World Monarchies and Dynasties 0765680505, 9780765680501

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of Features
Contributors
Preface
Introduction
Chronology of Dynasties and Kingdoms
A
Abbas the Great
Abbasid Dynasty
Abd al-Hamid II
Abd al-Rahman
Abdication, Royal
Abu Bakr
Accession and Crowning of Kings
Achaemenid Dynasty
Acheh Kingdom
Afonso I
Afonso I, Nzinga Mbemba
African Kingdoms
Ahab
Ahmadnagar Kingdom
Ahmose I
Akan Kingdoms
Akbar the Great
Akhenaten
Akkad, Kingdom of
Aksum Kingdom
Alaric I
Alaungpaya Dynasty
Albert I
Alexander I
Alexander I, Tsar
Alexander II
Alexander III, the Great
Alexandra
Alfonso V, the Magnanimous
Alfonso X, the Wise
Alfred the Great
Almohad Dynasty
Almoravid Dynasty
Ambassadors
American Kingdoms, Central and North
Amhara Kingdom
Andhra Kingdom
Angevin Dynasties
Angkor Kingdom
Anglo-Saxon Rulers
Anjou Kingdom
Ankole Kingdom
Anne
Antiochus III, the Great
Aquitaine Duchy
Arabia, Kingdoms of
Arachosia Kingdom
Aragón, House of
Aragón, Kingdom of
Aramean Kingdoms
Arenas, Royal
Arles Kingdom
Armenian Kingdoms
Arpad Dynasty
Art of Kings
Artaxerxes I
Artaxerxes II
Artaxerxes III
Arthur, King
Asante Kingdom
Ashikaga Shogunate
Ashurbanipal
Asian Dynasties, Central
Asoka
Assyrian Empire
Asturias Kingdom
Ataliualpa
Atlialiah
Athens, Kingdom of
Attila
Augustus
Aurangzeb
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Avanti Kingdom
Aviz Dynasty
Awan Dynasty
Aymara Kingdoms
Ayutthaya Kingdom
Ayyubid Dynasty
Azande Kingdoms
Aztec Empire
B
Babenberg Dynasty
Babur
Bagirmi Kingdom
Balimani Dynasty
Baldwin I
Bambara Kingdom
Bamileke Kingdoms
Bangkok Kingdom
Banu Khurasan
Bargliash ibn Sa'id el-Busaidi
Baroda Kingdom
Basil I
Basil II
Basque Kingdom
Baths, Royal
Batu Khan
Baudouin
Behavior, Conventions of Royal
Belgian Kingdom
Bemba Kingdom
Benin Kingdom
Berar Kingdom
Betsimisaraka Kingdom
Beyezid II
Bharatpur Kingdom
Bhutan Kingdom
Biblical Kings
Bidar Kingdom
Blois-Champagne Dynasty
Blood, Royal
Bodies, Politic and Natural
Bonapartist Empire
Boru, Brian
Boudicca (Boadicea)
Bourbon Dynasty
Bragança Dynasty
Brahmarsi-Desa Kingdom
Brazil, Portuguese Monarchy of
Bretagne Duchy
Brooke, Sir James (Rajah)
Buddhism and Kingship
Bulgarian Monarchy
Bundi Kingdom
Bureaucracy, Royal
Burgundy Kingdom
Burmese Kingdoms
Buyid (Buwayhid) Dynasty
Byzantine Empire
C
Caesars
Caligula
Caliphates
Calukya (Chalukya) Dynasty
Cambodian Kingdoms
Cambyses II
Capet, Hugh
Capetian Dynasty
Carolingian Dynasty
Carthage, Kingdom of
Casimir III
Casimir IV
Caste Systems
Castile, Kingdom of
Catalonia, County of
Catherine II, the Great
Cera (Chera) Dynasty
Cetshwayo
Chakri Dynasty
Champa Kingdom
Champassak Kingdom
Chandella Dynasty
Chandragupta Maurya
Chao Dynasties
Charlemagne
Charles I
Charles II
Charles III
Charles IV
Charles V
Charles VI
Charles VII
Chauhan (Chahamanas) Dynasty
Chavin Empire
Chenla Empire
Chiangmai
Ch'ien Lung (Qianlong)
Chimü Empire
Ch'in (Qin) Dynasty
Ch'ing (Qing) Dynasty
Choson Kingdom
Chou (Zhou) Dynasty
Christianity and Kingship
Christina
Chulalongkorn
Class Systems and Royalty
Claudius
Cleopatra VII
Clovis I
Cnut I
Coinage, Royal
Cola Kingdom
Colonialism and Kingship
Commerce and Kingship
Comnenian Dynasty
Competition, Fraternal
Concubines, Royal
Connaught Kingdom
Conquest and Kingships
Conrad II
Conrad III
Consorts, Royal
Constantine I, the Great
Cooks, Royal
Córdoba, Caliphate of
Councils and Counselors, Royal
Courts and Court Officials, Royal
Croatian Kingdom
Croesus
Crusader Kingdoms
Curses, Royal
Cyaxares
Cyrus the Great
D
Dacia Kingdom
Dagomba Kingdom
Danish Kingdom
Darius I, the Great
Darius II (Ochus)
Darius III (Codommanus)
David
David I
David II
Deaccession
Deheubarth Kingdom
Delhi Kingdom
Descent, Royal
Dessalines, Jean-Jacques
Dethronement
Dewas Kingdoms
Dingiswayo
Diocletian
Diplomacy, Royal
Disease and Royalty
Divination and Diviners, Royal
Divine Right
Divinity of Kings
Djoser
Dmitri, Grand Prince
Dual Monarchies
Dyfed Kingdom
Dynasty
E
Earth and Sky, Separation of
East Asian Dynasties
Education of Kings
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Edward the Confessor
Edward VI
Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (before eighteenth dynasty)
Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (eighteenth to twenty-sixth)
Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman
Egyptian Kingdom, Modern
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Election, Royal
Elizabeth I
Elizabeth II
Emissary Letters
Emperors and Empresses
Empire
English Monarchies
Enthronement, Rites of
Esarhaddon
Etiquette, Royal
Etruscan Kingdoms
Eunuchs, Royal
European Kingships
Executions, Royal
F
Faisal I
Fan Shih-Man
Farouk
Fatimid Dynasty
Ferdinand I
Ferdinand II
Ferdinand II and Isabella I
Feudalism and Kingship
Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms
Flanders, County of
Folkung Dynasty
Fon Kingdom
Francis I
Franconian Dynasty
Frankish Kingdom
Franz Josef
Frederick I, Barbarossa
Frederick II
Frederick II, the Great
Frederick William, the Great Elector
French Monarchies
Fuad
Fujiwara Dynasty
Funan Kingdom
Funerals and Mortuary Rituals
Fur Kingdom
G
Gahadvalas Dynasty
Galawdewos
Ganda Kingdom
Gauda Kingdom
Gender and Kingship
Genealogy, Royal
Genghis Khan
George I
George II
George III
George Tupou I
Ghana Kingdom, Ancient
Ghaznavid Dynasty
Ghur Dynasty
Glywysing Kingdom
Golconda Kingdom
Golden Horde Khanate
Götaland Monarchy
Granada, Kingdom of
Greek Kingdoms, Ancient
Greek Monarchy
Grimaldi Dynasty
Grooms of the Stool
Gudea
Gujarat Kingdom
Gupta Empire
Gurjara-Pratihara Dynasty
Gustavus I (Vasa)
Gustavus II (Adolphus)
Gwalior Kingdom
Gwent Kingdom
Gwynedd Kingdom
H
Haakon VI
Habsburg Dynasty
Hadramawt Kingdoms
Hadrian
Hafsid Dynasty
Haihaya Dynasty
Haile Selassie I
Hammurabi
Han Dynasty
Hanover, House of
Harald III Hardraade
Harems
Harold II Godwinson
Harun al-Rashid
Hashemite Dynasty
Hasmonean Kingdom
Hassan II
Hatshepsut
Hawaiian Kingdoms
Healing Powers of Kings
Heavens and Kingship
Hebrew Kings
Heian Period
Hellenistic Dynasties
Henry II
Henry IV (England)
Henry IV (France)
Henry IV (HRE)
Henry VIII
Herod
Hinduism and Kingship
Hirohito
Hittite Empire
Hohenstaufen Dynasty
Hohenzollern Dynasty
Holy Roman Empire
Homosexuality and Kingship
Hong Bang Dynasty
Hsia Dynasty
Hsuan Tsung (Xuanzong)
Huang Ti (Huangdi) (Yellow Emperor)
Huari (Wari) Empire
Huascar
Huayna Capac
Hun Empire
Hung Wu (Hongwu)
Hunting and Kingship
Hussein I
Hyderabad Kingdom
Hyksos Dynasty
I
Iberian Kingdoms
Ibn Saud
Iconography
Ikhshidid Dynasty
Il-Khan Dynasty
Illyria Kingdom
Imperial Rule
Inca Empire
Incest, Royal
Indian Kingdoms
Indo-Greek Kingdoms
Inheritance, Royal
Irene
Irish Kings
Islam and Kingship
Israel, Kingdoms of
Itsekeri Kingdom
Iturbide, Agustín de
Ivan III, the Great
Ivan IV, the Terrible
J
Jagiello Dynasty
Jahan, Shah
Jahangir
James I of Aragón
James I of England (James VI of Scotland)
James II
James II of Aragón
Janggala Kingdom
Jaunpur Kingdom
Javan Kingdoms
Jimmu
João (John) VI
João the Great
Jodhpur Kingdom
John I
John III (John Sobieski)
Joseph II
Juan Carlos
Judah, Kingdom of
Judaism and Kingship
Julian the Apostate
Juliana
Julio-Claudians
Julius Caesar
Justinian I
Jutland Kingdom
K
Kabarega
Kafa Kingdom
Kalacuri Dynasties
Kalinga Kingdom
Kalmar Union
Kamakura Shogunate
Kamehameha I, the Great
Kandy Kingdom
Kanembu-Kanuri Kingdom
Kanemi, Muhammad Al-Amin Al
Kang Xi
Kanva Dynasty
Kao Tsung (Gaozong)
Kashmir Kingdom
Kassites
Kathiawar Kingdom
Kenneth I (Kenneth MacAlpin)
Kent, Kingdom of
Kertanagara Empire
Khalji Dynasty
Khama III
Khattushili I
Khazar Kingdom
Khmer Empire
Khufu
Khwarazm-Shah Dynasty
Kiev, Princedom of
Kingdoms and Empires
Kingly Body
Kings and Queens
Koguryo Kingdom
Kondavidu Kingdom
Kongo Kingdom
Koryo Kingdom
Kosala Kingdom
Kota Kingdom
Kuang Hsü (Guang Xu)
Kuang Wu Ti (Guang Wudi)
Kuba Kingdom
Kublai Khan
Kumaon Kingdom
Kusana Dynasty
Kush, Kingdom of
L
Labor, Forms of
Lakhmid Dynasty
Lancaster, House of
Landholding Patterns
Le Dynasty
Legitimacy
Leinster Kingdom
León, Kingdom of
Leopold I
Leopold II
Liang Dynasties
Liang Wu Ti
Liao Dynasty
Liliuokalani
Literature and Kingship
Lithuania, Grand Duchy of
Liu Pang (Gao Ti)
Llywelyn ap Gruffydd
Lobengula
Lodi Kingdom
Lombard Dynasty
Lombard Kingdom
Lords of the Isles
Lorraine Dynasty
Lothair I
Louis I, the Great
Louis I, the Pious
Louis IV, the Bavarian
Louis VII
Louis IX (St. Louis)
Louis XI
Louis XIV
Louis XV
Louis XVI
Louis-Philippe
Lovedu Kingdom
Lozi (or Rotse) Kingdom
Luang Prabang Kingdom
Luba Kingdom
Lunda Kingdom
Lusignan Dynasty
Luxembourg Dynasty
Lydia, Kingdom of
M
Macedonian Empire
Macedonian Kingdom
Madagascar Kingdoms
Magadha Kingdom
Mahmud of Ghazna
Ma'in Kingdom
Majapahit Empire
Mali, Ancient Kingdom of
Malwa Kingdom
Mamluk Dynasty
Mamprusi Kingdom
Mamun, al-
Mangbetu Kingdom
Manipur Kingdom
Mansa Musa
Mansur, Ahmad al-
Maori Kingdoms
Maratha Confederacy
Marcus Aurelius
Margaret of Denmark
Maria Theresa
Marie Antoinette
Marquesas Kingdom
Marriage of Kings
Martel, Charles
Mary I, Tudor
Mary, Queen of Scotts
Mataram Empire
Maurya Empire
Maximilian
Maximilian I
Maya Empire
Mbundu Kingdoms
Meath Kingdom
Medes Kingdom
Medici Family
Mehmed II, the Conqueror
Meiji Monarchy
Menander
Menelik II
Menes
Mercia, Kingdom of
Merina Kingdom
Merovingian Dynasty
Merovingian-Frankish Kingdom
Mexican Monarchy
Midas
Middle Eastern Dynasties
Milan, Duchy of
Military Roles, Royal
Minamoto Rulers
Minangkabau Kingdom
Ming Dynasty
Minoan Kingdoms
Mississippian Culture
Mitanni Kingdom
Mixtec Empire
Moche Kingdom
Moctezuma II
Mon Kingdom
Monarchs, Ages of
Monarchy
Monarchy Formation, Myths of
Mongkut (Rama IV)
Mongol Empire
Monivong, King
Monopolies, Royal
Montenegro Kingdom
Morea, Despotate of
Moshoeshoe I
Mossi Kingdoms
Mughal Empire
Muhammad Ahmad
Muhammad Ali
Muhammad V
Muhammad XII (Boabdil)
Mu'izzi (Slave) Dynasty
Munster Kingdom
Music and Song
Mutesa I
Mycenaean Monarchies
Mysore Kingdom
Myth and Folklore
Mzilikazi
N
Nabopolassar
Nadir Shah
Nam Viet Kingdom
Nanchao Kingdom
Naples, Kingdom of
Napoleon I (Bonaparte)
Napoleon III
Nara Kingdom
Narai
Naram-Sin
Nasrid Dynasty
National Identity
Nationalism
Naval Roles
Navarre, Kingdom of
Nazca Kingdom
Ndebele Kingdom
Nebuchadrezzar II
Nefertiti
Nero
Netherlands Kingdom
Nevsky, Alexander
Ngonde Kingdom
Nguyen Anh
Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty
Nicholas I
Nicholas II
Norman Kingdoms
Norodom Sihanouk
Northumbria, Kingdom of
Norwegian Monarchy
Nubian Kingdoms
Nupe Kingdom
Nyoro Kingdom
O
Oaths and Oath-taking
Oda Nobunaga
Oldenburg Dynasty
Olmec Kingdom
Orange-Nassau, House of
Osei Tutu
Osman I
Ostrogoth Kingdom
Otto I, the Great
Ottoman Empire
Ottonian Dynasty
Oudh (Avadh) Kingdom
P
Pacal
Pachacuti
Paekche Kingdom
Pagan Kingdom
Pahlavi Dynasty
Pala Dynasty
Palaces
Palaeologan Dynasty
Palestine, Kingdoms of
Pandya Dynasty
Panjalu Kingdom
Papal States
Paramara Dynasty
Parks, Royal
Parthian Kingdom
Patent Letters, Royal
Pedro I
Pedro II
Pegu Kingdoms
Pepin Dynasty
Pepin the Short (Pepin III)
Perak Kingdom
Pergamum Kingdom
Persian Empire
Peter I, the Great
Philip II
Philip II of Macedon
Philip II, Augustus
Philip IV, the Fair
Phoenician Empire
Phrygia Kingdom
Piast Dynasty
Picts, Kingdom of the
Piedmont Kingdom
Plantagenet, House of
Polygamy, Royal
Pomare IV
Postcolonial States
Power, Forms of Royal
Powys Kingdom
Premysl Dynasty
Priests, Royal
Primogeniture
Prophets, Royal
Ptolemaic Dynasty
Ptolemy I
Pu Yi
Punjab Princely States
Pyu Kingdom
Q
Qajar Dynasty
Queens and Queen Mothers
R
Radama I
Radama II
Rajasthan Kingdom
Rama Khamheng
Ramses II, the Great
Ranavalona I, Mada
Rastrakuta Dynasty
Realms, Types of
Rebellion
Reccared I
Regalia and Insignia, Royal
Regencies
Regicide
Reigns, Length of
Religious Duties and Powers
Richard I, Lionheart
Richard II
Richard III
Rights to Animals
Rights, Civil
Rights, Land
Ritual, Royal
Riurikid Dynasty
Robert I (Robert the Bruce)
Roderic
Roman Empire
Romanian Monarchy
Romanov Dynasty
Romanov, Michael
Royal Families
Royal Imposters
Royal Line
Royal Pretenders
Rudolf I
Rurik
Rus Princedoms
Russian Dynasties
S
Sabaean Kingdom
Sacral Birth and Death
Sacred Kingships
Sacred Texts
Safavid Dynasty
Saffarid Dynasty
Sa'id, Sayyid ibn
Sailendra Dynasty
Sakalava Kingdom
Saladin
Salian Dynasty
Samanid Dynasty
Samoan Kingdoms
Samsu-iluna
Samudera-Pasai
Sancho III, the Great
Sanusi Dynasty
Sargon II
Sargon of Akkad
Sasanid Dynasty
Satavahana Dynasty
Savoy Dynasty
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty
Saxon Dynasty
Saxon Kingdoms
Scottish Kingdoms
Scythian Empire
Seclusion of Monarch
Second Empire
Seleucid Dynasty
Selim I, the Grim
Selim III, the Great
Seljuq Dynasty
Sennacherib
Serbian Kingdom
Servants and Aides, Royal
Seti I
Shah Dynasty
Shaka Zulu
Shalmaneser III
Shalmaneser V
Shamshi-Adad I
Shan Kingdoms
Shang (Yin) Dynasty
Sheba, Queen of
Shih Huang Ti (Shihuangdi)
Shilluk Kingdom
Shogunate
Shoguns
Shulgi
Shuppiluliuma I
Siam, Kingdoms of
Siblings, Royal
Sicily, Kingdom of
Sigismund
Sikkim Kingdom
Silla Kingdom
Sisters, Royal
Slavery, Royal
Sobhuza I
Sobhuza II
Sokoto Caliphate
Solomon
Songhai Kingdom
Soninke Kingdom
Sotho (Suto) Kingdom
Soulouque, Faustin Elie
South American Monarchies
South Asian Kingdoms
South Sea Island Kingdoms
Southeast Asian Kingdoms
Spanish Monarchies
Sparta, Kingdom of
Srivijaya-Palembang Empire
Stanislas I
Stanislaus II
Stephen
Stephen I (St. Stephen)
Stewart Dynasty
Strathclyde Kingdom
Stuart Dynasty
Subjects , Royal
Succession, Royal
Sui Dynasty
Sukhothai Kingdom
Suleyman I, the Magnificent
Sultanates
Sundjata Keita
Sung (Song) Dynasty
Sunga Dynasty
Sunni Ali
Susenyos
Sussex, Kingdom of
Swahili Kingdoms
Swazi Kingdom
Swedish Monarchy
Syrian Kingdoms
T
Tahitian Kingdom
T'ai Tsu (Taizu)
T'ai Tsung (Taizong)
Taifa Rulers
Tamerlane (Timur Leng)
T'ang Dynasty
Tarquin Dynasty
Tarquin the Proud
Taufa'ahau Tupou IV
Taxation
Tewodros II
Theater, Royal
Thebes Kingdom
Theodora
Theoderic the Great
Theodosius I, the Great
Thessalonika Kingdom
Thibaw
Thrace Kingdom
Three Kingdoms
Thutmose III
Tiberius
Tibetan Kingdom
Tiglath-Pileser III
Tikar Kingdom
Tio Kingdom
Titus
Tiwanaku Kingdom
Tokugawa Ieyasu
Tokugawa Shogunate
Toltec Empire
Tomara Dynasty
Tombs, Royal
Tonga, Kingdom of
Tonking Kingdom
Toro Kingdom
Toungoo Dynasty
Toyotomi Hideyoshi
Trajan
Tran Dynasty
Trastamara, House of
Treason, Royal
Tribute
Trinh Dynasty
Trojan Kingdom
Tsars and Tsarinas
Tshekedi Khama
Tudor, House of
Tughluq Dynasty
Tulunid Dynasty
Tupac Yupanqui
Turkic Empire
Tutankhamen
Tutsi Kingdom
Tyranny, Royal
Tz'u Hsi (Cixi)
U
Udaipur Kingdom
Uighur Empire
Ulster Kingdom
Umayyad Dynasty
United Arab Emirates
Urartu Kingdom
Ur-Nammu
Uthman dan Fodio
Utkala (Orissa) Kingdom
Uzbek Kingdom
V
Vakataka Dynasty
Valois Dynasty
Vandal Kingdom
Varangian Kingdoms
Vasa Dynasty
Venetian Doges
Victor Emmanuel II
Victoria
Vietnamese Kingdoms
Vijayanagar Empire
Viking Empire
Virachocha
Visigoth Kingdom
Vlach Principality
Vladimir Princedom
W
Waldemar I, the Great
Wang Kon
Wanli
Warfare
Weddings, Royal
Wei Dynasties
Welsh Kingdoms
Wen Ti (Wendi)
Wenceslas IV
Wessex, Kingdom of
Wilderness, Royal Links to
Wilhelm II
Wilhelmina
William and Mary
William I
William I, the Conqueror
William II (William Rufus)
Windsor, House of
Witchcraft and Sorcery
Wu Tse-t'ien (Wu Zetian) (Wu Zhao)
X
Xerxes
Xia (Hsia) Dynasty
Y
Yadava Dynasty
Yamato Dynasty
Yaroslav I, the Wise
Ya'rubi Dynasty
Yemen Rulers
Yi Dynasty
Yi Songgye
Yoritomo
York, House of
Yoruba Kingdoms
Yuan Dynasty
Yung Lo (Yongle)
Z
Zand Dynasty
Zanzibar Sultanate
Zapotec Empire
Zara Ya'iqob
Zimbabwe Kingdom, Great
Zulu Kingdom
Bibliography
General Index
Biographical Index

Citation preview

ISBN 978-0-7656-8050-1

www.routledge.com

9 780765 680501

01

Page Intentionally Left Blank

First published 2005 by M.E. Sharpe Published 2015 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2005 Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notices No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data World monarchies and dynasties / John Middleton, editor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7656-8050-5 (set : alk. paper) 1. World history. 2. Monarchy—History—Dictionaries. 3. Kings and rulers—History— Dictionaries. I. Middleton, John. D21 .W929 2004 903—dc22

2003023236

Endpaper Maps: inside front cover: World Monarchies, 1279 c.e.; inside back cover: World Monarchies, Present Day (IMA for Book Builders LLC) ISBN 13: 9780765680501 (hbk)

CONTENTS Volume 1 List of Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Chronology of Dynasties and Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . xxv World Monarchies and Dynasties Abbas the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbasid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abd al-Hamid II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abd al-Rahman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abdication, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abu Bakr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accession and Crowning of Kings . . . . . . . . Achaemenid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acheh Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Afonso I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Afonso I, Nzinga Mbemba . . . . . . . . . . . . African Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ahab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ahmadnagar Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ahmose I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akan Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akbar the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akhenaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akkad, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aksum Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alaric I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alaungpaya Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Albert I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander I,Tsar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander III, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexandra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfonso V, the Magnanimous . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfonso X, the Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfred the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Almohad Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Almoravid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ambassadors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . American Kingdoms, Central and North . . . . Amhara Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andhra Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angevin Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angkor Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 3 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 17 17 18 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 27 28 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 37 39 40 41 42

Anglo-Saxon Rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anjou Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ankole Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antiochus III, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquitaine Duchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arabia, Kingdoms of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arachosia Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aragón, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aragón, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aramean Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arenas, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arles Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Armenian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arpad Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Art of Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artaxerxes I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artaxerxes II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artaxerxes III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arthur, King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asante Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashikaga Shogunate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashurbanipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asian Dynasties, Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asoka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assyrian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asturias Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atahualpa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Athaliah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Athens, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Augustus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aurangzeb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Austro-Hungarian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . Avanti Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aviz Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awan Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aymara Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ayutthaya Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ayyubid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Azande Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aztec Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babenberg Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bagirmi Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bahmani Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baldwin I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 44 45 46 46 47 48 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 57 58 58 60 61 62 63 64 66 67 68 69 69 71 73 74 75 77 78 79 79 80 80 82 82 86 86 88 88 89

vi

Contents

Bambara Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bamileke Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bangkok Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Banu Khurasan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barghash ibn Sa’id el-Busaidi . . . . . . . . . . . . Baroda Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basil I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basil II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basque Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baths, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Batu Khan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baudouin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behavior, Conventions of Royal . . . . . . . . . . Belgian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bemba Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benin Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Berar Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Betsimisaraka Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyezid II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bharatpur Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bhutan Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biblical Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bidar Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blois-Champagne Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blood, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bodies, Politic and Natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bonapartist Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boru, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boudicca (Boadicea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bourbon Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bragança Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brahmarsi-Desa Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brazil, Portuguese Monarchy of . . . . . . . . . . Bretagne Duchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brooke, Sir James (Rajah) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buddhism and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulgarian Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bundi Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bureaucracy, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burgundy Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burmese Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buyid (Buwayhid) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . Byzantine Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caesars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caligula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caliphates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calukya (Chalukya) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambodian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambyses II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capet, Hugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89 91 92 92 93 93 94 94 95 96 97 98 98 99 101 102 103 104 105 105 106 107 109 110 111 112 114 117 117 118 122 122 123 124 125 126 128 129 130 131 132 134 134 141 142 143 146 146 148 148

Capetian Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carolingian Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carthage, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Casimir III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Casimir IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Castile, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalonia, County of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine II, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cera (Chera) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cetshwayo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chakri Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Champa Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Champassak Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chandella Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chandragupta Maurya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chao Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlemagne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chauhan (Chahamanas) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . Chavin Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chenla Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chiangmai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chimü Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Choson Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chou (Zhou) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christianity and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chulalongkorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Class Systems and Royalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . Claudius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleopatra VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clovis I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cnut I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coinage, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cola Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colonialism and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commerce and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comnenian Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competition, Fraternal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concubines, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149 150 153 154 154 155 156 157 158 160 160 161 161 162 163 164 165 165 168 169 169 170 170 171 172 172 173 174 174 175 176 177 179 182 183 185 188 189 190 191 192 194 195 196 197 198 202 203 204 205

Contents Connaught Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conquest and Kingships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conrad II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conrad III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consorts, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constantine I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooks, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Córdoba, Caliphate of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Councils and Counselors, Royal . . . . . . . . . . Courts and Court Officials, Royal . . . . . . . . Croatian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Croesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crusader Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curses, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cyaxares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cyrus the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dacia Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dagomba Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Danish Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Darius I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Darius II (Ochus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Darius III (Codommanus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deaccession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deheubarth Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delhi Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Descent, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dessalines, Jean-Jacques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dethronement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dewas Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dingiswayo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diocletian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diplomacy, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disease and Royalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divination and Diviners, Royal . . . . . . . . . . Divine Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divinity of Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Djoser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dmitri, Grand Prince . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dyfed Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earth and Sky, Separation of . . . . . . . . . . . . East Asian Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education of Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

206 207 209 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 217 218 218 220 221 221 223 224 224 225 227 227 228 229 230 230 231 231 233 234 235 236 237 237 238 239 241 242 243 246 246 247 248 249 250 250 255 257 259 260

vii

Edward the Confessor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Edward VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (before eighteenth dynasty) . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (eighteenth to twenty-sixth) . . . . . . . . . . 264 Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Egyptian Kingdom, Modern . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Eleanor of Aquitaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Election, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Elizabeth I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Elizabeth II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Emissary Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Emperors and Empresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 English Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Enthronement, Rites of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Esarhaddon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Etiquette, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Etruscan Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Eunuchs, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 European Kingships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 Executions, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Faisal I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Fan Shih-Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 Farouk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 Fatimid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Ferdinand I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Ferdinand II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Ferdinand II and Isabella I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Feudalism and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . 303 Flanders, County of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 Folkung Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Fon Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 Volume 2 Francis I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Franconian Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frankish Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Franz Josef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frederick I, Barbarossa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frederick II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frederick II, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frederick William, the Great Elector . . . . . . French Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fujiwara Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funan Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

307 307 308 309 311 312 314 316 316 322 322 324

viii

Contents

Funerals and Mortuary Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . Fur Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gahadvalas Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Galawdewos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ganda Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gauda Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genealogy, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genghis Khan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George Tupou I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ghana Kingdom, Ancient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ghaznavid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ghur Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glywysing Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Golconda Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Golden Horde Khanate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Götaland Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Granada, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greek Kingdoms, Ancient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greek Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grimaldi Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grooms of the Stool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gudea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gujarat Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gupta Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gurjara-Pratihara Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gustavus I (Vasa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gustavus II (Adolphus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gwalior Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gwent Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gwynedd Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haakon VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habsburg Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hadramawt Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hadrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hafsid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haihaya Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haile Selassie I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hammurabi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Han Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hanover, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harald III Hardraade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harold II Godwinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harun al-Rashid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hashemite Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hasmonean Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

324 326 327 328 328 329 330 332 334 335 336 336 337 337 339 340 340 341 341 342 342 343 346 347 349 350 350 351 352 353 353 354 355 356 356 357 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 370 372 373 375 376 376 378

Hassan II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hatshepsut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hawaiian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Healing Powers of Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heavens and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hebrew Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hellenistic Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henry II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henry IV (England) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henry IV (France) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henry IV (HRE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henry VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Herod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hinduism and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hirohito . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hittite Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hohenstaufen Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hohenzollern Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holy Roman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Homosexuality and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . Hong Bang Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hsia Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hsuan Tsung (Xuanzong) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huang Ti (Huangdi) (Yellow Emperor) . . . . . Huari (Wari) Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Huayna Capac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hun Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hung Wu (Hongwu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hunting and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hussein I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hyderabad Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hyksos Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iberian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ibn Saud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ikhshidid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Il-Khan Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illyria Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imperial Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inca Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incest, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indo-Greek Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inheritance, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irish Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Islam and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Israel, Kingdoms of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

378 379 381 382 383 384 385 387 389 391 392 393 393 395 396 399 401 403 404 407 410 412 412 413 414 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 428 429 433 434 437 438 440 440 443 445

Itsekeri Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iturbide, Agustín de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivan III, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivan IV, the Terrible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jagiello Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jahan, Shah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jahangir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James I of Aragón . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James I of England (James VI of Scotland) . . . James II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James II of Aragón . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janggala Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jaunpur Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Javan Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jimmu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . João (John) VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . João the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jodhpur Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John III (John Sobieski) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Juan Carlos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judah, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judaism and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julian the Apostate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Juliana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julio-Claudians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julius Caesar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Justinian I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jutland Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kabarega . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kafa Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kalacuri Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kalinga Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kalmar Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kamakura Shogunate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kamehameha I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kandy Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kanembu-Kanuri Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kanemi, Muhammad Al-Amin Al . . . . . . . . . Kang Xi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kanva Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kao Tsung (Gaozong) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kashmir Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kassites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathiawar Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kenneth I (Kenneth MacAlpin) . . . . . . . . . . Kent, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kertanagara Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khalji Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

446 447 447 448 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 458 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 467 468 469 470 471 471 472 474 475 476 476 477 478 479 480 481 483 484 485 485 486 487 487 488 489 489 490 491 491

Contents

ix

Khama III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khattushili I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khazar Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khmer Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khufu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khwarazm-Shah Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kiev, Princedom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kingdoms and Empires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kingly Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kings and Queens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koguryo Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kondavidu Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kongo Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koryo Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kosala Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kota Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuang Hsü (Guang Xu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuang Wu Ti (Guang Wudi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuba Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kublai Khan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kumaon Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kusana Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kush, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Labor, Forms of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lakhmid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lancaster, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landholding Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Le Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leinster Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . León, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leopold I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leopold II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liang Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liang Wu Ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liao Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liliuokalani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lithuania, Grand Duchy of . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liu Pang (Gao Ti) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Llywelyn ap Gruffydd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lobengula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lodi Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lombard Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lombard Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lords of the Isles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lorraine Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lothair I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis I, the Pious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

492 493 493 495 498 498 499 500 500 502 503 506 507 508 510 510 511 512 512 513 514 515 515 517 518 518 519 521 521 522 524 525 526 527 527 528 529 530 534 535 536 536 537 538 539 540 540 541 541 542

x

Contents

Louis IV, the Bavarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis IX (St. Louis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis XI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis XV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis XVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis-Philippe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lovedu Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lozi (or Rotse) Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luang Prabang Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luba Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lunda Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lusignan Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luxembourg Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lydia, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Macedonian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Macedonian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madagascar Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magadha Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mahmud of Ghazna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ma’in Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Majapahit Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mali, Ancient Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malwa Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mamluk Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mamprusi Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mamun, al- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mangbetu Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manipur Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mansa Musa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mansur, Ahmad al- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maori Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maratha Confederacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcus Aurelius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Margaret of Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maria Theresa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marie Antoinette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marquesas Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marriage of Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martel, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary I,Tudor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary, Queen of Scotts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mataram Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maurya Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximilian I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maya Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mbundu Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meath Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

543 544 544 545 546 548 550 551 552 553 553 554 554 555 556 557 558 561 562 562 563 563 564 564 567 568 569 570 571 572 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 582 584 586 587 589 590 591 593 594

Medes Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medici Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mehmed II, the Conqueror . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meiji Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Menander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Menelik II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Menes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mercia, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merina Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merovingian Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merovingian-Frankish Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . Mexican Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Midas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middle Eastern Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milan, Duchy of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Military Roles, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minamoto Rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minangkabau Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ming Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minoan Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississippian Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mitanni Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mixtec Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moche Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moctezuma II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mon Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monarchs, Ages of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monarchy Formation, Myths of . . . . . . . . . . Mongkut (Rama IV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mongol Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monivong, King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monopolies, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montenegro Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morea, Despotate of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moshoeshoe I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mossi Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mughal Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Muhammad Ahmad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Muhammad Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Muhammad V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Muhammad XII (Boabdil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mu’izzi (Slave) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Munster Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Music and Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutesa I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mycenaean Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mysore Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Myth and Folklore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mzilikazi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

595 596 598 599 601 602 603 603 604 605 606 608 610 611 613 614 615 616 617 620 622 623 623 624 626 627 627 629 629 630 631 633 633 634 635 636 637 638 642 642 643 643 644 645 646 647 648 650 651 653

Volume 3 Nabopolassar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nadir Shah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nam Viet Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nanchao Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naples, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Napoleon I (Bonaparte) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Napoleon III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nara Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naram-Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nasrid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naval Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Navarre, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nazca Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ndebele Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nebuchadrezzar II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nefertiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Netherlands Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nevsky, Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ngonde Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nguyen Anh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nicholas I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nicholas II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norman Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norodom Sihanouk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northumbria, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norwegian Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nubian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nupe Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nyoro Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oaths and Oath-taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oda Nobunaga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oldenburg Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olmec Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange-Nassau, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Osei Tutu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Osman I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ostrogoth Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Otto I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottoman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottonian Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oudh (Avadh) Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pacal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pachacuti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paekche Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

654 654 655 656 656 657 660 662 664 665 665 666 668 669 670 671 672 673 675 676 677 678 678 679 679 680 682 684 685 686 687 689 690 690 691 692 694 695 696 697 697 698 699 700 705 706 706 707 708

Contents

xi

Pagan Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pahlavi Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pala Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Palaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Palaeologan Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Palestine, Kingdoms of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pandya Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Panjalu Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Papal States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paramara Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parks, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parthian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patent Letters, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedro I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedro II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pegu Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pepin Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pepin the Short (Pepin III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perak Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pergamum Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philip II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philip II of Macedon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philip II, Augustus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philip IV, the Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phoenician Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phrygia Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Piast Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Picts, Kingdom of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Piedmont Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plantagenet, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polygamy, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pomare IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Postcolonial States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power, Forms of Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Powys Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premysl Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Priests, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primogeniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prophets, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ptolemaic Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ptolemy I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pu Yi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punjab Princely States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pyu Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qajar Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Queens and Queen Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . Radama I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Radama II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

709 710 711 711 714 715 716 718 718 719 720 721 722 722 723 724 724 726 726 727 728 731 732 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 745 748 748 749 751 751 752 754 754 755 756 757 758 760 761 762 763 764

xii

Contents

Rajasthan Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rama Khamheng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ramses II, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranavalona I, Mada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rastrakuta Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Realms,Types of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rebellion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reccared I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regalia and Insignia, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reigns, Length of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Religious Duties and Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard I, Lionheart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rights to Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rights, Civil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rights, Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ritual, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riurikid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert I (Robert the Bruce) . . . . . . . . . . . . Roderic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romanian Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romanov Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romanov, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Imposters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Pretenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rudolf I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rurik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rus Princedoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russian Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sabaean Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacral Birth and Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacred Kingships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacred Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safavid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saffarid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sa’id, Sayyid ibn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sailendra Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sakalava Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saladin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salian Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samanid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samoan Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samsu-iluna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samudera-Pasai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

764 766 767 769 769 770 771 773 773 775 776 778 779 780 782 783 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 791 796 797 798 799 801 801 802 803 803 804 805 811 811 812 814 815 815 816 817 817 818 819 821 821 822 822

Sancho III, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sanusi Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sargon II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sargon of Akkad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sasanid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satavahana Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Savoy Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . Saxon Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saxon Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scottish Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scythian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seclusion of Monarch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seleucid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selim I, the Grim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selim III, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seljuq Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sennacherib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serbian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Servants and Aides, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seti I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shah Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaka Zulu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shalmaneser III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shalmaneser V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shamshi-Adad I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shan Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shang (Yin) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheba, Queen of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shih Huang Ti (Shihuangdi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shilluk Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shogunate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shoguns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shulgi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shuppiluliuma I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Siam, Kingdoms of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Siblings, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sicily, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sigismund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sikkim Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silla Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sisters, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slavery, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sobhuza I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sobhuza II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sokoto Caliphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Songhai Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soninke Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

823 824 825 826 826 827 829 830 831 832 834 835 837 837 839 840 840 841 842 842 844 845 846 846 847 848 848 848 849 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 857 859 860 861 862 863 866 866 867 868 869 869 870 871

Contents Sotho (Suto) Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soulouque, Faustin Elie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South American Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . South Asian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Sea Island Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southeast Asian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spanish Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sparta, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Srivijaya-Palembang Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . Stanislas I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stanislaus II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen I (St. Stephen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stewart Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strathclyde Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stuart Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Succession, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sui Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sukhothai Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suleyman I, the Magnificent . . . . . . . . . . . . Sultanates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sundjata Keita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sung (Song) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunga Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sunni Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susenyos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sussex, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swahili Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swazi Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swedish Monarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syrian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tahitian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T’ai Tsu (Taizu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T’ai Tsung (Taizong) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taifa Rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tamerlane (Timur Leng) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T’ang Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tarquin Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tarquin the Proud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taufa’ahau Tupou IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tewodros II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theater, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thebes Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theodora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoderic the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theodosius I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thessalonika Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thibaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

872 873 874 877 883 885 892 895 896 897 897 898 899 900 901 902 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 914 915 915 916 916 917 918 920 922 923 924 925 925 926 929 930 930 931 932 932 933 935 936 937 938 939

xiii

Thrace Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thutmose III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tiberius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tibetan Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tiglath-Pileser III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tikar Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tio Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tiwanaku Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokugawa Ieyasu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokugawa Shogunate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toltec Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tomara Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tombs, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tonga, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tonking Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toro Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toungoo Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toyotomi Hideyoshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trajan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tran Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trastamara, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treason, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trinh Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trojan Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tsars and Tsarinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tshekedi Khama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tudor, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tughluq Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tulunid Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tupac Yupanqui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkic Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tutankhamen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tutsi Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyranny, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tz’u Hsi (Cixi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Udaipur Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uighur Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulster Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Umayyad Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Arab Emirates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urartu Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ur-Nammu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uthman dan Fodio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Utkala (Orissa) Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uzbek Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vakataka Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valois Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

940 940 941 942 943 944 945 945 946 947 948 949 950 952 953 954 954 955 956 956 957 958 958 959 960 961 961 962 963 963 966 966 967 967 968 969 970 972 973 973 974 975 977 978 979 979 980 980 981 982

xiv

Contents

Vandal Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983 Varangian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984 Vasa Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985 Venetian Doges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985 Victor Emmanuel II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987 Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987 Vietnamese Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989 Vijayanagar Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990 Viking Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991 Virachocha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994 Visigoth Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994 Vlach Principality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996 Vladimir Princedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997 Waldemar I, the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998 Wang Kon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999 Wanli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 Warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 Weddings, Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Wei Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Welsh Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Wen Ti (Wendi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Wenceslas IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Wessex, Kingdom of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Wilderness, Royal Links to . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Wilhelm II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Wilhelmina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 William and Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 William I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 William I, the Conqueror . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012

William II (William Rufus) . . . . . . . . . . . . Windsor, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Witchcraft and Sorcery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wu Tse-t’ien (Wu Zetian) (Wu Zhao) . . . . . Xerxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xia (Hsia) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yadava Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamato Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yaroslav I, the Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ya’rubi Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yemen Rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yi Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yi Songgye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yoritomo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . York, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yoruba Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yuan Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yung Lo (Yongle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zand Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zanzibar Sultanate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zapotec Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zara Ya’iqob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zimbabwe Kingdom, Great . . . . . . . . . . . . Zulu Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1015 1015 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1021 1025 1025 1026 1027 1029 1030 1030 1031 1032 1035 1035 1036 1037 1038 1038 1040

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 Biographical Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

LIST OF FEATURES Monarch Lists and Family Trees Ashikaga Shogunate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aztec Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bourbon Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Byzantine Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caliphates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chou (Zhou) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . East Asian Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth–Twenty-sixth) . . . . . . . . . . . Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habsburg Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Han Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hanover, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hashemite Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hawaiian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hohenzollern Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Javan Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kamakura Shogunate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koguryo Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koryo Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liang Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ming Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mughal Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nara Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottoman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paekche Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Premysl Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russian Dynasties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shang (Yin) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silla Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South American Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . South Asian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southeast Asian Kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spanish Monarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stuart Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sui Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sung (Song) Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T’ang Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tokugawa Shogunate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tudor, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 85 120 136 144 177 181 184 252 266 271 282 318 361 369 371 377 382 406 459 481 504 509 527 618 638 663 702 708 752 792 806 850 864 875 878 886 892 903 906 914 928 949 965

Visigoth Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Windsor, House of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamato Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yi Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yuan Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Places Bourbon Dynasty: Versailles . . . . . . . . . . . Carolingian Dynasty: Carolingian Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty: The Tomb of Shih Huang Ti . . . . . . . . . . Habsburg Dynasty: The Escorial or the Monastery of San Lorenzo el Real . . . Harems: Topkapi Palace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heian Period: Mount Hiei . . . . . . . . . . . . Irish Kings: Tara: The Sacred Place of Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khmer Empire: Angkor Thom . . . . . . . . . . Literature and Kingship: The Greek Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis XIV: Versailles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maurya Empire: Pataliputra Palace . . . . . . . Meiji Monarchy: The Imperial Palace in Tokyo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merovingian-Frankish Kingdom: St. Denis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ming Dynasty: Ming Tombs . . . . . . . . . . . South Asian Kingdoms: Delhi . . . . . . . . . . Spanish Monarchies: El Escorial . . . . . . . . . Royal Relatives Alexander III, the Great: Olympias . . . . . . Austro-Hungarian Empire: Franz Ferdinand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bonapartist Empire: Marie Louise . . . . . . . . Christianity and Kingship: Clotilda, Queen of the Franks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divinity of Kings: The Divine Kings of Scandinavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French Monarchies: Philippe d’Orleans . . . . Habsburg Dynasty: The Empress Elizabeth . . Hellenistic Dynasties: Sister-Wives . . . . . . . Inheritance, Royal: Eleanor of Aquitaine . . . Leinster Kingdom: Arthur Macmorrough Kavanagh . . . . . . . . . . . . Merovingian Dynasty: Clotilda . . . . . . . . .

995 1017 1022 1027 1033 119 152 178 360 374 387 441 497 532 574 588 600 607 619 881 894 29 75 115 186 244 320 359 388 439 523 605

xvi

L i s t o f Fe at u r e s

Napoleon I (Bonaparte): Josephine . . . . . . . Nicholas I: Constantine Pavlovich . . . . . . . . Persian Empire: A Royal Imposter . . . . . . . Plantagenet, House of: Isabella . . . . . . . . . Polygamy, Royal: K¨osem . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Families: Illegitimate Children . . . . . Russian Dynasties: Children of the Last Tsar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyranny, Royal: A Persistant Tyrant—Pisistratus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yi Dynasty: Taewongun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Rituals Accession and Crowning of Kings: Accession of King Baudouin . . . . . . . . . . African Kingdoms: Polygynous Monarchs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akbar the Great: The Jizya Tax . . . . . . . . . Aztec Empire: Aztec Sacrifice . . . . . . . . . . Charlemagne: Jury System . . . . . . . . . . . . Conquest and Kingships: Divine Right and Conquest . . . . . . . . . . Descent, Royal: Mass at the Court of Louis XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman: Rulers as Gods . . . . . . . . . . European Kingships: The Royal Touch . . . . French Monarchies: Reims Cathedral and the French Coronation Ceremony . . . Funerals and Mortuary Rituals: Royal Mausolea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Kingship: An Anniversary as a Time for Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greek Kingdoms, Ancient: Theseus and the Minoan Bull Dance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hirohito: Dating of Eras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holy Roman Empire: The Charlemagne Connection . . . . . . . . . . . Inca Empire: Born of the Son-God Inti . . . . Indian Kingdoms: Brahman Sacrifices . . . . . Khazar Kingdom: Legacy of the Khazar Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

659 681 729 744 746 800 808 971 1028

6 11 19 83 166 208 233 272 293 319 326 331 345 400 408 431 435 494

Kingly Body: The Funeral of Henry VII of England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koguryo Kingdom: Koguryo Burials . . . . . . Marriage of Kings: Modern Royal Wedding Ceremonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mughal Empire: The Peacock Throne . . . . . Myth and Folklore: Indonesian Puppet Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oda Nobunaga: The Three Samurai Warlords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottoman Empire: Religious Authority of the Sultan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regalia and Insignia, Royal: The Thai Coronation Ceremony . . . . . . . . . . Roman Empire: The Games and Shows of Augustus Caesar . . . . . . . . . . . Sung (Song) Dynasty: Sung Landscape Painting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swazi Kingdom: The Power of Ancestors . . Toltec Empire: Toltec Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warfare: Aztec Coronation Rituals . . . . . . . William I, the Conqueror: William’s Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maps African Kingdoms and States, 1500–1800 . . The Aztec and Maya Empires . . . . . . . . . . . The Bonapartist Empire, 1812 . . . . . . . . . . The Byzantine Empire, ca. 565 c.e. . . . . . . The Carolingian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty, ca. 1800 . . . . . European Colonial Empires, 1914 . . . . . . . The Holy Roman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Inca Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Aztec and Maya Empires . . . . . . . . . . The Mongol Empire, Late 13th Century c.e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mughal Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ottoman Empire, 1683 . . . . . . . . . . . The Persian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

501 505 581 640 652 693 701 775 794 913 918 951 1001 1014 12 84 116 135 151 180 199 409 432 560 592 632 641 703 730 795

CONSULTING EDITOR John Middleton Yale University ADVISERS David Devereux Canisius College

Nick Kardulias College of Wooster

John Morby California State University at Hayward

PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Elizabeth Angell Oxford University, England

Geok Yian Goh University of Hawaii

Johanna Moyer State University of New York, Oswego

William Burns

Jean Hamm Virginia Tech University

Mary O’Donnell

Antonio Espinoza Columbia University

Lori Pieper Krista Johansen John Morby California State University at Hayward

Garrett Ziegler Columbia University

Page Intentionally Left Blank

PREFACE Kings and queens have been a staple of historic and sociological writing for centuries, usually in the form of simple biographies. Until recently, “history” was written as a sequence of the often petty doings of kings and queens acting as though they were gods, rulers representing the “spirit” of their peoples. This simplistic view is outmoded. World Monarchies and Dynasties has two aims in bringing royal history up to date. One is to present monarchy as a central political and religious institution, an institution found not only throughout history but throughout the world.The other is to present monarchies, the offices of kings and queens, in all their complexity. This encyclopedia includes almost 400 accounts of individual monarchs—such as Richard I the Lionheart of England and Emperor Hirohito of Japan— from all continents and periods of history. Although it is, of course, impossible to include accounts of all recorded monarchs, the editors have selected those individuals considered most important, rulers whose reigns or actions significantly impacted history. World Monarchies and Dynasties also includes more than 450 accounts of royal dynasties—families from the Ming dynasty of China to the rulers of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. Dynasties, the basic units of monarchy, are best understood in terms of their often long histories: a single monarch may have

little importance on his or her own but lasting importance as a representative of a dynasty or royal family. Finally, the central aim of the encyclopedia is to describe and discuss the universal nature of monarchy: the nature of monarchs; beliefs about power and authority; and the divinity or sacredness that defines them as out of the ordinary. These 140 topical articles—such as Tyranny, Regicide, and Divine Right—discuss matters that are often ignored in traditional historical accounts of monarchies and yet are essential if we are to understand kingdoms, the institution of kingship, and the ways in which these institutions define and shape history. By utilizing the knowledge and expertise of its many contributors and advisers, World Monarchies and Dynasties brings together detailed and authoritative discussions about the fascinating and long-lasting phenomenon of monarchy and kingship. In doing so, this encyclopedia will help dispel many of the misperceptions and misunderstandings that still exist about the topic. Moreover, the entries in this encyclopedia provide a wealth of information that is indispensable for anyone interested in one of humankind’s longest lasting institutions. John Middleton

Page Intentionally Left Blank

INTRODUCTION Monarchies are political units ruled by kings or queens, who together may be called monarchs. Monarchies have existed in all periods of history and in virtually all parts of the world. No monarchy is exactly the same as any other, however. Indeed, they display immense variation in size and importance; the nature and history of their dynasties, or ruling families; in the power and authority vested in their monarchs; and in the sacred nature and behavior of their monarchs. These and other features are discussed briefly in this introduction; detailed discussions are found within the entries of the encyclopedia itself. The Nature of Monarchy All monarchies, despite their variations, possess certain basic characteristics that are functional, in the sense that most are formed and perpetuated in response to local social, economic, demographic, and political events and circumstances. Other factors prevent the appearance and development of monarchies, while still others—such as conquest, famine, and economic collapse—bring monarchies to a close. Efforts to demonstrate the diffusion of monarchies from a few geographical centers (such as Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia) have proved to be without foundation, although there are many cases of local diffusion between neighboring areas. Monarchies are distinct from other forms of political systems, and monarchs are different from other types of individuals or groups who hold political power and authority. It is also essential to distinguish between kingdoms—the domains ruled by monarchs—and kingships—the institutions of monarchy found in particular kingdoms. In all societies throughout history, members of those societies have exercised political control, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes, this political control has been effective and popular, while other times it has been ineffective and unpopular. Relatively few societies, however, have had kings and queens as rulers. Because most known societies in history have been without formal kingship, it is important to look carefully at the contexts in which monarchies have appeared. It is especially necessary, and difficult, to see these contexts as they evolve over time—for ex-

ample, a society may have a monarchy at one period but not at another. Role of the Encyclopedia World Monarchies and Dynasties brings together three categories of entries that provide an overview of the various aspects and forms of monarchy.The first category of entries deals with broad conceptual topics— economic, political, sociological, ecological—related to monarchy and kingship, from the Accession and Crowning of Kings to Taxation to Colonialism and Kingship. The southern Bantu-speaking people of South Africa have a proverb: “the king is a slave.” In other words, the monarch is ultimately responsible to the people, and it is the people who decide whether or not a particular monarch or dynasty is to their liking. In this sense, all monarchies are filled with ambiguity, conflict, and contradiction; the conceptual entries in this encyclopedia are concerned with illuminating these issues. In the well-known words of William Shakespeare,“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” This is the basic subject matter of this short introduction. The second category of entries in the encyclopedia is comprised of a long list of several hundred monarchs—individual kings or queens who have ruled over particular realms at various times in history. The editors have made an effort to avoid the old-fashioned “kings and queens” type of history, but, instead, to set the lives and acts of these monarchs in a particular dynastic and sociopolitical context. In doing so, it is hoped that the individual lives of these rulers will take on greater meaning. The third category of entries in the encyclopedia consists of almost 500 accounts of the royal dynasties to which individual monarchs belong. Because the actions of individual monarchs usually make little sense outside their “family histories,” an understanding of dynasties is essential. Monarchs are merely the representatives of royal families that may last for many generations, are engaged in long-lasting conflicts with other monarchies and with many contenders to the throne that often appear, and must deal with the many social factions of any kingdom, from barons and lords jealous of royal authority to the masses who may be oppressed by harsh rule.

xxii

I n t rodu c t i on

The encyclopedia cannot include accounts of all the many thousands of known dynasties and monarchs, although with over 900 articles, it does present a representative selection from all periods of history and from all parts of the world.The selection is based on the comparative interest of the dynasties and monarchs concerned, as well as on the availability of historical and other information about them. The Two Bodies and “Specialness” of Kings What is a king or queen? Regnant kings and queens are men and women who act as rulers over kingdoms. They, their children, and their other kin are also royal, but individuals are not regnant until they are made into legitimate rulers by rites of coronation. (Other terms are used in the literature, but “coronation” can cover them all.) Monarchs are always considered to be essentially different from their subjects and, indeed, from all other people except other monarchs. They are born with the bodies and physical attributes of ordinary human beings; yet neither they themselves nor anyone else considers them to be ordinary people. All human beings are, of course, unique and different from other individuals, but all, except for a few special persons, are essentially similar as ordinary members of their societies. It is those few special persons that are the concern of this encyclopedia. Mostly, they include kings and queens, various religious leaders and holders of religious authority (such as His Holiness the Pope or the Dalai Lama), and a few people who are often considered to stand outside ordered society altogether (criminals, certain kinds of sick and dying persons, the insane, hermits, and several others). What all these special categories have in common is that they are made and recognized by members of the society in which they live. A king or queen is made, not born, although there are a few borderline cases. Although monarchs are individuals, they are also persons with specific characteristics that their subjects give to them or recognize in them. This seeming paradox may best be seen in the fact that kings are thought to possess two bodies. The Kingly Body Regnant monarchs have both a “body natural” and a “body politic”—they have a normal physical body and, in addition, are ritually given a “body politic” at their coronation. It is important to note that this

“body politic” does not belong to monarchs—it is merely bestowed on them and can be taken away should a monarch prove unsatisfactory. All kingdoms have means of removing unworthy monarchs—by deaccession, rebellion, or regicide. Although this is perhaps a rather simple way of putting it, the owner of the body politic is the state itself. The monarch is made into a sacred person, as distinct from a “natural” individual, by the rituals of election, accession, and coronation.The fact that the transformation from individual to royal person is ritualistic is essential to its efficacy. The body politic is considered permanent, whereas the body natural exists only as long as the king is alive.This idea is expressed simply in the traditional cry of “The King is dead. Long live the King.” This may be understood or translated as “The Kingship endures despite the loss of the temporary holder of the office.” It is a virtually universal notion that the kingdom cannot be without its kingship. For example, when King George VI of England died in 1952, his daughter and successor, Elizabeth II, was in Kenya. Nevertheless, she had to be given the royal oath without delay to signify the continuity of the kingship, even though her actual coronation took place some time later. The Divinity and Sacredness of Kings With the doctrine of the king’s Two Bodies goes the question of the sacredness and/or divinity of monarchs. The two concepts are frequently confused or conflated, but there are important distinctions between them. Divinity belongs to God and is only bestowed by God. Sacredness, on the other hand, is given by those ritual personages who have the power to do so because they have been chosen by the people as the representatives of God. The situation appears to be similar throughout the world: monarchs are chosen by the people and then crowned by the chief religious officer recognized by the state. A clear example of this relationship is that of the Akan kingship in southern Ghana. Among the Akan people, a king is a member of a royal matrilineal clan (he succeeds his mother’s brother, not his father). He is chosen by a special committee headed by the queen-mother, who is the senior woman of the royal clan. After being chosen, the king is symbolically put to death, his legal affairs are settled, and his worldly

I n t rodu c t i on possessions are sequestered. He is then symbolically reborn and carried on a servant’s back as though he were a baby. He is given a new name or title, that of one of his ancestors, and is enthroned by the chief ritual figure of the state, whereby he becomes a new and sacred person. If an Akan king breaks any of the rules set for him (most of which involve caring for the welfare of his subjects), he may be dethroned, given a servile wife and a gun, and sent away to live in the forest from which his earliest ancestors are said to have come. It is important that the Akan king comes from the royal clan, the first ancestor of which is said to have come from heaven in a brass pan, thereby showing not his divinity (as God sent him) but his approval by God, which is denied to all other clans. Monarchs can be thought to have powers that are both given and permitted by God. Although monarchs are not gods themselves, they are sacred—that is “set aside or apart” (in Latin, sacer), by the state itself. Some kings—for example, some of those of early Rome—were considered actually to become divine, or they bestowed divinity upon themselves. But such monarchs are rare in history.The phrase “divine right of kings” does not mean that monarchs themselves are gods, but that God is believed to give them certain powers if they are crowned as sacred figures and given authority over their subjects. Royal Gender and Blood Kings are male and queens are female.This simple biological statement can be translated into a social one—kings are men and queens are women. It is not quite as simple as either of these statements might imply, however. For example, in the case of regnant queens (not merely nonreigning queens who are the wives of kings), they are widely, though perhaps not always, considered to be men either symbolically or socially. Queen Elizabeth I of England once said that she had “the body of a weak and feeble woman but . . . the heart and stomach of a man.” This symbolic ambiguity, the queen as a man, ran throughout Elizabeth’s reign. It might be more accurate, however, to say that both regnant kings and queens are neither men nor women but a tertium quid (third something).They are set apart from, and thus different from, their subjects. In perhaps all languages of peoples who have monarchies, there are sayings that regnant kings and queens are also different in their “blood”—not so

xxiii

much physical blood but in the sense of the “blood royal.” Blood legitimizes ancestry and descent. Having royal blood does not make the possessor a king or queen—it merely legitimizes them as able to be a ruler if elected and crowned.The ruler’s kin (which depends on how a particular society views ancestry, descent, rights of inheritance, and so on) are royal as well because of their royal “blood,” and so may be elected and made sacred. Only a few are made sacred, however, and there is always discussion and disagreement as to when royal blood is so diluted that the individual is barely royal at all. The problem of marriage also enters into this discussion. Marriage with nonroyals may dilute the royal blood to a degree that children are barely regarded as royal— hence the efforts of all royal families to marry with other royals or even among themselves. (Marriage of cousins has been a frequent practice among monarchs.) The Behavior and Adornment of a Monarch Monarchs are representatives of the people, who make them rulers (and can get rid of them if they have grounds to do so). Monarchs’ behaviors show unique position and status.The idioms used here vary immensely from one kingship to another. Most widespread is the idea of being “set apart” from other people: a monarch may wear special and unique clothing, live in a special house or palace, eat special foods, never be seen publicly to eat or drink, never be touched publicly, or never be spoken to directly by ordinary people.A king may be given many wives, concubines, and mistresses to demonstrate his difference from his subjects. Some rulers walk under umbrellas and wear sandals to show that they may never see the sky or touch the earth, but as sacred individuals are “in-between.” Kings are widely held in myth and belief to be associated with the wilderness outside society, the place of divinity, danger, and the asocial. Kings may be allowed to pursue pleasures forbidden to their subjects—for example, their time spent hunting reflects a pursuit of great symbolic importance linking society and wilderness in the royal person. A monarch who fails to obey such rules may be dethroned and removed, desacralized and made “ordinary” again. A monarch is also widely given mystical or semidivine powers. One such widespread power is the power to cure certain forms of sickness and insanity, such as “the King’s Evil” (scrofula).

xxiv

I n t rodu c t i on

Throughout much of English history, for example, kings have been thought to have the power to cure by the royal touch. Kings and queens do not stand alone in isolation. Sacredness is invisible, so their sacredness has to be made visible and physical. This is accomplished by what may be called “adornment”—the ruler is adorned with regalia, clothing, and jewels; with special foods and drink; with courtiers in their royal households and palaces; with powerful and often predatory animals, such as lions and tigers; and with many types of officials, including ambassadors and ministers. Because of such adornments, the actual regnant king or queen may be weak in his or her body natural but powerful in his of her body politic. These sacred qualities stand behind royal authority, which is given to the ruler by the people. History is filled with examples of monarchs who try to keep power to themselves, without its being accepted as legitimate authority by their people. In recent times, much of the ritual and expressions of sacredness of ruling monarchs have come to be thought pointless and even frivolous. Many monarchs have simply been removed by rebellion (the changing of one monarch in favor of another, so that the institution is retained) rather than by revolution (in which the state structure is changed and the monarchy as an institution is abolished). Yet, many monarchies persist today, despite much

popular argument that they are unnecessary or that rulers should become merely ordinary people, like presidents. This argument, however, would seem to misunderstand and misrepresent the real point of monarchy—that it is symbolic of the power of the people themselves, who ultimately control it, yet wish to see in the person of their ruler the power that they, in fact, hold themselves. By keeping the monarchy, people ensure that the state or society itself continues in the form they wish it to be. The Future of Monarchy Today, there are fewer monarchies than ever before in history. Monarchies today face two issues: whether they are efficient political institutions, perhaps too expensive or incompetent; and whether kingship as a sacred and ritual institution still makes sense to the members of society. Although many peoples today show little interest in kingship and its sacred nature, and many may consider a secular president all that is needed to serve as a formal figurehead, the many monarchies today continue to have great vitality and popularity, and the monarchs who serve continue to appear as both symbolic and powerful heads of state. Study of this topic yields a vast amount of literature, much of which has been included in World Monarchies and Dynasties. John Middleton

CHRONOLOGY OF DYNASTIES AND KINGDOMS B.C.E.

3100 3000s 2334 2000s 1766 1750 1680 1570 1400 1334 1294 1220 930 767 700s 609 550 525 500s 490 400s 359 336 330 330

Upper and Lower Egypt are united to form earliest known African kingdom; first dynasty of Egypt begins rule First ancient Greek kingdom, that of Minoans, established in the eastern Mediterranean region Founding of kingdom of Akkad, one of world’s first monarchies Emergence of earliest South Asian kingdoms The Shang, one of earliest East Asian dynasties, begins rule in China Death of Hammurabi marks beginning of decline of Babylonian Empire Beginning of Hittite Empire End of seventeenth dynasty of ancient Egypt Emergence of Olmec kingdom in Mexico Tutankhamun becomes pharaoh of Egypt Battle of Kadesh between the ancient Hittites and Egyptians Fall of Hittite Empire Kingdom of Israel split in two, forming kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judah Beginning of Nubian rule over Egypt Etruscan kingdoms established in Italy End of Assyrian Empire Start of Persian Empire under Achaemenid dynasty and Cyrus the Great Beginning of first Persian dynasty of ancient Egypt Establishment of early independent Indian kingdoms Greek victory over the Persians at the battle of Marathon Major centers of Olmec kingdom of Mexico abandoned Macedonian Empire established by Philip II of Macedon Alexander III, the Great takes the throne of Macedon Conquest of Persian Empire by Alexander the Great Egypt becomes part of Eastern Roman Empire

323 321 306 300s 221 180 100s 49 37 30 27

Death of Alexander the Great ends Macedonian Empire Maurya Empire of India founded, ending period of early Indian kingdoms Founding of Ptolemaic dynasty, the first Hellenistic dynasty Etruscan kingdoms fall to Rome Start of Ch’in dynasty for which China is named End of Maurya Empire in India Early Southeast Asian kingdoms under Chinese influence Julius Caesar crosses the Rubicon River and launches civil war Establishment of Koguryo kingdom in Korea Death of Cleopatra ends Hellenistic dynasty of Ptolemies Augustus Caesar establishes Roman Empire

C.E.

300s 300s 300s 313 320 330 395 395 400s 400s 410 450 455 476 486

Beginnings of Hun Empire Beginnings of Byzantine Empire Early East Asian kingdoms in Korea struggle for power Edict of Milan issued by Constantine the Great calls for end of persecution of Christians in Roman Empire Gupta Empire of India founded Constantinople founded by Constantine the Great Eastern and Western halves of Roman Empire permanently divided Visigothic kingdom ruled by Alaric I Leinster kingdom founded in Ireland Anglo-Saxons establish first English monarchies Alaric, king of Visigoths, conquers city of Rome First of Irish kings of Tara Collapse of Hun empire Fall of western Roman Empire Merovingian-Frankish kingdom established by Clovis I

xxvi

C h ronol o g y o f Dy na s t i e s a n d K i n g d om s

C.E.

500s 500s 532 552 600s 632 632 667 710 711 714 722

732 750 751 751 754 768 784 794 800s 800 802 814 862 870 871 900s 900s 960 960

Beginnings of European kingships after fall of Rome Beginnings of Khmer Empire in Southeast Asia Nika revolt threatens rule of Justinian I in Eastern Roman Empire End of Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy Beginnings of Turkish Khazar kingdom Death of Prophet Muhammad Beginning of Islamic caliphate under Abu Bakr Collapse of Korea’s Koguryo kingdom Beginning of Nara period in Japan Moorish victory ends Visigothic kingdom Carolingian dynasty of France founded by Charles Martel Battle of Covadonga and victory of Asturias kingdom marks beginning of reconquest of Iberian Peninsula from Moors by Christians Earliest evidence of Javan kingdoms Collapse of Umayyad caliphate Carolingian dynasty begins to rule France End of Merovingian-Frankish kingdom and Merovingian dynasty Donation of Pepin marks beginning of papal states Charlemagne begins rule of Frankish kingdom End of Japan’s Nara period In Japan, beginning of Heian period, a golden age of culture Earliest Russian dynasties emerge in Russia Charlemagne crowned emperor of West Angkor kingdom established in Cambodia Death of Charlemagne Rurikid dynasty founded in Russia First ruler of Premysl dynasty, Borijoj I, takes throne of Bohemia Alfred the Great becomes king of Wessex and begins to unite Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England Toltec empire established in Mexico Origins of Habsburg dynasty Sung dynasty founded in China Sung dynasty established in China

962 965 969 987 987 1014 1014 1035 1044 1057 1066 1072 1085 1087 1131 1137 1138 1154 1161 1174 1179 1192 1194 1200s 1200s 1206 1215

Establishment of Holy Roman Empire Defeat of Khazar kingdom by Kievan Rus leads to its decline and collapse Fatimid dynasty begins rule in Egypt End of Carolingian dynasty of France Capetian dynasty takes the throne in France marking the beginning of long period of French monarchies Danish invasion of England by Cnut the Great marks beginnings of greatest period of Viking Empire Death of Brian Boru, High King who united Ireland Iberian kingdom of Navarre splits into Navarre, Aragón, and Castile Pagan kingdom of Burma founded French Normans first gain control of territory in southern Italy Norman conquest of England by William I the Conquerer Norman kingdom of Sicily founded by Roger Guiscard End of Viking Empire Death of William I the Conqueror Angevin dynasty of France rules Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem Eleanor of Aquitaine inherits the duchy of Aquitaine Beginning of rule of Holy Roman Empire by Hohenstaufen dynasty Angevin house of Plantagenet begins rule of England under Henry II Edward the Confessor of England canonized a saint Death of last ruler of Toltec empire of Mexico United kingdom of Portugal emerges Defeat of Christian crusaders by the Muslim leader Saladin Rule over the last Norman kingdom in Italy, the kingdom of Naples, goes to Spanish kingdom of Aragón Beginnings of Inca Empire Formation of Chibcha chiefdoms marks emergence of first South American Monarchies Mongol Empire founded by Genghis Khan Magna Carta imposes limits on the English monarchy

C h ronol o g y o f Dy na s t i e s a n d K i n g d om s

xxvii

C.E.

1224 1238 1250 250 1258 1269 1272 1273 1279 1279 1280 1282 1301 1306 1314 1325 1328 1336 1338 1350 1368 1368 1370 1383 1392 1397 1399 1400s 1405 1405 1415

Death of last powerful Irish king Founding of Sukhothai kingdom, the first united Thai state Folkung dynasty rises to power in Sweden Mamluk dynasty begins rule in Egypt End of Islamic caliphate in the Near East End of Almohad dynasty of Muslim Spain Establishment of Bourbon dynasty in France Beginning of rule of Germany and Austria by Habsburg dynasty End of Sung dynasty in China Beginning of Yuan dynasty (Mongol dynasty) in China Ottoman empire founded by Osman I English victory marks end of autonomy for Wales Long-lived Arpad dynasty of Hungary ends End of Premysl dynasty of Bohemia Scottish victory over English forces at battle of Bannockburn Beginning of Aztec Empire in Mexico Beginning of Valois dynasty rule in France Founding of Vijayanagar Empire in India Beginning of Ashikaga shogunate in Japan Ayutthaya kingdom is founded in Siam End of Yuan dynasty in China Ming dynasty founded in China Central Asian Timurid dynasty founded by Tamerlane Joao I becomes first ruler of Aviz dynasty of Portugal Establishment of Choson kingdom in Korea under the Yi dynasty Kalmar Union unites thrones of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden Abdication of Richard II; end of rule by the house of Plantagenet in England Rise of Medici family in the Italian citystate of Florence Death of Tamerlane marks beginning of collapse of Mongol Empire Division of Golden Horde khanate into smaller states Hohenzollern dynasty begins rule in Germany

1434 1435 1453 1455 1485 1492 1502 1509 1509 1516 1516 1521 1523 1526 1526 1533 1534 1546 1547 1556 1556 1558 1567 1572 1588

Thai capture of Angkor marks beginning of end of Khmer Empire Treaty of Arras makes duchy of Burgundy independent of France Conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks marks end of Byzantine Empire Beginning of War of Roses in England Beginning of rule by the House of Tudor in England Christian conquest of kingdom of Granada, the last Moorish kingdom in Iberia Safavid dynasty founded in Iran Henry VIII of Tudor dynasty takes the throne in England Arrival of Europeans in Southeast Asia begins to influence traditional Southeast Asian Kingdoms Habsburg dynasty gains throne of Spain under Charles I (Holy Roman Emperor Charles V) Beginning of united Spanish monarchy under Charles V End of Aztec Empire in Mexico End of Kalmar Union in Scandinavia Conquest of Delhi sultanate by the Mughals Mughal Empire in India established by Babur Atahualpa, ruler of Inca Empire, killed by Spanish conquistadors Henry VIII of England becomes head of English church under the Act of Supremacy Ivan IV, the Terrible, of Russia becomes first Russian ruler to take the title “tsar” Death of Henry VIII of England Akbar the Great begins to rule in Mughal India Philip II takes the throne of Spain Elizabeth I of the house of Tudor begins reign in England James I of England takes the throne, establishing the house of Stuart in England End of Inca rule in Peru also marks end of indigenous South American monarchies English defeat of Spanish Armada

xxviii

C h ronol o g y o f Dy na s t i e s a n d K i n g d om s

C.E.

1598 1603 1603 1605 1613 1618 1625 1643 1643 1644 1644 1649 1660 1670 1688 1700 1701 1713 1714 1715 1724 1737 1740 1761 1771 1789 1795 1799 1804 1804 1806 1815

Death of Philip II of Spain Death of Elizabeth I marks the end of Tudor dynasty in England End of Ireland’s Leinster kingdom Death of Akbar the Great of India’s Mughal dynasty Romanov dynasty founded in Russia Start of Thirty Years’ War in Europe Death of James I of England Completion of Taj Mahal in India Louis XIV begins reign in France End of China’s Ming dynasty Beginning of Ch’ing, or Manchu, dynasty in China Beheading of Charles I of England ends monarchy and leads to English Civil War Restoration of monarchy and the Stuart dynasty in England Rise of Asante kingdom in Africa “Glorious Revolution” in England removes James II from throne Bourbon dynasty gains throne of Spain English Act of Settlement limits monarchical succession to Protestants Pragmatic Sanction, by which succession in Austrian Habsburg dynasty could pass to a female heir House of Hanover takes reins of power in England Death of “Sun King,” Louis XIV of France Hyderabad kingdom founded in India End of Medici rule in Florence War of Austrian succession begins End of Mughal Empire of India End of Maratha Confederacy in India Beginning of French Revolution, during which monarchical rule is overthrown in France Hawaiian kingdom united by Kamehameha the Great Napoleon I Bonaparte becomes ruler of France Beginning of Austro-Hungarian Empire under Francis I Bonapartist Empire established by Emperor Napoleon I End of Holy Roman Empire Battle of Watterloo ends the Bonapartist empire of Napoleon Bonaparte

1818 1821 1822 1825 1837 1848 1855 1858 1858 1868

1893 1894 1901 1910 1912 1917 1917 1918 1918 1918 1921 1922 1926 1936 1945 1949

Shaka creates the Zulu kingdom in southern Africa Death of Napoleon I Bonaparte while in exile on island of St. Helena Empire of Brazil is founded under the Braganza dynasty Nicholas I takes the throne of Russia Queen Victoria, the longest reigning monarch of England, takes the throne Establishment of a Republic marks end of French monarchies Death of Nicholas I of Russia End of India’s Mughal Empire British takeover of India marks end of South Asian kingdoms In Japan, beginning of Meiji monarchy and Meiji restoration, which restored imperial power after long period of rule by the shoguns Queen Liliuokalani is deposed, ending independent Hawaiian kingdom Americans in Hawaii declare a republic, ending Hawaiian monarchy Death of Queen Victoria ends the house of Hanover in England End of long-lived Yi dynasty of Korea Imperial rule ends in China Russian Revolution ends monarchical rule by Russian dynasties Beginning of England’s house of Windsor Austro-Hungarian Empire ends as a result of World War I End of Austro-Hungarian Empire marks end of Habsburg dynasty’s rulers in Europe End of Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany Beginning of Hashemite dynasty in Jordan Last Ottoman caliph deposed, marking end of Ottoman Empire Emperor Hirohito of Japan takes the throne Edward VIII of England abdicates throne to marry an American divorcee End of Meiji monarchy in Japan Last remaining Javan kingdoms absorbed into newly-independent Indonesia

C h ronol o g y o f Dy na s t i e s a n d K i n g d om s

xxix

C.E.

1975

Last emperor of Ethiopia deposed, ending more than 700 years of monarchical rule 1989 Death of Emperor Hirohito of Japan Present Morocco, Lesotho, and Swaziland remain the only African kingdoms Present Hashemite dynasty continues in Jordan under Abdullah II

Present Bourbon dynasty continues to reign in Spanish monarchy Present European kingships remain in several European nations Present English monarchies continue in Great Britain under Windsor dynasty Present East Asian kingdoms and dynasties continue in Japan under a constitutional monarchy

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Abbasid Dynasty

A ABBAS THE GREAT (1557–1629 C.E.) Greatest ruler (r. 1587–1629) of the Persian Safavid dynasty, who drove out the Turks and Uzbeks from traditional Persian territories, established and maintained diplomatic contacts with a number of European nations, and founded the Muslim capital of Isfahan. The son of Sultan Muhammad (r. 1577–1587), the fourth ruler of the Safavid dynasty,Abbas came to the Safavid throne as shah in 1587 at age thirty.Abbas inherited a Persia that was reeling from foreign attacks launched by indomitable Turks to the north and west, and raiding Uzbeks from the northeast. After making peace with the Turks in 1597, he turned his attention towards his weaker foe, the Uzbeks. After several bitter years of warfare, Abbas successfully overcame the Uzbekis, but his troops and his treasury were exhausted. Abbas longed to free the northern and western regions of Persia from Turkish control. (The Turks were Sunnis, a different Muslim sect from the Shi’a sect to which Abbas belonged, and the two groups were often at odds). Abbas also wanted to regain the cities of Mosul and Baghdad, but he knew that his sword-bearing Shi’a warriors were no match for the gunpowder of the Turks. In 1598, two English adventurers, Sir Anthony Sherley and his brother Robert, arrived in Persia and offered Abbas their services. Both men were experienced soldiers and knew the current art of munitions manufacturing. Within a few years, Abbas had thousands of musketmen and 200 pieces of artillery. He was now ready to march. With this newly armed force, Abbas regained not only the cities of Baghdad and Mosul, but also the northwestern regions of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan. As a result of his victories, the Shi’a faith could now

1

be practiced safely from the Euphrates River to the Indus River. Abbas continued using the talents of Anthony and Robert Shirley as ambassadors to the west, helping Persia establish diplomatic ties to several European nations. Soon Persia had thriving trade routes in silks and spices that went directly to Italy, bypassing the intermediary Turks. Abbas continued to maintain Persian borders and improve its trade positions, but his primary focus from 1600 until his death was on constructing a remarkable new capital near the ancient city of Isfahan. European travelers in the seventeenth century had found at Isfahan a city “the size of Paris in extent, but only a tenth as populous, for every family had its own house and garden, and there were so many trees that it seemed rather a forest than a city.” The city had dozens of colleges, hundreds of public baths, three masonry bridges over the river Zayand, fountains, cascades, and every type of garden. It also had more than a hundred mosques, including the magnificent Masjid-i-Shah, built in 1611–1629, and the equally beautiful, but more delicate, Masjid-I-Sheikh-Lutf-Allah, built by Abbas’s father. Abbas’s long forty-two-year reign gave him the opportunity to improve the prosperity of his people. Unfortunately, he became progressively more suspicious and paranoid of his own family in his later years and dealt with them ruthlessly. Upon his death in 1629, he was succeeded by a grandson, Safi I (r. 1629–1642). See also: Safavid Dynasty.

ABBASID DYNASTY (750–1258 C.E.) Chief ruling dynasty of the Islamic caliphate, which wrested control from the Umayyad dynasty and provided thirty-seven ruling caliphs between 750 and 1258. The Abbasids claimed legitimacy through descent from al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet Muhammad. The Abbasids launched their bid for power in 718, when they began waging a vigorous propaganda campaign against the ruling Umayyads, particularly among the followers of the Shi’a branch of Islam and the Persians in Khorasan. The Abbasid campaign against the Umayyads culminated in open revolt in

2

Abbasid Dynasty

747 under the direction of Abu Muslim, a Persian partisan of the Abbasids. In 749, the head of the family, Abu al-Abbas (r. 750–754), named himself caliph after observing the gathering support from the Hashimite and Persian factions. Marwan II (r. 744–750), the reigning Umayyad caliph, met this revolt unsuccessfully in a battle near the River Zab.The next year, the Abbasids captured the Umayyad capital of Damascus. Marwan was put to death, and the Abbasids made a rigorous attempt to kill all remaining members of the Umayyad family, thereby justifying the name taken by Abu al-Abbas, al-Saffah (the bloodthirsty). The Abbasids set about consolidating their power over the Islamic state. Popular leaders who might prove a threat, like Abu Muslim, were put to death. The Abbasids abandoned the old bureaucracy composed of provincial governors and replaced them with administrative civil servants, drawn largely from the Persians, who saw to the day-to-day administrative responsibilities of the Abbasid caliphate. Directing this bureaucracy was an appointed official who held the newly created title of vizier. Much of the credit for designing this new approach to government must go to al-Saffah’s successor, al-Mansur (r. 754–775). During his twenty-twoyear reign, this careful ruler established the administrative structure of the new government, reorganized the army, rooted out corrupt officials, and oversaw expenditures so carefully that, upon his death, subsequent Abbasid rulers could afford their reputations for generosity. Al-Mansur also chose the site of the new capital, Baghdad, situated for easy trade along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The city prospered in this advantageous location, and subsequent Abbasid caliphs held court there in grand style. During the reigns of al-Mansur and his successors Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809) and al-Mamun (r. 813–833), the Islamic caliphate reached its zenith of wealth and power, as these caliphs promoted education, the arts, industry, trade, and commerce. In time, however, Abbasid power began to decline. One cause of this decline lay in the Abbasid military, which, early in the ninth century, began admitting Turks, Berbers, and Slavs as mercenaries to supplement Arab forces. By the reign of al-Muntasir (r. 861–862), Turkish captains were the main decision makers in the army. These foreign mercenaries had little in common with the people of Baghdad,

and they occasionally assassinated caliphs who did not conform to their views. Meanwhile, territorial disputes rose as the homogeneity of the empire crumbled into squabbling among Arabs, Persians, Berbers, and Jews.When the Abbasid government ceased maintenance of the system of canals that provided irrigation, starvation ensued and taxes to support court luxuries came to be more fiercely resented. In 945, the Buyids, a family of military adventurers, secured permission from the Abbasid caliph, alMustakfi (r. 944–946), to set up a client dynasty to rule in western Iran and Iraq. This policy gave rise over the next hundred years to several other local dynasties, all of which weakened the unity of the caliphate, making it an easier target for the Seljuk Turks in 1055. In the mid-eleventh century, the Seljuks came to dominate the government at Baghdad.They took the title of sultans and stripped the Abbasids of temporal power, but they left the Abbasids their role as religious leaders and the title of caliph. Members of the Abbasid family held this more limited power as sultans until 1258, when the Mongols seized and sacked Baghdad and overthrew the caliphate. One member of the Abbasid family escaped to Egypt, where members of the dynasty served as puppet caliphs under the Mamluks until the 1500s. See also: Caliphates; Harun-al-Rashid; Mamluk Dynasty; Mamun, al-; Mansur, Ahmad al-; Seljuq Dynasty; Umayyad Dynasty.

ABD AL-HAMID II (1842–1918 C.E.) One of the last major sultans of the Ottoman Empire, who was deposed in 1908 by the Young Turk movement. Abd al-Hamid II was born in 1842 and became sultan in 1876. He succeeded his insane brother Murad V (r. 1876), who ruled briefly after their uncle Abd al-Aziz (r. 1861–1876) was deposed by a reformist group of officers intent on leading a constitutional revolution. Abd al-Hamid was initially sympathetic to reforms and agreed to a parliamentary constitution in 1876. However, within a year he suspended the constitution and had the reformist minister Midhat Pasha arrested and killed. Abd al-Hamid ruled the empire with firm control for the following three decades. As sultan, he pur-

A b d i c a t i o n, R o y a l sued a policy of modernization. However, at the same time he rejected the Westernizing impulses of previous rulers, promoting an Islamic ideology based on his religious role as caliph. Abd al-Hamid built railroads and fostered technological and educational advances, but maintained tight political control. He also allied closely with Germany, reorganizing the army in the model of the Prussian military and using German investment to foster development in his indebted empire. Despite Abd al-Hamid’s attempts to strengthen the Ottoman Empire’s international position, he was unable to revitalize the regime and effectively oppose Western imperialism. He became known in the West as the Red Sultan after he oversaw the 1894–1896 massacres of Armenians in the empire. Abd al-Hamid’s dictatorial rule ended in 1908 with the Young Turk Revolution, which stripped him of much of his power and forced him to submit to the 1876 constitution. He was removed from the throne altogether in 1909 after plotting a counterrevolution, and died in 1918. See also: Ottoman Empire.

ABD AL-RAHMAN (d. 788 C.E.) First Umayyad emir (“commander”) (r. 756–788) of the caliphate of Córdoba, a member of the Umayyad dynasty, who reorganized and consolidated the caliphate and tried to unite the various Moorish groups in Iberia. Abd al-Rahman belonged to a branch of the Umayyad dynasty that managed to flee Damascus when the Abbasid dynasty overthrew the Umayyad caliphate in 750.The Abbasids had made a concerted effort to kill any living Umayyads, and Abd alRahman was lucky to have escaped with his life. He fled across North Africa and eventually found refuge among the occupying Moorish forces on the Iberian Peninsula, where an outpost of the caliphate had been established. He also found an opportunity for political gain there in the rivalry between the two main Moorish factions in Iberia, the Qais and Yaman. By shifting sides between these two groups, hiring mercenaries, and manipulating the political scene, Rahman built a power base in Iberia. In 756, he defeated the emir of Córdoba,Yusef ben al-Fihri (r. 747–756), taking the city and making it his capi-

3

tal. In doing so, he established the preeminence of the Umayyad dynasty in Iberia. Although the dynasty would govern Córdoba for 300 years, no ruler would take the title of caliph until the mid-tenth century. When word spread of Rahman’s success, former members of the Umayyad bureaucracy of Damascus flocked to Spain, hoping for employment and opportunities to advance in rank and office. As a result, Rahman’s administration soon resembled in structure and capabilities the bureaucracy that the Umayyads formerly maintained in Damascus. Rahman achieved not only administrative success but military success as well. His armies stopped attempted invasions by the Frankish king Charlemagne (r. 768–814) in 788 and the Abbasid caliph of Damascus. He also made significant strides in consolidating the various Muslim groups in Iberia, although he faced long-standing opposition from the Berbers, Muslim Spaniards, and other Arab factions. To ratify his power and authority, Rahman embarked on a massive building program, which laid the foundations for the future greatness of the Córdoba caliphate. The most notable building begun during his rule was the Great Mosque of Córdoba (“La Mezquita”), which still stands today. Upon Rahman’s death in 788, he was succeeded as emir of Córdoba by his son, Hisham I (r. 788–796). See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Caliphates; Córdoba, Caliphate of; Iberian Kingdoms; Umayyad Dynasty.

ABDICATION, ROYAL The renunciation or giving up, formally or in effect, of the rights and duties of the monarch’s position. Throughout history, monarchs have abdicated their reigns for various reasons. Abdication of the Crown may be a purely personal decision, or it may be forced on a ruler by external circumstances.

THE ROLE OF RELIGION In the early Middle Ages, especially in early AngloSaxon England, it was not unusual for a king to designate a successor and give up his Crown to pursue a spiritual life. For example, Aethelred I of Mercia (r. 675–704) retired to a monastery in 704. He was succeeded by his nephew Cenred (r. 704–709), who

4

A b d i c a t i o n, R o y a l

himself abdicated in 709 in order to retire to a religious life in Rome. Religion often played a role in later abdications as well. Since 1617, Sweden has required its monarchs to belong to the Lutheran Church. However, Queen Christina (r. 1632–1654) of Sweden secretly converted to the Roman Catholic faith. In 1654, she abdicated in favor of her cousin Karl X (r. 1654– 1660) and went to live in Rome. Christina chose to abdicate despite the fact that her conversion to Catholicism was not public knowledge and there was no popular pressure for her to give up the throne. Perhaps the most famous abdication of modern times was due partially to religion as well. Soon after taking the throne of England in 1936, King Edward VIII (1936) announced his intention to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American. Many in England felt that because the British monarch was head of the Church of England, he must not marry a divorcee.Although divorce was legal under certain circumstances, it was not considered respectable, and a queen consort who had been twice divorced was deemed unacceptable. Edward VIII first proposed a morganatic marriage, in which Mrs. Simpson would be his wife but not a queen. Many members of the British government supported this solution, but the prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, opposed Edward marrying Simpson without abdicating, If he had done so, Edward may well have precipitated a constitutional crisis that would have resulted in his being deposed. Forced to choose between Mrs. Simpson and the throne, Edward abdicated on December 11, 1936, in favor of his younger brother, the duke of York, who became George VI (r. 1936–1952).

military generals. These groups hoped that by removing the tsar and his unpopular wife, anarchy could be averted in a nation sinking toward chaos during the beginning stages of the Russian Revolution. Nicholas initially intended to abdicate in favor of his invalid son, the tsarevich Alexei. Instead, he named his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail, as successor, but Mikhail refused the Crown. Monarchs also abdicate as a form of retirement from the demands of their position. In twelfthcentury Japan, where the role of emperor was a highly ritualized one with many restrictions and little real power, emperors frequently resigned the position to the crown prince. They would then assume the position of retired or ex-emperor, a position that sometimes exercised considerable political power. Retirement from royal duties has also led to a number of modern abdications. In 1980, Queen Juliana of the Netherlands (r. 1948–1980) abdicated in favor of her daughter and heir, Queen Beatrix (1980– ), and re-took the title of princess. Juliana’s mother, Queen Wilhelmina (1890–1948), had herself abdicated the throne on the fiftieth anniversary of her reign. Abdications in a modern constitutional monarchy, such as those of Juliana and Edward VIII, take effect through an act of parliament. Legally, this involves what is known as a “demise of the Crown,” in which the succession passes to the next in line as though the monarch had died. In a nonconstitutional monarchy, such as that of medieval Japan, there is no parliamentary procedure to follow.Yet, the situation is similar in that the rights and duties of the monarch pass to a successor as though the abdicating ruler had died. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Bodies, Politic and Natural; Inheritance, Royal; Reigns, Length of; Succession, Royal.

POLITICAL AND OTHER FACTORS Kings have also been forced to abdicate as a result of defeat in war or political revolution. In the final few days of World War I, for example, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (r. 1888–1918) fled to Holland, where he abdicated on November 9, 1918, because the Allies, particularly the United States, would not negotiate with a government he headed. After Wilhelm’s abdication, Germany never had another monarch. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (r. 1894–1917) abdicated his throne in March 1917, submitting to the demands of the Russian Duma, or parliament, and

FURTHER READING

Andersson, Ingvar. A History of Sweden.Trans. Carolyn Hannay.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1975. Hall, John Whitney. Japan from Prehistory to Modern Times. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1991. Kirby, David. Northern Europe in the Early Modern Period, 1492–1772. New York: Longman, 1990. Spellman, W.M. Monarchies, 1000–2000. London: Reaktion Books, 2001. Stenton, Sir Frank. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Ac c e s s i on a n d C row n i n g o f K i n g s Taylor, A.J.P. English History: 1914–1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

ABU BAKR (d. 634 C.E.) Successor of the Prophet Muhammad and the first caliph of the Muslim state (r. 632–634), who helped preserve and strengthen the newly formed Islamic state and set the direction of its future expansion. Abu Bakr was one of the Arab chieftains who accompanied the Prophet Muhammad to Medina in Arabia in 622. According to tradition, Abu Bakr is said to have been the first male convert to Islam, although that view lacks historical support. Certainly he was a close friend of the Prophet, organizing the pilgrimage to Mecca in 631 and acting as Muhammad’s deputy in leading public prayer in Medina prior to Muhammad’s death. Abu Bakr was also the father of Muhammad’s wife,Aisha, a union that made the ties between the Prophet and Abu Bakr even stronger. The death of Muhammad in 632 threw the Muslim community into political confusion. Several candidates emerged as potential successors to the Prophet; chief among them were Abu Bakr and Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, who was married to Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. The majority of Muhammad’s followers chose Abu Bakr to be the Prophet’s successor. When Abu Bakr was selected to succeed Muhammad, he took the title khalifat rasul Allah (“successor of the Prophet of God”), which was later shortened to caliph. This title was clearly distinct from that of Prophet, and those who held it, while leaders of the Muslim community were not regarded as messengers or spokesmen for God. Nonetheless, Abu Bakr and his three immediate successors were regarded as special religious leaders, known collectively as the Rashidun or “Rightly Guided.” Abu Bakr’s succession to the leadership of the Muslim state was not universally accepted. Upon Muhammad’s death, many of the tribal chieftains reneged on alliances they had formed with the Prophet, unwilling to support either his claims of divine guidance or the political hegemony of Medina. To combat this apostasy, the Muslim community under Abu Bakr’s guidance initiated a military action called the riddah wars. The success of Abu Bakr’s

5

forces against these factions confirmed the authority of the centralized Muslim rule. Success in the riddah wars encouraged the Muslim military to continue with its policy of conquest, looking outward toward the wealth of Persia, Syria, and Egypt. Thus, although it lasted only two years, Abu Bakr’s rule was a critical period in which the direction of Islam’s future expansion was firmly established.When Abu Bakr died in 634, he was succeeded by Umar (Omar) (r. 634–644), who had been an adviser to Muhammad. See also: Caliphates.

ACCESSION AND CROWNING OF KINGS Royal accession is the acquiring of the rank of monarch, the act of reaching the throne and coming into power. Accessions may also mark the start of a new dynasty and its rise to power.Accessions are typically followed, though it can be several months, by coronations, ceremonies celebrating the installation of the new monarch. Accessions in various forms have been around as long as kings and queens; for example, clay tablet records of the accession and coronation of kings dating to 3000 b.c.e. have been found in the ruins of Ur belonging to the ancient Sumerians. The accession of King Solomon has been dated to 970 b.c.e.; he ruled the Hebrews until 930 b.c.e. When a ruling monarch dies or, less commonly, abdicates the throne, a new monarch is selected to the Crown through previously established rules. In British royalty, the successor to the throne is chosen via rules established at the end of the seventeenth century.The sovereign succeeds to the Crown as soon as the predecessor dies and is immediately proclaimed the (new) monarch at an Accession Council at St. James Palace with the members of the House of Lords, the lord mayor, and leading citizens of London in attendance. The proclamation of the new sovereign is also read in Edinburgh, Windsor, and York. If the new monarch is under eighteen years of age, or if a monarch is ever incapacitated, a regent is appointed to serve until the monarch reaches maturity. For British monarchs, coronations follow the accession after a suitable amount of time has passed, and for the last 900 years have been held at West-

6

Ac c e s s i on a n d C row n i n g o f K i n g s

ROYAL RITUALS

ACCESSION OF KING BAUDOUIN Accession of a new monarch to the throne is most common in the case of the death of the previous monarch, but accession also takes place in the case of the incapacitation or abdication of a monarch. Belgium’s King Baudouin (r. 1951–1993) ascended to the throne after the abdication of his father, Leopold III (r. 1934–1951), whose troubled personal life and wartime conduct made him such a controversial and unpopular figure that the future of the monarchy was threatened. Leopold’s brother Charles served as prince regent from 1940 until 1950, when the country’s voters decided by plebiscite to allow Leopold to resume the throne, which he did, but only briefly. In 1951 he abdicated in favor of his son.

minster Abbey. The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, ascended to the throne on February 6, 1952, and was crowned on June 2, 1953. British accession practices were established long ago with the Bill of Rights in 1689 and in the Act of Settlement in 1701 following the flight of King James II from England in 1688.The Crown was then offered to James’s daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange as joint rulers, thereby mandating that Parliament had the power to regulate succession to the throne.

MODERN CHANGES IN ROYAL ACCESSION Sweden has been a hereditary monarchy since 1523, although the country’s current royal family originated in France. When heir to the throne Karl August died in 1810, Danish duke Frederick Christian, a relative of the deceased Karl August, was elected as heir apparent, but pro-French officials resisted his candidacy. The issue was resolved by offering the post to one of Napoleon’s marshals, Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte; eventually he was officially recognized by the aging King Karl XIII. Baptiste took the name Karl Johan and was crowned on May 1, 1818. Not all accession practices are rooted in history. In 1905, when Norway dissolved political ties with Sweden, Norway’s citizens passed a national referendum confirming their collective support for the accession of Prince Carl of Denmark and Princess

Louise of Sweden and Norway. Norwegians were overwhelmingly in favor of the accession. Prince Karl (r. 1905–1957) agreed and took the name Haakon; he ruled until his death in 1957 and was succeed by Crown Prince Olav (r. 1957–1991), who served as a commander in World War II. The ruling monarch of Sweden, with only two exceptions—Queen Christina (r. 1632–1654) in the seventeenth century and Queen Ulrika Eleonora (r. 1718–1720) in the eighteenth century—has always been male. Christina became queen at the age of six in 1632, upon the death of her father, the king; she was a brilliant intellectual who in her youth reportedly studied twelve hours per day. As for Ulrika Eleonora, she was born in 1688, ascended the throne after the death of her brother King Karl XII (r. 1682–1718), but soon abdicated in favor of her husband Frederick (r. 1720–1751). Sweden’s Act of Succession went into effect in 1979, amending the constitution to make the firstborn the heir to the throne regardless of sex.The Act therefore mandated that the next heir would be Crown Princess Victoria, thus depriving Prince Karl Philip, who was less than a year old at the time, of the Crown. In dynasties that have ended long ago, as in the case of the Polish royal family, opportunists often try to carve out royal lineage, even though the paths to the defunct thrones are often obfuscated. Pretenders will frequently emerge, trying to prove

Achaemenid Dynasty rights to the lost Crown. In 1832, the Polish constitution establishing a heredity monarchy, written in 1791, was abolished, at which point Poland became part of the Russian Empire. The coronations of the tsar of Russia and the king of Poland were made one and held in Moscow; both were subject to governing by the laws of heredity primogeniture in the male line; if no male heir was left, then the Crown would pass to the female line. After World War I, with the signing of the peace treaty at Versailles, Poland was recognized as an independent republic, and by 1921 the monarchy was no longer mentioned in legal records. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Belgian Kingdom; Blood, Royal; English Monarchies; Primogeniture; Elizabeth II; Swedish Monarchy.

ACHAEANS. See MYCENAEAN MONARCHIES ACHAEMENID DYNASTY (ca. 550–330 B.C.E.)

Ruling family of the ancient Persian Empire who presided over a period of expansion and great power. Persia was controlled by the Medes until 550 b.c.e., when Cyrus of Anshan, an Iranian noble, rebelled and took power. Cyrus’s victory over the Medes marked the beginnings of the Persian Empire, and his dynasty is known as the Achaemenid after a legendary ancestral king named Achaemenes. An ambitious conqueror, Cyrus (r. 559–530 b.c.e.) overthrew King Croesus (r. 560–546 b.c.e.) of Lydia (in present-day Turkey) in 546 b.c.e. Then, in 539 b.c.e., he launched a successful attack on the Chaldean Empire of Babylonia. Eventually, Cyrus headed eastward and made inroads into Asia. Cyrus treated conquered peoples with respect, a policy that became a hallmark of Achaemenid rule. Rather than banish conquered leaders, he allowed them to maintain some autonomy. Nor did he force a new religion or language on conquered people. Such gestures resulted in far less resentment toward Persian rule and a more contented populace, making it much easier to rule the empire. For both his mili-

7

tary conquests and for his benevolence, Cyrus is often known as Cyrus the Great. After Cyrus’s death in 530 b.c.e., he was succeeded by his son, Cambyses (r. 529–522 b.c.e.), who continued to expand the Persian Empire. In 525 b.c.e., Cambyses marched into Egypt and conquered it. With this conquest, the Persian Empire became the largest and most powerful in the ancient Near East. Cambyses died in 522 b.c.e. as he was returning from Egypt. After the death of Cambyses, the throne of Persia was claimed by Darius I (r. 521–486 b.c.e.), who is believed to have been a cousin from another branch of the Achaemenid family. A powerful leader and a strong administrator, Darius brought a level of sophistication to the Persian Empire that had never been seen before. He built roads throughout the empire, created a system of couriers to carry messages, increased trade by digging a channel from the Nile River to the Red Sea, and introduced the use of coins. He also divided the Persian Empire into twenty provinces called satrapies, each with its own ruling governor, or satrap. Darius I proved to be the last truly great Achaemenid monarch of the Persian Empire. After his death in 486 b.c.e., his successors held onto the empire for another 150 years but faced revolts in Egypt, dissension among the satraps, and attempted encroachments by Greece. In 334 b.c.e., Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) set out from Greece, conquered Asia Minor, and then marched further eastward into the heart of Persia. Finally, in 330 b.c.e. in a battle with the Achaemenid ruler, Darius III (r. 335–330 b.c.e.), Alexander’s much smaller army defeated the previously unrivaled army of the Persian Empire. Darius III fled and was assassinated, bringing the Achaemenid dynasty to an end. The relative longevity of the Achaemenid dynasty, and the esteem in which it is still held, are due mainly to its two most gifted kings, Cyrus the Great and Darius I. Skilled both militarily and administratively, these two monarchs also brought a tolerant ruling style to bear as their empire expanded. Their strength and farsightedness established the Achaemenid dynasty as a world power. Having provided ancient Persia with a strict set of laws, an established currency and postal service, religious freedom, and a flourishing of the arts and architecture, the Achaemenid dynasty was a high point in the history of the Persian people.

8

Achaemenid Dynasty

Founded by Darius I around 518 b.c.e., Persepolis was the capital of the Persian Empire during the Achaemenid Dynasty. Built on an immense terrace, which was part natural and part man-made, the capital boasted a magnificent palace complex.

See also: Alexander III, the Great; Artaxerxes I; Artaxerxes II; Artaxerxes III; Cambyses II; Croesus; Cyrus the Great; Darius I, the Great; Darius II; Darius III; Lydia, Kingdom of; Medes Kingdom; Persian Empire; Xerxes. FURTHER READING

Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Hitti, Philip K. The Near East in History: A 5000 Year Story. Princeton, NJ: D.Van Nostrand, 1961. Perry, Glenn E. The Middle East: Fourteen Islamic Centuries. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983. Sicker, Martin. The Pre-Islamic Middle East. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.

ACHEH KINGDOM (ca. 1515–1907 C.E.) Islamic sultanate centered on the Indonesian island of Sumatra that reached its height of power and greatest territorial extent in the early 1600s and developed a reputation as a center of scholarship and trade. Many historians believe that Acheh was Islam’s entry point into the Indonesian archipelago and possibly all of Southeast Asia sometime around the early 1500s. Perlak, the first Islamic kingdom in what is now Acheh, was established in 1504. Much later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the port of Acheh became embroiled in European colonial struggles for political and economic dominance. In the early 1500s, Acheh was a vassal-state of the

Afonso I pepper-rich port-state of Pidie. Pidie, along with nearby Pasai, came under the influence of the Portuguese and Dutch as a result of the thriving spice trade, which eventually led to the establishment of the Dutch East India Company in 1602. In reaction to increasing European influence in the region, the sultan of Acheh, Ali Mughayat Shah (r. 1496–1528), declared independence for Acheh around 1515 and issued a call to expel the Europeans. Pidie and Pasai united with Acheh in an attempt to drive out the foreigners. Acheh reached its pinnacle of power during the reign of Sultan Iskander Muda (r. 1607–1636). At the beginning of Iskander’s reign, the sultan launched a naval campaign that gave him control over many of the Indonesian islands. He eventually ruled over all of the major ports on the west coast of Sumatra, most of the east coast of the island, and also the ports of Kedah, Perak, and Pahang on the Malay Peninsula. After multiple wars with the Portuguese, Acheh finally defeated the Portuguese fleet in 1614 at Bintan on the Malay Peninsula, seriously threatening Portuguese colonial holdings in the Malay region of Malacca. However, an alliance of lesser powers from the Portuguese colonies at Malacca, Johore, and Patani constructed a fleet and devastated the Acheh navy near Malacca in 1629. Acheh’s power was based on trade, and the conflicts with the Portuguese and their colonial allies arose out of Acheh’s attempts to gain a monopoly over the highly lucrative pepper trade. Sultan Iskander granted Dutch and British traders a monopoly on the pepper trade, which harmed local traders by banning competing pepper buyers. Following the loss of Acheh’s navy, a number of area chiefs aligned with the Dutch against Acheh. In 1641 the Dutch, with help from these local allies, gained control of Malacca, which eventually led to the loss of Acheh territories on the Malay Peninsula. During its period of dominance in the early 1600s, Acheh became known as a center for scholarship, and the kingdom attracted well-known Islamic writers.The Acheh system of law administration was also admired by many rulers in the region and provided a model for other Islamic states in Indonesia. Following Iskandar’s death in 1636, Acheh swiftly declined and, combined with increasingly aggressive moves by the Dutch and the lack of another qualified leader, the kingdom soon lost prominence. Despite a

9

brief alliance in 1641 with the Dutch, the Kingdom continued to decline in influence over the next 200 years. In 1824, Great Britain and the Netherlands signed an Anglo-Dutch treaty, under which the British ceded Sumatra to the Dutch in exchange for exclusive trading rights on the Malay Peninsula.The treaty guaranteed Acheh’s independence, but in 1871, Britain authorized the Dutch to invade Acheh, which they did in 1873, sparking a thirty-year war. Finally, in 1904, the Dutch subdued the rebellious people of Acheh, and in 1907 they forced the last sultan of Acheh into exile, effectively ending the sultanate. When Indonesia gained independence from the Dutch in 1949, Acheh became an independent province. The following year, however, it was incorporated into the Sumatran province of Utara. The Acheh people continued to press for greater autonomy, waging guerrilla warfare against government forces from time to time.The creation of Acheh as a special district within Indonesia in 1956 did nothing to quell the rebelliousness, which has continued to erupt periodically in violence. See also: Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

AETHELRED, THE UNREADY. See ANGLO-SAXON RULERS; EDWARD THE CONFESSOR

AFONSO I (ca. 1109–1185 C.E.) Also known as Afonso Henriques and Afonso the Conqueror, the first king of Portugal (r. 1139– 1185), who campaigned ceaselessly against the Moors and the rulers of the Spanish kingdoms of León and Castile. A strong military leader,Afonso used his victories over rival states to carve the Portuguese kingdom out of overlapping feudal lands on the Iberian Peninsula. Following his army’s victory over the Muslims at Campo de Ourique in southern Portugal in 1139, Afonso declared himself king of Portugal by renouncing fealty to all Spanish kingdoms. His cousin, Alfonso VII of León and Castile (r. 1126–1157), recognized Afonso’s rule under the Treaty of Zamora in

10

Afonso I

1143. However, the papacy did not recognize the sovereignty of an independent Portugal until 1179. Afonso I was the son of Henry of Burgundy, a French noble who had come to Iberia from France to participate in the reconquista, or reconquest, of Iberia from the Moors. In 1093, Henry was named count of Portugal by Alfonso VI of León (r. 1065–1109) for his support in resisting the Moors. Afonso’s mother, the Countess Teresa, was the illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI of León. When Henry died in 1112,Teresa became regent for Afonso, who was still only a child. Ambitious in her own right, Teresa ruled the country with her Spanish consort, Fernando Perez de Trava, and refused to acknowledge her son’s accession to the throne. In 1128,Afonso, with the support of the Portuguese nobles, challenged his mother and her lover for control of the Crown, defeating them at the battle of Sao Mamede, near Guimares in northwestern Portugal. Having secured his throne, Afonso began a series of military campaigns to build and secure his kingdom. His victory over the Moors at Campo de Ourique in 1139 secured much of southern Portugal. In March 1147, he captured Santarem (in westcentral Portugal) from the Moors, and he took the city of Lisbon in October of that year with help from a mostly English contingent of troops from a passing fleet of 13,000 Crusaders sailing to the Holy Land. By the time of his death in 1185, Afonso had extended Portuguese territory to the Tagus River, despite recurrent incursions by Moors of the Moroccan Almohad dynasty.To maintain order in his kingdom, Afonso allied with the Knights Templar, the religious military order established during the Crusades to protect pilgrims. He also enlisted monks from the Cistercian order to develop agriculture in sparsely populated areas of his kingdom. In 1169, Afonso broke his leg during an unsuccessful attack against the Moors at Badajoz in southwestern Spain. Captured by his Castilian son-in-law, King Fernando II (r. 1157–1188 of León), who aided the Muslims, Afonso was ransomed only after renouncing claims to the province of Galicia in the northwestern corner of the Iberian Peninsula, which lies directly north of Portugal. In 1170, Afonso I knighted his son Sancho, and the two ruled Portugal in tandem until Afonso’s death in 1185. Sancho then took the throne as Sancho I (r.

1185–1211). Over the next 200 years, the descendants and successors of Afonso I built up and strengthened the kingdom of Portugal, making it a powerful maritime nation and a leader in exploration. See also: Castile, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; León, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies.

AFONSO I, NZINGA MBEMBA (ca. 1460–1543 C.E.)

Christian ruler (manikongo) of the kingdom of Kongo in central Africa from 1506 until his death in 1543. Afonso I was born Nzinga Mbemba, a son in the royal house of the kingdom of Kongo.The exact date of his birth is uncertain; estimates range from the mid-1450s to the mid-1460s. His father was Nzingu Kuwu, the first Kongo king to make contact with Christian missionaries who arrived in the territory from Portugal. As did many other members of his household, Nzingu Kuwu converted to the newly imported religion, taking the baptismal name of João I. Among the converts was his son, Nzinga Mbemba, who took the Christian name of Afonso in 1491. Eventually, King João I became disillusioned by the Portuguese, whom he found to be corrupt, and he expelled them from the kingdom soon after his conversion to Christianity. But Afonso, who was then a provincial governor of a province in his father’s kingdom, gave the exiled Westerners a safe haven. Afonso maintained close ties with the Portuguese, who came first to trade for ivory and other local goods but stayed to participate in the increasingly lucrative slave trade. When King João died in 1506, Afonso inherited the Kongo throne, and the Portuguese returned to royal favor. Afonso I used his ties to the Portuguese and his control over the supply of slaves and trade goods to enrich his kingdom and consolidate his power, successfully expanding his realm throughout the region. He manipulated Christian doctrine to strengthen his claim to power, adapting the rituals of the church to further this end. He even invoked divine intervention to explain his victory over his rivals to the throne, using the claim of God’s favor to justify the establishment of the dynasty he founded. Contacts with Westerners and with Christianity had a powerful influence on Afonso I. During his

African Kingdoms

11

reign, he established schools modeled after those of Portugal and ordered the construction of churches throughout his kingdom. He ordered that the young men of his lineage be educated in Lisbon in Portugal, and one son, Henrique, returned to the Kongo as a Catholic bishop. However, relations with Portugal eventually soured dramatically over disputes regarding the slave trade, so much so that, in 1540, his erstwhile Portuguese allies attempted to have him assassinated. Unlike his father, however, Afonso remained faithful to the Catholic Church until his death in 1543.

the founder of the first Egyptian dynasty clearly had some concept of a state-like social organization, since it was through his efforts that independent settlements were unified into a larger political unit. Whether Menes came up with the idea independently or was inspired by knowledge of similar political forms that already existed is a matter of scholarly speculation. Some experts argue that Egypt invented the form, whereas others suggest that the idea of kingship originated in the African interior and was adopted by the pharaohs.

See also: Kongo Kingdom.

FEATURES OF AFRICAN KINGSHIP

AFRICAN KINGDOMS Diverse kingdoms and tribal societies that have existed in Africa over the course of the last 5,000 years. The earliest known kingdom in Africa arose along the banks of the Nile River between 3200 and 3000 b.c.e., when a man named Menes founded the first Egyptian dynasty of rulers that became known as pharoahs. If earlier kingdoms existed elsewhere in Africa, there is no direct evidence of them. However,

The continent of Africa is immense, and its peoples and resources are highly variable from one region to another. It is therefore no surprise that Africa’s human communities would occur in a wide variety of forms. Nonetheless, across the range of Africa’s kingdoms—indeed, across the range of kingdoms the world over—there are a number of features shared in common. First is the fact of hierarchical organization, with a single authority—be it a king, queen, or pharaoh—at the top. Second, there is generally an appeal to some extraworldly sanction that legitimizes the authority of the ruler. This is frequently expressed in religious terms: the ruler (and his or her

ROYAL RITUALS

POLYGYNOUS MONARCHS One way in which African kings have played a symbolic role as a unifying force in society has been through marriage. In many of Africa’s monarchical societies, the king has been expected to take many wives, a practice known as polygyny. (Polygamy simply means the taking of multiple spouses, male or female, while polygyny refers specifically to multiple wives; polyandry means the taking of multiple husbands.) By selecting wives from a wide range of clans within the society, the king forms marital alliances across the diverse regions, clans, and ethnic groups within his kingdom.These alliances serve both as a symbol of the kingdom’s unity, and as a form of insurance for the king himself, for through such marriages he makes potential rivals or dissidents into kin, reducing the likelihood that they will become disloyal.This practice was commonly employed in the east African Kingdom of Buganda, whose king used marital alliances with the important families of his border territories to reduce the possibility of revolt among these far-flung, and thus difficult to control, regions of his kingdom.

12

African Kingdoms

immediate line of descent) is believed to be related to a deity.Alternatively, the ruler’s legitimacy may be based on a claim of kinship to an important, perhaps founding, ancestor of the community. Whatever the basis for a monarch’s claim to legitimacy, ritual and other public display represent important aspects of kingship. The ruler is not only an administrator of a state, but also a symbolic figure in whose person the identity of an entire people is made manifest.This is why, even today, when nearly all of Africa’s traditional kingdoms have lost their political power, members of royal lineages have nonetheless retained great symbolic importance in terms of ethnic pride and identity.

CONDITIONS FOR THE RISE OF AFRICAN KINGDOMS Large-scale political units such as kingdoms, which in Africa have encompassed populations as great as a million people, could not arise in a vacuum. Certain preconditions needed to be met before human populations began to organize themselves into communities that extended beyond small, kinship-based settlements. The most important of these preconditions, clearly exemplified by the rise of the kingdom

of Egypt, is the presence of enough resources—especially a stable and abundant food supply—to support a large number of people. The pre-kingdom communities that united to form pharoanic Egypt achieved this precondition in two ways: their early economy was based largely on fishing, thanks to the abundance provided by the Nile, and on the use of domesticated plants and animals, which came early to the region, probably introduced from the Near East. The importance of surplus resources for the formation of kingdoms in Africa—or anywhere else in the world—should not be underestimated. Without an abundant, reliable supply of the necessities of life, communities cannot grow very large, and everyone in the community must spend most, if not all, of their time securing the livelihood of their households. This in turn means that each member—or at least each adult member—of the group is of equal importance to the survival of the whole. The best provider, or the strongest or cleverest individual, might enjoy a status within the group as “first among equals.” Thus, that person’s opinions might be given greatest consideration when the group is making decisions as to where to settle, what game to hunt, and

African Kingdoms so forth. As long as the group is relatively small, however, there is little need for that privileged position to extend to a broader administrative role.That function can, and usually does, remain within the purview of the heads of individual households. When communities grow larger, and when settlements grow more dense, an authority that extends beyond individual households becomes necessary. This does not necessarily give rise to the need for a ruler of the order of a king. A particularly strong or respected individual could easily fulfill such an administrative need, as could someone with the reputation for wisdom or spirituality. As long as the problems to be resolved are largely or exclusively internal to the group, the need for a unifying concept beyond shared kinship and community life remains small. But when a community grows large enough that it interferes with the territorial claims of other groups—as occurred in the Nile Valley

13

around 3200 b.c.e.—it becomes more important to forge a group identity distinct from that of rival neighbors. This need for an identity, however, need not be initiated by intergroup competition or rivalry. It can just as easily arise from concerns that are not in dispute. For example, the pre-kingdom settlements of West Africa that participated in the trans-Saharan trade came to recognize that they could better exploit their advantages by organizing into a state. Such organization improved their ability to deal with traders and enabled them to support a military that could ensure their acquisition of trade goods from their neighbors. Such unity called for a strong leader whose authority extended beyond the internal conduct of the community to the control of that community’s neighbors.This is one theory for the rise of the kingdom of Mali in the 1200s c.e. (founded by Sundjata Keita) and for the kingdoms of Takrur (in

As early as the first century c.e., Europeans had limited knowledge about the kingdoms and states of North and West Africa. This map, published in Strasbourg in 1522, is based on the second-century account of geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria.

14

African Kingdoms

Senegal) and Kanem (on the shores of Lake Chad), both of which arose in the late 600s c.e. Finally, in addition to the indigenous monarchies of Africa, some kingdoms were formed through the intervention of outsiders. In other words, some African kingdoms were “made” rather than “born,” and among the earliest of these were the kingdoms that arose in North Africa. One example is the kingdom of Numidia (in present-day Algeria), created by Rome in the second century b.c.e. Its ruler, Masinissa, was just one of many local chiefs, each of whom led a largely nomadic community that earned its livelihood through raiding the trans-Saharan trade caravans and sedentary communities along the North African coast. When Rome extended its empire to North Africa and sought to secure its newly acquired territory, it made a deal with Masinissa to pacify the region. In return for his loyalty to Rome, he was given the title of king and granted authority over a much greater territory than he could have secured for himself (with Roman troops to enforce his claims).

THE POWER AND SYMBOLISM OF KINGS The role of a king in Africa involved more than the execution of administrative and leadership skills. Kings—and in rare cases, queens—served as the incarnations of their people’s histories; as mediators between their communities and the gods, ancestors, and/or forces of nature; as defenders of the principles and values that their citizens held dear; and as an emblem of their community’s continuity over time. But no one individual, with his or her personal loyalties and concerns, could fulfill all these functions.To act as such a potent symbol for all the populace, the ruler must at least appear to stand apart from normal preferences and prejudices. He or she must appear to represent all the various interests of the people. Therefore, African monarchs have employed a variety of rituals and symbolic items intended to lift them from the average citizenry and create a privileged office that transcends intragroup rivalries and competing interests. Kingly regalia, for instance, can serve this function. Among the Asante of West Africa, one wellknown ritual possession of the kingdom is the Golden Stool, a sacred object on which no one may sit. Among many peoples, the king’s clothing and

personal accessories, such as ornate headdresses, fly whisks, or special robes, spears, crowns, or necklaces, serve a similar function. Among many African kingdoms, certain locations are dedicated to the office of the king, commemorating the reigns of the current ruler’s ancestors. Among the many peoples whose ancestral kings are honored by such shrines are the Lozi of Zambia. Ritual occasions are another way that the African monarch is marked as different from the average citizen. Among many African peoples, the king is expected to make a regular circuit of his territory, stopping at villages and towns and ancestral shrines along the way to hold court and hear from the people, or to hold ceremonies of a religious nature. Allowing himself (or herself) to be seen by the people reinforces the immediacy of the king’s authority. A monarch’s role may also include direct intercession with gods, ancestors, or natural forces on behalf of the people. The queens of the Lovedu, for example, have traditionally been associated with the rain and are believed to embody—and ensure—the fertility of the people and of their land.

ROYAL ADVISERS AND SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE To fulfill the duties of a monarch, the occupant of the throne must rely on the assistance of others, such as court officials, military advisers, and generals. It would seem logical that such assistants would best be drawn from the ranks of the royal family. However, this is also the group from which a monarch’s successor must be chosen. Upon the death of a ruler, succession is generally restricted to descendants of that king, or at least to members of the royal lineage—a brother, an uncle, or (more rarely) a sister, wife, or mother. The close proximity of these relatives to the throne results in a conflict of interest: a ruler’s relatives might be valuable allies and agents of the monarch, if their loyalty is certain, but they may also be dangerous rivals if they seek the power of the throne prematurely. In order to reduce the potential for intrigue and treachery among courtiers and advisers who might covet the throne, a variety of strategies have been developed. For instance, among the Ganda of the Buganda kingdom—who honor patrilineal descent (descent through father)—the danger of relying on the support and advice of a rival claimant to the

Ahab throne is mitigated by the practice of employing only maternal relatives (who are by definition ineligible to rule).This arrangement serves the interests of both ruler and advisers, for royal advisers can lay claim to their privileged position of courtiers only so long as the king remains upon the throne. An alternative approach, employed by the Bagirmi of Chad, among others, is to appoint nonrelatives— often slaves who may not even be of the same ethnic group as the monarch and his people—as military and political officials. These individuals, who have no prospect whatsoever of ascending to the throne in the normal order of things, are therefore trusted to advise and to act solely in accordance with the interests of the king. Strategies for choosing a successor to the throne upon the death of a monarch are also somewhat variable across the range of African kingdoms. In some cases, as among the pharaohs of Egypt, succession is dictated by birth order and parentage: the firstborn son of the “first” or “true” wife (always a sister or halfsister of the pharaoh) was the presumptive heir to the throne. Among other peoples, however, no such formal mechanism of inheritance existed. A king might designate a favorite as the heir to the throne, or no heir might be named.The virtue of the former strategy is to provide a clearly understood order of succession: the monarch’s chosen successor is known well before he or she ever takes office. However, such designation in advance of the death or retirement of the monarch has its drawbacks. Others who believe they also have a claim to the throne may protest the choice, possibly through violence against the king or his designee. On the other hand, supporters of the designated successor may decide not to wait for the reigning monarch to die or retire and may hasten matters by assassinating the ruler in order to clear the way for the heir. To avoid such difficulties, some rulers have simply not designated any heir, leaving the people or, more likely, the elders and other leaders, to select a new ruler on their own. Such a situation can also arise if the current ruler dies unexpectedly, or if he or she leaves no traditionally appropriate heir. When there is no designated or traditional heir to the throne, the result is often a violent period during which various claimants attempt to take the throne by force.When one claimant succeeds in securing the throne, it is not uncommon for that monarch to eliminate potential rivals by killing those who might challenge his or her right to rule.

15

MODERN AFRICAN KINGDOMS Today only three nations in Africa still retain a monarchical form of government: Morocco in North Africa and Lesotho and Swaziland, both in southern Africa. The Alawi dynasty has reigned in Morocco since the seventeenth century c.e. The kingdom of Lesotho differs from traditional African monarchies in that its king serves a largely symbolic role, while actual governance falls to constitutionally elected officials: a prime minister and parliament. Swaziland, on the other hand, is the last nation in Africa to be ruled by an absolute monarch.The current hereditary king, Mswati III (r. 1986– ), came to the throne in 1986. His mother served as regent between 1982, when the previous king died, and 1986, when Mswati came of age. Unlike the king of Lesotho, Mswati has direct control over Swaziland’s government, and in large part he personally appoints the officials who serve in the nation’s parliament. Although there is political pressure within Swaziland to do away with the absolute power of the king and move to a more democratic form of government, such efforts have so far met with no real success. Kingships below the national level still exist within many of Africa’s nation-states. For example, among the Zulu of southern Africa and the Yoruba and Asante of western Africa, the traditional office of kings is still recognized. However, these localized kingdoms have no true political power at the national level. Instead, they serve as local, ethnically specific symbols of unity and identity. See also: Asante Kingdom; Bambara Kingdom; Benin Kingdom; Itsekeri Kingdom; KanembuKanuri Kingdom; Kongo Kingdom; Lovedu Kingdom; Lozi (or Rotse) Kingdom; Luba Kingdom; Lunda Kingdom; Mali, Ancient Kingdom of; Mangbetu Kingdom; Mbundu Kingdoms; Merina Kingdom; Mossi Kingdoms; Nupe Kingdom; Nyoro Kingdom; Shilluk Kingdom; Songhai Kingdom; Sotho (Suto) Kingdom; Zanzibar Sultanate; Zulu Kingdom.

AHAB (d. 853 B.C.E.) King of Israel (r. ca. 874–853 b.c.e.), a contemporary of the prophet Elijah, who allowed the worship of the god Baal alongside the traditional Jewish worship of Yahweh.

16

Ahab

Ahab was the seventh king of the kingdom of Israel. (At this time, the land of the Hebrews was divided into two kingdoms, Israel in the north and Judah in the south.) Ahab’s father, king Omri (r. 885–874 b.c.e.), secured a marriage for his son to Jezebel, the daughter of the king of Sidon (in Phoenicia), thus reaffirming a political connection with Phoenicia that had been missing since the days of King Solomon (r. 970–931 b.c.e.).This alliance, along with tributary relationships established between the Gilead, Bashan, and Moab tribes of Israel, established the potential for a peaceful rule. Despite the possibility of peace at home, Ahab fought continuing wars and skirmishes with the encroaching Syrians throughout his life.The aggressive Assyrians remained a constant threat as well. In 855 b.c.e., Ahab combined forces with the Syrians and defeated the encroaching Assyrian ruler, Shalmaneser III (r. 858–824 b.c.e.), at Karkar on the Orontes River, demonstrating to the Assyrians that Israel would not be easily overrun. Aside from these persistent problems with the Syrians and Assyrians, however, Ahab’s reign was generally quite peaceful. His alliance with King Jehoshaphat (r. ca. 873–849 b.c.e.) of Judah helped maintain friendly relations with that less-powerful kingdom to the south. Ahab’s wife, Queen Jezebel, aroused strong opposition in Israel, especially from the prophet Elijah, because of her worship of the Canaanite god Baal. According to the Hebrew historian Josephus (first century b.c.e.), Ahab allowed Jezebel to participate in and promote the worship of Baal in Israel. Ahab himself participated in these ceremonies, specifically using the brazen serpent (made by Moses and kept in the Temple of Solomon) in the worship rituals. Critics also accused Ahab of excessive luxury— he built a room made entirely of ivory for his “painted queen,” who may have used Egyptian styles of facial makeup, which were seen as decadent by many Hebrews. The prophet Elijah made much of Ahab’s unJewish ways, and Jezebel more than returned the prophet’s antipathy. After Ahab confiscated the vineyard of a friend of Elijah’s, the prophet cursed the king and his wife. Shortly thereafter, Ahab was slain in battle with the Syrians. He was succeeded by his son, Ahaziah (r. 853–852 b.c.e.). See also:Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of.

AHMADNAGAR KINGDOM (1494–1636 C.E.)

One of five Muslim states located on the Deccan, a plateau in south-central India, that was almost continuously at war with other states. Around 1500, as the Bahmani sultanate began to decline, the Deccan broke up into five Muslim states. A Bahmani noble, Malik Ahmad Nizam Shahi (r. 1494–1509), took control of territory on the Sini River, centered at the site of the ancient town of Bhingar. Malik named the territory Ahmadnagar (or Ahmednagar) and founded the Nizam Shah dynasty. Malik built a great fort at Ahmadnagar (which the British used in the 1940s to jail Indian nationalist leader, Jawaharlal Nehru). Throughout the reign of the Nizam Shahi dynasty, the Ahmadnagar kingdom was constantly at war. Ahmad’s son, Burhan Nizam Shah (r. 1509–1553) aligned himself with the Hindu Vijayanagar Empire against other Deccan states. He was succeeded by Hussain Shah (r. 1553–1565), who reversed that policy, signing a treaty with the other Muslim states of the Deccan in an effort to keep any one state from dominating the area and for their mutual survival. In 1565, the Deccan states of Bijapur and Golconda acted with Ahmadnagar to destroy the city of Vijayanagar and its forces at the battle of Talikota. Between 1500 and 1600, Chand Bibi, the queen dowager of Bijapur, gallantly resisted attacks by the Mughal dynasty from the north. When the state of Berar ceded to the Mughals in 1596, Mughal emperor Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605) was able to annex the greater part of the Deccan. Ahmadnagar fell to the Mughals after the queen’s death, but the Shahi dynasty and a part of the state of Ahmadnagar remained until the fall of Deccan city of Daulatabad in 1633 and the coming of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan (r. 1628–1658) to the region in 1636. During the Mughal decline in the eighteenth century, the states of the Deccan experienced numerous rivalries and conflicts over succession. In 1759, the Peshwas of the Maratha Confederacy gained control of Ahmadnagar, which was ceded to the Maratha chief Daulat Rao Sindhia (d. 1827) in 1797. When the Peshwas signed the Treaty of Bassein with Great Britain in 1893, agreeing to British protection and the presence of British soldiers in Peshwa lands, Sindhia objected. In response, the British cap-

Akan Kingdoms tured Ahmadnagar in 1803 and returned it to the Peshwas. Ahmadnagar remained neutral during the third Maratha war (1817–1818) when the British crushed the Peshwas and all other opposing forces in southwestern India. Ahmadnagar became part of the nation of India when it gained its independence from Great Britain in 1947. See also: Akbar the Great; Bahmani Dynasty; Golconda Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Jahan, Shah; Mughal Empire;Vijayanagar Empire.

AHMOSE I (ca. 1560–1546 B.C.E.) Pharaoh of Egypt (r. ca. 1570–1546 b.c.e.) and founder of the Eighteenth dynasty, the greatest achievement of which was driving the Hyksos out of Egypt. When Ahmose was ten years old, he inherited the contested throne of Egypt from his brother, Kamose (r. ca. 1576–1570 b.c.e.). Kamose, like his father Seqenenre Tao II (r. ca. 1591–1576 b.c.e.) before him, had died while fighting to drive out the Hyksos, a nomadic people of Semitic origin from western Asia who had ruled Egypt since the beginning of the Fifteenth dynasty (ca. 1668–1560 b.c.e.). Ten years after assuming the throne, Ahmose massed his troops and captured Memphis, Egypt’s traditional capital.The Hyksos, however, were based in Avaris. Ahmose I left his mother, Queen Ashotep, to oversee the government from Thebes and proceeded to lay siege to the city of Avaris. The siege of Avaris was interrupted by a rebellion in Upper (southern) Egypt, which Ahmose was forced to quell before he could proceed with his plans. Having successfully stopped the rebellion, he returned to capture Avaris. The surviving Hyksos fled to Palestine, where Ahmose later pursued them. First, however, Ahmose chose to lead his troops south into the land of the Nubians, who had been allies of the Hyksos. Ahmose conquered Nubia as far south as the Second Cataract of the Nile near the fortress of Buhen, and he appointed a governor to administer the region and secure the riches of the Nubian gold mines for Egypt. While Ahmose was in Nubia, Egypt was once more threatened by insurrection, which was put down by Queen Ashotep. Once Ahmose had finished strengthening his borders, he turned to domestic matters. Ancient records

17

show that Ahmose granted lands to veterans of his campaigns as well as to various members of his family. Several inscriptions from the period refer to cedar found in Syria, suggesting that Ahmose resumed trade with that country. Inscriptions also reveal that he restored temples and erected new ones. Ahmose I, like many of the Egyptian pharaohs, married his sister to keep his supposedly divine bloodlines pure. His sister-wife, Ahmose-Nefertiri, became the first “God’s Wife of Amun,” an important religious and political role that continued until the Twenty-Sixth dynasty (ca. 664–525 b.c.e).Together, Ahmose and Nefertiri had numerous children, many of whom died young. His third son, Amenhotep I (r. 1551–1524 b.c.e.) inherited the newly reunited Egypt upon Ahmose’s death in 1546 b.c.e. See also: Divinity of Kings; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Hyksos Dynasty; Nubian Kingdoms.

AKAN KINGDOMS (1700s–1900s C.E.) Group of independent kingdoms that arose in western Africa in response to the growth of the transSaharan and, later, Atlantic trade. Until about the seventeenth century, the subSahelian region bounded on the west by the Bandama River (in present-day Ivory Coast) and the Volta River (in present-day Ghana) and extending southward to the Atlantic coast was populated by small, clan-based communities of people known as Akan. Beginning in the 1400s, however, several factors conspired to encourage the transformation of these independent communities into larger political units, eventually giving rise to the formation of what are now known collectively as the Akan kingdoms, Of these, the two most powerful were the Fante and Asante kingdoms. The Akan peoples shared several characteristics that facilitated the rise of states. Among them were matrilineal descent, shared religious beliefs, and a common linguistic tradition. In addition, all these communities gained their livelihood by forest cultivation. Perhaps most important to the eventual rise of states in the region, however, was gold, which was present in rich deposits throughout their territory. It was this highly prized commodity that attracted the trans-Saharan traders to extend their routes southward into Akan territory.

18

Akan Kingdoms

IMPACT OF TRADE By the middle of the 1400s, the arrival of trading specialists eager to exploit the availability of gold had led to the founding of a series of important trade centers within Akan territory. Here the precious mineral was exchanged for fabrics, leather goods, brassware, and other items, brought from as far away as Turkey. To better control access to the increased wealth available through trade, and to defend the gold-producing lands from takeover by rival peoples in the region, many of the previously independent Akan communities began to coalesce into larger political units.This was especially true along the northern border, where forest and savannah (grasslands) meet.This coalescing of communities gave rise to the earliest Akan states. First among those formed was the Bono state, which was centered upon the wealthy trading town of Begho. Later in the fourteenth century, additional impetus toward state formation was provided when a new group of outsiders arrived in Akan territory from the south. These were the Portuguese, who landed on Akan shores in 1471 and drew the region into the Atlantic trade with Europe. The Portuguese were followed in short order by traders from France, England, and the Netherlands, among others. These new commercial interests were principally drawn by the region’s gold, and, in return, they introduced new crops such as maize, manioc, and groundnuts, brought from their possessions in the new world.The new crops greatly transformed local agriculture, permitting a rapid population expansion that further encouraged the development of more sophisticated political organization in the region.

tory.Among these, the Denkyira, who arose in the center of the region, was perhaps the most powerful, but in the east another kingdom, called Akwamu, was dominant during roughly the same period. Over the next 100 years, the gold trade continued to enrich the various states of the Akan region and was largely controlled by the Denkyira and Akwamu rulers.These kings only increased their wealth and power as a new commodity, slaves, grew in importance to their European trade partners. However, within Denkyira, many communities were beginning to revolt, and by the start of the 1700s a confederation had been formed among the more powerful local chiefdoms. This confederation, called Asante, was led by Osei Tutu (r. ca. 1701–1717). Osei Tutu succeeded in overthrowing the Denkyira king in 1701 and became Asantehene, or king of Asante.The capital of this new state was created at Kumasi. A similar revolt occurred in Akwamu, which was overthrown around 1730 by a confederacy led by the Akyem.The Asante state achieved supremacy throughout most of Akan territory, demanding and receiving tribute from the less powerful kingdoms of the region until they were dissolved by the British in 1900–1901. See also: Asante Kingdom; Osei Tutu. FURTHER READING

McCaskie,T.C. State and Society in Pre-Colonial Asante. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Shillington, Kevin. History of Africa. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989.

RISE OF STRONG LEADERS

AKBAR THE GREAT (1542–1605 C.E.)

With the introduction of firearms by European traders, the means of conquest and consolidation were vastly enhanced as well, and strong leaders arose who were eager to gain greater control over the now highly lucrative gold trade. Among these militaristic leaders was Awurade Basa, who in the 1500s waged a series of wars of conquests against his neighbors in what is now southern Ghana. His efforts sparked a great population movement, as refugees fled the area of conflict. These refugees settled in communities to the south and east and founded small states of their own. By the mid-1600s, there were dozens of such small states scattered throughout the southern portion of Akan terri-

Third emperor of the Mughal dynasty of India, who is remembered as an enlightened ruler who preached tolerance for his non-Muslim subjects and established a highly efficient system of government. The grandson of Babur (r. 1526–1530), the founder of the Mughal dynasty, Akbar became ruler of India in 1556 upon the accidental death of his father, Humayun (r. 1530–1540; 1555–1556). Only thirteen years old at the time, Akbar did not take full charge of the empire. Instead, a “protector” or regent, Bairam Khan, controlled the government. By the time Akbar turned eighteen, he was impatient to assume greater control over his realm. He dismissed

A k b a r t h e G r e at

19

ROYAL RITUALS

THE JIZYA TAX During the expansion of Islam into non-Islamic lands, the jizya tax caused a great deal of resentment among non-Muslims.This special tax, levied on unbelievers (infidels), was a form of protection money, the payment of which earned non-Muslim subjects the right to security and freedom from molestation within a Muslim realm. Although the levy was generally small, it was graduated to accommodate different economic levels, and it exempted the unemployed and impoverished. Nonetheless, many non-Muslims perceived the tax to be a form of humiliation.This is why Akbar’s revocation of the jizya was such a profoundly popular act: by eliminating the tax, Akbar was signifying the equality of his Muslim and non-Muslim subjects.

Bairam Khan in 1560 and sent him on a pilgrimage to Mecca; the regent was killed by an Afgani assassin along the route. Bairam’s dismissal and death did not lead to greater autonomy for Akbar, however, because one of his father’s wives, Maham Anaga, and her son, Adam Khan, assumed power. Akbar chafed under these circumstances, finally deciding to take charge by force. He had Adam Khan killed in 1562, and Maham Anaga died soon afterward, leaving the twenty-year-old Akbar in full control of his empire. Even before Akbar gained full autonomy, his rule had been marked by military success. In the year following his father’s death, factions in the city of Delhi rebelled, and Akbar took decisive action to foil this challenge. In the second battle of Panipat in 1556, Akbar faced a challenger named Hemi, whom he successfully vanquished. With this victory, the Mughal dynasty was firmly established in power on the Indian continent. The Mughal Empire expanded further during the rule by Akbar’s regents. But it was only after 1564, when Akbar ruled in his own right, that the empire achieved truly impressive territorial gains. By 1601, Akbar had managed to expand the imperial borders in all directions, conquering Kashmir in the north, Orissa and Bengal in the east, Sindh in the west, and Kandesh and Varhad in the south. Despite these impressive gains, Akbar never succeeded in bringing the southernmost part of the Indian subcontinent into the empire.

To control his empire, Akbar instituted a system of government that relied on a division of the territory into provinces, each of which was ruled by an appointed governor. He won over the Rajput states in northwestern India by applying a policy of rewards and punishments. To create ties of loyalty, he took wives from among the noble classes of his subject states.According to some reports, these political marriages numbered more than five thousand. Akbar’s biggest problem was winning the acceptance of his Hindu subjects, something that his father and grandfather had never achieved. To accomplish this, Akbar made many political marriages to Hindu women, and he earned much goodwill by not requiring these wives to convert to Islam. Akbar also abolished the special tax levied upon non-Muslims (a significant break with normal Muslim practice), and he exempted the empire’s Hindu territories from Muslim Shari’a law, permitting them to administer justice through their own Hindu court systems. Akbar’s grandfather Babur was considered a great scholar, but Akbar was an unlettered man. Nonetheless, during his reign he developed a great interest in the various cultures and religions represented within his empire. From the first, he proved to be more tolerant of the religious practices of his non-Muslim subjects, as evidenced by his abolition of the tax normally imposed on unbelievers. Over time,Akbar also became interested in discovering the common threads among the different religions of his subjects. He even went so far as to sponsor theological debates

20

A k b a r t h e G r e at erance would survive him. When Akbar died in 1605, his son Salim, who assumed the royal name Jahangir (r. 1605–1627), reversed most of his father’s policies, reinstituting the non-Muslim tax and imposing Shari’a law throughout the realm. Jahangir’s successor, his son Shah Jahan I (r. 1628–1658), continued the Islamicization of the imperial territory. See also: Babur; Jahan, Shah; Jahangir; Mongol Empire; Polygamy, Royal.

AKHENATEN (ca. 1350–1334 B.C.E.)

One of India’s preeminent rulers, Akbar the Great expanded the Mughal Empire to unprecedented size. This scene from an illustrated manuscript, circa 1630, shows Akbar symbolically passing the crown from his son, Jahangir, to his grandson, Shah Jahan.

within the palace, inviting Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and others, including Jesuit priests from the Portuguese colony of Goa. Such theological explorations ultimately led Akbar to create a personal religion, called Din-i Ilahi (“religion of God”), over which he presided as prophet. He required his courtiers and ministers to practice this new religion, which caused outrage among the orthodox Islamic clergy. These new beliefs bordered on apostasy, and one of his own sons became so infuriated by Akbar’s apparent rejection of Islam that he attempted an insurrection. The rebellion failed, but Akbar realized that a return to accepted Islamic belief and behavior was necessary if he wished to retain his rule. He thus returned to more conventional religious practice. During his reign, Akbar managed to hold together a coalition of widely disparate states, but he could not ensure that his religious and political tol-

King of ancient Egypt (r. ca. 1350–1334 b.c.e.), a member of the Eighteenth dynasty, known for his attempt at religious reform. Akhenaten, known originally as Amenhotep IV, changed his pharaonic name to honor the sun-god, Aten. He inherited the throne after serving as coregent with his father, Amenhotep III (r. 1385–1349 b.c.e.). Akhenaten’s wife, Nefertiti, who may have served with him as his co-regent (r. 1379–1358 b.c.e.), gave him six daughters. Among his other wives was Kiya, by whom he probably fathered Tutankhamen (r. 1334–1325 b.c.e.). Akhenaten is important for his religious revolution. When he took the throne, Amun-Re was the chief divinity of ancient Egypt and had been for generations. Foreign gods, such as the Canaanite goddess Astarte, had also gained acceptance in Egypt, while the influx of foreigners into the empire made others argue for a more universal god. The concept of the sun’s rays, giving life to the empire, had also begun to take root. Akhenaten embraced this idea of one universal god. He thus abolished ancient Egypt’s polytheism and established the sun-god, Aten, as the only god. He also established a new capital for his empire at Armana, where he founded an artistic school emphasizing the sun. Akhenaten also maintained that idols could not properly convey the majesty of Aten. Akhenaten imposed his regime through terror. Around the eighth year of his rule, he began a persecution of the powerful priesthood of the ancient god Amun. He ordered that altars and religious objects everywhere be defaced and that the god Amun’s name be erased. He apparently imposed his order with force, for surviving personal icons also show

A k k a d, K i n g d o m o f defacing.As a result of these policies,Akhenaten’s regime became increasingly unpopular. Moreover, he showed little interest in statecraft or diplomacy, and his focus on religion cost Egypt its empire, as some of its provinces broke away. Akhenaten died of uncertain causes in his seventeenth year as pharaoh and was succeeded briefly by his son Semenkhkare (r. 1336–1334 b.c.e.). Some think he had Marfan’s disease, a genetic condition that causes unusually long limbs and congenital heart disease. Others think he was killed. After his death, his name was erased from Egypt’s monuments and statues by his son and successor, Tutankhamen, who restored the old gods, partly because a famine made people believe that they were offended. Surviving references call Akhenaten “that heretic” or “the rebel.” Early Egyptologists viewed Akhenaten as a prophetic figure who, like the biblical prophets, was rejected by religious and political authorities of his time. More recent scholars, however, consider him politically calculating. By Akhenaten’s time, the priesthood of Amun had become very powerful, and the pharoahs were unsure of their loyalty. By moving the capital to Armana and rejecting the old gods, Akhenaten sought to weaken the priests and concentrate power in his own hands. His new name implies this idea. Amenophis means “The god Amun is content”; Akenaten means “He who is effective on Aten’s behalf.” With Akhenaten as Aten’s son, no priests were needed because the people worshiped Aten through worshiping Akhenaten. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth);Tutankhamen.

AKKAD, KINGDOM OF (ca. 2334–2154 B.C.E.)

One of the oldest civilizations in the world and the founding kingdom of a vast Mesopotamian Empire. In the fourth millennium b.c.e., a number of agricultural states began to form in the river valleys of Mesopotamia (“land between rivers”) in what is now present-day Iraq. One of these early sedentary cultures was Akkad, located where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers came the closest to one another. Akkad was named after its capital city, Agade, built around 2335 b.c.e. by Akkad’s first king, Sargon

21

of Akkad (r. ca. 2334–2279 b.c.e.). Sargon rose from humble beginnings to create the first empire in history, uniting Akkad with Sumer, another culture that shared the Tigris and Euphrates River Valley. Sargon called his empire “the land of Sumer and Akkad.” An ancient artifact, the Sumerian king list, shows that the first five rulers of Akkad—Sargon, Rimush (r. ca. 2278–2270 b.c.e.), Manishtusu (r. ca. 2269– 2255 b.c.e.), Naram-Sin (r. ca. 2254–2218 b.c.e.), and Shar-kali-sharri (r. ca. 2217–2193 b.c.e.)— ruled for a total of 142 years, although Sargon alone held the throne for fifty-six years. During this time, Akkad was the commercial and cultural center of the Middle East.The empire was connected by a system of roads, and a regular postal service was in operation. Until Sargon, records from Akkad had been written in Sumerian. During his reign, however, the cuneiform writing of the Sumerians was adapted to fit the Akkadian language, and the resulting records have revealed Akkadian as the oldest known Semitic language. Cuneiform spread with the empire and was adopted in other states, including the kingdom of Elam, located to the west of Akkad.Akkadian artwork also came into its own during this period, and the surviving examples of the ancient cylindrical seals and stone reliefs are exquisite examples of their type. The position of women in Akkadian society is difficult to determine. It seems that some Akkadian temples had priestesses rather than priests, and some of these priestesses were literate. Many historians consider the priestess Enheduanna, the daughter of Sargon, to be the first named author, because she has been identified as the writer of two long hymns. There is evidence indicating that Akkadian women also held jobs as midwives, nurses, singers, dancers, and musicians. Other records indicate that some women managed family lands and engaged in commerce. After the death of the fifth king of Akkad, Sharkali-sharri, in a palace coup, the Akkadian Empire lasted only about forty more years. Records from the period are sparse, and the exact chronology of the kindgom’s decline is unclear. Surviving inscriptions suggest that internal strife over the succession may have played a role in weakening Akkad. But it is clear that the final blows came as a result of an external attack from the nomadic Amorites from the northwest and the Gutians, a mountain people from the East. Less than two centuries after Akkad had forged the

22

A k k a d, K i n g d o m o f

world’s first empire, Mesopotamia reverted to a series of independent city-states, not to be united again until the third dynasty of Ur was established around 2112 b.c.e. See also: Naram-Sin; Sargon of Akkad.

AKSUM KINGDOM (ca. 6 B.C.E.–1150 C.E.)

The first of the Ethiopian kingdoms, originating as a result of the migration of Arab traders who sought new sources of ivory and slaves along the coast of northeastern Africa in around the sixth century b.c.e. When Arab traders arrived in northeast Africa in the first millennium b.c.e., some settled in the territory of indigenous Tigre and Amhara peoples, intermarrying with the locals.Among the most important of the coastal settlements they founded was Adulis, through which most of the region’s wealth passed on the way to markets in Persia and India. As the settlements grew in wealth and size, however, greater political organization was needed, and in the first century c.e. a true kingdom was founded, with its capital at the inland city of Aksum.

RISE OF THE KINGDOM The rise of a kingdom from a handful of small trading towns was due, in part, to a growing population, which required the creation of greater central authority, as did the management of the profits of the ivory and slave trade. Equally important was the fact that these settlements had set themselves the goal of breaking the existing trade monopoly in the region. This had long been under the control of the kingdom of Meroe, located to the northeast, lying just south of the fifth cataract of the Nile. An old and powerful kingdom, Meroe had dominated Ethiopia and other parts of northeastern Africa for centuries. By around 200, however, it had begun to decline. The young kingdom of Aksum, advantageously located and with its great trading port of Adulis, was able to take advantage of Meroe’s waning power in the region, extending its own raids for ivory and slaves into territory that once was exclusively the preserve of the Meroitic kings. Thus, Aksum’s advance in power and stature was closely linked to its success in controlling trade with the

Arabian Peninsula and points east, and by the fortuitous timing of Meroe’s decline, to which its own economic competition contributed. By 300, Aksum was the preeminent power in the region and had become a center for art and learning. Attracting missionaries from the Alexandrian (Coptic) Church, King Ezana of Aksum (r. 320–350) greatly desired to forge strong trading ties with the Greeks, which then was the greatest power in the region.This may have been his reason for adopting Christianity in the name of his people. He also enjoyed great military success, using his powerful army to expand his kingdom westward and northward, and ultimately conquering Meroe itself.

PROSPERITY AND DECLINE Aksumite kings ruled their central territories directly but merely extracted tribute from their outlying provinces. This light-handed rule did not ensure tranquility throughout the kingdom, as remote districts frequently rebelled. Nonetheless, the taxes collected on all trade goods passing through the port cities, over which the kings held tight control, were enough to provide enormous wealth to the rulers. By the sixth century, Aksum had extended its power across the Red Sea to include present-day Yemen. The kings used missionaries and the church to forge a national unity, but this soon came into conflict with a new, rival religion in the region with the birth of Islam and its rapid spread throughout Arabia. By 800, the kingdom had lost much of its power, and its monopoly over regional trade was broken. Aksum continued to prosper for several more centuries, although less grandly than in the past. Around 1150, the Aksumite kings were overthrown by a rival clan, who installed a new ruling family for the kingdom.This was the Zagwe dynasty, which held the reins of power until 1270.The Zagwe were then overthrown by Amharic rebels and replaced by a new ruling lineage, the Solomonids.This dynasty claimed ancestral ties to the old Aksumite kings as well as to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, and it used the Christian Bible as justification for rule. See also: Amhara Kingdom; Nubian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Munro-Hay, Stuart C. Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991.

A l au n g paya D y n a s t y

ALARIC I (370–410 C.E.) King of the Germanic Visigoths (r. 395–410), whose conquest of the city of Rome in 410 signaled the end of the Western Roman Empire. When Alaric was born in 370 on an island in the Danube River, his parents foresaw their son’s greatness, naming him from the Gothic word Ala-Reiks, or “Master of All.” Alaric went on to rule the Germanic kingdom of the Visigoths on the Danube River, and later in the Roman province of Illyria along the coast of the Adriatic Sea. Alaric was born into a particularly troubled time. Under attack from the east by the invading Huns, the Visigoths moved into Roman territory in 376 with the permission of the Eastern Roman emperor Valens (r. 364–378). In return for the privilege of living in the new territory, the Visigoths agreed to serve in the Roman army against the invading Huns. In 394, Alaric took command of the Visigothic troops serving under Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395).The following year, after Theodosius died, and after the Visigoths had suffered a decade of neglect and near starvation, Alaric broke his allegiance with the Romans and turned west. His troops revolted against the Romans, and Alaric claimed the title of king of the Visigoths. Led by Alaric, the Visigoths hounded western Roman forces throughout Southern Europe and into the Italian Peninsula over the next decade. During an invasion of Italy in 408,Alaric laid siege to the city of Rome, but the siege was raised after he reached an agreement with the Roman Senate. In 410, the Visigoths invaded Italy again, this time successfully sacking Rome, the first time the western imperial capital had been captured since 390 b.c.e., when it had been sacked by the Celtic Gauls. Alaric died while planning further incursions into Roman territory in Sicily and North Africa. After his death, the Visigoths reached an agreement with the western emperor, Honorius (r. 395–423), which allowed them to settle in southern Gaul (present-day France). From there, the Visigoths moved into the Iberian Peninsula and established a Christian kingdom in Spain. See also: Roman Empire; Theodosius I, the Great; Visigoth Kingdom.

23

FURTHER READING

Brion, Marcel. Alaric The Goth. Trans. Frederick H. Martens. New York: R. M. McBride, 1930.

ALAUNGPAYA DYNASTY (1752–1885 C.E.)

Burmese dynasty (also known as the Kongbaung dynasty) that led Myanmar (Burma) in an era of expansionism that lasted from the mid-1700s to the 1880s. The collapse of the dynasty as a result of increasing British military dominance of the region signaled the end of Myanmar’s independence for more than sixty years. The Alaungpaya dynasty was founded by a Burmese leader named Alaungpaya (r. 1752–1760), son of a village headman, who gained control of upper Myanmar and the Shan states of central Myanmar in 1752 and assumed the title of king, establishing a capital at Rangoon. By 1759, Alaungpaya had conquered the Indian state of Manipur, which bordered Myanmar in the northwest, as well as the Mon people of the delta region of the Irrawaddy River. He also conquered and destroyed Pegu, the Mon capital. Also in 1759, Alaungpaya responded to Siamese attempts to incite rebellion in Myanmar with an invasion of their territory. He captured the ports of Moulmein, Tavoy, and Tenasserim and surrounded Ayutthaya, the capital of Siam, the following year. During the siege of Ayutthaya, Alaungpaya was mortally wounded and died while his army retreated. He was succeeded by his son Naungdawgyi (r. 1760– 1763), who ruled for only about three years. In 1767,Alaungpaya’s second son, Hsinbyushin (r. 1763–1776), mounted a successful invasion of Siam and succeeded where his father had failed. After mounting a fourteen-month siege against Ayutthaya, the capital city fell and the Myanmar armies sacked the city entirely. Hsinbyushin’s armies occupied much of the Shan and Lao states as well as the Manipur kingdom in India. During the period between 1766 and 1769, China, fearing the growing power of Myanmar, invaded the county four times but was held off by Hsinbyushin. Bodawpaya (r. 1782–1819), another son of Alaungpaya and sixth king of the dynasty, launched frequent but unsuccessful campaigns to recapture

24

A l au n g paya D y n a s t y

Ayutthaya, which the Siamese had reoccupied after its initial defeat. His grandson and successor, Bagyidaw (r. 1819–1837), was defeated by the British in the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826). In the resulting Treaty of Yandabo (1826), he was forced to cede several coastal regions to British India. Myanmar continued to lose territory and authority to the British, and in 1852, King Pagan (r. 1846–1853), the ninth ruler of the Alaungpaya dynasty, was defeated by the British in the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852), leading to the loss of southern Myanmar. By 1878, the struggle between Myanmar and the British was at a peak. Britain, fearing the rising power of the French in Southeast Asia, launched a Third Anglo-Burmese War (1885) to gain full control of the region. The victorious British annexed all of Burma and deposed the current king, Thibaw (r. 1778–1885), ending the rule of the Alaungpaya dynasty. See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Burmese Kingdoms; Manipur Kingdom; Pegu Kingdoms; Siam, Kingdoms of;Thibaw.

ALBERT I (1250–1308 C.E.) King of Germany (r. 1298–1308) and duke of Austria and Styria (r. 1282–1298), a member of the powerful Habsburg dynasty, who was a capable military leader and competent administrator. Albert I was the son of King of Germany Rudolph I (r. 1273–1291), the founder of the Habsburg dynasty and king of the Germans. Toward the end of Rudolph’s reign, the German princes, or electors, became afraid of the growing power and independence of the Habsburgs.Thus, after Rudolph’s death in 1291, the electors, led by Archbishop Gerhard Mainz, acted to prevent the Crown from becoming hereditary. Instead of choosing Albert to succeed his father, the German princes elected the duke of Luxemburg, Adolph of Nassau (r. 1292–1298), as King of Germany. Adolph took the throne in 1292. Before long, however, Pope Boniface VIII became dissatisfied with Adolph, who had allied with Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307) against Philip IV of France (r. 1285–1314). In 1298, with the support of the pope and most

of the princes, Albert deposed Adolph. Adolph’s forces met those of Albert at the battle of Gollsheim, where Adolph was defeated and killed. With Adolph’s death, the princes elected Albert as king. Meanwhile,Albert’s son, Rudolph III (r. 1298–1307), took over the duchy of Austria. It was politically important for Albert’s authority to be recognized by Pope Boniface VIII, who had helped Albert get elected. But after the removal of Adolph, Boniface became concerned about the relaxation of tensions between France and Germany, and he wanted Albert to renounce all imperial rights to northern Italy. Albert refused, and Boniface refused to recognize Albert’s Crown. Boniface started to organize what was left of Adolph’s supporters against Albert. This greatly annoyed Albert, who then arranged a marriage between his son and the daughter of King Phillip IV of France. Albert also supported the towns along the Rhine River in a toll struggle against the German imperial electors, who were backed by the pope. The electors revolted, but Albert suppressed the uprising. In 1303, the pope needed Albert’s support in the papal struggle against France, and an agreement was negotiated between Albert and the papacy. In return for recognition by the pope, Albert would acknowledge that only the pope had the right to bestow the imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire. Albert promised that none of his sons would be elected German king and emperor without papal consent. Free from his disagreement with the pope, Albert turned his attention to his empire. In 1301, King Wenceslaus II of Bohemia (r. 1278–1305) and Poland (r. 1300–1305) claimed the Hungarian succession for his son,Wenceslaus III (r. 1301–1305). Fearful of a possible alliance between Bohemia and France, Albert marched into Hungary in 1304. The situation changed, however, when Wenceslaus II died in 1305. His son,Wenceslaus III, the last ruler of the Premysl dynasty, withdrew to his kingdom of Bohemia.When Wenceslaus III was murdered in 1306, Albert claimed both Bohemia and Moravia for his son, Rudolph (r. 1306–1307). In 1307, Albert attempted to claim the region of Thuringia, but his forces were defeated at the battle of Lucka. Meanwhile, Albert’s son Rudolph died the same year, leaving Bohemia to Henry of Carinthia (r. 1307–1310). Revolts in Swabia, the Swiss cantons, and the Rhineland later in the year forced Albert to

Alexander I, Tsar turn his attention to the west. In 1308, a group of conspirators, including a nephew, Duke John of Swabia, assassinated Albert I. His successor on the throne, elected by the German princes, was Henry of Luxembourg, who ruled as Henry VII (r. 1308– 1313). See also: Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Philip IV, the Fair; Rudolf I. FURTHER READING

Heer, Friedrich. The Holy Roman Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968.

25

In 1931, Alexander declared an end to the dictatorship and proclaimed a new constitution, keeping the majority of the power to himself, however. He improved diplomatic relations with other Balkan states, but his authoritarian control and centralized authority led to increased dissent and tensions within Yugoslavia as separatist factions of Croats and Macedonians fought for a return to democracy. While on a diplomatic visit to France in 1934, Alexander was assassinated by a member of a Croatian terrorist organization. He was succeeded on the throne by his son, Peter II (r. 1934–1945). See also: Croatian Kingdom; Montenegro Kingdom; Serbian Kingdom.

ALEXANDER I (1888–1934 C.E.) King of Yugoslavia from 1921 to1934, who was a key figure in the Balkan Wars and World War I. Born in the Balkan state of Montenegro on December 16, 1888, Alexander was the second son of King Peter I (r. 1903–1921), ruler of the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Educated largely in Russia, Alexander became crown prince of Serbia in 1909 after his older brother, George, renounced his succession to the throne. In 1904, Alexander joined the imperial forces of Russia, and he later gained distinction as a leader of Serbian forces fighting against the Ottoman Turks during the Balkan Wars of 1912– 1913. Some historians speculate that Alexander may have been linked to the Serbian Black Hand society, the organization credited with masterminding the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of AustroHungary on June 28, 1914, an event that led to the start of World War I.This is unproven, however. During the war, Alexander led Serbian forces and petitioned Allied governments to combine forces and form a “greater Serbia” comprised of the kingdoms of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. This unification ultimately occurred on December 1, 1918, with Alexander acting as regent of the kingdom for his father, who was in exile in Geneva, Switzerland. Alexander took the throne upon the death of his father in 1921, and on August 3, 1929, he renamed the kingdom Yugoslavia. The change led to some problems, however. Croat nationalism caused great ethnic and religious turmoil within the country. In an effort to overcome dissent, Alexander abolished parliament and declared a dictatorship on January 6, 1929.

ALEXANDER I,TSAR (1777–1825 C.E.) Russian emperor who ruled from 1801 to 1825 and who expelled Napoleon from Russia in 1812. Alexander Pavlovich was the grandson of Catherine II (r. 1762–1796) and the oldest son of Paul Petrovich and Maria Fedorovna.As empress, Catherine had isolated Alexander from his parents because she wanted him to succeed her rather than her own son Paul, whom she disliked. To prepare Alexander for the throne, she hired the Swiss republican Jean Francoise de La Harpe to instruct him in European politics, history, and philosophy. Under La Harpe’s tutelage, Alexander embraced the need for a Russian constitution and renounced governmental corruption and serfdom. Despite Catherine’s plans, her son Paul seized the throne when she died in 1796. Unlike Catherine’s Westernized, opulent court, the court of Paul I (r. 1796–1801) was despotic, militant, and crude. He imprisoned anyone suspected of disloyalty and initiated unprovoked wars with England and France. Consequently, in 1801, conspirators led by Count Petr von Pahlen plotted his overthrow. Assured that his father would not be harmed, Alexander assented. When the conspirators brutally murdered Paul, Alexander was distraught and initially refused to reign. However, Pahlen convinced him that Russia would collapse without a recognizable leader, and Alexander reluctantly became emperor. As tsar, Alexander I initially demonstrated an increased liberalism. He released his father’s prisoners, reestablished personal rights for the nobility, dis-

26

Alexander I, Tsar

Tsar Alexander I of Russia secured a powerful position in European affairs—and his place in history—through his role in the defeat of Napoleon.After Alexander’s reported death in 1825, rumors persisted that he was living as a hermit in Siberia. In 1926, the Soviet government opened his tomb in St. Petersburg and found it empty.

mantled the Secret Chancellery, and significantly increased educational funding. He also commissioned his close adviser, Michael Speransky, to draft a “Charter for the Russian People” which was intended initially to increase the Senate’s power to levy taxes and write laws. Eventually, Speransky proposed the creation of an elected parliament that would be empowered to introduce legislation and veto the tsar’s laws. Furthermore,Alexander accepted an early plan to abolish serfdom. The emancipation plan largely failed because landowners refused to voluntarily free their serfs and provide them with land. This failure presaged a lack of fulfillment in Alexander’s other designs. He ultimately forbade a constitution and dismissed Speransky. Alexander did restructure individual ministries, but he limited the powers of their administrators. In total, Alexander abandoned his earlier liberalism.

Paul’s murder may have disillusioned Alexander. His early plans clearly appeased Pahlen and the other conspirators. But when Alexander eventually felt secure enough, he dismissed Pahlen from his government and halted most reforms. In addition, Alexander inherited Catherine’s paternalistic attitude toward the Russian subjects and believed that only he could implement reform. Despite his domestic failures, Alexander achieved tremendous foreign success. He recognized that Napoleon posed a powerful threat and actively tried to prevent French expansion across Europe. At first Alexander failed. Napoleon crushed the Russian forces, led by Alexander himself, first at Austerlitz in 1805, then at Friedland in 1807. After these disasters, Alexander negotiated a treaty with France. The treaty forced Russia to accept Napoleon’s Continental System. This arrangement blocked all European trade with England, thereby crippling Napoleon’s greatest enemy. But the system also decimated Russia’s economy because England was the largest importer of Russian iron and timber. Still, Alexander honored the agreement because it gave him time to rebuild and strengthen his army. In 1812, Alexander denounced the treaty with France. When Napoleon invaded, the Russian army surprisingly retreated and burned all the villages and cropland in its path, eliminating potential supplies for the French. Although Napoleon ransacked Moscow, the oncoming winter threatened his forces. While Napoleon retreated, the Russian army relentlessly attacked, finally trapping and defeating the French at the Berezina River in 1812. Ignoring his advisers,Alexander pursued Napoleon to France and triumphantly entered Paris along with the English and Austrian armies in 1814. Alexander then formed a Holy Alliance among all European kingdoms except England and the Vatican. The alliance emphasized the precepts of “Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace.” Alexander believed that Russia’s collective suffering during France’s dominance and its subsequent victory were divine experiences.Yet most European rulers ignored the treaty because they rejected Alexander’s perceived mysticism. Violent rebellions in Spain and Italy subsequently undermined Alexander’s own belief in the alliance and also solidified his resistance to a Russian constitution. Dismayed, Alexander allowed his chief of staff, Aleksei Arakcheev, to control government pol-

Alexander II icy. Although Arakcheev reduced governmental corruption, he sadistically refused to alleviate harsh conditions among both the serfs and the military. In 1824, an underground group, the Decembrists, planned Alexander’s overthrow. However, Alexander died before they could act. The new tsar, Nicholas I (r. 1825–1855), crushed the infant rebellion in 1825, but the possibility of a successful revolution had arisen. Alexander transformed the Russian army into an imposing force. But he neither abolished serfdom nor implemented a constitution, and his passion as a ruler dissipated as his reign continued. Consequently, Alexander squandered the chance to reform Russian society and quell the rebellious fervor that swept across Russia for the next century. See also: Catherine II, the Great; Nicholas I; Romanov Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Hartley, Janet M. Alexander I. New York: Longman, 1994. McConnell, Allen. Tsar Alexander I: Paternalist Reformer. New York:Thomas Y. Crowell, 1970.

ALEXANDER II (1818–1881 C.E.) Russian emperor (r. 1855–1881) who emancipated the serfs in 1861. Alexander Nikolaevich was the oldest son of Tsar Nicholas I (r. 1825–1855) and Aleksandra Feodorovna. Nicholas, distressed by his own poor education, scrupulously prepared Alexander to become tsar. He assigned two distinguished tutors, General Merder and the poet Vasily Zhukovsky, to instruct his son. In 1837 and 1838, Alexander made extensive tours through Russia and Western Europe. After returning, he served as a diplomat and headed State Council meetings when Nicholas was absent. Consequently, when Nicholas died in 1855, Alexander had already acquired substantial political experience. Upon assuming the throne, he immediately halted the Crimean War (1853–1856), which had crippled the Russian military and economy. In 1856, Alexander signed the Treaty of Paris, which eliminated Russia’s coveted military positions in the Black Sea and restricted Russia’s European influence.

27

Russia subsequently used its alliance with Prussia to maintain strength in Europe. Domestic troubles were far more pressing for Alexander. Serfdom had finally crippled the Russian economy. Russia badly needed factories to modernize its economy, but no independent labor existed because the serfs were legally bound to Russia’s vast rural estates.At the same time, landowners were unable to introduce modern agricultural equipment and techniques because of the serfs’ lack of education. Farming had become unproductive and unprofitable, and landowners were finally willing to entertain plans to eliminate serfdom. In 1861, Alexander signed an act to free the serfs. The act established local committees to determine how much land each family of serfs would be allocated. The government compensated individual landowners for their lost land and the value of their serfs and issued forty-nine-year mortgages to the serfs to repay the expenditure. Peasant communes were used to collect the taxes and arbitrate any disputes. Because the serfs were not given the amount of land they had formerly farmed, many believed the landowners were disobeying the actual law. The emancipation necessitated other essential social reforms. In 1864, Alexander approved the formation of zemstvos, locally elected bodies charged with maintaining the infrastructure and administering schools, hospitals, and other public institutions. That same year, Alexander also reformed the judicial system.To recognize the newly freed serfs, laws were rewritten to provide equality for all individuals, jury trials, due process, and an independent judiciary.The military was also thoroughly reformed. In 1874, conscription was expanded to include all men over the age of twenty. The term of service was also reduced from fifteen years to six to attract the liberated serfs into the military. As a part of his reforms, Alexander also increased public freedoms. He eliminated the Third Section, the oppressive secret police force his father had developed. In 1865, he passed a new censorship law that greatly decreased government control of publications. Also, under Alexander, the Russian government promoted the building of railroads, factories, and other modern facilities. Because of these reforms, many members of the Russian upper class expected Alexander to radically alter the government, replacing the monarchy with an elected, representative body. However, Alexander

28

Alexander II

shared the autocratic views of his ancestors. Although he recognized the need to abolish serfdom and modernize the economy, Alexander never intended to relinquish the tsar’s undisputed power. In response, members of the educated elite formed a group called Land and Liberty which, during the 1870s, adopted a populist policy designed to instigate a lower class revolution. Although the peasant class was generally dissatisfied with its social condition, they remained loyal to Alexander because he had freed them from serfdom. In 1879, exacerbated by their failure to start a peasant revolt, members of Land and Liberty formed the People’s Will Party. Their goal was to terrorize the government and assassinate Alexander. The People’s Will Party narrowly missed assassinating Alexander on two occasions. In 1880, group members planted a bomb in the dining room of the Winter Palace before a state dinner for the prince of Bulgaria. The bomb prematurely detonated before Alexander arrived, but dozens were killed in the blast.Alarmed,Alexander repealed many of the freedoms he had granted in the preceding decades. But he also accepted a plan to allow elected representatives to serve on the State Council. In March 1881, a bomb blast overturned Alexander’s carriage as he traveled to the Winter Palace. As he emerged from the wreckage, a second blast fatally wounded him. He was taken to the palace where he soon died. Although Alexander had introduced greater reforms than any previous monarch, his attempts to preserve Russia’s autocratic government led to his assassination. See also: Nicholas I; Romanov Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Christian, David. Imperial and Soviet Russia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Lincoln, W. Bruce. The Great Reforms. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990. Smith, David. Russia of the Tsars. London: Ernest Benn, 1971. Wieczynski, Joseph L., ed. The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History. Vol 1. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press, 1976.

ALEXANDER III. See ROMANOV DYNASTY

ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT (356–323 B.C.E.)

Ruler of ancient Macedon (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) whose military genius and towering ambition enabled him to spread his empire throughout southern Asia and the Middle East in a little over a decade. Alexander the Great is one of the most famous and culturally significant figures of the ancient world, yet many of the facts of his life are colored by legend and rumor. References, stories, and myths about Alexander appear in numerous cultures, and his life became the subject of frequent romantic poetry and prose in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Over the course of subsequent history, Alexander’s reign became a sort of morality tale, a story of one man’s desire to conquer the world and how this hubris led to his downfall. While there is little historical evidence to show whether or not Alexander sought world domination, this view of him is the one most commonly held, even today.That he was a man of remarkable energy and drive, and that he stands among the greatest military leaders in history, are perceptions beyond dispute. It is also generally agreed that Alexander was the person most responsible for the spread of Hellenistic culture and ideals throughout much of the ancient world.

EARLY LIFE AND RISE TO POWER Alexander’s ambitions and political skills were honed from a young age. Born in 356 b.c.e., he was the son of King Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.), who was himself a great military tactician. During Philip’s reign, Macedon emerged as the most prominent of the Greek city-states, and Philip’s successful wars against the other principalities allowed him to effectively unify Greece. Alexander’s mother was Olympias, the daughter of a local chieftain from Epirus in northwestern Greece.Alexander was reportedly much closer to his mother than his father, who had scorned Olympias for one of his other wives. Alexander’s later cultural sophistication is said to have been attributable to his mother’s influence. The education of the young prince was given much priority, and the great philosopher Aristotle was installed as his tutor. Alexander’s career began unexpectedly early. Philip was assassinated, probably by rivals, in 336

A l e x a n d e r I I I , t h e G r e at

29

ROYAL RELATIVES

OLYMPIAS The wife of King Philip II of Macedonia and mother of Alexander the Great, Olympias was the daughter of Neoptolemus, the head of the small kingdom of Epirus. Olympias married Philip in 359 b.c.e. and gave birth to Alexander in 356 b.c.e.. Her marriage to Philip was by all accounts cold, and it dissolved to the point of Philip claiming a new wife in 337 b.c.e., at which point Olympias took Alexander and moved to Epirus. Philip’s assassination in 336 b.c.e. has been blamed on Olympias, but there is very little evidence to prove this accusation. Her son’s accession to the throne was a source of great pride for her, for she and Alexander were quite close. Consequently, Alexander’s decision to make his general, Antipater, ruler of Macedon while he was in Asia did not please Olympias, and the queen made several attempts to take control of the kingdom herself. Upon Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e., Olympias was left with few protectors in Macedon, so she fled to Epirus. The civil wars that engulfed the Macedonian Empire after Alexander’s death gave Olympias an opportunity to return to the throne.The queen rallied a large army and ordered the execution of many of her rivals, including some close relatives. She battled fiercely with Antipater’s son Cassander, the leader of the major opposition, but ultimately was forced to surrender in 316 b.c.e. Shortly thereafter, Olympias was executed on Cassander’s orders.

b.c.e., bringing his son to the throne at the age of twenty.The young Alexander was greatly respected, and the military quickly signaled their support for him. In 335 b.c.e., Alexander led his army on a march into Thebes when that city revolted against Macedonian rule.The astonishing speed and utter ferocity with which Alexander’s forces quelled the Thebans ensured that rebellion would not spread to the rest of Greece. Alexander’s father had long contemplated an attack on the Persian Empire to the east, and the young king set about putting this plan in motion almost immediately after putting down the uprising in Thebes. In 334 b.c.e., Alexander set sail with his troops for the Hellespont, one of the straits separating Greece from Anatolia (present-day Turkey), thus beginning his march through Asia.

CONQUEST BEGINS The Persians under King Darius III (r. 335–330 b.c.e.) seriously underestimated the strength of

Alexander’s forces, and the Macedonian king was able to take much of the peripheral territory of the Persian Empire with minimal effort. The Macedonians then turned southward toward Syria, where they hoped to secure the Mediterranean coastline. There, Alexander and his troops met direct opposition from Darius’s forces for the first time but quickly sent the Persians fleeing.The Persians offered a portion of their empire to Alexander if he would lay down his arms, but he refused and made it known that his intention was to take the whole of the Persian Empire. His next step was to march toward Egypt.

Initial Successes Persian forces in Gaza and Tyre along the eastern Mediterranean coast held out much longer against the Macedonians than previous forces had. As punishment,Alexander had their people sold into slavery after his eventual victory in 332 b.c.e. Alexander then took Egypt without spilling a drop of blood, for the Egyptians saw the Macedonians as their liberators from Persian oppression.

30

A l e x a n d e r I I I , t h e G r e at Caspian Sea, only to be murdered by his own men in 330 b.c.e. Alexander continued eastward to the region of Bactria in central Asia, but his own men began to chafe at their leader’s despotic generalship, and some started to plot against him. Alexander responded to this insurgency with great severity, a decision that helped quiet his men for the short term but added to a growing list of complaints against him.

Developing Unrest Alexander intended not merely to rout the Persian Empire but to make the world Greek. As a result, he established local governments and educational institutions throughout his growing empire. While these served the purpose of spreading Hellenistic culture around the Mediterranean, they were frequently run by lackluster officials, leading to general dissatisfaction. Alexander also pushed for the cultural integration of Greeks and former Persians, which was met with skepticism and resistance on both sides. As impressive as his empire was in scope, it was becoming increasingly fragile at its core. The military genius Alexander III of Macedonia, known as Alexander the Great, built an empire that stretched from the Adriatic Sea to India. This mosaic, found in the ruins of Pompeii, Italy, depicts Alexander in 333 b.c.e. at the Battle of Issus, where he defeated the Persian ruler Darius III.

It was in Egypt that the idea began to circulate that Alexander was a god-like figure, adding to the legends rapidly multiplying around him. The Egyptian occupation also witnessed the founding of the city of Alexandria, which would become one of the major commercial centers of the Mediterranean region. With the Mediterranean finally under his control,Alexander turned eastward and began his march across Persia. In 331 b.c.e., Alexander met Darius’s troops again, this time outside the city of Nineveh near the village of Guagamela in upper Mesopotamia. Darius had brought together an enormous army to face Alexander, but the Macedonians were again victorious.The Greeks then marched south to Babylon and the royal city of Persepolis. Having escaped death, Darius led Alexander on a rapid chase toward the

THE HEIGHT OF EMPIRE Alexander’s growing awareness of his empire’s internal discord did little to stop his march, which turned eastward in pursuit of Bessus, the Persian satrap, or governor, of Bactria, who was finally caught in the spring of 328 b.c.e. Alexander then continued toward India, routing clan after clan and spreading Greek ideals, as well as his own legendary status, across southwest Asia. The Macedonians fought what many historians consider their greatest battle in 326 b.c.e., when Alexander brilliantly subdued the army of Porus, one of the most powerful Indian rulers. The Macedonian victory was so impressive that Porus became an ally of Alexander, and he was installed as a local governor upon the departure of the Macedonians. Alexander continued eastward, hoping to take all of India. His men, however, refused to continue their endless march, and a standoff of several days between Alexander and his troops convinced the king that he should begin the march homeward. After exploring portions of India’s Punjab region, the Macedonians tried to follow the Indian Ocean on their return trip west. Finding this route impassable, they were forced inland to the Gedrosian Desert, where starvation and dehydration killed many of the troops.

A l f o n s o V, t h e M a g n a n i m o u s The Macedonians finally arrived at the Iranian city of Susa in the spring of 324 b.c.e.

REBELLION, DEATH, AND COLLAPSE In Susa, Alexander enacted a series of administrative reforms to strengthen his delicate empire, though he would not live long enough to see them put in place. He again courted the displeasure of his troops by forcing some of them to marry Persian women and by removing several popular military leaders from his ranks.This led to a brief mutiny near the town of Opis, which Alexander put down quickly and relatively peacefully. The death of Alexander’s lifelong friend Hephaistion in the autumn of 324 b.c.e. sent the king into a period of intense mourning and psychological distress. The end of that year saw him move his men southward to Babylon. By this point, Alexander had assumed god-like status in the eyes of many, including, to some extent, his own people. Many inhabitants of the empire, however, began to grow weary of Alexander’s overzealous personal ambitions, and as the reforms he promised were slow in coming, general discontentment continued to rise. Alexander, however, was more concerned with further exploration than in internal reforms and set about planning an ocean voyage around the Arabian Peninsula to Egypt to take place in the summer of 323 b.c.e. Before he could embark, however,Alexander caught a terrible fever.As he lay on his deathbed, he ordered each member of the Macedonian army to pay a final visit to him. Alexander died in June 323 b.c.e. at the age of thirty-three. The Macedonian Empire collapsed into civil war almost immediately after his death. However, the educational, cultural, and commercial links that Alexander had forged between the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and southern Asia formed the backbone of the later Roman Empire. See also: Divinity of Kings; Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman; Greek Kingdoms, Ancient; Hellenistic Dynasties; Macedonian Empire; Military Roles, Royal; Persian Empire; Philip II of Macedon. FURTHER READING

Lane Fox, Robin. Alexander the Great. New York: Penguin, 1994.

31

ALEXANDRA (1872–1918 C.E.) Last tsarina of Russia, wife of Tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917).Alexandra was born Alix Victoria Louise Beatrice, princess of Hesse-Darmstadt, a grand duchy of the German Empire, in 1872. Her mother Alice was a daughter of Queen Victoria of Great Britain. When Alexandra visited Russia in 1889, the heir to the Russian throne, the Tsarevich Nicholas, fell in love with her. Nicholas and Alexandra Feodorovna, as she became known in Russia, were married shortly after the death of Nicholas’s father, Tsar Alexander III (r. 1881–1894) in 1894. The couple eventually had five children—Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Tsaravich Alexei, who had hemophilia. Alexandra’s anxiety over Alexei’s illness led the tsarina to depend for guidance and support on a selfdeclared holy man and faith healer named Rasputin. Rasputin’s excessive influence at court was only one of many problems in imperial Russia at that time, which included growing movements for social change ranging from the moderate to the extreme. Tsar Nicholas often relied on Alexandra for advice, but during World War I suspicions that the Germanborn tsarina was pro-German undermined the tsar’s authority. When Nicholas went to the battlefront to take command of the army in 1915, Alexandra assumed control of the government in St. Petersburg. However, because of Rasputin’s influence over the tsarina, the monk was the primary decision-maker until his assassination in 1916. By 1917, Russia was in a state of chaos; Nicholas abdicated in March, but this did not resolve the situation.The Bolsheviks emerged as the victors in the Russian Revolution of November 1917.The imperial family was arrested, imprisoned, and executed in July 1918. See also: Nicholas II; Romanov Dynasty; Russian Dynasties;Victoria.

ALFONSO V, THE MAGNANIMOUS (1396–1458 C.E.) King of Aragón and Sicily (r. 1416–1458) and of Naples (as Alfonso I, r. 1442–1458), who played an important part in Italian politics and became a great patron of the arts and literature.

32

A l f o n s o V, t h e M a g n a n i m o u s

Alfonso’s father, King Ferdinand I of Aragón (r. 1412–1416), was also the ruler of Catalonia, Valencia, and Sicily. Educated at the Castilian court, Alfonso followed his father to Aragón when Ferdinand became king in 1412. Alfonso married his cousin, Maria of Castile, in 1415, but they had no children. Alfonso succeeded to the thrones of Aragón and Sicily upon his father’s death in 1416. He gained the name “Magnanimous” (or “noble of mind”) when he destroyed a list of nobles who had opposed him. Alfonso was known for his generosity and charm, as well as his shrewd mind, political ability, and love of learning. In 1420 Alfonso, eager to follow Aragón’s tradition of Mediterranean expansion, set out to win the island of Corsica. The childless Joanna II (r. 1414–1435), queen of Naples, asked Alfonso to become her adopted heir in return for his assistance against Louis III of Anjou (1417–1434). To those who opposed this risky venture, Alfonso replied, “No one has ever yet won glory without danger and difficulty.” In 1423, however, Joanna transferred her favor from Alfonso to Louis. On her death in 1435,Alfonso claimed the kingdom of Naples, but Duke René of Anjou (1434–1480), Louis’s successor, opposed Alfonso, aided by the pope and Dule Filippo Maria Visconti of Milan. In 1435, Genoese troops captured Alfonso and turned him over to Visconti, but he charmed his captor and they formed an alliance. In 1442, Alfonso defeated René, made a triumphal entry into Naples, and established his royal court there. He never again returned to Aragón, delegating his brother Juan to rule there as regent. Alfonso also had his wife Maria rule as regent in Catalonia. While in Italy, Alfonso had an illegitimate son, Ferdinand, with his mistress, Lucrezia de Alagno. He legitimized Ferdinand and made him his rightful heir to Naples. Alfonso’s court in Naples was known as a center of Renaissance learning and culture. He gave new vigor to the administration, which had become inefficient under previous weak rulers. His neglect of problems in Aragón, however, led to social and economic unrest there, which his successors later had to face and resolve. Upon his death in 1458, Alfonso V was succeeded as king of Naples by his son, Ferdinand I (r. 1458–1494), and as king of Aragón by his brother, Juan (John) II (r. 1458–1479).

See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Naples, Kingdom of; Sicily, Kingdom of.

ALFONSO X, THE WISE (1221–1284 C.E.)

Medieval king of Castile and León (r. 1252–1284), noted for his patronage of the arts and scholarship, who also continued with the Christian reconquest of Iberia from the Moors. Alfonso was the son of King Ferdinand III (r. 1217–1252) of Castile and León, and Beatriz, daughter of German king Philip of Swabia (r. 1198–1208), through whom Alfonso had a claim to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. When Ferdinand died in 1252,Alfonso succeeded to the throne and continued Ferdinand’s campaign to drive the Moors from Iberia. In 1262, Alfonso conquered the southern Iberian city of Cádiz from the Moors, but two years later his Moorish subjects there revolted. Alfonso’s insistence on royal authority also led to a rebellion among the nobles of Castile and Leon. Despite attempts to reclaim Moorish territories and anti-Semitic legislation, Alfonso welcomed both Islamic and Jewish scholars to his court. Under his patronage, fifty astronomers gathered at the city of Toledo in 1252 and created the Alfonsine tables, an improvement on the study of planetary movement made by the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy. Alfonso also continued legal reforms begun by his father.The Siete Partidas, compiled by a group of jurists between 1251 and 1265, streamlined existing Castilian law and has been described as “the most important law code of the Middle Ages.” A patron of schools and universities, Alfonso supported schools in a number of cities, including Seville and Salamanca, whose university became one of the greatest in Iberia. Alfonso also focused his attention on literature, music, and games, including chess. Under his influence, the Castilian dialect spoken in his kingdom became paramount as the language of Spanish literature. Despite his accomplishments as a patron and reformer, Alfonso was criticized for lavish spending and was accused of weakness because of his interest in the arts and science. He was also involved in political intrigue. Through his mother, Beatriz, he hoped

Almohad Dynasty to claim the title of King of Germany. Although supported by one faction of German princes, Alfonso faced opposition from the pope and Spanish antagonism toward his ideas, and he renounced the claim to the German crown in 1275. That same year, Alfonso’s eldest son Ferdinand died while fighting the Moors. Subsequently, civil war erupted between supporters of Ferdinand’s heirs and allies of his brother Sancho. In 1282, Sancho’s supporters at the Cortes (the Spanish parliament), declared Alfonso deposed. The dispute over the succession, unsettled at Alfonso’s death in 1284, ended with Sancho’s accession to the throne later that same year as Sancho IV (r. 1284–1295). See also: Castile, Kingdom of.

ALFRED THE GREAT (849–899 C.E.) King of Wessex (r. 871–899) who is credited with unifying the different kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England and with being the first real king of all England. During his reign, Alfred proved to be an excellent warrior, an able negotiator, and an admirable administrator, strengthening the security of the state, building roads and towns, implementing a uniform law code, and establishing schools. When Alfred ascended the throne in 871, he took over a country already at war with Danish invaders. His initial attempts at routing them were so unsuccessful that, only a month after becoming king, a defeat at Wilton forced him to pay tribute to save his throne. Years of conflict against the Danes followed, finally culminating in a decisive victory against Danish forces at Edington in 878. Alfred was able to dictate terms in the subsequent Peace of Wedmore, limiting the Danes to an area that came to be called the Danelaw, which comprised East Anglia and East Mercia. Alfred ruled over the remaining territory, making himself king not only of Wessex, but of East Anglia and the western part of Mercia as well. Having established the boundaries of his kingdom through war, Alfred set about maintaining them by negotiating cordial relations with the Welsh, building new forts and reinforcing old ones, reorganizing his army, and building a navy, complete with ships of his own design. Far-sighted in his approach to social issues, he devised laws to ensure legal protections for

33

the poor while setting aside an eighth of the state revenues for education and an eighth for charitable relief. Concerned that the Danish incursions were a judgment from God on the English for letting the cause of education fail, Alfred provided a personal example of scholarship to inspire his subjects. With only a limited knowledge of Latin,Alfred arranged in 887 to study under a scholarly Welsh priest named Asser. Alfred then laboriously translated Pope Gregory’s Pastoral Care into English and saw to its distribution among the bishops of his country, many of whom had little Latin. Translations of other works, including Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England, and Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, are also attributed, in part or in whole, to the king.These personal efforts, and the many other works translated into English under his patronage, put Alfred well ahead of his fellow European monarchs in recognizing the importance of the vernacular languages in making learning more accessible. It was not only Alfred’s accomplishments, but also his temperament that set him apart from other monarchs. He combined personal modesty with effective leadership, even-handed administration, and concern for the welfare of his people. It is perhaps as much for his noble character as for his unification of warring states that he is frequently referred to as the first king of England. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Danish Kingdom; Education of Kings; Kent, Kingdom of; Literature and Kingship; Naval Roles; Northumbria, Kingdom of; Sussex, Kingdom of;Wessex, Kingdom of.

ALMOHAD DYNASTY (1130–1269 C.E.) Islamic family that ruled much of North Africa and Spain in the 1100s and 1200s. What later became known as the Almohad dynasty was actually begun as an Islamic religious movement in the 1100s. During the time of Almoravid rule in North Africa, Muhammad ibn Tumart (r. 1121–1130), a messianic leader in southern Morocco, became dismayed by what he saw as the people’s lost connection to their Islamic faith. Tumart began preaching in Morocco about moral reform and oneness with God. His movement was

34

Almohad Dynasty

called Almohad (in Arabic, al-Muwahhidun, which means monotheists). By the 1120s, his movement had attracted many Arab and Berber followers in the nearby mountains. The Almohad religious message was soon broadened into a political movement, with the removal of the Almoravid dynasty as its central goal. In 1133, Tumart was succeeded by Abd al-Mu’min (r. 1133–1163), a Berber disciple of Tumart’s, as leader of the Almohads. Al-Mu’min took the title of caliph and thus founded the Almohad dynasty. An ambitious leader, al-Mu’min conquered Morocco in the 1140s and took over rule of Islamic Spain in the 1150s.With these conquests, he reigned over all the former territory of the Almoravid dynasty. Al-Mu’min also added territory in eastern Algeria and in Tunisia to the Almohad kingdom. Al-Mu’min and the first caliphs who succeeded him were strong administrators who ran their kingdom in an organized and efficient manner. Although they maintained control, they did allow tribal representatives some participation in government. The Almohads also are known for their cultural contributions, particularly in the field of architecture. Caliph Yakub al-Mansur (r. 1184–1198), in particular, built the Hassan Tower in Rabat, Morocco, and the Giralda Tower in Seville, Spain. Although the Almohads managed to maintain a united Islamic kingdom for more than two centuries, internal struggles between members with different tribal affiliations, as well as uprisings of Christians in Spain, brought about tensions and disorder. The decisive battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in southern Spain in 1212, in which Christian Spanish kings defeated the Almohads, marked the beginning of the end of Almohad power in Spain. By 1232, the Almohads had completely ceded their control in Spain. Some years earlier, Caliph Muhammad an-Nasir (r. 1199–1213) had divided the Almohad kingdom in Africa into two administrative districts, roughly divided by tribe. The western half was comprised mostly of Morocco and Algeria, while the eastern half was comprised mostly of Tunisia. The leader of the Hafsid dynasty was placed in charge of the eastern area. The Hafsids used this position of power to gain independence from the Almohads, and by 1230 they had formed a separate kingdom and monarchy. In the west, the Marinids and Ziyanids, local tribes in Morocco and Algeria, gradually gained control over

their regions and formed separate, independent kingdoms. By 1269, the Almohad dynasty had come to an end. See also: Almoravid Dynasty; Hafsid Dynasty; Iberian Kingdoms.

ALMORAVID DYNASTY (ca. 1042–1172 C.E.)

Ethnic Berber dynasty that united Muslim lands in Spain and Northwest Africa in the Middle Ages. Emerging from the torrid borderlands of the Sahara Desert region of Morocco, the Almoravids drew on their fierce Berber fighting spirit to establish a short-lived, religiously inspired Islamic dynasty. At their peak, the Almoravids ruled a vast swath of territory that stretched from the trading towns of sub-Saharan West Africa to the borders of Catalonia in northern Spain, laying the groundwork for the even larger Berber Empire of their successors, the Almohads. When Islam first came to Morocco in the eighth century, the native Berber tribesmen of the region had been subject to foreign overlords for many centuries—Carthaginians, Romans, Visigoths, and Byzantine Greeks. But they were never tempted to modify their tribal perspective until their new Arab overlords introduced them to Islam. Once the original Arab empires in the region disintegrated, leaving a power vacuum, the Berbers used Islam to fashion an ideology of conquest and rule. In the 800s and 900s, the nomadic tribes of the Berber Sanhaja clan parlayed their position at the northern end of the trans-Sahara trade route to build a powerful trading confederation. They profited by exchanging salt and manufactures for gold and slaves from the kingdom of Ghana. One of the Sanhaja chiefs, Yahya ibn Ibrahim, made a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1035, influenced by a wave of revivalism led by the Sunni branch of Islam that was sweeping the Muslim world. Yahya returned to North Africa accompanied by a Moroccan teacher, ‘Abd Allah ibn Yasin, who was determined to purify what he perceived to be the lax, uninformed Islam of the region. Those who joined them in their ribat (fortress) retreat became known as al-murabitun, “the people of the retreat” (in the Latin transliteration, the name became Almoravids).

Ambassadors Yahya proclaimed a jihad, or holy war, in 1042. By his death in 1159, the Almoravids had conquered all of southern Morocco. His successors, abu Bakr ibn ‘Umar (r. 1056–1061) and Yusuf ibn Tashufin (r. 1061–1106), conquered all of North Africa as far east as Algiers, ruling from the newly founded capital of Marrakesh. They also launched a jihad against pagan Ghana in 1076, putting an end to that 500year-old trading state.Yusuf ibn Tashufin adopted the title Commander of the Faithful, and managed to get official recognition for the Amoravid regime from the caliphate in Baghdad. The backbone of the new Almoravid state was a Berber army with as many as 100,000 troops. A system of salaried judges, schooled in the new Muslim legal trends, helped govern the country effectively. One of the most popular reforms of the new order was to abolish all taxes on Muslims, except for those explicitly mentioned in the Koran. Unfortunately, there were few Christians in Morocco to pay the non-Muslim head tax. Consequently, the government was under constant pressure to find new territories to conquer, since 20 percent of the spoils of war went to the treasury. Almoravid military success attracted the attention of the beleaguered MuslimTaifa states of Andalusia in southern Spain. These local kingdoms had emerged following the collapse of the Ummayad caliphate. The Taifa states were under growing military pressure from the Christian rulers to their north, who exacted large annual tribute payments. In 1085, King Alfonso VI of Castile (r. 1065–1109) conquered the Moorish city ofToledo, the first major Muslim loss in Spain in more than three hundred years. In a panic, the Muslim rulers of Seville, Granada, and Badajoz traveled to Africa to enlistYusuf’s support. In four separate expeditions starting in 1086, Yusuf turned back the Christian tide and united most of Muslim Spain under Almoravid rule.Valencia was taken after the death of the Christian hero El Cid in 1102, and the last Christian holdout, Saragossa, fell to the Almoravids in 1110.The Balearic Islands in the western Mediterranean were seized as well; they were to remain the last Iberian stronghold of the Almoravids. Yusuf’s son, Ali ibn Yusuf (r. 1106–1142), ruled the entire Almoravid kingdom from Marrakesh; his brother Tamim governed Andalusia in his name from Granada, the regional capital. The Almoravid dynasty’s initial popularity soon waned, however. The

35

top ruling class was drawn entirely from the Sanhaja tribe, who stood out in the streets of Muslim Spain because of their unusual clothing—males wore a face veil that concealed all but their eyes. When military expansion ceased after 1018, the Almoravids were forced to introduce new taxes. Moreover, the religious tolerance that characterized earlier Muslim eras in Andalusia began to dissipate. Few Jews were able to enter government service, many Arabic-speaking Christians were forcibly removed to Morocco, and church properties were seized. In the 1130s, a rival group, the Almohads, began to amass support in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco. More puritanical than the Almoravids, but just as willing to use the promise of tax reform to undermine the current rulers, the Almohads conquered all their predecessors’African realms by 1145. By 1160, they had pushed their control of North Africa as far east as Libya. Most of Andalusia fell to Almohad rule after 1148. Saragossa, the last Almoravid stronghold on the Spanish mainland, fell in 1172, although a line of Almoravid princes continued to rule on the island of Majorca in the Balearic Islands until the late twelfth century. See also: Almohad Dynasty; Caliphates; Ghana Kingdom, Ancient;Taifa Rulers.

AMBASSADORS The highest ranking diplomatic officials, who usually reside in the foreign country to which they are sent. The word “ambassador” comes from the Latin ambaxator (from ambactiare, “to go on a mission”) and was first used in thirteenth-century Italy. The practice of rulers sending representatives to other states is a very old one, however. In past centuries, when travel and communications were difficult, personal meetings and negotiations between monarchs were not always possible, and were often considered inadvisable. Such meetings were difficult to arrange—the rulers had to meet on neutral ground (perhaps a bridge or stream between their territories); immense retinues had to accompany the rulers as a sign of their rank; and during times of war, there was always the fear that one ruler might harm or abduct the other.

36

Ambassadors

Not all societies have had the same concept of an ambassador. In some cultures, the ambassador was not considered equal in dignity to the sovereign he was addressing. But in Western Europe ambassadors sent by monarchs represented the person of their sovereign and were supposed to be treated with the same dignity due the ruler. The embassies of ancient Greek city-states often consisted of a large delegation, which did not always represent the state as such. Often, each envoy would represent a different opinion or faction within the state and would argue its case. In republican Rome, the Senate reserved for itself the right to choose and send diplomatic delegations, and continued to do so during the period of the Roman Empire, although the emperor often received ambassadors personally. In the Byzantine Empire, the emperor made himself appear as exalted as possible before ambassadors as a means of intimidation; they had to bow before him as his throne rose up to a great height before them by means of a mechanical device. In medieval Western Europe, the idea of an ambassador as the representative of the sovereign developed gradually. The earliest type of envoy, a nuntius (messenger), did not have any power to act on his own; this power was allowed to the procurator, who could actually conduct negotiations. A procurator could also represent the sovereign ceremonially, as ambassadors later did. Kings in the Middle Ages became increasingly conscious of their rank and dignity and might send a procurator to kneel and perform the humiliating act of feudal homage to an overlord for a territory, as Richard II (r. 1377– 1399) of England did for the region of Guienne in France. Medieval canon lawyers argued that ambassadors could not be harmed because this would be considered lesa majestatis, or harm to the person of a sovereign. The custom of resident ambassadors began in Renaissance Italy. Also called ordinary ambassadors, they were expected not so much to represent a monarch as to gather political information about their host country. Sometimes, however, extraordinary ambassadors were sent to negotiate with a monarch on particular occasions, which were treated with greater ceremony on both sides. Originally, it was not only European sovereign states or monarchs that had ambassadors; cities could

send them to the Holy Roman emperor. In the sixteenth century, however, Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558) insisted that only the diplomats sent by crowned heads of state and the Republic of Venice should be called ambassadors. Because he represented a monarch, an ambassador was usually a person of high status. In medieval Europe, ecclesiastics were sometimes chosen to serve as ambassadors. In seventeenth-century France, it was generally thought that an ambassador should be a noble, though there were many exceptions. As diplomacy began to be considered a profession, many of these ideas were codified. In 1716, François de Callieres, a French diplomat, wrote a treatise called De la maniere de négoicier avec les Souverains (On Negotiating with Sovereigns). In this document, he stipulated that ambassadors did not have to uncover their heads in front of the sovereign because they represented another sovereign, whereas lower-ranking diplomats, such as envoys and resident ministers, were required to bare their heads. It was because of this association of ambassadors with royalty that the United States did not appoint diplomats of ambassadorial rank until 1893. Modern developments in diplomacy, including instantaneous communication by phone and teleconferencing, the ease of international flight, the growth of roundtable conference diplomacy, and the founding of the United Nations, have made personal negotiation among world leaders easier and reduced the mystique of an ambassador as representing the person of a sovereign.Yet, ambassadors continue to perform their other functions, including social and cultural exchange and representing their country’s interests and its citizens abroad. See also: Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Diplomacy, Royal; Oaths and Oath-taking; Regalia and Insignia, Royal. FURTHER READING

Hamilton, Keith A., and Richard Langhorne. The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory, and Administration. NewYork: Routledge, 1995.

AMENHOTEP IV. See AKHENATEN

A m e r i c a n K i n g d o m s, C e n t r a l a n d N ort h

AMERICAN KINGDOMS, CENTRAL AND NORTH Kingdoms that developed in Central and North America since approximately the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, respectively. The native American kingdoms of Central and North America shared three main qualities: a centralized political organization, control over several tribes, and relatively vast territories. In Central America, the political entities that exhibited these qualities were those of the Aztecs or Mexicas, and the Purépechas or Tarascos. In North America, the Iroquois League of Nations, and the Huron, Powhatan, and Creek Confederacies developed a kingdom-like political organization.The autonomous evolution of these kingdoms was interrupted by the gradual arrival of Europeans beginning in the early sixteenth century.

CENTRAL AMERICA By the time the Spaniards arrived in Mexico in 1519, the different native groups of Mexico shared at least three characteristics. First, they relied on military expansion both to impose tribute over the peoples they subjected and to obtain sacrificial victims. The significance of war was indicated by the role assigned to war deities, as well as by the defensive location and architecture of many settlements. Second, the practice of long-distance trade provided native groups with access to diverse food staples and luxury goods.This was evidenced by the high status of merchants and the existence of settlements that specialized in commerce. Finally, the Mexican civilizations shared common iconographic symbols and artistic techniques.These included the use of light-blue lines and stepped architectural borders, and depictions of local fauna and flora.

The Aztecs Between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, two powerful states developed in the territory of Mexico. The first one was the Aztec Empire, which controlled the central and southern area of Mexico, with its capital city of Tenochtitlan. The other state was the Purépecha Empire, which controlled the eastcentral area of Mexico, with its capital city of Tzintzuntzan. Studies indicate that the Aztecs originated in the

37

north Mexican plateau. The Aztec origin myth claimed that they came from the island of Aztlan, north of the Valley of Mexico. In 1168, Huizilopochtli, their sun and war god, led them out of Aztlan toward the south.They arrived in the Valley of Mexico in 1248. Once there, they became vassals of the chiefdom of Culhuacán. Human sacrifices were an important aspect of Aztec religion, and as part of one of these rituals, they killed the daughter of the chief of Culhuacán. As a result, the Aztecs were forced to take refuge at an island on Lake Texcoco, where they founded the city of Tenochtitlan around 1325. After settling at Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs became vassals of the Tepanecs, whose capital city was Atzcapotzalco. Around 1400, the Aztecs joined forces with the city of Texcoco, and successfully rebelled against the Tepanecs. In 1428,Tenochtitlan,Texcoco, and Tlacopan formed the “Triple Alliance.” Under the rule of Moctezuma I (r. 1440–1468), the Aztecs and their allies began a rapid territorial expansion. By the mid-fifteenth century, the Triple Alliance had taken over the city of Azcapotzalco. It then proceeded to conquer Tlaxcala and Huejotzingo, located east of the Valley of Mexico. Gradually, the Aztecs became the main power within the Triple Alliance.According to some scholars, by the early sixteenth century Tenochtitlan reached a peak of 200,000 inhabitants. The Aztecs not only exacted tribute from the peoples that they conquered, but also demanded a number of sacrificial victims.

The Tarascos or Purépechas The other large state that the Spaniards encountered when they arrived in Mexico was the Tarasco or Purépecha Empire. According to some scholars, this group had similar origins to the Aztecs. Their origin myth claimed that they came from northern Mexico and that they arrived at the Lake Pátzcuaro basin around the thirteenth century. Their leader was called Ire-Ticátame, and their main deity was Curicaueri, who represented fire. Until the fifteenth century, the Purépechas were divided into various hereditary chiefdoms.The most important cities were Pátzcuaro, Cuyuacán or Ihuatzio, and Tzinzunzan. The first king who succeeded in unifying the Purépechas was Tariácuri, who ruled from 1300 to 1350 approximately. When he died, the kingdom was divided among his son, Hiquingaje,

38

A m e r i c a n K i n g d o m s, C e n t r a l a n d N ort h

and his nephews, Hirepan and Tangáxuan, who took control of Pátzcuaro, Cuyuacán, and Tzintzunzan, respectively. In the second half of the fifteenth century, Tangaxuan was able to unify the kingdom again. One of his successors, King Tzitzipandácuri (r. ca. 1454– 1479), increased the territory of the Purépecha Empire. The Purépechas achieved a great mastery of pottery and metallurgy. In alliance with the Matlatzincas, the Purépechas were able to resist the Aztecs and remain independent, while other peoples fell under the control of the Aztecs.

Spanish Conquest In 1519, Spanish conqueror Hernán Cortés disembarked on the eastern coast of Mexico. After establishing alliances with Cempoaltecas and Tlaxcaltecas, two native groups that were enemies of the Aztecs, he arrived at Tenochtitlan. Emperor Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) welcomed Cortés, believing he was an envoy of the Aztec deities.The Spaniards took advantage of the situation and captured Moctezuma. A group of Aztec nobles rebelled against the Europeans, killed Moctezuma, and appointed a new emperor, Cuauhtémoc. In 1521, the Spaniards defeated the rebels, captured Cuauhtémoc, and consolidated their control over the Valley of Mexico. Meanwhile, the last Purépecha emperor, Tangoxoan II (r. ?–1525), surrendered peacefully to Cristóbal de Olid, one of Cortés’s lieutenants.

NORTH AMERICA The European settlers who established themselves in eastern North America in the seventeenth century had contact with four major indigenous groups: the Iroquois League of Nations, and the Huron, Powhatan, and Creek Confederacies. All of these native groups had sedentary settlements and were located in river valleys. Their main agricultural products were corn, beans, and squash, a combination of crops that originated in Mesoamerica and that allowed them to make a broader use of their environment. Iroquois peoples were one of the largest native linguistic groups in the Eastern Woodlands. They were divided into the Iroquois League of Nations and the Huron Confederacy. The Iroquois League occupied the territory of modern upstate New York. Between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, various Iroquois villages began to ally with neighboring

towns in an attempt to solve conflicts and ease trade among each other.This led to the gradual formation of the Iroquois league, which was already established by the early sixteenth century. According to the Iroquois tradition, the founder of the league was chief Deganawidah.The Iroquois league was comprised of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca nations. The Huron Confederacy occupied the modern territory of Ontario (Canada) and was formed around 1420 by the Attignounstan and Attingneenognahac nations.The purpose of the confederacy was to avoid violent conflicts and allow peaceful commercial relations between the groups.Two other nations, the Arendahronon and the Tohonaenrats, joined the Huron Confederacy during the second half of the sixteenth century. Each nation was governed by its own council, and each sent representatives to a confederacy council. In 1609, French explorers and colonists established Quebec on the St. Lawrence River. Some years later, in 1624, the Dutch established Fort Orange, at the location of present-day Albany, New York. Both the Huron and Iroquois established commercial relations with the European settlers, mainly trading animal furs. By the late seventeenth century, however, the Iroquois had exhausted most of their animal stock. Seeking more resources, they began the “Beaver Wars” against the tribes of the Ohio River Valley region to the west.The power of the Iroquois declined afterward, owing to war, epidemics, and outmigration. The Powhatan Confederacy occupied the territory of present-day southeastern Virginia. It comprised about thirty-two tribes, including the Pamunkey, Mattapony, and Chickahominy, all of which belonged to the Algonquin linguistic group. When the British established the settlement of Jamestown in 1607, the chief of the confederacy was Wahunsonacock, or “Powhatan.” By this time, there were around two hundred Powhatan palisaded settlements. Initial relations between the natives and the British were peaceful, but they changed when the Europeans began to take land away from the Powhatan. The natives attacked the British in 1608, 1622, and 1644, but they were defeated. The Creek Confederacy occupied the southeastern part of the present-day United States. It comprised around fifty-two tribes, including the Muskogee, Yuchi, and Hitchitee. All of these tribes

Amhara Kingdom belonged to the Muskogean linguistic group. These different tribes formed the confederacy primarily to resist attacks from northern natives, as well as to face the threat posed by the Europeans after they arrived. The first explorer who had contact with the Creek was the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto, around 1540.The Spanish established some religious missions among the Creek, but they never managed to establish completely peaceful relations with the tribes. From the 1670s onward, the British succeeded in establishing trading links with the Creek, driving the Spanish missions out of their territory. See also: Aztec Empire. FURTHER READING

Fenton,William N. The Great Law and the Longhouse:A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. Pollard, Helen Perlstein. Tariácuri’s Legacy:The Prehispanic Tarascan State. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. Roundtree, Helen C., and E. Randolph Turner III. Before and After Jamestown:Virginia’s Powhatans and Their Predecessors. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2002. Smith, Michael Ernest. The Aztecs. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.

AMHARA KINGDOM (ca. 1270–1936 C.E.)

Former kingdom of east Africa that became a province of Ethiopia in 1936, named for the Amhara people who lived there. The Amhara people have been the dominant group through much of Ethiopia’s history. Rulers of the Amhara kingdom are known as the Solomonids because they claimed direct descent from Solomon’s son Menelik I, first emperor of Ethiopia. From 1270 until the fall of Haile Selassie I in 1974, Ethiopian rulers were descendants of the Amhara dynasty. The Amhara kingdom arose in the same region as the once great kingdom of Aksum, which declined sometime around 900. Amhara rulers share their descent from Solomon and the queen of Sheba with the Aksumite kings. From the tenth to the thirteenth centuries, the Zagwe dynasty ruled in Ethiopia. The

39

Zagwe kings were considered usurpers by those in the Solomonic line. In 1270, Emperor Yekuno Amiak (r. 1270–1285) conquered the Amhara region and proclaimed the reestablishment of the ancient Solomonic dynasty. In order to ensure that later kings would be of the Solomonic dynasty, Yekuno’s male children were placed in a secure mountain location and guarded by several hundred warriors. There they studied in isolation, in anticipation of their selection as heirs to the kingdom. Yekuno’s grandson, Amda Seyon (r. 1314–1344) was successful in gaining control over all the Christian districts of Ethiopia that had been fragmented during the Zagwe period. The Solomonic rulers had a negative impact on the development of urban centers throughout Ethiopia, preferring to move with their courts from district to district.The tent cities they erected had an advantage in that they could easily be dismantled when it became necessary to move on; however, such a policy did not encourage art and architecture. An additional advantage of a peripatetic royal court was that it enabled the king to maintain a close relationship with his subjects, who were welcome to approach his court whenever it was in their vicinity. The Muslim population throughout the region continued to grow and challenged the Christian leadership of Ethiopia.The first serious defeat of the Amhara was during Emperor Ba’eda-Maryan’s reign (r. 1468–1478), but the Ethiopians were able to regroup and maintain their kingdom. Later, Lebna Dengel (r. 1508–1540) forestalled conquest by Somali Muslims led by Ahmed Gran in the early 1530s by allying himself with Portugal. After these attacks, Lebna sought to centralize his power and established a capital at Gondar. After Lebna’s death, however, his sons weakened Amhara by internal strife over the succession. The Amhara were able to withstand the attacks of the Muslim Turks and defeat them in 1543, but Ethiopia became an isolated Coptic Christian nation. During the reign of Tewodros II (r. 1855–1868), Ethiopia clashed with Europeans, notably the British and Germans, who were intent upon colonizing the nation. Tewedros managed to retain at least nominal independence, but Ethiopia was now seen as strategically important, particularly because of its proximity to the Suez Canal, which was under construction in the 1860s. In the late nineteenth century, Menelik II (r.

40

Amhara Kingdom

1889–1911) was able to reassert Amhara rule over much of the former empire and set boundaries that remain generally intact in modern Ethiopia. See also: Aksum Kingdom; Haile Selassie I; Menelik II. FURTHER READING

Levine, Donald N. Greater Ethiopia:The Evolution of a Multiethnic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Pankhurst, Richard. The Ethiopians: A History. New York: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

ANDHRA KINGDOM (ca. 235 B.C.E.–175 C.E.)

Ancient kingdom in India whose rulers modeled themselves and their government on the great Maurya Empire. The Andhra kingdom was the domain of the Satavahana dynasty. Around 271 b.c.e., a leader named Simuka (r. ca. 235–212. b.c.e.) became the first Satavahana monarch when he overthrew the Kanvas dynasty and gained control of the Upper Deccan region. Simuka established a capital at Pratisthana and consolidated his control over the area. Initially, the Andhra kingdom encompassed only the land between Godavari River and the Krishna River.

EARLY RULERS Simuka and his two successors, Krishna (r. ca. 212–195 b.c.e.) and Satakarni I (r. ca. 195–193 b.c.e.), used the powerful Maurya Empire as a model for their government. Like the Mauryas, Simuka adopted the Hindu doctrine of dharma, which outlined the religious and moral rights and responsibilities of individuals and guided the way to social order and virtue. According to dharma, every monarch was required to be pious and just and was responsible for such diverse areas as agriculture, forestry, defense, and industry. To help him fulfill his duties, Simuka appointed a council of ministers to oversee the government’s various departments. A department was created for each activity in the kingdom, such as salt mining, weaving, and pasturage. Among the ministers, the treasury minister and tax revenue minister were the most powerful. With such careful delegation of

power, Simuka and his successors tightly controlled the kingdom during its first century of existence. After the death of Sakatarni I around 193 b.c.e., the Andhra kingdom entered a long and perilous period during which invasions by nomadic peoples from Central Asia weakened the kingdom and reduced its size. Eventually, in the second century c.e., an Indo-Greek dynasty known as the Western Satraps established a satrapy, or colony, near Maharashtra to the west of the Andhra kingdom. The Satavahana monarchs retained power only by pledging allegiance to the invaders.

THE KINGDOM’S GREATEST RULER In the mid-first century, the Satavahana monarch, Gautamiputra Satakarni (r. ca. 70–95), rallied the Andhran citizenry and regained control of the entire kingdom. Gautamiputra Satakarni is recognized as the most influential Satavahana monarch. During his reign, he reunited the various states of the Upper Deccan. He also conquered significant portions of western and central India. Under his leadership, the Andhra kingdom came to encompass all the land from the Krishna River in the south to the kingdom of Malwa in the north, and from the province of Berar in the east to the Konkan coast in the west. Freed from the threat of invasion, the Andhran economy expanded dramatically. Gautamiputra Satakarni closely regulated all aspects of the kingdom’s economy. He established farming villages, called grihas, which contained between 30 and 1,000 families. Farmland surrounded the communities, and each family was responsible for farming a portion of the land. Open pastures lay beyond the farmland, and again, each family was responsible for supervising the cattle upon their section. Each village was assigned a carpenter, blacksmith, potter, barber, horseman, and excavator. A superintendent, accountant, police captain, and doctor formed the village council and oversaw daily affairs. Gautamiputra Satakarni also encouraged the expansion of the artisan class in the Andhra kingdom. Woodworkers, leatherworkers, stonemasons, painters, confectioners, weavers, and jewelers all proliferated during his reign. Often, members of a profession would inhabit the same area of a city, and their shops would be grouped together. Mining became the Andhra kingdom’s most valu-

Angevin Dynasties able industry.The monarchy controlled all mines and profited greatly from the extraction of gold, silver, copper, lead, tin, iron, diamonds, and other precious stones. Under Gautamiputra, the monarchy monopolized the salt industry; constructed its own cotton, oil, and sugar factories; and strictly regulated alcohol production. The Satavhana monarchy also controlled all trading in the kingdom. Goods could not be sold in the same community where they were manufactured; instead, the government erected public markets where the goods were sold and traded. All sellers were required to have a license issued by the government, and the government set the quantity and prices of the goods that could be sold. Merchants attempting to skirt the regulations were heavily punished. The Andhran economy became very prosperous largely because of Gautamiputra’s expert control and management. He combined this skill with military prowess to completely dominate the kingdom. However, his successors struggled to maintain this dominance. Their inability and ineffectiveness, combined with the reemerging threat of invasion, gradually weakened the kingdom during the second century.

DECLINE AND FALL The Satavahanas briefly regained the power lost by Gautamiputra’s successors during the reign of Yajna Sri Satakarni (r. ca. 128–157).Yajna returned Satavahana authority across the Andhra kingdom and restored the monarchy to its former position, but he died without leaving a direct heir.After his death, the kingdom was divided into several principalities ruled by different members of the royal family. Predictably, these principalities easily succumbed to invasion by other states, most notably Maharashtra, and the Andhra kingdom steadily dissolved. By the fourth century, only fragments of the once vast kingdom remained. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire; Satavahana Dynasty; Scythian Empire. FURTHER READING

Auboyer, Jeannine. Daily Life in Ancient India. London: Phoenix, 2002. Shastri, Ajay Mitra. The Age of the Satavahanas. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, 1999.

41

ANGEVIN DYNASTIES (909–1491 C.E.) Two dynasties of a French noble house that played an important role in England, France, Italy, Jerusalem, and Hungary during the Middle Ages. From the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, the influence of the Angevin dynasties extended to a great part of Europe.

FIRST DYNASTY The Angevin dynasty—which included the House of Plantagenet in England—began with the counts of Anjou in France, from which the term Angevin derives. In the mid- to late 900s, Geoffrey Greymantle (r. 960–987) of Anjou acquired territory in the French regions of Maine and Touraine.This policy of expansion was also pursued by Geoffrey’s son, Fulk Nerra (r. 987–1040), who gained the title count of Anjou in the late 900s. Both Fulk Nerra and his son and successor, Geoffrey Martel (r. 1040–1060), had to defend their realm against the powerful duchy of Normandy. Count Fulk V (r. 1109–1129) of Anjou, the greatgrandson of Fulk Nerra, married the daughter of Baldwin II (r. 1118–1131), ruler of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, which had been captured by the Crusaders in 1099. Fulk succeeded Baldwin as king of Jerusalem in 1131, bringing the Angevins to power in this Crusader kingdom. The title king of Jerusalem remained in the Angevin family until 1186, when Baldwin the V died without an heir. The Angevin line came to the throne of England through the marriage of Matilda, the daughter of Henry I of England (r. 1100–1135), to Geoffrey Plantagenet, the son of Count Fulk V of Anjou.When Henry I died in 1135, Matilda claimed the throne of England but lost it to her cousin, Stephen of Blois (r. 1135–1154), who seized control after Henry I’s death. However, on Stephen’s death in 1154, Geoffrey’s and Matilda’s son became Henry II (r. 1154–1189), the founder of the Angevin Plantagenet dynasty in England. In 1152, Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine, gaining that region of southwestern France. Along with Normandy, the English Angevins now claimed a good part of France. After the death of Henry II in 1189, he was succeeded by his son Richard I, the Lionheart (r. 1189–1199). By 1204, Richard’s successor, his brother John (r. 1199–1216), had lost the

42

Angevin Dynasties

county of Anjou as well as almost all his other French lands to King Philip II, Augustus of France (r. 1180–1223), and the region of Anjou came under the control of the French Crown. The Angevin line continued in England until Richard II (r. 1377–1399) was deposed by Henry IV (r. 1399–1413), of the House of Lancaster, in 1399.

SECOND DYNASTY The second Angevin dynasty began as a branch of the Capetian dynasty of France. In 1246, the Capetian monarch Louis IX (r. 1226–1270) invested his youngest brother Charles with the counties of Maine and Anjou as his apanage (lands allotted to the younger brothers of a king as their inheritance). Charles also acquired the important territory of Provence through his marriage to Beatrice, daughter of Count Raymond Berenger V of Provence (r. 1209–1245). A man of vast ambition, Charles received his chance for empire-building in 1266, when Pope Urban IV asked him to lead a campaign against King Manfred of Sicily (r. 1258–1266), who was an enemy of the papacy. Charles defeated Manfred in battle and gained the Crown of Sicily as Charles I (r. 1266–1285) in 1266, bringing the Angevin line to that kingdom. Charles paid little attention to Sicily, however, leaving it to the care of French nobles.The Sicilian people revolted against French rule in 1282, and the kingdom was claimed by Pedro III of Aragón (r. 1276–1285), who had backed the revolt. However, the Angevin dynasty continued to rule the kingdom of Naples in southern Italy until 1435, when the kingdom of Aragón seized control after the death of Joanna II (r. 1414–1435), the last Angevin ruler of Naples. A Hungarian branch of the Angevin dynasty had its roots in the marriage of Charles II of Anjou (r. 1285–1290) to Mary, the daughter of King Stephen V of Hungary (r. 1270–1272).When the last ruler of the Arpad dynasty, Andrew III of Hungary (r. 1290–1301), died in 1301, Charles II’s grandson, Charles Robert, pressed his claim to the throne. He eventually became King Charles I of Hungary (r. 1307–1342). In addition, Charles married Elizabeth, the daughter of King Ladislaus I of Poland (r. 1305–1333).Their son, Louis I (r. 1342–1382), succeeded his father as king of Hungary, becoming one of the greatest medieval rulers of Central Europe. In 1370, Louis also became king of Poland after the

death of his uncle, Casimir III (r. 1333–1370), who had named Louis his heir. Louis had no male heirs. His daughter Mary succeeded to the throne of Hungary as Mary I (r. 1382–1395). After her death, she was succeeded by her husband Sigismund (r. 1387–1437), whose succession marked the end of Angevin rule in Hungary. Louis’s other daughter became Queen Jadwiga of Poland (r. 1383–1399). The succession of her husband Ladislas II (r. 1386–1434) as sole ruler after her death in 1399 marked the end of Angevin rule in Poland. Ladislas was the founder of the Jagiello dynasty in Poland. Meanwhile, the Angevin dynasty was drawing to a close in France as well. In 1360, Anjou became a duchy under Duke Louis I (r. 1360–1384) of the House of Valois, the son of King John II of France (r. 1350–1364), thus ending Angevin rule of Anjou. In 1491, with the death of Duke Charles I of Maine, a descendant of Charles II of Naples, the Angevin line in France died out, and Anjou, Maine, and Provence became permanent domains of the French crown. See also: Anjou Kingdom; Aquitaine Duchy; Arpad Dynasty; Crusader Kingdoms; French Monarchies; Henry II; Jagiello Dynasty; Louis I, the Great; Naples, Kingdom of; Plantagenet, House of; Sicily, Kingdom of;Valois Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Bachrach, Bernard S. State-Building in Medieval France: Studies in Early Angevin History. Aldershot, Hampshire, Great Britain/Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995. Dubabin, Jean. Charles I of Anjou: Power, Kingship and Statemaking in Thirteenth-Century Europe. New York: Longmans, 1998. Gillingham, John. The Angevin Empire. 2nd ed. London: Arnold; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

ANGKOR KINGDOM (802–1431 C.E.) A Khmer state, located in northwestern Cambodia, that thrived culturally and politically for more than six hundred years as the heart of the Khmer Empire

A n g l o - S a x o n Ru l e r s and is regarded as the peak of Cambodian civilization. The Angkor kingdom was established in 802 when the Khmer leader Jayavarman II (r. 802–850) declared himself a king with divine powers. His successors also enjoyed the status of absolute monarch, which may have contributed to the stability of the civilization. The first capital of the kingdom, established by Yasovarman I (r. 889–900), was centered around the temple of Phnom Bak Kheng. Suryavarman II (r. 1113–1150) is considered one of the greatest Khmer rulers. He conquered several states of the Champa kingdom in neighboring Vietnam, as well as parts of central Thailand. He also waged war against the Vietnamese state of Nam Viet. In addition to expanding his kingdom’s territory, Suryavarman II is also credited with building what is considered the greatest architectural achievement in Southeast Asia, the temple complex of Angkor Wat (“Angkor temple”), located southeast of the capital at Phnom Bok Kheng. Dedicated to the Hindu god Vishnu, the imposing Angkor Wat remains standing today and is the largest religious structure in the world. Following the reign of Suryavarman II, the Angkor kingdom went through a period of wars with the Champa kingdom. The Chams were finally sacked under the reign of Jayavarman VII (r. 1181–1220), considered the last great ruler of the Angkor kingdom. Unlike his Hindu predecessors in Angkor, Jayavarman VII was a devout Mayana Buddhist. During his reign, Jayavarman VII built several temples, including the new Khmer capital at Angkor Thom (“great Angkor”), as well as more than 100 hospitals and a network of roads to improve the infrastructure of the Angkor kingdom. By the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Angkor kingdom had fallen into decline. The spread of Theravada Buddhism into Southeast Asia challenged Angkor’s kingship system by discounting the legitimacy of divine rule. Eventually, around 1431, a Thai army captured Angkor Thom, sacked the city, and enslaved much of its population and relocated them to the Thai kingdom of Ayutthaya. After this defeat, the Thais came to dominate the region. See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Cambodian Kingdoms; Chenla Empire; Khmer Empire; Vietnamese Kingdoms.

43

ANGLO-SAXON RULERS (400s–1066 C.E.)

Leaders of Germanic tribes who ruled small kingdoms in England from the fifth century until 1066. In the middle of the fifth century, hordes of pagan invaders descended upon southern England from Germany. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (probably written in the late 800s), the first Saxon invaders were the warlords Horsa and Hengist (r. 455–488), who established the kingdom of Kent around 450. As they invaded, the Anglo-Saxons drove the Celtic Britons into Wales and Cornwall and established small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that eventually covered most of the area that is modernday England. The invaders were members of three Germanic tribes: the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, and they spoke a Germanic language that we now call Anglo-Saxon or Old English. Originally, they worshiped the Norse gods, such as Thor and Odin, but in the seventh century they were converted to Christianity after the Kentish king Ethelbert I (r. 560–616) married the Christian princess Bertha, daughter of the Frankish king in France. Anglo-Saxon rule was less centralized than most early medieval monarchies. Early Anglo-Saxon social structure consisted of a warlord, called an ealdorman or eorl (alderman or earl), surrounded by his followers, called thegns (thanes), who were like knights. Anglo-Saxon society was somewhat democratic— the Anglo-Saxons did not follow strict rules of dynastic succession, and power was sometimes shared among several family members—but they did practice slavery.Anglo-Saxon government also developed the institution of the witan or witenagemot, a council of noblemen who advised the king.The witan bore some resemblance to the modern-day House of Lords. At its height, Anglo-Saxon England was divided into seven separate kingdoms: Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Kent. These kingdoms often battled over territory and often temporarily conquered each other. All England was permanently united when the kings of Wessex obtained dominance over the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the ninth century under Alfred the Great. Alfred the Great of Wessex (r. 871–899) was perhaps the most famous Anglo-Saxon ruler, earning his

44

A n g l o - S a x o n Ru l e r s

title defending his kingdom against Viking invaders and encouraging learning. During his reign, he became overlord of the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. One of the more infamous Anglo-Saxon kings was Ethelred II “The Unready” (r. 979–1013, 1014– 1016), whose poor judgment and lack of military skill placed England in the hands of invading Danes led by Sven Forkbeard for a brief time between 1013 and 1014. Wessex faced another crisis some fifty years later. When Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066) died in 1066, there was some dispute over who should be his successor. Harold Godwinson, earl of Wessex, became the next king of England as Harold II (r. 1066). However, many believed the title rightfully belonged to William, duke of Normandy (who may have been promised by his cousin, Edward the Confessor, that he would inherit the English throne). William decided to act, and he invaded England with an army of 7,000 followers. He defeated Harold and his Anglo-Saxon forces at the battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066 and was crowned King William I (r. 1066–1087) on December 25, 1066. The Norman conquest ended the AngloSaxon period of English history and inaugurated the Norman era. The Normans brought to England a new hierarchical social structure, new codes of chivalry, and a new language, Norman French. Modern-day English is a synthesis of the Anglo-Saxon and the Norman French languages, just as English culture is an amalgamation of Anglo-Saxon and Norman traditions. See also: Alfred the Great; Edward the Confessor; Kent, Kingdom of; Mercia, Kingdom of; Norman Kingdoms; Northumbria, Kingdom of; Wessex, Kingdom of;William I, the Conqueror. FURTHER READING

Black, Jeremy. A New History of England. Reading: Sutton, 2000. Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early AngloSaxon England. London: Seaby, 1990.

ANJOU, HOUSE OF. See ANGEVIN DYNASTIES

ANJOU KINGDOM (ca. 1060–1500 C.E.) Kingdom in southern Italy ruled by a branch of the French Angevin family during the Middle Ages. The French first gained a presence in southern Italy when the Norman nobleman, Robert Guiscard, and his brother, Roger d’Hauteville, gained control of territory there in 1057 after expelling the Byzantines from the area. Hoping to extend their holdings, the Normans turned to the island of Sicily, which was then under Arab Muslim rule. Invasions of northern Sicily by Robert and the Normans began in 1060, but it was 1090 before the last Muslim stronghold fell and the island came completely under Norman French control. The two brothers, Robert and Roger, then divided their holdings on the mainland and in Sicily between themselves, with Roger becoming Count Roger I of Sicily (r. 1072–1101). Roger’s older son, Simon (r. 1101–1105), inherited the title upon the death of his father. But Simon died before reaching adulthood, leaving the throne to his younger brother, Roger II (r. 1105–1154). When Roger I reached maturity, he united Sicily with his uncle’s territory on the mainland, forming what became known as the kingdom of Two Sicilies. Roger II was crowned king of this united realm in 1130.When Roger II died in 1154, he was succeeded first by his son, William I (r. 1154–1166), and then by his grandson,William II (r. 1166–1189). William II had no male heirs, and when he died in 1189, a struggle for succession arose. Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI (r. 1191–1197), a member of the German Hohenstaufen dynasty, claimed the throne in the name of his wife Constance, who was the daughter of Count Roger I. Henry took the throne of the Two Sicilies in 1194, thereby bringing the kingdom into the Holy Roman Empire.When Henry died in 1197, his son Frederick II (r. 1194–1250) inherited his father’s titles as emperor and king of Sicily. In 1266, Pope Clement IV reclaimed sovereignty over Italy and deposed the Hohenstaufens in favor of Charles of Anjou, the youngest brother of King Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270). Charles invaded Italy and defeated Manfred (r. 1258–1266), the current ruler of the kingdom at the battle of Benevento. Mandred died in the battle, and Charles of Anjou took the throne as Charles I (r. 1266–1285).

A n kol e K i n g d om A member of the Angevin dynasty, Charles ruled as king of both Naples and Sicily. But he was a cruel and unpopular ruler. In 1272, in an event called the Sicilian Vespers, the Sicilians revolted against Angevin rule and accepted Manfred’s son-in-law, King Peter III of Aragón (r. 1226–1285), as their sovereign. This revolt separated Sicily from the mainland, and for the next several generations, Sicily was ruled by Aragón, while Naples remained under the rule of the French Angevin descendants of Charles I. In 1443, King Alfonso V of Aragón (r. 1416–1458) reunited the kingdom of Two Sicilies (Sicily and Naples) under his rule.When he died in 1458, he left his Sicilian title to his son Ferdinand I (r. 1458–1494). Under the Treaty of Blois, signed in 1505 by Louis XII of France (r. 1498–1515) and Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516), the kingdom of Sicily and Naples was granted to Spain, which exploited the region and allowed it to become one of the poorest in Europe. See also: Alfonso V, the Magnanimous; Angevin Dynasties; Aragón, Kingdom of; Ferdinand II and Isabella I; Frederick II; French Monarchies; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Naples, Kingdom of; Norman Kingdoms; Sicily, Kingdom of.

ANKOLE KINGDOM (ca. 1450 C.E.–Present)

One of several kingdoms to arise during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in what is now the nation of Uganda. The kingdom of Ankole is one of the best known of the states to arise in present-day Uganda, along with the Nyoro and Toro kingdoms.The founders of Ankole were Hima cattle pastoralists, who traditionally lived in separate, lineage-based societies. Individual settlements were governed by clan chiefs, but around the middle of the 1400s, one of these, Ruhinda, rose to dominance and established himself as mugabe, or paramount ruler over all the Ankole clans. The coalescence of the Ankole clans into a single political unit was largely motivated by the defensive needs of the people. State formation had been ongoing in the region during the previous century, and this presented a problem for the independent pastoralist settlements, none of which could withstand

45

an attack on its own. By banding together under a single leader, to whom each constituent clan settlement was obligated to provide troops when the need arose, all of the clans enjoyed greater security. As paramount ruler, Ruhinda did not project his authority into day-to-day administration of individual Ankole settlements; this responsibility remained in the hands of the clan chiefs. Succession to the Ankole throne was hereditary, and for more than five hundred years there appears to have been an orderly transition of power from father to son, except for a few occasions when, due to the untimely death of a reigning mugabe, power passed to a sibling. This occurred, for example, during the reign of Kitera (r. ca. 1650–1674), who died without having sired a son, leaving the throne to his brother Rumongye. Subsequent kings followed the father-to-son pattern of inheritance. Ankole kings managed to maintain the independence of their people until 1901, when Great Britain claimed the region as a colonial possession and the kingdom came under British control. To facilitate administration throughout the region, the British broke traditional lines of succession, selecting individuals from within the royal lineages that they felt they could best control. Thus, Kahaya II (r. 1901–1944) was installed as king of the Ankole in 1901, although he was a nephew of the previous mugabe, not a son. Under British rule, the authority of both kings and clan chiefs was subordinated to colonial administrative policies, and the mugabe became primarily a ritual office. Nonetheless, the institution of kingship was permitted to carry on throughout the years of colonization, and it survived into the postindependence period. In 1967, however, Uganda’s prime minister, Dr. A. Milton Obote, abolished all the traditional kingdoms of the nation. In 1993, then-President Yoweri Museveni restored the traditional kingships, and John Patrick Barigye (r. 1993–present), twenty-seventh in the line of Ankole kings, was restored to the throne. See also: Nyoro Kingdom;Toro Kingdom.

ANNAM, KINGDOM OF. See VIETNAMESE KINGDOMS

46

Anne

ANNE (1665–1714 C.E.) Final monarch of the embattled House of Stuart, who reigned as queen of England and the newly formed United Kingdom of Great Britain from 1702 until her death in 1714. Historically perceived as feeble and somewhat irrelevant to the political developments of her time, Anne has risen to a place of prominence in British history thanks to recent historical scholarship, which has recast her as a strong and intelligent ruler. The second daughter of James II (r. 1685–1688) and Anne Hyde, the first of James’s two wives, Anne came of age during a time of great religious controversy in England, which came to a head with the socalled Glorious Revolution of 1688. James, a Catholic, was deposed and driven from England in 1688 by his son-in-law, William of Orange (later William III, r. 1689–1702), and his daughter, Mary (Mary II, r. 1689–1694), both Protestants. Anne, who was also a Protestant, supported her sister and brother-in-law in their bid for the throne, and she became queen upon William’s death in 1702. The year before Anne became queen, Parliament had passed the Act of Settlement, which ensured that the Crown would remain in Protestant hands, even if it had to leave the House of Stuart. Among the most notable events of Anne’s reign was the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1713), and its counterpart in North America known as Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713).The Mediterraneanbased War of the Spanish Succession ended well for the British, who were able to prevent France from extending its reach throughout Southern Europe. Queen Anne’s War, which was part of an ongoing struggle between the British and the French in North America, had a much more mixed outcome, as the Canadian settlements of Port Royal and Acadia fell into British hands, but the major city of Quebec remained firmly in French control. Anne also oversaw the 1707 Act of Union, which was part of the attempt by the Protestant-controlled Parliament to keep a Catholic from ascending to the throne.The Act united the kingdoms of England and Scotland as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, thus circumventing any attempt by the Scots to support Anne’s exiled Catholic half-brother, James the Old Pretender, in a bid for the Crown. Although Anne endured nearly twenty pregnan-

cies during her lifetime, she left no descendants upon her death in 1714. In accordance with the Act of Settlement, the Crown went to her nearest Protestant relative—George I (r. 1714–1727), elector of the House of Hanover, and great-grandson of James I. See also: English Monarchies; George I; Hanover, House of; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); James II; Queens and Queen Mothers; Stuart Dynasty;William and Mary.

ANTIGONID DYNASTY. See HELLENISTIC DYNASTIES

ANTIOCHUS III, THE GREAT (241–187 B.C.E.)

The sixth ruler of the Seleucid dynasty of the Hellenistic Middle East, who helped to restore the Seleucid Empire to a semblance of glory after a period of decline. The son of Seleucis II (r. 246–226 b.c.e.), Antiochus III succeeded his brother, Seleucus III (r. 226–223 b.c.e.), in 223 b.c.e. Most of his energies as ruler went into a series of wars, beginning with an unsuccessful conflict with the old rivals of the Seleucids, the Ptolemies of Egypt.The Ptolemies defeated Antiochus at the battle of Raphia in 217 b.c.e. Antiochus’s most successful military endeavor, and the one that made his reputation, was a series of campaigns from 212 to 205 b.c.e. to reassert Seleucid power in Persia and Central Asia. During those campaigns, Antiochus won the submission of the kings of Armenia, Parthia, and Bactria, and led his armies to the border of India. The death of Ptolemy IV of Egypt (r. 222–204 b.c.e.) in 204 b.c.e., and the accession of the infant Ptolemy V (r. 204–180 b.c.e.), opened up opportunities in Palestine and Phoenicia, which Antiochus exploited in an alliance with the king of Macedon, Philip V (r. 221–179 b.c.e.). Antiochus’s victory in 200 b.c.e. at the battle of the Panium permanently ended Ptolemaic rule in Syria and Palestine. He next invaded Asia Minor, where he captured Ptolemaic possessions. Antiochus’s continued expansion eventually brought him into conflict with the rising

Aqu i ta i n e D u c h y power of the Mediterranean, the Roman Republic, particularly after he crossed into Europe from Asia Minor in 196 b.c.e. In 195 b.c.e., Antiochus welcomed as an adviser the Carthaginian general Hannibal, the enemy of the Romans. Antiochus and the Romans clashed in Greece, which Antiochus invaded in 192 b.c.e. as an ally of the Aetolian League, a group of Greek city-states. Defeated by the Romans at Thermopylae in 191 b.c.e., he retreated to Asia Minor, where he was defeated again at the battle of Magnesia in 190 b.c.e. by a Roman force under the command of Lucius Cornelius Scipio.This was the last great battle between a Hellenistic empire and Rome. The peace treaty of Apamea between Rome and Antiochus in 188 b.c.e. forced him to withdraw from western Asia Minor and disband his navy and elephant force. The treaty also required Antiochus to give hostages to the Romans, including his son, the future Antiochus IV (r. 175–164 b.c.e.). He also had to expel Hannibal from his kingdom and pay a large indemnity. Antiochus was murdered at Susa in 187 b.c.e. while on another expedition to the East. He was succeeded by his brother, Seleucis IV (r. 187–175 b.c.e.). See also: Hellenistic Dynasties; Ptolemaic Dynasty; Seleucid Dynasty.

AQUITAINE DUCHY (670–1453 C.E.) Medieval duchy in southwestern France that became one of the richest French regions and a center of medieval art, courtly literature, and chivalry. The region of Aquitania was originally a part of the ancient land called Gaul by the Romans. Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.) conquered the people of the region, known as the Aquitani, in 56 b.c.e. Subsequent conquerors of the region were the Visigoths, who invaded in the fifth century c.e., and the Franks under Clovis I (r. 481–511), who conquered the region in 507. For a century and a half after the Frankish conquest,Aquitaine more or less managed its own affairs while Frankish overlords dealt with problems of succession. From 670 the dukes of Aquitaine ruled with little outside interference, but in 718, Duke Eudes of Aquitaine (r. 688–725) sought assistance from Charles Martel (r. 714–741), king of the Franks, to quell a Moorish invasion.

47

By 781, the Frankish ruler Charlemagne (r. 768–814) had eliminated opposition from the nobles of the Aquitaine duchy and transformed the area into a kingdom for his son, Louis, who ruled as Louis I (r. 781–840). For the next two centuries, control of Aquitaine shifted back and forth between Aquitainian dukes and the kings of the Carolingian dynasty. The situation was complicated by successive invasions by Normans and Muslims, which weakened Carolingian control over the duchy. By the early tenth century, Carolingian control over Aquitaine had all but vanished, and the counts of Poitiers, Auvergne, and Toulouse all claimed the title duke of Aquitaine. Count William I of Poitiers finally secured the title, becoming William III of Aquitaine (r. 935–963) in 935. His descendants ruled the area into the eleventh century, during which time Aquitaine expanded its borders and became one of the leading powers in Western Europe. When the last duke of Aquitaine, William X (r. 1127–1137), died in 1137, the kingdom passed to his daughter, Eleanor of Aquitaine.Through her marriage to the French king, Louis VII (r. 1137–1180), Aquitaine became part of France. Following their divorce, however, Eleanor married Henry Plantagenet, count of Anjou, who became King Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189). Subsequently, a lengthy struggle evolved between England and France for control of the duchy. For a number of years, England held the duchy as vassals of the French Crown, but France eventually gained supremacy during the Hundred Years’ War (1337– 1453) and took control of Aquitaine. At that point, the duchy was renamed Guyenne, and it was absorbed into the regions of Gascony and Guyenne as a province of France. At the height of its power, the Aquitaine duchy was one of the wealthiest regions in Western Europe. Its great wealth made it a cultural center for art, architecture, and literature, and traveling poets called troubadours composed courtly poetry for the court of the Aquitaine dukes. The Aquitaine court also became associated with the chivalric traditions of the time. See also: Eleanor of Aquitaine; Henry II. FURTHER READING

Sauvigny, G. de Bertier de, and David H. Pinkney. History of France. Arlington Heights, IL: Forum Press, 1983.

48

Aqu i ta i n e D u c h y

Koenigsberger, H.G. Medieval Europe, 400–1500. Burnt Mill, England: Longman Group UK Limited, 1987. Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

ARABIA, KINGDOMS OF

present-day Syria, including the important city of Damascus. Also traders, the Nabataeans carried on an extensive trade that reached as far as the Mediterranean Sea.The kingdom eventually became a vassal state of Rome, and in the second century c.e., it was reduced to the status of province of the Roman Empire. See also: Hadramawt Kingdoms; Sabaean Kingdom; Sheba, Queen of.

(ca. 1000 B.C.E.–600 C.E.)

Small kingdoms established in the coastal regions of the Arabian Peninsula that flourished between about 1000 b.c.e. and 600 c.e. In ancient times, the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula were mostly nomadic peoples who formed tribes for protection and for survival. By about 1000 b.c.e., however, a number of small, cohesive Arabian kingdoms had been organized in the region.Although information about these kingdoms is limited, it is believed that they prospered as a result of trade in spices and the skills of their innovative merchants. The best-known of the Arabian kingdoms was Saba (Sheba), in the southwestern part of the Arabian Peninsula, with its capital at Ma’rib.The kingdom of Saba existed from about the tenth to the second century b.c.e. The Sabaeans were well-known traders, responsible for introducing Indian spices to the ancient Romans.They also traded locally grown frankincense and myrrh via regional caravan routes using domesticated camels. Sabaean traders traveled as far north as present-day Syria and beyond the Persian Gulf.To help feed the population of the kingdom, the Sabaeans built elaborate dams to irrigate crops. The legendary queen of Sheba mentioned in the Bible is said to be from Saba. Around the second century b.c.e., the Himyarite kingdom apparently succeeded Saba as the predominant economic force in the southern Arabian Peninsula. The Ethiopians tried unsuccessfully to invade Himyarite territory in the fourth century c.e., and in the sixth century, they succeeded in conquering the kingdom. In the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, in southern Transjordan (present-day Jordan), the Nabataean kingdom arose sometime before the third century b.c.e. Its capital of Petra was a wealthy and highly civilized city.The Nabataean kingdom included present-day Jordan as well as much of

ARACHOSIA KINGDOM (520–155 B.C.E.)

Ancient kingdom in Afghanistan, located near the current Afghan city of Kandahar, that was originally established as part of the Persian Empire. During the sixth century b.c.e., the ruler of the Persian Empire, Darius I (r. 521–486 b.c.e.), divided the eastern portion of his empire into four territories and installed loyal satraps, or governors, to govern each one. The southernmost of these four territories was Arachosia. Arachosia remained under Persian control until 331 b.c.e. when Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) confronted Darius III or Persia (r. 335–330 b.c.e.) at the battle of Gaugamela. Arachosian cavalry, led by their satrap Barsaentes, comprised a significant portion of the Persian army. But the invading Greeks defeated the Persians, forcing Darius to flee the advancing Greeks. Initially, Alexander pursued the defeated Darius. But three of the Persian satraps, including Barsaentes, betrayed Darius and assassinated him. They then defied Alexander and declared autonomy for their regions.Thus, Alexander was forced to individually defeat each of the satraps. In 329 b.c.e., he finally entered Arachosia, executed Barsaentes, and founded the city of Alexander-in-Arachosia. After Alexander’s death, his empire was divided among his most prominent generals. Seleucus, a general in charge of Babylon, gained control of the eastern region, which included Arachosia. Seleucus I (r. 312–281 b.c.e.) struggled to suppress repeated rebellions in the region. These efforts weakened his forces, and in 305 b.c.e. he was unable to stop invading forces from the Mauryan Empire of India. A subsequent treaty divided Arachosia between the

A r a g ó n, H o u s e o f two empires, although the Greeks retained control of the city of Alexander-in-Arachosia. Rebellions and invasion had left the forces of Seleucus irreparably weakened, and the Mauryan emperors continued to expand their control of the region. By 250 b.c.e., the Greeks had been expelled from Arachosia, and Mauryan dominance over the kingdom lasted until 232 b.c.e. Seleucus’s successors, most notably Antiochus III (r. 223–187 b.c.e.) and Demetrius I (r. 162–150 b.c.e.), briefly regained control of Arachosia between 209 and 155 b.c.e. They also crossed the Indus River and decimated the remnants of the Mauryan Empire. The final Seleucid ruler, Menander (r. 114–90 b.c.e.), who ruled the Indo-Greek kingdom of Bactria, reunited all of Afghanistan. But Menander faced a growing threat in the west from the Parthian kingdom. The Parthians marched eastward and, like Alexander the Great, conquered any forces they encountered. After the Parthian victory over the IndoGreeks, the Afghan territories lost their individual identities and ceased to exist. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Darius I, the Great; Indo-Greek Kingdoms; Maurya Empire; Menander; Seleucid Dynasty.

ARAGÓN, HOUSE OF (ca. 1050–1504 C.E.)

Medieval dynasty that ruled the kingdom of Aragón on the Iberian Peninsula (in what is present-day Spain), as well as the county of Catalonia and the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. The House of Aragón was established by Ramiro I (r. 1035–1063), an illegitimate son of Sancho III of Navarre (r. 1004–1035), whose kingdom was partitioned following his death in 1035. For nearly sixty years, the kingdom of Aragón was united with the kingdom of Navarre under the rule of Ramiro’s successors: Sancho I (r. 1076–1094), Peter I (r. 1094– 1104), and Alfonso I (r. 1104–1134). Navarre and Aragón separated again in 1134 with the accession of Ramiro II “the Monk,” (r. 1134– 1137), the brother of Alfonso I.Three years later, the house of Aragón was united with Catalonia as a result of the marriage of Ramiro’s daughter Petronilla to Raymond Bergengar IV (r. 1134–1162), count of Barcelona.

49

As a result of this union, Aragón acquired various holdings in southern France, most notably Montepellier, Provence, and Roussillon. But the House of Barcelona, as the dynasty now styled itself, lost these French holdings during the reign of Pedro II (r. 1196–1213), who was defeated in 1213 during the papal struggle against heresy known as the Albigensian Crusade. However, Aragón and Catalonia remained united under his descendants. Under James I (r. 1213–1276), Aragón and Catalonia conquered the Balearic Islands and Valencia from the Moors. James’s son, Pedro III (r. 1276– 1285), expanded the family’s holdings in 1282, becoming King Peter I of Sicily as a result of his marriage to Constance, the heir of king Manfred of Sicily (r. 1258–1266). This territorial acquisition, along with control of the Balaeric Islands, provided the House of Aragón with considerable influence in the western Mediterranean. Peter’s grandfather, Pedro II of Aragón (r. 1196–1213), had pledged himself a papal vassal, but Peter refused to give homage to the pope, who excommunicated him and organized a crusade against Aragón. This troublesome situation alienated members of the Aragónese nobility, who forced Peter to grant them a “general privilege” that defined the rights and duties of the aristocracy and allowed annual meetings of the cortes, or representative assembly. Under Pedro IV (r. 1336–1387), the Aragónese monarch once again restricted the power of the nobility. The far-flung holdings of the House of Aragón were seldom united under one ruler. Various branches of the dynasty ruled different territories, often warring with their relatives for supremacy. For example, in 1276 the Balaeric island of Majorca became a separate kingdom under James I (r. 1276– 1311), the son of James I of Aragón (r. 1213–1276). It remained separate until 1343, when Pedro IV conquered the island and restored it to the kingdom of Aragón. Sicily was separate from Aragón from 1296 to 1409, until it was reunited with the Aragónese monarchy by King Martin (r. 1395–1410) of Aragón. The house of Aragón ended with King Martin of Aragón, who died without a male heir in 1410.After a two-year interregnum, during which Aragón was without a monarch,Aragónese nobles chose Martin’s nephew, Prince Ferdinand of Castile, to be their king. The reign of Ferdinand I (r. 1412–1416) marks

50

A r a g ó n, H o u s e o f

the beginning of the reign of the House ofTrastamara in Aragón. Ferdinand’s son and successor, Alfonso V (r. 1416–1458), conquered Naples and united various Aragónese holdings. More interested in the culture of the Italian Renaissance than in Aragón, Alfonso shifted the center of Aragónese power to the kingdom of Naples. His son, Ferdinand II (r. 1479– 1516) married Isabella of Castile (r. 1474–1504), uniting Aragón and Castile into one kingdom. See also: Alfonso V, the Magnanimous; Aragón, Kingdom of; Ferdinand II and Isabella I; James II of Aragón; Sicily, Kingdom of; Trastamara, House of.

ARAGÓN, KINGDOM OF Christian kingdom in the northeastern part of the Iberian Peninsula (in present-day Spain) that emerged in the eleventh century and played an important part in the reconquest of Iberia from the Moors, who had conquered most of the peninsula beginning in the 700s. Conquered by the Visigoths in the late fifth century, the region of Aragón came under Moorish control in the early eighth century. Around 850, the Carolingian rulers of France expelled the Moors from the area, and Aragon came under the rule of the kingdom of Navarre. Upon the death of the Navarrese king, Sancho III (r. 1000–1035), in 1035, Navarre was divided into three separate kingdoms: Navarre, Aragón, and Castile.

AN INDEPENDENT KINGDOM The first ruler of an independent kingdom of Navarre was Ramiro I (r. 1035–1069), the illegitimate son of Sancho III of Navarre. During his reign, Ramiro fought unsuccessfully against the Moors at Saragossa, and he died fighting the rival Castilians. Ramiro’s son, Sancho I (r. 1069–1094) continued the campaign against the Moors.While visiting Rome on a pilgrimage in 1068, he also agreed to hold Aragón as a vassal of the papacy. Crusading activities against Muslims were very important to the medieval Aragónese monarchy. Like other medieval Iberian rulers, the Aragónese kings supported the Crusades in the Middle East, but the primary military efforts were aimed at fighting the Moors in Iberia. Alfonso I (r. 1104–1134), known as

Alfonso the Battler, actively recruited knights from other parts of Europe to fight the Moors, rewarding the survivors with fiefs in the conquered territories. Under Alfonso, Aragón extended its territory southward, capturing Saragossa from the Moors in 1118. His raids into the Moorish province of Andalucia, the southernmost region of Iberia, helped boost the morale of Christians as they struggled with the reconquest. Alfonso had no direct heir, and his will stipulated that the kingdom of Aragón would be left to the knightly orders of Crusaders, the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitalers.This idea never came close to being carried out, however. Instead, Alfonso’s brother Ramiro, a monk, was recalled from his monastery by Aragónese nobles upon the death of his father in 1134. Crowned as Ramiro II (r. 1134– 1137), he married, fathered a daughter, Petronilla, and then abdicated and returned to his monastery in 1137.

A TURNING POINT Petronilla’s marriage, arranged shortly after her birth, was a turning point for the Aragónese monarchy. Her husband was Raymond Berenguer IV (r. 1131–1162), the count of Barcelona, whose domains included all the regions of Catalonia. Raymond and Petronilla ruled the merged kingdom jointly until Raymond’s death in 1162; Petronilla then reigned alone until 1164, when she abdicated in favor of her son, Alfonso II (r. 1164–1196). The union between Aragón and Catalonia, along with the territory of Valencia, which had been conquered from the Moors, was referred to as the “Crown of Aragón.” In 1319, King James II (r. 1291–1327) of Aragón declared this union indissoluble, but the regions maintained their separate institutions, laws, languages, and customs. Each continued to develop along separate paths, which sometimes caused friction between them. Catalonia, different from Aragón culturally and much more economically dynamic, brought the Aragónese monarchs into a closer relationship with France, with which Catalonia had had close ties for centuries. The “Crown of Aragón” continued to expand after its union with Catalonia. In 1229, James I, the Conqueror (r. 1213–1276) captured the island of Majorca from the Moors, and the kingdom of Majorca, which included the other Balearic islands, was

Aramean Kingdoms united with Aragón. Sometimes Majorca was ruled directly by Aragón, while other times it was in the hands of a cadet branch of the Aragónese ruling house. Sicily had a similar fate. In 1282, Pedro III of Aragón (r. 1276–1285) became king of Sicily based on a claim through his mother Constance, the daughter of King Manfred of Sicily (r. 1258–1266). Sicily subsequently passed in and out of the hands of the main line of Aragónese monarchs and was finally permanently united with the Crown of Aragón in 1409. Aragónese power even briefly extended to Greece, where Catalan adventurers established small feudal lordships and acknowledged the Aragónese ruler as their overlord.

NATURE OF ARAGÓNESE RULE Aragón did not have an absolute monarchy—in contrast to its neighbor, the kingdom of Castile. Aragónese royal authority was limited by the need of the king to obtain the consent of the three cortes, or parliaments, of Aragón, Catalonia, and Valencia. As in medieval England, the combination of the king’s need for money for wars, and the nobility’s control over the purse strings, increased the power of these assemblies. In 1287, Aragónese nobles, in the Privileges of the Union, required the king to consult them before choosing royal councilors.The document also limited the right of the king to proceed judicially against a noble without the consent of an official, the justicia, who was chosen from the nobility and dedicated to their interests rather than the interests of the king.The famous “Oath of the Aragónese,” which allegedly set conditions of the king’s tenure on the throne based on his respect for the rights of the nobles, is a sixteenth-century myth. But it reflects Aragónese political traditions.

MERGING KINGDOMS The direct line of Aragónese–Catalan monarchs ended in 1410, with the death of Martin I (r. 1396–1410). Electors chosen by the cortes offered the throne to Ferdinand of Antequera, a member of the Trastamara dynasty of Castile. Ferdinand was connected to the Catalan dynasty of Aragón through his mother Eleanor, the daughter of Peter IV of Aragón (r. 1336–1387). Ferdinand assumed the throne in 1412 as Ferdinand I (r. 1412–1416). His son, Alfonso V, the Magnanimous (r. 1416–1458), added Naples to the Aragónese possessions, although

51

he later left it to his illegitimate son, Ferrante, rather than to his heir and successor, his brother John II (r. 1458–1479) of Aragón. Ultimately,Aragón and Castile were brought even closer together in 1469 through the marriage of Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504) and Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516), the son and heir of John II. Ferdinand and Isabella ruled their kingdoms jointly, although the union of crowns was a personal one, not a formal, political union.The union of the two kingdoms was not finalized until 1516, with the accession of Charles I (r. 1516–1556), the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella (and who was perhaps better known as Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire). The merger of Aragón and Castile under Charles marks the beginning of a process that resulted in a unified kingdom of Spain. Despite Castilian dominance, Aragón retained its separate institutions and identity until 1716, when King Philip V (r. 1700–1746) of Spain abolished all remaining special privileges enjoyed by the Aragónese. See also: Alfonso V, the Magnanimous; Aragón, House of; Castile, Kingdom of; Catalonia, County of; Charles V; Ferdinand II and Isabella I; James I of Aragón; James II of Aragón; Naples, Kingdom of; Sicily, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies;Trastamara, House of. FURTHER READING

Cawsey, Suzasnne F. Kingship and Propaganda: Royal Eloquence and the Crown of Aragon, c. 1200–1450. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.

ARAMEAN KINGDOMS (1100–732 B.C.E.)

Mesopotamian states founded by the Arameans, a Semitic tribespeople who abandoned their desert existence sometime in the second millennium b.c.e. and adopted a settled existence in the ancient Near East. The most important of the Aramean kingdoms was Aram-Damascus, which controlled much of presentday Syria as well as parts of Iraq and southeastern Turkey. The kingdom faded from history after 732 b.c.e., when Assyria conquered the Aramaic capital of Damascus. The Aramaic language, a Semitic language, flourished for additional centuries as a lingua franca of administration and trade.

52

Aramean Kingdoms

Around the twelfth century b.c.e., large numbers of Aramean nomads began migrating westward into Mesopotamia and Babylonia. Tiglath-Pileser I of Assyria (r. ca. 1116–1076 b.c.e.) claimed to have fought twenty-eight battles against the Aramean newcomers. Evidently, the Arameans withstood his attacks and strengthened their connections with another Semitic tribe, the Hebrews. According to biblical tradition, Isaac and Jacob took Aramean wives from the kingdom of Padan Aram. Toward the north of the region, Padan Aram and other Aramean kingdoms took shape slowly, through peaceful settlement as well as conquest. By about 1000 b.c.e., the Neo-Hittite state of Til Barsip had been transformed into the Aramean kingdom of Bit Adini. Other Aramean states that took shape in the years that followed wereYa’diya, Bit Agusi, Bit-Bahiani, Bit-Adini, Hamath-Lu’ash, Bit-Gabbari, and Geshur. By the early ninth century b.c.e., these moderate-sized kingdoms contained fortified royal cities.There were also a number of smaller Aramean kingdoms, including Bit Zamani, Bit-Asalli, and Bit-Halupe. Further south, Arameans established themselves in Damascus and Zobah, areas that had escaped Egyptian rule late in the reign of Pharaoh Rameses III (r. ca. 1198–1166 b.c.e.). Zobah and Damascus fell to the Israelites around 1000 to 965 b.c.e., when the army of King David (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.) defeated King Hadadezer of Zobah and his allies. During the reign of David’s son, King Solomon (r. 970–931 b.c.e.), however, a servant of Hadadezer’s named Rezon retook Damascus and declared himself ruler of the kingdom of Aram-Damascus. The kingdom of Aram-Damascus prospered. King Ben Hadad I (r. ca. 880–842 b.c.e.) annexed land from Israel in 878 b.c.e. and may even have made Israel a tribute-paying vassal state. In 853 b.c.e., he joined with King Ahab of Israel (r. 874– 853 b.c.e.) and King Ikhuleni of Hamath to defeat Shalmeneser III of Assyria (r. 858–824 b.c.e.) at the battle of Qarqar (853 b.c.e.). Although Damascus fell to the Assyrians in 842 b.c.e. and Ben Hadad was assassinated, his successor, a commoner named Hazael (r. 842–806 b.c.e.), managed to restore Damascus’s dominance by conquering most of the land of Philistia and all of Israel. Not until the reign of Hazael’s son, Ben Hadad II (r. 806–750 b.c.e.), did the balance of power swing back in favor of Israel. The Aramean kingdoms lying to the north of

Damascus, closer to Assyria, did not fare as well. Assyria had absorbed a number of lesser Aramean states. In the 850s b.c.e., Shalmeneser III defeated King Khayan of Ya’diya and King Akhuni of Bit Adini, and the powerful Bit Adini became an Assyrian province. Other kingdoms eventually suffered the same fate. Geshur fell to Tiglath-Pileser III, and the Assyrians in 734 b.c.e. Bit Agusi succumbed to the Assyrians around 740 b.c.e.. Fearing for his kingdom, King Rezin of AramDamascus set aside traditional quarrels with the Israelites and joined them in a coalition against Assyria, but the Assyrians had become too powerful. In 732 b.c.e., Tiglath-Pileser III sacked the city of Damascus, killed Rezin, and deported the surviving residents. Soon after, the Aramean kingdoms all became Assyrian provinces under the collective name Aram Naharain. Although the Arameans had lost their political power, their language survived. Assyrian rulers employed Arameans as scribes, and Aramaicspeaking merchants carried the language along trade routes throughout the Near East. Aramaic became the common trade language of the Fertile Crescent, and Darius I the Great of Persia (r. 521–485 b.c.e.) declared it the official language of his empire. In widespread use as a vernacular language in the time of Jesus, Aramaic was still spoken in remote villages in Syria thousands of years later. Beginning in 280 b.c.e., the Arameans became known as the Syrians, when a popular translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, used the term Syria in place of Aram. See also: Assyrian Empire; Biblical Kings; Darius I, the Great; David; Syrian Kingdoms; TiglathPileser III.

ARENAS, ROYAL An area for public contests or exertions in which royal or imperial personages can display symbols of their wealth and power and interact more directly with their population. Arenas have been used throughout the ages as venues for public display of royal events. In Ancient Rome, the emperors regularly frequented two large arenas—the Colosseum and the Circus Maximus. The emperors sometimes used the

Arles Kingdom events held in these great arenas to distribute a share of grain to the citizens of Rome, a tradition that helped keep the people of Rome content. Emperor Commodus (r. 180–192) even appeared as a gladiator in the Colosseum and fought with wooden weapons. He awarded himself a fee of one million sestertii (Roman coins worth approximately 2 million dollars today) for his appearance. Citizens sometimes used gatherings at arenas as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction to the emperor. During Commodus’s reign, frustration over a grain shortage led to a riot at the Circus Maximus in 190. The people believed that an imperial adviser, Cleander, was hoarding grain in order to increase his own wealth. The riot spilled out of the Circus, and the people converged on a villa where the emperor was staying. Commodus accepted their demands that Cleander be killed and his body turned over to the mob. In the Americas, arenas that hosted the Mesoamerican ball games were often owned and visited by Mayan kings. The rulers themselves sometimes played ball at these ball courts, taking on the persona of a god. At the Mayan city of Chichen-Itza in the Yucatán region, thirteen ball courts still remain, one of which, the Great Ball Court, appears to have been owned by the king. A variety of ceremonies may have been held at this arena, including inauguration ceremonies for new kings and possibly human sacrifices. In Southeast Asia, the Tiger’s Arena (or Ho Quyen) was built in 1830 for the emperor of Vietnam. It included a staircase and an imperial box where the emperor and his family could watch fights between tigers and elephants. The fights were partially symbolic in nature—the elephants represented the might of the emperor and the tigers that of his adversaries. Such fights were carried out until 1904. In England, horse races have been held on royal land since 1711.That year, Queen Anne, a dedicated racing enthusiast, founded the Royal Ascot racecourse.The racecourse included a royal stand, which by 1845 included a two-story structure, private lawn, and an area for celebrations.The racecourse at Ascot is still used today. See also: American Kingdoms, Central and North; Caesars; Hunting and Kingship; Maya Empire.

53

ARLES KINGDOM (933–1380 C.E.) Medieval kingdom in France, under the nominal control of the Holy Roman Empire, which became part of France in the late fourteenth century. The kingdom of Arles was established in 933, when Rudolf II (r. 912–937), king of Transjurane Burgundy (in what are now Switzerland, Savoy, and Franche-Comté), gained control of Provence and established his capital at the Provençal city of Arles. This kingdom, called Arles or Arelate, was also known as the second kingdom of Burgundy, to distinguish it from the powerful kingdom of Burgundy, which had existed in the previous century. Rudolph III of Arles (r. 993–1032), the grandson of the kingdom’s founder, had no heirs and decided to leave the kingdom to his nephew, German king and Holy Roman emperor, Henry II (r. 1002–1024). However, Henry died nearly a decade before Rudolf, who named no other heir. On Rudolph’s death, Holy Roman Emperor Conrad II (r. 1024–1039), though only distantly related to Rudolf by blood, claimed Arles for the German Crown and marched his troops into the kingdom and occupied it in 1033. The Burgundian nobles preferred the rule of this distant emperor to the intrusive authority of Odo II of Champagne, the nephew of Rudolf III, who had a much stronger claim to the throne. The nobles thus elected Conrad as king of Arles, and he was crowned in Geneva in 1034. Conrad’s crowning marked the beginning of the rule of the Holy Roman emperors over the so-called three kingdoms of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy. Arles was important to the emperors because it contained vital routes connecting the territories they ruled. However, because of the vastness of their lands, and because the Burgundian nobility continued to resist imperial rule, the emperors were often able to exert only nominal control over Arles. Conrad II appointed his son, Henry III (r. 1039–1056), as king of Arles, but most often the emperors ruled through imperial vicars. Occasionally, they even went outside their own realms in search of a subordinate king. In 1193, for example, Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI (r. 1190–1197), seeing that Philip II Augustus of France (r. 1180–1223) threatened control of some Burgundian provinces, appointed Richard I of England (r. 1189–1199) king of Arles, but Richard died before he could be crowned.

54

Arles Kingdom

In 1378, the Holy Roman emperor, Charles IV (r. 1355–1378), made the dauphin Charles, heir to the French throne, the imperial vicar for the kingdom of Arles.When the dauphin later became King Charles VI of France (r. 1380–1422), sovereignty over Arles passed to the French Crown. With this transfer of power, Arles effectively ceased to exist as a separate, independent kingdom. See also: Burgundy Kingdom; Conrad II; Conrad III; Holy Roman Empire; Philip II, Augustus; Richard I, Lionheart.

ARMENIAN KINGDOMS (ca. 500s B.C.E.–1375 C.E.)

Series of kingdoms in Armenia, a region between the Black and Caspian seas, which had a unique culture that blended Iranian social and political structures with Hellenistic and Christian literary traditions. The history of the Armenian kingdoms features a long legacy of invasions, conquests, and struggles for power in an area that often served as a bridge between different cultures and civilizations. Despite numerous invasions and conquests, the kingdoms of Armenia managed not only to survive but also to develop a unique culture, with distinct art and architectural styles and a national alphabet. In the late third century c.e., during the reign of Tiridates III (r. 287–298), the Armenians were also among the first people to adopt Christianity as a state religion. In 653, they were introduced to Islam when the region was conquered by Arab forces. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Mongols invaded Armenia twice and established Islamic dynasties as well. The region came under Turkish rule in 1375, and in the fifteenth century, most of what is now present-day Armenia became a part of the Ottoman Empire.When not controlled by outside conquerors, independent Armenian dynasties ruled. The Armenian people first came into Asia Minor in the 700s b.c.e. and invaded the ancient state of Urartu, which had flourished in the region since the thirteenth century b.c.e.The Armenians began to intermarry with the native peoples, and by the 500s b.c.e., they had formed their own nation. In 330 b.c.e. Armenia was conquered by Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.). After his death in 323 b.c.e., Armenia became a part of the Syrian

kingdom of the Seleucid dynasty, which was founded by Seleucus Nicator, one of Alexander’s generals.Armenia remained part of the Syrian kingdom until it declared independence in 189 b.c.e. under the native Artaxiad dynasty, founded by Artaxias I (r. ca. 200–159 b.c.e.). The greatest king of the Artaxiad dynasty was Tigran II, also known as Tigranes, or Tigran the Great (r. 95–56 b.c.e.). Under the rule of Tigranes and his successors, the Armenian kingdom reached its greatest size and influence, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea northeast to the Mtkvari River in present-day Georgia. Tigranes and his son, Artavazd II (r. 56–33 b.c.e.), made Armenia a center of Hellenistic culture, and during their reigns Armenian culture, art, and architecture also flourished. Tigranes’s ambitions, however, ultimately led to conflict with the Roman Empire, which conquered the region in 69 b.c.e. and made Armenia a Roman province. Armenian kings continued to rule but only as vassals to Rome. In 63 c.e., a Parthian prince named Tiridates (r. 63–98) became king of Armenia, founding a new ruling dynasty, the Arsacids. Tiridates defeated the Roman forces in Armenia and was recognized as king by the Emperor Nero (r. 54–68). In the centuries that followed, Armenia maintained some measure of independence, despite the fact that it was sought after by the Byzantines, Persians, Mongols, and Turks. Armenia adopted Christianity in the late 200s, when Saint Gregory the Illuminator, the son of a Parthian nobleman, performed a series of miracles that convinced the pagan ruler of Armenia,Tiridates III, to convert to the religion. His conversion predates the acceptance of Christianity by Emperor Constantine the Great (r. 307–337) in 312, thus making Armenia the first established Christian kingdom in the East. In the fourth century, the Persians overran Armenia and began a period of Christian persecution that fueled a nationalistic spirit among the people. Fostered by numerous martyrs to the Christian faith, Armenians made several attempts to gain independence. Each period of independence was short-lived, however. Early in the fifth century, Saint Mesrop, also known as Mashtots, created an Armenian alphabet that eventually became the basis for a national literature.At the same time, religious and historical works

A r pa d Dy na s t y began to be written as part of an effort to consolidate the influence of Christianity. From the fifth to seventh century, Armenia experienced a golden age in which political unrest coincided with the development of a national literary tradition and a strong religious life. Part of the Byzantine Empire during this period, Armenia remained an imperial province until the mid-seventh century. Finally, in 653 the Byzantines, finding the region increasingly difficult to govern, ceded Armenia to the Arabs, who introduced Islam to the region. In 806, the Bagratid dynasty was established in Armenia, first as governors and ultimately as kings of a semiautonomous state. During the rule of the Bagratid kings, from 886 to 1045, Armenia experienced the longest period of independence in its history. During that time, the development of Armenian art and culture continued to develop and flourish. Reconquered by the Byzantines in 1046, Armenia was then overrun by the Seljuk Turks following their defeat of the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert in 1071. The conquest by the Muslim Seljuks started a mass exodus of Armenians from their native lands. In 1080, these exiles established a new kingdom in Cilicia, a region bordering the Mediterranean Sea in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). This new Armenian kingdom, sometimes known as Little Armenia, frequently allied itself with Christian powers of the West, particularly during the period of the Crusades. However, the kingdom finally fell to the Mamluk Turks in 1375, bringing an end to Armenian independence. Shortly afterward, the Mongols, under the great conqueror Tamerlane (r. ca. 1370–1405), seized the original region of Armenia from the Seljuks and massacred much of the population. See also: Byzantine Empire; Roman Empire; Seleucid Dynasty; Seljuq Dynasty.

ARPAD DYNASTY (ca. 889–1301 C.E.) Dynasty that ruled Hungary and an expanded Hungarian empire for nearly five hundred years during the Middle Ages. The Arpad dynasty is virtually synonymous with the early history of the Magyar people (as Hungari-

55

ans call themselves). Arpad rulers led the Magyars from their initial incursion into Central Europe in the late 800s until 1301, by which time Hungary had become a powerful and important European state. The Magyars were originally a seminomadic tribal confederation speaking a language related to Finnish. Before about 895, they lived in the lands north of the Black Sea, an area that had long been a staging ground for peoples invading Europe and the Middle East. At that time, under pressure from enemy tribes, the Magyars began moving westward over the Carpathian Mountains. Some sixty thousand strong, they were led by a chieftain named Arpad (d. 907), who became the founder of the Arpad dynasty. Arpad, the semilegendary subject of many Hungarian poems and romances, had been chosen by his fellow chieftains as a temporary leader to head the campaign of conquest. By wile and brute force, he and his immediate descendants managed to establish the principle of hereditary rule. Decades of turmoil followed the Magyar’s march westward, during which their raids reached as far as Spain. But the bulk of the population put down permanent roots in the Pannonian Plain (central Hungary), where the Arpad family consolidated its hold as princes or dukes. A decisive defeat at the hands of German king Otto I (r. 936–973) in 955 near Augsburg, Germany, convinced the Arpads to abandon foreign adventures. Under the dukes Taksony (r. 955–972) and his son Geza (r. 972–997), the Arpads centralized administration, settled towns, encouraged trade, and persisted in efforts to weaken the separate tribal identities that existed among the Magyars. Geza strengthened the Arpad’s pro-Western and antiByzantine orientation by inviting Otto I (r. 962– 973), now Holy Roman emperor, to send Christian missionary bishops to his dominions. All these policies bore fruit during the reign of Geza’s son, Stephen I (r. 997–1038), who was recognized as the first king of Hungary by Pope Sylvester II (r. 999–1003) and crowned in the year 1001. The long, peaceful reign of Stephen I was marked by vigorous policies of administrative reorganization and Christianization. He was canonized as Saint Stephen by the Roman Church in 1083 and is still considered the patron saint of Hungary as well as the greatest ruler of the Arpad dynasty. Stephen’s successors built on the firm foundation that he and his forebears had established. Laszlo (r.

56

A r pa d Dy na s t y

1077–1095) and Kalman (r. 1095–1116) expanded the kingdom into the Balkan region of Croatia, while Bela III (r. 1173–1196) controlled Serbia farther south, as well as the Galician region to the northeast of Hungary. The thirteenth century was less generous to the Arpad kings, however, and great nobles gained power at their expense. Bela IV (r. 1235– 1270) rallied Hungary after the devastating Mongol invasion of 1241–1242, but the great defensive castles built by the nobles at his request were eventually used to defy royal power.The dynasty ended in 1301, when Andrew III (r. 1290–1301) died without an heir. See also: Otto I, the Great; Stephen I (Saint Stephen).

ART OF KINGS Works of art depicting or owned or commissioned by monarchs all over the world from ancient to modern times.

ROLE OF ROYAL ART The arts have always been a way to exalt royal qualities. In all ages and civilizations, imperial images have tended to represent particular themes, such as the sovereign himself and members of his court, life in the palace, or the ruler’s war exploits. Surviving Egyptian art works, for instance, are mainly architectural accomplishments, frescoes on tombs, and objects and sculptures made by artists and artisans who served the pharaohs and other royalty. Most of them are sculpted or painted depictions of the pursuits of monarchs, such as the ceremonial and leisure activities of the court; funerary rites; the diligent work of peasants and farmers, which represented the affluence of the kingdom; and military conquests of the kings. Similarly, steles and sculptures in carefully carved bas-relief decorating the palaces of ancient Mesopotamian realms like Assyria and Babylonia celebrated imperial glory by illustrating war and hunting scenes. In Rome, royal art used the same tradition, exhibiting portraits of the emperors and images of their exploits to display the power of the empire to the Italic, Latin, and barbarian peoples it ruled. In Africa as well, art has been used to represent aspects of a monarchy’s history and to expand and perpetuate royal power. But rather than portray war

or court scenes, most works of African royal art focus on the monarch himself. Many illustrate the intrinsic contradiction between individual rulers and the concept of kingship; that is, the ruler is a human being who will therefore eventually die, whereas a kingdom is a lasting political structure. Thus, many royal portraits of African kings in Dahomey (current Benin), Kuba (current Congo), and Benin (current Nigeria) depict the kings as the embodiment of beauty and perfection, of ideal age and body size, in perfect health, and of calm demeanor. Some large African kingdoms such as Benin, Dahomey, Ashanti, and Kuba had court artisans—sculptors, smiths, founders, embroiderers, weavers, sculptors, jewelers—who dedicated their work to the royalty. They belonged to guilds that were protected by the king, and their art became distinct from the more popular arts.

PORTRAITS In Egypt, portraits—sculpted, on frescoes, or in basrelief—were intended to preserve the image of the pharaoh and his court.They were usually full-length, and the figures looked at ease. Exact resemblance was not a goal. Rather, portraits gave an impression of a vigorous and passionate, yet wise, pharaoh. The Romans, on the other hand, strove for identical resemblances in their portraits, which celebrated the greatness of the emperor and were placed in public places. The head was the main part of the Roman royal portrait. Later, portraits came to be fashionable in Europe in the form of paintings. In England, in the 1600s, most painted pictures were, in fact, portraits. Under Henry VIII, a typically English style of portraiture started to emerge following the development of this art form in other European countries. Henry VIII’s royal art collection included many portraits, but at the time they were seen more as royal advertisements than as valuable works of art. They were even used to negotiate marriages. Henry VIII possessed a number of royal portraits, such as of Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, and Richard III. The subjects of the Tudor portraits can be identified by coats of arms, inscriptions, and badges. Jewelry, costume, and insignia indicated rank and affluence. Most of the portraits were head-to-shoulder rather than full-length. Royal portraits often hung in the king’s dwellings and in those of loyal subjects. Henry VIII was the first king

A rta x e r x e s I I to have an art collection as we know it, although his intent—like that of other rulers throughout the centuries—was to magnify his own glory. See also: Benin Kingdom; Henry VIII; Kuba Kingdom;Tudor, House of.

ARTAXERXES I (464–424 B.C.E.) A king from the Achaemenid dynasty who ruled the Persian Empire during its later, decadent era. Artaxerxes I (r. 486–464 b.c.e.) took the throne of the Persian Empire after the assassination of his father, Xerxes I (r. 485–465 b.c.e.), by killing off his two brothers.Throughout his reign,Artaxerxes I was forced to devote much of his efforts to fighting rebellions and navigating palace intrigues, but he managed to maintain Persian predominance. Faced with a major rebellion in the Persian province of Egypt in 459 b.c.e., Artaxerxes I suppressed it, but only after five years of intense effort. Around 448 b.c.e., the Greeks of the city-state of Athens sent a fleet to aid a rebellion against Persian rule in Cyprus.The Greek fleet won a great victory, but at the Treaty of Callias that ended the war, Artaxerxes negotiated favorable terms—Athenian recognition of Persian power in Asia Minor (persentday Turkey). When Athens broke the treaty in 439 b.c.e., Persia won a series of battles that further strengthened its position in the West. Despite the intermittent warfare with Greece, important cultural exchanges occurred between the two countries during the reign of Artaxerxes I. The king also played an important role in supporting the revival of Judaism in Jerusalem By the time of Artaxerxes I, the Persian imperial court had grown dramatically in size and opulence. Most of the Achaemenid kings sired scores of illegitimate sons, and they and their descendants—at least those who escaped bloody succession struggles— taxed the resources of the state. After Artaxerxes I’s death in 424 b.c.e., three of his sons claimed the throne. Darius II (r. 423–404 b.c.e.) eventually triumphed over his brothers, Xerxes II (r. 424 b.c.e.) and Sogdianus (r. 424 b.c.e.), following the murder of these other two claimants to the throne. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Artaxerxes II; Artaxerxes III; Persian Empire.

57

ARTAXERXES II (436–359 B.C.E.) King of Persia (r. 404–359 b.c.e.) whose long reign was punctuated by repeated military challenges. Although Artaxerxes II emerged successful from most of these challenges, his loss of Egypt in 404 b.c.e. marked the beginning of the end for the Persian Empire. Artaxerxes II was the son and successor of Darius II (r. 423–405 b.c.e.).Troubles at the very start of his reign were a portent of things to come. During his coronation, Cyrus the Younger, one of the king’s many Achaemenid relatives, tried to assassinate him and seize the throne. Forgiven and sent to a provincial post in Asia Minor, Cyrus nonetheless continued to plot against the king. In 401 b.c.e., Cyrus marched eastward with 10,000 Greek mercenaries

During the rule of Artaxerxes II, of the Achaemenid Dynasty, Persian power was on the decline. Upon his death in 359 b.c.e., Artaxerxes was placed in this rock tomb at the royal capital of Persepolis.

58

A rta x e r x e s I I

in hopes of seizing the empire, only to be defeated and killed at the battle of Cunaxa. Artaxerxes II also faced a rebellion in Egypt that broke out during his succession struggle and resulted in the loss of that land soon after he took the throne. Artaxerxes II spent much of his reign preparing to reconquer the province, but the Egyptians repelled a major invasion by his Greek mercenaries in 374 b.c.e. News of the defeat encouraged an uprising by several provincial satraps, or governors. Although the satraps were defeated, Artaxerxes II allowed them to remain in their posts; this leniency may have further weakened royal authority. After Artaxerxes died in 359 b.c.e., he was succeeded by his son, Artaxerxes III Ochus (r. 359–338 b.c.e.). See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Artaxerxes I; Artaxerxes III; Persian Empire.

ARTAXERXES III (d. 338 B.C.E.) Persian ruler (r. 359–338 b.c.e.) who centralized and strengthened his empire through harsh and bloody means. The son of Artaxexes II (r. 404–359 b.c.e.), Artaxerxes III came to the throne as a result of tawdry and violent intrigues. To win and secure power, he murdered many of his relatives, including some eighty brothers who were killed in one day. Artaxerxes III continued a policy of terror throughout his reign. As an indication of the political climate at the highest Persian ranks, Artaxerxes took the family of his new commander-in-chief as hostages in order to ensure the commander’s loyalty. In 351–350 b.c.e.,Artaxerxes III tried unsuccessfully to retake Egypt, which had been lost during the reign of his father. Emboldened by Persian defeat, the cities of Phoenicia and Palestine rose up in rebellion but were brutally suppressed. Artaxerxes III led a final, more successful invasion of Egypt in 343 b.c.e. Persian rule was restored there, but this lasted only until the end of Artaxerxes’s reign five years later. In 338 b.c.e., King Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.) pushed aside Persian troops in Thrace and proceeded to subdue all of Greece. That same year, the powerful court eunuch Bagoas,Artaxerxes’s military commander, had Artaxerxes III poisoned, and he then placed the king’s son Arses (r.

337–336 b.c.e.) on the throne. In killing Artaxerxes, Bagoas spared the king from living to see the collapse of the empire following the massive invasion by Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) in 331 b.c.e. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Alexander III, the Great; Artaxerxes II; Darius III; Persian Empire; Philip II of Macedon.

ARTHUR, KING Legendary king of Britain and founder of the Round Table, celebrated in medieval legend, who is said to have initiated the search for the Holy Grail. The bold figures of Arthur, Queen Guinevere, Merlin, Lancelot du Lac, and the knights of the Round Table are best known as heroes of Arthurian romance and literature. However, historical sources support the existence of one or more early British leaders who may have served as the model for this celebrated monarch.

THE LEGENDARY ARTHUR There are three major sources for the Arthur of legend: the twelfth-century History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth; a cycle of Arthurian romances by the medieval French poet Chretien de Troyes; and Le Morte d’Arthur by the fifteenth-century English author Sir Thomas Malory. Writing only seventy years after the Norman conquest in 1066, English chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth catered to the values and desires of his audience, the Anglo-French ruling class, in his account of the legendary Arthur. From Geoffrey, we learn that Arthur and his Britons defeated not only the Saxons, but eventually Rome itself. It is also in Geoffrey that we first find a number of other characters and places in the Arthurian legend—Uther, Ygraine, the castle Tintagel, Avalon, and, most importantly, the wizard Merlin. Merlin’s exploits include moving “the Giant’s Dance” to its current location at Stonehenge. In the medieval French jongleur tradition of wandering minstrels, Chretien de Troyes never pretended to write history. Instead, he wove together Celtic myths and borrowed heavily from Layamon, a version of Arthurian stories by the twelfth-century Norman-French poet, Wace. In his medieval ro-

A rt h u r , K i n g

The legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, models of chivalry in the Middle Ages, have appeared in countless depictions over the centuries. This is from an illustrated manuscript published by Antoine Verard in Paris around 1490.

mances, Chretien presented Lancelot, Camelot, and the Holy Grail as parts of the Arthurian legend for the first time. It was, however, a lonely, imprisoned English knight, Sir Thomas Malory, who used Chretien de Troyes, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and other sources to create the most widely known version of the Arthurian legend, Le Morte d’Arthur, which was published in 1485, after the author’s death. In Malory, King Arthur is the son of Uther Pendragon.According to legend, Uther disguises himself as Gorlois, duke of Cornwall, and fathers Arthur with Gorlois’s wife, Ygraine. As Gorlois is conveniently killed in battle that same evening, Uther takes Gorlois’s kingdom and wife for his own. When Ygraine has a son, Arthur, the wizard Merlin collects the baby as repayment for having magically transformed Uther into Gorlois on the night of the child’s conception, and he takes Arthur away to be fostered in secret by the rural knight, Sir Ector. Approximately twenty years later, the young Arthur pulls the mystical sword Excalibur from a stone and is proclaimed the rightful king of Britain. Arthur later marries Guinevere, the daughter of King Leodegrance, and is given an enormous Round Table as a wedding gift. He decides to take advantage of the table’s egalitarian shape (which allows no one

59

to sit “higher” or “lower” than anyone else) and founds the chivalric order known as the Knights of the Round Table. This order, dedicated to defending virtue and the helpless, becomes the key feature of Arthur’s court at Camelot. But Arthur’s reign is undermined by two forces. First, the greatest knight of the group—Sir Lancelot du Lac, a Frenchman from the castle Joyeuse Garde in France—falls in love with Guinevere, who returns his affection. At the same time, Arthur and the Knights share a vision of the Holy Grail—the cup from which Jesus Christ drank at the Last Supper. The knights of the Round Table are urged to give up all other pursuits to search for the Grail. Many Knights die or are captured during their quests, weakening the kingdom just as Arthur’s illegitimate son, Modred (fathered with Arthur’s half-sister, Morgause), brings Lancelot’s and Guinevere’s affair to Arthur’s public attention. As Lancelot and Guinevere escape to France and Joyeuse Garde, Modred organizes armies to attack the dispirited Arthur, hoping to take the throne. However, Lancelot returns at the last moment and helps Arthur defeat Modred. Mortally wounded in this last battle, Arthur does not die on the battlefield but is borne off by the mystical Lady of the Lake to Avalon, an enchanted island in the west. Such is the Arthur of legend.

THE HISTORICAL ARTHUR In the latter half of the twentieth century, considerable investigations were made into the possibility of an historical King Arthur. Evidence was unearthed that several real figures might have served as inspiration for the renowned fictional ruler. When the Roman legions left Britain in the early sixth century, the wealthy and civilized southern part of Britain soon felt pressure from raiding Teutonic tribes. These invasions increased in frequency and magnitude for the next two centuries. It is Gildas, a contemporary sixth-century British monk, who first names an Arthur-like figure, Ambrosius Aurelianus, as the Dux Bellorum, or warlord, who rallied the Britons against the invading Saxons. Among the cited victories of Amabrosius is the battle of Mons Badonicus. Another Arthur (or perhaps the same figure) is mentioned in the Historia Brittonum, a chronicle from

60

A rt h u r , K i n g

the early ninth century. Nennius, the compiler of this work, is thought to be reliable; however, he unfortunately insists that Arthur (not Aurelianus) singlehandedly slew 960 men at the battle of Mons Badonicus. An entirely different—and more magical— Arthur appears in Welsh traditions as early as the eighth century in the Annales Cambriae, as well as in the more popularly known Mabinogion, a fourteenthcentury collection of Welsh tales that probably date from as much as a thousand years earlier.The Arthur in these works is a magical Celtic king who is assisted by Merlin and other supernaturally endowed denizens in fighting enemies far stranger than the Saxons. Who then is King Arthur—a mythical Celtic hero, a Roman general, or the first king-of-allBritain? Original documentary sources and archaeological evidence are sketchy and remain in dispute. Nonetheless, in literature and the popular imagination, Arthur will continue as the enduring symbol of the noble and doomed monarch. See also: Myth and Folklore. FURTHER READING

Alcock, Leslie. Arthur’s Britain. London: Penguin, 1971. Malory, Sir Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthur. New York: Macmillan, 1970. White, T.H. The Once and Future King. New York: Penguin, 1987.

ASANTE KINGDOM (1670–1901 C.E.) Kingdom in West Africa that, at the peak of its power, controlled a wide swath of territory that included much of southern Ghana and extended into the present-day states of Togo and Ivory Coast. The Asante kingdom arose around 1670, when a powerful leader named Osei Tutu began to gather a strong enough following among local Akan chiefdoms to overthrow the then dominant Denkyira people and assume control over the local trade. Osei accomplished the overthrow of the Denkyira in a war that lasted from 1699 to 1701.With his ultimate victory over the Denkyira, Osei Tutu (r. 1685– 1717), who succeeded his uncle as ruler of the Ku-

masi state in 1685, consolidated power and established a new seat of government at Kumasi. To legitimate his claim to rulership, Osei relied not only on the might of his military, but also on the development of rituals and institutions that brought his people together. First among these was the Golden Stool, a ritual object used in the installation of a ruler (asantehene). The concept of the ritual stool, shared by many of the Akan peoples within the Asante kingdom, symbolized the broader authority of the Asante king over local leaders. Osei also introduced other important rituals designed to unite the disparate peoples under Asante rule, giving everyone a common set of cultural elements to define their shared membership in the state. At the time the Asante kingdom was created, Europeans were avidly seeking to trade with the local populations for gold and slaves.Whoever could control the trade goods sought by Europeans stood to gain a great advantage over their neighbors, for they would receive modern weaponry in return. Osei Tutu and his successors understood this relationship very well.The slave trade, in particular, provided the Asante with the wherewithal to create the strongest military force in the region. The Asante’s military strength enabled them to be the most efficient in raiding for slaves to sell to European and to subdue and incorporate their neighbors into their state. By 1750, the Asante kingdom reached its maximum extent, and the work of consolidation began in earnest. Over the next fifty years, the kingdom became highly centralized. In 1807, however, the Asante kingdom faced crises on several fronts. The most notable of these crises was the British abolition of the slave trade and increasing unrest among groups along the borders of the kingdom, which ushered in a new round of regional warfare. By the 1820s, war with its neighbors was causing a severe drain on the resources of the Asante kingdom. Adding to the pressure were ever-increasing incursions of British colonialists into Asante territory. Despite several armed clashes with the British, the Asante managed to reach an agreement with them, but this was violently breached when the Asante attempted, in 1863, to retake territory the British had claimed.Although the Asante enjoyed initial success in the clashes that followed, the British eventually won, and, in 1901, Britain annexed the kingdom as part of its Gold Coast Colony. Although

61

A s h i k ag a S h o g u nat e the Asante state retained its own institutions and structure, it became subordinate to the larger British colonial administration. The Asante never again achieved the status of an independent state.

Ashikaga Shogunate Takauji

1338–1358

See also: African Kingdoms; Osei Tutu.

Yoshiakira

1359–1367

Yoshimitsu

1369–1394

Yoshimochi

1395–1423

Yoshikazu

1423–1425

Yoshinori

1429–1441

ASHIKAGA SHOGUNATE

Yoshikatsu

1442–1443

(1338–1573 C.E.)

Yoshimasa

1449–1474

Yoshihisa

1474–1489

Yoshitane

1490–1493

Yoshizumi

1495–1508

Yoshitane (restored)

1508–1522

Yoshiharu

1522–1547

Yoshiteru

1547–1565

Yoshihide

1568

FURTHER READING

McLeod, Malcolm D. The Asante. London: Oxford University Press, 1981.

The 250-year span in Japan following the Kamakura period (1185–1333), which was marked by growing decentralization, splintered administrative control, and constant civil war. The Ashikaga shogunate includes the Dual Monarchies period, during which two emperors ruled Japan between 1336 and 1392. Ashikaga Takauji (r. 1305–1358) established the Ashikaga shogunate in 1338 and became its first shogun. Initially, Takauji sided with Emperor GoDaigo (r. 1318–1339) in a campaign to reestablish direct imperial power after the domination of the Kamakura shoguns.The alliance between Takauji and Go-Daigo was instrumental in bringing down the Kamakura shogunate, and the emperor was temporarily successful in the Kemmu Restoration of 1333. Three years later, however, unhappy with GoDaigo’s growing independence and the emperor’s failure to name him shogun, Takauji switched his allegiance to a rival emperor. Faced with these shifting alliances, Emperor Go-Daigo moved his imperial court south to the Yoshino Mountains near the old imperial city of Nara. The ensuing civil disorder led to the sixty-year period of Dual Monarchies (1336–1392), with a Northern Court in Kyoto and a Southern Court in Yoshino. Allied with Kyoto, Takauji had the northern emperor name him shogun in 1338, the post that Go-Daigo had denied to him in 1335.

THE MUROMACHI PERIOD By 1378, the Ashikaga shogunate had set up headquarters in the Muromachi section of Kyoto, and the period that followed was thus known as the Muromachi period. This 250-year span, which ended in

Yoshiaki

1568–1573

1573, was a period of violent conflict among Japan’s many warring clans. Although the shogunate had successfully curtailed imperial power,Takauji’s successors were poor leaders, and the shogun was never able to wield tight central control. The daimyo, or large feudal owners, followed their own course, either in league with or against the powerful local shugo families, the bureaucratic constable class that had built up power under the preceding Kamakura shogunate. In some cases, the daimyo themselves became the most powerful shugo families in their areas. By the late twelfth century c.e., a single shugo might exercise control over as many as ten or eleven of the 66 provinces in Japan. By the outbreak of the Onin War (1467–1477), a struggle between two powerful warlords who sought control of Japan, there were nearly 260 independent daimyo armies vying to exploit the explosive political situation. Order degenerated even further following the war, and the next hundred years became known as the sengoku jidai, orWarring States era, dur-

62

A s h i k ag a S h o g u nat e

ing which the provincial warlords marched endlessly to and fro in support of ever-changing loyalties.

Takauji Rulers Takauji’s grandson, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu (r. 1369– 1395), is considered one of the most capable of the lackluster Ashikaga rulers. In 1392, he reunited the dual imperial courts by reneging on his promise to alternate succession between Northern and Southern claimants to the throne.To curb the power of the shugo, Yoshimitsu forced them to reside in Kyoto under his watchful eye. He built the famous Kinkakuji, or Golden Pavilion palace, there, reopened trade with China, and encouraged Chinese cultural influences.

Muromachi Cultural Legacy Despite the civil disorder of the period, the Ashikaga shoguns lived in splendor during much of the Muromachi era. In particular, the shoguns Yoshimitsu and Yoshimasa (r. 1445–1490) were renowned for their love of art and dedicated patrons of the arts. The cultural legacy of the Ashikaga warrior society included the pervasive influence of Zen Buddhism. In contrast to the disorder that characterized society, the Zen ideals of simplicity, restraint, discipline, and meditation inspired a lively culture that came close to, if it did not match, the refined achievements of the Heian period (794–1185). The Muromachi artistic ideals still permeate modern Japanese culture.The elegant and restrained arts of the tea ceremony (chanoyu) and flower arranging (ikebana) came into their own during the Muromachi period. Painting, poetry, and landscape gardening flourished, and the classical Noh dancedrama was born. The Noh plays of Japan, with their masks and stylized speech and gestures, were often about the tragedies of military life and the rewards to be found in the afterlife.

WINDS OF CHANGE Despite the volatile political situation, trade and crafts manufacturing grew during the Muromachi period and helped enrich the coffers of provincial leaders. By the early fourteenth century, money rather than rice had become the main currency of exchange; the trend increased as trade with China expanded. During the Ashikaga period, Japanese sailors carried on extensive maritime commerce (and piracy)

along the Chinese and Korean coastline as well as with the lands of Southeast Asia. Among the many port towns that developed to accommodate coastal trade was the free city of Sakai (modern Osaka), which was governed by local merchants. The ravages of the Onin War left both the Ashikaga shogunate and the imperial court in Kyoto impoverished. By the mid-sixteenth century, change was in the air. Nothing gave events a larger push than the arrival in 1542 or 1543 of an off-course Chinese junk on a small island off Kyushu.The passengers included three Portuguese traders, who brought with them Christianity and, of greater historical import, sophisticated muskets, or guns. Japanese artisans were quick to replicate these weapons, which played a significant role in the successful consolidation of power in 1578 by the warlord Oda Nobunaga (r. 1568–1582), whose dictatorship ended the Warring States period and marked the end of the Ashikaga shogunate. See also: Minamoto Rulers; Kamakura Shogunate; Oda Nobunaga;Yamato Dynasty;Yoritomo.

ASHURBANIPAL (d. 627 B.C.E.) Last great Assyrian monarch (r. ca. 668–627 b.c.e.), who was a patron of the arts as well as a military leader. Ashurbanipal was one of the younger sons of King Esarhaddon of Assyria (r. 680–669 b.c.e.). In 672 b.c.e., Esarhaddon named Ashurbanipal crown prince, hoping to avoid conflicts over succession to the throne. Taking his duties seriously, Ash-urbanipal assumed an active role in the royal administration. Sometime later, however, perhaps pressured by another of his wives, Esarhaddon appointed an older son, Shamash-shum-ukin, as his successor in Babylon, which was controlled by Assyria. This decision by Esarhaddon was later to prove a source of conflict. When Esarhaddon died in 669 b.c.e., Ashurbanipal had little difficulty in succeeding to the throne with his mother’s backing. Even though his brother received a lesser kingdom, Ashurbanipal had little doubt of his brother’s loyalty. Ashurbanipal was far more concerned with internal strife elsewhere in the empire. Within the first few years of his reign, Ashurban-

A s i a n D y n a s t i e s, C e n t r a l ipal responded successfully to an Egyptian rebellion, and he laid siege to the Phoenician city of Tyre, winning with it control of Cilicia and Syria. Threatened by advances of the people known as the Cimmerians along the northern borders of his empire, Ashurbanipal allied with the Scythian ruler Madyes (r. mid600s b.c.e.) and turned back the Cimmerians. In 652 b.c.e., the Assyrians killed an usurper in the neighboring state of Elam, and Ashurbanipal backed the succession of the Elamite princes Humbanigash and Tammaritu to the throne of that kingdom. Ashurbanipal’s brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, perhaps seeing his brother’s failure to impose direct Assyrian rule on Elamas a sign of weakness, decided to move against him. Shamash-shum-ukin set up a plot with leaders in Phoenicia, Lydia, Egypt, Elam, and the Arab and Chaldaean tribes, all of whom agreed to rebel at the same time. Had this plan succeeded, it would likely have brought down the Assyrian Empire. When Ashurbanipal discovered the plan, he was forced to act against his brother in Babylon, although he did his best to avoid putting Shamash-shum-ukin in direct danger.This was all in vain: when Ashurbanipal took the city in 648 b.c.e., his brother committed suicide. Disturbed by the destruction of Babylon resulting from his siege, Ashurbanipal had the city restored under his personal direction, and appointed a local Chaldaean noble as governor. Ashurbanipal was not yet through dealing with the repercussions of his brother’s treachery, however; it would take another nine years before he finally subdued the Arab tribes and Elam. Ashurbanipal was not only a soldier, but also a great supporter of the arts. He built palaces filled with sculptures depicting his historical and ceremonial activities. He collected two glorious libraries in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, with volumes that numbered in the tens of thousands and topics that ranged from religion to natural science, history, and fable. The remains of Ashurbanipal’s great libraries have revealed much of what is known of ancient Akkadian, Sumerian, and Assyrian literature, including the great epics of the legendary hero Gilgamesh and the Mesopotamian creation story. In the end, Ashurbanipal’s libraries were his most lasting legacy; his empire, so carefully protected and so thoughtfully organized, crumbled completely within eighteen years of his death in 627 b.c.e.

63

See also: Akkad, Kingdom of; Assyrian Empire; Esarhaddon; Phoenician Empire; Syrian Kingdoms.

ASIAN DYNASTIES, CENTRAL (ca. 500s B.C.E.–1600 C.E.)

Kingdoms and empires covering the present-day countries of Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, eastern Russia,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as portions of Pakistan, Kashmir, China (Xinjiang province), Mongolia, Iran, and Iraq. Central Asia is largely comprised of a series of steppes and deserts, stretched like horizontal belts across the continent of Asia. Great temperate forests lie to the north of this region, while a number of mighty mountain ranges, including the Altai, Tianshan, Pamir, Kunlun, Karakoram, and Himalayas, lay generally to the south.The area also contains several major rivers, lakes, and seas.

EARLY EMPIRE FORMATION By the fifth century b.c.e., various small states and city-states in Central Asia began to be conquered by great empires from the west and east of the Central Asian steppes. This included acquisitions by the Persian Empire of the Achaemenids (545–330 b.c.e.), the Macedonain Empire of Alexander the Great (336–323 b.c.e.), the Seleucid Empire (ca. 305–238 b.c.e.), the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (ca. 246–130 b.c.e.), and the Parthian Empire (247 b.c.e.–224 c.e.). In the Persian and Macedonian empires, local rulers paid taxes and tribute to the central government in exchange for maintaining their status and authority. Buddhism came to Central Asia in the third century b.c.e. During the same period, the Han Chinese extended their control from the east over thirty-six city-states in the Xinjiang region. During this period of annexation and conquest, empires allowed the development of ever-longer trade routes. Over time, the longest trade route connecting China to Europe became known as the “Silk Road,” because of the exquisite Chinese silks, as well as other valuables, that moved over it.The wealth of the Silk Road funded the rise of native, Central Asian monarchies beginning in the early centuries c.e. In 53 b.c.e., the Parthians defeated the Romans and gained control of the Silk Road.

64

A s i a n D y n a s t i e s, C e n t r a l

By the first century c.e., Central Asia had both settled cities and a variety of nomadic tribes that raided or conquered settled populations. Among these nomadic tribes were the Sarmatians, Hephthalites, Chionites, Huns, and Turkish tribes of the steppes. New empires began to arise in Central Asia at this time, including the Kushan Empire (ca. 78/142–280), the Sasanian Empire (ca. 226–651), the Chorasmian and Sogdian kingdoms (200s–700s), the Hephthalite kingdoms (ca. 450–565), the Hunnic Empire (300s–400s), and the Juan-Juan Empire (ca. 400–552).

MUSLIM RULE In 651, the city of Merv (in present-day Turkmenistan) became the first Islamic conquest in Central Asia when it fell to invading Arabs. An everexpanding Islamic empire in Central Asia was controlled first by the Umayyads (661–750), followed by the Abbasids (750–819), the Tahirids (820–869), and the Saffarids (869–900). In Tajikistan/Afghanistan, the area was divided between the Muslim Samanids (ca. 900–1000) and the Ghaznavids (977– 1186). The Sogdian and Chorasmian kingdoms controlled Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan until the eighth century. In Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, a Turkish khanate replaced the Juan-Juan Empire in 552 and ruled until 744 or 745.That khanate later fell under the power of the Uighur kingdom (744–840 and ca. 850–1218). As the Chinese Tang Empire fractured in the tenth century, regional kingdoms such as the Uighurs and Xixia (1032–1227) came into power. Other regional rulers included the Ghurid dynasty (1000s–1215), the Khwarazm-Shah dynasty (1157– 1231), the Qarakhanid dynasty (ca. 1000–1140), and the Qarakhitai dynasty (1124–1211). The Mongols conquered all these Central Asian kingdoms in the thirteenth century, ruling from 1215 to 1227. The Chaghatay khanate (ca. 1227–1363) and the Timurid dynasty (ca 1370–1507) were both Mongolian dynasties. In 1370, Timur Leng—also known as Tamerlane (r. 1370–1405)—the first ruler of the Timurid dynasty, conquered most of western Asia, southern Russia, and India during a thirty-five-year reign. After 1500, the Mongolian dynasties came into increasing conflict with the Shaibanids, an Uzbek dynasty that had seized control of the central part of

Asia and Khwarazm from the Timurids. In the east, Mongol clans were continuously at war for control. In 1507, Khorasan, the capital of the Timurids, fell to the Shaibanids. Babur (r. 1526–1530), the last surviving member of the Timurids, fled to India, where he founded the Mughal Empire. Shaibanid power declined after 1598, as the khans of Khiva and Bukhara took over their lands. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Achaemenid Dynasty; Ghaznavid Dynasty; Ghur Dynasty; Hun Empire; Khwarazm-Shah Dynasty; Mongol Empire; Mughal Empire; Saffarid Dynasty; Samanid Dynasty; Sasanid Dynasty; Seleucid Dynasty; Uighur Empire; Umayyad Dynasty.

FURTHER READING

Soucek, Svatopluk. A Short History of Inner Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Tapsell, R.F. Monarchs, Rulers, Dynasties and Kingdoms of the World. New York: Facts on File Publishing, 1983.

ASOKA (c. 299–232 B.C.E.) Third ruler (r. 268–232 b.c.e.) of the Maurya dynasty (321–180 b.c.e.) of India, who is credited with elevating the then local religious movement of Buddhism to a truly world religion and with unifying nearly all of the Indian subcontinent under one rule for the first time in history. The son of Emperor Bindusara (r. 297–272 b.c.e.), Asoka was born in approximately 299 b.c.e. in a region then known as Magadha (present-day Bihar). Asoka’s grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya (r. 321–297 b.c.e.), founded the Maurya dynasty and had controlled a territory that stretched north and east from the Ganges River Valley. During his own rule, Bindusara extended that territory southward into the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta, and his son after him, were relentless in their pursuit of empire, waging wars of conquest against their neighbors and steadily expanding the territory they controlled. When Bindusara died around 272 b.c.e., Asoka’s accession was by no means certain; he faced a number of rival claimants to the throne. His solution was simple but brutal: he had all his rivals killed, includ-

Asoka

Indian Emperor Asoka of the Maurya Dynasty united most of the subcontinent under one rule for the first time. His support of Buddhism significantly spread that religion.To help educate his people about Buddhist principles, Asoka had stone pillars erected and inscribed with edicts. This pillar dates from the third century b.c.e.

ing at least one of his brothers. Asoka’s singleminded use of violence on this occasion appalled the public, however, and it took several years—until 268 b.c.e.—before he was formally permitted to take the throne. At that time he took the royal name Devanampiya Piyadasi, which means “beloved of the gods.” The beginning of Asoka’s reign seemed to foretell a continuation of the expansion-by-conquest policies of his predecessors. Like them, he led his armies into battle, and it seemed that there was no one who could withstand his military might. Between about 261 and 260 b.c.e., however, he underwent a great conversion, one that led him to abandon the battlefield and turn to more peaceful policies. Asoka’s was a religious conversion. The faith he followed in his early years is uncertain, although it is known that his grandfather, Chandragupta, was a Zoroastrian who later converted to Jainism. Sometime around 263 b.c.e., Asoka became interested in Buddhism, which was then a localized religious sect. His Buddhist studies did not at first dissuade him from waging wars, but after a particularly bloody battle for the conquest of Kalinga (now Orissa), Asoka appears suddenly to have revolted against the

65

destruction and loss of life. From that time forward he rejected violence as a means of expanding his empire. Asoka’s commitment to nonviolence (ahimsa) and other aspects of Buddhist teachings seems undeniably sincere, for throughout the remainder of his reign he sent out missionaries to spread the word of this religion, including (according to some sources) his own son and daughter.To further educate the populace in Buddhist principles, Asoka ordered the construction of great stones and pillars throughout his realm, on which were inscribed what have come to be known as “Asoka’s Edicts”—pronouncements on particular aspects of Buddhist teachings. Freed of the need to wage constant war, Asoka committed himself to improving the lot of his subjects, establishing schools, roads, and medical centers throughout his empire. During his rule, India prospered economically as well, and the arts flourished. By virtue of his enlightened rule, and through the efforts of his missionaries, he managed to achieve greater success in expanding his empire than either his father or grandfather, ultimately incorporating the whole of the Indian subcontinent and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) into his empire without further wars. Although personally committed to Buddhism, Asoka preached tolerance for other religions. Unfortunately, his tolerance did not earn him support from the Brahmins (the Hindu priestly class), because their ritual sacrifice of animals was something that Buddhist principles did not allow. This conflict was never successfully resolved during Asoka’s reign, and friction between Buddhists and Hindus ultimately led to the downfall of the Maurya dynasty in 180 b.c.e. For his part, Asoka spent the final years of his reign outside the public sphere, immersing himself more and more in his religious studies. As long as Asoka lived, he was able to maintain stability in his empire, despite ongoing religious rivalries, through the force of his character and through the judicious use of his army and elaborate political bureaucracy. His successors were less successful, however. Asoka died in 232 b.c.e., and he was succeeded by his grandson, Dasaratha (r. 232– 224 b.c.e.). The Maurya dynasty survived only another forty-seven years after Asoka’s death. In 185 b.c.e. it was overthrown by Pusyamitra Shunga, an upstart rebel leader from a rival family who had the

66

Asoka

aid of the Hindu Brahmins and other dissatisfied groups within the populace. With the accession of Pusyamitra (r. 185–151 b.c.e.), the Maurya dynasty came to an end and the Shunga dynasty assumed control of India. See also: Aurangzeb; Chandragupta Maurya; Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire.

ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (ca. 1269–609 B.C.E.) An empire established by warrior-kings that dominated the ancient Near East around the beginning of the first millennium b.c.e. Throughout nearly the entire history of the Assyrian Empire, its power came from the strength and ferocity of its army, both in conquering new lands and maintaining control over conquered people. The Assyrian king, as commander-in-chief of the army, spent a great deal of effort and attention on his army and, except in rare cases, not as much on the organization and administration of his empire. Revolts among the Assyrian rulers’ inner circle were not uncommon, causing disorder that weakened the empire, sometimes crucially. Consequently, though incredibly powerful for much of its existence, the Assyrian Empire also experienced periods of weakness during which its territory was diminished.

ORIGINS AND RISE TO POWER In 1365 b.c.e., the city-state of Ashur in upper Mesopotamia gained independence from the powerful kingdom of Mitanni. The warrior who accomplished this was Ashuruballit (r. ca. 1363–1328 b.c.e.), who took the title Great King and claimed equal status with the rulers of Babylon, Egypt, and other Near Eastern states. Ashuruballit’s kingdom became known as Assyria, which means “land of Ashur.” It was not until about ninety years later, however, during the reign of Ashuruballit’s grandson, Shalmaneser I (r. ca. 1273– 1244 b.c.e.), that Assyria became a great power and the Assyrian Empire is said to have begun. Shalmaneser extended Assyrian territory west to the borders of Asia Minor, while his successor, TukultiNinurta I (r. ca. 1243–1207 b.c.e.), made gains east, north, and south until Assyria dominated all of Mesopotamia.

The rule of Tiglath-pileser I (r. ca. 1114–1076 b.c.e.) marks the origin of the Assyrian monarchy’s reputation for ferocity and cruelty in battle. His legendary methods of fighting became the hallmark of all succeeding Assyrian kings. Although Tiglathpileser I gained prominence for Assyria through his military dominance, after his death, those whom he had brutally controlled rose up in revolt. Subsequently, Assyria went into a 150-year period of decline under a series of weak and undistinguished kings, until it occupied merely a strip of land along the Tigris River.

CHANGING FORTUNES The Assyrian decline ended in the ninth century b.c.e. with a succession of stronger monarchs who recaptured lands for the empire.They also rebuilt the army, which would be used by Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883–859 b.c.e.) to the detriment of all those in his path. Ashurnasirpal refined the skill of human cruelty, and his brutality surpassed that of Tiglathpileser I. He used the spoils of his conquests to establish a new capital at Calah. Ashurnasirpal also created a highly centralized state by reorganizing provinces and appointing provincial governors loyal to the monarchy. After the death of Ashurnasirpal and his son and successor, Shalmaneser III (r. 858–824 b.c.e.), Assyria entered a period of turmoil, stagnation, and decline as weak rulers once again allowed the state to sink into near obscurity.This period of decline ended in 745 b.c.e. with a monarch from a new royal family under whom Assyria experienced a remarkable rebirth. This ruler took the name Tiglath-pileser III (r. 744–727 b.c.e.), possibly to indicate continuity with earlier centuries. A brilliant military planner,Tiglath-pileser III also had a talent for organization. After spending some time reorganizing the empire and training a professional army, he focused on returning Assyria to the formidable stature it had held earlier. He defeated the kingdom of Urartu, conquered the kingdom in Syria and the Phoenician city-states, and even took the mighty kingdom of Babylon and placed it under his control. Under Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian Empire grew to be the most powerful in the ancient world. The rule of the new royal family was brief, however, lasting only twenty-three years until it was overthrown by a new king from a new dynasty, Sar-

Asturias Kingdom gon II (r. 722–705 b.c.e.). During his reign, Sargon put down several rebellions and conquered new territory for Assyria. His son and successor, Sennacherib (r. 705–681 b.c.e.), continued the policies. He also chose the ancient city of Nineveh to be a new capital.

PEAK OF POWER AND FINAL DECLINE The Assyrian Empire reached its peak under the rule of Sennacherib’s son Esarhaddon (r. 680–669 b.c.e.). In 671 b.c.e., Esarhaddon made a bold offensive against Egypt and conquered the Nile Delta and Memphis, one of Egypt’s most ancient and important cities. At its peak, the empire that Esarhaddon ruled stretched for more than one thousand miles, from Egypt to Iran. This period of greatness was short-lived, however. After the death of Esarhaddon’s son and successor, Ashurbanibal (r. 668–627 b.c.e.), the Assyrian Empire began declining once again because it lacked strong leadership. Civil war weakened the empire, and enemies who had long bristled under brutal Assyrian control and despised the Assyrians eagerly turned on the weakened state and gained their independence. Around 612 b.c.e., the Medes people of Iran joined forces with the Chaldeans of Babylonia and captured and completely destroyed the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. Three years later, in 609 b.c.e., the Medes and Babylonians crushed Assyrian troops under the last Assyrian ruler, Ashuruballit II (r. 611–609 b.c.e.), bringing the Assyrian Empire to a final end. See also: Ashurbanipal; Esarhaddon; Medes Kingdom; Mitanni Kimgdom; Sargon II; Sennacherib; Shalmaneser II; Shalmaneser V; Tiglath-Pileser III.

ASTURIAS KINGDOM (ca. 718–910 C.E.)

Medieval kingdom along the northwestern coast of the Iberian Peninsula, near the Bay of Biscay, that provided the initial impetus for the reconquista, or reconquest, of Iberia from the Moors. Located in a ruggedly mountainous and wellforested region of the Iberian Peninsula, the kingdom of Asturias resisted invasion and conquest throughout most of its history. The kingdom had its

67

origin in the early 700s, when Muslim invaders (known as the Moors) swept through the Iberian Peninusla, sending Christians fleeing before them. Many of the refugees found safety in the rugged Cantabrian Mountains of Asturias. Sometime between 718 and 722, the Asturians, under the leadership of the Visigothic leader, Pelayo (r. ca. 718–737), defeated the Moors at the battle of Covadonga. Pelayo established the kingdom of Asturias and became its first monarch. Covadonga, the first great victory of Christians over Moors, became a legendary rallying point in the Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula. Asturian kings continued to lead the battle against Moorish domination of Spain, expanding their territory as they did so. Around 725, Pelayo’s son-in-law Alfonso conquered the province of Galicia to the west and recaptured the province of León from the Moors. In 739, he became King Alfonso I of Asturias (r. 739–757). Further conquests by his successors extended Asturian territory to include sections of Navarre and Vizcaya. In the tenth century, the capital city of Asturias moved from Oviedo to León. Subsequently, the kingdom was referred to as León, with Asturias taking a secondary role as a province in the Leonese kingdom. Alfonso III, the Great, of León (r. 866–910) expanded Asturian territory to include parts of Castile and Portugal. During his reign, one of the most celebrated events in Spanish cultural and religious history occurred. According to legend, a star guided a shepherd to a marble coffin in the mountains. Inside were the remains of a body believed to be Saint James, one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus. The site became the location of a chapel dedicated to Santiago de Compostela (“St. James of the Field of the Star”), who became the patron saint of Spain. A cathedral eventually replaced the chapel, and Santiago de Compostela became an important destination for Christian pilgrims throughout the Middle Ages and afterward. In the thirteenth century, the kingdom of Asturias and León was joined to the much larger kingdom of Castile under King Ferdinand III (r. 1217–1252). In 1388, King John I of León and Castile (r. 1379–1390) made Asturias a principality under his son, the future Henry III (r. 1379–1406). Subsequent heirs to the throne were given the title prince of Asturias, and this is the title of current heirs to the Spanish throne.

68

Asturias Kingdom

See also: Castile, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; León, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

ATAHUALPA (ca. 1500–1533 C.E.) Last free ruler (r. 1532) of the Inca Empire, who was killed by Spanish conquistadors during the conquest of Peru. In the final years of the fifteenth century, Huayna Capac (r. 1493–1524), known as the Great Inca, conquered the kingdom of Quito. To better ensure peace with this new addition to the Incan Empire, he took one of the daughters of the Quito ruler as a concubine, and with her he fathered a son named Atahualpa.Although by all accounts the favorite child of the Great Inca, Atahualpa was legally ineligible to inherit the empire, for only a son of pure Incan blood could take the imperial throne. The imperial heir, Atahualpa’s half-brother Huascar, was of proper birth: both his father and mother were directly descended from the founding Great Inca, Manco Capac (r. ca. 1200). Nonetheless, Huayna Capac saw to it that Atahualpa received a proper royal education in religion, culture, and science, along with training in the art of war. At about age thirteen, Atahualpa became his father’s constant companion as the Great Inca toured his empire, fought in battles, and held court. In 1524 Huayna Capac lay dying. Unable to place the empire into the hands of Atahualpa, his favorite son, he showed his favor by designating Atahualpa king of Quito, the homeland of Atahualpa’s mother. Atahualpa thus had royal status, although he was subordinate to the new Great Inca, his half-brother Huascar (r. 1524–1532). For a few years, there was peace between Atahualpa and Huascar, but soon Atahualpa began nursing greater ambitions. In the first years of the 1530s, he began amassing an army with which to challenge Huascar’s rule. In 1532, Atahualpa’s forces succeeded in capturing and imprisoning Huascar, and Atahualpa proclaimed himself Great Inca. Atahualpa retired to the healing waters of a spa

near the village of Cajamarca to recover from wounds received in battle. There he learned that a small army of strangers had entered Inca territory. These were Spanish conquistadors, led by Francisco Pizarro, who came to conquer the region and convert the inhabitants to Christianity.With only a handful of soldiers and a few priests, Pizarro needed to employ trickery to achieve his goals. Upon arriving at Cajamarca, Pizarro hid his army in ambush and sent a messenger to request an audience with the Great Inca.When Atahualpa arrived he found only a Dominican friar, who demanded that the emperor convert to Christianity. Atahualpa refused, providing Pizarro with an excuse to attack.The terrifying devastation caused by cannonballs, musketry, and armed cavalry—none of which had ever before been seen in the region—threw Atahualpa’s troops into a panic, and in less than two hours the battlefield was littered with the bodies of thousands of Incan soldiers. Atahualpa was taken to Cuzco, the Incan capital, and thrown into prison by the Spaniards. Aware that he could not hold his newly conquered territory with only a few soldiers, Pizarro decided to install a puppet ruler from among the indigenous people. The logical choice was between Atahualpa and Huascar. Atahualpa knew that his life depended upon being chosen, so he offered to ransom his life with a room filled with gold and silver. Having already experienced Spanish treachery once, however, Atahualpa decided to ensure his survival by eliminating his rival, Huascar. From his prison cell he ordered the execution of his halfbrother.This decision backfired, however, for Pizarro used the assassination as the pretext to charge Atahualpa with fratricide, along with other offenses such as polygamy (a common practice among the Inca nobility) and idolatry (because Atahualpa had refused to convert to Christianity). Put on trial, Atahualpa was quickly found guilty and condemned to death by burning at the stake. In an attempt to avoid death by fire, the Incan ruler agreed to be baptized into the Catholic Church.This earned him leniency: Instead of dying by fire, he was instead strangled on July 26, 1533. Others of his line ruled for brief periods, always under the control of the Spanish, but with the death of Atahualpa, the Inca Empire effectively ended. See also: Huayna Capac; Inca Empire; South American Monarchies;Virachocha.

At h e n s, K i n g d o m o f

ATHALIAH (842–836 B.C.E.) First and only queen of Judah in ancient Palestine, who was killed by Yahwists (followers of the Hebrew Bible) in a revolt led by priests against her rule and her support of the worship of Baal. Descended from the line of King Omri of Israel (r. 885–874 b.c.e.), Athaliah was the daughter of King Ahab (r. 874–853 b.c.e.) of Israel and his wife Jezebel, a Phoenician princess and worshiper of Baal. Ahab arranged a marriage between his daughter Athaliah and Jehoram (r. 847–841 b.c.e.), son of the king of Judah, in order to cement good relations between that country and Israel. But this goal was lost in the series of bloody political massacres described in the Hebrew Bible. Athaliah’s mother Jezebel (Jez-Baal), whose name later came to mean “wicked woman,” established the worship of Baal in Israel. This move was unpopular with the Yahwist populace. In addition, Jezebel acquired a great vineyard for her husband by plotting the murder of its owner. In 841 b.c.e., Elisha, a disciple of the prophet Elijah, incited a revolt against Jezebel and her followers, choosing Jehu (r. 841–814 b.c.e.), who later became king of Israel, as their leader.The followers of Baal were tricked into meeting at their temple and were massacred.The Yahwists then converted the temple of Baal into a latrine. Athaliah’s family, the royal family of Israel, was also murdered during the revolt. Athaliah’s mother, Jezebel, was thrown out a window by her own attendants and was trampled to death by the rebels’ horses. Athaliah’s son, King Ahaziah of Judah (r. 841 b.c.e.), had chosen this inconvenient time to visit his Israelite relatives, and was killed in the revolt as well. The Bible describes Athaliah’s response to this bloodbath and, in particular, to the death of her son. She ordered all the available men of the royal line to be slaughtered, thereby decimating, as she thought, the royal line of Judah. Her grandson Jehoash, however, was saved by his aunt Jehosheba and hidden away for six years, during which period Athaliah ruled over Judah. Little is known about Athaliah’s actual reign. The Bible, the main historical source for the period, describes only the beginning and end of her reign. It is clear, however, that Athaliah introduced the religion of her mother into Judah. Once more, this was an unpopular move with the local priests, and after six

69

years of rule by a Baalist monarch, the priests of Yahweh and the Judaean army, commanded by the priest Jehoiada, plotted a revolt. Surrounded by guards and priests, Athaliah’s grandson, Jehoash (r. 813–797 b.c.e.), was brought in secret to the temple of Jerusalem where he was crowned king of Judah. The Bible asserts that Athaliah first learned of the rebellion when she heard the applause of the masses immediately after her grandson’s crowning, at which point, according to the Bible, “Athaliah rent her clothes, and cried,‘Treason, treason,’ ” and went into the temple. Loath to have the queen killed in a temple, Jehoiada had Athaliah taken out of the palace area through the stable door and slain with a sword. Seven-year-old Jehoash now began his reign as king of Judah. See also: Biblical Kings; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of; Judaism and Kingship.

ATHENS, KINGDOM OF (ca. 900–404 B.C.E.)

Ancient Greek kingdom based in the city-state of Athens that later became the birthplace of democracy. Between about 1400 and 1200 b.c.e., early Greek kings in the Mycenaean monarchies served as priests, judges, and military leaders. Although they were powerful, independent rulers, they also sought the counsel of aristocrats in society on important matters. In the city-state of Athens, kings were held accountable to the Areopagus, a council of nobles named for the hill on which they met.

GOVERNMENT BY THE RICH By the eighth century b.c.e., the power of kingship in Athens had passed over to the Areopagus, and the citystate became an oligarchy, a government ruled by a small group of individuals. Government by the nobles of the Areopagus resulted in the rich of Athens getting richer, while the poor were sometimes sold into slavery. Justice was harsh, and only members of the Areopagus knew the laws. The country became unstable and prone to revolution. Around 621 b.c.e., a member of the Areopagus named Draco (r. ca. 620–594 b.c.e.) was elected to curb abuses of power by reviewing and writing

70

At h e n s, K i n g d o m o f

down the laws. The code of laws Draco established were very harsh; death was the penalty for many crimes, including the theft of vegetables. Despite Draco’s codification of the laws, Athens remained unstable.

THE REFORMS OF SOLON In 594 b.c.e., the Areopagus and the people of Athens handed over all political power to a statesman named Solon (r. 594–559 b.c.e.). They gave him a mandate to be a peacemaker and to prevent any future economic disparity in Athens. Solon’s attempt to do this resulted in a limited form of democracy. Solon lightened the penalties for offenses, retaining the death penalty only for homicide. He redeemed all forfeited land and freed all citizens who had been enslaved because of their indebtedness. Solon divided Athenian society into four classes based on wealth.The two wealthiest classes were allowed to serve on the Areopagus. The third class was allowed to elect a council of 400 individuals to balance or check the power of the Areopagus. The fourth class, the poor, were allowed to participate in an assembly that voted on affairs brought to it by the council and to elect local magistrates.They also were permitted to participate in a new judicial court that heard civil and military cases. Athenians praised Solon for his reforms, although his economic policies took decades to implement. However, the slow pace of reform led to anger and disenchantment among the nobles and many other Athenians, and within a few years, Athens began to collapse into anarchy.

PEISISTRATUS, ATHENS’ FIRST TYRANT Taking advantage of the unstable situation, the statesman Peisistratus attempted to restore order around 560 b.c.e. A brilliant military leader and clever politician with a powerful mercenary army, Peisistratus staged a coup d’état, took control of the Areopagus and declared himself Tyrannos (“tyrant”), which meant “chief ” or “master” in the Anatolian languages of western Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). In ancient Greece, the tyrant was not a violent despot but a leader who considered himself an absolute ruler and did not need the advice of the aristocracy. As Tyrant, Peisistratus (r. ca. 560–527 b.c.e.) increased the power of the assembly and used all his own power to make sure that the model of government established by Solon worked smoothly. He

built public buildings in and around Athens and sought to reform Athenian religious practices. He settled people on tracts of farmland, providing them with seed to grow food, and he rewarded the industrious with tax-free status. Peisistratus also devoted his government to cultural reform, encouraging poets and artists to make Athens a sophisticated and dynamic society.

FALL TO SPARTA Upon the death of Peisistratus in 527 b.c.e., the tyranny went to his son, Hippias (r. 527–510 b.c.e.). But a wealthy family named Alcmaeonid, which had been exiled by Peisistratus, plotted against Hippias and asked the city-state of Sparta for assistance. Sparta’s king, Cleomenes I (r. 520–489 b.c.e.) attacked and captured Athens in 510 b.c.e., forcing Hippias to flee to exile in Persia. The Spartans installed a leader named Isagoras as archon, or chief civil official in 508 b.c.e., but the Athenian people wanted the statesman Cleisthenes to serve instead. Isagoras was swept from power in a popular uprising, and Cleisthenes (r. 508–502 b.c.e.) was installed as ruler of Athens.

GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE As archon, Cleisthenes began a series of major reforms that produced the first true Athenian democracy. Based on the principle of Isonomia (equality of rights for all), Cleisthenes enfranchised all free men living in Athens and Attica (the area surrounding Athens) as citizens and established a council with executive and administrative powers that would be the chief arm of government. Every citizen over the age of thirty was eligible to sit on this council, whose members would be chosen by lot. An Assembly, which included all male citizens, was allowed to veto any of the council’s proposals and was the only branch of government with power to declare war. Ostracism was another element of Athenian democracy introduced by Cleisthenes. Once per year the Assembly could vote to ostracize, or expel, citizens from the state for a period of ten years. Ostracism helped guarantee that any individuals who contemplated seizing power would be removed from the country before they could precipitate a civil war. In 487 b.c.e, Hipparchus, son of Charmus of Collytus, became the first Athenian citizen to be ostracized.

At t i l a THE DELIAN LEAGUE In 478 b.c.e.Athens created a confederation of states called the Delian League, formed to protect members from the Persian Empire. The league consisted of most of the Greek city-states, most of the Aegean Islands, many cities in Chalcidice (a peninsula in eastern Macedonia), the shores of the Hellespont and Bosporus, some of Aeolia (northwestern Asia Minor), most of Ionia (the western coast of Asia Minor), and other Greek and non-Greek cities in southwestern Asia Minor. The fifth century b.c.e. was Athens’ golden age of architecture, literature, and philosophy. While the statesman Pericles (ca. 495–429 b.c.e.) was building the Parthenon and long walls to the seaport of Pireaus, the Greek dramatists Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were writing plays and the philosophers Socrates and Plato were teaching. The Delian League’s early naval successes and imperialistic expansion frightened the city-state of Sparta, the main rival of Athens, and led to the Peloponnesian War (431–404 b.c.e.). In 404 b.c.e. Sparta, with the help of Persia, defeated Athens and disbanded the Delian League.Athens, exhausted from the struggle, went into a demographic and financial decline from which it would never really recover.

END OF THE KINGDOM OF ATHENS In the early second century b.c.e., Sparta imposed the reign of the Thirty Tyrants on Athens. But poor management led to a revival of Athenian influence and a new naval league, which grew to include fifty states by the time the Spartans were defeated by the Boeotians in 371 b.c.e.The victory of Philip II of Macedon at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 b.c.e. ended any thoughts of reviving the empire. Athens continued as a center of culture and philosophy for many years but would never again be a separate kingdom. See also: Greek Monarchy; Minoan Kingdoms; Sparta, Kingdom of;Tyranny, Royal. FURTHER READING

Van der Kiste, John. Kings of the Hellenes: The Greek Kings 1863–1974. Dover, NH: Sutton, 1999.

ATTALID DYNASTY. See HELLENISTIC DYNASTIES

71

ATTILA (ca. 406–453 C.E.) Leader of the Huns (r. ca. 434–453), who was called the “Scourge of God” because of his army’s fierce horse-mounted archers and his tactics of wholesale slaughter. Attila ruled the Huns for nearly twenty years, during which time he terrorized all of Europe and much of Asia.When Attila was born, around 406, the people known as the Huns were already a power to be reckoned with in their territory between the Volga and Don rivers (in present-day Russia). Nomads and horse breeders, the Huns developed into a formidable fighting force because of their great skill as mounted archers. Earlier kings of the Huns had established the group as the dominant people of the steppes. During Attila’s childhood and youth, then-king Roas (also called Rugilas) successfully demanded that the Eastern Roman Empire, ruled then by Theodosius I (r. 379–395), pay tribute to avoid attack. Although not politically or economically sophisticated, the Huns were well organized and highly sought after as mercenaries. This, together with the tribute they collected, permitted them to amass great wealth.

RISE TO POWER As a young man of the steppes, Attila was trained as a warrior, but he was destined to something much grander than a simple warrior’s fate.As one of Roas’s nephews, Attila was in line to inherit the throne, as was his elder brother, Breda. These two young men therefore were groomed for leadership. In 433 or 434, Roas died and leadership of the Huns fell to Attila and Breda jointly.At the age of twenty-seven,Attila was more than up to the challenge of rule. The Huns did not devote much energy to creating permanent settlements or political institutions; they attacked their neighbors, extracted tribute, and then moved on. Attila’s predecessors had made occasional forays outside the Hun homeland, but Attila had grander ambitions. He intended to conquer the world. Some scholars claim that Attila’s first efforts were directed to the East, toward China but that he was repulsed at the borders. Whether or not this is true, it is undisputed that in 441–442, Attila secured all the territory between his homeland and the Danube River. By 447, he had marched his armies through Illyria (on the Balkan Peninsula) and had

72

At t i l a

The Hun ruler Attila was known as just to his own people but savage in the treatment of his enemies. The Romans, whom he attacked repeatedly in the mid-fifth century c.e., referred to him as the “Scourge of God.”

moved on toward Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Sometime prior to this, Attila had assumed sole leadership of the Huns, having murdered his brother to eliminate any interference to his rule. Attila’s seemingly unstoppable march on the Eastern Roman Empire was not complete, however. Although he laid siege to Constantinople, he never managed to capture the city. Still, he succeeded in forcing Theodosius II (r. 408–450) to beg for mercy. Attila was finally persuaded, in 447, to call off his troops in return for the payment of huge amounts of tribute. Three years later, however, Theodosius II died and was succeeded by Marcian (r. 450–457), who refused to be intimidated by Attila’s threats.

LOOKING TO THE WEST Rather than mount a new campaign against Constantinople, Attila turned his attention to the West. According to legend, this move came about because of discord between the Western Roman emperor, Valentinian III (r. 425–455), and the emperor’s sister, Honoria. Honoria was supposedly caught in a compromising situation with a servant.The emperor

ordered the servant be summarily killed, and Honoria was placed in confinement. Knowing of his great reputation as a warrior, Honoria is said to have surreptitiously sent a message to Attila, begging him to come to her aid. Attila, misreading this message as a proposal of marriage, demanded that Valentinian grant him half of the territories comprising the Western Empire, calling it his marriage dowry. When Valentinian failed to meet this demand, Attila is said to have invaded solely to claim his rightful property. For this invasion, Attila augmented his fighting forces with warriors recruited from the peoples he conquered along the way: Ostrogoths, Burgundians, and Alans (all Germanic peoples). By the time he reached the heart of Gaul, Attila’s army was said to have numbered between 300,000 and 700,000 men, although this may well be exaggerated. His forces included infantry and the famous mounted archers of the Huns.The army sacked and torched every major settlement they encountered on their westward march, and they appeared to be unstoppable. However, in 451, at the battle of Chalons (in the western part of present-day France), Attila met his match in the Roman general, Aetius. Aetius had prepared for the coming of the Huns by recruiting allies from the Visigoths, who lived in the Chalons region. In 451 he and his army faced Attila on the battlefield near the town of Troyes. Aetius forced Attila back eastward, all the way across the Rhine. This setback seems to have been enough to change Attila’s plans, for he gave up his westward assault and turned his attention to Italy and the western imperial capital of Ravenna. In 452 Attila began his Italian campaign, again leaving devastation in his wake. He failed in his ultimate objective of conquering Ravenna, however, although the reasons for this failure are unclear. Some sources say that Attila was turned back because epidemics were raging in Italy at the time. Others say that Pope Leo I (r. 440–461) saved the day, claiming that the fearsome Hun was himself terrified by the power of the Church, as represented by its pontiff. For whatever reason, Attila did not follow through on his invasion plans for Italy. Rather than marching straight back to his home territory, however, Attila took time out to acquire a new wife, named Ildico. This was in 453, and the now forty-seven-year-old bridegroom celebrated his marriage night with a huge, raucous feast, during which he became exceedingly drunk. What hap-

Au g u s t u s

73

pened next is another matter of conjecture. Some say that Attila died of a stroke in his wedding bed. Others claim that, passed out in a drunken stupor, he failed to awaken when he developed a nosebleed and drowned in his own blood. With his passing, so also passed his empire. See also: Hun Empire; Ostrogoth Kingdom; Roman Empire;Visigoth Kingdom.

AUGUSTUS (63 B.C.E.–14 C.E.) First emperor of Rome (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) who established a system of government known as the Principate and laid the foundation for a great empire. Born Gais Octavias (also called Octavian) in 63 b.c.e., the future Augustus was the grandnephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.), as well as his heir. After Caesar’s assassination in 44 b.c.e., Octavian, the soldier and politician Mark Antony, and a general named Lepidus shared power, forming a government known as the Second Triumvirate. Each man controlled part of the army.

GAINING CONTROL The elderly Lepidus soon retired, leaving Antony and Octavian to fight a civil war (ca. 37–31 b.c.e.) for control of Roman territory. Antony went to Egypt, where he allied with Queen Cleopatra (r. 51–30 b.c.e.), who had allied years earlier with Julius Caesar. Octavian rallied support in Rome and won a great victory over the forces of Antony and Cleopatra at the naval battle at Actium in Greece in 31 b.c.e. Antony and Cleopatra fled back to Egypt, where they committed suicide the following year. Octavian spent the next few years consolidating power, becoming the wealthiest and most powerful citizen of the Roman Republic.Although the ideal of republican rule still existed, not to be officially cast off for several centuries, the Roman Republic had fallen and was replaced by a de facto monarchy. In 27 b.c.e., the Senate proclaimed Ocatavian Imperator and Augustus, a title he adopted as ruler of the empire.

POLICIES Augustus left much of the republican government in place, ruling through personal influence and coercion. Since Augustus took the title princeps (“first cit-

Augustus, the first Roman emperor, set his people on a course of expansion and imperial greatness. This statue, known as the Augustus of Prima Porta, depicts him as a victorious general. Discovered in the ruins of a villa that belonged to Augustus’s second wife, Livia, the statue is believed to have been commissioned by his adopted son, Tiberius, around 15 c.e.

izen”), this period in Roman history is known as the Principate. The Roman Republic had never instituted a system of checks and balances between its civilian government and the military, relying instead on the loyalty and honor of individual soldiers and their leaders. The successes of Augustus as a military leader during the civil war, combined with his vast wealth, allowed him to control the army and the Roman treasury. Augustus instituted a number of reforms and public works, financed with his own money, to maintain public support. These included establishing the first firefighting force in Rome, increased military benefits, and construction of the Forum of Augustus (a huge complex of buildings centered on a temple to the Roman god of war, Mars). As the Roman his-

74

Au g u s t u s

torian Tacitus said of Augustus, he “won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose.” Augustus maintained and perpetuated his power by appealing to traditional Roman values. He did not, for example, claim absolute authority. To do so would have violated basic political values deeply embedded in the Roman Republic. Instead, he ruled through the respect traditionally due a man of wealth and accomplishment in Roman society. Augustus’s attempts at social reform reflected this traditionalism. He believed that one of Rome’s faults was its moral decay. To combat this, he outlawed adultery. The law remained controversial, as Augustus regularly slept with the wives of his political rivals. His own daughter Julia was exiled from Rome after being caught in another man’s bed.

LEGACY An important part of Augustus’s legacy was the Pax Romana, a time of peace and great prosperity that Rome experienced in first century c.e. This peace lasted, despite the rule of a series of inept and insane emperors, such as the infamous Caligula (r. 37–41) and Nero (r. 54–68), the last of Augustus’s direct line. Those who followed in Augustus’s footsteps illustrated the fundamental weakness of the governmental system that Augustus had established. In forming a monarchy, Augustus created the need for effective leadership for the system to work.Without it, Rome fell into decadence and decay. Other capable rulers would eventually follow, but too few to ensure continued peace and stability for the empire. See also: Caesars; Caligula; Cleopatra VII; Emperors and Empresses; Julio-Claudians; Nero; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Tacitus. The Annals of Tacitus. Trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. Franklin Center, PA:The Franklin Library, 1982.

AURANGZEB (1618–1707 C.E.) The last great ruler (r. 1658–1707) of the Mughal Empire in India, whose military and economic policies both expanded and weakened the empire.

Aurangzeb was the third son of the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan I (r. 1628–1658). When his father became very ill in 1658, Aurangzeb and his three brothers began battling for succession to the throne. All four of the young men had impressive governing experience as well as military forces. Shah Jahan had designated his oldest son, Dara Shikoh, as his successor. But Aurangzeb, with his great military and administrative capabilities, as well as his desire for power, fought hard for the throne and won. His ruthless tactics involved the deaths of his brothers and the imprisonment of his father until Shah Jahan died in 1666. During his long forty-nine-year reign,Aurangzeb— whose kingly name was Alamgir (“world conqueror”)—expanded the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent by means of war and clever politics. He borrowed a method used by his great-grandfather Akbar (r. 1556–1605) of reconciling with his enemies and then putting them into his service. His main military thrust was leading Mughal forces to conquer areas of the Deccan region of India. After gaining control of the Golconda and Bijapur kingdoms, he assaulted the Maratha chieftains, whose territories he annexed without ultimately conquering the Marathas. However, these military campaigns were a steady financial drain that affected the overall administration of the empire. Aurangzeb was a zealous Muslim as well as an aggressive warrior, and he was extremely intolerant of other religions. That fanaticism led to tensions and dissatisfaction that were factors in the collapse of the Mughal Empire. Aurangzeb forced Islam on his people, prohibiting any drinking or gambling, and imposing the Shari’a (Islamic religious law, based on the Qu’ran) as the basis of law throughout the empire. This emphasis on Islamic law did not endear the emperor to the Hindus in his realm, who had their own religious law. Aurangzeb also revoked all taxes that Islamic law or custom did not designate, thereby depriving the empire of a necessary revenue source. Aurangzeb responded to the financial shortfall by reestablishing the jizya, a tax on nonbelievers that was traditional in other Muslim states. Since most of the Mughal people were Hindu, the imposition of this tax provoked rebellions throughout the empire. As the empire grew larger, it became more unmanageable, and Aurangzeb had few dependable leaders who could handle the more remote areas of

Au s t ro - H u n g a r i a n E m p i r e the realm.This lack of effective leadership in the periphery of the empire also contributed to a weakening of Mughal rule. Soon after Aurangzeb died in 1707, the problems of the Mughal Empire began to compromise its power and influence in India. The inability of Aurangzeb’s successors to handle these problems led to the eventual collapse of Mughal rule. See also: Asoka; Golconda Kingdom; Jahan, Shah; Mughal Empire.

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE (1804–1918 C.E.)

Name given to the territories and peoples under the control of the Austrian monarchy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Austrian monarchy struggled to maintain the empire against both internal conflicts and foreign challenges for the entirety of its existence. This combination of domestic and international opposition eventually led to the collapse of Austria-Hungary in World War I.

ORIGINS Although the Austro-Hungarian monarchy did not legally come into existence until 1867, the empire,

75

in effect, began in 1804 when Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire declared himself Francis I (r. 1804–1835), emperor of Austria. Before this time, Austria was an archduchy, albeit a powerful one inasmuch as its location in Central Europe made it a continual route of passage. The powerful Habsburg dynasty had ruled Austria from the Hofburg Imperial Palace in Vienna for centuries, and the archduchy was thus in control of hereditary territories scattered throughout Europe. Because of these possessions, the notion of an Austrian Empire was in existence long before Francis’s accession as emperor.

WAR WITH FRANCE In the wake of the French Revolution in 1789, many of the monarchical powers surrounding France feared that the antiroyalist rebellion would spread to their own kingdoms and duchies.These nations indicated that they would go to war with Revolutionary France to protect themselves and, if possible, restore the French royal family to the throne. France, eager to spread its revolutionary ideals and outraged at being threatened, declared war on its neighbors, with Austria the first to come under attack. This series of conflicts, known as the French Revolutionary Wars, lasted for the next decade and resulted in the weakening of Austria and the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. The ruler of Austria at this time, Francis II (r.

ROYAL RELATIVES

FRANZ FERDINAND (1863–1914) Although the tensions and conflicts that exploded into World War I were forged decades earlier, it is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand that is most frequently cited as the precipitating cause of the war. After the mysterious death of Franz Joseph’s only son in 1889, Franz Ferdinand became the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Seeing the nationalist tensions he was going to inherit, Franz Ferdinand made it his life’s work to try to create a third section of the monarchy, one that gave voice to the Slavs.These actions made him immensely unpopular among both the Austro-Hungarians and the Serbians, who were agitating for an independent and unified Slavic nation. Disdain for Franz Ferdinand’s cause led Gavrilo Princip, a member of a Serbian nationalist group, to assassinate the Austrian heir and his wife while they were in a motorcade in Sarajevo. Austria-Hungary used this act as justification for declaring war on Serbia, eventually drawing Germany and the rest of Europe into the fray.

76

Au s t ro - H u n g a r i a n E m p i r e

On June 28, 1914, shortly after leaving the city hall in Sarajevo,Yugoslavia,Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife were shot and killed.The assassin was a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip.

1792–1835), was the head of the Habsburg dynasty. Faced with losing his own empire and fearful of seeing the Habsburgs driven out of Austria forever and replaced by the French, Francis declared himself emperor of Austria. This did little to change his situation, since Emperor Napoleon I (r. 1804–1815) of France defeated the Austrians several times over the next few years. Only with the allied defeats of Napoleon in 1814 and 1815 by Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden was order restored to Austria.

OPPRESSION AND CONSEQUENCES An authoritarian ruler, Francis quashed reform movements with an oppressive administration. Making himself prime minister, he oversaw all aspects of his administration from the Imperial Palace in Vienna, constantly stifling dissent. Francis was aided by his foreign minister, Prince Clemens Metternich, who handled Austria’s international dealings. Metternich, though a brilliant statesman and diplomat, had a zeal for repression in domestic matters, and he helped Francis centralize the government, much to the frustration of his ethnically diverse subjects.

After Francis died in 1835, many of his oppressive policies were continued by his eldest son, Ferdinand (r. 1835–1848), who succeeded to the throne upon his father’s death. An epileptic who was also plagued by attacks of insanity, Ferdinand wielded little actual power. Instead, his reign was dominated politically by Prince Metternich and a regent council known as the Staatsconferenz. In the late 1840s, an antiroyal, pro-nationalist fever swept across Europe. This revolutionary fervor severely affected Austria, owing to the tight control that Francis and Metternich had exercised over the people. In 1848, the Austrian capital ofVienna was on the verge of revolt. Ferdinand was persuaded to abdicate the throne in order that a stronger leader might put down the growing insurgency. Ferdinand fled the city, leaving behind his nephew, Franz Josef, to take the throne.

THE REIGN OF FRANZ JOSEF With the close support of the Roman Catholic Church, Franz Josef (r. 1848–1916) solidified the tenuous Austrian monarchy almost immediately, enabling him to set his sights on foreign affairs. As the

Ava n t i K i n g d o m new emperor, Franz Josef achieved several quick successes. In 1849, he stopped a rebellion in Hungary and beat back Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1849–1861), the king of Sardinia, who was leading a movement against Austrian rule for an independent and unified Italy. Soon after, however, events took a turn for the worse when the German state of Prussia, in a move aimed at accelerating German unification, went to war with Austria over a jointly administered territory in the summer of 1866. Prussia smashed the Austrians in just seven weeks, thus marking Germany’s supremacy over Austria in European affairs. The Prussians took no territory from Austria, however, and in doing so put themselves in a position to secure Franz Josef as a future ally. Domestic troubles became more of a concern for Franz Josef than his foreign problems, however, as the Hungarians under Austrian control pushed for independence.The emperor, unwilling to fight a civil war, agreed to a compromise in 1867 that created a dual monarchy known as Austria-Hungary. Thus, Franz Josef also became the king of Hungary, which had its own internal administration outside the control of Austria. Both parts of the kingdom followed Franz Josef’s lead as head of state, and the Austrian government dictated foreign affairs for the entire empire. The dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary was beset by serious problems. Widespread ethnic discrimination on the part of German and Hungarians, aimed at a variety of Slavic groups that lived in the empire, led to pockets of nationalist unrest throughout Austria-Hungary. Franz Josef was especially eager to contain such unrest because his brother, Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, had been killed in a Mexican nationalist uprising in 1867. Russian support for the agitating elements in Austria-Hungary led Franz Josef to join an alliance with Germany and Italy in 1879. This alliance was opposed by a coalition of Britain, France, and Russia, creating deep lines of tension that pushed Europe toward world war.

DECLINE AND FALL In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed the regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Serbia. This action generated a great deal of resentment among the Serbs and almost led to war. Although fighting was at first avoided, it seemed inevitable. When a Serbian nationalist assassinated Franz Josef’s nephew and heir, Franz Ferdinand, on June 28, 1914, war

77

erupted soon afterward.World War I pitted AustriaHungary and its allies, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, against Great Britain, France, Belgium, Russia, and, eventually, the United States. Emperor Franz Josef did not live to see the end of World War I, passing the Crown to his grandnephew Charles (r. 1916–1918) in 1916. Charles’s main role as wartime emperor was to try to negotiate a peace settlement with the Allies. By the autumn of 1918, with Austria-Hungary on the verge of collapse, Hungary seceded from the empire, leaving Charles in control of only Austria, which he quickly surrendered. As part of the surrender, Charles abdicated the throne and fled Austria, thereby marking the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. See also: Dual Monarchies; Franz Joseph; Habsburg Dynasty; Nationalism; Power, Forms of Royal. FURTHER READING

Macartney, C. A. The Habsburg Empire, 1790–1918. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Mason, John. The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867–1918. New York: Longman, 1997.

AVADH KINGDOM. See OUDH KINGDOM AVANTI KINGDOM (flourished ca. 500s–300s B.C.E.)

Ancient kingdom of northern India, located in the area of the present-day Madhya Pradesh state, which was one of the main kingdoms in northern India during the time of Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha. The capital of the Avanti kingdom, Mahismati (probably what is now Godapura), was founded around 600 b.c.e. Before long, however, the capital shifted to Ujjayini (in the vicinity of modern-day Ujjain). The Avanti kingdom was conveniently located on the trade routes between northern and southern India and the port of Bharukaccha (now Bharuch) on the Arabian Sea. Avanti became one of northern India’s four greatest powers by the time of Buddha in the sixth to fifth

78

Ava n t i K i n g d o m

centuries b.c.e. It was then ruled by King Pradyota the Fierce (r. ca. 400s b.c.e.), who was powerful enough to be a threat to the Magadha kingdom. In the fourth century b.c.e., Chandragupta Maurya (r. 321–297 b.c.e.), the founder of the Mauryan Empire, conquered Avanti and annexed it to his realm, which stretched from Afghanistan and the Himalayas in the north to the southern edge of Central Asia. The Avanti capital, Ujjayini, became one of the Hindus’ seven holy cities. Famous for its physical beauty and prosperity, it also became a gathering place for early Buddhism and Jainism (an ancient branch of Hinduism that rejects the notion of a supreme being and advocates a deep respect for all living things). After 50 b.c.e., as the Magadha Empire weakened, the Sungas, Andhrabhrtyas, and Sakas vied for control of the Avanti kingdom. Ujjayini became the affluent capital of the western Saka state in the second century c.e. under Rudradaman I (r. ca. 100s c.e.). Around 390 c.e., the Sakas were overthrown by Chandragupta II (r. 376–415 c.e.) (also known as Vikramaditya) of the Gupta dynasty, who established his royal court at Ujjayini. At an unknown date, the Malava tribe moved to Avanti, and eventually its name supplanted that of the Avantis to designate that land. See also: Chandragupta Maurya; Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms; Magadha Kingdom; Sunga Dynasty.

AVIZ DYNASTY (1385–1580 C.E.) Portuguese kings descended from João I (1385– 1433), who established autonomy from Spain at the battle of Aljubarrota in August 1385.The Aviz family was extraordinarily interrelated because kings so often married nieces and first cousins, including their royal Spanish relations. The Aviz dynasty had its roots in the early 1200s, when King Afonso II (r. 1211–1223) of Portugal granted the district of Aviz in central Portugal to a branch of knights as reward for driving the Moors from Portugal. In 1383, one of the knights of the Order of Aviz, as they became known, led a revolution to prevent the Spanish princess, Beatriz of Castile, from gaining the throne. This knight, John,

established himself as King João I, becoming the first ruler of the Aviz dynasty. The direct descendants of João I ruled Portugal until the death of his great-grandson, João II (r. 1481–1495) in 1495. Thereafter, the Aviz ruled through the heirs of João’s cousin, Manuel I (r. 1495–1521). In 1580, upon the death of the last Avis ruler, Henry the Cardinal (r. 1478–1580), Philip II (r. 1556–1598) of Spain—the nephew and one-time son-in-law of João III (r. 1521–1557)—became Philip I of Portugal after Spain took control of the country. Portugal remained under Spanish rule until the Bragança dynasty reestablished the monarchy sixty years later. The Aviz dynasty launched the Age of Discovery, as Portuguese navigators began searching for new routes sailing to the east.The golden age of Portugal reached its apex under the Aviz ruler, Manuel I (r. 1495–1521), an especially impressive feat considering that only about 1.5 million of an estimated 10.35 million Iberians were Portuguese in the 1500s. Following the lead of Henry the Navigator, the son of João I, Portuguese trader adventurers like Bartholomew Dias and Vasco da Gama set sail in their fast caravel ships. In 1494, under the Treaty of Tordesillas, Spain recognized Portuguese claims to all landfalls east of a longitude 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. By 1515, the Portuguese had established colonies or trading posts in the Azores, Madeira, Brazil, and Goa on the coast of India. They also had established trading centers in Sierra Leone, Ghana, the Congo, Malaysia, and Indonesia, and were trading with the Ethiopians and the Chinese. Sugar, spice, African gold, and other imports enriched Lisbon. During the reign of João II, the monarchy brought to heel the increasingly wealthy nobles of Portugal. Among these were the Braganças—an illegitimate line of the Aviz dynasty descended from João I and a daughter of Nuno Alvares Pereira. The Braganças gained popular support by expanding the system of the king’s magistrates. João I was succeeded by Manuel I. Manuel I successively married two daughters of Ferdinand II and Isabella I, the rulers of Spain. In return, he adopted the Spanish policy of expelling Jews and Muslims from Portugal, although he hedged this policy by giving two decades of grace to “new Christian converts,” during which their con-

Ay m a r a K i n g d om s versions were not to be questioned. Manuel courted aristocratic loyalty with overgenerous stipends to nobles. After the late 1550s, the economy of Portugal suffered from the burden of royal grants, the cost of overseas administration, falling world prices for goods, heavy loan payments, the loss of trading monopolies to other Europeans, and the effects of the Inquisition. When Manuel’s grandson Sebastian I (r. 1557–1578) died while invading Morocco in 1578, his celibate great-uncle, Cardinal Henry, took the throne and ruled for two years. Henry was the last of the Aviz line of Portuguese monarchs. See also: Bragança Dynasty; Iberian Kingdoms; Philip II; Spanish Monarchies,

AVONGARA. See Azande Kingdoms AWAN DYNASTY (ca. 2350–2150 B.C.E.) An early dynasty of ancient Elam in Mesopotamia, around the time of the Akkadian Empire in the third millennium b.c.e., which was an important center of power. Although scholars are not certain exactly where the Awan dynasty was based, it was most likely near the city of Susa in present-day southern Iran. Not much is known about the Awan dynasty, since little has been discovered of the Elamite civilization. According to some ancient sources, the Awan dynasty consisted of twelve kings who ruled during a period of approximately two hundred years. Luhhishan, the eighth king, was forced to submit to King Sargon of Akkad (r. ca. 2334–2279 b.c.e.) around 2300 b.c.e. Although the Awan kings revolted regularly against Akkad, they remained under Akkadian control for decades. We know that Naram-Sin of Akkad (r. 2254–2218 b.c.e.), made a treaty with King Khita of Awan around 2220 b.c.e. The last king of the Awan dynasty, PuzurInshushinak, successfully revolted against the Akkadians and created an independent empire for the Elamites around 2200 b.c.e. However, shortly after Elam gained independence, the Awan dynasty came to an end. It is not known for certain, but some scholars believe that, after their revolt against the Akkadians, the Elamites were overrun by the Gutians, a nomadic people who invaded Mesopo-

79

tamia from the Zagros Mountains to the east and caused the collapse of the Akkadian Empire. See also: Akkad, Kingdom of; Naram-Sin; Sargon of Akkad. FURTHER READING

Sasson, Jack M., Editor in Chief. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000.

AYMARA KINGDOMS (ca. 1200–1500 C.E.)

South American polities that developed in the Altiplano plateau region surrounding Lake Titicaca in Peru and Bolivia. These kingdoms, founded by the Aymara peoples, emerged after the collapse of the Tiwanaku Empire in the thirteenth century. In the late fifteenth century, the kingdoms were conquered by the Inca, who turned the Aymara region into the “Collasuyu,” one of the four administrative units that composed the Incan state. After the demise of the Tiwanaku Empire (ca. 500–1200), a number of Aymara polities appeared in the Altiplano, the high plateau region in the central Andes Mountains. According to available historical evidence, by the early sixteenth century there were at least twelve Aymara kingdoms: Canchi, Cana, Colla, Lupaca, Collagua, Ubina, Pacasa, Caranga, Charca, Quillaca, Omasuyu, and Collahuaya. Internal and external conflicts occurred frequently among the kingdoms, and Aymara rulers built a number of fortified hilltop sites, or pukaras, to help defend their realms.The majority of the population of the Aymara kingdoms lived in villages that surrounded these stone fortifications. Each Aymara kingdom and village was divided into two moities, or parcialidades, each of which had its own chief, or kuraka. One of the kurakas was considered to have more power than the other, but they exercised authority in a complementary manner. At the local level, the kurakas performed religious and military duties, and were also responsible for apportioning the available land among the members of the community. The Aymara kingdoms practiced an extensive agriculture, complemented by pastoralism that in-

80

Ay m a r a K i n g d om s

volved the tending of herds of alpaca, vicuna, and other Andean hooved animals. According to some scholars, the Aymara also practiced an “archipelago system,” in which dependent colonies were established in different ecological areas of the kingdoms. In this way, the Aymara had access to goods from different natural environments, helping to sustain their populations. The Aymara economies also included the production of pottery, stone tools, and textiles made from the wool of their herd animals. The most powerful Aymara states were Colla and Lupaca, the capitals of which were Hatuncolla and Chucuito, respectively. When the Inca began their expansion toward the Altiplano in the early fifteenth century, the chief of the Colla was Zapana, and the chief of the Lupaca was Cari. Cari allied himself with the Inca and killed Zapana. The Inca consolidated their rule over the Aymara kingdoms in the late fifteenth century, and, in 1538, the Aymara people were conquered by the Spanish conquistadors, Hernando and Gonzalo Pizarro. See also: Inca Empire; South American Monarchies;Tiwanaku Kingdom.

AYUTTHAYA KINGDOM (1350–1767 C.E.)

Kingdom of Siam, whose capital was the town of Ayutthaya, located in present-day central Thailand, approximately fifty-five miles north of Bangkok. Founded by Ramathibodi I (r. 1350–1369) around 1350, Ayutthaya was a small city-state at the northwest border of the powerful Khmer Empire. Ramathibodi and his successors expanded Ayutthaya’s power so much that it became one of the strongest states in Southeast Asia, spreading across all of modern Thailand except in the far east and far north, and along the mountain ranges in the southeast of modern Myanmar (formerly Burma). The rise of Ayutthaya was largely due to the breakdown of Khmer and Mon control, the destruction of the Pagan kingdom in Burma, and the failure of the Vietnamese to move quickly southward along the east coast of Indochina to face the fierce resistance of the Cham peoples. The kingdom of Ayutthaya was successful in a number of wars with nearby domains. In 1431, it

drove back the Khmer and captured their capital of Angkor. Several years later, in 1438, it conquered the weakened Sukhotai kingdom and made it a province of Ayutthaya. The town of Ayutthaya, sometimes called Krung Kao (“ancient capital”), continued to thrive for more than four hundred years, and at its peak of power and prosperity in the mid-1400s to mid-1500s, it probably had hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. Ayutthaya became one of the most prosperous and sophisticated cities of its era. Even though it was located inland, it was convenient to reach for oceanbound ships sailing up the Chao Phraya River. It thus became a flourishing international marketplace visited by many European and Asian traders in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Ayutthaya’s power was threatened by Burmese troops beginning in 1569, when they overpowered and sacked large parts of the kingdom. King Naresuan (r. 1590–1605) managed to win back the kingdom’s independence, but wars with the Burmese continued. In 1767, Burmese troops invaded again, and Ayutthaya was unable to recover.The king, royal family, and many captives were taken to Myanmar, and all Ayutthayan records and works of art were destroyed. See also: Angkor Kingdom; Burmese Kingdoms; Champa Kingdom; Khmer Empire; Southeast Asian Kingdoms; Sukhothai Kingdom.

