Volume I—A To Elba (continued 3)

Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 478-493.

ALSO IN C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, appendix.

{29}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872. The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.

"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil, the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva, Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents, by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing, subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the 15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were continued until the 14th of September following, when the decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville, the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston, and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States," and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors, as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one, awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called "indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations." This declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.

C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington.

ALSO IN F. Wharton, Digest of the International Law of the United States, chapter 21 (volume 3).

—————ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End—————

ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).

See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

ALADSHA, Battles of (1877). See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

ALAMANNI.

See ALEMANNI.

ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.

The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."

See ASSASSINS.

ALANS, OR ALANI, The.

"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B. C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. … The result seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own country."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 17.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 6, note H.

"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais, at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."

J. C. L. Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 3.

{30}

ALANS: A. D. 376. Conquest by the Huns.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

ALANS: A. D. 406-409. Final Invasion of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

ALANS: A. D. 409-414. Settlement in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ALANS: A. D. 429. With the Vandals in Africa.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

ALANS: A. D. 451. At the Battle of Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

—————ALANS: End—————

ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).

See ALMOHADES.

ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403, and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ALARODIANS. IBERIANS. COLCHIANS.

"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires … are almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of the Inscriptions. … The name of Ararat is constantly used in Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a particular mountain. … The connexion … of Urarda with the Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian king … ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians were refugees of a later period driven northward by the growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however, is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the tenor of the inscriptions."

H. C. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 7, appendix 3.

"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was [anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south, probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and fertility, were the Colchians,—dependents, but not exactly subjects, of Persia."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.

ALASKA: A. D. 1867. Purchase by the United States.

As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was returned, stating that the minister believed himself authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of $7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20, 1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau taking possession in the name of the Government of the United States.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 28, chapter 28.

ALSO IN W. H. Dall, Alaska and its Resources, part 2, chapter 2.

For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

ALATOONA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ALBA. Alban Mount.

"Cantons … having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive political unities with which Italian history begins. At what period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock, and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and Tusculum. … All these cantons were in primitive times politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship based on community of descent and of language not only pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an important religious and political institution—the perpetual league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton of Alba. … The communities entitled to participate in the league were in the beginning thirty. … The rendezvous of this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival' (feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

{31}

ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

ALBAIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ALBAN, Kingdom of.

See ALBION; also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBANI, The.

See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

ALBANIANS: Ancient.

See EPIRUS and ILLYRIANS.

ALBANIANS: Mediæval.

"From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first half of the seventh century], we may … venture to date the earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece with the Hellenic race can be found in history. … It seems very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition, like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."

G. Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467. Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.

"John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign, and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died, Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith, and declared his intention of defending the creed of his forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."

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

"Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet their involuntary reverence for his valour. … His infant son was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues to flow in the noblest families of the realm."

ALSO IN A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, sections 11-25.

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696. Conquests by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

—————ALBANIANS: End—————

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1623. The first Settlement.

In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany. That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,' after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son. As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians [Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship … and desired that they might come and have a constant free trade with them, which was concluded upon.'"

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, pages 55 and 151.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630. Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664. Occupied and named by the English.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1673. Again occupied by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

—————ALBANY, NEW YORK: End—————

ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

ALBANY REGENCY, The.

See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.

ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: N. CAROLINA).

ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

{32}

ALBERT, King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388. Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486. Albert I., Duke of Austria and King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308. Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440; King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.

ALBERTA, The District of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

ALBICI, The.

A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia (Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend their city against him.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 4.

ALBIGENSES, OR ALBIGEOIS, The.

"Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic, half rationalistic theory of Christianity, … appears almost suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France, in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees. … The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France. Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were, at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain, absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal revolt from Latin Christianity. … In no [other] European country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 9, chapter 8.

"By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where the agents of the church who came to combat them found them mostly to abound,—the district around the town of Alba, or Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a predominant element among the people thus designated."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, 5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3.

"Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy, the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran, Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also held that the evil spirit created all visible things."

Johannes Baptist Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236. https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo

"The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings, and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries, the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious exaggeration."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.

ALSO IN L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times.

See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209. The First Crusade.

"Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to those which had already elevated him to almost universal dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided; he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles, underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one human being within the walls was permitted to survive; {33} and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty; necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."

_E. Smedley, History of France, chapter _4.

