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is
represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of
all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged
under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and
Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual
league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The
Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the
Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders,
and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D.
167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the
Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of
all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which
he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of
frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the
impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the
semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as
repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at
Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the
peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes
she had no more strength to overcome.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 68.
ALSO IN:
P. B. Watson,
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
chapters 4-6.
See, also, THUNDERING LEGION.
SARN HELEN, The.
A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the
Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress
Helena caused it to be made.
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
SARPI, Fra Paolo, and the contest of Venice with the Papacy.
See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
SARRE-LOUIS: A. D. 1680.
The founding of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
SARUS, Battle of the.
One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius,
A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 24.
SASKATCHEWAN, The district of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
SASSANIAN DYNASTY.
Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a
new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow
of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions,
founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the
family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to
some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter
progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is,
itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the
earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy.
See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
SASTEAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.
SATOLLI, Apostolic Delegate in America.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.
SATRAP.
SATRAPIES.
Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of
the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and
heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely
together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he
left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a
single well-ordered system, permanently established
everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best,
instance of that form of government which, taking its name
from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally
as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main
principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the
whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one
mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of
fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable
and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a
variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to
whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its
powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his
satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate
governments—a number which must have varied at different
times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty.
Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil
governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the
revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of
order, and the general supervision of the territory. These
satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any
class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term,
but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or
death at any moment, without other formality than the
presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they
remained in office they were despotic—they represented the
Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. …
They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the
tribute on the several towns and villages within their
jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called
sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts
within their province, whose office was regarded as one of
great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such
sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear
of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the
monarch."
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 7.
SATTAGYDÆ, The.
See GEDROSIANS.
SATURNALIA, The Roman.
"The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication
[of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the
Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally
over seven days, during which all social distinctions were
ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters;
and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to
hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were
taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed
by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro
mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during
this festival; and when we remember the other usage of
suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel
beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies
between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become
more apparent."
C. I. Hemans,
Historic and Monumental Rome,
chapter 6.
SAUCHIE BURN, Battle of (1488).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
{2806}
SAUCY CASTLE.
See CHÂTEAU GAILLARD.
SAUK, OR SAC, Indians.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS.
SAULCOURT, Battle of (A. D. 881).
A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes
in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the
Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which
is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).
SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
SAULTEUR, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.
SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE).
SAUROMATÆ, The.
See SCYTHIANS.
SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732.
The founding of the city.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776.
Activity of the Liberty Party.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778.
Taken and occupied by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779.
Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861.
Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands
at the mouth of the river.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH
CAROLINA-GEORGIA).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862.
Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces,
and sealing up of the port.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864.
Confederate evacuation.
Sherman in possession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
SAVANNAHS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SAVENAY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.
SAVERNE:
Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.
See STEAM ENGINE.
SAVONA, The Pope at.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
SAVONAROLA, in Florence.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT:
The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century.
The founders of the House of Savoy.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries.
Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes,
in Italy and the Burgundian territory.
Creation of the duchy.
Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.
"The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands
immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides
of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding
several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed
their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to
the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the
growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not
seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy
with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the
11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their
earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian
districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise,
and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the
Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth
of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region
was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates
of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a
most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of
Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in
a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were,
predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries
those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in
Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered
on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in
Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the
sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th
centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their
own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at
Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it
must be remembered that their position as princes at once
Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian
dominions of the family remained for a long while quite
secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of
Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition
of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final
incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were
still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions
through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of
the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a
royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was
next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of
the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy
[1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who
plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history,
these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along
a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and
reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion
north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short
time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of
Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came
into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house.
The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether
surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to
the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of
the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical
transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that
annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other
districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small
Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny.
{2807}
The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was
ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century
[1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by
Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether
changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the
city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese
counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often
been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now
that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they
began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The
acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the
famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who
received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who
was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both
sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the
Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and
Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion
of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône,
surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of
the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian
dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed
[1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea.
… After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house
consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which
this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house
of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great
extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century,
among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and
Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of
Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. …
Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451],
the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking
in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as
Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian
dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the
sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the
Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy
now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took
the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince.
His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state,
Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 7.
ALSO IN:
A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 1, chapters 6-9,
volume 2, chapters 1-6.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454.
Alliance with Venice and Naples.
War with Milan and Florence.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535.
Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva.
Loss of the Vidommate.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544.
Conquest by the French and restoration to
the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
End of the French occupation.
Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert.
His reconstruction of the state.
Treaties with the Swiss.
War with the Waldenses.
Tolerant Treaty of Cavour.
Settlement of government at Turin.
"The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy
terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559,
Piedmont was born again.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the
very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a
third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by
five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the
trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work
of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was
providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford
to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France
at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed,
the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or
within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with
the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless,
to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of
Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored
to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and
Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be
occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the
differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the
dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original
cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the
five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to
retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up
VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti
and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of
settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert
found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No
words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the
French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their
neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself
at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at
this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had
had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own
State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same
moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to
avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it
unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with
his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the
country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House

of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany,
etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and
most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of
the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and
felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the
Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full
well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these
foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and
that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be
indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.'
Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to
secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive
dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which
made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally
urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences
with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de
Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power
of the confederates.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
{2808}
It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part
with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it
was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery.