AYYUBID DYNASTY (ca. 1171–1250 C.E.) A family of sultans and princes of Kurdish origin who governed much of the Muslim heartland for eighty years from power bases in Egypt and Syria, and succeeded in leaving a lasting imprint on the Middle East. The Ayyubid military, political, economic, and cultural achievements helped restore and defend Muslim civilization in its orthodox Sunni form against strong challenges from European Christians and Shiite Muslim sects. Under their patronage, Egypt became the dominant cultural center of the Arab world.

ORIGINS OF THE DYNASTY The Ayyubids came to power at a time of Muslim weakness and disunity in the face of the Christian

Ay y u b i d Dy na s t y Crusader challenge. Local governors in Syria and northern Iraq were able to organize holding actions, but in the 1160s, Egypt itself was in danger of falling to the Western European Christian armies. In desperation, the sultan in Cairo, a member of the ruling Fatimid dynasty, sent a plea for help to the emir of Damascus, Nur al-Din. Nur dispatched his best general along with the general’s young nephew, Salah alDin (or Saladin, as he came to be known in Europe). A brilliant warrior, Saladin (r. 1175–1193) followed up victories against the Crusaders in Egypt by overthrowing the Fatimids in 1171, and then taking over Syria and northern Iraq as well after the death of Nur al-din in 1174. He soon added Yemen, western Arabia, and most of Palestine to his dominions, installing relatives to govern as princes in his behalf. The dynasty Saladin established was called the Ayyubid dynasty, named after his father, Ayyub (Job). One of Saladin’s first acts as sultan was to restore Egypt to the dominant Sunni religious tradition (the Fatimids had been fervent Shiites). He declared loyalty to the caliph in Baghdad and launched what became the characteristic Ayyubid program of religious building projects. Eventually, some sixty-three madrasas (religious colleges) were built in Damascus alone under Ayyubid patronage, and similar institutions were established throughout Syria and northern Iraq. In Cairo, the Ayyubids endowed major schools of Islamic law, and erected Sufi learning centers (khanaqas) and tombs to honor Muslim saints. They brought to Egypt Sunni teachers and judges, who composed pious tracts lauding Saladin and his successors. This literature helped mobilize popular religious fervor behind the anti-Crusader jihad. Saladin’s dramatic victories over the Crusaders, culminating in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1187, were not consistently duplicated by his successors. On the contrary, Ayyubid sultans and princes developed a policy of accommodation with the remaining Crusader states. Jerusalem itself, where Ayyubid rulers had subsidized extensive public works, was abandoned in 1219; Sultan al-Kamil Muhammad II (r. 1218–1238) even ceded a demilitarized Jerusalem to Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (r. 1212–1250) in 1229.The Ayyubids feared that a decisive victory would only invite further European military intervention.They also discovered that trade with Italian merchant colonies on the Levantine coast and with Europe itself could be a lucrative source of revenue.

81

ACHIEVEMENTS The political stability created by the Ayyubids in Syria and their administrative reforms in Egypt fostered prosperity and economic growth. In Egypt, the Ayyubids won popular support by abolishing all taxes not specifically authorized in the Koran (Muslim scriptures). They also installed the iqsa system there, in which agricultural areas were granted for life to military supporters in exchange for tax revenues. Under the Ayyubids, the Red Sea became the chief spice route linking the Far East, the Muslim world, and Europe. Cairo flourished under the Ayyubids, defended by a new Citadel (1187) and expanded walls. By opening the old Fatimid royal city to general development, Saladin is said to have created the Cairo of today. The Citadel of Aleppo, built in the early twelfth century, also survives as a testament to Ayyubid monumental architecture. The Ayyubid era is also known for fine ceramics and inlaid metalwork, often produced in Mosul in northern Iraq. Impressive examples of Ayyubid enameled glass and elaborate woodcarving are featured in museums to this day.

DECLINE AND FALL Despite the best efforts of sultans such as al-Adil Abu Bakr I (r. 1199–1218), al-Kamil Muhammad II, and al-Salih Ayyub (r. 1240–1249), infighting in Syria gradually undermined Ayyubid power. Slave soldiers, known as mamluks, purchased from lands north of the Black Sea, increasingly supplemented the Ayyubid armies of free Turks and Kurds, Bedouin mercenaries, and jihad volunteers. Under Sultan al-Salih, the dependence on Mamluk forces proved fatal. When Al-Salih died in 1249 during a Crusader advance under King Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270), his remarkable Turkish slave wife, Shajar al-Durr (“tree of pearls”), led the defense of Egypt until his son, Turan Shah, could return from a military campaign in Iraq and repel the invaders. Mamluk conspirators soon killed Turan Shah and proclaimed Shajar the new sultan (r. 1250). As such, Shajar issued coins with her image and inserted her name into the weekly prayers. But both the Syrian Ayyub princes and the caliph in Baghdad deemed the idea of a female ruler unacceptable, and Shajar was forced to marry the Mamluk general Aybak. She remained the effective ruler, however, until her murder in 1259. By 1260, the remaining Ayub princes in Syria were finally defeated and deposed by the new

82

Ay y u b i d Dy na s t y

Mamluk sultan Baybars, bringing an end to the Ayyubid dynasty. See also: Crusader Kingdoms; Fatimid Dynasty; Mamluk Dynasty; Saladin. FURTHER READING

Hillenbrand, Carole. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2000. Hourani, Albert H. A History of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991. Lapidus, Ira M. A History of Islamic Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

AZANDE KINGDOMS (1500s–1800s C.E.)

Kingdoms formed by African groups that settled in southern Sudan in the 1500s. The Azande people, who still exist today, are basically an ethnic mixture originating from the Ambomu people, a group that lived on the Mbomu River (which marks the current boundary between northern Zaire and southern Central African Republic). The rulers of the Ambomu, the Avongara clan, defeated several other peoples, probably in the first half of the 1700s, and assimilated them culturally and politically into their realm. At first, the Ambomu occupied all the lower official positions in the kingdoms, but gradually foreigners joined them and peoples from different ethnicities and cultures became part of a group of kingdoms that shared the same language, institutions, and lifestyle. During the conquests by the Avongara clan in the eighteenth century, members carved out their own kingdoms, and wars between the various kingdoms were not uncommon. The political structure of the Azande kingdoms was very hierarchical. Zandeland, for instance, was split into several self-ruling chiefdoms. Each had a pyramidal structure of authority, with chiefs at the top, then subchiefs, deputies, and lastly heads of homesteads. The homestead was the primary political, economic, and social unit in the Azande kingdoms.The aristocratic Avongara clan had absolute authority, and the highest positions that common people could attain were as deputies or homestead heads. Class distinctions were characteristic of Azande

society. The Avongara clan discriminated strictly between chiefs and commoners, and most of the Azande groups made further distinctions between conquerers, the conquered, and slaves. Political, social, and economic standing was based solely on birth; but the politically high-ranking Avongara kept that distinction by well-thought-out political and military means. For instance, the ruler’s court in each kingdom was centrally located, with roads leading from it to the courts of lower-level chiefdoms and homesteads. The Azande settled in family groups in scattered homesteads with areas of cultivated land or forest between them. Several homesteads comprised a village, and groups of villages formed communities. The Azande economy was based mainly on farming, and the people were very knowledgeable about growing food plants, including vegetables, maize, and fruits. The Azande also were known for their skill as artists and craftsmen. They were especially famous for their knives, spears, and shields, which helped them prevail over their neighbors and broaden the reach of their culture. Other Azande crafts included metalworking, pottery, basketry, net-weaving, smelting, and ivory- and wood-carving. Of particular interest is the speculation that the Azande practiced cannibalism.There is evidence that some of them did, but also that the original Azande—the Ambomu and the ruling Avongara clan—did not. See also: African Kingdoms.

AZTEC EMPIRE (1300s–1521 C.E.) The last of the major indigenous empires to dominate the Mesoamerican region before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors. For centuries, the Valley of Mexico in southcentral Mexico had been home to a succession of powerful states that flourished for a time and then collapsed. The last of these states to arise in the region was that of the Aztec, who dominated the area from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, achieving the peak of their development during the last hundred years of their rule.

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF AZTEC STATE The Aztec first entered the Valley of Mexico during the latter half of the eleventh century. According to

Aztec Empire

83

ROYAL RITUALS

AZTEC SACRIFICE The religion of the Aztec called for blood sacrifice, a practice shared by other peoples of the region but which the Aztec carried out on an unprecedented scale. Although simple blood-letting (which did not result in death) was common, the most important sacrifice, which provided the most nourishment for the gods, required the offering of a still-beating heart.The preferred victim was a war captive who had distinguished himself by great bravery on the battlefield. He was held down on a ceremonial altar, his heart was cut out and presented to the gods, and his body thrown down the steps.The bodies of particularly esteemed victims would be carried down the steps rather than thrown.

their own written records, the Aztec supposedly originated somewhere in the north, on an island called Aztlan, and traveled south at the command of one of their gods, Huitzilopochtli. At the time of their arrival in the Valley of Mexico, the region was controlled by the Toltecs, who had long dominated the area but whose power was on the decline due to frequent uprisings among their subject peoples. In 1171, the Toltec were overthrown by one such uprising, in which the Aztec participated. For a time after the fall of the Toltec, the great ceremonial centers that they had built were abandoned, and small independent states sprang up throughout the Valley of Mexico. None of these states grew large enough to dominate the entire region, but many were able to assert control over their neighbors.The Aztec settled near one of these small states, which was centered around the town of Culhuacan. The people of Culhuacan found some of the Aztec practices offensive, particularly the Aztec fondness for human sacrifice, and attacked them.As a result, the Aztec became subjects of the Culhuacan, but some escaped this fate and fled to establish a new settlement, called Tenochtitlan, on an island in Lake Texcoco. The bulk of the Aztec population remained as tribute-paying subjects of the Culhuacan for many decades, until they committed the unpardonable offense of sacrificing a member of the ruling family. For this offense they, too, were driven from the region and joined their fellows at Tenochtitlan. Among this group was a powerful and influential leader named Tenoch (r. 1325–1375), who is considered to be the first Aztec emperor. Under his leadership, the settlement at

Tenochtitlan became a great city. Tenoch also formed a large army, which he hired out to neighboring peoples as mercenaries. By the end of Tenoch’s rule, the city of Tenochtitlan, with its ceremonial centers, ball courts, and markets, was complete.

Rise and Fall of the Empire The kingdom ruled by Tenoch remained limited in scope. It was his successor, Acamapichtli (r. 1372– 1391), who earned the distinction of converting the kingdom into an empire, for he was the first to begin a successful campaign of conquest against neighboring states, settlements, and tribes. By the time of the fourth Aztec king, Itzcoatl (r. 1427–1440), the Aztec controlled the whole Valley of Mexico. Itzcoatl also expanded the city of Tenochtitlan and built roads and a great causeway that ran from the island to the mainland. Moctezuma (Montezuma) I (r. 1440–1468) succeeded Itzcoatl in 1440 and ruled for the next twenty-eight years. His reign was marked by a series of successful conquests, adding substantially to the territory under Aztec control. By the end of his reign, he had pushed the imperial borders well past the Valley of Mexico and extended Aztec control to include parts of the present-day Mexican states of Veracruz, Guerrero, and Puebla. Through the reigns of the next three Aztec emperors, the stability of the region was maintained, but the days of further imperial conquest were nearly over. The Aztec rulers concentrated instead on collecting tribute from their subjects. As high priests in the Aztec religion, they also officiated over rituals, in-

84

Aztec Empire

cluding human sacrifice practiced on an astonishing scale. The Aztec made such sacrifices to appease the gods, and they believed that without human sacrifice the “animating spirit” of all life would cease.With the accession of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) around 1502, however, this stability was shaken as the conquered peoples upon whom the Aztec depended for tribute and slaves began to revolt. This revolt is not surprising because by this time the Aztec sacrificial ceremonies demanded large numbers of sacrifices. In fact, Moctezuma II’s predecessor, Ahuitzotl (r. 1486–1502), is said to have officiated at the sacrifice of 20,000 victims in a single ceremony, celebrating the successful conclusion of a major battle. Although the most valuable sacrifices were war captives, subject states and settlements also were required to supply a share of sacrificial victims. This caused deep resentment that led, ultimately, to rebellion. Moctezuma II could perhaps have restored order to the empire given enough time and a sufficiently powerful army. However, a final disaster struck during his reign: the arrival of the Spanish conquistador, Hernando Cortés, in 1519. Some Aztec thought that

Cortes was a legendary god who had promised to return one day, and this made them reluctant to oppose him. Ultimately, however, it was the inherent weakness of the Aztec state—caused by the hostility of the subordinate peoples and the fact that Aztec military success was based on numbers, not strategy—that rendered the Aztec incapable of withstanding the Spanish, who brought firearms, cannon, and cavalry, none of which had ever been seen before. Within a year of the arrival of the Spanish, Moctezuma II had been deposed and killed. He was succeeded by his brother, Cuitlahuac (r. 1520), who ruled for less than a year. Cuitlahuac was followed on the throne by Cuauhtemoc (r. 1520–1521), who witnessed the destruction of Tenochtitlan by the Spanish in 1521. With the destruction of its great capital city, the Aztec Empire was no more.

Life in the Empire At its peak, prior to the reign of Moctezuma II, the Aztec Empire extended over much of Mexico. Its heart and essence, however, was the lake city of Tenochtitlan. During the empire’s heyday, the city was home to between 100,000 and 300,000 inhabi-

Aztec Empire

85

Aztec Empire Tenoch

1325–1372

Acamapichtli

1372–1391

Huitzilihuitl

1391–1416

Chimalpopoca

1416–1427

Itzacoatl

1427–1440

Moctezuma I

1440–1468

Axayacatl

1468–1481

Tizoc

1481–1486

Ahuitzotl

1486–1502

Moctezuma II*

1502–1520

Cuitalahuac

1520

Cuauhtemoc

1520–1521

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

tants. The population required huge amounts of maize and other provisions, which necessitated the development of an extremely efficient form of agriculture, called chinampa. In chinampa, reeds were spread over the waters of the lake, and soil was then spread on top of them. The result was a system of floating gardens, and fully half of the city’s population was employed in farming these man-made plots. The remainder of the city’s population was divided into calpulli—trade and craft specialists whose occupation was defined by the family to which they belonged.These economic divisions, similar in form and function to castes, were rigidly defined, unlike the social classes, of which there were two: macehualles (commoners) and pilli (nobles). These social divisions were not defined by kinship; an individual could become pilli through merit, usually through valor in war, or through marriage. At the very top of the social, political, and religious hierarchy was the king, called tlacatecuhtli (which means “chief of men”). Beneath the king were members of the nobility and priestly classes, after which came the commoners.This hierarchy was specific to the city, however. Subject peoples did not

This Aztec calendar, known as the Sun Stone, is one of Mexico’s most famous symbols. Carved in 1479 during the reign of the sixth Aztec ruler, the massive stone slab, measures about 12 feet in diameter and weighs nearly 25 tons. It was dedicated to the sun, the principal Aztec deity.

participate except to send goods, including maize, slaves, crafts, and, of course, sacrificial victims. Order within the city of Tenochtitlan was maintained by a straightforward system of punishments. Nearly all crimes were capital offenses, and for the few that did not incur the penalty of death, punishment was nonetheless severe: extreme beatings and mutilation were common.

A Modern Legacy The fall of the Aztec Empire marked the end of the great indigenous Mesoamerican civilizations. The memory of the great power of the Aztec, however, remains strong throughout Mexico. The idea of the original Aztec homeland, Aztlan, has become a potent symbol of ethnic pride, both within Mexico and in Mexican-American communities in the United States. See also: Maya Empire; Olmec Kingdom; Toltec Empire. FURTHER READING

Coe, Michael. The Aztecs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973. Davies, Nigel. The Ancient Kingdoms of Mexico. New York: Penguin. 1982.

86

Babenberg Dynasty

B BABAR.

See Babur

BABENBERG DYNASTY (976–1246 C.E.) Rulers of the Mark and Duchy of Austria, first appointed in 976 by Holy Roman Emperor Otto II (r. 973–983), probably as repayment for support against an uprising in the duchy of Bavaria. The original title given to Leopold I (r. 976–994), the founder of the Babenberg dynasty, was margrave of Austria (the “eastern mark”). The family origins were rooted in the waning institutions of the Frankish Carolingian empire of the ninth century: “margraves” presided over “marks,” or frontier areas, which they were charged with defending, alongside but below in rank to hereditary dukes or counts. Success for Babenbergs was closely connected to the success of the Holy Roman emperors in their efforts either to best the pope in controlling the Roman Catholic Church or subdue contending noble families. Margrave Leopold I was succeeded by his son, Henry I (r. 994–1018); his brother, Adalbert (r. 1018–1055); and his nephew, Ernst (r. 1055–1075). Unlike his predecessors, Margrave Leopold II (r. 1075–1095) quarreled with the Holy Roman emperor, Henry III (r. 1039–1056), but despite setbacks, passed on his domain to his son Leopold III, “the Saint” (r. 1095–1136). Leopold III benefited from his astute positioning during the investiture controversy, in which the emperors disputed with the popes over the right to make church appointments. Leopold sided with Emperor Henry IV (r. 1056–1105) and married Henry’s widowed daughter Agnes, thus enhancing his stature with ties to the imperial family. Nevertheless, Leopold declined the imperial crown in 1125. Canonized in 1485, he is the patron saint of Austria.

Through marriage ties, Leopold IV (r. 1136–1141) added the duchy of Bavaria to the Babenberg realm. But his brother and successor, Henry II (r. 1141–1172), gave the duchy back to Bavaria in 1156 in return for promotion to duke of Austria by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1152–1190).This exchange helped to diffuse conflict between the imperial Hohenstaufen dynasty and their rivals, the Welfs. Leopold IV extracted several favors from the emperor, including the right to female succession (or, if no heir, to name a candidate for successor) and the right to approve the exercise of other jurisdictions (including ecclesiastical) within Babenberg domains. Duke Leopold V (r. 1177–1194) went on Crusade in 1181 and 1190, quarreled with and then captured Richard I of England (r. 1189–1199) as Richard returned in disguise from the Holy Land, and subsequently exacted a handsome tribute from English nobles for Richard’s release. In 1192, the Babenbergs inherited the duchy of Styria in southeastern Austria. Duke Leopold VI “the Glorious” (r. 1198–1230) who succeeded his brother Frederick I (1194–1198) on the throne, presided over a time of great prosperity in the duchy of Austria. However, his son and successor, Frederick II “the Warlike” (r. 1230–1246), was very unpopular because of his harsh policies. Frederick II had no male heir, and his death in battle in 1246 marked the end of the Babenberg line. See also:Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire.

BABUR (1483–1530 C.E.) Founder and first ruler (r. 1526–1530) of the dynasty of Mongol warriors known as the Mughals.The Mughal dynasty was the greatest Muslim dynasty in Indian history, and the empire Babur established was the foundation of the golden age of Islam in India. Born Zahir ad-Din Muhammad and known as “The Tiger,” Babur was descended on his mother’s side from the great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227). On his father’s side, he was descended from Tamerlane (r. 1370–1405), the great warrior who captured and ruled an enormous empire that included present-day Pakistan, Central Asia, and Iran.

Babur

Founder of the Mughal Dynasty in 1526, Babur laid the foundation of a golden age of Islam in India. His memoirs, known as the Baburnama, constituted the first true autobiography in Islamic literature. This illustration is from a version of the Baburnama published in 1589–1590.

Like his ancestors, Babur came from relatively humble origins but became one of the most outstanding conquerors of his era. Starting out as ruler of the minor kingdom of Fergana in Turkestan around 1495, Babur first extended his realm by attacking Afghanistan and taking over Kabul in 1504. He then began to create the Mughal Empire by conquering Ibrahim II Lodi (r. 1517–1526), the sultan of Delhi, at the battle of Panipat in 1526. Although Babur’s army was smaller than Ibrahim’s, it consisted of excellent horsemen who were able to defeat the sultan’s more numerous troops in just half a day. Babur expanded Mughal rule with a victory over the powerful Rajputs of India under Rana Sanga of Mewar (r. 1509–1527) at the battle of Kanwar in 1527. The Mewar dynasty had continued to exist de-

87

spite hundreds of years of Muslim attacks and rule, and Sanga was highly respected as a battle-proven leader of Hindu India’s resistance to Mughal dominance. At the battle of Kanwar, Sanga surrounded Babur’s forces with his much larger army, but Babur boosted the morale of his struggling troops by smashing his golden wine goblets and giving away the pieces to the poor. He then ordered all his wine to be poured into the ground, and he swore never to drink the forbidden liquor again. Meanwhile, Rana Sanga made the mistake of waiting too long before attacking, losing some of his allies before the major battle ensued. As a result, Babur won the battle, and Sanga was fatally wounded and forced to flee. Babur crushed an attempt to bring down the Mughal dynasty in 1529, when he defeated the Afghans of eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. After that victory, Babur ruled all of northern India. He made Agra the capital of his Mughal Empire, which stretched from Kabul and Kandahar in the west to Bihar in the east, and from the Himalayas in the north to Gwalior in the south. Besides owing success to military prowess and skilled soldiers, Babur’s victories also were due to technological advantages, such as the earliest use of muskets and artillery among the Muslim conquerors.These weapons were not highly developed, but they were far superior to those of the Hindustan armies. Babur’s reign ended after only four years, when he died in 1530 and was succeeded by his son Humayun (r. 1530–1540), a much less successful ruler. But Babur left behind an interesting memoir, the Baburnama, which tells about his ideas, beliefs, and the exploits of nearly forty years. This handwritten document may be the most comprehensive description of life in Central Asia at that time. See also: Genghis Khan; Lodi Kingdom; Mughal Empire; Rajasthan Kingdom; Tamerlane (Timur Leng). FURTHER READING

Keay, John. Into India. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

BACTRIAN KINGDOM. See IndoGreek Kingdoms

88

B ag i r m i K i n g d om

BAGIRMI KINGDOM (ca. 1500 C.E.–Present)

Kingdom founded in the early 1500s in the Lake Chad region, situated between the rival kingdoms of Borno and Wadai. Spoken tradition holds that the Bagirmi kingdom was founded by Dala Birni, who led his Barma people to the lands between Borno and Wadai in the early sixteenth century and created a settlement called Massenya. Dala Birni became the first Bagirmi king.The newcomers quickly made a name for themselves locally as capable warriors, in particular because of their use of cavalry. The local peoples of the region, living as they did between two powerful states, turned to the newly arrived Barma warriors for protection. Soon, however, the protected communities became subordinate to, and then subsumed into, the growing Bagirmi state, particularly as the military mounted raids in search of captives for use as slaves. The Barma ruler, called the Mbang, quickly amassed a territory that included not only Barma but also Arab and Fulani peoples, and its original settlement of Massenya became the capital of a full-fledged kingdom. In the final years of the 1500s, successors to Mbang Dala Birni converted to Islam and insisted that their subjects do the same. Nonetheless, the origins of the kingdom were pre-Islamic. The ruler was believed to descend from two supernatural sources, mao and karkata, and elements of Barma pre-Islamic ritual and beliefs remained prominent on such occasions as the king’s installation and funerals. In the 1600s, the Bagirmi kings adopted a policy of direct conquest of neighboring peoples, and over the next two centuries they extended their rule well into the north and west. Inevitably, this came to the attention of the rulers of the powerful Wadai state, who feared that the Bagirmi would soon begin encroaching on their territory. Wadai’s response was predictable, and in 1806, the Bagirmi ruler, Guadang, was defeated by the forces sent from Wadai, abruptly curtailing any Bagirmi advances in that direction. Any hope of further territorial expansion by the Bagirmi meant that they had to confront their neighbors in Wadai and Borno. Throughout the 1800s the Bagirmi kings sent numerous armies out to war, struggling to assert their kingdom’s supremacy in the

region. Soon, however, they were faced with a new obstacle in their path toward regional dominance. In the late 1800s, France, hoping to establish a stable colonial presence in the Lake Chad region, sent soldiers and administrators to pacify the kingdoms there. At first, the Bagirmi king tried to play a diplomatic game, playing the French and rival regional powers against one another in hopes of maintaining autonomy and perhaps even expanding its influence. But this policy was unsuccessful, and in 1912 the kingdom was absorbed into the French colonial empire. With the imposition of direct rule by France, the Bagirmi Mbang and his officials were reduced to little more than figureheads and cultural curiosities. In 1960, the newly independent nation of Chad abolished all kingdoms within its territory, including Bagirmi, but the kingdom was restored in 1970 and has been ruled since then by Yusuf Muhammad (r. 1970–present), the twenty-sixth Mbang. See also: African Kingdoms; Kanembu-Kanuri Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Reyna, S.P. Wars Without End. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1990.

BAHMANI DYNASTY (1347–1518 C.E.) Muslim dynasty that ruled the Deccan plateau in central India for nearly two hundred years. The Bahmani dynasty was established in the 1340s when a group of nobles rebelled against the Delhi sultanate and gained control of Daultabad in central India, the stronghold of Delhi’s ruling Tughlug dynasty. The nobles were led by Hasan Zafar Khan, a former officer of the Delhi sultan, who assumed the royal name Alauddin Bahman Shah (r. 1347–1359), and founded the Bahmani kingdom. Hasan expanded the new Bahmani kingdom through war and conquest. During his twelve-year reign, he gained control over the Deccan plateau, which stretched across central India. Hasan established a new capital at Gulbarga and divided the kingdom into four territories, each possessing its own governor, army, and civil administration. When Hasan died in 1359, his son, Muhammad I (r. 1359–1375), succeeded him as Bahmani sultan.

Bambara Kingdom Muhammad pursued his father’s aggressive policies and launched repeated campaigns against the kingdom of Vijayanagar, Bahmani’s southern neighbor. Muhammad’s motives for war were both religious and strategic.Vijayanagar was a Hindu kingdom, not Muslim like Bahmani, and it occupied two key forts at the Bahmani border. Although Muhammad and his immediate successors secured numerous concessions from Vijayanagar, the steady warfare gradually weakened their dynasty. Consequently, in 1422, Vijayanagar finally defeated Bahmani and regained its lost lands. Embarrassed by this defeat, the Bahmani ruler, Firuz (r. 1397–1422), abdicated the throne in favor of his brother, Ahmad I (r. 1422–1436). In 1425, Ahmad orchestrated a decisive victory over Vijayanagar, recaptured the forfeited Bahmani lands, and extracted a massive tribute.To strengthen Bahmani,Ahmad encouraged Turks, Persians, and Arabs to emigrate to his kingdom. These newcomers steadily advanced in the government and military, ultimately causing unrest among the native nobility. This animosity exploded during the reign of Muhammad III (r. 1463–1482). Muhammad was an extremely weak ruler who relied upon his minister, Mahmud Gawan, to run the government. Gawan was loyal and highly effective, but he was a foreigner who had immigrated to the kingdom. Jealous of Gawan’s power, the Indian nobles forged letters showing a secret alliance between the minister and Vijayanagar. Muhammad foolishly believed these letters, and, in 1481, he ordered Gawan to be executed. When Muhammad died in 1482, his young son, Mahmud (r. 1482–1518), was unprepared to rule. Open violence soon erupted between the Deccans and foreign immigrants. Because Mahmud was a weak ruler, the governors of the various Bahmani territories each proclaimed their independence. Although the monarchy retained control of a small area around the capital city of Bidar until 1538, the dynasty effectively crumbled after Mahmud’s death in 1518. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Tughluq Dynasty; Vijayanagar Empire.

BALDWIN I (1058–1118 C.E.) Also known as Baldwin of Boulogne, member of the First Crusade and first king of the Frankish kingdom of

89

Jerusalem (r. 1100–1118). Under Baldwin, the Franks secured control of Palestine that lasted 200 years. Baldwin was the son of Eustace II, count of Boulogne. His older brother, Godfrey (usually known as Godfrey of Bouillon), was widely regarded as the greatest European knight of the First Crusade. Because he was instrumental in taking Jerusalem from the Muslims, both his fellow knights and the representatives of the Church selected Godfrey as the first Defender of the Holy Sepulchre, a title that he preferred to that of king of Jerusalem, the newly created crusader state in Palestine. In 1098, while Geoffrey was fighting for Jerusalem, Baldwin had gone to the assistance of Toros, the Christian prince of Edessa in Macedonia. Instead of helping Toros, Baldwin duped the ruler and then coerced him into abdicating in Baldwin’s favor. Upon Godfrey’s death in 1100, Baldwin began a campaign for the Crown of Jerusalem. Godfrey, allying with the Church, had kept a close watch on villainous and unruly behavior in Jerusalem, and many of the Frankish knights were unhappy with these restrictions. Baldwin promised them a freer hand. He was successful in winning favor and was chosen as the second Defender of the Holy Sepulchre in 1100. Shortly thereafter, he was crowned the first king of Jerusalem. His election to the throne marked a shift in power among the Christian crusaders, a shift toward secular goals and military means instead of religious ones. Baldwin continued the struggle against the Muslims, and by 1112, he had succeeded in taking all the major coastal cities of Palestine and Syria except for Ascalon and Tyre. In 1115, he built the formidable castle Krak de Montrèal (in present-day Jordan) to guard the southern reaches of his realm. After defeating the Muslim rulers of Palestine, Baldwin created an able administration that helped maintain Frankish control of Palestine and Syria until the end of the Third Crusade in 1192. See also: Caste Systems; Christianity and Kingship; Crusader Kingdoms; Frankish Kingdom.

BAMBARA KINGDOM (1660–1893 C.E.)

Successor to the Songhai Empire as western Africa’s dominant political power; also called the Segu state, after the name of its capital.

90

Bambara Kingdom

Until the end of the sixteenth century, the Bambara were one of many subject peoples paying tribute to the great Songhai Empire. Then Moroccan invaders conquered Songhai and broke the empire up into smaller units. The Bambara comprised one of these units, which were governed by political appointees of the Moroccan sultan. The sultan, however, found it difficult to retain control over his possessions in West Africa because they were so far from the center of his power on the North African coast. From amid the chaos, a new state emerged in 1660, centered on the city of Segu on the banks of the Niger River. The Bambara were the largest ethnic group in this region, a people who had retained its traditional animist religions even while its rulers (the Songhai askiyas and Moroccan governors) promoted Islam. Oral tradition holds that a Bambara leader named Mamari Kulubali developed a following among the young men with whom he had undergone his rites of initiation into manhood. He and his followers left their home village and established a community of their own. From this base they began raiding their neighbors, gaining local fame as fierce warriors. Young men from other peoples in the area came to join Mamari’s band, but the newcomers were considered subordinate to the original Bambara group. As Mamari’s following grew ever larger, he took for himself the title of faama, which translates as “ruler” or “king.” The kingdom established by Mamari was distinctive in that it was almost entirely militarized. Recruitment of new members was achieved primarily through capture during raids, and these same raids were the principal source of the state’s revenues. In effect, the business of this kingdom was war, and war alone.With the wealth gained through their military raids, the Bambara employed the neighboring Somono to provide fish and river transport, the Fulani to provide cattle, and other local groups to work their farms. They also traded their surpluses for horses and weapons. By the end of Mamari’s rule, the Bambara had become the most powerful military force in the region. The cohesion of the Bambara kingdom, however, was due largely to the charisma of its leader. When Mamari died (in 1754 or 1755) the kingdom entered a decade of great upheaval, as competing factions sought to claim the throne. In 1765, a new king finally emerged to lead the Bambara. This was Ngolo

Jara (r. 1765–1790), who ruled for the next twentyfive years. His reign was a continuation of Mamari’s militarist policies. When Ngolo Jara died in 1790, there was again no clear successor to the throne. His three sons each claimed the title, and the Bambara kingdom was plunged once more into a long, bloody civil war. Around 1795, Monzon Jara (r. ca. 1795–1808) was finally recognized as the legitimate king of the Bambara. Unlike his predecessors, Monzon Jara did not rely on the military as his sole means of ensuring order in the kingdom. Instead, he attempted to create a more centralized authority, with the administrative seat in the capital at Segu. The military was put to work reclaiming territories that had been lost during the confusion of the civil war. He also made a point of clearly designating his son, Da Monzon, as his successor. As a result, his approximately thirteenyear reign was a time of relative stability and prosperity. Da Monzon (r. 1808–1827) took the throne in 1808. He continued his father’s successful policies of centralization and was strong enough to maintain control over the kingdom throughout his reign. He was the last to succeed in doing so, however. After his death in 1827, a series of weaker rulers gradually lost control of their subject territories, and by 1860 the kingdom was in a greatly weakened condition. In 1860, a devout Muslim named ‘Umar Ibn Sa’id Tal, known as “Al Hajj,” was becoming a powerful force in the region. Al Hajj had dedicated himself to spreading Islam and eradicating paganism wherever he found it. He attacked and conquered the Bambara kingdom in 1862. He died two years later, however, and his successors were unable to maintain order in the kingdom. The traditional Bambara ruling clan sought to regain the throne by forming an alliance with the French, who were looking to establish a colony in the region. In 1890, the French siezed the territory, reinstated the Bambara kingship, and appointed Mari Jara (one of Da Monzon’s sons) (r. 1890) as the new ruler, expecting him to be compliant to French rule. Within the year, however, Mari Jara was executed by French colonial authorities for fomenting rebellion, and he was replaced by a member of a rival clan.This new appointed king, Bojan (r. 1890–1893), never gained the support of the people, and in 1893 the French simply replaced the kingship with direct colonial rule.

Bamileke Kingdoms See also: Ghana Kingdom, Ancient; Mali, Ancient Kingdom of; Songhai Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Roberts, Richard. Warriors, Merchants, and Slaves:The State and the Economy in the Middle Niger Valley, 1700–1914. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987.

91

arrived to claim the whole of Bamileke territory, the borders of the individual kingdoms had long been set and included Bafang, Bafoussam, Bangwa, Nsaw, and Wum, among many others. Although all the kingdoms speak dialects of a parent Bantu language, the relationship is not very close, and many of the dialects spoken are mutually unintelligible.

BAMILEKE SOCIETY

BAMILEKE KINGDOMS (1500 C.E.–Present)

Approximately one hundred small kingdoms (more properly, chiefdoms) collectively called Bamileke, located in the grasslands region of what is now the Western District of Cameroon in west-central Africa. The name “Bamileke” is the result of misunderstanding and mispronunciation. When German explorers in Cameroon came across the first of these polities in the 1800s, they asked their guide and interpreter what these people might be called.The interpreter, who came from an ethnic group that lived to the west, responded with a phrase from his own language: mba lekeo, which roughly translates as “the people who live over there.” The name, mispronounced and miswritten, came into use, and today the Bamileke continue using the term to refer to themselves (at least when speaking to outsiders).The single name, however, is misleading, for it implies a unity among the many independent Bamileke kingdoms that has no basis in fact.

FORMATION OF THE KINGDOMS The people who became the Bamileke originated somewhere to the north of the lands they now occupy and moved southward under pressure from the rise of the Tikar kingdom in northern Cameroon. In the early 1500s, other pressures arose, as Fulani people (from present-day Nigeria) began pressing southward into the central grasslands where the Bamileke peoples had settled.The formation of centralized states probably originated at this time, when individual Bemileke settlements discovered they could better resist Fulani conquest by organizing into more unified states. These states proliferated throughout the region, each independent of the others, over the next 300 years. By the late 1880s, when German colonialists

Bamileke chiefdoms continue today, although the rule of the kings is subordinate to the national government of Cameroon. The kingdoms share a number of physical and cultural features. Each is divided into a number of small administrative units containing a handful of individual villages. At the heart of each kingdom is the royal compound, with the royal palace, the houses of the king’s wives, and meeting houses for use by the king and his court. The king and the queen mother are the pinnacle of Bamileke society. Below them are nobles, royal servants, and commoners, in that order of social rank and importance. A fourth category of subjects, slaves, was once important, but slaves are no longer permitted by law. At the service of the king were secret societies—male-only groups whose members underwent special initiation rites that set them apart from the rest of society and who were charged with seeing that the king’s will was carried out. The king is viewed as a divine figure, responsible for protecting the health and prosperity of the people. His divinity, however, comes from his office. That is, he gains his divinity only through the rituals that lead up to his coronation. These rituals are intended to transform him from man to god, beginning with a mock “capture” after which he is imprisoned for nine weeks in a special ritual building. His emergence from this hut symbolizes his rebirth as a divine being. Even so, he is truly recognized as king only after he has sired one child of each gender. The jurisdiction of Bamileke kings today is limited by the rule of the Cameroon state, which assumes all authority over criminal matters. However, subjects still consult their Bamileke kings for help in local civil matters. See also: African Kingdoms;Tikar Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Fowler, Ian, and David Zeitlyn, eds. African Crossroads: Intersections Between History and Anthropology

92

Bamileke Kingdoms

in Cameroon. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1996.

BAMUM KINGDOM. See Tikar Kingdom

BANGKOK KINGDOM (1700s C.E.–Present)

Kingdom located in present-day capital of Bangkok in central Thailand, ruled by the Rama dynasty, which was transformed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy in 1932. The establishment of the Thai, or Rama, dynasty at Bangkok took place in the midst of chaos two decades after the fall of the Thai kingdom of Ayutthaya to the Burmese in 1767. The new dynasty began with P’ya Taksin (r. 1767–1782), a half-Chinese general who fought his way out of the Burmese siege of Ayudhya in 1767 with 500 followers. The disappearance of the Ayutthaya royal family after the Burmese siege left a power vacuum that Taksin took up as he struggled to drive out the Burmese and reunify Siam. By 1776,Taksin had succeeded in reuniting Siam, but his reign was marked by a long series of brutal and exhausting campaigns against the Burmese and others.The stress of endless battles eventually led to Taksin’s insanity. In the early 1780s, a series of rebellions broke out in Ayutthaya with the intention of dethroning the insane king, and rebel leaders placed General Chakri, a well-liked figure, on the throne. In 1782, Chakri rushed back to Ayutthaya from a campaign in Cambodia and acted to put down the rebellions that still plagued the kingdom. Upon his return, he was welcomed and hailed as the new ruler by the people. Taking the title Rama T’ibodi (Rama I) (r. 1782–1809), Chakri became the founder of the Rama dynasty of Bangkok, which continues to rule Thailand to the present day. Chakri moved the capital of the Thai kingdom to modern Bangkok, away from the old capital of Thon Buri in the Menam basin. By the time Rama I died in 1809,Thailand had completely recovered from the devastation caused by the constant wars with Burma and had become more powerful than before.

The Bangkok kingdom became known for its strong and adaptable monarchy. Bangkok kings, such as Mongkut (Rama IV) (r. 1851–1868) and his son, Chulalongkorn (Rama V) (r. 1868–1910), carried out modernizing projects, such as building efficient communication and transportation infrastructures, which enabled Thailand to retain its sovereignty during a time when other Southeast Asian countries were becoming European colonies.Thailand became the only nation in Southeast Asia to retain its royal monarchy despite the incursion of Western colonial powers and the Japanese Occupation following the outbreak of World War II. The current Bangkok ruler is Rama IX (Bhumibol Adulyadej) (r. 1946– ). Like his predecessors, he continues to be an important symbol of national identity in the modern state of Thailand. See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Chulalongkorn; Mongkut (Rama IV); Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

BANU KHURASAN (500s B.C.E.–Present)

Large area in southern Asia, mainly in northeastern Iran, that contains a number of different ethnic groups resulting from centuries of successive invasions.The historical area of Banu Khurasan extended from the Oxus River in the north to the Caspian Sea in the west, and from the central Iranian deserts in the south to the mountains of central Afghanistan, and possibly the Indian border, in the east. In the sixth and fifth centuries b.c.e., Banu Khurasan was first part of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. It then became part of the Parthian Empire in the first century b.c.e. Its name, bestowed by the Persian Sassanid dynasty early in the third century b.c.e., means “Land of the Sun.” The Arabs conquered Banu Khurasan around 650 c.e. and settled there in large numbers, producing a mixture of Islamic and eastern Iranian cultures. Between 821 and 999, the region regained its independence under the Tahirid, Saffarid, and Samanid dynasties. It then became part of the Ghaznavid, Seljuq, and KhwarezmShah kingdoms but was taken over by the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan in 1220 and then by the Turkic conqueror Tamerlane around 1383. The Iranian Safavid kings, who ruled from 1502

B a roda K i n g d om to 1722, defended Banu Khurasan from attacks by the Uzbeks, and the Afghans occupied the region from 1722 to 1730. Persian king Nadir Shah (r. 1736–1747), who was born in Khurasan, overthrew Afghan domination, and the city of Meshed became the capital of his Iranian empire. Meshed remains the capital and major city of modern-day Khurasan. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Ghaznavid Dynasty; Khwarazm-Shah Dynasty; Nadir Shah; Parthian Kingdom; Safavid Dynasty; Saffarid Dynasty; Samanid Dynasty; Sasanid Dynasty.

BARCELONA, COUNTY OF. See Catalonia, County of

BARGHASH IBN SA’ID EL-BUSAIDI (ca. 1833–1888 C.E.) Member of the Busaid dynasty of Oman, who ruled as sultan of Zanzibar from 1870 to 1888. One of three sons of Sultan Seyyid Sa’id (r. 1804–1856), Barghash ibn Sa’id was born in Zanzibar around 1833. His father, who inherited the Busaid sultanate of Oman in 1804, moved his capital to Zanzibar in 1832. There he created a thriving commercial empire, the economy of which depended largely on the spice trade and trade in ivory, but soon came to include slaves. Seyyid’s rule ultimately extended well into the east African mainland, and his subjects included coastal Bantus as well as Omani, Persian, and Indian immigrants who settled the region in pursuit of trade. When Seyyid died in 1856, his middle son, Majid, was designated heir to the throne. But both the elder son, Thuwaini, and younger son, Barghash, bitterly contested their brother’s succession. The three vied for power for the next fourteen years, with first one, then another, briefly gaining ascendancy. Barghash ultimately took over the rule of Zanzibar in 1870, at a time when the government was saddled with a highly corrupt ministerial class that fought hard to protect its own interests. Barghash also faced increasing pressure from the European colonial powers, for both Britain and Germany coveted Zanzibar for its wealth and its strategic location on the eastern coast of the African continent.

93

In addition to these political pressures, Barghash faced an even greater challenge when, early in his reign, a hurricane struck the island of Zanzibar and, in a single stroke, devastated the spice economy upon which much of the country’s wealth was based. He succeeded in restoring prosperity, largely through the great slave markets of Zanzibar. But in 1873 the British forced him to outlaw slave trading, which dealt a second devastating economic blow to his nation’s wealth and power. Barghash sought to establish Zanzibar as a truly autonomous state, not merely a commercial center. The times were against him, however. Germany laid claim to the parts of Zanzibari territory that lay on the African mainland, and Barghash was unable to reassert control over those lands. As a result, Barghash found his sultanate reduced in territory to just its offshore islands, leaving Zanzibar vulnerable to further imperialistic claims by European powers. By the time of Bargash’s death in 1888, the power, wealth, and prestige of the independent sultanate of Zanzibar was a thing of the past. In 1890, the sultanate became a British protectorate. See also: Zanzibar Sultanate.

BARODA KINGDOM (1721–1948 C.E.) A kingdom in west-central India, part of the Maratha Confederacy, which was ruled by the Gaekwar dynasty from 1721 until the kingdom was absorbed into the Republic of India in 1948. Located in the Gujarat state of west-central India, the kingdom of Baroda was established in the early eighteenth century by the Maratha military commander Pilaji Rao Gaekwar (r. 1721–1732) and his son, Damaji Rao I (r. 1732–1768). In 1721, Pilaji defeated Mughal armies in the area and took over large sections of Gujarat. Pilaji and his son were supposed to consolidate power and collect taxes for the peshwa, the administrator of the Maratha Confederacy. Instead, they took advantage of conflicts between Maratha nobles, in particular between the Dabhude family and the peshwa, to declare independence. In the 1750s, the Maratha peshwa recognized the right of the Gaekwar family to control large parts of Gujarat. Damaji Rao I set up a capital at Baroda and became one the most powerful rulers in the region.

94

B a roda K i n g d om

Although Baroda had gained independence, it was still necessary for the peshwa to step in and stop a succession dispute after Damaji died in 1768. After several years of conflict, the peshwa appointed Fateh Singh (r. 1771–1789) to rule Baroda as regent, but Fateh soon turned to the British East India Company for help in maintaining order in the kingdom. British soldiers moved in and Fateh Singh signed a treaty giving the British government control of all external matters, while Baroda kept control of internal affairs except for succession disputes. In 1873, the British released Malhar Rao Gaekwar (r. 1873–1875), who had been thrown into prison by his late ruling brother, Khande Rao (r. 1856–1870), and allowed him to rule Baroda. Within a year, however, the British accused Malhar of trying to poison their viceroy, Lord Northbrook. Nothing could be proved at the trial, but Northbrook deposed Malhar Rao on the grounds of gross misrule and tyranny and exiled him to Madras in 1875. His predecessor’s widow was then permitted to adopt an heir from among the family descendants. She chose the son of a farmer, twelve-year-old Shrimant Gopalrao Gaekwar, who ruled as Sayaji Rao III (r. 1875–1939). Under British tutelage, Sayaji Rao III, the last Gaekwar ruler of Baroda, became a model prince, and he was a frequent visitor to London. Much decorated by England, he died in 1939. Less than a decade after his death, in 1948, Baroda, which had been a British garrison town since the beginning of the nineteenth century, formally became part of independent India. See also: Maratha Confederacy.

BASIL I (ca. 813–886 C.E.) Byzantine emperor, known also as Basil the Macedonian, who ruled (r. 867–886) during the medieval period. Basil I was descended from Armenians and Slavs who settled in Macedonia centuries earlier. In 856, he became the favorite of Byzantine emperor Michael III (r. 842–867), who helped him in 866 to assassinate Bardas, Michael’s uncle and chief minister. Michael then declared Basil co-emperor. Within a short time, however, Basil began to lose Michael’s favor. Basil thus had the emperor mur-

dered in 867 and proclaimed himself the sole Byzantine ruler. Basil’s accession to the throne marked the beginning of the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium, which lasted until 1056. A capable ruler, Basil I reformed the finances of the empire and introduced a new law code, the Basilica, which modernized the Byzantine legal code established centuries earlier by the emperor Justinian I, the Great (r. 527–565). An advocate for the poorer classes, Basil I also restored the prestige of the Byzantine military. Byzantine art and architecture flourished during Basil’s reign, but so did dissension between the Roman and the Eastern Christian churches, fueled in part by continuing differences over iconclasm, the religious use of images. Upon his death in 886, Basil I was succeeded by his son and coregent since 870, Leo VI (r. 886–912). See also: Byzantine Empire; Justinian I.

BASIL II (ca. 958–1025 C.E.) Byzantine emperor (r. 976–1025) who ruled during the medieval period, at a time when the schism, or split, between the Roman and Eastern Christian churches widened dramatically. Known as Bulgar Slayer because of his military exploits against the Bulgarians, Basil II and his brother, Constantine VIII (r. 1025–1028), were the sons of Byzantine emperor Romanus II (r. 969–963). From 960 and 972, respectively, the brothers served as co-regents with their father. They jointly succeeded to the throne in 976, after a thirteen-year period in which the empire was ruled by two generals who had usurped power.When they took the throne, Constantine served as emperor in name only, while Basil actually ruled. Basil II was primarily a soldier. Between 976 and 989, he successfully suppressed a series of revolts by Byzantine landowners. In the process, he revived and strengthened the laws directed against landowners that had been established decades earlier by Emperor Romanus I (r. 920–944). In 1018, Basil II annexed Bulgaria, and he later extended the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire through conquest and diplomacy. His military powers and diplomatic skills gained him great political and territorial strides. During his reign, however, the division between the Roman and the Eastern

B a s qu e K i n g d om churches, which had already led to serious friction between religious factions, widened, creating a significant rift within the Christian faith. Basil II died in 1025 and was succeeded by his brother, Constantine VIII, who ruled as sole emperor from 1025 to 1028. See also: Byzantine Empire.

BASQUE KINGDOM (834–1515 C.E.) Early kingdom established in the ninth century in present-day northern Spain and southwestern France, whose struggle against the Muslims marked the beginnings of the reconquista, the reconquest of Iberia from the Moors. In 297, the area that became the Basque kingdom gained its first taste of independence when the Romans granted the Basques some degree of autonomy. The region later became the duchy of Gascony in 602. The Basque state of Gascony remained united until 717, when it lost two of its provinces to the Franks. The Basques later became vassals of the Franks during the reign of the Frankish king, Charlemagne (r. 768–814). The rise of a Muslim state in Iberia, which began in 711, weakened the Franks enough that the Basques were able to defeat Charlemagne’s armies in 778 at Roncesvalles in the Pyrenees Mountains.This success eventually led to an independent and reunited Basque kingdom, which emerged in 824 with the formation of the Basque kingdom of Navarre under Iñigo Arista (r. 824–851). After the kingdom of Navarre was formed, it had to fight to maintain its independence. When the Muslims of Córdoba, led by Abd al-Rahman II (r. 822–852), defeated the Basques and the Muslim Visigoth ruler Banu Qasi in 842, the sovereignty of Arista’s fledgling kingdom was in jeopardy.The danger forced the young Basque kingdom to try to maintain its independence by resisting the Cordobans and allying with Muslim opponents of Córdoba. The Basque kingdom’s fight for survival lasted throughout the tenth century and was intensified by the continuous need to keep at bay other invaders from the north, the Vikings. By the beginning of the eleventh century, the Basque kingdom of Navarre was united with its neighbor, the kingdom of Aragón, through marriage. A further alliance with the county

95

of Castile in 1002 helped the Basques defeat the Muslim Cordobans, who had destroyed the city of Pamplona three years earlier in 999. The victory over the Cordobans in 1002 heralded a period of expansion and solidification of the Basque kingdom under Sancho III, the Great (r. 1004– 1035). Sancho III gained a claim to the county of Castile through his wife, Munia, who inherited that land after her brother, Garcia II (r. 1017–1029), was murdered. Eventually, Sancho’s son, Ferdinand (r. 1029–1065), joined Castile and León through his marriage to Sancha, the daughter of King Alfonso V of León (r. 990–1028). Sancho was also an ally of the county of Barcelona, and Navarre and Barcelona created a united front across the Spanish border with France. Upon Sancho’s death in 1035, his kingdom was divided among his sons. Garcia III (r. 1035–1054) received Navarre, Ferdinand received Castile and later León, and Ramiro I (r. 1035–1069) inherited Aragón. This division of Sancho’s acquisitions initiated a drive by Ferdinand for control of Navarre.This resulted in Garcia’s death in 1054, at which point Navarre fell under Castile’s control. A little over a decade later, in 1067, Navarre received help from Aragón in repelling Castile. But Castile re-invaded Navarre in 1076 after the Navarrese king, Sancho IV (r. 1054–1076), the son of Garcia III, was murdered. Despite efforts by Castile to gain control, the king of Aragón, Sancho Ramirez (r. 1069–1094), was chosen to be king of Navarre, and Navarre became a protectorate of Aragón. Navarre and Aragón expanded throughout the twelfth century. From this region, expansion into the eastern Iberian Peninsula was accomplished at the expense of the Muslim Almoravid and Almohad dynasties. However, the united expansion of Navarre and Aragón did not continue past the death of Alfonso I (r. 1104–1134) in 1134, at which point the kingdom was split back into its original two parts. In 1200, the king of the Basque kingdom of Navarre, Sancho VII (r. 1194–1234), had his title usurped by an invasion by Castile.This led to the division of Navarre and its subjugation to the kingdom of Castile. This conquest, however, did not prevent Navarre from allying itself willingly with Castile to ward off Muslim attacks a decade later, in 1211. Navarre, now much reduced in size, allied itself with England in 1137, after Eleanor of Aquitaine

96

B a s qu e K i n g d om

married King Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189). This marriage brought Gascony, the Basque duchy that had remained separate from Navarre and was a part of Aquitaine, out of French control and into English control. In 1159, Henry II relinquished Aquitaine to the French. By late in the thirteenth century, the Basque kingdom had been transferred through marriage to the control of the French king, Philip IV (r. 1285–1314), and France retained the territory until 1328. For Navarre, much of the fourteenth century was spent being used as a tool in political maneuvering between rival states and leaders in England, France, Aragón, and Castile. During this time, the northern Basque region of Gascony experienced a nearly twenty-year period of civil war, between 1343 and 1360. In 1379, Navarre’s political position stabilized again with the forced political union of the kingdoms of Castile and Navarre. The death of Navarre’s king in 1441 led to a civil war in which the Basque nobility split their support between rival claimants to the throne. The civil war lasted until Castile invaded in 1512. Castile, with assistance from Aragón, took control of much of the country and resisted a French attempt to liberate Navarre. In 1515, Castile ended Navarrese autonomy by annexing the kingdom and creating the kingdom of Spain.The new Spanish rulers later solidified this arrangement by putting down an uprising in 1531 that was supported by the French. The northern Basque provinces of Gascony remained independent throughout this period, even though Gascony was located within the borders of France. In the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659, the French relinquished all their claims to Navarre, leaving the former Basque kingdom officially divided between France and Spain. Since then, the Basque provinces of Spain have struggled to maintain some degree of autonomy within the Spanish nation. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Castile, Kingdom of; Córdoba, Caliphate of; Iberian Kingdoms; Navarre, Kingdom of; Sancho III, the Great; Spanish Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Mayo, Patricia Elton. The Roots of Identity:Three National Movements in Contemporary European Politics. London: Allen Lane, 1974.

BATHS, ROYAL Luxurious and opulent places for royalty to relax, bathe, and sometimes be entertained. Throughout the world, and as early as the ninth century b.c.e. when the Celtic prince Bladud established the town of Bath in England at the site of natural hot springs, monarchs and other royalty have indulged themselves in restorative and opulent baths. The Romans developed baths with hot and cold water systems, built on natural mineral springs, to ease the battle wounds of soldiers. The baths began to foster a communal spirit complete with vendors and entertainment, and the citizens of Rome began to enjoy the baths as well. Emperors and members of the upper class not only had their own private baths, but they also enjoyed the public bathhouses. Emperor Caracalla (r. 211–217) had a bath constructed that covered almost 28 acres and had more than 1,600 marble seats. The great baths of the emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) had room for three thousand. On the whole, Roman royalty accorded greater ceremony with respect to bathing and baths than did the Greeks. Some emperors opted to exercise before a bath, but for the most part, bathing was a luxurious experience. Slaves were available to slather an oil mixture on the royal’s body, next the oil was rubbed in to release dirt, and then the oil and dirt were scraped off with a metal instrument called a strigel. In South America, both the Incan and the Aztec dynasties conceived of baths as royal luxuries. For the Incan royalty, baths were located within the palace confines and were very grand in scale. They were made with large, carved, well-fitting stones that the newly arrived Spanish thought were constructed without mortar. Hundreds of Incan women adorned in ornamental finery would be found in the baths. When a young girl entered puberty, she would undertake a period of retreat, abstaining from certain foods and making use of the purifying baths. The Aztec royals used the ternascal (“sweatbaths”) as a source of hygiene for women to relieve labor pains and to purge illness. In the Aztec palaces, the ternascal was located in a separate room, detached from the palace; some were adorned with the figurines of the fertility goddess Xochitquetzal, sug-

B at u K h a n

97

Built by the Emperor Caracalla around 212–216 c.e., the extensive Baths of Caracalla in Rome were staggering in complexity and opulence.The central building measured 750 feet by 400 feet, and the facility could accommodate up to 1,600 bathers, as well as sporting events and theatrical entertainment.Today, opera performances are staged at the site.

gesting an additional use for the baths.The royals believed that the baths were intended to be enjoyed by men and women together; in a 1564 court case, royals defended their practice of mixed bathing much to the shock of the recent Spanish arrivals living in the community. The town of Aachen, well known in the Middle Ages for its healing, natural-sourced hot water and steam (located in present-day Germany), was taken over by the Frankish king Charlemagne (r. 742–814) in 768. According to legend, Charlemagne’s horse had injured its hoof and was healed when the hoof was placed in a hot spring. Charlemagne then decided to set up his residence in Aachen, building a spacious facility on the site of old Roman baths. It is believed that he visited the baths daily, often with family members and court officials. Charlemagne buoyed the popularity of the baths, which dissipated after his death in 814.

BATU KHAN (d. 1255 C.E.) Grandson of the Mongolian leader Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227) and founder of the Golden Horde, whose campaigns as Mongol military leader threatened all of Europe in the thirteenth century. Batu was the son of Juchi, who was a son of the great Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227). When Juchi predeceased his father in 1227, his military endowment passed to Batu. In 1235, Batu was elected commander of the western Mongol armies and led campaigns to invade and conquer Europe. He first sent the bulk of his armies to Russia, bringing all of Russia under Mongol control by 1240. During this campaign, the Mongols thoroughly razed Kiev, the cultural capital of the principality known as the Kievan Rus. After subjugating Russia, Batu turned his attention to Central Europe. Splitting his forces, he sent

98

B at u K h a n

one army to Poland under the leadership of his chief general, Subutai, and he led another army himself toward Hungary. Both armies were victorious, and by 1242, Batu added Hungary, Poland, and the Danube River Valley to the areas under his control. Batu next prepared to invade Western Europe— an invasion that most scholars believe would have ravaged much of the continent. However, in 1242, he received word of the death of Ögödei, the Mongol khan (lord), and was recalled to Karakorum in central Asia to participate in the choice of a successor. Batu thus withdrew his armies from Europe. After participating in the election of the new khan, Batu returned to Russia and established the Kipchac khanate, which came to be known as the Golden Horde. He chose an area on a lower stretch of the Volga River to found his capital city of Sarai Batu. Batu died in 1255, while preparing for further military conquests. See also: Genghis Khan; Mongol Empire; Yuan Dynasty.

BAUDOUIN (1930–1993 C.E.) King of Belgium (r. 1951–1993), who helped rebuild his nation after World War II and worked hard to alleviate poverty in Belgium and around the world. Baudouin Charles Leopold Axel Marie Gustave was born in 1930, the eldest son of King Leopold III of Belgium (r. 1934–1951), and Astrid, a Swedish princess. Befitting a member of a modern royal family, Baudouin received an excellent education and was regarded as an eager student and quick learner by his teachers. In May 1940, when Germany invaded Belgium after the start of World War II, Baudouin’s father, King Leopold III, recognized the futility of trying to resist the Nazis and surrendered. Leopold and his family were held under house arrest for most of the war. After the war ended in 1945, the place of Belgium’s royal family in their postwar nation was uncertain. Leopold and his family, including Baudouin, went into voluntary exile in Switzerland until 1950, when Leopold III returned as king. Because of questions about his conduct during the war, Leopold III faced strikes and violent protests when he returned to Belgium. In order to avoid further disruption in his country and to save the monar-

chy, Leopold abdicated in 1951, and his son Baudouin ascended the throne. In 1960 Baudouin wed Doña Fabiola Mora y Aragón, a Spanish noblewoman.They had no children. During Baudouin’s reign, the Belgian Congo, Belgium’s principal colony in Africa, was granted independence. In 1976, Baudouin began the King Baudouin Foundation, the aim of which is to study and alleviate poverty around the world.This foundation remains active today, issuing publications and funding antipoverty projects as well as artistic endeavors. Baudouin also promoted the cause of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and served at the forefront of efforts to develop greater integration of Europe economically, politically, and socially. A very religious man, King Baudouin was adamantly opposed to abortion. In 1990, when the Belgian parliament passed a law to liberalize abortion, Baudouin refused to sign the legislation, which was necessary for the bill to become law. To enable passage of the bill, the parliament had to declare the king unable to rule on April 4, 1990, while it signed the bill into law. The next day, they rescinded their ruling on the king, declaring him capable of reigning, and he resumed his place on the throne. Baudouin died of a heart attack in the south of Spain in 1993, after reigning in Belgium for fortytwo years. He was succeeded by his brother, Albert II (r. 1993– ). See also: Belgian Kingdom.

BEHAVIOR, CONVENTIONS OF ROYAL Behaviors expected and exhibited by monarchs as a result of their position and role as rulers of their society or symbolic head of their nation. The behavior expected and exhibited by monarchs has varied greatly among different monarchical cultures. One important difference is that between monarchs who are expected to maintain their distance from their subjects and cultivate their own exalted status, and monarchs who are expected to be on an equal footing with their subjects. At one extreme are the contemporary monarchs of Scandinavia and the Netherlands, often referred to as “bicycling monarchs” for their lack of pomp or

Belgian Kingdom elaborate entourage. These monarchs cultivate an image of equality with the average person in their countries and demonstrate a detachment from politics to maintain royal status in a generally egalitarian political context. At the other extreme are rulers who are almost completely separated from society outside a small circle of family and courtiers and who cultivate an image of detachment.The imperial house of Japan has maintained such a role of separateness for much of its history. Periods of transition from a more egalitarian to a more remote monarchy can be fraught with peril. The pretensions to divinity of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) and his adoption of Persian court etiquette generated much resentment among Macedonians and Greeks, who remembered the more informal monarchy of his father, Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.). The Emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), in managing Rome’s transition from a republic to a monarchy, was careful not to behave too much like a king for fear of antagonizing Romans. For example, as emperor he continued to dress in homespun cloth rather than adopting an elaborate costume with regal insignia. Another difference exists between warrior societies, such as those of the Romans, Mongols, and Assyrians that prize physical vigor in a ruler, and societies that accept and even encourage physical passivity in a ruler. The Chinese imperial office, for example, was often torn between a Confucian Chinese model of a physically passive ruler and a Central Asian model of a vigorous monarch.This was particularly true during the rule of dynasties with a Central Asian origin, such as the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the Manchu Ch’ing (Qing) dynasty. Religion also affects standards of monarchical behavior. Generally, monarchs are expected to publicly conform to the duties of their faith, and they scrupulously attend or even preside over religious rituals. However, excessively religious behavior can be perceived as incompatible with other royal responsibilities. Devout early medieval rulers, such as the Carolingian ruler Louis the Pious (r. 814–840) or Edward the Confessor of England (r. 1042–1066) were often perceived as weak or insufficiently ruthless to be successful rulers, more suited to be monks than kings. Other medieval kings, notably Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270), combined strict and sincere religious observance with highly successful domestic and foreign policies.

99

Accession to the throne is often expected to lead to a change in behavior, in favor of greater remoteness and self-discipline. Kings who continue to indulge in youthful frivolities at the expense of their royal duties, whatever those duties happen to be, receive virtually universal condemnation.A famous literary example is found in the history plays of William Shakespeare, where the irresponsible youth Prince Hal (in Henry IV) is transformed into the noble yet bloodthirsty King Henry in HenryV. In West Africa, the Yoruba people require each new ruler to go through a series of ceremonies in which he bids farewell to his mother, family, friends, and members of his peer group before assuming rulership—a ritual that signifies his new status as a person apart from society. See also: Education of Kings; Etiquette, Royal; Kingly Body; Military Roles, Royal; Religious Duties and Power; Seclusion of Monarch. FURTHER READING

Bertelli, Sergio. The King’s Body: Sacred Rituals of Power in Medieval and Early Modern Europe.Trans. R. Burr Litchfield. New rev. ed. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001. Pemberton, John, and Funso S. Afolayan. Yoruba Sacred Kingship: A Power Like That of the Gods. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996.

BELGIAN KINGDOM (1831 C.E.–Present)

Ruling monarchy that came to power after the Belgian people won their independence from the Netherlands in 1831, following a violent uprising. A constitutional monarchy, the Belgian kingdom is one of the few European monarchies still in existence.

ORIGINS The formation of modern Belgium has its roots in the Napoleonic Wars of the early 1800s, when the region was occupied by France. As the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte became imminent, the major European powers convened to decide how best to split up and control the areas under French influence.This meeting, known as the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815), made the territory of Belgium part of

100

Belgian Kingdom

King Albert II, reigning monarch of Belgium, took the throne in 1993 upon the death of his older brother, King Baudouin. King Albert and his Italian-born wife, Queen Paola, have three children. The eldest, Prince Philippe, is heir to the throne.

the kingdom of the Netherlands, under King William I (r. 1815–1840). Tensions arose immediately because the Belgians viewed William I and the Dutch as occupiers. Although Belgium’s population was significantly larger than that of the Netherlands, Belgium had very little say in governmental matters.The situation worsened when William and the Dutch-dominated government tried to enforce legislation that was openly hostile to the Belgians and favorable to Holland, such as establishing Dutch as the national language. The situation came to a head in 1830 on the anniversary of William’s accession, when mob fighting broke out in the Belgian city of Brussels.The revolt spread rapidly

and was handled so poorly by the Dutch that the Belgians won their independence in less than six months. After creating a constitution with a parliamentary government and limited royal power, Belgian officials voted to name Leopold of the House of SaxeCoburg-Gotha as the new king of an independent Belgium. Leopold, who was chosen both for his personal character and the fact that his accession created a neutral state in Western Europe, took the throne as Leopold I (r. 1831–1865) in 1831.

STABILITY AND EXPANSION Leopold had much popular support and was widely respected both in Belgium and throughout Europe.

Bemba Kingdom Very well educated, he not only helped preserve the fragile kingdom but also set Belgium on a course of industrial, cultural, and economic development that benefited the fledgling nation far into the future. Leopold’s death in 1865 was an occasion of great mourning throughout Belgium. Upon his death, the Crown passed to his son, Leopold II (r. 1865–1909). Unlike his venerated father, Leopold II was held in an ambiguous light by his people. On one hand, during his reign, Belgium became ever wealthier as a result of its industrial successes. However, Leopold kept much of this wealth for himself and tarnished the Belgian Crown with his passion for financial gain at any moral cost. In this vein, Leopold II is best known for his personal role in beginning Belgian colonial expansion into the African Congo, from which he extracted wealth at the great expense of its African inhabitants. Leopold II had no immediate heirs, and upon his death in 1909, he was succeeded by his nephew, Albert I (r. 1909–1934). Shortly after Albert came to the throne, the tensions that had threatened peace across Europe for decades exploded into World War I. Almost immediately after the declarations of war in 1914, Germany invaded neutral Belgium, an act that further galvanized support for Germany’s Allied opponents. Albert personally led the Belgian army, and the fierce and heroic resistance of the Belgian people greatly helped the Allied cause. Away from the battlefield, Albert was a well-liked and respected ruler who worked to liberalize Belgian social institutions and improve conditions in both Belgium and its African colony. Upon Albert’s early death in a mountaineering accident in 1934, the throne passed to his son, Leopold III (r. 1934–1951).The reign of Leopold III was resolutely unpopular, in marked contrast to that of his father. When Belgium was faced with another German invasion, this time in 1940 at the start of World War II, Leopold III refused to defend his country and surrendered to Germany. Many Belgians saw Leopold’s decision to surrender as an act of collusion with the Nazis, and his return to power at the end of the war was greeted with such popular disdain that he was forced to abdicate to his son, Baudouin (r. 1951–1993), in 1951. King Baudouin was as respected as his father had been disparaged. Best known for his efforts to repair social inequalities, Baudouin oversaw the dismantling of Belgium’s colonial empire as the Congo in

101

Africa gained its independence in 1960. Baudouin died suddenly in 1993, and the Crown passed to his brother, King Albert II (r. 1993– ). Albert has maintained Baudouin’s role as an emissary of social justice and equality. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; National Identity; Netherlands Kingdom; Postcolonial States; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty;William I. FURTHER READING

Kossmann, E.H. The Low Countries, 1780–1940. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

BEMBA KINGDOM (1800s C.E.) One of many states that arose in east-central Africa during the nineteenth century in response to the development of trade on the Swahili coast of East Africa. In the nineteenth century, the success of the Swahili trading empire along the east coast of Africa gave rise to a great deal of wealth, not only for the Swahili but also for those peoples who traded with them.As new trade routes pushed further and further into the African interior, many of the communities the traders encountered coalesced and developed centralized governments to take better advantage of the new economic opportunities that became available. Some of these new states were motivated by the desire to improve their control over locally produced trade goods, and others by the need to gain greater control over access routes to trading centers.The Bemba, who lived in the forests of what is today northern Zambia, took a much more direct approach. The Bemba lived in stockaded villages headed by chieftains. Since their arrival in the region in the seventeenth century, they had earned a reputation for fierceness because they were prone to staging raids on the lands and livestock of their neighbors. As the Swahili cities on the coast attracted increasing numbers of trade caravans with goods from the interior, it was only natural that these, too, would become targets of Bemba warriors. With the wealth gained from raids on trade caravans, the Bemba were able to become traders themselves, buying European weapons and thus vastly increasing their military might. In the early 1800s, the stockaded villages of the Bemba were consolidated into

102

Bemba Kingdom

a unitary state, under the leadership of the first Bemba king, Chilufya Mulenga (r. ?–1820). It is believed that Chilufya came from Luba territory and that he was one of the many members of that kingdom’s ruling dynasty who were scattered when the Luba state split apart in the early years of the nineteenth century. Under Chilufya Mulenga, the Bemba became an important power in the region, but the militaristic focus of the kingdom made it inherently unstable. Wars of succession were common, and the reigns of individual kings were generally short. The kingdom faced constant challenges from its neighbors, particularly from the Ngoni kingdom, which was attempting to expand its holdings into Bemba territory. Although the Bemba were never conquered, by the late 1800s they were eclipsed by the Ngoni, whose superior military force enabled them to achieve regional dominance.The Ngoni did not have long to savor their newly ascendant position in the region, however. By 1900, the British South Africa Company, under Cecil Rhodes (British colonialist and entrepreneur, and founder of the colony of Rhodesia), had taken control over the entire territory. The colonial administration considered traditional kingdoms to be a liability, and Bemba rulers were stripped of their political and military powers by the start of the twentieth century. See also: African Kingdoms; Luba Kingdom; Lunda Kingdom; Ngonde Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Roberts, Andrew D. A History of the Bemba. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973.

BENIN KINGDOM (1000s–1897 C.E.)

Powerful kingdom located in the forest and coastal region of present-day Nigeria, which is known today largely for its magnificent metal artworks. Prior to the eleventh century, the region east of the modern Nigerian city of Lagos was home to Edospeaking peoples who lived in communities that were headed by local chiefs. However, political and economic factors combined to inspire many of these communities to draw together into a more centralized, unified state that soon became one of the most powerful forces in the region.

This bronze plaque, dating from sometime in the midsixteenth to mid-seventeenth century, depicts a court servant of the Benin Kingdom. The Benin people of West Africa were renowned for their metal artwork, which they often used for trade.

ORIGINS OF THE KINGDOMS Some scholars argue that the rise of the kingdom of Benin was influenced by state formation that was occurring elsewhere in the region in the early years of the eleventh century. For one thing, the rise of Benin occurred at about the same time that theYoruba kingdom at Ife was coming to power to the west. In addition, aspects of Benin kingship reflect practices found among the Yoruba. The Benin king bore the title oba (the Ife rulers were called alefins) but claimed to trace his descent from Oduduwa, the culture hero said to have founded the Yoruba people. Whatever the kingdom’s origins, Benin did not begin a policy of expansion until some four centuries after its founding. In the middle of the fifteenth century, Oba Ewuare (r. ca. 1440–1473) created a powerful military force with which to conquer

Berar Kingdom neighboring lands and ultimately gained control over the whole of the Niger Delta and westward to Lagos. To ensure that his subject territories remained loyal to the Benin throne, he appointed governors to administer the newly conquered lands and maintain order among the peoples, supplanting the traditional local chiefs. There is little information regarding the degree of stability enjoyed by the rulers of Benin before the reign of Ewuare. But it may be that wars of succession occurred with some frequency, for Ewuare began a practice of designating his successor while he still held the throne himself. This policy served to eliminate the disorder and confusion that often follows the death of kings, as various rival claimants fight among themselves to claim the right to rule.

EXPANSION AND WEALTH The period of Benin expansion, which continued throughout the second half of the fifteenth century, coincided with the arrival of the Portuguese at Lagos, bringing Benin into contact with a much expanded trading network.The Portuguese, who were already trading with Akan kingdoms further up the coast, sought goods that would bring them much Akan gold. Benin was oversupplied with war captives, thanks to its campaigns of conquest, and was more than willing to trade them to the Portuguese as slaves. This slave trade continued until Benin had reached the limits of its expansion and thus no longer had a surfeit of captives for trade. Nonetheless, the kingdom remained a trading partner with the Portuguese, offering items such as ivory and pepper. The Benin king used the wealth acquired through trade not only to support his army, but also to underwrite artistic expression. He commissioned works of brass and copper that celebrated the reigning oba. Artworks in these metals, as well as works in ivory, were also created for trade. The king tightly controlled the secrets of brassworking and other artistic methods, ensuring that Benin kept a monopoly on the production of these trade goods.

PERIOD OF DECLINE The kingdom of Benin remained relatively stable until the eighteenth century. At that time, the administration of the now far-flung empire broke down, and the kingdom was wracked with civil wars. With the restart of war in Benin territory, the

103

rulers again began taking captives, which were once again offered for sale into the Atlantic slave trade. Decades of civil unrest followed.The disruption was further aggravated as more and more people discovered the profits to be made in the slave trade, a discovery that led many to turn from their normal pursuits to become raiders in search of captives. By the late 1800s, Benin was significantly weakened, and it was thus easily annexed by Great Britain, which made it part of its colony of Nigeria. In 1897, after looting the capital city (also named Benin), the British brought the power of the obas to an end. See also: African Kingdoms;Yoruba Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Ryder, Alan: “Benin State and History.” In Encyclopedia of Africa South of the Sahara, John Middleton, ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1997.

BERAR KINGDOM (1490–1574 C.E.) Kingdom in central India that began as a province of the Muslim Bahmani kingdom but that eventually gained a short period of autonomy in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Berar originated in the mid-fourteenth century as a province in the Bahmani kingdom.To manage their large kingdom, the Bahmani monarchs had divided it into four provinces; Berar occupied the northeast region of the kingdom. Initially, the Berar province contained two territories: Gawil in the north and Mahur in the south. Each of these territories had a major fortress, and the two combined to protect Bahmani’s northern frontier.

GAINING INDEPENDENCE During the late fifteenth century, the Bahmani kingdom slowly crumbled as a result of internal unrest, and the provincial governors increasingly rejected Bahmani control. In 1490, during the reign of the last major Bahmani monarch, Mahmud Shah (r. 1482–1518), Berar became the first province to declare its independence. The provincial governor, Fathullah, adopted the royal appellation Imad-ul Mulk (r. 1490–1504) and became the first monarch of the Berar kingdom. Berar did not sever all ties with Bahmani, how-

104

Berar Kingdom

ever. In deference to the Bahmani sultan, Imad-ul Mulk and the other governors refused to adopt any divine appellations or to declare themselves as heavenly chosen rulers. They also maintained close economic ties with Bahmani and used Bahmani currency instead of issuing their own. Furthermore, the former provinces united their forces to battle their common enemies, the Vijayanagar Empire and the kingdom of Orissa.

DEALING WITH OTHER STATES When the last Bahmani sultan died in 1538, the relationship among the former provinces became increasingly fractious because each sought to dominate the Deccan region.Although Berar possessed the imposing fortresses at Gawil and Mahur, their overall military strength was weak. The three other former Bahmani provinces—Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, and Golconda—had much larger armies and threatened repeatedly to invade Berar in order to gain a larger presence in the region. Because of their military weakness, the Berar monarchs relied upon diplomacy to prevent any encroachments upon their territory. During the late 1400s and early 1500s, Imad-ul Mulk and his successors negotiated highly fluid alliances with Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, and Golconda, pledging fealty to whichever state currently appeared to gain control over the region. Berar loaned whatever limited military forces it had to attacks against Vijayanagar and Orissa, and the kingdom also maintained its traditional role in defending the Deccan’s northern frontier. The Berar monarchs also offered substantial tributes to their neighbors to curb the possibility of invasion. Portions of Berar were agriculturally rich, and the kingdom used its crop surpluses to appease the surrounding kingdoms. Berar also operated some highly productive mines, which yielded both gold and silver. The Berar rulers often utilized these precious metals to preserve the kingdom’s freedom. Because of its central location, Berar was a key trading center. Goods from other Indian states and China arrived in Berar, and traders from as far away as Portugal and Italy frequented the kingdom’s markets. Great amounts of ivory, spices, cotton, silk, and jewelry passed through the cities and trading centers of the kingdom.The Berar government heavily taxed the trading industry and used the income to pay tribute to its potential enemies.

FALL OF THE KINGDOM Despite its prosperity and attempts to maintain autonomy, the Berar kingdom ultimately failed to keep its independence. The kingdom’s military weakness and crucial geographic location made it too inviting a target. In 1574, forces from the Ahmadnagar kingdom invaded Berar and quickly subdued it. With this defeat, Berar lost its brief autonomy and was incorporated into the Ahmadnagar kingdom. But its status as a province of Ahmadnagar was also fleeting. In 1596, in an effort to appease the rulers of the encroaching Mughal Empire, the Ahmadnagar ruler ceded Berar to the Mughal sultan, Akbar I, the Great (r. 1556–1605). Berar thus became part of the rapidly expanding Mughal Empire and fully lost its identity as an independent state. See also: Ahmadnagar Kingdom; Bahmani Dynasty; Golconda Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Mughal Empire;Vijayanagar Empire.

BERENGAR, RAYMOND. See Catalonia, County of

BETSIMISARAKA KINGDOM (ca. 1751 C.E.–Present)

Kingdom along the eastern coast of the island of Madagascar, established in the eighteenth century, which was one of three great states formed after the early 1700s. The island of Madagascar has been home to a great many ethnic groups, drawn not only from the African mainland but also from various Arab states, Malaysia, and Oceania. The first arrivals may have come to the island as much as fifteen hundred years ago, and there is archaeological evidence that attests to an Arab presence as early as 900.The result of all this immigration was a highly diverse population that gave rise to a great many individual kingdoms. Three of these kingdoms rose to particular prominence. Of these, the Merina kingdom of the highland region and the Menabe kingdom on the western coast became powerful in the early nineteenth century.The Betsimisaraka, who lived along the eastern coast of Madagascar, founded their kingdom somewhat earlier, in the mid-1700s. Betsimisaraka lands stretched for approximately four hundred miles along the

B h a r at pu r K i n g d om coast, in a narrow band from the Bemarivo River in the north to the Mananjary River in the south. According to oral tradition, the Betsimisaraka territory was settled by the early immigrants from the Middle East, who came to the island sometime before 1000. These immigrants intermarried with Africans who had come to Madagascar from the African mainland. Until the last half of the seventeenth century, these people occupied several distinct settlements, each with its own political center and ruling elite. The economy of these early states was based on trade. Sometime toward the end of the seventeenth century, the northernmost of the Betsimisaraka states received a visitor—a British-born sea captain named Thomas Tew who, by all accounts, was a pirate. Tew is said to have been received with such great favor by the local ruler, a woman named Antanavaratra Rahena, that he fathered a son with her. Tew returned to the sea, but his son, Ratsimilaho, remained behind to be raised in the ruling household. Antanavaratra Rahena died sometime around 1710, and her son succeeded her as ruler of the northern Betsimisaraka. Although the new king was still only in his mid- to late teens, he proved both politically and militarily able. He quickly succeeded in drawing the two other Betsimisaraka groups into a confederation, and it is this larger political organization that has come to be known as the Betsimisaraka kingdom. The kingdom grew in power and wealth, largely because of its control over the busy port city of Toamasina and the access this provided to the flow of gold and ivory from the Swahili trade centers on the East African coast. The reign of King Ratsimilaho (r. ca. 1710–1756) was a time of great prosperity, but his successors proved less capable. After his death in 1756, the power and wealth of Betsimisaraka waned steadily. By the early 1800s, the Merina kingdom of the highlands had extended its control over most of the island, and Betsimisaraka was but one of many lesser kingdoms that submitted to Merina dominance.

105

BEYEZID II (1447–1512 C.E.) Ottoman sultan (r. 1481–1512) best known for his consolidation of Ottoman sovereignty in Eastern Europe and for his benevolence towards the Jews. Beyezid II was born in 1447 in the Greek region of Thrace, the heartland of Ottoman-ruled territory in Europe. The son of Mehmed II (r. 1451–1481), Beyezid was a child five years of age when his father defeated the last Byzantine stronghold and made Constantinople the new Ottoman capital. When Mehmet II died in 1481, Beyezid was appointed his successor, triumphing over a challenge by his brother Cem, who also sought the throne. During Beyezid II’s reign, the Ottoman Empire established or tightened its control over such areas as Herzegovina, the Crimea, and Greece. He helped make the empire a major sea power, building a navy capable of competing with that of the Republic of Venice, a constant rival and occasional enemy. Called “the Sufi” (a term referring to members of Islamic mystical religious orders) because of his strong religious devotion, Beyezid strengthened Islamic institutions by financing the construction of public works and mosques. In 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain expelled the Jews from Iberia, Beyezid welcomed the skilled, educated, and prosperous community of exiled Jews into his empire, where they flourished and contributed to Ottoman wealth and power. Beyezid’s later reign was marred by a power struggle between his two sons and potential heirs, Selim and Murad. In 1512, Beyezid abdicated in favor of Selim (r. 1512–1520) and died a month later. See also: Mehmed II, the Conqueror; Ottoman Empire; Selim I, the Grim.

BHAGNAGAR KINGDOM. See Hyderabad Kingdom

See also: African Kingdoms; Madagascar Kingdoms; Merina Kingdom.

BHARATPUR KINGDOM FURTHER READING

(1722–1947 C.E.)

Kottack, Conrad Phillip, Jean-Aime Rokotoarisoa, Aidan Southall, and Pierre Verin, eds. Madagascar: Society and History. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1986.

Former Hindu state in India, located south of the city of Delhi and bordering on the Mathura and Agra districts, which was known for its strong army.

106

B h a r at pu r K i n g d om

The rulers of Bharatpur traced their history back to the eleventh century to the Tomara clan of Delhi and the Jadon clan of Bayana, princely landowning families (Rajputs).Toward the end of the reign of Emperor Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) of the Mughal Empire, these families were plundering the countryside and consolidating their power. In 1722, the Mughals recognized Bharatpur as a self-governing kingdom. Bharatpur rose to importance under Suraj Mal Jat (r. 1751–1764) who plundered Delhi in 1753. In 1756, Suraj Mal received the title of Raja (“Prince”) and subsequently joined the great army of the Maratha Confederacy, contributing about 30,000 troops. By 1763, Suraj Mal had taken the city of Agra, and it was estimated that he had a formidable military force of 60,000 to 70,000 men. In 1803, Ranjit Singh Bahadur Farzand Jung (r. 1778–1825) of Bharatpur broke the Treaty of Bassein (1802) by siding with the Maratha Confederacy against the British. In response, the British under Lord Lake made four unsuccessful attempts to storm the fort of Bharatpur, in 1804 and 1805, before withdrawing. A new treaty guaranteed Ranjit Singh his land and protection in return for a large sum of money paid to the British East India Company. In 1825, a dispute over the right of succession led Raja Durjan Sal (r. 1825–1826) to seize the fort at Bharatpur.A British force of 20,000 men under Lord Combermere took the fort a year later, demolished it, and placed Balwant Singh Bahadur Jung (r. 1826–1853), the son of the former Raja, on the Bharatpur throne. Over the next fifty years, the British tightened their hold on the administration of Bharatpur. This was made even easier when, in 1853, a three-yearold boy, Jaswant Singh Bahadur Jung (r. 1853–1893), inherited the Crown. He ruled under a council of regency until he received full powers in 1872. In 1895, the British deposed Maharaja Ram Singh (r. 1893–1900) because he had arranged the murder of one of his personal attendants. He was succeeded by his infant son, Brijendra Sawai Kishen Singh (r. 1900–1929), who reigned under the regency of his mother, Maharani Sri Maji Sahiba Bibiji Girraj Kaur, until he reached the age to rule alone in 1918. Bharatpur became part of the new nation of India when it gained its independence from Great Britain in 1947. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Rajasthan Kingdom; South Asian Kingdoms.

BHUTAN KINGDOM (747 C.E.–Present)

Small landlocked kingdom of south-central Asia, located on the eastern rim of the Himalayas between India in the south and Tibet in the north, which for centuries was jointly controlled by both a Buddhist spiritual leader and a temporal leader.

EARLY PERIOD The earliest documented history of the Bhutan kingdom concerns Guru Padsambhava, also called Guru Rinpoche, a Buddhist master who is said to have traveled over the mountains from Tibet to Bhutan flying on the back of a tigress.According to tradition, Guru Rinpoche founded the Nyingmapa religious school and was even thought to be the second Buddha. Over the following centuries, many great Buddhist masters preached in Bhutan, so the religion had become very widespread there by the eighth century.Although Bhutan was originally a sectarian state, the lama (teacher) and administrator Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal unified it in the seventeenth century under the Drupka Kagyupa sect of Mahayana Buddhism. The mountainous country of Bhutan existed as an isolated kingdom as late as the first half of the twentieth century. Its rough mountains and thick forests made access from the outside world nearly impossible, and Bhutan’s rulers fostered its isolation by forbidding foreigners to enter the country. In 1907, Bhutan’s first king, Sir Ugyen Wangchuck (r. 1907–1926), was elected, beginning the country’s system of democratic monarchy. In the decades that followed, nearby nations whose trade could benefit from access to Bhutan succeeded in penetrating the country, and the new outside contacts led to modernization of the economy and social system.

CHINESE AND BRITISH DOMINANCE Even though it was isolated for centuries, Bhutan was invaded a number of times. In 1720, a Chinese imperial army attacked Tibet and made both Tibet and Bhutan vassal states. In 1864–1865, the British defeated the Bhutanese, who signed a treaty giving Great Britain control of Bhutan’s southern border passes.The treaty also consented to British guidance in external (but not internal) affairs in exchange for receiving an annual subsidy. In 1949, Bhutan signed a treaty with recently in-

Biblical Kings

107

build up Bhutan’s primitive economy and modernize its feudal-like social system. He constructed new roads and hospitals, and he set up secular schools as an option for education other than Buddhist monasteries. He also updated Bhutan’s governmental structure, which eventually became a constitutional monarchy. When Jigme Dorji Wangchuk died in 1972, his son Jigme Singye Wangchuk (r. 1972–present) became king at the early age of seventeen. Still ruler of the country, he is considered a competent and active ruler who has continued his father’s efforts to modernize and to develop Bhutan without losing its strong cultural traditions or natural environment. See also: Buddhism and Kingship. FURTHER READING

Cooper, Robert. Bhutan: Cultures of the World. New York: Benchmark Books, 2001.

BIBLICAL KINGS (1010–586 B.C.E.) For centuries, the tiny Asian kingdom of Bhutan had a feudal-like society and was isolated from the rest of the world. King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, who took the throne in 1972, continued the policy of modernization begun by his father, King Dorji Wangchuk.

dependent India, which allowed that country to assume Britain’s role in regard to Bhutan. In addition to receiving an annual subsidy from India, Bhutan was given a piece of land in Assam called the Dewangiri. When the People’s Republic of China occupied Tibet in 1950, Bhutan strengthened its relationship with India, hoping to forestall China’s attempts to occupy Bhutan as well. When China threatened to gain sovereignty over some Bhutanese territory, India fortified its defensive troops along Bhutan’s border with Tibet in the north. Construction began on a road network within Bhutan going toward India, and the first cars to use these roads marked the end of Bhutan’s traditional isolation.

MODERN TIMES Starting in the early 1960s, King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk (r. 1952–1972) launched a program to

Rulers of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, whose deeds are featured in the Bible. To be a leader in war was the first requirement of a biblical king. Israel instituted a monarchy when the Philistine army threatened the Hebrew tribes in the early eleventh century b.c.e. Prior to 1020 b.c.e., leadership had come from charismatic tribal or clan chiefs, sometimes called judges, who could rally their people to conduct warfare against small bands of unorganized enemies. However, faced with the powerful army of the Philistines and realizing that the only thing they had in common was their religious belief in God, the people of Israel sought a strong military leader to protect and guide them.

THE FIRST BIBLICAL KINGS Most Israelite leaders, such as the judge Gideon, refused to take the powers of kingship, agreeing with religious leaders that God alone was king. As tension mounted, however, a charismatic warrior named Saul accepted the title as the Hebrews’ first king (r. ca. 1020–1010 b.c.e.). Israel’s greatest king was Saul’s successor, King David (r. ca. 1010–970 b.c.e.), who was known for his brilliant military exploits. All other biblical kings stood in the military shadow of Saul and David.

108

Biblical Kings

In the early days of the Israelite monarchy, the royal household differed little from the other chief houses of the nation. King Saul continued to live in his ancestral estate and stopped working his fields and came forward only when required to do so. During David’s forty-year reign, however, the Hebrews established an empire, with its capital at Jerusalem. Jerusalem began to resemble the capitals of other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, with a royal court and a government bureaucracy. Moreover, the Hebrew people started to support the monarchy and such grandeur through taxes and forced labor.

God who would judge all matters. Moses took this role during the formation of the twelve tribes, and he passed it down to the clan or tribal chiefs when they settled in the land of Canaan in Palestine. Saul had held the trust of the people until David took it from him. King Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, which was the center and rallying point of the Hebrew religion. But he lost the people’s respect for him as a judge because of his oppression of the poor, injustice in the law courts of Jerusalem, and the introduction of pagan practices into religion.

ROYAL CORRUPTION COMMERCE In times of relative peace, the biblical kings turned their energies toward the economy of Israel. King David, for example, expanded his territory to include major trade routes in Egypt, while his son and successor, King Solomon (r. 970–931 b.c.e.), after consolidating his political power in 965 b.c.e., developed commerce and shipping. As the kingdom’s wealth and splendor increased, so did taxation, corruption, and unrest among the people. After the death of Solomon around 931 b.c.e., the ten northern tribes revolted and set up their own kingdom of Israel in the north.The Kingdom of Judah was in the south.

SUCCESSION Traditionally, the Hebrews hand over power from father to son.When Gideon died, for example, his son Abimelech succeeded him as judge. But this did not happen in the case of Saul, who was invited by the people to be king. Saul thought that his son Jonathan should replace him as king, but the people chose David instead while Saul was still on the throne. David did not pass the power to his son Adonijah but gave the Crown to his younger son, Solomon. In later years, the succession in the kingdom of Judah remained in the house of David, and the northern kingdom of Israel followed the same pattern, except for those frequent occasions when violence and revolution destroyed the royal house and brought a new ruler to the throne.

HIGH PRIESTS AND JUDGES The Hebrew people expected the biblical kings to be their high priests and supreme judges in all matters. This was based on a nomadic tradition, in which the head of the family was expected to be the oracle of

Solomon’s legacy of royal corruption continued with his successors. Some were adventurous murderers, such as the military officer, King Zimri (r. 885 b.c.e.), who killed his predecessor and ruled as king of Israel for only seven days. Others were treacherous and worshiped other gods. Athaliah (r. 841–836 b.c.e.), the only reigning biblical queen, worshiped Baal and seized power after her son died by massacring all but one of the heirs to the throne, whom a priest had hidden in the temple. At times, such acts of despotic violence went by unchallenged. However, after a few years of Athaliah’s rule, a temple guard dragged the queen from the temple and killed her.Then Joash (r. 836–796 b.c.e.), the missing heir, was crowned king at the age of seven. On other occasions, ancient Hebrew law and customs exercised considerable restraint on the biblical kings. When Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to King Ahab (r. 874–853 b.c.e.), the king was unable to force him to sell. However, Ahab was able to condemn Naboth before a military tribunal and then took the land. Some kings were able to rise above the corruption. King Jehohshaphat (r. 867–846 b.c.e.) set up a complete legal system, with judges in all the larger cities and courts of appeal in Jerusalem. Other rulers attempted religious reform, and King Omri (r. 885–874 b.c.e.), though spiritually deficient, brought peace and prosperity to the land.

END OF THE KINGDOMS The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were located between the larger and more powerful kingdoms of Mesopotamia, to the northeast, and Egypt, to the southwest. In 722 b.c.e. the Assyrians conquered Israel and dispersed the ten tribes of Israelites throughout the Middle East. The kingdom of Judah

Bidar Kingdom continued for more than a century, caught up in a power struggle between the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and the Babylonians. In 597 b.c.e., the Babylonian king of Mesopotamia, Nebuchadrezzar II (r. 604–562 b.c.e.), captured Jerusalem and deported 10,000 of its inhabitants to Babylon. King Zedekiah (r. 596–586 b.c.e.) was left in Judah to serve Babylon, but he and the people of Judah rebelled. Nebuchadrezzar attacked Judah again in 588–587 b.c.e. Zedekiah was forced to watch the murder of his sons, and then he was blinded and taken to Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar then destroyed Jerusalem in 586 b.c.e., bringing the kingdom of Judah to an end. See also: Assyrian Empire; Commerce and Kingship; David; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of; Solomon. FURTHER READING

Galil, G. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1996. Grottanelli, C. Kings and Prophets: Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership, & Sacred Text in Biblical Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

BIDAR KINGDOM (1518–1619 C.E.) An independent kingdom that emerged in central India after the dissolution of the Bahmani dynasty in the early sixteenth century. In 1518, upon the death of Mahmud (r. 1482–1518), the last powerful Bahmani monarch, four major Bahmani territories—Ahmadnagar, Golconda, Berar, and Bijapur—declared their independence. Only the land around the Bahmani capital of Bidar remained under the control of Mahmud’s weakened descendants in the Bahmani dynasty. A government official named Kasim Barid assumed control of Bidar and installed one of Mahmud’s children as a puppet monarch. Consequently, Kasim and his son, Amir, preserved the illusion of Bahmani control until the last Bahmani descendant died in 1527.With the Bahmani line ended,Amir appointed himself ruler of Bidar, as Amir Barid Shah I (r. 1527–1542) and started his own dynasty, the Baridshahi. The Baridshahi dynasty never attained lasting stability, however, because fierce rivalries soon arose

109

among the kingdoms of Bidar, Bijapur, Ahmadnagar, and Golconda. Because Bidar was the smallest kingdom, it faced repeated threats from its more powerful neighbors. In 1531, Bijapur invaded Bidar and claimed the majority of its land. In response, Bidar allied with Ahmadnagar to resist the Bijapur forces. After Bijapur defeated the allies, however, Bidar readily changed sides and agreed to support Bijapur in an approaching conflict with Golconda. In 1542, Bidar again seized a dubious opportunity. Convinced that Bijapur had been weakened by incessant warfare, the new Bidar monarch, Ali Barid Shah I (r. 1543–1579), forged an alliance with Ahmadnagar and again invaded Bijapur. The plan had disastrous consequences for Bidar. Ahmadnagar betrayed the hapless Ali Barid, seized control of Bidar, and divided the small kingdom with Bijapur. When the alliance between Ahmadnagar and Bijapur deteriorated, the Golconda ruler, Jamshid Qutb Shah (r. 1543–1550), intervened. In 1548, he negotiated the return of Ali Barid to the Bidar throne and positioned Bidar as a buffer state between Ahmadnagar and Bijapur. A common threat eventually allayed the hostilities among the various kingdoms. The kingdom of Vijayanagar, the bitter adversary of the former Bahmani state, sought to capitalize on the widespread dissension among the former Bahmani territories and crush them. In 1565, Bidar, Ahmadnagar, Golconda, and Bijapur formed a confederacy to counter the kingdom of Vijayanagar. Their combined forces defeated the invaders in a massive battle at Talikota in January 1565. Under the auspices of the confederacy, however, Bidar gradually lost its autonomy. Instead of using military action against Bidar, the much larger Bijapur used its size to gradually absorb the smaller kingdom. In 1619, Bidar officially lost its independence and became part of Bijapur. See also: Ahmadnagar Kingdom; Bahmani Dynasty; Golconda Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Vijayanagar Empire. FURTHER READING

Majumdar, R.C., ed. The Mughal Empire. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1974.Vol. 7 of The History and Culture of the Indian People. Srivastava, Ashirbadilal. The History of India: 1000 A.D.– 1707 A.D. Jaipur: Shiva Lal Agarwala, 1964.

110

B l o i s - C h a m pag n e Dy na s t y

BIMBISARA. See Magadha Kingdom BINDUSARA. See Asoka BLOIS-CHAMPAGNE DYNASTY (928–1391 C.E.)

Two powerful, related noble families of medieval France, who played a leading role in French history. Among the descendants of the counts of Blois was a king of England, Stephen (r. 1135–1154).The counts of Champagne, descended from the younger sons of the counts of Blois, were poets, Crusaders, and patrons of the arts. Both lines were ancestors of kings of France.

THE FAMILIES OF BLOIS AND CHAMPAGNE The counts of Blois and Champagne both established themselves on lands near the royal domains of France in the tenth century. The two families were first joined by the marriage of Liegard, daughter of Count Herbert II of Champagne (d. 943), and Thibault I of Blois (d. 975). In the eleventh century, the lands of the two families were united under Thibault III of Blois, who also ruled Champagne as Thibault I (r. 1066–1089). But the Blois-Champagne domains were divided again in 1093, when Thibault’s son and successor, Hugues (r. 1093–1125), became count of Troyes, and Hugues’s brother Etienne-Henri (r. 1089–1102) became count of Blois-Chartres-Meaux. Hugues was the first in his family to officially take the title count of Champagne. In 1083, Etienne-Henri had married Adele, the daughter of William I, the Conqueror (r. 1066– 1087) of England. Their son, Stephen of Blois, later became king of England. Meanwhile, since Hugues had declared his own son illegitimate, EtienneHenri’s son Thibault II (r. 1125–1152) became heir of both Champagne and Blois.

CHAMPAGNE AS A CULTURAL AND LITERARY CENTER Thibault II issued special protections for merchants from Italy and other parts of Europe who came to

trade in Champagne, and he instituted a regular yearly cycle of market fairs for the county. This was the origin of the great medieval fairs of Champagne, where staple goods and luxury items were traded by merchants from all over Europe. Thibault’s son, Count Henry I (r. 1152–1181), endeared himself to King Louis VII of France (r. 1137–1180), when he served with the king on the Second Crusade. Henry married Marie de France, the daughter of Louis by his first wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry, who became known as “The Liberal” because of his generosity to the clergy, was the first count of Champagne to be well-educated and to speak Latin. Marie was well-read in vernacular literature. At their court in Champagne, Henry and Marie became well known for their patronage of writers, including the great medieval poet Chrétien de Troyes, who is known for creating the first literary version of the Arthurian legend about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Marie held “courts” in which she and her ladies debated questions of love and knightly chivalry. In addition to patronizing art and literature, Henry followed his father’s support of yearly trade fairs. He also increased the wealth of Champagne by encouraging many large merchant families of Italy and Northern Europe to establish branch houses in the county.

LATER DESCENDANTS Henry’s brother Thibault, count of Blois, married Alice, the second daughter of Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine. With this marriage, Blois and Champagne split permanently. Thibault’s descendants became counts of Chatillon as well as of Blois. After Louis VII divorced Eleanor in 1152, the French king married Adele, the sister of Henry and Thibault, and she thus became an ancestor of the future kings of France. After the death of Henry I in 1181, Marie of Champagne served as regent for her sons.The older son, Henri II (r. 1181–1197), distinguished himself on Crusade. He married Isabella I, the queen of Jerusalem, and died in Jaffa in 1197. His younger brother, Thibault III (r. 1197–1201), inherited the county and helped organize the Fourth Crusade before his early death in 1201.Thibault’s wife, Blanche of Navarre, became regent for their baby son, Thibault IV (r. 1201–1253). Blanche was an ener-

B l o o d, R o y a l getic and efficient administrator who strengthened the power of the counts against the vassal barons. Thibault IV was known as le Chansonnier (“The Singer”) because of his skill at poetry. In 1234, he inherited the Crown of the kingdom of Navarre (r. 1234–1253) on the death of his mother Blanche. His son Thibault V (r. 1253–1270) (also Thibault II of Navarre) became very close to King Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270) and married the king’s daughter, Isabel. The pious couple accompanied Louis on Crusade in 1270 and died with him there. Thibault was succeeded by his brother Henry III (r. 1270–1274). When Henry’s only son predeceased his father, Henry’s daughter Jeanne inherited the county and then ruled it (r. 1274–1305) after her father’s death.

UNION WITH FRANCE In 1285, Jeanne married the future king Philip IV (r. 1285–1314) of France; but Champagne remained separate and independent. However, in 1314, Champagne became part of the royal domain of France when Jeanne’s and Philip’s son became King Louis X (r. 1314–1316). Blois was purchased by Louis I, duke of Orleans, in 1391. More than 100 years later, in 1498, Louis’s grandson, Duke Louis IV of Orleans, became King Louis XII of France (r. 1498–1515), and Blois was united with the French Crown. See also: French Monarchies; Louis VII; Louis IX (St. Louis); Navarre, Kingdom of; Stephen; William I, the Conqueror.

BLOOD, ROYAL Term used in many societies to describe physical descent from royalty, a quality that is usually considered necessary for succession to the throne. As a source of life and power, blood often has a ritual connotation, and this is especially true for royal blood. In the Akuapem kingdom in Ghana, for instance, the king’s throne, or Black Stool, derives its power from the blood of a member of his lineage poured onto it. The qualities considered necessary for kingship are thought to pass through the blood to one’s descendants. For example, the early Germanic tribes in Europe chose as king the man they thought could best represent their descent groups before the gods.

111

(The English word “king” originally came from cyn or kin.) The man they chose was thought to possess Heil, good fortune or charisma. In time, this quality came to be considered hereditary in the blood, and kings were selected from descendants of a king. In many societies where the original kings were considered gods, royal blood is divine blood that is passed to the first king’s descendants. Many rulers have sought to connect a new dynasty to an old one by blood lineage. For example, at the death of the last Carolingian king, Louis V (r. 986–987) in 987, Hugh Capet (r. 987–996) was chosen king in preference to the late king’s brother, even though he was not in the direct blood line. However, Capet’s successors in the Capetian dynasty found it advantageous to marry into the Carolingian line in order to legitimize their rule through a blood lineage. Royal blood extends to the whole family, not just to those considered eligible for the throne. Beginning in the fourteenth century in France, the Capetian kings, in order to strengthen the legitimacy of their dynasty, began to call the sons, brothers, and uncles of the sovereign “princes of the blood” or “of the blood royal”; the daughters, sisters, and aunts were called “princesses of the blood.” To be of royal blood, one must be a descendant of a royal lineage, but not all blood descendants of a monarch are legally entitled to inherit the kingship. Kingship most often descends through the male line, in many cases through primogeniture, or inheritance by the first-born son. Kings often marry women of royal blood to preserve that blood in the children. For this reason, in some societies, marriages take place not only within royalty, but within the same family or kin group (a practice called endogamy). Some of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt practiced brother-sister marriages. In the Eighteenth dynasty (ca.1570–1293 b.c.e.), a pharaoh might marry his half-sister, as was the case with Tutankhamen (r. ca. 1332–1322 b.c.e.) and his wife Ankhesenamun. Marriage between full brother and sister was practiced only in the Ptolemaic dynasty (323–30 b.c.e.). Brother-sister marriage in ancient Egypt preserved a concentrated bloodline and imitated the marriage of the brother and sister deities, Isis and Osiris. Marriage to a sister could also prevent her from becoming a political rival or allow her to keep

112

B l o o d, R o y a l

her assets from a previous marriage within the family. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries c.e. among the Incas of Peru, the emperors also married their sisters in order to preserve the royal blood, apparently in imitation of their ancestor, Manco Capac (ca. 1200), the mythical first Inca emperor, who married one of his sisters. Succession to the kingship is often forbidden if the bloodline is considered diluted. In European monarchies, according to a custom of Germanic origin, children born of a morganatic marriage (a marriage between a man of royal blood and a woman of lower rank) are disqualified from ruling. Many people try to prove that their bloodline is royal in order to claim that they are descended from royalty.The publication of royal pedigrees and peerage books in England and elsewhere indicates the fascination that royal blood still holds. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Incest, Royal; Inheritance, Royal; Marriage of Kings; Primogeniture. FURTHER READING

Hallam, Elizabeth M., and Judith Everard. Capetian France, 987–1328. 2d ed. New York: Longman, 2001. Hindley, Geoffrey. The Royal Families of Europe. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2000. Shaw, Ian, ed. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002

BODIES, POLITIC AND NATURAL In The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Ernst H. Kantorowicz places the concept of the king’s two bodies “in its proper setting of medieval thought and political theory.” He begins his analysis with reference to Edmund Plowden, a sixteenth-century lawyer whose Reports (1571) has been described as “the chief Elizabethan source for the metaphor of the king’s two bodies.” Plowden writes: For the King has in him two Bodies, viz., a Body natural, and a Body politic. His Body natural (if it be considered in itself) is a Body mortal, subject to all

Infirmities that come by Nature or Accident, to the Imbecility of Infancy or old Age, and to the like Defects that happen to the natural Bodies of other People. But his Body politic is a Body that cannot be seen or handled, consisting of Policy and Government, and constituted for the Direction of the People, and the Management of the public weal, and this Body is utterly void of Infancy, and old Age, [ . . . ] So that [the King] has a Body natural, adorned and invested with the Estate and Dignity royal; and he has not a Body natural distinct and divided by itself from the Office and Dignity royal, but a Body natural and a Body politic together indivisible.

Plowden’s Reports was written as part of a legal controversy regarding a monarch’s right to own land. Queen Elizabeth had asked for clarification regarding her right to lease the duchy of Lancaster a piece of land owned by the Lancastrian kings as private property and not as property of the Crown. According to Plowden and his fellow lawyers, a king (the monarch was always referred to as a king in these documents, even though she was a queen) did not share a subject’s freedom to own or dispose of property by giving it to his children in his will: the monarch could not own land in his body natural because his body natural was indivisible from his body politic, and the body politic never died. At the “demise” of a king’s body natural, the body politic migrated to the body natural of the succeeding king. Lawyers used the metaphor of the king’s two bodies in order to deal with the paradox that individual monarchs died, but the Crown survived.The lawyers were formulating an idea of the state as a perpetual corporation, and when they spoke of the body politic, they referred to a specific quality: the essence of corporate perpetuity. In referring to both this metaphysical concept of the king’s two bodies and to the older collective metaphor of the realm as a political body with the king as its head, Plowden and his fellow lawyers combined two distinct but related medieval theories of monarchy, and thereby facilitated a distinction between the king who was the realm and so above the law and the king who was a subject under the law. Both of these concepts of the body politic were current in the early seventeenth century. While succession anxieties brought on by Elizabeth’s advancing age led to an emphasis on the state as a perpetual corporation, the ambitions of James I to unify En-

B o d i e s, Pol i t i c a n d Nat u r a l gland and Scotland brought numerous allusions to Britain as a single body with James as its head. The idea of the two bodies of rulers can be traced, in some ways, to ancient Roman belief about the Caesars. On the day of a triumphal parade, the victorious general or ruler would ride a glorious chariot and be dressed like the Roman god, Jupiter. When the general or ruler arrived at the Capitol, the slave riding with him would hold a crown over his head and whisper, “Memento quod es homo (Remember that you are a man).” On the other hand, it was clear that the Caesars were considered divine in their own right. As early as 7 b.c.e., Roman altars were dedicated to the genius (talent) of Augustus. Caligula had temples and priests that sacrificed to his numen (divine will). In the Caesars’ capacity as Pontifex Maximus (greatest priest), the ruler offered sacrifices and received them as well. Around 1100 c.e., a theological and political treatise was written by an unknown cleric from Normandy. This monk, commonly referred to as the “Norman Anonymous,” emphasized another dual nature of kingship. In this text, the king is not like other men in his natural body. He is a “super-man” with special qualities not given to ordinary people. The king is also a “shadow” or imitator of Christ, based on Christian doctrine. In this way, the king is seen as divine and becomes a god-like being through his coronation, when he receives his ability to rule from heaven. The ideal of the king having a human nature and being made divine by grace served as the foundation for the later doctrine of the “king’s two bodies.” The king also was considered a religious figure in the Middle Ages, since he ruled with the grace of heaven. He was a mediator between his people and heaven, as well as a sacred representative. Many kings wore clerical symbols, such as a sacred ring, to signify their religious aspects.The crossover between the church and the state led to ongoing challenges of authority between popes and kings during the medieval period. While the Church was Christ’s mystical body, the kingdoms were considered “holy empires” inasmuch as kings under divine grace ruled them. Kingly power should maintain Christian rule by punishing evil-doers, issuing laws, summoning men for military service, and creating order in society. In nearly every culture where there are both kings and gods, people have considered how these powers

113

relate. Rulers connect themselves to gods to show they are more than just regular human beings. Many kings gain the right and authority to rule from one or more divine powers. Christianity believes that a divine power, or god, is an all-powerful, eternal being without faults. The problem with making kings into gods in Christian belief is the obvious fact that kings, as human beings, get sick, old, and eventually die just like everyone else. In other belief systems, divine powers are born, have lives, change, are vulnerable, and can die. So kings can have both divine power and the qualities of their gods without any of the difficulties presented by Christian beliefs. For example, in Fiji, rulers were made from “different clay” than their subjects, so the king could be considered to be divine without people wondering what made him so different. Hawaiian kings were believed to have spiritual power, or mana, within their bodies that would harm commoners if they got too close. This mana was believed to come from the supernatural lineage of the chiefs. In Japan, imperial persons were considered to be sacred. In these societies, authority to rule comes from supernatural forces within rulers. In general, cultures believed their kings were related to the divine powers in three ways. First, the ruler could claim to be a direct descendant of a god or become a god upon death. Egyptian pharaohs are an example. Second, the ruler could be described as having divine attributes or possessing sacred symbols, without actually being considered a god. For example, those who held the royal drum ruled the Ankole kingdom of East Africa. In early China, rulership belonged to those who had the ting tripods. Finally, a ruler might achieve divinity only on occasion by summoning god-like forces to himself, as needed to do battle, for example. In many cultures, kings provide the central communication channel between gods, humans, and, in many cases, royal ancestors. The ruler determined how people should approach the god or gods. He also interpreted the divine will of the supernatural forces. The Mayan kings were examples of this type of rulership. In the eighth-century Byzantine Empire, emperors attempted to use the title “priestking” but the pope forbade them from using the title. In some cultures, the ruler’s life cycle and mortality may become symbolic attributes of higher, more cosmic cycles and patterns. The birth, life, marriage, and death of the ruler become symbols for

114

B o d i e s, Pol i t i c a n d Nat u r a l

the life cycle of the universe, such as the sacred kings of Egypt and Persia. In this process, the king’s mortality and human weaknesses are diminished, and his natural body, like his political body, becomes eternal. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Augustus; Caligula; Divinity of Kings; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twentysixth); Elizabeth I; Gender and Kingship; Kingly Body; Sacred Kingships. FURTHER READING

Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King’s Two Bodies:A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957.

BONAPARTIST EMPIRE (1804–1815 C.E.)

Territories and peoples under French control during the reign of Emperor Napoleon I (who ruled as emperor 1804–1815). In a little less than two decades in the late 1700s and early 1800s, Napoleon was able to dominate most of Western Europe, and in doing so, he forever altered the course of European history.

ORIGINS AND EARLY SUCCESS Napoleon’s conquest of Europe actually began before he became emperor with his victories in the French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1802). Anxious to make sure that the antiroyal rebellion of the French Revolution did not spread throughout Europe, several major European powers in the 1790s indicated that they would go to war with revolutionary France to protect surrounding territories. France, in turn, declared war on these nations, unleashing a decade of warfare that dominated European affairs. As general of the French army in Italy in 1796, Napoleon drove back the occupying Austrians in a quick-moving campaign that stunned the European military establishment. Acting independently, without sanction of the French government, Napoleon concluded a peace treaty with the Austrians that included the cession of Belgian territories to France. These would remain in French control for the entire life of the Bonapartist Empire. As Napoleon swept through the Austrian lands in

1796–1797, his popularity soared both in France and abroad. The Italian people viewed him as a liberator and defender of freedom, while the French saw him as extending the ideals of the Revolution.The financial gains and imperial glory France reaped from these campaigns also were a factor in Napoleon’s popularity with the French government, a popularity that would prove invaluable in the coming years. With the continent under his control, Napoleon turned to Great Britain, which remained the only European nation that could effectively challenge French power.While attacking British trade routes in Egypt in 1798–1799, Napoleon saw an opportunity for a power grab unfolding in France. The government, known as the Directory, was blamed for the defeats of the French army on the continent, where many of the territories gained by Napoleon had been regained by other European powers. The French people also were growing disgusted with the Directory because of its increasingly repressive actions against internal opposition. Napoleon returned to France from Egypt and, along with two high-ranking officials, staged a coup in autumn 1799, thereby taking control of the government as first consul. As first consul, Napoleon consolidated his power, shutting out any opposition that was likely to arise from within France. Externally, he again went to war with the Austrians, reclaiming territories for France and reasserting French dominance on the continent. Once Germany and Switzerland were under his control, and the Italian lands were back in his grasp, Napoleon faced no real challenge from any European nation except Great Britain. Meanwhile, in France, the wildly popular leader was seen as restoring the glory to a nation torn by revolt.With overwhelming support, Napoleon was elected life consul in 1802, essentially solidifying his dictatorship.

THE EMPIRE EXPANDS France and Britain were evenly matched militarily, with the French army dominant on land and the British navy superior on the sea. As a result, war between the two nations drew to an uneasy stalemate between 1803 and 1805. With the situation in Europe fairly stable, Napoleon was overwhelmingly elected emperor in 1804, thus marking the official beginning of the Bonapartist Empire. Conflict resumed the next year, however, as Napoleon’s continued expansion in Italy brought new hostilities with a coalition of Austria, Britain, Prussia, and Russia.

B ona pa rt i s t E m p i r e

115

ROYAL RELATIVES

MARIE LOUISE (1791–1847) Not nearly as well known as Napoleon’s first wife Josephine, Marie Louise was the daughter of Austrian emperor Francis I. Her marriage to Napoleon in 1810 was essentially an insurance clause enacted between Napoleon and her father, who felt that linking his family with that of the French emperor’s was the best way to maintain his own empire. Marie Louise showed very little interest in Napoleon after the birth of their child, Napoleon II. In fact, she did not return to France from her family home in Austria when Napoleon mounted his unsuccessful bid to reestablish the empire in 1815. Awarded the Duchy of Parma at the Congress of Vienna, Marie Louise was unable to secure any real inheritance for her son, whom she left alone in Vienna. She was a moderate ruler of no real distinction, and her small territories were eventually absorbed into the kingdom of Italy.

Although the British continued to dominate the French at sea, Napoleon’s forces seemed unstoppable on land, quickly moving against Austria and Russia in the winter of 1805. By the summer of 1807, Napoleon forced Alexander I of Russia (r. 1801–1825) and Frederick William III of Prussia (r. 1797–1840) into a treaty that gave him their support as well as much of their territory. A renewed offensive by the Austrians was handily defeated in 1809, thus solidifying French power on the continent.

IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATION With the empire secure, Napoleon began filling the leadership posts of the kingdoms under his control with people he thought would remain loyal to him and willing to accept French domination. In the end, however, few of these people stood by Napoleon in times of crisis, including Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, for whom Napoleon secured the throne of Sweden in 1810 only to have him side with Napoleon’s enemies soon after. Napoleon’s brother Louis was made king of Holland in 1806 but was later driven out by Napoleon himself, since Louis would not cooperate with French plans to enforce a trade blockade against Britain. Another of the emperor’s brothers, Jérôme, was given the Crown of Westphalia, a German kingdom, in 1807, but quickly drove his small province so deep into debt that Napoleon was forced to recall him. Most disastrously, Napoleon’s brother Joseph

was put in charge of the Naples kingdom in 1806, where he accomplished few of his ambitious projects, and then the Spanish Crown in 1808, which he lost through an unwinnable guerrilla war in Spain and in a military debacle with Britain. Napoleon’s sisters worked out somewhat better, however; Elisa of Tuscany and Caroline of Naples were both effective rulers. Despite mishandling by Napoleon’s chosen administrators, the Bonapartist Empire reached its peak by 1810. At that point, France controlled most of Spain and Portugal, all of Italy save for Sicily, Poland, Switzerland, all of the Low Countries north of France, and the western German kingdoms. The royal line of succession was also secure, since Napoleon had divorced his first wife, Josephine, and married a second, Marie Louise (the daughter of emperor Francis I of Austria), who bore him a son, styled Napoleon II, in 1811. One of the most noticeable features of the Bonapartist Empire was its use of the Code Napoléon, an organized legal system set up under Napoleon’s reign. The Code laid out different areas of legal jurisdiction over individuals and was applied uniformly across the empire. Despite this ostensibly egalitarian legal system, the Bonapartist Empire was anything but, as Napoleon consolidated power in France and forced local administrators to follow French dictates. Citizens were allowed almost no participation

116

B ona pa rt i s t E m p i r e

in the governmental process, and virtually every institution—from churches to schools to museums— was ultimately under the authoritarian control of Napoleon and his administrators. This tightly controlled empire, however, was on the verge of collapse from external pressures just as it was at its most extensive.

THE EMPIRE COLLAPSES Napoleon, furious at Alexander I of Russia for refusing to follow his plan for a trade blockade of Britain, launched an attack on Russia in the summer of 1812. Despite having a huge army at his command, Napoleon was unable to defeat the Russians and was forced to retreat by the end of the year, having lost half a million soldiers.With the French military weakened, the states controlled by the empire began to revolt, forming a coalition, along with Austria, Britain, and Russia, to beat back the French. Napoleon, facing enemies on all sides, refused to surrender and finally abdicated in the spring of 1814 as the allied forces marched into Paris. The empire was finished, and Napoleon was forced into exile on the island of Elba.

Although Napoleon staged a counterattack a year later and thus reestablished the empire for 100 days, he was quickly and decisively beaten in the battle of Waterloo in June 1815.The defeated ruler was once again placed in exile, this time on the island prison of St. Helena, located in the south Atlantic off western Africa.The allied forces, meeting at the Congress of Vienna, drew up plans for a newly divided Europe. These plans, which were based on the idea that a balance of power was the best way to ensure peace, marked a decisive moment in European diplomacy and cooperative political action, and set the stage for the nationalist movements that came to dominate Europe during the rest of the century. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Conquest and Kingships; Empire; Military Roles, Royal; Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Nationalism. FURTHER READING

Asprey, Robert. The Reign of Napoleon Bonaparte. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

B ou d i c c a ( B oa d i c e a )

BORNU EMPIRE. See Kanembu-Kanuri Kingdom

BORU, BRIAN (ca. 940–1014 C.E.) Ard Ri (high king) of Ireland (r. 1002–1014), who is credited with driving off the Vikings that had invaded Ireland in the century prior to his rule. A younger son of Cennedig (Cenn-tig), chief of the Dal Cais tribe in the area of Munster, Brian Boru was born around 940. In the century before Brian’s birth, Ireland had been invaded by Norse marauders, who eventually established a number of Viking settlements—including Dublin and Waterford—along the Irish coast. When Brian was just a child, he witnessed first-hand the violence of the Vikings, for his home village was raided and most of its inhabitants, including Brian’s own mother, were killed. Many Irish chieftains sought to avoid attacks by the Vikings by entering into treaties with these interlopers. This was the tactic adopted by Brian’s brother, Mahon, when he inherited the chieftainship of the Dal Cais upon the death of their father, Cennedig. Brian, however, could not accept such a truce, so he gathered to himself several brave men and abandoned his brother’s chiefdom, preferring to fight the Vikings wherever he found them. Brian’s reputation grew to legendary status as he and his followers harried the Vikings throughout southern Ireland. In time, others who chafed under the heavy-handed rule of the Vikings sought him out and joined his cause. Ultimately, even Mahon renounced his treaties with the Vikings and lent support to his brother. With so great a force at his command, Brian was able to drive most of the Vikings from southern Ireland, pushing them back to a handful of coastal settlements in the north. Unfortunately, the Viking leader Ivar (sometimes called Imar) did not accept defeat, and sometime between 976 and 978 he returned to the attack, capturing and killing Mahon. The death of the Dal Cais chief elevated Brian to the head of the clan, and he was no more willing to tolerate a Viking presence in Ireland now than he had been previously. He called upon all the other chiefs of southern Ireland to rally to his flag, and they again expelled the Vikings. In the meantime, Brian also set about rebuilding the churches and libraries that the Vikings had destroyed.

117

Soon Brian had succeeded in unifying all the southern Irish clans under his rule. In the north, another strong ruler, Malachy, had done the same, but Malachy did not have the great popular support that Brian enjoyed, and in the late 900s (possibly 998), Malachy ceded his territory to Brian’s rule.Thus did Brian Boru become the first Ard Ri, or high king, to unify all of Ireland. The death of Brian Boru is attributed to one of his wives, Maelmora, who is recorded in legend as being both the most beautiful woman in all of Ireland and the most evil. Brian married her sometime after the turn of the eleventh century, but he left her a few years later. Enraged by his abandonment, she is said to have called upon the Vikings, offering to help them retake Ireland if they would kill Brian in return. Whatever their actual reasons, the Vikings did indeed return to Ireland in 1014. Brian Boru’s final battle took place on April 23, 1014, on the fields of Clontarf near Dublin The battle was fierce, and when it was over there were 4,000 Irishmen lying dead on the field. Despite the devastating Irish losses, the Vikings fared even worse. It is said that not more than twenty Vikings remained alive after this battle. During the battle, while the now aging Brian was praying in his tent, a Viking leader named Brodar came looking for him. Again, history and legend may be intertwined, but legend holds that even after Brodar struck Brian a mortal blow, the great Irish king swung his own blade and sliced the Viking’s head from his shoulders. Brian Boru is celebrated today as one of Ireland’s greatest heroes and as the only ruler to truly unify the entire island. See also: Irish Kings; Meath Kingdom; Munster Kingdom.

BOUDICCA (BOADICEA) (d. 61 C.E.) Warrior queen of the Iceni, a British tribe in Roman Britain, who led a ferocious and brutal, but ultimately unsuccessful, rebellion against the Romans. By the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius (r. 41–54), many of the Celtic natives of Britain had accepted Roman rule and appreciated the advantages that accompanied Roman occupation, including good roads, efficient law courts, improved sanitation and water supplies, and burgeoning trade. However, the weight of Roman rule varied depending upon

118

B ou d i c c a ( B oa d i c e a )

local enforcement and the directives of the current colonial governor. Prasutagus, the chief (or king) of the Sussexbased tribe, the Iceni, was a reasonable and peaceloving ruler. He paid his taxes and tributes to Rome without complaint and counseled his people to work with the Romans in Britain. Unfortunately, the military governor of Britain, Caius Suetonius Paulinus, saw the colony of Britain as merely an opportunity for increasing his own wealth and prestige through ruinous taxation and continued military conquests. Upon Prasutagus’s untimely death in the year 60, his wife, Queen Boudicca, objected when Paulinus levied heavy taxes. The queen was publicly beaten and scourged for her protest. As Boudicca was recovering from her humiliation, she learned that her two daughters had been raped by the Roman officials who had ordered her punishment. Boudicca, a red-haired woman of imposing size and demeanor, swore revenge and pledged to drive the Romans from her homeland. She bided her time and, though she traveled extensively over the next two years giving fiery speeches to many tribes, she was careful never to speak in front of Romans or their servants. She counseled all Britons to remain subservient until the time was ripe, then to rise up as one to overthrow their Roman overlords. Boudicca’s chance came in 61, when Paulinus decided to mount a large-scale attack against the island of Mona (now Anglesey in northwestern Wales), the sacred island and stronghold of the Druids. While the Roman legions were engaged at Mona, Boudicca organized a huge army of Britons, perhaps numbering one hundred thousand or more, and led it against the single legion of Roman troops that remained garrisoned at Camulodunum (Colchester) in the south of Britain. Boudicca and her forces easily defeated the Roman garrison and mercilessly slew as many of the Romans—men, women, and children—as she could find in the Roman towns of Camulodumum, Verulamium (St. Albans), and Londinium. Estimates of the Roman dead run as high as seventy thousand. In the midst of these massacres, Paulinus returned from a successful campaign on Mona. He carefully organized his men and waited for Boudicca’s army to come to him (near modern-day Fenny Stratford). Though greatly outnumbered, the Romans, with their better discipline, tactics, and training, won the day. As many as eighty thousand Britons were left dead in the bloodiest battle yet to take place on British soil. Defeated, but not conquered, Queen

Boudicca took poison while standing in her war chariot next to her two daughters. See also: Claudius; Gender and Kingship; Queens and Queen Mothers; Roman Empire.

BOURBON DYNASTY (1272 C.E.–Present)

Royal family, established in France, that has played an important role in a number of European monarchies, including those of Spain, Sicily, and the duchy of Parma in northern Italy.The Bourbon dynasty was originally a branch of the Capetian dynasty, the royal house of France that ruled continuously from 987 to 1328. Today, the Bourbon family continues to sit on the throne in Spain.

BEGINNINGS OF THE DYNASTY IN FRANCE The Bourbon line was established in 1272 when Robert of Clermont, a son of king Louis IX of France

King Henry IV of France was the first king of the Bourbon Dynasty, a noble house founded over three hundred years earlier. A Huguenot, or French Protestant, Henry IV gave up his faith to reduce Catholic-Protestant conflict in his kingdom.

B ou r b on Dy na s t y

119

ROYAL PLACES

VERSAILLES Louis XIV, the Sun-King, oversaw the construction of the magnificent palace of Versailles.Versailles began as a hunting lodge, built by Louis’s father, Louis XIII, in 1624. Expansion of this retreat, which began in 1669, would occupy the Sun-King for the remainder of his life.The construction of the palace was an extravagance that consumed as much as 5 percent of the royal budget each year.When it was finished,Versailles contained the finest paintings, sculptures, and furnishings available, and the palace grounds included large terraces and magnificent gardens.Versailles became the official residence of the French king in 1682. Following the French Revolution, Louis Philippe turned the palace into a museum.The palace contains more than 700 rooms and 67 staircases and is set on more than 1,800 acres of parkland.

(r. 1226–1270), married Beatrice, the heiress of Bourbon. Bourbon was the seat of the Bourbonnais, a region in central France whose rulers were descended from Adhemar, a Frankish noble of the ninth century. In 1327, Robert of Clermont’s son Louis became the first duke of Bourbon (r. 1327–1342), a hereditary title that passed from father to eldest son. The title died out in 1527 with the death of Duke Charles III (r. 1505–1527) of Bourbon, who had no male heirs. A cadet branch of the dynasty, the BourbonVendôme line, was established in 1548 with the marriage of Antoine de Bourbon, son of Duke Charles of Vendôme, to Jeanne d’Albret, the daughter of King Henry II of Navarre (r. 1517–1555). As a result of this marriage, the Bourbon family inherited considerable territory in southern France, and, in 1555, Jeanne became queen of Navarre (r. 1555–1572), with Antoine as her consort. The son of Antoine and Jeanne, Henry of Navarre, became the first Bourbon king of France as Henry IV (r. 1589–1610), following the death in 1589 of French king Henry III (r. 1574–1589), who had no male heirs and was the last ruler of the House of Valois. All subsequent kings of France traced their lineage back to Henry of Navarre and the Bourbon line.

FRENCH BOURBONS Henry IV of France was a prominent Huguenot Protestant leader prior to his marriage in 1572 to Margaret of

Valois, the sister of Charles IX of France (r. 1560– 1574). However, following the St. Batholomew’s Day massacre of Protestants in 1572, Henry gave up his faith in order to save his life during a period of intense Catholic-Protestant conflict in France. Although Henry subsequently returned to Protestantism, he renounced it again in 1593 in order to secure greater support for his reign. Nevertheless, in 1598, Henry established some religious freedom for Protestants with the Edict of Nantes. A religious fanatic assassinated Henry in 1610. After Henry’s death, his wife, Marie de’Medici, served as regent for their son, Louis XIII (r. 1610– 1643). Louis was overshadowed by his mother, and later by the powerful Cardinal Richelieu and Richelieu’s successor, Cardinal Mazarin. Richelieu’s policies greatly increased royal authority and the centralization of the French government. King Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), the son and successor of Louis XIII, ruled France as an absolute monarch, undermining the power of the French nobles and further centralizing the government. Louis XIV emphasized grandeur, building a magnificent palace at Versailles, and he became known as the “Sun-King” because of the extravagance of his court. Following the death of Louis XIV in 1715, the Crown went to his great-grandson, Louis XV (r. 1715–1774), whose principal adviser, André Hercule de Fleury, restored order to the national finances, reversing many of the economic problems

120

B ou r b on Dy na s t y

Bourbon Kings of France

Alfonso XII

1874–1885

Henry IV*

1589–1610

Alfonso XIII

1886–1931

Louis XIII

1610–1643

Juan Carlos*

Louis XIV*

1643–1715

Louis XV*

1715–1774

Bourbon Kings of the Two Sicilies

Louis XVI*

1774–1793

Ferdinand I

1816–1825

Louis XVII

1793–1795

Francis I

1825–1830

Louis XVIII

1814–1824

Ferdinand II

1830–1859

Charles X

1824–1830

Francis II

1859–1860

1975–present

Bourbon Kings of Spain

Bourbon Dukes of Parma

Philip V

Philip

1748–1765

1724

Ferdinand

1765–1802

Ferdinand VI

1746–1759

Charles II

1847–1849

Charles II

1759–1788

Charles II

1849–1854

Charles IV

1788–1808

Roberto

1854–1859

Ferdinand VII

1814–1833

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

Isabella II

1833–1868

Louis I

1700–1746

remaining from the reign of Louis XIV. Upon Fleury’s death in 1743, Louis XV chose not to replace him, relying instead on the advice of court favorites, most notably his mistresses, Madame de Pompadour and the Comtesse Du Barry. Louis’s weakness as a king resulted in growing influence for the aristocracy and increasingly serious fiscal problems for the government. The extravagance and short-sightedness of the Bourbon kings of France were compounded by the indecisiveness of Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) and led directly to the French Revolution. Although Louis made some effort to accept the new political order, the intrigues of the royal court and his queen, Marie Antoinette, undermined his attempts. In 1792, Louis XVI and his family were imprisoned by revolutionaries, and on January 21, 1793, the king was guillotined. Louis’s heir, his eight-year-old son Louis

Charles, was given the title Louis XVII (r. 1793–1795), but the young boy died in prison two years later, in 1795, without ever actually taking the throne. The Bourbon monarchy in France was later restored when, in 1814, a brother of Louis XVI, the comte de Provence, assumed the title of Louis XVIII (r. 1814–1824) after the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte. Initially, Louis XVIII seemed interested in reform, granting a constitutional charter, and appointing moderate ministers. However, ultraroyalist factions gained control, and when his nephew, the duc de Berry, was assasinated by them in 1820, Louis allowed reactionary factions to take control of the government. The result was a deterioration of civil liberties and increased abuses of power by the wealthy classes. Following the death of Louis XVIII in 1824, his

B ou r b on Dy na s t y brother Charles took the throne as Charles X (r. 1824–1830). An extreme reactionary, Charles attempted to restore the ancien regime (the old order) of royal authority that had been established in the Middle Ages, but he failed dismally. Following the July Revolution of 1830, Charles X abdicated, ending the rule of the Bourbon kings of France.

SPANISH BOURBONS The Bourbon dynasty came to power in Spain in 1700. Before his death that year, the childless Charles II (r. 1665–1700), the last Habsburg ruler of Spain, designated Philip of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV of France, as his heir. However, Philip’s claim to the throne was contested by other Habsburg claimants, resulting in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), in which France and Spain were allied against England, the Netherlands, and the Holy Roman Empire.Although Spain ultimately lost much of its power as a result of the war, Philip became the first Bourbon ruler of Spain as King Philip V (r. 1700–1746). The Bourbons remained the royal family of Spain for the next three centuries. Throughout their rule, Spain experienced a number of violent upheavals. In the mid-1800s, struggles over succession led to the Carlist Wars (1833–1840; 1873–1876).The greatest upheaval was the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), which led to the establishment of a military dictatorship under Generalissimo Francisco Franco. In 1931, King Alfonso XIII (r. 1886–1931) of Spain was deposed, and a republic was established. Alfonso had designated his son, Don Juan, as successor, but Juan was unable to take the throne while Spain was under Franco’s military dictatorship. However, he succeeded in placing his son, Juan Carlos, under the supervision of General Franco, who groomed the Bourbon heir as his own successor. In 1975, after the death of Franco, Juan Carlos was restored to the Spanish throne as a constitutional monarch, reinstating the Bourbon line in Spain.

BOURBONS IN NAPLES AND SICILY The Bourbon line was established in Naples and Sicily in 1759 when Ferdinand (r. 1769–1825), the son of Charles III of Spain (r. 1759–1788), succeeded to the throne of the two kingdoms after his father became king of Spain. Ferdinand then revived the kingdom of Two Sicilies (Sicily and Naples), which had been united under one rule for nearly 200 years be-

121

ginning in 1519. However, the two kingdoms were not officially merged until 1816. Objections to Ferdinand’s policies led to a popular uprising in 1820, after which Ferdinand was forced to grant the kingdom a constitution. In 1821, however, with help from Austria, Ferdinand restored absolute monarchy in the kingdom and this continued under his Bourbon successors, Francis I (r. 1825–1830), Ferdinand II (r. 1830–1859), and Francis II (r. 1859–1860). In 1860, Sicily was captured by the republican forces of the Italian patriot leader Giuseppi Garibaldi. Francis II was deposed in 1860, ending a little more than 100 years of Bourbon rule. The following year, the kingdom of Two Sicilies was merged with the kingdom of Italy.

BOURBONS IN PARMA The duchy of Parma and Piacenza in northern Italy was created in 1545 by Pope Paul III (r. 1534–1549), who bequeathed it to his son, Pier Luigi Farnese.The Farnese family ruled Parma and Piacenza until 1731, when the duchy passed through the female line to the Bourbons of Spain. When Duke Antonio of Parma (r. 1727–1731) died that year, Charles I (r. 1731–1736) assumed the throne. Charles was the son of Antonio’s niece, Elizabeth Farnese, and King Philip V of Spain (r. 1700–1746). In 1736, Charles I was forced to give up Parma to Austria, which kept control of the duchy until 1748. Under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), which ended the war of the Austrian Succession (1740– 1748), the duchy was restored and Charles’s younger brother, Philip, became duke, reestablishing the house of Bourbon-Parma. Parma remained under Bourbon control until 1802, when Napoleon annexed the duchy as part of France. It was restored to the Bourbons in 1847 under Duke Charles II (r. 1847–1849), but when Robert of Parma (r. 1854–1859) was deposed in 1859, Bourbon rule ended.The following year, the duchy was united with the kingdom of Italy. See also: French Monarchies; Naples, Kingdom of; Sicily, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Carr, Raymond. Spain 1808–1975. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Seward, Desmond. The Bourbon Kings of France. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1976.

122

B r ag a n ç a Dy na s t y

BRAGANÇA DYNASTY (1640–1910 C.E., Portugal; 1822–1889 C.E., Brazil)

Descendants of an illegitimate son of João I (r. 1385–1433) and the ruling family of Portugal and its colonies for nearly three hundred years. The Portuguese Braganças were a wealthy and powerful dynasty. As nearly absolute rulers, they helped Portugal regain its independence from Spain, stabilized Portugal’s overseas empire, and carried out numerous public works projects. Although their power diminished greatly after the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), they maintained their hold on the Portuguese throne, despite internal political upheavals, for nearly a century more. Although Portugal and Brazil are now republics, the Braganças continue to assert their claims to the thrones of both countries.

THE THRONE OF PORTUGAL In 1640, Philip IV of Spain (r. 1621–1665), who ruled Portugal as King Philip III (r. 1621–1640), was facing a revolt in Catalonia and demanded soldiers and money from his Portuguese subjects. A number of noble landowners objected to these demands and persuaded the eighth duke of Bragança to replace Philip on the Portuguese throne. Ruling as João IV (r. 1640–1656), this first Bragança king spent much of his reign raising money to resist the Spanish armies at home and Dutch encroachments on Portuguese colonies abroad. He also reduced the power of the Portuguese Inquisition. João IV died in 1656 and was succeeded by his son, Afonso VI (r. 1656–1667), who was partially paralyzed and may have been mentally impaired.The key event of Afonso’s reign was the marriage of his sister Catarina to Charles II of England (r. 1660– 1685). In return for a sizable dowry, colonies, and trade concessions, Portugal received military aid from England. Still, Spain did not recognize Portugal’s independence until February 1668. Under Afonso’s brother, Pedro II (r. 1683–1706), Portugal increased religious toleration in its colonies. Trade with India revived somewhat, and small shipments of settlers to Mozambique helped strengthen Portugal’s presence in southeast Africa, which would continue into the mid-twentieth century. In 1697, prospectors struck gold in Brazil.This find, and the discovery of diamonds in 1728 under João V (r. 1706–1750), contributed to the perception that Portugal’s ruling family was the richest in

the world. It was also powerful, ruling without a Cortes, or parliament, from 1689 to 1822. During the eighteenth century, Bragança rulers and their ministers abolished slavery within Portugal (it remained legal in the colonies until 1869); introduced reforms in law, education, and commerce; encouraged intellectual endeavors; and helped Lisbon recover from the terrible earthquake of 1755. The century ended with João VI (r. 1816–1826) becoming regent in 1799 for his mother María I (r. 1777–1816), who had sunk into deep depression and mental illness.

EXILE AND DECLINING FORTUNES In 1807, Napoleon invaded Portugal. João VI fled to Brazil with his mother Queen María, his wife, and their children. Thus began a steep decline in the power of Portuguese rulers. The king returned to Lisbon in 1821 to find his power circumscribed by a constitution. The following year, his son Pedro declared Brazil’s independence from Portugal and ruled Brazil as Pedro I (r. 1822–1831). João’s death in 1826 ushered in a succession crisis that pitted Pedro’s young daughter, the future María II (r. 1834– 1853), against her uncle Miguel. The succession struggle lasted for years and further reduced the prestige and power of the Bragança dynasty. The Bragança dynasty ruled Brazil until 1889, when Pedro II (r. 1831–1889) was deposed and the country became a republic. Meanwhile, despite their diminished importance in Portugal, the Braganças in that country weathered a succession of parliamentary governments, as well as several popular revolts and economic crises. Agitation for a republic, however, grew loud. In 1908, King Carlos I (r. 1889–1908) and his eldest son were assassinated.Two years later, a group of army officers instigated an uprising, and Manuel I (r. 1908–1910) was forced to abdicate, ending the monarchy in Portugal. See also: Habsburg Dynasty; Iberian Kingdoms; João (John) VI; Pedro I; Pedro II.

BRAHMARSI-DESA KINGDOM (ca. 1500–1000 B.C.E.)

Kingdom in northern India that was founded by Indo-Aryan migrants from central Asia in the second millennium b.c.e.

B r a z i l , Port u g u e s e M on a rc h y o f Around 2000 b.c.e., nomadic invaders from Central Asia forced groups of Indo-Aryan peoples from their original homeland between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. As the tribes scattered across Asia, the Aryans pushed the farthest east. After crossing the rugged Hindu Kush Mountains (in present-day Kashmir and Afghanistan), the migrants settled in the Brahmavarta and Kurukshetra regions of northern India and established the Brahmarsi-Desa kingdom. The name Brahmarsi-Desa means “the land of divine sages,” and although many details about the kingdom remain unknown, it retains an exalted position in Indian history. According to tradition, Kurukshetra was the site of the legendary holy war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, two groups whose struggle for power forms the main theme of the great Hindu epic, the Mahabharata.The region of Brahmavarta was the Holy Land of seven great rivers, including the Indus and the sacred Ganges River. Of perhaps even greater importance, however, was the role of the Aryan priests of the BrahmarsiDesa kingdom, who crafted the works known as the Vedas (“Books of Knowledge”), which preserved Aryan history, religious rites, songs, poems, and social customs. The Vedas were passed down orally through successive generations until they were first transcribed around 600 b.c.e. They eventually became the most revered works in Indian Hindu culture. The Vedas describe how the Aryans arrived in India and battled the native population for supremacy. They describe the bamboo homes of the Aryans, reveal that the Aryans formed villages with surrounding farmland, and used chariots and bronze weapons in battle. The Vedas also describe how the Aryans introduced the Sanskrit language to India. Most importantly, the Vedas describe the four social castes that became the basis of Indian society. Priests and the most learned members of Aryan society occupied the highest caste, known as the Brahman. Members of the military and the ruling family belonged to the Kshatriya caste.The Vasiya caste consisted of artisans and farmers, while peasants and servants constituted the lowest caste, the Sudra. These caste distinctions have lasted thousands of years and into the modern era. The Aryans of the Brahmarsi-Desa kingdom gradually assimilated with the indigenous population of northern India. Native Indians adopted the caste sys-

123

tem and many of the beliefs contained in the Vedas, while the Aryans converted to Hinduism and adopted many Indian social customs. By about the tenth century b.c.e., the Aryans no longer lived in homogenous communities, and the Brahmarsi-Desa kingdom dissolved into the various states that existed before the rise of the Maurya Empire, India’s first great empire, in the fourth century b.c.e. Although the Brahmarsi-Desa kingdom disappeared, its Aryan founders had introduced social philosophies and ideas that had a permanent impact on the subsequent civilizations of India. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire; South Asian Kingdoms.

BRAZIL, PORTUGUESE MONARCHY OF (1822–1889 C.E.) Kingdom in Brazil formed as a result of the invasion of Portugal by the armies of Napoleon Bonaparte, which served as a monarchy in exile for Portuguese rulers. Brazil had been a colony of Portugal since 1494, when Pope Alexander VI interceded between Spain and Portugal to settle their competing claims to territory in the Americas with the Treaty of Tordesillas. The colony of Brazil came to represent an enormous source of wealth for the Portuguese throne, and over the centuries a great many Portuguese nationals settled there.Thus, in 1807, when the prince regent of Portugal, João VI (r. 1799–1816 as regent), found himself facing the armies of Napoleon as they marched on Lisbon, Brazil seemed a logical destination to which to flee. João’s regency had been dictated by the infirmity of his wife, Maria I (r. 1777–1816), who was the acknowledged Portuguese sovereign but was deemed unfit to rule because she suffered from dementia. Maria died nine years after the royal family’s flight to Brazil, and João became full sovereign. He established Rio de Janiero as the new seat of the exiled Portuguese government and raised the status of the colony to that of kingdom. These measures were intended to be temporary, until the military situation with Napoleon could be resolved. But even after Napoleon was expelled from Portugal, João remained in Brazil, returning home only in 1821 at the command of the Cortes (Portuguese parliament).

124

B r a z i l , Port u g u e s e M on a rc h y o f was governed by a regency, but he was allowed to assume full sovereignty at age thirteen. Pedro II was a popular ruler throughout much of his reign, but Great Britain’s abolition of the lucrative Atlantic slave trade in 1807 had undermined the foundation of the Brazilian economy.The later years of his reign saw a rising popular demand for establishing a republic in place of the monarchy. In 1889, a revolutionary movement led by Brazilian military leader Manuel Deodoro de Fonseca succeeded in overthrowing the monarchy, ending nearly four hundred years of Portuguese rule. See also: João (John) VI; Pedro I; Pedro II; South American Monarchies. FURTHER READING

de Costa, E.V. The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

In 1824, Emperor Pedro I of Brazil declared independence from Portugal and issued the kingdom’s first constitution. Two years later, upon the death of his father, King João VI of Portugal, Pedro renounced the Portuguese throne in favor of his daughter, Maria II. He later abdicated the Brazilian throne, passing it to his son, Pedro II.

When João returned to Portugal, he left the administration of Brazil in the hands of his son, Pedro I (r. 1822–1831). Pedro was not content to let Brazil remain subordinate to Portugal, regardless of centuries of history. Within a year of taking the throne, he declared Brazil to be fully independent from Portugal, and in 1824, he promulgated the kingdom’s first constitution. When his father João died in 1826, the Cortes demanded that Pedro return to Lisbon to assume the throne there. Forced to choose, Pedro abdicated his Portuguese throne to his daughter, Maria, who later became Maria II (r. 1834–1853). Pedro’s decision did not secure his rule in Brazil, however, for he had lost the support of the people with a disastrous war against Argentina in 1828, during the course of which he lost a large tract of territory (now the country of Uruguay). In 1831, Pedro was forced to abdicate the Brazilian throne to his son, Pedro II (r. 1831–1889), who was then only five years old. During the early years of Pedro II’s rule, Brazil

BRETAGNE DUCHY (936–1532 C.E.) Duchy in northwest France (Brittany) that was ruled by a succession of dukes with varying degrees of independence from France. After the Romans departed Gaul (France) in the fifth century, the region of Bretagne, or Brittany, was settled by Celtic peoples from Britain and Ireland. Since then, the region has remained quite independent from the rest of France in terms of its language and culture.Although Bretagne became a province of France in 1532, the desire for political independence continued to surface within the region. The people of Bretagne first tasted independence from all foreign powers in 846, when a Breton warrior named Nomenoë led them in a revolt against the Carolingian ruler Charles the Bald (r. 843–877), the king of the West Franks. This independence was short-lived, however. In 921, the Vikings conquered the region of Bretagne, and then, in 933, the area was conquered by the Normans. During this period of conquest by foreigners, many Bretons fled to England. One of them, Alan Barbetorte, a descendant of ancient Breton royalty, returned to Brittany in 936 and led a successful campaign to oust the Normans. Barbetorte then established a government in the captured town of Nantes and ruled Bretagne as Duke Alan I (r. 937–952). When Alan I died in 952, there was no clear

B ro o k e, S i r Ja m e s ( R aj a h ) choice of a successor since his only legitimate son died shortly thereafter. This led to a succession rivalry that continued until 1066, when Hoël, the count of Nantes and Cornouaille, reunited much of Bretagne through inheritance and marriage. Although some internal discord remained in the duchy, a prosperous period began that lasted until another disputed succession in the early 1300s resulted in civil war. Duke Jean III (r. 1312–1341) of Bretagne had no legitimate children, and upon his death in 1341, succession passed to his niece Jean de Penthievre and her husband, Charles de Blois. Jean’s uncle, Jean de Montfort, the son of Duke Arthur II of Bretagne (r. 1305–1312), was her rival for the throne. Charles de Blois ruled from 1341 to 1364, but throughout his reign control of the duchy was contested in the War of the Bretagne Succession. In 1369, during a war between France and England, Jean de Montfort openly declared his support for England and sought refuge there. Charles de Blois allowed French troops to occupy Bretagne, but the independent-spirited Bretons welcomed Montfort back to rid them of the French, which he did with English assistance. Finally, in the second Treaty of Guerande (1381), France recognized Montfort as duke of Bretagne. Peace with France ushered in a period of prosperity and peace for the duchy, which was marked by opulence and heraldry. This culminated in the marriage of the duchess of Bretagne to the king of France. Anne (r. 1488–1514), the daughter of Francis II of Bretagne (r. 1458–1488), became duchess upon her father’s death in 1488, and she was the last ruler of an independent Bretagne. In 1491, Anne married King Charles VIII of France (1483–1498), but the duchy of Bretagne remained her personal property. After Charles died in 1498, Anne married King Louis XII of France (r. 1498–1515). When Anne died in 1514, her daughter Claude inherited the title duchess of Bretagne. Claude, the wife of King Francis I (r. 1515–1547) of France, transferred Bretagne to her husband at the time of their marriage, on the condition that their son Francois be made duke. After her death, France continued to rule Bretagne until 1532, when it was formally incorporated into France as a French province, marking the end of the independent Bretagne Duchy. See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Francis I; Norman Kingdoms.

125

BRITTANY. See Bretagne Duchy BROOKE, SIR JAMES (RAJAH) (1803–1868 C.E.)

Rajah of Sarawak (r. 1841–1868), a kingdom that occupied the northeast portion of the island of Borneo, who played an important role in gaining the country’s independence. James Brooke, the first rajah of Sarawak, was the son of an officer in the British East India Company. Born in Benares, India, on April 29, 1803, Brooke spent the first part of his life there. When he was twelve years old, his parents sent him home to England for schooling, while they remained on duty in India. School did not agree with the young James, however, and he ran away after attending for only two years. As soon as he was old enough, Brooke applied for and received a commission in the British army. He was sixteen years old at the time. Brooke found the military more to his liking, and he received regular promotions. When war broke out against British colonial rule in Burma in 1824, he put together a volunteer force ready to fight, but he was shipped home less than a year later after being wounded in battle. After spending a few years in England, he began traveling, visiting China and other places in Asia and Southeast Asia. In 1839, Brooke offered his military skills to the sultan of Brunei, who was having trouble with rebellious factions in Sarawak, which was then under the sultan’s rule. It took nearly three years, but Brooke succeeded in pacifying the rebel forces. The sultan rewarded him in 1842 by giving him the title “White Rajah” of Sarawak. Sir James’s rule as rajah of Sarawak lasted twentysix years, during which time he dealt with numerous rebellions and embarked on a campaign of territorial expansion. Desirous of autonomy, he sought to break ties with Brunei, and he achieved some measure of success in 1850, when the United States recognized Sarawak’s independence. It would be another fourteen years, however, before Britain did the same. By then Sir James was seriously ill. Some years earlier, Sir James had received a visit from one of his nephews, Charles Anthony Johnson. After schooling and a stint in the Royal Navy, Charles had joined his uncle in Sarawak in 1852 and offered

126

B ro o k e, S i r Ja m e s ( R aj a h )

his services.When Sir James suffered his first stroke a few years later, he relied heavily on his nephew. When continued ill health forced Sir James to return to England, he named Charles his successor. At this point, Charles abandoned the surname of his birth and took the name Brooke instead. Sir James returned to Sarawak in May 1868 but was never truly able to return to rule. He suffered a final stroke in June of that year, and Charles succeeded him as rajah. Sir Charles (r. 1868–1917) ruled Sarawak for the next forty-nine years, during which time his country became a British protectorate in 1888.The last independent rajah of Sarawak was Charles Vyner Brooke (r. 1917–1946), the son of Charles Anthony Johnson Brooke, who ceded the country to Great Britain as a colony in 1946. See also: Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

BUDDHISM AND KINGSHIP Impact of Buddhist belief on the concept and practice of kingship on monarchies in Asia.The Buddhist idea of kingship, based on the extensive body of Buddhist literature, focused on the moral and political authority and legitimacy of the Buddhist king. Buddhism first developed as a philosophy that challenged the limitations of the early Hindu beliefs in providing a means of salvation for peoples belonging to the lower castes of society. Because knowledge was an essential aspect of Hinduism, only the upper class of Brahmans possessed the means of salvation, for they were the only ones in Hindu society who knew the rituals of the sacrificial ceremonies. The doctrines developed by Gautama Siddhartha, a prince of the Sakya people who became known as the Buddha upon his attainment of enlightenment, allowed the common people a chance to attain enlightenment regardless of their station in life. His teachings spread far and wide throughout South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and East Asia after his death in around 486 b.c.e.Although little was known for certain about the Buddha’s life, later Buddhist writings by his followers contained colorful and vivid descriptions of his life.These included a collection of the Buddha’s sermons in the Sutta Pitaka (a Pali Buddhist text containing 10,000 discourses given by the Buddha) and literary works such as Asvaghosa’s Buddhacarita (written around the fifth century c.e.).

BUDDHIST COUNCILS AND SPREAD OF BUDDHISM The Buddha’s teachings did not appear to contain any explicit instructions on the concept of kingship; this concept would only be described in later Buddhist scriptures commissioned by kings and written under the auspices of the Buddhist councils and monastic orders. According to tradition, the first general council on Buddhist teachings was held soon after the Buddha’s death, at which the Buddha’s disciples, Upali and Ananda, recited the Buddha’s sermons on matters of doctrines and ethics.A century later, a second council was held at which a schism, or split, occurred forming the two main branches of the Buddhist order, the Sthaviravadins or Theravadi (“Lesser Vehicle”) and Mahayana (“Greater Vehicle”). By the time of the third council, held under the patronage of King Asoka (r. 268–232 b.c.e) of the Indian Maurya Empire in third century b.c.e., many Buddhist works of later composition were already added into the Buddhist religious traditions. Ac-

This image of two seated Buddhas, from the interior of the Ajanta caves in India’s Maharashtra state, was painted in the fifth century during the Gupta Dynasty. By the sixth century, Buddhism had begun to wane in India. This was followed by a resurgence of Hinduism and then Islam.

Buddhism and Kingship cording to ancient Ceylonese and Burmese chronicles, it was at the third religious council that Mogaliputta Tissa, one of the Buddhist Council leaders, sent missionaries to spread the Buddhist faith to various regions from Southeast Asia to Central Asia and China.

ELEMENTS OF BUDDHIST KINGSHIP Several themes comprise the key elements of Buddhist kingship: chakravartin (universal monarch), dharmaraja (defender and protector of Buddhism), and devaraja (divine kingship).According to Buddhist literature, the essential relationship between the king and his dominions is one based essentially on a social contract between the king and his people.The king’s authority is thus limited not only by sacred law but also by his moral obligations to the people. A Buddhist king gains legitimacy because he is both a protector of the people and the defender of the Buddhist faith. Buddhist rulers in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), India, and kingdoms in Southeast Asia exercised the idea of the universal monarch, or chakravartin (“turner of the wheel of sovereignty”), to justify their conquests of regions beyond the boundaries of their domains. One of the key roles of the king was to spread Buddhism throughout his empire and to regions that were not already Buddhist. The motif of Buddhist king as a conqueror was probably derived from the story of Asoka, a great conqueror of the Mauryan Empire (268–232 b.c.e.), which stretched from the borders of Persia to Central Asia in the northeast. According to tradition, Asoka converted to Buddhism after his bloody campaign at the battle of Kalinga in 257 b.c.e. He then became the ideal model of Buddhist kingship because of his role as conqueror and supporter of the Buddhist faith. Ashoka was known for his extensive development of structures to facilitate the spread of Buddhism, such as the building of shelters and expansion of transportation and communications networks. Another example of the appropriation of the idea of chakravartin to justify territorial conquests is represented in the sixteenth-century invasion of the northern Thai kingdom of Ayudhya (in present-day Thailand) by King Bayinnaung (r. 1551–1581) of the Toungoo kingdom in Burma. Another important element of Buddhist kingship is the king’s role as the dharmaraja—-the defender and protector of Buddhism. According to Buddhist

127

ideals, the king should not only fulfill his duty as defender and protector of the Buddhist religion, but he must also act as the upholder of moral and political hierarchy and order of his kingdom. As the dharmaraja, the king must adhere to ten kingly virtues, five common precepts (or rules), and eight precepts on holy days. The king’s duty as a dharmaraja includes the patronage of monastic orders and the convening of general Buddhist councils to ensure that rules of monastic discipline have been followed. Asoka held the third general council in the third century b.c.e., and King Kaniska I (r. 78–102 c.e.) of the Kushan dynasty of northern India and Afghanistan held a fourth council during the first or second century c.e. The third universal feature of Buddhist kingship is the idea of the king as a divinity, or devaraja. The idea of devaraja is probably best exemplified in the importance of the king’s role as a bodhisattva—a being who has chosen to delay his attainment of enlightenment in order to help his people in their pursuit of salvation. This concept of kingship is present in both the Theravada and Mahayana branches of Buddhism. In the T’ang dynasty (618–907) of China, the popularity of the Goddess of Mercy, or Guanyin, a representation of the Buddhist deity Avalokitesvara, attests to the importance of not only the bodhisattva but also personalities associated with the deity. The T’ang ruler, Empress Wu Tse T’ien (r. 684–705), claimed her status as the bodhisattva who would bring salvation to her people.The faces on the Bayon, a temple complex in Cambodia dating from the twelfth to thirteenth century, was thought to represent the then king of Angkor, Jayavarman VII (r. ca. 1181– 1219) as a bodhisattva. In the mainland Southeast Asian region there is an additional element of Buddhist kingship that refers to the king as a kammaraja (possessor of good merit). Burmese religious texts, such as the Sasanavamsa (“History of the Buddhist Religion”), suggest that the Burmese kings justified their legitimacy to rule by their possession of good kamma, or merit (also known as karma). Burmese chronicles, such as the eighteenth-century Glass Palace Chronicle, describe how some characters, such as a cucumber farmer named Kunhsaw, were able to usurp the throne by killing the Burmese king because of their good karma. Karma is not constant, however; it has to be earned. Kunhsaw was eventually killed when a fallen pillar hit him because he ran out of good merit.

128

Buddhism and Kingship

EXTENT OF THE BUDDHIST RELIGION Buddhism spread over an extensive area of Asia, especially in the first millennium. However, the faith would wane in India by the fifth or sixth century paving the way for a resurgence of Hinduism and then Islam, which was brought to the Indian subcontinent by the Mughals. Theravada Buddhism, however, prevails in Sri Lanka and the mainland Southeast Asian countries of Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia, whereas Mahayana Buddhism retains its prominence in parts of China, Japan, and Korea. A third branch of Buddhism, the Vajrayana School, predominates in Tibet.These regions still share the Buddhist conception of kingship. See also: Caste Systems; Divinity of Kings; Hinduism and Kingship; Islam and Kingship; Legitimacy; Religious Duties and Power; Sacred Kingships.

BUGANDA KINGDOM. See Ganda Kingdom

BULGARIAN MONARCHY (681–1014, 1186–1396, 1878–1944 C.E.)

Kingdom that ruled over part of the Balkan region and the eastern Mediterranean sporadically over a period of thirteen centuries.The long history of Bulgaria can be divided into five distinct periods: First Bulgarian Empire (681–1014), Byzantine occupation (1014–1186), Second Bulgarian Empire (1186– 1396), Ottoman occupation (1396–1878), and Third Bulgarian State (1878–present).

THE BEGINNINGS OF A KINGDOM The first Bulgarian kingdom began with the migration of Slavic peoples into the Balkan Peninsula in the 500s and 600s. Among these people were the Bulgars, a Turkish group who came from north of the Black Sea, conquered the Slavic tribes of the region, and founded the first Bulgarian kingdom in 681. The Bulgars intermarried with the Slavs and became absorbed into the Slavic culture. In the 800s, during the reign of Prince Boris I Michael (r. 852–889), the Bulgars adopted Christianity, creating a common tradition among the people that encour-

aged greater organization as well as growth and development. Boris’s son, Simeon (r. 893–927), continued to advance Bulgaria geographically, culturally, and intellectually. He doubled the size of the kingdom, expanded educational opportunities, supported the arts of painting and music, and funded massive building projects. Simeon’s successors, however, did not prove to be strong leaders, and Bulgaria began to lose territory to encroaching invaders. In 1014, the Byzantine emperor Basil II (r. 976–1025), after winning a battle over the Bulgarian army, ordered 14,000 prisoners to be blinded. This earned him the title of “Bulgar slayer” and led to a period of Byzantine occupation that lasted until 1185.

RETURN AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM In 1185, two brothers, Ivan and Peter Asen, led a revolt against Byzantine rule.Their victory marked the start of the second Bulgarian kingdom. During the reign of Ivan Asen II (r. 1218–1241), Bulgaria once again rose to power, dominating much of the Balkan region.At the end of the century, however, a series of peasant revolts weakened the kingdom and permitted easy invasions by Serbs, Mongols, and, ultimately, a successful attack and subsequent occupation by the Ottoman Turks in 1396. Although the Ottomans occupied Bulgaria for the next five centuries, the country’s history and customs were preserved in its monasteries. In the 1700s, a monk named Paissy used ancient texts to write a history of the Bulgarian people. He used this history to encourage Bulgarians to remember their rich history, thus beginning a national revival. Paissy also urged the expansion of education as primary in importance. The independent Bulgarian Orthodox Exarchate was formed in 1870, and the April Uprising, launched by revolutionaries in 1867, ultimately led to the start of the Russo-Turkish War. This conflict, which lasted from 1877 to 1878, ended with the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano, in which Bulgaria was made an autonomous principality and greatly enlarged, marking the rise of the third Bulgarian kingdom.

THIRD BULGARIAN KINGDOM The history of the third Bulgarian kingdom is characterized, in part, by its conflicts. In 1885, during the reign of Prince Alexander (r. 1879–1886), the

Bundi Kingdom Bulgarians formed a union with the north Balkan regions, which led to an attack by Serbia. Bulgarian forces were victorious over the Serbs, but Alexander abdicated the throne in 1886 because he had lost the favor of Russia, one of his previous supporters. In 1887, Ferdinand I (r. 1887–1918) of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha succeeded to the throne of Bulgaria, taking the title of tsar in 1908. By that time, much of the land gained by the San Stefano Treaty had been lost, and Ferdinand made it the focus of his reign to regain the lost territories.To this end, he formed an alliance with Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece in 1910. This allegiance forced Turkey, during the First Balkan War in 1912, to relinquish its Balkan territories. However, the alliance fell victim to infighting, which led to Bulgaria’s defeat in the Second Balkan War of 1913. Bulgaria again lost land during World War I, giving up territory to Serbia and Greece. There was much domestic opposition to the war, and when Bulgaria’s military position crumbled, Ferdinand abdicated and fled to Germany. His son, Boris III (r. 1918–1943), became king. During World War II, Boris III of Bulgaria allied with Germany, though reluctantly. In spite of this allegiance, Bulgaria did not send forces into combat during the war, nor would it agree to send its Jewish population to the death camps in Poland. Boris died in 1943, leaving the throne to his six-year-old son, Simeon II (r. 1943–1946).

MODERN BULGARIA In September 1944, the Soviet Union invaded and rapidly occupied Bulgaria, abolishing the monarchy and forcing the boy king, Simeon II, into exile to Spain. A communist group, led by Georgi Dimitrov and known as the Fatherland Front, seized power in 1946. After World War II, Bulgaria became a satellite state of the Soviet Union, and it adopted a Soviet communist-style government. Communist rule lasted until November 10, 1989, when Prime Minister Todor Zhivkov was removed from office by democratic reformers, leading to the formation of a parliamentary democracy. Simeon II returned to Bulgaria in 2001, founding a political party that won half the parliamentary seats in the election that year. As Bulgaria’s democratically elected premier, he instituted economic reforms and worked to secure Bulgaria’s admission into the

129

North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. See also: Byzantine Empire; Ottoman Empire. FURTHER READING

Genov, Nikolai, and Anna Krasteva. Recent Social Trends in Bulgaria, 1960–1995. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2001. Tsvetkov, Plamen S. A History of the Balkans: A Regional Overview from a Bulgarian Perspective. San Francisco: EM Text, 1993.

BUNDI KINGDOM (ca. 1300s–1948 C.E.)

Kingdom in northwest India, in the region known as Rajastan, which was home to one of the many Rajput clans of northern and central India. The former princely state of Bundi, known historically as Haraoti, was established in the fourteenth century by the Hara branch of the Chauhan dynasty, one of the various Rajput clans that claimed connection with ancient Hindu epics.The kingdom took the name of its principal town, Bundi, which had been named after Bunda, a thirteenth-century chieftain. The state of Bundi was founded around 1342 by Rao Dewa, a Hara chief who captured the town from a group called the Minas. The state remained relatively unimportant, however, until the time of Rao Surjan (r. ca. 1554–1583), who succeeded to the chieftainship in 1554. In return for his cooperation and allegiance, the Mughal emperors of Delhi gave Rao Surjan the title “Raja,” or prince. This princely title would pass to successive rulers of Bundi. The Mughals also gave Bundi a considerable amount of territory, part of which came to be known as the kingdom of Kota. (Modern Kota is a walled city in northwestern India, just east of the Chambal River.) At first, Kota was granted to the eldest son of the Bundi ruler. In 1624, however, the Mughal ruler, Jahangir (r. 1605–1627), partitioned Bundi and made Kota an independent state. As a result, the territory of the Bundi kingdom was greatly reduced in size. In 1625, Rao Madho Singh (r. 1625–1656), the son of the ruler of Bundi, took the throne of Kota. Despite its reduced size, Bundi continued to play an important role in Indian history. In the early 1700s, the Bundi ruler, Budh Singh (r. 1706–1729),

130

Bundi Kingdom

was awarded imperial recognition for helping Bahadur Shah I (r. 1707–1712) gain the Mughal throne in the succession struggle that erupted after the death of Bahadur’s father,Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707). In 1804, Raja Bishan Singh of Bundi (r. 1770–1821) gave valuable assistance to the British in their disastrous retreat before the armies of the Maratha Confederacy. In revenge, the Marathas continually ravaged Bundi until 1818, when the kingdom was placed under British protection. In 1821, Bishan Singh was succeeded by his son, Ram Singh (r. 1821–1889). Ram Singh exemplified the Rajput gentleman. A disciple of Balak Singh, the founder of the Sikh movement for independence (known as the Namdhari movement), he instilled a sense of self-worth and dignity in his followers. He continued to enjoy the favor of the British government during the Sepoy Mutiny (1857–1858) and was much honored for his support of the British during that uprising against British colonial rule. A year after India gained its independence from Great Britain in 1947, Bundi became part of the Indian state of Rajasthan. See also: Aurangzeb; Indian Kingdoms; Jahangir; Kota Kingdom; Mughal Empire; Rajasthan Kingdom.

BUNYORO KINGDOM. See Nyoro Kingdom

BUREAUCRACY, ROYAL A system of specialized officials who execute the monarch’s will and the administrative functions of the royal government. Derived from the French word for “desk” or “office” (bureau), royal bureaucrats were divided into an organizational hierarchy with a centralized chain of command. In Europe, bureaucracies were organized by function into groups or departments, such as finance, commerce, security, and justice. Bureaucracies also included royal experts in all areas, from medicine to manufacturing, who advised the monarch on all sorts of issues. Bureaucracies were intended to regularize government and apply the dictates of royal law uniformly to all the ruler’s subjects. They also were used to increase and consolidate the ruler’s political and financial power.

ORIGINS OF BUREAUCRACIES Most of the world’s monarchies throughout history have had some form of bureaucracy. Indeed, the earliest governments of ancient Mesopotamia had officials who developed writing to help the king collect taxes and administer his government. Generally, as both populations and territories grew, so too did royal bureaucracies. Rulers usually expanded bureaucracies to consolidate political power and to increase their ability to collect taxes. They usually consolidated their power by undercutting the power of the landed nobility, while increases in revenue were usually used to fund military activities.

ROYAL REVENUE Bureaucracies were often expanded to meet the need for more royal revenue. For example, when the European monarchs in the seventeenth century needed money for their numerous wars, many expanded their bureaucracies to centralize power and increase royal revenues. Not only had there been more warfare in the wake of the religious changes in the sixteenth century, but new military technology demanded larger armies and equipment. Monarchs needed much more revenue to fund these armies and a larger bureaucracy to collect the money. This process was self-perpetuating, however. The buildup in bureaucracy and royal revenue also fueled warfare and the military aggrandizement of the state, as in the case of the territorial wars between Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715)) and the Habsburg Empire.

SURVEILLANCE AND CENSORSHIP The desire to apply royal law in a uniform manner and to regularize government meant that royal bureaucrats needed to collect information on their subjects. During the Ch’ing dynasty (1644–1912) in China, the government used surveys and audits to gauge the effectiveness of the royal administration. Most rulers also used the bureaucracy to ensure that all subjects followed a uniform ideology, whether it be an “official” religion, philosophical school, or view of history. Censorship or ideological repression was a common function of royal bureaucracies.

BUREAUCRATS Rulers frequently employed bureaucrats from outside the traditional elite classes to consolidate power in new territories or to increase power in an existing kingdom. Louis XIV of France, for example, hoped

Burgundy Kingdom to centralize his power by replacing many of his noble officers with educated non-nobles in the seventeenth century. These bureaucrats answered directly to a few central officials appointed by the king. Not born to privilege, all owed their position to the king and were quite loyal to him. It was also hoped that non-noble officials would apply royal law fairly to all subjects, not just to the privileged few. Not all bureaucracies were formed with educated commoners, however. In the nineteenth century, the rulers of the African kingdom of Merina used talented individuals from their traditional aristocracy to staff their bureaucracy. Regardless of origins, royal bureaucrats were expected to bring the expertise of a university education (usually) and realworld experience to the royal government and to give the ruler advice. The French had a Council of Commerce in the eighteenth century made up of top merchants and businessmen to give the Crown advice on commerce and manufacturing matters. Most rulers had several royal physicians who provided not only personal medical care but also recommendations on public sanitation and hygiene law. Most of the world’s royal bureaucracies shared some common characteristics: centralization of power and administration, use of select talented officials, common ideology, militarism, and a desire to impose a uniform application of the laws on all subjects. The early Ch’in dynasty (221–207 b.c.e.) of China typified this sort of administration. Shi Huang Ti (Shihuangdi) (r. 221–210 b.c.e.), the first emperor, developed a centralized bureaucracy of talented officials, established an administrative system of prefectures, expanded his army and territories, suppressed rival thought systems, built roads, and established a uniform writing system. He laid the foundation for future Chinese rulers by using the bureaucracy to consolidate power and increase revenue.

131

ORIGINS The kingdom of Burgundy originated among the Germanic Burgundians, one of many Germanic peoples who moved into the northern Roman Empire in the early centuries c.e. Like the Franks, another Germanic people, the Burgundians were foederati, or confederated allies of Rome, not its enemies. During the fifth century, the Burgundians enjoyed relative independence from Rome under their king, Gundobad (r. ca. 473–516), often serving in the armies of the Western Roman Empire and influencing imperial succession until the disintegration of the empire in 476. By the middle of the sixth century, however, Burgundy had fallen under the control of the Merovongian Franks. The next 300 years were characterized by warfare among the several Frankish kingdoms.

See also: Councils and Counselors, Royal; Courts and Court Officials, Royal.

BURGUNDY KINGDOM (300s–534; 800s–1030 C.E.)

A medieval kingdom and duchy of northern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, first established in the fourth century and later reincorporated in the seventh century as the kingdom of Jurane-Burgundy.

Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy from 1419 to 1467, allied his duchy with England against King Charles VII of France, a traditional rival. During wars between the two nations, Philip’s forces captured the French heroine Joan of Arc and handed her over to English authorities for trial.

132

Burgundy Kingdom

JURANE-BURGUNDY After the fall of the Carolingian Frankish Empire in the ninth century, most of Burgundy once again became an independent state, the kingdom of JuraneBurgundy. But the intervening centuries had erased a coherent sense of identity, and the kingdom failed to prosper. The last king of an autonomous Burgundy, Rudolph III (r. ca. 993–1032), died in 1032 without an heir. Upon his death, Burgundy was divided, with most of the region becoming part of the Holy Roman Empire and a smaller part being absorbed by France. This division continued into the late Middle Ages, with the territories and titles of Burgundy being hotly contested between France and Germany.

DUCHY OF BURGUNDY The French portion of Burgundy became the semiautonomous duchy of Burgundy in 1032, when a grandson of the French Capetian ruler, Hugh Capet (r. 987–996), was given the duchy after Rudolph III’s death.The Capetians ruled for the next 300 years, a period that was the most stable and prosperous in Burgundian history. The duchy’s stability changed after 1361, when the last Capetian duke of Burgundy, Philip de Rouvres (r. 1347–1361), died without an heir. The title went to King John II of France (r. 1350–1364), member of the Valois dynasty, who gave the duchy to his son, Philip the Bold (r. 1363–1404). Philip the Bold added to Burgundian territory through an advantageous marriage in 1369 to Margaret of Flanders, who brought significant areas of northern France (Franche-Comte, Flanders, and Artois) into the ducal domain. Philip’s son and successor, John the Fearless (r. 1404–1419), used the increased power of Burgundy earned by his father to vie unsuccessfully for the throne of France. The unrest caused by John’s efforts to gain the throne of France weakened that country as well as Burgundy. John was assassinated in 1419 and succeeded by his son, Philip the Good (r. 1419–1467), who allied himself with the English against the French king, Charles VII (r. 1422–1461). It was Philip the Good who turned Joan of Arc over to English authorities. Burgundy and France eventually made peace following the Treaty of Arras in 1435, which made Burgundy a powerful and virtually autonomous realm within France. Philip also acquired Namur, Luxem-

bourg, and Holland, which, together with Flanders and Artois, formed what was known as the Burgundian Netherlands. The last duke of Burgundy of the Valois line, Charles the Bold (r. 1467–1477), followed in his father’s footsteps by waging war to expand Burgundian territory. Like his father, Charles dreamed of a truly independent Burgundian kingdom. He succeeded in uniting parts of the Low Countries and Switzerland with Burgundy before being killed in battle in 1477. Charles the Bold left no male heir, and his daughter Mary (r. 1477–1482) inherited his titles. However, under Burgundy’s law of primogeniture (inheritance by the oldest son), a woman could not rule alone.As a result, Mary was married to the future Holy Roman emperor Maximillian I (r. 1493–1519), and the Burgundian Netherlands thus passed into the hands of the Austrian Habsburg dynasty. The duchy of Burgundy itself never fell under Habsburg imperial control, however, because the French king, Louis XI (r. 1461–1483), successfully claimed it for France. As a result, duke of Burgundy became a Habsburg title, but the duchy of Burgundy was absorbed into the kingdom of France. See also:Carolingian Dynasty; Flanders, County of; Frankish Kingdom; French Monarchies; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Merovingian Dynasty.

BURMESE KINGDOMS (ca. 1 B.C.E.–1886 C.E.)

Kingdoms and dynasties that ruled Burma (now Myanmar) that shared borders and cultural influences with India and China. Burma’s early history is the story of conflict between the various ethnic groups that migrated down the Irrawaddy River from the north, including the Mon and the Pyu peoples, the Shan (T’ai), and the Burmese.

ORIGINS Beginning in the first century b.c.e. and continuing until the ninth century c.e., people known as the Pyu, devout Buddhists who also worshiped the Hindu god Vishnu, established city-kingdoms in the region that later became Burma. These citykingdoms prospered because of their location along trade routes between China and India.

Burmese Kingdoms Various Pyu dynasties ruled the city-kingdoms in Burma during this period. The Vikrama dynasty (673–718) ruled from old Prome, or Sri Ksetra, which was situated at the fertile mouth of the Irrawaddy River.The Vikrama dynasty enjoyed a powerful rule in the Irrawaddy Valley until the T’ai people invaded from Nanchao, near Yunnan, China, between 760 and 832. After the T’ai invasion, the Pyu moved northward and eventually disappeared from historical records. People known as the Mon, originally from western China, also migrated into the region and established states there. They, in turn, were defeated by southward-migrating people who formed the kingdom of Pagan.

THE PAGAN KINGDOM In 1044, King Anawrahta (r. 1044–1077), a Burman military leader who used elephants on a large scale in warfare, founded the great Pagan (Bagan) kingdom and empire (1044–1287). Anawrahta was the first ruler to unify most of Burma. He exerted his influence throughout the central Irrawaddy River Valley and to the south, where he captured the Mon kingdom of Thaton in 1057 and deported its entire population to Pagan. The capture of Thaton brought the Pagans into direct contact with the Mon’s rich Indian cultural heritage and opened a window to Buddist centers overseas. Kyanzittha (r. 1084–1112), Pagan’s third king, enjoyed a peaceful reign and heightened the prestige of the city of Pagan by building the famous Ananda Pagoda and restoring the most sacred place in the Buddist world, the Mahabodhi Temple at Bodhgaya. He made increasing contacts with the outside world, especially with China. In 1287, the Pagan kingdom, under Narathiahapate (r. 1254–1287), fell to the Mongols led by Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294), who ruled as emperor of China.

SHAN DOMINATION From the fourteenth to mid-sixteenth centuries, the kingdoms of the Shan (1364–1555) and the Mon (1353–1539) competed for dominance in Burma. Thadominbya (r. 1364–1368) was the first king of the Shan kingdom. The Shan kingdom was fraught with conflict until reunification with Burma in 1555. The Mon kingdom at Pegu, founded by Wareru (r. 1287–1296), was relatively peaceful. Its greatest ruler, Dammazedi (r. 1472–1492), was honored as a saint at his death.

133

TOUNGOO AND KONBAUNG DYNASTIES Established by a Burman leader named Minkyinyo (r. 1486–1531), the Toungoo dynasty flourished from 1486 to 1752. Minkyinyo’s son and successor, Tabinshwehti (r. 1531–1550), unified Upper and Lower Burma in 1539 when he conquered the Mon people and made the port city of Pegu his capital. Tabinshwehti failed, however, in his attempt to capture Siam, and the kingdom began to fall apart after his death in 1550. Tabinshwehti’s brother-in-law, Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581), conquered Ayuthia, the Siam capital, and other Shan states, including the ancient capital of Ava, between 1554 and 1568. Bayinnaung restored Pegu as a great commercial center and, in 1555, he reunited much of Upper and Lower Burma. However, with the accession of Bayinnaung’s son, Nandabayin (r. 1581–1599), Siam reasserted its independence and the Toungoo dynasty began to decline. By the 1600s, many Westerners were living and trading in Burma’s seaports. In 1613, a Portuguese mercenary named Philip de Brito y Nicote, who served as governor of the province of Syriam, became ruler of Lower Burma. De Brito held control until his defeat by Bayinnaung’s grandson, Anaukpetlun (r. 1605–1648) in 1613. Anaukpetlun’s successor, King Thalun (r. 1629–1648), moved the capital of Upper Burma from Pegu to the more isolated Ava in 1635, while Lower Burma had greater contact with European traders. Thalun’s reign was peaceful, and he improved the kingdom’s revenues. But his dynasty grew weak when Manchu forces chased Yung-Li (Yong-Li), the Ming claimant to the imperial throne of China, to Burma and battled on its soil.The Mons took this opportunity to rebel. They established their dynasty at Pegu and captured Ava in 1752, ending the Toungoo dynasty. The last Burmese dynasty, the Konbaung dynasty, was founded by Alaungpaya (r. 1753–1760) in 1752 and continued until 1886. Alaungpaya (“embryo Buddha”), a great warrior, recaptured Ava from the Mons only a year after its fall, and he soon reunited Upper and Lower Burma. In 1755,Alaungpaya occupied Dagon, the site of the revered Shwedagon Pagoda, and established Yangon (Rangoon) there, the capital of modern Burma. During his reign, Alaungpaya conquered the Manipur kingdom in northeastern India and, in Burma, the Shan kingdom of Mai, and the states of Syriam and Pegu.

134

Burmese Kingdoms

CONFLICTS WITH THE BRITISH King Bodawpaya (r. 1782–1819), a younger son of Alaungpaya, seized the Burmese throne in 1782 from his nephew, Maung Maung (r. 1782). Bodawpaya assassinated all possible rivals, moved his capital to Amarapura in northern Burma, and conquered and annexed Arakan, a province bordering Bengal in India. The Arakanese, however, revolted against Burmese rule. They fled into territory held by the British East India Company and attempted to reconquer Arakan from there, succeeding in 1811. In 1821 King Bagyidaw (r. 1819–1853), Bodawpaya’s grandson and successor, attacked Manipur and Assam, worsening relations with the British through a succession of border incidents. Britain sent forces from India and claimed victory over the Burmese king during the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826), forcing Bagyidaw to relinquish rights to Manipur and other states between Burma and British India. Burma’s dynastic legacy ended with Thibaw Min (1878–1885), who took the throne in 1878 as an inexperienced nineteen-year-old ruler. The British deposed Thibaw in 1885, annexed his kingdom, and forced him into exile in India. Soon after, in January 1886, all of Burma became a province of British India. See also: Alaungpaya Dynasty; Manipur Kingdom; Mon Kingdom; Pagan Kingdom; Pegu Kingdom; Shan Kingdoms; Thibaw; Toungoo Dynasty.

orifics, but none took the title of caliph, which was reserved for members of the ruling Abbasid dynasty for nearly three hundred years. The Buyid rise to power, however, did alter the character of the Abbasid caliphate, as Abbasid power became decentralized, residing more in vassal dynasties supported by local military. How much obeisance these individual rulers felt they owed the caliph varied from ruler to ruler, depending on the military strength of the respective parties. After the death of Buyeh’s sons, rule continued to be split among family members and provinces until 977, when it was consolidated briefly under Adud ad-Dawlah (r. 949–983).The Buyid dynasty reached its zenith during that time, as Adud ad-Dawlah increased the holdings of the domains, established diplomatic relations with the Samanids, Hamdanids, Byzantines, and Fatimids, and had a dam built across the Kur River near Shiraz. The arts also flourished during this period of Buyid rule, with exquisite pottery, metalwork, and patterned silks. Growing discord among later Buyid leaders contributed to the eventual decline of the dynasty, especially after the death of Abud ad-Dawlah in 983. After his death, instability in the economy, military ranks, and political leadership increased dramatically. The dynasty ended in 1055, when Tughril Beg (r. 1038–1063), the founder of the Seljuk dynasty, removed the final Buyid ruler, Abu Nasr al-Malik ar Rahim (r. 1048–1055), See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Fatimid Dynasty; Samanid Dynasty; Seljuq Dynasty.

BUSAID DYNASTY. See Barghash ibn Sa’id el-Busaidi

BYZANTINE EMPIRE (330–1453 C.E.)

BUYID (BUWAYHID) DYNASTY

Eastern successor to the Roman Empire, also called the Eastern Roman Empire or Later Roman Empire, which outlived its predecessor by a thousand years. At the height of the Byzantine Empire, it ruled the Balkan Peninsula, Greece, the Greek islands of the Aegean and Mediterranean, and Asia Minor (present-day Turkey).

(945–1060 C.E.)

An Islamic dynasty that ruled western Iran and parts of present-day Iraq during the tenth and eleventh centuries.The dynasty took its name from a Muslim leader named Buyeh, whose three sons—Ali (r. 932–949), Hasan (r. 947–977), and Ahmad (r. 936–967)—founded the ruling line by their military takeover of several Persian provinces and then Baghdad itself. Buyid rulers took a variety of titles and hon-

ORIGINS OF THE EMPIRE It is easy enough to say when the Byzantine Empire came to an end—on May 29, 1453, when, after a two-month siege, the outnumbered defenders of the Byzantine capital of Contantinople succumbed to an

Byzantine Empire overpowering assault by the Ottoman Turks.This was only the second time that the massive, thousandyear-old walls of the ancient city had been breached by force. The previous occasion was in 1204, when the Christian forces of the Fourth Crusade, diverted from their destination to the Holy Land because of their desire for riches, sacked and plundered the city and established the short-lived Latin Empire (1204–1261). While its end is clear, it is more difficult to establish the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. One could date its founding to 330, when Emperor Constantine I, the Great (r. 307–337), refounded and rebuilt the ancient Greek city of Byzantium on the Bosporus Strait, renaming it Constantinople. One could also set the date of the empire’s founding at 395, when the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire were permanently divided, never again to be reunited. Or one might mark the start of the Byzantine Empire with Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565), whose reign saw the last attempt, undone at his death, to reconquer the western portion of the old Roman Empire. Finally, the date of the empire’s beginning could

135

be placed in the early seventh century, when Greek replaced Latin as the language of government and administration in the Eastern Empire, and the imperial title was changed from the Latin imperator, Caesar, and Augustus to the Greek basileus (king). In any event, the long-lived and resilient Byzantine Empire preserved the memory of Ancient Rome throughout its existence. Surviving innumerable assaults and a multitude of foes, it helped preserve and spread Roman political traditions, Hellenic (Greek) culture, and Christian beliefs. Thanks to the Byzantines, Christianity spread to the Balkans and to Russia. The empire fulfilled its cultural mission even at the end, when, on the eve of the Ottoman conquest, an exodus of Byzantine scholars to Italy infused the budding Renaissance with more ancient Greek learning and ideas than the West had ever known before. Between the late fourth century and mid-sixth century, the Western Roman Empire was subject to invasions by a number of groups, including the Visigoths under Alaric (r. 395–410), the Huns led by Attila (r. 445–453), and the Slavs, Bulgars, and Persians. Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman Empire

136

Byzantine Empire

Byzantine Empire (ca. 330–1453 C.E.) Dynasty of Theodosius Arcadius Theodosius II Marcian

395–408 408–450 450–457

Dynasty of Leo Leo I Leo II Zeno the Isaurian Basiliscus Zeno (restored) Anastasius I

457–474 474 474–475 475–476 476–491 491–518

Anastasius II Theodosius III

713–715 715–717

Syrian Dynasty Leo III, the Syrian Constantine V Artavasdus Constantine V (restored) Leo IV Constantine VI Irene* Nicephorus I Stauracius Michael I Leo V, the Armenian

717–741 741 741–743 743–775 775–780 780–797 797–802 802–811 811 811–813 813–820

Dynasty of Justin Justin I Justinian I, the Great* Justin II Tiberius II Constantine Mauricius Phocas

518–527 527–565 565–578 578–582 582–602 602–610

Dynasty of Heraclius Heraclius Constantine III Heraclonas Constans II Constantine IV Justinian II Leontius Tiberius III Justinian II (restored) Philippicus

610–641 641 641 641–668 668–685 685–695 695–698 698–705 705–711 711–713

Amorian Dynasty Michael II, the Amorian Theophilus Michael III

820–829 829–842 842–867

Macedonian Dynasty Basil I, the Macedonian Leo VI Alexander Constantine VII Romanus I Christopher Romanus II Nicephorus II Phocas John I Tzimisces Basil II* Constantine VIII Romanus III

867–886 886–912 912–913 913–959 920–944 921–931 959–963 963–969 969–976 976–1025 1025–1028 1028–1034

137

Byzantine Empire

Macedonian Dynasty (continued)

Lascarid Dynasty

Michael IV, the Paphlagonian 1034–1041 Michael V 1041–1042 Zoe and Theodora (jointly) 1042 Constantine IX 1042–1055 Theodora (again) 1055–1056 Michael VI 1056–1057 Isaac I Comnenus 1057–1059

Theodore I Lascaris John III Theodore II John IV

Ducas Dynasty Constantine X Ducas Eudocia Romanus IV Eudocia (again) Michael VII Nicephorus III

1059–1067 1067–1068 1068–1071 1071 1071–1078 1078–1081

Comnenian Dynasty Alexius I Comnenus John II Manuel I Alexius II Andronicus I

1081–1118 1118–1143 1143–1180 1180–1183 1183–1185

Angelus Dynasty Isaac II Angelus Alexius III Isaac II (restored) Alexius IV Alexius V Ducas

1185–1195 1195–1203 1203–1204 1203–1204 1204

1204–1222 1222–1254 1254–1258 1258–1261

Palaeologan Dynasty Michael VIII Palaeologus Andronicus II Michael IX Andronicus III John V John VI Cantacuzenus Matthew Cantacuzenus Andronicus IV John V (restored) John VII Manuel II John VIII Constantine XI

1261–1282 1282–1328 1295–1320 1328–1341 1341–1376 1347–1354 1353–1357 1376–1379 1379–1391 1390 1391–1425 1425–1448 1448–1453

Rulers of the Latin Empire Baldwin I Henry Peter of Courtenay Yolanda Robert of Courtenay Baldwin II

1204–1205 1205–1216 1217 1217–1219 1221–1228 1240–1261

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

138

Byzantine Empire

began to develop a distinct culture and society of its own that combined Roman political tradition with Hellenistic culture and Christian beliefs.Violent religious controversy became chronic, and political divisions marked much of Byzantine history as well. Byzantine power grew significantly under Justinian I and his wife, Empress Theodora. During their reign, Byzantine armies checked the Persian threat from the east and recovered parts of Italy and Africa. Justinian’s greatest accomplishment, however, was his codification of Roman law into the Justinian Code. Much of the gains made by Justinian were lost under his successors. Italy was lost to the Lombards in the late sixth century, while Muslim conquests in the mid-600s and early 700s took Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Africa from the empire.The seventh century, meanwhile, was marked by the increasing Hellenization of the empire, as Greek culture and traditions supplanted the traditions of Rome. In 800, the crowning of Charlemagne (r. 768–814), king of the Franks, as emperor of the West, ended once and for all the primacy of Byzantium over Europe. Along with the political division of east and west came a religious division between the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches. This culminated with the complete break between the two branches of the Christian faith in 1054, when the Roman pope, Leo IX, excommunicated Michael Cerularius, the patriarch (or bishop) of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople. Although Constantinople remained a center of both Roman and Greek civilization, Byzantium lost all claim to religious or political universality and became essentially a Greek monarchy. Between 867 and 1025, the Byzantine Empire entered a new period of power and splendor. Its emperors regained control of the Balkans and pushed the eastern borders of the empire as far as the Euphrates River in present-day Iraq. During this period, Russia also became an outpost of Byzantine culture, having adopted Eastern Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantines. A period of anarchy and decline began in the mideleventh century.The Seljuk Turks increased their attacks against the empire at this time, and with the Turkish victory at the battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Byzantines lost most of Asia Minor permanently. The powerful Republic of Venice began challenging Byzantine commercial dominance in the eastern Mediterranean during this period, and the Bulgars and Serbians gained their independence.

The rulers of the Comnenian dynasty (1081– 1185) oversaw further disintegration of the Byzantine Empire. Then, in 1204, the Byzantines suffered the devastating attack on Constantinople by the forces of the Fourth Crusade. Having captured the Byzantine capital, the crusaders established the Latin Empire, which included Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece. The remainder of the empire also split up in a series of independent states, among the most notable of which were Nicaea,Trebizond, and Epirus. In 1261, Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (r. 1261–1282) conquered most of the Latin Empire and founded the Palaeologan dynasty. However, the empire was soon attacked again from all fronts, including the Italian city-state of Venice, the kingdom of Naples, the kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria, and the empire of the Ottoman Turks. At the same time, the Byzantine Empire began to disintegrate from within, as ambitious nobles sought land and privileges, religious orders fought each other, and the Church and state vied for power. By 1453, the Ottoman Turks had completely encircled the dramatically weakened Byzantine Empire, which consisted only of Constantinople and some surrounding territory. The Ottoman sultan, Mehmet II the Conqueror (1451–1481), surrounded the Byzantine capital with his troops in the spring of 1453, and after a fifty-day siege, the city fell to the Turks. The fall of Constantinople marked the end of the Byzantine Empire and the last remaining vestige of the ancient Roman Empire.

BYZANTINE INSTITUTIONS Among Byzantine institutions, three stand out as being especially important: the army, the Church, and the imperial Crown. Each played a vital role in the history, organization, and administration of the empire.

The Military From the seventh century, the very organization of the empire was military in scope. At that time, military districts, termed themes and commanded by a strategus (general), replaced the existing provinces that had been established centuries earlier under Rome. The best soldiers in the empire came from the Balkan region and Asia Minor (or Anatolia). When Asia Minor was overrun by the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Byzantium lost its best source of troops, and the empire was fatally crippled as a result.

Byzantine Empire The Byzantine Empire frequently resorted to the employment of mercenaries, most notably Varangian warriors from Scandinavia and Russia, who formed the palace guard in the capital city. For a time, the Norwegian chieftain Harald Hardraada (who, as king of Norway, died while attempting to conquer England in 1066), served as a high-ranking Varangian officer at Constantinople. When the Ottomans attacked Constantinople in 1453, Genoese and other European volunteers did their best to stem the Turkish tide. By then, in fact, they outnumbered the native Greek contingent in the military. The Byzantine navy, on a par with the army at its best, was famously equipped with Greek Fire, an inflammable, napalm-like substance squirted out of tubes at hostile warships.

The Church The Eastern Orthodox Church, formally severed from allegiance to Rome in 1054, had been going its separate way for centuries before then. By the ninth century, the eastern and western (Roman) churches had already established different cultures, each with separate doctrines, forms of worship, and rites. With its leadership in Constantinople under imperial oversight, the Eastern Orthodox Church was far more dependent on the emperor than the Roman papacy was on the kings and princes of Western Europe. The term caesaropapism has been coined to denote the strength of imperial control over the Eastern Church. Another feature differentiating Eastern Christianity from that of the West was the divisive squabble over the nature of Christ, with some groups, particularly the Arian Christians, stressing His human nature, while others, the Monophysites, stressed His divine nature. A series of church councils grappled with this divisive issue, but the uncompromising positions of the contending groups persisted.The prevalence of Monophysitism in the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire facilitated their conquest by the Arabs in the seventh century because it fostered antagonism toward the central government. Even more hard-fought was the bitter and longlived iconoclastic controversy, which pitted supporters of icons (religious pictures and images) against those who (in Muslim and Jewish fashion) deemed icons to be blasphemous. The controversy was most acute during the eighth and ninth centuries, when icon-supporting monks rioted with their opponents in Constantinople. Even the imperial family was di-

139

vided by the controversy; Constantine V (r. 741–775) persecuted icon-supporting monks relentlessly, while his daughter-in-law, later the Empress Irene (r. 797–802), supported them with equal fervor.

Imperial Power The power of the Byzantine emperor was theoretically absolute. However, the history of the Byzantine throne is marked by a long procession of usurpations, depositions, civil war, and murders, and emperors had to be sensitive to the demands and needs of many diverse groups. The position of emperor in the Byzantine Empire was open to talented individuals. Hereditary rule was often buttressed by the appointment of an heir as coregent, or junior emperor. But an unworthy occupant of the imperial throne could be swiftly set aside. Byzantine monarchs sometimes arose from the lowest classes of society, gaining their position through talent and skill. For example, Emperor Justin I (r. 518–527), the uncle of Justinian I, was an illiterate Balkan peasant, perhaps a swineherd. Emperor Leo III, the Syrian (r. 717–741), was of humble origin, as was Michael II (r. 820–829), the founder of the Amorian dynasty. Emperor Basil I, the Macedonian (r. 867–886), founder of the long-lived Macedonian dynasty, was a peasant’s son raised in poverty. Imperial power did not protect the emperor from threats against his life. The emperor’s palace in Constantinople was filled with court intrigue and was the scene of a number of spectacular and grisly murders, most notably those of emperors Leo V (r. 813–820), Michael III (r. 842–867), Nicephorus II (r. 963–969), and Andronicus I (r. 1183–1185). Sometimes, mutilation occurred instead of death, with emperors losing their noses. But when the amputated nose of Justinian II (r. 685–695) proved to be no barrier to his reaccession to the throne (705–711), blinding became the fate of former monarchs who were not killed upon their deposition. At times, two political factions known as the Blues and Greens (who took their names from the colors worn by circus charioteers) were instrumental in determining the succession to the throne; they would riot and then proclaim an emperor of their choosing. In 532, for example, the Blues and Greens started a riot, burned public buildings, and proclaimed a new emperor. But the forces of the current ruler, Justinian I, attacked the rebels and killed thousands of them, keeping Justinian on the throne. The rapid turnovers on the imperial throne con-

140

Byzantine Empire

tributed to instability, but also, paradoxically, to the renewal and reinvigoration of imperial power, as talented or skilled new rulers took power and strove to gain popular support. Unlike many other monarchies around the world, no families of shoguns (as in Japan) or mayors of the palace (as in the Frankish kingdom in Western Europe) ever eclipsed the Byzantine emperor. Another notable feature of Byzantine imperial power was the emergence of women as sovereigns in their own right, which was unheard of in Ancient Rome. The first female Byzantine ruler was Irene (r. 797–802), the ambitious widow of Emperor Leo IV (r. 775–780), who seized the throne after blinding her own son, Constantine VI (r. 780–797) when he was deposed.Viewed in the West as a monstrous usurpation of power, Irene’s action facilitated the claims of Charlemagne to the title of emperor, and he was crowned emperor of the West three years later in Rome. The power of the Byzantine throne reached its zenith under Emperor Basil II, the Bulgar-slayer (r. 976–1025), whose conquest of Bulgaria was followed by the blinding of thousands of Bulgarian captives.The strangest Byzantine regime occurred in 1042, when Basil’s two nieces, Zoe (r. 1042) and Theodora (r. 1042, 1055–1056), briefly reigned together.Theodora retired when Zoe took a third husband, Constantine IX (r. 1042–1055), but she resumed the throne on Constantine’s death and reigned for a year on her own. The longest-lived Byzantine dynasty was that of the Palaeologi (1261–1453), which ended with the death of Constantine XI (r. 1448–1453) during the final Ottoman siege of Constantinople. As the Byzantine Empire neared its end, the later Palaeologan emperors journeyed to the West to plead for European aid, having been reduced to pitiable suppliants. In the end, the dynasty survived the empire itself—from 1305 to 1533, the northern Italian state of Montferrat was ruled by a cadet branch of the Palaeologi, offspring of a western princess and a Byzantine emperor.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WEST AND LEGACY Some degree of hostility had long marred the relationship between Europe and the East. The Byzantines, termed “Romans” by themselves but “Greeks” by Western Europeans, saw the West as virile but uncouth.Western Europeans, termed “Latins” by themselves but “Franks” by the Byzantines, viewed the East as cultured but effete.

The Eastern Empire could not forget the horrors of 1204, when European crusaders sacked and plundered Constantinople. Nor could the West ignore the allure of Byzantine wealth. In fact, a major factor in the economic strength of the Byzantine Empire was the remarkable gold solidus, or nomisma. This coin, first issued by Constantine I in the fourth century, maintained its value with only small fluctuations until the eleventh century. Its existence spurred the revival of gold coinage in the West, including the florin in Florence and the ducat in Venice. Like China, the Byzantine Empire was a radiating culture, influencing its neighbors even when they sought to eclipse its power. Bulgaria, Serbia, and Russia all derived their Christianity from Byzantium. They adopted a modified Greek alphabet, the Cyrillic, to translate the Bible into the Slavic tongues.The title “tsar,” used in all three states, was the Slavonic form for the Greek term basileus, or ruler. Any weakening in Byzantine power brought fierce competition over the Byzantine legacy. For example, during the Latin Empire in the thirteenth century, when legitimate rule was transferred from Constantinople to Nicaea in Asia Minor, rival successor-states sprang up at Trebizond on the Black Sea (1204– 1461) and, briefly, at Thessalonica (1224–1246). These states were ruled by members of Byzantine imperial families, with rulers called basileus modeled after the rulers of Byzantium. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow viewed itself as the Third Rome, heir of Old Rome on the Tiber River in Italy and of New Rome (Constantinople) on the Bosporus Strait. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, English historian Edward Gibbon wrote of Byzantine culture as one long night of debasement and decline: “In the revolution of ten centuries, not a single discovery was made to exalt the dignity or promote the happiness of mankind.” Today, however, Byzantine culture is fervently admired and avidly studied, and its legacy is clearly evident. In art, the Byzantine legacy can be seen in the magnificent mosaics of Ravenna, Italy, and the Holy Wisdom church in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople). Although not as well known, Byzantium’s literary legacy includes two outstanding works: the Chronographia of Michael Psellus, an account of court life during the eleventh century, and the Alexiad of Anna Comnena, which relates the story of her father, Emperor Alexius I (r. 1081–1118).

Caesars Complementing these latter works is the report of Liudprand, tenth-century bishop of Cremona, of his diplomatic mission to the Byzantine court. Liudprand describes the imperial throne, set about with chirping mechanical birds and roaring mechanical lions, which rose into the air while the startled envoy paid homage to the emperor. Echoes of such Byzantine splendor can be found as far afield as the poems of Irish poet William Butler Yeats and the plays of American playwright Tennessee Williams, for Byzantium, like all great cultures, has its place in myth as well as in history. John Morby See also: Basil I; Basil II; Comnenian Dynasty; Constantine I, the Great; Emperors and Empresses; Empire; Imperial Rule; Irene; Justinian I; Mehmed II, the Conqueror; Ottoman Empire; Palaeologan Dynasty;Theodora. FURTHER READING

Comnena, Anna, et al. The Alexiad of Anna Comnena. Trans. E.R. Sewter. New York: Penguin, 1979. Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. 3 vol. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Psellus, Michael. Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus. Trans. E.R. Sewter. London: Penguin Books, 1966.

141

Romans stressed family, tradition, and ancestors, they also admired leadership based on merit. Moreover, they had detested the idea of a hereditary monarchy since the establishment of the Roman Republic around 500 b.c.e. Adopting the name of the revered leader Julius Caesar helped the first emperors legitimize their rule and also resolved the paradox in true Roman fashion. The Caesars became a new gens, or clan, that emperors entered upon taking the throne, even when they gained their rule not by inheritance but through appointment by a predecessor or acclamation by the army. Later, “Caesar” became a title for an emperor’s designated heir or for a subordinate emperor.

THE JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY The title “Caesar” derives from Gaius Julius Caesar, the renowned military leader and dictator of Rome. Shortly before his assassination in 44 b.c.e., Caesar adopted his young great-nephew, Gaius Octavius,

C CAESARS The family name and title of Roman emperors of the Julian gens (clan), which later became one of the titles of all Roman emperors. Caesar was originally the family name of Gaius Julius Caesar (c. 100–44 b.c.e) and was first used as an imperial title by the Emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.). The development of the Roman imperial succession represented something of a paradox. While the

The title “Caesar” came from the family name of Gaius Julius Caesar, portrayed by this marble bust. Though not an emperor, Julius Caesar laid the groundwork for imperial rule by consolidating power during his brief tenure as consul and dictator of Rome.

142

Caesars

who, according to Roman custom, then assumed the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. When Octavian became Rome’s first emperor, Caesar Augustus, in 31 b.c.e., the aura surrounding the name of the deified Julius Caesar aided his claim to power. His rival Mark Antony claimed that Augustus owed all of his success to the name Caesar. Augustus and his successors are known as the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Augustus, who had no male children, formally adopted his stepson Tiberius Claudius Nero, who became known as Tiberius Claudius Caesar (r. 14–37 c.e.).Tiberius was succeeded in the same fashion by Caligula (r. 37–41), Claudius (r. 41–54), and Nero (r. 54–68). Claudius was the first Caesar not to be formally adopted by his predecessor.

THE FLAVIAN AND ANTONINE DYNASTIES Titus Flavius Vespasianus, or Vespasian (r. 69–79), a renowned general who was acclaimed emperor by the army in 69, founded the Flavian dynasty, but not without difficulty, for some senators objected to passing the imperial title through a family of lesser rank. Nevertheless, according to the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by the ancient Roman historian Suetonius, Vespasian insisted that “his sons would succeed him or he would have no successor.” He appointed his son Titus (r. 79–81) as Caesar and emperor designate. Beginning with the Emperor Trajan (r. 98–117), the standard formula for an emperor’s titles became Imperator Caesar (name and other titles) Augustus. During much of the second century, childless emperors selected and trained talented men from outside their family as Caesars. By adopting Antoninus Pius in 138, Hadrian (r. 117–138) began the line of Antonine emperors: Antoninus Pius (r. 138–161), Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180), and Commodus (r. 180–192). From Trajan in 98, no emperor had a son of his own blood inherit his title until Commodus succeeded Marcus Aurelius in 180.

CAESARS AS SUBORDINATE RULERS “Caesar” became the title for a subordinate acting emperor in 293, when Diocletian (r. 284–305) and Maximian (r. 206–305) established a tetrarchy (system of four rulers). Such a system was necessary to govern the now enormous Roman Empire. Both Diocletian and Maximian ruled as Augustus, and each chose a Caesar as his assistant: Maximian selected Constantius I (r. 305–306), and Diocletian se-

lected Galerius (r. 305–311). Each Caesar and each Augustus was assigned his own capital city and the administration of a portion of the empire. This system did not last long, however. Maximian’s choice of Constantius as Caesar had angered Maximian’s own son, Maxentius (r. 306–312), who declared himself emperor in 306. Galerius’s new Caesar, Maximinus Daia (r. 310–313), declared himself Augustus in 310. The resultant warfare ended only when Constantius’s son, Constantine I (r. 323–337), became sole emperor in 323. Constantine in turn gave the title “Caesar” to his three sons and two nephews, only to have their reigns end in fratricidal warfare after his death in 337. The use of the title “Caesar” continued after the division of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves, each with a separate emperor, in 364. By this time, however, the meaning of “Caesar” as a designation for the imperial heir had diminished, since emperors often elevated their sons to the rank of Augustus when they were mere children. Long after the fall of Rome in 476, the imperial significance of the title “Caesar” survived in two forms that derived from it, the German title “Kaiser” and the Russian “Tsar.” See also: Augustus; Diocletian; Julius Caesar; Julio-Claudians;Tsars and Tsarinas. FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 B.C.–A.D. 476. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1997. Scarre, Christopher. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome. New York:Thames and Hudson, 1995.

CALIGULA (12–41 C.E.) Roman emperor (r. 37–41) known primarily for his financial and sexual excesses and his cruel and ruthless reign. Caligula’s brief rule ended when he was murdered by one of his own guards. Born Gaius Caesar Germanicus, Caligula was the son of the Roman general Germanicus, who was the nephew of the emperor Tiberius (r. 14–37), the brother of future emperor Claudius (r. 41–54), and the grandson of Livia, the widow of Emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.). His mother was Agrippina,

C a l i p h at e s the granddaughter of the emperor Augustus. Born while his father was away fighting in northern campaigns, the precocious young Gaius became a favorite of his father’s legionaries, who gave him the affectionate nickname Caligula, meaning “little boot.” A few years before his death, the emperor Tiberius named Caligula as his heir. In 37, Tiberius fell ill and was presumed dead; the Senate quickly declared Caligula to be emperor. Tiberius began to recover, however, so Caligula employed one of the imperial guards to smother the emperor. Despite this bloodthirsty start, Caligula began his reign auspiciously. He lowered taxes, provided games and spectacles for the Roman populace, and recalled many of those exiled by Tiberius. Whether Caligula’s pleasant beginning was sincere or calculating, it was short-lived.The remainder of Caligula’s rule was a bizarre mixture of selfindulgence, foolishness, and violent excesses. As his reign progressed, his actions became increasingly unpredictable and extreme. Caligula’s devotion to racing led him to appoint his favorite horse, Incitatus, a senator. He conducted a military campaign against Neptune, the god of the sea, and declared victory to the Roman Senate when he revealed casks of seashells supposedly taken as tribute from his hapless opponent. Such antics were matched by Caligula’s sexual escapades. One of the emperor’s favorite activities was to declare a divorce for a woman of his choosing and then force his attentions upon her for a brief time. His sexual interests ranged beyond married women to handsome young men, and perhaps even to his own sisters. Caligula’s passion for his siblings fit with his view of himself as a god. He greatly admired the ancient Pharoanic system of Egypt, in which kingship and godhead were equal. Caligula set up his own religion, complete with priests, in the ancient temple of Castor and Pollux, where he could often be found reprimanding Jupiter or in the embrace of an invisible moon goddess. Over and above these eccentricities, Caligula’s financial extravagances quickly bankrupted the state treasuries carefully built up by his predecessors, Tiberius and Augustus. To increase his revenues, Caligula regularly condemned wealthy senators and nobles for wholly fabricated treasons and confiscated their estates.

143

Within four years of Caligula’s ascendancy, Rome was in its worst state—both financially and psychologically—since the civil wars of the previous century. Through his ruthlessness and cruelty, he managed to maintain control over the people and the Roman Senate. However, the emperor made a fatal error in underestimating the pride of his force of bodyguards, the Praetorians. Each night, Caligula gave a new password to the officer of his personal guard.The emperor enjoyed the petty humiliation of forcing this man to repeat lewd phrases as the passwords to his fellows. On one night in 41, this insult proved too much for the Praetorian tribune, Cassius Chaerea, who stabbed and killed the emperor in a dark passage. Caligula had no named heirs, but the Praetorians quickly found a replacement to ensure their continued employment. They proclaimed as emperor Caligula’s uncle Claudius, who had had little political involvement up to this time and did not want to assume leadership. The assassination of Caligula and the proclamation of Claudius as emperor by the Praetorians marked the beginning of a new era of Roman politics; the Senate’s power was long dead, and now the Roman military began its ascendancy. See also: Augustus; Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Caesars; Claudius; Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; Incest, Royal; Julio-Claudians; Regicide; Roman Empire;Tiberius.

CALIPHATES Religious and political organization of the Muslim world under one leader, known as the caliph, which began in southwest Asia in the seventh century. The caliph is considered the rightful successor to the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, even though Muhammad’s directions for the future leadership of Islam have been subject to wide debate since the time of his death in 632. While various Muslim political and religious leaders have styled themselves as caliphs into the twentieth century, the caliphate itself ceased to be a significant political organization in the thirteenth century.

ORIGINS AND EARLY YEARS The death of the prophet Muhammad in 632 precipitated an early crisis for the young Islamic world, as

144

C a l i p h at e s

Caliphates

Al-Mu’tasim

833–842

Orthodox Caliphate

Al-Wathiq

842–847

Abu Bakr*

632–634

Al-Mutawakkil

847–861

Umar

634–644

Al-Muntasir

861–862

Uthman

644–656

Al-Musta’in

862–866

Ali

656–661

Al-Mu’tazz

866–869

Al-Muhtadi

869–870

Al-Mu’tamid

870–892

Umayyad Dynasty Mu’awiya I

661–680

Al-Mu’tadid

892–902

Yazid I

680–683

Al-Muktafi

902–908

Mu’awiya II

683–684

Al-Muqtadir

908–932

Marwan I

684–685

Al-Qahir

932–934

Abd al-Malik

685–705

Al-Radi

934–940

Al-Walid I

705–715

Al-Muttaqi

940–944

Sulayman

715–717

Al-Mustakfi

944–946

Umar II

717–720

Al-Muti

946–974

Yazid II

720–724

Al-Ta’i

974–991

Hisham

724–743

Al-Qadir

991–1031

Al-Walid II

743–744

Al-Qa’im

1031–1075

Yazid III

744

Al-Muqtadi

1075–1094

Ibrahim

744

Al-Mustazhir

1094–1118

Al-Mustarshid

1118–1135

Al-Rashid

1135–1136

Al-Muqtafi

1136–1160

Marwan II

744–750

Abbasid Dynasty Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah

750–754

Al-Mustanjid

1160–1170

Al-Mansur

754–775

Al-Mustadi

1170–1180

Al-Mahdi

775–785

Al-Nasir

1180–1225

Al-Hadi

785–786

Al-Zahir

1225–1226

Harun al-Rashid*

786–809

Al-Mustansir

1226–1242

Al-Amin

809–813

Al-Musta’sim

1242–1258

Al-Ma’mun

813–833

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

C a l i p h at e s his direction for how believers were to proceed politically after his death were ambiguous, and his only direct descendants had died in infancy. The two major branches of Islam, Sunni and Shii, arose from the controversy over Muhammad’s successor. Shiite Muslims believe that the only rightful successor to Muhammad was Ali (r. 656–661), the prophet’s nephew and son-in-law, who became the fourth caliph in 656. Since Ali’s descendants were killed, Shiites question the legitimacy of any caliphs who followed him.The Sunni branch of Islam, which became the politically more dominant of the two, holds that Muhammad’s proper successor was Abu Bakr (r. 632–634), the prophet’s father-in-law. Upon Muhammad’s death,Abu Bakr was elected as the first caliph by a group of Muslim elders. Since the majority of early Muslims believed in the legitimacy of Abu Bakr, his succession in 632 is considered to be the effective beginning of the caliphate. Abu Bakr served as caliph for only two years, but his reign was crucial because it saw the further unification of Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula and the beginning of the expansionist policies that allowed Islamic rule to eventually spread throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even into Europe. Abu Bakr was succeeded by Umar (r. 634–644), who is often credited with creating the Islamic state through his shrewd administrative reforms and impressive military conquests. Umar was assassinated by a Christian slave in 644, leading to the election of Uthman (r. 644–656) as his successor. Uthman’s reign as third caliph saw the caliphate extend throughout North Africa and into southeastern Europe. Uthman’s military successes, however, were complicated by his policy of distributing the monetary and political spoils of war to his family and close friends, which alienated many Muslims. In the summer of 656, he was captured and assassinated in his home in Medina by a group of disaffected Muslims, thus bringing the prophet’s son-in-law Ali to the caliphate, as the fourth caliph. Ali’s five-year rule as caliph is known largely for the internal opposition he faced. Aishah, a wife of Muhammad and daughter of Abu Bakr, challenged Ali’s right to succeed to the caliphate and staged an unsuccessful revolt in 656. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by the Khawarijis, a group of dissatisfied ex-supporters. His death led to the caliphate of his main rival, Muawiyah I (r. 661–680), who founded the Umayyad dynasty.

145

Muawiyah had pressured Ali’s son Hasan, who had been proclaimed caliph, to abdicate the title in order to avoid a costly war. Hasan’s death in 669 was considered a murder by Shiites, and they believe that Muawiyah was responsible. Hasan’s brother, Husayn, challenged Yazid I (r. 680–683), Muawiyah’s son and successor, for the caliphate in 680, but was badly defeated and killed by the Umayyads at Karbala that same year. His death marks a great holy day for Shiites and the source of much internal controversy among Muslims.

GROWTH AND DECLINE The Umayyad dynasty continued the spread of the Islamic caliphate throughout Asia, North Africa, and Southern Europe, but it began to face internal opposition from tribal leaders. The Umayyads were challenged and defeated by the Abbasid family, which took the caliphate in 749 and began its own dynasty under as-Saffah (r. 750–754). Under the Abbasids, the caliphate reached its greatest extent, expanding across Asia and vastly increasing its wealth and power.The Abbasid caliphs Harun al-Rashid (r. 786– 809) and al-Mamun (r. 813–833) are credited with encouraging the impressive scientific and cultural advances that mark the early Abbasid period. Abbasid ascendancy did not last long, however, as internal rivalries began to weaken the Islamic Empire. From the ninth century onward, a variety of local dynasties appeared, especially in Persia (modern-day Iran). These groups were ostensibly under the oversight of the Abbasids, but actually chafed under Abbasid rule, and pushed to establish more local authority. Among these local kingdoms established were those of the Buyids, Fatimids, Saffarids, Samanids, Seljuqs, and Ayyubids. Although some of these kingdoms professed loyalty to the Abbasid rulers, in reality, the caliphate was in serious decline. The end of the Abbasid caliphate came in 1258, when the Mongols under Hulagu Khan attacked the Abbasids at their capital of Baghdad, killing the current caliph, al-Mustasim (r. 1242– 1258). Although a variety of local leaders, including the head of the Ottoman Turks, assumed the title of caliph in the years that followed, no caliph was ever recognized outside of his home dominion, thus making the caliphate merely a title with little political significance. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and the deposition of the last Ottoman

146

C a l i p h at e s

caliph, Abdul-Majid II (r. 1922–1924), in 1924 signaled the official end of the title of caliph and of the caliphate. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Abu Bakr; Buyid (Buwayhid) Dynasty; Fatimid Dynasty; Harunal-Rashid; Islam and Kingship; Mamun, al-; Ottoman Empire; Saffarid Dynasty; Samanid Dynasty; Seljuq Dynasty; Sultanates; Umayyad Dynasty.

CALUKYA (CHALUKYA) DYNASTY (ca. 543–1070 C.E.) Actually two Indian dynasties—the Western Calukyas, who were emperors in the Deccan region from 543 to 757 and then again from around 975 to 1189; and the Eastern Calukyas, who reigned in Vengi (in eastern Andra Pradesh) from around 624 to 1070. The Western Calukya dynasty was established in 543 by Pulakesin I (r. 543–566), known as the Great Lion. Pulakesin founded the city of Vatapi (presentday Badami) and made it his capital. His sons and successors, Kirtivarman I (r. 566–597) and Mangalesa (r. 597–609), expanded the kingdom after military victories against various neighbors. The greatest Calukya ruler was Kirtivarman’s son, Pulakesin II (r. 609–642). During his more than thirty-year reign, he strengthened Badami’s control of Maharashtra and took over extensive sections of the Deccan region. Around 624, Pulakesin II conquered the kingdom of Vengi and presented it to his brother, Kubja Vishnuvardhana (r. 624–641), who was the first ruler of the Eastern Calukyas.The Eastern Calukyas continued to rule Vengi for more than four centuries, from around 624 to 1073. King Narasimhavarman I (r. ca. 630–668) of the Hindu Pallava dynasty in southeastern India overpowered and killed Pulakesin II in 642, destroying Vatapi in the process. The next Calukya ruler, Pulakesin’s son Vikramaditya I (r. 655–680), took up the battle against enemies in the south and largely restored the dynasty’s previous glory. His great grandson, Vikramaditya II (r. 733–746), was another successful warrior; but he and his son were defeated around 753 by the Hindu Rastrakuta dynasty. When the Rastrakuta dynasty collapsed around 975, the powerful Calukya leader, Tailapa (r. ca.

975–997), established the second Western Calukya dynasty, with its capital at Kalyana.Tailapa’s principal accomplishment was restraining the Paramara dynasty, which ruled over the kingdom of Malwa from the ninth to thirteenth centuries. Between 993 and 1021, the Calukyas suffered many attacks by the Cola dynasty of southern India, and eventually, around 1156, the Calukya dynasty was replaced by the Kalacuri family, which originally came from central and western India. The Calukya dynasty was restored again briefly by Somesvara IV (r. 1184–1200), but he was defeated by the Hindu Yadavas of central India, the Hoysala dynasty from the southern Deccan, and the Kakatiyas of Warangal, around 1200, bringing the Calukya dynasty to an end. See also: Cola Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Kalacuri Dynasties; Paramara Dynasty; Rastrakuta Dynasty.

CAMBODIAN KINGDOMS (ca. First Century–1800s C.E.)

Kingdoms that occupied the area that is present-day Cambodia from the first to the nineteenth century. The early Cambodian kingdoms thrived culturally and economically, reaching their peak of power and greatness with the Angkor kingdom during the tenth and eleventh centuries. This golden era of Cambodian history was followed by several centuries of decline, ending in a period of Vietnamese and Thai domination that lasted until 1863, when the French established Cambodia as one of its Southeast Asian protectorates.

EARLIEST KINGDOMS The earliest of the Cambodian kingdoms, the kingdoms of Funan and Chenla, were strongly influenced by frequent contact with Chinese and Indian sea merchants. Both kingdoms flourished culturally and politically as a result of this contact. The Funan kingdom was established in the first century. In the third century, under Fan Shih-man (r. 205–225), Funan conquered many of its neighbors and extended its rule to the lower reaches of the Mekong River. In the sixth century, Funan was conquered by its rival and neighbor, the Chenla kingdom

Cambodian Kingdoms

147

The Angkor Empire also saw several centuries in which Hindus and Buddhists coexisted in peace. Although the Mahayana Buddhist kings of Angkor ruled the empire with what they claimed were divine powers, they also tolerated the nation’s large Hindu population, which had occupied the region since the first century when the Funan kingdom came into contact with Indian sea traders who practiced Hinduism. The Angkor kings capitalized on their divine powers and mobilized the population to work for the kingdom. Eventually, however, the Angkor kingdom fell into decline when missionary monks from Burma began spreading a new branch of Buddhism. This new Buddhist sect,Theravada Buddhism, caught on quickly, and by the end of the 1200s the majority of the population had converted. Unlike Mahayana Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism did not recognize the divine right of the Angkor kings, leaving the rulers with less control over the people.

FOREIGN DOMINATION Angkor Wat, an elaborate temple complex in the capital of the Khmer Empire (now Cambodia), was completed about 1150 c.e. Dedicated by King Suryavarman II to the Hindu god Vishnu, the temple contains some of the most beautiful bas-relief carvings in Southeast Asia.

of the Khmer people. The Chenla state later grew into one of the greatest early kingdoms of Cambodia, the Angkor kingdom.

THE ANGKOR KINGDOM The Angkor kingdom rose out of the Chenla kingdom when King Jayavarman II (r. ca. 802–850), a descendant of a Chenla king, ascended to the throne in 802 and declared himself ruler of a new empire, which became known as Angkor. The Angkor Empire thrived for the next 300 years. Its rulers undertook vast public works projects, building numerous religious temples. Under the reign of King Jayavarman VII (r. ca. 1181–1219), the Angkor Empire conquered the neighboring Champa kingdom (which occupied the region of present-day central Vietnam). Jayavarman VII is known for rebuilding the city of Angkor, called Angkor Thom, and turning it into a crowded and wealthy metropolis.

By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Angkor Empire was replaced by a smaller Khmer kingdom, which was centered further south with its capital at present-day Phnom Penh. Little is known of this period in Cambodian history, except that the Siamese captured the city of Angkor in 1431. From the fifteenth century until 1863, when the French established a protectorate over the region, Cambodia was dominated by the more powerful states in Vietnam and Siam (Thailand). In the early 1620s, the ruling Nguyen family of Southern Vietnam cut off Cambodian access to foreign trade, and in the following century, Thai overlords ruled the country. The Cambodian monarchy was relatively weak during the seventeenth century, enduring a series of attempted coups and countercoups by rivals within the ruling family over who controlled Phnom Penh. The monarchy often had to rely on Vietnam or Siam for support against their internal enemies. After two centuries of dependence on its more powerful neighbors, Cambodia accepted a French protectorate in 1863 under King Norodom (r. 1860–1904), though it remained a kingdom with a ruling monarch. French control lasted for nearly a hundred years. In 1953, under the rule of Norodom Sihanouk (r. 1941–1955; 1991–2004), Cambodia gained its political independence from France.

148

Cambodian Kingdoms

See also: Angkor Kingdom; Chenla Empire; Fan Shih-man; Funan Kingdom; Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty;Vietnamese Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Chandler, David. A History of Cambodia. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 2000.

CAMBYSES II (d. 522 B.C.E.) One of the lesser of the Achaemenid rulers of ancient Persia (r. 529–522 b.c.e.), who added Egypt to the realm. The founder of the Achaemenid dynasty of ancient Persia was a legendary figure named Achaemenes. The first historical ruler of the dynasty, Cyrus I (r. 640–600 b.c.e.), was king of Anshan, a city in the Fars region of Iran. His son, Cambyses I (r. 600–559 b.c.e.), came to dominate all the Persian tribes, and Cambyses’s son and successor, Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 b.c.e.), assumed the title of king of all the Persians. In 530 b.c.e., Cyrus the Great’s son, Cambyses II, succeeded to a throne that was vastly more powerful and glorious than that of his grandfather and namesake. Thanks to the achievements of his father and other forebears, Cambyses II was now king of a vast empire that extended from Afghanistan to the borders of Greece and Egypt. Cambyses had served an apprenticeship in 538 b.c.e. as nominal king of Babylon, where he presided over ancient religious rites that played a central role in the civilization of Mesopotamia. Designated comonarch just before his father’s death in 530 b.c.e., Cambyses was determined to continue the family tradition of expansion. In 525 b.c.e., Cambyses crossed the Sinai Peninsula into Egypt at the head of a large imperial army that included contingents from across the empire. He quickly defeated Pharaoh Psammetichus III (r. 526–525 b.c.e.), bringing an end to Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty and, symbolically, to three thousand years of Egyptian cultural and political independence. Cambyses remained in Egypt for three years, extending his control past the borders of Nubia to the south and as far as the Greek colonies in Cyrene to the west. He would have attacked the city-state of

Carthage as well, but his Phoenician vassals, whose ships would have been essential to the venture, refused to cooperate in an attack on a city that had been founded by the Phoenicians. Cambyses declared himself pharaoh of Upper and Lower Egypt, and set about reorganizing Egyptian religious life. He drastically reduced the revenues of some of the ancient temple complexes, earning him the enmity of their priests. Learning of a rebellion back home in Persia, Cambyses left Egypt in 522 b.c.e. However, he died before he reached home, possibly of an infected wound, or possibly, as some ancient accounts have it, by suicide. Cambyses II’s historical reputation suffered at the hands of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote of the king’s supposed madness and his insensitivity to the religious traditions of Babylon and Egypt. The Greek philosopher Plato portrayed him as the spoiled product of a soft court upbringing. One Iranian tradition even has Cambyses murdering his brother Bardiya, a possible rival to the throne. Nevertheless, during his relatively brief reign Cambyses II managed to expand and consolidate the new Persian Empire. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Cyrus the Great; Darius I, the Great; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman.

CANUTE I, THE GREAT. See Cnut I, the Great

CAPET, HUGH (ca. 938–996 C.E.) King of France from 987 to 996 and founder of the Capetian dynasty. Capet was elected king, but with the support of the Church he was able to ensure that the position became hereditary. The name Capet came from a distinctive cape or cap that he wore, though the sobriquet, or nickname, is not contemporary. Hugh Capet was the son of Hugh the Great, the count of Paris and duke of the Franks. When Hugh Capet was elected to succeed his father in 956, dur-

Capetian Dynasty ing the reign of the Carolingian king Lothair (r. 954–986), he began to create alliances with the Holy Roman emperors Otto II (r. 973–983) and Otto III (r. 983–1002) and with the archbishop of Reims. When Lothair’s heir, Louis V (r. 986–987), died in 987 (the last ruler of the Carolingian dynasty), Hugh had sufficient support and power to claim the French throne by election. There was a rival Carolingian claimant, Charles of Lorraine, but Hugh became king with support from the Norman dukes. Much of the reign of Hugh Capet was devoted to attempting to increase and consolidate the power of France, as well as his own position as king.This struggle precipitated a number of rebellions, including that of Eudes I, count of Blois, which Capet was able to put down successfully. In 969, Hugh Capet had married Adelaide of Poitou, an action that was at least partly political, helping to improve relations with the powerful duchy of Aquitaine in southwestern France. He ensured the succession within his own family line by crowning his son Robert II (r. 996–1031) co-regent in 987. Hugh Capet died of what was likely smallpox at about age fifty-eight, but the dynasty he founded ruled France through his direct descendants until 1328.The Capetian dynasty then continued to rule through its Valois and Bourbon branches until the French Revolution, and then again until 1848. The Capetian line, through its related branches, also continued in the kings of Spain (after 1700), the kings of Naples (from 1734 to 1860), and in other royal European houses. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Capetian Dynasty; Frankish Kingdom; French Monarchies;Valois Dynasty.

CAPETIAN DYNASTY (987–1328 C.E.) French royal house named for Hugh Capet, a descendant of Robert the Strong, the marquis of Neustria and count of Anjou and Blois. Capetian rule was marked by a great expansion of royal authority and the beginnings of modern France. In 888, Eudes (r. 888–898), the son of Robert the Strong, was elected to replace the deposed Carolingian king Charles II (r. 885–888). Over the ensuing years, power shifted between the Robertians and the

149

Carolingians. Eudes’s brother, Robert I (r. 922–923), was elected king in 922. When Robert died the next year, his son Hugh the Great refused the Crown, which then passed to Robert’s son-inlaw, Rudolf (r. 923–936). After Rudolf’s death in 936, the throne returned to the Carolingians, who ruled for the next fifty-one years. In 987, Hugh Capet (r. 987–996), the son of Hugh the Great, was elected king by the nobles and clergy and was crowned on July 5 of that year. His election as king marks the beginning of the Capetian dynasty as the royal house of France. Hugh’s election to the kingship reflected the conditions of the era, when the king was usually considered first among equals by other princes. Although French princes might swear fealty to the king, the balance of power was in constant flux as rival princes struggled to increase their holdings and influence. Because hereditary succession was not assured at this time, kings from Hugh Capet to Louis VII (r. 1137– 1180) made their eldest sons joint kings and had them rule alongside them. Except for Louis VI (r. 1108– 1137), Capetian kings-in-waiting down to 1179 were crowned while their fathers were still alive. Insistence on primogeniture (inheritance by the eldest son) helped secure Capetian power. Diplomacy, war, and marriage also extended their territory. When Hugh Capet was elected, his kingdom was mostly confined to the Île-de-France, a relatively small area around Paris. By 1328, the kingdom covered much of modern France.The Capetians also laid the organizational foundation for the parlement of Paris, which served as the supreme court of France until the late eighteenth century. Although often reviled by historians for his gluttony, sensuality, and greed, King Philip I (r. 1060–1108) had a significant impact on the success of the Capetian dynasty, largely because of his efforts to subordinate unruly rival princes. Philip was particularly successful in manipulating rivalries within the Norman family of William the Conqueror, enabling him to minimize their power in Normandy and other French territory. Philip’s great-grandson, Philip II Augustus (r. 1180–1223), continued the policy, winning back French territory held by the English kings Richard I Lionheart (r. 1189–1199) and his brother John (r. 1199–1216). Considered by many as the greatest Capetian ruler, Philip II became king at age fourteen

150

Capetian Dynasty

and ruled for forty-six years. A brave war leader and skilled diplomat, he used feudal law to great advantage to increase his power and that of his successors. Another notable Capetian monarch was Louis IX (r. 1226–1270) who led the Seventh Crusade in 1248. Captured by the Muslims in Egypt, he eventually returned to France, where he was noted for his piety and his encouragement of the arts and education. Louis IX died on crusade in 1270 and was canonized as Saint Louis in 1297. Louis IX’s mother, Blanche of Castille (ca. 1188– 1252), played a significant role in the Capetian dynasty. She served as regent from 1226 to 1234, during her son’s minority, and again from 1248 to 1252 while Louis IX was away on crusade. Blanche’s most serious challenge as regent came from powerful barons who revolted in 1226. Through diplomatic skill and personal acumen, she quashed the rebellion. For the remainder of her life, Blanche was actively involved in the government of her son’s kingdom. King Philip IV, the Fair (r. 1285–1314), was handsome and well educated, and under his leadership the Capetians reached the pinnacle of their power. Philip was especially skilled in delegating tasks to his advisers, a practice that has led some historians to claim he was manipulated by his subordinates. Though religious, Philip taxed the Church heavily to finance his ventures. During his reign, Pope Clement V moved the papacy to Avignon, beginning the socalled Babylonian captivity of the papacy. The direct line of Capetian kings ended with the death of Charles IV (r. 1322–1328) in 1328. However, the succeeding Valois and Bourbon dynasties, from which French kings were drawn until 1848, descended from Capetians. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Capet, Hugh; Carolingian Dynasty; French Monarchies; Valois Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Fawtier, Robert. The Capetian Kings of France: Monarch and Nation, 967–1328. New York: St. Martin’s, 1969. Hallam, Elizabeth M., and Judith Everard. Capetian France, 987–1328. 2d ed. New York: Longman, 2001.

CARACALLA. See Roman Empire

CAROLINGIAN DYNASTY (714–987 C.E.)

Frankish dynasty that succeeded the Merovingian dynasty, eventually ruling all of present-day France, the Low Countries, most of Germany, and parts of northern Spain and northern Italy. The Carolingian dynasty was named for Charles Martel (r. 714–741), one of the “mayors of the palace” under the Merovingian kings. In the later years of the Merovingian dynasty, kings of the Frankish kingdom exercised little real power. Instead, the mayors of the palace (major domo), who had started out as highly placed officials, ruled the kingdom.

GAINING LEGITIMACY By the time of the last Merovingian king, Childeric III (r. 743–751), the Carolingians were sufficiently powerful to legitimize their authority. In 751, Charles Martel’s son, Pepin III, also known as Pepin the Short (r. 751–768), wrote to Pope Zacharias and stated a case for why he should be ruler of the Frankish kingdom. Since the Carolingians had supported the papacy against its enemies, Zacharias gave Pepin the support he desired. In 751, Pepin assembled nobles and powerful clergy at the city of Soissons and was declared king of the Franks. His predecessor, Childeric II, was thus deposed and sent to a monastery. Three years later, the new pope, Pope Stephen III, traveled to France and personally anointed Pepin as king.

MAINTAINING STABILITY The Frankish kingdom reached its peak of power and greatest extent under the Carolingian dynasty, particularly under Charlemagne (r. 768–814), one of the greatest rulers of the Middle Ages. A crucial component of Carolingian success was the close relationship with the Roman Church and the papacy. This relationship went back to the time of Pepin II (r. 680–714), a powerful “mayor of the palace” and the father of Charles Martel. Pepin II helped the papacy acquire its first territory, which became known as the Donation of Pepin and laid the foundation for the beginnings of the Papal States. Good luck also helped the Carolingians. When Pepin III died in 768, he followed Frankish tradition and divided his kingdom between his two sons, Carolman and Charles (Charlemagne). But Carolman

C a rol i n g i a n Dy na s t y

died in 771, and the entire kingdom went to Charles, removing the possibility of the type of dynastic wars that had plagued the Merovingians in the preceding centuries. In addition, Charlemagne lived to age seventy-two. This longevity provided the kingdom with consistency and relative stability, also ensuring Charlemagne’s prominent place in history. King of all Franks from 768, he was crowned emperor of the West in 800.

151

This precarious situation was complicated by the existence of a fourth heir, Charles the Bald, the product of Louis’s second marriage. Charles’s mother, Judith of Bavaria, urged Louis to give her son territory equal to that of his half-brothers. When Louis attempted to create a kingdom for Charles, Louis the German and Pepin revolted. Conflict between father and sons continued from 822 to 833. Louis was deposed in favor of Lothair twice, but each time he was restored to the throne.

AFTER CHARLEMAGNE On Charlemagne’s death, Charlemagne’s sole surviving son Louis inherited the throne, once again keeping the empire intact. Louis I (r. 814–840), known as Louis the Pious, maintained the close relationship between the Carolingians and the Church, although this caused contention among the nobles. In an effort to avert factionalism among his descendants, Louis made his eldest son Lothair associate emperor in 817. He also attempted to balance Frankish tradition with dynastic needs. Although he ordered the kingdom split among his three sons, Lothair, Pepin, and Louis the German, he made it clear that Louis and Pepin would be subordinate to Lothair.

A KINGDOM DIVIDED Louis died in 840.Three years later, in 843, his three surviving heirs (Pepin had died in 838) split the Carolingian kingdom into three parts under the terms of the Treaty of Verdun (843). Charles the Bald received the western portion, which included much of present-day France; Lothair’s kingdom was a narrow strip stretching from Frisia in the north to Burgundy in the south; and the remainder of the kingdom, the easternmost portion, went to Louis the German. Louis the German and his successors ruled much of what is present-day Germany until the Carolingian line there died out in 911.The aristocracy of the

152

C a rol i n g i a n Dy na s t y

ROYAL PLACES

CAROLINGIAN ARCHITECTURE On a visit to Ravenna in early 801, Charlemagne was impressed by buildings constructed under the Byzantine emperors. Determined to imitate the splendor of Ravenna’s Church of San Vitale, he returned home to his own palace at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) and ordered the erection of a chapel. Charlemagne’s chapel arose as one of the finest examples of Carolingian architecture. Like San Vitale, it was surmounted by an ocatgonal dome. Inside was a circular, two-storied colonnade, decorated with gold and silver, as well as bronze railings and doors. The chapel was dedicated by Pope Leo III in 805. Destroyed by Viking raiders, the Palace Chapel was rebuilt in the tenth century.

east Frankish kingdom then elected Conrad I (r. 911–918), duke of Franconia, as king. Conrad’s successor, Henry I (r. 919–936), established the Saxon dynasty, which ruled Germany and the Holy Roman Empire until 1024. On Lothair’s death in 855, his kingdom was further divided among his heirs. Charles the Bald was able to reunite much of the territory with his own and ruled as Charles II (r. 843–877). He was also crowned emperor of the West in 875. But Charles and his descendants were ineffectual rulers. Like the Merovingians, they were at the mercy of the landholding nobles who held much of the real power within the kingdom.

CAROLINGIANS IN THE WEST Under Charles II, the Carolingians in France had to deal with a growing threat—the Vikings.Viking raids had begun near the end of Charlemagne’s reign and continued throughout the tenth century. Charles first paid tribute to Norse invaders and then turned to military solutions. In 862 he built a fortified bridge near Pîtres in an effort to protect Paris from Viking invaders. He also entrusted the Bretons with the defense of what is now northern France. The Viking invasion proved unstoppable, however, although the Norsemen (Vikings) did make some concessions. In 911, under the Treaty of St. Clair-sur-Epte, Rollo, the leader of the Viking invaders, agreed to convert to Christianity in exchange for land in what is now Normandy. He

also agreed to recognize the king of France as sovereign. The campaign against the Vikings proved a mixed blessing for the Carolingians. Robert the Strong, the marquess of Neustria, who led the defense of French territory for Charles II, was so popular and amassed so much power that his family rivaled that of the king. In 888, Robert’s son Eudes (Odo) (r. 888–893), the count of Paris, who had defended Paris from the Norse raiders three years earlier, was elected king by the nobles. The Carolingian ruler, Charles III (r. 893–923), regained the throne in 893, but the brother-in-law of Eudes, Raoul (r. 923–936), gained the throne of France in 923. Charles’s branch of the Carolingian dynasty was restored in 936 under Louis IV (r. 936–954). But the power behind the throne was Hugh the Great, a nephew of Eudes. Hugh’s son, Hugh Capet (r. 987–996), succeeded to the throne after the death of the childless Louis V (r. 986–987), the last ruler of the Carolingian dynasty. Hugh Capet established the Capetian dynasty of France. See also: Capet, Hugh; Charlemagne; Frankish Kingdom; Lothair I; Louis I, the Pious; Martel, Charles; Merovingian Dynasty; Pepin the Short (Pepin III); Saxon Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Fichtenau, H. The Carolingian Empire. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

C a rt h ag e, K i n g d om o f Ganshof, F.L. The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971.

CARTHAGE, KINGDOM OF (flourished 800–146 B.C.E.)

Kingdom in North Africa (near modern Tunis) founded by the Phoenicians in the ninth century b.c.e., and renowned for its naval control of the western Mediterranean and wars with the early Roman Republic.

FOUNDING OF CARTHAGE Sometime in the eighth or ninth century b.c.e., Phoenician sailors from the city-states of Phoenicia along the coast of Palestine discovered vast mineral wealth on the Iberian Peninsula. These Semitic adventurers—close cousins of the ancient Jews in language and culture—constituted the most powerful naval force on the Mediterranean of that time. Iberia was a long way from Tyre, however, and intermediate posts were required for provisioning, repairing, and ultimately for trading.The ports established on the North African coast included Utica (present-day Utique), Leptis Magna (now Lebda), and Hippo Diarrhytus (now Bizerte). Phoenicia’s most famous colony, Carthage, was founded for this purpose ten miles from modern Tunis on an ideally situated promontory that enjoyed an almost perfect, sheltered, shallow bay and, behind it, the fish-filled Lake of Tunis.Although this account of the founding of the city-state does not coincide with the Roman legend of Queen Dido of Carthage escaping the clutches of her would-be suitor, King Pygmalion of Tyre, our only source for that romantic legend is the Aeneid by the Roman poet,Virgil.

CARTHAGINIAN CULTURE Although Carthage was respected and feared throughout the Mediterranean world for its robust trade and powerful navy, its culture was not admired. For example, even in ancient times the Carthaginians were reviled for their practice of human sacrifice. Worship of the god Baal Haaman (similar to the Phoenician god Baal) and the goddess Tanit (probably a native Libyan fertility goddess) required regular sacrifice of children, whose bones have been found under thousands of sacred columns throughout Carthage and her colonies.

153

Politically, Carthage began with supreme power residing in its kings, but the power of these rulers became diluted during the fifth century c.e. From that time on, political decisions were made by shufets, or judges, and by a ruling council. Although these positions were elected, eligible candidates came from only the richest families of Carthage.

RELATIONSHIP WITH ROME The Carthaginians sailed throughout the western Mediterranean. They mined ores in Iberia (presentday Spain), traded with the Greeks in Massilia (Marseilles) and Magna Graecia (southern Italy), subjugated the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, exchanged goods with the Etruscans in Italy, and even ventured as far as the tin mines of Cornwall in southwestern England. It was probably through their contact with the Etruscans that the Carthaginians become known to the Romans. In the third century b.c.e., Rome consolidated its power and control over the central Italian Peninsula. During the same time, Carthage became wealthier and more powerful from its Iberian and Sardinian mines, as well as from trade with the Greeks and the East. However, Roman and Carthaginian spheres of influence overlapped very little until both countries decided to expand into Sicily. Sicily was the logical geographical point of contention for the two young empires.The highly fertile island sits in the middle of the strait that extends from the toe of Italy across to the Carthaginian Peninsula jutting out from North Africa. When Hiero, the tyrant of Syracuse, assaulted the mercenaries of Campania, the Mamertines, in their recently taken stronghold of Messana on Sicily, they appealed to both Carthage and Rome for assistance. The Carthaginians were first to respond, but they disappointed the Mamertines by forming an alliance with Hiero.The Romans soon appeared and took the side of the Mamertines.The First Punic War between Rome and Carthage had thus begun (264 b.c.e.). (The term Punic comes from the Latin word for Phoenicia.) The war moved across Sicily into North Africa and then into Italy. It was the first time the Romans had fought at sea.Their success was limited until they devised a method to use their legionnaires as marines and, through imaginative boarding techniques, turned sea battles into land battles at sea. After several reverses of fortune for both sides, the Carthaginians lost

154

C a rt h ag e, K i n g d om o f

the battle of the Aegadian Islands and sued for peace in 241 b.c.e. The Romans accepted the peace offer, and the Carthaginians were forced to leave Sicily, paying a large war indemnity as well. Carthage chafed under the heavy fines imposed at the end of its first war with Rome. Carthage’s best general, Hamilcar Barca, repaired to Iberia, to gather funds and train troops for an eventual counterstrike. In 218 b.c.e., Hamilcar’s son Hannibal initiated a campaign that became the sixteen-year Second Punic War. One of history’s greatest military geniuses, Hannibal defeated the Romans again and again for the first fourteen years of the war. His crossing of the Alps with elephants is legendary, although ultimately it proved of little military significance. His masterful victory at the battle of Cannae in 216 b.c.e. was the worst defeat the Romans had ever suffered. However, Hannibal never felt his position was strong enough to attack and hold the city of Rome, and the lack of support he received from Carthage required him to return to North Africa in 203 b.c.e. Not long thereafter, the Roman commander Scipio met Hannibal on the plain of Zama, where Hannibal suffered his first but also final defeat.With this defeat, the war and the competition between the two empires were over. Rome took all of Carthage’s warships and elephants, as well as demanding (and receiving) 10,000 gold talents per year for the next fifty years. Carthage’s commercial and military viability had been destroyed. The Romans had not forgotten the humiliations they had suffered under Hannibal, and in 149 b.c.e., the Roman senator Marcus Cato (the Elder) whipped the Roman Senate into a xenophobic frenzy and launched the Third Punic War.The only action in this “war” was a three-year siege of the city of Carthage, which adamantly refused to surrender. In 149 b.c.e., the Romans broke through the city’s walls, sold all living survivors into slavery, and “left not one stone on top of another.” The kingdom of Carthage had come to an unusually final end, as Cato told the Senate, “Cartago delenda est”—“Carthage is no more.” See also: Phoenician Empire; Roman Empire.

CASIMIR III (1310–1370 C.E.) King of Poland (r. 1333–1370), known as Casimir the Great, who played an important role in shaping

the kingdom of Poland and strengthening royal power. Casimir brought stability to his kingdom through a temporary peace he negotiated with the German Teutonic Knights, a religious-military order, in the Treaty of Kalisz (1343). The last ruler of the Piast dynasty, Casimir was the son of the king Wladislaus Lokietek (r. 1320–1333) of Poland, and Jadwiza, princess of Kalisch, a protectorate in central Poland. In 1335, at the Congress of Visegrad, Casimir agreed to let John of Luxembourg rule the Polish region of Silesia as a semiautonomous state on the condition that John renounce all claims to the throne of Poland. Casimir officially recognized John’s power in 1339, at the same time consolidating his rule over Poland. Casimir pursued policies of domestic reform that angered the Polish nobility while alleviating the condition of the poor, causing him to be known as “king of the peasants.” During his reign, he brought much of the Polish nobility under his control with severe laws against tyranny and oppression. He codified Polish law, giving peasants and Jews increased rights, and, in 1364, he founded the University of Krakow. Casimir’s treaty with the Teutonic Knights in 1343 allowed him to consolidate his own territories, and he later expanded his realm by acquiring, through diplomacy, much of the duchy of GalichVladmir in present-day Russia. Casimir died without an heir in 1370 and was succeeded by his nephew, King Louis I of Hungary (r. 1370–1382). See also: Louis I, the Great; Piast Dynasty.

CASIMIR IV (1427–1492 C.E.) King of the united kingdoms of Lithuania and Poland, who reigned from 1440 to 1492. A member of the Jagiello dynasty, Casimir IV became ruler of Lithuania in 1440 upon the death of his cousin, Sigismund (r. 1432–1440). A few years later, he inherited the throne of Poland when his brother, King Ladislaus III (r. 1434–1444), died without heir. As a result, the kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania were united. He united them even more closely by placing them on an equal footing, enacting similar laws and policies for each. Like his predecessor and namesake Casimir III (r. 1333–1370), Casimir IV forged a peace with the Teutonic Knights. With the Treaty of Torun (1466),

C a s t e Sy s t e m s Poland gained territory from the knights, who also officially recognized Polish sovereignty. In 1467, Casimir IV created the first Polish legislative assembly, and taking a different approach than Casimir III, he consolidated power by increasing aristocratic rights and privileges. In 1454, Casimir IV married Elizabeth of Austria, a member of the Austrian Habsburg line, bringing Poland into the complicated picture of European monarchical succession. The marriage also made his family of six sons and seven daughters eligible for Habsburg titles. Casimir’s son, Ladislaus I, became king of Bohemia in 1471 and king of Hungary in 1490, ruling both until his death in 1516. Three of Casimir’s other sons followed him to the throne of Poland: John I (r. 1492–1501), Alexander I (r. 1501–1506), and Sigismund I (r. 1506–1548). See also: Casimir III; Habsburg Dynasty; Jagiello Dynasty; Lithuanian, Grand Duchy of.

CASTE SYSTEMS A complex social hierarchy, sometimes quite rigid in its organization, that ranks the status of individuals within their own society or cultural network. In societies where the caste system exists, such as in India, an individual’s caste is determined at birth, and he or she remains in that particular group until death. People sharing the same caste also share the same levels of wealth and status, and they participate in the same occupations and have the same cultural mores, religious rituals, and social customs. Caste also determines details of daily living, such as diet. Although those within a caste live a homogenized lifestyle and upward mobility is nearly impossible, the specific duties and nuances of castes have varied over time and place. Karma and reincarnation are important components of the caste system in India. Karma suggests that one’s status in the current life depends upon the quality of deeds performed in previous lives, and so those born in higher castes believe that their royal status is due them.Those in lower castes accept their condition as necessary repayment for past ethical misdeeds, and they faithfully adhere to the rules of their castes in hopes of achieving a better status in the next lifetime. The caste system has existed for thousands

155

of years, but no record exists of its origins. Some scholars believe that the caste system began in the hunter/gatherer period of history, as a survival mechanism. For example, stronger members of the tribe would become hunters, while others, less physically able, would care for the young or prepare food. As time passed, the categories of work in early societies became more distinct and the caste system began to evolve. Although caste systems have existed in many cultures and eras, castes are an important element of Hinduism, and the most well-known caste system began to form in India over three thousand years ago. Around 1500 b.c.e.,Aryan religious leaders first formulated the specific duties and rules governing caste in a work called the Code of Manu. This code differentiated among four broad categories of individuals and assigned each a color (varna). The top class, the Brahmins, was assigned the color white. Brahmins served as the priestly and/or scholarly class of individuals. The next class, the Kshatryas, was given red, and it consisted of rulers, nobles, and warriors. Yellow was assigned to the Vaishyas, and these individuals served as the merchant class. Black was reserved for the Shudras, the working and laboring class of society. Below these castes were the untouchables, who performed the lowest of job duties and were considered impure. The untouchables entered homes by separate entrances and drank water from separate wells. The term caste itself first came into use in the sixteenth century, when Portuguese merchants and travelers visited India. The Portuguese word casta means “race” or “lineage.” Many Indians, however, still use the term jati to indicate the caste system. In the late seventeenth century, Guru Gobind Singh, a leader of the Sikhs, attempted to weaken the caste system in India. At that time, Indian surnames indicated caste. By giving all women the last name Kaur and all men the last name Singh, Guru Singh hoped to eliminate class distinctions. In the twentieth century, the Indian political and spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi, attempted similar reform. He renamed the untouchables Harijans, which means “Children of God.” Gandhi would eat with and associate with the Harijans, in a symbolic attempt to raise their status within India. Caste systems similar to India’s operate in other Hindu countries such as Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and Nepal. Feudal Japanese society also was based on

156

C a s t e Sy s t e m s

castes.The Japanese emperor and other nobility were shoguns, with the warrior (samurai) class and laborers ranked below them in the social hierarchy.The class of outcasts in Japan was called burakumin. Ancient China also had a highly developed caste system based on occupations, though the classes were somewhat less rigid than those of India or Japan.The Chinese ruling class, or Mandarins, was made up of the most highly educated in society, who sometimes were able to rise from lower classes by devoting themselves to learning. In medieval Europe, feudalism served a function similar to that of the caste system. Kings were at the top of the social pyramid, with lesser nobles beneath them. The system depended on a large base of commoners who were under the control of those in the upper classes. Individuals had limited social mobility in feudal Europe, and the Church supported the system. With a caste structure operating to support the hierarchy and to limit change, it can be a potent tool for those in power. In modern times, the government of India has attempted to abolish the caste system, but it has not been entirely successful. India’s constitution, written in 1950, officially bans the caste of untouchables, but untouchables continue to live and face discrimination in that nation.

of the county of Castile at that time were Fernan Gonzalez (r. 930–970), Garcia of the White Hands (r. 970–995), Sancho I of the Good Laws (r. 995–1017), and Garcia II Sanchez (r. 1017–1029). In 1029, Castile was joined to the kingdom of Navarre, whose king, Sancho III (r. 1000–1035), later separated it and willed it to his son, Ferdinand I the Great (r. 1035–1065), as an independent kingdom. Two years after Ferdinand I became king of Castile in 1035, he seized control of León and became its king. The unification of the kingdoms of Castile and León lasted until 1230, and the territory it covered during this period is now referred to as Old Castile. The territory called New Castile incorporated lands reclaimed by successive Castilian kings during the reconquista, the period during which Iberian Christians reclaimed the peninsula from Moorish rule. In 1065, Sancho II the Strong (r. 1065–1072) drove his younger brother Garcia out of Galicia, the territory in the northwest corner of the Iberian Peninsula, which he had inherited from his father, Fernando I. Galicia was then incorporated into the kingdom of Castile.

See also:Class Systems and Royalty; Feudalism and Kingship; Hinduism and Kingship; Rights, Civil.

CASTILE AND LEÓN

CASTILE, KINGDOM OF (ca. 880–1506 C.E.)

Medieval and Renaissance period kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula that eventually became the foundation of the kingdom of Spain. Covering most of the central Spanish plateau, the meseta, Castile can trace its beginnings to the settlement of the city of Burgos in 880. From 712 to 755, the territory had been under the Moorish caliphate, and it was then ruled by the caliphate of Córdoba until around 800. The region of Cantabria and the Basque provinces of Alava and Vizcaya were part of Castile, which was named for the many castles that protected the territory from Moorish incursions.

AUTONOMY AND MERGERS Castile was a county of the kingdom of León from 910 to 1029, but it enjoyed considerable local autonomy from 930 onward.Among the notable rulers

King Ferdinand III (r. 1215–1252) permanently unified the kingdoms of Castile and León in 1230 and campaigned actively for the reconquista. He reconquered Córdoba from the Moors in 1236, Jaén in 1246, and Seville in 1248. With the occupation of Murcia by Ferdinand in 1243, all of Moorish Spain except the kingdom of Granada in the south had been reclaimed by Christian forces. In 1252, Ferdinand III was succeeded as king of Castile and León by his son, Alfonso X (r. 1252– 1284). Meanwhile, in 1254, Ferdinand’s daughter Eleanor married King Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307), bringing as her dowry the French territories of Ponthieu and Montreuil as well as a claim to Gascony. Enhancing Castile’s prominence was the declining influence of the Iberian kingdoms of Catalonia— Aragón and Valencia. Also indicative of the growing power of the Castilian kings was the election, in 1257, of Alfonso X of Castile (r. 1252–1284) as Holy Roman emperor by a faction of German princes who opposed another contender, Richard, earl of Cornwall. Pope Alexander IV and Spaniards opposed his

C ata l on i a , C ou n t y o f election, however, so Alfonso X never traveled to Germany to claim the imperial throne and he renounced all claim to it in 1275.

CASTILE AND ARAGÓN During the reign of King Sancho I of Navarre (r. 925–970), the county of Aragón was attached to the kingdom of Navarre. But Aragón became a separate kingdom on the death of Sancho III (r. 1004–1035) in 1035. During the thirteenth century, the kingdoms of Castile and Aragón were the two most powerful kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula; by the fifteenth century, the rulers of Castile had gained supremacy. In 1474, Isabella I, the Catholic (r. 1474–1504), inherited the kingdom of Castile. The kingdom had initially passed to her half-brother, Henry IV (r. 1454–1474), upon the death of their father, John II (r. 1405–1454) in 1454. But when Henry died, civil war erupted between supporters of his daughter, Juana la Beltraneja, and the supporters of Isabella. Isabella’s side won the succession struggle, helped by supporters of her husband, Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516), whom she had married in 1469. With the accession of Isabella and Ferdinand to the thrones of Castile and Aragon, the two most powerful kingdoms in Spain were united. In 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella conquered Granada and drove the last remaining Moors from the Iberian Peninsula. The succession of their grandson as Charles I, king of Spain (r. 1516–1556), and later as Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558), confirmed the merger of the two kingdoms, along with Navarre, which had been annexed by Aragón in 1515. The merger of the two kingdoms, together with the rule of Charles I, is usually considered the beginning of the kingdom of Spain. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Catalonia, County of; Ferdinand II; Iberian Kingdoms; Navarre, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies.

CATALONIA, COUNTY OF (801–1479 C.E.)

County in northeastern Iberia that eventually merged with the kingdom of Aragón in the late twelfth century. The history of the county of Catalonia begins in the ninth century, when the area became part of the Spanish March of Charlemagne (r. 768–814), a fron-

157

tier border region of his Frankish Empire. Ruled by French counts, Catalonia was ostensibly subservient to the Frankish Empire. But the counts of Catalonia generally ruled independently of the Franks, and in 991, under Count Borrell II (r. 947–993), they completely rejected Frankish supremacy. From 1131 to 1162, Catalonia was ruled by Raymond Berengar, the count of Barcelona.Through his marriage to Petronilla, the daughter of Ramiro II of Aragón (r. 1134–1137), Raymond also ruled the kingdom of Aragón. Catalonia and Aragón remained under the control of Raymond’s descendants until 1410, when the last count of Barcelona died. By this time, Catalonia was the dominant partner in its union with Aragón. Much of Catalonia’s power stemmed from its economy, especially its active maritime trade. Since Greek and Roman times, the area had been an important trading center on the western Mediterranean; by the late Middle Ages, it was nearly as prominent as Genoa and Venice. Trade helped expand the interest of Catalonia’s rulers, as well as foster the growth of cities and the development of a prosperous and powerful merchant class. In 1410, Martin I (r. 1356–1410), the last count of the Barcelona dynasty, died. Under the Compromise of Caspe, the House of Trastámara assumed power, with Ferdinand I (r. 1412–1416) as king. Because Trastámara interests were more closely linked to those of Aragón, Catalonia’s influence in the union began to wane.This began to cause feelings of resentment and dissatisfaction among many in Catalonia. Dissatisfaction reached the point of rebellion in 1462, four years after John II (r. 1458–1479) assumed the throne of Aragón. In 1472, John finally put down the rebellion and a peasants revolt in Catalonia. With the marriage of John’s son, Ferdinand II (r. 1479–1516), to Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504), the new kingdom of Castile-Aragón further eclipsed Catalan sovereignty. In addition to the shift in political power, changes in trade routes, frequent pirate attacks on the coast of Catalonia, plagues, and famine undermined the region’s economy. During the 1500s, Catalonia was eclipsed by Castile.Although Catalonia kept its autonomy and its Generalitat, or legislative assembly, diverging interests reinforced a separatist movement that lasted from the seventeenth century onward. Resentment simmered for years, reaching a boiling point as a result of the Thirty Years’War (1618–1648). Outraged by atrocities committed by Castilian troops in their

158

C ata l on i a , C ou n t y o f

territory during that war, Catalonian peasants revolted in 1640, attacking royalist troops in Barcelona. Catalonians later sought and received the protection of King Louis XIII of France (r. 1610–1643), but the revolt was put down by King Philip IV of Spain (r. 1621–1665) in 1650. Catalonia’s opposition to the interests of the Spanish monarchy again became apparent during the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714). Catalonia supported Archduke Charles of Austria rather than Philip of Anjou, both of whom were vying for the Spanish throne. In 1713, Philip laid siege to Barcelona, finally defeating the city’s forces after eighteen months in September 1714. In retaliation for the resistance, Philip, who became Philip V of Spain (r. 1724–1746), ended Catalonian autonomy, disbanded the Generalitat, and abolished the official use of the Catalan language. In 1768, under King Charles III of Spain (1759–1788), the teaching of the Catalan language also was forbidden. The forces of French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (r. 1804–1815), occupied Catalonia between 1808 and 1813. During his invasion of Spain, Napoleon offered Catalonia a degree of independence and official status for the Catalan language in exchange for support. But the Catalonians refused, and the region remained a mere province of the Spanish kingdom. It has remained a part of Spain ever since. In December 1979, Catalonia achieved a measure of independence within the modern Spanish republic when the Spanish government established the region as an autonomous community. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Castile, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; Spanish Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Koenigsberger, H.G. Medieval Europe, 400–1500. New York: Longman, 1987. Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill College, 1999.

CATHERINE II, THE GREAT (1729–1796 C.E.)

German princess, wife of Russian tsar Peter III (1762), who deposed him and ruled from 1762 to 1796, during which time she opened Russia to the

cultural influences of Europe. Catherine’s greatest legacy was in continuing the efforts of Peter I, the Great (r. 1682–1725) to end Russia’s isolation from Europe.

EARLY LIFE Tsarina Catherine II, known as Catherine the Great, was born Sophie Frederika Augusta in 1729, the daughter of German prince Christian August von Anhalt-Zerbst. In 1742, Christian succeeded his cousin as Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst, a small principality in Germany. In 1741, Elizabeth (r. 1741–1762), daughter of Tsar Peter the Great, became tsarina by overthrowing the infant tsar Ivan VI (r. 1740–1741), who was the nephew of her cousin, the Tsarina Anna (r. 1730–1740). Elizabeth then designated her own nephew Peter as her successor, and, in 1744, she chose German princess Sophie to be Peter’s bride on the recommendation of King Frederick II of Prussia (r. 1740–1786). In order to marry Peter, Sophie converted from the Lutheran religion to the Russian Orthodox faith, taking the Russian name of Ekaterina Alexievna. Ekaterina, or Catherine, threw herself wholeheartedly into becoming Russian, studying the language and culture. In 1745, she and Peter were married, but their relationship became the subject of much speculation when she failed to produce an heir. After two miscarriages, Catherine finally had a son, the future tsar Paul I (r. 1796–1801), but it was rumored that the father was actually her lover, Sergei Saltykov. Catherine became fervently Russian, while her husband Peter held unpopular pro-German attitudes and openly admired everything Prussian. The two became utterly estranged, and Catherine continued to make alliances within the court, forming her own power base in opposition to Peter’s. She also had a series of lovers, often men who were of some political use to her. When Tsarina Elizabeth died in 1762, Peter took the throne as Peter III (r. 1762). Almost immediately, he antagonized the court and the nation by ending Russia’s involvement in the Seven Years’War against Prussia and entering into friendly relations with that country. Catherine, along with her lover Grigori Orlov and his brothers, seized power with the backing of the army later that year. The senate, the army, and the synod (the body that headed the church) offered her their allegiance. Forced to abdi-

C at h e r i n e I I , t h e G r e at

Russia was transformed under the rule of Catherine the Great, who continued the program of Westernization begun by Peter the Great and expanded the Russian Empire by approximately 200,000 square miles. Catherine’s reign, from 1762 to 1796, was one of the most prosperous periods in Russian history.

cate, Peter was imprisoned and murdered soon thereafter.

CATHERINE AS MONARCH As tsarina, Catherine increased the power of the nobility but never lost control over them, continuing to manipulate factions at court. A keen student and a patron of the arts, she increased the influence of European learning and culture on that of Russia. Catherine prided herself on being a ruler influenced by the principles of the Enlightenment. She began a commission to reform Russian law and government, but it came to nothing and her policies instead strengthened autocratic rule. In 1762, she confiscated the lands of the Russian church, using the revenue to enhance the state treasury. To strengthen her support among the aristocracy, Catherine confirmed their privileges by a charter in 1789. The institution of serfdom reached its most se-

159

vere form during Catherine’s rule; in addition to its expansion among Russian peasants, it was also imposed on previously free peasants in newly acquired regions, such as the Ukraine. Serfs could be punished by their masters, sent to Siberia, and even sold. Such policies led, in the 1770s, to several unsuccessful peasants’ revolts. The largest rebellion, in 1773 and 1774, was led by the army officer Yemelyan Pugachov, who declared serfdom abolished and claimed to be Tsar Peter III. Pugachov was captured and executed in 1775. Between 1768 and 1774, Russia was at war with the Ottoman Turks and, in the negotiated peace that followed, it gained important ports on the Black Sea. War with the Ottoman Empire made Russia the dominant power in the Middle East, but Catherine’s efforts to break up the Ottoman realm had only limited success, such as the annexation of the Crimea in 1783. Under Catherine, Russia also invaded Poland at the invitation of a conservative faction of the Polish nobility following the 1791 Polish civil war and constitutional crisis. In 1795, after a period of division, uprising, and conflict, Poland was divided between Russia, Prussia, and Austria. Russia also gained control of Lithuania and the Ukraine. Catherine had a number of favorites after her lover, Grigori Orlov. The most influential of her lovers was Grigori Potemkin, who remained her close associate and adviser, helping choose her future lovers after their own romantic affair ended. She took little interest in her son Paul, whom she disliked intensely. Instead, she gave her grandson Alexander the attention and education due an heir. It was rumored that Catherine meant to designate Alexander her successor, but she died of a stroke in 1796 without doing so. Paul succeeded his mother and changed the laws of inheritance to prevent women from ever ruling Russia again. See also: Alexander I; Peter I, the Great; Queens and Queen Mothers; Romanov Dynasty; Russian Dynasties. FURTHER READING

Alexander, John T. Catherine the Great: Life and Legend. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Erickson, Carolly. Great Catherine. NewYork: Crown, 1994. Freeze, Gregory L., ed. Russia: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

160

Cera (Chera) Dynasty

CERA (CHERA) DYNASTY (ca. 20 B.C.E.–1000 C.E.)

Also known as the Kulasekhara, a dynasty that ruled the ancient Kerala kingdom on the southwestern, or Malabar, coast of India, an area noted for its spices and religious tolerance. In ancient times, the Cera (Chera) dynasty reigned over a small section of the southwestern coast of India known as the kingdom of Kerala, one of the three Tamil states. Kerala means “home of the Ceras.” The two other Tamil states in this southern part of India were the Chola kingdom and Pandya kingdom. The first inhabitants of Kerala were probably animists, who believed in the existence of spirits and demons and maintained that all natural phenomena have souls. As Indo-Aryans moved into India from the north, they drove Dravidian peoples east and then into southern India. This movement of peoples caused regular warfare among local chieftains in the Kerla region, which led to the establishment of a community of warriors, called Nairs, some of whom were trained as suicide squads.The preoccupation of men with warfare led to the development of a complex social pattern in Kerala called marumakkathayam, which allowed women to inherit family property. This practice continued in southwestern India until modern times. Proximity to the Arabian Sea made Kerala an important international trading center. Roman gold, Italian wine, and other products found in the region testify to the extensive foreign trade that took place there.The Ancient Romans traded generously for Indian spices, especially pepper. Later, the Arabs took Indian spices in return for Arabian horses. Jews and early Christians established colonies in Kerala, and some believe that Thomas, the apostle of Jesus, visited there in the first century of the Common Era. By about 200 c.e., the northern Aryan sage, Agastya, had established himself as a cultural hero in Kerala.Agastya was revered as the Brahman (priestly) incarnation of a god who brought Sanskrit civilization to South India.The Cera princes of Kerala were very powerful in the fourth and fifth centuries, but their aggressive impulses were held in check by the neighboring Cholas. From the mid-sixth century to the ninth century,

the Chalukya, Pallava, and Pandya dynasties fought a long series of wars in southwestern India. Nonetheless, the period was marked in Kerala by a revival of Hinduism and the advance of the fine arts.The great Hindu philosopher and religious reformer, Shankara (Shankaracharya), was born in Kerala around 790. He simplified Brahmanic Hinduism and reestablished the values of the old Hindu religion. From about 850, the southern area of Kerala was taken from the Ceras, first by the Cholas and later by the Chalukyas of the Deccan region. By about 1000, the Cera dynasty was present only in the form of local chieftains. See also: Calukya (Chalukya) Dynasty; Cola Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Pandya Dynasty.

CETSHWAYO (1832–1884 C.E.) Zulu king from 1872 to 1879 and from 1883 to 1884, who struggled to resist European advances on his kingdom. Cetshwayo kaMpande was born in 1832. His father, Mpande, was the brother of King Dingane (r. 1828–1840), who succeeded Shaka Zulu to the throne; his mother was Ngqumbazi. Like Shaka before him, Dingana had no offspring, and upon his death, rule of Zululand passed to Cetshwayo’s father. Succession to the Zulu throne normally went to the first-born son of the king’s “great wife.”The great wife was appointed by the king, which meant that the current ruler had nominal control over the disposition of the kingship upon his death. When Mpande took the throne, he initially favored Cetshwayo as his successor, but at some point he changed his mind and selected another son, Mbuyazi, as heir. Cetshwayo, however, challenged his brother’s right to rule and killed Mbuyazi in battle in 1856, long before Mpande’s own death. King Mpande could not ignore Cetshwayo’s obvious ambition to rise to the throne.To secure his own continued survival, the king offered Cetshwayo effective rule over the Zulu nation but retained the title of king. Upon Mpande’s death in 1872, Cetshwayo was well-placed to claim the throne. He rose to power during a dangerous time, however. Both the British in Natal and the Afrikaners of the Transvaal wanted to annex Zulu territory.

C h a m pa K i n g d om Cetshwayo sought to protect Zululand’s autonomy by allying himself with the interests of the British, but this strategy backfired when, in 1877, the British annexed the Transvaal and began looking to Zululand as its next colonial objective. Cetshwayo’s resistance to colonization led to the outbreak of the Anglo-Zulu War in 1879, which ultimately resulted in victory for the British that same year. To preclude the possibility of rebellion, the British exiled Cetshwayo to Cape Town, South Africa.The deposed king did not accept his exile meekly, however. Instead, he traveled to Britain to argue for his reinstatement to the Zulu throne. Although Cetshwayo faced strong opposition from colonial officials, who attempted to paint him as a vicious dictator, he succeeded in reclaiming his throne in 1883. Cetshwayo could not hold power for long, however, for members of the British colonial office were vindictive and had long memories. At their urging, Cetshwayo’s political rivals were encouraged to rebel, and the result was civil war among the Zulu. Forced to flee to a part of Zululand controlled by Natal, Cetshwaya died there in exile in 1884. See also: Shaka Zulu; Zulu Kingdom.

CHAHAMANAS DYNASTY. See Chauhan Dynasty

161

Emerald Buddha, or Wat Phra Kaew. During his reign, Siam repelled several attacks by neighboring Burmese forces. Following the reign of Rama I, Siam underwent a process of social and economic modernization. Throughout much of the eighteenth century, Siam had followed an isolationist policy toward the West. However, under the rule of Rama II (r. 1809–1824), the country began to establish relations with Europe. In 1826, under Rama III (r. 1824–1851), the third ruler of the Chakri dynasty, Siam signed the Burney Treaty, which allowed British merchants modest trading rights in the kingdom. The country signed a similar agreement with the United States in 1833. King Mongkut, also known as Rama IV (r. 1851–1868), led Siam through a period of increased contact with the West, signing treaties with European powers that made Siam the only county in Southeast Asia to avoid European colonization. Under the leadership of King Prajadhipok (Rama VII) (r. 1925–1935), the country was transfomred from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. In 1939, during the reign of King Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII) (r. 1935–1946), the country changed its name from Siam to Thailand, meaning “land of the free.” The current Chakri monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) has ruled Thailand since 1946. See also: Siam, Kingdoms of.

CHALDEAN EMPIRE. See Nebuchadrezzar II

CHAKRI DYNASTY (1782–Present) The current ruling dynasty of Thailand (formerly Siam), which has been in power since the eighteenth century. The Chakri (Chakkri) dynasty was established in 1782 by General Chaophraya Chakri, who proclaimed himself king of Siam after the death of King Taksin. P’ya Chakri ruled the country as King Buddhayodfa (Rama I) (r. 1782–1809). Soon after taking the throne, Rama I moved the capital city from Thonburu to Bangkok, where he built the Temple of the

CHAMPA KINGDOM (Second–Seventeenth Centuries C.E.)

Ancient Indochinese kingdom (known as Lin-yi in Chinese) on the east coast of present-day Vietnam. It lasted longer than almost any other kingdom in history. The Champa kingdom was founded by the Cham when the Chinese Han dynasty broke up in 192.The Cham were a Malay people whose culture was very Indianized. The kingdom stretched about three hundred miles, from beyond Hue in the north to Camranh Bay in the south. It originally consisted of four small states named after areas of India: Amaravati (Quang Nam),Vijaya (Binh Dinh), Kauthara (Nha Trang), and Panduranga (Phan Rang). They all struggled to get

162

C h a m pa K i n g d om

hold of land that the Chinese occupied in Vietnam.At its peak, the population of Champa reached about two and a half million people, divided into two clans: Narikel Vamsa (Coconut Clan), which mainly ruled the northern part of the kingdom, and Kramuk Vamsa (Betelnut Clan), which was mostly in the south. Champa was unified by its first major king, Bhadravarman, around 400 c.e. During his rule, My Son, one of the most famous Cham monuments in Vietnam, developed into a religious center—which it remained until the thirteenth century. Nearly all of the temples at My Son were devoted to Cham kings associated with Hindu gods, particularly Shiva, who was considered the creator and guardian of Champa’s dynasties. Many of the towers at My Son were destroyed during the Vietnam War in the 1960s. In retaliation for the many Cham raids on Chinese territories, the Chinese attacked Champa in 446 and took control of the region. In the sixth century, Champa was able to regain dominance and flourish economically and artistically for many years despite attacks by the Chinese, Javanese, and Khmer. Notably, under Indravarman II, founder of the Indrapura (sixth) Champa dynasty in 875, complex temples and palaces were built. In the tenth century, the Vietnamese started fighting with Champa, and they took over the Cham capital, Amaravati, in 1000. Harivarman IV, who established the ninth Cham dynasty in 1074, withstood additional assaults by the Vietnamese and Cambodians. In 1145, the Khmers raided and took control of Champa. In 1147, the Cham king Jaya Harivarman I successfully fought off the Khmer domination, and in 1177 the Chams sacked Angkor, the Khmer capital in Cambodia.They fell under Cambodian rule again between 1190 and 1220, and were invaded by the Vietnamese Tran kings and the Mongols in the thirteenth century. In 1312, Champa became Vietnam’s vassal state for a short time. King Che Bong Nga (r. 1360–1390) won back Champa’s independence by pillaging Hanoi in 1371, but the kingdom weakened after his death. By the end of the fifteenth century, it was virtually devastated by the continuing battles. Its capital, Vijaya, was captured by the Vietnamese emperor Le Thanh Tong in 1471, and the Vietnamese annexed and absorbed all of Champa by the seventeenth century. See also: Han Dynasty;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

CHAMPASSAK KINGDOM (1500s–1900s C.E.)

Buddhist kingdom located in central Laos which became a part of French Indochina in the late nineteenth century. The earliest known kingdom bearing the name Champassak dates back to the sixteenth century. Early accounts of the kingdom and its kings are sparse, however. Documentary evidence records the reign of a king named Khajanam in 1550. Khajanam might have been the founder of the Champassak dynasty, but little else is known about him or his successors. The modern Champassak kingdom rose to prominence in the eighteenth century with the reigns of King Soysisamout (r. 1713–1737) and his son King Sayakoummane (r. 1738–1791). King Soysisamout built his new capital on the island of Khong, which controlled the water route of the Mekong River. This was an important move because it not only guaranteed Champassak’s control of the Mekong, an important source of commerce, but it also ensured that the kingdom enjoyed the natural defenses provided by the river. King Soysisamout also introduced new ideas of government to his growing kingdom, as more vassals pledged allegiance to the king. By the time of his death in 1738, he had left a strong state to his son, King Sayakoummane. It was Sayakoummane who created the sovereign nation of Champassak by unifying the diverse parts of his kingdom. His reign became the longest in Champassak history. The king was a devoted Buddhist, and his practice of nonviolence made him successful in his unifying campaigns. At the same time, his staunch Buddhist attitude also led to the outbreak of many rebellions against his rule. The greatest danger, however, came from Sayakoummane’s brother. In 1758, a disagreement between the king and his eldest brother led the latter to raise an army and attack the Champassak capital.The king fled the city and lived in exile for two years before he was reinstated through the assistance of the Queen Mother. Sayakoummane’s problems were assuaged temporarily in 1768 with the death of his brother, but other problems emerged. In the 1770s, King P’ya Taksin of Thailand (r. 1767–1782) embarked on a campaign to unite all

Chandella Dynasty Thai territory. He sent an army against Champassak in 1777 on the pretext that Sayakoummane had failed to aid Taksin’s ally, Phra Vorarat, a former minister of Vientiane. Rather than fight the Thai forces, Sayakoummane fled the kingdom. Captured by the Thais in 1778, he was taken to Bangkok as a prisoner. Two years passed before Sayakoummane was returned to Champassak to rule as a vassal of Thailand. By 1780 Champassak had completely lost its independence to Thailand. In the latter part of Sayakoummane’s reign, the kingdom was divided among competing factions. The king died from a stroke in 1791. The Thai king, Rama I (r. 1782–1809), wanting to maintain Thai control over Champassak, placed Sayakoummane’s son, Fay Na (r. 1791–1811), on the throne as a figurehead.Two other relatives of King Sayakoummane were made senior ministers to retain the loyalty of the people. Although appointed by Rama I as a figurehead, Fay Na refused to be a mere puppet subjected to the manipulation of the Thais. He tried to re-create the once glorious kingdom of Champassak by establishing a new capital and building monuments, including a vihara, or Buddhist hall, to house the image of the Crystal Buddha, an important symbol of Buddhist kingship. Fay Na’s death in 1811 signaled the last attempt made by a Champassak king to assert independence from the Thais. Champassak had also lost the Crystal Buddha to the Bangkok monarchy. Fay Na was followed by a string of weak kings who had troubled reigns marked by revolts and increasingly limited powers. After 1829, Bangkok was able to exert tighter rein over Champassak by placing Thai commissioners in the kingdom to oversee its government. Even before this, however, the latter Champassak kings had relinquished their autonomy to rule, subjecting themselves to the authority of the Thai monarchs. Champassak remained a dependency of Thailand until 1893, after which it was governed by the colonial French administration. Ceded to the French in the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1893, Champassak became a protectorate of French Indochina.The French continued to endorse the puppet government of the Champassak kings until 1934, when they abolished the monarchy and gave the current Champassak ruler, Chao Ratsadanay (r. 1900–1934), the title of the governor of Champassak.

163

See also: Bangkok Kingdom; Buddhism and Kingship; Siam, Kingdoms of; Southeast Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Manich Jumsai, M.L. History of Laos, Including the History of Lannathai, Cheingmai. New York: Paragon Book Gallery, 1967. Simms, Peter, and Sanda Simms. The Kingdom of Laos: Six Hundred Years of History. Surrey: Curzon Press, 1999. Stuart-Fox, Martin. A History of Laos. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ———. The Laos Kingdom of Lan Xang: Rise and Decline. Bangkok:White Lotus Press, 1998

CHANDELLA DYNASTY (ca. 850–1202 C.E.)

The last Hindu rulers of Bundelkhand, a kingdom in the central Ganges Valley area of northern India, known especially for its architecture. The first known ruler of the Chandella dynasty was Nannuka (r. ca. 831), whose ancestors were probably humble vassals of the once powerful Pratihara Empire. The Pratiharas, in turn, were descendants of Huna invaders, who controlled much of northern India by the sixth century. Scholars believe that the Chandellas were originally members of the Gond and Bhar families who, once they had come to power as royalty, claimed to be descendants from Chandra, the moon god. The Chandella claimed that Chandra had taken human form and fathered the first of their line by a Brahman girl. As such, the Chandella claimed Kshatriya, or warrior, caste status. The Chandellas came into prominence while the Pratihara leaders, faced with a steady decline in their power and authority, were attempting to defend all of India from Muslim incursions from Afghanistan. The province that the Chandellas ruled, Bundelkhand, was then known by its ancient name, Jejakabhukti, which was the nickname of Jayaskati (r. ca. 850–?), the grandson of Nannuka. Jejakabhukti extended from the Jumna River in the north to the Vindhya Mountains in the south, an area that is now part of the present-day Indian state of Vindhya Pradesh.

164

Chandella Dynasty

The most important ruler of the Chandella dynasty was its seventh king, Yasovarman (r. ca. 925–954). As the Pratihara Empire continued to decline,Yasovarman, also known as Lakshavarman, captured the famous hill fort of Kalanjar, which became the stronghold of his growing kingdom. Yasovarman won victories over scattered remnants of the Pratihara Empire, including some lands held by the Pala dynasty of Bengal and the Paramara dynasty of Malawa. He made Mohaba his capital and built a magnificent temple there dedicated to the god Vishnu. The Chandella dynasty reached its peak during the reign of Yasovarman’s son and successor, Dhanga (r. ca. 954–1003), who consolidated the kingdom’s power. A poet and a great patron of the arts and architecture, Dhanga supported the construction of many temples during his reign. Also a capable statesman, in the late tenth century he joined with a federation of Hindu princes under Jaipal (r. ca. 965–1002), the king of the Punjab, to resist the Muslim advances of Mahmud Ghaznavi (r. 998–1030) in the northern Punjab. Mahmud defeated the federation’s forces around 990, and Dhanga’s army withdrew to reconsolidate in Jejakabhukti. During the short, relatively peaceful reign of Dhanga’s son and successor, Ganda (r. 1003–1018), more temples were built, adding to the architectural legacy of the Chandella dynasty. However, by 1018, Muslim military forces had reached Jejakabhukti, and Ganda’s son and successor, Vidyahara (r. 1018–1022), had to face invasions by Mahmud Gaznavi. Nevertheless,Vidyahara continued his dynasty’s patronage, building the famous Kandariya Mahadeva Temple of Khajuraho for the god Siva. After the reign of Vidyahara, Chandella power began to fade. In the north, the Kalacuri dynasty came to power and established the kingdom of Chedi (1158–1181), taking away Chandella territory between the Narmada and Godavari rivers. Moreoever, Muslim attacks continued to threaten Chandella stability. A succession of Chandella rulers—including Vijayapala (r. ca. 1022–1051), Devavarman (r. ca. 1051), and Kirttivarman (r. 1070–1098)—focused their attention on maintaining the strategic forts of Mohaba, Ajayagerah, and Kalanjar. Experiencing a brief resurgence of power, Kirttivarman defeated Karna (r. 1063–1093), chief of the Chedi kingdom, and joined with other Hindu dynasties to fight against the Muslims under Mahmud of Ghazni.

The last ruler of the Chandella dynasty was Paramardideva (r. ca. 1166–1202), who lost the Kalanjar fort and many other parts of the Chandella kingdom to the Rajput leader, Prithviraja Chauhan (r. ca. 1150–1192). In 1202, Paramardideva handed over power to the Muslim leader, Shah Abuddin Ghuri (r. 1163–1203), marking the end of the Chandella dynasty. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Mahmud of Ghazna; Pala Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Mahajan,Vidya. Ancient India. New Delhi: S. Chand, 1976. Prakash,Vidya. Khajuraho:A Study in the Cultural Conditions of Chandella Society. New York: Apt Books, 1982.

CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA (d. 297 B.C.E.)

Founder of the imperial Maurya dynasty and first emperor (r. 321–297 b.c.e.) to centralize most of India under one ruler. Chandragupta established the groundwork for the great Maurya Empire, which was larger and more powerful than any previous Indian kingdom and which lasted nearly 150 years. Chandragupta was born to a poor family in northern India. As a youth, he was sold as a slave to a shrewd Brahman official named Canakya, an expert in Indian statecraft who instructed Chandragupta in military strategy. With Canakya’s guidance, Chandragupta gathered enough soldiers to defeat the Nanda dynasty of Magadha and assume control of that kingdom around 325 b.c.e. After the agents of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e..) withdrew from the Punjab region, Chandragupta also took over that area around 322 b.c.e. The following year he unified the areas under his control politically, forming the Mauryan Empire. Between 305 and 304 b.c.e., Chandragupta resisted a series of attacks by Seleucus I Nicator (r. 312–281 b.c.e.), the Macedonian ruler, and founder of the Seleucid dynasty, who controlled territories in northwestern India conquered by Alexander the Great. Chandragupta managed to push the border of Macedonian-controlled territory farther west.

C h a r l e m ag n e

165

Afraid that he would lose his whole realm, Seleucus apparently made an offer of peace in exchange for his daughter’s marriage to Chandragupta. Seleucus also relinquished control of Afghanistan, Beluchistan, and areas east of the Sindhu River.With those territories under his control, Chandragupta is said to have then conquered almost all of India with a force of 600,000 soldiers. His empire eventually stretched from Afghanistan and the Himalayas in the north to the southern edge of Central Asia. The Maurya Empire founded by Chandragupta was the first successfully united Indian state. It was run effectively, with limited dictatorship at the top and democratic principles in the cities and villages. Maurya rule was a peaceful time, with thriving trade and general affluence based on bountiful agriculture, plentiful water, and mineral riches. Guarded by Chandragupta’s strong military, Indian merchants were able to transport goods by land throughout India and as far away as Burma, China, Greece, and Rome. The Mauryans thus started the trade routes that subsequently made Indian jewels, spices, and fabrics well known throughout the ancient world. Cities prospered from trade, and a rich class of Indian merchants emerged.The capital of the Maurya Empire, Pataliputra, became famous for its wealth and splendid imperial palace, buildings, and parks.The government also standardized weights and measures, established the first use of money in northern India, and took over matters of taxation, sanitation, and famine relief. Chandragupta’s final years were a less happy time, however. A harsh famine overwhelmed India. Despairing over the hunger that ravaged his people and empire, Chandragupta fasted and starved himself to death around 297 b.c.e. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son, Bindusara (r. 297–272 b.c.e.), who further expanded the Mauryan Empire and took control of southern India as far as the city and province of Mysore.

The first Chao state came to power during the Warring States period (ca. 403–221 b.c.e.) of the Later Chou dynasty (771–221 b.c.e.). During this violent and turbulent time, feudal states battled for supremacy within the decentralized Chou state. At the beginning of the Later Chou period, in the eighth century b.c.e., some 200 states vied for control of China. Over time, a handful of these states managed to absorb or conquer the rest. By the 200s b.c.e., several powerful states had emerged in China. Among these states were the Ch’in in the west, the Jin in the north, the Ch’i in the east, the Chu in the south, and the Yan in the northeast. In 453 b.c.e., the Jin state broke up into the Chao,Wei, and Han states. In 228 b.c.e., the powerful Ch’in state, led by Shih Huang Ti (Shi Huangdi), China’s first emperor (r. 221–210 b.c.e.), conquered the Zhao. By 221 b.c.e., the Ch’in had succeeded in defeating all rival states to unite China under the Ch’in dynasty. Two more Chao dynasties emerged during the chaotic Sixteen Kingdoms period (301–439 c.e.), when north China was ruled by a series of shortlived kingdoms founded by non-Chinese invaders from the northern steppes. The first of these brief Chao dynasties, founded by Xiongnu peoples, was known initially as the Han state (304–329?).The nomadic Jie founded an overlapping dynasty, the Posterior or Later Chao (319–352). The Posterior Chao practiced Buddhism and helped spread their religion among the tribes of northeast China. The earliest known Chinese Buddhist image dates from the Posterior Chao dynasty.

See also: Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire; Seleucid Dynasty.

Greatest of the Frankish rulers, who ruled as both king of the Franks (r. 768–814) and emperor of the West (r. 800–814). One of the most famous and most powerful of medieval rulers, Charlemagne ruled over a domain that included present-day France, the Low Countries, and parts of Germany, Italy, and Spain. The Frankish Empire he established became the basis for the Holy Roman Empire, and it played an important role in spreading Christianity across Central Europe.

CHAO DYNASTIES (453–228 B.C.E., 304–329? C.E., 319–352 C.E.)

Three dynasties that emerged during turbulent times to rule a small area in northeast China.

See also: Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty; Chou (Zhou) Dynasty;Wei Dynasties.

CHARLEMAGNE (ca. 748–814 C.E.)

166

C h a r l e m ag n e

EARLY LIFE AND RULE Charlemagne was the son of Pepin the Short (r. 751–768), the founder of the Carolingian dynasty, and the grandson of Charles Martel, a “mayor of the palace” for the kings of the Merovingian dynasty. When Pepin the Short died in 768, his kingdom was divided between his sons, Carolman and Charles. The Frankish tradition of dividing kingdoms among sons had created tremendous problems for rulers in the past. But the death of Carloman in 771 eliminated divisiveness within the kingdom because Charles became king of all the Franks. During a rule that lasted more than forty years, Charles extended Frankish power, became emperor of the West, served as precursor of the Holy Roman emperor, and laid the foundations for modern France. Following his death in 814, he became known as Charles the Great, or Charlemagne. Tall, strong, and fair, Charlemagne brimmed with vitality. He loved to hunt and swim, and he located the capital of his kingdom at Aachen so he could bathe in the natural hot mineral waters there. During his lifetime, Charlemagne had four wives and five mistresses, and fathered eighteen children. To consolidate his kingdom, Charlemagne engaged in frequent military activities. His conquest of the Lombard kingdom of the Italian Peninsula in 774 allowed him to expand his own holdings while assisting the papacy by providing it with military protection against the Lombards. During seven campaigns in Spain beginning in 778, Charlemagne expanded Frankish rule and, in 795, created the Spanish March, a frontier province with Barcelona as

its capital. Charlemagne also subdued all the remaining Germanic tribes of Germany. In 778, while returning from the first expedition to the Spanish March, a Frankish rearguard under the command of Charlemagne’s nephew, Roland, was ambushed by Basque mountaineers in the Pyrenees Mountain pass of Roncevalles and annihilated. The Song of Roland, which commemorated the event, became the first epic poem of the Middle Ages.

COMMANDING AN EMPIRE By 800, Charlemagne’s military campaigns had extended his Frankish kingdom to include most of the European territory formerly held by the ancient Roman Empire.The papacy at this time was increasingly worried about domination by the Byzantine Empire, which was hostile to the Roman Christian Church.With a woman, the Empress Irene (r. 797–802), on the Byzantine throne at Constantinople, the time seemed ripe for a radical move. In December 800, Charlemagne was in Rome. He had traveled to Italy to support Pope Leo III against challenges to papal authority by various nobles, including relatives of Leo’s predecessor, Pope Adrian I. On Christmas night, while Charlemagne was praying in the Basilica of St. Peter, Leo produced a gold crown and placed it on the Frankish ruler’s head. Charlemagne was hailed by the crowd as “Charles the Augustus, crowned by God the great and peacebringing Emperor of the Romans.” The new emperor of the Romans may have had some mixed feelings about this honor, since he did not use the title for several years. In the meantime,

ROYAL RITUALS

JURY SYSTEM The jury system so familiar to the Western world today has its roots in the Frankish empire of Charlemagne.When Charlemagne’s representatives traveled through the kingdom to ensure that his laws were being enforced or to mete out justice, they sometimes summoned prominent citizens to give their opinions of the matter.These collective decisions on crimes or land ownership were called jurata. Adopted and altered by the Normans and later the English, the jurata developed into the verdicts of modern juries.

C h a r l e m ag n e

Charlemagne, a member of the Frankish Pepin Dynasty, came to rule over most of Europe and was crowned Roman emperor in 800 c.e. Among the treasures of Aachen Cathedral, the emperor’s palace church and site of his tomb, is this jeweled reliquary bust, dating to 1350.

however, Charlemagne persuaded the Byzantine ruler to recognize his new position as ruler of the West. Acceptance of Charlemagne as emperor of the Romans shifted the locus of power from the Byzantium Empire to Northern Europe. But Leo’s action would also have repercussions for successive emperors, setting a precedent that enshrined in the papacy the right to bestow the title of emperor.

167

had an appreciation of mathematics and astronomy. Moreover, he constantly strove to improve his knowledge, and during his meals he had someone read scriptures or historical texts aloud. Charlemagne understood the value of education for his people as well.With the assistance of Alcuin, a Saxon monk sent to Charlemagne by King Offa of Mercia (r. 757–796), he established many schools connected to monasteries and cathedrals.The model school attached to the imperial palace at Aachen was open both to the children of nobles and to children of more humble station; Charlemagne and members of his family also attended. Charlemagne’s appreciation of learning also extended to the preservation of ancient texts, many of which were copied by monks under his patronage. Charlemagne was actively involved in the government of his far-flung empire. Once each year, he summoned nobles and bishops to discuss the business of his empire. His decisions were promulgated as ordinances called capitularies, with counts and bishops in various territories assigned to carry out his instructions.As a safeguard, Charlemagne also sent out missi dominici (“emissaries of the master”).The task of these two-man teams, one a layman, the other a bishop, was to ensure that the capitularies were being carried out. When Charlemagne died on January 28, 814, he left a strong and united Frankish Empire, but this unified realm did not last long. Charlemagne was succeeded on the throne by his son, Louis the Pious (r. 814–840), whom he had designated co-emperor in 813. Upon Louis’s death, the empire that Charlemagne built was once again partitioned among Louis’s sons. See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Frankish Kingdom; Louis I, the Pious; Martel, Charles; Merovingian Dynasty; Pepin Dynasty; Pepin the Short (Pepin III).

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

FURTHER READING

Because of his long rule, Charlemagne was able to consolidate and maintain power. Although he was more than competent in military matters, it was his administrative ability and support of learning that helped his empire survive. Compared to previous Frankish monarchs, Charlemagne had a good education. He read and spoke Latin fluently, understood some Greek, and

Boussard, J. The Civilization of Charlemagne. Trans. Frances Partridge. New York: McGraw Hill, 1968. Collins, Roger. Charlemagne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. Koenigsberger, H.G. Medieval Europe 400–1500 Burnt Mill, England: Longman Group UK Limited, 1987.

168

C h a r l e m ag n e

Sauvigny, G. de Bertier de, and David H. Pinkney. History of France.Trans. James Friguglietti. Arlington Heights, IL: Forum, 1983.

CHARLES I (1600–1649 C.E.) British monarch (r. 1625–1649) of the Stuart dynasty whose conflicts with Parliament led to the English Civil War. Charles I was the second son of King James VI (r. 1567–1625) of Scotland and Anne of Denmark. In 1603, his father inherited the English Crown as James I (r. 1603–1625), and the family moved to London. Charles thus spent his early years in the English court, indulging in pleasures such as hunting and the arts. When James I died in 1625, Charles was crowned king, his older brother Henry having died several years earlier. Soon after his coronation, Charles married Princess Henrietta Maria, a sister of the French king Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643). Charles inherited his father’s belief in the divine right of kings, as well as James’s conflicts with Parliament and with the Puritans. Almost immediately upon his taking the throne, Charles became involved in struggles with Parliament over his foreign and financial policies. These conflicts continued and intensified, leading Charles to dissolve Parliament in 1626.The next year, he resummoned Parliament in an attempt to resolve the conflicts, but he was unable to force the body to bend to his will and thus adjourned Parliament again in 1629, an adjournment that lasted eleven years. One of the major sources of conflict between Charles and Parliament was money. Charles inherited his father’s love of extravagant spending, which Parliament did not want to finance. Religion was also a source of disagreement: the Stuarts’ brand of Anglicanism was too close to Catholicism for the many Puritans in Parliament. Ultimately, Charles’s conflicts with Parliament were a power struggle: Charles wanted to rule the country single-handedly, while Parliament believed that England was ruled jointly by both a monarch and a legislative body. Another source of trouble for Charles came from his dealings with Scotland, his native land. In 1637, he attempted to impose an Anglican prayer book on largely Presbyterian Scotland. The Scots responded by creating a National Covenant to protect their

The second ruler of England’s Stuart Dynasty and a believer in the divine right of kings, Charles I struggled fiercely with Parliament, a conflict that eventually led to the outbreak of civil war. Shown in this portrait by Sir Anthony van Dyck, Charles I was found guilty of treason and executed at Whitehall Palace in 1649.

faith, which led to war between Charles and the Scots in 1639. In April 1640, Charles finally summoned Parliament again, to ask for aid in financing his war with Scotland.When this so-called Short Parliament refused, Charles dismissed it again the next month. The next Parliament, called by Charles in November 1640, became known as the Long Parliament because it served through the long period of the English civil war. Charles needed Parliament to approve the funding for his war, but the resentment that the members of Parliament felt against the king for his lack of respect for their authority came to a head, and England erupted into civil war in 1642. For the next four years, Charles led his Royalist armies against the Parliamentarians from his royal court, which was now centered at Oxford. In 1646, he was captured by the Scottish army and handed over to Parliament. Charles escaped the following year, however, and fled to the Isle of Wight, where he made an alliance with the Scots. This led to a second civil war, in

Charles III which Charles’s royalist forces were again defeated. Taken prisoner again, Charles was tried and found guilty of high treason. He was executed by beheading on January 30, 1649. After Charles’s death, England was led by Oliver Cromwell, one of the Puritan leaders of the Parliamentary army, who ruled as Lord Protector of England until his death in 1658. Cromwell’s son Richard then took over as Lord Protector of England. Richard was an ineffective leader, however, so in 1660 the English invited Charles’s son, Charles II (r. 1660–1685), to return from exile on the European continent and take the throne. See also: Charles II; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); James II; Stuart Dynasty.

CHARLES II (1630–1685 C.E.) British monarch (r. 1660–1685) of the Stuart dynasty, whose return to the throne after the English Civil War ushered in the period known as the Restoration. Born in London in 1630, Charles II was the eldest son of King Charles I (r. 1625–1649) and Henrietta Maria. His royal childhood was disrupted by his father’s troubles with Parliament; by the time Charles was twelve years old, his father was fighting a civil war against his own Parliament in a struggle for control of the nation. As soon as Charles was old enough, in 1645, he went to the aid of his father in battle. After his father’s execution in 1649, the Scots proclaimed him Charles II, but the English Parliamentarians did not. After a brief, failed attempt to lead the Scots against the armies of the Parliamentary general, Oliver Cromwell, Charles fled to France in 1651. For the next decade, Cromwell ruled England in a period known as the Interregnum (“between monarchs”). A strict Puritan, Cromwell condemned such frivolities as the theater and dancing and forbade them in his realm. When Cromwell died in 1658, power passed to his son Richard, who became Lord Protector of England. Richard Cromwell, however, lacked the energy or experience to rule effectively, and his Protectorate collapsed in the spring of 1659. Hoping to restore order and stability, the English people invited Charles back as their king. In 1660, Charles II returned from the Continent for his coronation. The period that began when Charles II took the

169

throne in 1660 is known as the Restoration because the Stuart dynasty was restored to power. The Restoration was an era of scientific discovery, theatrical brilliance, and moral laxity. In contrast to the oppressive policies of Oliver Cromwell, Charles reopened the theaters, encouraged the arts, and ushered in more tolerant policies, such as allowing women to perform on the stage. Charles also supported greater religious toleration. In his personal life, Charles II was a notorious womanizer and libertine, leaving at least fourteen illegitimate children but not a single legitimate heir. In foreign affairs, Charles endorsed the Navigation Acts, which regulated trade with England’s colonies.These acts contributed to the outbreak of a series of wars with the Dutch and strained relations with the American colonies. One of the more remarkable incidents of Charles’s reign was an anti-Catholic affair known as the Popish Plot (1678).Titus Oates, a former Protestant clergyman, claimed that the Catholics intended to murder Charles, allowing his Catholic brother James to become king. News of the supposed plot set off a wave of anti-Catholic paranoia in England and led to a movement to exclude James from the line of succession.This movement failed: when Charles died in 1685, the Crown passed to his brother James II (r. 1685–1688), the last of the Stuart kings of England. See also: Charles I; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); James II; Stuart Dynasty.

CHARLES III (1716–1788 C.E.) Monarch of the independent kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, and king of Spain; known for the prosperity enjoyed by the Spanish under his rule. Described by historians as an “enlightened despot,” Charles III was able to push through a series of administrative reforms and physical improvements in his kingdoms— including a network of roads and canals—that enabled Spanish trade to expand and flourish. A member of the royal family of Bourbon, Charles was born in 1716 to King Philip V of Spain (r. 1700–1746) and his wife, Elizabeth Farnese of Parma. Elizabeth was a powerful woman whose influence over her husband was so great that many described her as the real ruler of Spain, rather than Philip V. After being named duke of Parma by his

170

Charles III

mother, Charles obtained the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily (later known as the Two Sicilies) by virtue of the Spanish victory in the War of the Polish Succession (1733–1735). He was crowned king in 1734. Charles’s rule in Naples and Sicily was effective, but the relative smallness of the two kingdoms prevented his enthusiasm for reform from having much impact. With the 1759 death of Ferdinand VI (r. 1746–1759), Charles’s half brother and reigning monarch of Spain, Charles passed on the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily to his son Ferdinand (later Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies, r. 1816–1825) and took the throne as the new king of Spain. Among Charles’s many internal reforms as king of Spain were the limits he placed on the legal powers of the Catholic Church. By removing many privileged and powerful Jesuits from Spain, Charles was able to slow the progress of the Spanish Inquisition, though it would not be stopped until well into the next century. These actions, coupled with his economic and administrative improvements, earned Charles respect at home and abroad. Charles’s foreign policy decisions were less successful, however, especially his support of a virtually defeated France in the waning days of the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), a choice that cost Spain a great deal of its North American territory, which it lost to Great Britain. Charles was able to redeem himself later by supporting the American colonies against Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1776–1783), and thereby regaining some of Spain’s former lands. Charles III outlived his wife, Maria Amelia of Saxony, by more than twenty years.At his death in 1788, the Spanish throne passed not to his oldest son, who was mentally retarded, but to his second son, who became Charles IV (r. 1788–1808). See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Ferdinand I; Naples, Kingdom of; Sicily, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies.

CHARLES IV (1316–1378 C.E.) Much loved and respected king of Bohemia (r. 1346–1378), as well as monarch of the Holy Roman Empire (r. 1346–1378). Charles is best known for his efforts to modernize Central Europe, which led to the rise of Prague as a vitally important city, and for eas-

ing the political tensions that plagued the relationship between the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. Charles IV was the son of John of Luxemburg, the king of Bohemia (r. 1310–1346), and princess Elizabeth of Bohemia. John, who became king of Bohemia in 1310, rarely spent any time there, as he was closely allied with France in the Hundred Years’War (1337–1453). John’s death in battle in 1346 brought Charles to the Bohemian throne. Although Charles was elected to the imperial throne in 1346 (but not crowned Holy Roman emperor by the pope until 1355), most of his energy was spent on strengthening Bohemia, which had been rocked by internal disputes during his father’s reign. In an attempt to boost both economic and cultural growth, Charles founded the University of Prague (also known as Charles University) in 1348. He also greatly extended the size of Prague by annexing and developing nearby land; much of modern Prague is actually part of this extension. Not all of Charles’s reforms were successful, however.The influential upper classes of Bohemia stopped Charles’s plan to codify and organize the Bohemian legal system. Despite such setbacks, Charles was able to ensure that Bohemia remained stable and prosperous throughout his reign. In an attempt to prevent future disputes over royal succession—and thus protect the legacy of his own family—Charles issued the Golden Bull of 1356.This law removed the influence of the Catholic Church over the electoral process of the Holy Roman Empire and placed the power to name a sovereign in the hands of seven princes.While this document established the framework of a constitution for the Holy Roman Empire, its rejection of centralized forms of government promoted the regional autonomy that kept Germany in a state of disunity for the next 500 years. Charles’s death in 1378 was a blow to Central Europe, and the ensuing reign of his son and successor Wenceslas (r. 1378–1419), who ruled as both king of Bohemia and Holy Roman emperor, was beset by both internal and external disputes. See also: Election, Royal; Holy Roman Empire; Wenceslas IV.

CHARLES V (1500–1558 C.E.) Holy Roman emperor (r. 1519–1558) and (as Charles I) king of Spain (r. 1516–1556), a member of

Charles VI the powerful Habsburg dynasty, who inherited one of the largest and most powerful realms in the history of Europe Charles V was the son of Philip I of Castile (r. 1504–1506) and grandson of Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1493–1519) on his father’s side. His grandparents were Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) and Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504). Elected Holy Roman emperor in 1519, Charles became the only Habsburg ruler to inherit all of his illustrious family’s various titles.The territories under his direct control included Austria, several German states, the Low Countries, and Spain, including all of the latter’s possessions in Italy and the New World. From early in his reign, Charles faced numerous challenges from both inside and outside his empire. In the face of the united power Charles represented, all of Europe banded together in rival alliances. Most notably, France and the Ottoman Empire forged an opposing alliance, the first between a Catholic and a Muslim country. Confrontation with this alliance remained an expensive stalemate throughout Charles’s reign. Charles himself formed an alliance with Great Britain in 1520 when he signed the Treaty of Gravelines with King Henry VIII of England (r. 1509– 1547). In 1521 he invaded northern Italy, which was then controlled by France. Charles extracted the major cost of this venture from the kingdom of Spain, and the resentment there grew until the Spanish revolted in 1521.The rebels began to fight among themselves, however, and their cause was lost in a bitter class struggle that was put down by Charles’s forces. Inside his domains, Charles also faced the problem of religious division brought on by the Protestant Reformation. In 1521, at age twenty-one, Charles heard Martin Luther’s profession of faith at Worms in 1521. It did not take long for disgruntled German princes to use the establishment of Protestantism as a battle cry against Catholic Habsburg rule. From 1525 on, Charles waged unsuccessful war against German Protestant princes determined to rule their own lands. This resulted in the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, which allowed each prince to determine the religion of his land. Faced with mounting financial problems and continuing political conflict, the devoutly Catholic Charles resigned all his titles between 1556 and 1558 and withdrew to a monastic-style retreat. His realms

171

were divided between his son Philip II (r. 1556–1598), who became king of Spain, and his brother Ferdinand I (r. 1558–1564), who became Holy Roman emperor and ruler of the Austrian Habsburg domains. Charles died quietly in 1558. See also: Ferdinand II and Isabella I; Habsburg Dynasty; Maximilian I; Philip II; Spanish Monarchies.

CHARLES VI (1685–1740 C.E.) Holy Roman emperor (r. 1711–1740) whose rule was overshadowed by international conflict, which prevented his empire from achieving lasting stability. Born into the influential Habsburg dynasty, Charles was the son of Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (r. 1658–1705), whose reign had been similarly wartorn, and Eleanora, a Palatine princess. Like his brother, Emperor Joseph I (r. 1705–1711), Charles was raised with an appreciation of the arts, a lifelong passion that fostered a great deal of cultural achievement during his reign. Even before he came to the throne, Charles’s life was surrounded by violence, a result of his father placing him at the center of what came to be known as the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). When Spanish king Charles II (r. 1665–1700) failed to produce an heir to the throne, Leopold I claimed that monarchy for his son Charles on the basis of a marriage that connected the two royal families. However, on his deathbed in 1700, Charles II named a French prince, Philip V (r. 1700–1746), as the new Spanish king, thus provoking war. Charles went so far as to lead an army into Spain in 1704 to take the throne by force, but he was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the sudden death of his brother Joseph I from smallpox in 1711 placed Charles on his father’s throne.After being crowned sovereign of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as king of Hungary and Bohemia, Charles continued to war against France and Spain, capturing several Spanish territories, including Sicily. As Holy Roman emperor, Charles was concerned with instituting educational reforms as well as encouraging support for the arts. Much of the royal treasury, however, went toward military expenses, to finance a series of wars over a span of twenty years with the Ottoman Empire in defense of Charles’s

172

Charles VI

eastern lands. These wars were costly, and Charles was never able to maintain a firm grip on his outlying territories. Charles’s death in 1740 brought only more violence to the empire and to Europe. Charles had no male heirs, and in a decree known as the “pragmatic sanction” made shortly before his death, he named his daughter Maria Theresa as his successor. The choice of Maria Theresa was fiercely challenged by France, Spain, and Prussia, leading to the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). Although the war left Maria Theresa firmly in control of her hereditary lands, she lost large amounts of territory. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Leopold I; Maria Theresa; Succession, Royal.

CHARLES VII (1403–1461 C.E.) King of France (r. 1422–1461) from the House of Valois who expelled the English from France and ended the Hundred Years’War (1337–1453). One of the most influential monarchs in French history, Charles VII created France’s first permanent standing army, established the right of the Crown to levy taxes, and broke the power of feudal lords. He did not attack the feudal lords directly, but weakened their power by using prosperity, forgiveness, and his own popularity to strengthen the monarchy and the sense of French nationalism. Charles also established the liberty of the French Catholic Church with the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), which sharply limited papal authority over the church in France. Known as “The Victorious” because of his military victories over the English, Charles was also called the “Well-Served” for the able ministers who oversaw the rebuilding of France after the end of the Hundred Years’War. Charles VII was the son of King Charles VI (r. 1380–1422) of France and Isabella of Bavaria. His father, who suffered recurrent bouts of insanity after 1392, played little role in government from that time on. This created a power vacuum, which resulted in the division of the government between rival factions led by the king’s two brothers, the dukes of Burgundy and Orleans.The Burgundian faction took control of the capital of Paris in 1418, and Charles fled to Bourges in southern France. In 1420,

Philip the Good, the duke of Burgundy, signed the Treaty of Troyes with his English allies. This treaty named King Henry V of England (r. 1413–1422) as heir to the French throne. When Charles VI died in 1422, Charles VII claimed the throne, despite the terms of the Treaty of Troyes. His claim was recognized by southern France, which he ruled from his capital at Bourges. The English, however, from their base of power in northern France, laid siege to Orleans, a key city of Charles’s realm. A peasant girl, Joan of Arc, claimed that she had been ordered by God to rid France of the English. This both inspired the soldiers in Charles’s army and galvanized Charles VI into action against the English. Under the leadership of Joan of Arc, Charles’s troops freed Orleans from the English, and Charles, now recognized as heir and successor, was crowned king at the city of Reims in 1429. Charles ended the Burgundian-English alliance by signing the Treaty of Arras with Philip of Burgundy in 1435. By 1453, he had reclaimed all the English-held territories in France except Calais.With the French victory at the battle of Castillon in 1453, the Hundred Years’ War came to an end. Charles’s willingness to pardon English sympathizers helped reunite his kingdom. France’s standing army, established to fight the English and financed by taxation, became useful in peacetime to assert the king’s sovereignty and end the power of the feudal lords.With Charles controlling the strongest army, he did not have to fear rivals or make concessions to them. During his reign, Charles surrounded himself with able advisers, including his wife, Yolanda, and his mistress, Agnes Sorel. Although heir to a weakened kingdom, Charles left a much strengthened kingdom to his son, Louis XI (r. 1461–1483), who succeeded to the throne upon Charles’s death in 1461. See also: Burgundy Kingdom; French Monarchies; Louis XI;Valois Dynasty.

CHAUHAN (CHAHAMANAS) DYNASTY (ca. 600s–1192 C.E.) Rajput dynasty of central and northern India that fought the most decisive battle in Indian history. The Chauhan dynasty was one of the four great

C h av i n E m p i r e Rajput dynasties, located in the desert region of the east-central Rajasthan state, west of the city of Jaipur. The Rajputs (meaning “son of a king”) were landowners from a wide variety of families in central and northern India. In the seventh century, Raja Ajay Pal Chauhan (r. 600s), ruler of one of the eight Chauhan families, established the city of Ajmer as the Chauhan capital. In the twelfth century, the Chauhan ruler Vigraha (r. ca. 1150–1165) conquered the whole of northern India up to the Himalayas, including the city of Delhi and the eastern part of a region in northwestern India known as the Punjab. The greatest ruler of the Chauhan dynasty, however, was Prithviraj III (r. 1177–1192). A devout Hindu, Prithviraj III came to the throne as a youth and is best known for his conflict with the Muslim invader, Muhammad of Ghuri (r. 1173– 1206). In 1186, Muhammad captured Fort Lahore in the Punjab, and for the next five years the armies of Muhammad and Prithviraj stood face to face along a line that is near the present-day India-Pakistan border. Prithviraj moved against the Muslims in 1191 but was intercepted by Muhammad’s main army at Tarain, about 150 miles north of Delhi. In the battle, one of Prithviraj’s vassals, Govindaraja of Delhi (r. 1100s), fought with Muhammad. Govinda managed to pierce Muhammad’s arm with his spear. A young officer leapt into Muhammad’s saddle, and they rode off the battlefield.The Muslim troops, fearing that their leader was dead, broke off the fight. It could have been a rout, but Prithviraj let them go and went on to recapture Lahore. Muhammad regrouped and gathered more soldiers. By the middle of 1192, he confronted Prithviraj, again on the field of Tarain, with 120,000 horsemen. Backed by the largest Rajput army ever assembled, 300,000 Rajasthan horsemen, Prithviraja announced to the Muslims that he would consider a truce. Muhammad agreed to the truce, and Prithviraj’s forces rejoiced at their easy victory, celebrating long into the night. At dawn the next day, however, Muhammad’s archers entered the Hindu camp to kill the sleeping soldiers. The Hindu forces rallied, fought off the archers and pursued the Muslims on elephants. Wave after wave of Muslim archers attacked the advancing column. Many Hindu soldiers died during this attack, but their forces rallied and killed a few archers as they

173

retreated. By sunset, Prithviraj and his tired army were certain of victory. It was then that 12,000 of the best Muslim horsemen, led by Muhammad, ploughed through the Hindu ranks. In the disorder and panic that followed, Prithviraj, Govinda, and 100,000 Rajasthan soldiers were killed.The heart of India was now open to the Muslim invaders. A branch of the Chauhan dynasty established the state of Bundi in the state of Rajasthan in the fourteenth century. In 1625, the state of Kotah broke away from Bundi under a separate branch of the dynasty. Both Bundi and Kota were absorbed into the Republic of India after India gained its independence from Great Britain in 1947. See also: Bundi Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Kota Kingdom; Rajasthan Kingdom.

CHAVIN EMPIRE (fl. 900–200 B.C.E.) First unified state in north-central Peru, known primarily for its distinctive artistic style. The Chavin Empire derives its name from the elaborate temple site of Chavin de Huantar, a religious and economic center in the highlands of northern Peru. Chavin de Huantar is the largest example of the culture’s nonresidential temple sites.What the inhabitants of the empire might have named themselves has been lost, for only archaeological remains have survived to tell their story. Archaeological evidence suggests that sometime before 900 b.c.e., northern and central Peru were populated by small agricultural communities in the early stages of developing the technologies of pottery, lithics (stonework), and weaving. By the ninth century b.c.e., however, the Chavin style, remarkable for its unique combinations of human, feline, serpentine, crocodilian, and avian characteristics, had become the standard throughout the region. Examples of Chavin artwork have survived primarily in stone sculpture, although there are also a few surviving ceramics, textiles, and goldwork. The Chavin religion seems to have centered around the chief Chavin deity, the so-called smiling god, a medusa-like human figure with the vicious fangs of a jaguar.Temples to this god and others were constructed primarily of adobe and stone, and there is evidence that human sacrifice played a part in some of the rituals. Convincing people of the power of au-

174

C h av i n E m p i r e

thority and ritual seems to have been a significant priestly task. The influence of the Chavin culture gradually spread from Cajamarca in the north to Ayacucho in the south. Over time, however, other cultures arose in the Andean region that began to challenge Chavin society and influence its customs and traditions. By around the second century b.c.e., the influence of the Chavin Empire had declined dramatically, as typified by the artistic replacement of Chavin styles with those of the Nazca culture. See also: Chimu Empire; Huari (Wari) Empire; Inca Empire; Moche Kingdom; Nazca Kingdom.

CHENLA EMPIRE (500s–800s C.E.) Khmer state, a predecessor of the Angkor kingdom of Cambodia, which flourished from the sixth to early ninth centuries and covered the area of presentday western Cambodia, southern Thailand, southern Vietnam, and southern Laos. According to ancient Chinese historical records, the Chenla Empire first emerged as a vassal state of the Funan kingdom, one of the earliest kingdoms in Southeast Asia. But Chenla overran the Funan state in the early to mid500s and gained its independence. Like the Funan kingdom, the Chenla civilization was strongly influenced by Indian and Chinese sea merchants, who frequently brought foreign goods and ideas to the region.The Chenla people relied on coastal trading to support their economy, and they subsisted primarily on rice farming. Sculptures and architectural remains show the influence of Indian artistic and political thought on the Chenla Empire, although some art with uniquely Khmer qualities was also beginning to appear. This style would later evolve into the elaborate Khmer art celebrating Hindu gods that was characteristic of the period of the Angkor kingdom. Archeological ruins from the time also suggest that Hinduism was becoming more popular than Buddhism during the Chenla period. Decorative sculptures and religious shrines are inscribed with Sanskrit and early Khmer writing. Jayavarman I (r. ca. 657–681) is considered one of the most prominent rulers of the Chenla Empire. Historians credit him with conquering territory stretching over central and upper Laos and with consolidating power over the lower Mekong River Delta

region and the area surrounding the great Tonle Sap Lake in central Cambodia. Jayavarman I died without an heir, which brought about a period of instability that may have led to the division of the Chenla Empire into two separate and independent provinces— an inland region and a coastal region. These two states were named Land Chenla (or Upper Chenla) and Water Chenla (or Lower Chenla). Chinese historical annals indicate that “Land Chenla” thrived as a powerful military and economic force that occasionally sent envoys to the Chinese T’ang dynasty. “Water Chenla,” on the other hand, suffered periods of instability and became a vassal of the kingdom of Java. Sanskrit and Khmer writings from the time indicate that Upper and Lower Chenla were later broken up into a number of smaller provinces. During the eighth century, the navy of the powerful Java Empire conquered the Chenla states. But Prince Jayavarman II (r. 802–850) fought successfully against the Javanese, establishing the Angkor kingdom and declaring himself a king with divine powers. The formation of the Angkor kingdom and the rise of the Khmer Empire marked the end of the Chenla Empire. See also: Angkor Kingdom; Cambodian Kingdoms; Funan Kingdom; Southeast Asian Kingdoms;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

CHERA DYNASTY. See Mysore Kingdom

CHIANGMAI (1200s–1500s C.E.) Buddhist kingdom located in northern Thailand founded in the late thirteenth century, the control over which was long disputed between Burma and the kingdom of Ayudhya (Ayuthia), the predecessor of the modern state of Thailand. The city of Chiangmai in northern Thailand was founded in 1296 by Mangrai (Meng Rai) (r. 1296–1318), a sworn ally of King Rama Kamhaeng of Sukhothai (r. 1275–1317) and Ngam Muang of Phu Kam Yao (r. 1258–1298), after they defeated the Mons of Haripunjaya, another kingdom in northern Thailand. The site for the city had apparently been

Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong) chosen four years earlier by Mangrai and his allies, but the actual founding of Chiangmai was not carried out until the Mons had been completely subjugated. Mangrai ordered the construction of Wat Chiang Man, which marked the site of the new city. Chiangmai became not only an important political center but also a cultural center in the decades to follow. According to ancient records, Mangrai went to Pegu, the capital of the Mon kingdom of Burma, where he married a Mon princess. On his return to Chiangmai, he brought with him artisans from Burma. Mangrai’s death in 1315 set off a series of succession disputes among his three sons. In the late fourteenth century, the kingdom of Ayudhya began extending its power northward, bringing it into direct conflict with Chiangmai.Ayudhya made two attempts, in the 1410s and 1442, to bring Chiangmai under its control, capitalizing on the chaos caused by succession disputes in Chiangmai. Both attempts were unsuccessful, as the Chiangmai army inflicted severe defeat on the Ayudhya Siamese. When Prince Ramesuan of Ayudhya, also known as Boroma Trailokanat (r. 1444–1488), came to power in 1444, it marked the beginning of a long series of incessant wars between Ayudhya and Chiangmai. Trailok tried all means to weaken Chiangmai, including attempts in 1467 and 1468 in which he sent a Burmese monk and Brahmin priest to sow dissension in the Chiangmai court. Wars between Ayudhya and Chiangmai escalated and became more complicated in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as the Laotian kingdom of Luang Prabang and the Burmese kingdom also became involved in the struggle. The Burmese, under the leadership of King Bayinnaung (r. 1551–1581) of the Toungoo dynasty, fought a long series of wars with the Thais that culminated in the successful defeat of not only Luang Prabang and Chiangmai but also Ayudhya in the 1560s. Chiangmai fell to the Burmese, and its king was captured and taken back to Pegu in 1565. The Burmese appointed a regent to administer Chiangmai and left a Burmese garrison to oversee control of the kingdom. Chiangmai remained a vassal of Burma until the rise of the Bangkok kingdom in the eighteenth century. See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Bangkok Kingdom; Burmese Kingdoms; Luang Prabang Kingdom; Southeast Asian Kingdoms; Toungoo Dynasty.

175

FURTHER READING

Coedes, George. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1970. Hall, D.G.E. A History of South-East Asia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981. Wyatt, David. Thailand: A Short History. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1984.

CH’IEN LUNG (QIANLONG) (1711–1799 C.E.)

Chinese Ch’ing emperor (r. 1736–1796) who doubled the size of the Chinese Empire during the longest reign in Chinese history. Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong) was the son of Xiao Sheng, a Manchu noblewoman, and Emperor Yongzheng (r. 1723–1735). Named Hongli at birth, he was a favorite of his grandfather, the great Ch’ing emperor Kangxi (r. 1661–1722), who took him hunting and had him tutored by an eminent Chinese scholar. Yongzheng wanted Hongli to succeed him, and he groomed his fourth son for the role of emperor.To ensure that no one else claimed the throne upon his death, Yongzheng wrote down his wish in a document kept locked in a box in the palace. At his father’s death in 1736, the twenty-five-year-old Hongli became the fourth Ch’ing emperor, assuming the title Ch’ien Lung and beginning a sixty-year reign. By his two wives, Xiao Xian and Xiao Yi, Ch’ien Lung would have seventeen sons and ten daughters.

CHINESE TRADITION MEETS MANCHU STRENGTH Like the Ch’ing rulers before him, Ch’ien Lung was not ethnic Chinese. He was descended from the tribesmen of Manchuria, a region to the northeast of China.The fierce Manchu warriors had seized power from the Ming dynasty in 1644. To win Chinese acceptance of foreign Manchu rule, the Ch’ing deliberately maintained many of China’s traditions and institutions. Ch’ien Lung continued this strategy, taking pains to uphold both Manchu and Chinese customs. In keeping with China’s Confucian tradition of filial piety, Ch’ien Lung staged elaborate public displays of devotion to his mother. He sponsored the Four Treasuries, a massive collection of classical Chinese philosophy, history, and literature that totaled 36,000 volumes.

176

Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong)

Ch’ien Lung also upheld many Manchu traditions, including the male Manchu hairstyle of shaving the front of the head and growing a long braid, or queue. A strong man, he preserved Manchu military traditions with annual hunting expeditions to Inner Mongolia.

CONQUEST AND PROSPERITY Ch’ien Lung presided over the Ch’ing dynasty at the height of its power. A conscientious ruler, he rose early each morning to attend to state business. His greatest achievement was the conquest of vast territories to the west—now Xinjiang province—that doubled the size of the Chinese Empire. In 1751 he brought Tibet under Ch’ing control. Ch’ien Lung’s empire dominated neighboring nations, forcing them to participate in a tributary system. This Chinese custom required emissaries from foreign states to kowtow (touch their foreheads to the ground) before the emperor, thereby recognizing China’s superiority. Under Ch’ien Lung’s reign, the growing European appetite for Chinese tea, silks, and porcelain brought vast amounts of silver into China through trade. Improvements in agriculture led to a population explosion. Ch’ien Lung nursed a genuine passion for Chinese art and literature, and the emperor devoted his afternoons to reading, writing, and painting. During his reign he published more than 42,000 poems. He also collected great works of Chinese painting and calligraphy and commissioned new work from the finest artists and architects of his day. He was also a fan of Western art and had the Italian Jesuit painter Giuseppe Castiglione design him a magnificent European-style summer palace.

situation, the British sent Lord George Macartney to Ch’ien Lung’s court in 1793 to request more equitable trading policies. Arriving on Ch’ien Lung’s eightieth birthday, Macartney brought British manufactured goods carefully selected to impress the Chinese with the latest in Western technology. The emperor responded in a famously short-sighted letter to Britain’s King George III, writing, “We have never valued ingenious articles, nor do we have the slightest need of your country’s manufactures.” In 1780, Ch’ien Lung fell under the sway of Heshen, a young Manchu guard whose corruption epitomized the empire’s growing problems. Heshen became the aging emperor’s most trusted adviser. Heshen used his powerful position to enrich himself on an imperial scale, amassing a fortune estimated at 800 million pieces of silver. To show respect for his grandfather Kangxi’s long reign by not surpassing it, Ch’ien Lung officially abdicated in 1796 after nearly sixty-one years on the throne. However, he continued to hold power until his death in 1799, when his fifth son, Jiaqing (r. 1796–1820), took full control of the throne. The new emperor forced Heshen to commit suicide and confiscated his massive fortune. See also: Kang Xi; Ming Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Fairbank, John King. China, A New History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Paludan, Ann. Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors. New York:Thames and Hudson, 1998. Spence, Jonathan D. The Search for Modern China. 2nd ed. New York:W.W. Norton, 1999.

CORRUPTION AND DECAY Despite outward appearances of greatness, the latter years of Ch’ien Lung’s reign were marked by crisis. Ch’ien Lung left many important decisions to his councillors. Widespread government corruption, failed military campaigns, and land shortages caused by population growth led to internal unrest and a series of domestic uprisings. Pressure from the West increased at this time. Ch’ien Lung espoused the ancient Chinese view that China resided at the center of the world and that all other nations were inferior. (The Chinese word for China, Zhongguo, literally means “middle kingdom.”) Foreign traders therefore met with constant restrictions when trading with China. Frustrated with this

CHILDERIC I. See Clovis I CHIMÚ EMPIRE (900–1460 C.E.) Pre-Columbian state that developed on the northern coast of Peru and grew into a powerful military society with a complex, well-organized social system. Originating in the Moche Valley, the Chimú state expanded south to Huarmey and north to Lambayeque. Chan Chan, its capital city, covered an area of about 2.3 square miles and reached a population of between 25,000 and 69,000 inhabitants.

177

Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty AUTONOMOUS RULERS According to oral accounts recorded by Spanish conquerors and officers during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the founder of the Chimú dynasty was Taycanamu. According to traditional accounts, Taycanamu arrived at Moche by sea in the early tenth century, claiming he had been sent by a great lord of afar to govern the territory, and he was accepted as ruler by the natives. After establishing the first settlement, Taycanamu was succeeded by his son Guacricaur, who completed the conquest of the Moche Valley. Guacricaur was in turn succeeded by Ñançenpinco who, around 1350, conquered a number of neighboring valleys, including Saña, Pacasmayo, Chicama,Virú, Chao, and Santa.

CONQUEST BY THE INCAS After a series of unnamed rulers, a seventh or eighth ruler named Minchançaman came to power. Around 1450, Minchançaman expanded the Chimú Empire to its greatest territorial extent, conquering as far as to the Tumbes Valley in the north and to Chillón in the south. Around 1460, the Incas began the conquest of Chimú. After fierce and prolonged fighting, invading forces led by the Inca lord Topa Yupanqui (who later ruled the Inca Empire as Topa Inca, r. 1471–1493) conquered the city of Chan Chan around 1470 and subdued the Chimú Empire. Following customary strategy, the Inca took Minchançaman to Cuzco, their capital city, as a royal hostage. Although the Inca nominally respected the integrity of the Chimú Empire, they gradually reduced the authority of the native dynasty to the Moche Valley. From approximately 1470 to 1532, the series of Chimú rulers under Inca dominion included Chumuncaur, Guamanchumo, and Ancocuyuch. By the time of the Spanish conquest of Peru in 1532, the Chimú ruler was Cajaçimçim, who became Christian and took the name of Don Martín.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION The primary economic activity in the Chimú Empire was agriculture, and the Chimú built a large network of irrigation canals to raise crops in the valleys of their empire. This irrigation system required an extensive bureaucracy as well as several administrative centers, led by the capital city of Chan Chan.

Founded between 850 and 900, Chan Chan was constructed of adobe bricks. Each of the Chimú rulers had his own palace in the city, and when the king died, his residence became a mortuary monument. Chimú society was divided in a rigid hierarchy of classes led by a hereditary nobility.The nobles demanded labor from their subjects and employed them in construction projects, the manufacturing of goods, and as artisans and technical specialists. See also: Inca Empire; Moche Kingdom.

CH’IN (QIN) DYNASTY (221–207 B.C.E.)

First national Chinese imperial dynasty, for which China is named, that was established after the period of the Warring States (403–221 b.c.e.). Recruiting talented advisers from other areas to give them an advantage over their rivals, the Ch’in also applied their advanced military techniques to conquer the various other states in China. Around 361 b.c.e., a leader named Shang Yang from the kingdom of Wei was put in control of the reform program of the Ch’in (Qin) state. A staunch proponent of legalism, in which the absolute power of the ruling class was ensured by harsh punishments, he believed that the interests of the state came first. Shang Yang removed power from the hereditary landowners in Ch’in by replacing the feudal system with counties, each of which was administered by an appointed magistrate. He instituted a code of laws that meted out harsh punishment for infractions and divided the population into groups, making each group responsible for any wrongdoing by one of its members. In this way, he encouraged the groups to inform on each other and reinforced obedience to the Ch’in state. Shang Yang’s legislative reforms in-

Ch’in Dynasty Shih Huang Ti

221–210 B.C.E.

Erh Shih Huang Ti

210–207 B.C.E.

Ch’in Wang

207 B.C.E.

178

Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty

creased agricultural productivity and tax revenues, which, in turn, supported the Ch’in army. Despite Shang Yang’s achievements, he fell from grace and was executed in 338 b.c.e.Yet, his policies had greatly strengthened the Ch’in state, and by 221 b.c.e. it had gained dominance over the other Chinese feudal states.The Ch’in ruler, King Zheng, who had led successful military campaigns against rival states, established a new Ch’in dynasty and declared himself Shih Huang Ti (Shihuangdi), or “First August Emperor,” of a united Chinese empire. Shih Huang Ti (r. 221–210 b.c.e.) and his chief minister Li Ssu (Li Si) applied the legalist practices established by Shang Yang to the governing of the new empire. The territory was divided into thirtysix regional districts, each of which was ruled by a civil governor and a military commander. Imperial inspectors oversaw the actions of those two leaders and reported back to the emperor to ensure that the balance of power was maintained. Aristocratic families from former feudal states were relocated to the Ch’in capital of Xianjang so that their activities could

be monitored more easily. They also were forced to relinquish their weapons, which were melted down to form statues. Once a centralized government was in place, Shih Huang Ti implemented other unifying reforms. He had his government standardize weights, measures, and currency, as well as the system of writing. Laborers, often conscripted into service, built over four thousand miles of roads and cut waterways and canals that extended water transport for twelve hundred miles between the Yangzi and Guangzhou rivers. Even the axles of carts had to be a certain width so that ruts in the road would be uniform. Shih Huang Ti also began the construction of the Great Wall to serve as fortification against northern invaders. Suppression of dissent and harsh laws enforced the cohesiveness of the Ch’in Empire. According to historians, hundreds of books were burned during Ch’in rule. One ancient historical account accuses Shi Huang Ti of burying over four hundred scholars alive as a warning to others not to defy his will.

ROYAL PLACES

THE TOMB OF SHIH HUANG TI Located near the ancient imperial city of Xi’an in north-central China, the tomb of Shih Huang Ti is a remarkable testament to the organizational ability and ambition of China’s first emperor. Long before he became emperor, Shih Huang Ti, King Zheng of the Ch’in state, began construction of his tomb. Sima Qian, a later court historian, described it as a microcosm of the heavens and earth.Within the main tomb, pearls set in a copper-domed ceiling represented stars and planets, while mercury ran in miniature rivers and oceans created on the floor of the tombs.The entrance to Shih Huang Ti’s tomb has not yet been discovered, but in March 1974, farmers digging a well near Xi’an uncovered a piece of a warrior figure made of terra cotta, or earthen pottery. Subsequent archaeological excavation revealed an army of over 7,000 terra cotta foot soldiers—an army perhaps created to accompany Emperor Shih Huang Ti in the afterlife. The emperor’s army lay in three large pits.The first pit excavated held over 6,000 infantry, with some chariots and horses; the second pit had 1,400 soldiers and cavalry, as well as chariots; the third pit was the army headquarters, with sixty-eight officers. Although all the figures were broken, over one thousand have been restored to reveal the remarkable craftsmanship of the Ch’in period.The various parts of the soldiers were made from a mold, but then several layers of fresh clay were applied to the figures and finished by hand so that each is unique.

Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty

179

In preparation for his death, Shih Huang Ti, founder of the Ch’in dynasty, had a vast tomb complex built near the capital of Xianyang in the third century b.c.e. An army of life-sized terra cotta warriors, each with unique facial and other features, were erected to accompany him to the afterlife. More than seven thousand soldiers, horses, and chariots were discovered by archaeologists in 1974.

Above and beyond these factors, it was the force of Shih Huang Ti’s character and his active leadership that held the empire together. After Shi Huang Ti’s death in 210 b.c.e., his son, Hu Hai, or Erh Shih (Er Shi) (“Second Emperor”) (r. 210–207 b.c.e.), tried to follow in his father’s footsteps. The dynasty quickly declined, however. Peasants, tired of heavy taxes and harsh repressive laws, revolted in various parts of the kingdom. In 207 b.c.e., the Second Emperor’s unscrupulous adviser, Chao Kao (Zhao Gao), occupied the imperial palace with his own loyal troops and forced the emperor to commit suicide. The third Ch’in ruler, Erh Shi’s nephew Prince Ch’in Wang (r. 207 b.c.e.), dispatched Chao Kao but could not defend his throne against Liu Pang (Liu Bang), a rebel leader and future founder of the Western Han dynasty (206 b.c.e.–8 c.e.). Ch’in Wang surrendered the throne to Liu Bang less than two months after becoming emperor, bringing the Ch’in dynasty to an end.

See also: Han Dynasty; Liu Bang (Gaodi);Wei Dynasties. FURTHER READING

Qian, Sima. Records of the Grand Historian. Trans. Burton Watson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.

CH’ING (QING) DYNASTY (1644–1912 C.E.)

Chinese dynasty founded by the Manchus which marked the end of imperial rule in China.The Ch’ing came from southeast Manchuria, a region on China’s northern frontier. In the late sixteenth century, the tribal Manchu chieftain Nurhaci consolidated the disparate tribes of southeastern Manchuria into an effective “banner”

180

Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty

system, in which all tribesmen were assigned to a banner or flag of a particular color. From their capital at Mukden in north China, the Manchus proclaimed the Ch’ing (“pure”) dynasty. Capitalizing on the turmoil of the late Ming dynasty, they seized Beijing in 1644 and proclaimed Shun Chih (Shunzhi) (r. 1638–1661), Nurhaci’s six-year-old grandson, the first emperor of the Ch’ing dynawsty.

ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY China’s new Ch’ing rulers required that all male Chinese prove their loyalty to the dynasty by adopting the traditional Manchu hairstyle of a shaved forehead and a queue, or long braid, worn at the back of the head.To establish themselves as China’s legitimate rulers, the Ch’ing adopted traditional Confucian rituals and morality. They maintained many Chinese institutions, including the examination system that selected the brightest scholars to serve in the government. The Ch’ing leaders balanced this adherence to Chinese traditions with maintenance of their Manchu ancestors’ vigorous way of life, celebrating their martial traditions on

regular hunting trips to Inner Mongolia. This balance between Manchu and Chinese extended to the government, where one Chinese and one Manchu were assigned to jointly administer important agencies.

A CENTURY OF STABILITY For more than one hundred years, the Ch’ing dynasty enjoyed stability and prosperity under three strong, conscientious rulers. During his sixty-oneyear reign, K’ang Hsi (Kangxi) (r. 1661–1722) secured Ch’ing power by quashing the Three Feudatories revolt in southern China. To keep informed about the true state of affairs in his empire, he set up a system of direct communication in which provincial officials sent messages that were read only by the emperor. His grandson, Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong) (r. 1735–1796), expanded the Chinese Empire to its greatest extent. By the end of Ch’ien Lung’s long reign, the Ch’ing controlled Taiwan and parts of Central Asia, including Mongolia and Tibet. The Ch’ing court welcomed Jesuit scholars from

Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty

Ch’ing Dynasty Shun Chih

1644–1661

K’ang Hsi

1661–1722

Yung Cheng

1722–1735

Ch’ien Lung* (Qianlong)

1735–1796

Chia Ch’ing

1796–1820

Tao Kuang

1820–1850

Hsien Feng

1850–1861

T’ung Chih

1861–1875

Kuang Hsü* (Guang Xu) 1875–1908 Pu Yi*

1908–1912

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

Europe because of their knowledge of Western advances in science. Chinese trade and manufacturing expanded, as European demand increased for Chinese silk, porcelain, and especially tea. By the time of Ch’ien Lung’s reign, the growing British appetite for Chinese tea had created a trade imbalance that brought large quantities of silver into China. At the same time, technological improvements in agriculture combined with new crops introduced from the New World to produce a population explosion in China.

REBELLION AND INVASION The Ch’ing’s glory days came to an end in the nineteenth century. Weak rulers and a corrupt bureaucracy could not respond effectively to a century of internal rebellion and foreign invasion. Overpopulation contributed to poverty and land shortages, providing rebel leaders with willing followers among the desperate peasantry. More than 20 million Chinese died in the Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864), which was a revolt against the Ch’ing by the supporters of a would-be dynasty called the Taiping. Like the Ming before them, the Ch’ing were uninterested in relations with foreign nations. Trade was severely restricted, and all foreign envoys were

181

expected to kowtow (touch their foreheads to the floor) before the emperor, thereby showing their acknowledgment of Chinese superiority. In 1793, the British sent a mission led by Lord George Macartney to request more favorable trade conditions between Britain and China. Macartney, hoping to impress Emperor Ch’ien Lung with gifts representing the latest in European technology, instead found himself summarily rebuffed. In a letter to Britain’s King George III (r. 1760–1820), Ch’ien Lung explained that the Chinese had no need for Western goods. The Europeans soon found that by exchanging opium for tea and other Chinese goods they were able to reverse the flow of silver into China. Opium addiction spread rapidly throughout the Ch’ing Empire. When the Chinese tried to stop the opium trade, the British attacked and easily defeated China in the Opium War (1840–1842).The resulting Treaty of Nanjing, which gave the British control of Hong Kong, was only one of many such treaties that took land from the Chinese and forced foreign will on the weakened empire. In 1898, antiforeign sentiment in China culminated in the Boxer movement, which called on the Chinese people to attack foreigners in the country. In 1900, the Boxers laid siege to foreign legations in Beijing until Western forces entered the city to dispel them. The last fifty years of Ch’ing rule were dominated by the empress dowager Tz’u Hsi (Cixi). Recognizing China’s need to reform, Emperor Kuang Hsü (Guang Xu) challenged Tz’u Hsi’s power in 1898 and joined with reformers to call for sweeping changes to modernize the country. However, the conservative Tz’u Hsi suppressed the reformers and had Kuang Hsü imprisoned. Tz’u Hsi eventually agreed to reforms, promising a constitutional government, but it was too late. In 1911–1912, the revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen led a successful rebellion against the Ch’ing, ending the short reign of Pu Yi, China’s last emperor, and instituting a republic. See also: Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong); Kang Xi; Kuang Hsu (Guang Xu); Ming Dynasty; Pu Yi; Tz’u Hsi (Cixi).

CHOLA DYNASTY. See Mysore Kingdom

182

Choson Kingdom

CHOLA KINGDOM. See Cola Kingdom

CHORASMIAN KINGDOM. See Central Asian Dynasties

CHOSON KINGDOM (1392–1910 C.E.) Name given to Korea by the Yi dynasty during its reign from 1392 to 1910. The Choson kingdom was created in 1392 when General Yi Songgye overthrew the Koryo monarch Kong-yang (r. 1389–1392), founded the Yi dynasty, and changed the country’s name to Choson. Yi selected the name to honor a kingdom that had existed on the Korean Peninsula in the fourth through first centuries b.c.e. For Yi, the name had a deeply symbolic meaning. The original Choson was the earliest recorded civilization in Korean history. By naming his kingdom Choson,Yi implied that a new, but traditional, civilization was emerging. For centuries, an insurmountable social stratification had characterized the Koryo kingdom and its predecessors. To facilitate the new Choson civilization, Yi and his successors attempted to overturn this stratification. In Koryo, wealthy families, called the yangban, had occupied the highest social level and controlled much of the farmland, thereby retaining the profits generated in Koryo’s agricultural economy. To reduce this financial power, Yi confiscated all these vast estates and gave ownership to the state. Although their wealth was greatly diminished, the yangban still held a prominent position in the new Choson society because they were better educated than other citizens. The local peasantry also viewed each yangban family with a patriarchal reverence. Another important class, the literati, had originated during Koryo’s existence.The literati were an educated class primarily responsible for running the government. To install these officials, the Yi monarchs devised two civil service examinations. When individuals passed both exams, they could attain a government position. To prevent these positions from being filled solely by the yangban, the

monarchy opened the exams to all Choson citizens and created public schools to educate them. However, the yangban still received the best education, and many of the literati continued to come from the yangban class. Commoners, or peasants, and slaves occupied two lower positions in Choson society. The Yi monarchs also strove to reform these two classes. During the seventeenth century, the monarchy instituted a new taxation system that determined taxes by the amount of land each individual owned.This new system greatly alleviated the tax burden on small landowners. Concurrent improvements in farming methods created new affluence among the peasant class. The government also reduced restrictions that the Koryo rulers had placed upon merchants in the peasant class. Consequently, merchants began to expand their businesses and import new products from other Asian countries. By 1801, the government had even freed all remaining slaves. Eventually, these reforms created a deep rift in Choson society. During the nineteenth century, countries such as China, Japan, and Russia, each looking to control the Korean Peninsula, were pressuring Choson to modernize its government and economy. The yangban and literati feared that such modernization would undermine their social positions and give greater power to merchants and farmers. The merchants and farmers shared this belief; they had already profited from modern agricultural and economic practices, and they hoped to further advance their social position. The conflict between the social classes soon became violent. In 1884, a group of peasants named the Enlightenment Party attempted to overthrow the monarchy and institute reforms similar to those of the Meiji in Japan. Although the insurrection failed, the movement encouraged both China and Japan to participate more heavily in Choson affairs. After Japan defeated China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, the Japanese government compelled Choson to adopt the Kabo Reforms, which opened the government to all classes and specified huge expenditures on public projects such as schools. Alarmed by these events, a group of literati called the Independence Club sought to expel all foreigners from Choson and preserve the kingdom’s autonomy. However, under pressure from Japan, the Choson monarch forced the group to disband.

C h ou ( Z h ou ) Dy na s t y

183

Kyongbok Palace in Seoul, Korea, was built as the residence of the rulers of the Choson Kingdom in the late fourteenth century. The staggering cost of its construction was a factor in the decline and eventual downfall of the kingdom. Destroyed by Japanese invaders in 1592, the palace was reconstructed in 1867. It originally contained some 350 buildings, including Hyangwon Pavilion, shown here.

The hostility between organizations such as the Enlightenment Party and the Independence Club severely weakened Choson society. In 1905, Japan designated Choson as an official protectorate. Five years later, the Japanese removed the Yi monarch and declared Choson to be a colony. The Yi dynasty’s reforms had brought a new prosperity to Choson for several centuries. But the class struggles that had plagued the preceding Silla and Koryo kingdoms also eventually doomed Choson. See also: Koryo Kingdom;Yi Dynasty;Yi Songgye.

FURTHER READING

Eckert, Carter J., et al. Korea Old and New. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.

CHOU (ZHOU) DYNASTY (ca. 1045–221 B.C.E.)

Early Chinese dynasty that produced a golden age in philosophy. Following the Hsia and the Shang dynasties, the Chou was the last of China’s three ancient

184

C h ou ( Z h ou ) Dy na s t y

dynasties.The longest dynasty in Chinese history, the Chou lasted nearly one thousand years. Although the Chou period was an era of constant political turmoil, it also produced some of China’s most influential thinkers.

EARLIER OR WESTERN CHOU The Chou dynasty was founded by two brothers, the sons of King Wen, ruler of the Chou, a state on the western frontier of the Shang dynasty. After defeating the Shang armies in 1050 b.c.e., one of the brothers,Wu Wang, became the first Chou ruler. On Wu’s death, his brother, Chou Gong, served as regent for Wu’s young son. Chou Gong expanded Chou territory, conquering the Yellow River plain. With its capital near the modern-day city of Xi’an,

Western Chou Wu Wang

1045–1043 B.C.E.

this period, known as the Earlier or Western Chou, endured for more than four hundred years. Chou kings ruled indirectly during the Western Chou period, establishing vassal states that sent tribute to the Chou king and provided him with soldiers. The Chou exerted limited central control through an imperial army and the beginnings of a bureaucracy. In 771 b.c.e., the Chou capital was sacked by the armies of tribal rivals and vassal states. The Chou reestablished their capital to the east at the city of Luoyi, the site of modern-day Luoyang, marking the beginning of the Later or Eastern Chou period.

LATER OR EASTERN CHOU Twenty-two kings ruled the Eastern Chou for more than five hundred years, but Chou kings held little

Hsi Wang

681–676

Hui Wang

676–651

Ch’eng Wang

1043–1006

Hsiang Wang

651–618

K’ang Wang

1006–978

Ch’ing Wang

618–612

Chao Wang

978–957

K’uang Wang

612–606

Mu Wang

957–918

Ting Wang

606–585

Kung Wang

918–900

Chien Wang

585–571

I Wang

900–873

Ling Wang

571–544

Hsiao Wang

873–866

Ching Wang

544–519

Yi Wang

866–858

Ching Wang

519–475

Li Wang

858–841

Yuan Wang

475–468

Regency

841–827

Chen Ting Wang

468–440

Huan Wang

827–781

K’ao Wang

440–425

Yu Wang

781–771

Wei Lieh Wang

425–401

An Wang

401–375

Lieh Wang

375–368

Hsien Wang

368–320

Eastern Chou P’ing Wang

770–719

Shen Ching Wang

320–314

Huan Wang

719–696

Nan Wang

314–256

Chuang Wang

696–681

Tung Chou Chun

255–249

Christianity and Kingship power over the states in their realm. Rival states within the Chou territory engaged in near-constant warfare. The Eastern Chou is generally divided into two periods, the Spring and Autumn period (722–481 b.c.e.), which is known for the chivalry of its nobles, and the Warring States period (ca. 403–221 b.c.e.), when several powerful states vied for supremacy. A hierarchy of aristocrats emerged during the Later Chou period, with nobles ruling their individual states from palaces surrounded by walled cities. In the latter years of the era, several states gained power and dominated the others. One of these was the state of Ch’in in the northwest, whose leader deposed the last Chou king in 256 b.c.e. In a series of long campaigns, the Ch’in conquered the fragmented Chou territory, defeating the last of its rivals in 221 b.c.e. and founding the Ch’in (Qin) dynasty.

LIFE UNDER THE CHOU Chou society was highly stratified, with the king at the pinnacle of a social hierarchy that included the nobility, a small class of artisans, and an emerging merchant class. At the bottom were the peasants, who comprised the majority of the population and were bound to the land in serf-like conditions. Agriculture was the basis for the Chou economy, but trade also flourished. In 500 b.c.e., metal coins were first introduced to China under the Chou, replacing silk as the primary form of currency. From their Shang predecessors, the Chou inherited divination, ancestor worship, and the custom of ritual sacrifices in honor of a pantheon of gods. The Chou introduced the idea that the emperor was the link between heaven and earth and that he ruled according to the will of heaven. If heaven disapproved of the actions of the king, or “Son of Heaven,” natural disasters and other omens would occur, signaling the end of a king’s mandate to rule. Succeeding dynasties adopted this concept throughout China’s history. Constant warfare between rival states contributed to technological advances in the Chou period.Among these advances were the adoption of the crossbow in the fourth century b.c.e. and the introduction of cavalry during the Eastern Chou period. Horseback riding, borrowed from Central Asia, became common in China for the first time with the development of the saddle in the 800s b.c.e.Around 500 b.c.e., China entered the Iron Age, with iron replacing bronze in the making of tools and weapons.

185

A GOLDEN AGE OF PHILOSOPHY During the Later Chou period, nobles, seeking the knowledge to help them defeat rival states, recruited scholars to their courts. These numerous centers of learning allowed a variety of schools of philosophy to flourish, and the period became known for its “One Hundred Schools of Thought.” Two of China’s most important philosophies, Confucianism and Taoism (Daoism), emerged in this period.The philosopher Confucius (551–479 b.c.e.) argued that rulers should set a moral example through ethical conduct and the performance of rituals. Confucianism sought to maintain the existing social hierarchy, advocating the performance of traditional roles and obedience to authority. The Five Classics emerged from the Chou period. These Confucian texts served as the basis for China’s philosophical, political, and ethical systems until the twentieth century c.e. Taoism, founded by the philosopher Lao Tzu (Laozi), advocated the merging of the individual with the Dao, or Way. See also: Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty; Hsia Dynasty; Shang (Yin) Dynasty.

CHRISTIANITY AND KINGSHIP Christianity was the primary force shaping the ideas and practices of kingship in the European world from the Middle Ages to early modern times. The Christian idea of kingship grew out of the Bible and earlier forms of kingship in the Roman Empire and among Germanic tribes in Europe.

CHRISTIAN IDEAS OF KINGSHIP The first influence on Christian ideas of kingship were the New Testament writings about Jesus, who described himself as a king, though his kingdom was “not of this world” (John 18:36). In other New Testament writings, Jesus is described as a high priest. Above all, he was called the Messiah, the “Anointed One,” a sacred king expected by the Jews. The Christian concept of kingship in the Middle Ages was also influenced by ideas about the relationship between church and state that developed during the later Roman Empire. Roman emperors had acted as the Pontifex Maximus, or chief priest, of the state religion. Constantine (r. 307–337), the first Christian emperor, believed that he too should be a religious leader;

186

Christianity and Kingship

ROYAL RELATIVES

CLOTILDA, QUEEN OF THE FRANKS (ca. 470–544 C.E.) Clotilda, wife of Clovis, the pagan king of the Franks, became responsible for making much of Europe Christian when she converted her husband and the people of his kingdom to Christianity. Clotilda was the daughter of King Chilperic of Burgundy and a Gallo-Roman mother. Clovis, the king of the Salian Franks, heard of her beauty and asked for her hand in marriage. At first Clotilda refused him because he was a pagan, but when Clovis threatened war against her uncle and guardian, she agreed to the marriage. Clovis and Clotilda were married in 493. Clotilda often tried to convert her husband to Christianity but without success. She nevertheless insisted on having their children baptized as Christian. Clovis was devastated when their first child died after the baptism, believing that he had died because he had not been dedicated to the pagan gods. But when Clovis went to war against the Alemanni and the Suevi in 496, and saw that he was about to be overcome, he prayed to his wife’s God, and the battle turned in his favor.That same year, he received baptism from Saint Remigius, the bishop of Reims, and became the first Christian king of France After Clovis died in 511, Clotilda turned to religious life, founding the religious communities of St. Peter in Lyon and Les Andelys and St. Ouen in Rouen. Female monasticism soon flourished in Merovingian Gaul, and monasteries became havens for the poor and persecuted. Clotilda’s conversion of Clovis and his people cemented an alliance between the Frankish rulers and Catholic Christianity, centered in the papacy, that lasted throughout the Middle Ages.

he convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 to solve a religious dispute.The idea that a secular ruler could decide religious questions frequently led to conflict between kings and popes during the Middle Ages. Another influence on Christian ideas of kingship was the idea of kingship held by the ancient, preChristian Germanic tribes in Europe.The early Germanic tribes had two kinds of kings: the reik or warrior king, and the thiudan or priest-king. The early Christian writer Ulfilas, who translated the Bible for the Goths, used the word thiudan for Jesus’s kingship. But both forms of kingship influenced the Christian ideal of a king. In the Middle Ages, some considered the anointing of kings a sacrament. In early medieval France, for example, the oil used to anoint kings was thought to be the same oil brought from heaven for the coronation of Clovis (r. 481–511), the first Christian king

of the Franks. Because the Frankish king was regarded as the anointed (Christus) of the Lord, he was often considered another Christ, and, like Christ, both a priest and a king. The Via Regia (Royal Way), written by the medieval hagiographer (writer of lives of the saints) Smaragdus of St. Mihiel (d. ca. 843), shows how kingship was perceived during the Carolingian period. Smaragdus stressed that the king acquires a holy character through sacred anointing and that he must display all the Christian virtues: justice, mercy, compassion, and courage. According to Smargdus, a king should recall that seeking the kingdom of God is more important than earthly government.The king’s life, nevertheless, is different from that of an ascetic monk because the king is more deeply involved in the world.These instructions given to kings were the basis of lay spirituality in the later Middle Ages.

Christianity and Kingship

187

Toward the end of the Middle Ages, jurists developed the idea that the king had two “bodies.” One was his natural body, which was subject to sin, imperfection, and corruption; the other was his “body politic,” which was incorruptible and passed on from king to king so that rule was preserved. Beginning with the funeral of Charles VIII of France (r. 1483–1498) in 1498, the king’s natural body, which had formerly been buried with all his regalia, was now clothed only in a white sheet. The regalia adorned his funeral effigy, symbol of the “body politic,” on top of the monarch’s coffin.

BYZANTINE KINGSHIP

In the early Middle Ages, kingship and Christianity were inextricably linked, and the anointing of kings was considered a holy sacrament. This fourteenth-century illustration shows Clovis I, the first Christian king of the Franks, being baptized and anointed by St. Remigius, bishop of Rheims.

Most Christian monarchs did not live up to these responsibilities; nevertheless, a number of them were actually canonized as saints, including Edward the Confessor of England (r. 1042–1066), Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270), and the Holy Roman emperor Henry II (r. 1002–1024) and his wife Cunegunde. From the eleventh century onward, people believed that French and English kings, like the earlier Germanic kings, could cure scrofula by touching the sufferer. It was from anointing by the bishop that the king received his sacred character, and the Church and bishops had primary authority during the earlier Middle Ages and sought to control kings. In the eleventh century, a strengthened and reformed papacy under Pope Gregory VII sought to rein in the emperor’s claims to control the selection of bishops and their power to rule, a dispute called the Investiture Controversy. The imperial side often took the position that kings and popes were equal and that the king was God’s vicar in secular matters.

The rulers of the Byzantine Empire (330–1453) shared not only the despotic tradition of eastern kingships, but the exalted conception of the ruler of the late Roman Empire. In Byzantium, the emperor’s sacred character was highly developed under the influence of an ascetic approach to Christianity. Relations between the papacy and the Byzantine emperors were distant, especially after the schism that divided the Eastern from the Western Church in 1054. As a result, the Byzantine emperor had a good deal of control over his clergy. The sacred character of society was centered in the emperor, who was considered the living law. His seat was physically located under an icon of Christ, which showed his identification with the kingship of Christ.

RENAISSANCE AND POSTREFORMATION KINGSHIP The Protestant Reformation, which began in the sixteenth century, changed the concept of Christian kingship in Protestant countries. After breaking with the pope, Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547) declared himself head of the Church in England. Henry was now the vicar of God for his kingdom, without priestly competition. The king was now seen as ruling by “divine right” in both temporal and secular matters and thus answerable to no one but God. The sacramental system of the Catholic Church, with its symbolism and use of religious images, was suppressed during the Reformation. As a result, the cult of the ruler replaced the real presence in the Eucharist (holy communion) as a subject of view and worship in Protestant countries. Royal rituals were secularized, becoming grandiose civic pageantry rather than sacramental rites. At the coronation of Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) in 1558, more

188

Christianity and Kingship

attention was given to the queen’s procession than to the scaled-down coronation mass. There was a change in Catholic countries as well, due to the secular ideas of the Renaissance. Supporters of absolutism in France used the pagan mythological figure of Apollo, the sun-god, to symbolize the divinity of the monarch. This idea reached its height under Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), who was known as the Sun-King. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the idea of the “body politic” came to be centered not in the king’s body, but in the more impersonal state. Divine conceptions of the monarch largely ended with the almost total secularization of society during the French Revolution. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Bodies, Politic and Natural; Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; Enthronement, Rites of; Healing Powers of Kings; Heavens and Kingship; Sacral Birth and Death; Sacred Kingships; Sacred Texts.

