Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 45)

G. Finlay, History of the Empire of Trebizond (History of Greece and of the Empire of Trebizond).

{3123}

TREBONIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

TREK, The Great.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

TREMECEN, The Kingdom of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

TREMONT, The Name.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

TRENT, The Council of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRENT AFFAIR, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).

TRENTON: A. D. 1776. The surprise of the Hessians.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

—————TRÈVES: Start————

TRÈVES: Origin.

Trèves was originally the chief town of the Treviri, from whom it derived its name. When the Romans established a colony there they called it Augusta Trevirorum. In time, the Augusta was dropped and Trevirorum became Trèves, or Trier.

See TREVIRI.

TRÈVES: Under the Romans.

"The town of the Treveri, named Augusta probably from the first emperor, soon gained the first place in the Belgic province; if, still, in the time of Tiberius, Durocortorum of the Remi (Rheims) is named the most populous place of the province and the seat of the governors, an author from the time of Claudius already assigns the primacy there to the chief place of the Treveri. But Treves became the capital of Gaul—we may even say of the West—only through the remodelling of the imperial administration under Diocletian. After Gaul, Britain and Spain were placed under one supreme administration, the latter had its seat in Treves; and thenceforth Treves was also, when the emperors stayed in Gaul, their regular residence, and, as a Greek of the fifth century says, the greatest city beyond the Alps."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 3.

TRÈVES: A. D. 306. The Ludi Francici at.

See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

TRÈVES: A. D. 364-376. Capital of Valentinian and the Western Empire.

See ROM[E: A. D. 363-379.

TRÈVES: A. D. 402. Abandoned by the Roman præfecture.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1125-1152. Origin of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1675. Taken from the French by the Imperialists.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1689. Threatened destruction by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1697. Restored to the Empire.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1704. Taken by Marlborough.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1801-1803. Extinction of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

—————TRÈVES: End————

TREVILLIAN'S STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA) CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

TREVIRI, The.

The Treviri were one of the peoples of Gaul, in Cæsar's time, "whose territory lay on the left bank of the Rhine and on both sides of the Mosella (Mosel). Trier [ancient Treves] on the Mosel was the head-quarters of the Treviri."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 8.

TREVISAN MARCHES, Tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the.

See VERONA: A. D. 1230-1259.

TRIAD SOCIETY, OR WATER-LILY SECT, The.

The most extensive of the many secret societies among the Chinese is "the Tienti hwui, or San-hoh hwui, i. e. the Triad Society. It was formerly known by the title of the Pih-lien kiau, or Water-lily Sect, but having been proscribed by the government, it sought by this alteration of name, and some other slight changes, to evade the operation of the laws. In fact, it still subsists in some of the remoter provinces under its old name and organization. The known and indeed almost openly avowed object of this society has been, for many years, the overturn of the Mant-chou dynasty."

The Chinese Rebellion (North American Review, July, 1854).

ALSO IN: Abbé Huc, Christianity in China, &c. volume 2, pages 274-277.

H. A. Giles, Historic China, pages 395-399.

TRIAL BY COMBAT.

See WAGER OF BATTLE.

TRIANON TARIFF, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

TRIARII.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

TRIBE. TRIBUS.

See ROME, THE BEGINNING.

TRIBES, Greek.

See PHYLÆ.

TRIBOCES, The.

A people who, in Cæsar's time, were established on both banks of the Rhine, occupying the central part of the modern Grand Duchy of Baden and the opposite region of Gaul.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

See, also, VANGIONES.

TRIBON, The.

A garment of thick cloth and small size worn by Spartan youths, and sometimes by old men.

C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern, course 2, lecture 7.

TRIBUNAL, The Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL.).

TRIBUNES, Consular, or Military.

See CONSULAR TRIBUNES.

TRIBUNES OF THE PLEBS.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

TRIBUNITIA, Potestas.

See POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA.

TRIBUTUM, The.

The tributum, a war-tax, collected from the Roman people in the earlier periods of the Republic, was "looked upon as a loan, and was returned on the termination of a successful war out of the captured booty. … The principle that Rome was justified in living at the expense of her subjects was formally acknowledged when, in the year 167 B. C., the tributum—the only direct tax which the Roman citizens paid—was abolished, because the government could dispense with it after the conquest of Macedonia. The entire burden and expense of the administration were now put off upon the subjects."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 7 (volume 4).

TRICAMARON, Battle of (A. D. 533).

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

TRICASSES.

The earlier name of the city of Troyes, France.

{3124}

TRICHINOPOLY: Siege and relief (1751).

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

TRICOTEUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

TRIDENTINE COUNCIL.

The Council of Trent; so called from Tridentum, the ancient Latin name of the town.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRIERARCHY.

See LITURGIES.

TRINACRIA.

The ancient Greek name of the island of Sicily.

TRINCOMALEE, Battle of (1767).

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1498. Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1801. Acquisition by England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

TRINITY HOUSE.

"Perhaps there is throughout Britain no more interesting example of the innate power and varied developments of the old gild principle, certainly no more illustrious survival of it to modern times, than the Trinity House. It stands out now as an institution of high national importance, whose history is entwined with the early progress of the British navy and the welfare and increase of our sea craft and seamanship: in an age when the tendency is to assume state control over all matters of national interest the Trinity House, a voluntary corporation, still fulfils the public functions to which its faithful labours, through a long course of years, have established its right and title. Although its earliest records appear to be lost or burned, there seems to be no doubt that Henry VIII's charter of 1514 was granted to a brotherhood already existing. … In the charter itself we read that the shipmen or mariners of England 'may anew erect' a gild, and lands and tenements in Deptford Strand, already in possession, are referred to. Similar bodies were formed in other places; in the fourteenth century there was a shipmen's gild at Lynn and another at Hull; in the fifteenth century the shipmen were one of the crafts of York. Mr. Barrett mentions that they also had houses at Newcastle and Dover. The Hull gild (which also happens to have been dedicated to the Trinity) flourished for seventy-four years before receiving its first royal grant. The objects to which it was devoted were akin to those of the Deptford House, and Henry VIII incorporated it in 1547, just about the time when most gilds, not of crafts, were destroyed. … The charitable side of the Trinity House functions has always been considerable; in 1815 they possessed no less than 144 almshouses, besides giving 7,012 pensions; but of late years their funds applicable to such purposes have been curtailed. … It is significant that in Edward VI's reign the name and style of Gild was abandoned by the brethren for the title of 'the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond.' Gilds now had come into disrepute. The functions of the Trinity House have long been recognised of such value to the public service that their honourable origin, so consonant with other English institutions is apt to be forgotten. … To cherish the 'science and art of mariners,' and to provide a supply of pilots, especially for the Thames up to London, were their prime duties. The Admiralty and Navy boards were as administrative bodies in 1520, and the ship-building yard at Deptford, with the store-houses there, 'was placed under the direct control of the gild.' The Sea Marks Act of 1566, established which throws considerable light on the position of the company at that time, endued them with the power of preserving old and setting up new sea marks or beacons round the coasts, among which trees came under their purview. How far their jurisdiction extended is not stated; it would be interesting to know whether their progress round the whole shores of Britain were gradual or not. It is, perhaps, for its work in connexion with light-houses, light-ships, buoys, and beacons, that the Trinity House is best known to the general public. … It was only in 1836 that parliament 'empowered the corporation to purchase of the crown, or from private proprietors, all lights then in existence,' which are therefore at present under their efficient central control. … The principal matters in their sphere of action—the important provision of pilots, the encouragement and supply of seamen, ballastage and ballast, lights and buoys, the suppression of piracy and privateers, tonnage measurement, the victualling of the navy, their intimate connexion with the gradual growth and armament of the navy, the curious right to appoint certain consuls abroad—all these receive illustration at first hand from the author's careful researches among state papers and the muniments of the corporation."

Lucy T. Smith, Review of "The Trinity House of Deptford Strond"; by C. R. B. Barrett (English Historical Review, April, 1894).

TRINOBANTES, The.

The Trinobantes were the first of the tribes of Britain to submit to Cæsar. They inhabited the part of the country now embraced in the county of Essex and part of Middlesex. Their chief town, or stronghold ("oppidum") was Camulodunum, where the Romans afterwards founded a colony which became the modern city of Colchester. Cunobelin, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare, was a king of the Trinobantes who acquired extensive power. One of the sons of Cunobelin, Caractacus, became the most obstinate enemy of the Romans when they seriously began the conquest of Britain, in the reign of Claudius.

E. L. Cutts, Colchester, chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

See also, BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

TRIOBOLON.

Three oboli,—the daily compensation paid in Athens to citizens who served as judges in the great popular courts: afterwards paid, likewise, to those who attended the assemblies of the people.

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, book 2, chapter 15.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.

There have been a number of Triple Alliances formed in European history; see, for example.

NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668, and SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

But the one in recent times to which allusion is often made is that in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, are the three parties. It was formed by treaty in February, 1882, and renewed in 1887. Its purpose is mutual defense, especially, no doubt, against the apprehended combination of Russia with France.

—————TRIPOLI: Start————

TRIPOLI, North Africa: Origin of the name of.

See LEPTIS MAGNA.

{3125}

TRIPOLI, North Africa: History.

See BARBARY STATES.

TRIPOLI, Syria: Capture by the Crusaders. Destruction of the Library. Formation of the Latin county.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111; and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1009-1144.

TRIPONTIUM.

A town in Roman Britain, where one of the great roads crossed the Avon, near modern Lilburne.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

TRISAGION, The.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.

TRI-SKELION. GAMMADION. FYLFOT-CROSS. SVASTIKA.