A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst
whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had
introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. …
Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation.
… Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of
the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel
Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid
aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause
to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's
camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into
opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke
of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with
Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even
Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their
Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat
stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty
of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne
retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered
Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais
also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of
Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the
recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on
all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the
Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the
Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by
which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same
treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and
worship to those of her subjects who had embraced
Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in
fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in
Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire
how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in
general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the
Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian
ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at
800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new
tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered
into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own
creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas,
identifying themselves especially with the disciples of
Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted
sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who
stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and
revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the
enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys
continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged
district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a
safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes."
In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so
much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses
"assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the
Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent
4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de
la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its
horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of
La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders;
and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant
volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it
was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his
subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated
checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour
on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full
amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their
own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented
to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to
a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour
satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud
reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the
bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand
the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in
opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In
his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel
Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings
of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the
regeneration of the country could only find their development
in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of
the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the
people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a
beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism
in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the
prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means
than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which
Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this
great prince was the nationalization of the State. He
established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that
city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano,
and the university which had been provisionally opened at
Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan
honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the
French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It
dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel
Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls.
… It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine
provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the
dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them."
Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son,
Charles Emanuel.
A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 3, chapter 1.
{2809}
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter.
Profitable infidelities in war.
The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.
Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was
enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son
Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active
in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound
him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the
League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he
seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved
himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of
Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in
exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to
Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved
unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel
brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat.
This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose
male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see
the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor
Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of
Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and
Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the
policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a
daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till
nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his
predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who
succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at
first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came
of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His
great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy
had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime
republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and
to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in
1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But
Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a
dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke
off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of
Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and
successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the
great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long
dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he
first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His
faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with
the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few
years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for
Sardinia."
R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 12, section 9.
See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592.
French invasion of the Vaudois.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598.
Invasion by the French.
Peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600.
French invasion.
Cession of territory to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603.
Abortive attempt upon Geneva.
Treaty of St. Julien with that city.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626.
The Valtelline War.
Alliance with France.
Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631.
War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.
French invasion.
Extension of territory.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635.
Alliance with France against Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659.
Alliance with France against Spain.
Civil war and foreign war.-
Sieges of Turin.
Territory restored.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655.
Second persecution of the Waldenses.
See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690.
Joins the Grand Alliance against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691.
Overrun by the armies of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691.
Toleration granted to the Vaudois.
See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693.
French victory at Marsaglia.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696.
Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke.
Treaty with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713.
Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719.
Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia,
with the title of King.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792.
Savoy annexed to the French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796.
Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798.
Piedmont taken by the French.
Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815.
Cession of a part of Savoy to France.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860.
Final cession of Savoy to France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
----------SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End--------
SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.
See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).
SAWÂD, THE.
"The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole
fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit
to the Persian Gulf."
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 26, foot-note.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
SAXE-COBURG,
SAXE-GOTHA,
SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553;
and WEIMAR.
SAXON HEPTARCHY.
See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).
The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the
coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight,
which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
----------SAXONS: Start--------
SAXONS, The.
"In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of
the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century
later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons,
who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D.
130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found
employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of
Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be
inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there
is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be
supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to
strength and power in a moment.
{2810}
It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and
Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better
known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. …
The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have
been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the
nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those
between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name
implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an
occasional combination for attack or defence."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
"The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name
Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of
Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more
specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast,
and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe,
and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons
on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the
Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The
reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was
a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us
Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name
for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The
Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one
in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman
and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only
question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic
(Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole,
that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in
the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial,
and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term,
or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of
the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import.
Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of
the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon
islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of
the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was
whose name eventually comprised populations as different as
the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus
in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians,
Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was
German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."
R. G. Latham,
The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena,
section 48.
See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES;
and ANGLES AND JUTES.
SAXONS:
The sea-rovers of the 5th century.
"At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris,
Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend
Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then
chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon
pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we
suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a
contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if
not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford
under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the
kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point
of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered
on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge
with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and
your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just
sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the
duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming
along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the
curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that
nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them
is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at
once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business
of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more
than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the
most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when
expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his
path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always
succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he
never fails when he desires to effect his own escape.
Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather
than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them,
not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a
tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the
invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the
crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best
chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then
again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the
hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own
country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their
prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast
lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of
death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth
man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more
lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that
they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying
themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting
themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think
the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their
gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of
ransoms from these doomed victims.'"
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 3.
SAXONS: A. D. 451.
At the Battle of Chalons.
In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius
brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great
and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is
mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they,
whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has
been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles
and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in
part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own
subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the
Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at
once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to
defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in
Normandy or Picardy."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3.
SAXONS: A. D. 477-527.
Conquests in Britain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
SAXONS: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
{2811}
SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.
Conquest by Charlemagne.
"In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great
league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one
point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on
the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse
and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body,
active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation,
operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered
them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to
all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. …
They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands
scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon
beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at
different times, all those on the coast of France and in the
British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and
more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on
land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean,
constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental
countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a
manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost
their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all
nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of
the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering
in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation
ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north.
Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude
of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent
tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present
know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and
continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age,
accomplishing great things by desultory and individual
efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and
comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst
them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch,
and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was
for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief
might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at
the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under
Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed
to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was
completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his
frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very
existence of the nations around."