CHRISTINA (1626–1689 C.E.) Queen of Sweden (r. 1632–1654) who, for religious reasons, abdicated her throne at age twenty-eight. Queen Christina is especially remembered for her wit and charm and her lavish patronage of the arts. The fortunes of monarchs often change radically during their lifetimes. The destiny of Christina of Sweden was unique in European history, both in its originality and in the degree to which it was selfdirected. Christina was the daughter of King Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden (r. 1611–1632) and Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg.When Maria presented her warrior husband with a daughter rather than a son, that valiant defender of Protestants accepted this reversal of plans with brave equanimity. Christina, in turn, grew up as boyishly as was possible given her social position. Her father put her under the care of the intelligent and loyal Count Axel Oxenstierna and, when Gustavus II was killed in 1632, Christina became queen at the age of six. Oxenstierna educated the eager young girl so well that when she reached maturity, Christina immediately and successfully opposed him regarding the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and became one of the prime movers of the difficult Peace of West-

phalia (1648), which began the modern European state system. Under Christina, Sweden became a cultural haven; men of letters and the arts from all over the Western world were lured by her open-handed patronage.The queen built hospitals, colleges, and universities; she supported public education; and she adjudicated and quelled feuds both within her own realm and internationally. Christina’s courtiers did not universally applaud her patronage of the arts and humanities. Courtly relations were strained further by the queen’s pacifism, her wilting wit, and her reluctance to wed any of the royal suitors who came constantly to her court. Christina noticed this discontent, but she thought such problems superficial; she was dedicated to the life of the mind and to the cold comforts of philosophy. In her boldest adventure in self-education, Christina sent an admiral and ship to collect René Descartes—the greatest philosopher of his time—so that he might personally instruct her in his new system of thought. The great philosopher came to Stockholm, but succumbed to the harshness of Sweden’s weather and the schedule kept by the queen, who insisted on beginning her lessons at 5 a.m. Descartes died of pneumonia not long after his arrival. Christina continued her spiritual quest and was led, ironically, to Catholicism. Sweden was not only Lutheran; it was profoundly anti-Catholic. Attracted to Catholicism, and weary of her royal duties, Christina made a decision that shocked not only her subjects, but all of Europe; she abdicated the throne in favor of her cousin, Charles X Gustav (r. 1654– 1660) in 1654 and left her homeland. Curiously, Christina’s importance to European history had hardly reached its zenith at this point. After brief stays in the Netherlands and Paris, Christina found a spiritual home at Rome. For another thirty-five years she played on the European political stage. In 1657, Christina participated in an abortive French plot to give her the Crown of Naples. Several years later, at the urging of Pope Clement IX and under his sanction, she traveled to Poland in an attempt to assume the throne of that kingdom. In 1660, Christina returned to Sweden upon the death of Charles X Gustavus in hopes of regaining the throne. She failed, however. Refused entrance to the capital of Stockholm because of her Catholic faith, she was forced to return to Italy.

C h u l a l on g kor n During her exile from Sweden, Christina also volunteered her personal fortune to help continue the crusade against the Turks, the only military action she ever sanctioned. No matter where her travels took her, Christina always returned to Rome and to her magnificent Palazzo Riario and to the Accademia dell’Arcadia, which she founded and which became the gathering place for the greatest philosophers, musicians, and artists of her day.Thus, the patronage that Christina had begun in the frozen North blossomed in the Italian sun. Christina was the discoverer or primary patron of the musicians Alessandro Scarlatti and Arcangelo Corelli, and the sculptor Giovanni Bernini, Her library was considered the best in Rome and is now part of the Vatican Library. She also built Rome’s first public opera house. Christina died in her adopted home of Rome in 1689 and is entombed at St. Peter’s Basilica. See also: Gustavus II (Adolphus); Queens and Queen Mothers; Swedish Monarchy. FURTHER READING

Buckley,Veronica. Christina, Queen of Sweden:The Restless Life of a European Eccentric. New York: Fourth Estate, 2004.

CHULALONGKORN (1853–1910 C.E.) Fifth king (r. 1868–1910) of the Chakkri dynasty of Thailand, who is remembered as a great modernizer. Chulalongkorn (also known as Rama V) was born in the royal palace in Bangkok,Thailand (then called Siam), on September 20, 1853. He was the eldest son of King Mongkut (r. 1851–1868), who is immortalized in the novel Anna and the King of Siam and the popular musical play and film, The King and I, which were based upon the actual memoirs of a British tutor who served in the Siamese court in the mid-1800s. From birth, Chulalongkorn was destined to succeed his father to the throne. Although King Mongkut traveled throughout his realm, the Thai royal family rarely ventured beyond the palace walls. Chulalongkorn and his many siblings (they numbered in the hundreds, for Mongkut kept a very large harem) received their education from private tutors. Chulalongkorn’s father, determined that his children would understand the Western powers that were colonizing many parts of

189

Southeast Asia, supplemented their traditional course of study with tutelage in English, for which he hired an English widow, Anna Leonowens. From her, Chulalongkorn gained fluency in the English language as well as a solid grounding in European academic subjects. At age nine, Chulalongkorn’s education was expanded to include studies in the martial arts and horsemanship, and four years later he underwent a ritual haircutting that marked his entry into young manhood. Soon after he began studying for the Buddhist priesthood. In 1868 King Mongkut died and Chulalongkorn was made king, but he was still too young to rule in his own right. Instead, a regency of court ministers handled the operation of the government, and these regents were highly resistant to any policies that threatened the established order. During the regency period, Chulalongkorn traveled outside of Thailand, becoming the first Thai king to do so. During his travels he came to believe that Thailand needed to make significant changes if it ever hoped to retain its independence from the European powers that were colonizing the region. On November 16, 1873, Chulalongkorn was finally old enough to rid himself of the regents who stifled his attempts at change. He at once embarked upon a program of modernization, while attempting to maintain those elements of Thai culture that gave his people a unique identity. Chulalongkorn’s mission to maintain Thai independence suffered some setbacks during the latter decades of the 1800s, when he lost territory to the French (in present-day Laos and Cambodia). Still, he managed the considerable feat of retaining his nation’s sovereignty. This can be attributed to former king Mongkut’s foresight in providing Chulalongkorn with a solid understanding of the West and its aims. Chulalongkorn’s efforts at modernization and development won him the admiration of his subjects but the enmity of his ministers, who saw their traditional power being undermined. Chief among Chulalongkorn’s early reforms was his promotion of education and literacy, which culminated in the creation of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok in 1902. Equally important was his abolition of slavery, a change that the noble families of Thailand fought bitterly, but that was finally signed into law in 1905. By that time the king was seriously ill, having battled a variety of physical ailments since childhood and now suffering from chronic kidney disease. On October 23, 1910, he finally died, at the age of fifty-

190

C h u l a l on g kor n

seven. He was succeeded by his son, Vajiravudh (r. 1910–1925). See also: Chakri Dynasty; Mongkut (Rama IV); Siam, Kingdoms of.

CIXI. See Tz’u Hsi CLASS SYSTEMS AND ROYALTY Factors related to a hierarchical system of social groupings and its relationship to monarchial forms of government.Throughout history, one of the primary motivators of social change has been the relationship between various economic classes. The history of monarchy is by no means exempt from this social change. In fact, the growth of a large and powerful middle class in the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries was a fundamental factor in the gradual movement away from monarchy and toward democratic forms of government. Monarchs throughout history sought to appease tensions between the classes while still maintaining royal power.

ORIGINS AND BACKGROUND The history of class development is difficult to trace since socioeconomic classes did not emerge until near the end of the Middle Ages.Whereas today most people consider social classes and economic classes to be one and the same thing, a clear or direct overlap did not exist in the ancient world. It was by no means uncommon for a person in the ancient world to be of a different social class than someone who was of roughly the same economic level. Into the modern era, India has witnessed the perpetuation of a caste system, wherein rigid social distinctions are only partly based on economic factors.The one constant characteristic in the evolution of the relationship between monarchs and class systems is that monarchs, with a few notable exceptions such as Chinese emperor Hung Wu (Hongwu) (r. 1368–1398), almost always originated from the upper classes.

ANCIENT EGYPT AS A MODEL The ancient Egyptian kingdoms were among the first to grow and prosper, as well as among the first to decline.This decline was largely the result of the effect

that growth and prosperity had on the relationship between the monarchs (pharaohs) and the upper classes. Originally, the pharaohs ruled with the support of a powerful priestly class. As Egypt grew into an important commercial empire in the Mediterranean, however, many individuals grew wealthy and consequently challenged the authority of the pharaohs, demanding more local power. The diffusion of wealth around the country made it extremely difficult for the pharaohs to maintain central control. The collapse of the Egyptian kingdoms was to a great extent brought about by this phenomenon, which would become the dominant pattern for monarchical development throughout the world. This pattern involved a consolidation of royal power with the acquiescence of the wealthy in society, followed by economic growth and the assertion of power by increasingly wealthy individuals and groups, concluded by internal collapse.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE FEUDAL STATE The Roman Empire followed the example of the ancient Greeks in its experimentation with democratic governments. This fostered an eventual collapse of class distinctions in early Rome, but they returned in the middle and later periods as Rome moved from a republic to an empire.The rise of powerful emperors such as Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) was facilitated by the upper classes, but these same elite members of society rebelled against later emperors, and the empire rapidly decentralized, crumbling throughout the third and fourth centuries. The collapse of the central authority of the Roman Empire set Europe on the road to an economic and political system known as feudalism. Under feudalism, the monarch was ostensibly in charge of all lands under his or her domain, but the wealthy nobles who administered small areas of lands held much of the real political power.Thus, the monarchy was, to some extent, subject to the will of the upper classes. The poor, who constituted by far the largest class in feudal societies, were a matter of little concern to either monarchs or wealthy nobles. By the time feudalism began in Europe in the ninth century, it was already widely practiced throughout Asia, albeit in slightly altered forms. Feudalism was significant to monarchical development because it perpetuated the influence of local, upper-class authorities.

C l au d i u s THE RISE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS As technological advances in Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries integrated local economies in new ways, the feudal system began to be challenged by a new class of people who were not as wealthy as the nobles but who had many more peers: the middle class. Feudal towns grew and prospered, and merchants and artisans sprang up to fill the needs of larger populations, thus constituting the foundations of the middle class.Though no one person of the middle class could compete with a feudal lord, the middle class as a whole quickly outnumbered the feudal lords and thus put pressure on the lords for more political control. Simultaneously, monarchs throughout Europe, realizing their own weakness, began to consolidate their power, citing royal prerogatives in order to dispense with feudal lords. As tension between the feudal lords and the monarchy mounted, the middle class sided with the monarchy, believing that they could ultimately get more local authority under a strong central monarch than under a strong local noble. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw many feudal societies crumble and monarchs reach new heights of power with the support of the middle class.

THE COLLAPSE OF MONARCHY The trouble for European monarchies, however, was that the middle class kept growing and by the eighteenth century was agitating for more power in government. In Britain, the monarchy relented and turned significant power over to Parliament. Elsewhere, however, most monarchs resisted the demands for more diffuse power, until the French middle and lower classes rose up against King Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) in the French Revolution. Although monarchies continued to be moderately important throughout the nineteenth century, the French Revolution is generally taken to mark the end of widespread monarchical authority, as the ideals of the Revolution quickly spread throughout Europe. In the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Japan and China also witnessed this phenomenon. In 1889, the Japanese Meiji emperor, Mutsuhito (r. 1867–1912), was forced to grant a liberalized constitution in Japan, and China’s Ch’ing (Qing) dynasty (1644–1911) was overthrown in a class revolt in 1911. Most monarchs gave in to the demands of the

191

middle class in their societies rather than face violent uprisings. As a result, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were characterized by the growth of democratic governments around the world, most of which were—and still are—dominated by the will of the middle class. See also: Caste Systems; Commerce and Kingship; Feudalism and Kingship; Power, Forms of Royal; Rights, Civil.

CLAUDIAN DYNASTY. See JulioClaudians

CLAUDIUS (10 B.C.E.–54 C.E.) Emperor of Rome (r. 41–54) whose moderate rule contrasted markedly with the cruelty of Caligula (r. 37–41), who preceded him, and Nero (r. 54–68), who followed him. Claudius was born Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus in the Roman province of Gaul, near modern-day Lyons, France. His father, Drusus, had won honor and acclaim for military service; his mother, Antonia, was the daughter of the great military officer Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony). Claudius’s step-grandfather and great uncle was the Roman emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14), and his uncle,Tiberius (14–37) also held the throne. Claudius suffered from physical frailties from childhood and throughout his life and so was never expected to rule. He was born with a deformed leg, his speech was impaired, and he had tremors in his limbs. Because of these physical defects, his family considered him to be mentally impaired as well, but Claudius ultimately proved himself to be an intelligent, able ruler. Because no one ever expected Claudius to achieve a prominent position in government, he was given none of the early responsibilities in Roman society or the military that would normally fall to a member of an imperial family. This proved to be a blessing in later life, for Claudius never had the opportunity to participate in the intrigues that were rife in Roman politics of the time. Instead, Claudius became something of an historian, chronicling the reign of his grand uncle, Augus-

192

C l au d i u s

The fourth emperor of Rome, Claudius never expected to take the throne. He was spared assassination by his predecessor and nephew, Caligula, only because he did not appear to pose a threat. Despite his impaired speech and other physical disabilities, Claudius, portrayed here in an agate cameo, was a competent ruler.

tus, and writing histories of the Etruscan region of Italy and of the great North African city of Carthage. It was expected that Claudius would live out his life in scholarly obscurity, and he would have done so were it not for the self-destructiveness of Emperor Caligula. When Claudius was forty-seven years old, Caligula became the fourth emperor of the Roman Empire. For nineteen years, this mentally unstable man ruled with increasing brutality, until even his Praetorian Guard (a special military unit charged with protecting the emperor) could no longer tolerate his cruel and violent behavior. A member of the Praetorian Guard assassinated Caligula in 41. Prior to his death, Caligula, in paranoid fear of conspiracy by rivals, had managed to kill off most of the adult males of the imperial line; only

Claudius remained alive, largely because Caligula did not consider him a threat. The assassination of Caligula plunged Rome into political disarray, and the Roman Senate began debating the possibility of eliminating imperial rule and returning to a republic. The Praetorian Guard, however, forestalled this decision by proclaiming Claudius the new emperor. After the violence of Caligula, the Emperor Claudius proved to be a welcome change. He instituted a domestic program of public works, improved harbors and farmlands, and attempted to inspire the Senate to a greater sense of public duty. Militarily, he reformed the pay scales and living conditions of the army, and even accompanied his troops during the invasion and conquest of Britain in 43. During his lifetime, Claudius took four wives. The last of these was his niece Agrippina, whom he married in 49. Agrippina was thirty-four years old at the time and came to the imperial marriage with a son, Nero, who had been born of an earlier marriage. Hoping to increase her son’s prospects for power, Agrippina participated in palace intrigues, and she succeeded in convincing Claudius to legally adopt her son. Because Claudius was by this time growing more sickly, Agrippina seized the opportunity to acquire increasing control over the administration of the empire. Claudius died in 54 after eating a poisonous mushroom. At the time, many believed that Agrippina had provided the fatal morsel to ensure that her son would inherit the throne. Although never proven, this belief was perpetuated by early Roman historians. Whether or not Claudius’s death was the result of accident or foul play, Nero (r. 54–68) did ascend the imperial throne and swiftly brought to an end the relatively peaceful prosperity that characterized Claudius’s rule. See also: Augustus; Caligula; Nero; Roman Empire;Tiberius.

CLEOPATRA VII (69–30 B.C.E.) Queen of Egypt (r. 51–30 b.c.e.), a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, and one of history’s great romantic heroines. Born in 69 b.c.e. in the Egyptian capital of Alexandria, Cleopatra was the third daughter of King Ptolemy XII (r. 80–51 b.c.e.). Her family was

C l e opat r a V I I descended from Ptolemy I (r. 323–282 b.c.e.), the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty, who served as a general in the army of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.). Cleopatra received an extensive education. The future Egyptian ruler is said to have been fluent in nine languages and to have been a gifted mathematician. She was also trained in the arts and in statecraft. When Cleopatra was eleven years old, the Egyptians revolted against her father, forcing him to flee to Rome.The rebels then chose Cleopatra’s elder sister Berenice to serve as ruler in her father’s stead. In exile, Ptolemy turned to Roman General Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey) for support. He raised an army and returned to Egypt to reclaim his throne in 55 b.c.e., whereupon he had Berenice beheaded for her treachery in supporting the rebellion against him. During Berenice’s rule, the next oldest child in

Cleopatra VII of Egypt is perhaps best known for her relationship with the Roman ruler Julius Caesar, with whom she had a son named Caesarion, also known as Ptolemy XVI. She is depicted here with Caesarion at the Temple of Hathor on the bank of the Nile in southern Egypt.

193

the family, Cleopatra VI, had died of illness, leaving Cleopatra VII as the heir apparent. Ptolemy XII died within three years of returning to Egypt and Cleopatra, who was now about eighteen years old, inherited the throne. Egyptian royal custom decreed that only a child of two equally royal (and thus divine) parents could inherit the throne. Cleopatra, therefore, was obliged to take as consort and co-regent a blood relative, primarily to ensure the birth of a successor. She wed the elder of her two young brothers, twelve-year-old Ptolemy XIII (r. 51–47 b.c.e.), who became co-ruler. Cleopatra, however, ruled with great independence, angering the regents who looked after Ptolemy XIII’s interests. One of these regents, Pothinus, led a conspiracy that forced Cleopatra into exile in Syria. Like her father before her, Cleopatra did not accept exile. She recruited an army and marched back to Egypt, waiting for the proper time to attack. Meanwhile, in the Roman Empire, two great generals, Pompey and Julius Caesar, vied for imperial control. Pompey sought the support of Ptolemy XIII just as, years previously, Ptolemy’s father had sought Pompey’s assistance. Ptolemy, however, supported Caesar and ordered Pompey to be assassinated upon his entrance to Alexandria. When Caesar arrived outside the city, Ptolemy sent emissaries to the general with a gift: Pompey’s head. This ploy to curry favor with Caesar backfired. Although the two Roman generals had been rivals, they had also once been friends. Offended by Ptolemy’s brutality, Caesar ordered his troops to storm Alexandria and seize the palace. Aware of the rivalry between Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Caesar called them both before him, intending to choose one to govern the Roman province of Egypt. Cleopatra, fearing that her brother’s supporters would kill her when she entered the city, had herself wrapped in a rug and smuggled into the palace to avoid detection. Writers of the period have said that Cleopatra was extraordinarily charismatic. She certainly made a powerful impression on Caesar, and soon after this first meeting, the two became lovers. Caesar named Cleopatra his new governor of Egypt, which outraged Ptolemy. In protest, Ptolemy called up an army of followers and attempted to regain the palace in Alexandria. The attempt failed, and Ptolemy was drowned while trying to flee across the Nile River. Cleopatra promptly replaced him as consort by mar-

194

C l e opat r a V I I

rying her youngest brother, eleven-year-old Ptolemy XIV (r. 47–44 b.c.e.). Cleopatra and Caesar now embarked upon a long journey up the Nile, during which Cleopatra became pregnant with a son, Caesarion (“little Caesar”). Caesar then returned to Rome, but in 46 b.c.e. he summoned Cleopatra, along with her husband, son, and retainers to stay in his villa outside Rome. Cleopatra remained in Italy for two years, and Caesar lavished her with gifts, honors, and titles. Their affair became the subject of scandalized gossip (Caesar already had a wife), and was one of many factors that led to Caesar’s assassination in 44 b.c.e.With her protector dead, Cleopatra fled home to Alexandria. At about this time, her young husband died in suspicious circumstances (it was rumored that Cleopatra had him poisoned). Cleopatra now named her fouryear-old son Caesarion as co-regent, giving him the royal name of Ptolemy XV (r. 36–30 b.c.e.). Egypt truly needed Cleopatra’s attention at this time, for it was suffering from prolonged drought. The annual flooding of the Nile had been inadequate for several years in a row, resulting in poor harvests and famine. Cleopatra ordered repairs to the levees and canals that regulated the Nile’s waters, but she also kept an eye on Rome, which was in the throes of a power struggle. When the time came for Egypt to choose sides, Cleopatra chose Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) and set out to seduce him as she had Julius Caesar. Once again, Cleopatra’s charm and charisma served her well, and Antony followed her to Alexandria. In the spring of 42 b.c.e., Cleopatra gave birth to twins: Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios. Antony, though married to a Roman woman named Fulvia, was believed to be their father. In 46 b.c.e. Fulvia died, raising speculation that Antony would marry Cleopatra. Instead, he found it politically expedient to marry Octavia, the sister of one of his rivals (Octavian, later called Augustus). He continued to see Cleopatra, however, using war with the Parthians as a pretext for their meetings. Cleopatra provided an Egyptian fleet and other support for Antony’s armies. In return, Antony acknowledged paternity of her twins, granting them title to the lands of Cyprus, Phoenicia, Judaea, Arabia, and part of Syria. Even with Cleopatra’s support, however, Antony failed in his military campaign. He withdrew to Syria in 36 b.c.e. and then traveled to Egypt to join Cleopatra. The Roman Senate was outraged by

Antony’s behavior; angriest of all was his brother-inlaw, Octavian. In 34 b.c.e. Antony decided to conquer Armenia and once again turned to Cleopatra for support.Victorious, he returned to Alexandria rather than to Rome, sparking further outrage in the Senate. In 37 b.c.e. Antony divorced Octavia, intending to marry Cleopatra. Octavian responded to this insult by declaring war on Egypt. After a series of battles, Octavian’s forces captured the city of Alexandria in 30 b.c.e. Antony committed suicide rather than face capture, and Cleopatra was taken prisoner. Unlike Antonius and Caesar, Octavian was impervious to Cleopatra’s charm. He offered her only one fate: to be kept captive and to be carried from city to city throughout her former realm, set on display for all to revile.The humiliation was more than the proud queen could accept, and she committed suicide. Upon her death, her son Caesarion inherited the title of king, but Octavian had the boy strangled. Cleopatra’s other children were taken away to be raised by Octavia.With this action, the Ptolemaic dynasty came to an end. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman; Ptolemaic Dynasty; Ptolemy I. FURTHER READING

Boardman, John, Jasper Griffin, and Oswyn Murray. The Oxford History of the Classical World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Starr, Chester. A History of the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Weigall, Arthur. The Life and Times of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1974.

CLOVIS I (ca. 466–511 C.E.) Merovingian king of the Franks (r. 481–511), who is credited with establishing the Franks as an important power and laying the earliest foundations for the monarchy and nation of France. Clovis also established Paris as the capital of the Franks and championed the spread of Roman Christianity in his realm. His laws, codified in the Lex Salica (Salian Law), became the basis for the laws of the Mergovingian and Carolingian dynasties, as well as for the Holy Roman Empire. Clovis was the son of Childeric I (r. 460–482), king of the northern (Salian) Franks, one of several Germanic tribes in northwestern Europe. Although

Cnut I little is known of Childeric, he seems to have been a natural leader who allied himself with both the Romans and the Christian Church in Gaul (the Roman name for the area that is present-day France). When Clovis inherited his father’s kingdom in Gaul around 481, it was only one of many Frankish kingdoms. In order to consolidate power and expand his own kingdom, Clovis first conquered, bargained with, or assassinated other Frankish kings. He also set out to claim territory from other Germanic groups, including the Thuringians and the Alamanni, whom he defeated in 491 and 506, respectively. One of Clovis’s most significant military victories came in 486 with his defeat of Syagrius, the last Roman general of Gaul. As a result of this victory, Clovis claimed all of northern France for the Franks. After attacking the rival Burgundians in 500, he persuaded them to join with him in an attack on the Visigoths in the region of Aquitaine in southwestern France. This campaign, in 507, resulted in another important military victory for Clovis. Around 493, Clovis married the Christian princess Clotilda, the daughter of the Burgundian king Chilperic. A few years after their marriage, around 496, Clovis converted to Christianity and was baptized at Reims by Bishop Remigius. Clovis’s adoption of Christianity helped establish and strengthen his rule by making allies of both the Gallo-Romans and the Church. Recognized as the legitimate ruler of Gaul in 507, Clovis received the honorary titles of consul and Augustus from the Holy Roman emperor. Clovis died in Paris in 511.According to old Germanic custom, his kingdom was divided equally among his four sons: Theodoric I (r. 511–533), whose kingdom was centered at Reims; Clodimir (r. 511–524), whose capital was at Orleans; Childebert I (r. 511–558), with his capital at Paris; and Clotaire I (r. 511–561), who ruled from Soissons and became sole king of the Franks in 558 at the death of his last surviving brother. See also: Burgundy Kingdom; Frankish Kingdom; Merovingian Dynasty; MerovingianFrankish Kingdom;Visigoth Kingdom.

CONGO KINGDOM. See Kongo Kingdom

195

CNUT I (ca. 994–1035 C.E.) Ruler of England (r. 1016–1035), Denmark (1019–1035), and Norway (1028–1035); also known as Canute or Knud, who united these kingdoms under his rule and forged friendly relations with the Holy Roman Empire. The son of Sweyn or Sven “Forkbeard” of Denmark (r. 1013–1014), Cnut was one of the four Danish kings of England at the beginning of the eleventh century. Cnut was the only one of these rulers, however, who was able to consolidate power in both England and Scandinavia for a sustained period of time. After his death in 1035, Cnut’s Scandinavian domains in Denmark and Norway began warring among themselves.

CONQUEST OF ENGLAND In 1013, Cnut accompanied his father Sweyn on an expedition to England, during which Sweyn forced the Anglo-Saxon ruler, Aethelred II (r. 978–1016) of Wessex, into exile in Normandy. Sweyn assumed rulership of England, and upon his death in 1014, the Danes in England swore their allegiance to Cnut. That same year, however, Aethelred returned to England at the request of Anglo-Saxon nobles and forced Cnut back to Denmark. where he later took the throne after the death of his brother, King Harald II (r. 1014–1019). After regrouping and strengthening his forces, Cnut re-invaded England in 1015. King Aethelred died during the military campaigns against the Danes, and his son and successor, Edmund II Ironside (r. 1016), took the throne of Wessex. Edmund died soon after, however, and Cnut, who conquered most of Wessex and Northumbria, became sole ruler of England.

RULE IN SCANDINAVIA While Cnut ruled in England, there was considerable unrest and dynastic infighting in his native Scandinavia. When Cnut’s older brother, King Harald II (r. 1014–1019) of Denmark, died in 1019, English forces supported Cnut’s campaign to enforce his claim to the throne, and Cnut became king. He later turned over rule of Denmark to his son, Harthacnut (r. 1028–1042), so that he could concentrate on ruling England. While Cnut ruled Denmark, he maintained strong support for Christianity, even sending English

196

Cnut I

missionaries to the kingdom to counter the growing power of German archbishops. He also introduced a system of coinage copied from that used in England. In Norway, Cnut exploited struggles between Norwegian landowners and King Olaf II (r. 1016–1028). Cnut drove Olaf from the throne in 1028 and wielded Danish power through a native chieftain, Haakon.When Haakon died in 1030, Cnut sent his illegitimate son Sweyn and Sweyn’s mother, Aelfigifu, to rule Norway. Sweyn and his mother ruled the kingdom for several years. But in 1035, Olaf II’s son, Magnus I (r. 1035–1046), rallied the Norwegians against the unpopular foreigners and took back the throne.

ACHIEVEMENTS AS KING During his reign, Cnut generously supported the Christian Church in England as well as in Denmark. Although he maneuvered successfully on the European political stage, and negotiated the marriage of his daughter to the son of Emperor Conrad II (r. 1027–1039) of the Holy Roman Empire, his political control of his own kingdoms was never very secure. As ruler of England, Cnut is best known for his lawful, peaceful, and prosperous reign. He protected Baltic trade routes in the north and promulgated ecclesiastical and secular laws based on the English tradition (especially “Edgar’s law” from the reign of that Saxon ruler). Cnut also protected England against external dangers, including the threat of fresh Viking attacks. In 1018, for example, he retained a fleet of forty ships that forced back a Viking assault. Cnut also showed considerable political acumen in choosing a wife. Before being acknowledged king of England in 1016, Cnut had fathered two illegitimate sons, Harald “Harefoot” and Sweyn, with Aelfigifu of Northumbria, the daughter of a Saxon ealdorman. Then, in 1017, he married Emma of Normandy, the widow of King Aethelred II, and established that only their joint children should be able to succeed to the English kingship after his death. Cnut and Emma had a son, Harthacnut. When Cnut died in 1035, the English nobles did not attempt to restore the Anglo-Saxon line of kings, and Cnut was succeeded by his sons, Harald I Harefoot (r. 1037–1040) and Harthacnut (r. 1040–1042). However, both of Cnut’s sons failed to secure deep-seated English support, and they waged a continuous struggle against each other. Both were widely unpopular during their short reigns. Har-

thacnut was succeeded by his half-brother, Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066), who, as the son of Aethelred II, restored the Anglo-Saxon line to the English throne. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Danish Kingdom; Edward the Confessor; English Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Haywood, John. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings. New York: Penguin, 1995. Jones, Gwyn. A History of the Vikings. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Sawyer, Peter. Kings and Vikings. New York: Methuen, 1982. ———. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Stenton, Sir Frank M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

COINAGE, ROYAL Means of exchange used by monarchs from the sixth century b.c.e. until the present day to facilitate trade for their nations and to promote their names or faces nationally and internationally.

ORIGINS OF COINAGE The earliest known coins in the Western world were minted in the kingdom of Lydia in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) in the sixth century b.c.e. Electrum, a natural alloy of gold and silver, was found in the riverbeds of Lydia during the reign of King Croesus (r. ca. 560–547 b.c.e.). Croesus had coins minted using this metal and then, later in his reign, had pure silver and pure gold coins minted as well. The impact of this innovation on the king’s fortunes is commemorated in the phrase, “rich as Croesus.” In ancient China, small clay token tablets and cowrie shells had been used as a medium of exchange since approximately 1100 b.c.e., during the Shang dynasty. The use of these objects as a means of exchange continued through the Chou dynasty (ca. eighth century b.c.e). The succeeding Ch’un Chiu dynasty, however, issued knife money (in the form and shape of knives), spade money (in the shape of small shovels), and devil-faced money; all of these forms of tokens were cast in copper.

C ol a K i n g d om The numismatic breakthrough in Asia came when the Ch’in emperor, Shih Huang Ti (r. 221–210 b.c.e.), completed the conquest of his neighbors and effectively united China. Shih Huang Ti outlawed all previous forms of currency and issued the new Panliang coin (around 200 b.c.e.), now familiar as the round Chinese copper with a square hole in the center.

COINAGE IN EUROPE In Europe, Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.) popularized the use of gold coins during his reign. His illustrious son,Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), was the first Western monarch to use coinage to spread his own name and image throughout the world. Prior to Alexander, coins had borne the images of animals, plants, heroes, or gods. Alexander minted silver and gold coins with the image of a seated Zeus on one side and his own image (thinly disguised as a god) on the other. Many of these “Alexanders” are still extant and may be found in numerous museums and private collections today. After Alexander’s death, rulers in Greece and Rome continued using the image of the divine Alexander on their coins. Ptolemy I of Egypt (r. 323–282 b.c.e.) was the first of Alexander’s successors to put his own image on his coins (around 306 b.c.e.). He was soon followed by Seleucis I (r. 312–281 b.c.e.) of the Seleucid kingdom in Syria. Both kings pictured themselves on their coins as gods.This practice died out within a few decades but was revived when Julius Caesar placed his own bust on the Roman gold aureus in 46 b.c.e.

THE MIDDLE AGES Proper design, smelting, and minting is a complex process requiring the cooperation of numerous industries, trades, and artisans. After the fall of Rome in the fifth century c.e., barter again became the more frequent and trusted means of exchange. There were notable exceptions, however. For example, as the Merovingian Franks consolidated their power in ancient France, Clovis I (r. 481–511) struck great quantities of gold coins with his own image. His immediate descendants followed his lead. With limited supplies of gold in northern Gaul, the Carolingian ruler, Pepin III, the Short (r. 751–768), substituted silver for gold in his imperial coinage. The result was a coin called the denier,

197

which would be the basis of the treasury of his famous son, Charlemagne (r. 768–814), as well as the basis for most European coinage throughout the Middle Ages.

TOWARD THE MODERN ERA Throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages, the practices of coin cutters, or “shorters,” posed a great nuisance and threat to economies that increasingly relied on coinage. Consequently, prior to the ninth century, the value of coinage was directly related to the material of which it was made. In the modern era, the Industrial Revolution improved coining techniques, greatly discouraging the practices of coin “clippers” who had hitherto easily removed portions of any coin they wished to alter. By this time, most Asian economies and monarchs had established a standardized system of silver coinage, and European nations had established a gold standard.Today the use of royal images on coins, first begun more than two thousand years ago, remains a common practice, even in countries that no longer have recognized monarchs. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Commerce and Kingship; Croesus; Philip II of Macedon; Taxation;Tribute.

COLA KINGDOM (ca. 850–1279 C.E.) Kingdom in southern India (also spelled Chola), dating from the middle of the eighth century, which became one of the leading and most powerful states in the southern part of the Indian subcontinent. Historical records note the existence of the Cola people as early as the third century b.c.e. However, little is known about events between that time and the ascendancy of the first Cola monarch, Vijayalaya (r. ca. 846–871), around 846. Vijayalaya conquered the region of Thanjavur around 850 and ruled over it until 870. The Cola kingdom survived at this time despite being surrounded by more powerful neighbors, such as the Pandya and Pallava kingdoms. There is evidence that, during Vijayalaya’s reign, the Cola kingdom expanded north into the Tondaimandalam region. But the conquest of Tondaimandalam was not completed until the early years of the reign of Aditya I (r. ca. 871–907),Vijayalaya’s son and successor.

198

C ol a K i n g d om

FURTHER EXPANSION Aditya continued the policy of expansion begun by his father. In addition to conquering Tondaimanadalam, he also targeted the Kongumandalam, a territory on the western border of his kingdom and Tondaimandalam. In 880,Aditya began wars of conquest against his southern neighbors, the Pandyas. Archaeological evidence suggests that Aditya died around 898. His death seems to have sparked instability in the Cola court, since there is no record of another king until Parantaka I (r. ca. 907–947), Aditya’s son. The reign of Parantaka I was a crucial period for the future development of the Cola kingdom. Although Cola lost Tondaimandalam during the interregnum, the period between the reign of Aditya and Parantaka, Parantaka managed to recapture it. He then proceeded to conquer the Banu region north of Tondaimandalam. Like his father, Parantaka pursued the conquest of his southerly neighbor, the Pandya kingdom. After conquering Pandya, Parantaka subdued the kings from Ceylon (Sri Lanka) who were allies of the Pandya king, Rajasimha II (r. ca. 902–920).This success extended the boundaries of the Cola kingdom to the most southern tip of the Indian subcontinent. By the end of Parantaka’s reign, the Cola kingdom had more than tripled in size, and it had increased its security by reducing the number of neighbors with which it shared borders.

MAINTAINING POWER The expansion of the Cola kingdom allowed the next ruler, Gandaraditya (r. 955–957), to pursue other means of developing the kingdom beyond geographic and political conquest. This does not mean that the conquered territories were entirely secure. In fact, it required a great deal of work by Gandaraditya’s successors to maintain Cola sovereignty over Tondaimandalam. The Pandya territory was not fully secured until the tenth century, during the reign of Rajaraja I, the Great (r. 985–1016). In addition to securing the frontiers of the empire, Rajaraja I was notable for the extent to which he regularized the structure and organization of the kingdom. Rajaraja’s successors made additional claims to territory, such as the addition of southern Ceylon to the kingdom. As the eleventh century began, the Cola kingdom also took measures to ensure that its

lucrative maritime trade suffered as little disruption as possible, even if doing so required aggressive campaigns against rivals.

FALL OF THE COLAS Ultimately, Cola control of its domains did not last. Early in the twelfth century, Cola lost territory to both the Vengi dynasty of the Mysore region and the Hoysala kingdom of the eastern Deccan region. Despite reconquering some of the lost territory, the Colas were unable to withstand the expansionary conquests of Hoysala. During the twelfth century, as the Cola kingdom weakened under later monarchs, including Rajendra III (r. 1070–1122) and Rajaraja III (r. 1150–1173), Pandya declared its independence. By 1279, the Hoysala kingdom and the Kakatiya dynasty of the Warangal kingdom annexed the remainder of the Cola kingdom and so the Cola kingdom ceased to exist. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Mysore Kingdom; Pandya Dynasty; South Asian Kingdoms.

COLONIALISM AND KINGSHIP Relationship between colonialism and kingship, and the impact that colonial rule has had on the various kingdoms and monarchies throughout the world. The European encounter with, and conquest of, the non-European world between the fifteenth and twentieth centuries produced an ongoing dialogue between the interests of the colonial powers and the systems of monarchy and kingship in place within the various empires. Despite the popular image, European colonialism in many cases avoided outright annexation of kingdoms in favor of working through local rulers or collaborating elites, often of a monarchical type. This system of “indirect rule” served to further the political and economic requirements of imperialism, as well as to buttress or undermine existing monarchies, depending upon their ability to adapt to the new leadership. In the Americas, Asia, Africa, and the islands of the Pacific Ocean, colonialism had a diverse and complex effect on the structures of kingship present in the existing states of those regions. (For the purposes of this entry, colonialism is understood to

C ol on i a l i s m a n d K i n g s h i p

mean the “Western” experience in the centuries defined above.)

EARLY COLONIAL EMPIRES IN THE NEW WORLD The first colonial empires to be established by Europeans—those of Spain and Portugal in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries—experienced dramatically different encounters with kingdoms on several continents. In Central and South America, the overwhelming biological and social impact of the Old World confronting an isolated New World served rapidly to overwhelm existing political structures, most famously the Aztec Empire in Mexico and the Inca Empire in Peru. In the latter case, the Spanish tolerated a king for a few years after the conquest of the Inca Empire in 1532, but both the Aztecs and Incas rapidly disintegrated under the combined impact of superior European military technology and communicable diseases. With few exceptions, the Spanish Empire in the New World was centralized under governors who had minimal respect for existing Native American political structures, most of which were badly un-

199

dermined in any case. A similar pattern can be discerned in Portuguese Brazil during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. With the exception of more remote political units—which were often first contacted by Jesuits and other religious orders—the larger empires and monarchies in what would become Latin America vanished within a generation.

PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH COLONIALISM IN AFRICA AND ASIA In Africa and Asia, circumstances forced the Portuguese to work through the existing political structures because they did not have the advantage of numbers, technology, or new communicable diseases, and they encountered sophisticated kingly states. In West Africa, Portuguese contact with coastal kingdoms in the sixteenth century gave rise to the slave trade to offshore islands and then to the Americas. In the Indian Ocean, the Portuguese established trade relations and made war on Islamic city-states in East Africa, the Persian Gulf, and the East Indies. They also established relations with the Mogul Empire in Delhi as well as princely rulers in Goa and

200

C ol on i a l i s m a n d K i n g s h i p

other coastal cities of India. In 1513, the Portuguese also attempted to establish relations with the Ming dynasty of China, and later in the century with the Yi dynasty in Korea and the last rulers of the Ashikaga shogunate in Japan. None of these dynasties ever submitted to a colonial relationship with Europeans, however. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the Spanish encountered small island states that were quickly brought under Spanish authority. As in Latin America, it was often the Catholic religious orders that provided the point of contact with local chiefs or headmen.

OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS The other European empires of the early modern era, those of England, France, and the Netherlands, followed a broadly similar pattern in Africa and Asia. The Europeans made agreements with African

coastal kingdoms to facilitate the slave trade, which, as it grew, enriched coastal African kingdoms like Benin and Dahomey at the expense of their defeated rivals in the interior. Many of the slaves shipped to the Americas were prisoners taken in the wars between African kingdoms. As with the Portuguese, the later European colonial powers found it necessary to work through existing princely states in parts of East Africa, the Persian Gulf, India, and the East Indies. Until at least the eighteenth century, many of these Islamic and Hindu kingdoms operated on a basis of rough equality with their European trading partners. Only in India in the early nineteenth century did the British East India Company begin to have a significant political impact as the Mogul Empire declined and the numerous princely rulers formed alliances with various European and/or Indian power blocs. In most

For over a century, India was a colony of Great Britain, and the English monarch was considered its emperor. King George V and Queen Mary traveled to India for enthronement ceremonies in December 1911, becoming the first English rulers ever to visit the colony.

C ol on i a l i s m a n d K i n g s h i p cases, the trade-oriented nature of the mercantile empires of the day made working through existing structures the most stable and cost-effective method.

COLONIALISM IN NORTH AMERICA In North America, the French and English respected the independence and dignity of Native American rulers and chiefs to a much greater degree than was the case with the Spanish and Portuguese in Latin America. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the English and Dutch formed trade and political relationships with the Iroquois Confederacy, among others, and the French established close relations with the Huron and Algonquin peoples. Unlike the Asian monarchies, which often had a clear hierarchy and power structure that was recognizably similar to European monarchies, the native states of the Americas and Africa varied enormously in the type of political structure that existed. Usually, the Islamic states of Asia had a clear kingly ruler, but other societies operated through councils or other nonhereditary structures. The term monarchies in such cases is necessarily elastic. A number of Native American nations, however, maintained their integrity well into the nineteenth century, only gradually succumbing to the combined assaults of European settlement, disease, and warfare. Even today, the recognition of “chiefs” by certain Native American nations reflects the last remnant of indigenous North American kingship.

EFFECT OF INDIRECT RULE The dramatic growth of the European empires in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and their transformation from primarily economic to primarily political units, brought about the age of “High” Imperialism and the more direct need to define the relationship between European and local interests. The system of “indirect rule” evolved largely out of the necessity to preserve social order and minimize the administrative cost to the colonial power. British India perhaps provides the best example of this evolution. In 1858, rule by the East India Company gave way to formal British sovereignty, yet British India contained within its borders not only British territory (in which the British monarch was sovereign) but an array of more than five hundred princely states of great variety. Each was under British “protection” but enjoyed varying degrees of

201

local autonomy. Some were tiny, while others, such as Hyderabad and Kashmir, were significant kingdoms in their own right. The last remnant of the Mughal Empire, the kingdom of Delhi, was abolished by the British in 1858.This vast series of Indian kingdoms came to an end with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. As the British Empire expanded in the late nineteenth century, a similar pattern of indirect rule was applied in parts of Africa, particularly Nigeria, the Gold Coast, and Uganda; the Persian Gulf emirates, such as Bahrain and Oman; and the Pacific, where kingdoms such as Tonga and Fiji were placed under British protection. In the Middle East, the British elevated the Khedive of Egypt to full kingship in 1922, and they established two Hashemite princes as kings of Iraq and Transjordan. The homeland of these princes, the kingdom of the Hejaz around Mecca, disappeared into Saudi Arabia in the 1920s. Although the British were perhaps the best known exemplars of the application of indirect rule, similar patterns could be found in most of the other European empires in Africa and Asia. To some degree, the survival of precolonial kings depended on the level of political centralization employed by each empire; for example, the French tended to reduce kingly power to a minimal level in Africa and French Indochina (as in Morocco,Tunisia, Cambodia, and Laos), preferring to work through colonial administrators. The Dutch practiced indirect rule in the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia) among various Muslim and Hindu princes.At the local level, village chiefs or headmen in the various empires often provided the connecting link to the colonial authorities. The later African empires—such as those of Germany, Italy, and Belgium—generally employed some form of indirect rule for a time, but all three European powers moved toward centralization and the abolition of local institutions in response to resistance to colonial rule.

THE IMPERIAL EXPERIENCE Imperial experience in the twentieth century ensured that few precolonial kingdoms survived to the present day. Some were subsumed into larger states that were granted independence but retained some local authority, such as the Asante kings in Ghana and the kings of Buganda and Bunyoro peoples in Uganda. Others were toppled by coups or revolutions that often were unleashed by the responses to colonialism—nationalism and radicalism. Examples of the

202

C ol on i a l i s m a n d K i n g s h i p

latter include French Indochina, where indigenous monarchies disappeared in communist revolutions (although Cambodia’s monarchy has been restored). In Africa, only Morocco, Lesotho, and Swaziland retain their precolonial monarchies as independent states. Indeed, revolutions of various kinds have proven far more damaging to the survival of monarchies than the initial colonialism. Monarchies in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Burundi, and Ethiopia all were overthrown by internal revolutions between the 1950s and 1970s. Western colonialism did not only include the European powers. Japan and the United States also constructed colonial empires that necessitated dealing with kingly rulers. Japan displaced the indigenous monarchies in Okinawa (1873) and Korea (1910) through colonial annexation, and they established a puppet monarchy in Manchuria (renamed Manchukuo) under the last emperor of the Ch’ing (Qing) dynasty, Pu Yi, between 1932 and 1945. The United States terminated the Hawaiian monarchy through its annexation of that territory in 1898. In sum, Western colonialism served to enhance the power of some monarchies, but more often than not it forced them to conform to new models of government and sovereignty. Survival usually depended on cooperation with colonial powers. Those monarchies that eventually did emerge from colonialism then had to confront the forces of nationalist statebuilding or revolutions opposed to traditional elite rule. Few monarchies thus survive outside of Europe and the Middle East in the twenty-first century. See also: Bodies, Politic and Natural; Conquest and Kingships; Empire; Imperial Rule; National Identity; Nationalism; Postcolonial States. FURTHER READING

Ansprenger, Franz. The Dissolution of the Colonial Empires. New York: Routledge, 1989. Darwin, John. Britain and Decolonization. New York: Macmillan, 1988. Fieldhouse, D.K. The Colonial Empires from the Eighteenth Century. New York: Dell, 1965.

COMMERCE AND KINGSHIP Economic activities that include interchange of goods and services, large-scale trade, and buying and

selling between political units such as cities, nations, and kingdoms. Commerce has often been an activity of rulers and their advisers. These individuals have provided the chief market for goods and have been the principal benefactors of the economic transactions that take place. Strong commerce with other kingdoms ensured economic stability for the nation. In addition, rulers encouraged and financed trading expeditions in search of needed resources as well as luxuries and exotic goods for their courts.

EARLY COMMERCE AND TRADE The ancient empires of Egypt and Babylon, which produced enough grain to export, conducted a lively trade with other kingdoms. Among the most sought after trade items were fabrics, rare woods, jewelry, pottery, tapestries, and unusual animals. There was also a significant slave trade among these empires. The Phoenician city of Carthage, a maritime center located on the coast of North Africa, engaged in extensive trade throughout the Mediterranean region, along the coast of Europe, and in Africa. In fact, it may have been the necessity of keeping records of complex trade accounts that prompted the Phoenicians to develop the alphabet, which became the basis of the Latin alphabet and, through that, of our own Western alphabet today. When the ancient Greeks colonized and mapped the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions in the late centuries b.c.e., commerce grew. Excellent Greek harbors and ports facilitated the exchange of goods from inland, and Greek cities such as Corinth and Hellas became great economic centers. In the 330s and 320s b.c.e., Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) launched trade between the Mediterranean world and Central Asia as far as India, and the city of Alexandria in Egypt became the most important commercial hub of the Western world.

MEANS OF EXCHANGE The earliest traders bartered goods, with livestock serving as an important means of exchange.As travel among kingdoms increased, however, commodities were purchased with easier to transport items, such as precious and semiprecious metal ingots. King Croesus of Lydia (r. ca. 560–547 b.c.e.), whose name is synonymous with wealth, is said to have minted the first gold coins as a means of exchange. Once coins were in common use, banking began

Comnenian Dynasty to develop in large commercial centers, adding to the financial power of the countries in which they were located. By about 600 b.c.e., private banking existed among many Mediterranean societies, and it was developed considerably by the Greeks, Romans, and Byzantines. Commercial banking first became established in Italy during the Renaissance. Since monarchs retained control of the minting of coins, which often bore the likeness of the rulers, they had great influence on commerce.

COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION Beginning in the eleventh century, the changes in economic structure resulting from increased world commerce led to the so-called Commercial Revolution. The economies of many kingdoms became increasingly tied to trade, more people lived in towns and cities and received wages, and business transactions were carried out with money. Prince Henry the Navigator, the son of King John I (r. 1385–1433) of Portugal, was largely responsible for Portugal’s rise as a maritime power in the 1400s. Henry brought together cartographers, shipbuilders, instrument makers, and sailors trained in navigation techniques to prepare for discovering a route to the East following the coast of Africa. After many expeditions, Henry’s ships succeeded, and Portugal soon established a preeminent position in commerce. Hoping to open new westward trade routes to India and increase their treasuries, the Spanish rulers Ferdinand of Aragon (r. 1479–1516) and Isabella of Castile (r. 1474–1504) financed the journeys of Christopher Columbus. When Columbus returned from his initial voyage to the Americas with gold, “Indians,” and other valuable commodities, he was soon dispatched a second time, with more ships, men, and trade items and the imperative to claim the new lands for the Spanish Crown. Along with the Spanish, the Dutch and Italians became significant commercial powers in the 1500s and 1600s. In an effort to strengthen its own economic interests, England passed, in 1651, the Navigation Acts, which required all goods exported or imported by English colonies to be carried on English ships. This legislation vastly increased the amount of trade for England and ensured its dominance in world commerce. Trade routes opened earlier to China and the Far East had created markets in Europe for spices, silks, tea, dyes, and porcelain, and sustained commerce

203

between the East and West.The East India Company, which received its original royal charter in 1600 from Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) to conduct sea trade with the Americas, later became the major force behind English imperialism in Asia. Ironically, the expansion of commerce, so strongly supported by sovereign rulers as a means of strengthening their wealth, created a merchant class powerful enough to challenge the absolute authority of monarchs and wealthy enough to emulate the lifestyle of aristocrats. See also: Coinage, Royal; Croesus.

COMNENIAN DYNASTY (1081–1185 C.E.)

Dynasty that ruled the Byzantine Empire in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Comnenian dynasty came to power in 1081, when Alexius I Comnenus (r. 1081–1118), a popular military leader, became ruler of the Byzantine Empire. Several years earlier, in 1073, Alexius had become well known in military circles after he led several successful military campaigns, in alliance with Venetian forces, against the Normans in France. Alexius used his political influence among Byzantine society—elite military leaders and wealthy relatives—to create a new aristocracy and eventually a dynasty. He had the support of many influential people because he provided them with power and status. They, in turn, shielded him against dissension and supported his rise to power. Alexius’s rule began at the end of a long period of turmoil following successful expansion under Basil II (r. 976–1025) of the Macedonian dynasty. Basil had extended the empire to encompass the Balkan region north to the Danube River, a large section of southern Italy, as well as control of Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and the Black Sea. His successors, however, had been unable to balance the divergent cultures within the Byzantine Empire, and a series of military failures, financial losses, and rebellions characterized much of Byzantine history in the eleventh century. When Alexius I gained control in 1081, the empire was threatened on every side. His primary threat was from the Turks to the east and south and from the Normans, who were in southern Italy and

204

Comnenian Dynasty

prepared to invade Albania. Alexius continued his campaign against the Normans first, relying on the fact that the Normans were operating with the full support of the Roman Catholic Church. The Byzantine people had a long history of animosity toward the Roman Catholic Church and were willing to support a long military campaign that they saw as a bulwark against it. After losing several battles, Alexius began using ambush techniques that he had learned from Turkish military strategists.The Byzantines thus began to win decisive military victories throughout the late 1080s. Ultimately, outside distractions on other fronts, including several civil wars in Norman territories, gave Alexius time to concentrate and consolidate power throughout his territories in the Balkans. Alexius had many dissenters in his territories arrested, then imprisoned or executed. He also confiscated their property and scattered their families throughout the empire. Balkan rulers attempted to fight back, but Alexius repeatedly reclaimed lost territory. His control over the Balkans, however, was never stable, but rather a series of gradual and unsteady military occupations. Alexius’s reign was not entirely focused on the acquisition of land. The Comnenian dynasty also spent much effort casting out heretics and reforming the clergy. Included in such reforms was an attempt to resolve the differences between the eastern and western Christian churches. Alexius was unsuccessful in uniting the churches, however, and this failure alienated the Comnenian dynasty from the social change brought on by the Crusades. In 1095, Alexius asked Pope Urban II to help him recover Anatolia from the Seljuk Turks, which helped to initiate the First Crusade. He forced people who joined his crusade to take an oath of allegiance to his leadership when they arrived in Constantinople a year later. The crusaders helped Alexius regain control of western Anatolia. However, he failed to prevent them from establishing independent states in Syria and Palestine, and the successful alliances he had made across Christian cultures during the Crusades began to break apart. In 1098, Alexius failed to rescue a group of crusaders from a Turkish invasion because they had refused to take an oath of loyalty. As a result, many crusaders began to doubt Alexius’s trustworthiness and refused to join in military and economic al-

liances with the Byzantines, which had been one of the great sources of Alexius’s success and power. Over the next sixty-seven years, Alexius’s four successors—John II (r. 1118–1143), Manuel I (r. 1143–1180),Alexius II (r. 1180–1183), and Andronicus (r. 1183–1185)—continued to gain and lose territories.This continued until 1185, when successful military raids on Byzantium by an alliance formed, in part, from the Norman nobility Alexius I had made his mark defeating, were able to topple much of the Byzantine Empire.The riots that ensued in the city of Constantinople after these raids ended the Comnenian dynasty and ushered in a new era of leadership for the humbled Byzantine Empire under the Angelus dynasty See also: Byzantine Empire; Crusader Kingdoms; Norman Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Angold, Michael. The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204. New York: Longman Group, 1984.

COMPETITION, FRATERNAL Competition between brothers for kingship or political power. Fraternal competition has varied between different types of monarchies or royal families. The custom of primogeniture (inheritance by the oldest son), followed by most medieval and modern European monarchies, has limited the power of fraternal competition by establishing the oldest brother as the unquestioned successor. Even so, a number of European royal brothers have engaged in political intrigue or even military action against each other. In the late 1100s and early 1200s, for example, John of England (r. 1199–1216) fought his elder brother Richard I (r. 1189–1199) before acceding to the throne on Richard’s death. Situations in which two brothers claimed the throne, however, have been rare. The very sharp distinction in European monarchies between “legitimate” children born to wives and “illegitimate” children born to mistresses, also limited fraternal competition by rendering it impossible for illegitimate sons ever to be accepted as monarchs. Fraternal competition could also be limited, though not suppressed, by monarchs who di-

C o n c u b i n e s, Roya l vided their empires among their sons, as did Charlemagne (r. 768–814) and Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227). The division of the empire led to conflict between the sons of these rulers, but the conflict did not extend to fratricide or dethronement. Monarchies that have lacked an impersonal mechanism to designate the successor but relied on a royal father to designate one of his sons (rarely daughters) as sole heir to an undivided realm have fostered intense competitiveness among brothers, sometimes extending to outright killing. Polygamous systems, in which all of the children of a monarch and his many wives or concubines are equally legitimate, also encourage fratricidal conflict. Royal fraternal competition was perhaps greatest in the Muslim world, and particularly the early Ottoman Empire, which combined a stable imperial house, a tradition of imperial unity, a harem of concubines whose children were of equal legitimacy, and an open succession to the throne. The practice of fratricide in the Ottoman Empire was introduced by Sultan Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402), who on his accession in 1389 had his brother Yakub executed. The early Ottoman sultans established their numerous sons as army leaders or provincial governors, and the death of a sultan was sometimes followed by civil wars in which the defeated brothers either fled the empire or were killed by their siblings. The ulema, or body of scholars of Islamic law, grudgingly accepted fratricide as superior to unending civil war or the fragmentation of the empire.The practice of fratricide also had the advantage of usually providing competent sultans. Ottoman fratricide reached its peak with Sultan Mehmed III (r. 1595–1603), who on his accession in 1595 had nineteen of his brothers strangled. Beginning in the late 1500s, the Ottomans switched from fratricide to a system in which royal sons were kept in a special section of the palace known as the “cage” until they died or were raised to the throne. This practice of isolating potential heirs often produced inexperienced, and sometimes insane, sultans. Another great Muslim dynasty known for its fratricidal succession conflicts was the Mughal dynasty of India. See also: Inheritance, Royal; Islam and Kingship; Legitimacy; Ottoman Empire; Primogeniture; Royal Families; Siblings, Royal; Succession, Royal.

205

CONCUBINES, ROYAL Women who cohabit with monarchs without being married to them. The distinction between a concubine and a secondary wife in a polygamous system is not always clear, but generally, concubines are distinguished from wives by enjoying few legal protections and by the fact that their children are not recognized as heirs. A concubine is usually selected for her beauty or charm rather than for wealth or family connections, and her position depends on her hold over the monarch’s affections or lust.

CONCUBINE OR MISTRESS? Another word used for a man’s sexual partner outside of marriage is “mistress”—a word that suggests a woman who is sought after, wooed, and loved, and may have a husband and social position independent of her relationship with the monarch. The word “concubine” most often implies a woman who is of low social status and who serves her master’s purpose, not her own. But the line between these concepts is not always clear either. In Western societies, royal mistresses have often been referred to as concubines by people who dislike them and wish to underplay their importance. This happened with Jane Shore, the beautiful and high-spirited lover of England’s King Edward IV (r. 1461–1470), and to Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547), who gained the title of queen only to be executed for alleged sexual misconduct.

YANG GUIFEI Through the ages, concubines have sometimes transcended their essentially lowly status to achieve distinction, at least in literature or in folk memory, and sometimes to reach real material power.Yang Guifei was the low-born favorite concubine of the T’ang emperor of China, Hsuan Tsung (Xuanzong) (r. 712–756). It was said that Hsuan Tsung’s passion for Yang Guifei was so great that he failed to tend to the business of his empire. A terrifying rebellion, which forced the court to flee the capital for a time, was blamed by the palace guards on Yang Guifei and her brother. The guards insisted that the emperor order that both be executed. The emperor complied but, heartsick at his loss, he abdicated soon after.

206

C o n c u b i n e s, Roya l

Yang Guifei became known as one of the Four Beauties of ancient China, and her tragic story is the subject of a renowned poem, “Song of Everlasting Sorrow,” by Bai Juyi.

LADY NIJO Another famous concubine was Nakanoin Masatada no Musume, also known as Lady Nijo. Born around 1257 to an aristocratic Japanese family, she grew up in the imperial palace, where her father held important positions. Emperor Go-Fukakusa (r. 1246– 1260), fifteen years older than Lady Nijo, took her as a concubine when she was fourteen years old. Nijo’s father, who might have been able to exert some influence to secure a position for her as a secondary wife to the emperor, died only two years later, leaving Nijo dependent on the emperor. It does not seem to have bothered Go-Fukakusa that she had at least two other lovers, but when the empress, who had always resented Nijo’s presence, circulated a rumor that Nijo had begun an affair with the emperor’s brother and political rival, Go-Fukakusa banished her from the court. Nijo lived in seclusion for several years and then began to travel around Japan as a Buddhist nun.After Go-Fukakusa’s death in 1260, she wrote her story, which has been published in English as The Confessions of Lady Nijo. It is an intimate confession, full of intense feeling not just about Nijo’s own plight but about the lives of the ordinary people she met during her travels.

MADAME DE POMPADOUR One of the most famous royal concubines in France was Madame de Pompadour, born JeanneAntoinette Poisson to a middle-class Paris family in 1725. When Jeanne was nine years old, a gypsy fortuneteller predicted that she would become mistress to the king. Her family made a joke of it, calling her Reinette (little queen). But she seems to have taken the prophecy seriously and to have set about acquiring the accomplishments—writing in a beautiful script, playing the harpsichord, painting, and making witty and intelligent conversation—that would make her fit to be mistress to a king. As a young woman, Jeanne-Antoinette made a wealthy marriage and soon became known for her exquisite style of dress and the dinner parties to which she invited the most intelligent people in France. In 1745, she managed to meet King Louis

XV (r. 1715–1774) at a masked ball; her beauty and charm captivated him, and before long she had left her husband and was installed in an apartment at the royal palace of Versailles. The king showered Jeanne with honors. She became the Marquise de Pompadour, a center of social life at court, an important patroness of the arts, and the focus of much hatred throughout the land. Her physical relationship with the king ran its course, however, and he had many other extramarital affairs, but the deep friendship between Louis and Madame Pompadour ensured that she maintained her position until her early death at age forty. See also: Consorts, Royal; Henry VIII; Louis XV; Marriage of Kings; Polygamy, Royal.

CONNAUGHT KINGDOM (358–1585 C.E.)

The smallest of the five kingdoms of early Ireland. The Gaelic name for the kingdom of Connaught is said to derive from Connmac, one of the sons of the legendary goddess Maeve, whose legendary residence was located in the kingdom.

EARLY RULERS According to ancient Irish legends, Connaught was the home of the Fir Bolg, a pre-Gaelic people who invaded Ireland around 1972 b.c.e.After the Fir Bolg were conquered by the Dé Dannnan people, Sreng, one of the defeated warriors, was given Connaught as a peace settlement. The early capital of Gaelic Connaught was located at Cruachain. Most of the genealogical sources for the Connaught kings start with Beochaich Moydedon (r. 358–366), who was also the high king of Tara. The dominant dynasty in Connaught from the late fifth to mid-eighth century was the Ui Fiachrach. They were supplanted by the Uí Bríuin. Both traced their descent from Eochu Mugmedón, a fourthcentury high king of Ireland. The Ui Fiachrach were the descendants of Eochu’s, son Fiachra Foltsnaithech. The Ui Bríuin traced their descent from Bríon, Fiachra’s brother, who was also a brother of Niall, the founder of the Uí Neill dynasty, who were later kings of Ulster. The Uí Bríuin later took the name Conchohbair (O’Connor), from Conchobar, a king who died in 973.

C on qu e s t a n d K i n g s h i p s THE O’CONNORS Until the eleventh century, Connaught played little part in the affairs of Ireland. It was Turloch O’Connor (r. 1106–1156), who unexpectedly made his dynasty a great power in Ireland. A warrior and statesman, he also was a kingmaker, forcing the O’Brien high king to accept the treaty of Glonmire in 1118, which partitioned Munster into northern and southern kingdoms. In 1121, on the death of the Uí Neill king, Domnall Ua Lochlainn (r. 1119– 1121), Turloch seized the high kingship of Tara by force, though he continued to face opposition from the kingdoms of Desmond, Thomond, and Leinster, as well as the Uí Neill kings. In 1150, Miurchertach Ua Lochlainn (r. 1156–1166) established himself as a rival to Turloch for the high kingship.Turloch won a famous battle at Moin-mor in Tipperary in 1151, where he defeated the forces of Turloch O’Brien, the king of Thomond. Turloch O’Connor was a centralizing monarch; he developed and improved the area’s roads and bridges and established a strong naval force at the mouth of the Shannon River. Upon Turloch’s death in 1156, his son, Ruaidri (Rory) O’Connor (r. 1156–1186), gained the kingship of Connaught by blinding his eldest brother, who was thought most qualified to be king. When Ruaidri tried to gain the high kingship, however, he was defeated by Miurchertach Ua Lochlainn. In 1166, after Muiurchetach killed some princely hostages and was driven from the kingship, Rory O’Connor joined forces with Tigernan Ua Ruairc of Breifne (r. 1124–1172) and Diarmait Ua Máel Sechnaill of Meath (r. 1160–1169), and won a series of victories that made him high king of Ireland.

STRUGGLE WITH ENGLAND Rory O’Connor’s reign started well, but in 1169 he had to fight the Norman knights and later the troops of Henry II (r. 1154–1189) who had invaded Ireland. In 1175, he signed the Treaty of Windsor, acknowledging the English king as his overlord. He continued to reign as a vassal king, as did his successors after he abdicated in 1186. In 1235, an English army laid waste to the kingdom of Connaught, and the Normans seized land to make estates for themselves. The O’Connors were almost exterminated at the battle of Athenry, fought against the English in 1316. At the end of the fourteenth century, the king-

207

dom was divided between two branches of the dynasty, called the O’Connor Roe (red) and the O’Connor Don (fair-haired). In 1543, the O’Connors relinquished their titles and agreed to obey the English Crown, while still intending to fight for their hereditary lands. Beginning in 1571, Diarmuid mac Eogan Chaoic (r. 1550–1585) of the O’Connor Don, and the head of the O’Connor Roe, Tadhg Óg O’Connor (r. ?–1585), waged war against the English overseers of Connaught but were defeated. In 1585, Tadhg Óg O’Connor agreed to the Composition of Connaught, which abolished all Gaelic titles in the kingdom. Diarmuid died that same year, ending the line of Irish kings in Connaught. See also: Irish Kings; Leinster Kingdom; Meath Kingdom; Ulster Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Byrne, Francis John. Irish Kings and High-Kings. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 2001. Ellis, Peter Beresford. Erin’s Blood Royal: The Gaelic Nobel Dynasties of Ireland. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. O Corrain, Donnchadh. Ireland Before the Normans. Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 2004.

CONQUEST AND KINGSHIPS A method of acquiring territory by force used by rulers and kings throughout much of early history. Conquest often had lasting and profound political, administrative, and social effects on the defeated state or people. Conquest was considered a legally valid means of acquiring territory until the twentieth century, when nations and statesmen began to challenge this idea. Following World War I, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by waging war, was considered a violation of international law.

HISTORICAL NOTION OF CONQUEST Historically, sovereign states were said to have a legal right to conquest, and other states recognized territory gained through conquest as legally valid. The right to conquest is closely associated with the concept of state sovereignty, or the ability of a state to possess primary power over its own borders without accountability to any other state. It was a generally

208

C on qu e s t a n d K i n g s h i p s

ROYAL RITUALS

DIVINE RIGHT AND CONQUEST In early history, people believed that kings were entitled to conquest by the same rules that governed their accession to the throne—divine right. In 1399 c.e., the English Parliament recognized Henry Bolingbroke as King Henry IV (r. 1399–1413) by agreeing that he had gained the throne through conquest, which was a right God had given him. People also thought that kingship was above the law and that kings retained their sovereignty through the will of God. Regardless of how a king gained the throne—through descent, election, or conquest—the kingship was thought to be the will of God, and kings were, therefore, infallible.

accepted notion that a sovereign state had the right to wage war for whatever reason it saw fit, including the desire to acquire territory. The expansion of many of the great empires throughout history was achieved through conquest. Conquest was one of the primary means by which various cultural, political, and social ideas spread from one part of the world to another.

Conquests of Alexander the Great Alexander III, the Great, of Macedon (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) launched the greatest series of conquests the world has ever seen, and his short reign marked a significant moment in the history of Europe and Asia.At the height of Alexander’s rule, his vast empire stretched from the Ionian Sea near Greece to the northern part of India. The Roman Empire, the spread of Christianity, and the Byzantine Empire were all, to some degree, the results of Alexander’s conquests, which included Greece, virtually all of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), and the empires of Persia, Babylon, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt. Alexander’s victories created a single cultural and economic world, known as the Hellenistic, that allowed for the social and economic exchange of various ideas and goods.

Norman Conquest The Norman Conquest was the military conquest of England by Duke William of Normandy in 1066 c.e.. The culmination of the conquest came at the battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066. After a full day of

fighting, with the battle’s outcome in doubt, the English line eventually collapsed and the Normans crushed the enemy with vigor.With this victory, the Norman Conquest was completed, ending AngloSaxon rule of England. Duke William became King William I (r. 1066–1087) Following the Norman Conquest, England was changed to suit its conquerors. The majority of the Saxon aristocracy, along with the upper levels of clergy, were killed or replaced by the Normans.The invaders also imposed a system of military feudalism on the Saxon populace. In addition to drastically altering the social and political structure of England, the Norman Conquest also had a great impact on the English language. English dialect was completely replaced by Latin, and then Norman French, as the language for laws and literature.This impact can still be seen today, with a large portion of English vocabulary based on either Latin or French.

Mongol Conquests Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227), known as one of the world’s fiercest conquerors, was able to unite the nomadic tribes of Mongolia into a disciplined military state for the first time. His grandson, Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294), cemented Mongol conquests in Asia by conquering China and moving the Mongol capital to Beijing in 1271. The Mongol Empire was the only foreign dynasty ever to rule all of China. At its greatest extent, the empire stretched from Korea to Hungary and as far as Vietnam in the south, an area that comprised one

Conrad III of the largest empires in history. The Mongols were noted for improving the Chinese road systems running into Russia and for promoting trade throughout the empire and with Europe. They are also remembered for their most notable trait—a ferocious military force.

MODERN NOTION OF CONQUEST At the beginning of the twentieth century, the idea that a state had a legal right to forcibly acquire territory from another state was challenged by various nations, statesmen, and scholars. One of the primary underpinnings of this new view was the principle of self-determination, which was adopted by the international community after World War I. Selfdetermination—the ability of a group with a national identity to form its own state and determine its own government—was accepted as one of the key factors behind the peace settlement that ended the war. The League of Nations, which was created at the end of the war as an organization for international cooperation, held that war for the purpose of territorial acquisition was unjust. The United Nations, which grew out of the League of Nations, now considers conquest a violation of international law. See also: Byzantine Empire; Mongol Empire; Persian Empire; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Korman, Sharon. The Right of Conquest:The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. New York: Clarendon Press, 1996.

CONRAD II (ca. 990–1039 C.E.) German king (r. 1024–1039) and Holy Roman emperor (r. 1027–1039), who was first emperor of the Salian dynasty. A champion of the minor nobles and the common person, Conrad established the German monarchy as an independent power. Conrad II was a Franconian noble and descendant of Holy Roman Emperor Otto I (r. 962–973). (The duchy of Franconia was a region of Germany that occupied the northern part of the present-day state of Bavaria.) In 1024, the German ruler, Henry II (r. 1014–1024), the last of the Saxon dynasty, died without an heir. German princes elected Conrad—

209

the matrilineal heir of Otto I—as Henry’s successor, but Conrad’s stepson, Ernest of Swabia, contested the accession along with the Italian nobility and the Lotharingians, whose land roughly comprised the present-day Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg,Alsace, and northwest Germany. After putting down uprisings led by Ernest and the Lotharingians, Conrad marched toward Milan and was crowned king by the archbishop of Milan in 1026. Conrad brought the other city-states of northern Italy into submission and was crowned Holy Roman emperor at Rome in 1027. Conrad suppressed two more revolts by Ernest in 1027 and 1030, and he won the region of Lusatia from Poland in 1031. In 1034, he annexed Burgundy under the terms of an earlier treaty between his predecessor, Henry II, and Rudolf III (r. 993–1032) of Arles, whose realm included Burgundy. Conrad then returned to northern Italy, where the greater nobility, with support of the archbishop of Milan, were fighting against the lesser nobility. Conrad, who was powerful enough not to need the support of either the nobility or the church, sided with the lesser nobility and the common man. He deposed the archbishop of Milan and his allies in 1036, and made the title to the lands under the control of the lesser nobles hereditary. Conrad then established the ministeriales, a new hereditary bureaucracy manned by the common people, who replaced the clergy in the civil service. Upon Conrad’s death in 1039, he was succeeded on the throne of both Germany and the Holy Roman Empire by his son, Henry III (r. 1039–1056). See also:Franconian Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Lothair I; Otto I, the Great; Salian Dynasty.

CONRAD III (1093–1152 C.E.) First member of the Hohenstaufen dynasty to rule as German king (r. 1138–1152) and contender for Holy Roman emperor, though he was never confirmed or crowned emperor by the pope. Conrad was the son of Frederick, duke of Swabia, and Agnes, the daughter of Holy Roman emperor Henry IV (r. 1084–1105) of the Salian dynasty. In 1125, Conrad’s brother, Frederick, lost the imperial election for Holy Roman emperor to Lothair of Saxony, who became Emperor Lothair II (r. 1125–1137). In the aftermath of this electoral de-

210

Conrad III

feat, the two brothers rebelled against Lothair and set up Conrad as a rival king. Conrad went to Milan to seek recognition and was crowned king there in 1128. However, when he failed to gain power at Lothair’s expense, Conrad finally submitted to the emperor in 1135. When Lothair died in 1137, the German imperial electors feared increasing the power of Lothair’s sonin-law, Henry the Proud of Bavaria, by electing him as successor. As a result, they elected Conrad III king of the Romans (emperor). Conrad annexed the duchies of Saxony and Bavaria from Henry, which led to civil war. The war between Conrad and the supporters of Henry continued even after Henry’s death in 1139, as Henry’s brother Guelph and the Saxons supported the claims to the throne of Henry’s son, Henry the Lion. Two opposing political groups—the Guelphs and Ghibellines—emerged from this conflict. A short-lived truce was made between the opposing forces in 1142, but the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict reemerged periodically for many years afterward. In 1146, Conrad met the Crusader, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, and was persuaded to take part in the unsuccessful siege of Damascus, from which Conrad returned to Europe in 1149. Because the pope never crowned Conrad, he was never officially confirmed as Holy Roman emperor. However, upon his death in 1152, he was succeeded as German king by his nephew, Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1152–1190). See also: Frederick I, Barbarossa; Henry IV; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Lothair I; Salian Dynasty.

CONSORTS, ROYAL Individuals whose royal status is dependent on marriage to a royal person. Consorts are not sovereigns, and not all royal spouses fall into this category. Some European monarchies offered the possibility of marriage to a king without acquiring the position of queen consort through the institution of morganatic marriage. This is a form of marriage in which a wife of lower status does not acquire the status of her husband. The most famous royal morganatic marriage was that of Louis XIV of France (r. 1638–1715) to Madame de Maintenon.

Another form of royal marriage is co-rulership, in which both partners are sovereign. Famous examples of co-rulership in European monarchies are Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) and Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504) who, though they ruled Spain jointly, actually ruled their kingdoms of Aragón and Castile separately. Another example of co-rulers are William III (r. 1689–1702) and Mary II (r. 1689–1694) of England, whose co-rulership was a compromise after William refused the status of consort to Mary, who had the legitimate claim to the English Crown. In Europe, royal or noble status is usually a prerequisite for a queen to be considered a full consort. Royal consortship is not a status held for life, however. Upon the death of a king, his queen consort becomes queen mother or queen dowager rather than remain queen consort. Female monarchs have faced particularly difficult challenges in finding a role for their partners. In patriarchal societies, the difficulty of a reigning queen maintaining her independence if married was one factor that led some queens, notably Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) or Christina of Sweden (r. 1632–1654), to remain unmarried despite the problems caused by the lack of a direct heir. Male royal consorts are usually referred to as prince consorts because it has been difficult to separate the title of “king” from actual power. Although consorts usually lack institutionalized political power, they can exert influence in many ways. It is rare but not unheard of for a consort to become a ruler in her own right.This possibility is most likely in kingdoms that lack a clear law of succession. The best-known example is Catherine II of Russia (r. 1762–1796), originally a German princess from a minor house who married into the Romanov dynasty. Consorts can act as regents for their spouses, as Catherine of Aragón did for her husband, Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547), while he was on campaign in France. Consorts can also exercise influence behind the scenes, depending on the personalities of the ruler and consort. A well-known example is Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria of Great Britain (r. 1837–1901), whose influence over her was so powerful that he was allowed to play a leading role in English life. See also: Concubines, Royal; Dual Monarchies; Kings and Queens; Marriage of Kings;

C on s ta n t i n e I , t h e G r e at Polygamy, Royal; Queens and Queen Mothers; Succession, Royal. FURTHER READING

Cook, Petronelle. Queen Consorts of England:The Power behind the Throne. New York: Facts on File, 1993.

CONSTANTINE I, THE GREAT (274–337 C.E.)

Roman emperor (r. 306–337) and the first Roman ruler to be converted to Christianity. He founded Constantinople (now Istanbul), which remained the capital of the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire, until the empire’s fall in 1453. Constantine is best known for unifying an empire on the verge of collapse, reorganizing the Roman state, and setting the stage for the victory of Christianity at the end of the fourth century.

211

RISE TO POWER The son of Constantius I, a Roman military commander, Constantine was born Flavius Valerius Constantinus in Nis, in what is present-day Serbia.While his father was away fighting, the young Constantine stayed at the court of the Emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305). When Diocletian resigned from the emperorship in 305, Galerius (r. 305–311), who was co-emperor of Rome with Constantius I (r. 305–306), sent Constantine to join his father in Britain. While in Britain, Constantine became very popular with the Roman soldiers, who proclaimed him emperor after the death of Emperor Constantius in 306. Galerius still held the co-emperorship, however, and there were other claimants to the throne. Through much political maneuvering, Constantine managed to hold on to his rule, but for the next twenty years, he continually had to fight to maintain his control of the throne, which was often challenged.

The Arch of Constantine in Rome was built in 315 c.e. This triumphal arch was erected in honor of the Emperor Constantine I after his victory over Maxentius, a rival for the imperial crown, at the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 c.e.

212

C on s ta n t i n e I , t h e G r e at

CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY For much of his early life, Constantine relied on his faith in the Roman sun-god, Sol. However, by 312, he had converted to Christianity. At first, Constantine associated Christ with the sun-god, but he ultimately abandoned all his previously held pagan beliefs and converted fully to Christianity. Even so, he still tolerated paganism among his subjects. Constantine was converted to Christianity following a vision in which he believed a higher power indicated an upcoming victory. Soon after, he defeated his imperial rival, Maxentius (r. 307–312), at the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312, a victory that earned Constantine the reputation as savior of the Roman people. Viewing the Christian God as responsible for his victory, Constantine called for an end to the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313. Soon after, Constantine began to challenge his co-emperor, Licinius (r. 308–324), for power, emerging as sole ruler of the Roman Empire in 324.

REFORMS AND POLICIES After becoming sole ruler, Constantine began to implement many reforms of the empire. He reorganized the Roman army and separated civil and military powers. He returned a great deal of authority to the Roman Senate, which had lost much of its power in the third century. Constantine also issued new gold coins called solidi, which remained the currency until the end of the Byzantine Empire. Constantine began building the city of Constantinople in 326. Built on the site of the ancient Greek city Byzantium, Constantinople was completed in 330, although it was later expanded.The new capital city was given the best of Roman institutions, while being graced with the beauty of ancient Greek works of art. The emperor also began building churches in the Holy Land, where his mother claimed to have found the cross on which Jesus was crucified. As the first Christian emperor, Constantine played an instrumental role in expanding Christianity in the Roman Empire. He received his own baptism on his deathbed in 337. Constantine had done much to reunify the Roman Empire. But upon his death, the empire was divided again, as his three sons, Constantine II (r. 337–340), Constans (r. 337–350), and Constantius II (r. 337–361) vied for power.

See also: Byzantine Empire; Christianity and Kingship; Diocletian; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. Constantine the Great:The Man and His Times. New York: Scribner’s, 1994. ———. The Emperor Constantine. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1993. Pohlsander, Hans A. The Emperor Constantine. New York: Routledge, 1996.

COOKS, ROYAL People who prepare food for royalty. Food in the royal courts was hardly an ordinary affair; elaborate presentations and amazing quantities of exotic foods unknown to the common man were all but the norm for monarchs. Marriages between kings and queens of various countries did much to help introduce and popularize previously unknown foods into a new region. The marriage of Henry VII of England to Catherine of Aragón of Spain, for example, introduced the king to the artichoke and fueled a passion for fruit resulting in the planting of a royal cherry orchard at Kent in 1533. Monarchs treasured new food experiences. After becoming empress of India in 1876, England’s Queen Victoria (r. 1819–1901), fascinated with the subcontinent she had not traveled to, employed a young Indian man,Abdul Karim, who became her confidant. She then hired two Indian chefs to cook curry lunches for her in the event she had an Indian visitor. Monarchs honed their appreciation for great food by employing some of the most talented chefs in the world to serve and delight their courts. Food played an integral role in the coronation celebration of England’s James II in 1685. The feast consisted of 145 dishes served in the first course and 30 in the second; over his lifetime, the king’s master chef Peter Lamb prepared over 1,400 dishes.

GREAT ROYAL CHEFS Marie-Antoine Careme (1784–1833) was the founder of French haute cuisine and by the age of twenty-one served as chef de cuisine to the popular French politician and diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1754–1838). He served in the royal courts of George IV of England (r. 1820–1830)

C ó r d o b a , C a l i p h at e o f and Emperor Alexander I of Russia (r. 1801–1825). Marie-Antoine penned several books on cookery and the history of French cooking; each volume comprised hundreds of recipes and menus. He died at forty-eight and is remembered as the “chef of kings and the king of chefs.” Georges August Escoffier (1846–1935) began cooking at the age of thirteen, when he went to work in his uncle’s kitchen in Nice. Escoffier modernized the cooking systems founded by Careme and was widely considered to be the chef of emperors. He was held in high esteem by Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (r. 1888–1918).

CÓRDOBA, CALIPHATE OF (756–1031 C.E.)

An independent Muslim emirate, centered at the city of Córdoba, that unified Moorish Spain in the eighth century and brought a flowering of commerce and culture. In 756, Abd al-Rahman, a prince of the Umayyad dynasty of Damascus in Syria, defeated the governor of al-Andalus—the parts of Spain under Moorish control—and founded the politically independent emirate of Córdoba, thus unifying all of Moorish Spain. Abd al-Rahman II, who ruled from 912 to 961, proclaimed Córdoba a caliphate in 929 and named himself caliph. (A caliph is an Islamic leader who is thought to be related to the prophet Mohammad, and a caliphate is the geographical area over which he rules.) Until this time, al-Andalus had been under the jurisdiction of the caliphate of Baghdad, so Abd al-Rahman’s action was especially significant. For the first time, the rulers of al-Andalus were independent both religiously and politically. Abd al-Rahman developed a strictly controlled and well-organized administration that included a treasury and centralized accounting. Because Córdoba’s economy was based on the use of currency, as opposed to an economy based on barter, it became an important economic center of medieval Europe. At the height of its power, the city of Córdoba had more than one hundred thousand residents, making it Europe’s largest city. Moreover, after Caliph al-Hakam II (r. 961–976) came to power, Córdoba became an extremely important cultural center. Al-Hakam founded a library that

213

eventually housed hundreds of thousands of books. Because of a policy of religious tolerance, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars were able to teach students from all over Europe who came to Córdoba to study and learn. Muslim thinkers were particularly adept in medicine, mathematics, and astronomy, and, in general, Muslim culture in Spain was very much more advanced than any culture in Europe at the time, not only in education and religious tolerance but also in the quality of life. At its height, Córdoba had 700 mosques, 300 public baths, paved streets, and streetlights. Wealthy residents even had heat ducts running under the mosaic floors of their homes. When al-Hakam died in 976, his son and heir Hisham II (r. 976–1009) was only twelve years old. A hajib, or court chamberlain, named al-Mansur took over the government and, in 981, forced Hisham to grant him complete authority over Córdoba. Al-Mansur became a powerful dictator, who was seen as a defender of orthodox Islamic faith, partially because of his jihad, or holy war, against the Christian kingdoms to the north of al-Andalus. AlMansur died in 1002 and was succeeded by his son, Abdul-Malik, who died only six years later, probably murdered by an assassin. Because the Umayyad dynasty had been usurped for twenty-two years of dictatorship, the people in the caliphate came to question the dynasty’s legitimacy. Hisham was deposed in 1009, restored, and then killed in 1013. In the same year, the city of Córdoba was sacked by a group of Muslim dissidents. For the next twenty-three years, rival claimants to the throne further weakened central authority in the caliphate until 1031, when it collapsed. After the collapse of the caliphate of Córdoba, Moorish Spain fractured into about thirty taifas, or smaller kingdoms, each ruled by local leaders. Some of these taifas, such as Granada, Seville, and Toledo, eventually grew into strong Moorish principalities. See also: Abd al-Rahman; Granada, Kingdom of; Umayyad Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain: Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. Fletcher, Richard. Moorish Spain. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

214

C ou n c i l s a n d C ou n s e l or s, Roya l

COUNCILS AND COUNSELORS, ROYAL Various bodies and individuals who function as assistants to the royal personage. Very few monarchs throughout history have ruled completely without counselors, and, in some cases, the men and women who have helped monarchs in decision-making processes have grown to be more powerful than the monarchs they were ostensibly serving. The increasing power of royal councils and counselors ultimately contributed to the decline of monarchies and the rise of more democratic forms of government.

EARLY ROYAL COUNCILS Royal councils and counselors served a crucial function for monarchs, for ruling even a small kingdom is a difficult and complex task. Similar to modern governments, which generally have different branches and offices serving a variety of diverse public needs, most monarchs throughout history depended on counselors or ministers to aid them in performing the assorted duties of governance. In ancient Egypt, for example, priests assisted the pharaohs in administrative duties, as well as serving as royal scribes. Egyptian nobles also were known to be important royal counselors, as the influence of Horemheb on the Pharaoh Tutankhamun (r. 1334– 1325 b.c.e.) attests. Eventually, the broad powers granted to royal counselors, especially priests, usurped the power of the pharaohs themselves. Later Egyptian dynasties are characterized by an increase in political power among the priestly class and the consequential weakness of the pharaohs. The fifth through first centuries b.c.e. saw several developments issue from royal councils that greatly modernized political organization. The Greek citystates of the fifth and fourth centuries b.c.e. were the first democracies and had their political roots in aristocratic councils that had overtaken the monarchy in political importance. The Roman Empire that followed the Greeks was notable for its Senate, an anomalous political organization that fell somewhere between a noble council and a representative democracy. The Roman Senate lost much of its political power during the time of Julius Caesar and the Emperor Augustus (r. 29 b.c.e.–14 c.e.).

In China, the third century b.c.e. saw the emergence of the Ch’in dynasty and the rise of Li Ssu, counselor to Shih Huang-ti (r. 221–209 b.c.e.), the first emperor of the Ch’in. Li Ssu is often credited with unifying China, as he standardized the legal code and alphabet, allowing greater communication among the people of China’s far-flung regions.

THE WITENAGEMOT AND EMERGENCE OF DEMOCRACY One of the most notable royal councils in history was the witenagemot, which was composed of various organizations of Anglo-Saxon nobility that served as advisors and even electors for monarchs in England in the years following the collapse of the Roman Empire. Although the Anglo-Saxon monarchy was ostensibly in control of the witenagemot, the latter was generally invested with rudimentary legislative power. Only rarely would early Anglo-Saxon monarchs act without the approval of the witenagemot, which would have provided a stiff challenge in a civil war because of its broad local powers. The Norman conquest of England in 1066 drew the era of the witenagemot to a close, but a body known as the Curia Regis quickly sprang up in its place.The differences between the two are not drastic, but the Curia Regis did serve more as a royal court, with less real power than the witenagemot. The Curia Regis is generally regarded as an early model for the eventual formation of the English Parliament. The collapse of feudal societies in the late Middle Ages was followed by a brief period during which several monarchs, most notably France’s Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), attempted to rule absolutely and had little use for royal counselors. Louis’s power, however, was established by one of the most famous royal counselors in history, Cardinal Richelieu, who served under Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643) and who effectively ran France from behind the throne for nearly twenty years.

REVOLUTION AND DECLINE The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were marked by the stirrings of democratic movements that challenged monarchical supremacy, and many of these movements began with or were supported by groups that traced their origins back to royal councils. The British Parliament, for instance, finally achieved power over the monarchy with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which William III (r.

C ou rt s a n d C ou rt O f f i c i a l s, Roya l 1689–1702) took the throne under an agreement granting Parliament nearly full sovereignty.The 1789 French Revolution, which ignited numerous democratic movements throughout the world, was begun by a revolt in the Estates-General, a national council that ostensibly advised the monarchy and served as a check on royal power. The decline of monarchical forms of government in Europe in the years following the French Revolution also signaled a decline in the importance of royal counselors. Several well-known and powerful figures served, at least superficially, as royal counselors during this period—perhaps most notably Otto von Bismarck of Germany, who served under Kaiser Wilhelm I (r. 1861–1888). But these officials acted more as modern prime ministers than as actual royal counselors, frequently circumventing the monarchy in order to promote their own political agendas. The most significant royal counselor of the twentieth century was Koichi Kido, adviser to Japanese emperor Hirohito (r. 1926–1989). Kido mediated between the Japanese military and Hirohito during the closing days of World War II, and he was almost singlehandedly responsible for convincing the emperor to surrender to the Allied forces at the end of the war. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Bureaucracy, Royal; Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Eunuchs, Royal; Feudalism and Kingship; Power, Forms of Royal; Priests, Royal; Prophets, Royal; Regencies; Servants and Aides, Royal.

COURTS AND COURT OFFICIALS, ROYAL The people who live in the official home of a queen or king and who work for or advise them. A monarch’s court might encompass a moderate number of individuals, including the members of the ruler’s immediate family and the most prominent members of government. In many monarchies, however, the court might be immense, with nobles, high officials, petty officers, and even commoners included. The monarch had the sole authority to determine members of his or her court. In fact, in royal courts, it was difficult to differentiate between the official and personal, between favored friend and civil servant.

215

COURT HIERARCHY Members of a royal court were not all equal. There was a highly developed hierarchy in most courts, and one’s duties and social position were often very specific. These distinctions often led to elaborate court protocol concerning who should bow to or salute whom and which terms of address were appropriate. Since court positions were given and taken at the monarch’s whim, few could feel secure in the offices they obtained. Corruption was a way of life among many royal courts, with bribery and flattery more likely to lead to advancement than true service to the country. In ancient Egypt, it was usually nobles and priests who were appointed to court positions. The pharaoh’s chief administrator was the vizier, who had the important duty of collecting taxes. Under the vizier were a number of scribes who maintained the government records; some of these scribes rose from the lower classes. The royal court system was highly developed in ancient India as well. Along with political administrators, Brahmin priests, artists, and musicians were among members of the court. The Arthashastra, a guidebook for political and social life written in the fourth century b.c.e., gives details of the behavior expected of nobles, aides, and servants at Indian royal courts. When they met together, courtiers were arranged in specific positions following a strict formal hierarchy. Prostration before the sultan, or even before the empty throne, was also often required. Although a few court positions were hereditary, crowned heads in the East and West held the power to grant offices and titles and to award pensions. Once one received a court position, that individual also could wield great influence. Often this influence was for sale to the highest bidder, the one most willing to pay the courtier for an audience with the king or for a friendly word in the queen’s ear.The administrators in the court of the notoriously parsimonious Queen Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) learned to take advantage of opportunities to sell their access to the queen.

THE ZENITH OF COURT LIFE Some historians ascribe the advent of the royal court as an adjunct to the seat of English power to Elizabeth’s grandfather Henry VII (r. 1485–1509) and to her father Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547). These Tudor rulers sought to diminish the power of the local lords

216

C ou rt s a n d C ou rt O f f i c i a l s, Roya l

In 1713, King Louis XIV of France was attended by a court of hundreds in the gardens at the palace of Versailles.

throughout the country and to consolidate government in the hands of the monarch.Yet, royal courts had been seats of influence long before the Tudors. In fact, Elizabeth’s court had much in common with the court of an earlier English queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, the wife of Henry II (r. 1154–1189), including many young men who used the techniques of courtly love to flatter and woo the queen. The epitome of medieval court life was Eleanor of Aquitaine’s court at Poitiers in southwestern France. Eleanor, who was married first to Louis VII of France (r. 1137–1180) and then to Henry II of England, left England during a period of estrangement from Henry and established a court in her native land, the duchy of Aquitaine. Life at Poitiers, the capital of the duchy, attracted knights, ladies, artists, musicians, and visiting royalty from throughout Europe. Eleanor’s daughter, Marie de Champagne, undertook the task of tutoring young squires and maidens in court manners. She engaged the writer Andreas Capelanus (Andre le Chapelain) to write a handbook of proper court behavior. The resulting

Book of the Art of Loving Nobly and the Reprobation of Dishonorable Love, though probably not a factual representation of court life, greatly influenced the image of chivalry during that period, which has been passed down through literature. The royal court of the French Sun-King, Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), at Versailles is often seen as the archetype of later European court life.The most sought-after court offices at Louis’s court were those with minimal duties, large pensions, and substantial influence. Even the most ordinary events in the king’s life—going to bed, saying his prayers, getting dressed—were carried out with great ceremony and with the assistance of members of his court.Within Louis’s court there were as many as thirty individuals whose sole duty was to serve the king his dinner. Regulations for court dress permitted only certain fabrics and colors. When not absorbed with duties to King Louis XIV, members of the court spent their days in pleasurable pursuits and luxury, but life there was not without hazards. When financial adviser Nicholas Fouquet began to irritate Louis by displaying his

C roat i a n K i n g d om wealth, the king had him imprisoned for life. Maintaining his royal court allowed Louis to keep French lords under his control and to display his power to other nations. But the extravagance of Versailles cost the country dearly; upon his death, Louis XIV left his nation nearly bankrupt. In spite of the cost of maintaining lavish courts, other monarchs such as Peter the Great (r. 1682– 1725) tried to construct their own households in similar fashion. England also fell under the influence of the French court.After the execution of England’s King Charles I (r. 1625–1649), his son Charles II (r. 1660–1685), sometimes known as the Merry Monarch, spent years in exile in the court of Louis XIV. When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, he brought many of the excesses of the French court with him. Women in the royal court might include the queen herself, princesses, other noble relatives, ladies in waiting, servants, and mistresses of the king. King Mongkut of Siam (r. 1851–1868), best known as the king in Anna and the King of Siam, had eightytwo children with his thirty-nine wives, all members of the royal court. It was said that an additional 9,000 women lived in his harem. Biblical kings such as David (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.) and Solomon (r. 970–931 b.c.e.) included their many concubines in their royal courts. Among the effects of the historic system of royal courts was the development of craftsmanship and artistry. Monarchs who wished their courts to be places of beauty, opulence, and advancement frequently became patrons of the arts and sciences. Many of the world’s greatest works of art, architecture, music, literature, and science were created for rulers and their royal courts. See also: Art of Kings; Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Class Systems and Royalty; Councils and Counselors, Royal; Eleanor of Aquitaine; Grooms of the Stool; Harems; Literature and Kingship; Music and Song; Palaces; Parks, Royal; Ritual, Royal.

CROATIAN KINGDOM (960–1918 C.E.) Kingdom in the Balkan region that was historically controlled or affiliated with the Austrian Habsburg dynasty and the Ottoman Turks.

217

Originally part of the ancient Roman province of Pannonia, Croatia was settled in the seventh century by a people known as the Croats, who, in the ninth century, accepted Christianity as their state religion. Croatia became a kingdom in the tenth century. Its rulers conquered surrounding regions, including Dalmatia, leading to much disagreement with the Republic of Venice over control of that territory. Ultimately, the kingdom of Croatia claimed Dalmatia. The Croatian kingdom reached the height of its power in the eleventh century. However, internal struggles soon weakened the kingdom, allowing it to be conquered by Hungary between 1097 and 1102. In 1102, Croatia and Hungary officially united under a single monarch. Although the two kingdoms remained joined for the next 800 years, Croatia often chose its own rulers independently of the Hungarian Crown. In 1526, most of Croatia came under Turkish rule after a series of successful invasions by the Ottoman Empire. The next year, in 1527, Croatian feudal lords agreed to accept the Habsburg rulers of Austria as their kings. In return, the Habsburg dynasty provided a defense of Croatia against the Turks, while the Croatian lords retained their power and privileges. However, under Habsburg rule, the independent kingdom of Croatia ceased to exist. For a period of about a century, Croatia served as a buffer, helping defend the Austrian Empire of the Habsburgs against the Turkish onslaught. However, the centralizing and Germanizing tendencies of the Habsburgs began to weaken the Croatian nobility by gradually reducing their influence and power, causing dissension among the Croats.This threat to their autonomy awakened in the Croats a strong sense of nationalism. Joseph Jellachich, a Croatian lord, gathered forces to march against the Habsburgs in 1848–1849. In 1867, when the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy was established, Croatia was included in the kingdom of Hungary. One year later, in 1868, Croatia united with Slavonia and became an autonomous Hungarian crownland. During this period, Croatian and South Slavic cultural and political organizations began to come into existence, most notably the Croatian Peasant Party, founded in the early twentieth century. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I saw the unification of the Balkan kingdoms into the kingdom of Serbs, Croats,

218

C roat i a n K i n g d om

and Slovenes. The formation of this unified new state, which later became known as Yugoslavia, marked the end, once again, of the Croatian kingdom. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Ottoman Empire; Serbian Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Guldescu, Stanko. The Croatian-Slavonian Kingdom, 1526–1792.The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Mazower, Mark. The Balkans: A Short History. New York: Modern Library, 2000.

CROESUS (ca. 596–547 B.C.E.) Last ruler (r. ca. 560–547 b.c.e.) of Lydia, an ancient kingdom located in western Asia Minor in what is now part of Turkey, who was known primarily for his great wealth. There is no reliable information concerning the early years of Croesus’s life. It is known that he was born to the royal family in or near the city of Sardis in Asia Minor, that his father was named Alyattes, and that he attained the throne after defeating the rival claim of a half brother. Croesus is best remembered for his wealth: the phrase “as rich as Croesus” is commonly used to describe a person who controls fabulous riches. There are many reasons for this reputation, not least of which is the fact that Lydia held great deposits of gold and silver, and mining these precious metals was an important industry during the time that Croesus ruled. However, other factors also contributed to the idea that Croesus was extraordinarily wealthy. For instance, the first known action of Croesus’s reign was the conquest of several Greek cities along the western (Mediterranean) coast of Asia Minor. Among the most important of these was Ephesus, a key trading center, which fell to Croesus in approximately 550 b.c.e. Whoever controlled Ephesus also controlled an east-west trade network that linked the Mediterranean world to places as far away as China. Although Croesus coveted the wealth of the Greeks, he was a political realist who recognized the need to maintain cordial relations with the powerful independent Greek city states that were his neighbors. After taking Ephesus, he thus set out to repair

the political damage his action might have caused. He welcomed Greek visitors to Lydia and offered generous donations to the most important of Greece’s temples and oracles. This policy of hospitality and generosity only increased Croesus’s reputation for fabulous wealth. There are various versions of the story of how Croesus fell from power. The most credible holds that Croesus became embroiled in a war with the powerful Persian Empire. To improve his chances in the war, he attempted to negotiate a military alliance with Babylon, Egypt, and Sparta, but Persia struck the Lydian capital of Sardis in 547 b.c.e., before the alliance was fully established. The Persians captured the city, and the kingdom of Lydia became a possession of the Persian Empire. The details of Croesus’s final years are also uncertain. Some sources claim that he was sentenced to death by the Persian ruler, Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 b.c.e.), but that Cyrus relented and appointed Croesus governor of a Persian province. Popular legend claims that Croesus was sentenced to death by fire, but the god Apollo sent a rainstorm to douse the flames and spare his life.The ancient Greek historian Herodotus records that Croesus cast himself upon a funeral pyre after his defeat by Cyrus the Great. See also: Cyrus the Great; Lydia, Kingdom of; Persian Empire.

CRUSADER KINGDOMS (1098–1561 C.E.)

A loose collection of states, principalities, and kingdoms established by groups originating from the Crusades. Among the crusader states were the kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291) and its associated states; the Principality of Antioch (1098–1268); the counties of Edessa (1098–1144) and Tripoli (1109–1289); and the island states of Rhodes (1309–1523) and Malta (1530–1798).

OUTREMER When the Frankish and Norman armies of the First Crusade landed in Outremer (literally, “across the sea”) in 1097, an integral part of their plan was to appro-

C ru s a d e r K i n g d o m s priate the territory from the Muslims. Jerusalem was the primary goal because of its religious significance. Many of the crusader knights were younger sons of European noble families that rigorously practiced primogeniture, the right of the first-born son to inherit everything from his father. The Crusades thus offered younger sons an opportunity to stake claim on “fresh” land and establish their own domain, for the Roman Catholic Church had sanctioned the Crusades and had assured participants that the heathen Saracens (Arab Muslims) did not have genuine rights to these Christian lands. The first area to fall to the crusaders was Antioch, long the most important city in the northwest corner of Outremer, which was conquered by Bohemond in 1098. Bohemond was a noble of Norman origin, from the recently formed duchies of southern Italy and Sicily. The principality of Antioch remained primarily in Norman hands until it was captured and razed by the Mamluks in 1289. In 1098, the coastal county of Edessa was taken by crusaders led by Baldwin of Boulogne, who ruled as King Baldwin I of Edessa (r. 1098–1100) until he turned it over to a cousin two years later.The fall of Edessa to the Muslims in 1144 precipitated the Second Crusade. Jerusalem was successfully stormed in 1099 by the crusader army of Godfrey of Bouillon, and its Muslim inhabitants were massacred. Once in possession of the holy site, Godfrey stated that only Jesus Christ could be the true king of Jerusalem; Godfrey thus took the title of Defender of the Holy Sepulcher. However his brother, Baldwin, the king of Edessa, disagreed with this view and was crowned as the first king of Jerusalem upon Godfrey’s death in 1100. The fourth crusader state established around the time of the First Crusade was the county of Tripoli, centered along the north coast of Palestine below the Principality of Antioch. French noble Raymond of Toulouse began a siege there in 1102 but died before the city was taken in 1109. His relatives remained in power in Tripoli until 1187, when Raymond III (r. 1152–1187) died from wounds received at the disastrous battle of Hattin. Control of Tripoli then passed to Bohemond III (r. 1163–1201, the prince of Antioch. On his way to the Third Crusade, to recover Jerusalem from the Muslim leader Saladin, Richard

219

Lionheart of England stopped on the Christian island of Cyprus in 1192 and took control of it from the Byzantine Empire. Richard gave the island to Guy of Lusignan, the king of Jerusalem (r. 1186–1192), who had recently participated in the great defeat of the Europeans at the battle of Hattin. Jerusalem was not restored to the Europeans in the Third Crusade (1189–1192), but they continued to name kings of the holy city. In 1224, the Egyptian sultan, al-Kamil Muhammad II (r. 1218–1238), gave Jerusalem back to the Christians as part of a treaty he signed with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (r. 1212–1250). (Frederick crowned himself the new king of Jerusalem and then summarily left the city.) Jerusalem fell twenty years later to the Islamic Ayyubid dynasty, and it was never regained by Europeans.

ELSEWHERE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN After the city of Acre in Palestine fell to the Muslims in 1291, Outremer was lost to the Europeans for good. However, a religious-military order, the Hospitalers (the Sovereign Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta) laid siege to the island of Rhodes in 1307 and, in 1309, took control of it from the Roman adventurer who had held it previously. The Hospitalers built a thriving mercantile empire on Rhodes that lasted over two hundred years, until 1523, when the young Ottoman ruler, Suleyman the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566), ousted them from the island. The Hospitalers languished for seven years until the Holy Roman emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558) offered them a new home on the rocky island of Malta. The Hospitalers ruled Malta until they were ousted by the Egypt-bound Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798. See also: Baldwin I; Christianity and Kingship; Conquest and Kingships; Frankish Kingdom; Lusignan Dynasty; Mamluk Dynasty; Norman Kingdoms; Richard I, Lionheart; Saladin; Suleyman I, the Magnificent. FURTHER READING

Hillenbrand, Carole. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2000.

220

C u r s e s, Roya l

CURSES, ROYAL Condemnations or words meant to call down some type of evil or injury upon an individual or group or a calamity upon a state or a society. The practice of issuing curses or condemnations has a history that reaches as far back as the ancient Mediterranean cultures of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Israelites. Curses have been used by peoples all over the world and in many periods for personal gain, to frighten others into submission, to dissuade enemies from taking action, and to protect sacred places. Ancient curses commissioned by royalty have been found inscribed on tablets throughout the Mediterranean world. These curses were used primarily to deter the people in the society from disobeying royal authority or to dissuade potential enemies from contesting royal power. Other royal curses were issued to protect certain religious and burial sites from desecration and destruction. Early scholars believed that curses were inscribed on the entrances to royal tombs in Egypt to prevent the desecration of these burial sites. Recent studies, however, have concluded that most royal tombs did not contain curses, although a large number of tombs for nonroyalty did have curses attached. Such curses appeared most frequently in tombs from the Middle Kingdom period of Egypt, and a number of these tombs belonged to administrators of the Egyptian pharaohs. One such tomb is that of Amenhotep, an administrator for Pharaoh Amenhotep III (r. ca.1386–1349 b.c.e.), which contains a lengthy description of curses against potential desecrators of his tomb. A number of royal tombs from ancient Assyria contain a standard curse used to deter potential enemies from defacing and destroying the rulers’ inscribed names. This curse, standard throughout Assyria, is found on the tombs and temples of Assyrian kings of the tenth century b.c.e., including those of Ashur-dan II (r. 934–911 b.c.e.) and Tiglathpileser II (r. 966–935 b.c.e.). The standard curse began as follows, with a threat of possible death or injury added afterward: He who erases my inscribed name and writes his (own) name or discards my steles, hands them over

for destruction, consigns them to oblivion, covers them with dirt, burns them with fire, throws them into the water, puts them into a Taboo house where there is no visibility, or because of these curses, he incites a stranger, a foreigner, a malignant enemy, a man who speaks another language or anyone else to do any of these things, or conceives of and does anything injurious. May the god Ashur, the exalted god, dweller of Ehursagkurkurra, the gods An, Enlil, Ea and Ninmah, the great gods, the Igigu of heaven, the Anunnaku of the underworld.

In addition to the Assyrians and Egyptians, the practice of formalized cursing was well established in ancient Israel, where curses appeared in a number of biblical prophecies, often directed against the enemies of Israel. Cursing in the ancient Mediterranean world, especially royal curses, was conducted in the context of highly developed legal and religious ceremonies. It appeared to serve almost the same function as the common law—acting as a restraint, a corrective, and a stimulant to better the behavior of those in society. It was probably the increasing appropriation of curses for private uses that led to official disapproval of the practice during the Roman period. By the eighth century c.e., the practice of cursing had almost disappeared throughout the Mediterranean world. Curses also feature prominently in Indian literature, namely, in the Mahabharata epic, composed between 200 b.c.e. and 200 c.e.The royal background of the Pandavas and Kauravas, the main characters of the epic poem, justified use of the curse motif as an example of royal curses.There are nearly eighty-four references to curses in the whole of the epic excluding the Harivamsa, a text that served as an appendix to the larger work. The most pervasive curse in the Mahabharata concerns disrespect and insult targeted at a great spiritual teacher, and this curse was meant to cause the perpetrator to suffer great pain and possibly death. In ancient Cambodia in the seventh century, inscriptions placed in the vicinity of religious foundations (sthapana) gave the donor the right to share his merits (punya) with whomever he chose. These accounts and commemorations often were preceded by a vow directed at future visitors, written in the form of a blessing (vara) on the benevolent and a

Cy ru s t h e G r e at curse (sapa) on all others. The composite term used to describe this vow—varasapa—represents these two antithetical aspects of the vow. Other instances of the use of royal curses on stone inscriptions can be found in Sumatra. An inscription on the island of Bangka contains a lengthy warning directed against potential rebels and traitors. Another at Palembang, called the Telaga Batu, contains a more elaborate version of the same warning, framed with carved naga (serpent) heads. According to ancient Chinese sources, the vassals and officials of a king had to perform a ritual in which water was poured over a stone.This water was then collected from the spout at the bottom and drunk. If a vassal or official broke his oath of loyalty to the king, he would be poisoned by the water of the curse and die. See also: Divination and Diviners, Royal; Healing Powers of Kings; Oaths and Oath-taking; Religious Duties and Power; Sacred Texts. FURTHER READING

Gager, John, ed. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Jenner, Philip. Dated Inscriptions from the Seventh and Eighth Centuries (AD 611–781). Honolulu: Southeast Asian Studies, Asian Studies Program, University of Hawaii, 1980. Jessup, H.I., and T. Zephir, eds. Sculpture of Angkor and Ancient Cambodia: Millennium of Glory.Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1997. Miksic, John, ed. Indonesian Heritage: Ancient History. Vol. 1. Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1995. Ramankutty, P.V. Curse as a Motif in the Mahabharata. Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1999.

CYAXARES (645–585 B.C.E.) King of Media (r. ca. 625–585 b.c.e.), an ancient kingdom in northwestern Iran, who played an important role in the final overthrow of the Assyrian Empire. Also known as Huvakhshtra (the Iranian form of the Greek name Cyaxares), he raised the kingdom of the Medes to a major power in the ancient Near East.

221

Soon after taking the throne around 625 b.c.e., Cyaxares conquered the Scythians, who had ruled Media for twenty-eight years, and he greatly expanded the Median realm. According to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, Cyaxares was the first ruler to reorganize his army by dividing it into groups of soldiers using the same weapons—such as archers, lance carriers, and cavalry. This reorganization of the army greatly strengthened the Median kingdom. Cyaxares went to battle again a decade later, this time against the Assyrians, with whom the Medes had fought on and off for years. In 614 b.c.e. he conquered Assur, the ancient religious center of Assyria. Two years later, in 612 b.c.e, Cyaxares formed an alliance with Nabopolassar of Babylon (the Assyrian governor of Chaldea) and with his former enemies, the Scythians, and overthrew the Assyrians and took control of their great capital of Nineveh. Fighting against the Assyrians continued until their final defeat in 609 b.c.e. Around the same time, the Medes under Cyaxares apparently defeated the kingdom of Mannai (in present-day northwestern Iran). In 609 b.c.e., they conquered Urartu (Armenia) and invaded eastern Anatolia, starting a war with the Anatolian kingdom of Lydia that ended in 585 b.c.e. when an eclipse of the sun was interpreted as an omen that the battle should stop. Media and Lydia both accepted the Halys River (now the Kizil Irmak River in north-central Turkey) as the boundary between the two countries. Cyaxares died soon after and was succeeded on the throne by his son,Astyages (r. 584–ca. 550 b.c.e.). See also: Assyrian Empire; Medes Kingdom; Nabopolassar; Scythian Empire.

CYRUS THE GREAT (ca. 580–530 B.C.E) Founder (r. 559–530 b.c.e.) of the Achaemenid dynasty of the Persian Empire, who was known for his military successes and innovative administration. The Persians, originally a nomadic or seminomadic people of Central Asia, began moving south and west as early as the 1500s b.c.e. Led by a series of strong chieftains, they conquered neighboring peoples as they went along, gaining in wealth and

222

Cy ru s t h e G r e at

power. They ultimately arrived in the region now known as Iran, whereupon they decided that this land would become their permanent home. Unfortunately, a people called the Medes had already settled here and had established a thriving empire that included the region known as Assyria. For a time, the Persians existed as a vassal state under the Medes, but this situation eventually changed. According to legend, the Median king, Astyages (r. ca. 584–550 b.c.e.), received a prophecy that his daughter would bear a son who would one day overthrow his rule. To forestall fate, Astyages married off his daughter to Cambyses, a loyal soldier from among the Persians. When the couple bore him a grandchild around 580 b.c.e., Astyages decided to have the boy killed and sent a trusted soldier to do the deed.The soldier balked at his orders, however, and instead gave the infant to a peasant couple to raise. The boy, named Cyrus (also spelled Kurash or Kourosh), was said to be extraordinarily beautiful, and eventually he came to the attention of Astyages. Astyages is said to have repented of his earlier orders, but he punished the disobedient soldier by having that man’s own son killed. Nursing resentment, the soldier is said to have urged Cyrus to overthrow the old Median king, and to have expedited the revolt by convincing his fellow soldiers to support Cyrus in this undertaking. Whatever truth may reside in this legend, Cyrus did indeed overthrow the Median king in 550 b.c.e., and he went on to unite the Medes and Persians into a single empire that became the most formidable military power in the region. The rise of Persia did not go unnoticed by the other powerful kingdoms of the day. In the kingdom of Lydia in Anatolia (present-day Turkey), King Croesus (r. ca. 560–547 b.c.e.), worried that his newly powerful neighbor would attack, called upon Egypt, Babylon, and the Greek city-state of Sparta to form an alliance to combat the Persian threat.This alliance did not move quickly enough, however, and Cyrus struck Lydia in 548 b.c.e., well before its allies could organize a defense. By 546 b.c.e. Cyrus had taken the Lydian capital of Sardis. Babylon fell next, surrendering without a fight in 539 b.c.e. Having gained control of the whole of Asia Minor, Cyrus pushed eastward and eventually extended the Persian Empire well into Central Asia and southeast-

ward to the border of India. Each success further strengthened Cyrus’s military, for he required every conquered kingdom to send a quota of men to serve in the Persian army. In this way, Cyrus had enough military manpower not only to maintain order within his empire, but also to fill the ranks of his armies of conquest. Domestically, Cyrus created a new system of government, realizing that the traditional loose affiliation of independent settlements would be inadequate to maintain the security of his expanding territory. He invented a system of satrapies, or provinces, the satraps, or governors, of which were appointed by and answerable to the king. Cyrus also built a great roadway that stretched 1,700 miles from the city of Sardis in Asia Minor to the Persian capital of Susa in southwestern Iran. The roadway enabled him to establish what was probably the world’s first postal system, which facilitated communication throughout the vast and far-flung Persian Empire. For all his administrative innovations, Cyrus was not content to remain in his capital while his armies went to war. His insistence on accompanying his troops, however, led to his fall. In 530 b.c.e., while campaigning in the East, he was killed in battle. His son, Cambyses (r. 529–522 b.c.e.), assumed the throne, but not without a power struggle in which he killed his brother, Smerdis, who also sought to take the Achaemenid throne. Cambyses continued his father’s expansionist policies and ultimately succeeded in adding Egypt to the imperial holdings of the Persian Empire. Cyrus the Great’s success in war earned him renown throughout the ancient Near East, but he was also famous for his treatment of the peoples he brought into his empire. He forbade his soldiers to loot or pillage the towns and cities they conquered, and he incorporated local rulers into his imperial government, establishing them as governors to whom he offered a great degree of autonomy. He is also famous for freeing slaves. For example, Babylon had a large population of Jews who were kept there as an enslaved class. When Cyrus conquered Babylon, he issued a decree allowing the Jewish population to return to Palestine. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Croesus; Persian Empire.

Dac i a K i n g d om

D

223

the northern areas of Carpathia, areas around the Black and Adriatic seas, and the Balkans. Burebista was eventually killed during a civil uprising in 45. After his death, control of the Dacia kingdom passed to the religious elite, who ruled Dacia for another fifteen years. During the time that Dacia was a theocracy, the kingdom shrank and was splintered ethnically into five tribal kingships.

STRUGGLE WITH ROME

DACIA KINGDOM (60 B.C.E.–106 C.E.) Ancient kingdom, located in what is now presentday Romania, that predated the Roman occupation of the region south of the Danube River. Under the emperor Trajan (r. 98–117 c.e.), the Dacia kingdom was incorporated into the Roman Empire as a province. Historical references to Dacia date back to at least around 450 b.c.e. In some early sources, including works by the Greek historian Herodotus and the Roman poet Horace, the Dacians were referred to as the Getae, or Geto-Dacians. The early history of Dacia is filled with conquests, both attempted and successful, by foreign armies. These include losses to the Persian rulers, Darius I the Great (r. 521–486 b.c.e.) and Xerxes (r. 485–465 b.c.e.) in the fifth century b.c.e. In the third century c.e., the Dacians managed to fend off an invasion by the Celts.

EARLY KINGS Between 450 and 60 b.c.e., Dacia experienced a succession of kings that predate the establishment of a stable monarchy. These kings include Dromikhaites (early 200s b.c.e.) in the third century b.c.e., and Oroles (r. early 100s b.c.e.) and Ruboostes (r. mid100s) in the second century b.c.e. Dacia developed into a stable monarchy only with the accession of Burebista (r. ca. 60–45 b.c.e.) to the throne in 60 b.c.e. His accession was made possible by the expulsion of the Celts and his ability to win the support of the religious establishment in Dacia. The support of religious leaders, however, brought with it a move toward a stricter moral code in the kingdom. During his fifteen-year reign, Burebista expanded the Dacia kingdom into Bohemia, western Austria,

Dacia’s most sustained conflict was its enduring struggle with the Romans, which began with the campaigns of the Roman general Licinius Lucullus early in the first century b.c.e. Dacia at that time, under the leadership of Burebista, was highly respected militarily.This respect created a sense of fear in their Roman neighbors. After Burebista’s death, however, the tribal kings of Dacia assisted various factions within Rome’s own internal power struggles. One example of such assistance was the association of Cotison, a Dacian tribal king, with the assassination of Julius Caesar. The period of ethnic fragmentation that ensued after the death of Burebista forced Dacia into a defensive mode to keep the Romans out of Dacian territories. This defensiveness lasted until the late first century b.c.e. By the first century c.e., the power of the Dacians was at its height. The Dacian kings Duras (r. 68–87) and his successor Decebalus (r. 87–106), led the Dacian resurgence. Both of these kings were able to make Rome pay tribute to Dacia.This change in status tarnished Rome’s prestigious image. The Romans soon recognized the potential threat that their declining image would have on their ability to force others to pay tribute to the Roman Empire. As a result, the Roman emperor Trajan began taking steps to conquer Dacia at the start of the second century. By 106, the military conquest of Dacia by the Romans was complete, and Dacia ceased to exist as an independent kingdom. The military conquest of Dacia was made even more final by a subsequent cultural conquest, which resulted in the linguistic and cultural Romanization of the former kingdom. This cultural conquest became the seed that would form present-day Romania. See also: Roman Empire;Trajan.

224

Dag om b a K i n g d om

DAGOMBA KINGDOM

DAI VIET, KINGDOM OF. See

(1300s C.E.–Present)

Vietnamese Kingdoms

One of several small kingdoms of northern Ghana and Burkina Faso that existed from the fourteenth century to the present. The Dagomba kingdom of today maintains its royal capital at Yendi, in the northern region of Ghana. Tradition holds that the kingdom was founded sometime in the 1300s by one of two brothers, the second of whom simultaneously founded the Mamprusi kingdom of western Africa. The region occupied by the Dagomba kingdom was fortuitously located on the southern reaches of the great Trans-Saharan trade route.Trade in the area was monopolized by a group of Mande trading specialists known as Dyula. From about the 1300s onward, these traders arrived in Dagomba in ever-increasing numbers, drawn by the opportunity for trade. For a time, traditional rulers retained control of the kingdom, but by the end of the sixteenth century c.e., power and control of the Dagomba kingship passed to the Mande, who retained control until the start of the eighteenth century. The Dagomba people of today are divided into three groups. The first comprises the royal families, who claim descent from the early invaders who entered the region from the northeast and established rule over the indigenous peoples.The second are Muslims—descendants of the Mande Dyula traders who came to the region from the Sahel, as well as local peoples who converted to Islam. The final group are descendants of the farmers, fishermen, and hunters who originally inhabited the region. Membership in one or another of these groups is largely fixed by birth, with the exception of the merchant class, to which a commoner may aspire upon conversion to Islam. Today, Dagomba land is controlled by the ruling class, which shares stewardship with ritual specialists called earth priests. Subordinate to the king, but still classified as royals, are local chiefs. Only members of the royal class can succeed to Dagomba leadership, and only royals may employ symbols of their class—the horse and animal skins upon which they seat themselves. See also: African Kingdoms; Mamprusi Kingdom.

DAHOMEY KINGDOM. See Fon Kingdom

DANISH KINGDOM (900s C.E.–Present)

Scandinavian kingdom founded in the Middle Ages, which exists today as a constitutional monarchy.The kingdom of Denmark has its roots in several small kingdoms of the Viking era (ca. 790–1000) and earlier centuries. What little history is known of these pre-Christian kingdoms comes from legendary accounts. One of the earliest historical records is the Gesta Danorum, a work written in Latin by medieval Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus, which deals with early Danish history in a colorful but not necessarily reliable manner. Danish history becomes more definite with the reign of Gorm the Old (died ca. 940), the first king of all Denmark. Gorm’s son, Harald Bluetooth (r. ca. 940–986), was the first Christian king of Denmark. The monarchy was an elective one at this time, with kings chosen from within the royal family. From the eighth to the eleventh centuries, Danish Vikings raided and settled in England and Ireland, and in the tenth century they founded the duchy of Normandy in northern France. In 1013 the Danes under King Svend Forkbeard (r. 986–1014) conquered England. Svend’s son Knud (Cnut the Great, r. 1016–1035) ruled England, Denmark, and Norway. Danish rule of England ended in 1042 with the death of Knud’s son Hardeknud (r. 1040–1042), at which point Denmark was briefly ruled by Magnus the Good of Norway (r. 1035–1047). Knud’s nephew, King Svend Estridsen (r. 1047–1074), left the Danish kingdom to his five sons. The death of the last of these sons, Niels (r. 1104–1134), led in 1134 to a period of civil war that ended in 1157 when Svend Estridsen’s greatgrandson Waldemar I, the Great (r. 1157–1182), became king. Under Waldemar and his son, Waldemar II (r. 1202–1241), Denmark became a great power in the Baltic region, although its territorial gains were short-lived. Much newly conquered territory was lost when Waldemar II was imprisoned for two years by Count Henry of Schwerin in a dispute over a fief. While Waldemar was imprisoned, Denmark fell into

Da r i u s I , t h e G r e at chaos, and even after the king’s release it never regained its former conquests. For a brief period, Scandinavia was united under a Danish ruler, Margrethe I (r. 1387–1412). Margrethe was the daughter of Waldemar IV of Denmark (r. 1340–1375), wife of King Haakon VI of Norway (r. 1355–1380) and mother of Olaf II of Denmark (r. 1376–1387), who also ruled Norway as Olaf V. Olaf was elected king of Denmark at age five, with his mother as regent. Margrethe also became regent of Norway when her husband, King Haakon VI, died in 1380. In addition,The Swedish nobility, at odds with their king, Albert of Mecklenburg (r. 1364–1389), invited her to become ruler of Sweden, which she did after a victory over Albert at the battle of Falköping in 1389. By then, her son Olaf was dead, but she persuaded all three kingdoms to acknowledge her great-nephew Eric as heir. Effected in 1397, this joining of three Crowns was known as the Kalmar Union. The Kalmar Union was dissolved in wars between Denmark and Sweden, which began in 1451 and continued for many years. However, the Crowns of Denmark and Norway were united by the Treaty of Bergen in 1450. This dual monarchy remained in existence until 1814, when Norway was joined to Sweden. In 1448, the House of Oldenburg came to the throne of Denmark with the election of Christian I (r. 1448–1481). Elective monarchy within the royal family remained the official means of succession until Frederick III (r. 1648–1670) instituted hereditary succession in 1661. In 1665, the “king’s law” gave the king absolute power. This law remained in effect until 1849, when Frederick VII (r. 1848–1863) conceded to demands for reform and approved a constitution. Despite the change to a constitutional monarchy, the king continued to hold a great deal of power over government. The accession of Christian IX (r. 1863–1906) to the Danish throne marked the end of the Oldenburg dynasty and the beginning of the Glucksburg dynasty. In 1915, a new constitution greatly limited the powers of the monarchy, with legislative powers vested in the monarch and the elected parliament. The 1953 Act of Succession allowed the eldest daughter to succeed to the throne if there were no sons, whereas previously women were barred from the succession. Denmark’s first female ruler under this law, Margrethe II (r. 1972–present) was crowned queen on January 14, 1972.

225

See also:Cnut I; Jutland Kingdom; Kalmar Union; Margaret of Denmark; Norwegian Monarchy; Oldenburg Dynasty; Swedish Monarchy;Waldemar I, the Great. FURTHER READING

Butler, Ewan. The Horizon Concise History of Scandinavia. New York: American Heritage, 1973. Kirby, David. Northern Europe in the Early Modern Period:The BalticWorld 1492–1772. New York: Longman, 1990. Nordstrom, Byron J. Scandinavia Since 1500. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2000. Toyne, S.M. The Scandinavians in History. 1948. Reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.

DAR FUR SULTANATE. See Fur Kingdom

DARIUS I, THE GREAT (r. 522–486 B.C.E.)

One of the greatest of the Achaemenid monarchs of ancient Persia, who created the political and administrative structures that kept the Persian Empire together for nearly two hundred years. A member of a side-branch of the Achaemenid dynasty, Darius came to power in 522 b.c.e. through a violent coup, which he later described in a monumental inscription on a cliff wall at Behistun in southern Anatolia (present-day Turkey).The inscription claimed that a man posing as Bardiya, the brother of the just-deceased Persian king Cambyses II (r. 530–522 b.c.e.), had usurped power in the interests of the Magi, the hereditary priests of the Persian state religion. Darius led a group of seven nobles to dethrone and execute this impostor. Whether or not this is true, in the six years following his coronation Darius had to fight off eleven uprisings across the realm and in border areas from India to Thrace. In the process, he extended the Persian Empire at both its eastern and western margins. To ward off future rebellions, Darius followed up his victories by dividing the vast Persian Empire, with its 50 million people, into twenty provinces, appointing a Persian noble to govern each one. Other officials,

226

Da r i u s I , t h e G r e at

A member of the Achaemenid Dynasty, Darius I was one of the greatest rulers of the Persian Empire.Among his achievements was the construction of the imperial capital at Persepolis, where his likeness was carved in bas relief on the walls of several palaces. He is shown here accepting homage from a Median officer.

including military governors and royal inspectors, were put into place to assist and watch over the satraps, as the governors were called. These officials were also of Persian or other Iranian extraction.They all worked with local officials to collect and store the immense tax revenues that now poured into the royal treasury. Darius also reorganized the Persian army around the core guard of “Ten Thousand Immortals,” all of whom were ethnic Persians.

STRUGGLES IN THE WEST Early in his reign, in 513 b.c.e., Darius led a major expedition into the region of Scythia north of the Black Sea. To bring his massive forces into place, he had a pontoon bridge built across the Bosporus strait and had another bridge extended across the Danube River. Although Darius made no lasting gains in Scythia, he pacified Thrace and Macedon along the way and made the region a Persian satrapy.This invasion of European lands by an Asian power made the world seem smaller to people on both sides of the di-

vide, thus setting the psychological preconditions for the conquest of Asia by Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) of Macedon two centuries later. Like his predecessors, Darius employed many Greek advisers and mercenaries, but relations between Persia and the Greek city-states began to deteriorate during his reign. In 499 b.c.e., several of the Ionian Greek cities on the eastern shore of the Aegean Sea revolted against Persian rule. After suppressing the rebellion, Darius decided to invade Greece itself to punish the city-state of Athens for supporting the rebels. The invasion force he landed was wiped out by the Greeks at the battle of Marathon in 490 b.c.e., which became a key event in the national consciousness of the ancient Greeks.

STRENGTHENING THE EMPIRE Darius took an active role in developing a new written code of laws for the Persian Empire. In the provinces, he streamlined preexisting local laws and set up permanent courts to enforce them. His gov-

Darius III (Codommanus) ernment introduced standard weights and measures, and imposed Aramaic as the exclusive language for all legal documents.A Semitic language,Aramaic was already widely spoken in Mesopotamia and Syria. The king instituted a massive program of road repair and construction, including a 1,300-mile Royal Road from Susa in Persia to Sardis in Anatolia near the Aegean Sea. The roads, guarded and provided with waystations at periodic intervals, facilitated rapid delivery of the Royal Mail and stimulated commerce. Darius also completed another old project, construction of a Nile-to-Red-Sea canal. He minted gold and silver coins, the first outside Asia Minor and Greece to have a standard content and weight. Darius reasserted Persian religious and linguistic traditions. He is said to have helped devise a hieroglyphic system for the Old Persian language, which until then had remained unwritten, in order to record his exploits in stone. He assembled materials and craftsmen from throughout the empire to build palaces and other public buildings across the ancestral Persian homeland, especially at Persepolis. At the start of his reign, Darius had married the two surviving daughters of Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 b.c.e.) in an attempt to reinforce his legitimacy. Atossa, the elder daughter, served as an important imperial adviser. In that capacity, she succeeded in advancing the royal prospects of her son Xerxes I (r. 485–465 b.c.e.), whom Darius designated as his successor a year before his own death in 486 b.c.e. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Cambyses II; Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman; Persian Empire.

DARIUS II (OCHUS) (d. 404 B.C.E.) King of Persia (r. 423–405 b.c.e.) whose unpopular and unsuccessful rule caused a period of decline for the Persian Empire. One of the illegitimate sons of Artaxerxes I (r. 464–424 b.c.e.), Darius was originally named Ochus, but he took the name Darius when he wrested the throne from his half-brother, Sogdianus (Secydianus) (r. 424 b.c.e.). At first, he promised to let his brother rule half the kingdom, but Darius later ordered him executed.As the son of a concubine, Darius was sometimes known as Darius Nothus (bastard).

227

The royal court of Darius II was a dangerous place, rife with plots and intrigue. Before taking the throne, he married his half-sister, Parysatis, a vicious political schemer who helped him in the suppression of Sogdianus and another brother, Arsites. Together, Darius and Parysatis presided over increasingly corrupt courtiers. In military matters, Darius was plagued by uprisings in Syria, Lydia, and Media—all of which he halted promptly and harshly.Then, hoping to recover the coastal cities of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) from Athens, he forged an alliance with the Greek city-state of Sparta in 407 b.c.e. With the help of Sparta, Darius recovered the coastal cities, finally defeating Athens in a naval battle at Aegospotami in 405 b.c.e. The next year, however, Darius succumbed to an illness and was succeeded by his son,Artaxerxes II (r. 404–359 b.c.e.). Parysatis plotted with her favorite son, Cyrus the Younger, to take the throne from Artaxerxes. But the rebellion Cyrus led against his brother crumbled, and he was killed at the battle of Cunaxa in 401 b.c.e.The cunning Parysatis dominated Artaxerxes II throughout his reign and proved to be the real power behind the throne. See also: Artaxerxes I; Artaxerxes II; Persian Empire.

DARIUS III (CODOMMANUS) (d. 330 B.C.E.)

Ruler of Persia (r. 335–330 b.c.e.), last of the Achaemenid dynasty, whose defeat at the hands of Alexander III the Great of Macedon (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) marked the end of the Persian Empire and the beginning of the Hellenistic period in the eastern Mediterranean. A cousin of Artaxerxes III (r. 358–338 b.c.e.), Darius was selected for the kingship by Bagoas, a palace eunuch, who had poisoned the two previous kings, Artaxerxes III and his son Arses (r. 337–336 b.c.e.). Bagoas, finding Darius less pliable than he had hoped, attempted to poison Darius as well but was caught in the attempt and forced by the king to drain the cup of poison himself. Darius may have been involved in the assassination of King Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.) in 336 b.c.e. Philip had gathered troops to recover

228

Darius III (Codommanus)

the Greek cities of Asia Minor that were under Persian rule. Following in his father’s footsteps, Alexander the Great proceeded with Philip’s plan with such success that by 333 b.c.e., with the battle of Issus, he had recovered the Greek cities. Darius fled the Persian capital, leaving behind his mother, wife, and children, who were subsequently taken into custody by Alexander. In an attempt to recover his family, Darius offered Alexander his daughter in marriage and a large ransom. Instead, Alexander crossed the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and engaged in a final contest with Darius at the battle of Gaugamela in 331 b.c.e. Fleeing once more, this time leaving his subordinates to fight, Darius escaped to the region of Bactria, where the satrap (governor) Bessus had him killed. As Bessus was unable to resist Alexander’s forces, the Persian Empire came to a close. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Alexander III, the Great; Artaxerxes III; Darius II (Ochus); Persian Empire; Philip II of Macedon.

DAVARAVATI KINGDOM. See Siam, Kingdoms of

DAVID (r. 1010–970 B.C.E.) King of ancient Judah and Israel (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.), who unified the twelve Israelite tribes into a powerful regional state and is revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The second king of ancient Israel, David is celebrated in the Bible for his martial feats, charismatic personality, piety, and skills as a poet and musician. In later Jewish and Christian political thought, he was regarded as the model monarch. Millions of Jews and Christians have believed that the messiah, or savior, will be a descendant of David, while the Koran regards David as a great prophet. Most of what is known about King David comes from the accounts of his life in the Bible. Unlike many of the later Hebrew kings, David’s name does not appear clearly in the surviving chronicles of Egypt or Mesopotamia. Only three stone inscriptions from that era have been found which seem to refer to a king named David or to the “House of David.”

Described in scripture as a wise and powerful monarch, King David ruled during a golden age in Israel’s ancient history. In this section of the Landauer Altarpiece, completed in 1511, the Renaissance artist Albrecht Dürer portrayed King David with his signature harp beside Moses and the Ten Commandments.

According to biblical accounts, David was born in Bethlehem, the youngest son of Jesse, who was a grandson of Ruth, whose story in the Bible reflects the idea of redemption. David served for several years in the court of King Saul (r. 1020–1010 b.c.e.), the first king of the twelve tribes of Israel. There he befriended Jonathan, the king’s son, and married Michal, one of Saul’s daughters. While still young, David was credited with several impressive victories against the Philistines, who lived along the Mediterranean coast and had been a constant danger to the Israelites. In particular, he used a slingshot to kill the great Philistine hero Goliath. Jealous of his popularity, Saul tried to have David killed, but David escaped and survived with the help of his friend Jonathan and the Philistines. Living with a band of outcasts, David continued to

D av i d I garner popular support through his raids against the Amalekites and other traditional enemy tribes. Saul and Jonathan were killed in a battle against the Philistines sometime around 1010 b.c.e. Their deaths inspired a poetic lament by David, the first of his works to be recorded. Jewish tradition also credits David with writing the Book of Psalms. After Saul’s death, the men of Judah (the region to the south of Jerusalem) anointed David king in the city of Hebron. At first, the tribes in Israel (the region to the north) recognized Saul’s son Ishboshet as king, but the latter was eventually assassinated by his courtiers, and all the tribes came to accept David as their ruler. Seven years after his anointment in Hebron, David captured Jerusalem, which was then controlled by the Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe.This conquest linked together the two halves of David’s kingdom, and he made the city its capital. David endowed Jerusalem, and the monarchy itself, with religious sanctity when he brought the previously itinerant Holy Ark containing the Law of Moses to the fortified city. Although David came to be seen as a symbol of God’s relationship with Israel, he did not build a temple to house the Ark because, as the prophet Nathan told him, God had disqualified him for his sins. David’s reign was marked by a long series of successful military encounters. He subdued the Philistines and attached their lands to his realm. Other petty kingdoms, including Moab, Edom, and Ammon, became tributaries. David ensured national unity through his policies of conciliation and his marriages to wives from several of the Israelite tribes. Toward the end of David’s realm, a rebellion led by Absalom, his son and heir, forced the king to flee across the river Jordan. David soon rallied his forces, and Absalom was captured and killed.The king then promised the succession to Solomon, his son with his favorite wife, Bathsheba. The choice received the support of the prophet Nathan, even though David’s relationship with Bathsheba was initially adulterous, and the king had had her husband killed. Nathan told David that kingship would always remain with his descendants. With this promise, the principle of hereditary succession was enshrined in Jewish thought. Any subsequent pretender to a Jewish throne, in ancient or even medieval times, had to demonstrate descent from the House of David. Eventually, Judaism developed the concept of an anointed savior, who was to be an “offshoot of Jesse,”

229

David’s father. Early Christians believed that Jesus was such a person, and thus the Christian gospels stressed his birth in Bethlehem, which was David’s birthplace as well. David died peacefully around 970 b.c.e., leaving a strong united kingdom to his son Solomon (r. 970–931 b.c.e.) See also: Hebrew Kings; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of; Judaism and Kingship; Solomon.

DAVID I (1084–1153 C.E.) King of Scotland (r. 1124–1153) who expanded Scotland’s southern territory and became involved in English succession battles. The youngest son of King Malcolm Canmore (r. 1058–1093) and Queen Margaret, David spent much of his adolescence at the English court as a sign of goodwill between the two countries. During the reign of his older brother Alexander I (r. 1107–1124), David ruled as earl of Cumbria, and upon marrying Matilda, the heiress of the earl of Northumbria, he acquired the English title of earl of Huntingdon. David I inherited the Scottish throne after the death of Alexander in 1124. He went on to rule Scotland successfully and peacefully. He encouraged commerce and foreign trade, introduced silver coinage, promoted education, and gave generously to religious orders, helping to establish a number of important abbeys in southern Scotland. David also granted land to many prominent Anglo-Norman families, laying the foundation for the development of the Scottish feudal aristocracy. David shrewdly took advantage of a succession crisis in England to pursue territorial gains. During the long struggle between his niece, Queen Matilda, and King Stephen for the throne of England, he sided with Matilda. However, after Stephen’s triumph at the Battle of the Standard in 1138, David made peace with him in order to pursue his claim to Northumbrian territory through his wife’s inheritance. David’s claim was successful and Stephen granted him the earldom. By the time of David’s death in 1153, when he was succeeded by his grandson Malcolm IV (r. 1153–1165), the Scottish border extended further south than ever before. See also: Scottish Kingdoms; Stephen.

230

D av i d I I

DAVID II (1324–1371 C.E.) King of Scotland who inherited the throne in 1329 at the age of five upon the death of his father, Robert the Bruce. When David was four, a marriage had been arranged for him to Joan, sister of Edward III of England. Through this marriage, Edward sought to regain influence over Scotland, which had been lost during the previous reign. England’s constant wars against Scotland forced the young Scottish King David to flee to France for safety, where King Philip VI gave him safe asylum. In 1341 David returned to Scotland. In gratitude to the French, in 1346, David assisted them in an invasion of England. The English captured him at Neville’s Cross, imprisoned him, and from 1346 to 1357 he lived as a pampered captive of England. The Scottish aristocracy promised to pay a ransom to England to restore their king. After signing the Treaty of Berwick, with harsh terms for Scotland, David returned to his country to rule ably until his death in 1371. Despite a second marriage, this time a love match to Margaret Logie in 1364, he died childless, ending the male line of the Bruce dynasty. See also: Robert I (Robert the Bruce); Scottish Kingdoms; Stewart Dynasty.

DEACCESSION The loss of a throne by a living monarch.While most hereditary rulers reign for life, it is not uncommon for a monarch to leave a throne while still living.

INSTITUTIONALIZED RETIREMENT Monarchs rarely have had fixed terms, as do most elected offices in republics. One attempt to institutionalize fixed-term monarchy occurred in the late Roman Empire with the institution of the Tetrarchy, so called because it divided power among four rulers. The Emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305 c.e.), the inventor of the system, planned that the two senior emperors of the East and West would each retire after twenty years and be replaced by their junior emperors. Diocletian himself faithfully carried out this mandate, but the system quickly collapsed because of the emperors’ unwillingness to actually give up power. Limited-term monarchy has worked better in

postcolonial Malaysia, where monarchs are largely figureheads.There, the nine regional sultans rotate in five-year terms as monarch of the whole country.Although it did not use fixed terms, Japan in the premodern period also accepted retirement as a normal phase of a ruler’s career. Released from ceremonial duties, retired Japanese emperors and shoguns often wielded more power than reigning ones.

VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT In most monarchical systems, voluntarily resigning the throne is definitely the exception rather than the rule. One motivation for giving up a throne is the monarch’s concern over the state of his or her soul. Some of history’s most powerful monarchs have renounced their thrones in old age to concentrate on their spiritual salvation. According to legend, Chandragupta Maurya (r. ca. 322–297 b.c.e.), the founder of the Maurya dynasty of India, eventually became a Jain monk and even starved himself to death as was the practice of the Jain sect. Charles V, Holy Roman emperor (r. 1519–1558) and king of Spain (r. 1516–1558), resigned all his titles to spend the last few years of his life near a Spanish monastery, even rehearsing his own funeral. Abdicating the throne in this manner has the advantage of putting the ex-monarch in a structured environment removed from political power, enabling his successor to rule independently.The most famous abdication of modern times, that of King Edward VIII (r. 1936) of England, was prompted not by religious fervor but by romantic love and the unwillingness of the English people and political elite to accept his marriage to American divorcee, Wallis Warfield Simpson. Edward’s difficulties in finding a role after his abdication (he was granted the title duke of Windsor) shows how awkward it can be for an exmonarch in a system like the British, which lacks a formal position for such persons.

INVOLUNTARY LOSS OF RULERSHIP More common than voluntary retirement or abdication is involuntary loss of a throne—dethronement—which is usually the consequence of political or military defeat by domestic or foreign foes. Involuntary dethronement can take various forms. In the most radical, the monarchy itself is simply eliminated, as occurred in France during the French Revolution with the proclamation of a Republic. King

Delhi Kingdom Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) was executed not as king of France but as Citizen Louis Capet. More common is forcible ejection from a throne by a rival claimant. James II (r. 1685–1688) of England was declared to have abdicated following his defeat by William of Orange in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. James fled the country but never accepted his abdication and continued to claim the throne until his death. Generally, those who have overthrown monarchs have found it safer either to kill them or to keep them on as puppets rather than forcing their resignation. See also: Abdication, Royal; Dethronement; Regicide.

DEHEUBARTH KINGDOM (900s–1200s C.E.)

Medieval kingdom in southwestern Wales that was eventually conquered by England along with the rest of Wales. In the early centuries of post-Roman Britain, the term Deheubarth was used to indicate the general region of southern Wales. Hywel Dda (r. 942–950) is credited with founding the kingdom of Deheubarth by joining his small territory of Seisyllwg with the kingdom of Dyfed, which he claimed through his wife. Hywel also ruled Gwynedd and Powys, which, along with Deheubarth and Powys, became separate kingdoms again after Hywel’s death in 950. In the eleventh century, Deheubarth was located between the kingdoms of Dyfed in the west and Brycheiniog on the English border, and it contained territory that was formerly part of these other kingdoms. Its boundaries continued to change, for throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries Deheubarth lost territory as a result of attacks and settlement by the Normans. In 1039, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (r. 1039–1063) of the kingdoms of Powys and Gwynedd drove out Hywel ab Edwin, prince of Deheubarth, as part of an attempt to make himself ruler of all southern Wales. Deheubarth was not fully conquered, however, because Hywel continued to resist. Following Hywel’s death in 1044 another prince, Gruffydd ap Rhydderch (r. 1044–1055), took control of Deheubarth and held it against Gruffydd ap Llywelyn until the former’s death in 1055. During Gruffydd ap Rhyd-

231

derch’s rule, he led raids into England and forced the English to adopt more vigorous defensive measures against the Welsh. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn continued to rule in southern Wales after the death of Gruffydd ap Rhydderch. An ally of the earls of Mercia in England, he fought in various English disputes. Eventually forced into central Wales by Harold Godwinson, earl of Wessex, Gruffydd was killed by his own men in 1063. Following his death, southern Wales broke up into its former kingdoms, which were ruled by men who were essentially client-kings of the English monarchs and who often styled themselves as “prince” rather than “king.” Deheubarth was first ruled by Maredudd ab Owain ab Edwin (r. 1063), a nephew of Hywel ab Edwin. Other princes of this period included Rhys ab Owain (r. 1072), Rhys ap Tewdwr (r. 1078– 1093), and Gruffydd ap Rhys (r. 1135). In 1137, four brothers inherited the rule of Deheubarth from their father, Gruffydd ap Rhys. They shared power peacefully while making war on their neighbors and increasing Deheubarth’s territory.The expansion of the kingdom brought the last surviving brother, Rhys ap Gruffydd (r. 1153–1197), into conflict with Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189). Rhys submitted to Henry but rebelled several times in the 1160s. Then, in 1172, Henry appointed Rhys as his representative in Wales; thereafter, Rhys acted for the king and helped him put down a Welsh rebellion in 1173–1174. In the thirteenth century, Deheubarth suffered from various disputes within its ruling family and was never again a power in Wales. Deheubarth finally came under direct English rule, along with the rest of Wales, following the conquest of the region by Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307) in 1283. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Edward I; English Monarchies; Harold II Godwinson; Henry II; Welsh Kingdoms.

DELHI KINGDOM (1206–1526 C.E.) Muslim kingdom in north-central India, sometimes referred to as the Delhi sultanate, which ruled a large portion of India from the early thirteenth century to the early sixteenth century. The Muslim state known as the Delhi kingdom or Delhi sultanate originated with the invasions of Delhi

232

Delhi Kingdom

by the Ghurids of Afghanistan, which began in 1194. The kingdom officially came into existence in 1206, when Qutb-ud-din Aibak (r. 1206–1210) took to the throne as the first sultan of Delhi. At this time, the sultanate included not only Delhi but also the Punjab region and much of Bengal. Already, it rivaled the earlier Gupta Empire.

THE SLAVE DYNASTY Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who at one time was a slave, was succeeded by other former slaves, creating what came to be known as the Mu’izzi dynasty, or “Slave dynasty.”This dynasty included the next two sultans, Aram Shah (r. 1210–1211) and Iltutmish (r. 1211– 1236). During the succession process, the Delhi kingdom lost some of its territory. But by the end of Iltutmish’s reign, all of the territory that Delhi had lost had been regained, and new territory was added, including the important region of Sind. Iltutmish was followed, after a succession struggle between his children, by his daughter Radiyya (r. 1236–1240). She, in turn, was succeeded by various brothers, as struggles between opposing military factions arose once again to complicate the succession process. Finally, the throne came to rest with Nasirud-din Mahmud Shah (r. 1246–1266), also known as Mahmud Shah I, who reigned for a relatively long period and was followed by his father-in-law, Ghiyathud-din Balban (r. 1266–1287). The reigns of both Nasir and Balban saw the beginning of significant invasion threats from the Mongols, Turks, and Hindus. Despite these invasions and uprisings within the kingdom, Balban’s rule was one of stability and order unlike any that the kingdom would see again.Within four years of Balban’s death in 1286, the Slave dynasty had come to an end owing to a lack of suitable successors.

THE KHALJI DYNASTY The seeds of the Delhi sultanate’s decline were sown during the early years of the Khalji dynasty, the successor to the Slave dynasty, when an invading army of Mongols was permitted to leave India without hindrance. The first Khalji sultan, Jalal-ud-din Firuz Shah II (r. 1290–1296), who was a Turk, lost his throne to his nephew, Ala-ud-din Muhammad I (1296–1316), who usurped power in 1296 after deposing Firuz Shah’s son, Ibrahim I (r. 1296). During his reign, Muhammad I conquered much of the Deccan region. Inse-

cure about his hold on the throne, Muhammad I was known to forcefully remove any potential threat to his power. In addition to his Deccan conquest, Muhammad I also conquered the Gujurat region of India in 1297. After this success, he increased his attacks on the Deccan throughout the early fourteenth century. The Delhi sultans held on to their conquered lands by executing threats, such as introducing Muslim Mongol settlers to the largely Hindu populations near Delhi, and administrative measures.These measures included attempts to discourage black markets, price fixing, and other provisions that increased the sultan’s ability to raise the funds needed to finance an army to hold off the potential Mongol invaders. Muhammad I’s forceful hold on power was not as tyrannical as that of his son, Qutb-ud-din Mubarak (r. 1316–1320), who took the throne upon his father’s death in 1316. Mubarak’s barbaric reign spawned a reaction by those around him that ended the dynasty in 1320.

THE TUGHLUQ DYNASTY The overthrow of Mubarak in 1320 created a sense of disorder in the Delhi kingdom. This disorder forced the nobility of the sultanate to approve a central figure on the throne to make their control of annexed territories easier. The individual was Ghiyath-ud-din Tughluq I, the founder and first ruler of the Tughluq dynasty. Nevertheless, political infighting continued and resulted in the rise of Muhammad Shah I (r. 1325–1351), who murdered his father, Tughluq I, and took the throne in 1325. Within three years of taking power, Muhammad Shah I put down two separate rebellions in the kingdom. During his reign the capital was moved from Delhi to Daulatabad. Muhammad Shah I faced increasing threats from the Mongols. Between 1328 and 1329, the Mongols invaded repeatedly and advanced as far as Delhi with relative ease. This threat, combined with abortive and unsuccessful ventures by Muhammad into northern territories and the fact that the kingdom had reached its geographic limits, led the Delhi sultanate into a slow process of decline. In 1338, the kingdom faced a serious revolt by Bengal, followed by several years of famine and the rise of two new kingdoms within India, Vijayanagar and Bahmani. These events, all occurring within ten years of each other, conspired to hasten the kingdom’s decline.

D e s c e n t, R o y a l THE SULTANATE’S DECLINE By the late 1300s, the Delhi kingdom faced one of its direst threats, the great Mongol conqueror, Tamerlane. Tamerlane invaded the sultanate in search of India’s reputed wealth and to take advantage of a power vacuum that developed during the later years of the Tughluq dynasty. In 1398, Tamerlane invaded and occupied Delhi and was briefly named its king.When he left the following year, Delhi slipped further into anarchy and chaos. A second power vacuum lasted until 1414, when the Sayyid dynasty rose to power and took control of Delhi after the last Tughluq ruler, Dawlat Khan Lodi (r. 1413–1414), was deposed. The Sayyids ruled Delhi until 1451, when their dynasty was overthrown by an Afghan ruler, Bahlul Khan Lodi (r. 1451–1489), who established the Lodi dynasty. During his reign, Bahlul Khan attempted to regain control of territories formerly under the administration of the Delhi kings. The Lodi dynasty maintained Delhi as an independent sultanate until its last sultan, Ibrahim II (r. 1517–1526), was defeated by the Mughals led by

233

Babur (r. 1526–1530). From this point until the nineteenth century, Delhi was part of the Mughal Empire. See also: Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms; Mughal Empire; Mu’izzi (Slave) Dynasty;Tughluq Dynasty.

DELHI SULTANATE. See Delhi Kingdom

DESCENT, ROYAL Membership in a royal dynasty or family line, which may or may not provide eligibility for kingship. Many people in history have claimed royal descent, but this claim often has little meaning. With the passage of time, royalty has uncounted millions of descendants in the world today, and tracing “royal descent” is something of a cottage industry for genealogists. As subsequent generations of descendants moved further and further away from the monarch,

ROYAL RITUALS

MASS AT THE COURT OF LOUIS XIV The closeness in familial relationship to the monarch determined rank between royal descendants, as can be seen from this description of a Catholic mass during the reign of Louis XIV of France.The writer of the following passage, the German princess Liselotte von der Pfalz, was married to Louis’s brother, Philippe d’Orleans. As Philippe was the son of Louis XIII, the couple ranked as “children of France,” taking precedence over the princes and princesses of the blood, whose connection with the royal family was more distant. In 1710, she wrote to her aunt Sophie, Duchess of Hanover: You must remember that here distinctions of rank are observed in the mass. For example, only granddaughters of France are allowed to have a chaplain give the responses during mass and hold a candle from the Sanctus of the Preface to the Domine non sum dignus. Princesses of the blood are not allowed a candle or chaplain of their own, and their pages must give the responses. At the end of the mass the priest brings the corporal [the cloth under the bread and wine as they are consecrated] to be kissed: this goes only so far as the children of France. As for the chalice in which wine and water are served, only we are entitled to drink from it, and it is not passed to the princes of the blood. Here, as you see, there is ceremony in everything, even religion.

234

D e s c e n t, R o y a l

they usually fell into the general population. At what point a person stopped being royal was sometimes strictly defined.The French monarchical system, for example, contained a separate category, the “Princes of the Blood,” for legitimate descendants of monarchs in the male line past the third generation. In addition to having a claim on the throne in the event the main line failed, the princes had certain honorary privileges that put them above other members of the French nobility. Royal descent is sometimes a liability. In some cases dissolution of a dynasty has been followed by the new regime’s extermination of anyone having a claim on the throne through the old dynasty. For example, when the Abbasids took over the Islamic caliphate from the Ummayads in 750 c.e., the new regime killed all the ruling Ummayad family except Abd-ar Rahman who fled to Spain and founded an independent emirate.

ment of a chiefly society with a monarchy loosely modeled after that of Britain in nineteenth-century Tonga, in the South Pacific, was accompanied by a greater emphasis on the power of royal descent, although not the Salic Law (which never applied in Britain itself). King George Tupou II (r. 1893–1918) of Tonga married a woman from a lower social class, violating the Tongan practice whereby a person’s social status descended from the mother. His daughter, Salote Tupou III (r. 1918–1965), succeeded to the throne as the heir of her father. See also: Blood, Royal; Concubines, Royal; Dynasty; Gender and Kingship; Inheritance, Royal; Legitimacy; Polygamy, Royal; Primogeniture; Royal Families; Royal Line; Siblings, Royal; Succession, Royal.

DESSALINES, JEAN-JACQUES

LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE DESCENT

(1758–1806 C.E.)

European monarchy, as it developed in the Middle Ages, differed from other monarchical systems in drawing a sharp distinction between the king’s legitimate children born in marriage and illegitimate children born to mistresses. (European marriage law lacked the intermediate category of “concubine.”) In theory, only legitimate children and their legitimate descendants could have a claim on the throne. Illegitimate children, if recognized, could receive high honors, titles of nobility, aristocratic spouses, and even political responsibilities, but they could not inherit the throne. Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715) fought a long battle to have his illegitmate sons accepted in the line of succession to the throne after all the legitimate claimants. His eventual victory alienated a good portion of the French high aristocracy.

Emperor of Haiti (r. 1804–1806), who declared that country’s independence in 1804. Born a slave in Grande-Riviere-du-Nord, in the French colony of Saint-Dominque (present-day Haiti), Jean-Jacques Dessalines toiled in slavery until 1791, when he joined a slave uprising that erupted in the colony. Dessalines became a fearless chief lieutenant of the black leader Toussaint L’Ouverture who, after battling the French, became governorgeneral of Saint-Dominque with nominal loyalty to Revolutionary France. In 1802, however, Napoleon Bonaparte of France betrayed a promise of amnesty, arresting ToussaintL’Ouverture and sending a French expedition to reconquer the colony. Realizing that Napoleon intended to reinstitute slavery (which the French had abolished in 1794), Dessalines and other black and mulatto leaders revolted. A number of fierce battles ensued, and gradually the rebel army, led mainly by Dessalines, gained ground and triumphed against the French forces. On January 1, 1804, Dessalines proclaimed the colony’s independence under its West Indian name, Haiti. He was immediately designated governor-general for life by the leaders of the rebellion, and eight months later he was crowned emperor of Haiti under the name Jacques I. In spite of his power, Dessalines did not succeed in restoring stability or wealth to Haiti. Instead, he ini-

GENDER AND ROYAL DESCENT Another factor creating differences between different lines of royal descent is gender. European countries following the Salic Law (first announced in fourteenth-century France) barred even legitimate royal daughters and their descendants from any claim to the throne, restricting possible claims to the purely male line. The spread of European models of monarchy has led other kingdoms to adopt European ideas of patrilineal descent. For example, the gradual replace-

D e t h ron e m e n t tiated cruel and despotic acts, such as forced labor on plantations, in order to avoid returning to a mere subsistence economy. Dessalines was also much harder on whites than on blacks in Haiti. He took away land belonging to whites and made it impossible for them to legally own any land. Possibly fearful that the whites would turn against him if there were another French attack, he had thousands of them killed. Dessalines undertook these harsh measures to ensure that white dominance over blacks, who accounted for more than 80 percent of Haiti’s population, would not recur. He also treated the mulattoes of Haiti, many of whom were wealthier and more successful than blacks, unfairly. In 1806, Dessalines was ambushed and murdered by the mulatto leader Alexandre Sabès Pétion. After that, Haiti was divided between Pétion and the black leader Henry Christophe.

DETHRONEMENT The process of removing a monarch from power, usually by force or the threat of force. Unlike abdication, in which a monarch willingly relinquishes the Crown, dethronement implies some sort of struggle or resistance on the part of the ruler, though monarchs often have abdicated rather than risk being dethroned. Although forced dethronement was decidedly more common in earlier periods, it has occurred throughout history and into the modern era, where it has often been seen as an instrument to bring about modern democratic forms of government.The list of dethroned monarchs includes kings and queens from every period of history and nearly every nation on the globe.

RIGHTS OF DETHRONEMENT Because early forms of monarchy were usually based on military power, royal houses generally were overthrown and their kings and queens dethroned when rivals or opponents defeated royal armies. In fact, the early Greek kingdoms coined a name—tyrant—for any ruler who came to power by overthrowing a preceding monarch.Though today we associate tyranny with malicious and despotic rule, the early Greeks simply considered tyranny as one form of government among many. The Greek tyrants generally were able to dethrone their predecessors by focusing on one issue or

235

set of grievances that had broad popular appeal, and then mounting a strong enough opposition to force the reigning monarch from the throne. In many cases, the monarchies established by tyrants ultimately were superseded by rudimentary forms of democracy. As in many other nations, China saw its ruling house change hands numerous times during its history, almost always because of royal dethronement led by internal forces. The Shang, Chou (Zhou), Ch’in (Qin), and Ming dynasties all began as a result of a violent overthrow of preceding rulers. Forced dethronement continued in China until the overthrow of its last emperor, Pu Yi (r. 1908–1912), by pro-democracy forces in 1912. Many dethronements throughout history occurred not because of some internal disagreement or strife but because of international conflict.When one monarchical nation invaded and conquered another, the losing monarch would almost always be dethroned or even killed and an emissary government set up in place of the former royal house. It was in this way that Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) overthrew Darius III (r. 336–330 b.c.e.) of the Persian Empire in the third century b.c.e. This kind of dethronement was generally thought to be a necessary condition of conquest; if the ruling house of a defeated nation was left with any power, it might well attempt to mount an uprising and regain the kingdom and the throne. Conquest dethronements continued to be common throughout the history of monarchy, but the feudal and postfeudal eras in Europe saw dethronements that were led not by conquering nations or internal opposition but by the Roman Catholic Church. Papal power in Europe reached its height during the Middle Ages and early modern era; many popes were able to command foreign military forces to political ends, which frequently involved the ouster of unsympathetic ruling houses. This occasionally led to major shifts of political power. French control of Italy, for example, collapsed when Charles of Durazzo (r. 1381–1386), acting on the orders of Pope Urban VI (r. 1378–1389), overthrew Joanna of Naples (r. 1343–1381) in 1381.

DETHRONEMENT OF MONARCHY ITSELF In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries c.e., three dethronements occurred that served as crucial

236

D e t h ron e m e n t

defeats for monarchical forms of government and pointed to the rise of democracies.The first was the dethronement of King Charles I (r. 1625–1649) of England in 1649. Charles’s attempt to crush the power of Parliament and rule autocratically led England into a civil war between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians.When the Parliamentarians proved victorious, they executed Charles in 1649, thereby leaving the institution of Parliament in a powerful position. The power of Parliament proved critical during England’s second great dethronement, the nonviolent Glorious Revolution of 1688. In this instance, James II (r. 1685–1688) was dethroned as a result of the invasion of England by William of Orange (King William III, r. 1689–1702), a Dutch prince who was acting with the support of Parliament. By guaranteeing the throne to William—whose wife Mary was the daughter of the deposed James II—Parliament was able to secure sovereignty for itself, thereby taking a major step toward democratic government. In eighteenth-century France, dethronement would not prove as peaceful as in England’s Glorious Revolution. During the French Revolution, antimonarchists overthrew King Louis XVI (r. 1774– 1792) and his wife, Marie Antoinette, and executed them both in 1793.Although the Revolutionaries did not meet many of their original goals, the French Revolution incited a wave of popular democratic movements throughout the world over the next two centuries. Numerous monarchs were dethroned, forced to abdicate, or compelled to give major concessions to pro-democratic forces in order to avoid the same fate as Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. See also: Abdication, Royal; Conquest and Kingships;Tyranny, Royal.

DEWAS KINGDOMS (1728–1948 C.E.) Kingdoms in central India, now a part of the state of Madhya Pradesh, that were agricultural trading centers and major junctions for overland transportation. In the early 1700s, two brothers,Tukoji and Jivaji Puar (Parmar), played an important role as generals in the conquest of central India by the Maratha Confederacy. In 1728, the peshwa, or chief minister, of the Satara region of the Maratha Confederacy

granted the brothers the area of Dewas on the Malwa plateau.Tukoji and Jivaji divided the kingdom in two, with Tukoji in control of the Dewas Senior Branch and Jivaji ruling the Dewas Junior Branch (J.B.).The two states were totally separated, each having its own administration and infrastructure. Yet, both kingdoms also became deeply entwined. The Paur brothers claimed descent from the ancient Parmar dynasty, which had ruled central and northwestern India in the first century b.c.e. Tukoji (r. 1728–1753) was succeeded as ruler of Dewas Senior by his adopted son, Krishnaji Rao (r. 1753– 1789), who fought the disastrous battle of Panipat in 1761, during which the Afghan prince, Ahmad Shah (r. 1747–1773), overcame the Marathas. Krishnaji was followed on the throne by his adopted son, Tukoji Rao II (r. 1789–1827).When Jivaji (r. 1732– 1755) died in 1755, he was succeeded on the throne of Dewas Junior by Sadashiv Raj (r. 1755–1803), Rukmangad Rao (r. 1803–1817), and Anand Rao (r. 1817–1840.) In 1818, the British entered into a treaty of friendship and alliance with Tukoji Rao II of the Senior Branch and Anand Rao of the Junior Branch. Two decades later, in 1841, both Dewas kingdoms came under the control of the British Central India Agency. Krishnaji Rao II (r. 1860–1899), the successor of Yakmangad Rao (r. 1827–1860), was a poor administrator and plunged Dewas Senior deeply into debt. He was succeeded by Tukoji Rao III (r. 1899–1937), an adopted son from another branch of the family. In Dewas Junior, Anand Rao was succeeded by Hebant Rao (r. 1840–1864), Narayan Rao (r. 1864–1892), Malhar Rao (r. 1892–1934), and Sadashiv Rao (r. 1934–1943). Dewas Senior and Dewas Junior both acceded to the Dominion of India in 1947 and joined the state of Madhya Bharat in 1948, with Dewas Senior under the leadership of Vikram Singh Rao (r. 1937–1947) and Krishna Ji Rao (r. 1947–1956) and Dewas Junior under Yashwant Rao (r. 1943–1956). Both states merged with the state of Madhya Pradesh in 1956. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Maratha Confederacy; South Asian Kingdoms.

DIDO. See Carthage, Kingdom of

Diocletian

DINGISWAYO (ca. 1770s–1816 C.E.) Last paramount chief (r. ?–1816) of the Nguni confederation before the rise of Shaka Zulu (r. 1816–1828) and the formation of the Zulu kingdom. Born in the 1770s, Dingiswayo was the son of Jobe, a chief of the Mtetwa people, one of many groups that made up the peoples called the Nguni. Dingiswayo was not first in line to inherit his father’s rule, which initially passed to one of his brothers. But Dingiswayo disputed the legitimacy of his brother’s succession and proclaimed himself the rightful ruler of the Nguni.To make good this claim, he set out to create a powerful military force.Among the youths recruited into Dingiswayo’s rapidly growing army was a young man named Shaka, whose military prowess greatly impressed Dingiswayo. He made Shaka his general and with his help claimed the throne upon the death of his father. Having secured his position as ruler of the Nguni, Dingiswayo set out to unify neighboring chiefdoms into a single entity, with the goal of militaristic expansion throughout the region. To further this goal, he created a new political organization composed of subchiefs selected by and answerable only to him. These officials were charged with maintaining order among the citizenry and creating a powerful military. In the course of consolidating and expanding his rule, however, he created many rivals for himself. Among them was Zidwe, whose followers from the Ndwandwe clan succeeded in killing Dingiswayo in ambush in 1816. Upon the death of Dingiswayo, his chief general Shaka, assumed leadership, giving rise to the Zulu kingdom. See also: Mzilikazi; Shaka Zulu; Zulu Kingdom.

DIOCLETIAN (ca. 240–311 C.E.) Capable ruler (r. 284–305) of the late Roman Empire, who made many important reforms of imperial governance but is remembered also for his persecution of Christians. Born Diocles in 240, Diocletian was the son of peasants who lived in the Roman province of Dalmatia (present-day Croatia).As a young man, Diocletian distinguished himself by his loyalty and military skills. He rose quickly through the ranks of the

237

Roman army, and by 270 he had been made commander of imperial troops in Moesia, a province bordering the Black Sea at the outer reaches of the empire. In 283 or 284, Diocletian became commander of the Imperial Guard of Emperor Numerian (r. 283–284).

GAINING THE THRONE Numerian was assassinated in 284, and Diocletian swore to avenge his death. When an officer was accused of the crime, Diocletian personally carried out the execution. There were several claimants to the throne, including Numerian’s brother Carinus (r. 283–285), who already ruled. However, the Imperial Guard was greatly impressed by Diocletian’s act to avenge the emperor’s death, considering it a powerful demonstration of his loyalty to the empire.The guard thus acclaimed Diocletian the new ruler. Diocletian’s rise to power was challenged by others, on the grounds that the manner of his ascent to the throne violated tradition. It took two years to settle the issue.With the backing of the powerful Imperial Guard, Diocletian ultimately defeated all rivals and, in 286 he adopted the imperial name Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus. The Roman Empire at the time extended north into Europe and the British Isles, south and west into North Africa, and east into Asia Minor. Control over this vast territory had already begun to break down, particularly on the frontier, where the army was stretched too thin to defend effectively against attacks from neighboring peoples. The empire also had internal problems: inflation was rampant, and the political system was in disarray as competing factions within the Senate indulged in petty squabbles that sometimes erupted into violence.Worse still, this continual infighting had led to a century of political instability, as one emperor after another was toppled from the throne.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFORM To create greater stability, Diocletian introduced several reforms. First, he undertook a fundamental restructuring of power, dividing the empire into two separate political units, each to be governed by an emperor called an Augustus, who was to be assisted by a subordinate called a Caesar. The Augustus would serve a ten-year term, after which he would leave office and his Caesar would become Augustus and appoint a new Caesar. By means of this new administrative

238

Diocletian

structure, called a tetrarchy or “rule of four,” Diocletian hoped to ensure an orderly transition of power, ending the contentiousness that had become an unavoidable element of imperial politics over the past hundred years. Diocletian entrusted the western half of the empire—which included Italy, Gaul (now France and part of Germany), the British Isles, and Spain—to Maximian, a friend and fellow soldier. Diocletian took the wealthier eastern half of the empire, which included Greece,Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. In addition, Diocletian retained imperial authority over both the eastern and western political units. Diocletian’s reorganized administrative structure was very effective. With less overall territory to oversee, the Augusti could maintain better internal control over their subjects. In addition, Diocletian greatly increased the size of the Roman armies, so that the defense of the border regions was more effective. Diocletian’s reforms extended beyond the administrative and defensive. He sought to improve the imperial economy by setting price controls, which brought inflation to an end. He also established a uniform tax code. In the provinces, he established smaller, more efficient administrative units and appointed local governors to oversee them. The result was greater stability throughout the empire.

LAST YEARS Toward the end of his reign, Diocletian inaugurated a policy of persecution against Christians. Christianity was still a relatively new religion, but it was spreading rapidly throughout the Roman Empire. Diocletian was incited to take action against the Christians by his Caesar, Galerius Valerius Maximianus, who sought to restore the religion of Mithraism to the preeminence it had enjoyed for the previous 300 years. In 303, at Galerius’s urging, Diocletian ordered that places of Christian worship throughout the empire be destroyed and that the right of Roman citizenship be taken away from all those who refused to reject Christianity. In his zeal to overcome the threat of Christianity to his authority, Diocletian soon allowed extreme brutality in the campaign against the new religion. His campaign of persecution continued until 305, when he retired from office and returned to Salonae, the town of his birth. Diocletian convinced his fellow Augustus, Maximian, to retire at the same time, and

the two men who had served as Caesari were duly promoted to Augusti. This was to be the first test of Diocletian’s plan for orderly succession, and it failed utterly. Both of the newly annointed Augusti had grown sons, and these sons were ambitious. Constantius I (r. 305–306), who replaced Maximian as Augustus, lived only a year before he died in Eboracum, a Roman town (now York) in the British Isles. His son, Constantine, was at his side when he died and was acclaimed the new Augustus by the troops there. Meanwhile, Maximian’s son, Maxentius (r. 307–312), enlisted the support of the Praetorian Guard and advanced his own claim to the title of Augustus. After a bloody civil war, Constantine’s faction carried the day. He took the imperial name of Constantine I (r. 307–337), eliminated the office of Caesar, and became sole ruler of the western half of the empire. In 324, Constantine I defeated Licinius (r. 308–324) and then Augustus of the eastern half of the empire, bringing an end to Diocletian’s tetrarchy. See also: Constantine I, the Great; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. Nardo, Don. The Roman Empire. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1994. Starr, Chester. A History of the Ancient World. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

DIPLOMACY, ROYAL Official communication and negotiation between rulers and kingdoms. Monarchs have varied greatly in the skill and interest with which they have conducted diplomacy. Control over foreign policy is often the last area of effective power that monarchs have relinquished. When the individual states of the Holy Roman Empire won the right to conduct their own foreign policies at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, it marked the end of the Holy Roman emperor’s central power. Monarchs have often avoided the day-to-day work of diplomacy, however, leaving it to ministers and ambassadors. Although less physically taxing and dangerous than military leadership, diplomacy also offers fewer chances for glory.

D i s e a s e a n d Roya lt y MONARCHS AND DIPLOMATIC PROTOCOL In monarchical societies, monarchs receive ambassadors, even if it is their ministers who negotiate with them. Many societies have developed elaborate protocols for impressing foreign envoys with their wealth and power, as embodied in the splendor of their monarchs. The Book of Rituals, adopted by Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos (r. 913–959), is one of the earliest books on diplomatic procedure. It contains detailed recommendations for the reception of ambassadors in Byzantine territory, ranging from how ambassadors should be housed while journeying to the empire’s capital at Constantinople to the culminating exchange of gifts with the emperor. Issues of protocol, or proper diplomatic behavior, can be thorny and complex, particularly in royal courts accustomed to seeing themselves as exercising universal primacy. In 1792, for example, British diplomats’ hopes of establishing permanent representation in Beijing, China, were frustrated, in part, by their refusal to perform the ritual “kowtow” before the emperor, which required them to lie face downward on the floor in front of the emperor. On occasion, monarchs have bypassed ambassadors in order to meet directly with other sovereigns. Many attempts at head-to-head royal diplomacy have proven fraught with difficulty, however. The avoidance of the suggestion that one ruler is inferior to the other makes protocol difficult, and it is hard to resolve personality conflicts when neither partner to a negotiation answers to any higher authority. The Field of the Cloth of Gold, the famous meeting of Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) of England and Francis I (r. 1515–1547) of France in 1520, was marked principally by lavish competitive displays of wealth and splendor (hence the name), but did not have any important diplomatic results. The 1807 meeting at Tilsit between Emperor Napoleon I (r. 1804–1815) and Tsar Alexander I (r. 1801–1825) of Russia did produce a treaty of alliance, but despite the mutual admiration of the two sovereigns, their countries were at war a few years later.

PERSONAL AND “NATIONAL” MONARCHICAL DIPLOMACY One handicap monarchical diplomacy has had to confront since the development of nationalism has been the difference between the national and the dynastic

239

or personal interests of a monarch. Given the importance to the state of such familial matters as the marriage of a monarch or a monarch’s children, it is often impossible to fully disentangle the two. Monarchs have frequently been accused (in some cases justly) of putting the interests of their dynasties or families ahead of national interests.This is a particularly difficult problem when monarchs rule multiple realms. The Hanoverian kings of Great Britain in the eighteenth century—George I (r. 1715–1727), George II (r. 1727–1760), and, to a lesser degree, George III (r. 1760–1820)—were frequently accused of putting the interests of their continental electorate of Hanover ahead of those of their island realm of England. Their contemporary Louis XV of France (r. 1715–1774) ran a whole clandestine foreign policy parallel to that of his official ministers— the “King’s Secret.” It was not very successful. The monarchs’ loss of actual political power in the twentieth century has actually increased their usefulness in public diplomacy.The visit of King Edward VII of Great Britain (r. 1901–1910) to Paris in 1903, for example, is often credited with smoothing the way for the alliance known as the Entente Cordiale between France and Britain, which was concluded the following year. Edward’s affability and genuine affinity for France helped dissolve some of the French hostility to Britain engendered by the history of conflicts between the two states and by ongoing colonial rivalries. By contrast, the impulsive and arrogant behavior of Edward’s nephew, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (r. 1888–1918), posed perpetual diplomatic headaches for his government. Modern monarchs also play the traditional diplomatic role of heads of state in receiving the credentials of newly appointed foreign ambassadors. See also: Ambassadors; Power, Forms of Royal.

DISEASE AND ROYALTY The relationship and effects of disease on royalty. The unique position monarchs held in society as hereditary rulers led to unique ideas about the nature of royal bodies and royal illness. The idea that kings and queens were divinely appointed influenced notions not only about royal health, but also about the relationship between the monarch and the health of his or her subjects.

240

D i s e a s e a n d Roya lt y

Although monarchs were traditionally responsible for the welfare of their subjects in a broad sense, many ruling dynasties in Europe claimed that God had given them the ability to heal their subjects of illness. Beginning in the twelfth century in France, rulers began “touching” sufferers of disease in the manner of many Christian saints. The practice of royal healing gained popularity both in the popular mind and in medical literature because illness was thought to be caused in part by the sick person’s sins. As the Middle Ages wore on, the healing claims of various dynasties became more sophisticated. A kind of specialization developed when certain dynasties began to touch the sufferers of specific diseases.The most popular and prolific practice was in France and England, where monarchs touched to cure the “king’s evil”—the disease scrofula (Tuberculous lymphadenitis), a glandular form of tuberculosis. Other dynasties touched for a variety of different diseases. The kings of Hungary, for example, claimed the ability to cure jaundice. English kings also distributed “cramp rings” that were intended to cure all manner of muscle cramps and epilepsy. The practice of touching gained popularity in the sixteenth century with the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and with the rise of the absolutist theory of monarchy. It also first appeared in medical literature of that time, although it does appear that university-educated physicians considered this a treatment of last resort after conventional medical treatments had failed. Touching also stemmed from the practice of royal charity and mirrored developments in the field of educated medicine. Ultimately, royal touching died out after the seventeenth century, although the Bourbon restoration monarchy of nineteenth-century France revived it briefly. Although members of royal families were believed to have healing powers, they were victims of the same diseases as their subjects. Several members of royal houses died in the periodic bouts of plague that swept through Europe, and royal women were susceptible to the dangers of childbirth and infection. However, royalty occupied a unique and often physically separate place in society that shielded them from the dangers faced by most people. Monarchs generally lived some distance from the polluted and disease-infested neighborhoods of their capitals. Royal families also enjoyed rich and varied

diets and did not usually suffer from the diseases brought on by the malnutrition that often afflicted their subjects. Royalty and nobility were more prone to certain types of diseases, usually stemming from their lifestyle. Medical practitioners and commentators in the early modern era believed that royalty was more likely to contract diseases like dropsy and gout stemming from overeating, inactivity, or even too frequent sexual intercourse. Indeed, Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547) was legendary for his excess in food, wives, and illness. The dynastic practices of some royal families may also have increased the presence of hereditary disease in some ruling houses.Traditionally, historians have blamed the practice of intermarriage between royal houses as the cause of genetic illnesses like hemophilia and insanity. In ancient Egyptian dynasties, marriage between royal siblings was common and has been linked to bone deformities. However, it is uncertain that genetic illness was really more common among royalty, and some monarchs, like those in Asia, did marry nonroyals.When illness did occur, however, it could have dramatic dynastic and political consequences. Hemophilia in the Tsarevich Alexis, the heir of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (r. 1894–1917), contributed to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution led by Vladmir Ilyich Lenin. Disease in a monarch presented a crisis for the government. Because monarchs governed through appointment by God, an incompetent monarch could not easily be removed. Sick rulers often were replaced by relatives or ministers, who ruled either “behind the throne” or as regents. When George III of England (r. 1760–1820) became mentally ill with what was probably an inflammatory disease of the brain, the English government tried to establish a regency to rule for him (1788–1789). Other rulers were compelled to abdicate. Emperor Thanh Thai of Annam (Vietnam) (r. 1889–1907) was forcibly deposed in 1907 after he became ill, setting a dangerous precedent for later rulers of that country.When it came to disease, the sacral character of monarchy was a mixed blessing, bringing the ability to cure disease in others, but also making royalty more prone to an unhealthy lifestyle and to certain hereditary illnesses. See also: Abdication, Royal; Healing Powers of Kings; Regencies; Succession, Royal.

D i v i n at i o n a n d D i v i n e r s, Roya l FURTHER READING

Bloch, Marc. The Royal Touch, Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France. Trans. J.E. Anderson. New York: Dorset Press, 1990. Kagan, Donald, et al. The Western Heritage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002. Lindemann, Mary. Medicine and Society in Early Modern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

DIVINATION AND DIVINERS, ROYAL The act of trying to foretell the future or explore the unknown, and the individuals who perform this service for kings and other rulers. Monarchs in almost all societies and periods of history have both been divined about and employed diviners. The earliest collections of omens, dating from the civilizations of the ancient Near East, include many relating to the fate of kings.

EXAMPLES OF DIVINATION One well-known early example of divination related to monarchs is that of King Saul (r. ca. 1020–1010 b.c.e.) of ancient Israel, whom the Bible describes as consulting a woman at Endor who was said to contact spirits. Many Israelites condemned Saul for his action, which violated the precepts of their god. Another example of the royal use of divination was told by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus about King Croesus of Lydia (r. 560–547 b.c.e.) Croesus consulted the oracle of the god Apollo at Delphi to learn if he should meet the Persian army of Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 b.c.e.) in battle.The oracle replied that should he do so, Croesus would destroy a mighty empire. Thinking that this meant Persia, Croesus attacked. Only after he was defeated and his kingdom annexed to Persia did Croesus realize that the mighty empire the oracle referred to was his own. This is one of many legends detailing how foreknowledge of the future fails to prevent disaster, or may even bring it on. Despite the disasters that befell both Saul and Croesus, divination was commonly practiced for western monarchs and courtiers through ancient and medieval times. In the twelfth century c.e., the En-

241

glish philosopher, John of Salisbury, wrote a treatise denouncing different forms of divination as practiced at the royal court of England.

ASTROLOGY Astrology was a particularly popular form of divination in late medieval Europe. Several rulers, including Charles V of France (r. 1364–1380) and the Holy Roman emperor, Frederick II (r. 1212–1250), were notorious for their reliance on astrologers. Charles V founded an astrological college, and Frederick II’s court astrologer, Michael Scot, was one of the most famous magicians of the Middle Ages. Another popular divination technique was geomancy, which involved divining by studying the patterns formed by thrown earth. Wenceslas II of Bohemia (r. 1278–1305), Richard II of England (r. 1377–1399), and Charles V of France all owned finely made manuscripts of geomancy.

ATTITUDES TOWARD DIVINATION Christian societies have always condemned recourse to magical divination. In other cultural traditions, divination has been practiced more openly, and its association with rulers has been more explicit. In Far Eastern cultures, for example, divination has been much more accepted over the ages. Divination in China goes as far back as the Shang dynasty (ca. 1750–1040 b.c.e.), when court officials divined by heating bones and tortoise shells and reading the cracks that the heat produced. Along with dream interpretation, divining was presented as a way in which the Shang rulers communicated with the gods. Under China’s Chou (Zhou) dynasty (ca. 1046– 221 b.c.e.), divination began to spread more widely in society. Chinese imperial divination broadened over the dynasties to take in other techniques, such as astrology. Determining auspicious days for the monarch to perform certain tasks or undertake certain activities was one responsibility of the imperial astrologers.

DIVINATION IN AN AFRICAN SOCIETY Divination was central to the power of the kings of the Azande, a central African people.Azande men divined by a technique known as the “poison oracle.” A specially prepared poison was fed to fowls, and their reactions revealed hidden truths. Azande kings employed special oracle interpreters, who were re-

242

D i v i n at i o n a n d D i v i n e r s, Roya l

quired to be men of good character and observe certain taboos. Questions of criminal guilt, judgments, household affairs, and other matters were submitted to the oracle, although the king retained freedom of action. Poor answers could be blamed on the incompetence or malice of the interpreter and thus were disregarded. The king was also believed to have the best poison, and others sought to employ the king’s oracle, enhancing his importance to Azande life.

PENALTIES AGAINST DIVINATION Divination about monarchs, when practiced outside the monarch’s authority, has been viewed with great suspicion in most societies. In the Roman Empire, for example, even casting the emperor’s horoscope carried a penalty of death. It was feared that if a magician claimed that the emperor was soon to die, this would encourage rebellion. The T’ang dynasty (618–907 c.e.) in China attempted to restrict divination as practiced outside the court for similar reasons, though ineffectively. Eleanor Cobham, an aunt of King Henry VI of England (r. 1422–1471) by marriage, was condemned as a witch in 1441. She was condemned partly because she had asked an astronomer named Roger Bolingbroke to divine her future, the implication being that she wanted to know if the king would die and if her husband, Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, would then become king. See also: Curses, Royal; Priests, Royal; Prophets, Royal;Witchcraft and Sorcery. FURTHER READING

Carey, Hilary M. Courting Disaster:Astrology at the English Court and University in the Later Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937. Smith, Richard J. Fortune-Tellers and Philosophers: Divination in Traditional Chinese Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991.

DIVINE RIGHT The notion that monarchs hold their authority by decree of God and that this authority may be passed down to royal offspring.

The principle of divine right is as old as monarchy itself. It has been used throughout history to justify the reign of particular monarchs, to quell political discussion unfavorable to the ruling party, and to ensure that powers of governance stay within the same family. The rise of proto-democratic movements in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, particularly in England and France, did much to dispel the notion of the divine right of kings. Nevertheless, variants of this ideology could be seen in Asia until the twentieth century.

ORIGINS OF THE IDEA The earliest known versions of the theory of the divine right of kings occurred in ancient Egypt, where ruling pharaohs, especially in the early dynasties, frequently invoked the god Horus as a symbol of their divinity. Represented by a crowned falcon, Horus was thought to be the last in a line of gods that ruled over the earth, and the human kings who followed in his path were considered material representations of him. In fact, early Egyptian hieroglyphics frequently represent an image of Horus preceding the name of all royal personages. Later Egyptian pharaohs, mostly from the Fourth dynasty onward, invoked the sungod Re as a representation of themselves, and they also used his name and symbol as a prefix to royal names. A similar development occurred in China under the Chou (Zhou) dynasty, in which a theory of the divine right of kings known as t’ien ming was developed. T’ien ming, which roughly translates as “mandate from heaven,” held that whatever changes in power occurred did so because of the will of a divine spirit. Thus, the victory of the Chou over their predecessors, the Shang (Yin) dynasty, in 1045 b.c.e. was a sign from heaven that the Chou were better fit to rule than the Shang.This can be distinguished from European notions of divine right, because t’ien ming suggests that rulers who failed to fulfill their obligations to their subjects would be removed from power, whereas European kingly divinity suggested that monarchs were essentially infallible. The theory of divine right was given new form by the early Church father, Saint Augustine of Hippo, in his classic work, City of God, written in the early 400s c.e. during the waning years of the Roman Empire. Saint Augustine presented a version of history characterized by human progress out of paganism and toward Christianity.Although Augustine did not pro-

Divinity of Kings pose a political theory of monarchy in the way later thinkers would, he did suggest that rulers were granted certain privileges—-and consequently took on certain obligations—by virtue of divine will.Versions of Augustine’s ideas about the relationship between monarchs and divinity came to characterize European monarchies for the next thousand years.

AGES OF DECLINE The divine right of kings went more or less unchallenged in Europe throughout the medieval period, even as monarchies across the continent changed hands continually. The emergence of early democratic movements during the Renaissance began to put pressure on the notion of monarchical divinity, and this tension finally spilled over into a major conflict in seventeenth-century England. James I (r. 1603–1625), the first English monarch of the Stuart dynasty, believed strongly in the divine right of kings and consequently gave Parliament little say in the governance of Britain. James also courted controversy by issuing a series of religious mandates aimed at stifling Puritanism and Roman Catholicism; James believed that his authority for issuing these doctrines was granted to him by God. James dissolved Parliament in 1611, and when he died in 1625, his son Charles I (r. 1625–1649) inherited a deeply troubled nation. Charles I was equally convinced of the divine right of kings, but his struggle with Parliament took a much more violent turn than his father’s. Charles’s frustrations with the demands of Parliament arose immediately. He dismissed Parliament in 1629 and ruled alone for eleven years, during which time he drove England further and further toward bankruptcy.When Parliament reconvened in 1640, it refused to grant Charles total authority, a move that led to civil war. The Parliamentarians ultimately defeated and executed Charles. This victory of Parliament over the king effectively ended the idea of divine right in England. Meanwhile, in France, the long reign of Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries was characterized by Louis’s firm belief in his kingly divinity.This led to a consolidation of power around the throne that bordered on absolute monarchy. Although Louis’s reign went relatively unchallenged, the wasteful financial consequences of his absolutism led to the gradual weakening of the monarchy, which finally collapsed

243

with the antiroyalist French Revolution of 1789 and the beheading of Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) in 1793. See also: Christianity and Kingship; Divinity of Kings; Heavens and Kingship; Power, Forms of Royal; Religious Duties and Power; Sacred Kingships.

DIVINITY OF KINGS Belief that kings are incarnations or direct descendants of a deity. The idea that kings are greater than ordinary men by virtue of their divine nature has flourished in many cultures and ages. Divine kingship is often associated with Christianity, which provides a model for the concept in the person of Christ.Yet the story of a god who sends a son (or daughter) to earth to establish civilization is not restricted to the New Testament. Monarchs throughout the world have based the legitimacy of their rule on precisely these grounds.

DIVINE ANCESTORS In ancient Peru, among a people known as the Tihuanaco, the story was told of a creator god named Viricocha, whose own son, Inti, also came to be revered as a god. Inti decided to gather all the true people of the earth together so that they could learn to live in a civilized fashion. He ordered his own son and daughter, Manco Capac and Mama Ocllo, to wed and go to earth to bring the people together. They found the Tihuanaco people by the waters of Lake Titicaca and carried out the task ordained by their father. From these two, all rulers of the Tihuanaco, and later of the Incan Empire, traced their descent. Stories such as this are found in the oral histories of all the great civilizations of Latin America. They are found, too, in the traditions of the great Egyptian pharaohs, in the monarchical culture of pre-World War II Japan, and among many of the peoples of Africa. In every case, they provide the legitimacy for a dynasty’s right to rule and a rationale for maintaining the status quo in terms of practice and ritual.This idea, that a people and their civilization are the direct products of the labors of a founding ancestor born of the gods, is perhaps the most commonly encountered variation on the theme of divine kingship. This variation is not the only one, however. In pre-Enlightenment Christian Europe, the case was

244

Divinity of Kings

ROYAL RELATIVES

THE DIVINE KINGS OF SCANDINAVIA The Skioldung dynasty, from which the modern royal families of Sweden and Denmark are descended, is one of the most ancient in Europe. Royal genealogies trace the lines of descent from King Ragner Lodbrok of Denmark (r. 750–794) with a high degree of reliability. Records before 750 are less dependable but tell of much more ancient connections going back to Skiold, a son of the chief Norse god, Odin, and a mortal wife. Skiold married the minor goddess Gefjon, and they founded the city of Lethra, which became a center of worship.

made somewhat differently. Christ was not himself invoked as the founder of the ruling dynasties of France or England, for example. Rather, he served as a model for the rule of the king, whose divinity was derived from the simple expediency of God’s order. In this instance, the king was seen not as a direct descendant of God, but rather as a man who, upon assuming the throne, attained his divinity through the agency of his office and therefore transcended his humanity. Nonetheless, belief in the divinity of the king, and in the sacredness of his person in office, was fundamental to the legitimacy of the throne.

FUNDAMENTALS OF DIVINE KINGSHIPS The nature of the ruler’s relationship to the divine may take a number of forms. It may be a direct, oneto-one correspondence, as when a monarch is held to be the incarnation or manifestation of a god, or it may be a less direct relation between the two, as when the monarch is understood to be the divinity’s representative or agent. In other words, a divine king may be viewed as a god in and of himself, or he may be understood as the god’s high-priest and spokesperson. In either case, a number of things must be true before one can consider a monarch to be divine.These include: 1. The belief that the monarch is the receptacle of divine power, bearing within his or her living form the essence of godhood.

2. The belief that the king is responsible for the prosperity and fertility of his people. Literally, it is the king, through his divine nature, who forestalls disasters, guarantees the harvest, and ensures the coming of future generations. 3. The belief that the monarch stands apart from the normal run of humanity, with a direct connection with god through which he achieves his inspiration and his strength. These elements of belief find expression in a variety of ways. Because of his divinity, the king must be addressed in ways that mark him as different from his subjects.This may mean that he lives in deep seclusion, never directly approachable by mere mortals.This was true of the Japanese emperors, who were rarely seen outside their residences except for religious celebrations.Alternatively, the king may be expected to travel frequently among his people. This was true in Peru, where the stately passage of the Great Inca throughout his domain was an important part of his responsibilities, a ritual passage that served to remind the populace to whom they owed allegiance. Tracing the king’s genealogy to the founding divine ancestor was essential in maintaining his claims to the throne. Some of the earliest recorded history consists of lists of kings such as those of Egypt and Sumer. Within kingdoms asserting divine descent of their ruler, demonstrating the purity of the descent was paramount. The goal of ensuring a divine heir explains why, for example, the Egyptian pharaoh might have been encouraged to marry a woman of

Divinity of Kings his own family, including his sister or half-sister. It is said that the wives of Ramses II (r. 1279–1213 b.c.e.) included one of his sisters and three of his daughters.The offspring of such unions were considered true inheritors to the throne, for they shared in the pure blood of the god. Although kings were often considered divine, they were not immortal. In order to preserve the appearance of divinity, ritualized transference of divine rule developed.The need for preserving divinity was met through ceremonies of divestiture and investiture, marking the reversion of the ailing king to mortal status and the elevation of his successor. Many cultures tied these ceremonies to their religion, giving the priest the sacred duty of carrying out the rituals and reinforcing the link between king and god. Charlemagne (r. 800–814) began the practice of having the pope crown the Holy Roman emperor; this practice would last for centuries.

DIVINITY MANIPULATED In The Golden Bough (1940), Sir James Frazer attempted to explain the rationale underlying the belief in divine kingship. He argued that the belief was a logical outgrowth of a belief system based on ancestral worship, one of the earlier forms of religious belief. Frazer also presupposed that the office of king arose from an earlier political structure in which priests held the ultimate office. For anthropologist E.E. Evans-Pritchard, who did fieldwork in the eastern Sudanic kingdom of the Shilluk, experience did not bear out Frazer’s longaccepted assumptions. For instance, Frazer maintained that the king was held sacred in the very specific sense that he was descended from, and thus part of, the creative center of the universe. EvansPritchard’s observations told a different story, suggesting that the Shilluk were fully aware of the man beneath the royal regalia but saw their monarch’s sacredness as springing from his role as symbol of their larger society. In such a case, attributions of divine descent become capable of being manipulated to suit the needs of society or the ambitions of an individual. That the divinity of a king could be subject to manipulation has many historical examples. Great Inca Huayna Capac (d. 1525) attempted to do just that when he elevated his son, Atahuallpa, to king of half of the Incan Empire, even though this son was not born of the true, that is, “divine” marriage. By doing

245

so, he caused internal conflict in the empire that ultimately led to its destruction. Similarly, the emperor of Japan, Hirohito, was by tradition divinely entitled to rule.Yet throughout his life there was evidence that Hirohito knew this idea to be a fiction, regardless of its usefulness in inspiring the unswerving devotion of his people—particularly his military—during World War II. Therefore, when Japan fell to the Allies at the end of the war, it was no great problem for him to formally renounce his divinity and revert to the status of mortal man. The history of monarchies throughout the world is filled with tales of the miraculous return of lost or hitherto unknown heirs to divine leadership. That these claims to power might have been made with calculation seems beyond dispute. The tradition of the Aztec divine kings, for example, seems to have been lifted directly from the Toltecs, whose own empire had existed centuries earlier, but whose memory was still strong in the Valley of Mexico among Toltec descendants whom the Aztecs intended to conquer. What better way to legitimize a new ruler than to lay claim to the religiopolitical beliefs of the locals? Other rulers sought to formalize their right to rule in similar ways. In the thirteenth century, the Amhara conquerors of Ethiopia asserted their right to rule by claiming their descent from the first king of Ethiopia, the son of Solomon and the queen of Sheba. Ancient Irish kings declared they were descendants of Milesius, a Spanish king who conquered Ireland and was himself a direct descendant of Adam.

A LASTING CONCEPT The idea of having a divinely ordained ruler is still present in some cultures. Within Japanese society, a movement is in process to restore the (divine) Chrysanthemum Throne, the ancient traditional throne of Japan. Some independent states of Africa find the remnants of once powerful kingdoms invoking their traditions, including their divinely royal lineages, in a desire to return to their former glory. King Mswati III (r. 1986– ) of Swaziland, Africa’s last absolute monarch, insists upon his divine rights, even that of capturing girls to add to his harem. In the Middle East, the drive toward establishing Islamic theocracies reflects a desire to establish a divine king or at least to install a semidivine ruler.The idea of a divinely inspired ruler underlies the philosophy of the Shi’ite Muslims, who installed the Aya-

246

Divinity of Kings

tollah Khomeini (1979–1989) as the head of the Iranian state. Khomeini was acclaimed not as a direct descendant of Allah, but as one of Muhammad’s holiest followers, the so-called Hidden Imam who disappeared from public view in 939 c.e. and waited through the centuries until he might be called to rule by Allah. Even societies that have established more democratic forms of government sometimes cling to vestiges of traditions of divine rule.The ceremonies and regalia associated with the British royalty, for example, can be understood as survivals of such a time, and although they no longer carry the meaning they once possessed, their symbolic power remains strong. See also: Aztec Empire; Divine Right; Genealogy, Royal; Hirohito; Inca Empire. FURTHER READING

Engnell, Ivan. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. Divine Kingship of the Shilluk of the Nilotic Sudan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Frazer, James, Sir. The Golden Bough. London: Macmillan, 1922. Piggott, Joan R. The Emergence of Japanese Kingship. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997. Seligman, C. G. Egypt and Negro Africa: A Study in Divine Kingship. New York: AMS Press, 1987.

DJOSER (ca. 2737–2717 B.C.E.) Variously credited as either the first or second king of Egypt’s Third dynasty (d. ca. 2649 b.c.e.) and the first to be entombed within a stone pyramid upon his death. The actual dates of Djoser’s birth and death (and the years of his rule) are still in dispute. Nonetheless, he is one of the best known of the Egyptian kings who made their capital in the ancient city of Memphis, situated at the apex of the Nile Delta. Djoser (also called Netjerikhet) was born sometime after 2700 b.c.e. His father was probably Khasekhemwi, who was the last king of Egypt’s Second dynasty, If this is so, his mother was Nimaathapu, whose name in inscriptions is often followed by the epithet “Mother of the King.” The dates attributed to Djoser’s life and reign are only estimates, based on scholarly attempts to interpret the king lists left behind by the pharaohs of ancient Egypt.These are

not straightforward documents, however, and several lists exist that contradict one another. Details of Djoser’s early life, his age at marriage and the name of his wife, and the names of his children (if he had any) are all unknown. He is thought to have ruled for about nineteen years, but some sources claim that he ruled for as many as thirtyseven. He is believed to have extended the territory of Egypt down to the First Cataract of the Nile, but this, too, is subject to debate. In fact, Djoser is remembered so well today primarily because of his innovation in creating his own tomb. Prior to Djoser’s rule, Egypt’s pharaohs were entombed after death, but their burial sites were mounds of earth and rock, topped with a low, oblong tomb covering made of mud bricks. Djoser, however, commissioned his grand vizier, Imhotep, to design a much more elaborate mortuary complex, one that would exalt the rule of the pharaoh and stand for all time. Imhotep’s response to Djoser’s command was to design a unique, monumental stone structure. Pyramidal in shape and flattened at the top, its four sides consisted of ascending steps leading to a surface that could be used for ritual purposes. Inside were burial chambers destined to hold the body of the pharaoh, the corpses of his retainers, and the possessions that were deemed necessary to guarantee a life of ease in the next world.The pyramid remains standing today, at its original site near the city of Saqqara on the west bank of the Nile River. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Before Eighteenth Dynasty).

DMITRI, GRAND PRINCE (1350–1389 C.E.)

Russian ruler (r. 1359–1389), often known by the sobriquet Dmitri Donskoi (“of the Don”), who briefly freed Muscovy from control by the Tatars, who dominated parts of Russia after the Mongol invasions of the 1200s. Dmitri Ivanovich was the son of Grand Prince Ivan II (r. 1353–1359) and Aleksandra.When Ivan II died in 1359, he divided Muscovy among his three sons, Dmitri and two younger brothers. Both Dmitri’s young age and the devastating prevalence of the plague throughout Muscovy initially limited Dmitri’s power. Furthermore, since 1236, the Mon-

Dual Monarchies gol Tatars had controlled Muscovy as a feudatory state. Although the grand prince oversaw local affairs, he paid an enormous tribute to the Tatars and ultimately answered to the Tatar khan. In 1362, Dmitri and his brothers gained control of the influential Grand Princedom of Vladimir. a principality that bordered Novgorod, Muscovy’s most serious rival in the region. Rather than attacking Novgorod, Dmitri married Evdokia Dmitrievna, a royal princess from the rival state. Their marriage created an alliance between Muscovy and Novgorod. The death of Dmitri’s brother, Ivan, further solidified his control of Muscovy. After unifying Vladimir and Novgorod with Muscovy, Dmitri sought to eliminate Tatar control. In 1380, he engaged the Tatar Golden Horde at the battle of Kulikovo. The battle was extremely bloody with heavy casualties, but the Russian forces emerged victorious.The triumph was Dmitri’s foremost act, and he augmented his victory by assuming control of the Riazan territory, which had aided the Tatars, and by appointing his own representative to lead the Orthodox Church in Moscow. Dmitri’s victory, however, was temporary. Enraged by Dmitri’s actions, the new Tatar khan, Tokhtamysh (r. 1376–1390), reassembled the Tatar army. His forces captured Russian ships on the Volga River, occupied Bolgar, Riazan, and Novgorod, and slaughtered over twenty-four thousand citizens when they raided Moscow. Although Tokhtamysh’s presence ensured that Muscovy would not attain total freedom, Dmitri had significantly expanded Muscovy’s political and military influence. During his reign, the economy expanded because Dmitri instituted a monetary system and allowed new settlers to farm much of the land he had conquered. He also acquired the Principality of Vladimir as a permanent part of Muscovy. Most importantly, Dmitri’s victory over the Tatars, though not permanent, presaged the eventual elimination of Tatar control in Russia. The cause of Dmitri’s death in 1389 is not certain, although the suspicious deaths of several of his key supporters suggest that he may have been assassinated. His son,Vasilii I (r. 1389–1425), inherited a united Muscovy–Vladimir princedom that his father had significantly strengthened. See also: Golden Horde Khanate; Rus Princedoms.

247

DUAL MONARCHIES A form of political organization in which one monarch has sovereignty over two kingdoms. The best example of this formation is the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries c.e., although dual monarchies have existed at least since biblical times. Although there are certainly some advantages to organizing two states as a dual monarchy, historically it has led to internal fractures that make it difficult for the monarchy to maintain power.

DUAL MONARCHY IN BIBLICAL TIMES The best known early example of a dual monarchy is that of the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah. According to the Second Book of Samuel in the Old Testament, David, the successor of King Saul (ca. 1020–1010 b.c.e.), was made king of Judah, in southern Palestine, sometime around 1010 b.c.e. At the same time, Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, was crowned king of the northern kingdom of Israel. War soon broke out between the two kingdoms. As Israel’s forces were being badly beaten, two of Ishbosheth’s officers entered his home and killed him, intending to make peace and curry favor with David.The leaders of the northern kingdom then came to David and anointed him head of the united kingdoms of Judah and Israel (r. ca. 1010–970 b.c.e.).The dual monarchy was short-lived, however, as David’s grandson Rehoboam (r. 930–914 b.c.e.), the son of King Solomon (r. ca. 970–931 b.c.e.), was unable to hold the kingdoms together, losing Israel to Jeroboam I (r. 931–910 b.c.e.).The Bible has little to say about the nature of this dual monarchy, however, and physical evidence for a combined kingdom has not been found.

DUAL MONARCHY IN MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE EUROPE The major postbiblical examples of international unions include the tempestuous and never-complete union of France and England under the Angevin, Plantagenet, and Lancaster dynasties; the Kalmar Union of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden under Queen Margaret (r. 1387–1396 c.e.); and the Danish-Norwegian union under the Oldenburg dynasty. Only the last named endured, and it is histor-

248

Dual Monarchies

ically significant largely for the ease with which the two kingdoms came and stayed together. As Norway had no internal administration under the Oldenburgs, the union of that country and Denmark was a dual monarchy in name only. Occasionally, the term dual monarchy is applied to the English rule of William and Mary (r. 1689–1702; 1689–1694). This is not technically accurate, however, since William and Mary reigned over only one kingdom.The fact that both rulers were equal inheritors to the throne has led to this description, though their reign is most commonly known as a joint monarchy.

Austria, thus bringing the dual monarchy to an end. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Habsburg Dynasty; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of; Kalmar Union; Nationalism; Oldenburg Dynasty.

DUTCH KINGDOMS. See Netherlands Kingdom

DUAL MONARCHY IN THE MODERN ERA

DYFED KINGDOM (ca. 400s–1000s C.E.)

The only successful and lasting example of dual monarchy in the modern era is that of AustriaHungary. Hungary, under control of the Austrian Habsburg dynasty since the 1600s, began to agitate for self-rule during the revolutionary years of the 1840s and continued to do so for the next several years. Weakened by its defeat in the AustroPrussian War of 1866, Austria granted domestic autonomy to the Hungarians, provided that Emperor Franz Josef (r. 1848–1916) maintained his title of sovereign, as well as control of Hungarian foreign policy. The Hungarians agreed, and, in 1867, Franz Joseph was crowned king of Hungary and emperor of Austria. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a powerful economic and political force, but from its inception it was fraught with internal tension. Nationalist movements quickly sprang up among the marginalized ethnic groups within the empire, most notably the Slavs. Calls for independence came from many groups under the aegis of the empire. The Hungarians, meanwhile, came to resent Austria for not granting them complete autonomy, and the economic exploitation of the working classes in Hungary only exacerbated the situation. All of these problems continued to worsen until 1914, when Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated by a Slavic nationalist, thereby igniting World War I. As the defeat of Austria-Hungary grew increasingly apparent near the end of the war, proindependence movements within the empire found new energy, and 1918 saw numerous groups, including Hungary, declare their independence from

One of the four major kingdoms of medieval Wales, located in the extreme southwestern part of the region. The kingdom of Dyfed was established by Irish migrants to Wales in the fifth century. As with most of the small Welsh kingdoms of the early medieval period, however, few facts are known about the kingdom until the eighth or ninth century. Geographically, Dyfed was the Welsh kingdom most remote from England, but its location in the far west did not protect it from Anglo-Saxon incursion during the early Middle Ages. The kingdom was accessible from the sea, and the terrain was not as mountainous as that of the interior of Wales. King Offa of Mercia (r. 757–796) (who had Offa’s Dyke built to mark the border between Wales and England) attacked Dyfed in 778, and in 818 another Mercian king, Cenwulf (r. 796–821), raided the kingdom as well. In 878, a ruler of Dyfed named Hyfaidd ap Bleddri was among five Welsh princes who turned to King Alfred the Great of Wessex (r. 871–899) for protection, allying themselves with him to increase their own power and authority. Alfred’s son and successor, Edward the Elder (r. 899–924), was acknowledged as overlord of the western part of Wales, including Dyfed.The rulers of some of the Welsh kingdoms paid tribute to Edward’s successor Athelstan (r. 924–939) and acknowledged him as their overlord, attending his court and witnessing charters. Dyfed’s alliance with Wessex continued into the 940s, when forces from Dyfed played a role in an English invasion of the kingdom of Strathclyde (now Cumbria in northern England).

Dynasty Hywel Dda (the Good) was one of the Welsh kings who attended Athelstan’s court. Hywel became king of Dyfed in 904. He ruled the territories of Ceredigion and Ystrad Tywi along with his brother, and he acquired the kingdom of Gwynedd in 942, thus uniting the western coast of Wales under one ruler for the first time. He is celebrated as the codifier of Welsh law. Following Hywel’s death in 950, the Welsh kingdoms separated once more and Dyfed never again achieved any importance in relation to the other kingdoms of Wales. In 1073, the Normans invaded Dyfed, establishing Pembroke Castle as a base. King William I of England (r. 1066–1087) named the Norman lord Arnulf as earl of Pembroke, with the task of governing western Dyfed.The eastern half of Dyfed had also come under Norman rule by the early twelfth century, finally ending its existence as an independent kingdom. See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Glywysing Kingdom; Gwent Kingdom; Gwynedd Kingdom; Norman Kingdoms; Powys Kingdom; Welsh Kingdoms.

DYNASTY A ruling family that holds a throne for a period of time, generally several generations. In most countries, the right to the throne is hereditary and is passed on from one generation to the next. It is usually passed on to the eldest son, although in some cases, as with the Picts of England, the right of succession was passed from the father through the daughter to her husband. In either case, the same family keeps the throne for several generations, thus creating a dynasty. In many cases, dynasties provide stability to the countries that they rule. However, a series of weak and inept monarchs, or the lack of a direct heir, can result in civil war or instability, as various members of the ruling class contend for the right to rule. For example, in the fifteenth century, the kingdom of Castile on the Iberian Peninula was ruled successively by John II (r. 1406–1454) and Henry IV, the Impotent (r. 1454–1474). Both monarchs were unable to handle the political and military problems that Castile faced at the time. Henry IV, in particular, bankrupted the treasury of

249

the kingdom by showering money and gifts on his favorites. The paternity of his daughter, Juana la Beltraneja, was also in question, leaving the succession unclear. Consequently, for more than fifty years, Castile lacked political guidance and suffered continual warfare and corruption while the nobility fought among themselves or rebelled against the Crown. Similarly, in fifteenth-century England, the roots of the Wars of the Roses (1455–1485) go back, in part, to the incompetence of Richard II (r. 1377–1399). Henry IV (r. 1399–1413) of the house of Lancaster deposed Richard and seized the Crown. Henry and his son, Henry V (r. 1413–1422), ruled efficiently, but Henry VI (r. 1422–1471) inherited the throne at the age of nine months. As an adult, Henry VI was inept; he favored his supporters and appointed his family to positions of honor, thus creating factions. In 1471, he was deposed by Edward, duke of York, who became Edward IV (r. 1461– 1470) of the house of York. England then descended into civil war as the Yorkists and Lancastrians warred among themselves for the throne.The conflict was finally ended by Henry Tudor (of the house of Lancaster), whose marriage to Elizabeth of York, the daughter of Edward IV, united the two houses and began the Tudor dynasty. He ruled as King Henry VII (r. 1485–1509). Dynasties can also create instability when, through marriage or otherwise, they acquire a claim to the throne of a particular country. In 1700, for example, Philip V (r. 1700–1724) became the first member of the Bourbon dynasty to inherit the Spanish throne. Philip was descended from Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) of France and Philip IV (r. 1621–1665) of Spain; hence, many in Spain saw his accession as a great moment for unity between France and Spain, who had long been rivals. Some, however, opposed such an alliance. Moreover, many countries opposed Philip’s claim, fearing that a union between France and Spain would upset the balance of power in Europe. In 1701, England, Austria, and Holland formed an alliance, and the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) began. Although Philip ultimately was recognized as king of Spain, the country lost much of its empire, with France replacing Spain as the most powerful nation in Europe. See also: Richard II; Succession, Royal.

250

E a r t h a n d S k y, S e p a r a t i o n o f

E EARTH AND SKY, SEPARATION OF A concept that arose in ancient myths as an explanation of cosmic order and that, in many cultures, helped establish the divinity of kingship on earth. In the creation myths of many lands, the separation of earth and sky not only established order in the universe, but also forced a separation between humans and gods. Both gods and humans continually engaged in a battle against chaos; the gods fought against chaotic forces in the sky, while kings and emperors fought against chaotic forces on earth.The separation of earth and sky therefore led to a separation of powers, and that led, in turn, to the concept of kings and emperors as divine rulers. The notion that kingship arose from the need for world order permeated early myths, quite noticeably the myths of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Early people recognized order in the heavens when they watched the celestial bodies move in regular patterns, so they considered the gods who ruled the sky to be the ultimate defenders of the cosmos. But the sky gods could not maintain order on earth once they separated from earth and rose above it. And so, it was said, they endowed kings and emperors with powers that enabled them to assume this function, and divine rulers thus took power in many lands. In many myths, earthly rulers emerged as actual manifestations of the sky gods, often the god of the sun. Ancient peoples recognized the supremacy of the sun because they watched it rise and set, turn the seasons, and renew the world; they understood that the movement of the sun guaranteed life. The Egyptians worshiped their pharaohs as direct descendants of the sun-god, as the Inca and Japanese did their emperors and as people of many other lands did the rulers they considered divine. People who believed

their kings got power from the sun worshiped these kings as solar deities, or sun-gods. This guaranteed the rulers’ supremacy and affirmed their ability to keep the earth in tune with the heavens. Believing that earthly rulers had divine origin established the notion of power on earth, and as long as people yielded to the power of their kings, they could recognize godly power in the earthly realm. Creation myths tell how the gods ordered the cosmos, but many of them also show a progression from the creation of the universe to the founding of kingship. In Egyptian myth, for instance, the creator god Atum emerged from chaos, separated from the earth and retreated to the sky, and then put his power to work in the world by giving the earthly rulers a divine right to fight the forces of chaos. The noted religious scholar Mircea Eliade asserts that the separation of earth and sky established a relationship between gods and humans, and that this necessitated the need for an intermediary.When the creator god ascended to the sky, he needed an earthly power in which to manifest his own power and essence. So he manifested himself as king, pharaoh, or emperor, a ruler who often held the position of priest and who bridged the gap between earth and sky. See also: Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; Enthronement, Rites of; Funerals and Mortuary Rituals; Heavens and Kingship; Kingly Body; Monarchy Formation, Myths of; Myth and Folklore; Sacral Birth and Death; Sacred Kingships. FURTHER READING

Andrews, Tamra. Legends of the Earth, Sea, and Sky: An Encyclopedia of Nature Myths. Santa Barbara: ABCCLIO, 1998. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns of Comparative Religion, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1958. Leeming, David Adams. Encyclopedia of Creation Myths. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1994.

EAST ASIAN DYNASTIES The kingdoms and dynasties of China, Japan, and Korea, which have historically been cohesive despite their very pronounced national differences. The three countries share centuries-old ties based on ei-

East Asian Dynasties ther shared ethnic origins or shared values adopted from Chinese culture and religion, or both. The East Asian kingdoms ruled over an amalgam of peoples shaped by ancient migrations and centuries of conquest. Not all these disparate peoples were Chinese, but their common history was so old that their common references created an identifiable grouping. Within that grouping, each country— China, Japan, Korea—evolved into a unique nation displaying deep national pride. Geographically, East Asia encompasses the regions of northeastern and eastern China, the Korean Peninsula, and Japan. This area is in the nontropical monsoon belt above the more tropical regions of Southeast Asia. The region includes many relatively low mountain ranges separated by small, irregular plains and alluvial lowlands. The monsoon climate and many mountainous areas of East Asia are factors of historical importance to regional travel, agricultural advances, military campaigns, and fortress building, among other East Asian endeavors.

EAST ASIAN CONFLICTS Historically, the national consciousness of the three East Asian countries was forged by the ability of each society within the region to resist invasion by its neighbors, either alone or in shifting alliances with each other or against each other. For example, in the early fourth century, the Koguryo and Paekche kingdoms of Korea initially expelled the Chinese from the Korean Peninsula. Then they and the Silla kingdom (the third of Korea’s “Three Kingdoms”) waged war among themselves until the Silla kingdom won out in 668, with the support of the T’ang Dynasty of China. Yet it was the earlier victories of the Koguyro kingdom over invading Chinese armies that had preserved Korea’s autonomy for the future. In 612, the Koguyro rulers had successfully repulsed a massive invasion of over a million Chinese soldiers led by the Sui emperor of China. Again in 642, the Koguyro forces triumphed over the invading armies of the T’ang emperor,Tai Tsung (r. 626–649). In the mid-fourth century, the Japanese raided Korea and established a foothold colony on the tip of the Korean Peninsula, which encouraged Korean migration to Japan for more than two centuries. The Korean “continentals” brought with them to Japan the silkworm and metal working, and they con-

251

The social organization of the kingdoms of East Asia owed much to the ideals of Confucianism, the philosophy established by the Chinese scholar Confucius in the sixth and fifth centuries b.c.e. This Korean painting, dating from the seventeenth century c.e., depicts a Confucian classroom.

tributed greatly to raising the level of education of the early Japanese aristocracy. In the late sixteenth century, Japan’s abortive efforts to conquer China via Korea earned Japan centuries of enmity from the Koreans. Organized by the Japanese samurai warlord, Toyotomi Hideyoshi (r. 1536–1598), the invasions in 1592 and 1597 by an army of over 200,000 Japanese nobles and retainers left Korea devastated and dependent upon assistance from the ruling emperor of the Chinese Ming dynasty. Native Chinese and Korean rulers were overrun in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by the Yuan dynasty established by the Mongol leader Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294), the grandson of the great Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227). Korea remained a vassal state to China from 1231 to 1336. Japan, on the other hand, resisted the Mongol invasions.Two massive invasions by Kublai Khan’s forces in 1274 and 1281 were repulsed by spirited Japanese

252

East Asian Dynasties

CHINESE DYNASTIES (1766 B.C.E.–1912 C.E.)

Sui Dynasty* T’ang Dynasty*

581–618 618–907

Shang (Yin) Dynasty* Western Chou Dynasty*

Five Dynasties Period

1766–1045 B.C.E. 1045–771 B.C.E.

Later Liang Dynasty

907-–37

Eastern Chou Dynasty* 770–249 B.C.E. Ch’in Dynasty* 221–207 B.C.E. Western Han Dynasty* 207 B.C.E.–9 C.E. Hsin Dynasty 9–24 Eastern Han Dynasty* 25–220

Later T’ang Dynasty

923–937

Later Chin Dynasty

937–947

Later Han Dynasty

947–951

Later Chou Dynasty

951–960

Northern Sung Dynasty* 960–1127 Southern Sung Dynasty* 1127–1279 Yuan (Mongol) Dynasty* 1206–1368

Three Kingdoms Period Wei Dynasty Minor Han Dynasty Wu Dynasty Western Chin Dynasty

220–266 221–263 222–280 266–316

317–420 420–479 479–502 502–557 557–589

Northern Dynasties Northern Wei Dynasty* Eastern Wei Dynasty Northern Ch’i Dynasty Western Wei Dynasty Northern Chou Dynasty

1368–1644

Ch’ing (Manchu) Dynasty*

1644–1912

KOREAN KINGDOMS AND DYNASTIES (37 B.C.E.-1910 C.E.) Koguryo Kingdom* 37 B.C.E-668 C.E.

Southern Dynasties Eastern Chin Dynasty Liu Sung Dynasty Southern Ch’i Dynasty Liang Dynasty* Ch’en Dynasty

Ming Dynasty*

386–534 534–550 550–557 535–557 557–581

Paekche Kingdom* 18 B.C.E.–661 C.E. Silla Kingdom*

57 B.C.E.–935 C.E.

Koryo Kingdom*

918 C.E.–1392 C.E. (Wang Dynasty)

Choson Kingdom (Yi Dynasty)*

1392–1910

JAPANESE IMPERIAL COURTS AND SHOGUNATES (ca. 40 B.C.E.–Present) Imperial Courts Yamato Dynasty* ca. 40 B.C.E–707 C.E. Nara Emperors*

707–781

253

East Asian Dynasties

Japanese Imperial Courts (continued) Heian Emperors* Kamakura Emperors

Modern Emperors

1867–present

781–1185 1183–1318

Dual Dynasties Southern Court

1318–1392

Northern Court

1331–1382

Muromachi Emperors

1382–1586

Tokugawa Emperors

1586–1867

resistance, aided by two enormous storms that engulfed the Mongol fleets. The typhoons were called kamikaze (divine winds), and their appearance to foil the Mongol fleets reinforced the enduring Japanese belief that the gods were protecting their land.

POST-FIFTEENTH CENTURY From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, most East Asian rulers imposed upon their realms strict isolation from the Western world as well as from each other. During this period, the countries of the region enjoyed relative peace under formal, strict, hierarchical regimes and increasingly self-centered, if not corrupt, leaders. While Western missionaries, traders, and U.S. gunboat diplomacy successfully forced China and Japan to reopen the gates of East Asia in the last half of the nineteenth century, Korea resisted Western demands. However, by 1874, Japan was strong enough to force Korea to grant extra favorable trading terms and privileges; similar Korean treaties followed with the Europeans and Americans. By the end of the nineteenth century, Meiji Japan had once again demonstrated the nation’s ability to study, learn, absorb, and internalize foreign ideas and influences, this time from the West.Well on the way to becoming a major industrial and military power of the twentieth century, Japan was victorious in the armed clash with China over Korea during the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) and again in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) fought over Korea and Manchuria. Korea became a colony of Japan in 1910, ending more than five hundred years of independent rule. It would remain a colony until the end of World War II.

Shogunates Kamakura Shogunate*

1192–1333

Ashikaga Shogunate*

1338–1573

Tokugawa Shogunate*

1603–1868

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

SHARED CULTURAL VALUES Across the ages, East Asian culture has been marked by Korea and Japan’s willingness to borrow from China. Korean and Japanese leaders, together with their societies, regularly incorporated Chinese ideas, institutions, religion, art, and other cultural influences without sacrificing their own distinctive national cultures. Both Korea and Japan adopted the Chinese characters for their written script, even though their languages were structurally different from Chinese. It is generally acknowledged that the Koreans passed the Chinese character script to the Japanese sometime around the early to mid-fifth century, even though it was likely not unknown in Japan as early as the first century. The influence of Chinese literature and culture in the East Asian kingdoms reached a high point during the T’ang dynasty (618–907). During the Nara Period in Japan (710–794), the Japanese elite looked to China for cultural and political inspiration, and the Japanese imperial court maintained extensive contact with China via embassies of several hundred men. Having subjugated both the Paekche and Koguryo kingdoms in Korea, the ruler of Silla then forced out the Chinese in 676 and created the Unified Silla kingdom on the Korean Peninsula, which lasted until 935.The military success of the Silla against the Chinese provided the frame for a unique, local culture with historical writings, elegant pottery, and a distinct architectural style. At the end of the eighth century, both the new Japanese capital at Heian-kyo (modern Kyoto) and the new Korean capital of Kyongju were laid out to mirror the grid of the T’ang capital city of Chang-an.

254

East Asian Dynasties

Nonetheless, to the Japanese and Korean aristocracies, China was at times an inspiration and at other times simply a bother. By the late ninth century, for example, the leading Japanese scholar of Chinese literature, Sugawara Michizane, refused an ambassadorship to China because he claimed that China had nothing more to teach Japan.

Social Organization The social organization of the East Asian nations at key historical moments owed much to the classical Chinese Confucian model and was deeply influenced across the centuries by both Confucian and Buddhist tenets of law, ethics, and class organization. Both Japan and Korea incorporated Chinese Confucian concepts of centralized administration and the appointment of “qualified” government officials. Korea closely modeled its official examination system upon the Chinese Confucian model but went even further by requiring not one but two examinations. The centralized governmental institutions set up in Japan during the Taika Reforms of 645, which rapidly evolved into a highly centralized system of administration, were copied from the Chinese Confucian model with significant Japanese modifications. But the rule of merit in Japan more often than not lost out to powerful traditions of clan loyalty and privilege.

Land and Taxes Historically, the East Asian societies were land-based economies that relied on hierarchical bureaucratic institutions to collect local taxes and maintain order at the local levels. Sometimes, the central government would claim all land, which it would then allocate for production; sometimes local aristocracy or local administrators controlled or owned the land, and collections proceeded “up the ladder.” Generally, direct or indirect taxes on rice and agricultural production subsidized the central authorities and the military in East Asia and weighed heavily on the peasants and rural villages.The tension and competition between ruling houses and clans and the outlying aristocracy, administrators, and/or tax-exempt landowners is a recurring theme in the history of the East Asian kingdoms.

CONFUCIANISM The all-encompassing Chinese humanistic philosophy of Confucianism is a way of life rather than an

organized religion. Classical Confucianism never prevented its East Asian followers from also being Buddhists, Christians, Shintoists, Taoists, or adherents of any other religious tradition. Along with Buddhism, Confucian teaching permeates the culture and institutions of East Asian kingdoms. It is based upon the ideas and writings of Chinese scholar/philosopher Confucius, which date from the sixth and fifth centuries b.c.e. Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism have been continually studied and reinterpreted over the centuries in East Asia. It is extremely difficult to summarize outside a given historical context the precise relationship between Confucian moral idealism and the concrete social and political realities of any given era in any given East Asian society. Confucian philosophy focuses on ideas of harmony as related to law, economics, and politics, and constantly redefines the proper relationships between ruler and ruled, between justice and obligation. Confucianism usually implies a strong central government, a ruler of virtue, a viable court system, and an educated bureaucracy of responsible administrators.The classical Chinese model prescribed rigid qualifying examinations for civil servants. After periods of social and political unrest, East Asian rulers frequently invoked Confucianism to reestablish order and the authority of the central government. For example, the founder of the Ming dynasty in China immediately reinstituted the rituals of Confucianism, which had been neglected or corrupted by the preceding Yuan dynasty, which was of “foreign” Mongolian origin. Intent upon centralizing control over the aristocracy, the first ruler in the Yi dynasty of Korea,T’ae-jo (r. 1392–1398), officially adopted Confucian ethics in place of Buddhism. He also set up Confucian learning centers and adopted the Chinese system of civil examinations. The social organization of the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan (1603–1868) was a reaction against the nearly three centuries of ceaseless civil conflict that preceded it. The Japanese warlord, Tokugawa Ieyasu (r. 1603–1605), instituted a new, rigid hierarchy of four social classes, each with its own subclasses and its designated role in society—warrior, peasant, artisan, and merchant. The peasants represented the bulk of the Japanese population, produced the rice, and in the neo-Confucian philosophy were more important than artisans or merchants because they

E du c at i on o f K i n g s were the essential “producers.”The Meiji restoration in Japan after 1868 banned Buddhist practices from imperial ceremonies, in favor of Confucian and Shinto rites that institutionalized the role of the divine emperor. Confucianism probably reached maximum influence in China under the Ch’ing dynasty (1644– 1912). Ch’ing rulers based their highly centralized political system of control on Confucian ideals.

BUDDHISM Buddhism is the other major ideology that permeates East Asian thinking and history. The religion originated in India, and it first took hold in China during the second century alongside Taoism and Confucianism. Buddhist ideas became influential in fourthcentury China, although Buddhism suffered a setback in China during a period of persecution in 845 under the T’ang revival of Confucianism. The Korean kingdom of Koguryo adopted Buddhism as the state religion in 372 and set up the National Confucian Academy. About the same time, the ruler of the Paekche kingdom supported the introduction of Buddhism. The state religion of the Silla kingdom was Buddhism, and some of the finest Buddhist monuments were built in southeastern Korea during this period. Although Korean refugees introduced Buddhism to Japan as early as the fourth century, the Paekche ruler of Korea officially introduced it to the Japanese imperial court in the mid-sixth century with a gift of sacred writings and a grand Buddhist image. Japanese prince Shotoku (r. 574–622) converted and championed the introduction of things both Chinese and Buddhist to Japan. The Japanese emperor Shomu (r. 724–749) was a devout Buddhist who blamed the suffering of the people on his own inadequacies. He commissioned Buddhist temples for each province of Japan as well as the imperial capital at Nara.The Buddhist centers were meant to be the physical instruments that unified the spiritual and political realms. The cultural legacy of the Japanese warrior society from the Ashikaga shogunate through the Tokugawa shogunate reflected the Zen Buddhist ideals of simplicity, restraint, discipline, and meditation—in contrast to almost constant outside disorder. Buddhist monasteries in East Asia were often wealthy, powerful institutions that controlled their

255

own land and sometimes their own military forces. Historically, there was a recurring tension in East Asia between the Buddhist strongholds and the political rulers, leading from time to time to repression or destruction of the monasteries. In 1392, for example, the founder of the Yi (Choson) dynasty of Korea confiscated Buddhist temple lands and set up strict controls over Buddhist monks. The Japanese samurai warlord Oda Nobunaga burned out the Mount Hiei Buddhist monastery in 1571, slaughtering about three thousand individuals, and in 1574, he burned the Buddhist complex at Nagashima, home of the fanatical Ikko sect of Buddhists, massacring an estimated twenty thousand men, women, and children. See also: Buddhism and Kingship; Koguryo Kingdom; Paekche Kingdom; Silla Kingdom.

EDO KINGDOM. See Benin Kingdom EDUCATION OF KINGS The schooling required to prepare the prince (and sometimes the princess) to rule the kingdom. The education of kings has two goals: to prepare the heir apparent to be an effective ruler; and to embed into the consciousness of the heir apparent a profound and enlightened understanding of what is expected of the next monarch.The first goal encompasses the skills needed to be an effective administrator, legislator, judge, and/or mediator; the second, the development of personal qualities of leadership and honor. Historically, the two goals of princely education are neither synonymous nor even necessarily complementary. The content of the curriculum for a king-to-be is determined by the political and religious philosophies of the society into which the prince is born, by the beliefs of those closest to the throne, and by the economic trends and realities of the day. How much history or fine arts, how many and which languages, how much music or dancing, how much poetry or literature, how much science or religious philosophy, how much geography or commerce, how much math and engineering, how much economics and politics, how much horseback riding and shooting—are all weighted by time and place in the royal curriculum,

256

E du c at i on o f K i n g s

even when the student shows distinct personal interests and aptitudes.

SOCIAL CONTRACT The obligations of a ruler to his people form the basis of the social contract. High on the list of subjects that should be studied are the arts of war and diplomacy necessary to a nation’s survival. Equally important in learning the fine art of governing is an awareness of the popular expectation, or tenuous hope, that rulers will be wise in the choice of advisers, fair in rendering justice, and firm in maintaining order. Kings must learn when and how to observe popular cultural taboos and to respect the proprieties of court life down to the finest detail: Do they eat alone or at the head of the table? How must they dress in public and at court? How are their subjects allowed to approach them? How many temples must they build to atone for national misfortunes? What sports please the populace? What earns the loyalty of the nobles? What sacrifices do they owe the populace?

APPOINTED TUTORS Historically, it was unusual for a crown prince to be enrolled in a formal school or university; instead, learning took place at a royal palace or in special classrooms. In addition, it was unusual for the ruling king or queen to personally oversee the day-to-day training of the royal heir, no matter how involved the current ruler may be in shaping the curriculum. Whether for a child king awaiting coronation at maturity or a grown prince assuming the throne at the death of the former ruler, the education of a designated heir has been generally placed in the hands of nurses, tutors, doctors, regents, queen mothers, councilors, wealthy courtiers, powerful politicians, and/or religious leaders and sages. Such arrangements foster intrigue and plotting at court among the prince’s entourage and the ruler’s councilors and are the informal base of the heir’s political education. Both the two leading European Renaissance treatises on the education of kings—The Prince (1513) by Niccolò Machiavelli, and Education of a Christian Prince (1516) by Desiderius Erasmus—stress the necessity of giving the heir apparent the ability to recognize and resist sycophants and flatterers. Neither Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547) nor Peter the Great of Russia (r. 1682–1725) was educated as an heir apparent but rather with other royal children, and both took the thrones only after their

older brothers’ untimely deaths. Their biographers often cite this fact when describing their inquisitive intellects, their personal confidence, and their athletic prowess, implying that both were extremely lucky to have escaped the stultifying atmosphere in which their brothers were trained to be kings. The court of child-king Louis XIV (r. 1643– 1715) in France was turbulent during the regency of the queen mother, Anne of Austria, and her adviser, Cardinal Mazarin, and the politics of the time provided the Sun-King with an entirely different set of lessons from his formal schooling. The court of Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189) and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine held literature, learning, and music in very high esteem, which may have inspired the restless adventures of their children, Richard I the Lionheart (r. 1189–1199) and his younger brother, John (r. 1199–1216).

DIVINE DESCENT Under a “sacred kingship,” kingship may be divinely bestowed upon the descendants of the gods or divinely blessed by the sanction of religion, or the ruler may be considered the personification of a divine being. When the king is considered a divine being, the religious leaders control the king’s schooling, and usually a mystical or cult relationship exists between the ruler and the priests, as with, for example, the Incan and Aztec rulers and the Egyptian pharoahs. Tribal myths and rituals play a key role in this case, and the heir is anointed via ritual initiations and mystical ceremonies. Even in modern monarchies, vestiges of religious ritual permeate coronation oaths and prayers. On the other hand, divine rulers, such as the puppet emperors of Japan during the period of the shogunates, were sometimes more important as an icon of legitimacy than as a sacred ruling force. For centuries up to the Meiji restoration in 1868, Japanese emperors were educated to their ceremonial roles, being highly trained in refined cultural arts like the tea ceremony or haiku poetry, but lacking training in the political or military arts.

CHRISTIAN KINGS In Christian kingdoms, the Church sanctioned the divine rights of kings and laid out the monarch’s obligation to defend the faith, maintain order, protect the poor, render justice, and protect the realm from its enemies. In addition to the religious responsibili-

E dwa r d I ties, these kingly duties were part of the instruction of the Christian princes. During the medieval period in Europe (ca. late 400s–early 1500s), the lessons of chivalric duty between lords and vassals were crucial parts of a royal education.The king was a lord among lords fighting for his realms, and his military might depended as much upon maintaining the support of the noble knights as upon his own skill on horseback with a lance and sword. By the seventeenth century, the curriculum of kings, like that of the European universities and upper classes, embraced the concepts of rationalism enunciated by French philosopher René Descartes: learning was based on reason as the source of all knowledge. Over the eighteenth century, secularism grew, and the curriculum expanded to include the sciences and courses taught in the popular languages instead of Latin or Greek. Pedagogy became an intellectual discipline on its own.

HEREDITY OR ELECTION Elected rulers must be educated in politics and diplomacy as well as administrative and military competence. There are fewer elected rulers in history than those born to the throne. Such rulers tend to be found in societies that are not overly hierarchical and that have multiple seats of power. In Europe, for example, elected rulers were mostly the earlier kings who rose to power after the decline of the Roman Empire, including the Holy Roman emperor. Hereditary kings, on the other hand, are of necessity well schooled in the dynasties and families of other royal and aristocratic houses. They are also schooled in the art of procreation, for the royal marriage has two explicit goals: to acquire lands by marriage; and to produce an heir to hold the realm together. The rules of marriage and inheritance are fundamental to the culture of each monarchy and contribute greatly to treacheries such as coups, assassination, abductions, and palace conspiracies. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Consorts, Royal; Enthronement, Rites of; Inheritance, Royal; Legitimacy. FURTHER READING

Erasmus, Desiderius. Education of a Christian Prince. Trans. Neil M. Cheshire and Michael J. Heath. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

257

Marvick, Elizabeth Wirth. Louis XIII:The Making of a King. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Painter, Sidney. French Chivalry: Chivalric Ideas and Practices in Mediaeval France. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969.

EDWARD I (1239–1307 C.E.) King of England (r. 1272–1307), known also as Edward Longshanks, who embodied most of the kingly attributes admired by the people of the time. Edward I joined a Crusade to the Holy Land, administered justice and laws fairly to his people, and ruthlessly campaigned to expand and protect what he saw as his birthright. The futures of Wales and Scotland were particularly affected by his actions. Born in 1239 to King Henry III (r. 1216–1272) of the Angevin dynasty and to Eleanor of Provence, Edward was raised in a disciplined and highly cultured environment. At age fifteen, he traveled to Spain to meet and marry the nine-year-old Eleanor of Castile. When he returned, his father bequeathed him the royal holdings in Ireland,Wales, the Channel Islands, and Gascony (in France) to support him and his household.This gift presaged Edward’s future preoccupations with the borders of the English realm. Henry III was not a well-loved monarch, and Edward was embroiled in complex court intrigues at an early age. Henry’s brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort, was the most powerful of the king’s opponents, and for a brief time Edward allied with Montfort against his father. However, during the Baron’s War (1263–1267), Edward switched his allegiance back to his father and was captured by Montfort in 1265. Edward cleverly escaped and shortly thereafter defeated Montfort at the battle of Eavesham, ending Montfort’s threat and his life. In 1270, Edward I pledged to travel to the Holy Land to join Louis IX (r. 1226–1270) in a Crusade. When he reached Palestine, Edward learned that Louis had died shortly earlier in Tunis, and the remaining Crusaders were quarrelsome and in complete disarray. Undaunted, Edward pledged to raise the siege at Acre (which he did) and to prosecute the holy war against the Muslims completely on his own, if necessary. Edward was partially successful in rallying the

258

E dwa r d I

King Edward I of England left a legacy of accomplishment in civic administration, law, justice, and conquest. Portrayed here in a nineteenth-century engraving, Edward was said to embody the best and noblest attributes of a medieval monarch.

Christians—enough so that the Egyptian sultan Baibars hired a member of the Hashashin (a secret Islamic sect) to assassinate this troublesome newcomer. Edward foiled the assassin’s attack but was poisoned grabbing a poison-covered blade during the struggle. Miraculously, he survived but decided to return to England. When he reached Sicily, he learned that his father was dead. Edward hastened back to England and was crowned king at Westminster in 1272. During his reign, Edward determined to enforce the English Crown’s claims to all of the British Isles. He began with a successful war in Wales (1277–1282) against Llewelyn ap Gruffyd (r. 1246–1282), prince of Gwynedd, who had insulted him by refusing to come to his coronation. Edward raised a large sum to build a ring of defensive castles along the northern Welsh coast and defeated the prince at every encounter. Llewellyn’s death in battle in 1282 marked the end of Welsh autonomy. Edward’s other passion, and his most lasting con-

tribution, was his skill and devotion to administration and parliamentary procedure. He summoned Parliament twice a year until 1286.Then, in 1295, he summoned the so-called Model Parliament, which was the first ever to have representatives not just from the barons, the knights, and the Church, but from every borough and town in England. Although his primary purpose in summoning these Parliaments was to raise funds for his treasury, Edward was assiduous as a lawmaker as well. His legacies include the regulating of wool; levying just and reasonable taxes and licenses; curbing corruption by local magistrates and officials; codifying and regularizing local laws that defined royal rights, privileges, and abuses; limiting feudal rights and entailments (thus restricting the power of the barons); and establishing equal rights for all. When the Scottish king, Alexander III (r. 1249–1286), died in 1286 and his heir Margaret, the Maid of Norway, died four years later, the Scottish nobles asked Edward to decide the Scottish succession. Edward’s beloved Eleanor died the same year, and with her passed one of his two best advisers. Edward claimed sovereign lordship of Scotland and decided in favor of the claimant John Balliol. In 1294, Edward’s longtime chancellor, Robert Burnell, died; his death removed the last check on Edward’s strong will. Shortly thereafter, Edward summoned Balliol to Westminster on a pretense. Offended, the Scottish nobles approached King Philip IV of France and signed an alliance against England and Edward. Edward retaliated in 1296 by sacking Berwick-upon-Tweed, an important Scottish gateway to the Lowlands and the North Sea coast. He then took Edinburgh and stole the Stone of Scone, a relic that was required for Scottish coronations. Faced with this humiliating loss, John Balliol surrendered Scotland to Edward and retired to exile in France. Returning victorious from Scotland, Edward faced huge debts, rebellious nobles, and a recalcitrant clergy. He gladly signed a treaty with Philip IV of France in 1303 in which the English claim to Gascony in southwestern France was affirmed. However, Edward’s policies in Scotland continued to haunt him. He narrowly defeated the popular rebel leader, William Wallace, at Falkirk in 1298. But one of his hand-picked Scots, Robert the Bruce (r. 1306–1329), rebelled and was crowned king of Scotland in 1306.

E dwa r d I I On his way to another campaign in Scotland in 1307, Edward died at age sixty-eight. He was succeeded by his son, Edward II (r. 1307–1327). For the next two hundred years, Edward’s black marble tomb in Westminster held burning candles commemorating this remarkable king’s achievements. See also: Angevin Dynasties; Edward II; English Monarchies; Llywelyn ap Gruffydd; Philip IV, the Fair; Plantagenet Dynasty; Robert I (Robert the Bruce); Scottish Kingdoms; Welsh Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Durant, Will. The Age of Faith. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950. Prestwich, Michael. Three Edwards: War and State in England, 1272–1377. London: Routledge, 1980.

EDWARD II (1284–1327 C.E.) King of England (r. 1307–1327) whose policies and favoritism toward certain retainers led to rebellion and his eventual abdication from the throne. Edward was the son of King Edward I (r. 1272–1307) and Eleanor of Castile. Born in Wales, he became the first English heir to the throne to receive the title prince of Wales, which he received in 1301. As heir to the throne, and later as ruler of England, Edward II received little respect from his contemporaries. His father, Edward I Longshanks, possessed all the medieval kingly requisites: physical size and prowess, keen intellect, enormous appetites, and a ferocious temper. Edward, on the other hand, was a beautiful, meek, and sensitive individual who preferred bricklaying to swordplay and conversation to coercion. Longshanks’ bitter disappointment in his son is recorded in a number of chronicles from the period. Edward I not only dominated his son in terms of character, but he even chose his son’s wife, Isabella of France. Isabella was the daughter of the notoriously cunning King Philip IV of France (r. 1285–1314). Her abilities and temperament proved equal to her father’s and, eventually, too much for her hapless husband. Caught between the powerful characters of his father and his wife, Edward II was often considered a weak ruler; his own weaknesses and failings did little to contradict that view.

259

Edward’s first great failing was the trust he put in Piers Gaveston, an intimate friend and adviser whom Edward raised to the earldom of Cornwall. Edward seems to have been the only person who saw great things in the new earl. Gaveston was intensely disliked and resisted by the other English aristocracy, partly because of Edward’s favoritism toward him. Despite Edward’s continued but ineffectual attempts to protect his friend, Gaveston was murdered by the earl of Warwick in 1312. Edward mourned Gaveston, whom tradition has labeled as Edward’s lover, but Edward did not punish Warwick for the deed. In 1314, Edward decided to continue his father’s war on Scotland. He raised a great army and marched on Stirling Castle, but was beaten by the forces of Robert the Bruce in the vale of Bannockburn on June 24, 1314. It was the worst defeat of English forces on their own island since the defeat of King Harold II Godwinson (r. 1066) by the forces of William the Conqueror at the battle of Hastings in 1066. This catastrophe in Scotland did not enhance Edward’s reputation, and he had increasing difficulty finding any English barons who would support him or his policies. Two who did—Hugh Le Despenser, the earl of Winchester, and his son, also named Hugh—became Edward’s new court favorites. The Despensers gained increasing power, making them as unpopular as the ill-fated Piers Gaveston and leading in 1321 to a revolt against them led by Edward’s cousin, the earl of Lancaster. However, the revolt failed to remove the Despensers, who continued to dominate Edward. Meanwhile, Queen Isabella, alienated by Edward’s neglect toward her, was living with her brother in France.While there, she became the lover of Roger Mortimer, an English baron who had participated in the revolt against Despensers and afterward escaped to France. Isabella and Mortimer gathered forces and invaded England in 1326. They trapped and assassinated the Despensers and captured Edward, forcing him to abdicate the throne. Imprisoned, Edward was murdered in 1327, no doubt at the orders of Isabella and Mortimer. Isabella proclaimed her son, the fifteen-year-old Edward III (r. 1327–1377), the new king and assumed the role of regent until 1330. See also: Dethronement; Edward I; Edward III; Homosexuality and Kingship; Plantagenet,

260

E dwa r d I I

House of; Regicide; Robert I (Robert the Bruce).

EDWARD III (1312–1377 C.E.) King of England (r. 1327–1377) of the House of Plantagenet, who is often cited as the model for medieval chivalry and kingship. Although considered a role model, Edward began and presided over the early stages of the ruinous Hundred Years’ War with France (1337–1453). Ultimately, the damages caused by that war, as well as the ravages caused by the first incursions of the Black Death into England, marked Edward’s reign more indelibly than his chivalrous demeanor.

EARLY LIFE AND RULE Edward III was born in 1312 to King Edward II of England (r. 1307–1327) and to Isabella, the daughter of King Philip IV of France (r. 1285–1314) and sister of King Louis X of France (r. 1314–1316). In 1325, Edward was taken to France by his mother, who had become alienated from her husband because of his neglect. Edward became king of England two years later, at age fifteen, when his mother and her supporters overthrew his father, forced Edward II to abdicate, and later killed the king. Isabella and her lover, Roger Mortimer, ruled England as regents for three years. When Edward turned eighteen, however, he rebelled against the regents, executed Roger, and sequestered away his mother. As Isabella’s son, Edward III had a claim on the throne of France as well. He first claimed the French crown in 1328 upon the death of Charles IV (r. 1322–1328). He renewed his claim again in 1337, during the reign of Philip VI (r. 1328–1350). He launched two unsuccessful invasions of France in 1339 and in 1340, and, undeterred, named himself king of France in 1340, despite the fact that Philip VI still reigned. Edward’s actions mark the beginning of the Hundred Years’ War, which eventually would decimate the populations of both England and France and which would not be resolved until well into the fifteenth century.

WAR, PLAGUE, AND PARLIAMENT Edward III was himself a strong and successful warrior, but he relied primarily on the abilities of his son and heir, Edward (called the Black Prince), for the

promotion of his war in France. Edward III’s most famous battle against the French was the victory at Crècy in 1346, where a larger force of French troops armed with crossbows was overwhelmed by the English and their longbows. A catastrophe even more costly in human lives than the Hundred Years’War began during the reign of Edward III: the coming of the Black Death, the term used at the time for the bubonic plague. The first outbreak of the plague in England occurred in 1348, and it returned with devastating effect in 1361 and again in 1369. The Black Death killed millions of people; the population losses it incurred had dramatic cultural and economic effects throughout Europe. In England, the depredations suffered by the populace as a result of both the war and plague were so great that Edward enacted the Statute of Labourers in 1351 in a futile attempt to freeze wages and prices.The population and, therefore, the labor pool had shrunk so considerably that serfs and laborers were able to begin “asking a price” for their work because of the shortage of workers. The increased power of feudal serfs and laborers was ultimately to prove a mortal blow to the feudal system. Edward’s military campaigns resulted in an important new development in the English Parliament. During Edward’s reign, the House of Commons gained increasing power in Parliament. The king’s need for revenue to pay for his wars enabled the Commons to assert their right to have a say in matters of taxation, and Edward was forced to grant them concessions in order to secure support.

FINAL YEARS Edward’s wife, Philippa of Hainault, died in 1369, leaving the king without one of his trusted advisers. Meanwhile, his son, the Black Prince, was occupied in the wars in France. As a result, during his later years, Edward was guided by two advisers. The first was his son John of Gaunt (father of the future King Henry IV), who led his aging, more pliable father in matters of statecraft and the disposition of laws and privileges. The second was Edward’s mistress, Alice Perrers, who, to the dismay of the court, directed the king’s attentions in all personal matters. When Edward died in 1377, he had been on the throne for fifty years. He had established the Order of the Garter in 1342 to promote chivalry, had had his own Round Table built, conducted innumerable

E dwa r d V I tournaments and pageants, and had refused an offer to become the Holy Roman emperor in 1348. In short, he had been a model of late medieval kingship. On the other hand, he had begun a ruinous, unwinnable war against France, had the bad luck to be king during the worst outbreak of plague that England had yet known, and had generally lost the confidence of his people. Edward’s oldest son and heir, Edward, the Black Prince, predeceased his father by one year.The king was thus succeeded by his grandson, the ten-year-old Richard II (r. 1377–1399), who was the son of the Black Prince. See also: Disease and Royalty; Edward I; Edward II; English Monarchies; Henry IV (England); Literature and Kingship; Military Roles, Royal; Philip IV, the Fair; Plantagenet, House of; Richard II. FURTHER READING

Ormrod, W.M. The Reign of Edward III. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

EDWARD THE CONFESSOR

261

and other issues led to the exile in 1051 of the powerful Anglo-Saxon earl, Godwin of Wessex. Godwin raised an army and forced Edward to yield him his former political power and to exile some of the Norman nobles. After Godwin died in 1053, his son, Harold Godwinson, became the most powerful man in England. Overshadowed by Harold in political matters, Edward the Confessor withdrew to a life of religious devotion and focused his energy on supervising the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey in London. Edward married Edith, the daughter of Godwin of Wessex, in 1045 when he was forty-two years old and she was at most twenty-five. The couple had no children, and there were rumors that the marriage had never been consummated. As a result, Edward had no direct heir to the throne. When he died on January 5, 1066, a rivalry between Harold II Godwinson and Duke William of Normandy (William the Conqueror) to succeed him led to the battle of Hastings and the Norman conquest of England. See also: Alfred the Great; English Monarchies; Norman Kingdoms; Wessex, Kingdom of; William I, the Conqueror.

(ca. 1003–1066 C.E.)

King of Wessex and England (r. 1042–1066), who was known more for his piety than his effectiveness in ruling. Edward was canonized a saint in 1161; it was because of his piety that he is known as “the Confessor.” His lack of an heir led to the Norman Conquest in 1066. Edward was the son of Ethelred II the Unready (r. 978–1016) and Emma of Normandy. After the death of Ethelred in 1016, Edward’s mother married Cnut the Great (r. 1016–1035) of Denmark, and Edward was sent to be raised at the home of his uncle in Normandy. After the death of Cnut in 1035, Edward unsuccessfully challenged Cnut’s sons to claim the English throne; the title eventually was won by Edward’s half brother, King Harthacnut (r. 1040– 1042). When Harthacnut died without an heir in 1042, Edward, a descendant of Alfred the Great (r. 871–899), was the chosen heir to the English throne. He was crowned at Canterbury in 1042. Edward’s life in Normandy prior to becoming king had a significant influence on him, and he bestowed favors on Normans at the expense of the Anglo-Saxon nobles in England. Disputes over this

EDWARD VI (1537–1553 C.E.) King of England (r. 1547–1553), a member of the Tudor dynasty, whose brief and youthful reign is noted primarily for advancing Protestantism in England. Edward was the only son of King Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) and the king’s third wife, Jane Seymour. When Henry VIII died in 1547, Edward succeeded him as Edward VI. Edward was only nine years old at the time. As a result of Edward’s youth, his ministers governed more than he did, although his involvement did increase as he matured. For the first few years of his reign, Edward’s uncle, Edward Seymour, the duke of Somerset, ruled as regent. After Somerset’s fall from power, he was replaced by John Dudley, the duke of Northumberland. Edward VI has a reputation for being deeply Protestant, but because of his youth, it is difficult to determine whether decisions regarding religion, as well as other matters, were his own or those of his ministers. Very early in his reign, in 1549, Somerset organized Protestant worship with the Act of Uni-

262

E dwa r d V I

formity, which required use of the Book of Common Prayer. Reaction to this religious change led to civil unrest between Protestants and Catholics in southwest England that same year. The rebellion was suppressed by military force. Unrest also arose in Norfolk in 1549; the issue was not religion, however, but the action of local landlords in setting high rents and enclosing public lands. Blamed for the civil unrest, the duke of Somerset lost power in 1549 and was executed in 1552. In 1550, John Dudley, the earl of Warwick and a former member of Henry VIII’s government, became lord president of the Royal Council. In 1551, he was named duke of Northumberland, and he became Edward’s regent the following year. Under Dudley, the Church of England issued a Second Prayer Book in 1552. It eliminated all Catholic dogma and practices from the Protestant service. Dudley also ordered the destruction of many objects used in the mass, as well as religious artwork with Catholic themes. Northumberland’s power depended on Edward’s kingship, and when Edward became sick in February 1553, Dudley’s position was in jeopardy. A combination of Protestant loyalty and Northumberland’s influence led Edward to declare that the succession would skip his half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth. Instead, the Crown would pass to Lady Jane Grey, a great-granddaughter of Henry VII (r. 1485–1509) and, conveniently, the daughter-in-law of the duke of Northumberland. Edward died in 1553 after a few months of illness, most likely a pulmonary infection. He was only fifteen years old. Lady Jane Grey was declared queen upon Edward’s death, but this was successfully challenged a short time later by Edward’s half-sister, Mary I (r. 1553–1558). See also: Elizabeth I; English Monarchies; Henry VIII; Mary I,Tudor;Tudor, House of.

EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES, ANCIENT (BEFORE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY) (ca. 3100–1570 B.C.E.) The first dynasties of ancient Egypt, important for establishing the country and bringing it to levels of great power and influence in the ancient Near East. The 3,000-year history of ancient Egypt’s dynas-

ties is one of endurance, vitality, and high culture. The kings of ancient Egypt, called pharaohs, were seen not as mere mortals but rather as god-kings whose power and authority within the kingdom were absolute and divinely given.

EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD Scholars have arranged the early Egyptian dynasties into periods, the first of which is called the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 3100–2755 b.c.e.) This period marks the unification of Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt and thus the beginning of a more centralized Egyptian kingdom. According to Egyptian tradition, Menes (r. ca. 3100–3066 b.c.e.) was responsible for bringing the two lands together around 3100 b.c.e. and is considered the first pharaoh of Egypt. Historians disagree, however, over whether Menes was an actual pharaoh, whether this was another name for the early pharaoh also known as Narmer, or whether the story of Menes was merely legend. Whatever the truth, Menes and the First dynasty (ca. 3100–2905 b.c.e.) is credited with building the first capital of Egypt at Memphis, near where Lower and Upper Egypt meet, and with successfully molding the variety of separate cultures along the Nile River into one cohesive country. Menes was believed to be descended from the Egyptian sun-god, Horus, who was usually represented as a falcon or a man with a falcon head.This First dynasty developed a calendar and encouraged the use of hieroglyphic writing. During the Third dynasty (ca. 2755–2680 b.c.e.), Pharaoh Djoser (r. ca. 2737–2717 b.c.e.) had his final resting place built at Sakkarah in the form of a step pyramid. This pyramid was the first large-scale structure built out of stone and is a testament to the mastery and technical skill of the architects and builders of the time. It also attests to the pharaoh’s place in society as a supreme ruler of enormous significance.

OLD KINGDOM The period known as the Old Kingdom (ca. 2680–2255 b.c.e.) started with the Fourth dynasty (ca. 2680–2544 b.c.e.). This was a time of great wealth, stability, and cultural advances in architecture and sculpture for Egypt. By this time, the pharaohs had garnered the respect not only of their own people, but also of those in the rest of the ancient Near East as well.

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t

263

their own and passed it along to family members. Great economic stress was prevalent at this time, caused by the huge expense of building pyramids. It is also believed that the climate began to change; a sustained period of drought along the Nile caused hardship and famine. All of these problems came to a head during the Sixth dynasty (ca. 2407–2255 b.c.e.), particularly during the long reign of the last important pharaoh of that dynasty, Pepy II (r. 2288–2194 b.c.e.). After Pepy’s death, there was little central power to hold the country together. The nomarchs took control, and Egypt was maintained as a separate feudal state in which land was held by vassals in return for political and military service to the pharaoh.The country now entered a weakened period known as the First Intermediate Period (ca. 2255–2035 b.c.e.).

FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

Construction of the pyramids at Giza was perhaps the greatest engineering feat of the ancient world. Built by the pharaohs of the Fourth dynasty between about 2589 and 2530 b.c.e., these colossal tombs were named by Greek and Roman authors as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

The Great Pyramids The Fourth dynasty is probably best known for the pyramids that were built during this time. Snefru (r. 2680–2585 b.c.e.), the first pharaoh of this dynasty, built a pyramid at Dahshur, and his son and successor, Khufu (r. 2585–2560 b.c.e.), built the Great Pyramid at Giza. It and the three other pyramids built in the same vicinity became known as marvels of the ancient world. During the Old Kingdom period, pharaohs were beginning to claim to be descended from the sungod, Re. It is thought that the pyramid design may have been inspired by this attention to the sun, perhaps with the top of the pyramid pointing upward to guide the pharaoh to his afterlife in the heavens.

Nomes and Nomarchs During the Old Kingdom period, Egypt was divided into districts called nomes that were ruled by nomarchs. Although the pharaohs initially appointed the nomarchs, they eventually came to see their power as

During this period, Egypt was divided in two. Nomarchs of the Ninth and Tenth dynasties (ca. 2235– 2035 b.c.e.) ruled from Herakleopolis in Lower Egypt. Somewhat simultaneously in Upper Egypt, monarchs of the Eleventh dynasty (ca. 2134–1991 b.c.e.) ruled from Thebes. The Upper and Lower Egyptian regimes warred with each other until the reign of Mentuhotep (r. ca. 2134–2118 b.c.e.) of the Theban Eleventh dynasty. Mentuhotep was able to conquer Herakleopolis with the help of the Nubians and to reunite the country.

MIDDLE KINGDOM The reunification of Upper and Lower Egypt under Mentuhotep marks the beginning of the so-called Middle Kingdom (ca. 2134–1786 b.c.e.) and a period of strength and growth for a united Egypt. The first pharaoh of the Twelfth dynasty (ca. 1991–1786 b.c.e.), Amenemhet I (r. ca.1991–1962 b.c.e.), founded a city near Memphis called Itjtawy, which he made his capital. He and his successors were responsible for conquering Nubia as far as the second cataract, and then they moved north into Palestine where trade was increased. The Twelfth dynasty was also a period of renewed creativity in the arts, and literature flourished as did sculpture and painting. Egypt was restored to greatness.

SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD The Thirteenth dynasty (ca. 1786–1668 b.c.e.) and Fourteenth dynasty (ca. 1720–1665 b.c.e.), how-

264

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t

ever, saw a weakening of royal power, and Egypt was invaded by a group of foreigners called the Hyksos— nomads who came from the northeast and settled near Egypt’s eastern border in the city of Avaris.The Hyksos established what is called the Fifteenth dynasty (ca. 1668–1560 b.c.e.), which was the Third dynasty of the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1680–1539 b.c.e.). The Sixteenth dynasty (ca. 1665–1565 b.c.e.) and Seventeenth dynasty (ca. 1668–1570 b.c.e.) occurred nearly simultaneously with the Fifteenth dynasty of the Hyksos. While the Hyksos maintained control of the middle and northern parts of Egypt, the smaller and less influential Sixteenth dynasty had some control over parts of the delta and middle Egypt and the Seventeenth controlled the south from a base in Thebes. See also: Djoser; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Hyksos Dynasty; Khufu; Menes; Nubian Kingdoms; Thebes Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Baines, John, and Jaromir Málek. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File, 1996. Casson, Lionel. Ancient Egypt. Alexandria,VA: TimeLife Books, 1978. Metz, Helen Chapin, ed. Egypt: A Country Study. 5th ed. Washington, DC: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 1991. Silverman, David P., ed. Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES, ANCIENT (EIGHTEENTH TO TWENTY-SIXTH) (ca. 1570–525 B.C.E.) Series of dynasties that included some of the most famous and important pharaohs of ancient Egypt. When the Eighteenth dynasty came to power in Egypt around 1570 b.c.e., the written record of Egyptian history was already some fifteen hundred years old, as many years as separate our own contemporary era from the fall of Rome. Egypt, from the Mediterranean Sea to Nubia at the cataracts of the Upper Nile River, was a single political, cultural, linguistic, and economic unit that had maintained its

integrity even under the foreign rule of the Hyksos dynasty. Nine hundred years later, by the end of the Twenty-fifth, or Kushite, dynasty, Egypt was still recognizably Egypt, but dramatic changes had occurred within the country and abroad. Egyptian independence, whether political or cultural, was no longer a given; in fact, it was not to last much beyond this era.

THE NEW KINGDOM AND THE EMPIRE Ahmose I (r. 1570–1546 b.c.e.) is considered the first pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty. His reign also inaugurated what historians call the New Kingdom. After throwing off the “Asiatic” Hyksos overlords of the Sixteenth dynasty, Egypt’s rulers made the fateful decision to build their own foreign empire, on the far side of the Sinai Desert. Ahmose ascended the throne as a child, while the Hyksos still ruled from their capital at Avaris in the Nile Delta. His mother, Ahhotep I, ruled as regent, following the tradition of effective, powerful women set by Tetisheri, grandmother of Ahmose. Ahmose’s wife Nefertari performed the same function during the childhood years of her son Amenophis I. All three women were revered after their deaths. As soon as Ahmose reached his maturity, he turned north and waged a determined five-year campaign against the Hyksos, gradually retaking the old northern capital of Memphis, the entire Nile Delta, and then the last remaining Hyksos strongholds in southern Palestine. Sailing south down the Nile, he restored Egyptian control over Nubia as well, and then he set about restoring the administration of government. Training of civil bureaucrats became more institutionalized. Many officeholders in the New Kingdom were appointees from the ranks of the military, as fewer offices were passed along within bureaucratic families. Ahmose probably extended Egyptian influence into the Ancient Near East. Cities in Syria are known to have paid tribute to his son, Amenhotep I (r. 1551–1524 b.c.e.). In any case, regular trade with the Near East resumed; prosperity and raw material imports led to an upsurge of artistic production. The New Kingdom monarchs were intensely devoted to the Theban god Amon-Re, whose priests apparently supported the new imperial policies. The spoils of war were transferred to the temple cults;

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t

This colossal statue shows the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV.A member of the Eighteenth Dynasty, he briefly revolutionized his people’s religion by focusing devotion on only one god. After his death, however, the Egyptians abandoned the new religion and returned to their old gods.

these funds financed a long succession of major temple and tomb construction projects. The New Kingdom avoided above-ground funeral monuments; nearly all its pharaohs were buried in concealed graves in the Valley of the Kings near Thebes. The next three pharaohs, Thutmose I (r. 1524– 1518 b.c.e.),Thutmose II (r. 1518–1504 b.c.e.), and Thutmose III (r. 1504–1450 b.c.e.) expanded and consolidated Egyptian power in Asia. Naval power played a role in these campaigns, as Egyptian ships ferried troops to Phoenician ports for deployment inland. Egypt’s influence was at its peak, as tribute poured in from Babylon,Assyria, and the Hittite Empire, but the dominant Mitanni kingdom was never actually defeated. Egyptian conquests in Syria and Palestine were not directly integrated into the Egyptian state. Garrisons were left to ensure loyalty and collect tribute, but local government remained in place.The sons of

265

local royal families were often educated at the Egyptian court before assuming local power as vassals of the empire. On the other hand, Nubia seems to have been fully incorporated at this time, its estates handed over to Egyptian temples, and its indigenous culture suppressed. A powerful woman played a role in this period as well. Hatshepsut (r. 1503–1483 b.c.e.), a daughter of Thutmose I, ruled as regent, and for a while as king, during the childhood of her stepson Thutmose III. She ruled for some twenty years, supervising vast construction programs at Thebes. Hatshepsut was usually shown as a man in statues and documents. The next several pharaohs seemed to shift the emphasis in Asia from conquest to diplomacy, with the first of a series of royal marriages with women from the Mitanni kingdom, located in Syria. Egypt seemed to be opening up to foreign influence as never before in the historic record. Imported or tribute goods from Syria, Phoenicia, Crete, and the Aegean Islands appear on Egyptian sculptural bas reliefs. Raw materials (especially silver) and finished art works found their way to Egypt, and foreign styles were often copied by Egyptian artisans. Temples and inscriptions to Near Eastern gods like Reshef and Astarte also appeared in Egypt during this era. They were imported by some of the many immigrants who settled in Egypt and even rose to important positions in the administration. These gods were usually worshiped in Egyptian style and were eventually associated with native Egyptian deities. These eclectic artistic influences competed with archaic tendencies, as pharaohs exploited the prestige of their ancient predecessors by imitating the style of their reliefs and inscriptions. It was Amenhotep III (r. 1386–1349 b.c.e.), in particular, who revived religious-political rituals of the past; ironically, his own son, Amenhotep IV (r. 1350–1334 b.c.e.), also known as Akhenaten, tried to make a clean break not only with the distant past, but with contemporary religious, political, artistic, and literary traditions.

THE AMARNA REVOLUTION In the fourth year of Amenhotep IV’s reign, the monarch changed his name to Akhenaten, to honor the Aten, or sun-disk. Egyptian religion had come to focus more and more on the sun-god, usually called Amun-Re, whose temples controlled much of the

266

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t

New Kingdom

1570–1070 B.C.E.

Twentieth Dynasty (at Thebes) 1185–1070 B.C.E. SETNAKHT

1185–1182 B.C.E.

Eighteenth Dynasty (at Thebes) 1570–1293 B.C.E.

RAMSES III

1182–1151 B.C.E.

RAMSES IV

1151–1145 B.C.E.

AHMOSE I*

1570–1546 B.C.E.

RAMSES V

1145–1141 B.C.E.

AMENHOTEP I

1551–1524 B.C.E.

RAMSES VI

1141–1133 B.C.E.

THUTMOSE I

1524–1518 B.C.E.

RAMSES VII

1133–1127 B.C.E.

THUTMOSE II

1518–1504 B.C.E.

QUEEN HATSHEPSUT*

1498–1483 B.C.E.

RAMSES VIII

1127–1126 B.C.E.

THUTMOSE III*

1504–1450 B.C.E.

RAMSES IX

1126–1108 B.C.E.

AMENHOTEP II

1453–1419 B.C.E.

RAMSES X

1108–1098 B.C.E.

THUTMOSE IV

1419–1386 B.C.E.

RAMSES XI

1098–1070 B.C.E.

AMENHOTEP III

1386–1349 B.C.E.

AKHENATEN* (AMENHOTEP IV)

1350–1334 B.C.E.

SMENKHKARE (CO-REGENT) 1336–1334 B.C.E. TUTANKHAMEN*

1334–1325 B.C.E.

AY ITNEJER

1325–1321 B.C.E.

HOREMHEB

1321–1293 B.C.E.

Nineteenth Dynasty (at Thebes) 1293–1185 B.C.E.

Third Intermediate Period 1069–525 B.C.E. HIGH PRIESTS (AT THEBES)

1080–945 B.C.E.

HERIHOR

1080–1074 B.C.E.

PIANKH

1074–1070 B.C.E.

PINEDJEM

1070–1032 B.C.E.

MASAHERTA

1054–1046 B.C.E.

MENKHEPERRA

1045–992 B.C.E.

SMENDES II

992–990 B.C.E.

1291–1278 B.C.E.

PINEDJEM II

990–969 B.C.E.

RAMSES II*

1279–1212 B.C.E.

PSUSENNES III

969–945 B.C.E.

MERNEPTAH

1212–1202 B.C.E.

AMENMESES

1202–1199 B.C.E.

SETI II

1199–1193 B.C.E.

Twenty-first Dynasty (at Tanis) 1069–945 B.C.E.

SIPTAH

1193–1187 B.C.E.

SMENDES I

1069–1043 B.C.E.

QUEEN TWORE

1187–1185 B.C.E.

AMENEMNISU

1043–1039 B.C.E.

RAMSES I

1293–1291 B.C.E.

SETI I*

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t

267

Twenty-first Dynasty (continued)

TAKELOT III

764–757 B.C.E.

PSUSENNES I

RUDAMON

757–754 B.C.E.

IUPUT

754–715 B.C.E.

1039–991 B.C.E.

AMENOPHTHIS

993–984 B.C.E.

OSORKON

984–978 B.C.E.

SIAMUNY

978–959 B.C.E.

PSUSENNES II

959–945 B.C.E.

Twenty-second Dynasty (at Tanis) 945–860 B.C.E. SHESHONQ I

945–924 B.C.E.

OSORKON I

924–889 B.C.E.

SHESHONQ II

890 B.C.E.

TAKELOT I

889–874 B.C.E.

OSORKON II

874–850 B.C.E.

HARSIESE (AT THEBES)

870–860 B.C.E.

TAKELOT II

850–825 B.C.E.

SHESHONQ III

825–773 B.C.E.

Pimay

773–767 B.C.E.

SHESHONQ V

767–730 B.C.E.

OSORKON IV

730–715 B.C.E.

Twenty-fourth Dynasty (at Sais) 727–715 B.C.E. TEFNAKHT

727–720 B.C.E.

BAKENRANEF

720–715 B.C.E.

Twenty-fifth Dynasty (Kushite) 747–656 B.C.E. PIANKHY

747–716 B.C.E.

SHABAKA

716–702 B.C.E.

SHEBITKU

702–690 B.C.E.

TAHARQA

690–664 B.C.E.

TANTANAMI

664–656 B.C.E.

Twenty-sixth Dynasty (at Sais) 664–525 B.C.E. PSAMMETICHUS I

664–610 B.C.E.

NECHO

610–595 B.C.E.

PSAMMETICHUs II

595–589 B.C.E.

Twenty-third Dynasty (at Leontopolis) 818–715 B.C.E.

APRIES

589–570 B.C.E.

PEDIBASTET

818–793 B.C.E.

AMASIS

570–526 B.C.E.

SHESHONQ IV

793–787 B.C.E.

PSAMMETICHUS III

526–525 B.C.E.

OSORKON III

787–759 B.C.E.

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

268

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t

Egyptian economy. Akhenaten narrowed the focus by, on the one hand, stressing the god’s non-manlike manifestation as the sun disk, source of warmth and life, and on the other emphasizing his own personal relationship with the god. After devoting the first few years of his reign building massive temples to Aten at Thebes, including an open air temple that contrasted with the dark recesses of the temple of Amun at Karnak, Akhenaten decided to build a new capital city. He chose an unoccupied site along the Middle Nile, isolated on three sides by cliffs. He named the city Akhetaten (the horizon of the aten, or sun), but the later name for its ruins, Tel el-Amarna, has lent its name to the entire period.Temples, palaces, and residential quarters were built, and broad boulevards were laid out for the king’s daily processions in imitation of the sun’s movements across the sky. From a modern perspective, the Amarna cult seems rather monotheistic and spiritual. But in practical terms the new cult revolved around the pharaoh himself to a degree that was unprecedented even in Egypt. Akhenaten was considered to be the son of Aten and his co-ruler. Only the king could have knowledge of Aten, and only he could mediate the benefits that Aten bestowed. The pharaoh’s queen, Nefertiti, seems to have played a major role in these rituals.The pair, together with their six daughters, were commemorated endlessly in public and private reliefs all over Amarna, usually in naturalistic poses and settings quite out of keeping with Egypt’s stylized traditions. Both in literature and the arts,Amarna tried to break with past conventions. All official texts, even religious hymns, were written in a new official language that was close to vernacular-spoken Egyptian. These new modes survived into the subsequent era, even though Amarna was abandoned and the new cult suppressed shortly after Akhenaten died. As the years went by, the royal couple became more and more intolerant of other cults. The temples of Amun were shut down, and references to that god were erased from inscriptions all over the country. But few individuals outside the court actually adopted the new faith; even at Amarna the ruins of workers’ housing have turned up numerous relics of non-Aten practices. Court officials were appointed from the humble classes, especially from the army, whose support was indispensable for a king who had to fight the dispos-

sessed elite classes while suppressing a popular religion. Akhenaten’s son, Tutankhamen (r. 1334–1325 b.c.e.), ascended the throne at the age of nine.Three years later, he moved from Amarna to Memphis and abandoned his father’s religion. In a reversal of his father’s action, the young king signaled his new religious allegiance by changing the “aten” in his name to “amun.” It was as Tutankhamen that the young pharaoh earned worldwide fame, after his tomb and its treasures were discovered by archeologists in 1922.

THE LATER NEW KINGDOM Although the pharaohs who came after the Amarna period tried to blot out its very name, some of its innovations may have had a lasting effect. A variety of separate deities were gradually consolidated into three, who were themselves occasionally considered as different manifestations of each other.Tomb paintings of nobles and officials, which previously showed scenes from their public lives, were now increasingly devoted to religious and mythological themes. In general, there seems to have been a greater degree of piety and consciousness of the presence of the gods in daily life, judging from surviving writings. The Nineteenth dynasty saw a stabilization of economic and political life in Egypt, and a reassertion of the Egyptian presence in Asia, which may have slackened during the Amarna era. The founder of the dynasty, Ramses I (r. 1293–1291 b.c.e.), was a military officer from a non-noble military family in the Nile Delta, which now assumed a greater role in the governance of Egypt. His son, Seti I (r. 1291– 1279 b.c.e.), established the dynasty on a firm domestic footing and fought off enemies in Libya and Syria. He thus passed along a secure throne to his son, Ramses II, the Great (r. 1279–1212 b.c.e.). Ramses II, possibly the pharaoh of the biblical story of Exodus, had one of the longest reigns in the history of any monarchy. He spent most of that time constructing colossal monuments to himself all over the country; as a result, he became a symbol of ancient Egyptian civilization for latter-day Greek historians, who added “the Great” to his name. Although his huge statues and elaborate reliefs celebrate his reign as a time of great victory, his years were relatively peaceful. Ramses II built a new capital city in his native Nile Delta region, calling it Pi-Ramesse and adorning it

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t with gardens, orchards, and canals. The city’s name and location have led some scholars to identify it with Ramses, the “store city” built by the Children of Israel, according to the Book of Exodus in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Egyptian records show that the “Apiru” (usually identified with the Hebrews) were among Ramses II’s brick makers and stone quarriers. Ramses II also suffered the premature death of his heirs, which also conforms to the Exodus account in the Bible. There is no Egyptian record of a slave revolt at this time, or of an exodus of Near Eastern immigrants or captives. The first mention of Israel in Egyptian inscription occurs in a victory poem of Ramses II’s son and heir, Merneptah (r. 1212–1202 b.c.e.), which states that “Israel is desolate and has no seed.” Most of the remaining New Kingdom pharaohs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth dynasties could boast little in the way of solid accomplishment. An exception was Ramses III (r. 1182–1151 b.c.e.), who defeated major military threats from Libyans and from “Sea Peoples,” including the Philistines. By keeping out foreign soldiers, he may have inadvertently delayed the introduction of Iron Age technology into Egypt, with dangerous consequences for the country’s future. Both the economy and administrative efficiency seem to have deteriorated toward the end of the Nineteenth dynasty. Literary output did not suffer, however. A large number of manuscripts have survived, including vigorous tales reflecting folk mythology.

THE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD As Egypt’s foreign empire dissipated, central control decreased, and imperial revenues declined, the Theban high priests seem to have accumulated more and more power, which was often passed along in hereditary fashion. During the so-called Third Intermediate period, their powers often equaled those of the kings. Eventually, a new dynasty, the Twenty-first (ca. 1070–946 b.c.e.), arose in the Nile Delta, with its capital at Tanis, while the Theban priests ruled the rest of the country. This era of weakness and contraction provided an opportunity for the kingdom of Israel to arise under King David (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.). David’s son and successor, King Solomon (r. 970–931 b.c.e.), even married a daughter of Pharaoh Siamun (r. 979–960 b.c.e.); Egypt had ac-

269

cepted brides from Asia but had never before offered one of its sacred daughters on the altar of diplomacy. It was now left to minority ethnic or regional groups to try to reinvigorate Egypt.The kings of the Twenty-second and Twenty-third dynasties were of Libyan ancestry and mostly had military names, though they were thoroughly acculturated. Deriving from military backgrounds, their rule was enforced by local garrisons under officers who eventually acted as feudal lords. Urbanization advanced, especially in the Delta region.

THE LATE PERIOD Perhaps the last major effort to arrest the decline of the old Egyptian society was made by the Twentyfifth dynasty, also known as the Kushite dynasty.The kings of this dynasty hailed from the independent kingdom of Kush on the Upper Nile, an area that had been controlled by Egypt in its heyday. It is not known whether the dynasty descended from Egyptian colonists or from Egyptianized Kushites, but the explicit policy of the Kushite rulers was to purge new-fangled practices and piously restore the old ways. The pharaohs Piankhy (r. 747–716 b.c.e.) and Shabaka (r. 716–702 b.c.e.) brought the entire country under one rule for the first time in generations. But the arrangement lasted only a bit upwards of a century. By 664 b.c.e., an Assyrian army under Ashurbanipal II (r. 668–627 b.c.e.) defeated the last Kushite king, Tantanami (r. 664–656 b.c.e.). They sacked Thebes, burnt its temples, and carried off the sacred treasures of Amun; this was a staggering propaganda loss for Egyptian religion. Tantanami fled back to Napata, the Kushite capital; his kingdom survived another thousand years, maintaining the Egyptian language, religion, and civilization long after they disappeared in their homeland. The Twenty-sixth dynasty arose from Sais, one of the petty principalities that had sprung up in the Nile Delta. By judiciously allying himself with Assyria, Psammetichus I (r. 664–610 b.c.e.) was able to reunite Egypt under his rule. He waged a punitive campaign against the Libyans, and he garrisoned the countries’ borders, largely with foreign troops such as Libyans, Nubians, Greeks, Carians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Jews, many of whom had been displaced by Assyrian conquests in Asia. Foreign merchants and even Greek intellectual tourists streamed into the country in this era, but

270

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s, A n c i e n t

Psammetichus fought to maintain artistic and religious purity, even suppressing foreign worship. He moved administrative departments to Memphis, the original capital of united Egypt two thousand years before, and he deliberately imitated cultivated traditional language in government documents. The last kings of the Twenty-sixth dynasty presided over political and artistic resurgence, benefiting from the rapid collapse of Assyrian power.The population is said to have reached more than seven million, a number it would not exceed for more than two millennia. But the armies became too reliant on foreign mercenaries and allies, who were not to stand fast in the face of the triumphant ranks of Persia. In 525, Psammetichus III (r. 526–525 b.c.e.), who had assumed the throne just the previous year, was defeated and captured by king Cambyses II (r. 529–522 b.c.e.) of Persia. Venerable Egypt now became just one province in the vast, well-run empire of the Persians and Medes. See also: Akhenaten; Hatshepsut; Hyksos Dynasty; Kush, Kingdom of; Nefertiti; Ramses II, the Great; Seti I;Tutankhamen.

EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES, PERSIAN, HELLENISTIC, AND ROMAN (ca. 525 B.C.E.–330 C.E.) An extended period during which Egypt was under the rule of three successive foreign powers, following thousands of years of Egyptian power and cultural superiority in the ancient Near East.

PERSIAN RULE In 525 b.c.e., the Persian king, Cambyses II (r. 529–522 b.c.e.) successfully invaded the country, ending the Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt. For the first time, Egypt became a province of a foreign empire—Persia.This period, usually called the Twentyseventh dynasty (525–404 b.c.e.), was one in which the Egyptians chafed under harsh Persian rule. Although Cambyses attempted to align himself with the Egyptian gods, his rule was often oppressive. Cambyses was succeeded on the Persian throne by Darius I, the Great (r. 521–486 b.c.e.) who was a more benevolent leader. Darius built temples in Egypt and also had a canal dug between the Nile

River and the Red Sea, which allowed for easy trade between Persia and Egypt, bringing greater prosperity to the Egyptians. Egyptians, particularly in northwestern Egypt, never accepted Persian rule and so launched a number of rebellions with help from the Greeks, with whom they traded food for military aid. In 404 b.c.e, a leader named Amyrtaios from Sais in Egypt’s delta managed to sustain a revolt and brought Egyptian rule back to Egypt, though only briefly, with three dynasties—Twenty-eighth (404–399 b.c.e.), Twenty-ninth (399–380 b.c.e.), and Thirtieth (380– 343 b.c.e.). For this sixty-year period, Egypt was able to regain some of its former pride in self-government, and it managed to hold off a Persian attack in 385 b.c.e.The Thirtieth dynasty was the last dynasty with native rulers to rule Egypt, however. In 343 b.c.e., the Persian king, Artaxerxes III (r. 343–338 b.c.e.), succeeded in reconquering Egypt, and once again the country was reduced to provincial status. This second period of Persian rule is known as the Thirty-first dynasty (343–332 b.c.e.). Because the Persians had had to fight so hard to regain the territory, their rule was harsher this time. Thus, when Alexander the Great of Macedonia (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) defeated the Persians in 332 b.c.e. and conquered Egypt, the Egyptians eagerly accepted him as their new king.

HELLENISTIC PERIOD The next 300 years of Egyptian history are known as the Hellenistic period, a time during which Greek culture and learning were at the forefront of cultural activities. Alexander the Great founded a city, Alexandria, at the mouth of the Nile River on the Mediterranean coast to serve as his capital. Alexandria became a great cultural and intellectual center, with a library, museum, and university. Alexander’s life was cut short about a decade after he conquered Egypt. One of his faithful military commanders, Ptolemy I Soter (r. 306–282 b.c.e.), was left in charge of Egypt as governor, but he eventually declared himself king. The Ptolemaic dynasty (306–30 b.c.e.) ruled Egypt for more than two hundred and fifty years. Under the Ptolemaic dynasty, Egypt was ruled as a separate entity under its own monarch, although, at times, two monarchs ruled together. During this Hellenistic period, Egyptian culture was gradually

271

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s , P e r s i a n, H e l l e n i s t i c , R o m a n

Twenty-seventh Dynasty

Macedonian Kings

Cambyses II* Darius I* Xerxes I* Artaxerxes I*

530–522 B.C.E. 521–486 B.C.E. 485–465 B.C.E. 464–424 B.C.E.

Alexander III the Great*

Darius II*

423–405 B.C.E.

Philip Arrhidaeus Alexander IV

332–323 B.C.E. 323–317 B.C.E. 317–304 B.C.E.

Ptolemaic Dynasty Ptolemy I*

Twenty-eighth Dynasty AMYRTAIOS

404–399 B.C.E.

Twenty-ninth Dynasty Nepherites I Psammuthis Hakoris Nepherites II

399–393 B.C.E. 393 B.C.E. 393–380 B.C.E. 380 B.C.E.

Thirtieth Dynasty Nectanebo I Teos Nectanebo II

380–362 B.C.E. 365–361 B.C.E. 361–343 B.C.E.

Thirty-first Dynasty Artaxerxes III* Arses Darius III

343–338 B.C.E. 333–336 B.C.E. 335–332 B.C.E.

Hellenized, or made more Greek: Greek became the language of the government, Egyptians adopted Greek dress, and Greek styles were incorporated into Egyptian art and architecture. Although the Hellenistic period was mostly a peaceful time, native Egyptians were considered to

Ptolemy II Ptolemy III Ptolemy IV Ptolemy V Ptolemy VI Ptolemy VII Ptolemy VIII Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy X Cleopatra Berenike Ptolemy XI Ptolemy XII Berenike IV Cleopatra VII* and Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV and Ptolemy XV

306–282 B.C.E. 282–246 B.C.E. 246–222 B.C.E. 222–205 B.C.E. 205–180 B.C.E. 180–145 B.C.E. 145 B.C.E. 170–163 and 145–116 B.C.E. 116–107 and 88–80 B.C.E. 107–88 B.C.E. 81–80 B.C.E.) 80 B.C.E. 80–58 and 55–51 B.C.E. 58–55 B.C.E. 51–47 B.C.E. 47–44 B.C.E. 44–30 B.C.E.

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

be of a lower social class than the immigrant Greeks. This social superiority, together with the continued draining of Egyptian resources by the Greeks, created Egyptian resentment that erupted in periodic revolts. By the first century b.c.e., however, the real prob-

272

E g y p t i a n D y n a s t i e s , P e r s i a n, H e l l e n i s t i c , R o m a n

ROYAL RITUALS

RULERS AS GODS It was around the time of the Fifth dynasty that Egyptian kings claimed to be directly descended from the sun-god, Ra, and were thus part-god, part-human. Reliefs were carved on temple walls in a special motif known as a cartouche, an oval with the hieroglyphs of the ruler’s name, to represent the king’s divine birth and his function as a representative of the gods.Though not native-born, the foreigners who ruled Egypt during the Hellenistic and the Roman periods had the conventional divine attributes assigned to them, and, to protect the ancient religion, they accepted this divine role.Thus, Alexander and his successors were depicted on the walls of existing temples and also in some cases had new temples built with their names carved as Egyptian god-kings.

lem facing the Greeks was the growing power of the Roman Empire, which began interfering in Egyptian affairs. After the death of Roman dictator Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.) in 44 b.c.e., Cleopatra VII of Egypt (r. 51–30 b.c.e.), a mistress of Caesar, mistakenly aligned herself with Mark Antony in the ensuing power struggle with Octavian over control of the Roman Empire. When Octavian—the future emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.)—won this power struggle, Cleopatra committed suicide rather than surrender.After her death in 30 b.c.e., Egypt became a province of Rome, and it remained under Roman control for nearly seven hundred years.

ROMAN RULE Emperor Augustus later declared himself king of Egypt and accepted the god-king status that had been the tradition of the Egyptian pharaohs. Roman Egypt was governed by a prefect, who reported directly to the emperor and who was commander of the army and official judge. Over time, Latin replaced Greek as the language of government. Greek nobles were still considered to be of a higher class than native Egyptians. Egypt became a very important province of the Roman Empire, and it was tightly controlled administratively from Rome. The Egyptian grain harvest, its manufactured goods, and its taxes were vital to the Roman economy. As a center of trade between India, Arabia, and other Mediterranean countries,

the Egyptian city of Alexandria was one of the great cities of the Roman Empire. Although Rome governed Egypt, the cultural institutions founded by Alexander the Great continued to thrive. Egypt was relatively peaceful under the Romans. In 211 c.e., Emperor Caracalla (r. 211–217) officially made the Egyptians citizens of the Roman Empire.When Emperor Constantine I (r. 307–337), the first Christian emperor of Rome, established a new capital at Byzantium (which he renamed Constantinople) around 330, Egypt became part of the Eastern Roman Empire, also called the Byzantine Empire. Egypt remained under Byzantine control until the Muslim Arab conquest of it in the midseventh century. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Augustus; Byzantine Empire; Cleopatra VII; Constantine I, the Great; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Before Eighteenth Dynasty); Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Macedonian Empire; Persian Empire; Ptolemaic Dynasty; Ptolemy I; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Baines, John, and Jaromir Málek. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File, 1996. Casson, Lionel. Ancient Egypt. Alexandria,VA: TimeLife Books, 1978. Metz, Helen Chapin, ed. Egypt: A Country Study. 5th

Egyptian Kingdom, Modern ed. Washington, DC: Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 1991. Silverman, David P., ed. Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

EGYPTIAN KINGDOM, MODERN (1805–1952 C.E.)

Final period of monarchy in Egypt, from the waning of Ottoman rule to the emergence of a new republic in 1952 under Gamal Abdel Nasser. Although nominally under the Ottoman Empire from 1802, Egypt was ruled quite independently by military officials called pashas headquartered in Cairo. The first pasha was Muhammad (Mehmet) Ali (r. 1805–1848), whose rule marked the beginning of the state system and modernization in Egypt. After completing a successful military campaign of Albanians and Turks against the French, Mehmet Ali, who commanded the Albanian forces, was named governor (viceroy) of Egypt in 1805. He remained in that post until 1848, founding a dynasty that lasted until 1952. After strengthening his command at the beginning of his rule, Mehmet Ali focused on military and economic expansion. He advanced Egypt’s manufacturing and trade, especially of textiles, and constructed the first dam across the Nile River to improve irrigation. He thought highly of European civilization and had European educators teach Egyptian students both at home and abroad. Ali also was well-regarded for his administrative skills and is credited with creating Egypt’s new constitution, army and navy, tax system, import and export system, health laws, schools, colleges, and publishing enterprises.Through his new administrative and military institutions, the world became accustomed to viewing Egypt as an independent state with capable government and military leaders who sought Western reforms and Egyptian autonomy. The next Egyptian pasha was Abbas I (r. 1848– 1854), who inherited rule from his grandfather Mehmet. More of a traditionalist than Mehmet Ali, Abbas was less interested in the westernization of Egypt. He was murdered mysteriously in 1854 and succeeded by his uncle, the more effective Said Pasha (Mohammed), who governed from 1854 to 1863. A successful military leader, Said resumed national civil and social projects begun by his father, Mehmet Ali.

273

Said was succeeded by his nephew, Ismail Pasha (r. 1863–1879). Ismail obtained credit for extravagant schemes from Egypt’s very valuable Egyptian cotton crop, and as a result of his actions the country went into serious debt. In 1875, he was forced to sell his stockholdings in the Suez Canal to Great Britain, and the following year he had to put Egypt’s finances in the hands of a debt commission representing French and British bondholders.When Ismail tried to get rid of foreign control in 1879, the Ottoman sultan unseated him and replaced him with Ismail’s son, Tewfik Pasha (r. 1879–1892). Tewfik Pasha ruled as khedive, a title that differentiated Egypt’s viceroy from other Ottoman governors. In 1880, he agreed to let the French and British have joint control over the country’s finances, a decision that led to conflicts and ended with Great Britain’s having sole control of Egyptian finances. Tewfik usually took a Western point of view and was quite committed to improvements in Egypt’s educational and legal systems. The next, and last, khedive of Egypt was Tewfik’s son,Abbas II (Abbas Hilmi), who ruled from 1892 to 1914. Though still nominally under the Ottoman Empire, Egypt was really controlled by the British. Abbas II tried unsuccessfully to resist British rule; but during World War I, Egypt became a British protectorate (1914) and Abbas II was deposed. Egypt became nominally independent in 1922, when Britain set up a constitutional monarchy headed by King Fuad I (r. 1922–1936). Fuad was especially interested in military and cultural progress for his country, and he established the University of Cairo in 1906. However, he had problems dealing with external pressure from the British and internal pressure from the Wafd nationalist political party in Egypt. Upon Fuad’s death in 1936, his son Farouk succeeded him as constitutional monarch. King Farouk (r. 1936–1952) also had internal and external political problems. Because of his proGerman and Italian leanings during World War II, the British forced him to accept a pro-British premier in 1942. In 1948, Farouk’s forces were defeated in the Arab-Israeli War. Four years later, in 1952, he was overthrown by a group of army officers that included Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, who became the first president of the new republic of Egypt. See also: Farouk; Fuad; Muhammad Ali.

274

E l e a nor o f Aqu i ta i n e

ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE (ca. 1122–1204 C.E.)

Queen consort of France from 1137 to 1152 while married to Louis VII (r. 1137–1180), and of England from 1154 to 1204 while married to Henry II (r. 1154–1189); mother of Henry, Geoffrey, Richard I, Lionheart (r. 1189–1199), and John (r. 1199– 1216). Eleanor wielded considerable influence and power, taking an active part in administering and advising her husbands and sons. One of the most influential women of medieval times, she also was an important patron of the arts, especially the poetry of courtly love. Eleanor was the daughter and heiress of William X, the wealthy and powerful duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou. When William died in 1137, Eleanor became a ward of King Louis VI of France. In July 1137, at age fifteen, she married the heir to the French throne, who later that year became King Louis VII. Eleanor played a very active role in Louis’s government, and even accompanied him on the Second Crusade from 1147 to 1149. Her independent spirit, however, resulted in her arrest because of disobedience to her husband the king. She was returned to France, and, despite the fact that they had two daughters, Louis annulled their marriage in 1152. Later the same year, Eleanor married Henry Plantagenet, the duke of Normandy and count of Anjou. Henry also was heir to the English throne and became Henry II in 1154. Between her inheritance of Aquitaine and her marriage to Henry, she became very powerful as queen consort of England, Normandy, and a large part of France. Henry’s adultery eventually resulted in their separation, and in 1171 Eleanor returned to her home in Poitiers and established her own court there. When her son Richard and others revolted against Henry in 1173, she was accused of aiding them. Henry imprisoned Eleanor in 1174, and she was not released until he died and her son Richard became king in 1189. While her son Richard was on the Third Crusade from 1189 to 1192, Eleanor administered his government. She was instrumental in raising the ransom to buy Richard’s freedom after he was taken captive in Austria. Richard died without an heir in 1199, and

Eleanor used her considerable political power and influence to ensure that her son John became the next king. Of her eight children, her son Henry ruled as co-regent (r. 1170–1183), two sons were crowned king of England (Richard I and John), and two daughters married kings. Her daughter Eleanor married Alfonso VIII (r. 1158–1214), king of Castile, and her daughter Joan married William II (1166–1189), king of Sicily and then Raymond VI (r. 1194–1222), count of Toulouse. Although two sons died young, the fifth son, Geoffrey, was duke of Brittany. Eleanor’s third daughter, Matilda, married Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria. See also: Aquitaine Duchy; Bretagne Duchy; Frankish Kingdom; Henry II; John I; Louis VII; Richard I, Lionheart; Sicilian, Kingdom of.

ELECTION, ROYAL The selection of a monarch by election rather than by inheritance alone. Although modern monarchies are generally hereditary, this was not always the case. In the past, many monarchies have been elective. Most authorities agree that the prehistoric Germanic and Scandinavian tribes of Northern Europe had an elective monarchy whereby a king was chosen from among members of the royal family, often as a leader in time of war. Kings among these tribes could also sometimes serve as sacrificial victims. The most likely means of electing these tribal kings was by acclamation among an assembly of the free men of the tribe.

ANGLO-SAXON AND EARLY ENGLAND In the post-Roman period, forms of elective kingship continued among these same peoples. In the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England, the succession could pass to a brother or other near relative of the deceased king rather than to his son, particularly if that son was a minor. As in the English kingdom of Kent—where Hlothere (r. 673–685) succeeded his brother Egbert (r. 664–673) as king and was later overthrown by Egbert’s son Eadric (r. 685– 686)—this often resulted in civil strife between rival claimants. There was no formal electoral procedure in the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Often a king would designate his successor during his lifetime, and that

Elizabeth I successor would then be acknowledged or formally acclaimed king by the leading men of the kingdom. Primogeniture, in which the succession descends to the eldest (usually the eldest male) child, quickly became the normal pattern of succession, but as late as the eleventh century a king could be chosen by the combination of designation as successor and acclamation by the nobles. Harold II Godwinson (r. 1066) claimed his legitimacy as English monarch on these grounds.

THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE Elective kingship persisted in the Holy Roman Empire, which by the twelfth century consisted of a number of principalities. The Holy Roman emperor was chosen by the princes of these states, and by the mid-twelfth century, the title “elector” (for example, the elector of Hanover) began to be used for those princes who had the right to take part in choosing the emperor. Six, and later eight, princely electors made up the electoral college. Three were archbishops of Mainz,Treves, and Cologne; the others were rulers of the Rhine Palatinate, Saxony, Bohemia, Brandenburg, and Hanover. Eventually there were thirteen electors. Heredity played a role in imperial elections as well, since only royal candidates were considered. The election of the emperor was often a source of conflict in the Holy Roman Empire. At times, the papacy, which claimed the right to appoint or approve the emperor, and the electors would designate rival claimants. Sometimes two elections would be held, with different factions among the electors supporting different emperors. In 1198, for example, Otto IV (r. 1198–1218) of the Welf dynasty was chosen as a rival to Philip of Swabia (r. 1198–1208), a Hohenstaufen, resulting in civil war.

OTHER ELECTIVE MONARCHIES Poland also had an elective monarchy from the sixteenth century until 1796, when that kingdom ceased to exist. After the separation of Norway and Sweden in 1905, a Norwegian monarchy was reestablished through the election of a king.The new Norwegian government invited a Danish prince to become king; Haakon VII (r. 1905–1957) accepted this invitation only after a referendum of the Norwegian people approved his election, although his successors inherit by right of primogeniture.The official acclamation of the British monarch at his or her coronation is a symbolic remnant of Anglo-Saxon

275

elective monarchy and the right of the people to approve their new ruler. At least one elective monarchy still exists today. In Malaysia, which has a constitutional elective monarchy, a group of nine hereditary state rulers elect a leader, the yang dipertuan agong, from among their number every five years. Like the current constitutional monarchs of Europe, the yang dipertuan agong acts as symbolic head of state but has little real power. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Frankish Kingdom; Holy Roman Empire; Primogeniture; Succession, Royal. FURTHER READING

Blair, Peter Hunter.An Introduction to Anglo–Saxon England. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Haverkamp, Alfred. Medieval Germany: 1056–1273. 2nd ed. Trans. Helga Braun and Richard Mortimer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Kern, Fritz. Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages.Trans. S.B. Chrimes. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985. Nicolson, Harold. Kings, Courts, and Monarchy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962. Spellman, W.M. Monarchies, 1000–2000. London: Reaktion Books, 2001. Todd, Malcolm. The Early Germans. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992.

ELIZABETH I (1533–1603 C.E.) Queen of England (r. 1558–1603), whose reign marked the high point of the English Renaissance. Elizabeth was the daughter of King Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Henry established the Church of England, which launched the Protestant Reformation in England, in order to divorce his first wife and marry Anne. As a result, Elizabeth was raised as a Protestant.

LIFE AND REIGN Elizabeth was born at Greenwich Palace and brought up in a household at Hatfield apart from her parents. Her father had her mother executed on charges of adultery when Elizabeth was just a child.

276

Elizabeth I

Despite this traumatic event, Elizabeth was treated well as a child and received an excellent education in the classics, history, and philosophy.When her half-sister Mary became Queen Mary I (r. 1553–1558) in 1553 and reestablished Catholicism in England, Elizabeth saved her own life by going along with Mary’s changes. Secretly, however, she resolved to restore the Church of England. When Mary died in 1558, Elizabeth succeeded to the throne. She was instantly popular with the English people, not least because of her religious preferences. Elizabeth rid her body of advisers, the Privy Council, of Catholics and reopened the Protestant churches. She also selected a new group of political advisers that included many influential Protestant noblemen. One of the key concerns that many people in England had about Elizabeth was the fact that she was a woman.Women, even queens, were considered naturally inferior to men.Although Elizabeth had an education superior to that of most Englishmen of the time and an indomitable will, she had to prove herself superior in order to relieve the doubts of her subjects. One way in which she established her power was by never marrying. As “the Virgin Queen” Elizabeth never had to subject herself to a husband, who most likely would have tried to assume much of her power. Elizabeth also created a quasireligious aura around herself, which she encouraged through court ritual and costume. Her Protestant subjects, in particular, wanted Elizabeth to marry and produce an heir because the next individual in line for the throne was Mary, Queen of Scots, a staunch Catholic. Elizabeth avoided the problem of Mary succeeding to the throne not by marrying and producing an heir but by taking advantage of Mary’s weakness. When Mary was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne after suspicions that she had murdered her husband, Elizabeth offered her sanctuary in England in the hopes of neutralizing her as a threat to Elizabeth’s Protestant succession.The sanctuary turned into a long imprisonment in England, and Mary was eventually executed in 1587 on grounds of plotting in a scheme to murder Elizabeth. Throughout her reign, Elizabeth faced a number of other threats to Protestant stability. These included a conspiracy to take her life, the Ridolfi Plot in 1571; a rebellion in the north of England in 1569; and papal excommunication in 1570. Perhaps her

Queen Elizabeth I of England, shown here in a sixteenthcentury portrait, was one of the great monarchs of European history. A member of the Tudor Dynasty, she maintained political stability and presided over a period of flourishing culture that became known as the Elizabethan Age.

greatest challenge came in the 1580s, when England became involved in a war with Spain. Phillip II (r. 1556–1598), the Catholic king of Spain, attempted to conquer England with his famed Armada. In 1588, the English fleet defeated the Spanish Armada, saving England from an imagined Catholic takeover. As Elizabeth approached old age, many wondered about her choice of successor to the throne. She had no heirs, no living siblings, and no nieces or nephews. In fact, the closest heirs to the throne were fairly distant relatives, any one of a number of whom had equally valid claims. Elizabeth kept people guessing until almost the end of her life. Eventually, she announced that she had selected as her heir James VI of Scotland (r. 1567–1625), the son of the murdered Mary, Queen of Scots, and a descendant of Margaret Tudor, the sister of Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII. Elizabeth’s death in 1603 brought an end to England’s Tudor dynasty, while the accession of James as King James I (r. 1603–1625) ushered in the Stuart dynasty.

THE ELIZABETHAN AGE The period of Elizabeth’s rule, known as the Elizabethan Age, is considered a golden age of English history. During this period, England briefly resolved its

Elizabeth II violent internal religious and dynastic conflicts to become a major world power.The Elizabethan Age was also a time of financial prosperity, brought about in large part by the exploration of the New World. Among the most notable explorers of Elizabeth’s reign was Sir Francis Drake. The Elizabethan period was also an age of distinguished and accomplished courtiers—“Renaissance men” such as Sir Walter Raleigh; Robert Devereux, the earl of Essex; and Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester. These three courtiers, among others, became royal favorites of Elizabeth: she lavished honors and estates on them, and gossip would regularly circulate that she was about to marry each of them. The Elizabethan period is perhaps most distinguished, however, for its astounding burst of literary achievement.The many works of literature produced in this period include The Faerie Queene of Edmund Spenser, which was dedicated to the queen; the poetry of Sir Philip Sidney; the dramas of Christopher Marlowe; and, most notably, the sonnets and early plays of William Shakespeare.

277

Jubilee, marking fifty years as reigning monarch. Only three English monarchs have reigned longer. Five archbishops of Canterbury and ten prime ministers have served during her reign. Born on April 21, 1926, Elizabeth is the daughter of George VI (r. 1936–1952), and the granddaughter of King George V (r. 1910–1936) and Queen Mary. Although not in direct line of succession to the throne at the time of her birth, she became heir apparent at the age of ten, when her father unexpectedly became King George VI. As next in line of succession to his brother Edward VIII (r. 1936), George became king following a scandal in which Edward abdicated in order to marry Mrs. Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee, after Edward could not gain approval from government ministers to wed. In 1947, Elizabeth married Philip, duke of Edin-

See also: Henry VIII; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Mary, Queen of Scots; Mary I, Tudor; Queens and Queen Mothers; Stuart Dynasty;Theater, Royal;Tudor, House of. FURTHER READING

Jenkins, Elizabeth. Elizabeth the Great. New York: Berkley, 1972. Johnson, Paul. Elizabeth I: A Study in Power and Intellect. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988. Regan, Geoffrey. Elizabeth I. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Smith, Lacey Baldwin. Elizabeth Tudor: Portrait of a Queen. Boston: Little, Brown, 1975. Williams, Neville. The Life and Times of Elizabeth I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972.

ELIZABETH II (1926 C.E.– ) Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (r. 1952–present), who rules as a constitutional monarch and serves as head of state, head of the Church of England, and head of the British Commonwealth. As is true of other modern British monarchs, her duties are primarily ceremonial and a symbol of nationhood. In 2002, she celebrated her Golden

In 2002, on the fiftieth anniversary of her succession to the throne, Queen Elizabeth II became one of the five longest-reigning monarchs in English history. Her ancestors, Queen Victoria and King George III, ruled for 64 and 60 years, respectively. Henry III ruled for 56 years, Edward III for 50 years.

278

Elizabeth II

burgh, earl of Merioneth, and baron of Greenwich; they have four children (Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward) and six grandchildren. The heir apparent is their eldest son Charles, prince of Wales. Although Elizabeth has no control over government or military policy, she has played a significant role in strengthening English morale and unifying her subjects, especially during times of crisis. She began this role in 1940 during World War II, when, at the age of fourteen and long before she was queen, she broadcast a message of support to the children of Britain. She has continued to be an emblem of British nationalism during subsequent military engagements, such as the Suez crisis (1956), the Falklands War (1982), the first Gulf War (1991), the war in Iraq (2003), and the ongoing unrest and violence that has been recurring in Northern Ireland since 1968. During her reign, Elizabeth has seen the continued devolution of the former British Empire: at least forty former territories have gained independence since she took the throne in 1952. There has also been a move to decentralize domestic power in the United Kingdom.The National Assemblies for Wales in Cardiff and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh were founded in 1999 as part of these move toward devolution. At the same time, ties with Europe have become stronger during her reign; Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973 and is one of its strongest members. Elizabeth’s reign has also witnessed personal changes to the British monarchy, both real and symbolic. In 1993, after much public pressure and controversy, Elizabeth voluntarily agreed to begin paying income and capital gains taxes, from which she had previously been exempt. At about the same time, in the early 1990s, the marital difficulties and divorces of her children became a cause of public embarrassment. Despite widespread public disapproval of her children’s behavior, Elizabeth herself has remained a popular monarch. See also: Windsor, House of.

EMISSARY LETTERS Official messages carried by a representative of one government or monarch to another.

Until the transportation advancements of the twentieth century, travel and communication between distant governments was slow. Only under special circumstances, such as war or religious pilgrimages, did rulers leave their own lands and journey to another. Yet, monarchs still were able to exercise complete authority over such matters as war and peace. Emissaries to foreign nations carried out much necessary political and trade negotiation through diplomatic letters expressing the sovereign’s wishes.The letters were often elaborately concealed and bore seals and other marks of authenticity. Among the oldest existing letters carried by emissaries are a series of about 400 clay tablets, dating from the fourteenth century b.c.e., from the ancient city of Amarna in Egypt. These ancient clay documents, written in a cuneiform script, were sent by the Pharaoh Amenhotep III (r. ca. 1386–1349 b.c.e.), and his son, Akhenaten (r. ca. 1350–1334 b.c.e.), to surrounding realms and cities under their control.The Amarna letters concerned various matters of state, such as taxes, the provision of soldiers, and the diplomatic exchanges of gifts. Individuals from various professions, including clergymen, served their monarchs as emissaries.The Franciscan friar John of Pian de Carpine was one of four monks dispatched by Pope Innocent IV to the Far East. Friar John traveled to Mongolia around 1245 c.e. to deliver papal letters to the Great Khan, Kuyuk Khan (r. 1241–1248), urging him to stop killing Christians and to embrace the Christian faith. When Friar John returned to Italy, he brought letters to Pope Innocent from the khan; not only had the friar not converted him, but the khan said he would continue efforts to conquer more territory and told the pope to surrender to his power. The mistrust between Christian and Mongol nations continued, and other Western diplomatic missions to the East met with varying degrees of success. In 1289, for example, the king of France, Philip IV (r. 1285–1314), negotiated with Arghun Khan (r. 1284–1291), promising to support the khan’s invasion of Egypt. In return, the khan promised France control of the city of Jerusalem. Historically, much diplomacy has been carried out secretly, with only monarchs, a few trusted advisers, and emissaries fully aware of treaties or clauses in treaties. In the thirteenth century, two envoys posing as Franciscan monks carried out clandestine negotia-

E m p e ror s a n d E m p r e s s e s tions among Peter III of Aragon (r. 1276–1285), the pope, and Emperor Michael VIII of Byzantium (r. 1261–1282).These negotiations resulted in an uprising in Sicily, known as the Sicilian Vespers, against Duke Charles I of Anjou (r. 1246–1285). Throughout the Renaissance, world exploration led to interest in other cultures and to efforts to establish diplomatic relationships. Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) dispatched emissaries to India to the court of Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605). Elizabeth also sent the mathematician and astronomer John Dee on a secret diplomatic mission to the court of Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II (r. 1576–1612) in Prague.The mission served Elizabeth’s Protestant interests in having an eye and ear in the Holy Roman Emperor’s capital city. Diplomatic initiatives also were carried out by other European nations. By 1596, for example, the Spanish had established themselves in the Philippines.When the king of Angkor in Cambodia needed soldiers for protection against attack, he sent a request to the Spanish governor of Manila, who came to his aid.This appeal is the first known exchange between the West and Cambodia. Other governments have used emissary letters to ask for aid from allies. In the eighteenth century, the kingdom of Georgia in the Caucasus region found itself threatened by the expanding Ottoman and Persian empires.Through an envoy, King Vakhtang VI of Georgia (r. 1703–1724) sent a petition for help to King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715). Fearing that France’s interests would be harmed, Louis ignored the plea. In 1723, the Ottoman Turks were able to occupy eastern Georgia. Emissary letters have been sent for a variety of purposes. For example, Guru Gobind Singh (r. 1675–1708), the Muslim leader of the Sikhs of India, sent two emissaries with his well-known Epistle of Victory (or Zafarnamah) to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (1658–1707), criticizing the emperor’s conduct in war and advocating the application of strict morality in all human activities. It seems that Aurangzeb was so impressed with the letter that he requested Gobind Singh to meet with him to establish a peace. Unfortunately, Aurangzeb died before the Guru could reach the palace, but the Sikhs still venerate the letter as a treatise on moral conduct. See also: Ambassadors; Diplomacy, Royal.

279

EMPERORS AND EMPRESSES Monarchs who reign over an extended area, usually one that includes several subject nations. The term emperor has its origin in ancient Rome. In 31 b.c.e. Octavian, the nephew of Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.), emerged as sole victor in the civil wars that followed Caesar’s assassination in 44 b.c.e. Octavian, who became the Emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.). In 29 b.c.e., the Roman Senate bestowed a number of titles on Augustus, one of which was imperator. The term meant power, command, and dominion, and was usually used in a military sense. The title imperator (or emperor) was retained by all of Augustus’s successors, even after the Roman Empire split into two parts in 395 c.e. For centuries after the final fall of Rome, the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire continued to see themselves as the heirs of Rome. Because the center of the Eastern Empire was Byzantium, it became known as the Byzantine Empire; its rulers continued to use the title emperor until the collapse of the empire in 1453 at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. The Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed in 476, following the Germanic conquests, and its territory was broken up into various kingdoms. In 800, Pope Leo III bestowed the title of emperor on the Frankish king Charlemagne (r. 768–814) following his conquest of most of Western Europe. Although his son Louis (r. 814–840) inherited the title, the Frankish Empire did not survive long. By the tenth century, the dukes of Saxony, who had come to the German throne beginning with Henry I (r. 919–936), ruled much of Central Europe. Henry’s son, Otto I (r. 936–973), conquered Italy and was crowned emperor of the Romans by the pope in 962. As such, Otto is generally regarded as the founder of the Holy Roman Empire and the first Holy Roman emperor. Throughout Europe at the time, the title “emperor” remained associated with Rome and with the German Crown. By the sixteenth century, however, the term emperor ceased to be tied to Germany or to ancient Rome, and other kings began to use the title. By 1610, it was used to designate the Ottoman sultan, as well as to refer to the heads of earlier ancient empires such as Babylonia and Assyria. By the early seventeenth century, Russia saw itself as the heir to

280

E m p e ror s a n d E m p r e s s e s

Byzantium and, hence, as the third Roman Empire. Consequently, Russian ruler Peter the Great (r. 1682–1725) used the title imperator, and Catherine the Great (r. 1762–1796) was styled “Empress of all the Russias.” Although the term emperor was originally understood to mean a ruler who had control over several kingdoms, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the title came to be much overused. Napoleon (r. 1799–1815), who became dictator for life, was granted imperial status by the French Senate and was crowned emperor by the pope in December 1804. This led to a number of European rulers proclaiming themselves emperors, including even the Habsburg ruler of Germany, who was a vassal of the Holy Roman emperor. The Westernized term emperor has also been applied to the rulers of non-Western empires. In both China and Japan, for example, the individuals who ruled over the centuries are now termed emperors, and Japan still has an emperor. Other countries in other periods, including Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and India, have also been ruled at one time or another by rulers now termed emperors. See also: Dynasty; Empire; Imperial Rule; Kingdoms and Empires; Realms,Types of.

EMPIRE A large extended area, usually including several subject nations, which is ruled by the same monarch. The ruler of an empire may be called by various titles, including caesar, emperor or empress, tsar or tsarina, kaiser, khan, or even king or queen. When an empire develops and expands, its ruler sometimes leaves the monarchs of conquered states to serve as puppet rulers or administrators; in other cases, an emperor may choose to appoint his own administrators. Historically, as empires age, they often grow corrupt and overextended, leaving them weakened and unable to defend themselves militarily. Many times in history, a weakened empire has been conquered by another state. In some cases, the conquering state was one that was expanding and building its own empire. In other cases, it might have been an imperial territory or subject state whose ruler or people revolted against imperial power because of harsh rule, resentment over paying tribute,

dealing with the whims of corrupt rulers, or unpopular imperial policies. A number of times throughout history, empires have become too powerful, threatening the balance of power. Such was the case, for example, with Spain in the early 1600s. When Charles II of Spain (r. 1665–1700) died childless in 1700, ending the powerful Habsburg line on the Spanish throne, the successor was Philip V (r. 1700–1724) of the French House of Bourbon. The Wars of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) followed; ultimately, Spain lost many of its territories and its power and became, instead, a puppet state of France. An empire often provides military protection to subject nations and, in return, expects some form of tribute from its vassals. In addition, empires frequently expect, and take steps to develop, some type of cultural, economic, and political conformity. As with the Roman or British empires, for example, the state encourages the development of a common language, a common monetary unit, and a common set of ideals throughout the empire.This helps to create a common bond, and the use of a common language—whether Latin, Spanish, or English—makes communication between different peoples easier and helps to consolidate imperial power. For these reasons, empires frequently see themselves as a civilizing influence, although vassal nations will usually regard the imperial power with resentment. Empires can be acquired through marriage as well as through battle and conquest. Should a king marry the daughter of another monarch, their child will then be in line to inherit both thrones. Such was the case in fifteenth-century Spain, when the marriage Ferdinand of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) and Isabella of Castile (r. 1474–1504) united the two most important kingdoms of Iberia. In the generation following Ferdinand and Isabella, marriages among their children forged alliances with Austria and the powerful Habsburg dynasty, ultimately giving Spain an extended empire. In recent years, since the decline of the British Empire in the first half of the twentieth century, the word “empire” has taken on increasingly negative connotations, as peoples around the world reject the notion of imperial rule and claim the idea of self-rule as the basic foundation of government. See also: Dynasty; Emperors and Empresses; Imperial Rule; Kings and Queens; Kingdoms and

English Monarchies Empires; Realms, Types of; Royal Families; Succession, Royal;Tribute. FURTHER READING

Miller, Townsend. The Castles and the Crown. Spain: 1451–1555. New York: Coward-McCann, 1963.

ENGLISH MONARCHIES (400s C.E.–Present)

One of the world’s oldest surviving monarchies, which has experienced a succession of rulers and dynasties from the early Middle Ages to the present. Over the past sixteen centuries, the English monarchy has survived in an almost continuous line of succession. One reason the English monarchy has endured is its ability to adjust to changing historical circumstances. England’s kings and queens have ruled over territories of different sizes, have wielded greater and lesser degrees of power, and had widely varying responsibilities.

HISTORY The history of the English monarchy begins in the socalled Dark Ages. England itself takes its name from fifth century invaders—the Germanic tribes known as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Prior to this time, the Celtic people of Britain, the Britons, were under the dominion of the Roman Empire. The same northern Germanic warlords who destroyed Rome eventually made their way to Britain and established small kingdoms beginning in Kent in the southeast and spreading to the north and west. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons established seven small separate kingdoms in England that battled each other for control of their small territories almost constantly for nearly four centuries. These small, weak kingdoms of the Saxon heptarchy (seven kingdoms) were first united at the beginning of the ninth century under Egbert (r. 802–839), the first king of a unified England whose borders roughly correspond to those of today. During the ninth and tenth centuries, the AngloSaxon monarchs were fairly successful in fending off threats from Viking invaders. But they were unable to repel the Norman invasion of 1066, when they were forced to cede control of England to William of Normandy (the Conqueror), who established a new,

281

French-speaking royal dynasty and ruled England as William I (r. 1066–1087). During the Middle Ages, the Norman kings made significant increases in the size of the territory controlled by the English Crown, gaining tenuous holds on Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.The dominion of the English kings over their Celtic neighbors reached its height in this period under Edward I (r. 899–924), while England briefly gained power over France under Henry V (r. 1413–1422). Scotland presented perhaps the biggest obstacle to the Normans; the two nations engaged in bloody skirmishes along the England–Scotland borders for most of the medieval period. Skirmishes between England and Scotland came to an end in 1603 when James VI of Scotland (r. 1567–1625) succeeded to the throne of England as James I (r. 1603–1625) after the death of his distant relation, Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). James’s Union of the Crowns united the former rival nations under one monarch, a union that was cemented with the Act of Union of 1707, which united the parliaments of England and Scotland. In 1800, Ireland became part of the United Kingdom, losing its separate parliament. But most of Ireland, except Northern Ireland, regained its independence in the twentieth century. Beginning in the sixteenth century, England began a course of New World exploration, establishing colonies for trade throughout the world. In the centuries that followed, English monarchs ruled over American colonies, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and other parts of the world.While America gained its independence from England in the eighteenth century, many of England’s other colonial ventures did not become independent until well into the twentieth century.

POWER Just as the English monarchs ruled over vastly different-sized territories, they also possessed radically different degrees of power throughout history. Many other Western European nations eventually abandoned the monarchical form of government. France, for example, first abolished its monarchy in the French Revolution of 1789, and it has not had a monarch, even a symbolic one, since the nineteenth century. England, however, has been through revolution, yet the monarchy remains. England’s revolution took

282

English Monarchies

KINGS AND QUEENS OF ENGLAND

House of Plantagenet

House of Wessex

Henry II*

1154–1189

Egbert

802–839

Richard I*

1189–1199

Ethelwulf

839–858

John*

1199–1216

Ethelbald

858–860

Henry III

1216–1272

Ethelbert

860–866

Edward I*

1272–1307

Ethelred I

866–871

Edward II*

1307–1327

Alfred the Great*

871–899

Edward III*

1327–1377

Edward I*

899–924

Richard II*

1377–1399

Ethelstan

924–939

Edmund I

939–946

Edred

946–955

Edwig

955–959

Edgar I

959–975

Edward II*

975–978

Ethelred II

978–1016

Edmund II Edward III [the Confessor]* Harold

1016 1042–1066 1066

House of Normandy William I [the Conqueror]*

1066–1087

William II [Rufus]*

1087–1100

Henry I*

1100–1135

House of Lancaster Henry IV*

1399–1413

Henry V

1413–1422

Henry VI

1422–1461

House of York Edward IV Edward V Richard III*

1461–1483 1483 1483–1485

House of Tudor Henry VII

1485–1509

Henry VIII*

1509–1547

Edward VI*

1547–1553

Mary I*

1553–1558

Elizabeth I*

1558–1603

House of Stuart House of Blois Stephen*

1135–1154

James I*

1603–1625

Charles I*

1625–1649

283

English Monarchies

House of Stuart (continued)

George III*

1760–1820

Charles II*

1660–1685

George IV

1820–1830

James II*

1685–1688

William IV

1830–1837

Victoria*

1837–1901

House of Orange William III* and Mary II*

1689–1702 1689–1695

House of Stuart Anne*

1702–1714

House of SaxeCoburg-Gotha (House of Windsor since 1917) Edward VII

1901–1910

George V

1910–1936

Edward VIII

House of Hanover

George VI

1936 1936–1952

George I*

1714–1727

Elizabeth II*

George II*

1727–1760

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

place a century before that of France, and its subsequent restoration of the king was more successful. Nevertheless, the powers of the monarchy in England have been significantly reduced since that time. The current ruler of England, Queen Elizabeth II (r. 1952– ), is mainly a figurehead, with little political influence or military power. However, she retains an important role as a national symbol, an object of English pride, and a living representative of centuries of English history. Although English monarchs today possess little actual power, the height of the monarchical power in England was reached during the Renaissance under the Tudor and Stuart dynasties. Notable Tudor rulers include Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547), who broke with the Catholic Church in order to end his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In the process, Henry destroyed Catholic monasteries, seized the wealth of the English churches for himself, and ordered the murder of Thomas More, chancellor of England, who refused to acknowledge Henry’s authority over the Church. Another notable Tudor monarch was Henry’s daughter Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), who also executed political enemies, such as Mary, Queen of Scots.

1952–

Although the Tudors increased the power of the throne through violence, their successors, the Stuarts, brought the English monarchy to the verge of despotism. To the Stuarts, kingliness was next to godliness.The first Stuart king of England, James I (r. 1603–1625), believed passionately in the divine right of kings—the belief that the king was God’s representative or steward on earth, divinely selected and infallible.The Stuart kings were also proponents of the “royal touch,” the belief that the touch of a divinely appointed monarch could heal certain ailments, such as scrofula (“the king’s evil”). The despotism of the Stuarts, combined with a growing religious conflict between Catholics and Puritans, led to the English Civil War in 1642. The reigning monarch at the time, Charles I (r. 1625– 1649), and the royalist nobles who remained loyal to him, defended themselves against the supporters of Puritanism and the Parliament. Charles was eventually executed in 1649, and in his place, the parliamentary general Oliver Cromwell became the Lord Protector of England. After Cromwell’s death and the brief rule of his son Richard, the English people invited the exiled Stuarts to resume the throne in 1660. But the En-

284

English Monarchies

Originally built in the seventeenth century, Buckingham Palace was remodeled under the direction of architect John Nash in 1828. Beginning with Queen Victoria in 1837, the palace has served as the official London residence of British sovereigns.

glish Civil War had changed the country.When James II (r. 1685–1688) angered a large portion of the English people by promoting religious tolerance, particularly toward Catholics, he was forced from the throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, so-called because no blood was shed. James’s successors, William (r. 1689–1702) and Mary (r. 1689–1695), relinquished a large portion of the monarch’s power to Parliament and the Privy Council, the advisers to the Crown. This compromise, in which power was shared by Parliament and the throne, returned England to a state closer to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, in which monarchy was semi-elective and the witenagemot, the Saxon equivalent of a parliament, possessed some power.

RESPONSIBILITIES Over time, the responsibilities of English monarchs have fluctuated along with their power. First and foremost, the monarchs controlled political and military aspects of the kingdom. This involved every-

thing from policymaking to leading the country to war. In the medieval period, English kings actually led armies in battle. Henry V (r. 1413–1422), for example, led the English army to a great victory over the French at the battle of Agincourt (1415), while Richard III (r. 1483–1485) died on the battlefield in a civil conflict that ended the Wars of the Roses (1455–1485). Since Henry VIII, the kings and queens of England have also been their country’s spiritual leader as head of the Church of England. Certain English monarchs have had immense influence in the cultural realm. In the world of letters, the patronage of a king or queen could lead to the success or failure of a particular writer. English authors who made their fortune in part through royal patronage include Geoffrey Chaucer,William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and Sir Walter Scott. A few English monarchs were even authors themselves. James I wrote treatises not just on kingship but on witchcraft and tobacco, while Elizabeth I wrote poetry. In the nineteenth century, Queen Victoria (r. 1837–1901)

E n t h r o n e m e n t, R i t e s o f set trends in all fields of culture. In stark contrast to the decadence of the earlier nineteenth century, the Victorian era ushered in a stricter sense of morality, a new emphasis on domestic values and family life, and a more conservative style of dress. The power of the English monarchy has weakened significantly since the days of Saxon warlords and medieval kings who were thought to be able to heal illness with a touch of the hand. Even so, royalty still has the ability to capture the imaginations of the world; witness the remarkable influence that Princess Diana, the wife of Prince Charles, current heir to the throne, had during her lifetime. See also: Entries on Individual English Monarchs; Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Colonialism and Kingship; Divine Right; Healing Powers of Kings; Lancaster, House of; National Identity; Plantagenet, House of; Stuart Dynasty; Windsor, House of;York, House of. FURTHER READING

Ashe, Geoffrey. Kings and Queens of Early Britain. Chicago: Academy Chicago, 1998. Brendon, Piers, and Phillip Whitehead. The Windsors: A Dynasty Revealed, 1917–2000. London: Pimlico, 2000. Longford, Elizabeth, ed. The Oxford Book of Royal Anecdotes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

ENTHRONEMENT, RITES OF Ceremonies in which a king or queen is seated on a chair or throne, often the last stage in the coronation or inauguration, indicating that the ruler has now reached the fullness of royal power.The throne is the place from which the sovereign dispenses justice and law. When enthroned, the ruler is also traditionally manifested symbolically to the people as a semidivine being.

SYMBOLISM OF THRONES Throughout history, rulers in both ancient and modern societies have used the throne as a symbol of their royal status. Thrones are frequently associated with divinity, as a link to the gods who sit on thrones in the heavens. Jupiter’s throne was strewn with stars, and the God of the Old Testament is supposed

285

to have said to the ancient Hebrews, “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.” For earthly kings and rulers, thrones symbolize their role as intermediaries between heaven and earth. According to tradition, the sacred Chrysanthemum Throne of Japan was established at the time the heavens and the earth were separated. The emperor of Japan himself is thought to descend from heaven. The Dragon Throne of China was said to unite heaven and earth, and when the emperor was seated on it, he radiated his presence through the entire world. Ancient Sumerian mythology describes the royal throne as being carved from a cosmic tree, the tree that in many cultures connects the various realms of the world: the home of the gods, the earth, and the underworld. A Sumerian myth describes how the huluppu tree grew beside the Euphrates River and was found by the goddess Innana. Out of it, the hero Gilgamesh carved a throne and regalia for her. It is from Inanna and her throne (which she wore on her head) that the Sumerian kings received their power. In the medieval period, the imperial throne of the Byzantine emperor was under a starred canopy and was made like a chariot to symbolize cosmic movement.

ENTHRONEMENT RITES Enthronement rites in many societies are designed as a rite of passage, symbolizing a death to the monarch’s previous ordinary life and a rebirth as ruler. Often, the throne represents the body of the Great Mother or earth goddess; the king sits in it as though sitting on her lap and is reborn. Christian terminology employs the same theme. At the council of Ephesus in 431 c.e., the Virgin Mary was declared to be “The Mother of God, the Throne of God.” In fact, Mary is often shown in the same way as older mother goddesses, with the divine king Jesus seated on her lap. French historian Jacques Le Goff described a French coronation ritual from the thirteenth century as a rite of passage in which the king goes from the ordinary world to the sacred one. The rite begins with the king’s ceremonial rising from bed, and it continues with his procession to the cathedral in Reims, where his transformation into a king takes place. In the final part of the rite, the king mounts the throne, the place of new life and new power. In Japan, the emperor and empress have been tra-

286

E n t h r o n e m e n t, R i t e s o f

ditionally regarded as descendants of the goddess Amaterasu. Before they could rule, they underwent a Great Enthronement ceremony during which Amaterasu was said to enter their bodies.The Japanese imperial candidate entered a special enthronement palace in front of the imperial palace alone in the middle of the night and passed first into one sacred hall, then another. In each hall, there was a kami (divine) couch.The nature of the rite was kept secret, but it involved being symbolically united to the goddess. In the Akuapem kingdom in Ghana, the king is installed on a special throne called a Black Stool, on which human blood, usually from his lineage, has been poured. The blood is considered the source of the stool’s power. When the king is installed on the Black Stool, it unites him to the spirit of his ancestors and gives him power to rule. A ruler on a throne is a symbol of power, but at times, the throne itself is such a symbol. For example, in the eighteenth century in China, on the imperial feast day, the emperor himself would remain hidden behind a screen, and the people would prostrate themselves before the empty throne, which is where his power lay. Thrones remain an important part of royal ritual throughout the world’s surviving monarchies. They still give a sense of exaltation and power, even when the original sacred origins of the rites have long been forgotten. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Divinity of Kings; Earth and Sky, Separation of. FURTHER READING

Bertelli, Sergio. The King’s Body: Sacred Rituals of Power in Medieval and Early Modern Europe.Trans. R. Burr Litchfield. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001. Cannadine, David, and Simon Price, eds. Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

ESARHADDON (r. 680–669 B.C.E.) Assyrian king who consolidated his power, enlarged his kingdom, and rebuilt the city of Babylon. Esarhaddon was the youngest son of King Sennacherib of Assyria (r. 705–681 b.c.e.) and Queen Naqija.

In 689 b.c.e., Sennacherib sacked Babylon and appointed Esarhaddon governor of Babylonia.When the king was murdered by his older sons in 681 b.c.e., Esarhaddon moved quickly to face his brothers’ rebel forces, massed in western Assyria. Most of these forces promptly deserted to Esarhaddon, and his brothers were forced to flee. Esarhaddon returned to Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, where an Assyrian council appointed him king. This appointment was probably a controversial one because Esarhaddon, unlike his father and most powerful Assyrian politicians of the time, was a supporter of the Babylonians. Many scholars speculate that his mother, Queen Naqija, assisted Esarhaddon in his successful bid for power. Esarhaddon had a number of superstitious practices that affected his reign. Perhaps the most striking of these was a strong fear of eclipses of the moon, three of which occurred while he held the throne. Each time, Esarhaddon decided to remove the risk of ill luck by not remaining as the head of state. Instead, he had a replacement king take the throne, while he masqueraded as a peasant. After a brief sojourn on the throne (and the return of the moon), the temporary kings were killed, and Esarhaddon resumed the throne. Soon after becoming king of Assyria, Esarhaddon ordered the reconstruction of Babylon, warning the Babylonians that their city had been destroyed by his father as punishment by the god Marduk. Esarhaddon gained Babylonian support by referring to himself as governor of Babylonia rather than as king of Assyria. A short time into his reign, Esarhaddon signed a peace treaty with the Elamites, who occupied an independent kingdom southeast of Assyria. This allowed him to turn his attention away from traditional disputes over the border between Elam and Assyria and to focus instead on Egypt, Assyria’s greatest rival. When Egypt, under the leadership of the Pharoah Taharqa (r. 690–664 b.c.e.), began to foment revolt in Assyrian-controlled Phoenicia, Esarhaddon established a garrison of Assyrian troops on the Egyptian border and quelled the rebellion. He then marched on Egypt, taking the Egyptian capital of Memphis in 671 b.c.e., and making Egypt a vassal state of Assyria. Esarhaddon’s older son, Shamash-shum-ukin, was unpopular, so the king named his younger son, Ashurbanipal, as his successor in 672 b.c.e., leaving

E t i qu e t t e, Roya l Shamash-shum-ukin as Crown Prince of Babylon. Three years later, in 669 b.c.e., Esarhaddon died while trying to put down a rebellion in Egypt led by Taharqa, who Esarhaddon had overthrown in his conquest of Egypt several years earlier. Ashurbanipal succeeded his father on the throne, ruling Assyria from 668 to 627 b.c.e. See also: Ashurbanipal; Assyrian Empire; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twentysixth); Sennacherib.

ETHELRED II, THE UNREADY. See Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Edward the Confessor

ETIQUETTE, ROYAL The ceremonies and forms of acceptable behavior expected of royalty. Kings and queens were governed by the etiquette that they or their royal predecessors constructed. Etiquette for royals often differed greatly from the rules of comportment that governed their subjects and thus became a reflection of the title and status awarded the person, whether king, queen, princess, or prince. The etiquette in place in royal courts governed the sovereigns, often equating them with godlike figures while thoroughly discouraging any attempt at social climbing by courtiers and subjects. Ritualized interaction between a monarch and subjects was important because it reinforced continuity and displayed power.

SHAPERS OF ETIQUETTE France’s most powerful king, Louis XIV (1638–1715), did much to shape the way royal etiquette was interpreted. Louis ascended the throne in 1642, though his reign really began after the death of Cardinal Mazarin in 1661. After being victorious in two wars in 1682 and determined to rule directly unlike previous kings who ruled through their ministers, Louis did so in the grandest style possible from the palace of Versailles. The palace was home to 5,000 nobles and roughly that same number in the surrounding neighborhoods. Versailles became the center of power, both socially and politically; for a noble not to be active at Versailles was tantamount to invisibility.

287

By using etiquette and ceremony as tools of power, Louis XIV was able to influence the behavior of the courtiers since they were falling over themselves to please him and secure their place at Versailles. The courtiers would interpret Louis’s smallest gesture of displeasure or happiness as a sign of a shift in power—and indeed these gestures often were signs, resulting sometimes in unusual behavior on the part of the king.

QUEEN VICTORIA The reign of Queen Victoria of England (1819– 1901) was punctuated by a complex set of mores and etiquette that governed good society. During Victoria’s reign, England was immensely wealthy, and wars were largely confined to the colonies. Queen Victoria withdrew from society after the death of her husband, her German cousin, Prince Albert. The etiquette of the era governed nearly every aspect of upper-class society, from dancing and the need for a modest demeanor in women, to the conduct of business and appropriate behavior during visits to private homes. In Tudor England (the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries), royal etiquette dictated that where one’s marriage took place hinged on one’s noble rank. For example, a knight’s wedding could take place inside the chapel door, while an earl’s could take place inside the church. Those of a lesser rank could not be married physically inside the church.

CONSUMPTION Alcohol consumption in ancient Egypt was widespread, even among women and royals. Unlike their counterparts in Europe, Egyptians imbibed and indulged openly and often to excess. A woman depicted in a tomb illustration is shown vomiting, presumably after overindulgence, while a king-like figure is shown in a limestone drawing looking rather haggard and dissipated. Forensic scientists have found traces of cocaine and nicotine in twenty-one dynasty mummies; it is unclear, however, whether these traces are the result of drug use or contamination or ingestion of similar plants. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal. FURTHER READING

Cressy, David. Birth, Marriage and Death: Ritual, Religion and the Life Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

288

E t ru s c a n K i n g d o m s

ETRUSCAN KINGDOMS (flourished 700s–300s B.C.E.)

First great urban civilization of ancient Italy, whose culture strongly influenced the development of Rome and the Roman Republic. Etruscan civilization was centered in the Italian region of Etruria (which comprises present-day Tuscany and parts of Umbria), although at their height, the Etruscans ruled most of Italy. The Etruscans were well known in the ancient Mediterranean world for the freedom they allowed women, the relatively comfortable status of their slaves, and their elaborate divination rituals.

ORIGIN OF THE ETRUSCANS Debated since ancient times, the origin of the Etruscans is still a mystery. Three contradictory theories have emerged: the Etruscans came from Lydia in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey); they were an indigenous people of Italy; or they migrated to Italy from somewhere to the north. None of these theories has been proven conclusively, although modern scholars have largely discredited the third—that the Etruscans came from the north. Scholars have used two kinds of evidence in their efforts to solve the mystery of the Etruscans’ origins: archaeological and linguistic. Some archaeological evidence has led archaeologists to claim that the “civilized” Etruscans arrived in a region inhabited by the more “primitive” Villanovans, who flourished from the tenth to eighth centuries b.c.e. Other modern archaeologists suggest that the source of the cultural shift that took place in Etruria after 700 b.c.e. resulted from the growing influence of Greece rather than from a foreign migration. Linguistic analyses have been limited by a poor understanding of the Etruscan language. Some scanty evidence suggests that a dialect related to Etruscan was spoken on the Aegean island of Lemnos, in the direction of Lydia. Inscriptions found in the Alps suggest the Etruscan presence there as well. Until the obscure language of the Etruscans is fully translated, the origin of the Etruscans will probably remain a mystery. In the meantime, scholars are relying on archaeology to learn about Etruscan life.

the sixth century b.c.e., Etruscan power and wealth reached its peak, and Etruscan influence extended throughout much of the Italian Peninsula. The Etruscan civilization was relatively short-lived, however, especially compared to their successors, the Romans. By the fifth century b.c.e., it had begun to decline, and around 500 b.c.e. the Romans overthrew the Etruscans and established a new civilization in Italy.

Language and Writing The Etruscan language remains largely unintelligible to modern scholars. Their writing system, however, was adapted from that of the Phoenicians, and their alphabet is reasonably well understood. Indeed, it was from the Etruscans that the Romans received the alphabet which they adapted to Latin and which is the basis of the alphabet used in English and other Western languages today. Unfortunately, no Etruscan literature has survived from ancient times. The Roman emperor Claudius (r. 41–54 c.e.) wrote a history of the Etruscans based on sources that existed in the first century c.e., but all copies of this history have also been lost. Although more than 13,000 known inscriptions in Etruscan exist, most are very short and consist of no more than the name of a person or object.

Religion Divination was a very important aspect of Etruscan religion, particularly as derived from examining weather and the livers of animals. Etruscan diviners were responsible for determining the orientation of cities, and Etruscan cities were among the first planned cities in the ancient world. Etruscan priests, augurs, and diviners were employed in Rome for centuries after the Etruscan kingdom had lost its independence to the Romans. Early Etruscan religious objects show little evidence of a belief in humanlike gods. But later contact with the Greeks and Romans had a great influence, and Etruscan deities became increasingly identified with the pantheons of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. Earlier Etruscan art suggests a conception of a happy afterlife, but funerary art after the fourth century b.c.e. shows a much darker vision of life after death—perhaps also a result of the influence of Greek and Roman traditions.

ETRUSCAN CIVILIZATION

Government and Social Structure

Whatever its origins, Etruscan civilization developed rapidly in Etruria during the seventh century b.c.e. By

The Etruscan government was never centralized; rather, it comprised a number of autonomous city-

E t ru s c a n K i n g d o m s

289

The ancient Etruscans developed the first urban culture in Italy from the eighth to the first century b.c.e. Much of what is known about this enigmatic civilization comes from tombs in sprawling necropolises, or cemeteries, like this one in Cerveteri,Tuscany.

states connected by common cultural ties. In early Etruscan history, these city-states were ruled by kings, probably drawn from the wealthy aristocracy. Every year, a council of leaders from twelve cities, called the League of the Twelve Peoples, met at a shrine to the Etrurian god Voltumna, although the purpose of this meeting seems to have been as much religious as it was political. By the end of the fifth century b.c.e., however, it appears that most Etruscan governments had shifted to oligarchies, which included elected assemblies and magistrates. By the sixth century b.c.e., a growing middle class had begun to emerge in Etruscan society. Although the Etruscans depended upon slaves for labor, it is clear that the position of slaves at that time was far better than that of slaves in the rest of the ancient world. Indeed, Greek and Roman authors repeatedly

remarked on the comfortable position of slaves in Etruscan society. Etruscan slaves could own their own homes, and they were freed with relative ease into a society that allowed ex-slaves to rise easily in status. Women in Etruscan society enjoyed civil liberties that scandalized their Greek and Roman counterparts. According to Roman stories, Etruscan women could take an active part in public life, including involving themselves in political affairs, acting as highly educated augurs, and dining freely with their husbands and friends.

Leisure Etruria was a wealthy region, and the upper classes of Etruscan society enjoyed a significant amount of leisure. Etruscan frescoes and painted pottery are renowned for the skill and liveliness of their depic-

290

E t ru s c a n K i n g d o m s

tion of Etruscan life. Many decorative scenes show elaborate dinners, attended by men and women, with entertainment provided by musicians and dancers. Others show that the Etruscans adopted a number of sports from the Greeks, and that hunting and fishing may have been popular forms of recreation. The Etruscans also played board games and used devices of chance, such as knucklebones and dice, although these may have played a role in divination as well as in recreation.

War and Trade The Etruscans were a significant military power on both land and sea. According to the Roman orator Cato the Elder, almost all of Italy was once under Etruscan control. Rome itself was an Etruscan colony during the early years of its history. Although the Etruscans had to compete with the Greeks for maritime supremacy, they managed to establish an extensive trade network. Etruscan goods were exported throughout the Mediterranean world, including the Iberian Peninsula, France, the Balkan region, Greece, Anatolia (present-day Turkey), and North Africa.

DECLINE OF THE ETRUSCANS Until the Etruscan dynasty of the Tarquins assumed control of it, Rome was a rural backwater, hardly more than a collection of agricultural huts built in a swamp. Under the Etruscan kings of Rome—Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (r. ca. 616–579 b.c.e.), Servius Tullius (r. ca. 578–535 b.c.e.), and Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (r. ca. 524–510 b.c.e.), Rome was transformed into the city that would one day rule the world.The Etruscan rulers of Rome built the Cloaca Maxima, a sewer that helped to drain the marshy soil around the Tiber River.They constructed the walls of the Capitoline hill, replaced huts with brick houses, paved roads, and built the city’s first temples. Nevertheless, by 510 b.c.e., the Romans had become dissatisfied with the rule of the Etruscan kings and had expelled the Tarquins from the city. The Romans then established a republic, just as its Etruscan counterparts were doing in the rest of Italy.The overthrow of Etruscan rule in Rome, however, marked the beginning of the decline of Etruscan power in southern Italy.

Beginning of the End When the Etruscans lost control of Rome, they lost their land route to the cities of the fertile region of

Campania in southern Italy.This loss was tolerable as long as the Etruscans maintained their naval routes. But when the Etruscan navy was destroyed by Hieron I (r. 478–466 b.c.e.) of Syracuse in 474 b.c.e., contact with Campania was completely cut off and the region soon fell to restive Umbro-Sabellian tribes. In 395 b.c.e., the Etruscan city-state of Veii, one of the twelve cities of the confederation, fell to the Romans. At the same time, Celtic peoples from the north invaded as far as the heartland of Etruria, and the Gallic Senones people took possession of Picenum on the east coast of Italy.The invaders threatened the entire Etruscan civilization, and in the mid-fourth century b.c.e., the Etruscans barely escaped total destruction.

Roman Rule The Etruscan city-states, threatened on all sides by hostile groups and weakened by internal class struggles, fell to Rome one by one over the next century. By the mid-third century b.c.e., all of Etruria was under Roman control, although most of the Etruscan states preserved at least a pretense of political autonomy. In 90 b.c.e., Rome granted citizenship rights to its Italian vassal states, and the Etruscan states were incorporated into the growing power of the Roman state. During the Roman civil wars (80–79 b.c.e.), many of the Etruscan cities chose the wrong side, and the victor, the Roman general Lucius Cornelius Sulla, exacted brutal retribution. Sulla established his soldiers in several Etruscan districts, granting them Etruscan land in return for their past services. This led to a vicious cycle of Etruscan revolt and Roman reprisal, until the reign of the emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) finally brought peace to the land. By this point, Rome had either incorporated or discarded much of Etruscan culture. See also: Divination and Diviners, Royal; Rights, Civil; Roman Empire;Tarquin Dynasty;Tarquin the Proud. FURTHER READING

Brendel, Otto, and Francesca R. Serra Ridgeway. Etruscan Art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Haynes, Sybille. Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History. Los Angeles: Paul Getty Museum Publications, 2000.

E u n u c h s, Roya l

291

Macnamara, Ellen. The Etruscans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

themselves with prominent eunuchs to gain a measure of power and promote the interests of their own children.

EUNUCHS, ROYAL

THE SYSTEM IN CHINA

Castrated men who served as advisers and top officials for monarchs in many countries and periods. The cruel practice of castrating men in order to provide pliable slaves or loyal servants for royal masters occurred in many civilizations. Many died during the painful and unsanitary removal of the testicles (and sometimes the penis as well), and most of the rest lived miserable lives. But oddly, small numbers of royal eunuchs were able to use their peculiar status to amass and wield great power, even controlling the destiny of empires.

ROLES OF THE EUNUCH The Greek word eunouchus, from which the English “eunuch” derives, meant “keeper of the bedchamber.” That was perhaps the most well-known task that eunuchs performed—protecting the ruler’s sexual monopoly over his wives and concubines. In many empires and kingdoms, the monarch had hundreds or even thousands of female consorts, and any one of their many sons might aspire to the throne.To prevent the legal and religious catastrophe of an illegitimate king, eunuchs would guard the royal harem to keep out any man but the monarch. Eunuchs, however, also filled many other functions that required trust and loyalty to the monarch. Universal taboos prevented them from ever becoming rulers themselves. Perhaps more important, these childless men could not build rival dynasties and did not have families requiring support or an inheritance.They were expected to devote all their energies to their jobs and their monarchs. Monarchies as varied as ancient Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and Rome, the Byzantine and early Arab empires, the Muslim courts of Turkey, Persia, and India, and probably all the dynasties of China, used eunuchs. They all developed systems of recruiting or purchasing boys, slave or free, and castrating them to produce eunuchs for palace and government work. When political and religious custom kept monarchs isolated in palace complexes, eunuchs were the only men with regular access to the ruler, and they became his advisers, ministers, and generals. Wives, concubines, and queen mothers would often ally

The eunuch system was most deeply entrenched in China, where it is first mentioned in records from the eighth century b.c.e., though it probably long predated that era. By the end of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 c.e.), more than seventy thousand eunuchs served in the imperial court. The subsequent Manchu dynasty (1644–1912) drastically reduced these numbers, in an attempt to lessen eunuch intrigues. Nevertheless, as late as 1887 a British scholar reported that there were two thousand eunuchs in the Forbidden City in Beijing, while outside the palace, dozens of imperial relatives were also allowed to employ fixed numbers of eunuchs, as a privilege of rank. Classic Chinese historians repeatedly accused eunuchs of corruption and treachery, and blamed them for imperial inaction or misdeeds. These historians may have been biased, as they all came from the highly educated and generally aristocratic Mandarin class, while their eunuch competitors were of lower class origin and had not spent long years studying the Confucian classics. Chinese imperial armies, especially the palace armies of the T’ang dynasty (618–907), were often led by eunuchs. Under the later Mings, one celebrated eunuch was Admiral Zheng He (1371–1435), whose fleets of more than three hundred ships explored and traded all across the Indian Ocean. Whatever the exalted status of some individuals, however, most Chinese held eunuchs in contempt and excluded them from many religious rites. They saw eunuchs as deformed and pitied them for not having children to revere them after their deaths, a key concept in Chinese religion.

SLAVE EUNUCHS IN TURKEY In China, most eunuchs were sold as boys by poor parents. In some cases, young men with no resources had themselves castrated in the hope of getting palace jobs. In contrast, the eunuchs of the Ottoman Empire were generally of slave origin; by the sixteenth century, most Ottoman eunuchs were black Africans. Neither their race nor their legal status prevented some of these eunuchs from rising to positions of great power. The Chief Black Eunuch was

292

E u n u c h s, Roya l

often one of the most powerful officials at the Ottoman court. In fact, the only blacks ever to rise in the Ottoman imperial service were eunuchs. In the early nineteenth century, European observers reported on castration “factories” in southern Egypt, where several hundred young black boys were prepared each year for sale as eunuchs.When castration was banned in Egypt around 1860, the operation moved south to the Sudan. According to informants, a large majority of the boys (from 97 to 99 percent) survived, about the same success rate claimed in nineteenth-century China. Only four hundred seventy eunuchs still lived in the Forbidden City in Beijing in 1911 when the Chinese Revolution overthrew the Manchu dynasty. In 1924, the new Nationalist republic formally abolished the eunuch system. At the other end of Asia, in Ottoman Turkey, the revolution of 1908 ultimately led to the same result. When the reformist republican government in 1924 disbanded the seraglio (harem) in Istanbul, the last stronghold of the royal eunuch, respected and deplored for millennia, had finally disappeared. See also: Ming Dynasty; Ottoman Empire; T’ang Dynasty.

EUROPEAN KINGSHIPS The dominant style of European political rule from the fall of the Roman Empire to the era of democratic revolution (ca. 500–1800). The oldest European kingdoms came into existence during the early Middle Ages. Over the next millennium, powerful kingdoms arose in England and France, Germany flirted with centralized monarchy in the Holy Roman Empire, and kingdoms took shape in Spain, Sweden, Russia, and other places. After 1500, all these kingdoms faced serious challenges from the rise of democracy. The role of monarchs after 1800 changed dramatically for those who survived the democratic revolutions. Kingdoms became republics and constitutional monarchies and gave their once powerful rulers only limited or symbolic roles to play.

MEDIEVAL ORIGINS After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, Europe split into a series of kingdoms roughly

corresponding to the locations of the various Germanic peoples who had migrated there. These Germanic kingdoms rarely lasted more than a few generations. Meanwhile, the armies of the Islamic caliphate conquered Visigothic Spain in 711, and Merovingian France divided and united repeatedly as a result of battles between competing heirs.The true ancestors of European kingdoms came into being in the tenth century.

THE RISE OF THE CENTRALIZED STATE In the early Middle Ages, kings exercised power through personal ties with lesser nobles known as vassals. In return for protection from the king and the right to adjudicate their lands as they wished, vassals provided the monarch money and service. Authority such as exercising justice was privately owned.This system of governance, known as feudalism, began breaking down because it lacked a single powerful central authority. Beginning in England and France, kings began to erode feudal rights and centralize their authority through war, legal means, and wealth. In England, this process began under Norman rule following the invasion and conquest by William the Conqueror in 1066. As King William I (r. 1066–1087), he erased the existing Anglo-Saxon aristocracy of England and replaced it with Norman lords. As a result, William was able to establish unchallenged rule. His government was efficient and hierarchical, overcoming the weaknesses of a feudal system. By the thirteenth century, English monarchical government was well established despite periods of royal uncertainty. One such period occurred during the reign of King John (r. 1199–1216) when France seized English continental territories. In order to raise an army to fight the French, John raised taxes.When the war went badly for John, the English barons revolted and forced John to accept limitations on his power by signing the Magna Carta (1215).The English king was now subject to law and bound to his nobles. In France, beginning in the tenth century, the Capetian dynasty gradually centralized power by fighting against entrenched feudal lords and consolidating their own rule. The first Capetian monarch, Hugh Capet (r. 987–996), was elected by an aristocratic assembly and owed his authority to them. As a result, the French monarchy took much longer to centralize authority than their English counterparts.

E u rop e a n K i n g s h i p s

293

ROYAL RITUALS

THE ROYAL TOUCH Monarchs throughout Europe were often assigned supernatural as well as political powers because of their special position in European society. One such example was the legend that the kings could cure illness, especially epilepsy and a painful skin disease known as scrofula. French kings from the Middle Ages onward met their public on ceremonial occasions to touch the ill and infirm.The ritual was practiced much more often during the Middle Ages than later. Nonetheless, Louis XIV, who detested commoners, touched over 1,000 persons on numerous occasions, and in 1774 Louis XVI made a point of performing the ritual upon his coronation. English kings also practiced the ritual of the royal touch. All the kings from Henry VIII through the Stuarts met their people as healers. Henry reportedly believed thoroughly in his powers, while Elizabeth I was a skeptic.The Stuart king Charles II touched over 100,000 persons in the ritual act over the course of his reign.

By the twelfth century, however, Capetian kings had begun to extend royal power beyond central France. Louis the Fat (r. 1108–1137) and his trusted adviser Suger, the abbot of St. Denis, defended royal authority and, through careful propaganda, built an image of the French king as both saint and hero. Several generations later, Philip Augustus (r. 1180–1223) consolidated French power through a series of conquests and managed to incorporate much of Normandy and northern France into his domain. These kings laid the groundwork for a strong French monarchy.

THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD (ca. 1500–1800) Most European kingdoms followed a centralizing course from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. During this time, however, they took several different paths and faced very different futures.

England and Constitutionalism In 1603, Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) died without an heir. The closest male relative was James Stuart, who had been raised in France and influenced by the French court’s style and politics.When James I (r. 1603–1625) took the throne, he attempted to install a French-style absolutist monarchy in which

the king had unchallenged power. Since the Magna Carta, however, English kings had shared power with an assembly of notables, and this arrangement had been institutionalized as Parliament over the previous several centuries. James’s political and religious views thus angered and worried many Englishmen. When James’s son Charles I (r. 1625–1649) took the throne, he went even further than his father in his attempts to establish absolute power. Parliament resisted his initiatives, and Charles retaliated by sending soldiers into the House of Commons. Open civil war followed. In the end, Charles I was executed in 1649 and replaced not by a king, but by Oliver Cromwell, who ruled as Lord Protector of a Puritan Protectorate. Cromwell’s republic proved unpopular, however. After his death, the new Parliament of 1660 invited Charles II (r. 1660–1685), the son of the executed king, to return as monarch. The Stuarts still had not learned their lesson, however, and both Charles II and his brother James II (r. 1685–1688) pursued absolutist and Catholic initiatives.When James produced a male Catholic heir, Parliament appealed to William of Orange (r. 1689–1702), the husband of James’s Protestant daughter Mary (r. 1689–1695), to displace James and take the English throne. James fled to France, and William and Mary took the throne as co-

294

E u rop e a n K i n g s h i p s

monarchs. England returned to a stable monarchy, but the political direction of the country was decidedly constitutional. The monarch’s power was limited by law and precedent, and the power of Parliament was clearly on the rise.

France and Absolutism By 1600, France faced a set of problems similar to those in England. The monarchy was well established, but it was dependent upon a powerful and entrenched nobility.To rid itself of this challenge, the French monarchy, beginning with Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643), adopted a political philosophy known as absolutism.This philosophy asserted that the king was the sole authority in the kingdom and subject to challenge by no other power. Some individuals, such as the philosopher Jean-Bénigne Bossuet, went so far as to claim that the French king’s authority was second only to God’s. Bossuet called this concept the “divine right of kings.” Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) carried the philosophy of absolutism and divine right to its extremes. As a child, he had witnessed a civil war, the Fronde (1648–1653), during which aristocrats, judges, and commoners had all challenged monarchical power. In response, Louis sought to tame the forces that challenged his rule. He established his court outside Paris at the luxurious palace of Versailles, and he avoided commoners (except his officials) at all cost, never returning to Paris as an adult. Louis is said to have declared, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). To insure that he remained a monarch with no united challengers, he created a body of bureaucrats and aristocrats who owed their careers and livelihoods to the king alone. His power was unmatched and unquestioned.

Other Monarchies Other European nations possessed powerful and well-established monarchies as well. In Russia, for example, princes and then tsars had ruled from Moscow with an iron fist since around 910. The Spanish monarchy emerged with the unification of Aragón and Castile under Ferdinand II (r. 1479–1516) and Isabella (r. 1474–1504). Germany began its long road to unification under the military rulers of Prussia, beginning with Frederick I (r. 1701–1713). The Holy Roman Empire and the Austrian Empire influenced European history under Habsburg rule from the late fifteenth century. Other monarchies saw more lim-

ited periods of glory, Sweden and Poland-Lithuania being just two examples.

DEMOCRACY AND MODERN MONARCHY In the late eighteenth century, a distinct change in the political values of the Western world resulted in a series of democratic revolutions. Beginning with the American Revolution (1776–1783) and the French Revolution (1789–1799), Americans and many Europeans rejected arbitrary government and authoritative monarchy once and for all.The United States rejected monarchy entirely, forming the first large and stable republic in the modern era. France also rejected monarchy, executing Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) in 1793. Other monarchies, such as the English, survived, but were no longer active political institutions. Instead their roles became more and more symbolic and cultural. European monarchs such as Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II (r. 1972–Present) and Belgium’s King Albert II (r. 1993–Present) still exist today, but none has any real power. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Capetian Dynasty; Divine Right; English Monarchies; French Monarchies; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Iberian Kingdoms; Russian Dynasties; Spanish Monarchies; Swedish Monarchy; Tudor, House of;Valois Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Collins, James. The State in Early Modern France. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Fraser,Antonia, ed. Lives of the Kings and Queens of England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Venturi, Franco. The End of the Old Regime in Europe, 1768–1776:The First Crisis. Trans. R. Burr Litchfield. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.

EWYAS, KINGDOM OF. See Gwent Kingdom

EXCHANGE, MEANS OF. See Coinage, royal

Fa i s a l I

EXECUTIONS, ROYAL Sanctioned executions of monarchs, often carried out for political purposes, particularly during disputes over the Crown. Royals were often executed by members of their own government under the pretext of treason. Sometimes, however, this charge was simply a way of justifying the execution of a monarch in order to serve other political motivations. In general, a king was executed only in extreme circumstances. For example, in 1782, King Taksin of Cambodia (r. 1768–1782) was executed by his ministers after he had removed himself to a monastery, thereby allowing rebellion and the breakdown of his government. The execution of King Charles I of England (r. 1625–1649) in 1649 was an exceptional event, even in an age when public execution was common. Charles I claimed to rule with divine right, or with the will and authority of God.The idea of executing the divine head of state aroused great passion among the populace because it was considered a direct challenge to God’s authority. When Charles’s son, Charles II (r. 1660–1685) was restored to the throne of England eleven years later, the men who signed his father’s death warrant were tried and executed. Only the executioner, who had worn a mask concealing his identity, was spared retribution. The execution of King Louis XVI of France in 1792 (r. 1774–1792) was an important historic event in that it signified the end of the French monarchy following the French Revolution.The fate of the former king had been the first great political issue confronting the National Convention, which had ruled France since September 1792.When it was decided to try the former king for crimes against the nation, the deputies spent days agonizing over whether they had the authority to kill him and whether they should use that authority. Ultimately, they decided to execute the former king, and Louis XVI was guillotined in the Place de la Révolution in Paris on January 21, 1793.The French also used the guillotine for the executions of the former king’s Austrian queen, Marie-Antoinette. Many of the French aristocracy also met their fate at the guillotine during the revolutionary period. Throughout much of history, the execution of a king has marked a radical shift in a country’s form of government. The execution of Charles I of England,

295

for example, signified the change in government from the monarchy to the Commonwealth (1649–1653) with the Parliamentary leader Oliver Cromwell as head of state.The execution of French king Louis XVI also marked the end of the French monarchy and the beginning of the First Republic. (The monarchy was restored in 1804, but lasted only until 1870.) Modes of executing royalty have varied over the ages. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Germany and England used the Headman’s Axe to execute both royal and nonroyal individuals. In England, the Tower of London was the site of many notable beheadings and was used for only the aristocracy.Tower Green, an area outside the Tower, was reserved for royal executions, and the public did not attend. The Tower Green saw the beheadings of two of the wives of Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547)— Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard—as well as Lady Jane Grey, who took the throne of England briefly after the death of Henry’s son and successor, Edward VI (r. 1547–1553). See also: Deaccession; Dethronement; Divine Right; Regicide;Treason, Royal.