"One of the most remarkable instances of the migration of a symbol is that afforded by the 'tri-skelion,' or, as we more familiarly know it, 'the three legs of Man.' It first appears on the coins of Lycia, circa B. C. 480; and then on those of Sicily, where it was adopted by Agathocles, B. C. 317-307, but not as a symbol of the morning, midday, and afternoon sun, but of the land of Trinacria, i. e., 'Three Capes,' the ancient name of Sicily; and finally on the coins of the Isle of Man, on which it seems to refer rather to the position of that island between England, Scotland, and Ireland, than to its triangular shape. The tri-skelion of Lycia is made up of three cocks' heads. … But on the coins of Sicily and of the Isle of Man the tri-skelion consists of three human legs of an identical pattern, excepting that those of the latter island are spurred. This form of tri-skelion is borne on the arms of several old English families, and it was in all probability first introduced into this country [England] by some Crusader returning from the East by way of Sicily. … The tri-skelion is but a modification of the 'gammadion' or 'fyl-fot-cross,' the 'svastika' of the Hindus. The latter was long ago suspected by Edward Thomas to be a sun-symbol; but this was not positively proved until Mr. Percy Gardner found a coin of the ancient city of Mesembria in Thrace stamped with a gammadion bearing within its open centre an image of the sun—Mesembria meaning the city of 'Mid-day,' and this name being figured on some of its coins by the decisive legend MEΣ卍. … The gammadion has travelled further afield than any other symbol of antiquity. … Count Goblet d'Alviella traces it back at last to the Troad as the cradle of its birth, some time anterior to the 13th century B. C."

The Athenœum, August 13, 1802 (Reviewing Comte Goblet d'Alviella's "La Migration des Symboles").

TRITTYES.

See PHYLÆ.

TRIUMPH AND OVATION, The Roman.

"The highest reward of the commander was the triumphal entrance. At first it was awarded by senate and people to real merit in the field, and its arrangement was simple and dignified; but soon it became an opportunity of displaying the results of insatiable Roman rapacity and love of conquest. Only the dictators, consuls, prætors, and, in late republican times, occasionally legates, were permitted by the senate to enter Rome in triumph, the permission to the legate being granted only in case he had commanded independently ('suis auspiciis'), and conducted the army to Rome from a victorious campaign 'in sua provincia.' As in later times it was impossible to conduct the whole army from distant provinces to Rome, the last-mentioned condition was dispensed with, the claim of the commander to a triumph being acknowledged in case in one of the battles gained by him 5,000 enemies had been killed. The senate granted the expenses necessary for the procession after the quæstor urbanus had examined and confirmed the commander's claim. Streets and squares through which the procession had to pass were festively adorned. The temples were opened, and incense burnt on the altars. Improvised stands were erected in the street, filled with festive crowds shouting 'Io triumphe!' The commander, in the meantime, collected his troops near the temples of Bellona and Apollo, outside the gates of Rome. … The victor was met at the 'porta triumphalis' by the senate, the city magistrates, and numerous citizens, who took the lead of the procession, while lictors opened a way through the crowd. After the city dignitaries followed tibicines, after them the booty. … Fettered kings, princes, and nobles followed, doomed to detention in the Mamertine prison. Next came sacrificial oxen with gilt horns, accompanied by priests; and, finally, preceded by singers, musicians, and jesters, the triumphal chariot drawn by four horses. Clad in a toga picta and the tunica palmata, temporarily taken from the statue of the Capitoline Jupiter, the triumphator stood in his chariot holding the eagle-crowned ivory sceptre in his hand, while a servus publicus standing behind him held the corona triumphalis over his head. The army brought up the rear of the procession, which moved from the Campus Martius through the circus of Flaminius to the Porta Carmentalis, and thence, by way of the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus, the Via Sacra and the Forum, to the Capitol. Here the triumphator deposited his golden crown in the lap of the Capitoline Jupiter, and sacrificed the usual suovetaurilia. … The ovatio was granted for less important conquests, or to a general for victories not won 'suis auspiciis.' The victor, adorned with the toga prætexta and the myrtle crown, originally used to walk; in later times he rode on horseback."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 100.

See, also, VIA SACRA.

TRIUMVIRATE, The First.

See ROME: B. C. 63-58.

The Second.

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

TROIS ÉVÊCHÉS, Les, and their acquisition by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559, and 1670-1681; and GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

TROISVILLE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TROJA. TROY. TROAD. ILIUM.

"In the whole long extent of this Western coast [of Asia Minor] no region occupies a fairer situation than the northern projection, the peninsula jutting out between Archipelago, Hellespont, and Propontis, of which the mountain-range of Ida, abounding in springs, forms the centre. Its woody heights were the seat of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods; in its depths it concealed treasures of ore, which the dæmons of mining, the Dactyli of Ida, were here first said to have been taught by Cybele to win and employ. A hardy race of men dwelt on the mountains so rich in iron, divided into several tribes, the Cebrenes, the Gergithians, and above all the beauteous Dardani, among whom the story went, how their ancestor, Dardanus, had, under the protection of the Pelasgian Zeus, founded the city of Dardania. {3126} Some of these Dardani descended from the highlands into the tracts by the coast, which has no harbours, but an island lying in front of it called Tenedos. Here Phœnicians had settled and established purple-fisheries in the sea of Sigeum; at a later period Hellenic tribes arrived from Crete and introduced the worship of Apollo. In the secure waters between Tenedos and the mainland took place that contact which drew the Idæan peninsula into the intercourse subsisting between the coasts of the Archipelago. … In the midst of this intercourse on the coast arose, out of the tribe of the Dardani, which had deserted the hills, the branch of the Trojans. … Thus, in the midst of the full life of the nations of Asia Minor, on the soil of a peninsula (itself related to either side) on which Phrygians and Pelasgians, Assyrians, Phœnicians, and Hellenic mariners met, grows up the empire of the Dardanides. The springs of the Ida range collect into rivers, of which two flow to the Propontis, and one, the Scamander, into the Ægean. The latter first flows through his bed high in the mountains, through which he then breaks in a narrow rocky gorge, and quitting the latter enters the flat plain of his water-shed, surrounded on three sides by gentle declivities, and open on the West to the sea. … In the innermost corner of this plain projects a rocky height with precipitous sides, as if it would bar the passage of the river breaking forth from the ravine. Skirted in a wide curve by Scamander on the East, it sinks to the West in gentle declivities, where numerous veins of water spring from the earth; these unite into two rivulets, distinguished by the abundance and temperature of their water, which remain the same at all seasons of the year. This pair of rivulets is the immutable mark of nature, by which the height towering above is recognized as the citadel of Ilium. They are the same rivulets to which of old the Trojan women descended from the Scæan gate to fetch water or to wash linen, and to this day the same ancient walls close around the flowing water and render it more easily available. The source of these rivulets was the seat of power. On the gentler declivity lay Troja; over which towered the steep citadel of Pergamus, the view from whose turrets commanded the entire plain, … and beyond the plain the broad sea itself. … No royal seat of the ancient world could boast a grander site than this Trojan citadel."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.

The site contemplated by Dr. Curtius in the description quoted above is some five miles higher up the valley of the Scamander than Hissarlik, where Dr. Schliemann's excavations are believed by many scholars to have now established the location of ancient Troy.

H. Schliemann, Ilios: the City and Country of the Trojans.

"Dr. Schliemann described in his 'Troja' and 'Ilios' seven successive layers of city ruins found in his excavations at Hissarlik. This number was increased in 1890 to nine by the discovery of two layers intervening between the highest (or Roman) layer, formerly called the seventh, and the sixth, or so-called Lydian layer. These two lavers were, from the character of the finds, attributed to the early and the later Greek period. Dr. Schliemann was baffled by the fact that he could discover no acropolis for the sixth, seventh, or eighth layers. Dr. Dörpfeld, who in May [1893] resumed the excavations at the expense of Dr. Schliemann's widow, makes in the Mittheilungen of the German Archæological Society (xviii, 2), which appeared November 7, a significant report clearly establishing the fact that the Romans, in building the great temple of Ilian Athene, cut down the highest part of the acropolis, and thus destroyed all traces of the acropolis belonging to those layers. The excavations of 1890 had brought to light two magnificent buildings in the sixth layer, besides 'Lydian' jars, much pottery, and one entire vase of the Mykenæan or Homeric period. The evidence favored the identification of this layer with the Homeric Troy or the period of Mykenæ and Tiryns. On the other hand, the fact that only two buildings find no city wall had been discovered for this layer seemed to indicate that the Troy of Priam must be referred to a lower level, namely, the second, where a magnificent wall of prehistoric style had been discovered, although its architecture and the character of the finds suggested a more primitive culture than that painted in Homeric song. The sixth layer has now in large part been exposed by Dr. Dörpfeld and reveals the most imposing wall of pre-Roman times. The remains of seven vast buildings have been brought to light which have in part the ground plan of the ancient Greek temples and of the halls of Tiryns and Mykenæ, though surpassing those in proportions and in the carefulness of their architecture. The remains of one admirable building contained a hall 37 feet by 30. … Further, Dr. Dörpfeld uncovered the fortifications of this city in many places, and found them some sixteen feet in thickness with a still greater height. On the outside the wall has a uniform slope. A strong-tower fifty-eight feet in diameter contains an inner staircase. In strength, proportions, and careful architecture this tower will compare favorably with any tower of Greek antiquity. The neat work of the corners and the nice dressing of the stones might refer it to a period later than Homer, to the historical Greek period, did we not know that in historical times Troy was too insignificant to need the erection of such walls. Moreover, the tower, built over in Greek times, and partly damaged by the addition of an outer stair, was finally in Roman times buried under massive foundations. The correspondences in stone-work of the wall and the houses place the tower and the buildings evidently in the same layer. In the houses were found both local pottery and also pottery of the Mykenæan style."