G. P. R. James,
History of Charlemagne,
book 3.
For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact,
of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank
kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them
among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy.
Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit
themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they
repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the
conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to
have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done
in it before him. His first expedition into their country was
undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from
the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It
was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters
of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons
called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected
with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who
destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in
the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to
guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next
summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser
with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and
gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made
Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and
there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified
the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large
numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in
May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who
could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor
bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a
Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and
friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in
Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising
which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and
Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there
were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and
destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of
the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and
at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons
suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the
Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and
slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this
reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at
Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the
Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten
desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted
Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint—
and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend,
the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very
color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave
way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the
Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies
against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt
to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve
years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the
Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them
were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere;
others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great
rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors
on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The
Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."
J. I. Mombert,
History of' Charles the Great,
book 2, chapters 3-4.
ALSO IN:
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 16-17.
----------SAXONS: End--------
{2812}
SAXONS OF BAYEUX.
"The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the
latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a
Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or
Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character
which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking
portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their
name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion;
we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some
parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that
nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same
influence which the same causes exercised over the
Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced
into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic
language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech
at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic
speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely
retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently
find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the
Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech
and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin
must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in
nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants
of the Danish districts of England."
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 4.
----------SAXONY: Start--------
SAXONY:
The old Duchy.
"The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the
Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from
France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern
or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the
Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some
sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable
of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands
gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on
as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon
duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D.
1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title
of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of
those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the
ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to
the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name
may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of
Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian
remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic
conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these
lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it
was within their limits that the various states arose which
have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the
descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial
lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so
far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held
their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of
Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one
Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the
usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took
their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel,
the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The
Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was
raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it
was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of
Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and
afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title
remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."
E. A. Freeman,
History Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 1.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
SAXONY: A. D. 911-1024.
The Imperial House.
See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936; 936-973; and 973-1122.
SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.
Revolt against Henry IV.
The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the
imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of
Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry
IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority
encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his
rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked
their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people,
and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their
necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles,
distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent,
the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke
out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man,
from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg,
a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a
residence upon a commanding height. After useless
negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he
then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here
and there it began to be said that he must be entirely
abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the
cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some
time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms."
Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed,
enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a
strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early
summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have
restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his
headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of
extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and
their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt,
at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order
resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech
[against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce
hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the
Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre.
… It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the
mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though
of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it
was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening
of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by
kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own
camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was
crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to
have established the imperial throne again." But little more
than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope
Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted
by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained
a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next
year he died.
C. T. Lewis,
History of Germany,
book 2, chapter 7, sections 13-20.
ALSO IN:
W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 142.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.
SAXONY: A. D. 1125-1152.
The origin of the electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
{2813}
SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
The dissolution of the old duchy.
In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and
Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND
GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud,
in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of
Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud
died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the
name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to
the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the
son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to
renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was
succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick
Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young
Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of
his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his
own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions
still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the
tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg
region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the
princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful
in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and
raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose
a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter
embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy,
with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter
was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the
Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations
were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly
summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused
to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally
declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban"
was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed
Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his
states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of
injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy,
had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command
Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho,
Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of
Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others,
levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia,
which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of
their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle,
in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were
too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually
fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he
took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose
daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years
he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates
in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were
divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part
of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the
remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When
Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he
had recovered were divided between his three sons.
Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 4 (volume 1).
Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial
fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick,
—Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and
Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of
Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.
ALSO IN:
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 5.
See, also,
SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
The later Duchy and Electorate.
The House of Wettin.
Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.
"When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in
1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was
given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear,
Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants
in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor
Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of
Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of
Thuringen."
Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, page 426.
This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that
name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of
Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048.
"The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures
[1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high
individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to
combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly
by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three
separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the
Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the
ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very
great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the
earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might
fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria,
till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of
primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing
but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and
never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in
consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the
race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was
succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes
governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but
then made a partition from which began the separation of the
Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards
in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two …
boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance,
besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round
Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon
country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c.
Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take
the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we
may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do
you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what
is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior
territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a
Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each
city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There,
at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or
Albertine Line. …
{2814}
As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at
Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was
their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had
Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had
the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any
Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. …
Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur
(Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not
marry and there was only one other brother, were not further
divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463,
was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the
Diet of Worms in 1521.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the
Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man.
He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his
term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther),
having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was
Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der
Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies;
lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him
into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever
since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor
in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of
Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and
little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom,
to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was
Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had
such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old
religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the
new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two
years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern
parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son,
and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in
English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and
War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant
cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said
cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him
to the second rank ever since.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we
left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the
Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with
Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz
kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his
Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed
into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which
dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day
[1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as
Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or
honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary,
diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken
small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha,
Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere
genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name:
Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg,
etc.]."
T. Carlyle,
The Prinzenraub
(Essays, volume 6).
ALSO IN:
F. Shoberl,
Historical Account of the House of Saxony.
SAXONY: A. D. 1500-1512.
Formation of the Circles of Saxony and Upper Saxony.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
SAXONY: A. D. 1516-1546.
The Reformation.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521,
1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.
SAXONY: A. D. 1525.
The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established
in the electorate.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
SAXONY: A. D. 1539.
Succession GERMANY of a Protestant prince.
See: A. D. 1533-1546.
SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547.
Treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
Transfer of the electorate to him.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
SAXONY: A. D. 1619.
Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand,
against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
SAXONY: A. D. 1631.
Ignoble trepidations of the Elector.
His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus.
The battle of Breitenfeld.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
SAXONY: A. D. 1631-1632.
The Elector and his army in Bohemia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
SAXONY: A. D. 1633.
Standing aloof from the Union of Heilbronn.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
SAXONY: A. D. 1634.
Desertion of the Protestant cause.
The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SAXONY: A. D. 1645.
Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SAXONY: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
SAXONY: A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
SAXONY: A. D. 1697-1698.
The crown of Poland secured by the Elector.
See POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.
SAXONY: A. D. 1706.
Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
SAXONY: A. D. 1733.
Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne,
enforced by Russia and Austria.
See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
SAXONY: A. D. 1740.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1741.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Alliance against Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria.
Subjugation by Prussia.
The Peace of Dresden.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
SAXONY: A. D. 1755.
Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia.
Causes of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.
SAXONY: A. D. 1756.
Swift subjugation by Frederick of Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760.
Occupied by the Austrians.
Mostly recovered by Frederick.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER); and 1760.
SAXONY: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War.
The electorate restored.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
{2815}
SAXONY: A. D. 1806.
The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of
Napoleon, and is made a king.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1807.
Acquisition by the king of the grand duchy of Warsaw.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
SAXONY: A. D. 1809.
Risings against the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).
SAXONY: A. D. 1813.
Occupied by the Allies.
Regained by the French.
Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon.
French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic.
Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons.
The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies.
French surrender of Dresden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna.
The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
SAXONY: A. D. 1817.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SAXONY: A. D. 1848 (March).
Revolutionary outbreak.
Concessions to the people.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).
SAXONY: A. D. 1849.
Insurrection suppressed by Prussian troops.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
SAXONY: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity to Prussia.
Union with the North German Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
SAXONY: A. D. 1870-1871.
Embraced in the new German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
1871 (JANUARY); and 1871 (APRIL).
----------SAXONY: End--------
SAXONY, The English titular Dukedom of.

See WALES, PRINCE OF.
SCALDIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Scheldt.
SCALDS, OR SKALDS, The.
"Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it
is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to
commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents,
and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to
whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit
confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in
society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among
the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the
Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in
every case of law or property in which the past had to be
applied to the present. Before the introduction of
Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written
documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of
writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the
pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record
were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The
scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of
wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. …
The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian
priests were established through the country. They were
superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the
art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to
maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of
the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."
S. Laing,
The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation,
chapter 1.
"At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising
their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian
skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in
mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair
(872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as
thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry
was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the
professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion
presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age
of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald
he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he
would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds
became a very significant factor in the literary development
of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."
F. W. Horn,
History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
part 1, chapter 1.
SCALIGERI, The, or Della Scala Family.
See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338;
also, MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
SCAMANDER, The.
See TROJA.
SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.
See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Start--------
SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
Early history.
"Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the
Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of
the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must
treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as
compilations made up from isolated and detached
traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was
described, and in which the links and the connections between
the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of
the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to
a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great
temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the
same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern
historian to do? In the first place he must take the
contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his
supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted
by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the
two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while
in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent
evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the
glimmers of light that have reached us."
H. H. Howorth,
Early History of Sweden
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9).
{2816}
SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
Their relationships in language and blood.
"Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden
it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical
boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood.
But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in
actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected
with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick
partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a
Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are
two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or
German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to
the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the
Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark,
though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the
real differences being exaggerated by differences of
orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the
ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old
German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather
than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue,
is the common property of all, and so is the old literature
with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief
heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is
preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it
may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians
denominate it Old Norse. …
See NORMANS—NORTHMEN. A. D. 960-1100.
The histories of the three countries are alike in their
general character though different in detail. Denmark when we
have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true
historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the
parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan
and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the
Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it
ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German
alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and
in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the
kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the
civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and,
for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts.
Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern
neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and
indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern
provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when
kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In
the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term
being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the
blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is
it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists
agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least),
or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no
means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of
either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the
German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North
Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in
Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported
themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves
towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and
Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations
intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added
that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each
side of the question."
R. G. Latham,
The Nationalities of Europe,
volume 2, chapter 37.
See, also,
GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.
ALSO IN:
A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
page 236.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries.
Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-11th Centuries.
Formation of the Three Kingdoms.
"At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian
peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming.
A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the
kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes
separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these
three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the
Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general
European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the
half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the
Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held
in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical
extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them.
Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are
from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland.
The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save
during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish
frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the
two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under
Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen,
which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian
nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These
were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late
in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched
far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an
indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as
the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the
northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the
Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian
settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were
those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or
Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that
of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths'
to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each
side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay
on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is
guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and
Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries
towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland,
immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther
to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of
the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and
Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the
southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land
between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land
thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to
the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the
course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to
spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had
thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for
extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and
Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic
conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 11, section 1.
{2817}
"Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in
Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each
presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little
territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of
human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of
'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and
small combinations of these, which had gradually formed
themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with
them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this
state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his
country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of
it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father,
Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary
process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who
conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's
birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known
only by inference and computation; but, by the latest
reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83.
The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A.