F FAISAL I (1885–1933 C.E.) Hashemite ruler (r. 1921–1933) who rebelled against Ottoman rule and became the first king of a sovereign Iraq. Faisal was a member of the Hashemite dynasty, an old Arabian noble family that had been influential in the city of Mecca since pre-Islamic times. In the twentieth century, the Hashemites briefly dominated the areas that are now Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Faisal’s father, Al-Hussein bin Ali, was the sherif of Mecca, a local ruler subordinate to the powerful Ottoman Empire that ruled over most of the Middle East. Faisal spent several years of his youth in Con-

296

Fa i s a l I

stantinople, the Ottoman capital, but in 1908 he returned to Mecca with his father to help govern the Hejaz region of Arabia. In 1916, Hussein and his sons led the Arab Revolt, a British-backed uprising against Ottoman rule. During the Arab Revolt, Faisal established himself as a competent leader, fighting alongside British adventurer T.E. Lawrence in the deserts of Jordan. In 1918, Faisal conquered the Syrian city of Damascus and set up a government there, and in 1920 he declared himself king of “Greater Syria.” However, the French government drove him out and established a semicolonial mandate government in Lebanon and Syria. Faisal lived in exile in Britain until the British government offered him the throne of Iraq in exchange for temporary British mandate authority over the new state. Faisal agreed and became king of Iraq in 1921 after winning 96 percent of the vote in a plebiscite. He ruled Iraq as a constitutional monarch during the mandate period and after the country gained its independence. Faisal governed capably, managing to moderate between the diverse ethnic and religious power blocs within Iraq. Under his leadership, Iraq became a fully independent nation and a sovereign member of the League of Nations in 1932. Just under a year later, Faisal I died of heart problems at a clinic in Switzerland, leaving his hard-won throne to his son Ghazi (r. 1933–1939). See also: Hashemite Dynasty.

FAN SHIH-MAN (d. 225 C.E.) Considered the greatest ruler (r. ca. 205–225) of the ancient Funan kingdom, which covered the area that is present-day Myanmar (Burma),Thailand, Cambodia, and southern Vietnam. The details of Fan Shih-Man’s reign are poorly documented, and nothing is known of his early life before taking the throne. According to ancient Chinese historical records, Fan Shih-Man ruled at the height of the Funan kingdom and was known for his attacks and conquests of neighboring kingdoms, both by land and sea. According to some sources, he extended the size of his kingdom by as much as 1,500 miles, as far as the lower Mekong River. Fan ShihMan recognized conquered states as his vassals.

So successful was Fan Shih-Man in his endeavors that he proclaimed himself Great King. Historical documents indicate that Fan Shih-Man died while exploring Chin-lin, a state believed to have been located in lower Burma or the Malay Peninsula. After his death in 225, his nephew, Fan Chan, killed Fan Shih-Man’s son, the rightful heir to the throne, and declared himself king. See also: Cambodian Kingdoms; Funan Kingdom; Vietnamese Kingdoms.

FANTE KINGDOM. See Akan Kingdoms FAROUK (1920–1965 C.E) Last reigning king of Egypt (r. 1936–1952), whose allegedly corrupt governance and unpopularity with the military led to the collapse of the Egyptian monarchy and the establishment of a republic in 1952. Farouk succeeded to the throne of Egypt in 1936, upon the death of his father, the unpopular King Fouad (r. 1917–1936). The first of the Mohammed Ali Pasha dynasty to speak fluent Arabic and a proponent of nationalism, Farouk seemed to be a king destined for popularity. But the young king, still a minor, entered the political stage at a turbulent time. Royal power in Egypt was waning and giving way to growing compromise between the imperial interests of Great Britain on the one hand and the nationalist demands of the popular Wafd Party on the other. Farouk’s diplomatic skills were not great enough to transcend his circumstances. For the first year of his reign, Farouk could do little but watch as the Wafd prime minister, An-Nahh-as—who became a recurring antagonistic figure during Farouk’s reign—renegotiated Egypt’s treaties with Britain. However, when Farouk reached the age of majority in July 1937, he immediately went about securing his control of all the powers accorded to him as a king of Egypt. By December of that same year, An-Nah-h-as had been dismissed. Great Britain, concerned primarily with preserving control of the Suez Canal, maintained a strong military and cultural presence in Egypt, and in 1939, the British insisted that Farouk reinstate An-Nah-h-as as prime minister. Farouk refused but was forced to

Fat i m i d D y na s t y comply when the British and the Wafd Party joined forces in 1942. When the prime minister negotiated the groundwork for the foundation of the Arab League in 1944, Farouk took advantage of An-Nah-h-as’s loss of Britain’s favor and dismissed him once more, planning to name himself head of the League. The Arab cause in Palestine was popular in Egypt, and despite allegations of corruption, political instability did not threaten Farouk’s hold on power until the unexpected crushing defeat of the Egyptians in the first engagement of the Arab-Israeli War (1948–1949). Many of Egypt’s military officers blamed Farouk personally for Egypt’s defeat, citing his incompetence in ridding Egypt of British military occupation as a symptom of his political ineffectiveness. In July 1952, a group calling itself the Free Officers, led by Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, staged a political coup in Egypt, forcing Farouk to abdicate the throne. Farouk’s son, Fouad (Fu’ad) II (r. 1952– 1953), was named king, but in less than twelve months, Nasser had transformed the country into a republic, leaving Farouk to live out the remainder of his life abroad. Fouad II was also exiled to France. See also: Abdication, Royal; Dethronement.

FATIMID DYNASTY (909–1171 C.E.) Islamic Shi’ite dynasty that ruled North Africa, especially Syria and Egypt, and often contended with the Abbasid dynasty for the title of caliph. The name of the dynasty is derived from Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad and wife of Ali, from whom the dynasty claimed descent.

ORIGINS The Fatimid dynasty first emerged in North Africa from relative obscurity in 909, when a Shi’ite leader named Ubaydullah arrived in Tunisia, claiming to be caliph by right of his descent from the Prophet’s family. Ubaydullah backed his claim with adequate military force to take North Africa from the Aghlabid dynasty. The Fatimids strengthened these claims in the next half-century, finally taking Egypt from the Ikshidid dynasty in 969. In Egypt, the Fatimids built their new capital, al-Qahirah, which we call Cairo. Ruling from the new capital, the Fatimids expanded

297

the empire into Syria and Palestine. While concentrating their rule and focus in Egypt, however, the Fatimids subsequently lost Tunisia. The Fatimid rulers took the titles of caliph and imam, reflecting their dual roles in temporal and spiritual leadership.As imams, they claimed religious dominion over all Islam, and Egypt became the center from which Shi’ite Muslims proselytized in Syria, Iran, and Yemen. Yet the Fatimids made no real efforts to convert the Egyptians, who were primarily Sunni Muslims, and they dealt with Christian and Jewish inhabitants with peaceful tolerance.

PERIOD OF TYRANNY One notable exception to the open-minded religious policy of the Fatimids was the caliph al-Hakim (r. 996–1021), whose madness prompted him to execute or assassinate almost anyone unfortunate enough to trigger his wrath, including several of his viziers (ministers of state). Al-Hakim persecuted Christians and Jews, destroying synagogues and churches. His destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem provided one of the rallying points for Christians in the Crusades. Not satisfied with these religious pogroms, alHakim declared himself a god and sent missionaries to carry word of his divinity throughout the Muslim world. Oddly, when some of these missionaries were killed, he restored Christians and Jews to favor and rebuilt many of their holy places.These religious activities were cut short when al-Hakim died abruptly under mysterious circumstances in 1021.

FATIMID RULE As caliphs, the Fatimids ruled a wealthy empire. Centered in the extremely fertile Nile Valley, the empire generated considerable agricultural wealth, augmented by extensive and profitable trade along the Mediterranean basin and the Red Sea. The Fatimid caliphs underlined their power by judicious display of their wealth, riding on horseback in elaborate processions through the streets of Cairo, attended by soldiers and holders of civil office. Fatimid administration was similar to that practiced by the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad. However, under the Fatimids, civil office became a meritocracy in which advancement was based on merit. Here again, the religious tolerance of the Fatimids was evident, as Sunnis were as likely as Shi’ites to hold pub-

298

Fat i m i d D y na s t y

lic office. In general, even Christians and Jews were eligible to serve in government and were promoted based on their skill. Egypt generally prospered under the Fatimids, who by and large promoted architecture, the arts, and scholarship.The culture of the Fatimids reached its apex during the caliphate of al-Mustansir (r. 1036–1094), but it began to decline toward the end of his reign as well.

END OF THE DYNASTY Like many other eastern rulers, the Fatimids chose their soldiers from outside the populations they ruled, choosing to fill their military ranks with mercenary Berbers, Sudanese, and Turks. In 1076, Turkish mercenaries rebelled against Mustansir, running roughshod through the palace and carrying away a fortune in jewels and art treasures. They were also said to have loaded twenty camels with priceless manuscripts, many of which were used later to light fires. When Mustansir died in 1094, the Fatimid army broke into factions among the Berbers, Sudanese, and Turks.The country followed suit, with Morocco, Palestine, and Syria falling away from central Fatimid control. In 1171, the Ayyubid leader Al-Nasir Yusuf removed the last Fatamid caliph, al-Adid (r. 1160– 1171), from power, bringing the Fatimid dynasty to an end.Yusuf, better known as Saladin, soon became sultan of Egypt (r. 1175–1193), bringing the Ayyubid dynasty to power. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Ayyubid Dynasty; Caliphates; Ikhshidid Dynasty; Saladin. FURTHER READING

Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. New York: Random House, 2002.

FERDINAND I (1751–1825 C.E.) Despotic monarch of the short-lived kingdom of the Two Sicilies, who ruled Sicily from 1816 to 1825). Both Ferdinand I and his grandson, Ferdinand II (r. 1830–1859), left behind a legacy of violence toward their people and obstinacy toward democracy. Ferdinand I was born in 1751 to Charles, ruler of the independent kingdoms of Naples and Sicily (r. 1735–1759).After his father became King Charles III

of Spain (r. 1759–1788) in 1759, Ferdinand reigned as King Ferdinand IV of Naples and Ferdinand III of Sicily. Ferdinand’s father Charles, an enlightened despot, instituted many progressive policies that continued after Ferdinand took the throne under the regency of Bernardo Tanucci. However, Ferdinand’s 1768 marriage to Marie Caroline of Austria, sister of the future queen of France, Marie Antoinette, marked the beginning of more authoritarian policies. After the Napoleonic Wars threw all of Europe into upheaval, Ferdinand abused his powerful position to eliminate the Sicilian constitution and then, in 1816, declared himself Ferdinand I of the new kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Though Ferdinand signed a new, Spanish-style constitution in 1820, his severe persecution of his political opponents never ceased. He died peacefully in 1825, and the Crown passed to his son Francis I (r. 1825–1830), who continued the ruthless and reactionary policies of his father. See also: Charles III; Marie Antoinette; Naples, Kingdom of; Power, Forms of Royal; Sicily, Kingdom of.

FERDINAND II (1810–1859 C.E.) Ruler of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies (r. 1830– 1859), whose harsh and despotic policies in reaction to the liberalizing trends of the time hastened the downfall of the kingdom. The son of Francis I (r. 1825–1830) and grandson of Ferdinand I (r. 1816–1825), Ferdinand II continued the ruthless administration that had been established by his grandfather and continued by his father. Gaining the throne in 1830 upon the death of Francis I, Ferdinand II began his rule with promises of reform. These promises were quickly broken or forgotten, however, and he became an absolute despot who used repression to further his goals. Furthermore, Ferdinand continued the policy of taking political prisoners that had characterized the reigns of his predecessors. After a few unsuccessful insurrections in the 1830s, the people of the Two Sicilies finally forced Ferdinand II to sign a new constitution in 1848, which granted liberal reforms and limited royal power.A string of violent demonstrations in Naples, however, led Ferdinand II to dissolve the constitution in 1849, and he began attacking his own people

Ferdinand II and Isabella I with bombs and artillery. These actions caused international and domestic outcry against Ferdinand and earned him the epithet “King Bomba.” Upon Ferdinand’s death in 1859, the devastated kingdom passed to his son, Francis II (r. 1859–1860), a weak ruler who let his ministers continue the reactionary policies of his father.The movement for Italian unification, led by the future king of Italy, Victor Emmanuel II (1861–1878), forced Francis II to surrender in 1861, thus dissolving the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. See also: Naples, Kingdom of; Nationalism; Sicily, Kingdom of;Victor Emmanuel II.

299

year he married Isabella. Upon the death of his father in 1479. Ferdinand became king of Aragón, but the Crown of Navarre passed through marriage to the French House of Foix instead. After Henry IV of Castile died on December 13, 1474, Isabella accepted the Crown of that kingdom. Through their marriage, Ferdinand and Isabella united Aragón and Castile, two of the most powerful kingdoms in Iberia. Although they ruled the kingdoms jointly, the union of Crowns was a personal one and not an official unification. Nevertheless, their joint reign marked the beginnings of a united Spain.

REFORMS AND CONQUESTS

FERDINAND II AND ISABELLA I (1452–1516 C.E.; 1451–1504 C.E.)

Fifteenth-century Spanish monarchs of the Trastarmara dynasty, also known as the Catholic Monarchs, whose marriage united the two most important kingdoms of Iberia and set the foundation for making Spain the most powerful nation in Europe.

ISABELLA OF CASTILE Isabella of Castile (r. 1474–1504) was born in the town of Avila on April 22, 1451. Her half-brother, Henry IV of Castile (r. 1454–1474), was a corrupt ruler against whom the Castilian nobles openly rebelled. In July 1468, the nobles offered the crown to Isabella, who demanded, instead, that the rebels acknowledge Henry IV as monarch.The rebellious nobles did so, but they required Henry to acknowledge Isabella as his lawful heir. Henry IV tried to arrange a marriage for Isabella with several undesirable choices.The worst of these, Pedro Giron, was a debauched middle-aged man who asked for Isabella’s hand in exchange for deserting the nobles in their revolt against Henry. Isabella, however, had her own plans and corresponded secretly with Ferdinand of Aragón, the son of King John II of Navarre (r. 1425–1479) and Aragón (r. 1458–1479). Ferdinand and Isabella were married in October 1469, without Henry’s consent.

FERDINAND OF ARAGÓN Born on March 10, 1452, Ferdinand was given rule of Sicily in 1468 by his father, King John II.The next

The Catholic Monarchs faced abundant obstacles upon coming to the throne. They inherited a bankrupt treasury, a corrupt court, a rebellious nobility, and a clergy badly in need of reform. Among the monarchs’ first tasks was to take control of the country and administer justice against those who had committed crimes. Ferdinand and Isabella curbed the power of the cortes, or legislature, and they confiscated the lands of many nobles to weaken their power. They also took over the administration of many of the rich holdings of the various religious and military orders in Spain, both reducing the powers of those orders and increasing their own.

Military Conquests Immediately after Isabella’s coronation, Alfonso V of Portugal (r. 1438–1481), who was betrothed to Henry IV’s daughter, Juana, invaded and captured the Spanish city of Toro. Ferdinand and Isabella gathered an army and besieged the city, but they quickly ran out of supplies and retreated in disarray. Learning from their mistakes, Ferdinand and Isabella raised another army and returned, better supplied. In 1476, they won a decisive battle over the Portuguese, who did not attempt another invasion. In 1476, Muley Hacen, the emir of Granada, in southern Iberia, broke a truce with Castile and captured the city of Zahara. The attack allowed the Christian Monarchs to renew the reconquista, or war against the Moors, making it a religious crusade to regain all of Iberia from the Muslims who had conquered much of the peninsula in the 700s. Granada was well fortified, however. Only gradually did the war take on a new character as the Span-

300

Ferdinand II and Isabella I

Ferdinand II of Aragón and Isabella I of Castile laid the foundation for a unified Spanish kingdom. Known as the Catholic Monarchs, they also helped launch the Age of Discovery by funding the expeditions of Christopher Columbus, portrayed here in an audience before the king and queen.

ish army learned new tactics and underwent reform. Eventually, the Spanish acquired a reputation as one of the ablest military forces in Europe. Ferdinand and Isabella encamped with their army, sharing the hardships of the common soldiers and keeping their respect. This final war against the Moors lasted ten years. Granada finally surrendered to the Christian Spanish forces in 1492. The Spanish, however, did not keep the promises of toleration that they had given years before. In 1502, Ferdinand and Isabella issued an edict that ordered all unconverted adult Moors to leave Spain or face the Inquisition.

Religious Reform and Exploration In 1495, Isabella appointed the Franciscan prelate, Ximénez of Cisneros, as archbishop of Toledo. Cis-

neros reduced the grandeur of the episcopal palace in Toledo and set about reforming the clergy. However, he met stiff resistance to reform in both Spain and Rome. Isabella sent emissaries to Rome, arguing persuasively for her cause. In the end, Pope Alexander VI (r. 1492–1503) issued a papal bull, or edict, supporting Isabella. One of Cisneros’s acts was to enforce the power of the Spanish Inquisition. He was supported in this action by Isabella, who favored purging Spain of all its non-Christians. In 1492, the Inquisition had decreed that all Jews convert or be expelled from Spain within three months. Most chose exile; an estimated 200,000 Jews emigrated. Of those who converted to Christianity, some became convinced Catholics, but many risked the Inquisition to practice Judaism secretly. In 1492, Isabella financed Christopher Columbus,

Feudalism and Kingship a Genoan navigator who sought to discover a trade route to the East by sailing west across the unknown reaches of the Atlantic Ocean. Provided with three ships, Columbus sailed from Spain in August. On October 10, 1492, he landed on the island of San Salvador in the present-day Bahamas. This discovery marks the beginning of Spain’s empire in the Western Hemisphere.

LAST YEARS When Isabella died in 1504, her daughter, Juana, should have become heir to the kingdom of Castile. However, Juana was emotionally unstable, and her husband, Philip of Habsburg, duke of Burgundy, was pro-French, which did not endear him to the Castilian nobility. With the approval of the cortes, Ferdinand ruled Castile as regent. In 1504, Ferdinand remarried, taking as his second wife Germaine de Foix, the niece of King Louis XII (r. 1498–1515) of France. Isabella’s will had contained provisions for the Castilian succession should Ferdinand have children by a second marriage, but this marriage remained childless. In the early 1500s, Ferdinand became involved in wars with France over control of Italy. In 1508, he launched a campaign against Venice, and in 1511 he joined the Holy League against France. In 1512, he annexed much of the kingdom of Navarre, basing his claim on his marriage to Germaine.With this annexation, he regained much of the patrimony that had belonged to his father. For the remainder of his life, Ferdinand ruled Aragón as king and Castile as regent, first for his daughter Juana and then for his grandson Charles, who later became King Charles I of Spain (r. 1516– 1556) and Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558) of the Holy Roman Empire. Ferdinand died in 1516, leaving Charles a united Spain, as well as the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, and an overseas empire. Isabella and Ferdinand were long considered Spain’s greatest monarchs. Together they centralized Spain’s government, overcame its rebellious nobility, and established the beginnings of a vast overseas empire. Today, however, historians are more critical of the Catholic Monarchs, especially condemning the intolerant policies they adopted toward the Jewish and Muslim populations of Spain. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Castile, Kingdom of; Charles V; Christianity and Kingship;

301

Granada, Kingdom of; Navarre, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies.

FEUDALISM AND KINGSHIP Political structures that frequently struggle for control of a state or nation.This struggle is between the monarch and the most powerful class of the nation, who are generally members of a landed aristocracy.

FEUDALISM DEFINED Feudalism may be defined as a social, political, and economic system in which the power of one class becomes dominant over the majority of the population in society. Most often, but not always, the difference in power between the classes is based on military strength or economic access to military power. The societies founded in medieval Europe between about 1100 and 1500 c.e. furnish many excellent and well-documented examples of feudalism. Some scholars actually define feudalism as precisely that: the economic and social system of medieval Europe. Within this context, medieval feudalism was based on a simple trade: the economic and physical resources of an individual or family were pledged to a lord in return for the use of land and the lord’s physical protection of that land.The grantee, or vassal, was under obligation to provide arms, goods, or services to the grantor, or lord, upon request. Usually penalties—either implicit or explicit—were imposed when a vassal failed to fulfill his agreement under the terms of the feudal arrangement. Each vassal had the option to oppose his lord militarily and attempt to become a lord himself, or to move elsewhere and become vassal to another lord. Some recent scholars have suggested that medieval Europe did not necessarily operate under this so-called feudal system. As evidence, they often point to the postmedieval invention of the term feudalism (which came from late-sixteenthcentury Italian legal documents). Although they are not able to supply an alternative sociopolitical system that describes Europe as thoroughly as the commonly accepted definition of feudalism, their theories and facts are under close inspection by modern historians. Study of the inherent conflict between feudalism and kingship has it roots primarily in the philosophy

302

Feudalism and Kingship Mirroring their sociopolitical contrasts, the administrative structures of feudalism and monarchy differ in significant ways as well. Feudalism is, by its very nature, decentralized, while a successful monarchy requires a strong central government. The dynamic tension between central and local governments is echoed in the political platforms of modern states. Based on the lack of historical evidence to the contrary, such conflict seems inevitable whenever the body politic becomes large enough to require more than local controls. The resulting ebb and flow of political control has followed similar patterns for the last four millennia. The ancient Egyptian pharaohs, for example, ruling the longest-running successful monarchy in human history, maintained tight control over their aristocracy. Ancient Egypt had a thriving middle class for centuries but very few noble families other than immediate relatives of the ruling royal clan. The pharaohs safeguarded this system by jealously guarding all their rights and privileges and, to a lesser degree, their sources of wealth.

THE ARISTOCRACY AND FEUDALISM

During the feudal period in the Middle Ages, peasants were bound to the land by political, economic, and social obligations to the upper classes.This scene of feudal life is from the famous Tres Riches Heures, an illustrated manuscript created by the Limbourg Brothers of Flanders for Duke Jean de Berry, one of the highest ranking nobles in fifteenth-century France.

of the nineteenth century. German philosopher George Frederich Hegel saw history as a dynamic tension created by the struggle between the opposing forces of the desire for freedom and the will to power, and political systems as the social expressions of this struggle. In the case of monarchy, the will to power of an individual overcomes the desire for freedom of all others in the society. In feudalism, it is the will to power of a chosen class that supersedes both the will to power of any single ruler and the desire for freedom of the common people. Conversely, in democracy, the will to power and desire for freedom among the common people triumphs over both individual and aristocratic aspirations for power.

Aristocracy arose in the West because most of Europe in the eleventh through fourteenth centuries was governed by chieftains or warlords, each defending a small area. Most of these petty lords owed fealty, or allegiance, to another lord, who perhaps had slightly more land. That greater lord, in turn, often answered to yet another chieftain or perhaps to a king. As a result of these complex and tenuous hierarchies of fiefdoms, most medieval monarchs exerted only minimal coordination and control. The history of the relationship between the English monarchy and aristocracy illustrates the complicated power shifts seen throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. William I, the Conquerer (r. 1066–1087), is a perfect example of a controlling, consolidating monarch. After his conquest of England in 1066, William destroyed the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, took a thorough census of his new subjects and holdings, and claimed essentially all temporal power for the kingship. William’s descendants and successors in the house of Plantagenet followed his lead in retaining as much power for the Crown as possible given the large, complicated nation they had to rule, perhaps culminating in the absolute despotism of kings Henry I (r. 1100–1135) and Henry II (r. 1154–1189). However, William’s unfortunate descendant, King John (r.

F i v e D y n a s t i e s a n d Te n K i n g d o m s 1199–1216), was forced to succumb to the strength of his vassals and give over to his barons many rights that had hitherto been reserved to the Crown when he signed the Magna Carta in 1215.The pendulum of power had now swung heavily in the direction of feudalism over kingship. John’s successors, particularly the powerful King Edward I (r. 1262–1307), regained much of the ground lost by the English monarchy and played well the game of royal demagogue, in which the king made himself the best hope of the downtrodden classes, their champion against the cupidity of the aristocrats. The Tudor monarchs, Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) and Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), were the last English rulers to enjoy both despotic control and the full favor of the common folk of England. However, despite their popularity and successes, the power and influence of the aristocracy had been weakened a century earlier in the long internecine struggles over succession to the throne during the Wars of the Roses (1455–1485).The parallel religious struggles between Catholics and Protestants, which eventually caused a general loss of faith in the English Crown, were cleverly, though temporarily, derailed by Henry VIII’s audacious creation of the Church of England in 1534. By the time the autocratic powers of the English monarchy expired with the execution of King Charles I (r. 1625–1649) by the headsman’s axe, feudalism had long been dead in England. However, the power of kingship had also been dramatically reduced as well. See also: Class Systems and Royalty; Divine Right; John I; Labor, Forms of; Norman Kingdoms; Rights, Land;William I, the Conqueror. FURTHER READING

Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society. New York: Routledge, 1989.

FIVE DYNASTIES AND TEN KINGDOMS (907–959 C.E.) Series of northern dynasties and southern kingdoms that struggled to control China after the collapse of the Tang dynasty in 907. By the end of the ninth century, repeated peasant

303

rebellions had irreparably weakened China’s T’ang dynasty (618–907). In 875, Huang Chao, a minor bureaucrat, launched the most serious of these rebellions. Chao’s general, Chu Wen, betrayed Chao and allied himself with the T’ang, receiving a provincial governship as a reward. However, Chu recognized that the T’ang dynasty was failing. In 907, he organized the northern fubing, or militia, and seized the T’ang capital of Changan. After assassinating the last T’ang monarch, Zhaoxuang, Chu founded the Liang dynasty. Chu despised both the bureaucracy and the aristocracy.To ensure his power, he executed the highest government officials and members of the nobility. Those who survived fled China. Chu replaced them with military commanders and officials from his own provincial government. He also broadened the political power of the rapidly expanding merchant class. Chu’s actions overturned T’ang society. As his officials seized the aristocracy’s vacant land, they formed a new gentry class that attained a permanent prominence in Chinese affairs. Chu was unable to control his family, however. In 912, his son Modi murdered him, and for ten years, Chu’s sons battled one another for control of the dynasty. Their internecine struggle ruined any chances of the Liang dynasty’s survival or imminent Chinese reunification. Consequently, the Liang dynasty easily fell when Zhuangzong, a Shato Turk who had protected the T’ang’s western borders, led an attack against the Liang capital at Luoyang. In 923, he founded the Later T’ang dynasty. Zhuangzong (r. 923–926) was a T’ang loyalist who wished to restore the T’ang social order. He began with the conquest of Shu, the richest of the Ten Kingdoms. But when Zhuangzong was assassinated in 926, his successor, Minzong (r. 926–933), retained the Liang political structure. Minzong was a weak ruler who failed to capitalize on Zhuangzong’s actions. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Later T’ang dynasty was shortly dispatched. In 937, Shi Jingtang, who came from the same region as Zhuangzong, defeated the final Later T’ang ruler and established the Later Jin dynasty. Shi Jingtang achieved power by forming an alliance with the Khitan, Mongol tribes who repeatedly raided China’s northern provinces. In return for sixteen prefectures located south of the Great Wall, the Khitan military helped Jingtang assume control. But the Khitan presence would disrupt Chinese affairs for over a century.

304

F i v e D y n a s t i e s a n d Te n K i n g d o m s

In fact, the alliance soon crumbled because the Khitan immediately threatened to occupy more territory. Shi Jingtang realized that the Khitan must be expelled to maintain China’s existence, but he died shortly after assuming the throne. His successor organized an army to attack the Khitan. In 946, the two armies met, and the Khitan massacred the Jin forces. The Khitan may have overrun China, but their emperor died in 947 and an internal struggle erupted in the Khitan court. Because the Khitan were disorganized, the Jin forces were able to rally and push the Khitan back to the northern prefectures. The most prominent Jin general, Liu Zhiyuan, then deposed the Jin emperor and founded the Later Han dynasty. The Later Han controlled the northern areas of China and also gained control of Shanxi, one of the key Ten Kingdoms. But despite its efforts, the Later Han dynasty failed to further expand its power. In 951, a Jin general, Guo Wei, staged yet another military coup and deposed Liu Zhiyuan. The Jin monarchy fled to Shanxi, where it maintained limited control for twenty years. Guo initiated the Later Zhou dynasty, the last of the Five Dynasties. When Ghou seized control, the Chinese society was in shambles. War with the Khitan had significantly weakened the military, the government was highly corrupt, and the economy was severely depressed. Wei’s successor, Chai Rong, took strong steps to correct these ailments. First, he completely reorganized the military. Second, he seized Nan Tang, the most agriculturally rich kingdom in the south.This acquisition revitalized the dynasty’s economy. Chai Rong died during combat in 959. His oldest children had been slaughtered in an earlier coup, and only a six-year-old survived. Predictably, the child was soon deposed. General Zhao Kuangyin seized control in 960 and founded the Song dynasty, which lasted for over 300 years. The Five Dynasties period was over, but during the period, a new gentry class had replaced the old, entrenched aristocracy.As F.W. Mote notes in Imperial China (1999), “this profound social change established the conditions under which a new, more egalitarian elite based on merit was able to emerge under the Song.” See also: Liang Dynasties;T’ang Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Mote, F.W. Imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

FLANDERS, COUNTY OF (864–1576 C.E.)

State in northwestern Europe, roughly encompassing modern-day Belgium, which was ruled by a series of counts from the ninth through sixteenth centuries. Celtic Gauls originally inhabited the region of Flanders, but the Germanic Franks moved into the area between 300 and 600, creating a regional split between Latin-speaking Gallo-Romans and Germanspeaking Franks.This division is still evident today in the Belgian linguistic division between French and Dutch. At the beginning of the Frankish period, Flanders was the center of the Frankish kingdom. However, as the Frankish kings pushed their landholdings south and moved their capital to Paris, Flanders became a peripheral county in a growing empire. Flanders officially became a county in 864, when the Frankish emperor Charles I (r. 840–877) of the Carolingian dynasty made his son-in-law Baldwin I, Iron Arm (r. 864–879), its ruler. From this date, Flanders became a fief of the French Crown, although, as a frontier region, it remained largely autonomous. During the tenth and eleventh centuries, the counts of Flanders extended their territory eastward.These territories, though within the county of Flanders, were enfiefed to the Holy Roman emperor, not the French king.This confusing array of medieval political connections cost Flanders its French territories in the twelfth century, as the kingdom of France extended its direct sovereignty northward into the county. By the twelfth century, many Flemish cities had gained the rights of privileges of a commune from the French Crown. A commune was a city that had united as a single association and earned the right to self-governance from monarchs in return for promises of taxes or other services. Flemish cities such as Ghent, Bruges, and Ypres benefited from this arrangement and became commercial centers of a growing textile industry. By the thirteenth century, the Flemish cloth trade was the most prosperous and respected in Europe. With prosperity came conflict. Within Flemish cities, guild workers and town elites clashed over rights, money, and politics. Workers tended to support an independent Flanders, while town elites fa-

Fol k u n g Dy na s t y vored the French Crown. Although the roots of this division were social rather than political, the departure of the count of Flanders, Baldwin IX (r. 1195– 1205), on the Fourth Crusade in 1204 touched off an international conflict over the wealthy region. While Baldwin led the Crusaders against Constantinople, Philip II of France (r. 1180–1223) moved into Flanders. The next hundred years were marked by almost continual warfare between France and Flemish, English, and German armies. In 1322, the pro-French noble Louis I of Nevers (r. 1322–1346) became count of Flanders, sparking a civil war.Although initially successful, Louis faced a growing economic crisis in the county. Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377) banned all wool exports to Flanders as a prelude to the Hundred Years’War (1337–1453). For a brief period beginning in 1337, a number of Flemish cities, led by Ghent, broke away from Flanders and allied themselves with England. This independence proved short-lived, as the pro-French Count Louis I put down the rebellion after the death of its leader, Jacob van Artevelde, in 1345. However, Ghent remained a site of rebellion against French sovereignty in Flanders for the next half-century. In 1384, Count Louis II de Male of Flanders (1346–1384) died without a direct heir.The duke of Burgundy, Philip the Bold (r. 1363–1404), assumed the title of count and brought Flanders under the control of the Habsburg dynasty. At first, under Philip and his heir Mary of Burgundy, Flemish commerce and art flourished in Flanders. But the Habsburgs saw the county as little more than a rich source of tax revenue and ignored the political rights and privileges of its cities. In 1506, Flanders passed to the Spanish Habsburg line, which exploited Flemish commerce even more than their predecessors. Less than a century later, in 1576, Flanders County joined with the rest of the Netherlands in revolt against King Philip II of Spain (r. 1556–1598).The Dutch eventually succeeded in driving out the Spanish, but the Flemish did not succeed. Most of the county passed back to Austrian Habsburg control in 1714, although the French annexed parts of it in the seventeenth century. The region of Flanders was alternately controlled by the French and the Dutch until Belgian independence in 1830. See also: Burgundy Kingdom; Carolingian Dynasty; Edward I; Habsburg Dynasty; Philip II.

305

FURTHER READING

Cantor, Norman F. The Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.

FOLKLORE AND MYTHS. See Myth and Folklore

FOLKUNG DYNASTY (1250–1387 C.E.) Medieval dynasty that ruled Sweden (1250–1364), Norway (1319–1387), and Denmark (1375–1387), which expanded Sweden’s territory and effected the union of Norway and Denmark. The Folkung dynasty first rose to power in Sweden in 1250 with the election of Waldemar I (r. 1250–1275) as king. During Waldemar’s rule, the monarchy centralized its power and passed laws giving more protection to the rights of women, the church, and the courts. Sweden’s wealth grew significantly as a result of territorial expansion to the east and increased trade. In 1275, Waldemar’s brother, Magnus I (r. 1275–1290), overthrew Waldemar with Danish aid and was elected king. During his reign, the Folkung monarchy grew stronger through improved taxation in the kingdom. Magnus was followed on the throne by his son Birger (r. 1290–1318), who ended a decade-long revolt against the monarchy led by his brothers Erik and Waldemar. Birgir invited them to a feast in 1317, imprisoning them, and allegedly starving them to death. However, their followers rose against Birger and forced him to flee the country; he died in exile in Denmark. Erik’s son Magnus, already ruler of Norway (through his mother) as Magnus VII (r. 1319–1355), was elected King Magnus III of Sweden (r. 1319– 1364) by the nobles in 1319. His reign saw the establishment, in 1350, of a single law code for Sweden. He named his son Erik as co-regent of Sweden in 1344 in an attempt to ensure the succession. Erik wanted more power, however. With the aid of the nobles, he forced his father to share the throne from 1356 until Erik’s death in 1359. In 1344, Magnus agreed to abdicate the throne of Norway in favor of his son, Haakon VI (r. 1355– 1380), and he did so in 1355. Haakon married Margaret, the daughter of Waldemar IV of Denmark (r.

306

Fol k u n g Dy na s t y

1340–1375), which led to the union of the Crowns of Denmark and Norway under their son, Olaf, who ruled as Olaf IV of Norway (r. 1380–1387) and Olaf II of Denmark (r. 1376–1387). Magnus and Haakon lost most of Sweden in 1363 to an invasion by Magnus’s nephew Albrecht (r. 1364–1389), but Folkung rule continued in Norway and Denmark until the death of Olaf in 1387. The legacy of the Swedish Folkung dynasty was, ironically, the union of Sweden with Denmark and Norway. The ambition of the Folkung monarchs for greater territory, which they fulfilled largely through strategic marriages, culminated in 1397 with the Kalmar Union.This merger of the three Scandinavian kingdoms was accomplished through the ambition and political skills of Queen Margaret, the mother of Olaf. See also: Danish Kingdom; Haakon VI; Kalmar Union; Margaret of Denmark; Norwegian Monarchy; Swedish Monarchy. FURTHER READING

Anderson, Ingvar. A History of Sweden. Trans. Carolyn Hannay. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1956. Butler, Ewan. The Horizon Concise History of Scandinavia. New York: American Heritage, 1973. Larsen, Karen. A History of Norway. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for the AmericanScandinavian Foundation, 1948. Toyne, S.M. The Scandinavians in History. 1948. Reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.

FON KINGDOM (1600s–1894 C.E.) Also called Dahomey, a kingdom that arose in the early 1600s in the area known today as the Republic of Benin; the name Fon refers to the indigenous people of the region, who also comprised the majority of the kingdom’s subjects. The Fon kingdom was founded in the early 1600s by a group of immigrants who came into the region from the neighboring land of Allada and were of Aja ethnicity. These newcomers, who had experience with centralized government, were more accomplished in the exercise of authority than the indigenous Fon, who until this time had lived in small, scattered, and independent villages. By 1650 the Aja immigrants had welded the Fon villages into a single political entity and had estab-

lished a capital at Agbome, installing a leader named Wegbaja (r. 1645–1685), as king. Wegbaja declared all land in the kingdom to be the property of the king, and he charged his subjects a tax for the right to farm it. Wegbaja undermined local authority by limiting kingly succession to the eldest son of a reigning king, thus restricting rulership to descendants of the Aja, and excluding all Fon from the throne. Wegbaja further strengthened his hold on power by introducing new rituals centered upon sacrificial offerings to the king, or, more precisely, to the kingly lineage. Sacrificial subjects were usually war captives, thus providing incentive for the people to support Wegbaja’s military campaigns against neighboring peoples. Wegbaja and his successors were well acquainted with the Atlantic slave trade. In Allada, slave raiding was common and may even have been the impetus behind their migration to Fon territory.The Fon kingdom, too, participated in the trade, with hopes of becoming the preeminent supplier of slaves to the European traders.This meant embarking upon a vigorous campaign of raiding and conquest throughout Fon territory. Exchanging slaves for European goods brought a steady supply of European firearms into the king’s armory, further enhancing the military power of the Fon kingdom and its supremacy over most of its neighbors. By the 1720s, the present ruler, Agaja (r. 1716–1740) had succeeded in eclipsing and, finally, occupying his coastal rivals in the trade. In the first half of the eighteenth century, only the kingdoms of Fon and Oyo were left as true powers on the Atlantic coast, and they struggled for dominance. The Oyo finally gained the upper hand militarily, and they forced King Agaja to pay tribute to the Oyo rulers in order to retain his throne. As a client state to Oyo, the Fon kingdom remained prosperous through the eighteenth century.With the collapse of the Atlantic slave trade, however, both kingdoms suffered drastic losses in revenues.The Fon kingdom was conquered by the French in 1892– 1894. See also: African Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Ajayi, J.F.A., and Michael Crowder, eds. History of West Africa. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.

Franconian Dynasty

FRANCIS I (1494–1547 C.E.) King of France (r. 1515–1547) from the House of Valois, whose rivalry with Charles V (r. 1519–1558), the Holy Roman emperor, led to a series of wars. Francis ruled as an absolute monarch. Francis was the son of Charles of Orléans, count of Angoulême, and Louise of Savoy. In 1514, he married Claude of Brittany, the daughter of his cousin, Louis XII (r. 1498–1515).After the death of Francis’s first wife, he married Eleanor of Austria, sister of Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558). Francis was succeeded on the French throne by his son, Henry II (r. 1547–1559). The year after Francis’s marriage to Claude, Louis XII died without a male heir, and Francis succeeded to the throne as next of kin. Before his death, Louis XII had planned an invasion of the duchy of Milan. Francis carried out this plan, resulting in a victory over the Italian forces at Marignano in September 1515. When the Holy Roman emperor Maximilian I died in 1519, Charles of Habsburg succeeded him as Charles V. Francis also had a claim to that throne, and a fierce rivalry between Francis and Charles led to a series of wars. The first war (1521–1526), resulted in the capture of Francis at Pavia in Italy in 1525. Francis regained his freedom with the Treaty of Madrid (1526), but the cost was the loss of the duchy of Burgundy, the region of Flanders, and Artois. In the next war with Charles (1526–1529), Francis formed the League of Cognac, an alliance with the Italians, including Pope Clement VII.The war ended with the Peace of Cambrai, in which Francis recovered the duchy of Burgundy. In 1536, Francis took the opportunity, upon the death of the duke of Milan, to make another attempt at taking Milan, which once again led to war with Charles V. Pope Paul III helped to secure the Treaty of Aigues-Mortes, which declared a ten-year truce. In the final war between Francis and Charles, which lasted from 1542 to 1544, Francis tried a final time to obtain Milan, this time forming an alliance with Suleyman I (r. 1520–1566), the sultan of the Ottoman Empire. Charles, meanwhile, formed an alliance with Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) of England. In the Treaty of Crepy (1544) Francis lost Naples, Flanders, and Artois. In the Treaty of Ardres (1546) with England, he lost Boulogne.

307

When not at war, Francis I fostered Renaissance culture in France. A patron of artists, writers, and thinkers, he founded the College of France and the Imprimerie Royal. He also commissioned the construction of several palaces and chateaus, including the Louvre, Fontainebleau, and Chambord. Early in the sixteenth century, Europeans were hoping to find a sea route through North America to the riches of Asia. Hoping to gain a wealthy empire, Francis I sponsored the explorations of Jacques Cartier. Although Cartier failed to find an easy Northwest Passage to Asia, his explorations led to France’s land claims in North America. See also: Charles V; French Monarchies; Milan, Duchy of; Naples, Kingdom of; Ottoman Empire; Suleyman I, the Magnificent; Valois Dynasty.

FRANCONIAN DYNASTY German dynasty that produced a series of German kings and Holy Roman emperors.These rulers, who descended from the dukes of Franconia, a region in southern Germany, extended their power and territories in Germany and also claimed sovereignty over Italy.Their belief that the emperor was God’s representative on earth led to conflict with the papacy.

FOUNDING AND EARLY RULE Otto of Worms (r. 978–985, 1000–1002), of the Salian House, was the first Salian duke of Franconia. When Henry II, the last emperor of the House of Saxony, died in 1024, Otto’s grandson Conrad was chosen to succeed Henry as king of the Germans. The succession of Conrad to the throne as Conrad II (r. 1024–1039) marked the founding of the Franconian line of German kings and Holy Roman emperors. The Franconians are sometimes also known as the Salian dynasty. In 1026, Conrad II went to Italy and was crowned king of the Lombards in Milan by Archbishop Aribert. However, many of the Lombard margraves, or border lords, and the city of Ravenna revolted against Conrad. After defeating them, Conrad was crowned Holy Roman emperor by the pope in 1027. Conrad expanded his control by forcing the dukes of Bohemia and Poland to acknowledge him as their lord. He took over lands in possession of the Bavar-

308

Franconian Dynasty

ian counts that he claimed had been alienated from the Crown. In 1036, the lesser Milanese nobles rose up against the rule of the bishop of Milan. Conrad supported these nobles and granted them new rights, such as inheritance rights in their fiefs (lands held from a superior lord). Conrad’s action was an early indication of how the Franconian rulers would act in religious matters.

RELATIONS WITH THE CHURCH AND NOBLES Conrad’s son, Henry III (r. 1039–1056), succeeded his father as king of Germany and head of the Franconian dynasty in 1039. While preparing for his imperial coronation by Pope Gregory VI, he learned that Gregory had purchased the papacy—an offense called simony, which was forbidden by the Church. Henry called a synod, which elected a German pope, Clement II, to replace Gregory. Clement crowned Henry emperor in 1046. Thereafter, Henry worked to stamp out abuses in the church, and he played an instrumental role in the election of the next three popes, all of whom were German. Instead of relying on hereditary succession to fill positions within the empire, Henry III appointed lordship positions, keeping the powers of the duchies of Bavaria, Carinthia, and Swabia in his own hands. The nobility of these areas resented Henry’s autocratic rule and plotted an uprising against him, but he died in 1056 before they could act.

INVESTITURE AND STRUGGLE WITH THE PAPACY Under Henry IV, a struggle began between pope and emperor that became known as the Investiture Controversy. Henry appointed bishops in Italy and claimed to be able to invest them with their lands and regalia, such as the ring and staff that symbolized their earthly power. After being reprimanded by Pope Gregory VII for making these investitures, Henry convoked a council in the German city of Worms in 1076, which ordered the pope to abdicate. In response, the pope excommunicated Henry and released his subjects from allegiance to him. Henry gained readmission to the Church by dressing as a penitent and standing barefoot in the snow for three days outside the castle of Canossa in Italy, where Pope Gregory was staying. This did not solve Henry’s problems, however. Many nobles in Germany opposed his treatment of the

pope, and in 1077 they elected Rudolf of Rheinfelden as a rival king. In 1080, the pope, influenced by Rudolf, again excommunicated Henry. After defeating Rudolf in battle, Henry invaded Rome with his army in 1084 and was crowned emperor there by his own papal candidate, Clement III. That same year, an army led by Norman nobleman Robert Guiscard came to the pope’s aid and drove Henry from Rome, but Gregory died in 1085. In 1104, the emperor’s son Henry, later Emperor Henry V (r. 1106–1125), was concerned that the continued opposition to his father in Germany would damage his own ability to rule, deposed his father and took him prisoner. Henry IV died in 1106.

INVASION OF ITALY AND END OF THE DYNASTY In 1110, Henry V set out for Rome for his imperial coronation. But because of the continuing investiture controversy, Pope Paschal II refused to crown Henry, who then took the pope prisoner. To gain his freedom, the pope allowed Henry the power of investiture and crowned him emperor, but in 1112 he retracted his concessions. In 1116, Henry invaded Italy, drove the pope from Rome, and had his empress crowned in 1117 by the antipope (rival pope) Gregory VIII. In 1122, the Concordat of Worms established a compromise on investiture between the pope and the emperor, providing for the free election of bishops and abbots, and allowing the emperor to invest these officials with secular rights and obligations but not spiritual ones. Henry V died in 1125, ending the rule of the Franconian dynasty as kings and emperors.The Franconians had not succeeded in completely asserting their power in Germany or Italy or in solving their conflict the papacy. This struggle was continued by the Hohenstaufen dynasty. See also: Conrad II; Conrad III; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Salian Dynasty.

FRANKISH KINGDOM (300s–700s C.E.) Kingdom in northern France and Belgium established by the Franks, a German people who began migrating into Western Europe in the second century.

Franz Josef The Franks, who eventually gave their name to France and the region of Franconia in Germany, were settled along the lower and middle Rhine River, in what is modern-day Belgium; by the third century, there were two main groups of Franks.The Ripuarian Franks lived in the southern region of Gaul. They captured the settlement of Cologne in 463, and made it the capital of their territory, which covered Aachen to Metz in the Rhine Valley. The Salian (or Salic) Franks lived to the north. By 356, they held territory bounded by the Meuse and Somme rivers and the Atlantic Ocean. The Salian Franks were allies of the Roman Empire and were sometimes invited by the Romans to colonize empty lands. By the fifth century, the Franks had moved into the Roman province of Gaul (present-day France). In 481, a Frankish leader, Clovis I (r. 481–511), became leader of the Salian Franks after the death of his father, Childeric I (r. 457–481). As ruler, Clovis succeeded in uniting both the Salians and Ripuarians, and he then launched an expansion of Frankish territory that laid the foundation for modern France. Clovis overthrew a Roman army in 486 and established the Merovingian dynasty, which took its name from his grandfather, Merovech (Merovaeus). Armed conquest was an integral part of Clovis’s policy, but shrewd political action was crucial in the rise of the Frankish kingdom. Gaul was occupied by three main barbarian groups in this period—the Burgundians, Visigoths, and Franks—as well as a large group of Gallo-Romans. While the Burgundians and Visigoths adhered to Arian Christianity, a system of beliefs held by the Byzantine Empire, the Gallo-Romans followed the faith practiced by the Church of Rome. Initially, the Franks kept their pagan beliefs, but in 493, Clovis married Clothilde, a Christian princess of Burgundy. In 496, Clovis and 3,000 of his warriors were baptized as Christians by Remi, the bishop of Rheims. Clovis allowed the Gauls to retain much of the land he conquered. Moreover, many Frankish chieftains intermarried with the remnants of the GalloRoman senatorial class of Gaul, thus creating a new aristocracy for the Frankish kingdom. Beginning in the sixth century and continuing through the ninth century, the Franks conquered most of modern France, as well as present-day Netherlands, west Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and north and central Italy. Around the early sixth century, the Franks created a formal body of laws,

309

called the Salic Law, which would be passed down for centuries. One of the most notable sections of the law stipulated that no woman should inherit the titles or offices of her family.This law was cited when King Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377) tried to claim the throne of France through his mother Isabelle, the daughter of King Philip IV of France (r. 1285–1314). The ensuing dispute over the succession sparked the Hundred Years’War (1337–1453). Although Clovis I secured his place as king of the Franks, his kingdom was divided upon his death among his four sons. This arrangement severely weakened the power of the Merovingians, who were eventually rulers in name only. In the meantime, the Carolingian “mayors of the palace,” the real powers behind the Merovingian throne, increased their power, and, in 751, they supplanted the Merovingian dynasty. Charlemagne (r. 768–814), the second king of the Carolingian dynasty, was the greatest Frankish ruler and one of the most powerful leaders of early medieval Europe. See also: Burgundy Kingdom; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Clovis I; French Monarchies; Merovingian Dynasty; MerovingianFrankish Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Koenigsberger, H.G. Medieval Europe 400–1500. New York: Longman, 1987. Sauvigny, G. de Bertier de, and David H. Pinkney. History of France. Arlington Heights, IL: Forum Press, 1983. Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill College, 1999.

FRANZ JOSEF (1830–1916 C.E.) Long-reigning emperor of Austria (r. 1848–1916) and ruler of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Plagued by personal tragedy throughout his reign, Franz Josef presided over an empire—once one of the most powerful in Europe—that was slowly disintegrating and met complete destruction in World War I. Ruling during a time of increasing nationalist sentiment throughout Europe, Franz Josef was unable to balance effectively the diverse needs and desires of his subjects with the obligations of the monarchy and,

310

Franz Josef

ultimately, was unable to prevent the unraveling of Austro-Hungary and the end of the Habsburg dynasty.

EARLY YEARS Born in a turbulent time in Austria’s history, Franz Josef was the son of Austrian Archduke Francis Charles and his wife Sophia, a princess of Bavaria. His uncle, Austrian emperor Ferdinand I (r. 1835– 1848), was battling insanity as well as growing discontent among his people. This public discontent came to a head during the European revolutions of 1848, which threw much of the continent into disarray as people rose up against many of the European ruling houses in an effort to achieve more liberal and democratic forms of government. Realizing that Austria would need a strong leader to face the mounting insurrection, the court and Ferdinand’s

A member of the Habsburg Dynasty, Franz Josef presided over the waning years of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Though a capable ruler, he was unable to stem the nationalist movements that tore apart his nation and led to the outbreak of World War I.

family convinced him to abdicate the throne in 1848, leaving Franz Josef as emperor at the young age of eighteen. Franz Josef immediately went to work, first putting down a revolution in the Habsburg kingdom of Hungary in 1849. Following this initial success, Franz Josef won a decisive battle that same year against King Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia (r. 1849–1861), the emerging favorite as the ruler of a unified Italy.These quick victories helped Franz Josef restore a sense of stability to the Austrians.This semblance of order was enhanced by Franz Josef’s marriage to his cousin Elizabeth in 1854 and the birth, in 1858, of Rudolf, the pair’s only son and heir to the Austrian throne.

TROUBLE AT HOME AND ABROAD Subsequent events darkened Franz Josef’s reign, however, when Austria suffered defeat in two wars, the Italian War in 1859 and the Austro-Prussian War in 1866. The latter conflict was particularly damaging, for it marked the full ascendancy and military superiority of Prussia and the beginnings of a unified Germany. In addition to such foreign concerns, the internal problems of Franz Josef’s empire were beginning to pose a serious challenge. Although Franz Josef had helped Austria establish one of the most respected civil service systems in Europe, he was not able to successfully manage his large country’s ethnic and nationalist problems.After years of agitation for independence, the Hungarians were finally granted some autonomy by the decision in 1867 to create a dual monarchy, known as the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Essentially, this decision gave Hungarians full control over their internal affairs in return for a pledge to honor Franz Josef as sovereign and to follow Austrian guidance in foreign affairs. In accordance with this agreement, Franz Josef was crowned king of Hungary in 1867. Though it had some strengths, particularly in matters of trade and commerce, the dual monarchy was beset by serious problems. Ethnic discrimination, particularly against the Slavic Serbians and Czechs, began to create a nationalist backlash among those groups.A separatist movement known as Pan-Slavism began to emerge, with intense support from Russia, which had been engaged in a dispute with Austria over control of the Balkan region. By 1882, Italy, Germany, and Austria-Hungary had formed a secret alliance, known as the Triple Alliance, partly in re-

F r e d e r i c k I , B a r b a ro s s a sponse to pro-independence movements. Reacting to the formation of this alliance, England, France, and Russia formed a loose alliance of their own known as the Triple Entente. The friction between these two powerful groups set the stage for World War I. While facing growing foreign and domestic problems, Franz Josef endured a series of personal catastrophes, beginning with the execution of his brother, Emperor Maximilian of Mexico (r. 1864–1867), at the hands of insurgents in 1867. In another act of political violence, Empress Elizabeth fell victim to an assassin in 1898. Most ominously for the future of Europe, however, was the death of Franz Josef’s son and heir, the archduke Rudolf, in 1889. Ruled a suicide, the mysterious death of Rudolf left Franz Josef’s nephew, Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne.The assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist in 1914 was the spark that ignited World War I.

WAR AND DECLINE Although Franz Ferdinand’s assassination was the spark that led to war, the ground for the conflict had already been prepared in Serbia. After having occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1878, Austria fully annexed these two Serbian provinces in 1908. The 1908 crisis did not lead to war, but tensions grew as the Austro-Hungarian monarchy began to face serious threats from internal ethnic nationalist factions clamoring for independence. International pressure from the Triple Entente began to mount as well, and Germany and Austria-Hungary became increasingly poised in opposition to the rest of Europe. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 led Austria to issue a series of punitive declarations to the Serbs, who refused to accept them. Indignant at this refusal, Austria declared war on Serbia, thereby launching all of Europe into World War I. Franz Josef did not live to see the unfortunate end for Austria-Hungary. He died during the war, in 1916, and the Crown passed to his grand-nephew, Charles I (r. 1916–1918), who was the last of the Austrian emperors. See also: Abdication, Royal; Austro-Hungarian Empire; Habsburg Dynasty; Maximilian; Nationalism;Victor Emmanuel II. FURTHER READING

Bled, Jean-Paul. Franz Joseph. Trans. Teresa Bridgeman. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992.

311

FREDERICK I, BARBAROSSA (1123–1190 C.E.)

Duke of Swabia (r. 1147–1152), king of Germany (r. 1152–1190), and Holy Roman emperor (r. 1155– 1190), who united much of Central Europe and died at the beginning of the Third Crusade. A man of enormous energy, Frederick played the games of politics and war with perseverance and focus rather than with the ferocity that his Italian nickname, Barbarossa (Red Beard), might imply. As Holy Roman emperor, he united Central Europe to a greater degree than anyone since Charlemagne (r. 768–814).

EARLY RULE AND THE EMPIRE Frederick I was the son of Frederick of Hohenstaufen, the duke of Swabia, and the nephew of German King Conrad III (r. 1138–1152). His mother was Judith, a member of the powerful German Welf (or Guelf) dynasty. From an early age, Frederick acted as a mediator between his uncle, King Conrad III, and his mother’s family, who were rivals for the imperial throne. Frederick’s ministrations and skill impressed Conrad sufficiently to name him his successor, and Frederick was duly and ritually elected the German king in 1152. The duchy of Swabia and the throne of Germany were hardly adequate for Frederick’s ambition, however. He always sought to extend his power, to unify, and to maintain order. He also cheerfully embraced the responsibilities and entanglements that came with every augmentation of his power. Upon the death of Conrad III in 1152, Frederick was elected king, but his coronation in Rome was delayed for three years. In return for his coronation as Holy Roman emperor, which took place in 1155, Frederick promised Pope Hadrian IV assistance against two papal foes: revolutionaries in Rome led by Arnold of Brescia and the Norman kingdom of Sicily.

CONFLICT IN ITALY One of the titles accompanying the imperial crown was king of Lombardy—an honor that Frederick’s predecessors had ignored since Emperor Henry IV (r. 1084–1105). Frederick saw no reason to let this richest of all Italian provinces remain free of his influence, or perhaps more importantly, free of his tax-

312

F r e d e r i c k I , B a r b a ro s s a

gatherers. He thus seized Milan in Lombardy in 1158 and claimed his imperial rights over the province. Given Frederick’s support of the pope’s causes in Sicily and Rome, he might have counted on the Church’s tacit approval of his enforcement of his overlordship in Lombardy. But Frederick, eager to strengthen the power and hold of his role as monarch, pressed the case for supreme imperial rights and ownership in all temporal issues. He claimed that the emperor owned everything in his empire and could dispose of it as he wished. This included the appointment and dispensation of Church positions and property.This thorny issue, which later became known as the investiture controversy, lasted well beyond Frederick’s reign. Because of his positions on these issues, Frederick had no assistance from the Church in Lombardy. In 1167, various Italian city-states—including Milan, Verona, Vicenza, Padua, Bologna, Modena, Mantua, Treviso, Brescia, Bergamo, Cremona, Piacenza, and Parma—joined together to form the Lombard League in opposition to Frederick. After almost two decades of struggle, they forced Frederick into signing the Treaty of Constance in 1183, in which he affirmed those city-states’ rights of self-governance.

RULE IN THE NORTH Other than in Italy, Frederick was highly successful in extending and consolidating his empire. In 1156, he divorced his first wife,Adelaide of Vohburg, and married Beatrix, the daughter of Count Rainald of Burgundy (r. 1127–1148).Through this marriage, he gained a political foothold in the powerful county of Burgundy. In succeeding years, Frederick reasserted German control over Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary. One of Frederick’s most notable episodes in the north of Europe culminated in 1180, when he deposed the powerful Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony (r. 1142–1180) and Bavaria (r. 1156–1180), after a council of German princes—all of whom had suffered under Henry’s rule—recommended that he be deposed. Frederick had raised Henry, who was his cousin, to the dukedom, but Henry had refused to assist Frederick in the emperor’s battles against the Lombard League in 1176. Some contemporaries and historians cite this as a factor in Frederick’s decision to depose Henry.

(r. 1175–1193) and of the pope’s call for the Third Crusade. Frederick, now sixty-five years old, responded vigorously to this challenge. He raised an impressive army of 100,000 men and proceeded overland toward Palestine. Frederick’s age and impetuosity, combined with the climate of Palestine, proved stronger than his tremendous will. In 1190, as he bathed in a cool stream in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) after eating a large meal, Frederick suffered what was probably a stroke or cardiac arrest and died. His body was preserved in vinegar and carried before the remnants of his army, already severely depleted by the combined factors of Turkish skirmishes, heat, and disease. Frederick was finally carried to Antioch in southwestern Anatolia and buried there in holy ground. He was succeeded as German king by his sons, Henry VI (r. 1190–1197) and Philip of Swabia (r. 1198–1208). After his death, Frederick became a symbol of German imperial pride. Stories arose about his accomplishments, and prophecies were told of his inevitable return.Although not an Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), or even a Charlemagne (r. 768– 814), Frederick played a major role in strengthening monarchical rule in Central Europe. He also brought a degree of order and peace to most of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Bohemia, and Poland that those strife-torn lands had seldom seen. See also: Christianity and Kingship; Conrad II; Conrad III; Crusader Kingdoms; Frederick II; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Lombard Kingdom; Papal States. FURTHER READING

Barraclough, Geoffrey. Origins of Modern Germany. New York:W.W. Norton, 1984

FREDERICK II (1194–1250 C.E.) King of Sicily (r. 1197–1250), king of Germany (r. 1212–1250), and Holy Roman emperor (r. 1220– 1250), who fought with the papacy over control of territories in Italy, and organized and led the Sixth Crusade to the Holy Land in 1228.

LATER YEARS

EARLY LIFE

In 1187, news came to Frederick’s court of the reconquest of Jerusalem by the Muslim leader Saladin

A member of the German Hohenstaufen dynasty, Frederick was the son of Henry VI, German king (r.

Frederick II 1190–1197), Holy Roman emperor (r. 1191–1197), and ruler of the Two Sicilies (r. 1194–1197). His mother was Constance, the heiress of Sicily; his paternal grandfather was the great Frederick I, Barbarossa (r. 1155–1190). After the death of Henry VI in 1197, Frederick’s mother Constance placed her young son under the care of Pope Innocent III (r. 1198–1216), the most powerful man in Italy. Soon after, Constance died, leaving the young Frederick orphaned as well as king of Sicily. Innocent III served as the boy’s regent in Sicily, leaving Frederick to grow up with little supervision. The young Frederick was allowed to wander through the streets and souks, or marketplaces, of the Sicilian city of Palermo, where Arabic and other languages were as likely to be heard as Italian. Thus began Frederick’s informal education, which led eventually to proficiency in nine different languages. In 1206, at age twelve, Frederick dismissed his rarely seen papal watchdog and began to exert his own will in Sicily. Three years later, in 1209, he married Constance of Aragón, who brought with her to Sicily a small military force with which Frederick began to bring order to a country that had fallen into near-barbarism under the neglect of the papal regency.

SECURING THE THRONE OF THE EMPIRE In 1212, Pope Innocent III shifted his support from Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV (r. 1198–1218) to Frederick (as the rightful heir of Henry VI), on condition that Frederick pledge to go on Crusade and keep his kingdoms of Germany and Sicily separate. Innocent was concerned that the Papal States would be encircled by German-controlled kingdoms. In 1214, Otto’s forces were easily defeated by Frederick’s ally, King Philip II Augustus of France (r. 1180–1223), and the following year Frederick was crowned Holy Roman emperor at the city of Aachen. Frederick loved his southern kingdom, his “haven amidst the floods, a pleasure garden amidst a wilderness of thorns,” and soon returned to Sicily after being crowned emperor. Despite his promise to the pope to separate his German realm from Sicily, he left his infant son, Henry VII, on the German throne, with a regency to govern the kingdom. Frederick had thus turned half of his promise to the pope topsy-turvy.

313

The new pope, Honorius III (r. 1216–1227), urged Frederick’s participation in the “Egyptian” Crusade, but revolts swelled in Sicily and Frederick declined to participate. The pope also suggested to the widowed Frederick a new marriage to Isabella, whose father had been the king of Jerusalem. Frederick agreed, and thus a tacit connection with the Holy Land was made. Recalling the illustrious attempts of his grandfather, Frederick I, Barbarossa, to pacify the independent-minded city-states of northern Italy, Frederick began diplomatic maneuvers in Lombardy, hoping to assert imperial claims. His actions alarmed the papacy and the Italian city-states, which formed an alliance known as the Lombard League in 1224.

THE SIXTH CRUSADE In 1227, Frederick yielded to the insistent demands of the new pope, Gregory IX (r. 1227–1241), and agreed to honor his pledge to organize a Crusade. Soon after Frederick assembled a large army and prepared to sail for the Holy Land, an epidemic broke out, killing a third of his men, the accompanying king of Thuringia, and infecting Frederick himself. Upon returning to the mainland for a cure, Frederick sent ambassadors to Pope Gregory to explain the delay, but Gregory would not hear them and excommunicated Frederick for his impiety. Unfazed by the pope’s action, Frederick dismissed most of his army and, in the summer of 1228, proceeded on to Palestine with a small honor guard. When he arrived in the Holy Land, Frederick impressed the emissary of the sultan with his extensive knowledge of the Arabic language and culture, and soon he was corresponding intimately with Sultan Al-Kamil Muhammad II (r. 1218–1238). Within a short time, the two rulers signed a remarkable treaty in which the Christians were given the cities of Acre, Sidon, Jaffa, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, as well as all of Jerusalem except the Dome of the Rock, which was sacred to Muslims. The treaty also included a general amnesty and release of all prisoners, along with a ten-year peace. This astounding achievement was met with scorn and disdain by the ruling aristocrats and warlords on both the Christian and Muslim sides. The infuriated pope refused to verify the treaty. Nevertheless, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem in 1229 (he could not be crowned by clergy because

314

Frederick II

they had been forbidden to interact with the excommunicate). Soon afterward, however, he realized that his peace was hollow and would not be enforceable unless he had enough military force to subdue the greedy aspirations of his own countrymen, who sought greater riches and power in Palestine. In the meantime, Pope Gregory had fomented revolt against Frederick in Sicily. Frederick returned to Sicily from the Holy Land in 1229 and reconquered his Sicilian estates. However, he refrained from invading the Papal States and was rewarded for this restraint by having his excommunication lifted in 1230. As Frederick dealt with the situation in Sicily, his relations with his son, the German king Henry VII, were deteriorating. Henry had made many concessions to the German princes, and in 1228, he signed an alliance with Frederick’s old foes, the Lombard League. Frederick responded to these challenges with a successful military campaign against Germany, at the end of which, in 1235, he deposed and imprisoned his son.

LEGACY Frederick’s legacy, though not obvious, is profound. Ironically, for such a successful general, Frederick’s many military victories became meaningless within less than a generation after his death. Even his impressive diplomatic efforts were brief and transitory. However, as founder of the first state-funded nonreligiously affiliated university in Europe (Naples, 1224), as the champion of experimental science and medicine (practiced and encouraged at his court in Sicily), and as the freethinking precursor of an Italian Renaissance, his influence was enormous and far-reaching. See also: Crusader Kingdoms; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Lombard Kingdom; Louis IX (St. Louis); Military Roles, Royal; Papal States; Sicily, Kingdom of.

FREDERICK II, THE GREAT (1712–1786 C.E.)

FINAL STRUGGLES With Germany resubjugated, Frederick continued his military campaigns against the unrepentant Lombard League. In 1238, however, he was forced to end the siege of Brescia (one of the League’s cities) and regroup his forces back to his holdings in southern Italy and Sicily. Frederick’s relationship with the papacy also worsened dramatically at this time. Fearing that Frederick was attempting to encircle the Papal States, Pope Gregory IX once again excommunicated the emperor on Palm Sunday in 1239. Frederick began marshalling his forces against the papacy, but he withdrew them upon the death of Pope Gregory in 1241. Four years later, King Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270) intervened on Frederick’s behalf with the papacy.The fighting ended, and Frederick’s excommunication was lifted in 1244. This situation did not last long, however, because Frederick was still intent on subjugating the Lombard League. By 1250, the struggle against the Italian states had turned in Frederick’s favor. But while Louis IX of France was trying to arrange another treaty or armistice with the desperate pope, Frederick succumbed suddenly to dysentery and died in December 1250.

King of Prussia (r. 1740–1786), whose strong leadership, intelligence, and progressive reforms transformed Prussia from a fledgling kingdom into one of the major powers of Europe. Though openly averse to authority as a young man, Frederick II (also known as “Frederick the Great”) became perhaps the most successful of Prussian monarchs, leaving a legacy of enlightened governance that greatly influenced the future of the German states. The oldest son of Prussian king Frederick William I (r. 1713–1740) and Sophia of Hanover, Frederick was trained from a very young age in the arts of war and leadership, with the expectation that he would inherit his father’s crown. Frederick rejected this form of schooling, however, and showed a deep and passionate interest in philosophy and the arts. This led very early on to a sharp division between father and son, such that Frederick William openly avowed dislike of Frederick and subjected him to all sorts of cruel punishments, frequently in public. His father was so hard on him that Frederick attempted to flee Prussia for England in 1730 in the company of his good friend Hans Hermann von Katte.The pair were caught, however, and the king made Frederick witness the execution of Katte, who was charged for his role in trying to help the prince flee the country.

F r e d e r i c k I I , t h e G r e at

Frederick the Great of Prussia was a strong, enlightened leader, who transformed his kingdom into one of the most powerful in Europe. Friends with leading thinkers of the sixteenth century, Frederick II is shown visiting with Voltaire.

Miraculously, Frederick later achieved some reconciliation with his father, largely owing to his acquiescence to an arranged marriage with Elizabeth of Brunswick, a union that Frederick William had encouraged for some time. Frederick and Elizabeth had no children together and lived apart for nearly their entire lives. Most historians now agree that Frederick was homosexual. Frederick became king upon his father’s death in 1740. Known as “the philosopher king,” he was a deeply contemplative man, greatly admired, and even befriended by many of the major German and French thinkers of his time, including Goethe and Voltaire, who helped shape his ideas. He was also a cold, calculating, quiet man, and many of his actions seemed rash and foolish at first. In time, however, it became clear that they were the product of careful consideration and prudent analysis. Almost immediately after taking the throne in 1740, Frederick began to display the qualities of leadership that marked his reign. One of his first actions was to launch a quick and decisive attack, without provocation, against Maria Theresa of Austria (r. 1740–1780), from whom he secured several portions of land for Prussia. Territorial expansion continued throughout Frederick’s reign. Frederick was perhaps most notable as a military

315

tactician, and the techniques he devised for the battlefield changed warfare dramatically and were later adopted by Napoleon I (r. 1804–1814),Adolf Hitler, and others. By the end of the Seven Years’ War in 1763, which was fueled by renewed tensions between Prussia and Austria, Prussia was the dominant military power on the European continent, rivaled only by France and Russia. After securing his borders, Frederick turned inward, embarking on an ambitious program of rebuilding and development that further strengthened the Prussian kingdom. Through intelligent and careful financial planning, Frederick also was able to keep Prussia from falling into debt, even in the aftermath of the destruction of the Seven Years’War. Frederick promoted the development of industry, protected commercial ventures, and provided services and land for sustainable agriculture. In doing so, he improved significantly on initiatives his father had put in place years before. Especially notable for the hands-on approach he took to reform, Frederick personally oversaw many of the changes taking place during his reign, especially in regard to the development of skilled civil servants. Leading by example, Frederick was also a great patron of the arts and was able to generate impressive private support for them. Frederick’s progressive policies carried over into the legal system, where his changes put Prussia on the road to a modern system of jurisprudence. Repealing many of his father’s legal guidelines, Frederick abolished corporal punishment and severely curtailed the use of the death penalty. He also promoted freedom of speech, and, most famously, freedom of religion, making one of the first declarations of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, serfdom in Prussia was too deeply implanted to be abolished. Although Frederick was a very progressive ruler, he did nothing to further the movement toward democratic government in Prussia.When he died in 1786, Frederick handed down the same system of social stratification and selective citizenship that he inherited from his father. Since Frederick left no direct descendants, upon his death the Crown passed to his nephew, Frederick William II (r. 1786–1797). See also: Commerce and Kingship; Education of Kings; Frederick William, the Great Elector; Homosexuality and Kingship; Maria Theresa; Military Roles, Royal.

316

F r e d e r i c k I I , t h e G r e at

FURTHER READING

Fraser, David. Frederick the Great: King of Prussia. New York: Fromm, 2001.

FREDERICK WILLIAM, THE GREAT ELECTOR (1620–1688 C.E.) Elector of Brandenburg (r. 1640–1688), who consolidated the lands of the Hohenzollern dynasty into what later became Prussia, the most powerful state in Germany. A capable administrator and respected military leader, Frederick William was one of the most successful rulers of the Hohenzollern dynasty. During his reign, Prussia grew from a struggling confederation of local states decimated by foreign armies into a strong and unified nation-state with a commanding voice in European politics. The son of George William (r. 1620–1640), elector of Brandenburg and duke of Prussia, Frederick William was born in 1620, just after the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). That conflict dominated the reign of his father, who had attempted to stay neutral and consequently found his lands overrun and occupied until his death in 1640. Upon inheriting his father’s titles, Frederick William immediately set about repairing his damaged homeland, organizing his army into a strong fighting force, driving out an occupying Swedish army, and greatly adding to his family’s territory.The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and a 1657 Polish treaty secured Hohenzollern domain over Prussia and the eastern portions of Pomerania (a region that included parts of Poland), thereby allowing Frederick William to initiate an extensive series of domestic reforms. Frederick William set the precedent for future governance in Prussia by establishing a strong administrative base that overrode the authority of local leaders for the benefit of the country as a whole. He also initiated a great many public works projects, including a canal on the Oder River that is still in use today.These accomplishments helped fuel the Prussian economy, which quickly bounced back from the ravages of the Thirty Years’War and became the most powerful economy in Germany by the time of Frederick William’s death. Frederick William also pursued a policy of widespread religious tolerance,

which stifled any religious disputes that might have caused internal discord within Prussia. Upon Frederick William’s death in 1688, he was succeeded by his son, Frederick III (r. 1688–1713). Under Frederick III, who was not nearly as successful a leader as his father, Prussia achieved international recognition in 1701 as a kingdom rather than a duchy. As a result, Frederick’s title changed from Frederick III, elector of Brandenburg, to King Frederick I of Prussia (r. 1701–1713), the first Prussian ruler of the Hohenzollern dynasty. See also: Hohenzollern Dynasty.

FRENCH MONARCHIES (ca. 987–1848 C.E.)

Rulers of France from the tenth to the nineteenth century, who were one of the most powerful royal dynasties in Europe during that time. The French monarchy emerged in the early Middle Ages along with a number of other European dynasties and kingdoms. For the next thousand years, France played a major role in European politics and culture. Its rivalry with England in the Middle Ages and with the Habsburg dynasty of Austria and Spain in the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries shaped the European world. Only three royal families ruled France throughout this long period: the Capetians, the Valois, and the Bourbons.

THE CAPETIAN DYNASTY The Capetian dynasty did not begin as a powerful family of kings. Instead, they survived, at least in part, because they posed no obvious threat to the more powerful kingdoms around them, such as Flanders and Aquitaine.The Capetians did, however, succeed in founding one of the longest lasting and most powerful monarchies in European history.

The Foundations of French Monarchy In 987, a Frankish noble named Hugh Capet (r. 987–996) took power in France after the death of Louis V (r. 986–987), the last ruler of the Carolingian dynasty.The Carolingians were the family of the great Charlemagne (r. 768–814), and France was still considered an empire, the Empire of the West, descended from that of Charlemagne. The Capet family origi-

French Monarchies

317

The magnificent Château de Versailles was originally a hunting lodge built by King Louis XIII. Home to the French monarchy for over a century, the palace underwent a vast expansion from 1665 to 1683 under Louis XIV. The Marble Courtyard, shown here, was part of architect Louis Le Vau’s sumptuous redesign.

nally ruled only part of that empire (West Francia), and not the largest or most powerful part. From the accession of Hugh Capet until 1328, the Capetians ruled as kings. Over the nearly three hundred fifty years that the Capetians controlled the French monarchy, one of their most important successes was the creation of a new way of referring to the region. The area became an ideological and historical entity—France—rather than part of a larger territory. The Capetians did this by connecting their rule with the Roman Catholic Church, by carefully parceling out land to loyal nobles, and by enforcing the rule of law.

Feudalism and the Weakness of Central Authority One of the principal limitations of royal authority during the early Middle Ages was the nature of po-

litical power itself. In the modern world, legitimate political authority emanates from a theoretical consent of the people. However, medieval political power was privately held. In other words, authority, such as the exercise of justice or the collection of taxes, was in the hands of the feudal king. Under the feudal system, a monarch’s authority rested on his personal ties with other lords to whom he could distribute authority as property and for whom he often served as arbiter in disputes. The political world of the early Capetians was often a web of contradictory associations rather than an efficient hierarchy. France, and Europe as a whole, were extremely decentralized, and political action and authority was intensely localized.The monarch’s ability to exercise control over his own territory was limited by the loyalty and awe of his high-born allies.

318

French Monarchies

Capetian Dynasty Hugh Capet*

987–996

Louis XII

1498–1515

Francis I*

1515–1547

Robert II

996–1031

Henry II

1547–1559

Henry I

1031–1060

Francis II

1559–1560

Philip I

1060–1108

Charles IX

1560–1574

Louis VI

1108–1137

Henry III

1574–1589

Louis VII*

1137–1180

Philip II (Augustus)*

1180–1223

Bourbon Dynasty

Louis VIII

1223–1226

Henry IV*

1589–1610

Louis IX (St. Louis)*

1226–1270

Louis XIII

1610–1643

Philip III

1270–1285

Louis XIV*

1643–1715

Philip IV*

1285–1314

Louis XV*

1715–1774

Louis X

1314–1316

Louis XVI*

1774–1792

Philip V

1316–1322

Charles IV

1322–1328

Restoration Monarchy after the Revolution Valois Dynasty

Napoleon (as First Consul

Philip VI

1328–1350

John

1350–1364

Charles V

1364–1380

Charles VI

1380–1422

Charles VII*

1422–1461

Louis XI*

1461–1483

Charles VIII

1483–1498

Keys to Success: God and Marriage Despite their title as kings, the Capetians were weaker than many of the dukes and counts who were their allies. To strengthen their position, the Capetian kings emphasized their special nature as not only political leaders, but also religiously anointed monarchs. Claiming continuity from their Merovingian and Carolingian forebears, the Capetians and their allies in the Church

and Emperor)

1799–1814

Louis XVIII (Bourbon)

1814–1824

Charles X (Bourbon)

1824–1830

Louis-Philippe (Orleans-Bourbon)*

1830–1848

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

used their sacral status to claim power, making them more like biblical kings than Germanic lords. During the twelfth century, for example, the French monarchy took the fleur-de-lis as a symbol, borrowing it directly from King Solomon of Israel (r. 970–931 b.c.e.). Enthusiastic churchmen, such as Robert the Monk, worked on behalf of the Capetian monarchs, giving their rule a divine purpose, defining the French people

French Monarchies as the chosen people of God, and helping establish a consciousness as a nation. After 1100 c.e., Capetian monarchs gradually increased their power. In 1124, King Louis VI (r. 1108–1137) obtained the right to demand forty days’ service from any vassal when the regime was threatened by Germany or England. Allies who refused to serve the king had their lands confiscated, further increasing the Capetian domains. Marriage also consolidated Capetian lands and brought once rival territories together. In 1137, for example, King Louis VII (r. 1137–1180) married Eleanor of Aquitaine; and in 1180, Philip II Augustus (r. 1180–1223) married Isabelle of Hainaut, the daughter of the count of Flanders. By 1300, the Capetians had built a large and powerful kingdom. They had been smart and fortunate in their rise, taking advantage of the weaknesses of others. But they had also made enemies. In 1152, Louis VII disavowed Eleanor of Aquitaine as his wife, who then married Henry Platagenet, count of Anjou and duke of Normandy, who became King Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189). Henry was a major rival of the Capetians, and the Capetian-Norman rivalry would smolder as a source of conflict for the next several centuries, occasionally breaking out in open warfare (a period known as the First Hundred Years’War, 1159–1299).

319

THE VALOIS DYNASTY After eleven consecutive generations of male offspring, the Capetian dynasty finally ended in 1328 when King Charles IV (r. 1322–1328) died without a male heir. His successor was a cousin, Philip of Valois, who became King Philip VI (r. 1328–1350).The Valois dynasty ruled France through a profound transition. While the dynasty began in the late Middle Ages, most of its tenure occurred during the Renaissance, and Valois rule straddled the divide between the medieval and modern periods.

Philip of Valois The ascension of Philip of Valois to the French throne highlights the changing political and legal values of the time. Under feudal law, inheritance might pass through a female heir (although not technically belonging to that female). By this standard, after the death of Charles IV, there existed a more direct heir to the French throne than Philip.That heir was King Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), a descendant of the Plantagenet dukes of Normandy. Edward’s accession would have unified France and England into one kingdom. But the growing hatred between the French and English made such a union of crowns impossible. Philip’s French supporters thus invoked the ancient Frankish Salic Law, which pre-

ROYAL RITUALS

REIMS CATHEDRAL AND THE FRENCH CORONATION CEREMONY The cathedral at Reims in northeast France is one of three religious sites directly connected to the French monarchy. Along with Notre-Dame Cathedral and the Abbey of Saint-Denis, the cathedral at Reims served an important role as the traditional site of French royal coronations. According to legend, the Frankish king Clovis was crowned in Reims.The Capetian monarchs, who claimed descent from Clovis, used this legend to establish a divine claim to the French throne. Using holy oil (reputedly delivered by a dove in the ninth century), the archbishop of Reims anointed every king in a solemn ceremony to mark his ascension to the throne.The divinity granted to kings in the ceremony gave them the ability to cure illness through the “royal touch.” The last king to be crowned at Reims was also the last to be descended from the original Capetians. In 1825, during the Restoration monarchy, Charles X was crowned at Reims.

320

French Monarchies

ROYAL RELATIVES

PHILIPPE D’ORLEANS The second son of Louis XIII and Anne of Austria, Philippe spent his entire life in the shadow of his brother, the Sun-King, Louis XIV. Being eclipsed by his brother had several consequences for Philippe. During Philippe’s childhood, his mother, who had wanted a daughter, dressed him as a girl. Some historians claim that this reinforced Philippe’s sense of inferiority and fostered a sense of frustration with life that became a hallmark of his adulthood. Historians also associate his mother’s actions with Philippe’s well-known homosexual exploits. When he became an adult, an obvious source of frustration for Philippe was his father’s refusal to allow him any political power. Philippe strove throughout his life to prove himself as capable as his sibling and not a useless dilettante. He won important battles in several of the early wars of his brother’s reign, including the defeat of William of Orange at the battle of Cassel in 1677. Such success cost him, however, as Louis refused to allow Philippe further commands after the Dutch War. Philippe married twice. His first wife Henrietta, daughter of Charles II of England, died in 1670. Philippe was remarried the next year to Elizabeth Charlotte, daughter of the Elector Palatine. He died in 1701 at his palace in Saint-Cloud.

vented kingship from being transmitted to or through a female.

The Hundred Years’ War As a result of the long-standing feud between the Plantagenets (now kings of England) and the kings of France, the new conflict over inheritance sparked renewed warfare and marked the beginning of the socalled Hundred Years’War (1337–1453). In one of the odd byproducts of feudal ties, Edward III, a king in his own right, owed feudal loyalty to Philip VI (Philip of Valois). Edward was also the duke of Aquitaine, a wealthy province in southwestern France that had become an English territory with the marriage of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. When Philip tried to confiscate land belonging to Edward, claiming that he had not fulfilled his duties as a loyal ally, Edward declared Philip a usurper and claimed the title of king of France. By 1340 France and England were at war. At first, the war went badly for the French, who lost a series of battles in the north and west. France saw a brief recovery under Charles V (r. 1364–1380)

but fell back once again when his son, Charles VI (r. 1380–1422), went insane, creating disorder among the French leadership.A low point in the conflict was reached after the invasion of France by Henry V (r. 1413–1422) of England and the French defeat at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. Charles VI was forced to disinherit his own son and accept the marriage of his daughter to Henry, making Henry V the heir to the French throne. France’s fortunes turned only with the appearance of Joan of Arc, whose symbolic leadership renewed French confidence and vigor, resulting in a series of decisive victories over England in the 1420s. In the end, however, Charles VII of France (r. 1422–1461) betrayed Joan, as he mistrusted her popularity and her desire for war. The English were finally driven from French soil in 1453.

Religious Wars and the End of a Dynasty The Hundred Years’War was not the only test of the Valois kings. In the sixteenth century, they faced an even more challenging crisis. After Martin Luther

French Monarchies launched the Protestant Reformation in 1517, a flood of new religious ideas spread across Europe. In France, the ideas of Protestant theologian John Calvin spread quickly, creating a community of Protestants in France known as Huguenots. The Valois monarchs who ruled France after the end of the Hundred Years’War succeeded in strengthening the authority of the Crown. Louis XII (r. 1498–1515), Francis I (r. 1515–1547), and Henry II (r. 1547–1559) all also expanded French territory and, after 1517, coped well with rising religious tensions in France. In 1559, Henry II died in a jousting accident, leaving his son, Francis II (r. 1559–1560), to rule.A sickly child, Francis died only a year later. Henry’s two younger sons, Charles IX (r. 1560–1574) and Henry III (r. 1574–1589), then each succeeded to the throne, but they were dominated by their strong-willed mother, Catherine de Medici. During their reigns, the fragile religious peace between French Catholics and Huguenots disappeared into violent confrontations, including the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Huguenots in Paris in 1572, which was ordered by Charles IX under the instigation of his mother. None of the later Valois proved up to the challenges of the sixteenth century. Charles IX was poisoned and died a painful death; his brother, Henry III, was assassinated by a Dominican monk, Jacques Clement, in 1589. Neither Charles nor Henry left an heir. Their closest male relative was Henry of Navarre, the leader of the Protestant forces.

THE BOURBONS Henry of Navarre was the son of Antoine de Bourbon, the duke of Vendome, and Jeanne D’Albret, the staunchly Protestant queen of Navarre (r. 1555–1572). Henry’s accession to the French throne in 1589 as Henry IV (r. 1589–1610) inaugurated the third and last royal dynasty in French history: the House of Bourbon.

“The Crown Is Worth a Mass” To be crowned French king, Henry IV had to give up his Protestant faith and convert to Catholicism. The traditional rite of coronation was too intertwined with Catholic ritual for a Protestant to be king.When confronted with a choice between his religion and the Crown, Henry allegedly remarked, “The crown is worth a mass,” and converted to Catholicism. Henry IV did not turn his back on his former coreligionists, however.As part of the peace settlement of the religious wars that had wracked France, Henry

321

issued the Edict of Nantes (1598), which gave French Protestants the right to worship, although they could not spread their faith or worship outside established areas. But the peace did not have long to settle in under Henry. He was assassinated in 1610, and his eldest son, Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643), came to the throne while still only a child.

The Sun-King: Absolutism at Its Height The shape of French and European monarchy took a decisive turn beginning under King Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643). With the aid of his minister of state, Cardinal Richelieu, Louis began to draw upon the sacral nature of monarchy established by the Capetians and claim ancient precedent. Louis and other French monarchs in the seventeenth century adopted a new vision of monarchical authority called absolutism. This theory of monarchical rule sought to establish unchallenged royal authority by undercutting traditional authority, primarily that of the French nobility or aristocracy. By the second half of the seventeenth century, this political philosophy had evolved into a more mature form—the idea of divine right. Best articulated by French bishop Jacques Benigne Bossuet, the philosophy of divine right argued that royal authority was sacred and that God had established the monarchy to rule over the French nation. The political and cultural consequences of this idea were reflected most clearly in the magnificent palace at Versailles, built by Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), who was known as the “Sun-King.”

The End of the Monarchy The power and opulence of the Bourbon monarchs came to an end at the close of the eighteenth century. While the decisiveness and efficiency of absolutism characterized the seventeenth century, the eighteenth century witnessed a revolutionary shift in popular values. The eighteenth-century movement known as the Enlightenment stressed individual rights and universal justice, values contrary to the often arbitrary absolutist exercise of power. By the reign of King Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792), these values had eroded the prestige of the French monarchy. This degradation combined with a severe economic slowdown and a deepening governmental financial crisis to set the stage for the French Revolution that began in 1789.

322

French Monarchies

Almost three years after the French Revolution began, King Louis XVI and his wife MarieAntoinette attempted to flee the country.They were caught and eventually executed by the guillotine in 1793. Although several Bourbon relatives returned after Napoleon (1804–1814), the Revolution effectively ended the monarchy in France.

FRENCH MONARCHS AFTER THE REVOLUTION France was a republic until 1804, when Napoleon declared himself emperor. After Napoleon, two Bourbon relatives, Louis XVIII (r. 1814–1824) and Charles X (r. 1824–1830), ruled in the period known as the Restoration Monarchy. Charles X, the last Bourbon ruler of France, was deposed in 1830, and Louis Phillipe (r. 1830–1848), duke of Orleans, took power as a constitutional monarch. He abdicated in 1848 and a republic was established in France. Napoleon III (r. 1852–1870) dissolved this republic and named himself emperor, but he was deposed after a disastrous war with Germany. Neither Louis Phillipe nor Napoleon III claimed royal legitimacy. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Capetian Dynasty; Valois Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Duby, Georges, and Robert Mandrou. A History of French Civilization: From theYear 1000 to the Present. Trans. James Blakely Atkinson. New York: Random House, 1964. Goubert, Pierre. The Ancien Régime: French Society, 1600–1750. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Howarth, Thomas E.B. Citizen-King:The Life of LouisPhilippe, King of the French. New York:White Lion Publishers, 1975. Price, Roger. A Concise History of France. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ———. The French Second Empire:An Anatomy of Political Power. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

FUAD (1868–1936 C.E.) Sultan and first king of modern Egypt (r. 1917– 1936) who ruled during a tumultuous period when Egypt was under the control of Great Britain.

Ahmed Fuad, also known as Fuad I, was the son of Ishmail Pasha, the Egyptian khedive, or viceroy. As a member of a prominent Egyptian family, Fuad was sent to Italy for his education. After he returned to Egypt in 1880, he served as a general in the Egyptian army for about ten years. Fuad also made his mark in Egyptian cultural society by helping to found and subsequently administer a university in Giza, now called the University of Cairo, in 1908. In 1914, Egypt officially was declared a protectorate of Great Britain, and Fuad’s eldest brother, Hussein Kamil, was named sultan. Upon Kamil’s death in 1917, Fuad succeeded Kamil in that office. At around this time, a new nationalist party, called the Wafd, was formed by Egyptians adamant about regaining Egypt’s independence from the British. As it became clear that the British were not going to honor their promise to give Egypt self-rule, revolts led by the Wafd took place throughout the country. Britain finally relented in 1922, declared Egypt an independent country, and named Fuad king. Nevertheless, Britain remained a presence in Egypt and interceded regularly in its affairs. A new constitution, adopted in 1924, granted Fuad considerable powers, including the power to dissolve or adjourn parliament, to veto acts of parliament, and to appoint and dismiss prime ministers. He was also named commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Fuad used his powers often, creating a constant turnover in the country’s administration as well as two periods in which Parliament was completely dissolved. For the rest of Fuad’s life, Egypt remained in turmoil, with a three-way power struggle between the king, the nationalists, and the British. Upon his death in 1936, Fuad was succeeded by his son, Farouk (r. 1936–1952). See also: Egyptian Kingdom, Modern; Farouk. FURTHER READING

Fisher, Sydney Nettleton, and William Ochsenwald. The Middle East: A History. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

FUJIWARA DYNASTY (660s–1185 C.E.) The civil dictators of Japan from the mid-seventh century to the late twelfth century. The ascendancy

F u j i wa r a D y n a s t y

323

of the Fujiwara dynasty coincided with the golden age of the Heian period (794–1185). The Fujiwara family maintained influence at the imperial court in Kyoto by providing generations of daughters as imperial consorts and empresses. The practice in which great families of Japan manipulated the emperor to their own ends was not new. The Fujiwara replaced the Soga family, who dominated the imperial court from the mid-fifth to the mid-seventh centuries. However, by institutionalizing their role in government as regents and advisors, and by demonstrating competence in their roles, the Fujiwara perpetuated their dynasty and solidified the persistent political dualism in Japanese life—however powerful the leader, he must derive his legitimacy from the puppet imperial court.

sential Fujiwara regent. An obviously capable ruler, he dominated the court at the height of the Heian (Kyoto) imperial splendor. Although he held numerous imperial offices, he never took the kampaku title, however. Four of his daughters married four different emperors, and he was uncle to two emperors and grandfather to three. Michinaga lived in opulence, with resplendent palaces, many consorts, and extravagant pastimes. He is supposedly one of the models for Prince Genji, hero of The Tale of Genji, written around 1004 by imperial lady-in-waiting Murasaki Shikibu and generally considered to be the world’s first novel. Michinaga appears many times in Pillow Book (ca. 1000), the famous contemporary accounts of imperial court life by Sei Shonagon, a lady of the court.

THE WISTERIA

THE HEIAN PERIOD

The Fujiwara dynasty was founded in the 660s by Fujiwara Kamatara, who was born Nakatomi Kamatori in 614. For Kamatori’s support of the imperial house in its struggle against the Soga dynasty, the Emperor Tenji (r. 661–672) awarded him the surname Fujiwara (wisteria arbor), which referred to the scene of the victory against the Soga. Kamatori’s son, Fuhito, was grandfather to the Emperor Shomu (r. 724–749) through a daughter who was an imperial consort. He was also father-inlaw to the emperor through another daughter, who in 792 became the first empress who was not a princess of royal blood. The marriage between this daughter and Shomu established the tradition by which the Fujiwara married into the imperial house. It became common for emperors to retire early (to enjoy the considerable pleasures of life) and place child emperors born of Fujiwara mothers on the throne under the control of Fujiwara regents. Fujiwara Yoshifusa (804–872) was the first regent to the Japanese emperor who was not of royal blood. Already a great minister of state,Yoshifusa arranged in 858 for his seven-year-old grandson to be named emperor and declared himself the child’s sessho or regent, thus institutionalizing the role. Following Yoshifusa as head of the family was Mototsune (836– 891), who became regent in 876 to the newest child emperor, Yozei (r. 876–884). As the child grew older, Motosune continued as adviser and created the new role of kampaku, or counselor and regent to adult emperors. Fujiwara Michinaga (966–1028) was the quintes-

During the Heian period, absentee ownership was common, since aristocratic landowners preferred to be in the capital city near the brilliant imperial court. Provincial families, including the Fujiwara, amassed great power and wealth as local managers of the shoen, or large fiefdoms, and as designated tax collectors for the landed families. The continued expansion of private estates in Japan during the Heian period undermined central authority and increasingly encouraged territorial clashes. Despite the brillance of this so-called golden age, growing unrest spread from the countryside to the capital, and Michinaga at times paid warriors of the Minamoto and Taira clans to quell disorder. Michinaga’s son, Fujiwara Yorimichi (992–1074), served more than fifty years as regent for three emperors and dominated court life from 1016 to 1068. During this half century, the control of the central government continued to dissipate. Brigands plundered the imperial palaces, and the provincial lords refused to send taxes. By the twelfth century, there was constant conflict among the powerful families of Japan. Civil warfare was aggravated by the growing involvement of the bushi, or samurai retainers. Control belonged to whoever could muster the greatest number of armed men.

INSEI GOVERNANCE After 1068, Fujiwara power was greatly limited by the insei system, the early tradition of cloistered rule that was resurrected by the imperial court.The em-

324

F u j i wa r a D y n a s t y

Bowring, Richard, and Peter Kornicki, eds. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Collcutt, Martin, Marius Jansen, and Isai Jumakura. Cultural Atlas of Japan. New York: Facts on File, 1988. Hall, John W., et al., eds. The Cambridge History of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

According to Cambodian legends, the Funan kingdom was founded by an Indian leader named Kaundinuya, who came to the region in the first century. Located in the Mekong River Delta, the kingdom flourished as a stopover point for Chinese and Indian trading ships. Such interaction with Chinese and Indian sea traders not only brought goods to the Funan kingdom, but it also encouraged economic reform and development. The Funan people were the first in Southeast Asia to conduct trade with silver coins.The records of a third-century Chinese ambassador described Funan as having walled cities, libraries, a judicial system, and a taxation system. The Funan civilization derived many of its cultural, religious, and political traditions from India, and then spread them throughout the region. Although Funan never adopted the caste system that was used in India, the Funan people organized themselves into highly sophisticated and centralized states. They are said to have relied on an advanced system of canals and dikes to harness the Mekong River floodwaters and irrigate their inland rice fields. Among the kings of Funan, Kaundinya Jayavarman (r. ca. 478–514) was known for a mission he sent to China led by a Buddhist monk. King Rudravarman (r. ca. 514–539) encouraged the spread of Buddhism in the kingdom by claiming that a relic of the Buddha was housed in one of the kingdom’s temples. By the early sixth century,Theravada Buddhism had begun to flourish in Funan. By that same century, however, the Funan kingdom was in decline. Overrun by Khmer peoples from the Chenla kingdom in the mid-500s, it was eventually replaced by the Chenla Empire.

FUNAN KINGDOM

See also:Angkor Kingdom; Cambodian Kingdoms; Champa Kingdom; Chenla Empire; Southeast Asian Kingdoms;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

peror would abdicate, name a child successor, and retire to a monastery, freeing himself to rule as regent away from the formal and oppressive requirements of court life. In 1086, Emperor Go-Sanjo (r. 1068–1073), the first emperor without a Fujiwara mother in over a hundred years, retired in favor of his son, GoShirakawa (r. 1073–1087). As retired insei, or cloistered” emperors, both Go-Sanjo and his son successfully supplanted Fujiwara advisers with their loyal clique of retainers. Faced with dwindling tax revenues and violent clashes between powerful clans and families, the imperial court and the Fujiwara clan were eventually overtaken by the warrior class.An alliance of Fujiwara and Minamoto warriors lost to the imperial-Taira forces in open conflicts in 1156 and 1159. By 1185, Yoritomo Minamoto, a warrior of the Minamoto clan had concentrated power in his own hands, establishing the Kamakura shogunate.The power and influence of the Fujiwara dynasty was at an end. See also:Kamakura Shogunate; Minamoto Rulers; Yoritomo. FURTHER READING

(ca. first century–500s C.E.)

Hindu kingdom established in the first century that was one of the first states to emerge in Southeast Asia out of the expanding Indian civilization to the north. Cambodians generally consider the Funan kingdom to be the first Khmer kingdom in the region. Although the exact boundaries of the kingdom are not known, it is generally believed to have occupied an area within present-day Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Cambodia, and southern Vietnam.

FUNERALS AND MORTUARY RITUALS The funeral and mortuary practices of royals throughout history have largely reflected their central social role. Although these practices have changed over time and vary depending on the beliefs of the culture and the status of the deceased, several key cross-cultural features have remained consistent.

F u n e r a l s a n d M o rt u a ry R i t u a l s

The funerals of monarchs are often large ceremonial affairs, marking not only the passing of a ruler but also a change in government. Queen Victoria of Great Britain, who died on January 22, 1901, was honored by a lavish state funeral at St. George’s Chapel in London and buried at the Frogmore Mausoleum near Windsor Castle.

The burial of royals tends to celebrate their lives, to preserve their wealth and power beyond death, and to solidify their memory and status in the public for generations to come.

ANCIENT BURIAL CUSTOMS The first peoples to perfect and perpetuate the mortuary ritual were the Egyptians. The funerary practices of the Egyptians were complex, and the secret of their mummification practices were closely guarded. Much of what we know of this process comes from the early historian Herodotus (484–425 b.c.e.). Embalming is thought to have originated with the Egyptians around 4000 b.c.e. “Embalm” means literally to place in balsam (a fragrant tree), while “mummifica-

325

tion” refers to the methods used to preserve the body, including the removal of organs, embalming, and wrapping. Upon the death of a pharaoh, his body was given over to the official embalmers who removed the organs and prepared the body for the afterlife; this was likely done in the ibu (“place of purification”). The organs were removed and soaked in natron, a natural salt occurring in the Nile River to dry them out and prevent decomposition. The heart was not removed because it was believed to be the center of intelligence. On the day of the burial, the corpse was the center of elaborate ceremonies symbolizing the life of the god king Osiris, who had been killed and through various processes had been restored to life. It was believed that those who worshiped Osiris and were mummified as he had been could also be brought back to life.The mummy was then lowered into a Great Pyramid, down to the tomb chamber and laid on its left side. The Great Pyramids, future tombs for the pharaohs, were built on such a grand scale that they required more than 2.3 million huge, polished stones and required hundreds of thousands of laborers working continuously for twenty years to complete. Food, drink, and toiletries were left beside the sarcophagus (decorated stone coffin) along with amulets for protection.The chamber leading to the mummy was then filled with sand and gravel to conceal its existence.

Victorian England It was in England during the reign of Queen Victoria (r. 1837–1901) that the mortuary ritual, funerals, and mourning practices became almost a national obsession. Upon the death of a royal, the country and English court would enter a period of national mourning. In the 1880s, the ascribed length of national mourning for a monarch was twelve weeks, six weeks for the death of the child of the king or queen; mourning lengths were specified down to ten days for a first cousin of the royal family. Elaborate funerals became common even for minor figures of the royal family. Entire warehouses were devoted to the selling of black fabric and garments to be worn in accordance with the mourning rituals.A mourner would don only black or very dark purple, depending on the relationship of the deceased. This would continue for months or even years. Mourning jewelry was also popular for women

326

F u n e r a l s a n d M o rt u a ry R i t u a l s

ROYAL RITUALS

ROYAL MAUSOLEA Mausolea are free-standing structures for housing the dead, larger in size and grander in scale than a tomb.Their origin can be traced to 353 B.C.E. when King Mausolus, ruler of the small Mediterranean kingdom of Caria for twenty-four years, died. His grief-stricken wife Artemisia built the most elaborate tomb in the world to honor him.This tomb would become the standard model used for centuries to come in the burial of royal dead.The original mausoleum was an ornate white marble structure, 140 feet high. It stood for nearly seventeen centuries until damaged by earthquakes. In early seventeenth-century India in the city of Arga, Utter Pradesh, Shah Jehan (Prince Khurram), the fifth Mughal emperor, built the Taj Mahal to honor Mumtaz Mahal, his deceased wife. Located on the banks of the Yamuna River, the multichambered Taj Mahal, was constructed of a similar white marble and became perhaps the most famous mausoleum in the world.

to wear.The stone or jewel most associated with Victorian mourning was jet, which was made of fossilized driftwood of the monkey-puzzle tree. Queen Victoria wore jet after the death of her husband, Prince Albert, in 1861 until her own in 1901. See also: Victoria. FURTHER READING

Metcalf, Peter. Celebrations of Death:The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992 Pearson, Mike Parker. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2001. Taylor, Lou. Mourning Dress: A Costume and Social History. London: Allen & Irwin, 1983

FUR KINGDOM (ca. 1640–1916 C.E.) Kingdom located in western Sudan, whose wealth and power were derived from its monopoly of the trans-Saharan slave trade through taxes and tariffs. The sultanate of Dar Fur, also known as the Fur kingdom, was founded in the seventeenth century by Sulayman Solong (r. ca. 1640–1670), who decreed

that the state religion would be Islam. However, Sulayman seems not to have made direct efforts to force his subjects to convert, and he made use of traditional Fur ritual practices. The sultanate’s rise to importance in the region was due to the deft way in which Sulayman gained monopoly over the wealth that passed through his territory on the trade route between Africa’s savanna states and Egypt, a trade in which slaves and ivory were perhaps the most important components. Sulayman established the Keira dynasty, from which all future sultans would come. He did not, however, establish a permanent capital in which to base his administration. This seems not to have caused insuperable difficulties, however, either for his reign or for the sultans who followed him. The relatively laissez-faire relationship between Islam and traditional practice in Dar Fur came to an end with the sultanate of Ahmed Bakr (r. 1682– 1722), who was not content to see the practice of Islam confined to his court circle. Bakr imported Islamic teachers from Egypt and elsewhere, and embarked upon a program of mosque-building. He also decreed that all his subjects must become Muslims. This decision had important political and economic consequences, for the adoption of Islamic practices included the creation of a form of landholding and

G a h a dva l a s D y n a s t y labor practices that intimately connected the produce of the land and the land-holding classes to the interests of the state and the sultan himself. In the latter half of the eighteenth century, the predictability of life centered on control of trade arriving from the West was altered in Dar Fur. This change occurred during the rule of Sultan Muhammad II Tayrab (r. 1756–1787), who sought to expand his kingdom. Tayrab coveted the region of Kordofan, which lay to the west but was, at the time, already claimed as a province of a neighboring kingdom, the Funj sultanate. In the final year of his reign, Tayrab succeeded in winning that territory, which he accomplished while maintaining control over the trade that passed through Dar Fur on its way to Egypt. Dar Fur faced the first significant challenge to its autonomy in 1821, when Egypt decided to take the province of Kordofan and attempted to gain control over the slave traffic that long enriched the Fur sultanate. Egyptian-sponsored traders established heavily militarized slave camps south of Dar Fur, essentially hijacking the lucrative traffic and giving rise to a rival sultanate, Dar al-Kuti.To strengthen its claim upon the territory, Egypt backed an ambitious trader named Rahma al-Zubayr in his attempt to invade Dar Fur. Zubayr succeeded in defeating the sultan, making the formerly independent sultanate a tributary possession of Egypt.This situation remained unchanged (but not unchallenged) until the rule of Ali Dinar Zakariyya (r. 1898–1916), who restored the Fur sultanate to its former independent status. The restoration of Dar Fur’s independence was not long-lived, however, for Europeans were entering the territory in increasing numbers. Both Britain and France wanted to establish colonial interests in the region, as did Italy, which had already achieved a toe-hold in Libya and wished to expand its authority southward. When World War I broke out in 1914, the ruling Fur sultan, Ali Dinar Zakariyya, made the strategic error of aligning himself with the Islamic Ottoman Empire rather than with the Christian nations of the West, causing the British to declare war on the Fur sultanate. In 1916, after invading the territory of Dar Fur, British troops captured and executed Ali Dinar, bringing the Keira dynasty and the Fur sultanate to an end. See also: African Kingdoms; Sultanates.

327

G GAEKWAR DYNASTY. See Baroda Kingdom

GAHADVALAS DYNASTY (ca. 1080–1192 C.E.)

Last Hindu rulers of the ancient kingdom of Kanauj in northern India. The Gahadvalas dynasty was founded at Kanauj in the late eleventh century by Chandradeva (r. 1080– 1100), a Hindu leader whose ancestry has been claimed by both the Rashtrakuta and Rathor clans.At that time, the Pratihara Empire, which included the Ganges Valley and territory as far east as north Bengal, was disintegrating due to Arab attacks from the west and internal rebellion. Chandradeva brought political and military order to the troubled region. During his rule, he defeated the armies of the Chandella dynasty and checked the aggression of Vijayasena (r. ca. 1095–1159), a ruler of Bengal. In one ancient inscription, Chandradeva was described as the protector of the holy places of Kasi, Kusika, and Uttarakosala, in the respective cities of Varanasi, Kanauj, and Ayadhya, and of the city of Indrasthana (ancient Delhi.) Based on this source, it is surmised that Chandradeva commanded the whole of what now is the modern state of Uttar Pradesh. Following Chandradeva’s death in 1100, his son, Madanpala (r. 1100–1114), reigned for only a few years. Madanpala was succeeded by his son, Govindachandra (r. 1114–1154), who formed an alliance with King Jayasimha (r. 1128–1149) of Kashmir and Siddharaja Jayasimha (r. 1095–1143), ruler of the

328

G a h a dva l a s D y n a s t y

kingdom of Gujarat, to defeat a Muslim expedition led by Masud III (r. 1099–1115) of the kingdom of Ghazna. Govindachandra later annexed some of the region of Magadha, which had been under the control of the Pala dynasty of Bengal. Laksmidbara, a learned minister of Govindachandra, wrote the Gahadvalla book of law known as the Kritya-Kalpataru. In 1154, Govindachandra’s son, Vijaychandra (r. 1154–1070), succeeded his father on the throne. Early in his reign,Vijaychandra captured Lahore, the capital city of the Punjab kingdom. Vijaychandra ruled as far east as South Bihar, but in the west he lost Delhi around 1160 to Vigraharaja Visaladeva (r. 1153– 1164), a king of the Chauhan dynasty. By the time that Vijaychandra’s son, Jayachandra (r. 1070–1093), took the throne, the region around Kanauj was under the control of the Chandella and Chauhan dynasties. In 1192, the kingdom of Ghur launched an invasion against Jayachandra. At the battle of Chandawer in the following year, Jayachandra, the last Hindu ruler of Kanauj, was defeated and killed. The Ghuris then plundered Kanauj and put the entire region under Muslim control. See also: Chandella Dynasty; Ghur Dynasty; Indian Kingdoms; Pala Dynasty; Rastrakuta Dynasty.

GALAWDEWOS (ca. 1522–1559 C.E.) Emperor of Ethiopia (r. 1540–1559) who was a descendant of the Salomonic dynasty that ruled Ethiopia from 1268 to the late twentieth century. The son of Emperor Lebna Dengel (r. 1508– 1540), Galawdewos assumed the throne of Ethiopia upon his father’s death in 1540. When he became emperor, Galawdewos faced grave challenges to the autonomy of his realm, which was greatly reduced in size. During the previous several years, the territories of the empire had been largely overrun by forces of the Somali Muslim leader Ahmad ibn Ibrahim alGhazi, who had declared a jihad, or holy war, against Dengel’s rule. Upon taking the throne, Galawdewos had little chance of reclaiming the lost territory on his own. Just one year previously, however, hope had arrived in the form of an expeditionary force sent by Portugal to explore the region. Galawdewos enlisted the aid of these European newcomers, led by Cristovao

da Gama, who saw advantages in gaining the gratitude of the Ethiopian emperor. After three years of fighting, during which da Gama was killed by alGhazi’s forces, Galawdewos ultimately succeeded in routing the invaders. Al-Ghazi himself was killed in battle in 1543. Upon reclaiming rule of his country, Galawdewos had no intention of relinquishing autonomy to any foreign claimants, including the Portuguese who had helped him regain power. Equally disturbing to Galawdewos were the missionizing activities that accompanied Portuguese trade and exploration. Portugal was allied with the Roman Catholic Church, whereas Ethiopia had, for centuries, been allied with the Coptic Church and its head, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Having admitted the Portuguese into his kingdom as allies against al-Ghazi, Galawdewos could not easily get rid of them. He was thus forced to deal with the intensifying efforts of Jesuit missionaries to acquire converts for Rome. This ultimately led to his composition, in 1555, of an extraordinary work, Confession of Faith, in which he set forth his understanding of the theological and practical value of the Ethiopian Coptic Church. This remarkable document earned Galawdewos the respect of the Jesuits, who allowed him to preserve Coptic tradition within his realm. Although Galawdewos had defeated al-Ghazi, his reign did not remain untroubled for long.Toward the end of his reign, Ethiopia once again was targeted by a jihad, this time launched by al-Ghazi’s successor, Amir Nur. Forced to mount another war in defense of his realm, Galawdewos was killed in 1559 while leading his troops against a Muslim attack. See also: Menelik II; Susenyos; Tewodros II; Zara Ya’iqob.

GANDA KINGDOM (1400s–1966 C.E.; 1993–Present)

Also called Buganda (the Bu- is a prefix in the Bantu language that denotes territory), one of the four traditional kingdoms, along with Nyoro, Toro, and Ankole, that were established in Uganda in central Africa. The kingdom of Ganda shares with the Nyoro kingdom a creation myth that features Kintu, the

G au d a K i n g d o m supposed first man and founder. Also like the Nyoro, the rulers of Ganda are drawn from the Babito clan. Today, the Ganda constitute the largest ethnic group in the nation of Uganda, and they have held the majority of power within the region since the colonial era. Buganda began as a subordinate territory under the control of the Bunyoro Kingdom (which was founded around 1200). It became a separate kingdom early in the fifteenth century, and its first king, or kabaka, appears to have been a member of the Bunyoro royal family. The name of this ruler was Kimera, who was a descendant of the Babito clan. Oral tradition holds that there were a total of thirtyfour Ganda kings from the time of Kimera’s rule until the mid-1960s, when the Ugandan national government ordered the abolition of all kingdoms within its borders. The Ganda kingdom asserted its independence from its Nyoro rulers beginning around 1650. King Mawanda (r. 1674–1704) instituted a policy of expansion, and under his reign the Ganda kingdom achieved preeminent power and influence in the region. His successors built upon his policies, so that by the time British colonizers arrived in 1860, it was with the Buganda king, Mutesa I (r. 1856–1884), that the colonial officers had to negotiate.The British declared Buganda a protectorate in 1891, during the reign of Mutesa’s son and successor, Mwanga (r. 1884–1897). In 1896, the British expanded the protectorate to include the lands of the Nyoro,Toro, and Ankole kingdoms as well. King Mwanga took the Buganda throne at a time of great civil unrest, due largely to the competing efforts of European Protestant and Catholic missionaries. Mwanga sought to quell the unrest by discouraging his people from converting to either group, but this put him at odds with the British colonial office, which supported the Protestants. Mwanga was ultimately ousted from power, exiled to the Seychelles Islands, and replaced on the throne by his son, Daudi Chwa (r. 1897–1942). Chwa was only four years old when he took the throne, and the British used his youth and inexperience to turn him into a puppet ruler. His son, Mutesa II (r. 1942–1966), proved far less cooperative. During his reign, the British exiled Mutesa for two periods in an effort to render him more willing to cooperate with colonial policies. However, Mutesa II came to power at a time when the popu-

329

lace throughout Africa had begun calling for an end to colonial rule, and the king became actively involved in political independence movements. Mutesa became the first president of the newly independent nation of Uganda in 1962, but he was was forced out of office in 1966 by his prime minister,Apolo Milton Obote.That same year, Obote dissolved all the kingdoms within Uganda. Mutesa went to live in exile in England, where he died in 1969. Although Mutesa II was never allowed to return to the Ganda throne, the kingdoms of Uganda were eventually reinstated. In 1993, Mutesa’s son, Mutebi II (r. 1993–present), returned to Uganda to assume the Ganda throne. See also: African Kingdoms; Ankole Kingdom; Nyoro Kingdom;Toro Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Shillington, Kevin. History of Africa. Rev. ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

GAO TI. See Liu Pang GAOZONG. See Kao Tsung GAUDA KINGDOM (early 600s C.E.) Short-lived kingdom in the northeastern Bengal region of India, dating from the seventh century, that emerged in the wake of the disintegration of the Gupta Empire. The Gauda kingdom originated in the early 600s with the overthrow of the Gupta Empire. As the Gupta Empire disintegrated, the various provinces of northern India that had been part of the empire became independent kingdoms.As the borders of these kingdoms shifted, and kings sought to solidify and expand their territories, the Gauda king, Sasanka (r. ca. 606–619), began to extend his political sphere of influence from the region around his capital, Karnasuvarna, into northern Bengal. Sasanka expanded the Gauda kingdom at the expense of the Guptas. Little is known about this early Gauda king. Much of what is known is inferred from ancient inscriptions and coins from the period. Some

330

G au d a K i n g d o m

evidence suggests that the Gaudas, and specifically Sasanka, descended from the Gupta royal family. Other sources seem to make Sasanka synonymous with another Gauda king, Jayanaga. Still other sources speculate that Jayanaga and his son may have been either predecessors or successors to Sasanka. The most likely interpretation seems to be that Jayanaga was Sasanka’s predecessor. If that is true, then it was during Jayanaga’s reign (r. dates unknown) that the Gauda kingdom was pushed out of Bengal by competitor states, namely the Maukari, and relocated further east to the coast of the Bay of Bengal. Nonetheless, by the reign of Sasanka, Gauda was a seaside kingdom in decline. However, this decline was halted by Sasanka, who occupied a number of territories, including Pundavardhana to the north, regions as far west as the city of Benares, and land south to Kongoda, just south of Orissa. This expansion early in the seventh century, combined with Sasanka’s apparent invasion of Kamarupa, prompted King Bhaskaravarman of Kamarupa (r. dates unknown) to ally himself with King Harsha of Vardhana. Having established this alliance, Harsha invaded the Gauda kingdom around 619 (although some sources date it as early as 606). When King Prabhakara of Thaneswar (r. dates unknown) died, his kingdom came under Harsha’s control. This transfer of power to Harsha sparked a rebellion by the Malava, who were tributaries of the Thaneswar. The Malava were also allies of Gaudas, and this alliance was a factor in the Malava rebellion. The alliance between Malava and the Gauda kingdom made it easier, because of political maneuvering, for Sasanka to personally defeat and kill Harsha’s brother, Rajya. Rajya’s death served to fuel the hatred that existed between the Gaudas and the Vardhana. This hatred was escalated further by the belief that Rajya was actually unarmed when he met with Sasanka and was murdered. The killing of his brother provided Harsha with a new motive to invade the Gauda kingdom.This invasion prevented the Gaudas from taking control of the Thaneswar throne and expanding their territory.The loss of Rajya at Sasanka’s hand also prompted Harsha to demand that all surrounding kings support Vardhana or run the risk of being invaded. This led the Vardhana to develop further alliances against the Gaudas, such as gaining the assistance of the king of Kamarupa. Once Sasanka realized that Harsha’s armies were advancing on Kanauj, where

Sasanka had his men stationed and where Rajya was killed, the Gauda king began to retreat back into his original territories. Harsha’s campaigns against Gauda caused the kingdom to fall into decline, and it was eventually subjugated by the Vardhana.The final victory of Harsha over Gauda probably occurred after Sasanka died. Sasanka’s death made Gauda much more vulnerable to its neighbors. After Harsha conquered Gauda, he gave control of its capital, Karnasuvarna, to his ally, the king of Kamarupa.This marked the official end of the Gauda kingdom, which had lasted less than twenty years. See also: Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Basak, Radhagovinda. The History of North-Eastern India Extending from the Foundation of the Gupta Empire to the Rise of the Pala Dynasty of Bengal (c. 320–760 A.D.). London: K. Paul Trench, Trubner & Co., 1934. Duff, Mabel. The Chronology of Indian History: From the Earliest Times to the 16th Century. Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1972. Smith,Vincent A. The Oxford History of India. Ed. Percival Spear. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

GENDER AND KINGSHIP Both male and female monarchs have related in complex ways to gender. Monarchy itself, in most societies, has been strongly or exclusively the domain of males. The manliness expected of male rulers has many different facets. The idea of the king as a father has been strongest in Christian Europe, where a political theory designated patriarchalism emerged in the early modern period. The theory, classically put forward in a work by Englishman Sir Robert Filmer called Patriarcha, suggests that the power of monarchs, male or female, is explicitly derived from the power of Adam as father of the human race.

MALE GENDER AND KINGSHIP An alternative masculine view of kingship is that of the king as husband of the land.Yet another classically male

Gender and Kingship role that kings have been expected to fill has been that of war leader. Many monarchical positions have originated as positions of military command, such as the Roman emperorship, the Mongol khanate, the Japanese shogunate, or the sultanate in Muslim regimes like that of the Mamluks of Egypt. Military monarchical positions have usually been restricted to males. Positions of religious headship, such as the papacy, caliphate, and Dalai Lamaship, are also maleonly.Although Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547) called himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, his daughter Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) restricted herself to the title of Supreme Governor (the title held by English monarchs ever since.)

FEMALE GENDER AND KINGSHIP In many monarchical systems, female gender is an absolute disqualification for possession of the throne in one’s own right. Despite its emphasis on the emperor’s ritual and political rather than military functions, the Chinese empire barred female rulers after Empress Wu Zeitan (r. 690–705) of the T’ang dynasty. Subsequent Confucianists, whose ideology endorsed male dominance, blackened her memory, despite evidence that Empress Wu was a ruler of considerable ability. Before it experienced the full impact of Chinese culture, Japan had several early female rulers, but after 770 it had only two. Women

331

were formally barred from the Japanese imperial succession in the 1800s (under European rather than Chinese influence). The Islamic world has also usually rejected female rulership. The Muslim historian Siraj described the short reign of one of the rare exceptions: Sultana Raziyya of Delhi (r. 1236–1240), who succeeded her father Iltutmish (r. 1211–1236) in and until her violent death in 1240. In the words of Siraj: “Sultana Raziyya was a great monarch. She was wise, just and generous, a benefactor to her kingdom, a dispenser of justice, the protector of her subjects, and the leader of her armies. She was endowed with all the qualities befitting a king, but she was not born of the right sex, and so, in the estimation of men, all these virtues were worthless.” Christian Europe has had a patchwork of policies regarding gender and kingship.The fundamental distinction is between those countries following the Salic Law first put forth in medieval France and those countries not following it. The Salic Law, so called because of its origins in the ancient customs of the Salian Franks, barred not only women, but also royal descendants in the female line, from succeeding to the throne. It was upheld not only in France, but in many of the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire.The promulgation of the Salic law originated in the desire of French elites to prevent Edward III of

ROYAL RITUALS

AN ANNIVERSARY AS A TIME FOR CRITICISM On March 10, 1888, England’s prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) and his wife, Alexandra of Denmark, celebrated their silver wedding anniversary. London’s leading newspaper, the Times, took the occasion to publish two editorials that focused on the behavior of the couple. In praising or temperately criticizing some of Edward’s and Alexandra’s behavior, the Times relied on nineteenth-century concepts of gender. Edward was criticized for his patronage of prize-fighters and American cowboys—masculine behavior that was considered excessive and unrefined. Alexandra was praised for acting in a classic wifely role of moderating her husband’s aggressiveness.The Times credited her with weaning Edward, a keen sportsman, from the cruel practice of pigeon shooting. Such criticism of Edward’s behavior suggests that the idea of masculine gender had undergone significant change from the time of his predecessors, who would have been praised for such manly pursuits and interests.

332

Gender and Kingship

England (r. 1327–1377) from succeeding to the throne. But it also raised the prestige of the French monarchy by making it purely masculine, like the papacy or the emperorship of the Holy Roman Empire. Realms in Southern and Northern Europe generally have been more open to female rulers, although women succeeded to the throne only in default of male heirs—a young son would succeed in preference to his older daughter, but a daughter would succeed if there were no legitimate sons. Even in societies that have accepted female rulers, it has often been necessary for female monarchs to present themselves as male or androgynous.The most famous example is Queen Hatshepsut (r. 1503–1483 b.c.e.) of ancient Egypt, whose representations depict her with a beard. Queen Elizabeth I of England referred to herself as having the heart and stomach of a king. Both Sultana Raziyya of Delhi and Queen Christina of Sweden (r. 1632–1654), along with many others, have worn male dress. Such use of male dress has been particularly common if a woman exercises military leadership or command.Women rulers with consorts have often had a difficult time balancing between their society’s expectation of a wife’s submissiveness and a ruler’s authority. Many female monarchs, like Christina and Elizabeth I, have avoided this problem by not marrying. Even where female rulers have been barred from thrones in their own right, however, many have managed to manipulate conventions of female gender roles to exercise considerable formal or informal power. One of the most common ways has been through maternal power. Women have commonly exercised power as regents for their minor children, a role that has sometimes persisted well into the children’s majority. Blanche of Castile, the mother of Louis IX (r. 1226–1270) of France, was the effective ruler of the kingdom for many years during her son’s reign. Reigning female monarchs also have projected themselves as mother figures.The mother of the king of Swaziland bears the title Indlovukazi (“great sheelephant”) and is considered the co-head of state with her son. Consorts have also exercised power as regents for absent husbands, fulfilling a traditional wifely role as steward of the husband’s property in the husband’s absence.

GENDER CONFUSION AND KINGSHIP Although some societies have allowed female rule, eunuchs are universally barred from formal monar-

chical power. In the Byzantine Empire, a society in which the imperial throne was never definitively and permanently settled on a particular line or family, this disqualification was particularly useful because it ensured that successful eunuch administrators and generals could not try to take the throne themselves. Although female rulers sometimes benefited from presenting themselves as male, cross-gendered or gender-inappropriate behavior could harm a male monarch’s reputation, particularly if the monarch faced political opposition for other reasons. Roman emperors like Caligula (r. 37–41) and Nero (r. 54–68) were frequently portrayed as cross-dressing or taking a passive role in homosexual intercourse, and this contributed to their reputation as bad emperors. Henry III (r. 1574–1589) of France attracted similar criticism. Part of the demystification of monarchy that occurred before and during the French Revolution resulted from the feeling that monarchs were not properly fulfilling their gender roles. Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) was charged with being impotent, and his wife Marie Antoinette was accused of being a bad, quasi-incestuous mother, an adulterous wife, and a lesbian. Many nineteenth- and twentiethcentury monarchs have responded to this damaging association between monarchy and gender-deviant behavior by projecting an image of ideal domesticity, an image that is often at variance with reality. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Eunuchs, Royal; Homosexuality and Kingship; Legitimacy; Military Roles, Royal; Primogeniture; Regencies; Royal Families. FURTHER READING

Filmer, Sir Robert. Patriarcha and Other Writings. Ed. Johann P. Somerville. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Finer, S. E. The History of Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

GENEALOGY, ROYAL Line of descent or ancestry of a ruler; lineage of a royal family. Genealogies, originally passed down through oral tradition, have existed for centuries, particularly for noble families.With the advent of writing, family lin-

G e n e a l o g y, R o y a l eages began to be recorded.The Japanese began imperial archives sometime during the third century c.e., and the eighth-century work, Kojiki, the oldest surviving text written in Japan, claims to be a history of the royal line since mythological times.Today, the Japanese imperial monarchy proudly traces its ancestry in an unbroken line back to 660 b.c.e., making it the oldest dynasty in the world. During the Middle Ages, when inheritance of feudal property and titles depended on family lines, genealogies flourished. Even when a new monarch wrested power from a current ruler on the battlefield or through treachery, once the new ruler was established, a blood relative was most likely to be the next on the throne. For example, when William the Conqueror (r. 1066–1087) conquered England, a long line of Norman kings followed the Saxon kings.

CLAIMING KINSHIP Kings and queens have frequently insisted upon their descent from God or gods, emphasizing that it is their bloodlines that have determined their right to the throne. Royal blood contained the power of the gods, the divine right to rule. For instance, Egyptian pharaohs were considered gods and often wed their brothers or sisters to ensure the royal blood would remain pure. Even if sovereigns did not claim descent from gods, they wanted to establish the royalty of their lineage. The warrior Conn Cetchathach is reputed to have been the forty-fifth Irish king in a line of descent from Milesius, the legendary Spanish king whose sons conquered Ireland and whose ancestry could be traced back to Adam. Christian monks in other European kingdoms drew similar genealogies for royal families. The legend of King Arthur expanded after 1066, as the Norman kings endeavored to trace their lineage to the Celtic hero and gain acceptance of their leadership.Another English king, Henry VII (r. 1485– 1509), whose right to power might have been weakened by questions of illegitimacy among his ancestors, married Elizabeth of York whose royal bloodline was unquestioned.

333

excluded female inheritance. Other monarchies, such as that of England, give preference to the male descendents, but a female may inherit if there are no male heirs. Matrilineal descent (through the mother’s line) has been the rule in only a few cultures, such as that of the Lovedu people of South Africa. The death of a monarch who either had no children or whose children were too young to assume the throne has sometimes brought drastic changes to a nation. Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) was childless, so upon her death, the Crown went to her Scottish cousin, James I (r. 1603–1625), and the countries of England and Scotland were then united under one rule. At the death of Queen Anne of England (r. 1702–1714), the last of the Stuart line, the nearest relative was a German cousin, George I (r. 1714–1727). Mary, Queen of Scots (r. 1543–1587) inherited the throne when she was only a few days old, so regents ruled Scotland until she was an adult. In an effort to keep bloodlines pure, royalty generally looked for marriage partners within other royal families. Most European royals shared at least some ancestors and often married—and sometimes murdered—relatives. For example, Margaret Tudor, the daughter of King Henry VII, married the Scottish king and gave birth to a daughter (Mary, Queen of Scots), but she was later beheaded by one of Henry’s granddaughters, Elizabeth I of England. Queen Victoria I of England (r. 1837–1901) married her German cousin Prince Albert. Not only did their son, Edward VII (r. 1901–1910), rule England, but their daughter Victoria married the German emperor, and their granddaughters Alexandra, Marie, and Ena were married, respectively, to the tsar of Russia, the king of Romania, and the king of Spain. Genealogical records, which began primarily as a way for sovereign rulers to establish their right to power and to record their own triumphs for posterity, now allow ordinary people to trace their ancestors and sometimes to establish a connection to kings. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Descent, Royal; Dynasty; Inheritance, Royal; Primogeniture; Succession, Royal.

INHERITANCE RIGHTS For much of history, the right to inherit a throne was determined by patrilineal descent (through the father’s line). In fourteenth-century France, Salic Law required that inherited titles would go to males and

FURTHER READING

Tuchman, Barbara. Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968.

334

Genghis Khan

GENGHIS KHAN (ca. 1165–1227 C.E.) Mongol ruler (r. 1206–1227) who conquered Central Asia, China, and Iran in the early 1200s and created one of the world’s great empires, which lasted for a century after his death.

EARLY LIFE AND RISE TO POWER Named Temuchin at his birth, Genghis Khan (or Jinghiz Khan) was the son of Yisugei, a leader of the Kiyat-Borjigid branch of the Mongol tribe of Central Asia. In 1175,Yisugei was murdered by rival leaders, and Temuchin, his mother, and brothers were deserted by their tribe.Temuchin became a vassal to his father’s friend Toghrul, the powerful leader of the Kerait tribe. Through his charisma, Temuchin attracted many followers and gradually rose in power. Despite a growing group of followers, Temuchin’s closest childhood friend, a shepherd named Jamuka, deserted him, possibly because of hostility between Jamuka and some of Temuchin’s aristocratic followers. Temuchin had to fight against the alliance that Jamuka formed among the other tribes in the area.Temuchin also quarreled with Toghrul, who plotted to kill him by inviting him to a betrothal feast between his grandson and one of Temuchin’s daughters. But Temuchin was warned of the plot and escaped. He later defeated both Toghrul and his old friend Jamuka. By the early 1200s, Temuchin had gained a great deal of power among the Mongols and was poised to become their ruler. In the spring of 1206, he was enthroned as Mongol leader at the source of the Onon River in present-day Mongolia. He became known as Genghis Khan (“universal ruler” or “universal lord”).

aristocrats and put ordinary men into important positions of power. He was kind and generous to loyal friends, and admired loyalty even in his enemies. But he could also be cruel and ruthless. Genghis Khan’s senior wife was named Börte, but he often took new wives from among conquered peoples. He practiced the religion of the Central Asian tribes, which relied on shamans to communicate with spirits, but he was tolerant of other religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam.

CONQUESTS After consolidating his power over the Mongols, Genghis Khan set his sights on China. In 1209, he attacked Xixia, the weakest of the three Chinese kingdoms, and then turned to the territory ruled by the non-Chinese Jin (Jurchen) dynasty. Not accustomed to attacking cities and fortifications, the Mongols had a difficult time in China at first. Gradually, however, they took the major cities in the north, and in 1215 they conquered and sacked the city of Pei-Ching (Beijing), the Jin capital.

RULE AND PERSONAL LIFE Genghis Khan was then the leader of all the tribes of Central Asia, including those of Turkic and Tungusic origin, who began to call themselves Mongols. Genghis Khan consolidated his power by destroying earlier tribal alliances to form a Mongol nation. Though illiterate, Genghis Khan understood the importance of the written word. Since the Mongols had no system of writing, he adopted the alphabet of the Uighurs, a Turkic tribe, and saw to the development of a written law code, or Yasa, which strictly punished theft and adultery, crimes that had led to frequent feuds among the Mongol tribes. Genghis Khan often ignored the claims of Mongol

The Mongol ruler Genghis Khan, shown in this watercolor-and-ink portrait on silk, was the founder of the Yuan Dynasty of China. A great conqueror, he ruled from 1206 to 1227 over an empire that stretched across Central Asia.

George I In 1219, Genghis Khan led his troops against Sultan Muhammad II (r. 1200–1220) of Khwarizm, whose empire covered much of Central Asia and Afghanistan and the whole of Iran (Persia). The sultan’s kingdom was already divided because of tensions between nomadic Turks and settled Iranians, and the sultan’s own despotic rule had alienated religious leaders. Genghis Khan cleverly exploited these divisions and conquered the area in 1220. He won many of the sultan’s troops as his followers, as he had done with the Jin troops in China. Genghis Khan’s last campaign was against the rebellious Chinese kingdom of Xixia in 1225; by this time he was already ill. There are a number of conflicting stories about his death; some say that he was hurt in a riding accident, while others say he fell victim to illness. He died on August 18, 1227.

LEGACY The Mongols practiced ultimogeniture, or inheritance by the youngest son of the principal wife. According to this law, Genghis Khan’s heir was Tolui, but he preferred his son Ögödei. After Genghis Khan’s death, his empire was divided into four parts, one for each of his sons: Jochi (the oldest), Ögödei, Chagatai, and Tolui. Tolui and Ögödei continued the conquest of northern China and gained control of the region in 1234. In 1261, Genghis Khan’s grandson, Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294), moved the capital of his empire to Pei-Ching, and proclaimed the beginning of the Yuan (or Mongol) dynasty in 1271. Under Genghis Khan’s descendants, the Mongols sacked Baghdad; conquered parts of Russia, where they established the Golden Horde Khanate; and invaded Hungary and Poland. However, the empire did not hold together because the rival claimants to the khanate ended up dividing the territory into personal realms without centralized control.The empire also failed to remain united because Genghis Khan did not develop any way for future Mongol rulers to administer the realm. See also: Golden Horde Khanate; Il-Khan Dynasty; Khwarazm-Shah Dynasty; Kublai Khan; Mongol Empire. FURTHER READING

Ratchnevsky, Paul. Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy. Trans. and ed. Thomas Nivison Haining. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992.

335

GEORGE I (1660–1727 C.E.) King of Great Britain and Ireland (r. 1714–1727), and first ruler of the House of Hanover. The succession of George I, a member of the German house of Hanover, to the English throne was a direct result of the struggle between Catholics and Protestants over what would be the official religion of England. Though ostensibly religious, the succession was chiefly political in both ideology and consequences. As the Protestant Queen Anne (r. 1702–1714) neared the end of her reign with no surviving children, the English Parliament wanted to avoid the accession of the Catholic, James Edward Stuart, known as the Old Pretender. Parliament had passed the Act of Settlement of 1701, which decreed that the line of English succession would pass only to the Protestant descendants of James I. It was in this way that George Louis of Hanover, the elector of Hanover and great-grandson of James I, became King George I of England. George I was unpopular with his English subjects. Not only did he have German manners and customs, but he never learned to speak English and resided in Hanover in Germany for much of his reign. Between these cultural issues, and his ceding of much of his power to his prime minister, Robert Walpole, he was thought to be indifferent to English affairs. George I was also unpopular with the Scots and the English Catholics. Since the Stuarts had a more direct claim to the throne, when they were passed over because they were Catholic, rioting erupted in Scotland and in many towns in England. This culminated in the Jacobite uprising of 1715–1716, which Protestant forces defeated at a battle at Preston.The Jacobite efforts to return the Stuarts to the throne were afterward fairly quiescent until the reign of George’s son and successor, George II (r. 1727– 1760). The Protestant and reformist Whig party in England supported George’s kingship, and his key advisers were from that group. George depended heavily on these men throughout his reign. Queen Anne’s government had been drawn primarily from the opposition Tory party, but the Tories, being suspected supporters of the Stuart ascendancy, were removed from office. One of George’s chief ministers, Robert Walpole,

336

George I

was a wealthy Norfolk Whig, the leading member in the House of Commons, and a skilled administrator. In 1720,Walpole initiated a plan to take advantage of high interest rates, which had been caused by government military spending. He transformed the South Sea Company, a trading company formed in 1711, into a funds management company by selling company stock in exchange for bonds. Walpole promised that this would get rid of the national debt and create private wealth. The price of stock rose rapidly, but then crashed within the year. The result was that a few individuals became very wealthy, while the public debt was transferred to many unlucky individuals. Walpole managed to avoid blame for the ensuing crisis, and his clever management gained him power and prestige. He became the first lord of the Treasury, or prime minister, a position from which he controlled George I and ruled the country. When George I died in 1727, he was succeeded by his son, George II. But Walpole’s powerful position continued until 1742, well into George II’s reign. See also: Anne; English Monarchies; George II; Hanover, House of; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Stuart Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Black, Jeremy. A New History of England. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton, 2000.

GEORGE II (1683–1760 C.E.) King of Great Britain (r. 1727–1760), a member of the House of Hanover, who ruled during the time of the Jacobite rebellion and its decisive defeat at the battle of Culloden in Scotland in 1746. George II was a noted patron of the arts, especially of music, and retained his father’s court musician, Georg Frederic Händel. The eldest son of George I (r. 1714–1727), George II succeeded his father as king of England while also retaining his title as elector of Hanover, a state in Germany. Although George remained devoted to Hanover, he played a much more active role in ruling England than his father had done. George II also inherited his key adviser, Robert Walpole, from his father. Walpole had been first lord of the Treasury and

the most powerful person in the government of George I—in effect, England’s first prime minister. His policies generally secured prosperity and stability, helping preserve the status quo at home, abroad, and within the Church of England.Walpole began to lose his power beginning around 1739, when he was blamed for military losses to Spain.Walpole’s lasting legacy was the foundation of a constitutional monarchy in England. The most significant military event in the reign of George II was the Jacobite Rebellion, an attempt by supporters of the exiled house of Stuart to reclaim the throne for that dynasty.At one point, the Jacobite army advanced as far as Derby in central England, but it was decisively defeated by English forces in 1746 at the battle of Culloden in the Scottish Highlands. George’s reign also saw war in Germany and military engagements with France over colonial expansion in North America, Africa, and India. He was the last English monarch to lead armies in person; he led troops in 1743 at the battle of Dettingen during the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). George married Caroline of Anspach in 1705, and the couple had three sons and five daughters.The eldest son, Frederick, prince of Wales, predeceased his father in 1751.The second son, George William, died in infancy. The third son, William Augustus, duke of Cumberland, was known as “Bloody Cumberland” for the slaying of both soldiers and civilians after his victory over the Jacobites at the battle of Culloden.When George II died in 1760, he was succeeded by his grandson George (the son of Frederick), who ruled as King George III (r. 1760–1820). See also:English Monarchies; George I; Hanover, House of.

GEORGE III (1738–1820 C.E.) Long-ruling monarch of Great Britain and Ireland (r. 1760–1820), historically known for both his failure to maintain the British colonies in North America and the insanity that plagued him throughout his reign. George III oversaw a tumultuous but prosperous time in Britain’s evolution, an era that began with the nation locked in a power struggle with France and that ended with Great Britain firmly in place as the dominant military power in Europe, if not the world.

Ghana Kingdom, Ancient A member of the royal House of Hanover, George was born in January 1738, the eldest son of Frederick, prince of Wales, and Princess Augusta of SaxeGotha. After George’s father died in 1851, he was educated for his future role as king by his domineering mother. The first Hanoverian to speak English as his native tongue, George became king at the age of twenty-two, following the death of his grandfather, King George II (r. 1727–1760).A year later, in 1761, he married Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a marriage that produced fifteen children, including seven sons whose dissolute lives were a continual torment to their father. The throne George inherited had been weakened considerably by earlier conflicts between the Crown and Parliament, and he ignited a blaze of controversy upon his accession with what many took to be an attempt to recapture royal authority. By staffing government offices with easily influenced and untalented lackeys, and by bribing many of his opponents, George exerted more control over British politics than almost any other monarch of the parliamentary era.The scandals of George’s adult sons, who were notorious for their public debauchery, also tarnished George’s reputation but did little to affect his political power. George’s influence was most keenly felt in the way Britain dealt with its upstart colonies in North America.The heavy taxes imposed on them by Great Britain led many American colonists to see George as a tyrannical ruler bent on exploitation, and fed the revolutionary fire sweeping the colonies during the 1760s and 1770s. George, who defended the colonial taxes, insisted on dragging out a losing war with the colonists (the American Revolution), which ended with the 1783 surrender to the newly formed United States. From the 1780s onward, George suffered bouts of insanity, most likely caused by a blood disease known as porphyria. His illness worsened to the extent that in 1811, power was turned over to his profligate son George (later George IV, r. 1820–1830)), who became prince regent. The defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815 secured British supremacy in Europe for the prince regent. George III died at Windsor Castle in 1820. Despite his struggles with mental illness, he left a legacy of intelligent and informed rule that greatly influenced future British monarchs. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; English Monarchies; George II; Hanover, House of; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty;Taxation.

337

FURTHER READING

Hibbert, Christopher. George III: A Personal History. New York: Penguin, 1999.

GEORGE TUPOU I (d. 1893 C.E.) Ruler (r. 1845–1893) of the Polynesian kingdom of Tonga who unified the various Tongan islands nation and gave the nation a constitution. His successor, George Tupou II (r. 1893–1918), signed a treaty with Great Britain in 1900, making the kingdom a British protectorate. George Tupou I was descended from the sacred royal line of the Tu’I Tonga, who had ruled the island archipelago since the tenth century. First known as Taufa’ahau Tupou IV when he became king in 1845, he took the name George Tupou I in 1875 when, under his guidance, the kingdom adopted a new code of laws and written constitution and established an administration system. After uniting the warring communities of Tonga, Tupou guided his kingdom in its transition to a modern country. He converted to Christianity at a time when the traditional Tongan religion was in decline, and he abolished the form of serfdom that existed in the islands. In addition to establishing a new legal code and constitution, Tupou also oversaw the founding of Tonga’a first educational institute. By 1888, he had ensured that Germany, Great Britain, and the United States had each recognized Tonga as a sovereign and independent state. In 1893, after almost fifty years of rule, George Tupou I died. His great-grandson succeeded to the throne, taking the name of George Tupou II. See also: South Sea Island Kingdoms; Tonga, Kingdom of.

GHANA KINGDOM, ANCIENT (ca. 400–1300 C.E.)

First of the powerful kingdoms of West Africa to arise in response to the growth of the trans-Saharan trade. The kingdom of Ghana was founded during West Africa’s early Iron Age. At its greatest extent, it occupied territory in what is now the southern portion

338

Ghana Kingdom, Ancient

The ancient kingdom of Ghana was one of the most powerful in West Africa, largely due to its trans-Saharan trade in gold. Ghana’s valued exports included both gold nuggets and precious objects, such as this gold ring, fashioned by skilled metalworkers.

of Mauritania and southeastern Mali. The people of this region were predominantly Soninke, who were farmers and iron workers. Local communities, initially simple autonomous villages, grew as their economies prospered and eventually developed into larger multivillage chieftaincies. Soninke ironworking provided more efficient tools for use in agriculture as well as weaponry that was superior to any available to the Soninke’s nonironworking neighbors. With these advantages, the Soninke were able to conquer greater amounts of territory and, ultimately, to assert their control over a wide region. By the fifth century, the Soninke had established an empire. Trade was what drove the Soninke to conquer their neighbors.The Soninke were among the first of the people of West Africa to come into contact with

Saharan salt traders who came south looking for new outlets for their goods. On their own, the Soninke could only offer grain in return for salt. But they soon realized that, through conquest, they could control the flow of other trade goods as well. In particular, they knew that gold was highly prized by the trans-Saharan traders and that it was produced in abundance in the forests of Ghana. They conquered that region, establishing themselves along the upper Senegal River, which was the principal route by which gold was transported. As the gold trade grew in volume over succeeding centuries, the prosperity and power of the kingdom of Ghana grew as well.The trans-Saharan trade expanded, bringing to Ghana goods and visitors from beyond the Red Sea. By the eleventh century, the kingdom of Ghana had reached its peak. Its capi-

G h a z n av i d D y n a s t y tal was at the twin cities of Kumbi and Saleh. Kumbi was occupied exclusively by the houses and palace of the king, and the homes of his royal attendants; Saleh was strongly associated with commerce. According to a description provided by an eleventh-century Arab visitor, al-Bakri, the king of Ghana, was succeeded on the throne by the son of his sister rather than by one of his own offspring. The king’s role was primarily to resolve disputes as they arose among the people, to set taxes (payable in gold and slaves) on his subject communities, and to administer justice. The king wore unique clothing and ornaments of gold, and during his public appearances he was accompanied by a retinue of ministers. His audiences with the people were signaled by the sounding of a ritual drum. The gold trade, which provided the kingdom of Ghana with its wealth and power, probably contributed to its decline as well. Ghana did not mine gold itself, but rather monopolized the entry of this precious metal into trade by controlling the territory through which it had to pass to get from its producers to the Saharan traders.This led to a fierce rivalry between Ghana and the northern traders, which often resulted in raids and violence. For a time, Ghana appeared to have the upper hand, and around 1050 it successfully expanded its territory to include the important Berber trading town of Awdaghust. Soon, however, Ghana’s power began to wane, as traders found ways to elude the king’s agents and as new gold fields opened up outside of the king’s area of control.With the decline in trade, Ghana began to weaken, and by the early twelfth century, the royal house was beset by rebellions among its subjects. Moreover, much of the territory belonging to the kingdom was lost to the powerful Sosso, who invaded Ghana from the south. By the early thirteenth century, the kingdom of Ghana had ceased to exist. Those of its subjects who eluded capture or death at the hands of the Sosso drifted away to the south and the west, bringing with them Soninke traditions and their skills in farming and trade.With the fall of the kingdom of Ghana, the stage was set for the rise of new kingdoms in the region, particularly those known collectively as the Akan States. See also: African Kingdoms; Akan Kingdoms; Asante Kingdom; Fon Kingdom; Mali, Ancient Kingdom of; Songhai Kingdom; Soninke Kingdom.

339

FURTHER READING

Shillington, Kevin. History of Africa. Rev. ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

GHAZNAVID DYNASTY (977–1186 C.E.) Turkish dynasty that controlled a large part of the area that is now Afghanistan from the late tenth to the late twelfth centuries, and whose rule marked the beginning of the Islamic era. The Ghaznavid dynasty was founded in the tenth century by Sebuktigin, a former Turkish slave who married the daughter of the governor of Ghazna (modern Ghazni) when that state was ruled by the Iranian Samanid dynasty. Sebuktigin (r. 977–997) himself became governor of Ghazna in 977 and subsequently took control from the Samanids. Through conquest and diplomacy, he proceeded to extend his realm all the way to the Indian border, ruling his domain until 997. By Sebuktigin’s own request, one of his younger sons, Ismail (r. 997–998), succeeded him as ruler. But his eldest son, Mahmud, who was preferred by many nobles, overwhelmed Ismail in battle, imprisoned him for life, and assumed the throne in 998. Mahmud (r. 998–1030) carried on his father’s expansionist strategy, and by 1005, the former Samanid Empire was split into two successor states on either side of the Oxus River.The one in the west was ruled by the Ghaznavids, and the one in the east by the Qarakhanids. Ghaznavid control reached its peak under Mahmud, who ruled until 1030. He led seventeen military expeditions into India between 1001 and 1026, gaining extensive territories. The empire not only grew substantially in size, but it also became officially Islamic and promoted the Islamic faith wherever it expanded. Mahmud used the wealth he gained from his military conquests to make his capital, Ghazna, one of the most important cities in Central Asia. Mahmud supported scholars and artists, founded colleges, created magnificent gardens, and constructed great mosques, palaces, and other buildings. Mahmud was succeeded by his son Masud I (r. 1030–1040), who was a much less successful ruler than his father. In 1040, the Seljuk Turks in Khurusan and Khwarezm challenged Ghaznavid dominance,

340

G h a z n av i d D y n a s t y

and the Seljuks won all the Ghaznavid regions in Central Asia and Iran at the battle of Dandanqan that year. That left the Ghanavids in control of eastern Afghanistan and northern India, where they ruled until the Ghurids, an Afghan dynasty from Ghur, sacked Ghazna and took over the Ghaznavid state in 1186. See also: Khwarazm-Shah Dynasty; Mahmud of Ghazna; Samanid Dynasty; Seljuq Dynasty.

GHUR DYNASTY (1151–1206 C.E.) Dynasty from Afghanistan that briefly conquered northern India during the twelfth century. The Ghur region, located in present-day Afghanistan, was originally a feudal territory of the sultan of Ghazna, an Afghan sultanate. As the Ghaznavid dynasty weakened in the twelfth century, the leaders of Ghur increasingly asserted their independence. In response, Mahmud of Ghazna executed two prominent Ghur princes. This action incensed the Ghur tribes, and, in 1151, the Ghurs, led by Ala’ al-Din (Auauddin) Husayn (r. 1149–1161), completely razed Ghazna and secured their independence. In 1173, Husayn’s nephew, Ghiyath al-Din (Giyasuddin) Muhammad (r. 1163–1203), rebuilt Ghazni and established the city as a key part of the Ghur Empire. He then appointed his brother Shihab alDin (Shihabuddin), known as Muhammad of Ghuri, as governor of Ghazni. Muhammad used his position to strengthen the Ghur dynasty, and he immediately planned to invade the kingdoms of northern India. Muhammad’s initial attempt to invade India ended in failure. In 1178, he launched a massive attack against the kingdom of Gujarat but was repulsed. Eight years later, however, he conquered the entire Punjab region in India and extended Ghuri dominance to the basin of the Indus River.The agricultural richness of the region attracted Muhammad, and he determined to further expand his holdings, both to control the area’s natural resources and to augment Muslim influence over the Hindu population. In 1191, Muhammad led a major expedition deeper into India. The ruler of the Chauhan clan in Rajastan, Prithvi Raj (d. 1192), who controlled Delhi and its surrounding regions, united the Indian kingdoms and assembled an army. During the ensu-

ing battle near Tarain, the Indians successfully halted Muhammad’s progress, but the loss failed to deter him. In 1192, Muhammad reengaged the Indian forces at Tarain and emerged victorious. After slaughtering the opposing Hindu princes or rajas, including Prithvi Raj, Muhammad controlled northern India as far as Delhi. In 1197, Muhammad again attacked Gujarat. Although he raided the Gujarati capital at Anhilwara, the province once again withstood his invasion. In 1203, Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad died, and Muhammad of Ghur assumed the throne as Mu’izz al-Din Muhammad III (r. 1203–1206). As ruler of the Ghur Empire, he controlled an area that included present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and much of India. His reign, however, was brief. In 1206, Khokar rebels, from a tribe in the Punjab region, ambushed and assassinated the powerful Ghur ruler. Muhammad III left no direct heir to rule his vast empire, and he was succeeded by a series of weak rulers.Without a strong central force to control the many disparate lands of the empire, the Ghur dynasty and its empire quickly crumbled. See also: Ghaznavid Dynasty; Indian Kingdoms; Mahmud of Ghazna. FURTHER READING

Bhattacharya, Sachchidananda. A Dictionary of Indian History. New York: George Braziller, 1967. Smith,Vincent A. The Oxford History of India. 4th ed. Ed. Percival Spear. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981.

GLYWYSING KINGDOM (400s–1000s C.E.)

Minor kingdom of early medieval Wales, located in the southern portion of the region. Although legend attributes the founding of Glywysing to a king named Glywys in the late fifth century, there is little historical evidence to confirm this. Little is known for certain about the early history of Glywysing, although historians suggest that the more typical pattern of inheritance by direct succession gave way at some point to a segmented pattern of succession in which cousins within the extended royal family could claim the right to inherit, with the different

G ol d e n H or d e K h a nat e branches of the family assuming power from generation to generation. As this practice tended to give rise to violence as a means of seizing the succession, it may have been a factor in why Glywysing had little impact on events beyond its own borders. Hywel ap Rhys (r. ca. 840–885) is one of the few rulers of Glywysing to have made an impact on history beyond the local level. He was one of five Welsh princes who sought the support of Alfred the Great of Wessex (r. 871–899) in 878, establishing friendly relations with the powerful king of Wessex as a means of increasing his own power and prestige at home. This is often considered the beginning of English (and later Norman) claims to overlordship of portions of Wales. Around 930, Glywysing and the neighboring kingdom of Gwent were briefly united, along with some smaller territories, in the kingdom of Morgannwg under Morgan Hen (r. ca. 930–974). After the 970s, Glywysing reappeared as a separate kingdom, as did Gwent, but the name Morgannwg was sometimes used for Glywysing and the minor territories adjoining it. In the eleventh century, the Normans, after their invasion of England, seized the region of Glywysing or Morgannwg. It became the lordship of Glamorgan under Robert fitz Hammo during the reign of King William II of England (r. 1087–1100). Although the more remote and mountainous portions of the region remained under Welsh control for some time, the kingdom of Glywysing ceased to exist at that time. See also: Alfred the Great; Gwent Kingdom; Welsh Kingdoms;William II (William Rufus).

GOLCONDA KINGDOM (1518–1687 C.E.)

Kingdom in southern India ruled by the Qutb Shahi dynasty, one of five Muslim sultanates that came to power after the breakup of the Bahmani kingdom. The founder of the Qutb Shahi dynasty was the Persian Quli Qutbul-mulk (r. 1518–1543), the governor of the eastern Bahmani province. He declared his independence from the Bahmani kingdom in 1518 and then ruled as Quli Shah until 1543. During his reign, Quli expanded the Golconda kingdom as far as Machilipatam, a seaport on the Bay of Bengal.

341

Quli’s third son, Jamsheed, assassinated him and became the next sultan of Golconda. Jamsheed (r. 1543–1550) ruled for seven years, but he faced continual criticism from the nobles and others for killing his father. His youngest brother, Ibrahim, succeeded Jamsheed upon his death in 1550. Ibrahim Qutb Shah (r. 1550–1580) was the true builder of the Golconda kingdom, which he ruled for the next thirty years. Ibrahim structured the central and provincial administrations so that they could work closely together, and he established a competent intelligence organization to keep him up to date on all important matters. He also made the kingdom safe for travel and commerce and was responsible for many public works. Militarily, Ibrahim was able to expand the kingdom as far south as Madras and Gandikota after the battle of Rakkasi Tangadi in 1565. The Golconda kingdom was peaceful and prosperous for the next forty years under the rule of Ibrahim’s successors. His son, Muhammad Quli (r. 1580–1612), was a scholar and poet famous for his writing as well as for his building projects. Muhammad Quli’s nephew and son-in-law, Muhammad (r. 1612–1626), succeeded him in 1612. Like his uncle, Muhammad encouraged education and architecture. But he died prematurely in 1626 and was succeeded by a lazy son, Abdullah. Abdullah Qutb Shah (r. 1626–1672) allowed the Mughals to penetrate the Golconda kingdom and make him a vassal. His much more able successor, Abul Hassan Qutb Shah (r. 1672–1687) (also known as Tana Shah), made a valiant effort against the Mughals. In the end, however, Golconda was captured by the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) and annexed as part of the great Mughal Empire. See also: Aurangzeb; Bahmani Dynasty; Mughal Empire.

GOLDEN HORDE KHANATE (ca. 1240–1502 C.E.)

Muslim state, located in Central Asia, founded by Mongol and Turkish warriors, that controlled parts of present-day Russia and contributed to the decline of the Kievan Rus. In the early thirteenth century, the Mongol war-

342

G ol d e n H or d e K h a nat e

rior Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227) brought the nomadic tribes of Mongolia under his rule. By 1240, a body of Turks and Mongols led by Genghis’s eldest son, Juji, overran a large portion of Eastern Europe and founded the Mongol Jujid dynasty. The portion of this Mongol Muslim state, or khanate, in presentday Russia came to be known as the Empire of the Golden Horde. The first capital of the empire, which also was known as the Kipchak khanate, was at Sarai Batu on the lower reaches of the Volga River.The capital was later moved to Sarai Berke, on the Volga near present-day Volgograd. The ascendancy of the Golden Horde khanate ended the rise of the Kievan Rus, as the Rus principalities became mere vassals of the Mongol khans.Although the Rus states kept their own rulers and administrations, the Mongol khans collected tribute and taxes.They also had a say in the princely successions of the Rus principalities. Local Mongol leaders in the Golden Horde khanate were given the title of khan but were subject to the overall authority of the Grand (Supreme) Khan.When Genghis Khan died in 1227, the mantle of Grand Khan, or first emperor of the Mongol dynasty, fell upon the shoulders of his descendants, including his grandson Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294), who ruled from the Mongol capital of Beijing in China. In the early 1300s, the Mongols of the Golden Horde adopted Islam as their official religion. Meanwhile, internal strife between Mongol and Turkish groups, and attempts by Russian princes to end payments of tribute and gain greater autonomy, contributed to a decline in Mongol power beginning in the fourteenth century. The ravages of the Black Death (bubonic plague) and poor administration also caused the Mongol Empire to begin disintegrating. In 1395, the Golden Horde capital of Sarai Berke was attacked and plundered by another great Mongol leader, Tamerlane (1370–1405), who absorbed part of the territory controlled by the khanate into his own empire. Upon his death in 1405, the empire split up into a number of smaller khanates. In the 1440s, the Golden Horde was again racked by civil war, and the local khans continued to grow weaker over time. By the 1550s, most of the small khanates formed after the breakup of the Golden Horde Empire had been absorbed into the growing Russian state. See also: Genghis Khan; Kiev, Princedom of; Kublai Khan; Mongol Empire; Rus Princedoms.

GÖTALAND MONARCHY (ca. 150–1000 C.E.)

Monarchy that developed in the region of Sweden called Götaland or Götland, and that existed as a separate kingdom from about 150 to the early 1000s. Before the union of most of Sweden under a single ruler in the late 900s, Götaland was the name of a territory located in the southern part of Sweden. The region was often divided into Östergötland and Västergötland, or East and West Götaland. Very little is known for certain about the Götaland monarchy. The tribe from which the region took its name was the Götar, who were first mentioned by the Greek geographer Ptolemy around 150. At one time, some historians believed the Götar were the ancestors of the Goths, but this theory is no longer commonly held. Some scholars now identify them with the Geats mentioned in the Old English epic Beowulf. Others associate them with the Jutes of northern Jutland, a region on the peninsula that contains Denmark. In the 900s, the Götar were absorbed into a unified Sweden. Before that time, their monarchy was probably similar to that of other Germanic tribes of the era—an elective kingship chosen from within a royal family by an assembly of free men of the tribe. The most important tribe in southern Sweden at this time was the Svear, who gave Sweden its name. By 1000, the Svear had become the dominant group in Sweden. Swedish king Olaf Skötkonung (r. 995–1022), who came from the region of Västergötland ruled both the Svear and Götar as one kingdom, using the title “King of the Swedes and the Götar.” After his rule, although Götaland remained a distinct region within Sweden, it had become, in effect, a province within the Swedish kingdom that retained its own laws and assembly. See also: Swedish Monarchy.

GRANADA, KINGDOM OF (ca. 1238–1492 C.E.)

Moorish kingdom in Iberia founded in the early thirteenth century and comprising an area that included the modern Spanish provinces of Granada, Málaga, and Almeria.

G r e e k K i n g d o m s, A n c i e n t From the time of the Moorish conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in the eighth century, Christian kings from the northern part of Iberia had attempted to retake the conquered lands to the south. By the thirteenth century, these attempts at reconquest, collectively called the reconquista, had succeeded in regaining control of much of the peninsula. After the defeat of the Moors by Alfonso VIII of Castile (r. 1158–1214) at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212, the kingdom of Granada became the last bastion of Moorish rule in Spain. Founded in the eighth century as a Moorish fortress, Granada became in 1238 the capital of what was left of Moorish rule in Iberia. Under the rulers of the Nasrid dynasty, founded by Abu ‘Abd Allah ibn Yusuf ibn Nasr al-Ahmar (Muhammad I, r. 1232– 1273), Granada became an important cultural center, nearly rivaling the splendor of Córdoba, capital of the caliphate of Córdoba up to the early eleventh century. Hoping to secure the safety of Granada, Muhammad I began paying tribute to Ferdinand III of Castile (r. 1217–1252) in 1246. The Nasrid kings remained vassals of Castile until 1492, when the kingdom was conquered by the Spanish forces of Castile and Aragon. Despite the lord–vassal relationship, Castile declared war on Granada many times over the 250 years of its existence, taking various cities but never conquering the Moorish capital itself. In order to fight these wars, the kings of Granada asked for support and military aid from Morocco. Concerned that this aid might lead to a takeover by the Moroccans who came to fight, the Nasrid kings tried to maintain a delicate balance, never allowing large Moroccan forces to cross the Strait of Gibraltar. Nevertheless, the influx of Moroccan soldiers gradually led to what scholars have called the “arabization” of Granada.The kingdom also developed an absolutist form of government that depended on the military for its continued existence. During the reign of Muhammad V (r. 1354–1391) of Granada, Castile temporarily lost interest in reconquest. The ensuing period of peace allowed Granada to reach its cultural and economic peak.The silk trade flourished, as did learning and the arts.The Alhambra (“red fortress”) in the city of Granada, built as a royal palace and expanded over the years, is today one of the most beautiful and famous examples of Moorish architecture in the world. During this period the Moors of Granada also created the in-

343

stitution of juez de la frontera (judge of the frontier). These judges were Muslim officials charged with resolving disputes brought by Christians against Muslims. This institution did much to reduce border conflicts between the Moorish kingdom of Granada and the Christian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula. In 1469, the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragón united two major kingdoms of Spain. When Granada’s ruler, Abu al Hasan ‘Ali (r. 1464–1482), refused to pay Isabella tribute, she became determined to drive all the Muslims from Spain. By the time Isabella declared war against Granada in 1481, internal divisions had made Granada especially vulnerable.The last king of Granada, Muhammad XII (also known as Boabdil, r. 1482–1492), seized the throne from his father in 1482, an action that plunged the Moorish kingdom into a civil war just as the Castilians began their attack. Muhammad XII surrendered Granada to the Spanish monarchs in January 1492, ending Moorish rule in Spain. As he rode from the city in tears, it is said that his mother reproached him, saying, “Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man.” See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Castile, Kingdom of; Ferdinand II and Isabella I; Muhammad XI; Nasrid Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain:Unity in Diversity, 400–1000. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin’s, 1995. Fletcher, Richard. Moorish Spain. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

GREEK KINGDOMS, ANCIENT (ca. 3000–500 B.C.E.)

Monarchies in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean region that predated the democracies that arose in Greek city-states in the fifth century b.c.e. When speaking of ancient Greek politics, democracy, especially Athenian democracy, is often recognized as the most important form of government. Nevertheless, not all Greek city-states practiced democracy, and, historically, democracy did not develop until after the so-called Dark Ages (ca. 1100–800 b.c.e.). In fact, prior to the Greek classi-

344

G r e e k K i n g d o m s, A n c i e n t

cal period (ca. 400s b.c.e.), monarchy was the dominant form of Greek government. Classical Greek philosophers thought much about political forms, and many, including Plato, noted the strengths of monarchical rule.

usually relied on a ruling council of aristocrats to advise them. Ancient Greece developed a strong tradition of monarchical rule during this period, which was grounded to their epic literature and dignified by their philosophy.

MYTHICAL KINGS OF KNOSSOS AND MYCENAE

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF GREEK POLITICS

The ancient Aegean civilizations of the Minoans and Mycenaeans were ruled by monarchs. The Minoans, whose civilization was centered on the island of Crete, governed their territories from palace-cities. The best known and largest of these was Knossos. Knowledge of Minoan civilization comes as much from legend as from historical fact. The civilization derived its name from the legendary King Minos, who ruled over a powerful kingdom that demanded tribute from its subject peoples. According to legend, every nine years, Athens paid tribute of seven young men and seven virgin women who were sent to Knossos to be sacrificed to a mythical beast called the Minotaur.The story of Theseus, son of the king of Athens who was able to kill the Minotaur, is also part of this legend. The history of Minoan civilization rests primarily on archaeological evidence and the surviving art and architecture of the age. No decipherable writings of the period exist. Historians believe that Minoan kings also served as religious leaders and that their palaces were centers of religious worship. Around 2000 b.c.e., the Mycenaeans, a group of Indo-European peoples also known as the Achaeans, invaded the Greek Peninsula, where they conquered and intermarried with the indigenous population. Around 1550 b.c.e., the Mycenaeans conquered the Minoans. Over the next four centuries, the Mycenaeans ruled over the Aegean Sea, waging war throughout the Mediterranean. Archaeological evidence and the epics, Iliad and Odyssey, by the Greek poet Homer provide much of what is known of Mycenaean civilization. There were a large number of Mycenaean kingdoms. Among those mentioned by Homer are Ithaca, Argos, Sparta, Pylos,Arkadia, Olenos,Aitolia, Krete, Delos, and Messene. Scholars have located some of these kingdoms, but others remain a mystery. Homer’s epics recount the story of the Trojan War and the adventures of Odysseus, the king of Ithaca. The Mycenaean kings were warriors who ruled areas generally no larger than city-states and who

The great political philosophers in the Greek tradition treated monarchy as a legitimate form of government; some even endorsed it. Plato, for example, identified the ideal form of government as monarchy, with philosopher-kings as rulers. Aristotle also discussed monarchy, viewing it as the most effective form of government because one ruler could act quickly and decisively, affecting rapid change and reform when needed. Monarchy also posed the greatest danger, however.The rule of one individual could quickly devolve into despotism if the ruler did not respect the needs of his kingdom and its people.

The ancient Greek city-state of Sparta enjoyed a reputation for military prowess, which was epitomized by its heavily armed foot soldiers or hoplites. Sparta’s monarchical form of government put it in direct opposition to its democratic rival, Athens.

G r e e k K i n g d o m s, A n c i e n t

345

ROYAL RITUALS

THESEUS AND THE MINOAN BULL DANCE The legendary King Minos imposed a penalty on the city of Athens as punishment for the murder of his son, Androgeus. Every nine years, fourteen Athenian youths were to be sent to Knossos to be sacrificed to the Minotaur in the famous labyrinth.Theseus, the son of Aegeus, king of Athens, volunteered to go to Knossos as one of the sacrificial victims. He planned to slay the Minotaur and end the suffering of his people.With the help of Ariadne, the daughter of Minos,Theseus succeeded. However, in a tragic twist of fate typical of Greek mythology, when Theseus sailed back to Athens, he forgot to change the ship’s black sails to white, the prearranged signal indicating his success.Thinking that his son was dead, Aegeus threw himself out of a window and fell to his death.

On the whole, the philosophical debate over monarchy concerned two opposing notions of political rule: monarchia and isonomia. Monarchia emphasized the argument put forth by Aristotle—that rule by one individual was an effective and legitimate form of government.This was the more ancient philosophy, supported by the history and tradition seen in the works of Homer. The latter term, isonomia, refers to a notion of equality within Greek society. Between 750 and 500 b.c.e., the ancient Greeks created a new form of political rule in response to the violence and war common to their society.They recognized that inequality often resulted in conflict, especially when a minority ruled over the majority. To combat this, the Greeks tried to ensure that legitimate rule would come from the “middle” of society or from between the political extremes. They accomplished this through democracy, in which a balance or equality of voices was ensured through the participation of all citizens.

THE GREAT CLASSICAL KINGDOM: SPARTA Though not a total monarchy, Sparta represents the most advanced form of monarchical rule in classical Greece. Citizenship in ancient Greece was exclusive. In the case of Sparta, this meant that only those people of Spartan descent capable of bearing arms were considered citizens. Traditional Spartan government consisted of a dual monarchy (two kings at

the same time), a council of aristocrats, and an assembly of citizens. The legendary King Lycurgus (r. ca. 600s b.c.e.), who engineered one of the more remarkable social and political transformations in history, put the mature form of Spartan government in place. He reformed Spartan society by expecting all citizens to dedicate themselves to the interests of the state.This meant that government oversaw almost all aspects of Spartan life. This type of monarchical control put Sparta in direct opposition to the great democracy of ancient Greece—Athens. The conflict and cooperation between the two great city-states of Athens and Sparta culminated with the story of ancient Greece’s greatest triumph in the Persian Wars (500–449 b.c.e.) and their ultimate ruin in the Peloponnesian War (431– 404 b.c.e.). See also: Athens, Kingdom of; Minoan Kingdoms; Mycenaean Monarchies; Sparta, Kingdom of; Trojan Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Aristotle. The Politics. Mineola, NY: Dover Publishing, 2000. Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Robert Fitzgerald. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2004. ———. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fitzgerald. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1998.

346

G r e e k K i n g d o m s, A n c i e n t

Plato. The Republic.Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2000. Willetts, R.F. The Civilization of Ancient Crete. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

GREEK MONARCHY

The monarch was also known as a tyrannos (“tyrant”), which derived from the Anatolian languages of western Asia Minor and meant “chief ” or “master.” The tyrant was not a violent despot, as the term means today, but rather a leader who considered himself a ruler above and not equal to the basileis or aristocracy.

(ca. 3000 B.C.E.–1973 C.E.)

ARCHAIC PERIOD

Rulers of ancient and modern Greece, which includes a mainland territory on the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and many large and small islands in the Aegean and Mediterranean seas. Monarchs ruled the earliest Greek communities. According to tradition, the legendary King Minos of the island of Crete, son of Europa and the god Zeus, colonized the Greek Islands and rid them of pirates sometime between about 3000 and 1400 b.c.e. While Greek drama portrays Minos feeding children to a monster known as the Minotaur, scholars suggest that Minos was a term that described a dynasty of powerful, priestly, and just rulers of the Minoan civilization.

As early as the end of the eighth century b.c.e., communities on the Greek mainland sought to replace the monarchy with an oligarchy, or rule by a few members of the aristocracy. By 500 b.c.e., most Greek city-states were governed by oligarchies or democracies. Kings continued to rule but as magistrates or priests rather than monarchs. According to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, monarchs could be bad or good; tyrannis ruled for their own benefit or good; and basileia ruled according to the law and for the benefit of the subjects. The ideal king of the fourth century b.c.e. was a generous and pious military leader. Plato developed the idea of a philosopher-king who possessed absolute knowledge and goodness.

THE MINOANS AND MYCENAEANS When the Minoan civilization spread to the Greek mainland, it gave rise to the Mycenaean civilization (ca. 1400–1200 b.c.e.) Powerful independent Mycenaean communities formed around palaces, where the head of the leading family was known as the basileis (interpreted as “chief,” “lord,” or “king”). The ancient Greek poet Homer described the basileis as priest, judge, and military leader. The Mycenaean kings were wealthy, powerful individuals known for their courage, piety, and wisdom, but major decisions required the approval of a council of the king’s aristocratic equals, called basileis, or rulers.

THE DARK AGE The Mycenaean civilization was destroyed around 1200 b.c.e. by Greek-speaking invaders from the north called Dorians. The Dorians established tribal settlements in the territories they conquered. These settlements eventually grew into small independent city-states dominated by a military aristocracy. It was in the Dorian community on the Greek island of Cos, off the southwestern coast of Turkey, that the term monarchos first came into use to describe a single magistrate who ruled the community.

THE HELLENISTIC AGE Monarchy took on new meaning for the Greeks after the Macedonian leader, Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) conquered Babylon in 330 b.c.e. and became “king of Asia.” Alexander ordered the Greek city-states to grant him divine honors because of his military achievements and his unlimited power. After Alexander, royalty became dependent on the ability to lead an army to military conquest.This called for wealth and companions, called philoi, to form the royal establishment. The additional virtues of a Hellenistic king were generosity, philanthropy, justice, security, and peace.

UNDER FOREIGN RULE There were no Greek monarchs from the fall of Actium in 31 b.c.e. until the Greek War of Independence (1821–1828). Throughout the centuries between those dates, Greece was effectively part of the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman empires. Emperors usually came to power following military victory and considered themselves chosen by God to rule the earth.They attempted to exercise unlim-

Grimaldi Dynasty ited power over all aspects of their society but had to give some consideration to the opinions of their court and the people who expressed their acclamation or dissent in the Hippodrome, or stadium, at Constantinople.

THE MODERN PERIOD At the London Conference of 1830, Russia, France, and England recognized Greek independence and, in an effort to avoid power struggles among Greeks, they named Otto of Bavaria to be king of the Hellenes (Greeks). Otto I (r. 1832–1862) considered himself chosen by God and ruled with absolute authority until he was forced to accept the Greek constitution of 1844. In 1862 the Greek people revolted, sovereignty of the people was introduced, and Otto abdicated the throne. Russia, France, and England then placed George of Denmark on the Hellenic throne. A popular and approachable monarch, George I (r. 1863–1913) often walked through the streets of Athens talking with people, and he introduced a democratic constitution. George’s international stature grew as he coped with a wide range of military crises, including war with Turkey and challenges from the antiroyalist officers of the Military League. A mentally disturbed Greek assassinated King George in 1913. King George’s son and successor, Constantine I (r. 1913–1917), came to the throne only months before the outbreak of World War I. Constantine had spent some of his formative years in Germany and, because of this background, the British forced him to abdicate in 1917. The king’s eldest son, Crown Prince George, had served with the German army, so he stepped aside in favor of his younger brother, Alexander, who declared war on Germany shortly after taking the throne. King Alexander (r. 1917–1920) suffered an improbable accident in 1920.While walking in the private gardens near the palace, he was bitten by a monkey; he died of infection from the bite a few weeks after the incident.The Greek people then held a plebiscite and recalled King Constantine I (r. 1920–1922), who returned and continued the war with Turkey. During the last days of World War I, the army again asked King Constantine, his health failing, to abdicate. He assented and died just four months later. The throne passed to Constantine’s son, George II (r. 1922–1923, 1935–1947), whose grandson, Prince

347

Phillip Mountbatten, would marry Queen Elizabeth II of England (r. 1952–present). However, hostility to George forced him to give up the Crown in 1923, whereupon the Greeks established a republic. Restored to the throne in 1935, George appointed as prime minister General Ioannis Metaxas, who established a fascist dictatorship in Greece in 1936. When Greece fell to Nazi Germany in 1941, civil war erupted, lasting until 1947, when the royalists claimed victory and George II returned to the throne. In 1947, George II died and was succeeded by his brother Paul (r. 1947–1964). During the post-World War II period, Greece experienced rapid social and economic development, but Paul’s rule was right wing and authoritarian. King Paul continued to reign until 1964 when his son Constantine II (r. 1964– 1973) came to the throne. A military junta seized power in a coup in 1967 and established a dictatorship in Greece under Georgios Papadopoulos. As a result, King Constantine II went into exile.When a countercoup led by the king ended unsuccessfully in 1973, Constantine II was deposed by Papadopoulos and Greece was declared to be a republic.The country has been ruled as a parliamentary republic up to the present day. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Athens, Kingdom of; Minoan Kingdoms; Sparta, Kingdom of; Tyranny, Royal. FURTHER READING

Freemann, Charles. The Greek Achievement. New York: Viking, 1999. Laistner, M.L.W. A History of the Greek World from 479–323 B.C. 3rd ed. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1962. Sealey, Raphael. A History of the Greek City States ca. 700–388 B.C. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977.

GRIMALDI DYNASTY (1297 C.E.–Present)

Rulers of Monaco, a tiny principality situated on a rocky promontory overlooking the Mediterranean coast between France and Italy. The Grimaldis continue to rule the oldest principality in Europe.

348

Grimaldi Dynasty

THE EARLY YEARS In the thirteenth century, the seafaring Grimaldi family served as consuls in the Italian city of Genoa. During the political struggles between the papacy and Holy Roman Empire that wracked Italy in the 1200s, the Grimaldis took the Guelph, or propapacy, side. After the victory of the Ghibelline, or pro-imperial, forces in 1295, the Grimaldis were expelled from Genoa and took refuge in France. In 1297, Francesco Grimaldi gained entrance to the Ghibelline stronghold of Monaco by disguising himself as a Franciscan friar. He and his comrades killed the unsuspecting guards and captured the fortress. The Grimaldi family held Monaco intermittently for the next hundred years; they gained full control in 1419 and were recognized as seigneurs (lords) of the principality. In 1346, they acquired the lordship of the nearby towns of Menton and Roquebrune.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE The Grimaldis struggled to maintain their independence in the midst of their powerful neighbors: France, Spain, the Republic of Genoa, and the French duchy of Savoy. Jean I (r. 1419–1454) of Monaco fought for this independence by securing the continued existence of his dynasty: he stipulated in his will that Grimaldi daughters could inherit if their husbands took the family name and coat of arms. Jean’s strong-willed daughter Claudine (r. 1457–1458) forbade her descendants to cede any part of Monaco or do homage to any other power, on pain of losing their inheritance and being disqualified to rule. From the beginning, the Grimaldis enjoyed an arrangement in which the French kings protected Monaco while allowing it sovereignty. In 1524, Augustin (r. 1523–1532) reversed this alliance by signing a treaty with Spain. In 1605, during the minority of Honoré II (r. 1604–1662), Spanish troops occupied Monaco.While keeping firm control of the territory, the Spanish granted the rulers of Monaco the title of prince in 1612. In 1641, in return for a promise of protection from Louis XIII of France (r. 1610–1643), Honoré II expelled the Spanish. Louis XIII then gave Honoré the duchy of Valentinois, the title to which passed to the eldest Grimaldi son. With the death of Antoine I (r. 1701–1731), the male line of the Grimaldis died out.Antoine’s daughter, Louise-Hippolyte (r. 1731–1733), married

Jacques de Matignon (r. 1731–1733), count of Thorigny, founding the branch of the GrimaldiMatignons. During the eighteenth century, the Grimaldi princes spent much of their time away from the principality at the French court. Monaco was annexed by France in 1793 during the French Revolution but was restored to the Grimaldis in 1814. By the Treaty of Paris in 1815, the kingdom of Piedmont in northwestern Italy took over from France the protectorate of Monaco and established troops there.The towns of Roquebrune and Menton rebelled against Monaco in the revolution of 1848 and were claimed by Piedmont. The dispute over control of these towns continued until 1860, when Prince Charles III of Monaco (r. 1856–1889) ceded the towns to France and the Piedmontese troops withdrew. With this cession, the princes of Monaco lost a third of their territory. Some family members protested this violation of Claudine’s will, but Charles III maintained that it had been necessary for Monaco to maintain its independence. During the 1860s, Charles III, looking for revenue to compensate for the loss of Menton and Roquebrune, built a casino in Monte Carlo, making Monaco a popular resort for the wealthy.

Since the late thirteenth century, the Grimaldi dynasty has ruled the principality of Monaco on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. In 1956, this tiny nation became known throughout the world when its ruler, Prince Rainier III, married the American movie star Grace Kelly.

G room s o f t h e Stool MODERN TIMES The Grimaldis ruled Monaco autocratically until 1911, when Prince Albert I (r. 1889–1922) granted the principality a constitution with an elected council and universal suffrage. Albert was also a pioneer in the sciences of oceanography and paleography. His son and successor, Louis II (r. 1922–1949) helped Monaco survive the Depression by establishing the Grand Prix car race of Monte Carlo and building a sports stadium. In 1920, a new branch of the family, the GrimaldiPolignacs, was formed when Charlotte, the only child of Louis II, married Count Pierre de Polignac. Their son, Rainier III (r. 1949– ) inherited the throne in 1949. Rainier worked to restore the casinos and hotels and once again made Monaco a prime tourist destination. He granted the country a new constitution in 1962, though he maintains strong authority and rules with a small group of ministers. Prince Rainier’s marriage to American movie star Grace Kelly in 1956 brought more glamour to the Grimaldi dynasty. They had three children: the heir, Prince Albert, and daughters Caroline and Stephanie. In recent years, the Grimaldi family has faced several tragedies and scandals, including the death of Princess Grace in an automobile accident in 1982, the unhappy marriages and divorces of Princess Caroline, and the scandalous personal life of Princess Stephanie. In 1997, the Grimaldi dynasty celebrated its seven hundredth anniversary. See also: Piedmont Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Decaux,Alain. Monaco and Its Princes:Seven Centuries of History. Paris: Perrin, 1997.

GROOMS OF THE STOOL An official of the English Privy Chamber who had responsibility for dealing with the monarch’s excrement. The groom attended the monarch while he performed his bodily eliminations and, on the monarch’s death, the groom received the chamber pots and commodes used by the sovereign.The groom of the stool also assisted the monarch in other aspects of daily life, such as dressing and eating. The position of groom of the stool originated in the fifteenth century, with the introduction of the

349

close-stool, a stool holding a chamber pot.The office of Yeoman of the Stool emerged in the reign of Henry VI (r. 1422–1471). The Groom of the Stool appears in the records around 1495, with the founding of the Privy Chamber by Henry VII (r. 1485– 1509).The groom was head of the Privy Chamber, a group attending the monarch in his private rooms. Although Henry VII’s original Privy Chamber and Groom were low in social status, this changed following the accession of his son Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547). Henry VIII made the Privy Chamber a central component of his government. The groom, whose intimacy with the king made him well fitted to discreetly carry out special tasks, even controlled a separate treasury called the Privy Purse. Not all grooms had successful careers, of course. Henry Norris was one of the men executed for adultery with Queen Anne Boleyn. Sir Anthony Denny, on the other hand, was one of the most powerful men in England in the last years of Henry VIII’s reign, amassing a large fortune and controlling access to the king’s deathbed. The position of Groom of the Stool went unfilled for the remainder of the Tudor period, when the throne was occupied by the young Edward VI (r. 1547–1553) and two women, Mary I (r. 1553–1558) and Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). James I (r. 1603–1625) of England revived the office of Groom of the Stool shortly after his accession to the throne in 1603.At that time, the Bedchamber, a group of courtiers attending on the king’s most private rooms, was split off from the Privy Chamber, which had assumed more governmental functions. The Groom of the Stool was now head of the Bedchamber, and the position was sometimes held by nobles. The only case of a Groom of the Stool becoming a rebel occurred during the reign of Charles I (r. 1625–1649) in 1642, at the beginning of the English Civil War. Henry Rich, the first earl of Holland, was deprived of the office of Groom for joining the Parliamentarian side of the war. The Groom of the Stool diminished in importance following the English Civil War, when the politics of the royal court became less central. One important holder of the office was Sarah Churchill, who served as Groom of the Stool under her friend Queen Anne (r. 1702–1714), although the two had a bitter quarrel shortly after the appointment. By this time, the office was often referred to as Groom of the Stole, and for that reason, the position was some-

350

G room s o f t h e Stool

times thought to be connected with the wardrobe. The office of Groom of the Stool was finally abolished in 1837 with the accession to the throne of Queen Victoria (r. 1837–1901). See also: Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Servants and Aides, Royal.

GUDEA (d. 2124 B.C.E.) Enlightened Sumerian monarch (r. ca. 2144–2124 b.c.e.) who ruled the ancient Mesopotamian citystate of Lagash and instituted a period of peace and social equality. After the fall of the Akkadian Empire to the incursions of the barbaric Gutians around 2230 b.c.e., Mesopotamia fell into general turmoil. During this period, a Sumerian warrior named Gudea assumed the title of ensi (governor) and consolidated the city of Lagash and its surrounding lands into a secure community that flourished under his liberal rule. The surviving records of Gudea’s reign, which include many of the most important examples of classical Sumerian literature, do not detail his rise to power. The records do, however, reflect eloquently on a career devoted to the patronage of literature, religion, and public works. Found primarily on two large clay cylinders, the longest and most complex surviving Sumerian works, the records are unique among Sumerian writing in their organization and content. These records detail the building of a temple at Eninnu as though it was begun and completed by Gudea. They also mention that Gudea established trade relations with the whole known world and had Elamite craftsmen to help build his temples. One of the few written passages dealing with Gudea’s personal history suggests that before rising to rule in Lagash, Gudea was a priest of the Sumerian god Ningirsu. Certainly the remains of Gudea’s public works support a vision of a deeply religious man. Over his twenty-year reign, Gudea built fifteen monumental temples in and around Lagash, and statues of the governor in devout posture remain as some of the most numerous examples of Sumerian sculpture. Perhaps the most impressive of Gudea’s accomplishments was the establishment of an advanced social policy in Lagash. In the second millennium b.c.e., Gudea was able to cite a social equality that

even some modern rulers have yet to emulate: “[In my town], the maidservant was the equal of her mistress, the slave walked beside his master, and . . . the weak rested by the side of the strong.” Sadly, this period of social equality did not survive past Gudea’s death in 2124 b.c.e. After his death, Sumer once again became part of the general Mesopotamian culture. See also: Akkad, Kingdom of.

GUANG WUDI. See Kuang Wu Ti GUANG XU. See Kuang Hsü GUISE, HOUSE OF. See Lorraine Dynasty

GUJARAT KINGDOM (1401–1583 C.E.) North Indian Muslim kingdom dating to the fifteenth century that arose out of the destruction of the Delhi sultanate by the great Mongol conqueror,Tamerlane. Tamerlane’s invasions of the northern India and Delhi sultanate in the early fifteenth century, which hastened that state’s decline, allowed areas under Delhi control, such as Gujarat, to liberate themselves and declare independence. The first moves toward independence were felt in the mid-fourteenth century, when the Delhi sultan, Firuz Shah III (r. 1351–1388), attempted to subdue Gujarat and the Sind (present-day Pakistan) in 1362. Once the sultanate had been fully destroyed a few decades later, the sultanate of the Gujarat was proclaimed. The first sultan of Gujarat, Tatar Khan (r. 1403– 1404), rose to power in 1403 after he imprisoned his father, Zafar Khan, who had been provincial administrator of the region under the Delhi sultans. In retaliation for being imprisoned, Zafar poisoned Tatar Khan the following year.This allowed Zafar Khan (r. 1404–1410) to become the second sultan of Gujarat, a title that he passed on to his grandson, Ahmad Shah I (r. 1410–1442), in 1410.

G u p ta E m p i r e The period following the first two sultans helped to solidify Gujarat’s independence. During his thirtyone-year reign. Ahmad Shah attempted to stabilize the kingdom by expanding its territory beyond the initial enclave of Asawal (present-day Ahmedabad) and its surrounding areas. He also defeated the armies of the neighboring kingdom of Malwa, which was located on a crucial trade route between Gujarat and the Ganges River. Ahmad played a crucial role in spreading Muslim hegemony in this region at the expense of Hinduism. His religious zealotry also cost the Hindus numerous temples, which were destroyed as a result of his expansionary plans. Ahmad’s death in 1442 brought his son, Muhammad Karim Shah (r. 1442–1451), to power. Muhammad Karim was followed on the throne by one of his sons, Qutbu-ud-din (r. 1451–1459). This period of relative dynastic stability was followed by the brief reign of one of Ahmad’s other sons, Daud Shah (r. 1459), in 1459. Following Daud, the throne went to the young and strong-willed son of Muhammad Karim, Muhammad Bigahra (r. 1459–1511). Muhammad Bigahra became sultan at age thirteen and ruled without a protector. His reign was distinguished by his military prowess. Bigahra’s military successes, such as overrunning the neighboring Cutch and the sultan of Ahmadnagar, combined with his young age when he took the throne, allowed him to reign for fifty-two years, longer than any other Gujarat ruler. Bigahra also distinguished himself for following in Ahmad’s footsteps by continuing to spread Islam throughout the sultanate. The sixteenth century brought Gujarat’s first sustained contact with Europe. This contact took the form of the Portuguese attempt to establish trading posts along the coast of the Indian subcontinent.These moves by the Portuguese provided the most significant tests of Muhammad Bigahra’s sultanate. The Portuguese intrusions into the Gujarat prompted the sultan to seek alliance with other kingdoms, such as Egypt and Calicut, to keep the Europeans at bay. Despite a naval victory by Gujarat and its allies in 1507, the Muslim fleets were routed by the Portuguese in 1509. Two years later, in 1511, Muhammad Bigahra died and was succeeded by his son, Zafar Shah II (r. 1511–1526). During the reign of Zafar’s son and successor, Bahadur Shah (r. 1526– 1536), further Portuguese victories, and the subsequent establishment of trading posts, including Goa,

351

along the coast, allowed the European invaders to take the small coastal enclave of Diu in 1535. Despite the Portuguese threat, Bahadur managed to annex the Malwa kingdom in 1531. In 1535, however, he temporarily lost the important fortress of Champaner to Humayun Padshah, who was forced to give up his new conquest in order to keep other rivals at bay.These losses forced Bahadur to make difficult decisions, which resulted in a peace treaty with the Portuguese and the surrender of more land to the Europeans. During further negotiations, Bahadur was killed after falling off the deck of a Portuguese ship. Bahadur left no successor to the sultanate.As a result, a succession of grandsons of Zafar Shah II held the throne between 1536 and 1553. By the early 1570s the Mughals, under the leadership of Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605), forced the Gujarat to submit. The sultanate was fully absorbed into the Mughal Empire by 1584, just as the Delhi sultanate, the Mughal’s predecessor, had done with Gujarat nearly two centuries earlier. See also:Ahmadnagar Kingdom;Akbar the Great; Delhi Sultanate; Indian Kingdoms; Malwa Kingdom; Mughal Empire. FURTHER READING

Duff, Mabel. The Chronology of Indian History: From the Earliest Times to the 16th Century. Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1972. Smith,Vincent A. The Oxford History of India. Ed. Percival Spear. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

GUPTA EMPIRE (ca. 320–540 C.E.) Empire that dominated the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, including much of the northern part of present-day India, nearly all of Pakistan, and part of Bangladesh. Classical Indian civilization reached its peak under the Gupta dynasty. The founder of the Gupta Empire was Chandragupta I (r. 320–350), the grandson of a local maharaja (“great king”) of the Gupta dynasty who ruled a small state in the Ganges River Valley. Around 320, Chandragupta conquered the Magadha kingdom in

352

G u p ta E m p i r e

the region of Bihar and made it the center of a growing domain. Chandragupta expanded his realm by wedding a princess of the family that ruled Bihar (and perhaps Nepal). Under Chandragupta, the Magadha kingdom continued to grow and become more powerful. When Chandragupta died in 350, his son and successor, Samudra Gupta (r. 350–376), began invading neighboring areas, expanding the kingdom into a great state that became known as the Gupta Empire. Samudra showed considerable skill in his military campaigns, and Indian legend portrays him as a musician and poet as well as a warrior. Indeed, a huge art revival took place while the Guptas ruled. Apparently, there was also a revival of Hinduism, as Samudra was a follower of the god Vishnu (known as the Preserver, and the second member of the triad that also includes Brahma the Creator and Shiva the Destroyer). The next and best known ruler of the Gupta dynasty was Chandragupta II (r. 376–415). He was a forceful and dynamic king, and India was peaceful and affluent under his reign, which represented the height of the Gupta dynasty’s dominance and cultural splendor. Chandragupta II encouraged education and the arts and received many scholars at his court, including the poet Kalidasa (sometimes referred to as the “Indian Shakespeare”) and Aryabhata, the mathematician who discovered the laws of zero and taught how to calculate eclipses. This period of Chandragupta II’s reign also gave rise to a golden age of Indian culture, with thriving music, literature, painting, and drama, as well as cave art and classic Hindu temples and sculptures. The Guptas also standardized an image of Buddha that lasted hundreds of years. (The Guptan Buddha had a peaceful and pensive expression and twisting curls against the head, with a monk’s robe around the body and a big halo in back of the head.) Guptan art forms spread from India to Central Asia, China, Japan, and Southeast Asia. Although Chandragupta II was a pious Hindu, he accepted Buddhism and Jainism in his kingdom, encouraging all three religions. The peace and prosperity enjoyed during the reign of Chandragupta II began to be threatened under the rule of his son and successor, Kumara Gupta I (r. 415–455). During this period, the White Huns started to invade the empire from the north. Kumara was able to withstand the attacks, but his son and successor, Skanda Gupta (r. 455–470), and

Skanda’s successors, could not resist the overpowering Hun assault, which ultimately ended the Gupta dynasty around 550 and placed a large part of India under the control of the White Huns. See also: Chandragupta Maurya; Indian Kingdoms; Magadha Kingdom.

GURJARA-PRATIHARA DYNASTY (ca. 750–1000 C.E.) Hindu dynasty that was the last of the powerful north Indian dynasties. At its height, the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty reigned over nearly all of India north of the Vindhya mountain range (usually considered the dividing line between north and south India). The Haricandra line of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty reigned in Marwar (now part of Rajasthan state) from the sixth through ninth centuries, mostly as feudatories. The Nagabhata line of the dynasty reigned first at Ujjain and later at Kannauj on the Ganges from the eighth through eleventh centuries. Although there were some other Gurjura lines of the dynasty also, they did not use the Pratihara family as well. The origin of the Gurjara dynasty is unclear. Most historians formerly believed that members of the dynasty came to India just after the Hunas (the eastern, or White Huns) had forced their way into India in the fifth century, and were likely associated with the Khazars.Today, however, many historians believe that the Gurjaras were native to India. The first mention of the dynasty in ancient documents dates to the late sixth century. The Nagabhata line of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty started with its founder, Nagabhata I (flourished ca. 750), in the eighth century. Evidence exists that his grandnephew,Vatsaraja (r. ca. 783–815), was king of Ujjain and that both Vatsaraja and his son, Nagabhata II (r. ca. 815–833), were defeated by the Rastrakuta dynasty and made their vassals. During wars early in the ninth century, which involved the Rastrakutas, Palas, and Pratiharas, Nagabhata II took over the ancient city of Kannauj and became the strongest ruler in northern India. His son, Ramabhadra (r. ca. 833–836), acceded to the throne around 833, followed just three years later by his son, Mihira Bhoja I (r. ca. 836–893).

G u s tav u s I I The Pratihara Empire attained the height of its power and wealth during the reign of Bhoja I and his successor, Mahendrapala I (r. ca. 893–914). During that time, the Pratihara realm was as large as the Gupta Empire, extending from Gurjarat and Kathiawar in the west all the way to northern Bengal in the east. Although the empire was vast, a large part of it was relatively insecure, with vassal kings. The power of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty declined after the rule of Mahendrapala I, probably because of rivalries within the dynasty and also because of a strong attack from the Deccan region conducted by the Rastrakuta king, Indra I (r. 915–917), who overwhelmed Kannauj around 916. The Pratiharas never managed to recover their power after the Rastrakuta victory.They lost the majority of their vassal states and retained control of only a small area. In 1018, Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998–1030) forced the last significant king of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, Rajuapala (r. ca. 975– 1018), from Kannauj in 1018. A small principality controlled by the Pratiharas endured for about a generation after that in the area around Allahabad (in present-day Uttar Pradesh). See also:Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms; Khazar Kingdom; Mahmud of Ghazna; Pala Dynasty; Rastrakuta Dynasty.

GUSTAVUS I (VASA) (1496–1560 C.E.) Founder of the Vasa dynasty of Sweden (r. 1523– 1560), who ended the practice of electing Swedish kings and established a hereditary monarchy. Born Gustavus Eriksson, Gustavus was the son of Erik Johansson, a Swedish senator and follower of Sten Sture, the regent of Sweden. In the early sixteenth century, Sweden was part of the Kalmar Union and was ruled by the king of Denmark and Norway acting through Swedish regents such as Sten Sture. In 1518, Gustavus was taken to Denmark as a political hostage and imprisoned there after an uprising and civil strife in Sweden that involved Sture’s party and a party led by the archbishop Gustav Trolle. This unrest eventually led the Danish king, Christian II (r. 1513–1523), to invade and conquer Sweden outright. Gustavus escaped Denmark in 1519, returning to Sweden in 1520, the same year in which his father was killed in a massacre ordered by Christian II. By

353

1521, Gustavus had become the leader of a revolt against Danish rule. The Swedes pushed the Danes out of the country with the aid of Lübeck, a city of the Hanseatic League, and Gustavus was elected king in 1523. Throughout the first years of his reign, Gustavus Vasa had to deal with uprisings led by adherents of the former regent’s party. Simultaneously, he worked toward creating a strong central government. He recognized that one way to increase the power of the Crown was to increase its wealth; the rise of Protestantism could help in this objective, since the Catholic Church owned many estates. Gustavus ensured the support of Swedish nobles by offering them monastic lands as fiefs. By 1536, Sweden had broken ties with Rome and had installed a Lutheran archbishop. Gustavus also organized an army and established a navy. In the early 1530s, Gustavus suppressed peasant rebellions and withstood a Danish invasion. In 1537, however, he allied with Denmark against Lübeck, and victory over that Hanseatic city helped to strengthen the Swedish economy. In 1544, Gustavus, with the approval of the Estates (a representative body comprised of the various classes of Swedish society), enacted the Pact of Succession. This new law instituted a system of hereditary succession rather than an elective one for the Swedish monarchy. When Gustavus died in 1560, he was succeeded by his son, Erik XIV (r. 1560–1568). Gustavus left Sweden with a strong, almost autocratic monarchy. He had increased Sweden’s foreign trade, encouraged improvements in farming and mining, and begun colonizing undeveloped regions in northern Sweden and Finland. Based on the foundation that Gustavus established, his successors began involving Sweden in European political affairs. See also: Kalmar Union; Swedish Monarchy;Vasa Dynasty.

GUSTAVUS II (ADOLPHUS) (1594–1632 C.E.)

King of Sweden (r. 1611–1632) of the House of Vasa and one of the most famous commanders during the Thirty Years’War (1618–1648). Born in 1594, Gustavus Adolphus became king of

354

G u s tav u s I I

Sweden in 1611 on the death of his father, King Charles (Carl) IX (r. 1604–1611). During Gustavus’s reign, Sweden was almost constantly at war. When he first came to the throne, Sweden was at war with Denmark; it was fighting Poland in Russia; and Sigismund III of Poland (r. 1587–1632) had been deposed as king of Sweden in 1599 but still claimed a right to its throne. Gustavus made peace with Denmark in 1613 and ended the Russian war in 1617 with territorial gains for Sweden. At the end of another war in Poland, which lasted from 1621 to 1629, he forced Sigismund to renounce his claim to the Swedish throne and won lands in Livonia (now Estonia and Latvia). Gustavus faced a greater challenge with the Thirty Years’War, which began in 1618 when Protestants in Bohemia revolted against the Catholic rule of the Habsburg dynasty. The war quickly engulfed all of Europe, becoming a conflict not only between Protestant and Catholic but also between those who wanted a weak Holy Roman emperor and the Habsburgs, who supported a strong empire. At first, Gustavus stayed out of the war, but events ultimately pulled Sweden into the conflict. A strong Holy Roman Empire and a strong Germany would pose a threat to Swedish dominance on the Baltic Sea. This consideration, along with Gustavus’s strong Protestantism, helped convince him to involve Sweden in the Thirty Years’ War. Aided by a subsidy from Cardinal Richelieu of France, who believed that it was in his country’s interest to keep the empire weak, Sweden invaded Germany in 1630. Over the next two years, Gustavus’s campaigns gained the upper hand for the anti-Habsburg forces. But Gustavus was then killed in battle at Lützen in Germany in 1632. While he reigned, Gustavus Adolphus made Sweden’s armies a byword for efficiency, discipline, and valor. He enlarged Sweden’s territories and sphere of influence, gaining control of most of the eastern Baltic. No other Swedish monarch made such an impact in European politics, and he left Sweden as an important power to be considered in the affairs of Europe. Gustavus and his chancellor, Axel Oxenstierna, also created a strong central government for Sweden and ended the struggle for power between the nobles and the Crown. He also improved the educational system, establishing Gymnasia or secondary schools and

funding universities. Upon his death, Gustavus was succeeded by his daughter, Christina (r. 1632–1654). See also: Christina; Swedish Monarchy; Vasa Dynasty.

GWALIOR KINGDOM (ca. 700–1948 C.E.) Former state in central India, located in the district of Malwa, centered on a strategic fort that helped guard the trade routes of northern India. In the eighth century, a Rajput prince of northern India named Suraj Sen was cured of a deadly disease by a hermit-saint. In gratitude, Suraj Sen (r. 700s) built a city at the place of his cure and named it Gwalior, after his healer Gwalipa. The city became the capital of Suraj’s Gwalior kingdom. Over the years, Gwalior changed hands many times. The Pratihara king, Bhoja I (r. ca. 836–893), ruled Gwalior in the ninth century, followed by the Rajputs, who lost it to Muslim sultan Mahmud of Ghazna (r. 998–1030). In 1196, Gwalior was taken by Kutbuddin Aybeg (r. 1192–1210) of the Tughluq dynasty. Recovered by the Hindu Rajputs in 1210, Gwalior was conquered by Sultan Iltumish (r. 1211–1236) of the Mu’izzi (Slave) dynasty of Delhi in 1232. In 1398, it was recovered once again by the Rajputs, this time the Rajputs of the Tanwar tribe. Gwalior fell to Muslim sultan Ibrahim Lodi (r. 1517–1526) in 1518. Within a few years, however, the kingdom was occupied by Babur (r. 1526–1530), founder of India’s Mughal dynasty. In 1558, Gwalior was conquered by Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605) of the Mughal dynasty. In 1726, forces from the Maratha Confederacy under General Ranoji Sindhia (r. 1726–1750) captured the district of Malwa, eventually taking the Gwalior fort in 1738. With help from foreign soldiers, including French mercenaries, Ranoji’s son, Mahadji Sindhia (r. 1761–1794) extended the boundaries of Gwalior to include most of central India. He defeated the Rajputs, took the Mughal emperor of India, Shah Alam II (r. 1759–1806), under his protection, and defeated Holkar, the chief general of the Maratha, in 1793.The British recognized Mahadji as the de facto ruler of northwest India. In 1794, Mahadji was succeeded by his adopted son, Daulat Rao Sindhia (r. 1794–1827).A period of unrest

Gwent Kingdom brought an intervention by the British, who stripped Daulat Rao of his extended lands and forts, leaving him in Gwalior.When Daulat died in 1827, he left no children. His wife, Maharani Baija Bai Sahib, adopted Mukut Rao, an eleven-year-old boy, to succeed Daulat as Jankoji Rao Sindhia (r. 1827–1843). The nineteenth century was a time of weak rule and palace intrigue in Gwalior. When Jankoji died without a successor in 1843, the Sindhias, Gwalior’s ruling family, asked the British for assistance. The British established a garrison staffed with British officers and Indian soldiers called sepoys. With British support, Jankoji’s widow, Maharani Shrimant Akhand Soubhagyavati, adopted a boy, Tara Baj, to rule as Jayaji Rao Sindhia (r. 1843–1886). After the pace of Westernization and British dominance throughout India increased dramatically in the middle of the nineteenth century, the Indian populace began to rebel against colonial rule. In 1857, sepoys from Gwalior joined in a large mutiny and killed the British officers at the garrison. A frightened Jayaji Rao fled to the city of Agra, seeking British protection. After British order was restored in 1858, Jayaji Rao participated in campaigns against the mutineers. As a reward for these and other services, the British appointed him one of the first Indian generals of the British army. When Jayaji died in 1886, the throne of Gwalior went to his ten-year-old son, Madhav Rao II Sindhia (r. 1886–1925), who contributed to the Allied effort during World War I. Upon his death in 1925, Madhav was succeeded by his nine-year-old son, George Jivaji Rao (r. 1925–1948). In 1948, the state of Gwalior was absorbed by a newly independent India and merged with Indore, Malwa, and other small states to form Madhya Bharat state. With this merger Jivaji Rao relinquished the throne, and the kingdom of Gwalior came to an end. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Maratha Confederacy; Mu’izzi (Slave) Dynasty;Tughluq Dynasty.

GWENT KINGDOM

355

and England. Gwent consisted of two regions, Upper Gwent and Nether or Lower Gwent. Gwent and the kingdom of Glywysing to the west were briefly united in the kingdom of Morgannwg around 930, but by the 970s at the latest, Gwent was once again a separate kingdom. The kingdom of Gwent evolved from an earlier kingdom of Ewyas (later called Gwerthefyriwg), which was founded by Celtish Britons in the first century b.c.e.Around 470 c.e., this ancient kingdom split into Gwent and Ergyng, but the two were reunited briefly in the next century. Merged with the kingdom of Glywyssing in the early 600s, Gwent suffered from large-scale Saxon raids at that time, as the fall of other Welsh kingdoms opened up the border to Anglo-Saxon incursions. Few rulers of Gwent made any impact on history. It was largely a territory through which armies passed on their way to campaign deeper into Wales. In 893 and 894 the region endured large Viking raids, while in 1055 Earl Harold Godwinson of Wessex conducted a military campaign against Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, king of Gwynedd and Powys in north-central Wales, and the fighting also raged throughout the southern Welsh kingdoms, including Gwent. After Gruffydd’s death in 1063, Harold campaigned in Gwent against Caradog, the ruler of Morgannwg and Gwynllwg, a small territory adjacent to Gwent. William fitz Osbern, the Norman earl of Hereford, annexed Gwent to his own rule shortly after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. In the decades that followed, there was much Norman settlement in Gwent. Throughout the eleventh century, the eastern part of Wales, including Gwent, was ruled by Norman “Marcher lords.” The Welsh Marches were the Norman-ruled border regions of Wales adjacent to England, and the Marcher lords were Norman barons to whom William I of England (r. 1066–1087) and his successors granted more autonomy than vassals holding more peaceful English fiefs were allowed.With the advent of Norman rule, Gwent played no further role as an independent kingdom within Wales.

(ca. 400s or 500s–1000s C.E.)

Small medieval kingdom located in southeastern Wales that often served as a gateway between Wales

See also: Glywysing Kingdom; Harold II Godwinson; Norman Kingdoms; Welsh Kingdoms; William I, the Conqueror.

356

Gwynedd Kingdom

GWYNEDD KINGDOM (ca. 800s–1200s C.E.)

Medieval kingdom in northeastern Wales, from which much of the resistance to English and Norman rule emerged from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. The legendary founder of Gwynedd was Cunedda Wledig, a late fourth- or early fifth-century chieftain from northern Britain. Among the earliest historically attested kings of Gwynedd were Hywel ap Rhodri (r. 754–825) and his cousin’s son Merfyn Frych, who ruled from 825 to 844 and was the father of Rhodri Mawr (r. 844–878). Rhodri Mawr inherited the Welsh kingdom of Powys through his mother, acquired the kingdom of Ceredigion by marriage, and came to rule much of Wales.Although the union of these kingdoms was temporary, Rhodri made Gwynedd an important power in Wales before fleeing to Ireland in 877 in the face of fierce Viking attacks. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, Gwynedd’s influence declined as a result of disputes over the succession among Rhodri’s descendants. But the kingdom rose to prominence again in the eleventh century. Gwynedd was ruled by Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (r. 1039–1063) of Powys following the murder of Gwynedd’s ruler, Iago ap Idwal (r. 1023–1039), by Iago’s own men in 1039, possibly at Gruffydd’s bidding. Gruffydd then spent the next fifteen years attempting to conquer the other kingdoms of southern Wales. In 1063, after being forced to retreat into central Wales by Harold Godwinson, earl of Wessex, Gruffydd was killed by his own men.The next ruler of Gwynedd, Bleddyn ap Cynfyn (r. 1063–1075), was in effect a client Edward the Confessor of England (r. 1042–1066). After the Norman Conquest, Norman lordships were imposed on much of Wales, although in the twelfth century Gwynedd maintained some degree of independence under Gruffydd ap Cynan (r. 1081–1137). By the thirteenth century, when the word “prince” was used more often than “king” to denote the leading men of the royal Welsh families, a prince of Gwynedd became one of the most important figures in the history of Wales by uniting the Welsh against the English. Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (r. 1246–1282) succeeded in making himself overlord of much of Wales by 1257. He was acknowledged as “prince of Wales” by Henry III of England (r. 1216–1272) in 1267. But during the reign of Edward I (r. 1272–1307), he

joined a rebellion against the English king begun by his brother Dafydd. The Welsh lost the war, and Llywelyn died in battle in 1282. His brother Dafydd was subsequently hanged, drawn, and quartered as a traitorous vassal the following year. In the aftermath of this revolt, Edward I covered Wales, including Gwynedd, with castles to prevent any further uprisings, and Gwynedd’s existence as an independent state came to an end. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Edward I; Harold II Godwinson; Llywelyn ap Gruffydd; Norman Kingdoms; Powys Kingdom;Welsh Kingdoms.

GYGES. See Lydia, Kingdom of

H HAAKON VI (1339–1380 C.E.) Second king (r. 1355–1380) of the Norwegian Folkung dynasty, whose hereditary claim to Sweden and marriage to Margrethe of Denmark paved the way for the Kalmar Union, by which the Scandinavian kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark were united. Haakon VI was the son of King Magnus VII of Norway (r. 1319–1355), who also ruled Sweden as King Magnus II (r. 1319–1363). Following revolts among nobles unhappy with the union between Norway and Sweden, Magnus agreed in 1343 to separate the two kingdoms. His older son Erik would be heir to the Swedish throne, while Haakon, the younger son, would become co-ruler of Norway, along with Magnus, until Haakon became of age to rule alone. The Norwegians offered allegiance to Haakon in 1343, but he did not begin ruling on his own behalf until 1355.When Erik died in 1359, following a re-

Habsburg Dynasty bellion in which he was defeated by his father and brother, Haakon was designated his successor, and from 1362 he shared rule of Sweden with Magnus. Together, they warred unsuccessfully against Waldemar IV of Denmark (r. 1340–1375) over the region of Scania in southern Sweden. As part of a peace settlement of 1363, Sweden entered into an alliance with Denmark, and Haakon married Waldemar’s daughter Margrethe. In 1363, Swedish nobles, angered by the Danish alliance, revolted, deposed Magnus and Haakon, and chose Haakon’s cousin Albert of Mecklenburg as king (r. 1363–1389). Magnus and Haakon invaded Sweden, but the attack failed. Magnus was captured and imprisoned in Sweden for six years, until Haakon was able to ransom him. Haakon became sole ruler of Norway upon his father’s death in 1374. He continued with unsuccessful attempts to retake Sweden and, allied with Denmark, became involved in wars with the Hanseatic League of German Baltic cities.These conflicts were resolved with a peace treaty in 1376, which granted trading concessions to Hanseatic merchants. On the death of Danish king Waldemar IV in 1375, Haakon’s young son Olaf was elected king of Denmark as Olaf II (r. 1376–1387); he also later ruled Norway as Olaf IV (r. 1380–1387). When Haakon VI died in 1380, Norway and Denmark were united under the rule of Olaf, with his mother Margrethe as regent. Margrethe then ruled as queen after Olaf’s death in 1387.This union between Norway and Denmark lasted until 1814. See also: Danish Kingdom; Kalmar Union; Norwegian Monarchy; Swedish Monarchy.

HABSBURG DYNASTY (900s–1918 C.E.) Family that ruled various and extensive areas of Europe from the Middle Ages through the early twentieth century. Lords and owners of vast lands throughout Western and Central Europe, the Habsburgs possessed immense political power. As Holy Roman emperors, kings of Austria, and rulers of Spain, the different branches of the family ruled over kingdoms and empires on three continents. In the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, the Habsburgs vied with France for European supremacy.

357

ORIGINS AND MEDIEVAL SUCCESS The Habsburg dynasty’s rise to power began in the Middle Ages, but its dominance in European politics came later. Yet, the dynasty enjoyed periodic successes in the medieval period as well, capturing the title of Holy Roman emperor twice in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

Origins The Habsburg family originated in Central Europe in modern-day Switzerland and Alsace in the tenth century. The dynastic name came from a castle in Aargau, Switzerland, whose owner was designated Count Otto of Habsburg. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Habsburgs amassed both land and titles, accumulating vast estates in Alsace, Baden, and Switzerland.Although the Habsburgs would take part in many of the great wars of European history, their success came primarily through inheritance and marriage.

Holy Roman Emperors In 1273, Count Rudolph von Habsburg (r. 1273– 1298) was elected King Rudolf I (r. 1273–1298) of the Germans, and he soon solidified his claims to Austria and surrounding lands as well. The Habsburgs ruled Austria for the next six and a half centuries. Rudolph passed all his titles on to his son Albert I (r. 1298–1308), but the lands were eventually divided among family members in 1365 upon the death of Duke Rudolph IV of Austria (r. 1358–1365). Over the next several generations, the Habsburg family added to its domains, with the Tyrol and Trieste coming under its control in 1363 and 1382, respectively.When Albert V of Austria (r. 1404–1439) married the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund (r. 1433–1437), he inherited his fatherin-law’s titles as king of Bohemia and Hungary. Albert was then elected German king, as Albert II (r. 1438–1439) in 1438. With only one exception, Charles VII of Bavaria (r. 1742–1745), all subsequent Holy Roman emperors were Habsburgs.

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY RISE TO POWER From the 1440s, then, the Habsburgs entered the elite of European royalty and politics. From that time, they were elected repeatedly as kings of Germany and Holy Roman emperors. Their rise to power did not come easily, however. Throughout the fifteenth cen-

358

Habsburg Dynasty

One of the oldest and most distinguished dynasties of Europe, the Habsburgs originated in central Europe and established Austria as the center of their domain. Desiring a royal residence equal to that of their French rivals, the Habsburgs built Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna, beginning in 1695.

tury, the Habsburgs were forced into military conflict against the Hungarians. Ascendancy of the family, however, was ensured in the typical Habsburg manner, through marriage and inheritance.

Marriage and Expansion Beginning in the fifteenth century, the Habsburgs entered into a series of marriages through which they acquired vast lands throughout Europe. Emperor

Maximilian I (r. 1493–1519) began this tradition of making advantageous marriages. Through his marriage to Mary of Burgundy, the daughter and heiress of Charles the Bold (r. 1467–1477), Maximilian I acquired the Low Countries. Maximilian’s son Philip married Joanna of Castile, the daughter of Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474– 1504) and Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516), and became Philip I of Castile (r. 1504–1506).Their

Habsburg Dynasty

359

ROYAL RELATIVES

THE EMPRESS ELIZABETH During the summer of 1853, Austrian emperor Franz Joseph met Bavarian princess Elizabeth, whom her family called “Sisi.” Franz Joseph was slated to marry Helene, Elizabeth’s older sister, but as soon as he saw the beautiful Sisi, he fell in love and announced their engagement. As empress, Elizabeth was known for her concern for the poor and for visits to hospitals and asylums, and enjoyed great popularity with the people of Austria and Hungary.Yet the empress’s life was not without tragedy. Her first child, Sophie, died at the age of two, and her only son, Crown Prince Rudolf, committed suicide. Although she was an accomplished equestrian and exercised regularly, the empress was plagued by health problems, especially bouts of depression and perhaps anorexia. Elizabeth held many progressive political ideas and sided with Hungary in a struggle for autonomy that resulted in the 1867 division of the empire into two nations, both ruled by Franz Joseph and Elizabeth.The empress also traveled widely without her husband.While on a visit to Geneva in 1898, she was assassinated by an Italian anarchist.

son Charles, Maximilian’s grandson, became Charles I of Spain (r. 1516–1556) and also Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558). Finally, Charles’s younger brother Ferdinand married the daughter of Louis II (r. 1516–1526) of Bohemia and Hungary, bringing these lands into the Habsburg domain.

Charles V and the European Empire By the reign of Emperor Charles V, the Habsburgs had assembled a large and polyglot empire.Through his father Philip I of Habsburg and his mother Joanna of Castile, Charles V inherited both the Habsburg domain of Central Europe and the kingdom of Spain. Crowned king of Spain in 1516 and elected Holy Roman emperor in 1519, Charles reigned over about one-quarter of the population of Europe, in addition to the Spanish Empire in the Americas. Charles’s reign marked the high point of Habsburg rule. However, his vast power came at a price. To fund his imperial enterprise, Charles levied extraordinary taxes and faced numerous tax revolts throughout his reign. Then as the Protestant Reformation swept through the Habsburg domains in Central Europe, Charles, a staunch Catholic, committed sizable resources to combating it. Charles V retired

from his duties in 1556 and gave up his titles two years later. The Habsburg succession did not follow the typical pattern of other European monarchies. The nature of the Habsburg Empire made it impossible to transfer the entire domain along a single family line. Charles’s retirement also meant that he could pass on his territories and titles as he pleased. He chose to divide his lands between his son Philip II (r. 1556–1598) who inherited Spain, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, and the Spanish possessions in the Americas, and his brother Ferdinand I (r. 1558–1564), who inherited the Habsburg lands in Central Europe, including Austria. Ferdinand was also elected Holy Roman emperor. After this division of power, one ruler would never again unite the Habsburg domain.

THE MANY FACES OF HABSBURG POWER Beginning in the reign of Charles V, Habsburg Europe faced dynastic and military threats from both inside and outside. The Ottoman Turks pressed in against the eastern Habsburg borders, forcing Charles V to expend resources on several fronts. In addition, the kingdom of France challenged Habsburg hegemony in Western Europe.

360

Habsburg Dynasty

The Western Front In the seventeenth century, the greatest and most enduring conflict faced by the Habsburgs was with France, especially under the French king Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715). During a series of wars against Louis, the Habsburgs lost Alsace, Franche-Comté, Artois, and part of Flanders, as well as control of the Spanish monarchy. One of the more significant of these conflicts was the War of the Spanish Succession (1700–1713). In 1660, Louis XIV had married the daughter of King Philip IV of Spain (r. 1621–1665). When Philip’s son, Charles II of Spain (r. 1665–1700), died without an heir in 1700, Louis used his wife’s position to claim the Spanish throne and have his grandson crowned Philip V (r. 1700–1746). The deceased Charles II had stipulated that the French Bourbon heir could inherit his title only if he renounced his claim to the French throne, which would have united France and Spain under one king. When Philip refused to do so, the Austrian Habsburg ruler, Emperor Leopold I (r. 1658–1705), pro-

nounced Charles’s will invalid and declared war on Spain and France. The possibility of a combined France and Spain brought England, Prussia, and the Dutch into the war on the side of Austria, making it a European-wide conflict. The War of the Spanish Succession ended in a stalemate, and the Treat of Utrecht (1713) divided the contested territory among the rival powers. The Spanish lost the southern Netherlands and their Italian possessions to the Austrian Habsburgs; the Bourbon Philip V was recognized as king of Spain but was forced to renounce his claims on the French throne, and France ceded much of its North American territory to England. In 1713, Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI (r. 1711–1740) issued the Pragmatic Sanction, an edict that changed the conditions of Habsburg succession, guaranteeing that in the event of no male heir, a daughter could inherit her father’s titles and lands. This was important to Charles since the sole Habsburg heir to the Austrian throne was his daughter, Maria Theresa.

ROYAL PLACES

THE ESCORIAL OR THE MONASTERY OF SAN LORENZO EL REAL Begun in 1563 under Philip II, the Escorial was one of the palaces of the Spanish Habsburgs. Located 27 miles northwest of Madrid, the enormous palace contains a cathedral-like church, a monastery, a library, and a school. Philip commissioned the palace to celebrate the battle of St. Quentin, which occurred on the feast day of St. Lawrence and at which the Spanish army defeated the French. Philip’s intention was also that the building would serve as a royal burial place.The design reflects Philip’s piety and Spanish royal power and might.The vast structure resembles a fortress at the main entrance, and its classic simplicity makes it seem austere. Although the royal apartments are modest, the church is huge and lavishly decorated.Taking over twenty years to complete, the palace has a perimeter of 3,000 feet and encompasses over 500,000 square feet.Within, there are 86 sets of stairs, 88 fountains, 1,200 windows, and 2,673 doors.The massive outer walls are 744 feet long and 72 feet high, with 200-foot towers at each corner. Since its construction, the building has been expanded several times, burned twice, and looted by French troops in 1807. Many Spanish monarchs, including Philip, are buried there.The building houses a great library, with a large number of fine Arabic manuscripts, as well as numerous Christian religious works, befitting the pious Habsburg monarchs. Escorial has not been a royal residence since 1861.

361

Habsburg Dynasty

HABSBURG DYNASTY (900s–1918 C.E.)

Leopold I* (Emperor)

1658–1705

Austrian Habsburgs

Joseph I (Emperor)

1705–1711

Rudolph I* (Count of Habsburg,

Charles VI (Emperor)

1711–1740

Francis I (Emperor)

1745–1765

Joseph II* (Emperor)

1765–1790

Leopold II* (Emperor)

1790–1792

Francis II (Emperor)

1792–1835

Ferdinand I (Emperor)

1835–1848

Duke of Austria, King of Germany)

1273–1291

Albert I* (Duke of Austria, King of Germany)

1298–1308

Franz Joseph* (Emperor) 1848–1916

Albert II (King of Germany)

1438–1439

Charles I (Emperor)

1916–1918

Frederick III (Emperor)

1440–1493

Maximilian I* (Emperor)

1493–1519

Spanish Habsburgs

Charles V* (Emperor)

1519–1556

Charles I* (Emperor

Ferdinand I (Emperor)

1556–1564

Maximilian II (Emperor)

1564–1576

Philip II

1556–1598

Rudolf II (Emperor)

1576–1612

Philip III*

1598–1621

Matthias (Emperor)

1612–1619

Philip IV

1621–1665

Ferdinand II (Emperor)

1619–1637

Charles II

1665–1700

Ferdinand III (Emperor)

1637–1657

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

Austrian Habsburgs and the East When Maria Theresa (r. 1740–1780) assumed power, the Austrian Habsburgs faced a number of challenges from other European nations. During the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748), which resulted from Maria Theresa’s accession, and the Seven Years’War (1756–1763), Austria lost some territory to Prussia but otherwise succeeded in defending its borders. While Maria Theresa could reign as Austrian archduchess and queen of Bohemia and Hungary, she could not be Holy Roman emperor. When Emperor Charles VII of Bavaria, a non-Habsburg, died in 1745, Maria Theresa’s husband Francis I (r. 1745–1765) was elected emperor. Maria Theresa launched a vast reform of the Aus-

Charles V)

1516–1556

trian government. Her son, the future Holy Roman emperor Joseph II (r. 1765–1790), was sympathetic to the Enlightenment and favored liberalizing and centralizing the Austrian government. As emperor, he abolished serfdom, revised the penal code, enforced religious toleration, and lessened the power of the Catholic Church in Habsburg lands.

NINETEENTH- AND TWENTIETHCENTURY DECLINE Leopold II (r. 1790–1792) followed his brother Joseph II to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. Leopold was not the reformer that Joseph had been. He reversed many of Joseph’s reform measures and was an otherwise unexceptional ruler. Leopold’s son and successor, Francis II (r. 1792–1835), had the

362

Habsburg Dynasty

misfortune of ruling Habsburg lands when Napoleon came to power in France, and Austria was overwhelmed by Napoleon’s armies as they swept through Europe. However, Francis regained power in Austria after Napoleon’s defeat and ruled until 1835. Through the remainder of the nineteenth century, Habsburg hegemony was challenged on every front.The rise of Prussia meant that there was a rival power in Germany. The short-lived kingdom of Sardinia challenged Habsburg power in its Italian territories.And Russia’s expansion into the Balkan region eroded Habsburg power there.The long reign of Emperor Franz Joseph (r. 1848–1916) witnessed further disintegration of Habsburg dominance. The dynasty lost Italy in 1859, and it ceded German leadership to Prussia in 1866. In addition to the aspirations of other nationstates, the emotional stirrings of nationalism fueled hostility and resentment among many peoples within the Habsburg Empire itself. In 1914, the heir to the Habsburg titles, Francis Ferdinand, was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist—the spark that ignited World War I. Austria’s defeat in the war forever dissolved the Habsburg Empire, and surviving members of the family were forced into exile. The postcommunist nations of Eastern Europe repealed the Habsburg exile in 1996. However, despite the existence of Habsburg descendants, European nations today favor the development of democratic parliamentary governments, and the Habsburgs’ dynastic claims to power are now a part of history. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Bourbon Dynasty; Charles V; Holy Roman Empire; Joseph II; Leopold I; Leopold II; Maria Theresa; Maximilian I; Spanish Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Crankshaw, Edward. The Fall of the House of Habsburg. New York: Penguin, 1983. Steed, Henry W. The Habsburg Monarchy. New York: Howard Fertig, 1969.

HADRAMAWT KINGDOMS (ca. 1000 B.C.E.–628 C.E.)

South Arabian states of Saba (or Sheba), Ma’in, Qataban, and Hadramawt, which flourished in the first millennium b.c.e. and lasted until the seventh cen-

tury c.e.Throughout much of their history, the kingdoms were noted for the production and sale of incense. They also developed complex irrigation systems in order to farm lands that were alternately parched and flooded. All four states were eventually absorbed into the Himyarite kingdom. The kingdom of Saba, also known as Sheba, seems to have been the first of the four states to prosper. Located on the caravan route from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, Saba was rich as early as the tenth century b.c.e., when the legendary Queen of Sheba visited King Solomon of Israel (r. 970–931 b.c.e.). Rock inscriptions from later centuries praise the Sabean god Attar, who was supposed to bring twice-yearly rains. During these centuries, the rulers of Saba expanded the kingdom’s territory through conquest. They also built temples, and, in the sixth century b.c.e., constructed a large dam at the capital city of Marib, which remained standing until 572 c.e. The kingdom of Ma’in developed around a river oasis, now known as al-Gawf, located northwest of Marib. Ma’in began its existence as part of Saba, but it became an independent kingdom around 400 b.c.e. Thanks to its control over much of the trade route from south Arabia to the Mediterranean, the kingdom soon began to prosper economically. Ma’in established a colony at the Dedan oasis in northwestern Arabia and maintained relations with a number of foreign states, including Egypt and Ionia. Like Ma’in, the Qataban state gained its independence from Saba in the late fifth century b.c.e. Within one hundred years, it had expanded as far south as the Indian Ocean and threatened Saba to the north. Its capital city was Timna. The kingdom of Hadramawt remained tied to Saba until the fourth century b.c.e.According to legend, the kingdom took its name from the last words of the prophet Hud: “Hadara al-mawt,” or “Death has come.” Because Hadramawt’s territory included frankincense-producing Dhofar, it held a key position in the international incense trade, a position it jealously guarded with strict laws regulating the harvest and sale of the costly aromatic resin of the frankincense tree, which was in great demand. Not coincidentally, Hadramawt’s capital city, Sabwa, was located on a major trade route. Between 125 and 100 b.c.e., Saba conquered and annexed Ma’in. Qataban also lost much of its western land to Saba and its southern territories to a

Hadrian breakaway province. By the middle of the first century c.e., Hadramawt had destroyed the Qataban capital, and both Hadramawt and Saba had annexed additional Qataban territory. As Qataban declined, a new kingdom, the Himyar, began to gain influence in the region. The Himyarite rulers conquered land from both Saba and Qataban, established a capital city (Zafar) in what is now southern Yemen, and claimed the title “Kings of Saba and Du-Raidan.” Meanwhile, Hadramawt had annexed what remained of Qataban. Saba, Himyar, and Hadramawt were now rivals for control of southern Arabia. Saba held the upper hand for some time. Early in the third century, Saba’s King Sarium Autar (r. first quarter of third century) captured the Hadramite ruler and sacked Hadramawt’s capital city. The successors of Sarium Autar defeated the Himyarite king in 248 or 249 and ruled over much of modern Yemen. Ultimately, however, both Saba and Hadramawt fell under Himyar domination. The Sabean dynasty died out soon after its triumph over Hadramawt. By 295, the Himyar ruler Sammar Yuharis (r. 295–328) was calling himself “King of Saba and Du-Raidan and Hadramawt and Yamanat.” By the end of his reign, his military victories had justified his claim to the title. Hadramawt enjoyed a brief period of independence in the late fourth century, but the Himyarites eventually conquered it. The Himyarite ascendancy lasted until the late sixth century, when all of southern Arabia became part of the Persian Empire. Hadramawt reappeared as an independent state at various times in the Islamic era. Echoes of the Hadramawt kingdoms still linger in southern Arabia in various place names and in the remains of old cities. Frankencense trees still grow in an area in Yemen known as the Wadi Hadramawt. See also: Sabaean Kingdom; Sheba, Queen of; Solomon.

HADRIAN (76–138 C.E.) Roman emperor (r. 117–138) noted principally for the many major public and defensive works constructed throughout the Roman Empire during his reign. Perhaps the most well known of these works is Hadrian’s Wall in Britain.

363

The child of a politically important family, Hadrian (whose full name was Publius Aelius Hadrianus) was born in the Roman province of Hispania, or Spain. When his father died, Hadrian was taken into the family of the reigning emperor, Trajan (r. 98–117), who was the boy’s nearest male relative. Educated as befitted his status, Hadrian showed a particular interest in the study of Greek. His noble lineage meant that he was guaranteed a position in the government upon achieving adulthood, and he made steady progress within the administration, ultimately becoming governor of the province of Syria. Trajan died in 117, leaving the empire in need of a new emperor. His widow, Plotina, asserted that it had been Trajan’s intention to make Hadrian his successor, but her claims were not popular among many influential people of Rome, who advanced candidates of their own. Nonetheless, Hadrian had the approval of the army, which proclaimed him emperor in 117. His opponents did not readily accept the judgment of the army, however. There was considerable dissent within the Senate, and to silence it, Hadrian charged four of the most outspoken senators with conspiring to remove him from the throne. He had these four arrested, and since conspiracy was a capital offense, the senators were executed. Rather than quiet his critics, however, Hadrian’s action only served to increase senatorial hostility to his rule. To strengthen his position, Hadrian set out to convert the Senate and the Roman citizenry to his side. His methods were direct: he gave outright grants of money to senators and sponsored lavish gladiatorial contests for the public. Aware that military success translated into popular support, he nonetheless did not seek to expand the territorial holdings of the empire. Instead, he concentrated on solidifying his control over the territories and provinces already claimed by Rome, thus bringing a measure of peace to the dangerous frontier regions of the empire. A monument to Hadrian’s goal is found along the border that separated the Roman province of Britain from the lands to the north (now Scotland), which were never successfully brought into the sphere of the empire.There Hadrian ordered a great wall to be built. The construction of this 73-mile-long wall, which took four years to build and was completed in 126, was built under Hadrian’s personal supervision. With its forts, observation towers, and strong gates, the wall provided the province of Britain with secu-

364

Hadrian

The Roman Emperor Hadrian built many public works during his reign. Perhaps the most famous is Hadrian’s Wall in England, constructed as a barrier between Roman Britain and the wild tribes of the north. Begun around 120 c.e., the wall spanned 73 miles and stood about 15 feet high.

rity and protection against raids from the north. Under Hadrian’s orders, similar bulwarks against invasion by barbarian peoples were also constructed at other sensitive points on the imperial frontiers. In Rome, Hadrian concentrated on governmental and tax reform. His policies, as well as his success in maintaining peace throughout the imperial territories, ushered in a period of great economic prosperity for the Roman Empire. Hadrian took advantage of the empire’s increased wealth to finance the construction of temples, a mausoleum for his eventual burial, and other monumental buildings, some of which he designed himself. Hadrian had no children, which meant that he had no natural successor to the throne. As he grew older and more infirm, he followed the custom of the time and looked among his relatives for a likely young candidate to adopt. He selected Antoninus Pius (r. 138–161), a mature man with family ties to his own adoptive mother, Plotina, and made him his heir. By 137, Hadrian’s health had so deteriorated that he

could no longer rule, and he handed the throne over to Antonius Pius.When Hadrian died a year later, the success of his campaign to win the Senate’s approval and loyalty was made completely clear: the Senate declared him a god. See also: Roman Empire;Trajan. FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. Nardo, Don. The Roman Empire. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1994. Starr, Chester. A History of the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

HAFSID DYNASTY (ca. 1229–1574 C.E.) A Berber dynasty (also called Banu Hafs) that ruled in Tunisia and eastern Algeria (a combined area then

H a i h aya D y n a s t y known as Ifriqiya) until it was overthrown by the Ottoman Turks in 1574. Hafsid rule was the last of a succession of Muslim dynasties that began ruling in the seventh century. The Hafsid dynasty was founded in 1222 by Abu Zakariya Yahya, a governor of the Almohad dynasty. The new dynasty was based in the city of Tunis, which prospered greatly and underwent a cultural revival under Hafsid rule. Abu Zakariya (r. 1229– 1249) ruled for more than twenty years, keeping various tribal clashes and plots in check and assuring Hafsid affluence by means of trade agreements with Italy, Spain, and France. He also extended Hafsid control into the Iberian Peninsula and northern Morocco. Abu Zakariya was succeeded by his son, Muhammad I al-Mustansir (r. 1249–1277), who brought the Hafsid kingdom to its height of power and status. Following his reign, however, internal strife and power struggles erupted, with various tribal factions competing for the throne. The Hafsid dynasty split up into minor tribal domains and city-states between 1277 and 1284.This era marked the height of external intrusion into Hafsid affairs—chiefly by the Christian kingdom of Aragon, which took advantage of the tribal split to gain trade and political concessions from the nominal Hafsid sovereigns. Subsequently, Umar I (r. 1284–1295) and later Abu Yahya Abu Bakr (r. 1318–1346) restored Hafsid-controlled unity in Tunisia. Hafsid rule was still weak, however, with its power resting on insecure foundations. Its main support came from three broad groups: tribal leaders, who still held very high status because of their association with the former Almohad dynasty; refugees from Andalusia in southern Spain, who filled more and more important jobs in the administration; and local tribal and urban officials, who formed alliances with the central government without completely giving up their power. One of the most significant phenomena of the period between 1318 and 1346 was the development of a pirate fleet in some of the Hafsid ports. Piracy became a significant source of revenue in much of North Africa during the next four centuries. The Hafsid kingdom became strong again under Ahmad II (r. 1370–1394), despite some Hafsid pirate activity that jeopardized international relations. Hafsid strength continued under Uthman (r. 1435–

365

1488) but started to weaken after his rule. First, Spaniards took control of the country. Eventually, fighting between Spain and the Ottoman Turks resulted in Turkish domination of the region, and Tunisia became an Ottoman province in 1574. See also: Almohad Dynasty

HAIHAYA DYNASTY (ca. 1000–1745 C.E.) A short-lived dynasty of India about which little is known beyond the reputed valor of its rulers. The Haihaya dynasty, one of the many Rajput clans of ancient India, occupied the Nerbudda Valley in central India. The name of the dynasty, Haihaya, derives from the word haya (“horse”) According to a Hindu myth, Vishnu blessed the Haihaya prince, Kartavirya, and gave him a thousand arms instead of two. With this power Kartavirya set out to conquer the world. He decided to perform digvijaya, a symbolic conquest of the four corners of the earth, to prove his supremacy over the Kshatriyas, the warrior caste of the Aryan Hindus. Regardless of his best plans, Kartavirya was defeated and had his arms cut off by the Brahman hero, Parasurama, who appears in many Hindu legends. More historical knowledge of the Haihaya dynasty does not appear until the tenth century.At that time, the Haihayas succeeded the Pandava dynasty of Chhattisgarh, and a member of the royal house named Kalingraja (r. 900s) became the first official leader of the Haihaya Dynasty. His grandson and immediate successor, Ratanraja (r. early 1000s), founded the city of Ratanpur, which continued as the capital of Chhattisgarh. The Haihaya dynasty ruled Chhattisgarh for six centuries. In the fourteenth century, Chhattisgarh and the Haihayas split into two parts. The elder branch of the family continued to rule at Ratanpur, while the younger branch settled in the semi-independent state of Raipur. The Haihayas ruled Chhattisgarh until 1741, when they were overthrown by the Maratha Confederacy. In 1745, after conquering the region, the Marathas deposed Raghunathsinghji (r. ?–1745), the last surviving member of the Ratanpur branch of the Haihaya dynasty. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Maratha Confederacy.

366

Haile Selassie I

HAILE SELASSIE I (1892–1974 C.E.) Emperor of Ethiopia (r. 1930–1974) who worked to modernize his nation and increase its standing in the world. Born Tafari Makonnen in the Ethiopian province of Harerge, the future ruler of Ethiopia was the son of a powerful member of the nobility. The young Makonnen was raised in an urban setting, educated at a French mission school, and attended Ethiopia’s first modern educational institution, the Menelik School. At a very young age, Makonnen was appointed governor of Harar and granted the title Dajazmach (“Commander of the Gateway”). At the time, Ethiopia was ruled by Emperor Menelik II (r. 1889–1913), who had taken the first steps to modernize the country and curb the powers of the feudal aristocracy. Within a decade, however, Menelik became debilitated by a series of strokes. Fearing that Ethiopia would pass to European control upon his death, Menelik named his twelve-year-old grandson, Lij Iyasu, as heir apparent, and he nominated a trusted subordinate, Ras Tassama Nadew, as regent. Despite efforts to ensure an orderly transition of power, Menelik failed to achieve his goal. Ras Tassama Nadew died before the emperor did, and when Menelik died in 1913, the young Iyasu took the throne without a regent.The unprepared Iyasu alienated his grandfather’s ministers and evicted from the capital all whom he perceived to be his political rivals. He also offended the nation’s Christian elite by accommodating Ethiopia’s Muslim community. A conspiracy of disaffected nobles formed to depose the young ruler, and among the plotters was Tafari Makonnen. On September 27, 1916, the conspirators declared Iyasu deposed, and they replaced him on the throne with Menelik’s daughter, Zawditu.They nominated Tafari Makonnen to serve as her regent, granting him the title of Ras, the highest rank of nobility. A far better administrator, politician, and diplomat than Zawditu, Ras Tafari monopolized the conduct of Ethiopia’s foreign affairs. In the eyes of the Western world, Ras Tafari was the real ruler of Ethiopia, and Europeans tended to ignore the empress. This situation was further exacerbated when, in 1923, Ras Tafari achieved a great foreign affairs coup by gaining his country’s admis-

sion into the League of Nations. Ever a modernizer, Ras Tafari worked hard to engage Ethiopia with the wider world. Throughout the 1920s, he brought to his country several important reforms, from the introduction of the modern printing press to improvements in medicine. He also launched a major literacy campaign. In his dealings with Europeans, Ras Tafari developed particularly warm ties with the French.This alliance proved decisive in helping Ethiopia escape annexation by the other European powers, most notably Britain and Italy, who sought to colonize Ethiopia. At home, Ras Tafari steadily consolidated his power and influence, ultimately gaining the trust and support of the empress herself. When Zawditu died in 1930, Ras Tafari assumed full imperial powers. Upon his coronation, he took the imperial name of Haile Selassie I. As emperor, Haile Selassie introduced profound changes to Ethiopia.The most important of these were

Haile Selassie I, the last reigning emperor of Ethiopia, worked to bring his country into the modern world.This photograph of the emperor was taken in 1935, shortly before Selassie was driven into exile by Italian occupation. He was restored to the throne in 1941.

Hammurabi accomplished through the promulgation of the nation’s first constitution (July 16, 1931). Among other things, this document established the legitimacy of Haile Selassie’s claim to the throne by declaring him a direct descendant of Ethiopia’s two most legendary figures, King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. It also claimed divine status for the emperor. Soon, however, the outside world impinged upon Haile Selassie’s rule, for Italy had imperial designs on Ethiopia. In 1936, the Italian army attacked the country, overcame the emperor’s forces, and drove him into exile, where he remained until 1941.While in exile in Europe, Haile Selassie gained the support of Great Britain, which had become Italy’s enemy when Italy became Germany’s ally in World War II. With Britain’s aid and support, Haile Selassie was restored to the Ethiopian throne in 1941. In the post–World War II era, Haile Selassie began a modernization campaign, funded by the prosperity of Ethiopia’s coffee-based economy. However, in the late 1950s, the Ethiopian people became discouraged by government corruption and worsening economic conditions. In 1960, opposition leaders staged an abortive coup to eliminate imperial rule. Although the coup failed, the resentment it represented did not abate, and the aging emperor seemed incapable of responding to the growing anti-imperial sentiment. In 1974, the Ethiopian army seized control of the country. First stripped of his powers, Haile Selassie was finally deposed on September 12, 1974, and confined to house arrest in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital. He died there on August 27, 1975.

367

ber of Mesopotamian city-states squabbling for access to water rights of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Ancient records from the time show that, during the first five years of Hammurabi’s reign, he was concerned with religious duties and with building temples, improving irrigation systems, and strengthening Babylon’s fortifications.

See also: Menelik II.

HAMMURABI (d. ca. 1750 B.C.E.) Sixth king (r. ca. 1792–1750 b.c.e.) of the Amonte dynasty of ancient Babylon, an able administrator who established one of the first codes of law and unified Mesopotamia under Babylonian rule. Hammurabi’s reign is considered a high point of Mesopotamian civilization, during which significant advances were made in science, mathematics, and the arts. Hammurabi was the son of King Sin-muballit (r. ca. 1812–1793 b.c.e.) of Babylon. When Hammurabi inherited the Babylonian kingship upon the death of his father, Babylon was only one of a num-

The Code of Hammurabi, written on the ancient stone pillar shown here, was one of the earliest legal codes in human history.This pillar, which shows the god Shamash dictating his laws to King Hammurabi, was discovered by archaeologists at the ruins of the city of Susa in 1901–1902.

368

Hammurabi

Hammurabi’s first military campaign came in 1787 b.c.e., when he clashed with Rim Sin (r. ca. 1822–1763 b.c.e.), ruler of the region of Larsa in southern Mesopotamia, over the cities of Isin and Uruk—traditional buffers between Larsa and Babylon. Both sides seem to have lost interest quickly, however, and Hammurabi soon turned his attention to strengthening the defenses of his northern cities. The next twenty years were characterized more by frenetic building and breaking of coalitions among the more powerful Mesopotamian kingdoms—Babylon, Larsa, Mari, Ashur, and Eshnunna—than by significant military activity. In 1763 b.c.e., however, Hammurabi went to war once more against Rim Sin, this time conquering not only the area between Babylon and Larsa but Larsa itself. The conquest marked the beginning of a massive expansion. Over the next thirteen years, Hammurabi conquered all of the Mesopotamian states, including twenty-three cities. With these victories, Hammurabi secured Babylonian access to water as well as to important metal trade routes, and his kingdom became the dominant power in Mesopotamia. As the empire grew, Hammurabi shifted away from the traditional Babylonian mode of legal governance, which had been developed for a city-state only fifty miles across. He developed a new set of laws, known as the Code of Hammurabi. For many years, the Code of Hammurabi was thought to have been the foundation for the development of Jewish Mosaic laws, but the unearthing of other ancient Mesopotamian law codes suggests that these ancient legal codes may merely have shared a common origin. Discovered by French archaeologist Jean Vincent Scheil in 1901 in the ancient city of Susa, the Code of Hammurabi was divided into an epilogue and 280 judgments.These judgments dealt with both criminal and civil law and with topics ranging from murder, manslaughter, and bodily injury to the illegal removal of palm trees. Many of the judgments vary according to the participants in the case—that is, whether they were slaves, free citizens, or landowners.Yet, a common element in many of the judgments is the principle of an eye for an eye. Hammurabi described the law code as an aid to people in search of legal advice, and it is unclear how binding the judgments were when they were not adjudicated directly by the king. As his personal correspondence makes clear, Hammurabi took a personal and involved role in the daily

administration of the government, eschewing a systematic bureaucracy. During the last two years of his life, Hammurabi suffered from an unknown illness, and the governmental reins were handed to his son, Samsu-iluna (r. ca. 1749–1712 b.c.e.), who succeeded to the throne after his father’s death around 1749 b.c.e. Unfortunately, without a supportive bureaucracy, Samsuiluna was unable to hold the empire together, and it swiftly fell into decline. See also: Middle Eastern Dynasties; Samsu-iluna. FURTHER READING

Edwards, I.E.S., C. J. Gadd, and N.G.L. Hammond, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

HAN DYNASTY (206 B.C.E.–220 C.E.) Chinese dynasty that established Confucianism as the central doctrine for imperial rule and continued to unify China under a strong centralized rule. When the Han gained control of China in 206 b.c.e., the dynasty inherited a highly centralized bureaucratic state from their predecessors, the shortlived Ch’in dynasty (221–206 b.c.e.). Han rulers grafted Confucianism onto this system, creating a model for imperial government that endured for much of Chinese history. At the height of Han rule, Chinese troops ranged 2,000 miles from the capital city, surpassing the journeys of their contemporaries, the Romans.

WESTERN HAN The Han dynasty was founded by Liu Pang (Liu Bang), also known as Emperor Kao Ti (Gaodi) (r. 206–195 b.c.e.), a village official turned rebel who came to power following the collapse of the Ch’in dynasty. Kao Ti declared the founding of the new Han dynasty with its capital at Chang’an, inaugurating the period known as the Western or Former Han. Kao Ti kept the administrative system of the Ch’in, which relied on a centralized bureaucracy, but he eased many of the harsh laws and high taxes instituted by his predecessors.To win the support of aristocrats, Kao Ti granted them large landholdings to govern as feudal estates. He later abolished many of

369

Han Dynasty these feudatories, however, and by 154 b.c.e. most of them had been eliminated by his successors. The Western Han were menaced by constant invasion by the Xiongnu, a union of nomadic tribes to the north. To manage the Xiongnu threat, Kao Ti used diplomacy to avoid expensive military campaigns. The Western Han reached its height under Emperor Wu Ti (Wudi) (r. 141–87 b.c.e.), who founded an imperial university that trained candidates for the bureaucracy in the Confucian classics. Wu Ti instituted a highly centralized government and established government monopolies to increase state revenue. His military campaigns drove the Xiongnu back to the north and doubled China’s territory by expanding Han power into Manchuria, northern Korea, and the region of Xinjiang in the west. His envoy, Chang Ch’ien (Zhang Qian), traveled deep into Central Asia, bringing back China’s first knowledge of other civilized states in the West. A series of weak rulers followed Wu Ti, and the court was plagued by intrigue. In 9 c.e., the last emperor of the Western Han, the boy emperor Ju-tsu (Ruzi) (r. 6–9), was deposed by his regent, Wang

Mang, who proclaimed the short-lived Hsin (Xin) dynasty (9–23). Rebellion broke out in 18 and Wang Mang was killed. According to tradition, the Hsin dynasty marks the division between the Western, or Early Han dynasty, and the Eastern, or Later Han dynasty.

EASTERN HAN In 25, Liu Hsiu (Liu Xiu), a relative of the Han imperial family, reestablished Han rule. Known by his imperial name, Kuang Wu Ti (Guang Wudi) (r. 25– 57), he moved the capital east to the city of Luoyang, inaugurating the Eastern Han period. Under Kuang Wu Ti’s successor, Ming Ti (Mingdi) (r. 57–75), the brilliant general Pan Ch’ao (Ban Chao) subdued the Xiongnu and extended Chinese control into Central Asia, giving China control over large portions of the trade routes that linked China with lands to the west. Foreign trade flourished, with Chinese merchants exchanging silks for ivory, linen, glass, and horses. As the first century of Han rule drew to a close, ambitious regents took power by placing child em-

Western Han Dynasty

Eastern Han Dynasty

Kao Ti

207–195 b.c.e.

Kuang Wu Ti* (Guang Wudi)

25–57

Hui Ti

195–188

Ming Ti

57–75

Lu Hou

188–180

Chang Ti

75–88

Wen Ti

180–157

Ho Ti

Ching Ti

157–141

Wu Ti* (Wudi)

106–125

Shun Ti

125–144

Ch’ung Ti

144–145

Chih Ti

145–146

Huan Ti

146–168

33–7

Ling Ti

168–189

7–1

Shao Ti

189

1 b.c.e.–6 c.e.

Hsien Ti

189–220

87–74

Hsuan Ti

74–48

Yuan Ti

48–33

Ai Ti P’ing Ti Ju-tzu Ying

106

An Ti

141–87

Chao Ti

Ch’eng Ti

Shang Ti

88–106

6–9

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

370

Han Dynasty

perors on the throne. Central control deteriorated and rebellion spread. In the ensuing chaos, three generals rose to power. One of them deposed the last Han emperor, Hsien Ti (Xiandi) (r. 189–220), in 220 and proclaimed the new Wei dynasty. Two rival dynasties also were established by other leaders, marking the end of the Han era and the beginning of the period known as the Three Kingdoms.

THE RISE OF CONFUCIANISM The Han dynasty marks the ascendance of Confucianism as China’s state philosophy. Han rulers found that Confucian ideals, based on the teachings of the Chinese sage Confucius (551–479 b.c.e.) and emphasizing ritual and obedience to authority, provided a useful moral and political philosophy for governing their large empire. Han scholars developed a view of the universe in which the emperor sat at the center of a divine order, linking heaven and earth. Han rulers actively sponsored Confucian scholarship, establishing the study of Confucian classics as the basis for appointments to the bureaucracy. Confucian learning spread and became a unifying force among the scholarly elite throughout China. During the reign of Emperor Wu Ti, a scholar named Ssu-ma Ch’ien (Sima Qian), considered the father of Chinese history, compiled a general history of China.

ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY The Han made important advances in science and technology. Han astronomers discovered sunspots and calculated the orbit of the moon. Other Han inventions included the sundial, the water clock, and the water-powered mill. Agriculture flourished under the Han with the introduction of crop rotation, improved harnesses and plows, and the invention of the wheelbarrow. The most famous Han innovation may be the invention of paper, which replaced the cumbersome wood and bamboo tablets used previously. The Han were extremely interested in the supernatural; this passion was apparent in the magic, spirits, and myths that fill the art and literature of the period. Stone sculpture, associated with magical power, emerged in China at this time. A concern for the afterlife also predominated, evidenced by the elaborate tombs of Han rulers. These tombs contained luxurious provisions for the afterlife, including miniature sculptures of houses, servants, and amusements to replicate the lifestyle of the dead emperor.

See also: Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty; Kuang Wu Ti (Guang Wudi);Three Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Loewe, Michael. Divination, Mythology, and Monarchy in Han China. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

HAN WUDI. See Han Dynasty HANOVER, HOUSE OF (1714–1901 C.E.) Ruling house of Great Britain that oversaw a period of great imperial expansion and industrial growth, and that restored royal power and prestige after years of violence and instability had threatened to undermine the monarchy. Though originally distrusted because of their German roots, the Hanoverians came to embody, especially in Queen Victoria (r. 1837–1901), the essence of British national identity.

ORIGINS The House of Stuart, which held the throne of England for most of the seventeenth century, came to an end with the death of Queen Anne (r. 1702– 1714) in 1714. In order to prevent a Catholic from gaining the throne, the British Parliament had passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 (which Anne signed), ensuring that the monarchy could pass only to a Protestant. At the time of Anne’s death, the closest eligible Protestant heir to the throne was George, elector of Hanover, the great-grandson of King James I (r. 1603–1625). Although there were fiftytwo other individuals—all Catholics or otherwise unfit to rule—between George and the throne, and despite the fact that he could speak no English, George of Hanover was crowned King George I (r. 1714–1727) in 1714, thus beginning the Hanover dynasty, or House of Hanover.

EARLY RULE George paid frequent visits to Hanover and was never able to achieve any real popularity among the British people, who were distrustful of his German ancestry.A group of supporters of James II (r. 1685–1688), the Catholic king who had been exiled during the Glorious

H a nov e r, H ou s e o f

371

long reign of George III, England underwent tremendous change, as the onset of the Industrial Revolution brought with it commercial growth and a population boom. The British Empire also began a long process of expansion, though it did lose its North American territory to the newly formed United States as a result of the American Revolution (1776–1783). George III, the first ruler from the House of Hanover born in England, was both more powerful and more popular than his predecessors. He did not enjoy his popularity, however, because from the 1780s onward George was gripped by deepening bouts of apparent insanity. In fact, his mental aberrations were caused by porphyria, a blood disease. In 1811, with his mental faculties completely reduced and his eyesight nearly gone, George was stripped of his power by Parliament, though not his title. His eldest son was named prince regent and became king upon the death of George III in 1820.

Scandal and Setback The Hanover Dynasty of Great Britain ruled from the early eighteenth to the early twentieth century, a period of territorial expansion and economic growth. Its longestruling monarch, King George III, is remembered chiefly for losing the American colonies.

Revolution, mounted a series of uprisings throughout the early eighteenth century, but none of these was successful in removing George from the throne. With the death of George I in 1727, the Crown passed to his only son, who reigned as George II (r. 1727–1760). More respected by the British public than his father due to his willingness to involve himself in England’s affairs, George II had the good fortune to oversee England at a time of economic growth and military success, even leading troops personally into battle during the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). Both George II and his father relied heavily on the political skills of Sir Robert Walpole, the chancellor of the Exchequer and first lord of the Treasury, who was the predecessor to the modern role of prime minister.

George IV (r. 1820–1830) was the opposite of his father in temperament, and his scandalous affairs and wasteful extravagance cost the monarchy much of its prestige, both at home and abroad. Aside from promoting culture, George did little as king, and though his reign coincided with a period of great literary achievement in Britain, he is remembered for his hedonism rather than for his governance. As George left no heirs, the Crown passed to his brother, William IV (r. 1830–1837), upon his death in 1830. Only slightly more politically involved than his brother, and similarly touched by scandal,William IV oversaw several important changes in Britain, though

House of Hanover George I

1714–1727

George II

1727–1760

George III

1760–1820

George IV

1820–1830

THE HEIGHT OF BRITISH POWER

William IV

1830–1837

George II, whose son Frederick Louis died before him, was succeeded at his death by his grandson, who reigned as George III (r. 1760–1820). During the

Victoria

1837–1901

372

H a nov e r, H ou s e o f

he did little to support or hinder them.The most notable occurrence of his reign was the passage in 1832 of the first of three Reform Bills, which expanded the voting population significantly, though it retained the privileged status of the powerful landed gentry. William’s reign also witnessed the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833 and the first attempt to create an organized national system for assisting the poor. William was the first British monarch who resolved to cooperate with his prime minister, even if he disliked him.

PRESTIGE AND POWER RESTORED At William’s death in 1837, the Crown passed to his niece Victoria, the last of the Hanoverian monarchs. Victoria’s reign saw the high point of Great Britain’s power, and she was awarded more respect and admiration than almost any other monarch in English history. Over the course of her sixty-four-year reign —the longest of any British monarch—England experienced tremendous economic and social success, as imperial expansion and industrial growth filled the nation’s treasury, and new laws doubled the size of the voting population. Scientific and technological advances occurred at a hitherto unseen rate, and many of the institutions and devices associated with modernity made their debut. Victoria’s marriage to her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, united her family with that Germanic dynasty, thus making Victoria the last true Hanoverian monarch. Upon her death in 1901, the Crown passed to her eldest son, Edward VII (r. 1901–1910). See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Anne; Empire; George I; George II; George III; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty;Victoria. FURTHER READING

Redman, Alvin. The House of Hanover. New York: Coward-McCann, 1961. Sinclair-Stevenson, Christopher. Blood Royal: The Illustrious House of Hanover. London: Jonathan Cape, 1979.

HARALD III HARDRAADE

tle of Stamford Bridge during the Norman invasion of England in 1066. Harald Hardraade was the half-brother of King Olaf II of Norway (r. 1016–1030). In 1030, Harald supported his brother against the Danes at the battle of Stiklarstathir, in which Olaf was killed and Harald was wounded. Fleeing Danish-ruled Norway after that defeat, Harald took service as a mercenary, first with King Yaroslav the Wise (r. 1019–1054) in Russia and then in the Byzantine Empire, where he participated in campaigns against the Seljuk Turks. After the death of Cnut the Great (r. 1019–1035) of Denmark in 1035, Norway returned to Norwegian rule under Olaf’s son, Magnus I the Good (r. 1035– 1046). Magnus and Cnut’s son Harthacnut had agreed that each would inherit the other’s kingdom if the other should die without a direct heir. Harthacnut ruled Denmark (r. 1035–1042) and became king of England (r. 1040–1042) when his half-brother Harold I Harefoot of England (r. 1037–1040) died in 1040. However, when Harthacnut died without an heir in 1042, the English chose Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066), Harthacnut’s half-brother and son of King Aethelred II (r. 978–1016) of England, to be king. Harald Hardraade became co-ruler of Norway with his nephew Magnus I in 1045 and sole king on Magnus’s death in 1046. He spent the next two decades strengthening his position in the north. Under Harald, Norway once again became a great Scandinavian power. However, Harald did not forget Magnus’s claim to inherit England, and on the death of Edward the Confessor in 1066, he asserted his right to the English Crown as Magnus’s heir. Harald invaded England in the autumn of 1066 and captured York, but was defeated and killed by King Harold II Godwinson (r. 1066) of England at Stamford Bridge shortly afterward. Harold II’s need to ride south at once to oppose the invasion of William of Normandy (William the Conqueror), possibly leaving his footsoldier archers behind, may have been a factor in Harold’s defeat at the battle of Hastings. See also: Cnut I; Edward the Confessor; Harold II Godwinson; Norwegian Monarchy; Olaf II (Saint Olaf);William I.

(1015–1066 C.E.)

Viking king of Norway, surnamed Hardraade (“hardcounsel”), who claimed England and died at the bat-

HARAPPAN STATES. See South Asian Kingdoms

Harems

HAREMS The section of homes or palaces set aside for women, especially in Muslim countries. In some harems, the women were there to give pleasure to the ruler.The founder of Islam, the prophet Muhammad, did not originate the idea of harems or of isolating or veiling women, but he did support these concepts and spread them along with Islam. Before that, the harem existed in pre-Islamic states of the ancient Near East, where it was a protected private lodging area for women. During that pre-Islamic period, women could be active in public life as well, however, which was not usually the case in Islamic harems. Harems with both similar and differing aspects have existed in many other parts of the world as well.

PRE-ISLAMIC HAREMS In pre-Islamic Egypt, Persia, and Assyria, nearly all royal courts had a harem, which contained the monarch’s wives and concubines, their female attendants, and eunuchs. These imperial harems had significant political as well as social functions. Rulers frequently acquired more wives for their harems in order to strengthen political ties. And since wives tried to gain the most influential positions for themselves and their sons, harems were the scene of much rivalry for dominance in the court and over royal successions. As the women in harems were generally from prominent families, harem plots often had far-reaching consequences, sometimes even leading to the collapse of ruling dynasties. In ancient Egypt, the harem was solely the place where women resided in the home or palace. Kings had a number of palaces and many large harems. Each royal harem had its own estate, with money, land, and peasants to take care of food and other necessities. Royal harems and private harems differed in size, economic independence, and marital status of the women. The harem in private homes was where single women lived, while the royal harem was the residence for the king’s secondary wives and their servants and children. The secondary wives were well respected; some were Egyptian, whereas others were daughters of kings from other lands sent to Egypt as symbols of peace. Physically, the royal harem generally consisted of a group of mud-brick buildings surrounded by a high mud-brick wall. The

373

homes generally encircled an open courtyard, and other buildings in the residential complex were used for storage and worship.

ISLAMIC HAREMS IN TURKEY In the courts of Muslim Turkey, the sultan’s harem was a complex organization with officers maintaining order and obedience. It was supervised by the sultan’s mother, called the valide sultan.When Sultan Mehmet II (r. 1451–1481) conquered the Byzantine capital of Constantinople in 1453, he let the valide sultan arrange her house as closely as possible to the women’s quarters of the Empress Helen, the widow of Byzantine emperor Constantine XI (r. 1449– 1453). The women, who lived in the most secluded part of the palace, were divided up to perform various tasks and were guarded by a huge corps of male eunuchs. The women in the Turkish harems included nonMuslim slave girls, who sometimes were sent to the sultan’s court by their parents. Despite misgivings about their daughters becoming concubines, the parents were glad to send them to a life of luxury and ease. Once accepted into the harem, the slaves were converted to Islam and taught to be good concubines. The most beautiful and talented were trained to be concubines and learned to dance, play musical instruments, recite poetry, and perform erotic arts. Twelve of the best-looking and most gifted odalisques were chosen as the sultan’s maids-in-waiting. They dressed and bathed him, did his laundry, and served his food and coffee.

ISLAMIC HAREMS IN INDIA Harems in other Islamic countries had the same basic features as those in Turkey, with some of their own native characteristics. In India, harems were huge enclosed compounds with luxurious buildings inhabited by women. The average Muslim harem in India had about 2,000 women and was very sumptuous. The harem of the Mughal emperor Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605) had about 5,000 women. While women in the harems were there for the king to enjoy, there were also a large number of women besides queens and concubines who managed the harems. The harems were places of both amusement and tight security where everyone had to defer to the ruler’s wishes. For instance, Sultan Ghiath-al-Din of Malwa (r. 1469–1500) had a harem of 15,000 women, which was organized like a small

374

Harems

ROYAL PLACES

TOPKAPI PALACE About ten years after his conquest of Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), Mehmet II built the lavish Topkapi Palace on the sacred Seraglio Point, a splendid promontory between the Marmara Sea and the Golden Horn. Ancient legend had it that the Delphic Oracle named that spot as the finest for a new colony and it had become the Acropolis of ancient Byzantium. The sultan’s Seraglio was the seat of imperial power, and thousands of people lived there and worked in his personal and administrative service.The sultan’s harem was the most private area of the Seraglio, effectively isolated from the rest of the palace.The harem first moved to the Seraglio in 1541, and it lasted until 1909, becoming the quintessential example of an Islamic harem. With nearly four hundred rooms, the Seraglio was situated between the sultan’s private apartments and those of the chief eunuch.Two houses linked the harem to the outside world, and they were guarded vigilantly.The eunuchs’ quarters, and those of the valide sultan and the odalisques, were nearby.The lavishness of accommodations was based on the status of the occupants. Naturally, the sultan’s quarters were the most sumptuous.Women of high rank had private apartments in the Seraglio, whereas new odalisques and eunuchs dwelled in dormitories. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, young princes received governorships and left the Seraglio with their own harems, decreasing the size of the Seraglio harem from more than one thousand to just a few hundred women. In the seventeenth century, however, when inheritance laws changed and princes were imprisoned in the harem pending succession, it grew again to almost two thousand inhabitants.

political state. It was guarded by two corps of women, each consisting of 500 slave girls from Africa and Turkey, whose function was to protect the chastity of the royal queens and concubines. The harem of the king or emperor was headed by a eunuch who catered loyally to the king’s needs, teaching the harem women how to be beautiful and how to satisfy the ruler sexually and in other ways. The women could spend an entire day adorning themselves with make-up, fragrances, and beautiful clothes.

NON-ISLAMIC HAREMS IN CHINA Accounts indicate that by the eighth century b.c.e., kings in China kept one queen, three primary consorts, nine wives of second rank, twenty-seven wives of third, fourth, and fifth ranks, and eighty-one concubines of sixth, seventh, and eighth ranks—for a

total of 121 women in a harem. Chinese imperial harems also could be much larger, with thousands of women. These huge harems had well-supervised rotating schedules for sex based on the women’s menstrual cycles. Women in the Chinese harems usually were selected from other royal families, unlike the women in the Turkish harems who were primarily prisoners of war or slaves. Nor did they learn the skills taught to the Turkish women, such as dancing, singing, playing musical instruments, and story-telling. However, like the valide sultan in the Turkish harems, the empress dowager in the imperial Chinese harem had considerable power. She chose the emperor’s wives and concubines and could help select potential successors if the emperor died. As a member of the older generation, she also had some influence over the emperor’s actions.

H a rol d I I G odw i n s on HAREM-LIKE ARRANGEMENTS IN THE NEW WORLD Accounts by Franciscan friars in Mexico say that the Aztec emperor Montezuma II (r. 1502–1520) had 4,000 concubines and that each Aztec nobleman had as many women as he could afford, which often numbered in the hundreds for the noblest individuals. Similarly, in Peru, according to Spanish chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega (son of a Spanish governor and Incan princess), Incan kings had houses in every province that contained as many as 1,500 virgins.

HAREMS AS A SOURCE OF POWER In smaller societies as well, the number of women in harems was clearly a measure of the power wielded by a ruler or chieftain. Successful hunters on the Kalahari Desert in South Africa might have two or three wives rather than just one. In the Amazon, native chieftains had up to ten wives, and in Polynesia—on the islands of Fiji, Samoa, and Tahiti—chiefs usually kept about one hundred women. Meanwhile, in numerous larger realms, the number of women in the royal harems reached into the thousands. See also:Concubines, Royal; Consorts, Royal; Eunuchs, Royal; Legitimacy; Marriage of Kings; Polygamy, Royal. FURTHER READING

Coco, Carla. Secrets of the Harem. New York: Vendome, 1997. Croutier, Alev Lytle. Harem:The World Behind the Veil. New York: Abbeville, 1989.

HAROLD II GODWINSON (1020–1066 C.E.)

Last Anglo-Saxon king of England (r. 1066), who lost the battle of Hastings (at Senlac Hill) to William, duke of Normandy, in 1066. This defeat, one of the most famous battles in English history, was the first and most decisive event in the conquest of England by the Normans. Harold was born in 1020 to Godwin, earl of Wessex, and his wife Edith. Although not of royal blood himself, Godwin came from a powerful noble family. He had been the first counselor to King Cnut (r. 1016–1035) and had connected his family through

375

marriages to some of the most powerful families in Northern Europe. Godwin’s daughter Edith married King Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066) of England, his nephew Sweyn became ruler of Denmark, and his son Tostig became the earl of Northumbria and married Judith, the daughter of the count of Flanders. Godwin’s political power angered and frightened the Norman advisers of Edward the Confessor, who persuaded Edward to depose Godwin from his seat in Wessex in 1051 and confiscate his properties. Godwin and Harold fled to exile in Flanders, but Harold returned in 1052, invading southwestern England. He defeated the king’s armies and then was joined by his father in an advance on London. Despite this action, Edward named Harold as earl of Wessex upon Godwin’s death in 1053. Harold followed this honor by conducting a rapid and brilliant military campaign in Wales, ultimately presenting the head of the Welsh king, Gruffydd I (r. 1039– 1063), to a frightened and diffident King Edward in 1063. Just before his death, in January 1066, Edward named Harold as his successor, and the ruling body of Anglo-Saxon nobles—the witenagemot—crowned Harold within a month of the king’s death. Meanwhile, Harold’s brother Tostig, who had been exiled in 1051 along with Godwin and Harold but had not been called back by either his father or brother, made a secret alliance with Duke William of Normandy and persuaded King Harald III Hardraade of Norway (r. 1045–1066) to attack England in the north. In a remarkable three-day march, the freshly installed Harold of England led his army from London to York, where they surprised and defeated Tostig’s and Harald’s forces at the battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25,1066. During the celebrations following this victory, Harold learned that William of Normandy had landed in Sussex in southern England and was laying waste to the countryside there. Despite advice to rest his men, Harold force-marched to Hastings and met William’s forces there. Though rash and exhausted, Harold was not a foolish leader; he was an experienced and gifted military commander. He positioned his heavy infantry (he had no cavalry or missile weapons) along the top of a ridge named Senlac Hill and waited for William’s heavy cavalry to attack. The battle that ensued on October 14, 1066, was long and hard-fought. At one

376

H a rol d I I G odw i n s on

point, a cry went up that William was slain, but this proved false.At another point in the battle,William’s Breton infantry broke, but he was able to rally them. As night approached, it seemed that the battle might end in a stalemate—until one of William’s archers struck Harold in the eye. Half-blind, Harold staggered through the enemy lines and was hacked to pieces by Norman swords. Harold’s death at the battle of Hastings marked the end of over five hundred years of Anglo-Saxon dominion over the British Isles. See also:Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Edward the Confessor; English Monarchies; Harald III Hardraade; Wessex Kingdom;William I, the Conqueror.

HARUN AL-RASHID (766–809 C.E.) Fifth caliph (r. 786–809) of the Abbasid dynasty, immortalized in One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, a classic of Arabic literature, who ruled the Islamic Empire at the peak of its power. Harun was the second son of al-Mahdi (775– 785), the third Abbasid caliph, and al-Khayzuran, a former slave girl. In 780 and 782, Harun led troops on his father’s behalf to reconquer lands previously taken from the caliphate by the rulers of the Byzantine Empire. His campaign was so successful that the Byzantine ruler, the Empress Irene (r. 797–802), agreed as part of the peace treaty to pay a large annual tribute to Baghdad. Al-Mahdi was so pleased with the military success that Harun came to be known as ar-Rashid (the Upright). While Harun’s older brother, al-Hadi, had been named heir, al-Mahdi may have wished to make Harun heir designate. But whether that was the case will never be known, for Al-Mahdi died on a military campaign in 785 before he could do so. When alHadi (r. 785–786) died the following year, it was said that Khayzuran, the mother of both princes, had arranged for someone to smother al-Hadi with pillows. Upon the death of his older brother, Harun alRashid took the throne. Upon succeeding to the caliphate, Harun alRashid appointed his mother’s chief supporter and his own former tutor, Yahya the Barmakid, as his vizier, or chief adviser and administrator. Yahya and his sons held considerable sway in the empire, largely ruling in the name of the caliph, particularly between the death of al-Khayzuran in 789 and their fall

from power in 803. As vizier, Yahya was a just and able ruler.Wise and effective, he saw that roads were built and that the provinces prospered. Harun’s large empire—spanning from the Indus River in the east to the Atlantic Ocean coast of North Africa in the west—saw considerable internal conflict. To relieve internal struggles, Harun began a policy of allowing regional dynasties to rule. However, this policy eventually weakened the unity of the empire and led eventually to the fall of the Abbasid dynasty. Under Harun al-Rashid, the court in Baghdad became known for its lavishness. Learning was encouraged, and poets and musicians were rewarded with generous gifts. Baghdad came to be seen as the center of the civilized world, combining the splendor of great wealth with the flowering of Islamic culture. In 803,Yahya and the Barmakids fell under Harun’s displeasure, although the reason is unclear. Historians have suggested that perhaps Harun felt frustrated by the power of the Barmakids or that he coveted their wealth. Some suggest that the conflict may have involved different factions at court, with the Barmakids favoring a group that Harun wished to suppress. In any event, Harun had the Barmakids imprisoned, and the family’s wealth reverted to the throne. Harun died in 809, having fallen victim to illness while on a military campaign to put down a revolt in Khorasan. His son al-Amin (r. 809–813) succeeded him as caliph. Although Harun al-Rashid presided over a period of unparalleled wealth and culture, he left a kingdom restless with internal struggles that erupted into civil war not long after his death. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Caliphates.

HASHEMITE DYNASTY (ca. 200 C.E.–PRESENT)

Arab dynasty whose members have ruled various parts of the Arabian Peninsula and Mediterranean Middle East, including Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. The ruler of the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan is the only remaining Hashemite monarch.

ORIGINS AND EARLY HISTORY The Hashemite dynasty originated in pre-Islamic Arabia and traces its origins back to the Arab chieftan Quraysh, supposedly a descendant of the prophets Is-

377

Hashemite Dynasty mail and Ibrahim (Abraham). Quraysh migrated to Mecca in the second century, and his descendant Qusayy became the leader of Mecca in 480. The dynasty’s founder, Hashem, was the grandson of Qusayy and a great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad. The Hashemites (also known as the Bani Hashem) are directly descended from the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali, the fourth caliph of Islam.The descendants of Ali and Fatima’s elder son,Al-Hassan, are known as Sharifs, and it is this branch of the dynasty from which the modern Hashemite rulers are descended. The religious significance of this heritage has played a strong role in underpinning the Hashemite claim to rule large areas of the Islamic Middle East. Throughout the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, a number of Sharifian families dominated the Hijaz region of Western Arabia. Although the Ottoman Empire conquered the Hijaz in 1517, the branch of the Hashemite family that had ruled Mecca since 1201 continued to play an important role in its governance as vassals of the Ottoman sultan. In the mid-1800s, the Hashemites were the most prominent and powerful family in Mecca. But by the early twentieth century, the Hijaz was beginning to chafe under the demands of Ottoman rule and Western imperialist expansion. When the Ottoman Empire allied with the Central Powers in World War I, the British Empire lent its support to an Arab nationalist uprising led by the Hashemite sharif Hussein bin Ali, emir of Mecca.

HASHEMITE ASCENDANCY AND MODERN-DAY RULE The Arab Revolt of 1916 and the end of World War I led to victory for the Hashemites. Hussein’s oldest son Ali remained in Mecca as his father’s heir, while his second son Faisal, who had fought in the revolt alongside British army officer T.E. Lawrence, became viceroy of Syria and Jordan and then declared himself king of Syria in 1920. However, a secret FrenchBritish pact, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, had reserved Syria and Lebanon as areas of French colonial influence, and the French army drove Faisal from the Syrian capital of Damascus. With British support, Faisal later became king of Iraq (r. 1921–1933), and his younger brother Abdullah became the emir of Transjordan. The Hashemite dynasty held sway over this large territory for only a short period, however. In 1925,

The rulers of modern Jordan are members of the Hashemite dynasty, which dates to the third century c.e. Abdullah II took the throne after his father, King Hussein, died of cancer in 1999. In this photograph, King Abdullah visits his father’s grave, along with his wife, brother, and two children.

Ali was deposed as ruler of Mecca by the House of Saud, which still rules Saudi Arabia today. King Faisal I of Iraq died in 1933, and his son and successor, King Ghazi (r. 1933–1939), ruled for only six years. After Ghazi’s death, Ali’s son Abd al-Illah served as regent for Ghazi’s young son, Faisal II, who reached his majority in 1953 and began to rule on his own. In 1958, however, Faisal II was assassinated in a military coup that put an end to the Iraqi monarchy. The emirate of Transjordan gained full independence from Britain in 1946 and became the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan under the rule of King Abdullah I

Hashemite Kings of Jordan Abdullah bin al-Hussein 1921–1951 Talal bin Abdullah

1951–1952

Hussein bin Talal

1952–1999

Abdullah II

1999–

378

Hashemite Dynasty

(r. 1946–1951). On July 20, 1951,Abdullah was killed while attending prayers at the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem. His grandson Hussein (r. 1952– 1999) narrowly escaped the assassin’s bullet and became king in 1952, following a brief period of rule by his mentally unstable father, King Talal (r. 1951– 1952). At his death in 1999, King Hussein of Jordan was succeeded by his oldest son King Abdullah II (r. 1999– ), the present ruler of the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan and the head of the Hashemite dynasty today. Abdullah’s half-brother Hamzah, son of Hussein and his Arab-American wife Queen Noor, is the crown prince of Jordan and the current heir to the Hashemite throne. See also: Faisal I; Hussein I; Quraysh Kingdom FURTHER READING

Milton-Edwards, Beverly, and Peter Jordon. A Hashemite Legacy. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2001.

HASMONEAN KINGDOM (ca. 104–63 B.C.E.)

Short-lived kingdom of the land of Judea in ancient Palestine during the last century b.c.e. In 168 b.c.e., the Seleucid king Antiochus IV (r. 175–164 b.c.e.) forbade the Jewish people of Jerusalem from practicing their religion and had altars to Greek gods erected in their temple. He was determined to promote the Hellenization of Judea and suppress Judaism. Antiochus’s policies and actions outraged many Jews in Jerusalem, who chafed under Seleucid rule. Led by the Hasmonean family, later known as the Maccabees, some religious Jews left the city and began planning a revolt against Antiochus and the Seleucids. The Hasmoneans were headed by the father of five sons, an old priest named Mattathias.When Mattathias died in 166 b.c.e., his son Judas, nicknamed Maccabeus (“Hammer-headed”), succeeded him as leader of the Hasmoneans. Judas was a superior general, and, though vastly outnumbered by the opposing Greek and Syrian troops, he managed to gain control of Jerusalem by 164 b.c.e. and became the de facto leader (r. 166–160 b.c.e.).

In 142 b.c.e., Simon (r. 143–135 b.c.e.), another son of Mattathias and a successor of Judas Maccabeus as head of the Hasmonean family, signed a treaty with the Seleucids that gained political independence for Judea. Far from maintaining the ideals on which the Hasmonean revolt had begun, however, the new state that evolved under Simon and his successors soon became as intolerant toward non-Jews as the Seleucids had been to Jews. Simon’s successor, his son John Hyrcanus (r. 135– 104 b.c.e.), was an ambitious leader who extended the borders of his domain, conquering the regions of Samaria and Idumaea. He also moved into Galilee and east of the Jordan River. John forced all conquered peoples to convert to Judaism or be expelled from Judea. During John’s rule, political factions began to divide the Jews, and the Pharisees, a powerful religious and political party, became the fiercest objectors to the Hasmoneans and Hasmonean rule. By the time of the rule of Alexander Jannaeus (r. 103–76 b.c.e.), a son of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean leaders of Judea were calling themselves kings. Through conquest, Alexander extended his territory farther. He also began a policy of mass slaughter of his rivals. Upon his death in 76 b.c.e., his wife and successor, Salome Alexandra (r. 76–67 b.c.e.), tried to appease the Pharisees, but this tactic came too late. After Salome Alexandra’s death in 67 b.c.e., her sons Hyrcanus II (r. 67–63 b.c.e.) and Aristobulus II (r. ca. 67–63 b.c.e.) engaged in a civil war that lasted until 63 b.c.e.This conflict brought about the demise of Hasmonean rule.With the urging of the Pharisees, the Roman general Pompey entered the war and captured Jerusalem in 63 b.c.e. The Maccabees made a number of efforts to throw off Roman rule but were ultimately unsuccessful. Hyrcanus II, the last Hasmonean leader, was reinstalled as high priest by the Romans, but he was put to death in 30 b.c.e. on charges of treason. See also: Judaism and Kingship; Seleucid Dynasty.

HASSAN II (1929–1999 C.E.) King of Morocco (r. 1961–1999) who persistently strove to unify his country. Hassan was the son of King Muhammad V (r. 1955–1961), sixteenth ruler of the Alawite dynasty of Morocco. Muhammad

H at s h e p s u t named his son Moulay Hassan after his ancestor Hassan I, who ruled Morocco from 1873 to 1894. The education of young prince Hassan was a blend of traditional and modern that included both Arab-Islamic training and Westernized studies. In 1934, he started religious classes at the Koranic school of the Royal Palace. After finishing primary school in 1941, Hassan studied with prominent Moroccan and foreign teachers at the Imperial College established by his father. Hassan earned the Baccalaureate degree in 1948 and advanced law degrees at the Institute of Higher Judicial Studies in Rabat (then part of the College of Law of Bordeaux, France). In addition to his formal education, Hassan was introduced early on to royal politics, traditions, and national affairs. As a young prince he participated in several significant historic events, including a trip to Tangiers in 1947, where his father gave a speech to claim Morocco’s independence from France.The prince spoke at the event, too, calling on the country’s youth to mobilize for the independence of Morocco. When French colonial authorities exiled his father and the whole royal family—first to Corsica in 1953 and then to Madagascar in 1954—Prince Hassan became his father’s political adviser and participated in ensuing negotiations for independence. In 1955, the royal family returned from exile, and Morocco’s independence was recognized by France. Hassan continued his political involvement in the newly independent nation, becoming chief of staff of the Royal Armed Forces in 1956. He was named official crown prince of Morocco in 1957. Hassan became king of Morocco upon his father’s death in 1961.Throughout the Cold War era, he pursued a neutral international policy, courting both the United States and communist nations. At the same time, he gained a reputation as a staunch Arab nationalist who focused on unifying the kingdom, even in the face of opposition and several attempted military coups. He was sometimes criticized internationally for his heavy-handed support of social inequality and suppression of popular unrest. Hassan also is credited with more pacifying deeds. He participated in the Middle East peace process, which culminated in the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. He later appeased some of its opponents by shifting Moroccan rule toward a constitutional monarchy and involving dissidents in government. In the early 1990s, Hassan released more

379

than 800 political adversaries and commuted 195 death sentences, actions that helped to improve Morocco’s relations abroad. Hassan II died from a heart attack in 1999. Upon his death, his son, thirty-year-old Crown Prince Sidi Mohammed, a four-star general and coordinator of the Royal Armed Forces, succeeded to the throne as King Mohammed VII (r. 1999– ). See also: Muhammad V

HATSHEPSUT (ca. 1540–1483 B.C.E.) Wife of Pharaoh Thutmose II (r. 1518–1504 b.c.e.), who is known for pushing aside her husband and taking control of Egypt (r. 1503–1483 b.c.e.), even referring to herself as pharaoh or king. Hatshepsut was the favored daughter of Thutmose I (r. 1524–1518 b.c.e.), third pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty of ancient Egypt, and Queen Ahmose. Well educated and intelligent, Hatshepsut showed a facility for handling affairs of state, and her father came to rely upon her advice and managerial skills during his reign.When Thutmose I neared death, he decided that Hatshepsut would be co-regent with his heir, her brother Thutmose II. Accordingly, she and her brother were wed, as was required by Egyptian pharaonic tradition. Hatshepsut gave birth to a daughter, Neferure, who died young. She produced no sons to inherit the throne. Accustomed from her youth to exercising the judgment of a pharaoh and indulged in her administrative skills by her father, Hatshepsut was impatient with her assigned role as helpmeet to her husband. By the second year of Thutmose II’s reign, she succeeded in shouldering him aside and taking full authority over the empire. When her husband died around 1504 b.c.e., there was no one of suitable age and royal status to succeed to the throne except Thutmose III (r. 1504–1450 b.c.e.), an infant son of Thutmose II and a secondary wife, Isis. Hatshepsut was named regent. For a short while, Hatshepsut acted according to expectations, ruling the country but acknowledging that she was only acting in behalf of young Thutmose III. However, when he became old enough to challenge her right to rule, she took steps to retain power. She began making extravagant claims: that she was the actual daughter of Amun, the sun-god

380

H at s h e p s u t

One of the great female pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, Hatshepsut devoted much of her energy to building monuments, including her mortuary temple. Dramatically situated, it lies at the head of a valley, surrounded by high cliffs and a peak known as the “Lover of Silence.”

and that Amun had decreed that she should be pharaoh. She sent Thutmose into the military, perhaps hoping that he would be distracted by the excitement of war and forget about claiming his throne. With Thutmose III out of the way, Hatshepsut began assuming the ritual responsibilities and the ritual attire of a male king. In 1503 b.c.e., she went so far as to formally declare herself pharaoh. Hatshepsut had the backing of the priesthood dedicated to Amun, as well as the full support of the royal court. No doubt the religious hierarchy was gratified by her support of ritual and her aggressive policy of temple building. Indeed, Hatshepshut seems to have devoted a large proportion of her energies to a program of monument-building, most of which was directly aimed at glorifying her name and her rule. Her reign coincided with a period of internal stability within Egypt, but she was perhaps too inattentive to the needs of the larger empire. Imperial control over the more distant provinces was weakening, and it would later fall to Thutmose III to reclaim them. Hatshepshut never willingly relinquished power

to Thutmose III, and this may have been her undoing. Around 1458 b.c.e., she died unexpectedly, and some think that Thutmose III may have had a hand in hastening her death. It does appear that he strongly resented her long monopoly over the pharaohship, for immediately after she died he began an aggressive campaign to destroy all her monuments, replacing them with monuments celebrating his military prowess.The powerful queen was nonetheless buried with the honors owed to a pharaoh, and her mummified remains were laid to rest next to her father’s in the Valley of the Kings. See also: Egyptian Dynasties,Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth);Thutmose III. FURTHER READING

Breasted, James H. A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. New York: Bantam Books, 1964. Gardiner, Alan Henderson, Sir. Egypt of the Pharoahs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

H aw a i i a n K i n g d o m s

HAWAIIAN KINGDOMS Kingdoms on the Polynesian-populated archipelago of Hawaii in the eastern Pacific, ruled by numerous chieftains before being united in 1795. Originally settled in the fifth century by Polynesians migrating from the Marquesas Islands, Hawaii experienced a wave of immigration from Tahiti in the ninth and tenth centuries. Skilled seamen, these early Polynesian immigrants navigated by observing nature, following the stars, sea currents, and migrating birds. Once established in the lush and secluded setting of the Hawaiian Islands, the new immigrants found little reason to return to their homelands, and they soon developed a thriving and individualized Hawaiian culture. Although the islands were rich in food resources, material production was limited by the lack of metal deposits, clay for pottery, and land animals large enough to serve as beasts of burden. The Hawaiians ingeniously used the abundant shell, wood, stone, and bone, applying them to techniques for island navigation—the construction of double and outrigger canoes. A strong and inventive people, the Hawaiians honed their military skills through athletic contests, and they developed an advanced method of calendar-keeping. Because early Hawaiians had no written language, current knowledge of the islands’ history is limited to the rich Hawaiian oral tradition and to the scattered impressions of the Europeans, who first reached the islands in 1778. Captain James Cook, who explored much of the Pacific in the name of the British Crown, landed on Kauai Island in that year, and he communicated successfully with the local people, who treated him as a god. When Cook returned to Hawaii the next year, however, he was killed in a skirmish with the islanders at Kealakekua Bay.

381

Maui and Molokai, and he then utilized European sharpshooters to defeat the king of Oahu. For the first time, Hawaii was a unified state, and the Hawaiian monarchy was definitively established. Over the following years, Kamehameha strengthened Hawaiian autonomy even as the islands were faced with an onslaught of deadly foreign disease, religion, and trade interests. Although he maintained the traditional kapu legal system, which meted out harsh punishments, Kamehameha also worked to prevent the exploitation of the poor. He established Honolulu as Hawaii’s leading trading center, and he shrewdly instituted a governmentally controlled sandalwood monopoly that soon generated a significant fortune for the newly united kingdom.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT AND FOREIGN RULE By the 1820s, American and European whalers exploiting the rich resources of the Pacific had established outposts on the Hawaiian archipelago.

UNIFYING THE ISLANDS The Hawaii encountered by Captain James Cook was under the shifting control of various warring chieftains. As an archipelago, it was relatively easy for an ambitious chieftain to gain control of an island, but the conquest of the entire island chain was a task suitable only for a great conqueror. In 1795, Kamehameha I the Great (r. 1795–1819) of the island of Hawaii emerged as this conqueror. Kamehameha swept swiftly with his troops across

King Kalakaua was the next-to-last ruler of Hawaii. His attempts to revive various native practices, including the hula dance, were opposed by American settlers on the islands and only contributed to the weakening of the monarchy.

382

H aw a i i a n K i n g d o m s

Kamehameha Dynasty Kamehameha the Great* 1795–1819 Kamehameha II

1819–1824

Kamehameha III

1825–1854

Kamehameha IV

1854–1863

Kamehameha V

1863–1872

Lunalilo

1873–1874

Kalakaua

1874–1891

Liliuokalani*

1891–1893

business interests on the islands. Responding to her appeal, U.S. President Grover Cleveland declared that the queen should be reinstated. The sugar barons, unhappy with the order from the president, ignored it, and placed Liliuokalani under house arrest. To escape continued imprisonment, she signed a formal abdication in 1895, ending the Hawaiian monarchy. (Liliuokalani later claimed that her abdication was invalid because it was coerced.) Nevertheless, Sanford Dole continued as governor, and in 1900, as American interest in the Pacific increased, the United States formally annexed Hawaii. See also: Kamehameha I, the Great; Liliuokalani; South Sea Island Kingdoms.

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry. FURTHER READINGS

Christian missionaries soon followed, and they developed strengthening relationships with the royal family, which influenced the development of a constitutional government under the leadership of King Kamehameha III (r. 1825–1854). Great Britain, France, and the United States soon made formal acknowledgments of Hawaian independence. Foreign populations in the islands continued to grow, however, and with them foreign influence increased as well. Foreign-held corporations gained an increasing stronghold on the Hawaiian economy. In the late 1800s, King David Kalakaua (r. 1874– 1891), attempting to limit foreign influence, revived a number of native Hawaiian practices, including the hula dance, which had been repressed by Christian missionaries because it was considered lewd and too sexual. Powerful sugar barons, concerned with what they saw as Kalakaua’s excesses, began to build private armies, uniting under the name of the Hawaiian League. In 1891, Kalakaua’s sister, Liliuokalani (r. 1891–1917), succeeded to the Hawaiian throne and promptly prepared to proclaim a new constitution that would strengthen the power of the monarchy. Before she could do so, however, American businessmen seized control of the Hawaiian Supreme Court, declared a provisional American government, and named businessman Sanford Dole as governor. They appealed to the United States government for annexation, even as Queen Liliuokalani appealed to the U.S. government as well, seeking help against the

Daws, Gavan. Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974.

HEALING POWERS OF KINGS Kings have always been considered superior beings with powers and talents that separate them from the masses. In medieval Europe, many people believed that kings possessed the power to heal illness merely by touching the sick. This belief was shared by a number of European nations, including France, England, Hungary, and Spain. In France, belief in the healing powers of the Royal Touch existed for at least 1,300 years, from the sixth to the nineteenth centuries. At coronations and on certain holy days, the sick would line up to receive a touch from the king. The French monarchs were believed to be able to cure numerous diseases, such as epilepsy and scrofula (tuberculosis of the lymphatic glands), which was known as the king’s evil.The French practice was extremely widespread. For example, Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) touched 1,600 people at Versailles in a single day. In England, the practice of the king’s touch dates back at least as far as Henry I (r. 1100–1135). The Norman conquest imported all things French to England—language, music, customs—including the belief in the healing powers of the king. English kings were believed to have the power to cure the king’s evil. The practice continued throughout the Middle

H e av e n s a n d K i n g s h i p Ages. In the sixteenth century, those who received the king’s touch were given an angel coin, known as a touchpiece. The king’s touch was especially practiced by the Stuart monarchs of the seventeenth century—James I (r. 1603–1625), Charles I (r. 1625–1649), Charles II (1660–1685), James II (r. 1685–1688). The Stuarts were highly absolutist and believed strongly in the divine right of kings. Perhaps the height of Stuart healing came after the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.Although Charles supported scientific research through the Royal Society of England, he also administered the king’s touch to enormous crowds of the sick within his realm. The practice of the king’s touch came to an end with the end of the Stuart dynasty.When the absolutist, Catholic monarch James II was forced out of England in the Glorious Revolution, a new era of British history was inaugurated. Kingship became less the choice of God and more the choice of the people, as the British people selected the Protestant William of Orange to take over the throne as William III (r. 1689–1702). William abolished the king’s touch; it was resurrected briefly under another Stuart, Queen Anne (r. 1702– 1714), but ended for good with the accession of the Hanoverian dynasty in the early eighteenth century. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Charles I; Charles II; Curses, Royal; Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; James I of England; James II; Louis XIV; Royal Curses; Stuart Dynasty;William and Mary. FURTHER READING

Bloch, Marc. The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France. Trans. J. E. Anderson. New York: Dorset Press, 1990.

HEAVENS AND KINGSHIP The idea that a ruler has a special relationship with the heavens. The idea of a relationship between the heavens and kingship is as old as humanity. In his 1936 anthropological study, Kingship, A. M. Hocart claimed: “The earliest known religion is a belief in the divinity of kings.” Some scholars believe that earthly kingship developed in imitation of the rulership of the gods; others suggest that religions conceived of divine authority from the example of earthly kings. No matter which came first, the king

383

or the heavens, the relationship between the two has been expressed in many ways.

RULERS AND THE SKY In the mythologies of many societies, royal dynasties trace their origin to a king born of a god. Sometimes the god takes the form of an animal to mate with a mortal woman. In Greek myth, for example, the god Zeus transformed himself into a swan to mate with Leda, who gave birth to Helen of Troy, the queen of Sparta. Some kings are the result of a virgin birth, or a birth without human intervention. For example, the mother of Yu the Great, the legendary founder of China’s first ruling family, the Xia dynasty (2205– 1766 b.c.e.), was impregnated by swallowing a falling star that turned into a seed. At times, the ruler is said to be born of a goddess. The Greek goddess Aphrodite had a son, Aeneas, by Anchises, prince of Troy. Aeneas married the daughter of the king of Latium and became the ancestor of the ancient Romans. For thousands of years, every Japanese emperor and empress has claimed descent from the first king, Nagini, who is said to be the grandson of the goddess Amaterasu. Some kings claimed to be descended from the sun, moon, or planets. Beginning with the Fifth dynasty (ca. 2544–2407 b.c.e.), Egyptian pharaohs were regarded as sons of the sun-god Re. So strong was the relationship between heavenly bodies and kingship that in societies all over the world, kings determined the solar or lunar calendar and the seasons of the year. Some rulers regarded as human during their lives were thought to become divinities after death. The Roman emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), for example, was called Divi Filius, or “son of the Divine,” after his death. Many later Roman emperors were also declared gods.

RULERS AS PRIESTS AND INTERCESSORS Not all kings were regarded as divine beings, but they all had divine sanction. In ancient Babylonia, kings interceded with the gods as leaders of the people.The people of ancient Mesopotamia believed that the moon-god Sin invested the king and gave him his scepter.The first rulers of ancient China and Japan were shamans who could communicate with spirits and act as mediators between the human and spirit worlds.

384

H e av e n s a n d K i n g s h i p

In some cultures there was a dual kingship, or partition between “sky kings” and “earthly kings.” In ancient Sparta, for example, there were two kings: one king headed the cult of the celestial Zeus, and the other king headed the cult of the Lakedaimonian, or earthly Zeus. In many cultures, the sky king would be responsible for the creation of the calendar and giving of the law, while the earthly king executed the laws and acted as chief warrior. Whether they were regarded as semidivine beings or representative of the people, kings frequently fulfilled a priestly function as intercessors between heaven and earth, even in societies that had a separate religious priesthood. The Egyptian pharaoh was the chief priest; the priests who actually performed the rites merely stood in for him. The Roman emperors served as pontifex maximus, or high priest. In some cases, the priests themselves gave the king his power. At first, the ancient Israelites recognized God alone as their king, although they did have charismatic religious and tribal leaders in Abraham, Moses, the judges, and the prophets. The Israelites eventually asked the prophet Samuel to appoint a king for them “as other nations have.” Samuel anointed first Saul (r. ca. 1020–1010 b.c.e.) and later David (r. ca. 1010–970 b.c.e.) as king. In the Old Testament, the king, like the Israelite nation itself, was sometimes called son of God (understood symbolically), but more often was called his servant. The Israelites lived in expectation of the Messiah, or “Anointed One,” a king who would bring in an age of peace. Christians came to regard Jesus Christ as the Messiah. In Christian countries in medieval Europe, rulers became priest-kings after the example of Christ through anointing by a bishop. The association between kings and gods persisted in the Renaissance and later periods, although the understanding became symbolic rather than literal. For example, the popularity of Greek mythology and the sun-god Apollo led the French to call King Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) the Sun-King. See also: Christianity and Kingship; Earth and Sky, Separation of; Enthronement, Rites of; Myth and Folklore. FURTHER READING

Benard, Elisabeth, and Beverly Moon, eds. GoddessesWho Rule. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Perry, John Weir. Lord of the Four Quarters:The Mythology of Kingship. New York: Paulist, 1991.

HEBREW KINGS (ca. 1020–587 B.C.E.) Rulers of three ancient Middle Eastern kingdoms, each of which was created on the basis of religious beliefs. Much of what is known about the history of the Hebrews comes from the Old Testament of the Bible. Around 1100 b.c.e., a group of twelve Hebrew tribes, ruled by persons called judges, had settled in Palestine in the hills west of the Jordan River and formed a unified kingdom for security. Hebrew kingdoms remained in the region of Palestine for nearly five hundred years, and throughout that time there were a total of forty-two Hebrew kings. Although the people of these kingdoms were united by a common belief in the god Yahweh, there was much that the different Hebrew tribes did not agree on, and divisions among them were common.

THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL Saul (r. ca. 1020–1010 b.c.e.), a leader of the Hebrew tribe of Benjamin, was appointed the first king of what was called the kingdom of Israel around 1020 b.c.e. Saul was seen by some as too weak to be a good leader, and he suffered periodically from depression. Throughout his reign, Saul dealt with the squabbling of those tribes dissatisfied with his rule.Yet, he created an army for Israel, kept the threat of the Hebrew enemy, the Philistines, at bay, and even managed to expand the kingdom’s territory to include the highlands on either side of the Jordan River. Saul was killed by the Philistines in battle and was succeeded by David (r. ca. 1010–970 b.c.e.) around 1010 b.c.e. David and his son, King Solomon (r. ca. 970–931 b.c.e.), reigned at the height of Hebrew power. David strengthened the army, eliminated the threat from the Philistines, and conquered more territory eastward and northward. He also captured the city-state of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, a rival hill tribe of the Hebrews. David had greater success than Saul at uniting all the Hebrew tribes into a cohesive kingdom. With its position on the Mediterranean Sea coast, the kingdom of Israel controlled vital trading routes that brought it great wealth. David established a trading alliance between Israel and the Phoenician citystate of Tyre in the north, and Israel was given access to Tyre’s talented shipbuilders. David’s son and successor Solomon continued and

Heian Period expanded the work of his father. Under Solomon, the kingdom of Israel became a wealthy and powerful force in the region, and the king’s leadership skills became firmly established. This is confirmed by the biblical story in which the queen of Sheba called upon Solomon to seek his wise advice. Solomon doubled the size of the city of Jerusalem and turned it into a grandiose and sophisticated city with many new buildings. His largest construction project was a royal palace and temple on the top of Mount Zion, known as Solomon’s Temple. By claiming this high site in Jerusalem for a temple to the GodYahweh, he was claiming the city for the Hebrew people. To finance this ambitious growth, however, Solomon taxed the Israeli people heavily; this became a divisive issue in the kingdom. Upon Solomon’s death around 931 b.c.e., his son Rehoboam (r. ca. 930–914 b.c.e) ascended the throne. However, when Rehoboam made it clear that he would continue his father’s policies and not reduce the tax burden, many people not loyal to the Davidic dynasty revolted. The kingdom of Israel was then divided into two lesser kingdoms: the kingdom of Israel in the north, with Jeroboam I (r. ca. 931–910 b.c.e.) as its first king and the kingdom of Judah in the south, with Rehoboam as ruler. Neither was to regain the glory of the united kingdom of their predecessors.

THE SECOND KINGDOM OF ISRAEL King Omri (r. ca. 885–874 b.c.e.) of Israel brought a period of stability to the land, during which peace was made with King Asa (r. ca. 911–871 b.c.e.) of Judah after years of fighting.Treaties also were signed with neighboring countries, and some expansion of Israel’s territory was initiated. Omri’s son and successor, King Ahab (r. ca. 874–853 b.c.e.), maintained the stability brought about by his father, and the reigning years of Omri and Ahab marked the peak of power and glory for the second kingdom of Israel. Upon Ahab’s death, the country would never again regain its footing and was subsequently defeated by the powerful Assyrian Empire in 722 b.c.e.

THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH It was under King Uzziah (r. ca.766–740 b.c.e.) that the kingdom of Judah reached the height of its prosperity, largely as a result of coastal trade. The Babylonians finally conquered Judah under King Jehoiachin (r. ca. 598–597 b.c.e.) in 597 b.c.e. and then deposed the king and placed Zedekiah (r. ca. 597–587 b.c.e.) on the throne. When Zedekiah rebelled less than ten years later, the Babylonians re-

385

sponded by completely destroying Jerusalem and ended the kingdom of Judah. See also:Assyrian Empire; David; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of; Judaism and Kingship; Solomon. FURTHER READING

Alpher, Joseph, ed. Encyclopedia of Jewish History. New York: Facts on File, 1986. Armstrong, Karen. Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996. Hitti, Philip K. The Near East in History: A 5000 Year Story. Princeton, NJ: D.Van Nostrand, 1961.

HEIAN PERIOD (794–1185 C.E.) A golden period in Japanese history coinciding with the ascendancy of the Fujiwara family. The period dates from 794, when the imperial capital was moved from Nara to Heian-kyo (present-day Kyoto) under Emperor Kammu (781–806), to 1185, when Minamoto no Yoritomo (1192–1199) gained control of the Japanese imperial court and inaugurated the Kamakura period. The Heian period is known as the classical period of Japanese culture—the fountainhead of art and literature and the zenith of artistic refinement. It was a period dedicated to form and perfection both intellectually and artistically.The period was also a glorious historic epoch that led to the rise of the equally historic shogunates, in which warrior lords ruled while emperors sat on the imperial throne. The world’s first novel, The Tale of Genji (ca. 1004), appeared during the Heian period. Written by Murasaki Shikibu, an educated and distinguished lady of the imperial court, the story celebrates the wealth and refinement of aristocratic life in Japan. It underlines the fact that the role of the imperial court was by that time limited to ceremonial and cultural affairs, and emperors had little political power. From the ninth to eleventh centuries, Japan was largely at peace.The Fujiwara regents led lives of great brilliance at court, drawing immense wealth from their government posts. The Fujiwara sustained this brilliance by the stabilization of agricultural practices, including control over peasant labor; by cohesive social values derived from Buddhist and Shinto beliefs and aristocratic traditions; and by the established separation of the elite from other Japanese. This class distinction

386

Heian Period

The Heian Shrine in Kyoto, Japan, was built in 1895 to commemorate the founding of the capital there 1,100 years earlier. It is dedicated to the first and last emperors to rule from Kyoto, Kammu, and Komei. Shrine buildings replicate those of the ancient imperial palace in two-thirds scale.

was codified in the Taika Reforms of 645, which established a new government and administrative system largely influenced by the Chinese. As China’s T’ang dynasty (618–907) declined, the Japanese began to withdraw into themselves, believing they had nothing more to learn from China.They therefore ended diplomatic contacts with China in 894 and closed their foreign embassies.This withdrawal also removed potential destabilizing influences from abroad. Nevertheless, destabilizing forces were already at work within Japan. From 743 onward, newly reclaimed land had become the property of the reclaimer. During the Heian era, this practice supported the further creation of shoen, or large medieval fiefdoms. Absentee ownership became common, since aristocratic landowners preferred to be in the capital near the imperial court. Provincial families thus accrued power as local managers of the shoen and as designated tax collectors for landed families.At the same time, provincial branches of the aristocratic families, including the Fujiwara, built up their own private estates. The expansion of the private estates by the elite discredited central government authority and encouraged territorial clashes. By the twelfth century, there was constant conflict among Japan’s powerful families, and local power belonged to those who assembled the most armed men. The continuous civil

warfare of that century was aggravated by the growing involvement of the bushi (warriors) or samurai (retainer) in the affairs of the imperial government. Many of these contending forces were controlled by offshoot branches of the powerful Fujiwara family or the imperial family. During the late Heian period, two rival clans— the Taira and Minamoto—vied for control of Japan. As the powers of these clans grew, the Fujiwara began controlling the emperor more closely. In 1155, however, the succession to the throne fell vacant, and the naming of Go-Shirakawa (r. 1155– 1158) set off a small revolution called the Hogen Disturbance, which was quelled by the Taira and Minamoto clans. This marked a turning point in Japanese history as the power to determine the affairs of state passed to the warrior clans. In 1180, a samurai named Kiyimori forced the emperor Takakura (r. 1168–1180) from the throne and installed the emperor’s son, Antoku (r. 1180– 1185), as ruler. This action led to a civil war among powerful warrior clans and ushered in a feudal age in Japan. In a great battle in 1185, Antoku was killed. His death marked the end of the Heian period and the beginning of the Kamakura period, during which Japan was controlled by a military dictatorship centered at the city of Kamakura.

Hellenistic Dynasties

387

ROYAL PLACES

MOUNT HIEI In 788, the Buddhist monk Saicho¯, now known as Dengyo-Daishi, founded a small temple on Mount Hiei located near present-day Kyoto.This temple was transformed from a small, quiet religious site in a remote area to one of the most powerful Buddhist monasteries of its time, influencing Japanese religion and politics for centuries. Saicho¯ studied Buddhism in Nara, then the imperial capital, and became a full monk at the age of nineteen. Soon after, he left for the remote area of Mt. Hiei to meditate and study with local holy men, where he built a small temple and lived in solitude. The Emperor Kammu, weary of the political influence of the Buddhist monks in Nara, had moved the imperial court from Nara to Nagaoka in 784. Nagaoka proved unsuitable, and Kammu decided on Heian-kyo (Kyoto) as the new location for an imperial city, close to Mt. Hiei. The ritual to purify the ground for the new capital took place in 793 and was performed by Saicho¯, as Kammu favored Buddhist monks who lived in the countryside and did not aspire to politics. Saicho¯ so impressed the emperor that Kammu sent him to China to pursue his Buddhist studies there. When he returned, Saicho¯ brought the teachings of what would become known as the Tendai School of Buddhism, one of the most influential schools of Buddhism in the history of Japan. A monastery was established at Mt. Hiei and it soon flourished with the support of Emperor Kammu, who designated it as the empire’s chief center of learning with Tendai Buddhism as the imperial religion. Mt. Hiei’s chief purpose was the training of monks, but that soon evolved as some monks returned to the imperial city and worked in positions in the government or the imperial court. At its peak, Mt. Hiei reached its greatest influence in the ninth through eleventh centuries, when it was made up of thousands of buildings and housed a university, also supporting its own standing army of militant monks. In 1571, Oda Nobunaga, the unifier of Japan during the Warring States period, razed the monastery on Mt. Hiei, slaughtering its occupants and destroying its political influence. Mt. Hiei still exists today as a Tendai monastery and popular tourist attraction.

See also: Fujiwara Dynasty; Kamakura Shogunate; Nara Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Brogan, Robert. Sugawara No Michizane and the Early Heian Court. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994.

HELLENISTIC DYNASTIES (ca. 312–30 B.C.E.)

Four Greek-based dynasties that ruled the ancient Middle East after the death of the Macedonian conqueror,Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), and until the rise of the Roman Empire.

The first decades immediately following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 b.c.e. were combative ones in the Middle East.The period is called the Hellenistic Age because Greek culture was at the forefront in the Mediterranean and Middle East region. Since Alexander left no heir, his generals battled each other to gain control of his enormous empire. By around 280 b.c.e., four dynasties controlled most of Alexander’s former territory, with the former generals assuming the title of king for their region.The Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, the Seleucid dynasty of Syria, the Antigonid dynasty of Macedonia, and the much less influential Attalid dynasty of Pergamum held power almost continuously until the Romans began to gain control of the area in the late second century b.c.e. Though always separate countries, the Hellenistic

388

Hellenistic Dynasties

dynasties of Egypt and the Middle East maintained a sense of unity through their shared Greek culture. Use of a common language, Greek, facilitated trade and cultural exchanges among the dynasties.

PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY Founded in 306 b.c.e. by Alexander’s loyal general Ptolemy I Soter (r. 306–282 b.c.e.), the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt was the longest-lived of the four dynasties, surviving more than two hundred and fifty years (ca. 306–30 b.c.e). Ptolemy established his capital at Alexandria, the city at the mouth of the Nile River founded by Alexander the Great, which became the epitome of a Hellenistic city. The Ptolemaic dynasty ushered in many changes to the Egyptian way of life, including the transition to Greek as the language of the government. The Ptolemies were harsh in their treatment of the Egyptians for their own gain: they taxed the citizens heavily; they forced farmers to sell their crops to the state, which, in turn, sold them to other countries at huge profits; and they often treated native Egyptians as lower-class citizens. The Ptolemaic kings of Egypt all took the name Ptolemy. They and a series of queens ruled the dynasty, sometimes separately and sometimes jointly. Much of the monarch’s money was used to build an army and navy to maintain ongoing skirmishes over territory with the Seleucid and Antigonid dynasties. In reaction to the harsh treatment of the Ptolemies,

the people of Egypt mounted revolts on several occasions, disrupting the country and weakening the government. The last ruler of the Ptolemaic dynasty, Cleopatra VII (r. 51–30 b.c.e.), killed herself rather than submit to the Romans, and after her death in 30 b.c.e. Rome annexed Egypt as a Roman province.

SELEUCID DYNASTY Another of Alexander’s generals, Seleucus I Nicator (r. 312–281 b.c.e.), was the founder of the Seleucid dynasty (312–64 b.c.e.), which ruled over the easternmost area of the former Macedonian Empire. The Seleucid kings, most of whom took the name Seleucus or Antiochus, maintained a western capital in Antioch in northern Syria and an eastern capital in Seleucia on the Tigris River in Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq). Although they had no city whose culture could match that of Alexandria in Egypt, the Seleucids actively recruited immigrants from Greece and Macedonia to colonize their territory in order to foster the development of Hellenistic culture. Since they treated these settlers with fairness, the Seleucid kings garnered their loyalty and were able to summon an army larger than any other of the Hellenistic states. The territory controlled by the Seleucid dynasty grew and shrank over the years. At its height around 200 b.c.e., the Seleucid Empire stretched from the eastern Mediterranean coast to India. But the Seleu-

ROYAL RELATIVES

SISTER-WIVES The last hundred or so years of the Ptolemaic dynasty were notable for the customary marriages between the king and his sister, often with the queen or the queen mother ruling with the king as coregent. Most famous of these co-regents was Cleopatra, or more correctly Cleopatra VII, who consecutively married and shared the throne with two of her younger brothers (both of whom were killed) and then with her son. Intensely power-hungry, the Ptolemies were involved in frequent palace revolts and assassinations, with many kings moving out of power only to return again as king some years later.The later Ptolemaic period is thus confusing, and historians are not always in agreement on the order, duration, and sharing of the reigns of kings and queens.

H e n ry I I cids were almost constantly at war, both with their own provincial leaders and with the other dynasties in the region. The one area they ruled continuously was northern Syria. Eventually, however, skirmishes with the Romans led to Syria’s annexation as a Roman province in 64 b.c.e., bringing the Seleucid dynasty to an end.

ANTIGONID DYNASTY Antigonus the One-Eyed, another of Alexander’s generals, gained control of Macedonia after Alexander’s death.As Antigonus I (r. 306–301 b.c.e.), he and his son Demetrius I (r. 306–287 b.c.e.) managed to retain their power and secure the founding of the Antigonid dynasty (ca. 306–168 b.c.e.). Since their territory had been through numerous battles and had lost many citizens who emigrated to other Hellenic countries, they ruled over a weakened and somewhat demoralized state. The army of Macedonia was significantly smaller than either of the other two large Hellenistic powers in the region.Yet, the Antigonids had to fend off an invasion by the Gauls in 279 b.c.e. and several incursions by groups from the Balkans. They also had to exert considerable strength to maintain control over Greece, which resented the rule of the Macedonians. The Antigonids were the first Hellenistic dynasty to fall to the Romans. In 168 b.c.e., after enduring three wars with the Romans, the Antigonid ruler, King Perseus (r. 179–168 b.c.e.), was overthrown and the dynasty was dissolved.Two years later, in 148 b.c.e., Macedonia was made a Roman province.

ATTALID DYNASTY In 283 b.c.e., Philetaerus (r. 282–263 b.c.e.) of the Attalid family of Pontus seized the fortress of Pergamum in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) and asserted his independence from the Seluecids. His son and successor, Eumenes I (r. 263–241 b.c.e.), proclaimed Pergamum a kingdom, but it was his son,Attalus I Soter (r. 241–197 b.c.e.), who was the first Attalid ruler to call himself king. The kings of the Attalid dynasty (ca. 283–133 b.c.e.) added some Greek cities to their territory and eventually ruled much of western Asia Minor. They maintained a centralized power and taxed their subjects heavily to finance their army. But the Attalids also used their resources to expand the kingdom’s culture, which they considered of great importance. They built an extensive library at Pergamum and encouraged art and other creative endeavors.

389

The Attalid dynasty never became a major power in the region. Throughout their reign, the Attalids felt threatened by the Seleucids, who wanted to regain control of all of Asia Minor.The last Attalid king, Attalus III Philometer (r. 139–133 b.c.e.), left Pergamum to the Roman Empire when he died in 133 b.c.e. It is thought that he did this in order to prevent a war with the Romans, which could not be won and which would cost many of his subjects’ their lives. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman; Macedonian Empire; Pergamum Kingdom; Ptolemaic Dynasty; Ptolemy I; Roman Empire; Seleucid Dynasty; Syrian Monarchy. FURTHER READING

Mostyn, Trevor, ed. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East and North Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Perry, Glenn E. The Middle East: Fourteen Islamic Centuries. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1997.

HENRY II (1133–1189 C.E.) King of England (r. 1154–1189), also known as Henry of Anjou and Henry Plantagenet, who founded the English Angevin dynasty, also known as the House of Plantagenet. Henry II was a brilliant and passionate monarch who expanded the English realm and fathered two future kings of England—Richard I, the Lionheart (r. 1189–1199), and John (r. 1199–1216). He also was responsible for the murder of the archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas à Becket), and was married for thirty-seven years to one of the most remarkable queens in European history, Eleanor of Aquitaine.

EARLY LIFE The young Henry was well educated by his parents, Matilda, the daughter of King Henry I of England (r. 1100–1135), and Geoffrey IV (r. 1129–1151), the count of Anjou. But Henry’s tremendous energy and drive surpassed even his considerable intelligence.At age seventeen, he became duke of Normandy, and at age eighteen he inherited his father’s title, count of Anjou.While still a youth, Henry came to the atten-

390

H e n ry I I

tion of the young queen of France, Eleanor of Aquitaine. In 1152, Eleanor received an annulment from her husband, the pious and unworldly Louis VII (r. 1137–1180), and married the nineteen-year-old Henry, thus making him duke of the enormously wealthy duchy of Aquitaine in southwestern France. Together, Henry and Eleanor plotted a campaign to gain the English throne. In 1153, Henry invaded England and coerced his cousin, King Stephen (r. 1135–1154), into acknowledging him as heir. Stephen died within the year, leaving Henry, now twenty-one years old, monarch of a vast domain that stretched from Scotland across the English Channel and down the entire length of France to the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, Henry’s holdings in France alone were roughly triple the area held by the king of France. Henry proved himself a worthy ruler of this vast realm. He consolidated royal power, seeking a return

of the influence held by Henry I, and established the primacy of his royal courts over local feudal courts. He defined and applied the foundation of what was to become English Common Law in his use of writs, application of juries, and replacement of trial by combat and ordeal with the less spectacular and more fair trial by law. Henry’s legal reforms were not, however, altruistic or far-sighted; they were implemented to strengthen royal power by whatever means at hand. In pursuit of this end, Henry also razed unlicensed castles and struggled with the Church over the power to appoint bishops and dispense other ecclesiastical privileges and benefits.

CONFLICT WITH BECKET In 1164, Henry signed the Constitutions of Clarendon, which, in defining relations between Church and state, made clear his intent to usurp the Church’s control over local ecclesiastical appointments (and Church property). Before the enacting of this law, his lifelong friend and adviser,Thomas à Becket, was his chief collaborator. Henry had even named Becket as archbishop of Canterbury in 1162, certain that he would have an even more potent advocate within the Church. Becket, however, took his new responsibilities (and his new chain of command to the papacy) seriously. With the passage of the Constitutions, Henry found that he had lost an advocate and gained an adversary. In a moment of anger in 1170, Henry raged against Becket’s unyielding stance and muttered “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Four knights, taking the king at his words, rushed to Becket and murdered the archbishop in his own cathedral in Canterbury. Henry mourned his friend and eventually did public penance for this murder, but his problems with Becket proved to be of little consequence compared to the woes visited upon him by his own family.

A REBELLIOUS FAMILY

The founder of the Plantagenet dynasty, Henry II was a brilliant ruler who consolidated royal power and expanded the English realm. His successful administration and notable legal advancements set precedents that had an enduring impact on Western culture.

Though eleven years his senior, Eleanor bore Henry eight children; the four sons who survived were all strong-willed, troublesome, and ungrateful to their father. Henry, the eldest son, crowned co-regent in 1170, stood to inherit the throne. He remained frustrated in his desire for the throne until his premature death in 1183, and on two occasions prior to that he rebelled openly and savagely against his father.

H e n ry I V Geoffrey, to whom the king had given Brittany, likewise plotted with his brother Henry, with his mother, and sometimes with the king of France until he, too, predeceased his beleaguered father in 1186. Richard, one day to be known as “Lionheart,” was his mother’s favorite, and, at her urging, Henry gave him the wealthy duchy of Aquitaine. In one of Richard’s rebellions, in 1173–1174, he joined with his mother and with William the Lion of Scotland (r. 1165–1214). Henry quickly defeated his opponents and pardoned his son. In the aftermath of this rebellion, however, he chose to sequester his wife away from her sons and the temptations of the world. Eleanor remained locked away in confinement until Henry’s death in 1189, when the dutiful Richard freed her. Henry’s youngest son, John Lackland, was his favorite. It was, in fact, Henry’s attempts to secure a patrimony for John that caused much of the friction with his other fractious children. Even John, however, joined in a rebellion against his father in 1189, allying with the recently pardoned Richard and King Philip II (r. 1180–1223) of France (the son of Henry’s longtime opponent and Eleanor’s first husband, Louis VII).With this final betrayal, Henry’s energy, fortune, and spirit were spent. Defeated in battle, he died near Tours in France in 1189.

HIS LEGACY Henry’s life and reign are among the most eventful and colorful of any English monarch. His remarkable early achievements, his affair and marriage with the redoubtable Eleanor, his relationship with the brilliant Becket, his tempestuous children—all of these events are rich in history and each of these portions of his story casts a long shadow on the history of Northern Europe. However, it is probably Henry’s precedent-setting administrative and legal efforts that have made his reign of such enduring importance in English and, indeed,Western culture. See also: Anjou Kingdom; Competition, Fraternal; Eleanor of Aquitaine; John I; Louis VII; Norman Kingdoms; Philip II, Augustus; Plantagenet, House of; Richard I, Lionheart. FURTHER READING

Gilligham, John, ed. The Angevin Empire. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

391

HENRY IV (ENGLAND) (1367–1413 C.E.)

King of England (r. 1399–1413), who invaded England in 1399, forced his cousin Richard II (r. 1377–1399) to abdicate, and usurped the throne of England to become the first monarch of the House of Lancaster. Born in 1367, Henry IV (also called Henry Bolingbroke) was the eldest son of John of Gaunt, the fourth son of King Edward III (r. 1327–1377) of England. John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, unscrupulously directed his father, the aging Edward III, for most of the last years of his life. In the process, he became the richest man in England and one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in Northern Europe. Gaunt’s son, Henry, was raised in this environment and with expectations of greatness. When Edward III died in 1377, Henry’s ten-yearold cousin, Richard, was crowned king. However, John of Gaunt continued to rule in the young king’s name while Henry, a year older than his cousin, remained in the background. In 1387, however, Henry joined a group of lords who opposed the king and eventually forced him to submit to their rulings.The king, appeased by John of Gaunt, pretended to be reconciled to this humiliation. Henry took the cross and went crusading in Lithuania and Prussia from 1390 to 1392. Richard II, however, had not forgotten the coercion from Henry and his supporters, and in 1398 he banished Bolingbroke from England for ten years. While Henry was in exile in France, John of Gaunt died, and King Richard confiscated the duke’s vast holdings, disinherited Henry, and redistributed the Lancastrian possessions. Richard II had made few friends among the aristocracy during his reign, and, while he was in Ireland in 1399, Henry returned to England with significant support from the English nobles. He forced Richard to abdicate the throne and imprisoned him. He then had himself crowned as Henry IV, with the approval of Parliament. Henry faced a series of insurrections after taking the throne, and England remained in turmoil for the next ten years. He fought a succession of challenges from Owen Glendower of Wales, the Percys of Northumberland, and the duke of Norfolk. Even his own son, the future Henry V (r. 1413–1422), plotted

392

H e n ry I V

to overthrow his father. Henry proved equal to all these difficulties until his health failed. Contemporaries assumed that the king had leprosy, but it may have been syphilis. In 1412, worn out by disease and endless strife, Henry IV reluctantly passed control of the kingdom to his son Henry and died the next year. See also: Edward III; English Monarchies; Lancaster, House of; Richard II.

HENRY IV (FRANCE) (1553–1610 C.E.) King of France (r. 1589–1610), the first monarch of the Bourbon dynasty, who overcame violence between Protestants and Catholics to achieve peace, prosperity, and strong central government. One of the most popular of all French kings, Henry also ruled the kingdom of Navarre from 1572 to 1610 as Henry III of Navarre. The son of Antoine of Bourbon and Jeanne d’Albret, the queen of Navarre, Henry was raised as a Protestant and became the leader of the persecuted Huguenots (French Protestants) in 1569. Religious unrest and violence against Protestants in France increased dramatically after the death of Henry II (r. 1547–1559) in 1559, culminating in 1572 with the St. Bartholomew’s Night massacre, in which thousands of Protestants were killed by soldiers and angry Catholic mobs. In the aftermath of the massacre, Henry remained a prisoner of the courts of kings Charles IX (r. 1560–1574) and Henry III (r. 1574–1589) until 1576, when he managed to escape after several unsuccessful attempts. Henry then fought in the fifth of France’s wars of religion, siding with Protestants and moderate Catholics against the more conservative Catholic forces. In 1584, Francis, the duke of Anjou and brother of King Henry III, died.This made Henry of Navarre next in the line of succession. The French Catholic forces, led by Duke Henri of Guise, sought to overturn the order of succession.The issue was settled by the War of the Three Henrys, in which Henry of Navarre defeated the forces of King Henry III and then united with the king to defeat the Catholic League led by Henry of Guise. When Henry III died in 1589, Henry of Navarre took the throne as Henry IV. Even after his succession, Henry continued to be plagued by the Catholic League and by violent unrest. After Protestant victo-

ries over the League’s forces at Arques in 1589 and Ivry in 1590, the Catholics besieged Paris with aid from the Spanish. Henry’s conversion to Catholicism in 1593 enabled him to return to Paris, and the next year he began to reunite the kingdom. To unite the opposing religious factions, he used the more inclusive idea of allegiance to the French nation and loyalty to himself as their king. The idea of French nationalism also gained him support when he declared war on Spain (1595) in order to expel the Spanish from southern France.This ended in a French victory in 1598. That same year, Henry granted limited toleration, protection, and territory to the Protestants with the Edict of Nantes. Henry then began the long process of rebuilding France after many years of religious violence, strengthening and centralizing his government in order to enforce his policies. He supported the development of infrastructure, agriculture, colonization in Canada, and domestic and international commerce (including trade agreements with Spain, England, and the Ottoman Empire). He worked to ensure that even the peasants shared in France’s prosperity. During the final years of Henry’s reign, France enjoyed the peace and prosperity brought about by these policies. On May 14, 1610, Henry IV was stabbed to death by a Catholic fanatic who believed that God had appointed him to kill the king. There is some evidence and much speculation that this act was part of a wider conspiracy. In 1572, Henry had married Margaret of Valois, the sister of King Charles IX, but the marriage was annulled in 1599. He later married Marie de’ Medici (in 1600), and the couple had six children: his son and successor Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643); Elizabeth, who married King Philip IV of Spain (r. 1621– 1665); and Henriette Marie, who married King Charles I of England (r. 1625–1649). Henry also had a number of illegitimate children by some of his many mistresses. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Christianity and Kingship; French Monarchies; Navarre, Kingdom of;Valois Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Greengrass, Mark. France in the Age of Henri IV: The Struggle for Stability. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 1995.

H e n ry V I I I Knecht, R. J. The Rise and Fall of Renaissance France, 1483–1610. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell, 2001. Seward, Desmond. The Bourbon Kings of France. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1976.

HENRY IV (HRE) (1050–1106 C.E.) German king (r. 1056–1105) and Holy Roman emperor (r. 1084–1105) who was a central figure in the dispute with the papacy over the issue of investiture, which involved the right to appoint individuals to offices within the Church. When Emperor Henry III of the Holy Roman Empire and Germany (r. 1039–1056) died in 1056, his six-year-old son Henry was elected to the throne of Germany. Henry’s mother, Empress Agnes, served as regent for her young son, but she lost control of the empire. In Italy at this time, a controversy over investiture was brewing.The papacy objected to the fact that the pope was an appointee of the emperor.Thus the cardinals decided that they would select the pope, asking the emperor merely to approve their selection. Meanwhile, in Germany, the nobles increased their wealth and holdings at the expense of the monarchy. To secure a share of this wealth for the Church,Archbishop Anno of Cologne assumed the regency for Henry in 1062, and he shared it with Archbishop Adalbert of Hamburg-Bremen. Henry IV came of age in 1066 and regained control of his country from the German nobles. As reigning king of Germany, he first attempted to recover his losses in Saxony, where he put down revolts but developed a reputation for tyranny in the process. In 1075, Pope Gregory VII issued an investiture decree, which removed the papacy from secular control and claimed the power to appoint all bishops and abbots of the German church. Earlier, the emperor had always appointed these prelates, who served as the chief administrative officials of Germany. Henry ignored the pope’s decree and appointed and invested a new bishop of Milan in 1076.Annoyed by Henry’s defiance of the ecclesiastical decree, Pope Gregory threatened to depose Henry, who promptly called a meeting at the German city of Worms and deposed Gregory. Gregory responded by excommu-

393

nicating Henry from the Church and declaring him deposed. Rebellious German bishops immediately deserted Henry to seek the pope’s forgiveness. The German nobles then threatened to depose Henry unless he could receive the pope’s absolution by February 1077. Pope Gregory did grant absolution to Henry, after Henry crossed the Alps in the dead of winter and stood barefoot in the snow for three days, a famous incident known as the Snows of Canossa. But the pope’s absolution of Henry did not satisfy the German nobles, who elected Rudolph of Swabia (r. 1077–1080) to replace Henry as king. Civil war followed, during which Gregory recognized Rudolf’s title (1080) and renewed Henry’s excommunication. Henry, supported by a group of German and Italian bishops, deposed Gregory and elected an anti-pope, Clement III. When Rudolph died in 1080, Henry carried the war to Rome where he installed Clement III as pope and was crowned Holy Roman emperor. In Germany, Henry stubbornly supported Clement III against Gregory’s successors until his son, later Henry V (r. 1105–1125), rebelled against Henry in 1104. In 1105, Henry IV was imprisoned by his son and the rebels and was forced to abdicate. He died in 1106. See also: Christianity and Kingship; Holy Roman Empire; Salian Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Robinson, I.S. Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999.

HENRY VIII (1491–1547 C.E.) Strong-willed king of England (r. 1509–1547), a member of the house of Tudor, who broke with the Roman Catholic Church and established the Church of England. The second son of King Henry VII (r. 1485– 1509), known in his early years as “Good Prince Hal,” was a popular youth, noted for his athletic ability and love of music. As a king, however, Henry was autocratic and unpredictable, often putting his personal desires above the welfare of his kingdom and its people. Henry was not first in line to the throne, but he became prince of Wales and heir following the death

394

H e n ry V I I I

of his elder brother Arthur in 1502.After succeeding to the throne in 1509 upon the death of his father, Henry married his brother Arthur’s widow, Katharine of Aragón, the daughter of King Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) and Queen Isabella of Castile (r. 1474–1504). Henry reigned at a time when England had yet to become an imperial power. Instead, Spain and Portugal were masters of the seas, with growing empires in the New World, and the Holy Roman Empire was the major power in Europe. Henry sought to limit the influence of the Holy Roman Empire by allying with England’s old enemy, France, in 1527, which led to diplomatic and economic reprisals. Meanwhile, domestically, Henry’s imposition of new taxes, his heavy-handed rule, and his personal life made him increasingly unpopular as ruler.

PROBLEMS WITH MARRIAGE Henry VIII is probably best known for his complicated marital history. Katharine of Aragón provided Henry with a daughter, Mary Tudor, in 1516, but she was unable to produce a male heir as well. Henry thus became determined to marry Anne Boleyn, who had been a lady-in-waiting to the queen. At first it seemed that Anne would become a royal mistress, as her older sister Mary had been, but she took advantage of the king’s infatuation, insisting he would receive no sexual favors unless he married her. Motivated by passion, as well as a desire for a male heir, Henry sought a divorce from Katharine of Aragón. Under the laws of the Catholic Church, however, divorce was out of the question. So Henry attempted to have his marriage to Katharine annulled on the grounds that the papal dispensation that had allowed him to marry his dead brother’s wife had been illegal. Pope Clement VII established a commission to investigate Henry’s request, but it failed to reach a decision. Henry then launched a parliamentary campaign, headed by Thomas Cromwell, the secretary to Cardinal Wolsey, to discredit the Catholic Church in England. Revenues earmarked for Rome were drastically reduced, and members of the English church agreed that all church decisions required royal approval. Despite these pressures, the pope refused to grant Henry’s divorce, but he did allow the appointment of Thomas Cranmer, an English churchman favorable to Henry, as archbishop of Canterbury in

One of the most formidable and influential of the English kings, Henry VIII was known for his strong will and fiery temper. He also is remembered for his rocky marital history and conflicts with the Roman Church.This painting, done in 1536, is one of a number of portraits of Henry VIII painted by the German Renaissance master Hans Holbein the Younger.

1533. Cranmer immediately annulled Henry’s marriage to Katharine. Henry, who was already secretly married to Anne Boleyn, made Anne queen and was promptly excommunicated by the pope.

RELIGIOUS REFORMATION In 1521, Henry had been given the title “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo X as a reward for Henry’s support against Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Now, however, as a result of Rome’s refusal to grant Henry a divorce from Katharine, the king split completely with Rome. Under the Act of Supremacy (1534), Henry was made head of the Church of England; two years later, in 1536, he also appointed himself head of the Church of Ireland.To minimize opposition to the religious changes from both the clergy and powerful

H e rod nobles, Henry arranged to have an Act of Succession passed in 1534. Under the Act of Succession, Henry’s marriage to Katharine of Aragón was declared retroactively null and void, and Anne Boleyn’s offspring became first in line for the throne. Also in 1534, Henry issued an Act of Treason, which declared that anyone who called the king “a heretic, schismatic, tyrant, infidel, or usurper of the crown” was guilty of high treason. Under this act, Henry was able to execute his former lord chancellor, Sir Thomas More, who objected to his break with Rome.To further limit opposition from English clerics and win support among the nobility, Henry closed the monasteries throughout England and granted some of the property to the landed gentry. Meanwhile, Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn did not last long. Anne provided a daughter, Elizabeth, but, like Katharine, failed to produce a male heir.Accused and convicted of committing adultery and of being involved in an incestuous relationship with her own brother, Anne Boleyn was executed in 1536. Within two weeks of her death, Henry married Jane Seymour, his mistress, who had been a lady-inwaiting to both Katharine of Aragón and Anne Boleyn. Much to Henry’s pleasure, Jane produced the desired male heir, Edward VI, in 1537, but she died less than two weeks after giving birth.

DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS Since 1522, both France and England had been periodically battling the Holy Roman Empire. With a temporary peace established in 1538, it appeared that a Catholic campaign against Protestant England might begin. At the urging of Thomas Cromwell, Henry contracted a political alliance with Protestant German princes by marrying Anne of Cleves, the daughter of a powerful German prince. Thomas Cromwell had led Henry to believe that Anne was attractive, but the king disliked her on sight, finding her both dull and unattractive.Although he went through with the marriage in January 1540, by July Henry had divorced Anne of Cleves and married his fifth wife, Catherine Howard, the niece of the powerful duke of Norfolk. Like her predecessors, Catherine did not last long as queen; she was executed in 1542 for committing adultery.The following year, Henry married Catherine Parr, a pious and scholarly widow who ultimately survived him. Wars with Scotland and France occupied Henry through much of his reign. In France, Henry sought

395

to expand territory and win security for the ports of southern England. Scotland was a particular threat, even though Henry’s sister Margaret was married to the Scottish king, James IV (r. 1488–1513). When Henry, seeking glory, went to war with France in 1512, James sided with the French.Warfare between England and Scotland soon resulted in one of the legendary defeats in Scottish history, the battle of Flodden in 1513. In 1543, Henry again defeated the Scots at Solway Moss, near the English-Scottish border. From 1543 until 1546, Henry’s army fought against the French alongside Holy Roman emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558). Despite Henry’s personal problems and foreign challenges, England made notable advances during his reign. Social reform accompanied religious reform in the kingdom, and Parliament expanded its powers. Henry also established an effective navy that became the basis for British imperial power in the coming centuries.When Henry VIII died in 1547, he was succeeded by his children, each of whom ruled in turn: Edward VI (r. 1547–1553), his son by Jane Seymour; Mary I (r. 1553–1558), his daughter by Katharine of Aragón; and his daughter Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), whose mother was Anne Boleyn. See also: Edward VI; Elizabeth I; English Monarchies; Mary I,Tudor;Tudor, House of. FURTHER READING

Starkey, David. The Reign of HenryVIII: Personalities and Politics. London: G. Philip, 1985.

HEROD (ca. 73–4 B.C.E.) King of Judaea (r. 37–4 b.c.e.), often called Herod the Great, who was the last ruler of the Herodian dynasty. Herod was born in Judea, a part of the Roman Empire. The son of a politically important family in the region, Herod was appointed governor of Galilee at age twenty-six, largely through the influence exercised by his father, Antipater. However, Herod failed to defend the territory from an invasion by the neighboring kingdom of Parthia around 37 b.c.e. Rather than be taken prisoner or killed, Herod fled to Rome, where he presented his case to the Roman Senate and was rewarded by being given rule over the kingdom of Judaea.

396

H e rod

To help forge a better relationship with his new subjects, Herod selected a wife, a woman named Mariam, from one of the more powerful Judaean families living in Rome at the time. Herod then set out for Judea to claim his throne with the support of an army of Roman troops. He took control of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.e. Herod was a capable administrator, and he left a legacy of many important buildings and improvements in Judea. He ingratiated himself with the religious leaders of Jerusalem by making repairs to the temple there. To better defend his territory, he ordered the construction of the great fortress of Masada in the deserts along the western shore of the Dead Sea. Herod also worked to maintain cordial relationships with the city-states of Greece, whose culture he greatly admired. For all his attempts at good works, Herod was a deeply suspicious man, prone to acts of cruelty to those he felt were against him. His greatest fear was that his wife’s family coveted the throne and was plotting against him. In retaliation for this perceived disloyalty, he had Mariam executed, along with many of her relatives.This was not enough to eliminate his fears, however; accordingly, when his sons by Mariam grew to maturity, he again suspected treachery. They were his designated heirs, but Herod was concerned that they would be unwilling to wait for his death to claim their birthright, so he had them executed in 7 b.c.e. The Roman emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), appalled by Herod’s cruelty, exclaimed: “It would be better to be Herod’s dog than to be one of his children.” Herod insisted on interfering with Judea’s religious hierarchy and the conduct of ritual in the temples, thereby creating a great rift between himself and the leaders of the temple. In the Christian tradition, Herod is remembered for the “slaughter of the innocents.” This tradition holds that Herod, fearing the rumors of a newborn child who would one day become “king of the Jews,” ordered the murder of all male infants in the town of Jerusalem. Herod died in 4 b.c.e., and the kingdom of Judaea was divided among his surviving sons.

Sandmel, Samuel. Herod, Profile of a Tyrant. Philadelphia: Lippencott, 1967.

HINDUISM AND KINGSHIP Relationship of the Hindu religion on kingship and the way Hindu beliefs and rituals affected monarchs in Hindu societies. The Hindu ideology of political authority began to exert strong influence on the concept and practice of kingship in much of South and Southeast Asia beginning in the third century c.e. Scholars generally agree that Hinduism should be distinguished from Brahmanism, which marked an earlier stage of religious thought. However, it is necessary to trace the beginning of Hindu ideology to the Brahmanical tradition, since Hindu ideology clearly appropriated much of Brahmanism’s ideological and literary traditions. Initially, Hinduism and Brahmanism shared a common origin around 1000 b.c.e., when the oldest surviving Hindu texts, the “Vedas,” were compiled.

EARLY PERIOD

See also: Augustus; Israel, Kingdoms of; Roman Empire.

During the Vedic age, two cults coexisted among the ruling Aryan clans in Asia: a popular cult with elements derived from indigenous culture and comparable to later Hinduism, and an esoteric ceremonial cult presided over by a priesthood, comparable to the priests of the succeeding brahmanical period. The Aryan focus on sacrifice gave way to brahminism in the late centuries b.c.e. Brahminism was a system of both ceremonial and social integration in which the Brahmans, or priestly caste, controlled the means to salvation. Early religious texts, including the Vedas, Brahmanas, and Upanishads, were studied only by those who had undergone initiation as Brahmans.The priests thus became entrenched as intermediaries between man and god. Between the seventh and the first century b.c.e, Vedic and Brahmanical systems experienced competition from Buddhism, and during the early centuries c.e., from devotional Hindusim. The final form of devotional Hinduism, which appeared in the early second millennium c.e., emerged in the Dravidian region in the south of the Indian subcontinent.

FURTHER READING

BASIC HINDU CONCEPTS

Grant, M. Herod the Great. New York: American Heritage Press, 1971.

Hinduism purported to make its scriptures available to all, including men of low caste and women. The

Hinduism and Kingship main body of Hindu texts comprised the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics, the Puranas, and books of Sacred Law. Ramayana and Mahabharata epic literature emphasized the role of the ksatriya, or king. Ksatriya were the warrior caste. Theoretically, the brahmanical caste stood higher in social ranking, but in practice, ksatriya conducted day-to-day rule.The image of the Hindu ruler was more that of a war leader and protector than that of a priest or holy person. Dharma was an important concept that influenced the actions of the ksatriya king, exemplified in the two epic heroes, Rama and Arjuna. Hindu gods played important roles in these epics. Rama was an incarnation of Vishnu, god of preservation, while Arjuna received instruction from Krishna, another avatar, or form, of the same god. In this context, Dharma implied the necessity of accepting one’s role in the drama of human existence as determined by fate, justifying the use of force and even killing.Thus, when Arjuna hesitated on the eve of a climactic battle in which many men and animals would die, Krishna reminded him that it was his fate to lead the forces of good to victory. Because of the doctrine of reincarnation, those who were killed would be re-

397

born into new bodies that would either be punished for their sins or rewarded for their good deeds. The idea of the chakravartin, or “wheel-turner,” was important in Hindu kingship. The “wheelturner” was the person who became ruler by virtue of his goodness.The term conjures up an image of a person who remains stable at the center of the universe, anchoring the rest of the spinning cosmos. There could only be one cakravartin at any one time; thus, the virtuous ruler was justified in using force to bend his rivals to his will, for he was destined to benefit all beings by his just rule.Those who resisted his authority were by definition ruled by illusion and thus deserving of correction and chastisement. In addition to the role of war leader, Hindu rulers were also expected to be spiritually potent. Power was achieved not merely by royal birth, though that was important; power could be increased almost infinitely through ascetic practices, particularly meditation. Hindu rulers needed the assistance of Brahman priests, who, through their ministrations to the gods on behalf of the rulers, could maintain the virtue of the ruler and the kingdom. This was done by glorifying the gods through establishing religious

The Hindu religion had a profound influence on the concept and actual practice of kingship in South Asia.This twelfthcentury bas-relief sculpture from India depicts the Hindu trinity of the gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer of the universe.

398

Hinduism and Kingship

communities and the sponsoring of temple building, statue carving, and donations to holy men and monasteries. Large religious complexes were built and maintained by ambitious rulers. Conversely, when kings fought, the victor was pleased to capture the most important statues of gods erected by his defeated foe. The transfer of impressive statuary from one realm to another was a highly visible token of the favor of the gods themselves. Theoretically, Hindu rulers owned all land in their kingdoms. Their virtue was thought to display itself in bountiful harvests and the absence of pestilence or other natural disasters. Earthquakes, floods, and poor harvests could be interpreted as omens signifying that the ruler was in danger of losing the gods’ favor. Rulers often played parts in ceremonies meant to ensure fertility and good harvests. Hindu rulers did not consider themselves incarnations of gods; rather, the institution of kingship was said to be divinely inspired. Secular works such as the Arthasastra were as important as religious texts in shaping the strategies of Hindu rulers. Since kings were born to be warriors, rather than priests, kingship in South Asian Hinduism had as many practical aspects as it did mystical aspects.

HINDUISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA When Hinduism spread to Southeast Asia in the early centuries c.e., adherents at first adopted the same relationship between gods and humans. Statues of Vishnu and Siva linggas (phallic symbols) began to appear in southern Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Sumatra, and Java. The Ramayana and Mahabharata became well-known models of kingly behavior in the region. Not all features of Hinduism were adopted in Southeast Asia, however. For example, no caste system was implanted there. Instead, rulers of Cambodia, for instance, conferred membership in “castes” (the three main varnas) upon favored subjects. Hinduism in Southeast Asia presented several faces, varying from one region to another. Its relationship to the other major South Asian religion, Buddhism, also differed. Several Southeast Asian kingdoms espoused both Buddhism and Hinduism simultaneously. Buddhism eventually became the main religion of mainland Southeast Asia even as it was dying out in India, the land of its birth. Surprisingly, Brahmans are still required participants in coronation ceremonies even in Buddhist

kingdoms such as Thailand. It would be too simplistic to state that syncretism between Hinduism and Buddhism took place. When the Javanese ruler Kertanagara (r. 1268–1292) had himself commemorated in the mid-thirteenth century as both Siva and Buddha, two statues were erected, rather than one statue combining attributes of both deities. Hindu and Buddhist priesthoods were never combined, but always formed separate groups. Southeast Asian rulers erected numerous religious complexes in honor of the Hindu gods Siva, Vishnu, and also Brahma, who was not normally so honored in South Asia. By the tenth century, rulers in Cambodia were beginning to claim semidivine status. The same tendency became pronounced in Java by the twelfth century. Thus, Southeast Asian rulers went much further than South Asian kings in claiming to be deified. Some statues of Siva in the form of the god Mahaguru are thought to have been portraits of kings. Southeast Asians also had different ideas about the relationship between the living and their deceased ancestors, to which Hinduism accommodated itself. The idea of reincarnation was not important in the region. Instead, it was believed that the spirits of ancestors could descend into statues in Hindu or Buddhist sanctuaries, to be invoked for protection and guidance. The position of royal preceptor was important in ancient Cambodia, and a complex hierarchy of priestly positions was established. The position of royal chaplain was hereditary, but chaplains were supposed to be celibate.The paradox did not pose a problem. In Cambodia as in much of Southeast Asia, descent in the female line was important in determining status, and the position of royal preceptor was handed down from maternal uncle to nephew. Preceptors were believed to be capable of initiating rulers into higher levels of religious awareness. Between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, Hinduism was replaced by Buddhism in mainland Southeast Asia and by Islam in the Southeast Asian archipelago. Only one area remained Hindu: the island of Bali, where kingdoms that regarded themselves as Hindu persisted until 1906 when they were conquered by the Dutch.The population of Bali remains largely Hindu, but with numerous differences from Hinduism commonly practiced in South Asia. Because of the influence of the Sivasiddhanta sect,

H i roh i to which arrived in the fifteenth century, the Balinese do not worship statues. The sun-god Surya occupies an important part in Balinese worship. See also: Buddhism and Kingship; Cambodian Kingdoms; Caste Systems; Divinity of Kings; Indian Kingdoms; Religious Duties and Power; Sacred Kingships; Southeast Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Aung-Thwin, Michael. Pagan: The Origins of Modern Burma. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985. Coedés, George. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1971. Drekmeier, Charles. Kingship and Community in Early India. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962. Gesick, Lorraine, and Michael Aung-Thwin, eds. Centers, Symbols and Hierarchies: Essays on the Classical States of Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1983. Hall, D.G.E. A History of South-East Asia. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981. Kulke, Hermann. Kings and Cults: State Formation and Legitimization in India and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Manohar, 2001.

399

there, in a celebration known as omiyamairi (“shrine visiting”), that he received his family name, Hirohito.

CHILDHOOD The imperial palace in Tokyo was home to the infant Hirohito for only seventy days. After that, tradition held that he be cared for not by his parents but by a trusted retainer of the emperor. This was Kawamura Sumiyoshi, a retired naval admiral. It was expected that Kawamura would teach the prince the values that were needed for assuming the throne. Hirohito’s younger brother,Yasuhito, later joined the Kawamura household as well, and the two brothers were attended by a retinue of doctors, nurses, and servants. Kawamura was sixty-six years old when he took on this responsibility. Upon his death in 1904, the young princes were returned to their parents, but Hirohito was now put under the care of a staff of servants, an arrangement that remained until he began formal schooling at age seven. Hirohito’s education was rigidly defined by tradition. He was expected to

HIROHITO (1901–1989) Japanese emperor (r. 1926–1989) who saw Japan’s rise to world power and devastating defeat in the twentieth century.When Hirohito was born on April 29, 1901, his grandfather, Emperor Mutsuhito, ruled Japan from what was known as the Chrysanthemum Throne. His father, Crown Prince Yoshihito, was twenty-one years of age and chronically ill. Yoshihito’s wife, Princess Kujo Sadako, was just sixteen when she gave birth to Michinomiya, which means “one who cultivates virtue.” Of all the infant’s esteemed ancestors, the most important one was Amaterasu Omikami, the Shinto goddess of the sun, from whom 1,600 years of Japan’s emperors traced their descent. As descendants of this goddess, Japan’s rulers had a claim to authority that was divinely ordained. According to Japanese imperial ritual, the newborn prince could not officially join the family until he was brought to the shrines of his ancestors. It was

Hirohito, who ruled from 1926 to 1989, was the 124th emperor of Japan.A scholar in the field of marine biology, he ruled his country through the tumultuous events of World War II.

400

H i roh i to

receive training in bushido (“the way of the warrior”) and in Confucianism, then a prominent Chinese religion, as well as in academic disciplines. Chief among his early teachers was Maseruke Mogi, a general who had earned great honors for his service during the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905). In 1912, Emperor Mutsuhito died, and Hirohito’s father took the throne. Hirohito, now eleven years old, became the heir apparent. Although still a boy, he was given an officer’s rank in the Imperial army and navy. He continued his studies and graduated from elementary school in 1914. He then pursued advanced studies with private tutors. During this time he began studying marine biology, which became his lifelong passion.

CROWN PRINCE In 1916, Hirohito was granted the title of crown prince, and the royal household began searching for a suitable bride of noble birth. The choice was too important to be left to the vagaries of romantic love. Court advisers chose Princess Nagako, one of Hirohito’s distant cousins.This selection was not without controversy. Nagako was well bred, intelligent, and demure, but some considered her “imperfect” because some members of her immediate family were color-blind. Such objections were overcome, however, and the couple became formally engaged in January 1919.

Throughout most of its history, the Japanese imperial family ruled from seclusion; the emperor was rarely seen beyond the confines of the royal residences except on ceremonial occasions. This began to change after 1868, when Hirohito’s grandfather led a group of samurai (military elite) in a modernization effort known as the Meiji Restoration.While the intensely private, strongly ritualized office of the emperor became more public, the ruler still remained a mysterious figure. In 1921, when Hirohito visited England and met King George V, he became the first member of the Japanese imperial family to travel to the West.While he was gone, his father, Yoshihito, became very ill. The meningitis he contracted during his youth had profoundly affected his mental abilities, and he suffered from bouts of disorientation and disability. When it became apparent that Yoshihito could no longer lead, the crown prince was called home. On November 21, 1921, Hirohito was formally named regent (sensho), and a little more than a year later he wed Princess Nagako.

FROM CROWN PRINCE TO EMPEROR Emperor Yoshihito lived for several more years, but his rule was effectively over and Hirohito took on the responsibilities of ruling the empire.When Yoshihito died on December 25, 1926, Hirohito became emperor of Japan. Following tradition, the installation

ROYAL RITUALS

DATING OF ERAS In traditional Japan, the inauguration of a new emperor also marked the inauguration of a new era. Thus, events are dated by reference to the imperial era in which they occurred. For instance, the Russo-Japanese War, occurring during the reign of Emperor Mutsuhito, is dated to the Meiji period, whereas the Pacific War occurred during the Showa period. Currency issued during a particular era was marked accordingly, and an image of the reigning emperor was struck onto the faces of all coins. This traditional style of dating was forbidden by the new constitution imposed during the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II. A change in law, however, is not always enough to force a break with tradition: the practice of reckoning dates, and of marking coins and other currency with the image and period of imperial rule, continues in Japan today.

Hittite Empire of a new emperor was marked by the declaration of a new era, called Showa (“radiating peace” or “enlightened peace”). As emperor, Hirohito became the highest priest in the ancient Shinto religion; his authority came directly from the gods. In temporal matters, he was assisted by a large group of advisers and councilors.This diffuse style of rulership, called nemawashi (“prior negotiations leading to consensus”) was codified in the Meiji constitution and sanctified by tradition. Under Emperor Mutsuhito, Japan had begun a period of expansion. Its army and navy took Manchuria in China in 1931, and military campaigns continued throughout the early 1900s. Hirohito, as supreme commander of Japan’s armed forces, continued this expansionist policy, ultimately leading to war with China in the late 1930s. Meanwhile, as Europe moved toward World War II, the Japanese began looking eastward at the islands of the Pacific, including Hawaii. When war erupted in Europe in 1939, the United States hoped to remain uninvolved. However, when Hirohito, Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Benito Mussolini of Italy formed an alliance in December 1940, the United States could no longer remain wholly above the fray. Hoping to cripple its ability to wage war, the United States imposed an oil embargo on Japan that same year. Meanwhile, peace negotiations between the United States and Japan continued. Hopes for peace were dashed, however, when the Japanese launched a surprise attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

FROM RULER TO FIGUREHEAD Tales of atrocities committed by the Japanese during the war led to demands that its leaders be brought to trial for war crimes, and several high officials were brought before an international court. However, the United States believed that its occupation of Japan would be facilitated if the emperor remained on the throne. Under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (August 1945), which marked the official end of the war between the United States and Japan, Hirohito agreed to cooperate fully with the American occupation of Japan. In accordance with the provisions of a new constitution drawn up by the United States, Hirohito renounced his claim to divinity and divested himself of all but a purely symbolic role. This ritual role for the emperor suited the American occupying

401

forces well, providing the Japanese people with the appearance of continuity of tradition and helping to avoid the possibility of a popular uprising. Hirohito remained emperor of Japan until his death from cancer on January 7, 1989. During the latter part of his reign, he occupied himself with his passion for marine biology. He also spent time traveling, particularly to Europe. From the end of World War II until his death, Hirohito became merely a symbolic figure. Hirohito and Empress Nagako had seven children, the first four of whom were girls. This had caused great consternation, for one of the emperor’s most important duties was to produce an heir to the throne. On December 23, 1933, the country experienced enormous relief with the announcement of the birth of Prince Akihito. When Akihito ascended to the Chrysanthemum Throne upon his father’s death, he became the first Japanese emperor to reign as a purely symbolic figure and without invoking a divine right to rule. See also: Divine Right; Education of Kings. FURTHER READING

Bix, Herbert. Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. New York: HarperCollins, 2000. Hoyt, Edwin P. Hirohito: The Emperor and the Man. New York: Praeger, 1992. Large, Stephen S. Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan:A Political Biography. New York: Routledge, 1992.

HITTITE EMPIRE (ca. 1680–1220 B.C.E.) Ancient empire in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) that was one of the earliest and most powerful empires of the ancient Near East. Around 1900 b.c.e., a group of Indo-European peoples entered Asia Minor, or Anatolia, from somewhere in the north. They claimed the territory as their own, called it Hatti, and converted the people they conquered to their Indo-European language and culture. Not all the local culture was lost, however. Most notably, these Indo-European people adapted cuneiform, the ancient method of writing using wedge-shaped strokes, to use in their own language. By the seventeenth century b.c.e., these invaders, known to history as the Hittites, had founded what is now called the Old Hittite king-

402

Hittite Empire

dom, which was centered in the Anatolian region of Cappadochiao.The first Hittite king was Labarna (r. ca. 1680–1650 b.c.e.), and the Hittites established a capital at Hattusa. Soon after beginning his reign, Labarna started to expand his domain, and the Hittite kingdom soon grew to contain nearly all of central Anatolia. Labarna and his successors were all-powerful rulers, acting as chief priest, judge, and military commander. To help them administratively, they appointed provincial governors who enforced their ruling decisions. Successors to the Hittite throne were ambitious and sought to gain more territory for themselves. King Hattushili I (r. ca. 1620–1600 b.c.e.) expanded the borders of the kingdom to the southeast and the southwest. Around 1595 b.c.e., Murshili I (r. ca. 1600–1590 b.c.e.) invaded northern Syria and then headed south to Babylon, withdrawing immediately after taking his fill from the Babylonian treasury. When Murshili returned home to the capital at Hattusa, however, he was killed by his brother-inlaw, Hantili I (r. ca.1590–1560 b.c.e.). His death led to an extended period of turmoil within the kingdom over who would succeed to the throne; this left the Hittite kingdom weak and vulnerable to attack. While the Hittites were dealing with governmental instability, the neighboring kingdom of Mitanni in Syria and northwestern Mesopotamia was being formed and was growing strong.The Mitannis, wasting no time in taking advantage of Hittite weakness and vulnerability, began conquering some of the Hittite lands. The Mitanni state became a continuing problem for the Hittites, who engaged in ongoing wars with the rival Mitannis over control of territory. The Mitannis captured northern Syria and much of Assyria, and by the end of the sixteenth century b.c.e., the size of the Hittite Empire had shrunk to its former area in central Anatolia as a result of Mitanni conquest. Around 1525 b.c.e., King Telipinu (r. ca. 1525– 1500 b.c.e.) came to the Hittite throne and brought about some stability to the kingdom. Among his accomplishments were new rules of succession aimed at preventing the problems that had disrupted the kingdom for decades.Telipinu proved unable to build up the Hittite strength sufficiently, however. In the late fifteenth century b.c.e., a series of inept successors once again left the Hittites weak and vulnerable.

By 1358 b.c.e., what is called the New Hittite kingdom, under a new ruling family, began with the reign of King Shuppiluliuma (r. ca. 1358–1323 b.c.e.), a former prince. Through the effective use of the horse and chariot in warfare, Shuppiluliuma beat back the Hittites’ primary enemy, the Mitannis. Shuppiluliuma then turned his attention to expanding the kingdom. A series of conquests extended Hittite borders and once again consolidated the kingdom’s control over Anatolia and northern Syria. The Hittite Empire reached the peak of its power under Shuppiluliuma, and the Hittites rivaled the two other major empires of the time, Egypt and Assyria. The power and strength of the Hittite Empire soon led to tensions with Egypt, and both empires sought to keep open trade routes between Africa and Asia. During the last half of the fourteenth century b.c.e., control of Syria and the trade routes along its coast became a major point of contention between the Hittites and the Egyptians. Around 1275 b.c.e., a great battle—the battle of Kadesh—was fought between the Hittite king Muwatalli (r. ca. 1285–1273 b.c.e.) and the Egyptian pharaoh Rameses II (r. ca. 1279–1212 b.c.e). Although Rameses claimed a great victory, the Hittites continued to maintain control over Syria. Finally, around 1258 b.c.e., the conflict between the Egyptians and Hittites was settled by a treaty signed by Rameses II and the Hittite ruler, Hattushili III (r. ca. 1266–1236 b.c.e.). The treaty, in which each side agreed to refrain from attacking the other and to come to the other’s assistance if needed, marked the start of a short period of stability for the Hittites and their relations with Egypt. Despite its powerful position in the region, the New Hittite kingdom lasted only about another century. It is not known for certain what caused the demise of the once-powerful empire. It is generally agreed that the appearance of a powerful new group known as the “peoples of the sea” or Sea Peoples led to the decline of the Hittite Empire and its eventual end. After centuries of constant warfare and political instability, the Hittites were unable to gather the strength to hold back a new force in the region. See also: Egyptian Dynasties,Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Mitanni Kingdom; Ramses II, the Great; Syrian Kingdoms.

H o h e n s tau f e n D y n a s t y

HOHENSTAUFEN DYNASTY (1138–1254 C.E.)