The Nation, November 30, 1893.

"The latest news from the explorations at Hissarlik (Levant Herald July 7) comes to us from the owner of the site, Mr. Frank Calvert, United States consul, Dardanelles. It was readily seen that the second, or burned city which Dr. Schliemann enthusiastically assumed to be the city of Priam, instead of solving the question of the 'Iliad,' offered new problems to the archæologist. The precious objects and the works of art there found were evidently ruder and more ancient by some centuries than those of Mycenæ, and therefore decidedly earlier than Homeric Troy. In the sixth city, however, pottery of a Mycenæan type was discovered, and this led Dr. Dörpfield, assisted by Mrs. Schliemann, and later by the German Government, to extend excavations on this level, with results that are now proving fruitful, and that may possibly be conclusive. Curiously enough, Dr. Schliemann's excavations obscured rather than aided this particular investigation. {3127} The area of the sixth city was twice as great as the space covered by the successive acropolises of the other five; and, in consequence, their debris was dumped on the very spot which Dr. Dörpfield has just been clearing. The massive walls he has uncovered, from five to six metres broad, the lofty towers, and the street which has been traced, may provisionally be assumed to belong to the Homeric Troy."

The Nation, August 9, 1894.

ALSO IN: C. Schuchardt, Schliemann's Excavations.

See, also, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES; and HOMER.

TROPAION.

The trophy erected by a victorious army, among the Greeks, on the spot from which the enemy had been driven. The trophy was constructed in some manner out of the booty taken.

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 54.

TROPPAU, Congress of.

See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

TROUBADOURS. TROUVÈRES. JOGLARS. JONGLEURS.

"The poets of the South of France during the Middle Age called themselves 'Trobadors,' that is to say 'inventers' or 'finders'; and they adapted the 'langue d'oc,' also called the Romansh of the South, or the Provençal, to the expression of poetical sentiments. It is probable that poets of this description existed as early as the formation of the idiom in which they wrote. At any rate, we know that toward the year 1000 they already enjoyed considerable distinction, although there is scarcely anything now left us from the earliest period of their existence. … In regard to the time within which the poetry of the Troubadours was in vogue, M. Fauriel assumes only two periods. But it may perhaps be more conveniently divided into three, as follows: The first commences with its origin, as a popular poetry, and extends to the time when it became an art and a profession, the poetry of the nobles and the courts, that is to say, from about 1090 to 1140. The second is the period of its culmination, which extends from the year 1140 to 1250. The third is the period of its decadence, from 1250 to 1290."

G. J. Adler, Introduction to Fauriel's "History of Provençal Poetry."

"Sufficient has been said … to show the superiority of lyrical over epic poetry in Provence. This inequality of the two branches implied a commensurate difference of praise and social esteem awarded to those who excelled in either of them, and it is perhaps from this point of view that the two great divisions of poets in the 'langue d'oc,' respectively described as 'joglars' and 'trobadors,' or, in the French and generally adopted form of the word, 'troubadours,' may be most distinctly recognised. … It seems sufficiently established that the verb 'trobar' and its derivative noun first and foremost apply to lyrical poetry. To speak therefore of the Troubadour as the singer of songs, of cansos and sirventeses and albas and retroensas is a correct and tolerably comprehensive definition."

F. Hueffer, The Troubadours, chapter 6.

"In the twelfth century, the Romance-Wallon [or the 'langue d'oil' of northern France] became a literary language, subsequent, by at least a hundred years, to the Romance-provençal. … The reciters of tales, and the poets, giving the name of Troubadour a French termination, called themselves Trouvères. With the exception of the difference of language, it may be thought that the Troubadour and the Trouvère, whose merit was pretty nearly equal; who were equally ignorant or well-informed: who both of them spent their lives at courts, at which they composed their poems, and where they mingled with knights and ladies; and who were both accompanied by their jongleurs and minstrels, should have preserved the same resemblance in their productions. Nothing, however, can be more dissimilar than their poems. All that remains of the poetry of the Troubadours is of a lyrical character, while that of the Trouvères is decidedly epic. … The Trouvères have left us many romances of chivalry, and fabliaux."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, Literature of the South of Europe, chapter 7 (volume 1).

"We know nothing of the rise or origin of the two classes of Trouveurs and Jongleurs. The former (which it is needless to say is the same word as Troubadour, and Trobador, and Trovatore) is the term for the composing class, the latter for the performing one. But the separation was not sharp or absolute."

G. Saintsbury, Short History of French Literature, book 1, chapter 1.

TROY.

See TROJA.

TROYES, Treaty of (1420).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

Treaty of (1564).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

TRUCE, The Five Years.

See FIVE YEARS TRUCE.

TRUCE, The Sacred.

See OLYMPIC GAMES.

TRUCE, The Thirty Years.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

TRUCE OF GOD, The.

"This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness, at once to the ferocity of the times [11th century], and also to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy and laity alike felt that the state of things which they saw daily before their eyes was a standing sin against God and man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. … Every man claimed the right of private war against every other man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. … A movement on behalf of peace and good will towards men could not fail in those days to assume an ecclesiastical form. As of old the Amphiktyonic Council, the great religious synod of Greece, strove to put some bounds to the horrors of war as waged between Greek and Greek, so now, in the same spirit, a series of Christian synods strove, By means of ecclesiastical decrees and ecclesiastical censures, to put some bounds to the horrors of war as waged between Christian and Christian. … The movement began in Aquitaine [A. D. 1034], and the vague and rhetorical language of our authority would seem to imply that all war, at any rate all private war, was forbidden under pain of ecclesiastical censures. It must not be forgotten that, in that age, it must have been exceedingly difficult to draw the distinction between public and private war. … {3128} But the doctrine, hard as it might be to carry out in practice, was rapturously received at its first announcement. As the first preaching of the Crusade was met with one universal cry of 'God wills it,' so the Bishops, Abbots, and other preachers of the Truce were met with a like universal cry of Peace, Peace, Peace. Men bound themselves to God and to one an·other to abstain from all wrong and violence, and they engaged solemnly to renew the obligation every five years. From Aquitaine the movement spread through Burgundy Royal and Ducal. But it seems to have been gradually found that the establishment of perfect peace on earth was hopeless. After seven years from the first preaching of peace, we find the requirements of its apostles greatly relaxed. It was found vain to forbid all war, even all private war. All that was now attempted was to forbid violence of every kind from the evening of Wednesday till the morning of Monday. It was in this shape that the Truce was first preached in northern and eastern Gaul. The days of Christ's supper, of His passion, of His rest in the grave and His resurrection, were all to be kept free from strife and bloodshed."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 8, section 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 6, section. 78.

TRUCELESS WAR, The.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

TRUELLAS, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

TRYON, Governor, The flight of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

TSHEKHS, The.

See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE &c.

TSING, OR CH'ING, Dynasty, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TUARIKS, The.

See LIBYANS.

TUATH.

"Among the people of Gaelic race [in Ireland and Scotland] the original social unit appears to have been the 'Tuath,' a name originally applied to the tribe, but which came to signify also the territory occupied by the tribe community. … Several of these Tuaths were grouped together to form a still larger tribe, termed a Mortuath or great tribe, over whom one of the kings presided as Ri Mortuath. … Then several of these Mortuath formed a province, called in Irish 'Cuicidh,' or a fifth. … Over each province was the Ri Cuicidh, or provincial king, and then over the whole was the Ardri, or sovereign of all Ireland. The succession to these several grades of Ri, or king, was the same as that of the Ri Tuath, and was regulated by the law of Tanistry, that is, hereditary in the family but elective in the individual, the senior of the family being usually preferred."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 3, page 136-150.

TUATHA-DE-DANAAN.

One of the races named in Irish legend as original settlers of Ireland, represented to have come from Greece and to have been extraordinarily proficient in the arts of magic. They were conquered, after two centuries, as the legend runs, by the Milesians, or Scots.

T. Wright, History of Ireland, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

TUBANTES, The.

See FRANKS: ORIGIN AND EARLIEST HISTORY.

TUCUMAN, The province of.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

TUDELA, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

TUDORS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.

TUGENDBUND, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

TUILERIES, The.

The palace of the Tuileries is said to have taken its name from the tile-making which had been carried on formerly in the vicinity of the ground on which it was built. "The history of it begins in the year 1564, when Catherine de Medicis conceived the idea of having a palace to herself near the Louvre, yet independent, in which she might be near enough to her son Charles IX. to have influence over him. … The palace was never very long or very closely connected with the history of the monarchy. It is not at all comparable to Windsor in that respect. Henry IV. liked it, Louis XIV. preferred Versailles, Louis XV. lived at the Tuileries in his minority. The chosen association of the palace with the sovereigns of France is very recent. Louis XVI. lived in it, and so did Charles X. and Louis-Philippe. The two Napoleons were fond of it. … The last inhabitant was the Empress Eugénie, as Regent. … The parliamentary history of the Tuileries is important, as it has been not only a palace but a parliament house. … The destruction of the Tuileries by the Communards [1871] was a lamentable event from the point of view of the historian and the archaeologist, but artistically the loss is not great."

P. G. Hamerton, Paris in Old and Present Times, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: History of Paris (London: 1827), volume 2, chapter 2.

TUILERIES: A. D. 1792. Mobbing of the King. The attack of August 10. Massacre of the Swiss.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

TUKUARIKAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

TULCHAN BISHOPS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

TULLAHOMA CAMPAIGN, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

TULLIANUM, The.

See MAMERTINE PRISON.

TUMULT OF AMBOISE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

TUMULUS.

A mound; usually a grave mound, or barrow.