D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the
out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more
years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had
conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and
success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over
70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud
Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland,
to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant
(tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir,
or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles,
the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and
settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say,
settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of
all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."
T. Carlyle,
The Early Kings of Norway,
chapter 1.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 9th Century.
Introduction of Christianity.
See CHRISTIANITY: 9-11TH CENTURIES.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
The empire of Canute and its dissolution.
Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms.
The Folkungas in Sweden.
Rise of Denmark.
The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.
"A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute
the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of
Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole
of Norway to his dominions.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016, and 1016-1042
The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the
Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes,
appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men
with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might
have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and
West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell
asunder on his death and his successors sink again into
insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page
illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the
Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the
Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the
attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise
itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from
their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern
shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia,
were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness
was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised
and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to
its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his
power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a
death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes
who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark
relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to
the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar
it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased
within the country, new enemies arose around it. The
Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it.
The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania,
Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now
appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose
rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich
cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to
assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by
strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came
to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A
count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for
fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the
country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious
house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in
anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the
assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared
of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real
beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from
1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became
the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite
establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of
his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards
the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a
new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A
powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the
old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of
mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without
children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The
infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne,
and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as
the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as
natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As
regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness
of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th
century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the
conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of
Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and
Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their
unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed
by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed
some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of
succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted
the country."
{2818}
In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the
crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of
these descendants among themselves, and the contests which
were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with
imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon
unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A
prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the
10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined
later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to
call himself its King. These were times indeed in which
conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting,
and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark.
Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than
they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the
three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no
interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived
it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been
marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by
the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after
the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list
of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord
the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise
herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar
not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence
which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The
new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to
the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert
was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up,
on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking
(which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as
the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back
Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland,
and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade
within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving
the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish
monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter
enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of
Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the
combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was
only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former
privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen
years possession of the better part of Scania and its
revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all
sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for
their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the
reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy
prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his
death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children,
became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had
married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of
Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the
attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms,
supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures,
secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child,
who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as
well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won
the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf
himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by
the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already
shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in
Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the
banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had
reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she
easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and
making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her
nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as
her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn
meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three
Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of
Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was
achieved."
C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
E. G. Geijer,
History of the Swedes,
volume 1, chapters 3-5.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries.
Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution.
The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow.
Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden.
The introduction of the Reformation.
The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which
Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397,
under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the
right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by
the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there
were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be
governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the
common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated
to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved
the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several
bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by
Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was
turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the
Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the
island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death.
The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son
of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in
1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their
king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose
Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was
compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost
Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of
Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and
crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all
the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn,
recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I.
became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein
from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period
with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after
Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in
Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the
Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October
1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now
enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King
was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern
provinces of Sweden.
{2819}
Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The
Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by
renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly
establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died
in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son
and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive
connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his
accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern
towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck;
and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France,
England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in
his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle
[Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the
administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him
with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle.
… In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near
Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French
sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a
battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having
proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected
in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the
administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an
interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way
for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation;
though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a
sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture
was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake
Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in
spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but
expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd
1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala,
after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that
Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of
Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty.
Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was
admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the
command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly
manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he
took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. …
The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a
place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to
proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through
the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection
of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in
all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson,
… a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections,
talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown,
afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither
by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a
hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity,
in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly
entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later
his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant,
and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its
love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in
peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his
pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of
Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers;
he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the
people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men,"
out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were
wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but
the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill,
was protracted two years. During this period his command was
legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles,
at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to
him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The
Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from
Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve
Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish
crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution
that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of
Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The
Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the
Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to
recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied
that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for
their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of
Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm
surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped
to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an
expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him
a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the
castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur
until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating
his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by
examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of
the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. …
Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in
1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had
studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The
Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them
his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with
Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced
to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils
of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the
Reformation was introduced.
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
P. B. Watson,
The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa.
A. Alberg,
Gustavus Vasa and his Stirring Times.
{2820}
SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
(Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523.
Accession of Frederick I.
(Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604.
The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons.
Wars with Russia and Denmark.
The Baltic question.
Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and
his consequent loss of the Swedish crown,
Resulting hostilities.
"Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very
religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran
country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the
lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and
also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as
he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is,
they all wished to maintain the union of the three
Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were,
therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other
great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:
(1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character
of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great
victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and
Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later
time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the
peasants and crippled the activity of the State.
(2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes,
and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France,
and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish
commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of
the Hanseatic League.
(3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of
territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which,
however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was
certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and
which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the
great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.
His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State,
already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and
the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks
to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea
on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for
Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest
which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the
death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the
province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously
fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This
was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden;
herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium
Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face
with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the
possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great
Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to
anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help
to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight,
recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric
concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North
began to assume their natural relation to each other. The
Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English
sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor
as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of
Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the
hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in
an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North
Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself
produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms
of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish
nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for
Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution,
the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the
great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he
made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence
of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than
abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped
back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious
man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a
certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the
yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to
drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was
one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to
Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared
to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia;
thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and
foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of
his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his
marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion
with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all
years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period
of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572,
and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the
Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the
other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son
Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of
Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden
with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund
succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost
certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country,
in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the
consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and
Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject,
the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would
have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to
consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without
forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of
extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been
observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the
people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania,
the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the
best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied
upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's
death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an
usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs
increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund
came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000
crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the
restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had
already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems
little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We
are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know
that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In
1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been
chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When
Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he
could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the
kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently
confirmed the power of the Regent.