German princely family based in Swabia in southern Germany, which ruled Germany from 1138 to 1254 and the Holy Roman Empire from 1138 to 1208 and 1212 to 1250. The Hohenstaufen family was descended from Duke Frederick I of Swabia (d. 1105) and took its name from his Staufen Castle, which he built in 1077 c.e. The line of Hohenstaufen German kings and Holy Roman emperors began with Frederick’s son, Conrad III (r. 1138–1152). During Conrad’s reign, German colonists began settling in the Slavic lands to the northeast of the German kingdom. Conflicts between the Crown and rebellious nobles, which had been common during the rule of the Salian dynasty, also continued. Conrad III’s son Henry died before he could take the throne, so Conrad designated his nephew Frederick as his successor. Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1152–1190) was crowned emperor in Rome in 1155.The most significant and successful of the Hohenstaufen rulers, Frederick maintained control over the German nobility, while asserting imperial rights in Italy. His involvement in Italy brought him into conflict with the papacy, which worked to cause the downfall of the Hohenstaufen dynasty. During Frederick I’s reign, the term Holy Roman Empire was first used to denote the empire that was comprised of various German and northern Italian states. Frederick Barbarossa drowned in 1190 while on Crusade in the region of Cilicia in Asia Minor. He was succeeded as German king by his son Henry VI (r. 1190–1197), who was crowned Holy Roman emperor in 1191. In 1194, Henry marched south through Italy and conquered the kingdom of Sicily, which he claimed through his wife, Constance, who was an heir to the Sicilian throne. During Henry’s reign, he tried unsuccessfully to have the imperial succession declared hereditary in hopes of securing it for the Hohenstaufens. On Henry’s death from a fever in 1197, Constance had their son Frederick crowned king of Sicily and cut Sicily’s ties with the Holy Roman Empire. She died in 1198, and her ally, Pope Innocent III, became the official guardian of the young Sicilian king. With Henry’s son in Sicily, his brother Philip, duke

403

of Swabia, was elected king in Germany (r. 1198– 1208) instead. Philip also had imperial authority but not the actual title of Holy Roman emperor, since he was not crowned officially in Rome. Meanwhile, a rival faction of German nobles elected a different king, Otto IV, who was son of Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony (r. 1142–1180) and a member of the powerful Welf family, whose rivalry with the Hohenstaufen reached back to the election of Conrad III. Pope Innocent III supported Otto’s claim in return for concessions in Italy. A civil war broke out in Germany, which lasted until 1208, when Philip of Swabia and Innocent III negotiated a settlement. However, Philip was murdered in 1208, and Otto IV was elected undisputed king (1208–1212), bringing the Welf dynasty to the throne. Otto IV was later crowned emperor in 1209, but when he attempted to retake Sicily the following year, the pope excommunicated him and persuaded the nobles of southern Germany to elect Frederick, the king of Sicily, as German king.The son of Henry VI and a Hohenstaufen, Frederick II (r. 1212–1250) had a prior claim to the German Crown, having already been elected king during the lifetime of his father as a means of ensuring the succession. Otto IV was defeated by Frederick’s French allies in 1214 and lost control of most of Germany before his death in 1218. Frederick II was crowned Holy Roman emperor in 1220, restoring the Hohenstaufen family to the throne. During his reign, the conflict between the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy over supremacy of lands in Italy continued. Toward the end of his reign, two anti-kings were elected with papal approval: Henry Raspe (r. 1246–1247) and William of Holland (r. 1247–1256). When Frederick II died in 1250, his son, Conrad IV (r. 1250–1254), carried on the struggle with the pope, who was determined to end Hohenstaufen rule in Italy. In 1251, Conrad left Germany to try to retake lost Italian territories, leaving no effective government in Germany. On Conrad’s death in 1254, his two-year-old son Conradin was left as heir to the throne of Sicily and Jerusalem, which his father had also ruled. However, Conrad’s half-brother, Manfred, also claimed these Italian Crowns and made himself king of Sicily in 1258. But the pope granted that kingdom to Charles of Anjou, brother of the French king, in 1266. Manfred died in battle that same year trying to assert his claim.

404

H o h e n s tau f e n D y n a s t y

Young Conradin attempted to recover his kingdom of Sicily in 1268, but was captured by the forces of Charles of Anjou and executed. His death marked the end of the Hohenstaufen dynasty’s era of rule. In Germany, meanwhile, the period from 1250 to 1273 was called the Great Interregnum, as no single strong ruler emerged until Rudolf of Habsburg in 1273. The period of Hohenstaufen rule in Germany was characterized by nearly continual conflicts between the Crown and the German princes who ruled quasiindependent territories, as well as by strife with the papacy, which felt threatened by a strong Holy Roman Empire.The most significant result of the unending conflict between the Hohenstaufens and their rivals was the failure to create a strong central authority at a time when other European kingdoms, particularly England and France, were doing so. See also: Frederick I, Barbarossa; Frederick II; Holy Roman Empire; Papal States; Salian Dynasty; Sicilian, Kingdom of. FURTHER READING

Hampe, Karl. Germany Under the Salian and Hohenstaufen Emperors. Trans. Ralph Bennett. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973. Haverkamp, Alfred. Medieval Germany, 1056–1273. 2nd ed. Trans. Helga Braun and Richard Mortimer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Holmes, George, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades: A Short History. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1987.

HOHENZOLLERN DYNASTY (1415–1918 C.E.)

Royal family of Germany that oversaw much of the five-hundred-year transition of that country from a loose collection of kingdoms to one of the most powerful industrial nations on earth. One of the longest-running dynasties in history, the Hohenzollerns count among their members such figures as Frederick William, the Great Elector (r. 1640–1688); Frederick William I (r. 1713–1740); Frederick II, the Great (r. 1740–1786); and the powerful nineteenth-century German emperors Wil-

helm I (r. 1871–1888) and Wilhelm II (r. 1888– 1918). Along with the Habsburgs of eastern Germany and Austria, the Hohenzollerns dominated the evolution of Germany from the late Middle Ages until World War I.

ORIGINS AND EARLY RULERS The Hohenzollern family name appears as early as the eleventh century c.e. during the reign of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (r. 1084–1105). Some historical evidence from that period suggests that members of the family acted as minor officials in or near the southern German city of Hechingen. The family appears again in the late twelfth century, when Conrad Hohenzollern was appointed governor of the Bavarian city of Nuremberg by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I (r. 1152–1190). The Hohenzollerns held this relatively minor position until the early fifteenth century, when Sigismund (r. 1387–1437), the Hungarian king and later Holy Roman emperor, rewarded Frederick Hohenzollern for his loyalty and support with the electorate of the state of Brandenburg in eastern Germany. Frederick, who had supported Sigismund in his wars against the Ottoman Empire, was named Frederick I of Brandenburg in 1415, thus beginning the reign of the Hohenzollern dynasty. The reigns of the first several Hohenzollerns were largely uneventful, though family lands in Brandenburg expanded somewhat under Frederick’s son and successor, Frederick II (r. 1440–1470). The latter Frederick’s death in 1470 brought to power his younger brother, Albert Achilles, who issued a decree that all Brandenburg lands would pass to the eldest son of the ruling Hohenzollern, thus assuring the family’s legacy. Albert’s grandson, Albert of Brandenburg (r. 1525–1568), expanded the family’s land dramatically when he became the first duke of Prussia in 1525. Although the second Albert was technically from a different branch of the family than the electors of Brandenburg, the two branches were reunited in 1618 under Elector John Sigismund (r. 1608–1620), making the Hohenzollern family one of the largest landholders in Germany.

CONFLICT AND FURTHER GROWTH The Hohenzollerns managed to avoid some of the controversy over the rise of Protestantism in the late sixteenth century, despite high-profile conversions from ruling members such as Joachim II (r. 1535–

H oh e n zol l e r n Dy na s t y

405

The Peace of Westphalia (1648) and a 1657 Polish treaty secured Hohenzollern domain over Prussia and the eastern portions of Pomerania, and Frederick William’s complete reconstruction of his national army ensured the family a position of great importance in subsequent European politics. Upon Frederick William’s death in 1688, he was succeeded by his son, Frederick III (r. 1688–1701).

THE EMERGENCE OF PRUSSIA

Frederick William, of the German Hohenzollern dynasty, was known as the Great Elector. Uniting various lands controlled by the Hohenzollerns, Frederick William established Brandenburg-Prussia as one of the most powerful states in seventeenth-century Europe.

1571) and John Sigismund. However, the outbreak of the Thirty Years’War (1618–1648) in 1618 desolated the Brandenburg lands, as John Sigismund’s son and successor, George William (r. 1620–1640), was unable to preserve a position of neutrality in the face of invading forces from Sweden and elsewhere. George William effectively turned over the administration of Brandenburg to his ministers and left his lands in ruins. His death in 1640 brought his son, Frederick William, to the head of the family. Frederick William, also known as the Great Elector, was one of the most important figures in the history of the Hohenzollern dynasty. Under his rule, the Hohenzollern lands, which had been badly wrecked by war and foreign occupation, became united into one of the most powerful states in all of Europe. Frederick William greatly improved the economy of Brandenburg with a series of administrative reforms and public works projects, including a canal on the Oder River that is still in use today.

Although Frederick III was not an especially gifted leader, he was able to use his military strength as leverage against Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (r. 1658–1705) to have himself named King Frederick I of Prussia (r. 1701–1713) in 1701. The outbreak of the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714) immediately thereafter, led ultimately to international recognition of the Hohenzollern claim to Prussia.Although Frederick succeeded in achieving true monarchial status for the Hohenzollern line, he was an ineffective ruler, undoing many of the advances made by his father. His death in 1713 brought his son, Frederick William I (r. 1713–1740), to the throne. Frederick William I is regarded as the man who saved Prussia, as his father had left it teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Frederick William streamlined the Prussian government and managed to pay off his father’s creditors. He also practiced a strict protectionist economic policy, which led to great success for Prussian businesses. Although Prussia engaged in few military conflicts during Frederick William’s reign, he expanded his army nearly threefold and turned it into one of the most well-equipped and well-trained forces in Europe. Despite his obvious political skills, Frederick William frequently quarreled with his son, the man who was to become one of the greatest leaders in European history, Frederick II (r. 1740–1786).

PRUSSIAN DOMINANCE Generally known by the appellation “the Great,” Frederick II began his reign in 1740 upon the death of his father. He continued the advances his father had made to astonishing ends.The Prussian military’s success in two mid-century conflicts, the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) and the Seven Years’War (1756–1763), made it the most powerful in all of Europe, and Frederick’s political cunning allowed him to bring large portions of territory under

406

H oh e n zol l e r n Dy na s t y

Prussian control. Frederick’s internal policies were more progressive than his father’s. He greatly modernized the Prussian legal system, set the economy on the road to industrialization, and initiated a series of civic projects, such as roads and canals, necessary for future growth. Frederick II, who had no direct descendants, died in 1786; his nephew, Frederick William II (r. 1786–1797) succeeded him on the throne.

YEARS OF MISRULE The next eighty years did little to further the march of the Hohenzollern line begun by Frederick William I and Frederick the Great, as Prussia saw a series of weak and ineffective rulers take the throne. Frederick William II had the dubious distinction of returning the Prussian treasury to near-bankruptcy. His son

Electors of Brandenburg

and successor, Frederick William III (r. 1797–1840), was forced to turn most of Prussia’s affairs over to his ministers because he proved incapable of guiding the country through the Napoleonic Wars (1803– 1815). Moreover, Frederick William III was not well liked, and his efforts to quash proto-democratic movements in Prussia only furthered his people’s distrust. His death in 1840 brought his son, Frederick William IV (r. 1840–1861), to the throne. The 1840s saw a series of revolutionary uprisings spread across Europe. Most were aimed, in one form or another, at achieving more popular representation in governmental affairs. The various German states responded by drafting a liberal constitution for unification that made Frederick William IV the head of a German empire.The Prussian king, however, had an immense dislike for the will of the people, and he re-

Frederick William, the Great Elector*

1640–1688

Frederick I

1415–1440

Frederick II

1440–1470

Albert Achilles

1470–1486

John Cicero

1486–1499

Kings of Prussia

Joachim I

1499–1535

Frederick I

1701–1713

Joachim II

1535–1571

Frederick William I

1713–1740

John George

1571–1598

Frederick II, the Great

1740–1786

Joachim Frederick

1598–1608

Frederick William II

1786–1797

Frederick William III

1797–1840

Frederick William IV

1840–1861

Wilhelm I

1861–1871

Dukes of Prussia Albert of Brandenburg

1525–1568

Albert Frederick

1568–1618

Frederick III

1688–1701

German Emperors Electors of Brandenburg and Dukes of Prussia

Wilhelm I

John Sigismund

Wilhelm II*

1608–1620,

Frederick III

1871–1888 1888 1888–1918

1618–1620, George William

1620–1640,

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

H oly Rom a n E m p i r e fused to accept the Crown, causing the entire plan to fall apart.This political blunder was the blackest spot on Frederick William IV’s otherwise unremarkable reign. A mental decline in his later years brought change to the Prussian government in the person of his brother, Wilhelm I (r. 1861–1871), who took control as regent in 1858. Wilhelm became king upon his older sibling’s death in 1861.

TRIUMPH AND DEVASTATION The reign of Wilhelm I was marked by the rebirth of Prussia as a fearsome military force and by the skilled statecraft of his prime minister, Otto von Bismarck. Wilhelm was a powerful figure, but Bismarck has historically received much of the credit for the rise of Germany in the late-nineteenth century. Shortly after Wilhelm took the throne, Bismarck began agitating for war with Austria, which would allow Prussia to unify Germany on its own terms. Although Wilhelm was not entirely supportive of this plan, Bismarck was able in 1866 to provoke the Austro-Prussian War, in which Prussia’s military crushed Austrian opposition in just under two months.

GERMANY ASCENDANT Following on the heels of the victory over Austria, Bismarck goaded France into the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The Prussian military once more displayed its immense strength, marching all the way to Paris, this time with Wilhelm himself on the battlefield. The end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 saw the German princes unite behind Prussia, and Wilhelm was declared Emperor Wilhelm I. This is considered the birth of the modern German nation. The Hohenzollerns continued to rise during the remainder of the nineteenth century, and Germany became the most powerful nation on the European continent, riding a wave of massive industrialization and nationalist sentiment. Upon Wilhelm I’s death in 1888, the Crown passed to his popular but ill-fated son, Frederick III, who died just three months after being crowned emperor. Frederick was known for his liberal ideas, and his death was greatly lamented in some quarters, as it brought to power his militaristic son,Wilhelm II.

THE END OF THE DYNASTY One of Wilhelm II’s earliest political moves was to force the resignation of Bismarck, whom he felt had been exerting too much power over the royal house.

407

Wilhelm, however, lacked Bismarck’s diplomatic talents and soon found himself embroiled in a series of international crises, all of which served to increase the growing tensions between the major powers of Europe—tensions that eventually led to World War I.Wilhelm exacerbated the situation by setting Germany on a rapid course of imperial expansion, largely in Africa and the Middle East, which threw it directly into conflict with the other major imperial powers, especially Great Britain and France. A series of alliances eventually linked Germany with Austria-Hungary and most of Central Europe, in direct opposition to an Anglo-French alliance with Russia. The friction between these two immensely powerful groups continued to build until the summer of 1914, when World War I exploded across Europe. After four years of the most destructive fighting the world had ever seen, Germany, still standing but utterly exhausted, surrendered to the Allies, and Wilhelm II was forced to abdicate the throne.The last ruling member of the Hohenzollern dynasty fled to Holland, where he remained until his death in 1941. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Diplomacy, Royal; Dynasty; Empire; Frederick II,the Great; Frederick William, the Great Elector; Habsburg Dynasty; Imperial Rule; Nationalism; Power, Forms of Royal; Regencies; Royal Line; Sigismund;Wilhelm II. FURTHER READING

Nelson, Walter Henry. The Soldier Kings:The House of Hohenzollern. New York: Putnam, 1970.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (962–1806 C.E.)

Political body, composed of various states in Central Europe, that was formed in the Middle Ages and lasted up to the modern era. Intended to serve as the secular counterpart of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Roman Empire survived nearly one thousand years until it was dissolved by the last Holy Roman emperor, Francis II (r. 1792–1806), in 1806. The Holy Roman Empire originated in form, but not in name, at the coronation of German king Otto

408

H oly Rom a n E m p i r e

ROYAL RITUALS

THE CHARLEMAGNE CONNECTION Although some credit Charlemagne with the honor of being the first of the Holy Roman emperors, the political entity we know as the Holy Roman Empire in fact got its start more than 150 years later, in 962. In the years just prior, Pope John XII was facing a threat from King Berengar II of Italy, who sought to annex the Papal States. John turned to the powerful German king, Otto I, for assistance in repelling this threat. Once Berengar II was turned aside, the pope rewarded his collaborator by crowning him “Emperor of the Romans” and giving him authority over Italy and territory in the eastern portion of present-day France.This augmented Otto’s German territories and formed the basis of the Holy Roman Empire. From the time of Otto’s reign forward, the imperial office was based on German kingship, and the earlier connection to the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne and his Carolingian successors was broken.

I (r. 936–973) as emperor in 962. The name “Holy Roman Empire” did not come into common usage until several centuries later. The empire was, in essence, a successor to the empire established by the Frankish ruler Charlemagne (r. 800–814) in the 800s, which Charlemagne and his successors in the Carolingian dynasty saw as a continuation of the ancient Roman Empire.

SECULAR MIRROR OF CATHOLIC UNITY The idea underlying the formation of the Holy Roman Empire was that there should be a secular, or nonreligious, equivalent to the Catholic Church.The emperors were intended to provide military and political support to the Church, uniting all Catholics into a single political state. In principle, this would have meant that once a king of Germany was crowned, he would travel to Rome to receive his imperial coronation directly from the pope. In return for the imperial crown, the emperor was expected to spread the Catholic faith throughout his realm and into any new territories he might conquer. Equally important, he was expected to provide support and protection against all threats to the safety and authority of the pope. His civil courts were expected to prosecute all secular crimes against the Church, and he was obligated to provide military

assistance, when needed, to protect the papal states should they be attacked. In practice, this arrangement never really worked the way it was intended. Instead, the history of the Holy Roman Empire is one of power struggles between the emperors and the popes that crowned them. Rather than working together as two halves (secular and religious) of a single polity, the emperors and popes each sought ascendancy over the other.

SECULAR ASCENDANCY: 962–1250 During the first 300 years of the empire, the emperors clearly had the upper hand.The popes of this era were too dependent upon the protection of the emperors and their strong military capabilities to impose much control over the way the empire was run. In fact, the emperors were so strong that at times they would dismiss popes whom they deemed unsuitable and replace them with individuals more to their liking. Thus, for example, Otto III (r. 983– 1002), the grandson of the first emperor, had a loyal friend installed as successor to Pope Gregory V. It was not until after the reign of Pope Innocent III (r. 1198–1216) that the papacy began to threaten the Hohenstaufen rulers of the empire. During this period of secular ascendancy, the German kings exercised real control over all the ter-

H oly Rom a n E m p i r e ritories of their empire, primarily through a form of indirect rule that relied upon local nobles and bishops to administer their cities and territories according to German edicts. Even in Italy this system was effective enough to ensure that the power of the kings was primary. By the end of the eleventh century, however, a series of popes took active steps to reduce their dependency upon the kings. Beginning with popes Gregory VII (r. 1073–1085) and Urban II (r. 1088–1099), the papacy asserted its authority more vigorously within the Papal States and then throughout Italy than papal predecessors had done. The popes were aided in their assertion of authority by an accumulating weakness within the German territories, where excesses in taxation and falling revenues rendered the kings increasingly less able to refuse compliance with the newly invigorated papacy. By 1250, the German kings had become fully subordinate to the papacy, so much so that the popes began delaying the coronation ceremony when they were displeased with a particular king. At times they even refused to perform it at all, thus depriving the kings of the legitimacy that papal coronation normally bestowed.

409

AN EMPIRE OF DWINDLING POWER Whereas the kings of the first three centuries of the Holy Roman Empire wielded true administrative and political control over their territorial possessions, the kings of the next 200 years were little more than figureheads. Not only was the papacy in ascendance, but the German nobility at home was also challenging the authority of the kings and establishing semi-independent hereditary dynasties. Moreover, the French were annexing parts of Burgundy from the empire, and some of the subject peoples of the empire were actively refusing to recognize the authority of the kings. Further adding to the weakness of the German ruling house was the system by which kings attained the throne. The German kingship was not a hereditary office, but rather an elective one. A group of seven of the highest ranking nobles made their selection from among several important landowning families. The electors themselves were not averse to manipulating the system to gain benefits for their own houses, and during this period they began intentionally to choose weak kings, thus assuring for themselves the ability to manipulate the state to their

410

H oly Rom a n E m p i r e

advantage. Not surprisingly, these weak kings lost their grip on the empire, and the once unified territory began to disintegrate, breaking up into a mass of independent or near-independent states and territories. By 1438, the empire was an empire only in name.

ATTEMPTS AT RECOVERY Beginning in 1438, the kings of Germany began to be chosen almost exclusively from the ranks of a powerful Austrian noble family, the Habsburgs. These kings, determined to halt the steady dissolution of the empire that had begun in the preceding era, began to initiate a series of reforms designed to strengthen the state. Among these innovations was the institution of an assembly of nobles, each of whom represented an important city, district, or family. This assembly eventually evolved into a true legislative body. The year 1500 saw further innovation in the empire when the first true administrative branch of government, called the Reichsregiment, was officially recognized. Soon a court system was also added to official governmental institutions, as was a board of taxation. These reforms might have succeeded in shoring up the power of the emperors, but internal resistance from noble families who refused to relinquish power to these new official bodies greatly impeded the progress that was being attempted. Even if the nobles had gone along with the reform efforts, new pressures were working against the integrity of the empire. The weakness of earlier emperors had encouraged Germany’s neighbors, particularly France, to make incursions into imperial territory, and Protestantism had gained significant ground in Germany’s southwestern districts, as well as elsewhere in Europe. In 1618, all these pressures culminated in the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), which pitted Germany (and its Habsburg ally, Spain) against England, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, and the United Provinces (the Netherlands). In 1648, the war was finally brought to a close with the Treaty of Westphalia, which permanently ended the Habsburg attempt to regain power over the empire as a whole. Henceforth, the Habsburgs focused on building up their power in their hereditary lands—Bohemia, Austria, and Hungary. The empire had insufficient resources and internal unity to withstand a concerted challenge by out-

side powers. Diplomacy and alliances through royal marriages were the only way that the once powerful Holy Roman emperors could maintain their standing in the community of European nations. But this was an uneasy period, throughout which the empire withstood threats from their powerful Ottoman neighbors to the east and continuing threats emanating from France, the traditional rival of the Habsburg rulers. In the early 1800s, a new foe arose against whom the empire would ultimately prove powerless. Emperor Napoleon I of France (r. 1804–1815) began annexing German imperial lands, and encouraging other neighboring states to do the same. Within a few short years, on March 3, 1806, the last Holy Roman emperor, Francis II (r. 1792–1806), finally admitted defeat. He formally abdicated the imperial throne and dissolved the empire, remaining emperor of Austria only. The nearly thousand-year Holy Roman Empire was no more. See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Francis I; Franconian Dynasty; Habsburg Dynasty; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Otto I, the Great; Ottonian Dynasty; Papal States; Salian Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Barraclough, Geoffrey. Crucible of Europe: The Ninth and Tenth Centuries in European History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. ———. Origins of Modern Germany. 3rd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND KINGSHIP The matter of homosexual inclinations and practices among monarchs is often difficult to disentangle from gossip and political slander. Concern with a monarch’s sexual behavior was often not simply a matter of moral condemnation. In fact, at various times and places in history, personal affection between males was seen in a more positive light and was not viewed with as much suspicion or uncertainty as in more modern contexts. Gay male relationships involving a monarch often did provoke suspicion and concern, however, when it was feared that the monarch’s male lover was exerting undue

Homosexuality and Kingship political influence. Although the same is true of heterosexual relationships, men in most societies have been able to wield greater institutional power than women, including royal mistresses. A classic case of the male lovers’ power is that involving King Edward II of England (r. 1307–1327) and his lovers, Piers Gaveston and Hugh le Despenser the Younger. Edward’s favoring of these men, both of whom came from relatively low backgrounds, was only part of Edward’s general political and military incompetence, but they provided a ready focus for his opponents. Edward and his two lovers all died violent deaths, Gaveston and Despenser because of their attempts to wield power, and Edward partly because of his poor judgment in allowing them to do so. James I of Great Britain (r. 1603–1625) openly favored a succession of handsome young men, culminating in George Villiers, who was raised to the rank of duke of Buckingham by James and virtually led the royal government in the 1620s. This provoked both moral and political condemnation, although people had to be very cautious about expressing it. By contrast, Frederick II of Prussia (r. 1740–1786), who did not have a regular lover, endured nasty gossip but never allowed his sexual diversions to interfere with his political decisions. Probably the most “high-profile” royal gay male relationship in Western history was that between the Roman Emperor Hadrian (r. 117–138) and the handsome youth Antinous. This relationship did not present a political problem inasmuch as Antinous did not exploit his position for political gain. However, after Antinous drowned in the Nile River in 130 while on a trip to Egypt, Hadrian built a city in Egypt named after the youth and promoted worship of Antinous as a god. These actions attracted great criticism as being excessive behavior. In addition to fear of the royal favorite, homosexuality could adversely affect a king’s reputation if expressed in particularly flamboyant cross-gender behavior, or “unmanly” activities. For example, Roman emperors with particularly bad reputations, such as Caligula (r. 37–41), Nero (r. 54–68), and Elagabalus (r. 218–222), were frequently portrayed as cross-dressing or taking a passive role in homosexual intercourse, something the Greeks and Romans thought degrading in an adult male. Henry III (r. 1574–1589) of France, an effeminate ruler who advanced the careers of handsome young noblemen

411

called his mignons, attracted similar criticism. All of these monarchs faced much political condemnation for other reasons, but their flamboyant homosexuality or bisexuality provided an especially easy target for their critics. Christian Europe showed a higher degree of condemnation of same-sex erotic activity than most other civilizations. In societies that tolerate a greater acceptance of same-sex eroticism and lack exclusive social roles of “homosexual” and “heterosexual,” homosexual behavior on the part of rulers was less objectionable and less problematic for the rulers. Many Chinese emperors, particularly in the Han dynasty (206 b.c.e.– 220 c.e.), were known to have male or eunuch lovers, some of whom wielded considerable political power. The relationships of Duke Ling of Wei with Mixi Xia and the Han emperor Ai Ti (r. 7–1 b.c.e.) with Dong Xian are frequently referred to in Chinese literature. However, as the Confucian bureaucracy developed in later dynasties, it became more difficult for lovers of emperors to rise to political power. Female rulers have generally had less sexual latitude than male ones, and there are far fewer known cases of lesbianism in rulers than male homosexuality. Queen Christina of Sweden (r. 1632–1654) engaged in a prolonged emotional affair with a court lady named Ebba Sparre, although it is not known if the relationship was also physical. Queen Anne of England (r. 1702–1714) was slandered as having the court lady Abigail Masham as a lover, an unproven allegation encouraged by Anne’s rejected favorite, Sarah Churchill. Rumors about Marie Antoinette and her female favorites, the Princesse de Lamballe and the Comtesse de Polignac, date to the 1770s and flourished in pamphlets and pornographic images during the French Revolution, as part of an effort to depict her as an “unnatural” woman.Whether or not the rumors were based on fact, Antoinette, like Queen Christina, became a lesbian literary and artistic icon in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Eunuchs, Royal; Gender and Kingship. FURTHER READING

Bergeron, David. M. Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1991. Castle, Terry. “Marie Antoinette Obsession.” In The Apparitional Lesbian: Female Homosexuality in Modern

412

Homosexuality and Kingship

Culture, 107–49. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Hinsch, Bret. Passions of the Cut Sleeve:The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

HONG BANG DYNASTY (2879–258 B.C.E.)

A prehistoric and legendary dynasty said to have ruled over the first Vietnamese kingdom.The mythical dynasty was not recorded until the thirteenth century c.e., when the Tran dynasty commissioned the writing of a Vietnamese national history. According to Vietnamese folklore, a Hong Bang ancestor by the name of Kinh Duong Vuong ruled an empire he named Xich Qui. Kinh Duong Vuong’s son, Lac Long Quan, ruled Xich Qui through its golden age. He married Princess Au Co, who is said to have laid 100 eggs, each containing one son. After the eggs hatched, the two separated, and Au Co took half of the sons with her into the mountains while Lac Long Quan took the other half to the sea. One of the sons of Au Co and Long Quan was elected the first of eighteen Hung kings who would rule the kingdom called Van Lang under the Hong Dynasty. The Vietnamese people consider the Hung kings as their patron saints and founders of their nation in the period preceding recorded history. Few details have been passed down about the reigns of each of these legendary kings, and one can reason that the kingdom must have had more than eighteen kings, because with that number, each would have lived an average of 145 years to cover the dates of the dynasty.Au Co and Lac Long Quan are considered the ancestors of the Vietnamese people.The legendary kingdom of Au Lac followed the Hong Bang dynasty. See also: Tran Dynasty;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

HONGWU. See Hung Wu HSIA DYNASTY (ca. 2205–1776 B.C.E.) The first Chinese dynasty mentioned in China’s historical record. Ancient Chinese texts describe the

first three dynasties to rule China, the oldest of which is the Hsia, followed by the Shang and Chou. Chinese histories referred to a series of god-like kings who ruled China before the first dynasty and who invented the arts and tools of Chinese civilization, such as silk and pottery production, metalworking, writing, and the domestication of animals. One of these rulers was Yu, the legendary founder of the Hsia dynasty.Yu is credited with taming China’s waterways by implementing flood control and irrigation. He was said to be so virtuous and hard working that, although he passed his family’s home multiple times during his years of work, he did not stop to visit them until he had accomplished his task of controlling China’s rivers. Ancient texts reported that Yu’s dynasty lasted for fourteen generations and seventeen rulers. After Yu, the dynasty deteriorated until its last king, an evil tyrant named Jie, was overthrown by the founder of the Shang dynasty in the 1700s b.c.e. Although the Hsia are described in detail in Chinese histories, they were considered a mythical dynasty until archaeological findings in 1959 appeared to corroborate the ancient texts. Excavations at Erlitou, near the city of Luoyang, uncovered a city believed to be the Hsia capital, where archaeologists found bronze, jade objects, and pottery. Radiocarbon dating of the site placed it in the early second millennium b.c.e.While exact dates for the dynasty are not known, the Hsia probably lasted around 400 years, from the twenty-third century b.c.e. to the eighteenth century b.c.e. Located in north-central China, the Hsia civilization was based on agriculture and appears to have been the first centralized state to rule over a large area. The dynasty probably marks the transition period from Neolithic to Bronze Age civilization in China. Archaeologists have uncovered ritual vessels made of bronze which they believe were used by shamans, or priests, to perform elaborate rituals.The rulers themselves may have officiated as the shamans in ceremonies that sought to communicate with the spirits of ancestors. Histories report that Hsia rulers passed the mantle of rule to their sons, and the Hsia are credited with introducing the practice of hereditary rule to China. Although no written documents have survived from the Hsia period, archaeologists have found evidence of silk production, jade carving, pottery, and bronze casting. Excavations show urban communities

Hsuan Tsung that were home to skilled artisans and a stable social hierarchy. See also: Chou (Zhou) Dynasty; Shang (Yin) Dynasty.

HSUAN TSUNG (XUANZONG) (685–756 C.E.)

Emperor of China (r. 712–756) during the T’ang dynasty (618–907), under whose rule China experienced a period of artistic and literary excellence. Hsuan Tsung, whose personal name was Li Lung-chi (Li Longji), rose to the imperial throne of China in 712 when he was twenty-eight years old. His father, Jui Tsung (r. 684–690), had ruled only a few years before dying in suspicious circumstances and was succeeded by his widow, Empress Mei, who may have had her husband poisoned. Mei’s corruption eventually turned the government ministers against her.They revolted and installed her son Hsuan Tsung in her place.

EARLY YEARS The reign of Hsuan Tsung began well. During the early years, the emperor was actively engaged in administrative duties. He is credited with making significant improvements in the conduct of government, pacifying the vast frontier regions of the empire, rationalizing the tax system, and ushering in a period of great cosmopolitanism, the likes of which the country had never previously known. Unfortunately, many of the changes he introduced would eventually contribute to his downfall. Hsuan Tsung was also known by the name Ming Huang, which is variously translated as “Brilliant Monarch,” “Enlightened Ruler,” and “Radiant King.” All of these epithets refer as much to Hsuan Tsung’s support for the arts as to the wisdom of his rule. Indeed, his reign is generally understood to have been a glorious period of unprecedented flowering in the fields of art and literature. Under his patronage, two of China’s greatest poets came to prominence: Li Po (Li Bo) and Tu Fu (Du Fu). Hsuan Tsung’s commitment to intellectual pursuits is also reflected in his reign, for he founded China’s first academies, in the capital city of Chang’an (Xian), and ordered schools to be built in every province in the empire between 725 and 738.

413

Hsuan Tsung is equally remembered for his affair with one of his sons’ concubines, a woman named Yang Kueifei (Yang Guifei). This romance is perhaps the most famous in the history of China. Besotted with Yang Kueifei, the emperor became distracted from his duties and accorded her extraordinary influence, particularly in suggesting candidates for ministerial office. One such appointment was a young general named An Lushan, whom Yang Kueifei had adopted as a son. However, An Lushan was an ambitious man, not loyal to his sponsor, and Yang Kueifei would soon come to regret supporting him. Yang Kueifei also led Hsuan Tsung into a deep study of Taoism, and soon the emperor became so absorbed in his studies that he virtually ignored his imperial duties. His inattention to his responsibilities did not go unnoticed by his generals, particularly those stationed on the frontier, and they became increasingly dissatisfied with Hsuan Tsung’s withdrawal from the affairs of state. The generals were particularly upset that Hsuan Tsung did not seem to care that China’s hold on the western borderlands was threatened by an uprising among one of the indigenous groups there, a Turkic people called the Uighurs.

DOWNFALL AND OVERTHROW In 751, the Chinese army on the frontier lost a significant battle to these Uighurs, and this defeat was the last straw for Hsuan Tsung’s disgruntled generals and ministers, most of whom blamed Yang Kueifei’s seductive influence on the emperor for the troubles plaguing the empire. An Lushan saw an opportunity to seize power, and while Hsuan Tsung composed poetry to his concubine and pursued his philosophical studies of the Tao, the young general began amassing an army. In 755, An Lushan was ready to act. He led his troops in an insurrection and proclaimed himself the rightful new emperor of all of China. Hsuan Tsung fled west toward Sichuan with his entourage, which included his beloved Yang Kueifei. As they fled, however, the emperor’s guards decided that Yang Kueifei had to die. They killed her and dumped her body unceremoniously into a ditch. Soon after, Hsuan Tsung himself surrendered. An Lushan, did not profit from his insurrection, however. Hsuan Tsung designated his son Su Tsung (Suzong) as emperor, and imperial loyalists rallied around the new ruler (r. 756–762). A rather weak ruler, Su Tsung served well enough as a puppet for

414

Hsuan Tsung

China’s powerful warlords, who restored some semblance of order and stability to the empire. Hsuan Tsung did not live long after abdicating his throne; he retired to one of his palaces and died in 762. See also: T’ang Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Johnson, David G. The Medieval Chinese Oligarchy. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 1977. Perry, John Curtis, and Bardwell L. Smith. Essays on T’ang Society: The Interplay of Social, Political, and Economic Forces. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. Wright, Arthur F., and Denis Twitchett, eds. Perspectives on the T’ang. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.

HUANG TI (HUANGDI) (YELLOW EMPEROR) (ca. 2697–2597 B.C.E.)

One of the so-called Three Sovereigns and the first of the legendary Five Emperors of ancient China, who supposedly established the basic elements of Chinese civilization. According to traditional histories, the reign of this mythical ruler began in 2697 b.c.e. The story of China’s past and the life of Huang Ti (Huangdi) emerges through the works of ancient historians such as Sima Qian, who lived and wrote in the second and first centuries b.c.e.Although each of the legendary Five Emperors is believed to have enriched China’s civilization, Huang Ti’s myriad contributions shaped China to such an extent that many Chinese consider him to be the founder of the nation. His designation as the Yellow Emperor reveals Huang Ti’s stature, since yellow in Chinese culture represents imperial authority and splendor. Huang Ti is given credit for accomplishments in the practical, medical, cultural, and political spheres. According to tradition, he introduced wooden houses, boats, carts, the bow and arrow, ceramics, and the pottery wheel, and he encouraged his wife to teach people how to raise silkworms and weave beautiful silk cloth. Beginning in the third century b.c.e., Chinese physicians studied TheYellow Emperor’s Classic of Medicine, an ancient text in which Huang Ti supposedly set down his medical wisdom. Huang Ti supposedly oversaw the invention of a system of

writing, a particularly significant achievement because, to the Chinese, writing epitomizes all that is positive in their culture. Huang Ti is also regarded as the founder of the philosophical school of Daoism, while his victories on the battlefield secured China’s dominion of the Yellow River plain and carved out a political identity for the nation. Huang Ti is said to have died in an earthquake or shattering of the land, which legend attributes to nine dragons breaking up the town of Huangling. Interestingly, in the spring of 2002 c.e., the Chinese media reported that a meteorite over five thousand years old had been discovered in the province of Shaanxi in north-central China. The collision of this meteorite with earth may have been the event referred to in the ancient histories, leading some scholars to the conjecture that other elements of Huang Ti’s life and history may be verified one day. See also: Myth and Folklore. FURTHER READING

Loewe, Michael, and Edward L. Shaughnessy, eds. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. New York: Cambridge University Press.

HUARI (WARI) EMPIRE (ca. 650–1000 C.E.)

Pre-Columbian empire that developed in the Andes Mountains of Peru in South America and believed by some scholars to have developed a tradition of aggressive empire building later adopted by the Inca. Archaeological evidence suggests that Huari brought other peoples under their control through military force and religious conversion. The Huari, or Wari, Empire originated in the Ayacucho Valley of central Peru.At its height, it extended to the northern highlands as far as modern-day Cajamarca; along the central and southern coast as far as Moquegua; and to the southeastern highlands near Cuzco. The empire reached its peak of power around 900, but within the next century its authority began to wane as a result of increasing competition from other peoples and Andean states. Around 1100, the Huari were overthrown by these rivals, who established a number of regional states.Among these was the Chimu Empire.

Huascar The emergence of the Huari Empire was preceded by the appearance of several chiefdoms within the Ayacucho Basin. According to some scholars, the most influential of these was Huarpa, which laid the foundations for the Huari state. These early chiefdoms practiced an “archipelago system” in which colonies were established in different ecological environments, giving them access to a wide diversity of agricultural products. The Huari state emerged from these chiefdoms around 650. While retaining many of the patterns and traditions begun by its predecessors, including the archipelago system, the Huari state also introduced the conscription of labor from subject communities. Such practices, accompanied by territorial expansion, allowed Huari to become the first known centralized state in Peruvian prehistory. The capital city of the Huari Empire, also called Huari, was located on the eastern border of the Ayacucho Valley of southern Peru. The city grew steadily, eventually containing various administrative and ceremonial buildings, residential areas, and ceramic workshops where a distinctive form of pottery was produced. Massive stone walls divided Huari city into irregular sectors, but archaeologists have not found any indication of fortifications within the city. The lack of workshops dedicated to the manufacture of larger stone objects indicates that these were produced elsewhere. At its peak, the city of Huari extended over 1,200 acres (about two square miles), and its estimated population ranged between 10,000 and 35,000 inhabitants. Huari provincial centers had similar architectural characteristics to the capital city, suggesting that their construction was centrally planned. The other major provincial sites of the empire were Jincamocco,Viracochapampa, and Pikillacta. Huari culture shared some religious images and symbols with the Tiwanaku kingdom (ca. 500– 1200), another pre-Columbian civilization that developed in the southern Andes of Bolivia and Peru. The nature of the relationship between Huari and Tiwanaku is still unclear. Some scholars believe they were parallel civilizations that shared similar cultural patterns. Other experts contend that Tiwanaku controlled Huari for a time during its early history, until Huari became an independent imperial power. See also: Chimu Empire; South American Monarchies;Tiwanaku Kingdom.

415

HUASCAR (ca. late 1490s-1532 C.E.) Last legitimate king (r. 1524–1532) of the Inca Empire in the period before the Spanish conquest of Peru. The date of Huascar’s birth is not known with certainty, but it must have been sometime between the late 1490s and the early 1500s because, according to accounts of the time, he was only about thirtyfive years old when he died in 1532. Huascar was one of the many sons of Huayna Capac (r. 1493–1524), ruler of the Inca Empire.The family of the Incan king was very large, for tradition permitted the ruler to take many wives and concubines, any of whom might bear his children. Only one of these relationships could yield a future Great Inca (king), however. Of all a king’s partners, only one was with a fullblooded member of his own lineage. This was the Inca’s “true” wife, and only her eldest son could properly assume the throne. Huascar was not his father’s favorite son—that distinction fell to one of his younger half-brothers. But as the eldest son of Huayna Capac’s “true” wife, Huascar had special claim to the right of succession to the throne. Unfortunately for Huascar, however, Huayna Capac was especially fond of one of his lesser wives. This woman was of noble rank and from the region of Quito. Huayna Capac even moved himself and his entire court to Quito in order to be closer to his beloved, leaving Huascar behind in the traditional Incan capital of Cuzco. This favorite, though lesser, wife bore Huayna Capac a son named Atahualpa. As Huayna Capac lay dying, sometime in the mid1520s, he sought to make one last gesture to show his love for his Quito-born princess. Although he could not break with Incan tradition and transfer successorship from Huascar to Atahualpa, he could do the next best thing. He ceded the lands of Quito to Atahualpa’s rule, while leaving Huascar to inherit the Cuzco throne. His intent was for the two sons to rule separately but cooperatively. The two brothers did manage to rule their kingdoms without friction for the first few years. But around 1530, a rift developed between them that was so great that Huascar and Atahualpa went to war. The cause of the conflict is disputed. Some say that Atahualpa was ambitious and simply wanted sole rule of the Inca Empire. Others say that the hostili-

416

Huascar

ties were triggered when Huascar claimed land that Atahualpa felt belonged to his own kingdom. Whatever the cause, a bloody civil war broke out and raged for more than a year. In 1532, Huascar faced Atahualpa’s advancing forces on the plain of Quipaypan, outside of Cuzco. The battle went decisively in Atahualpa’s favor, and Huascar attempted to flee to safety. But Atahualpa’s forces captured him, and Atahualpa had Huascar thrown into prison. With his rival out of the way, Atahualpa seized the Incan throne. Huascar might have been allowed to live but for the arrival of the Spanish soon after his capture.The Spanish conquered the Incan capital but were unsure of how to administer so great a territory. Willing to turn over control of his empire in order to save his own life,Atahualpa offered the Spanish great sums of gold as well as his loyalty. He feared, however, that Huascar might put forward a competing claim in return for his freedom from prison. To secure his own position,Atahualpa secretly ordered his supporters to assassinate Huascar.This was done in the latter months of 1532. Atahualpa did not long profit from his treachery, however. When the Spaniards learned of what he had done, they charged him with the crimes of fratricide and regicide (after all, Huascar was a king). For these crimes, Atahualpa was himself executed by the Spanish in 1533. He was replaced on the Incan throne by Topa Huallpa (r. 1533), one of the many other sons of Huayna Capac. See also: Atahualpa; Huayna Capac; Inca Empire. FURTHER READING

Bauer, Brian S. The Development of the Inca Sate. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.

HUAYNA CAPAC (d. 1524 C.E.) The eleventh Great Inca (r. 1493–1524) and the last to rule an undivided Incan Empire. Huayna Capac died in 1524, eight years before the Spanish conquest of the Incan Empire. Because his life preceded the arrival of the Spanish, little information about him is available in the Western European historical record. His date of birth and the date of his ascension to the throne are uncertain. His father was Tupac Yupanqui, also called Topa Inca (r. 1471–1493). Huayna Capac succeeded his father on the throne in 1493.

As Great Inca, Huayna Capac was believed to be a direct descendant of the sun. Incan tradition tells the story of how the sun fathered two children: Manco Capac and Mama Ocllo Huaco. The sun ordered these two, who were also husband and wife, to travel the earth to gather all the humans they could find, and then to teach them how to create a civilized society. Their first-born son became the first Great Inca. This tradition, though based on myth, provides information about certain Incan practices and customs. For one thing, although the Great Inca was expected to be polygynous (having multiple wives), one of these wives had to be his true sister, and only the first-born son of that sister could inherit the throne.The origin myth also provided a mandate for Incan imperialism: the sun-god himself ordered the “civilization” of the local peoples. As the inheritor of this tradition, Huayna Capac was an exemplary Great Inca, even though his predecessors had already expanded the empire to nearly its fullest extent. Still, mindful of his mandate, Huayna Capac achieved a few more conquests, the final one being the conquest of Quito, in Ecuador. In the end, he ruled a territory in excess of three million square miles, incorporating all of what we now know as the countries of Peru and Bolivia, the southern portion of Ecuador, and the northern portion of Chile. These lands, gained through conquest, were frequently assimilated into the empire through relationships of marriage: the Great Inca and others of the royal house took wives and concubines from the ruling families of the conquered peoples. The children of such unions embodied the peaceful relationship established between the empire and its new subject peoples. Like his predecessors, Huayna Capac married his sister, with whom he fathered two sons. His firstborn, Huascar (r. 1524–1532), would be the legitimate heir of the empire, the other was Manco Capac, named after the founder of the Incan dynasty. Also like his predecessors, Huayna Capac took concubines from among the peoples he conquered. His final imperial victory was over the small Peruvian kingdom of Quito, and according to custom he took as his concubine a woman of Quito’s former ruling family.With her he sired two more sons, the first of whom was named Atahualpa (r. 1532–1533). Huayna Capac died suddenly in 1524 and, following traditional Inca practice, his body was mummi-

Hun Empire fied and entombed in the high mountains of the Andes. Although his official successor to the empire was Huascar, in the end four of Huayna’s sons would briefly occupy the imperial throne. None, however, enjoyed a long or independent reign. Shortly after Huayna Capac’s death, Huascar and Atahualpa fought a bloody civil war, and as soon as that war was concluded the Spanish conquistadors, led by Francisco Pizarro, arrived to conquer the empire and subject it to Spanish control. See also: Atahualpa; Huascar; Inca Empire; Virachocha. FURTHER READING

Bauer, Brian S. The Development of the Inca State. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.

HULAGU. See Il-Khan Dynasty HUN EMPIRE (ca. late 300s–400s C.E.) Vast empire founded by a nomadic tribe of Central Asia which invaded Europe and attacked the Roman Empire during the fourth and fifth centuries, bringing both the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction. The origin of the Huns is not clear. It appears, however, that they originated in Asia and probably derived from the Hsing-nu (Xiong-nu) people of western China.The Hsing-nu seem to have split into two main groups after they were weakened by conflict with China. One group stayed in Asia and the other migrated westward, later becoming known as the Huns. Some modern-day states, such as Turkey and Laos, claim descent from Hunnic tribes, but these claims cannot be entirely verified.

MOVEMENT WEST By the late fourth century, the Huns, possibly led by a semimythical king named Balamber (or Balamir), crossed the Volga River (in present-day Russia) and came into contact with the Alani people, who held the lands between the Volga and the Don rivers.After the Huns defeated them, the Alani provided some troops for future Hun campaigns. The Ostrogoths (eastern Goths), a Germanic

417

tribe, occupied the lands between the Dnestr and the Don rivers. They were the next tribe to be conquered and displaced by the invading Huns. As a result of Hun attacks, the Ostrogoths withdrew farther west and crossed the Danube River in Eastern and Central Europe.The Huns migrated farther west behind them. As the Huns continued to move westward, they forced the Visigoths (western Goths), another Germanic tribe, to cross the Danube sometime around 376. The Visigoths sought protection from the Eastern Roman Empire.Within two years, the migration of the Visigoths into Roman territory led to one of the great disasters of Roman history. The Eastern Roman emperor, Valens (r. 364–378), allowed the Visigoths to settle on Roman lands. But unease among the Visigoths about their treatment by the Romans led to an open revolt around 378. Valens led an army against a joint force of Visigoths and Ostrogoths at the battle of Adrianople in 378.The Goths formed an alliance with the Huns before the battle, and some sources speculate that Hun troops may have been on the battlefield that day, but this cannot be confirmed. The Roman army was annihilated and Valens was killed, while his western Roman counterpart, his uncle Gratian (r. 367–383), was just a few days’ march away with an army from the Western Roman Empire.

ATTACKS IN EUROPE Other than the legendary Balamber, the Huns appear to have been ruled by numerous chieftains rather than kings in the fourth century. By about 400, however, the various groups of Huns began to centralize under the leadership of a king named Uldin (r. dates unknown). Uldin campaigned against the Goths around 400 and prevented them from crossing the Danube River. Around 404 or 405, he raided the Roman province of Thrace. Sometime in 405 or 405, the Goths attacked Italy, and Uldin and his Hun troops were recruited by the Roman general, Stilicho, to help defeat the Goth invasion. The combined forces of Romans and Huns destroyed the Gothic army near Faesulae in 406. In 408, Uldin invaded the Balkan region, capturing the strategically important fortress of Castra Martis in the Roman province of Dacia. However, refusing to consider the peace overtures by the Roman commander of the province, Uldin found himself

418

Hun Empire

abandoned by his own men when the Romans successfully bribed his subordinates, inciting them to desert. Uldin was forced back across the Danube by the Romans the following year. Uldin was eventually succeeded by Charaton (r. ca. 410–422) sometime between 410 and 420. Sources for this period are missing, and it is uncertain whether Charaton actually succeeded Uldin or whether they were contemporary kings who ruled different parts of the Hun Empire as coregents.

RELATIONS WITH THE ROMANS By 430, two brothers, Octar (r. ca 420s–430) and Ruga (r. ca. 420s–434) (also known as Roas, Rugilas, Rua, or Rugila), were kings of the Huns and ruling as co-regents.When Octar died in around 430, he was succeeded by Ruga, who ruled alone. Ruga died around 434 and was succeeded as king by the brothers, Bleda (r. 434–445) and Attila (r. ca. 434–453), who also ruled as co-regents of the Hun Empire. These co-regents concluded a peace treaty with the Eastern Roman Empire that doubled the tribute paid by the Romans. The Romans agreed to this demand in order to avoid an attack. Around 445, Attila murdered his brother and became the sole king of the Huns. Meanwhile, the Romans had failed to pay the agreed tribute, and in 441 Attila crossed the Danube River and invaded the Balkan provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire. In 447, after a series of crushing defeats at the hands of the Huns, the Eastern Roman emperor, Theodosius II (r. 408–450), agreed to pay all arrears of tribute in exchange for a peace treaty. Such a comprehensive victory helped Attila consolidate his authority with his tribesmen. The Huns invaded the Roman province of Gaul in 451, but they were defeated at the battle of the Catalaunian Plains by a combined force led by the Roman general, Aetius, and the Visigoth king, Theodoric (r. 418–451). But the Huns recovered quickly and, in 452, they invaded Italy. Several cities in Italy were sacked, and the Romans were forced to beg for peace, sending Pope Leo as an emissary to Attila and the Huns. A combination of disease and famine forced the retreat of the Huns from the Roman heartland soon after. A small force of Huns was left behind to hold onto their newly acquired territory, but the Romans quickly routed these troops.

RAPID DECLINE When Attila died in 453, his kingdom was split among his many sons rather than inherited by an appointed successor. His death threw the Huns into a state of disarray, and shortly after the division of the kingdom, war broke out between Attila’s sons. The civil war weakened the Huns and paved the way for a rebellion of the subject peoples. Around 455, an alliance of these peoples revolted against the Huns and defeated them decisively at the Nedao River in the region of Pannonia. The remaining Hun tribes fled to the east, and the Huns as a people eventually disintegrated. They were gradually assimilated into other tribes and lost their unique ethnic identity. See also:Attila; Ostrogoth Kingdom; Roman Empire;Visigoth Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Mänchen-Helfen, Otto. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Thompson, E.A. The Huns. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.

HUNG WU (HONGWU) (1328–1398 C.E.)

Chinese emperor (r. 1368–1398) who founded the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). Hung Wu began his life as Zhu Yuanzhang, the son of a peasant laborer. Zhu grew up in poverty and lost most of his family to a massive famine in the 1340s. He was educated in a Buddhist monastery and later joined a rebel group that opposed the Yuan rulers, foreigners from Mongolia who had conquered China in 1279. Intelligent and a superb organizer, Zhu quickly rose through the ranks. He led his rebel troops in the capture of Nanjing in 1356, and in 1368, he proclaimed the Ming dynasty and adopted the name Hung Wu (“Vast Military Power”). By 1387 he had captured all of China from theYuan, whose rulers fled to their native Mongolia. Hung Wu built a great capital city at Nanjing, where he set to work restoring the Chinese customs that had been neglected by the Mongol rulers. He modeled his rule after the T’ang and Song dynasties, even wearing the clothing of these earlier eras.

Hunting and Kingship Hung Wu revived agriculture, which had been devastated by natural disasters and years of warfare under the Mongols. He increased the amount of cultivated land, sponsored reforestation projects to prevent erosion, and ordered the building of dykes, canals, and reservoirs. Hung Wu kept taxes low and was frugal with government spending. To limit the state’s expenses, he encouraged self-sufficiency throughout the empire, calling on villages to collect their own taxes instead of paying a government tax collector. He created a hereditary military that was to support itself by farming. However, there were drawbacks to this system. Government officials, who received very little pay, often turned to corruption to augment their salaries. The village system of collecting their own taxes also became riddled with corruption. Hung Wu had thirty-six sons and sixteen daughters by his wife, Empress Ma, and his consorts. To prevent power struggles among his many sons, Hung Wu made them hereditary governors of the provinces. The sons possessed power in their respective regions but were forbidden to visit the capital. Hung Wu issued frequent proclamations to the Chinese people promoting Confucian ideals and exhorting them to live moral lives. In his own administration, Hung Wu’s high standards were not easy for officials to live up to. He nursed a paranoid fear of rivals, which led him to see disloyalty everywhere. Hung Wu created a secret police to spy on his own officials, and he ruthlessly punished any official he felt had questioned his imperial authority. In 1380, he executed his own prime minister, and as many as 100,000 people were killed in his frequent purges. Hung Wu eliminated the post of prime minister and established a highly centralized system in which all branches of the government were under his control. He also forbade the eunuchs—the castrated men who served the imperial family in the Forbidden City—from learning to read or being involved in politics. The Ming founder died in 1398 at age seventy. In keeping with the Mongolian custom, Hung Wu’s thirty-eight concubines were immolated with him. He was succeeded by his fifteen-year-old grandson, Jianwen (r. 1399–1402), who quickly lost the throne to his uncle,Yongle. See also: Ming Dynasty;Yuan Dynasty.

419

HUNTING AND KINGSHIP A favorite leisure activity of rulers and their nobles throughout much of history. Royals and those with wealth have hunted for sport from the time of the ancient civilizations to modern aristocracy.

HUNTING AS AN ANCIENT SPORT Huntsmen in ancient Egypt constituted an entire social class, hunting on their own as well as attending at the hunting of nobles.The pharaohs also occasionally went on fishing and hunting expeditions.The Assyrians and Babylonians also enjoyed the chase, as is shown by the hunting scenes depicted on the walls of their temples and palaces. Ashurbanipal of Assyria (r. 668–627 b.c.e.), sometimes known as the “Hunting King,” had himself immortalized in a bas-relief with the accompanying boast: “I killed the lion.” A fifth-century silver dish showed the Sasanian king of Persia, Kavadh I (r. 488–496), galloping at full tilt after wild sheep. Hunting also began early among the ancient Greeks. A treatise by the Greek historian Xenophon, Kynegetikos (“On Hunting”), written in the fourth century b.c.e., was based on his own experience in hunting the hare but also describes boar and stag hunting.

FALCONRY Falconry, the art and sport of training birds of prey to hunt in their natural habitat, has long been regarded as a noble art.The main objective of the falconer is to train a bird to return to the fist when called and then to train the bird to hunt with the falconer. Falconry was a sport commonly practiced by the Arabic and Asian peoples, and it did not come to the Europeans until after 800 c.e. At that time, it was practiced primarily by the nobility, with each rank of nobility only able to use a certain species of bird. References to falconry in China date from as early as 680 b.c.e. in the kingdom of Ch’u. One Japanese work states that falcons were used as gifts to Chinese princes during the Hsia dynasty (2205–1776 b.c.e.). Chinese emperor Teng’s enthusiasm for falconry encouraged aristocrats to give falcons as gifts.

MEDIEVAL HUNTING Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (r. 1194–1250), the Holy Roman emperor and king of Sicily and Jerusalem, was known as an avid hunter. He particularly enjoyed the noble art of falconry, and even de-

420

Hunting and Kingship

voted more than thirty years of his life to completing his book, De Arte Venandi cum Avibus (The Art of Falconry); his obsession with falconry interfered with his ability to lead his country effectively. The idea of game preservation arose during the eleventh century, when the right to hunt became attached to the ownership of land. After the Norman conquest of England in 1066, England enacted stringent game laws, known as the Forest Laws, which made hunting the sole privilege of the king and his nobles. Other European feudal states had similar laws. During the fourteenth century, drive hunts, in which game was driven into confined areas for shooting by the nobility, became very popular in parts of Europe.The English laws against hunting by commoners were progressively softened after the sixteenth century, until the nineteenth century, when hunting in England was open to everyone who obtained a license.

HUNTING IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY AND AFTERWARD Hunting became increasingly popular among European nobility in the sixteenth century, as a result of which elaborate hunting castles were erected in areas where game was plentiful. Many of these castles, along with their trophies and artifacts, are still preserved today. King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715) was an ardent sportsman and was known to hunt or shoot every afternoon in the parks and forests surrounding his royal hunting lodge at Fontainebleau. His successor, Louis XV (r. 1715–1774), was so fond of hunting that on the very day of his coronation he stopped to chase stags in the Villers-Cotterets forest. Elector John George II of Saxony (r. 1656–1680), also an avid hunter, is believed to have shot a total of 42,649 red deer in his lifetime. He refused the Crown of Bohemia, not for political reasons but because stags in Bohemia were smaller than the ones in Saxony. To protect his stags, he fenced the entire boundary between Saxony and Bohemia. See also: Parks, Royal; Rights to Animals; Rights, Land;Wilderness, Royal Links to.

HUSSEIN I (1935–1999 C.E.) Third ruler (r. 1952–1999) of the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, whose pro-Western political poli-

cies often brought him into conflict with other Arab leaders. Hussein bin Talal was born on November 14, 1935, in Amman, in the then British mandate of Transjordan.At the time of his birth, his grandfather, Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (r. 1921–1951), was the emir of Transjordan, and his father, Talal (r. 1951– 1952), was crown prince. As a young prince with every expectation of inheriting the throne, Hussein received the best education available, attending schools in Egypt until he was in his teens. In 1945, his grandfather succeeded in winning his country’s independence from Britain, and the newly formed nation received a new name: the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. As the first king of an independent Jordan, Abdullah began grooming his grandson for a life devoted to the needs of his people; when free of school responsibilities, the young Hussein spent much time in the company of his grandfather. Thus it was that Hussein was present in 1951 when a Palestinian assassin, angry over King Abdullah’s close ties with the Western world, fired upon the two of them as they ascended the steps of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.The king was killed, but Hussein escaped injury.This would be the first of at least twenty-seven attempts on Hussein’s life. Hussein’s father was next in line for the throne, and Hussein himself was proclaimed the new crown prince. Soon after, he was sent to England to complete his education at the prestigious Harrow School. Hussein had little time to adjust to his new status, however, for within a year it became painfully clear that King Talal, who suffered from schizophrenia, was unfit to rule. Hussein was swiftly called home for his own coronation as king on August 11, 1952. His father was committed to an asylum, where he remained until his death in 1972. Because Hussein was too young to rule in his own right, a regency was appointed to conduct the affairs of government while the young king completed his studies in England.When Hussein reached the age of majority in 1953, the regency was dissolved and he assumed the full authority of his office. Hussein was aware that far too often in the modern world, kings were deposed because they lost touch with their subjects. He vowed not to let that happen in Jordan, and he devoted his life to ensuring a responsive, benevolent government for his people. He also maintained close, cordial ties with the West,

Hyderabad Kingdom which did not please some of his subjects, particularly the large Palestinian faction that resented Western support for Israel. Nor did his pro-Western stance ingratiate him in the minds and hearts of some of his neighboring states. Syria, in particular, sponsored at least two attempts to assassinate Hussein in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hussein was married four times, twice to Western women, and he had a total of twelve children, plus one adopted daughter. His first two marriages ended in divorce, and his third wife, Alia Toukan, died in a helicopter crash in 1977. His fourth and final wife was Lisa Halaby, an American of partArab ancestry, whom Hussein married in 1978. She converted to Islam and took the name Queen Noor. In the 1990s, Hussein was plagued with serious medical problems, requiring many trips to the United States for treatment. Diagnosed with nonHodgkins lymphoma in 1998, he began failing fast. In order to assure an orderly transition of power upon his death, Hussein named his eldest son Abdullah as crown prince. In early 1999, while in the United States receiving bone marrow transplants, Hussein fell into a coma; the family insisted that he be brought home to Amman. Clinically brain dead, the king was removed from life support on February 7, 1999, and died at the age of sixty-three. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Abdullah II (r. 1999– ). See also: Hashemite Dynasty.

HYDERABAD KINGDOM (1724–1947 C.E)

Kingdom located in the Deccan region of India, which came into existence as the capital of the Golconda sultanate and was formerly known as Bhagnagar. The Hyderabad kingdom was formed in 1724, as the Mughal Empire was coming to an end, when Nizam-ul-Mulk (r. 1724–1748) of the Nizam dynasty established himself as an independent ruler at Hyderabad. As with previous Indian dynasties, such as the rulers of the Gupta Empire, the rise of the Nizam dynasty in Hyderabad encouraged the formation of a number of small regional kingdoms, such as those in the Bengal region of India.

421

Nizam-ul-Mulk remained on the throne at Hyderabad until 1748. As happened with many other dynasties, his death spawned an intense rivalry to control the throne. Unlike most other instances in Indian history, however, rival claimants were backed by European powers as well as by local supporters. Most significant in this respect were the British and French sponsorship of rival claims in the capital. Ultimately, the French candidate in Hyderabad gained power, although in other regional struggles, the French claimant in Arcot was defeated.This loss in Arcot split the young Hyderabad kingdom into two parts. It also instituted the French as de facto sovereigns over the kingdom of Hyderabad, with an Indian protégé to follow their lead. French suzerainty in Hyderabad did not last, however. French commercial interests in India, which had been suffering because of these conflicts, led France to withdraw politically from the kingdom. In 1754, the French negotiated the transfer of Hyderabad to British control. The transfer of suzerainty did not provide the transfer of complete loyalty from the Indian population, however. This was demonstrated by the departure, in 1767, of the ruler of Hyderabad from the British campaign against Haider Ali Khan (r. 1755–1782), the ruler of Mysore. This independent streak in Hyderabad rulers continued even though they were, at best, only nominally independent from European control. The princes of Hyderabad maintained their sense of autonomy by being one of the few states in the Indian subcontinent to be highly resistant to the Indian independence movement in the early twentieth century. One option proposed for the division of a soon-to-be independent Indian subcontinent was on the basis of religion. Dividing India in this way would have created a Muslim state, Usmanistan, out of the kingdom of Hyderabad. By the time of Indian independence in 1947, the rulers of Hyderabad had refused to choose whether to accede to India or Pakistan. This act clearly expressed the self-determinant behavior of the kingdom’s leader because, if the kingdom, whose population was mostly Hindu, remained independent of India and joined with Pakistan, Hyderabad would be surrounded on all sides by the new Hindu state of India. This lack of concern for the Hindu population by Hyderabad’s Muslim leadership led to

422

Hyderabad Kingdom

an invasion by the Indian police forces from Delhi and the subjugation of the kingdom within a week in 1947. The kingdom of Hyderabad stands out for many reasons. Its history illustrates the intense regionalism that the governing bodies on the Indian subcontinent had to deal with on an ongoing basis. It also demonstrates the religious antagonism that has continually plagued relations within the subcontinent.The modern history of the Hyderabad kingdom provides insight into the complexity of the relationships between India and its neighbors, as well as an appreciation for the difficulty surmounted by everything that India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have achieved and have yet to resolve. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; Golconda Kingdom; Hinduism and Kingship; Indian Kingdoms; Islam and Kingship; Mughal Empire; Mysore Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Smith,Vincent A. The Oxford History of India. Ed. Percival Spear. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

HYKSOS DYNASTY (ca. 1663–1555 B.C.E.)

Ancient Near Eastern dynasty, apparently of Semitic/Asiatic origin, that ruled Egypt for some one hundred years during the so-called Second Intermediate Period. Sometime during the eighteenth century b.c.e., large numbers of a migrating people from Asia, mostly of Semitic background, began settling in the Nile River Delta and northern Egypt, pushed west by population movements in Mesopotamia. Ancient Egyptian historians called the people the Hyksos (“rulers of foreign lands”). Their numbers and organization peaked at a time of internal weakness in Egypt, and by around 1663 b.c.e., the first Hyksos

pharaoh, Salitis (r. 1663–1655 b.c.e.), was able to take power. The meager historical records that exist show the presence of concurrent dynasties in Egypt at this time—the Fifteenth dynasty, founded by Salitis, ruled most of Lower (northern) Egypt directly and the eastern sector through vassal pharaohs of the Sixteenth dynasty. A native Egyptian dynasty, the Seventeenth, ruled Upper Egypt from Thebes, though they too may have been vassals to the Hyksos. Though of foreign origin, the Hyksos monarchs continued to rule Egypt through its existing political system, and they continued to support Egyptian religious institutions. They were active in construction and the arts, generally following preexisting styles and traditions. Some temples in the Syro-Palestinian style were built under the Hyksos, however, and the Semitic gods Baal and Astarte were worshiped alongside native Egyptian deities. From this point forward, Egyptian culture became less isolated and more open to foreign influences. The most striking changes introduced by the Hyksos, however, involved techniques of warfare: the use of harnessed horses, chariots, the compound bow, improved battleaxes, and advanced fortifications. The last great Hyksos pharaoh, Apopis I (r. 1608–1567 b.c.e.), had to contend with increasing resistance from the native rulers at Thebes. His weaker successor, Apopis II (r. 1566–1555 b.c.e), was the last of the Hyksos line. The native pharaoh Ahmose (r. 1552–1526 b.c.e.) in Thebes succeeded early in his reign in conquering all of Egypt.The new Eighteenth dynasty that Ahmose founded dedicated major energies to invasions and conquests in Asia, perhaps to prevent a repeat of the humiliating Hyksos episode. In light of the Semitic origin of the Hyksos pharaohs, some historians have speculated that the biblical children of Israel settled in Egypt during their rule and left after they were deposed. However, little evidence has been found to support this conjecture. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Before Eighteenth Dynasty); Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth).

Iberian Kingdoms

I IBERIAN KINGDOMS (419–1492 C.E.) Series of kingdoms established in the Iberian Peninsula between the early fifth century and the late fifteenth century, when the united kingdom of Spain began to emerge. Portugal was another Iberian kingdom that developed during this period.

THE VISIGOTHS Around 419, the group of Germanic peoples known as the Visigoths migrated into the Iberian Peninsula from the north, and established a kingdom that straddled present-day France and Spain. This kingdom, with its capital at Toulouse, reached its greatest geographical extent during the reign of the Visigothic king, Euric (r. 466–484). At that time, the Visigothic kingdom incorporated most of Iberia along with southern France. The Visigoths maintained control over most of Iberia for nearly three hundred years, until Arab Moors invaded the Iberian Peninsula from North Africa and conquered most of the peninsula in the early eighth century.The last Visigothic king, Roderic (or Rodrigo) (r. 710–711), was killed fighting the Arabs in 711. For the next seven centuries, much of the history of Iberia centered on the reconquista (reconquest) and the expulsion of the Moors by the Christian kingdoms that were established after the Moorish conquest.

MUSLIM KINGDOMS The Muslim invaders established their own kingdoms in Iberia. The Muslim Umayyad dynasty ruled the Iberian Peninsula as part of the Islamic Empire from 756 to 1031. With the capital at Córdoba, the Umayyads developed a remarkable Islamic civilization in Iberia, one with a rich tradition of the arts, literature, architecture, and learning. The Umayyad caliphate of Córdoba reached its greatest period of

423

splendor during the rule of Abd al-Rahman III (r. 912–961). The Umayyad caliphate collapsed in 1031 and broke up into twenty-four separate Muslim territories, known as the Taifa states. Muslim Iberia remained divided in this way until around 1110, when a new Muslim dynasty, the Almoravids, restored political unity to Al-Andalus, the Muslim name for Iberia. Almoravid rule, however, was never entirely stable, and in 1174, another new dynasty, the Almohads, invaded Iberia from Morocco and ousted the last of the Almoravids. Meanwhile, however, the small Christian kingdoms in northern Iberia had begun a slow reconquest of the peninsula from the Moors. As this reconquista spread, the Moors were confined to smaller and smaller territories. By 1238, the last remnant of Moorish power was confined to the kingdom of Granada, located in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula, which was ruled by the Nasrid dynasty. The end of Moorish rule in Iberia came in 1492, when the kingdom of Granada, the last Moorish stronghold on the peninsula, surrendered to Christian Spanish forces. The Christian conquest ended nearly eight hundred years of Muslim rule.

CHRISTIAN KINGDOMS The first Christian kingdom established after the Moorish conquest of 711 was the kingdom of Asturias. Located in northwest Spain near the Bay of Biscay, it sheltered Christian nobles, Visigoth refugees who fled the Moorish invasion. Under King Pelayo (r. ca. 718–737), a Visigothic noble, Asturias defeated the Moors at the battle of Covadonga in 722. The Christian victory in this battle marked the beginning of the reconquista. From 910 to 1230, the kingdom of Asturias was united with other areas of northwestern Spain as the kingdom of Asturias and León. At various times, this kingdom also included parts of the Basque region, Navarre, and Castile. Each of these areas enjoyed considerable autonomy and developed into separate, independent kingdoms. The Christian kingdom of León had a complicated history. In the eighth and ninth centuries, the kingdom was controlled by Asturias, and from 910 to 1230, the two kingdoms were united as the kingdom of Asturias and León. At various times, however, León also was united with the kingdom of Castile. Indeed, by the end of the thirteenth century,

424

Iberian Kingdoms

the kingdom of Castile and León, which inclued Asturias, Córdoba, Extremurda, Galicia, Jaén and Seville, was one of the dominant kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula. The kingdom of Navarre was established in 824 under a Basque chieftain named Iñigo Aritza (r. 824–851). The kingdom reached the height of its power in the early eleventh century under Sancho III (r. 1004–1035), who ruled over nearly all of Christian Spain. Because of its size and power, Navarre played an important role in the reconquista. Navarre existed as a separate kingdom from 824 to 1589, when it was united with the kingdom of France. At first, part of the kingdom of Navarre, the kingdom of Aragón, became a separate state in 1035 after the Navarrese king, Sancho III, divided his kingdom among his sons. At various times, the kingdom comprised Barcelona, Valencia, and the Balearic Islands, as well as Navarre. The kings of Aragón also ruled Sicily (1282–1410) and Naples (1443–1501). In the late 1400s, Aragón was united with Castile. The kingdom of Castile, which eventually covered most of central Iberia, began with the settlement of the city of Burgos in 880. From 910 to 1029 it was a county of the kingdom of Léon. After a brief union with the kingdom of Navarre between 1029 and 1035, it was separated into a separate kingdom. In the fifteenth century, Castile was united with the kingdom of Aragón by the marriage and rule of Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) and Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504). Although the two kingdoms were not officially united, the joint rule of Ferdinand and Isabella marked the beginnings of a united Spain. Their grandson, Charles I (r. 1516– 1556), who also ruled as Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558), was the first ruler of a united kingdom of Spain.

PORTUGAL Like Spain, the region of Iberia, now known as Portugal, was invaded by Muslims in the eighth century, and much of its subsequent history was also centered on the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula. Initially, Portugal was a county of the Spanish kingdom of Asturias and Léon. In 1139, Alfonso I of Portugal (r. 1139–1185) claimed the title of king, and the Spanish recognized the kingdom’s independence in 1143. During the remainder of the twelfth century and throughout much of the next century, the kings of Portugal focused their attentions on re-

conquering territory from the Moors and consolidating their rule. Under the Aviz dynasty (1385–1580), the kingdom of Portugal entered a period of great maritime expansion. Along with Spain, Portugal took the lead in the age of exploration and colonization that began in the late 1400s. Portugal established overseas trading centers and colonies in Asia, Africa, and Brazil. The Aviz dynasty ended in 1580 with the death of King Henry (r. 1578–1580), who had no heir. King Philip II of Spain (r. 1556–1598) claimed the throne, and Portugal was ruled by the kingdom of Spain until 1640. After Portugal regained its independence, the two Iberian kingdoms continued to develop separately, never again to be united under one Crown. See also: Almohad Dynasty; Almoravid Dynasty; Aragón, Kingdom of;Asturias Kingdom;Aviz Dynasty; Castile, Kingdom of; Charles V; Córdoba, Caliphate of; Ferdinand II and Isabella I; Granada, Kingdom of; León, Kingdom of; Navarre, Kingdom of; Philip II; Sancho III, the Great;Taifa Rulers; Umayyad Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Koenigsberter, H.G. Medieval Europe, 400–1500. Burnt Mill, England: Longman Group UK Limited, 1987. Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 1999.

IBN SAUD (1880–1953 C.E.) Founder and first ruler of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who helped bring peace and stability to a land of warring clans and opened his country to oil exploration and production, bringing great wealth to the kingdom. Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, later known as Ibn Saud, was born into the ruling house of Saud as the eldest son of Abdul Rahman, sultan of the central Arabian province of Nejd.When the rival house of Rashid wrested control of Nejd from the house of Saud in 1891, Ibn Saud and his family were forced into exile in Kuwait. Unable to recapture the throne,Abdul Rahman abdicated to his son in 1900 and, in 1902, Ibn Saud and his supporters seized Riyadh in a surprise attack. Ibn Saud was proclaimed the ruler and religious leader of Nejd.

Iconography From this power base in Nejd, Ibn Saud began to use his considerable military expertise and diplomatic skills to expand his territory into a kingdom that, within thirty years, included most of the Arabian peninsula. Ibn Saud kept Ibn Rashid from regaining control over Nejd, drove the Turks out of eastern Arabia, and gained control of the western Arabian province of Hejaz, including the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina. In 1926 and 1927 Ibn Saud was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Nejd.Then, in 1932, Ibn Saud consolidated the territories he controlled in the Arabian peninsula into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As king, Ibn Saud changed the lives of the Arabian people. He forced many nomadic people to adopt a settled way of life and abandon their tribal warfare. He protected Muslims as they made their yearly pilgrimages to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. But the action that most transformed the region was when Ibn Saud granted oil concessions to two major United States oil companies in 1933. As Saudi Arabia’s exports of its vast oil deposits grew during the

425

1930s and 1940s, so did the wealth of the king and his kingdom. Though Ibn Saud used some of the oil revenues for the betterment of his country, he spent much of it on his family and used this steadily increasing wealth as leverage for power within the Middle East and the world. During World War II, Ibn Saud officially remained neutral, although he favored the United States and the other Allies. He also tried to limit his country’s involvement in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, taking only a minor part in the conflict. Upon his death in 1953, Ibn Saud was succeeded by his eldest son, Prince Saud (r. 1953–1964). See also: Arabia, Kingdoms of; Islam and Kingship.

ICONOGRAPHY The conveying of meaning through symbolic images or image systems; the term iconography comes from two Greek works meaning “image-writing.” In this form of representation, kings and queens are portrayed less as individuals than as monarchs. Some of the symbolic iconography associated with rulers in art convey their divine or quasi-divine status, and others the idea of rule, conquest, or justice. Other images identify particular monarchs through personal objects associated with them or events from their reigns. Often court painters have used images to convey an ideology of kingship to the public. Historians study the works of these artists to learn about the views that people had of their rulers and of the social and cultural history of the time.

SYMBOLS OF ROYALTY

Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud (seated) was the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Under his rule, it was transformed from a backward tribal state into a prosperous modern nation with an economy based on oil exports. When Ibn Saud died in 1953, he was succeeded by Crown Prince Saud (standing).

Iconographic symbols of royalty associated with European monarchs include the crown, scepter, throne, and book of laws. For the Aztec rulers of Mexico, symbols of royalty found in art included a rattle staff, headdress, and nose plug. The size and position of royal figures often reflected their importance.The king might be shown as bigger than others who surround him, as in the murals carved in stone from Edo in Africa. In other examples, the king might be seated above his court, reflecting his higher status, as in Aztec art. Many types of images associate royalty with the di-

426

Iconography

vine. In ancient Egypt, for example, the pharaoh was often depicted with a falcon representing the god Horus (thought to have been the first ruler of Egypt), from whom the pharaohs derived the legitimacy of their rule. The Roman emperors, like many Asian rulers, were associated with the sun; the emperor Nero (r. 54–68), for example, was fond of having himself portrayed as the sun god Apollo riding in a chariot. Other types of images portray the monarch not as a divine being but as a human ruler who embodies an important secular aspect of kingship. Many sovereigns in Renaissance Europe, for example, were depicted on horseback, indicating their strength and confidence. Manuscript illuminations from the reign of Akbar the Great (1556–1605) of India’s Mughal dynasty depict him defeating his enemies or hunting wild animals to demonstrate his skill and courage.

ROYAL PORTRAITURE Depictions of rulers in art may be either realistic or stylized, according to the artistic taste of the time. In either case, the societal conception of a ruler influences how their portraits are painted. In humanist France, for example, from the fourteenth through sixteenth century, realistic portraits of kings and queens often showed them in ordinary dress without regalia, much like any other private citizen. Such is the case in the fifteenth-century painting of Charles VII (r. 1422–1461) of France by Jean Fouquet, and the anonymous contemporary portrait of Catherine de Medici, the wife of Henry II of France (r. 1547– 1559). During the consolidation of absolutist rule in France in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, portraiture was still realistic, but the image conveyed of monarchs was one of power and glory; they were always shown sumptuously dressed with all their regalia. The model for such portraits was Hyacinthe Rigaud’s painting of Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715).The conception of royalty changed again after the French Revolution. When Louis-Philippe (r. 1830–1848) came to power in 1830, he was painted in simple military dress with his hand on France’s new Charter, which indicated his intention of ruling as a constitutional monarch.

ROYAL ALLEGORIES Sometimes the imagery associated with a monarch conveys a much more complex idea of the ruler to society.This was often done allegorically by portraying the king or queen using imagery associated with

another famous figure. (An allegory is a story in which people, places, or events are given symbolic meaning.) For instance, one portrait of Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong) (r. 1735–1796), a Chinese emperor of the Ch’ing dynasty, shows him as the holy Buddhist layman Vimalakirti. The picture symbolized Ch’ien Lung’s role as a religious man living in the world, distinct from the celibate Buddhist monks. In Renaissance Europe, monarchs were often associated with figures from Greek and Roman mythology. One such ruler was Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603), who remained unmarried and was often called the Virgin Queen. Elizabethan artists portrayed the queen as perpetually youthful (even in her old age), often in virginal white, or with flowers on her gown. These are the symbols of Astraea, the just virgin who heralded the new Golden Age, as described in the fourth Eclogue of the Roman poet Virgil. By depicting Elizabeth in this way, artists suggested that she had brought a Golden Age and perpetual springtime to England. Today, especially in Europe, official photographs of monarchs, often in ordinary dress, have largely replaced iconographic representations of rulers. Nevertheless, the crown and other symbols of royalty still resonate strongly with people, as they have done universally in societies throughout the world and in all periods of history. See also: Heavens and Kingship; Regalia and Insignia, Royal. FURTHER READING

Coquet, Michele. Royal Court Art of Africa. Trans. Jane Marie Todd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Strong, Roy C. Gloriana:The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. New York:Thames and Hudson, 1987.

IEYASU TOKUGAWA. See Tokugawa Ieyasu

IKHSHIDID DYNASTY (935–969 C.E.) Muslim Turkish dynasty that came from Fergana in Central Asia and ruled briefly in Egypt and southern Syria in the tenth century.

Il-Khan Dynasty The Ikhshidid dynasty was founded by Muhammad ibn Tughj (r. 935–946), a Turkish leader who was appointed governor of Egypt in 935, under the Abbasid caliphs. Four years later, in 939, Muhammad was named “Ikhshid” (“prince” or “ruler”). Muhammad’s main achievements as ruler were defending Egypt against attacks by the Fatimids and reorganizing the government. Upon Muhammad’s death in 946, the throne passed to his sons, Unujur (r. 946–960) and Ali (r. 960–966). But the real power behind the throne during their reigns was Abu-al-Misk Kafur, a former Ethiopian slave belonging to Muhammad. Muhammad, recognizing Kafur’s abilities, made him the tutor of Unujur and Ali. He also made Kafur a military officer, and the former slave proved to be an excellent leader. Before his death, Muhammad named Kafur guardian of Unujur and Ali, which gave him the real power in Egypt when they took the throne. After the nominal reigns of Unujur and Ali, Kafur became ruler in his own right in 966. His court became famous for its lavishness, and Kafur also was known as a scholar and patron of the arts.The luxury of Kafur’s court, however, was seen as a terrible excess at a time when Egypt experienced famine and plague, as well as destruction from a major earthquake. When Kafur died in 968, he was succeeded by Ahmad (r. 968–969), the son of Ali.Ahmad ruled only briefly, however. He was deposed in 969, when the Fatimids conquered Epypt and established their rule, bringing an end to the short-lived Ikhshidid dynasty. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Fatimid Dynasty.

IL-KHAN DYNASTY (1265–1335 C.E.) Ruling dynasty of the Mongol khanate of Persia, founded by the son of Hulagu (r. 1258–1265), who was the grandson of the great Mongol conqueror, Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227). In 1258, the Mongol warrior Hulagu razed Baghdad, the capital of Islamic culture and learning, and executed the last Abassid caliph, al-Mustasim (r. 1242–1258). The next year, Hulagu founded a new capital for this portion of the Mongol Empire at Maragha in northwestern Persia.

IMPORTANT RULERS Upon Hulagu’s death in 1265, his son Abaqa (r. 1265–1282) succeeded him as khan (lord), becom-

427

ing known as the prince of Persia. Perhaps because of the enormous distance separating this portion of the empire from the seat of Mongol power in China, Abaqa’s ties to the Great Khan, Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294), were tenuous.Yet, his domain became known as the Realm of the Il-Khan (“lesser khan”). Abaqa’s grandson, Ghazan (r. 1295–1304), was an energetic and enlightened ruler who took advantage of the great wealth and sophistication of the people and country he ruled. Ghazan converted to the Sunni sect of Islam, severed allegiance to the Great Khan, and moved his independent new capital to the growing city of Tabriz (in present-day Iran). There, he reformed the administration of the Il-kahn state and built mosques, colleges, hospitals, and libraries. By the late 1200s,Tabriz had become one of the great cities of the world, with a population estimated at around one million. Ghazan died in 1304 and was succeeded by his brother, Uljaitu (r. 1304–1316). Although Uljaitu continued his brother’s enlightened policies, in 1310 he converted to the Shi’ite form of the Islamic faith, a move that proved highly unpopular with his primarily Sunni subjects. Uljaitu’s son, Abu Sai’d (r. 1316–1335), began his reign after his father’s death in 1316 and soon reconverted to Sunni Islam. This conversion averted a civil war, which had been brewing during his father’s Shi’ite conversion. However, internal factions continued to fragment the Il-khan realm and, when Abu Sa’id died in 1335 without an heir, the dynasty came to an end.

THE SCHOLARLY VIZIER The most important and influential person in the Ilkhan dynasty was not a khan, but a government functionary, Rahshid-ud-al-Din. A member of the government, he first served as Abaqa’s personal physician, and then he became Ghazan’s vizier (a high government position similar to a minister of state). Upon the death of Ghazan, Rashid was appointed treasurer by Uljaitu Khan. An impressive administrator and adviser, Rashid was also one of the great scholars of his day. He brought documents from all over the Mongol Empire to the royal court of Tabriz, and read them in their original Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew,Turkish, Persian, Mongolian, and Latin. He used this unique compilation of sources to write books on theology, medicine, and government as well as a remarkable

428

Il-Khan Dynasty

seven-volume history of the world, the Jam’utTawarik (Compendium of Histories). In 1318, at the age of seventy, Rashid was denounced by a jealous co-treasurer during the reign of the last Il-Khan ruler, Abu Sa’id. In addition, the enormous university complex he had privately funded and built was destroyed. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Islam and Kingship; Realms,Types of.

ILLYRIA KINGDOM (1225–167 B.C.E.) Ancient kingdom in the Balkan region that, from the earliest period of its establishment, comprised a large area along the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea and included the present-day regions of Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, northern and central Albania, and a large part of Serbia. The capital of the Illyrian kingdom was Scutaria, which is now the capital of northern and central Albania. The earliest recorded king of Illyria was Hyllus (r. ?–1225 b.c.e), known as The Star, about whom little is known other than the year of his death in 1225 b.c.e.The kingdom reached the height of its power in the fourth century b.c.e. under King Bardhyllus (r. 385–358 b.c.e.), known as The White Star, who was one of the most prominent Illyrian kings. Bardhyllus united the kingdom of Illyria with the Greek city-state of Molossia, or Epirus, as well as with a large portion of Macedonia, extending the realm from the port of Trieste to the Ambracic Gulf in the present-day Greek province of Arta. However, it was also during his reign that Illyria began to decline, when the kingdom came under attack by Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.), the father of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.). In 362 b.c.e. the Macedonian general Parmenion attacked and defeated Illyrian forces in order to recover land annexed by Bardhyllus. Upon succeeding his father Philip on the Macedonian throne, Alexander the Great declared war against the Illyrian kings. He emerged victorious, and in 334 b.c.e. the defeated Illyrian armies agreed to join Alexander in his expedition against the Persians, ultimately sharing in Alexander’s triumph. Upon Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e. the Illyrian kings regained their independence. In 232 b.c.e., the Illyrian throne was occupied by

the celebrated Queen Teuta (r. 232–? b.c.e.), whom historians often call the Catherine the Great of Illyria. During her short reign, she expanded the Illyrian navy, whose raids on maritime commercial trading eventually brought Illyria into violent contact with Rome. The Roman Senate, seeking to protect its trading ships, declared war against Queen Teuta in 229 b.c.e and, after two years of conflict,Teuta sued for peace. The last king of Illyria was Gentius (r. 168–165 b.c.e), who ruled for only three years. In 165 b.c.e., Gentius was defeated by the Romans and brought to Rome as a captive.With the defeat of Gentius, Illyria became a Roman province and would never again regain its status as an independent kingdom. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Philip II of Macedon; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Casson, Stanley. Macedonia,Thrace and Illyria: Their Relations to Greece from the Earliest Times Down to the Time of Philip, Son of Amyntas. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1971.

IMPERIAL RULE Means by which the subject nations of an empire are ruled. Because an empire covers an extended area with different cultures and customs, its administration is inevitably complex.The system of imperial rule that evolves can have lasting consequences and may remain in place long after the empire has declined. Such effects are particularly true in the case of longstanding empires, such as Rome, or of empires that effected important reforms, such as the French Empire of Napoleon Bonaparte (r. 1804–1815). In such cases, common legal codes tend to become established throughout an empire over many years. In some cases, an emperor or empress will permit a subject country’s ruling monarch to rule in his or her stead as a puppet king. In other cases, however, the ruler may choose to appoint his own administrators. In either case, the vassal monarch is answerable to the emperor and is expected to enforce the legal code by which the empire is governed. In addition, the emperor normally exacts payment of tribute from subject nations.Although the subjects of an em-

Inca Empire pire may resent such domination, it will almost always influence both language and government.

INFLUENCE OF LEGAL CODES An empire can have a lasting influence long after it has ended, as was the case with the Roman Empire. Latin remained a universal language among the educated for more than a thousand years after Rome’s decline, and the Roman legal system remains important even today. Roman law, which was based on the Twelve Tables (written about 440 b.c.e.) and codified by Justinian in 529–534 c.e., was based on reason and natural law.The influence of the Roman legal system on our own legal code is perhaps noted most frequently in our vocabulary, but we are also indebted to their legal practices. In Roman practice, for example, a defendant was assumed innocent until proven guilty, two witnesses were required to prove a man guilty, and a recorder, or scribe, was required to take down the trial word for word.The jury’s verdict also had to be unanimous. Another example of the influences of imperial rule on the legal system is the Code Napoléon, or Napoleonic Code.The Code was established throughout much of Europe during the reign of Napoleon and remains the basis for much of civil code throughout the world today. Although the Code Napoléon reduced some of the privileges granted to French women under the First Republic, it was, nevertheless, a step forward for much of Europe, inasmuch as it abolished serfdom and granted equality of birth, instituted civil liberties, and established separation of church and state.

DIFFICULTIES OF IMPERIAL RULE Imperial rule usually faces a number of obstacles, one of which is the long-term use of the military as an occupation force. As time goes on and an empire expands, more citizens become reluctant to perform military service. Ancient Rome, for example, encountered this problem and turned to conscripting soldiers from Germanic tribes to fill military requirements. This practice ultimately contributed to the decline and fall of Rome because Germanic soldiers learned Roman military strategies and counterstrategies, allowing them to fight more skillfully against their conquerors. Similarly, the Napoleonic empire encountered difficulties as Napoleon spread his forces too thin and

429

as he attempted to extend his power beyond reasonable limits. Other kingdoms in Europe soon felt threatened by Napoleon and, consequently, formed an alliance against him. Moreover, his attempt to conquer Russia extended his army beyond that which he could successfully control and into a climate where his men were ill prepared to fight. See also: Conquest and Kingships; Emperors and Empresses; Empire; Kingdoms and Empires; Military Roles, Royal; Realms,Types of. FURTHER READING

Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization: Part III. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944.

INCA EMPIRE (1200s–1572 C.E.) South American empire centered in the area of present-day Peru. The Inca Empire was the largest and wealthiest empire to arise in the Americas, but it survived less than a century before being conquered by Spanish conquistadors led by Francisco Pizarro in 1525. At its greatest extent, the Inca Empire stretched about 2,500 miles through South America: from the southern border of what is now Colombia south into present-day Chile, and eastward from the Pacific Coast into the Amazonian rainforest. At its peak, the Inca Empire boasted a population that may have exceeded 10 million. Although considered fabulously wealthy by the Spanish because of the abundance of gold and silver, it was the people within the empire, not precious metals, which constituted its real riches.

POSSIBLE ORIGINS The people who came to be known as the Inca most likely originated in the region around Lake Titicaca, in Peru.The people who lived there from about 700 are known as the Tiahuanaco, who spoke an early form of the Quechua language and who worshiped, along with other, lesser gods, a creator god named Virachocha. The Tiahuanaco were driven from their settlements by a more powerful group, the Aymarans, who moved into the area around 1100. Fleeing northward, the Tiahuanaco eventually came to settle in the Valley of Cuzco, where they created a new society.

430

Inca Empire

The fortress of Machu Picchu, located high in the Andes mountains of Peru, was likely built during the reign of the Inca ruler Pachacuti between 1460 and 1470. Deserted after the Spanish conquest of the early 1500s, this city of over 200 buildings was rediscovered in 1911.

Archaeological evidence supports this theory of Inca origins. So do the myths and legends that have been handed down by the Inca people, who survive today as the Quechua speakers of Peru and Ecuador. There is no written record of the Inca prior to the arrival of the Spanish in the 1500s because, unlike other civilizations in Central and Southern America, the Inca did not develop a system of writing.Archaeological excavations in the Lake Titicaca region have re-

vealed that the early peoples, the Tiahuanaco, mummified their dead, a practice that was also important to the Inca. In addition, the Inca recognized the god Viracocha as being the creator of their own most important god, Inti, who was revered as the sun-god.

EARLY INCAN KINGS The name Manco Capac (who was believed to have been the son of the god Inti) heads the dynastic list of

Inca Empire Inca rulers. From Manco Capac, who lived perhaps in the 1200s, all other Inca rulers claim to trace direct descent. As a god, Manco had to have a wife of equal divinity, so he married his sister. All later Inca kings adhered to this form of royal marriage. Although the king could take many concubines, only the sons born of his marriage to his sister, who shared in the direct descent from Inti, could inherit the throne. In all, there were thirteen Incan kings, the last true Inca being Atahualpa (r. 1532–1533), who was conquered by the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro in 1533. Although Manco Capac gathered his followers in part through conquest, he was not a true emperor. In fact, the name “Capac” means “warlord” in Quechua. The kingdom he founded in the Valley of Cuzco was the first organized state in the region, and its strength was based on a system of tribute in which every able-bodied male was required to donate a set amount of labor to the service of the king.This labor requirement permitted the kingdom of the Incas to create a sophisticated system of irrigated agriculture that, in turn, supported rapid population growth. It also permitted the Inca to build an impressive army capable of overpowering and absorbing smaller settlements in the Valley of Cuzco. There is no consensus as to the dates of rule for the first several Incas. The kingdom founded by

431

Manco Capac was expanded and strengthened under the reign of the second king, Manco’s son and heir, Sinchi Roca. Traditional accounts of this king describe him as a peaceful man. He was in turn succeeded by his son Lloque Yupanqui, who was followed by Maita Capac. This fourth Inca king is credited with finally succeeding in bringing the whole of the Valley of Cuzco under Incan control.

THE ERA OF EXPANSION Maita Capac’s successor, Capac Yupanqui, is believed to be the first Inca ruler to lead an army of conquest against peoples who lived beyond the borders of the Valley of Cuzco. Neither he nor his predecessors, however, took the title of Inca; the first to do so was Yupanqui’s heir, Inca Roca. By the time of Roca’s rule (he was the sixth Incan king), the supremacy of the kingdom was well established. During the reign of the seventh Incan king, Roca’s son Yahuar Huacac, it is believed that the Inca reclaimed their putative homeland, the territory around Lake Titicaca that had come under the control of the Aymarans. The first people to form a state powerful enough to pose a threat to the Inca kingdom arose in the region in the early 1400s, during the rule of Inca Viracocha (named for the Tiahuanacan creator god). At that time, a people called the Chanca organized themselves into a rival state and began to attack Inca

ROYAL RITUALS

BORN OF THE SUN-GOD INTI The sun-god Inti was held to be the ancestral source of the lineage of Incan kings and later emperors. According to mythology, Inti sent his son, Manco Capac, and his daughter, Mama Ocllo, to earth in order to gather all of humankind together and teach them how to live as civilized beings.The two became husband and wife and arose from the waters of Lake Titicaca to walk the earth and carry out their task.They traveled north, gathering all the people they encountered along the way, stopping only when they reached the valley of Cuzco.There the golden rod that Manco carried was swallowed up by the earth, a detail that has been interpreted to mean that the land was suited for the cultivation of maize. Manco determined to build a city on the spot. Some variants of this myth claim that four brother-sister pairs were sent to earth, but events intervened to bar all the brothers but Manco Capac from successfully completing the journey to Cuzco.

432

Inca Empire

settlements. Inca Viracocha sent his sons Urco, Pachacuti, and Roca out to lead his armies into war against the Chanca. According to tradition, the eldest son, Urco, was a coward who fled to the mountains rather than risk his life in battle, whereas the other sons performed their duty and ultimately defeated the Chanca. Urco’s cowardice earned him exile, and the next oldest son, whose full name was Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (r. 1438–1471), inherited the throne around 1438 upon the death of Inca Viracocha. Pachacuti is the first Inca ruler whose dates of rule have been established with any degree of certainty.

THE FIRST TRUE EMPEROR Pachacuti IncaYupanqui was the first true emperor in the Inca dynasty. Like his father before him, he sent his sons and armies out to war, but this time the goal was territorial expansion, not merely defense. His son, Topa, spent his early adulthood advancing the borders of Incan territory, acquiring all the lands north of Cuzco into Ecuador and south to the Nazca Plains.When Pachacuti died, around 1471,Topa took

the royal name of Topa Inca Yupanqui (r. 1471–1493) and became the tenth Inca ruler. By the time Topa Inca died, in 1493, nearly all the territory associated with the Inca Empire had been conquered. The reign of his son, Huayna Capac (r. 1493–1524), was largely devoted to consolidation and improvement. He did make one last, significant conquest, however, when he sent his troops north into Ecuador to conquer the kingdom of Quito, the last imperial conquest of Inca expansion. Huayna Capac’s proper heir was his son Huascar (r. 1524–1532), who eventually took the imperial throne in Cuzco. However, Huayna Capac had taken a concubine from among the ruling family of his latest conquest, Quito, and with her he fathered a son named Atahualpa.When Huayna Capac died in 1527, Huascar succeeded him, but Atahualpa (r. 1532) inherited the rule of Quito.This all but guaranteed the civil war that soon devastated the empire.

THE END OF AN EMPIRE The early years of Huascar’s reign as Inca were peaceful, but Atahualpa nursed ambitions of claiming

I n c e s t, R o y a l the imperial throne. In 1532 he led an army against his brother, and in the same year he broke his halfbrother’s army, imprisoned Huascar, and declared himself Great Inca. Before he could march to Cuzco to claim his throne, however, Atahualpa was himself taken prisoner by a wholly unexpected enemy—the Spanish conquistador, Francisco Pizarro, who used a combination of trickery and superior military technology (cannons, muskets, and cavalry) to take the Atahualpa captive. To secure his control over the Incan people, Pizarro intended to set up a puppet king, and he had to choose between Atahualpa and Huascar.To ensure that he would be chosen, Atahualpa ordered his supporters to assassinate Huascar in his prison cell.This strategy backfired, however, for it gave Pizarro a pretext to haul the Incan emperor before a court martial on the charge of fratricide. Atahualpa was executed, and Pizarro named Atahualpa’s son Topa Hualpa (r. 1533) as the new Great Inca. Topa Hualpa did not survive long in office. The Spanish found him insufficiently cooperative and had him killed. He was replaced by Huascar’s younger brother, Manco Inca (r. 1533–1545). In 1536, Manco fled Cuzco to organize an army against Pizarro and his troops. Upon Manco’s death in 1545, leadership of the resistance fell to his son, Saryi Tupac (r. 1545– 1560). Although the Inca scored some isolated victories, the resistance forces could not hope to oust the Spanish, and in 1558 Saryi surrendered. The last descendant of the Great Incas, Tupac Amaru (r. 1571– 1572), continued the tradition of resistance against the Spanish but was executed in 1572. See also: Atahualpa; Huayna Capac;Virachocha. FURTHER READING

Bauer, Brian S. The Development of the Inca State. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992. Loprete, Carlos A. Iberoamerica: Historia de su civilizacion y cultura. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.

INCEST, ROYAL The definition of incest varies from culture to culture. However, it generally refers to sexual intimacy and contact between relatives of the same nuclear

433

family (mother, father, son, daughter) or between relatives sharing the same ancestors within two generations.Within royal houses, the focus of marriage between close relatives was often to keep the bloodline pure or the wealth and status within the royal family. Generally, other classes of society were forbidden from incestuous sexual contact or marriages, with the notable exception of first-cousin marriage, which was fairly common throughout history. The children born of incestuous relationships (to people closely related) were observed to experience more health problems, if they survived birth at all. The child born from such a relationship tends to inherit more genetic traits that might have a detrimental effect on his or her health than a child born of two nonrelated people.The probability of detrimental effect is greatest in incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters. It is also very high in incestuous relationships between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. History shows that, in most cases, continuing this trend through multiple generations produces children that cannot survive or cannot reproduce. Examples of incest among the royalty and the upper classes of societies are found in some of the earliest literature. The Hebrew scriptures, for example, tell of the marriage of the patriarch Abraham to his half-sister, Sarah. According to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, King Chambyses of Persia (r. 529–522 b.c.e.) had incestuous sexual affairs with two of his royal sisters. To ensure that the royalty of ancient Egypt was of the purest bloodlines, father–daughter and brother– sister marriages occurred quite frequently.When the royal wife of a pharaoh died, the next queen was chosen.This queen had to have the purest royal blood available, which often meant that a pharoah had to marry a daughter or a sister. There are many examples of such forms of incest among the pharaohs of ancient Egypt. The pharaoh Sneferu (r. ca. 2613–2589 b.c.e.) married his eldest daughter, Nofretkau, and had several children by her. Pharaoh Khafre (r. ca. 2585–2566 b.c.e.) married his daughter, Rekhetre, and they had children. Akhenaten (r. 1350–1334 b.c.e.) married at least two of his daughters. Ramses II (r. 1279–1213 b.c.e.) married his daughter, Meryetamun, after the death of her mother Nefertari, as well as either his daughter or his sister, Hentmire. Tuthmose II (r.

434

I n c e s t, R o y a l

1518–1504 b.c.e) married his sister, Hatshepsut (r. 1503–1483 b.c.e.), and they had one or two daughters. The Ptolemy dynasty of Egypt continued this ancient tradition. Cleopatra VII, in the seventh generation of brother–sister marriages among the Ptolemies, married her brother, Ptolemy XIII. Evidence exists that Ptolemy XIII may have had some type of mental deficiency, and he and Cleopatra had no children together. Although royal incest between close family members did occur from time to time in classical Rome, the practice was legally forbidden.The Roman historian Suetonius wrote that the Emperor Caligula (r. 37–41 c.e.) had sexual relations with each of his three sisters. At one time, he was supposedly caught with his sister Drusilla by his grandmother Antonia. The emperor Claudius (r. 41–54) married his niece, Agrippina the Younger. Roman law stated that this marriage was incestuous, but Claudius had the law changed so that he could marry Agrippina. The emperor Nero (r. 54–68), Agrippina’s son by a previous marriage, later had sexual relations with his own mother. The Emperor Domitian (r. 81–96) impregnated his niece, Julia Flavia, after he executed her husband. She allegedly died in 91 as a result of the abortion of Domitian’s child. An excellent example of the mental and physical disabilities created by extended, close inbreeding can be found in the Spanish royal family. The custom of uncle–niece and first cousin marriage had, over several generations in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, produced children who inherited several defective genes. For example, Charles II (r. 1665– 1700), the fifth and only surviving son of Philip IV (r. 1621–1665), had an enormous head, misshapen jaw, and large tongue, which made both eating and speech difficult. He was mentally slow and did not learn to walk until nearly full grown, and then still tended to fall. Charles II became king of Spain at age three, and his mother, Mariana, ruled in his place.Although he was married twice, Charles was unable to father children. By age thirty-five, he was epileptic and lame, his hair and teeth had fallen out, and his eyesight was failing. Early Hawaiian rulers before the nineteenth century provide another example of royal intermarriage. The ali’i (chiefs) of the highest Hawaiian lineages traditionally married brothers and sisters in order to keep the mana, or spirit of their divine ancestors, as pure as possible.The mana was considered

to flow from this union of perfect lineage to the benefit of the entire community. Guards were placed on the bride until she conceived to ensure that her child could only be the offspring of her brother/ husband. A child born to a brother-sister union in Hawaii would have a status equal to that of the gods. Hawaiian mythology tells of Haloa I, the first child of Wakea, who was born deformed and buried, giving rise to the first taro plant. Centuries later, Kauikeaouli, later King Kamehameha III (r. 1814–1854), fell deeply in love with his sister, Princess Nehi’ena’ena. Educated by Christian missionaries, they did not marry, but historians believe that they slept together as early as 1824.They were definitely together in 1827, although they had no children. The leading chiefs of the Incas often married within the clan and were able to marry within the first degree of relations. This practice was forbidden to commoners, however. One of the last Inca rulers, Huayna Capac (r. 1493–1524), was married to his sister. Another Inca ruler, Sayri Tupac (r. 1545– 1560), successfully petitioned Pope Julius III to consecrate his marriage to his sister, Cusi Huarcay. The Inca Empire fell to the Spanish conquistadors soon after, ending the ruling dynasty. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Blood, Royal; Concubines, Royal; Consorts, Royal; Genealogy, Royal; Harems; Marriage of Kings; Royal Line; Siblings, Royal; Soul Siblings and Children.

INDIAN KINGDOMS (ca. 600–322 B.C.E.)

The first recorded kingdoms in India’s history, appearing during the sixth century b.c.e. Around 1700 b.c.e., Aryan migrants from Central Asia crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains and settled in northern India. During the sixth century b.c.e. the Aryan tribes began to form distinct, independent kingdoms near the basins of the Ganges and Indus rivers. Sixteen kingdoms eventually emerged during this period: Anga, Magadha, Kasi, Kosala, Vriji, Malla, Chedi, Vatsa, Kuru, Panchala, Matsya, Surasena, Asvaka, Avanti, Gandhara, and Kamboja. These kingdoms occupy a significant posi-

Indian Kingdoms tion in Indian history because they bridge the divide between the earlier and more obscure Indian civilizations, such as the Harappan civilization of the Indus River Valley, and the series of great empires that began with the Maurya Empire in the fourth century b.c.e.

EARLY KINGDOMS The earliest Indian kingdoms began as individual tribes, but as their populations increased, the rulers formed cohesive societies, built cities, and established primitive economies. Surprisingly, the sixteen kingdoms were originally republics rather than monarchies. Generally, assemblies called gramakas governed each community and oversaw all local affairs. Members of the assembly were divided among three categories: those who handled public affairs (the sabbathaka), those who decided legal issues (the voharika), and those who oversaw the military (the senanayaka). When a common threat or issue faced an entire kingdom, the local assemblies would convene at a meeting called a mahavagga to reach a joint response. The kingdoms were relatively prosperous. Records show that northern kingdoms, such as the kingdom of Kosala, traded horses, furs, and finely woven blankets and tapestries. The southern king-

435

doms, such as Magadha, excavated gold, diamonds, and other gems and freely traded them for other goods. When the ambassadors of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) first visited the region, Indian rulers provided them with chariots, bundles of cotton, iron weapons, and even domesticated tigers and lions. By the fourth century b.c.e., the Indian kingdoms had begun to issue currency to facilitate trade among themselves and with other kingdoms. Demand for the region’s products increased, and artisans such as blacksmiths, weavers, and stonemasons sold their products to merchants from outside their communities. Most communities possessed a market for agricultural products and a bazaar for manufactured goods. Greek accounts indicate that foreign merchants frequented these markets and purchased goods to export to Europe.

DEVELOPMENT OF BUDDHISM AND JAINISM The early Indian kingdoms were perhaps more widely known as the birthplace of two major religions, Buddhism and Jainism, during the sixth century b.c.e. Prior to these religions, Brahmanical Hinduism had been the dominant faith. However, many adherents of Hinduism in the kingdoms grew

ROYAL RITUALS

BRAHMAN SACRIFICES The excesses of Brahman sacrifices helped precipitate the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism.The Brahmans claimed that the Vedas (“Books of Knowledge”) were the sole guides to spiritual clarity and salvation. Because the Vedas called for sacrifices, the Brahmans instituted them as a major part of their religious ceremonies.The sacrifices occurred at the conclusion of lengthy and intricate ceremonies, when numerous animals would be viciously slaughtered. Because they occupied the highest caste, the Brahmans wielded great power, and they confiscated whatever animals they desired from individual families. Furthermore, the ceremonies became increasingly elaborate and greater numbers of animals were killed.The arrogance of the Brahmans, combined with their indifference to the needs of their followers, motivated both Buddha and Mahavira to form alternate religions. Both Buddhism and Jainism rejected the Vedas as the sole source of spiritual knowledge, and both religions forbade animal sacrifice.

436

Indian Kingdoms

disenchanted with the hierarchical class system imposed by the Brahmans and the elaborate rituals that they performed. The Brahman priests claimed that they alone possessed knowledge of how to attain salvation and gain enlightenment. Consequently, they adopted a highly condescending manner toward members of the other castes. They demanded that their congregations participate in lengthy, highly ritualized ceremonies that often culminated with blood sacrifices. Both Gautama Siddhartha (the Buddha), a prince of the warrior caste of the Sakya clan, and Mahavira, a priest from the Indian Vriji kingdom, detested the arrogance and exclusiveness of the Brahmans. They argued that Brahmanical intervention was not necessary to achieve eternal life. Instead, they both advocated the pursuit of a moral life, urging their followers to shun things such as violence, material goods, or other impediments to a pure existence. The religions they founded, Buddhism and Jainism, respectively, gained many adherents in the Indian kingdoms, and the influence of these religions gradually spread throughout Asia during the sixth century c.e.Yet, Brahmanical Hinduism continued to be the dominant religion in the Indian kingdoms. Historical records reveal a great deal of competition among the three religions. Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain histories list the names of their most prominent followers; frequently, the same names appear in each account. Most likely, leaders in the Indian kingdoms did convert, perhaps more than once, from one religion to another.

INDIA’S FIRST EMPIRES The shape of the Indian kingdoms began to change in the fifth century c.e. For the first time, solitary monarchs reigned in both Kosala and Magadha. Consequently, they were able to consolidate their power, and the two kingdoms soon became the most powerful kingdoms in northern India.The rivalry between the two kingdoms exploded during the reigns of King Prasenajit of Kosala (d. 468 b.c.e.) and King Bimbisara of Magadha (r. ca. 603–541 b.c.e.), when Prasenajit conquered the neighboring kingdom of Kasi. Alarmed by Kosala’s aggression, Bimbisara expanded his own kingdom through military conquest. Bimbisara also sought a diplomatic solution. Around 594 b.c.e., he married a Kosala princess and temporarily strengthened ties between the two kingdoms. However, his oldest son, Ajatasatru, feared

that the marriage would jeopardize his own position as heir. Ajatasatru (r. dates unknown) thus assassinated his father and took the throne.When Prasenajit learned of the murder, his forces attacked Magadha and defeated the new monarch. Prasenajit allowed Ajatasatru to retain his throne when the Magadha monarch pledged his loyalty to Kosala. Another politically arranged marriage would soon topple the Kosala monarch. Prasenajit greatly admired Buddha, and he asked to marry a Sakya princess to join his kingdom with the Buddha’s clan. The Sakyas abhorred the proposal, however, because they believed that Kosala was a socially inferior kingdom. But it was powerful militarily, so they could not reject the request. Instead, they tricked Prasenajit by sending him an illegitimate daughter of the Sakya chief. When the Kosala court learned of the deception, they demanded that Prasenajit attack the Sakyas to attain vengeance. Because of his personal relationship with Buddha, Prasenajit refused. Led by the chief minister, the court rebelled and expelled Prasenajit. The beleaguered monarch pleaded with Ajatasatru for assistance, but the Magadhan monarch ignored him. Prasenajit died as an outcast, and the Kosala court officials placed his infant son, Virudhaka (r. dates unknown), on the throne as a puppet king.

BIRTH OF THE MAGADHAN EMPIRE Ajatasatru quickly seized the opportunity posed by the situation in Kosala. While the Kosala army attacked the Sakyas, he invaded Kosala and easily assumed control of the capital. When the army returned, it tried to unseat him, but Ajatasatru’s forces won a decisive battle. After this great victory, Magadha quickly became the most powerful kingdom in all of northern India. Predictably, Ajatasatru next sought to subdue the remaining Indian kingdoms. Among them, Vriji was the most powerful.The Vriji kingdom was actually a confederacy of powerful clans, including the Lichchhavis, the Vajjis, and the Videhans. Ajatasatru used several petty border disputes to justify his attack upon the confederacy. But instead of immediately attacking the clans, he first created divisions among them by negotiating a series of false treaties. The strategy succeeded. Wary of each other, the clans failed to defend themselves and soon succumbed to the Magadhan army. By 480 b.c.e., Magadha had gained control over

Indo-Greek Kingdoms northern India, and the Indian kingdoms no longer existed as separate, autonomous states. The Magadha kingdom dominated the region until 324 b.c.e., when a military leader named Chandragupta Maurya assassinated the last Magadhan monarch, Dhanananda (r. ?–324 b.c.e.), and founded the Maurya Empire. Despite their eventual demise, the early Indian kingdoms had served as the birthplace for two great religions that would have a significant impact on world history. See also: Avanti Kingdom; Kosala Kingdom; Magadha Kingdom; Maurya Empire. FURTHER READING

Raychaudhuri, Hemchandra. Political History of Ancient India. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to A.D. 1300. London: Allen Lane, 2002.

INDO-GREEK KINGDOMS (ca. 250–40 B.C.E.)

Kingdoms that arose from the remnants of eastern territories of the Hellenistic empire established by Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.). When Alexander the Great died in 323 b.c.e., his generals divided his vast empire among themselves. A general named Seleucus gained control over the region that stretched east from Babylon into modern Afghanistan. Seleucus I Nicator (r. 312–281 b.c.e.) divided his domain into separate states and ruled the area for more than three decades.

CHALLENGE TO GREEK RULE In 305 b.c.e., the Maurya Empire expanded rapidly from its nucleus in India. After Seleucus I suffered a major defeat at Kandahar that year, he signed a treaty with the Mauryas that divided Afghanistan equally between the Maurya Empire and the Seleucid kingdom. But Seleucus also faced a severe threat in the west. While he battled the other Greek generals in the “Wars of the Successors” (ca. 322–275 b.c.e.), the Mauryas gradually overran the rest of Afghanistan. Under the leadership of Asoka (r. 268–232 b.c.e)., the most accomplished Maurya ruler, the Maurya Empire eventually extended over the entire

437

Indian subcontinent.When Asoka died in 232 b.c.e., Mauryan dominance steadily crumbled, and the Greek enclaves that remained in Afghanistan regained their autonomy.

RISE OF BACTRIA One of these Greek states, Bactria, quickly became the most powerful of the group. Under the leadership of Diodorus I (r. ca. 256–248 b.c.e.) and his son, Diodorous II (r. ca. 248–235 b.c.e.), Bactria unified many of the former Seleucid states. These states were willing to accept Bactrian rule because they faced serious threats from other groups and required military protection. When the Mauryas retreated from the region after Asoka’s death, Parthian raiders from the north invaded and plundered the area and exacted heavy tributes from the Greek communities there. Therefore, Bactria gained regional support by resisting the Parthians. Diodorus II’s successor, Euthydemus I (r. ca. 235–200 b.c.e.), utilized this newfound strength. During the 220s b.c.e., he achieved several decisive victories over the Parthians, conquered the city of Herat in the west, and expanded Bactria’s eastern border into China’s Xianjing province. Under Euthydemus’s guidance, Bactria became a completely independent Hellenistic society, foremost among the Indo-Greek kingdoms. While Euthydemus was consolidating his power, Antiochus III (r. 223–187 b.c.e.), one of the successors of Seleucus I, was attempting to reunify the former Seleucid holdings. In 209 b.c.e., he marched east and conquered all the areas up to the Bactrian border. A battle between the two Greek powers appeared imminent, but when Euthydemus and Antiochus met, they agreed to divide control of the region equally and protect one another from invasion. Soon after, however, Antiochus recognized the difficulty of maintaining such a vast empire. He focused upon his western territories, and Bactria again enjoyed complete independence.

ZENITH AND DECLINE During the second century b.c.e., Bactria attained its greatest prominence. Euthydemus I’s son and successor, Demetrius I (r. ca. 200–185 b.c.e.), spread Bactrian control over all of modern Afghanistan and across the rugged Khyber Pass into present-day Pakistan. In essence, the Bactrians were following the retreating Maurya Empire.As that empire crumbled, the

438

Indo-Greek Kingdoms

Bactrians advanced, seizing former Mauryan territories. Eventually, the Bactrian kingdom spread across the Indus River and all the way to Patna, the former Maurya capital, on the banks of the Ganges River. Demetrius I established many Greek outposts throughout these new territories. A number of them, however, gradually loosened themselves from Bactrian control and gained independence. For decades, these Greek outposts remained as distinct communities, even as the empires surrounding them flourished and declined. As a result, centuries later, individuals with Hellenistic features could still be found throughout western India. Bactria reached its zenith under the reign of Menander (r. ca. 155–130 b.c.e.), who assumed the throne in 155 b.c.e. and continued to fortify the Bactrian kingdom. Because of his affinity for Buddhism, Menander was given the Buddhist name Milinda. Menander led a large foray into central India, but was repulsed by a leader named Pushyamitra Sunga (r. ca. 187–151 b.c.e.), whose victory earned him the appellation “King of the Indians.” Bactria’s borders remained stationary for the remainder of Menander’s reign. Around 120 b.c.e., Bactria faced increasingly dangerous threats from the north. Nomadic invaders, consisting primarily of the Scythians, repeatedly pillaged the outlying Bactrian communities. After Menander died around 130 b.c.e., Bactria became increasingly fragmented as various leaders battled for control of the kingdom and sought to protect their own regions. The last recorded Greek ruler of Bactria was Hermaeus (r. ca. 75–55 b.c.e.). During his reign, Hermaeus briefly restored Bactrian prominence by conquering the region between Kabul (in presentday Afghanistan) to the Indus River. After his death, the kingdom was briefly controlled by a series of Indian princes before it was subsumed by the Kushan dynasty in the last decades of the first century b.c.e. See also: Antiochus III, the Great; Maurya Empire; Menander; Parthian Kingdom; Seleucid Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Smith,Vincent A. The Oxford History of India. Ed. Percival Spear. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Tanner, Stephen. Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban. New York: Da Capo Press, 2002.

INHERITANCE, ROYAL The legacy of royal inheritance is a rather complicated and hardly universal matter. Intangibles such as title, prestige and rank, physical property, material wealth, and in some cases land and houses could be subject to inheritance by a royal.A monarch’s coming to power could be inherited, especially for royal males under primogeniture. The act of assuming power, either to the throne or of a dynasty or empire, is called accession and is similar to, and can encompass, aspects of inheritance. The actual coming into power, that is, when royals attain actual ruling rank, is best understood by the study of royal accession. For many royal cultures primogeniture was the norm; under this system, the eldest (almost always the son) would inherit the monarch’s wealth, property, and throne. During the Warring States Period in China (403–221 b.c.e.), grown men were forbidden from living with their fathers in an effort to promote the cultivation of new agricultural land and to further increase tax revenues to the state. Following the Warring States Period, the Han dynasty (221 b.c.e.–220 c.e.) stipulated that inheritance was to be divided evenly among male heirs; to many outsiders, however, this practice seems to make little economic sense.

HAN DYNASTY (206 B.C.E.–220 C.E.) The Han dynasty in China was founded by Liu Bang (r. 207–195 b.c.e.), who at the regime’s commencement, ennobled his favorite relatives and friends. By 154 b.c.e., this line of princes had grown powerful and revolted against the Han dynasty’s imperial authority. Emperor Han Wudi (r. 141–87 b.c.e.), seeking to quell the threat to his own authority and that of the dynasty’s, enacted measures that required all princes to divide their property, Han Wudi also directed that princes could not give the bulk of their property to one son and significantly smaller shares to others. Through royal property inheritance, or fenjia mandates in Imperial China, it was ensured that the princes would never again gain too much power and pose a threat to the dynasty as they had in the early Han period.

LATER DYNASTIES FROM T’ANG The T’ang dynasty (618–906 c.e.) held onto to some of the axioms established in the Han dynasty. Male heirs were to divide property evenly; if a brother

I n h e r i ta n c e, Roya l

439

ROYAL RELATIVES

ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE France’s Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122–1204) was wife and mother to two kings and thoroughly a legend in her own right.When Eleanor was fifteen her father died and she inherited Aquitaine, the largest kingdom of France.That same year she wed King Louis VII of France; she later had the marriage annulled on the basis that they were related, though this would not have necessarily given pause to royals. She then married England’s Henry II in 1154, who was scandalously eleven years her junior. Eleanor bore Henry seven children, two of whom went on to become kings of England: Richard and Henry. Henry sent Eleanor to her duchy of Aquitaine to restore order; she took an authoritative role. She was neither a figurehead queen nor the pawn of her husband the king. By 1173, having grown weary of Henry’s philandering, she launched a rebellion against her husband, seeking to rule Aquitaine with her son Richard, without Henry’s involvement. Henry responded by throwing her in jail for fifteen years.The shrewd Eleanor regained her duchy and lived to see her favorite son Richard I the Lionhearted (1157–1199) inherit the throne of England, very much against the late king’s wishes and in line with her own. She was appointed Richard’s regent while he fought against the Sultan Saladin (1138–1193) in the second crusade; Richard spent only about six months of his ten-year reign actually in England.

died, his son(s) inherited his share, unmarried sons were given additional property to cover marriage expenses, and a widow with a son would receive her husband’s share of the property. Many of these edicts remained in place until the Communist revolution of the twentieth century. The Song state in southern China, ruled by Mongols during the late thirteenth century, marked the only time in imperial Chinese history that an attempt was made to pass an inheritance tax.The purpose of the tax was to raise funds for military defense from invasions.The Song dynasty was ruled by Mongol invaders during the Yuan dynasty (1260–1368) and with foreign rule came new laws for inheritance. Mongols mandated a form of ultimogeniture wherein as each son came of age and married he was given a set amount of property for his own family. Chinese rule was reestablished in the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) with the first emperor Hung Wu (r. 1368–1398), and it was provided that sons were to inherit evenly whether they were born of a wife or a concubine.

Descent from God Royals around the world and rulers from the earliest times often believed that they were descended from god(s). Many Greek and Roman nobles believed they came from demigods, whereas many kings claimed to rule by divine right. From the early medieval period to 900 c.e., the concept of royal blood, which only the monarch and relatives had running through them, prevailed. The need to pass the throne, property, and power on to another descended from the heavens often required that royals go to great lengths to secure an heir. Some royalty were thought to have magical, healing powers; King Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066), for example, is alleged to have healed hundreds at the touch of the hand. Primogeniture was the rule of thumb for European royalty, with all the wealth and the throne passed on to the eldest male heir, usually a son, (it was believed that women could not adequately lead military operations). However, royal women did play a central role in the primogeniture via the importance given to bloodlines and thus marriage. In royal marriage it

440

I n h e r i ta n c e, Roya l

was always assumed that the woman was a virgin, but the same did not hold for the king.Virginity was held in high esteem in order to ensure royal bloodlines and ultimately reduce heir confusion since children were to be born out of wedlock, prior to the royal union, and could lay claim to the throne and its wealth. Russia’s Ivan IV known as the Terrible (r. 1533–1584) had his seventh wife drowned one day after discovering that his newest bride was not a virgin. The need to produce an heir, preferably a male one, often led to multiple wives and affairs with concubines if an heir could not be produced within marriage. Women fared better under the French king Chilperic (r. 561–584), who allowed them to inherit Salic land as long as they had no brothers. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Aquitaine Duchy; Concubines, Royal; Frankish Kingdom; Han Dynasty; Henry II; Marriage of Kings; Mongol Empire; Primogeniture; Royal Line. FURTHER READING

Basch, Norma. In the Eyes of the Law:Women, Property and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982.

IRELAND, HIGH KINGS OF. See Irish Kings

IRENE (c. 750–803 C.E.) Byzantine empress (r. 797–802) who served as a coregent for her son, Constantine VI (r. 780–797) and who became sole ruler in 797.The first woman ever to hold the imperial throne of the old Roman and Byzantine empires, Irene ranks with Hatshepsut of Egypt (r. 1503–1483 b.c.e.) and Catherine II (the Great) of Russia (1762–1796) as a breaker of maledominated dynasties. Irene was born around 752 to a noble Greek family in Athens. In 769, she married the Byzantine crown prince, who later became Emperor Leo IV (r. 775–780).Their son, Constantine, became emperor upon his father’s death in 780. But because Constantine was still a young boy, Irene ruled as his coregent, effectively becoming the sole ruler. When Constantine became of age to rule on his

own, the ambitious Irene had her son deposed and blinded, taking the throne completely for herself in 797. Constantine died shortly afterward, and Irene became the first woman to hold the throne of the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire. Since Pope Leo III believed that no woman could legally become emperor, he considered the Roman throne of the empire to be vacant. To fill the seat, he turned to the Frankish king Charlemagne (r. 768– 814), who ruled over most of Western Europe. In 800, the pope crowned Charlemagne as Roman emperor in the West.This act officially removed the Byzantine Empire from recognition in the West as being the heir of ancient Rome. Yet the Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453, always Roman in its own eyes. During her reign, Irene was devoted to the Eastern Orthodox Church and sought to suppress iconoclasm, the worship of icons or images. In 784, she had Tarasius, one of her supporters, elected head of the Byzantine Church. Together, Irene and Tarasius convened a meeting of over three hundred bishops in 787, known as the Second Council of Nicaea, which refuted iconoclasm and declared that icons should be revered but not worshiped. Irene was deposed by rebellious Byzantine nobles in 802 and taken to the Aegean island of Lesbos, off the west coast of Anatolia (present-day Turkey), where she died in exile in 803. As a result of Irene’s fight against iconoclasm, the Greek Church later recognized her as a saint. See also: Byzantine Empire; Charlemagne; Roman Empire.

IRISH KINGS (400s–1175 C.E.) Elected tribal leaders of ancient and medieval Ireland who eventually assumed the title of kings. The Song of Dermot and the Earl, an Anglo-Norman poem celebrating the English invasion of Ireland in the twelfth century, maintained that “in Ireland there were many kings.” In fact, from the fifth to the twelfth centuries, as many as 150 kings might have reigned over individual territories in Ireland. Though their realms were small, these rulers played a large part in Irish legends and history.

EARLY LEGENDS According to the legendary medieval saga, The Book of the Taking of Ireland, a people called the Fir Bolg in-

Irish Kings vaded Ireland in the second millennium b.c.e. and divided the country into five provinces.Around 1900 b.c.e., the Fir Bolg were conquered by the Dé Danann, or “people of the goddess Danu.” The names of some of the kings and heroes of the Dé Danann are identical with Celtic gods and goddesses. In 1498 b.c.e., the Milesians, a Celtic people from Spain, came to Ireland, defeated the Dé Dannan, and banished them to the Otherworld or spiritual realm. That is the legend; the only certain facts are that Celts invaded Ireland about 200 b.c.e. and that the land was divided into five provinces: Leinster, Ulster, Connaught, Munster, and Meath. With the beginning of the Christian era in the fifth century c.e., the history of Ireland is more certain. Medieval annals and genealogies contain lists of the Irish kings and the dates of their rule. Irish law

441

texts from the seventh and eighth centuries recount how these kings of Ireland governed.

KINGS AND HIGH-KINGS According to early Irish law tracts, there were three hierarchical levels of political kingship: the ri or leader of the túaithe, or tribal group; the ruiri, or overking, who was head of his own túaithe and overlord of one or more other tribal kings; and the ri ruirech or “king of overkings,” who ruled over all the kings and overkings in a province. The title ard-ri or “high-king” was given to the single king who ruled from his seat at Tara, a high hill near Dublin. The high-king’s rule was religious rather than political. From the ninth century c.e. onward, however, the high-kingship of Tara often became a real political kingship as well as a position of religious leadership.

ROYAL PLACES

TARA: THE SACRED PLACE OF KINGS The seat of the high-kings of Ireland,Tara was both a royal residence and a religious center.The name Tara (Temrai) means “Prospect Hill” in Gaelic. Some think this high hill near Dublin was named for an ancient Celtic goddess,Tea. All that remains at Tara today are a few earthen mounds, one of which is a burial mound dating from the Neolithic period (3500–2000 b.c.e.).Within this mound is a stone passage with a slab decorated with images of the sun, moon, and stars.This might be a primitive calendar connected with religious feasts celebrated at Tara at the full moons in August (feast of Lughnasa), November (feast of Samain), February (feast of Imbolg), and May (feast of Bealtaine). Every year on Bealtaine all the fires in the surrounding area were lighted from the fire at Tara. At his election, the high-king of Tara faced a series of ritual ordeals, which included running his chariot wheels over the phallic Lia Fáil, or Stone of Destiny.The stone would only cry out if he were the true king. During his inaugural feast of kingship at Tara at Samain, the king drank from a cup that symbolized his marriage with Maeve, the goddess of Ireland and Sovereignty. Although these rites declined with the rise of Christianity,Tara continued to be a symbolic seat of kings. After the English invasion of Ireland in 1171,Tara became a rallying place for the cause of Irish independence. In 1798, the United Irishmen fought the battle of Tara against British forces. In 1843, the Irish patriot Daniel O’Connell called from Tara for the repeal of the union with Great Britain. In the early twentieth century,W. B.Yeats and other members of the Irish literary revival celebrated Tara as a sacred spot of Ireland’s legendary past.

442

Irish Kings

POWERS OF THE EARLY KINGS In theory, each Irish king, even the ri ruirech, (“king of overkings”), exercised power only over his own túaiche. While an overking exercised a personal lordship over his sub-king, the overking did not have power over the sub-king’s subjects. Each king was responsible for leading his túaithe in war and making political decisions. In practice, from the eighth century onward, the overkings began to subjugate other kings and their peoples, and they eventually established territorial lordships resembling those of feudal kings in the rest of Europe. Ancient Irish kings did not generally make laws, for ancient Ireland was governed by traditional law, known as brehon. In judging cases, the king relied on legal experts trained in the schools of the druids, the priests of the Celtic religion.These brehon laws were codified with the help of the clergy in the early Christian era. Like kingship in other ancient cultures, Irish kingship had a sacral character. Each king, overking, and high-king was symbolically married to the goddess of the local territory, to ensure the fertility and prosperity of the land.

SUCCESSION The succession of Irish kings did not pass in a direct line from father to son. Primogeniture—inheritance of land and titles by the oldest son—was unknown in early Irish history. Instead, the kingship was elective. But family did play an important part in determining who would be elected king. In order to be a candidate for kingship, or a rigdomna, a man had to be a member of a derbfine, a group of male kin, including first cousins, within five generations (father, son, grandson and greatgrandsons) who had produced a previous king. The derfine elected the king from eligible candidates, based on the power and status of the candidate and the number of his followers. Historians have long debated the meaning of the designation tánaise ríg, which can be translated as “expected king” or possibly “second king.” Some scholars believe that this individual was appointed by the king as the designated successor, and that he was therefore the heir apparent. Many historians, however, regard the tánaise ríg as the man elected at the same time as the king, who would be ready to succeed him in case of sudden death. Other historians

regard the tánaise ríg as a member of a branch of the family that was out of power for the moment, but was promised an eventual rise to the kingship.

LATER HISTORY From the seventh century onward, various rulers claimed to be the high-king of Ireland. But these claims were dubious, although often supported by the Christian clergy in Armagh, the seat of the Irish church.The Viking invasions, beginning in 794–795, helped cement cooperation between the warring Irish dynasties.The first ruler to make the high-kingship a political reality was Máelsechnaill mac Máele Runnaid (r. 846–862), a member of the powerful Ui Neill dynasty of Ulster, whose members frequently held the high-kingship. Perhaps the most famous highking of Ireland was Brian Boruma mac Cennétig (r. 1002–1014), also known as Brian Boru, who called himself “emperor of the Irish.” In the twelfth century, the strongest high-kings were Turlough O’Connor (r. 1121–1156) and his son and successor Rory O’Connor (r. 1166–1186). In 1171, King Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189) landed in Ireland with the intention of subduing the Irish. In 1175, after Henry had conquered a great deal of Irish territory, high-king Rory O’Connor performed an act of fealty, accepting Henry as his overlord. Henry II also received fealty from several other Irish kings and proclaimed himself Paramount Lord of all Ireland. King Rory O’Conner’s half-brother, Cathal (r. 1186–1224), the last of Ireland’s powerful highkings, was required to acknowledge King John of England (r. 1199–1216) as his sovereign lord. However, even after the consolidation of English rule over Ireland, the provincial kings and sub-kings remained in power in some parts of the country until the end of the sixteenth century, when Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) abolished all Irish royal and noble titles. See also: Boru, Brian; Connaught Kingdom; Leinster, Kingdom of; Meath, Kingdom of; Munster, Kingdom of; Ulaid Kingdom; Ulster Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Byrne, Francis John. Irish Kings and High-Kings. 2d ed. Portland OR: Four Courts, 2001. Jaski, Bart. Early Irish Kingship and Succession. Portland, OR: Four Courts, 2000.

Islam and Kingship

ISLAM AND KINGSHIP The relationship between religion and governance in Islamic thought and history. Islamic notions of kingship are multiple and complex and theological visions of Muslim government have often been at odds with the political reality. Nonetheless, religion has been essential to the image and reality of monarchy in Islamic societies. Rulers have often sought to frame justifications for their exercise of political power in terms of faith and have frequently based their actions on religious obligations. Likewise, Muslim opponents of particular rulers or of monarchy in general have couched their arguments in Islamic religious terms. In order to understand the history of the dynasties of the Islamic world, it is necessary to consider the relationship of Islam to kingship and the state.

ROOTS OF ISLAMIC GOVERNANCE The Islamic religion originated in Arabia in the seventh century c.e., when the Prophet Muhammad received revelations from God which he proclaimed were a continuation and finalization of the earlier prophecies of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Muhammad preached a religion that emphasized strict monotheism, submission to God, and community values. Islam has been termed a religion of radical egalitarianism for its emphasis on the individual rights and obligations of each believer and the importance of the community of believers, or umma. While the prophet Muhammad was alive, he governed the growing umma himself, developing Islam into a unified religious and sociopolitical system. After Muhammad’s death in 632, the Islamic umma was ruled by a succession of four caliphs (an Arabic term for “successors”). In theological terms, the caliphs were vice regents of a sort, people who acted in Muhammad’s place and governed a unified social, religious, and political community. During the rule of these first four caliphs, known as the “Rightly Guided caliphs,” a blueprint for Islamic governance was created. The early caliphs were chosen by a process of nomination and election, and they controlled political, military, economic, legal, and religious affairs. In Islamic theology, the age of Muhammad and the Rightly Guided Caliphs is seen as a normative period in which God’s community was ruled in a holistic and uncorrupted manner, in accordance with the laws written down in the Qur’an.

443

After the rule of the first four caliphs, a split developed between those who believed that political succession should be restricted to the Prophet’s family, and those who favored a wider choice based on religious and political suitability. Furthermore, in 661 the establishment of the Umayyad dynasty, whose hereditary rulers called themselves caliphs, brought to the fore the difficulties of combining temporal and spiritual authority.The schism between the Shia (Shi’ite) and Sunni branches of Islam began at this time, as the Shia, followers of the fourth caliph Ali, denied the legitimacy of Umayyad rule. Sunni and Shia Islam have very different visions of Islamic kingship: in Sunni Islam, the dominant branch of the faith, the caliph was the selected or elected political and military leader of the umma. His religious authority, however, was only partial—clerical scholars and learned men, called the ulama, and judges were responsible for religious interpretation and Islamic law. In Shia Islam, on the other hand, political and religious authorities are closely knit together.The Shia believe that the rightful leader of the umma is an imam, who must be a descendent of both Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali, the fourth caliph and first imam.The imam is not only a political leader, but is also the divinely inspired interpreter of Islamic theology and law, a position reminiscent of the Catholic notion of papal infallability. In both Sunni and Shia traditions, though, there is some degree of emphasis on the importance of the ulama’s independence from the political leadership, although open revolt against an unjust leader was frowned upon unless the leader had directly violated religious principles. During Islam’s formative years, the Sunni caliphs triumphed militarily over the Shia dissenters. As a result, Sunni Islam, along with Sunni ideas of Muslim rule, have dominated the majority of the Islamic world since. Notable exceptions to this are the Islamic empires of Persia and the Islamic republic of modern-day Iran, which were, and still are, Shia kingdoms.

MANIFESTATIONS OF ISLAMIC KINGSHIP An old saying repeated by many early Islamic writers was that “religion and kingship are two brothers, and neither can dispense with each other.” For the various Islamic dynasties that ruled over the centuries, the saying proved to be accurate. Islamic rulers

444

Islam and Kingship

For over a millennium, religion has played a vital role in the kingship of Islam.The intertwining of political and secular roles on the part of Islamic leaders goes back to the Prophet Muhammad himself, shown here preaching his last sermon in 632 c.e.

tended to use titles with religious connotations, such as caliph or sultan (from an Arabic word used in the Qur’an to denote power). Others, however, have used titles from non-Islamic traditions, such as shah (derived from a Persian work for ruler) or the English “king.” Islamic rulers sought to balance their religious and secular roles, and an inability to maintain the balance could prove troublesome. The revolt of the Abbasids against the Umayyad dynasty in 747 c.e. was partially rooted in a revivalist combination of Islam and politics, as Abbasid leaders claimed that the Umayyads had grown too aristocratic and wealthy and strayed from the communalist precepts of “true” Islam. This view was based partially in Islam’s strong distaste for purely political kingly domination, or mulk. The Umayyads themselves had cloaked their political rule in religious language, with varying degrees of success. Both the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers used Islamic ideas and ideology to support their monarchical authority,

a trend continued by many other Muslim rulers across the centuries and continents. Later Muslim empires, such as those of the Ottoman Turks, the Safavid dynasty of Persia, and the Mughal dynasty of India, also mixed religious ideology with worldly strength.The early Ottoman rulers were very much military leaders, but often cast their wars in a religious context, assuming the title “ghazi” or holy warrior. Some Ottoman rulers appropriated the title of caliph at times. However, in the Ottoman Empire there was actually a separate religious leader known as the chief mufti, a system mirrored in the Safavid and Mughal empires as well. The rulers of all three of these empires incorporated Islamic law, or sharia, into their legal codes and considered their authority to be derived from God, carrying with it the obligation to defend Islam. Differences persisted, however: for example, the Shahs of the Safavid empire in the 1500s and 1600s ruled in the context of missionary Shia theology,

Israel, Kingdoms of which put them at odds with their Sunni Ottoman rivals to the west. The ideal of an Islamic community united politically and religiously under the role of a single caliph was long past. Modern rulers of Islamic communities also draw on religious themes to justify their right to power. The Hashemite dynasty of modern-day Jordan places much emphasis on its direct descent from the Prophet Muhammad. The present-day Saudi monarchy is so closely tied to its religious functions that the first title of the Saudi ruler is not king, caliph, or sultan, but “Guardian of the Holy Places,” the cities of Mecca and Medina. Yet, as in earlier times, Islam also provides a critique against monarchs who are seen as insufficiently true to the precepts of early Islam. The Saudi monarchs face dissent and opposition from Islamic fundamentalists, while the last Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979 in an Islamic revolution meant to restore the Shia ideal of government by the rule of an imam. In the Islamic context, kingship and religion are closely tied, but the relationship between them is fraught with ambiguity and has usually been subject to a broad gap between religious ideals and the reality of rule. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Hashemite Dynasty; Mughal Empire; Ottoman Empire; Pahlavi Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Black, Antony. The History of Islamic Political Throught: From the Prophet to the Present. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001. Esposito, John L. Islam and Politics. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1987.

ISRAEL, KINGDOMS OF (ca. 1020–722 B.C.E.)

Two successive and short-lived ancient Hebrew kingdoms located on lands bordering the eastern Mediterranean in the ancient Near East. Around 1100 b.c.e., twelve tribes of Hebrew people who shared a belief in the same god,Yahweh, settled in the hills of Canaan, west of the Jordan river in the region of Palestine. They formed their own kingdom with Saul (r. ca. 1020–1010 b.c.e.) anointed as the first king of Israel around 1020 b.c.e.

445

Saul created an army and set up an administration to rule the kingdom, but he was faced with dissension among the tribes and proved to be an ineffective leader.

EARLY KINGS Saul was succeeded on the throne of Israel by King David (r. ca. 1010–970 b.c.e.) around 1010 b.c.e. David extended the boundaries of Israel and turned the kingdom into a powerful and stable entity. By controlling the major trade routes in the region, he was able to increase the prosperity of the kingdom of Israel. David conquered the city-state of Jerusalem from the Jebusites around 1000 b.c.e. and made it his capital. Jerusalem is still often called the “City of David.” Upon David’s death in 970 b.c.e., his son Solomon (r. ca. 970–931 b.c.e.) succeeded him to the throne. Solomon used the wealth of the kingdom to turn Jerusalem into a sophisticated city with many grand buildings. The most grandiose of all was an enormous structure on the top of Mount Zion in Jerusalem that included a royal palace and a temple. By building a temple to Yahweh on a high point of the city, Solomon claimed Jerusalem for Yahweh’s people, the Hebrews. Solomon’s costly building program required him to tax the people heavily, and he divided the kingdom into twelve districts to allow for easier tax collection. Despite the increased revenues, Solomon eventually overspent his funds and put the kingdom in a weak financial condition. Many people in the kingdom considered the excessive taxation an unnecessary hardship, and some began to rebel against Solomon’s rule. When King Solomon died around 931 b.c.e., the divisions were irreparable. When Solomon’s son Rehoboam (r. 930–914 b.c.e.) succeeded his father as king, he was unable to repair the damage caused by Solomon, and the monarchy was divided into two separate kingdoms. The northern part of the country (with ten tribes) kept the name the Kingdom of Israel, while the southern part (with the two remaining tribes and the city of Jerusalem) was now called the Kingdom of Judah.

SECOND KINGDOM OF ISRAEL This succeeding kingdom of Israel, facing warfare with the kingdom of Judah and general insurrection within its own borders, never managed to gain a

446

Israel, Kingdoms of

truly stable footing. During the two hundred years of its existence (ca. 931–722 b.c.e.), the kingdom saw nine changes in dynasty, usually caused by internal rebellions. The kingdom of Israel experienced only a few brief respites of peace and security. In the late ninth century b.c.e., King Omri (r. ca. 885–874 b.c.e.) managed to establish peace with Judah and with the neighboring Phoenician states of Tyre and Sidon. Later, in the mid-eighth century b.c.e., King Jeroboam II (r. ca. 781–754 b.c.e.) expanded Israel’s borders during a temporary period of calm. In 733 b.c.e., the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (r. ca. 745–727 b.c.e.) defeated the Kingdom of Israel and annexed it as an Assyrian province. When King Hoshea (r. ca. 731–722 b.c.e.) of Israel refused to pay tribute, Assyria went to war against Israel. In 722 b.c.e., after a two-year siege, Israel’s capital city, Samaria, was taken and the kingdom fell to King Sargon II of Assyria (r. 722–705 b.c.e.). Sargon deported the leaders of the tribes to remote regions of the Assyrian empire. These displaced Hebrews became known in legends as the “ten lost tribes” of Israel. The kingdom of Judah fared somewhat better than the kingdom of Israel in that it lasted more than a century longer until finally being destroyed by the Babylonians. A rival of Israel’s for years, Judah was beset by internal uprisings that weakened its power. In 605 b.c.e. Judah was made a vassal of Assyria, as the kingdom of Israel before it, and remained so until the Babylonians captured the kingdom in 587 b.c.e., destroyed Jerusalem, and deported the leaders of the country to other parts of the Babylonian empire. See also: Assyrian Empire; David; Hebrew Kings; Judah, Kingdom of; Judaism and Kingship; Sargon II; Solomon.

ITSEKERI KINGDOM (1480–1884 C.E.) Kingdom in West Africa, also known as Warri, which existed for more than five hundred years as an offshoot of the kingdom of Benin. The Itsekeri kingdom was founded around 1480 when Ginuwa, the son of the king of Benin, traveled to the western delta region of Nigeria with a group of followers in search of a place in which to settle.

Ginuwa (r. late 1400s), who is considered the first olu, or king, of the Itsekeri people, died before an appropriate settlement site could be found, however, and he was buried near the present site of Ijalla. Ginuwa was succeeded by his son, Ijijen (r. late 1400s), who, according to tradition, consulted an oracle to determine the best place to found his kingdom. On the advice of the oracle, Ijijen led his party of followers to the site of present-day Warri, where he established his court. Almost immediately, the Itsekeri people established themselves as effective traders, brokering the exchange of goods between Europeans, who were beginning to appear on the Nigerian coast, and the inland peoples of Nigeria and beyond. The wealth of the Itsekeri kingdom attracted immigrants from throughout the region. Some, like the original founding group, came from Benin; others came from the Yoruba states and from the lands of the Nupe people. By the 1500s, when the first European missionaries arrived, the Itsekeri kingdom was dominant in the region, maintaining at least reasonably peaceful relations with its neighbors in order to preserve the flow of trade. There were, however, challenges to Itsekeri dominance. Relations with the neighboring Ijaw people, for example, were often strained to the breaking point, and violence between the two sometimes erupted. In 1597, the Itsekeri ruler, King Esigie (r. ca. 1570–?), converted to Christianity, and with his conversion came the nominal conversion of the entire kingdom, although many people still practiced traditional religion. Meanwhile, the trade-based economy that provided the Itsekeri kingdom with its wealth and power remained vibrant up through the nineteenth century, although trading partners changed over the years, with the Portuguese eventually supplanted by the British in the early 1800s. In 1848, the nineteenth and last Itsekeri king, Akengbuwa (r. 1807–1848), died, and no new olu was named to succeed him. Instead, the administration of the kingdom was left in the hands of a council of elders, who from time to time named a regent to represent the kingdom. In 1851, the elders entered into the first of several treaties with the British, a preliminary step to the absorption of the kingdom into the British colony of Nigeria. Under the terms of this and subsequent treaties, the Itsekeri retained the nominal status of a subject kingdom. In 1884 the

I va n I I I , t h e G r e at kingdom became part of the larger British Protectorate of Nigeria. See also: African Kingdoms; Benin Kingdom.

ITURBIDE, AGUSTÍN DE (1783–1824 C.E.)

Leader of the Mexican independence movement who ruled Mexico briefly as Emperor Agustín I (r. 1822–1823). Born to an upper-class family in the Mexican province of New Spain, Iturbide joined the SpanishMexican army as a very young man. By age fifteen, he was already an officer in his provincial regiment, and he quickly rose in rank. By 1810, Iturbide was a respected military leader, and he was offered a position in the rebel army of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. He refused, however.This decision proved fateful for the rebels when Iturbide’s defense of the city of Valladolid decimated a large portion of rebel forces. In recognition of his key leadership at Valladolid, Spanish colonial officials gave Iturbide command over two military districts under Spanish control, but this command was revoked in 1816 when Iturbide was charged with extortion and brutality. Four years later, however, he received another military commission to defeat the remainder of the weakened rebel forces, now under the command of Vicente Guerrero. A liberal political coup in Spain, however, left Mexican conservatives, including Iturbide, feeling disillusioned with the monarchy, and Iturbide promptly realigned his loyalties. He joined his forces with Guerrera’s rebels, on the condition that Guerrera agree to three guarantees. On February 24, 1821, Iturbide published his Plan de Iguala, which listed and explained the political guarantees he wanted from the rebels: Mexican independence from Spain, equality in the new Mexican state for Creoles and Spaniards, and a ban on all religions other than Roman Catholicism. Six months later, the viceroy of Spain signed the Treaty of Cordoba, acceding to Mexican independence. After Mexico gained its independence, Iturbide separated himself from Guerrera and the rebels, and in May 1822, supported by his troops, he crowned himself Emperor Agustín I of Mexico. Iturbide proved to be a tyrannical ruler, and he

447

soon found himself without political allies. As a result, Mexico was once again threatened by revolutionary armies, this time led by Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana and a rebel leader who called himself Guadalupe Victoria. Santa Ana published a plan calling for Iturbide’s exile, and on March 10, 1823, Iturbide abdicated, having served as emperor for less than a year. After his abdication, Iturbide left Mexico and went to Italy and England. He later returned to Mexico, however, unaware that the Mexican congress had declared that his return would mean death. Captured by a military patrol on July 15, 1824, Iturbide was tried and shot by a firing squad four days later. See also: American Kingdoms, Central and North; Mexican Monarchy.

IVAN III, THE GREAT (1440–1505 C.E.)

Grand Prince of Muscovy (r. 1462–1505) who united the principalities and territories of northern Russia into a single state. Ivan Vasil’evich was the son of Grand Prince Vasily (Basil) II of Muscovy (r. 1425–1462) and Maria Yaroslavna. Defeated by the Tatar Khan of Kazan in 1445, Vasily was imprisoned and blinded by his cousin, Dmitri Shemiaka. However, Ivan and his younger brother eluded Dmitri’s forces and escaped. Vasily was eventually freed and his power restored. But the Khan’s victory and Shemiaka’s treachery inspired Ivan to conquer the various principalities of northern Russia and end Muscovy’s enforced allegiance to the Mongols. When Vasily II died in 1462, Ivan became Grand Prince of Muscovy and immediately began pursuing his goal. In 1473 Ivan purchased the principalities of Rostov and Yaroslavl from their respective princes. He then sought to subdue the vast principality of Novgorod. In 1456, during his father’s reign, Ivan had defeated the army of Novgorod and signed a treaty ensuring that Novgorod would maintain its allegiance to Moscow. But the leaders of Novgorod courted the support of Lithuania and Poland to protect them from Moscow’s control. Consequently, in 1471, Ivan launched a military campaign against Novgorod. By 1478, he had subjugated the princi-

448

I va n I I I , t h e G r e at

pality and formally annexed it as part of Muscovy. Once Novgorod fell, the principality of Tver, one of Novgorod’s allies, also accepted Ivan’s control. After these successes, Ivan sought to free Muscovy from its allegiance to the Tatar Mongols. First, he formed an alliance with the Khanate of Crimea, an independent Mongol state that also wished to eliminate its obligations to the Tatars. In 1478, assured of Crimean support, Ivan refused to supply the annual tribute to Akhmat, the Tatar Khan. Akhmat responded by marching towards Moscow, but Ivan and his forces blocked the Tatar’s progress at the Urga River. Surprised by the boldness of the Muscovites, Akhmat avoided battle and retreated. Although Muscovy would be threatened by future Tatar invasions, Ivan had effectively ended Mongol domination. This victory inspired the posthumous title of “Ivan the Great.” After consolidating the state, Ivan reformed Muscovite society. He decreased the power of the Orthodox Church, instituted mandatory military service for all classes, and renovated the city of Moscow. In Novgorod, he severely curtailed the nomadic habits of the farmers, causing a new landowner class to develop.This class helped stabilize the emerging Russian society that was now freed from Mongol oppression. Ivan’s most significant achievement, however, was the establishment of a united and independent Muscovy. See also: Golden Horde Khanate; Rus Kingdoms; Russian Dynasties.

IVAN IV, THE TERRIBLE (1530–1584 C.E.)

Russian tsar (r. 1533–1584) of the Riurikid dynasty who reformed government and greatly expanded the territory ruled by Moscow. He became a feared and brutal despot, earning him the epithet “Iran the Terrible.” The son of Grand Duke Vasily (Basil) III of Moscow (r. 1503–1533), Ivan was born in 1530, becoming ruler of Russia at age three upon his father’s death in 1533. His mother, Grand Dutchess Yelena Glinskaya, shared the regency with the boyar duma, or council of nobles, until her death in 1538, possibly a result of poisoning by political enemies. The regency then alternated among various boyar fami-

lies, all of whom were vying for power. Ivan thus grew up surrounded by intrigues and feuds among the boyars. In 1546, Ivan began to exercise power himself. The follow year, in 1547, he assumed the title of tsar (“caesar,” or emperor). In doing so, Ivan became the first Russian ruler to take the title formally, although it had been used occasionally by his father and grandfather and had also been applied by Russians to the khans of the Golden Horde Khanate, a Muslim state that ruled a large area of Russia. In 1547, Ivan also married Anastasia Romanova of the Romanov family, whose relatives would found Russia’s second great dynasty.

REFORM AND MILITARY CONQUESTS Ivan IV instituted many changes in Russia’s system of government and in Russian society. The first zemsky sobor—a two-level assembly that included boyars, churchmen, and elected representatives from all free classes of society—met in 1550. Ivan intended the sobor to be a check on the power of the boyars. Among the reforms he made with the approval of the sobor were changes giving local districts more control over their own administration, a new law code, and the reorganization of the army, including the creation of a standing army of musketeers. However, Ivan also limited the freedom of peasants, passing laws that forbade them from moving between landholders’ estates in certain years. This began the process of permanently binding Russian peasants to the land as serfs. Ivan’s first military venture was the conquest of the Tatar khanate of Kazan in 1552. In 1556, his forces conquered the khanate of Astrakhan. These two military ventures launched Russian expansion eastward. Seeking access to the Baltic Sea, Ivan then turned his attention to the west. In 1558, Ivan launched a war against the state of Livonia (which included parts of present-day Estonia and Latvia) and its ally Lithuania. By the time this war ended twenty years later, it had also drawn in Sweden and Poland against Russia, which, in the end, failed to make any substantial gains. Back in the east, the Stroganov family of merchant–adventurers, with a force of Cossacks (peasant soldiers), conquered a Tatar khanate in western Siberia between 1581 and 1584.The Cossack leader, Yermak, offered the conquered territory to Ivan just before the tsar’s death; the government in Moscow

I v a n I V, t h e Te r r i b l e

449

formed a new special court, the oprichnina, which had none of the checks and limitations of traditional Russian assemblies. The oprichnina eventually numbered as many as six thousand men, supported by numerous confiscated boyar estates.This force acted as Ivan’s secret police, executing those who opposed him. In 1566, Ivan had the oprichnina torture 300 boyars who had spoken out against his persecutions. In 1567, the head of the Russian Orthodox church was executed for preaching a sermon against the oprichnina. Members of the oprichnina sacked the city of Novgorod in 1570, killing thousands, because Ivan believed the townspeople were conspiring against him. Ivan disbanded the oprichnina in 1572 because the terror and disorder were undermining the country. This disorder may have contributed to Russia’s failure in the Livonian war.

LEGACY The grand prince of all the Rus, Ivan the Terrible was the first Russian ruler to claim the title of tsar, or emperor. Portrayed in this sixteenth-century engraving, Ivan IV was a brutal tyrant, whose reign degenerated into political and economic turmoil.

finished what the Cossacks had begun, annexing western Siberia in 1585.

A FEARED DESPOT Ivan had always had a stern and rather unforgiving character, perhaps forged, in part, by the intrigues and feuds that he witnessed during his childhood and by the murders of both his mother and his wife Anastasia, who was also poisoned and died in 1560. By the 1560s, however, Ivan’s behavior had become increasingly arbitrary, irrational, and tyrannical. Fits of rage alternated with periods of prayer and repentance. During the Livonian war, Ivan accused defeated commanders of treason, leading one general to change his allegiance to the Lithuanians rather than face Ivan’s anger over a lost battle.The tsar also suspected conspiracy and treason everywhere. Late in 1564, Ivan announced that he would abdicate the throne because of treason on the part of the boyars.When the people of Moscow protested, Ivan demanded what was in effect absolute power. He

Ivan IV and his first wife,Anastasia, had two sons, Ivan and Feodor. After Anastasia’s death in 1560, Ivan IV married at least six more times; the seventh wife bore him another son, Dmitri. Ivan killed his eldest son and namesake during a fit of rage in 1582.The tsar himself died of natural causes in 1584. Dmitri was murdered in 1591, possibly on the orders of Boris Godunov, the acting regent for Ivan IV’s son and successor, Feodor I (r. 1584–1598).When Feodor died childless in 1598, the ancient Riurikid dynasty, which had ruled Russian duchies and princedoms since around 910, came to an end. Despite his despotism and cruelty, Ivan IV left Russia a strong, centralized country that was able to withstand the disruption of the “Time of Troubles” that followed the death of Feodor I. Ivan’s policies were continued by those who followed him: serfdom became the dominant form of agricultural labor; Russia expanded to the east and resumed attempts to gain access to the Baltic Sea and the west; and the rule of the tsars became increasingly autocratic. See also: Golden Horde Khanate; Ivan III, the Great; Kiev, Princedom of; Riurikid Dynasty; Romanov Dynasty; Rurik; Russian Dynasties. FURTHER READING

Carr, Francis. Ivan the Terrible. Newton Abbott: David & Charles, 1981.

450

Jag i e l l o Dy na s t y

J JAGIELLO DYNASTY (1386–1572 C.E.) Series of seven kings who ruled the dual state of Poland-Lithuania from the late Middle Ages through the early modern era. The Jagiello rulers presided over the emergence of a stable constitutional monarchy. In 1385, the Polish magnates (major lords, church prelates, and merchants) invited Grand Duke Jogailo of Lithuania to fill the vacuum left by the death of King Louis (r. 1370–1382). A pagan, illiterate, but capable ruler of the sprawling Lithuanian domains, Jogailo agreed to accept the conditions: conversion to Latin Christianity, perpetual union of Poland and Lithuania, and marriage to Louis’s twelve-year-old daughter Jadwiga, crowned temporary “king” the previous year. Jogailo took the name Wladislaw II Jagiello (r. 1386–1434), giving the dynasty its name. Selecting Jogailo was a stroke of genius by the Polish magnates. By including Lithuania in the monarchy, the magnates swelled the borders and resources of a small, vulnerable country. Furthermore, by adopting the Lithuanian political tradition of weak central rule, they were able to protect and expand their rights and privileges at the expense of king and peasants alike. In 1410, at the battle of Tannenberg, the country inflicted a crushing defeat on the Teutonic Knights of Prussia, who had been a perpetual threat on Poland’s Baltic frontier. Wladislaw II’s son and successor, Wladislaw III (r. 1434–1444), added the Crown of Hungary to his titles in 1440 and then promptly launched a crusade against the expansionist Ottoman Turks. Wladislaw III’s death in 1444 at the hands of the Turks at the battle of Varna brought his brother Casimir IV (r. 1446–1492) to power.

PEAK OF POWER Casimir’s fifty-five-year reign saw the pinnacle of Jagiello’s power and prestige, as the dual state of

Poland-Lithuania dominated the region. His wife, Elizabeth of Habsburg, gave Casimir six sons and seven daughters. Five of the daughters married into Germany’s most illustrious courts, where they kept the family’s prestige alive for generations. Their son Wladyslaw became King Wladyslaw II of Bohemia (r. 1471–1516) and of Hungary (r. 1490–1516). Perhaps learning a lesson in caution from his unlucky brother Wladislaw III, Casimir IV tried to maintain good ties with both the Ottomans and the tsars of Muscovy. However, he was unable to mount a consistent defense against the latter’s territorial growth at the expense of Lithuania, which continued with little pause for 300 years. Casimir did stake one claim to military glory: the final submission of the Teutonic Knights in 1466. Half of Prussia was annexed outright, and the other half became a vassal state. Three of Casimir’s sons followed him to the Polish throne: John Albert (r. 1492–1501), Alexander I (r. 1501–1506), and Sigismund I (r. 1506–1548). The first two left little mark on history, but Sigismund was perhaps the most capable and accomplished of the Jagiello monarchs. Sigismund I preserved most of the country’s borders by diplomacy and occasional military victories (against Muscovy in 1514 and 1535, and Moldavia in 1531). However, he was unable to offer much help to his nephew Louis II (r. 1516–1526), the last Jagiello king of Bohemia and Hungary, who was killed fighting the Turks at the battle of Mohacs in 1526. Sigismund, lacking resources of his own, sought financial and manpower assistance from the szlachta (the nobility). In exchange for their help, he was forced to make repeated concessions of power. Sigismund imposed fiscal and monetary reforms on his country, using the experience he garnered as the margrave (military governor) of Silesia (1499–1506). He also integrated the Mazovia region and its capital Warsaw into the kingdom after the last duke of its Piast dynasty died in 1529. Sigismund and his second wife, Bona Sforza of Milan, presided over a flourishing Renaissance court in his capital city of Krakow, livened by Italian sculptors and architects. The introduction of printing stimulated a large literary output in Latin and Polish; the first printed Polish and Lithuanian books date from this period. Their policies helped reinvigorate the university at Krakow, while the city of Koenigsburg in the north became an early site of intellectual life focused on the Protestant Reformation.

J a h a n, S h a h Lutheran, Calvinist, and radical Protestant ideas spread rapidly under Sigismund, who decided that tolerance was the most politic response to the Reformation. A devout Catholic himself, he nevertheless reaffirmed the rights of the large Jewish and Orthodox Christian communities.

DECLINE The reign of Sigismund’s son and successor, Sigismund II Augustus (r. 1548–1572), saw political struggles between the king, the magnates in his council (cabinet), and the numerous lesser nobles of the kingdom. A permanent House of Envoys (representing the entire nobility) competed for influence with the king’s council. The Sejm (national parliament) assumed more powers at its periodic sessions, while local and regional sejmiki remained hotbeds of ferment. In 1569, the Union of Lublin, long sought by the nobles, consolidated the legal and administrative systems of Poland and Lithuania. The Polish nobility soon came to dominate Lithuania. Both lands remained overwhelmingly agricultural and farm output grew, but the peasants were gradually driven into serfdom. Sigismund II had no male heirs, and upon his death in 1572, the Jagiello dynasty came to an end.

451

World”) in 1616, after the prince helped to subdue rebellious states in the south. Khurram did not consider this a sufficient guarantee of succession, however, so he had his older brother, Khusran, murdered. Jahangir and his nobles understood the need for a contender to the throne to eliminate rivals, but they felt that Shah Jahan was becoming too treacherous. Recognizing their disapproval, Shah Jahan kept his distance from them and the imperial forces for four years before reconciling with his father, just eighteen months prior to Jahangir’s death. After Jahangir died in 1627, Shah Jahan ordered the death of his brothers, Dawar Bakhsh and Gurshasp Shahriyar, and several cousins. He then took the throne as the fifth ruler of the Mughal dynasty. Like Jahangir, Shah Jahan attempted to emulate the empire-building activities of his grandfather, Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605). He had the requisite personal qualities: he was a brave and competent

See also: Casimir IV; Lithuania, Grand Duchy of; Piast Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Davies, Norman. God’s Playground:A History of Poland. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982. Lukowski, Jerzy, and Zawadzki, Hubert. A Concise History of Poland. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

JAHAN, SHAH (1593–1666 C.E.) Mughal emperor of India (r. 1628–1658) who had an appetite for military expansion and became best known as builder of the Taj Mahal in the city of Agra. Shah Jahan was born as Khurram Shihab-ud-din Muhammad, the third and favored son of the Mughal emperor of India, Jahangir (r. 1605–1627).To ensure that the prince would be the next ruler of the Mughal dynasty, Jahangir changed the boy’s name from Prince Khurram to Shah Jahan (“King of the

Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan was a farsighted leader who sought to follow in the footsteps of his ancestors by expanding the empire. His greatest legacy, however, is the magnificent Taj Mahal in Agra, a mausoleum built to honor his wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died during childbirth in 1631.

452

J a h a n, S h a h

commander, a generous master who treated his servants with respect, and a far-sighted leader with a strict sense of justice. But neither he nor his father ever achieved the imperial expansionism of Akbar. Shah Jahan did, however, manage to expand imperial control into northwestern India and to penetrate deep into the region of southern India known as the Deccan. In 1638, his forces took the city of Qandahar (in present-day Afghanistan), and by 1646 the Mughals occupied the neighboring cities of Badakhshan and Balkh. However, Shah Jahan lost the province of Balkh (in Afghanistan) in 1647, and attempts to retake it in 1649, 1653, and 1653 cost manpower, time, and money. With his empire nearly bankrupt, Shah Jahan needed the wealth of southern India to restore his fortunes. By 1636, Shah Jahan had annexed the kingdom of Golconda and most of the kingdom of Bijapur, agreeing not to fight with those states in return for the conquest. This permitted the remaining forces of those states to war successfully against the rich Hindu states to their south. By 1656, however, Shah Jahan needed money, so he invaded Bijapur and Golconda, gaining control of their wealth and access to several active trading ports on the Arabian Sea. Shah Jahan then returned north to concentrate on building the city of Shahjahanabad (the new Delhi) while his son, the young prince Aurangzeb, became commander-in-chief of Mughal forces in the Deccan. Under Shah Jahan, Muslim India experienced a Golden Age of architecture and the climax of IndoPersian culture. Shah Jahan built mosques, temples, many opulent monuments, and magnificent gardens. In the city of Agra, he built the Pearl Mosque, so called because of the translucent white marble used on the interior. In 1638, Shah Jahan moved his capital to Delhi and built a palace with a magnificent jeweled throne, which became the principal residence of emperors for the rest of Mughal reign. Shah Jahan’s greatest architectural legacy was the Taj Mahal, built in the city of Agra as a mausoleum, or tomb, for his wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died in 1631 while giving birth to their fourteenth child. Completed in 1643, the Taj Mahal is considered one of the great wonders of the world. When Aurangzeb heard that his father had become ill in Delhi, he immediately returned from the Deccan to stake a claim to the throne. In 1658,Aurangzeb seized the Mughal throne and confined his father to the palace in Agra. It was there that Shah Jahan spent

the last few years of his life, looking out on the tomb of his beloved wife. Shah Jahan died in 1666. See also: Ahmadnagar Kingdom; Akbar the Great; Aurangzeb; Jahangir; Mughal Empire. FURTHER READING

Patnaik, Naveen. A Second Paradise. New York. Doubleday & Company, 1985.

JAHANGIR (1569–1627 C.E.) Fourth emperor (r. 1605–1627) in the Mughal dynasty of India, known primarily for his artistic and cultural contributions as a patron of the arts. Born as Prince Salim to the Mughal ruler Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605), Jahangir was next in line for the throne. He could not wait to attain power, however, and revolted in 1599 while his father was at war in the Deccan region of India. Akbar sent a loyal lieutenant, Abu-1 Fazl, to deal with his rebellious son, but Fazl was killed attempting to quell the revolt. Nevertheless, Akbar remained ruler until the 1605, when he suddenly died—possibly from a dose of poison dispensed by his son.Thus, the ambitious Jahangir began his twenty-two-year rule. The empire that he inherited was perhaps the strongest in the world at that period. Jahangir ably carried on where Akbar left off, but he was not a great ruler or daring warrior like his father. Jahangir allowed things to remain basically as they had been in the Mughal Empire. He managed the central administration and occasionally extended the empire’s borders slightly, but these were minor accomplishments. He also governed his people fairly and impartially, regardless of their religion. Jahangir’s greatest contribution to the Mughal Empire was not administrative or military; it was artistic. During his reign, the art form of pietra dura (mosaic inlay of precious stones of different hues) became highly developed. Painting, which Jahangir loved, reached its height as well. The Persian influence that had dominated Indian painting up to that time was replaced by a more distinctive Indian and Mughal style, and a number of schools of miniature painting emerged in India. Jahangir is perhaps most famous for being the father of his successor, Shah Jahan (r. 1628–1658), who constructed many large and beautiful buildings

Ja m e s I o f A r ag ó n in India, including the famous Taj Mahal at Agra.The years of Jahangir’s rule were a transition period in Mughal architecture between its two great stages that occurred under Akbar and Shah Jahan. During Jahangir’s reign, two English envoys visited India seeking to increase trade opportunities. The first was Captain William Hawkins, who arrived in 1609. Although Hawkins came with 25,000 gold pieces and a letter to Jahangir from King James I of England (r. 1603–1625), he was disappointed to find that India had no need to trade with England and had little interest in goods from Western countries. By the time James I sent another ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, in 1616, Jahangir welcomed him more cordially. Jahangir now hoped to count on British ships for transportation (previously provided by the less seaworthy and more bigoted Portuguese) for the important yearly pilgrimage to Mecca. In 1619, Roe reached an agreement with Jahangir to allow the English East India Company to build a factory at Surat, the main port city of the Mughal Empire. Roe knew well enough to be satisfied with the profits from that venture and not try to gain territory in India. After 1611, Jahangir was greatly influenced by his Persian wife, Nur Jahan, and her relatives, as well as his third son, Prince Khurram (who later became Shah Jahan). Those individuals virtually controlled government affairs until 1622. After that, Jahangir faced frequent rebellions by Prince Khurram. Jahangir died in 1627 while traveling to Lahore from Kashmir. Prince Khurram, or Shah Jahan, succeeded in claiming the throne the following year after overcoming the claims of various rivals. See also: Akbar the Great; Jahan, Shah; Mughal Empire.

JAMES I OF ARAGÓN (1208–1276 C.E.)

King of Aragón (r. 1213–1276), renowned for his expansion of Aragónese territory. Born in Montpelier in the area of Toulouse (in present-day southwestern France), James was the son of Peter II of Aragón (r. 1196–1213), who fought and died with the Albigensians, a heretical Christian sect that emphasized the duality of good and evil, light and dark, soul and body.

453

James had a tumultuous childhood. The death of his father in 1213 left the young James hostage to and in the care of Simon de Montfort, a military leader of the anti-Albigensian forces who had defeated Peter II and his allies. It was with some difficulty that Aragonese nobles persuaded Montfort to release the boy hostage in 1214. In the meantime, James’s uncle, Count Sancho of Roussillon had been appointed regent, but Sancho and other relatives plotted to overthrow James after his release. Opposed by nobles of both Aragón and Catalonia, Sancho resigned as regent in 1218, an act that led his supporters to rebel. James spent much of his youth fighting against various factions, but by 1227 he had effectively gained control of his kingdom. After leaving the care of de Montfort, James was raised and educated by the Knights Templar, a wealthy and powerful religious-military order that combined both military and monastic traditions.With their apparent assistance, James eventually restored order in Aragón and consolidated royal power before launching campaigns to regain Christian control of Iberia from the Moors in the so-called reconquista, or reconquest. James seized the Balearic Islands from the Moors between 1229 and 1235, drove Islamic forces from Valencia in 1238, and helped end Moorish control of Murcia in 1266. In 1258, under the Treaty of Corbeil, James relinquished the Aragónese claim to lands in southern France. In reciprocation, Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270) abandoned long-standing French claims to Barcelona, which was part of Aragón’s realm. With the conquest of the Balearic Islands, James opened the way for increased Catalan and Aragónese trade in the Mediterranean and, with it, increased prosperity for the kingdom.A supporter of arts and letters, he made Catalan the official language of Aragón and introduced a variety of reforms. In 1247, for example, he promulgated his legal code, the Customs of Aragón, a long overdue legislative reform. During James’s reign, the Libre del Consulat de Mar (Book of the Consulate of the Sea), an important compilation of maritime laws and customs, was also created. Upon James’s death in 1276, he was succeeded by his son, Peter III (r. 1276–1285) while another of his sons ruled as James II of Majorca (r. 1276–1311). See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Louis IX; Spanish Monarchies.

454

James I of England

JAMES I OF ENGLAND (JAMES VI OF SCOTLAND) (1566–1625 C.E.) King of Scotland (r. 1567–1625) and England (r. 1603–1625) whose accession to the English throne led to a union of the Crowns and the creation of a unified Great Britain. James was the first of the Stuart monarchs of England and one of the most memorable eccentrics ever to sit on the throne.

A TURBULENT CHILDHOOD Born in Scotland, James was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots (r. 1542–1567), and Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley.When James was just a baby, the house his father was staying in to recuperate from an illness was blown up and his father killed. Suspicion fell immediately upon Mary and her next husband, the earl of Bothwell, although the event remains a mystery to this day. Because of suspicions about her possible role in Darnley’s death, Mary fled, but was captured by rebellious Scottish nobles who had gone to war against her. She agreed to turn the throne over to her oneyear-old son, who became King James VI in 1567. James never saw his mother in his adult life, and he became a devout Protestant in contrast to her Catholicism. Mary was eventually executed by her arch-rival, Elizabeth I of England, on grounds of plotting in a scheme to murder the English queen. James registered only a token disapproval of his mother’s execution. James was in danger for much of his youth— Scotland was in turmoil and previous Stuart monarchs had been assassinated. James was thus kept protected and given a good education. After James fell under the influence of the Catholic duke of Lennox, the Protestant earl of Gowrie kidnapped James in 1582 and forced him to renounce Lennox. The young king was able to escape, and from then on he relied less on advisers and began to rule in person.

succession.The Tudor monarch of England, Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), never married and had no surviving siblings. As Elizabeth advanced in years, speculations ran rampant about whom she would choose as her successor among her many distant relations who were eligible for the throne. One of these relatives was James, who was the great-grandson of Margaret Tudor, the daughter of Elizabeth’s grandfather, King Henry VII (r. 1485–1509). Perhaps because of James’s many flattering gestures and conciliatory policies toward England, Elizabeth eventually chose James as her successor. When Elizabeth died in 1603, James made his way south to assume his new role as king of England, Scotland, and Wales. This journey became notorious for the number of titles he bestowed along the way. His accession also became legendary because, at nearly the same moment that he united the Crowns of England and Scotland under one monarch, a

ADULTHOOD AND KINGSHIP OF ENGLAND In 1589, James married Princess Anne of Denmark. She gave birth to their first son, Henry, in 1594, and to Charles (the future Charles I of England, r. 1625–1649) in 1600. In the late 1500s and early 1600s, one of James’s prime concerns was the English

The only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) was named as successor to the English Crown by Queen Elizabeth I before her death. The first ruler of England’s Stuart Dynasty, James fought with Parliament throughout his reign.

James II bloody rebellion in Ireland ended because the Irish were pacified at having a Celtic, even if Scottish, king. Eventually James thus became known as the British Solomon, a learned peacemaker. James was well known both for his real learning and his pretensions to greater knowledge than he actually possessed. During his lifetime, he published many works on topics as diverse as the divine right of kings, witchcraft, and the evils of tobacco, as well as a large body of poetry. He was known to take great pride in displaying his skills in Latin, often unaware of his errors in the language. His most lasting literary achievement was his commissioning of a new English translation of the Christian Bible, completed in 1611, which is known as the King James Bible. Another landmark of James’s reign was the founding in 1607 of Jamestown, the first permanent British settlement in North America. James became equally notorious for his alleged homosexuality. He lavished titles and riches on a number of handsome male favorites, such as George Villiers, the first duke of Buckingham, and he was known to fondle the codpieces of male courtiers. James was much less memorable as a ruler than for his eccentricities. His conflicts with Parliament over state finances and his absolutist tendencies paved the way for his son Charles’s similar disputes and, eventually, civil war. James spent the state’s funds liberally on such luxuries as elaborate court masques by the dramatist Ben Jonson and others. The religious conflict between Catholic and Protestant that haunted James’s childhood in Scotland intensified during his reign as king of England. One of the first manifestations of this was the Gunpowder Plot, a failed attempt by Guy Fawkes and other conspirators to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605. Fawkes, a Catholic, was motivated by anger over the reimposition of heavier fines and taxes upon Catholics than Protestants. James also repeatedly attempted to forge an alliance with Catholic Spain, to the dismay of Parliament, which was staunchly Protestant and experiencing a strong influx of Puritan members. In 1621, James dissolved Parliament over its criticisms of his policies with Spain. His dissolution of Parliament over religious and policy disagreements did not solve the problem; on the contrary, the power struggle between king and Parliament intensified in the next reign, leading to civil war in 1642. James died in 1625, leaving the Crown and his

455

troubles with Parliament to his son Charles I, who had already been running the country for the last year of James’s life during his father’s last illness. See also: Charles I; Elizabeth I; Homosexuality and Kingship; Mary, Queen of Scots; Stuart Dynasty;Tudor, House of. FURTHER READING

Bergeron, David M. Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1991. Fraser, Antonia. King James VI of Scotland, I of England. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975. Lee, Maurice, Jr. Great Britain’s Solomon: James VI and I in His Three Kingdoms. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990. Scott, Otto J. James I. New York: Mason/Charter, 1976.

JAMES II (1633–1701 C.E.) King of England (r. 1685–1688) whose Catholicism led to his deposing in the Glorious Revolution. James was the second son of Charles I (r. 1625– 1649) and Henrietta Maria, the sister of King Louis XIII of France (r. 1610–1643).While James was only a child, his father became involved in a bitter conflict with Parliament, leading to the English Civil War and eventually to Charles’s execution in 1649. During the first part of the Civil War, between 1642 and 1646, James was sent to Oxford, which was a Royalist stronghold. The city ultimately surrendered to the Parliamentary armies and James was ordered to return to London. In 1648, he escaped to the Netherlands and from there he made his way to France. James remained in exile on the Continent until 1660. During his time in exile, he served in the French and Spanish armies.

RESTORATION The death in 1658 of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, in the period known as the Interregnum (between kings), left a void in the leadership of the nation. Cromwell’s son Richard ruled as Lord Protector for a brief and disastrous period (r. 1653– 1658), but Parliament then asked James’s older brother Charles to return to England from exile in France and assume the throne. He was crowned

456

James II

Charles II (r. 1660–1685) in 1660.The period of his reign is termed the Restoration. Under Charles, James served as Lord High Admiral and became involved in colonial trade projects. (New Amsterdam was renamed New York in his honor after England took that American colony from the Dutch.) In 1660, James married Anne, daughter of the earl of Clarendon. Some eight or nine years later, he converted to Catholicism, an act that would ultimately lead to his downfall; his daughters Mary and Anne, however, were raised in the Anglican faith. In 1673, James’s wife Anne died, and he married Mary of Modena, a staunch Catholic. Because Charles II had no legitimate heirs, his brother James was next in line for the throne. However, this troubled many English Protestants, who did not want any possibility of a Catholic reassuming the throne after the bitter religious conflicts of the sixteenth century. This led Parliament to attempt to pass legislation between 1679 and 1681 that would exclude James from the throne because of his religion.

REIGN Parliament’s efforts to exclude James from the line of succession failed, and when Charles died in 1685 without a legitimate heir, James was crowned James II (r. 1685–1688). But almost immediately after James took the throne, the duke of Monmouth, an illegitimate son of Charles II and a staunch Protestant, led an unsuccessful attempt to oust James in the name of the Protestant cause. James’s bloody reprisals against Monmouth and his followers fueled Protestant hatred of the new king. James’s reign was brief and turbulent. He was already highly unpopular because of his religion, his autocratic tendencies, and his lack of respect for parliamentary authority. But he intensified the opposition to his rule by establishing a policy of religious toleration of Catholicism (the Declaration of Indulgence, 1687), filling many high-ranking government posts with Catholics, and eliminating laws that penalized Roman Catholics and other nonmajority religious groups. As a result of such actions, many feared that James wanted to reestablish Catholicism as the official religion of England. A crisis developed in 1688, when James’s Catholic wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son. The threat of a Catholic heir and dynasty in Protestant England was too great for many people to bear. High-ranking English noblemen called on William of

Orange, ruler of the Netherlands, to step in.William was married to James’s daughter Mary, which made his claim to the throne of England not entirely illegitimate. More importantly,William and Mary were both Protestant, and William was a staunch defender of Protestantism against Catholic France.

REVOLUTION AND AFTER In the fall of 1688,William of Orange prepared to invade England and forcibly take the throne from James. Force proved unnecessary, however, as James’s Protestant soldiers refused to fight for him and defected to William’s side, leaving James without forces to defend his Crown. Because the accession of William (r. 1689–1702) and Mary (r. 1689–1695) ensured a Protestant line on the throne and was accomplished without violence, it became known as the Glorious Revolution. James fled to Ireland in 1689 and tried to consolidate his power with the support of the Irish. But William’s armies defeated him at the battle of the Boyne (1689). Catholic Ireland suffered harsh punitive measures for most of the eighteenth century because of its support for James, who escaped to France with his wife and children and established a court in exile there. James died in France in 1701. The supporters of his cause and the cause of a Stuart restoration became known as Jacobites (after Jacobus, Latin for James). They staged two unsuccessful invasions of England in the eighteenth century in an attempt to restore James’s son and grandson, and thus the Stuart line, to the English throne. See also: Charles I; Charles II; Stuart Dynasty; William and Mary.

JAMES II OF ARAGÓN (1260–1327 C.E.)

King of Aragón (r. 1291–1327) and count of Barcelona (r. 1291–1327), who defended his kingdom’s claims to Sicily until that island was later relinquished in exchange for rule over the islands of Sardinia and Corsica. The grandson of James I of Aragón (r. 1213– 1276) and son of Peter III of Aragón (r. 1276–1285), James became king of Sicily on his father’s death in

Janggala Kingdom 1285.At the same time, his older brother Alfonso succeeded to the throne of Aragón as Alfonso III (r. 1285–1291). For several years, James defended Sicily from King Charles II of Naples (r. 1285–1309), who also claimed the island kingdom with support from both Pope Nicholas IV and James’s own brother,Alfonso III. When Alfonso III died in 1291, the nobles in Aragón invited James to take the throne of that kingdom. He accepted, appointing his younger brother Fadrique to serve as governor of Sicily during his absence. Although there were objections to his taking the Aragónese throne, partly because the pope had forbidden it, James retained power in Aragón. After negotiations with Pope Boniface VIII and Charles II, he gave up the throne of Sicily in exchange for control of Sardinia and Corsica. To further pacify Charles and the Angevin dynasty—long-time enemies of his family and chief rivals for the control of Sicily—James II married Charles’s daughter, Blanche. James did not press his claim to Sardinia for several years, waiting until he was able to conduct a successful military campaign for control of the island. Sardinia was finally joined to his kingdom around 1323, but he never took possession of Corsica. During the reign of James II, the Act of Union of 1319 joined the kingdoms of Aragón and Valencia with the county of Barcelona and feudal territories of the island of Mallorca.The act stipulated that none of these territories could be divided through bequests or gifts, although the king was empowered to donate individual castles and properties. When James died in 1327, he was succeeded as king of Aragón by his son, Alfonso IV (r. 1327– 1336), who had played an important part in the conquest of Sardinia in 1323. See also: Aragón, House of;Aragón, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; Naples, Kingdom of; Sicily, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies.

JANGGALA KINGDOM (ca. 1000s–1200s C.E.)

Buddhist kingdom located in east Java that flourished from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Early in the eleventh century, King Airlangga of Java (r. ?–1041) reunified several independent states

457

to create a unified Java kingdom. However, before his death in 1041, he divided his realm into two, forming the kingdoms of Panjalu (Kediri) and Janggala. According to a fourteenth-century Javan source, the Nagarakrtagama, Airlangga did this for his two sons, “both of whom were kings.” However, an inscription on a Buddha statue called the Joko Dolok (literally “fat man”) in Surabaya says that the existence of these two kingdoms stemmed from enmity between two princes, who may or may not have been related. Of the two kingdoms, Janggala is always mentioned first in ancient sources, which may indicate that it was more important.The story of the drawing of the boundary between the two kingdoms is steeped in legend. According to tradition, a learned Buddhist monk named Bharada, who was a master of yoga, went to Bali by walking over the water. The Joko Dolok inscription says he divided the two kingdoms by means of “magic water in a crock.” Early twentieth-century Dutch archaeologists found the remains of a stone wall that once ran from Mount Kawi in eastern Java to the south coast. This wall was called the Pinggir Raksa, or Giant Border. Some scholars believe that the wall marked part of the mythical boundary between the kingdoms of Janggala and Panjalu. The boundary thus may have run more or less from north to south, with Janggala controlling the land to the east of the boundary, and Panjalu the land to the west, theoretically bounded on all other sides by the sea. Another theory holds that the Brantas River formed the rest of the boundary between the two kingdoms. Other scholars believe that the idea of the division of the kingdom corresponds to ancient Javanese ideas of the importance of the four quarters of the universe, and that Bharada corresponds to the Naksatraraja, the king of the constellations.This idea is based on the assumption that all Indonesian thought once stressed divisions into two, such as high–low, male–female, light–dark, sea–mountain, and so on, which were then further divided into four. Similarly, the magic water in Bharada’s water pot can be seen as a manifestation of the importance of water in contemporary Balinese culture. If this theory about the old wall as part of the boundary between Janggala and Panjalu is correct, then the kingdom of Janggala would have included the province of Malang and the Brantas River Delta. It is possible that Janggala corresponds to Sukitan, a place name mentioned in thirteenth-century sources.

458

Janggala Kingdom

If this is the case, then Janggala would have controlled the ports on the north coast of Java. The location of Janggala’s capital is unknown. Some scholars suggest that it was located at Bakong, a town on the Porong River. Tenth-century inscriptions found near there are important because they show a strong Javanese cultural orientation rather any heavy Indian influence, suggesting the Janggala kingdom had not been heavily influenced by India. See also:Javan Kingdoms; Panjalu Kingdom; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

JAUNPUR KINGDOM (1398–1500 C.E.) Muslim kingdom in north-central India that was ruled by the Sharqi dynasty from 1398 to 1479. In the eleventh century, the kingdom of Jaunpur was no more than a frequently flooded strategic crossing point on the banks of the Gomati River in the Uttar Pradesh region of north-central India. In 1194–1197, the Muslim forces of Muhammad of Ghur (r. 1163–2003) captured the region from the Hindu Ghadavala dynasty. After the murder of the sultan of Delhi, Qutbuddin (r. 1316–1320), in 1320, Ghazi Malik Ghiyasuddin Tugluq I (r. 1320–1325) came to the throne of the Delhi sultanate. It was Malik’s descendant, Firoz Shah Tughluq (r. 1351–1388) who built the city of Jaunpur in 1359, naming it after his immediate predecessor, Muhammad bin Tughluq (r. 1325–1351), who was also known as Juna Khan. To maintain control of Jaunpur in the face of increased attacks from the forces of the Mongol invader Tamerlane, Firoz Shah sent his eunuch slave, Malik Sarwar Khwaja (r. 1394–1399), to govern Jaunpur and the surrounding area. Malik took the title Sultanus Sharq (“eastern emperor”). In the confusion that followed Firoz Shah’s death in 1388 and Tamerlane’s sack of Delhi in 1398, Malik Sarwar Khwaja declared independence and founded the kingdom of Jaunpur in 1398. Jaunpur maintained its independence under the Sharqi dynasty for eighty-one years. The kingdom became as strong as Delhi and developed into a center of Islamic art and culture under Ibrahim Shah (r. 1402–1440). It also developed a distinctive type of architecture, reflected in several great mosques with imposing gateways.

The Sharqi dynasty was defeated in 1483, when the ruler of Jaunpur, Husain Shah (r. 1458–1495), lost a fierce struggle with a confederacy of Afghan and Turkish chiefs held together by the emperor of Delhi, Ibrahmin Bahlul Lodi (r. 1451–1489). At the time of Sikandar Lodi (r. 1489–1517,) Jaunpur was permanently annexed to the Delhi sultanate. The Lodi dynasty (1451–1526) held Jaunpur and other northern kingdoms, including Malwa and Bengal, until the Maratha Confederacy dissolved in the face attacks from the Mughal ruler of Kabul, Babur (r. 1526–1530), in 1526. The northern region fell under the control of the Mughal Empire’s Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605) in 1559 and was gradually taken over by the British starting in 1775. See also:Akbar the Great; Babur; Delhi Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Lodi Kingdom; Maratha Confederacy; Mughal Empire; Tamerlane (Timur Leng);Tughluq Dynasty.

JAVAN KINGDOMS (800s–1700s C.E.) Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic kingdoms located both on the coast and in the interior of Java; there were at least twenty different kingdoms, both large and small, throughout the whole island of Java. Javanese history can be divided into the early classic, middle classic, late classic, and Islamic periods. This historical breakdown is based on cultural changes reflected in inscriptions, monumental remains, and textual sources, both Chinese and Indonesian.

EARLY CLASSICAL KINGDOMS OF CENTRAL JAVA The early classic period of Javan history, from the eighth to tenth centuries, coincided with the dominance of the Hindu Sanjaya and Buddhist Sailendra dynasties in the Kedu plains of central Java. This period was marked by the integration of the Javanese people into an international trading network and by the application of Indian models for Javan sculpture and temple architecture. The earliest evidence of a kingdom in central Java is an inscription dated 732 found on Mount Wukir, which contains a hymn of praise to a Sanjaya king. People claiming to be his descendants were responsible for constructing Hindu complexes of the Dieng Plateau, Gedong Songo, and Prambanan.

459

J ava n K i n g d o m s

JAVAN KINGDOMS (800s–1700s C.E.)

Sarvvesvara II

1190–1200

Early Mataram Kingdoms—Sailendra and Sanjaya Dynasties

Kertajaya

1216–1222

Simo

674–732

Sanjaya, Raka Mataram

732–778

East Javanese Kingdoms II— Singosari and Majapahit Rajasa (Ken Angrok)

1222–1227

778–829

Anusapati

1227–1248

Raka Garung

829–864

Tohjaya

Raka Pikatan

864–879

Vishnuvardhana

1248–1268

Raka Kayuvangi

879–882

Kertanagara

1268–1292

Raka Vatu Humalang

886–898

Jayakatwang

1292–1293

Balitung, Raka Vatukura

898–910

Kertarajasa

Daksa, Raka Hino

915–919

Tulodong, Raka Layang

919–921

Jayanagara

1309–1329

Vava, Raka Pangkaya

924–928

Tribhuvana

1329–1350

Pancapana, Raka Panangkaran

Jayavardhana

1248

1293–1309

Rajasanagara

East Javanese Kingdoms I— Janggala, Panjalu, and Kadiri

(Hayam Wuruk)

1350–1389

Vikramavardhana

1389–1429

Sindok

929–947

Suhita

1429–1447

Sri Isanatunggavijaya

947–991

Kertavijaya

1447–1451

Dharmavamsa Anantavikrama

991–1007

West Java—Bantam Sultanate

Airlangga

1019–1049

Susuhunan Gunung Jati

1526–1550

Juru

1049–1060

Maulana Hasanuddin

1550–1570

Jayavarsa of Kediri

1060–1104

Maulana Muhamjad

1570–1580

Kamesvara I

1115–1130

Sultan Abdul

Jayabhaya

1135–1157

Sarvvesvara

1160–1171

Aryyvesvara

1171–1181

Kroncaryyadipa, Gandra 1181–1185 Kamesvara II

1185–1190

Abdul Kadir

1580–1596

Abdul Fatah, Sultan Agung

1596–1651

Abdul Kahar, Sultan Haji

1682–1687

460

J ava n K i n g d o m s

Central Java— Mataram Kingdom

Pakubuwana VII

1830–1858

Pakubuwana VIII

1858–1861

Sutavijaya Senopati

1582–1601

Pakubuwana IX

1861–1893

Mas Djolang

1601–1613

Pakubuwana X

1893–1939

Sultan Agung

1613–1645

Pakubuwana XI

1939–1945

Prabu Amangkurat I

1645–1677

Pakubuwana XII

1945–

Amangkurat II

1677–1703

Amangkurat III

1703–1705

Yogyakarta Sultanate

Pakubuwana I

1705–1719

Amangkubuwana I

1755–1792

Amangkurat IV

1719–1727

Amangkubuwana II

1792–1810

Pakubuwana II

1727–1749

Amangkubuwana III

1812–1814

Pakubuwana III

1749–1788

Amangkubuwana IV

1814–1822

Amangkubuwana V

1822–1855

Amangkubuwana VI

1855–1877

Amangkubuwana VII

1877–1921

Amangkubuwana VIII

1921–1939

Amangkubuwana IX

1939–1988

Amangkubuwana X

1988–

(Mataram split into Surakarta andYogyakarta in 1755)

Surakarta Sultanate Pakubuwana III

1749–1788

Pakubuwana IV

1788–1820

Pakubuwana V

1820–1823

Pakubuwana VI

1823–1830

Around 780 another ruling dynasty, the Sailendras, rose to challenge the Sanjayas for power in central Java. The Sailendras sponsored Buddhist architecture such as Candi Kalasan, built around 778, and the monumental temple complexes of Borobudur, Mendut, and Pawon, completed in the mid-ninth century. The last written record of a central Javanese kingdom is dated 919. For the next 500 years, all evidence of political activity in Java is limited to the eastern and western parts of the island. Scholars have posed various theories to explain the move to east Java. The most plausible include a volcanic eruption, an epidemic outbreak of disease, and an attack by the kingdom of Srivijaya in Sumatra.

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

MIDDLE CLASSICAL PERIOD— MOVE TO EAST JAVA The end of the ninth century marks a major watershed in Javanese history. No temples of stone or brick were built for the next 350 years, although literary activity and sculpture continued in east Java. For most of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, east Java was divided into a number of kingdoms. Kadiri is the best known of these kingdoms because of its literary remains. Another of these states was Janggala, a prominent trading kingdom. Although this period did not produce any great architecture or sculpture, it marked a time when major social changes were taking place in Java, such as the expansion of commercial net-

Jimmu works, rapid urbanization, and the arrival of Chinese immigrants in both Java and Sumatra. The kingdom of Kadiri was eventually eclipsed in 1222 by the kingdom of Singasari. This kingdom, which lasted until 1292, represents the formative phase of the largest empire in Indonesian history.The kings of Singasari were inclined toward Buddhism. They revived architecture in brick and stone at the sites of Jago and Kidal. A Mongol invasion and attack of Singasari in 1292 led to the rise to power of Raden Wijaya (r. 1292– 1306) (also known as Kertarajasa Jayavardhana), a Singasari prince, who succeeded in driving Mongols out of the kingdom.Two years later, in 1294, Raden Wijaya became the ruler of the powerful new Hindu kingdom of Majapahit.

LATE CLASSICAL PERIOD AND THE KINGDOM OF MAJAPAHIT The late classic period, from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries, coincided with the rise and fall of Majapahit, the largest and most powerful Hindu empire in ancient Southeast Asia. During the fourteenth century, Majapahit’s capital, present-day Trowulan, grew into the largest city in the Indonesian archipelago. Majapahit exhibited many sophisticated features, such as occupational specialization, the use of money, and increased production of art, including massproduced art objects. Details about the kingdom’s founding and expansion are contained in the Nagarakrtagama (1365), a court text that describes a cosmopolitan court, a complex system of religious rituals, and diplomatic relations with other countries. Following the death of Hayam Wuruk in 1389, Majapahit gradually lost control of its territories on the outer islands, and it no longer constructed major monuments. Nevertheless, the kingdom remained in existence until the 1520s.

ISLAMIC KINGDOMS The first major Islamic kingdom of Java, Demak, rose on the north coast of the island in the early 1500s. It only lasted for about fifty years, however. Thereafter, the Muslim sultanate of Bantam, in northwestern Java, developed into a powerful state. It dominated the spice trade until the 1680s, though its territorial extent was relatively limited. In the mid-sixteenth century, several new kingdoms arose in the interior of central Java. One of

461

these, Pajang, was absorbed by a state named Mataram. Founded around 1582, the sultanate of Mataram subjugated most of the ports in northcentral and northeastern Java and came to dominate the island. Soon, however, Mataram came under increasing pressure from the Dutch, and in 1755 it was split into two states, Surakarta and Jogjakarta. Both of these states were eventually absorbed into the Republic of Indonesia, when it gained its independence from Dutch colonial rule in 1949. See also: Janggala Kingdom; Majapahit Empire; Mataram Empire; Sailendra Dynasty; Southeast Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Miksic, John, ed. Indonesian Heritage: Ancient History. Vol. 1. Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1995. Reid, Anthony, ed. Indonesian Heritage: Early Modern History.Vol. 3. Singapore:Archipelago Press, 1995. Ricklefs, M.C. A History of Indonesia Since c. 1200. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.

JEANNE D’ALBRET. See Bourbon Dynasty; Henry IV (France)

JIMMU (ca. 40–10 B.C.E.) The semilegendary direct descendant of the Japanese sun-goddess, Amaterasu, who founded Japan’s ruling dynasty and ruled as first emperor of Japan. Jimmu is also known as Jimmu Tenno, the posthumous name of the reign by which he is commonly known. Jimmu is the ancestor of an unbroken imperial line of Japanese emperors, a dynasty that claims to have survived more than 2,500 years. Jimmu’s story is told in the colorful Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, chronicles that were solicited from scholars during the reign of Emperor Temmu (r. 673–686) in order to establish and exploit the divine heritage of the imperial line. These lively and heroic chronicles report that, with the inspiration of the sun-goddess, Amaterasu, and following a years-long campaign of conquest along the Inland Sea, Jimmu succeeded in establishing his imperial capital in the

462

Jimmu

Yamato province of central Japan, south of Kyoto. Described as brave, wise, pious, hardy, and clever, Jimmu united the Japanese people under his rule. Traditionally, unification of the country is said to have taken place in 660 b.c.e. Modern historians cannot substantiate the legendary accounts, but they point out that theYamato clan did establish territorial control in the first century b.c.e. and also founded the imperial line of Japan that survives to this day. Some scholars speculate that if there was a real Jimmu, he probably ruled around the beginning of the Christian era. Jimmu is reputed to be the great-great-grandson of the Shinto sun-goddess, Amaterasu, ruler of the heavens. Amaterasu’s brother is Susano-o, the god of storms who rules over the seas. After a quarrel, Susano-o tormented Amaterasu with various angry pranks, which included destroying her rice paddies. After these pranks, Amaterasu shut herself away in a cave, plunging the world into darkness. The other gods and goddesses lured her out with songs and laughter. Susano-o was then banished and went to Izumo province in western Japan, where he sired many children, had many adventures, and made peace with Amaterasu. Susano-o’s heroic son, Okuninushi, pacified the wild lands of Izumo, and eventually his sons acceded to Amaterasu’s request to let her descendants rule the land. Her great-great-grandson Jimmu thus became the first earthly emperor of Japan. Jimmu’s dynasty survived for more than 2,500 years because those who held real power in Japan— shoguns, dictators, and warlords—never actually overthrew the emperor. Instead, men ruled in the name of the sovereign emperor of divine descent. These leaders traditionally based their right to rule upon the legitimacy of positions sanctioned, however circuitously, by the imperial office. See also: Nara Kingdom;Yamato Dynasty.

JOÃO (JOHN) VI (1767–1826 C.E.) King of Portugal (r. 1816–1826) who also ruled as first king of the former Portuguese colony of Brazil after the royal court fled there following the invasion of Portugal by the forces of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1870. A member of the Bragança dynasty, João VI was

one of seven children born to Queen Maria I and King Pedro III (r. 1777–1786) of Portugal. Only João and two of his royal siblings survived into adulthood. His family had a long history of madness, and João ended up attaining the throne prematurely when dementia struck his own mother. The first ten years of João’s life were a time of great tribulation in Portugal. His maternal grandfather, King Jose I (r. 1750–1777), was a weak and probably disturbed man who left the running of government to a powerful court noble, the marquis of Pombal. Pombal’s approach to administration was bloodthirsty, and the execution of troublesome nobles was common. It was only with the death of King Jose that Pombal could be dislodged from power. Maria I (r. 1777–1816) succeeded to the throne of Portugal upon the death of her father in 1777, when João was ten years old. As a prince in the royal household, João was in line for succession, but he was not the probable heir to the throne. In the event of Maria’s death, succession would pass to her husband, King Pedro III (r. 1777–1786), who would hold the reigns of power until their eldest son, Jose, was deemed old enough to take the throne. In the late 1780s, however, the royal family suffered twin tragedies: the death of Pedro III in 1786 and the untimely death of Jose from smallpox. Suddenly, João found himself next in the line of succession. Maria was only thirty-two years old when her husband died. Under normal circumstances, João would have had a long wait before becoming ruler of Portugal. However, Maria shared the family problem of dementia, and by 1792 her ministers recognized that she was no longer fit to govern. In 1799, after a quick education in the responsibilities of a king, João was officially named prince regent and was charged with the care of the kingdom while his mother remained unable to discharge her duties. João’s years as regent were devoted largely to restoring Portugal to some semblance of peace and stability after the damage done during Pombal’s usurpation of power. João’s policies earned him the reputation as a benevolent ruler (he was called “the forgiving”). However, he was much troubled by the spirit of revolution sweeping through Europe at the time, leaving much devastation in its wake; this no doubt prompted much of his benign policy. João’s work was interrupted by the expansionist aims of Napoleon. In 1801, French and Spanish troops invaded and defeated Portugal, and João was forced to sign the

Jo ã o t h e G r e at Treaty of Badajoz, which placed him totally under Napoleon’s control. Even so, Napoleon invaded again in 1807.When attempts to enlist military support from Britain failed, the entire Portuguese royal family fled to Brazil in 1808. The British did at least assist in this regard, by providing ships of the British Navy to conduct the family to safe harbor in Rio de Janeiro. In exile in Brazil, João established a new seat of Portuguese government. He elevated the colony to the status of kingdom, although he intended it to remain subordinate to Lisbon once he was able to return to his ancestral home.While in Brazil, in 1816, Maria died and João attained full sovereign powers. He was reluctant to return to Lisbon, even after Napoleon’s forces were ultimately driven out of Portugal in 1811. Instead, João continued to rule from Rio de Janeiro and left the day-to-day management of Portugal to a regency established by the British. In 1821, João was called home to Portugal when the Cortes, the Portuguese legislature, became alarmed at a movement that had arisen to challenge the monarchy and establish a constitution. With no choice but to comply, João left the Brazilian throne in the hands of his son Pedro. If he was relying on his son’s sense of duty to keep Brazil subordinate to the Portuguese Crown, however, he was mistaken. Within a year, Pedro declared Brazil independent and took the title Emperor Pedro I (r. 1822–1831). João was able to retain the throne of Portugal, but only briefly, for he died in 1826. His death sparked a civil war because his policies had favored a constitutional monarchy, which angered more absolutist elements within the government. João’s son, Pedro I of Brazil was made King Pedro IV of Portugal, but he relinquished the Crown to his daughter, Maria II (r. 1834–1853). Problems in Brazil finally led Pedro to abdicate the Brazilian throne in favor of his son, Pedro II (r. 1831–1889), and he returned to Portugal. Pedro’s presence did nothing to reduce political tensions there, however, for he favored a constitutional monarchy. The so-called Miguelist Wars (named for Pedro’s brother Miguel, the leader of the absolutist faction) that ensued raged for eight years, ending with victory for the faction led by Pedro and his daughter Maria, who was restored to the throne. See also: Bragança Dynasty; Brazil, Portuguese Monarchy of; Pedro I; Pedro II.

463

JOÃO THE GREAT (1357–1433 C.E.)

Ruler of Portugal (r. 1385–1433), also known as John of Aviz and João the Bastard, who founded Portugal’s Aviz dynasty (1385–1580). The illegitimate son of Pedro I (r. 1357–1367), João acceded to the throne after a convoluted dynastic struggle between Castilian and Portuguese royalty. João’s half-brother Ferdinand I (r. 1367–1383) was the last of the legitimate Portuguese line descended from Henry of Burgundy, the father of Afonso I (1112– 1185). Following Ferdinand’s death in 1383, his widow Leonor and her Galician favorite, João Fernandes Andeiro, promoted the claim of Juan I of Castile, who was betrothed to Leonor’s daughter Beatriz. The people of Lisbon rioted against the unpopular Leonor. Meanwhile, a young Portuguese noble, Nuno Alvares Pereira, recruited João to murder Leonor’s lover. Supported in Lisbon and Porto by the merchants and guilds, and helped by an outbreak of the plague, João and his forces drove out the Castilian pretender in September 1384. In April 1385 the Portuguese Cortes, or parliament, at Coimbra elected João king, declaring no other heir legitimate. João and Nuno Alvarez, now João’s constable, ended the two years of civil war with victory at the battle of Aljubarrota in August 1385, establishing Portuguese independence from Spain. Over 2,500 Castillians died there, although the Spanish greatly outnumbered the Portuguese forces. Joao I confiscated the lands of pro-Castilian nobles and established a new landed aristocracy among his own supporters. João inherited a merchants’ alliance established with England in 1353, and supported John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, in his claim through marriage to the Castilian throne. The two signed the Treaty of Windsor in May 1386, pledging peace and friendship between England and Portugal in what is still the oldest unbroken sovereign treaty in the world. João later married John of Gaunt’s daughter, Philippa, who became a very popular queen. John of Gaunt pressed his claim only halfheartedly. He lost his claim to the Castilian throne, but married another of his daughters, Catherine, the heir to the throne of Castile and returned to England in 1387. João made a ten-year truce with Castile in 1389 that, despite intermittent skirmishing, led to peace in 1411. Catherine, now the widowed queen

464

Jo ã o t h e G r e at

The founder of the Aviz Dynasty of Portugal, João I won independence from Spain in the 1385 Battle of Aljubarotta, where he defeated Juan I of Castile. His victory is depicted in this fifteenth-century history by Flemish author Jean Batard de Wavrin.

of Castile, formally recognized the house of Aviz in 1431. João and his sons captured the Moroccan port of Ceuta in 1415 and made it a colony. It proved to be a costly colony, however, since much of its wealth was already looted and the garrison had to be supplied from Portugal across the water. The reign of João I is especially noted for launching the Age of Discovery. João’s son, Prince Henry the Navigator, led numerous explorations far from Portugal. In 1418–1419, Portuguese sailors explored the islands of Madeira in the Atlantic, and in 1427 they discovered the Azores Islands. During the mid-1400s, Prince Henry and his navigators explored the west coast of Africa. See also: Iberian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Anderson, James M. The History of Portugal. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000. Kaplan, Marion. The Portuguese: The Land and Its People. New York:Viking, 1991. Livermore, H.V. A New History of Portugal. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Marques, A.H. de Oliveira. History of Portugal. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Payne, Stanley G. A History of Spain and Portugal: Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century. Vol. 1. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973. Robertson, Ian. A Traveller’s History of Portugal. New York: Interlink Books, 2002. Wheeler, Douglas L. Historical Dictionary of Portugal. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1993.

JODHPUR KINGDOM (1459–1947 C.E.) Kingdom in northwestern India, strategically located on the trade routes between Delhi and the Arabian Sea, that was one of India’s many Rajput states. The city of Jodhpur in Rajasthan was founded in 1459 by Rao Jodha (r. 1458–1488), a chief of the Rajput clan known as the Rathors.The Rajput clans were landowners from central and northern India. Jodhpur prospered because of its location on a strategic trading route between the city of Delhi and the Arabian Sea. Over the years, the people of Jodhpur benefited from

John I the traffic in opium, copper, silk, sandalwood, dates, and coffee. The Rathor dynasty controlled a large part of the Rajasthan region in northwestern India, especially during the reign of Rao Udai Singh (r. 1581–1595). The rulers of the Mughal Empire coveted the Rathors’ riches, and the easiest way to gain them was through an arranged marriage between the Mughal emperor, Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605), and the sister of Rao Udai Singh. This marriage alliance ensured that the Rathors received military support from the Mughals for their campaigns on the southern India plain and into the kingdom of Gujarat, the state located between Jodhpur and the Arabian Sea coast. Problems arose in the mid-seventeenth century when the Rathor Maharaja of Jodhpur, Jaswant Singh I (r. 1638–1678), supported forces loyal to Akbar’s grandson, Emperor Shah Jahan (r. 1593–1658), in the Mughal war of succession. Jaswant Singh promised to help the emperor’s loyal son, Dara Shikoh, defeat Shah Jahan’s rebellious son, Aurangzeb. At the last minute, however, Jaswant Singh withdrew his support for Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb defeated and then killed his brother at the battle of Deorai in 1659. Now emperor, Aurangzeb (r. 1659– 1707) turned his attention to Jaswant Singh. The Mughals pillaged Jodhpur, and Aurangzeb attempted to force the kingdom’s Hindu citizens to convert to Islam. Jaswant Singh’s son and heir, Ajit Singh, was murdered, and the Mughals staked their claim to the Jodhpur throne. Ajit’s infant son, Ajit Singh II (r. 1707–1724), was taken underground by a Rathor noble, Durga Das, to a tiny Himalayan village, where he was hidden for thirty years. He eventually returned to Jodhpur after Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 and recaptured it. The eighteenth century saw many bloody battles between Jodhpur and other princely states in the regions of Rajasthan, Jaipur, and Udaipur.The successor of Ajit Singh II, Maharaja Abhai Singh (r. 1724–1749), captured Ahmedabad, and later, in 1818, Jodhpur signed a treaty with the British. Although the Rathors lost some of their honor, the treaty ensured that Jodhpur would enjoy relative peace and prosperity. Jodhpur became part of the Republic of India in 1947 under its last ruler, Maharaja Umaid Singh (r. 1918–1947). See also: Akbar the Great; Aurangzeb; Mughal Empire; Rajasthan Kingdom.

465

JOHN I (1167–1216 C.E.) King of England (r. 1199–1216), a member of the Plantagenet dynasty, whose aggression, tyrannical acts, and paranoia made him extremely unpopular. He was nicknamed John Lackland because his father’s land was divided among his older brothers. John was the fifth son of King Henry II (r. 1154– 1189) and Eleanor of Aquitaine.The two oldest sons of Henry and Eleanor—Henry and Geoffrey—died before their father, so it was the fourth son, Richard I (r. 1189–1199), nicknamed the Lionheart, who became king upon his father’s death in 1189. Richard had no legitimate heir, and instead of his brother John, he chose Duke Arthur of Brittany to succeed him.As John was a rival for the throne, and had been given extensive holdings in France, Richard forbade John access to England while Richard was away on the Third Crusade. In defiance of his brother, however, John not only traveled to England, but also attempted to usurp Richard’s rule. After Richard’s death in 1199, John maneuvered to succeed him with the assistance of his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and King Philip II Augustus of France (r. 1180–1223). Philip Augustus, however, then took advantage of the first opportunity to reclaim English holdings in France. In the ensuing war with France (1204–1206), England lost the regions of Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Poitou. A costly attempt to recover these territories ended in an English defeat in 1214. John’s reign was also marked by conflicts with English barons. In order to pay the costs of military engagements against France, John demanded exorbitant taxes from his subjects. This and other tyrannical acts alienated the English nobles.To curb his abuses, the English barons forced John in 1215 to sign the Magna Carta, a document that clearly delineated the limits of his power. John’s refusal to honor the document initiated a civil war, the first Barons’ War (1215–1217), during which John died. John also engaged in conflicts with the church. He angered Pope Innocent III when he refused to accept the elected archbishop of Canterbury. As a result, in 1209 the pope excommunicated John in order to reestablish papal authority. Then, in 1213, the pope further extended papal authority by forcing John to make England a fief of the Holy See. John married his first wife Isabella, the daughter of William, earl of Gloucester, in 1189. Their ten-

466

John I

year marriage produced no children and was annulled. His second marriage, in 1200, was to Isabella, the daughter of the count of Angoulême.They had five children: Henry, Richard, Joan, Isabella, and Eleanor. John also had at least twelve illegitimate children. One of these, Joan, married Llywelyn the Great (r. 1194–1240), the ruler of all Wales. It was from their union that the Tudor Dynasty arose. John died of an illness in 1216 during the first Barons’ War. He was succeeded on the throne by his son, Henry III (r. 1216–1272). See also: Bretagne Duchy; Eleanor of Aquitaine; English Monarchies; Henry II; Philip II, Augustus; Richard I, Lionheart;Tudor, House of.

JOHN III (JOHN SOBIESKI) (1630–1696 C.E.)

King of Poland (r. 1674–1696) who led the armies of Poland and Austria in the defeat of the Turks at Vienna in 1683. Although he is now revered in his native country as the savior of Europe, his reign was plagued by legislative and diplomatic disappointments. The son of lesser Polish nobility, John Sobieski early distinguished himself as a gifted military leader, first with the invading Swedish king, Charles X (r. 1654–1660). Then, as grand marshall of the Polish army, John led successful campaigns against the Russian Cossacks in 1665 and against the Turks from 1670 to 1673.These last victories secured John election as king in 1674, despite opposition by members of the powerful Habsburg dynasty. Arriving in Cracow for his coronation in 1674, John (or Jan) Sobieski was a highly experienced military leader. He had been married for nineteen years to Maria Kazimiera, a noblewoman of royal French blood who had planned, plotted, and assisted her husband’s career at every step. Together, John and Maria had seen Poland invaded by Charles X of Sweden and participated in the revolt that made Poland independent again.They had also endured the ineptitude of Sobieski’s predecessors on the throne, John Casimir (r. 1648–1668) and Michael Wisniowiecki (r. 1669–1673), who had ceded sovereignty of the western Ukraine to the Turks. Poland in the late seventeenth century suffered

other problems as well. Russia coveted the eastern Polish Palatinates as far west as the Vistula River; Prussia looked for any chance to take the northwestern marches; and the Austrian Empire was enticed by the wealth of Cracow. After taking the throne, John III Sobieski made his foreign policy very clear: expulsion of the Turks from Europe. At Lvov in the Ukraine in September 1675, Sobieski defeated a Turkish army four times larger than his own and compelled the Turks to sign the Treaty of Zuravno, which abolished Ottoman claims to the Ukraine. Sobieski was disappointed, however, in his many attempts to engage Louis XIV of France (r. 1643– 1715) and Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (r. 1658–1705) in diplomatic alliances against the Turks. He finally did negotiate a mutual protection treaty with Leopold, however, and when the Turks once again besieged Vienna in 1683, Sobieski mobilized the entire Polish army and moved to break the siege. His counterattacks were brilliant, and the Polish victory over the Turks at Vienna on September 12, 1683, marks one of the most important military events in European history. Unfortunately, Sobieski’s luck in personal negotiations did not mirror his skill on the battlefield. Although John III helped liberate Vienna from the Turks, an ungrateful Leopold I would not pledge his daughter in marriage to Sobieski’s son despite attempts to persuade him otherwise. Nevertheless, John III returned from the battles in Austria to an adoring Polish nation. Though admired, even revered, for his military accomplishments, culture and intelligence, and legendary romance with his wife, Sobieski was never able to overcome the narrow interests of the Szlachta, the Polish nobility, and their intransigence in the Polish parliament, the Sejm. Any one of these feudal lords could exert a veto over any of the king’s orders or the Sejm’s laws and, most often, one did. Nevertheless, a frequently disappointed Sobieski continually attempted reforms until his death in June 1696. The death of John III Sobieski marked the virtual end of Polish independence, although the final dismemberment of the nation would not be complete for another hundred years. Poland still reveres John III as a savior and as Poland’s greatest military hero. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Leopold I; Louis XIV; Ottoman Empire.

Juan Carlos

JOSEPH II (1741–1790 C.E.) Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (1765–1790) and king of Hungary and Bohemia (1780–1790), who sought to reform and modernize the ancient Habsburg regime. Joseph Benedict Augustus John Anthony Michael Adam of Habsburg was born in 1741, the son of Maria Theresa of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor Francis I (r. 1745–1765). One of the foremost members of the Habsburg dynasty, his mother made sure Joseph was thoroughly groomed for the throne and family legacy by providing him with a complete education.Taught languages and other liberal arts, Joseph became most interested in political philosophy, including many of the innovative and revolutionary ideas of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Much to his mother’s consternation, Joseph’s future as a political reformer was evident from an early age. Maria Theresa was a European monarch of a past era—she was authoritarian, elitist, and devoutly religious. Accordingly, the Enlightenment ideas of tolerance and equality were anathema to her. During the fifteen years (1765–1780) when she and Joseph ruled as co-regents of the Habsburg Austrian domains, they disagreed often on policy and reform.

MARRIAGE AND DEATH OF HIS FATHER At age nineteen, Joseph married Princess Isabella of Bourbon-Parma, the daughter of an Italian duke and granddaughter of King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715). The marriage, which was a happy one for Joseph, also cemented Austria’s new alliance with France and furthered its influence in Italy. A beautiful and intelligent noblewoman, Isabella gave birth to a daughter in 1762, but she died the next year of smallpox. After Isabella’s death, Joseph fell into a deep depression and never again allowed himself a close relationship with a woman. In 1765, Joseph remarried for dynastic reasons only, wedding a German princess, Maria Josepha of Bavaria. In 1770 Joseph’s unhappiness deepened with the death of his daughter, also named Maria Theresa, from pneumonia. After the death of Joseph’s father, Francis I, in 1765, Joseph and his mother were often in conflict in their joint rule of the Habsburg lands. Maria Theresa maintained most of the authority and relied heavily on

467

her closest adviser, Prince Wenzel Anton Kaunitz.The prince was a fastidious and exacting minister of state who had engineered the diplomatic revolution of 1756 that allied Austria with its traditional enemy, France.

FOREIGN POLICY AND REFORMS As emperor, Joseph was largely ineffective in his foreign policy efforts, failing to annex Bavaria in the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778–1779) or in securing the exchange of the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria in 1785. From 1787 to 1792, Austria joined Russia in fighting against the Ottoman Empire, but this effort was also unsuccessful. While he ruled jointly with his mother, Joseph became impatient with her resistance to political reform. However, a series of religious and political crises in the late 1770s and early 1780s, coupled with his mother’s death in 1780, allowed Joseph to institute many of the reforms his mother had opposed. In spite of his political tolerance, Joseph was a strong exponent of absolutism and often used despotic means to push through his reforms. He was also a faithful Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, in 1781 he issued an Edict of Toleration that allowed minority religions, including Judaism, to be practiced in Austria. Concern for the poor prompted Joseph to abolish serfdom and feudal taxes, enabling tenants to buy land and giving peasants greater freedom to marry and to move. In addition, he founded orphanages, hospitals, and poorhouses. Joseph also modernized Austrian government by abolishing redundant offices and restructuring state finances. He overhauled the military, state-run agriculture, and education as well. By the time of Joseph’s death in 1790, Austria’s government had been completely transformed. Joseph’s reforms were not permanent, however. Most of his changes were rescinded during the reign of his brother and successor, Leopold II (r. 1790–1792). See also: Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Leopold II; Maria Theresa.

JUAN CARLOS (1938–Present) King of Spain (r. 1975– ) who presided over Spain’s transition to democracy after decades of authoritarian rule under the dictator Francisco Franco.

468

Juan Carlos

Born in Italy on January 5, 1938, Juan Carlos was the oldest son of Juan Carlos de Borbón y Battenberg and María de las Mercedes de Borbón y Orleans. His grandfather, King Alphonso XIII (r. 1886–1931), relinquished the throne of Spain in 1931 and went into exile upon the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic. Juan Carlos lived in Italy until 1947, when he went to Spain because his father wanted him to be educated there. He was placed under Franco’s care as a possible successor to the dictator. After receiving his bachelor’s degree from San Isidro School in 1954, Juan Carlos studied at the Spanish military academies and received commissions in the army, navy, and air force. He also studied law and economics at the University of Madrid. In 1962 he married Princess Sofia of Greece, with whom he had three children— Elena, Christina, and Crown Prince Felipe. In 1939, Spanish dictator Francisco Franco abolished the Spanish Republic and declared Spain a representative monarchy. During his reign as dictator, however, Spain had no monarch. In 1969, the aging Franco named Juan Carlos as his successor and the future king of Spain.When Franco died in 1975, Juan Carlos ascended the Spanish throne. He quickly proved to be much more liberal in his politics than the right-wing Franco. With the help of Adolfo Suárez, whom Juan Carlos named as prime minister in 1976, the king led the way to many reforms, including a new constitution that established Spain as a parliamentary monarchy, and democratic elections. Juan Carlos granted amnesty to many political prisoners and revived political parties. Other reforms included a more liberal divorce law in 1981 and the legalization of independent trade unions. These reforms angered many conservatives in Spain, and in 1981 a group of conservative leaders attempted a military coup. As the coup attempt unfolded, Juan Carlos appeared on television and called on Spaniards to support the democratic government. He also contacted military leaders to inform them that he intended to support democracy. Juan Carlos’s deft handling of the coup solidified his position and increased his popularity, especially among liberals and other supporters of democracy. It also helped legitimize the monarchy in the eyes of the Spanish people. Juan Carlos has traveled extensively during his reign, becoming the first Spanish king to visit the Americas and China. A strong supporter of the European Union, he received the Charlemagne Award

in 1982 for his personal cooperation with European states, his role in maintaining peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights in Europe, and his support for the expansion of the European Union.” See also: Spanish Monarchies.

JUDAH, KINGDOM OF (ca. 928–587 B.C.E.)

An ancient Hebrew state, formed when the kingdom of Israel was divided in two after the death of King Solomon (r. 970–931 b.c.e.). Around 930 b.c.e., when the kingdom of Israel was divided in two, the northern part of the old kingdom retained the name the kingdom of Israel. The southern part, which included the city of Jerusalem, became known as the kingdom of Judah and retained the dynasty of kings established by David and Solomon. Solomon’s son, Rehoboam (r. ca. 930–914 b.c.e.), was the first king of Judah. For about the first fifty years after the division of the two kingdoms, Judah and Israel retained their old animosities and regularly warred with each other. Finally, around the mid-ninth century b.c.e., King Jehoshaphat of Judah (r. ca. 871–847 b.c.e.) signed a peace treaty with King Omri of Israel (r. ca. 885–874 b.c.e.), which allowed Judah to begin to stabilize and prosper. Jehoshaphat built up his kingdom’s army, devised a better system for tax collections, and established a supreme court in Jerusalem. The kingdom of Judah enjoyed its height of stability and prosperity in the eighth century b.c.e. during the reign of King Uzziah (r. ca. 766–740 b.c.e.). Uzziah brought trade revenues into the kingdom through the coastal lands he controlled. He also extended his territory by adding settlements in Transjordan (in present-day Jordan). During the reign of Uzziah’s grandson, Ahaz (r. ca. 730–715 b.c.e.), a new threat loomed to the east—Assyria, which was building an empire and expanding west. The Assyrians initially bypassed tiny Judah and invaded nearby Israel and Damascus. Eventually, however, King Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (r. ca. 745–727 b.c.e.) forced Judah to pay tribute, and the kingdom became a vassal state of the Assyrian Empire. Ahaz was succeeded by his son, King Hezekiah (r. ca. 714–686 b.c.e.), who, around 701 b.c.e., re-

Judaism and Kingship belled against the Assyrians and refused to pay tribute. The Assyrian king Sennacherib (r. 704–681 b.c.e.) marched with his army to Jerusalem and laid siege to the city. Although Sennacherib destroyed much property in Jerusalem, he did not take the city. Nevertheless, Hezekiah, chastened by Assyria’s might, began to pay tribute again. When Babylonia defeated Assyria and Egypt around 605 b.c.e., Judah became a vassal of Babylonia. King Jehoiachin of Judah (r. ca. 598–597 b.c.e.) attempted to rebel against Babylonia and align his kingdom with Egypt. But the Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadrezzar II (r. 605–562 b.c.e.), quickly quashed the rebellion and, in 597 b.c.e., destroyed much of Jerusalem, deporting many of Judah’s leaders to Mesopotamia.Yet, Babylonia left Judah independent. Under King Zedekiah (r. ca. 596–586 b.c.e.), Judah again attempted to rebel against Babylonia. This time King Nebuchadrezzar showed no mercy toward Judah or Jerusalem. He and his army burned Solomon’s temple, destroyed homes, exiled more Hebrews, and, by 586 b.c.e., had completely conquered the kingdom of Judah. See also: Assyrian Empire; David; Hebrew Kings; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judaism and Kingship; Nebuchadrezzar II; Sennacherib; Solomon.

JUDAISM AND KINGSHIP The significance of monarchy in the Jewish religion, and the practical role of kings in the life of ancient Israel (ca. 1000 b.c.e.–44 c.e.). In the earliest stage of Jewish history, as depicted in the biblical books of Joshua and Judges (ca. 1300–1020 b.c.e.), the Israelites had no king. Instead, the twelve tribes of Israel maintained a loose confederation, united by the common worship of one God. In times of danger, the tribes temporarily united behind a military leader or a prophet (who would interpret God’s will), but they reverted to tribal autonomy once the threat passed. The Israelite religious and legal tradition, as recorded in the first five books of the Bible, made no provision for kings, apart from a single unclear reference in Deuteronomy to future kings. The commandments and laws were supposed to be enforced by judges and leaders chosen by tribal elders or recruited directly by God (as were Moses and Joshua).

469

ORIGIN OF THE MONARCHY Recurrent attacks by Philistines and other enemies eventually convinced many Israelites that a national monarchy was needed as a defensive measure. But the Bible seems to find the idea irreligious.When Israelite leaders asked the military hero Gideon to become their king, he replied, “I will not rule over you myself, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord alone shall rule over you.” Similarly, when the people later asked the prophet Samuel to appoint a king “to govern us like all other nations,” Samuel at first refused. God even told him, “it is Me [the Israelites] have rejected as their king” by asking for a human monarch. Nevertheless, God ordered Samuel to do what the people requested. This negative attitude toward kings was to remain a common theme throughout the later books of the Bible and subsequent Jewish writings, alongside other, more positive attitudes. Saul (r. ca. 1020– 1010 b.c.e.), the very first Israelite king, whom Samuel anointed (poured sacred oil over), ignored the prophet’s spiritual advice and acted according to reasons of state.According to the Bible, God rejected Saul, who died in battle with his son, who could not inherit the throne once his father was delegitimized.

KINGSHIP’S NEW RELIGIOUS ROLE Saul’s successor, also anointed by the prophet Samuel, was the popular hero David (r. ca. 1010– 970 b.c.e.). The positive attitudes toward monarchy within later Jewish writings all point back to David. David added many spiritual and religious elements to the Israelite monarchy. He performed sacrifices, serving as a mediator between God and the Israelites. He brought the Ark of the Covenant, containing the Ten Commandments, to Jerusalem and planned a temple to house it, later built by his son and heir, King Solomon (r. ca. 970–931 b.c.e.). The books of Samuel relate several cases in which David repented his sins, reinforcing the idea that only a just king can be a legitimate ruler of Israel. Tradition cites David as author of the intensely spiritual book of Psalms. God eventually promised David, through the prophet Nathan, that all legitimate future Jewish kings would come from his descendants. Unlike most rulers of Egypt or Mesopotamia, however, David was never deified, or turned into a God. No prayers were addressed to him, and no statues in his image were fashioned. The kingdom of Israel broke into two after the

470

Judaism and Kingship

reign of King Solomon. Both kingdoms were eventually destroyed, the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 b.c.e. and the southern kingdom of Judah in 586 b.c.e. The next Jewish kings, the Maccabees or Hasmoneans (166–37 b.c.e.), came from a family of priests, and made themselves hereditary high priests as well as kings.

KINGSHIP LOSES ITS PRACTICAL ROLE The Romans’ conquest of Judea, as the entire country was now called, in 63 b.c.e., put an end to an independent Jewish monarchy. The Herodians, who ruled as puppets of the Romans from 37 b.c.e.–44 c.e., were considered illegitimate rulers by the rabbis of the Talmudic era (100–600 c.e.). After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 c.e., Jewish ideas of kingship became bound up with the hope for a messiah, or savior (literally, the “anointed one”).The messiah was to be a descendant of King David; he would restore Jewish political sovereignty and establish a just order for Israel. Jesus was said by Christians to be from “the stem of Jesse” (David’s father), and was regarded by some as the new “king of Israel.” Similarly, during the last Jewish rebellion against Rome in 131–135, the revered Rabbi Akiba proclaimed the rebel leader Bar Kochba to be the “King Messiah.” Although that rebellion failed, many Jewish scholars, such as the medieval philosopher Maimonides (1135–1204), kept the idea of a king messiah alive. Nevertheless, during the centuries of Jewish existence without a state, the idea of earthly monarchy lost its appeal. In Jewish prayers, kingship refers almost exclusively to God, and not to man.When Jewish nationalism revived in the nineteenth century through the Zionist movement—at a time when most of the world was led by Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, or Shinto monarchs—no Jewish monarchist party or faction ever arose. See also: David; Hebrew Kings; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of; Solomon.

JULIAN THE APOSTATE (331–363 C.E.)

Roman emperor (r. 360–363) who attempted to reinstate the traditional gods of Rome after they had

been replaced by Christianity during the reign of Constantine I (r. 307–337). Julian was born Flavius Claudius Julianus during the reign of his uncle, Emperor Constantine I. His father was Julius Constantius, an important man in Constantinople, which was then the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Being related to the emperor was not always an advantage in the Roman Empire; this was especially true when an emperor died and there was doubt as to his legitimate successor. Julian and his family discovered this at the death of Constantine I in 337. The emperor’s son, Constantius II (r. 337–340), inherited the imperial throne but was fearful of rivals. Hoping to secure his claim to the empire, he had all his adult male relatives executed, attempting in this way to secure his claim to the throne. Julian was just six years old at the time and constituted no threat to his imperial cousin, so his life was spared. Instead, he was sold into slavery and was taken to Asia Minor. During the reign of Constantine I, Christianity had become the favored religion of the Roman Empire, and Julian was brought up in that faith. Even as a child, however, he was fascinated by the traditional Roman gods and the classical Roman and Greek literature and philosophy of the pre-Christian era. While in Asia Minor he also had the chance to learn about the religions of the East. He became particularly interested in the Greek goddess Demeter and in the Persian cult known as Mithraism. Julian might have passed into obscurity had it not been for his cousin’s thoroughness in eliminating rivals. In 355, Constantius II found it necessary to appoint a successor, but he had no sons or other male relatives upon whom to confer this honor, except for his exiled cousin Julian. Julian was duly recalled to Rome and given command over the Roman legion stationed in the provinces of Gaul and Britain. Although he only served in this capacity for five years, Julian proved very popular with the troops under his command.The same could not be said for his cousin, the emperor. In 360, the Roman military revolted against Constantius II and proclaimed Julian the new emperor. Julian is called “the Apostate” because of one of his first actions upon becoming emperor. An apostate is a person who renounces his religion, and Julian did precisely that, not just for himself but for the entire empire. He demoted Christianity from its privileged status as state religion, banished Christians from po-

Ju l i o - C l au d i a n s sitions of power within the government, and restored the temples and rituals of the pre-Christian era. Julian had little time to do much more as emperor, however. Soon after taking power he attempted to conquer Persia, and personally accompanied the troops into battle. He died on the battlefield in 363. His apostasy died with him: Christianity was reinstated as the state religion shortly after his death. See also: Constantine I, the Great; Roman Empire.

JULIANA (1909–2004) Queen of the Netherlands (r. 1948–1980), known for her social concerns and work on behalf of children. The daughter of Queen Wilhelmina (r. 1890– 1948) and Hendrik, duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Juliana received her early education from her devout mother, who told her a ruler carried out God’s will. Juliana then studied literature, philosophy, and law at the University of Leyden. In 1937, she married German prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld.The royal couple had four daughters: Beatrix, the heir to the throne, and Irene, Margriet, and Christina. The German invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940 forced the royal family to flee to England, where they supported the resistance. Princess Juliana spent part of the war years in Canada, where her daughter Margriet was born. In April 1945, Juliana and her mother, Queen Wilhelmina, returned to the liberated part of the Netherlands and joined the relief operations for the victims of the Nazi occupation. Immediately after World War II, the Dutch colony of Indonesia began agitating for independence, and the Dutch government sent troops to quell the uprising. Queen Wilhelmina, unwilling to give Indonesia its independence, abdicated in favor of her daughter in 1948 after celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of her reign. By abdicating,Wilhelmina was following a precedent set by William I (r. 1813–1840), the first king of the Netherlands, who had abdicated in 1840. In 1949, Queen Juliana signed documents giving Indonesia its independence. Five years later, in 1954, she signed a new charter for the Netherlands that regulated relations between the three remaining parts of

471

the kingdom: the Netherlands and the colonies of Surinam in South America and the Netherlands Antilles in the Caribbean. (Surinam later became an independent republic in 1975.) Juliana’s strong religious beliefs led her to work for social justice. In 1952, she told the U.S. Congress that countries should spend less on defense and more on social concerns. In 1966, Juliana provided the International Union for Child Welfare with financial support for a project to study child care and child protection measures to be applied as part of local or regional development plans. The queen also supported cultural and social service organizations in the Netherlands through the Juliana Welfare Fund. Although Juliana, a constitutional monarch, did not take a public role in promoting government legislation, she often intervened with government bureaucracy to help individuals. She also intervened on behalf of immigrants from Indonesia in the 1970s. Although Queen Juliana was shy and reserved, the Dutch people loved her for her social concerns and her unpretentious manner. Even the revelation in 1976 that her husband had accepted bribes from Lockheed Corporation did little to diminish her popularity. Nevertheless, in 1980 Juliana followed the precedent of her mother: she abdicated the throne in favor of her eldest daughter, Beatrix (r. 1980– ). See also: Netherlands Kingdom;Wilhelmina.

JULIO-CLAUDIANS (27 B.C.E.–68 C.E.) First through fifth rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning with Augustus (27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) and ending with Nero (54–68 c.e.), all of whom were related as members of the Julian and Claudian families. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, born Gaius Octavius, was born in 63 b.c.e. to a prosperous senatorial family. His grandmother was the sister of Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.), a member of the Julian gens, or clan, one of the oldest patrician (saristocratic) families of Rome. Curiously, the Julian gens did not originate in Rome but in Rome’s earliest rival city, Alba Longa. According to legend, Rome’s third king, Tullus Hostilius (r. ca. 673–642 b.c.e.), conquered Alba Longa and asked its citizenry, which included the Julian clan, to join as equals with the Romans. Not producing a son of his own, Julius Caesar

472

Ju l i o - C l au d i a n s

showed a keen interest in Octavian who, when only eighteen, learned that his great-uncle had been assassinated and that he had been named Caesar’s heir. Despite the obstacles presented by his inexperience and by Caesar’s chief lieutenant, Mark Antony, who thought himself the appropriate successor to the Roman dictator, Octavian was determined to pursue his inheritance. In 31 b.c.e., after thirteen years of political intrigues, Octavian defeated Antony at the battle of Actium, thus securing his hold on Roman power. When he returned to Rome, he named himself princeps— First Citizen—of Rome and thus began the Roman Empire (though, technically, referred to as the principate). Shortly thereafter he was named “Augustus” by the Senate, which roughly translated as “great father.” In 38 b.c.e., Augustus married Livia Drusilla, a member of the Claudian clan, Rome’s oldest patrician family. Augustus ruled Rome for forty-five years, and most of his reign was remarkable for its efficiency and prosperity. His political and military successes were not echoed in his family life, however. A succession of his chosen successors met with untimely ends, and he was finally left with his adopted son, Tiberius, the son of his wife Livia, as his reluctant choice for an heir. As the son of Livia Drusilla, Tiberius Claudius Nero (r. 14–37 c.e.) was a member of the Claudian gens by birth. Of Sabine origin, the wealthy Claudians were considered one of the founding patrician families of Rome.As the adopted son of Augustus, he claimed descent from the Julian clan. Tiberius began his reign with the full coffers and relative peace left him by Augustus. Although he became reclusive, paranoid, and increasingly tyrannical, Tiberius passed on a prosperous empire to his grandnephew Caligula (r. 37–41), who was also a Claudian. Caligula’s peculiarities, excesses, and strange appetites would probably have had a detrimental effect on Rome had he reigned for a great deal longer than he did. However, Rome’s fortunes were saved by his assassination in 41, at which time his uncle Claudius (r. 41–54) was surprisingly placed on the throne by the temporarily leaderless Praetorian Guards. Claudius’s ties to the Julian line were more tenuous than those of his predecessors, since those ties did not even include a direct adoption. He was, however, the grandson-by-marriage of the emperor Augustus (through Claudius’s grandmother, Livia). Of course, Augustus himself was Julian only by adoption.

Claudius managed the empire well, expanding it through the conquest of southern Britain, peacefully absorbing client states, and organizing the imperial bureaucracy. He passed to his successor a Rome even more prosperous than the state inherited by Tiberius. Unfortunately, Claudius passed the empire to his adopted son, Nero (r. 54–68). Nero’s pedigree was perhaps the most noble of all the Julio-Claudians. His mother was the daughter of Claudius’s revered brother, Tiberius Claudius Germanicus, and the great-granddaughter of the emperor Augustus. Nero’s father was the great-grandson of Julia, the sister of Julius Caesar. He was, therefore, the only Julio-Claudian of direct descent (not adoptive) in both the Julian and Claudian lines. The purity of Nero’s bloodlines, however, did not affect his profligacy or inattention to state business. He spent more money (almost entirely on personal indulgences) than any of his predecessors. He is also commonly thought to have been responsible for the great fire of Rome in 64, a conflagration that he blamed on the Christians.Whatever the causes of the fire, Nero used the devastation as an excuse for massive construction projects, replacing “a city of wood with a city of marble.” Nero’s complete negligence of public responsibilities provided fertile ground for the seeds of discontent. He had misused the power that was his, and it was inevitably seized by another, General Galba. In 68, as Galba’s troops searched the streets for the emperor, Nero found himself unable to effect his own suicide. He persuaded his slave to hold his sword and ran himself through, thus ending the dynastic line of the Julio-Claudians. See also: Augustus; Caesars; Caligula; Claudius; Julius Caesar; Nero; Roman Empire;Tiberius. FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. History of Rome. New York: History Book Club, 1997. Graves, Robert. The Claudius Novels. New York: Penguin, 1999.

JULIUS CAESAR (ca. 100–44 B.C.E.) Military hero, statesman, and ultimately dictator of Rome (r. 49–44 b.c.e.) in the final years of the Roman Republic; after his death, struggles for power

Julius Caesar culminated in a change from a republic to an empire, and the era of the Roman Empire began. Gaius Julius Caesar was born in Rome to a family of great heritage but little wealth. An ambitious man, he knew that there was one sure route to success and fortune: to marry into a powerful family.Accordingly, when he was still only sixteen years old, he married Cornelia, whose father played an important role in the political life of the Roman republic. Unfortunately, this marriage angered the dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla, against whom Cornelia’s father had conspired. Sulla ordered Caesar to divorce Cornelia, but the young man refused. To escape Sulla’s wrath, Caesar found refuge in the military, accepting a posting to the campaigns being waged far to the east. Upon Sulla’s death in 78 b.c.e., Caesar returned to Rome and began preparing for a career in politics. To further his ambitions, he traveled to the island of Rhodes to study the art of oratory. While there, he also distinguished himself as a military man of great ability. By 73 b.c.e. Caesar decided that he was ready to embark on a political career. He accepted a commission into the officer’s ranks of the army and allied himself with the new ruler of Rome, Pompey.Within four years, Caesar had so established his reputation that he was elected to his first political office, as military tribune. However, he also experienced a great personal loss, when his wife, Cornelia, died. Caesar’s funeral oration for her is credited with earning him a reputation as a public speaker, which helped him achieve further political offices. By 61 b.c.e., Caesar had become a well-established politician, but the cost of maintaining his position was immense. It was with relief, then, that he accepted an appointment as governor of the province of Spain, where he could embark on military campaigns. Success in war would provide the opportunity to confiscate the riches of the people he conquered, and Caesar soon became wealthy. A year later, in 60 b.c.e., he again returned to Rome, this time to run for the office of consul. He had the support of Pompey and other powerful men of the city, and his election was all but assured. After becoming consul, Caesar entered into a political alliance with Pompey and another powerful man, Crassus, in 60 b.c.e., forming what was known as the First Triumvirate. As part of their alliance, Caesar was placed in charge of governing the provinces of Illyricum and Gaul, which added to his wealth. To further strengthen this political alliance,

473

he married a relative of Pompey, a woman named Pompeia, but this union proved to be unsatisfactory. He soon divorced Pompeia and married a woman named Calpurnia. Over the next decade, Caesar made a name for himself on the battlefield. He pacified Gaul, which had up to this time been only tenuously held by Rome. His success in Gaul, and his subsequent invasion of Britain, earned him the loyalty of the army and the adulation of the Roman people. However, the Roman Senate began to fear that he held too much power.They worried that his popularity would lead to a loss of power for the Senate itself. Several senators secretly met with Pompey, urging him to withdraw his support of Caesar.They succeeded and set into motion a plan to reduce Caesar’s power. The first step of this plan was to order Caesar to return to Rome. The Senate ordered this in 49 b.c.e., insisting that he leave his troops behind. Instead, Caesar marched his forces to the banks of the Rubicon River, which marked the border between Gaul and Italy. On January 19, Caesar led his troops across the river into Italy, launching a civil war.With his powerful and loyal troops, Caesar’s victory was all but assured, and his opponents were forced to flee. Knowing that there was likely to be resistance, Caesar then sent his armies to subdue rebellions in Spain and even invaded Greece, to which his opponents, including Pompey, had fled in exile. Within a year, Caesar had conquered Greece and driven Pompey into Egypt. Pompey tried to raise support in Egypt but was killed. While pursuing Pompey into Egypt, Caesar met the Egyptian ruler Cleopatra VII (r. 51–30 b.c.e.) and made her both his governor and his consort. On his return to Rome, Caesar ruled as tribune and dictator, passing various reforms to improve living conditions for ordinary Romans. In 44 b.c.e., Caesar was elected consul and had himself named dictator for life. During his reign, he instituted reforms of the administration and the military, and consolidated control over Rome’s overseas holdings, including those as far away as Britain. His popularity among the citizens soared, but his political opponents grew increasingly restive. Their greatest fear, that Caesar would declare himself king, seemed confirmed when one of his allies, Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony), proposed that he accept a crown. Caesar also outraged noble families by his increasingly open dalliance with Cleopatra.

474

Julius Caesar

Although Caesar turned down the honor of kingship, several of his political rivals conspired to remove him from office. When he arrived to address the Senate on March 15, 44 b.c.e., he was overpowered by a mob of conspirators and assassinated. As Caesar left no designated heir, Rome was plunged into a war of succession. When it was over, a greatnephew of Caesar’s emerged victorious and became the first true emperor of Rome.This was Caesar Octavianus Augustus, better known as the Emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.). See also: Augustus; Cleopatra VII; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 B.C.–A.D. 476. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1997. Nardo, Don. The Roman Empire. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1994. Starr, Chester. A History of the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Justinian also attempted to restore much of the territory of the old Roman Empire. From 533 to 554, Justinian’s troops, under the guidance of his loyal generals, Belisarius and Narses, took back many of the western and North African provinces that had been lost to the Goths, Vandals, and Franks earlier in the fifth century. However, when Belisarius, who had won brilliant military success, began to overshadow Justinian in popularity, the emperor became jealous of his top general.That jealousy, coupled with a lack of funds in the imperial treasury, contributed to Justinian’s failure to send reinforcements to retake Italy from the Ostrogoths. Justinian also had little success against the Persians. Justinian taxed his people heavily in order to finance his military gains. He also began to collect taxes that people had been evading either through legal loopholes or by bribing government officials. Many people lost their fortunes when imperial tax collectors came to calculate and collect back taxes.

JURANE-BURGUNDY KINGDOM. See Burgundy Kingdom JUSTINIAN I (483–565 C.E.) Eastern Roman emperor (r. 527–565) whose reign is perhaps best remembered for the codification of Roman law, commonly called the Corpus Juris Civilis. The nephew and successor of Emperor Justin I (r. 518–527), Justinian was given responsibility for administering imperial policy during much of his uncle’s reign. Upon Justin’s death in 527, Justinian succeeded to the throne of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire. Justinian I gained fame as both a strong ruler and an extremely competent administrator. Among his most valuable contributions was his codification of Roman law, popularly known as the Justinian Code. Seeing many discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Roman legal system, Justinian gathered together the best legal scholars of the empire and authorized them to take Roman laws dating back from the time of the Emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) and condense them into a single uniform code.

Emperor Justinian I was a strong ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire in the sixth century c.e., known for his codification of Roman law, the Justinian Code. He also rebuilt the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and its many treasures include this mosaic depicting Justinian’s dedication of the church to Christ and the Virgin Mary.

Jutland Kingdom Justinian used tax revenues not only to finance military campaigns, but also to expand construction in Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, which had lost many of its most magnificent buildings to fires during the Nika Revolt in 532. Justinian used this destruction as an excuse to spend large sums of money rebuilding the lost structures, replacing them with much grander buildings, such as the church of Hagia Sophia. One of Justinian’s strongest supporters was his highly intelligent wife, the empress Theodora. The empress played an instrumental role in helping Justinian govern his ever-expanding empire. Her bravery and quick thinking saved his throne, and possibly his life, during the Nika revolts, which arose because of public discontent over Justinian’s fiscal policies and religious orthodoxy.When the emperor’s generals and court advisers urged him to flee after the revolt started, Theodora convinced him to stay and fight, and she gave a moving public speech that convinced Justinian to offer resistance. Justinian introduced a policy called caesaropapism, in which the emperor was supreme over the Christian church.This policy included supremacy over not only church organization but also Christian dogma. In 553, hoping to reconcile competing Christian factions, Justinian called a church council, the Second Council of Constantinople. The council accomplished nothing, however, and religious heresies continued to divide the faithful. When Justinian died in 565, he was succeeded by his nephew, Justin II (r. 565–578). Because of his strong rule, but especially as a result of his codification of Roman law, Justinian I is often known by the epithet, Justinian the Great. See also: Byzantine Empire;Theodora I. FURTHER READING

Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987. Moorhead, John. Justinian. NewYork: Longman, 1994.

JUTLAND KINGDOM (ca. 700–900 C.E.)

Early medieval kingdom on the Jutland Peninsula of Denmark, which emerged from history at about the time that Denmark was becoming united.

475

Very little is known for certain about the kingdom of Jutland. The kingdom of Denmark has its roots in a number of smaller kingdoms of the Viking era (ca. 700–1000) and earlier centuries. Little historical record of these pre-Christian kingdoms exists, since literacy and written histories in Northern Europe tended to follow conversion to Christianity, by which time the deeds of earlier generations had become legends. It is probable that the Jutland Peninsula, like other regions inhabited by Northern European and Scandinavian groups, had an elective monarchy in which kings were chosen from among a royal family by an assembly of free men of the tribe.The tradition of elective monarchy persisted in both Scandinavia and Germany through the Middle Ages in at least a formal aspect, despite the tendency of kings themselves to encourage hereditary succession. Little record exists of any specific kings of Jutland, and what little information there is lacks reliability.The medieval Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus (ca. 1150–1220) wrote a history, Gesta Danorum, much of which deals with early Danish history in a colorful but not necessarily factual manner. The story of Hamlet (given its most famous form in Shakespeare’s tragedy) is found in Saxo as the adventures of Amleth, who briefly ruled Denmark and died in Jutland in battle against a governor of Scania and Zealand. Saxo also mentions a king Vermund of Jutland, although no other record of him exists. History rather than legend emerges for Jutland only in the late 800s, just as the various regions of Denmark were merging into one kingdom. Gorm the Old (r. ca. 883–940) is considered the traditional founder of the Danish kingdom and the ancestor of Danish kings down to the present day. Gorm ruled from Jelling in Jutland. His son, Harald Bluetooth or Harald I (r. 940–986), ruled Denmark from Hedeby in Slesvig in the southern part of the Jutland Peninsula. The first to rule the larger area of Denmark, Harald moved his capital to the island of Zealand, a more central position from which to dominate Denmark, which by then included Scania, now the southern part of Sweden. Jutland has always been an important region of Denmark, but it was never a stable political entity on its own. In 1146, during the civil wars that ended when Waldemar (Valdemar) I (r. 1157–1182) became king, Denmark was briefly divided into three districts, each ruled by a contender for the throne.

476

Jutland Kingdom

Waldemar had Jutland, Svend Ericson ruled Scania and Bornholm, and Knud Magnusson controlled Zealand and the neighboring islands. This division did not last, however. Svend murdered Knud and was then himself killed, leaving Waldemar to rule over a once more united Denmark. With the reunification of Denmark under Waldemar, the kingdom of Jutland again ceased to exist. See also: Danish Kingdom;Waldemar I, the Great. FURTHER READING

Jones, Gwyn. A History of the Vikings. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Toyne, Stanley M. The Scandinavians in History. 1948. Reprint, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1996.

K KABAREGA (1850–1923 C.E.) Twelfth ruler (r. 1869–1899) of the Nyoro kingdom of western Uganda, remembered as a fierce defender of Nyoro independence during the colonial era. Kabarega was a younger son of King Kyebambe IV Kamurasi, who ruled Nyoro from 1852 to 1869. Kabarega spent much of his childhood away from the center of Nyoro power, living in western Zaire during an uprising that threatened to topple his father. When the uprising was finally put down, Kabarega returned to Nyoro, where he came of age. The death of King Kamurasi in 1869 triggered a war of succession that was fought between two competing factions. Kabarega had the support of the military and the people, but his elder brother, Kabigumire, was favored by the nobility. With the power of the military behind him, Kabarega was able to force his brother to withdraw from the contest. Upon taking the throne, Kabarega immediately launched a policy of expansion. Intending to create a great empire, he created an impressive army that was

charged with conquest as well as with raiding for slaves and other resources.Within six years, Kabarega had established control over dozens of neighboring peoples and had expanded his territory to include a wide variety of ethnic groups.With so vast an empire, he found it necessary to create a mechanism by which to ensure loyalty among his highly diverse subjects. Kabarega ruled the heart of his empire directly, but in the more distant regions he adopted a different strategy. He appointed governors from among his trusted counselors, giving each a district to oversee in the king’s name. Kabarega attempted to consolidate his rule even further by encouraging intermarriage between the various clans and peoples of his empire, thus breaking down tribal-based loyalties. In this, he enjoyed only limited success. Kabarega’s rule coincided with the encroachment of European colonial powers in Africa. In his region, it was Great Britain that sought to gain control. The British were quick to exploit factionalism within the indigenous kingdoms, the better to weaken the powers of the local kings. Kabarega was forced to fight a series of wars, as formerly conquered peoples rose up with the assistance of the British. These wars culminated with an alliance struck between chiefs of the Ganda people, who resented Nyoro power, and the British East Africa Company, which represented British interests. With the encouragement and support of the British, the Ganda declared war on Kabarega and his kingdom. In January 1894, the Ganda captured Mparo, the capital of the Nyoro kingdom, and Kabarega was forced to flee into the countryside. He gathered his supporters and embarked upon a guerrilla war against the Ganda and the British, but he never managed to muster enough support to prevail over the superior military might of the British-led alliance. Kabarega was ultimately captured on April 9, 1899, and sent into exile to the Seychelles Islands, where he remained until 1923. In that year, he gained permission from the British to return, but the ailing king died aboard ship as he sailed for home. See also: Ganda Kingdom.

KAFA KINGDOM (ca. 1370–1897 C.E.) Former kingdom located in what is now southwestern Ethiopia; also spelled Kaffa.

K a l ac u r i Dy na s t i e s Although not as numerous, powerful, or historically renowned as the Amhara who dominated the lands that now comprise Ethiopia and much of Somalia, the people of the Kafa region nonetheless managed to retain autonomy throughout their history.The kingdom is credited with being the first to cultivate the coffee bean, which has long been, and remains, a centerpiece of the regional economy. In fact, the word “coffee” is believed to be derived from the Kafa, who were the first to cultivate this crop. Kafa was one of three “border kingdoms” that occupied the lands now roughly incorporated in Ethiopia’s Oromo District.The other two, the Konta and Dauro, may well be related to the Kafa, but they were independent entities by the late fourteenth century, with their own royal lineages. The Kafa rulers expanded their territory through wars with neighboring lands and built their first city, Shadda, around 1500. The Oromo, another native people, migrated north into Kafa lands in southern Ethiopia in the early 1600s, and intermarried with the original population. Although the Kafa region is said to have become a kingdom in 1390, the lists of Kafa kings usually do not begin until 1675. All the Kafa kings were called kafi atio, but their identities seem to have been lost. In 1700, Gaili Ginocho (r. 1675–1710) proclaimed the transformation of the Kafa kingdom into an empire. From Gaili Ginocho’s reign to the incorporation of the Kafa into the larger Ethiopian polity in 1897, there were eleven Kafa rulers.With the reign of Kaye Sherocho (1854–1870), the royal title was changed from kafi atio to kafi atiojo, a title bearing connotations of semidivinity and enhancing the king’s authority. Kaye was succeeded by Gaili Sherocho (r. 1870–1890), who was followed by Gaki Sherocho (1890–1897). By the time of Gaki’s reign, however, Menelik II (1889–1913) had become emperor of Ethiopia and had begun an expansion that resulted in his conquering surrounding kingdoms, including Kafa to the southwest, Harar in the east, and Sidamo in the south. See also: Amhara Kingdom; Divinity of Kings; Menelik II. FURTHER READING

Huntingford, G.W.B. The Galla of Ethiopia:The Kingdoms of Kafa and Janjero. London: International African Institute, 1969.

477

KALACURI DYNASTIES (ca. 500s–1400s C.E.)

Series of Indian dynasties that ruled at unrelated times and locations. Besides the name of the dynasty and possibly a common lineage, there is hardly any evidence linking these various groups. The first known Kalacuri dynasty (ca. 550–620) reigned in the regions of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Malwa, and areas of the western Deccan. The three rulers of this dynasty—its founder, Krsnaraja (r. ca. 550–575), Sankaragana (r. ca. 575–600), and Buddharaja (r. ca. 600–620)—have been identified from ancient epigraphs and coins. Another Kalacuri family reigned in the Deccan region of India from 1156 to 1181. Its power was established in the state of Karnataka by Bijjala (r. 1156–1168), a former vassal of the Chalukya dynasty of Kalyana.This Kalacuri family also ruled only briefly, but it was historically significant because its rule coincided with the emergence of the Lingayat, or Virasaiva, a Hindu sect whose followers worshiped Siva (Shiva Linga) as their only god. The most famous Kalacuri dynasty reigned in central India, based at Tripuri (current-day Tewar). Although the dynasty probably began in the early eighth century, not much is known about it until the time of Kokalla I (r. ca. 850–885). Between his reign and that of Kokalla II (r. ca. 990–1015), the Kalacuris of Tripuri consolidated their power. A number of marriages cemented relations between the Kalicuris and the Rastrakutas, one of the most powerful dynasties in India, and the politics of the two families were sometimes intertwined. From the mid-ninth to the early eleventh centuries, the Kalacuris of Tripuri consistently opposed the kingdoms of Kosala, Kalinga, Gauda, and Vanga. They also found themselves at odds with the dynasties of the Gurjaras, Chandellas, and some of the Calukyas. The Kalacuris did not achieve any great military success, however, until the reign of Gangeyadeva (r. ca. 1015–1041). Gangeyadeva defeated many rivals and took over the Varanasi area to the north of the Kalacuri domain. His son and successor, Karna (r. 1041–1073) was particularly successful, expanding control in the Varanasi-Allahabad area and carrying out sweeping military operations in other regions of India. Despite such successes, the Kalacuris gradually lost their

478

K a l ac u r i Dy na s t i e s

power between the reigns of Yasakarna (r. 1073– 1123) and Vijayasimha (r. 1188–1209). Beginning around 1211, much of the Kalacuri kingdom was incorporated under the rule of the Chandellas. Two other Kalacuri dynasties were those of Sarayupara and Ratanpur. The Sarayupara branch of the dynasty ruled an area on the banks of the Sarayu River (now the Ghaghara) in the region of Uttar Pradesh from the late 700s to late 1000s.The Ratanpur were distant relatives and vassals of the Kalacuris of Tripuri.Their rule began in the early eleventh century and reached its peak during the reign of Jajalladeva I (r. early 1100s) in the early twelfth century. By the fifteenth century, the Ratanpur had divided into two branches, Ratanpur and Raipur. See also:Calukya (Chalukya) Dynasty; Chandella Dynasty; Gauda Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Kalinga Kingdom; Kosala Kingdom; Rastrakuta Dynasty.

KALINGA KINGDOM (ca. 500s B.C.E.–1593 C.E.)

A kingdom in southern India on the Bay of Bengal that was a wealthy bastion of Hindu culture. Kalinga was one of the nine ancient kingdoms of southern India. Its borders shifted over the years, but its territory generally included the eastern Madras coast from Pulicat to Chicacole, and extending inland from the Bay of Bengal to the Eastern Ghats mountain range. At one time, Kalinga included the region known as Orissa, and its influence may have extended as far north as the Ganges River Valley.

EARLY HISTORY By the sixth century b.c.e., Kalinga was already a well-known kingdom throughout much of India. Its first recorded king was Brahmadatta (r. dates unknown), who ruled during the time of Buddha in the sixth century b.c.e. According to tradition, a monk gave King Brahmadatta a relic of the Buddha, a tooth, to preserve at Kalinga. In the fourth century b.c.e., the Nanda dynasty of the Magadha kingdom gained some degree of hegemony over Kalinga, but its control was not deeprooted. When Chandragupta Maurya (r. 321–297 b.c.e.), the founder of the Maurya Empire, overthew

the Nandas and conquered the Magadha kingdom around 325 b.c.e., Kalinga remained an independent state, as well as a powerful rival to the newly founded Maurya Empire. By the mid-third century b.c.e., Kalinga was the greatest maritime power on the eastern coast of India, with overseas colonies and a thriving foreign trade. Around 260 b.c.e., the Mauryan emperor, Asoka (r. 268–232 b.c.e.) fought a bloody war against Kalinga in an attempt to gain control of the land and sea routes to southern India. Asoka conquered Kalinga, but the bloody horrors of the war troubled the emperor so much that he renounced war and adopted the Buddhist ideals of peace and nonviolence.

DEVELOPMENT OF AN EMPIRE In the second half of the first century b.c.e., after the decline and fall of the Maurya Empire, King Kharavela (r. dates unknown) of the Chedi dynasty took control of Kalinga. One of the greatest rulers of ancient Kalinga, Kharavela was a devoted follower of the Jain religion. According to historical records, which may have been exaggerated by the religious fervor of his court historians, Kharavela conquered vast territories in Magadha and southern India, leaving outposts and garrisons throughout the land. Kharavela built a mighty and far-flung empire, but after his rule, the kingdom fragmented into a number of smaller, littleknown principalities. Even so, Kalinga continued to enjoy international trade and economic prosperity for at least two more centuries. From the middle of the fourth century c.e, Kalinga suffered from several invasions and changes of leadership, as various Indian emperors and kings sought Kalinga’s wealth and access to ocean trading routes. In 795, King Mahasivagupta Yayanti II of Kalinga (r. dates unknown) invited 10,000 learned Hindu Brahmins from Kanauj to settle in Kalinga. Mahasivagupta also united Kalinga with the kingdoms of Kangoda, Utkala, and Kosala. In the mid-eleventh century, Kalinga was ruled by the eastern branch of the Ganga dynasty, whose strength consolidated the kingdom. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when much of India was overrun by the Muslims, Kalinga remained independent.Very prosperous from its income from international trade, Kalinga became a stronghold of Hindu religion, philosophy, art, and architecture.

Kalmar Union DECLINE AND FALL The decline of Kalinga began in 1206, when the kingdom was captured without a battle by the Muslims of Bengal. A generation later, in 1264, Kalinga’s Hindu forces regained their kingdom and captured Bengal. Sixty years later, in 1324, Kalinga was captured by the ruler of the Delhi sultanate,Tughluq (r. 1320–1325). But after receiving a gift of many elephants from Kalinga,Tughluq left the kingdom to its own Hindu leadership. The ancient kingdom of Kalinga finally came to an end in 1592, when it was conquered and absorbed into the Mughal Empire by Akbar I, the Great (r. 1556–1605). See also: Akbar the Great; Asoka; Chandragupta Maurya; Delhi Kingdom; Ganda Kingdom; Kosala Kingdom; Magadha Kingdom; Maurya Empire; Utkala (Orissa) Kingdom.

KALMAR UNION (1397–1523 C.E.) Union of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden under one Crown, which lasted from the late fourteenth century to the early sixteenth century. The Kalmar Union was largely the work of Queen Margaret of Denmark (r. 1375–1412), a powerful and intelligent ruler whose efforts to hold the vast Scandinavian Empire together were not enough to stave off eventual collapse. Despite the eventual failure of the Kalmar Union, its three member nations have been linked through a variety of alliances continuing to the present day.

479

Albert (r. 1364–1389) took the Crown in 1364.The previous year, Haakon VI had married Margaret, the heir to the Danish throne. Their marital union laid the foundations for placing Norway and Denmark under the same rule, a development that immediately put Sweden on the defensive, since Haakon was also mounting a bid to take back his father’s former kingdom. Haakon attacked Sweden in 1371 and spent much of the remainder of his life in battle or negotiation with the Swedes under Albert of Mecklenburg. Haakon’s absence left Margaret the de facto ruler of Norway and Denmark, a position further assured by the death of her father, Danish king Waldemar IV (r. 1340–1375), in 1375. Although the Danish Crown passed to Haakon and Margaret’s son, Olaf II (r. 1376–1387), the prince was barely an infant. Margaret thus took control of the kingdom as regent. Haakon’s death in 1380 left Margaret in virtual control of both Denmark and Norway, and she pushed to have young Olaf named the king of Sweden as well. When Olaf died in 1387, Margaret continued to rule Denmark and Norway. The Swedish nobility, chafing against the increasingly brutal rule of Albert of Mecklenburg, began to make overtures to Margaret for assistance. In 1388, the Swedish nobles named Margaret the rightful ruler of Sweden and granted her the power to choose her successor there, moves that precipitated war between Margaret’s forces and those of Albert. Faced with an overwhelming number of Danish and Norwegian troops and a lack of internal support, Albert was forced to surrender in 1389, effectively leaving Margaret the head of the three kingdoms.

TANGLED RELATIONSHIPS The histories of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden had been interrelated for centuries, but it was not until 1319 that an official union began to develop. It was then that a group of Swedish gentry elected Magnus VII (r. 1319–1363), heir to the Norwegian throne, as king of Sweden. Magnus felt much stronger ties to Sweden than to his hereditary kingdom, and consequently he virtually abandoned Norway.This greatly displeased the Norwegian people, who compelled Magnus to name his son, Haakon VI (r. 1355–1380), his successor to the Norwegian throne. Meanwhile, the Swedes grew tired of what they perceived as Magnus’s poor leadership and supported Albert of Mecklenburg, a German noble, in a bid for the throne.The Swedes deposed Magnus, and

FORMATION OF THE UNION In 1397, Margaret convened a meeting of the nobility of the three kingdoms at Kalmar, Sweden, at which she forced the election of her teenage grandnephew to the joint Crowns of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Eric of Pomerania (r. 1412–1439), the newly named king, was not yet of age to rule, thus leaving Margaret as regent in control of the Kalmar Union.The nobility had pledged to honor the Union, but tensions quickly arose as Margaret favored Denmark in her decision making, following traditional Danish policies and staffing royal offices with Danish nobles. Margaret’s skills as a politician, however, were enough to hold the empire together until her death in 1412, at which time Eric took full control.

480

Kalmar Union

Margaret’s death precipitated a crisis for the Kalmar Union, especially in Sweden, where the nobility had begun to agitate against foreign rule. In the 1430s, a mine-owner named Engelbrecht Englebrechtson initiated a series of uprisings in Sweden that forced Eric to send Danish troops into battle, a very unpopular move in Denmark. Although Engelbrecht was murdered in 1436, the pro-independence movement he spearheaded continued to grow, culminating in the election of Engelbrecht’s compatriot, Karl Knutsson, to the Swedish throne as Charles VIII (r. 1438–1441, 1448–1457, 1464– 1465, 1467–1470). This threw Denmark into controversy; the nobility voted no confidence in Eric and elected his nephew, Christopher of Bavaria (Christopher III, r. 1440–1448), to the throne in 1440. Norway followed suit in 1442, replacing Eric with Christopher III.

DECLINE AND END OF THE UNION The rest of the fifteenth century saw the slow breakup of the Kalmar Union.The untimely death of Christopher III in 1448 led Norway to affirm its allegiance to Charles VIII of Sweden, and led Denmark to place Christian of Oldenburg on its throne as King Christian I (r. 1448–1481). Shortly thereafter, Christian I pressured the Norwegians to abandon Charles and to side with him, a move that led to war between the Danes and the Swedes. Charles VIII was ousted in 1457, and Christian took control of the three kingdoms, only to see Charles return to power in 1464 and again in 1467. Charles’s death in 1470 led Christian to attack Sweden once more.The next half-century saw a series of battles between the two countries, with the Crown of Sweden changing hands numerous times. The succession of Christian II (r. 1513–1523), son of John of Denmark (r. 1481–1513), to the throne of Denmark and Norway in 1513 signaled the end for the Kalmar Union. Determined to capture Sweden by any means necessary, Christian II ordered the massacre of much of the Swedish nobility in 1520, a move that turned all of Sweden against him and allowed Gustavus Vasa, a proindependence leader, to rise up and expel the Danes from Sweden. Three years later, the young leader was named King Gustavus I of Sweden (r. 1523–1560), thus permanently ending Swedish participation in the Kalmar Union. Denmark and Norway remained united until

the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), when Norway came under the nominal control of Sweden, though it was, in effect, granted independence. Denmark retained its autonomy into the twentieth century. See also: Danish Kingdom; Election, Royal; Gustavus I (Vasa); Margaret of Denmark; Norwegian Monarchy; Regencies; Swedish Monarchy. FURTHER READING

Butler, Ewan. The Horizon Concise History of Scandinavia. New York: American Heritage, 1973.

KAMAKURA SHOGUNATE (1192–1333 C.E.)

The first Japanese shogunate, established at Kamakura (about thirty miles from modern-day Tokyo) by Minamoto Yoritomo in 1192 to legitimize his governance. The Kamakura shogunate marked the beginning of the medieval period in Japan, which established feudal military rule under a samurai warrior class. Under shogunal rule, the shogun warlords held the real power while the emperors were mainly figureheads. The Kamakura government established byYoritomo was known as the bakufu (temporary military “field tent headquarters”), a term that came to designate the shogunate itself.The bakufu rewarded supporters with strategically located estates and administrative offices, establishing the personalized lord–vassal relationship that characterized Japanese society for almost 700 years. Japanese feudalism represented not so much a sharp break with the past as a new form of dual government, with the military warrior-state functioning alongside the imperial-aristocratic institutions in the imperial capital of Kyoto. The administrative reforms that Minamoto Yoritomo established in Kamakura relied on personal loyalty.The reforms were designed primarily to control conflicts between the military lords and the court aristocrats, as well as to contain the power and influence of the wealthy temples and shrines. The Minamoto vassals served as jito (stewards) or shugo (constables), governing the provinces according to local traditions, which further weakened the centralized institutions of the imperial court. Shugo were in charge of judicial and police proceedings, while jito

K a m e h a m e h a I , t h e G r e at

Kamakura Shogunate Minamoto Yoritomo*

1192–1195

Yoriie

1202–1203

Sanetomo

1203–1219

Kujo Yoritsune

1226–1244

Kujo Yoritsugu

1244–1252

Munetaka

1252–1266

Koreyasu

1266–1289

Hisaaki

1289–1308

Morikuni

1308–1333

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

levied taxes and managed shoen (estates). In a variation on the tradition established by the Fujiwara clan—ruling as hereditary regents for the emperor— the Hojo clan added a new level of government in the thirteenth century by ruling as shikken, or hereditary regents for the Kamakura shoguns. The Kamakura shogunate inspired lively movements in religion and art that reflected the prominence of the warrior class. Zen Buddhism fostered the culture of military virtue, and the Kamakura samurai directly inspired the bushido codes of conduct and honor that were later followed by sixteenth-century warlords as well as the military zealots of the twentieth century. Kamakura artists displayed heightened realism in painting, depicting in stirring detail the battles and exploits of the warriors and the noble families. The economy of Japan also expanded somewhat during the Kamakura era, with improved productivity on the shoen (estates), underwriting the prosperity of traders who plied the coastlines delivering rice and goods. Two massive invasions by the Mongol forces of Kublai Khan—in 1274 and 1281—were repulsed by the spirited resistance of the Hojo and shogunal forces, aided by two enormous storms that engulfed the Mongol fleets. The typhoons were called kamikaze, “divine winds,” and reinforced the enduring Japanese belief that their island-nation was protected by the gods.

481

After the death of Minamoto Yoritomo in 1199, his widow, Hojo Masako, usurped ruling power from the Minamoto clan for her own clan, the Hojo. Although the Minamoto remained shoguns by title, the real power was now in the hands of the Hojo, who ruled through puppet shoguns and titular emperors. The emperor tried to regain power in 1221, but the imperial rebellion failed to wrest power from the shogunate. Another imperial attempt to gain primacy occurred in 1331, when the emperor, Go-Daigo (r. 1318–1339), attempted to regain power.This rebellion was more successful, since the most powerful general of the shogunate, Ashikaga Takauji, decided to side with the emperor. In 1333, Ashikaga and his forces defeated the Hojo clan, and the Hojo shogunal regent committed suicide. This marked the end of the Kamakura bakufu, but shogunal rule was suspended only temporarily. In 1338, Ashikaga Takauji received the title of shogun and established the Ashikaga shogunate. See also: Ashikaga Shogunate; Fujiwara Dynasty; Minamoto Rulers.

KAMEHAMEHA I, THE GREAT (ca. 1755–1819 C.E.)

First king (r. 1795–1819) of the Kamehameha dynasty of Hawaii, and the first Hawaiian monarch to unify all the islands under a single ruler. The actual date of Kamehameha’s birth is uncertain, but most scholars place it between 1752 and 1761.When he was born, the islands of Hawaii were politically fragmented, with each island under the control of one or more chiefs. Kamehameha’s father was the ruling chief of a territory that comprised approximately half of the so-called Big Island of Hawaii, and it is this territory that Kamehameha inherited when his father died in 1795.

CONQUEST AND RULE Kamehameha was raised with the expectation that he would inherit this chiefdom, and he was thus educated in the arts of war and in traditional ritual practices. By all accounts, he was a powerful man, intelligent, and ambitious. Not content to accept the territorial limitations of his inherited chiefdom,

482

K a m e h a m e h a I , t h e G r e at

Kamehameha led a series of invasions against neighboring islands, and within a few short years of becoming chief, he conquered the islands of Maui, Lanai, and Molokai. His campaign of conquest, however, was interrupted when he received word that his territory on his home island of Hawaii was under attack by the chief who controlled the other half of the island. Kamehameha returned home to deal with this threat, and by 1791 he had succeeded in bringing all of the Big Island under his rule.With this consolidation of power, Kamehameha set out once again, this time to conquer the island of Oahu. After successfully subduing the Oahu chiefs, he remained on that island for a time. Meanwhile, another powerful chief, Kaiana, had left his own island of Kauai to take advantage of Kamehameha’s absence from the Big Island, launching an invasion there in 1796. Kamehameha returned home again to deal with this new challenge, but Kaiana proved a difficult adversary, and it was a year before Kamehameha succeeded in capturing and killing him. With the defeat of Kaiana, Kamehameha had brought all but two main islands—Kauai and Niihau—under his control. These islands, formerly controlled by Kaiana and now under the control of Kaiana’s successor, Kaumaulii, remained independent for another fourteen years, but in 1810 they, too, became a part of Kamehameha’s kingdom. All the islands were ruled directly by Kamehameha except Kauai, which was permitted to retain a degree of autonomy, but acknowledged the sovereignty of Kamehameha and paid him an annual tribute. Notwithstanding the special arrangements afforded to Kauai, all the Hawaiian islands were unified for the first time in their history.

EUROPEANS IN HAWAII Throughout this period of conquest and consolidation, Kamehameha also was forced to deal with Europeans who had been stopping at the island ever since Captain Cook’s fleet arrived in 1778. Once Kamehameha had become established in power, he became more willing to learn from these outsiders, although he was selective in the influences he was willing to adopt. For instance, he was quick to appreciate the British style of political organization, and as his island holdings grew, he adopted the practice of appointing loyal followers as governors of the newly conquered territories. However, Kamehameha retained tradi-

tional features of rule as well, particularly in his retention of members of former chiefly families as advisers and in his use of the kapu (taboo) system to maintain order and control. Kamehameha’s unified Hawaii soon became recognized by all the European powers, and its harbors became important trade and refueling stops for the many ships passing through on whaling voyages. Among those visiting Hawaii’s ports were Spanish ships, one of which brought the first pineapples to be planted on the islands. This new crop, along with sugarcane, became an important trade item and attracted European and American settlers, who established plantations, as well as missionaries intent on bringing Christianity to the islands. Kamehameha insisted that these newcomers were only visitors, however. He refused to grant them the status of citizens, and he rejected Christianity in favor of traditional beliefs and practices.

HIS SUCCESSORS Kamehameha ruled for another nine years after unifying the islands. In 1818 or 1819 he fell ill, and neither local healers nor European medicine could cure him. Kamehameha I died on May 8, 1819, and was succeeded by his son, Liholiho, who took the dynastic name of Kamehameha II (r. 1819–1824). Liholiho ruled for just five years before he died in 1824 from a case of the measles, which he contracted during a visit to Britain earlier that year. Liholiho’s younger brother, Kauikeaouli, was next in line to assume the Hawaiian throne, but because he was only eleven years old, he was guided by regents.The first of these regents was Kaahumanu, his father’s favorite wife. At her death, the responsibility of regent fell to Kinau, Kauikeaouli’s half-sister and a granddaughter of Kamehameha I. Upon reaching his majority in 1839, Kauikeaouli assumed the name Kamehameha III (r. 1825–1854).Among his first acts after gaining independence from his regent was the introduction of the first written laws in Hawaii. Kauikeaouli was also the first Hawaiian monarch to welcome Christian missionaries, who had been persecuted under his predecessors. In 1840, Kauikeaouli enacted Hawaii’s first written constitution. Kauikeaouli died in 1854 and was succeeded by his nephew, who was the first of Hawaii’s rulers to have been baptized as a child and given a Christian name: Alexander Liholiho. He assumed the throne as Kamehameha IV (r. 1854–1863) at the age of

Kandy Kingdom twenty. He ruled with his queen, Emma, who was of British descent. Kamehameha IV and Queen Emma had only one child, who died of meningitis at the age of four. Over the years, the Hawaiian people had suffered greatly from foreign diseases such as measles, meningitis, and smallpox, against which they had no immunities. Kamehameha IV was inspired by the death of his son to establish the first Western-style hospital in Honolulu in 1859 and to encourage the spread of Western medicine throughout the islands. Kamehameha IV died in 1863, his health weakened by a lifelong battle with asthma. He was succeeded by the last of the Kamehameha dynastic line, his brother Lot Kapauiwa, who took the dynastic name Kamehameha V (r. 1863–1872). A lifelong bachelor and Westernized playboy, Kamehameha V spent most of his reign away from Hawaii, traveling often to the United States and Great Britain.When he died while visiting San Francisco, he left no successor. To avoid a potential battle for succession between William Charles Lunalilo and David Kalakaua, both of whom had roughly equivalent claims of kinship with Kamehameha I, the Hawaiian legislature stepped in. Lunalilo (r. 1873–1874) was given the throne, becoming Hawaii’s first elected king. He ruled only two years, however, before dying of tuberculosis, and David Kalakaua (r. 1874–1891) was elected to replace him.When Kalakaua died in 1891, his sister Liliuokalani (r. 1891–1893) took the throne. But she was deposed by American plantation owners in Hawaii in 1893, ending the nearly 100-year line of monarchs begun by Kamehameha I. See also: Hawaiian Kingdoms; Liliuokalani. FURTHER READING

Daws, Gavin. Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Wisniewski, Richard. The Rise and Fall of the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Pictorial History. Honolulu: Pacific Basin Enterprises, 1979.

KANDY KINGDOM (1500s–1818 C.E.) Singhalese kingdom located in the central highlands of the island of Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka), off the southeastern coast of India, that remained independent in the sixteenth century as the rest of the island fell under Portuguese and Dutch colonial rule.

483

Founded early in the sixteenth century, the Kandy kingdom was one of three kingdoms to emerge out of internal strife on the island of Ceylon. The other two kingdoms, the Singhalese kingdom of Kotte and the Tamil kingdom of Jaffna eventually fell to Portuguese colonial power at the end of the sixteenth century. The Kandy kingdom was centered on the city of the same name, which was established as early as the fifth century b.c.e. by Singhalese peoples. It did not become the capital of the Singhalese kingdom, however, until 1591, after the Singhalese population split into two separate kingdoms—Kandy and Kotte. The first ruler of the kingdom of Kandy was the Singhalese leaader,Vimala Charma Surya I (r. 1591–1604). The Portuguese first invaded the island of Sri Lanka in 1505 and quickly annexed the Jaffna kingdom and the Kotte kingdom. But the Kandy kingdom, located in the rugged central highlands, escaped Portuguese control. The Portuguese sought access to the spices of the East Indies, and they utilized the sophisticated trade networks that already existed between those islands and Sri Lanka. They also became inextricably involved in the local politics and power struggles on the island. Intolerant of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, the Portuguese converted many of the Singhalese and Tamils populations on the island to Roman Catholicism. As the only kingdom to remain independent of Portuguese control, the Kandy kingdom thus became an important center of Buddhist Singhalese power. The foundation of the Dutch East India Company in 1600 was designed to wrest control of Asian markets from Spain and Portugal, the two main rivals of the Dutch Republic. The Dutch enlisted local allies, in particular the kingdom of Kandy, in an effort to counter Portuguese power. In return, the rulers of Kandy, such as King Senarat (1604–1635), sought Dutch support against the Portuguese and other enemies. But, like the Portuguese, the Dutch were never able to control the whole of the island. Kandy, in the inaccessible, mountainous, and heavily forested interior, was able to maintain its independence. Like the Portuguese, the Dutch also were attracted by the spice trade, and Sri Lanka was also an important staging point on the Dutch East India Company’s trade routes to the East Indies, China, and Japan.When the Dutch Republic declined at the

484

Kandy Kingdom

end of the eighteenth century, its overseas possessions became natural targets for Great Britain, whose power was on the rise. The British were more successful than the Portuguese and Dutch in subduing Sri Lanka. In the early nineteenth century, Britain invaded the island and forced the Dutch to surrender the island. Sri Lanka, except for Kandy, which remained independent, became a British colony in 1802. Kandy continued to resist attempts by Britain to gain control until 1815, when British troops invaded the kingdom, deposed the king Sri Vikrama Rajasinha (r. 1798–1815), and abolished the Kandy monarchy. Three years later, in 1818, the British annexed the entire island of Sri Lanka, ending all remnants of Kandy’s independence. See also: South Asian Kingdoms.

KANEMBU-KANURI KINGDOM (ca. 1100–1901 C.E.)

Powerful African kingdom that initially flourished on the northwestern shores of Lake Chad beginning about 1100; around 1400 the original capital, at Kanem, was abandoned when the ruling clan moved their capital south to the former tributary state of Bornu.

FOCUS ON TRADE By 900, the Lake Chad region was beginning to be drawn into the trans-Saharan trade, which was forever seeking new sources of goods—particularly ivory and slaves. The Kanuri-speaking nomadic people of the Lake Chad region were among many in the region to offer goods to the visiting traders. In the twelfth century, a strong local leader of the Saifawa clan of the Kanuri, named Hummay, saw a way to increase the wealth that flowed from this trade. Hummay convinced several of the neighboring clans to unite under his leadership, correctly judging that this would permit him to dominate other, smaller groups and gain a monopoly over the flow of trade goods northward.With the forging of this alliance, he founded the great Kanuri kingdom of Kanem. Hummay was a follower of Islam, which no doubt helped him in his dealings with the predominantly Muslim trans-Saharan traders. He created a capital city at a place called Njimi, the exact location of

which is presently unknown.The kingdom of Kanem grew in wealth and strength by acting as broker between the trans-Saharan traders to the north and the peoples to their south, who offered ivory, slaves, and ostrich feathers. In return for facilitating trade, the Kanem rulers (called mai) exacted a tariff, paid in horses and weapons, which gave them a great advantage in might over their neighbors.The rulers of Kanem also sought to expand their territory through conquest, resulting in the acquisition of growing numbers of captives that could be sold directly onto the transSaharan market. By the reign of Mai Dunama Dibalami (r. 1210–1248), the kingdom of Kanem was the preeminent power in the region.

AN EXPANDED KINGDOM Kanemi expansion reached its limits in the fourteenth century, in part because the territory had become too vast for centralized control, in part because the ruling Saifawa clan had incurred the resentment and envy of another powerful family, the Bulala.The Saifawa family opted for prudence over confrontation and vacated the Kanem capital, moving their base of power southward to one of their client states. This client state was Bornu, the location of which permitted the Saifawa mais to retain their monopolistic control of trade from the south, effectively cutting Kanem off from the flow of goods and thereby maintaining their economic supremacy in the region. Again, the Saifawa rulers set about subduing their new neighbors, and within a matter of years, even Kanem paid tribute to Bornu. The Bornu incarnation of the Kanembu-Kanuri kingdoms achieved far greater success than its predecessor state. It grew so quickly that it soon controlled nearly all of the regional trade destined for the trek across the Sahara to Tripoli and Egypt. It achieved such dominance that it drained away the trade previously monopolized by the great Songhai Empire, contributing to the ultimate decline of that legendary state. During the era of Bornu preeminence, the greatest of the Saifawa mais was Ibn Idrisi III Aloma (r. 1571–1603), who came to power around 1571. Idrisi succeeded in uniting all the people of the savannah region under his rule, threatening even the powerful kingdom of Darfur to the east and encroaching on the territory claimed by the powerful Hausa states to the west.

Kang Xi END OF THE KINGDOM As a conquest-based state, the Kanembu-Kanuri kingdom was faced with the problem of creating a sense of unity among culturally and even linguistically disparate groups. The mais solved this problem through the spread of Islam, which respected traditional differences but provided common ground in the areas of law, religion, and the language of the scholars (Arabic). Until the late 1800s, the state itself was feudal in structure, with a landed nobility whose fields and herds were tended by commoners and slaves. The Bornu kingdom endured successive invasions during the seventeenth century, first by the Fulani and later, more disastrously, by a great Sudanese militarist named Rabih ibn Fadl Allah (r. 1893–1901), who conquered the kingdom in 1893. Rabih did not have long to enjoy his conquest, however, for he was killed in 1901 by French forces.The French annexed the Bornu territory, bringing the kingdom of Bornu to an abrupt end. See also: African Kingdoms; Fur Kingdom; Songhai Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Cohen, Ronald. The Kanuri of Bornu. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967.

KANEMI, MUHAMMAD AL-AMIN AL (ca. 1775–1837 C.E.) Ruler (r. 1808–1837) of the kingdom of Bornu in North Africa and founder of the Kanemi dynasty. The child of a Kanembu father and an Arab mother, Kanemi was born in southwest Libya. He received a classical education in Islam, attending schools in North Africa and Hejaz, Arabia.When he was in his early to mid-twenties, Kanemi left school and began to travel throughout those areas of northern and Sahelian Africa where there were strong Muslim communities, seeking a greater understanding of the Islamic faith. He finally settled in the kingdom of Bornu, located west and south of Lake Chad, where he developed a reputation as a scholar and began gathering a large following. Kanemi’s scholarly reputation and leadership qualities brought him to the attention of Mai Ahmad (r. 1793–1810), who was then the ruler of Bornu.Ahmad

485

was struggling with the problem of controlling the Fulani people of the Sokoto caliphate, who had declared a jihad and whose expansionist ambitions threatened to destabilize the Bornu kingdom. Kanemi was able to assist Ahmad, not only by providing willing defenders from among his followers, but also by more diplomatic means. Among these was his initiation of a dialog between the leaders of Bornu and Sokoto, in which he called into question the justice of the jihad. Ahmad’s reign ended in 1808, by which time Kanemi had earned the admiration of the people of Bornu for having saved the kingdom from the Fulani jihad. He became the de facto ruler of the kingdom, even though he was not a member of the previous ruling dynasty. With the successful transition of power from himself to his own son, Shehu Umar ibn al-Kanemi (r. 1837–1853), in 1837, a new dynastic line was firmly established in Bornu. See also: Sokoto Caliphate.

KANG XI (1654–1722 C.E.) Chinese emperor (r. 1661–1722), second emperor of the Ch’ing dynasty, whose long reign earned him a reputation as one of China’s greatest rulers. Kang Xi was the first of three remarkable Ch’ing rulers who gave China over a century of prosperity and internal peace. The son of Emperor Shunzhi (r. 1644–1661), Kang Xi assumed the throne at the age of eight in 1661 on the death of his father.A regent, Oboi, ruled in his place until Kang Xi was 14, when the teenaged emperor ordered Oboi removed and took power. In 1673, Kang Xi triumphed in a revolt known as the War of the Three Feudatories, defeating rebellious generals who had seized much of southern and western China. In 1683, his armies conquered Taiwan, and in 1720, he brought Tibet under Ch’ing control. Kang Xi also consolidated Ch’ing power in Central Asia, leading expeditions in the 1690s against the tribal leader Galdan, who was attempting to take power in the region. Since capturing China in 1644 from their base in Manchuria, the Ch’ing rulers had passed many laws persecuting the Chinese population, including banning intermarriage between Manchus and Chinese and forcing Chinese men to adopt the Manchu hairstyle of a shaved head in front with a long braid in the back. Kang Xi ended and eased many of these dis-

486

Kang Xi

KANVA DYNASTY (ca. 75–30 B.C.E.)

Scholars know very little about the Kanva dynasty or its rulers. Most information is based on a few ancient coins, on accounts of the history of the geographical area, and on the Puranas, an ancient account of the Hindu religion that is more useful for genealogical information than for political history. According to the Puranas, the Kanva dynasty had four kings—Vasudeva (r. ca. 75–66 b.c.e.), Bhumimitra (r. ca. 66–52 b.c.e.), Narayana (r. ca. 52–40 b.c.e.), and Susarman (r. ca. 40–30 b.c.e.)—who ruled for a total of only forty-five years. Power was passed from father to son in the Kanva dynasty. The founder of the dynasty was Vasudeva Kanva, an adviser of King Devabhuti (r. ca. 85–75 b.c.e.) of the Sunga dynasty, which had supplanted the last ruler of the Maurya dynasty, Brihadratha (r. 187–180 b.c.e.), in the second century b.c.e. Before coming to power, the members of the Kanva dynasty had served as advisers and administrators for the Sunga dynasty, which controlled a large territory in central India. In the early first century b.c.e., the Sungas came under military pressure from invading Indo-Greeks, who occupied the western part of their territory, known as the Punjab. Pressure also came from the Mitra kings, a short-lived dynasty that ruled the ancient kingdoms of Kosala and Panchala, and gradually gained control of a large part of the plains around the Ganges River. Scholars believe that as the Sunga dynasty became weak from external attacks, the Kanvas usurped power from within, not removing the Sunga dynasty completely but leaving them as sovereigns in name only. By the time the Kanva dynasty officially came to power around 75 b.c.e., the Sungas held the ancient town of Vidisa, now known as Bhilsa, leaving only the city of Magadha under Kanvas control. Magadha is in the southern part of the modern province of Bihar. According to the Puranas, the Kanva dynasty was overthrown by the Andhra, or Satavahana, dynasty. However, no archaeological evidence, coins, or inscriptions, have been found to substantiate the Puranas account, and the Puranas, at another place, indicates that the Andhra dynasty was founded two centuries before the overthrow of the Kanvas. In any event, the short-lived Kanva dynasty left little mark on the history of India.

An early Indian dynasty, successors of the Sunga dynasty, that ruled remnants of the Maurya Empire in the first century b.c.e.

See also: Andhra Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire; Satavahana Dynasty; Sunga Dynasty.

criminatory practices. He lowered taxes, revived agriculture by banning the Ch’ing practice of confiscating land, and reduced government corruption by raising official salaries.While he installed Manchus in the most powerful positions, Kang Xi also recruited Chinese scholars to serve in his government. An admirer of the Chinese classics, Kang Xi gained the support of intellectuals by commissioning scholars to write lengthy histories and sponsoring the Kang Xi Dictionary, a vast compilation of classical texts totaling 5,020 chapters.The Manchu ruler further cemented his image as a supporter of Chinese tradition when he issued the “Sixteen Moral Principles.” These pronouncements, which celebrated ancient Confucian virtues such as obedience to authority, were read throughout the empire. At his court, Jesuit scholars from Europe taught him about Western science and served as astronomers, mapmakers, and doctors. Kang Xi worked hard, rising early in the morning to begin managing the government. In the afternoons he read, painted, or went hunting, but in the evenings he went back to work, sometimes until late in the night. To make sure he received accurate information about all corners of his vast empire, Kang Xi established a secret system of communication in which provincial officials sent reports directly to him, bypassing government officials. He also traveled on several grand tours of the empire, meeting the people and inspecting local conditions. Troubles arose at the end of Kang Xi’s reign over who would succeed him as emperor. His sonYingreng, as the emperor’s only son among his fifty-six children to be born to an empress, was the only legitimate heir. When Yingreng proved to be mentally unstable and was caught in a conspiracy against his father, Kang Xi revoked the son’s right to succeed him.The distraught Kang Xi named no other heir before his death in 1722. In the confusion that followed, Kang Xi’s fourth son, Yongzheng, claimed the throne. See also: Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong); Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty.

Kashmir Kingdom

KAO TSUNG (GAOZONG) (1107–1187 C.E.)

Chinese emperor (r. 1127–1162) who founded the Southern Sung dynasty. Kao Tsung was the ninth son of Hui Tsung (Huizong) (r. 1101–1125), emperor of the Northern Sung dynasty. In 1126, Jurchen invaders from the north swept into northern China, seizing the Northern Sung capital at Kaifeng and imprisoning much of the imperial family, including Huizong and Kao Tsung’s brother, Emperor Ch’in Tsung (Qinzong).The Jurchen established the Jin dynasty in north China, which ruled from 1127 to 1234. Kao Tsung managed to escape capture by the Jin, fleeing south and declaring himself emperor in 1127. Jin armies pursued Kao Tsung until 1135, when they withdrew to the north. Their withdrawal allowed Kao Tsung to establish a capital in the southern city of Hangzhou in the lower Yangtze River Valley. In 1141, he signed a treaty with the Jin, making the Sung a vassal state and agreeing to pay a large annual tribute in silk and silver. A skilled and conscientious ruler, Kao Tsung presided over the reestablishment of the Sung dynasty in the south of China. He faced the difficult task of rebuilding the Sung army, which had completely disintegrated as a result of the Jin invasion. However, his government was plagued by infighting between those satisfied with the southern empire and those determined to reconquer the north. In addition, the military remained weak, forcing Kao Tsung and his successors to pay tribute to border states to stave off invasion. Kao Tsung’s rule ushered in a great age for China. The Southern Sung period was a time of cultural renaissance and thriving trade. The Southern Sung had the most advanced technology and the largest cities in the world. Learning and the arts flourished, and the city of Hangzhou became a thriving center of culture and commerce. Kao Tsung’s father, Emperor Hui Tsung, had been a skilled painter who founded an academy of the arts in the northern capital of Kaifeng. Kao Tsung continued his father’s tradition of artistic patronage. He reestablished the academy in the new capital of Hangzhou, and under his patronage, Chinese landscape painting reached its pinnacle. Kao Tsung also oversaw a renaissance in classical learning.The Sung, cut off from contact with the West by hostile neigh-

487

bors, began to look to their own past, reviving and reexamining ancient texts. In 1162, Kao Tsung abdicated in favor of his adopted son, Xiaosong, and retired from political life. He spent his final twenty-five years enjoying an imperial lifestyle in his palace at Hangzhou. See also: Sung (Song) Dynasty.

KASHMIR KINGDOM (1339–1589 C.E.) Muslim kingdom in northwestern India dating to the fourteenth century, whose history has made the region a source of continuing conflict between the modern nations of India and Pakistan. The first kingdom of Kashmir was a Hindu state that dates to the seventh century. The geography of Kashmir, surrounded by towering mountains, prevented this kingdom from playing a significant role in the early history of India. This earliest recorded period of the kingdom’s history is littered by accounts of tyrannical leaders and an oppressed peasantry. The Muslim kingdom of Kashmir, also known as the sultanate of Kashmir, came into existence in 1339. During this phase of Kashmir’s history, the populace of the region had Islam thrust upon it and was forced to give up Hinduism.The kingdom arose in tandem with a series of other regional sultanates, including Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat. The Muslim Kashmir kingdom came to an end in 1586, when it was annexed by the Mughal emperor Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605). However, the annexation and absorption of Kashmir into the Mughal Empire did not occur before the local regional dialect had matured and ingrained itself into Kashmiri culture. The first decade of the Muslim kingdom of Kashmir was rather unstable in terms of leadership, having three kings within its first five years of existence. The first Kashmiri sultan was Shah Mir (r. 1339– 1342), who usurped the throne from the Hindu raja. Mizra then married the raja’s widow to help secure his control. His hold on the kingdom was finally secured by implementing a generous taxation policy to maintain the allegiance of the populace. These policies were continued and improved on by his sons, who ruled the kingdom until 1356. Kashmir’s geography prevented it from actively influencing the early history of the Indian subcontinent. Its geography also provided the kingdom with

488

Kashmir Kingdom

fortuitous protection. Such protection showed its usefulness when the great Mongol conqueror Tamerlane swept into India from the Central Asian steppe but did not turn his attention to this small mountainous domain. Sikander Shah (r. 1393–1413) was Kashmir’s sultan while Tamerlane moved through India. History has labeled Sikander the Idol-Breaker, a name he earned because of his religious zeal which, though it attracted numerous learned Muslim scholars, found expression in a streak of religious intolerance that led to the destruction of many Hindu temples and idols. One other effect of Sikander’s religious zeal was the conversion of the Kashmiri populace to Islam at the tip of Sikander’s sword, which killed many Brahmin priests when they proved unwilling to convert. The intolerance of Sikander’s reign contrasted with that of Zain-ul’Abidin (r. 1420–1470), who succeeded to the throne within a decade of Sikander’s death.The fifty-year reign of Zain-ul’Abidin was characterized by complete religious toleration, particularly to those Brahmins who had gone into exile while Sikander ruled. Zain-ul’ Abidin’s willingness to allow alternative religious doctrines within the kingdom led to the reconstruction of Hindu temples. One other effect of this new tolerance was an artistic and literary revival. Ironically, in terms of his outlook and actions toward religion, philosophy, and the arts, Zain-ul’ Abidin resembled the individual who eventually took over and ended the Kashmir kingdom, Akbar the Great. The century following the reign of Zain-ul’ Abidin was characterized by a seemingly endless succession of short-lived monarchs, only a couple of whom reigned for a decade or more. In 1589, Kashmiri independence came to an abrupt end when Akbar the Great, the Mughal emperor, conquered the kingdom, along with other territories including Kandahar, Sind, and parts of the Deccan plateau. Although the Kashmir kingdom was no longer independent, its history continued to shape and prepare the region for its place in the struggle between Pakistan and India after these countries gained independence in the twentieth century. See also: Akbar the Great; Indian Kingdoms; Malwa Kingdom; Mughal Empire. FURTHER READING

Duff, Mabel. The Chronology of Indian History: From the Earliest Times to the 16th Century. Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1972.

Kulke, Hermann, and Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 1998. Smith,Vincent A. The Oxford History of India. Ed. Percival Spear. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

KASSITES (flourished ca. 1729–1155 B.C.E.) Ancient people of the Near East, best known for their conquest of Babylonia in the eighteenth century b.c.e. First mentioned in ancient Elamite texts, the Kassites were unknown in Babylonian texts until about 1741 b.c.e., during the reign of Samsu-iluna (r. 1749–1712 b.c.e.), the son of Hammurabi (r. 1792– 1750 b.c.e.). The Kassites made their first offensive movements against Babylon around that time but were only able to secure a few holdings along the northern border of Babylonia while Samsu-iluna was alive. Lists of Kassite kings suggest that by the early seventeenth century b.c.e., these northern holdings had multiplied. Gandash (r. 1729–1700 b.c.e.), the first Kassite king, and the first king of the second Babylonian dynasty, probably ruled over this northern area of Babylonia contemporaneously with one of the later kings of the first Babylonian dynasty, who still held Babylon. However, the dynasty founded by Gandash did take control of all Babylon around 1600 b.c.e. and ruled until the Elamites conquered them around 1155 b.c.e. The Kassite innovation of the kudurru, a boundary stone that recorded a royal grant of land, was important as both a means of record-keeping and as a source for Kassite art, since the stones were often beautifully decorated. Unfortunately, neither kudurru stones nor any other Kassite documents have been found written in Kassite.All that is known of the Kassite language has been reconstructed from about three hundred words found in Babylonian documents.These words suggest that the Kassites were Indo-European in origin. Kassite religious objects show that they had a polytheistic religion, and they seem to have worshiped the horse, which they probably introduced to Babylonia. After about 1380 b.c.e., the Kassites gradually became less militarized and more focused on the priorities of trade, commerce, and agriculture that had interested their Babylonian dynastic predecessors. At the same time, they became more troubled by external military threats. During the reign of Kashtiliash

Kenneth I IV (r. ca. 1232–1225 b.c.e.), Kassite Babylonia was attacked by both Assyria and Elam, and the city of Babylon was destroyed. It was a decade before the Kassites restored the state under Adad-Shuma-asur (r. ca. 1216–1187 b.c.e.), but peace was short-lived.The Elamites under their king Shutruk-Nahhunte (r. ca. 1185–1155 b.c.e.) attacked once more, and in 1155 b.c.e., the Kassite dynasty was destroyed. After this defeat, the Kassites withdrew to the Zagros Mountains in present-day Iran. There they retained their independence—except for a brief conquest by Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) until Christian times, when they disappear from the historical record. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Assyrian Empire; Hammurabi; Samsu-iluna.

KATHIAWAR KINGDOM (ca. 700–1297 C.E.)

Also known by its ancient Hindu name Saurashtra, a kingdom that occupied the peninsula in western India (part of the present-day state of Gujarat) that lies between the Gulf of Kutch and the Gulf of Cambay. Kathiawar was first consolidated as part of the Maurya Empire in the late fourth and early third centuries b.c.e. Several hundred years later, in the fourth century c.e., it passed to the control of the Gupta Empire. Kathiawar achieved its greatest independence in the early eighth century, when several minor dynasties divided the kingdom among themselves. The most prominent of these clans was the Saindhavas, who inhabited the Barda Hills. In 739, the first ruler of the Saindhava dynasty, Pushyadeva (r. dates unknown), gained widespread recognition by defeating an invasion by Muslims from Sindh, a state in present-day Pakistan. During the reign of Agguka I (r. dates unknown), Pushyadeva’s grandson, the Sindh Arabs launched two more invasions, but on both occasions the Kathiawar kingdom repelled the invaders. The Saindhava dynasty maintained its prominence for more than two centuries. As the most powerful dynasty on the Kathiawar Peninsula, they allowed the other dynasties in the region to exist as feudatory clans. In 915, however, the status of the dynasty diminished when its last ruler, Jaika II (r. dates unknown), died without leaving an heir.

489

Among the other regional dynasties, the Calukyas (Chalukyas) controlled eastern Kathiawar. Two brothers, Kalla and Mahalla, founded that dynasty in Kathiawar in the late eighth century.Their autonomy lasted only a very brief time, however.Around 825, the Pratihara Empire conquered the Kathiawar region and forced the Calukyas to sign a treaty of obeisance. The Calukyas remained as local vassals of the Pratihara Raja. After the Saindhava dynasty crumbled in the early tenth century, two dynasties, the Abhiras and Chapas, struggled for control of western Kathiawar. Neither achieved supremacy, however, and repeated Pratihara invasions weakened both dynasties. In 942, Mularaja (r. 942–997), the most famous Chapa monarch, won control of the peninsula, but his domination was fleeting in the unstable region. A massive Muslim invasion in 1024 made the petty dynastic struggles of Kathiawar seem inconsequential. Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (r. 998–1030) avenged the earlier Arab defeats and invaded the peninsula from the north, ravaging the Kathiawar kingdom. Mahmud’s army took vast amounts of treasure but did not permanently occupy Kathiawar. After the Muslim invasion by Mahmud of Ghazni, Kathiawar experienced several centuries of lawlessness before the region became part of Gujarat under the sultan of Delhi around 1297.The region of Kathiawar later came under the control of the Mughal Empire in the sixteenth century. Kathiawar briefly regained its independence after the Mughals left India in the mid-1800s, but soon after it was made part of the British colony of India.Today, the region of Kathiawar is revered as the homeland of Indian political and spiritual leader, Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi. See also:Calukya (Chalukya) Dynasty; Delhi Kingdom; Gujarat Kingdom; Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms; Mahmud of Ghazna; Maurya Empire; Mughal Empire; South Asian Kingdoms.

KENNETH I (KENNETH MACALPIN) (ca. 810–858 C.E.) Also known as Kenneth MacAlpin, the first monarch of a united Scotland. Kenneth’s reign, from around 843 until 858, has been the focus of many myths. He was born Cinaed MacAlpin on the Scottish isle of Iona around 810. His father, Alpin, was a king of the

490

Kenneth I

Scots—Gaelic-speaking tribes that had migrated from northern Ireland to western Scotland around 500, founding the kingdom known as Dalriada.After Alpin’s death in 834, Kenneth succeeded him as ruler of Galloway, and around 840 he became king of all the Dalriadic territory, ruling over a disorganized collection of tribal chiefs. Kenneth’s reign was significant because he was the first monarch to rule jointly over the Scots and, after 842, over the Picts, a Celtic people of northern Britain. Traditional accounts have claimed that Kenneth inherited both kingdoms—the patrilineal Dalriadic line through his father, and the Pictish matrilineal crown through his mother. Some medieval accounts suggest that he captured or consolidated his rule over the Picts by means of treachery. According to these writings, he invited Pictish nobles to a banquet at which he had them ambushed. Kenneth’s reign was marked by war—especially against the English, Norse, and Danes—and by close association with Christian strongholds of the time, especially the Scottish sites of Scone, Dunkeld, and Iona. He is said to have promulgated the so-called laws of MacAlpin, which consisted of criminal and civil codes with harsh penalties. Kenneth is credited in myth as the king who brought the famous “stone of destiny” to Scone, where it played a highly symbolic role in Scottish royal coronations. Kenneth was succeeded by his brother, Donald (r. 858–862), and then by his own sons Constantine (r. 862–876) and Aed (r. 876–878). Through them, his dynasty ruled Scotland until the death of Malcolm II (r. 1005– 1034) in 1034. See also: Picts, Kingdom of the; Scottish Kingdoms.

KENT, KINGDOM OF (450–860 C.E.) The oldest of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, occupying the same territory in southeastern England as the modern county of Kent. According to semilegendary accounts, two brothers, Hengist and Horsa, from the Anglo-Saxon people known as the Jutes, arrived in Britain in 449 to help British king Vortigern battle the Picts who occupied northern Britain. Paid for their services with money, supplies, and land, the brothers nevertheless led a revolt against Vortigern within a few

years.The Jutes (who probably originated in what is now Denmark) then established the kingdom of Kent in 450. Hengist (r. 449–488), whose son Oisc (r. 488–512) succeeded him as king, established a dynasty that lasted more than three centuries. During the first century of its existence, the kingdom of Kent was ruled jointly by two rulers, with the stronger in East Kent and the weaker in West Kent.The East Kentish capital was established at the Roman city of Durovernum Cantiacorum, referred to by the Jutes as Cantwarabyrig, or “fortress of the Men of Kent” (modern-day Canterbury). By 595, Æthelbert I of Kent (r. 560–616), had become Bretwalda, or overlord, of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the only Kentish king to achieve that title. A pagan, Æthelbert was married to a Frankish princess, Bertha, a Christian who insisted on the right to practice her faith as a condition of marriage. In 597, Æthelbert welcomed a delegation of Christian missionaries led by St. Augustine of Canterbury. Although he initially refused to convert to Christianity himself, Æthelbert gave the missionaries land for a church as well as permission to preach in his kingdom.Within four years, thousands of people in Kent had been converted and Æthelbert himself was baptized as well. Æthelbert was also known for his legal reformers. During his reign, the oldest surviving code of laws in the Anglo-Saxon vernacular was created. Based partly on Roman law, and probably drawn up with the assistance of St. Augustine, this legal code stipulated fines for various offenses and outlined a social hierarchy headed by Christian bishops. The Saxon rulers of the kingdoms of Wessex and Mercia were the chief rivals of the Kentish kings. Around 686, Kent was occupied by Caedwalla of Wessex (r. 685–688). Nearly a century later, Offa (r. 757–796), the king of Mercia, made Kent a province of his kingdom.A powerful king, Offa signed the first recorded commercial treaty in English history with the Frankish ruler Charlemagne (r. 768–814) in 796. Offa also introduced a new coinage, the silver penny, on which the system of English currency was based for more than seven hundred years. Following Offa’s death in 796, the people of Kent revolted against Mercian rule but were defeated. In 825, following the battle of Ellandon, King Baldred of Kent (r. 823–825) was deposed, and possession of the kingdom was transferred from Mercia to the kingdom of Wessex. By 860,Wessex had completely

Khalji Dynasty absorbed Kent into its domain, ending centuries of Kentish independence. Although subject to frequent raids by Danish invaders, the kingdom of Kent, at its peak, enjoyed an economic and cultural life that surpassed that of neighboring Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Its economic and political leaders maintained close ties with the European continent, while the presence of the bishopric of Canterbury made Kent one of the most important Christian centers in Britain. There is evidence as well that remnants of Roman culture survived in the kingdom. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Mercia, Kingdom of;Wessex, Kingdom of.

KERTANAGARA EMPIRE (1268–1292 C.E.)

Empire of Kertanagara, the last king of Singhasari in eastern Java. He is still revered by the Javanese as one of their greatest leaders. What little information exists about Kertanagara comes mainly from two Javanese chronicles, the Pararaton (Book of Kings) and Nagarakertagama (the epic of Majapahit), which tell very different stories about this king. According to Pararaton, Kertanagara was often drunk and loved good food. He sent away his capable chief minister Raganatha (Kebo Arema) and hired Aragani (possibly the same as Kebo Tengali) instead because Argani was able to provide good food every day. According to this account, the king’s death was a result of all his wine drinking and orgies because his enemies killed him at one of his rowdy parties. On the other hand, Nagarakertagama, the account best supported by historical evidence, tells of the king’s greatness and wisdom. It portrays him as an ardent disciple of Tantric Buddhism, which involved magic and evil spirits and ritualistic rather than pleasure-seeking drinking and orgies. He was venerated as a Siva-Buddha who had called upon demonic powers in himself to eliminate the demons who wanted a divided Java. According to Nagarakertagama, Kertanagara believed he was living in a time of fear, confusion, and disaster and that it was his duty as king to save the world. Since he knew that was impossible, he tried to fight evil by reinforcing Buddhism.

491

Statues of Kertanagara support the belief that he was a very religious king, but he also was very capable in politics and government—frequently using religion to help him achieve political goals. According to Nagarakertagama, Kertanagara was the first Javanese leader to foresee a unified Indonesia.Actually, his birth did unify the two halves of Java since he was born of a princely family from each half—King Vishnuvardhana of Janggala and a princess of Kadiri. His own vision of unity, however, was not totally accomplished until about fifty years after he died, when King Hayam Wuruk of Majapahit ruled. King Kertanagara may have been too ambitious with his expansionist foreign policy, which was a reaction to the growing threat of the Mongol emperor of China, Kublai Khan. In 1284, Kertanagara led an ineffective expedition into Bali and sent his army to conquer the kingdom of Malayu in lower Sumatra, leaving him vulnerable to rebellion at home. Some powerful officials who had loyally served his father, Wishnuwardhana, but were subsequently demoted to inferior positions, started a revolt that resulted in Kertanagara’s death in 1292. His brotherin-law, Jayakatwang, who claimed he was descended from royalty and thought the throne should be his rather than Kertanagara’s, also became Kertanagara’s enemy. Kertanagara’s ministers tried to warn Kertanagara about his vulnerability, but he failed to recognize it and died trying to defend his palace against Jayakatwang’s overwhelming forces. See also: Janggala Kingdom; Kublai Khan; Majapahit Empire; Mongol Empire.

KHALJI DYNASTY (1290–1320 C.E.) Short-lived Muslim dynasty that ruled the Delhi sultanate of India in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. The Khalji dynasty was the second dynasty of the Muslim sultanate of Delhi. The origin of the Khalji family was probably Turkish, but they had lived a long time in Afghanistan. The dynasty had three sultans, who successfully fought their way into the Hindu south. The first Khalji ruler of Delhi was Jalal-ud-Din Khalji (r. 1290–1296). An esteemed army officer, Jalal founded the Khalji dynasty after the collapse of the Mu’izzi (or Slave) dynasty in 1290. Jalal-ud-Din,

492

Khalji Dynasty

also known as Firuz Shah II, was a clever and peaceable ruler who loved learning and avoided bloodshed. During his reign, the Delhi sultanate withstood a forceful Mongol invasion in 1292, after which approximately three thousand Mongols surrendered and adopted Islam. Jalal-ud-Din was unpopular in India, however, both because the Khaljis were believed to be Afghan and because he eschewed violence. However, his sonin-law and nephew, Juna Khan, led an invasion of the Hindu Deccan region around 1294. Two years later, in 1296, he murdered his uncle Jalal-ud-Din, deposed his cousin Ibrahim (Jalal’s son), and became sultan of Delhi. He ruled for the next twenty years as Ala-udDin Khalji or Muhammad I (r. 1296–1316). A cruel ruler but a capable general and administrator, Muhammad I seized the states of Ranthambhor (in 1301), Chitor (in 1303), and Mandu (in 1305). The first Muslim king to attempt to extend Delhi rule over the whole of the Deccan, he also annexed the affluent Hindu kingdom of Devagiri and resisted attacks from the Mongols. From 1308 to 1311, his lieutenant, Malik Kafur, led successful raids in the south, taking over the state of Warangal, bringing down the Hoysala dynasty south of the Krishna River, and occupying the state of Madura in the far south. Muhammad received significant booty from his military ventures, and the rulers he defeated had to pay substantial tribute. Eventually, nearly all of India was then ruled by the Delhi sultanate under Muhammad I. His achievements, however, were not all military. He maintained strict separation between religion and government, and regulated the cost of goods. He also supported the arts, bringing specialists and masters, such as the Persian poet Amir Khusru, to his court. Over time, however, the Khalji dynasty began to weaken. When Muhammad I died in 1316, Malik Kafur deposed Muhammad’s son, Umar, and usurped the throne. But Malik managed to hold power for only a month before he was overthrown. The throne then went to Muhammad I’s other son, Qutb-ud-din, who ruled as Mubarak I (r. 1316– 1320). In 1320, Mubarak was killed by his chief minister, Khusraw Khan (r. 1320), who ruled only briefly before being overthrown by Ghiyas-ud-Din Tughluq, the founder of the Tughluq dynasty. See also: Delhi Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms;Tughluq Dynasty.

KHAMA III (ca. 1835?–1923 C.E.) Also called Khama the Great, African king (r. 1872–1923) who was sponsored by the British as ruler of the Sotho-Tswana in what is now Botswana in south-central Africa. Khama was born into one of the royal lineages of the Sotho-Tswana people in the town of Shoshong in the Transvaal, in the region that is now presentday Botswana. Had Khama been born prior to the advent of European imperialism in Africa, he might have risen to the status of local chieftain like his father, who had been chief of the Ngwato people. Instead, he became a powerful king, ruling a far more extensive territory than would have traditionally been possible. While Khama was still a child, his homeland in the Transvaal was plagued with violence and outlawry as European slave raiders, mercenaries, and refugees overran local settlements. With these disrupting influences came another—missionaries from Great Britain. Khama’s family converted to Christianity, as did many others in the region. In 1872, Khama succeeded his father to the chieftaincy of the Ngwato.Along with other leaders of the region, he accepted British assistance in stabilizing the unsettled region, making the Sotho-Tswana territory a protectorate of Great Britain. This opened the door to an influx of British colonials and more missionaries, and in appreciation of Khama’s cooperation, his new British allies essentially created a kingdom for him to rule. Khama carefully cultivated his reputation as a loyal supporter of the British Empire, which enabled him to call upon his sponsors for help in expanding his realm. He aligned himself with the missionaries so that as they evangelized throughout his realm they brought word not only of Christianity, but also of Khama’s rule, thus creating a network of loyalists throughout the territory. His rule was largely supportive of British colonial policies, but he made a noteworthy trip to England in 1895 in an attempt to keep the British South Africa Company from encroaching upon his kingdom’s territory. Khama III died in 1923. His grandson, Seretse Khama, became the first president of Botswana when that country attained independence in 1966. See also: Tshekedi Khama.

Khazar Kingdom

KHATTI KINGDOM. See Hittite Empire

KHATTUSHILI I (d. ca. 1600 B.C.E.) Also known as Hattushili, Hittite king (r. ca. 1650–1620 b.c.e.) who is credited with founding the Hittite Old Kingdom and who was responsible for the early expansion of Hittite influence throughout Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and other parts of the ancient Near East. Khattushili was a prince of the royal house of Kussara, who established his capital at the city of Khattusha around 1620 b.c.e.When the remainder of the Kussaran kingdom fell as a result of rebellion and invasion by the Hurrians, Khattushili was left ruler of a new independent kingdom. Khattushili adopted his ruling name, which means “man of Khattusha,” upon founding his new kingdom. He also appears to have adopted the name “Labarna,” a royal title conferred upon all later Hittite kings. Much of what scholars know about Khattashili is drawn from just three ancient Hittite documents— the Annals, the Testament, and the Proclamation. A warrior-king, Khattushili spent much of his reign conquering or raiding other territories, extending Hittite power from the capital at Khattusha to the Cilician Gates, a mountain pass in southern Anatolia. In the process of conquest, he destroyed a number of cities, including the ancient trading center of Alalakh in Syria. Khattushili also pushed further into Syria, crossed the Euphrates River, and even recaptured the old capital of Kussara. While he was on campaign against the kingdom of Arzawa in western Anatolia, the Hurrians invaded the old Hittite kingdom, conquering much of its territory with the exception of the capital of Khattusha. Khattushili cut short his conquests and returned to retake his kingdom. A strong ruler, Khattushili consolidated Hittite power, providing a basis for later rulers to extend Hittite influence even further throughout the ancient Near East.While on campaign against Aleppo around 1600 b.c.e., it appears that Khattushili received a wound from which he later died. His grandson, Murshili I (r. ca. 1600–1590 b.c.e.), succeeded to the throne. See also: Hittite Empire.

493

FURTHER READING

Bryce, Trevor. The Kingdom of the Hittites. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Macqueen, J.G. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Rev. ed. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1986.

KHAZAR KINGDOM (flourished 600s–900s C.E.)

Turkish kingdom in the steppelands of Central Asia, located between the Caspian and Black seas and bordered by the Caucasus Mountains in the south. The Turkic-speaking Khazars established a successful commercial empire by the end of the eighth century. In the middle of that century, the leaders of the nation imposed Judaism as the state religion.

EARLY HISTORY Sometime in the seventh century, the Turkic tribes known as the Khazars (sometimes also known as the Khabars or Kadars) traveled across the Caucasus Mountains and settled in the broad lands between the Dnieper River and the Caspian Sea. Within the next hundred years, the Khazars built a capital city, Itil, on the banks of the river of the same name (the modern-day Volga River).They also began to build a commercial empire on the fertile and relatively unpopulated lands north of the Caucasus, enjoying the cultural vigor nurtured by their diversity. The Khazars first appeared on the world stage around 627 as allies of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), to whom their kagan (king) lent 40,000 cavalry to assist in the destruction of the Persian Empire.At this time, however, the Khazars had not yet established dominion north of the Caucasus region, and they were just one of many Turkic-speaking nomadic tribes. Early in its history, the Khazar kingdom faced many military challenges from the rising power of Islam. Within thirty years of the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 622, the Arabs were attacking the great land barrier of the Caucasus—at the same time that they were attacking the equally formidable barrier of the Pyrenees Mountains on the Iberian Peninsula far to the west. Unlike the Pyrenees, however, the Caucasus boasted two fairly accessible paths through the mountains—a pass known as the Dar-

494

Khazar Kingdom

band Gate and a narrow passage along the western shore of the Caspian Sea. The Arabs succeeded in breaching Darband at least twice and made incursions deep into the Khazar region, once as far as the Dnieper River. However, the young and vital Khazar kingdom forced the Muslim invaders back each time after great battles involving thousands of soldiers. In 652, the highly skilled Muslim leader, Abd alRahman, was defeated by the Khazars on the banks of the Caspian Sea, bringing the first wave of Islamic invasions to a close. This defeat of the Muslims also—and almost incidentally—saved the Byzantine Empire as well by preventing the Arabs from crossing the Caucasus Mountains and approaching Byzantium from the north.

BUILDING THE KINGDOM After stopping the initial Muslim threat in the mid600s, the Khazars consolidated their empire, defeating the Bulgars, Magyars, and various seminomadic tribes that occupied the trans-Caucasus region. It was also during this time that the Khazars built their soon-to-be magnificent capital on the banks of the the River Itil. In 722, seventy years after the last Arab incursion, the Khazars struck back at the Muslims, invading Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and reaching as far

south as Mosul (in present-day Iraq). Unable to hold their advance, however, the Khazars retreated back behind the safe wall of the Caucasus Mountains.Thus began fifteen years of invasions and retreats, as the Khazars would move south but then retreated, and the Arabs moved north in retaliation but then also retreated. This second period of warfare against the Muslims came to an end in the mid-700s. Soon after taking the throne, Marwan II (r. 744–750), the Muslim caliph of the Ummayad dynasty, successfully crossed the Caucasus Mountains, and persuaded the Khazar kagan to accept Muhammad as God’s Prophet. The Khazar conversion to Islam seems not to have been wholly sincere, however. Sometime in the following sixty years, an even more remarkable religiouspolitical event occurred in Khazaria—the Khazars converted to Judaism.

CONVERSION TO JUDAISM One of the best contemporaneous sources for information about the Khazar conversion to Judaism is the Muslim historian and chronicler al-Masudi, who reported that the king of the Khazars and all his court were converted to Judaism during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809) of the Abbasid dynasty. Although this Jewish conversion of a monarchy

ROYAL RITUALS

LEGACY OF THE KHAZAR CONVERSION Although the Khazar conversion to Judaism began with only the royal family and court in the eighth century, by the end of the tenth century, Arab chroniclers were describing the Khazars as “all Jews.” As the kingdom of Khazaria succumbed to pressures from the Rus kingdoms from the north and then to invasions by the Mongols from the east, they migrated into Hungary. At the end of the kingdom, accompanying the outbreak of bubonic plague in the mid-1300s, most of the remaining Khazars fled what was left of their ravaged homeland and settled in the Ukraine and Poland. These migrations, involving vast movements of people, helped to shape the future of Jewry in Europe by populating Eastern Europe with large numbers of migrant Jews. As a result, some scholars contend that the majority of non-Sephardic Jews today could eventually trace their ancestry back to these same peoples.

Khmer Empire had no precedent in the medieval world, it made a good deal of political sense for the Khazars. The Khazars had long enjoyed a good relationship with the Christian Byzantine court, occasionally even supplying a royal wife and heir. But the sometimes belligerent creed of the Byzantines always posed a potential threat. Despite occasional periods of warfare, the Muslim Arabs of Georgia, Armenia, and the Trans-oxus region were important trading partners of the Khazars and not to be angered unnecessarily. Both the Muslims and Khazars had attempted religious proselytization numerous times and would probably take conversion to the “other” religion as reason enough for war. On the other hand, Khazaria had long been a refuge for Jews escaping persecution by the papacy in Rome and the patriarch of Byzantium.The Judaic community was wealthy and influential in Itil long before the kagan accepted Muhammad as his Prophet. Conversion to Judaism—a religion that shared elements with both Islam and Christianity— seemed a good solution to a sticky problem. Coming originally from the culturally diverse Anatolian Peninsula, the Khazars embraced the many customs and cultures that surrounded them.A complex seven-court system was established, which included two courts for Muslims, two for Christians, two for Jews, and one for heathens.Appeals to the judgments of these courts were handled by one of the Muslim courts, as Islamic jurisprudence was considered the most effective of that time. As might be inferred from this unusually open-minded judicial system, freedom of religion was encouraged throughout Khazaria. The unique religious tolerance of Khazaria benefited the kingdom. This tolerance, together with the strategic geographical position of Khazaria—Russians and Vikings to the north, Islam to the South, Byzantium (Christians) to the southwest, and Asia to the east—contributed to making the kingdom, and particularly the capital of Itil, enormously prosperous by the late eighth century.

LAST DAYS OF THE KINGDOM After their conversion to Judaism, the Khazars enjoyed more than a century of prosperity and peace. As the tenth century wore on, however, raids by the Rus principalities increased. In 965, the nowwealthy and sophisticated Khazars suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of the ruler of the Kievan Rus.

495

After this defeat, Khazaria began a long and steady decline. For the next 200 years, the relatively cultured and refined state of the Khazars suffered numerous defeats and reverses on all fronts.The Kievans continued pushing from the west, and the Viking Rus struck all along the length of the Volga River to the Caspian Sea.The Khazars also faced renewed raids by Arabs across the Caucasus and from the southeast, and even their sometime allies, the Byzantines, did whatever they could to weaken Khazaria. By the time the bubonic plague struck the area in the mid-fourteenth century, there had not been a coherent Khazar kingdom for more than a hundred years. Nevertheless, this remarkable state had made its mark on history, both by halting the eastern advance of the Muslims into Byzantine lands and by contributing to the future of the Jewish people. See also: Byzantine Empire; Caliphates; Kiev, Princedom of; Rus Princedoms. FURTHER READING

Frazer, Sir James George. The Golden Bough:A Study in Magic and Religion. Abridged ed. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002. Soucek, Svatopluk. A History of Inner Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

KHMER EMPIRE (500s–1400s C.E.) Ancient kingdom of Southeast Asia that once ruled most of the Indochinese Peninsula. The kingdom flourished from the ninth to the fifteenth century, with its capital at Angkor.

RISE OF THE EMPIRE During the sixth century, the Cambodians, or Khmers, created an empire in the general area of present-day Cambodia and Laos. It was split during the eighth century and reunited early in the ninth century under King Jayavarman II (r. 802–834). During the next six centuries, a period sometimes referred to as the “golden age” of the Khmer Empire, its area expanded in the east to where Thailand is today, in the south to the Mekong River delta, and in the north into Laos.The capital was set up at Angkor (which actually means “capital”), in northwestern Cambodia, under the rule of King Yasovarman I (r. 889–900).

496

Khmer Empire

Angkor Thom, one of the notable architectural achievements of the Khmer Empire, served as its last capital. Built in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries during the reign of Jayavarman VII, Angkor Thom included residences for priests and officials, a number of temples, and other public buildings.The fortified city was enclosed by a wall that measured 26 feet high and a moat 328 feet wide.

ANGKOR ERA The Khmer culture and religion were largely influenced by Indian and Buddhist practices, both of which deified the king. During the Angkor era, from the ninth to the fifteenth century, the arts blossomed as the Khmer court attracted a large number of Indian scholars, artists, and religious teachers, and supported Sanskrit literature. The most significant cultural accomplishments of the Khmer Empire were in sculpture and architecture. Sculpture evolved to include far more than statues in the round—sculptures standing freely to be viewed from all directions. Bas-reliefs—sculptures carved from a flat surface so that they project a little from the background—became very important, portraying Khmer life vividly and in rich detail on nearly every wall of later Khmer monuments.

Angkor Wat From the late 800s to early 1200s, many big construction projects were completed. As a result,

Angkor had one of the greatest complexes of buildings in the world. Perhaps the most renowned example of Khmer architecture was the temple of Angkor Wat (“wat” means “monastery”), built as the state temple under Suryavarman II (r. 1113–1150) and considered the most beautiful Khmer monument, both architecturally and ornamentally. The area around Angkor Wat, on the plain of modern-day Siemreap province north of the Tonle Sap Great Lake, became the center of Khmer civilization.

Angkor Thom A few miles north of Angkor Wat—and also famous for its architecture—was the town of Angkor Thom, whose elaborate monuments were erected under Jayavarman VII (r. 1181–1218). Before he became king, Jayavarman VII won the country back from Champa (a kingdom within present-day Vietnam), which had sacked Angkor in 1177. Jayavarman was a strong king, whose rule started a new era of Khmer conquests as well as significant advances in architec-

Khmer Empire

497

ROYAL PLACES

ANGKOR THOM Built around 1200, the Khmer town of Angkor Thom—with its temple, the Bayon, at the exact center—is the masterpiece of Jayavarman VII’s reign. Sometimes referred to as the “walled city,” it was a vast rectangular complex (over 2,000 acres) surrounded by more than seven miles of walls and a moat. It had five roads that led to five gateways in the city walls. The name Angkor Thom means “Angkor the great,” and indeed it was seen as the source of all the Khmer Empire’s treasures, blessings, and opulence. It is thought that more than 100,000 people lived there at its peak. Irrigated rice fields bordering the city were a source of food, and large reservoirs provided drinking water. The Bayon temple at Angkor Thom was very complex. Consisting of as many as 200,000 enormous blocks of stone formed into flowing sculptures, it was apparently built without mortar or cement.The rich symbolism of its sculptures established it as a temple devoted to Buddhism and dedicated to all the other divinities of the Khmer Empire. The Bayon also portrayed aspects of day-to-day human life through bas-reliefs on its inner and outer walls.These sculptural reliefs illustrated historical events, such as the Khmer combating an enemy, as well as everyday scenes, such as a man fishing and people preparing meals. Although many of the bas-reliefs are in poor condition today, enough of the scenes remain visible to offer a dynamic and poignant view of the Khmer civilization.

ture and sculpture. He also was a religiously devout ruler, who declared a new form of Buddhism, called Mahayana, to be the state religion. Its main purpose was to appeal to more followers and expand religious authority to a greater number of people. Apparently very moved by the suffering of his people, Jayavarman VII ruled with great compassion, and this was reflected in some of the Buddhist art of the period. Jayavarman VII constructed numerous monuments—probably more than those of all his predecessors combined. They included many temples in both the capital of Angkor and the provinces. There is also evidence that Jayavarman had more than 100 hospitals built, another indication of how much he cared about the well-being of his people.

DECLINE OF THE EMPIRE Because of all his accomplishments, Jayavarman VII is considered the greatest of the Khmer rulers. However, his zeal to vanquish and build may have over-

whelmed and sapped the energy of his kingdom and its people.While the empire reached unprecedented heights during his reign, no significant monuments were constructed in Angkor afterward, and some people who opposed his imposition of Mahayana Buddhism as the state religion destroyed images of the Buddha on his monuments during the rule of Jayavarman’s successors. The Khmer Empire eventually weakened, as new powers with expansionist aims emerged in Southeast Asia as threats to the Khmer.After the creation of the Ayuthaya kingdom in nearby Thailand, the Thais attacked Angkor repeatedly and weakened Khmer power in the eastern part of the empire. In 1434, the Thais captured Angkor, and the Khmers moved their capital moved south to Phnom Penh, signaling the end of the golden age of the Khmer Empire. After that, the Thais and Khmers deserted Angkor, leaving much of the formerly booming capital to be taken over by the jungle.

498

Khmer Empire

See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Cambodian Kingdoms; Champa Kingdom FURTHER READING

Dagens, Bruno. Angkor: Heart of an Asian Empire. New York: Abrams, 1995. Zephir, Thierry. Khmer: The Lost Empire of Cambodia. New York: Abrams, 1998.

Two of his probable sons, Radjedef (r. 2615– 2605 b.c.e.) and Khafre (r. 2605–2580 b.c.e.), succeeded him as pharaoh. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Before Eighteenth Dynasty).

KHWARAZM-SHAH DYNASTY KHUFU (ca. 2600 B.C.E.) Egyptian king (r. ca. 2640–2615 b.c.e.) of the Fourth Dynasty, known as Cheops in Greek, who built the Great Pyramid at Giza. Khufu inherited the throne of Egypt from Sneferu (r. ca. 2680–2640 b.c.e.), the founder of the Fourth dynasty, when he was already a middle-aged man. Nevertheless, he chose to embark upon a building project unparalleled in scope, even among the massive funerary structures of Egypt—a huge pyramid at Giza on the west bank of the Nile River. Khufu’s vizier, Hemiunu, was responsible for ensuring that the king’s tomb was properly prepared, and it is likely that a whole village of skilled workmen and craftspeople grew up around the enormous building site. These workmen may also have labored on Khufu’s lesser-known building projects, including a fleet of massive boats over 120 feet long, built of precious cedarwood, that were to be used by the king in the afterlife. Little is known of Khufu’s life. Soon after his death, his pyramid was looted, leaving little evidence of his reign. Remaining tomb inscriptions indicate that he probably led military expeditions into the Sinai, Libya, and Nubia. Khufu ruled for perhaps twenty-three or twenty-four years, and the ancient Greek historian Herodotus described him as a merciless despot. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Khufu employed any massive slave force to build his own enormous pyramid, his boats, or any of the three smaller pyramids that were erected for Khufu’s queens. Rather, it seems likely that descriptions such as that of Herodotus, made 2,000 years after Khufu was laid in his monumental tomb, were merely reactions to the Great Pyramid’s awesome size. Herodotus also credits Khufu with writing the Sacred Books, but no document or record of these has survived in any form. Khufu had at least four wives and many children.

(1157–1231 C.E.)

Central Asian dynasty that first came to power as Seljuk governors but then ruled independently, eventually controlling central and eastern Iran,Transoxiania, and much of Afghanistan. In 1098, the Seljuk sultan of Iran, Barqyaruq (r. 1094–1105) appointed Qudbaddin Muhammad as governor of the province of Khwarazm. The first governor of the Khwarasm-Shah dynasty, Qudbaddin (r. 1098–1128) died in 1128, and his son, Atsiz (r. 1128–1156), was made governor by Seljuk Sultan Sanjar (r. 1118–1157). Financed by heavy taxation,Atsiz began conquering strategic cities. Concerned by Atsiz’s heavy-handed rule, Sanjar fought him three times. Although Atsiz’s forces were defeated, Sanjar let Atsiz continue ruling because the Kara-Khitai people were invading the province.The Kara-Khitai destroyed Sanjar’s army and took the Suljuk ruler prisoner. Soon after, in 1141, Atsiz declared independence. When Sanjar later escaped the Kara-Khitai, Atsiz resubmitted to Seljuk rule. Atsiz died in 1156 and was succeeded by his son Il-Arslan (r. 1156–1172). In 1157, Il-Arslan again proclaimed independence from the Seljuks. He defeated the Kara-Khitai and the Qarakhanids, a Central Asian Turkish dynasty, and captured the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand. Upon Il-Arslan’s death in 1172, his son, Alaeddin Tekish, assumed the throne. Alaeddin Tekish (r. 1172–1200) again defeated the Kara-Khitai, as well as the Kipchaks, another Central Asian group. In 1183, he captured the province of Khorasan and several years later, in 1194, he overthrew the Iraqi Seljuks. Tekish then took the fort of Arslan-Gusha, one of the vital forts of the Assassins, a violent Muslim group that terrorized parts of Central Asia. When Alaeddin Tekish died in 1200, his son, Alaeddin Muhammad (r. 1200–1220) took the throne.

K i e v, P r i n c e d o m o f In 1214, Alaeddin Muhammad destroyed the Kara-Khitai Empire and, soon after, the Gurid sultanate of India. He also signed a treaty with the Mongol ruler, Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227), in 1218. As a peace gesture, Genghis sent a caravan to Khwarazm, but the merchants were murdered and the emissaries humiliated on the way by a provincial governor in the Khwarazm state. Infuriated, Genghis invaded Khwarazm in 1219 and the next year, he captured the cities of Bukhara, Samarkand, Jend, Khokand, and Urgench. Alaeddin Muhammad died in exile in 1220. Jalalal-Din Mangubarti (1220–1231) came to the throne, but the Seljuk sultan, Alaeddin Qaykubad I (r. 1219– 1237) defeated his forces in 1230 at the battle of Yassi Chemen. Jalal-al-Din was murdered in 1231, thus ending the Khwarazm-Shah dynasty. See also: Asian Dynasties, Central; Genghis Khan; Seljuq Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Seaman, Gary, and Daniel Marks. Rulers from the Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery. Los Angeles: Ethnographics Press, Center for Visual Anthropology, University of Southern California, 1991. Soucek, Svatopluk. A History of Inner Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

KIEV, PRINCEDOM OF (ca. 910–1240 C.E.)

Medieval principality that dominated the region in Russia around the Dnieper and Volga rivers from the ninth to the thirteenth century; also referred to as Kievan Rus or Kievan Russia. In the tenth century, the city of Kiev on the Dnieper River became an important commercial center for a region dominated by the Riurikid dynasty. The Riurikids were descendants of Rurik, a Rus prince who founded the dynasty in Novgorod in the late 800s and quickly came to dominate the Slavic tribes of the region. Oleg, regent for Rurik’s son or descendant Igor, seized Kiev around 910 and established a new state, the Kievan Rus. Oleg (r. 910–941) united the eastern Slavs and freed them from control by the nomadic Khazars. Upon Oleg’s death, Rurik’s son Igor (r. 941–945) became prince of Kiev.

499

Rurik’s great-grandsons, Vladimir (r. 978–1015) and Iaropolk (r. 972–978), ruled as princes of Novgorod and Kiev, respectively, in the late 900s and early 1000s. War between the brothers resulted in Vladimir becoming prince of Kiev as well in 980. Vladimir continued his conquest of the region, becoming sole ruler of the Kievan Rus within a few years. During Vladimir’s reign, the Kievan Rus changed from a tribal-based system to one of princely rule. He established his sons as governors of the various regions under his control, and he regarded the entire land as belonging to his family. Vladimir also introduced Greek Orthodox Christianity to Kievan Russia, after an initial failed attempt to unify worship of the various Norse, Slavic, Finnish, and Iranian gods worshiped by the disparate peoples of his principality. By 988, Byzantine clergy were active in Kiev, and missionaries traveled to all parts of Vladimir’s domain. Vladimir did not establish a unified country under a single ruler. Each of his sons inherited a part of the realm, and as the family expanded, so did the number of principalities, although the idea of the Kievan Rus as a single entity was never lost.Among the chief principalities were Kiev, Chernigov, Smolensk, and Novgorod. The last named was a city of great commercial importance to the Baltic region, conducting trade with Scandinavia and northern Germany. Vladimir’s son Yaroslav (r. 1019–1054), called Yaroslav the Wise, inherited Novgorod but seized Kiev from his brother Svyatopolk (r. 1015–1019) and presided over the high point of Kievan culture. He made Kiev a political, religious, and cultural capital, building a cathedral, ordering books translated from Greek into Slavic, and revising the law code. During his reign, relations between Russia and the Byzantine Empire worsened for a time. In 1043, Kiev even sent an army and a fleet to attack Constantinople, but the expedition failed and friendly relations were established again by 1052.Yaroslav left his realm to his sons as a group, and although there were periods of peaceful shared rule, they also fought among themselves. Despite such internal conflicts, Kiev remained the center of the realm. Throughout the eleventh century the princes were capable of uniting under Kiev’s leadership against external threat. Within the Riurikid dynasty, the senior member of the eldest generation was supposed to hold the throne of Kiev.

500

K i e v, P r i n c e d o m o f

This system led to dynastic conflict in the twelfth century, which continued through the thirteenth and eventually weakened the Kievan Rus. The instability in Kievan Russia left it vulnerable to threats from outside. In 1237, the Mongols launched an invasion of Russia and sacked a number of cities, including Moscow. A besieged Kiev fell to the Mongols in December 1240.The Mongols devastated Kievan Russia, destroying its agricultural and commercial base, and leaving many cities in ruin. Kiev’s era of dominance ended with the Mongol sack of the city, which also marked the end of the Kievan Rus. The Riurikid dynasty remained the rulers of Russia, however, and continued the custom of giving precedence to the senior prince, who thereafter ruled the city of Vladimir as grand prince. The khans of the Golden Horde (as the Russian Mongol realm was called) regarded the Riurikid princes as their subordinates, confirming or denying their right to rule. In the fourteenth century, the princes of Moscow and Vladimir held the title of grand prince and the dominant position in Russia, both under the Mongols and afterward. See also: Mongol Empire; Riurikid Dynasty; Russian Dynasties. FURTHER READING

Freeze, Gregory L., ed. Russia: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. A History of Russia. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Vernadsky, George. Kievan Russia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.

KILLING. See Regicide KINGDOMS AND EMPIRES Areas of land that are governed by a common ruler. The term empire has its origins in ancient Rome, but today it refers to any realm containing several subject kingdoms ruled by vassals who were answerable to an emperor. For example, King Herod the Great of Judaea (r. 37–4 b.c.e.) was a vassal to Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), the emperor of Rome.The common people usually held such vassal kings in great con-

tempt because they profited from imperial domination by dictating laws that were often unpopular and at odds with tradition. In addition, they often imposed harsh taxation to exact tribute. In some cases, as in that of Herod, the vassal king was not even from the kingdom that he ruled and was thus regarded as an intruder as much as was the emperor. Some kingdoms were entirely independent from an empire; these included many medieval and Renaissance kingdoms such as Spain.The monarchs who ruled these kingdoms often needed to be strong or faced the danger of being overrun by other kingdoms and empires. Such was the case with eighteenthcentury Poland. By the early eighteenth century, the power of Poland’s kings had become so limited by the nobility that they could not provide even the basics of defense. Consequently, Poland eventually became a satellite of other nations, in particular Russia, and in the late eighteenth century it was annexed piecemeal by Russia, Prussia, and Austria. See also: Emperors and Empresses; Imperial Rule; Kings and Queens.

KINGLY BODY The physical body and its biological processes both unite monarchs with the humblest of their subjects and provide many opportunities for reinforcing the special nature of monarchs and monarchies. Those who serve a ruler’s bodily needs often wield political power, particularly in polities that do not have a governmental bureaucracy. A biblical example is Nehemiah, who went from being a cupbearer to the Persian king to an appointment as governor of the Jewish territory. Early modern English rulers employed their Grooms of the Stool, servants charged with the monarch’s excretions, as confidential agents and even treasurers.

BEAUTY AND UGLINESS IN MONARCHICAL BODIES Physical perfection can be important in a ruler. Some societies have barred persons with conspicuous physical defects from rulership. (Eunuchs, in particular, have been banned from formal rule.) When Byzantine emperors were overthrown, if they were not killed they were often blinded or otherwise mutilated.When Justinian II (r. 685–695) was overthrown in 695, his

K i n g ly B ody nose was cut off to signify his loss of power (though he regained the throne in 705 and ruled to 711). Kings with poor reputations (like other people with poor reputations) were often said to be physically deformed or inadequate.The alleged physical deformities of Richard III of England (r. 1483–1485), “Crookback Dick,” were exaggerated after his death. Condemned for murdering his nephews and usurping the throne, he became the royal monster par excellence for English writers under the succeeding Tudor dynasty. Good kings, by contrast, were often presented as models of physical perfection. The Byzantine princess and historian Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Alexius I (r. 1081–1118), wrote about the father she idolized, emphasizing the effect his physical qualities had on those who met or beheld him and the links between his physique and his power to command: Alexius was not a very tall man, but broadshouldered and yet well proportioned. . . . when one saw the grim flash of his eyes . . . he reminded one of a fiery whirlwind, so overwhelming was the radiance that emanated from his countenance and his whole presence. . . . The man’s person indeed radiated beauty and grace and dignity and an unapproachable majesty. Conventions of royal art have often treated mon-

501

archs’ bodies in an idealized fashion. The Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten (r. ca. 1350–1334 b.c.e.) broke with conventions of Egyptian art, which portrayed the pharaoh in a standardized and ideal way, to have himself portrayed as a pot-bellied, thin-legged, slightly grotesque man. Ironically, this became a new physical standard, and Akhenaten’s courtiers had their own appearance recorded to resemble the appearance of the pharaoh.

THE GENDERED ROYAL BODY Gender affected the royal body in many ways. Both male and female royal bodies were often associated with the fertility of the land. In early modern Europe, monarchical art often discreetly stressed the monarch’s penis, particularly when depicting royal infants. In this case, the penis signified both fertility and membership in the ruling political gender. Fertility was even more important for queen consorts, central to whose responsibility was the bringing forth of heirs. Queens sometimes emphasized their (clothed) breasts in portraiture, displaying themselves as “nursing mothers” of their families and kingdoms. The virgin queen, Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603), followed a different strategy, presenting herself in a famous speech during the Spanish Armada crisis of 1588 as androgynous. Elizabeth

ROYAL RITUALS

THE FUNERAL OF HENRY VII OF ENGLAND After the death of Henry VII in 1509, his body was embalmed, encased in lead, and placed in a coffin. The king’s body was represented during the ceremonies by an effigy, or statue, in a recumbent position on top of the coffin.The effigy held the symbols of kingship, the orb and scepter, all under a cloth of gold. After a processional involving knights carrying banners and a throng of over fourteen hundred mourners and nearly seven hundred torchholders, the king’s coffin and effigy were placed in St. Paul’s Cathedral in London with a solemn requiem and then removed the next day to Westminster Abbey, where the final interment took place. After the coffin was lowered into a vault, heralds cried (in French, the formal language of state occasions in England at that time): “The noble King, King Henry the Seventh is dead! Long Live the noble king Henry VIII!” Henry’s successor, his son Henry VIII, was not present at his father’s funeral.This was common protocol, for the old king was not viewed as being fully dead until burial.

502

K i n g ly B ody

claimed to combine the body of a woman with the “heart and stomach of a king.”

ROYAL CORPSES AND THEIR POWERS A ruler’s dead body could be honored or execrated. Kingly bodies were usually buried or otherwise disposed of with honors, but in some cases they received the opposite treatment. The usurping Byzantine emperor Phocas (r. 602–610) had the bodies of his predecessors, the emperor Maurice (r. 582–602), his sons, and closest followers dragged through the streets and burned. A ruler’s remains were sometimes considered unworthy of representing him or her at the last rites. Many European medieval or early modern monarchical funerals used an effigy placed on top of the coffin containing the remains to represent the kingly body. (This custom was not restricted to monarchs.) The parts of a dead ruler’s body were sometimes claimed to have magical or religious powers. The blood of the “martyr king” of England, Charles I (r. 1625–1649), beheaded in 1649, was sopped up in cloths that Royalists then claimed had healing powers. Some West African Yoruba communities practiced ritual cannibalism to create a physical continuity between an Oba, a local ruler, and his predecessor. Obas are elected monarchs, and the new Oba is not the son of the old one. Igemo chiefs, a priestly group, removed the tongue and heart of the Oba soon after his death, and they were served to the new Oba as part of the accession ceremony. The dead Oba’s head was also removed, and in some communities the new Oba drank maize gruel from the skull. This led to controversy in 1960, where the old Oba of the community of Orangun was the first Muslim to serve in the position. His family, also Muslim, claimed that the cutting off of his head violated Islamic law. In a compromise, the head was not removed from the body, but other traditional Yoruba ceremonies took place. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Bodies, Politic and Natural; Funerals and Mortuary Rituals; Gender and Kingship; Grooms of the Stool; Healing Powers of Kings; Sacral Birth and Death. FURTHER READING

Anglo, Sydney. Images of Tudor Kingship. London: Seby, 1992.

Bertelli, Sergio. The King’s Body: Sacred Rituals of Power in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Trans. R. Burr Litchfield. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001. Comnena,Anna. The Alexiad of Anna Comnena:Being the History of the Reign of Her Father,Alexius I, Emperor of the Romans, 1081–1118 A.D. Trans. Elizabeth A. S. Dawes. New York: Kegan Paul, 2003. Finer, S. E. The History of Government from the Earliest Times. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pemberton, John, and Funso S. Afolayan. Yoruba Sacred Kingship:A Power Like That of the Gods. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996.

KINGS AND QUEENS The rulers of a particular region, or realm. Often, these rulers are believed to be appointed by God, or their right to rule is hereditary. Kingship is an ancient form of rule, going back thousands of years in societies such as those in ancient Mesopotamia and China. Many cultures have had kings or queens at some time, although both ancient Greece and ancient Rome had a history of representative government.

EARLY EVIDENCE OF KINGSHIP Among the earliest surviving documents of antiquity are king-lists—rosters of kings with occasional notes on their achievements. Such lists are found in numerous cultures around the world, from the king-lists of ancient Sumeria in Mesopotamia, which date from the early second millennium b.c.e., to lists of the Pictish kings of ancient and early medieval Scotland. King-lists are often unreliable as sources of dates, citing impossibly long reigns for the earliest kings, but they are important for noting a ruler’s important achievements, and they provide some sense of what each culture valued.The Sumerian king-lists cite five dynasties before a Great Flood, and many of the kings named are possibly legendary. The listings of later rulers, however, note reigns of more reasonable length, and the Sumerian king-lists become more credible as a source of historical information. Similarly, an early historian at the court of the Han dynasty (207 b.c.e.–220 c.e.) in China, Suma Qian, provides only a skeletal listing of the rulers of the semi-legendary Xia dynasty and only occasionally provides important information about them.

Ko g u ryo K i n g d o m HEREDITARY BASIS OF KINGSHIP Throughout history, monarchs have generally come from the ruling class or aristocracy of a society. In some cases, kings or queens are chosen by the aristocracy in an election of some sort, but in most countries, the right of succession to the throne is hereditary. Some societies may practice matrilineal inheritance, in which the king inherits through the maternal line. In most cases, however, inheritance and succession to the throne are patrilineal, through the male line; if there is no son to inherit, the throne may go to the king’s brother or a male cousin.

RELIGIOUS BASIS OF KINGSHIP In many cultures, kingship has a religious basis. In ancient Sumeria, for example, kingship was said to have descended from heaven. Similarly, both the Egyptian pharaohs and the emperors of Rome were exalted as gods. God also appointed the kings of ancient Israel; the Old Testament tells how the prophet Samuel first anointed Saul (r. 1020–1010 b.c.e.), and then David (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.), as king of the Israelites. In ancient China, although the state did not impose any particular religion, the emperor was nonetheless perceived as an intercessor between the ordinary people and heaven. As late as World War II, the Japanese emperor was still considered a god, and even today, a Shinto-oriented, war museum in Japan claims that the emperor Hirohito (r. 1926–1989) never renounced his divinity, as Westerners believe, and remains a divine being. In Christian Europe, from the early Middle Ages to today, the anointing and coronation of a monarch are performed by a bishop, signifying the bond between religion and kingship.

MILITARY BASIS OF KINGSHIP In earliest times, a monarch needed to have strong military skills as well as the ability to govern. For example, with the invasions of Europe by Germanic tribes beginning in the first centuries c.e., European monarchs needed to be able to defend their country, and much of a monarch’s legitimacy was based on his qualities as a warrior.This remained true throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and, in some countries, well into the Renaissance. In contrast, a king who would not, or could not, fight when necessary risked being deposed or conquered by a stronger warrior. Because monarchs led their armies into battle and

503

frequently conquered the countries they ruled, a king often held more power than a queen, who may have served only as a consort.Women, however, also ruled in their own right, and in some cases, they even rode with their armies, as did Eleanor of Aquitaine in the twelfth century and Isabella I of Spain (r. 1474–1504) in the sixteenth century.

WOMEN RULERS With the establishment of the European nation-state beginning in the Renaissance, women rulers became more accepted, if infrequent. From the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, Europe saw a number of powerful queens, including Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603); Maria Theresa of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary (r. 1740–1780); and Catherine the Great of Russia (r. 1762–1796). Although female rulers were rare in the Near East and Asia, China saw two great female rulers, the Empress Wu (r. 690–705) and Dowager Empress Tz’u Hsi (Cixi) (r. 1874–1908), and Japan had several women rulers in the early periods of its history. See also: Dynasty; Kingdoms and Empires; Queens and Queen Mothers; Realms, Types of; Royal Families; Succession, Royal. FURTHER READING

Miller, Townsend. The Castles and the Crown: Spain 1451–1555. New York: Coward-McCann, 1986. Weir, Alison. The Wars of the Roses. New York: Ballantine, 1996.

KIPCHAK KHANATE. See Golden Horde Khanate

KNUT. See Cnut I, the Great KOGURYO KINGDOM (ca. 37 B.C.E.–667 C.E.)

The first of Korea’s three early native kingdoms. Koguryo was established in 37 b.c.e. when a tribe from the Puyo state in Manchuria forcefully occupied a large region of land that extended from Man-

504

Ko g u ryo K i n g d o m

churia’s eastern border to the northern Korean Peninsula. Initially, the settlers did not develop a cohesive economy or society, but instead staged repeated raids on neighboring China to obtain food and material goods.These raids fostered a permanent enmity between Koguryo and China.

Kings of Koguryo Tong-myong

37–19 b.c.e.

Yu-ri

19–18

AN EMERGING POWER

Tae-mu-sin

18 b.c.e.–44 c.e.

During the first century c.e., King Taejo (r. 53–146) emerged as Koguryo’s first major ruler. He aggressively expanded the borders of the kingdom, first by conquering Okcho to the southeast and then by annexing Chinese holdings in the northwest part of the Korean Peninsula. Taejo allowed local leaders in these regions to retain authority in return for large tributary payments of rice and other agricultural products. These tributes were essential to Koguryo because much of the kingdom’s mountainous terrain was not arable. Taejo also consolidated his power. Before his accession, the rulers of Koguryo were elected from among a few elite families. However, Taejo decreed that the throne would pass from brother to brother and remain within his family, the Kyeru-bus. To preserve his authority, Taejo also instituted a system of regional governors, who answered directly to him and collected local tributes. During Taejo’s reign, the first formal laws of Koguryo were enacted. These laws provided harsh penalties for murder, assault, theft, and female adultery.Wives could also be punished for overt acts of jealousy. When King Kogukchon (r. 179–197) assumed the throne in 179, he revised Taejo’s rule of succession; the Crown would now pass from father to son rather than from brother to brother. He also divided Koguryo into five distinct provinces dependent upon the central government. Most significantly, under Kogukchon, Koguryo again sought to absorb additional land. In 313, under King Michon (r. 300–331), Koguryo conquered the Chinese military outpost at Lolang. During this period, the rival Korean kingdom of Paekche also overthrew the Chinese fortification of Taifang. With the conquest of these two outposts, China was expelled from the Korean Peninsula, and both Koguryo and Paekche emerged as the region’s major powers.

Min-jung

44–48

Mo-bon

48–53

T’ae-jo

53–146

Ch’a-dae

146–165

Sin-dae

165–179

Ko-guk-ch’on

179–197

San-sang

197–227

Tong-ch’on

227–248

Chung-ch’on

248–270

So-ch’on

270–292

Pong-sang

292–300

Mi-Ch’on

300–331

Ko-gug-won

331–371

So-su-rim

371–384

Ko-gug-yang

384–391

Kwang-gae-t’o

391–413

Chang-su

413–492

Mun-ja

492–519

An-jang

519–531

An-won

531–545

Yang-won

545–559

Pyong-won

559–590

Yong-yang

590–618

Yong-yu

618–642

Po-jang

642–668

CONFLICT AND RECOVERY Conflict between Koguryo and Paekche erupted in 371, when Paekche invaded Koguryo, captured the

Ko g u ryo K i n g d o m city of Pyongyang, and killed King Kogugwon (r. 331–371). The defeat severely weakened Koguryo, but it also allowed the society of the kingdom to be transformed. In 372, Kogugwon’s successor, King Sosurim (r. 371–384), adopted Buddhism as the state religion and used it to unify Koguryo spiritually. Sosurim also adopted many Confucian principles, and he modeled a new bureaucracy after the overriding Confucian belief in fidelity. In addition, Sosurim negotiated peace with the rival Paekche, providing the Koguryo army with an opportunity to recover from its devastating loss to that rival kingdom. Koguryo’s recovery occurred during the reign of King Kwanggaeto (r. 391–413). Kwanggaeto conquered the eastern Chinese province of Liao-tung, subjugated the Manchurians in the north, regained the territory lost to Paekche, and repelled a Japanese invasion of Silla, a neighboring Korean kingdom and Koguryo’s ally. His son, King Changsu (r. 413–492), maintained these conquests by negotiating with the rival Sui and Tang dynasties in China and preventing them from mounting a unified invasion of Koguryo. During Changsu’s reign, Koguryo experienced its greatest prosperity. Pyongyang, the kingdom’s new capital, quickly became an active commercial center, and a number of families in the city achieved great power and formed the highest level of society. Many were given government positions based on wealth

505

and heredity. In this manner, a social system emerged that was parallel to Silla’s “bone-rank,” in which birth determined one’s social position. Areas beyond Pyongyang were tightly controlled. Changsu divided Koguryo into administrative districts, each with its own fortress and governor to command the local military and bureaucracy. Appointed officials within these districts headed local villages, collecting taxes from the peasantry and arbitrating minor disputes. Although China posed a constant military threat to Koguryo, the kingdom—along with Paekche and Silla–enthusiastically imported Chinese goods and culture. But Koguryo also developed its own cultural institutions during its period of prosperity in the late 400s and 500s.The monarchy commissioned written national histories, while Buddhist monks wrote the hyangga—poetic songs that called for divine intervention in earthly events. Gilt bronze sculptures produced in Koguryo were also highly prized throughout the region.

CONFLICT WITH CHINA Conflict with China eventually interrupted Koguryo’s prosperity. In the late sixth and early seventh centuries, Koguryo sought an alliance with the Central Asian Turks to counter the growing power of China’s Sui dynasty. In response, the Sui emperor, Yang Ti (r. 604–617), launched a widespread inva-

ROYAL RITUALS

KOGURYO BURIALS Because wood was the primary building material in Koguryo, examples of Koguryo architecture no longer exist. However, Koguryo’s tombs reveal the great importance its monarchs placed on death and the afterlife.These tombs were elaborate rooms with vaulted ceilings carved into the earth. Each tomb was given a specific name, and the walls of each tomb were carefully painted to reflect its name. For example, the Tomb of the Four Spirits contains dazzling renditions of the azure dragon of the East, the white tiger of the West, the red phoenix of the South, and the tortoise and snake of the North. These paintings are often highly detailed and extremely realistic. Artists specialized in tomb painting, and several developed such widespread reputations that they traveled to Japan to paint both tombs and temples.