TUN. TUNSCIPE.

See TOWN; TOWNSHIP; and BOROUGH.

TUNIC, The Roman.

"The tunica was put on in the same way as the Greek chiton. Its cut was the same for men and women, and its simple original type was never essentially modified by the additions of later fashion. It was light and comfortable, and was worn especially at home; out of doors the toga was arranged over it."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 95.

TUNIS, Ancient.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF; also, AFRICA, THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

TUNIS: A. D. 1270-1271. Crusade of Saint Louis.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

TUNIS: Modern history.

See BARBARY STATES.

—————Volume 4: End————

—————Volume 5: Start————

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Map of the United States Showing its territorial development, To follow page 3286.

Maps of the United States in 1783, in 1790, in 1803, in 1840, and in 1860, To follow page 3326.

Map of the principal theatre Of war in Virginia, 1861-1865, To follow page 3434.

Map of the Vicksburg Campaign, On page 3490.

Map of the Battle-field of Gettysburg, On page 3501.

Map of the Battle-field of Chattanooga, On page 3511.

Map of the Atlanta Campaign, On page 3531.

SUPPLEMENT.

"Abelard" to "Wheatstone," Pages 3669 to 3811.

Chronology of important and indicative events, Pages 3812 to 3856.

Lineage of European Sovereigns and great historical families, Pages 3857 to 3883.

Selected Bibliography, Pages 3885 to 3909.

List of works from which passages have been quoted in "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading," Pages 3910 to 3985.

{3129}

TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE. A tax or custom of two shillings on the tun of wine and sixpence on the pound of merchandise, which became, in England, from the fourteenth century, one of the regular parliamentary grants to the crown, for a long period. It grew out of an agreement with the merchants in the time of Edward II., to take the place of the former right of prisage; the right, that is, to take two tuns of wine from every ship importing twenty tuns or more,—one before and one behind the mast.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 17, sections 276-277 (volume 2).

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

TUPI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

TUPUYAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI, ETC.

TURAN.

"The old Persians, who spoke an Aryan tongue, called their own land Iran, and the barbarous land to the north of it they called Turan. In their eyes, Iran was the land of light, and Turan was the land of darkness. From this Turan, the land of Central Asia, came the many Turkish settlements which made their way, first into Western Asia and then into Europe."

E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 2.

TURANIAN RACES AND LANGUAGES.

The name Turanian has been given to a large group of peoples, mostly Asiatic, whose languages are all in the agglutinative stage and bear evident marks of a family relationship. "This race, one of the largest, both numerically and with regard to the extent of territory which it occupies, is divided into two great branches, the Ugro-finnish and the Dravidian. The first must be again subdivided into the Turkish, including the populations of Turkestan and of the Steppes of Central Asia, as well as the Hungarians who have been for a long time settled in Europe; and the Uralo-finnish group, comprising the Finns, the Esthonians, the Tchoudes, and, in general, nearly all the tribes of the north of Europe and Asia. The country of the Dravidian branch is, on the contrary, to the south. This branch is in fact composed of the indigenous people of the Peninsula of Hindustan; Tamuls, Telingas, Carnates, who were subjugated by the Arian race, and who appear to have originally driven before them the negroes of the Australian group, the original inhabitants of the soil, who are now represented by the almost savage tribe of the Khonds. The Turanian race is one of the oldest in the world. … The skulls discovered in France, England and Belgium, in caves of the close of the quaternary epoch, appear from their characteristics to belong to a Turanian race, to the Uralo-finnish group, and particularly resemble those of the Esthonians. Wherever the Japhetic or pure Indo-European race extended, it seems to have encountered a Turanian population which it conquered and finally amalgamated with itself."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 1, chapter 4.

"From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours —the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them—by the name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian."

I. Taylor, Etruscan Researches, chapter 2.

TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of the.

See RUSSIA: A.D. 1869-1881.

TURDETANI, The.

"There is a tradition that the Turdetani (round Seville) possessed lays from very ancient times, a metrical book of laws, of 6,000 verses, and even historical records. At any rate, this tribe is described as the most civilized of all the Spanish tribes, and at the same time the least warlike."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 7.

"The most mixed portion of the Peninsular population … is that of the water-system of the Guadalquiver and the parts immediately south and east of it, … the country of the Turdetani and Bastitani, if we look to the ancient populations—Bætica, if we adopt the general name of the Romans, Andalusia in modern geography; … it was the Iberians of these parts who were the first to receive foreign intermixture, and the last to lose it."

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.

TURDETANIA.

The ancient name of modern Andalusia, in Spain; known still more anciently as Tartessus.

TURENNE, Vicomte de: Campaigns in the Thirty Years War and the war with Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644; 1646-1648; and ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

TURENNE, Vicomte de: The wars of the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.

TURENNE, Vicomte de: Campaigns against the Spaniards under Condé.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656; and 1655-1658.

TURENNE, Vicomte de: Last campaigns.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1667; 1672-1674; and, 1674-1678.

TURGOT, Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

TURIERO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

—————TURIN: Start————

TURIN: A. D. 312. Defeat of Maxentius by Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

TURIN: 11-12th Centuries. Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

TURIN: 12th Century, Included in the original Italian possessions of the House of Savoy.

See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

TURIN: A. D. 1536-1544. Occupation by the French and restoration to the Duke of Savoy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

TURIN: A. D. 1559. Held by France while other territory of the Duke of Savoy was restored to him.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

TURIN: A. D. 1562-1580. Evacuation by the French. Establishment of the seat of government by Duke Emanuel Philibert. Increased importance.

See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

TURIN: A. D. 1639-1657. Extraordinary siege within a siege. The citadel, and its restoration by France to the Duke of Savoy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

TURIN: A. D. 1706. Siege by the French and rout of the besiegers.

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

—————TURIN: End————

{3130}

TURIN PAPYRUS, The.

An Egyptian papyrus preserved in the Turin Museum, for which it was purchased from M. Drovetti, consul-general of France. "If this papyrus were entire, the science of Egyptian antiquities could not possess a more valuable document. It contains a list of all the mythical or historical personages who were believed to have reigned in Egypt, from fabulous times down to a period we cannot ascertain, because the end of the papyrus is wanting. Compiled under Ramses II. (19th dynasty), that is, in the most flourishing epoch of the history of Egypt, this list has all the characteristics of an official document, and gives us the more valuable assistance, as the name of each king is followed by the duration of his reign, and each dynasty by the total number of years during which it governed Egypt. Unfortunately this inestimable treasure exists only in very small pieces (164 in number), which it is often impossible to join correctly."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 1, section 2.

—————TURKESTAN: Start————

TURKESTAN.

"Few even of the leading authorities are of accord as to the exact meaning of such common expressions as Turkestán or Central Asia. The Russians themselves often designate as Central Asia the second great administrative division of their Asiatic possessions, which is mainly comprised within the Aralo-Caspian depression. But this expression is misguiding in a geographical sense. To the portion of this division directly administered by the Governor-General, whose headquarters are at Tashkent, they give the still more questionable name of Eastern Turkestán—the true Eastern Turkestán, if there be any, lying beyond his jurisdiction in the Chinese province of Kashgaria. … Russian Turkestán is bordered on the west by the Caspian, the Ural river and mountains, on the east by the Pamir plateau, the Tian-Shan and Ala-tau ranges separating it from the Chinese Empire, northwards by the low ridge crossing the Kirghis steppes about the 51st parallel, and forming the water-parting between the Aralo-Caspian and Ob basins."

Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel: Asia, page 391-392.

Of the region sometimes called Chinese Turkestan, the name "Kashgaria," "lately current in Europe, has no raison d'être since the collapse of the independent state founded by Yakub of Kashgar. In the same way the expression 'Kingdom of Khotan' fell into disuse after the city of Khotan had ceased to be the capital. The term 'Little Bokhara,' still in use some thirty years ago, pointed at the former religious ascendancy of Bokhara, but is now all the less appropriate that Bokhara itself has yielded the supremacy to Tashkent. Lastly, the expressions Eastern Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan are still applicable, because the inhabitants are of Turki speech, while the Chinese have again brought the country under subjection."

E. Reclus, The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia, volume 2, chapter 3.

See, also, YAKOOB BEG.

TURKESTAN: Ancient.

See SOGDIANA.

TURKESTAN: 6th Century. Turkish conquest.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

TURKESTAN: A. D. 710. Mahometan conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

TURKESTAN: A. D. 1859-1865. Russian conquest.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

—————TURKESTAN: Start————

TURKEY.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after; also, SUBLIME PORTE.

—————TURKS: Start————

TURKS: 6th Century. Beginning of their career.

"At the equal distance of 2,000 miles from the Caspian, the Icy, the Chinese, and the Bengal seas, a ridge of mountains is conspicuous, the centre, and perhaps the summit, of Asia, which, in the language of different nations has been styled Imaus, and Caf, and Altai, and the Golden Mountains, and the Girdle of the Earth. The sides of the hills were productive of minerals; and the iron-forges, for the purpose of war, were exercised by the Turks, the most despised portion of the slaves of the great khan of the Geougen. But their servitude could only last till a leader, bold and eloquent, should arise to persuade his countrymen that the same arms which they forged for their masters might become in their own hands the instruments of freedom and victory. They sallied from the mountain; a sceptre was the reward of his advice. … The decisive battle which almost extirpated the nation of the Geougen established in Tartary the new and more powerful empire of the Turks. … The royal encampment seldom lost sight of Mount Altai, from whence the river Irtish descends to water the rich pastures of the Calmucks, which nourish the largest sheep and oxen in the world. … As the subject nations marched under the standard of the Turks, their cavalry, both men and horses, were proudly computed by millions; one of their effective armies consisted of 400,000 soldiers, and in less than fifty years they were connected in peace and war with the Romans, the Persians, and the Chinese. … Among their southern conquests the most splendid was that of the Nephthalites, or White Huns, a polite and warlike people, who possessed the commercial cities of Bochara and Samarcand, who had vanquished the Persian monarch, and carried their victorious arms along the banks and perhaps to the month of the Indus. On the side of the west the Turkish cavalry advanced to the lake Mæotis [Sea of Azov]. They passed that lake on the ice: The khan, who dwelt at the foot of Mount Altai, issued his commands for the siege of Bosphorus, a city the voluntary subject of Rome and whose princes had formerly been the friends of Athens."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 42.