{2821}
The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre,
which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in
1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be
only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the
crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a
revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was
massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon
his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have
begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000
Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on
September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by
which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send
away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was
obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following
year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the
remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July,
1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led
to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which
played such an important part in the history of Northern
Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly
crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa
monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus
Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the
descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince
who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso
facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any
change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor.
Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one
crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"
C. R. L. Fletcher,
Gustavus Adolphus,
introduction.
ALSO IN:
E. G. Geijer,
History of the Swedes,
volume 1, chapters 9-14.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534.
Accession of Christian III.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559.
Accession of Frederick II.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588.
Accession of Christian IV.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611.
Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629.
The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.
On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus,
did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained
without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will
of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John),
with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of
the people could be made known in the customary manner. After
an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. …
Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been
brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some
just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid
down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young
king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of
Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the
first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom
when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of
Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50
years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that
long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and
violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her
boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her
neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were
united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and
both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and
were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as
well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas.
Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive
and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in
dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and
Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year
of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with
Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were
unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was
once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he
secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden
renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes
gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the
end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of
Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the
Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of
Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne,
Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to
continue for several years; though hostilities were not all
the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time
practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large
area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important
towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which
makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been
united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to
be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory,
also a long distance within the lines of the Russian
population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The
troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and
extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to
seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had
sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of
Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the
crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for
the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of
Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring
this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with
Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from
the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and
security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the
Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years
of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with
as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war
between these two countries continued; … the advantages being
generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not
always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the
mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon.
"The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to
Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from
the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming
Swedish territory. …
{2822}
The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At
the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which
was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended,
the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been
reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively
in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion
and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise
than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only
supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of
legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong
influences on his side in European high political and
religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by
the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III.
of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of
Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to
the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He
was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had
engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of
Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to
stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he
promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were
prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life.
Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and
sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being
generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the
winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia,
carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring."
Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish
not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather
protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with
peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In
August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet
and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place
was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again
the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is
declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one
in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors
and cares to the interior administration of his country. In
the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of
the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the
completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of
Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care."
The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof,
January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to
transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to
those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and
approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of
Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He
[Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and
the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested,
with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did
not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26
the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that
city without much resistance, the garrison being small. …
Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg
surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by
Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many
towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus
rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the
frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of
1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the
groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the
neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right
shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement
at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being
inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an
armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent
kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms
were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the
elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice.
Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other
towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be
accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was
declared free between the two nations."
J. L. Stevens,
History of Gustavus Adolphus,
chapters 3 and 7.
ALSO IN:
B. Chapman,
History of Gustavus Adolphus,
chapters 2-4.
See, also, POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630.
The Protestant Alliance.
Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War.
The Treaty of Lübeck.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626; and 1627-1629.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1627.
The country overrun by Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628.
Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany.
The relief of Stralsund.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632.
The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
His death.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, to 1631-1632.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1631.
Treaty of Barwalde with France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632.
Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640.
The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645.
War between Sweden and Denmark.
Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig.
The Peace of Bromsebro.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697.
Reign and abdication of Queen Christina.
Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland
and Denmark and in Germany.
Establishment of absolutism.
"Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus,
had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess
Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the
year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency
was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had
inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the
most learned and accomplished woman of her time.
{2823}
She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste
for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while
she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent
money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds.
… As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she
had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind,
fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother,
Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished
crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In
the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into
parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and
the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The
clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the
oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated
to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had
granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken
from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war
seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to
marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate,
entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in
earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she
proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl
Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of
the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of
Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted
by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and
by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her
profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the
property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had
conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her
old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her
wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally
accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling
through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and
entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her
cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the
Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to
Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then,
nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the
council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to

gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all
schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she
died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of
Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder
and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in
active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan
Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne,
drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a
soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with
which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a
three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a
worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus
Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to
keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the
increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to
attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced
into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the
excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against
them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving
only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he
turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace
signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of
Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania,
Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained
natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first
Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the
power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his
attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five
times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to
Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly
destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it
seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the
English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish
king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with
the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing
to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the
winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By
the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under
the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI.,
was only four years old when he became king. … Every
department of the government was left to suffer from
mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences
of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were
unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of
money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money
from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired
out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of
things the young king grew up without receiving any very
careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th
year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere
exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in
conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded
with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in
the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678.
Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without
opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these
forces could form a junction with the French troops then
encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them
unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The
losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the
result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old
rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark
declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he
had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or
money, resolved for the future to take the management of
public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began
the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he
found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the
land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents.
The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and
supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of
whose ships were burnt or sunk.
{2824}
This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by
Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered
hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without
heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from
daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the
field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The
Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat,
leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they
several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering
the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their
ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the
Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general,
Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege
in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to
enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace
which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe,
and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679,
by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden
recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied
during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and
Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of
this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom
in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been
wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other
restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so
humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a
diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had
the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He
attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically
unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest
of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.
E. C. Otté,
Scandinavian History,
chapter 21.
ALSO IN:
H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia to 1740,
chapter 5.