506

Ko g u ryo K i n g d o m

sion of Koguryo. In 612,Yang Ti led nearly a million soldiers in an attack upon Liaotung.When the attack failed, he ordered 300,000 of his soldiers to attack Pyongyang, but the Koguryo general Mundok ambushed the Chinese forces at the Salsu River. The Koguryo victory over the Sui forces was overwhelming; only 2,500 Chinese soldiers survived. After this defeat, the Sui dynasty rapidly dissolved. With the decline of the Sui dynasty, the Tang dynasty assumed control of China. Under the Tang emperor Tai Tsung (r. 626–649), the Chinese again prepared for a massive invasion of Koguryo.This renewed threat caused a severe political upheaval in Koguryo in 642. During this turbulence, general Yon Kaesomun seized control and assassinated the king of Koguryo, Yong Yu (r. 618–642). When the Chinese attacked in 645, they successfully destroyed several of the provincial fortresses, but Kaesomun’s forces defeated the Chinese at Anshih Fortress and the invaders were once again repelled. The costly victory, however, left the Koguryo forces irreparably weakened. Recognizing an opportunity to become the preeminent power on the Korean Peninsula, the kingdom of Silla joined forces with the Tang dynasty, and together, they eliminated Paekche in 660. Seven years later, they reunited and attacked Koguryo. Unable to resist this formidable alliance, the Koguryo forces crumbled and the area fell under Chinese and Silla control. Although refugees from Koguryo fled north and founded the Parhae kingdom, the Koguryo kingdom was effectively ended. Despite its final defeat, Koguryo had stubbornly repulsed two previous massive Chinese invasions. If either of these invasions had succeeded, China would have absorbed the Korean Peninsula into its empire. Instead, Koguryo’s resistance allowed Silla to develop its military strength. Although Silla used this strength against Koguryo, it also enabled Silla to preserve Korea’s autonomy. See also: Paekche Kingdom; Silla Kingdom; Sui Dynasty;T’ang Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Eckert, Carter J., et al. Korea Old and New. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Lee, Ki-baik. A New History of Korea. Trans. Edward W. Wagner, with Edward J. Schultz. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

KONDAVIDU KINGDOM (ca. 1336–1518 C.E.)

Kingdom located near the mouth of the Krishna River on the eastern coast of India, which struggled to attain independence during the decline of the Tughluq dynasty. The Kondavidu kingdom was founded in the 1300s by a local leader named Prolaya Vema (r. 1324–1353), who took advantage of the declining power of the Tughluq dynasty to seize territory in northern and central India. During his reign, Vema struggled to distance his kingdom from the incessant warfare between Bahmani and Vijayanagar, two powerful empires that emerged after the Tughluqs lost power. Kondavidu was constantly threatened because it occupied a strategic position between the two hostile empires.When Prolaya died in 1353, his successors, Anapota Vema (r. 1353–1364) and Anapota Reddi (r. 1364–1386), could no longer prevent external aggression. In 1365, after defeating the Bahmanis in a crucial battle, Vijayanagar eagerly annexed significant portions of Kondavidu territory. Vijayanagar invaded Kondavidu again in 1382. Desperate to preserve some semblance of autonomy, the Kondavidu monarch, Anapota Reddi, formed an alliance with Bahmani. The enmity between Bahmani and Vijayanagar had religious origins; Bhamani was a Muslim kingdom while Vijayanagar was Hindu. Although Kondavidu was also a Hindu kingdom, it joined Bahmani because the Bahmani sultans had been less overtly aggressive toward Kondavidu. Because of its alliance with Bahmani, Kondavidu experienced two decades of relative security. In 1402, however, internal strife devastated the kingdom. Upon the death of the Kondavidu monarch, Kumaragiri (r. 1386–1402), two of his relatives, Peda Komati Veda and Kataya Vema, both claimed the throne. Kataya quickly seized two major cities and allied himself with Vijayangar. Consequently, Bahmani and Vijayanagr were once again drawn into a bloody war. Kataya was eventually defeated, Peda Komati Veda (r. 1402–1420) assumed the throne, and Kondavidu enjoyed twenty more years of autonomy under Bahmani protection. Vijaynagar’s urge to control Kondavidu could not be assuaged, however. By 1427, Vijayanagar forces had again invaded Kondavidu, this time successfully

Ko n g o K i n g d o m holding the kingdom and repelling the Bahmani army. Kondavidu thus became a completely subservient territory of the Vijayanagar Empire. In 1454, Kondavidu gained one last chance for autonomy.The kingdom of Orissa, which straddled the northeastern border of the Vijayanagar Empire, invaded Kondavidu and expelled Vijayanagar from the kingdom. The Kondavidu people hoped that the Orissans would adopt the Bahmani position and allow them conditional independence in return for allegiance. But Orissa merely assumed Vijayanagar’s position and took full control of Kondavidu. Vijayanagar regained control of the region in 1518 after a power struggle with Orissa, and Kondavidu ceased to exist as an autonomous kingdom. Despite its aspirations of independence, Kondavidu ultimately failed to maintain its autonomy because it was coveted by more powerful empires. See also: Bahmani Dynasty; Indian Kingdoms; Vijayanagar Empire.

KONGBAUNG DYNASTY. See Alaungpaya Dynasty

KONGO KINGDOM (ca. 1480–1700s C.E.)

First of the powerful kingdoms to emerge in westcentral Africa, as European explorers began making contact with the peoples of Africa south of the Sahara. Located in what is now the nation of Angola, the kingdom of Kongo arose in west-central Africa during the late 1400s from a collection of several smaller, independent states. These member states joined together under a king who was elected from among the various chiefly families and, with their combined strength, came to dominate the region. An administrative capital was established at Mbanza Kongo. Rule of the Kongo kingdom was coordinated through the offices of provincial governors, who were appointed by the king and served wholly at his pleasure.These officials were usually drawn from the family of the king himself in order to ensure their loyalty to the throne. Kongo rulers maintained a standing

507

army in the capital to secure the peace. By 1600, the origins of the Kongo kingdom as a loose confederation of small states were largely obscured, and it had become a fully integrated, centralized state. Early in the history of the Kongo kingdom, the first Europeans arrived in west-central Africa.The first European contact was with a Portuguese expedition that arrived in 1483 seeking permission to cross Kongo territory on their way to the coast.The ruler of Kongo at that time was Nzingu Kuwu (r. 1484–1506), who welcomed the arrival of the Portuguese. He saw these newcomers as potential allies in his efforts to consolidate his power. In a gesture of goodwill, Nzinga Kuwu accepted conversion to Christianity and received the baptismal name of Joao I. Joao I, however, quickly grew disillusioned with his new European allies. He was angered by what he saw as their greed and corruption, and he was particularly displeased with the aggressive missionary activities carried out by the religious order of Jesuits. In his anger, he rejected Christianity and encouraged all his subjects to return to the religion of their ancestors.Toward the end of his reign, Joao summoned the power of his military and ordered the Portuguese to leave his kingdom. The break with the Portuguese was short-lived, however.When Nzingu Nkuwu (Joao I) died, his son, Mvemba Nzinga (Afonso I, r. 1506–1543) assumed the throne and once again welcomed the Europeans. Under Afonso’s rule, Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Kongo kingdom. He hoped to keep the Portuguese as his exclusive allies, thus keeping for his kingdom a monopoly over the lucrative trade developing between Portugal and the region. In this, however, he failed, and Portugal soon forged strong ties with Afonso’s regional rival, the kingdom of Ndongo. This turned out to be an unexpectedly good thing for the Kongo kingdom, however. The Portuguese annexed the Ndongo territory during the 1600s, whereas Kongo retained its autonomy during that period. It remained independent even during a civil war that erupted out of a succession dispute upon the death of King Antonio I (r. ca. 1660–1665) in 1665. This war was but the first of many civil insurrections that ravaged the Kongo kingdom over the next several years. These struggles involved three primary factions, each laying claim to the throne and each controlling roughly a third of the kingdom. The violence of these insurrections, and the practice of selling cap-

508

Ko n g o K i n g d o m

tured adversaries as slaves to European traders, devastated Kongo for decades. Finally, King Pedro IV of the Kongo (r. 1709– 1718) succeeded in restoring the monarchy and establishing some semblance of order in the kingdom. Nonetheless, the days of Kongo dominance in the region were over, for the Portuguese had gained ascendancy. The kingdom’s independence did not long survive as an independent entity. Soon after Pedro’s rule, the kingdom became a constituent part of the larger Portuguese colonial enterprise in the region. See also:Afonso I, Nzinga Mbemba;African Kingdoms; Lunda Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Hilton, Anne. The Kingdom of the Kongo. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

KORYO KINGDOM (918–1392 C.E.) Korean kingdom that bridged the gap between Korea’s earlier civilizations and the powerful Yi dynasty, which ruled Korea from 1392 to 1910. The Koryo kingdom emerged during the tenth century when it conquered the kingdom of Silla, becoming the only kingdom on the Korean Peninsula. Extreme civil unrest, fueled by unbearable taxes on the peasantry and barriers that prevented the aristocratic class from gaining high government positions, contributed to Silla’s collapse. During this unrest, a military commander named Wang Kon assembled displaced peasants into a formidable military force. Initially, he protected the kingdom of Silla against other rebellious peasants. But in 918, Wang Kon seized the throne and changed the kingdom’s name to Koryo, a variation of the name Koguryo, an earlier Korean kingdom. Wang Kon (r. 918–943) eliminated the rigid system that had prescribed social position in Silla and invited members of aristocratic families and descendants of the fallen Koguryo nobility to join the new government. Still, before his death in 943,Wang Kon failed to suppress the large groups of bandits that continued to terrorize the outskirts of Koryo and threatened the newly formed kingdom.

CHANGES IN KORYO SOCIETY In 949, King Kwangjong (r. 949–975) stabilized Koryo by creating civil service examinations for

both the bureaucracy and the Buddhist clergy.These exams, which based promotion upon merit, created new opportunities for Koryo citizens and helped to staunch the possibility of rebellion. Kwangjong also instituted Confucianism as the official state religion, although most Koryo citizens still adhered to Buddhism. Kwangjong’s reforms did not permanently erase civil unrest, however.Although the exams were open to everyone, only wealthy citizens could afford the education necessary to pass them. Consequently, an extremely small group of bureaucrats, called the literati, achieved complete control of the government. During their ascendancy, Koryo society became highly stratified, much like Silla’s had been. In 1170, the Royal Guard Regiment, the besttrained unit in the Koryo army, deposed and executed nearly all of the literati. But the generals who led the coup badly mismanaged the government, and Koryo endured three decades of near anarchy. In 1196, General Choe Chunghon slaughtered his rivals and established a dictatorship. Chunghon created an elite military force to protect his authority, installed the Koryo king as a mere figurehead, and re-created the literati class to run the government.

DICTATORSHIP AND FOREIGN RULE Under the Choe dictatorship, Koryo society assumed an almost feudalistic structure. Chunghon and his successors seized large amounts of land and enslaved thousands of peasants to farm it. Many leading military leaders also created huge estates. At the same time, however, Chunghon based military and civil promotion solely upon merit, which enabled a new nobility to emerge among the literati. A foreign threat eventually crippled the Choe dictatorship. In 1219, Koryo joined the Mongols to defeat the Khitan. But in 1224, the Mongols demanded a huge annual tribute from Koryo. The ruling Choe dictator refused, and, in 1231, he retreated to Kanghwa Island off the mouth of the Han River. For years afterward, the Mongols repeatedly ravaged Koryo, slaughtering countless citizens and razing the country’s major cities until, in 1258, a small group of officials assassinated Choe Ui, the final Choe dictator, and surrendered to the Mongols. The Mongols were harsh rulers. They exacted an exorbitant tribute from Koryo, held the Koryo king prisoner, annexed most of the northern part of the kingdom, and squandered Koryo’s navy during two

Ko ryo K i n g d o m

Wang Dynasty

509

Myong-jong

1170–1197

T’ae-jo

918–943

Sin-jong

1197–1204

Hye-jong

943–945

Hui-jong

1204–1211

Chong-jong

945–949

Kang-jong

1211–1213

Kwang-jong

949–975

Ko-jong

1213–1259

Kyong-jong

975–981

Won-jong

1259–1274

Song-jong

981–997

Ch’ung-yol

1274–1308

Mok-chong

997–1009

Ch’ung-son

1308–1313

Hyon-jong

1009–1031

Ch’ung-suk (I)

1313–1330

Tok-chong

1031–1034

Chong-jong

1034–1046

Ch’ung-hye (I)

1330–1332

Mun-jong

1046–1083

Ch’ung-suk (2)

1332–1339

Sun-jong

1083

Ch’ung-hye (2)

1339–1344

Son-jong

1083–1094

Ch’ung-mok

1344–1348

Hon-jong

1094–1095

Ch’ung-jong

1348–1351

Suk-chong

1095–1105

Kong-min

1351–1374

Ye-jong

1105–1122

Wi-ju

1374–1388

In-jong

1122–1146

Ch’ang

1388–1389

Ui-jong

1146–1170

Kong-yang

1389–1392

failed invasions of Japan. For the next century, the Mongol influence significantly altered Koryo’s language and culture.

REGAINED POWER AND FINAL COLLAPSE In 1351, King Kongmin (r. 1351–1374) struggled to reassert Koryo’s independence.Taking advantage of a rebellion within the Mongol court, Kongmin eliminated the Mongol administration in Koryo and regained the annexed lands. He also attempted to confiscate the large estates that the Mongols had granted to Koryo aristocrats sympathetic to Mongol rule, but a group of these aristocrats assassinated Kongmin before he could achieve that goal. Under Kongmin, the literati regained control of

the Koryo government and exerted the power they had possessed before the Choe dictatorship. However, between 1374 and 1388, foreign dangers again disrupted Koryo’s stability. During that time, Japanese pirates repeatedly ravaged Koryo’s eastern shores, and the newly formed Ming dynasty in China threatened Koryo’s northern region. Yi Songgye, a Koryo general, achieved much influence by repulsing the Japanese raids. In 1388, he assumed control of the army; four years later he deposed the last Koryo king, Kongyang (r. 1389–1392), and changed the country’s name to Choson. Yi’s actions marked the beginning of the Yi dynasty and the end of Koryo. Despite its downfall, the Koryo kingdom had fundamentally altered Korea’s history.The literati class, formed at the beginning of the Koryo period, main-

510

Ko ryo K i n g d o m

tained a permanent influence in Korean society. Furthermore, Koryo’s successes against Mongol, Japanese, and Chinese invaders allowed a distinct Korean culture to continue to develop. See also: Choson Kingdom; Silla Kingdom;Wang Kon;Yi Songgye. FURTHER READING

Lee, Ki-baik. A New History of Korea. Trans. Edward W. Wagner, with Edward J. Schultz. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

KOSALA KINGDOM (ca. 600–468 B.C.E.)

Kingdom located near present-day Oudh, a province in northern India, which was one of the sixteen states of ancient India. Aryan tribes first migrated into northern India during the third millennium b.c.e. During the succeeding centuries, these tribes gradually split and established sixteen separate states. One of these, the kingdom of Kosala, extended from the Gandak River in the east to the Panchala River in the west, and from the Sarpika River in the south to the foothills of the Himalaya Mountains in Nepal in the north. The city of Sravasti served as the kingdom’s capital. During the sixth century b.c.e., Kosala conquered the neighboring state of Kasi, temporarily making Kosala one of the most powerful of the sixteen Indian states. Because of its increased strength, the kingdom developed a bitter, unappeasable rivalry with the Magadha kingdom, another powerful state located southeast of Kosala. Constant warfare between the two threatened to eventually eradicate both kingdoms. Finally, King Prasenjit (d. 468 b.c.e.), the most famous Kosala monarch, achieved peace with Magadha when his daughter married Bimbisara, the Magadhan king. But Bimbisara’s adult son, Ajatasatru, murdered his father and stepmother and seized the throne. Enraged by his daughter’s murder, Prasenjit invaded Magadha and defeated the young usurper. In order to keep his throne, Ajatasatru pledged loyalty to Kosala and paid an immense tribute. He also asked Prasenjit’s permission to attack the kingdom of Lichchhavi, promising to divide his spoils with Kosala. Foolishly, the Kosala monarch agreed. Ajatasatru

successfully subdued the Lichchhavis, but he used the resources from his conquest to reengage the Kosala army. Unprepared for such an attack by its ally, the Kosala army crumbled, and Prasenjit was forced to accept a treaty that now made his kingdom subservient to Magadha. Prasenjit’s perceived devotion to Buddhism also undermined his kingdom. The monarch and Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) were contemporaries. Although he never converted to Buddhism, Prasenjit frequently visited the seer and his clan, the Sakyas. These visits upset his Hindu subjects. Moreover, Prasenjit even requested that a princess from the Sakya clan marry a Kosala prince. The Sakyas were angered by the request, but they feared Kosala’s military power. The Sakyas offered an illegitimate princess to Prasenjit instead, but they concealed her illegitimacy. The marriage took place, but the princess’s status was soon discovered. When Prasenjit refused to disinherit the princess, the Kosala people rebelled and crowned a new monarch. Prasenjit begged Magadha for support, but King Ajatasatru ignored him.When Prasenjit died in 468 b.c.e., Ajatasatru reinvaded Kosala, defeated the new monarch, and ended Kosala’s independence. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Magadha Kingdom.

KOTA KINGDOM (1627–1771 C.E.) Kingdom in northwestern India, located in the region known as Rajputana (“country of the Rajputs”), that was established by a branch of the Chauhan dynasty, a Rajput clan, in the early seventeenth century. In 1625, Shah Jahan (r. 1628–1658), heir to the Mughal Empire, rebelled against his father, Jahangir (r. 1605–1627) because Jahangir was apparently planning to name another successor to the throne. The conflict divided kingdoms throughout India.The Raja of the state of Bundi supported Jahangir, but his youngest son, Madho Singh, defied his father and fought for Shah Jahan. Although Shah Jahan’s rebellion was suppressed, he later reconciled with his father and remained heir. In 1627, when Shah Jahan assumed the Mughal throne, he created the Kota kingdom and bequeathed it to Madho Singh (r. 1625–1656) to reward his loyalty. During the early years of its existence, the Kota kingdom was highly unstable.To create the kingdom,

Ku a n g H s ü Shah Jahan had merely issued a royal dictate and he ignored the indigenous Bhil tribe of the region. Madho Singh was left to subdue the Bhils. He was largely successful, but when he died in 1656, his five sons struggled for the throne. Their dispute threatened to dissolve the infant nation. Eventually, the eldest son, Mokund Singh (r. 1656–1657) gained control. Bhim Singh (r. 1707–1719), who took the title Maha Rao (“Great King”), was the most powerful Kota monarch. Drawing upon his alliance with the Mughals, he first attacked the neighboring Amber kingdom and then proceeded to assault his relatives in Bundi. During Bhim Singh’s reign, Kota expanded its borders well beyond its originally territory. After Bhim Singh’s death in 1719, however, Kota’s influence in the region began to decline. In 1723, when Durjan Sal (r. 1723–1756) assumed the throne, Mughal control over India was waning and the Marathas of the Western Deccan region were rapidly expanding across the Indian subcontinent.To ensure Kota’s continued existence, Durjan Singh swiftly switched his allegiance from the Mughals to the Marathas.The Marathas did not try to occupy or incorporate states under their control; they only wanted to ensure the fealty of the various Rajput states. As a result, they exercised minimal control over the region. Initially, this autonomy benefited the Kota kingdom. But without a strong Maratha presence, the other Rajput states united to avenge the earlier incursions against them by Bhim Singh. In 1761, Kota was nearing collapse when Zalim Singh, a distant relative of the royal family, rallied the Kota army and defeated the Rajput invaders. Zalim’s victory gained him an elevated position at court. In 1771, when ten-year-old Umed Singh (r. 1771–1819) inherited the throne, Zalim was appointed as his regent. Embracing the opportunity, Zalim executed both Umed and the entire royal family. The remaining nobility fled Kota, and Zalim (r. 1771–1826) assumed control. In 1817, under Zalim’s leadership, Kota became one of the first Rajput states to sign a treaty with the British, making it part of British India. In return, the British agreed that Kota would be divided and a separate kingdom carved out of it for Zalim’s descendants. This resulted in the formation of the new kingdom of Jhalawar in 1838. See also: Bundi Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Jahan, Shah; Jahangir; Maratha Confederacy; Mughal Empire; Rajasthan Kingdom.

511

KUANG HSÜ (GUANG XU) (1871–1908 C.E.)

Chinese emperor (r. 1875–1908) of the Ch’ing (Qing) dynasty, whose attempts to modernize China were thwarted by the Empress Dowager T’zu Hsi (Cixi). Named Ts’ai T’ien (Caitian) at birth, Kuang Hsü (Guang Xu) became the ninth Ch’ing emperor at age four, when his aunt, the Empress Dowager T’zu Hsi, placed him on the throne. Having ruled China as regent to the previous emperor,Tz’u Hsi wished to retain control by serving as regent to Kuang Hsü, the son of her younger sister. Controversy surrounded the succession. Because Kuang Hsü was of the same generation as the previous emperor, his cousin T’ung Chih (Tongzhi) (r. 1861–1875), he could not by law properly perform the required Confucian rites to honor his predecessor.Tz’u Hsi appeased angry Confucian scholars by promising that Kuang Hsü would perform these rites in honor of T’ung Chih. Kuang Hsü was a sickly individual, plagued by lung problems. As a child, he was frightened of his aunt Tz’u Hsi, and continued to be dominated by her for most of his life. Though he came of age in 1887, the manipulative Tz’u Hsi stayed on as regent for another two years. Unlike his aunt, Kuang Hsü was well educated and conscientious. The young emperor studied English and sought solutions to the crises that threatened the empire. He was aware that the Chinese people were angry at increasing foreign dominance of China, especially in trade and industry. Foreign nations also laid claim to ever-larger areas of Chinese territory. In response to these challenges, Kuang Hsü turned to the reformer K’ang Yu Wei (Kang Youwei), who supported modernization of China’s institutions. In 1898, Kuang Hsü issued the “Hundred Days’ Reforms,” a series of edicts that called for sweeping changes to the educational system, the military, the economy, and the bureaucracy. Empress Dowager Tz’u Hsi, siding with more conservative forces, opposed these changes. In the power struggle that ensued, Tz’u Hsi triumphed, and Kuang Hsü was detained in the summer palace. He remained Tz’u Hsi’s prisoner for the rest of his life. Kuang Hsü died in 1908 at age thirty-seven. Suspiciously, his death came one day before that of Tz’u

512

Ku a n g H s ü

Hsi, who had appointed his nephew, the three-yearold Pu Yi, to succeed him. See also: Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty;T’zu Hsi (Cixi).

KUANG WU TI (GUANG WUDI) (5 B.C.E.–57 C.E.) Chinese emperor (r. 25–57) who founded the Eastern Han dynasty (23–220). Kuang Wu Ti (“shining martial emperor”) was a wealthy landowner and a cousin of the Han imperial family. Originally named Liu Xiu, he reunited China and reestablished the Han dynasty after the fall of the brief Xin dynasty (9–23). Kuang Wu Ti inherited a China devastated by two years of civil war in which the Western Han capital at Chang’an was destroyed.The emperor established a new capital to the east at the city of Luoyang, and the new dynasty is therefore known as the Eastern or Later Han. A talented leader, Kuang Wu Ti instituted Confucianism as the state doctrine, suppressed rebel groups, and restored Chinese territory lost since the Western Han period. His reign brought peace and prosperity to China. Kuang Wu Ti strengthened the economy, reducing the tax burden on China’s peasants and reestablishing the state monopolies on salt, iron, and liquor instituted by earlier Han rulers. He promoted Confucian rituals and education, establishing government-sponsored schools to train candidates for the civil service in the classical texts. Kuang Wu Ti also increased the number of officials who won posts through the examination system.The first record of an official visit from Japan comes from Kuang Wu Ti’s reign. Kuang Wu Ti’s reign was marred by the growing power of the families of imperial consorts, a trend that would cause the dynasty’s decline in succeeding generations. Kuang Wu Ti was succeeded by his son, Mingdi (r. 57–75). See also: Han Dynasty.

KUBA KINGDOM (ca. 1600s C.E.–Present)

Kingdom established by Bantu immigrants on the Sankuru River in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In the late 1400s, the Sankuru River of southeastern Congo (Zaire) was occupied by a people called the Twa. Into this region came a group of Bantu migrants called the Bushoong (or Shoong) who had traveled from the far north and who chose this fertile land as their new home. Over the next hundred years, these immigrants absorbed the Twa peoples into their own society. As their settlements grew in size and territory, the Bushoong did the same with many other peoples living in the region, including the Ngeende, Kel, Pyaang, Bulaang, Ilebo, Kaam, and Ngongo. The territory controlled by the Bushoong came to include more than fifteen ethnic groups, but only the founding group, the Shoong themselves, could produce a king. This was dictated by their creation myth, which also provided the basis for divine claim to the kingship. Around 1600, a dynamic Bushoong leader named Shyaam declared himself the first nyim, or king, of Kuba, as the kingdom became known. Shyaam established his capital at a settlement named Musheng. Legend holds that his right to rule was absolute, conferred upon him by god. Shyaam, however, was a practical leader, so he created a powerful army to ensure that his rule would be obeyed. Shyaam’s army had other uses as well. The Kuba kingdom was surrounded by powerful neighbors, among them the Chokwe, Luba, and Lele, but the power of the army was enough to keep these potential threats at bay for about two hundred years. The Kuba kingdom achieved the height of its power in the middle of the nineteenth century.At that time, just prior to the arrival of the European traders seeking slaves, the Kuba kingdom was finally invaded successfully by a rival regional power, the Nsapo, and much of the Kuba territory was lost to these newcomers. The Kuba kingdom survived this assault, although in much reduced form. Moreover, it was spared the devastation that more accessible peoples suffered with the rise of the slave trade in the region. Today the Bushoong people number between 50,000 and 100,000 in Zaire. Although the Kuba kingdom continues to exist, the king serves more as a cultural icon than as a political force.The current king of Kuba is the twenty-sixth member of the royal line, tracing descent back to the founding king, Shyaam. See also:African Kingdoms; Luba Kingdom; Lunda Kingdom.

Ku b l a i K h a n

KUBLAI KHAN (ca. 1215–1294 C.E.) Mongol leader (r. 1260–1294) who succeeded his brother Mongke as ruler of the Mongol Empire. Grandson of Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227), he was also the founder of the Yuan (or Mongol) dynasty of China (1206–1368). Kublai was the fourth son of Tolui, who was in turn the fourth son of Genghis Khan. Little is known of his childhood and youth; it was not until 1251, when he was already in his mid-thirties, that his brother Mongke, the fourth ruler of theYuan dynasty, gave him the military assignment of subduing southern China. Kublai spent most of the rest of his life in that country. After fighting in southern China for eight years, he inherited the position of khan, or lord, from his brother but chose to rule from China.This led to growing friction with some of the more traditional Mongols, who saw in a China-centric state the dissipation of the Mongol culture.Throughout Kublai’s reign, he was plagued

513

with hostility from that political faction. Further tension was caused by questions of Kublai’s legitimacy as khan. In 1279, when Kublai Khan finally defeated the ruling Sung (Song) dynasty, the Mongol Empire reached its greatest extent. Later attempts to incorporate Japan, Indonesia,Vietnam, and Myanmar all met with failure. Kublai’s victory over the Sung marked the first time since the T’ang dynasty (618–907) that all of China was unified under one ruler. Kublai eventually discovered, however, that there was little support within Mongol society for the complicated statesmanship needed to maintain control of such a vast, ancient, and highly stratified China.The Mongols, after all, were nomads, not administrators. Kublai was thus heavily influenced by his Chinese advisers, and he developed a system of government that was, for its time, remarkably humane and liberated. Although Kublai himself was probably a Tibetan Buddhist, he allowed religious freedom to the vast majority of his subjects. (He did persecute Taoists,

Kublai Khan developed a remarkably humane and progressive government for the era in which he ruled. Much of our knowledge of him comes from Marco Polo, who traveled to China in 1266 c.e. and became a confidant of the Mongol ruler.This scene from a fifteenth-century illustrated manuscript shows Kublai Khan giving his seal to Marco Polo at the new capital of Cambuluc (modern-day Beijing).

514

Ku b l a i K h a n

though not to the degree they were persecuted by other contemporaries.) Kublai insisted that his generals show mercy and clemency to conquered peoples—an outlandish proposition to many in the thirteenth century. He allowed men of all nationalities to participate in government civil service, and he embarked on a system of public works, extending highways, constructing and repairing public granaries, and rebuilding the Chinese Great Canal. Kublai Khan also constructed the great city of Cambuluc (modern-day Beijing) and encouraged the establishment of foreign trade. An important source of Western knowledge concerning Kublai’s reign is Marco Polo, who enjoyed a position at the king’s palace for seventeen years before returning to his native Venice and writing his memoirs. Marco Polo, although an admirer of Kublai Khan, described him as an extravagant and sometimes over-emotional ruler, who indulged himself with elaborate food, expensive hunts, and an active sex life. Through the adoption of Chinese philosophy, customs, and traditions, Kublai proved to be a successful emperor. But his continued battles with warring Mongolian factions within the empire proved to be a fatefully bad example for his less capable successors. After Kublai’s death in 1294, the Yuan dynasty entered a long period of decline and, eventually, the Mongols retreated to the steppes of Central Asia, retiring from the stage of world politics. See also: East Asian Dynasties; Genghis Khan; Mongol Empire;Yuan Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Soucek, Svatopluk. A History of Inner Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

KULASEKHARA DYNASTY. See Cera Dynasty

KUMAON KINGDOM (ca. late 1500s–1805 C.E.)

Kingdom that existed in the lower Himalayas, bordered by India, Nepal, and Tibet, and flourished in the seventeenth century.

The Kumaon kingdom stretched across the central portion of the Himalayas and was bordered on the east by Nepal and on the north by Tibet.The region has always been important in the Hindu religion because it contains the traditional wellspring of the sacred Ganges and Jumna rivers and is the burial ground of the Pandavas, the five great heroes of the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata. Consequently, Kumaon contains numerous ancient temples and for centuries has been a frequent destination for Hindu pilgrims. The area that became the Kumaon kingdom was originally inhabited by a large number of Hindu clans, each controlling a small area and protecting it with a fortress. These fortresses were scattered across the western portion of Kumaon, where fertile cropland was more readily available. Because of these fortresses, western Kumaon was referred to as Garwhal, the “country of fortresses.” During the fifteenth century, the tribes in the Kumaon region began to consolidate. One leader, Ajaiya Pala, successfully subdued the majority of the clans, and his descendants maintained sporadic control over the region for over a century. But it was not until the final years of the sixteenth century that Kumaon emerged as a distinct kingdom ruled by a recognized Raja. Because of its crucial strategic position and its religious significance, Kumaon’s existence was always tenuous. In the sixteenth century, the sultans of Bahmani launched several expeditions into Kumaon, both to conquer the region and to attack enemies in Nepal. But the Mughal Empire posed the greatest threat to the Kumaon kingdom. In 1635, the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan I (r. 1628–1658), launched a massive invasion of Kumaon.When Kumaon successfully repelled the Mughals, Shah Jahan increased the size of his force and attacked again. Finally, in 1654, the Raja of Kumaon signed a treaty with the Mughal ruler, promising his allegiance. Kumaon regained its independence when Mughal control over India declined in the eighteenth century.Yet the kingdom’s location, nestled among the powerful kingdoms of India and Nepal, again proved to be a serious weakness. In 1803, Nepal attacked the Kumaon kingdom and attempted to annex it. Under Pradhuman Shah (r. ?–1805), the last Kumaon Raja, the kingdom vigorously resisted the Nepalese invasion for two years. In 1805, however, the Nepalese forces achieved victory, and Kumaon permanently lost its autonomy.

Ku s h , K i n g d o m o f Nepal’s control of the region was brief. In 1815, the British defeated the Nepalese army and occupied Kumaon. The kingdom remained under British control until 1947, when India gained its independence and incorporated Kumaon within its new borders as part of the state of Uttar Pradesh. See also: Jahan, Shah; Mughal Empire.

KUSANA DYNASTY (ca. 40–375 C.E.) Dynasty thought to be of Chinese origin that conquered much of present-day Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. The Kushans were initially a clan of the Yueh-Chi (Yuezhi) tribe, which is thought to have originated in the Gansu region of China. Military defeats gradually pushed the tribe westward to the Oxus River (the present-day Amy Darya River) in the region known as Transoxania. Around 100 b.c.e., the Yueh-Chi invaded Bactria (in present-day Afghanistan) and divided it into five confederated territories. Around 30 c.e., a warrior named Kadphises, the commander of the Kushan territory, subjugated the other Yueh-Chi territories and founded the Kusana dynasty, ruling as Kujula Kadphises I (r. ca. 30–78). Kadphises next conquered lands south of the Hindu Kush Mountains as far as Kabul and east of the Indus River to Taxila. By his death in 78, the Kushans had expelled the Indo-Greeks and Indo-Parthians from much of the Indian borderlands. Kadphises’s successor, Kadphises II (r. 78–103), had larger goals. During his reign, he conquered most of northern India and extended Kushan dominance to the Indus River basin. The Kusana dynasty experienced its greatest prosperity during the reign of Kanishka I (r. ca. 143– 162). Continuing the pattern begun by his predecessors, he conquered Kashmir, Bihar, and the Turkistan region of the Chinese Empire. These acquisitions gave the Kushans two major economic advantages. First, they now possessed valuable agricultural regions along the Oxus, Indus, and Ganges rivers. Second, they controlled a major portion of the silk trade route between China and Central Asia. All traders paid a hefty tribute when passing through the Kushan territory. Kanishka donated much of this wealth to Buddhism. He summoned the major Buddhist theolo-

515

gians to the Fourth Buddhist Council to settle their doctrinal disputes. He erected numerous temples and shrines, and he enlarged a number of Buddhist schools. Because of these activities, Kanishka is regarded as the second greatest Buddhist patron, following only the emperor Asoka (r. 268–232 b.c.e.) of the Maurya Empire of India.Yet Kanishka also respected and practiced tolerance toward those who practiced other religions, thus preventing religious unrest in the Kushan Empire. Aside from religious tolerance, the expansive Kushan Empire was difficult to maintain. During his reign, Kanishka faced frequent rebellions from the indigenous inhabitants of lands under Kushan control. During one especially arduous campaign, disgruntled military officers assassinated the aging ruler in 162. Control of the Kushan dynasty passed to his son Huvishka II (r. 162–166 ). Huvishka and his successors gradually lost the outlying portions of the empire.These areas were either annexed by rival empires or simply seceded. In 226, the Sasanian (or Sassanid) dynasty of Persia conquered most of the Kushan Empire. Although the Kushans continued to rule small regions for nearly two hundred more years, Kushan dominance had ended. The Kusana dynasty itself ended with the death of Kipunada (r. ca. 350–375), the last ruler who was a Kusana descendant. See also: Sasanid Dynasty.

KUSH, KINGDOM OF (ca. 1700 B.C.E.–ca. 350 C.E.)

An African kingdom to the south of Egypt that played a major role in ancient Egyptian history. At the dawn of history along the southern reaches of the Nile River, in a region called Nubia, a civilization gradually emerged in parallel with Egypt, its more famous neighbor to the north. Both the people and culture of this civilization seem to have been an amalgam of Egyptian and black African elements. A large-scale exchange of goods and labor (free and slave), periodic migrations, and long episodes of military conquest in both directions make it difficult to decipher the record of cultural influence and exchange between Egypt and its southern neighbor. The powerful pharaohs of the Egyptian Middle

516

Ku s h , K i n g d o m o f

Kingdom (ca. 2100–1720 b.c.e.) established a series of military bases along the Upper Nile to protect their trade routes, thus asserting control over much of Nubia. These bases were abandoned during the Hyksos era (1700s–1600s b.c.e.), when northern Egypt was ruled by foreign invaders known as the Hyksos. Freed from Egyptian control, an independent kingdom became established in Nubia with its capital at Kerma, a trading center south of the Third Cataract on the Nile. Kerma was situated at the southern end of the caravan routes that linked the oases west of the Nile. The Kerma state became known in Egypt as the kingdom of Kush. Kush was a centrally ruled state. Large mud-brick palaces, temples, and administrative buildings dotted the capital, which was protected by massive fortifications. The economy was based on cattle breeding; trade routes reached as far north as the Nile Delta. With the revival of native Egyptian power after around 1570 b.c.e., northern Kush became a province of Egypt under a viceroy.Tribal chiefs as far south as the confluence of the Blue and White Nile rivers and as far east as the Red Sea, became vassals to the Egyptian pharaoh.This era saw the greatest degree of Egyptianization of Kush, as large numbers of civilian and military officers, priests, merchants, and artists settled in the region. Egyptian religion also took hold in Kush, centering on temple and burial complexes at Napata. The temple to the sun-god Amun, possibly established by Egyptian refugees from Thebes during the Amarna period (late 1300s b.c.e.), remained the religious anchor of all of Kush for over a millennium. Although elements of local culture remained, the Kushite elite, whether of Nubian or Egyptian origin, became devoted to traditional Egyptian values, even as Egypt itself came under increasing foreign influence (Asian and, later, Greek). After Egyptian power and unity waned in the eleventh century b.c.e., a new Kushite kingdom emerged with its capital at Napata to the south of Kerma. The first known prince was named Alara (r. 785–760 b.c.e.); the dynasty itself may have descended from leading priests of Amun, possibly deriving ultimately from Thebes in Egypt. The Kushite kingdom prospered from its position on the NorthSouth and East-West trade routes, from agriculture, and from gold and emerald mines. Around the middle of the eighth century b.c.e., King Kashta (r. 760–747 b.c.e.) was able to incorpo-

rate much of Upper (southern) Egypt into the kingdom. His son Piye (r. 747–713 b.c.e.) completed the task of conquest, seizing the Nile Delta and reigning as the first pharaoh of Egypt’s Twenty-fifth dynasty. When Piankhy returned to Napata after his military campaigns, the Nile Delta may have regained effective autonomy, but Upper Egypt remained firmly in Kushite hands. The Kushite pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth dynasty considered themselves to be the defenders of ancient Egyptian religious and cultural practices, which they believed had been ignored in the previous period. They undertook military campaigns in Syria, which provoked an Assyrian invasion of Egypt. The Assyrians forced Taharqa (r. 690–664 b.c.e.), the last Kushite pharaoh of Egypt, back to Napata in the mid-600s b.c.e.Abandoning his Egyptian ambitions,Taharqa turned his attention to expanding Kush’s southern borders. Future Egyptian attempts to reconquer Kush uniformly failed, although an invading army in 590 b.c.e. captured and laid waste to Napata. For four centuries, the Kushite kings continued to call themselves pharaoh, worship the Egyptian god Amun, speak the Egyptian language, and use Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, even as such practices were being abandoned in Egypt itself. Around 275 b.c.e., the kingdom of Kush moved its capital several hundred miles farther up the Nile to Meroe, where a magnificent capital was built. Meroe was adorned with pyramids, temples, palaces, and baths. Complex irrigation systems fed an expanded population. Iron foundries supplied an indigenous metalworking industry, which may have been instrumental in spreading such technology to West Africa. Art and architecture showed Hellenistic and Indian influences. Trade routes were maintained with Egypt, which was by then under foreign rule (Persian, Greek, and Roman in succession). Over time, the Meroitic kingdom gradually lost its old Kushite character, as local languages replaced Egyptian, and local styles in sculpture took over. In the early centuries of the Christian era, the Meroitic kingdom began to lose ground. A succession of nomadic groups from east and west of the Nile gradually detached the northern districts, while the Ethiopian kingdom at Aksum encroached from the southeast. Around 350 c.e., Meroe was destroyed by the Axumites, putting an end to a kingdom that had lasted, in one form or another, for some fourteen hundred years.

Labor, Forms of

517

See also: African Kingdoms; Assyrian Empire; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twentysixth); Hyksos Dynasty.

tocrats, priests (scholars), professionals and artisans, free peasants and workers, serfs (attached to institutions or land), and finally slaves.

FURTHER READING

ALTERNATIVE LABOR SYSTEMS— ANCIENT EXAMPLES

Grimal, Nicolas; Shaw, Ian, trans. A History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1994. Nelson, Harold D., ed. Sudan: A Country Study, 3rd ed.Washington, DC: Foreign Area Studies,American University, 1982.

L LABOR, FORMS OF Livelihoods derived from the hierarchical class systems operating in society. In ancient monarchies, the lowest and most difficult menial labor was typically performed by slaves; slightly less dangerous or difficult tasks were done by peasants or the poor; warfare was conducted by the royal and aristocratic class; and professional occupations—if there were any—constituted a middle class of skilled laborers.

FOUNDATIONS OF LABOR The earliest divisions of labor, in hunting and gathering societies, found the men hunting and practicing the skills of warfare and the women accomplishing everything else: all domestic chores, the healing arts, and child care and education. Slavery was unknown in purely hunting and gathering societies. It took the development of agriculture to create the need for regular, repetitive menial labor and, therefore, the practicality of enslaving others to perform this tedious work. Ultimately, a labor hierarchy was encouraged by those who were able to apply the most aggressive force, the warrior kings.Thus, the most common hierarchical breakdown of labor groups in ancient and medieval society were monarchs, patricians or aris-

Not all ancient and medieval societies were large or complicated enough to include either the priestscholar or the professional class as separate from the other classes.The first example to possess the entire hierarchy of labor was Pharaonic Egypt (beginning around 3100 b.c.e.). As was often the case in preChristian times, the ruler himself was also the head of the priestly class. In ancient Egypt, this coalescence of the sacerdotal with the royal roles lent a certain credibility and authority to the priestly class and fostered its temporal power. Similarly, the serfs, as a class, were not always differentiated from slaves in the ancient or medieval world. For example, in ancient Greece of the seventh century b.c.e., the Spartans conquered the neighboring Messenians on several occasions and then used these unhappy peoples as their general labor force. These Messenians, called helots by the Spartans, were required from birth to contribute a minimum of half their goods and half their labor to Sparta. Not surprisingly, the relations between the two peoples remained violent and strained for 300 years. Near the beginning of its founding in 753 b.c.e., the city-state of Rome (after a 200-year period of monarchy) adopted a form of representative government. It remained an agrarian culture with patrician (noble) and plebeian (freemen) farmers as its main constituents—with some slaves. However, by the time of the late Roman Empire (around 350 c.e.), Rome had developed a complex class structure with the emperor at the top followed by the patrician and plebeian senatorial class (which labored only politically and militarily); the equites (who were merchant princes); the professional class; free Roman citizens; domestic, or “house” slaves; free peasants; and agricultural slaves, who evolved into the late Imperial and Byzantine “coloniae” and serfs of the Middle Ages.

AN EARLY EXPERIMENT IN LABOR REFORM During the Middle Ages, while William the Conqueror (r. 1066–1087) transformed Anglo-Saxon society and took control of England, a new experiment in labor reform began in China. During the Liao dy-

518

Labor, Forms of

nasty, Wang An Shi, the chief magistrate of the emperor T’ai Tsu (r. 907–926), held that government had a responsibility to protect its less-advantaged citizens from the predatory practices of the wealthier class. He abolished the forced labor to which essentially all Chinese peasants had previously been subject. He gave free seed to the unemployed and offered low interest loans for them to purchase their own farms. Wang set up commissions to regulate wages for labor and set price controls for certain goods. He nationalized most commodities, having the government buy and store these items in order to prevent profiteering. He also created a formal budget system and maintained pensions for the old, the unemployed, and the ill. Unfortunately, a series of floods and the appearance of a comet in the sky (an ill omen in Chinese society of the time) enabled Wang’s conservative political enemies to persuade the emperor to relieve Wang of his duties.The brave experiment in labor and social reform dissolved quickly into the previous labor system of feudal serfs and their aristocratic masters.

FORMATION OF GUILDS AND THE BIRTH OF DEMOCRACY Prosperity and a new spirit of liberalism spread across Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Triggered by cultural contact with the vibrant Islamic cultures encountered during the first Crusades, the professions, crafts, and mercantile systems of the European Continent teemed with new life and enthusiasm. During this time in Central and Western Europe, the merchants and crafts guilds were formed, and several towns began to experiment with political autonomy from their traditional feudal lords. This led to the creation of a new middle class of workers and signaled the beginning of great changes in the political and economic structure of Europe. By the mid-nineteenth century, these changes would culminate in the complete abolition of slavery and serfdom; the creation of capitalism, socialism, and communism; and the great rise of the middle class. See also: Rights, Land; Slavery, Royal.

LAKHMID DYNASTY (late 200s–602 C.E.)

Pre-Islamic tribal Bedouin dynasty that helped the Sasanian rulers of Persia (present-day Iran) fight the

Byzantine Empire.The Lakhmids encouraged the development of some of the first Arabic poetry. With its capital at the then prominent Christian city of al-Hirah in southern Iraq, the Lakhmid kingdom was basically an Arab vassal state of Sasanian Persia.Al-Hirah was the diplomatic, political, and military center of Persia, the Byzantine Empire, and the entire Arabian Peninsula. Its strategic location helped protect the Sasanians against raids by Arabian nomads, and it was a principal station on the main caravan route between Persia and the Arabian Peninsula. At the peak of their power in the sixth century, the Lakhmids contributed significantly to the preIslamic cultural history of the Arabs. They enhanced the city of al-Hirah with palaces and castles. Arabic script apparently was developed in the city, too, and the Lakhmid kingdom was the first to make Arabic its official language. Al-Hirah played an important part in the emergence of Arabic poetry, with the Lakhmid court welcoming some of the most famous poets of pre-Islamic Arabia; among them were Tarafah and an-Nabighah adh-Dhubyani. Al-Hirah also had a significant role in promoting Arab Christianity, as the seat of the bishop for Nestorian Christians was located there and helped spread Christian monotheism to the Arabian Peninsula. The strongest and most famous Lakhmid ruler was Mundhir III (r. 503–554), who attacked Byzantine Syria and confronted the Arab pro-Byzantine Ghassan kingdom, which defeated Mundhir in 554. The Lakhmid dynasty came to an end when its last ruler, Numan III (r. 582–602), a Nestorian Christian, died in 602. Nearly three decades later, in 633, the city of al-Hirah yielded to the Muslims. See also: Byzantine Empire; Sasanid Dynasty.

LANCASTER, HOUSE OF (1399–1471 C.E.)

English dynasty that ruled England for much of the 1400s—Henry IV (r. 1399–1413), Henry V (r. 1413– 1422), and Henry VI (r. 1422–1461, 1470–1471)— and fought the War of the Roses against the house of York. The house of Lancaster, a branch of the Norman house of Plantagenet, began when Edmund “Crouch-

L a n d h o l d i n g Pa t t e r n s back,” the youngest son of Henry III (r. 1216–1272), was named the first earl of Lancaster in 1267. The title passed to Edmund’s son Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and then to another son, Henry, earl of Lancaster, upon Thomas’s death. Henry’s son Henry became the first duke of Lancaster. Duke Henry of Lancaster left no male heirs, so the title eventually went to the husband of Henry’s daughter Blanche, John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III (r. 1327–1377). When John of Gaunt died in 1399, the Lancaster title and lands went to his eldest surviving son, Henry, who was known as Henry Bolingbroke. Henry Bolingbroke was a member of a group of nobles who opposed Richard II (r. 1377–1399) as a weak and ineffectual ruler. In 1398, Richard banished Henry and the following year seized the estates that should have passed to Henry upon John of Gaunt’s death. Henry used this betrayal as an opportunity to assert his rule in opposition to Richard. In July 1399, Henry invaded England from abroad and forced Richard to hand the Crown over to him, be-

519

coming Henry IV. He claimed his right to rule England through his descent from Henry III. For much of his reign, Henry IV had to wage war against opponents of his rule, the supporters of Richard. But by the time the Crown passed on to his son, Henry V, this opposition to the Lancastrian dynasty had lessened. One of the most powerful and popular kings of the medieval period, Henry V is perhaps best remembered today as the title character in Shakespeare’s play, Henry V. His major accomplishment was victory over France in the battle of Agincourt (1415), which raised England to new heights of power. As a result of the Treaty of Troyes (1420)—an agreement between Henry, King Charles VI of France (r. 1380–1422 ), and Philip the Good of Burgundy (r. 1419–1467)—Henry was betrothed to Charles’s daughter, Catherine, and named heir to the French throne, but he died two years later without becoming ruler of France. The next and last Lancastrian monarch, Henry VI, became king upon his father’s death, when he was less than a year old. During his reign, the Yorkists attempted to take back the throne lost by Richard II, even though their claim was no more valid than that of the Lancastrians. Both houses derived from the sons of Edward III, and there was much dispute over which house was legally entitled to the kingship.The Yorkists succeeded in 1461, when they defeated the Lancastrians in battle, deposed Henry, and Edward IV (r. 1461–1470) became the first member of the house of York to sit on the throne. Henry was briefly restored to the throne in 1470, but the following year he was taken prisoner by theYorkists and murdered in the Tower of London.Through the Beauforts, descendants of an illegitimate child of John of Gaunt, Lancastrian claims passed to the house of Tudor. See also: Henry IV (England); Plantagenet, House of; Richard II; Richard III; Tudor, House of; York, House of. FURTHER READING

Weir, Alison. The Wars of the Roses. New York: Ballantine, 1996.

King Henry VI of England succeeded to the throne at the age of nine months upon the death of his father, King Henry V. The last ruler of the House of Lancaster, Henry VI struggled for power throughout his reign and was eventually deposed by the Yorkists and executed.

LANDHOLDING PATTERNS Terms under which property is distributed or owned within a country or society. The history of landholding patterns is much the

520

L a n d h o l d i n g Pa t t e r n s

same in both Eastern and Western civilizations; sovereign rulers and aristocrats have controlled the land cultivated by poor laborers. Land ownership has been persistently linked to power and status for royalty and commoner alike.

and freed Russian serfs, issuing the first Emancipation Law in March 1861. Unfortunately, this law did not successfully end the call for land reform, and ultimately terrorists assassinated the tsar.

CHANGES IN ENGLISH LANDHOLDING LANDHOLDING IN EARLY ASIA In ancient China, the first emperor of the T’ang dynasty, T’ang T’ai-tsung (Taizong) (r. 626–649), attempted to equalize landholding through land reform. He took possession of all land with the express purpose of redistributing it to those best qualified to manage the land. Instead, the emperor was forced to give land back to the wealthy aristocrats who protested his reform efforts. Later during the T’ang dynasty, however, more land reforms were instituted that allowed individual farmers to purchase property of their own. In feudal Japan, the warrior class, which owned the land, was distinct from the farmer class. Farmers could register the land they occupied and cultivated, but they were required to produce crops and pay taxes to the owners. Prohibited from owning weapons, the farmers were essentially serfs on the land they tended.

FEUDAL LANDHOLDING IN EUROPE During the Middle Ages in Europe, the ruler was viewed as the ultimate owner of property; land was the monarch’s to bestow or appropriate at will. Although many estates were handed down through families, their ownership was not always guaranteed or held without condition. In European feudal society, an element of service to the sovereign was tied to possession of land. To retain ownership to land, the feudal lord might be required to pay taxes, supply men for the army, or give his own service in battle to the king or overlord. Rulers often made grants of fiefs in recognition of some favor done for king or country. In William Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, King Macbeth receives the title and lands of Cawdor as a reward for his service in war after they were taken from the treacherous previous thane. Under tsarist rule in Russia, the pattern of land ownership was much like that of medieval Europe. Barons and other nobles owned great estates that were populated by serfs, peasant laborers who were not citizens and who had few rights. Tsar Alexander II (r. 1855–1881) abolished this landholding system

During the seventeenth century, many English farmers were the owners of small properties or were tenants on large estates, and on the surface it seemed that land distribution was becoming more equitable. In the mid-1600s, however, the Acts of Settlement greatly restricted the movement of the poor from one area to another and banned the public from deer parks and forests, making it more difficult for working-class individuals to support themselves and their families. Laws of primogeniture also kept estates in the hands of a few aristocrats. Despite attempts to preserve and tighten aristocratic land ownership, English lands in the eighteenth century were still owned in part by lords of vast estates and in part by small farmers. Soon, however, greedy aristocrats in Parliament began passing a series of Enclosure Acts (between 1760 and 1830) that allowed estate owners to examine the ownership of small nearby farms, many of which had been cultivated by the same family for generations.When the farmers could not prove ownership, the lords were allowed to enclose the farms, taking the land from the yeoman farmers and forcing them to become tenants or to migrate to towns and cities. As a result of the Enclosure Acts, land ownership in Great Britain was consolidated in the hands of a few wealthy aristocrats. Even after several land reforms were instituted in England beginning in the late 1800s, the oppressive system of aristocratic land ownership continued in Ireland. Absentee English landlords owned estates rented by poor Irish tenants. If the often exorbitant rents could not be paid, it was an easy mater to evict the tenants. In the early 1900s, the Irish Land League was successful in bringing about passage of a series of Land Acts that curbed some of the excesses of English landlords. Throughout history, the unequal distribution of land has been a major source of conflict between monarchs and their subjects in both Eastern and Western cultures. Not only did unequal land distribution have a significant impact on the social structure of society, but it also was the cause of numerous uprisings against rulers.

L e g i t i m ac y See also: Caste Systems; Feudalism and Kingship; Labor, Forms of; Rights, Land;Taxation.

LE DYNASTY (1428–1802 C.E.) Vietnamese dynasty that flourished from its founding until the 1500s, when it entered a slow period of decline that culminated in its final collapse in 1788. The Le dynasty was founded in 1428, when rebel leader Le Loi formed a resistance movement to overthrow control of his country, An Nam, by the Ming dynasty of China. After twenty-one years of Chinese occupation, Le Loi restored independence to An Nam and became the first ruler (r. 1428–1433) of the Le dynasty (sometimes called the Later Le dynasty). To defeat the Ming, Le Loi employed guerrilla warfare tactics, often relying on surprise attacks and avoiding direct combat with larger enemy forces.The Vietnamese would continue to use such tactics throughout its history, including modern times, during the Vietnam War in the mid-1900s. When Le Loi took the throne, he ruled using the name Le Thai To and changed the name of the country from An Nam to Dai Viet. Dai Viet flourished for the next hundred years, while the dynasty Le Loi founded lasted for more than 350 years. When Le Thai To died in 1433, his young son, Le Thai Ton (r. 1433–1442), succeeded to the throne. Under the leadership of Le Thanh Ton (r. 1460– 1497), a son and later successor of Le Thai, the country experienced one of the most successful periods in Vietnamese history. Le Thanh Ton established a legal code that was unique from the Chinese system previously used. He also encouraged the spread of Confucianism, spurred the growth of foreign trade, promoted the arts and architecture, and supervised the writing of a national history. In 1471, following decades of conflict with their southern rivals, the kingdom of Champa, the Vietnamese under the leadership of Le Thanh Ton captured the Cham territory. After invading the Cham capital of Vijaya, the Vietnamese massacred many of the Cham people and forced many of the survivors to flee south. The glory days of the Le dynasty came to an end during the sixteenth century as rival families and groups within the kingdom struggled for power. With its power in decline, the Le dynasty began los-

521

ing control of both its northern regions and the southern territory it had acquired from the Chams. In 1545, the Le kingdom was divided into two territories; the rival Trinh and Nguyen families controlled the northern and southern regions, respectively. Although the Le monarchs remained kings in name, they exercised very little real authority from this point forward. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Le dynasty was in serious decline as a result of the growing power of its rivals. In 1788, the Nguyen dynasty took control of the entire country, and the last ruler of the Le dynasty, Le Man Hoang De (r. 1786–1788), fled north to China. See also: Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty; Trinh Dynasty; Vietnamese Kingdoms.

LEGITIMACY The basis on which a government establishes its right to rule. Legitimacy of rule has been based on military strength, religion, heredity, and other claims to power.

RELIGIOUS BASIS The earliest sovereigns based their rule on divine order, claiming to be divine, as in ancient Egypt, or claiming to be descended from the gods, as in ancient Rome. Similarly, the ancient Sumerians believed that kingship came from heaven and that kings were the representatives of the gods and stood in for them as their intermediary. In ancient China, the kingship was seen as an intermediary position between heaven and earth. This concept goes back to the overthrow of the Chang dynasty by the Chou dynasty between about 1025 and 1050 b.c.e.The Chou justified their power by claiming that the last Chang ruler was corrupt and indifferent to the people’s needs.They believed that their dynasty, the Chou, had been given a mandate from heaven to rule China.This mandate long remained a central political concept in establishing the legitimacy of Chinese rulers. Similarly, when Europe became Christianized during the early Middle Ages, monarchs grounded their legitimacy in claims to be the anointed chosen of God. They were crowned in churches and anointed by archbishops with the oil used in baptism and confirmation, giving their coronations sacramental undertones.

522

L e g i t i m ac y

ABSOLUTIST BASIS As the Catholic Church’s authority declined and nationalism increased in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, rulers established themselves as absolute monarchs. In some cases, this idea of absolutism was blended with divine right to bolster claims of legitimacy and the right to rule. In 1534, with the Act of Supremacy, King Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) of England made the English church a national institution, putting himself at its head. Later, James I (r. 1603–1625) of England, himself a theologian, wrote The Trew Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikony Doron, a treatise that established and supported the divine right of kings. In eighteenth-century France, Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), the “Sun-King,” claimed absolute authority over the Church as Henry VIII did a century earlier. Louis required the French nobility to remain at court where their purpose was to render him honor. “The state is myself!” he declared.

OTHER BASES OF LEGITIMACY In addition to claims of divine right and absolutism, a dynasty may need to establish its legitimacy through other means. A ruler whose economic or political policies are failing may lose his or her legitimacy altogether, as happened with Louis XVI of France (r. 1774–1792) during the French Revolution. Similarly, the Yuan (or Mongol) dynasty, which conquered China in 1279, evicted thousands of farmers and occupied their lands, causing famine among the Chinese. Ming Hung-Wu, who led the resulting rebellion (1359–1368) and was proclaimed emperor in 1368, recognized the need to restore the Chinese economy at once and to establish his legitimacy as the new emperor. His agricultural policies, though reactionary, were popular; moreover, he also tried to eliminate corruption in his government.

MONARCHY AND REVOLUTION By the eighteenth century, particularly in Western Europe and in North America, people had begun to question absolute power and divine right. Increasingly, subjects demanded more voice in the government, and the king’s legitimacy became based on his ability to rule justly rather than absolutely or by divine right. In 1649, Charles I of England (r. 1625–1649) was beheaded when he refused to call Parliament and tried to force the Scots to worship according to Anglican rites. In the bloodless Glorious Revolution of

1688, William of Orange, a prince of the Netherlands, accepted the English Crown as William III (r. 1689–1702) based on The Declaration of Right, which, together with the precepts established in Magna Carta (1215), became the basis for constitutional monarchy in England. Similarly, Louis XVI of France was beheaded in the French Revolution because he could not solve, or even understand, the impoverishment of the French people. As the success of American democracy became apparent after the American colonies gained their independence from Great Britain, some people began to question the need for a monarch altogether. The nineteenth century saw a number of political upheavals, chiefly in Western Europe, in which monarchies were discarded.

FIGUREHEAD MONARCHY Today, most countries retaining a monarch are ruled by a prime minister, and the monarch serves only as a figurehead symbolizing national pride. The legitimacy of these monarchs comes from a combination of tradition and constitutional laws. Figurehead monarchies are found throughout Western Europe and in Japan. Though less intrusive in people’s lives than the monarchies of the past, even such figurehead monarchies may not be secure. In countries such as Great Britain, for example, scandals in the royal family have led people to question the legitimacy even of figurehead monarchy, and some have called for its abolition altogether. See also: Blood, Royal; Conquest and Kingships; Descent, Royal; Dethronement; Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; Inheritance, Royal; Monarchy; Power, Forms of Royal; Royal Families; Royal Line; Sacred Kingships; Succession, Royal.

LEINSTER KINGDOM (400s–1603 C.E.) Ancient and medieval kingdom of Ireland (known also as Laighin), located in the middle and southeast of the country, which was isolated from the rest of Ireland by the Slieve Bloom Mountains on its western border.

EARLY HISTORY In the fifth century, the rulers of Leinster were from a dynasty called the Dál Mesin Corb, and one of the

Leinster Kingdom earliest kings was Bressal Belach (r. ca. 436–444). In the seventh and eighth centuries, the overkings of Leinster came from two dynasties, the Uí Máil and the Uí Dunlainge. The last king of the Uí Máil dynasty, Cellach (Kelly) Cualann (r. 693–715), died in 715. Later in the eighth century, two powers contended for supremacy in Leinster, the Uí Cheinselaig in the south and the Ui Dúnlainge in the north. The Ui Cheinnselaig, like the Uí Neill and the Ui Bríuin dynasties of Ireland, traced their descent from Eremon, one of the legendary brothers who divided the island of Ireland between them in the eleventh cen-

523

tury b.c.e. By the end of the eighth century c.e., the Ui Dúnlainge had gained supremacy over the Ui Chennselaig, and they effectively excluded other groups from the kingship until 1042. By the tenth century, the powerful Uí Neill kings in Ulster had long held the high kingship of Ireland. In 956, the Irish high king, Congalach Uí Neill (r. ca. 944–956) attacked Leinster and forced its kings to acknowledge his overlordship. However, the Uí Neill were soon battling among themselves, and the Leinster kings became more powerful. Yet, Leinster still faced a serious threat from the

ROYAL RELATIVES

ARTHUR MACMORROUGH KAVANAGH (1831–1889) Although the Irish kings were driven from power by the English in the sixteenth century, their descendants continued to bear their royal titles proudly. One of the most noteworthy, both for his accomplishments and the adversity he had to overcome, was Arthur MacMorrough Kavanagh, a nineteenth-century member of Parliament who was born without arms or legs. His parents, Squire Thomas Kavanagh and Lady Harriet Le Poer Trench, named him for his ancestor, Art Oge MacMorrough (1375–1415), king of Leinster, who had successfully defied Richard II.The Kavanagh family possessed the ancient charter and Royal Crown of Leinster at their estate, Borris House, in County Carlow. By then, the family was staunchly Protestant and a supporter of the English Crown. The energetic Lady Harriet was determined that her son should succeed in life despite his disability. Arthur, who possessed only six-inch stumps for arms and legs, learned not only to ride and shoot like any other gentleman, but also to draw and paint, a talent he inherited from his mother. As a young man, he traveled to Cairo and the Holy Land, Europe, Russia, Persia, and India. In 1855, he married a distant cousin, Frances Forde Leathley, and fathered six children. After the early deaths of his two older brothers, Arthur inherited the family estates and the duties of landlord. At that time, the peasants of Ireland were suffering from the effects of the potato famine. Unlike many of the callous absentee landlords in Ireland at this time, Kavanagh was an enlightened, though somewhat paternalistic, landlord, rebuilding the homes of the peasants in the village of Borris at his expense and encouraging the local cottage industry of lace-making. In 1866, he ran for and won a Unionist seat in Parliament, which he kept for thirteen years, attending sessions in London in a wheelchair. Unlike many Unionists and Conservatives, he supported Gladstone’s Land Act, which sought compensation for dispossessed tenants. In private, Kavanagh believed that the government should give credit to the peasants to buy their own land. His opinions on Irish questions were also followed in the United States. In 1880, agitation by the Irish nationalist Fenians turned sentiment in his district against him and he lost his re-election bid. He died a saddened man in 1889.

524

Leinster Kingdom

powerful O’Brien high kings and the O’Connor clan. The rulers of Leinster thus turned to military alliances, first with other kings of Ireland and then with the Viking invaders, as a means of protection. In 1014, for example, Leinster allied with the Vikings at the battle of Clontarf against the Irish high king, Brian Boru (r. 1002–1014). In 1042, Diarmait mac Mael na mBo (r. 1042– 1072) of the Ui Dunlainge dynasty became king of Leinster. His descendants, known as the MacMorroughs, succeeded him on the throne and ruled Leinster for the next 500 years.

THE COMING OF THE ENGLISH Dermot IV MacMorrough (r. 1126–1171) is perhaps the most reviled of Irish kings because he is blamed for the English invasion of Ireland.After being driven from his kingdom in 1169 by high-king Rory O’Connor (r. 1166–1186) and O’Connor’s allies, Dermot went to England to seek allies there. King Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189) granted Dermot letters patent to seek help from his knights.As a result, Dermot was able to enlist the aid of Richard de Clare, the earl of Pembroke, popularly known as Strongbow. Dermot gave Strongbow his daughter Aoife in marriage, perhaps allowing Strongbow to think that he would inherit the throne of Leinster, though this was not according to the Irish law of succession. Strongbow came to Ireland with his forces and captured Waterford in 1170. Dermot died in 1171, and later that year, Henry II landed in Ireland. He granted Richard de Clare the lordship of Leinster, making it the first Irish kingdom to come under Norman rule. Dermot’s chosen successor, Dohmnall Caermanach, immediately opposed Strongbow but was slain by the Normans in 1171.

LATER HISTORY The Leinster kings continued to fight English domination. Donal V (r. 1171–1175), an illegitimate son of Dermot IV, raised his family’s claim to the kingship and took up arms against the English. Nicknamed Caomhinach (Kavanagh) (“The Handsome”), he founded the MacMorrough Kavanagh branch of the dynasty. By the fourteenth century, the Norman barons in Leinster had either died or moved away, and the Leinster kingship was revived. Art Mor Mac Airt MacMorrough Kavanagh (r. 1375–1417) restored much of the kingdom’s pre-Norman strength and even obtained tribute from the English colonists.

Art Mor Mac Airt married a Norman woman, Elizabeth Veele, and concluded an agreement with King Richard II of England (r. 1377–1399) over the restoration of his wife’s lands, which had been confiscated by the Normans on her marriage. But the agreement did not last, and Richard II soon landed in Ireland with his army but was unable to prevail over King Art, who ruled until his death in 1417. The English subsequently sought to set up a puppet king in Donnchad Mac Airt Mhoir MacMorrough (r. dates unknown), but soon he, too, took up arms against them. However, Donnchad eventually signed an agreement with King Henry IV of England (r. 1399–1413) in which he received tribute in exchange for the English-occupied territory in his kingdom. In 1553, Caothaoir Ma Airt of Leinster (r. 1547– 1553) surrendered his kingdom to King Edward VI of England (r. 1547–1553) in exchange for becoming Baron of Ballyanne in Wexford. However, his descendants continued to resist English domination. In 1595, during an attempt to drive out the English, Dohmnall Spainneach Mac Donnchadha (Donal) IX (r. 1595–1603), who had been in exile in Spain, was acclaimed as king of Leinster. He commanded the kingdom’s forces against the armies of Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), but surrendered and abdicated in 1603, ending the long-lived kingship of Leinster. See also: Boru, Brian; Irish Kings. FURTHER READING

Byrne, Francis John. Irish Kings and High-Kings. 2nd ed. Portland Or: Court Courts Press, 2001. Ellis, Peter Beresford. Erin’s Blood Royal: The Gaelic Noble Dynasties of Ireland. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. McCormick, Donald. The Incredible Mr. Kavanagh. New York: Devin-Adair, 1961.

LEO III. See Byzantine Empire LEÓN, KINGDOM OF (910–1230 C.E.) Historic kingdom in northwest Spain, originally part of the kingdom of Asturias. In the tenth century, the rulers of the kingdom of Asturias shifted their capital from Ovideo to León, and the city gave its name to the surrounding terri-

L e op ol d I tory.The first ruler to hold the title king of León was Garcia I (910–914). By the early eleventh century, rulers of the kingdom of Asturias and León had gained control of the Iberian regions of Galicia, Navarre, the Basque provinces, and parts of Castile. But their involvement in the reconquista (the campaign to recapture the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors), as well as rivalries and insurrections among nobles, made it impossible to retain complete authority over all their holdings. As a result, some of these areas splintered into separate kingdoms. The independent kingdom of Navarre was established in 905 under Sancho I (r. 905–925), and an independent kingdom of Castile was established in 1035 under Ferdinand I (r. 1035– 1065). In 1037, Ferdinand I of Castile conquered León, and for nearly three decades the kingdom was joined with Castile and ruled by the House of Navarre. León separated again Ferdinand’s death in 1065, with his eldest son Sancho (r. 1065–1072) inheriting Castile and the second son, Alfonso (r. 1065–1109), inheriting León. Following Sancho’s assassination in 1072, the two territories again merged, and Alfonso ruled as King Alfonso VI of Castile and León. Separated again in the twelfth century, León joined Castile once more in 1230 during the reign of King Ferdinand III of León (r. 1217–1252). León remained part of Castile until the dual kingdom merged with Aragón in 1479, forming the greatest state on the Iberian Peninsula. With the reign of Charles I (r. 1516–1556), the grandson of Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504) and Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516), the three formerly independent kingdoms—León, Castile, and Aragón—became the foundation of the modern kingdom and nation of Spain. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Asturias Kingdom; Castile, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; Navarre, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies.

LEOPOLD I (1640–1705 C.E.) Holy Roman emperor (r. 1658–1705) and inheritor of the Austrian Habsburg titles, who faced serious challenges from both France and the Ottoman Empire. During his reign, Leopold I consolidated many of the disparate lands of Germany into a series of

525

larger and more effective states. In addition to his title as Holy Roman emperor, he was duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, count of Tyrol, archduke of Upper and Lower Austria, king of Bohemia (elected in 1656), and king of Hungary and Croatia (elected 1655). While Leopold held the imperial throne, the city of Vienna became a center for culture and the arts. Born in 1640, Leopold was the second son of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III (1637–1657). Educated for a position in the Church, he became heir to the throne after the death of his older brother Ferdinand in 1654. When Leopold took to the throne after the death of his father, the political situation in Europe saw the great rival powers of France and the Ottoman Empire competing for supremacy. Leopold inherited an Austria weakened by the costly Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and facing an advancing threat from the Ottomans Turks in the east. Austria, therefore, found itself in the middle of a precarious situation both politically and geographically. In order to compete and survive, Leopold instituted sweeping reforms of the Austrian military and government. He replaced the unreliable mercenaries common to early seventeenth-century armies with professional soldiers trained and paid by the state, and he expanded state authority by organizing and enlarging bureaucratic oversight of government action. Leopold also helped create a powerful German ally to the north by granting the title of king to Frederick I (r. 1701–1713) of Prussia, who was continuing the state-building efforts of his father, Frederick William (1640–1688), elector of Brandenburg. Leopold’s leadership was not always admirable. In June 1683, a vast Turkish army of approximately one hundred thousand soldiers lay siege to the city of Vienna. Leopold fled the city and left its defense to his advisers. After several months, Poland, Venice, and Russia sent troops to aid the beleaguered city, driving off the surprised Turks.The defeat of the Turks at Vienna is considered a decisive moment in the eventual fall of the Ottoman Empire. Leopold’s efforts continued to be divided as he struggled against both the French and the Turks. In 1686, he formed the League of Augsburg, an alliance among European nations to defend the German Palatinate. England joined the League in 1689, and the coalition became known as the Grand Alliance. The ensuing conflict between these powers and

526

L e op ol d I

France was known as the War of the Grand Alliance (1688–1697). The Treaty of Ryswick (1697) settled the war and temporarily halted the expansionist policy of the French king, Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715). The Turkish conflict was also resolved in 1697 by the Treaty of Karlowitz, which granted Leopold most of Hungary.These treaties did not end Leopold’s hostilities, however. In 1700, after the last Habsburg king of Spain, Charles II (r. 1665–1700), died without an heir, Leopold claimed the Spanish throne for his second son Charles, while Louis XIV of France demanded that his grandson Philip be recognized as king of Spain. Fighting began, and the War of the Spanish Succession lasted from 1701 to 1714. Leopold did not live to see the end of this conflict. He died in 1705 of a series of debilitating heart attacks, leaving his titles to his son, Joseph I (1705–1711), who continued the modernizing efforts of his father as well as the war over the Spanish throne. See also: French Monarchies; Habsburg Dynasty; Hohenzollern Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Louis XIV; Ottoman Empire.

LEOPOLD II (1747–1792 C.E.) Short-reigning but influential Habsburg ruler of the Holy Roman Empire (r. 1790–1792), whose earlier position as Grand Duke Leopold I of Tuscany earned him a reputation as a strong and progressive ruler. Though frequently unpopular with his people, Leopold, who also ruled Hungary and Bohemia in addition to other Habsburg lands, swept away much of the waste and corruption that had plagued Tuscany before his rule. In doing so, he left a legacy of intelligent, productive, and profitable governance. As Holy Roman emperor, however, Leopold was forced to repeal many reforming policies in order to maintain domestic peace and was caught up in the international turmoil leading to the French Revolutionary Wars. Born into the powerful Habsburg dynasty, Leopold was the third son of the Austrian archduchess Maria Theresa and emperor Francis I (r. 1745–1765) of the Holy Roman Empire.As part of the settlement that made him his father’s successor to the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Leopold married Maria Louisa, daughter of King Charles III of Spain (r. 1759–1788).

The couple had sixteen children, including Leopold’s successor, Francis II (r. 1792–1806). Leopold became grand duke of Tuscany upon his father’s death in 1765, at which time his older brother became Emperor Joseph II (r. 1765–1790) of the Holy Roman Empire. As ruler of Tuscany, Leopold quickly began undoing the corrupt systems put in place by the Medici family, who had ruled Tuscany for centuries before his father’s time. Leopold loosened many of the restrictions placed on Tuscan industry and instituted a fair tax system, which helped generate widespread economic growth. His actions, however, created resentment among the powerful families in Tuscany who had benefited from the corrupt policies that Leopold abolished. As his brother, Emperor Joseph II, did in his own domains, Leopold did much to fortify the civil rights of his people, such as putting a stop to capital and corporal punishment. Upon the death of his brother Joseph II in 1790, Leopold became Holy Roman emperor as well as king of Hungary and Bohemia, inheriting subjects who were deeply divided over Joseph’s progressive reforms. In order to prevent civil insurrection, Leopold rescinded many of Joseph’s reform policies. Leopold’s main role as Holy Roman emperor, however, was international. He secured his borders with Turkey, put down a rebellion in the Netherlands, and attempted to secure an alliance with Prussian king Frederick William II (r. 1786–1797) in order to prevent the French Revolution from spreading throughout Europe. In 1791, Leopold and Frederick William issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which claimed their intent to restore Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792), France’s recently deposed king, to the throne by force, provided that the other major powers in Europe joined them. This declaration incensed the French revolutionaries, and actually hastened the advent of war. Leopold died suddenly in 1792, not knowing that the peace he believed he had helped to secure would end in just a month’s time, as the wars of the French Revolution engulfed nearly all of Europe. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Charles III; Diplomacy, Royal; Frederick William, the Great Elector; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Joseph II; Maria Theresa; Medici Family; Siblings, Royal.

L i a n g Wu Ti

LIANG DYNASTIES (502–557 C.E., 907–923 C.E.)

Two Chinese dynasties that ruled briefly during the Southern and Northern Dynasties era and the Five Dynasties period.The first Liang dynasty was one in a series of small, short-lived kingdoms that ruled southern China during the period known as the Southern and Northern dynasties (386–589). Falling at the end of the 300 years of chaos that followed the disintegration of the Han dynasty, the Southern and Northern dynasties era saw China divided politically between north and south. Although the southern dynasties did not control the north, Chinese historians have generally considered them to be China’s legitimate rulers. The Liang dynasty was the third of four dynasties that followed the collapse of the Eastern Jin dynasty at their capital at Jiankang (present-day Nanjing). These four dynasties were the Liu Sung dynasty (420–479), the Southern Ch’i dynasty (479–502), the Liang dynasty (502–557), and the Ch’en dynasty (557–589). The Liang founder, Xiao Yan, served as

Liang Dynasty Wu Ti

502–549

Chien Wen Ti

549–551

Yu-chang Wang

551–555

Yuan Ti

552–555

Ching Ti

555–557

Later Liang Dynasty T’ai Tsu

907–912

Ying Wang

912–913

Mo Ti

913–923

Chuang Tsung

923–926

Ming Tsung

926–933

Min Ti

933–934

Fei Ti

934–937

527

regent to Hedi, the teenage emperor of the Qi dynasty (479–502). When Hedi killed Xiao Yan’s brother, a minister at his court, Xiao Yan attacked the capital, seized the throne, and proclaimed the new Liang dynasty. Known as Liang Wudi (r. 502–549), he was a scholar and a devoted Buddhist. During his long, stable rule he established schools for the study of the Confucian classics. As a Buddhist, Liang Wudi opposed the use of violence, and on several occasions left the throne to live as a Buddhist monk. Liang Wudi’s eldest son, Xiao Tong, compiled China’s most famous anthology, Literary Selections. The reigns of Liang Wudi’s successors were bloody and brief, beginning in 548 when his son, Jian Wendi (ruled 550), staged a rebellion against him. In 557 Liang Wudi’s grandson was deposed by the founder of the Chen dynasty.The last of the southern dynasties, the Chen would soon fall to the Sui dynasty, which would reunite China under a single rule. The Liang name was revived in 907 when Zu Wen, also known as Liang Taizu (r. 907–912), established the Later Liang dynasty (907–923) at Luoyang after the fall of the T’ang dynasty. This Later Liang dynasty marks the beginning of the Five Dynasties period, an era of constant warfare in which five different dynasties succeeded each other in northern China in the space of fifty years. In 923, Liang Taizu’s son, Modi, was overthrown by Zhuangzong, the son of a Turkish general who founded the Later T’ang dynasty. See also: Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms; Han Dynasty; Sui Dynasty;T’ang Dynasty.

LIANG WU TI (464–549 C.E.) Chinese emperor (r. 502–549) of the first major Liang dynasty (502–556), one of the southern dynasties in a period of disunion in Chinese history that lasted from 265 to 589. Liang Wu Ti’s reign was the longest and most stable of the period. Born with the name Xiao Yan, Liang Wu Ti was a cousin of the emperor Gaodi (r. 479–482) of China’s Southern Qi dynasty. As a member of a powerful aristocratic family, he had a strategically located fiefdom and held a number of senior posts in the imperial administration before becoming regent to Emperor Qi Hedi (r. 501). In 502, Xiao Yan launched an attack on the Qi capital of Nanjing and seized

528

L i a n g Wu Ti

power for himself, becoming emperor and founder of the Liang dynasty. He took the imperial name Liang Wu Ti, or “martial emperor of the Liang.” A first-rate scholar, Emperor Wu Ti presided over a period of tremendous cultural progress. During his reign, literature, philosophy, and art flourished, and Buddhism spread extremely rapidly, fueled by the emperor’s conversion to the religion around 511 and his great devotion to it. Contributions to Buddhist monasteries grew to enormous proportions, with Wu Ti the most generous donor.The emperor spent vast sums to build Buddhist temples, monasteries, and statues in the vicinity of the capital of Jiankang and farther away. He even arranged to be held hostage at temples until members of his court paid huge amounts of ransom. Wu Ti’s focus on spiritual matters often deflected his attention from other urgent matters. Several times during his rule, the armies of the Wei kingdom to the north launched attacks into southern China and threatened Liang rule. As a devout Buddhist,Wu Ti apparently lived and ate very simply. He did not allow meat or wine at the royal table and is credited with starting a custom of vegetarian meals in China. Using both his royal power and Buddhist principles, he also prohibited wine and meat in the monasteries. Although some Buddhist leaders objected,Wu Ti insisted that it was not possible to be compassionate if one drank wine or ate the flesh of animals. From that time on, monks and nuns ate only vegetarian meals. Ironically, the emperor died of starvation at the age of eightyfive–not because of his eating habits, but as a result of a revolt in his capital that cut off the food supply. A few years after Wu Ti’s death in 549, the Liang dynasty collapsed, largely because of internal conflicts among the emperor’s descendants and heirs. See also: Liang Dynasties.

LIAO DYNASTY (907–1125 C.E.) Foreign dynasty that ruled a large empire centered in northern China after the fall of the T’ang dynasty. The Liao dynasty was founded by the Khitan, a seminomadic people originating in Manchuria. Khitai, a variant of Khitan, was the basis for the word Cathay, the medieval European term for northern China. The Khitan, who practiced agriculture, hunted, and bred cattle in the steppes northeast of China, sent

tribute to their powerful southern neighbors, the T’ang (618–907). As the T’ang dynasty collapsed in the early tenth century, a Khitan leader, Abaoji, united several Khitan tribes and proclaimed himself emperor of a new dynasty. In 926, the Liao extended their domain east to the shores of the Yellow Sea. That same year, Abaoji died and was succeeded by his son, establishing a system of hereditary succession modeled after the Chinese. In 936, the Liao gained territory around Beijing in exchange for helping the Later Jin (937–947) dynasty defeat the Later T’ang (923–937). Beijing, which had previously been an insignificant frontier city, became the Liao dynasty’s southern capital. The Liao military, with its massive cavalry of mounted archers, posed a potent threat to neighboring states. In 1004, the Liao defeated armies of the Song dynasty, winning a treaty that forced the Song to pay a large annual tribute in silk and silver. Similar treaties were forced on other states bordering the Liao Empire, including the Western Xia state in the northwest. At its height, the Liao domain reached across parts of Mongolia, Manchuria, and north China, from the Yellow Sea to Central Asia. The Liao employed a dual system of governing. In the southern portion of their realm, they ruled according to the Chinese system inherited from the T’ang, with a bureaucracy staffed by Chinese officials, a limited examination system, and a Confucian political philosophy. In the vast plains to the north, they employed the traditional Khitan tribal system of rule.The highly mobile Liao government moved seasonally between five capitals. At the peak of Liao rule, about 750,000 Khitans ruled over some two to three million Chinese. Unlike most foreign rulers of China, the Liao successfully avoided absorption into Chinese culture. Nobles who endeavored to assimilate into the Chinese system were punished, and a script was created for the Khitan language.While the elite became well versed in both Khitan and Chinese culture, the majority of Khitan subjects maintained their traditional culture. In 1125, the Liao were defeated by an alliance of the Song and the Jurchen, a rival northern tribe that later forced the Song south and founded the Jin dynasty (1125–1234) in northern China. See also: Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms; Sung (Song) Dynasty;T’ang Dynasty.

Liliuokalani

529

LILIUOKALANI (1839–1917 C.E.) Last reigning monarch of Hawaii (r. 1891–1893), remembered for her efforts to maintain the dignity and independence of the Hawaiian people and for her musical compositions, including the well-known song, “Aloha Oe.” The daughter of high chief Kapaakea and his wife Keohokalole, Liliuokalani was born on September 2, 1838, in Honolulu, on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. Shortly after her birth, she was baptized into the Christian religion and given the baptismal name Lydia. The reigning Hawaiian king at the time was Kamehameha III (r. 1825–1854). In order to strengthen ties of loyalty and support with other high-born families, Liliuokalani’s parents followed Hawaiian tradition by having their children adopted out to other important families. Accordingly, Liliuokalani was raised by one of Kamehameha III’s royal advisers, Abner Paki, and his wife Konia. The couple already had a daughter of their own, Bernice, who became like a sister to Liliuokalani, and with whom the future queen of Hawaii maintained close ties throughout her life. Because Liliuokalani was in line to inherit the throne, she was educated at the Royal School, which was run by American missionaries.There she became fluent in English and was instructed in the Christian faith. She also studied music, becoming proficient at several instruments, and during her school years she began writing songs—something she continued to do for the rest of her life. In her adolescence, Liliuokalani became a member of the inner court of King Kamehameha IV (r. 1854–1863) and his wife, Queen Emma. She was thus exposed to the day-to-day conduct of life in Iolani Palace, the royal residence, and she remained a member of the court throughout the reigns of Kamehameha IV and his successors. From this privileged position, Liliuokalani was able to witness growing American influence in the Hawaiian court, led by U.S. sugar-plantation owners who wanted to wield greater power over local policies. Kamehameha IV died after ruling nine years, a victim of a lifelong battle with asthma. He was succeeded by his brother, who took the royal name of Kamehameha V (r. 1863–1872) and was the last truly hereditary king of the islands. Kamehameha V’s reign no doubt had a great influence on certain of Lili-

Queen Liliuokalani was the last monarch to reign over the Hawaiian kingdom. She attempted to maintain Hawaiian independence but was deposed in 1894 by American settlers who advocated the formation of a republic. During the last years of her life, Liliuokalani worked to preserve the traditions of her people.

uokalani’s own beliefs, for he identified strongly with European culture and prejudices, and during his rule he attempted to suppress such traditional Hawaiian practices as the hula. Liliuokalani spent much of her own reign trying to restore Hawaii’s rich cultural tradition. On the death of Kamehameha V in 1872, the succession to the throne was thrown into doubt. The king had left no children, and there were several claimants to the throne who could trace roughly equivalent descent from Kamehameha I.The Hawaiian legislature stepped in and ordered an election, which was won by William Charles Lunalilo (r. 1873–1874). Lunalilo’s reign was too brief to effect much change, however, for he died of tuberculosis within a year. Once again, there were many claimants to the throne, among them Liliuokalani’s brother, David Kalakaua (r. 1874–1891). Kalakaua won the election and began his reign by attempting to restore Hawai-

530

Liliuokalani

ian traditions, which had been eroded over the years under pressure from American missionaries. However, his enjoyment of high living and of travel caused him to spend much of his time away from Hawaii. During his absences, Liliuokalani served as regent. By 1887, Kalakaua had become largely ineffective, unable to withstand pressure from American interests and the pro-U.S. faction on the Big Island. He was forced, under threat of mass insurrection, to sign what became known as the Bayonet Constitution, which turned over extraordinary power to non-Hawaiian (mostly American) interests and rendered the monarchy nearly powerless. Shorn of responsibilities, Kalakaua threw himself into his playboy lifestyle, and on a visit to San Francisco in 1891 he died. Liliuokalani, having served as regent during much of her brother’s rule, was the logical choice for Hawaii’s next ruler, and she took the throne in January 1891. Her first order of business was to undo the damage that the Bayonet Constitution had done to the power of the monarchy. She proposed a new constitution in 1893, only to rouse the ire of U.S. business interests and their local allies within the Hawaiian legislature. Realizing that these factions would never agree voluntarily to a restoration of royal authority, she began to rule by edict, bypassing the legislature and even ignoring her ministers. The queen’s independence did not sit well with the increasingly powerful U.S. sugar-growing interests and their allies among the native Hawaiians.These dissidents called upon John L. Stevens, the resident U.S. minister of Hawaii, who called in U.S. troops to depose the queen and establish a new government. U.S. President Benjamin Harrison supported the insurrection and annexed the island-nation, making Liliuokalani’s deposition official. She was kept under house arrest because it was feared that she might inspire a rebellion among the indigenous people. While under arrest, Liliuokalani remained in contact with her supporters, and brought the fight to regain her throne all the way to the office of the new U.S. president, Grover Cleveland. He reversed the order of annexation, fueling hope that Liliuokalani would soon regain her position as Hawaii’s queen. The entrenched U.S. interests on the island, however, had no intention of relinquishing their control. They defied the presidential order and declared Hawaii a republic in 1894, naming one of the powerful plantation owners, Sandford Dole, as their new president.

Liliuokalani’s supporters were outraged, raising fears in Hawaii’s American community that the deposed queen was fomenting rebellion. Dole had her rearrested and confined to her private residence in 1895. Later that same year, soldiers forcibly entered her home and conducted a search, turning up a cache of arms. It is not known whether these arms were hidden there by supporters or planted by the searchers, but the discovery served as a pretext for stripping Liliuokalani of all freedom of movement, and she was imprisoned in the Iolani palace. Liliuokalani was finally granted limited freedom in 1896, and she set out to personally petition the U.S. president and Congress for the restoration of the monarchy. By this time, however, Hawaii had become too important to U.S. interests, for the islands were considered to be strategically necessary for the protection of U.S. naval interests in the Pacific. Congress, therefore, decided to support the so-called republic. Four years later, Congress once again approved annexation of Hawaii, ending all hope for the restoration of the monarchy. Liliuokalani, no longer considered a threat, was finally set free to live as a private citizen in Honolulu. She put aside all further attempts to restore the monarchy, and spent the next two decades trying to protect and preserve the traditions of her homeland, devoting much of her time to public service. Before her death, on November 11, 1917, she established the Liliuokalani Trust for the support of Hawaiian orphans. See also: Hawaiian Kingdoms; Kamehameha I, the Great. FURTHER READING

Daws, Gavin. Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. New York: Macmillan, 1974. Wisniewski, Richard. The Rise and Fall of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: Pacific Basin Enterprises, 1979.

LITERATURE AND KINGSHIP The varying portrayal of kings and queens in literature reflects the changing ideas that societies have had of their rulers throughout history. Literary works present monarchs, real and imaginary, in many different lights: the king may be portrayed as

L i t e r at u r e a n d K i n g s h i p an ideal, used to give a warning about tyranny, or made into a scapegoat for political frustrations.

THE IDEAL KING Literary descriptions or discussions of ideal kingship can be either prescriptive or descriptive. Prescriptive literature often takes the form of moral essays, or “Mirrors for Princes,” which contain advice for rulers. A Muslim example, the Nasihat al-Muluk (Book of Advice for Princes), by the twelfth-century Persian philosopher and mystic, Mu’allafat alGhazali, urges Muslim sultans to beware of eternal punishment if they rule unjustly. In a more practical vein, it also tells rulers to avoid counselors who flatter them. Similar works in medieval Europe advised rulers to practice Christian virtues. But in the secularized society of the Renaissance, a more cynical attitude developed.The advice in The Prince (1513), a treatise of an “ideal” ruler by Florentine statesman Niccolo Machiavelli, actually reverses many of the precepts of the earlier Mirrors for Princes. Writing for the ruling Medici family of Florence, Machiavelli proposed that since human beings are imperfect, attempts to govern solely by practicing virtue will inevitably fail. Therefore, a ruler might sometimes resort to means that are morally evil in order to preserve the state and prevent the greater evil of foreign conquest. An ancient and widespread monarchical ideal is the sage-king. In his classic work, The Republic, the Greek philosopher Plato describes his ideal monarch as a philosopher-king. Two of China’s greatest humanist philosophers, Confucius and Mencius, idealized mythical god-kings of China—the Yellow Emperor (Huang-ti), Yu, Yao, and Shung—as sagekings of a former Golden Age. Confucius advised rulers to imitate them in the practice of the virtues of benevolence, loyalty, and moderation, for only a ruler who is worthy will be entitled to receive the Mandate of Heaven, or authority to rule. Another ideal monarch is the king who is both a warrior and a religious ruler. The medieval epic poem, The Song of Roland, written by an unknown author in France in the twelfth century, was inspired by the Christian struggle against the Muslims during the Crusades.The poem looks back on the Frankish king Charlemagne (r. 768–814) as an ideal king who was both a pious religious man and a courageous warrior. In the Indian epic, The Mahabharata, compiled around

531

350, Prince Arjuna is a warrior king who receives sacred revelations from the god Vishnu. One of the greatest kings of myth is King Arthur of Britain. His legend is based on the exploits of a Romanized Celtic general in fifth-century Britain who fought the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Medieval writers, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth in England and Chrétien de Troyes in France, portrayed Arthur as the ideal of medieval chivalry. So important was the cult of Arthur that King Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189) sought to attach himself to it by proclaiming his discovery of Arthur’s burial place at Glastonbury in southwestern England around 1183. Four years later, Henry named his recently born and youngest son Arthur in honor of the legendary ruler. More recent rulers have also been made into idealized symbols of their nation and its view of itself. In nineteenth-century England, for instance, the ideal of a woman as a “domestic queen” developed

Throughout the centuries, the lives of kings and queens— both real and imaginary—have been detailed and interpreted in works of literature and philosophy. Some works portray monarchs as they truly were; others present idealized views. Perhaps the best-known Renaissance treatise on the ideal ruler is The Prince (1513) by Florentine statesman Niccolo Machiavelli, shown in this sixteenth-century portrait.

532

L i t e r at u r e a n d K i n g s h i p

from the image of Queen Victoria, who was celebrated by poets and novelists as a middle-class monarch whose main concern was with husband and home.

CHANGING PORTRAYALS Few people have written about as many rulers as the great English playwright, William Shakespeare. For many years, critics have debated his political intentions in the portrayal of monarchs. Some have seen a single thread running through his English history plays of a fatal curse resulting from the deposition of King Richard II (r. 1377–1399) by Henry Boling-

broke (Henry IV, 1399–1413), an action that haunted Henry’s successors. Some have seen Shakespeare’s play, Richard III, as a defense of the position held by the Tudor dynasty that Richard was evil and Henry VII (r. 1485–1509), the first Tudor king, was right to depose him. The same Shakespearean work often receives different interpretations. For example, in a 1944 film version of Henry V, that king is portrayed as a perfect monarch and military hero who achieved a miraculous victory over the French at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. This portrayal was intended to give England hope in the ongoing struggle against the

ROYAL PLACES

THE GREEK THEATER Myths about kings and queens formed much of the basis of the ancient Greek theater, which reached its height in Athens in the fifth century b.c.e.The great tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides dramatize the Greek conceptions of monarchy and the role of kings. The first Greek dramas were rituals enacting the myths of the death and resurrection of the ritual god-king.The theater in Athens started as songs and dances at the Dionysia, the feast in honor of Dionysius, the god of wine.These eventually became dramatic plays with actors answering a chorus that recited narrative. Many Greek tragedies deal with the role of kings in regard to the city and the gods. At a time when Athens was engaged in a struggle for democratic government, the tragic poets often criticized tyrannical kings. In the play Agamemnon by Aeschylus, Clytemnestra, the wife of King Agamemnon, murders the lawful king, her husband, and allows the tyrant Aegisthus to seize the throne. In Antigone by Sophocles, the heroine Antigone defies the impious king Creon to seek burial for her brother, who had been killed in battle. Creon’s disobedience of the divine laws by which the city should be governed results in tragedy. In another play by Sophocles, Oedipus the King, the city of Thebes is inflicted with plague.When Oedipus eventually learns the truth—that he unwittingly killed his father and married his mother—he blinds himself, and his wife Jocasta kills herself. But the city is saved, an echo of the ancient idea that the purging of a bad king will restore health to the people. In his Bacchae, the Greek playwright Euripides describes Pentheus, the ruler of Thebes, as little more than a wild beast because of his violence and arrogance. Pentheus ends up being torn apart by the female devotees of the god Dionysius.These plays are not meaningful only for fifth-century Athens.They are still compelling today because of their moral themes about fate and the responsibility of human rulers.

L i t e r at u r e a n d K i n g s h i p

533

William Shakespeare dramatized the lives of a number of monarchs in his history plays. Perhaps the most infamous was Richard III, whom he depicted as a villain of monstrous proportions. This engraving by William Hogarth shows the eighteenth-century actor David Garrick performing the role of the evil king in Shakespeare’s Richard III.

Nazis in World War II. In a more recent film version of the same play (1990), Henry V (r. 1413–1422) is portrayed as a more human and flawed monarch. Different authors have portrayed the same ruler according to the beliefs of their own times. In Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare, in accordance with his idea of tragedy, portrayed Cleopatra as a passionate woman whose flaws helped destroy her and her Roman lover. In early nineteenth-century France, Theophile Gautier, in his short story “One of Cleopatra’s Nights,” portrayed the queen as a decadent aristocrat who kills her peasant lover and uses her feminine wiles to increase her power. Gautier’s image of Cleopatra was colored by his feelings about the aristocracy of pre-Revolutionary France. Sovereigns often become scapegoats for their kingdom’s ills and are made the objects of satire. For instance, cartoonists and satirists in the eighteenth

century criticized the sexual excesses of King Louis XV of France (r. 1715–1774), while others in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries found fault with the relationship of Empress Alexandra of Russia, the wife of Tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894– 1917), to the alleged holy man, Rasputin.

THE PRESENT AND FUTURE The mystique of kingship has come to seem outdated in modern democratic societies, as is reflected in twentieth-century literature in the West. But ideals of kingship have also been kept alive in literary works. One of the most resonant is the portrayal of King Arthur in the novel The Once and Future King (1958), by English author T.H. White. In this work, King Arthur struggles to rule Camelot by justice and right, only to see his kingdom fall because of violence, which White called “the mental illness of hu-

534

L i t e r at u r e a n d K i n g s h i p

manity.” In the end of the novel,Arthur finds comfort in the fact that the ideal of Camelot will live on in stories.This idea was especially relevant in the twentieth century and was reflected by the response of American audiences to the Broadway musical Camelot, based on White’s work, which came to be identified with the ideals of the vibrant and idealistic administration of President John F. Kennedy. Another work that captures kingly ideals and resonates with modern audiences is the trilogy Lord of the Rings, written by English author J.R.R. Tolkien, first published in 1954–1955 and named “Book of the Century” by a readers’ poll in England in 1997. Tolkien portrays the kingly character, Aragorn, in powerful archetypal images. He is the true king who comes to his rightful throne, forges his sword anew, and acts as a healer for his kingdom.Tolkien’s notion of an ideal king, similar to that handed down from ancient pre-Christian mythology, remains popular today as a link with rulers found in the literature of the past. See also:Arthur, King; Christianity and Kingship; Hinduism and Kingship; Myth and Folklore. FURTHER READING

Homans, Margaret. Royal Representations: Queen Victoria and British Culture, 1837–1876. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Lagorio, Valerie M., and Mildred Leake Day, eds. King Arthur Through the Ages. New York: Garland, 1990.

moved into the area.The struggle for power and territory among these three ethnic groups has long defined the flow of Lithuanian history. Early Russian and German chronicles mention Lithuanian dukes as early as 1040. Pagan landowners and warriors, the dukes devoted much of their energies to expansion into Slavic territories. They ruled the new lands they conquered in accordance with local traditions, tolerating Orthodox Christians as well as small communities of Latin Christians and Jews. Official documents were written in the language known as Old Byelorussian; for that reason, and because much of the population was Slavicspeaking, some Russian historians refer to the medieval Lithuanian duchy as “West Russia.” A 1219 treaty with the duke of Volynia mentions twenty-one Lithuanian dukes under an informal chieftain named Mindaugas (r. ca. 1235–1263). A growing threat from the Latin West by two Germanic military-religious orders—the Livonian Order in Latvia and the Teutonic Knights in Prussia—pushed the dukes closer together at this time.Apparently led by the same Mindaugas, the Lithuanians defeated the Livonians at the battle of Saule in 1236. Mindaugas accepted Latin Christianity in 1253 and, with Livonian support, was crowned king two years later. He set up a Lithuanian diocese, but his attempts to convert the population to Christianity proved unpopular with most nobles.The king was assassinated ten years later; a pagan temple was built on the ruins of his cathedral in Vilnius.

EXPANSION

LITHUANIA, GRAND DUCHY OF

(ca. 1230–1569 C.E.)

A large, ethnically diverse duchy that covered much of present-day Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine. The Lithuanian grand dukes presided over the last pagan state in Europe, finally merging with the kingdom of Poland between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries.

ORIGINS People speaking a Baltic language (whose only surviving descendants are Lithuanian and Latvian) lived around the southeastern shores of the Baltic Sea more than 4,000 years ago. They eventually were challenged by Germanic and Slavic tribes who

Mindaugas’s successors maintained the unity that he had achieved, but they declined to use the title of king, calling themselves grand dukes instead.A series of conquests and opportune marriages, especially under Grand Duke Vytenis (r. 1295–1316), expanded Lithuania’s control over present-day Belarus. His brother and successor, Gediminas (r. 1316– 1341), gave his name to the dynasty—the Gediminian dynasty. Their clan’s ancestral base, the town of Vilnius, became the country’s capital. The Lithuanian nobles remained powerful as the source of the Gediminian military strength. However, most ethnic Lithuanians, perhaps half a million people, remained serfs. Gediminas himself invited merchants, artisans, and intellectuals from the German Baltic cities and from religious orders in Saxony to settle in his lands. He also invited the core of what

L i u Pa n g became a thriving Jewish community in Vilnius by the end of the fourteenth century. Gediminas’s son Jaunutis (r. 1341–1345) ruled briefly but was deposed. His successor, his brother AlGirdas (r. 1345–1377), kept up a steady pace of military campaigning that gradually extended the rule of the Lithuanian dukedom to the south and east. AlGirdas was able to leave his son Jogaila (r. 1377–1392) a dominion that stretched nearly to Moscow in the east and all the way to the Black Sea in the south. AlGirdas remained a devoted pagan; after his death in battle, he was cremated together with eighteen warhorses. However, in his marriage and his appointments to high offices, he favored Orthodox Christians. Jogaila tried to continue his father’s eastward expansion, siding with the Mongols of Central Asia against Russia, their common enemy, in the late 1370s. However, after the 1380 Russian victory at Kulikovo against the Mongol Khan Mamai and his Golden Horde, Jogaila was forced to turn westward. However, as long as Lithuania remained a pagan state, it was considered a legitimate military target of crusades by the Germanic religious-military orders.

UNION WITH POLAND When the Polish nobles offered their country’s vacant throne on the condition of conversion to Christianity, Jogaila accepted. In the Kreva Union Act of 1385, he pledged to accept Latin baptism (with the new name Wladyslaw Jagiello) and promised to keep Lithuania and Poland united in perpetuity.The next year, Jogaila personally supervised a mass baptism in Vilnius. The new Lithuanian churches established under Jogaila were staffed by and dependent on Polish bishops. In the political sphere, however, Jogaila agreed to allow the grand duchy of Lithuania to survive as a distinct political entity within the kingdom of Poland under the leadership of his cousin Vytautas (r. 1392– 1430). Together, the two rulers delivered a decisive blow against the Teutonic Knights at the battle of Tannenberg in 1410. Vytautas died three days before his scheduled coronation as grand duke in 1430, but his successors managed to preserve some legal and political autonomy for the duchy. Only in 1569 did Polish noblemen under the last Jagiello ruler of Poland, Sigismund II (r. 1548–1572), succeed in imposing the Union of Lublin, which effectively ended Lithuanian independence for 350 years. See also: Jagiello Dynasty; Piast Dynasty.

535

LIU PANG (GAO TI) (247–195 B.C.E.) Chinese emperor (r. 207–195 b.c.e.) who founded the Han dynasty and became one of the great heroes of Chinese history. Born a peasant, Liu Pang was a minor village official under the Ch’in (Qin) dynasty (221–207 b.c.e.). He later became a bandit and then a rebel leader in the period of civil war that followed the disintegration of Ch’in rule. Liu Pang defeated rival warlords and established a base of power in the Han River region. After reconquering Ch’in territory, ending five years of civil war between rival states, he proclaimed himself emperor of the new Han dynasty in 206 c.e., taking the name Gao Ti. The new emperor established the Han capital at Chang’an. His reign marks the beginning of the Western or former Han dynasty. Because of his humble beginnings, Liu Pang was not well educated, but he was intelligent and a conscientious ruler. One of his first tasks as emperor was to reestablish the unity of the empire, which he accomplished by replacing the rulers of all but one of the provinces and kingdoms under his rule with members of his own family. To win support from powerful families, he gave them large landholdings to govern as feudal estates. However, he later eliminated many of these estates after realizing the mistake of sharing power with the aristocracy. Having inherited an economy crippled by war, Liu Pang took pains to restrict government spending. He avoided the high cost of military campaigns by using diplomacy to deal with the dynasty’s biggest menace, the Xiongnu. A federation of nomadic tribes to the north of China, the Xiongnu engaged in constant raids on their richer southern neighbor. Liu Pang kept the peace by arranging strategic marriages and alliances and giving generous gifts. Liu Pang continued the highly centralized system of bureaucratic administration established by the Ch’in dynasty, but he eased the harsh practices of Ch’in rule by reducing taxes and instituting more humane punishments. In place of the Ch’in rulers’ legalist philosophy, which relied on fear and punishment to maintain control, Liu Pang introduced Confucianism as his governing philosophy. Confucianism stressed the moral responsibility of the ruler to his people and the maintenance of a carefully defined social order based on obedience to authority. Confucian scholars filled the Han bu-

536

L i u Pa n g

reaucracy and predominated at court, where they tutored Liu Pang’s heir. Liu Pang died in battle on the frontier in 195 b.c.e. and was posthumously given the name Gao Ti (or Gaodi). He was succeeded by his young son, Huidi, whose mother, Empress Lu, ruled China for sixteen years as his regent. See also: Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty; Han Dynasty.

LLYWELYN AP GRUFFYDD (d. 1282 C.E.)

Welsh prince who ruled the principality of Gwynedd in northeastern Wales from 1246 to 1282 and led a rebellion against King Edward I of England (r. 1272– 1307). Llywelyn ap Gruffydd and his brothers inherited the rule of Gwynedd from their childless half-uncle, Dayfdd ap Llywelyn (r. 1240–1246) in 1246.At first, Llywelyn and his older brother Owain (Owen) divided Gwynedd between them. But in 1255 Owain allied with Dafydd, a younger brother, against Llywelyn, who defeated them in battle, took them prisoner, and ruled the kingdom alone. With Gwynedd firmly under his control, Llywelyn set out to restore the kingdom’s power and independence. To do this he sought to dominate the other Welsh principalities, as the former kingdoms of Wales were often termed in this period. In 1256 and 1257, Llywelyn conquered a number of other Welsh regions, including Powys and Glamorgan in the south. In 1258, he began styling himself “prince of Wales,” and gained the support of many other Welsh princes. Following war between the English monarch Henry III (r. 1216–1272) and Simon de Montfort in England in 1264–1265—in which Llywelyn aided de Montfort (he later married de Montfort’s daughter)—the prince of Wales was able to negotiate a beneficial treaty with the victorious Henry. In the Treaty of Montgomery (1267), Llywelyn gained recognition of his title, along with lands and castles, although English overlordship of Wales continued. In 1274, his brother Dafydd conspired to assassinate Llywelyn, but upon discovery of the plot Dafydd fled to the protection of Edward I of England. Llywelyn repeatedly refused to do homage to Ed-

ward I as his overlord, and in 1276–1277 Edward made war on Llywelyn and defeated him. Llywelyn retained his title as prince of Wales but was required to do Edward homage, give hostages, and make financial payments. When his brother Dafydd, ambitious for power, rebelled against Edward in 1282, Llywelyn joined Dafydd, perhaps to retain his claim as overlord of the Welsh, which would be threatened if Wales rose up and followed Dafydd. Llywelyn was killed in a skirmish against the English late in 1282; Dafydd was executed by Edward I in 1283. While he ruled, Llywelyn restored Gwynedd to unity and strength at a time when many Welsh principalities were disintegrating. He briefly united enough of the Welsh princes to make the region once more a problem for the rulers of England. However, it is highly unlikely that Llywelyn would ever have been able to rule a truly independent Wales, or even that he aspired to do so. He remains a romantic figure in Welsh history and an icon of Welsh nationalism. See also: Edward I; Gwynedd Kingdom; Welsh Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Holmes, George, ed. Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Powicke, Sir Maurice. The Thirteenth Century: 1216–1307. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Walker, David. Medieval Wales. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

LOBENGULA (ca. 1836–1894 C.E.) Last ruler (r. 1870–1894) of the Ndebele kingdom (now part of Zimbabwe), who struggled unsuccessfully to overcome the threats to his kingdom from European colonists. Lobengula was the son of Mzilikazi (r. ca. 1820s– 1868), a warrior who fought alongside Shaka Zulu (r. 1816–1828) during the campaign to create the Zulu nation. Rather than remain part of the Zulu nation, however, Mzilikazi ultimately broke away and founded the Ndebele kingdom. Lobengula’s mother was a member of the royal house of the Swazi kingdom and was related to the Swazi king, Sobhuza I (r. ca. 1780–1834).

Lodi Kingdom Like his father before him, Lobengula had a reputation as a fine warrior and hunter, and he grew up to be a man of impressive size and bearing. His strength, and the wisdom for which he was highly respected, were much needed, for his inheritance of the throne was by no means guaranteed. When Mzilikazi died in 1868, the Ndebele kingdom was riven by civil war.The Ndebele were comprised of many different peoples who had come together under Mzilikazi’s rule, but whose loyalty was given to the man, not necessarily to the Ndebele state. Even before Mzilikazi died, factions had begun to form within the kingdom, and upon his death these factions clashed in open violence. It took Lobengula two years to form a group of followers that was powerful enough to secure his claim to the throne. In the end, however, he succeeded and assumed rulership of the Ndebele in 1870. The years of Lobengula’s reign were difficult. Though respected as a leader, he did not possess the power or the charisma of his father, and he never fully eliminated the factional strife that rocked his kingdom. In addition, Lobengula was forced to deal with the increasing numbers of European settlers, both British and Boer (of Dutch ancestry). The Boers wanted farmland, while the British were drawn by something much more precious—gold, which had been discovered in Ndebele territory in 1867. Lobengula was soon nearly overwhelmed by European demands for mineral rights in his territory. In 1888, hoping to eliminate the constant incursions of would-be miners and settlers onto his lands, Lobengula decreed that only the British would be granted such rights. This led to the formation of the British South Africa Company, headed by Cecil Rhodes (who later founded Rhodesia). Lobengula’s decision was intended to increase stability in the region by restricting access to mining rights in Matabeleland (as the Ndebele kingdom was then known). Instead, the decision resulted in the downfall of both his reign and his kingdom. In 1890, the British South Africa Company mounted an expedition to search for additional mineral deposits in Matabeleland.The peoples of the area, resenting this intrusion, sent raiders to attack one of the company’s settlements. Lobengula called for peaceful negotiations to deal with the situation, hoping to avert a disastrous war. The British South Africa Company, however, saw opportunity in the tragedy: a war could end its depen-

537

dence on Lobengula’s approval and open up the entire territory to mining. Thus, with a ready-made pretext for war, the British South African Company mustered an army and, in 1893, attacked the Ndebele capital of Bulaweyo. The city was burned to the ground, and Lobengula was forced to flee. With a small group of followers, Lobengula spent a year trying to regain his kingdom, but he failed. In 1894, this last king of the Ndebele contracted smallpox and died, leaving Matabeleland under the complete control of the British. See also: Cetshwayo; Dingiswayo; Mzilikazi; Ndebele Kingdom; Shaka Zulu; Sobhuza I; Sobhuza II; Zulu Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Oliver, Roland, and G. N. Sanderson, eds. Cambridge History of Africa: From 1870 to 1905. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

LODI KINGDOM (1451–1526 C.E.) Short-lived kingdom in India that arose in the midfifteenth century, but fell to the Mughal dynasty in the early sixteenth century. The Lodis, a tribe of Afghan descent, gradually rose to prominence during the rule of the Tughluq dynasty, which ruled the Delhi sultanate of India from 1320 to 1414. Eventually, Malik Kala, an influential Lodi merchant, became the administrator of the region of Daurala. In 1451, his son, Bahlul (r. 1451–1489), acquired the governorship of Panjab. Utilizing his new power, Bahlul quickly attacked Delhi and seized control of the entire sultanate from the Sayyid dynasty, establishing the Lodi dynasty. Bahlul then invaded the region of Jaupur and also subjugated it. Bahlul integrated Afghan tribal principles into Delhi government and society. He eliminated the rule of hereditary succession and insisted that the nobility elect his heir. He also extended many of the sultan’s personal social privileges to all members of the nobility. Finally, Bahlud divided the main army among the different provinces under his control. Afghan leaders whom he placed in control of individual regions were granted a great deal of autonomy. Although required to pay an annual tribute and provide troops when Bahlud declared war, these

538

Lodi Kingdom

local leaders were largely free to control their respective provinces. When Bahlud died in 1489, the nobility elected his son, Sikandar (r. 1489–1517), to be his successor. To solidify his power, Sikandar banished his brother, the governor of Jaupur, and assumed direct control of the sultanate.As ruler, Sikandar was extremely benevolent to the Muslim inhabitants of the Delhi sultanate. He built numerous Muslim schools and converted several highly sacred Hindu sites into Muslim mosques. He also persecuted Hindu religious leaders. Consequently, Hindu unrest spread across the kingdom and threatened the dynasty’s continuation. A combination of Hindu rebellion and Afghan dissent finally doomed the Lodi dynasty.After Sikandar’s death in 1517, the nobility elected his son, Ibrahim (r. 1517–1526), to succeed him. But they demanded that an independent member of the dynasty again be appointed governor of Jaupur. Ibrahim refused and viciously punished the nobles who opposed him. His actions had a predictable backlash. As Hindu revolts became increasingly serious, the Afghan governors refused to lend Ibrahim any military support. Babur, the Timurid ruler of Transoxiana, exploited the weakness of the Lodi dynasty. In 1526, with the consent of many Afghan nobles, Babur invaded Delhi and defeated Ibrahim at the battle of Panipat. Ibrahim died during the battle, and the Lodi dynasty abruptly ended. The victorious Babur (r. 1526–1530) established the Moghul dynasty in India and went on to create the Moghul Empire, which incorporated the Delhi sultanate.The Lodis had established the first Afghan sultanate in Delhi, but they were unable to maintain control because they were unable or unwilling to reconcile the Muslim and Hindu cultures within their domain. See also: Babur; Delhi Kingdom; Mughal Empire; Tughluq Dynasty.

LOMBARD DYNASTY (569–774 C.E.) Dynasty of Germanic origin that established the Lombard kingdom in northern Italy, a dynasty that reigned until the late eighth century. The Lombard dynasty formed a bridge that linked two of the great empires of Western civilization, the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. The origins of the dynasty began with the movement of

the Germanic tribe called the Lombards (or Longobards) into the Italian Peninsula beginning in the first century c.e. The dynasty ended in 774, when the Lombards were defeated by the Frankish empire of Charlemagne (r. 768–814). The Lombard dynasty was briefly led by a king named Alboin (r. 569–572), who invaded and conquered the region of Pavia in northern Italy in 569. This conquest began a nearly two-hundred-year period during which the Lombard dynasty expanded into and gained control of much of northern Italy, leaving the south to the Byzantine Empire. The reigns of Alboin, which abruptly ended with his assassination in 572, and his successor Cleph (r. 572–574), were important for developing the Lombard kingdom from a nomadic monarchy to one established in a fixed locale.The assassination of Cleph in 574 brought a brief end to the new Lombard kingdom. In the decade following his death, the kingdom was divided into thirty-five duchies, each based in a city that the Lombards had conquered. The ten-year interregnum (period “between reigns”) was ended by the acclamation of Cleph’s son, Authari (r. 584–590), as the new king of the Lombards. Authari spent part of his reign shoring up the kingdom, and he attempted to make peace with the Franks. Peace with the Franks allowed the Authari to wage war on those who entered alliances with the Franks against him. In 588, when the Franks refused to link themselves to the Lombards by marriage, a union was arranged with Theudelinda, the sister of the Bavarian king. This was done despite the fact that she was previously committed to the Frankish king, Childebert II (r. 575–595). Upon Authari’s death in 590, Agiluif (r. 590–615), the duke of Turin, became the Lombard king, with Theudelinda as his queen. Scholars dispute whether this transfer of power was violent or consensual. Upon Agilufo’s death in 615, his son Adaloald (r. 615–626) took the throne. He reigned under the regency of his mother,Theudelinda, until 624, when he was deposed by his sister’s husband,Arioald (r. 626–636). As in other early dynasties, after the reigns of the initial monarchs, a great degree of conflict developed among various members of the noble classes, who sought greater powers.The Lombard dynasty was no exception. On countless occasions, the Lombard kings felt pressured to exercise their power and encourage loyalty by deposing subordinate aristocrats who appeared less than faithful.

Lombard Kingdom Furthermore, the lack of entrenched traditions in the Lombard dynasty in this period was evident in the transition of power between sovereigns. One method of transferring power was the remarriage of queens who were related by bloodlines to the first monarchs. An example of such a remarriage occurred when the Lombard king, Rotari (r. 636– 652), married Adaloald’s sister Gundeberga after she was widowed by Arioald. Another means of transferring power was the development of blood connections to previous monarchs for whom there was a sense of primacy. This familial attachment was then made more concrete through religious and political affiliations.This can be seen in the elevation of Ariperto I (r. 653–661), a nephew to Theudelinda as well as a Catholic with pro-Roman sentiments, to the throne in place of other family members, who may have held anti-Roman views or been Arian Christian, as were the early Lombard kings. This dynastic infighting and scheming continued through the reigns of Aripert’s sons, Perctarit (r. 661–662, 672–688) and Godepert (r. 661–662). These descendants of Theudelinda’s family were soon overthrown by Grimoald (r. 662–671), the duke of Bene-vento, who was assassinated a decade later. Upon Grimoald’s death, Perctarit returned to the throne to be followed by his sons and the sons of his brothers. Pertarito’s return also made the Lombard dynasty much more of a Bavarian dynasty, because of the influence of Theudelinda’s line. After the reigns of the offspring of Perctarit and Godepert, kings from various royal houses ruled the Lombard Kingdom until the kingdom’s final conquest by the Franks in 774. See also: Charlemagne; Frankish Kingdom; Lombard Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Hodgkin, Thomas. Italy and Her Invaders, 376–814. New York: Russell & Russell, 1967.

LOMBARD KINGDOM (568–774 C.E.) Kingdom in northern Italy established in the sixth century by the Lombards, one of the Germanic tribes that migrated into Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

539

The Lombard kingdom began when the Lombard king, Alboin (r. 568–572), invaded northern Italy around 568. The kingdom was later taken over by the Franks, led by Charlemagne (r. 768–814), in 774.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LOMBARD DYNASTY The kingdom of the Lombards (or Longobards) originated in the Germanic region of Pannonia. The Lombards initially entered the Italian Peninsula under the leadership of Alboin and took the province of Venice. The Lombards next conquered the province of Liguria in the northwestern part of the Italian Peninsula. Lombard conquests quickly absorbed most of Italy north of Tuscany, with the exception of a few seaside fortifications and Ravenna. With the deaths of Alboin in 572 and his successor, Cleph (r. 572–574), in 574, the Lombard territories were divided into a series of duchies. This interregnum of duchies, which was marked by periodic raids on neighboring territories, was ended by the elevation of Authari (r. 584–590) as Lombard king in 584.Authari’s accession to the throne marked a definite end to the initial period of instability that characterized the Lombard realm. Up to the reign of Alboin, the Lombard domains had been subject to successive migrations, and Lombard territory did not have well-defined borders.The regions conquered by Albion and Cleph in Italy became the core territory of the future Lombard kingdom, but later kings expanded this territory to create a more viable kingdom.

CREATION OF THE LOMBARD KINGDOM The accession of Authari to the Lombard kingship marked the point at which regional differences among the Lombard nobility were subjugated enough to allow a workable state to emerge. However, the sovereignty of this kingdom of the Lombards would be challenged repeatedly over the next two centuries, most significantly by the Franks.At the same time, the Lombard realm expanded as the Lombards conquered important Italian cities, including Padua, Genoa, Calabria,Taranto, and Brindisi. By the death of the Lombard king, Grimoald I (r. 662–671), in 671, the kingdom of the Lombards had reached its peak of power. The expansionary zeal of the Lombards had not subsided completely, however.

540

Lombard Kingdom

In 712, the Lombards besieged Rome, a rival state that had been a constant irritant.The siege of Rome occurred during the reign of Liutprand (r. 712– 744). The other major Italian center that had managed to avoid Lombard invasion was Ravenna, which was finally captured by the Lombards in 751 under King Aistulf (r. 749–756).

FRANKISH CONTROL OF THE KINGDOM Despite Aistulf’s success in Ravenna in 751, his reign spelled the end of Lombard control of their kingdom. Four years later, in 755, the Frankish ruler, Pepin the Short (r. 751–768), led the Franks to victory over the Lombards at the battle of Pavia. In terms of political independence, with the Frankish victory at Pavia, the Lombard kingdom was now under the authority of the Franks, and the Lombards were forced to recognize Pepin’s suzerainty over them. Pavia, the Lombard capital, was surrendered to Pepin’s son and successor, Charlemagne, in 774 by the last Lombard king, Desiderius (r. 757–774).This fully incorporated the kingdom of the Lombards into the Frankish kingdom. See also: Charlemagne; Frankish Kingdom; Holy Roman Empire; Pepin the Short (Pepin III).

kings of Scotland lacked a navy until the rule of James III (r. 1460–1488) in the 1400s. The Gaelic-speaking Lords of the Isles had a fractious relationship with their Scottish overlords, whose roots stemmed from the Anglo-Scots-speaking community of the southeast.The Lords ruled a large area of territory in northern Scotland with nearindependence, acknowledging the authority of the Scottish king in Edinburgh, yet largely ignoring him. John MacDonald, the first Lord of the Isles, became leader of his clan in 1325, and his son, grandson, and great-grandson all carried the lordship title. At the battle of Harlaw in 1411, the second Lord of the Isles, Donald MacDonald, led a number of Gaelic clans into battle against Scotland’s Stewart dynasty, fighting over the claim to the earldom of Ross. King James I of Scotland (r. 1406–1437) tried to subdue Alexander MacDonald, the third Lord of the Isles, but succeeded only in provoking successive rebellions from the Isles. John MacDonald, the fourth and final Lord of the Isles, was defeated in battle by King James III of Scotland in 1476. Nonetheless, MacDonald’s son Angus Og and other Gaelic chieftains continued to trouble the Stewart dynasty in the years that followed, despite their forfeiture of the lordship to the Scottish Crown in 1493. See also: Scottish Kingdoms

FURTHER READING

Foulke,William Dudley, trans. The History of the Lombards: Paul the Deacon. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

LORDS OF THE ISLES (ca. 1300s–1493 C.E.)

The Lordship of the Isles was a quasi-kingdom in northwestern Scotland, based in the Hebrides or Western Isles.The Clan Donald chieftains who styled themselves “Lords of the Isles” claimed descent from Somerled, a twelfth-century ruler of mixed Gaelic and Scandinavian ancestry who was supposedly descended from the dynasty of the Scots-Gaelic Dalriada kingdom.After the death of Scottish king Robert the Bruce (r. 1306–1329), the MacDonald clan chiefs became increasingly powerful and independent. Able seafarers, they dominated the waters of northwestern Scotland with their fleet, since the

LORRAINE DYNASTY (1496–1675 C.E.) A French dynasty formed from a branch of the ruling house of Lorraine, noted for its violent attacks on Protestants and intrigues to gain power. Of the seven generations of the dynasty, the second and third dukes of Guise were the most powerful. They founded the Holy League, were leaders in persecuting the Huguenots (French Protestants), and were instrumental in causing the European Wars of Religion. The founder of the Guise dynasty was Claude de Lorraine (1496–1550), who married into the French royal family with his marriage to Antoinette de Bourbon in 1513. As a reward for his services in the Italian Wars and as governor of Champagne, King Francis I of France (r. 1515–1547) made Claude the duke of Guise in 1527. Claude’s daughter, Mary of Guise, married King James V of Scotland (r. 1513–1542). The second duke of Guise was Claude’s son, François (r. 1519–1563). During the Italian Wars,

L ou i s I , t h e G r e at

541

François led an unsuccessful campaign against King Philip II of Spain (r. 1556–1598), but he won Calais from the English in 1558. His niece, Mary Stuart (daughter of James V of Scotland), married the young King Francis II (r. 1559–1560), and after 1559, François and his brother Charles de Guise, the cardinal of Lorraine, shared control of the French government. François and Charles abused their power, viciously persecuted Protestants, and scorned the royal family and nobles.After Francis II died in 1560, they lost their power under the regency of Catherine de Medici, the mother of Charles IX (r. 1560–1574), and formed an independent political and military party in opposition to both the Huguenots and the Crown. François was assassinated in 1563, but his brother Charles continued his intrigues and persecution of the Protestants until 1570. During that time, Charles sought Spanish support for the Catholic cause in France. François’s son Henri, the third duke of Guise (r. 1550–1588), was instrumental in the Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre of 1572, in which perhaps as many as 25,000 Protestants were murdered by soldiers of the Crown and Catholic mobs. Henri founded the Catholic League, which opposed the appointment of the Protestant Henry of Navarre (Henry IV, r. 1589–1610) as heir presumptive to the throne of France. By this time, the Guises were virtually in the pay of Spain. Fearful of Henri’s power, Henry III (r. 1574–1589) had him assassinated in 1588, along with his brother Louis, the cardinal of Guise. The remaining dukes of Guise were much less powerful than the first three.The fourth duke, Charles (r. 1571–1614), was the son of Henri. The fifth was Charles’s son, Henri (r. 1614–1650), who also served as archbishop of Reims and as grand chamberlain to the Crown.The sixth duke was Henri’s nephew, Louis Joseph (r. 1650–1670), whose son, François Joseph de Lorraine (r. 1670–1675), was the last duke of Guise. With his death in 1675, the Guise dynasty came to an end.

Pious (r. 814–840), as emperor of the West (r. 840– 855). At the death of Charlemagne in 814, Lothair’s father, Louis, inherited the Frankish Empire.To ensure an orderly succession, Louis had Lothair crowned coemperor in 817 and installed his other two sons, Pepin and Louis the German, as subkings. This system worked well until the death of Louis’s first wife Ermengard, the mother of Lothair, Pepin, and Louis. Louis the Pious married again to a powerful noblewoman, Judith, who gave birth to a son, Charles the Bald, in 823. Angered by this threat to their inheritance, the sons of Ermengard rebelled against their father twice, in 830 and 833. In both instances, the inability of the brothers to overcome their own rivalries resulted in failure to depose their father. Pepin died in 838, and after the death of Louis I in 840, Lothair, Louis, and Charles waged war against one another for control of the empire. In 843, the three brothers signed the Treaty of Verdun, which divided the Frankish Empire into three parts. This division had an enormous impact on the future shape of Europe: the western portion of the former empire would become the kingdom of France, and the eastern portion, Germany. Lothair received the central portion of the divided Frankish Empire, which ran from the North Sea south into Italy. He also retained the imperial title as emperor of the West. Before his death, Lothair divided his realm among his three sons, one of whom, Louis II (r. 855–875) later became emperor. His brother Lothair gave his name to the region known as Lotharingia, or Lorraine; parts of this territory retain the name today. Lothair abdicated his throne in 855 and became a monk. He died shortly afterward.

See also: Christianity and Kingship; Francis I; French Monarchies; Henry IV (France).

LOUIS THE GERMAN. See

LOTHAIR I (795–855 C.E.)

LOUIS I, THE GREAT (1326–1382 C.E.)

Grandson of the Frankish ruler Charlemagne (r. 768–814) and eldest son and successor of Louis I, the

King of Hungary (r. 1342–1382) and Poland (r. 1370–1382) who campaigned successfully against

See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Holy Roman Empire; Louis I, the Pious; Merovingian Dynasty; Pepin Dynasty.

Carolingian Dynasty

542

L ou i s I , t h e G r e at

the Ottoman Turks and brought Hungary to the peak of its power while promoting the flowering of art, literature, and learning. Louis was born in 1326 to King Charles I of Hungary (r. 1307–1342), the first Hungarian ruler of a branch of the French Angevin dynasty. Louis succeeded to the throne of Hungary upon his father’s death in 1342. Charles I had played an important role in restoring the power of the Hungarian monarchy and in uniting the country. Louis devoted his own long reign to ceaseless military campaigns and expansion, enlarging Hungary’s borders to perhaps their greatest extent. A man of great personal courage, Louis launched military campaigns virtually every year during his reign, aimed at enforcing Hungarian suzerainty over the various Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Wallachian, and Moldavian lords and petty rulers under the hegemony of Hungary. His own nobles won glory and a steady income in the spoils of war. Louis also directed his military actions against other threats, including the Ottoman Turks and states in Italy. By the time Louis took the throne in 1342, Byzantine power was quickly waning, but the Ottomans had not yet penetrated far into the Balkan region. Thus, no major counterforce existed to check Louis’s imperial ambitions. Nevertheless, his only permanent conquests were in Croatia, all of which were absorbed into Hungary, along the Dalmatian coast. Repeated campaigns against Venice, in alliance with the Italian city-state of Genoa, forced the Venetians to cede control of Dalmatia to Hungary in 1358 and to grant Hungary and the cities of Dalmatia freedom of passage in the Adriatic Sea. In 1377, Louis turned his attention to the Ottomans, whom he campaigned against successfully. Louis’s brother Andrew was married to Joanna I of Naples (r. 1343–1381). When Andrew was murdered in 1345, possibly at the behest of Joanna, Louis broke Hungary’s alliance with that branch of the Angevin dynasty. In 1347, Louis mounted a campaign in Italy in support of his family’s claim to the kingdom of Naples, but this action was less productive than his other military ventures. Although Louis occupied Naples in 1348, he was forced to leave there soon after because of an outbreak of plague, and his campaign against Naples resulted in no lasting political gains. Perhaps Louis’s greatest achievement was to unite

the Crowns of Poland and Hungary. By aiding his uncle, the heirless King Casimir III of Poland (r. 1333–1370), in his battles against the Lithuanians, Louis assured himself election as king of Poland when Casimir died in 1370. The union between the two kingdoms proved short-lived, however. After Louis’s death, Poland became united with Lithuania under the Jagiello dynasty rather than with Hungary. Louis’s French background and contact with the Italian Renaissance during his campaigns in Italy led to his patronage of the arts and learning, which flourished in Hungary during his reign. Ruling during the age of European chivalry, Louis was styled “the Great” immediately after his death in 1382. His martial achievements proved ephemeral, however, as the power vacuum of the Balkans was soon filled by the growing power of the Ottoman Empire. Louis had no male heir, and upon his death the throne of Hungary went to his daughter, Mary (r. 1382–1385), the wife of future Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund (r. 1410–1437). Mary was deposed in 1385, after which a period of turmoil followed. Restored to the throne in 1386, Mary then ruled Hungary jointly with Sigismund. Poland, which refused to continue the union of Crowns, broke away from Hungary and allowed Louis’s younger daughter, Jadwiga (r. 1383–1399, to rule along with her husband,Wladyslaw II Jagiello (r. 1386–1434). See also: Angevin Dynasties; Holy Roman Empire; Jagiello Dynasty; Naples, Kingdom of; Sigismund.

LOUIS I, THE PIOUS (778–840 C.E.) King of Aquitaine (r. 781–840), Holy Roman emperor (r. 814–840), and only legitimate, surviving son of Charlemagne (r. 768–814), the founder of the Carolingian dynasty. When Louis died in 840, the Carolingian Empire was divided between his sons. Although intelligent, well educated, and capable as a ruler, Louis was not a good military leader, which weakened his government and caused the nobles of his realm to lose respect for him. Many nobles took the opportunity to increase their own power and wealth at Louis’s expense and, well before his death, even Louis’s own sons challenged him. Louis found a strong ally in the Church by supporting Benedict of Aniane in attempts to reform the

L o u i s I V, t h e B a v a r i a n church and restore the monasteries to religious rule and discipline. In 816, Louis appointed Benedict director of all the monasteries in the Frankish realm, and he established Benedict in a monastery near the royal residence. Louis had three sons by his first wife: Lothair, Louis “the German,” and Pepin of Aquitaine. In 817, Louis decreed that his eldest son, Lothair, would succeed him as emperor and that his other two sons would become kings within the empire. By tradition, the sons should have inherited equally, but Louis hoped that this decision would preserve the unity of the empire. This partitioning of the empire was thrown into question in 823 when Louis had a fourth son, Charles (later known as “The Bald”), by his second wife. Louis wanted to secure a kingdom for this son also, but his other sons refused. The resulting challenges lasted until Louis’s death, greatly weakening the monarchy. Louis was deposed by his three older sons in 833, but he was restored to power in 834 by his sons Louis and Pepin, who feared Lothair’s power.When Louis I died in 840, the empire built by Charlemagne was dissolved into three kingdoms split between Lothair I, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald. Louis’s son Pepin had already died in 838. See also: Aquitaine Duchy; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Frankish Kingdom; Lothair I.

LOUIS IV, THE BAVARIAN (1283–1347 C.E.)

German king (r. 1314–1347) and Holy Roman emperor (r. 1328–1347,), a member of the house of Wittelsbach, who was a controversial monarch who defied the pope. Louis IV was the son of Duke Louis II of the house of Wittelsbach of Upper Bavaria.After his father died in 1294, Louis, now duke of Upper Bavaria, and his mother Mechthild, a member of the Habsburg dynasty and daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf I (r. 1273–1291), went to Munich to live with Louis’s older brother, Rudolph. Tensions arose in the family at this time, as Mechthild supported the attempt of her brother, Albert I of Austria (r. 1282–1308), to take the German throne from Adolph of Nassau (r. 1292–1298),

543

whom Rudolph supported. Adolph had been placed on the throne by an assembly of German princes, called electors, who feared the growing power of the Habsburgs. Because of the increased tensions, Louis was sent to live in Vienna with his Habsburg relatives. Meanwhile, Albert I of Austria defeated Adolf of Nassau at the battle of Göllheim in 1298, making himself king of Germany and forcing Rudolph to accept Louis’s legal right to govern. Following the assassination of Albert I in 1308, the German electors chose Henry VII of Luxembourg (r. 1308–1313) as Albert’s successor.Wanting to restore the ancient Holy Roman Empire, Henry VII marched with his troops into Italy in 1312 and was crowned emperor by a reluctant Pope Clement V. In Germany, meanwhile, Louis and Rudolph divided Upper Bavaria. Louis also gained control of Lower Bavaria when Duke Stephen I (r. 1290–1309) died and left Louis as regent for his sons. However, the traditional anti-Austrian attitude of Lower Bavaria led to a quarrel with Frederick III of Austria (r. 1298–1330), which Louis won in a decisive victory at the battle of Gammelsdorf in 1313. Rudolph objected to Louis’s rise in power, and Louis turned to the Habsburgs for military support.A peaceful solution was reached in 1314 after the two sides negotiated with the archbishop of Salzburg acting as mediator. When Henry VII died suddenly in Italy in 1313, the German electors rejected the succession of his son, John of Bohemia, because of the boy’s young age. Four of the electors chose Frederick III of Austria to be the new German king, but five other electors, voting a few days later, chose Louis instead, setting the stage for a political and military struggle. In 1322, Louis defeated and captured Frederick, but the problem of shared rule was not fully resolved until Frederick’s death in 1330.With the support of Philip V of France (r. 1316–1322), Pope Clement V and his successor, Pope John XII, claimed the right to govern the Holy Roman Empire, including Germany, until the election could be resolved. Tired of papal interference in their political affairs, the six German electors at Rhense declared that election by a majority of electors automatically conferred the royal title of Germany and rule over the Holy Roman Empire, with or without papal support.The pope then excommunicated Louis. In 1327, Louis took his army to consolidate

544

L o u i s I V, t h e B a v a r i a n

northern Italy and to convince Pope John XXII to crown him emperor.The pope refused. But in 1328, Louis was crowned emperor by Sciarra Colonna, the leader of a group of Italian nobles. Louis returned to Germany in 1330 because of instability at home and the death of Frederick III of Austria. Throughout his reign, Louis sought to establish the house of Wittelsbach on the same level as the house of Luxembourg and the Habsburg dynasty. To this end, he kept adding to the possessions of his family, and annoying everyone else. In 1342, he acquired the Tyrol by voiding the first marriage of Margaret Maultasch, the countess of Tyrol, to a Luxembourg husband and marrying her to his son, Louis of Brandenburg, thus alienating the house of Luxembourg. In 1346, he further antagonized the German princes by conferring Holland, Zeeland, and Friesland upon his wife. Pope Clement VI, the successor of Pope John XXII, took advantage of the hostility toward Louis and set out to depose him. Clement was sensitive to the feelings of the German electors, who deserted Louis one by one, and encouraged Charles of Luxembourg to seek the throne. In 1346, the electors declared Charles IV (r. 1346–1378) as king of the Germans (as a rival to Louis) by a majority vote. Later that year, while preparing to mount resistance to Charles, Louis IV died of a heart attack during a bear hunt.

with full support from the French nobility, participated in the Second Crusade. The Crusade, initiated by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, was a complete failure, ending in military defeat for the Christian forces.The marriage of Eleanor and Louis was a further casualty of the campaign. She was arrested for disobedience, and Louis had their marriage annulled. As a result, not only did France lose Aquitaine, but also the duchy to a dangerous rival when Eleanor later married Henry Plantagenet, the future Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189). Conflict over a variety of issues led to recurring warfare between the two monarchs. During his forty-three-year reign, Louis greatly strengthened the French monarchy, reduced the power of feudal lords, and furthered the development of French towns.The king’s personal strong religious devotion also helped improve his relations with the church. As a result, both the royal government and the Church gained power at the expense of local lords. Louis’s heir, Philip II, Augustus (r. 1180–1223), was the son of his third marriage, to Adela of Champagne. Because of Louis’s failing health, and to avoid any possible disagreements over succession—such as from the English children of Eleanor of Aquitaine— Philip was made co-ruler in 1179. Philip succeeded to the throne upon his father’s death the following year.

See also: Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Luxembourg Dynasty; Salian Dynasty.

See also:Aquitaine Duchy; Capetian Dynasty; Crusader Kingdoms; Eleanor of Aquitaine; French Monarchies; Henry II; Philip II, Augustus.

FURTHER READING

Heer, Friedrich. The Holy Roman Empire. New York: Praeger, 1968.

LOUIS VII (1120–1180 C.E.) King of France (r. 1137–1180), also called Louis the Younger, who played an important role in strengthening the French monarchy. The son of Louis VI (r. 1108–1137) and member of the Capetian dynasty, Louis married Eleanor of Aquitaine shortly before becoming king. An intelligent and skillful strategist and adviser to her husband, Eleanor was also heir to the wealthy and powerful duchy of Aquitaine in southwestern France. Between 1147 and 1149, both Louis and Eleanor,

LOUIS IX (ST. LOUIS) (1214–1270 C.E.)

King of France (r. 1226–1270) and member of the Capetian dynasty who led the seventh and eighth Crusades. Canonized in 1297 by Pope Boniface VIII, Louis was known for his piety, fairness, and desire for peace. Louis was the fourth son of Louis VIII (r. 1223–1226), but his three older brothers all died before their father. Upon his father’s death in 1226, Louis became king at age twelve. His mother, Blanche of Castile, the granddaughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine, ruled as regent from 1226 to 1234.

L ou i s X I Blanche was a very capable ruler, and her accomplishments included gaining the Languedoc region by the Treaty of Paris (1229). Louis traveled to Egypt on the Seventh Crusade (1248–1254), but his capture by Muslims at El Mansura in 1250 necessitated the payment of a large ransom for his release. He remained in the Holy Land until 1254, helping to strengthen Christian defenses there. Louis then returned to France, where he negotiated a number of favorable territorial agreements with the rulers of England and the kingdom of Aragón in Spain. Louis embarked on the Eighth Crusade in 1270. Although initially successful in capturing Carthage in North Africa, Louis died of disease (possibly plague or dysentery) soon after his arrival there. On domestic issues, Louis continued the efforts at reform begun by his grandfather, Philip II (r. 1180– 1223). His legacy included prohibiting private warfare, instituting a more equitable tax system, stabilizing the currency, and attempting to reduce abuses of power. By granting the universal right of appeal to the Crown, Louis diminished the power of both the ecclesiastical courts and the feudal lords. His fame for giving impartial justice helped strengthen the Crown’s repute. Internationally, Louis achieved peace with England in 1258, assisted the Christian cities in Syria in their struggle against the Muslims, and served as a mediator for Henry III of England (r. 1216–1272) in Henry’s disputes with English barons. Louis married Margaret of Provence, and they had eleven children. Their son succeeded Louis on the throne as King Philip III (r. 1270–1285). See also: Capetian Dynasty; Christianity and Kingship; Crusader Kingdoms; Eleanor of Aquitaine; French Monarchies.

LOUIS XI (1423–1483 C.E.) King of France (r. 1461–1483), a member of the Valois dynasty, who continued to centralize authority under the Crown, and added the valuable duchy of Burgundy to the French domain. Louis was a clever and unscrupulous ruler known as the “Spider King” because of the network of paid spies who helped carry out his various intrigues. The son of King Charles VII (r. 1422–1461) of France, Louis had an austere and isolated childhood,

545

and his ongoing conflicts with his father began early. In 1437, at age fourteen, Louis fought with his father against the English. Frustrated at his father’s unwillingness to act decisively to end a siege at ChateauLandon, Louis led the attack that broke the eleven-day siege. He was merciless to the defeated enemy, killing all captured English soldiers and their allies. After Louis had made repeated plots and attempts to seize power or the Crown itself, in 1447 the king banished him to exile in Dauphiné in southeast France, which Louis governed as if it were an independent state. Continued defiance of the Crown resulted in his banishment to the Netherlands. Louis did not return to France until 1461 following the death of his father, when he was crowned at Reims. The new king released his allies and imprisoned those who had been loyal to his father, causing a great tumult in the government. Many of those Louis included in his government were from the middle classes, as Louis rewarded not noble birth, but unquestionable loyalty to himself.This struck a decisive blow at the feudal system. As king, Louis’s throne was challenged by Charles the Bold of Burgundy (r. 1467–1477) and the League of the Public Weal, an organization of dissatisfied nobility. Louis eventually triumphed in 1477, when Charles the Bold died without a male heir and Louis secured treaties of alliance with Switzerland and with King Edward IV (r. 1461–1470) of England. As a result of these treaties, Louis was able to increase French lands with the addition of Burgundy, Picardy, Franche-Comte, and Artois. His methods of acquisition made him so unpopular with the former landowners that he withdrew for safety to a selfimposed exile in the castle of Plessis-les-Tours, where he remained until his death. Although his methods of imposing his will relied on spying, broken promises, and treaties, imposing punitive taxes to obtain money to buy allies, and the ruthless punishment of enemies, Louis’s legacy was to create a strong, efficient, centralized government. This was created at the expense of the nobles, the courts, the feudal system, and the Church, but helped raise the standard of living of the common people. His policies of expanding domestic and foreign trade and encouraging industry also helped improve the economy of France. Louis was married in childhood to Margaret, the daughter of James I (r. 1406–1437) of Scotland, who

546

L ou i s X I

died childless in 1444. Louis had a son, Charles, and a daughter, Anne, by his second wife, Charlotte of Savoy. His son succeeded him as Charles VIII (r. 1470–1498). See also: Burgundy Kingdom; Charles VII.

LOUIS XIV (1638–1715 C.E.) King of France (r. 1643–1715), the longest-reigning monarch in French history, who was also known as the “Sun-King” because of the brilliance of his royal court. The future Louis XIV was born in 1638, the first child of King Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643) and Anne of Austria, the daughter of King Philip III of Spain (r. 1598–1621) after more than twenty years of marriage. The French people, who had given up hope of an heir, hailed the birth of the child as a miracle, earning the young prince the nickname dieudonné, or “God-given.” Louis’s family, the Bourbons, had held the French Crown since 1589, when his grandfather, King Henry IV (r. 1589–1610), took the throne after years of religious war and the failure of the reigning Valois dynasty to produce an heir. Louis’s father, Louis XIII, had succeeded in consolidating royal power with the help of his chief adviser, Cardinal Richelieu. Louis’s inheritance thus gave his reign a powerful foundation.Yet, France still faced mounting challenges from an entrenched aristocracy and other European powers suspicious of French hegemony.

Louis XIII died only five years after his son’s birth. Although Louis XIV was technically the inheritor of the Crown, his mother and her minister of state, Cardinal Mazarin, ruled as regents during Louis’s childhood.Anne and Mazarin gave little thought to Louis’s education and environment through much of his early childhood, being more concerned with the growing threats to their power and the increasing financial difficulties facing the royal household. Because of these difficulties, Louis grew up in a very relaxed and informal manner. He had an intimate knowledge of his servants’ lives, and he and his brother often played unsupervised in the kitchen or garden. The tranquility of Louis’s life changed in 1648 with the outbreak of rebellion in France. Two elements of French political culture contributed to a growing discontent among aristocrats and government bureaucrats. In need of cash during the Thirty Years’ War (1608–1648), Louis’s father had created and sold many new government offices. This practice was common in most European governments prior to the late eighteenth century and

CHILDHOOD Louis’s parents were never close. His father preferred hunting and the company of close advisers to his family. His mother, Anne of Austria, was a Spanish princess of the Austrian Habsburg dynasty, who left her homeland to marry at the age of fourteen. During the early seventeenth century, France and Spain were continual enemies, often at war.The marriage of Louis and Anne was an unsuccessful attempt to ease the relationship between the two countries. Continuing hostility between Spain and France after Louis and Anne’s royal wedding resulted in a variety of accusations and suspicions that Anne was a spy. None of these allegations was true. Nonetheless,Anne remained a stranger in France and in her own household until the 1640s.The birth of two sons, Louis, and later Philippe, improved her position by transforming her from a foreign princess to the queen mother.

A member of the Bourbon Dynasty, Louis XIV was the longest-reigning monarch in French history. The concept of absolute monarchy, epitomized by his phrase “l’état c’est moi” (“I am the state”), is said to have reached its peak during his 77-year reign.

L ou i s X I V

547

ROYAL PLACES

VERSAILLES Louis XIV’s childhood had given him an antipathy for Paris. After Mazarin’s death in 1661, Louis set out to plan and build an elaborate palace of his own. He chose to expand an old royal hunting lodge about fifteen miles from Paris near the town of Versailles. Between 1668 and 1682, Louis constructed the most extravagant palace in all of Europe.With endless gardens and its ornate decoration,Versailles became the center of French politics and society during Louis’s reign. An anecdotal story illustrates Versailles’ grandeur and Louis’s control over it. In the 1680s, Louis dined with an aristocratic woman in the garden. As they walked to the gazebo where lunch was to be served, the woman noted the white flowers along the path, and mentioned how she preferred red. On their return, all the flowers were red. Louis had arranged for all the white flowers in his garden to be replaced by red ones. More important than its size or beauty were the political goals that Versailles represented. Using his power, wealth, and social status as king, Louis gathered the aristocracy of France about him at Versailles, making them dependent upon him in many ways.The independent and dangerous aristocracy of Louis’s youth disappeared amid the pomp and pageantry of Versailles.

is known as venality, or the buying and selling of offices.The number of new government offices created by Louis XIII inflated the prices of existing offices and created increased competition for authority among officeholders, since the existing offices were also open to the highest bidder. Under the able oversight of Cardinal Richelieu, Louis XIII had also created a new governing philosophy—absolutism. This theory of monarchical rule sought to establish unchallenged royal authority by undercutting traditional aristocratic power. In 1648, officeholders and aristocrats fought back against these policies in a series of revolts commonly known as the Fronde, a French word referring to a type of slingshot used by commoners in the streets of Paris. Over the next five years, Louis and his family wandered from one loyal city to another while royal troops besieged Paris and put down the revolt. Louis XIV learned several lessons from his childhood. From his informal youth in the royal kitchens and gardens, he realized the worth of servants and commoners.This was especially evident in his personal life as an adult. It was well known that he preferred his personal servants to the fawning aristocrats of court. Although this sentiment never translated into notions

of social or political equality, Louis respected the honesty of common life. Louis’s most important and profound lessons came during the Fronde. The rebellion instilled in him a deep mistrust of Paris and the aristocracy. As a result, he moved out of Paris and transformed a hunting lodge at Versailles, several miles outside the city limits, into the greatest royal palace in Europe. When Cardinal Mazarin died in 1661, Louis proclaimed himself his own minister of state. Louis took on the day-to-day responsibilities of ruling his kingdom, signing all royal correspondence personally, and ruling over his splendid and socially complicated court at Versailles.The combination of Louis’s power, ability, and image resulted in a powerful cult of the king, best articulated by the contemporary French churchmen Jean-Bénigne Bossuet as the “divine right” of kings. Louis happily accepted the appellation “Sun-King,” derived from a Bourbon family symbol of the Greek god Apollo.

RELIGION AND WAR Louis XIV spent much of his reign dealing with religious issues within France and fighting wars. France’s great power during Louis’s reign made it a

548

L ou i s X I V

favorite target for rival powers; therefore, the nation was rarely at peace, fighting a series of wars over dynastic succession and territorial expansion while Louis held the throne.

MATTERS OF FAITH In terms of religion, Louis fought on two fronts— against Protestantism and against the papacy’s efforts to exert authority in the national or political matters of France. Although France was officially Catholic, a sizable number of French Protestants, or Huguenots, lived in the western and southern provinces of the country. Louis’s grandfather, Henry IV, had been a Protestant prior to converting to Catholicism upon his coronation. In 1598, Henry issued the Edict of Nantes, which gave Protestants the legal right to exist and practice in France. Henry did not, however, pass his religious beliefs on to his descendants. Louis XIII vigorously sought to curtail Protestant rights and independence.After an uprising in protest of the policies of Louis XIII, the Peace of Alais (1629) stripped Protestant Huguenots of all political rights but still allowed them freedom of worship. When Louis XIV gained the throne, he continued his father’s anti-Protestant efforts, finally outlawing Protestantism in the Edict of Fontainebleu in 1685. Despite his devout Catholicism, Louis XIV also fought to maintain French independence from the papacy. In 1666, one of his advisers advocated reducing the number of priests and monks in France by reestablishing a legal age for ordination.This resulted in the Church admonishing Louis against taking the advice of laypersons on matters of Church authority. The battle between pro-papal Catholics and advocates for an independent French church divided Catholic France. Louis strongly advocated a position that promoted limits on the pope’s authority in favor of that of the French bishops and the king, and he saw himself as the director of most religious matters within his realm. The Declaration of the Clergy of France, written in 1682, clearly argued the king’s and the bishops’ position on papal authority.

FRANCE AT WAR In European affairs, France’s position had been strengthened by restraints on its main rival, the empire of the Habsburgs, in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years’ War. Louis

pressed his advantage over the Habsburgs through marriage, legal claims, and war. Between 1667 and 1713, Louis waged war on a variety of Habsburg lands. The brief War of Devolution (1667–1668) pursued Louis’s claim to the Spanish Netherlands through his first wife, Maria Theresa, a Habsburg princess. France gained possession of several northern cities as a result. Only a few years later in the Dutch War (1672– 1678), Louis again invaded the Netherlands. Although the French were much more powerful, they were thwarted by the heroic actions of the Dutch, who flooded their territory, halting the advance of the French army. Louis then turned his attention east, annexing the region of Alsace without a fight in 1681 and battling the Austrian Habsburgs for Cologne and the Palatine in the NineYears’War (1689–1697), which ended in a stalemate. Finally, Louis also pursued the Spanish throne by claiming inheritance rights in the War of the Spanish Succession (1702–1713). Louis’s wars were rarely successful; worse, they drained his treasury and created animosity for France throughout Europe. Although Louis never lost his mental faculties and continued to rule his kingdom to the end, his death in 1715 from gangrene was slow and agonizing. Upon his death, his great grandson Louis XV (r. 1715–1774), inherited the throne of France. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Divine Right; European Kingships; French Monarchies; Habsburg Dynasty; Henry IV (France); Louis XV; Valois Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Birn, Raymond. Crisis, Absolutism, Revolution: Europe. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992. Bluche, F. Louis XIV. New York:Watts, 1990. Lewis, W.H. The Splendid Century: Life in the France of Louis XIV. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1999.

LOUIS XV (1710–1774 C.E.) King of France (r. 1715–1774), also called Louis “the Well-Beloved,” whose long reign was influenced by a series of powerful advisers. Taking the throne at the

L ou i s X V age of five, Louis was a much-loved child-king who was among the most reserved monarchs of the Bourbon dynasty. Although his reign was relatively peaceful and prosperous at home, it was beset by a series of unsuccessful foreign wars and domestic power struggles. When Louis died nearly sixty years after taking the throne, the government of France was almost bankrupt, the monarchy was greatly weakened, and France had lost most of its foreign territory. When Louis was born in 1710, he was far down the line of succession. The great-grandson of the ruling monarch, Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), he was the youngest of three sons born to Louis XIV’s grandson, Duke Louis of Burgundy, and Marie Adelaide of Savoy. Before Louis XV was two years old, his parents and brothers had all died in an epidemic that claimed many lives in France. A few years later, in September 1715, Louis XIV died and the five-year-old Louis XV, now next in line to the throne, became king of France. In 1725, Louis XV married Maria Leszczynska, the daughter of King Stanislas I of Poland (r. 1704–1736). The marriage was carried out by proxy since Louis was only fifteen and Maria was twenty-two at the time.Although not from a powerful family—or perhaps because of it—Maria was deemed an appropriate match for Louis.The most important criterion was that she be able to quickly provide an heir, which she did in addition to nine other children. However, Louis’s son and heir, the dauphin, died before his father, leaving Louis’s grandson heir to the throne (he later ruled as Louis XVI from 1774 to 1792).Two other grandsons of Louis XV—Louis XVIII (r. 1814–1824) and Charles X (r. 1824–1830)—also ruled as kings of France. Perhaps because Louis XV took the throne at such a young age, and more likely because he lacked the desire to govern, he allowed others to either rule in his place or strongly influence him throughout his reign. The first of these regents and advisers was his cousin Philippe, the duke of Orléans. In his will, Louis XIV had appointed the duke, his nephew, to be regent, and Philippe ruled for the young Louis XV from 1715 to 1723. Once Louis achieved legal majority in 1723, Louis remained content to let his ministers govern, especially the elderly Cardinal André Hercule de Fleury and the duke of Bourbon.After Fleury died in 1743, Louis took a more active part in governing France. Yet, he was heavily influenced by his mistresses, most notably Madame de Pompadour, who

549

held sway from the 1730s to 1764, and Madame Du Barry, who wielded a great deal of power from 1768 until Louis’s death in 1774. During Louis’s final years, from 1771 to 1774, France was governed by a number of high government advisers, including the chancellor, the controlleur general, and the secretary of state for foreign affairs. These advisers accomplished some much needed reforms, including ending the sale of government offices, limiting the power of the Parlement of Paris (not a true parliament but a court), and attempting to define judicial authority. The reign of Louis XV was marked by a series of foreign wars. When Stanislaus I of Poland, Louis’s father-in-law, became embroiled in a struggle for his throne, France became involved in the War of the Polish Succession (1733–1735).When the war ended, the resulting negotiations for territorial exchanges lasted until 1738. The most significant result for France was that Stanislaus received the duchy of Lorraine, which Louis later inherited in 1766.A few years later, France entered the War of the Austrian Succession (1740– 1748) in support of Prussian claims to the Austrian Crown. That expensive conflict not only damaged France’s finances, but also had significant military and diplomatic costs. The most damaging conflict for France was the Seven Years’War (1756–1763) in North America, also known as the French and Indian War. This conflict among the major European powers over colonial supremacy in North America ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763, in which France lost nearly all its imperial possessions in the New World, as well as territory in India. France was also required to remove troops from Germany, and its prestige in Europe reached a low point. Repeated wars, along with the extravagant lifestyle of the royal court and resistance to the Crown’s authority to impose taxes, resulted in increasing debts throughout much of Louis’s reign. Because of his lack of leadership, the aristocracy and upper bourgeoisie of France were able to increase their power at the expense of the monarchy. His legacy of neglect and profligacy left France in a worsened condition that ultimately led to revolution during the reign of his successor, his grandson Louis XVI. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; French Monarchies; Louis XIV; Louis XVI; Louis XVII; Stanislaus I.

550

L ou i s X V

FURTHER READING

TROUBLE BEGINS

Bernier, Olivier. Louis the Beloved:The Life of Louis XV. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. Roche, Daniel. France in the Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Seward, Desmond. The Bourbon Kings of France. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.

Though popular with the public and with more democratic leanings than most nobles, Necker inadvertently worsened France’s financial situation by borrowing money to support the American colonies in their rebellion against Britain.These loans came at very high rates of interest, and the money the French government had been able to save as a result of the domestic reforms of both Necker and Turgot was absorbed in their repayment. Much like his predecessor, Necker outraged the upper classes, and he resigned in 1781 after failing to gain support from the royal court. Throughout the next decade, France’s economic situation grew worse as the kingdom’s debt and its interest accumulated. Louis’s indecisiveness and indifference in the face of rising troubles began to galvanize public opinion against him.With hunting and lock-making as his most passionate interests, Louis was a poor leader at a time when France desperately needed a strong one. His apathetic approach to government allowed the national debt to increase drastically while the court spent extravagantly. By 1787, France’s financial troubles were so bad that Louis was forced to act. He called into session the Assembly of Notables, a group of powerful aristocrats and religious figures, to try to push forward a plan for taxing the wealthy. The Notables, however, would not concede. Necker, who had been restored to power by Louis in 1788, helped convince the king to use his weapon of last resort—the States-General, a kind of parliament—which Louis called to assemble in 1789.

LOUIS XVI (1754–1793 C.E.) King of France (r. 1774–1792) whose apathy regarding political and economic affairs contributed to his overthrow and execution during the French Revolution. Louis XVI maintained a difficult marriage with the controversial and unpopular Marie Antoinette, a relationship that, in some ways, hastened his downfall.The actions and inactions of Louis and Marie Antoinette certainly furthered the uprising that brought their lives to a violent close. However, it is uncertain whether any monarch could have maintained effective power amidst the complicated social problems that gripped France during the 1780s and 1790s.

EARLY YEARS Born in 1754 to Louis, the dauphin (crown prince) of France, and Marie Josèphe of Saxony, Louis Augustus became heir to the throne at his father’s death in 1765, and was crowned king upon the death of his grandfather, King Louis XV (r. 1715–1774), in 1774. Louis’s marriage four years earlier to Marie Antoinette, the daughter of Austrian archduchess Maria Theresa and Emperor Francis I (r. 1745–1765) of the Holy Roman Empire, was intended to create an alliance between France and Austria. Ultimately, however, this had the opposite effect, because Marie’s sympathies for Austria incurred the ire of many powerful French political figures. Louis’s reign began with an attempt to enact economic and social reforms favorable to the middle and lower classes in France. This reform movement was led primarily by Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, a French economist who served as comptroller general of finances in the early years of Louis’s rule.Turgot’s reforms, though beneficial to many, outraged the French nobility, including Marie Antoinette. As a result, Louis was forced to ask for Turgot’s resignation in 1776, appointing the wealthy banker Jacques Necker to take his place.

REVOLUTION After prolonged infighting within the States-General, and indecisiveness on Louis’s part, the Third Estate (made up of commoners) broke away from the nobility and clergy and declared itself the National Assembly in June 1789, an action that marks the beginning of the French Revolution. Louis dispatched troops to Versailles to monitor the actions of the National Assembly, and this, coupled with Necker’s discharge, led to an attack by a Paris mob on the ancient fortress and prison, the Bastille, on July 14, 1789. Louis seemed to support the reforms of the National Assembly and the Revolution, but he also supported attempts by Marie Antoinette and others to begin a counterrevolution. Fearing that a coup was imminent, Louis began negotiations with foreign

L ou i s - P h i l i p p e

551

King Louis XVI of France was unprepared to deal with the economic and political troubles that plagued his reign, which ultimately led to the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789. Deposed and imprisoned by the revolutionaries, Louis was executed at the guillotine in 1793.

governments to secure his safety but to no avail.The royal family was detained by revolutionaries in Paris in October 1789 and was recaptured in June 1791 while attempting to escape France in disguise. Shortly after his second capture, Louis was forced to take the oath of kingship under a new constitution, which severely limited his powers. Louis’s surrender of power was not enough for the increasingly radical revolutionaries, however. He and his family were once again imprisoned in August 1792 after France had gone to war with Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire. From this arrest and incarceration there would be no reprieve. After abolishing the monarchy in September 1792, the National Convention tried and convicted Louis of treason in January 1793. He was summarily executed by the guillotine later that month. Marie Antoinette met the same fate the following year. See also: Class Systems and Royalty; Dethronement; French Monarchies; Louis XV; Marie Antoinette; Regicide.

FURTHER READING

Hardman, John. Louis XVI:The Silent King. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

LOUIS-PHILIPPE (1773–1850 C.E.) The last king of France (r. 1830–1848), whose unpopular reign is known as the July Monarchy. The sixty-five years between 1785 and 1850 produced some of the most remarkable and violent changes in European history, and Louis-Philippe received both the pleasures and pains of these transformations, riding a wave of violence to and from the throne. A member of a cadet branch of the French royal family, the Bourbons, Louis-Philippe was born in Paris in 1773 to Philippe Égalité, the duc d’Orleans, and Louise Marie Adelaide de Bourbon. Philippe Égalité was an extravagant and controversial figure, and his actions as a French Revolutionary ultimately cost him his life in the Reign of Terror during the French Revolu-

552

L ou i s - P h i l i p p e

tion. Louis-Philippe, though he joined the Revolutionary Army, could not maintain his father’s commitment to the cause and deserted to Austria in 1793, remaining exiled from France for twenty years. While in exile, Louis-Philippe married Princess Maria Amelia, the daughter of Ferdinand IV of Naples (r. 1759–1816) (later Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies, r. 1816–1825). Returning to France in the wake of Napoleon’s flight to Elba and a reconciliation with the new French king, Louis-Philippe found himself a wealthy man, given a high military rank and the remaining Orleans estates that he had inherited from his father. His popularity grew over the next few years, especially among influential liberal writers and uppermiddle-class citizens, who led the short but violent July Revolution in 1830. This series of street battles between royalists and antiroyalists ended with King Charles X (r. 1824–1830) exiled to England and Louis Philippe named “citizen-king” of France. The most notable foreign policy decisions made by Louis-Philippe during his reign included an armistice with England after decades of sporadic fighting and the expansion of the French Empire into North Africa. However, Louis-Philippe’s role as an international leader was overshadowed by France’s internal turmoil. A constitutional monarch, Louis-Philippe courted unpopularity by attempting to consolidate more power for himself, mostly through the promotion of weakwilled, conservative lackeys to important government posts. His failure to respond to the needs of the lower classes generated more dissatisfaction with his domestic policies, which favored the upper classes. This discontent and frustration on the part of the masses eventually led to the 1848 February Revolution, the first in a series of revolutions that spread across Europe that same year. A few short bursts of violence were enough to drive Louis-Philippe from the throne and allow France to set up a republican government. Louis-Philippe fled to England, where he died in exile in 1850. See also: Class Systems and Royalty; French Monarchies; Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Power, Forms of Royal.

LOVEDU KINGDOM (ca. 1600 C.E.–Present) Small kingdom of southern Africa said to be ruled by direct descendants of the rulers of Great Zimbabwe.

Oral tradition holds that the Lovedu kingdom was founded around 1600, the result of a family dispute within the household of King Mambo, ruler of Great Zimbabwe (in present-day Zimbabwe).The king discovered that his sister was pregnant, but she refused to tell him the name of the father. (According to tradition, her lover was Mambo’s own brother.) Fearing that Mambo would harm her for refusing to tell him what he wished to know, the girl stole an important talisman dedicated to the rain and fled to the south.There she gave birth to a son whom she named Muhale, and together they founded the Lovedu kingdom.When Muhale grew older, he is said to have traveled back to Great Zimbabwe, where he invited many to return to Lovedu with him. Although much of this origin tale may be myth, the Lovedu do share cultural and linguistic links with the Zimbabwean people. Muhale was succeeded by three further kings. During the reign of the last one, Mugodo, a crisis arose and his legitimacy was cast into doubt. (This is also the subject of numerous legends, but civil unrest was probably at the root of the trouble, and drought and famine may have been factors as well.) In 1800, Mugodo was forced to abdicate in favor of one of his daughters, Mujaji (Modjadji) (r. 1800–1854), who became known as the Rain Queen. Although never married, Mujaji gave birth to a daughter. Legend holds that Mugodo fathered this child. From this time forward, only queens would rule the Lovedu. Up to the most recent ruler, Mujaji VI (r. 2003–present), the queenship has passed from mother to daughter in an unbroken line of succession, and no one knows who the fathers of these queens might be.A custom of Lovedu queenship that survives to the present day is the system of “woman marriage,” in which the Lovedu queens maintain a harem of wives whom they may marry. Mujaji I, and all the Lovedu queens who followed her, were credited with the power of controlling the rain—an important gift in a region often plagued by drought. This gift is believed to be handed down along with the Crown through the royal female line. Mujaji I ruled from seclusion, rarely seen by her subjects. She was succeeded by one of her daughters (Mujaji II, r. 1854–1895), for whom power over the rain was not enough. Throughout her reign, Lovedu and its people were threatened by invading Europeans on the one hand and Zulus on the other. She is said to have attempted to turn back the Zulu by afflicting their pasturelands with drought, but this

Luang Prabang Kingdom failed. In the face of the powerful forces on her borders, Mujaji II retreated into hiding. In 1981, Mujaji V (r. 1981–2003) ascended to the Lovedu throne. Toward the end of her reign, she often complained that few people came to her for the rain-making ritual. She died in 2003, but her daughter, who should have inherited the throne, had died just two days earlier. Thus her granddaughter, Mujaji VI, was installed as Rain Queen in April 2003. At age twenty-five, she is the youngest queen ever to rule the Lovedu people. See also: African Kingdoms; Queens and Queen Mothers; Zimbabwe Kingdoms, Great.

LOZI (OR ROTSE) KINGDOM (late 1800s C.E.–Present)

One of several Bantu states to arise in what is now Zambia in south-central Africa. The territory of the Lozi kingdom encompasses the floodplain of the Zambezi River. The Lozi kingdom had its origin in an earlier state, the Luyi kingdom, which existed at least from the early 1800s and from which the Lozi rulers have always traced their descent. In the 1830s, the Luyi kingdom, located in present-day Zaire, was conquered by a rival state called the Kololo kingdom, led by a king named Sekeletu. The Kololo held their newly conquered lands for only about thirty years, until a leader of the Lozi people named Lewanika launched a war against them. Lewanika successfully expelled the Kololo invaders in 1864 and set himself up as king (r. ca. 1864–?).The Lozi kingdom he established continues, in reduced form, even today. During the colonial period, the Lozi kingdom retained nominal independence by cooperating fully with the desires of the British South Africa Company. However, even this degree of political autonomy ended in the mid-1960s, when the kingdom became subordinate to the larger national polity of the nation of Zambia. Traces of the original hierarchical structure of the Lozi monarchy remain in the kingdom today.The Lozi king rules by divine right, according to traditional religious beliefs that include reverence for ancestors. The king is supported by a class of ministers drawn

553

from high-ranking clans in society. Succession to office, including that of the king, is through selection by the family head, not through primogeniture (the principle of inheritance by the first-born son).The lowest rungs of Lozi society are occupied by commoners and a class of laborers called “slaves” (although they are not slaves in the western sense of being owned). Perhaps the most important of the Lozi royal traditions to survive today is the kuomboka, which involves a ritual change of residence. The Lozi king maintains two palaces, one for the dry season and one for the rainy season. In March, when the rainy season begins, the king and his retinue board the royal barge to travel to the rainy-season palace. Accompanying the royal family onboard are a multitude of royal attendants, and the barge is propelled by 100 rowers.To set the pace for the rowers there are three royal bands, comprised of drums and xylophones. These royal bands accompany the king at all his public appearances, and the drums are themselves ritually identified with the king. See also: African Kingdoms; Luba Kingdom; Lunda Kingdom.

LUANG PRABANG KINGDOM (1707–1975 C.E.)

Kingdom of northern Laos that was founded in the early eighteenth century and survived into the modern era. The capital of the kingdom was the city of Luang Prabang (also Louangphrabang), which also served as the capital of French colonial Laos after 1893. With the demise of the Lan Sang (Xang) Empire around 1700, Prince Kingkitsarat, the grandnephew of the last Lan Sang king, fled to the city of Luang Prabang and established a new kingdom in 1707. Kingkitsarat ruled the kingdom from 1707 to 1713. By the end of his reign, Laos was divided into three kingdoms—Vientiane, Luang Prabang, and Champasak (Champassak). Luang Prabang maintained complete autonomy for nearly sixty years.Then, from 1771 to 1791, the kings of Luang Prabang were vassals to the more powerful kings of Siam.The Siamese kings, however, failed to effectively protect the Luang Prabang kingdom from Chinese invasions in the 1870s and 1880s. As a result, King Un Kham (r. 1870–1891) finally

554

Luang Prabang Kingdom

asked the French for assistance, and Laos became a French protectorate in 1893. Beginning in 1904, the French exercised indirect rule of Laos through the kings of Luang Prabang, giving the French resident adviser final authority in the region. In 1946, the French made King Sisavangvong (r. 1904–1959) ruler of a unified Laos under the French Union, and Luang Prabang was absorbed into the larger state. The next year, a constitution was signed to create an elected legislature, and in 1953 the French gave Laos full independence. For the next twenty years, various factions fought to gain control of the Laotian government, and the monarchy became increasingly unstable. In 1975, communist victories in Cambodia and Vietnam gave the Laotian Communist Party, the Pathet Lao, the power to take over the government.The declaration of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic in 1975 led to the abdication of the last Luang Prabang king, Savangvatthana (r. 1959–1975), who is believed to have died three years later. See also: Cambodian Kingdoms; Champassak Kingdom; Siam, Kingdoms of;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

LUBA KINGDOM (ca. 1400s–1800s C.E.) One of several powerful kingdoms to dominate the territory of what is now modern-day Democratic Republic of Congo; the founders of the Luba kingdom are thought to have migrated to their territory from the lands south of Lake Chad. The kingdom of the Luba grew out of a population that appears to have been settled in the territory south of Lake Chad since at least the fifth century. As early as the eighth century, there is evidence that these people began moving further south into what is now Zaire and began to coalesce into small states as Luba settlements grew. By the fifteenth century, these communities had begun producing goods, particularly copper, for the Indian Ocean trade.With the wealth from this enterprise, several fully formed Luba kingdoms arose up in the area, which in the early 1500s came to be consolidated under the rule of a single king, called Kongolo. The Luba became one of several important powers in the region, along with their neighbors the Lunda and Kuba. The Luba and Lunda kingdoms formed an alliance around 1600, when a son of the

Luba ruling family married the daughter of the Lunda king.This provided the Luba with a degree of territorial security that fostered the kingdoms’ continued growth and expansion. The Luba king, called the mulopwe, retained rights of ownership over the more valuable of locally produced trade goods, such as salt and copper, and claimed the revenues they brought in trade. The king’s authority was sanctioned by the creation tales at the core of traditional Luba religion, and the rituals of his installation on the throne recalled the divine origin of his authority over the people. As the Luba kingdom expanded its territory, the king faced increasing difficulties in exerting control over his domain. To deal with this situation, he delegated authority over local matters to subordinate rulers. These positions were hereditary, and the local leaders were supervised by agents handpicked by the king. The agents were also charged with collecting tribute and ensuring that these revenues were sent back to the king. In the late 1700s, the Luba kingdom experienced a period of great expansion.The king during this period, Ilungu Sungu (r. 1780–1810), claimed territories to the east all the way to Lake Tanganyika. His expansionist policies were continued during the reign of his successors, King Kumwimbe Ngomba (r. 1810–1840) and King Ilunga Kabale (r. 1840–1870). By the reign of Ilunga Kabale, however, European and Arab slave raiders had entered the region, and the Luba king found it increasingly difficult to protect his subjects from capture and enslavement. By the time of Kabale’s death in 1870, these slave raiders had wrested control over many of the peoples who once paid tribute to the Luba kingdom; without a stable source of revenue, the king fell into decline. Soon after, Belgian colonizers arrived in the region. They divided the Luba kingdom into two units, effectively ending the kingship. See also: African Kingdoms; Kuba Kingdom; Lunda Kingdom.

LUNDA KINGDOM (ca. 1400s–1800s C.E.) African kingdom that once occupied territory extending from Congo (present-day Zaire) into western Zambia and northern Angola. The Lunda kingdom was founded sometime in the fifteenth cen-

Lusignan Dynasty tury, when Bantu migrants came into the region from the north. The kingdom was the dominant power in that region from the early seventeenth century to the late nineteenth century.At the end of that period, one of the kingdom’s powerful rivals, the Chokwe, succeeded in displacing the Lunda Empire and gaining ascendancy. The Lunda kingdom reached the height of its powers and territorial expansion after the ruling family formed an alliance with the neighboring Luba kingdom by arranging a marriage between the Lunda king’s daughter and a son of the Luba royal house. Soon thereafter, a wave of migration occurred, as people from the central portion of the Lunda kingdom set out to establish settlements and small tributary states. At its peak in the 1700s, Lunda could more properly be considered an empire, with client states and kingdoms covering all the lands stretching from Lake Tanganyika in the east almost to the Atlantic coast in the west. The Lunda king bore the title Mwaat Yaav, and he traditionally held absolute authority over his realm, although he maintained a large council of advisers drawn from the various groups that made up his empire. In practical terms, however, he ruled indirectly, relying on local leaders, particularly in the more farflung reaches of his territory, to handle day-to-day administrative duties. He maintained authority with the aid of royal appointees who oversaw the collection of tribute and kept an eye on the local political leaders. The king’s authority was rooted in a divine charter, bestowed on the Lunda monarchy by a creator god named Nzambi. In a way, the king’s rule and his relationship with his subjects was modeled upon the relationship thought to exist between Nzambi and his believers. Like the god, the MwaatYaav was not to be petitioned directly, but through intermediaries. For the god, these intermediaries were the spirits of ancestors; for the Lunda king, they were local authorities or members of the royal court. See also: African Kingdoms.

LUSIGNAN DYNASTY (1192–1489 C.E.) French dynasty that played an important role in the Crusades and, through that role, became rulers of Cyprus. Kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire viewed the Crusades as a means both to extend the power of

555

the Roman Church and also to capture the richness of the near Middle East. Lusignans from the Frankish kingdoms participated and eventually came to rule Cyprus. During the Crusades, Richard the Lionheart of England gained control of the island of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean. Before returning to England, he left Cyprus in the charge of two nobles who had joined him on the Crusade, Richard of Camville and Robert of Tornham. When his nobles were faced with revolt from the Cypriot people, however, Richard the Lionheart sold the island to the Knights Templar, a military order. When the Templars also had to face the revolts, they begged Richard to cancel their purchase. He then offered Cyprus to Guy of Lusignan, who had been king of Jerusalem. Guy accepted the offer and thus began the Lusignan dynasty of Cyprus, which lasted 300 years. Upon his death in 1194, Guy was succeeded by his brother Amaury, who obtained a Crown from the Holy Roman emperor, remained the king of Cyprus, and became the first Lusignan king of Cyprus. The Lusignan dynasty, in terms of art, marked one of the most brilliant and significant eras in the history of Cyprus. Gothic churches, abbeys, and crusader castles all remain the legacies of Frankish art sponsored or encouraged by the Lusignans.The Seventh Crusade, which developed after the fall of Jerusalem in 1244, brought many talented architects, artists, and stone masons to Cyprus, who would play an instrumental role in the Gothic art of the period. In 1267, Hugh of Antioch came to the throne and, after he took action against plague and famine, Cyprus prospered. In 1291, with the Muslim conquest of Palestine, Cyprus became the Christian outpost of the East. Merchants from Genoa,Venice, and other cities came to Famagusta, which became a major trading center between the East and the West. In the 1300s, the city was one of the wealthiest in the Mediterranean. However, the bubonic plague of 1349 brought trade to a halt, and in its aftermath, Cyprus began to decline. During the 1400s, the Lusignan rulers had little power, most of it having been ceded to the Genoese in the century before. The dynasty died out in 1474 with the death of James III of Cyprus, and fifteen years later the island was taken over by Venice. See also: Byzantine Empire; Crusader Kingdoms; Holy Roman Empire; Richard I, Lionheart; Saladin.

556

L u x e m b ou r g Dy na s t y

LUXEMBOURG DYNASTY (1308–1437 C.E.)

European dynasty based first in Luxembourg and then in Bohemia, which provided kings of Germany and Holy Roman emperors in the fourteenth century. Count Henry VII of Luxembourg (r. 1288–1310), a vassal of the French king, was elected king of Germany in 1308 as a result of a compromise between candidates for the throne from the Austrian house of Habsburg and the French Valois dynasty. At the Diet of Frankfurt in 1310, Henry also gained the disputed Crown of Bohemia for his son John, in return for confirming Habsburg rights in Austria and Styria. John married Elizabeth, sister of king Wenceslas III of Bohemia (r. 1305–1306), the last Bohemian king from the Premysl dynasty. John ruled Bohemia until 1347, and his successors in the house of Luxembourg continued to rule that kingdom until 1437. Meanwhile, Henry VII was crowned Holy Roman emperor in Rome in 1312, but he died the following year while trying to reassert imperial rights in Italy. Civil war followed his death, as German princes elected two rival kings—Louis IV of Bavaria (r. 1314–1347) and Frederick of Austria (r. 1314– 1330)—for the imperial throne. In Bohemia, John of Luxembourg increased that kingdom’s territory, gaining the regions of upper Lusatia and Silesia. He also supported the Teutonic Knights in the wars against Lithuania. John died in 1346 at the battle of Crècy, fighting alongside the French against the English in that important battle of the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453). Upon John’s death, his son Wenceslas inherited the Bohemian throne, ruling as Charles IV (r. 1346–1378). During the reign of Charles IV, the Bohemian capital of Prague became a great cultural center, attracting scholars and artists from all over Europe. The Luxembourg dynasty regained the Crown of Germany when Charles IV of Bohemia was elected German king in 1346. He was later crowned Holy Roman emperor in 1355. Charles IV’s most significant achievement as emperor was the Golden Bull of 1356, an edict intended to clarify and reform the electoral process by which German kings and Holy Roman emperors were chosen. The Golden Bull reaffirmed the requirement of a majority vote among the electors, and it made the territory of the electoral princes inheritable only by

the eldest son, and indivisible to prevent quarreling over the status of elector. The edict also confirmed that the archbishop of Mainz held the right to convene electors and cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie, and it set the number of German electors at seven. During Charles IV’s reign, the German princes gained in power and autonomy. Charles IV died in 1378 and was succeeded in Bohemia by his son Wenceslas IV (r. in Germany 1378–1400; r. in Bohemia 1378–1419). In Germany, Wenceslas had been elected king in 1376 while his father still ruled, a means of ensuring the succession. Wenceslas’s reign was a time of great unrest in Germany. Conflicts grew between the nobility and the cities over matters such as taxes and the flight of rural laborers to the cities. The Swabian League of 1376 was formed by a number of cities for mutual protection. Although allied with similar leagues in other parts of Germany, the Swabian League was defeated by the forces of the nobility in 1388.Wenceslas had initially supported the cities, but in 1389 he ordered all city leagues to disband. Neither the princes nor the cities trusted him, however, and German electors deposed Wenceslas in 1400. Wenceslas’s reign in Bohemia also was marked by conflict; in this case, with the Bohemian nobles. He was twice imprisoned by the nobles and released after granting concessions to the power of the nobility. Despite his problems with the nobility, Wenceslas remained king of Bohemia until his death in 1419, when he was succeeded by his brother, Sigismund (r. 1419–1437). Sigismund had already been elected king of Hungary in 1387, and as king he led an unsuccessful Crusade against the Turks in 1396. Throughout Sigismund’s reign as king of Bohemia he was at war with the Hussites, followers of the Bohemian religious reformer Jan Hus. Under their leader, Jan Zizka, the Hussites repelled repeated attacks by Sigismund, who came to terms with them only in 1436, the year before his death. Also prior to gaining the throne of Bohemia, Sigismund had been elected king of Germany in 1410. Much later, in 1433, he was crowned Holy Roman emperor. During his reign in Germany, conflicts between the cities and the princes continued, and the lack of effective central authority hampered attempts to resolve these conflicts. Sigismund’s death in 1437 marked the end of Luxembourg rule in Bohemia, Hungary, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Ly d i a , K i n g d om o f In general, the rule of the Luxembourg dynasty was not successful. In Bohemia, the Luxembourgs oversaw a period of territorial expansion, but they also struggled with great social and religious upheaval during the Hussite rebellion. In Germany, territorial expansion under the early Luxembourg rulers was followed by an era of lawlessness and disorder, as German princes and electors gained power at the expense of the Crown. Germany became more disunited and provincial, as each territory became more concerned with its own affairs. The Luxembourg dynasty was followed by a period of Habsburg rule in Germany, Bohemia, and Hungary, and by nearly four hundred years of Habsburg rule of the Holy Roman Empire. See also: Charles IV; Election, Royal; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Sigismund;Valois Dynasty;Wenceslas IV. FURTHER READING

Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Origins of Modern Germany. 3rd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Holmes, George, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

LYDIA, KINGDOM OF (680–547 B.C.E.) Ancient kingdom of western Anatolia, known for its great wealth and the invention of metallic coinage; its most famous ruler was King Croesus. In the late 600s and early 500s b.c.e., the kingdom of Phrygia in Anatolia was conquered and destroyed by the Cimmerians, a people who invaded from the region north of the Black Sea. The fall of Phrygia left a power vacuum in western Anatolia that was filled by Lydia.The founder of the new kingdom was Gyges (r. ca. 680–648 b.c.e.), whose Mermnad dynasty lasted until about 550 b.c.e. The oldest Lydian settlement, the city of Sardis, had easy access to rich gold, silver, and electrum deposits in the surrounding Anatolian countryside. It was in Sardis that gold and silver coins were first minted in the seventh century b.c.e. Early in their history, the Lydians were in contact with the Greeks, and the use of coinage quickly spread to Greece and Greek city-states on the coast of Anatolia.The use of coinage contributed to the rise of Greek commer-

557

cialism and thus to the cultural revolution that altered Greek civilization in the sixth century b.c.e. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus also ascribed the innovation of permanent, stationary retail shops to the Lydians.Whether or not this is true, archaeological evidence shows that Lydia was a wealthy commercial state. Herodotus, though not particularly impressed with Lydia, recorded one major building project there: the tomb of Alyattes. This tomb, the ruins of which still exist in west-central Anatolia, was constructed of massive stones and packed earth and was, according to Herodotus, “built by men of the market and the craftsmen and the prostitutes.” Herodotus also explains that lower-class Lydian women often worked as prostitutes to gather a dowry before marriage. Some scholars have seen a religious significance in the Lydian custom of prostitution. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the practice was common to Lydian women other than those of lower classes or that prostitution was carried out in a ritual context. Herodotus also claims that the Lydians were the originators of many ancient leisure activities, including ball-playing. These games were allegedly invented to amuse the Lydian populace during a long famine. Despite the distraction of sport, however, the famine— which lasted eighteen years—took its toll on the Lydian people, and eventually the prince Tyrrhenus decided to lead a part of the population to found a new state. Herodotus claims that the Lydian refugees found their way to Italy, where they became the Etruscans. However, archaeological evidence has provided only limited support for this assertion. The relationship between Greece and Lydia was a complicated one. Although the Greeks benefited from cultural and economic trade with Lydia, and individual Greeks seem to have traveled freely within the country, part of Lydian wealth was based on the looting of Greek cities. These raids were common even under the first Lydian ruler, King Gyges. It seems, however, that the goal of these raids was commercial gain rather than conquest, and no evidence suggests that Lydian troops were permanently garrisoned in Greek cities. This is true even during the reign of Croesus (r. ca. 560–546 b.c.e.), under whom many Greek cities were forced to pay tribute. Herodotus writes that Croesus was made so confident by his successes over Greek cities in the west that he began to consider attacking the Persians to the

558

Ly d i a , K i n g d om o f

east. The king consulted the famous oracle of Apollo at Delphi on the Greek mainland, inquiring as to the outcome should he attack Persia. The oracle answered: “If Croesus crosses into Persian territory, he will destroy a great kingdom.” Croesus, emboldened by this guarantee, attacked the Persians in 546 b.c.e. But Croesus’ forces were crushed by those of Cyrus the Great of Persia (r. 559–529 b.c.e.), who by 547 b.c.e., had destroyed the great kingdom of Lydia. See also: Croesus; Cyrus the Great; Persian Empire; Phrygia Kingdom.

Athenian art, philosophy, and literature. They even switched from their Macedonian dialect to the Attic dialect common in the southern cities of Greece.

PHILIP II OF MACEDON The Macedonian Empire was established when King Philip II of Macedon set out to unify the Greek citystates and defeat the Persian Empire through war and diplomacy. Philip was able to combine Greek and Macedonian soldiers into a powerful fighting machine through war and diplomacy.

Imperial Ambitions

Short-lived empire, ruled by Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.) and his son, Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), that included the part of modern-day Greece northeast of the Gulf of Thermai. The word Macedonia comes from a tribe of tall (maekos) Greek-speaking people from the north of Greece who lived outside the cultural and political developments of the southern city-states. The Athenians looked upon them as barbarians.

As a young man, Philip spent time as a hostage in the Greek city of Thebes, where he was able to observe Epaminondas, a Greek tactician who led the best army in Greece. On his return to Macedonia and accession to the throne in 359 b.c.e., Philip reestablished the kingdom’s army, training six brigades (9,000 men) and adapting a fighting formation known as the phalanx. In the phalanx, soldiers with shields stood shoulder to shoulder, sixteen deep.They were armed with sarissa, thirteen- to twenty-one-foot spears that were longer and stronger than Greek spears. Archers and heavy cavalry carrying javelins and swords protected the formation’s sides. Not even Athens’ powerful military could stop Philip’s phalanx. In addition to his military might, Philip used political marriages and diplomacy to extend the Macedonian kingdom. He stabilized his northwestern frontier in 359 b.c.e. by marrying Olympias, a Molossian princess of Epirus and mother of Philip’s child, Alexander the Great. Philip waited six years without using force to gain control of Hermopylae, a strategically important pass on the east coast of central Greece, through diplomacy. Afterward, in 352 b.c.e., he was elected president of the Thessalian League.Within a few years, Philip controlled most of the small states in Greece, and his power extended as far north as the Danube River.

ARGEAD DYNASTY

Winning Support from Greece

Under the Argead dynasty (700–310 b.c.e.), the kingdom of Macedonia spread to the southeast, developing an aristocratic class of landlords and an army of landowning soldiers. When Macedonian interests began to overlap with those of Athens in the fourth century b.c.e., Athens attempted to colonize eastern Macedonia and destabilize the ruling dynasty. The Macedonians resisted but took an active interest in

In 338 b.c.e., Philip II took his army south, winning a decisive victory at Chaeronea, which gave him control of the city-state of Thebes, located northwest of Athens. Philip replaced Theban democracy with a Macedonian government and established a military garrison there. Scholars argue that Philip could have taken Athens at this time, but he did not because he needed Athens’ military, especially its navy, to fight against Persia.

M MACCABEES. See Hasmonean Kingdom MACEDONIAN EMPIRE (359–323 B.C.E.)

M ac e d on i a n E m p i r e

559

In 337 b.c.e., the Greek city-states and the Macedonians met near a Macedonian garrison in Corinth to discuss an attack on the Persian Empire. They made Philip II the military commander of their combined forces. Unfortunately, Philip was assassinated in 336 b.c.e. by an irate Macedonian noble, and the attack was delayed until another meeting at Corinth handed the military power to Philip’s son and successor,Alexander the Great.

tance at Gaza but was looked upon as a liberator once he reached Egypt. During the winter of 332–331 b.c.e., Alexander founded the city of Alexandria just west of the Nile River. Again, he left local governors in administrative control of their country, with Macedonians in control of their armies.With the conquest of Egypt, Alexander was now in control of the entire eastern Mediterranean coast, and he prepared to advance into Mesopotamia.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Advance into Mesopotamia

Alexander had grown up with the passion to destroy Persia and rule the world. Immediately on taking the throne, he executed everyone thought to be behind his father’s assassination and anyone who might be opposed to him.Then he consolidated the Macedonian kingdom, stopped a revolt at Thebes, burned the city to the ground, killed about six thousand of its inhabitants, and sold the survivors into slavery.

Alexander fought the decisive battle against the Persians when he defeated them on the plain of Gaugamela, located between Nineveh and Arbela, in 331 b.c.e. However, Darius escaped. Alexander left one of Darius’s commanders, Mazaeus, to administer the city and province of Babylon with the support of a Macedonian military commander. Alexander then crossed the Zagros Mountains into Persia and entered the city of Persepolis, where he burned the great palace built by Xerxes (r. 485–465 b.c.e.). From Persepolis, he moved north into Media, where he captured its capital, Ecbatana.With the Persians defeated,Alexander sent his Thessalian and Greek soldiers home. Years of fighting his formidable Persian enemies had started to change Alexander’s concept of empire. In the past, he had created democratic city-states, modeled on those of Greece, whenever possible. Now, however, he started to envision an empire ruled jointly by Macedonians and Persians.

Imperial Expansion into Asia Minor In the spring of 334 b.c.e., Alexander left one of his generals, Antipater, in charge of Macedonia, ordering him to protect the northern frontiers and keep order among the Greek states. Alexander’s army, consisting of 35,000 Macedonian, Thessalian, and Greek soldiers, marched into Asia Minor (presentday Turkey) and won major victories against the Persian army at the Granicus River and near the Sea of Marmara. In 333 b.c.e., they defeated the Persians at Gordian, Ankara, and along the Pinarus River. Most of the cities of Asia Minor simply opened their gates to Alexander, who expelled their rulers, established Greek-style democracies, and left Macedonian officers in charge of their armies.The Persian king, Darius III (r. 336–330 b.c.e.), who had not been prepared for Alexander’s advance, attempted a counterattack in the late fall of 333 b.c.e. But Darius was forced to flee when Alexander routed the Persians in a battle along the Pinarus River.

Control of the Eastern Mediterranean As Alexander marched south into Syria and Phoenicia, the cities of those regions fell to his soldiers with little or no resistance. Darius twice made offers for peace, which Alexander rejected. Alexander’s greatest battle was at the island city of Tyre, where a siege of seven months over the winter of 333–332 b.c.e. ended in the death of 6,000 of the city’s citizens.The survivors were sold into slavery. Continuing south, Alexander encountered resis-

Move Toward Central Asia After his conquest of Persia, Alexander continued his rapid move eastward toward Central Asia in 330 b.c.e., discovering that Darius had been deposed and killed by Bessus, Darius’s administrator of Bactria. After taking Bactria, Alexander captured Bessus and arranged for a public execution in Ecbatana. He arranged for Darius to be buried with full royal honors. Continued successes at the eastern edge of the former Persian Empire led Alexander to an attitude of absolutism. Wearing Persian dress, he attempted to make people prostrate themselves before him. It was a Persian custom to treat their rulers as gods. However, when the Macedonians and Greeks openly laughed at Alexander, he abandoned the idea.

Taking the Empire to India In 327 b.c.e., Alexander left Bactria through the Khyber Pass and eventually reached Taxila, located

560

M ac e d on i a n E m p i r e

on the banks of the Indus River, in 326 b.c.e.Taxiles (r. ca. 320s b.c.e.), the ruler of Taxila, gave Alexander elephants and soldiers in return for aid against his chief rival, Porus, a powerful Indian warlord. Alexander’s last great battle was against Porus on the banks of the Hyphasis River in 326 b.c.e. The victorious Macedonian army, now weary in body and spirit, convinced Alexander to turn back and proceed no further into India. By land and on the water, the soldiers fought their way down the Hyphasis and the Indus to the Persian Gulf. Some of the army set out for home by sea, while Alexander attempted to march through Gedrosia, an area on the border between India and Pakistan. The march over arid desert was a mistake that resulted in much suffering among Alexander’s troops. Eventually, Alexander rejoined his fleet at Amanis and headed home.

Alexander also developed of policy of trying to merge the races of Macedonia and Persia at Susa, the capital of Elam, in 324 b.c.e. He and eighty of his officers took Persian wives, and 10,000 of his soldiers married to native wives were given generous dowries. Worthy soldiers from across the Persian Empire were taken into his army, and Persian nobles were accepted into the royal bodyguard. This policy bothered the Macedonians, who felt that they were being sidelined in the new empire and that the power was shifting toward Persia. Although Alexander was able to reassure the Macedonians, he continued in his own megalomania to consider himself a god. In 323 b.c.e., Alexander was in Babylon planning to improve the irrigation of the Euphrates Valley and arrange for settlement along the Persian Gulf. Suffering from a fever, he died suddenly after a prolonged bout of drinking.

Attempt to Consolidate the Empire

DECLINE OF THE MACEDONIAN EMPIRE

During his remaining years, Alexander sought to consolidate his empire. Everyone who betrayed him or was guilty of poor administration was executed.

Alexander’s death was untimely, since there was no appointed heir and he died before he could consoli-

M ac e d on i a n K i n g d om date his empire into a political entity.This resulted in years of chaos and suffering. Wars of succession pitted general against general, and civil wars and ambitious leaders appeared in all parts of the Macedonian Empire. By 168 b.c.e., the glorious empire begun by Philip II and brought to fruition by his famous son, Alexander the Great, had been reduced to the status of a Roman province. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Conquest and Kingships; Greek Kingdoms, Ancient; Philip II of Macedon. FURTHER READING

Bosworth,A.B. Conquest and Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1988. Hammond, Nicholas G.L. The Miracle that Was Macedonia. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1991.

MACEDONIAN KINGDOM (658–168 B.C.E.)

Kingdom in the region of Macedonia, in northeastern Greece, centered on the coastal plain of the Chalcidice Peninsula. The plain was fertile and productive, and there were important silver mines in the eastern part. The population of the region was very diverse and included Anatolian peoples as well as several Hellenic (Greek) groups. The first influence of Greek culture in Macedon came from Greek colonies along the shore that were founded in the eighth century b.c.e. Macedon was a Persian tributary in 500 b.c.e. but took no real part in the Persian Wars. Alexander I (r. 495–464 b.c.e.) was the first Macedonian king to enter into Greek politics, and he began a policy of imitating features of Greek civilization. For the century after his reign, Hellenic influences grew and the Macedonian state became stronger. These processes reached their culmination with Philip II (r. 359–336 b.c.e.), who created an excellent army that his son,Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), used to forged a mighty empire.That empire, though resulting from Macedonian conquest, was the personal creation of Alexander the Great. After Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e., his Macedonian generals carved up the empire.These generals, the successors (the Diadochi) of Alexander—includ-

561

ing Antipater, Perdiccas, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus, and Lysimachus—founded a number of states and dynasties, including the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty of Syria. Alexander’s successors had largely Macedonian and Greek armies, and most of them founded cities with colonies of their soldiers.Thus began the remarkable spread of the Hellenistic (Greek, rather than Macedonian) civilization. Macedon, with Greece as a dependency, was one of the states carved out of Alexander’s empire. Almost immediately, however, a struggle began for control of Greece and even over Macedon itself. Cassander (r. 304–297 b.c.e.), the son of Antipater and an officer under Alexander the Great, took Macedon and held it until his death in 297 b.c.e. After a number of short-lived attempts by Demetrius I (r. 294–287 b.c.e.), Pyrrhus of Epirus (r. 287–285 b.c.e.), Lysimachus (r. 285–281 b.c.e.), and others to hold Macedon, Antigonus II (r. 277–239 b.c.e.) established himself as king. Antigonus fought off invaders from the region of Galatia in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) and used his long reign to restore Macedon economically. The Macedonian kingdom faced almost constant trouble with the Greek city-states. Many of them regained independence, but Antigonus III (r. 229–221 b.c.e.) reestablished Macedonian hegemony during his reign. Under his son and successor, Philip V (r. 221–179 b.c.e.), Macedon engaged in war against Rome. Although the First Macedonian War (215– 205 b.c.e.) ended favorably for Philip, he was decisively defeated in the Second Macedonian War (200–197 b.c.e.) and was forced to give up most of his fleet and pay a large indemnity. By collaborating with the Romans, however, he was able to reduce the indemnity. Philip’s son and successor, Perseus (r. 179–168 b.c.e), foolishly aroused Roman fears of Macedonian rebellion and lost his kingdom in the Third Macedonian War (171–168 b.c.e.). After the war, Rome divided Macedon into four republics and annexed it, making Macedon a Roman territory. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Philip II of Macedon; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Ashley, James R. The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359–323 B.C. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1998.

562

M a dag a s c a r K i n g d om s

MADAGASCAR KINGDOMS Series of kingdoms that ruled on Madagascar, a large island off the southeastern coast of Africa. By the time Arab traders had begun to visit the island of Madagascar in the 900s c.e., a number of these kingdoms had long been firmly established, and over the next several centuries, the power of the kingdoms waxed and waned. The island of Madagascar was settled by several waves of immigrants. Perhaps the earliest of these were Malayo-Polynesian peoples who sailed across the Indian Ocean from Indonesia sometime between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago.These newcomers spread out over the island, establishing settlements and, presumably, intermarrying with whatever indigenous groups might have been living there already. These early immigrants to Madagascar were joined by, and intermarried with, later immigrants who came from the eastern coast of Africa, from India, and from Arabia.With very few exceptions, all these groups intermingled and intermarried within their settlement areas, but over time, individual groups laid claim to defined territories on the island. Historians identify eighteen different territorially defined settlements, and these constitute the officially recognized traditional kingdoms of Madagascar. The kingdoms include Antaifasy, Antaimoro, Antaisaka,Antambahuaka,Antakarana,Antanosy,Antandroy, Bara, Betsilio, Betsimisaraka, Bezanozano, Mahafaly, Merina, Sakalava, Sihanaka, Tanala, Tsimihety, and Vezo. Of these, the most powerful by far was the Merina kingdom, which in the late eighteenth century succeeded in absorbing most of kingdoms in the central portion of Madagascar under the their rule. In the nineteenth century, the Merina kingdom absorbed most of the remaining kingdoms on the island, unifying it under one rule. Beginning in the late 1700s, European missionaries and traders became very active in Madagascar, and France and Britain, in particular, began vying for control of the island. Initially, the Merina kingdom welcomed the Europeans, but later Merina rulers tried to drive them from the island as European interests began to clash with Merina power. The European rivalry ended in 1895, when Britain recognized a French protectorate over Madagascar. One year later, in 1896, Madagascar was made a colony of France, and the sole surviving kingdom, that of Merina, came to an end.

See also: African Kingdoms; Merina Kingdoms; Radama I; Radama II; Ranavalona I. FURTHER READING

Kottak, Conrad P. Madagascar: Society and History. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1986.

MAGADHA KINGDOM (ca. 600 B.C.E.–1200 C.E.)

Kingdom in India that was the birthplace of Buddhism and Jainism, as well as the power base of the Maurya dynasty, which established the first Indian Empire. Bounded in the north and west by the Ganges and Son rivers, in the east by the Champa River, and in the south by the Vindhya Mountains, Magadha was in a strategic location to control food production on the Ganges plain and trade on the Ganges River. Abundant forests and rich iron deposits gave those who controlled Magadha a technological advantage over their competitors. The first real growth of the kingdom of Magadha, previously known as the city of Rajagrha, began under the rule of King Bimbisara (r. ca. 603–541 b.c.e.) of the Haryanka dynasty. Bimbisara ruled 80,000 villages with India’s first administrative system and an iron hand. He had 500 wives to insure political alliances with all possible opponents. During his reign, Bimbisara annexed the kingdom of Anga, taking control of the Ganges Delta and its ocean trading ports. Bimbisara was a great supporter of Gautama Siddhartha, who became known as the Buddha. The first Buddhist texts were written in the language called Pali, a dialect spoken in Magadha, and many sites in the early kingdom of Magadha were sacred to Buddhists. It was also in sixth-century Magadha that the Hindu holy man, Mahavira, developed the Jain religion. Anxious to inherit the throne, Bimbisara’s son, Ajatasatru (r. 541–519 b.c.e.), had his father imprisoned. As king, Ajatasatru extended his influence into the neighboring kingdoms of Kosala and Kasi, winning control over the trade routes to the Deccan region, an extensive plain that comprised most of southern India. For the next two centuries, life in the Magadha kingdom was uneventful and poorly documented, but the region maintained its strength, mainly be-

Ma’in Kingdom cause of its wealth and effective administration. Fear of the strong army developed by the kingdom’s Nanda dynasty stopped the advances of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) in 327 b.c.e., keeping Greek forces in the Punjab region. The Nanda dynasty’s hold on Magadha was broken by the Indian leader Chandragupta, also known as Chandragupta Maurya (r. 321–297 b.c.e.), who became the founder of the Maurya Empire. Educated in military tactics, Chandragupta gathered mercenary soldiers and public support to defeat the Nandas and control Magadha in 321 b.c.e. Chandragupta made Magadha the nucleus of his growing empire. Taking the advantage after the death of Alexander the Great, Chandragupta captured the Punjab region from the Greeks around 321 b.c.e. He then expanded into Persia and took his army from Magadha across the Vindhya mountain range to control most of southern India.The formation of the Maurya Empire of Chandragupta marked a turning point in the history of India as, for the first time in history, most of India was united under one rule. Chandragupta’s grandson, the emperor Asoka (r. 268–232), left excellent records and helped Buddhism expand throughout Asia. After Asoka’s reign, however, the Mauryan Empire began to collapse as a result of invasions and internal dissension.With the decline of the empire, Magadha ceased to be a place of political significance, and the former kingdom was overrun by the Muslims in the late twelfth century. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Buddhism and Kingship; Chandragupta Maurya; Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire.

MAHARASHTRA KINGDOM. See Yadava Dynasty

MAHMUD OF GHAZNA (971–1030 C.E.)

Sultan (r. 998–1030) of the Central Asian kingdom of Ghazna, which consisted initially of present-day Afghanistan and northeastern Iran, and founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty. Under Mahmud’s rule, Ghazna grew to include northwestern India and most of Iran.

563

Mahmud was born to a Turkish slave who became ruler of the Ghazna kingdom in 977. Upon his father’s death, Mahmud fought and defeated his older brother in a struggle for the throne.When Mahmud took the throne at age twenty-seven, he already had acquired great political skills and was determined to enlarge the kingdom he had inherited. Between around 1001 and 1026, Mahmud launched seventeen successful military expeditions into India. By 1008, he had acquired the Punjab region of India and was able to progress farther to the south. His final expedition was against the state of Somnath on the Arabian Sea. During the last years of his rule, Mahmud fought successfully to contain the Central Asian tribes that were menacing Ghazna. The wealth Mahmud gathered from his military expeditions helped him consolidate the huge empire that gradually became his, and he turned Ghazna into a great cultural center. He reconstructed the capital and promoted the arts, inviting artists and scholars to his court, founding colleges, laying out gardens, and building palaces, mosques, and caravansaries (inns for caravans crossing the desert). A staunch Muslim, Mahmud also was the first invader of India to bring Islam into the Indian subcontinent, but he did not compel his subjects to adopt his faith. Nevertheless, his expeditions were successful in introducing Islamic culture into India. Mahmud died in 1030 and was succeeded by his sons, Muhammad (r. 1030, 1040–1041) and Masud I (r. 1030–1040). The dynasty he founded lasted until 1186. See also: Ghaznavid Dynasty; Indian Kingdoms.

MA’IN KINGDOM (flourished 300s–100s B.C.E.)

Peaceful ancient kingdom located in the southern Arabian Peninsula, supported primarily by trade and ruled by an early form of democracy. The people of the Ma’in kingdom, the Minaeans, were, unlike most of their contemporaries on the Arabian Peninsula, primarily a trading people, and their social system reflected the importance of trade. Indeed, the Roman historian Pliny suggests that the Ma’in kingdom was founded by the Hadramites to secure the route through northern Yemen for the trade of frankincense and spices. Minaean communities were organized around

564

Ma’in Kingdom

trading groups or tribes, which controlled various townships and trading posts throughout the kingdom. Important members of these communities were typically called “elders” and became part of the king’s council. This council and the king himself, along with representatives from all levels of Minaean society, worked together to enact new legislation. The Minaean kingship was likely hereditary, although the brother of a king occasionally inherited the throne before the Crown passed to the next generation. Although Minaean inscriptions indicate that their trade routes extended throughout Arabia to Egypt and the Greek island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, there is no record of a Minaean king or the Minaean state entering into conflict with any foreign state. Perhaps this is an indication that Minaean trade caravans bringing desired items to other kingdoms enjoyed safe passage through much of the area. The Minaeans seem to have experienced some sort of cultural rivalry with the Sabaeans of Yemen, the main military power in the area at the time. However, details of the rivalry have been lost. Nevertheless, it is clear that they shared similar religious practices and related linguistic features. It is difficult to know when military skirmishes between the Minaean and Sabaean kingdoms began, but by the late second century b.c.e., the Ma’in kingdom had fallen under Sabaean rule. See also: Arabia, Kingdoms of; Sabaean Kingdom.

MAJAPAHIT EMPIRE (1200s–1500s C.E.) Powerful Hindu Empire based in Java, whose rulers exercised control over parts of Sumatra and Borneo at the peak of their power.The Majapahit Empire was the last Hindu state in Java. The Majapahit Empire was initially founded in the thirteenth century c.e. as a kingdom that ruled Bali, Madura, Malayu, and Tanjungpura. The first ruler of the dynasty was Vijaya (Kertarajasa Jayavardhana) (r. ca. 1292–1309), a prince of Singhasari, then a powerful Malay kingdom of eastern Java. The Majapahit Empire reached its peak of power in the fourteenth century under King Hayam Wuruk (r. 1350–1389) and his prime minister, Gajah Mada, who was an early national hero in Indonesia. Before Wuruk’s rule, a commoner named Gajah

Mada had proved his intelligence, bravery, and loyalty to King Jayanagara (r. 1309–1329) and was made a minister. His loyalty vanished, however, when Jayanagara stole his wife. In 1328, as Jayanagara was ailing, Gajah Mada told the court physician to kill the king while operating on him. The king died, and the physician was held responsible and put to death. Since Jayanagara had no sons, his daughter, Tribhuvana (r. 1329–1350), became the next ruler of Majapahit. During her reign, Gajah Mada became increasingly powerful. In 1331, he put down a revolt in Sadeng (eastern Java), after which he was named prime minister. In 1343, Gajah Mada led an invasion that conquered Bali. When Tribhuvana stepped down from the throne in 1350, she was succeeded by her son, Hayam Wuruk. King Wuruk was only too glad to leave the affairs of state to the capable Gajah Mada. Majapahit became a very important power in the area, with control over the entire Indonesian archipelago and regular relations with China, Cambodia, Champa, Annam, and Siam (Thailand). The golden age of Majapahit was brief, however. After Gajah Mada died in 1364, the empire started to decline, and it continued to weaken after the death of King Hayam Wuruk in 1389.The Majapahit Empire collapsed and came to an end late in the fifteenth or early sixteenth century, as Muslim rule spread over Java and the Muslim sultanates of Bantam and Demak arose and overthrew Hindu leaders and states. See also: Javan Kingdoms; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

MALI, ANCIENT KINGDOM OF (1200–1600 C.E.)

Former West African Empire located along the interior floodplain of the Niger River, second and most widespread of three great empires that included Ghana and Songhai. The rise of the kingdom of Mali is tightly bound up in the history of the trans-Saharan trade. It was formed in the thirteenth century through the leadership of one man, Sundiata Keita (r. 1210–1260), whose life and legend remain a cherished part of the

Mali, Ancient Kingdom of traditions of the Malinke people. The rapid rise of Mali could not have occurred, however, without the great lust for gold, and later for slaves, that powered the numerous trading caravans across the desert to North Africa and Egypt.

THE RISE OF GHANA SETS THE STAGE The trans-Saharan trade developed over centuries, giving rise to powerful Muslim states along the North African littoral.Traders brought salt from the north down to the communities that lay south of the Sahara and exchanged it for local goods. In western Africa, the most coveted trade article was gold, which was first mined along the Senegal River. The markets of North Africa grew wealthy controlling the flow of gold to Europe and the Arab world, and as the northern African states grew wealthy, so did

565

those in the gold-producing region. The Soninke, who founded the empire of Ghana, were the first of the sub-Saharan peoples to prosper from the gold trade. As Ghana grew in wealth and power, it sought to control more land and trading outposts. Among the peoples over whom Ghana asserted authority were the Malinke, the people from whom the great empire of Mali would ultimately arise.

SUNDJATA KEITA AND THE RISE OF MALI The Sosso tribes, who had contributed greatly to the decline of the Ghana Empire, also considered the primarily agricultural Malinke chiefdoms of the upper Niger River region to be their vassals. Sosso raiding parties swept down upon Malinke settlements with increasing frequency through the late 1100s and early

The ancient kingdom of Mali was at the crossroads of the Arab-Muslim civilization of North Africa and the traditional native cultures of sub-Saharan Africa.Trade in slaves and gold brought wealth to Mali’s trading cities, such as Timbuktu (shown here in an 1830 engraving), which became a center of Islamic culture.

566

Mali, Ancient Kingdom of

1200s. The Malinke farmers were ill equipped to stand up to the efficient Sosso raiders. Sundjata Keita was the leader of a small Malinke state called Kangaba, and with judicious planning, he was able to eventually gain control of the vast region that would become the Mali Empire. Before Sundjata, each Malinke settlement was autonomous, ruled by a chief who bore the title of mansa. This leader based his claim to local authority on his descent from the ancestor who founded the settlement that he ruled. The legitimacy of authority was based on traditional beliefs that the assistance and goodwill of ancestral spirits was essential to the well-being of the community, to the success of the harvests, and to the fertility of the people. The mansa served as intercessor with the ancestral spirits, and to fulfill this role, he was required to belong to their clan. Sundjata traveled throughout Malinke territory during the late 1220s, enlisting the mansas, one by one, to join with him to end Sosso domination. As each chief agreed to join with him, he assumed that chief’s claim to the title of mansa. With each acquisition of the title, he effectively multiplied his ritual and political importance, until he could symbolically lay claim to descent from all the founding ancestors of the Malinke settlements. His authority thus legitimized, he was able to call up a powerful army, drawn from throughout Malinke territory, and to lead this force against the Sosso ruler, Sumaguru. In 1238, Sundjata defeated Sumaguru at the battle of Kirina and laid claim to the lands that had been controlled by the Sosso. He created a capital at the city of Niane and set out to build an empire. Over the next few years, Sundjata not only consolidated his new kingdom but dramatically expanded its territories through conquest. His successors built upon his work, and ultimately the kingdom of Mali extended from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the city of Gao, far to the east, and from the southern fringes of the Sahara in the north to the Bure goldfields in the south. The empire, which rose so quickly to regional dominance, endured as the greatest power in West Africa for nearly four centuries, achieving the height of its glory in the latter half of the 1300s.

MALI CONFEDERATION At its pinnacle in the fourteenth century, Mali was an alliance of twelve provinces and the three states of

Mali, Mema, and Wagadou. The right to administer justice and control of trade, however, remained the privilege of the king. When Mali’s ruler Mansa Musa (r. 1312–1337) made a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324 and 1325, he took with him samples of the great wealth of Mali, including hundreds of camels transporting gold and a retinue of 500 slaves. Musa’s pilgrimage spread Mali’s reputation for wealth and power throughout the Muslim world and created new markets for trade. Under Musa, commercial centers such as the cities of Timbuktu and Djenne were founded, and African gold made its way to Europe. Mali cities also became centers of religion and learning that attracted scholars from throughout the world. Musa built mosques, libraries, and Islamic universities, especially in Timbuktu, which held its position as a center of culture even after the Mali Empire collapsed.

MALI DECLINES Mali began its decline in the fifteenth century. The empire had grown so large that its military, however impressive, could no longer successfully protect its borderlands from raids by neighboring peoples such as the Tuareg Berbers to the north and the Mossi to the south. Internally, subject communities such as the Sosso and Gao began to assert claims to autonomy around 1400, and palace intrigues over the line of succession further weakened the power of the kingdom.The crowning defeat of the empire occurred in 1433, when Tuareg raiders swept into Timbuktu.The mansa’s armies could not regain Timbuktu, and from that time forward the empire lost more and more of its subject peoples. By the 1600s, even the core Malinke chiefdoms had reasserted their autonomy, and the Songhai Empire began its rise. See also: Ghana Kingdom, Ancient; Mansa Musa; Songhai; Sundjata Keita. FURTHER READING

Jackson, John G. Introduction to African Civilizations. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, 1970. Levtzion, Nehemia. Ancient Ghana and Mali. New York: African Publishing, 1980. Martin, Phyllis, and Patrick O’Meara. Africa. 3rd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. Niane, D.T. Sundiata:An Epic of Old Mali.Trans. G. D. Pickett. London: Longman, 1965.

M a lwa K i n g d o m

MALWA KINGDOM (ca. 1401–1562 C.E.) Provincial kingdom in central India, pivotal to the development of local political structures, that was later absorbed into the Mughul Empire by Akbar I (r. 1556–1605). In 1310, Sultan Ala-ud-Din Muhammad Shah (r. 1296–1316) of the Khalji dynasty conquered the kingdom of Malwa and made it a province of the Delhi sultanate. A provincial governor ruled Malwa until the late 1300s.The last Delhi governor, Dilavar Khan Husain Ghuri (r. 1390–1405), declared himself independent of the Delhi sultanate around 1300. In 1405, Dilawar Khan was poisoned by his son, Alp Khan Hushang (r. 1405–1435), who took the throne of Malwa under the name Hasam al-Din Hushang Shah. Hasam Shah moved the capital of Malwa to the city of Mandu, which he renamed Shadiabad (City of Joy). During his reign, Hasam built splendid monuments, improved the city’s fortress, and founded the town of Hushangabad. He also fought Muzaffar Shah I (r. 1391–1411), the ruler of Gujarat, and other regional rulers, occasionally winning new territory for the Malwa kingdom. Hasam Shah died in 1435, and his ornate mausoleum in Mandu still survives today. Hasam Shah’s son and successor, Ghazni Khan Muhammad (r. 1435–1436), ruled for only a short time. He began his reign in bloodshed, killing his three brothers and several relatives. He also handed over daily government to his second cousin, Mughith, and Mughith’s son, Mahmud Khalji. Muhammad Shah was poisoned in 1436 and was succeeded by Mas’ud Khan (r. 1436). But various uprisings quickly led to Mahmud Khalji being proclaimed Sultan Mahmud Shah I (r. 1436–1469). During the reign of Mahmud Khalji, Malwa conquered the enemy fortresses of Ranthambor and Mandalgarh as well as the Mandasor district and the city of Ajmir. Mahmud Khalji overcame several attempts to overthrow his kingship, both led by the sons of his predecessor, Muhammad Shah. He invaded the regions of Gujarat, Deccan, and Chitor several times, but was unsuccessful in claiming them for his kingdom. An able administrator, he fostered trade and established a hospital at Mandu supported by state funds. Ghiyath Shah (r. 1469–1500), Majmud Khalji’s son, succeeded to the throne upon his father’s death in 1469. A mild, religious man, he worked to con-

567

solidate his father’s conquests and left the daily governing of Malwa to his son and heir, ‘Abd al-Qadir, better known as Nasir Shah. In 1500, two of Giyath’s sons, Nasir Shah and Shuja’at Khan, began battling openly for the throne. Nasir Shah won and imprisoned his brother as well as his father, Ghiyath Shah. Soon afterward, Ghiyath Shah formally abdicated, making Nasir Shah (r. 1500–1511) the new sultan. Immediately after taking the throne, Nasir Shah had to crush an uprising from disaffected nobles in the kingdom. Ten years later, his son, Shihab al-Din, led a revolt against his father as well. Nasir put down the revolt and tried to win over his son but failed. In 1511, Nasir Shah’s third son, Mahmud, was crowned Mahmud Shah II (r. 1511–1531). Shihab alDin contested for the throne but died attempting to wrest it from his brother. Mahmud then proceeded to defeat the nobles of the kingdom with help from the Rajputs, opening a new era of Rajput influence in the politics of the Malwa kingdom. Rajput nobles replaced those in Malwa, and Medini Rai, a Rajput leader, become an adviser to Mahmud. An assassination attempt against Medini Rai’s son, Salibahan, and Salibahan’s subsequent death, led to distrust between Mahmud II and Medini Rai. This distrust led to civil strife and, eventually, to the alienation of the powerful Rajputs and the partial destruction of the Malwa sultanate. Mahmud II retained control of the region of Sarangpur, where he reigned until 1526, when Bahadur of Gujarat invaded Malwa. By 1531, Bahadur (r. 1531–1536) had conquered Mandu, and Mahmud II and his sons were killed that year. However, the fact that Bahadur sheltered Mughal rebels and refugees led to conflict with the sultan of Delhi. With the help of the Rajputs, Delhi gained control of Mandu but failed to consolidate gains in the region. Just before his death in 1536 or 1537, Bahadur named Mallu Khan the governor of Mandu. Mallu Khan came to the throne as Qadir Shah (r. 1536/1537–1542). He restored the peace and gained back the allegiance of the Rajputs. Then, in 1542, an Afghan leader named Sher Shah Suri conquered Mandu without a fight after Qadir Shah fled to Gujarat. Sher Shah (r. 1542–1544) appointed a follower, Shuja’at Khan, as governor. Shuja’at reorganized the administration and made Sarangpur the seat of government.

568

M a lwa K i n g d o m

A dynasty of sultans that arose from a Turkish slave caste, and ruled Egypt and Syria for more than 250 years during the late Middle Ages. In the thirteenth century, a strong and industrious dynasty emerged in Egypt from the corps of slave soldiers known as the Mamluks (an Arabic word for slave).These Turkish (and later Circassian) rulers built a powerful state in Egypt and Syria. With this sultanate as their base, the Mamluks went on to rescue the Arab world from the threat of Christian Crusaders, while holding off the destructive Mongols until the latter could be assimilated into Muslim civilization.

sade, his son and heir, Turan Shah, was murdered by the Mamluk troops, who proclaimed one of their generals, al-Mu’izz Aybak (r. 1250–1257), the new sultan. Although Aybak and his first two successors had the title of sultan, they were only figureheads. The power behind the throne was Baybars (r. 1260– 1277), a Kipchak Turk captured by Mongol raiders and eventually sold to al-Salih. Baybars commanded the force that defeated King Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270) at al-Mansura in Egypt in 1250. He also led the conspiracy that murdered Turan Shah. In 1260, Baybars imposed a crushing defeat in Syria on the Mongols, whose attacks had devastated much of the region. Flushed with victory, he proceeded to murder the third Mamluk sultan in Cairo, al-Muzaffar Qutuz (r. 1259–1260), and assume formal power himself as al-Zahir Baybars I (r. 1260– 1277). In fierce military campaigns over the next seventeen years, Baybars effectively destroyed the remaining Crusader principalities in the Near East. He also kept the Persian Mongol Empire in check and launched attacks against Christian Armenia and Nubia. Among his domestic accomplishments, Baybars suppressed the fanatic Assassin sect in Syria, whose killings of officials had undermined public safety and stability for 150 years. He also maintained a vigorous program of military and civil construction. In 1261, Baybars invited a relative of the last caliph of Baghdad, the nominal religious leader of all Muslims, to move to Cairo. The caliph and his descendants bestowed religious legitimacy on Mamluk rule in the eyes of Arabs and other Muslims.

ORIGINS AND EARLY RULE

POLICIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS

As early as the ninth century, Arab Muslim rulers of the Abbasid dynasty came to rely on slave soldiers to control their newly conquered lands. A caste of slave soldiers soon developed, with their own officers and generals. Use of the Mamluks, as these slave soldiers were called, spread thoughout the Muslim world. From the twelfth century onward, they served the rulers of the Ayyubid dynasty, but they eventually became powerful enough to challenge their masters. The last Ayyubid sultan of Egypt and Syria, alSalih Ayyub (r. 1240–1249), used the Mamluks almost exclusively to defend and expand his realm. When al-Salih died in 1249 during the Sixth Cru-

The Mamluk state was ruled by a highly organized dual administration of civil and military departments. Slave officers led civilian staffs in both branches of the government. Agricultural land was divided into lifetime grants (nonhereditary) to other Mamluk officers, or amirs, who used the income to maintain military units. Many of the amirs integrated into Arab society. But on their death, they were replaced by other slave officers, so that the ruling strata remained Turkishspeaking throughout the first period of Mamluk rule (the Bahri era, which lasted until 1382). In the Burji era that followed, the ruling classes spoke Circassian.

When Shurja’at died in 1544, another Afghan, Miyan Bayazid, took power. Miyan Bayazid assumed the throne as Baz Bahadur Shah (r. 1544–1561). Baz Bahadur Shah ruled Malwa until 1561, when the Mughal emperor, Akbar I, invaded and conquered the kingdom, ending its independence. See also: Akbar the Great; Gujarat Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Mughal Empire; Rajasthan Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Bombay Subaltern, A. History of Mandu: The Ancient Capital of Malwa. Bombay: Education Society’s Press, Byculla, 1879. Day, Upendra Nath. Medieval Malwa: A Political and Cultural History. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal, 1965.

MAMLUK DYNASTY (1250–1517 C.E.)

M a m p ru s i K i n g d o m The sultanate itself was hereditary in the Bahri era, but during the Burji era, the most powerful Mamluk commander would take over upon the death of the previous sultan. Forceful government, trade pacts with European states, efficient mail systems, and public works assured Mamluk control of trade routes on the Mediterranean and the Red seas. A flourishing trade provided customs duties and profits for middlemen. The revenue from trade financed a flowering of the arts and literature, especially history; it was an age of lengthy chronicles and encyclopedias. The Mamluks favored the Sunni branch of Islam, especially its more orthodox form. They built mosques and schools throughout their realm, fostering Islamic legal studies. They persecuted religious minorities that had flourished in the mountains of Lebanon and Syria, including Druze, Maronites, Isma’ilis, and Alawites.The status of the Coptic Christian minority in Egypt also took a turn for the worse under the Mamluks, with occasional purges of Copts from the ranks of the bureaucracy. The fall of Acre, the last remaining Christian Crusader stronghold in Palestine, in 1291 was a crowning achievement for Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Khalil (r. 1290–1293). But the peak of Mamluk power came during the reign of his successor, al-Malik alNasir (r. 1293–1341), under whom the Mamluk Empire reached its greatest extent. The reign of alNasir was also a time of great opulence and luxury, but this extravagance only helped to undermine the state and led to the end of the Bahri era.

DECLINE AND END OF THE MAMLUKS The Burji era that followed was a time of great challenges for the Mamluks, as well as a period of bloodshed and treachery. The Mamluks had built a strong state, able to withstand challenges such as the Black Plague, which reached Cairo in 1348 and returned frequently thereafter, and attacks by the Mongol chieftain Timur (Tamerlane), who sacked and burned Damascus and Aleppo in 1400. But the loss of the India trade to Portuguese control by 1500 struck a heavy blow to state finances.The fate of the Mamluk state was sealed by the rise of a new power in the region. In 1517, the Ottoman sultan, Selim I (r. 1512–1520), conquered Egypt, initiating a period of Ottoman Turkish rule that lasted for more than 300 years. Mamluk power did not entirely disappear, however. Major military units remained under the Mam-

569

luk system, continually refreshed with new slave purchases. Mamluk amirs gradually built up their own power base within the ruling bureaucracy, even regaining a large degree of autonomy after the mid1700s when Ottoman power began to decline. In 1769, the Mamluk leader Ali Bey even proclaimed himself sultan and declared his independence from Constantinople, the seat of Ottoman rule. But this minor resurgence of Mamluk power was short lived. The invasion of Egypt by Napoleon in 1798 put a final end to the Mamluk power that had played such a major role in Egyptian life for more than 500 years. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Ayyubid Dynasty; Ottoman Empires; Sultanates; Tamerlane (Timur Leng). FURTHER READING

Nicolle, David. The Mamluks, 1250–1517. London: Osprey, 1993.

MAMPRUSI KINGDOM (ca. 1450 C.E.–Present)

African kingdom founded around 1450 in what is now present-day northern Ghana. The Mamprusi kingdom is one of three states that were founded more or less contemporaneously by peoples who came into northern Ghana from the northeast.The other two kingdoms founded at about this time are the Dagomba (also of Ghana) and the Mossi (of present-day Burkina Faso).Tradition holds that the Mamprusi, Mossi, and Dagomba share a common founding ancestor, Ouedraogo. The Mamprusi came as invaders, and, by virtue of their superior military might, they successfully conquered the indigenous peoples, who were predominantly Akan-speakers.The Mamprusi quickly became involved in the lucrative trans-Saharan trade in gold and slaves, upon which they built their wealth and power. By the end of the 1500s, they had become one of the most powerful kingdoms in the region. The paramount leader of the Mamprusi, equivalent to a king, was the nayiri, who served as supreme authority over the people.The nayiri was assisted by a high council, which worked in concert with the leaders of the local communities under Mamprusi control. Local stability and prosperity were greatly

570

M a m p ru s i K i n g d o m

enhanced by the fact that the Dagomba and the Mossi, who were the nearest potential rivals for territory and power, shared a probable common origin with the Mamprusi.This allowed all three to develop in relative peace. Kingly authority among the Mamprusi was based on reverence for ancestors, and the king himself owed his position to his descent from the founding ruler. Rights to all land were held by the king. This ultimate authority justified the king’s imposition of taxes, which he collected in the form of food, craftwork, and gold. He used these resources to enhance the kingdom’s power within and beyond the region, through trade. Some of it went to purchase arms and horses, strengthening the military. The rest was sold into the trans-Saharan trade. In addition, taxes were used to support craft specialists, including leatherworking and weaving, for which the Mamprusi became renowned. Traditional Mamprusi society was heterogeneous, divided into three distinct social groups. At the top were descendants of the peoples who had originally invaded the region, presumably of Mande origin. Next were the traders, drawn from a specialist caste of Mande known as Dyula, who were early converts to Islam.The Dyula became famous throughout West Africa for their great trading skills. The lowest social class was made up of descendants of the indigenous peoples, who were primarily farmers. As was true of many kingdoms of West Africa, the fortunes of the Mamprusi were closely linked to their participation in trade—first the trans-Saharan trade and, later, the Atlantic slave trade. When the Atlantic slave trade gained precedence in the region, the Mamprusi were poorly situated to compete with the Asante, whose control of the Ghanaian coastal ports gave them greatest access to the European slave buyers.Thus, by the mid-1600s, when the slave trade was at its peak, the Mamprusi’s regional influence began to decline. The kingdom never utterly failed, however. Its line of kings continued, unbroken, throughout the colonial era and into the present, but its territory is much reduced and the kings are subordinate to the Ghanaian government. The most recent king is Gamni Mohamadu Abdulai (r. 1987–present), who ascended to the throne in 1987. See also: African Kingdoms; Dagomba Kingdom; Mossi Kingdoms.

FURTHER READING

Drucker-Brown, Susan. Ritual Aspects of the Mamprusi Kingship. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1975.

MAMUN, AL- (786–833 C.E.) Seventh caliph (r. 813–833) of the Abbasid dynasty, who ruled the Muslim caliphate from Baghdad. AlMamun furthered the cause of the arts and education, yet he was never a popular ruler, having risen to power after a civil war that left a partisan military unwilling to support either Mamun or his immediate successors. Al-Mamun was the son of the fifth Abbasid caliph, Harun ar-Rashid (r. 786–809). Under Rashid, the Muslim army was divided into groups led by different commanders. The soldiers were recruited from the ranks of slaves and Turkish-speaking tribes rather than local landowners; thus, they had little stake in the country itself and maintained fierce allegiance to their commanders. This situation contributed to the outbreak of civil war after the death of Rashid in 809. When Harun ar-Rashid died, Mamun’s brother, al-Amin, was declared caliph. Mamun also claimed the throne, however, and both brothers were able to back claims to the caliphate with considerable military force. More successful than Amin in the alliances he made, Mamun was able to stage a siege of Baghdad that lasted from April 812 until September of the following year. When the city finally fell, Amin was killed, apparently despite his own wish to surrender and Mamun’s orders that he be spared. Mamun thus succeeded to the throne of the caliphate, although he was unable to enter Baghdad until 819 because of continued opposition to his rule among many Muslims. In matters of religion, Mamun furthered the cause of his own sect, the Mutazilites, at the expense of other Muslims, some of whom he persecuted with vigor. His reign was particularly noted for its cultural achievements. In Baghdad, Mamun established the House of Wisdom, an institution that evolved, under his patronage, from a caliphate library (originally built by his father) into a remarkable library and university. Scholars at the House of Wisdom translated texts from Greek and other languages, making scientific and philosophical works available to academicians throughout the Muslim world.

Mangbetu Kingdom One of Mamun’s most enduring legacies was the introduction of Turkish slaves as soldiers into the Muslim armies. These slave soldiers, the Mamluks, were eventually adopted throughout the Islamic world, and they gained power on their own in Egypt in the mid-thirteenth century. Upon Al-Mamun’s death in 833, he was succeeded by another brother, Al-Mu’tasim (r. 833–842). See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Caliphates; Harun alRashid; Islam and Kingship.

MANCHU DYNASTY. See Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty

MANGBETU KINGDOM (ca. 1800s C.E.) Short-lived African kingdom located in the northeastern territories of what is now the People’s Republic of Congo. In the early nineteenth century, a group of migrants from the north arrived in the savannah territories of northeastern Congo, led by a man named Nabiembali. These people were the Mangbetu, and the area they chose to settle was already occupied by Pygmies, primarily the Mbuti, and several Bantu peoples. The newcomers quickly settled in, establishing communities and intermarrying with their neighbors. Rather than becoming assimilated to the preexisting peoples, however, the Mangbetu established themselves as the locally dominant group, and in 1815 Nabiembali (r. 1815–1860) declared himself king. The Mangbetu immigrants brought with them religious beliefs and rituals that centered upon a creator god, variously referred to as Kilima or Noro. As king, Nabiembali claimed divine, or at least semidivine, status and required that royal ancestors be venerated. His efforts to establish a ritual justification for rule is not uncommon in monarchical systems. By invoking divinity, a king strengthens his claim to authority, and by establishing a cult of ancestral worship he creates a sense of historical depth for the ruling lineage, for it implies that the right to rule extends back through many generations.The invocation of divinity assumes an even greater importance when the ruling elite is attempting to graft itself onto an existing population. It provides a way to

571

more quickly institutionalize a regime that has no grounding in long-standing local tradition. Nabiembali’s reign was a long one, lasting fortyfive years.While successful in consolidating his kingdom, he was less so in creating a stability that would outlast his reign. Nabiembali died in 1860, and the years following his death were a time of turmoil as his sons fought for the throne. One of these sons, Munza, finally succeeded in making good his claim to rule, ascending the throne in 1867. Munza (r. 1867–1881?) became the first ruler to welcome European visitors into Mangbetu territory. In 1869, a German explorer named Georg Schweinfurth presented himself to the Mangbetu court and recounted his experiences in a volume entitled Im Herzen von Afrika (In the Heart of Africa) (1874). In his book, Schweinfurth described the court art of the Mangbetu, which included statuary as well as pottery, musical instruments, and other items, and which featured detailed carvings that were anthropomorphic in design. Munza remained on the throne for about fifteen years, during which time he appears to have had difficulties with several of his neighbors to the north, particularly the Azande. It is not certain precisely when his rule came to an end, but it is known that his brother Azanga (r. ca. 1881–?) had taken the throne by 1881 and that Azanga received visitors at his court from both Italy and Russia. In 1890, the twin problems of internal instability and external threat brought the Mangbetu kingdom to a premature end. Muslim slave raiders came into the territory from the north, seeking captives to supply the Sudanic slave markets. With them came Islam, and the Mangbetu royal lineages were soon replaced by Muslim rulers. The kingdom itself was broken up into smaller states, each of which became a Muslim sultanate. Within five years, even these were gone, abolished when the territory was taken by Belgian troops and made part of the colony known as the Belgian Congo. See also: Divinity of Kings. FURTHER READING

Hubbard, Maryinez. A la recherche de la Mangbetu: Haute Zaire. Brussels: Centre d’etude et de documentation africaines, 1975. Schildkrout, Enid, and Curtis A. Keim. African Reflections. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990.

572

Manipur Kingdom

MANIPUR KINGDOM (ca. 1300s B.C.E.–1949 C.E.)

A small but strategically situated kingdom in northeastern India, located among a series of valleys that connect India to Burma. For centuries, the hills around the Manipur River in northeastern India were occupied by at least twenty tribes. Each had its own language and culture, but the Meithei tribe dominated. The name of the region and its people changed over the years, with dates uncertain. At various times, what became Manipur has been known as Tilli-Koktong, PoireiLam, Sanna-Leipak, Mitei-Leipak, and Meitrabak. One of the earliest known kings of Manipur was Koikoi (r. ca. 1359–? b.c.e.), also known as Mariya Fambal-cha. When Koikoi took the throne in 1359 b.c.e. at age twenty-five, he introduced a new calendar known as Mari-Fam. Nearly three thousand years later, the calendar was changed again by King Kiyaamba of Manipur (r. 1467–1507 c.e.), who introduced the system of Cheithaba in which the year took on the name of a leading person.This change allowed even illiterate citizens to remember the year. Written records from the earliest period of Manipur are called the Puyas or Puwaris (“Stories of Our Fathers”). According to the Puyas, the first of Manipur’s 108 kings was Taangja Leelaa Paakhangba (r. 1445–1405 b.c.e.). These records are inconsistent, however, and there are a number of years, including 1129 b.c.e. to 44 c.e., without records. Further complications in learning about the early history of Manipur have arisen because of the peculiar names of some of the rulers. For example, there was Yanglou Keiphaba (r. 968–983), whose name means “he who captured tigers at Yanglou,” and Loitongba (r. 1073–1121), which means “he who ascended the throne together with his parents.” For centuries, Manipur remained isolated and little known. Although traders and military forces often passed along the Manipur River, they ignored the inhabitants of the region.This began to change, however, in the mid-eighteenth century c.e. In 1762, Burma invaded Manipur, and the kingdom’s ruler, Raja Jai Singh (r. ca. 1760s), turned to the British for help. Burma invaded again in 1819 and destroyed much of the kingdom. In 1825, the Manipurs, led by Gambir Singh (r. 1826–1834), with British help, drove the Burmese beyond the Ningthi (Chindwin) River.

Manipur remained an independent kingdom until 1891, when a succession dispute developed over the claim to the throne by a five-year-old raja. Manipur was placed under British supervision as a result of the dispute. The British abolished slavery and built roads to link Manipur with other parts of India. When India gained its independence from Great Britain in 1947, the British handed over the Manipur kingdom to Maharaja Budhachandra Singh (r. 1947–1955), and India annexed the kingdom two years later, in 1949. See also: Indian Kingdoms.

MANSA MUSA (d. 1337 C.E.) Ruler (r. ca. 1312–1337) of the Mali Empire, who built the city of Timbuktu into an enormously wealthy trading and cultural center, and whose hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca brought the wealth of Mali to the attention of the world. Although Mansa Musa’s actual birth date is unknown, it is likely that he was born sometime in the late thirteenth century.A child of royalty, he is believed by some scholars to have been the grandson of Sundjata Keita (r. ca. 1230–1255), the founder of the great state of Mali. A child of privilege, Mansa Musa received an education that befitted a member of the elite. This included training in the Arabic language and schooling in the central tenets of the Islamic faith. He came to the throne in the early fourteenth century, but the exact date is uncertain. Some scholars claim that he became king in 1307, whereas others claim 1312 as the first year of Mansa Musa’s reign. How Mansa Musa came to the throne is equally uncertain. It is known that the death of Sundjata Keita was followed by a time of political chaos in Mali, during which at least six different rulers struggled to hold power, only to be toppled by rival claimants to the throne.When Mansa Musa took the throne, however, he succeeded where his predecessors had failed. He moved quickly to stabilize the kingdom, and then he set about to expand his empire to include the great citystates of Timbuktu and Gao. These were among the most important trading centers of the Sahel, crucial nodes of the trans-Saharan trade network, and they generated immense wealth for whoever could claim them. By adding them to Mali’s territorial possessions,

Mansur, Ahmad alMansa Musa became the ruler of the richest and most powerful empire in West Africa. It was this wealth, and the use to which it was put, that earned Mansa Musa lasting fame. As a devout Muslim, the emperor felt a keen religious obligation to make the hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca, which is the birthplace of the Muslim faith. All good Muslims, then as now, were required to make this journey at least once in their lifetime. Mansa Musa’s hajj was truly remarkable. He set forth in 1324 with a vast retinue of attendants and bearing a huge quantity of gold. At every stop along the route, he ordered the construction of a mosque, and upon his arrival in Cairo his outlays of gold were so great that he caused the devaluation of that precious metal. Mansa Musa spent so lavishly on the way to Mecca that he reportedly had to borrow money to finance his return trip to Mali. During Mansa Musa’s reign, the Malian Empire reached the pinnacle of its power and greatness. He invited the great scholars of his day to Niani, the imperial capital, and he sponsored the construction of numerous mosques and other important buildings throughout his realm.As a result of his efforts, Mali became one of the foremost seats of Islamic learning in the world. Mansa Musa is credited with having ruled his empire in a spirit of tolerance. Although personally devout, he did not impose Islam upon his subjects, nor did he fight wars in the name of his religion. His rule was a time of great economic prosperity, peace, and security for Mali.After his death in 1337, subsequent emperors were unable to maintain the power and prestige that Mansa Musa had achieved.Their failure to do so paved the way for the eventual decline of the Malian Empire and its replacement as a regional power by the rising state of Songhai. See also: Mali, Ancient Kingdom of; Songhai Kingdom; Sundjata Keita. FURTHER READING

Levtzion, Nehemia. Ancient Ghana and Mali. New York: Africana Publishing, 1980.

MANSUR, AHMAD AL(1549–1603 C.E.)

One of the greatest of Morocco’s rulers (r. 1578–1603), who extended the southern border of

573

the kingdom to Timbuktu, along the southern reaches of the Sahara Desert. Born into the ruling Sa’di dynasty, Ahmad alMansur was destined to rise to the position of emir (ruler) of all of Morocco. A canny administrator and able warrior, his reign was marked by successes in both domestic and foreign policy. Of singular importance was his skill in dealing with the many European powers—including France, Portugal, and Spain— who coveted the lands of North Africa. He successfully defeated an attempt at conquest by Portugal in 1578 and then played the various European competitors off against one another to keep his country free from colonizers. Perhaps even more significantly, al-Mansur was successful in keeping his own putative masters, the Ottomans, from interfering in Morocco’s rule. Morocco was, in fact, a part of the Ottoman Empire, but it profited from being so distant from the Ottoman centers of power in the Middle East that alMansur was able to rule with nearly complete autonomy. He took advantage of this freedom to create a strong, centralized government and a powerful army. In 1590, al-Mansur found a use for his welltrained fighting forces when he decided to take control of the profitable trans-Saharan caravan trade that linked the gold, slave, and ivory-producing civilizations south of the desert with North Africa and the Mediterranean world.To this end, he sent his armies south through the desert to conquer the Songhai, whose West African empire then controlled much of the wealth of that trade. Emerging victorious from the war with Songhai, al-Mansur gained possession of the fabled trading cities of Timbuktu and Gao. He soon discovered, however, that these prizes cost him far too much, because they were too difficult to defend, lying as they did so far from his own power base on the other side of the Sahara. In the end, Morocco gained little benefit from these acquisitions. Al-Mansur died in 1603, leaving no one strong enough to carry on his work. The kingdom of Morocco soon slid into a period of decline. His sons fought among themselves for the right of succession, and the country that al-Mansur tried so hard to unify broke up into a collection of quasi-independent states within two years of his death. See also: Songhai Kingdom.

574

M aor i K i n g d om s

MAORI KINGDOMS (ca. 900 C.E.–Present)

Kingdoms established by the Aboriginal people of New Zealand, the Maoris, who were descendants of Polynesian navigators who migrated to the islands of New Zealand perhaps as early as the ninth century. The Maori kingdoms offered stiff resistance to the British colonists who began coming to New Zealand in the 1800s. According to Maori oral history, their different tribes are each descended from an individual who migrated to the islands from other parts of Polynesia. Although split into numerous tribes, the Maori maintain common traditions and trace their ancestry to these migrants, who came to New Zealand from the mythical land of “Hawaiki.” Modern archaeology suggests that this mythical homeland of the Maori may have been the islands of Tahiti. Maori oral history claims that the ancestors of the various tribes arrived en masse around 1150, but archaeological evidence suggests that there were temporary Maori settlements in New Zealand as early as 850.

MAORI CULTURE Socially, the Maori were separated into discrete but interconnected tribes, led by chiefs. Each tribe had its own village, organized around a common open area and a meetinghouse. Allegiance to Maori tribes was traced through both the maternal and paternal lines, and it seems that women enjoyed a very equitable position in Maori culture. Near their villages, most tribes cultivated sweet potatoes, yams, and/or taro. The Maori were expert at exploiting the resources of the land, and within a few centuries of their arrival, they had deforested large areas of the islands and driven to extinction numerous native fauna, including the moa, a large flightless bird. Conflict between Maori tribes was common, and most Maori believed that eating one’s enemies transferred the power of a defeated individual to the victor. The first Europeans to visit New Zealand ran afoul of this practice when, in December 1642, several Maori warriors on the South Island of New Zealand attacked, killed, and cannibalized four crew members from the ship of Dutch explorer Abel Tasman. Tasman, perhaps understandably, directed his ship away from the islands but reported the existence of the islands upon his return to Europe.

In 1769, Captain James Cook attempted to make contact with the Maori, who were unimpressed. Later Europeans—whalers, sealers, and other profitseekers—were intrigued by Cook’s description of New Zealand as highly habitable and the Maori as highly intelligent. In general, the Maori welcomed these early visitors to the islands.

CONFLICT WITH EUROPEANS As European immigration to New Zealand began to increase, so did competition for land between the newcomers and the native inhabitants, the Maori. When Great Britain claimed control of New Zealand in 1840, the situation deteriorated, and by 1845 many of the Maori tribes of the North Island had joined together to launch a series of violent raids on European settlements. Fighting between Maori and Europeans continued periodically for the next few decades, primarily over the distribution of land. Concerned that the Maori efforts to protect tribal land were being weakened by continuing intertribal warfare, several of the tribes on the North Island united in 1857, electing one of their leaders, Pototau I (r. ca. 1857–?), as king. They also created a police force, judicial system, and a council of state to support the Maori cause of protecting land from European incursion. Although not all Maori recognized the authority of King Pototau, most agreed that Maori land should be held in trust for future generations. In 1859, when Te Teira, a Maori of the Taranaki tribe, sold his land to a European, war erupted between the Maori and the British forces defending the colonist.At first, the fight seemed to go well for the Maori, who adopted guerrilla-type warfare against the betterarmed British. By 1864, however, the British had succeeded in defeating all of the important Maori fortified positions. The British government, having grown weary of dealing with the troublesome Maori, was willing to arrange a truce. The colonial government, however, was intent on gaining control of as much land as possible. By the end of the hostilities in 1872, the European settlers had confiscated huge tracts of Maori land. The conflict with the Europeans splintered Maori culture and changed it irrevocably. Over the ensuing decades, however, the Maori managed to find a reasonable balance between assimilating into British New Zealand culture and maintaining Maori prac-

M a r at h a C on f e d e r ac y tices.Today, the traditional Maori culture is enjoying a revival among the many New Zealanders who consider themselves Maori, and there is a movement to reclaim land taken by white settlers. See also: South Sea Island Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Higham, Charles. The Maoris. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

MARATHA CONFEDERACY (ca. 1713–1818 C.E.)

Alliance of Hindu kingdoms that freed most of India from Mughal domination in the eighteenth century. In the late 1600s, the Marathas, a people of the western Deccan region of India, ended the control that the Mughal Empire had over much of southern and central India. In the absence of Mughal control, which had lasted more than a century, civil turbulence erupted across the region, as ancient disputes arose once again among the native inhabitants. The Mughal Empire had forcefully incorporated diverse states and ethnic groups, and many of them now craved autonomy. In response, the Peshwa, hereditary chief ministers of the Maratha Bhonsla clan, created the Maratha Confederacy in the early 1700s to keep the sprawling kingdom united.

THE KINGDOM Initially, the first Maratha ruler, Sivaji I (r. 1674– 1680), fought to consolidate the Maratha kingdom. He appointed a council of ministers that included the Peshwa, a military commander, a finance minister, and a chief justice.To suppress the constant threat of rebellion, Sivaji maintained a large army. He divided all citizens among three classes: the peasant class, the administrative class, and the military. The peasant class was understandably diverse; it included all citizens, no matter what their status, who were not in the government or the military. Sivaji placed these different groups in the peasant class because they paid all of the taxes in the confederacy. The taxes were divided into two categories. The sardeshmukhi was a 10 percent income tax levied on all members of the peasant class. This tax was especially burdensome for poorer farmers and artisans.

575

The second tax, the chauth, was only levied on the Mughal population who remained in Maratha. In order to retain their land and possessions, the Mughals had to pay this excessive tax. Sivaji refused to tax government and military personnel because he needed their loyalty to ensure his power. But the crippling taxes unsettled the general population. Sivaji recognized the growing unrest over taxes, but he lacked the skill to deal with it. Instead, he utilized warfare as a way to unite the country. Sivaji demonized neighboring kingdoms and convinced Maratha citizens that kingdoms such as Bengal and Rajput posed significant threats. Maratha therefore continually attacked its neighbors to prevent its own citizens from revolting. When Sivaji invaded Bengal and Rajput, he brutally ravaged the kingdoms, creating strong foreign hatred for his monarchy. When Sivaji died in 1680, the monarchy began to crumble. In 1689, rebels assassinated Sivaji’s son and successor, Sambhaji (r. 1680–1689). The Maratha kingdom then entered a period of upheaval, during which the Mughals regained some of their ascendancy by making Sivaji’s grandson, Shahu (r. 1708– 1749), a puppet king. During this time, the Maratha kingdom was divided between the north and the south. Shahu, with Mughal consent, ruled the north, while Rajaram (r. 1700–?), a powerful general, ruled the south.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONFEDERACY In 1713, a Maratha administrator named Balaji Bhat became Peshwa in Shahu’s court. Bhat recognized that to regain Maratha’s independence, he would have to empower the military leaders of the kingdom. He therefore constructed the Maratha Confederacy. The military commanders were given a great deal of control over their individual regions, but in return they pledged to support the Peshwa and follow his commands. In 1720, the new Peshwa, Baji Rao I (r. 1720– 1740), with the confederacy’s support, once again freed Maratha from Mughal control. He also weakened Rajaram’s control over the kingdom’s southern region. Baji Rao I retained Shahu as titular monarch, but the Peshwa was now the kingdom’s true ruler. Under his guidance, and with the military strength of the Confederacy, the Marathas rapidly expanded and gained increasing wealth. When Shahu died in 1750 with no immediate heir, the current Peshwa, Balaji Baji Rao (r.

576

M a r at h a C on f e d e r ac y

1750–1761), dissolved the old position of monarch and became the Marathas’s only official ruler. Balaji Baji Rao’s supremacy was brief, however. Both he and the leaders of the Confederacy had enjoyed widespread success. But as the confederacy’s members gained greater wealth and military might, they refused to tolerate the Peshwa’s command.Two generals, Ranoji Sindhia and Malhar Rao Holkar, began to openly defy Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao. In 1761, they joined with two other members of the Confederacy, Damaji Gaekwar and Raghuji Bhonsla, and attacked the Peshwa’s forces at Panipat. Balaji Baji Rao’s heir and cousin were killed, and Rao himself collapsed and died when he learned of his army’s overwhelming defeat. Consequently, the confederacy gained complete control over the Maratha kingdom. But rivalries among the four generals soon exploded, and the confederacy dissolved as they betrayed one another. Sindhia and Holkar eventually engaged in open warfare.The effort to overthrow the Peshwa had significantly weakened their forces, and internecine warfare now further reduced their strength. By 1771, civil war had made the Marathas highly vulnerable, and the confederacy and kingdom succumbed in 1818 to British forces as the British began their colonization of the Indian subcontinent.

In Rome at the time, it was common practice for the reigning emperor to adopt a young man of promise, and the adoptee frequently became the frontrunner for succession to the imperial throne. Hadrian had adopted Antoninus Pius, and he ordered Pius to adopt Marcus Aurelius in turn, thus placing the boy in line for eventual rule of the empire. In return, Aurelius dropped his family name (Julius) and became Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, in honor of his adoptive father. When Hadrian died in 138, Antoninus Pius (r. 138–161) duly succeeded to the throne, and Aurelius, now seventeen years old, became his constant attendant and, later, adviser. With imperial patronage, Aurelius’s life became a series of opportunities and promotions. He was named consul in 140 and then tribune in 147, becoming increasingly influential in Roman political circles. With Pius’s death in 161, the Senate overwhelmingly affirmed Aurelius’s right to succession. Aurelius immediately recognized that the empire had become too vast to be ruled by a single emperor,

See also: Indian Kingdoms; Mughal Empire. FURTHER READING

Kadam, V.S. Maratha Confederacy: A Study of Its Origin and Development. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1993.

MARCUS AURELIUS (121–180 C.E.) Emperor of Rome (r. 161–180) whose rule coincided with the end of the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) and the beginning of the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Marcus Julius Aurelius was born in Rome on April 20, 121, to a family of high status and influence. His father died when Aurelius was still very young, and he was raised by his grandfather, who made certain that the boy was exposed to the best tutors available and persuaded Emperor Hadrian (r. 117–138) to serve as patron to the child. Hadrian complied, conferring honors on the boy long before he reached his adolescence.

The rule of Marcus Aurelius is known as the Golden Age of Rome. His philosophical writings, the Meditations, are an intellectual, introspective examination of life, religion, and the universe. This marble bust of Marcus Aurelius dates from the second century c.e.

Margaret of Denmark particularly at a time when the Pax Romana (the longstanding period of relative peace throughout the empire) was being challenged by new peoples massing on the borders and attacking far-flung settlements. Aurelius selected a man named Ceionius Commodus to share the imperial powers (Commodus took the imperial name Lucius Verus, r. 161–169). The coemperors were immediately faced with several challenges. In the northern province of Britain, Picts and other indigenous peoples attacked and threatened to overrun Hadrian’s Wall, which protected the Roman colony from its “barbarian” neighbors. In the east, local groups rose up to challenge Roman rule in Syria, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and other lands. Just when Rome’s armies managed to quell these uprisings in 166, other peoples began to mass in the Danube region of Central and Eastern Europe. Among these were the Vandals, who would, in time, help bring down the empire. In addition to these wars, Rome faced a number of natural disasters, from devastating earthquakes and floods to an outbreak of the plague. In addition, Aurelius’s co-emperor, Verus, died in 169, leaving him to struggle on alone.The sudden shift in Roman fortunes, from a nation blessed with peace and great wealth to what seemed like disasters on all sides, led the people to panic. They turned to all sorts of superstitions to ward off the evil days that appeared to have arrived. This, and the knowledge that his son and chosen successor, Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus (r. 180– 192), was ill-equipped to handle the challenges of empire, contributed to the sorrow of the final years of Marcus Aurelius’s reign. He died near present-day Vienna, while attempting to quell an uprising among barbarians. A philosopher as well as an emperor, he left a legacy of philosophical musings called Meditations. See also: Hadrian; Roman Empire.

MARGARET OF DENMARK (1353–1412 C.E.)

Ruler of Denmark (r. 1387–1396), who united Denmark, Norway, and Sweden and set aside their traditional proscriptions against female rulers. Margaret was the daughter of King Waldemar IV of Denmark (r. 1340–1375). Married at age ten to Haakon VI of Norway (r. 1350–1380), who was him-

577

self the son of Magnus II of Sweden (r. 1319–1364), Margaret seemed destined to unite the Scandinavian countries. Her only obstacle was her gender, as all three countries had long traditions and legal proscriptions against rule by women. When Waldemar IV died in 1375, Margaret returned to the capital of Copenhagen from Norway with her five-year-old son, Olaf. She persuaded the barons and priests to accept her son as King Olaf II (r. 1376–1387) and to allow herself to rule as his regent until he was old enough to rule on his own. During the next five years, Margaret skillfully adjudicated long-standing disputes between feuding Danish factions. She also provided relief for the poor, bolstered the Protestant church, improved the government bureaucracy, and generally astonished the royal council with her intelligence and courage. When her husband, King Haakon of Norway, died in 1380, Margaret returned to Norway, where the royal council of that kingdom quickly accepted the tenyear-old Olaf as king—on the condition that his mother act as Norway’s regent as well. Margaret thus ruled as regent in both Norway and Denmark. When Olaf came of age in 1385, he gained the Swedish Crown as well, based on his mother’s record and reputation as regent. But Olaf died prematurely in 1387, and the fates of all three kingdoms—and all of Margaret’s prodigious efforts to improve them— were suddenly at great risk. Because the Danes had come to love and revere their “Margarete,” the Danish council made her regent of the realm in 1386, overriding long-standing Scandinavian laws preventing female rulers. The Norwegians followed suit the same year, naming her regent of Norway for life. In 1389, the Swedes deposed their unsatisfactory king, Albert of Mecklenburg (r. 1364–1389), and joyously made Margaret their new queen. For eight more years, Margaret continued ruling the Scandinavians during the first warless period of their history. Then, in 1396, she summoned the ruling bodies of all three of her realms to the city of Kalmar in Sweden, where the Kalmar Union was declared.This agreement stipulated that the three Scandinavian countries would be forever united under one ruler, while each country would keep its own laws and customs. Margaret’s prodigious political talents did not give her great foresight, however. She asked all three countries to accept her grandnephew, Eric of Pomerania, as

578

Margaret of Denmark

their king and to allow her to continue as regent. All three countries accepted Margaret’s request. Margaret remained the de facto ruler until her death in 1412. Unfortunately—and predictably— her grandnephew Erik had greater imperial designs than his aunt; within a few years after Margaret’s death, the Kalmar Union began to break apart because of his attempts to create a more imperial realm. Nevertheless, during her rule, Margaret had clearly demonstrated that there was no logical need for conflict between the Scandinavian states, and she affirmed that gender was irrelevant as a qualification for brilliant leadership and statesmanship. See also: Danish Kingdom; Haakon VI; Kalmar Union; Norwegian Monarchy; Swedish Monarchy;Waldemar I, the Great.

MARIA THERESA (1717–1780 C.E.) One of the most influential members of the Habsburg dynasty and the only woman in the history of that ruling family ever to attain the throne. Maria Teresa’s full titles were archduchess of Austria, Holy Roman empress, and queen of Hungary and Bohemia (r. 1740–1780). Maria Theresa was the second and last child born to the Holy Roman emperor, Charles VI (r. 1711– 1740).The emperor had a son, Leopold, who was the legitimate heir to the throne, but the boy died in early childhood.The laws governing succession in the Holy Roman Empire prohibited a female from taking the throne. But with the death of his son, Charles VII decided to change the laws. In 1713, he issued a new law, the Pragmatic Sanction, which permitted a female heir to the Habsburg hereditary lands. Born on May 13, 1717, after adoption of the Pragmatic Sanction, Maria Theresa was duly recognized by most European powers as the heir apparent. She was educated in statecraft, in keeping with her royal expectations. In February 1736, Maria Theresa married Francis Stephen of Lorraine, and the couple began a remarkably fertile family life, eventually producing sixteen children. When Maria Theresa’s father died in 1740, she was well prepared to assume the responsibilities of the empire. Unfortunately, among the European powers, Frederick II of Prussia (r. 1740–1786) re-

fused to recognize the legitimacy of her accession, seeing an opportunity to expand his own territories by annexing the province of Silesia. To achieve his aims, Frederick launched the War of the Austrian Succession, which raged from 1740 to 1748. In the end, Maria Theresa lost Silesia, but gained recognition of her husband as Emperor Francis I (r. 1745–1765) of the Holy Roman Empire. Although Francis I had the title, Maria Theresa held the power. By all accounts a pleasant man, Francis had no head for statecraft, so he deferred to Maria Theresa and her chief chancellor, Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz. Together, this pair launched much needed administrative and military reforms that greatly strengthened the empire and earned the empress great praise from subjects and courtiers alike. Maria Theresa further strengthened her position by arranging marriages for her many children with powerful families throughout Europe. Such was the case for her daughter Marie Antoinette, who married the future King Louis XVI of France (r. 1774– 1792) and became his queen. Another daughter,

Empress Maria Theresa of Austria was the only woman in the Habsburg Dynasty to rule on her own. An intelligent and enlightened ruler, her efforts to modernize the empire helped solidify Habsburg rule for decades to come.

Marie Antoinette Marie Caroline, married Ferdinand, the king of both Naples and Sicily (r. 1759–1816). Unfortunately, Maria Theresa was less successful in her approach to foreign policy. Unable to forget the loss of Silesia, she insisted upon finding a way to punish Frederick II for having taken the territory from her empire. She therefore set out to create alliances with Russia and France in order to attack her old nemesis. In 1756, she felt she was ready, and she launched what became known as the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763). For all her diplomatic efforts, Maria Theresa’s hoped-for alliance did not hold up. Neither France nor Russia remained loyal to her cause, both recognizing that Prussia was the more valuable ally.Without allies, Maria Theresa could not prevail in the war, and in 1763 she was forced to admit defeat.This was a bitter blow, made worse by the great personal loss she endured soon afterward: in 1765 her beloved husband died unexpectedly. In accordance with the Habsburg laws of succession, Maria Theresa named her eldest son Joseph as co-regent, and he became emperor as Joseph II (r. 1765–1790). However, the empress was unwilling to relinquish her authority and continued to act as the effective ruler of the empire. Maria Theresa’s reluctance to turn the empire over to her son was due, at least in part, to her profound distrust of Enlightenment ideas. A fervent Catholic, she greatly disapproved of her son’s willingness to accommodate the non-Catholics (particularly the Protestants) among her subjects and his desire to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church over the empire. In fact, during her reign, Maria Theresa was distinctly unfriendly to Jews, and she forced Protestants to emigrate to Transylvania, the one area of her realm in which members of that denomination were permitted to practice their religion freely. Maria Theresa never managed to realize her dream of restoring Silesia to the empire, but she did manage to acquire new territory in 1772. In that year she participated with Prussia and Russia in the partition of Poland, and for her efforts was rewarded with the territory of Galicia. Although she did not hand over the reins of the empire to her son Joseph II, Maria Theresa nonetheless did allow him some influence over policy during the latter years of her rule. For instance, she eventually permitted the free expression of religion other than Catholicism throughout the empire, and her edict abolishing the

579

institution of serfdom on Crown lands was another policy that originated with her son. Maria Theresa remained in power up to the time of her death, at age sixty-three, in 1780. Shortly before her death she had participated in a royal hunt, during which she contracted a bad cold.This appears to have turned into pneumonia, from which she never recovered. She died on November 29, 1780. Upon her death, Joseph II took the full reins of power and ruled until his death in 1790; he was succeeded by his younger brother, Leopold II (r. 1790–1792). See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Francis I; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Joseph II; Leopold II; Marie Antoinette. FURTHER READING

Crankshaw, Edward. Maria Theresa. New York: Atheneum, 1986.

MARIE ANTOINETTE (1755–1793 C.E.) Queen of France, the wife of Louis XVI (r. 1774– 1792), who was a victim of the bloody Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution. A member of the Habsburg dynasty, Marie Antoinette was born on November 2, 1755, to Empress Maria Theresa of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor Francis I (r. 1745–1765). A much indulged, favored daughter of the imperial family, she grew up in the relaxed ambiance of the Habsburg court. Her fate as a princess, however, was to make an appropriate political marriage. Her mother determined that the most suitable match would be with the dauphin (crown prince) of France, the future Louis XVI. Thus, when Marie was fifteen, she was sent to the Paris court, where she was duly wed with all the splendor and opulence that befitted a royal pair. The marriage of Marie and Louis was not a great success for many reasons.The dauphin was a homely, shy young man who was intimidated by his new bride. It appears that he also suffered a physical defect that made it impossible for him to consummate their marriage for the first seven years. Since providing an heir to the throne was a queen’s primary duty, Marie Antoinette’s failure in this regard made her a target for a great deal of gossip from an unsympathetic court. In 1774, King Louis XV (r. 1715–1774) of France

580

Marie Antoinette

died and Louis XVI, his grandson, became king. The young queen, resented for being a foreigner, immediately earned the disdain of the staid French nobility. It did not help matters that she attempted to ease her sense of isolation and loneliness due to a neglectful husband by surrounding herself with a group of young hedonists who encouraged her to hold lavish parties, spend excessively, and otherwise scandalize the French nobles. Rumors spread, accusing her of numerous affairs. While this uproar swirled around her, Marie Antoinette was actually settling down from her early years of wild behavior.The king had had an operation that allowed him to consummate their marriage, and she finally produced the required heir, along with two daughters and another son. Marie’s changed ways made no impression on the public or the royal court, however, and, in addition to widespread resentment and rumors, she was suspected of spying against France for the Austrian Empire. By the late 1780s, the political climate in France was growing ominous.The nation was saddled with a huge debt, incurred largely because of France’s support of the American Revolutionary War. Famine and poverty were widespread, and the memory of the dissolute young queen’s behavior earned Marie Antoinette the hatred of the masses. Louis XVI attempted to institute reforms that would ease the suffering, but the nobility would not cooperate. In 1789 public unrest led to all-out revolution, and a Paris crowd stormed the Bastille—a prison, fort, and armory—to arm themselves. As the French Revolution proceeded, some of the nobility fled France, realizing that the mob was out for blood. In 1789, Louis XVI was forced to leave his beloved palace at Versailles.When Marie finally persuaded him to flee the country in 1791, it was too late: the royal family was captured by an angry mob before they could reach safety outside France. The queen, king, and their children were imprisoned to await trial for treason against the republic. In December 1792, King Louis XVI was hauled before a tribunal and found guilty; he was executed on the guillotine the following January. Marie remained in prison, but her children were taken from her and she was now alone. She did not have long to bemoan her fate, however. On October 14, 1793, it was Marie’s turn to face the tribunal, where she was charged with treason and found guilty. On October 16, the queen was wheeled through the streets of Paris in an open

cart to be vilified by a jeering mob, forced to mount the steps of the guillotine, and beheaded. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; French Monarchies; Louis XVI; Maria Theresa; Regicide.

MARQUESAS KINGDOMS (200 B.C.E.–Present)

Polynesian kingdoms on the Marquesas Islands, an archipelago famed for the beauty of its landscape, that were almost completely depopulated by the introduction of European diseases. Of the ten Marquesas islands, only six are inhabited today. Archaeological evidence shows that the beautiful Marquesas Islands were probably some of the earliest inhabited islands in the Pacifc Ocean region of Polynesia. First settled around 200 b.c.e., the islands were probably the dispersion point for Hawaiian settlers in 300 c.e. Early tribes in the Marquesas dwelt in lush valleys separated from each other by mountains and seas. The inhabitants thus developed insular and warlike groups. Marquesans customarily tattooed their firstborn male or female child, and these children became the rulers. Each tribe had its own haka-iki, or chief, but power was decentralized, with no single king ruling the islands. Early European visitors to the Marquesas described a light-skinned people decorated with elaborate blue tattoos, living in towns constructed of blocks of coral. Common apparel included loincloths and feathers. Dance was an important aspect of daily and religious life. The Marquesas were among the first Polynesian Islands to be sighted by European explorers. In 1595, the Spanish explorer Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira landed and promptly named the islands after the Marquesa de Mendoza, a Spanish nobleman. In 1774, the English explorer, Captain James Cook, visited one of the Marquesas, and in 1791, an American captain, Joseph Ingraham, sighted the northwestern islands of Hatutut, Eiao, Motu Iti, Nuku Hiva, Ua Huku, Ua Pou, and Motu One. He named them the Washington Islands, a designation still used occasionally today. In 1813 another American captain, David Porter, annexed Nuka Hiva, naming it Madison Island, but the annexation was never ratified by the U.S. Con-

M a r r i ag e o f K i n g s gress and the islanders.The French later established a colony on the same island when they took possession of the whole Marquesas archipelago in 1842. The French abandoned it seventeen years later but then took possession of the islands once more in 1870. Although contact with the Europeans was intermittent, it proved disastrous for the Marquesan people. The introduction of European diseases and opium and periodic slave-raids wiped out 95 percent of the population, although some scholars have suggested that the Marquesans’ continuation of tribal rivalries may have contributed to this decline. Today, fewer than 7,000 people live on the islands, a third of the population of the 1850s. See also: South Sea Island Kingdoms.

MARRIAGE OF KINGS Marriages of kings have often been arranged for political gain, for purposes of producing an heir, or for establishing a line of succession. It has generally also been considered important that kings marry someone of high social status.The nobility has sometimes

581

frowned on the idea that one should marry for love. Politically strategic marriages could sometimes take years to negotiate and were intended to strengthen alliances, improve trade relations, or gain territory. In some cases, kings would marry several wives in order to maximize the potential political gains.

MARRIAGE FOR POLITICAL REASONS Polygamy was common among the kings of ancient Egypt, who sometimes married their sisters. Typically, the king married one primary wife and had several secondary wives to help ensure an heir to the throne. It is believed that Egyptian pharaohs married hundreds of wives as a way of strengthening political ties with foreign countries. Kings have also married off their daughters for political gain. For example, the Mongol Yuan dynasty of China (1260–1368) was known for using this strategy to control recently annexed territory.The Mongol emperor, Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294), sought to prove military prowess by extending the borders of China. Instead of using force to control the territory of Koryo (present-day Korea), he was able to do so by arranging marriages between the two dynasties. Kublai Khan would send Yuan women to marry the kings of the

ROYAL RITUALS

MODERN ROYAL WEDDING CEREMONIES Modern royal wedding ceremonies have typically been extravagant affairs, drawing on the practices of traditional wedding rituals while also suggesting a more forward-looking era.The marriage of Japan’s crown prince Naruhito to Masako Owada in 1993 was just that.The ceremony took place in a small Shinto shrine. The bride wore a traditional wedding kimono and carried a small sword; the groom wore traditional eleventh-century court attire.As was the case with traditional Japanese royal marriage ceremonies, there was no music and no exchange of rings.The bride and groom recited their vows and prayed to the ancestors.The ceremony was followed by a modern,Western-style gala at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. Another wedding that combined traditional and modern practices took place in Morocco in the summer of 2002 with the union of King Mohamed VII to Princess Salma Bennani.The ceremony and celebration lasted for several days, complete with a procession of the Royal Guard on horseback, clad in white robes and turbans, through the city streets. Many Moroccans hoped that the marriage of King Mohamed VII, who still holds significant power, to the modern and educated Princess Salma would signify the beginning of a more progressive era for their country.

582

M a r r i ag e o f K i n g s

Koryo dynasty.The sons of these marriages would have succession rights to the Koryo throne but would also have loyalty to the Mongol family through their mothers. This tactic eventually allowed the Yuan dynasty to control Koryo as a vassal state. Queen Mary I of England (r. 1553–1558) married the future King Philip II of Spain (r. 1556–1598) in 1553 with the hope of returning her country to Catholicism. For his part, King Philip II chose Mary to be his second wife in hopes of gaining England as an ally. Mary died in 1558, and England and Spain became enemies, in large part because of the Spanish Inquisition. It was also common practice for kings to marry the sisters of a deceased wife.When Mary I of England died in 1558, Philip tried to marry his widow’s younger sister, Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), but she turned down the proposal. Royal marriages also served the purpose of spreading religious beliefs. For example, Islam spread in Indonesia during the thirteenth century as a result of the marriage of the first Muslim sultan of Pasai to a daughter of the ruler of Perlak, a region on the northern coast of Sumatra. Several marriages between Muslim and Hindu nobility took place at this time throughout Southeast Asia, encouraging the local populations to adopt the religious practices of their kings. In many cases, the monarchies forced new religions upon the general population.

MARRIAGE FOR LOVE Although love was generally not considered a legitimate reason to marry, monarchs have sometimes wed for that reason. Two British kings, in particular did marry for love—King Edward IV (r. 1461–1483) and King Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547). Edward IV met Elizabeth Grey, a young widow whom he fell in love with and married secretly. He kept this a secret for five months, allowing the earl of Warwick to continue discussions about a possible royal marriage with a French bride. Henry VIII married his first wife, Catherine of Aragón, for diplomatic reasons—to maintain an alliance with Spain. When the marriage failed, Henry decided to marry Anne Boleyn, who was later executed on charges of witchcraft and adultery. Henry’s marriage to Anne of Cleves was arranged for political reasons, but his wives Katherine Howard and Katherine Parr were chosen for love. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Concubines, Royal; Consorts, Royal; Incest, Royal;

Kings and Queens; Polygamy, Royal; Queens and Queen Mothers; Royal Families; Succession, Royal;Weddings, Royal. FURTHER READING

Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. New York: Grove Press, 1992.

MARTEL, CHARLES (ca. 688–741 C.E.) Frankish ruler (r. 714–741), called mayor of the palace, who is credited with reuniting northern France, stopping the Moorish advance into Gaul, and reuniting the Merovingian kingdom. Charles was the illegitimate son of Pepin of Heristal (Pepin II), mayor of the palace, and the grandfather of Charlemagne (r. 768–814).When Pepin died in 714, Charles did not inherit the right to rule, but first had to defeat Chilperic II of Neustria and then claim neighboring Austrasia, the northeastern portion of the Merovingian kingdom of the Franks. Charles was not king, but he held the title of mayor of the palace, a traditional Merovingian title for the leading noble who held power behind the throne. Repeated military victories won Charles allies and wealth, and some of the wealth obtained, often by plunder, was distributed to his supporters. There is a possibility that he also took Church lands to reward his friends. He earned his nickname Martel (“the Hammer”) in 732 when he defeated the Moors at Poitiers, an action credited by some with ending the Islamic advance deeper into Europe.This victory and others also increased his power and that of the Franks, ultimately making Charles leader of the most powerful state in Western Europe. When Charles Martel died in 741, his son, Pepin the Short (Pepin III), became the mayor of Neustria and the first king of the Franks (r. 751–768) of the Carolingian dynasty. Pepin’s son was Charlemagne. See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Frankish Kingdom; Merovingian Dynasty; Pepin Dynasty; Pepin the Short (Pepin III).

MARY I, TUDOR (1516–1558 C.E.) Queen of England (r. 1553–1558) who attempted to restore England to Roman Catholicism. Her reign

M a r y I , Tu d o r was plagued by problems that she was ultimately unable to resolve. Mary Tudor was born on February 16, 1516, to King Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. As a child, Mary and her father were close. Kind, loving, and devoted to both her parents, she was also an only child—a fact that changed English history forever. Although Catherine of Aragón became pregnant seven times during her twenty-year marriage to Henry, Mary was the only child of the union to survive past infancy. Catherine’s failure to produce a male heir led Henry to break with the Catholic Church. In 1531 Henry, now head of his own Church of England, declared his marriage to Catherine void and sent her away from court without Mary. Fearful that Mary would side with her mother, Henry also sent her away and did not see her again until 1536. Mary continued to practice Roman Catholicism, despite her father’s split from the Church. Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn produced another daughter, Elizabeth. Shortly after Elizabeth’s birth in 1533, Henry had Mary declared illegitimate and sent her to live as a lady-in-waiting in her baby sister’s household at Hatfield outside London. It is said that when Mary arrived there, the duke of Norfolk asked her if she wished to greet the princess. Mary—with a selfpossession like her father’s—answered that she was aware of no princesses in England other than herself. Like Catherine of Aragón before her, Anne Boleyn also failed to give Henry a male heir. In 1536, she was executed on a charge of adultery, and Elizabeth was declared illegitimate.That same year, Henry married Jane Seymour, who became an advocate for Mary and persuaded Henry to bring his eldest daughter back to court.When Mary was presented again to Henry, he proclaimed to his courtiers that he was glad he had not heeded their advice and put her to death. Mary, who evidently had not realized how dangerous her position had been, fainted upon hearing this. Henry’s wish for a male heir was fulfilled in 1537, when Jane Seymour gave birth to a son, Edward. Mary, whose mother had died in 1535, accepted her brother as rightful heir to the throne. Sadly, just as she gained a brother, Mary lost the stepmother who had done so much for her; Jane Seymour died of complications from childbirth in 1537. At Henry’s death in 1547, Edward succeeded to the throne as Edward VI (1547–1553). Although Mary and Edward had been close, Mary left court

583

soon after his coronation because she could not continue to practice her Catholic religion there. Edward VI died in 1553 at age fifteen. As the young king lay on his deathbed, advisers persuaded him to bequeath the throne to his cousin, Lady Jane Grey. A few days later, Lady Jane was proclaimed queen of England and one of her supporters was sent to arrest Mary. Mary was alerted to the plot, however, and escaped to Norfolk. Meanwhile, the coalition supporting Lady Jane dissolved, and Mary was proclaimed queen on July 19, 1553. Jane Grey and several of her supporters were arrested for treason. Three were executed, but Mary forgave Jane because it was clear that the girl had been manipulated. Late in 1553, Mary’s announcement that she would marry Philip of Spain (the future Philip II, r. 1556–1598) sparked a rebellion in England by those who feared the consequences of foreign influence. When the rebellion was put down in 1554, the leaders were executed, and Mary was persuaded to execute Jane Grey as well, since the young girl might serve as a rallying point for other rebellious factions. Mary also imprisoned her sister Elizabeth, believing that she had participated in the rebellion. From the beginning of her reign, Mary had been anxious to restore the Catholic Church in England. Mary ordered nearly 300 Protestants burned to death, earning her the infamous nickname Bloody Mary. Her primary motive, however, was not religious. Those who opposed her reinstatement of Catholicism in England also questioned her right to rule; thus, the executions were motivated by political considerations as well as religious ones. The reign of Mary I was plagued by rebellions, epidemics, and crop failures. Even her marriage was a disaster. Mary was in love with her husband, but Philip did not return her affection and spent much of their marriage in Spain.The couple had no children. In November 1558, it was clear that Mary was dying. On the advice of her counselors, she named her younger sister Elizabeth as her heir. Mary I died on November 17, 1558; she was forty-two years old. She was succeeded on the throne by her sister, who reigned as Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). See also: Edward VI; Elizabeth I; Henry VIII; Philip II; Succession, Royal. FURTHER READING

Erickson, Carolly. Bloody Mary. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

584

M a r y I , Tu d o r

Meyer, Carolyn. Mary, Bloody Mary. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, 2001. Ridley, Jasper. Bloody Mary’s Martyrs:The Story of England’s Terror. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2002.

MARY II. See William and Mary MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (1542–1587 C.E.)

Member of the House of Stuart (Stewart), who ruled as queen of Scotland (r. 1542–1567) and queen of France (r. 1559–1560), and whose son, James VI of Scotland (r. 1567–1625), succeeded to the throne of England as King James I (r. 1603–1625). Mary Stuart was born on December 7 or 8, 1542, at the royal palace of Linlithgow in central Scotland. Mary was the daughter of King James V of Scotland (r. 1513–1542), who died just six days after her birth. Her mother was Mary of Guise, a member of the powerful Guise family of France, who became regent for Mary upon James’s death and sent the young queen to be brought up at the French court. Mary’s education included Latin and Greek.

MARRIAGE AND EARLY RULE In April 1558, at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, Mary Stuart married the French dauphin (heir to the throne), the future Francis II (r. 1559–1560), the son of King Henry II (r. 1547–1559) and Catherine de Medici.The following year, Henry II died and Francis became king. Mary’s tenure as queen of France was short-lived, however. Francis II died in December 1560, and Catherine de Medici took power as regent for her son, Charles IX (r. 1560–1574). Meanwhile, Mary of Guise had died, and Mary returned to Scotland in 1561 to assume the full mantle of rulership. Mary’s upbringing had taught her little about Scotland, which had become increasingly Protestant under the influence of the Scottish reformer John Knox. After Mary’s return, there was a great deal of friction between her and Knox. Knox believed that Mary was unsuited to be queen; not only was she Catholic, but as a woman, she was inferior and had no right to be ruler. Although Mary made no effort to restore Catholicism in Scotland, the Catholic

Masses she attended in her chapel were often disrupted by zealous mobs, and Knox frequently denounced Mary from the pulpit of Protestant churches. Mary relied heavily on her half-brother, the Protestant earl of Moray, for advice and counsel. Because of this, and because she sought to be acknowledged by Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) as heir to the English throne, Mary made no attempt to limit the growth of Scottish Protestantism. Some scholars cite Mary as an example of toleration; others argue that her acceptance of Protestantism accounts, in part, for her failure as queen. For by allowing Presbyterianism, the Scottish sect of Protestantism, to become Scotland’s official religion, she lost the backing of her Catholic population and was unable to depend on them in a crisis.

COURT INTRIGUE AND SCANDAL In April 1565, Mary became captivated with her cousin Henry, Lord Darnley, who was nominally Catholic.To prevent their marriage, the earl of Moray and his Protestant allies rebelled against the queen in what was later called the Chaseabout Raid. But when Mary insisted she would not reestablish Catholicism, Moray found few supporters and fled to England. Soon after the marriage, Mary found Darnley to be a drunken and irresponsible husband who was disinterested in government matters. Finding no support from him, she turned to her secretary and trusted friend, David Riccio, for companionship and advice. Darnley became jealous, however, and in March 1566, Riccio was murdered in front of Mary, who was then six months pregnant. With help from the earl of Bothwell, Mary escaped from Holyrood Palace and returned to Edinburgh; ostensibly, she reconciled with Darnley. Her son James was born in June 1566. Mary offered to pardon those involved in the Chaseabout Raid, but the offer was probably a bribe. On February 9, 1567, a house at which Darnley was staying was blown up, and his body was found strangled in the orchard outside. Public opinion against Mary ran high, with many accusing her of involvement in the murder. Mary might have weathered the scandal had she behaved wisely and gone into seclusion to mourn. Instead, she attended a wedding the day after Darnley’s death. Bothwell was publicly tried for the murder but acquitted for lack of witnesses.Worse, Mary

M a r y, Q u e e n o f S c o t s

The last of the Stuart Dynasty to rule Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots had to give up the throne as a result of religious conflicts and court scandals.After fleeing Scotland, she was imprisoned by her cousin, Elizabeth I of England, and executed at age 44.

ratified grants to Bothwell and to others involved in the murder. In April 1567, Bothwell, who had ambitions to be king, intercepted Mary on her way to Edinburgh. Within the next two weeks Bothwell received a divorce from his wife, and in May, he and Mary were married by Protestant rites, outraging many Scottish Protestants. A group of rebellious lords organized an army and met Mary and Bothwell, with their supporters, at Carberry Hill on June 15. Mary agreed to surrender to the lords, provided Bothwell was allowed to go. But the lords broke their promise and took Mary prisoner. She was forced to abdicate in favor of her son James, who was crowned king at Stirling Castle on July 29, 1567. The earl of Moray was appointed James’s regent.

ENGLAND AND THE FINAL YEARS Mary escaped ten months later, disguised as a countrywoman. She gathered a sizable group of support-

585

ers and confronted Moray and his forces at Langside, near the city of Glasgow. Mary’s forces were defeated and, against advice, she fled to England seeking help from Queen Elizabeth. Before agreeing to help, Elizabeth demanded that Mary first clear herself of Darnley’s murder. At a legal conference at York, Moray supplied a series of letters, known as the Casket Letters, as evidence against Mary. These were letters from Mary to Bothwell (since disappeared) that supposedly incriminated her in Darnley’s murder. Mary thus became a prisoner of the English government and was placed in a series of castles, each more heavily secured. Mary’s next years were spent planning escape. She wrote to the duke of Norfolk, twice offering to marry him in exchange for his help escaping. Elizabeth discovered both plots. After the second, Norfolk was imprisoned in the Tower of London. In 1571, Elizabeth became aware of what came to be known as the Ridolfi Plot. Ridolfi, an Italian banker, helped plan an invasion of England by Spain. Supposedly, this invasion would inspire English Catholics to revolt against Elizabeth, free Mary, and place her on the throne. Mary neither knew nor approved of the plot, but Elizabeth moved her to a more secluded prison and denied her all correspondence and visitors. In 1583, Sir Francis Walsingham, a spy for Elizabeth, attempted to entrap Mary in another plot that had been uncovered, the Throckmorton Plot. Once again, the plot involved a Spanish invasion of England, with hopes of inspiring Catholics to rise up and free Mary. The evidence implicated Mary, who was imprisoned at Fotheringay Castle.The following year, Parliament passed the Act of Association, which stated that should anyone conspire to make Mary queen, Mary would be guilty of treason, whether or not she knew of the plot. By 1586, conditions in England had become difficult for Catholics. Legislation had been passed making it treason to be a priest, to help a priest, or to attend Mass. In addition, the fines for nonattendance at church services had skyrocketed to twenty pounds a month per adult. Mary’s failings were increasingly overlooked, and she had come to be seen as a Catholic martyr. English Catholics held on to the hope that Mary would be England’s next queen. In early July 1586, Anthony Babington, a young Catholic nobleman, met with a group of Catholics planning to rescue Mary and crown her as queen.

586

M a r y, Q u e e n o f S c o t s

Walsingham discovered the plot and seems to have encouraged it. Mary was allowed to receive and send correspondence again, and her letters to Babington were intercepted by one of Walsingham’s agents. In one letter, Babington spoke of removing Elizabeth, and Mary replied with approval. Soon after, Babington was arrested and executed, and Mary was charged with treason. At Mary’s trial on October 15, 1586, the former Scottish queen remained calm, denying the court’s jurisdiction and defending her innocence. Found guilty of conspiring against Elizabeth, she was executed on February 8, 1587. See also: Elizabeth I; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Scottish Kingdoms; Stewart Dynasty; Stuart Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Delta Trade Paperbacks. Lewis, Jayne Elizabeth, ed. The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots: A Brief History with Documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 1999. Wormald, Jenny. Mary Queen of Scots: A Study in Failure. London: George Philip, 1988.

MATARAM EMPIRE (ca. 860–late 1700s C.E.)

A kingdom of Central Java that had two flourishing periods.The first, which lasted until about 1000, was Hindu, and the second was Islamic.

FIRST MATARAM KINGDOM The Matarams first established their leadership in central Java when they replaced the Buddhist Sailendra rulers, who shifted their seat of power to Srivijaya (Palembang). As a Hindu dynasty, these Matarams built a large complex of temples during the ninth and tenth centuries.The most famous was a set of temples called Lara Jonggrang, also known as Tjandi Prambanan (Prambanan Temple) because it was located near the village of Prambanan. It was probably built by the Hindu Mataram king Dhaksa, in the beginning of the tenth century, to worship the Hindu god, Siva (Shiva). It is Indonesia’s biggest Shiva temple. Lara Jonggrang means “Slender Maiden,” which is what the

neighboring people called a large statue of Shiva’s wife, the Hindu goddess Durga, that was in the temple. By about 900, the Mataram Empire extended over all of central and eastern Java. But around 1010, in response to requests by the Brahmans, the Eastern Java ruler Airlangga became king of this Hindu Empire.

SECOND MATARAM KINGDOM The second flourishing period of the Mataram Empire in Java was from the late sixteenth to the late eighteenth century. Earlier in the sixteenth century, two Islamic kingdoms reigned in central Java, Demak and Pajang. Senapati Ingalaga incorporated those kingdoms into the powerful Mataram Empire and became its first king (r. 1584–1601). Senapati tried to unify eastern and central Java, but it was Sultan Agung (r. 1613–1645) who succeeded in expanding the Mataram Empire to its greatest power, including most of Java. He took over Surabaya and Madura and other port cities in northern Java, and then tried unsuccessfully, in 1628 and 1629, to capture Batavia from the Dutch East India company. Agung also started a holy war against infidels in Bali and Balambangan in the far east of Java. To develop Mataram internally, he promoted interisland trade. He also mixed Islam with the existing Hindu-Javanese tradition and instituted a new calendar derived from Islamic and Javanese customs in 1633.The arts during his rule combined Islamic and Hindu-Javanese aspects. After Agung died in 1645, the Mataram Empire began to weaken, losing both control and land to the Dutch East India Company. By 1749, it was a vassal state of the Company.Wars of succession in Mataram led to a division of the kingdom into three distinct sultantes by 1757, one at Yogyakarta and two at Solo. The politically shrewd Dutch participated in these wars and took control of the whole area, becoming the first rulers of a unified Java. See also: Javan Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Coedes, George. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1971. Hall, D.G.E. A History of South-East Asia. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981.

MATSUHITO. See Meiji Monarchy

M au rya E m p i r e

MAURYA EMPIRE (321–185 B.C.E.) Empire established in northern India in 322 b.c.e. when the Indian leader, Chandragupta Maurya (r. 321–297 b.c.e.), simultaneously overthrew the Magadha kingdom and captured the eastern portions of the Indo-Greek Empire established by Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.).

RISE OF CHANDRAGUPTA Chandragupta Maurya was a member of the royalty of the Maghada kingdom, possibly an illegitimate son of the king. The Maghada ruler questioned Chandragupta’s loyalty, however, and had him exiled. Assisted by Chanakya, a Brahman priest who served as his adviser, Chandragupta rallied a formidable group of Maghadan dissidents and foreigners under Maghadan control. In a bold move, Chandragupta assaulted the Greek territories in the Indus River basin while Chanakya staged a violent insurrection in Pataliputra, the Magadhan capital, and slaughtered the entire royal family. Chandragupta then took the throne, marking the beginning of the Maurya Empire. Chandragupta Maurya envisioned an empire that would surpass any in Indian history. When the Greeks, led by the general Seleucus, mustered their forces in 305 b.c.e., Chandragupta again defeated them. Seleucus then ceded much of the land comprising present-day Afghanistan to the Mauryas. While Seleucus struggled with rebels in Babylon, Chandragupta gradually absorbed the remainder of Afghanistan. He also extended the eastern frontier of his empire, conquering the Indian states of Bengal, the Punjab, and Bidar. Eventually, the Maurya Empire dominated all of Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent north of the Narbada River.

CHANDRAGUPTA’S REIGN To secure these conquests, Chandragupta and his son and successor, Bindusara (r. 297–272 b.c.e.), maintained a massive military force with four components: a large cavalry, more than two hundred thousand infantry soldiers, thousands of chariots, and approximately six thousand elephants. All members of the military were paid directly by the monarchy, received generous provisions, and paid little or no taxes. Chandragupta’s generosity toward the military was highly calculated. Because of his bloody succes-

587

sion to power, Chandragupta continuously feared assassination attempts by Maghadan loyalists, and he used the military as a deterrent. Chandragupta also employed an extensive secret police force to unearth any plots against him. Chandragupta placed these spies in his court, the civil administration, and even in the general populace. These agents also spread propaganda about Chandragupta’s munificence as a monarch. The brutal penal system of the Maurya Empire also stemmed crime and insurrection. Chandragupta adopted a policy of dandaniti (“the science of punishment”), under which torture was commonly used to elicit confessions. Even minor thefts were punished by mutilation, while capital punishment was the penalty for homicide, larceny, or damaging royal property. Because all artisans were government employees, assaulting one of them also resulted in death. Although the Mauryan judicial system was incredibly harsh, the overall government was highly effective. Despite his fears of conspiracy, Chandragupta realized that he could not manage his vast empire without capable ministers and efficient departments. First, he divided the empire into four provinces and appointed a viceroy to administer each one. Then, each city was divided into four wards with a prefect in charge of each. Subprefects, each responsible for ten to forty families, served under the prefects and oversaw fire prevention, sanitation, and the municipal courts. Most importantly, the subprefects maintained the census. Chandragupta demanded frequent, accurate counts of the populations in each city within the empire. The census data was used both for taxation and for security purposes—subprefects regularly reported arrivals and departures to Chandragupta’s secret police. Chandragupta also formed six commissions to regulate Mauryan society.The first commission oversaw all artisans, whom Chandragupta had denoted as government employees. This group set wages, inspected all products, and determined market prices. The second commission accommodated all foreign visitors, securing lodging for them, providing a safe escort, and monitoring their activities. Another group compiled the census information and meticulously recorded births and deaths to ensure accurate taxation. Finally, the last three commissions manipulated all trade within the empire. They levied and collected a sales tax on all products, enforced excise

588

M au rya E m p i r e

ROYAL PLACES

PATALIPUTRA PALACE Despite his constant fears of conspiracy, Chandragupta Maurya maintained an opulent palace at the Maurya capital of Pataliputra in northern India.The palace was filled with riches and diversions, and Greek ambassadors recounted that its massive timber pillars were decorated with golden vines and animal figures shaped from silver.The palace housed an elaborate park containing ponds, trees, and small temples. All of the palace’s utensils were fashioned from gold, and all members of the court wore fine garments. A brigade of women warriors guarded Chandragupta, and he maintained a large harem. A large hunting preserve bordered the grounds, and the palace housed a small arena for both human and animal combat. Gambling was also a common distraction at the palace.When Asoka converted to Buddhism, however, he discontinued many of these practices. Court members dressed more plainly, and the palace’s ostentatious ornaments were stored away. Although the palace no longer stands, descriptions of it reveal that it rivaled any in Asia or Africa.

taxes on products such as liquor, and oversaw the empire’s agricultural industry. Chandragupta had declared that all land belonged to the monarchy, but farmers were given lifelong leases to their lands. A lease could be terminated, however, if a government inspector believed that the land was not being satisfactorily cultivated.

ASOKA’S ASCENDENCY The reign of Chandragupta Maurya ended in 297 b.c.e. According to legend, he followed the Jain tradition of abdicating the throne and starving himself to death. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Bindusara, who maintained the empire during a twenty-five year reign. When Bindusara died in 272 b.c.e., his son Asoka sought the Maurya throne. Although Asoka had served as a viceroy and was the appointed heir, his brothers disputed his succession and Asoka was forced to suppress them. Consequently, his actual coronation did not take place until 268 b.c.e., four years after Bindusara’s death. Asoka shared his grandfather’s dream of a sprawling Maurya Empire. In 257 b.c.e., he invaded Kalinga, an Indian state located on the Bay of Bengal, in order to achieve his grand vision. The war with Kalinga was extremely ferocious, and both sides suf-

fered serious casualties. When the Maurya army finally triumphed after several months of combat, Asoka’s forces plundered the Kalinga capital and viciously slaughtered countless civilians. The carnage appalled Asoka.To atone for his perceived transgression, he converted to Buddhism and adopted a pacifist policy. Under the tutelage of the Buddhist monk Upagupta, Asoka toured the Buddhist holy sites, became a vegetarian, and served briefly as a monk in a Buddhist monastery. When Asoka returned to Pataliputra, he embraced the Buddhist “Law of Piety” as his governing principle. This law stipulated three obligations: honesty, reverence for all elders, and unwavering respect for animal life. Using these principles, Asoka instituted monumental changes in the Maurya government. He set strict rules for the compassionate treatment of slaves and servants, promoted religious toleration, and generously supported charitable causes. He also sharply curbed the government’s use of torture and reduced government corruption. Asoka commissioned large numbers of Buddhist missionaries. At first, he sent them to adjoining kingdoms to ensure them of Maurya’s peaceful intentions. Soon, however, he also began sending missionaries throughout Asia, to Africa, and even to Europe.These Buddhist missionaries successfully converted popula-

Maximilian tions in Burma, Thailand, China, and Japan. Under Asoka’s guidance, Buddhism thus became one of the world’s major religions and deeply influenced the development of the Asian continent. As he grew older,Asoka worried increasingly that Maurya’s adherence to Buddhism would decrease after his death. To prevent this, he installed large rocks around the empire inscribed with Buddhist principles. These rocks, known as the rock edicts, first appeared around 258 b.c.e. Asoka periodically distributed other edicts across the kingdom. Finally, in 242 b.c.e., he issued the Seven Pillar Edicts, inscribed on more than thirty thousand pillars across the Maurya Empire. Above all, the Seven Pillar Edicts encouraged the Maurya public to observe the Law of Piety.

DECLINE OF THE EMPIRE Despite his efforts, Asoka’s fears proved accurate. When he died in 232 b.c.e., his two grandsons, Jalauka (r. 232–225 b.c.e.) and Dasaratha (r. 232–225 b.c.e.), divided the empire between them. Neither ruler embraced Buddhism, and the religion gradually lost its influence in the empire. The two brothers also lacked their grandfather’s administrative skills. As a result, the empire became increasingly fragmented, as members of the royal family claimed portions of the provinces for themselves. The last Maurya monarch, Brihadratha (r. 187–180 b.c.e.), was assassinated in 180 b.c.e. The head of the military, Pushyamitra Sunga (r. 180–151 b.c.e.), seized control of the highly weakened empire and founded the Sunga dynasty. During their ascendancy, the Maurya rulers had introduced a highly organized government that provided a model for later Indian governments and that had helped establish Buddhism as one of the world’s major religions. See also: Asoka; Chandragupta Maurya; Indian Kingdoms; Indo-Greek Kingdoms; Kalinga Kingdom; Magadha Kingdom; Sunga Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Mukherjee, Bratindra. The Character of the Maurya Empire. Calcutta: Progressive Publishers, 2000.

MAUSOLEA, ROYAL. See Funerals and Mortuary Rites

589

MAXIMILIAN (1832–1867 C.E.) Emperor of Mexico (r. 1864–1867) who was a member of the Habsburg dynasty and brother of Austrian emperor Francis Joseph (r. 1848–1916). Maximilian was installed as ruler of Mexico by French emperor Napoleon III (r. 1852–1870) during the brief period of French interference in Mexican affairs known as the French Intervention (1861–1867). Ferdinand Maximilian was born on June 6, 1832, in Vienna, Austria, to Archduke Francis Karl and Archduchess Sophie. As befitted a youth of imperial birth, Maximilian served in the Austrian navy and then went into politics, acting as governor-general of Lombardy until 1859. Consistent with his social and political status, he married Charlotte, the daughter of King Leopold I of Belgium (r. 1831–1865). While Maximilian served in Lombardy, a civil war broke out on the other side of the globe in Mexico between conservative and liberal factions. The war, known as the War of the Reform (1858–1861), was won by the liberals, who installed Benito Juarez as Mexican president.The Mexican conservatives turned to Europe for help. Initially, Britain, France, and Spain all offered to help restore Mexican conservatives to power, but the British and Spanish decided to withdraw. However, Napoleon III of France saw an opportunity to increase France’s imperial holding in the Americas. In 1863, French forces invaded and captured the Mexican capital, overthrew the liberal government, and prepared to establish a monarchy. Needing an emperor, Napoleon offered the job to Maximilian, who agreed to take the position if the Mexican people truly wanted him to rule. A sham vote was held (voting rights were restricted to areas under firm control of the French forces), and results seemed to show that the Mexicans approved of Maximilian. Meanwhile, the French promised to leave some 25,000 troops in Mexico City until Maximilian could create a loyal army of his own. Maximilian and his wife Charlotte (whom the Mexicans called Carlotta) arrived in Mexico City on May 28, 1864. Much to Maximilian’s surprise, the popular support he anticipated was all but nonexistent, and the royal couple was shunned by all but the conservative elite. Moreover, the United States, which opposed any European political presence in the Americas, did not recognize Maximilian’s authority to rule.

590

Maximilian

Lacking local or regional support, Maximilian made some effort to improve his popularity. He began with small gestures, such as delivering all public addresses in Spanish. Soon, however, he began supporting causes dear to the hearts of the Mexican people—causes that were bound to alienate and anger his core of conservative supporters. Maximilian advocated the separation of church and state, particularly through the confiscation and redistribution of church-owned properties. Doing so incurred the wrath of Mexico’s Catholic clergy and caused the conservative elite to turn against him as well. Although the civil war in Mexico was ostensibly over, sporadic fighting still occurred in the countryside, and Maximilian depended on French troops to maintain order. Convinced that these uprisings were the work of common outlaws and criminals, he ordered that all captured rebels be executed. In reality, the uprisings were the work of liberal supporters of Benito Juarez, who were mounting resistance to French and European control. Meanwhile, France was negotiating a new relationship with the United States, which wanted Napoleon to withdraw all French troops from Mexico. Napoleon complied in 1866, leaving Maximilian without military support. The empress Carlotta sailed to France to beg for continued French support, but Napoleon refused. Without protection, Maximilian found himself at the mercy of Juarez’s guerrilla army. More courageous than smart, and perhaps out of desperation as well, Maximilian decided to defend his throne and assume personal command of the few forces he had mustered. Juarez’s forces arrived in Mexico City in February 1867 and laid siege to the nearby city of Querétaro, where Maximilian had chosen to make a stand. Querétaro fell to the guerrillas on May 5, 1867, and Maximilian was captured. A little more than a month later, on June 19, 1867, he was executed by a firing squad. See also: American Kingdoms, Central and North.

MAXIMILIAN I (1459–1519 C.E.) Holy Roman emperor (r. 1493–1519) and German king (r. 1493–1519), who inherited an empire in decline, fought in vain to regain its former glories, but

extended its influence through clever matrimonial alliances. Maximilian was the son of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III (r. 1440–1493). As a young man, Maximilian impressed everyone with his physical presence, intelligence, courage, and goodwill. His contemporary, the Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli, called him “a pattern of many princely virtues.” Chosen emperor-elect in 1486, Maximilian took an ever-increasing share of imperial duties until his father’s death in 1493, at which time Maximilian took the throne of both the Holy Roman Empire and the German kingdom. As emperor, Maximilian dreamed of returning the Holy Roman Empire to its former grandeur. Accomplishing this feat, however, would have required the energy of a Charlemagne (r. 768–814) and the skill of a Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.). The apathy of his father, Frederick III, had already allowed Hungary, Bohemia, and several smaller states to secede or drift away from the imperial fold. Maximilian’s own campaigns into Italy against the veteran Pope Julius II were a woeful failure. Although Maximilian fought on many fronts, he won few battles. Maximilian knew that the imperial bureaucracy was corrupt and inefficient, and he attempted reasonable, intelligent reforms. But whenever confronted with the slightest personal inconvenience, he bypassed his own reforms in the name of expedience, and this undermined his own authority for change. Maximilian even ignored or overturned laws such as those he had enacted at the historic Diet at Worms in 1495, where he had prevailed upon the Reichstag (the imperial assembly) to outlaw wars of personal profit. When thwarted by reluctant German princes, who feared a more powerful central government, Maximilian set up his own courts and financial institutions, which operated outside of the Reichstag’s control. Toward the end of his reign, after many military, financial, and political disappointments, Maximilian embarked upon a far more successful diplomatic path—the arrangement of clever marriages. For his son, Philip, he accepted an offer by King Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) for the hand of Ferdinand’s mentally disturbed daughter, Juana, the sole heir of the kingdoms of Aragón and Castile. Maximilian brought Bohemia and Hungary back into the sphere of influence of his Habsburg dynasty by arranging a dual marriage of his grandchildren to the son and

M aya E m p i r e daughter of King Ladislas II (r. 1471–1516), who wore the crowns of both countries. Maximilian’s greatest legacy, however, was his patronage of education and the arts. Reputed to speak eight languages himself, Maximilian is sometimes credited as the primary cause for blending South and North German dialects into a common language. He opened or expanded universities and academies throughout his realm, inviting humanists from Italy to attend his court in Vienna. He also supported German thinkers and artists—including the artist Albrecht Dürer—to the full extent of his finances. Before Maximilian died, he considered himself a failure. But despite the unsuccessful skirmishes of his early years, he had brought art and prosperity to Germany, and he had sown the seeds that would widen the Habsburg influence to its greatest extent within two generations. Upon his death in 1519, Maximilian was succeeded on the imperial throne by his grandson, Charles V (r. 1519–1558), who also ruled as King Charles I of Spain (r. 1516–1556).

591

Coast, while others argue that they originated in the Guatemalan highlands. Whatever the case, around 1800 b.c.e, there were a number of Maya villages in the Southern Subregion. Each settlement had a maximum of about 1,000 inhabitants. The main economic activity was agriculture, and the people supplemented their diet by hunting, fishing, and gathering.These early Mayas practiced a method of cultivation known as “slash and burn,” in which they cut the vegetation of the area where they planned to sow and then set it on fire, increasing its immediate fertility. Over time, however, this practice caused the soil to lose its fecundity, forcing the Maya to cultivate another area. The early Maya settlements had commercial links with each other and gradually extended their trade routes to other regions. Some Maya settlements exchanged goods with the Olmec civilization of the Mexican Gulf Coast, west of the Yucatán Peninsula.

See also: Charles V; Ferdinand II; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire.

MAYA EMPIRE (1800 B.C.E.–1524 C.E.) Pre-Columbian civilization that inhabited a large territory extending across the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico and including parts of Guatemala, Belize, and the western areas of Honduras and El Salvador. During their long historical development, the Mayas never formed a unified state. Nevertheless, they shared a number of Maya dialects and other cultural patterns, including an elaborate calendar, writing, massive architecture, and polychrome pottery. Scholars have divided the area inhabited by the Maya-speaking people into three subregions: the Southern Subregion, including the Guatemalan highlands and Pacific Coast; the Central Subregion, comprising northern Guatemala and contiguous lowlands to the east and west; and the Northern Subregion, consisting of the Yucatán Peninsula.

PRE-CLASSIC PERIOD (1800 B.C.E.–250 C.E.) The origins of the Maya-speaking people are still unclear. Some scholars believe that they could have been immigrants proceeding from the Mexican Gulf

The Maya were renowned for their architecture, today comprising some of the most magnificent ruins in the Americas.The ancient city of Chichén Itzá on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula is dominated by the Pyramid of Kukulkán, which towers over the other buildings at the site.

592

M aya E m p i r e

The Olmecs, in turn, influenced the Maya religion and astronomy, contributing to the development of both a calendar and writing. According to scholars, by the late Pre-Classic period some Maya settlements already exhibited a certain degree of political centralization. Urban centers like Kaminaljuyú, Tik’al, and Nakbe dominated other minor settlements, demanding tribute from them.There was also an internal social division, and emerging elites organized construction projects, supervised trade, and led public ceremonies.

CLASSIC PERIOD (250–900 C.E.) In the early Classic period (250–600), the city and empire of Teotihuacan—located on the northeast side of the Valley of Mexico—exerted a powerful influence over Maya civilization. In some cases, it seems that invaders from Teotihuacan took over Maya settlements, while in other instances, it appears that the links were mainly commercial. Around 400, a Teotihuacan force occupied the Maya city of Kaminaljuyu and developed a hybrid culture combining Teotihuacan traditions with Maya ones. In the Maya center of Tik’al, a mythical king called “Fire Is Born” (who pos-

sibly came from Teotihuacan) removed the native rulers and started a new ruling dynasty. Around 600,Teotihuacan’s influence in Mesoamerica waned, possibly due to climatic changes that contributed to the decline of that civilization. As Teotihuacan’s influence decreased, a number of independent Mayan kingdoms emerged. The largest of these kingdoms were Tikal and Copan (in Guatemala), Kalak’mul (in the Campeche region of Mexico), Caracol (in Belize), and Palenque (in western Honduras). These kingdoms established temporary alliances with each other. The capital city of each kingdom controlled political, religious, and economic activities. Agriculture remained the main economic activity, complemented by hunting and gathering. Tik’al was the most populous Maya center in the late Classic period. Estimates on its maximum total population vary between 10,000 and 90,000 inhabitants. It had a total of about 3,000 structures, including six large temple pyramids that consisted of a series of superimposed platforms made of rocks and cement, covered with blocks of limestone. Tik’al and other sites of the Classic period also contained smaller pyramid-like buildings that could

Mbundu Kingdoms have served as palaces with administrative functions. The royal elites exacted tribute and labor from commoners, who had to work in the official construction projects.The importance of both crafts and trade increased during the Classic period, and war remained an important activity. Each Maya kingdom in the Classic period was ruled by a monarch belonging to a royal lineage that traced its descent from a common ancestor. Customarily, the eldest son or younger brother succeeded to the throne upon the death of a king. However, there could be some variations; in fact, Palenque had at least two female rulers. An advisory council, composed of the leaders of noble families, helped the king to govern. The members of these families were also in charge of the main civil and ecclesiastical positions. Maya priests prepared the religious and agricultural calendar, took care of rituals, and wrote historical chronicles.They also carried out human sacrifices to appease the gods and avert disasters. The king played a crucial role in Maya public ceremonies. He also led his kingdom into wars to gain power, resources, and prestige.According to scholars, although the Mayas of the Classic and Postclassic period practiced human sacrifices, this never reached the scale of the Aztecs. Most probably, prisoners captured during battles were used as sacrificial victims. By the end of the Classic period, around 800, the southern lowlands of the Maya region experienced a gradual decline and collapse. According to experts, the region had an excess of population, totaling around 10 million, while cities like Tik’al, Kalak’mul, and Caracol each had about 100,000 inhabitants. As a result of these large populations, internal and external conflicts over resources became more frequent and violent. Severe climatic changes worsened the situation. As a result, the Maya settlements in the central and southern region gradually lost population and declined both economically and politically.

POSTCLASSIC PERIOD (900–1524 C.E.) In the Postclassic period of Maya history, northern Yucatán was the most populated area of the Maya region. A number of kingdoms emerged at that time, each organized around trade and war. Maya cities in this period were located close to commercial routes, and defensive walls surrounded the majority of major settlements. Early in the Postclassic period, the most promi-

593

nent settlement was Chichén Itzá, a city strongly influenced by the Toltec civilization, which had originated in northern Mexico and extended its dominion over much of central Mexico. Around 1200, Chichén Itzá began to decline, but another city, Mayapán, rose to power and unified most of the Yucatán.The rulers of Mayapán, who belonged to the “Cocom” lineage, governed the Yucatán Peninsula for 250 years. During their rule, most major settlements invested large amounts of labor in building defensive walls, indicating the regularity of warfare. Around 1450, the rebellious Maya lineage of the “Xiu” defeated Mayapán and sacked the city. Northern Yucatán was divided into sixteen autonomous kingdoms, which lasted until the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the early sixteenth century. See also: American Kingdom, Central and North. FURTHER READING

Coe, Michael D. The Maya. 6th ed. NewYork:Thames & Hudson, 1999. Sharer, Robert J., Silvanus G. Morley, and George W. Brainerd. The Ancient Maya. 5th ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.

MAYORS OF THE PALACE. See Carolingian Dynasty

MBEMBE NZINGA. See Afonso I MBUNDU KINGDOMS (1500s–early 1900s C.E.)

Kingdoms formed by the Mbundu people, one of several ethnic groups in what is now the Republic of Angola in southwest Africa.There were two Mbundu kingdoms, one centered at Matamba and the other called Ngola (also the Mbundu term for “ruler”). It is from the latter of these two kingdoms that the modern nation of Angola takes its name. The Mbundu states arose in the sixteenth century, as groups of Mbundu people settled along the shores of the Kwanza River where it flows through west-

594

Mbundu Kingdoms

central Angola.These migrants came to the region at that time to escape the pressures of expansion by the kingdom of Kongo, and to avoid being captured in the slave raiding then prevalent in that kingdom.The Mbundu kingdoms did not remain independent for long, however.The Portuguese laid claim to the territory in 1620, and the Mbundu states remained under Portuguese colonial rule until Angola gained its independence from Portugal in 1975. Perhaps the most celebrated of the Mbundu rulers was Queen Njinga (r. 1624–1629), who ruled the kingdom of Ngola. In 1629, the Portuguese forced Njinga out of power for being less than fully cooperative in realizing their interests in the slave trade. Njinga was not without resources, however, and she made an alliance with a warlike group called the Mbangala (also known as Jaga). With their assistance, Njinga set out to establish a new kingdom, which she succeeded in doing by conquering the other Mbundu kingdom of Matamba and subjugating the people there to her rule in 1630. Although Njinga enjoyed sovereignty in her new territory, she never renounced her right to rule Ngola. In 1641, she attempted to make good her claim by allying herself with the Dutch, who vied with Portugal for control over the region. The Portuguese prevailed, however, and Njinga was forced to recognize that she would never again regain the throne of Ngola. Ever the pragmatist, Njinga decided that if she could not beat the Portuguese it might be best to join them. In 1656, she professed herself a Catholic, thus hoping to ingratiate herself with the Portuguese.This seems to have gained her some measure of acceptance, for in 1657, the Portuguese offered her a treaty of peace, ending three decades of conflict between them. Njinga, now known by her Christian name of Ana de Sousa, ruled at Matamba in relative peace for six more years, until her death in 1663. By the late 1800s, Portuguese colonial authorities had expanding their rule throughout much of the area of present-day Angola. Their expansionism put great pressure on the various indigenous states, including the kingdom of the Mbundu. After about 1850, these states tried to compete economically with the Portuguese. But they failed, and between 1890 and 1922 all the states, including the Mbundu kingdom, had lost their autonomy as a result of military campaigns launched against them by the Portuguese. In 1951, Angola officially became an overseas

province of Portugal, and the indigenous peoples became subject to harsh repression.Then, after Angola gained its independence from Portugal in 1975, the new nation was wracked by periods of civil war until the early 1990s. Today, the Mbundu are the second largest group in Angola. They dominate the capital city of Luanda, a number of coastal towns, and the Malanje highlands in the east. See also: African Kingdoms.

MEATH KINGDOM Ancient and medieval kingdom in central Ireland that was one of five early Irish provinces. The western part, or Mide (“middle kingdom” in the Gaelic language), consisted of the areas of Offaly, Longford, and Westmeath; in the eastern part of the kingdom, the regions of Meath, Louth, and north Dublin formed Brega (“the heights” in Gaelic). According to legend, sometime in the first century c.e., the Irish high king, Tuathal Techtmar (r. dates unknown), the ancestor of the Uí Néill (O’Neill) dynasty, carved the kingdom of Meath out of the other four Irish provinces and made it the seat of his kingship. He did this so that he would not be biased in favor of his own province during his rule. The Uí Néill drove the Uí Failge and other tribes from Meath into the kingdom of Leinster and took over Tara, the seat of the high kings, in the fifth century. One branch of the Southern Uí Néill, the Clann Cholmain, became the kings of Meath. Their seat of kingship was located at the cult center of Uisnech, the meeting point of the five provinces. Another branch of the Uí Néill, the Síl nÁedo Slaine, ruled Brega, where Tara was located. Both branches of the dynasty claimed descent from Diarmait MacCerrbel (r. ca. 544–565), the great-grandson of the founder of the Uí Néill dynasty, Niall of the Nine Hostages (r. ca. ?–450), and king of Meath and high king of Ireland. The high kings of Ireland frequently interfered in the running of Meath. One such Irish high king, Aodh Mac Neill (r. 797–819), divided Meath between Conchobar (r. 803–833) and Ailill (r. 799– 803), the sons of the high king Donnchad mac Domnall (r. 770–797), but Conchobar soon killed his brother and reunited the kingdom. In the late tenth and early centuries, Maelsechnaill mac Donnail (r. 980–1022) of Clann Cholmain,

Medes Kingdom the king of Meath and high king, extended his rule into Brega, raided Dublin, and exacted tribute from the Vikings. His successors were not as strong, however. In the eleventh century, as the power of the Uí Néill waned, Meath dwindled into a number of minor kingdoms, and the dominant powers in the area fought for its territory. In time, puppet kings of Meath were appointed by the O’Connor kings of Connaught and the MacMorrough kings of Leinster. When Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189) invaded Ireland in 1171, he granted Meath to a Norman noble, Hugh de Lacey, in gratitude for his service. The only powerful king in the area, Tiernan O’Rourke of Breifne (r. dates unknown), who had expanded his rule into Meath, opposed the Normans but was killed by de Lacey. High king Rory O’Connor (r. 1166–1186) also fought de Lacey, but eventually came to an agreement with him. The area around Dublin, called the Pale, which included parts of Meath, continued to be occupied by the English throughout the Middle Ages. See also: Connaught Kingdom; Irish Kings; Leinster Kingdom.

MEDES KINGDOM (ca. 700–550 B.C.E.) Short-lived kingdom in the ancient Near East that was important for its alliance with the Babylonians in toppling the powerful Assyrian Empire. Relatively little is known about the Medes kingdom, other than what has been determined from studying the artifacts of other cultures of the time. It is believed that there were originally at least six separate Median tribes living near each other in what is now present-day Iran. Around 700 b.c.e., a legendary Median leader named Deioces (Dioces) (r. ca. 699–647 b.c.e.) united the tribes into one kingdom under his rule. During his reign, however, armies of the powerful Assyrian Empire invaded Median territory, and the Medes were made subjects of the Assyrians. Around 647 b.c.e., the Assyrians sent Deioces into exile. The Median king, Phraortes (Kshathrita) (r. ca. 647–625 b.c.e.), eventually managed to drive out the Assyrians and reassert Median independence. He also subjugated the Persians and established the capital of his kingdom at Ecbatana. When the Median kingdom was overrun by the Scythians around 625 b.c.e., Phraortes was killed in battle.

595

Phraortes’s son and successor, Cyaxares (r. 625–585 b.c.e.), ruled the Medes kingdom during its peak of power. First, he had to endure the rule of the Scythians for twenty-eight years. But, after reinforcing his army, Cyaxares drove out the Scythians and then proceeded to defeat the Persians. Around 615 b.c.e., he also invaded Assyria. In 614 b.c.e., after joining forces with the Babylonians and his former enemies, the Scythians, he captured and leveled the Assyrian city of Ashur. The Median alliance with the Babylonian king, Nabopolassar (r. 625–605 b.c.e.), was reinforced when Cyaxares’s daughter, Amytis, married Nabopolassar’s son, the future king Nebuchadrezzar II (r. 604–562 b.c.e.), in 613 b.c.e. The friendship between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar greatly benefitted both sides over the years as they helped fight each other’s battles. In 612 b.c.e., the Medes joined the Babylonians in their fiercest fight yet when they again challenged the Assyrians. Together, they managed to capture the strongly defended Assyrian capital city of Nineveh. Over the next few years, the Medes and Babylonians crushed the Assyrians and captured their remaining strongholds, bringing to an end the mighty Assyrian Empire. The Babylonians took most of the conquered Assyrian territory, but the Medes annexed the northern and eastern parts. Cyaxares expanded his territory farther to the north and to the west, venturing into Armenia and then capturing Cappadocia (in present-day Turkey), which was part of the kingdom of Urartu.When a boundary dispute with king Alyattes (r. 610–560 b.c.e.) of the kingdom of Lydia in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) could not be resolved, Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylonia, Cyaxares’s son-in-law, settled the dispute by creating the dividing line at the Halys River. Cyaxares was succeeded by his son, Astyages (r. ca. 585–550 b.c.e.), and the kingdom remained peaceful for about three decades. However, the Persian leader, Cyrus of Anshan, became increasingly discontented with his status as a vassal of the Medes. Around 553 b.c.e., Cyrus revolted to gain his independence. Astyages’s general, Harpagus, betrayed him and brought part of Astyages’s own army to fight against him. Cyrus, who became known as Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 b.c.e.), conquered the Median territory and incorporated it into the Persian Empire, putting an end to the Medes kingdom around 550 b.c.e.

596

Medes Kingdom

See also: Assyrian Empire; Cyaxares; Cyrus the Great; Nabopolassar; Nebuchadrezzar II; Persian Empire; Scythian Empire.

MEDICI FAMILY (ca. 1400s–1737 C.E.) One of the most wealthy and powerful families in Italian history, particularly in the city of Florence.Though only rarely did any member of the Medici family hold political office, their influence was immense. From the time of the Medicis’ rise in the fifteenth century until their demise in the mid-eighteenth century, rivals challenged Medici power. However, various shrewd figures in the family helped ensure their control and power, and did much for the cultural and political development of Italy.

ORIGINS AND EARLY YEARS The Medici family name appears as early as the twelfth century, connected with the emerging industries of banking and finance.They enjoyed only moderate prominence, however, until the fifteenth century, when Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici consolidated the family’s wealth and left it one of the richest in Europe at his death in 1429. This wealth became the basis of the future political power of the Medici family. Giovanni’s death left the Medici family vulnerable to business rivals, and they were driven out of Florence for a brief time in 1433 by the Albizzi family. They soon returned, however, led by Giovanni’s son, Cosimo de’ Medici (Cosimo the Elder), who was the first Medici of true political importance.

CONSOLIDATION OF FAMILY POWER Cosimo de’ Medici had a special aptitude for economic affairs, and under his control, the family’s fortunes increased exponentially. Cosimo’s vast wealth enabled him to fund a variety of public projects, and his contributions to the Florentine government gave him a powerful voice in local affairs. One of the greatest patrons of art and education in European history, Cosimo almost singlehandedly pushed Florence to the forefront of cultural development and placed his native city at the center of the Italian Renaissance. Cosimo’s death in 1464, which brought his son Piero de’ Medici to the head of the family, was greatly mourned throughout Europe.

Piero de’ Medici was plagued with poor health and consequently ran the family for only a few years. He enjoyed much of the same popularity as his father, though a rival family, the Pitti, did make an attempt on his life following Cosimo’s death. Piero died in 1469, passing leadership of the family to his two sons, Lorenzo and Giuliano de’ Medici. A plot, led by Pope Sixtus IV and members of the rival Pazzi family, succeeded in murdering Giuliano in 1478, but left Lorenzo in charge of the family and generated much sympathy and support for the Medicis in Florence. Lorenzo de’ Medici gained an unprecedented popularity and is frequently known as Lorenzo the Magnificent.Though it cost his family a great deal of money to do so, Lorenzo patronized and promoted the work of artists such as Botticelli and Michelangelo; his patronage further cemented Florence’s position as the leading cultural and scholastic city of its time. Lorenzo was also a major figure in international politics and tried hard to maintain the precarious balance of power among the numerous small kingdoms of the Italian Peninsula. Lorenzo’s power and some illicit political activities (he took control of Florence’s treasury, largely to his personal gain) did garner him some enemies, chief of whom was the Dominican priest Girolamo Savonarola, who attacked the Medici family as corrupt and irreligious.

CHALLENGES OF MAINTAINING POWER Lorenzo’s death in 1492 created a crisis for the Medici family, as his son Piero de’ Medici was quickly driven from power by the twin forces of Savonarola and an invading French army. Savonarola became the de facto ruler of Florence, though the populace soon turned against him, and the city went through an extended period of civil unrest. The Medicis were restored in 1512 at the behest of Spain and the Holy League, a group led by Pope Julius II that was aimed at removing French influence from the Italian Peninsula. The Medicis returned to prominence with Giuliano de’ Medici, Piero’s younger brother, at their helm. Giuliano presided over the family for just four years, from 1512 to 1516, but managed to secure international support for the Medicis by marrying into the powerful Savoy dynasty of Sicily. Upon Giuliano’s death in 1516, another Lorenzo de’ Medici, the son of Piero and grandson of Lorenzo

M e d i c i Fa m i ly

597

Alessandro survived diplomatic challenges to his power only to be murdered in 1537 by Lorenzino de’ Medici, a close relative and companion. The death of Alessandro brought Cosimo I de’ Medici to power. Cosimo I, duke of Florence (r. 1537–1574), was a descendant of the brother of Cosimo the Elder, and thus the first member of the family’s lesser branch to assume power. Cosimo was a powerful ruler, and under his command Florence enjoyed its most prominent international position as it came to control several nearby territories, including Siena. Shortly before his death in 1574, Cosimo was named grand duke of Tuscany by Pope Pius V. While he was a beneficent patron of the arts, Cosimo is most often remembered for his authoritarian rule. His death brought his son Francesco (r. 1574–1587) to the duchy and foreshadowed the decline of the Medici family in Florence.

THE LONG ROAD TO RUIN

The powerful Medici family of Florence included highly influential figures, such as the political leader Cosimo de Medici. Shown in this portrait by Jacopo Pontormo, Cosimo was a capable ruler, as well as a patron of the arts, who helped position Florence at the center of the Italian Renaissance.

the Magnificent, became head of the Medici family. Lorenzo advanced the political aims of the Medici family by being installed as duke of Urbino by Pope Leo X, who was his uncle and a younger son of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Lorenzo continued the Medici family’s traditional patronage of the arts; his tomb at the Church of San Lorenzo, built by Michelangelo, is still a popular attraction in Florence. Lorenzo’s death in 1519 pushed the family toward more turmoil. Lorenzo’s successor Giulio, the illegitimate son of the murdered Giuliano, held control of the family for four years before being named Pope Clement VII in 1523.When Giulio became pope, he turned over the family to Alessandro de’ Medici, a very unpopular figure who may have been Giulio’s illegitimate son (some historians believe that Alessandro’s father was Lorenzo of Urbino). Giulio used his papal power to have Alessandro named duke of Florence, but he could not prevent the ultimate undoing of his successor. Hated by the Florentine people,

While Cosimo was consolidating his power in Florence, Catherine de’ Medici, the daughter of Lorenzo of Urbino, was strengthening hers in France. Catherine had married Henry II (r. 1547– 1559), who became king of France in 1547. Henry’s death in 1559, followed by that of his son Francis II (r. 1559–1560) in 1560, left Catherine as one of the most powerful figures in Europe. Catherine de’ Medici was perhaps most notable for her role in the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, in which nearly 75,000 French Protestants were murdered, largely at her behest. Back in Florence, Francesco de’ Medici set the family on the path to decline, as he allowed the increasingly strong Austrian Habsburg dynasty to assume a position of great influence throughout Tuscany. Francesco’s daughter, Marie de’ Medici, became queen of France through her marriage to King Henry IV (r. 1589–1610). Marie is best known for precipitating the rise of French Cardinal Richelieu, who, as chief adviser to King Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643), worked to increase the power of the French Crown and destroy the Huguenots (French Protestants). Francesco was succeeded as grand duke of Tuscany in 1587 by his younger brother, Ferdinand I (r. 1587–1609), who tried to make up for some of Francesco’s mistakes.A patron of the sciences, Ferdinand secured an academic position in the University of Pisa for Galileo Galilei. After Ferdinand died in 1609, his son and successor, Cosimo II (r. 1609–

598

M e d i c i Fa m i ly

1621) carried on his father’s patronage of the sciences in general and Galileo in particular. Cosimo suffered from poor health and died in 1621, passing the duchy to his son, Ferdinand II de’ Medici (r. 1621– 1670) Although Ferdinand II was also interested in advancing scientific knowledge, he was unable to prevent Galileo from being tried by the Church during the Inquisition. Ferdinand was not a skilled leader, and the economic importance of Florence steadily declined during his reign. His death in 1670 made his son, Cosimo III (r. 1670–1723), grand duke of Tuscany. Cosimo III was an irresponsible ruler whose religious intolerance and financial malfeasance drove the city of Florence, the region of Tuscany, and the Medici family itself virtually to ruin. His death in 1723 brought his son, Giovanni Gastone (r. 1723– 1737), to power, but there was little that Giovanni Gastone could do to repair the damage of his predecessors’ reigns. Giovanni Gastone de’ Medici is best remembered for the monument to Galileo he had built at the Santa Croce Church in Florence. He left no male heir upon his death in 1737, and consequently the duchy of Tuscany went to the House of Lorraine, and the Medici family line came to an end. See also: Henry IV (France); Royal Families; Savoy Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Hibbert, Christopher. The House of the Medici: Its Rise and Fall. New York: Perennial, 1999.

MEHMED II, THE CONQUEROR (1432–1481 C.E.)

Ottoman sultan (r. 1444–1446, 1451–1481) whose conquest of the ancient Byzantine city of Constantinople and other lands gained him the title Fatih Mehmed, or Mehmed the Conqueror. Although the career of Mehmed II began with failure after failure, his eventual military triumphs made him one of the best-known Ottoman sultans. The third son of Sultan Murad II (r. 1421–1451), Mehmed was born in Edirne, then the Ottoman capital. He was never expected to rule the empire, but after the early deaths of his older brothers he became his father’s heir. In 1444, when Mehmed was only

twelve years old, Murad II abdicated and Mehmed began his first reign. The enemies of the Ottomans perceived Mehmed’s youth as a sign of weakness, and the empire was besieged by a European crusade and internal division. The young Mehmed was unable to cope with the challenges, so Murad II reclaimed the throne in 1446 at the behest of various powerful Ottoman interests. Mehmed spent the next five years at the provincial capital of Manisa, but when Murad II died in 1451, he once again became the Ottoman sultan. Mehmed’s second reign was far more successful. After working to secure the support of those who had helped depose him previously, he turned his attention to the prize that had attracted the Ottomans since their rise to power: the city of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, called by many the finest city in the world. Previous sultans had taken much of the territory around the city, also known as Byzantium, but failed to defeat the remaining stronghold. Mehmed’s siege of the city began in 1453, and a combination of force and clever tactics won him the prize. On May 29, 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottomans and became their new capital. Mehmed spent much of his reign reconstructing the sacked city and raising it to new heights of power and beauty. He encouraged members of various ethnic and religious groups to settle in the city, repopulating his new capital with traders and talented subjects regardless of their origins. Mehmed’s policy of religious toleration led him to establish a system of leadership for each religious group in the city, with patriarchs for the Greek and Armenian Christians and a grand rabbi to head the Jewish community. Mehmed continued to expand his territory throughout his reign. Twenty years after the fall of Constantinople, he defeated a major Turkmen rival at Bashkent, extending Ottoman control throughout Anatolia (present-day Turkey). He conquered Trebizond, the capital of another Greek Christian state, in 1461, and established control over much of the Balkans, including Serbia in 1459 and Bosnia in 1463. Mehmed was known as an enlightened leader who wrote poetry, encouraged education and theological discussion, and had his portrait painted by the great Venetian painter Gentile Bellini. However, he left a more troubling legacy by providing legal sanction for the practice of fratricide among Ottoman princes, supposedly ensuring the accession of the

Meiji Monarchy most capable candidate. Fatih Mehmed died on a military campaign in 1481 and was succeeded by his son, Beyezid II (r. 1481–1512). See also: Beyezid II; Ottoman Empire; Sultanates.

MEIJI MONARCHY (1868–1945 C.E.) The imperial system of Japan between the Meiji Restoration of 1868 and the Japanese defeat in World War II. The Meiji monarchy is named after Emperor Mutsuhito (r. 1867–1912) of the Yamato dynasty, who was given the reign-name of Meiji (“enlightened rule”).The Meiji monarchy was marked by a blend of traditional Japanese and Western elements. The Meiji Restoration was, in fact, a revolution against the Tokugawa shogunate. It was called a res-

599

toration because the Japanese imperial house had been restored to power after a long period of control by the shoguns. In practice, however, the emperor Mutsuhito, who took the throne in 1867 at age fifteen, was essentially only a figurehead. Real power was held by a group of politicians from samurai houses, many of whom became leaders in the Meiji Restoration.These leaders are referred to by historians as the “Meiji oligarchy.” Although the emperor played only a limited political role in the Meiji Restoration, his symbolic role was immense. The connection of the emperor with government authority was emphasized by the abandonment of the old capital, Kyoto, by the imperial family, and the move to the shogunal capital and administrative center, Edo, which was renamed Tokyo (“Eastern capital”). Under the restoration, the emperor and the imperial house were promoted as the focus of Japanese

Mutsuhito, the 122nd emperor of Japan, transformed his country from an isolated feudal state into a world power. His reign took the name Meiji (“enlightened rule”), and his resumption of imperial rule after the military domination of the shoguns is known as the Meiji Restoration.This nineteenth-century woodblock print shows the emperor holding council, as the nation prepares to wage war against China.

600

Meiji Monarchy

ROYAL PLACES

THE IMPERIAL PALACE IN TOKYO The Japanese Imperial Palace in Tokyo was built in the late 1800s on the site of Edo Castle, the old headquarters of the Tokugawa shoguns, which had burned in 1873. By occupying this site, the emperor made concrete the transfer of authority from shoguns to emperors that occurred during the Meiji Restoration. Located on a hill, the palace combined a mixture of European and Japanese styles. During World War II, many of the palace buildings from the Meiji era were destroyed in bombings, and most of the current structures date from the postwar period.The Imperial Palace grounds, one of the few open spaces in crowded Tokyo, are screened from the city by moats and forests, and the palace itself remains secluded from public view.

religious loyalty, with a strong emphasis on the divinity of the emperor and the descent of the imperial house from the sun-goddess Amaterasu Omikami. The religious assertions of Meiji ideology were drawn from Japan’s indigenous religion, Shinto. The system of emperor-worship is called State Shinto. A government decree in 1872 established the emperor’s birthday as a religious holiday. Meiji ideology also drew on Confucianism, proclaiming the emperor as father of the nation.The patriarchal nature of the Meiji monarchy was reinforced by restricting succession to males by a law issued in 1889. This had not been required previously; preMeiji Japan had seen many reigning empresses. Like the institution of primogeniture (inheritance by the oldest male) in Western culture, this change in the Japanese system of succession was influenced by contemporary Western models of monarchy. By contrast with Shinto and Confucianism, Buddhism and Christianity were frowned upon as religions of foreign origin that were harder to reconcile with the divine claims of the emperor.Although Buddhism had long had a place at the Japanese imperial court, Buddhist ceremonies were now banished from the imperial palace, and the great rites of passage accompanying births, deaths, and marriages in the imperial family were purged of Buddhist elements. The edict, Imperial Rescript on Education, enacted in 1890, combined emphasis on the Confucian virtues of filial piety and devotion to the public good with a claim for

the eternal nature of the Japanese monarchy and its relation to its subjects. Japanese children were required to memorize it in school. This emperorcentered view of Japanese existence, which had little precedent in pre-Meiji Japanese history, was reasserted in an even stronger form in 1937, with the edict Kokutai no Hongi (Basic National Principles), issued by the Ministry of Education. Unlike previous Japanese regimes, the Meiji state was a constitutional monarchy, the first nation outside Europe or European colonies to possess a written constitution. However, both Meiji constitutions, in 1868 and 1889, were presented as imperial decrees under the emperor’s authority. In practice, the 1889 constitution limited the emperor’s power by requiring his decrees to be signed by a government minister. However, unlike the British system in which the monarch was subordinate to whichever group held a majority in Parliament, the Meiji oligarchy looked to the combination of a constitution and an authoritarian monarchy for inspiration. The imperial cabinet was considered responsible to the emperor rather than the parliamentary body, the Diet, and the armed forces also expressed personal loyalty to the throne. This made it difficult for any civilian prime minister to fully control the military, whose leaders had an independent connection to the emperor.The emperor also was charged with responsibility for mediating disagreements between the two houses of the Diet.

Menander The central role of the emperor in Meiji politics and culture was reinforced by allowing the emperor to be seen more regularly by the Japanese people. Pre-Meiji emperors had lived in seclusion, seldom leaving the imperial palace in Kyoto. But the Meiji rulers traveled over many areas of the country, even using Japan’s new railroad system. Although aspects of the Meiji system persist in Japanese culture and politics to the present day, the Meiji monarchy ended with the defeat of Japan by the United States and its allies in World War II. The victors forced Emperor Hirohito (r. 1926–1989), the grandson of Emperor Mutsuhito, to renounce his claim to divine status.They also imposed a new constitution, which separated the emperor from politics. These changes destroyed the basis of the Meiji monarchy. See also: Divinity of Kings; Hirohito; Nationalism; Sacred Kingships;Yamato Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Fujitani, Takashi. Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Keene, Donald. Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852–1912. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.

MENANDER (115–90 B.C.E.) The best-known ruler of the Indo-Greek kingdoms that arose in Central Asia and northern India in the late second and first centuries b.c.e. Menander was an intellectual whose public conversion to Buddhism extended his influence throughout much of India. Lacking archaeological or documentary evidence, scholars have found it difficult to determine the dynasties and precise dates of most of the Indo-Greek rulers of Bactria and other Indo-Greek kingdoms. This includes knowledge of Menander.The region of Bactria was located in Central Asia between the Hindu Kush Mountains and the Amu Darya or Oxus River. While there is casual reference to these IndoGreek rulers in classical Greek and Indian texts, their very existence can be proved only by the quantity and distribution of the coins minted during their reigns. Menander was a successor of the great Bactrian

601

ruler, Demetrius II (r. ca. 180–165 b.c.e.) and the dynasty of King Euthydemus I (r. ca. 235–200 b.c.e.). Menander’s kingdom consisted of an area that extended from the Kabul Valley in the west to the Ravi River in the east, and from the Swat Valley in the north, to Arachosia in Afghanistan in the south. However, the extremely wide distribution of Menander’s gold and silver coins suggests that his influence was far greater than his kingdom and that he sought control over the Ganges Valley and captured what remained of the kingdom of Magadha. Ancient Indian tales tell of Menander’s alliance with the kings of the northern Indian cities of Panchala and Mathura in an expedition against the Sunga ruler of Pataliputra after the fall of the Mauryan Empire around 185 b.c.e. However, Pataliputra, the ancient capital of Magadha (south Bihar), remained under Sunga control until 73 b.c.e. Menander’s coins also attest to the duration of his reign, the wealth of his realm, and the nature of his personal philosophy. Menander is not depicted as a conqueror on the coins. Instead, his image is gentle and almost effeminate, with delicate features and curls. Furthermore, the inscriptions on Menander’s coins describe him as Basileos (king) and Soter (savior) rather than conqueror or patriot. The appearance of the Buddhist prayer wheel on his coins complete his image as a king devoted to Buddha. Buddhists claim that Menander, who protected them from persecution by the Sungas, converted to Buddhism after a public debate with the Buddhist philosopher monk, Nagasena. The Milinda-pañha (The Questions of Milinda) is a lively discussion of Buddhist theologic and philosophic doctrine. In this work, Nagasena answered questions and dilemmas posed by King Milinda, who is clearly Menander. Written in Sanskrit by an unknown author, the Milinda-pañha is the one nonsacred work whose authority Buddhist commentators, such as Buddhaghosa, readily accept. According to Buddhist tradition, Menander quietly handed over his kingdom to his son, Strato (r. ca. 130–95 b.c.e.) However, the later Greek historian, Plutarch, claimed that Menander died in battle. Many Central Asian and Indian cities built monuments to enshrine Menander’s ashes after death. See also: Buddhism and Kingship; Coinage, Royal; Indo-Greek Kingdoms; Sunga Dynasty.

602

Menelik II

MENELIK II (1844–1913 C.E.) Emperor of Ethiopia (r. 1889–1913), notable for his efforts at modernization and for expelling Italian colonial interests from the nation. Menelik was born in 1844 in Shewa, a kingdom under the authority of the Ethiopian Empire. His father was Malakot, king of Shewa (r. 1847–1865). Because he was expected to assume the Shewa throne one day, Menelik was educated in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and was trained in both the military and political sciences. Perhaps most important to his development as a future ruler was that, during his early life, he had good role models. Both his father and grandfather, Sahle Selassie (r. 1813–1847), had been Shewa kings, and Menelik also had the opportunity to observe the court of the Ethiopian emperor,Tewodros II (r. 1855–1868).

KING OF SHEWA Upon the death of Malakot in 1865, Menelik inherited the throne of the Shewa state. He had great ambitions, however, and soon set his sights on the Ethiopian throne. His ambition did not escape Tewodros’s notice, much to the young Menelik’s detriment. Tewodros, concerned that Menelik and some others might attempt to challenge his rule, ordered these potential rivals to be imprisoned. Menelik eventually escaped Tewodros’s custody and made his way back home to Shewa. When Tewodros died in 1868, Menelik made an unsuccessful attempt to claim the Ethiopian throne, ultimately losing to Yohannes IV (r. 1872–1889). Chastened by his failure, Menelik returned to Shewa, where he busied himself by increasing his regional power. Over time, he succeeded in shifting Ethiopia’s center of economic and political power from the capital of Addis Ababa to his own seat of power in Shewa. Upon the death of Yohannes IV in 1889, Menelik mustered an army and successfully seized the Ethiopian throne.

RULE AS EMPEROR Menelik’s rule began with a disaster. He signed a treaty that opened the door to invasion and annexation by Italy.This led to a bloody war that lasted until 1896. At a great battle fought in the vicinity of Adowa, in northern Ethiopia, in 1896, Menelik’s forces finally succeeded in forcing the Italians to forsake all claims to Ethiopian territories. He then em-

Heir to the throne of the Shewa Kingdom in eastern Africa, Menelik II seized power in Ethiopia in 1889. As emperor, Menelik II secured his nation’s independence from Italy, expanded the country through conquest, and modernized it by improving trade and communications.

barked on a policy of expansion, and by 1906 he had doubled the territory under his control. With his kingdom secure, Menelik turned his attention to bringing Ethiopia into the modern world. He imposed taxes and used the revenues from them to transform Addis Ababa into a center for politics and economics. He created the Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway, which greatly improved trade and communications throughout the region. Through such efforts, Menelik brought Ethiopia a degree of international respect and authority greater than it had ever known. In 1909 Menelik II suffered a stroke that rendered him incapable of continuing to rule. He eventually lapsed into a coma, and lingered near death for several years. During this time, effective rule over the kingdom passed to his grandson, Lij Iyasu (r. 1913–1916). Menelik died in December 1913, at which time Lij Iyasu was crowned Ethiopia’s king. He was overthrown three years later.

Mercia, Kingdom of See also: Galawdewos; Haile Tewodros II.

Selassie

I;

FURTHER READING

Marcus, Harold G. The Life and Times of Menelik II: Ethiopia 1844–1913. Lawrenceville, NJ: Red Sea Press, 1995.

MENES (flourished ca. 3100 or 3000 B.C.E.) Traditionally considered the first king of a unified Egypt and founder of Egypt’s first ruling dynasty.According to legend and some historical records, Menes (which is a Greek name) was a ruler from Upper (or Southern) Egypt who defeated Lower (or Northern) Egypt and unified the two kingdoms into one empire. He then became the first king, or pharaoh, of the First Dynasty of a united Egypt. Some archaeological evidence suggests that Menes may be the same person as King Narmer, who also was credited with unifying Egypt because of scenes carved on the famous Narmer Palette (an artifact discovered at the pre-dynastic capital of Hierakonpolis and believed to date from about 3200 b.c.e.). One side of the slate palette depicts Narmer wearing the crown of Upper Egypt and clubbing an enemy; the other side shows him wearing the crown of Lower Egypt and looking over his defeated enemies. Menes also is sometimes identified as a king named Scorpion (who signed his name with a hieroglyph of a scorpion) because other artifacts portray that king in a similar victory scene. Many experts now believe that Menes is the same person as King Aha (who may have been Narmer’s son), because “Men” is written next to Aha’s name in some places and he was the first king with significant monuments all around Egypt. Whatever his real identity, after becoming king, Menes founded the capital city of Memphis (not far from Cairo, the current Egyptian capital). It was an excellent location—easy to defend because it was on an island in the Nile and strategically located at the border between the old and new kingdoms. Menes oversaw the construction of many irrigation channels from the Nile, which improved the productivity of neighboring fields. By the end of Menes’s rule, Memphis was a flourishing commercial city and the core of Egypt.

603

Legend has it that Menes reigned for sixty-two years and was then killed by a hippopotamus.This account may have arisen because in ancient Egypt the hippopotamus was a symbol for a foreign enemy; so perhaps Menes just died defending his empire. If Menes was truly King Aha, then his heir was his son Djer, whose mother Neithotep served as queen until Djer was old enough to serve as king. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Before Eighteenth Dynasty).

MERCIA, KINGDOM OF (flourished ca. 600–918 C.E.)

One of the seven kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England, occupying roughly the same area as the modern-day Midlands. The kingdom of Mercia was an independent state from about 600 to 886 and then a semiindependent territory until the death of its last significant ruler, Ethelfled, in 918. Mercia gained primacy over the other states of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy (Wessex, Essex, Sussex, East Anglia, Kent, and Northumbria) during the reign of Penda (c. 632–654), who extended the boundaries of the kingdom and established dominance over Wessex and East Anglia. Penda himself steadfastly refused to convert to Christianity, which was spreading rapidly across England, but he made no objection when his son, Paeda, converted in order to marry the daughter of Oswy of Northumbria— nor did he object to a mission from Northumbria sent to convert his people. When Penda died in battle against Oswy of Northumbria in 656, Mercia fell briefly under Northumbrian control for three years, although Penda’s son Paeda was granted limited rule. Mercian supremacy was reestablished, however, when another of Penda’s sons, Wulfhere (r. 658–675), took the throne and once again expanded the kingdom’s boundaries. Mercian hegemony held throughout the eighth century, strengthened by the reigns of Ethelbald (r. 716–757) and his cousin Offa (r. 757–796). Offa, the last strong king of Mercia, in addition to declaring himself overlord in Kent and Sussex, had Ethelbert, king of East Anglia, beheaded so that he could rule that country as well. Offa also secured his inter-

604

Mercia, Kingdom of

ests in Wessex and Northumbria by marrying his daughters to the rulers of those kingdoms. The land work on the eastern border of modern Wales, known as Offa’s Dyke, was built in his reign as a defense against the Welsh. After Offa’s death in 796, Mercia declined as a power. Attacks from neighboring kingdoms and the incursions of the Danes drained Mercia of resources until 886, when the eastern portion of the kingdom became part of the Danelaw and the western part came to be controlled by Wessex. The last noteworthy ruler of the kingdom, Ethelfled (r. 911–918), the daughter of Alfred the Great of Wessex (r. 871–899), ruled over a semi-independent Mercia, first as consort of Ethelred, earl of Mercia, and later alone. Ethelfled built cities and oversaw military campaigns. With her brother, Edward the Elder of Wessex (r. 899–924), she recaptured Derby, Leicester, and York from the Danes. See also:Alfred, the Great;Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Danish Kingdom; Northumbria, Kingdom of; Wessex, Kingdom of.

MERINA KINGDOM (1783–1896 C.E.) Kingdom located in the central region of Madagascar, a large island off the southeastern coast of Africa, that ruled as the dominant kingdom on the island in the 1800s. Prior to 1787 Madagascar was home to a number of small centralized kingdoms; historians identify eighteen different states. In the interior of the island, the land controlled by the Merina people, a ruler named Andrianampoinimerina (r. 1783– 1809), took the throne in 1783 and soon united many of the Merina people under his rule. Andrianampoinimerina spent his twenty-three-year reign absorbing all the remaining neighboring states under his authority and can thus be said to be the first true Merina king. Like all the Madagascar states, the wealth of the Merina kingdom was heavily based on the slave trade that serviced markets in the Persian Gulf and beyond. Andrianampoinimerina was succeeded on the throne of Merina by his son Radama I (r. 1810–1828), who built upon the work of his father by expanding his territory until it extended from one side of the island to the other. Radama I was helped in this enterprise by

an alliance with the British, who modernized and equipped his army. In return, however, Radama had to agree to outlaw the slave trade, which had previously formed the bulk of the kingdom’s revenues. Radama’s reign was marked by increased European missionary activity in Merina and by a great loss of life as a result of his wars of expansion. Upon the death of Radama I in 1828, he was succeeded on the throne by his wife, Ranavalona I (r. 1828–1861). Suspicious of foreigners, Ranavalona rejected her husband’s pro-Western policies. She declared Christianity illegal and followed a policy that isolated Merina and withdrew it from participation in the world beyond Madagascar’s borders. During her rule, the Merina kingdom was also wracked by intermittent civil war as factions fought for control. Ranavalona I was succeeded by her son, who took the royal name of Radama II (r. 1861–1863) but may not have been an actual son of the former king. Radama attempted to return Madagascar to a proWestern stance, but his court officials were so outraged by this effort that they had him assassinated just two years after he took the throne. Radama II was succeeded by his widow, Queen Rasoherina (r. 1863–1868), who attempted to continue her husband’s policies of welcoming contact with the West, particularly the French. This effort would prove to be the undoing of the Merina kingdom, however. The French were more interested in territorial acquisition than in political alliance, and France’s desire for territory eventually led to the end of the Merina kingdom. The next rulers of the Merina kingdom—queens Ranavalona II (r. 1868–1883) and Ranavalona III (r 1883–1896)—ruled in name only. During their reigns, the prime minister, Rainilaiarivony, exercised actual control over Merina. By this time, the Merina kingdom had expanded to include all of Madagascar except the far south and part of the western portion of the island. In 1883, French forces bombarded and occupied the Merina settlement of Tamatave, and within two years they had declared the whole of Madagascar a French protectorate. This protectorate status was recognized by the British, who had been vying with the French for control in Madagascar for a number of years. For the next few years, the Merina kingdom attempted to resist French rule, and heavy fighting took place periodically. In 1896, however, French forces defeated Merina and declared Madagascar a

M e rov i n g i a n Dy na s t y French colony. The French formally abolished the Merina monarchy, and the kingdom came to an end. See also: African Kingdoms; Madagascar Kingdoms; Radama I; Radama II; Ranavalona I, Mada. FURTHER READING

Brown, Mervyn. A History of Madagascar. Princeton, NJ: Marcus Weiner Publishers, 2002. Kottak, Conrad P. Madagascar: Society and History. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1986.

MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY

605

as Childeric I (r. ca. 457–481), are best known for their military victories against other Germanic peoples, most notably the Visigoths, Saxons, and Alamanni in the last decades of the Roman Empire. The era immediately following the fall of Rome witnessed a pivotal transformation in the history of Europe, during which new economic, political, social, and cultural institutions replaced those of ancient Rome.This change resulted in the development of various regional European societies.The Merovingians were rulers of the largest and most powerful of these new European regions—the Frankish kingdom that eventually became the nation of France.

(457–751 C.E.)

KING OF ALL FRANKS

Frankish dynasty of kings that ruled in Western Europe immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire. The Franks were a Germanic tribe that entered the Roman province of Gaul, now France, in the early fourth century.They generally had a good relationship with the Romans, often serving in their armies and defending the northern frontier of the western empire until its fall in 476. The Merovingians owe their family name to Merovech (r. 447–457), the chief of a group of Franks known as the Salian Franks. Little is known about this legendary hero. He and other Frankish leaders, such

The son of Merovech, Childeric I, inherited the mantle of leadership from his father. But the first Merovingian leader to unify the Frankish peoples under one rule was Childeric’s son, Clovis I (r. 481–511), who was the founder of the Frankish monarchy. Clovis was the first Frankish king to have laws written down. Although Roman law served as the basis of Frankish law, some elements of Germanic legal traditions survived, such as the punishments for various crimes. One element of Frankish law proved very important in the history of the Merovingian dynasty. According to Frankish legal custom, property was equally divided among male offspring. This applied

ROYAL RELATIVES

CLOTILDA One of the most ignored aspects of Frankish history is the role played by women.Yet one of the more important aspects of early Frankish history hinged upon the actions and persuasive ability of a woman. Clotilda, a Christian, was the wife of Clovis I. After the Franks scored a decisive victory over the Germanic Alemanni tribe, Clotilda convinced her husband that God had aided him in his victory. As a result, Clovis converted to Christianity.This decision was important because the relationship between the Franks and the Roman Church would be decisive in shaping Western European society. Ironically, the Carolingians were able to depose the Merovingians partly because of their alliance with the papacy. Later, the greatest Frankish king, Charlemagne (r. 768–814) became emperor with the support of Pope Leo III.

606

M e rov i n g i a n Dy na s t y

even to a king.Thus, after the death of Clovis in 511, the kingdom of the Franks was divided among his sons. These separate kingdoms later took the names of Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. For the next several centuries, the descendants of Clovis ruled over portions of the Frankish lands, only occasionally unifying them. Unification of the Frankish kingdoms usually occurred only after decades of conflict between rival brothers. In 558, for example, Clovis’s son, Lothair (r. 511–561), temporarily reunified the Franks by defeating his three brothers—Theodoric I (r. 511– 533), Chlodomer (r. 511–524), and Childebert (r. 511–558)—over the course of many years of rivalry and conflict. But upon Lothair’s death in 561, his four sons— Sigibert I (r. 561–575), Charibert (r. 561–567), Guntram (r. 561–593), and Chilperic I (r. 561– 584)—split the Frankish lands once again.This tradition continued throughout the rule of the Merovingians and their successors, the Carolongian dynasty. It did not end until 987 with the advent of the first true French king, Hugh Capet, the founder of the Capetian dynasty.

THE MAYORS OF THE PALACE After the reign of Dagobert I (r. 629–639), the Merovongian kings fell under the control of the mayors of the palace. Originally created as a royal office in charge of the daily business of the royal household, the mayors came under the control of a single family, the Carolingians, and gradually gained control of the important elements of royal power. The office of mayor of the palace gave the Carolingians almost complete control over the royal treasury. As a result, they enriched themselves and gave favors to important allies. They also led the royal armies in battle, proving themselves to be able warriors. The Carolingians also closely allied themselves with the Roman Church, the support of which lent legitimacy to any European ruler. The Merovingian kings after Dagobert I were known as the rois fainéants, or idle kings, because they were entirely subject to the Carolingian mayors of the palace and did little to actually rule the kingdom. In 751, Pepin the Short (Pepin III) (r. 751–768), the Carolingian mayor of the palace, deposed the last Merovingian king, Childeric III (r. 743–751), and the Carolingians officially took the title of king of all the Franks.

See also: Capet, Hugh; Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Clovis I; Frankish Kingdom; French Monarchies; Lothair I; Salian Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. New York: Penguin Books, 1974. James, E. The Franks. New York: Blackwell Publishers, 1991. Pirenne, Henri. The Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, 1989.

MEROVINGIAN-FRANKISH KINGDOM (486–751 C.E.) Kingdom in Western Europe founded by a Germanic tribe, the Salian Franks, which laid the foundation for the development of the kingdom of France. The Merovingian-Frankish kingdom was founded by the Frankish ruler Clovis I (r. 481–511), who united various Frankish peoples under one rule in 486 c.e. Clovis, who became leader of the Salian Franks in 481, launched an expansion of Frankish territory into the Roman province of Gaul. In 486, he overthrew a Roman army and established the Merovingian dynasty, which took its name from Clovis’s grandfather, a Frankish chief named Merovech (Merovaeus). Clovis moved the Frankish capital to Paris, thus establishing the importance of the city to the Merovingian kingdom and, later, to France. On Clovis’s death in 511, his kingdom was divided, according to Frankish custom, among his four sons: Theodoric, Chlodomer, Childebert, and Clotaire.

DIVISION AND RIVALRY Theodoric I (also known as Thierry) ruled as king of Metz from 511 to 533. His brother Chlodomer, king of Orléans, reigned from 511 to 524. Childebert, king of Paris, ruled that part of the kingdom from 511 to 558, while Clotaire (Lothair) was king of Soissons beginning in 511. Clotaire became king of all Franks in 558 following the deaths of his brothers and Theodoric’s heirs. Thus, the Frankish kingdoms were temporarily reunited under Clotaire after years of rivalry. The four kingdoms were split and rejoined sev-

M e rov i n g i a n - F r a n k i s h K i n g d om

607

ROYAL PLACES

ST. DENIS The first abbey of Saint-Denis was founded during the rule of the Merovingian king, Dagobert I.The first bishop of Paris had been St. Denis (Dionysisus), who was martyred with several companions in 270 C.E. They were buried a few miles north of Paris and a small chapel was built on the location. By the fifth and sixth centuries, the site was a noted destination for pilgrims. In 630, Dagobert I established an abbey for a Benedictine monastery on the site and replaced the chapel with a basilica. Successive kings continued to support the abbey of St. Denis, which soon became one of the richest and most prestigious abbeys in Europe. Dagobert was buried at the abbey of St. Denis, which subsequently became the burial site of most French kings and queens, including Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Although many of the tombs at the abbey were desecrated during the French Revolution, restoration took place under the Bourbon kings of France.

eral times over the ensuing years, with some changes in name along the way.The Frankish kingdom of Austrasia included eastern France, western Germany, and the Netherlands; Burgundy included southeast France and eventually extended to Arles and Switzerland; and Neustria covered the territory around the Seine and Loire rivers, including Soissons and Paris. Much of the history of the Merovingian-Frankish kingdom was marked by dynastic war and violent rivalry. One of the most bitter was between two queens, Fredegunde of Neustria and Brunhilda (Brunehaut) of Austrasia. Brunhilda, daughter of a Visigoth king of Spain, was married to Sigebert I (r. 561–575). Her sister, Galswintha, was married to Sigebert’s brother, Chilperic I (r. 561–584), who ruled Neustria. In 567, Fredegunde, who had been Chilperic’s mistress since before his marriage to Galswintha, persuaded him to murder Galswintha. Seeking revenge for the murder of her sister, Brunhilda urged war against Neustria. Even after Sigebert and Chilperic were killed (in 575 and 584, respectively), the war continued between the two queens, who served as regents for their sons. Fredegunde died in 597. Meanwhile, Brunhilda’s ruthlessness eventually led to her downfall. The

mayor of the palace, the official in charge of the business of the royal household, was Pepin of Landen (Pepin I), a member of the Carolingian family. Aided by Arnulf, the bishop of Metz, Pepin betrayed Brunhilda to Fredegunde’s son, Clotaire II (r. 584–629), king of Neustria.

DECLINING POWER OF THE MEROVINGIAN KINGS Clotaire II became king of Neustria in 584. By 613, he had become king of all Franks, although most of the power in the kingdom was wielded by the mayor of the palace, Pepin of Landen, and Bishop Arnulf. To administer their vast holdings, the Merovingian kings depended on an entourage of officials. Over several generations, the cash-poor Merovingians awarded these officials with favors and property. Initially, the land was held only for the lifetime of the owner. But by the end of the sixth century, ownership had become hereditary.The result was the creation of a powerful class of land-based aristocrats. The most powerful of all was the major-domus, the mayor of the palace. In 623, Pepin and Arnulf forced Clotaire II to designate his son, Dagobert I (r. 629–639), as king, although they ruled for him until 623. Eventually, however, Dabogert I became sufficiently strong to

608

M e rov i n g i a n - F r a n k i s h K i n g d om

break free of the influence of Pepin and other powerful Frankish nobles. Pepin retired to Aquitaine, where he worked to extend his power to include Basques and Bretons. Dagobert’s successors, meanwhile, became known as rois fainéants (“idle kings”) because they let their power trickle away into the hands of the hereditary mayors of the palace.

DECLINE OF THE MEROVINGIANS The marriage of Pepin I’s daughter and Bishop Arnulf’s son produced Pepin of Heristal, who served as mayor of the palace of Austrasia from 680 to 714. In 687, after defeating the Neustrians at the battle of Tetry, Pepen of Heristal had himself proclaimed mayor of all Frankish territory except Aquitaine. Although the Merovingians retained power in name, Pepin of Heristal’s victory guaranteed the rise to power of the Carolingian dynasty. His illegitimate son, Charles Martel (r. 714–741), succeeded him as mayor of the palace and achieved a significant victory when he repelled Moorish invaders between Tours and Poiters in 732. Martel’s son, Pepin the Short, also served as mayor of the palace under the Merovingian king, Childeric III (r. 743–751). Pepin sought and received permission from Pope Zacharias to depose Childeric, the last of the Merovingian kings. He then assembled nobles and powerful clergy at Soissons in 751 and was declared King of the Franks, while Childeric was sent to a monastery. In 754, Pope Stephen II traveled to France, where he personally anointed Pepin (r. 751–768) as king. This marked the end of Merovingian rule and the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty. In return for the recognition of legitimacy to rule, Pepin led his armies into Italy in 755 against the Lombards, who had been threatening papal power. His successful campaign led to the establishment of the northern part of the Papal States, after Pepin gave the pope a gift of land that became known as the Donation of Pepin. The period of the Merovingian-Frankish kingdom was a time when the political, cultural, and economic institutions of the Roman period broke down almost completely after the fall of the Roman Empire, to be replaced by new regional divisions and societies. It was also a period in which towns and cities throughout Western Europe went into decline and were replaced by the rural holdings of the landed aristocracy, laying the foundations for the development of medieval feudalism.