W. Smith, Note to E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 42. {3131}

ALSO IN: J. H. Newman, Lectures on the History of the Turks (Historical Sketches, volume 1), lectures 1-4.

See, also, TARTARS; and MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.; and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: RACES EXISTING.

TURKS: A. D. 710. Subjugation by the Saracens.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

TURKS: A. D. 815-945. Slaves and masters of the Caliphate.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.

TURKS: A. D. 999-1183. The Gaznevide empire.

The decline of the Caliphate at Bagdad in the 9th century was signalized by the rise to practically independent power of several dynasties in its Persian and Central Asian dominions. Among these was the dynasty of the Samanides who ruled, for a hundred and twenty-five years, an extensive dominion in northern Persia and modern Afghanistan and in the Turkoman regions to the Oxus and beyond. In this dominion of the Samanides was included the Turkish tribes which had submitted to Islam and which were presently to become the master champions of the faith. Their first attainment of actual empire in the Moslem world was accomplished by the overthrow of the Samanide princes, and the chief instruments of that revolution were two Turks of humble origin—Sebectagi, or Sabektekin, and his son Mahmud. Sebectagi had been a slave (in the service of a high official under the Samanides) who gained the favor of his masters and acquired command of the city and province of Gazna; whence his famous son Mahmud was called the Gaznevide, and the wide conquests which the latter made are sometimes distinguished as the Gaznevide empire. "For him the title of Sultan was first invented [see SULTAN]; and his kingdom was enlarged from Transoxiana to the neighbourhood of Ispahan, from the shores of the Caspian to the mouth of the Indus. But the principal source of his fame and riches was the holy war which he waged against the Gentoos of Hindostan. … The Sultan of Gazna surpassed the limits of the conquests of Alexander; after a march of three months, over the hills of Cashmir and Thibet, he reached the famous city of Kinoge, on the Upper Ganges, and, in a naval combat on one of the branches of the Indus, he fought and vanquished 4,000 boats of the natives. Delhi, Lahor, and Multan were compelled to open their gates; the fertile kingdom of Guzarat attracted his ambition and tempted his stay." The throne of Mahmud scarcely outlasted himself. In the reign of his son Massoud, it was nearly overturned by another Turkish horde—later comers into the region of Bokhara from the steppes beyond. In a great battle fought at Zendecan, in Khorassan, A. D. 1038, Massoud was defeated and driven from Persia to a narrowed kingdom in Cabul and the Punjaub, which survived for more than a century longer and then disappeared.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 57.

ALSO IN: J. H. Newman, Lectures on the History of the Turks (Historical Sketches, volume 1), lecture 4.

See, also, INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

TURKS: (Seljuk), A. D. 1004-1063. Conquests of Seldjuk and Togrul Beg.

"The history of the origin of the Seldjukides is obscured by numerous myths, but it appears from it that Seldjuk, or more correctly Seldjik, the son of Tokmak, and Subash, commander of the army of a prince named Pigu or Bogu, were expelled from their native steppes for some crime, and forced to seek their fortunes in strange countries. Seldjuk, with 100 horsemen, 1,000 camels, and 50,000 sheep, migrated to a place on the southern confines of the desert, in the neighbourhood of Djend [described as distant twenty fersakhs from Bokhara]. He settled there and, with all his followers, embraced Islamism." Under Seldjuk and his two grandsons, Togrul and Tchakar, the Seldjukides grew formidable in numbers and power, on the border of the empire of Mahmud the Ghaznevide, then rising on the ruins of the principality of the Samanides. Thinking to control these turbulent kinsmen of his race, Mahmud unwisely proposed to them to quit the country they occupied, between the Oxus and the Jaxartes, and to settle themselves in Khorasan. "In the year … (1030), that is, within a year of the death of Sultan Mahmud, we find the Seldjukides west of Merv, on the ground now occupied by the Tekke-Turkomans, in the neighbourhood of the southern cities of Nisa and Abiverd, from which point they molested the rich province of Khorasan by constant raids, as grievously as is done by the Turkomans to this very day.' When it was too late, the Ghaznevide Sultan attempted to expel the marauders. His armies were routed, and the grandsons of Seldjuk were soon (A. D. 1039) in undisputed possession of the whole of Khorasan, with the rich and flourishing cities of Merv, Balkh, and Nishabur. A few years later they had pushed forward "over the ruins of the former power of the Buyyides [or Bouides, of Persia] to Azerbaïdjan, and, in the year 446 (1054) the skirmishers of the Turkish army, led by Togrul Beg, penetrated into the interior of the eastern Roman Empire [that is, into Asia Minor]; and although the bold inhabitants of the desert in their raid on the land of the Cæsars were bent rather on plunder than on actual conquest, yet even their temporary success against the great name of Rome—so long one of awe to the ancient Asiatic—increased enormously the prestige and reputation of the Seldjukides. Togrul Beg was said to meditate a pilgrimage to Mecca, with the object at the same time of clearing the road thither, which the state of anarchy in Bagdad had long rendered unsafe."

A. Vámbéry, History of Bokhara, chapter 6.

"Togrul Beg, under pretence of a pilgrimage to Mekka had entered Irak at the head of a strong army, and sought to obtain admission into Baghdad. The khalif, in opposition to the advice of his vizier and the officers of the Turkish militia, consented; on the 22nd Ramadan, 447 (December, 1050), the name of Togrul was inserted in the public prayer; and three days after he made his entry into the city. He had taken an oath, before entering, to be the faithful and obedient servant of the khalif; but it is needless to add that he broke this immediately afterwards, and occupied the city in force. A dispute broke out between the Seljuk soldiers and some shop-keepers. The Baghdad Turks took the side of the citizens, the foreigners were driven out, and several of them killed and wounded. This riot was followed by a general attack upon the ill-fated city by the army of Togrul Beg. It was useless for the khalif and his vizier to protest their innocence. The Turkish chief denounced them as the murderers of his soldiers, and summoned the vizier to his camp to explain his conduct. {3132} On his arrival there he was arrested and flung into prison. With this occurrence the rule of the Bouides in Baghdad may be said to have terminated, and that of the Seljuks commenced. Togrul Beg remained for a year inactive in Baghdad, neither visiting the khalif nor heeding his entreaties to put an end to the ravages and outrages perpetrated by his fierce and lawless soldiery on the wretched townspeople." The khalif was forced, nevertheless, to crown Sultan Togrul with two crowns, one to represent the sovereignty of Persia and the other the sovereignty of Arabia, and to confer on him the title of "The Sultan of the Court, the Right Hand of the Chief of Believers, the King of the East and of the West." The Seljuk sultan was now master of the Asiatic Mahometan empire. But civil war was still protracted for a period, by struggles of the partisans of the Bouides, assisted by the Fatimite Kalif of Egypt, and the unfortunate city of Baghdad suffered terribly at the hands of each party in turn. Togrul Beg, in the end, destroyed the opposition to his rule, and was at the point of marrying one of the kalif's daughters, when a sudden illness ended his life, A. D. 1063. He was succeeded by his nephew, Alp Arslan, who extended the empire of the Seljukides in Asia Minor and Armenia.

R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad, part 3, chapter 2.

TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073. Conquests of Alp Arslan.

"Alp Arslan, the nephew and successor of Togrul Beg, carried on the havoc and devastation which had marked the career through life of his uncle. Togrul Beg had on two or three occasions invaded the Asiatic territories of the Byzantine Emperor; Alp Arslan carried these partial conquests to completion. He invaded in person the northern parts of Armenia and Iberia. He laid waste the country in the cruellest manner, for it was the notion of these barbarians that a country was not really conquered unless it was also depopulated. Iberia had been long celebrated for the industry of its inhabitants, the wealth of its numerous towns, and the valour of its people. There is no doubt they could have flung back the invaders had the Byzantine Empire come to their aid. But avarice was the dominant passion of the Emperor, Constantine X., and rather than disburse his loved hoards, he preferred to look idly on, while his fairest provinces were laid waste and overrun. The country was, in consequence, compelled to submit to the Seljuk Turks, and the invaders settling upon it, like a swarm of locusts, swiftly converted the happiest and most flourishing portion of Asia into a scene of poverty and desolation. From Iberia, Alp Arslan passed into Armenia. Ani, the capital, was stormed and taken, after a gallant defence, on the 6th June, 1064. … So great was the carnage that the streets were literally choked up with dead bodies; and the waters of the river were reddened from the quantity of bloody corpses."

R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad, part 3, chapter 2.

"So far as one can judge from the evidence of modern and mediæval travellers and of Byzantine historians, Asia Minor, at the time of the Seljuk invasion of Alparslan, was thickly occupied by races who were industrious, intelligent, and civilised—races with a certain mixture of Greek blood and mostly Greek as to language. The numerous provincial cities were the centres of civilisation. Their walls and amphitheatres, their works of art, aqueducts, and other public buildings, give evidence of a long-continued sense of security, of peaceful and progressive peoples, and of a healthy municipal life. Wealth was widely diffused. … It was against this prosperous portion of the Empire, which had contributed largely to the wealth of the capital, that Alparslan turned his attention when the border states were no longer able to resist his progress. … The Strong Lion of the Seljuks devoured many cities and devastated the fairest provinces. Cappadocia was laid waste; the inhabitants of its capital, Cæsarea, were massacred. … Mesopotamia, Mitylene, Syria, and Cilicia were plundered."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 2.