ALSO IN J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Crusades against the Albigenses, chapter 1.

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 9, chapter 8.

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3 https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo.

See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213. The Second Crusade.

"The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux. Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. … The unhappy Raymond was … again excommunicated from the Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics, or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning faggots. … At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to the city of Toulouse. … Throwing himself into the place, Raymond … succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of 1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and their united forces came into communication with each other at Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213], at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and decisive. … Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army, deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.

ALSO IN J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of Crusades against the Albigenses, chapter 2.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229. The Renewed Crusades. Dissolution of the County of Toulouse. Pacification of Languedoc.

"The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his existence. … Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip [Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses; and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates, and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls; his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms. This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in Languedoc. … All submitted. Louis retired from his facile conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother, Blanche of Castile. {34} "The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared, collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope. Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed: in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert, another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time. Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond Berenger, count of Provence."

E. E. Crowe, History of France, volume 1, chapter 2-3.

"The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne, Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the crown fifty years later. … The name of Toulouse, except as the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the French kingdom."

E. A. Freeman, History Geography of Europe, chapter 9.

The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.

"The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France. The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more numerous than had ever before been brought together in European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been massacred. … Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the European world had never mourned over a national disaster so wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.

—————ALBIGENSES: End—————

ALBION.

"The most ancient name known to have been given to this island [Britain] is that of Albion. … There is, however, another allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back, though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy. Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation, restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing, undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them sons of Neptune or the sea-god. … Even in the time of Pliny, Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of it. … It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which it once applied."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.

ALSO IN E. Guest, Origines Celticae, chapter 1.

See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBIS, The. The ancient name of the river Elbe.

ALBOIN, King of the Lombards, A. D. 569-573.

ALCALDE. ALGUAZIL. CORREGIDOR.

"The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or governor. … Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii. 331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding the two offices. … An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius') and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes.

ALCANIZ, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).

See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.

{35}

ALCANTARA, Knights of.

"Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,' A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy the place: that permission was readily granted: with his assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St. Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service alike to king and church."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.

ALCAZAR, OR "THE THREE KINGS," Battle of (1578 or 1579).

See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE.

ALCIBIADES, The career of.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418, and 411-407; and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.

ALCLYDE.

Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan, or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the slightly modified form of Dumbarton. … Alclyde was more than once destroyed by the Northmen."

J. Rhys; Celtic Britain, chapter 4.

See, also, CUMBRIA.

ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.

See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

ALDIE, Battle of.

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

ALDINE PRESS, The.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.

ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

ALEMANNI, ALAMANNI: A. D. 213. Origin and first appearance.

"Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is named, which we here meet for the first time—the Alamanni. Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes comprehended under this name stand forth—more than is the case among the other great Germanic peoples—in their separate character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further mention after the end of the second century, furnished a strong contingent to the Alamanni."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.

"The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias, who quotes Asinius Quadratus. … Notwithstanding this, I think it is an open question, whether the name may not have been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,—parts of the Decumates Agri—parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman, or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case, a name so German as to have given the present French and Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a population other than Germanic. I know the apparently paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all' by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the 'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and 'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).—Grimm, ii. 628.—Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in 'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through. Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless, indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no tangible difference can be found."

R. G. Lathan, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section 11.

ALSO IN T. Smith, Arminius, part 2, chapter 1.

See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 259. Invasion of Gaul and Italy.

The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire … increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue. Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars—Valerian in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however, succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany laden with spoil."

{36}

ALEMANNI: A. D. 270. Invasion of Italy.

Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils, when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading havoc as they went. It was only after three great battles,—one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was defeated), and a third near Pavia,—that the Germanic invaders were destroyed.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361. Repulse by Julian.

See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367. Invasion of Gaul.

The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later, the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts, fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors, the Burgundians, which weakened both.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 378. Defeat by Gratian.

On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than 5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped. Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his troublesome neighbors in their own country.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504. Overthrow by the Franks.

"In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any intermission until the death of their warrior king. The Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube, had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then established a considerable number of his Franks in the territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."

V. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 2.

"Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ, whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example. "In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or 504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the Alamanni. … Clovis moved his army into their territories and won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine, the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia, or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia. The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground; and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them. … Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

ALSO IN P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 3, chapter 11.

See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500; and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729. Struggles against the Frank Dominion.