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapters 2 and 4 (volume 3).
G. B. Malleson,
Battle-Fields of Germany,
chapter 8.
See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648.
Accession of Frederick III.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655.
Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668.
Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670.
Accession of Christian V.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679.
In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND):
A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697.
Accession of Charles XII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700.
The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII.
and how he met it
First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.
"Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself
the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and
Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg,
the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of
Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all
of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the
king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It
was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the
supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had
no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but
the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to
be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his
court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and
represented him as such to their respective masters. The
Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his
real character: he did not even know it himself, until the
storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity
of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain
concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his
youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first
was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second,
Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the
Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. …
The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a
conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the
Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He
wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of
Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he
resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims
upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a
favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had
lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the
sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King
of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories
that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea,
Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the
Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the
effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering.
He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and
took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that
moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he
never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the
idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two
conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he
indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he
reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly
been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never
clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to
have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether
there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear;
certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women,
not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to
set an example of continence to his soldiers. …
{2825}
He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of
his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his
brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men
were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering
upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head
against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His
dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp
taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate
siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This
spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side,
the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg
Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On
the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of
Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the
assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein
was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from
England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. …
They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in
danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first
campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700,
and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet
consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the
squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen.
The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than
six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty
of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke
of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him
from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly
at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the
capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at
the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great
skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to
abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had
much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had
now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to
march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter
had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head
of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed
with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none
of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one
good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without
fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000
regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it
in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar
learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200
transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The
Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not
confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he
left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles'
motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th
of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only
8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of
his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments.
"The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious
shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of
the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost
above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in
their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the
river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall,
surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing
the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at
Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the
work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he
said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."
Voltaire,
History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
books 1-2.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699.
Accession of Frederick IV.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707.
Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII.
Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne.
Charles at the summit of his career.
"Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded,
retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in
training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the
field against his only remaining adversary, the King of
Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered
Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very
place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged.
Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered
into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview
which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was
agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of
50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army,
having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent
the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was
effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the
burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high
wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from
the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their
intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500
prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital
of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns
and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next
passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and
driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost
precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little
satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the
very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the
czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed
the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means
of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not
tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of
Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the
treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be
immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative
remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The
deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of
arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where
after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes.
Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but
marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist.
{2826}
That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a
contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince
obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable
rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental
fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile
preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the
schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk
(May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate
Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the
diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of
Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon
after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of
Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to
assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a
diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed
that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon
others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded
in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to
complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had
fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous
prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their
career from province to province, he had himself opened a
passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial
dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed
in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars.
Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented
from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept
in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so
that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the
conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the
Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter
in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and
captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a
conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns
concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders
in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men,
under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate
of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone,
Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power
of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed
over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were
overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after
another was routed before they learned the defeat of their
companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and
reputation, was not more successful, having been completely
beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander,
in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town
of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the
cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles
next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms.
The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should
renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus
as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with
Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to
mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was
increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld,
near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which
the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle.
… The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner
in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe
with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of
his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship.
France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the
Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned
to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the
declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and
resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his
envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an
occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to
succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his
Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their
religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia.
… The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he
had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to
his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views
increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice
for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel
his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession
of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No
enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."
A. Crichton,
Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern,
volume 2, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
S. A. Dunham,
History of Poland,
pages 219-221.
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718.
Charles XII. in Russia.
His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
His refuge among the Turks.
His fruitless intrigues.
His return to Sweden.
His death.
"From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September,
1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to
revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival,
who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of
20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708],
strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the
czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at
Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations,
he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that
ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on
the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the
country; Charles, after having endured great privations,
turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by
Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the
conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance.
In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could
throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but
he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as
a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered
his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of
his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was
the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they
had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care
it was entrusted, had been forced into three general
engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently
distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was
forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into
the hands of the enemy.
{2827}
Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign
even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at
once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid
siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the
Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal
magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance
obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel
whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to
his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous
army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works,
Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy,
while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The
desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but
the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of
rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery
made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had
been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in
vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a
dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish
army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were
left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about
12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on
the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the
river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards,
escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning
all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of
Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important
consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one
fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories;
the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was
completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were
taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than
death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the
wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and
drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and
Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the
victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a
great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the
German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy
would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed
a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he
instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and
flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head
of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed
on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these
intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski,
informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured
the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most
vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced
(A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled
all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of
Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia,
believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for
delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the
czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached
the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian
capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince
Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by
the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for
them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman
whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all
the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to
the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A
treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on
terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up
Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the
circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians
retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only
to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of
intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the
appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little
inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary,
warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove
him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to
linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from
the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a
resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined,
with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the
Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and
conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the
divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain
in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have
restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General
Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had
been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the
Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the
duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by
burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an
outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon
after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his
whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his
conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign
appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over
the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his
rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish
senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace
with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of
returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the
journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen
days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached
Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the
opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with
enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the
united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the
Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic,
threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence,
in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed
bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having
previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All
Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he
could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the
inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that
he had invaded Norway.