The career of Alp Arslan in Asia Minor was opposed by a courageous and vigorous emperor, Romanus Diogenes, or Romanus IV.; but Romanus exposed himself and his army rashly to the chances of a battle at Manzikert, A. D. 1071, on which all was staked. He lost; his army was routed, and he, himself, was taken prisoner. He was released on signing a treaty of peace and agreeing to pay a heavy ransom; but a revolution at Constantinople meantime had robbed him of the throne, deprived him of the means of fulfilling his engagements, and brought upon him, soon afterwards, a cruel end. Alp Arslan, provoked by the repudiation of the treaty, revenged himself on the ill-fated country which lay at his mercy. "Every calamity of this unfortunate period sinks into insignificance when compared with the destruction of the greater part of the Greek race, by the ravages of the Seljouk Turks in Asia Minor."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 3, chapter 1, section 2.

TURKS: A. D. 1073-1092. The empire of Malek Shah and its subordinate Sultans.

Alp Arslan, assassinated in 1073, "was succeeded by his son, Malek Shah, in whose reign the power of the Seljukian Turks attained its greatest height. … Turkestan, the home of his race, including Bokhara and Samarcand, was annexed by Malek, and the rule of the shepherd Sultan was admitted at Cashgar. In addition to Persia and the countries just mentioned, his territory included at one time nearly the whole of what is now Turkey in Asia. … The Seljukian empire, however, broke up on the death of Malek, which took place in 1092, and, after a period of civil war, was divided into four parts. … The only one of the divisions … with which I am concerned is that which was carved out of the dominions of the Roman empire, and of which the capital was, for the most part, at Iconium, a city which to-day, under the name of Konieh, retains somewhat of a sacred character among the Turks, because of its connection with the first Sultans who obtained the right to be Caliphs. Sultan Malek, eighteen years before his death, had prevented a quarrel with Suliman, his cousin, by consenting to allow him to be Sultan of the Seljuks in the lands of the Christian empire. With Suliman there begins the famous line of robber chiefs who are known as Seljukian Sultans of Rome or Roum, or as Sultans of Iconium."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 2.

{3133}

"The dominion of Suleiman over the greater part of Asia Minor was recognised by a treaty with the Byzantine empire in 1074, when Michael VII. purchased the assistance of a Turkish auxiliary force against the rebellion of Oursel and his own uncle John Dukas. Nicephorus III. ratified the treaty concluded with Michael VII., augmented the power of the Turks, and abandoned additional numbers of Christians to their domination, to gain their aid in dethroning his lawful prince; and Nicephorus Melissenos, when he rebelled against Nicephorus III., repeated a similar treason against the traitor, and, in hopes of gaining possession of Constantinople, yielded up the possession of Nicæa to Suleiman, which that chief immediately made the capital of his dominions. … When Alexius ascended the throne [Alexius I. A. D. 1081], the Seljouk conquests in Asia Minor were still considered as a portion of the dominions of the Grand Sultan Malekshah, the son of Alp Arslan, and Suleiman, the sultan of Nicæa, was only his lieutenant, though as a member of the house of Seljouk, and as cousin of Malekshah, he was honoured with the title of Sultan. The prominent position which his posterity occupied in the wars of the Crusaders, their long relations with the Byzantine empire, and the independent position they held as sultans of Iconium, have secured to them a far more lasting place in history than has been obtained by the superior but less durable dynasty of the grand sultans. … Toutoush, the brother of Malekshah, who acted as his governor at Damascus at the same time, became the founder of the Syrian dynasty of Seljouk sultans."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

The empire of Malek Shah "was as vast as that of the Sassanian kings in the height of their glory. He encouraged the cultivation of science and literature, and his reign is famous for the reformation of the Calendar [in which work Omar el-Khayyam, the poet, was one of the astronomers employed]. An assembly of an the astronomers of Persia adopted a system of computing time which Gibbon says 'surpasses the Julian and approaches the accuracy of the Gregorian æra.' It was called the Jalalæan æra, from Jalalu-'d-Din, 'Glory of the Faith,' one of the titles of Malik-Shah, and commenced on March 15, 1079."

C. R. Markham, History of Persia, chapter 6.

TURKS: A. D. 1092-1160. Dissolution of the empire of Malek Shah.

"Melikshah's reign was certainly the culminating point of the glory of the Seldjukides. … Mindful of the oriental adage, 'Perfection and decay go hand in hand,' he determined as far as possible to provide, during his own lifetime, against discord breaking out amongst those who should come after him, by dividing the empire between his different relations. Anatolia was given to Suleiman Shah, whose family had hitherto governed Gazan; Syria fell to his brother Tutush, the adversary of the Crusaders; Nushtekin Gartcha, who had raised himself from slavery to the rank of generalissimo, and who became later the founder of the dynasty of the Khahrezmides, was invested with Khahrezm; Aksonghar got Aleppo; Tchekermish Mosul, Kobulmish Damascus, Khomartekin Fars, and his son Sandjar was entrusted with the administration of Khorasan and Transoxania. These precautions proved, however, ineffectual to preserve the dynasty of the Seljukides from the common fate of oriental sovereign races, for after the death of Melikshah, which took place in 485 (1092), his son Berkyaruk (the Very Brilliant One) had scarcely ascended the throne before the flames of discord were kindled amongst the numerous members of the family, and they speedily fell a prey to the generals and the other relations of the deceased prince." Sandjar, who died in 1160, "was almost the only one of all his race who took to heart the decay of their power in their old hereditary dominions, or made any earnest endeavour to arrest it."

A. Vámbéry, History of Bokhara, chapter 6.

TURKS: A. D. 1097-1099. First encounters with the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

TURKS: A. D. 1101-1102. Destruction of three hosts of Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

TURKS: A. D. 1193. Overthrow by the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM

TURKS: (Ottoman): A. D. 1240-1326. Origin and rise of the modern Turkish power.

On the final defeat and death, in Kurdistan, of the last Khuarezmian or Carizmian prince, who was pursued relentlessly by the Mongols of Jingis Khan and his successors, there was dissolved an army which included various Turkish hordes. The fragments of this Khuarezmian force were scattered and played several important parts in the history of the troubled time. "The bolder and more powerful chiefs invaded Syria, and violated the holy sepulchre of Jerusalem; the more humble engaged in the service of Aladin, Sultan of Iconium, and among these were the obscure fathers of the Ottoman line. They had formerly pitched their tents near the southern bank of the Oxus, in the plains of Mahan and Nesa; and it is somewhat remarkable that the same spot should have produced the first authors of the Parthian and Turkish empires. At the head or in rear of a Carizmian army, Soliman Shah was drowned in the passage of the Euphrates. His son Orthogrul became the soldier and subject of Aladin, and established at Surgut, on the banks of the Sangar, a camp of four hundred families or tents, whom he governed fifty-two years both in peace and war. He was the father of Thaman, or Athman, whose Turkish name has been melted into the appellation of the Caliph Othman; and if we describe that pastoral chief as a shepherd and a robber, we must separate from those characters all idea of ignominy and baseness. Othman possessed, and perhaps surpassed, the ordinary virtues of a soldier, and the circumstances of time and place were propitious to his independence and success. The Seljukian dynasty was no more, and the distance and decline of the Mogul Khans soon enfranchised him from the control of a superior. He was situate on the verge of the Greek empire. The Koran sanctified his 'gazi,' or holy war, against the infidels; and their political errors unlocked the passes of Mount Olympus, and invited him to descend into the plains of Bithynia. … It was on the 27th of July, in the year 1299 of the Christian era, that Othman first invaded the territory of Nicomedia; and the singular accuracy of the date seems to disclose some foresight of the rapid and destructive growth of the monster. The annals of the twenty-seven years of his reign would exhibit a repetition of the same inroads; and his hereditary troops were multiplied in each campaign by the accession of captives and volunteers. {3134} Instead of retreating to the hills, he maintained the most useful and defensible posts, fortified the towns and castles which he had first pillaged; and renounced the pastoral life for the baths and palaces of his infant capitals. But it was not till Othman was oppressed by age and infirmities that he received the welcome news of the conquest of Prusa, which had been surrendered by famine or treachery to the arms of his son Orchan. … From the conquest of Prusa we may date the true era of the Ottoman empire. The lives and possessions of the Christian subjects were redeemed by a tribute or ransom of thirty thousand crowns of gold; and the city, by the labors of Orchan, assumed the aspect of a Mahometan capital."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 64.

"Osman is the real Turkish name, which has been corrupted into Othman. The descendants of his subjects style themselves Osmanlis, which has in like manner been corrupted into Ottoman."

Dr. W. Smith, Note to E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 64.

TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359. Progress of conquests in Asia Minor.

The Janissaries.