See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 547. Final subjection to the Franks.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

{37}

ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969. Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was recovered by the Byzantines in 969.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.

ALEPPO: A. D. 1260. Destruction by the Mongols.

The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of 1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered with corpses. … It is said that 100,000 women and children were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said, the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great Khan called him to the East.

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, pages 209-211.

ALEPPO: A. D. 1401. Sack and Massacre by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

ALEUTS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.

ALEXANDER ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323. Conquests and Empire.

See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.

Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.

Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria. Abduction and Abdication.

See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.

Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825.

Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.

Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.

Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.

Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214-1249.

Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.

Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.

Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.

Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254-1261.

Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa).

Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.

Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.

Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.

Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332. The Founding of the City.

"When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours, which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles, the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out. The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now, because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for steamships of an unbroken sea route."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 12.

See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330; and EGYPT: B. C. 332.

ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246. Greatness and splendor of the City. Its Commerce. Its Libraries. Its Museum. Its Schools.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It was the first of those new foundations which are a marked feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and importance—above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris, then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared. … Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters, one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians, Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and variable character to the population. Let us not forget the vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China, as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia, the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece—a thousand imports from all the Mediterranean—came to be exchanged for the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes, the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes. Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to the marvellous fertility and great population—it is said to have been seven millions—of Egypt, they made all the profits of this enormous carrying trade. {38} We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. … All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite. Philadelphus was anything but that. … It was he who opened up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the world's history, and we must separate his University and its professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate section. … The history of the organization of the University and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science, and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities, this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the Academy of Plato, had a fixed property—a home with its surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure, it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus, brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in one central repository all that the world knew or could produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the great library, which in those days had a thousand times the value a great library has now, but also observatories, zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most brilliant group of students in literature and science was formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated the process by which the size of the earth is determined to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to this day. … The vast collections of the library and museum actually determined the whole character of the literature of Alexandria. One word sums it all up—erudition, whether in philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism. Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious words, were departments of research dear to them. In science they did great things, so did they in geography. … But were they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in literature—the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus; the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for ever."

J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13-14.

"There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies, the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see Matter, Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133 seg., 237 seq.) It is not stated by any ancient writer where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed, which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city. {39} Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the great Alexandrian library. … Gibbon seems to think that the whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of the Emperor Theodosius—see below]; but this was not the case. It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained standing long afterwards."

Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the Moslems,

See below: A. D. 641-646.

ALSO IN O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 3.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7, 8 and 12.

See, also, NEOPLATONICS.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47. Cæsar and Cleopatra. The Rising against the Romans. The Siege. Destruction of the great Library. Roman victory.

From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48) Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes. Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48). Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two priceless libraries of Alexandria—the library of the Museum—was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.] By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47, that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion, to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

A. Hirtius, The Alexandrian War.

ALSO IN G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 20.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 12.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116. Destruction of the Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 116.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215. Massacre by Caracalla.

"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years] was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene of his rapine and cruelty. … In the midst of peace, and upon the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers, without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the sufferers."

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272. Tumults of the Third Century.

"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations, united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable. After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws, the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every street was polluted with blood, every building of strength converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary solitude."

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273. Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.

After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade, and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted everafter."

J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors, book 27.

{40}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296. Siege by Diocletian.

A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian, on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and, rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror, but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter, and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of Alexandria; those proud cities … were utterly destroyed."

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365. Great Earthquake.

See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389. Destruction of the Serapeum.

"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the city and temple of Serapis. … The archepiscopal throne of Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. … The votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D. 389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods. These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins. "The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed; and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator whose mind was not totally darkened by religious prejudice."

Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned annotator, Dr. Smith.

See above: B. C. 282-246.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415. The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.

"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D. 412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude: his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of the sectaries. … The toleration, and even the privileges of the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria. Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the guilty."

"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected, honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her learning; her modesty commended both. … Hypatia lived in great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his hostility to the patriarch. … Some of Cyril's ferocious partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then rent her limb from limb."

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN C. Kingsley, Hypatia.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616. Taken by Chosroes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646. The Moslem Conquest.

The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D. 641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable, as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking and retaking of the city—641 and 646—have been much confused in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great Alexandrian Library—or so much of it as had escaped destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian patriarchs—is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by Abulpharagus—that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they were pernicious.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

{41}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823. Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.