See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Clovis I; Frankish Kingdom; Lothair I; Martel, Charles; Merovingian Dynasty; Pepin the Short (Pepin III). FURTHER READING

Koenigsberger, H.G. Medieval Europe, 400–1500. New York: Longman, 1987. Sauvigny, G. de Bertier de, and David H. Pinkney. History of France. Arlington Heights, IL: Forum Press, 1983. Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

MEWAR KINGDOM. See Udaipur Kingdom

MEXICAN MONARCHY (1822–1823 C.E., 1864–1867 C.E.)

Failed monarchies that ruled Mexico after its independence from Spain in 1821, before the country became firmly established as a republic. The first monarchy was led by Mexican revolutionary Agustín de Iturbide, who ruled from 1822 to 1823.The second was headed by Austrian archduke Maximilian, who ruled as emperor of Mexico from 1864 to 1867.

ITURBIDE’S RULE In 1820, Mexican-born General Agustín de Iturbide overthrew the existing Spanish government in Mexico. On February 24, 1821, he proclaimed the Plan of Iguala, which called for independence from Spain, declared Catholicism the official state religion, and annulled distinctions between Spanish immigrants and Mexican-born individuals.According to the Plan, Mexico would become a constitutional monarchy, and a congress would invite the Habsburg monarch of Spain, King Ferdinand VII (r. 1813–1833), to rule. The Plan of Iguala did not state clearly if Ferdinand could govern both Spain and Mexico at the same time. If the Spanish king rejected the invitation, the throne would be offered to a member of another European reigning family. On August 24, 1821, the new Spanish viceroy of Mexico, Juan O’Donojú, capitulated to

Mexican Monarchy Iturbide’s demands and signed the Treaty of Córdoba, accepting the Plan of Iguala.The text of the treaty was then sent to King Ferdinand for his approval. In September 1821, Iturbide entered Mexico City and assumed the leadership of the country. He appointed a governing junta, or council, to fulfill legislative functions until parliamentary representatives were elected. The Constituent Congress began its meetings on February 24, 1822. Shortly after, it became known that the Spanish king had refused to approve the Treaty of Córdoba. Subsequently, the Congress elected Iturbide emperor on May 19, 1822. From the beginning of Iturbide’s rule, the emperor and the Congress competed for political superiority. Iturbide also struggled with financial difficulties, regional tensions, and discontented military officers. On

609

October 31, Iturbide dissolved the Congress and created a legislative junta that was subject to the emperor. Following a series of rebellions led by disgruntled military officials, a coalition commanded by General Antonio López de Santa Anna declared the republic, in the Plan of Casa Mata (February 1, 1823). In order to avoid a civil war, Iturbide abdicated on March 19 and fled Mexico with his family. After brief stays in Italy and England, Iturbide decided to try to regain power in Mexico. On July 17, 1824, he disembarked on the eastern coast of Mexico and was arrested by local authorities. He was executed two days later.

MAXIMILIAN’S RULE After Iturbide’s failed rule, Mexico adopted a republican system of government. From 1823 to the early

The short-lived Mexican monarchy lasted from 1864 until the execution of Emperor Maximilian by a republican firing squad on June 19, 1867.The French impressionist Edouard Manet painted this famous scene of Maximilian’s execution not long after his death.

610

Mexican Monarchy

1850s, the country experienced a period of great political instability, characterized by brief governments, military coups, and constant struggle between Liberal and Conservative politicians. Beginning in 1855, the Liberals in power introduced a series of reforms, including the abolition of military and ecclesiastical courts, and the confiscation of ecclesiastical property. In 1857, those reform measures led to the War of the Reforma between Liberals and Conservatives. By late 1861, Liberal leader Benito Juárez succeeded in taking Mexico City from the Conservatives. Afterward, Juárez declared that the payment of all of Mexico’s foreign debts would be postponed. In response, England, Spain, and France captured the port of Veracruz. Juárez negotiated with the Europeans and obtained the withdrawal of British and Spanish forces. However, French emperor Napoleon III (r. 1852–1870) kept his troops in Mexico to promote the establishment of a monarchy. Napoleon expected to give the Mexican Crown to Austria in exchange for territorial concessions in Europe. He thus offered the Mexican throne to Archduke Maximilian, the younger brother of Austrian emperor Francis Joseph (r. 1848–1916). Mexican Conservatives, who favored the monarchical regime and wanted to overturn Liberal reforms, supported Napoleon.After long negotiations, the French emperor and Maximilian reached an agreement. In exchange for military and material support to consolidate his rule in Mexico, Maximilian would later provide financial compensation to France. On April 10, 1864, the Austrian archduke accepted the newly created throne from a group of Mexican monarchists. Maximilian and his wife Carlotta, the daughter of King Leopold I (r. 1831–1865) of Belgium, arrived in Mexico City on June 12, 1864. As emperor of Mexico, Maximilian alienated himself from the Conservatives by ratifying the Liberal reforms. He also failed to improve the economy or build up a military basis of support. Meanwhile, the Liberals fought fiercely against the French intervention. In late 1866, Napoleon decided to withdraw his troops from Mexico, due to increasing national and international opposition and the possibility of a war with Prussia, leaving Maximilian with no support. Napoleon encouraged Maximilian to abdicate the throne, but Maximilian refused. Assuming command of the imperial troops himself, he was cap-

tured by Liberal forces on May 15, 1867. In accordance with a decree previously issued by Benito Juárez, Maximilian and his closest collaborators were executed on June 19. The Liberals regained control of the country, and reestablished a republican form of government. See also: American Kingdoms, Central and North; Maximilian I; Napoleon III. FURTHER READING

Anna,Timothy E. The Mexican Empire of Iturbide. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990. Cunningham, Michelle. Mexico and the Foreign Policy of Napoleon III. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

MIDAS (700s-600s B.C.E.) Mythological and historical ruler of the kingdom of Phrygia in Anatolia (present-day Turkey), best known for his legendary “golden touch,” which allowed him to turn objects into gold by touching them. The historical king Midas is first mentioned around 700 b.c.e. in an inscription recording his dedication of a throne to the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi in Greece, thereby strengthening ties between Phrygia and Greece. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus mentions Midas in an account of this dedication, and he points out that the Phrygian ruler was one of the first non-Greeks to make an offering to the Greek god Apollo. According to Greek legend, however, Midas’s relationship with Apollo was not restricted to religious offerings. According to ancient Greek and Roman myths, Midas was chosen to be a judge in a musical contest between Apollo and the satyr Marsyas (or Pan, in some versions of the myth). Midas ruled against Apollo, who promptly turned the king’s ears into those of an ass. The most famous of Midas’s legendary exploits, however, may have reflected a Greek conception of Midas and the Phrygians as fabulously wealthy—a notion borne out by modern-day excavations at the ancient Phrygian capital of Gordium (in present-day Turkey). According to legend, Midas was given a single wish by the god Dionysus after capturing the satyr Silenus, a companion of the god. Midas requested that all he touched be turned to gold. Once the wish was granted, however, he was horrified to

Middle Eastern Dynasties realize that he had condemned himself to death by starvation, since even the food he touched turned to gold. Upon appeal, Dionysus agreed to reverse the wish if Midas bathed in the river Pactolus. This was the mythical explanation for that river’s golden sands. The historical king Midas likely did not have as happy an ending as occurred in his most famous legend. Threatened by an army of Assyrians in 709 b.c.e., Midas sent the Assyrian king Sargon II (r. 722–705 b.c.e.) a letter of submission, which Sargon accepted. However, during the reign of Sargon’s successor, Sennacherib (r. 704–681 b.c.e.), hordes of Cimmeran invaders from beyond the Black Sea descended upon Anatolia and the Near East, and both Phrygia and the Assyrian Empire crumbled.Tradition has it that Midas committed suicide when he realized that Phrygia would never again be a political power. See also: Assyrian Empire; Myth and Folklore; Phrygia, Kingdom of; Sargon II; Sennacherib.

MIDDLE EASTERN DYNASTIES The dynasties and rulers that shaped the history of the Middle East, ranging from the earliest days of Mesopotamian civilization to the present-day dynasties that continue to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula. The many dynasties and rulers of the Middle East, from ancient to modern times, are a varied group. While there is little but geography to bind them together across time, in the various periods of history there have been many factors in common, as well as stark differences, among Middle Eastern dynasties and the civilizations they ruled.

DYNASTIES OF THE ANCIENT MIDDLE EAST The dynasties of the ancient Middle East ruled a collection of small city-states and vast empires, formed by means of conquest and generally governed by autocratic rulers. In the majority of these civilizations there was a strong correlation between dynasties and deities. The ancient Egyptian dynasties believed in divine kingship, but in other civilizations the relationship between god and ruler was more complex. In ancient Sumer, for example, kings were believed to rule with the aid and blessing of the gods, but they

611

also sometimes came into conflict with a powerful priesthood. The Hittites worshiped their deceased kings as deities, yet viewed the living monarchs as human and subject to law. Similarly, the Amorite king Hammurabi of Babylon (r. 1792–1750 b.c.e.) claimed that his famous code of law was divinely inspired. Sargon of Akkad (r. ca. 2334–2279 b.c.e.) was said to be the son of a high priestess. Many Israelite rulers, such as King Solomon (r. ca. 970–930 b.c.e.), were priest-kings with strong religious and judicial roles in addition to monarchical or military ones. The Hasmonean dynasty, founded by Judas Maccabaeus (r. ca. 166–161 b.c.e.), was headed by Jewish priest-kings who at one point ruled much of Palestine. Cyrus the Great of Persia (r. 559–530 b.c.e.) believed that he had been divinely destined to rule the world, and, indeed, he conquered much of the Middle Eastern region. Hereditary rule was common among early Middle Eastern dynasties, but its course was rarely smooth. Since no system of primogeniture (inheritance by the oldest son) existed in many of the early Indo-European and Semitic dynasties, infighting among potential heirs was a common occurrence and contributed to the weakening of many early empires. Succession conflicts posed a problem for the Hittites, as well as for some Assyrian kings, such as Ashurbanipal (r. 669–627 b.c.e.), whose civil war with his brother in 652 b.c.e. was highly destabilizing for the Assyrian Empire. Intermarriage among the early dynasties was a common way of resolving disputes among dynasties. For example, one Assyrian king married his daughter to a Babylonian, and Ramses II of Egypt (r. 1279– 1212 b.c.e.) took a Hittite princess as a bride. Similarly, King David of Israel (r. ca. 1010–970 b.c.e.) took wives from a number of conquered territories, using marriage to cement his rule.

GRECO-ROMAN AND PERSIAN DYNASTIES The Middle East was dominated by Greco-Roman and Persian dynasties from around the fourth century b.c.e. until the rise of Islam in the sixth century c.e. When the Eastern Mediterranean was not directly ruled by Greece or Rome, local dynasties of Hellenistic dynasties, such as the Seleucid dynasty of Syria and the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, took their place. Other small dynasties flourished around the edges

612

Middle Eastern Dynasties

of the great imperial territories during the Pax Romana (“Roman Peace), building kingdoms whose wealth and power were based on control of trade routes that connected the Arabian and Mediterranean seas. Two such dynasties, similar in nature, were the Nabataeans of Petra (in present-day Jordan) and the Palmyrans of Syria, although both were eventually repressed by Rome. The fracturing of the empire of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) after Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e. gave rise first to the Parthian dynasty and then to the Sassanid dynasty in Persia. The Sassanids explicitly linked their dynasty to the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great and Darius I (r. 521–486 b.c.e.). The Sassanid ruler Shapur I (r. ca. 222 c.e.) titled himself King of Kings of Iran and non-Iran.The Sassanid dynasty also bore a strong link to the Zoroastrian religion. Further west, the Byzantine Empire arose from the division of the Roman Empire after 330 c.e., and the Byzantine emperors eventually conquered much of the Middle East. Like the Sassanid rulers of Persia, the Byzantine emperors derived legitimacy from a strong religious base, in their case of Greek Christianity, as well as political and military might. Some of Byzantium’s Arab subjects, including the vassal dynasty of the Ghassanids (in modern-day Syria, Jordan, and Israel), were also strongly Christian and remained loyal to Byzantium partially for religious reasons. Meanwhile, in pagan Arabia, strong tribal families and clans became prominent in the fifth and sixth centuries, including the Banu Ummayya and the Beni Hashem, the forerunners of some of the major Arab dynasties of the Islamic age, including the Umayyads and Hashemites.

and some of the Ottomans, continued to use the title “caliph,” with its connotation of religious stewardship over the community of Muslims. Islamic dynasties throughout the Middle East bore close ties because of their religious commonalities, but sharp differences existed as well. In contrast to the many Islamic dynasties that embraced the dominant Sunni form of Islam, the Safavid dynasty in Persia (1501–1736) based its right to rule on its heritage of the Shi’a (Shi’ite) branch of Islam and declared Shi’a the state religion. Many Islamic dynasties had strong martial roots—from the Umayyads, who forged their rule in war, spreading Islam across the Middle East, but were transformed into an urban hereditary dynasty, to the Mamluks, a military caste that rejected the idea of hereditary rule.The Seljuqs (1038–1303) and Ottomans (1280–1923), with their Turkic languages and Central Asian heritage, started out as mobile, seminomadic warrior dynasties. Later Ottoman sultans, however, withdrew from active campaigning as their empire became one of the large “gunpowder empires” (which included the Safavids of Persia and the Mughals of India), so named for their military prowess and rapid conquests. Ottoman inheritance patterns also shifted over time: in the beginning, a law of fratricide led sultans to eliminate other male heirs, for like many other Middle Eastern dynasties, selection of the fittest male relative, rather than primogeniture (inheritance by the oldest son), was used as a method of transferring rule. Many Arab dynasties still in power today follow a similar system, in which the ruler can decide which of his close male relatives will inherit the throne.

MODERN MIDDLE EAST THE ISLAMIC AGE After the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, his Islamic followers conquered territories throughout the Middle East, converting many of their new subjects to the new religion. Islamic dynasties, like their pagan and Christian forerunners, had an important element of faith. In contrast to many earlier dynasties, however, the Islamic Middle Eastern dynasties rejected ideas of divine kingship. Despite early Islam’s distaste for the concept of worldly kingship, a split developed between the political and religious leaders in most Islamic dynasties. Nonetheless, the leaders of these dynasties, including the Umayyads, Abbasids,

Many countries in the Middle East today are still ruled by monarchs (both constitutional and autocratic). The Saudi dynasty still holds sway in Saudi Arabia, while the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan is the latest manifestation of the Hashemite dynasty’s rule. Emirs from various Arab dynasties still rule Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar, while Oman is one of the few remaining sultanates in the world.Although these dynasties, ruling small nation-states, are a far cry from the imperial dynasties of the past, their presence proves that Middle Eastern dynasties continue to remain influential in the politics of the region.

M i l a n, D u c h y o f See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Achaemenid Dynasty; Ayyubid Dynasty; Buyid (Buwayhid) Dynasty; Fatimid Dynasty; Hashemite Dynasty; Islam and Kingship; Kassites; Mamluk Dynasty; Ottoman Empire; Pahlavi Dynasty; Ptolemaic Dynasty; Safavid Dynasty, Saffarid Dynasty; Sasanid Dynasty; Seljuq Dynasty; Umayyad Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Goodwin, Jason. Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Picador, 2003. Hourani, Albert. A History of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002. Kostiner, Joseph, ed. Middle East Monarchies:The Challenge of Modernity. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 2000. Mansfield, Peter. A History of the Middle East. New York: Penguin, 1992. Sicker, Martin. The Pre-Islamic Middle East. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.

MILAN, DUCHY OF A duchy in northern Italy, ruled for generations by the Visconti and Sforza families. One of the wealthiest duchies in Renaissance Italy, the duchy of Milan emerged in the late Middle Ages from the independent city-state of Milan, which, like other Italian city-states of the period, was loosely subordinated to the Holy Roman Empire. Because of the duchy’s great wealth and power, it often became a battleground as countries such as France, Germany, and Spain sought to control it and shape not only its destiny, but that of all Italy.

THE VISCONTI In 1287, the Visconti family emerged as the leading family of the city-state of Milan, ruling as lords of Milan until 1395, when the title of duke was bestowed on Giovanni Galeazzo Visconti (r. 1378–1402) by the Holy Roman emperor,Wenceslas (r. 1378–1400).The elevation of Giovanni to duke marked the beginning of the duchy of Milan. Giovanni Galeazzo was an important patron of Renaissance art and architecture, and during his rule the Milan duchy reached its height of power and became one of the most important states in Italy. He

613

also reformed and centralized the government of the duchy, promoted economic development, and conquered various city-states and territories as far south as Siena and Pisa. He died while preparing to attack Milan’s main enemy, the city-state of Florence. Upon Giovanni Galeazzo’s death in 1402, the title of duke passed first to his son, Giovanni Maria Visconti (r. 1402–1412), who was assassinated by rivals in 1412, and then to his other son, Filippo Maria Visconti (r. 1412–1447). Both were weak rulers, and during their reign, Milan lost a number of territories that had been conquered by their father and his predecessors. Under the Visconti, the duchy of Milan had a combination of feudal, civic, and bureaucratic elements. Much of the rural land in the duchy was held by vassals of the duke. In the cities, local civic government coexisted with ducal officials, such as the comissario, who represented the duke’s political interests, and a referendario, who represented his financial interests. The central institutions of the duchy were organized into a series of councils and departments, all of which followed a chain of command that went back to the duke. The duchy of Milan was one of the most advanced bureaucratic states of its time, and it was one of the first to appoint a resident ambassador to a court outside Italy, that of the French king.The ruling family of the duchy was also deeply intertwined with the Catholic Church, controlling much ecclesiastical patronage. Duke Filippo Maria Visconti died in 1447, killed during a bloody war against the Venetians. His death was followed by the formation of a short-lived republic called the Ambrosian Republic, named after the fourth-century bishop of Milan, Saint Ambrose. Filippo Maria had left no clear heir, but his illegitimate daughter Bianca was married to Francesco Sforza, one of Italy’s leading condottiere, or military leaders. Francesco used his marriage to claim the dukedom in 1450, founding a new line of rulers.

THE SFORZA Because of the irregularity of the Sforza succession, it took some time for the Holy Roman Empire and other leading European powers to recognize Francesco as duke. Moreover, the king of France, Charles VII (r. 1422–1461), had a claim on Milan through Visconti ancestry. Nevertheless, Francesco (r. 1450–1466) retained control of the duchy and became a leading Italian statesman during his reign. Under Francesco’s guidance, Milan enjoyed a pe-

614

M i l a n, D u c h y o f

riod of peace and prosperity that lasted until his death in 1466. He was succeeded by his much less competent son, Galeazzo Maria Sforza (r. 1466– 1476), who was self-indulgent, cruel, and extravagant. Galeazzo ruled Milan until assassinated by a disguntled courtier in 1476. He was succeeded by his eight-year-old son, Giovanni Galeazzo (r. 1476– 1494). During the rule of Giovanni, the real power was held by his uncle, Ludovico Sforza. Ludovico (r. 1494–1500) succeeded to the dukedom himself on the death of Giovanni in 1494. Ludovico’s rule was a time of great cultural splendor in Milan, and he was a patron of the great Renaissance artist, Leonardo da Vinci. However, Ludovico is best known for a disastrous alliance he made with France, which led to a French invasion of Italy in 1499.The French deposed Ludovico, and he was imprisoned. King Louis XII of France claimed Milan, and French rule of the duchy lasted until 1512. Like other Italian states of the period, Milan lost its independence and became a political prize of a non-Italian state. In 1512, Swiss forces, allied with other European powers against France, invaded Milan and ended French rule of the duchy.They restored to the throne Ludovico’s eldest son, Massimiliano (r. 1512–1515). Massimiliano ruled as a puppet of the Swiss, to whom he ceded some northern Milanese territories. He later handed over power to Francis I (r. 1515–1547) of France in 1515, after the French victory over the Swiss at the battle of Marignano. Massimiliano renounced his claim on Milan and spent the rest of his life in France, receiving a pension from Francis I. Massimiliano’s younger brother, Francesco II (r. 1521–1535), recovered the dukedom after the French were defeated by the army of the Holy Roman emperor, Charles V (r. 1519–1558), at the battle of Bicocca. However, Francesco II spent most of his reign under the domination of the Holy Roman Empire. Francesco died without an heir in 1535. His death marked the end of Milanese independence, and the title duke of Milan went into the possession of the Spanish Crown. See also: Charles V; Holy Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Holmes, George, ed. Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

MILITARY ROLES, ROYAL The various functions of the monarchy as relating to the exercise of military power. Although the centuries following the eighteenth-century Enlightenment have seen a marked decrease in military-based monarchs–and monarchies in general–several kings and queens had a close relationship with the military all the way into the twentieth century. From the very beginnings of monarchy, military power was a necessary condition for rule. According to Chinese tradition, for example, the early Shang (Yin) dynasty (ca. 1523–1027 b.c.e.) began with a military uprising led by a local warrior and tribal chief named Tang, who overthrew the Xia (Hsia) dynasty and its tyrannical ruler, Chieh. Similarly, the First dynasty of Egypt (ca. 3100–2905 b.c.e.) was founded by Menes, a military leader said to have united the two major regions of Egypt. Numerous other Egyptian pharaohs were great military leaders as well, including several of the best-known pharaohs— such as Djoser, Thutmose III, Rameses I, Seti I, and Rameses II, who is often noted as one of the great warriors of the ancient world. The close connection between royal power and military might did not end with the Egyptians, who were in fact ultimately conquered by a foreign king, Alexander the Great of Macedon (r. 336–323 b.c.e.). Virtually all of Alexander’s thirteen-year reign was spent abroad in military conquest, and in that short amount of time he spread Greek culture and ideals to much of the known world. In fact, Alexander is much better remembered as a military leader than as a political administrator, and the lands he conquered were so poorly governed that his empire collapsed almost immediately upon his death. His lands were later taken over by another society frequently led by generals, the Roman Empire, which had several skilled military leaders as ruler, including Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.); Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.); Tiberius (r. 14–37); Trajan (r. 98–117), and Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180). The early medieval period saw the rise of Charlemagne (r. 768–814), whose empire was stretched to great lengths thanks to his almost ceaseless military conquests. Despite the success of Charlemagne and a few other great leaders—including Richard I of England (r. 1189–1199) and Genghis Khan of Mongolia (r. 1206–1227)—the Middle Ages were marked

M i n a m ot o Ru l e r s by the rise of professional warriors under feudal lords, thus somewhat lessening the military role of monarchs. Numerous kings continued to serve in battle in the Middle Ages, but the combination of military and political talent was rapidly becoming less necessary as the years wore on. The increasing use of professional armed forces hastened this trend, although the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries witnessed the rise of two of the greatest military leaders of all time also serving as monarchs—Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (r. 1611–1632) and Peter the Great of Russia (r. 1682–1725). By the eighteenth century, the armies of many kingdoms were almost fully professional, a trend indicated by the fact that King George II of England (r. 1727–1760) became the last British monarch to lead troops in battle, during the War of the Austrian Succession in 1743. The post-Enlightenment era began with an exception to this trend of nonmilitary rulers— Napoleon I of France (r. 1804–1815), perhaps the greatest military leader of all time. Unlike military kings such as Gustavus Adolphus and Peter the Great, Napoleon was a general who rode his military conquests to the throne, rather than a monarch who was also a military leader. Perhaps partly as a result, his domestic policies achieved only limited success. The other great military monarch of the nineteenth century, southern Africa’s Shaka Zulu (r. 1818–1828), was a warrior who had no real skills as a politician and consequently incurred the disfavor of his people. The line of monarchs who were successful both militarily and politically effectively ended with Napoleon, and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw monarchs become military leaders in symbol and diplomacy only, rarely on the battlefield. The rise of democratic governments around the world in these centuries has further limited the military role of monarchs in modern history. Monarchs today serve more as representations of national unity than as actual leaders, and this extends from the legislative branches of government to the front lines of combat. Recent monarchs who have been especially successful as inspirational figures for their military forces include George V (r. 1910–1936) and George VI (r. 1936–1952) of Great Britain, and Emperor Hirohito of Japan (r. 1926–1989).Although some members of various royal families have served

615

or continue to serve in their nations’ militaries, the age of monarchs as battlefield leaders has passed. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Charlemagne; Conquest and Kingships; Genghis Khan; Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Power, Forms of Royal; Shaka Zulu. FURTHER READING

Spellman, W. M. Monarchies, 1000–2000. London: Reaktion, 2001.

MINAMOTO RULERS (ca. early 1100s–1330s C.E.)

Warrior family from the northern Kanto region of Japan who played a determinant role in the ceaseless interclan struggles for power and for influence at the imperial capital during the latter Heian period (794–1185). Known as Seiwa Genji, the Minamoto clan was descended from the Emperor Seiwa (r. 858–876). Minamoto samurai first established themselves at the imperial court in the late 1000s through their service to regents from the Fujiwara clan, who hired the Minamoto both as bodyguards and to put down provincial unrest.

RISE OF THE MINAMOTO In 1028, Minamoto Yorinobu (968–1048) assisted the Fujiwara imperial regent in defeating a local rebellion in the east. His victory solidified both Minamoto influence at court and their power locally in eastern Japan. During the Earlier Nine Years’War (1051–1062), the victories of Minamoto Yoshiie (1039–1106) and his father Yoriyoshi (988–1075) preserved imperial interests and secured the ascendancy of the Genji clan over other clans in northern Japan.Yoshiie’s subsequent victories during the Later Three Years’ War (1083–1087) reaffirmed the Minamoto power as an independent force since these battles were waged independently and not in the service of the emperor. A man of legendary military genius and one of the clan’s revered ancestors, Yoshiie forged the Minamoto samurai into a formidable army, respected and feared across Japan. Many local leaders put their lands under Yoshiie’s control in return for armed protection.

616

M i n a m ot o Ru l e r s

TIMES OF DISTURBANCE The Minamoto fortunes declined temporarily after the defeat of Tameyoshi (1096–1156) during the Hogen Disturbance (1156), which was kindled by the struggle between the followers of retired Emperor Sutoku (r. 1123–1142) and Emperor GoShirakawa (r. 1155–1158). The two court factions enlisted forces from opposing warrior factions, each of which was in turn made up of allied Minamoto and Taira fighters. Tameyoshi’s son Yoshitomo (1123–1160) fought with the victorious Taira group against his father. Though short, the bloody Hogen conflict marked a major decline in Fujiwara influence, a rise in the imperial court influence of Taira Kiyomori (1118– 1181), and a personal attempt, eventually unsuccessful, by Go-Shirakawa to restore rule to the person of the emperor. Yoshitomo refused to execute his defeated father, Minamoto Tameyoshi, but a kinsman obliged, maintaining it would be disgraceful for Tameyoshi to be killed by a victorious Taira. Disappointed in his gains,Yoshitomo soon became restless and in 1159 turned on his former Taira ally. Kiyomori successfully rallied his followers and defeated Yoshitomo. For unknown reasons, Kiyomori spared the lives of Yoshitomo’s children—perhaps due to his attraction to Yoshitomo’s concubine. However, Kiyomori’s clemency led to his own downfall two decades later at the hands of the Minamoto sons he had spared,Yoritomo and Yoshitsune. The final clash between the Minamoto and Taira clans, the Genpei War (1180–1185), began in 1180 when a disaffected imperial prince called for Minamoto support against the imperial ascension of the infant prince Antoku (r. 1180–1185), a grandson of Taira Kiyomori. Minamoto Yoritomo, now the head of his clan, successfully enlisted a large number of warrior vassals, including disaffected members of the Taira family.The five-year war engulfed Japan in clan struggles that raged across the country, simultaneously pitting local forces against the central imperial powers. A great strategist and organizer, Yoritomo relied heavily on his younger half-brother, Yoshitsune, for military success. In 1185Yoshitsune’s army annihilated the Taira forces at the decisive sea battle of Dannoura.

MINAMOTO SHOGUNS The rise of the Minamoto samurai culminated in the military triumphs of Yoritomo (r. 1192–1195) and

his brother Yoshitsune over their Taira family (also known as the Heike), their rivals during the Genpei War.The Minamoto victory in 1185 signaled the end of the primacy of civil and religious government at the imperial court in Kyoto and the beginning of rule by an independent warrior class over a regime called the Kamakura shogunate. In 1192,Yoritomo legitimized his rule by forcing the thirteen-year-old emperor to name him the first seii tai-shogun (“barbarian-subduing generalissimo”). The appointment honored and continued the centuries-old Japanese tradition of duality in government, whereby those who wielded real power sought sanction by an appointment or title bestowed in the name of the highest power embodied in an emperor of divine descent. Yoritomo’s government was known as the bakufu (“field tent headquarters” of a military campaign), which came to stand for the shogunate itself.Yoritomo located the bakufu in Kamakura, his family base about 30 miles from modern-day Tokyo, hence the Kamakura shogunate (1192–1333). By institutionalizing the role of shogun as military leader defending the imperial court, the Minamoto rulers established the feudal military rule that governed Japan until the Meiji Restoration in 1868. See also: Kamakura Shogunate;Yoritomo.

MINANGKABAU KINGDOM (flourished 1300s C.E.)

Buddhist kingdom located in western part of Sumatra that flourished briefly in the fourteenth century. The Minangkabau region in highland West Sumatra enters history in the early fourteenth century.Around 1343, a ruler known as Adityavarman (r. 1343–1374) established a center of power in Jambi (which he called Dharmasraya) and then moved his capital to the Tanahdatar area (near present-day Pagarruyung). Adityavarman seems to have come from the court of the Majapahit Empire of eastern Java, which claimed suzerainty over the main populated areas of Sumatra’s eastern coast. His father may have been a Javanese prince who married a Sumatran princess captured during an expedition in 1275 sent by the kingdom of Singasari, the predecessor state to Majapahit. Thus, Adityavarman may have been sent as a

Ming Dynasty viceroy, with the idea that his maternal connections with Sumatra would stand him in good stead. Before long, however, Adityavarman decided to declare himself independent from Majapahit control. He moved his capital from the lowlands of Sumatra’s east coast to the Minangkabau highlands. This move may have had two motives: to distance himself from the reach of Majapahit’s revenge for his betrayal; and to oversee the sources of gold that were plentiful in the Tanahdatar region. In one of his inscriptions, Adityavarman explicitly calls himself Kanakamedinindr (“Gold-land Lord”). How Adityavarman succeeded in transplanting a Javanese-style court into the Sumatran highlands is unknown.Yet, he left a large number of inscriptions dating over a period of thirty years, evidence that he had a long reign. He also was a faithful adherent of a form of esoteric Buddhism, probably initiated into a cult of Bhairawa, a deity with demonic features. An enormous statue unearthed near Padang Roco in western Sumatra depicts Bhairawa with eyes bulging in a threatening manner, with snakes for armbands, skull bowl, and sacrificial knife, standing on a pile of corpses and skulls. One of the inscriptions attributed to Adityavarman mentions a crown prince, Ananggavarman. Adityavarman’s dream of an esoteric Buddhist kingdom in the mountains of Sumatra, enriched by the gold of many mines, does not seem to have survived him, however. Ananggavarman himself never produced any known inscriptions. After Adityavarman’s last inscription,West Sumatra and Minangkabau disappear from history, reappearing only when the Portuguese enter the region in the early sixteenth century. Tanahdatar (Pagarruyung) played the role of a powerful moral force in later Sumatran politics.The endorsement of its rulers was sought after by claimants to thrones elsewhere in Sumatra. But the region around the city was already Muslim by the late 1600s, when the first outside visitor to the area, a Portuguese named Tomas Diaz from Melaka, viewed the capital. Memories of Adityavarman’s kingdom perhaps survive most vividly in the legend of the wars between Datuk Katumenggungan and Datuk Pepatih nan Sebatang. One was an autocrat, and the other an advocate of a more democratic system of government. The two forms of adat, or customary law, still exist in different villages of Sumatra today.

617

See also: Samudera-Pasai; Southeast Asian Kingdoms; Srivijaya-Palembang Empire. FURTHER READING

Miksic, John, ed. Indonesian Heritage: Ancient History. Vol. 1. Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996. Reid, Tony, ed. Indonesian Heritage: Early Modern History.Vol. 3. Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996. Ricklefs, M. C. A History of Indonesia Since c. 1200. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.

MING DYNASTY (1368–1644 C.E.) Chinese dynasty that restored native rule to China and instituted an extended period of internal peace and prosperity. The Ming dynasty returned native rule to China after a century of foreign domination by the Mongols. Lasting nearly 300 years, the Ming era was a time of prosperity. The population grew, literature and the arts flourished, and Chinese ships explored distant lands for the first time. Ming rule was also marked by a highly centralized government and increasing isolation from the rest of the world. Although it was an era of domestic peace, the constant threat of foreign invasion drained the empire’s resources.

RETURN TO CHINESE RULE The Ming (“brilliant”) dynasty was founded in 1368 by Zhu Yuanzhang, later known as Hungwu (r. 1368–1398), a peasant who had experienced the desperate poverty and suffering of the final years of Mongol rule. A talented leader, Hungwu led his rebel troops to victory over the Yuan dynasty, establishing his capital in the city of Nanjing. The Yuan rulers fled to Mongolia, where they would remain a constant menace to the new dynasty. Hungwu restored traditional Chinese customs, reinstituting the rituals of Confucianism that had been neglected by the Yuan. He revived agriculture, which had deteriorated under the Mongols. Hungwu kept taxes low by carefully restricting government spending. He barred from politics all eunuchs—the castrated men who served the imperial family within the Forbidden City, and whose involvement in politics had plagued previous dynasties with debilitating power struggles. Paranoid and ruthless, Hungwu executed all rivals. He eliminated the post of prime

618

Ming Dynasty

minister, creating a highly centralized administration in which all parts of the government were under his control. This system laid a great burden on his successors, handing them a workload that would challenge the abilities of even the most conscientious Ming emperors.

STRENGTH AND PROSPERITY Hungwu’s son, Yung Lo (Yongle) (r. 1402–1424), ruled China at the height of Ming power. Moving the capital to Beijing, he fortified the city with walls and built the famous Forbidden City, a sprawling complex of 9,000 rooms that housed the imperial palaces. He led several great campaigns against the empire’s Mongolian rivals to the north. Reversing Hongwu’s prohibition on eunuch in-

Ming Dynasty Hung Wu* (Hungwu)

1368–1398

Chien Wen

1398–1402

Yung Lo

1402–1424

Hung Hsi

1424–2425

Hsuan Te

1425–1435

Cheng T’ung

1435–1449

Ching T’ai

1449–1457

T’ien Shun

1457–1464

Ch’eng Hua

1464–1487

Hung Chih

1487–1505

Cheng Te

1505–1521

Chia Ching

1521–1567

Lung Ch’ing

1567–1572

Wan Li

1572–1620

T’ai Ch’ang

1620–1620

T’ien Ch’i

1620–1627

Ch’ung Chen

1627–1644

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

volvement in politics, Yongle restored eunuchs to a position of power. In 1405,Yongle sent his grand eunuch, Zheng He, on the first of seven naval missions that would reach as far as the shores of India and Africa. Chinese ships and charts had been the most advanced in the world since the eleventh century, but this was the first official expedition to the West.The goal of these expeditions was diplomatic, not commercial. Mistrustful of trade, the Ming sought to enroll new tributaries—nations that would acknowledge Chinese superiority. The expeditions returned with foreign emissaries and oddities. One trip brought back a giraffe. The expeditions ended in 1433, a victim of dwindling state resources and the disapproval of Confucian scholars who viewed trade and foreign contact as dangerous. This marked the end of Chinese power on the sea. While China’s boundaries did not expand under the Ming, the dynasty brought prosperity and an extended period of peace within its borders.Trade with the West introduced into China plants from the New World, including sweet potatoes, maize, and peanuts. These new plants created an agricultural boom that contributed to a doubling of the Chinese population. Regional specialization in agriculture and manufacturing increased as provinces refined the production of cotton, silk, tobacco, sugar cane, and porcelain. Despite the government’s suspicion of profit and commerce, foreign demand for Chinese products like silk and porcelain grew, leading to an inflow of silver.

ARTS AND CULTURE The Ming saw a rapid expansion of publishing and a flowering of popular literature. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the number of books published in the vernacular grew dramatically. Before this time, most books were written in the scholarly style accessible only to the highly educated. Now those with only a basic education could enjoy the period’s explosion of popular plays, novels, and how-to books. Some of China’s greatest novels were written during the Ming period, including the famous Journey to the West by Wu Chengen (1500?–1580) and The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, attributed to Lo Guanzhong, who wrote in the late fourteenth century. Imperial patronage of ceramics created some of the world’s finest porcelain under the Ming. The imperial kilns at Jingdezhen in Jiangxi province, estab-

Ming Dynasty

619

ROYAL PLACES

MING TOMBS Thirty miles northwest of Beijing, thirteen Ming emperors lie buried in a magnificent complex of tombs in a valley south of the Tianshou Mountains. Laid out according to the principles of feng shui, the Ming Tombs are the most complete set of tombs to survive from any Chinese dynasty. Emperor Yongle (r. 1402–1424), the third Ming emperor and builder of the Forbidden City, chose the site and built the first and largest of the tombs. Known as Changling, the structure is a replica of the Hall of Supreme Harmony, the largest hall in the Forbidden City. Similar tombs were erected for all subsequent Ming emperors (except for Jingtai), who were buried with their empresses and concubines beneath mounds of earth adjacent to buildings that resemble Ming imperial palaces.The most extravagant tomb was constructed for Emperor Wanli (r. 1572–1620), who was buried in an underground palace filled with treasures. A “Spirit Road” runs through the complex, lined by large sculptures of animals and imperial advisers.The Ming rulers revived the practice of ancestor worship, performing ritual sacrifices at the tombs of their predecessors.These ceremonies were designed to both honor their ancestors and enlist their aid.

lished in the late fourteenth century, supplied porcelain to the Ming emperors and to traders eager to meet the growing foreign demand for the exquisite porcelain with its distinctive blue-and-white designs. Despite Ming resistance to foreign influence, a few foreigners managed to infiltrate the Middle Kingdom, as China was known to itself. Notable among these was Matteo Ricci (1552–1610), the famous Italian Jesuit who in 1601 received permission to reside in Beijing. Ricci attempted to win followers for Christianity by sharing his knowledge of Western science. He remained in China until his death in 1610, having managed to convert some Chinese officials to his faith. In philosophy,Wang Yangming (1472–1529) challenged orthodox Confucianism, with its emphasis on obedience to authority, and instead espoused intuitive moral knowledge over painstaking rational investigation. He introduced the subversive idea that all people—even the uneducated—possessed access to this form of knowledge. The Ming maintained the Chinese system of selecting civil servants with a national examination that

tested knowledge of classical Chinese texts. Regional quotas were instituted to avoid the domination of this system by scholars from the more educated, prosperous areas.

ISOLATION AND COLLAPSE In contrast to Mongol rule, when China was part of a vast, thriving trade network, the Ming era was marked by its emperors’ efforts to withdraw from the world. Typical of Chinese rulers, the Ming held the Confucian view that land was the source of national wealth, viewing trade and industry with distrust. Foreign contact was also viewed with suspicion. To control and limit trade, the Ming required that it be conducted within the confines of the tribute system. However, the isolationist policies of the Ming merely encouraged the growth of smuggling and piracy. Pirates terrorized coastal towns, raiding and looting. In 1577, Portugal was allowed to establish Macao as a trading center in exchange for Portuguese help in fighting the local pirates. After the middle of the fifteenth century, outside pressure increased from the hostile Mongol and

620

Ming Dynasty

Manchu lands to the north. In 1449, the Mongols captured Ming emperor Zhengtong (r. 1435–1449; 1457–1464). (Rather than pay the requested ransom, the Ming court opted for installing a new emperor.) In 1542, the Mongols killed or captured 200,000 Chinese in a single month. The Ming responded defensively, increasing their isolation by withdrawing behind the Great Wall and expending massive sums of money to reinforce and extend it. The highly centralized system established by Hongwu had left later Ming emperors without the support of a prime minister and his staff to help in the administration of the empire. This led to an increasing reliance, after Yongle’s time, on the imperial eunuchs to aid in the daunting task of governing the vast Chinese empire. By the middle of the fifteenth century, eunuchs had established their own bureaucracy, which possessed control over much of the government’s administration. Power struggles between the official bureaucracy and the eunuchs paralyzed government. Emperor Wanli (r. 1572–1620) became so disillusioned with the infighting at court that he withdrew completely from his imperial duties and refused to leave the Forbidden City. As the only servants allowed inside the Forbidden City, the eunuchs became the sole source of contact between the emperor and the world outside.This opened the way for complete government control by the eunuchs. By the early seventeenth century, the Ming government was nearly bankrupt, a consequence of Wanli’s extravagant spending and constant military campaigns against the Mongols. At the same time, a series of natural disasters left millions dead from disease and starvation. Without money, the imperial government could not respond effectively to the situation. Unrest and revolt spread, and rebel leader Li Zicheng seized Beijing in 1644. Recognizing the end, Chongzhen (r. 1627–1644), the last Ming emperor, hung himself from a tree in the imperial garden. Invaders from Manchuria arrived later that year to defeat Li Zicheng and proclaim the Ch’ing dynasty. See also: Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty; Hung Wu (Hungwu);Wanli;Yuan Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Twitchett, Denis. The Cambridge History of China:The Ming Dynasty. Vol. 8. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

MINOAN KINGDOMS (2000–1375 B.C.E.)

An ancient Bronze-Age Mediterranean civilization, centered on the island of Crete, that was mysteriously destroyed sometime after 1375 b.c.e. Most of what is known today about Minoan culture is based on archaeological evidence rather than historical documents. Although the Minoans did leave written records, only the latest of their three forms of writing is decipherable to scholars. Existing examples of this script show that it was used solely as a recordkeeping aid; the content is therefore somewhat disappointing as a historical record. Fortunately, the Minoans were great artists and builders, and the remains of many of their works have survived through the ravages of the millennia, as well as through Crete’s frequent earthquakes, allowing scholars to reconstruct part of the story of the Minoan civilization.The most conspicuous remains of Minoan civilization are their immense palaces. First built around 2000 b.c.e, the main palaces of Knossos, Phaestus, and Malia were all destroyed around 1700 b.c.e., probably by an earthquake.They were then rebuilt in an even more elaborate fashion. One of the most striking of Minoan achievements is the monumental palace at Knossos. A center for ritual, trade, storage, and political and economic activity, the palace at Knossos had hundreds of rooms and a floor area of more than three acres. One of the remarkable features was its indoor plumbing, with water provided by hundreds of miles of aqueducts. By the late fifteenth century b.c.e., the population in and around the palace of Knossos likely numbered in the tens of thousands. No names of Minoan kings have survived in Minoan records. However, Greek legend claims that there was a Minoan King named Minos (for whom the civilization was later named), who ruled the island of Crete with his brothers, Rhadamanthys (who supposedly ruled Phaestus), and Sarpedon (who controlled Malia). The power of Minoan monarchs was probably limited and may have been more on the scale of a chief rather than a king. Until 1470 b.c.e., when evidence suggests that the various Minoan territories were unified under the control of the palace at Knossos (and probably the mainland Greek Mycenaeans), the palaces at Knossos, Malia, and Phaestus probably acted as largely independent city-states.

Minoan Kingdoms

621

One of the sites of the ancient Minoan civilization of Crete is the palace of Knossos, an enormous complex that included shrines and temples, residences, workshops, storerooms, and courtyards.

The Minoan economy was also centered on the three great palaces. Agricultural surplus, which may have been produced by slave labor, and raw materials were routinely gathered together, organized, and redistributed by an extensive palace bureaucracy. Craft production was highly skilled and probably overseen by a noble class. Jewelry, textiles, and pottery were then funneled into an extensive trading network, which was also controlled primarily by the nobles of the Minoan state. This trading system formed the basis both for the relative wealth of Minoan civilization and its widespread cultural influence. The Minoans were unrivaled in their naval supremacy, largely because of their superior ships, and they had trade routes as distant as Egypt, Sumer, and Syria, as well as close trading ties to the Greek mainland and the remainder of the Aegean Sea. Women played a central role in many Minoan rituals, particularly those involving the chief Minoan deity, a fertility/mother goddess. Religion seems to

have had a central part in Minoan life. Shrines were scattered thickly throughout Crete, in palaces, caves, next to running water, and on desolate hilltop sites, and women may have had considerable power through their religious positions. Some historians suggest that both women and men participated in the dangerous Minoan ritual of bull-leaping. A participant, sometimes alone, sometimes a member of a team, would stand still as a charging bull rushed forward until it was close enough for the individual to grab onto the bull’s horns and vault over its back.The Minoans also ritually sacrificed bulls and often made agricultural offerings as well. Sometime after around 1470 b.c.e., a volcano on the nearby Aegean island of Thera erupted with an enormous explosion, and the palaces of Phaestus and Malia, as well as all of the smaller Minoan cities, were destroyed. Evidence suggests that during that time or just afterward, the Mycenaeans of mainland Greek took control of Knossos and the remains of

622

Minoan Kingdoms

Minoan power. During this chaotic period, Minoan civilization began a steep and rapid decline. By 1200 b.c.e., the Minoan civilization was dead, the last of its palaces in ruins. See also: Mycenaean Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Cadogan, Gerald. Palaces of Minoan Crete. London, New York: Routledge, 1991. Castledon, Rodney. Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete. New York: Routledge, 1993. Higgins, Reynold. Minoan and Mycenaean Art. Rev. ed. New York:Thames & Hudson, 1997.

MISSISSIPPIAN CULTURE (ca. 800–1700 C.E.)

The last indigenous Native American culture to develop in North America before the European colonial period, located in the central and lower Mississippi Valley. The Mississippian culture extended over a large part of the present-day Southeastern and Midwestern United States, including the river valleys of the Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Mississippian culture also extended as far north as Wisconsin and Minnesota and as far west as the Great Plains.

EARLY LIFE An agriculture-based society, with crops such as corn, beans, and squash, the Mississippian culture developed on the low-lying fertile land bordering the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The people lived in complexes of villages dominated by a larger town and governed by priest-rulers or chiefs. The heart of Mississippian towns was a ceremonial plaza, with a temple or chief’s dwelling atop one or more oval or pyramid-shaped earth mounds built around the plaza. Sometimes less important leaders also lived on mounds, but the highest mound was always designated for the temple of the chief priest. When the chief priest died, his temple was torn down and another layer of earth was added on the mound for his successor. Social status was measured by the proximity of one’s home to the plaza.This was a characteristic type of settlement in parts of Mexico

and Guatemala from about 850 b.c.e., but it only entered North America with the Mississippian culture.

ECONOMIC GROWTH During the earliest phase of the Mississippian culture (ca. 800–1000), known as the Emergent Mississippian period, there seems to have been widespread trade in exotic goods. Village sites found near saline springs indicate that salt became a main product for trade. There is also evidence that agriculture was gaining importance, with corn in more abundant supply and tools made for rigorous farming. After 1000, agriculture continued, and wild seeds, fruits, and nuts were harvested as well. Streams and rivers provided abundant fish and shellfish, and the bow and arrow added hunting to the culture’s means of obtaining food. Clearly, the economy and communications networks were improving as well, since it is apparent that exotic goods made their way to even the smallest and most remote farmsteads. There is also evidence that home crafts, sold to supplement the agricultural economy, were produced by skilled artisans at even the most remote locations. Excavations have revealed the existence of materials such as mica and shell that local artists probably made into objects for trade or decorative or ceremonial items. To facilitate the growing trade, market centers emerged at strategic spots close to the source of valuable goods and along principal travel routes. Currentday St. Louis was one of those centers; and the site of Cahokia, across the Mississippi River in Illinois, was once the main economic, political, and religious center of Mississippian culture. Prehistoric urban centers such as Cahokia were most important from about 1050 to 1150. Around that time, however, social stability began to weaken, with competition apparently arising between centers for control of the trade networks, and between growing numbers of high-ranking civic and religious leaders for power. The economy may have been further destabilized by deterioration of the environment due to overpopulation. As a result of these and possibly other causes, the population and influence of the large Mississippian centers decreased between 1300 and 1400. Trade networks also became significantly smaller or were totally abandoned. Cities were decentralized into small villages, which remained largely dependent on agriculture or returned to the less complex and more

Mixtec Empire mobile existence of hunting and gathering. As a result, when the Europeans arrived, they found abandoned centers that still contained earthen mounds. The people of the Mississippian culture did not have immunities to the illnesses brought by Europeans to the Americas. Even the common cold proved virulent. Thus the diseases the Europeans brought with them, as well as their attacks against native peoples, accelerated the decline of the Mississippian culture. See also:American Kingdoms, Central and North. FURTHER READING

Smith, Bruce D., ed. Mississippian Emergence. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990.

MITANNI KINGDOM (ca. 1500–1260 B.C.E.)

Kingdom of the ancient Near East whose rulers rose from obscurity in the decades before 1500 b.c.e. to rule over a large empire that stretched from the Zagros Mountains (on the eastern border of presentday Iraq) all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. Although Mitanni successfully fended off repeated invasions by the Egyptians, the kingdom succumbed after only about 250 years to attacks from its own neighbors, the Hittites and the Assyrians. Sometime between 2300 and 2000 b.c.e., nomadic peoples speaking Indo-European languages began migrating into the ancient Near East from their ancestral lands north of the Black Sea. The largest group of migrants continued into Iran and India, and another group moved into present-day Turkey to become the Hittites. Still another group of these IndoEuropean migrants apparently settled in northern Iraq. They became an aristocratic ruling class who ruled over of a large portion of a local people known as the Hurrians. Hurrian tribes, whose language was neither Semitic nor Indo-European, had established their own dominance in the region not long before the arrival of these new migrants. Based on archaeological evidence, historians believe that it was the Mitanni who brought skilled horsemanship and the use of spokewheel chariots to the Hurrians, as well as elements of the old Indo-European religion. The Mitanni

623

established their capital at a city named Wassukkani, probably located in the Khabur River area. The first Mitanni kings whose names are known were Shuttarna I (r. ca. 1560 b.c.e.) and Parattarna (r. ca. 1530 b.c.e). Parattarna’s successor, Saustatar (r. ca. 1500–1450 b.c.e.), earned his fame by sacking and looting the great Assyrian palace at Ashur. Under Saustatar, Mitanni also gained new territory on the borders of the neighboring Hittite Empire. Mitanni reached the height of its power in the 1400s b.c.e., and by around 1420 b.c.e. its empire stretched from the Mediterranean to northern Iran. For much of its existence, the Mitanni kingdom vied with Egypt for control of Syria and Palestine. The two kingdoms eventually agreed to a peaceful division of the region, sealed with several marriages between the two royal families.The last independent Mitanni king, Tushratta (r. ca. 1385–1350 b.c.e.), not only sent his daughter to marry Pharaoh Amenhotep III of Egypt (r. 1386–1349 b.c.e.), but when the pharaoh took ill, he dispatched a physician with the image of the goddess Ishtar of Nineveh, famed for her curative powers. This helped neither Amenhotep, who died soon after, nor Tushratta himself, who gained nothing from the gesture. During the reign of Tushratta, the Hittites sacked the Mitanni capital city of Wassukkani. Not long afterward, Tushratta was murdered by one of his own sons in a palace intrigue. Soon after, Mitanni was absorbed into the Hittite Empire. Hittite control did not last long, but a new and more dangerous threat later emerged—Assyria. By about the thirteenth century b.c.e., the resurgent Assyrian Empire had become a powerful and aggressive force that posed a serious threat to Mitanni. Around 1260 b.c.e., the Assyrians overwhelmed the remnants of Mitanni and absorbed the kingdom into their own growing empire.Although the Mitanni kingdom disappeared, the Hurrian culture survived and eventually exerted a powerful influence on the Hittites. See also: Assyrian Empire; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Hittite Empire; Middle Eastern Dynasties.

MIXTEC EMPIRE (1500 B.C.E.–1520 C.E.) Pre-Columbian empire that developed in the southcentral area of Mexico. Scholars have divided the

624

Mixtec Empire

Mixtec prehistory into four phases: Cruz (1500–200 b.c.e.), Ramos (200 b.c.e–300 c.e.), Las Flores (300–1000), and Natividad (1000–1520). In each of these phases, the economic development of the Mixtec Empire was strongly influenced by the three climatic zones found within the empire: the Mixteca Alta (High Mixtec), Mixteca Baja (Low Mixtec), and Mixteca Costa (Coastal Mixtec). During the Cruz phase of the empire, the Mixtec communities comprised a central village and a number of subject hamlets, a structure that indicated a basic hierarchical organization of society. The majority of the settlements had a limited number of inhabitants. The main economic activity was agriculture, supported by irrigation techniques and terracing of fields. In the Ramos phase, some Mixtec villages experienced a significant population growth. One of these was Yucuita, located in the Mixteca Alta.There is evidence of conflict among chiefdoms during this period, as many of the emerging towns were located on elevated hilltops, suggesting a fortified status. There is also evidence of tribute and trade, as well as craft specialization. In the Las Flores phase of the empire, the Mixtec settlements experienced rapid population growth, becoming true city-states. Disputes among the different city-states were frequent, as indicated by archaeological and historical evidence. Around 900, the Mixtec Empire began spreading southward into the Valley of Oaxaca, and by the fourteenth century, the Mixtec had overshadowed their greatest rivals, the Zapotecs, whose civilization was centered in southern Oaxaca.The Mixtec had a strong influence on the Zapotecs, especially at the Zapotec city of Monte Albán. According to some scholars, Monte Albán controlled the Valley of Oaxaca directly, but the issue is still debated.The largest site in this region of the empire was Yucuñudahui, which comprised a number of ceremonial spaces, residential areas for the elite and commoners, and a ball court. During the Natividad phase, the centralized citystates of the Mixtec Empire were divided into a number of smaller chiefdoms, or cacicazgos. Each of these chiefdoms was comprised of a head town surrounded by subjected villages. The head towns contained administrative and ceremonial buildings, religious monuments, and elite and nonelite residential areas. Their populations ranged from 2,500 to 25,000 inhabitants. Cacicazgos established short-term alliances with each other for political and military

purposes. In the late fifteenth century c.e., the Aztecs attempted to conquer Oaxaca. Some Mixtec and Zapotec chiefdoms allied with each other and succeeded in resisting the Aztec invasion. When the Spaniards arrived in the area, in the 1520s, the most important Mixtec chiefdom was the cacicazgo of Tilantongo, located in the Mixteca Alta. See also: Aztec Empire; South American Monarchies; Zapotec Empire.

MOCHE KINGDOM (ca. 100–600 C.E.) A pre-Columbian civilization of Peru that flourished prior to the rise of the Incas and, with the Nazca civilization, constituted the Huari (Wari) culture. The Moche were a people who arose to dominate the portion of Peru surrounding the modern city of Trujillo between 100 and 600. As the Moche never developed a writing system and had been dispersed and had declined long before the arrival of the Spanish, there is little documented information available. All that can be known about their society and culture must be deduced from the archaeological record they left behind. Among the most informative sources available to scholars about the Moche are their massive pyramids, which appear to have served as both tombs and ritual centers.The most significant pyramid found to date is located in Sipan, where the mummified remains of a man, dubbed “Lord of Sipan” by archaeologists, were recovered in 1987. The identity of the mummy, and verification as to whether or not he was a ruler, have yet to be determined. What can be postulated is that the Moche had a highly stratified society, with ranks that included warriors, priests, merchants and artisans, and farmers. They were technologically well-developed, as can be inferred from the impressive system of dams and aqueducts that they left behind. The distribution of Moche ceramics and textiles throughout the region suggests that they were the dominant culture, and it is presumed that they backed up their economic and cultural ascendancy with military strength. The latter years of the Moche kingdom seem to have been marked by no major disasters. Nonetheless, the Moche ceremonial centers seem to have been abruptly abandoned sometime in the late 500s. The timing of this event coincides with the rise of the

Moche Kingdom

625

The pre-Columbian Moche civilization flourished in Peru from the first to seventh centuries c.e. The Moche built massive pyramids, such as the Pyramid of the Moon, which served as both tombs and ritual centers where priests sometimes performed human sacrifices.

militaristic Tiahuanacans around Lake Titicaca, but there is no evidence that Moche settlements were attacked or damaged by war. This pattern of sudden cultural flourishing and equally abrupt dissolution is a familiar one in many parts of Mesoamerica and South America. In cultures for which more plentiful historical data exist, this pattern has been attributed to the style of administration practiced by many of the kingdoms and empires of the region. It appears that although the dominant cultures expended much of their resources on wars of conquest, they devoted little or none to creating any integrating structure to bind their conquered territories to themselves.Thus, when their armies moved on to other conquests, there was little to hold the subject peoples to the empire except fear of retribution should they revolt.

Should the ruling power show signs of weakness, the subordinate peoples could, and presumably did, “vote with their feet” by migrating out of the area. Then, lacking a sufficient tribute-paying base of agricultural communities to support the ceremonial and urban centers, the dominant culture itself was vulnerable to conquest by an upstart power. Although it is unknown whether this is what occurred with the Moche, it is known that their disappearance as a regional power occurred with great rapidity. Within a very short time their ceremonial centers were appropriated by peoples associated with Tiahuanaco, and eventually their lands became a part of the great Incan Empire. See also: Huari Empire; Incan Empire; Nazca Kingdom; South American Monarchies.

626

Moctezuma II

MOCTEZUMA II (ca. 1480–1520 C.E.) Last emperor (r. 1502–1520) of the Aztecs, who was overthrown by the Spanish conquistadors led by Hernando Cortés. Moctezuma II (also called Montezuma) was born Moctezuma Xocoyotl (“the youngest”) around 1480. He was the youngest son of the reigning Aztec emperor, Axacayatl (r. 1460–1481). Because leadership among the Aztecs was not hereditary, there was no absolute certainty that the boy would one day become emperor, particularly as he was not the ruler’s eldest son. He was of noble birth, however, and was educated according to his class. He received instruction in the arts, sciences, and humanities of his time. He was also trained in the skills of the warrior, for the Aztecs were a very militaristic people. Only a year or so after Moctezuma’s birth, his imperial father died and was succeeded by two uncles, Tizoc (r. 1481–1486) and Ahuitzotl (r. 1486–1502). During his rule, Ahuitzotl made a name for himself by leading incessant campaigns against neighboring peoples, effectively doubling the territory held by the Aztecs by the time his reign ended.The principal reason for these wars appears to have been to take captives, for Ahuitzotl was deeply committed to offering sacrifices to the Aztec gods, and the preferred sacrificial victims were captured war slaves. Ahuitzotl sacrificed huge numbers of people: as many as 20,000 victims were killed in a single ritual event celebrating the end of a war. When Ahuitzotl died in 1502, Moctezuma was twenty-two years old and living the quiet life of a religious scholar. His erudition, as well as his skill in battle, brought him to the attention of the council of nobles who convened to choose a new ruler, and they named him to the throne. His profound interest in theology, however, would soon prove to be the undoing of his rule and of his entire people. At first, Moctezuma appeared to fulfill all the expectations of his councillors. At war, he was as fierce as any of his predecessors, and he personally led his armies to victory in more than forty campaigns. His commitment to ritual earned him the approval of the priesthood, and his administrative skills led to the building of new temples, the refurbishment of old ones, and the creation of an extraordinary aqueduct system that opened up new expanses of cropland to supply the capital city of Tenochtitlan. At the same

time, however, he displayed a cruel streak, quick to impose brutal punishment upon those who displeased him, and subject peoples within his empire soon began to rise in minor rebellions against his rule. These rebellions need not have proved fatal to Moctezuma’s rule, however. After all, he controlled a supremely powerful army and was but one of a long line of fierce emperors. What brought him down in the end were his religious beliefs, as well as his inability to understand the motives and tactics of a newcomer to his lands: the Spanish conquistador, Hernando Cortés. When Cortés sailed his fleet into the port of Veracruz on the Caribbean coast in 1519, he sent emissaries to the Aztec ruler at Tenochtitlan. Moctezuma, steeped in the mythology of Aztec religion, knew the legend of the great god Quetzalcoatl, who had promised to return to the Aztecs in the guise of a paleskinned, bearded man. Now there was a visitor who fitted the description, and he sought a royal audience. Not all of Moctezuma’s advisers were convinced that this newcomer was indeed the incarnation of a god, however. In the end, caution prevailed, and rather than welcome the Spaniards into Tenoctitlan, Moctezuma sent a huge offering of goods and gold to Cortés, hoping to induce him to leave the region. Cortés appreciated the gift but had no intention of leaving. He ordered his fleet to be burned in the harbor to ensure that his forces could not leave, and he prepared to wait until Moctezuma agreed to see him. The Aztec emperor finally relented, permitting Cortés and a party of soldiers to enter Tenochtitlan. The Spaniards were awed to see a city greater in size and population than any in Europe at that time. Realizing that a direct attack against so many would be doomed to failure, Cortés instead persuaded Moctezuma to allow a small party of Spaniards into the palace, where he and his men quickly took the emperor hostage. Moctezuma quickly crumbled, converted to Christianity, and swore allegiance to Spain—all in an effort to preserve his life. The strategy seemed to work at first, and he was allowed to serve as a puppet ruler for awhile. However, during a time when Cortés was absent from Tenochtitlan, a conflict arose between the Aztecs and the Spanish, leading to the slaughter of thousands of Aztecs.The people stormed the palace demanding that the Spanish surrender, but the soldiers sent Moctezuma out to try to calm the mob. Instead of respect, he was met with catcalls,

M o n a rc h s, Ag e s o f jeers, and thrown rocks, one of which struck him and knocked him down. He died two weeks later. The specific cause of his death is unknown. Moctezuma may have died as a result of this injury, or he might have been killed by the Spanish, who may have decided that he was no longer useful to them. See also: Aztec Empire; South American Monarchies. FURTHER READING

Thomas, Hugh. Conquest: Moctezuma, Cortes, and the Fall of Old Mexico. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.

MON KINGDOM Powerful kingdom in Myanmar (Burma) also known as Hanthawaddy Kingdom (Kingdom of the Mon People). The Mon moved south from western China to southern Thailand’s Chao Phraya River basin around the sixth century c.e.Their first kingdoms were connected to China and to the ancient Cambodian kingdom of Funan. The Khmer civilization also had a powerful influence on them. During the following centuries, the Mon migrated west to southern Myanmar’s Irrawaddy River Delta and took for their state religion the Theravada Buddhism practiced in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and southern India. They also acquired India’s Pali script. They put down roots in southern and southeastern Myanmar by 825, introducing the country to both Buddhism and writing. The Mon were experts in agriculture as well. They were skilled in irrigation and used the river basins to create fruitful paddy fields. The Mon kingdom was conquered by the Pagan kingdom in 1057. It regained its independence and its territory in Martaban and Pegu under King Wareru, a son-in-law of Rama Kamheng, after the Pagan decline in 1287. During the following 200 years, there was constant fighting between the Mon and the Burmans; but the Mon remained independent until they were finally dominated by Toungoo Myanmar in 1539. The height of the Mon kingdom during those years was under King Thammachedi (Dammazedi) (r. 1472–1492). In the mid-eighteenth century, the Mon rose up again and set up their kingdom at Pegu, but it lasted

627

only about ten years.The Burmans defeated the Mon in 1757, when their ruler, Alaungpaya, demolished Pegu and killed tens of thousands of Mon, including a large number of children, pregnant women, and scholarly priests.The Burmans murdered more than three thousand priests at Pegu and thousands of others in the countryside, and Burman priests occupied their monasteries.The Burmans also destroyed much of the Mon literature, which had been written on palm leaves, and they prohibited use of the Mon language. The Mon were totally oppressed, and their property and belongings were ruined. The Mon never became independent again. Some of them escaped and took refuge in Siam (Thailand), and there are still some Mon in southeastern Myanmar. They continue to be skilled in agriculture, mainly cultivating rice and fish.They build and live in wood-framed, thatch-roofed houses on piles. The women craft pottery and bamboo-woven mats and cloth. Mon villages have granaries, cattle, pagodas, and monasteries that also serve as schools. Although the Mon believe in spirits, especially the house spirit, they remain devoted Buddhists. See also: Alaungpaya Dynasty; Pagan Kingdom; Rama Khamheng. FURTHER READING

Tarling, Nicholas, ed. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: Volume 2, Part 1, From c. 1800 to the 1930s. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

MONARCHS, AGES OF Many monarchs have come to their positions as children.A child king or queen could have been the next in the line of succession, and thus the rightful heir. In some cases, a ruler has been a person of royal blood chosen by the powers around the throne specifically because their youth made them able to be controlled by the regents who would rule on their behalf until maturity. Often regents have been relatives. Although some were power-hungry and promoted their own agendas, many were benevolent advisers to the young rulers.

DANGERS TO YOUNG MONARCHS Being in line for the throne at a very young age has often been a dangerous position. Edward V of En-

628

M o n a rc h s, Ag e s o f

gland (r. 1483), who should have inherited the Crown from his father, Edward IV (r. 1461–1483), vanished in the Tower of London in 1483 at the age of twelve, along with his ten-year-old brother—perhaps murdered at the behest of his uncle, who became King Richard III (r. 1483–1485). King Rattha (Ratsada) of Thailand (r. 1534) was only five when he inherited the throne from his father, King Bòromoraja IV (r. 1529–1534), but he only lasted on the throne for five months before he was executed by his cousin, who became King Chairacha (P’rajai) (r. 1534–1547). Ivan VI (r. 1740–1741) became tsar of Russia when he was just two months old, and he ruled for one month with his mother as regent. He was overthrown by a cousin, Elizaveta Petrovna, the daughter of Peter the Great (r. 1682–1725), whose claim to the throne was probably better than that of Ivan. Ivan and his mother were exiled and imprisoned. Ivan died at age twenty-four in a botched rescue attempt, having spent almost his whole life a prisoner.

YOUNG MONARCHS WHO NEVER OUTGREW THEIR REGENTS Charles IX of France (r. 1560–1574) was ten years old when he inherited the throne in 1560. His formidable mother, Queen Catherine de Medici, was regent until he was declared an adult at age thirteen, and she continued to exert real power throughout Charles’s reign. Catherine is thought to have been the instigator behind the major event of Charles’s reign, the tragic St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Protestants by Catholics in August 1572. King Edward VI of England (r. 1546–1553) inherited his kingdom from his father, Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547), when he was nine years old. His uncle, Edward Seymour, served as regent, and although Seymour truly loved Edward, he could not resist using his power to further his own favorite cause: Protestantism. Edward was a gentle, studious, and deeply religious boy, who died of tuberculosis at age sixteen. Upon his death he was succeeded on the throne by his Catholic half-sister, Mary I (r. 1553– 1558), which led to a period of extreme religious strife in England.

YOUNG MONARCHS WHO WENT ON TO RULE SUCCESSFULLY The Holy Roman emperor Otto III (r. 983–1002) was only three years old when his father, Otto II (r.

973–983), died in 983. His mother, Theophano, became regent, and after Theophano died in 991, his grandmother, Adelheid, the widow of Otto I (r. 936–973), took over as regent until 994. On his fourteenth birthday, Otto told his grandmother that he was an adult and no longer wished to be ruled by a woman. Adelheid retired to a convent, where she lived so virtuously that 100 years after her death she was named a saint. Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) was not quite five years old when his father died and he came to the throne of France. His mother,Anne of Austria, served as regent until 1651, when Louis, at the age of fourteen, was considered to be an adult. However, the real power all along was in the hands of Cardinal Mazarin, the prime minister. Hatred of Cardinal Mazarin among the people of Paris and some of the nobility led to an uprising against the Crown in 1648. During the unsettled years of civil war that followed, Louis suffered danger and privation. Mazarin succeeded in putting down the rebellion in 1653, and Louis determined never to let anything like that happen again. When Mazarin died in 1661, the twenty-three-year-old Louis announced to his astonished ministers that he intended to take full responsibility for governing the country. He became the “Sun-King,” one of the most absolute monarchs in history, famous for his statement “L’état, c’est moi”—“I am the state.” Pedro II (r. 1831–1889) became emperor of Brazil at age five after the abdication and flight to Portugal of his father, Pedro I (r. 1822–1831). His mother, Dona Leopoldina, had already died. A committee of three regents was chosen to govern until Pedro’s eighteenth birthday. Pedro passed a lonely childhood, choosing as a father figure and friend a former stable groom, an Englishman named Richard Shelley. Pedro loved to study and developed a liberal outlook. As emperor, he sought to modernize his country, promote education, and abolish slavery (this last was done in stages and was achieved by 1888). His reforms alienated the conservative elements of his country but did not seem radical enough for the liberals. Eventually, he was forced to abdicate in favor of a republican form of government, and his whole family was forced into exile. But Pedro is considered to have made great strides in preparing Brazil to be a democratic country. See also: Abdication, Royal;Accession and Crowning of Kings; Deaccession; Dethronement; In-

M o n a r c h y F o r m a t i o n, M y t h s o f

629

heritance, Royal; Queens and Queen Mothers; Regencies; Royal Line; Siblings, Royal.

MONARCHY FORMATION, MYTHS OF

MONARCHY

Legendary stories concerning the origin of a kingdom or its ruler that generally play a role in establishing lineage and legitimacy. Myths concerning the foundation of many kingdoms have supported the legitimacy of those realms by purporting that the rulers were descendants and representatives of a god or gods. Disloyalty to the ruler was thus seen as a sign of disrespect for the gods. Attributing divinity to a monarch sanctioned the rule and increased the loyalty of the people. Belief in the ruler’s divinity also entailed the notion that the well-being of the monarch ensured the prosperity of the kingdom. Great cities are generally the centers of great power. As a result, myths of the foundation of cities and of the formation of monarchies are often tied together. In one myth about the founding of ancient Rome, for example, Romulus and Remus, sons of the god Mars and a vestal virgin, were suckled by a she-wolf and later taken in by a shepherd and his wife. When they were young men, Romulus killed his brother in an argument and became the first of seven kings of the city of Rome. When Romulus died, he was said to have become a god. In Virgil’s account of Rome’s founding, the Trojan warrior Aeneas fled the city of Troy when it was destroyed by the Greeks, and he eventually founded and became king of Rome. The Incas had various versions of the myth of their creation. Each, however, seems to claim that Manco Capac, the first human, was the son of the sun. Each subsequent human was then also a descendant of the sun, and the work of uniting the various Andean tribes was thus seen as a divine mission. On the other side of the world, the Japanese foundation myth shares the belief that direct descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu established the royal house of Japan.The present Japanese emperor, Akihito (r. 1989–present), is the one hundred twenty-fifth ruler in a direct line from the first emperor Jimmu (r. ca. 660?–581? b.c.e.). The Korean foundation myth, asserting that the part-human, part-divine being Tangun founded the monarchy, dates back more than four thousand years. According to one version, Tangun lived more than nineteen hundred years and then became the moun-

A political system or form of government that is headed by a ruler who has a hereditary tenure of authority.The ruler, or monarch, of a monarchy may be chosen or elected, or may have achieved rule through conquest or heredity. Monarchies are generally one of two types: absolute monarchy and limited monarchy. In an absolute monarchy, the temporal rights of a monarch may be unlimited. In addition, absolute monarchs frequently derive the legitimacy of their powers directly from a god—either explicitly or implicitly.This idea gave rise to the notion of “the divine right of kings.” No monarchy is totally absolute; that is, there is almost always some means of appealing or limiting any ruler’s decisions. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to call rulers absolute when they summarily execute their own citizens without recourse to appeal or when they engage their domains in unpopular wars. Many of the satraps (governors) and monarchs who ruled the various countries of the ancient Near East during the first and second millennia b.c.e. were absolute monarchs. One such ruler was King Mithradates the Great (r. 120–64 b.c.e.) of Pontus in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). Limited or constitutional monarchies constrain the rights and powers of their rulers by subjecting their decisions to the rulings of a council or legislature. Early examples of limited monarchies may be found throughout Europe within the last millennia.A classic example is the British monarchy of King John of England (r. 1199–1216), whose royal powers were limited by the Magna Carta (1215)—an agreement imposed upon him by the powerful barons of England. Modern constitutional monarchies, such as in Great Britain and Sweden, retain their monarchs in a purely symbolic capacity. Queen Elizabeth II (r. 1952–present), for example, has virtually no power other than as the symbolic head of state. See also: Bodies, Politic and Natural; Divine Right; Dual Monarchies; Realms, Types of; Religious Duties and Power.

630

M o n a r c h y F o r m a t i o n, M y t h s o f

tain god. However, North Korea boasts that the burial chamber at Mount Daebaik is that of Tangun. Belief in the divine right of kings in Christian and Hebrew monarchies was based on the description of kings as God’s anointed in the Hebrew Bible.Anointing the king has been an important part of Western coronation ceremonies for centuries. In France, for example, the coronation ritual is rooted in a myth surrounding Clovis (r. 481–511), an early Frankish king and the founder of the Merovingian dynasty.According to tradition, the appearance of a dove from heaven, bearing oil for Clovis’s anointing, was a sign of divine will. The Irish foundation myth combines classical, pagan, and Christian beliefs. The Firbolgs, who, according to legend had escaped slavery in Greece by taking over their masters’ ships, first inhabited the island.Then the people of the goddess Danu (known as the Tuatha De Danaan), a northern race of builders and craftsmen, conquered them. Later, the sons of Mil, who were descendants of Noah, unseated the Tuatha De Danaan and established the Milesian race on the island. Throughout history, monarchs have found it expedient to disseminate the idea that, if they did not represent a god or goddess in human form, at least their royal authority was god-given. In addition to divine sanction, possession of historic emblems of kingship could confer the sense of legitimacy to a ruler. Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307), for example, removed the ancient Stone of Scone from Scotland as a symbol of his authority over that kingdom.According to legend, the Hebrew patriarch Jacob used the stone at ancient Bethel in Palestine, and later, Irish kings used it before it was brought to Scotland. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Descent, Royal; Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; Earth and Sky, Separation of; Enthronement, Rites of; Heavens and Kingship; Kingly Body; Myth and Folklore; Sacred Kingships.

MONGKUT (RAMA IV) (1804–1868 C.E.)

King of Siam (r. 1851–1868), known for welcoming Western-style reforms and progress into his country. Called King Phrachomklao in Siam (modern-day Thailand), Mongkut (also known as Rama IV) was

the model for the king in the play The King and I, which was based on memoirs published by a court governess and English teacher, Anna Leonowens. The forty-third child of King Rama II (r. 1809– 1824), Mongkut was born to a queen and was thus in line for the throne. He was only twenty when his father died in 1824, however, and he was passed over in favor of his older and more experienced halfbrother Chetsadabodin, who reigned as King Phranangklao (Rama III) (r. 1824–1851). Not needed to rule, Mongkut decided to live as a Buddhist monk. He remained in a religious order for twenty-six years, during which he totally embraced the early Buddhist traditions and gained a thorough personal knowledge of his country and its people. In his travels as a monk, Mongkut also met many foreigners and learned much about the outside world, especially in the fields of science and technology. Mongkut became a scholar and also abbot of a monastery in Bangkok, which he turned into a center for intellectual debate. The center eventually attracted American and French Christian missionaries and people who had an interest in learning Western languages and science. Mongkut also developed a reformed Buddhism that eventually became the Thammayut order, which to this day is the intellectual core of Thai Buddhism. Mongkut’s enthusiasm for the West was shared by influential friends, including many important princes and nobles.These friends helped influence the choice of Mongkut as successor to the throne upon the death of his brother, Rama III, in 1851. As king, Mongkut retained his human warmth and deep religious beliefs, while remaining aware of progress in the world outside his country. He introduced and promoted various Western innovations and guided his kingdom capably while warding off French and English territorial aspirations. Indeed, he was able to maintain his country’s independence, making it the only nation in Southeast Asia that never fell under Western domination. Mongkut died of malaria on his sixty-fourth birthday in 1868. He contracted the disease while watching a solar eclipse (which he had predicted himself) from a mosquito-infested viewing area. Upon Mongkut’s death, the throne passed to his son Chulalongkorn, who became King Rama V (r. 1868–1910). See also: Chulalongkorn; Siam, Kingdoms of; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

M on g ol E m p i r e

MONGOL DYNASTY. SeeYuan Dynasty

MONGOL EMPIRE (1206–1481 C.E.) Great empire of Asia that, at its peak, was the largest land empire in history. At one time or another, the territory controlled by the Mongols included Armenia, Turkestan, Persia (present-day Iran), China, Mongolia, Korea, parts of Russia, and Southeast Asia. Although the Mongols are remembered chiefly for the savagery of their conquests, they fostered important cross-cultural exchanges between East and West. The traditional Mongol lifestyle was (and remains) nomadic. Skilled horsemen, the Mongols spent their lives constantly on the move, searching the vast Central Asian steppes for new grazing pasture for their herds of horses, sheep, goats, and cattle. Mongol society was organized into families, clans, and tribes.Tribes became known by the names of their most important clans. Intertribal skirmishes were common, and much of the Mongol conception of manhood was based on soldiering skills, so when ambitious men took the initiative to unite tribes, they gained control of considerable military force.

EARLY DEVELOPMENT The first Mongol tribal confederations took place under the Xiaong-Nu tribe, which dominated much of Central Asia from about 300 b.c.e. to 48 c.e.The Xiaong-Nu launched numerous attacks against China in the first and second centuries b.c.e. and first century c.e., posing a serious threat to that relatively young state. Mongol incursions into Chinese territory provided the impetus for the construction of the Great Wall of China. After the Chinese Han emperor, Kuang Wu Ti (Guang Wudi) (r. 25–57), instituted a particularly aggressive diplomatic and military policy against the Xiaong-Nu, the confederation gradually splintered, and by the fifth century, the Mongol confederation had completely disintegrated. Evidence suggests, however, that a branch of the Xiaong-Nu tribe may have migrated westward and become the ancestors of the European Turks. After the disintegration of the confederation, the

631

Mongols remained largely unfederated for more than six centuries, until the rise of a Mongol tribe, the Khitan, who established control over much of Manchuria and parts of northern China. There, the Khitans established the Liao dynasty (907–1125) and allied themselves with another tribal confederacy known as “All the Mongols.”The Liao dynasty fell in 1125 to the Juchen, who were aristocratic successors to the Khitans.

GENGHIS KHAN AND HIS SONS In the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, a Mongol leader named Temuchin (Temujin), later known as Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227), managed, despite overwhelming odds and primarily on the strength of personal charisma, to gain control of the “All the Mongols” League. In 1206 Temuchin had himself named khan (“lord” or “prince”) of all the Mongol tribes of the Asian steppes, decimating the power of the Tatars and the Juchens in the process. Genghis left no aristocratic strongholds to provide him with competition. Once named khan, he placed members of his family in control of thousands of families and huge swaths of land, replacing the old clan and tribal structure of the Mongols with a system of feudalism. Having created a stable political structure at home, Genghis was free to lead his Mongol armies, for the first time, out of the confines of the steppe. Between 1207 and 1227, Genghis extended the boundaries of his growing empire from Beijing in the east to the Caspian Sea in the west, adapting his tactics to fit the situation and adopting foreign ideas whenever they suited his plans. His early conquests seem to have been undertaken primarily for plunder. After a bloody war with the Muslim state of Khwarezm in Central Asia in 1219, the Mongols acquired their reputation for needless savagery. When Genghis Khan died in a battle against the northwestern Chinese border state of Hsi Hsia in 1227, the empire was split, as he had directed, among his four sons, although the third son, Ogodei, was considered chief among them and received the title “Great Khan.” Genghis’s son Jochi had died before his father, so the western part of the empire went to Jochi’s son, Batu (r. 1227–1255). Tolui (r. 1227–1233) received the Mongol homeland in the eastern part of the empire, while Chagatai (r. 1227–1242) was given control of the south. During the reign of Ogodei (r. 1227–1241), the

632

M on g ol E m p i r e

Mongol empire held together and even expanded its territory. In Tolui’s region, Mongol armies made advances deep into China. In the west, Jochi’s son and successor, Batu (r. 1227–1255), established the Golden Horde khanate, a Mongol state that comprised most of Russia. After Ogodei’s death in 1241, however, the empire descended into a period of interregional warfare. Tolui’s son, Mongke (r. 1251–1259), seized power in 1251 and ruled China and the eastern part of the empire until his death in 1259, at which point the khanate was taken over by his brother, Kublai Khan, the empire’s next great ruler.

KUBLAI KHAN AND TAMERLANE Unlike his predecessors, Kublai (r. 1260–1294) was a great administrator as well as a soldier. After defeating the Sung (Song) dynasty of China, he established the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty, which ruled China until 1368. Under Kublai’s rule, the Mongols encouraged foreign trade and scholarship. It was to his royal court that the Venetian explorer and tradesman, Marco Polo, traveled in the thirteenth century,

opening a trade route from east to west that likely contributed to the European discovery of the Chinese inventions of gunpowder and the compass. Kublai ruled the Mongol Empire primarily from China, and even during his reign, control of the further reaches of the empire was largely nominal. The Mongols, unaccustomed to dealing with government bureaucracy, let the Yuan dynasty be administered primarily by Chinese civil servants. This policy led eventually to the loss of China to the Ming dynasty in 1368. After the fall of the Yuan dynasty, the Mongol Empire underwent a brief revival under Timur Leng, or Tamerlane (r. 1370–1405), a member of an Islamic Mongol tribe in the Central Asian region of the empire that had once been ruled by Genghis’s son, Chagatai. Tamerlane was responsible for both the destruction of Islamic centers, including Baghdad and Damascus, and the construction of the magnificent Mongol capital of Samarkand, to which he deported foreign artists before reducing their home cities to bloody rubble. Under his rule, the Mongol Empire reached its largest extent, stretching from

M o no p ol i e s, Roya l Mongolia in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Tamerlane established the Timurid dynasty, which survived for a century after his death. However, after Tamerlane died in 1405, the Mongolian Empire began disintegrating once more without a single powerful leader to unite it. In the sixteenth century, as the Timurid dynasty was ending, one of Tamerlane’s descendants, Babur (r. 1526–1530), moved south and established the Muslim Mughal dynasty and empire in India. By this time, however, the traditional nomadic Mongol people had, by and large, retreated from the world stage, returning to the arid steppes of their homeland. See also: Genghis Khan; Golden Horde Khanate; Kublai Khan; Liao Dynasty; Ming Dynasty; Sung (Song) Dynasty;Tamerlane (Timur Leng); Yuan Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Morgan, David. The Mongols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

MONIVONG, KING (d. 1941 C.E.) Cambodian king (r. 1927–1941) who ruled during the French colonial period. During his reign, the French encouraged a large influx of Vietnamese immigration into Cambodia. The son of King Sisowath (r. 1904–1927) of Cambodia, Monivong took the throne after his father’s death in 1927. French colonial authorities in Indochina played a significant role in choosing Monivong to succeed as king, and he remained largely subservient to the French throughout his rule. During Monivong’s reign, Cambodian nationalism began to emerge, as the population of the country became increasingly educated. Nationalists favored greater autonomy from France and less Vietnamese influence as well. In the 1930s, Cambodian students petitioned the king, complaining of favoritism shown to Vietnamese students in the elite school, the Lycée Sisowath, in Phnom Penh, the capital. In 1936, nationalists began publishing Nagara Vatta (“Angkor Wat”), Cambodia’s first Khmer-language newspaper. Its editorials frequently criticized French colonial policies, but its greatest wrath was directed against the Vietnamese because of the past exploitation of

633

Cambodia and current control of most of the nation’s civil service and professional positions. King Monivong died in 1941 and was succeeded on the throne by his nineteen-year-old grandson, Prince Norodom Sihanouk (r. 1941–1955; 1993–2004). It is believed that the French chose Prince Norodom rather than Monivong’s son, Prince Monireth, because the nineteen-year-old Norodom was younger and more supportive of French interests. See also: Cambodian Kingdoms; Norodom Sihanouk.

MONOPOLIES, ROYAL Type of economic organization that gives one person or group sole control of an industry, a product, an institution, or even an idea. Throughout history, most of the world’s monarchs enjoyed the legal prerogative to create monopolies of all sorts. These were usually instituted to promote a royal program or to help the monarch control the populace and maintain power. Some monopolistic arrangements gave the ruler control over certain institutions or functions of government. Others established systems of censorship, giving the Crown control over intellectual culture. More often, however, monarchs created economic monopolies to establish or protect industries and to increase revenues for the state.

MONOPOLY AS A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT Most monarchies had monopolies as one of the basic functions of government. For example, only the Crown could issue currency in most cases, and frequently the monarch alone was the ultimate source of justice. Monarchs controlled the royal court system, appointed royal judges and officials, and were usually the court of last resort in appeals cases. This not only served as a source of royal power, but also allowed monarchs to be the final arbiters of what was deemed legal or illegal in their kingdoms. Some monarchs used intellectual monopolies to control the ideas that would influence their subjects. In the pre-industrial era, European rulers often employed royal censors, who read every new book published and banned those critical of the monarch, royal programs or policies, or the official state reli-

634

M o no p ol i e s, Roya l

gion. The Manchu emperors of China actually dictated what events, information, and ideas could appear in the histories of the empire. Only those works that the emperor himself had edited were considered authentic. Most rulers had one official religion. Those who adhered to other beliefs were persecuted. Only those who followed the official state religion could attain status or rank in society. For example, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries c.e., the rulers of the Ottoman Empire filled their bureaucracies with men who shared their Muslim belief. Intellectual monopolies such as this, or over ideas, increased the emperor’s power and prestige.

ECONOMIC MONOPOLIES More often, monarchs created economic monopolies, and it is these institutions that are most often associated with the word “monopoly.” Industrial monopolies were frequently used to establish a new industry where none had existed before or to establish trade in a new market. In a similar way, European monarchs frequently gave exclusive rights for the establishment of new manufactures in their territories to a single artisan or firm. Rulers hoped that these manufactures would create new domestic industries to stimulate economic growth or more often to supplant imported foreign products. In the seventeenth century, for example, French minister and statesman Jean Baptiste Colbert instituted a scheme to replace most of the fashionable Italian laces that were currently popular in French clothing with similar products created in France. He imported Italian artisans, granted them the exclusive right to manufacture and sell laces for a fixed period, and gave them exemptions from certain taxes. Moreover, the king, Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), gave these artisans the prestige of being a “royal manufacture”—that is, the sole supplier of lace to the royal family and court.A similar prestigious award still exists in Great Britain, where suppliers of products to the royal family receive a “royal warrant” to display on their products.

FOSTERING TRADE AND COLONIZATION Royal monopolies were also used to open new markets for trade and to colonize new territories. In the seventeenth century, the Crown granted the French West India Company, a private trading company, the exclusive right to conduct trade with the French

West Indies. Other traders were not permitted to do business with the French-controlled islands, and the company was exempted from import duties on goods brought back to France. Similarly, the English East India Company, which operated from the early 1600s to late 1800s, had a royal monopoly on British trade with the East Indies, including the right to import tea to the American colonies. This monopoly, and the import tax associated with it, contributed to the disaffection of the American colonists, leading to the “Boston Tea Party” and, ultimately, to the American Revolution. The English and French Crowns also issued landgrant monopolies to certain trading and joint-stock companies for the purpose of colonizing North America. William Penn held one such grant for the colony of Pennsylvania, giving him the exclusive right to distribute and sell land there.

GENERATING REVENUE Monopolies on industry and trade were issued primarily to generate revenue for the Crown. In such cases, the monarch received a share of the profits in return for the exclusive right to harvest or manufacture the product and sell it. For example, Chinese emperors issued licenses to suppliers of ginseng, while the rulers of the Ottoman Empire established an opium monopoly to help to fund their military efforts against the Greeks in the nineteenth century. In the sixteenth century, the Spanish Crown gave a tobacco monopoly in their South American colonies to only a few companies in return for the tax revenues. Although historians have debated whether or not economic monopolies were truly successful in establishing new industries, it is clear that they generated revenue for the state. Monopolies were an important tool for the world’s royal families to increase their own wealth as well as to forward economic, political, and intellectual programs. See also: Commerce and Kingship; Patent Letters, Royal;Taxation.

MONTENEGRO KINGDOM (1878–1918 C.E.)

Small kingdom in the Balkan region of Europe that began as a principality and did not establish a king-

M or e a , D e s p otat e o f ship until the early twentieth century.The history of Montenegro is intricately entwined with that of the kingdom of Serbia. In the 1300s, the region of Montenegro was the independent principality of Zeta and was part of the Serbian Empire. When the Ottoman Turks defeated Serbia at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, Montenegro became a haven for Serbian nobles fleeing Turkish rule. Although the Ottomans did not recognize Montenegro’s independence, the principality managed to maintain its autonomy and, unlike other Balkan states, did not become a Turkish tributary. However, the Montenegran princes ruled only a small area, and in 1459, it finally fell under Ottoman control. Between 1515 and 1851, Montenegro was ruled by a series of vladikas, or priest-bishops, who were assisted by civil governors. The episcopal succession was made hereditary under Danilo I (r. 1696–1735), who founded the Petrovich-Niegosh dynasty. Because the bishops could not marry, the office passed from uncle to nephew rather than from father to son. During Danilo’s rule, Montenegro established political ties with Russia, securing an alliance against the Ottomans, who still threatened the principality. From that time forward, the Russian tsars were considered the spiritual overlords of the vladikas. Prince Peter I (r. 1781–1830), the grandnephew of Danilo I, instituted a number of reforms in Montenegro in an attempt to end the traditional blood feuds and lawlessness that had plagued the country. Also during Peter’s reign, in 1799, the Ottoman sultan, Selim III (r. 1789–1907), recognized Montenegran independence. In 1852, under the rule of Prince Danilo II (r. 1851–1860), Montenegro was secularized, as Danilo transferred the traditional ecclesiastical duties of the prince to an archbishop. Danilo also defeated the Ottomans at the battles of Ostrong (1853) and Grahovo (1858), confirming the principality’s independence. Assassinated in 1860, Danilo II was succeeded by his nephew, Nicholas I (r. 1860–1921). During the reign of Prince Nicolas I, the major powers of Europe met in 1878 to reconsider the terms of an agreement made with the Ottoman Empire.The Congress of Berlin recognized Montenegro as an independent state under Nicolas I, who proclaimed himself king in 1910, thus officially changing the country to a kingdom. The Congress of Berlin also granted Montenegro additional territory in the region, including a narrow outlet to the Adriatic Sea.

635

During World War I, Montenegro’s armies joined forces with Britain, France, and the other Allied powers. In 1915, however, Montenegro was defeated by Austria and occupied, forcing Nicolas I and his family to flee to Italy. In the ensuing chaos at the end of the war, King Peter I of Serbia (r. 1903–1921) took advantage of Montenegro’s lack of a central political organization to advance his own ambitions, and he annexed the kingdom in 1918. The Montenegran people, for the most part, opposed the annexation by Serbia and staged the Christmas Uprising on January 7, 1919. This revolt soon turned into a full-scale war between the Serbians and Montenegrans that lasted until 1926. During the revolt, in 1921, Nicolas I was deposed. He was succeeded first by his son, Danilo I (r. 1921), who abdicated soon after taking the throne. He, in turn, was succeeded by his nephew, Michael II (r. 1921–1922). Michael ruled for only a year, after which he resigned his rights as king, ending the Montenegran kingdom. In the next few decades, Montenegro was unable to regain its independence. However, in 1946, the former kingdom became part of the Republic of Yugoslavia, along with Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia. Montenegro remained part of Yugoslavia until that state began to disintegrate in the early 1990s. In 1992, Montenegro and Serbia declared themselves a new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under President Slobodan Milosevic. But after a period of civil strife in the Balkan region, Montenegro and Serbia formed a loose federation of two republics in 2003. See also: Ottoman Empire; Serbian Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Stavrianos, Leften Stavros. The Balkans Since 1453. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Temperly, H. W. History of Serbia. New York: AMS Press, 1970.

MOREA, DESPOTATE OF (1349–1460 C.E.)

Autonomous Byzantine principality, or despotate, on the Peloponnesian Peninsula of Greece that was the last bastion of the Byzantine Empire.

636

M or e a , D e s p otat e o f

The principate of Morea was created in 1349 by John VI Cantacuzenus (r. 1347–1354), the ruler of the Byzantine Empire. He named his younger son Manuel as despot (“lord”) of Morea, hoping to prevent further unrest in an empire already weakened by civil war. In 1354, John VI was forced to abdicate the throne of the Byzantine Empire by John V Palaeologus (r. 1354–1376) of the Palaeologan dynasty, for whom Cantacuzenus had been acting as reigning regent and co-emperor. Despite his father’s loss of the throne, Manuel managed to retain control of Morea. Maintaining control of Morea was no easy matter, however. A significant barrier—the Hexamilion wall—blocked the narrow isthmus that connected the Peleponnesus to the rest of Greece.Yet, Manuel had assumed control over a territory coveted not only by the Byzantine Palaeologi dynasty, but also by the Latins to the west and the Ottoman Turks to the east. Manuel succeeded not only in defending against these threats, but also in laying the foundation for a state that would become the center of late Byzantine culture. He failed only in securing the succession of his heirs; after his death in 1380, the Palaeologi seized the principate of Morea. By 1393, the Morea was under the control of Theodore I Palaeologus (r. 1393–1407), son of the emperor John V. For strategic reasons, Theodore I chose to accept Turkish sovereignty but continued to rule Morea as an independent state. He arranged a large emigration of settlers from Albania in order to bolster Morea’s population and workforce, and perhaps also to weaken and divide the ever restive factions of local Greek nobility. Theodore I ruled from Mistra, a relatively young city established in 1249 near the site of ancient Sparta. He began a series of building projects in the city, a policy continued by his son and successor, Theodore II Palaeologus. By 1425, Mistra was filled with churches, palaces, and monasteries, and it attracted a vibrant community of artists and scholars. The cultural center of the Byzantine Empire shifted to the city from Constantinople. The mid-1400s was a period of ascendancy for Morea. By 1430, the principate controlled all of the Peloponnesian Peninsula, except for the harbors of Corone, Nauplia, and Medone, which were ruled by the Republic of Venice. At the same time, however, the Byzantine Empire was crumbling against the advances of the Ottoman Turks. In 1446, the Ottomans

destroyed the Hexamilion wall, and the two codespots, Constantine XI and Thomas, barely escaped back to Mistra.The capital city was spared by a particularly harsh winter that prevented the Ottoman armies from reaching it, but the Morean countryside was ravaged.The Ottomans then turned their attention temporarily to other fronts. Constantine XI (r. 1448–1453) became the last Byzantine emperor in 1448, when he took the throne upon the death of his brother, John VIII (r. 1425–1448). This left Thomas and another brother, Demetrius, to rule in Morea. Constantine ruled from Constantinople, where he died during the final defense of the city in 1453, when it fell to the Ottoman Turks. In 1460, Thomas and Demetrius, the two remaining despots of Morea, surrendered to the Ottoman sultan, ending this last minor outpost of Byzantine power. See also: Byzantine Empire; Ottoman Empire; Palaeologan Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Norwich, John Julius. Byzantium:The Decline and Fall. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

MORTUARY RITES. See Funerals and Mortuary Rites

MOSHOESHOE I (1786–1870 C.E.) Founder and king (r. 1830–1870) of the Sotho, also called Suto, kingdom of southern Africa. Moshoeshoe was born in 1786 in the village of Menkhoaneng (in present-day Lesotho) to parents who were descended from chiefly lineages. His father was Mokhachane, a minor chief among the Koena people. His mother was Kholu, daughter of the chief of a neighboring group. He was given the birth name of Lepoqo. A boy of such a background could aspire to leadership, but Moshoeshoe determined early in life that he wanted more than to follow in his father’s footsteps as a minor chief. His ambition was matched by an imperiousness that threatened to derail his dreams. Moshoeshoe was quick to retaliate, often violently, against anyone who offended him. It was only

Mossi Kingdoms after he overcame his tendency to excessive violence, bowing to the wisdom of trusted advisers, that Moshoeshoe began to amass a significant following. Having learned to control his temper, Moshoeshoe next learned the importance of forming alliances with neighboring villages and lineages. This, he realized, was best done by marrying the daughters of powerful families, creating ties of kinship that he could call upon when he needed support or assistance. In this way, Moshoeshoe expanded his influence throughout the region. By 1830 he had forged these alliances into a nation, which was called Basotho, and he enthroned himself as king. (The prefix “Ba-” is commonly used in Bantu languages to denote a personal plural.Thus “Basotho” translates to “Sotho people.”) Moshoeshoe’s rule coincided with a period of intense colonial activity in southern Africa.The dominant colonial power was Great Britain, but there was pressure from the land-hungry Afrikaaner settlers (of Dutch ancestry) of South Africa as well.This ultimately led to war, as Moshoeshoe attempted to expel European interlopers from his territory. In 1852, Moshoeshoe managed to defeat a wellequipped invasionary force led by the British, but warfare continued for another fifteen years, as more British settlers arrived and as Afrikaaners continued to move up into the region from the south. Finally, Moshoeshoe petitioned the British for protectorate status for the Basotho kingdom. This was granted in 1868, permitting him to maintain a degree of autonomy for his kingdom and bringing an end to the chronic warfare that plagued his realm. See also: African Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Thompson, Leonard. Survival in TwoWorlds: Moshoeshoe of Lesotho, 1786–1870. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

MOSSI KINGDOMS (1500s C.E.–Present)

A collection of small kingdoms founded in the fifteenth century in what is now Burkina Faso. The Mossi kingdoms survive to this day, although the power of the kings is subordinated to the national government.

637

The Mossi kingdoms of Burkina Faso (formerly called Upper Volta) originated outside their current territory, which centers on the White Volta River basin. The founders of the kingdom are believed to have been migrants from the Dagomba and Mamprusi kingdoms of northern Ghana. These people, who came to be called the Mossi or Moose, therefore, already possessed a tradition of monarchical government. According to oral tradition, the first Mossi king was Ouedraogo (r. dates unknown), who was said to be the grandson of a Mamprusi king named Nedega (r. dates unknown). Ouedraogo established his kingdom, named Tenkodogo, in the southern portion of the White Volta River basin, sometime in the 1500s. Sons of the king were sent out to expand the kingdom’s territory and ultimately were granted kingdoms of their own among the newly conquered peoples, who were assimilated into the Mossi. In the end, more than twenty such kingdoms were formed, including Tenkodogo, Ouagadougou,Yatenga, and Boussouma. By the 1600s, the more powerful of the Mossi kingdoms had become highly developed, with great social and political stratification and a growing ministerial class, as well as an elaborate political network. Integration of the outlying villages with the capital in Ouagadougou, for instance, was accomplished by recruitment of rural youths into service or marriage in the king’s court. Such relationships created ties of loyalty that connected the populace with the king. Conversely, the king used his outlying villages as repositories for his political rivals, sending potential troublemakers to govern distant areas and thus diminishing their potential for causing trouble in the capital. This policy of sending potentially dangerous rivals away from the capital was the general impetus behind the proliferation of Mossi kingdoms. A king with many sons faced threats on two fronts. As his sons matured, one or more might grow weary of waiting for their father to vacate the throne.This, in turn, might inspire in the royal offspring the idea of hastening the king to his death. Even were the king to escape this danger and live out his life in peace, succession to the throne at the time of his death could still be highly contested, if all his sons vied for succession. To avoid these potentially disastrous outcomes, Mossi kings maintained the practice of carving out portions of territory and granting these lands to po-

638

Mossi Kingdoms

litical rivals. Better still, the king often charged his sons or rivals with the task of conquering new lands. By promising them the right to rule over newly conquered territory, the king could satisfy all their kingly ambitions, while eliminating the danger of a palace coup or a bloody war of succession. See also: African Kingdoms; Dagomba Kingdom; Mamprusi Kingdom.

MUGHAL EMPIRE Mughal Dynasty Babur*

1526–1530

Humayun

1530–1540

Suri Dynasty

MUGHAL EMPIRE (1526–1857 C.E.)

Shir Shah Sur

1540–1545

Empire that began in Kabul (in present-day Afghanistan) during the sixteenth century and eventually controlled most of India. The Mughal Empire emerged when Babur (r. 1526–1530), the ruler of Kabul, defeated the Lodi sultan in 1526 at the first battle of Panipat and gained control of Delhi. Utilizing his heavily armed, expertly trained army, Babur rapidly conquered the Rajputs at the battle of Ghagra in northwest India, then swept across northern India and seized the states of Bihar and Bengal.These victories established the Mughal Empire as the predominant force in northern India.

Islam Shah

1545–1553

Muhammad ’Adil

1553–1555

Ibrahim III

1555–1555

Sikandar III

1555–1555

INITIAL CHALLENGES Because Babur’s conquests occurred rapidly during a four-year period, the Mughal army was deeply strained. Babur and his son and successor, Humayun (r. 1530–1540), continually faced rebellions during their reigns. The Suri dynasty even deposed Humayun for a fifteen-year period from 1540 to 1555, but he was then restored to the throne and reigned for another year. When Humayun’s son,Akbar (r. 1556–1605), became the Mughal sovereign in 1556, he quashed all internal rebellions and expanded the empire. He initially conquered the remaining portions of northern India; then he captured parts of the Deccan, in central India, including the state of Berar. After these successes, Akbar developed Mughal government and society. First, he proclaimed the unchecked power of the emperor. The emperor was the military commander, wrote all the laws, and served as the empire’s chief justice. Four ministers were appointed to oversee the military, finances, industry, and the judiciary, but these roles were only advisory and the ministers had no actual authority.

Mughal Dynasty Humayun (restored)

1555–1556

Akbar, the Great*

1556–1605

Jahangir*

1605–1627

Shah Jahan I*

1627–1658

Aurangzeb*

1658–1707

Bahadur Shah I

1707–1712

Jahandar Shah

1712–1713

Farruksiyar

1713–1719

Rafid-ud-Darajat

1719–1555

Shah Jahan II

1719–1555

Muhammad Shah

1719–1748

Ahmad Shah

1748–1754

’Alamgir II

1754–1759

Shah ’Alam II

1759–1806

Akbar II

1806–1837

Bahadur Shah II

1837–1858

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

Mughal Empire MUGHAL GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY Akbar recognized the need for an efficient government to manage the sprawling domain.Therefore, he divided the empire into fifteen provinces called Subas. Each province was subdivided into districts called Sarkars, while these districts were separated into groups of villages called Parganas. Each province had two governors. The Nazim were officials who controlled local military and administration; the Dewan handled tax collections. Within each district, the emperor appointed an individual to serve as justice of the peace. Furthermore, an official called a Kotwal was appointed to each major city to supervise local affairs. All officials answered directly to the emperor. Akbar created the mansabdars, a civil service structure with thirty-three levels. Advancement from level to level depended solely upon the emperor’s patronage, and Akbar limited his appointments to individuals from his native region. As a salary, the appointees were either given land grants or received a

639

specified portion of the revenue from their province, district, or city.Aware of the threats his predecessors had faced,Akbar also placed spies in each province to monitor the actions of his officials. Economically, land was the most precious commodity in the Mughal Empire, and it generated the most revenue. Akbar developed an elaborate system that classified land according to its fertility. He then set an average annual production figure for each classification.The government collected one-third of the production figure for each farm even if the farm produced less than the set figure in a given year. Akbar made allowances for conditions such as drought and at times collected one-third of the actual crop. The monarchy also levied a heavy tax on all exports and imports, exacted heavy tributes from conquered kingdoms, created a poll-tax, and monopolized all of the empire’s major industries.The Mughal emperor controlled the production of cotton, silk, spices, and indigo.The military manufactured its own weapons so that it was not dependent on any foreign

A masterpiece of Mughal architecture, the Taj Mahal in Agra, India, was built in the early seventeenth century by the Emperor Shah Jahan as a mausoleum for his wife. The white marble structure represents the throne of god in paradise and is a monument to eternal love.

640

Mughal Empire

ROYAL RITUALS

THE PEACOCK THRONE The peacock throne epitomized the extravagances of the Mughal Empire. During his reign, Shah Jahan commissioned the construction of seven magnificent thrones to represent the wealth and power of the empire.The most ornate of these was the peacock throne. More than six feet tall and made of marble and gold, the throne was covered with diamonds, rubies, and emeralds.The diamonds were each ten carats, and there were 108 rubies and 116 emeralds. Atop the throne sat a jeweled peacock made of sapphires, gold, a massive diamond, ruby, and pearl. As bloody feuds weakened the Mughal monarchy, the peacock throne came to symbolize the monarchy’s infatuation with opulence and its lack of concern for civil affairs.When Nadir Shah, a Persian invader, looted Delhi in 1739, he stole the throne and took it to Persia, a final sign that the Mughal empire had crumbled.

suppliers. In addition, the military was given generous provisions to ensure its loyalty and strength. Although Akbar heavily taxed the empire’s citizenry, he did not physically oppress them. He enacted a policy of religious toleration. Hindus were not allowed to hold government positions, but they did not suffer persecution and were even encouraged to practice their religion. Furthermore, Akbar amply rewarded all who proved their allegiance to him. Consequently, the northwestern Rajput states, which had previously chafed under Mughal domination, became staunch Mughal allies during Akbar’s reign. Magnificent public projects became an important part of Mughal rule. Mughal emperors constructed ornate palaces, fortresses, and mausoleums—such as the Taj Mahal in Agra, constructed in the 1600s by Shah Jahan I (r. 1627–1658).They surrounded them with cities featuring improved transportation, sanitation, and education systems. During Akbar’s rule, he assembled the empire’s finest painters, writers, and scientists and lavishly funded their endeavors. Mughal poets combined Persian and Hindi to create a new language, named Urdu.

DECLINE OF THE MUGHALS The achievements of Akbar’s reign became the excesses of future Mughal emperors, however. When Akbar died in 1605, his son and successor, Jahangir (r. 1605–1627), expanded the empire south into the

Indian subcontinent. This expansion, however, exerted an increasing strain on the empire’s resources. During his reign, Jahangir failed to maintain the military as Akbar had done. Mughal forces were no longer well trained, and their equipment lacked the superiority it had once held. Moreover, Jahangir lacked Akbar’s administrative capabilities. During his reign, the provincial governments steadily lost their efficiency as many positions became hereditary rather than appointed. Most importantly, a dynastic disturbance unsettled the emperor’s strength. Jahangir’s oldest son, Shah Jahan, was the nominal heir. But when Shah Jahan feared that he would be supplanted, he rebelled against his father. Although the two were reconciled, the dispute damaged the image of the infallible emperor that Akbar had meticulously created. This image was shattered in 1658, when Shah Jahan died and his four sons battled for control of the throne. After a protracted power struggle, Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) emerged as the new Mughal emperor. However, the feud had shaken the stability of the empire, and Aurangzeb decided that only a brutal display of power could restore the monarchy’s preeminence. Therefore, he assembled a massive army and pushed farther south into the subcontinent. During Aurangzeb’s reign, the Mughal Empire extended from the Himalayas in the north to Cape Comorin in the south.

Mughal Empire

But Aurangzeb also repealed many of Akbar’s social policies. Most tellingly, he abandoned the empire’s tradition of religious toleration. Aurangzeb declared Islam to be the empire’s official religion, and he stripped Hindus of many of their social privileges. Hindus could not openly practice their religion, they were more heavily taxed, and their lands were frequently confiscated and granted to Islamic citizens. The consequences of Aurangzeb’s actions were immediate, as Hindu rebellions erupted across the expanded empire. In southern India, Shivaji united the Marathas and steadily drove the Mughals back north. The Hindus in Rajputana, who had faithfully served the previous Mughal emperors, also withdrew their support, forcing Aurangzeb to divert his forces to regions that had long been part of the empire.Aurangzeb had pushed the Mughal Empire to its greatest limits, and the strain of this expansion ultimately undermined its very foundation. After Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, the empire quickly lost its dominance. Struggles over succession repeatedly weakened the monarchy.The Mughal army suffered numerous defeats and systematically relin-

641

quished the vast regions it had previously conquered. Finally, in 1761, Ahmad Shah Abdali led a massive force that crushed the remnants of the Mughal army at Panipat. Furthermore, European agents manipulated the empire for their own advantages.The Mughal emperors had allowed Portuguese, Dutch, French, and British traders to operate freely in the empire. But the Europeans always sought to control India, and they constantly influenced affairs at the court. Despite the Mughal defeat and the battle of Panipat in 1761, the empire lasted another century, primarily because the rivalries among the Hindu kingdoms in India prevented them from uniting as a central authority.The British also became an increasingly controlling force. Finally, in 1858, the British deposed Bahadur Shah II (r. 1837–1858), the last Mughal emperor, after he allegedly abetted the Sepoy Mutiny. The Mughal Empire, once the most opulent in Asia, became a British colony. See also: Akbar the Great; Aurangzeb; Babur; Indian Kingdoms; Jahan, Shah; Jahangir; Maratha Confederacy.

642

Mughal Empire

FURTHER READING

Hintze, Andrea. The Mughal Empire and Its Decline. Brookfield,VT: Ashgate, 1997. Richards, John F. The Mughal Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

MUHAMMAD AHMAD (1844–1885 C.E.)

Islamic religious and nationalist leader in the AngloEgyptian Sudan region of Central Africa, who struggled successfully to overthrow British and Egyptian power and establish an independent Islamic state. Muhammad Ahmad was the son of a shipbuilder from Dongala district of Nubia (Sudan), and his family claimed to be descended from the Prophet Muhammad. He grew passionate about the Islamic religion at an early age. Rather than teach, he became a mystic certain that his mission was to purify Islam. Before long, he had gathered a group of disciples. In 1881, Muhammad Ahmad claimed that he was the “Mahdi”—considered, in Sunni Islam, to be a divinely led restorer of the faith who will eventually return justice to earth and make Islam universal. Muhammad Ahmad was not the only one to claim to be the Mahdi, but he was the most famous. Like most who did, he sought to reform established authority. At the time, Egypt (then part of the declining Ottoman Empire) ruled the Sudan, while Great Britain had economic and political interests there as well. The majority of people in the region were heavily oppressed by taxes and by the Egyptian military occupation.As Mahdi, Muhammad Ahmad took it upon himself to overthrow Egyptian and British power over the Sudan and to make his country an Islamic state. Muhammad Ahmad accomplished this goal in January 1885, creating an independent Islamic state with its capital at Omdurman. His reign was cut short by his death just five months later, however, shortly after he captured the vitally important city of Khartoum. Despite Muhammad Ahmad’s short rule, his influence was significant. The government he established was considered the first real Sudanese nationalist government, and he enforced a universal religious regime whose requirements he claimed God transmitted to him in visions.

Muhammad Ahmad’s reforms of Islam included prohibiting the pilgrimage to Mecca (the hajj) and replacing it with a requirement to fight in the holy war against nonbelievers (the jihad). His disciples, called Mahdists, made regular pilgrimages to his tomb at Omdurman after his death, but they were defeated in 1898 by an Anglo-Egyptian army led by Lord Kitchener, a victory that brought Sudan under British control. See also: Egyptian Kingdoms, Modern.

MUHAMMAD ALI (ca. 1769–1849 C.E.) Pasha of Egypt who worked to reform and modernize his country, while serving as its de facto ruler. Muhammad Ali was born in humble circumstances in Ottoman-ruled Albania. Because of the Ottoman system of recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from throughout the empire, he was able to rise rapidly through the ranks of the army on the basis of his skill as a soldier, his political intelligence, and his unbounded ambition. When France invaded Egypt in 1798, Muhammad Ali commanded the Ottoman force that tried to expel the forces of Napoleon Bonaparte from the Ottoman territory. In the early 1800s, Ali managed to beat back French and British colonization attempts in Egypt, although both powers remained influential in the region. In 1805, the Ottoman sultan appointed him pasha, or governor, of Egypt. Despite his technical status as a vassal of the Ottoman sultan, Muhammad Ali ruled Egypt with near independence. In 1811, he purged Egypt of the leaders of the Mamluk military caste that had governed the country since 1250 by inviting several hundred Mamluks to a banquet, where they were ambushed and killed. As pasha, Ali pursued a relentless program of modernization, especially in military reform and the creation of a national army. He also reorganized the administrative and educational systems of Egypt and pursued various public works projects with the use of peasant conscript labor. Ali’s military victories were extensive. He subdued the Wahhabis, a rebellious Islamic movement in Arabia, and in 1820 attempted to conquer the Sudan.Throughout the 1820s, he fought successfully with Ottoman forces attempting to quell the rebel-

Muhammad XII lion in Greece. In 1827, however, combined British, French, and Russian forces defeated Ai’s fleet at Navarino, a seaport in the Peloponnesus region of Greece. To gain Ali’s support in fighting the Greek revolt, Sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839) had pledged to make Ali pasha of Syria as well as Egypt. The sultan failed to do so, however, and in 1839 Ali and his son Ibrahim Pasha began a revolt of their own, invading Syria and attacking Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). Pressure from European nations that wanted to maintain the Ottoman Empire’s position eventually forced Ali to end the revolt, however. As a compromise, the sultan recognized a hereditary governorship of Egypt for Ali’s family. Muhammad Ali died in 1849, having made his family overlords of a modernized and increasingly independent Egypt. See also: Egyptian Kingdom, Modern; Mamluk Dynasty; Ottoman Empire.

MUHAMMAD V (1909–1961 C.E.) Sultan (r. 1927–1957) and king (r. 1957–1961) of Morocco, who was responsible for negotiating Morocco’s full independence from France. Born in Fez, Morocco, on August 30, 1909, Muhammad was the third son of Sultan Moulay Yusuf (r. 1912–1927) of the Alawite (or Alaouite) dynasty, which had ruled Morocco since 1660 and traced its roots to the Prophet Muhammad. Upon the death of his father in 1927, Muhammad V became sultan of Morocco at age eighteen. Although the Alawite dynasty remained in power, Morocco had been a French protectorate since 1912.An ardent nationalist, Muhammad had an excellent relationship with the French and hoped to gain independence gradually for Morocco. His hopes of French cooperation were dashed, however. While Muhammad was in Tangier in April 1947, riots broke out in the city of Casablanca, and many thought that French police had fired unnecessarily on Moroccans. Muhammad responded by giving a speech at Tangier in which he demanded Morocco’s complete independence, reviving a nationalist movement that had been simmering for years. In 1953, the French ousted Muhammad V and exiled him and his family to Corsica and then Madagascar, angering Moroccan nationalists and all who

643

considered him the country’s spiritual leader. His popularity grew during his two-year exile, while fighting between the French and various Moroccan factions escalated. Eventually, the French relented and restored Muhammad V to power in 1955. Ensuing negotiations led to Morocco’s limited home rule in February 1956 and to full independence on March 2, 1956. More popular than ever, Muhammad V meted out responsibilities to various factions so none could become too powerful. He also strove to create a constitutional monarchy with a modern government that gave him an important role. Muhammad worked to keep radical factions from proceeding too quickly and sought to train people to fill new posts, including police and military forces to control unruly elements. Indeed, there was opposition to the new independent government—from parts of the Army of National Liberation (which wanted total expulsion of the French army despite negotiated compromises), and from some Berber tribes reviving ancient internal disputes. New political parties also caused divisions and instability in the government. Muhammad V assumed the title of king in 1957, and took direct control of Morocco in 1960.To show he was not establishing a dictatorship, he pledged to create a written constitution by the end of 1962 that would give Moroccans a representative government. Muhammad V died unexpectedly after minor surgery in February 1961, before completion of the constitution. The Crown passed to his thirty-two-year-old son, Hassan II (r. 1961–1999). See also: Hassan II.

MUHAMMAD XII (BOABDIL) (d. 1534 C.E.)

Last Muslim ruler (r. 1482–1492) of the Moorish kingdom of Granada on the Iberian Peninsula, known to the Spanish as Boabdil, a corruption of the first part of his full name, Abu abd-Allah. Abu abd-Allah Muhammad XII, also known as Boabdil, was the son of Sultan Muley Hacen (Abu-alHasan Ali) (r. 1464–1482) of Granada and a member of the Nasrid dynasty.When Muley Hacén refused to pay his annual tribute to the Christian kingdom of

644

Muhammad XII

Castile in 1481 and took the town of Zahara, he triggered a final struggle between Christians and the Moors in Iberia. As war raged between the two groups, Boabdil, supported by the powerful Abencerrajes family of Granada, seized the throne from Muley Hacén and plunged the kingdom into civil war as well. Muley Hacén, with the help of another powerful family, the Zegries, was successful in retaking Granada from his son, whom he deposed in 1483. But Muley Hacén’s triumph was short-lived. His brother, Muhammad az-Zaghal, backed by a third important family, the Venegas, deposed him and retook Granada in 1485. Meanwhile, Boabdil had been taken prisoner at Lucena in 1483 by Ferdinand II of Aragón and Isabella I of Castile, the so-called Catholic kings. Boabdil bargained for his freedom by agreeing to hold Granada as a fiefdom under the Catholic monarchs. The agreement specified that, in exchange for help in retaking Granada, Boabdil would cede the lands currently controlled by az-Zagal to the Catholic kings. Meanwhile, part of Granada, including the great Moorish palace, the Alhambra, lay in the hands of Muley Hacén. Muley Hacén and az-Zaghal formed an alliance to defend the Alhambra and forced Boabdil to retreat and take refuge at the court of Ferdinand and Isabella. But Boabdil mounted a renewed, and successful, campaign to take the Alhambra in 1485 upon the death of Muley Hacén. Having regained Granada, Boabdil reneged on his agreement with Ferdinand and Isabella, refusing to surrender the lands he had promised them. In response, Christian forces laid siege to Granada in 1491. Despite a gallant defense of the city by its Moorish inhabitants, by the end of the year the situation was dire. Boabdil was finally forced to surrender the city to Ferdinand and Isabella on January 2, 1492. With the conquest of Granada, the Christian reconquista (reconquest) of the Iberian Peninsula was complete, and Moorish rule in Iberia was ended after more than seven hundred years. According to tradition, as Boabdil left Granada, he looked back on the beautiful Moorish city one last time and wept. The spot from which he supposedly looked back upon his beloved city is still known as “the last sigh of the Moor.” Allowed to retire to lands in the Alpujarras region of Andalucia (the southernmost province of Iberia), Boabdil left there in 1493 to journey to Morocco, where he took refuge in the

court of his kinsman, the ruler of Fes. It is reputed that Boabdil died in battle in Morocco in 1534 while fighting for his kinsman. See also: Ferdinand II; Granada, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms.

MU’IZZI (SLAVE) DYNASTY (1206–1290 C.E.)

Dynasty of rulers in India, founders of the Delhi sultanate, that was started by military slaves of the Muslim Giurid dynasty of Afghanistan. In 1193, the Giurid sultan, Muhammad of Ghur (r. 1163–1203), conquered the Indian city of Delhi and left a slave lieutenant, Qutab-ud-din Aybak, in charge when he returned to Afghanistan. After Ghur was assassinated by opponents, Aybak (r. 1206– 1210) declared independence and laid the foundation for the Mu’izzi, or Slave dynasty.Aybak proclaimed himself sultan of Delhi and established a new state centered there, the Delhi sultanate. Known for his generosity, Aybak began construction in Delhi of the Qutb Minar, a structure that celebrated the rise of Muslim rule in India.When Aybak died in an accident in 1210, power passed to his son, Aram Shah (r. 1210–1211), who lacked the experience and the credibility of his father. As a result, his advisers, the Turkish nobles, stepped in and helped another military slave, Iltumish, defeat Aram Shah and take the throne. Iltutmish (r. 1211–1236), also known as Shamsud-din, had been the foremost military slave of Sultan Aybak and had become his master’s son-in-law when he married Aybak’s daughter. The greatest of the Slave kings of Delhi, Iltutmish maintained a strong central army.With it, he consolidated Turkish conquests in northern India and added new territory to the growing empire, while defending it against the Mongols, who loomed as a serious threat. He also completed the construction of the Qutule Minar and created a new form of currency. Iltumish established a monarchical form of government in Delhi and created a new governing class. A patron of the arts and learning, he was also considered a religious and wise leader. Iltutmish wanted his daughter, Radiyya, to succeed him to the throne. But the nobles of Delhi

Munster Kingdom chose his son, Rukn-ud-din Firuz, instead. As sultan, Firuz I (r. 1236) left the administration of the sultanate to his mother, Shah Turkan. But this led to revolts in the provinces and to the deaths of both Firuz and his mother. The nobles then turned back to his sister, Radiyya. Radiyya Begum (r. 1236–1240) was the first and only woman to rule the Delhi sultanate. Radiyya was a strong and capable ruler, but when she appointed an African to an important position at her court, the Turkish nobles rebelled and murdered her in 1240. For the next twenty-six years, the Mu’izzi dynasty suffered from poor leadership under a series of weak rulers. This ended in 1266, when Ghiyasuddin Balban (r. 1266–1287) seized the throne. A practical man with an iron hand, Balban paid great attention to the production of arms and weapons. He built forts, maintained a strong army, and developed a network of spies. Balban suppressed all revolts in the sultanate and maintained order throughout the state. During his strong rule, the Mongols continued to pose a serious threat, but they were unable to penetrate into India. After Balban died in 1287, the Slave dynasty rapidly declined under the rule of his grandson, Kayqubadh (r. 1287–1290), and great-grandson, Kayumarth (r. 1290).When Kayumarth was deposed in 1290 by the Khaljis, another Afghan dynasty, the Mu’izzi dynasty came to an end. See also: Delhi Kingdom; Khalji Dynasty; South Asian Kingdoms.

MUNSTER KINGDOM (ca. 450–1596 C.E.)

Ancient and medieval kingdom in southwest Ireland that, before it was divided in two in 1118, was the largest of the early Irish kingdoms. Munster (Mumu in Gaelic) has long been considered the place of the mythical beginnings of Ireland. The kingdom has a rich legendary tradition but few reliable sources for its early history.

EARLY HISTORY According to ancient legend, the Eóganachta, the ruling dynastic group of Munster, were descended from Eibhear Fionn (Eber Finn), one of the sons of

645

Míl Espáne, the first Celtic ruler of Ireland.The Eóganachta took their name from the legendary Eógan Mór, who was said to be a distant descendant of Eber Finn. Early in its history, Munster consisted of five “fifths,” or subkingdoms: Thomond in the north, Desmond in the south, Ormond in the east, Medón Muman or mid-Munster, and Iarmumu, or west Munster. Many historians consider Conall Corc (flourished ca. 450) the first historical king of Munster, and the Eóganachta are said to be descended from him. Conall worked with Patrick, the Christian missionary and patron saint of Ireland, to codify native Irish law. He established the seat of kingship on the Rock of Cashel in County Tipperary in southern Ireland. An eighth-century legend has an angel appearing at Cashel to make the land fertile for Conall and his descendants.The kings of Munster at Cashel considered their kingship equal to that of Tara, the seat of the High Kings of Ireland in the north.

PARTITION OF THE KINGDOM In the tenth century, the Eóganachta were divided into two hostile groups. The struggle between them coincided with a contest for the throne of Munster between the Eóganacht Chaisil (a branch of the eastern Eóganachta who lived around Cashel) and the Dál Cais (O’Briens) of Thomond, who claimed to be the descendants of Cormac Cas, the brother of Eógan Mór.The Dál Cais had built up their power by forming alliances against the kings of Cashel. On the death of King Donnchadh II mac Ceallachian (r. ca. 961–963) in 963, the Dál Cais seized the throne of Cashel.The Eóganachta fought against their rule but were pushed back to the south into Desmond. In the eleventh century, the leading branch of the Eóganachta took the name MacCarthy from Carrthach, king of the Eóganacht Chaisil (d. 1045).The first king to use this name was his son, Muiredach (d. 1092). A number of O’Brien kings also were high kings of Ireland. The most famous of these was Brían mac Cennétigh, known as Brian Boru (r. 978–1014), who extended his power to the high kingship. Brian died while fighting a coalition of the Vikings and forces of the kingdom of Leinster at the battle of Clontarf in 1014. The feud between the two branches of the Eóganachta continued for fifty years, until 1092, when

646

Munster Kingdom

the two parties realized that they needed to unite against the O’Briens and gave their support to Tadgh MacCarthy in a struggle to defeat King Muirchertach O’Brien (r. ca. 1086–1119). Muirchertach was confident of victory until his allies deserted him and rallied around Tadgh. In 1119, Muirchertach was forced to accept the Treaty of Glanmire, which partitioned Munster into two kingdoms, Thomond in the north and Desmond in the south. King Tadhg I MacCarthy Mór (r. 1118–1123) returned his dynasty to the capital of Cashel. In 1171, King Dermod I of Desmond (r. 1144–1185) submitted to King Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189) as his feudal lord, hoping to gain an ally in his struggle against the king of Thomond, Domhnall Mór O’Brien (r. 1168–1194). Domhnall submitted as well, but Dermod was regarded as the greatest traitor in Irish history for this act, which paved the way for English rule in Ireland.

LATER HISTORY In the thirteenth century, the Desmond kings defended themselves against the Norman knights who had begun moving into the kingdom and seizing estates for themselves. King Finghin V (r. 1252–1261) defeated a Norman army led by John FitzThomas. By the fourteenth century, however, the Norman barons had returned and settled in Munster. In 1541, Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547) declared himself king of Ireland. King Murrough O’Brien of Thomond (r. 1539–1541) surrendered his half of the kingdom, but Henry met with resistance from the last MacCarthy king of Desmond, Donal IX (r. 1558–1565). In 1565, when Donal refused to surrender his title and kingdom to Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), he was kidnapped and taken to the English court, where he was forced to submit.With his act of submission to Elizabeth, the kingship in Munster came to an end. See also: Boru, Brian; Irish Kings. FURTHER READING

Byrne, Francis John. Irish Kings and High-Kings. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 2001. Ellis, Peter Beresford. Erin’s Blood Royal: The Gaelic Novel Dynasties of Ireland. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. O Corrain, Donnchadh. Ireland Before the Normans. Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 2004.

MUSIC AND SONG The development of music has often depended on the patronage of monarchs, and kings have felt free to treat musicians as servants.Yet music has at different times in history been regarded as the source of special power, and kings have needed musicians to consolidate their prestige and their hold on people’s minds. As an example of the perceived power of music, when dictator Milton Obote of Uganda wished to destroy the power of the Kabaka, the hereditary ruler of the Kiganda tribe, in 1966, one of the steps he took was to kill the court musicians and destroy their instruments.

MUSIC IN THE AFTERLIFE The excavation of the 4,500-year-old cemetery at Ur, in Iraq, revealed a tomb containing the remains of a queen, Pu-Abi, who was buried not only with magnificent jewelry and artworks and the remains of nearly twenty attendants, but with musical instruments and the skeleton of a harpist who was buried in a sitting position as though ready to play. The instruments are a harp and two lyres, all made of rich materials including silver, gold, and lapis lazuli, and intricately decorated with motifs such as bulls’ heads. These and similar instruments and musicians found in neighboring royal graves show that for the ancient Mesopotamian rulers music was an essential element of life to take with them into eternity.

MONARCHS AS MUSIC LOVERS The biblical Book of Samuel tells how King Saul (r. 1020–1010 b.c.e.) was troubled by an evil spirit and found relief only when the young shepherd David played the harp for him. Eventually, Saul’s jealousy of David’s growing popularity caused him to throw his spear at David as he played, but at first when David played, “Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.” Music formed a vital part of the splendor of the royal court of French king Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) at Versailles, especially the music of the Italian-born composer Jean-Baptiste Lully. Lully composed and directed instrumental music, ballets, and operas during his thirty-four-year tenure at Louis’s court. He knew well the art of flattering the king and managing the complex play of personalities at the court. He died as a result of an infection in his foot, which he

Mutesa I had injured with his staff while beating time with it as he accompanied a rehearsal of a Mass to celebrate the king’s recovery from an illness. Ludwig II of Bavaria (r. 1864–1886) may have taken love of music further than any other king. From early childhood he had identified with a figure from German mythology, the swan-knight Lohengrin. At age fifteen he saw a performance of the opera Lohengrin by Richard Wagner, which moved him so much that he made a promise: If he became king, he would seek out Wagner and give him any help he might need. When Ludwig did succeed to the throne, at age eighteeen, his envoys had trouble finding Wagner, who was hiding from his creditors; but they eventually succeeded in letting the composer know that Ludwig would give him everything he needed to produce his operas on the scale they deserved. The young monarch and the fifty-year-old composer met in December 1864 and were friends until Wagner’s death. Ludwig wrote to Wagner after watching a performance of one of his operas: “You are a god-man, the true artist by God’s grace who brought the sacred fire down from heaven to earth, to purify, to sanctify and to redeem!”Wagner respected Ludwig’s mystical preoccupations but urged the king to pay more attention to managing his kingdom. The fact is that Ludwig’s hold on reality was precarious. He managed to find money to give Wagner an allowance and a series of houses, and to build the opera house at Bayreuth, which is still home to an opera festival, but his kingdom was falling apart. Not long after Wagner’s death in 1883, Ludwig was certified insane and deposed; he drowned in 1886. Wagner’s work is his most lasting achievement.

MONARCHS AS MUSICIANS Many monarchs have not only employed musicians and been patrons to musicians and composers but have played music themselves. Maya rulers of the Late Classic period (600–800) maintained large staffs of musicians; their painted vases show the use at court of conch-shell trumpets, long wooden trumpets, standing drums, and flutes. But one Mayan vase also shows a ruler (identified by his elaborate feathered headdress) shaking a rattle himself, while his wife dances to the rhythm. The Roman emperor Nero (r. 37–68) was trained as a musician. The Roman historian Suetonius re-

647

ports that when a great fire swept Rome in 64, Nero sang a song about the destruction of Troy as he watched from a tower as Rome burned. Suetonius also describes Nero’s many public performances as a singer, and how no one was allowed to leave during the performance—“insomuch, that it is said some women with child were delivered there.” King Henry VIII of England (r. 1503–1547) is most famous for the high-handed way he treated marriage. But he was a highly educated and cultured man who loved music. He employed seventy-nine musicians in his Chapel Royal, whose job was to provide music at the religious services the king attended daily. Whenever he traveled he was accompanied by at least some of his court musicians. Henry also was an accomplished instrumentalist, playing bagpipes, recorders, and virginals (an early keyboard instrument). He even composed several pieces of music. He is thought to have composed the song “Greensleeves.” The most accomplished royal musician was probably Frederick II, the Great, of Prussia (r. 1740– 1786). In the lulls in the fighting of the War of the Austrian Succession ( 1740–1748) and the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), Frederick found time to learn to play the flute at an almost professional standard, to listen to and support the work of great composers such as C.P.E. Bach and Johann Joachim Quantz (who was Frederick’s flute teacher), and to compose over one hundred pieces of music himself. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Education of Kings; Literature and Kingship.

MUTESA I (ca. 1830s–1884 C.E.) Ruler (r. 1856–1884) of the Ganda kingdom (Buganda), noted for his success in maintaining Buganda’s relative autonomy during the height of European colonial competition. Mukabya Mutesa was born in the late 1830s, the son of Kabaka Suna II (r. ca. 1825–1856), who then ruled the kingdom of Buganda. As but one of some sixty-one claimants to the throne, Mutesa rose to power with the help of his mother, Muganzirwazza, who was a member of a powerful kinship-based faction called the Elephant Clan. Muganzirwazza succeeded in placing her son on the throne after Kabaka Suna’s death by forming an alliance with the king’s

648

Mutesa I

prime minister, Katikiro Kayira. When Mutesa took the throne in 1856, he was a young man in his midtwenties. As ruler, Mutesa looked outward, beyond the borders of his kingdom, welcoming new influences. For instance, he increased Buganda’s wealth by encouraging trade with the wealthy Swahili who came into Buganda from their city-states on the East African coast. He even went so far as to learn to speak the traders’ language fluently. Mutesa also opened his kingdom to Islam, although he favored the incorporation of Islamic tenets and practices into the indigenous religious tradition called Lubaale. Mutesa’s belief that Islam could complement Lubaale was less widely accepted by his subjects, however. Young Islamic converts, offended by Mutesa’s refusal to reject outright the beliefs of his forebears, denied the legitimacy of Mutesa’s rule. Throughout his reign, this frequently led to outright rebellion. Mutesa responded to these revolts with force, executing many of his rebellious Muslim subjects. The conflict between Islamic converts and traditional religionists remained a continuing source of trouble within the Ganda kingdom. Adding to Mutesa’s difficulties was Egypt, which embarked upon a campaign of expansion and threatened to overrun Buganda’s northern border. To strengthen his defenses, Mutesa sought to create friendly relations with the British. He invited missionaries from the British-based Church Mission Society to Buganda, expecting in return that Great Britain would provide some protection against the Egyptians. This was a time when various European powers looked hungrily upon the African continent, each hoping to establish or expand its colonial presence. The British were thus pleased to find a local king who was so welcoming to their representatives. With the arrival of the British Christians, the French were spurred to send their own missionary representatives, whom Mutesa welcomed with equal warmth. Both the British and the French hoped to use their missionary presence in the region to lay the groundwork for an eventual claim to territory. But Mutesa hoped to use the competing religious agendas, as well as the underlying political ones, to secure his own position by playing them off against one another. For his plan to work, Mutesa had to maintain a difficult political balance in his dealings with the French and the British. Among his own people, he faced a daunting task as well. As the various mission-

ary groups gained converts, rival factions were formed within the kingdom, ostensibly on religious grounds but with political ramifications as well. The (primarily Protestant) British-led converts were opposed to the (primarily Catholic) converts won by the French missions, and both these groups were opposed to the converts to Islam. These rivalries frequently threatened to break out into open violence. It is a mark of Mutesa’s charisma and strength of will that he succeeded in maintaining the necessary balance among all these constituencies. In fact, he succeeded so well that he brought his nation to the peak of its power and prosperity.When Mutesa died in October 1884, his son Henrique I (r. 1884–1888) succeeded him on the throne. But Henrique lacked his father’s skill at keeping the rival factions in check, and a bloody civil war ensued soon after he took the throne. See also: Ganda Kingdom.

MYCENAEAN MONARCHIES (2000–1200 B.C.E.)

Ancient kingdoms in Greece established by the Achaeans, or Mycenaeans, between 2000 and 1200 b.c.e. Around 2000 b.c.e., a group of Indo-European peoples known as the Achaeans invaded the Greek Peninsula, where they conquered and intermarried with the indigenous population. Within a few centuries, the Achaeans, also known as the Mycenaeans, dominated much of Greece and the Aegean Sea. About five hundred years after their original invasion of Greece, the Achaeans conquered the Minoans, a major Mediterranean power centered on the island of Crete, and adopted many aspects of Minoan culture. As Minoan civilization declined, the Mycenaeans inherited rich Minoan trade networks with Egypt and Mesopotamia. Unlike the Minoans, the Mycenaeans pursued their aims through violence and war. As a result, they became the most powerful people in the ancient Aegean world. The warrior ethos of the Mycenaeans is best represented in the Iliad and the Odyssey, the ancient epics of the Greek poet Homer. Homer’s works describe a world of warrior-kings in pursuit of honor and glory. Success in battle, not birth or wealth, determined

M yc e n a e a n M on a rc h i e s one’s value in Mycenaean society. Great warriors, such as Achilles and Ajax, fought against Paris, Hector, and other heroes of Troy, the Mycenaeans’ great rival, in the Trojan War, which Homer described in the Iliad. The Odyssey follows the Greek warrior Odysseus on his turbulent and much interrupted trip home after the Greeks defeated the Trojans. The cultural values revealed in the Odyssey differ from modern ideas of honor and glory. Odysseus used cunning to overcome obstacles, often lying and cheating his way out of difficult situations. Mycenaean leaders, though powerful fighters, were also wily and deceitful when necessary. Homer’s epics along with archaeological discoveries reveal that the Mycenaeans practiced a simple form of monarchy. Most of the kingdoms founded by these warriors were no larger than city-states. In addition, Mycenaean kings were typically aided by a

649

ruling council, which consisted of the noblemen of the kingdom. This practice differentiated the Mycenaeans from the other ancient civilizations around them, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, which had powerful absolute monarchs who ruled over vast territories. The practice of the Mycenaean monarch conferring with a council laid the foundations of later Greek democracy. Mycenaeans copied aspects of Minoan culture other than their trade practices. The Minoans had built large, complex palaces that served as political, economic, and social centers. The best example of this is the palace at Knossos on the island of Crete. The Mycenaeans also built large palaces, but unlike the Minoans, they erected huge defensive walls around them.The need for such walls reflects the violent nature of Mycenaean society.

The Mycenaeans were a warlike people who forged a powerful kingdom in the ancient Mediterranean world. Among the remains of Mycenae is the Lion’s Gate at the entrance to the royal palace.

650

M yc e n a e a n M on a rc h i e s

Mycenaean kings had disappeared by the end of the thirteenth century b.c.e. Invasions, including those from a group of Indo-Europeans called Dorians from the north and from a maritime people simply known as the Sea Peoples from the south, ushered in a period of decline for Mycenaean civilization. After invaders destroyed the two major cities of Mycenae, Pylos and Tiryns, the surviving Mycenaeans dispersed throughout the lands surrounding the Aegean Sea. See also: Athens, Kingdom of; Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Before Eighteenth Dynasty); Minoan Kingdoms; Pergamum Kingdom; Sparta, Kingdom of;Trojan Kingdom.

MYSORE KINGDOM (ca. 200s–1947 C.E.)

Kingdom in the interior of the southern Indian Peninsula whose early history is lost but whose power held back the encroachment of British colonialism in that region in the eighteenth century. From the early fourth century b.c.e. until about 180 b.c.e., the kingdom of Mysore was part of the Maurya Empire, India’s first imperial realm. After the collapse of the Maurya Empire in the late second century b.c.e., Mysore (the Hindu word for “buffalo town”) was divided into three parts. The northern part came under the control of a minor local dynasty, the Kadamba dynasty. Southern Mysore was controlled by the Chera dynasty, which ruled the southwestern coast of India until they were replaced by the Chola dynasty in the eighth century c.e. The Pallava dynasty governed the east side of Mysore until the eleventh century, when all of Mysore and most of the Deccan region of India came under the rule of the Calukya dynasty. The Hoysala dynasty, whose rule originated in the Deccan region in the eleventh century, gradually took over Mysore in the twelfth century as the power of the Chalukyas declined.The strength of the Hoysala dynasty was broken, in turn, in the midfourteenth century by the Muslims of the Delhi sultanate under Mohammed Tughluq (r. 1320–1324) and his successors. With the dissolution of the Tughluq dynasty—due mainly to poor administration—in the early fifteenth century, Mysore and most of southern India came

under the influence of the Vijayanagar dynasty.The Vijayanagars revived Hindu beliefs throughout their realm and, while tolerant and respectful of the Muslims, they managed to confine Muslim power to the northern parts of India until the late sixteenth century. In 1565, Vijayanagar lost the battle of RakasaTangadi to the combined Muslim armies of the states of Bijapur, Ahmadnagar, and Golconda. In the aftermath, Mysore came to be ruled by a number of local princes, the Rajas (or Wodeyars) of Mysore. By the mid-1700s, a Muslim of peasant stock named Haider Ali had risen to prominence in Mysore. An army commander who had studied European military tactics, he became the virtual ruler of Mysore by 1761. Haidar Ali (r. ca. 1761–1782) wanted to work with the British, who were a growing power in India. But the British, with the help of the Maratha dynasty of the western Deccan region and Nizam Ali Khan, the ruler of Hyderabad, attacked Haider Ali and Mysore. Haidar Ali defeated the British army of Bombay in 1766. Three years later, in 1769, the British promised to help Haidar Ali if he was attacked by other Indian states, but when the Marathas invaded Mysore in 1771 the British would not help. Haidar Ali then turned against the British and, supported by European soldiers of fortune, he annihilated a British force of four thousand soldiers in 1789. When Haidar Ali died in 1782, his son, Tipu (r. 1782–1799), took command of Mysore. The well educated Tipu set out to modernize the economy by reforming agriculture and manufacturing, including an arms industry.Tipu made peace with the British in 1784, but his invasion of a state under British protection a few years later provoked renewed fighting. Heavily outnumbered and outgunned, Tipu lost the third Mysore war (1790–1792) to the British. After a short period of peace,Tipu began seeking help from France, a move that antagonized the British and led to the fourth and final Mysore War (1799). British forces stormed Tipu’s fortress at Srirangapatnam, where they killed Tipu and sacked the city. After Tipu’s defeat, the British reinstalled the Wodeyars to power in Mysore, with sufficient safeguards to ensure continued British dominance of the region until India gained independence in 1947. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire; Tughluq Dynasty; Vijayanagar Empire.

M y t h a n d Fol k l or e

MYTH AND FOLKLORE Legendary stories and popular tales, often featuring rulers or their ancestors that play a significant role in the historical and cultural heritage of nations and peoples. Kings and queens, both real and imaginary, are prominent characters in the myth and folklore of many cultures. Furthermore, many of the rituals of kingship have their origin in myth, as do the legendary kings and queens who appear in folkloric rituals, customs, and performances.

LEGENDARY KINGS AND GOD-KINGS Legends and myths may sometimes feature real kings and queens. In one popular Scottish legend, for example, Robert I (Robert the Bruce) (r. 1306–1329) found renewed strength for his fight against the English by watching a spider’s continued attempts to spin its web. Other mythical kings are the invention of popular imagination. Prester John was a mythical priest-king of the Middle Ages who was said to rule a wealthy and virtuous Christian kingdom in Africa or Asia. Many Christian adventurers and pilgrims searched for his kingdom, a sign of hope for areas that at that time were occupied by the Muslims. Other rulers might be either real or mythical, such as King Arthur and the Indian queen Minatci, about whom there is no reliable historical evidence. Kings, especially those who originated a dynasty, are often identified with a god, and subsequent kings are thought to be incarnations of him.The king is often considered the son of the sky god, but he may also represent the thunder god when he is at war. Often, kings were thought to be married to the goddess of their people. In Ireland, for example, a story is told about a prince meeting an ugly old woman whom he had to agree to marry. When he did so, she turned into the beautiful young goddess of sovereignty.

KINGS AND HERO MYTHS Over time, philosophers developed rational explanations for the idea of a god/king. For example, the Greek writer Euhemerus, who lived in the third century b.c.e., believed that mythological figures such as King Theseus of Athens were real historical people who were ignorantly worshiped as gods after their deaths. In modern times, scientists and literary scholars

651

have developed their own theories. In his book, The Hero (1936), British scholar Lord Raglan developed the ideas of the myth-ritual school, begun by British folklorist Sir James George Frazer, to explain many of the details in myths. According to Raglan, the mysterious circumstances of the hero’s birth include being the reputed son of a god.After his expulsion by his father and being brought up by foster parents, he goes to his future kingdom and kills the king. Eventually, he, too, is driven from the throne and meets a mysterious death. Raglan believed that the original real murder of the weakened king eventually became a symbolic ritual and then a myth.The death and disappearance of the king are associated with the death and resurrection of the sky god, which restores fertility to the land. In his book, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero (1909), Freudian psychoanalyst Otto Rank studied the legendary Greek king Oedipus and other early king-heroes and concluded that the hero’s killing of his royal father is a fulfillment of unconscious Oedipal desires to usurp the father and his power. One of the most discussed myths in the Western world is that of the Arthurian Grail and its wounded Fisher-King. For English anthropologist Jessie Weston, a follower of myth-ritual theory, the king is wounded in his sexual organs and infertile, and thus the land is infertile also. To French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, for whom myths are about the dialectical relationship between opposites, the myth embodies the tension between two worlds: the terrestrial king, Arthur, which is full of questions, and the heavenly realm, with its immobile Fisher-King, where there are answers no one asks for.

MYTHICAL MOTIFS One widespread myth is that of a king who is not really dead but will return, like King Arthur, Frederick Barbarossa, or Constantine. Another motif is the recognition of the true king through his ability to control symbols of kingship. In one Scythian myth, a burning gold cart, sword, and cup fall from the sky. The youngest son of King Targitaus is able to grasp them after his older brother fails, and he becomes king. The cart symbolizes the king’s control of agriculture, the sword control of war, and the cup the sacred priesthood. A similar story about the sword in the stone, Excalibur, pulled out by the young future king Arthur, is a part of Arthurian legend.

652

M y t h a n d Fol k l or e

ROYAL RITUALS

INDONESIAN PUPPET RITUALS The wayang puppet performances of Java began as rites to worship gods who were royal ancestors. Wayang comes from a word that may have meant “shadow” or “spirit.”The wayang began as performances by masked dancers and shadow puppets, but there are also wayang golek or colorfully painted wooden rod puppets.The wayang was an outgrowth of shamanism, with a master who was in contact with the spirit world.The dalang (puppeteer) is an intermediary between heaven and earth. The first mention of wayang performances dates to the ninth and tenth centuries c.e. According to a traditional manual for puppeteers, the Serat Pakem Sastramiruda, the legendary eleventh-century king and seer Jayabaya had images of his ancestors drawn on palm leaves.This was the beginning of the shadow puppets. The Mataram kings traced their descent from the Hindu god Shiva, and court artists used puppets to illustrate stories from the great Indian epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. The Ramayana recounts the adventures of Prince Rama, an incarnation or avatar of Vishnu. In the Arjuna Wiwaha, which is based on the Mahabharata, the sacred warrior Prince Arjuna fights evil in the world with the help of the gods. In addition to kings, princes, princesses, demons, and ogres, there is a clown figure who provides comedy and is also a spokesman for the dalang. With the coming of Islam to Java in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries C.E., a puppet tradition developed that combined Islamic moral teachings and Sufi mysticism with Hindu elements.The puppets still play an important cultural role in Indonesia. Modern puppeteers still go through spiritual training before beginning their work, though some old-timers claim that modern dalang are concerned only with showmanship and popularity.

KINGS AND QUEENS IN FOLKLORE AND FAIRY TALES A large number of fairy tales feature kings and queens as major characters.The American psychologist Bruno Bettelheim finds that kings and queens in these stories represent parents, who seem immensely powerful to the child, and individuals play out their conflict with their parents through the tales.The narcissistic queen in the Snow White story exhibits jealousy of her daughter, who must resolve her inner conflicts with her. For the Jungian psychoanalyst Marie-Louis von Franz, the king represents the self, or psychic whole of the individual. Often there is a king with three sons, but no queen, who is dead; this is usually interpreted to mean that the

masculine is crippled without the feminine and must be restored through the hero son’s marriage with the princess (anima). Literary fairy tales written by modern authors often contain characters that have attained a mythical status of their own. These include Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” whose main character stands for the empty self-importance of royalty and its willingness to believe flattery. The Snow Queen in Andersen’s story of the same name is a memorable archetype of coldness. There are many rituals and customs in folk culture having to do with the election of mock kings or so-called Lords of Misrule. In medieval Europe, for example, the King of Fools was elected at the

Mzilikazi New Year to preside over a symbolic overturning of authority, in memory of how God humbles the proud and exalts the humble. In England, kings and queens of the May were elected and engaged in a Maypole dance, perhaps the survival of a fertility ritual. The mythical meaning of kings and queens has changed greatly throughout history. Some people have interpreted them as gods, or symbols of heaven; for others, royal figures are aspects of ourselves. But the meaning that people give to real kings and queens, as well as to mythical or legendary ones, is always greater than the actual power and meaning that they possess. See also: Arthur, King; Divinity of Kings; Earth and Sky, Separation of; Healing Powers of Kings; Heavens and Kingship; Literature and Kingship; Monarchy Formation, Myths of; Sacral Birth and Death; Sacred Kingships. FURTHER READING

Herbert, Mimi, with Nur S. Rahardjo. Voices of the Puppet Masters:TheWayang Golek Theatre of Indonesia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002. Lindhal, Carl, John McNamara, and John Lindow. Medieval Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Myths, Legends, Tales, Beliefs and Customs. Santa Barbara, CA: ABCCLIO, 2000. Perry, John Weir. Lord of the Four Quarters:The Mythology of Kingship. New York: Paulist Press, 1991.

MZILIKAZI (ca. 1790–1868 C.E.) Founder and first ruler (r. 1837–1868) of the Ndebele kingdom, which arose as a result of the great demographic upheavals that also produced the Zulu kingdom. Mzilikazi began as a warrior in the formidable army of Shaka Zulu (r. 1816–1828), where he earned the respect of his leader and fellow soldiers for his courage in battle and quick intelligence. Unfortunately, Mzilakazi was also proud, ambitious, and perhaps a little greedy. Shaka had entrusted him with the command of a band of fighters, sending them out to raid for cattle. Mzilikazi decided to keep the beasts rather than send them to his general. To make matters worse, he then insulted Shaka’s repre-

653

sentatives when they came to demand an explanation for his actions. Mzilikazi must have known that this behavior would soon call down upon him the wrath of Shaka. Rather than face the consequences of his actions, he gathered a number of fellow warriors and headed north, planning to establish himself as a king in his own right. He succeeded, creating the Ndebele kingdom by means of military conquest. Mzilikazi followed a straightforward plan of action, conquering local peoples who were no match for his formidable army. In this way, he employed the same tactics that had worked so well for his former leader, Shaka. After overrunning a village, Mzilakazi would destroy the crops, herds, and houses. After killing villagers who were too old or too young to be of use to him, he forced the surviving men to join his army and gave all captured women to his soldiers as wives. In a very short time, Mzilakazi succeeded in terrifying the local peoples into submission to his rule. No matter how thoroughly he managed to subdue the local people, however, Mzilikazi could never relax his guard. He knew that Shaka would never forget the insult done to him on that long-ago cattle raid. Mzilikazi knew that Shaka had sent troops in pursuit and, because of this, Mzilikazi was forced to remain on the run for years. It took Mzilikazi until the 1830s to defeat enough Zulu forces to earn a respite from Shaka’s vengeance. Exhausted from years of constant warfare, he created a capital city in Bulawayo (present-day Zimbabwe). Still more a general than a king, however, Mzilikazi continued to lead military campaigns, including attacks on Afrikaaner settlements. The Afrikaaners (white settlers of Dutch ancestry) were forced to sue for peace in 1852, finally permitting Mzilikazi to concentrate on administering his kingdom. Mzilikazi’s rule was absolute for a time, but in 1860 migrants fleeing European gold hunters poured into the region. The newcomers challenged his authority, but through force of will and his powerful army, Mzilikazi managed to remain on the throne until his death in 1868. He was succeeded by his son, Lobengula (r. 1868–1893). See also: Lobengula; Ndebele Kingdom; Shaka Zulu; Zulu Kingdom.

654

Na b op ol a s s a r

N NABATAEAN KINGDOM. See Arabia,

Egyptians. This led to a second battle in 605 b.c.e., this time against the Egyptians at the city of Karchemish in the Levant. Once more Nabopolassar’s armies were supported by the Medes, and once more the combined force was triumphant. Shortly after this victory, Nabopolassar died, and the throne passed to his son Nebuchadrezzar II (r. 604–562 b.c.e.), who built a Neo-Babylonian Empire. See also: Ashurbanipal; Assyrian Empire; Cyaxares; Medes Kingdom; Nebuchadrezzar II; Scythian Empire.

Kingdoms of

NADIR SHAH (1688–1747 C.E.) NABOPOLASSAR (d. 605 B.C.E.) Founder of the Chaldaean dynasty of ancient Babylonia, who helped bring about the downfall of the Assyrian Empire. Nabopolassar (r. 626–605 b.c.e.) expanded the Babylonian Empire through extensive military conquest. Born into a humble family and probably illiterate throughout his life, Nabopolassar was elected by the Chaldaean people in 626 b.c.e. to defend Babylon against an invasion from the south by the People of the Sea. The Babylonians at this time were governed by the Assyrian Empire, but the death of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in that same year provided Nabopolassar with an opportunity to break away from Assyrian governance and establish Babylonian independence. Nabopolassar’s own records show that he immediately adopted an aggressive stance toward the Assyrians, but it was not until 612 b.c.e. that he succeeded in creating an alliance between his armies, those of King Cyaxares (r. ca. 625–585 b.c.e.) of the Medes and those of the Scythians. Cyaxares and Nabopolassar also signed a treaty by which the Medes gained control of northern Mesopotamia, leaving Babylon in control of southern Mesopotamia. The combined armies attacked the Assyrian capital of Nineveh and destroyed much of the city, including the great library of Ashurbanipal and the splendid Temple of Ishtar.The fall of the city marked the end of the Assyrian Empire. Much of the populace of Nineveh was slaughtered, although a few Assyrian nobles led by Ashur-uballit, a member of the Assyrian royal family, survived and fled to the west, where they took sanctuary with the

Peasant warlord who ended the Safavid dynasty of Persia, ruled as shah of Iran (r. 1736–1747), and briefly restored the Persian Empire through a prolonged series of brilliant military campaigns. A member of the Sfshar tribe of Iran, Nadr Beg was born in a shepherd’s tent in northeastern Iran in 1686. In 1704, he and his mother were captured and enslaved by Uzbek raiders. His mother died while in bondage, but Nadr escaped and became a highly successful bandit. Nadr led his robber band in capturing the cities of Kalar, Meshed, and Nishapur. He then declared his troops loyal to Tahmasp II (r. 1729– 1732), the embattled Safavid claimant to the throne of Iran. In a series of brilliant military victories between 1729 and 1730, Nadir (having changed his name at this point) defeated the occupying Afghans and installed Tahmasp on the throne. The grateful shah named Nadir sultan of Khorasan and Kerman, and as ruler of these cities Nadir gained a reputation for skill and bravery. Nadir next defeated the Turks at Hamadan in 1731 and placed Iraq and Azerbaijan under Iranian control. He crossed the newly won territories from west to east, a distance of 1,400 miles, to quell a revolt in Herat in northwestern Afghanistan. Meanwhile, left on his own,Tahmasp lost all that Nadir had gained in a quick war with the Turks, to whom he ceded Georgia and Armenia in 1732. Frustrated and angered by Tahmasp’s ineptitude, Nadir returned from Herat in 1732 and deposed Tahmasp in favor of the shah’s infant son, Abbas III (r. 1732–1736). Nadir assumed the regency of the realm and then marched against the Turks.The Turks, however, were not surprised this time by the brilliant

N a m Vi e t K i n g d o m upstart, and Nadir suffered one of his few defeats in an enormous battle near Samara. Within a year, Nadir had raised and trained another huge army, and subsequently met and overwhelmed the Turks at the battles of Leilan and Baghavand in 1735. Nadir now turned his attention to Russia, which succumbed to his threats and returned Caspian provinces and cities taken a decade earlier by Russian ruler Peter I the Great (r. 1682–1725). After accepting these concessions from Russia, Nadir entered the Persian capital of Isfahan, lauded by all as the restorer of the Persian Empire. Nadir named himself shah and began the Afshar dynasty in 1736, after ending the Safavid dynasty by deposing Abbas III. Convinced that war would remain inevitable as long as the Turks and Persians practiced conflicting forms of Islam, Nadir produced a simple solution— he declared that, henceforth, all Persia would renounce the Shi’a faith and would become Sunni Muslim. For the next year or so, Nadir persecuted the Shi’a faithful. Then, bored with religious insurrections, he raised an army of 100,000 men and led it into Afghanistan in 1737. Within a year, Nadir had conquered the Afghan cities of Kandahar and Kabul and continued eastward toward the rich prize of India. After crossing the Himalayas, he met the army of Muhammad Shah (r. 1719–1748), the Mughal emperor of India, on the plain of Karnal. Nadir defeated the Mughal ruler’s troops in one day, then proceeded unopposed into the Mughal capital of Delhi. From that great city he removed all portable wealth, including the astounding Peacock Throne of the Mughals and the fabulous Koh-i-noor diamond. Returning to Persia, he attacked the Uzbeks and secured Persian dominion northeast to the River Oxus. Harsh even in youth, Nadir Shah became progressively crueler, more tyrannical, and more paranoid as he grew older. Despite his brilliant military victories, his people came to hate him for the ruinous taxation he imposed on them, taxes made unnecessary given the extent of the spoils he won from India and other conquered states.Wherever he traveled, Nadir ordered massive executions to quell real and imagined rebellions. Even his own family fared no better; all his sons were killed either by his own hand or upon his orders. A similar fate awaited Nadir Shah. In 1747, during a campaign against the Kurds, four members of his bodyguard attacked him in his own tent. Almost

655

sixty years old, Nadir Shah killed two of his assailants before succumbing to the attack. Shortly after his death, civil war and chaos descended upon the empire he had forged. Despite Nadir’s short reign and cruel final years, he is generally considered one of Persia’s greatest rulers. See also: Safavid Dynasty.

NAM VIET KINGDOM (207–111 B.C.E.)

Ancient kingdom in present-day Vietnam that many experts consider the first historical Vietnamese kingdom, marking the beginning of Vietnamese history. The kingdom of Nam Viet was founded in 207 b.c.e., when General Trieu Da, a Chinese commander, overthrew the local Chinese authorities of Vietnam following the collapse of China’s Ch’in dynasty. He killed all local Chinese who were still loyal to the emperor and declared himself king of the territory.Trieu Da took the royal name Trieu Vu Vuong, quickly enlarged his new kingdom through further conquest, and renamed it Nam Viet. Encompassing present-day southern China and northern Vietnam, the Nam Viet kingdom incorporated the legendary state of Au Lac, which was located in the heart of the Red River Valley (in present-day northern Vietnam).Au Lac emerged out of the declining Hong Bang dynasty, the earliest Vietnamese dynasty, and it only lasted fifty years. Many Vietnamese historians consider the incorporation of Au Lac into Nam Viet to be the end of legendary accounts and the true beginning of modern Vietnamese history. For the next 100 years after its founding, Nam Viet saw much conflict between King Trieu Vu Vuong and his successors and the Han emperors of China, who sought to expand their empire. Throughout the period, Nam Viet came increasingly into the Chinese sphere of influence, and in return for annual tribute, the Chinese offered Nam Viet protection from its enemies. Finally, in 111 b.c.e., a Han Chinese army under the leadership of Emperor Wu-ti (r. 141–87 b.c.e.) reconquered Nam Viet and captured and killed its king.The Chinese renamed Nam Viet the kingdom of Annam (“pacified south”) and went on to rule the kingdom almost continuously for more than 1,000 years.

656

N a m Vi e t K i n g d o m

See also: Hong Bang Dynasty; Southeast Asian Kingdoms;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

the successor of the old Nanchao kingdom, which was conducting regular raids on northern Burma. See also: Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

NANCHAO KINGDOM (700–800s C.E.) Kingdom of unknown origins located in the southern region of China in Yunnan province. The Nanchao kingdom was established sometime during the first half of the eighth century in western and northwestern Yunnan.The kingdom had a largely Thai population, even though its rulers were of a different ethnicity, most probably southern Chinese. Between 757 and 763, armies led by the second Nanchao ruler, Ko-lo-feng (r. 748–778), conquered upper Burma and much of lower Burma. Soon after this conquest, Ko-lo-feng built a fortress in the upper Irrawaddy Valley to control the indigenous Pyu population, a number of whom were enlisted into his armies. Chinese records contain accounts of Pyu soldiers who served with the Nanchao forces that captured Hanoi in 863. Ko-lo-feng’s conquest of Pyu cities was successful in reopening the old trading road to India via upper Burma. The reopening of this route greatly contributed to the flourishing of trade and development in the region. Contemporary writers wrote of the production and trading of gold, amber, salt, horses, elephants, and other goods. After Ko-lo-feng’s death, his successor and grandson, I-mou-hsun (r. 778–808), continued to expand Nanchao’s control over the neighboring states in the region of Burma. Nanchao armies twice invaded China and raided Tongking and Annam in Vietnam, which were then under Chinese control. In 791, I-mou-hsun acknowledged the overlordship of China; he sent an envoy there in 800 with a present of Pyu musicians. Through the auspices of I-mou-hsun, relations between the Pyus and China were initiated and maintained. Chinese histories make very little mention of the Nanchao kingdom after the region was subdued by the Chinese in the ninth century c.e. By the twelfth century, Nanchao was no longer mentioned in Chinese court records. In 1103 and 1106, Kyanzittha (r. 1084–1113), the king of Pagan kingdom in central Burma, sent two missions to China.The diplomats he sent requested Chinese assistance in subduing Tali,

NAPLES, KINGDOM OF (1100s–1861 C.E.)

Kingdom that occupied much of the southern portion of the Italian Peninsula between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries. A hotly contested area since its emergence in the twelfth century, the kingdom of Naples did not see lasting peace until its unification with the rest of Italy in 1861. Even today, the effects of centuries of continual struggle and exploitation can be seen throughout southern Italy. The history of the kingdom of Naples is inextricably linked with that of the kingdom of Sicily, as the two were frequently united under the same rule throughout their existence. Consequently, it is difficult to attribute a precise date to the foundation of Naples, though many historians argue that the investiture of Count Roger II (r. 1105–1154) as king by Pope Innocent II in 1130 marks a crucial moment in the history of both kingdoms.

NORMANS, GERMANS, AND FRENCH Roger II was the nephew of Robert Guiscard, a Norman nobleman who drove the Byzantines out of southern Italy in the eleventh century. Roger was granted most of the land taken by his uncle after a struggle over the papal succession made him one of the most powerful individuals on the Italian Peninsula. The reign of Roger II was progressive and prosperous. But the Normans were displaced by the ascendancy of the German Holy Roman emperors at the end of the twelfth century, beginning with Henry VI (r. 1090–1097). Henry’s son and successor, the powerful emperor Frederick II (r. 1212–1250), took over Naples in 1197 and became one of the most powerful figures of the German Hohenstaufen dynasty. Hohenstaufen rule of Naples was effectively challenged in 1197, when Pope Clement IV named Charles of Anjou, who ruled as Charles I (r. 1266–1284), head of the kingdom. Clement had feared the power of the Hohenstaufens, and he also wanted to punish the family for its refusal to recog-

Na p ol e on I ( B ona pa rt e ) nize papal supremacy over the lands conquered by Robert Guiscard. In the dynastic struggles that followed the accession of Charles of Anjou, the kingdom of Naples separated from Sicily.The neighboring kingdoms warred intermittently until the late 1300s, when Queen Joanna of Naples (r. 1343–1381) granted limited sovereignty to Frederick III of Sicily (r. 1355–1377). Questions surrounding Joanna’s successor created more problems for the kingdom of Naples because she named Louis of Anjou heir to the throne over the objections of Pope Urban VI, who supported Charles of Durazzo. Charles had Joanna murdered and took the throne, ruling as Charles III (r. 1381–1386). The Anjou (or Angevin) and Durazzo (the Spanish house of Aragón) lines continued to war despite Charles’s apparent victory, setting the stage for an international struggle for control of Naples, with France and Spain each vying for supremacy. It was not until 1501 that the battles ceased, with Spain taking possession of Naples in accordance with the Treaty of Blois.

SPANISH RULE The Spanish rule over the kingdom of Naples was brutally oppressive, especially as the overwhelming majority of the tax burden fell on the shoulders of poor farmers. The inability of farmers to reinvest their income in the land led to a steep decline in agricultural production, bringing with it widespread famine and social unrest. Although some local uprisings took place in response to this situation—most notably in 1598, 1647, and 1670—these were all put down with vicious severity. It was not until 1707 that Spanish rule came to an end, as Austria took control of Naples in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714).The two hundred years of Spanish rule between 1505 and 1707 left Naples economically and socially devastated. Austrian control of Naples was brief.The Spanish returned to the kingdom in 1738, when the Spanish prince Don Carlos of the house of Bourbon took control of both Naples and Sicily in the wake of the War of the Polish Succession (1733–1735). Don Carlos, who became Charles III of Spain (r. 1759– 1788), tried to establish some progressive reforms in Naples, instituting various economic and administrative changes. He became mildly popular for doing

657

so, but the years of misuse made his job difficult, and most of his aims went unmet. More change in Naples was set in motion by the marriage of Charles’s son, Ferdinand IV (r. 1759– 1816) to Marie Caroline, the daughter of Maria Theresa of Austria and sister of Marie Antoinette of France. Marie Caroline was a powerful queen, who successfully purged Naples of Spanish influence and solidified an alliance with both England and Austria. The French Revolution, in which Marie Caroline’s sister, Marie Antoinette, fell under the guillotine, led Naples into war with Republican France. This began a disastrous series of battles that saw Naples change hands numerous times. This difficult period ended in 1816, with Ferdinand IV in control of a unified Naples and Sicily, known as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Both internal and external forces challenged this arrangement, however, and Ferdinand’s successors did little to endear themselves to their subjects; fierce brutality and extravagant spending marked their reigns.The Italian movement for unification, or Risorgimento, led by Giuseppe Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1849–1878), eventually conquered the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and united the entire Italian Peninsula as one nation in 1861. See also: Angevin Dynasties; Anjou Kingdom; Aragón, Kingdom of; Frederick II; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire; Maria Theresa; Marie Antoinette; Norman Kingdoms; Sicily, Kingdom of;Victor Emmanuel II. FURTHER READING

Acton, Harold. The Bourbons of Naples. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1974.

NAPOLEON I (BONAPARTE) (1769–1821 C.E.)

French military leader and emperor (r. 1804–1815), whose battlefield genius and passionate ambition for power enabled him to conquer nearly all of Western Europe in the early nineteenth century.

RISE TO POWER Unlike many other men and women who rose to the throne, Napoleon Buonaparte (more commonly

658

Na p ol e on I ( B ona pa rt e )

known as Bonaparte) was born into an aristocratic but not particularly powerful family. Napoleon’s father, a lawyer and low-level political figure, and his mother, a minor noblewoman, raised the future emperor and his brothers and sisters on the Mediterranean island of Corsica, which was then controlled by France. After being sent off to a French military school as a child, Napoleon was granted a military commission at the young age of sixteen and quickly rose through the ranks to become an officer in the artillery corps. The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 spurred the republican ideals of Napoleon and his family, as well as their support of French nationhood. As a result, they were forced to leave Corsica, which had few sympathizers for the revolutionary cause, and go to the French mainland. From this time forward, Napoleon was completely committed to the cause of France. In France during the Revolution, Napoleon played a key role in repelling the British and Spanish forces that had invaded in an attempt to keep the Revolution from spreading to other parts of Europe. After this clash, known as the battle of Toulon (1793), Napoleon was given charge of a brigade and sent to Italy, where the French were driving out the occupying Austrian army, which had also been at war with France in the wake of the Revolution. A string of successes awaited him there, but not before events occurred in Paris that introduced his name to all of France.

MILITARY MIGHT As post-Revolutionary France struggled to create and maintain a working government, a backlash movement began with the goal of returning the royal family to the throne. In 1795, royalist forces rose up in Paris to challenge the Republican government. Napoleon, at the head of the army opposing this revolt, utterly defeated the rebels and put down the uprising in one day’s time. As a result of this victory, Napoleon was put in command of the entire French army in Italy, and he also won the hand of his wife, Josephine, whom he married in the spring of 1796. In Italy, Napoleon overwhelmed the Austrian forces in 1796–1797 and was greeted by the Italian people as a liberator, though he did little to help improve their social situation. Napoleon’s popularity rose in France as well, as word of his victories came back to Paris, along with captured money for the French treasury. Napoleon rather unexpectedly concluded the war with Austria in the autumn of 1797

After defeating the Austrians in Italy, the French general Napoleon Bonaparte crossed the Alps back into France, where he became ruler of the country. In this famous painting by French artist Jacques Louis David, Napoleon Crossing the Alps, the future emperor is in the heroic pose of a conquering hero.

with the Treaty of Campo Formio, which gave France the Austrian kingdoms. With Austria driven back, Napoleon next set his sights on Great Britain, the only European power remaining with the strength to issue a serious challenge to France. Realizing that an invasion of Great Britain was not likely to succeed, Napoleon decided to wage indirect war on that nation in the spring of 1798 by conquering Egypt and cutting the British out of the Mediterranean and Indian trade routes. It was here, however, that the French navy suffered a setback at the hands of British admiral Horatio Nelson, who caught and annihilated the French fleet near the Nile Delta in August 1798. Napoleon, who had been defending the Egyptian mainland against an Ottoman attack, returned to France in 1799 when word reached him that the Republican government was rapidly losing the territories he had gained throughout the continent.

ABSOLUTE POWER Napoleon returned to Paris to find a government riddled with corruption and a population eager for a

Na p ol e on I ( B ona pa rt e )

659

ROYAL RELATIVES

JOSEPHINE (1763–1814 C.E.) A well-known beauty, Josephine married Napoleon largely because of his powerful position as head of the French army in Italy. Born Josephine de la Pagerie, the future empress was married to French general Alexandre de Beauharnais in 1779. Made a widow by the execution of Alexandre during the Reign of Terror in 1794, she was free to marry the increasingly powerful Napoleon, which she did in 1796. Examination of their correspondence reveals that Josephine never had much feeling for Napoleon, and the extramarital affairs that each had, sometimes with the other’s knowledge, certainly betray a difficult marriage. Since the union of Napoleon and Josephine did not produce an heir to the throne (she did have two children from her previous marriage), the empress was aware that she would likely be divorced and abandoned. Indeed, they did divorce, but Napoleon’s enduring respect for Josephine’s good sense led him to consult with her several times after their divorce. Josephine was a prominent social figure of the time, and her death was mourned by many of the prominent families of Europe.

replacement. Working with high officials, Napoleon staged a coup in 1799 and was named first consul of the new government, a position that, in effect, gave him authoritarian control of France. Napoleon immediately set about consolidating his power, abolishing many of the democratic gains of the Revolution and putting all aspects of the state under a powerful central government. He was able to appease his internal enemies, especially in the Church, but he made this and other French institutions subject to government control. By 1802, Napoleon was sufficiently powerful to name himself consul for life, and he pushed through a new constitution that refigured France as an absolute monarchy.

Success to the East With Napoleon at the helm, France was able to defeat, both militarily and diplomatically, all of its enemies on the continent by 1803, and was once again locked in a struggle with Great Britain for European supremacy. Although the French army was clearly superior on land, the British navy had controlled the seas since Nelson’s first defeat of France in 1798; thus a stalemate occurred, with neither side eager to advance upon the other.This situation remained until

1804, when Napoleon was declared emperor of the French by a nationwide election.This move, and the extension of France further into Italy the next year, drew Austria and Russia back into the war. Napoleon launched an offensive in the east in 1805 and drove back the Austrians and the Russians, who were under the command of Tsar Alexander I (r. 1801–1825). After a crushing defeat at Austerlitz in December of 1805, the Austrians withdrew from the war, and Napoleon was able to take the nearby Prussian territories with relative ease. By 1807, Napoleon had forced Alexander and Frederick William III of Prussia (r. 1797–1840) to give up much of their territory and join him in an alliance against the British, who had once again drawn the war in the west to a stalemate.

Trouble with Britain The British defeat of the French fleet at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805, during which no British ship was lost, had convinced Napoleon of the necessity of an alternative means of warfare against the enemy. With this in mind, he created an arrangement to block British trade by sea through a European embargo known as the Continental System. Britain’s naval su-

660

Na p ol e on I ( B ona pa rt e )

premacy and industry kept its economy aloft, however, and Napoleon’s plans never achieved their goals.

The Home Front With French power securely in place on the Continent, Napoleon set about ensuring his legacy in Europe. He filled several European kingdoms with his family members, and in 1809 he annulled his marriage with Josephine, who had not borne him an heir. Napoleon then married Marie Louise, a daughter of the Holy Roman emperor Francis II (r. 1792–1806). In 1811, the marriage yielded a son, François Charles Joseph, who later was hailed by Bonapartists as Napoleon II but never ruled France. In governmental affairs, Napoleon’s lasting contribution was the Code Napoléon, a new and complex legal system. Still in use in different forms today, the Code was an attempt to organize the French legal system into different sections governed by singular statutes. The Code Napoléon placed the numerous local French laws—many of which contradicted each other—under the authority of one clearly defined system. The Code was remarkable in that it was applied everywhere in France, thus making it one of the first national legal codes of the modern era.

DECLINE AND DEFEAT The fortification of his empire through internal reforms was not enough to protect Napoleon.Trouble began in 1812, when the French, angry at Russia’s refusal to adopt the trade blockade of England, invaded the western Russian territories.The campaign was a disaster, and Napoleon was forced to return to France just six months after he set out. Seeing the French army weakened by its drive into Russia, a new coalition of nations sprang up against Napoleon, with Great Britain, Austria, and Prussia joining the Russian forces against the French ruler. By the spring of 1814, these allies beat back the overextended French army and captured Paris. Napoleon was forced to abdicate the throne and go into exile on the island of Elba, near the coast of Italy. One year later, Napoleon escaped from Elba and marched on Paris with a huge army of supporters. He quickly reclaimed the throne and prepared to attack British and Prussian forces stationed in the Netherlands. With speed and surprise on his side, Napoleon hoped to divide the two armies and defeat them individually. This was not to be, however.

Crushed at the battle of Waterloo in June 1815, Napoleon was once again forced to abdicate the throne.This time he was imprisoned on the island of St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean, where he lived in British captivity until his death in 1821. See also: Abdication, Royal; Bonapartist Empire; Conquest and Kingships; Military Roles, Royal. FURTHER READING

Asprey, Robert. The Reign of Napoleon Bonaparte. New York: Basic Books, 2001. Schom,Alan. Napoleon Bonaparte. New York: HarperCollins, 1998.

NAPOLEON III (1808–1873 C.E.) President of France, emperor of the French, and last French monarch (r. 1848–1870), who was largely responsible for transforming Paris from a partly medieval city to a modern one. Born in 1808, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was the son of Louis Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon I (r. 1804–1815), and Queen Hortense of Holland. As a result of his uncle’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, Louis Napoleon spent most of his childhood in exile, first in Switzerland and then in England.With the deaths of his elder brother from measles in 1831 and Napoleon I’s son, Napoleon II, in 1832, Louis Napoleon became the eldest surviving male of his family, making him the inheritor of the Bonaparte legacy and a contender for the throne of France.

VYING FOR POWER A devoted follower of his uncle’s politics, Louis Napoleon challenged the current king of France, Louis-Philippe (r. 1830–1848), through political writings and several failed attempts at armed rebellion. As a result of the second such attempt at rebellion, he spent most of the 1840s in a French prison. He escaped on the eve of the revolutions of 1848, a series of armed uprisings that began in Paris and spread to many other European capitals. In the aftermath of the revolutions of 1848, Louis Napoleon won a seat in the new Constitutional Assembly, formed after Louis-Philippe’s abdication, and he emerged as the leading candidate for president of the new republic. Running primarily on his family name, Louis Napoleon won by a

Na p ol e on I I I wide margin, receiving five times the votes of his nearest challenger. Limited to one term by the new constitution, yet seeking to remain in power, Louis Napoleon dissolved the National Assembly in 1851.The following year he took the title of Napoleon III, emperor of the French, inaugurating the Second Empire (1852– 1870).

MODERNIZATION OF PARIS Napoleon III’s deepest impact on the shape of French history resulted from his desire to reshape Paris into the cultural and political center of Europe, while making the city better for its inhabitants.The strong economic growth of the 1850s enabled Napoleon III and the French government to fund widespread renovations of Paris’s urban landscape. Such changes were badly needed, as the city had changed little since the Middle Ages but now accommodated a population that had more than doubled during three decades, reaching 2 million by 1870. Under the direction of Baron George-Eugène Haussmann, Paris became a modern city. New sewers made city thoroughfares cleaner; nearly 1,000 miles of piping and 40,000 new gaslights made the city brighter, and by 1870 eighty million gallons of fresh water entered the city daily through newly constructed conduits. Many of the city’s streets were widened and straightened, and they connected major monuments and institutions.The twisted and narrow streets common in medieval cities were now largely gone. In their place was a new and better-organized city, still evident in the Paris of today. Not everyone looked kindly on these changes, however.The changes had caused the displacement of many poor residents of the city, and rents in the city center rose quickly. Efforts by Napoleon III to liberalize government in the 1860s, by extending voting rights and allowing open dissent, resulted in increased domestic instability and unrest. His brand of moderate monarchy pleased neither the working classes nor the entrenched aristocracy.

FOREIGN POLICY One of the cornerstones of Napoleon III’s foreign policy was the pursuit of an entente cordiale, or friendly relationship, with Great Britain. He believed that his country needed an alliance with Britain to reassert France’s position in Europe. Unfortunately, this alliance drew France into the Crimean War

661

(1853–1856) and facilitated the unification of Germany under German statesman, Otto von Bismarck. In an effort to help Italy gain independence from Austria, Napoleon III sent troops to Italy in 1859, but the expensive venture lessened his popularity within his own country. Napoleon increased French territory by the annexation of Savoy and Nice in 1860 and by the acquisition of Cochin China in 1867. Napoleon III’s effort to gain international power changed the history of Mexico. In 1858, liberals in Mexico led by Benito Juarez took control of the Mexican government, but conservatives had taken most of the treasury. Napoleon convinced Britain and Spain to join forces with him to surround the Mexican coast until Juarez paid Mexico’s international debts.The alliance had agreed that there would be no intrusion into Mexico or interference with its autonomy. Soon, however, Napoleon became convinced that Mexico should be ruled by a foreign power. He thus sent 6,000 French troops into Mexico City in 1864 to secure it for Napoleon’s chosen ruler of Mexico, Maximilian of Austria (r. 1864–1867), the brother of Austrian emperor Franz Joseph (r. 1848–1916). Although the French had superior numbers and equipment, they were soundly defeated by the Mexicans at Puebla on May 5, 1864 (a date commemorated in Mexico as Cinco de Mayo). Napoleon then sent 20,000 soldiers, who succeeded in driving Juarez from the capital. In 1865, the United States demanded that French troops withdraw from Mexico, and Napoleon III acquiesced. Only two years later, Emperor Maximilian was captured by Mexican nationals, put on trial, and executed by a firing squad. As a result of his ineffective foreign policies, Napoleon III found himself in a precarious position both at home and abroad by 1870. Growing tensions between France and Prussia, culminating in war in 1870, precipitated the end of the Second Empire. Napoleon III led his troops personally, and was captured by Prussian forces in September 1870. Soon after, Paris fell to the Germans, and France lost the regions of Alsace and Lorraine. Following the defeat and his eventual release by the Prussians, Napoleon III abdicated the throne in 1870 and joined his family in exile in Britain, where he died from kidney stones on January 8, 1873. See also: Bonapartist Empire; French Monarchies; Louis-Philippe; Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Second Empire.

662

Na p ol e on I I I

FURTHER READING

Price, Roger. The French Second Empire: An Anatomy of Political Power. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Smith, William H. C. Napoleon III:The Pursuit of Prestige. London: Collins and Brown, 1991.

NAPOLEONIC EMPIRE. See Bonapartist Empire

NARA KINGDOM (710–794 C.E.) The period in Japanese history between the move of the imperial capital in 710 from Asuka to Heijo-Kyo (now Nara) in the Yamato district, and its move further north to Heian-kyo (present-day Kyoto) in 794. During this period, the Japanese elite looked to China for cultural and political inspiration in shaping

a uniquely Japanese nation.The Nara decades were a rich cultural prelude to the brilliant, classical Heian period that followed. During the Nara period, Japan maintained extensive contact with China via embassies of several hundred men and visiting priests and students.A distinct Japanese writing system based on Chinese characters evolved at this time because of this influence. Also during this period, the first historical chronicles appeared (the Kojiki in 710 and the Nihon Shoki in 720) to legitimize the divine descent of the emperors from the legendary Jimmu. Reflecting the Japanese fascination with Chinese culture, the new capital in Nara was laid out in a grid pattern, copying the layout of the Chinese T’ang capital of Chang-an.

THE RITSURYO SYSTEM During the Nara period, centralized governmental institutions set up during the Taika Reforms of 645 (the Great Change Reforms) rapidly evolved into a highly centralized system of administration known as

The main hall of the Todai-ji Buddhist temple and monastery in Nara, the eighth-century imperial capital of Japan, houses a bronze statue of Buddha (Daibutsu). It measures over 50 feet tall.

Nara Kingdom

663

Nara Kingdom (707–781) Emperor Tenji (661–672)

Emperor Temmu (672–686)

Gemmei (daughter) (707–715)

Mommu (grandson) (697–707)

Gensho (granddaughter) Junnin (grandson) (715–724) (758–764)

Shomu (son) (724–749)

Koken (daughter)—ruled again as Shotoku (749–758) (764–770)

Konin (grandson) (770–781)

ritsuryo, which was copied from the Chinese model with significant Japanese modifications. Under the ritsuryo system, administrators and officials were appointed and reviewed according to merit. The country was divided into hierarchical units. All land belonged to the imperial government and was allotted to farmer-peasants and important families for cultivation; in return cultivators were required to pay taxes in produce (rice) or labor. The government was in charge of roads and civil order. The highly codified ritsuryo system remained the administrative framework of Japan for centuries. It was even woven into the new institutions of the bakufu system under the Kamakura shogunate established in 1192. Despite the centralized institutions, true centralized control was already problematical during the Nara period, as the imperial government was forcibly reshaped by economic reality and reacted pragmatically to shifts in local and regional power. Unlike the case in China, rank and position in

Japan had quickly become dependent on inherited family ties instead of personal merit. In addition, the peasants, who represented more than 90 percent of the population, bore an inordinate tax burden because of the practice of granting exemptions to courtiers, powerful religious institutions, and those who were willing to cultivate virgin lands. Those with exemptions exercised increasingly independent control over their own domains and constituted an ever-growing counterweight to imperial rule.

UNEASY RULE At great expense to imperial and provincial coffers, the Buddhist religion gained new legitimacy in Japan during the Nara era. A devout Buddhist who blamed the suffering of the people on his own inadequacies, the emperor Shomu (r. 724–749) commissioned Buddhist temples for each province as well as the enormous wooden Todai-ji temple in the capital, Nara. In addition, Shomu commissioned an equally enormous bronze statue of Buddha to be housed in

664

Nara Kingdom

the Todai-ji. The bronze casting of the Great Buddha was extremely difficult, and Shomu called upon the people to make personal contributions to the effort. The new Buddhist centers were meant to be the physical instruments that unified the spiritual and political realms of Japan. Instead, they became a power base from which Buddhist monks could challenge Japan’s rulers. Emperor Shomu was a member of the powerful Fujiwara clan through his grandmother, who had been an imperial consort. In 729, Shomu married another Fujiwara daughter, the first empress who was not a princess of royal blood. This marriage established the tradition of Fujiwara marriages into the imperial house and reinforced the already considerable influence of the Fujiwara family at the court. By the end of his reign, Shomu faced a dwindling tax base and growing resistance to central power. Beset by poor crops, famine, earthquakes, and disease (including the Great Smallpox Epidemic of 735–737), the peasants suffered greatly. Since the taxes on state lands were a heavy burden, many peasants simply abandoned their allotted fields and went to work on tax-exempt private estates, even though the legal demands of the nobles and temples might turn out to be equally or more onerous. By 784, the imperial court was plagued by a depleted treasury and factional strife among the nobles. In addition, it was pressured by the growing interference of wealthy Buddhist monasteries in secular matters. Perhaps hoping to counter all these factors, Emperor Kammu (r. 781–806) moved the capital from Nara to Nagaoka in 784, and then again to Hein-kyo (modern Kyoto) ten years later.This latter move to Hein-kyo marked the end of the Nara period and the beginning of the Heian era. The capital remained in Kyoto for 1,000 years, and during the Heian period (794–1185), the imperial court reached its zenith in refined manners and artistic achievement. See also: Fujiwara Dynasty; Heian Period; Jimmu; T’ang Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Bowring, Richard, and Peter Kornicki, eds. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

NARAI (1632–1688 C.E.) King (r. 1657–1688) of the Ayutthaya kingdom in Thailand (Siam), sometimes referred to as Narai the Great, who was best known for his efforts to advance the kingdom’s foreign affairs and literature. Narai was a successful ruler and great warrior who was able to resist his kingdom’s long-time rivals in Southeast Asia. In 1662, his troops successfully invaded Burma and the kingdom of Chiang Mai in northern Siam. These and other triumphs exalted Ayutthaya military strength throughout Asia. Narai also sought to involve his kingdom in the larger arena of world politics. Eager to end the Dutch East India Company’s control over foreign trade in Siam, the king developed commercial relations with India and Japan and tried to establish contacts with the British East India Company and the French.When the British decided not to compete with the Dutch in the 1680s, Narai cultivated an alliance with France. The king was assisted in his diplomatic efforts by Constantine Faulcon, a Greek adventurer whose linguistic abilities enabled him to become Narai’s chief minister and adviser in foreign policy. Narai’s attempt to court the French included sending diplomatic missions to King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715) in 1680, 1684, and 1686. While on these missions, Faulcon led the French to believe that Narai would make territorial concessions and even convert to Christianity. As a result, the French dispatched progressively larger delegations to Siam in 1682, 1685, and 1687—the last one with six warships containing 600 soldiers. Narai had thought that the French would be satisfied with his ceding to them the remote territory of Songkhla in southwestern Siam, but he was compelled to let them occupy the important city Bangkok as well. A significant anti-French and antiFaulcon reaction arose as a result of this occupation. Consequently, when Narai’s health started to fail (he suffered from an asthmatic condition), Faulcon was executed by opponents.After Narai died in 1688, his successors expelled the French from the country. King Narai was a poet, and during his reign, he promoted a revival of Thai literature. Poets gathered together frequently at his court, and he commissioned one of them, Pra Horatibodi, to write a Thai language textbook. The book, Chindamani, was intended to counteract French cultural influence, and

Nasrid Dynasty it ended up being used until the beginning of the reign of the Thai monarch, King Chulalongkorn (r. 1868–1910).

665

Sin died around 2218 b.c.e., he was succeeded by his son Shar-kali-sharri (r. ca. 2217–2193 b.c.e.). See also: Akkad, Kingdom of; Sargon of Akkad.

See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Chulalongkorn; Siam, Kingdoms of.

NASRID DYNASTY (1232–1492 C.E.) NARAM-SIN (d. ca. 2218 B.C.E.) King of the Akkadian Empire (r. ca. 2254–2218 b.c.e.) in ancient Mesopotamia, who was one of its greatest rulers and under whom the empire reached its peak of power. Naram-Sin was the grandson of Sargon (r. ca. 2334–2279 b.c.e.), the legendary founder of the Akkadian Empire in ancient Sumer. Naram-Sin was the fourth king of Sargon’s dynasty. He took the throne upon the death of his father, King Manishtushu (r. ca. 2269–2255 b.c.e.), and reigned for nearly four decades. During his reign, Naram-Sin proved to be as successful a ruler as his grandfather. While at the height of his power, he called himself the “king of the four quarters,” which implied that he ruled over all of the known world. Naram-Sin spent much of his time in battle, quelling rebellions throughout his empire and conquering new lands throughout Mesopotamia. His conquest of the Lullubi tribe in the Zagros Mountains to the north is celebrated in a carved stele, or stone pillar, now at the Louvre Museum in Paris. On the stele, Naram-Sin is shown larger than life, a heroic figure rising up a steep hill as his adversaries fall. Most of Naram-Sin’s military campaigns were successful, and the empire of Akkad reached its greatest extent during his reign. Despite the frequent rebellions within the empire, the people enjoyed a time of relative stability throughout Naram-Sin’s rule. Evidence suggests that Naram-Sin created the idea of a divine kingship for himself, a concept that was unusual for the time. Although he did not call himself a god, he credited his power with having come straight from the gods. In addition to enlarging his domain, Naram-Sin unified the administration of the empire, appointing loyal family members and supporters to positions of power. He also encouraged the growth of trade and embarked upon an extensive public works program, building temples, fortifications, and various monuments celebrating his achievements. When Naram-

Muslim rulers of the kingdom of Granada, a Moorish kingdom in the southernmost part of the Iberian Peninsula.The Nasrids were the last Moorish dynasty in Iberia, lasting much past the demise of the other Islamic dynasties there. The Nasrid kingdom of Granada was built on the profits from the silk trade, and it became a great center of Moorish art. Its continued existence, however, was due largely to its tributary relationship with the Christian kingdoms of Castile and Aragón. The Nasrids’ inability to muster a truly effective threat to the Christian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula made it easier to maintain this tributary existence. The Nasrid dynasty began with the reign of Muhammad I al-Ghalib (r. 1232–1273), who established a small kingdom in Granada after the fall of the Almohad dynasty of Moorish Iberia.When Christian forces defeated the Almohads at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212, most Muslim regions of Iberia were gradually overrun by Christian forces. Granada managed to survive, however, and the Nasrids eventually established their kingdom. The kingdom of the Nasrids provided a significant haven for Christians and non-Christians alike as the rest of the Iberian Peninsula fell to Christians during the reconquista (reconquest). As Christian forces reclaimed territory, Granada received a flood of Muslim and Jewish immigrants who were unwilling to convert to Catholicism as demanded by the Christian monarchs. Throughout its history, the Nasrid kingdom was continually threatened by the Christian kingdoms of Iberia. In addition to being the last stronghold of the Moors, it had crucial strategic significance, with ports that controlled the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea as well as traffic between Iberia and North Africa. Over a period of more than two hundred and fifty years, the Nasrids faced numerous threats of invasion and conquest from the Christian kingdom of Castile. However, once Castile united with the kingdom of Aragón through the marriage of Isabella I of Castile

666

Nasrid Dynasty

(r. 1474–1504) and Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516), the fate of the Nasrid dynasty was sealed. The Nasrids faced threats not only from the Christian monarchies in the north, but also from the Muslim empires of western North Africa. At the same time, their location between these groups gave the Nasrids a major role in diplomacy between those groups, allowing them to play the Muslim North Africans off against the Christian rulers. This role helped Granada maintain its independence.The Nasrids were able to maintain sovereignty owing to the wax and wane of the Spanish reconquest and the inability of the Muslims in North Africa to muster a sufficient force to invade. Through periods of relative peace, such as during the relatively long reign of Muhammad V (r. 1354– 1359, 1362–1391), the kingdom of Granada was able to develop into a leading center of Islamic learning and culture. Its greatness is symbolically embodied in the legacy of the beautiful Alhambra palace, which survives today. The late fourteenth century saw a renewal of the Christian reconquest, which contributed to a subsequent rise in hostility toward Christians in Granada. This provided motivation for the final battles of the Christians against the Nasrids, and it intensified when the Nasrids refused to pay tribute to the Christian monarchs in 1481. During the final years of the reconquest, between 1481 and 1492, the Nasrids ultimately fell victim not only to Christian military forces, but also to internal wrangling that caused a split within the Nasrid dynasty. Control of the kingdom juggled between two rival Nasrid factions, one led by Muhammad XII (r. 1482–1483, 1487–1492) (known also as Boabdil) and the other by Muley Hacén (Abu-al Hasan Ali) (r. 1464–1482, 1483–1485) and his successor, Muhammad XIII ibn Sa’d al-Zaghal (r. 1485–1487). By 1492, Isabella and Ferdinand had conquered the tiny kingdom of Granada. The last Nasrid ruler, Boabdil, first found refuge in the Alpujarras region of Andalucia (the southernmost province of Iberia). But he left there in 1493 to go to Morocco in North Africa, where in died in 1534.The end of the Nasrid dynasty and the conquest of the Moorish kingdom Granada paved the way for the Spanish monarchs to move on to other ventures, including the discovery and conquest of the Americas by Spanish explorers and adventurers.

See also: Almohad Dynasty; Ferdinand II; Granada, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; Muhammad XII. FURTHER READING

Harvey, L.P. Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Lapidus, Ira M. A History of Islamic Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Read, Jan. The Moors in Spain and Portugal. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1975.

NATIONAL IDENTITY The culture, values, symbols, and traditions that characterize any specific nation and that can theoretically be understood and shared in by all members of that nation.Though the very idea that all people in a nation can have a common identity has been criticized as at least partially fictional, national identity has been a powerful force for historical change and remains so today.

EARLY FORMATIONS Early efforts at generating national identity were thwarted by the limits of technology and distance, and people tended to identify more with small geographic areas and specific groups of relatives and neighbors. Some early empires, however, such as that of the Romans in Europe and the Han dynasty in China, made great strides toward the formation of widespread national identities through such projects as universal citizenship and the formation of state religion. The most successful rulers of these empires, such as the Roman emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) and Emperor Wu Ti (Wudi) (r. 140–87 b.c.e.), took a very active role in promoting the unity of their people and consequently came to be seen as early national symbols. Images of both rulers, for instance, continued to appear on coins and in artworks long after their deaths. Although these empires lasted for remarkable lengths of time, both eventually collapsed, largely because of the difficulty of maintaining a cohesive identity across large geographic areas.

THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD The early medieval period was marked by intense competition among local monarchs and kingdoms, as

Nat i ona l I d e n t i t y numerous groups sought to fill the void of power created by the collapse of the Roman and Han empires.This was true not only in China and in Europe, where feudalism soon developed, but even in areas where those powerful ancient empires had had little impact, such as India and Russia. As a result of the continuous territorial warfare that arose from this competition, national identities stagnated or returned to more localized domains for several hundred years. Although monarchies were generally unstable throughout the medieval period, technological advances in the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, especially the printing press, enabled the growth of widespread national identities. Improvement in printing technologies was instrumental in the development of national identity in Europe because it allowed for the spread of uniform information across large areas. As a result, it became much easier for distant individuals under the same monarch to identify with each other. Standardized printing also hastened the consolidation of regional dialects into official national languages. This trend later reached its peak in France, where the French Academy was founded in 1635.To this day, the Academy, run by the French government, serves as the highest authority on the usage and grammar of French language. In 1674, King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715) became the first monarch to head the Academy.

THE MODERN ERA National identity became a much more prominent and powerful force beginning in the seventeenth century as a variety of changes swept across the world. In Europe, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) initiated the modern state system. In China and Japan, the Ch’ing dynasty (1644–1912) and the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868) began their long-lasting and relatively stable reigns. And in Russia,Tsar Peter the Great (r. 1682–1725) instituted a process of rapid Westernization that swept away old traditions and replaced them with new ones. These unrelated phenomena signaled the emergence of modern nations around the globe, and with them, widespread national identities.

Flags and Anthems Modern national identities express themselves in a variety of ways. Flags, which local groups have used

667

in a variety of forms for centuries, have become national symbols. For instance, the British flag, known as the Union Jack and adopted in 1801, is a representation of the crosses of the patron saints of the three kingdoms that made up the United Kingdom—England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland— under the rule of one monarch. Similarly, national anthems have evolved around the world and frequently extol the virtues of the monarchy or even a specific monarch. Britain’s “God Save the Queen” is perhaps one of the most well known of these anthems, but Japan’s “His Majesty’s Reign,” Spain’s “Royal March,” and the Netherlands’ “William of Nassau” are other examples of such national anthems. In some countries where monarchies were overthrown, national anthems are specifically antiroyal, such as France’s “La Marseillaise” (Song of Marseilles), which scorns the “hateful tyrants” of the French monarchy. Most countries, however, have national anthems that ignore monarchy altogether, and instead celebrate the nation itself, such as Canada’s “O Canada,” Denmark’s “A Lovely Land Is Ours,” and Zimbabwe’s “Blessed Be the Land of Zimbabwe.” Both flags and anthems continue to serve as strong symbols of national identity today.

Religion, History, and the Arts Less obvious, though no less important, elements of national identity include religion, history, and the arts. Although many nations in the modern era have discarded the idea of a state religion, domestic religious traditions are still a significant bearer of national identity. In Japan, for example, the Shinto state religion was abolished after World War II, but Shinto and Buddhist shrines and rituals still make up a major part of the lives of most Japanese citizens. A shared history, usually commemorated through national holidays and monuments, is also a critical part of national identity. India’s Republic Day (January 26), for instance, marks the anniversary of the adoption of the first constitution of an independent India in 1950. In France, the annual Bastille Day (July 14) marks the day when the French Revolution began in 1789. Achievements in the arts, both traditional and contemporary, form another crucial aspect of national identity. In Russia, for example, traditional Cossack dances from the sixteenth century are still practiced alongside ballet, which became a major art

668

Nat i ona l I d e n t i t y

form in Russia only in the early twentieth century. Other important components of national identity include domestic wildlife, folklore, clothing, culinary traditions, currency, geographic landmarks, and political values. See also:Bodies, Politic and Natural; Nationalism. FURTHER READING

Gillis, John R., ed. Commemorations:The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994 Pecora, Vincent P., ed. Nations and Identities: Classic Readings. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell, 2001.

NATIONALISM A political ideology that considers the betterment of the nation before all other concerns, that holds one’s own nation above others, and that inspires the loyalty of individuals to the nation. Nationalism has the potential to lead to national rivalries and conflicts, but it also serves as inspiration to liberate people from foreign oppression and rule.

ORIGINS Many early kingdoms and empires—such as the Roman Empire—had some traits of nationalist ideologies. But nationalism as it is generally understood today is a phenomenon that began only in the eighteenth century. The transformation of kingdoms into modern nations in the seventeenth century—especially in Europe, China, Japan, and Russia—established the foundation from which nationalism could develop. Stable nations led to the emergence of widespread national identities, thereby allowing disparate residents of a given nation to see themselves as not only similar in characteristics, but part of a larger body politic as well. Although this trend had been evolving for several hundred years, it was the American Revolution that began in 1776 and the French Revolution that started in 1789 that ushered in the modern era of nationalist politics. The leaders of these revolutions emphasized not merely the shared destiny of all individuals living in the nation, but also the common end of all individuals and the nation itself.That is, the nation was seen as indivisible from its inhabitants, and

therefore the self-interest of the nation and the selfinterest of individuals became one and the same. Consequently, both revolutions were specifically antimonarchical. The French Revolution was especially influential in this regard because the revolutionary leaders attempted to export their nationalist ideology to other countries in Europe. Although the French revolutionaries were not overtly successful in doing so—France was ultimately defeated by other European military powers—the possibilities that revolutionary nationalism raised for people in other nations were made very explicit by the Revolution. That is, the French exported the idea of nationalism and universal citizenship, though not the actual policies of it.

TWO CENTURIES OF NATIONALISM The nationalist ideologies of the French Revolution simmered across Europe for a few decades before boiling over in the revolutions of 1848. In one year, nationalist revolutions broke out in Germany, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Austria, Hungary, and France, which had returned to a monarchical form of government. These new revolutions were nearly all antimonarchical, and they resulted in the overthrow of such royals as Louis Philippe of France (r. 1830–1848). They also forced other monarchs, such as Frederick VII of Denmark (r. 1848–1863), to accept liberal constitutions that severely curtailed the powers of the monarchy. Although none of the 1848 revolutions succeeded in establishing entirely new forms of government, they did liberalize existing governments a great deal and set in motion movements for national unification in Italy and Germany.

Germany German unification finally occurred in 1871, and the disparate kingdoms of Germany emerged as one of the most powerful nations in Europe. For the next fifty years, Germany was in the grips of nationalist fervor, and these feelings tended to focus on the German monarchs, notably Kaiser Wilhelm I (r. 1871–1888) and Kaiser Wilhelm II (r. 1888– 1918). German nationalism became the basis for tremendous military expansion under Wilhelm II, led to an arms race with Great Britain, and greatly increased international tensions throughout Europe by the start of the twentieth century, leading to World War I.

N ava l Ro l e s Austria-Hungary Although nationalism worked to strengthen Germany, nationalist movements within the AustroHungarian Empire worked to break that empire apart. A nationalist movement known as pan-Slavism had been developing in the Balkan region throughout the nineteenth century, and it came to a head at the beginning of the twentieth. Pan-Slavism advocated the national unity of all Slavic peoples, many of whom were under AustroHungarian rule. Slavs in the Balkans, supported by pan-Slavic nationalists in Russia and Serbia, were deeply opposed to the Austro-Hungarians, and began agitating for self-rule.These tensions erupted into the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) and ultimately into the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, in 1914.This event, coupled with the international tension surrounding German expansion, ignited World War I (1914–1918).Thus, historians frequently describe World War I as a nationalist war.

China Chinese nationalism came into bloom at the same time that nationalism was creating a serious crisis in Europe. In 1911, a nationalist group led by Sun Yat-sen succeeded in overthrowing the last Chinese ruler, Emperor Pu Yi (r. 1908–1912), who abdicated the throne the following year. Chinese nationalism, however, sputtered soon after as a result of internal conflict and a Japanese takeover. It reemerged sporadically, most noticeably in the wake of the two world wars.

Japan Japanese nationalism first emerged after the Meiji Restoration in 1868 and drove Japan on an expansionist track for the next several decades. Nationalism, as well as expansionism, abated briefly following World War I, but it returned quite forcefully in Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. Similar to the German nationalism of the pre-World War I period, Japanese nationalism was unrelentingly militaristic and centered on the emperor, Hirohito (r. 1926–1989). The expansionist policies supported by Japanese nationalists led the country into World War II (1939–1945), in which it was defeated by the Allied powers.

NATIONALISM RECONSIDERED Although the twentieth century witnessed very violent and destructive nationalist movements, it also

669

saw nationalism as a force of liberation. Many formerly colonized nations, such as India, Algeria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, gained their independence through nationalist agitation. Most of these types of nationalist movements achieved success only after World War II. The twentieth century also experienced some organized international efforts to limit nationalism and offer opportunities for peaceful cooperation, most notably in the presence of the short-lived League of Nations and the current United Nations.The mutual consolidation of many European nations into the European Union in 1993 is a direct reaction to the negative impulses of nationalist politics. See also: Bodies, Politic and Natural; Empire; National Identity; Postcolonial States. FURTHER READING

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso, 1991. Wiebe, Robert H. WhoWe Are:A History of Popular Nationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.

NAVAL ROLES Importance of sea power in the reign of a monarch; function of a monarch in the establishment of a navy. Before the twentieth century, large and small waterways provided the major means of travel. Monarchs endeavored to control navigation routes to protect their territory and the commerce they conducted with other realms.Victories or defeats at sea have changed the fortunes of monarchs and the course of history.

CEREMONIAL POWER For the Western world, the Mediterranean Sea was the route to political and commercial power. The Greek and Roman empires depended on their naval power as well as their land conquests. An annual ceremony in Venice, first celebrated in 1177 and called The Wedding of the Sea, demonstrated the value placed on naval power. At this event, the chief magistrate would throw a golden ring into the sea and declare the city’s right as a major port to exert maritime authority.

670

N ava l Ro l e s

In ancient Siam (Thailand), the people depended on river barges for transportation. Kings often staged elaborate royal barge processions during festivals and royal ceremonies and to welcome foreign diplomats.Visitors to Siam in the eighteenth century reported that some of these processions included as many as 400 boats. The processions were occasions for celebration and for demonstration of the king’s great naval power since the barges also served as warships. It is said that in the eighteenth century one could find 200,000 boats in the port city of Ayutthaya, attesting to the importance of navigation in the life of the country.

HE WHO RULES THE SEA Throughout the Age of Exploration, which began in the fifteenth century, it was sea power that determined a nation’s might. For example, although its land area is small, the superiority of the Netherlands on the sea in the seventeenth century enabled it to seize many Spanish and Portuguese colonies in the Americas and Asia and to establish itself as a major power. As an island country, Great Britain also depended on the sea to establish its power. Henry VII (r. 1485–1509) is credited with planting the seeds for what would become the British Royal Navy. Recognizing the naval threats posed by Scotland and France, he constructed his own fleet of fifty-eight armed warships. Henry’s successors were not as devoted to the navy as he, and the fleet decreased dramatically during the reigns of Edward VI (r. 1547–1553) and Mary I (r. 1553–1558). Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) did rebuild the fleet to some extent, but her major involvement in naval affairs was to decriminalize the activities of seamen such as Sir Francis Drake. This gave Drake and other privateers freedom to harass the ships of other countries. British fleets composed of both private and royal ships attacked Spanish vessels in particular, prompting Spain to form its powerful Armada to sail against English naval operations. Almost half of Spain’s ships were destroyed in the ensuing conflict in 1588, drastically reducing Spain’s international power. As sea routes around the world were explored, knowledge about many of them was carefully guarded. Although Prince Henry the Navigator (1394–1460) encouraged the sharing of knowledge about sea travel among cartographers, shipbuilders, and instrument makers in Portugal, he did not want

their knowledge to be widely disseminated.As long as other nations did not know how to reach distant lands, Portugal could keep a monopoly on trade with Africa and Asia. King Manuel I (r. 1495–1521) of Portugal declared a death sentence for anyone who shared navigation charts of routes along the African coasts. Tsar Peter the Great of Russia (r. 1682–1725), who brought his country into the European mainstream, recognized the importance of a strong navy. He had traveled throughout Europe in 1697–1698, returning with plans to modernize his country and make it a great military power.To secure a port easily reached by European ships, Peter began what is known as the Great Northern War with Sweden in 1700. After nearly twenty years, Russia gained much of the Baltic coast. By the time of Peter’s death in 1725, Russia had a fleet of more than forty ships and 800 galleys and was becoming a major sea power. Although the navy has generally been a source of power for a monarch, in the English Civil War (1640–1652), the navy fought against King Charles I (r. 1625–1649). This loss of naval support was probably an important factor in his defeat and capture by the parliamentary forces of Oliver Cromwell in 1649. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; Commerce and Kingship; Conquest and Kingships; Elizabeth I; Military Roles, Royal; Peter I, the Great; Power, Forms of Royal;Warfare.

NAVARRE, KINGDOM OF (1134–1515 C.E.)

An independent medieval kingdom comprising the modern Spanish province of Navarre and the French department of Basses-Pyréneés. The kingdom of Navarre played an important role in Spanish history because it controlled crucial mountain passes between France and Spain. Isolated from the rest of Spain, Navarre remained Christian as most of the rest of the Iberian Peninsula fell under Moorish influence.

RISE OF THE KINGDOM In the late 700s and early 800s, the region of Navarre was part of the kingdom of Pamplona, which was ruled briefly by Charlemagne and the Franks. After the death of the first king of Pamplona, Iñigo Arista

Nazca Kingdom (r. ca. 824–851) in 851, Pamplona and the neighboring dukedom of Vasconia were united as the kingdom of Navarre. In 860, the Crown of Navarre went to Arista’s son, Garcia I Iñiguez (r. 851–880), who established ties with the Christian kingdom of Asturias and zealously defended his kingdom from Moorish invasion from the south. When Garcia I was killed in battle against the Emir of Córdoba in 880, the throne passed to his son, Fortun Garcés (r. 880–905), who was captured by the Moors and held prisoner for fifteen years. After a twenty-two-year reign, Fortun entered a monastery, and the Crown passed to Sancho I Garcés (r. 905–925). By the time of his death in 925, Sancho I had succeeded in driving all the Moors from Navarre and in extending his own domain to include much of the region of La Rioja. His son and successor, Garcia I Sanchez (r. 931–970), also engaged in numerous conflicts with the Moors, who still threatened Navarre and other Christian kingdoms in Iberia. Garcia II ruled until 970 and was succeeded by his son Sancho II Garcés (r. 970–994).

PERIOD OF GREATNESS The most notable ruler of medieval Navarre was Sancho III, the Great (1004–1035), during whose reign the kingdom attained its greatest prosperity and extent. Sancho substantially enlarged his territory through conquest, eventually ruling almost all of Christian Spain. Because of its size and power, the kingdom of Navarre played a central role in the Christian reconquest of Spain from the Moors. Sancho’s empire was short-lived, however. At his death in 1035, he divided his territory among his four sons, with the eldest, Garcia III (r. 1035–1054), receiving Navarre. Garcia’s son and successor, Sancho IV (r. 1054– 1076), was murdered by his brothers in 1076. From then until 1134, Navarre came under the rule of the kingdom of Aragón. Under Alfonso the Fighter (1104–1134) of Aragón, the combined kingdoms reached their greatest territorial extent as a result of numerous conquests against the Moors.Alfonso had no heirs, and upon his death the kingdoms of Aragón and Navarre separated, with the throne of Navarre going to Garcia IV Ramirez (r. 1134–1150), a descendant of Sancho the Great. Garcia was an ineffective leader, but his son, Sancho VI, the Wise (r. 1150–1194), fortified Navarre and was undefeated in battle.

671

FOREIGN RULE From 1234 to 1274, Navarre was united with the French county of Champagne. It was ruled directly by France until 1328, when the kingdom declared its independence and called Juana II (r. 1328–1349) to the throne. Her grandson, Charles III (r. 1387– 1425), was called “the Noble” because he brought peace and prosperity to Navarre by instituting governmental reforms and improving transportation throughout the region. Because Charles outlived his sons, the throne went to his daughter Blanca (r. 1425–1441), who was married to John II of Aragón (r. 1425–1479). After years of civil strife between Blanca’s son Charles and his half-brother Fernando, Blanca’s grandson Francis Phoebus (r. 1479–1483) eventually succeeded to the Navarrese throne.At this point Ferdinand II of Aragón and Castile (r. 1479–1516) sought to gain sovereignty over Navarre by arranging a marriage between Francis’s sister Catherine and Ferdinand’s oldest son. Instead, in 1494, Catherine wed a French count. Ferdinand never gave up his hope of ruling Navarre, however, and he annexed most of the region in 1512. The French portion of Navarre, however, remained independent until 1589, when it became part of France. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Castile, Kingdom of; Sancho III, the Great.

NAZCA KINGDOM (flourished 100s–600s C.E.)

Pre-Columbian civilization of Peru that flourished prior to the rise of the Incas. Together with the Moche civilization, the Nazca belonged to the Wari culture. Among the most famous civilizations of South America because of the remarkable Nazca Lines created near the coast of southern Peru, the Nazca are also among the least understood people in the region. Like the Moche people, the Nazca left behind a wealth of ceramic and textile artifacts, along with an important urban center at Cahuachi and a cemetery in Chauchilla. Working with clues from burial sites at Chauchilla, archaeologists theorize that the Nazca were a stratified society, probably headed by a priestly class.The spread

672

Nazca Kingdom

of their distinctive cultural elements, particularly pottery, suggests that the Nazca dominated the southern coastal region of Peru, although this distribution could indicate an economic, or trading, dominance rather than a military one. The Nazca developed a sophisticated system of aqueducts and dams to support their agriculture, and Nazca culture reached its peak between the 100s and 600s. Of all the archaeological evidence that the Nazca left behind, the most impressive and intriguing are the Nazca Lines.These are a series of some thirty-two huge geoglyphs, which are depictions of figures (spider, monkey, dog, fish, and so forth) created on the surface of the earth by removing dark-colored surface rocks to expose lighter earth or stone beneath. The Nazca images are huge and can only be identified when viewed from a great height.The geoglyphs were never even noticed in modern times until the first airplanes flew over the Plains of Nazca near the Peruvian coast, where the images are located. The meaning and purpose of the Nazca geoglyphs remain unclear, although there has been no shortage of theories offered to explain them. One of the more fanciful suggests that the lines and figures could only have been created by visiting extraterrestrials, and are intended to be read from space. Another theory holds that the geoglyphs were created on such a huge scale and oriented to a celestial viewer because they were intended to be seen by the gods. More mainstream theorists suggest that the figures served as calendars or as maps of the constellations. In the absence of a written record (the Nazca appear never to have developed a written language), there is no way to prove or disprove any of these theories. As with many other civilizations in Mesoamerica and South America, the Nazca enjoyed a brief period of cultural ascendancy before abruptly disappearing from their settlements and urban centers. Like the Moche, the disappearance of the Nazca seems to have had no natural external cause: there is no evidence of disaster or war to explain why the people seemed suddenly to abandon their cities. Some experts believe that perhaps the Tiahuanacans of the Lake Titicaca region began intruding upon Nazca territory and that the people abandoned their cities in the face of a more powerful invading force.This is only speculation, however. See also: Inca Empire; Moche Kingdom; South American Monarchies.

NDEBELE KINGDOM (1830s–1890 C.E.) Kingdom founded by Mzilikazi (r. 1830s–1868) during the violent years of demographic upheaval that also gave rise to the Zulu kingdom. In the 1830s, southern Africa was the scene of great upheaval.The Dutch had claimed a colony centered at Cape Town, and its settlers, called the Boers, were rapidly moving inland, evicting the native occupants and claiming vast tracts of land for their farms. British settlers, enticed by reports of great mineral wealth, were also claiming territory throughout the region, attempting to displace the Boers and African peoples alike. In response to these threats, a powerful leader named Shaka Zulu (r. 1816–1828) amassed a great army to drive the Europeans away, while simultaneously enriching himself and his followers by raiding cattle from the Bantu peoples of the region.

FORMATION OF THE KINGDOM Among Shaka’s generals was Mzilikazi, who had not joined Shaka’s forces by choice. Mzilikazi’s people had been allied with the Ndwandwe, against whom Shaka had led a successful military campaign in the early 1800s. The victorious Shaka demanded that Mzilikazi and the defeated Ndwandwe submit to Zulu rule. On the strength of his military prowess, Mzilikazi was made a general and sent out on a cattle raid. Instead of turning the captured animals over to Shaka, however, Mzilikazi kept the animals for himself and headed north, declaring himself a king. Nzilikazi’s new kingdom, like the Zulu kingdom of Shaka, was not geographically based but was centered upon the person of the leader. Also like Shaka, Mzilikazi recruited subjects through conquest. As he and his followers moved through an area, the peoples they encountered were given a choice: become allies or face attack. At first, Mzilikazi enjoyed great success, and his following grew to dominate the region. In 1837, however, his beleaguered neighbors had had enough. An unlikely alliance of Boers and local African peoples of the region expelled Mzilikazi and his Ndebele, forcing them to retreat northward across the Limpopo River. Entering these new lands, Mzilikazi led his forces against the Shona people, who until this time were the dominant power in the region. Mzilikazi and the Ndebele conquered the Shona, and by this time they also had defeated, or outrun, Zulu troops who pur-

Nebuchadrezzar II sued Mzilikazi on orders from Shaka. Mzilikazi at last felt secure enough to establish a permanent capital for his Ndebele kingdom at Bulawayo (in present-day Zimbabwe). Mzilikazi maintained his powerful army, using them to mount raids against neighbors and defend his territory against the expansion of Boer settlements. By 1852, however, his increasingly unsuccessful campaigns against the Boers forced them to acknowledge defeat.The peace that followed did not last long, however. The discovery of rich gold deposits in this part of southern Africa touched off a gold-hunting frenzy among Europeans.

673

gula and his supporters were forced to flee for their lives. Lobengula spent the next year trying to muster a big enough force to strike back and reclaim his kingdom, but he never got the chance. He died in exile, and with him died the hope of reestablishing the Ndebele kingdom. See also: African Kingdoms; Lobengula; Mzilikazi; Shaka Zulu; Zulu Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Oliver, Roland, and G. N. Sanderson, eds. Cambridge History of Africa from 1870 to 1905. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

EUROPEAN THREAT The influx of Europeans, in turn, touched off waves of migration, as indigenous peoples fled the violence and disruption that the gold hunters left in their wake. Many of these refugees came to settle in Ndebele lands but were unwilling to submit to Mzilikazi’s rule. Mzilikazi was able to maintain order only through military force, and the years from 1860 until the king’s death in 1868 marked a time of great internal strife in the Ndebele kingdom. Mzilikazi was succeeded on the Ndebele throne by his son, Lobengula (r. 1868–1893). But Lobengula secured the throne only after two years of factional violence had wracked the Ndebele kingdom. Lobengula lacked the personal charisma of his father, and he never managed to reunify the kingdom. He also faced the ever-growing threat of European incursions into Ndebele lands. In an attempt to stabilize his kingdom, Lobengula sought to establish diplomatic relations with the British, entering into an agreement in which the British promised to provide military assistance in return for exclusive mining rights in Ndebele lands. Unfortunately, this alliance with the British ultimately proved to be the undoing of the Ndebele kingdom. The treaty between Lobengula and Great Britain became the basis on which his new “partner,” the British East Africa Company, engineered his overthrow. Mining expeditions sent by the company were escorted by British military troops, whose presence inspired resentment in Ndebele villages. In 1890, some Ndebele attacked the British, precipitating an all-out war that Lobengula was powerless to forestall. In 1893, after three years of violence throughout Ndebele territory, the British attacked Bulawayo and burned the Ndebele capital to the ground. Loben-

NEBUCHADREZZAR II (d. ca. 562 B.C.E.)

The greatest ruler (r. 604–562 b.c.e.) of the shortlived Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire in Mesopotamia, who is known to history largely for conquering the Hebrew kingdom of Judah and for rebuilding the ancient city of Babylon, transforming it into one of the most magnificent cities in the ancient Near East. Nebuchadrezzar (also referred to as Nebuchadnezzar) was the son of Nabopolassar (r. ca. 625–605 b.c.e.), a Babylonian leader who revived the Babylonian Empire from his base in Chaldea along the Persian Gulf around 625 b.c.e.Trained to leadership from an early age, the young prince Nebuchadrezzar led an army that crushed the Egyptians under Pharaoh Necho II (r. ca. 610–595 b.c.e.) at the battle of Carchemish in Syria in 605 b.c.e. Learning of his father’s death while on that campaign, Nebuchadrezzar sent his army home via a route through northern Mesopotamia, while he took a shortcut through the desert, arriving in Babylon twenty-three days after his father’s death to claim the throne. When the Neo-Babylonian Empire was formed from the remnants of the Assyrian Empire, it took control of all the former Assyrian territories and client states. Among these dependencies was the Hebrew kingdom of Judah. Like other regional rulers caught between the great powers of Mesopotamia and Egypt, the kings of Judah had to play a balancing act that did not always succeed. Encouraged by promises of support from Egypt, Judah rebelled

674

Nebuchadrezzar II

The greatest ruler of the Chaldean Empire, Nebuchadrezzar II is known for his territorial conquests and extensive construction projects, including the fabled Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Inscribed boundary stones, or kudurrus, were placed at significant sites and served as records of royal decrees, transactions, and other notable events.

against the Babylonians in 598 b.c.e., only to be defeated by Nebuchadrezzar’s forces the following year. King Jehoiachin of Judah (r. 598–597 b.c.e.) and 3,000 of his subjects were exiled to Babylon, but Judah was left intact. A second Hebrew revolt in 586 b.c.e., started against the advice of the prophet Jeremiah, brought Nebuchadrezzar with a large army to lay siege to the city of Jerusalem. The Babylonians destroyed the city, including Solomon’s Temple, and forced many thousands of citizens into exile.This event is bitterly recorded in the Bible (where the Babylonian king is

called Nebuchadnezzar and is seen as an instrument of Divine punishment from the Hebrews’ god). Nebuchadrezzar’s alliance with the kingdom of the Medes, a powerful state located on the Iranian plateau to the east, was cemented by his marriage to Amytis, daughter of the Median king, Cyaxares (r. 625–585 b.c.e.). According to legend, Nebuchadrezzar built the famous hanging gardens in Babylon to relieve his wife’s longing for her mountainous homeland.The alliance with the Medes gave Nebuchadrezzar a free hand to subdue and incorporate all Assyrian lands from the borders of Egypt in the south well into Anatolia (present-day Turkey) in the north. Under Nebuchadrezzar, an effective bureaucracy governed the Chaldean Empire. Heavy taxes were collected from the people to offset military expenditures and to support Nebuchadrezzar’s ambitious construction program, which focused largely on the city and region of Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar built temples, lavish palaces, and massive fortifications. He strengthened and extended the walls of the city, constructed broad processional boulevards, and restored old canals and built new ones for purposes of defense, sanitation, and irrigation. Hundreds of rooms and courtyards were added to the royal palace, and brilliant tile reliefs were used to decorate the palace and other buildings. In his documents and inscriptions, Nebuchadrezzar claimed universal kingship, granted by the Babylonian god Marduk, who was actually revered throughout Mesopotamia. He also claimed to be a descendant of the Akkadian king, Naram-Sin (r. 2254–2218 b.c.e.), who had ruled nearly two thousand years before. Nebuchadrezzar also claimed the mantle of reformer and fighter for civic justice. By all evidence a pious follower of the ancient gods of Babylon, Nebuchadrezzar engaged many thousands of workers in rebuilding and adorning temples. One of these was the massive Etemenanki complex in Babylon, which housed an astronomical observatory as well as a temple to Marduk.The Etemenanki may have been the model for the Tower of Babel mentioned in the Bible. Nebuchadrezzar also gathered antiquities into a museum, and he encouraged the arts and literature. After a long reign of forty-three years, Nebuchadrezzar died peacefully of natural causes in 562 b.c.e. He was succeeded by his son,Amel-Marduk (r. 561–560), the first of a series of weak and ineffective rulers who presided over the rapid decline of the empire. The Book of Daniel in the Bible relates an

N e f e rt i t i account of Nebuchadrezzar’s madness, but historians discount this story. This probably referred to a later successor, Nabonidus (r. 555–539 b.c.e.), whose eccentric behavior may have led to the fall of Babylon to the Persians less than twenty-five years after Nebuchadrezzar’s death. See also: Akkad, Kingdom of; Assyrian Empire; Cyaxares; Judah, Kingdom of; Medes Kingdom; Nabopolassar; Naram-Sin. FURTHER READING

Roux, Georges. Ancient Iraq. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin, 1992.

NEFERTITI (ca. 1416–1350 B.C.E.) Chief wife of Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV [r. 1350–1334 b.c.e.]) of Egypt’s New Kingdom, and stepmother of the young pharaoh Tuthankhamun (r. 1334–1325 b.c.e.), who helped her husband launch a period of religious reform in ancient Egypt. A noblewoman from either the Mitanni kingdom of the Middle East or from the Egyptian royal family, Nefertiti married her husband before he became pharaoh. After he took the throne, Akhenaten gave his wife the additional name Neferneferuaten, which associated her with the sun-god Aten, whose worship became the defining feature of their reign. From the beginning of Akhenaten’s rule, Nefertiti assumed important religious functions, as can be concluded from many portrayals of her alongside her husband in Egyptian sculptures and reliefs from the period. In many portraits, Nefertiti is shown dispensing maat (order or truth), a quality said to keep the world in balance by defeating the powers of chaos. One shrine at the temple of Karnak in Luxor was dedicated to Nefertiti alone. She is the only person other than the pharaoh to be depicted being embraced by the divine rays of Aten, the sun-god.

675

Under Akhenaten and Nefertiti, the royal art of Amarna became less formal and more natural than the previous style, and the official literature of the new regime reflected the actual spoken language. The royal couple imposed these and other reforms by means of absolute power, building a cult around themselves as the center of public art and worship. In fact, the royal family became the virtually exclusive subject of all art at Amarna, even in private homes. Early portraits of Nefertiti at the temple of Karnak show her with physical features similar to those of her husband, but she later appears as an individual with her own features. One of the most famous portraits of Nefertiti is an elegant painted bust sculpure found at Amarna. Nefertiti is often featured together with the pharaoh and their six daughters in intimate family scenes. She sometimes appears with royal regalia— she was the only one of Akhenaten’s wives ever de-

THE AMARNA REVOLUTION Early in their reign,Akhenaten and Nefertiti staged a religious and political revolution. They imposed exclusive worship of the sun-god Aten and suppressed the powerful priests of Amon-Ra, the supreme Egyptian deity. At their new capital city Akhetaten (Tel-el-Amarna), they appointed many commoners to the administration.

The wife of Pharaoh Akhenaten, Nefertiti helped her husband introduce new religious beliefs in Ancient Egypt, and her likeness appears in numerous portraits and sculptures. This painted limestone bust was discovered at the ruins of Amarna, the capital of Akhenaten’s kingdom.

676

N e f e rt i t i

picted with a crown, and many scholars speculate that Akhenaten eventually named her as co-regent.

DECLINE AND FALL Some twelve years into Akhenaten’s reign, Nefertiti seems to have left public life. Some scholars speculate that she opposed her husband’s belated compromises with their opponents. Others believe that she returned to Thebes, the old capital of Egypt, to try to win over the dispossessed priests of Amon-Ra. According to some evidence, Nefertiti outlived her husband and later planned to marry a Hittite prince in order to maintain her power and keep the cause of Aten alive. Or she may have taken on a male persona and ruled herself for two years, with her daughter Meritaten as her official wife. Still other archaeological evidence, however, indicates that Nefertiti died before Akhenaten. In any event, soon after Akhenaten’s death, their religious revolution was forcefully overturned, and the old order was restored. Nefertiti’s name and picture were removed from many monuments, as were those of Akhenaten. However, enough of her sensitive, beautiful portraits have survived to stimulate continuing historical and romantic speculation about this remarkable queen.

from a previous marriage,Agrippina managed to talk her new husband into adopting Nero as his successor. To strengthen his claim to the throne, Nero married his stepsister, Claudius’s daughter Octavia, in 53, and Claudius then died the following year. Nero claimed his imperial inheritance, but he was still very young (he was only sixteen years old). Agrippina therefore exercised a great deal of influence over the early years of Nero’s reign, serving as one of his advisers along with his tutor, Seneca the Younger, and Burrus, who led Nero’s Praetorian Guard. (The Praetorian Guard was the personal security force sworn to protect the emperor.) As emperor, Nero quickly discovered that at last he had the opportunity, and the power, to indulge himself as he wished. He is remembered for his decadence, his devotion to spectacles and performances, and his passion for the arts. He fancied himself a singer, ordering the public to attend his performances. This behavior gave rise to the legend that he “fiddled while Rome burned.” Nero is also remembered for his unvarying response to those who stood in his way: he had them

See also:Akhenaten; Egyptian Dynasties,Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth).

NEPAL, KINGDOM OF. See Shah Dynasty

NERO (37–68 C.E.) Emperor of Rome (r. 54–68) during a period of great cultural achievement, who in contrast is remembered mainly for his cruelty and his cowardice. Originally named Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, Nero was born on December 15, 37. His father was a Roman consul, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, and his mother was Agrippina, the great-granddaughter of Emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.). His uncle was the emperor Caligula (r. 37–41), who also ruled Rome for a time and whose instability and cruelty were mirrored in Nero’s own reign. When Nero was eleven years old, his ambitious mother took her fourth and most prestigious husband, Claudius (r. 41–54), then emperor of Rome. Although Claudius already had a son, Brittanicus,

The fifth emperor of Ancient Rome, Nero was a cruel, unstable, and decadent ruler who enjoyed grand spectacles and performances. An enthusiast of art and architecture, he spent much of his treasury rebuilding Rome after a devastating fire swept through the city in 64 c.e.

Netherlands Kingdom murdered. For instance, in 58, Nero began an affair with a woman named Poppaea Sabina, although he was married to Octavia. His mother did not approve of his affair, and in retaliation he ordered Agrippina killed. He was also responsible for the deaths of many of the major Roman writers of his era, including Lucan, Seneca, and Petronius. The death of Agrippina marks a period in which Nero’s dissolute behavior intensified, perhaps due, in part, to the encouragement of Poppaea.When Nero decided to marry his lover in 62, he had no patience with the inconveniences involved in getting a divorce, he simply ordered Octavia killed. Meanwhile, he moved further and further away from the counsel of his advisers, neglecting his armies and the duties of his office, and turning instead to sycophants and hangers-on who encouraged him in his debauchery. In 64, the city of Rome suffered a devastating fire, which many believed was set by Nero himself. Nero had developed an enthusiasm for architecture and was frustrated that there was not enough space within the city to accommodate his designs. Nero, however, laid the blame for the fire on the city’s Christians and initiated a period of brutal reprisals against the still young religious sect. For the powerful families of Rome, for the army, and even for the Praetorian Guard, Nero had clearly become a problem that could no longer be ignored. In 65 a conspiracy was formed to oust Nero and replace him with a new ruler of their own choosing. Nero discovered this plot and retaliated in the only way he knew how—killing everyone he suspected of involvement. Following this incident, his instability became ever more blatantly exposed, and revolts became widespread throughout the empire. In 68 Nero’s armies, and even his own Praetorian Guard, determined that their loyalty belonged to the office of emperor, not to the man who held it, and that Nero was a danger to the throne.They joined the cause of the rebelling factions, and Nero fled in a panic.With no safe place to turn, he committed suicide on June 9, 68. He was the last of the JulioClaudian emperors. See also: Caligula; Claudius; Julio-Claudians; Julius Caesar; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 B.C.–A.D. 476. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1997.

677

Nardo, Don. The Roman Empire. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1994. Starr, Chester. A History of the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

NETHERLANDS KINGDOM (1813 C.E.–Present)

A constitutional monarchy created in 1814 from territories that had been under Napoleonic control, including Belgium, Luxembourg, and the seven provinces that had formed the independent federation of the United Netherlands. Before their annexation by the revolutionary French government in 1795, the seven provinces of the United Netherlands had been governed by a hereditary stadholder, or governor general. The son of Prince William V of Orange (r. 1751–1795), the last stadholder became King William I (r. 1813–1840) after commanding Dutch forces in the French Revolutionary wars. William I governed autocratically and soon faced rebellion from Belgium, which declared its independence from the Netherlands in 1830. William I abdicated in 1840 in order to marry a Catholic countess, which was unacceptable to the Protestant citizens of the Netherlands. His son,William II (r. 1840–1849), met opposition from those who agitated for political and economic reforms. In 1848, with revolution threatening all over Europe,William II accepted a new liberal constitution, which made ministers responsible to the States-General (parliament) instead of to the monarch. William II’s son,William III (r. 1849–1890), was opposed to the liberal constitution and wanted to renounce his right to rule. But he ended up succeeding his father on the throne when William II died in 1849. During William III’s long forty-one-year reign, the major force for reform in the Netherlands was the prime minster, Johan Rudolf Thorbecke. When William died in 1890, his only surviving child, ten-year-old Princess Wilhelmina, inherited the throne. Luxembourg seceded from the Netherlands kingdom that same year rather than accept a female ruler. Because Wilhelmina was too young to rule on her own, her mother Emma acted as regent until 1898. Queen Wilhelmina (r. 1890–1948) was known for her grasp of affairs of state. In May 1940, when

678

Netherlands Kingdom

the Netherlands fell to the German Nazi invasion, the royal family fled to England, where Wilhelmina inspired the Dutch resistance through radio broadcasts. In 1948, the ailing Wilhelmina abdicated in favor of her daughter, Juliana (r. 1948–1980), whom the people had come to love for her relief work in a war-ravaged country. As queen, Juliana was known for her social concerns; she continued her postwar relief operations and became president of the Dutch Red Cross. In 1980, Juliana abdicated in favor of her oldest daughter, Beatrix (r. 1980–present), who proved to be more aloof than her mother and who adopted a more managerial style of rule. As constitutional monarchs, the rulers of the modern Netherlands, like the queen of England today, enjoy only symbolic power.They exercised their only significant political power during World War II, when Queen Wilhelmina had to make decisions in the absence of the States-General and ministers.The monarchy has remained popular among the Dutch citizens of the Netherlands as a symbol of national unity. See also: Juliana; Orange-Nassau, House of;Wilhelmina;William I.

NEVSKY, ALEXANDER (1220–1263 C.E.) Prince of Novgorod and Vladimir (r. 1252–1263) who defeated the Swedes and, most notably, the Livonian Knights, but who cooperated with the invading Mongols in their subjugation of northern Russia. Born AlexanderYaroslavich, Nevsky was the son of Yaroslav II (r. 1238–1246), grand prince of Vladimir and one of the most powerful of Russian rulers. Alexander became military commander (prince) of Novgorod at age sixteen. For the next four years he fought the Finns and Lithuanians in the Baltic area, where Novgorod ran its profitable shipping lanes. Then, in 1240, he defeated a sizable and organized army sent by the king Erik Eriksson of Sweden (r. 1234–1250). This victory came near the River Neva and thus earned him the surname of “Nevsky.” After this important battle,Alexander Nevsky had ongoing disputes with the municipality of Novgorod, and the hero was exiled a short time later. In 1236, Pope Gregory IX conspired with the Livonian Knights—an order of knights in the southeastern Baltic area who also had a growing empire in the re-

gion—and gave his blessing for a crusade against the prosperous Novgorodians. Faced with this threat, the city fathers of Novgorod thought better of their earlier decision and called back Alexander Nevsky, their heroic military commander. Alexander met and defeated the powerful knights in a fierce battle on the ice of Lake Peipus (near Pskov) in the winter of 1242. Nevsky returned from this victory to rule a grateful Novgorod. However, during these struggles with the Finns, Lithuanians, Swedes, and Livonian Knights, enormous Mongol armies had subjugated most of eastern and southern Russia. Alexander’s own father had agreed to serve the new Mongol rulers before his death in 1246. Alexander, the great hero who had secured the Baltic, never fought the invading Mongols. Instead, over the next sixteen years, he made three trips to meet the great khan in the Mongol region of Karakorum in Central Asia and developed a close friendship with Batu (r. ca. 1227–1255), the local khan of the Golden Horde (the name of the Mongol state that ruled Russia). However, Alexander did fight against his brother, Andrew, who revolted against the Mongols, and he fought against other Russian principalities that rebelled against them as well. Eventually, in 1252,Alexander followed his father as grand prince of Vladimir (appointed by his friend, Batu). Through a policy of diplomacy and cooperation, he was able to save Novgorod, Kiev, and several other Russian cities and principalities from bloody reprisals by the Mongols. He also was consistently praised by the Russian Orthodox Church, which was left intact and untaxed by the Mongols. During a diplomatic mission to settle tax disputes with the Mongols in 1263, Nevsky died. He was succeeded as prince of Vladimir by his brother, Yaroslav III (r. 1264–1271). Popular tradition in Russia made Alexander Nevsky a great hero, and he was canonized by the church in 1547. See also: Rus Princedoms; Russian Dynasties; Vladimir Princedom.

NGONDE KINGDOM (ca. 1500–late 1800s C.E.)

Kingdom in eastern Africa that was founded around 1500, when immigrants from what is now Tanzania

Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty came into northern Malawi in search of a place to settle. The founders of the Ngonde kingdom were a Mbundu-speaking people, and, as such, they shared a relationship with the kingdoms known by that name that rose later in Angola. In fact, the rulers of Ngonde, like those of the Mbundu kingdoms, bore the title of ngola, from which the modern nation of Angola takes its name. The Ngonde state was originally organized in small, independent chieftaincies. But around 1600, these individual states united to form a kingdom, most likely in order to participate more effectively in the regional trade that flourished in east Africa. The ruler of the kingdom took the title Ngola a Kiluanje, probably a reference to the king’s ritual responsibilities for rainmaking shrines. The Ngonde never achieved dominance in the region; that fell to larger or more militant states such as the Lunda and the Undi. They did, nonetheless, manage to remain independent of their more powerful rivals, at least until the 1800s. At that time, the Ngonde kingdom lost much of its revenues, derived from brokering trade, when neighboring trading partners began dealing directly with the Europeans. By the late 1800s, the British had established the Central African Protectorate, under whose jurisdiction Ngonde fell, and the kingdom was subsumed under colonial rule. Its kings became figureheads, cultural icons rather than political figures. See also: African Kingdoms; Lunda Kingdom; Mbundu Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Pachai, Bridglal. Malawi: The History of the Nation. London: Longman, 1973.

NGUYEN ANH (d. 1820 C.E.) Founder of the Nguyen dynasty of Vietnam, who took the imperial name Gia Long (r. 1802–1820). A nephew of a Nguyen warlord, Nguyen Anh was the only member of the Nguyen family to survive the Tay Son rebellion, a rebellion against oppressive landlords and overlords of the kingdom of Dai Viet (in present-day Vietnam). By the end of the 1700s, peasant revolts over oppressive policies and taxation had begun to break out

679

in both the northern and southern parts of the kingdom of Dai Viet. Capitalizing on this civil unrest, two brothers from the village of Tay Son in Binh Dinh province led a rebellion from 1771 to 1802 that ousted the last monarch of the Le dynasty and the ruling lords of the Trinh and Nguyen families.The Tay Son brothers sought to restore national unity and redistribute land and property to the poor. During the rebellion, all of the Nguyen ruling family were killed except the sixteen-year-old Nguyen Anh, who fled to the Mekong River Delta and began gathering supporters to stage a counterattack.Around 1778, Nguyen Anh led an attack against the Tay Son, whose control over the country was weakening. He relied on help from a French missionary by the name of Pigneau de Béhaine to finally defeat the Tay Son forces in 1802. Nguyen Anh ruled as Emperor Gia Long for the next eighteen years. Because of his close relationship with Pigneau de Béhaine, he implemented policies of tolerance for Christian missionaries that would be atypical of his successors. When Nguyen died in 1820, he was succeeded on the throne by his son, Minh Mang (r. 1820–1841). The Nguyen dynasty that Nguyen Anh founded continued to rule Vietnam until 1945. See also: Le Dynasty; Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty; Trinh Dynasty;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

NGUYEN (HUE) DYNASTY (1802–1945 C.E.)

Last ruling dynasty of Vietnam, which was finally forced to cede power to the French after World War II. The Nguyen (or Hue) dynasty of the kingdom of Vietnam was founded in 1802 by Nguyen Anh, who took the imperial name Gia Long (r. 1802–1820). But the Nguyen family had a long and illustrious history before becoming the ruling dynasty of Vietnam. As early as the mid-sixteenth century, with the partition of Vietnam into northern and southern states in 1545, the powerful Nguyen family ruled the southern half of Dai Viet in the name of the Le dynasty. In 1620, the rivalry between the Nguyen and the Trinh families erupted into open warfare, with hostilities continuing intermittently for the next fifty years. By 1673, both families accepted a de facto division of Vietnam.

680

Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty

At the end of the eighteenth century, a revolt known as the Tay Son rebellion erupted and nearly ended the powerful Nguyen family’s reign. In 1771, two brothers from the village of Tay Son in Binh Dinh province revolted against the Trinh and Nguyen families and sought to unify the country.With the support of the peasants, the Tay Son brothers implemented land reform policies, redistributed wealth to the poor, and restored national unity. Nguyen Anh, the nephew of a Nguyen warlord, retook control of the country in 1802 with the help of the French and changed its name to Nam Viet. (It was the Chinese who began using the name Vietnam.) The French invaded Vietnam in 1858 and forced Tu Duc (r. 1847–1883), the last of the Nguyens to rule the kingdom as an independent state, to cede the three eastern provinces of southern Vietnam to France. Later in Tu Duc’s reign, the French established the colony of Cochin China and the protectorates of Annam and Tonkin in the region. During the following years, until 1945, the Nguyen family still ruled over the northern and central regions of Vietnam, but it was the French who had real control of the country.

When the Russian army defeated the French forces of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1812,Tsar Alexander I (r. 1801–1825) did not allow his younger brother to participate in the conflict. But Nicholas was permitted to join Alexander’s triumphant march into Paris in 1814. Recognizing Nicholas’s love for the army, Alexander gave him a ceremonial commission as a staff officer and arranged for him to tour the European capitals. Thus, although he served in the army, Nicholas never entered combat, and his lack of experience presaged the poor military decisions he would later make as tsar. Alexander I died in 1825, leaving no direct heir. Next in line of succession was Nicholas’s older brother, Constantine, but intimidated by threats from a rebellious group called the Decembrists, Constantine refused to take the throne. After some hesitation, Nicholas took the throne as Nicholas I and brutally suppressed the Decembrist uprising. The group’s actions, coupled with Nicholas’s memories of the assassination of his grandfather, Paul I, created a deep fear of revolution in Nicholas that would dictate many of his future actions.

See also: Le Dynasty; Nguyen Anh; Trinh Dynasty;Vietnamese Kingdoms.

NICHOLAS I (1796–1855 C.E.) Russian tsar (r. 1825–1855) who stifled civil liberties in Russia and instigated the Crimean War (1853– 1856). The grandson of Catherine II the Great (r. 1762–1796), Nicholas Pavlovich was the third son of Tsar Paul I (r. 1796–1801) and Maria Fedorovna. Catherine intended Nicholas’s eldest brother Alexander to succeed her rather than her own son Paul, so she separated Alexander and his younger brother Constantine from the family to educate them as she desired. However, Nicholas, the youngest brother, remained in his parents’ austere court, where his father’s infatuation with the military strongly influenced him. When Nicholas was four years old, his father appointed a Russian general, Count Lamsdorf, as his tutor. Nicholas studied classical languages, law, and philosophy, but Lamsdorf was a poor teacher and Nicholas increasingly rejected his studies, instead indulging his fascination with strategy and the military lifestyle.

An autocrat who denied basic civil liberties to his people, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia made little attempt to improve the lives of the Russian peasantry during his thirty-year reign. His policies contributed to crippling social problems that fueled the Russian Revolution in 1917.

N i c h ol a s I

681

ROYAL RELATIVES

CONSTANTINE PAVLOVICH (1779–1831 C.E.) Constantine Pavlovich was the younger brother of Tsar Alexander I and the older brother of Tsar Nicholas I.When Alexander and Constantine were children, their grandmother, Catherine II, separated them from their parents and assigned the Swiss republican Jean Francois de La Harpe to educate them. La Harpe taught his pupils the benefits of a republican government and stressed the need to increase civil liberties in Russia. Constantine, however, ignored this lesson.When Alexander I appointed him as ruler of Poland in 1815, Constantine brutally suppressed any uprisings and allowed Polish citizens little personal freedom. Constantine greatly enjoyed living in Poland, even divorcing his first wife to wed a Polish princess.Therefore, when Alexander I died in 1825, Constantine refused to succeed his brother because his wife wished to remain in Poland. Moreover, Constantine believed that Russia was more susceptible to a rebellion than Poland was. He was initially correct in this belief. In 1825, a group called the Decembrists, consisting of members of the St. Petersburg regiment, tried to seize the Russian throne, even slyly using Constantine’s name in their rallying cry, “Constantine and Constitution.” After some confusion, Nicholas I crushed the rebellion and then became tsar of Russia. Ultimately, however, Constantine misjudged Poland’s stability. A huge uprising exploded across the country in 1830. A dejected Constantine died in 1831 before the uprising was defeated.

Nicholas’s distaste for government bureaucracy was as virulent as his fear of revolution. Shortly after his accession, he commissioned the Committee of December 6th, a group of independent counselors, to evaluate the status of Russian society. Unfortunately, the Committee concluded that no major overhaul of Russian society was necessary. Consequently, during the thirty years of his reign, Nicholas made no significant attempts to resolve the issue of serfdom, Russia’s lack of economic development, or inequalities between the nobility and peasant class. Instead, Nicholas and his advisers developed the Nicholas System, a series of measures designed to stabilize the entrenched Russian social structure. To prevent interference from the bureaucracy, Nicholas established His Majesty’s Own Chancery, a separate body formed to fulfill his edicts. Within this body, Nicholas created agencies, called Sections, to enact his reforms. Initially, the Sections provided some positive results. The Second Section, headed by Michael Speransky, a reformist minister whom Alexander I had banished to Siberia, codified all Rus-

sian laws dating to 1649.The Fifth Section, although it never considered eliminating serfdom, did emphasize education for all peasants and promoted the implementation of modern agricultural methods. Nicholas hoped that private landowners would follow the state’s example and educate their own serfs. The Third Section became the most notorious branch of Nicholas’s government. Spurred by his fear of revolution, Nicholas formulated the doctrine of Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality. This doctrine asserted that Russia was a devoutly Orthodox society led by a ruler whose authority came directly from God, and that support for the emperor provided Russians a moral and intellectual superiority to other Europeans. The Third Section’s mission was to ensure that all members of Russian society upheld the doctrine. Nicholas genuinely hoped that the Third Section’s actions would benefit Russian society. He believed that a corrupt government official was committing the same offense against the doctrine as a radical revolutionary because both individuals endangered society’s stability and ignored the emperor’s divine

682

N i c h ol a s I

authority. However, the Third Section rewarded its members for the volume of people they indicted rather than the veracity of the indictments. Thus, many innocents were accused, and often convicted, of betraying their society. The Third Section eventually became a secret police force that menaced any individual who openly disagreed with Nicholas’s policies. This police force damaged Russia’s cultural institutions. Censorship of all publications was one of the Third Section’s primary duties; therefore, works that praised Nicholas’s policies were printed, while those critical of the Nicholas System were suppressed. Censors, wanting to please their superiors, began to discover seditious messages in seemingly innocuous works. Eventually, the Third Section’s administrators considered themselves to be the protectors of Russian art and literature. In reality, they disillusioned many writers such as the poet Pushkin, who had originally supported the Section, and forced many artists into exile. Nicholas’s deep fear of revolution also dictated his foreign policy. In 1833, he signed a treaty with the rulers of Austria and Prussia that presumably ensured stability in Western Europe. The three nations agreed to jointly quell any rebellions that occurred in their territories and to support the faltering Ottoman Empire. The treaty was successful, and when the Revolutions of 1848 erupted across Europe, the uprisings largely failed to threaten Russia and its allies.When Hungary rebelled against Austrian rule in 1849, Nicholas sent a million troops to eradicate the Hungarian forces. His victory earned him the appellation of “The Gendarme of Europe.” At the same time, the victory weakened Russia’s position among other European countries.Austria and Prussia resented the massive debt they owed to Russia, and France and Britain feared the strength of Russia’s army. These countries thus formulated a plan to attack Russia and decrease its military dominance. Russia’s rulers had long desired to gain control of Constantinople because the city was recognized as the birthplace of Orthodox Christianity. Recognizing this desire, the European monarchs urged the Ottoman sultan to aggravate Nicholas by expelling all Orthodox monks from the Ottoman Empire.When Nicholas attacked the Ottoman armies in 1853, he initiated the Crimean War, and Austria, France, and Britain openly supported the sultan, Abdulmecid I (r. 1839–1861). Nicholas’s campaign was initially successful. But by 1855, the stagnant state of Russian society, which

Nicholas had misguidedly preserved, undermined the army. Nicholas had resisted the development of railroads, viewing them as an evil import from Western Europe. But without them, he was unable to supply his troops fighting the war. Although Russia was far closer to the front lines, the French and British troops were much better fortified. Late in 1855, the allied forces destroyed the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, effectively winning the Crimean War. Nicholas did not witness this ignominious defeat. A cold he contracted in February 1855 when he insisted upon inspecting troops that were departing for the Crimea developed into pneumonia, and he died shortly afterward. Before he died, Nicholas told his son and heir, Alexander II (r. 1855–1881), that “I wanted to take everything difficult, everything serious, upon my shoulders and to leave you a peaceful, well-ordered, happy realm.” Instead, he left a badly defeated Russia that still had not resolved its increasingly crippling social problems. Historians differ over the nature of Nicholas’s character. Although the Nicholas System was overwhelmingly oppressive, it stemmed from Nicholas’s deeply paternal attitude toward his nation and an initial desire to see it prosper. But despite Nicholas’s intentions, his system could not resolve the overwhelming problem of serfdom, the demand for greater freedom and representation among the Russian middle class, and the encroachment of European events in Russian affairs. See also: Alexander I; Alexander II; Catherine II, the Great; Romanov Dynasty; Russian Dynasties;Tsars and Tsarinas. FURTHER READING

Lincoln, W. Bruce. Nicholas I: Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990. Westwood, J.N. Endurance and Endeavour: Russian History, 1812–2001. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

NICHOLAS II (1868–1918 C.E.) The last tsar of Russia (r. 1894–1917), who was executed during the Russian Revolution. Nicholas Aleksandrovich was the son of Tsar Alexander III (r. 1881–1894) and Maria Fedorovna,

N i c h ol a s I I a Danish princess. As a child, Nicholas studied foreign languages, history, and military strategy. When he was twenty-one years old, he joined the State Council, the tsar’s primary advisers. The following year, he both oversaw the construction of the TransSiberian Railroad and headed the Special Committee on Famine Relief, which was designed to counter a devastating drought in Russia. Consequently, when Alexander III died in 1894, Nicholas had already acquired substantial leadership experience.Yet, surprisingly, the new tsar displayed an ignorance of public sentiment that would plague him throughout his reign. Embracing Russia’s traditional autocratic government, Nicholas, in 1895, flatly rejected any expansion of power for the elected zemstvos, popular rural assemblies that functioned as municipal governments.The next year, during his coronation festivities, a riot exploded among the thousands of citizens who had assembled to celebrate the event, and nearly 1,500 people were trampled. Despite this tragedy, Nicholas attended a lavish ball that same night, adding to the public perception that he was indifferent to the suffering of the Russian people. Rural and urban poverty also exploded during Nicholas’s reign. Because of overpopulation, the land available for farming had steadily shrunk, and farmers saw their incomes rapidly decline. In Russian cities, industrial workers bemoaned poor working conditions and wages. In addition, in 1904, Russia suffered a crushing defeat in a war with Japan when the Japanese navy routed Russia’s vaunted Baltic fleet. Agitated by these crises, terrorist groups launched attacks against prominent government officials. After several assassinations, Nicholas severely limited public freedoms. In 1905, during protests against new martial laws, a riot erupted at the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. Soldiers fired upon the crowd and killed 150 rioters in an incident now known as “Bloody Sunday.” Later, in October of that year, workers staged a national strike to denounce the shootings. Alarmed by the public turmoil, Nicholas signed the Fundamental Laws in 1906. These laws finally created an elected legislative assembly and ensured basic civic liberties. However, Nicholas still exercised his authority; he alone appointed the assembly’s leader, and he could dismiss the assembly whenever he wished.When the Duma, the new assembly, convened in 1906, its members demanded total democracy and massive land reform. Unwilling to comply, Nicholas halted the session. He repeated his actions

683

later that year when the Second Duma forwarded similar demands.To appease the public, Nicholas did adopt some suffrage reforms, an action that mollified the upper classes and the third Duma, but not the bulk of the population. Nicholas then enjoyed several peaceful years. But in July 1914, Russia found itself at war with Germany as World War I erupted across Europe. Initially, the public rallied behind Nicholas’s call to protect “mother Russia.” But after several minor victories over the German army, the Russians experienced a crushing defeat at the battle of Tannenberg. By the end of 1914, the Russian army had lost a million soldiers and faced a massive shortage of supplies. When the campaign resumed in 1915, the Germans and Austrians scored another major victory in the region of Galicia (in present-day Poland and the Ukraine). Faced with rapidly declining civilian and military morale, Nicholas assumed personal control of the Russian army. Rising public unrest accompanied Russia’s military failures. In return for their support of the war, members of the Duma expected Nicholas to permit widespread social reforms. Nicholas grudgingly appointed moderate reformist ministers. But when Nicholas took command of the army in 1916, he left his wife Alexandra in virtual control of the country, and she replaced many of the new ministers with others more loyal to the monarchy. Advised by her spiritual consultant, the notorious Rasputin, Alexandra forcefully asserted the power of the monarchy. The Russian public, aware of Alexandra’s German lineage and Rasputin’s influence over the tsarina, believed the two had conspired to undermine Russia’s stability. In December 1916, a group of conspirators murdered Rasputin. This action precipitated a wider revolt against the government, and on February 27, 1917, the Russian capital fell to the revolutionaries. Recognizing the strength of the revolt, Nicholas abdicated the throne and was succeeded by his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich. The Russian Revolution continued, however, and soon deposed the provisional government in November 1917. In 1918 Nicholas and his family were taken to the city of Ekaterinburg for their safety.The revolutionaries, known as Bolsheviks, originally planned to bring Nicholas to trial, but when antirevolutionary forces sought to free the former tsar, the new government ordered his execution. On July 17, 1918, Nicholas,Alexandra, and their children were shot and their corpses burned in the cellar of the house they

684

N i c h ol a s I I

were staying in at Ekaterinburg.The death of Nicholas and his family marked the end of the Romanov dynasty as well as the end of the Russian monarchy. See also: Alexandra; Romanov Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Carrere d’Encausse, Helene. Nicholas II: The Interrupted Transition. Trans. George Holoch. New York: Holmes & Meier, 2000. Warth, Robert D. Nicholas II:The Life and Reign of Russia’s Last Monarch. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997.

NORMAN KINGDOMS (1130–1268 C.E.) Kingdoms on the island of Sicily and in the environs of the city-state of Naples that were ruled by knights of Norman descent and were combined into one kingdom between 1130 and 1268. Located in the Mediterranean Sea between the headlands of modern Libya and the toe of the Italian Peninsula, the benighted island of Sicily has suffered invasions of conquering foreigners since time immemorial. Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, and Arabs all claimed the island in ancient times. By the eleventh century, European nobles became the latest group to set their sights on controlling Sicily and southern Italy.

FORMATION BY THE NORMANS In 1059, Pope Nicholas II thought it the better part of valor and political wisdom to grant the Norman noble, Robert Guiscard, title and seigneury to Sicily’s sun-drenched valleys and mountainsides. Robert, fresh from victories in Apulia, Calabria, and other parts of southern Italy, decided to leave consolidation of this portion of his allotment to his younger brother, Roger, who had also participated in the conquests of his brother. A year later, in 1060, Roger turned his attentions to his new kingdom. By 1072, the Norman adventurer had fully subjugated Sicily, and he ruled the island kingdom as Count Roger I (r. 1072–1101) until his death in 1101. With control of Sicily, the Normans were firmly in control of the straits of Messina—the fifty miles of water between Europe and Africa. In granting Sicily and Naples to the Normans, the Church consolidated its hold on Sicily and the south of Italy, since these were officially papal fiefdoms.

The Greek priests of Magna Graecia (as Sicily and southern Italy was known), placed there under the auspices of the Byzantine Empire, were soon replaced by Roman prelates.

EXPANSION OF THE REALM Roger II (r. 1105–1154), the son and successor of Roger I, eventually added Naples and Capua to the kingdom of Sicily. With these additions, he felt so successful that he changed his title from count to king in 1130. Roger II was opposed on all sides, however.The Saracens, or Muslims, wished to recapture fertile Sicily. The popes in Rome feared encroachment in the Papal States. The Byzantine Greeks had not completely forgotten their ancient colonies in southern Italy. And the Germans had imperial designs of their own in southern Italy. Roger II fought all of these opponents and usually won. Between 1135 and 1153, he extended his domains into North Africa by taking Cape Bona, Tripoli, and Tunis. His greatest triumphs, however, were probably in Sicily itself. Unlike many of his fellow Westerners, Robert did not hesitate to use the talents of the Muslims and Jews in his territories, and both of these groups were generally better educated and more adept at administration than any of their European contemporaries. As a result, Roger’s court became the most civilized on the European continent, paving the way for the even more resplendent rule of Emperor Frederick II (r. 1212–1250).The Muslim biographer, Idrisi, described the capital city of Palermo under Roger as beautiful beyond compare, with towering palaces and pleasure gardens lovelier than could be found anywhere else in the world. Under the Normans, Palermo was also unique in that it contained mosques, churches, and synagogues side by side, reflecting a broad religious tolerance.

PERIOD OF DECLINE Roger’s son and successor,William I (r. 1154–1166), did not have his father’s ambition or industry. He became known as “William the Bad,” probably because his hands-off approach to rule unfortunately coincided with a successful Muslim revolt in Tunis that ended Norman rule in North Africa. His son and successor, William II (r. 1166– 1189), though known as “William the Good,” was little different from his father in tastes or inclinations. But he was perhaps more fortunate in his

N orod om S i h a nou k timing and his biographers. When William died in 1189, he left no heir, and his dashing cousin Tancred (r. 1190–1194), the bastard grandson of Roger II, was chosen king. The death of William was not overlooked by the German Holy Roman emperor, Henry VI (r. 1190– 1197), who had married William’s aunt, Constance. Henry thus felt his claim was just as legitimate as Tancred’s, and he accordingly claimed the Sicilian throne for himself. Through clever political maneuvering and reasonable generalship, he went to Palermo in 1194 with a sizable army, demanded his rights, and was subsequently crowned king of Sicily—thus ending Norman rule of the island.

GERMAN RULE Henry VI’s son, Frederick II, made Palermo his capital when he succeeded his father as Holy Roman emperor. Frederick became the most powerful and unusual ruler of the thirteenth century, known as the stupor mundi (“Wonder of the World”). Frederick excelled in every endeavor he pursued. He founded a Sicilian university that included Jewish and Muslim faculty. He wrote books and spoke six languages fluently. When Frederick finally, though reluctantly, succumbed to the pope’s insistence on a crusade, he so impressed the Muslim sultan of Egypt, al-Kamil Muhammad II (r. 1218–1238), that he was allowed to name himself king of Jerusalem and return home from that gore-drenched soil having never spilled a drop of blood. After Frederick’s death in 1250, the opposition he had faced in his German domain was directed to his son and successor, Conrad IV (r. 1250–1254). Revolts broke out nearly everywhere in the realm. The pope took Naples, but Conrad took it back. Chaos ruled as Normans, Germans, and popes all laid their claims to the Italian and German territories. In this maelstrom, Conrad died in 1254, only four years after taking the throne. His illegitimate brother, Manfred (r. 1254–1266), was left in command of the Norman forces. Manfred had inherited much of his illustrious father’s charm and intelligence, important assets in the impossibly complex political situation in which he found himself. He fought continuously, mostly against the papacy, for the next twelve years.This left little time to play music and hold court, which was a pity, as even the dour Italian poet, Dante Alighieri, remarked on Manfred’s rare musical talents.

685

The popes despaired at Manfred’s gaiety and competency, and in 1264, Pope Urban IV decided to join with France to overturn the impious Manfred. Charles of Anjou, the brother of King Louis IX (r. 1226–1270), responded to the papal call. He marched through Italy with 30,000 troops, defeated Manfred’s outnumbered troops, and killed the valiant Manfred, who had thrown himself into the midst of the fray.

FRENCH AND SPANISH RULE In 1266, Charles of Anjou declared Naples and Sicily to be French, inaugurating the new kingdom of Naples, ruled by the French Angevin dynasty. As Charles I (r. 1266–1285), the disdainful Charles of Anjou ruled with an autocratic hand. Consequently, in 1282, a general revolt rose spontaneously in Sicily to overthrow the hated French rule. Beginning after the hour of evening prayer, the “Sicilian Vespers” (as the uprising came to be called) resulted in the death of almost all Frenchmen on the island. Charles of Anjou was understandably furious and swore a “thousand years” of vengeance; the pope declared a crusade. The Sicilians responded by offering their island to Pedro III of Aragón (r. 1276–1285). He accepted, and the brief French rule was ended. From 1282 to 1410, Sicily was ruled by the kingdom of Aragón. See also: Angevin Dynasties; Anjou Kingdom; Aragón, Kingdom of; Frederick II; Naples, Kingdom of; Sicily, Kingdom of. FURTHER READING

Power, Daniel, Rosamund McKitterick, Christine Carpenter, and Jonathan Shepard, eds. The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

NORODOM SIHANOUK (1922– ) Episodic ruler (r. 1941–1955; 1960–1970; 1993– 2004) of Cambodia (Kampuchea), whose reign coincided with the tumultuous Vietnam War era. Norodom Sihanouk was born in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh on October 31, 1922, to Prince Norodom Suramarit and Princess Sisowath Kossamak. Both of his parents were of royal blood,

686

N orod om S i h a nou k

each representing one of the two traditional dynastic families of the region: the Norodoms and the Sisowaths.At the time of Sihanouk’s birth, the throne was occupied by his maternal grandfather, Sisowath Monivong (r. 1904–1927). Sihanouk received his primary education in Phnom Penh at the Ecole François Baudoin. Upon graduation he went to Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) in Vietnam to complete his secondary schooling. He was then sent to France to attend a military school but was called home in 1941 because the current Cambodian king, Monivong (r. 1927–1941), had died and Sihanouk was under consideration as the royal successor. The choice of successor fell to a royal council, but because Cambodia was a French protectorate at this time, it was Parisian, not local, politics that weighed most heavily in the selection of the new king. The French considered Sihanouk to be the royal candidate least likely to cause trouble, so the eighteen-year-old prince was given the Crown in September 1941. Soon after taking the throne, Sihanouk found himself rendered powerless by the outbreak of World War II and Japan’s rapid conquest and occupation of much of Indochina. When the Japanese occupational forces captured the Cambodian capital, Sihanouk was taken prisoner, having ruled for less than a year. After the withdrawal of the Japanese at the end of World War II, France once again took control of Cambodia, but Sihanouk had other plans. In 1947 he established a limited monarchy that ruled with the collaboration of an elected parliament and a prime minister (a role he retained for himself). In 1953 he declared martial law and dissolved the national parliament, believing that its current members were too beholden to French interests. In November of that year he declared Cambodia’s independence. For a five-year period, from 1955 to 1960, Sihanouk stepped down from the Cambodian throne in favor of his father, but he remained in political control as prime minister. From 1960 to 1970, however, he once again took charge as Cambodia entered a new and dangerous era in which America began its involvement in the civil war in neighboring Vietnam. At first, Sihanouk maintained Cambodia’s neutrality, but as time passed he saw that the Viet Cong were likely to win. Hoping to ingratiate himself with the probable victors, Sihanouk offered them

the use of Cambodian territory, enabling the North Vietnamese forces and their allies in the south to receive supplies from China and to stage attacks against their adversaries. This, in turn, induced the United States to begin carpet-bombing Cambodia’s border region in 1969 and to attempt to undermine Sihanouk’s regime. With the support of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a pro-U.S. general named Lon Nol staged a coup in 1970 that ousted Sihanouk from power. Sihanouk fled to Beijing, China, where he established a government in exile and waited for the opportunity to return to Phnom Penh. In the Cambodian countryside, meanwhile, a guerrilla faction known as the Khmer Rouge had arisen. These guerrillas were led by Pol Pot, a brutal revolutionary who hoped to establish a communist government in Cambodia. Sihanouk allied himself with the Khmer Rouge, and when Pol Pot’s forces were victorious in 1975, he was rewarded with the restoration of his title as king. Within a year, however, Pol Pot had placed Sihanouk under house arrest. For the next four years he could only watch as Pol Pot’s thugs brutalized Cambodia, ultimately killing some 1.7 million people. Pol Pot was finally ousted by Vietnamese forces, which invaded Cambodia in December of 1978 and remained in control there until 1989. During these years, Sihanouk once again lived in exile. Only after Vietnam withdrew, and under the condition that he denounce the Pol Pot regime, could Sihanouk return to his kingdom but not yet to his throne. In 1993 a new constitution was drafted that restored Cambodia to a monarchy, and Sihanouk was once again installed as king. Until his abdication in 2004, Sihanouk ruled Cambodia as a constitutional monarch with no executive powers. See also: Cambodian Kingdoms; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

NORTHUMBRIA, KINGDOM OF (547–827 C.E.)

One of seven early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Britain, located in the northeastern part of the country, that was once one of the strongest kingdoms in Britain. Settled by Angles around 500, Northumbria was

N o rw e g i a n M o n a r c h y originally two separate kingdoms: Bernicia, which stretched from the River Tees to the Firth of Forth, and Deira, which covered the territory from the Tee River to the Humber River. King Ida of Bernicia (r. ca. 547–559) established the foundations of Northumbria when he took the throne of that kingdom in 547. Under his rule, Bernicia included what is now Berwick and Roxburgh in southeastern Scotland as well as Northumberland and Durham in northeastern England. Meanwhile, King Aelle of Deira (r. ca. 569–599) ruled a territory now occupied by the northeastern part of Yorkshire in England. In the mid-sixth century, Aethelfrith of Bernicia (r. 592–616), a descendant of King Ida, formed Northumbria (which literally means, the land north of the Humber) by joining the kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira. Aethelfrith also added territory in Wales and Scotland to the kingdom. King Aethelfrith was removed from the throne by Edwin of Deira (r. 616–633), who built Northumbria into the strongest kingdom in England. Edwin was also noted for bringing Christianity to the kingdom after he converted to the faith in 627. Northumbria became an important center of Christianity and learning, and was home of the Venerable Bede, the first English historian. In the seventh century, wars with the AngloSaxon kingdom of Mercia and its Welsh allies endangered Northumbria’s rulers and the supremacy of the kingdom. King Edwin was killed by Cadwallon, a Welsh ally of King Penda of Mercia (r. 626–654). His successor, Oswald of Bernicia (r. 634–642), was killed by Penda. Under Oswald’s successors, Oswiu (r. 642–670) and Ecgfrith (r. 670–685), Northumbria was eclipsed by the rival kingdom of Mercia. By 827, the kingdom of Northumbria had accepted the supremacy of the kingdom of Wessex. In the mid-ninth century, Danish invaders occupied south Northumbria and pushed the Northumbrians northward, confining them to a small area bordered by the Tees River in the south and the Firth of Forth in the north. In the eleventh century, conquering Danes installed Danish earls in the region. Although the Northumbrians expelled the Danish earl Tostig in 1065, the Danes returned soon after and took full control of the kingdom. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Mercia, Kingdom of;Wessex, Kingdom of.

687

FURTHER READING

Stenton, F.M. Anglo-Saxon England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

NORWEGIAN MONARCHY (ca. 800s C.E.–Present)

Scandinavian monarchy whose existence stretches back to the early Middle Ages and continues today. From the early Middle Ages until the ninth century, Norway consisted of a number of small, frequently warring kingdoms. Around 872, Harald I Fairhair (r. 858–928) succeeded in uniting much of Norway under his rule. From that time forward, although various regions sometimes chose their own kings or rose up against rulers they disliked, the trend in Norway was toward a single monarch. The Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson (1179–1241) wrote one of the best medieval national histories, the Heimskringla, which relates the sagas of the Norwegian kings from Halfdan the Black, who preceded Harald Fairhair, to Magnus Erlingsson (r. 1161–1184) in the late twelfth century. Although the accuracy of Sturluson’s account can sometimes be questioned, his Heimskringla provides a vivid account of life in Norway during the Viking era and of the types of conflicts the kings had to face. In the early 1100s, Olaf II Haraldsson (r. 1016– 1030), son of a minor king, conquered Norway and promoted Christianity as the official religion. After his death in battle against rebellious earls and lesser kings supported by Cnut the Great of Denmark (r. 1019–1035), who had driven him out of Norway in 1028, Olaf became Norway’s first patron saint. His half-brother Harald III Hardraada (r. 1045–1066) continued the work of establishing a strong monarchy in Norway; he also claimed the throne of England but died in battle against English king Harold II Godwinson (r. 1066) in 1066. In 1319, Norway and Sweden were united under Magnus VII Eriksson (r. 1319–1355), although the two kingdoms were separated again under his sons, the younger of whom, Haakon VI (r. 1355–1380), ruled Norway. His brother having died in 1359, Haakon was also elected king of Sweden in 1362, but he lost that kingdom to Albert of Mecklenburg (r. 1364–1389) the following year. Haakon was married to Margrethe, daughter of

688

N o rw e g i a n M o n a r c h y

The current king of Norway, Harald V, is a constitutional monarch whose role is primarily ceremonial. His 1968 marriage to Sonja Haraldsen, a commoner, triggered heated debate about the future of the monarchy, but the majority of the Norwegian people have since accepted Queen Sonja enthusiastically.

Waldemar IV of Denmark (r. 1340–1375). After the deaths of Haakon and Waldemar, Margrethe (or Margaret) united all three Scandinavian countries in the Kalmar Union of 1397. Norway’s union with Denmark endured until 1814. As a result of the upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden in the Treaty of Kiel in 1814. In the years that followed, Norwegian nationalism increased but was suppressed by the Swedish monarchy. Swedish kings of the House of Bernadotte continued to rule Norway until 1905. In June 1905, the Norwegian ministry of the Swedish government declared the union of the two countries to be at an end. After much negotiation, in

which war was narrowly averted, the union was officially ended in the autumn of 1905, when Oscar II of Sweden (r. 1872–1907) ceased to be king of Norway. After its break with Sweden, Norway remained a constitutional monarchy.The government considered inviting either a Swedish prince from the Bernadotte dynasty or a Danish prince of the House of Glücksburg to take the throne.The invitation was finally offered to Prince Carl, grandson of Christian IX of Denmark (r. 1863–1906), who accepted only after a referendum by the Norwegian people approved. In November 1905, Carl was elected king by the Norwegian government, taking the name Haakon VII (r. 1905–1957). During World War II, while Norway was occupied by Germany, King Haakon VII and the

Nubian Kingdoms cabinet maintained a government in exile in England. Upon Haakon’s death in 1957, his son, Olaf V (r. 1957–1991), took the throne. Olaf was succeeded as king of Norway by his son, Harald V (r. 1991), in 1991. In 1990 the constitution of Norway was changed to allow the eldest child of the monarch to succeed to the throne, regardless of gender. This change applies only to members of the royal family born after 1990, however. As a result, Harald V’s son Haakon is the Norwegian crown prince even though he has an older sister. But should Haakon’s first child be a daughter, she will be the heir to the throne. See also: Danish Kingdom; Haakon VI; Harald III Hardraade; Harold II Godwinson; Kalmar Union; Margaret of Denmark; Olaf II (Saint Olaf); Oldenburg Dynasty; Swedish Monarchy;Waldemar I, the Great. FURTHER READING

Butler, Ewan. The Horizon Concise History of Scandinavia. New York: American Heritage, 1973. Larsen, Karen. A History of Norway. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for the AmericanScandinavian Foundation, 1948. Toyne, Stanley M. The Scandinavians in History. 1948. Reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1996.

NOVGOROD, PRINCIPALITY OF. See Rus Princedoms

NUBIAN KINGDOMS (c. 850–663 B.C.E.) Kingdoms that existed during a relatively short period when the rulers of Nubia (formerly called Kush), an ancient state south of Egypt, conquered their northern neighbor and reigned as pharaohs of Egypt. After dominating Nubia for centuries, Egypt gradually weakened after the rule of Ramses II (r. 1279–1212 b.c.e.). Around 1070 b.c.e., after the end of the period known as the New Kingdom, internal strife between pharaohs and priests eventually splintered Egypt into a number of petty kingdoms, and Nubia regained its independence. In fact, a large number of Egyptians left the country and took refuge in Nubia during that period.

689

Little is known about Nubia between c. 1000 and 850 b.c.e., but its importance grew in the ninth century b.c.e. when the capital city of Napata served as a religious and political center. During this time, the Napatan dynasty, a family of Egyptianized kings, ruled the country, assisted by an influential priesthood based at Gebel Barkal, a holy mountain that was considered the home of the god Amun. Nubian rule over Egypt began around 767 b.c.e. under Pharaoh Kashta (r. 760–747 b.c.e.) of the Napatan dynasty. His reign marks the beginning of Egypt’s Twenty-fifth (or Nubian) dynasty. Around 730 b.c.e., Libyans from the north invaded Egypt and Nubia during the reign of Piye (r. 747–713 b.c.e.), Kashta’s son and successor. Piye’s troops crushed the Libyans, and Piye then left Egypt and returned to Napata. In 716, Piye’s successor, his brother Shabako (r. 713–699 b.c.e.), marched north to put down an uprising in Egypt; he remained there and reasserted Nubian rule over both kingdoms. The Nubian pharaohs encouraged economic and cultural recovery in Egypt as well as the revival of ancient traditions during a period of Egyptian decline. Disintegrating ancient religious texts were recopied, including the famous Memphite Theology, a creation story recorded by Shabako’s scribes. The Nubian pharaohs also hired Egyptian architects and artists to restore old temples and construct new ones throughout both Egypt and Nubia. Nubian rulers also combined Egyptian practices with their own customs. Royal costumes used features of both cultures. Nubian rulers were mummified and buried in pyramids like Egyptian pharaohs. However, royal succession followed the Nubian matrilineal tradition, with the Crown passing to the king’s maternal brother or nephew rather than from father to son as in the Egyptian custom. The most famous Nubian pharaoh was Taharqa (r. 690–664 b.c.e.), who constructed many commemorative temples in both Egypt and Nubia as part of an attempt to unify and bolster the kingdom.Toward the end of his rule, continual assaults by the Assyrians into Egypt forced him back to Nubia around 667 b.c.e. Taharqa’s successor, his nephew Tanwetamani (r. 664–656 b.c.e.), returned to Egypt from Nubia and drove out the Assyrians in 664 b.c.e. The following year, however, the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 b.c.e.) launched a devastating attack on Egypt’s capital city of Thebes, slaughtering the people, ransacking the city, and looting its temples.

690

Nubian Kingdoms

Ashurbanipal’s invasion marked the end of Nubian rule over Egypt.The Nubians retreated to Napata and then, around 530 b.c.e., moved their capital to Meroe. The Nubian culture that developed in Meroe was a combination of Egyptian and Southern African traditions. The Nubian dynasty survived in Nubia until around 350 c.e., when it was defeated by the Axumite Empire centered in Ethiopia. See also: Aksum Kingdom; Kush, Kingdom of; Ramses II, the Great.

NUPE KINGDOM (ca. 1400s–early 1800s C.E.)

Kingdom of central Nigeria, one of many Yoruba states, which was reputedly founded by a culture hero named Tsoede. According to Nupe tradition, sometime between 400 and 500 c.e. a great hero named Tsoede reportedly came to the people of the Nupe region to teach the people skills and a civilized way of life.Tsoede is credited with introducing everything from bronzeworking to social institutions, such as marriage and the family. All Nupe rulers were thought to have descended from Tsoede. The Nupe achieved acclaim throughout the region for their fine craftwork, and when long-distance trade became common, their reputation spread even further. Bronzework and weaving were the primary craft items produced by Nupe artisans, and the very formation of a centralized, unified kingdom may well have been a response to increased demand for Nupe craft items.Whatever the reason, the Nupe kingdom arose in the fifteenth century, with its capital at Bida. The royal court of the Nupe kingdom was similar in form to the courts that characterized other Yoruba states prior to the arrival of Islam to the region. In the early 1800s, however, Fulani Muslims came into Nupe territory and conquered the kingdom. What was once an independent and unified kingdom became a collection of three emirates, centered at Bida, Agaie, and Lapai, respectively. See also: African Kingdoms;Yoruba Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Nadel, S.F. A Black Byzantium:The Kingdom of Nupe in Nigeria. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1973.

NYORO KINGDOM (1300s C.E.–Present) African kingdom of west-central Uganda, also called Bunyoro (Bu- is the Bantu prefix signifying a geographical entity or territory), and the oldest of the four traditional kingdoms of the nation of Uganda. The Nyoro kingdom was founded sometime in the fourteenth century by people who migrated into the region from the Congo in the west. The newcomers were probably looking for fresh pasturage for their cattle, and they eventually settled in the lands surrounding Lake Albert.

ORIGINS AND ASPECTS OF KINGSHIP The Nyoro myth of origin centers on a possibly mythological figure named Kintu. Analogous to the Judeo-Christian Adam, Kintu is thought to be the first man and is credited with founding Bunyoro.The Bunyoro kings all claim to have descended from this founding ancestor. The Bunyoro king is called the omukama, which roughly translates as “the greatest of all men.” Today the omukama’s role is more or less ceremonial, his function being to serve as an exemplar of cultural identity. In the past, however, he was the absolute ruler of his territory. At the height of their power, until about 1600, Bunyoro kings controlled a vast expanse of territory that extended west into Congo and eastward all the way into Kenya. Within the royal court, the king stood at the apex of power, assisted by two important councilors, the okwiri (“official brother”) and the kalyota (“official sister”). Administration of the empire was delegated to appointed officials, usually drawn from the powerful Hima pastoralists who formed a noble class within the kingdom. The Hima ruled at the dictate of the king rather than autonomously. Bunyoro’s fall from preeminence in the region began with a breakdown in central control over the empire. There was no strict rule of succession, beyond the provision that a king must be of the Babito line (that is, must be descended from Kintu). This arrangement resulted in frequent battles among rival claimants to the kingship. Similarly, the king had no extraordinary charter by which to justify his right to rule, for the Nyoro did not believe their kings to be divinely ordained or to possess supernatural abilities. The Nyoro king had only as much power over his sub-

Oat h s a n d Oat h -ta k i n g ordinate territories as he could personally ensure through his appointment of regional governors. As the empire expanded, the Nyoro kings lost control over many of these governors. As a result, the peoples of the kingdom often rebelled against the rule of the kings, which weakened the power of the kingdom.

THE RISE OF THE GANDA KINGDOM In the 1600s, the subject territory of Buganda successfully broke away from Bunyoro control and reclaimed its territorial autonomy.Within a century, it grew strong enough to eclipse Bunyoro in power, and Bunyoro began a slow decline. A long succession of Nyoro kings were forced to spend their time and resources in an effort to keep other parts of the kingdom from following the example of Buganda. With the Nyoro rulers thus occupied, the Ganda kings were free to concentrate on increasing the extent and wealth of their own realm. Best-known of all the Bunyoro kings is one who arose on the eve of Bunyoro’s final eclipse in the late nineteenth century. This was Kabarega (r. 1870– 1894), who began his rule in 1870 after a bloody war of succession against his brother, Kabigumire (r. 1869–1870). Kabarega lacked the support of the nobility, but he had the enthusiastic backing of the military and the common people, whose will prevailed. Kabarega was not content with putting down local rebellions. Instead, he adopted the expansionist ambitions of the earlier Bunyoro kings. He created a massive army and sent it forth to conquer neighboring territories. One frequent target of his military campaigns was the kingdom of Toro, which lay to the south. Over a period of several years he succeeded in severely disrupting that kingdom’s stability. His soldiers captured two successive Toro kings and killed a third. It was only with the arrival of British military assistance that Toro succeeded in ending its long conflict with the powerful Nyoro army. Kabarega, however, did not easily acquiesce to British colonial rule. He mounted a determined and initially successful resistance throughout the 1870s and 1880s. In 1894, however, British forces conquered the Nyoro capital of Mparo. Kabarega fled to lead a guerrilla campaign from the Ugandan forests. His intransigence against his much more powerful enemy was ultimately to no avail, however, for in 1895 he was captured by British forces and exiled to the Seychelles Islands.

691

COLONIAL AND POSTCOLONIAL ERA Kabarega’s resistance to British colonial rule earned a sorry fate for his kingdom. Although it was once the preeminent power among Uganda’s four traditional kingdoms (the others being Toro, Ganda, and Ankole), the British refused to deal with Nyoro’s kings. Instead, the colonial authority chose to work through the Ganda, whose rulers were more cooperative. Bunyoro became just one of several minor kingdoms subordinated to Ganda rule. When Uganda gained its independence in 1962, the Nyoro entertained some hope that they might be restored to their earlier power. In the mid1960s, however, Ugandan prime minister Apolo Milton Obote abolished all the traditional kingdoms. It was only in 1993 that the Ugandan government restored the traditional kingdoms, including Bunyoro, albeit as apolitical institutions. The once formidable power of the Nyoro omukama is now gone, and the Nyoro kingdom stands as a symbol of cultural identity rather than as a political actor on the national stage. See also: African Kingdoms; Ankole Kingdom; Ganda Kingdom; Kabarega;Toro Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Beattie, John. Bunyoro: An African Kingdom. Fort Worth,TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1988.

O OATHS AND OATH-TAKING A solemn promise or affirmation of loyalty and duty or responsibility made by a ruler to the people; a pledge of loyalty made by a vassal to a lord. The practice of giving and receiving oaths began in ancient times when lords or kings conquered another ruler or when two leaders consolidated their power. The oaths defined the relationship between the two and

692

Oat h s a n d Oat h -ta k i n g

stipulated the responsibilities of each party. Evidence of such oaths exists in many cultures. The oath was often made first by the person with lesser power or the person who had been defeated by a more powerful individual.The role of the ruler was to accept the oath and pledge his protection to the weaker oath-giver. Kings, nobles, and common people swore oaths. Naturally, the form and articles of the oaths differed among classes and cultures, but several common characteristics of oath-taking can be identified: • An invocation to a deity and/or the use of a sacred object or symbol of power. • Specific promises that are to be honored. • Consequences of failure to uphold the oath, sometimes including the evocation of a curse to befall upon the oath-taker. • Acceptance of the oath by those to whom it is made. Monarchs were expected to make oaths to their subjects during the coronation ceremony, which was generally held in a sacred place under the auspices of the kingdom’s highest religious leader. The oath might be taken either before or after the people’s acclamation of the ruler. A medieval English king’s oath, administered by the archbishop, included promises to keep the peace, to be faithful to God and the Church, to use justice and mercy, and to uphold the laws and customs of the nation. An oath, whether taken by a king or a commoner, places great importance on the acceptance of personal responsibility. Of course, not all individuals, including monarchs, kept the oaths to which they swore. A panel of the medieval Bayeaux Tapestry (1066) depicts King Harold II of England swearing an oath of allegiance to William of Normandy in 1064.As he raises one hand and rests the other on sacred relics, he promises to help William capture the English throne. Instead, upon the death of King Edward the Confessor in 1066, Harold accepted the throne of England for himself, which led to the Norman invasion and conquest of England by William that same year. In an effort to consolidate their power, rulers often required subjects to take oaths renouncing their own religions in favor of that of the ruler. Under Visigothic rule in the Balkan region and Spain between the fourth and sixth centuries, Jews were

required to take oaths promising not to participate in Jewish rituals and to pronounce their belief in the Christian tenets of the Nicene Creed. Queen Mary I of England (r. 1553–1558) required her subjects to take oaths renouncing Protestantism in favor of Catholicism, condemning nearly three hundred individuals who did not do so to death. Rulers have also expected personal oaths of allegiance from their subjects. In some instances, all vassals were required to attend a public ceremony, typically in a sacred place, and individually swear their oaths of fidelity. These visible and verbal displays helped the ruler, especially one whose legitimacy was in question, to establish and maintain control of his or her kingdom. Oaths sworn to lords in Anglo-Saxon England (449–1066) reveal the close bonds between secular and religious power.The vassal swore on the name of God that he would be loyal to the lord, would honor what the lord honored, would follow all the lord’s commands, and would never perform any deeds that might displease him. Oaths demanded of subjects are not a purely a Western custom but have been an important part of Eastern cultures as well. For example, immediately upon assuming power in 1002, the Cambodian ruler Suryavarman (r. 1002–1050) brought together as many as 4,000 officials for a public oath-taking ceremony. Vestiges of ancient oath-taking ceremonies survive today not only in the investiture rituals of the remaining monarchies of the world, but also in the protocols of the inaugurations of many modern heads of state. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Feudalism and Kingship; Succession, Royal.

ODA NOBUNAGA (1534–1582 C.E.) Japanese feudal warlord who nearly succeeded in unifying Japan and ending the constant military clashes between opposing clans that marked the sengoku, or Warring States, period from the mid-1400s to late fifteenth century.

FAMILY AND CHARACTER Though the son of a local daimyo, or feudal warlord, Oda Nobunaga came from a relatively modest provincial family. Nonetheless, his career as a mili-

O da N o bu nag a tary commander shaped Japan for the rest of its history. The motto on Nobunaga’s personal seal, Tenka Fubu, translates as “a nation under one sword” or “a unified realm under military rule.” He was audacious and ruthless in achieving this goal, and was haughty and sometimes contemptuous of his subordinates. Brash and crude as a youth, Nobunaga is said to have behaved disgracefully even at his father’s funeral, where he acted rudely toward others and angrily threw incense at the mortuary tablet during the funeral ritual. Such behavior greatly frustrated his father’s loyal retainer, Kirate Kiyohide, who had been given the task of helping Nobunaga rule. Eventually reaching the limit of his patience, Kirate felt pushed to “remonstration through suicide.” Reportedly, the old samurai’s urgent appeal to honor and his death by Japanese ritual suicide, or seppuku, greatly impressed Nobunaga and helped curb his dishonorable ways.

LEADERSHIP By 1558, Nobunaga had secured control of the Oda family after having his disloyal younger brother, Nobuyuki, murdered for his role in a plot against him.The killing sent a powerful message to any other family members who might be considering treason. Brilliant at warfare, Nobunaga amassed great power through a series of successful battles and campaigns over rival daimyo. In 1560, he consolidated control of his province, Owari, by leading his greatly outnumbered troops to victory at the famous battle of Okehazama. By 1568, he was able to take over Kyoto, the imperial capital, in support of and in con-

693

trol of Ashikaga Yoshiaki (r. 1568–1573), the ruler of the Ashikaga shogunate—whom Nobunaga forced out of the capital in 1573. In 1571, Nobunaga crushed opposition from the Buddhist monks at Mount Hiei by burning the monastery and slaughtering 3,000 people, regardless of age or position.Three years later, in 1574, he forced the opposing fanatical Ikko sect of Buddhists into their own fortifications and then burned their Nagashima complex, massacring an estimated 20,000 men, women, and children. Oda Nobunaga was shrewd in choosing his allies and his subordinates, while the battles and intrigues of his rule never ceased. Early on, in 1562, he entered into a sometimes uneasy alliance with Tokugawa Ieyasu, who, with Toyotomi Hideyoshi, was one of the two reforming warlords who subsequently built on Nobunaga’s successes. Ieyasu eventually established the Tokugawa shogunate, which ruled Japan from 1600 to the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Toyotomi Hideyoshi rose to power as one of Nobunaga’s finest warriors.

DICTATORIAL RULE After 1568, Nobunaga exercised almost total administrative and political control of Japan, and he was unquestionably a dictator. Oddly, he never had himself named shogun. Some historians say this is because shoguns had to belong to the house of Minamoto, and his family line was Taira. Others say that Nobunaga was confident that asking for legitimization would diminish his power and put him in a

ROYAL RITUALS

THE THREE SAMURAI WARLORDS The period of the Warring States, or sengoku, in Japan (mid-1400s to late 1500s) was brought to a close by the military and political accomplishments of three successive samurai warlords whose destinies were closely entwined: Oda Nobunaga (1534–1582);Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536–1598); and Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542–1616). A much-quoted, popular Japanese story describes the reaction of each of these warlords (reflecting their personality and style of rule) when faced with a songbird that will not sing: Says Nobunaga, “I will kill the bird.” Says Hideyoshi, “I will persuade it to sing,” forcibly if need be. Says Ieyasu, “I will wait for it to sing.”

694

O da N o bu nag a

position inferior to the agent who conferred the title of shogun. Nobunaga was the first Japanese warlord to understand the strategic use of the new firearms brought to Japan by the Europeans, most notably at the battle of Nagashino in 1575. Through conquest and governance, the Nobunaga regime redrew the map of feudal Japan. Nobunaga redistributed conquered domains to his commanders and vassals, upsetting patterns of local power. He instituted a survey of agricultural lands under his control, presumably to assess the obligations of his vassals. He worked to rebuild Kyoto’s economic status and maintain order within his growing territory. He also standardized weights and measures, closed many of the numerous toll booths along the roads—a move popular with ordinary citizens—and began a campaign to disarm all peasants. Probably to counter Buddhist power, Nobunaga became friendly with Jesuit missionaries in Japan and protected them from persecution or hostile acts. Clearly, he found them sympathetic, and through them he became the first Japanese ruler to become known in the West. On a lakeside in Azuchi, he built the finest castle in Japan as a symbol of his power. He also built a fleet of six large seagoing ships, all unprecedented in size. Schooled in the rituals of the Japanese tea ceremony, Nobunaga collected tea implements and gave them as gifts to those he favored. He loved poetry and was known to be jealous at times of others’ talent.

END OF HIS RULE By 1582, Oda Nobunaga began a military campaign to bring western Japan under his control and finally unify the country. Instead of achieving victory, Nobunaga was killed in June 1582 when one of his retainers, Akechi Mitsuhide, turned against the dictator. On the morning of his death, after entertaining a group of nobles in the Honnoji temple in Kyoto, Nobunaga woke to find the temple surrounded by forces gathered by Mitsuhide.Trapped in the building, Nobunaga either committed suicide or died in the fire that was started by the troops surrounding the temple. In the clashes that ensued among the samurai clans after Nobunaga’s death, his loyal retainer, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, proved himself a better soldier and a better politician than his rivals and rose to be first among equals. By 1590, Hideyoshi had become the

undisputed ruler of Japan, building on Nobunaga’s successes and consolidating control through a network of powerful personal loyalties. See also: Shogunate; Tokugawa Ieyasu; Tokugawa Shogunate;Toyotomi Hideyoshi. FURTHER READINGS

Henshall, Kenneth G. A History of Japan: From Stone Age to Superpower. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.

OLDENBURG DYNASTY (1448–1863 C.E.)

Scandinavian dynasty that ruled in Denmark and Norway from 1448 to 1814, in Denmark to 1863, and in Sweden 1457 to 1521. The Oldenburg dynasty had its roots in the state of Oldenburg, a region in northwestern Germany bordering the North Sea. During the twelfth century, the counts of Oldenburg became princes of the Holy Roman Empire. The first member of the Oldenburg dynasty to rule in Scandinavia was Christian I of Denmark (r. 1448–1481) and Norway (r. 1449–1481). Christian’s younger brother Gerard and his successors continued to rule as princes of Oldenburg in Germany until the 1600s. Although Christian also became king of Sweden in 1457, the country never accepted his rule or that of his descendants. The Swedes threw off Danish rule in 1521 under Gustavus I Vasa (r. 1523–1560), the founder of Sweden’s Vasa dynasty. In Denmark and Norway, the Oldenburgs oversaw times of great change, ruling from the late Middle Ages into the mid-1800s. During this time, Scandinavia and the rest of Europe changed from an era in which coalitions of nobles could overthrow kings to an age of absolute monarchy and then to a time of fear of republicanism following the French Revolution. In the Treaty of Kiel (1814), Denmark ceded Norway to the Swedish Crown, ending Oldenburg rule of Norway. In Denmark itself, however, the Oldenburgs continued to rule, their kings’ names alternating since the 1500s with monotonous regularity in a series of monarchs named either Frederick or Christian.

Olmec Kingdom The last Oldenburg king of Denmark, Frederick VII (r. 1848–1863), ruled during war with Prussia over the duchy of Slesvig, the possession of which Denmark and Germany had contested for centuries. Frederick died childless in 1863, ending the direct Oldenburg line. He was succeeded by Christian IX of Glücksburg (r. 1863–1906), a member of the Sonderburg-Glücksburg dynasty. See also:Danish Kingdom; Gustavus I (Vasa); Norwegian Monarchy; Swedish Monarchy.

OLMEC KINGDOM (1400s–400 B.C.E.) The earliest known Mesoamerican civilization, located in Mexico, and thought to be the progenitor of all of the later high cultures of the region. The people known today as the Olmec first appeared in Mesoamerica around 1400 b.c.e.They settled in the lowlands of eastern Mexico, where they learned to domesticate maize, the staple of their economy and a central element of Olmec culture. Very little is known about the early centuries of Olmec settlement, but the Olmec are known to have developed irrigated agriculture, for they constructed great stone aqueducts and drainage systems. The Olmec were the first people of Mesoamerica to develop a writing system, which employed both pictographs and syllabic elements. They also developed a complicated calendrical system. Both of these developments seem to have been motivated in part by the central role that maize played in the Olmec culture. The calendars were developed to chart the growing and harvest seasons, whereas the writing system enabled the Olmec to keep records for the allocation of the grain harvest. As the Olmec grew more efficient at agriculture, they were able to support a larger and more specialized population. By about 1200 b.c.e. they had become the most powerful people in the region, and their leaders began a campaign of conquest, bringing the neighboring tribes under their control. It is believed that this control did not extend to political stewardship but was limited instead to the extraction of tribute in the form of maize and slaves. The Olmec rise to dominance took many centuries, but they eventually spread from the Chontalpa lowlands in the east to the Tuxtlas Mountains in the west.The Olmec established a number of impor-

695

tant ceremonial centers: La Venta, in the present-day Mexican state of Tabasco; San Lorenzo Tenoctitla, in the state of Veracruz; and Laguna de los Cerros, also in Veracruz. Olmec ceremonial centers were notable for their pyramids, which probably originated as simple platform mounds.The centers also contained ball courts, leading some scholars to suggest that the Olmec invented the ball games that became ubiquitous in the cultures of Mesoamerica. It is unclear how urban Olmec ceremonial centers were. It is certain that they were used for rituals, but it is not known whether or not they supported markets or a large residential population. The ceremonial aspect of their existence has been demonstrated by the discovery of a great deal of Olmec art that appears religious in nature. Examples of this art include representations of what must have been the chief deities of the Olmec, especially figures of a jaguar god with human features and the feathered serpent that later became known as Quetzalcoatl.These figures were carved or sculpted in wood, jade, and basalt. Basalt was only mined in the western reaches of Olmec territory, but basalt sculptures have been found throughout the kingdom.The most impressive

Artifacts of the ancient Olmec civilization of Mesoamerica, these colossal stone heads with carved features range in height from 5 feet to more than 11 feet and weighing thousands of pounds. Since the first head was unearthed from a Mexican jungle floor in 1862, a total of 170 heads have been discovered.

696

Olmec Kingdom

of the Olmec basalt sculptures are huge heads that stand from five to eleven feet tall.These are, in fact, only a portion of the original sculptures: the heads were toppled from their perches on equally monumental bodies.These huge sculptures are thought to represent Olmec rulers. The production of the statues must have been of great importance, for there are many of them: more than 170 Olmec heads have been found to date. Many of the heads have been mutilated. Individual statues may have been constructed during the reign of the king that they represented, then decapitated and otherwise mutilated after that king died and was replaced by a new ruler. The Olmec kings likely resided in the ceremonial centers because the structures that are commonly identified as altars seem also to have served as thrones. Some of these structures have dates incised on them, possibly signifying the reign of the particular kings who used them. It appears that once a monument or statue was deemed no longer useful, it was recycled to make a new one. Scholars know little more about Olmec society beyond the likelihood that it contained two classes: elites and commoners. The elites most likely comprised the priestly hierarchy and the nobility, and lived in or near the ceremonial centers. The commoners were largely farmers, who were essential to the maize-based economy. Sculpted figurines provide a glimpse into certain cultural practices that are echoed in later Mesoamerican civilizations. For instance, the Olmec appear to have practiced intentional cranial deformation, strapping the heads of their infants to boards in order to force the bones to reshape into an elongated form. This same practice was found among the Maya, who came to the region much later. The Olmec built burial pyramids, and these do not seem to have been reserved only for royal burials.The ball courts also appear to have had ritual significance. Blood sacrifice is also attributed to the Olmec. However, it is not known conclusively whether this meant human sacrifice (as practiced by later peoples, such as the Toltec and Aztec), or simply nonlethal bloodletting done by members of the priestly and noble classes. Because the Olmec writing system has not yet been fully deciphered, scholars are not certain of the number of kings, their names, and the dates of their respective reigns. It is known that sometime around 400 b.c.e. the Olmec abandoned their ritual centers,

and a new culture, that of the Teotihuaca, began its rise to dominance. See also: Aztec Empire; Maya Empire; Toltec Empire; Zapotec Empire. FURTHER READING

Coe, Michael D. The Aztecs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973. Davies, Nigel. The Ancient Kingdoms of Mexico. New York: Penguin, 1990.

ORANGE-NASSAU, HOUSE OF (1747 C.E.–Present)

Ruling house of the Netherlands from the mideighteenth century to the present day. In 1747, after a forty-five-year interregnum (a period between reigns, when no king was on the throne), William IV (r. 1747–1751) of Nassau succeeded his distant cousin, William III (r. 1672– 1702), as stadholder (viceroy) of Holland. In tribute to his ancestors, William took the dynastic name Orange-Nassau. (In 1554, William I, the Silent [r. 1472–1584], count of Nassau, had received the princedom of Orange through inheritance and was proclaimed stadholder of Holland and Zeeland.) William IV had previously been stadholder of Friesland, one of the seven provinces of the Netherlands. Upon his death in 1751, William IV was succeeded by his son, William V, the Batavian (r. 1751– 1795), who declared war on France in 1793. Two years later, when the French republic conquered the country,William fled to England. From 1795 to 1806, Holland was renamed the Batavian Republic, but the country was a republic in name only and was, in fact, dominated by France. In 1806, Napoleon Bonaparte transformed the country into the kingdom of Holland, with his brother Louis Napoleon (r. 1806–1810) as king. By the time the Napoleonic Empire collapsed in 1813,William V had died in exile. However, his son, also named William, returned to Holland. Since the office of stadhllder had been abolished, William became prince of the Netherlands in 1813. Two years later, as William I (r. 1815–1840), he became king of the Netherlands and grand duke of Luxembourg. During his reign, which restored the House of

Osman I Orange-Nassau to the throne, the southern province of the kingdom separated, forming the independent kingdom of Belgium. William I abdicated the throne in 1840, after his Dutch subjects forced him to revise the nation’s constitution and make it more liberal. He was succeeded by his son, William II (1840–1849), during whose reign calls for reform increased, and the Netherlands became a constitutional monarchy. Upon his death in 1849,William II was succeeded on the throne by his son,William III (r. 1849–1890), the first king to rule the Netherlands as a constitutional monarch. With the death of William III in 1890, the male line of the House of Orange-Nassau came to an end in the Netherlands.William III was succeeded by his daughter, Queen Wilhelmina (r. 1890–1948), who ruled during the German occupation of the Netherlands in World War II.Wilhelmina fled to England in May 1940 and spent the remainder of the war in exile. Following the war, Queen Wilhelmina abdicated in favor of her daughter Queen Juliana (1948–1980) who, in turn, abdicated and was succeeded by her daughter, the present ruler, Queen Beatrix (r. 1980– present). See also: Juliana; Netherlands Kingdom; Wilhelmina.

697

Denkyera alone, so he forged a military alliance with the other Asante states.With this additional force, he succeeded in conquering the Denkyera after waging a war that lasted from 1699 to 1701. Building on the success of this alliance, Osei formalized the arrangement, thus creating a unified Asante Empire that soon became the dominant political and economic power of the region.At its height, the Asante Empire encompassed nearly all of Ghana and extended well into present-day Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast). Osei used various rituals to legitimize and consolidate his power through the region. Chief among these was the ritual of the Golden Stool.Throughout Asante territory, the installation of a local ruler was traditionally accomplished through a ritual that employed a stool.The stool was a symbolic item, not to be mistaken for a royal throne. It was seen as the repository for the spirit of the local people. Osei established a supreme stool, ornamented in gold, which was understood to incorporate all the others, thus coming to symbolize the unity of all the Asante peoples. Osei also reconfigured other ceremonial occasions, most notably the odwira, a harvest festival, and instituted them on a national scale.This, too, was another way to provide a ritual enactment of Asante unity. Osei Tutu’s unified Asante kingdom proved exceptionally enduring, lasting to the present day. See also: Asante Kingdom.

ORISSA KINGDOM. See Utkala (Orissa) Kingdom

OSEI TUTU (ca. 1636–1717 C.E.) First king (r. ca. 1697–1717) of the Asante kingdom of Ghana, who created a distinctive form of governance that survives to the present day. Born into the Oyoko clan, Osei Tutu was the nephew of the ruler of Kumasi, a small state located in what is today the nation of Ghana.When his uncle died in the late 1600s, Osei succeeded him as ruler of Kumasi and embarked upon a campaign to extend the borders of his realm.At that time, the region was home to several small, independent states, the most powerful of which was that of the Denkyera, who monopolized local access to the trans-Saharan trade. Osei knew that he could not challenge the

OSMAN I (1259–1326 C.E.) Anatolian Turkish ruler (r. 1280–1324) who founded the Osmanli dynasty of the Ottoman Empire. Osman was a bey, or lord, and although he is sometimes called the first Ottoman sultan, the first Ottoman ruler to use the title of sultan was his son Orhan (r. 1324–1362). Born in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) in 1258, Osman was the son of a clan ruler called Ertugrul. A talented warrior and leader, Osman inherited a small principality in the 1280s. Around the 1290s, he declared his territory independent of the Seljuk Turks, whose crumbling dynasty was leaving a power vacuum in Anatolia. Osman married the daughter of a holy man and raised his son Orhan to succeed him as a military and political leader. Osman’s army was a collection of seminomadic

698

Osman I

ghazis, or Muslim warriors.They fought in the name of Islam, but also for material and territorial gain. Despite the religious basis of his leadership, Osman proclaimed a policy of religious tolerance that was to become a hallmark of the Ottoman Empire. In the early decades of the fourteenth century, Osman gained territory at the expense of the Byzantine Empire, as his troops conquered lands north and west of the central Anatolian region. Near the end of his life, he laid siege to Bursa, a prosperous Greek Christian city near the Sea of Marmara (which lies between the Black and Mediterranean seas). Osman’s son Orhan conquered the city, and the infirm Osman lived long enough to hear of the victory. After his death in 1324, Osman was buried in Bursa, which became the first capital of the Ottoman Empire. His dynasty and the empire it ruled are known as Osmanli (in Turkish), deriving the names from their first ruler. See also: Byzantine Empire; Ottoman Empire; Seljuk Dynasty.

OSTROGOTH KINGDOM (200s–552 C.E.)

Kingdom of the Ostrogoths, the eastern branch of the Germanic Gothic peoples, originally located in Eastern Europe, later moved to Italy, and eventually conquered by the Byzantine Empire. According to tradition, the ancestors of the Goths were the Gotars, a Germanic people from the area of southern Sweden and the southern Baltic area. By the 200s, the Goths had settled in the region north of the Black Sea.They soon split into two groups, the Ostrogoths (or East Goths) and the Visigoths (or West Goths). After the Goths split, the Ostrogoths settled in the area of the present-day Ukraine and established a kingdom there. One of the early Ostrogothic kings, Ermanric (r. ?–375 ), was defeated and conquered by the Huns around 375. From then until the death of the Hun leader, Attila (r. 445–453), in 453, the Ostrogoths were subject to the Huns, although they retained some degree of autonomy. After the death of Attila, the Ostrogoths moved westward and settled in the ancient Roman province of Pannonia (roughly present-day Hungary), where

they became somewhat troublesome allies of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.Their most important king at this time was Theodoric the Great (r. 474–526). After ravaging the Balkan province of Thrace in the 470s, Theodoric, through the Eastern Roman emperor Zeno (r. 474–491), diverted his attention westward. Zeno commissioned Theodoric to overthrow Odoacer, a former barbarian mercenary who had overthrown the last Roman emperor in the West, Romulus Augustulus (r. 475–476), in 476 and taken the title king of Italy. After marching to Italy, Theodoric quickly overcame Odoacer and killed him. Theodoric then established an Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy, with its capital at the city of Ravenna in northern Italy. The Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy was the most civilized of the post-Roman barbarian kingdoms in the western Mediterranean region.The kingdom was marked by the persistence of Roman civilization and the continued acknowledgment of the rule of the Eastern Roman emperor at Constantinople. Even the Roman Senate continued to meet (as it had under Odoacer), and many of its senators served in Theodoric’s government. Unlike other barbarian states, the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy did not have different sets of laws for Romans and barbarians, although Goths were tried by Goths in military courts and Romans by Romans in civilian courts. Like other barbarian states, however, Ostrogothic Italy did face the problem of religious differences. The Ostrogoths were Arian Christians, an early form of Christianity that denied the equality of Christ with God the Father. But most of the Roman subjects in the kingdom were followers of the Roman branch of Christianity, which accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. While Theodoric ruled, his strong personality enabled him to keep tensions between Ostrogoths and Romans in check.Toward the end of his reign, however, he adopted a harsher policy toward the Senate and leading Romans for fear that they were conspiring with the emperor. After Theodoric’s death in 526, the Ostrogoth-Roman relationship began to fray and show more strains. Theodoric was succeeded by his young grandson Athalaric (r. 526–534), but the real power lay with Athalaric’s mother and regent, Amalasuntha, who was Theodoric’s daughter. Many traditional Ostrogoths believed that Amalasuntha was too “Roman” in her actions and beliefs, and that she favored the

O t t o I , t h e G r e at Roman subjects of the kingdom to the detriment of the Ostrogoths. She also lacked Theodoric’s fame as a war leader, which was an important attribute to the Ostgrogoths. In 534, Amalasuntha was imprisoned and murdered by her cousin, Theodahad (r. 534–536), who took the Crown of the Ostrogothic kingdom for himself.At this time, the Ostrogoths were in the path of the Roman emperor Justinian (r. 527–565), who wanted to destroy the influence of Arianism. Justinian used the murder of Amalasuntha as a pretext to deal with the Ostrogothic kingdom. Proclaiming themselves avengers of Amalasuntha, Roman legions under General Belisarius landed in Italy in 535. The Romans deposed Theodahad, a poor leader, in favor of General Witiges (r. 536–540), who was captured and taken to Constantinople in 540. (The Ostrogoths had offered to make Belisarius their king, but he refused.) Witiges was succeeded by the brief reigns of Hildibad (r. 540–541) and Eraric (r. 541), both of whom had the support of the Romans.When Belisarius returned to Constantinople in 541, the Ostrogoths rebelled under the leadership of Totila (r. 541– 552), who took the Ostrogothic throne. A fairly capable leader,Totila retook Rome, but he was eventually defeated and killed in the battle of Busta Gallorum in 552 by the Roman general Narses. Soon after the defeat of Totila, the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy came to an end, and control over Italy passed to the Byzantines and then the Lombards, another Germanic people who invaded northern Italy in 568 and established their own kingdom. See also: Byzantine Empire; Justinian I; Lombard Kingdom;Theodoric the Great. FURTHER READING

Burns, Thomas S. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.

OTTO I, THE GREAT (912–973 C.E.) German King (r. 936–973) and Holy Roman emperor (r. 962–973) of the Saxon dynasty, who defeated the Magyars, consolidated and extended German rule even to Italy, and created a highly efficient church-based ruling bureaucracy for the German Empire. The son of German king, Henry I (r. 919–936),

699

Otto I succeeded to the German throne upon the death of his father in 936. He was twenty-four years old.After taking the throne, Otto faced rebellions by his brother Henry and Duke Eberhard of Franconia. Otto defeated the Franconians at the battle of Andernach in 939, and he forced Henry to submit in 941. Meanwhile, Otto also campaigned against King Louis IV of France (r. 936–954), who had assisted the rebels. In 951, Adelaide, the widowed queen of Italy, appealed to Otto for help from her incarceration at the hands of the new Italian king, Berengar II (r. 950–963), who wanted to force Adelaide to marry him. Otto responded to Adelaide’s plea by invading Italy. He defeated Berengar, rescued and married Adelaide, and forced Berengar to swear fealty to him. Otto also assumed the title king of the Lombards. In 953, Otto’s son, Duke Ludolf of Swabia, and his son-in-law, Conrad the Red, led a rebellion against him and were later joined by the Magyars in the revolt. Otto quickly returned from Italy to defeat the Magyars near Augsburg in 955, and his victory freed Germany of threat from that quarter for generations. Meanwhile, he curbed the powers of the German dukes by forming a close alliance between the Crown and the Church. In the meantime, Pope John XII appealed to Otto I to help defend the Holy See against the resurgent Berengar II, who had renewed aggressive actions against the papacy. Pleased to comply, Otto returned to Italy and once again easily dispatched the forces of Berengar. Otto then successfully pressed the pope to revive the imperial title held by the Carolingian kings, since it was the papacy’s right to bestow the title of emperor. Otto was crowned Roman emperor of the West in 962, as a result of which he is often considered the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. In addition, Otto’s coronation helped legitimize the German claim to imperial power. But Pope John XII soon thought better of this coronation, finding the new emperor too powerful. Not one to hesitate, Otto marched on Rome, called a synod of bishops, and established his own pope, Leo VIII, who was installed in place of John XII. Otto also took as imperial property all the papal lands except the immediate environs of Rome and some of its surrounding territory. Otto had his son, Otto II (r. 973–983), crowned co-emperor in 967 as a way to ensure the imperial succession. In 972, he secured his son’s marriage to

700

O t t o I , t h e G r e at

Theophano, daughter of the Byzantine emperor, Romanus II (r. 959–963). By the time Otto died in 973, he had united his empire from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. He had developed strong ties with the Empire of the East (the Byzantine Empire) and had subjugated the papacy to the will of the emperor. Most importantly, he had created an efficient, loyal, and assiduous bureaucracy by his creative use of the Church’s structure and training of intelligent and capable young men. This government did not look for war to fill its coffers but instead promoted a peace and prosperity that Germany enjoyed for generations. For these accomplishments, Otto has been given the honorific “the Great.” See also: Holy Roman Empire; Saxon Dynasty.

OTTOMAN EMPIRE (ca. 1300–1923 C.E.) Powerful and wealthy political entity that dominated much of the eastern Mediterranean for nearly six hundred years. From its capital at Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) in Anatolia (present-day Turkey), the Ottoman Empire extended its reach north into Crimea, west to Morocco, south toYemen, and east to Iran, incorporating parts of Arabia, North Africa, and Syria. Ruling this vast expanse of lands was the Ottoman, or Osmanli, dynasty, which ruled over its empire longer than any other single dynastic clan known to history. The empire’s eventual rise to wealth and power, however, could hardly have been predicted from its origins, in one of the small, scattered emirates that littered the landscape of Anatolia (Asia Minor) in the eleventh century.

RISE OF THE EMPIRE The rise of the Ottoman Empire began with the peoples of the Asian steppes region, nomadic tribes called Yoruk (from which later came the word “Turk”), who, prior to the 700s, traveled south and east to find fresh lands free of the depredations of Mongol raiders. Herders and fierce fighters, these tribes eventually made their way to the Anatolian plains. In Anatolia, they came into contact with Islam, and over the course of the eighth and ninth centuries, most converted to this religion. Most, however, also retained the social organization, warlike culture, and nomadic lifestyle of their ancestors. One group was different, however. These were

the Seljuks, who took advantage of the hospitable Mediterranean climate of the region and settled into villages.With the advantage of agriculture, they soon grew numerous and powerful and ultimately took control of the region, establishing their capital in the city of Isfahan, in Iran, in 1077. Across their western border lay the wealthy and powerful Byzantine Empire, with its capital at Constantinople. It was not long before the Seljuk rulers began to look jealously upon their neighbors’ lands. A series of skirmishes between the two occurred as the Seljuks tried to expand into Armenia, which was then part of the Byzantine Empire. In the last decades of the eleventh century, the Seljuks finally succeeded in ousting Byzantine defenders from the region. This success, however, set the stage for the decline of the Seljuks.With a powerful enemy on the western border, the Seljuk rulers were unprepared to face an additional threat from the north, which came when Mongol raiders swept into the area in 1243. The Mongols devastated the Seljuk Empire, only to return to the north as swiftly as they had come. With the empire in tatters and the Seljuk dynasty demoralized, many of the smaller tribes of Anatolia were free to establish themselves as autonomous emirates. One such tribe was led by a warrior named Osman.A follower of the ghazi tradition (“warriors of Islam”), Osman began a series of military actions against other principalities, and by 1299 he had taken control of nearly all of Anatolia, while the Seljuk dynasty faded into obscurity. It is from Osman that the term Ottoman was later derived (from the Turkish Osmanli). Osman, now called Osman-ghazi I (r. 1280– 1324), established a capital city in Bursa in Anatolia, and then set out to do what the Seljuks had tried but failed to do previously: conquer Byzantium. Osman’s military successes were due in large part to his ability to attract volunteers for his armies. These volunteers came from throughout the Islamic world, drawn into Osman’s service by the promise of a share of the wealth gained through conquest.With help from these “warriors of Islam,” Osman soon extended his empire well beyond the borders that the Seljuks had established. Osman died in 1324 and was succeeded by his son Orkhan-ghazi (r. 1324–1359), who continued the work of expanding the lands under Ottoman rule. However, it was not until the reign of the third Ottoman ruler, Murad I (r. 1359–1389), that this ex-

Ottoman Empire pansion took on dramatic proportions. Sultan Murad created a new military force, the Janissaries, which consisted of former slaves and, later, Christian captives who were required to pay tribute in the form of military service. Unlike the ghazi, who fought from horseback, the Janissaries were foot soldiers. With their incorporation into the sultan’s army, they offered greater military flexibility as well as a huge boost in manpower. The Janissaries swore their allegiance directly to the Ottoman sultan himself, and from their ranks he chose the best to serve as advisers in both peacetime and war. From 1362 to 1363, Murad’s powerful new army helped achieve the greatest military expansion to date, enabling him to capture Thrace (the northeastern portion of Greece), southern Bulgaria, and northwestern Turkey. This was Byzantine territory initially, but Murad followed a practice that his grandfather Osman had initiated earlier: he offered the services of his Janissaries to the Byzantine Empire to aid in its defense. Then, with his troops in place, he followed up with an invasion of his own.

EXPANSION AND CONSOLIDATION With the capture of Thrace, the Ottoman Empire gained its first toehold in continental Europe, raising fears that Christian Byzantium would be next to fall. These fears led Pope Gregory XI (r. 1370–1378) to call all Christian lands to launch a crusade to take

701

back the territories lost to the Turks and to defend the Byzantine capital of Constantinople.This crusade failed, and in its wake the Ottoman Empire expanded further, laying claim to Serbia and Bulgaria in the Balkan region of southeastern Europe. The reign of Mehmed II (r. 1451–1481) was a time of such unprecedented military success that the sultan is remembered as “Mehmed the Conqueror.” In 1453, Mehmed succeeded in capturing the greatest prize of all, the city of Constantinople, which he made his new capital and site of the imperial court. Three years later, the ancient Greek city of Athens fell to Ottoman forces, and by 1478 the empire stretched northward to include Bosnia, Wallachia (now part of Romania), and the Crimea. In 1480, Otranto, in Italy, was forced to join the empire, and even Rome was threatened with conquest. Although the Ottoman Empire would expand further, massive territorial gains declined with the end of Mehmed II’s rule. His successors became more preoccupied with consolidating control of the territories they held. This proved difficult, not only because the empire was so vast, but also because of administrative factors and disputes over the imperial succession. Of all the Ottoman emperors, the one best known to the Western world is Suleyman I, the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566). His reputation derives from two sources. First, he more than doubled the land-

ROYAL RITUALS

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY OF THE SULTAN Unlike dynastic houses that claim descent from the gods, as was true in Japan, the Islamic Ottoman dynasty derived its validation wholly from the temporal world.Without popular support and a loyal retinue of palace guards, the sultan could be easily deposed and replaced. Nonetheless, as caliph (supreme temporal leader of Islam), the sultan had two important religious duties.The first was to maintain Islamic orthodoxy among his people, which meant that he had to root out all improper religious beliefs and practices. His second responsibility was to ensure the safety of travelers on the road to Mecca in Arabia.This was of grave importance, for the single most important ritual occasion in the lives of most Muslims is to make a hajj or pilgrimage, to the holy city of Mecca, which is the birthplace of Islam.

702

Ottoman Empire

Ottoman Empire

Ibraham

1640–1648

Osman I*

1280–1324

Mehmed IV

1648–1687

Orkhan

1324–1359

Suleyman II

1687–1691

Murad I

1359–1389

Ahmad II

1691–1695

Beyezid I

1389–1403

Mustafa II

1695–1703

Suleyman Çelebi

1403–1410

Ahmad III

1703–1730

Mehmed I

1410–1421

Mahmud I

1730–1754

Musa

1410–1413

Osman III

1754–1757

Murad II

1421–1444

Mustafa III

1757–1774

Mehmed II*

1444–1446

Abd al-Hamad I

1774–1789

Murad II

1446–1451

Selim III*

1789–1807

Mehmed II*

1451–1481

Mustafa IV

1807–1808

Beyezid II*

1481–1512

Mahmud II

1808–1839

Selim I

1512–1520

Abd al-Majid I

1839–1861

Suleyman I*

1520–1566

Abd al-’Aziz

1861–1876

Selim II*

1566–1574

Murad V

1876–1876

Murad III

1574–1595

Abd al-Hamid II*

1876–1909

Mehmed III

1595–1603

Mehmed V

1909–1918

Ahmad I

1603–1617

Mehmed VI

1918–1922

Mustafa I

1617–1618

Abd al-Majid II

Osman II

1618–1622

Mustafa I

1622–1623

Murad IV

1623–1640

holdings inherited from his father, Selim I (r. 1512– 1520). His armies conquered most of Greece and Hungary, threatened Rome, and even captured lands held by the powerful Holy Roman Empire. Second, Suleyman was a great builder and a patron of the arts. During his reign, a number of great temples and public works were built, including the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Within Islam, Suleyman is honored as the “Lawgiver,” because he achieved the final codification of the kanun, or “sultanic law,” that

(as caliph only)

1922–1924

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

evolved over centuries as a result of decisions by the sultans.

A Fractious Ruling Family Succession to the imperial throne in the Ottoman dynasty was a highly contested affair. There was no rule of primogeniture, in which the firstborn child, often a son, is clearly recognized as heir. Thus, the death or expulsion of a ruler was likely to be followed by a struggle among several contenders for

Ottoman Empire

the throne. These power struggles endangered the safety of the empire, which at times was left leaderless as factions fought for supremacy. In addition, there were frequent plots and schemes hatched among the nobility, most of whom were heir to the warlord tradition and likely to betray their allegiance to the sultan to further their personal interests. Murad II (r. 1421–1444; 1446–1451) was the first Ottoman ruler to attempt to make his position more secure. He did this by reorganizing the military and forming a personal armed force from the Janissaries, which he elevated in status so that they ranked higher than hereditary warlords and nobles. The problem with this solution was that he merely replaced one set of power brokers with another. In time, the Janissaries themselves often toppled a weak emperor. Mehmed II (r. 1451–1481) turned to the law to strengthen the emperor’s position. He decreed that upon the enthronement of the eldest son of a dead or deposed ruler, all other contenders to the throne were to be murdered.This meant killing not only the siblings of the newly enthroned emperor but also the brothers of the previous ruler. In terms of political

703

expediency, this law had at least the merit of simplicity, and it remained in force for more than 150 years. Nonetheless, there was no guarantee that a sultan’s rule was secure. Deposition was always possible, as Beyezid II (r. 1481–1512) learned to his dismay. His son, impatient to rule, deposed him in 1512 to become SultanYavuz Selim I (r. 1512–1520). Selim I’s brief eight-year rule was followed by the reign of Suleyman I, whose own sons also tried to overthrow their father. Suleyman, perhaps recalling Beyezid II’s experience, resorted to a simple solution to end the threat to his reign: invoking the law passed by Mehmed II, he attempted to have his three sons killed. His son Selim survived and eventually took the throne as Selim II (r. 1566–1574).

Life Within the Empire The Ottoman Empire, though predominantly Islamic, consisted of a remarkable diversity of peoples. Within its borders lived Persians and Mongols, Slavs and Greeks, Jews and Christians. Perhaps more remarkable was the official attitude of tolerance for

704

Ottoman Empire

differences in beliefs and lifestyles. Although Christians and other non-Muslims had to pay special tribute, they were accorded the same protections as other citizens and were free to travel and conduct business without fear of molestation. In fact, one role of the Janissaries was to ensure that nonMuslims were protected from violence from followers of Islam. A vivid example of this tolerance comes from the late fifteenth century, when many Jews fled persecution in Spain and Portugal. Beyezid II, who occupied the Ottoman throne at that time, welcomed these refugees into his empire and gave them a safe haven. The Ottoman state was under the absolute authority of the sultan, whose primary purpose was to guarantee adalet (justice). This not only referred to the Western concept of justice, meaning the equitable application of law, but also included the idea that the weak must be protected from harm. Thus, the sultan’s chief duties included overseeing the operation of the ulama (courts) to make certain that laws were fairly applied, as well as imposing the siyasset, a specific form of punishment levied on corrupt officials who overtaxed or mistreated the peasantry. The sultan also made public announcements of all new laws and taxes, so that the populace was less likely to be swindled by corrupt officials. To make certain that his officers were behaving properly, the sultan made periodic tours of the empire in disguise, visiting local bureaucracies to see that they were all fulfilling their obligations. The Ottoman Empire was hierarchical, with the top level composed of military leaders and others whose families had been raised to noble status. Most of the wealth and property was concentrated in the hands of this elite class. The remainder of the population consisted of tradesmen, craftspeople, farmers, and others who held little real property. Membership in either class, however, was not an inevitable result of the fortunes of birth. A simple peasant, by performing a valued service to the sultan, could be elevated to higher rank. Conversely, an official who betrayed the sultan’s confidence could easily find himself stripped of rank and property.

gain the territory of Crimea, which offered access to the Black Sea. Claiming outrage that the Ottoman Empire gave rights to Catholic France rather than to Orthodox Russia in the Holy Land, Russia launched the Crimean War (1854–1856).The Ottomans won, but only with the help of an alliance with Britain and France. The once seemingly invincible empire now realized that its continued survival depended on the help and goodwill of loyal allies. In 1905, the Ottoman Empire was challenged from within. Rebels in the Balkan states of Bosnia and Herzegovina rose up to demand independence, and they were soon joined by like-minded factions in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro. Seeing an opportunity to gain Ottoman territory, Russia lent the rebels support in an alliance known as the Pan-Slavic movement.The rebellion lasted from 1875 to 1878; in the end, the Ottomans were forced to relinquish control of all Balkan territories. In 1911, danger came from a new quarter. The European scramble for colonial territories in Africa was in full swing, and both Italy and France had their eyes on Libya in North Africa. Italy invaded that Ottoman-controlled territory first. The Ottomans, whose control over North African territories was only tenuous, were unable to hold onto the province because the sultan was preoccupied with attacks from Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro, all of which took territory once held by the empire. The final blow came in 1913, although it would be another nine years before the Ottomans were finally ousted completely.This was the year of the Second Balkan War, a regional conflict that brought renewed hostilities from Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro. Although the war was short-lived, the unrest among rival factions led directly to World War I. At the close of that war, the Treaty of Versailles (1919) resulted in the loss of Syria, Palestine,Arabia, and Mesopotamia from Ottoman control. Only three years later, in 1922, a group of Westernizing rebels known as the “Young Turks” toppled the Ottoman sultan, Mehmed VI (1918–1922), and declared Turkey a republic.The centuries-old Ottoman Empire now ceased to exist.

THE EMPIRE IN DECLINE In the 1800s, the nations of Europe began expanding, and Russia also sought to gain new territories. It was from Russia that the Ottoman Empire faced its first serious challenge. In particular, Russia hoped to

See also: Abd al-Hamid II; Beyezid II; Byzantine Empire; Osman I; Ottoman Empire; Selim I, the Grim; Selim III, the Great; Suleyman I, the Magnificent.

Ottonian Dynasty FURTHER READING

Braude, Benjamin, and Bernard Lewis. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982. Shaw, Stanford J., and Ezel Kural Shaw. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Wheatcroft, Andrew. The Ottomans: Dissolving Images. New York: Penguin, 1993.

OTTONIAN DYNASTY (919–1024 C.E.) Medieval German dynasty that ruled Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. The Ottonian dynasty, also known as the House of Saxony or the Liudolfing dynasty, began with Duke Henry of Saxony (Henry the Fowler), who was elected King Henry I of Germany (r. 919–936) in 919. Only one German king, Conrad I (r. 911–918), had preceded him since the end of the Carolingian dynasty. Conrad I had designated Henry I his successor while on his deathbed.This designation was confirmed by Henry’s election by the German princes and his consecration by the clergy. Henry, in turn, designated his son, Otto I (r. 936–973), as his own successor. Hereditary succession to the German kingship was not automatic, since monarchs needed the approval of the German princes to rule. However, it seemed as though the succession might become hereditary in this period, as the Crown passed from father to son through four generations. In 961, Otto II (r. 961–983) was made co-ruler with his father Otto I, and he ruled alone after his father’s death in 973. Otto II was succeeded by his three-year-old son, Otto III (r. 983–1002), whose grandmother and mother served as regents until Otto III reached his majority in 995. Otto III died without an heir at the young age of twenty-one, and was succeeded by his cousin, Henry II (r. 1002–1024), the duke of Bavaria. Henry II also died without an heir and was the last ruler of the Ottonian dynasty. His successor, Conrad II (r. 1024– 1039), was the first ruler of the Salian dynasty. The Ottonians ruled not only as German kings but also as Holy Roman emperors. Although Henry I was never crowned emperor, his son Otto I was crowned at Rome in 962. Otto II, Otto III, and Henry II were all crowned emperors at Rome in their turn. Al-

705

though the name Holy Roman Empire is sometimes used to refer to the empire at this period, “Holy Empire” did not come into use until the reign of Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1155–1190) and “Holy Roman Empire” appeared only in the thirteenth century. Though their rule was relatively brief, the Ottonian accomplishments were not insignificant. Perhaps their main achievement was in preventing the German dukes from gaining autonomy and Germany from fragmenting into a number of minor principalities linked only by common language. The Ottonians also suppressed a number of rebellions. Henry I, for example, put down rebellions by the duke of Bavaria in 921 and the duke of Lorraine in 925.Throughout the reigns of his successors, warfare against rebellious dukes was an ongoing occurrence. Otto I spent the entire thirty-six years of his reign in near-constant warfare, fighting rebellious German dukes as well as rebellious Italians and the Byzantine Empire. Otto I also expanded the kingdom to the north and east, although the main period of German colonization of these areas came later, during the reign of Otto II. Partly to counter the ambitions of the German dukes, the Ottonian kings gave monasteries and bishoprics greater administrative functions within the kingdom. They also exercised power through the appointment of counts, who served as administrators for the Crown. During the reign of Otto III, the ministeriales—unfree servants of the Crown, administrators and knights—became an important part of government. Otto III preferred to rely on them rather than the nobility. In their relations with the Church, the Ottonians pushed for greater control. Henry II, for example, claimed the right to both appoint and invest bishops. The papacy later contested this right, however, since it implied that the bishops owed allegiance to the emperor and that the emperor had religious authority and was more than purely a secular ruler. The Ottonians succeeded in making the German king master over the dukes or princes of Germany and the empire. In doing so, however, the dynasty failed to institutionalize the means by which they governed, relying on ties of personal loyalty rather than any clearly established administrative system to hold the kingdom together. See also: Conrad II; Holy Roman Empire; Otto I, the Great.

706

Ottonian Dynasty

FURTHER READING

Barraclough, Geoffrey. Origins of Modern Germany. 3rd. ed. (1947). Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Holmes, George, ed. Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Leyser, Karl. Medieval Germany and Its Neighbours: 900–1250. London: Hambledon Press, 1982.

OUDH (AVADH) KINGDOM (ca. 500s B.C.E.–1856 C.E.)

Kingdom of religious and political importance, located in the central part of northern India, which is now part of the modern state of Uttar Pradesh. According to ancient Hindu myth, the city of Ayodhya was the birthplace of Rama, the incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. As such, it was one of the seven sacred cities of the Hindus. No one knows when the name of this ancient city came to be applied to the surrounding area, as Avadh, or when the name Oudh came into use for the kingdom that developed in the region. In the sixth century b.c.e., King Prasenajit of Kosala (d. 568 b.c.e.) was a formidable rival of the kings of Magadha, Bimbisara (r. ca. 603–541 b.c.e.), and Ajatasatru (r. 541–519 b.c.e.). Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha, was born in northern Kosala and sometimes resided in the city of Ayodhya, then called Saketa. By the fifth century b.c.e. there were more than one hundred Buddhist monasteries in Ayodhya. The region around Ayodhya, which became known as Oudh, eventually become part of the Magadha kingdom. Over the centuries, however, Oudh changed hands many times.Around 155 b.c.e., it was overrun by Menander (r. ca. 155–130 b.c.e.), the Indo-Greek king of Bactria (part of present-day Afganistan). Later, in the fourth and fifth centuries b.c.e., Oudh became part of the Gupta Empire. In the seventh century c.e, it was part of the Empire of Harshavardhana, and in the ninth century it was ruled by the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty. In 1192, Oudh came under Islamic rule when it was conquered by the Delhi sultanate. Oudh’s governor, Ain-ul-Mulk, revolted against Delhi in 1340.The revolt was suppressed, but by that time a large portion of Oudh had been annexed by the kingdom of Jaunpur.

When Jaunpur fell to Delhi in 1479, Oudh’s previous boundaries were restored. Oudh came under Mughal rule in 1526, when Delhi was conquered by Babur (r. 1526–1530), who established the Mughal Empire. Oudh continued to be an important province of the Mughal Empire under Akbar the Great (r. 1556– 1605). It remained under Mughal control until 1724, when its governor, Saadat Khan, declared independence. Saadat Khan (r. 1724–1739) established the Nawab dynasty of Oudh. He was followed on the throne by Safdar Jang (r. 1739–1754) and Shuja-udDaulah (r. 1754–1775). In 1764, Shuja-ud-daulah, who took the title Nawab Wazir (“first minister” of the Mughal Empire), fell to the British East India Company at the battle of Buxar. Seeking to make Oudh a buffer between them and the dominions of the Maratha Confederacy, the British left the Nawabs in charge of Oudh, but they made it a feudal state under the protection of the British East India Company. This marked the beginning of the end for the kingdom of Oudh. In 1856, claiming continual misgovernment by the Nawabs, Britain annexed Oudh and it became part of the British Indian Empire. See also: Delhi Kingdom; Gupta Empire; GurjaraPratihara Dynasty; Kosala Kingdom; Magadha Kingdom; Maratha Confederacy; Mughal Empire.

P PACAL (603–683 C.E.) Ruler of the Maya (r. 615–683), who inspired the grand art and architecture of the Mayan city of Palenque. The Mayan monarchy was typically patrilineal (descending through the male line), but Pacal came from a line of strong women and inherited the throne from his mother, the Lady Sak-K’uk.’ He later explained this deviation from tradition by claiming

Pa c h a c u t i that his rule had been divinely ordained. Pacal also proclaimed that his mother was the human embodiment of the Mayan creator-goddess, the First Mother. Pacal may have needed to use these divine references in order to secure his hold on the throne; Mayan inscriptions in Palenque reveal that he was only twelve years old when he became king. Pacal’s city of Palenque was probably constructed during his reign and that of his son and successor, Chan-Bahlum (r. 683–702). The construction of the city was careful in its attention to structural and aesthetic detail.The main palace was filled with distinctive vaults in what has been termed the Palenque style.The walls were coated in plaster to give them a smooth, almost glossy finish, and the interiors of the buildings were filled with elaborate terra cotta and stucco images. The Temple of Inscriptions in Palenque provides a number of excellent examples of these carvings. Among other things, they hint at the lifelong romance between Pacal and his wife, the Lady Tz’akAhaw. Married on March 22, 626, according to the Maya calendar, their marriage lasted almost fifty years, until her death in 672. Pacal survived his wife by eleven years, dying at the age of eighty in 683. He was placed in an ornate tomb under the Temple of Inscriptions. Pacal’s fiveton carved limestone sarcophagus weighed so much that it was set in place beneath the temple before construction began. He and his jade funerary mask and breastplate were found undisturbed by archaeologists in 1952. See also: Maya Empire.

PACHACUTI (ca. 1471 C.E.) Incan emperor (r. 1438–1471) who established a tradition of rapid conquest that was taken up by his son, Topa Inca (r. 1471–1493), which formed the foundation of the Inca Empire. Pachacuti was born Cusi Inca Yupanqui, son of the Inca ruler Viracocha Inca. As Viracocha began to consider retirement in his old age, he chose one of Cusi Inca Yupanqui’s brothers, Inca Urcon, to be his successor, despite the fact that various important members of the Inca military preferred Cusi Yupanqui. When the Inca capital city of Cuzco was threat-

707

ened by the advancing armies of the nearby Chanca people, Viracocha and his chosen heir retreated to safety in the mountain sanctuary of Calca. Cusi Inca Yupanqui, the two generals who supported him, and several nobles remained behind in Cuzco to defend the city, which they did successfully. Once joined by other allies, Cusi Inca Yupanqui pursued the Chanca army and won two more decisive victories. After Cusi Inca Yupanqui tried and failed to reconcile with his father, he established himself as emperor in Cuzco and named himself Pachacuti (“reformer of the world”). Through shrewd military alliances with the Chanca and resourceful generalship, Pachacuti soon encircled the stronghold of his father in the Andes Mountains. Viracocha Inca died during this time, and rule of the Calca faction passed to Inca Urcon. When Inca Urcon was killed in a minor clash with Pachacuti’s forces in 1438, the Calca faction fell apart and the Inca people were united once more. Taking advantage of the military framework already in place, Pachacuti proceeded to conquer several provinces to the south and west. Skirmishes with the Chanca continued until one of Pachacuti’s sons, Topa Inca Yupanqui, acting under his father’s orders, decisively subjugated both the province of the Chanca and that of the Quechua. He then proceeded to conquer territories as far north as modern-day Quito in Ecuador. Pachacuti swiftly instituted new policies to help unite the many divisive sections of his suddenly expanded empire. He instituted a system of forced ethnic resettlement, which helped downplay the strength of former ethnic ties. He established a regularized state religion and set up a system of corporate land ownership. Pachacuti also instituted new building programs, allegedly designing many of the elaborate temples and palaces of Cuzco himself and most likely ordering the construction of Machu Picchu. During this period of advanced administration, Pachacuti chose to hand over the reigns of power to his son, Topa Inca Yupanqui, who continued the tradition of conquest and building begun by his father. See also: Inca Empire. FURTHER READING

Niles, Susan A. The Shape of Inca History: Narrative and Architecture in an Andean Empire. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1999.

708

Pa e k c h e K i n g d o m

PAEKCHE KINGDOM (ca. 250–660 C.E.) Kingdom that developed in Mahan, the southwest region of the Korean Peninsula, during the third century. The Mahan region initially consisted of a series of self-sufficient walled cities that were subservient to China. In the third century, under the leadership of King Koi (r. 234–286), these cities established a confederacy that threatened to overthrow Chinese control. China responded by attacking the region from its northern strongholds. Koi then sought assistance from the Puyo princes of Manchuria. The Puyos defeated the Chinese but then assumed control of the region and named it Paekche. One of the more important Paekche kings, Chogo (r. 346–375), consolidated Paekche by subduing all of the Mahan communities. Then in 371, he led an invasion into the kingdom of Koguryo, Paekche’s northern neighbor, during which he killed Koguryo’s king and annexed a large portion of the Korean Peninsula. Assured of his authority, Chogo made significant changes in Paekche society. Before his ascendancy, the Paekche leader had been elected from among the leading families of the kingdom’s major cities. But Chogo now declared that the kingship would be inherited, thereby retaining the position for his family. Chogo also commissioned an official written history of Paekche, supported the introduction of Buddhism, and established diplomatic ties with Japan. Over the next century, Paekche developed social institutions. The walled cities became sizable fortresses that protected the kingdom’s borders. Originally, each city maintained its own agricultural economy, but as the authority of the king increased, all land came into his possession. Paekche’s rulers used this wealth to protect their security, granting ownership of the land to the kingdom’s most powerful families in exchange for their allegiance. During this process, the local inhabitants were converted into a powerless, though nominally free, peasant class. Paekche’s rulers also developed a bureaucratic system to accompany this new, hierarchical social stratification. The kingdom was divided into a series of units, each with its own governor and administration. The governor in each district collected newly instituted grain taxes, which were used to finance military and construction projects. Unfortunately,

Kings of Paekche On-jo

18 b.c.e.–28 c.e.

Ta-ru

28–77

Ki-ruq

77–128

Kae-ru

128–166

Ch’o-go

166–214

Ku-su

214–234

Sa-ban

234

Ko-i

234–286

Ch’ae-gye

286–298

Pun-su

298–304

Pi-ryu

304–344

Kye

344–346

Kun-ch’o-go

346–375

Kun-gu-su

375–384

Ch’im-yu

384–385

Chin-sa

385–392

A-sin

392–405

Chon-ji

405–420

Ku-i-sin

420–427

Pi-yu

427–455

Kae-ru

455–475

Mun-ju

475–477

Sam-gun

477–479

Tong-song

479–501

Mu-ryong

501–523

Song

523–554

Ui-dok

554–598

Hye

598–599

Pop

599–600

Mu

600–641

Ui-ja

641–661

Pa g a n K i n g d o m the peasant class paid the majority of these taxes. In addition, peasants faced mandatory military service and could be conscripted at any time for local civic projects. Although Paekche had rejected Chinese control, the kingdom and its two neighbors, the kingdoms of Silla and Koguryo, remained highly dependent upon Chinese culture and commerce.The three kingdoms jointly developed idu, a Korean syntax that used Chinese characters, as their language system. Paekche art, architecture, and dress all displayed direct Chinese influence, and Paekche imported the majority of its manufactured items from China. Most importantly, the three kingdoms adopted the Buddhist religion. Buddhism held a special appeal for emerging kingdoms such as Paekche because it emphasized a harmonious unity among its believers. Paekche’s rulers emphasized that such unity should also exist among their own subjects. Although Paekche, Koguryo, and Silla shared a common heritage, relations among the three were rarely peaceful. In 475, Koguryo, still bitter over its defeat a century earlier, invaded Paekche, killed the king, and razed the Paekche capital of Hansong. The Paekche kingdom was greatly reduced and forced to regroup.Two factors allowed the kingdom to survive temporarily. First, the capital was moved to a much more secure location at Sabi. Second, King Song (r. 523–554) of Paekche formed an alliance with Silla. In 554, however, Silla, fueled by its increasing power, betrayed the alliance and seized the vital Han River basin from Paekche’s control. Enraged, the Paekche kingdom turned to its traditional enemy Koguryo for support. Alarmed by the combined power of Paekche and Koguryo, Silla enlisted the support of the T’ang dynasty in China. The two alliances created a stalemate that lasted just over a century. Continued aggression by Paekche and Koguryo finally ended the confrontation between the two alliances. During the reign of King Uija (r. 641–660), Paekche launched frequent attacks against Silla to regain the land it had previously lost. In retaliation, Silla mounted a massive invasion across the eastern border of Paekche, while T’ang forces landed on Paekche’s western coast. In 660, the two forces crushed Paekche’s army and killed King Uija, ending Paekche’s autonomy.With Paekche’s defeat, Silla became the predominant power in southern Korea. Although eventually subjugated by Silla, Paekche

709

occupied a historic position as one of the three kingdoms that gave rise to modern Korean culture and nationalism. See also: Koguryo Kingdom; Silla Kingdom;T’ang Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Eckert, Carter J., et al. Korea Old and New. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.

PAGAN KINGDOM (1044–1287 C.E.) Kingdom in Myanmar (Burma), located on the Irrawaddy River Delta, which flourished from the mid-eleventh century until its collapse in 1287. The Pagan kingdom was established in 1044 when the Burman ruler, King Anawrahta (r. 1044–1077), conquered the Pyu peoples and consolidated all of central Myanmar under the supremacy of the Burmans of Pagan.The kingdom flourished culturally for two centuries before collapsing as a result of a Chinese invasion from the north. In 1057, King Anawrahta led the Pagan kingdom to victory over the Mon kingdom, capturing its capital of Thaton. Following this conquest, Anawrahta deported Thaton’s king, Manuha (r. ?–1057), and its entire population to outlying regions. The conquest of the Mons marked the beginning of a long-lasting struggle between the two kingdoms that ran throughout much of the history of Myanmar. Thaton’s defeat also gave Pagan a gateway to the sea, and Anawrahta quickly gained control of the Irrawaddy Delta. Under Anawrahta, Pagan adopted the Mon alphabet and Theravada Buddhism, which thrived and eventually became the most powerful element in Myanmar life. In 1084, King Kyanzittha (r. 1084–1112) succeeded to the throne of Pagan. Kyanzittha brought a higher level of prestige to the Myanmar kingship than it had ever reached before. He erected a new palace, created a series of inscriptions, and began to send missions to China. His kingship was recorded in an inscription erected by his grandson and successor, Alaungsithu (r. 1112–1167) in 1113. The inscription, discovered by scholars in 1911, has been called the Rosetta Stone of Myanmar, since the text appears in the Pyu, Mon, Burmese, and Pali languages. After a succession of kings who failed to cope

710

Pa g a n K i n g d o m

with revolts and disorder within the kingdom, King Narapatisithu (r. 1174–1211) took the throne after restoring peace in 1173. Narapatisithu, who was the longest-ruling Pagan king, erected temples, developed irrigation, and introduced Sinhalese Buddhism to the kingdom. After refusal to pay tribute to Emperor Kublai Khan of China (r. 1260–1294) led to a Mongol invasion of Pagan, King Narathihpate (r. 1254–1287) fled his capital, sealing the fate of his kingdom. With no central leadership, the people of Arakan in the north and the southern Mon people rebelled and claimed independence from Pagan. Narathihapate attempted to return to his capital in 1287, but he was murdered by one of his sons, marking the end of the Pagan kingdom. See also: Buddhism and Kingship; Burmese Kingdoms; Mon Kingdom; Pyu Kingdom; Shan Kingdoms.

declared an official policy of Iranian neutrality, he maintained a close relationship with Germany. This proved to be his undoing. The relationship was seen as a potential threat to the Soviet front, and, in 1941, Soviet and British troops invaded Iran and occupied the country. On September 16, 1941, Reza Shah Pahlavi abdicated the Peacock throne, naming his eldest son, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, the next shah. Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi attempted to continue the reforms begun by his father, but he faced a struggle for control of the government with Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh. The struggle culminated with the shah fleeing the country in August 1953. But the shah returned to Iran within a few days as Mossadegh was ousted in a coup led by monarchist supporters of the shah, aided by the United States. At this point, the shah’s power began to grow significantly. He maintained this power over the years by destroying or silencing his opposition, often bru-

PAHLAVI DYNASTY (1925–1979 C.E.) Iranian dynasty whose two shahs, Reza Shah Pahlavi (r. 1925–1941) and his eldest son Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1941–1979), were Iran’s last royal rulers. In 1921, Reza Khan, a career military officer, led a coup against the ruling monarchy of the British protectorate of Iran. Reza seized Teheran, the Iranian capital, and took control of the armed forces as minister of war. By 1923, he had consolidated enough power to become prime minister, and, in 1925, when the weakened Ahmed Shah (r. 1909–1925) of the Qajar Dynasty was deposed by the national assembly, Reza Khan was elected shah and founded the Pahlavi dynasty. Reza Shah Pahlavi implemented many ambitious reforms in an effort to modernize Iran and diminish the influence of the country’s Muslim leaders. He centralized government administration, built a strong modern military, and encouraged industrialization by building thousands of miles of new roads and the Trans-Iranian Railroad. He also reduced the number of clerics in the legal system, instituted a Western dress code for all men and women that was enforced by the police and the military, and opened all public places and educational institutions to women. During World War II, although Reza Shah Pahlavi

The second and last ruler of Iran’s short-lived Pahlavi dynasty, Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi worked to modernize his country. His increasingly oppressive rule, however, led to an Islamic revolution in 1979 that transformed Iran into a theocratic state.The shah died in exile a year later.

Pa l a c e s tally. In 1961, Muhammad Reza announced the White Revolution, which attempted to further stimulate the economy and modernize and secularize Iranian society. Most boldly, however, the White Revolution mandated a series of land reforms that angered the landowning classes. As before, the shah stifled the uprising and thousands of people died. Muhammad Reza Shah’s goal was to turn Iran into one of the foremost economic and military forces in the world. Aided by tremendous increases in oil revenues, he supported further industrialization efforts in the country, and, in January 1973, he nationalized Iran’s oil industry. This rapid growth had economic consequences, however. The people of Iran were forced to deal with soaring inflation, shortages of consumer goods, and rampant corruption. Beginning in the late 1970s, the discontent of many sectors of Iranian society created a powerful protest movement that demanded the deposition of the shah. On January 16, 1979, Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi fled Iran as protests against his rule grew. Soon after he left, revolutionaries led by exiled religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the shah’s government and established a new religiously based government. Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi never returned to Iran and died in exile in 1980.The overthrow of his government marked the end of over four hundred years of monarchy in Iran. See also: Islam and Kingship; Qajar Dynasty.

PALA DYNASTY (750–1169 C.E.) Rulers of the Indian states of Bengal and Bihar, who built canals and monasteries and left an enduring artistic and cultural heritage. In the mid-eighth century, following more than a century of anarchy and confusion, the feudatory chieftains of the Indian state of Bengal asked Gopala, the son of a military chief, to stabilize the kingdom. Gopala (r. ca. 750–770) did so by gaining and consolidating political authority over all of Bengal, ensuring peace and prosperity in the land. Gopala was the founder of the Pala dynasty. The most famous Pala leaders were Gopala’s son and grandson, Dharmapala (r. 770–810) and Devapala (r. 810–850). During his reign, Dharmapala expanded the Bengal kingdom westward across northern India and from the Himalaya Mountains in the north to the central

711

Indian states of Malwa and Berar in the south. For a short time, he also controlled the strategic city of Kanauj.After Devapala took the throne, he carried out raids throughout northern and southern India. His armies even defeated Amoghavarsha (r. 814–877), a powerful ruler of the Rastrakuta dynasty of Maharasthra. The reigns of Dharmapala and Devapala were among the most spirited chapters in the history of Bengal. Great supporters of Buddhism, the two rulers financed the building of monasteries and promoted learning and religion.They also supported the building of temples to several Hindu gods. Many public works, including waterways, also date from this time. With the dynasty’s support, a distinctive school of art, the Pala School, was developed in Bengal. Pala paintings featured illustrations of the life of Buddha on palm leaves. Pala Bronze was a distinctive style of metal sculpture, usually of religious figures. After Devapala, the Pala dynasty declined in power and importance. Vigrahapala (r. 850–854), Devapala’s son or nephew, ruled for only a few years before abdicating the throne to become an ascetic. His successor, Narayanapala (r. 854–908), a religious pacifist, was reluctant to lead the Bengal army. When Narayanapala lost a key battle with the Rastrakuta dynasty around 860, the Pratihara dynasty of Kanauj took advantage of Pala weakness and pushed eastward, conquering the state of Magadha (or southern Bihar) and the northern part of Bengal. Before Narayanapala’s death in 908, the Rastrakutas defeated the Pratiharas, and Narayanapala was able to regain control of all of Bengal and Bihar. However, with the spirit that had been the strength of his people now broken, the dynasty and kingdom continued to decline. The Pala dynasty continued to crumble in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. When Ramapala (r. 1077–1120), humiliated by rebellious subjects and dramatic defeats, was unable to stop the dynasty’s decline, he committed suicide in the Ganges River. Only one brief reference, an inscription from 1175, notes the rule of Govindapala (r. ca. 1161–1174), the last king of the Pala dynasty. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Rastrakuta Dynasty.

PALACES Royal residences, typically imposing in size, grandiose in design, and lavish in appointments.

712

Pa l a c e s

Throughout history, monarchs have reserved or constructed palaces and other types of palatial homes as a way of enjoying the spoils of their rule and intimidating their subjects with the size and grandeur of their residences. Although most monarchs today have only symbolic rather than political roles, many still maintain large and magnificent royal residences. Many palaces throughout the world today are open to public viewing, a fact that reflects the democratic forms of government that now exist in place of, or alongside, monarchical rule.

ORIGINS AND ANCIENT PALACES Since most early monarchies derived from military power, many monarchs occupied residences that were, in some way, militarily strategic, with extensive natural or man-made defenses, such as natural cliffs, thick stone walls, or surrounding moats. The construction of palaces as military fortresses became a tradition that continued for thousands of years.

The Egyptian Age Written records from ancient Egypt indicate that many Egyptian pharaohs had palaces built by slave labor. These palaces often were built in connection with sacred temples, so that the pharaohs, who were considered high priests, could perform religious duties in or near their residences. Unfortunately, little physical evidence of most of these early Egyptian palaces survives. One notable exception is the palace complex at Medinet Habu, which was built by Ramses III (r. ca. 1182–1151 b.c.e.) in the twelfth century b.c.e.This palace complex was designed as a military fortification, with a protective wall surrounding various buildings.

The Post-Egyptian Age As time went on, royal palaces grew in function, size, and opulence. Many ancient palaces, such as that of Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon (r. ca. 604–562 b.c.e.), became legendary in their own time for the skill and cost required for their construction.

Over the course of 500-plus years, twenty-four Chinese emperors of the Ming and Ch’ing dynasties ruled from the mysterious confines of the Forbidden City in Beijing.The world’s largest palace complex, the Forbidden City contains nearly 10,000 buildings and is enclosed by a wall more than 30 feet high.

Pa l a c e s

713

A royal palace, fortress, prison, arsenal, mint, zoo, and repository of crown jewels, the Tower of London has been the setting of historic events for nearly 1,000 years.The oldest part, the square, central building known as the White Tower, was begun by William the Conqueror in 1078 c.e.

Centuries of warfare and neglect have left few of these palaces standing, though archaeologists have recently uncovered remnants of some of the major palaces of the post-Egyptian age.Visitors to Rome, for example, can see traces of the famous palaces of the Palatine Hill, where rulers such as the emperors Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) and Tiberius (r. 14–37) built imposing residences. In ancient China, the rulers of the Ch’in (Qin) dynasty (221–207 b.c.e.) began constructing royal residences at Xi’an in the third century b.c.e., and this work was continued by the Han dynasty (207 b.c.e.–9 c.e.).These royal Chinese palaces were actually fortified cities, with enormous networks of buildings and streets surrounded by defensive barriers. Later Chinese monarchs continued this tradition of palace construction, which reached its peak with the Forbidden City of Beijing, constructed in the fifteenth century and occupied by rulers of the Ming (1368–1644) and Ch’ing (Qing) (1644–1912) dynasties. Today, the Forbidden City, a vast royal complex of palaces and buildings, is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Asia. Similar royal

cities can be found elsewhere in the world, including the Kremlin in Moscow. Many of the palaces built by monarchs in the medieval, Renaissance, and early modern periods are still in existence.Among these are the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, which housed the sultans of the Ottoman Empire; the Palace of Versailles in France, built by King Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715); the Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, completed in the eighteenth century as a summer residence for the Habsburg rulers of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and the Tower of London, a grim-looking fortress begun in the eleventh century that became the home of several English monarchs and later served as a royal prison and place of royal execution.

MODERN PALACES The tradition of large and magnificent palaces continued into the modern era. One of the most notable palaces of more recent date is Sans Souci in Potsdam, Germany, designed and built by Frederick II the Great of Prussia (r. 1740–1786) in the mideighteenth century. Frederick used Sans Souci to host

714

Pa l a c e s

elaborate dinner parties for the leading intellectual lights of his day. Similar in size to Sans Souci is Buckingham Palace in London, England, which at one time was actually the private residence of the duke of Buckingham, who built it in the early eighteenth century. King George III of Great Britain (r. 1760–1820) purchased the building from the duke in 1761, but the royal family did not begin using it until 1837. Japan’s Imperial Palace in Tokyo also dates from the modern era, with construction beginning under the powerful shogun,Tokugawa Ieyasu (r. 1603–1605) in 1603. Among the most famous royal palaces in the world is Versailles. Like many royal residences, it is actually a compound of several buildings and open areas, including a large park, gardens, numerous fountains, and galleries displaying works of art. Fittingly, Versailles, a monument to the power and splendor of French monarchs, became the site of the beginning of the French Revolution in 1789, when the Estates-General revolted against Louis XVI. Revolutionaries attacked the palace, stealing or destroying many of its treasures. The spread of democratic government in the years following the French Revolution led many nations to enact symbolic controls over the monarchy, in order to represent the power of the people over the outdated authority of kings and queens. One of the things they also did to represent the newfound power of the common people was to open up royal residences to the general public. See also: Arenas, Royal;Art of Kings; Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Harems; Louis XIV; Parks, Royal. FURTHER READING

Conti, Flavio. Homes of Kings. Trans. Patrick Creagh. New York: HBJ Press, 1978.

PALAEOLOGAN DYNASTY (1261–1453 C.E.)

Greek dynasty that ruled the Byzantine Empire from 1261 to its final conquest by the Turks in 1453. The first emperor of the Palaeologan dynasty was Michael VIII Palaeologus (r. 1261–1282), who helped restore of the Byzantine Empire after a period of decline. Appointed regent for Emperor John

IV of Nicaea (r. 1258–1261) in 1258, Michael Palaeologus became emperor after defeating Baldwin II (r. 1228–1261), ruler of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, and recovering the city of Constantinople. During Michael’s reign, he negotiated peace with the Tartars and Mamluks, as well as a temporary union between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Christian Church. His successor on the throne was his son, Andronicus II (r. 1282–1328), whose policies renewed the schism between the Eastern and Western churches and lost most of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) to the Seljuk Turks. During the reign of Andronicus III (r. 1328–1341), the fourth ruler of the Palaeologan dynasty, the Turks gained almost complete control of Asia Minor. Upon the death of Andronicus III in 1341, his son John V (r. 1341–1376, 1379–1391) acceded to the throne. But due to family and political dissension, he was prevented from ruling by John VI (r. 1347–1354), also known as John Cantacuzene, the chief minister under Andronicus III who proclaimed himself emperor. John VI finally abdicated in favor of John V in 1354. John V lost the throne again twenty-two years later, this time to his own son, Andronicus IV (r. 1376–1379), who deposed him in 1376. However, John V regained the throne three years later and held it until his death in 1391. During his rule, John V tried in vain to heal the religious schism between East and West. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Turks continued to gain power at the expense of the Byzantine Empire.When John V died in 1391, he was succeeded by his son, Manuel II (r. 1391–1425), who ruled alone until 1399 and then shared rule with his nephew, John VII (r. 1399–1408). During their rule, the Byzantine Empire lost more ground to the Turks, eventually holding on to only Constantinople and a few small dependencies. Manuel’s son and successor, John VIII (r. 1425– 1448), tried in vain to enlist Western European aid against the Turks, who posed a tremendous threat to the empire. In an attempt to gain support, he agreed to the union of the eastern and western churches at the Council of Florence in 1439. Upon John’s death, his brother, Constantine XI (r. 1448–1453), succeeded him on the throne. But Constantine was killed a few years later when the Turks stormed and conquered Constantinople in 1453, a defeat that marked the end of the Byzantine Empire. Branches of the Palaeologus family sur-

Pa l e s t i n e , K i n g d o m s o f vived, however, and continued to hold power in parts of Europe. One branch of the dynasty ruled the Italian marquisate of Montferrat from 1305 to 1536. Best known for their love of culture and education, the Palaeologan dynasty was instrumental in ensuring that the Greek people retained their cultural identity after their conquest by the Ottoman Turks. See also: Byzantine Empire; Ottoman Empire. FURTHR READING

Speck, Paul. Understanding Byzantium: Studies in Byzantine Historical Sources. Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 2003.