"Orchan [the son and successor of Othman] had captured the city of Nicomedia in the first year of his reign (1326); and with the new resources for warfare which the administrative genius of his brother [Alaeddin] placed at his command, he speedily signalised his reign by conquests still more important. The great city of Nice [Nicæa] (second to Constantinople only in the Greek Empire) surrendered to him in 1330. … Numerous other advantages were gained over the Greeks: and the Turkish prince of Karasi (the ancient Mysia), who had taken up arms against the Ottomans, was defeated; and his capital city, Berghama (the ancient Pergamus), and his territory, annexed to Orchan's dominions. On the conquest of Karasi, in the year 1336 of our era, nearly the whole of the north-west of Asia Minor was included in the Ottoman Empire; and the four great cities of Brusa, Nicomedia, Nice, and Pergamus had become strongholds of its power. A period of twenty years, without further conquests, and without war, followed the acquisition of Karasi. During this time the Ottoman sovereign was actively occupied in perfecting the civil and military institutions which his brother had introduced; in securing internal order, in founding and endowing mosques and schools, and in the construction of vast public edifices. … Orchan died in the year 1359 of our era, at the age of seventy-five, after a reign of thirty-three years, during which the most important civil and military institutions of his nation were founded, and the Crescent was not only advanced over many of the fairest provinces of Asia, but was also planted on the European continent."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 2.

It is with Othman's son Orkhan that the Ottoman Empire really begins. He threw off his nominal allegiance to the Sultan [of Iconium], though he still bore only the title of Emir. And in his time the Ottomans first made good their footing in Europe. But while his dominion was still only Asiatic, Orkhan began one institution which did more than anything else firmly to establish the Ottoman power. This was the institution of the tribute children. By the law of Mahomet … the unbeliever is allowed to purchase life, property, and the exercise of his religion, by the payment of tribute. Earlier Mahometan rulers had been satisfied with tribute in the ordinary sense. Orkhan first demanded a tribute of children. The deepest of wrongs, that which other tyrants did as an occasional outrage, thus became under the Ottomans a settled law. A fixed proportion of the strongest and most promising boys among the conquered Christian nations were carried off for the service of the Ottoman princes. They were brought up in the Mahometan faith, and were employed in civil or military functions, according to their capacity. Out of them was formed the famous force of the Janissaries, the new soldiers who, for three centuries, as long as they were levied in this way, formed the strength of the Ottoman armies. These children, torn from their homes and cut off from every domestic and national tie, knew only the religion and the service into which they were forced, and formed a body of troops such as no other power, Christian or Mahometan, could command. … While the force founded by Orkhan lasted in its first shape, the Ottoman armies were irresistible. But all this shews how far the Ottomans were from being a national power. Their victories were won by soldiers who were really of the blood of the Greeks, Slaves, and other conquered nations. In the same way, while the Ottoman power was strongest, the chief posts of the Empire, civil and military, were constantly held, not by native Turks, but by Christian renegades of all nations. The Ottoman power in short was the power, not of a nation, but simply of an army."

E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 4.

The name of Yeni Tscheri, which means 'new troops,' and which European writers have turned into Janissaries, was given to Orchan's young corps by the Dervish Hadji Beytarch."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 2.

TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389. The conquests in Europe of Amurath I.

"The dissensions of the elder and younger Andronicus [Emperors at Constantinople, the younger—a grandson—in revolt and the elder finally deposed, A. D. 1320-1328], and the mistaken policy of Cantacuzene [Great Domestic of the empire, regent, after the death of Andronicus the younger, A. D. 1341, and then usurper of the throne from 1341 until 1355], first led to the introduction of the Turks into Europe; and the subsequent marriage of Orchan with a Grecian princess was acceded to by the Byzantine court as a faint bond of peace between a dreaded conqueror and a crouching state. The expectation of tranquillity was, however, fatally blasted; and, in the last quarrel of Cantacuzene with his pupil [John Palæologus, the youthful son of Andronicus the younger, who was deprived of his crown for fourteen years by Cantacuzene], the disastrous ambition of the former opened the path of Solyman, the son of Orchan, across the Hellespont [A. D. 1356], and laid the northern provinces of the kingdom open to the temporary ravages of the barbarians, thus inflicting a lasting and irremediable injury on the liberties of Christendom. The exploits of Solyman, however, led to no other permanent results than the example which they left to the ambition of Amurath I., who, amongst his earliest achievements, led his victorious army across the Hellespont [A. D. 1360], ravaged the extended district from Mount Hæmus to the Straits, and, taking possession of Adrianople [A. D. 1361], made it the first seat of his royalty, and the first shrine of Mahomedanism in Europe. {3135} His conquests had now drawn a circle round the enfeebled dominions of the Emperor; and the submission of John Palæologus, together with his political views in more distant quarters, alone prevented Amurath from contracting the circumference to the centre, and annihilating the empire of the East, by seating himself on the throne of Byzantium. For the present, he turned his back upon the city, and pursued his course towards the wilds of Bulgaria and Servia."

Sir J. E. Tennent, History of Modern Greece, volume 1, chapter 4.

"Hitherto the Turkish victories in Europe had been won over the feeble Greeks; but the Ottomans now came in contact with the far more warlike Sclavonic tribes, which had founded kingdoms and principalities in Servia and Bosnia. Amurath also menaced the frontiers of Wallachia and Hungary. The Roman See, once so energetic in exciting the early crusades, had disregarded the progress of the new Mahometan power, so long as the heretical Greeks were the only sufferers beneath its arms. But Hungary, a country that professed spiritual obedience to the Pope, a branch of Latin Christendom, was now in peril; and Pope Urban V. preached up a crusade against the infidel Turks. The King of Hungary, the princes of Servia, of Bosnia and Wallachia, leagued together to drive the Ottomans out of Europe; and their forces marched towards Adrianople until they crossed the river Marizza at a point not more than two days' journey from that city." A single battle, fought on the Marizza, in 1363, broke this first Sclavonic league against the Turks, and Amurath proceeded in his acquisition of towns and territory from the Servians and Bulgarians until 1376, when both people purchased a short peace, the former by paying a heavy annual tribute of money and soldiers, the latter by giving their king's daughter to the Turk. The peace thus secured only gave an opportunity to the Sclavic nations to organize one more great attempt to cast out their aggressive and dangerous neighbor. Servia led the movement, and was joined in it by the Bulgarians, the Bosnians, and the Skipetars of Albania, with aid likewise promised and rendered from Hungary, Wallachia, and Poland. But nothing prospered in the undertaking; it served the ambition of the Turks and quickened their conquest of southeastern Europe. Amurath fell upon Bulgaria first (A. D. 1389), broke down all resistance, dethroned the king and annexed his state to the Ottoman dominions. A few weeks later in the same year, on the 27th of August, 1389, the great and famous battle of Kossova was fought, which laid the heavy yoke of Turkish tyranny upon the necks of the Servian people, and the memory of which has been embalmed in their literature. Amurath was assassinated in the hour of victory by a despairing Servian nobleman, but lived long enough to command the execution of the captive Servian king.

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: L. Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 2.

Madame E. L. Mijatovich, Kossovo.

See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9-16TH CENTURIES.

TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403. The conquests of Bajazet. The Emir becomes Sultan. His overthrow and capture by Timour.

"The character of Bajazet, the son and successor of Amurath, is strongly expressed in his surname of Ilderim, or the Lightning; and he might glory in an epithet which was drawn from the fiery energy of his soul and the rapidity of his destructive march. In the fourteen years of his reign he incessantly moved at the head of his armies, from Boursa to Adrianople, from the Danube to the Euphrates. … No sooner had he imposed a regular form of servitude on the Servians and Bulgarians than he passed the Danube to seek new enemies and new subjects in the heart of Moldavia. Whatever yet adhered to the Greek empire in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly, acknowledged a Turkish master. … The humble title of emir was no longer suitable to the Ottoman greatness; and Bajazet condescended to accept a patent of sultan from the caliphs who served in Egypt under the yoke of the Mamelukes—a last and frivolous homage that was yielded by force to opinion, by the Turkish conquerors to the House of Abbas and the successors of the Arabian prophet. The ambition of the sultan was inflamed by the obligation of deserving this august title; and he turned his arms against the kingdom of Hungary, the perpetual theatre of the Turkish victories and defeats. Sigismond, the Hungarian king, was the son and brother of the emperors of the West; his cause was that of Europe and the Church; and on the report of his danger, the bravest knights of France and Germany were eager to march under his standard and that of the cross. In the battle of Nicopolis [September 28, A. D. 1396], Bajazet defeated a confederate army of 100,000 Christians, who had proudly boasted that if the sky should fall they could uphold it on their lances. The far greater part were slain or driven into the Danube; and Sigismond, escaping to Constantinople by the river and the Black Sea, returned, after a long circuit, to his exhausted kingdom. In the pride of victory, Bajazet threatened that he would besiege Buda; that he would subdue the adjacent countries of Germany and Italy; and that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on the altar of St. Peter at Rome. His progress was checked, not by the miraculous interposition of the apostle, not by a crusade of the Christian powers, but by a long and painful fit of the gout. … At length the ambition of the victorious sultan pointed to the conquest of Constantinople; but he listened to the advice of his vizir, who represented that such an enterprise might unite the powers of Christendom in a second and more formidable crusade. His epistle to the emperor was conceived in these words: 'By the divine clemency, our invincible scimitar has reduced to our obedience almost all Asia, with many and large countries in Europe, excepting only the city of Constantinople; for beyond the walls thou hast nothing left. Resign that city; stipulate thy reward; or tremble for thyself and thy unhappy people at the consequences of a rash refusal.' But his ambassadors were instructed to soften their tone, and to propose a treaty, which was subscribed with submission and gratitude. A truce of ten years was purchased by an annual tribute of thirty thousand crowns of gold." The truce was soon broken by Bajazet, who found a pretext for again demanding the surrender of Constantinople. He had established his blockade of the city and would surely have won it by famine or assault if Timour's invasion of Asia Minor (A. D. 1402) had not summarily interrupted his plans and ended his career. Defeated at the battle of Angora and taken prisoner by the Tartar conqueror, he died a few months later—whether caged like a beast or held in more honorable captivity is a question in some dispute.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 64-65.

See, also, TIMOUR.