See CRETE: A. D. 823.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798. Captured by the French under Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802. Battle of French and English. Restoration to the Turks.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807. Surrendered to the English. The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840. Bombardment by the English.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882. Bombardment by the English fleet. Massacre of Europeans. Destruction.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

—————ALEXANDRIA: End—————

ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA, The Burning of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA., A. D. 1861 (May). Occupation by Union troops. Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.

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

ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.

Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1204.

ALFONSO ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134

Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109; and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.

Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 739-757.

Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.

Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.

Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.

Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.

Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.

Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.

Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.

Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.

Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.

Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.

Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.

Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.

Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.

Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458; I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.

Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.

Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.

Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.

Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.

Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.

Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.

Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.

ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.

ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.

"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was derived from the original construction of its harbour, one side of which was separated from the land."

M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, page 314.

For history, see BARBARY STATES.

ALGIHED, The.

The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to be a Holy War.

ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ALGUAZIL.

See ALCALDE.

ALHAMA, The taking of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ALHAMBRA, The building of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.

ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).

See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.

ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385, and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ALKMAR, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.

ALLEGHANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

ALLEMAGNE.

The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.

See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.

And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,—1645.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.

ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

{42}

ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.

The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans, and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn. Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone, and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000 taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August, B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome, at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21.

ALMA, Battle of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).

ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.

See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ALMOHADES, The.

The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince, Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful. Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in 1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. … With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade dynasty gradually declined. … The Almohades, like the Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to attempt to remember."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens, lecture 5.

ALSO IN H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8, chapter 4

See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.

ALMONACID, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

ALMORAVIDES, The.

During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world, a missionary from Kairwan—one Abdallah—preaching the faith of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a religious movement which "naturally led to a political one." "The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels. After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco. There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation, abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the Moslems. … The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain, like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23, A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern Spain. … The great cities of Andalusia were all brought under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D. 1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their own" [the Almohades].

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens, lecture 5.

ALSO IN H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8, chapter 2 and 4.

See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ALOD. ALODIAL.

"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion exists between the words odal and alod, but their signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to appear in the host and in the council. … The land held in full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate created by legal process out of public land. Both these are included in the more common term alod; but the former looks for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the witness of the community, while the latter can produce the charter or· book by which it is created, and is called bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer became obsolete, and the use of written records took their place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public land."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36.

{43}

"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal; the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of inheritance. … Hence, in the charters of the eleventh century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1, note.

ALSO IN J. M. Kemble, The Saxon in England, book 1, chapter 11.

See, also, FOLCLAND.

ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.

ALPHONSO.

See ALFONSO.

ALSACE. ALSATIA: The Name.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALSACE: A. D. 843-870. Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

ALSACE: 10th Century. Joined to the Empire.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

ALSACE: 10th Century. Origin of the House of Hapsburg.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

ALSACE: A. D. 1525. Revolt of the Peasants.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622. Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639. Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar. Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ALSACE: A. D. 1648. Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ALSACE: A. D. 1659. Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678. Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.

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

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681. Complete Absorption in France. Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV. Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation. Seizure of Strasburg. Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

ALSACE: A. D. 1744. Invasion by the Austrians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

ALSACE: A. D. 1871. Ceded to the German Empire by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

ALSACE: 1871-1879. Organization of government as a German Impanel Province.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

—————ALSACE: End—————

ALTA CALIFORNIA. Upper California.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).

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

ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).

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

ALTHING, The.

See THING;

Also, NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;

And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

ALTIS, The.

See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.

ALTMARCK.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

ALTONA: A. D. 1713. Burned by the Swedes.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.

AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.

AMAHUACA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

AMALEKITES, The.

"The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36: 12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,—Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites,—who stood in a relation of close kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir (Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim, 'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy 2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more northerly neighbours. … Separate from the Edomites or Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) … The Kenites … did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or 'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, chapter 6.

ALSO IN H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4.

See, also, ARABIA.

AMALFI.

"It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D. 554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the middle of the twelfth. … There must be, I suspect, some exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the only age when she possessed any at all."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 1, with note.

{44}

"Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two … ravines, the mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their very house-walls. … It is not easy to imagine the time when Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little communities were second in importance to no naval power of Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy during the eighth century; and after this time the history of Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento, their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A. D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge; founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari' formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages, prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian, and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if they did not actually invent, the compass. … The republic had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire. When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."