{2828}
His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by
the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who,
taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the
other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles
should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. …
While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded
Norway a second time, and invested the castle of
Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged
in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was
dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance
[December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief
for the loss
W. C. Taylor,
Student's Manual of Modern History,
chapter 7, section 6.
ALSO IN:
E. Schuyler,
Peter the Great,
chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2).
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 18.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719.
Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721.
Constitutional changes.
Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War.
Swedish cessions of Territory.
"An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719],
and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared
an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a
council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were
invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was
reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was
restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families.
… In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden
and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden
were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in
consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By
another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support
Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy
of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice
was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be
arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to
be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain
the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus
a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the
preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great
discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in
Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia
under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal
articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia,
Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract
between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm
and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side,
engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million
rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace
between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement.
… By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of
Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all
that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars
and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only
territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the
greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of
which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and
Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At
length, through the mediation of France, conferences were
opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed,
September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that
[Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a
part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at
the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia
to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden
$2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that
he had purchased that province."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720.
Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel,
husband of Ulrica Eleonora.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792.
Wars with Russia and Prussia.
Humiliating powerlessness of the king.
The parties of the Hats and the Caps.
A constitutional Revolution.
Assassination of Gustavus III.
Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the
crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who
became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign
witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a
part of that province to Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck,
and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne.
"Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign
was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition
of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of
Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania,
on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of
Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts
which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles
XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on
the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the
Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the
Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania,
he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the
invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The
accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to
Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon
concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the
example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in
the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at
harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by
internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to
the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to
the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish
monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the
shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to
render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four
orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the
peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it
was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative
authority.
{2829}
It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy
tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members.
All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he
had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. …
The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he
judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was
passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the
sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable
than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on
regulating the most trifling details of the royal household.
This interference was resented by some of the members,
belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be
termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,'
who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of
whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As
Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured
to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh
and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm
therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for
the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father
Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French
money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher
cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and
to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new
constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign;
enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent
of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any
already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to
ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in
matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not
much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained.
On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this
revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was
odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated
by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which
followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the
same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular
in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious
designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party
restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as
they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus
III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one
Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery.
Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but
nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was
succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the
age of three years.
S. A. Dunham,
History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway,
book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730.
Accession of Christian VI.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746.
Accession of Frederick V.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751.
Accession of Adolphus Frederick.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766.
Accession of Christian VII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771.
Accession of Gustavus Ill.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792.
Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795.
Peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802.
The Northern Maritime League.
English bombardment of Copenhagen
and summary extortion of peace.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805.
Joined in the Third Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806.
In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit.
Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of
the Danish Fleet by the English.
War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden,
and conquest of Finland.
Deposition of the Swedish king.
On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia,
meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the
terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
"There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which
England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to
be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's
diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable
us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part
with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole
to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his
efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its
provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not
made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if
England did not before the 1st of November make terms
satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the
two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,
to close their ports against the English, and were to unite
their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of
May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of
Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news
from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime
Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent
secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores
with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been
refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost
no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were
consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling
Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information
of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings
were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the
occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on
account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify
himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr.
Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of
Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then
at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon,
that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to
be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of
the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which
was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he
went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40
frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of
transports, conveying 27,000 land troops.
{2830}
Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the
military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a
month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and
before the final orders were given, ministers had such
information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as
left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish
fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr.
Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time
was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August]
the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon
Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once
more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown
Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration
of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no
doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September,
however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the
British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that
it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of
September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were
surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by
that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed
by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the
Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. …
Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England,
the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour.
One of the most painful features of the case is the
confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made
quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish
merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000.
These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which
we had carried off."
H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 1.
In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early
in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her
mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general
peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the
sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret
articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its
failure was made certain by the action of England in taking
possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of
November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was
accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar.
"Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and
defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia
to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his
engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on
which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an
overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which
by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."
Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 455-456
(chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work).
In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to
Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary,
and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her
vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and
blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000
men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all
advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found
the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind,
proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for
defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found
to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution;
Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off
in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which
had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland,
the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides
Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want;
they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the
King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. …
As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects
gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into
the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor
King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was
setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment
for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon
made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809,
and with France in the following January. Pomerania was
restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great
sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the
Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against
all communications with England."
H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 1.
"The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the
complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands
east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland
was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed
after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other
conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether
'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia
and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the
Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same
sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in
everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are
countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the
crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a
nation which were called into being by the will of the
conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of
the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that
part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in
exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the
common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of
Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and
there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing
constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The
position of that State is best described in his own words.
Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers
who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French
tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it
was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.'
[Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it
was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a
nation of his own founding.
{2831}
The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of
the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the
Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves.
All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession
of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till
the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year.
The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights
of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was
held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of
the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the
Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire,
and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had
been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The
boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very
near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."
E. A. Freeman,
Finland
(Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892).
ALSO IN:
General Monteith, editor,
Narrative of the Conquest of Finland,
by a Russian Officer (with appended documents).
C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 2.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808.
Accession of Frederick VI.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
Accession of Charles XIII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
Granting of the Constitution.
See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince
and successor to the throne.
The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the
eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown
Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the
government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the
nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th
of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell
from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again
without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated
the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the
succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of
Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte,
had some right to expect his support. The son of the late
unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named
like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke
of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had
partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical
objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession,
and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be