{3136}

TURKS: A. D. 1393. Wallachian capitulation.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES (ROMANIA, ETC.).

TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451. Prostration and recovery. Conquests of Mahomet and Amurath II.

It is one of the marvels of history that the Ottoman empire, broken and dismembered by Timour, recovered its vigor and re-entered upon a long career. After the fall of Bajazet, three fragments of his dominions were held by three of his surviving sons, while other portions were transferred by Timour to princes of the old Seljuk house. Civil war broke out between the brothers of the Ottoman race; it resulted in the triumph of Mahomet, the youngest (A. D. 1413), who reunited a large part of the dominions of his father. He reigned but eight years, which were years of peace for the Greeks, with whom Mahomet maintained a friendly intercourse. His son, Amurath II., was provoked to renew the state of war, and a formidable attack upon Constantinople was made in August, 1422. The first assault failed, and disturbances at home recalled Amurath before he could repeat it. The Roman capital was reprieved for thirty years; but its trembling emperor paid tribute to the sultan and yielded most of the few cities that remained to him outside of his capital. The Ottoman power had become threatening again in Europe, and Servians, Bosnians, Albanians, Wallachians, Hungarians, and Poles now struck hands together in a combination, once more, to oppose it. "A severe struggle followed, which, after threatening the utter expulsion of the house of Othman from Europe, confirmed for centuries its dominion in that continent, and wrought the heavier subjugation of those who were then seeking to release themselves from its superiority. In 1442 Amurath was repulsed from Belgrade; and his generals, who were besieging Hermanstadt, in Transylvania, met with a still more disastrous reverse. It was at Hermanstadt that the renowned Hunyades first appeared in the wars between the Hungarians and the Turks. He was the illegitimate son of Sigismond, King of Hungary, and the fair Elizabeth Morsiney. In his early youth he gained distinction in the wars of Italy; and Comines, in his memoirs, celebrates him under the name of the White Knight of Wallachia. After some campaigns in Western Christendom, Hunyades returned to protect his native country against the Ottomans." At Hermanstadt, and again at Vasag, Hunyades defeated the Turks with great slaughter and rivalled them in the ferocity with which his prisoners were treated. His fame now gave a great impulse to the Crusade against the Turks which Pope Eugenius had preached, and drew volunteers to his standard from all the nations of the West. In 1443, Hunyades led a splendid and powerful army across the Danube near Semendra, drove the Turks beyond the Balkans, forced the passage of the mountains with a boldness and a skill that is compared with the exploits of Hannibal and Napoleon, and extorted from the Sultan a treaty (of Szegeddin, July 12, 1444) which rescued a large Christian territory from the Moslem yoke. "The Sultan resigned all claims upon Servia and recognised George Brankovich as its independent sovereign. Wallachia was given up to Hungary." But the peace which this treaty secured was brief; Christian perfidy destroyed it, and the penalty was paid by whole centuries of suffering and shame for the Christians of the Danubian states. "Within a month from the signature of the treaty of Szegeddin the Pope and the Greek Emperor had persuaded the King of Hungary and his councillors to take an oath to break the oath which had been pledged to the Sultan. They represented that the confessed weakness of the Ottomans, and the retirement of Amurath [who had placed his son Mahomet on the throne and withdrawn from the cares of sovereignty] to Asia, gave an opportunity for eradicating the Turks from Europe which ought to be fully employed. The Cardinal Julian [legate of the Pope] pacified the conscientious misgivings which young King Ladislaus expressed, by his spiritual authority in giving dispensation and absolution in the Pope's name. … On the 1st of September, the King, the legate, and Hunyades, marched against the surprised and unprepared Turks with an army of 10,000 Poles and Hungarians. The temerity which made them expect to destroy the Turkish power in Europe with so slight a force was equal to the dishonesty of their enterprise." They advanced through Bulgaria to the Black Sea, and southward along its coast as far as Varna, which they took. There they were called to account. Amurath had resumed the sceptre, put himself at the head of 40,000 of the best warriors of Islam and on the 10th November he dashed them upon the Christian forces at Varna, with the broken treaty borne like a banner at their head. His victory was overwhelming. Cardinal Julian and the King of Hungary were both among the slain. Hunyades fled with a little remnant of followers and escaped to try fortune in other fields. "This overthrow did not bring immediate ruin upon Hungary, but it was fatal to the Sclavonic neighbours of the Ottomans, who had joined the Hungarian King against them. Servia and Bosnia were thoroughly reconquered by the Mahometans; and the ruin of these Christian nations, which adhered to the Greek Church, was accelerated by the religious intolerance with which they were treated by their fellow Christians of Hungary and Poland, who obeyed the Pope and hated the Greek Church as heretical. … The bigotry of the Church of Rome in preaching up a crusade against the sect of the Patarenes, which was extensively spread in that country [Bosnia], caused the speedy and complete annexation of an important frontier province to the Ottoman Empire. Seventy Bosnian fortresses are said to have opened their gates to the Turks within eight days. The royal house of Bosnia was annihilated, and many of her chief nobles embraced Mahometanism to avoid a similar doom." After once more attempting to escape from the throne, and being recalled by domestic disturbances, Amurath reigned yet six years, extending his dominions in the Peloponnesus, defeating once more his old antagonist, Hunyades, who invaded Servia (1448), but being successfully defied in Albania by the heroic Scanderbeg. He died in 1451.

{3137}

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: L. Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 2.

E. Szabad, Hungary, part 1, chapters 3-4.

A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, books 10-11.

TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481. Conquest of Constantinople. The Empire organized and perfected by Mahomet II.

Mahomet II., son of Amurath II., "finished the work of his predecessors; he made the Ottoman power in Europe what it has been ever since. He gave a systematic form to the customs of his house and to the dominion which he had won. His first act was the murder of his infant brother, and he made the murder of brothers a standing law of his Empire. He overthrew the last remnants of independent Roman rule, of independent Greek nationality, and he fixed the relations which the Greek part of his subjects were to bear both towards their Turkish masters and towards their Christian fellow-subjects. He made the northern and western frontiers of his Empire nearly what they still remain. The Ottoman Empire, in short, as our age has to deal with it, is, before all things, the work of Mahomet the Conqueror. The prince whose throne was fixed in the New Rome held altogether another place from even the mightiest of his predecessors. Mahomet had reigned two years, he had lived twenty-three, on the memorable day, May 29th 1453, when the Turks entered the city of the Cæsars and when the last Emperor, Constantine, died in the breach. …

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453.

And now that the Imperial city was at last taken, Mahomet seemed to make it his policy both to gather in whatever remained unconquered, and to bring most of the states which had hitherto been tributary under his direct rule. Greece itself, though it had been often ravaged by the Turks, had not been added to their dominions. The Emperors had, in the very last days of the Empire before the fall of Constantinople, recovered all Peloponnesos, except some points which were held by Venice. Frank Dukes also reigned at Athens, and another small duchy lingered on in the islands of Leukas and Kephallenia and on the coasts of Akarnania. The Turkish conquest of the mainland, again saving the Venetian points, was completed by the year 1460, but the two western islands were not taken until 1479. Euboia was conquered in 1471. … The Empire of Trebizond was conquered in 1461, and the island of Lesbos or Mitylene in 1462. There was now no independent Greek state left. Crete, Corfu, and some smaller islands and points of coast, were held by Venice, and some of the islands of the Ægean were still ruled by Frank princes and by the Knights of Saint John. But, after the fall of Trebizond, there was no longer any independent Greek state anywhere, and the part of the Greek nation which was under Christian rulers of any kind was now far smaller than the part which was under the Turk. While the Greeks were thus wholly subdued, the Slaves fared no better. In 1459 Servia was reduced from a tributary principality to an Ottoman province, and six years later Bosnia was annexed also. … One little fragment of the great Slavonic power in those lands alone remained. The little district of Zeta, a part of the Servian kingdom, was never fully conquered by the Turks. One part of it, the mountain district called Tsernagora or Montenegro, has kept its independence to our times. Standing as an outpost of freedom and Christendom amid surrounding bondage, the Black Mountain has been often attacked, it has been several times overrun, but it has never been conquered. … To the south of them, the Christian Albanians held out for a long time under their famous chief George Castriot or Scanderbeg. After his death in 1459, they also came under the yoke. These conquests of Mahomet gave the Ottoman dominion in Europe nearly the same extent which it has now. His victories had been great, but they were balanced by some defeats. The conquest of Servia and Bosnia opened the way to endless inroads into Hungary, South-eastern Germany and North-eastern Italy. But as yet these lands were merely ravaged, and the Turkish power met with some reverses. In 1456 Belgrade was saved by the last victory of Huniades [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458], and this time Mahomet the Conqueror had to flee. In another part of Europe, if in those days it is to be counted for Europe, Mahomet won the Genoese possessions in the peninsula of Crimea [A. D. 1475], and the Tartar Khans who ruled in that peninsula and the neighbouring lands became vassals of the Sultan. … The last years of Mahomet's reign were marked by a great failure and a great success. He failed to take Rhodes [A. D. 1480], which belonged to the Knights of Saint John; but his troops suddenly seized on Otranto in Southern Italy. Had this post been kept, Italy might have fallen as well as Greece; but the Conqueror died the next year, and Otranto was won back."

E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, books 12-13.

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapters 5-6.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 68.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

TURKS: A. D. 1454-1479. Treaty with Venice, followed by war.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

TURKS: A. D. 1479. Defeat at Kenyer-Mesö by the Hungarians and Wallachians.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520. The sad story of Prince Jem and the Christians. Massacre of the Shiites. Selim's conquests in Persia, Syria and Egypt. The Sultan becomes the successor of the Khalifs, the chief of Islam.