PALESTINE, KINGDOMS OF (ca. 1100 B.C.E.–1948 C.E.)

Series of kingdoms that ruled in Palestine, a region on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Palestine has long been an important region because of its many holy sites, which are revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

ANCIENT JEWISH KINGDOMS Four nearly successive kingdoms of Jewish people were founded in ancient Palestine in the first and late second millennium b.c.e.The first of these kingdoms, the kingdom of Israel, began with twelve tribes of Jewish people who formed a kingdom around 1100 b.c.e. The first ruler of the kingdom was Saul (r. ca 1020–1010 b.c.e.), whose victory over the Philistines paved the way for the foundation of a stable kingdom. Saul’s successor, King David (r. ca. 1010–970 b.c.e.), grew to become a king of legendary status who turned the kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Jerusalem, into a powerful, prosperous, and important state. David’s son Solomon (r. ca. 970–931 b.c.e.), another powerful leader, succeeded him on the throne of Israel around 970 b.c.e. But cohesion among the Jewish tribes fell apart after Solomon’s death, and the country was divided into two separate kingdoms: the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah in the south.

JEWISH KINGDOMS AND FOREIGN RULE The kingdom of Israel never managed to become a stable entity during the nearly two hundred years

715

that it continued in existence. In 722 b.c.e., the kingdom fell to the powerful Assyrian Empire. The kingdom of Judah survived more than one hundred years longer, but it also was eventually made a vassal of Assyria and later paid tribute to Babylonia. Judah repeatedly attempted to rebel, and was eventually destroyed by the Babylonians around 586 b.c.e.. Both kingdoms were incorporated into the Babylonian Empire. For the next nearly four hundred years, Palestine was ruled by a succession of invading empires. After the Babylonians, the region was ruled by the Persian Empire from 539 b.c.e. Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) of Macedonia incorporated Palestine into his empire around 332 b.c.e. After Alexander’s death, the region was ruled by the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt and later by the Seleucid kings of Syria. When the Seleucids restricted the religious practice of the Jews in Palestine, they sparked a revolt by a religious family called the Hasmoneans, also known as the Maccabees. The Maccabees managed to gain control of Jerusalem by 164 b.c.e., and by around 100 b.c.e., the Hasmonean leaders were calling themselves kings of Judaea and the fourth Jewish kingdom was established. Not long after the establishment of this new Jewish kingdom, however, dissent began to grow among various political factions in the country. This led to civil war, which erupted in 67 b.c.e. Sensing weakness, the Romans entered the war, conquered Jerusalem, and by 37 b.c.e. had put an end to the Hasmonean dynasty. The Romans ruled Palestine as part of the Roman Empire and later as part of the Byzantine Empire. Roman and Byzantine rule lasted from 63 b.c.e. until the early 600s c.e. During the early period, Jewish kings, chosen by the Romans, were nominally in charge of Palestine during the reign of the dynasty of Herod.The last Herodian ruler of Judaea was Herod Agrippa II (r. 49–92). After his death, Judaea and Palestine were ruled only by Roman officials, and the kingdom of Judaea ceased to exist as a state. When Roman emperor Constantine I, the Great (r. 307–337) recognized Christianity as the state religion of the empire, Christianity spread and Christian pilgrims began to travel to Palestine, the birthplace of their religion. By the early 600s, however, rulers with a new religion would come to dominate Palestine and the Middle East—the Muslim Arabs.

716

Pa l e s t i n e , K i n g d o m s o f

MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS In the battle of Yarmuk in 636, Muslims from Arabia under Caliph Umar (r. 634–644) decisively wrested control of Palestine from the Byzantines. From then until 1099, Palestine was ruled by a series of Muslim dynasties led by political and religious leaders known as caliphs. The Umayyad dynasty of Damascus ruled from 661, followed by the Abbasids of Baghdad in 750. In 1070, the Muslim Seljuk Turks arrived from the east and took over Jerusalem.They killed many Palestinian Christians and cut off the route to the Christian holy places from Europe, setting the stage for a series of confrontations with European Christians. In the late 1000s, European Christians began taking action to gain control of Palestine from the Muslims, engaging in a series of military expeditions known as the Crusades. Christian Crusaders successfully captured Jerusalem in 1099 and then established new states, including a Christian kingdom, the kingdom of Jerusalem. After less than a century of Christian rule, however, the Muslims regained Palestine. In 1187, Sultan Saladin (r. 1175–1193) of the Ayyubid dynasty of Egypt gained control of the region, and Palestine became a province of Muslim Egypt. Palestine remained under rule of the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt for more than three hundred years. The Jews and the Christians, as the minorities in Palestine, were treated poorly by the Mamluks, and Palestine in general was in decline at this time. The next conquerors of Palestine were the Ottoman Turks, who defeated the Mamluks in 1517 and made Palestine part of their Ottoman Empire. Palestine remained part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years. After World War I, the League of Nations divided much of the Ottoman Empire into mandated territories and, in 1920, Great Britain received a mandate over Palestine. The British relinquished control of Palestine in 1948, when the modern Jewish state of Israel was established. See also: Crusader Kingdoms; David; Hasmonean Kingdom; Hebrew Kings; Herod; Israel, Kingdoms of; Judah, Kingdom of; Judaism and Kingship; Saladin; Solomon. FURTHER READING

Hitti, Philip K. History of Syria, Including Lebanon and Palestine. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002.

PALLAVA DYNASTY. See Mysore Kingdom

PANDYA DYNASTY (ca. 300 B.C.E.–ca. 1550 C.E.)

Ancient dynasty of Tamil traders from the southernmost part of India, whose kingdom and culture were destroyed by military conflict with the Chola dynasty in the tenth century c.e. and again by the Delhi sultanate in the fourteenth century. The Pandya dynasty was centered in the city of Madurai on the extreme southern coast of India. Early years of prosperity and peace, from about 300 b.c.e. to 700 c.e., were followed by centuries of warfare that have made it difficult for scholars to learn about the dynasty’s history.

EARLY CONTACT WITH GREECE AND ROME A few records remain from the early days of the Pandya dynasty, written by Western authors and explorers such as Scylax of Caryanda, the Greco-Egyptian geographer Ptolemy, and the Italian explorer Marco Polo. In 300 b.c.e., the Greek historian Megasthenes wrote that the Pandyas were Tamil-speaking people who lived in a kingdom with 365 villages in the south of India. By the first century b.c.e., the Greeks and Romans were actively trading pearls, shells, and fine cottons through Pandya ports, and some colonization was taking place.The Pandyas sent an emissary to the Roman emperor, Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) to facilitate trade and immigration.

CULTURAL HERITAGE The Pandya dynasty encouraged and supported many cultural activities in their kingdom. In the first century c.e., marathon artistic festivals called Sangams were held at Madurai. The poems recited at these festivals were remarkable because of their secular nature at a time when the rest of Indian literature had a heavy religious orientation. These ancient poems described social conditions in a time before the Aryan peoples arrived from the north, and they included detailed descriptions of commercial life and foreign trade, as well as undated references in praise of various kings.

Pa n d y a D y n a s t y The literary tradition of the Pandya kingdom seemed to have continued for a few centuries: a few poems of love and social life have survived. As late as the fifth or sixth century, Pandya’s literary academy produced literature of very high quality. Unfortunately, by the time of the Pandya ruler, Kudungon (r. ca. 590–620), the Pandyas had become indifferent to culture and learning and were focused primarily on trade and commerce.

MILITARY EXPANSION In the late seventh century, the Pandya ruler Arikesari Maravarman (r. ca. 670–700) expanded from the southern tip of India, conquering some of the territory of the neighboring Cheras people along the Malabar coast of southwestern India. The Pandyas also engaged in struggles with the Pallavas dynasty on the southeast coast of the Indian subcontinent. Arikesar Maravarman was a great soldier who won a spectacular victory against the Cheras at the battle of Tinnevelli. He was succeeded on the throne by Kochchadaiyan Ranadhira (r. ca. 700–730), who conquered Kongu, a region of southwestern central India whose access to the sea was blocked by the Cheras dynasty. Kochchadaiyan’s son and successor was Maravarman Rajasimha I (r. ca. 730–765).Taking advantage of rival claims to the throne of the Pallava kingdom, Rajasimha I fought a prolonged war against the Pallavas on behalf of one of the rival claimants, Chitramaya, and defeated the Pallava king, Nandivarman II (r. ca. 731–795). However, the Pallava general, Udyachandra, arrived and rescued Nandivarman, and Chitiramaya was killed. Although defeated in Pallava, Rajasimha I conquered more of the southern interior of India, and he defeated the western Calukya dynasty at their capital city of Badami. Under his immediate successors, the Pandya dynasty pushed its imperialist forces further northward. In the face of this threat, the Colas (Cholas), Pallavas, Kalingas, Magadhas, and other dynasties formed a confederacy, but their combined forces were unable to hold back the ever-advancing Pandyas.

DEFEAT, CONTAINMENT, AND FOREIGN RULE Srimar Srivallabha (r. ca. 815–862) continued the Pandya policy of aggression and invaded the island of Ceylon. The confederacy of dynasties allied against

717

the Pandyas attacked again from the north, and at the battle of Tellaru in the late nineteenth century, the Pandyas were defeated and pushed back into their own country. Srimar’s son and successor,Varagunavarman II (r. ca. 862–880), followed the expansionist policies of his father and tried to regain Pandya prestige by attacking the Cholas. Once again, however, the confederacy repulsed the Pandyas. During the reign of Varagunavarman’s grandson, Maravarman Rajasinha II (r. ca. 900–920), the Cholas invaded and defeated the combined forces of the Pandyas and their ally, the king of Ceylon, at the battle of Vellur in 915.The Chola dynasty then ruled the Pandyas for thirty years, until their defeat at the battle of Takkolam in 949 at the hands of the Rashtrakuta dynasty of the Deccan region. A Pandya leader,Vira Pandya, claimed victory over the Cholas after the Rashtrakuta victory and attempted to reign as an independent ruler. But he was killed by the Cholas, who established a joint CholaPandya dynastic line to rule. In the years that followed, the Pandyas made other attempts to revive past glories. But the Cholas and a military occupation of Pandya territories stopped all such efforts until the Sinhalese armies of Ceylon invaded Pandya in 1175.

END OF THE PANDYA DYNASTY The Pandya dynasty’s downfall was the result of repeated attacks from the north and a family dispute over succession to the throne. Scholars have little reliable information about dates and details of the Pandyas during this time period. Adding to the confusion is the custom whereby Pandya leaders often had the same names as their predecessors. Sometime in the late twelfth century, Kulasekhara Pandya, with support from the Cholas, killed his brother Prakarma Pandya, who was backed by the king of Ceylon, over a succession dispute.The Cholas responded by attacking Ceylon, whose king asked for Kulasekhara’s support in return for recognizing him as the true king of the Pandyas. Kulasekhara allied with Ceylon, and the Cholas sent an army to defeat Kulasekhara and limit his power. The victorious Cholas sent Kulasekhara into exile and replaced him with Vira Pandya, the son of Prakarma Pandya. Vira then joined with Ceylon against the Cholas, but he was defeated, and Vikrama Pandya came to the throne. The Chola ruler, Kulottunga III (r. 1178–1218), at-

718

Pa n d y a D y n a s t y

tacked again around 1216 and overpowered the reigning Pundya ruler, Jatavarman Kulasekhara (r. 1190–1216). Kulasekhara’s successor, Sundara Pandya I (r. 1216–1238), then attacked the Cholas, defeated Kulottunga III, and drove the Cholas out of Pandya territory, ending Chola control of the kingdom. The Pandya dynasty continued to rule until Ghivath-al-din Muhammad Shah I (r. 1325–1351) of the Muslim Tughluq dynasty, the ruler of the Delhi sultanate, invaded the south of India in 1325 and made the Pandyas vassals. By the mid-sixteenth century, all the Pandya territories had passed into Muslim hands. See also: Calukya (Chalukya) Dynasty; Cola Kingdom; Delhi Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Kalinga Kingdom; Magadha Kingdom; South Asian Kingdoms.

PANJALU KINGDOM (ca. 1041–1222 C.E.)

Relatively short-lived Buddhist kingdom in east Java about which little is known other than some of its sculpture and its ornamental writing style. The Panjalu kingdom was one of the two kingdoms into which the island of Java was divided by King Airlangga (r. ca. 1019–1041), ruler of Kediri, just before his death in 1041. Of these kingdoms, Janggala (also known as Malang) controlled the north and east of Java, while Panjalu ruled the south and west. Panjalu is sometimes known as Daha, the name of its probable capital, but the name Kediri is more commonly used than either Panjalu or Daha. Kediri was probably the popular name for the kingdom, while Panjalu was mainly an official or sacred name used primarily by the elite. The name Gelanggelang also appeared in the thirteenth century along with the name Daha. The precise location of Panjalu’s capital is unknown, but it is likely that it was situated somewhere near the modern city of Kediri. Culturally, Panjalu (Kediri) soon came to outstrip the Janggala kingdom in its influence. Although no architectural remains have been firmly identified with either kingdom, the Kediri area is known for its sculpture. Kediri also developed a highly ornamental style of script.

The division of Panjalu and Janggala (or Kediri and Malang) came to an end in 1222, with the formation of the unified kingdom of Singasari, the capital of which lay in the lands formerly belonging to Janggala, north of Malang. See also: Janggala Kingdom; Javan Kingdoms; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

PAPAL STATES (754–1870 C.E.) Area of central Italy historically administered and controlled by the papacy, also known as the “Church States.” These provinces and cities were a legacy from the so-called Donation of Pepin. In 754, the Frankish king Pepin III (r. 751–768), the father of Charlemagne (r. 768–814), went to the aid of Pope Stephen II and began to oust the Lombards from the north of Italy. The pope had recognized Pepin as the rightful king of the Franks, and Pepin agreed to help the pope in return. Pepin also promised to turn over to the pope all the lands he recovered.This bequest of territory, known as the Donation of Pepin, comprised the majority of the lands that became the Papal States. The Donation of Pepin included most of central Italy, including all the areas around both Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna. The Donation also extended along the coast of the Adriatic Sea from Rimini to Ancona.These lands were augmented in 1077 as a result of an alliance with the Normans, who granted the popes the duchy of Benevento, which was contiguous to the existing holdings of the Normans in Italy. From the reign of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1152–1190) through that of his grandson, Frederick II (r. 1212–1250), the papacy maintained firm control over these core holdings of territory. However, it struggled unsuccessfully to extend its temporal sway throughout Christendom. Then, in 1309, the so-called Babylonian captivity began, when King Philip IV of France (r. 1285–1314) coerced the papacy to move to Avignon, where it remained for over a hundred years (until 1417). When the popes finally returned to Rome, they found that the “Papal States” had become a proud lot of independent city-states accustomed to making their own decisions. These city-states were not inclined to accept anything other than spiritual guidance from the papal administrators.

Pa r a m a r a D y n a s t y

719

Finally, King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy (r. 1849–1878) captured Rome from the papacy in 1870. Helpless, but proud, Pope Pius IX (r. 1846–1878) refused to recognize defeat and became a voluntary “prisoner” within the Vatican until his death in 1878. His successors maintained this unusual and ambiguous political position until 1929, when the Lateran Treaty between the kingdom of Italy and the papacy defined the Vatican City as an independent state within Italy. See also: Christianity and Kingship; Frederick II; Holy Roman Empire; Pepin the Short (Pepin III); Victor Emmanuel II.

PARAMARA DYNASTY (ca. 820–1235 C.E.)

The popes in Rome ruled a large territory in Italy known as the Papal States for more than 1,000 years. In 1870, Pope Pius IX witnessed the dissolution of the Papal States, as the regions of Italy united to form a single nation. Pius IX also claimed the distinction of being the longest-serving pope, heading the church for thirty-one years and seven months.

However, a series of worldly wise and powerful popes emerged on the papal throne, culminating with the warlike Julius II (r. 1503–1513), who reasserted and even extended the temporal control of the papacy to Bologna in the north and down the Adriatic coast to the Campagna. With the death of Julius II, the onset of the Counter-Reformation, and the reasserted independence of the central Italian city-states, the papacy’s political control rapidly waned in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Now unaccustomed to warfare, even the pope’s Swiss Guards offered no resistance to the incursion by Napoleon Bonaparte into Rome in 1796. Pope Pius IX (r. 1846–1878) witnessed the final dissolution of the Papal States during the movement for Italian unification known as the Risorgimento. First Bologna and Romagna, then Marche and Umbria broke away from the Papal States, joining the kingdom of Sardinia.

Rajput rulers of the Indian kingdom of Malwa, who declared independence from neighboring imperial powers and allowed religion, the arts, and learning to flourish. The name Paramara means “slayer of the enemy.” The first known king of the dynasty was Upendra (r. ca. 800–818), who was a vassal of the Rastrakuta dynasty of the Deccan region of India. Malwa, a fertile plateau region in central India, was surrounded by the kingdoms of the Rastrakuta and Pratihara dynasties, two of the most powerful Indian dynasties in the eighth and ninth centuries. During that period, Malwa often bore the burden of clashes between those two great imperial powers, who both sought to control Malwa. When the Pratihara ruler, Mahendrapala II (r. ca. 893–914), died around 914, the Pratihara vassals began to fight among themselves, and their kingdoms began to disintegrate. Eventually, the Paramara ruler of Malwa, Siyaka II (r. ca. 948–973), took advantage of the situation. Siyaka sacked the Rastrakuta city of Manyakheta in 972, a decisive first step in the extinction of the Rastrakuta Empire. However, it was not until the rule of Munja (r. 973–975), the successor of Siyaka II and one of the greatest generals of the age, that the Paramaras actually achieved independent rule in 974. The Paramara dynasty of Malwa reached its height under Bhoja I, the Great (r. 1018–1060). Under his strong arm, Malwa enjoyed peace, pros-

720

Pa r a m a r a D y n a s t y

perity, and the pursuit of learning. Taxes were low, the central government was competent and efficient, and local governments had a substantial voice in the management of their own affairs. Bhoja, like other Paramara rulers, supported religious and educational institutions. Large temples, built by the kings or by the rich in Malwa society, were used not only for religious and secular instruction, but also as community centers for the poor, where people could enjoy fairs, festivals, and performances of literary drama. After Bhoja I, the Paramara dynasty began to decline. While he ruled, Bhoja relied on a well-paid regular army, which marched against the great Muslim leader, Mahmud of Ghazni (998–1030), stopping the Muslim advance and protecting the Deccan plateau from the Muslim aggressors for another 300 years. However, subsequent Paramara rulers returned to an army of hereditary military officers, who did their best to protect the kingdom and maintain Paramara cultural legacy, but ultimately failed to rally the Hindu leaders to defend against the Muslim invaders. In 1235, the sultan of Mandu, a city in central India, captured the last Paramara ruler, Siladitya (r. dates unknown), and Ujjain, the seat of Paramara power, passed into Muslim hands. See also: Mahmud of Ghazna; Malwa Kingdom; Rastrakuta Dynasty.

PARKS, ROYAL Parks and gardens built by rulers in various cultures and periods of history.Throughout history, monarchs around the world have built elaborate gardens and parks. These have varied in appearance according to the cultural values of their time and place, but they seem to have served many of the same purposes in countries as varied as Aztec Mexico and Renaissance Italy. No one knows the historical origins of gardens and parks, although the flowers found buried in ancient Neanderthal graves suggest a deep-seated human appreciation for natural beauty. Just as the gathering of wild grains, herbs, and fruits led to the discovery of agriculture, so an appreciation of nature in the wild may have led to the discovery that people have the power to re-create such beauty at a place of their own choosing.

The religious role of early monarchs usually included rituals and prayers to assure fertility and adequate water supplies. In Peru, for example, the Inca rulers would use a golden plow to turn the earth for the first corn planting of the year. In Japan, the emperor to this day plants rice shoots in the imperial paddy in the spring.The first royal gardens may have grown from such ritual practices. The royal parks and gardens of monarchs often boasted trees brought from great distances, massive landscape formations, and water features reminiscent of exotic climes. In this fashion, a king displayed his earthly powers to command vast labor resources, as well as his sway over the countries where the plants originated—“the entire world” in much monarchic propaganda.This also allowed kings to associate themselves with the divine powers that imposed order and harmony on a chaotic, unpredictable world.The Aztec royal gardens described by early Spanish observers in the fifteenth century c.e. contained trees, flowers, birds, and animals from all over Mexico. Chinese poets during the Han dynasty (206 b.c.e.–220 c.e.) described the imperial parks as portraits of the empire in miniature. These Chinese gardens often included symbolic “mountains” and “islands,” recalling the dwelling places of the “Immortals” of Chinese legend; the dynasty itself claimed immortality by association. At least some Egyptian pharaohs planted gardens at temples and tomb complexes.The powerful Queen Hatshepshut (r. 1503–1483 b.c.e.) had massive terrace gardens built at temples at Madinat-Habu, with ponds, flowers, and scented trees expressly brought from the faraway land of Punt (possibly the Somali coast). Ramses II (r. 1279–1212 b.c.e.) included public gardens in his new royal capital of Pi-Ramesse, located at the Nile River Delta. Perhaps the most historically important royal gardens were those of ancient Persia, which influenced the European, Islamic, and Indian cultural worlds. When they conquered Mesopotamia in the 500s b.c.e., the Persians inherited ancient traditions of civilization, including royal gardens. These may originally have included sacred “trees of life,” such as are found in the description of the Garden of Eden in the Hebrew Bible. The kings of ancient Assyria had menageries of exotic animals in their gardens, while the famous hanging gardens of Babylon, built by Nebuchadrezzar II (r. 605–562 b.c.e.), had been built to satisfy the longing of the queen for her mountainous homeland in Media. To this tradition, the Persians added large

Pa r t h i a n K i n g d o m hunting preserves, at first left in their natural state and then altered with rows of trees, strategically placed shade, and sweet-smelling flowers. These Persian parks, which were used as official throne rooms, so astonished ancient Greek writers and so impressed the great conqueror Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) that monarchs in Europe and elsewhere for generations to come would draw inspiration from their accounts. The English word “paradise” derives from the Persian word paridaeza, which means “walled garden.” The Persian gardens wielded even more influence via the spread of Islam. In the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad described the afterlife as a well-watered garden with fruit trees, lush patches of green, and pleasure pavilions.This was an apt description of the gardens of Persia discovered by conquering Arab tribesmen who surged out of the desert in the seventh century c.e. Thereafter, every Muslim ruler strove to display his piety by reproducing paradise gardens, often following a standard model. Four channels, representing the main rivers of paradise, divided these gardens into quadrants, punctuated with cypress trees symbolizing eternity and surrounded by high walls to ward off the hot winds.This pattern was often enhanced with the use of brilliantly colored tiles. Perhaps the peak of Muslim royal gardening was reached under the Mughal emperors of India in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries c.e. Their gardens combined the balance, order, and human scale of the Islamic tradition, with the extravagant colors and luxuriant excesses of Hindu architecture and crafts. The Mughal ruler Shah Jahan (r. 1628–1658) graced his Taj Mahal, completed in 1643, with a public park, to benefit even his poorest subjects. Similarly, the royal parks of European kingdoms, created to display monarchical splendor and wealth, were gradually opened to broader public access. By the nineteenth century, most of these royal parks belonged to everyone in the nation. Hyde Park in London, the Tuileries in Paris, Schönbrunn in Vienna, and many others became the great public parks that made urban life bearable in the modern industrial era. See also: Hunting and Kingship; Palaces. FURTHER READING

Adams, William Howard. Nature Perfected: Gardens Through History. New York: Abbeville Press, 1991.

721

PARTHIAN KINGDOM (247 B.C.E.–224 C.E.)

Ancient kingdom that occupied Parthia, an area to the southeast of the Caspian Sea, roughly corresponding to the province of Khroustan in present-day Iran. Parthia was originally a satrapy, or province, of the Persian Empire, and later a part of the empire of the Seleucid dynasty. During the third century b.c.e., an Indo-European nomadic group known as the Parni made their way from Central Asia into Parthia, where they adopted the language of the inhabitants and became absorbed into the indigenous population. The Parni, who later became known as Parthians, were known for their extraordinary and distinctive military skill, which included the then unique ability to shoot arrows from horseback. They are best remembered for the “Parthian shot,” a tactical deception in which a rider fired from horseback while appearing to be in retreat. In cultural and governmental matters, the Parthians were adapters rather than creators.They took the administrative bureaucracy that their predecessors, the Seleucids, had inherited from the Hellenistic Empire of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), writing all official documents in Greek and borrowing laws from Babylonia, Persia, and Greece. The traditional founder of the Parthian kingdom was Arsaces I (r. 247–211 b.c.e.), a provincial governor who revolted against his suzerain, Diodotus I (r. 256–248 b.c.e.), the king of Bactria, and established a new kingdom. In the second century b.c.e., Parthia emerged as a powerful military presence with the rise of the Parthian ruler Mithradates I (r. 171–138 b.c.e.), whose conquests during his reign stretched the boundaries of the kingdom from Bactria in the east to Babylonia in the west. The outlines of the Parthian Empire were pushed still further by Artabanus II (r. 128–123 b.c.e.) and Mithradates II (r. 123–87 b.c.e.), until Parthia encompassed all of the Iranian plateau and the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Parthia was well situated for trade, containing the main caravan route between Central Asia and China, which allowed the kingdom to control the flow of goods destined eventually for Greece and Rome.The resulting profits fueled an energetic building program throughout the kingdom. Unfortunately, Parthia’s advantageous location also meant that the kingdom lay much of the time under the threat of Rome. Rome

722

Pa r t h i a n K i n g d o m

and Parthia clashed many times. After defeating the Romans in 53 b.c.e. at Carrhae, however, the Parthians remained, despite minor setbacks, able to limit Roman incursions in the kingdom. Parthian rule was vested in an aristocracy that allowed the development of vassal kingdoms within the empire. But it was perhaps the lack of strong central rule that opened the door to the takeover of Parthia in 224 c.e. by one of these vassal rulers, Ardashir I (Artaxerxes) of Persia (r. 224–241).With his successful revolt against the Parthian king,Artabanus IV (r. 213–224), Ardashir I ended the Parthian kingdom and became the founder of the Sasanid dynasty of Persia. See also: Hellenistic Dynasties; Persian Empire; Roman Empire; Sasanid Dynasty; Seleucid Dynasty.

PATENT LETTERS, ROYAL Written documents issued by a monarch that granted specific economic or political privileges, conferred royal favor on particular individuals, or enforced existing statutes. In the kingdoms of the Western world, royal power usually included the right of legislation.Western rulers developed various forms of written legislation, each with a specialized function. These included proclamations, edicts, decrees, and patent letters. Patent letters, or letters patent, first appeared in the Middle Ages and were “open” to the public so that anyone could read them.The letters were issued to grant certain privileges, usually economic but also political, and were frequently used to confer royal favor. This form of royal decree also was used as a means of enforcing existing laws or edicts. Letters patent were used most commonly to grant economic privileges. Patent letters granted economic monopolies to one person or a firm, giving them the exclusive right to sell a product or manufacture.This was the origin of the modern concept of patents, which protect the ownership rights of individuals who create original inventions or works of art, literature, music, and so on. In the sixteenth century, the Tudor monarchs of England used letters patent to grant foreign artisans the exclusive right to establish new forms of woolen manu-

facture.The letters gave the artisans the right to manufacture and sell the new textiles for a certain number of years. Patent letters also were issued to grant the exclusive right to collect some form of tax for the monarchy. The Bourbon monarchs of France, for example, used patent letters to grant the right to collect sales taxes and salt taxes to certain tax “farmers.” The greater function of letters patent, however, was to grant political privileges. Western monarchs used the documents for land grants, to confer titles of nobility, and to appoint government officials. For example, in the sixteenth century the Spanish Crown used letters patent to appoint the governors of their territories in the Americas. The letters could also be used to revoke privileges. For example, Francis I of France (r. 1515–1547) used letters patent in 1516 to prohibit the wearing of luxury clothes by his subjects. Finally, letters patent were also issued to direct government officers to execute or enforce existing royal legislation. Some were issued to direct authorities to enforce prior laws that the Crown believed were not being enforced. In keeping with the traditional role of the letters patent, these issuances might direct specified officials to enforce specific royal statutes, hence giving them the “exclusive right” or authority to enforce the law. In France, for example, sumptuary laws, which restricted the ownership of luxury items, were the frequent subject of letters patent. The populace often ignored such antiluxury laws, forcing the monarch to grant individual officers of the Crown the privilege of enforcing them. The development of letters patent conferring economic and political privileges reflected the European monarchs’ increasing legislative power after the Middle Ages. The use of these documents signified the royal prerogative to grant privileges as the ruler saw fit. See also: Monopolies, Royal.

PEDRO I (1798–1832 C.E.) First independent ruler (r. 1822–1831) of the empire of Brazil, who separated that former colony from Portugal. Dom Pedro I was born in Lisbon in 1798, the son and heir of the king of Portugal, João (John) VI (r. 1816–1826). Alarmed at the expansionist aims of

P e d ro I I Napoleon of France, João VI allied Portugal with England to defy the French. This incited Napoleon to march an invasionary force into Lisbon in 1808. The Portuguese king gathered his family together and fled to Brazil, then a Portuguese colony. Thus, Pedro spent his childhood not in the land of his ancestors but in the bustling Brazilian capital of Rio de Janeiro. The royal family remained in exile in the New World until 1821, when João VI finally felt it was safe to return to Lisbon and reclaim his throne. He left Pedro, now twenty-three years old, to serve as regent of the Brazilian colony. Pedro, however, felt little personal connection to Portugal, a country he had not seen since he was an infant. He saw no reason for Brazil to be subordinate to a country so far away, and within a year of assuming the regency he declared Brazil an independent empire. The United States, glad to encourage any trend that reduced European control in the Western Hemisphere, immediately recognized the new nation. In the face of U.S. support, and given the difficulties of attempting to assert his will on territories that lay so far away, Portugal had no choice but to follow suit. Brazil’s independence was thus achieved without military confrontation. He followed up this success with an attempt to expand Brazil’s control into Argentinean territory. In this effort, however, he failed. Pedro I was Brazil’s first emperor, but he did not rule long. Four years after assuming the imperial throne, João VI had died and Pedro inherited the throne of Portugal and bore the imperial name Pedro IV (r. 1826–1828). Pedro did not wish to have this responsibility, however, so he gave the Portuguese crown to his daughter, Maria II (r. 1834–1853), on the condition that she marry a kinsman, Dom Miguel, and establish a constitutional monarchy like the one he had instituted in Brazil. Unfortunately, Dom Miguel, who was supposed to provide support for Maria, had grander ambitions. In 1828 he seized power and established an absolute monarchy in Portugal, ruling as Miguel I (r. 1828–1834). Pedro could not let this behavior stand unchallenged. He abdicated his throne in Brazil in 1831, turning over the reins of power to his son, Pedro II (r. 1831–1889), and set sail for Portugal to commence what came to be known as the Miguelist Wars. In the end, Pedro’s faction won and Miguel was ousted from power. Maria was reinstated on the

723

throne in 1832, and Dom Pedro died two years later, on September 24, 1834. See also: Bragança Dynasty; Brazil, Portuguese Monarchy of; Pedro II.

PEDRO II (1825–1891 C.E.) Second and last emperor (r. 1831–1889) of an independent empire of Brazil, who is remembered as a modernizer. Dom Pedro II was the son of Pedro I (r. 1822– 1831), the first emperor of Brazil. Born in Rio de Janiero and heir to the Bragança dynasty that produced many Portuguese kings, Pedro II was only five years old when his father abdicated the Brazilian throne in 1831 to return to Portugal and fight the Miguelist Wars. The mantle of emperor fell to Pedro’s young shoulders, but a regency handled the day-to-day affairs of the country while he was growing up. In 1840, at the age of fifteen, Pedro was deemed to be of suitable age to take full responsibility as emperor. Pedro II was a modernizer who tried hard to bring economic prosperity to Brazil. Unfortunately, he was all too willing to allow himself to be drawn into the political squabbles among his neighbors— Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay—with the result that his military was frequently called to fight in other countries’ wars. This earned him little love among his generals and the Brazilian populace. During his reign, he was also impelled to join the growing trend against the institution of slavery. In 1850 he acquiesced to the British-led movement to curtail the slave trade, and a few years later he instituted a policy of gradual emancipation. Since the Brazilian economy was based largely on plantation agriculture, these policies angered the wealthy landowners. When the institution of slavery was finally abolished in Brazil in 1888, the powerful landowners joined the military in their disaffection with the emperor. This growing movement against Pedro’s rule was further strengthened by his efforts at modernization. Rather than earning him the love of his subjects, these policies provided encouragement for an increasingly vocal group demanding that the monarchy be abolished and replaced with a republican government. Ultimately, even the powerful Catholic Church joined

724

P e d ro I I

the chorus calling for the overthrow of the emperor. In 1889 the military staged a coup, led by Manuel Deodoro da Fonseca, and Pedro II was ousted. He opted for exile in Europe, where he remained until his death two years later. See also: Bragança Dynasty; Brazil, Portuguese Monarchy of; Pedro I.

PEGU KINGDOMS (1287–1757 C.E.) Series of kingdoms centered on the city of Pegu in present-day Myanmar (Burma). Located on the Pegu River, the ancient city of Pegu is said to have been established in 573 by two princes of the Mon people, a Khmer group that occupied the Irrawaddy Delta region of Myanmar. Pegu first rose to prominence with the collapse of the Pagan kingdom of the Burmese people at the hands of the Mongols in 1287.The Mon, having been defeated by Pagan in 1057, thus recovered their independence and captured the ports of Martaban and Pegu and the surrounding areas, giving them virtually the same territory they had held previously. In 1369, the Mon made Pegu the capital of their kingdom of Ramanadesa. The next two centuries brought constant warfare between the Mon and Burmese peoples. The Mon were able to maintain their independence until 1539 when, under the reign of Takayupti (r. 1526–1539), they came under the control of the Burmese Toungoo dynasty.At this time, Pegu was an important seaport visited by many European traders, including the Portuguese, British, and Dutch. Pegu served as the capital of a united Burmese kingdom until 1599 and again from 1613 to 1634. During the sixteenth century, the port was used as a base for an invasion of neighboring Siam. After the Burmese moved their capital to Ava in central Myanmar in 1635, Pegu was reduced in status to a provincial capital. But a Mon revolt in 1740 restored the city as the capital of a new, short-lived Mon kingdom. In 1757, the Burmese king, Alaungpaya (r. 1752–1760), invaded the Mon kingdom and swiftly incorporated its territory into a new, unified kingdom of Myanmar. Alaungpaya destroyed almost all of the city of Pegu, although he left its religious building intact.The destruction of the city effectively ended its role as a royal capital.

Of Pegu’s many pagodas, the ancient Shwemawdaw (“Golden Shrine”) is the oldest and most impressive. Legend says that it contains two hairs of Gautama Buddha. Originally built by the Mon, the temple was severely damaged by an earthquake in 1930 but restored in 1954. The Shwethalyaung, a colossal reclining statue of Buddha, is located to the west of modern Pegu and is reputedly one of the most lifelike of all the reclining Buddha figures. Believed to have been built in 994, it was lost when Pegu was destroyed in 1757 but rediscovered under a cover of jungle growth in 1881. From the nearby Kalyani Sima (“Hall of Ordination”), founded by the Mon king Dhammazedi (r. ca. 1472–1492), spread one of the greatest reform movements in Myanmar Buddhist history. Its story is related in ten stone inscriptions erected by the king close to the Sima.The Mahazedi, Shwegugale, and Kyaikpien are other notable pagodas in Pegu. Pegu was rebuilt between 1782 and 1819 but no longer served as a seaport because the Pegu River changed course, leaving Pegu an inland town. The British annexed the Pegu area in 1852, and ten years later, they created the province of British Myanmar, establishing the colonial capital at Rangoon. See also: Alaungpaya Dynasty; Mon Kingdom; Southeast Asian Kingdoms;Toungoo Dynasty.

PELAYO. See Asturias Kingdom PENDA. See Mercia, Kingdom of PEPIN DYNASTY (613–741 C.E.) Dynasty of Frankish “mayors of the palace,” who were the predecessors to the Carolingian dynasty. The Pepin dynasty was founded in the early 600s by Pepin of Landen, mayor of the palace for the Frankish kingdom of Austrasia. “Mayor of the palace” was a title given to a leading noble who held power behind the throne of the Merovingian dynasty of the Frankish kingdom. Pepin’s grandson, Pepin II (ca. 680–714), and great-grandson, Charles Martel (714–741), both followed as mayors of the palace, progressively acquiring more power and territory

Pepin Dynasty

The Frankish king Pepin the Short, father of Charlemagne, is considered the founder of the Carolingian dynasty. He built a new sanctuary at Saint-Denis, the richest and most famous abbey in medieval France. Pepin and many other French monarchs are buried at Saint-Denis, and this sculpted head is from his tomb.

for the Pepin dynasty. In 751, Pepin the Short (Pepin III), the son of Charles Martel, became king of the Franks (r. 751–768); he is considered the founder of the Carolingian dynasty, whose most famous ruler was Charlemagne (r. 768–814). The Merovingian kings after Dagobert I (r. 629–639) were weak and ineffective rulers. As a result, the mayor of the palace was the real power behind the throne, who acted as ruler while using the king as a figurehead to unite the kingdom. The wealthy and clever Pepin mayors of the palace used this situation to their advantage, so that their descendants eventually were able to claim the Crown of all France. The first of the Pepin line to emerge as historically important was Pepin I, also called Pepin of Landen, who died in 640. A wealthy and powerful Austrasian, Pepin owned land in the Moselle Valley

725

and in Liège (in present-day Belgium). In 613, he and a close ally, Bishop Arnulf of Metz, brought the Frankish king Chlothar II (r. 584–629) to rule Austrasia. Chlothar, perhaps to keep Pepin’s power in check, appointed Pepin’s rival, Rado, as mayor of the palace. It was not until Rado died around 617 that Pepin gained that position. In 623, Chlothar’s son Dagobert I (r. 623– 639) became king of the East Frankish kingdom of Austrasia, and Pepin and Arnulf became his most powerful advisers.When Dagobert became king of all the Franks in 629, Pepin and Arnulf lost their influence to individuals from the newly incorporated kingdom of Neustria. However, after Dagobert’s death in 639, Pepin rose in power, along with his ally Bishop Cunibert of Cologne. When Pepin died in 640, his power was inherited not by his young son Grimoald, but by a man named Otto, who, as the tutor of Prince Sigebert, the son of Dagobert, was strategically placed to take advantage of the situation. For a number of tumultuous years, the fortunes of the Pepin dynasty waxed and waned. Finally, around 680, Pepin II (also called Pepin of Heristal or Pepin the Young), the grandson of Pepin I, gained power in Austrasia as mayor of the palace. He held that position from 679 until his death in 714. After the battle of Tertry in 687, in which Pepin II and his forces defeated the nobles of Neustria, Pepin also ruled as mayor of the palace over Neustria and all other Frankish kingdoms except Aquitaine. Although Pepin II was the actual ruler, he kept the line of Merovingian kings as figureheads. Two of his sons preceded him in death, Drogo in 707 and Grimoald in 714. When Pepin died in 714, there was a legitimate infant son and an illegitimate adult son, Charles. His wife, Plectrude, tried to ensure that her infant son would inherit his father’s powerful position. Within a short time, however, Charles had obtained the position of mayor of the palace for himself. He became known as Charles Martel (the “Hammer”), a name he earned because of his military victories over the Moors. Like other mayors of the palace, Charles Martel was the true ruler of the Frankish kingdom. He used his tenure to expand the realm, primarily through military campaigns. He defeated King Chilperic II of Neustria, then challenged and won Burgundy, Aquitaine, and Provence. By uniting the Franks, Martel prepared the way for his son, Pepin the Short

726

Pepin Dynasty

(Pepin III), to usurp power from the Merovingian kings and become the first king of all Franks and founder of the Carolingian dynasty. See also: Aquitaine Duchy; Burgundy Kingdom; Carolingian Dynasty; Frankish Kingdom; Martel, Charles; Merovingian Dynasty; Merovingian-Frankish Kingdom; Pepin the Short (Pepin III).

PEPIN THE SHORT (PEPIN III) (ca. 714–768 C.E.)

Frankish king (r. 751–768), the son of Charles Martel (r. 714–741) and the father of Charlemagne as well as founder of the Carolingian dynasty. Pepin first served as mayor of the palace of the Frankish kingdom of Austrasia but became king of all the Franks when he deposed the Frankish king Childeric III (r. ca. 743–751). When Charles Martel died in 741, his sons, Pepin and Carloman, inherited from him the position of mayor of the palace of the Frankish kingdom. The two brothers divided the regions so that Pepin controlled Neustria, Burgundy, and Provence, while Carloman had Austrasia, Alamania, and Thuringia. Although their roles as mayors of the palace made them very powerful, Pepin and Carloman decided it was to their advantage to allow Childeric III to be crowned the Frankish king in 743. Childeric was a weak ruler; that, coupled with Carloman’s decision to enter a monastery in 747, left Pepin sufficiently powerful to depose Childeric in 751. Before doing so, however, Pepin had the foresight to first request approval from Rome, which he received, perhaps in exchange for a promise to assist the pope with military force to restore order in Italy. In 754, Pope Stephen II journeyed to France to anoint Pepin and his heirs as the rightful rulers of the Frankish kingdom, the first Frankish king to be crowned and anointed by the pope. Pepin repaid the pope for his support by helping defend Rome against the Lombards in 754. Also, in 756, he gave the pope a gift of land in Ravenna, Italy, which became known as the Donation of Pepin.The gift of this land laid the foundation for the later formation of the Papal States. Pepin’s reign was marked by various military campaigns, including a successful campaign against

Aquitaine in southwestern France, and some domestic unrest fomented by rivals who sought to provoke revolts against his rule. Pepin’s most important legacy, however, was to establish an anointed kingship that his son would inherit. Pepin had two sons, Charlemagne, who became king of the Franks (r. 768–814) and emperor of the West (r. 800–814); and Carloman, who ruled briefly as king of Austrasia (r. 768–771). When Carloman died in 771, his brother Charlemagne seized the kingdom and incorporated it within his own domain. See also: Carolingian Dynasty; Charlemagne; Frankish Kingdom; Martel, Charles; Merovingian Dynasty; Pepin Dynasty.

PERAK KINGDOM (1528 C.E.–PRESENT)

Islamic kingdom, situated on the west coast of Malaysia, that was founded by a dispossessed member of the Malacca (or Melaka) sultanate in the early sixteenth century. Perak briefly became a prominent kingdom after the discovery of rich tin deposits there during the nineteenth century. In the late 1400s, Perak was part of a larger province ruled by a governor appointed by the sultan of Malacca, Mahmud Shah (r. 1488–1511). Mahmud had two sons, Muzaffar Shah and Alauddin Shah, Muzaffar was the sultan’s heir, but he fell from favor after the birth of his younger brother, Alauddin, who was named the new heir when he was still an infant.

INDEPENDENCE AND EARLY HISTORY Upon the death of Mahmud in 1511,Alauddin became the new sultan and Muzaffar was forced to flee. Muzaffar eventually made his way to the province of Perak, where he declared independence from Malacca and became the first sultan of Perak around 1529. Sultan Muzaffar Shah I (r. 1529–1549) died in 1549 and was succeeded by his son, Mansur Shah I (r. 1549–1577). According to Perak legend, Mansur continued his father’s work of organizing the country under a series of chieftains in order to exert greater control over the kingdom. Shortly after Mansur’s death in 1577, Perak was attacked and conquered by the kingdom of Acheh, which was centered on the island of Sumatra.

Pergamum Kingdom Mansur’s widow and children were carried off to Acheh, but as guests rather than as prisoners. One of the queens of Acheh took Mansur’s eldest son as a husband, and in 1579 he succeeded to the throne of Acheh. Meanwhile, Perak retained its autonomy. By the reign of Mansur Shah II (r. 1619–1630), the population of Perak had grown from only a few hundred to over several thousand. Sometime between 1620 and 1627, Perak was attacked and conquered again by Acheh. This time, the conquerors despoiled the land and took many prisoners back to Acheh. Sultan Iskandar Muda (r. 1607–1636) of Acheh placed a captive prince, Mahmud Shah (r. 1619–1630), on the throne of Perak and kept the sultanate as a vassal state.

RELATIONS WITH THE DUTCH One of Mahmud’s successors, Muzaffar Shah II (r. 1635–1654), opened up Perak to the Dutch East India Company in 1639. In 1651, he had twentyseven Dutchmen killed when it was rumored that a trading center being built by the Dutch company was being outfitted as a fort. Further violence against Dutch traders led to their temporary withdrawal from Perak in 1690. Around 1720, Alauddin Ri’ayat Shah (r. ca. 1720–1728) acceded to the throne of Perak.Alauddin fought a series of wars against his brother Muzaffar, who was attempting to overthrow Alauddin.Alauddin retained power until his death in 1728, at which time his brother, with whom he had finally reconciled, took the throne as Muzaffar Shar III (r. 1728–1754). Around 1743, Perak was invaded by the Bugis of Selangor, a rival sultanate in the region.The Bugis deposed Muzaffar, whose brother Muhammad Shah (r. ca. 1743–1750) took the throne. Muzaffar maintained control over part of the sultanate, however, and he moved his capital temporarily upstream. In 1746, Muzaffar negotiated the reunification of the kingdom under his control. That same year, Muzaffar allowed the Dutch East India Company to return to Perak. In return for trading rights, the Dutch agreed to provide defense for Perak against its regional rivals. Muzaffar died around 1754 and was succeeded by Iskandar Dhu’l-Qarnain Shah (r. ca. 1754–1765). An energetic leader, Iskandar built a new royal capital, royal palace, and mosque during his reign. He also strengthened Perak’s ties with the Dutch East India Company, which helped Perak’s economy and continued to provide security. When Iskandar died

727

in 1765, Perak was at the height of its wealth and influence. He is remembered as Perak’s greatest leader.

THE BRITISH AND THE PRESENT In 1795, the Dutch disbanded the Dutch East India Company and Perak was left without the defensive and economic benefits that the company had long provided. One result was that the kingdom again began to fade into obscurity. However, in 1848, during the reign of Sultan Shahabuddin Ri’ayat Shah (r. 1831–1851), a major deposit of tin was discovered in the area of Larut.The discovery of this important mineral resource helped to fuel economic recovery in Perak and expansion of the kingdom. For a number of years before this, Great Britain had been showing interest in the burgeoning Malay states. In 1874, the Perak leader Abdullah Muhammad (r. 1874–1877) invited the British to support his installation as Perak’s new sultan. In return, he would allow a British official to reside in the kingdom and act as an adviser on all matters except Islamic and Malay custom. Abdullah signed the Treaty of Pangkor with the British in 1874 and became the twenty-sixth sultan of Perak. The Treaty of Pangkor effectively ended Perak’s independence. The sultanate stayed under British control, with the brief exception of Japanese rule in World War II, until Malaysia gained independence from Great Britain in 1957. Today, Perak remains a sultanate and is part of the Malay Federation. See also: Acheh Kingdom; Postcolonial States; Southeast Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Andaya, Barbara Watson. Perak, the Abode of Grace: A Study of an Eighteenth-Century Malay State. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

PERGAMUM KINGDOM (ca. 300–129 B.C.E.)

Ancient Greek city and kingdom of western Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), also called Pergamus, Pergamon, and Pergamos, noted for its sculpture and its library. The city of Pergamum became the center of a large kingdom in the third century b.c.e., and it re-

728

Pergamum Kingdom

tained its status as a political and cultural leader into the Byzantine period. The Hellenistic society that emerged following the conquests of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) in the fourth century b.c.e. was centered in cities. Pergamum was one of these cities, and it was deeply influenced by Greek urban culture. Like many ancient Greek cities, Pergamum had a ruling council and an assembly, but it was ruled by a king. This resulted directly from the influence of Alexander the Great, who established royal governors in each city in his empire, a practice that continued in different forms after his death. During the second century b.c.e., King Eumenes II of Pergamum (r. 197–159 b.c.e.) followed a proRoman policy that allowed him to expand his power and wealth. In return for his help in the Roman victory over Antiochus III of Syria (r. 223–187 b.c.e.) in 190 b.c.e., Eumenes was granted all of Antiochus’s possessions as far as Taurus in Asia Minor. However, Roman suspicions of Eumenes’ disloyalty later put his kingdom on the brink of war with Rome, which was averted only by his death in 159 b.c.e. A vigorous ruler and an adept politician, Eumenes II helped make Pergamum an important cultural center, which contained a great library that was second only to that of Alexandria in Egypt. Pergamum’s contained more than 200,000 volumes. During the reign of King Eumenes II, most writing was done on papyrus that was cultivated in Egypt. As part of the competition between the two kingdoms, Egypt banned the export of papyrus to Pergamum. According to the Roman historian Pliny, as a result of this embargo, Pergamum began to produce a paper-like product from the skins of sheep and goats, called parchment.The thriving parchment industry, along with silver mining and textiles, assured Pergamum of a stable and varied economy. When Eumenes II died in 159 b.c.e., his brother Attalus II (r. 159–138 b.c.e.) ruled until 138 b.c.e. when Eumenes’s son took the throne as Attalus III (r. 138–133 b.c.e.). Attalus, however, bequeathed the kingdom of Pergamum to Rome. In 133 b.c.e., a second son of Eumenes, Aristonicus, tried to restore the monarchy, but he was captured by the Romans in 129 b.c.e., and Pergamum became part of the Roman Empire under the name of Asia Propria. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Antiochus III, the Great; Roman Empire; Seleucid Dynasty.

PERLAK KINGDOM. See Acheh Kingdom

PERSIAN EMPIRE (ca. 550–330 B.C.E.) Ancient empire centered in present-day Iran that was the most powerful state of its time, with a vast area under its control in the ancient Near East. In the early 500s b.c.e., the area known as Persia (called Fars by the native peoples of the region and Persis by the ancient Greeks) was ruled by a king named Cambyses I, who was one of the earliest rulers of the Achaemenid dynasty. Upon his death around 559 b.c.e., the throne went to his son, Cyrus II, better known as Cyrus the Great (r. ca. 559–530 b.c.e.).

BUILDING THE EMPIRE Although he was the leader of a royal family, Cyrus II of Anshan was under the dominion of the Median Empire in the mid-sixth century b.c.e. But the ambitious Cyrus wanted power returned to his family, the Achaeminids. He rebelled against the Median king, Astyages (r. 585–550 b.c.e.), in 550 b.c.e., took the Median capital city of Ecbatana, and began a great period of conquest. Cyrus is thus the true founder of the Persian Empire. Over the next two decades, Cyrus expanded his empire throughout southwestern Asia. His first conquest was Lydia, to his west in Asia Minor (presentday Turkey). He next looked to Babylonia and, by 540 b.c.e., had conquered that empire.With the fall of Babylonia, Syria and Palestine easily succumbed to Cyrus as well. With these conquests, all of southwestern Asia to the border of Egypt was part of one empire for the first time in history. Cyrus was never content with the size of his empire, and he was attempting to expand it further to the east when he died in battle in 530 b.c.e. Cyrus is called Cyrus the Great not only because of the powerful empire he created, but also because of his remarkable benevolence. A different kind of conqueror, he used a new weapon to gain control over those he defeated: respect. His style of rule was to be carried on by all subsequent Persian rulers and was a great tool in maintaining a peaceful regime. Under Cyrus and his successors, the Persians

Persian Empire

729

ROYAL RELATIVES

A ROYAL IMPOSTER Cyrus the Great had two sons—Cambyses, who inherited the throne, and Bardiya, who was assassinated during the reign of Cambyses.While Cambyses was with his army conquering Egypt in 525 b.c.e., a Median priest named Gaumata claimed to be the dead Bardiya, whom he apparently resembled. Because of Cambyses’s long absence from Persia, Gaumata had time to garner the loyalty of many prominent Persians and had himself declared king. Cambyses learned of this treachery on his way home from Egypt in 522 b.c.e. but did not survive the voyage to confront Gaumata. Darius I, a relative of Cambyses’s who was traveling with him, led the army back home. Darius quickly overpowered Gaumata, killed him, and declared himself the new king of the Persian Empire.

showed great tolerance toward local religious traditions, and they did not interfere with the cultural life of the lands they conquered and ruled. They acted more as successors to the rulers they overthrew than as victors, and they allowed many areas to maintain some autonomy. Because of this more gentle approach, the Persians were able to gain territory in a less confrontational way and to manage their expanding empire far more easily than might have been possible using force alone.

GOVERNING A VAST EMPIRE Cyrus the Great was succeeded by his son, Cambyses II (r. 529–522 b.c.e.). By the time that Cambyses took the throne, there was only one other great territory not under Persian control—Egypt. In 525 b.c.e., Cambyses and his army marched through the desert of the Sinai Peninsula and handily defeated Egyptian forces. With this conquest, the Persian Empire became the largest empire in history, stretching throughout all of southwestern Asia from the Mediterranean coast in the west to the border of India in the east. Moreover, this vast and powerful empire had no potentially threatening enemies. Cambyses died of unknown causes while on his way home from military campaigns in Egypt in 522 b.c.e. Darius I (r. 521–486 b.c.e.), a relative from another branch of the Achaemenid family, declared himself king after the death of Cambyses. The first two years of Darius’s reign were spent crushing re-

bellions throughout the empire and asserting his authority. His strength was as an administrator rather than as a conqueror, and he created a new organization that provided for local autonomy but also allowed unquestioned central control. Although he ruled as an absolute “king of kings” (shah an-shah), Darius I, the third ruler of the Persian Empire, created an administration that allowed the vast empire to run smoothly. Darius established twenty separate regions called satrapies, each of which was governed by its own satrap, or governor, who reported directly to the king. Darius built roads to tie all of his territories together. Along these roads he established a postal system that could convey messages quickly from one part of the empire to another. He was the first ruler to coin currency. And he had a waterway dug from the Nile River to the Red Sea to facilitate trade. Under Darius, the Persians also adopted cuneiform writing, and Aramaean became the principal language of the empire. By adding a level of sophistication to the Persian Empire that had never been seen before, and by providing so many links to the disparate people of his far-flung empire, Darius established an administration that was to keep the empire intact for centuries.

TROUBLE WITH THE GREEKS Near the end of Darius’s life, some of the Greek cities on the coast of Asia Minor revolted with the assistance of Athens and other Greek city-states on

730

Persian Empire

mainland Greece. Darius was able to stop the revolt, but when he sent his army to Greece in retribution for assisting the rebellious cities, the Persians lost to the Greeks at the battle of Marathon of 490 b.c.e. This was the first major loss that the Persian army had ever suffered. After a nearly forty-year reign, Darius died in 486 b.c.e. and was succeeded by his son, Xerxes I (r. 485–465 b.c.e.). Xerxes faced two more battles with the Greeks, both of which he lost. These defeats marked a turning point for the Persian Empire. However, it was the death of Darius II (r. 423– 405 b.c.e.) some sixty years later in 405 b.c.e. that set off the real beginning of the end for the Persian Empire. Darius II had two sons, both of whom wanted to be king. The older of the brothers succeeded to the throne as Artaxerxes II (r. 404–359 b.c.e.). The younger brother, Cyrus, allied himself with some Greek soldiers and fought a civil war against his brother for rule of the empire. Cyrus was easily killed, but the war between the brothers caused a ripple effect, as others perceived the rift as a weakening in the royal family. Artaxerxes and the succeeding rulers of Persia faced repeated rebellions by the satraps.

It was Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) of Greece who brought about the final end to the Persian Empire. After invading the Persian Empire in 334 b.c.e., Alexander won battle after battle with the weakened Persians on his way through their territory, finally conquering the last ruler of the Achaemenid dynasty, Darius III (r. 335–330 b.c.e.), in 330 b.c.e. With the establishment of his own empire, Alexander brought the Persian Empire to an end. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Artaxerxes I; Cambyses II; Cyrus the Great; Darius I, the Great; Darius III (Codommanus); Lydia, Kingdom of; Macedonian Empire; Xerxes. FURTHER READING

Asimov, Isaac. The Near East: 10,000 Years of History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Hitti, Philip K. The Near East in History: A 5000 Year Story. Princeton, NJ:Van Nostrand, 1961. Perry, Glenn E. The Middle East: Fourteen Islamic Centuries. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.

P e t e r I , t h e G r e at Sicker, Martin. The Pre-Islamic Middle East. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.

PETER I, THE GREAT (1672–1725 C.E.) Tsar of Russia (r. 1682–1725) and first Russian emperor (r. 1721–1725), who was instrumental in turning Russia into a dominant political and military power, ultimately controlling nearly all of Northern Europe. The grandson of the first Romanov tsar, Mikhail Fedorovich, Peter founded the city of St. Petersburg, introduced Russia to Western ideas and culture, and established the nation’s first fully trained military. More interested in shipbuilding and military strategies than in the royal court, he nonetheless was a politically ruthless leader who ruled with an iron hand.

731

enjoyed physical labor, favoring the outdoors over court life in Moscow. Prior to Peter’s rule, Russia remained isolated from the rest of Europe, abiding the customs and dictates of the Russian Orthodox Church. Almost immediately after assuming the throne, Peter embarked on a two-year grand tour of Western Europe, learning as much as he could about Western European government, industry, and military techniques. He also indulged his love of ships, and there were reports that he hid his true identify to work briefly as a ship’s carpenter in Holland.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS Upon his return to Russia in 1698 to suppress yet another rebellion by the Kremlin Guard, Peter began re-creating Russia in the image of the West. He banned traditional Muscovite dress for all men, forced women out of seclusion, insisted Russian no-

RISE TO POWER From an early age, Peter was caught up in a power struggle between the families of the current and former wife of his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (r. 1645–1676). As the youngest son of Alexei’s second wife, Natalia Kirillovna Naryshkina, Peter should not have been in line for the throne. But when Tsar Alexei’s eldest son and successor, Feodor III (r. 1676–1672), died after ruling only four years, the Naryshkina family used its influence with the Russian Orthodox Church to have ten-year-old Peter succeed over Peter’s sickly half-brother, fourteen-yearold Ivan. Peter’s elder half-sister Sofia, however, gained the support of the Kremlin Guard and launched a coup, resulting in Ivan V (r. 1682–1696) and Peter I being named joint tsars in 1682. Because both boys were too young to govern, Sofia was named regent of Russia, ruling the country for seven years. Upon Ivan’s death in 1696, and with Sofia forever banished to a convent because of another attempted coup, the twenty-two-year-old Peter assumed sole reign.

INFLUENCES Despite his chaotic childhood, Peter relished growing up in the Russian countryside, and he took an active interest in military strategy. He once discovered an abandoned British sailboat, which launched his lifelong passion for sailing and shipbuilding. Strong and more than six feet six inches tall, Peter greatly

Tsar Peter the Great devoted his rule to Westernizing and modernizing Russia. To promote closer contact with the West, he ordered the construction of a new capital city, St. Petersburg, on the shores of the Baltic Sea. In 1725, afer diving into the icy waters of the Baltic to save drowning sailors, he became ill and died a short time later.

732

P e t e r I , t h e G r e at

bles be clean-shaven, placed the Orthodox Church under his authority, simplified the alphabet, and changed the calendar to coincide with the rest of Europe. He also brought in thousands of artisans, craftsmen, scientists, and other advisers from Western Europe to expose Russians to different ideas and concepts. Most importantly, Peter created the strongest military Russia had ever known, expanding it from around 30,000 men in 1695 to nearly 300,000 men in 1725, including a newly formed Navy. He also authorized mass conscriptions of both peasants and nobles. To outfit the military, Peter created iron foundries and textile mills, which helped put Russia on the road to industrialization.

THE NORTHERN WAR AND FOUNDING OF ST. PETERSBURG Determined to regain access to the Baltic Sea and Baltic trade, in 1700 Peter formed an alliance with Denmark, Poland, and Prussia to fight Sweden in the Northern War (1700–1721), which lasted more than two decades. While the Russians suffered a huge early defeat at the battle of Narva, losing more than 9,000 men, it taught Peter a valuable lesson, and he worked to modernize his military even more. In 1703, he also established a fort in a desolate area of marshland to serve as a Baltic port for his supply ships. He named it St. Petersburg. To strengthen the fort, he ordered hundreds of Russians to move to St. Petersburg to build great houses, roads, and canals, ultimately relocating the capital there from Moscow. Peter also implemented a policy in which any person under Russian control who gave or sold food to the enemy was to be hanged and the villages from which the food came were to be burned to the ground. As a result of this policy, Sweden’s army faced starvation, weakening it considerably. In 1721, Sweden finally made peace with Russia, recognizing Russia’s hold on territory it had conquered, including Ingria, Estonia, Livonia, Vyborg (Viipuri), Kexholm (Piorzersk), and part of Karelia. Victorious, Peter proclaimed Russia an empire, declaring himself emperor of All Russia, Great Father of the Fatherland, from which the title Peter “The Great” evolved. Although Peter had eleven children (the eldest of whom Peter imprisoned for suspected treason), he named no heir to the throne. Upon his death on Jan-

uary 28, 1725, his second wife Ekaterina Alexeevna succeeded him as Catherine I (r. 1725–1727). See also: Romanov Dynasty; Russian Dynasties. FURTHER READING

Anderson, M. S. Peter the Great. 2nd edition. New York: Longman, 2000. Lincoln, Bruce W. Sunlight at Midnight: St. Petersburg and the Rise of Modern Russia. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Massie, Robert K. Peter the Great: His Life and World. New York:Wings Books, 1991.

PHILIP II (1527–1598 C.E.) Spanish king who continued the policies of his father, Charles V, king of Spain and Holy Roman emperor (r. 1519–1556), in expanding Spanish power and control. Philip was born in Valladolid, Spain, on May 21, 1527, the only son of Charles V and Isabella of Portugal. Philip saw little of his father while he was growing up, and he lost his mother when he was twelve years old. His education was entrusted to a series of tutors who saw to it that he learned the sciences, mathematics, history, architecture, music, and several languages, including Latin and Greek. Charles V took charge of his son’s political education through a series of letters. At the age of sixteen, Philip’s father appointed him regent of Spain, which he ruled with the help of a council. In the same year he wed his cousin, Maria of Portugal. On July 8, 1545, Philip’s son and heir, Don Carlos, was born. Four days later Maria died. In 1553 when Mary Tudor came to the throne of England, she had the intent of restoring her kingdom to Catholicism. Charles V saw this as an opportunity to unite the two countries by religion and marriage, and he proposed a union between Philip, now king of Naples and Sicily, and Mary. While Philip regarded the marriage as entirely political, Mary had high hopes of romance, particularly after she met her handsome suitor. The people of England were not enamored of the idea of England being ruled by a foreigner, and a revolt led by the radical Protestant Thomas Wyatt sought to replace Mary with her sister, Elizabeth.When the revolt was put down, Philip and Mary wed on July 25, 1554. He was twenty-six years old, she thirty-seven. Mary gave Philip the title

Philip II of king of England. In 1555 Charles V ceded the Netherlands to his son, and in 1556 Philip was proclaimed king of Spain.To Mary’s great sorrow, Philip spent very little time in England, particularly after it became clear that she would not be able to bear children.After Mary’s death in 1558, Philip explored the possibility of marriage with Elizabeth, but she was determined not to marry. Shortly after ascending the throne of Spain, Philip became embroiled in two wars. In Italy he fought to preserve Naples and Sicily as Spanish kingdoms, and at the same time he carried on his father’s war with France for control of territories in the Netherlands. Philip was victorious on both fronts. His marriage in

A member of the illustrious Habsburg dynasty, King Philip II of Spain was a patron of the arts. The Venetian master Titian, painted this portrait of the king around 1550.

733

1559 to Elizabeth, daughter of Henry II of France, was another political union, designed to help keep the peace between the two nations. After Elizabeth’s death, Philip married Anna, the daughter of Emperor Maximilian II. She bore him a son, Philip. After his victory in the Netherlands, Philip returned to Spain and never left again. He alternated between Madrid and the Escorial, a compound not far from Madrid that included a palace, monastery, church, college, library, and art galleries that Philip constructed to fulfill a vow that he had made while battling the French in the Netherlands. Determined to rid Spain of heretics, Philip used the apparatus of the Inquisition (an institution of judges established by the papacy responsible for seeking out, bringing to trial, and punishing those whose beliefs were opposed to those of the Catholic Church). He is said to have told a heretic about to be burned that if his own son were guilty, “I should lead him with my own hands to the stake.” After doing away with Protestantism, Philip turned to the Moriscoes—Moors who had been forcibly converted to Catholicism after the defeat of Granada in 1492. Philip wanted them to alter how they dressed and to force them to speak Spanish, and in 1567 they rebelled. The conflict lasted three years until Don Juan, Philip’s illegitimate half-brother, put it down.As a result of this defeat, many Moriscoes were sent away from the coasts into the interior of Spain. In 1580 Philip took control of the Portuguese throne, uniting the Iberian Peninsula under one ruler, a situation that lasted until 1640. He fought many battles over the Netherlands, eventually losing the northern provinces to the French and ceding the southern provinces to his daughter Isabella and her husband, Archduke Albert of Austria in 1592. It was Elizabeth’s attempt to send aid to the Protestants of the Netherlands that led Philip to send the great Armada to England. The fleet was almost completely destroyed by bad weather, thanks to an incompetent captain. This was a severe blow to the Spanish Navy and ultimately marked the end of Spain’s role as a world power. During his reign, Philip also fought with the Turks, who attempted to dominate the Mediterranean. He sent Spanish forces to join the fleet of the Holy League to oppose the Turkish fleet at the battle of Lepanto, roundly defeating the Turks in 1571. In 1578, Philip established a treaty with the Turks that continued until his death in 1598. He was succeeded by his son, Philip III.

734

Philip II

While Catholics tended to regard Philip’s legacy as a positive one, many Protestants called him a demon. During his reign, Spain conquered the Philippine Islands, which were named after him, and Portugal and Spain were united. He was a hardworking ruler, a good father, and a very devout Catholic. But he could also be cruel and unforgiving, and his methods of battling what he called heresy tend to overshadow his better qualities. See also: Charles V; Elizabeth I; Mary I,Tudor. FURTHER READING

Kamen, Henry Arthur Francis. Philip of Spain. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1997. Parker, Geoffrey. Philip II: With a New Bibliographical Essay. Chicago: Open Court, 2002.

PHILIP II OF MACEDON (ca. 382–336 B.C.E.)

King of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), and founder of the Macedonian Empire. Philip II was born in the city of Pella in Macedonia around 382 b.c.e.The youngest son of King Amyntas III (r. 393–387, 386–369 b.c.e.), Philip did not stand directly in the line to inherit the throne. However, the early deaths of his older brothers in 368 and 359 b.c.e. left him the successor. Renowned for his military prowess, Philip trained a professional army with which he was able to expand dramatically the holdings of his kingdom. During Philip’s rule, Macedon also made great cultural advancements, as well as tremendous economic strides.

riage for Philip was his own marriage to Olympias, the daughter of King Neoptolemus of Epirus (r. dates unknown). Philip and Olympias were married by 357 b.c.e., and the new queen gave birth to their son Alexander the next year. Philip achieved several innovations that helped make Macedonia a great power. First, he began providing education and training for the sons of nobles at the royal court, where they would develop loyalty for the king.This was also a way for Philip to hold the children hostage, in a sense, to keep their parents from interfering with his authority.

REFORMS OF THE MILITARY Philip’s military innovations created the great fighting power that his son, Alexander, would later inherit, giving Macedonia one of the most feared armies in the world. Philip introduced the sarissa, a wooden pike with metal tip, for use by his infantry. This weapon, when held upright by the rear rows of the infantry phalanx formation (there were usually eight rows), helped hide maneuvers behind the phalanx from enemy view. When held horizontally by the front rows of the phalanx, it was a rather brutal weapon. Enemy soldiers could be run through from twenty feet away, giving quite an advantage to the phalanx in hand-to-hand combat. Philip also made the military a way of life for many Macedonian men. In the past, soldiering had only been a part-time job, something men would do

TAKING CONTROL When Philip came to power in 359 b.c.e., Macedonia had just suffered a defeat at the hands of the Illyrians, a neighboring peoples to the north and west. As a result, Macedonia was in political and military turmoil, and Philip immediately set about bringing the country and the people of Macedonia under his control. After exacting revenge on the Illyrians by defeating them in 358 b.c.e., Philip sought to bring all of upper Macedonia under his control. His primary method of creating alliances and strengthening loyalties was through marriage.The most important mar-

The father of Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon was himself a successful military leader and conqueror, and he laid the groundwork for the achievements of his son. Coins with his likeness were used as currency throughout his domain in Macedonia and Greece.

P h i l i p I I , Au g u s t u s during the off-peak times of farming.When the fighting season ended at the start of the harvest, the men would return to the farms. Philip, however, made the military an occupation that paid well enough that the soldiers could afford to do it year-round. By making the military a fulltime occupation, Philip was able to drill his men regularly, building unity and cohesion within the army ranks. Largely because of the professionalism and training of the army,Alexander fought with the finest military machine ever seen in Greece or Asia. Philip’s greatest military success was against Greek forces at the battle at Chaeronea in August 338 b.c.e. Although Philip’s army was greatly outnumbered by the armies of the Greek city-states of Athens and Thebes, his forces successfully overwhelmed them. Both cities were forced to become subjects of Philip and Macedonia, leaving Sparta as the only major Greek city-state not under Macedonian control.

DEALING WITH THE GREEKS AND PERSIANS At the Council at Corinth in 337 b.c.e., Philip outlined his system for ruling the Greek city-states, creating the League of Corinth, also known as the Hellenic League. He gave freedom and autonomy to all the political parties in each state, yet established a network of bureaucracies that would be stable and loyal to Philip Then, with the support of all Greece, Philip declared war on Persia to retaliate for the Persian invasion of Greece several generations before. In the spring of 336 b.c.e., Philip sent two of his generals, Attalus and Parmenion, with 10,000 troops into Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) to begin liberating Greek cities along the coast of that region. Just before Philip himself was to travel to Asia to begin the conquest, he was assassinated. Some Macedonians suspected that Philip’s wife, Olympias, played a role in his murder, but this was probably not true. Upon his death, Philip was succeeded on the throne of Macedonia by his son, Alexander. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Greek Kingdoms, Ancient; Hellenistic Dynasties; Macedonian Empire; Macedonian Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Ashley, James R. The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359–323 B.C. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1998.

735

PHILIP II, AUGUSTUS (1165–1223 C.E.) King of France (r. 1180–1223) of the Capetian dynasty, also known as Philip Augustus, who participated briefly in the Third Crusade (1190–1191), but spent most of his long reign recovering territories from the English kings of the Angevin dynasty and expanding his realm. Born to the pious King Louis VII (r. 1137–1180), Philip Augustus took the throne in 1180, at age fourteen, upon the death of his father. Shortly after his accession, Philip engineered his own marriage to Isabella of Hainault, niece of the count of Flanders. By 1185, both the count and countess of Flanders had died, and, through his marriage to Isabella, Philip was able to extend his sphere of influence into Flanders. With Flanders secure, Philip was free to concentrate on his struggle with the English kings of the Plantagenet dynasty: first King Henry II (r. 1154–1189), then King Richard I, the Lionheart (r. 1189–1199), and finally, King John (r. 1199–1216). Philip was single-minded in his desire to recover for France the Angevin holdings in Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Maine,Tourmaine, and Poitou that were controlled by the English Crown. Philip succeeded in this strategy, cleverly playing off the easily angered Richard the Lionheart against first one brother, then another—all of Henry II’s four sons were at one time or another allied with Philip against their father. After spending little more than a year on the Third Crusade, Philip left an angry Richard the Lionheart in Palestine and returned to Europe to provoke Richard’s regent, John, into open revolt. When Richard himself was captured by Leopold of Austria on his return journey from the Holy Land, Philip used every means available to prolong Richard’s imprisonment. Finally ransomed, Richard returned to England just long enough to raise funds and troops to attack Philip. Although Richard was the superior soldier, Philip fought tenaciously for five years until Richard was killed by a stray arrow in an unimportant skirmish in 1199. Faced now with Richard’s less competent brother, King John, Philip took Normandy in 1204. By 1205, the English Angevin territories of Maine,Touraine, Anjou, and most of Poitou were all under French control. Not all of Philip’s gains were at the expense of the

736

P h i l i p I I , Au g u s t u s

English Angevins. He allowed his vassals to participate in Pope Innocent III’s crusade against the Cathari (a non-Catholic Christian sect), a decision that opened the way for the eventual French annexation of Toulouse and the Languedoc. Philip’s most important victory was the battle of Bouvines (1214) in which he defeated the combined forces of King John of England, the Holy Roman emperor Otto IV (r. 1198–1218), and the counts of Boulogne and Flanders.The outcome of this battle had far-reaching effects, putting Flanders under complete control of the French Crown and making France the strongest unified force in Europe. Besides his conquests and broken treaties, Philip was notable for his patronage of individual municipalities and, particularly, of Paris. During his reign, Philip paved and walled the entire city of Paris. He also built the first Louvre palace there. During Philip’s forty-three-year reign, France tripled in size.At the same time, Philip weakened the feudal hold of French aristocrats on their subjects and increased the power of the French Crown at the expense of the nobility.When Philip died in 1223, he was succeeded by his son, Louis VIII (r. 1223–1226). Philip’s successes laid the foundation for the powerful France that was eventually inherited by his grandson, Louis IX (1226–1270). See also: Angevin Dynasties; Anjou Kingdom; Capetian Dynasty; Flanders, County of; French Monarchies; Henry II; John I; Louis VII; Richard I, Lionheart. FURTHER READING

Bradbury, Jim. Philip Augustus: King of France, 1180–1223. New York: Longman, 1998.

PHILIP IV, THE FAIR (1268–1314 C.E.) King of France (r. 1285–1314), a member of the Capetian dynasty, who ruled as an absolute monarch with corrupt and extortionate administrators. Philip IV was called “The Fair” for his physical appearance, not for his methods of governing. Philip IV was the son of Philip III (r. 1270–1285) and Isabel of Aragón. Philip became king of France upon the death of his father in 1285. He married Jeanne, the daughter of Henry I (r. 1270–1274), king of Navarre and count of Champagne and Brie. Philip

died in 1314 and was succeeded by his son, Louis X (r. 1314–1316). Because Louis X had no male heirs and died only two years after taking the throne, Philip’s other two sons also ruled France in turn: Philip V (r. 1316–1322) and Charles IV (r. 1322–1328). Philip IV’s only daughter, Isabel, became queen consort of Edward II (r. 1307–1327) of England. An absolute monarch, Philip had a despotic reign that focused on strengthening the central government of France, in large part to increase his personal wealth. His rule relied on a new type of administrator, the chevaliers de l’hotel, which was not an inherited position, but one gained as a result of individual accomplishments and favor. These administrators were exceptionally loyal to the king, whose power made their position possible. They not only supported him in conflicts with the Church, but also aggressively and ruthlessly pursued their own interests. In 1302, a council of nobles, clergy, and commoners called the états généraux declared that the king was the highest power on earth, thereby justifying Philip’s tyrannical actions as well as his claim of divine right. Philip’s power struggle with the Church was centered on wealth. In 1296, Philip fought with Pope Boniface VIII over a tax on the clergy. The French government claimed that since the Church had sometimes given money to help finance the crusades, there was a precedent that allowed the Church to be taxed for any military purpose. Boniface, underestimating the power of the French government, reacted belligerently to this claim rather than attempting to negotiate. In 1302, Boniface issued a papal bull that proclaimed the ultimate sovereignty of the pope over kings, even to the point of deposing kings who refused to submit to papal authority. Philip eventually won Boniface’s concession through a campaign of intimidation and harassment, including placing an embargo on precious metals so that no money could be exported, thus depriving the pope of necessary revenue. After several years of power struggles between Philip and the pope, William de Nogaret, one of Philip’s ministers, charged Boniface with being the enemy of both the Church and the French nation, accusing the pope of crimes ranging from heresy to murder. In 1303, French soldiers seized Pope Boniface VIII at his family’s palace at Anagni.Although he escaped to Rome, Boniface died shortly thereafter in 1303. The ongoing feud with the papacy was resolved

Phoenician Empire when Philip used his influence to get Clement V elected pope in 1305. Clement, a Frenchman, was unwilling to oppose the French king, and in a sign of subservience, he moved the papal residence and administrative center to Avignon in the French region of Provence. Another source of conflict during Philip IV’s reign involved the Knights Templar, who came under vicious attack from Philip and his ministers. The Templars were an order of knights that had been founded early in the twelfth century, whose mission was to protect pilgrims en route to Jerusalem. Despite their vows of poverty, the Templars were extremely successful in acquiring land, money, and influence. By Philip’s time, the Templars served as bankers for the Church and the European nobility. Philip, who envied their wealth and was unable to tolerate their competing power, destroyed them with the backing of Pope Clement V. The Knights were charged with heresy, and their trial, which lasted from 1307 to 1313, was marked by great cruelty. Torture was used to obtain confessions, and many of the knights were burned at the stake. In the end, the order was completely destroyed, its money and land confiscated by the Crown. Philip also expanded French territory by marriage, stealth, and force. His marriage to Jeanne, the daughter of Henry I of Navarre, added a number of territories to France. In 1312, Philip captured the city of Lyon from the Holy Roman Empire during the absence of the emperor.Although the Hundred Years’ War did not begin until 1337, the early stages began during Philip’s reign when he tried, unsuccessfully, to expel the English from the duchy of Guienne. Philip was, however, able to obtain a settlement in which the son of Edward I ruled Guienne as Philip’s vassal. See also: Capetian Dynasty; Charles V; French Monarchies; Navarre, Kingdom of.

PHOENICIAN EMPIRE (ca. 1300–322 B.C.E.)

Maritime power of the ancient world that spread its phonetic system of writing throughout the Mediterranean. The core of ancient Phoenician culture stretched

737

along the Mediterranean coast of modern-day Lebanon, centered on the cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Berut (modern-day Beirut). Although the origins of the Phoenicians are not clear, archaeological evidence suggests that they arrived in that region around 3000 b.c.e. Until the 1200s b.c.e., they were referred to by their biblical name, the Canaanites.

PHOENICIAN TRADE AND COLONIZATION Like the Minoan civilization that preceded them in the eastern Mediterranean, the Phoenicians based their success on trade, trading primarily in timber, metalwork, wine, embroidery, salt, dried fish, glazed faience, textiles, and a luxurious purple dye that they refined from a type of snail. In their pursuit of trade routes to ever more distant locations, the Phoenicians established far-flung colonies to serve as waystations. Coastal settlements established by the Phoenicians along the Mediterranean extended as far as the Iberian Peninsula, and the Phoenicians may even have traveled as far as southwestern England in pursuit of tin. As they traveled the known world, the Phoenicians spread their culture with their trading goods. Perhaps the most influential of Phoenician innovations was their system of writing, early samples of which date from the fifteenth century b.c.e. Phoenician writing, which was both phonetically based and standardized, proved to be more flexible than the cuneiform and hieroglyphic systems developed by the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians.The Phoenician system of writing was later adapted by the Greeks, the Etruscans, and the Romans, and it is the foundation for the alphabet used in the West today.

PHOENICIAN RULE The various Phoenician settlements, such as Carthage and Utica in North Africa (established in the ninth century b.c.e.), functioned as largely independent states and city-states connected by a loose trade confederation and common cultural origins. Religion varied across the regions, and people worshiped a number of gods, including those from the Greek and Egyptian pantheons as well as local deities. Phoenician cities were typically governed by hereditary kingships, although by the sixth century b.c.e., the monarchy of Tyre had been replaced by a republic, governed by “suffetes” or judges. By the

738

Phoenician Empire

fourth century b.c.e., Carthage also was governed by two elected suffetes. The wealth of Phoenicia proved to be highly tempting to its neighbors and led to periodic foreign conquest. In the sixteenth century b.c.e., timberpoor Egypt attacked Phoenicia because of the forest resources of Phoenician Lebanon, and Egypt controlled the region for 200 years afterward. In the fourteenth century b.c.e., however, internal unrest weakened the Egyptian Empire, allowing the Phoenicians to regain their independence. The Phoenician city-states enjoyed a period of successful autonomy from the twelfth to the ninth century b.c.e., during which time Phoenician fleets strengthened their hold on the Mediterranean trade routes. In the ninth century b.c.e., however, Phoenicia was once again threatened by foreign armies. Assyrian kings exacted tribute from Phoenician cities in Lebanon for a century until, under the rule of Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 744–727 b.c.e.), the Assyrian Empire was restructured and much of Phoenicia became Assyrian vassal states.

RELATIONS WITH PERSIA The next period of Phoenician history was narrated by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus in his history of the Greek and Persian wars. By 539 b.c.e., Cyrus the Great of Persia (r. 559–530 b.c.e.) had conquered the remains of the Babylonian Empire, thereby becoming ruler of the Babylonian and former Assyrian provinces as well. The Phoenicians struck a deal with Cyrus’s son and successor, Cambyses I (r. 529–522 b.c.e.): the Phoenician states would remain largely independent as long as they provided the Persians with the skilled fleet and crews needed to wage war successfully against the Greeks. The Phoenicians thus enjoyed a special status in the Persian Empire while Persia dominated the ancient Near East (550–330 b.c.e.). This status was demonstrated when Cambyses planned to take Carthage a few years later, and the Phoenicians refused to sail against what they considered a Phoenician colony. Cambyses, highlighting the voluntary nature of the agreement the Phoenicians had made with Persia, agreed to back down. Phoenician fleets played a crucial role in several Persian military successes against the Greeks, including the victory by Darius I (r. 521–486 b.c.e.) in 494 b.c.e. near the Aegean island of Lade.They were also involved in the crushing Persian defeat by the Greeks at the naval battle of Salamis in 480 b.c.e., in which

many of the Phoenician manned ships fled the battle. The Phoenician retreat proved very damaging to Persian-Phoenician relations. It was not until 465 b.c.e. that the Phoenicians again aided the Persians, this time in protecting the Phoenician colonies on Cyprus from the Athenians. The Phoenicians continued to defend Cyprus successfully for another seventy-five years. In 358 b.c.e., the Phoenicians and the people of Cyprus revolted against the Persians, then ruled by Artaxerxes III (r. 358–338 b.c.e.). But the revolt was put down by the treachery of King Tennes of Sidon (r. ca. 356–349 b.c.e.), who fled the city with most of his warriors and left the inhabitants to face the Persians. Tennes’s betrayal of the Phoenicians led to the destruction of the city of Sidon and the mass suicides of thousands of its citizens, after which the rest of Phoenicia quickly capitulated to the Persians. Persian control of Phoenicia lasted until the rise of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) of Macedonia.When Alexander led his army into Phoenicia, several Phoenician city-states, including Byblos and Aradus, surrendered without a fight.The city of Tyre, however, defended itself against the Greek forces during a hard siege that lasted from 333 to 332 b.c.e. This was the last significant military action by the Phoenicians; after Tyre was conquered, it and the rest of Phoenicia were largely subsumed into Hellenistic Greece. By Roman times, little of traditional Phoenician culture survived, although the Phoenician homeland was incorporated into Roman Syria in 64 b.c.e. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Cyrus the Great; Darius I, the Great; Minoan Kingdoms; Persian Empire.

PHRYGIA KINGDOM (750–600 B.C.E.) Kingdom in Anatolia (Asia Minor) established by tribes from the Balkan region, who migrated to Anatolia as early as the first part of the twelfth century b.c.e. The first true Phrygian kingdom was not established until about 725 b.c.e, when King Midas (r. ca. late 700s–675 b.c.e.) declared himself to be the first king of Phrygia. Under his rule, Phrygia began to expand its boundaries, and by the time of his death in 675 b.c.e., the kingdom encompassed much of central and the southeastern Anatolia. Soon after their arrival in Anatolia, the Phrygian people were influenced by both the existing Hel-

Piast Dynasty lenistic and Hittite cultures of the region.As a result, they began to develop a rich and growing cultural heritage. The capital of the Phrygia kingdom was Gordion, which was strategically located directly on a main trade route through Anatolia. This location proved to be very beneficial both economically and culturally for the growth of the kingdom. The kingdom of Phrygia reached the height of its prosperity between 725 and 675 b.c.e. Early in the seventh century b.c.e., attacks by Cimmerians from north and east of the Black Sea began to threaten the kingdom and left Phrygia weakened and vulnerable. In this weakened state, the kingdom was unprepared to deal with a subsequent invasion from Persia. The Persian invasions of Anatolia in the sixth century b.c.e. left Phrygian settlements, including Gordion, impoverished and unable to maintain themselves. Left almost unnoticed, and lacking in social or political significance, Phrygia remained under Persian rule until 333 b.c.e., when Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) reclaimed the region from the Persians. Alexander granted Phrygia its independence, but in the centuries that followed, the region began to adopt a more Hellenistic political and cultural tradition. As a culture, the Phrygians are best known for their creativity and craftsmanship in metal and wood. They also created unique designs on woven materials, trading many of their arts and handicrafts with the Ionians, who lived in the coastal region of Anatolia and neighboring Aegean Islands. The Phrygians were also a highly literate people. Reading and writing, for instance, were not restricted to kings, but were readily available to the masses, a concept far different from that of many other ancient civilizations. A great majority of ordinary citizens were capable of reading and writing, and they used these skills often in their daily lives. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Hittite Empire; Persian Empire. FURTHER READING

Mazower, Mark. The Balkans. New York: Modern Library, 2000.

PIAST DYNASTY (ca. 850–1370 C.E.) The first ruling dynasty of Poland, which supplied princes and kings for over five hundred years and es-

739

tablished the country as the eastern bastion of Latin Christianity. From their emergence as regional tribal leaders in the early Middle Ages to their eventual coronation as kings in the late 900s, the Piasts were a source of continuity for the troubled and often ungovernable country of Poland.They therefore deserve credit for keeping Poland alive and maintaining its status as a major European state.

THE EARLY STATE In the early Middle Ages, the lands that comprise present-day Poland were thinly populated by a number of Slavic tribes that relied on agriculture as the basis of their economies. The Polanian tribe, who lived around Gniezno in western Poland, gradually expanded their control over neighboring tribes under the leadership of a succession of hereditary dukes. The legendary Piast, the founder of the Piast dynasty, himself is variously said to have been a peasant or the chief steward at the court of the evil ruler Popiel, who eventually was overthrown, imprisoned, and eaten by mice in the dungeon of Kruszwica castle. Either Piast or his son Ziemowit was the first of his line to rule, sometime after 850. The first Piast ruler to enter the contemporary historical record was Prince Mieszko I (r. ca. 963–992). Mieszko converted to Latin Christianity in 966, in order to win papal support against the German dukes to the west. By the time of his death, he had conquered the region of Pomerania on the Baltic Sea and Silesia to the south. His realm may have included Mazovia (the region around Warsaw) as well, thus reaching the borders of the Poland of today. Mieszko’s son, Boleslaw I, the Brave (r. 992– 1025) was the first Piast to be crowned king of Poland. During his long reign, Boleslaw strengthened the country’s civil, economic, and religious administration. The institutional structures he established served to keep Poland intact during the reigns of his weak successors, most of whom did not claim the royal title of king. Boleslaw’s descendant Boleslaw III (r. 1102– 1138) was able to reconquer the lands that Poland had lost since the era of Mieszko I. But his decision to divide the realm among his four sons led to a 150year struggle among the different branches of the family, a struggle that tended to increase the power of the country’s nobles. Not until 1290, with the accession of Przemysl I

740

Piast Dynasty

(r. 1295–1296) did a Premysl ruler once again wear the Crown as king, although it cost him his life a year later, possibly at the hands of rival German princes. It was left to the last two Piast kings,Wladyslaw I (r. 1306–1333) and Casimir III (r. 1333–1370), to restore some of the glory of the Piast name, as well as the domestic and foreign strength of Poland. When Wladislaw I was crowned king in Krakow in 1320, he had already spent some thirty years contending for leadership, yet he effectively controlled only a part of the country. He secured the support of Hungary and Lithuania by marrying two of his children into their ruling families.

Crown to Louis of Hungary (r. 1370–1382).The royal Piast era had finally come to its end, though the line continued for another two centuries among the dukes and princes of Mazovia, an ancient principality in eastern Poland. See also: Casimir III; Jagiello Dynasty; Lithuania, Grand Duchy of; Louis I, the Great. FURTHER READING

Lukowski, Jerzy, and Hubert Zawadzki. A Concise History of Poland. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

HIGH POINT AND DECLINE Casimir III, crowned at Wawel Cathedral in Krakow in 1333, ruled over a diminished territory of probably under a million inhabitants, substantial Polish lands having been lost in the west to Bohemia and the north to the Teutonic Knights. Casimir was able to compensate for these losses by conquests in the southeast, where he extended Polish rule into East Slavic territories. Casimir’s main achievements, those that won him the designation “Casimir the Great,” were domestic. The Polish people consider his reign a golden age of justice and tolerance, in which law was respected and prosperity grew. Casimir established a university in Krakow in 1364 to support his codification of law and judicial procedure, and to ensure a steady supply of counselors and administrators for his government. A coinage reform in 1338 stabilized the Polish economy and promoted international trade. To encourage trade and crafts, Casimir actively sought Jewish merchants and artisans from Germany to settle in the many towns he had rebuilt, to which he granted advantageous legal status. Casimir regained many old royal lands, settling dependent peasants on them. The income he derived, combined with receipts from the royal salt mines, financed the construction of about fifty forts to protect against Mongol incursions in the east, as well as other threats. According to tradition, under Casimir’s rule peasants were protected against noble abuse, and grain stores were maintained for distribution when required. Although Casimir revived Poland, he was unable to save the Piast dynasty. Four marriages failed to produce a male heir, and upon Casimir’s death in 1370, the leading secular and religious magnates passed the

PICTS, KINGDOM OF THE (ca. 80–839 C.E.)

Early kingdom in Scotland, from the fourth through early ninth century c.e., founded by the Picts, a Celtic people considered to be excellent warriors. The Picts, or Picti, were probably a Celtic people who settled in northern and eastern Scotland in an area that became known as Pictland.Together with the Scots, the Picts invaded northern Britain in the first century c.e.; their first recorded battle against the Romans in Britain was that of Mons Graupius in 80. Hadrian’s Wall in northern England, begun by the Romans in 122 to provide protection against the Picts, is a tribute to the fighting ability of the Pictish warriors. Little is known of the tribal customs of the Picts. Except for king lists, no written Pictish records survive. Moreover, few classical references to the Picts are found. Based on those that do exist, historians long believed that the Picts were warriors who fought naked in battle and practiced body painting and polygamy. Current scholarship, however, suggests they wore leather jackets colored with natural dyes; from illustrations on Pictish stones we know they valued horses and played a triangular Celtic harp.

EARLY MEDIEVAL PERIOD By the fifth century, Rome had withdrawn its troops from the northern frontier in Britain to fight the Goths and the Visigoths in continental Europe. With Roman authority weakened, Pictish raids on northern Britain intensified. Hadrian’s Wall suffered serious damage in 367 and again following the withdrawal of frontier troops by Roman general Magnus Maximus in

Piedmont Kingdom 383. By the early fifth century, the Britons were left to fight alone. Much of what is known about the Pictish kings derives from their king-lists. The Picts apparently followed a complex matrilineal rule of succession; the king was succeeded by either his brother or by his sister’s son, rather than his first-born son. Bridei (r. ca. 550–586) inherited the throne from his father, Maelchon, around 550. His defeat of the Scots of Argyll (in present-day Scotland), which is listed in the Irish Annals, makes him the first king mentioned in any independent historical source and, therefore, the first historical king of the Picts. In the Life of Columba by the early Scottish Christian abbot, Adomnan, Bridei is described as a powerful king who gave Saint Columba (the missionary who converted the Picts to Christianity) permission to start a mission in Pictland and to establish a monastery on the Scottish island of Iona. Bridei died in 586.With his death, the base of Pictish power seems to have moved from the northern to the southern part of Pictland. The era after Bridei’s death saw increasing hostilities between the Scots and Picts.

THE PICTS AND NORTHUMBRIA In the early seventh century, the Northumbrians of northern England conquered part of the Pictish and the Scottish kingdoms. For thirty years, the Picts paid tribute and perhaps did military service to the kings of Northumbria. Northumbrian hegemony ended under Bridei III (r. ca. 672–693), who successfully fought the Northumbrians in 684, trapping and massacring them at the battle of Nechtan’s Mere, or Dunnichen. As a result, the Picts regained their independence. The victory was apparently significant, for it was recorded in all the histories of the period. Moreover, the kingdom of Northumbria never regained the conquered territories. The Irish had introduced Christianity to the Picts in the late sixth or early seventh century. Hence, the Picts had followed the Celtic Rite, which included a number of differences from that of the Christian church in Rome. Among the differences was a different method of calculating the dates for celebrating Easter. For their part, the Northumbrians had introduced the Roman rite to the Picts, and Nechton (r. ca. 706–724), who inherited the throne upon the death of his father, Bridei IV (r. ca. 696–706), decided to follow Roman traditions. By asking the Northumbrian

741

church for assistance in the matter, Nechton seems to have ended border conflicts with Northumbria. Following Nechton’s death, the early eighth century saw a series of wars for succession. Oengus (r. ca. 729–761), who won the throne in 729, proved to be the Picts’ most skillful military leader. He conquered Scotland, then called Dalraida, and subsequently led an unsuccessful campaign against Strathclyde, then part of western Britain. By 756, his fortunes had declined, however, and his army was nearly wiped out in a battle against Strathclyde.

DECLINE OF THE PICTS A number of factors seem to have contributed to the decline and fall of the Pictish kingdom. One of these factors was the Vikings. In 794, the Vikings began raiding the British Isles. For the next few decades, the Picts had to continually defend themselves against the Vikings, leaving them unable to concentrate on other dangers. While the Picts focused on the threat posed by the Vikings, the Scots moved eastward for protection from Viking invasions of the Western Isles and west coast of Scotland. Some scholars speculate that the Picts, pressed on both sides, were subjugated by the Scots. Others believe that the Picts united with the Scots to fight the Vikings. Both the Pictish and the Scots kings died in 839. Their successor, Kenneth MacAlpin (r. 840–858), apparently inherited both the Scottish and the Pictish thrones, thus uniting the two peoples and their kingdoms. See also: Northumbria, Kingdom of; Scottish Kingdoms; Strathclyde Kingdom.

PIEDMONT KINGDOM (1720–1861 C.E.) Kingdom in Italy formed in 1720 by the union of the duchy of Savoy and the island of Sardinia. The dukes of Savoy acquired Sardinia from Austria by the Treaty of London (1720). The kingdom lasted until it was incorporated into a unified Italy in 1861. In 1720, the territory of the dukes of Savoy included Savoy, Piedmont, and Nice. The duke at that time, Victor Amadeus II (r. 1675–1730), became king of the new Piedmont kingdom.Victor Amadeus was an autocratic ruler but in the style of an enlightened despot. He instituted reforms in law, administration, finances, and education, but he also severely

742

Piedmont Kingdom

limited religious freedom. He was known as the “Piedmontese fox” because of his astute diplomatic maneuvers. Following an increasing mental decline, Victor Amnadeus II abdicated the throne in favor of his son, Charles Emmanuel III (r. 1730–1773) in 1730.The new ruler expanded the kingdom through the acquisition of Novara,Tortona, and Vigevaresco. Napoleon took over Piedmont-Sardinia in 1798 and sent his stepson, Eugene de Beauharnais, to act as viceroy. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, after Napoleon’s final defeat, Piedmont-Sardinia regained its lost territories of Piedmont, Nice, and Savoy, and acquired the city of Genoa as well. King Victor Emmanuel I (r. 1802–1821) of Piedmont-Sardinia was known for his repressive rule. After a popular uprising against him in 1821, he abdicated in favor of his brother, Charles-Felix (r. 1821– 1831). But the ruling family, the house of Savoy, continued the same autocratic tradition. King Charles-Albert (r. 1831–1849) encouraged free trade in the kingdom by eliminating export duties and lowering tariffs, which resulted in economic growth for Piedmont-Sardinia. He hoped to do this without giving up absolute power, but circumstances led to enormous changes in the kingdom. The early nineteenth century saw the rise of the movement known as the Risorgimento (Resurgence), which sought modernization of government and the unification of Italy into a single nation. At that time, Italy consisted of the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, the Papal States, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and a number of smaller states, as well as the territory occupied by Austria. When Pope Pius IX took office in 1846, he initially gave encouragement to the liberal ideas of the Risorgimento. As a result, the rulers of several Italian states instituted liberal reforms, and Charles-Albert granted a Statuto, or constitution, to the people of his kingdom in January 1848. But Pius IX soon retracted his liberal views.An uprising in the Papal States in 1848 gave rise to agitation throughout Italy.The nationalist movement was strongest in Piedmont-Sardinia, where widespread calls were made for a war to liberate northern Italy from Austrian control. A reluctant Charles-Albert went to war against Austria in 1848 but lost. In the face of this humiliating defeat, he abdicated the throne in favor of his son,Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1849–1878). When he took the throne in 1849, Victor Emmanuel (known as “The Gentleman King”) was a

firm believer in absolute royal authority and was opposed to a constitutional monarchy. Nevertheless, he kept in place the Statuto his father had instituted. It was due to his prime minister, Camillo Cavour, that liberalization of the Statuto and other economic and political reforms were instituted in the kingdom. Under Victor Emmanuel II, Piedmont-Sardinia became the most progressive of the Italian states and the only one with a constitution. It became a haven for the liberals and nationalists fleeing reprisals in other parts of Italy. On January 10, 1859,Victor Emmanuel II told his parliament that he could no longer ignore the pain of his fellow Italians under Austrian control. PiedmontSardinia thus joined with France in a war against Austria, and as a result, the kingdom was awarded the territory of Lombardy. Shortly afterward, the people of Parma, Modena, Romagna, and Tuscany voted to join the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. In 1860, Cavour sent troops to Sicily to aid the insurgents led by nationalist leader Giuseppe Garibaldi. After Garibaldi’s victory over King Francis II (r. 1859– 1860) of the Two Sicilies, that kingdom also joined Piedmont-Sardinia. Shortly afterward, most of the Papal States also voted to join the kingdom of Victor Emmanuel II. At that point, all of Italy was united except for Venetia (which remained under Austrian control until 1866) and the core of the Papal States. Finally, on March 7, 1861, an all-Italian parliament voted Victor Emmanuel II the first king of a united Italy and Cavour the first prime minister.With this action, the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia ceased to exist as an independent state.Victor Emmanuel II continued to rule as king of Italy until his death in 1878. See also:Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Papal States; Savoy Dynasty; Sicily, Kingdom of;Victor Emmanuel II. FURTHER READING

Di Scala, Spencer M. Italy: From Revolution to Republic: 1700 to the Present. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2004.

PLANTAGENET, HOUSE OF (1154–1399 C.E.)

Name given to a royal house of England descended from Geoffrey of Anjou (r. 1113–1151), a French

P l a n t a g e n e t, H o u s e o f nobleman otherwise known as Geoffrey Plantagenet (whose name referred to a habit of wearing a sprig on his helmet). Ruling during a tumultuous time in English history, the Plantagenets witnessed the signing of the Magna Carta, the emergence of Parliament, the start of the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453), and numerous other social and political changes that pushed England towards the end of feudalism.

743

frey’s eldest son, Henry, who promptly invaded England in 1149. The struggle between Henry and Stephen came to an end when Stephen’s heir died in 1153, thus making Henry the only legitimate successor to the throne of England. Henry took the Crown upon Stephen’s death the following year, reigning as Henry II (r. 1154–1189), the first ruler of the Plantagenet dynasty.

STRUGGLES FOR THE CROWN ORIGINS In 1128, Geoffrey, the count of Anjou (a small but powerful province in western France), married Matilda, daughter and heir to King Henry I of England (r. 1100–1135).When Henry died without an heir in 1135, Matilda tried to claim the English throne but was unable to prevent her cousin Stephen from taking it. Geoffrey, meanwhile, was locked in a struggle with British forces for control of the French region of Normandy. Matilda, with few allies and an absent husband, left England in 1148, turning over the cause of contesting the throne to her and Geof-

Henry’s reign is mostly overshadowed by the events culminating in the murder of Thomas à Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. Henry, who had set about consolidating and increasing the power of the throne and the royal legal system, endeavored to limit the authority of the Church in England through a decree known as the Constitutions of Clarendon, which Becket fiercely opposed. Several years of quarreling ended in 1170, when Becket excommunicated Henry from the Church. In response, Henry caused Becket’s murder by wishing aloud to be rid of the archbishop. Four of Henry’s knights took this to

Fontrevault Abbey in Anjou, France, was the original home of the Plantagenet (Angevin) line of kings. It contains the tombs of the founder of that English dynasty, King Henry II, as well as his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and his son, King Richard I.

744

P l a n t a g e n e t, H o u s e o f

be an order and murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. Public consternation over the murder plagued Henry throughout his reign. The final years of Henry’s reign were marked by another English civil war, this time between the king and his sons, who felt that their authority was too limited. Henry’s death in 1189 brought an end to the conflict, and his son Richard took the Crown as Richard I (r. 1189–1199). Also known as Lionheart, Richard is a prominent figure in English history, despite the fact that he spent less than a year of his reign in England. A talented warrior, Richard left England in 1190 to take part in the Third Crusade to recapture the Holy Lands from the Muslims. In Richard’s absence, his younger brother John attempted to seize the throne.Although Richard spent much of his reign in battle or in the hands of Muslim captors, his subjects were loyal enough to put down John’s rebellion. John eventually gained the throne anyway, after Richard was killed in 1199 battling Philip II of France (r. 1180–1223), who had conspired with John for Richard’s overthrow. John’s reign (r. 1199–1216) was dominated by conflict. He had taken the throne over the seemingly more legitimate claims of his nephew Arthur, who was a child at the time of his father’s death.Arthur’s father, Geoffrey, was Johns’ older brother, a fact that led many French nobles to support Arthur as the real successor to Richard. Philip of France and others immediately attacked English territories on the Continent,

thus initiating a war that lasted the entirety of John’s reign. Ultimately, John lost most of his lands in France and faced a French invasion near the end of his life. John’s historical significance rests largely in his signing of the Magna Carta, the first major step toward constitutional government in England. In 1215, a group of English nobles and barons, frustrated with John’s attempts to rule autocratically, revolted and forced the king to sign the charter. Among other things, the Magna Carta stipulated that English subjects had rights that could not be violated by the king, thereby setting a basis for developing modern notions of civil rights.

STRIFE AT HOME At John’s death in 1216, the Crown went to his young son Henry, who reigned as King Henry III (r. 1216–1272). Henry’s long reign was marked by a continuation of the conflict between the Crown and the barons, who wanted power to be more equally distributed and less Church influence in English governance. Henry’s brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort, led the opposition, which in 1258 forced the king to observe the Provisions of Oxford, a document that created a council of nobles to serve as the king’s advisers. When Henry overturned this in 1261, war began anew, and Montfort was able to take over most of England. In 1265, Montfort called together, for the first time, a meeting of Parliament, which included

ROYAL RELATIVES

ISABELLA (1296–1358 C.E.) Treated poorly by her husband Edward II, Isabella helped stage the invasion that removed Edward and put their son on the throne as Edward III. Always loyal to her family in France, Isabella had no intentions of returning to Edward when he sent her to meet with her brother, Charles IV, in 1325. She had grown to hate Edward’s close companions, a family known as the Despensers, and when she was in France Isabella developed a close relationship with Roger Mortimer, an exiled baron who also despised Edward’s influential advisers.Together Isabelle and Mortimer invaded in 1326 to popular approval and achieved the abdication and eventual murder of Edward in 1327.The pair haphazardly ran the country until Edward III, who had come of age, forced them out in 1330. Edward summarily had Mortimer executed and stripped his mother of her power, though he allowed her to live in peace.

P o l y g a m y, R o y a l wealthy nobles as well as local representatives. This new form of administration, which eventually became the foundation of British government, was unable to maintain solidarity, however, and the royal armies, led by Henry’s son Edward, regained control of England. Montfort was killed in battle, and Edward came to the throne upon his father’s death in 1272. Like many of his predecessors, Edward I (r. 1272–1307), also known as Longshanks, reigned during a time of widespread and costly warfare. Most notably, Edward fought wars for control of the British Isles in both Wales and Scotland. Wales fell easily to the English in 1282, but Scotland proved to be an intractable foe.The Scottish opposition, led by William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, unexpectedly defeated the English at Stirling Castle in 1297 and never succumbed to Edward’s forces, to the great frustration of the king. Edward, like his father and grandfather before him, continually overstepped the bounds of his power and thus came into frequent conflict with the nobility. Edward also incurred the ire of the Church, whose authority he severely limited with his legal reforms. Upon his death in 1307, which occurred on a campaign against Scotland, Edward passed this domestic conflict on to his son, Edward II (r. 1307–1327). Edward II struggled to maintain authority throughout his reign, beginning in 1311 when a council of nobles placed limits on his power with the Ordinances of 1311. A disastrous attempt to take Scotland in 1314 resulted in a political crisis, and a group of nobles led by Thomas of Lancaster, a member of the Plantagenet line, essentially controlled England for seven years. A series of minor domestic skirmishes throughout the early 1320s gave way in 1326 to an attack on Edward from France, which was led by Edward’s wife Isabella, a French princess. The invading forces routed Edward, who had no supporters. The king was forced to abdicate in 1327 in favor of his son, who reigned as Edward III (r. 1327–1377).

745

Continent. The Hundred Years’ War, which did not end until the 1450s, left the French countryside devastated and the English army seriously weakened, and resulted in very little gain for either country. An epidemic of the bubonic plague in both England and France in the mid-fourteenth century severely limited their abilities to wage war, and Edward became weary of fighting, especially since he was forced to share authority with a revitalized Parliament that included a powerful House of Commons. Parliament was able to capitalize on Edward’s financial demands for the war to take charge of government spending. This proved to be a key development in the gradual dissolution of royal authority in England. Edward’s death in 1377 brought his grandson to the throne as Richard II. Under Richard II (r. 1377–1399), internal disagreements between the nobles and the Crown continued. Moreover, Richard’s erratic behavior, likely caused by growing insanity, reached a peak when he banished his cousin Henry Bolingbroke to France in 1398 and took Henry’s property, the duchy of Lancaster. The English people, frustrated by Richard’s actions, welcomed Henry back when he invaded in 1399, and widespread support for Henry forced Richard to abdicate the throne. Richard’s abdication marks the end of Plantagenet rule and the rise of the House of Lancaster. Although both the Lancastrians and their rivals in the House of York were actually related to the Plantagenets, historians see Henry’s accession as King Henry IV (r. 1399–1413) as the beginning of a new line of rulers. See also: Edward I; Edward II; Edward III; Henry II; John I; Lancaster, House of; Richard I, Lionheart; Richard II; Stephen. FURTHER READING

Costain, Thomas. A History of the Plantagenets. 4 vols. Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer Books, 1994.

TROUBLES WITH FRANCE AND DECLINE

POLYGAMY, ROYAL

The reign of Edward III saw more conflict, in particular the Hundred Years’War, which began in 1337. A variety of quarrels, both economic and political, had led to heightened tensions with France, which boiled over into war when Edward claimed rights to the French Crown by virtue of the royal holdings on the

The practice of a man’s having more than one wife. The reverse—the practice of a woman having more than one husband, known as polyandry—has been rare in human societies and has not played a role in monarchies. Throughout the ages, kings have often chosen to

746

P o l y g a m y, R o y a l

demonstrate their power by surrounding themselves with wives and concubines. Another motivation for polygamy is the crucial importance for most monarchs of having a son to ensure the succession. Certain religions, notably Christianity, Hinduism, and Shinto, have constrained the behavior of kings by heavily favoring monogamy. But the limitation to one official queen has not always prevented kings from displaying power by taking mistresses.When a queen fails to produce a male son, some kings, such as King Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547), have resorted to divorce to enable them to take a new queen.

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE Islam is alone among the monotheistic religions in allowing polygamy, though it puts strict limits on the practice: A good Muslim may have up to four wives, but only if he has the material and emotional resources to support them all and to treat them all equally. Islamic rulers have tended to stretch the rules by having a harem of concubines in addition to the four wives the Koran allows. This was true among the Mamluk rulers of Egypt (1250–1517) and among the sultans of the Ottoman Empire (late 1200s– 1918).The Ottoman harem was presided over by the Valide Sultan—the mother of the sultan—who wielded considerable power.The harem was guarded

by eunuchs and was a private place, forbidden to strangers. The women for the harem were selected from among prisoners of war and from slave markets, and they underwent a long period of training in the principles of Islam as well as learning skills such as embroidery, music, dancing, or story-telling. A woman from the harem whom the sultan chose to take to his bed was awarded the title of haseki. If a haseki became pregnant, she was granted special privileges and a private apartment; the first haseki to give birth to a son became a kadin, the most privileged of all. The most famous of the powerful women of the Ottoman Empire is Kösem (1589–1631), wife of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603–1617). She had come into the harem as a slave, but because of her intelligence and wit quickly became Ahmed’s favorite and bore him four sons.After Ahmed’s early death, she and her sons had to retire from the palace for a time, but they returned in 1623 when her eldest son became Sultan Murat IV (1623–1640) and Kösem was installed as Valide Sultan. She exercised power not just in the harem but over government policies during the reigns of Murat IV and his successor, Ibrahim (1640–1648), another of Kösem’s sons. Ibrahim was succeeded by his son Mehmed IV (1648–1687), whose mother, Türkhan, became the new Valide Sultan. But Kösem, determined not to give up her

ROYAL RELATIVES

KÖSEM The most famous of the powerful women of the Ottoman Empire is Kösem (1589–1631), wife of Ahmed I (r. 1603–1617). She had come into the harem as a slave, but because of her intelligence and wit quickly became Ahmed’s favorite, and bore him four sons. After Ahmed’s early death she and her sons had to retire from the palace for a time, but they returned in 1623 when her eldest son became Murat IV (1623–1640) and Kösem herself was installed as Valide Sultan. She exercised power not just in the harem but over government policies during the reigns of Murat IV and his successor Ibrahim (1640–1648), another of Kösem’s sons. Ibrahim was succeeded by his son Mehmed IV (1648–1687), whose mother,Türkhan, became the new Valide Sultan. Kösem, determined not to give up her power, plotted to kill both Mehmed and Türkhan, but the plan backfired and she was strangled on Türkhan’s orders.

P o l y g a m y, R o y a l power, plotted to kill both Mehmed and Türkhan. The plan failed, and Kösem was strangled on the orders of Turkhan, the new Valide Sultan.

ANCIENT CHINA In China, emperors for more than twenty-five hundred years maintained an elaborate system of primary wives, secondary wives, and concubines of several ranks. There are records showing that this system was in place in the spring and autumn period (770–453 b.c.e.). The rules about whether a ruler could have more than one primary wife varied over the centuries, but secondary wives and concubines were never limited. Sometimes a favorite concubine might be promoted to primary wife, but the Chinese philosopher Mencius (c. 310–215 b.c.e.) records that this practice was frowned upon. Concubines were often of humble origin, and it was felt that their sons should not be allowed to inherit the throne because people would not be able to respect a ruler whose mother was of low birth. Often when a ruler took a primary wife, usually from an aristocratic family he wished to make an alliance with, her younger sisters came with her as secondary wives. Promotion from the ranks of the secondary wives would then be quite natural if a primary wife died or failed to produce an heir, and a secondary wife’s children would have the same relations on their mother’s side as the primary wife’s children would have.The primary wife’s sons would be first in the line of succession, and those of the secondary wives next.

THE CH’ING DYNASTY The Ch’ing dynasty (1644–1911) was a foreign power, from Manchuria, that took the Chinese imperial throne. Although the Ch’ing rulers courted the favor of their Chinese subjects by adopting many Chinese practices, they also introduced some changes. A rule that governed the choice of both wives and concubines for the members of the ruling family was that they had to belong to the families of the emperor’s banner companies—the military organizations that, as an invading power, the Ch’ing employed to maintain their grip on power. Han Chinese (members of the dominant ethnic group in China) could become bannermen and thus gain certain privileges. One of the duties of bannermen was to present their daughters in Beijing at the

747

triennial imperial “draft.” Every bannerman’s daughter had to attend one of these drafts after she reached the age of thirteen, before she could be betrothed. The emperor and empress were given dossiers on the girls’ family backgrounds and personally inspected the girls to select wives and concubines for members of the royal family. The Empress Dowager Tz’u Hsi entered the royal household in this way in 1852, as a sixth-rank concubine. (The concubine’s rank was determined by her family’s rank.) An innovation of the Ch’ing dynasty was that the succession was no longer predetermined by the rank of the mothers of the emperor’s sons. The emperor could choose any of his sons to succeed him, and his choice would be revealed by the opening of a sealed container after his death. He might choose the son of a concubine, and if he did, the new emperor was allowed to raise his own mother to rank of empress dowager, even if the deceased emperor’s primary wife was still alive with that title. This is what happened with the Dowager Empress Tz’u Hsi (Cixi), who was able to manipulate her surroundings to dominate the government in the last years of the Ch’ing dynasty.

THE INCAN EMPIRE In the Incan Empire of the Andes, the Inca—the supreme ruler—was the focus of the state religion and was regarded as holy. He was also seen as the potential spouse of every woman in his domains. Any woman whom he chose was his, and by virtue of having been chosen, those women participated in his holiness. It was a tremendous honor and cause for a family to celebrate if a daughter was chosen by the Inca. In practice, the Incas do not seem to have maintained large personal harems. Instead, they maintained a kind of bank of virgins. Every time the territorially aggressive empire annexed a new village, a representative of the Inca would select from the village’s young girls an aclla—an official wife for the Inca. She had to be very young because her virginity was considered important. The acllas were taken back to Cuzco, the Incan capital, where they lived luxuriously in a special temple-palace and were treated with great respect. They might remain there, as vigilantly guarded virgins, performing the function of priestesses of the sun; they might be chosen to become actual wives of the Inca; or they might be given by the Inca to se-

748

P o l y g a m y, R o y a l

lected vassals or subordinates as secondary wives. Normally, only the Inca ruler was permitted to have more than one wife; for any other man to be granted another wife was a highly prized reward.

MODERN SWAZILAND In many African cultures, it has been traditional for a man to have as many wives as he can support. Kings in particular have surrounded themselves with many wives. Only one hereditary monarch remains in subSaharan Africa today—Swaziland. King Mswati of Swaziland, who was born in 1968, inherited the Crown in 1986 at age sixteen and took over from his mother’s regency at age eighteen. Though educated in England, the king has favored traditional ways, including polygamy. Mswati has ten wives, as well as a current fiancée selected at the annual Reed Dance that took place in September 2003. That year’s Reed Dance ceremony, which involved young women dancing for the king for three hours wearing the traditional dance costume, attracted more participants than in any previous year. A seventeenyear-old interviewed by a reporter said, “I am tired of being poor. I want to be a queen.” Yet this points out a current problem with the practice of polygamy there. Mswati has been criticized for exploiting the poverty of the young women in his kingdom and for setting a bad example of how to approach sexuality in a country that is ravaged by AIDS. See also: Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty; Concubines, Royal; Eunuchs, Royal; Henry VIII; Inca Empire; Mamluk Dynasty; Ottoman Empire; Swazi Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines, and Dowagers:The King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages. Washington, DC: University of Leicester Press, 1998.

don Missionary Society. Pomare inherited the throne in 1827, while still only a teenager. Because of her youth and inexperience, she allowed herself to be guided by her Protestant allies. In 1836, when French Roman Catholic missionaries arrived on the island for the first time, the Protestants prevailed on the queen to expel them, and she promptly sent them back to France. Six years later, in 1842, France responded by dispatching a warship to demand that the queen guarantee that future French visitors to Tahiti be recognized as “most favored foreigners.” Queen Pomare, facing French guns, acceded gracefully to their request and then promptly wrote to Queen Victoria of England (r. 1837–1901) to request British protection against the French. Queen Victoria, however, was uninterested in a conflict with France over a small Pacific island nation half a world away and refused to give Pomare assistance.The French, meanwhile, interested in securing a seaport in the South Pacific, tricked a local chieftain into signing a request that Tahiti be made a French protectorate. When French troops, responding to this “request,” surrounded the queen’s palace at Papeete, the Tahitian capital, the Tahitians organized an armed defense, but Queen Pomare was finally forced to retreat to the island of Raiatea. Queen Pomare continued to resist the French for another five years, but after the last Tahitian stronghold fell in 1846, she agreed to return to Papeete. Queen Pomare continued to rule as a figurehead monarch of Tahiti until her death in 1877, when the throne passed to her son,Teriitaria Ariiaue Pomare V (r. 1877–1880).When he abdicated three years later, in exchange for a generous French pension, Tahiti lost all independence and became a French colony. See also: South Sea Island Kingdoms.

POMARE IV (1813–1877 C.E.)

POSTCOLONIAL STATES

Last ruling queen of Tahiti (r. 1827–1877), who was unable to stave off France’s intent to make her island nation a French protectorate. Queen Aimatta Pomare IV was the illegitimate daughter of Pomare III (r. 1824–1827) and a member of the Pomare family, which had gained control of Tahiti in 1803 with the help of the Protestant Lon-

Independent states that exist as former colonies of other independent states. In its broadest definition, a postcolonial state can be any state formerly occupied by another; in its common use, however, the term postcolonial refers specifically to those states that received their independence following the European colonial expansion of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and

Pow e r , F or m s o f Roya l twentieth centuries. By and large, these nations are located in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and the Middle East.

INDEPENDENCE AND GOVERNANCE Although a handful of colonies gained independence before World War II, it was not until after the war that the full reach of colonialism was dismantled and the modern system of postcolonial states came into being. Although it is true that the colonial powers— most notably Great Britain, but also France, Germany, and Belgium—came to see their colonies as no longer economically profitable, the major reason for widespread independence in the postwar era was native nationalism. Nearly every postcolonial state witnessed a widespread nationalist movement for independence, usually with charismatic and popular figures leading the way, such as India and Pakistan’s Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru and Sierra Leone’s Milton Margai. In several colonies, including Uganda, Nepal, and Bhutan, the old monarchy that had been displaced by the coming of colonialism became a nationalist symbol. The overwhelming majority of postcolonial states, however, attempted to change from colonies to democracies. In the few postcolonial states where monarchy survives, it is largely symbolic and lacks any real political power, as in the case of Uganda’s King Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II (r. 1993– ). Many postcolonial states, especially those in Africa, have suffered extremely unstable political systems since gaining independence. Dictatorships and civil wars have been quite common in postcolonial states, with such nations as Algeria, Angola, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Zaire, and Zambia all enduring political repression and severe bloodshed. Some postcolonial states that have achieved political stability, as in the case of India, have nevertheless undergone several humanitarian tragedies, such as massive refugee movements and widespread famines.

CHARACTERISTICS Whether colonialism had any positive effects for postcolonial states is debatable. Great technological, administrative, and educational advances were grafted onto subject countries by their colonizers, but this process frequently had disastrous consequences, such as the eradication of local traditions and terrible environmental and social upheaval.

749

Many colonized people saw their established forms of government—frequently monarchy—either done away with entirely or, as in the case of India, put to work for their colonizers. Because modern colonial powers often attempted to justify their expansion on the basis of supposed cultural supremacy, racial and religious strife has gripped many postcolonial states. Native languages have also undergone significant change thanks to the imposition of colonial speech, especially English, French, and Spanish. Postcolonial states have experienced a great deal of population movement, both within the country and to other countries. For example, large numbers of former colonial subjects and their descendants have migrated to European and North American cities in search of greater educational and economic opportunities. London, in particular, has become a global destination for many migrants from postcolonial states of the former British Empire, with nearly one-third of London residents having been born outside of Great Britain. Similarly, the significant presence of people of European descent throughout Africa and southern Asia is attributable to modern colonialism. The economic consequences of colonialism for subject states have been almost universally negative. Many of the poorest nations in the world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, are former colonies whose native economies were devastated by colonialism. The few former colonies that have achieved widespread economic success are those that had a high number of European settlers and a large degree of independence under colonial rule, such as Canada and Australia. As a consequence of these economic disparities, many former colonies have attempted to consolidate their power into larger political entities, such as the African Union of 2002. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; Empire; Imperial Rule; Nationalism. FURTHER READING

Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

POWER, FORMS OF ROYAL A variety of different forms that power can take in a monarchy, ranging from very limited power to titu-

750

Pow e r , F or m s o f Roya l

lar monarchies to absolutism or despotism, in which all political power is consolidated in one person. Historians describe royal power in two broad categories: absolute monarchy and limited monarchy.

ABSOLUTE MONARCHY Absolute monarchies are those in which ultimate political power is invested in the royal house and in the ruler of the kingdom. King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715) famously described absolute monarchy by saying, l’état c’est moi (“I am the state”). Royal power and state power are one and the same in an absolute monarchy. Royal authority cannot be overruled, and the subjects of an absolute monarch are bound by law and tradition to obey the commands of their sovereign. Throughout history and around the world, absolute monarchies were the most prevalent form of royal power, though prefeudal forms of absolutism differed significantly from the forms of absolute rule that developed after the feudal period.

Prefeudal Absolute Monarchy In many prefeudal monarchies, royal power was so great that monarchs were frequently considered to be divine. This was especially true in ancient Egypt, where the pharaohs were seen as manifestations of the god Horus. Such pharaohs as Ramses II (r. 1279–1212 b.c.e.) were considered virtually invincible, and they ruled Egypt with a strong hand. Several other powerful monarchs of the prefeudal period were considered divine, including Alexander III, the Great of Macedon (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) and the possibly legendary first emperor of Japan, Jimmu (r. ca. 40–10 b.c.e.). Divinity was not a requirement for prefeudal absolute monarchs, however. Several of the most powerful absolute monarchs of the ancient world, including the Roman emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) and Asoka of India (r. 268–232 b.c.e.), the ruler of the Maurya Empire, were openly hostile to the idea of being considered divine. Absolute monarchies in the prefeudal period, however, tended to be similar in that monarchs could rule directly, with few intermediary channels of power that might limit royal authority. Prefeudal societies were by and large resistant to localized diffusions of power, and therefore the actions of monarchs had immediate effects throughout their domains.

Postfeudal Absolute Monarchies The unilateral distribution of power from the royal house was the most prominent difference between pre- and postfeudal monarchies. The rise of feudalism put serious limits on royal authority, especially in Europe. Although monarchs were still theoretically the highest governing authority, local nobles and smaller political organizations and bureaucracies intervened between the royal house and the people. This phenomenon happened differently in Asia. In China, for instance, a large bureaucracy of civil servants had been established under the T’ang dynasty (618–907), which limited the amount of authority the monarch could have, though the central government grew quite strong. In Japan, power was also consolidated in a central bureaucracy, rather than in one individual, especially under the very strict form of feudalism that was practiced during the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1867). In European feudalism, no monarch or centralized agency was able to hold absolute power. In the postfeudal era, however, several European monarchs attempted to rule absolutely, including King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715), Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547), and Frederick II of Prussia (r. 1740–1786). Some European monarchs of this period, most notably Louis XIV, justified their rule according to the principle of divine right. By and large, however, the most powerful monarchs of the postfeudal period were dependent on the newly emerging middle class, many of whom worked in government, for their ruling authority. Thus, the postfeudal era in both Europe and Asia saw a centralization of power toward governmental bureaucracies rather than toward individual monarchs.

LIMITED MONARCHY Limited monarchy does not simply mean weak monarchy (as in European feudalism). Instead, it refers to monarchies that have had their authority legally restricted. As such, limited monarchy is a relatively recent phenomenon. England was perhaps the first state to successfully place legal limitations on the power of the monarchy, which it did first with the signing of the Magna Carta by King John (r. 1199–1216) in 1215, and again with the Bill of Rights in 1689.These documents asserted that the English people had rights that could not be violated by the monarchy. The Bill of Rights carried

Premysl Dynasty this idea even further and made the monarchy subject to the authority of Parliament. Limited monarchy—which is sometimes known as constitutional monarchy—became common in Europe in the nineteenth century, following the nationalist movements there. In China and Russia, the monarchy was eliminated entirely during revolutions in the early twentieth century. In Japan, the real power of the emperor had been limited for some time, but this fact was made legal after Japan’s defeat in World War II. Few monarchies remain in existence today, and the majority of these are limited monarchies, such as in Great Britain, Japan, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Thailand. A very small number of absolute monarchies still exist, including the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Morocco. See also: Councils and Counselors, Royal; Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; Feudalism and Kingship; Nationalism; Rights, Civil;Tyranny, Royal. FURTHER READING

Spellman, W. M. Monarchies, 1000–2000. London: Reaktion Books, 2001.

POWYS KINGDOM (ca. 500s–1200s C.E.) Medieval kingdom in east-central Wales that reached its peak of power in the 1100s. Powys began to play a dominant role in Wales at that time when its new king, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (r. 1039–1063) claimed the Crown of the kingdom of Gwynedd to the north after Gwynedd’s king was murdered by his own men in 1039. After taking control of Gwynedd, Gruffydd spent fifteen years fighting to conquer the kingdoms of southern Wales. He gained enough power to offer military aid to an earl of Mercia in England who had been accused of treason.This led to war with Harold Godwinson of Wessex, who later became king of England (r. 1066) but was defeated by William the Conqueror in 1066. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn was killed by his own men in 1063. He was succeeded in Powys by Rhiwallon (d. 1070), who ruled with the approval of Edward the Confessor of England. Rhiwallon was followed by his brother Bleddyn (d. 1075). The kingdom of Powys maintained a degree of independence into the twelfth century, although its

751

rulers, by this time styled “prince” rather than “king,” had a nominal Norman overlord and various members of the Powys royal family were at times hostages of King Henry I (r. 1100–1135) of England. When Owain, son of Prince Cadwgan of Powys, carried off the wife of a Norman noble in 1109, Henry I retaliated by sending Cadwgan’s nephews to take over the kingdom. In 1110 Henry replaced them with Cadwgan’s brother Iorweth, who had been co-ruler of Powys with Cadwgan and three other brothers following their father’s death in 1075. Iorweth had been Henry’s prisoner since 1103. Iorweth was killed by his nephew Madog in 1111. Henry granted Powys to Cadwgan again, but Madog killed Cadwgan as well. Owain (d. 1115) followed his father as prince of Powys and acknowledged Henry I as his overlord. In 1113 Madog was finally killed by Owain and Maredudd, their only surviving uncle. Powys was seriously weakened by these internal struggles. Following the rule of Prince Madog ap Maredudd (r. 1132–1160), Powys was divided into a series of small lordships. Like the other Welsh kingdoms, Powys lost any claim to independence after the death in 1282 of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (r. 1246– 1282), the prince of Gwynedd who united all Wales but was defeated by Edward I of England (r. 1272– 1307). See also:Gwynedd Kingdom; Llwelyn ap Gruffydd; Welsh Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Holmes, George, ed. Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Poole,A.L. Domesday Book to Magna Carta:1087–1216. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Stenton, Sir Frank. Anglo-Saxon England. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Walker, David. Medieval Wales. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

PREMYSL DYNASTY (870–1306 C.E.) A strong family of rulers native to the territory of the present-day Czech Republic, who preserved their sovereignty despite their vassal-like ties to the Holy Roman Empire; also called the Premyslid dynasty. The head of the Premyslid house was usually

752

Premysl Dynasty

designated a prince or duke until 1198, when Bohemia was declared a kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire. The first ruler of this kingdom was Ottocar I (r. 1197–1230). The legendary origins of the Premysl dynasty date from the eighth century c.e. with the semilegendary founder Premysl, a peasant who married the Bohemian princess Libussa (Libue). The first historical Premysl ruler was Prince Borivoj I of Bohemia, (r. 870–895), who was converted to Christianity by Saint Methodius. Borivoj’s grandson, Prince Wenceslaus (Vaclav) (r. 921–929), following in his family’s religious tradition, was noted for his zeal in spreading Christianity among his people. This prompted his pagan brother, Boleslav I (r. 929–972), to murder him around 929 and assume the throne. Vaclav, however, was viewed by Christians as a martyr and elevated to the status of patron saint of Bohemia and Czechoslovakia under the name of Saint Wenceslas. Boleslav I extended the Bohemian realm to include Moravia and parts of Silesia. During the rule of his son and successor, Boleslav II (r. 972–999), the Christian church in Bohemia became officially organized with the founding of a bishopric in Prague. Following Boleslav II’s death in 999, a struggle for power erupted between his sons, which ended in 1012 when the youngest son, Ulrich (r. 1012–1033), became prince of Bohemia. Ulrich was deposed in 1033 by his brother Jaromir (r. 1033–1034), who was deposed himself in 1034 and succeeded by his nephew Bretislav I (r. 1034–1055), the son of Ulrich. Disputes and feuds over power within the Premysl

family dominated the dynasty’s reign for the next 150 years and hindered Bohemia’s cultural and political development.These conflicts arose primarily because laws of succession to the throne were virtually nonexistent. During this period, Bohemia became increasingly dependent on the Holy Roman Empire to the west. Prince Vratislav II (r. 1061–1092) obtained the title of king of Bohemia from the Holy Roman emperor Henry IV (r. 1056–1105). However, it was not until the end of the twelfth century that the Holy Roman emperor raised Ottocar I (r. 1197–1230) to the hereditary rank of king of Bohemia, thus putting an end to the conflict by establishing a clear basis of succession. During the reign of Ottocar I, Bohemia reached the height of its economic and political prosperity. He was succeeded by Wenceslaus I (r. 1230–1253), who invited many Germans to settle in Bohemia and Moravia and granted self-rule to many towns. Wenceslaus’s successor, his son, Ottocar II (r. 1253– 1278), became known as one of the greatest rulers of Bohemia. An ambitious expansionist, he built an empire that reached from Bohemia to the Adriatic Sea and included many lands that later became part of the vast realm ruled by the Habsburg dynasty. Ottocar II died in battle in 1278 and was succeeded by his son Wenceslaus II (r. 1278–1305). Wenceslaus’s political prowess and diplomacy earned him the Crown of Poland in 1300, but he died five years later in 1305. His only son, Wenceslaus III (r. 1305–1306), king of Hungary from 1301 to 1305, inherited Bohemia but was assassinated in 1306 while en route to Poland, thus ending the Premysl dynasty. See also: Arpad Dynasty; Habsburg Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire.

Premysl Dynasty

FURTHER READING

Borivoj I

870–894

Prince Wenceslaus

921–929

Ottocar I

1198–1230

Wenceslaus I

1230–1253

Ottocar II

1253–1278

Wenceslaus II

1278–1305

Wenceslaus III

1305–1306

Wolverton, Lisa. Hastening Toward Prague: Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.

PRIESTS, ROYAL Those who act as intermediaries between a deity and the people; persons who perform religious duties or rites on behalf of a royal household; individuals of noble birth who also hold religious office.

P r i e s t s, Roya l PRIESTLY RULERS The ruling class and the priesthood emerged concurrently in many world cultures. For example, ancient Sumer, located in Mesopotamia and one of the earliest civilizations, was ruled by priests. Half a world away, and more than one thousand years after the fall of Sumer, the Mayan people of Mexico also had priest-kings. In Europe, a class of priests and sages called Druids held ruling positions among the early Celtic populations as early as the third century b.c.e. Between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries c.e, priest-kings at Great Zimbabwe in Africa ruled an ancient stone city of about twenty thousand people. In the small Asian kingdom of Bhutan, a monk named Ngawang Namgyal formed a theocratic government in 1616, and thereafter the kingdom was ruled by a dual monarchy consisting of a Dharma Raja, or spiritual leader, and a Deb Raja, or temporal ruler in charge of the civil government. Because priests held the secret knowledge of the gods and performed rituals that appeased the gods and brought good fortune to the people, they maintained great power. The all-important sacrifices to ancient gods were the dominion of the priestly class in all societies. In fact, ancient Roman records refer to certain priests as rex sacorum (king of sacrifices). Although priests have been members of all classes of society, in ancient Egypt they were usually of noble birth and among the most highly educated people in the kingdom. High priests in many other cultures also came from royal families. In India, for example, only those born into the high Brahmin caste were able to assume the duties of priesthood. Whether or not of noble blood, royal priests frequently resided within the official residence of the monarch and performed their duties only for members of the imperial household.

CHANGING ROLES FOR PRIESTS Since priestly power rests on the beliefs shared by those whom the priest controls, this power does not extend to the followers of a different god. As a result, when groups of people conquered other lands and peoples, warrior rulers often replaced priestly rulers because their power was based on military strength and not religion. The rise of secular rulers, however, did not mean that priests became powerless. Political rulers continued to recognize priestly influence and often

753

courted the favor of religious leaders. For instance, when King Henry II of England (1154–1189) had the opportunity to appoint a new archbishop of Canterbury, he chose his good friend Thomas à Becket, in hopes that the Church would then support his policies to curb the growth of Church power. With their perceived ability to manipulate the supernatural, priests acted as mediators between people and their gods. More importantly, royal priests often served as prophets or oracles for sovereigns, thereby exerting great influence over political affairs.The English monk Dunstan, who became archbishop of Canterbury in 960, prepared every detail of the coronation of England’s King Edgar (r. 959–975). Dunstan rewrote the ceremony, emphasizing the anointing of the king and the link between God and king.The English coronation rite is still essentially the one written by Dunstan in the tenth century. In some cases, priests could even determine who the ruler would be.When a Celtic king died, for example, his successor was identified through a dream ritual performed by Druid priests. Later rulers were well aware that their power could rest on winning or purchasing the approval of the chief religious leader in their kingdoms. Royal priests sometimes became even more powerful than the monarch. For example, during the reign of King Louis XIII of France (r. 1610–1643), Cardinal Richelieu held a dual role as head of the Church and first minister and chief of state, leading to his virtual rule of the nation. During the early years of the reign of the young Louis XIV (r. 1643– 1715), Richelieu’s successor, Cardinal Mazarin, continued to wield great power. One of the most notorious of the royal “priests” was the self-proclaimed Russian monk Rasputin. In spite of his reputation for scandal, Rasputin was able to endear himself to Tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917) and his wife Alexandra when he eased their son’s suffering from hemophilia. At a time of great civil unrest, the royal couple refused to accept criticism of Rasputin, who seemed to gain more and more power. When other royal family members finally acted to assassinate Rasputin, they were too late to stop the forces of the Bolshevik Revolution, which ended the reign of tsars in Russia. Since relatively few monarchies remain in the world today, the office of royal priest is rarely found. One exception is Great Britain, where the Ecclesiastical Household of Her Majesty, the Queen, still in-

754

P r i e s t s, Roya l

cludes clergy of St. George’s Chapel, St. James’s Palace, Hampton Court, and the Tower of London. Along with the customary duties of Anglican priests, these clergy have other specific responsibilities. The clergy at St. George’s, for example, are charged with praying daily for the sovereign, the nation, and the Order of the Garter. See also: Christianity and Kingship; Class Systems and Royalty; Councils and Counselors, Royal; Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Divination and Diviners, Royal; Divinity of Kings; Religious Duties and Power.

PRIMOGENITURE Principle of inheritance that determined the right of succession for the majority of the world’s monarchies in all periods of history. Primogeniture is a practice of inheritance common to many of the world’s patrilineal royal and noble families. According to the principle of primogeniture, all property is passed to the eldest son, along with any royal or noble title associated with the land. Primogeniture developed to keep estates intact and to provide for royal succession or the transfer of noble titles.The estate was inalienable, meaning that the heir could not sell or give away the property. In this sense, the property really belonged to the family or the lineage more than to any individual. Under primogeniture, younger sons and daughters were excluded from inheritance so that the estate would not be divided. In cases where there were no surviving sons, the eldest daughter could inherit; this was the case in most European cultures. With land and titles kept within a family, primogeniture provided a power base for the monarch by ensuring the loyalty and stability of the landed nobility. Primogeniture was part of the inheritance laws in a number of the world’s monarchies. In addition to those in Europe, the royal and noble families of various Asian countries, including Korea and Japan, passed estates to the eldest son. In most of these areas, however, despite strict inheritance laws, the popularity if primogeniture was tied to economic conditions and to changing cultural considerations. In Japan, for example, legal primogeniture was derived from the old samurai code. In practice, how-

ever, primogeniture was often ignored in Japan, and was clearly more popular in some periods of Japanese history than in others. Many of the world’s monarchies did not practice primogeniture but opted instead for more flexible methods of determining inheritance. In the Middle East and India, where polygamy was commonly practiced, the reigning ruler was usually free to choose his heir and successor. These rulers often chose the sons of favorite wives, or they considered such factors as a child’s talents when choosing an heir. During the era of British imperialism, the English often clashed with local rulers over the issue of primogeniture. In several cases, the British forced local rulers in India or other parts of the British Empire to conform with the European inheritance practice. In reality, even throughout Europe, primogeniture was never strictly enforced, especially after the medieval period. The practice diminished further after the rise of the industrial classes and the advent of women’s rights in the modern era. The principle of primogeniture still lingers, however, in the succession practices of some royal families, including those of Britain and Japan. See also: Descent, Royal; Inheritance, Royal; Landholding Patterns; Polygamy, Royal; Succession, Royal.

PROPHETS, ROYAL Seers, oracles, or spokespersons for a deity, who serve as messengers to proclaim the word of that deity to the ruling monarch and his or her household. The word “prophecy” is often used to indicate a prediction of future events; however, this is only one of many types of prophetic proclamations. Prophets deliver messages of hope, warning, and condemnation that they receive through direct manifestations from a divinity, through “reading” physical portents and signs, through interpreting dreams, or through plotting the stars. Ancient prophets generally claimed divine revelations and were concerned with how the people responded to their deity through worship, sacrifice, and daily life. Yet, they usually were not from the priestly class. They were often distinguished by having received the call to their personal mission di-

P tol e m a i c Dy na s t y rectly from the deity, and they often accepted this call to a new life with great reluctance. Even when the seer’s mission was to speak directly to the sovereign ruler, he or she was not generally a servant of the court and did not receive payment for his or her proclamations. The ancient Egyptian high priest was an exception to this; he was sometimes called the first prophet and served the pharaoh directly. In biblical literature, many of the Hebrew prophets exhorted the people to return to the ways of God by encouraging social reforms that lessened the disparity between the rich and the poor. For example, both the prophets Isaiah and Amos chided the Hebrew leaders for their treatment of the poor.The prophet Ahijah’s mission was to condemn King Jeroboam (931–910 b.c.e.), while Isaiah called upon the Hebrews to repent and foretold the coming of the Messiah. Ancient Greek history and literature are full of references to the oracles of kings, the most famous of which is the oracle at Delphi. Here the Pythia, priestess to Apollo, would hear the questions of pilgrims and pronounce the god’s reply, usually indefinite enough to prevent the god from being wrong. When the city of Thebes was suffering from plague, Oedipus consulted both the oracle at Delphi and the blind prophet Tiresias. One of the most unusual stories of the relationship between king and oracles is that of Croesus, king of Lydia (r. 560–546 b.c.e.).When Croesus became fearful of the increasing power of Cyrus of Persia (r. 580–529 b.c.e.), he sent his messengers to consult different oracles and ask them if he should assemble an army and lead an attack on Cyrus. When he received an affirmative answer, he set about forming alliances and raising his forces. In the resulting battle, Cyrus unburdened his camels and sent them against the fierce cavalry of Croesus. The camels frightened the horses so much that the Lydians lost the battle and Croesus was captured.When Croesus and some of his men were about to be burned alive, Cyrus questioned the rival king and changed his mind about the pyre. Unfortunately, the fire had already been lit. According to legend, Croesus called on the gods, a storm arose, and the burning pyre was extinguished. After Cyrus learned that it was the oracle of the gods who had advised Croesus to mount an offensive against him, he made Croesus one of his principal advisers. Prophecies might also be the result of revelations

755

from the deity through dreams or visions. These visions might occur spontaneously or be induced by drugs or trances. Among the Celtic tribes in ancient Britain, for example, Druids utilized a dream ritual to identify a dead king’s successor. Some African peoples, such as the Baule of the Ivory Coast region, also have traditions of divination that include trance dances. Individuals who have been chosen by a spirit or deity are instructed in rituals of the dance.While in a trance, the mystics are able to determine reasons for local troubles and make recommendations for dealing with problems. One form of prophecy, astrology, remains particularly widespread in Asia today, with people of all classes consulting astrologers for advice about their lives. Nepalese astrologers are said to have predicted the deaths of several members of the royal family in 2001, killed by the then crown prince. Astrological predictions included the warning that the dynasty would not last more than ten generations. King Birendra of Nepal (r. 1972–2001) was the eleventh monarch in the family and had reached the age of fifty-five, also prophesied as the age at which he would die. Sovereign rulers who can exert control over their present and those whose present is controlled by others still often desire to know the future as revealed by prophets, fortunetellers, and astrologers. See also: Croesus; Curses, Royal; Cyrus the Great; Divination and Diviners, Royal; Witchcraft and Sorcery.

PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY (305–30 B.C.E.) Dynasty of Macedonians that ruled Egypt for more than two and a half centuries, blending Greek civilization with the traditions of the Egyptian pharaohs. When Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) died in 323 b.c.e., his empire was divided, and Egypt went to Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s loyal generals. He ruled Egypt as Ptolemy I Soter (r. 323–283 b.c.e.) and started the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled until the death of Cleopatra VII (r. 51–30 b.c.e.). Under the Ptolemaic dynasty, its capital city of Alexandria flourished as the economic and cultural center of the ancient world. The early Ptolemies were practical businessmen who wanted to increase

756

P tol e m a i c Dy na s t y

the country’s wealth. They expanded foreign trade and improved agriculture with irrigation and new crops such as cotton and grapes for wine. The Ptolemies also supported many artistic and intellectual activities. Ptolemy I was not just a successful military officer, but also a scholar and historical writer. He wrote comprehensive descriptions of Alexander’s battles and had a deep love of learning. His son and grandson were also passionate scholars. Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 285–246 b.c.e.) was very interested in science, and Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–222 b.c.e.) was an avid book collector. The Ptolemies filled their royal court with renowned scholars, artists, poets, and scientists from all over the world, who also promoted scholarship in Egypt. Scholarly endeavors culminated in the famous Library in Alexandria, which had up to 50,000 books—an astounding number for ancient times. The librarians and kings who supported the Library made every effort to save and document all Greek knowledge and to get copies of all known works.

The Ptolemies were eager to spread knowledge and culture. Libraries were open to everyone who could read and who wanted to learn. Learning to read became easier because the Ptolemies supported use of the Greek alphabet, which had just thirty symbols rather than the many Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Ptolemaic dynasty continued to rule Egypt with its Greek influence for nearly 300 years. During that time, Alexandria grew stronger and wealthier, and it became the core of a realm that extended up the coast of Syria and beyond. Gradually, however, internal conflicts arose, Roman influence grew, and the later Ptolemies were less skillful than their predecessors. Eventually, Greek dominance declined with the rise of the Roman Empire, which took control of Egypt after the death of Cleopatra, in 30 b.c.e. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Cleopatra VII; Egyptian Dynasties, Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman; Ptolemy I.

PTOLEMY I (ca. 367–282 B.C.E.)

The Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt ruled for 275 years. It was founded by Ptolemy I Soter, a general of Alexander the Great.This cameo portrait, made in Alexandria in the third century c.e., shows the second ruler of the dynasty, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and his wife, Arsinoe.

Egyptian ruler (r. 323–283 b.c.e.) and founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Born in Macedonia, Ptolemy was a childhood friend and loyal general of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.). Ptolemy’s numerous military achievements included escorting Alexander on conquests of Asia Minor, Syria, and Persia, as well as Egypt.When Alexander died in 323 b.c.e., his empire was fought over and divided up among his generals. Ptolemy received Egypt and became its governor and eventually declared himself king in 306 b.c.e. Calling himself Ptolemy I “Soter” (the Savior), he was the founder of the Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty. While Ptolemy I ruled Egypt, he strove to strengthen his regime and enhance Egyptian civilization and culture. He also made every effort to preserve and achieve the idealistic and intellectual goals adopted by Alexander the Great. Foremost among Ptolemy’s achievements was the creation of a great library and mouseion (center of learning) in the city of Alexandria, which he made the Egyptian capital. Alexandria developed into one of the world’s leading cities, and its library and mouseion became important centers of higher learning and of scientific and technological progress. Not unlike a modern teaching and research university (or a

P u Yi “think tank”), the mouseion became a gathering place for academic study.The king appointed a priest to direct it, and it was publicly funded. The library, which was probably part of the mouseion, grew to hold tens of thousands of books. Toward the end of his reign, Ptolemy realized he needed to choose a successor. He chose his third son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 283–246 b.c.e.), whom he considered most likely to continue his ideas. He made Ptolemy II co-regent in 285 b.c.e. and upon the death of Ptolemy I in 283 b.c.e., his son took the throne. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Ptolemaic Dynasty.

757

in 1644.The Manchus, regarded as foreigners by ethnic Chinese, were strongly resented by the populace, and in 1911 a rebellion led by General Yuan Shih-kai swept them from power. Pu Yi was forced to abdicate his throne in 1912, when he was only six years old, but he was allowed to remain in the Forbidden City and was treated with extreme courtesy. Courteous treatment, however, was no substitute for a normal childhood, and the young Pu Yi remained isolated in an elaborate world of ritual and formality. He received a limited education, studying Buddhism, poetry, and Chinese history. His every childish whim was indulged, and within the artificial confines of the Forbidden City, his power over his

PU YI (1906–1967 C.E.) Last emperor (r. 1908–1912) of China, who ruled as a figurehead in service to a variety of masters in the contentious final years of the Chinese empire. Pu Yi was born on February 2, 1906, in the Forbidden City of Beijing (so named because no commoners or foreigners were allowed to enter). His father, Prince Chun, was the brother of the nominal emperor of China, Kuang Hsu (r. 1875–1908), who had been imprisoned by Dowager Empress Tzu Hsi after she seized power in 1898. By the time of Pu Yi’s birth, the empress was growing old.To ensure an orderly transition of power, she decided to name a successor. She chose Pu Yi, and to avoid controversy over his succession, it is rumored that she had Kuang Hsu poisoned in his prison cell.The empress died in 1908, and the infant Pu Yi became emperor. His father served as regent for the infant ruler. Pu Yi spent his childhood in the lushly appointed Imperial Palace in the Forbidden City. In accordance with royal tradition, he was kept isolated from nearly everyone except his royal retainers for most of the time. His father was allowed to visit for two minutes every two months, and until he was twenty years old, Pu Yi never saw his mother at all. He rarely saw other children and was fully seven years old before his own brother and sister were permitted to visit. Pu Yi’s rule was interrupted several times during the course of his life, for this was a tumultuous period in China’s history. His family was Manchu, a people who had come from the region of Manchuria in northeast China to found the Ch’ing (Qing) dynasty

The last emperor of China, Pu Yi ruled as a figurehead until the monarchy was abolished in 1912. Restored as a puppet emperor by the Japanese in 1934, he was forced to abdicate again in 1945. Under the Chinese Communists, Pu Yi was imprisoned, then stripped of all privileges and made to live like a commoner.

758

P u Yi

household was absolute; when angry or bored he commonly ordered one of his retainers to be flogged. In 1917 a pro-Manchu faction led by General Chang Hsum attempted to restore the empire, seizing control of the Forbidden City and declaring Pu Yi emperor once again. This was a short-lived victory, however, and the now eleven-year-old ruler kept his throne for only six days before a bombing campaign was waged by the opposition, targeting the palace and forcing Pu Yi to abdicate once again. Meanwhile, the Manchus hoped to enlist foreign assistance to regain power. They enlisted an Englishman, Reginald Johnson, to serve as Pu Yi’s tutor and to act as mediator with the British. Pu Yi learned fluent English from Johnson, and under his tutelage became fascinated with the Western world, even taking a Western name, Henry. In his mid-teens, Pu Yi began to realize that the Forbidden City was simply a well-appointed prison, and he made futile efforts to escape. He was essentially docile, however, and when told that he had to marry at age sixteen, he accepted the woman chosen for him by his retainers: Wan Jung. Pu Yi’s only rebellion was to insist on choosing a second wife,Wen Hsiu, who was more to his liking. In either case, it appears that he never consummated his marriages: he fled his bridal chamber in terror and never had any children with these or future wives. In 1924, China was again convulsed by political unrest, this time by warring Communist and antiCommunist factions. General Geng Yu-hsiang of the Communists captured the Forbidden City and forced Pu Yi to leave—at the age of eighteen, it was the first time he saw what life was like among ordinary citizens. His English tutor helped him to enter the Japanese embassy, where he found asylum along with his wives and his entourage.The Japanese were willing to help because they thought Pu Yi would be useful in their plans to invade and conquer Manchuria. In 1931, the Japanese did invade Manchuria, and they managed to smuggle Pu Yi in to act as the chief executive of the territory, which they renamed Manchukuo. In 1934, the Japanese gratified their young puppet ruler by giving him the title “emperor,” but he was still completely under their control. Pu Yi’s new stint as emperor, however, was not to last. The Russians invaded Manchuria in 1945, during World War II, and Pu Yi was forced once again

to abdicate his throne. He was promised safe passage to Japan but was permitted to take only a handful of people with him. To make the journey, Pu Yi abandoned his wives (Wan Jung died in prison soon after). Instead of arriving in Japan, however, he found himself under house arrest in the Soviet Union. Again isolated, Pu Yi spent the next several years manipulated by his new masters, being trotted out for occasional public appearances and to testify against the Japanese for their actions in Manchuria. In 1950, the Russians apparently decided that he served no useful purpose, and Pu Yi was permitted to return to China. Pu Yi’s return to China was not triumphal. The Communist regime was fully entrenched by this time, and as a representative of the old imperial order, Pu Yi was forced into a prison camp. After nine years of menial labor and “re-education,” Pu Yi was finally released, but he was stripped of all honors and privileges. In 1965, Chairman Mao Tse Tung, the ruler of Communist China, declared the Cultural Revolution, which was intended to sweep away China’s pre-Communist past. Pu Yi died two years later, and many thought that Mao ordered his death as part of the effort to erase China’s imperial history. It is more likely, however, that the officially recognized cause of Pu Yi’s death, cancer, is correct, for by this time the lifelong puppet ruler presented no threat at all to the government. See also: Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Behr, Edward. The Last Emperor. New York: Bantam Books, 1987. Power, Brian. The Puppet Emperor:The Life of PuYi, Last Emperor of China. New York: Universe Books, 1988.

PUNJAB PRINCELY STATES (ca. 1700–1972 C.E.)

Muslim states located in the so-called Five Rivers region of northwestern India (now divided between India and Pakistan); home of the Sikh religion. From the early sixteenth to mid-eighteenth century, the Muslim Mughal dynasty of India ruled most

P u n ja b P r i n c e ly Stat e s of northern India, including the Punjab region. However, the difficulties the Mughals encountered in trying to command and control such a vast area led to the rise of a series of independent princely states. Under weak Mughal rule, local chieftains were able to hold land and raise small armies. Reliance on the personal support of relatives, lesser nobility, and their own peasants prevented these chieftains from becoming too powerful and threatening to the Mughals. Self-interests led to competition between the chieftains, who were always careful to defend their lands and prepared to expand their holdings and their wealth. By the mid-1700s there were about sixty separate chieftains in Punjab.

SIKHISM AND THE PUNJAB In the language of the Punjab region, the word Sikh translates to “lion.” In the fifteenth century, a wandering preacher, Guru Nanak, came to the city of Kartarpur in the Punjab. His teachings, a combination of devotional Hinduism and Sufi Islam, were included in the Adi Granth (First Book), the sacred scripture of the Sikh religion. The Sikh movement was not intended to be political, but as it grew, it came to be seen as a threat to the Mughal state. In 1709, a Sikh leader named Banda Singh Bahadur set out to attack the Mughals and conquered a large portion of the eastern Punjab. The Mughal rulers waged an eight-month siege of the fortress town of Gurdas Nangal in 1715, during which they captured Banda Singh. The Mughals took Banda Singh to Delhi, where he was executed. Banda Singh Bahadur’s death was followed by a long struggle between the Sikhs on one side and the Afghans and Mughals on the other. By 1765, the Sikh chieftains of the Punjab united under another leader, Ranjit Singh (r. 1780–1839). With the help of foreign mercenaries, Ranjit Singh captured the city of Lahore in 1799 and gained control of the main trade routes from north India to Central Asia, Iran, and western Asia. With the increase in revenue gained from trade, Ranjit expanded his army to 40,000 cavalry and infantry. By 1809, Ranjit Singh was the master of the Punjab.

THE PUNJAB UNDER THE BRITISH Following the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839, regional differences began to emerge within Punjab and social conflicts followed. It appeared that the state never

759

made the transition from a conquering power to a stable system of alliances. Taking advantage of this weakness, the British annexed most of the Punjab for the British East India Company within ten years. The British East India Company had arrived in India in 1600. Unable to win the spice trade from the Dutch and the Portuguese, British businessmen offered Indian ruling families sophisticated agreements that would permit them to live in grandeur while the British exploited their kingdoms and became wealthy. Annexation of Indian land, mistreatment of Indian people, and the growing westernization of the Indian culture and values led to the Sepoy mutiny of 1857, a rebellion of Indian soldiers against the British East India Company that grew into a widespread uprising against British rule in India The Sepoy mutiny was not successful, but it led the British government to replace the East India Company with a viceroy. The British also stopped annexing Indian territories and came to agreements with most Indian states. The states would either be run as provinces, or Britain would allow ruling families to administer their kingdoms while remaining subject to British rule. The British would interfere in internal matters only if it was absolutely necessary. The rulers of these kingdoms were termed princes, and their realms were called princely states (because the British recognized only one king, the king of England). In 1877, over seven hundred Indian princely states entered into a treaty with the British Crown. In the Punjab region the princely states, also known as Riasats during the British colonial era, included Kapurthala, Nabha, Patiala, Jind, Pataudi, Laharu, Dujana, Faridkotla, and Bahawalpur.The states of Nabha, Patiala, and Jind were collectively known as the Phulkian States because of their common ancestor named Phul (r. ca. 1618–1652.)

THE PUNJAB IN INDEPENDENT INDIA The twentieth century witnessed a growing desire for independent rule in India. In 1935, the Government of India Act allowed for the voluntary accession of the princely states, either in union with adjacent existing provinces of British India or as separate selfgoverning units within the federation. The senior ruling prince within the union was usually appointed to the new position of Rajpramukh, an appointment designed to be for life. In return for surrendering the

760

P u n ja b P r i n c e ly Stat e s

rule over their states, together with their revenues and military forces, the former ruling princes were guaranteed their hereditary titles, privileges of rank and honor, as well as living expenses for themselves and their families. When India gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Britain canceled all of its treaty relations with the princely states and encouraged the rulers to join the new federation. Some 730 princely states chose to join the Dominion of India at this time, while two states, Bhutan and Sikkim, became Indian protectorates.Three other states, Hyderabad, Junagadh, and Jammu, remained independent. India incorporated Hyderabad and Junagadh by force in 1948 and abolished the position of Rajpramukh throughout the new Indian nation. Most of the state of Jammu, which had been part of the domain of Ranjit Singh in the nineteenth century, was incorporated into India in 1972 after the current Maharaja was forced to seek Indian military intervention. The other part of Jammu, which included parts of Kashmir, was incorporated within Pakistan. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; Indian Kingdoms; Mughal Empire; South Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Grewal, J.S. India. The Sikhs of the Punjab. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

PYU KINGDOM (ca. 1000 B.C.E.–832 C.E.) The first historically significant kingdom in Myanmar (Burma), which established city-states at Binnaka, Mongama, Shri Ksetra, and Halingyi, and governed each tribe within the kingdom by a democratic assembly. As early as about 1000 b.c.e., Pyu peoples settled along the middle stretch of the Irrawwaddy River in Myanmar, but they did not establish settlements right along the river.This was in contrast to later periods, when the Pyu founded cities along the river itself. The emerging Pyu state provided an alternative to the overland trade route through Myanmar by establishing a route down the Irrawaddy to the Indian Ocean coast and then by sea to India and more remote parts of Southeast Asia. The Pyu kingdom prospered from traveling

merchants, who used the Irrawaddy trade route and enjoyed good relations with both India and the Mons people who settled in the Irrawaddy delta region. Early Chinese visitors to the Pyu kingdom reported that it had a surprisingly humane society. Prisons and chains were not part of the justice system, and the only punishment for criminals was often just a few lashes with a whip, except in cases of homicide, which received much more severe punishment. The Pyu lived in wooden houses with roofing tiles of lead and tin. They used golden knives, and they surrounded themselves with various art objects made from gold, green glass, jade, and crystal. Both sexes dressed lavishly for the time, wearing bright blue clothing; the men wore gold ornaments in their hair. Parts of the city walls, the palaces, and the monasteries were built using glazed brick. The Pyu rulers allowed their people considerable religious and political freedom. Some Pyu followed Hinduism, and others Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism. The Pyu rulers, however, officially emphasized Buddhist learning. Children, both boys and girls, had their heads completely shaved and were disciplined and educated in monasteries and convents as novices. Often the children would enter the monastery or convent at age seven and remain until they were twenty years old. By the seventh century c.e., the Theravada faith had become the dominant factor in the daily life of the Pyu kingdom. One of the most significant periods in the history of the Pyu kingdom was the Vikrama era, which began in 638. Named after the Pyu Vikrama dynasty, the era saw a flowering of culture that spread to neighboring Thailand and Cambodia. During this period, the Pyu improved their system of irrigation and developed more advanced planning for their urban centers. After moving the capital northward to Halingyi in the seventh century, leaving the city of Shri Ksetra to oversee trade in the south, the Pyu were defeated by the Mons people in the eighth century. Many of the Pyu fled north, but were captured by the Thai kingdom of Nan Chao. In 832, the Thais attacked the Pyu capital of Halingyi and destroyed it, ending the Pyu kingdom. See also: Mon Kingdom; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

Q aj a r D y n a s t y

Q QAJAR DYNASTY (1796–1925 C.E.) A dynasty of shahs from the Qajar tribe that ruled Iran in the early modern era. For about one hundred thirty years, from 1796 to 1925, the Qajar shahs exercised firm control over the entire territory of Iran, in roughly its present boundaries. Under pressure from the growing Russian and British empires, they made some attempts at social and governmental reforms, but their failure to modernize the country led to their overthrow in the early twentieth century.

ORIGINS AND EARLY RULE The Qajars were a Turkmen tribe of northern Iran who rose to political prominence under the rulers of the Safavid dynasty and began to vie for power on their own in the eighteenth century. The founder of the dynasty, Agha Muhammad Khan (r. 1796–1797), was the son of a Qajar chief. Captured and castrated as a child by an enemy of his father, he spent many years as a hostage in Shiraz, the capital of Iran’s thenruling Zand dynasty. Freed in 1779,Agha Muhammad quickly defeated rivals and assumed leadership of the Qajar tribes. By 1784 he controlled all of northern Iran, while the Zand dynasty was consumed by infighting among various pretenders to the throne. By 1796, he was master of the entire country, after brutally disposing of the final Zand shah, Lotf Ali Khan (r. 1789–1794), and a large number of his supporters. Agha Muhammad also restored Iranian control in the Caucasus, after Georgia, a Christian client state, tried to break free with the support of Russia. During Agha’s brief reign, he revived the Iranian concept of the shah as the shadow of God and absolute ruler. He also established the principle that the throne would pass from father to son, aiming to avoid a repetition of the succession struggles of the

761

previous century. Under Agha and his Qajar successors, the central government of Iran gradually came to overshadow the various tribal and provincial power centers. The ruthless character that may explain Agha Muhammad’s striking successes led to his own murder, in 1797, at the hands of two servants whom he had sentenced to death for quarreling. His nephew and successor, Fath Ali Shah (r. 1797–1834), was just as cruel to opponents, but he did not have his uncle’s strength of purpose. Two border wars with the expanding Russian Empire, in 1804–1813 and in 1826–1828, resulted in huge territorial losses for Iran. Georgia, Armenia, and northern Azerbaijan were lost, leaving the northwest border of Iran fixed at approximately its present position.

CHALLENGES AND SUCCESSES Fath Ali was succeeded by his grandson, Muhammad (r. 1834–1848), who had a relatively uneventful reign. Upon his death in 1848, his son, Naser al-Din (r. 1848–1896), became shah. Naser proved to be a relatively successful defender of his country’s independence. But he was unable to defend Iran completely from foreign threats. He was also unable to hold back British incursions from India to the south and east; and by the 1850s, the British had established a series of protectorates on the Persian Gulf. In 1881, Russia conquered the regions of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the northeast, severing Iran’s historic ties to the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand. Naser had greater success with domestic policy. In the first years of his reign, his prime minister, Mirza Taqi Khan, introduced major administrative and fiscal reforms; encouraged the introduction of Western education, science, and technology; and laid the groundwork for the first Western-style university in Iran, the Dar-ol-Fonun. Although Mirza was later forced out by powerful opponents who felt threatened by his reforms, many of his reforms took hold.

INCREASING FOREIGN INFLUENCE Despite all efforts to maintain independence, Iran’s modernizing economy fell increasingly under British influence. Western political values of freedom and democracy also made headway among many elements of the Iranian population. These ideas bore fruit during the reign of Naser’s son and successor, Muzaffar al-Din (r. 1896–1907),

762

Q aj a r D y n a s t y

who was forced by pressure from the religious establishment, merchants, and protestors to grant a constitution in 1906. The constitution established an elected parliament, the majlis, with power to approve the cabinet. Civil and property rights were guaranteed in laws passed the following year.When Muzaffar’s son and successor, Muhammad Ali (r. 1907– 1909), tried to rescind the constitution, he was deposed in favor of his eleven-year-old son Ahmad (r. 1909–1925). The century-long Qajar balancing act between the various European powers finally broke down in 1907, when Britain and Russia agreed to divide Iran into spheres of influence. When Russian, Ottoman Turkish, and British forces physically occupied the country during World War I,Ahmad’s legitimacy was further undermined. A coup d’état in 1921, led by Reza Khan (who later became the first shah of the Pahlavi dynasty, r. 1925–1941), relegated Ahmad to figurehead status. The majlis formally deposed Ahmad four years later, bringing the Qajar dynasty to an end. See also: Pahlavi Dynasty; Zand Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Daniel, Elton L. The History of Iran. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001.

QIANLONG. See Ch’ien Lung QIN DYNASTY. See Ch’in Dynasty QING DYNASTY. See Ch’ing Dynasty QUEENS AND QUEEN MOTHERS The various female royal offices, including that of queen, queen mother, royal concubine, or royal sister. Because in monarchies the world over political authority has been the near-monopoly of males, female royal offices cannot properly be understood as equivalent to the office of king. Rules of inheritance,

rights of succession, and access to resources have always favored men. Thus, whereas a male becomes king in his own right, most often a woman becomes queen by a more indirect route, by virtue of her association with a male, whether husband, brother, or father. In a traditional monarchy, wherein the royal leader serves as something more than a symbolic figure, ultimate political authority rests in the hands of the titular (male) head of state. The linkage between the title and the office is relatively unambiguous, and the authority of an individual to serve in the office is generally validated by claims of divine right or descent from a founding ancestor. The claim of a female ruler to her throne, however, is less direct, generally mediated by marriage or motherhood. Generally speaking, then, the office of the queen does not exist without the presumption of a king at some point along the line. A queen’s primary function is to provide heirs, that is, sons who will be future kings. This does not mean that she does not exert political influence, however. As wife, mother, or sister of the ruling male, she may provide advice and counsel, she may embody a political alliance with the royal house and a powerful family (the family into which she was born), or she may serve in the capacity of a king’s representative. Much less frequently, a queen or queen mother may rule in her own right. This is usually the result of a failure in the male line of succession. For example, a queen may serve as regent if her husband, the king, dies before his heir, her son, is old enough to take the throne.When King Peter III of Russia was assassinated by a group of nobles, his German wife, Catherine, replaced him on the throne. This queen, Catherine the Great, was not only actively involved in the plot to kill her husband, but she also maintained her rule from 1762 to 1796. Even in such situations, a queen’s position is usually considered temporary, to be reliniquished to her son as soon as he is old enough to rule. It is also usually mitigated by the presence of (male) court officials. It is true but rare that some societies recognize the right of a royal daughter to inherit the king’s office, if she has no male siblings. However, it is much more common that, in the absence of male heirs, the throne passes to the former king’s brother or other close male relative.

Radama I When females do attain the highest rank of royalty and power, this is generally marked by ritual or linguistic markers that signify a transformation in her gender status, from female to gender-neutral, or for her to be accorded a kind of “honorary” maleness. In many modern monarchies, the concept of royalty has become attenuated, as the political functions of the state have been taken over by elected officials such as prime ministers or other political representatives. In such cases, the power of the queen, or king, is tightly circumscribed. For example, Britain’s reigning queen is an important symbol of national identity, but the actual work of governing is done by others. Even in some mostly symbolic monarchies, however, females may not be permitted to inherit the throne.This is true in Japan, where they are constitutionally prohibited from assuming the office of the emperor. Sometimes a queen may use rationalizing myths to expand her claim to authority. For instance, among the Lovedu of the Transvaal, in southern Africa, the queen holds true power, based on the belief that the queen has a divine dispensation to rule. This is because she is believed to be able to control the rain, which is evidence of a supra-normal relationship with the land and the ancestors.The queens of societies that are heir to the Christian tradition provide a further example of this. Since the medieval period, Christianity has accommodated a cult of the Virgin Mary, according to which the mother of Jesus rules as the “Queen of Heaven.” This provides a model and justification for queenly authority in the human realm as well. See also: Catherine II, the Great; Concubines, Royal; Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Descent, royal; Divine Right; Elizabeth I; Inheritance, Royal; Marriage of Kings; Myth and Folklore; National Identity; Priests, Royal; Regencies; Succession, Royal.

QUARAYSH. See Hashemite Dynasty QUTB SHAHI DYNASTY. See Golconda Kingdom

763

R RADAMA I (ca. 1793–1828 C.E.) Ruler of Madagascar (r. 1810–1828), known as “Madagascar’s Napoleon” because of his role in extending the rule of the Merina kingdom across the entire island. Radama I was the son of Andrianampoinimerina (r. 1787–1810), the founder of the Merina kingdom on the island of Madagascar. It was Andrianampoinimerina who succeeded in uniting the various independent states that shared the central portion of the island. Radama, who was born around 1793, succeeded to the throne upon his father’s death in 1810. He was only seventeen years old at the time. When Radama came to the throne, the dominance of the Merina kingdom was well established in the territory around the capital city of Antananarivo. Like the other Madagascan kingdoms, Merina’s wealth was based in large part on its involvement in the Indian Ocean slave trade. During Radama’s rule, however, this changed dramatically as a direct result of his efforts to expand Merina’s control outward to include the other kingdoms of the island. To accomplish this objective, Radama I entered into an alliance with the British, who wished to establish a presence in the region. In an agreement reached in 1816, the British promised to supply modern training and firearms for Radama’s military.Thus equipped, his army easily defeated the forces of his neighbors on Madagascar. This military superiority came at a price, however. In return for their assistance, the British demanded that Radama ban all slave trading from his kingdom. Such an agreement would seem counterproductive for a ruler whose wealth was based almost wholly on the slave trade. However, the British promised to provide economic assistance and support for the development of manufacturing. At the

764

Radama I

same time, enforcement of the ban on slaving gave Radama an excuse to attack his neighbors while also undercutting their economies (which were also based on the slave trade). By the end of 1817, Radama controlled nearly the whole of Madagascar. Radama I was strongly committed to a policy of Westernization. He welcomed the arrival of representatives of the London Missionary Society, who established schools and churches throughout the Merina kingdom. He encouraged his subjects to convert to Christianity. In addition, it was during the reign of Radama I that a written form of the local language (Malagasy) was developed. By the time of Radama I’s death in 1828 (of an unknown disease), a small but rapidly growing literate class had developed in Merina, and the kingdom was producing its first local publications in Malagasy. Radama I was succeeded on the throne by his widow, Ranavalona I (r. 1828–1861). See also: Madagascar Kingdoms; Merina Kingdom; Radama II; Ranavalona I, Mada.

making overtures to the French, whom he greatly admired. He made some progress in this regard, but his efforts ran afoul of powerful members of his royal court, most of whom shared the anti-Western attitudes of the late queen. In 1863, Radama made a treaty of perpetual friendship with France, but his pro-French stance continued to alienate powerful members of his court. He was assassinated that same year, within two years of taking the throne, on the orders of his own ministers. His pro-Western stance was nonetheless continued during the rule of his widow and successor, Queen Rasoherina (r. 1863–1868). See also: Madagascar Kingdoms; Merina Kingdom; Radama II; Ranavalona I, Mada. FURTHER READING

Kottak, Conrad P., ed. Madagascar: Society and History. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1986. Valette, Jean. Etudes sur le regne de Radama I. Antananarivo, Madagascar: Impr. nationale, 1962.

FURTHER READING

Kottak, Conrad P., ed. Madagascar: Society and History. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1986. Valette, Jean. Etudes sur le regne de Radama I. Antananarivo, Madagascar: Impr. nationale, 1962.

RADAMA II (1828–1830 C.E.) Ruler (r. 1861–1863) of the Merina kingdom of Madagascar, who was most notable for his efforts to forge strong political and economic ties with Europe. The son of Radama I (r. 1810–1828), Radama II was born to Queen Ranavalona shortly after her husband’s death from an unknown disease in 1828. Ranavalona ruled the Merina kingdom after Radama I died, and she continued on the throne until her death in 1861, at which time rule passed to Radama II. When Radama II came to the throne, the kingdom he inherited had turned its back on European ties and trade. Queen Ranavalona, nicknamed “the bloodthirsty,” had been deeply distrustful of European influence and had attempted to eradicate it from Madagascar. The queen had severed all trade with the British and expelled or persecuted missionaries. Radama II attempted to reverse these policies by

RAJASTHAN KINGDOM (ca. 7–1947 C.E.)

Kingdom of the Rajputs, a mostly Hindu warrior caste in India that placed great value on military virtues and whose sworn duty was to defend the state and its people without regard to personal risk. The modern Indian state of Rajasthan in northwestern India came into being in 1956. After India achieved independence in 1947, eighteen princely states, two chieftainships, and the British province of Ajmer-Merwara were merged in stages to form the new state of Rajasthan. Prior to 1947, the region of Rajasthan was known as Rajputana, or “the country of the Rajputs.” The term Rajput means “sons of the Rajas,” and the Rajas were “princes.”Thus, Rajasthan has often been called “the abode of the princes.”

BEFORE THE RAJPUTS The people of Rajputana originally came to the northern parts of India from many areas and ancient cultural traditions. Some declared that they had descended from the sun or moon or that they had been called forth from the great pit of the Hindu fire god

R aj a s t h a n K i n g d o m Agni by a Brahman priest. The location of settlements and the social, cultural, and economic life of the people was determined by geographical features, ranging from peaceful and productive valleys to mountain ranges, rivers, and deserts. Ancient Indian inscriptions indicate that the emperor Asoka (r. 268–232 b.c.e.) of the Mauryan Empire controlled parts of Rajputana around 250 b.c.e. The Indo-Greeks from the region of Bactria (in present-day Afghanistan) ruled the region in the second century b.c.e., followed by the Sakas dynasty in the second to fourth centuries c.e. The Gupta dynasty controlled the southwestern part of Rajputana from the fourth to the sixth centuries, and there were invasions by the Huns in the sixth century.

THE RAJPUT PRINCES The power of the Rajput princes began to arise in Rajputana between the seventh and thirteenth centuries. Most of the Rajputs were Hindu.The Rajputs became known for their valor and their devotion to Vaishnavism, the Hindu belief that a person must pursue the way of good works and spiritual knowledge. As a result, they gained the status of Kshattriyas—warriors, defenders of righteousness, and implementers of the law, whose solemn duty was to defend the state and its people without regard to personal risk.They enjoyed royal privileges and were called “princes of royal blood.” Of the many Rajput princely clans, a number stand out for their accomplishments and the size of their landholdings. These include the Guhilots of Mewar, Harsha, the Katchawaha Rajputs, the Bhati Rajputs, and the Rathors of Marwar.

THE GUHILOTS OF MEWAR AND HARSHA The Guhilots of Mewar (ca. 568–1947), the oldest Rajput clan, outlived seven centuries of dominance by the Muslims of the Delhi sultanate. Although they experienced occasional defeats, the Guhilots never gave in easily, and, when defeated, they would wait to gather their strength and recover lost territory. Separated from the rest of India by mountains and dense forests, the princely state of Mewar developed a spirit of iron discipline and stoic resolve. In the eighth century, the Hindu guru, Harit Rashi, laid down rules for the governance of the state. His tenets were based upon respect for humankind, service to the community, and, more importantly, adherence to and mainte-

765

nance of the ancient Vedic culture.The Vedic religion, which originated in Iran, was the basis for Hindu beliefs. Eventually, Mewar was defeated by the Mughal emperor, Babur (r. 1526–1530) in 1527. The Rajput prince, Harsha (r. ca. 606–674), ruled a large portion of northern India, including some of Rajputana in the early seventh century. A Hindu who converted to Buddhism, Harsha conquered many cities and kingdoms, but he generally left the rulers of these places on their thrones, expecting only tribute and homage.When Harsha died, his loose empire collapsed into anarchy.

THE KATCHAWAHA AND BHATI RAJPUTS In the twelfth century, the Katchawaha Rajputs ruled in and around Jaipur, the present capital of Rajasthan, holding a large area bordering the kingdoms of Mewar and Marwar. Twenty-eight Rajput princes ruled Jaipur for six centuries and, in the past 250 years, only ten Maharajas have held the throne. The eleventh maharaja, Sawai Bhawani Singh (r. 1956– present), still leads the Katchawaha clan. Also in the twelfth century, the Bhati Rajputs ruled in Jaisalmer, another region of Rajasthan. The Bhati were great camel riders and warriors; cattle theft and hunting were their major pastimes. Their kingdom was located along the Afghanistan–Delhi spice trade route, and they taxed passing caravans. The Bhati Rajputs were brave and impetuous warriors who would fight a major battle with the slightest excuse. Since Jaisalmer was located deep in the desert, it escaped direct Muslim conquest when the Muslims began expanding into India. However, a raid on the royal baggage caravan of Muslim emperor Allaud-din Khilji (r. 1296–1316) resulted in a sevenyear siege. Finally, facing certain defeat, the Bhatis killed their women and children, and then, clad in ceremonial saffron garments and intoxicated by opium, they opened the gates of the city and rushed out to meet their deaths at the hands of the Muslims.

THE RATHORS OF MARWAR The Rathors of Marwar ruled the largest state in Rajasthan.The Pratihara dynasty held off invading Muslim forces for many years, but in 1192 the Muslim forces of Muhammad Ghuri defeated the Rajput army of Prithviraja III at the battle of Tarain. Kanauj, the Rathor capital for seven centuries, fell to the Afghan invaders in 1193, and within twenty years most of northern

766

R aj a s t h a n K i n g d o m

India would be under control of the Muslim Mughal dynasty. After their defeat, the Rathors reconsolidated, built an impregnable fort on a high ridge, and established their capital city of Jodhpur around it. Over the next 250 years they prospered from trade; they battled often and won.

RAJASTHAN AND THE MUGHALS In 1459, Rao Ganga Singh of Jodhpur (r. 1516– 1532) fought alongside the army of Mewar against the first Mughal emperor, Babur. It was from this time that the romantic view developed of the gallant Rajput warrior defending family, honor, and religion against the invading Muslims. In 1567, Babur’s grandson, Akbar (r. 1556– 1605), captured the two great Rajput forts of Chitor and Ranthambhor in east Rajputana. The rulers of Jodhpur allied themselves with Akbar and were permitted to continue in power. Several became trusted lieutenants of the Mughals and were successful in battle, including Maharaja Jaswant Singh (r. 1638–1658). With Mughal support, the Rajput court of Jodhpur flourished, and it became a center for the arts, culture, and trade. In 1657, however, Maharaja Jaswant Singh promised to support the Mughal prince, Dara Shikoh, in his struggle against his brother, Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707), for the Mugal throne.At the last minute, Jaswant Singh reneged on his promise. Dara’s army was defeated and Dara was executed. Aurangzeb then sent Jaswant Singh to the frontier, as viceroy in Afghanistan, and attempted to seize his infant son, whom loyal retainers hid in a basket of sweets.The princely state of Jodhpur then formed an alliance with the states of Udaipur and Jaipur in order to counter Mughal oppression, but they faced years of turmoil as the Mughal Empire disintegrated and finally collapsed. The Rajputs continued to rule until they accepted British sovereignty in 1818. After independence in 1947, the Rajput states in Rajasthan were merged to form the state of Rajasthan within the Indian nation. See also: Akbar the Great; Asoka; Aurangzeb; Babur; Hinduism and Kingship; Indian Kingdoms; Maurya Empire; Mughal Empire. FURTHER READING

Duff, Mabel. The Chronology of Indian History: From the Earliest Times to the 16th Century. Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1972.

RAMA IV. See Mongkut RAMA V. See Chulalongkorn RAMA DYNASTY. See Bangkok Kingdom

RAMA KHAMHENG (ca. 1239–1298 C.E.) The third king (r. ca. 1279–1317) of the kingdom of Sukhothai in the north-central part of present-day Thailand, who is credited with creating the first Siamese state. His name means “Rama the Brave” or “Rama the Strong.” When Rama Khamheng inherited Sukhothai after the death of his older brother, Ban Muang (r. 1275–1279), in 1279, the kingdom was very small, just a few hundred square miles. During the course of the next twenty years—by using prudent diplomacy, wise alliances, and skillful military campaigns modeled on those of Mongol leader Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294)—Rama Khamheng made many successful conquests and forced local rulers to become his allies or tributaries. In this way, Rama Khamheng extended Sukhothai’s power over a region that extended into parts of Cambodia, Burma, Luang Prabang, and the Malay Peninsula. He united an area with a common new faith in Theravada Buddhism and an antagonism toward the Cambodian Angkor kingdom, which had previously controlled the area. Sukhothai flourished because Rama Khamheng was a just king who was friendly to neighboring rulers and a patron of the arts. He apparently brought pottery workers from China and had kilns set up in Sukhothai. The ceramics produced by these potters and their apprentices became important items of international trade. Sukhothai artworks developed a distinctly Thai look, with especially significant advances made in bronze sculpture. Rama Khamheng also is thought to have invented the first Thai alphabet (still essentially in use today); a stone inscription dating from 1292, and praising the king’s rule, is the earliest known example of Thai writing. The foundation of Rama Khamheng’s kingdom was his own exceptional abilities. When he died,

R a m s e s I I , t h e G r e at many of his more remote vassals quickly separated from the kingdom. Nevertheless, the area retained a sense of unity and culture that were later built upon by the states that followed Sukhothai, especially the kingdom of Ayutthaya (Ayuthia or Ayudhya). Rama Khamheng was all but forgotten for the next few centuries after his death. But King Mongkut of Thailand (r. 1851–1868) rediscovered the 1292 inscription about Rama Khamheng while traveling around as a Buddhist monk. After that, Rama Khamheng became a national hero in Thailand as the founder of the first true Siamese state. See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Mongkut (Rama IV); Sukhothai Kingdom.

RAMSES II, THE GREAT (d. ca. 1212 B.C.E.)

Powerful ancient Egyptian ruler (r. ca. 1279–1212 b.c.e.) of the Nineteenth dynasty, possibly the pharaoh of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt mentioned in the Bible, who spent most of his reign building monuments to himself along the Nile River, thus becoming a symbol of ancient Egyptian civilization. The second longest ruling pharaoh of ancient Egypt, Usermare Ramses II was the son of Pharaoh Seti I (r. ca. 1294–1279 b.c.e.). Although he succeeded to the throne at about age twenty, Ramses II was well prepared for the task.While still in his teenage years, Ramses had been designated co-regent by his father, who took the young prince with him on military campaigns against Egypt’s enemies. Early in his reign, Ramses II built a new royal city in the Nile Delta, the home region of his family. He named the city Pi-Ramesse and adorned it with gardens, orchards, and canals.The city’s name and location have led some scholars to identify it with Ramses, the city built by Hebrew slaves according to the biblical Book of Exodus. In fact, Egyptian records show that the Apiru (usually identified with the Hebrews) were among Ramses II’s brick makers and stone quarriers. Other information about Ramses II, including the fact that he outlived many of his heirs, also conforms to the account told in the Book of Exodus. But the Hebrew exodus is not mentioned in any Egyptian records.

767

EGYPT AND THE HITTITES Pi-Ramesse served as an excellent starting point for Ramses’s repeated forays into Syria, which were aimed at restoring Egyptian power in Asia. In the fifth year of his reign, he led his armies on a major campaign to dislodge the Hittites from Syria. The armies of the two empires met at Qadesh (Kadesh) on the Orantes River in western Syria, where a fierce and bloody battle ensued. Ramses II managed to extricate himself from an ambush only through great feats of personal courage and ferocity—at least according to his own accounts of the event. The Egyptians eventually left the field at Qadesh without any gain. Historians call the battle, and the entire campaign against the Hittites, a standoff. But Ramses II described the battle as a great victory in his own records. He memorialized the battle of Qadesh in monumental stone depictions and inscriptions that he placed all over Egypt, and in three written papyrus accounts. After several more campaigns against the Hittites, none of which changed the situation or gained any success, Ramses II signed a peace treaty around 1258 b.c.e. with the Hittite king Hattushili III (r. 1263–1245 b.c.e.), in part as protection against the rising power of Assyria. In removing the Hittite threat, the treaty allowed trade to revive between Egypt and other states of the ancient Near East, and it contributed to the increasing presence of foreigners in Egypt by ensuring safe passage along trade routes. In later years, relations between the Egyptian and Hittite rulers and their families grew cordial, as can be testified to by dozens of letters from Ramses II to Hattushili III and his wife.The pharaoh later married two Hittite princesses. The first of these marriages was celebrated in Damascus in Syria by huge retinues from each side.

BUILDING PROJECTS Apart from the Syrian campaigns and a few successful forays into Nubia and Libya to suppress rebellions, the long reign of Ramses II was blessed with peace. Revenues that might have been diverted to war were invested in massive construction programs instead. About half of the ancient Egyptian temples that survive today date from this era. Ramses’s vast new temples, especially those in the region of Nubia to the south, served to intimidate the population and reinforce the prestige and power

768

R a m s e s I I , t h e G r e at

Among the many monuments built during the reign of Ramses II was the temple of Abu Simbel in southern Egypt. In the 1960s, the temple was cut from its rock base and moved to higher ground to escape the waters of Lake Nasser, rising behind the Aswan Dam.The facade of the temple is dominated by four seated statues of Ramses.

of the state. But most of the construction also seems to have been designed to glorify the pharaoh, a goal that was, in fact, achieved. Later Greek writers, impressed with the colossal statues and overpowering battle panoramas created during the reign of Ramses II, called him “the Great,” an epithet that is still attached to his name today. The building projects of Ramses II served to revive the ancient colossal style of construction used in earlier periods of Egyptian history. Among the most impressive buildings were the huge temples of Karnak and Abu Simbel. At the temple of Amun in the city of Tanis, Ramses gathered a collection of statues from various periods and locations around Egypt, forming a “museum” of Egyptian art.

THE SUCCESSION Ramses II fathered more than 150 children by his many wives and concubines. Because Ramses lived to

be at least eighty-five years old, many of his prospective heirs died before he did.The fact that he had so many children, and his very long reign, made for a long and difficult succession crisis after Ramses’s death in 1212 b.c.e. His immediate successors were his son Merenptah (r. 1212–1202 b.c.e.) and Amenmesses (r. 1201–1199 b.c.e.), who may have been another of his sons. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Hittite Empire; Seti I. FURTHER READING

Grimal, Nicolas-Christophe. A History of Ancient Egypt. Trans. Ian Shaw. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992. Hornung, Erik. History of Ancient Egypt: An Introduction. Trans. David Lorton. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.

R a s t r a k u ta Dy na s t y Johnson, Paul. The Civilization of Ancient Egypt. Updated ed. New York: HarperCollins, 1999.

RANAVALONA I, MADA (ca. 1788–1861 C.E.)

Queen of the Merina kingdom (r. 1828–1861), who is remembered for the ruthlessness with which she fought the incursion of European colonial interests into her realm on the island of Madagascar. A member of the royal family of the powerful Merina kingdom, Ranavalona was born around 1788. She became queen of Merina upon her marriage to Radama I (r. 1810–1828), who inherited the throne from his father, Andrianampoinimerina (r. 1787–1810). King Andrianampoinimerina was considered the founder of the Merina kingdom, having reestablished it after years of fragmentation and powerlessness. Initially, Ranavalona’s queenly status was due solely to her royal marriage. But Radama never designated a successor, and when he died in 1828, Ranavalona assumed rulership in her own right. (An infant son born soon after Radama’s death was too young to take the throne.) Ranavalona’s claim to the throne was contested, but she eliminated her opposition by ordering the execution of any and all rival claimants, thus ensuring her reign. At the same time, she demonstrated political skills by cultivating the support of key members of the Merina royal court and army. Through her skill and ruthlessness, Ranavalona quickly managed to establish herself as absolute ruler of Merina. Ranavalona was deeply distrustful of European influences. Among her first acts as queen was to withdraw from alliances with the British, who had held the island of Madagascar as a protectorate. When Ranavalona imposed severe restrictions on trade, the British—along with the French—attempted to force her to reverse her decision by launching a naval attack against her kingdom. Displaying the same ruthlessness that she had employed against rivals to the throne, Ravanalona responded to this European assault with brutal effectiveness. She ordered that the corpses of her subjects who had been killed in the attack be decapitated and their heads placed on spikes along the beaches.This grisly sight broke the resolve of the Eu-

769

ropean attackers, and the bombardments ceased soon after. Ranavalona was not merely distrustful of European politicians and soldiers. She also recognized that Christian missionaries, who had been welcomed by her husband, constituted a threat to Merina traditional life. She therefore forbade her subjects from converting to Christianity, and she actively persecuted those Christian missionaries who continued to work in her kingdom. Ranavalona’s contempt and distrust for Europeans reached its highest point in the late 1850s, when she learned of a conspiracy between one of her sons and the French government. This son, Rakoto, had promised the formation of a French protectorate in exchange for financial support and assistance in the industrial development of Madagascar. Outraged by this agreement, Ranavalona intensified her persecution of Europeans throughout the Merina kingdom. She even resorted to the use of torture and summary execution to rid her kingdom of European nationals. Nonetheless, she named her errant son, Prince Rakoto, as her successor. However, upon her death in 1861, another son, Radama II (r. 1861–1863), who was strongly pro-French, took the throne. See also: Madagascar Kingdoms; Merina Kingdom; Radama I; Radama II.

RASTRAKUTA DYNASTY (ca. 755–975 C.E.)

Indian dynasty of the Deccan region of central India, which, at the height of the its power, constituted one of the most important Indian ruling dynasties. During the dynasty’s rule, Rastrakuta armies defeated all of the other powers of India. The Rastrakuta dynasty was founded around 755 by Dantidurga (r. ca. 738–758), a feudatory chieftain of much debated origins. Some scholars claim that Dantidurga came from Karnataka, the city of Mysore in the southern Deccan region. Others say he came from the region of Lattalura, near Osmanabad in south-central India. Still others claim that Dantidurga was a descendant of the Rathor dynasty of northern India, while others say that he came from a line of farmers from Andhra, an area south of the

770

R a s t r a k u ta Dy na s t y

central Indian mountain ranges. Despite such debate, most scholars have agreed that Dantidurga was a local official, because the word “Rastrakuta,” the name of the dynasty he founded, indicates a person who is head of a “rashtra” or district. A succession of conquests eventually brought Dantidurga into battle with King Kirtivarman II (r. 746–757) of the Chalukya dynasty, whom he defeated in 752. As a result of this victory, Dantidurga ruled the whole of the Maharashtra, which included most of the south-central and western Indian plain known as the Deccan plateau region.At the time, the Deccan region was the largest political entity in India. Dantidurga was succeeded on the Rastrakuta throne by Krishna I (r. 758–773), who continued the momentum of conquest and expansion begun by his predecessor. Krishna I crushed what was left of the Chalukya dynasty and then conquered Mysore, Southern Koukan, and other regions. A great builder, Krishna I commissioned construction of the magnificent temple of Siva at Ellora, which was built into solid rock. Govinda II (r. 773–780), the successor to Krishna I, preferred a life of pleasure and debauchery to military conquest. A younger brother, Dhruva, looked after the administration until Govinda II attempted to have him removed. The brothers took up arms against each other. Dhruva won and ascended to the throne in 780. Dhruva (r. 780–793) continued to battle in successful campaigns against all who opposed him, and he eventually became ruler of the whole of the Deccan plateau region. Still ambitious, he decided to take control of all of northern India. Every kingdom he challenged fell before Dhruva’s powerful armies. When he finally reached the Ganges and the Jumna rivers, no other powers in India could stop him. He returned home from his great conquests with enormous wealth. When Dhruva’s successor, Govinda II (r. 793– 814), came to the Rastrakuta throne in 793, his first task was to stop a revolt led by his older brother, Stambha. He then made Stambha governor of the region of Gangavadi. Govinda II repeated Dhruva’s march to the north with equally successful results. He then returned to put down a rebellion by a confederacy of the Ganga, Kerala, Pandya, and Pallava dynasties. Between the late 700s and early 900s, the Rastrakuta dynasty maintained much of its power in India. In the early 900s, Indra I (r. 914–922)

marched north and conquered the kingdom of Kanauj, making him the ruler of more kingdoms than any other ruler in the history of India. His successors won further military victories, but also experienced increasing military losses and, many times, bad administration. In 975, Khottiga Amoghavarsa IV (r. 968–975) failed to protect his capital city, Manyaketa, and it was sacked and destroyed by the Chalukya dynasty of Kalyana. The Chalukya ruler, Taila I (r. 975–997), took the throne, marking the end of the Rastrakuta dynasty. Until the Maratha confederacy in the eighteenth century c.e., no other dynasty from the Deccan region had such a powerful effect on the history of India. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Maratha Confederacy; Mysore Kingdom; Pandya Dynasty.

REALMS, TYPES OF Various types of political structures, or domains, ruled by a monarch or other sovereign, such as an emperor. Realms include political entities such as empires, kingdoms, principalities, duchies, counties, and city-states.These various types of realms can also have different types of governmental structure, ranging from rule by absolute monarchs to theocracies to constitutional monarchies.

CITY-STATES In the ancient world, beginning in Mesopotamia, one of the earliest types of political realms was established—the city-state. The formation of the citystate was due, in part, to such factors as agricultural specialization, the resulting population growth, the consolidation of tribal groups, and difficulties in travel and communication. The city-state remained an important form of government in different parts of the world for many centuries. In Renaissance Italy, for example, citystates played an important role in the later development of the nation-state in Western Europe. Most ancient city-states were ruled by monarchs, although some, such as the city-state of Athens in ancient Greece, saw the development of democracy. Overlords occasionally might rule more than one city-state, but by and large, the earliest were ruled independently.

Rebellion IMPERIAL REALMS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD Little is known about Sargon (r. ca. 2334–2279 b.c.e.), Mesopotamia’s first known ruler.Thought to have founded the city-state of Akkad, Sargon used military conquest to greatly extend his realm, eventually establishing a great empire, called Sumeria, that included all of Mesopotamia and extended over Syria and other parts of the ancient Near East. Empires, or imperial realms, continued to play a major role in world history for the next 4,000 years. Imperial realms varied a great deal in their organization and administration, depending on the particular emperor and the political, social, and cultural milieu in which the empire was formed. In organizing his ancient empire, Sargon of Akkad apparently left native rulers in place, even as he installed officials to represent him in the various regions he conquered. In this, he differed from the rulers of the ancient Egyptian and Persian empires, who appointed representatives to rule directly. By about 1800 b.c.e., the dominance of Sargon’s empire had faded, and a people known as the Amorites controlled much of Mesopotamia. They established their capital at Babylon, which eventually became the center of another great empire.Whereas Sumeria had allowed its subject states to be independent, the Amorite government was centralized and enjoyed far more power, including taxation and involuntary military service.The Hittites, who established an empire centered in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) that flourished from 1600 to 1200 b.c.e, further extended imperial power by making the king the owner of nearly all the property under his control and allowing only the military the right to control land. One of the most important empires of the ancient Near East was that of Persia. Under Emperor Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 b.c.e.), the Persian Empire was divided into twenty-one satrapies, or provinces, each ruled by a governor (satrap) who kept his capital under protection of a garrison. Each satrapy owed the king a certain amount of tribute, paid in gold and silver.

MEDIEVAL REALMS A number of realms still seen today, such as duchies, date back to the medieval era. A duke would have recognized the overlordship of another lord, such as an earl, yet retained power of his own. Often, such a duke or earl might be the real power in a kingdom.

771

In fourteenth-century England, for example, during the minority of Richard II (r. 1377–1399), John of Gaunt, the duke of Lancaster, was the most powerful man in England. Another type of medieval realm was the earldom, whose ruler was an earl. In medieval Scotland in the ninth century, the earldom of Orkney was part of a powerful Viking kingdom. In 1468, it was given to James III of Scotland (r. 1460–1488) by Christian I of Denmark (r. 1448–1481) as part of his daughter’s dowry. Such transfers of property and realms were frequent in the Middle Ages. When realms changed hands, the populace would have to transfer their loyalty to the new overlord. A few such realms, such the grand duchy of Luxembourg and the principality of Monaco, still exist and have remained independent. Until 1911, Monaco was an absolute monarchy, governed by a ruler who had absolute power. It then became a constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch’s power is based on a body of laws. Currently, the prince of Monaco shares executive power with a minister of state and a council of government.

NATION-STATES By the time of the Renaissance, some European rulers were powerful monarchs who had acquired complete control over their realms. This period saw the development of absolute monarchy, in which the ruler imposed total control over his or her country. England, France, and Spain all developed into powerful nationstates during this period. Many of these countries have today become figurehead monarchies, in which the monarch represents the country more as a symbol and performs ceremonial duties. In Great Britain, for example, Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1952– ) presides over the opening of Parliament every year, but she has no say in its decisions. Today, figurehead monarchy is found in much of Western Europe as well as Japan. See also: Dynasty; Empire; Imperial Rule; Kingdoms and Empires; Realms,Types of; Royal Families;Tribute.

REBELLION Means by which subjects oppose or limit the rule of a king. The right of a monarch to rule absolutely was

772

Rebellion

rarely questioned in ancient cultures, although in democratic Athens, the great philosopher Aristotle suggested that citizens might be justified in rebelling in some circumstances. Early Christian texts also accepted the power of the king to rule. Throughout the early medieval era, however, absolute monarchy, as practiced later in the eighteenth century, was not, politically or economically, an option. A king was to be obeyed in all matters—but it was to be assumed that the king would rule according to the law. In addition, Germanic custom assumed the king’s will to be that of the people, and by the eleventh century, the first legislative bodies, usually representative of the nobility, were involved in advising the kings and even in choosing them. In England this body, known as the Witenagemot, elected Harold II (r. 1066) king in 1066 when Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066) died childless. A king was not required, automatically, to follow the decisions of the legislative body, but he was expected to follow custom and to consider the legislature’s advice. According to the medieval theologian, St.Thomas Aquinas, a group of people had the right to provide themselves with a king, so as to ensure order. It followed, therefore, that the same group of people had the right to depose the monarch if the monarch exercised tyranny. Aquinas defined a tyrant as one who makes a law that is contrary to God’s law, and in such a case,Aquinas maintained, one is not bound to obey. In extreme situations, such as with the Roman emperor Domitian (r. 81–96), one might even justify tyrannicide, to rid the kingdom of a tyrannical ruler. One of the most important early instances of rebellion against a monarch was the Magna Carta, or Great Charter, signed by John I of England (r. 1199–1216) in 1215. John imposed excessive taxation to finance his unsuccessful wars in France and ruthlessly penalized those who could not or would not pay. He arbitrarily imprisoned his opponents and seized lands belonging to church and nobleman alike. In 1215, a group of barons rebelled against him and seized London. On June 15, they gathered at Runnymede, a meadow outside London, and forced him to agree to their concessions, signing what became known as the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta did not, as is sometimes assumed, create constitutional monarchy, but it was the first document that placed written limitations on a king’s power. The most important of these limitations perhaps was the power it gave Parliament over

the monarchy’s spending, a right that proved particularly important in the seventeenth-century conflict between Parliament and the Stuart kings. Moreover, although many of the protections it provided were the feudal rights of the barons, it could also be assumed that the financial benefits it provided would be passed down to their subordinates. Another example of opposition to a monarchy is usurpation, in which one nobleman, or prince, takes over the throne, in many cases killing the monarch as well. Such was the case with Richard II of England (r. 1377–1399), who had exiled Henry, earl of Bolingbroke, in 1398.When Henry’s father, John of Gaunt, died in 1399, Richard made the mistake of seizing the Lancaster lands. Henry returned to claim his inheritance, and on his way to London, he gained a large number of supporters. Richard II, an unpopular figure whose policies were seen as tyrannical, was deposed, and Henry of Bolingbroke claimed the Crown as Henry IV (r. 1399–1413). In 1400, Richard II was murdered in Pontefract Castle. In 1689, in the so-called Glorious Revolution, James II fled and was replaced by William III (r. 1689–1702) and Mary II (r. 1689–1695), who accepted the throne only after consenting to a list of conditions known as the Declaration of Right. This declaration is mostly known for its exclusion of all Catholics from the English throne. However, its other immediate restrictions on the monarchy were more important.The declaration denied the king’s ability to dispense with or suspend laws that Parliament had passed as well as his ability to dissolve the Parliament once elected or to prosecute, in the King’s Court, matters that were in Parliament’s jurisdiction. These restrictions were important in limiting the powers of the king, and it is here, with the Declaration, that we see the real beginnings of a constitutional monarchy. Thus, a bloodless revolution had been effected, a new monarch brought to the throne, and the powers of the monarch strongly restricted. See also: Abdication, Royal; Deaccession; Dethronement; Election, Royal; James II; John I; Kingdoms and Empires; Legitimacy; Regicide; Tyranny, Royal. FURTHER READING

Ashley, Maurice. Great Britain to 1688. Ed. Allan Nevins and Howard M. Ehrmann. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961.

R e g a l i a a n d I n s i g n i a , Roya l “The Declaration of Right.” (February 1689). In J. H. Robinson, ed. Readings in European History. Boston: Ginn, 1906.

RECCARED I (d. 601 C.E.) King of the Visigothic kingdom of Spain from 586 to 601, whose conversion to Roman Catholicism brought the Visigoths closer to the other Christian kingdoms of early medieval Europe. The son and successor of King Leovigild (r. 568–586), Reccared took the throne upon the death of his father. Unlike Leovigild, who pursued a policy of conquest, Reccared followed a much less aggressive foreign policy. Although he fought against the Basque peoples in northern Iberia and repelled several invasions by the Franks, he made peace with the Byzantine Empire and worked to improve relations with the Roman peoples who had occupied the Iberian Peninsula for centuries before the Visigoths. Reccared’s most significant accomplishment concerned religion. The Visigothic kings before Reccared, including Leovigild, had been Arian Christians since around the fourth century. Arian Christians denied the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, claiming that Christ, the Son, was inferior to God, the Father. In 587, Reccared personally converted to the Roman form of Catholicism, and he extended this conversion to his kingdom at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. At this council, Reccared, his family, and other leaders of the kingdom formally renounced Arianism before the Catholic bishops of Iberia. The new regime became intolerant of Arians, and Recarred crushed a series of rebellions led by Arian clergy and believers. The Council of Toledo marked the beginning of a close alliance between the Visigothic monarchs and the Catholic bishops that would extend beyond Reccared’s own reign. Recarred adopted the religious rite of anointment and, like many kings of the time who were allies and benefactors of the Roman Church, he was hailed as a new Constantine (referring to the Roman emperor who established Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire). Upon Reccared’s death in 601, he was succeeded on the Visigothic throne by his son, Liuva II (r. 601–603). See also: Christianity and Kingship; Constantine I, the Great;Visigoth Kingdom.

773

REGALIA AND INSIGNIA, ROYAL The signs and symbols that identify a queen or king. Regalia are items that are worn or carried by the monarch, whereas insignia may be worn by or used by a monarch’s subjects to indicate loyalty or connection. In some kingdoms, regalia unique to the Crown are given to the monarch at the coronation ceremony. Regalia can include crowns, rings, seals, swords, banners, shields, and scepters. In medieval France, a crimson banner accompanied kings in battle. Use of the objects was central to the bestowing of royal power, and the symbolic nature of the royal objects was clearly understood by all. Royal ceremonies have a common purpose—to inspire and impress all who witness them—and regalia are an important part of their effect. In the Western world, crowns have been the essential element of a monarch’s regalia.They are often covered with precious stones and made of gold. In France, beginning in medieval times, coronation ceremonies could involve the use of several crowns. The archbishop conducting the ceremony would place the “official” crown—the crown associated with the office of monarch—on the head of the king or queen. Later in the rite, it would be replaced by the individual’s personal crown. By the sixteenth century, the coronation ceremony had come to include yet another crown, after the official crown but before the personal one. Monarchs also had personal crowns that they specifically wore for certain occasions, such as for funerals. In Russia during the coronation of a new tsar, the royal ceremonial objects were brought from the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to the Moscow Armory, which served as the state treasury from the beginning of the eighteenth century.The ancient crown of the Russian tsars, the Cap of Monomach, was made in Central Asia in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. It is a gold dome topped with a knob and a cross, and is trimmed with a thick band of sable fur. This crown was replaced by a more Western-style crown in the late seventeenth century. Until 1762, a new crown was made for each monarch, but the elaborate diamond-encrusted creation designed for Catherine the Great (r. 1762–1796) by a well-known St. Petersburg jeweler was subsequently used for all succeeding monarchs, including the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty, Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917).

774

R e g a l i a a n d I n s i g n i a , Roya l

All monarchies have crowns and other regalia that serve as symbols of royal power and authority.The coronation regalia of Emperor Rudolph II of Austria, who ruled the Holy Roman Empire from 1576 to 1612, include a jeweled crown, an orb, and a scepter.

SEATS AND THRONES A dramatic way to distinguish monarchs from the people around them was to give them special chairs to sit on. In some cultures these were thrones; in others, stools. The Asante people of Ghana have an elaborate tradition of decorated stools. The various designs have symbolic meanings, and some are reserved for particular kinds of people. Each clan of the Asante has its own king, who has his own stool design; several designs are reserved for the exclusive use of the Asantehene, the leader of all the kings, including the elephant stool, which symbolizes his strength, and the leopard stool, which symbolizes his power and influence.

The kings of Scotland had a special stool for use in coronation ceremonies: the Stone of Scone, or the Stone of Destiny. It was a rough-hewn block of granite, nothing special to look at, but legend had it that it was the very rock that the biblical Jacob had used as a pillow in the story told in Genesis, and that it had magical powers. It is unclear how many centuries the Stone of Scone had been used by the Scottish kings, but the last time was in 1292.When Edward I of England invaded Scotland in 1296, he stole the Stone, probably because it was an important symbol of the power of the Scottish kings. In 1301, he had a special coronation throne built with a space under the seat to house the Stone, and it was housed in Westminster

Regencies

775

ROYAL RITUALS

THE THAI CORONATION CEREMONY Royal ceremonies have a common purpose—to inspire and impress all who witness them—and regalia are an important part of their effect.The symbolic nature of the royal objects is understood by all.The regalia used in the Thai coronation ceremony consist of five elements.The crown is made of gold, set with diamonds and enameled in red and green. It is in a distinctive Thai design with a tapering spire, and is 66 cm. high.The sword has a gold, jeweled hilt and scabbard, and symbolizes the king’s duty to protect his people.The royal staff, made of cassia wood enclosed at the ends in gold, symbolizes the guiding of the king’s steps on the path of justice.The royal fan and flywhisk represent the warding off of maleficent influences; the flywhisk is made from the tail of an albino elephant. There are also royal slippers, with upcurved toes, made completely of gold and lined in red velvet.

Abbey in London. English monarchs were seated in that throne for coronation for almost seven hundred years. It was not until 1996 that, under pressure from Scottish nationalists, the Stone was returned to Scotland. It now rests in Edinburgh Castle, along with the crown jewels of the Scottish throne. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Enthronement, Rites of.

REGENCIES Government in which the ruling monarch is deemed incompetent by virtue of youth, illness, or other special circumstance, and thus not legally qualified to govern. The usual situation involves a child, and the state is then ruled by one or more high-ranking members of the aristocracy, called regents, who stand in as ruler and make the government’s decisions. Regencies are particularly prone to strife and corruption as different nobles contend for power. During the fifteenth century, for example, Scotland under the Stewarts repeatedly had minority kings, beginning with James I (r. 1406–1437).Although the dynasty survived for 300 years, the country was weakened by quarrelsome nobility and the repeated threat of English invasion during the regencies of these monarchs.

“Cursed be the land that is ruled by a child!” was a common saying of the Middle Ages. American political theorist, Thomas Paine, in his book The Rights of Man, cites regencies and child kings as among his reasons for favoring democracy over monarchy: “A regency is a mock species of republic, and the whole of monarchy deserves no better description.” From earliest times through the late Middle Ages, a monarch was expected to have military as well as administrative aptitude. Therefore, a realm that was ruled by a regent often suffered militarily, as did England under Henry VI (r. 1422–1461, 1470–1471), when it lost the territories that Henry V (r. 1413– 1422) had gained. Some regents, either through circumstance or through skill, were able to regain power repeatedly. Catherine de Medici was regent for her husband, Henry II of France (r. 1547–1559), while he was campaigning at Metz, again during the minority of her eldest son, Francis II (r. 1559–1560), and a third time during the minority of her second son, Charles IX of France (r. 1560–1574). Some regents were powerful and controlled their governments all too well. For example, the Chinese empress,Tz’u Hsi (1835–1908), was originally concubine to the emperor Hsien Feng (r. 1850–1861). She became regent for her young son, Tung Chih (Tongzhi) (r. 1861–1875), after Hsien Feng’s death in 1861.Together with the dowager empress Tzu An, and with the help of Prince Kung, the emperor’s

776

Regencies

brother, she seized control of the state and eliminated those who had opposed their regency, retaining power even after her son came of age. Perhaps the most famous regency is that of King George III of England (1738–1820). George IV (1762–1830) was appointed regent for his father, George III, who suffered from porphyria, an illness with symptoms resembling madness. The last ten years of George III’s reign is known as the Regency Era; architecture and fashions of the time were named for the period. During this time, England’s government had evolved toward parliamentary democracy; however, final passage of parliamentary decisions still depended on the king’s approval, and the monarchy still had a good deal of power. See also:Emperors and Empresses; Empire; Imperial Rule; Kingdoms and Empires; Kings and Queens; Realms,Types of; Regencies; Royal Families.

REGICIDE Act of killing a king or the one who commits such an act; in English history, the name given to judges who ordered the execution of Charles I (r. 1625–1649). Regicide is closely bound up with the idea of divine kingship, for it implies that to kill a king is to commit an offense somehow different from the killing of any other man. Equally, the term implies that the killing of a king is in some qualitative way distinct from any other political murder, for which the term assassination would be sufficient. Like matricide and patricide, the term used to denote the killing of a king marks its subject as something acutely troubling and particularly heinous. According to the ideology of monarchical divinity accepted in many cultures, it would seem that a divine king could not be killed. He is, after all, not just godlike but in fact a god himself.An attempt to murder the king would seem as unthinkable as the attempt to assail God. Yet rulers throughout history have been killed with alarming frequency by their subjects, their court, or their own kin.

tion of God on earth, he cannot escape mortality. A king’s stirring death on the battlefield could be celebrated, yet the same could not be said of a death in which the king lingered, ever-weakening or, worse, lost his wits. To avoid something so unthinkable, it could become necessary that the king be killed, clearing the way for a successor who could assume the divine status of the office. The origins of the eight Ovambo kingdoms in modern Namibia are not clear, although myths trace the descent of their kings to ancient gods. By the time Europeans arrived in the Ovambo region in the mid-1800s, the traditions of matrilineal kingship were firmly established. When the ruling monarch was dying, elders and the queen deliberated to choose a new king from among the queen’s relatives.The king-elect then had to undergo a series of tests to prove his fitness to rule, including killing his predecessor.When he accepted the throne, the king knew that he, too, would one day be killed by his successor.

THE POLITICS OF REGICIDE In practice, ritual regicide is rare in the extreme. Rather than an act to perpetuate the idea of the godking, regicide is nearly universally the ultimate in ambitious duplicity. Killing a king is done to clear the way for a new king to assume the throne and is more often than not done while the target of the killing is still quite intent on continuing to rule. A variation of regicide involves the killing of alternative heirs to the throne. In cultures that adhere to the concept of a divine king, the possession of the proper pedigree is enough to make one a potential claimant to the throne. In such societies, it is not uncommon that when there are several equally qualified claimants, the one who eventually emerges does so only after others have been eliminated by murder. For example, when England’s Edward IV (r.1461– 1483) died suddenly, his twelve-year-old son Edward should have inherited the throne. However, the young Edward, along with his younger brother Richard, quietly disappeared while the former king’s brother, Richard of Gloucester (Richard III, r. 1483–1485), stepped forward to claim the kingdom.

RITUAL REGICIDE Noted anthropologist Sir James Frazer (The Golden Bough, 1940) has argued that regicide is a necessary adjunct to the concept of the divinity of the king. Although the king might proclaim himself the incarna-

REGICIDE AND THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE One aspect of the divine king is that he is fundamentally responsible for the well-being of his people, for

Regicide their fertility, for the bountiful harvest of their crops, and for their security. The divine king is able to provide these services through his special connection with God, because he enjoys the goodwill of a chain of ancestors that stretch directly from him to the divinity. How, then, can it be that, sometimes, the rains fail to come, the crops die on the vine, or the people suffer from the attacks of their neighbors? Clearly, God or the gods do not show him favor. Within the closed, circular logic of divine kingship, this can only be explained by asserting that this king is not the rightful ruler after all, for his incapacity must mean that his divinity has deserted him. At least, this is how those who would use the situation to install another ruler would justify such a king’s assassination. No longer deserving of the office, he can—indeed, he must—be separated from it. Regicide in this sense is proclaimed as a therapeutic act designed to restore the body politic to health. A similar, if post-facto, rationalization can be made for the violent overthrow of a king by an ambitious usurper. If the king were truly fit to rule, he would survive any attempts to seize his office. It is this circular reasoning that makes the idea of regicide so extraordinary.To kill a king is to strike not only at a ruler (and at God, in the case of divine kingship), but also at the very fabric of society, for which the king is the ultimate unifying symbol. Yet, to kill the king has been seen as the ultimate act of sacrifice when the king is perceived as being a danger to the society for which he is responsible.Therefore, simply by committing the act, the regicide puts himself beyond the bounds of society, becoming its most dangerous transgressor, even when he is also its savior.

EUROPE’S REGICIDES: THE DEATHS OF CHARLES I AND LOUIS XVI The two most well-known regicides in European history are those of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France.The first was performed at the order of the state, after a lengthy public trial, and culminated in the beheading of the king at Whitehall in 1649. The second arose from the winds of revolution, and the guillotining of Louis XVI marked not only the end of the person of the king, but of the institution of the French monarchy itself. The reign of Charles I (1625–1649) was a time of great social upheaval, involving controversies in religion, internal political conflicts, and ultimately civil war. Charles attempted to deal with these problems

777

autocratically, most notably by dissolving Parliament for long stretches of time and turning a deaf ear to the powerful contingents among his noble classes. His behavior became intolerable, and he was ultimately called to answer for his abuses of power in the court. But this was in direct contradiction to his belief in his divine right to rule. Charles’s trial was marked by his initial refusal to acknowledge the court’s right to try him.As king, he was above the jurisdiction of human courts. When it became clear that the court meant to sentence him to death, he sought to defend himself, but was caught in the contradiction inherent in his position.As king, he had asserted himself beyond the reach of the court. Thus, he had no right to a voice within the court. In executing Charles I, the regicides were killing not only the man, but also the particular approach to kingship that this man had come to represent. Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) was in a similar position in France. His rule, and the institution of the monarchy in general, was no longer acceptable to the French. With the rise of Republicanism in France, there was no safe place for a ruler, even if deposed. Were he allowed to live, he would provide a symbol around which those who wished for the return of the monarchy might rally. In his execution, the killing of the man was almost inconsequential, for what was being killed was the monarchy itself.

MODERN REGICIDE: RUSSIA AND NEPAL In early twentieth-century Russia, revolutionary fervor brought down the House of Romanov. Here the regicide was breathtakingly complete, for not only was the reigning tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917) killed, but his entire family, including the young heir to the throne, was also slaughtered. The rule of the tsars could just as easily have been ended by exiling the royal family, but it was not just the rule of a particular king that was being destroyed.The institution of monarchy itself was being killed, and the tsar, as both current ruler and symbol of all monarchic rule stood for, could not be allowed an ambiguous end. A more recent example of regicide resulted in death for most of the royal family of Nepal. In 2001, King Birenda (r. 1972–2001); his wife Queen Aiswarya; their daughter, Princess Shruti; and another son, Prince Nirajan were all shot to death by Crown Prince Dipendra. Dipendra then also killed himself. This regicide was not for the good of the

778

Regicide

country, nor was it to gain the throne since the regicide himself was next in the line of succession. The killings and suicide resulted from a disagreement in the royal family about Dipendra’s choice of bride.

LITERARY REGICIDE For centuries, writers have made much of regicide. Sophocles wrote of Oedipus who unwittingly committed both regicide and patricide and then became king in his father’s place. Shakespeare’s Macbeth,Hamlet, and Julius Caesar all deal with the killings of rulers.These stories, whether fiction or fact, capture the imagination because the act of regicide is a crime not only against a man, but also against society, against the divine ruler, and in some cases, against God himself. See also: Charles I; Divinity of Kings; Louis XVI; Romanov Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Frazer, Sir James George. The Golden Bough:A Study in Magic and Religion. Abridged ed. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002. Poole, Steven. The Politics of Regicide in England, 1760–1850: Troublesome Subjects. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Walzer, Michael, ed. Regicide and Revolution: Speeches at the Trial of Louis XVI. Trans. Marian Rothstein. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.

REIGNS, LENGTH OF Period of time that a monarch rules a realm. The number of years a monarch rules can affect the country in several ways—political, economic, and social. A long reign usually has a stabilizing effect on a country, while a short reign can create much turmoil, especially when several successive monarchs rule for short periods of time.

EFFECTS OF A LONG REIGN A long reign, such as that of Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603), can produce a stabilizing effect on a realm, for several reasons. In the case of Elizabeth I, she became a symbol of England, and she encouraged this symbolism with the image of a Virgin Queen. She also came to the throne during a period of religious upheaval, with England alternating between

Catholic and Protestant rulers. Initially, Elizabeth created more upheaval by changing the religion again, from Catholic to Protestant, but the length of her reign ensured the acceptance of the idea that England was a Protestant country. One of Elizabeth’s most important reforms was the complete recoinage of the currency. Elizabeth had inherited the economic problems, particularly inflation, that her father, Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547), had created by debasing the currency. Early in her reign, in 1560–1561, Elizabeth had the debased currency melted down and recast to slow inflation. Although she still had to cope with poor harvests and increased population, causing new inflation, her restoration of the currency meant renewed faith in the English economy as merchants in foreign countries no longer insisted on gold bullion in dealings with England. Because a long reign can produce stability, it frequently produces a golden age of great literature, music, or art. For example, the Elizabethan era gave rise not only to the great Elizabethan playwrights, such as William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, but also the music of William Byrd, the Renaissance composer, who became known as “The Father of English Music.” As rulers age, however, corruption and moral decay may set in; older rulers sometimes heed bad advice from friends, as did the Chinese emperor Xuanzong (r. 712–755). Xuanzong was an able emperor who reformed the T’ang bureaucracy and built roads; his reign saw the T’ang dynasty’s greatest painting and poetry. But in his later years he became infatuated with his favorite concubine, Yang Guifei, and neglectful of his duties.Yang Guifei acquired too much power, naming her favorites as government officials. Among her favorites was the general An Lushan who rebelled against the emperor in 755. Consequently, Xuanzong’s troops forced him to have Yang Guifei executed, and Xuanzong was compelled to abdicate. A long-term ruler may fail in yet another respect: he or she may create hardships for the country by failing to see a need for technological, political, or economic reform. For example, the dowager empress Cixi (r. 1861–1908), by refusing to Westernize, created severe difficulties for China in the aftermath of her death. At a time when other governments, Eastern and Western, were becoming constitutional monarchies, Cixi maintained abso-

R e l i g i ou s D u t i e s a n d Pow e r s

779

lutist rule over China. She used the Boxers—secret anti-Western societies who opposed industrialization and modernization—to attack Westerners in 1898 in an uprising known as the Boxer Rebellion. Consequently,Western forces invaded Beijing and imposed reparations. At last, Cixi recognized the need for some reforms, but it was too little, too late.

common language and the common culture throughout much of Asia Minor.

EFFECTS OF A SHORT REIGN

RELIGIOUS DUTIES AND POWERS

In the case of a short-reigning monarch, the heir to the throne may be an infant, with the government consequently weakened by rule by a regent. In other cases, there will be no heir at all, which may lead to internal strife, and possibly civil war, as rival claimants to the throne struggle for power. Embodying such problems was Henry V of England (r. 1413–1422), who in his nine years as king, both through military and diplomatic policy, tried to reestablish English superiority over France. Henry V died young, leaving an infant son, Henry VI (r. 1422–1461 and 1470–1471), too young to rule, and his regents opposed one another. These problems, combined with French victories over the English during the Hundred Years’ War, weakened England’s hold on France. By 1453, England held only Calais. Similarly, a new ruler faces challenges if he or she tries to institute reforms. Changes are often resisted, and a ruler who reigns for a few years may not succeed in instituting new policies. Edward VI of England (r. 1547–1553), for example, ruled for only six years, and his reign had few long-term consequences.The policies of his regents were short-lived. His first regent, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset, was concerned with the plight of the poor, but the revolt of the gentry and the collapse of his regency ensured that his reforms would be short-lived. Seymour was replaced by John Dudley, earl of Warwick, who made himself duke of Northumberland in 1551. Dudley controlled England for only four years. Although he went to great lengths to ingratiate himself with Edward, after Edward’s death, Mary I (r. 1553–1558) overturned the Protestant policies he pursued. At the same time, a short reign does not mean that a ruler will have no influence at all.Alexander III the Great (336–323 b.c.e.) ruled for only about twelve years, yet his conquests included all of Asia Minor, and he helped spread Greek culture as far as India. He also established new coinage to help trade. Because of Alexander’s conquests, Greek became the

See also: Alexander III, the Great; Elizabeth I; Emperors and Empresses; Imperial Rule; Legitimacy; Regencies;Victoria.

The responsibilities derived from religious beliefs that are required of a ruler. Religious beliefs, practices, and ethical values often establish the kind of leadership and social institutions that make up a society. Moreover, a ruler often appoints the priests, or makes the decisions, for a society. During the Reformation in Europe, for example, monarchs—whether Catholic or Protestant—determined whether the state church of the country would be Catholic or Protestant. They also determined whether bishops or other church leaders were sufficiently orthodox, and they often found better choices with which to replace them. Such religious duties have always been an essential part of kingship, but the rest of the population has had religious duties as well. In Islamic societies, all believers are expected to perform the hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. Similarly, all Muslim males are expected to pray five times a day facing Mecca. In earlier Catholic practices, religious duties would have included participating in the Lenten fast and abstaining from meat on Fridays. Although these devotions were demanded of everyone, a ruler who ignored such practices risked the loss of his authority with his subjects. Religion also influences its adherents by giving them a sense of identity. People have fought wars to maintain their distinctiveness as defined by their religion—as in, for example, the Jewish war and resistance against Greco-Syrian influence on Judaism (168 b.c.e.), which came to be known as the Maccabean revolt, and the wars on religion in France in the 1500s and 1600s. Religious power is sometimes merged with the political power of the leader of a tribe or kingdom. According to the biblical narrative, for example, Israel’s first king, Saul (r. 1020–1010 b.c.e.), was chosen by name by God as was his successor, King David

780

R e l i g i ou s D u t i e s a n d Pow e r s

(1010–970 b.c.e.). David’s son, Solomon (970–931 b.c.e.), was rejected as Israel’s king because of his sins, and Jeroboam (r. 931–910 b.c.e.) was ordained by God to be his successor. Because Jeroboam’s kingship came from God and not man, it could not be challenged when he proved an ineffective ruler. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, became a negotiator for the people of Medina and later rose to become the chief of their clan (r. 620–632 c.e.), due partly to their belief that he was a prophet of Allah. His victory over the Meccans in 624 was seen as God’s vindication of his prophet. Those who converted to Islam shared in the administration of the growing Islamic state. In the native Japanese religion, Shinto, the sungoddess Amaterasu, a principal kami or sacred spirit, is credited with establishing the country’s imperial line by sending her grandson, Ninigi, to rule Japan. Japan’s subsequent rulers thus had an imperial authority that was divine in origin. The sacred writings of a religion can also influence the governing of a nation. For ancient Israel, the Torah—the five books of Moses—provided the moral foundation on which government was based, in addition to setting a guide for everyday life. According to the Torah, the one chosen to be king was to write for himself a copy of the book of the Law (or Torah) and to keep it with him day and night. The prosperity of his reign and of the nation was linked to his obedience or disobedience to divine law as well as that of the people. Similarly, Muslim fundamentalists believe that all of Muslim life, including the political, is to be governed by the Qur’an, the sacred scripture of Islam. In the same way as the Roman Empire fragmented and Christianity became the unifying force throughout Europe, a monarch’s standing depended on the Church. Following his excommunication in 1077, the Holy Roman emperor Henry IV (r. 1056–1106) faced the threat of being deposed.To regain the Church’s good favor, he stood barefoot in the snow for three days. But a monarch was not without some control over the Church. On his second excommunication in 1080, Henry IV forced Pope Gregory VII into exile and elected Wilbert of Ravenna as Pope Clement III. Overall, however, the threats of excommunication and interdiction—banning all royal subjects from mass and the sacraments—became powerful forces for bringing a king back to the fold. Nevertheless, a

king was assumed to derive power from God. Although some theologians, including Saint Thomas Aquinas, acknowledged the right to disobey a monarch whose laws were contrary to those of God, the righteous monarch could expect absolute obedience from his subjects. With the growth of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, the monarch no longer needed the Church’s approval. On the other hand, the monarch was expected to defend his church and establish laws for its protection. Increasingly, a church’s power became indistinguishable from that of the monarch’s, as in Spain, where Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) and Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504) drove out the non-Christian population and strengthened the power of the Inquisition. The concept of divine right was, in fact, a medieval one. But the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years’War (1618–1648) convinced people that a strong government was needed to protect society, and the doctrine of divine right was embraced in the seventeenth century. James I of England (r. 1603–1625) developed the theory in his writings; in his work On the Divine Right of Kings, he compared sedition to blasphemy. With the coming of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, people questioned the doctrine of divine right.The Wars of Religion in Germany and France, and the religious persecutions of the era, made people question the monarch’s right to establish the country’s religion. Increasingly, the idea of government as a social contract, developed by French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in the mid-1700s, became favored. Throughout Europe in the nineteenth century, the monarch’s authority in all areas, including religion, went into decline. See also: Buddhism and Kingship; Christianity and Kingship; Hinduism and Kingship; Islam and Kingship; Judaism and Kingship.

RICHARD I, LIONHEART (1157–1199 C.E.)

Successor of Henry II (r. 1154–1189) as king of England (r. 1189–1199), duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou. An accomplished soldier, Richard I fought the Muslim leader Saladin (r.

R i c h a r d I , L i on h e a rt 1175–1193) in Palestine on the Third Crusade, Philip II (r. 1180–1223) in France, his father and brothers at various times in England and France, and the local aristocracies of Cyprus and Sicily. As son of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II of England, Richard grew up in the shadow of his parents and in the contentious environment of his three ambitious brothers—Henry, Geoffrey, and John. As his mother’s favorite, he was made duke of the wealthy and powerful duchy of Aquitaine at age eleven. This honor was followed by the patrimonies of Gascony and Poitiers in 1172. Richard’s first political moves were made under the direction of his mother and ended in an unsuc-

781

cessful revolt in 1173–1174 against his father, who then pardoned him and his brothers. He subsequently directed his attention to his province of Gascony in France, which, aided by his brothers Henry and Geoffrey, eventually revolted against Richard’s harsh feudal rule in 1183. Richard’s father, however, moved to assist him. During these struggles, Richard’s elder brother, Henry, died suddenly and the uprising collapsed. Henry’s death also made Richard heir to the English throne. Unwilling to wait for the Crown, and having learned guile from his previous rebellion, Richard submitted himself as a vassal to the young French king, Philip II, and together they attacked Henry II in

King Richard I of England was known for his chivalry, courage, and prowess in battle. He spent most of his reign fighting abroad and is especially remembered for his exploits fighting the Muslims in the Holy Land during the Third Crusade.

782

R i c h a r d I , L i on h e a rt

1189.Always a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield, Richard was successful in this war against his own father. The broken-hearted Henry II died shortly after signing a treaty ending the war, and Richard became king in 1189. Soon after his coronation, Richard denied his pledge of vassalage to King Philip. War would have ensued, but both men took the cross and proceeded toward the Holy Land on the Third Crusade. On his way to Palestine, Richard became enmeshed in a complex affair in Sicily that involved his sister Joan, his nephew Arthur, Henry VI (r. 1190–1197) of Germany, and the Sicilian prince Tancred. Richard recovered his sister’s dowry, declared Tancred king of Sicily and Arthur as Tancred’s heir, and—having snubbed Henry VI’s claims—angered the Germans. In a final stop before reaching Palestine, Richard conquered Cyprus, where he met and married Berengaria of Navarre in 1191. When Richard landed in the Holy Land in 1191, he participated in the capture of Acre and Jaffa, but failed in two attempts to take Jerusalem because of victories by the brilliant Islamic leader, Saladin. Richard was thus unable to achieve the fundamental purpose of the Third Crusade, the taking of the Holy City of Jerusalem. Richard stayed in Palestine for a year, eventually signing a three-year truce with Saladin that ensured all Christian pilgrims safe passage to the holy sites of Palestine. During the struggles in the Holy Land, Richard angered Duke Leopold V of Austria and his sometime ally, Philip II of France. Philip left the Holy Land after only a few months and returned to Europe, where he plotted against Richard with Richard’s regent and brother, John. Forced on his return voyage to land in northern Italy, Richard was recognized and captured by agents of the angry Duke Leopold. He was imprisoned and then handed over to the Holy Roman emperor, Henry VI, whom Richard had antagonized previously in Sicily. After spending three years in prison, Richard was released upon payment of an enormous ransom, which was raised by his English subjects. Richard returned to England in 1194. He quickly suppressed his brother John’s rebellion, raised funds for a war against Philip II of France, and then crossed the English Channel to launch a war against the French king. For five years, Richard was successful whenever he met Philip in battle. In 1199, however, he was struck down in a minor skirmish and died at the early age of forty-two.

Richard spent most of his adult life in battle or preparing for battle. Richard the Lionheart was considered a chivalrous and worthy opponent, and the great Saladin claimed he would rather lose to Richard than to any other man. However, Richard’s record as a son and as a ruler is one of impetuosity, ruthlessness, and treachery. Having spent a total of only six months of his reign in England itself, his memory in that country is untarnished by the opportunity of misrule. See also: Anjou Kingdom; Crusader Kingdoms; Eleanor of Aquitaine; Henry II; John I; Norman Kingdoms; Philip II, Augustus; Plantagenet, House of; Saladin. FURTHER READING

Gillingham, John. Richard I. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.

RICHARD II (1367–1399 C.E.) The last Plantagenet king of England (r. 1377– 1399), grandson of Edward III (r. 1327–1377), who showed great promise in his early life with an attempt to quell the Peasant Revolt of 1381 when he was only fourteen years old. Richard II met strong opposition during most of his reign, however, and was eventually deposed and murdered by the future Henry IV (r. 1399–1413). The successive deaths within two years of Richard’s father, Edward the Black Prince, and his grandfather, Edward III, placed the ten-year-old on the throne of England. His uncle, John of Gaunt, retained the power he had held during Edward’s last days, but now John officially held the position of regent. Though intelligent and powerful, John of Gaunt was not well loved by the people. In addition, he was not mindful of the social changes that the Black Death had wrought during the previous half-century. Labor was no longer cheap.There were few farmers left to till or sow or reap. The feudal system was under attack. Yeomanry and independence were on the rise. These conditions led to the Peasant Revolt of 1381. In reaction to heavy taxes laid upon them by nonproductive barons, many English arose in a popular revolt that swept through southern England. In the spring of 1381, the leader of this revolt, a soldier

Richard III named Wat Tyler, led his motley collection of farmers, craftsmen, and laborers through the streets of London, where they completely destroyed the palace of the hated John of Gaunt. During this dangerous episode, the fourteen-year-old Richard II stayed in Windsor Castle with his advisers, all of whom insisted that the best course of action was to wait out the rebellion. Richard, however, rode out on June 14 to meet with Wat Tyler and his lieutenants to hear their demands. Richard granted all participants in the revolt royal amnesty and won the astonished respect of this rough group. He then retired to his castle, leaving London to Tyler’s forces. The next day, the young king met with Tyler again. This time he led Tyler outside of London to Smithfield. Richard brought with him the mayor of London, William Walworth, and several dozen knights and gentry, while Tyler, supremely confident, came to the parley alone. An argument and fight ensued, and the lord mayor of London struck Tyler down with the weapon he had concealed beneath his cloak. Tyler’s army, trusting in the king’s honor and amnesty, did not destroy the small band. The mayor of London rode back to town, mustered a sizable army, and summarily defeated the peasants. Richard returned to Windsor. Forced to renege on his general amnesty, he was a fallen hero to the peasants. Early in his reign, Richard asserted his independence from the aristocracy, who had enjoyed their dominance of the government. However, the king soon became subject to the power plays of his own class. He placed lesser aristocracy in coveted court positions, angering many of the upper aristocracy. The anger of the barons reached its culmination in 1388 when Richard’s uncle, the duke of Gloucester, convened the “Merciless Parliament,” which stripped the king of many of his privileges, giving rights to the wealthy landowners. Richard’s most notable adversary was his cousin, the duke of Hereford, Henry of Bolingbroke.The son of the powerful John of Gaunt, Bolingbroke was also a grandson of King Edward III. In 1397, upon John of Gaunt’s death, Richard was able to move forcefully against the factions lined against him. He arrested or banished many opponents, including Bolingbroke, confiscated John of Gaunt’s vast holdings (primarily held as the duchy of Lancaster), and parceled out this inheritance to his own supporters.

783

Two years later, while Richard was campaigning in Ireland, Bolingbroke returned from exile to claim his divided inheritance. On his return to England, Bolingbroke was embraced by many of the barons. When Richard returned to England soon after, he was betrayed, forced to abdicate, and imprisoned in Pontefract Castle. Bolingbroke was crowned as King Henry IV.When popular uprisings in Richard’s favor began erupting in different parts of England, Henry IV had him murdered. See also: Abdication, Royal; Dethronement; Edward III; English Monarchies; Henry IV (England); Lancaster, House of; Plantagenet, House of; Regicide; Succession, Royal. FURTHER READING

Cheetham, Anthony. The Life and Times of Richard II. New York:Welcome Rain Publishers, 1998.

RICHARD III (1452–1485 C.E.) Last English king (r. 1483–1485) of the house of York, perhaps best known for the controversy surrounding his reign than for his accomplishments as king. Richard was born in 1452, the youngest surviving child of Cecily Neville, duchess of York, and Richard Plantagenet, duke of York and the second-largest landowner in England. Richard’s father was descended from King Edward III (r. 1327–1377) through both his parents. At the time of Richard’s birth, the house of Lancaster held the throne through the usurpation of Henry IV (r. 1399–1413), who had supplanted Richard II (r. 1377–1399) as king in 1399. However, Henry VI (r. 1422–1461, 1470– 1471) of the house of Lancaster was soon to be challenged by the house ofYork in what came to be called the War of the Roses (1455–1485).

RISE TO POWER In 1460, during the War of the Roses, Richard’s father, the duke of York, was killed in battle, but the Yorkist cause eventually defeated the Lancastrians and Richard’s older brother was crowned King Edward IV (r. 1461–1470) the following year. In 1465, the young Richard was placed in the home of Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, for further education and military training.

784

Richard III

In 1470, Richard’s protector, the earl of Warwick, turned against the house of York and staged a rebellion. Warwick’s rebellion was successful, and Richard followed his brother Edward into exile in Flanders, while Warwick proclaimed Henry VI the rightful monarch once again. This situation would not last long, however. Edward IV returned to reclaim the throne in 1471, imprisoning Henry in the Tower of London, where Henry died shortly after, possibly at the hands of Richard. In 1472, Richard married Anne Neville, the daughter of the earl of Warwick. The king granted Richard large parcels of land in the north of England, making him the “Lord of the North.” The following year, Anne gave birth to their only son, named Edward. In 1478, Richard’s brother George, the duke of Clarence, was convicted of high treason and, according to legend, was drowned in a large barrel of wine.

King Richard III of the House of York had a reputation for treachery and murder, the view advanced by William Shakespeare in his drama, Richard III. Not all historians agree, however; some suggest he was falsely accused by the Tudors to justify their succession to the throne.

REIGN King Edward IV died of a chill on April 9, 1483, and the Crown passed to his twelve-year-old son, Edward V (r. 1483), with Richard named as his Protector. Through Richard’s instigation, the legitimacy of his nephew Edward and Edward’s younger brother (also named Richard) was publicly called into question, probably with good reason. (There is evidence to suggest that the children really were illegitimate.) In a successful coup against Edward V’s mother and family, the children were declared unfit to reign and were imprisoned in the Tower of London. The English asked the Crown Protector, Richard, the next in line of succession, to take the throne. He was crowned Richard III on July 6, 1483. During his brief two-year reign, Richard held only one Parliament, in January 1484. The session produced a number of much-needed reforms that benefited the common people of England, but they were not popular with the aristocracy. At the same time, Richard also established the Council of the North to settle local disputes, one of his most important achievements. Richard’s son Edward, the prince of Wales, died in April 1484. By October of that year, the young sons of Edward IV had also disappeared from the Tower of London and were presumed dead, allegedly murdered on Richard’s orders. In the spring of 1485, Anne Neville also died, and it was rumored that Richard had his wife murdered so he could marry his niece Elizabeth, a daughter of Edward IV. On August 7, 1485, Henry Tudor, heir to the house of Lancaster, landed in England (from exile in France) with his troops to claim the throne. He and Richard met in battle at Bosworth Field on August 22, and Richard was killed. Richard III was the last English king to die in battle, and his death unofficially marks the end of the Middle Ages in England. Henry became King Henry VII (r. 1485–1509); his accession to the throne marked the end of the War of the Roses and the establishment of the house of Tudor, which ruled England until 1603. Much of what is known about the life and reign of Richard III comes from the accounts of Tudor historians, who exaggerated Richard’s defects (including his alleged hunched back) to justify the Tudor line. Shakespeare’s famous drama, Richard III, was staged under the last of the Tudor monarchs, Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). The degree of Richard’s guilt in the death of his young nephews will perhaps never be

Rights to Animals known because there is no real evidence linking him to the crime. See also: Elizabeth I; Henry IV (England); Lancaster, House of; Plantagenet, House of; Richard II;Tudor, House of;York, House of. FURTHER READING

Cheetham, Anthony. The Life and Times of Richard III. New York:Welcome Rain Publishers, 1998. Hammond, P.W., and Anne F. Sutton. Richard III:The Road to Bosworth Field. London: Constable, 1985. Horrox, Rosemary. Richard III: A Study of Service. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

785

societies throughout the ancient Near East. For example,Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 b.c.e.), the ruler of ancient Assyria, boasted that he had killed lions; he is known to posterity as “the Hunting King.” Another favorite sport of royalty, from as early as the eighth century b.c.e. until the late Middle Ages, was falconry—the use of birds of prey for hunting. In various times and places—from China to Scandinavia—the use of hunting birds was so highly regarded that its practice was frequently limited only to royalty.The Holy Roman emperor, Frederick II (r. 1212–1250), wrote a famous treatise on falconry in the thirteenth century.

DOMESTICATION OF ANIMALS

RIGHTS TO ANIMALS Privilege of kings and rulers with regard to hunting and ownership of valuable or unusual animals. In some societies, kingship itself has been derived from the hunting ritual, and in many monarchies, royalty has often controlled the rights to game.

HUNTING Although hunting is primarily a recreation for modern man, it was of critical importance to the survival of the human race for hundreds of thousands of years. It is to be expected, then, that the protocols and customs surrounding the practice of hunting are complex and ancient. Several thousand years ago, early humans in the ancient Near East improved upon the practice of hunting by domesticating animals, thus providing a more stable supply of meat and forestalling the uncertainty that accompanies even the surest of hunts. The introduction of agriculture provided an even more reliable source of food.Yet, hunting retained its importance in both ancient and medieval societies. As the greatest hunters were often the greatest warriors, the greatest providers became leaders (eventually kings), and hunting rights became a royal or aristocratic privilege. Special rights for the hunting of game, that is, rights reserved for aristocrats or royalty, began as early as the second millennium b.c.e. in Egypt, where oryx, gazelle, and even lions were hunted for sport from horseback or chariot. Similar hunting rights were reserved throughout the first millennium b.c.e. for the rulers of Babylon, Assyria, and other

As leaders of their tribes or peoples, kings were able to express their physical superiority through the easily understood ritual of hunting. Yet, the royal connection to domestication was equally important. Anthropologists generally agree that the domestication of animals (and plants) was the critical stage in the evolution of civilization, allowing for the development of cities and, later, states and nations.Without a concentration of population, humankind might well have remained in hunting and gathering tribes and never required the symbolic, administrative, and protective services of kings.Thus, the domestication of animals was an important step toward developing the monarchical system of government. Efforts to domesticate the dog and the horse began over ten thousand years ago in the Middle East. By the time of Pharaonic Egypt (beginning around 4500 b.c.e), the dog, cat, cheetah, horse, and ox had been domesticated. Also, by this time, there were already particular types of animals which were considered “royal” or suitable to be owned only by royalty. Royal animals were not just practical or for use in war, as were the horse and the elephant. The first pets were also royal animals. Rulers were the only members of early societies with the resources necessary to feed and take care of animals as pets, rather than providing for them because of their usefulness. Evidence of early royal pets may be found from China (the Pekingese dog) to Meso-America (the hummingbird) to rules about the ownership of certain hunting birds in the Middle East and Europe.

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND KINGSHIP The Old Testament of the Bible frequently compares the relationship between kings and their peoples and

786

Rights to Animals

the husbandry of domesticated animals. For instance, although historical evidence is unconvincing that King David (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.) was a shepherd before he became king, he is the foremost example of this relationship. David’s legendary profession is not coincidental. As a seminal text for Western civilization, the Old Testament uses the metaphor of David’s husbanding his flock, and then his people, to compare with Jehovah’s husbanding of his flock—that is, the Hebrew people themselves. This same analogy has frequently been used by royal personages (and their chroniclers) since that time. The importance of the shepherd maintaining the flock has been an activity easily related to by most peoples for almost ten thousand years. It is, however, a symbol that has become progressively less understandable to the modern mind and seems peculiarly suited to an openly hierarchical political structure like monarchy. See also: Bodies, Politic and Natural; Hunting and Kingship.

RIGHTS, CIVIL Those powers and privileges conferred upon all citizens by the governing authority, and which the governing authority is legally bound to observe. Civil rights include the right to vote, the right to private property, and the right to freedom of expression. Such rights have increasingly come to be identified with natural or human rights; this identification is not entirely accurate, however, inasmuch as human rights are those held by all people in all societies, whereas civil rights can vary from nation to nation. The development of civil rights over time has been controversial because the claim that the state has obligations to its citizens implies restriction of the state’s powers. The process of inscribing civil rights in monarchical governments was particularly difficult for this very reason. Because of their numerous influential thinkers and documents on the subject, England and France have long been considered to be the birthplaces of modern civil rights.

ORIGINS Several early legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1750 b.c.e.) in ancient Babylon and the Laws of Manu (ca. 200 b.c.e.) in ancient India, give

some indication that the rights of individuals were not subject to totally arbitrary action by the state. Similarly, several Chinese thinkers of the Chou dynasty (ca. 1027–256 b.c.e.), such as Confucius and Mencius, argued that rulers or monarchs had to respect the needs and desires of their individual subjects. These facts suggest that civil rights are not strictly a modern invention, but that they have ancient, though indirect, precursors. The evolution of civil rights took a major leap forward with the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome. Both of these civilizations witnessed the development of a widespread belief in the notion of natural law, which is the idea that certain laws pertain to human beings whether or not the state observes them. The Romans, in particular, favored the idea of natural law, which the great orator Cicero advocated in the first century b.c.e. Natural law has been cited in many disputes between individuals and the state and is the basis for such documents as the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

THE MAGNA CARTA AND THE ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS The period of the early Middle Ages saw little advancement in civil rights. However, one of the most important steps in the growth of individual sovereignty occurred in the thirteenth century: the signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England (r. 1199–1216) in 1215. In 1215, the English barons, having grown angry over King John’s misrule and oppressive financial policies, revolted and, through the intimidation of superior military strength, forced the king to sign the Magna Carta. This document stipulated, among other things, that English subjects possessed certain rights that the monarchy could not violate. The Magna Carta was the first document in history to guarantee constitutional protections for individuals against monarchial power, and as such, it became an important symbol of civil rights. For all its later influence, the Magna Carta proved difficult to enforce, however, and many subsequent English monarchs virtually ignored it. For centuries the rights of individuals in England were not much better protected than they had been before 1215. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 changed that, as the English Parliament turned the Crown over to William III (r. 1689–1702) only on the condition that he observe the English Bill of Rights, which

R i g h t s, L a n d guaranteed numerous individual rights over the authority of the monarch. This document, much more than the Magna Carta, gave the people of England legal protection for their civil rights. The English Bill of Rights was followed in the eighteenth century by important constitutional declarations of individual rights in the American colonies (and later the United States) and in France. People in both France and the United States followed the principle of civil rights to the point of discarding their monarchies. Several major thinkers of this period advocated the idea of individual rights, including John Locke in England, Jean Jacques Rousseau in France, and Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine in the United States. Modern systems of civil rights spread far and rapidly in the nineteenth century and under military and economic pressure from Western nations, were even adopted in Japan during the Meiji Restoration, which began in 1868. In India, civil rights were guaranteed only after that country gained its independence from Great Britain in 1947. Efforts to introduce a modern system of civil rights in China and certain other countries around the world today still have not been successfully achieved. The widespread growth of civil rights in the centuries after England’s Glorious Revolution signaled the gradual demise of monarchical power and the rise of representative democracies as the major form of political organization around the world. See also: John I; Meiji Monarchy; Power, Forms of Royal;William and Mary. FURTHER READING

Hufton, Olwen, ed. Historical Change and Human Rights. New York: Basic Books, 1995. Shapiro, Ian. The Evolution of Rights in Liberal Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

RIGHTS, LAND The traditional foundation of wealth and power in human society. Whether in Asia, Europe, Africa, or the Americas, the goal of active monarchies has always been to acquire and control as much property as possible. In most early monarchies, all land was owned by the ruler. In some later monarchical societies, other groups were allowed the right to own and distribute land.

787

ORIGIN OF LAND RIGHTS Anthropologists argue that kingship and monarchy did not exist before the concept of private property—and more specifically, the concept of land ownership—was widely accepted. Although there were probably leaders, perhaps even chieftains in premonarchical societies, the nomadic lifestyle imposed by hunting and gathering discouraged the need for a centralized ruler. Modern nomadic societies, such as the Lapps in northern Scandinavia and the horseherders on the Mongolian steppes, are current examples of such leaderless systems. After the widespread development of agriculture and the resulting growth of populations and lifestyle changes, the security of land ownership—or, at least, land safeguarding—became critical for the survival of these larger populations. It was no longer a question of just moving on to winter hunting grounds. The first monarchs, therefore, probably based the power of their kingships on military prowess, which allowed them to defend their people and the land that provided for them, and therefore for their thrones. As groups grew larger and learned the arts of farming, the rhythms of life changed; the cycle of cultivation and harvest created an entirely new lifestyle from the hunting and gathering system that had sustained human existence for hundreds of millennia. Hunters, used to the wild freedom of their vocation, were not well suited to the repetitive tedium and sedentary style of agricultural life. It was, however, apparent that more land would support more people, and so two problems were presented: the need for more land and the need for workers who would till, sow, and harvest. Warfare offered new monarchs the answers to both of these problems. By defeating one’s neighbors, a ruler gained not only land, but a new class of human labor, the slave, that could be forced to do anything—even the tedious, repetitive, and demeaning chores necessary for successful agriculture. In the earliest of nations, land and property were frequently held in common among the free citizens of the group—another holdover of the preagricultural days when permanent secure ownership of property was not essential. However, most states began to adopt a system in which all the land belonged to either the sole monarch or to a select set of noble families (other warriors). This system continued with few modifications for thousands of years

788

R i g h t s, L a n d

in most of Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, Mesoamerica, and those parts of Europe that were settled by postnomadic peoples. In a majority of areas, monarchs became the “owners of record” of all lands. That is, they technically owned every field, every mountain, every river, and every plot on which every house stood. In practice, however, the use of these lands was typically “ceded” by custom to whoever occupied them; kings and queens only expected to receive revenue from whatever the current occupants produced on “their” land.

THE FEUDAL SYSTEM A logical progression of this system was the feudalism that the Normans brought to most of Europe beginning in the eleventh century c.e. In this system, the king might, in effect, cede land to a noble who would, in turn, collect taxes from the produce of that land as if he were himself the king. The noble would also owe the king some portion of that which he gained from this bit of land. Thus, the noble was said to be “enfeoffed” to the king, and the peasants working the land were enfeoffed to the noble. This system sometimes became quite convoluted, as one noble could enfeoff another. As these complications grew, the direct control and benefit to the king grew increasingly less and less.

LAND REFORMS Although most states and nations have conformed to the types of land ownership described here, there have also been many notable experiments and exceptions to these rules. The first great reformer in Western civilization was the Athenian archon Solon (d. 559 b.c.e.). His remarkably moderate and forward-looking laws, edicts, and constitution included a provision that forgave all mortgages on all lands. With this one act, Solon created a whole new class of freeholders in Athens, a class that would form the backbone of the Athenian democracy for centuries to come. A few centuries later, in Rome, the tribune Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus attempted in 133 b.c.e. to redistribute the excess portions of the gigantic estates of the wealthiest Romans to the poorest Roman citizens. Four years of successive reforms culminated when Tiberius was murdered by Senate conservatives.With great public support, his brother, Gaius Gracchus, tried to implement Tiberius’s land reforms and pass other measures aimed at creating a

more egalitarian society, but he too was killed by the Senate conservatives in 121 b.c.e. Not all early social land reforms occurred in Europe. In 1086 c.e., the Confucian scholar Wang An Shih won election as first minister for the Sung emperor T’ai Tsu.Wang was a determined and visionary reformer who ended state-mandated forced peasant labor and redistributed vast areas to humble Chinese farmers. Predictably, almost all conservative men of property opposed his reforms, and, after the unfortunate coincidence of several floods and an illomened comet, he was deposed from his position by the emperor, and his egalitarian reforms were undone by the aristocrats who succeeded him. Not until the French Revolution, which began in 1787, and the Russian emancipation of the serfs in 1861 were such sweeping, democratic land reforms enacted with any lasting effect. See also: Class Systems and Royalty; Conquest and Kingships; Feudalism and Kingship; LandHolding Patterns; Parks, Royal; Taxation; Tribute.

RITUAL, ROYAL Ceremonies and rites performed at various times during a monarch’s life and reign. Much of the public and private lives of most monarchs is defined by ritual. Royal rituals accompany a host of events: birth of a monarch, religious initiations such as baptism or circumcision, accession to the throne, royal marriages, state occasions, (such as the opening of Parliament by the British monarch), reception of ambassadors and delegations, issuance of proclamations, birthdays and holidays, declarations of war or peace, approval of laws and treaties, designation of heirs, meetings with other monarchs, and deathbed and funeral rites. The carrying out of prescribed rituals, such as the Chinese emperor’s sacrifice to Heaven, is central to a monarch’s duties in many cultures. Royal ritual is seldom merely a matter of rote but is intended to carry meaning. The Roman emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) imposed a requirement that those who approached him prostrate themselves (lie face downward on the floor before him), emphasizing the emperor’s exalted position, in order to stabilize the empire after a period when numerous generals and politicians had claimed the imperial title.

Riurikid Dynasty Planned disruptions in ritual also carry meaning. A famous example is the disruption of the coronation of Napoleon I (r. 1804–1815) as emperor. As Pope Pius VII (r. 1800–1823) was about to crown Napoleon, the French leader removed the crown from the pope’s hands and placed it on his own head. Aware of precedents drawn from the pope’s crowning of Charlemagne (r. 768–814) as emperor in 800, Napoleon did not want it to seem as if the pope was granting him power. Unplanned disruptions in ritual, by contrast, can weaken a monarch’s position if they are viewed as bad omens. Modern communications media have considerably broadened the audience for royal ritual. Among the pioneers in this area was the British monarchy, which, in the twentieth century, gained a reputation for the best rituals and ritual specialists. King George V (r. 1910–1936) introduced the custom of the monarch’s Christmas radio broadcast in 1932, for both the monarch and radio listeners. The ritualistic aspects of this practice include its annual recurrence on a religious holiday. The televising of the coronation of Elizabeth II (r. 1953– ) in 1953 was considered a great popular success, with broad viewership and expressions of broad-based affection for the new queen and, by extension, the British monarchy.With the loss of political power that most monarchies have experienced in the twentieth century, ritual often comprises an even larger proportion of royal public activity, stressing the symbolic role of the monarch. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Enthronement, Rites of; Etiquette, Royal; Funerals and Mortuary Rituals; Oaths and OathTaking;Weddings, Royal.

RIURIKID DYNASTY (ca. 862–1598 C.E.) Family founded by the Rus prince Rurik (r. ca. 862–878), branches of which ruled Novgorod, Kiev, other Rus principalities, and Russia until 1598. Tradition asserts that Rurik assumed the leadership of some Slavic tribes in the area around Novgorod (in present-day Ukraine) around the year 862. The Rus were Scandinavians, also known as Varangians, who came into the Slavic regions between the Dnieper and Volga rivers to raid, trade, and eventually settle. Upon Rurik’s death in 879, the Rus principality

789

was ruled by Oleg (r. ca. 879–924), a kinsman of Rurik. It is possible, however, the Oleg only served as regent while waiting for Rurik’s son to reach his majority. Oleg established a capital at Kiev. He also united the eastern Slavs and signed a commercial treaty with the Byzantine Empire. When Oleg died in 924, rule passed to Igor (r. 924–945), who may have been Rurik’s son. He ruled until 945, when he was killed by members of a tributary tribe. Igor’s wife Olga then took over as regent for their son, Sviatoslav, until he was able to take command himself in 962. Under Sviatoslav (r. 945–972), the Kievan Rus reached the height of its power. Following Sviatoslav’s death in 972, his sons Iaropolk (r. 972–978) and Vladimir (r. 978–1015) ruled Kiev and Novgorod, respectively. After war broke out between Iaropolk and another brother, Vladimir defeated Iaropolk with a Scandinavian army and became Prince Vladimir I of Kiev, subjecting the other Slavic tribes in the region to his rule. Vladimir made Greek Orthodox Christianity the state religion. Under Vladimir’s Riurikid descendants, the Kievan Rus continued to expand in a network of towns and territories ruled by related princes. Conflicts between the princes over dynastic and territorial interests prevented Kiev from ever becoming a strong, united power, although Prince Vladimir II Monomakh (r. 1113–1125) briefly united the territories during his reign. The conquest of Kiev and destruction of that town by the Mongols in 1237–1240, and the long Mongol suzerainty over the region, lasting until 1480, did not end Riurikid rule. During this period, the city of Moscow and the grand duchy of Muscovy rose to preeminence under members of the Riurikid dynasty, who ruled as vassals of the Mongol khans until the collapse of the Mongol Golden Horde in 1395. During the reigns of grand princes Vasili II (r. 1425–1462) and his son Ivan III (r. 1462–1505), most of the eastern Slavic lands were brought under the rule of the Riurikid grand princes of Moscow. In 1547, Ivan III’s grandson Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible, r. 1533–1584) became the first ruler of Russia to adopt the title of tsar. The last member of the Riurikid dynasty to rule Russia was Ivan’s son, Tsar Feodor (Theodore) I (r. 1584–1598).With Feodor’s death in 1598, the Riurikid dynasty came to an end. During the seven centuries that branches of the

790

Riurikid Dynasty

Riurikid dynasty ruled Russia, the region went from an assemblage of warring tribes to an empire with an autocratic ruler and a strong central government. Riurikid rule laid the foundations on which the Romanov dynasty would make Russia one of the largest (and most autocratic) empires of Europe and a significant player in nineteenth-century politics. See also: Ivan III, the Great; Ivan IV, the Terrible; Kiev, Princedom of; Mongol Empire; Rurik; Rus Princedoms; Russian Dynasties.

ROBERT I (ROBERT THE BRUCE) (1274–1329 C.E.) One of Scotland’s best-known monarchs (r. 1306–1329), who rose above a checkered early history to become a powerful and popular ruler. A member of Scotland’s illustrious Bruce family, Robert Bruce was born at Turnberry Castle on the Firth of Clyde in 1274. Robert lived during a tumultuous period in Scottish history. Since the death of Margaret, the Maid of Norway, the kingdom had been without an independent ruler from 1290–1292 and 1296–1306 and a brief rule by an ineffectual king, John Balliol (r. 1292–1296). During this period, Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307) sought to conquer the kingdom, taking advantage of the lack of a legitimate Scottish king. The Bruce family was often Edward’s ally in this struggle. Robert himself switched sides five times, allying on one occasion with the Scottish hero William Wallace in a fight for Scottish independence, while at other times preferring English patronage and swearing fealty to Edward. In 1292, Robert became earl of Carrick, and in 1304 he inherited his father’s lordship of Annandale, with its English lands. His rise to leadership was also marked by treachery. At Greyfriars Kirk in 1306, Robert met John Comyn, a rival leader of the Scots, and in the midst of a heated argument, he apparently stabbed Comyn to death. Robert was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for his crime, but he made a bid for the empty throne and declared himself king in 1306. Under Robert’s leadership, Scotland fought the English armies and eventually won a resounding victory against Edward II at the battle of Bannockburn

One of the national heroes of Scotland, King Robert I— known as Robert the Bruce—achieved military and diplomatic success. His victory at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 secured Scottish independence from England.

in 1314. The Scottish victory, against a much larger English force, turned the tide of the war. In the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328), Edward promised to honor Scotland’s independence and Bruce’s claim to the throne. Robert Bruce thus gained fame for securing Scottish independence, and he became known as “Good King Robert” for the innovative rule that left his son David II (r. 1329–1371) with a well-ordered and peaceful kingdom. Robert the Bruce died in 1329, declaring remorse for the deeds of his youth. Following his wishes, his heart was cut out and taken to the Middle East on a crusade as a gesture of atonement, though according to legend it was later returned to Scotland for burial in Melrose Abbey. See also: Edward I; Scottish Kingdoms.

ROBERT GUISCARD. See Naples, Kingdom of; Norman Kingdoms

Rom a n E m p i r e

RODERIC (d. ca. 711 C.E.) Last Visigoth king of Iberia (present-day Spain) (r. 710–711), after whose death much of the Iberian Peninsula was overrrun by the Moors, who invaded from North Africa. Information on the life and career of Roderic is sketchy, although he may have been the son of Theodefred, a noble of the Germanic Visigoths. When the weak ruler of the Visigoths in Iberia, King Wittiza (r. 702–710), died in 710, Visigothic nobles chose Roderic as king over Wittiza’s own sons. Civil war ensued, and Wittiza’s heirs went to Africa to seek aid from Moorish forces there. After some exploratory raids, the Moors, under the leadership of Tariq bin Ziyad, launched a full-scale invasion against the unguarded Iberian Peninsula in 711. At the time, Roderic was in northern Iberia subduing Basque and Frankish rebels. In July 711, Roderic met Tariq at the Guadalete, in the southernmost part of Spain. Influenced by Wittiza’s supporters, many of Roderic’s troops deserted, leaving the Visigoth king with a greatly reduced and weakened force. The Moors defeated the remaining Visigoth troops, and Roderic was probably killed in the battle. According to some legends and sources, however, Roderic continued fighting the Moors until 713, when he was slain. In either case, the Moorish invaders continued their conquest of Iberia, taking the cities of Córdoba and then Toledo, the Visigothic capital. In 712, Musa bin Nusayr, Tariq’s superior, invaded the Iberian Peninsula with an even greater force. Within a few years, most of the Iberian Peninsula had been conquered by the Moors. See also: Iberian Kingdoms;Visigoth Kingdom.

ROMAN EMPIRE (27 B.C.E.–476 C.E.) The empire founded by Augustus Caesar in 27 b.c.e., which underwent many changes and metamorphoses in its long life.The initial structure of the empire was not imposed on Roman society from the outside, but rather drew on Roman and Mediterranean political tradition. Emperors inherited many aspects of their role from Roman generals and politicians of the late Republic. They sponsored races and gladiatorial con-

791

tests, and had power over the creation of cities. They also bestowed Roman citizenship on individuals and groups. Other aspects came from Hellenistic monarchies, which were particularly influential when emperors faced the Greek-speaking population of the Eastern, more economically developed portion of the empire. Imperial autocracy was less concealed in the East. One aspect can be seen in the words used to define their role.The Roman emperors always avoided the title “rex,” meaning king, as Roman tradition emphasized the freedom of the Republic after the overthrow of the ancient kings of the Tarquin dynasty.The word “imperator”—meaning commander—originally referred only to a military leader. However, Greek speakers in the Empire routinely referred to the emperor as “basileus,” or king.The imperial office tended to move away from its republican origins toward explicit autocracy.The emperor also lived in an increasingly monarchical manner. In Rome, the main imperial residence from the days of Augustus was on the Palatine Hill. Eventually, any place the emperor lived was referred to as “palatium,” from which came the word “palace.” One accompaniment of the imperial office was a divine cult.The cult of the emperor dates back to the initial reign of Augustus (although elements can be seen in the earlier rule of his uncle Julius Caesar.) Augustus’s reign saw the foundation of temples of “Rome and Augustus” throughout the Empire. The cult that arose around the living Augustus was more like that of heroes and benefactors than that of the actual gods. This changed after his death in 14 c.e., when the Roman Senate enrolled “divus Augustus,” divine Augustus, among the gods of the Roman state. His successor, Tiberius, encouraged the worship of Augustus and sponsored an official priesthood. (He and all subsequent emperors also took the names “Caesar Augustus.”) The emperors also judged legal cases, made laws, and issued coinage. Much of what we know about the emperor’s cultural, religious, and economic programs comes from surviving coinage. Although the imperial office had a strong military component from the beginning—the title “imperator” was originally given to successful Roman generals—it became even more so. The original dynasty founded by Augustus—the “Julio-Claudians”—kept the succession within an extended family, although succession was not purely hereditary. When the Julio-Claudian dynasty ended ignominiously with Nero in 68 c.e., the succession was not settled by

792

Rom a n E m p i r e

ROMAN EMPIRE

The Severi

Roman Emperors

Septimus Severus

The Julio-Claudians

Geta

Augustus*

Caracalla

211–217

27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.

193–211 211

Tiberius*

14–37

Macrinus

217–218

Gaius (Caligula)

37–41

Elagabalus

218–222

Claudius*

41–54

Severus Alexander

222–235

Nero*

54–68

Galba

68–69

Otho

69

Vitellius

69

The Flavians Vespasian

69–79

Titus*

79–81

Domitian

81–96

The Five Good Emperors Nerva Trajan*

96–98 98–117

The Soldier Emperors Maximinus (Thrax)

235–238

Gordian I

238

Gordian II

238

Pupienus

238

Balbinus

238

Gordian III

238–244

Philip I, the Arab

244–249

Philip II

247–249

Decius

249–251

Herennius Etruscus

251

Hostilian

251

Trebonianus Gallus

251–253

Volusian

251–253

Aemilian

253

Hadrian*

117–138

Antoninus Pius

138–161

Marcus Aurelius*

161–180

Valerian

253–260

Lucius Verus

161–169

Gallienus

253–268

Commodus

180–192

Saloninus

260

Pertinax

193

Claudius II, Gothicus

Didius Julianus

193

Marius

268–270 269

793

Rom a n E m p i r e

The Soldier Emperors (continued)

Julian the Apostate*

360–363

Quintillus

Jovian

363–364

270

Aurelian

270–275

Tacitus

275–276

Florian

276

Dynasty of Valentinian Valentinian

364–375

Probus

276–282

Valens

364–378

Carus

282–283

Gratian

375–383

Numerian

283–284

Valentinian II

375–392

Carinus

283–285

Dynasty of Theodosius Theodosius I, the Great*

379–395

Diocletian and the Tetrarchy

Maximus

383–388

Diocletian*

Victor

387–388

Eugenius

392–394

Maximian

284–305 285–305 and 307–308

Constantius I, Chlorus

305–306

Western Roman Emperors

Galerius

305–311

Honorius

Severus

306–307

Constantius III

Maxentius

307–312

John

423–425

Valentinian III

425–455

395–423 421

Petronius Maximus

Dynasty of Constantine

455

Constantine I, the Great*

307–337

Avitus

455–456

Licinius

308–324

Majorian

457–461

Maximinus II

310–313

Libius Severus

461–465

Valerius Valens

316–317

Anthemius

467–472

Martinian

324

Constantine II

337–340

Constans

337–350

Constantius II

337–361

Magnentius

350–353

Olybrius

472

Glycerius

473–474

Julius Nepos

474–475

Romulus Augustus

475–476

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

794

Rom a n E m p i r e

ROYAL RITUALS

THE GAMES AND SHOWS OF AUGUSTUS CAESAR The Roman historian Suetonius, author of a collection of biographies of the rulers of Rome from Julius Caesar to Domitian, described how the first emperor provided entertainment for Rome. He claimed Augustus showed games, usually combats and chariot races, twenty-four times in his own name and twenty-three times in the names of others. He also exhibited strange animals, such as a rhinoceros, a tiger, and a huge snake.The games and shows displayed the emperor’s power and wealth, fulfilling a role expected of a Roman leader but on a scale that was unprecedented.

family intrigues but by military maneuverings and battles between top generals, with provincial armies playing a central role. The Roman historian Tacitus referred to 69 as the year when it was discovered that emperors could be made elsewhere than at Rome.The winner,Vespasian (r. 69–79), founded the short-lived Flavian dynasty of himself and his two sons,Titus and Domitian.Vespasian, who ruled from 69 to 79, provided stable, if tight-fisted, government after the turmoil of Nero’s reign and the disruptions of the civil wars. Titus also ruled effectively, though for only two years. Domitian (r. 81–96) was a hardworking ruler and a great builder, but also harsh and tyrannical. He was assassinated, and his memory was condemned by the Senate, in contrast to his deified father and brother. Domitian was followed by five rulers known as the “adoptive emperors,” because each selected his heir outside his own family, or the “five good emperors.”These emperors, whose rule stretched from 96 to 180, were stark contrasts in personality—the warlike Trajan, the peaceful Hadrian who traveled incessantly throughout the Empire, the sedentary Antoninus Pius who seldom left Rome—but all benefited from relative peace on the frontiers and a system whereby emperors adopted their successors. This period ended when the last of the five, Marcus Aurelius, was succeeded by his dissolute and egomaniacal son Commodus (r. 180–192). Commodus’s assassination was followed by another period of competition like the one that followed Nero’s.The eventual winner was Septimius Severus (r. 193–211), a grim but effective ruler known for his advice to his

successor that the only thing necessary was to keep the soldiers happy. Severan rulers, first Severus’s sons and then the children of his wife’s sister, ruled with interruption until 235, when mutinous troops killed Alexander Severus. The next emperor, Maximinus Thrax (r. 235–238), was the first emperor to have begun his career as a common soldier and only the second to come from outside the Senate. Senatorial opposition helped make his reign a short one, as were most of the rest for the next fifty years. The empire suffered from frequent civil wars, multiple claimants to the throne, plagues, the temporary breakaway of large portions of the empire, barbarian invasions, and wars with Persia. (Persia inflicted the greatest humiliation in imperial history, when Valerian (r. 253–260) was captured alive and forced to be the stepping-stool for the Persian king to mount his horse.) In these circumstances, the emperors who emerged were mostly soldiers, many from the Illyrian and Danubian provinces, who spent less and less time in the city of Rome. The greatest of these was Diocletian (r. 284–305), who realized that the empire was too big to be effectively run by one man, and instituted an administrative division between eastern and western emperors that eventually became permanent. The most important emperor since Augustus was Constantine (r. 307–337). His founding of a new capital, Constantinople, and his adoption and aggressive promotion of Christianity wrought a revolution in imperial affairs that reached its eventual flowering in the Byzantine Empire. The emperor abandoned his pagan religious role and took on a

Rom a n E m p i r e

new one as protector and arbiter of the Christian church, although being dragged into the church’s doctrinal disputes was as much a liability as an advantage. (Exceptions were Julian the Apostate and the nominally Christian pretender emperor Eugenius (r. 392–394), who promoted paganism against Christianity.) The last emperor of the whole Roman Empire, Theodosius the Great (r. 379–395), was forced by the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, to publicly repent for his sins. Following Theodosius, the Western empire with its capital at Rome declined rapidly. This was matched by a decline in the power of its emperors, many of whom were puppets of the supreme military commanders. These men, some of Roman and some of barbarian descent, usually controlled the foreign and military policy of the Western empire. The eastern emperors, by contrast, kept control of the government of the richer and more powerful half of the empire from their capital at Constantinople. In 476, the last Western emperor, the young Romulus Augustulus, was overthrown by the barbarian military commander Odoacer, who took the title king of Italy while continuing to acknowledge

795

the authority of the Roman emperor at Constantinople. The legacy of the Roman Empire was profound and long-lasting. The Byzantine Empire was a direct continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, and even its Ottoman conquerors referred to themselves as rulers of “Rum,” meaning Rome. Medieval Europe’s Holy Roman Empire drew on Roman tradition and imagery, as did the medieval papacy. Even the tsars of Russia, Orthodox Christian rulers who saw themselves as Byzantium’s heirs, had a title ultimately derived from “Caesar.” See also: Augustus; Byzantine Empire; Caesars; Caligula; Christianity and Kingship; Claudius; Constantine I, the Great; Diocletian; Emperors and Empresses; Hadrian; Holy Roman Empire; Julian the Apostate; Julio-Claudians; Julius Caesar; Marcus Aurelius; Nero; Palaces; Theodosius I, the Great;Tiberius;Titus;Trajan. FURTHER READING

Millar, Fergus. The Emperor in the RomanWorld,31 BC–AD 337. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992.

796

Rom a n i a n M ona rc h y

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY. See Holy Roman Empire

ROMANIAN MONARCHY (1859–1947 C.E.)

Kingdom in Eastern Europe that emerged in the nineteenth century from two principalities of the Ottoman Empire—Wallachia and Moldavia. By the mid-1800s, the bonds between the Ottoman Empire and some of its territories in southeastern Europe were fraying, and Russian influence in that region was becoming stronger. In 1859, in the aftermath of the Crimean War (1853–1856), the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia elected the same person as their prince, Alexander Cuza (r. 1859–1866). Cuza, who was from a famly of Moldavian nobles, obtained recognition from the Ottoman sultan for the union of the two principalities during his own lifetime. The European powers and Russia, however, preferred a foreign prince rather than a Romanian noble to sit on the throne, and they forced Cuza to abdicate on February 23, 1866. Cuza’s successor was Karl (r. 1866–1914) of the house of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a branch of the Hohenzollern dynasty that occupied the throne of Prussia. Unlike the Prussian Hohenzollerns, Karl was Catholic rather than Protestant.When Karl was proclaimed king by the Romanian national assembly on May 22, 1866, he took the Romanian version of his name, Carol I.A few months later, in October, he received recognition from the Ottoman sultan. Carol I was a constitutional monarch, taking his oath on the Romanian constitution and respecting the authority of its representative institutions. During his reign, he focused primarily on foreign affairs, attempting to avoid the factionalism that affected domestic policies. In fact, the monarch and heirs to the throne were forbidden to marry Romanians in order to limit the influence of factions upon their decisions. Taking advantage of the Russian defeat of the Ottoman Turks in 1877, Carol threw off the last vestiges of Ottoman suzerainty and proclaimed Romania a fully independent country. On June 22, 1884, the Romanian parliament granted Carol and his successors a large royal estate, making the king the biggest landowner in the country.

Carol and his wife Elizabeth had only one child, a daughter who died at the age of four. After Carol’s death in 1914, the throne passed to his nephew, Ferdinand I (r. 1914–1927). Ferdinand faced the difficult challenge of guiding Romania through World War I. Despite the crushing defeat of Romania’s army by the Germans early in the war, Romania ended up gaining territory from the Allied victory in 1918, adding Transylvania, a Romanian-inhabited part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, to his realm. The wife of Ferdinand I, Marie of Romania, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England, became a leading figure in her own right. During World War I, she served as a war nurse, and in the aftermath of the war she attended the peace conference at Versailles in an effort to negotiate a better deal for Romania. Ferdinand’s son Carol was forced to renounce his right of succession because of a scandal involving a mistress.As a result, upon Ferdinand’s death in 1927, the throne passed to his grandson, Michael (r. 1927–1930). Because Michael was still only a child, a regency was appointed to govern the country.The regency faced many challenges due to the unstable political situation in the country. Supported by those who urged stronger leadership, Michael’s father Carol retracted his renunciation of the succession and took the throne as Carol II (r. 1930–1940) in 1930. Carol II attempted to rule Romania more directly than did previous rulers, and he had some initial successes. But on April 16, 1938. he decreed all political parties and associations dissolved and set up a “royal dictatorship.”Two years later, on September 6, 1940, Ion Antonescu, a member of the fascist Iron Guard, and his supporters forced Carol to abdicate again and leave the country for good. Carol’s son Michael returned to the throne, but the young king had little real power, as Antonescu and the fascists maintained control. At the start of World War II,Antonescu led Romania into the war as an ally of Germany.After the war, Michael attempted to resist the takeover of the country by communists and Soviets, but he was forced to abdicate and leave the country with the declaration of a “People’s Republic” on December 30, 1947. Since the fall of communism in Romania in 1989, Michael has visited his former kingdom a number of times. A small but active royalist movement exists there, hoping that one day the monarchy might be restored.

Rom a nov D y na s t y See also: Dacia Kingdom; Hohenzollern Dynasty; Ottoman Empire;Vlach Principality.

ROMANOV DYNASTY (1613–1917 C.E.) Royal family that ruled Russia for more than three centuries, until the Russian Revolution overthrew the tsarist monarchy in 1917. The earliest recorded progenitor of the Romanov family is Andrei Kobyla, an adviser to the princes of Moscow in the fourteenth century. His descendants served the Muscovite court for more than two centuries and changed the family name to Zakhar’in. In the sixteenth century, the family entered the highest circles of influence when Anastasia Zakhar’in married Tsar Ivan IV (r. 1533–1584). Anastasia’s brother, Nikita Romanovich, served as regent to Ivan’s son and successor, Tsar Feodor I (r.

797

1584–1598). Feodor’s death ended the Riurikid dynasty because there was no immediate heir. During the ensuing turmoil, known as the Time of Troubles, the Russian regent, Boris Godunov, banished the Romanov family. But in 1613, a national assembly, searching for a ruler who had legitimate ties to the Riurikids, elected Nikita Romanovich’s grandson, Michael Romanov, to the Russian throne. Significantly, the assembly declared Michael to be a hereditary ruler endowed with divine right.This assertion ensured that the Romanovs would hold the throne as long as an heir existed. When Michael Romanov (r. 1613–1645) assumed the throne, Russia’s economy was severely depressed because Godunov had mismanaged the agricultural economy. To raise revenue, Michael replaced land taxes with taxes on the workers who farmed the land. This new system of taxation established the foundation of Russian serfdom, an insti-

The Romanov dynasty ruled Russia from 1613 until 1917, when Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in the face of the Bolshevik Revolution. Nicholas, his wife Alexandra, his four daughters, and his son Alexei were murdered by revolutionaries in July 1918.

798

Rom a nov D y na s t y

tution that would repeatedly hamper the Romanovs and eventually lead to their demise. Michael Romanov also attempted to establish Russia’s power abroad. He envisioned a greatly expanded Russian territory defended by a formidable military force. This vision, like serfdom, became a legacy for the Romanov rulers. Because of Russia’s depleted resources, however, Michael did not fulfill his vision, and he also failed to dislodge Poland, Sweden, and Turkey from lands he coveted. It was Michael’s grandson, Peter I, the Great (r. 1682–1725), who transformed Russia into an international force. Peter enacted reforms designed to augment Russia’s military strength. He authorized compulsory military service for all male citizens, created numerous taxes to finance the military, and built a massive bureaucracy to collect them. Most importantly, Peter ensured that serfdom became an integral feature of Russian society. Originally, peasants had been hired employees, but under Peter, their labor became obligatory, and they became bound to the land. These measures helped Peter successfully increase Russia’s power. He defeated Sweden and established a Russian presence on the Baltic Sea. He also consolidated his power within Russia by subjugating the peasant Cossacks of the Ukraine and other rebellious groups.Yet Peter’s oppressive social measures created a social discord that repeatedly plagued his successors. His grandson, Peter III (r. 1762), was the first to suffer the repercussions of these reforms. Faced with a violent insurrection, Peter III ended mandatory military service for the nobility.The act did not earn him a reprieve, however, because he was deposed and executed the same year he took the throne. His wife, a German princess, then assumed the throne as Catherine II (r. 1762–1796), also known as Catherine the Great. Catherine recognized that serfdom stunted Russian society; landowners lost the impetus to improve their land, and the serfs relied upon increasingly outdated farming methods. Furthermore, the economy’s dependence upon agriculture contrasted sharply with Europe’s developing industrialism. Catherine, however, did not believe she had the power to defy the landowners and eliminate serfdom. Instead, she strengthened Russia’s cultural institutions to reflect advancements in other European countries. During the reign of Catherine’s grandson Alexander I (r. 1801–1825), Russia finally fulfilled the vision of Michael Romanov and Peter the Great. In

1814, Alexander oversaw the defeat of Napoleon, and this victory established Russia as Europe’s most prominent military power. However, public animosity engendered by serfdom and the sprawling governmental bureaucracy also exploded during Alexander’s reign. In 1825, a radical group, the Decembrists, staged a dangerous rebellion that proved the viability of a popular revolution. For the next century, Alexander’s successors adopted alternate methods to eradicate the revolutionary threat. Nicholas I (r. 1825–1855) created a police state and severely restricted personal liberties. However, his son, Alexander II (r. 1855–1881), in an act of appeasement, allowed the emancipation of the serfs. Ultimately, even emancipation did not satisfy the growing revolutionary movement, which demanded the creation of a representative government. Finally, in 1917, Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917), plagued by a crippled economy, humiliating losses to the Germans in World War I, and the developing Russian Revolution, abdicated the throne. He and his family were assassinated the following year, thereby ending Romanov rule in Russia. Serfdom and strict authoritarian rule, the tools that Michael Romanov and his descendents used to develop their power, ultimately subverted their dynasty. See also: Catherine II, the Great; Nicholas I; Nicholas II; Peter I, the Great; Riurikid Dynasty; Romanov, Michael. FURTHER READING

Cowles,Virginia. The Romanovs. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Raleigh, Donald J., ed. The Emperors and Empresses of Russia. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1996.

ROMANOV, MICHAEL (1596–1645 C.E.) Founder of the Romanov dynasty (which ruled Russia until 1917), under whose rule serfdom increased and some Western military and industrial techniques were introduced. Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov reluctantly accepted election as tsar of Russia in 1613, after several false pretenders struggled for power. The grandnephew of Anastasia, the wife of Ivan IV, the Terrible (r. 1533–1584), the young new tsar was the sixteenyear-old son of Fyodor Romanov and Ksenia

Roya l Fa m i l i e s Ivanovna Shestovaia, both of whom had been forced to take religious vows during the reign of Boris Godunov (r. 1598–1605). Michael’s mother accompanied him, along with the agents of the zemski sobor (the Russian ruling council who had chosen Michael), to Moscow in 1613 so he could take the throne. For the next five years, the young tsar’s policies were directed by opportunistic members of his mother’s family and by the experienced members of the zemski sobor who surrounded him in the Kremlin, the citadel in Moscow that contained the palaces and administrative buildings of the tsarist realm. In 1619, Michael’s father, Fyodor, was named grand patriarch of the Russian church and also assumed the regency for his son. Between the progress that had already been made under the direction of zemski sobor and the able leadership of Fyodor, Russia recovered from the tumultuous “Time of Troubles” that had preceded Michael’s accession. In the twelve years between the death of Michael’s father Fyodor in 1633 and Michael’s own death, the family of the tsar’s mother once more took control of Russian policy. Michael seems not to have resented these usurpations of his power, perhaps because he realized that his abilities were modest. When Michael died in 1645, he was succeeded on the throne by his sixteen-year-old son, Alexis (r. 1645–1676). The Romanov line that Michael had founded continued to rule Russia until the death of Tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917) in 1917 during the Russian Revolution. See also: Ivan IV, the Terrible; Romanov Dynasty; Russian Dynasties. FURTHER READING

Smith, David. Russia of the Tsars. London: Ernest Benn, 1971.

ROTSE KINGDOM. See Lozi Kingdom ROYAL FAMILIES The monarch’s family, including parents, spouse, children, and, in most cases, siblings, some if not all of whom are in the line of succession. Royal families differ in size and in kind for a number of reasons. In some cultures, families engage in

799

polygamy or concubinage, and the immediate royal family can be enormously large.This practice of having multiple wives or concubines was common to older Middle Eastern and Asian societies. In modern European cultures, royal families are usually comparatively small. In earlier centuries, however, families were large to ensure a number of surviving children. In addition, if the wife died in childbirth, a monarch might marry two or three times, thus ensuring a large family. Even today, extended royal families can be fairly large. For example, the British royal family includes not only the four children and six grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II (r. 1952– ), but many royal cousins and other relatives of the monarch.

MARRIAGES Most monarchs choose their consorts, or spouses, from a relatively narrow group among the nobility. Often, rulers who cannot marry another individual of highest royal blood choose to marry someone who is in line to inherit another throne or who is able to influence that country’s decisions. Sometimes, as with Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504) and Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516), such a marriage results in the joining of two kingdoms or two groups at war with each other. At the end of the Wars of the Roses (1455–1485), Henry Tudor, of the house of Lancaster, declared himself heir to the throne after the death of Richard III (r. 1483–1485). As Henry VII (r. 1485–1509), he took for his queen Elizabeth of York, the oldest daughter of Edward IV (r. 1461–1483), from the house of York. Henry’s choice of a bride was conciliatory; through the marriage, he joined the two warring parties and ended the Wars of the Roses. Although an extended series of marriages in a family is intended to create beneficial alliances and strengthen a country’s international status, it can, in the long run, weaken it. For example, in 1700, when King Charles II of Spain (r. 1665–1700) died childless, the royal families of France, England, and Portugal all had contenders for the succession, and each fought for his claim to the throne. The Wars of the Spanish Succession followed, and in the aftermath, Philip V (r. 1700–1746), the grandson of Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715), held the throne. As a result, the Habsburg dynasty ended in Spain, and the kingdom became a vassal of France under the Bourbon dynasty.

800

Roya l Fa m i l i e s

ROYAL RELATIVES

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN In Northern Europe, illegitimate children of monarchs were cared for by giving them gifts such as land or money; rarely, if ever, could they hope to inherit the title. In much of Southern Europe, on the other hand, particularly Italy, the attitude was much different.When Alfonso I of Aragón (r. 1435–1458) occupied the city of Naples in 1444, he arranged for his illegitimate son, Ferrante, to succeed him there as Ferdinand I (r. 1458–1494). Similarly, when Emperor Conrad IV (r. 1250–1254) assumed power in southern Italy and Sicily, he named his illegitimate half-brother Manfred to rule as his substitute.When Conrad IV died in 1254, Manfred (r. 1254–1266) assumed power in his own right. Such widespread acceptance of illegitimate children as successors in the Italian states astonished Northern Europeans, who regarded Italy as both a scandalous and fascinating place.

An issue that sometimes arises in royal marriage is intermarriage among dynasties or families. Repeated intermarriage among royalty can sometimes result in physical problems. One such example is found in Charles II of Spain (r. 1665–1700), known as Charles the Mad, who inherited traits of mental instability as a result of continued intermarriage within the Habsburg dynasty. Charles inherited the throne at age four; even by then it was obvious that he was so severely handicapped that he could neither speak nor eat properly.

CONCUBINES AND MISTRESSES The preferred form of producing an heir for a ruler in the Ottoman Empire was through slave concubinage. A wife of an Ottoman sultan was held to have a vested interest in government affairs and so was considered more of a liability than was a concubine. Children born to a concubine were legitimate and could inherit the Ottoman throne. One weakness of the Ottoman monarchy, however, was its lack of a law of succession. As a result, the death of a sultan frequently was followed by lengthy struggles for power. In the fifteenth century, Sultan Mehmet II Fatih (r. 1451–1481) decreed after inheriting the throne that all his siblings be put to death. This practice continued until the seventeenth century, when the right to inherit was given, by law, to the eldest son, and the rest of the family was imprisoned in part of the harem. As a result, potential

rulers often came to the throne without any training or experience. These practices eventually contributed to the Ottoman decline. Far Eastern monarchs were permitted any number of concubines, many of whom might be from the lower classes. Frequently, as in the Ottoman Empire, these women were slaves, and they remained in the harem after the emperor lost interest in them. In China, there were differing grades of concubines; a woman who pleased the emperor might be moved up to a higher grade. The empress T’zu Hsi (Cixi), admitted to the harem as a third-grade concubine, became a first-grade concubine after her son’s birth. In these situations, a woman might have influence over the emperor; on rare occasions, she might even become regent, as Tzu Hsi did after the death of emperor Hsien Feng in 1861, when she became regent for her son,T’ung Chih (r. 1861–1875). Technically, the empress’s son was the heir, but, in practice, instead emperors frequently named a son born to a favored concubine as the next heir. European monarchs sometimes had mistresses as well, but the children born to these women were considered illegitimate and could not inherit the throne. Officially, they often were not even considered part of the royal family.Although the mistress of a European king might exert considerable influence over his decisions, she rarely had any status after his death. Unless legitimized, her children could not inherit lands or titles. In many cases, a European mon-

Roya l L i n e arch might provide such illegitimate children with a family name of their own, but this would be no more than other aristocrats would do. See also: Emperors and Empresses; Kings and Queens; Legitimacy; Regencies; Royal Line; Succession, Royal.

801

See also: Blood, Royal; Consorts, Royal; Descent, Royal; Genealogy, Royal; Legitimacy. FURTHER READING

Cheesman, Clive, and Jonathan Williams. Rebels, Pretenders and Impostors. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Hindley, Geoffrey. The Royal Families of Europe. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2000.

ROYAL IMPOSTERS False claimants to royalty have often taken the identity of a charismatic royal who died or was assassinated at a young age and who was surrounded by an aura of mystery or glamour. Many people believe in these false claimants because of the hope they arouse. Perhaps the most famous such royal pretenders have been those claiming descent from the last Romanov tsar of Russia, Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917), and his family, who were murdered in 1918 by the Bolsheviks, and whose bodies long remained undiscovered. The most notorious Romanov pretender was a woman named Anna Anderson, who, from 1921 until her death in 1984, claimed to be the tsar’s youngest daughter Anastasia. In 1991, the bodies of the tsar’s family were discovered and unearthed near Ekaterinburg, the place in Russia where they had been killed. DNA analysis finally proved that Anna Anderson was not a Romanov. After Louis-Charles, the son of Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) and Marie Antoinette, apparently died in prison at the age of ten in 1795, some French monarchists claimed that the young prince had escaped and that another boy had been substituted for him. In 1814, a German man named Karl Wilhelm Naundorff claimed to be Louis, and debate over who was the real prince continued for almost two centuries. In 1998, Naundorff’s remains were compared by DNA analysis to those of Bourbon descendants, and his claim was disproved. Further DNA tests performed in 1999 on tissue from the boy who died in prison indicated he was the real Louis-Charles. Pretenders sometimes have a real throne to gain if their claims prove true. Often, however, they make their claims to the Crown because of an attachment to the idea of a royal past and the glamour and splendor associated with it, a feeling that is shared by many of those who believe in these pretenders.

ROYAL LINE Those individuals who are in the line of succession to inherit a throne; a succession of rulers from the same royal line is known as a dynasty. The concept of the royal line has much in common with that of the succession, and at times they may seem identical. There are some differences, however: the monarch’s extended family, including the children of his or her brothers and sisters, and in many cases their children, are usually considered part of the royal family; they too have a place, although distant, in the line of succession. There may be legal differences between the royal line and the succession. Great Britain, for example, still follows the law of succession as established by the Bill of Rights in 1688 and the Act of Settlement in 1701. Those individuals claiming descent from James II (r. 1685–1688), or any branch of the Stuart family, are no longer in the royal line; the heir must come through the Hanover line. Moreover, the English monarch must be in communion with the Church of England; Catholics are not allowed to inherit the throne. Although a bill to repeal the Act of Settlement has been brought before Parliament, the law remained in force as of mid-2003. A Catholic in the Hanover line, though unable to succeed to the throne, remains technically in the royal line. For example, George Windsor, earl of St. Andrews (b. 1962), is barred from the succession because he married a Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, Windsor’s place in the royal line is often found in unofficial listings—although it is acknowledged that he may not inherit the throne for religious reasons. It remains possible for Windsor to inherit, however, provided his wife converts to the Anglican Church. An interesting example of the relationship between the royal line and succession involves John of

802

Roya l L i n e

Gaunt, the duke of Lancaster and third son of King Edward III (r. 1313–1377) of England, who was thus in the royal line of succession. John of Gaunt’s children by his wife, Katherine Swynford, were distant members of the royal line. Despite the fact that their heirs were, at the time, barred from the succession, their descendant, Henry Tudor, was able to lay claim to the throne as Henry VII (r. 1485–1509) at the end of the Wars of the Roses (1455–1485), so depleted was the aristocracy. Various difficulties have occurred over the royal line and succession. In the Ottoman Empire, for example, frequent difficulties arose regarding succession because the Ottomans did not follow primogeniture (inheritance by the oldest son), and there was no specific royal line. Consequently, the death of an Ottoman sultan was frequently followed by a political struggle among his sons. Such a struggle erupted following the death of Sultan Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402). When Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1451–1481) took the throne, he had his siblings put to death and enacted a decree establishing the practice that was followed into the early seventeenth century. From this time on, the sultans followed the law of primogeniture, and other surviving males of the family, instead of being killed, were locked up in a part of the imperial harem that was known as “The Cage.” Consequently, the Ottoman Empire was sometimes ruled by a series of mad or incompetent sultans who had spent too much time imprisoned and isolated, lacking contact with the outside world. Most historians agree that this practice of imprisoning potential heirs contributed to the decline of the Ottoman Empire. See also: Emperors and Empresses; Empire; Imperial Rule; Kingdoms and Empires; Kings and Queens; Royal Families; Succession, Royal.

ROYAL PRETENDERS Descendants of a royal house who are not in the direct line of inheritance but who claim the throne; or the heirs to a deposed king who hope to regain power; or people who falsely claim to be royal descendants. Even after the decline of monarchy in modern times, there have been many royal pretenders. Royal descendants not in direct line to the throne have used various methods to legitimize their claims.

After his victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, Henry V of England (r. 1413–1422) claimed the throne of France by right of his descent from Edward III (r. 1327–1377), the grandson of a king of France. Henry also claimed that the dauphin, the future Charles VII (r. 1422–1461), was illegitimate and therefore had no right to be king. In 1420, the French Parlement and the University of Paris accepted Henry’s claim. When Henry IV (r. 1399–1413) usurped the English throne from Richard II (r. 1377–1399) in 1399, at first he tried to alter his genealogy to legitimize his rule. He was actually descended from a junior line of the house of Lancaster, through Edmund Crouchback, the younger brother of Edward I (r. 1272–1307). Henry and his father, John of Gaunt, insisted that Edmund was really the older brother of Edward I, but had been forced to give up his royal rights because he was a hunchback. Claims of illegitimate birth have also been used against pretenders.After James II (r. 1685–1688) fled England in 1688, Protestant supporters of the new king, William III (r. 1689–1702), alarmed at the prospect of a Catholic heir to the throne, disputed the legitimacy of the young prince James, born to the deposed monarch and his staunchly Catholic wife, Mary of Modena. They claimed that the infant James was really the son of a woman named Mary Grey. Modern pretenders to defunct thrones include the various descendants of the Bourbon line, who claim to be the rightful king of France, a country where surprisingly strong royalist sentiments remain. In addition, there have been a number of twentieth-century claimants to the throne of the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI (r. 1448–1453), who died in 1453. Some modern claims to the throne rest on untraditional arguments. In 1993, for example, Brazil was about to hold a plebiscite to decide whether the monarchy should be reinstated. Neninho de Obaluaye, president of the Center for Black Resistance in Sao Paulo, argued that the Crown should not go to the former ruling dynasty, the Orleans-Braganza family, which had been deposed by a republican movement in 1889. Instead, he maintained, the Crown of a reestablished monarchy should go to the descendants of African slaves, whose labor actually built Brazil during the colonial era. See also: Royal Imposters.

Ru r i k FURTHER READING

Cheesman, Clive, and Jonathan Williams. Rebels, Pretenders and Impostors. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000 Hindley, Geoffrey. The Royal Families of Europe. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2000.

RUDOLF I (1218–1291 C.E.) Elected king of medieval Germany (r. 1273–1291) and first monarch of the powerful and long-lasting Habsburg dynasty. Rudolf’s reign, though not especially noteworthy in terms of German history, is important in the history of Europe, as he began the accumulation of land and resources that enabled the Habsburg line to rise to great prominence in later years. Rudolf was born in 1218 to Albert, the count of Habsburg, and Hedwig of Kyburg. Both families held small estates in Germany. Rudolf furthered his political prospects by marrying Gertrude of Hohenberg in 1245, and he then took quick advantage of the collapse of the powerful German Hohenstaufen dynasty by seizing a variety of unclaimed estates. By the time Pope Gregory X (r. 1271–1276) forced an election for the German throne in 1273, Rudolf was one of the most powerful figures in Germany. He won the Crown over the opposition of Bohemian king Ottocar II (r. 1253–1278). Ottocar refused to recognize Rudolf as king, and tensions quickly mounted across Central Europe as the two monarchs vied for power. A series of diplomatic efforts failed to appease either side, and Rudolf went to war against Ottocar in 1278, defeating and killing his rival in the fierce battle of Marchfeld.With his throne intact, Rudolf focused his efforts on securing landed legacies for his descendants, especially in Austria. These lands, taken from Ottocar, became the basis for much of the Habsburg family’s future power. Although the princes of Germany ostensibly supported Rudolf, the king’s efforts to quell local rivalries through peace agreements were unsuccessful, largely because he lacked the manpower to enforce them. Rudolf was similarly unsuccessful in his efforts to push his kingdom southward into Italy and in his attempts to centralize political power through a series of taxes and economic controls. Despite these setbacks, Rudolf acquired significant political power for the Habsburgs.

803

In hopes of gaining papal approval for his coronation as Holy Roman emperor, Rudolf followed a conciliatory polity toward Pope Nicholas II (r. 1277– 1280) in the late 1270s by renouncing sovereignty over the Papal States and seeking the withdrawal of the house of Anjou from central Italy. These efforts failed, however, and Rudolf never received papal recognition as emperor. After Rudolf’s death in 1291, German princely electors, nervous about the growing power of the Habsburgs, refused to elect his son Albert as king. Albert was able to restore the Habsburgs to power, however, by deposing his chief rival,Adolf of Nassau, in 1298, and taking the German throne as Albert I (r. 1298–1308). See also: Albert I; Election, Royal; Habsburg Dynasty; Hohenstaufen Dynasty; Holy Roman Empire.

RURIK (d. 879 C.E.) Semilegendary founder (r. ca. 862–879) of the princely Riurikid dynasty of medieval Russia. which ruled until 1598. In the ninth century, bands of Scandinavian Vikings known as the Varangians raided and eventually settled between the Dnieper and the Volga rivers (roughly the area of present-day Ukraine). As they had done in the duchy of Normandy in France, the Vikings formed an aristocracy that ruled and intermixed with the Slavs who were already living there. Rurik (also spelled Riurik or Ryurik) is described in early sources as a warrior prince of the Varangians, who came to be called the Rus (the origin of the word “Russia”). Around 862, Rurik established himself at Novgorod, where he built fortifications and created an orderly government. A legend from the eleventh or twelfth century says that he and his brothers were mercenaries invited by warring Slavic tribes to rule over them and establish peace. But this myth may be merely justification of past conquest or evidence of factional strife within the tribal leadership. Rurik’s kinsmen and descendants enlarged the Rus territory, first dominating the region around the Dnieper River, an important trade route. After Rurik’s death, his kinsman Oleg (r. ca. 879–912) assumed leadership of Novgorod and seized the city of Kiev, where he laid the foundations for the powerful

804

Ru r i k

Kievan Rus. Oleg’s successor, Igor (who may have been Rurik’s son), ruled as duke of Kiev (r. 912–945) and is considered the true founder of the Riurikid dynasty. Later Riurikids also came to rule the grand duchy of Muscovy. As the Riurikids expanded their territory, they came into conflict with Mongol and Turkic tribes, such as the Khazars, and with the Byzantine Empire. In 1547, the Riurikid ruler Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible, r. 1533–1584) adopted the title tsar and ruled over all the Russian states. However, the Riurikids ruled Russia as tsars only until the death of Ivan’s son and successor, Feodor I (Theodore I) in 1598. See also:Ivan IV, the Terrible; Kiev, Princedom of; Riurikid Dynasty; Russian Dynasties.

RUS PRINCEDOMS (ca. 850–1236 C.E.) Medieval princedoms in present-day Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus that were the early foundations for the Russian state and empire. In the sixth and seventh centuries, members of various East Slavic tribes migrated into a forested region of present-day Russia and Ukraine, which stretched from Novgorod in the north to Kiev in the south. These tribes, whose descendants became the modern Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians, were the first inhabitants of what later came to be known as Kievan Rus. As their population grew, these peoples occupied additional land from the Polish and Hungarian borders in the west to the upper Volga River region in the east. During the ninth century, the loosely affiliated Rus settlers faced increasing attacks from various Scandinavian tribes known collectively as the Varangians. Slavic tribal leaders responded to this threat by inviting Rurik, a powerful Varangian leader, to occupy Novgorod and protect the East Slavs from further attack.While Rurik assumed control of Novgorod, two of his followers, Askold and Dir, inhabited Kiev and transformed it into a major metropolitan area. After Rurik’s death, around 879, his kinsman Oleg attacked Kiev, killed Askold and Dir, and established the city as the center of the Kievan Rus, one of the major Rus kingdoms. Over the next century, Oleg (r. 879–912) and his successors subjugated the East Slavic tribes, often by executing tribal leaders and razing tribal villages, and expanded their realm.

Under Oleg and his immediate successors, the Rus population consisted mainly of farmers and foresters.Agricultural methods were very crude; unaware of the benefits of crop rotation, the farmers tilled the land until the soil was depleted, then moved to open land. Forestry practices were similar. After an area had been deforested, workers simply relocated. Therefore, the early Rus population was largely nomadic. When Grand Prince Vladimir I (r. 978–1015) assumed control of Kiev in 978, he fundamentally altered these practices. First, he recruited Varangian mercenaries to patrol the Rus kingdoms and stabilize their borders. Second, he adopted Orthodox Christianity as the official Rus religion. Although it was impossible to quickly convert the Slavic tribes from their pagan practices, the introduction of a single religion provided another element around which the Rus kingdoms could develop. Vladimir also encouraged the growth of cities, which not only served as refuges from foreign attacks, but also became centers for early industry as artisans such as glassmakers, jewelers, and ironworkers congregated there and developed their trades. Finally, Vladimir introduced the concept of land ownership.To reward his supporters,Vladimir would grant them vast amounts of land. These grants sharply curtailed nomadic agricultural practices; farmers became attached to a specific parcel of land, cultivating it for the newly appointed landowner. In turn, these landowners assumed an authoritative position over the farmers.The most powerful landowners became governors, and they consequently replaced the tribal leaders whose powers had greatly diminished. Vladimir’s son,Yaroslav the Wise (r. 1019–1054), further developed the Kievan Rus society. During his reign, foreign raids were virtually eliminated. Benefiting from this increased safety and the growing artisan population, Yaroslav developed the region’s fledgling cultural institutions. He oversaw the construction of cathedrals, libraries, and other civic buildings and encouraged the immigration of Byzantine artists, historians, and teachers. Yaroslav also wrote the first major Russian law code. Under his reign, the Rus kingdoms experienced their greatest period of unity and affluence. After Yaroslav’s death in 1054, the Rus kingdoms became increasingly fragmented. Unable to cooperate with one another, the individual states faced in-

Ru s s i a n D y n a s t i e s creasing attacks from the Polovtsian tribes who inhabited the region’s southern borders, and the Rus princes watched their powers steadily deteriorate. By 1150, the Kievan Rus had divided into several separate autonomous principalities. Among these, Kiev retained the most political influence, but Suzdalia became the region’s cultural leader and Novgorod the most prosperous commercial center. The emergence of the Rus principalities was violently stifled in 1223, when a Mongol scouting party defeated a Rus army in a battle at the Kalka River. Yet, even the Mongols’ ferocious victory failed to alleviate the bitter rivalries that had developed among the Rus principalities. As the number of Mongol invasions increased over the next decade, the Rus princes refused to consolidate their forces and offer a united opposition. Consequently, when the Mongols launched a major invasion in 1236, they successfully conquered the Rus principalities one by one, leading to more than two centuries of Mongol dominance.

805

sor, Igor (r. 913–945), made the city of Kiev the capital of the region.

GROWTH OF THE RUS KINGDOMS Under Igor’s son and successor, Sviatoslav (r. 945–972), the princedom of Kiev reached its peak of power. Upon his death, however, a struggle for power broke out between his sons, with Vladimir (r. 978–1015) eventually gaining power. Vladimir carried on the work of previous generations by subjecting most of the eastern Slavic region to his rule. He was the first Russian ruler to convert to Christianity.Vladimir’s descendants made Kiev the center of a confederation of territories ruled by related princes. Collateral succession between brothers or cousins was the usual pattern of inheritance; the senior prince of the senior generation ruled Kiev as

See also: Kiev, Princedom of; Mongol Empire; Rurik; Vladimir Princedom; Yaroslav I, the Wise. FURTHER READING

Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia: 980–1054. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pelenski, Jaroslaw. The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus’. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

RUSSIAN DYNASTIES (800s–1917 C.E.) Two ruling dynasties of Russia, the Riurikids and Romanovs, who led the country from its founding in the ninth century until the Russian Revolution of 1917. In the ninth century, a group of Scandinavian traders and warriors, the Varangians, became established in the region that is now western Russia.The name of their country became known as Rus, perhaps a term that designated the Varangians. One of the Rus princes—Rurik (r. ca. 862–879)—became ruler of Novgorod (r. ca. 862–879) and is considered the traditional founder of Russia. Rurik was the ancestor of the many family branches of the Riurikid dynasty, which ruled until 1598. His son and succes-

Built between 1499 and 1508 by the grand princes of Moscow, the Terem Palace was the imperial residence until 1712, when Peter the Great moved the Russian capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg. Located in the Kremlin, the ornate palace was refurbished in the early 1600s by Tsar Michael and Tsar Alexei, the first two Romanov rulers.

806

Ru s s i a n D y n a s t i e s

Riurikid Dynasty (862–1598)

Andrei II

1247–1252

Rurik*

Alexander I Nevsky*

1252–1263

Yaroslav III

1264–1271

GREAT PRINCES OF KIEV

Vassily II

1271–1276

Oleg I

879–913, regent and co-ruler

Dmitri I

1277–1294

Andrei III

1294–1304

Igor I

913–945

Mikhail III

1304–1319

Olga

945–962, regent

Yuri III

1319–1322

Sviatoslav I

962–972

Dmitri II

1322–1325

Iaropolk I

972–980

Alexander II

1326–1328

Vladimir I

980–1015

Ivan I

1328–1341

862–879

Sviatopolk I

1015–1019

Simeon I

1341–1353

Yaroslav I the Wise*

1019–1054

Ivan II

1353–1359

Izyaslav I

1054–1078

Dmitri III

1360–1362

Vseslav I

1068–1069

Sviatoslav II

1073–1076

Vsevolod I

1093–1113

Vladimir II

1113–1125

Mstislav I

1125–1132

Iaropolk II

1132–1139

Vyacheslav I

1139–1146

Izyaslav II

1146–1154

Rostislav I

1154–1164

Yuri I

1149–1157

GREAT PRINCES OF MOSCOW Dmitri IV*

1359–1389

Vassily I

1389–1425

Vassily II

1425–1462

Ivan III the Great*

1462–1505

Vassily III

1505–1533

TSARS OF RUSSIA Ivan IV the Terrible*

1533–1584

GREAT PRINCES OF VLADIMIR

Feodor I

1584–1598

Andrei I

1157–1174

Boris Godonov

1598–1605

Vsevolod III

1176–1212

Feodor II

Yuri II

1212–1237

Pseudo-Dmitri

1605–1606

Yaroslav II

1237–1246

Vassily IV

1606–1610

Sviatoslav III

1247

1605

(Polish interregnum 1610–1613)

807

Ru s s i a n D y n a s t i e s

Romanov Dynasty (1613–1917)

Elizabeth

Mikhail Romanov*

1613–1645

Peter III

Alexei

1645–1676

Catherine II, the Great* 1762–1796

Feodor IV

1676–1682

Paul I

1796–1801

Alexander I*

1801–1825

Nicholas I*

1825–1855

Ivan V

1682–1696, co-ruler

Peter I the Great*

1682–1725, co-ruler to 1696

1741–1762 1762

Alexander II*

1855–1881

Catherine I

1725–1727

Alexander III

1881–1894

Peter II

1727–1730

Nicholas II*

Anna

1730–1740

Ivan VI

1740–1741

the “Great Prince” or “Grand Duke,” the overlord to whom the other princes owed allegiance. The Great Princes of Kiev ruled over a prosperous network of commercial towns, maintaining political and trade relationships with the Byzantine Empire. However, Kievan Russia suffered continual internal conflicts. In 1169, Prince Andrew I of Vladimir (r. 1157–1174), a Riurikid ruler of another princedom, sacked Kiev as punishment for a revolt and moved the capital to Vladimir. From the reign of Vsevolod III (r. 1176–1212) until the predominance of the princedom of Moscow in the 1360s, the Great Princes of Vladimir were the preeminent rulers among the many Russian princes.

INTERNAL CONFLICT AND EXTERNAL THREAT During the late twelfth century, the history of Russia became a succession of wars between brothers, cousins, uncles, and nephews. This chaotic situation was the result of the collateral transmission of power, in which the succession passed not from the son but from the most senior member of the elder generation to the next eldest of that generation. Izyaslav II of Kiev (r. 1146–1154) attempted, unsuccessfully, to change the principle of collateral succession to a system in which the prince designated his own successor. Thus, continuing internal conflicts weakened the young Russian state. Late in 1237 the Mongols began their conquest of

1894–1917 (executed 1918)

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

Russia. After Kiev was taken by the Mongols of the Golden Horde in 1240, the Kievan Rus became part of the Mongol Empire, which dominated all of Eurasia. In Russia, the Mongols extracted tribute and levied taxes but left cooperative native rulers in place as vassals of the Mongol khan. During the period of Mongol dominance, the princes of the Russian territories continued to come from families of the Riurikid dynasty. The center of power, however, shifted from Vladimir to Moscow, a process that began with Ivan I Kalita of Vladimir (r. 1328–1341). Ivan Kalita also changed the custom of succession so that the direct heir would receive the greatest portion of power and territory, decreasing the tendency for the territories to become subdivided among many heirs. The princes of Moscow were given the right to collect tribute from the other Russian princes for the Mongols; this naturally added to the power, prestige, and wealth of Moscow. Dmitri IV (r. 1362–1389) established the principle of direct hereditary succession by which a single son should follow his father. He also enlarged Moscow’s territory and began to establish it as an autocratic power that dominated the other Russian principalities.

THE TSARDOM AND IVAN THE TERRIBLE Mongol suzerainty over Russia ended through a combination of continued Russian opposition from the

808

Ru s s i a n D y n a s t i e s

ROYAL RELATIVES

CHILDREN OF THE LAST TSAR The children of Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra were the Grand Duchesses Olga,Tatiana, Marie, and Anastasia, and the heir to the throne, the Tsarevitch Alexei, who suffered from hemophilia. The family of the tsar lived a life insulated from the poverty suffered by the majority of the Russian populace. Unlike most upper-class children of the time, however, they were not kept remote from their parents. Family was the center of their lives. In 1917, the Russian Revolution forced Nicholas II to abdicate and he and his family were imprisoned. In the spring of 1918, the imperial family was exiled to Ekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains, far to the east of Moscow. At first, the Bolsheviks planned to put the tsar on trial. But believing that White Russian and Czech forces would capture Ekaterinburg and liberate the family, the revolutionaries decided to execute them. On the night of July 16 the royal family were shot and bayoneted. Accounts of the disposal of the bodies differ. Some or all were burned in a kerosene-fueled bonfire, before or after being damaged with sulphuric acid and dumped in a mineshaft with a grenade, to be reburied shortly after. After World War I, tsarist pretenders began to surface. Most claimed to be surviving members of the family, usually Anastasia or Alexei.The most famous of these pretenders was Anna Anderson, a Polish woman who claimed to be Anastasia Romanov. DNA testing proved this claim false in 1994, and every similar case has likewise been discredited by DNA analysis. Recent forensic examinations have failed to identify Alexei and either Marie or Anastasia among the nine skeletons exhumed in 1991, but given the attempt to destroy even the bones, this can hardly be considered proof of their survival. All evidence so far indicates that the last tsar’s five children died with him.

fourteenth century onward, and internal conflicts among the Mongols. Grand Prince Ivan III of Moscow-Vladimir (r. 1462–1505), called Ivan the Great, formally declared independence from the Mongols in 1480. Ivan married the niece of the last ruler of the Byzantine Empire, thus identifying the rulers of Moscow with the heritage of Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire. Ivan III sometimes used the title “tsar” (derived from the Roman title “caesar”) although it was his grandson, Ivan IV, the Terrible (r. 1533–1584), who would adopt it officially. During his reign, Ivan IV greatly increased the territory controlled by Moscow and worked to centralize the Russian government, limiting the power of the Russian nobility, the boyars, at the same time. Ivan conquered the Tatar khanates of Astrakhan and Kazan

and fought a long and unsuccessful war against Livonia (now Estonia and Latvia), Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden.At the end of his reign, Russia annexed western Siberia. Laws prohibiting peasants from moving also were passed for the first time during Ivan’s reign, beginning the institution of Russian serfdom. Ivan IV was the first tsar to summon the zemsky sobor, an assembly that included not only boyars and clergy, but also representatives of all the free classes of Russian society (which did not include serfs and slaves). Previous Russian princes had been advised by assemblies of noblemen called duma. Ivan IV also established a secret police, and, fearing conspiracy, he ordered the massacre of thousands of people in Novgorod in 1570. In a fit of rage, Ivan also killed his eldest son. His second son, Feodor I (r. 1584–1598),

Ru s s i a n D y n a s t i e s was the last ruler of the Riurikid dynasty. He died without an heir.

TIME OF TROUBLES, ROMANOVS, AND REVOLUTION Boris Godunov, the brother-in-law of Feodor I and the real ruler during Feodor’s reign, succeeded him as tsar (r. 1598–1605). The patriarch of the Russian Church offered Godunov the Crown, and the zemsky sobor elected him tsar. Godunov’s enemies, however, accused him of killing Feodor’s younger half-brother Dmitri, and his claim to the throne was contested by many of the boyars as well as by a Polish-supported pretender known as the Pseudo-Dmitri, who claimed to be the youngest son of Ivan IV. Boris Godunov died in 1605, his son Feodor II was murdered the same year, and the pretender Dmitri (r. 1605–1606) became tsar. Following Dmitri’s murder, Vasily IV (r. 1606–1610), who was related to the Riurikids, became tsar with the support of the boyars. The early seventeenth century was truly a time of troubles for Russia: famine from 1601 to 1603, lawlessness, foreign invasion, violent revolts, and equally violent suppressions of revolts. Another pretender to the throne, Dmitri II, appeared in 1608 and ruled as a rival tsar to Vasily until 1610. Dmitri led an armed resistance until his capture and execution in 1614. Poland invaded Russia in 1609 and Vasily V was deposed. A Polish prince,Vladislav, was elected by the zemsky sobor in his place in 1610.

A New Dynasty In 1613, Poland was driven out of Russia by a unified national effort, and the zemsky sobor elected a new tsar. The individual chosen was sixteen-year-old Mikhail (Michael) Romanov (r. 1613–1645), a member of a boyar family called the Romanovs. Ivan IV’s first wife, Anastasia, had been a member of the Romanov family, so part of the family’s prestige was due to its connection with the Riurikid dynasty. Mikhail Romanov restored order in Russia, assuming the title “autocrat” in 1625. He made peace with Poland and Sweden and continued to extend Russian control eastward into Siberia. Mikhail also increased the restrictions on Russian peasants and serfs. The tsars who followed Mikhail faced revolts and controversies within the Russian Church, but the Romanovs remained securely in power, eventually adding the Ukraine to the lands ruled by Moscow.

809

Peter I, the Great (r. 1682–1725) of the Romanov dynasty changed Russia forever. Succeeding to the throne as a boy, he was co-ruler with his half-brother Ivan V (r. 1682–1696) under the regency of Ivan’s older sister Sophia. Once Peter began ruling on his own in 1696, he instituted a number of military and administrative reforms. He brought the Russian Orthodox Church under a greater degree of state control and founded a new capital at St. Petersburg. He visited Europe and promoted Western culture in Russia. In 1721 Russia defeated Sweden in war, thereby giving Russia access to the Baltic Sea, which it had sought for generations. Sweden ceded the regions of Estonia, Latvia, and Ingria. (Ingria is still part of Russia today.) During his reign, Peter also founded the Russian senate as a nonrepresentative legislative council to carry out his will.The senate remained the main legislative body in Russia under the tsars until 1802. Although Peter changed the rules governing inheritance so that the tsar could designate his own successor, he himself failed to designate a successor. Upon his death, his widow, Catherine I (r. 1725– 1727), ruled for two years before the throne went to Peter’s grandson, Peter II (r. 1727–1730) in 1727.

Powerful Women on the Throne During the reign of the tsarina Elizabeth (r. 1741–1762), the daughter of Peter I and Catherine I, Russia became more involved in European affairs, allying with Austria against Sweden and taking part in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) and the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) against Prussia. Elizabeth designated her nephew Peter as her heir. But when Peter III (r. 1762) took the throne in 1762 he was very unpopular because of his pro-Prussian stance. With the support of the army, his wife, German princess Sophia of Anhalt, deposed him and became Tsarina Catherine II; she would become known as Catherine, the Great (r. 1762–1796). Her adoption of the Russian Orthodox faith and her attempts to become more “Russian” made her popular despite her German heritage. Under Catherine the Great, Russia warred with Turkey and with Poland, gaining access to the Black Sea and annexing the Crimea and Lithuania. She also continued the attempts begun by Peter I to make Russia more European in outlook. During her rule, however, the institution of serfdom became more entrenched and

810

Ru s s i a n D y n a s t i e s

the powers of landowners over their serfs more severe, resulting in several violent and widespread revolts.

A Changing Monarchy Catherine’s son and successor, Paul I (r. 1796–1801), changed the rules of inheritance again, forbidding females from succeeding to the Russian throne. Under Paul I, Russia and its former enemy, Turkey, joined England, Austria, and Naples against Napoleon and France in 1798. Paul was assassinated by a conspiracy of military officers and courtiers in 1801. Paul’s son and successor, Alexander I (1801– 1825), reformed the Russian government, making the senate insignificant and instead installed the State Council as the main legislative body in 1810.Alexander abolished serfdom in some territories, but not in Russia itself, fearing the reaction of the landowning nobles. Russian serfs were essentially the property of landowners, and they constituted a large, unhappy, and potentially dangerous part of the population. Freed serfs, who had no land of their own and thus no means of supporting themselves, also presented a potential problem. The issue of serfdom would trouble Russia throughout most of the nineteenth century. Under Alexander I, Russia played an important role in the final defeat of Napoleon and was rewarded with much of Poland by the terms of the Congress of Vienna (1815).The reigns of his successors vacillated between reactionary and liberal. Alexander I’s brother and successor, Nicholas I (r. 1825–1855), downgraded the State Council, increasing the autocratic powers of the tsar. However, he also passed laws limiting serfdom and issued a new law code. Alexander II (r. 1855–1881), the son of Nicholas I, was a liberal reformer who ended serfdom in 1861, made great legal and administrative reforms, and championed the Orthodox Christian countries of the Balkans against the Ottoman Empire. However, under his rule, discontent increased greatly; liberals demanded more reform, and so revolutionary groups formed to try to force change. Alexander was assassinated in 1881—ironically on the same day he signed a document that could have been the basis for a constitution and representative assembly. His son and successor, Alexander III (r. 1881– 1894), reacted to his father’s assassination and attempts at reform by suppressing liberals and revolutionaries,

increasing censorship, imposing government control on universities, and strengthening the role of the nobles again. Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917), the son of Alexander III, failed to make any significant changes in policy. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 and Russian involvement in World War I brought the Russian people’s dissatisfaction with their government to a head. In 1905, Russia experienced the first of the revolutionary uprisings, strikes, and mutinies that would later culminate in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Forced to abdicate by revolutionaries in 1917. Nicholas II, his wife, and his children were killed in July 1918, ending the Romanov dynasty and more than a millennium of Russian monarchy. From the time of the legendary Rurik to the last Romanov, Russian’s monarchy consistently tended toward autocracy. Russian assemblies—the duma, zemsky sobors, senates, and state councils—never became established as a voice for the people. Russia never effected the balance between monarch, church, and nobles that the Western European countries managed to achieve. Some Western European countries worked to moderate the power of all three, which led them to look to the common people as a potential power base with which to negotiate. In the end, this failure contributed to the violent end of the Russian monarchy. However, the pattern of strong centralized power established by the Riurikid and Romanov dynasties continued even under the Soviet political system in the twentieth century. See also: Alexander I; Alexander II; Alexandra; Catherine II, the Great; Ivan III, the Great; Ivan IV, the Terrible; Kiev, Princedom of; Nicholas I; Nicholas II; Peter I, the Great; Riurikid Dynasty; Romanov Dynasty; Rurik; Rus Princedoms;Yaroslav I, the Wise. FURTHER READING

Freeze, Gregory L., ed. Russia: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Grey, Ian. The Romanovs:The Rise and Fall of a Russian Dynasty. New York: Doubleday, 1970. Massie, Robert K. The Romanovs: The Final Chapter. New York: Random House, 1995. Vernadsky, George. Kievan Russia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973. ———. A History of Russia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.

S ac r a l B i rt h a n d D e at h

S SABAEAN KINGDOM (ca. 1000 B.C.E.–300 C.E.)

One of the principal empires in the southwestern part of the Arabian Peninsula (in present-day Yemen) that was famous primarily for its legendary ruler Bilqis, the queen of Sheba (r. ca. 1005–965 b.c.e.). The Sabaeans were one of the three main peoples in ancient South Arabia (the others were the Minaeans and the Himyarites), and their city of Saba was the most powerful of a number of city-states in that region. Although the Sabaeans were never united politically or ethnically, Saba gradually increased its political control to embrace all the main kingdoms of southern Arabia. Saba was very wealthy, and with the most rainfall anywhere in Arabia, the area was lush and fertile.The Sabaeans were able to export valuable exotic plants, spices, and luxury products all over the Mediterranean and Asia. Its commercial success was boosted by its strategic position on ocean-trade routes to India and Africa and at the south end of land-based routes along the coast of the Arabian Peninsula. From about 1000 b.c.e. to 200 c.e., the Sabaeans totally dominated international trade on the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, as well as the land trade that took spices and other products through Arabia into the Mediterranean. Items such as myrrh and frankincense were especially profitable, for they were highly valued by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans for a variety of native rituals. At the peak of their power, the Sabaeans had trading posts or colonies from one end of North Arabia to the other, and it is likely that the queen of Sheba came from one of those. By about the middle of the eighth century b.c.e., the Sabaeans had created their own kingdom, which became the leading power in southern Arabia under

811

the kings Yathiamar (flourished ca. 725–700 b.c.e.) and Karibil Watar (flourished ca. 700–650 b.c.e.). The Sabaean capital, Marib, flourished more than any other city in ancient Arabia. This was partly because of its strategic location for trade and partly because of a remarkable dam that supplied water for the people and for agriculture. Marib’s dam lasted more than one thousand years, demonstrating the highly developed technical capability of Sabaean society. The ancient Sabaeans also used an alphabet similar to that of the Phoenicians. Inscriptions and other writings, as well as excavations at Marib, corroborate the Sabaeans’ high level of civilization and affluence based on agriculture and trade. Marib was fortified by a wall that successfully protected it from various enemies, including the Romans, who attacked in 25 b.c.e. However, by the first century c.e., the Sabaean kingdom began to decline in power. The Himyarites, in particular, weakened Saba with persistent attacks and finally overcame the Sabaeans in the second century. See also: Sheba, Queen of.

SACRAL BIRTH AND DEATH The sacred rites, beliefs, and events associated with the birth and death of rulers. In many societies, the birth or death of monarchs has been treated as an event of great religious significance, assigned meanings and accompanied by rites that have differed from those commemorating the life passages of the rulers’ subjects.

SIGNS OF DIVINITY OR GREATNESS Egyptian pharaohs, including Hatshepsut (r. 1503– 1483 b.c.e.), had their own births portrayed in their temples, with their mothers serving as vessels into which the divine essence was conveyed. Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) made a similar claim of divine status, claiming to have been begotten on his mother by the god Zeus Ammon in the form of a snake. Whether or not a ruler claimed divine parentage, the birth of a future monarch often was claimed to be accompanied by providential signs marking the infant for greatness. The Roman historian Suetonius recounts a plethora of signs (some modeled on leg-

812

S ac r a l B i rt h a n d D e at h

ends associated with Alexander the Great) that accompanied the conception, development, and birth of the first Roman emperor, Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.– 14 c.e.).This included a dream his mother had while she was pregnant with him in which her bowels stretched to the stars. In the case of the Dalai Lamas who ruled Tibet before the Chinese conquest in 1950, divine signs were crucial to the identification of the new ruler, who, as with all previous Dalai Lamas, was conceived as a new incarnation of the same deity.

SACRED CONCEPTIONS OF DEATH In many societies, the death of a king was portrayed as an apotheosis, or the raising of the dead ruler to the rank of a god. Some rulers even claimed this themselves. The Roman historian Suetonius, for example, alleged that the Emperor Vespasian (r. 69–79) remarked, “I think I am becoming a god” when Vespasian was first seized by the distemper that later killed him. Monotheistic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have denied the possibility of apotheosis. But adherents to these faiths have provided alternative religious conceptions of royal death, particularly death by violence. The first medieval king to be recognized as a saint, Sigismund of Burgundy (r. 516–523), owed his saintly reputation, in part, to having been murdered by the Franks in 523. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which produced many royal saints in the early Middle Ages, had several rulers who died fighting pagans. Both Christianity and Islam, in particular, have often praised death on the battlefield against a religious foe. Even the death of Ottoman sultan Suleyman I (r. 1520–1556), who died in his tent rather than in battle while campaigning against the Christians, earned him the title of “Martyr.” Death by murder, as well as battle, has also been treated as sacred.The death by execution of Charles I (r. 1625–1649) of England was portrayed by his admirers as a martyrdom, paralleling the Passion and death of Jesus. Handkerchiefs dipped in the blood that Charles shed on the scaffold were treated as sacred relics and were even credited with healing powers. Tsar Nicolas II (r. 1894–1917) of Russia, murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918, was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000 as a “passion bearer,” for the humility with which he bore captivity and death. Like the British royalists who venerated Charles I, many

Russian supporters of Nicholas’s canonization compared him to Christ and looked to a restoration of the monarchy. See also:Funerals and Mortuary Rituals; Kingly Body; Sacred Kingships.

SACRED KINGSHIPS Monarchies claiming a particular relationship to the gods or the divine. The most extreme form of sacred kingship is divine kingship, the worship of the monarch as a god. The earliest developed society known to follow this practice was that of ancient Egypt, whose pharaohs were considered to be gods. Contact with Egypt may have influenced the decision of Alexander the Great (356–323 b.c.e.) to proclaim himself divine and the son of a god. Many Hellenistic monarchs followed his example. God-kings are also found in Africa and in pre-Columbian America. Kings could also be ritually married to goddesses, as was a common custom in pre-Christian Ireland.

RULERS AS INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN HUMAN AND DIVINE Even when not conceived as gods or consorts of goddesses, monarchs are frequently ascribed as having a direct relationship with the divine not granted to ordinary people.This was often expressed through ritual activity. Chinese emperors, for example, carried on a complex cycle of annual sacrifices, culminating in the sacrifice to Heaven on the winter solstice and the sacrifice to earth on the summer solstice.These sacrifices emphasized the role of the emperor, the “Son of Heaven,” in binding together the different realms of Heaven and Earth.The kings of the ancient city-states of Sumeria in Mesopotamia also were seen as intermediaries between the earthly and divine. Some monarchs devoted themselves to ritual religious activity to the exclusion of political responsibilities. The classic example of this kind of monarchy is the Japanese emperor, who is viewed as a descendant of the sun-goddess Amaterasu. Japanese emperors have been politically powerless (with rare exceptions) for nearly a millennium, but so important was their ritual function that the institution was never threatened until Japan’s defeat at the end of World War II.A sacralized version of Japanese monarchism—state

S ac r e d K i n g s h i p s Shinto or emperor worship—became the official ideology of the Japanese state following the Meiji Restoration in 1868 but was abolished by Americans in the postwar occupation after World War II. State Shinto was based on ethnic nationalism and emphasized the particular virtues and destiny of the Japanese “race.” By contrast, emperor worship in the pagan Roman Empire provided a focus of loyalty that transcended ethnicity in a multiethnic, multicultural empire. It was because emperor worship was so closely related to loyalty to the Roman Empire that Christian refusal to worship the emperor aroused such hostility from the Roman state (as it also did from the Japanese).

SACRED MONARCHY IN MONOTHEISTIC SOCIETIES Kings being worshiped as gods was not a possibility in the traditions of the great monotheistic religions of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Nonetheless, kings continued to assert a particularly close relation to God. King David (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.) became the archetypal king in both Jewish and Christian tradition. The Byzantine emperors held the title of isapostolos, or equal of the apostles. In Western Europe, claims to be the successor of the apostles were monopolized by the pope, and kings made different claims to sacred status. The Holy Roman emperors and the kings of France, who were called the “Most Christian” kings, were particularly likely to present themselves as sacred monarchs. A central element of the coronation ritual of the French king was anointment with oil from the “ampule,” a vial supposedly brought down from Heaven by the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the coronation of the first king of the Franks, Clovis (r. ca. 482–511). Consecration with holy oil, modeled on the anointment of King David of Israel, was part of the coronation ritual of many monarchs and gave kings a particularly holy status. One check on the development of the fully sacralized monarchy in Europe was the presence of a rival group of religious professionals, the priesthood or clergy. The popes, in particular, opposed the ascription of supernatural powers to kings, especially the Holy Roman emperors, preferring to keep a monopoly for the church. The shrinking of papal political power in the sixteenth century, caused by the Protestant Reformation

813

and the increased power of the Catholic monarchs, saw a resurgence of sacred monarchy. Political and theological writers of the time frequently referred to a biblical passage in Proverbs—“A Divine Sentence is in the lips of the King”—to ascribe to kings a direct connection with the divine that bypassed the Catholic or Protestant priesthood. This was the height of the theory of the “divine right of kings,” which emphasized the divine origins of a monarch’s rule. Sacralization of a monarch not only established the king’s independence of ecclesiastical authority, but it also helped exalt kings above their nobility. A central element of the great judicial regicides of the early modern period—the executions of English king Charles I (r. 1625–1649) and French king Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792)—was aggressive desacralization, a process by which the sacred aspects of kingship were removed. Desacralization was only partially successful in the case of Charles’s beheading; handkerchiefs dipped in the sacred blood of the martyred king were widely believed to have healing powers. Louis XVI’s execution had more wideranging consequences, resulting in the secularization of the European monarchy after the French Revolution. The earliest Muslim leaders after the Prophet Muhammed (ca. 570–632), the caliphs, were believed to have a special relationship with God, although not as close as that of Muhammed himself. The caliph’s position as the religious leader of the community of Muslims persisted after the decay of his political and military power. Eventually, after the end of the Abbasid caliphate in 1256, powerful Sunni Muslim rulers, such as the Ottoman sultans, began adding caliph to their other titles in order to emphasize their role as protectors of Islam in their territories. The last powerful Ottoman Sultan, Abd al-Hamid II (r. 1876–1909), used the title of caliph to claim leadership over Muslims everywhere, in addition to his direct rule over the Ottoman Empire. The Shi’ite sect of Islam has been more likely to see monarchs as semidivine figures than has the Sunni sect. The Shi’ite concept of the Imam, a man sent from heaven to lead the community of true Muslims, has been the basis of the legitimacy of many monarchical dynasties. The Fatimid dynasty of caliphs—founded in North Africa in 910 by the Imam Al-Mahdi (r. 910–934), who claimed descent from Muhammed’s daughter Fatima—lasted more than two and a half centuries.

814

S ac r e d K i n g s h i p s

See also: Buddhism and Kingship; Caliphates; Christianity and Kingship; Divine Right; Divinity of Kings; Earth and Sky, Separation of; Healing Powers of Kings; Hinduism and Kingship; Islam and Kingship; Judaism and Kingship; Religious Duties and Power; Sacral Birth and Death. FURTHER READING

Finer, S.E. The History of Government from the Earliest Times. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Monod, Paul. The Power of Kings: Monarchy and Religion in Europe, 1589–1715. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999.

SACRED TEXTS Writings based on religion, theology, or philosophy; books considered holy by followers of a particular faith. Egyptian pharaohs, Chinese and Japanese emperors, Roman kings, and other world sovereigns have often considered themselves gods or descendants of gods. Many of these rulers have concerned themselves with the writing and preservation of sacred texts, especially those that legitimize their rule. Monarchs frequently dictated the religion their people would follow and determined both the preservation and destruction of sacred writings. The extant sacred texts of ancient Egypt, including The Book of the Dead and The Book of the Opening of the Mouth, are available primarily because they were found in the tombs of the pharaohs.The most ancient of the principal sacred texts of Hinduism are the four Vedas.The Indian ruler Rajendra Chola (r. 1012–1044) helped preserve the Vedas by establishing a Vedic school where the texts were taught. On the other hand, Chinese emperor Ch’in Shih Huang (r. 221–210 b.c.e.) was responsible for the loss of many of the ancient Confucian texts when he ordered them burned in 213 b.c.e. When later philosophers and emperors wanted to reestablish the teachings of Confucius, the works had to be retrieved, restored, and sometimes reinvented. It is therefore difficult for scholars to know how much of the four principal books in the Confucian canon— The Analects, Mencius, Great Learning, and The Doctrine of the Mean—is actually the teaching of Confucius and how much has been added by others.

THE BIBLE AND MONARCHS In medieval Europe, sovereigns not only supported the study of the Christian Bible, but they built monasteries as centers of learning that produced books and amassed libraries concentrated on religious writings. Most of the medieval manuscripts were written in the Latin used by the Catholic Church. Because both the Church and the monarchs felt their authority would be challenged if people had free access to the Bible, translations into the vernacular were often violently opposed. English reformer John Wycliffe and English translator William Tyndale, who made English translations of the Bible around 1380 and 1525, respectively, were considered heretics because they created vernacular texts that could be read by laypersons. Yet, monarchs have been known to modify sacred texts to further their own political purposes. When Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) established the Anglican Church, he supported the creation of an English version of scripture as a further break with Catholicism. However, it was a later English king who is responsible for the most widely known translation of the Christian Bible. King James I (r. 1603–1625) gathered more than fifty scholars and authorized them to complete the King James Bible, printed in 1611.This work set the standard for English prose for centuries and is still used in many Protestant churches. James’s reason for sponsoring the work had less to do with furthering religion, however, than it did with countering the popular Geneva Bible (1599), which included copious marginal notes making it possible for the less educated to read with understanding, and which James saw as a threat to his divine authority.

ISLAMIC AND BUDDHIST AUTHORITY Other sacred texts have been used to support the rule of governments.The Qur’an, the sacred text of the Islamic faith, makes no distinction between secular and religious rule; a Muslim nation is one founded on principles of faith.The Qur’an is viewed as the word of Allah given voice through the Prophet Muhammad. For the Muslim, since the revelations of the Qur’an were spoken in Arabic, a translation is an interpretation, not the true word of Allah. Rulers in Islamic nations continue to use the Qur’an as a guide for their personal and political decisions. In the sixteenth-century, the sacred texts of Buddhism became the foundations of government in Tibet when the head of the Gelukpa sect took control and

Saffarid Dynasty became the first Dalai Lama.The line of ruler priests has continued unbroken until today, although the present and fourteenth incarnation of the Dalai Lama has lived in exile since 1959, when a Tibetan uprising against Chinese control was ruthlessly crushed. Sacred texts have also played an important role in the oath-taking ceremonies of monarchs. On taking the throne, monarchs usually swear to fulfill their responsibilities on a holy book, emphasizing their divine imperative to rule. See also: Divine Right; Henry VIII; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Oaths and OathTaking; Sacral Birth and Death; Sacred Kingships; Shih Huang Ti (Shihuangdi); Tibetan Kingdom.

SAFAVID DYNASTY (1502–1736 C.E.) Iranian dynasty that unified the many different ethnic and linguistic populations of Iran and established Shi’ite Islam as the state religion. The Safavids were descendants of Sheykh Safi ad Din (1253–1334) of Ardabil, head of the Safaviyeh (or Safawiyah) Sufi order. Around 1399, however, the Safavids changed their religious preference from Sufism to Shi’ism. The Safavid dynasty was founded by Ismail I (1502–1524), who became shah of Iran in 1502, uniting all of Persia under Iranian control following about 900 years of interrupted or foreign rule. During the ensuing decade, Ismail overpowered most of Iran and took possession of the neighboring Iraqi provinces of Baghdad and Mosul. Even though that area was mainly Sunni, Ismail I declared Shi’ism the state religion. In 1514, Ismail’s power declined when the Ottoman sultan, Selim I (r. 1512–1520), defeated him in battle. Thereafter, the ongoing conflict with the Sunnis, including both the Ottomans in the west and the Uzbeks in the northeast, caused the Safavids to lose parts of their territory, including the provinces of Kurdistan, Diyarbakir, and Baghdad. Iran grew considerably weaker under the rule of Ismail’s oldest son, Shah Tahmasp I (r. 1524–1576), and his successors Ismail II (r. 1576–1577) and Muhammad Khudabanda (r. 1577–1587), who were unable to withstand continual Ottoman assaults on the country. When Abbas I, (r. 1587–1629) came to power, he reversed the course of the Safavid dynasty, establishing a

815

standing army and driving out the Ottoman and Uzbek forces. Abbas also reclaimed the territory the Turks had seized and recaptured Baghdad. The reign of Abbas I (known as Abbas the Great), with its important military victories and wellorganized administration, greatly elevated the status and prosperity of Iran. Industry and trade with the West increased, and the capital, Isfahan, became a showcase of Safavid architectural accomplishments. Abbas I promoted science and the arts, and some of Iran’s greatest philosophers lived during his reign. The Safavid dynasty lasted about 100 years after the death of Abbas I in 1629. However, that century was an era of decline except for a period under Shah Abbas II (r. 1642–1666). Abbas II acceded to the throne when he was only ten years old. He had a very strict early upbringing but later embraced a more liberal attitude.Apparently broadminded in religious matters, he was also kind to his subjects. Numerous renowned monuments were built in Isfahan during the rule of Abbas II, including the Khajou Bridge and the Mosque of Hakim. Other successors of Abbas I, including Safi I (r. 1629–1642), Safi II (r. 1666–1694), and Sultan Husayn (r. 1694–1722), were weak rulers, easily influenced by religious leaders to whom the Safavids had given significant power in their effort to make Shi’ism the state religion. During the reign of Sultan Husayn, opposition forces gained strength in neighboring Afghanistan and began to threaten Iran. In 1722, the Afghans of Qandahar seized Isfahan and forced Husayn to abdicate, effectively ending Safavid rule. Husayn’s son, Tahmasp II (r. 1729– 1732) was able to recapture Isfahan in 1729, but he was deposed by his lieutenant, Nadir Qoli Beg, a member of the Afshar tribe, who became Nadir Shah (r. 1736–1747) in 1736 and founded the Afsharid dynasty. See also: Abbas the Great; Nadir Shah; Selim I, the Grim.

SAFFARID DYNASTY (flourished 800s C.E.)

Muslim dynasty that ruled a large part of eastern Iran from Sistan (or Seistan), the native province of the dynasty’s founder, Yaqub ibn Layth al-Saffar (r.

816

Saffarid Dynasty

867–879).The dynasty’s name means “coppersmith,” which was Yaqub’s occupation. Yaqub ibn Layth al-Saffar was the first ruler to unite Persians as Shi’ites (followers of the Shi’a branch of Islam, which considers the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin Ali and his descendants to be Muhammad’s true successors). A popular hero in Iranian history,Yaqub is credited with starting a great resurgence of Iranian culture. He is also celebrated for establishing an empire, minting his own coin, creating an army that was loyal to its leader rather than to religious beliefs, and requiring that verses praising him be translated from Arabic into Persian. After forming his army during a time of considerable turbulence and instability, Yaqub occupied much of the area of present-day Afghanistan in 861 and then took control of Sistan in eastern Iran and southwestern Afghanistan in 867. He then expanded his power into northeastern India. The Saffarid Empire reached its height of power in 873, after the defeat of the Tahirid dynasty of Khurasan and the conquest of that kingdom in northeastern Iran. With this conquest, the Saffarid Empire stretched, on the north, from the Oxus River west to the Caspian Sea; and on the south, from the edge of the central Iranian deserts east to the mountains of central Afghanistan, possibly even to the Indian border. Worried by Yaqub’s growing power, the caliphate at Baghdad—on which the Saffarids were nominally dependent—attempted to appeaseYaqub by making him amir, or governor, of the areas he had conquered. Unsatisfied by this offer, Yaqub attacked Baghdad in 876 but was beaten back by the forces of Caliph al-Mutamid (r. 870–892). After Yaqub’s death in 879, the caliph recognized Yaqub’s brother and successor, Amr ibn Layth (r. 879–902), as governor of Khurasan, Isfahan, Fars, Sistan, and Sind. But when Amr tried to seize the region of Transoxania (in present-day Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan) from the Samanid dynasty in 900, he was overpowered by Ismail ibn Ahmad (r. 982–907), one of the Samanids’ bestknown rulers. Amr was put to death in Baghdad in 902. His death led to the eclipse of the Saffarid dynasty, although members of the dynasty retained power in some areas until the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century c.e. Nevertheless, by the early years of the tenth century, the Saffarids had become subordinate to the Samanids, who were one of the first purely indigenous Persian dynasties to rule Iran

since the Arabs conquered the region in the 700s and 800s. See also: Samanid Dynasty.

SA’ID, SAYYID IBN (1791–1856 C.E.) Sultan of Oman and Zanzibar (r. 1806–1856) who helped reassert Oman’s traditional claims in East Africa and established the island of Zanzibar as the principal commercial center of that region. Born a member of the Omani ruling dynasty, Sayyid ibn Sa’id was the son of Sultan ibn Ahmed (r. 1792–1804), who ruled the port city of Muscat. Orphaned at thirteen years of age by his father’s death, Ibn Sa’id could have expected to assume his father’s position, but he was too young to ward off the challenge of an older and stronger cousin, Badr ibn Saif (r. 1804–1806), who took control of the country. Saif, however, was a proponent of Wahhabism, a form of Islam that was particularly unpopular in Oman. As a result, he lost the support of the people he hoped to rule. This gave Sa’id an opportunity to create a base of support in Muscat, and in 1806, he successfully led a coup that unseated his cousin and left him in control of the port city. He was only fifteen years old at the time. Though young, Sa’id was a gifted diplomat. To make his rule secure, he gained the support of potential rivals and enemies by making an alliance with his powerful neighbors, the Saudis, and also with the British, who had strategic interests in the region. In return for helping the British protect their access routes to India, Sa’id gained preferential trading agreements with Great Britain. Equally important, he obtained British assistance in eliminating the pirates that had long plagued Omani coastal territories. Having secured his position in Muscat, Sa’id turned his attention to expanding his territory. The best opportunities for expansion were along the eastern coast of Africa, where prosperous Swahili trading centers had long been established. In 1822, Sa’id captured the island of Pemba off the East African coast. He continued his campaign of expansion over the next fifteen years, acquiring more and more of the East African coast until, in 1837, he crowned his efforts by capturing the city of Mombasa. In 1840, Sa’id moved his capital from Muscat to the island of Zanzibar, allowing him a better

S a k a l ava K i n g d o m overview of his newest campaign. This campaign involved creating a great trading enterprise that encompassed all of his territory, which now stretched from Oman to Mozambique. Initially, Sa’id specialized in the choicest of trade goods at the time— slaves—which were in high demand throughout the lands surrounding the Indian Ocean. This activity greatly displeased his British allies, however, who had long worked to halt the slave trade. In 1847, Sa’id finally found himself bound by a British prohibition against continuing in the slave trade. Looking for a replacement trade good, Sa’id chose cloves, a spice that was in great demand locally as well as in Europe. The clove trade became hugely successful, in large part because Sa’id kept costs down by using the slaves he could not sell as laborers on his clove plantations. Sa’id continued to rule until his death in 1856. With his death, the united sultanate that he had ruled was divided between his two sons, Thuwaini (r. 1856–1866) and Majid (r. 1856–1870). Thuwaini was granted Oman, while Majid took control of the island of Zanzibar. See also: Sultanates; Zanzibar Sultanate.

SAILENDRA DYNASTY (flourished ca. 750–850 C.E.)

Buddhist dynasty of Javanese origin that later ruled the Srivijaya Empire in Sumatra. The dynasty arose after the collapse of the Funan kingdom on the mainland of Southeast Asia. The Sailendra rulers claimed to be descended from the rulers of Funan, and they probably took the dynastic name Sailendra (“king of the mountain”) from the title of the Funan kings. The Sailendra dynasty may have been related to the Chandella dynasty of India, which flourished in the seventh and eighth centuries. According to some traditional accounts, a rift developed within the Chandella family between members still faithful to Hinduism, who retained the name Chandella and stayed in India, and those who converted to Buddhism, the Sailendras, who departed to Indonesia as early as the fourth century. Under the Sailendras, a remarkable cultural renaissance occurred that was related to the emergence of the Mahayana sect of Buddhism. The dynasty also

817

reached an advanced level of artistic achievement, evident in the many temples and monuments built under its kings. The most famous was the stupa (dome-shaped temple) of Borobudur in Sumatra, constructed between 778 and 824. This enormous monument, the earliest great Buddhist structure in Southeast Asia, had an influence on the construction of subsequent monuments, including the great Angkor Wat in Cambodia. The Sailendra dynasty appears to have originated in the farming lowlands of interior Java sometime prior to the eight century, but it quickly expanded its influence to the northwestern coast of Java, where it facilitated trade with and raids against the Malay Peninsula and Indochina. At its height, around the first quarter of the ninth century, the Sailendra kingdom reigned over more than half of eastern Java as well as Bali, Lombok, the coastal regions of Kalimantan, southern Sulawesi, and areas of current-day Cambodia. In the middle of the ninth century, however, the Sailendra kingdom of Java ended, and the Sailendra line was driven to Sumatra (Palembang) when Prince Patapan (r. ca. 832–850?) of the neighboring Sanjaya dynasty captured the Javan throne. The Sailendra dynasty of the Srivijaya state in Sumatra suffered a terrible blow in the early eleventh century, when a great naval raid from the Chola Empire in India raided Sumatra and plundered many of its most important cities. Greatly weakened by this invasion, the Sailendra kingdom began to disintegrate into a number of smaller states. These remnants of the Srivijaya state were eventually absorbed into the Majapahit Empire in the thirteenth century. The Sailendra dynasty disappeared, although the founder of the Malacca sultanate, which dominated the Straits of Malacca between Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, may have been a member of the Sailendra royal house. See also: Angkor Kingdom; Chandella Dynasty; Funan Kingdom; Javan Kingdoms; Southeast Asian Kingdoms; Srivijaya-Palembang Empire.

SAKALAVA KINGDOM (ca. 1400–1800 C.E.)

One of the eighteen recognized indigenous kingdoms on the island of Madagascar.

818

S a k a l ava K i n g d o m

During the 1700s, the Sakalava (“people of the long valley”) dominated the western half of the island of Madagascar and forced even the powerful and more numerous Merina peoples to pay tribute to them.The Sakalava, who still exist as an ethnic group on Madagascar, like most of the island’s peoples, are the product of several intermarrying groups who came to the island in a series of migrations, from Indonesia and India (prior to the ninth century) and from the Persian Gulf countries and the east coast of Africa (ninth through fifteenth centuries). These peoples spread out to inhabit most of the island. From the ninth century on, different kingdoms, defined largely by reckonings of lineage rather than discrete ethnic differences, came to be dominant. Among groups such as the Merina and Sakalava, powerful leaders sometimes arose who had the force of will and personality to unite the people of surrounding settlements and forge larger political units. The Sakalava kingdom’s rise to power began around 1400 when King Andrianmisara I (dates unknown) built the city of Andakabe (now Morondava) as the capital for his powerful tribe inhabiting the southwestern part of the island. In 1610, King Andriandahifotsy (1600–1680?), aided by weapons he obtained from slave traders, began expansion of the Sakalava kingdom to the north. In 1690, a powerful king,Tsimanatona, also known as Andriamandisoarivo (r. 1690–1720), succeeded in forging a number of Sakalava settlements into a unified state called Iboina (Boina). Within ten years, he had led his forces on a campaign of expansion that resulted in the conquest of all the peoples of western Madagascar, and had penetrated well into the central portion of the island, where the Merina peoples predominated. Another Sakalava territory, Menab, also gained more power during the late 1700s.The Sakalava reached their peak in the early 1750s, when the greatest of the Sakalava kings, Andrianinevenarivo (r. 1730–1760), controlled the largest kingdom yet known on Madagascar. The Sakalava buried their dead in cemeteries near their villages, and the influential dady sect preserved the remains of deceased rulers in sacred places where they were worshiped. The religion emphasized the worship of royal ancestors, a practice that helped legitimize the ruler’s power. Spiritual mediums, in a ceremony known as tromba, would deliver the dead ancestors’ words to the tribe. The Sakalava attained dominance by virtue of their fierce warriors, but they retained dominance by

monopolizing trade, initially with the Swahili and Omani, and during the late 1700s with the Portuguese, British, and French. They raided neighboring, non-Sakalava settlements on Madagascar and the Comoros Islands, and served as brokers for slaves brought over from the African mainland.The capital cities of Toliara in Menabe and Mahajanga in Iboina became centers of the slave trade. The latter half of the eighteenth century saw a decline in Sakalava fortunes. The ruler at the time was Queen Ravahiny (1767–1808). During her reign, Islam was on the rise in Madagascar, especially in the Iboina kingdom. Some adherents of Islam were even making claims to the throne.At the same time, in the central region of the island, a powerful Merina leader named Andrianampoinimerina (r. 1787– 1810) had begun consolidating the local settlements, forging the Imerina kingdom. As the Merina gained power, they refused to continue paying tribute to the Sakalava, further contributing to the kingdom’s decline. By the start of the 1800s, the Merina had fully eclipsed the Sakalava. The Sakalava unsuccessfully attempted an uprising in 1828, and thereafter were never able to regain their dominance on the island.After the Merina conquest, some Sakalava migrated to the nearby islands of Mahoré and Mwali, but many of the tribe remained in Madagascar where their descendants represent about 6 percent of the island’s present population. See also: Madagascar Kingdoms; Merina Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Kottak, Conrad P., ed. Madagascar: Society and History. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1986. Lambek, Michael. The Weight of the Past: Living with History in Mahajanga, Madagascar. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

SALADIN (ca. 1137–1193 C.E.) Emir of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine (r. 1175–1193) who founded the Ayyubid dynasty, recovered Jerusalem and most of Palestine and Syria from the Christian Crusaders, and was renowned for his modesty, generosity, and chivalry. Born Salah ad-dinYusuf Ibn Ayyub in Mesopotamia

Salian Dynasty of Kurdish stock, Saladin was the son of Najm ad-din Ayyub, the governor of Baalbek and later of Damascus. During his youth, Saladin lived for ten years at the court of Syrian ruler Nur ad-din (r. 1146–1174), in Damascus, where he became interested in Islamic theology. Later, he assisted his uncle, Shirkuh, in military campaigns against the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt. Saladin proved so fine a soldier that he was given command over the Egyptian city of Alexandria. Not long afterward, he was made vizier of Egypt, which was a high government office. While vizier, Saladin quietly deposed the incompetent Fatimid caliph and named himself governor. Saladin’s overriding interest was to recapture the virtue, vigor, and vitality of the early Muslim culture. In this spirit, he went to the relief of Syria, a nation suffering from petty civil wars and from the barbarism and misrule of the Frankish Christians. Saladin succeeded quickly in his limited goals in Syria and then returned to Egypt and named himself Malik, or king, in 1175. Nur ad-Din had died the year before, in 1174, and Saladin advanced into and took control of Syria and Damascus, thus founding the Ayyubid dynasty there. In 1186, Reginald of Chatillon (r. 1153–1160), a former Christian ruler of the Principality of Antioch, attacked a Muslim caravan, capturing Saladin’s sister. With the uneasy peace with the Christians now broken, Saladin responded, and on July 4, 1187, the most decisive battle of the early Crusades was fought at Hattin, near Tiberias in Palestine. Saladin’s army took advantage of the midsummer heat, while the Christians failed to secure an adequate water supply. The result was a crushing defeat for the Christian Crusaders. Reciprocating a pledge made by the militant Christian orders against Muslims, the normally merciful Saladin uncharacteristically killed all the combatant Christian knights. Moving on to Jerusalem, Saladin acted with more typical clemency. He presented the inhabitants of the city with generous terms and, after its surrender, dealt with them honorably—providing a sharp contrast to the slaughter that had occurred eighty-eight years before upon the Christian conquest of the city during the First Crusade. The fall of Jerusalem resounded mightily throughout Europe, precipitating the Third Crusade, the primary aim of which was to recapture the Holy City.This massive new Christian incursion reached the Holy Land in force in 1191, led by Philip II of France (r.

819

1180–1223) and Richard I, Lionheart of England (r. 1189–1199). Saladin met the army of Crusaders with patience and ingenuity.The two warriors, Richard and Saladin, met personally and on the field several times. They were well matched in military prowess and soon came to respect each other’s abilities. Skirmishes and battles between Muslims and Christians ensued periodically for almost two years, but none was decisive. Richard succeeded in capturing the important Mediterranean port of Acre but scored no other meaningful victories. Finally, the two warriors signed a peace agreement on September 2, 1192, whereupon Richard returned to Europe and Saladin resumed his duties as the effective conqueror and ruler of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The Christians would not return again to Palestine as a serious threat. Saladin’s clemency, justice, and moderation were widely acclaimed by his contemporary enemies as well as by Muslim chroniclers.Wherever he traveled, he built schools and hospitals, and he personally dealt with all injustices brought to his attention; his reputation was one of kindness to the weak and generosity to the vanquished. Saladin is generally regarded as one of Islam’s greatest heroes.When he died in 1193, he was succeeded as emir of Egypt and Syria by his son, Al-Aziz Uthman (r. 1193–1198). See also: Ayyubid Dynasty; Crusader Kingdoms; Fatimid Dynasty; Religious Duties and Power; Richard I, Lionheart.

SALIAN DYNASTY (1024–1125 C.E.) Dynasty that ruled Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, during the period of the Investiture controversy, which involved imperial claims to the right to appoint bishops. The Salian dynasty oversaw one of the most chaotic times in medieval German history. When the last emperor of the Ottonian dynasty, Henry II (r. 1002–1024), died without an heir in 1024, there were two claimants to the Crown of Germany, both descendants of Otto I (r. 936–973) through his daughter. One of these was a Franconian noble named Conrad, a member of the Salian dynasty. Conrad was chosen to rule by Henry’s widow and was duly elected as Conrad II (r. 1024–1039) of Germany in 1024. He was crowned emperor in 1027. During his reign, the kingdom of Burgundy

820

Salian Dynasty

was added to the empire and German rule over Italy was made more secure. Conrad II even exerted control over the papacy. In 1039, Conrad II died and was succeeded by his son, Henry III (r. 1039–1056). Henry III continued to dominate papal affairs and maintain the imperial right to appoint bishops. He made himself overlord of the kings of Bohemia and Hungary, but faced opposition within Germany from nobles opposed to a strong central government, particularly Duke Conrad of Bavaria, who rebelled in 1052. Henry deposed the duke, who fled to Hungary and renewed opposition to German rule there, resulting in the empire’s loss of Hungary. When Henry III died in 1056 he was succeeded by his six-year-old son, Henry IV (r. 1056–1106). During the reign of Henry IV, the Investiture controversy reached its height. Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073–1085) opposed imperial involvement in Church affairs, while Henry regarded the Church as a tool of the Crown. In 1076 Gregory excommunicated Henry and declared him deposed. In January of 1077, Henry met the pope at Canossa in Italy, appearing before the pope as a barefoot penitent. This symbolic submission was accompanied by negotiations that resulted in Henry’s restoration to the throne. However, a group of German nobles opposed to Henry elected a Swabian nobleman, Rudolf II (r. 1077–1080), as king instead. Hermann of Luxembourg (r. 1081–1088) and Conrad of Franconia (r. 1087–1098) were also elected as anti-kings (as such rival claimants are often termed), during Henry IV’s reign, resulting in internal military campaigns against the rebels. Gregory deposed and excommunicated Henry IV again in 1080. This time, however, Henry had the support of many German and some Italian archbishops and bishops, who elected a rival anti-pope, Clement III (r. 1080–1100), as an alternative to Gregory. Henry besieged Rome four times between 1081 and 1084, eventually forcing Gregory from the city. Conflict between the emperor and papacy was renewed under Pope Urban II (r. 1088–1099). Throughout his reign, Henry IV faced rebellion from his nobles. He lost the region of Lombardy in a rebellion by his son Conrad (d. 1101). In 1105, the emperor’s second son, Henry, also revolted against his father. The two Henrys were still at war when Emperor Henry IV died in 1106. During his trou-

bled reign, Henry IV had been forced to allow the nobility greater power and independence, but he had also increased the importance of the ministeriales (unfree administrators and knights) and the embryonic middle class of townsmen, and he upheld the imperial right to appoint bishops. Henry V (r. 1106–1125) succeeded his father and continued to uphold the right of lay investiture of bishops. Henry V won a concession to the right of investiture from Pope Pascal II (r. 1099–1118) by imprisoning him, and he was crowned emperor by Pascal in 1111. During his reign, Henry V retook imperial lands in Italy that had been lost during his father’s time. However, revolts among German nobles led to the loss of effective imperial control over much of northern Germany. Henry V continued his father’s policy of seeking support from the ministeriales, minor nobility, and townsfolk, against the greater nobles. In 1122, Henry V’s continued conflict with the papacy, which had resulted in his twice being excommunicated and in the election of two anti-popes, was resolved in an agreement called the Concordat of Worms. It was agreed that the pope would appoint the higher Church officials but that the emperor would have the right of veto over them. Although this settled the Investiture controversy in the Holy Roman Empire at that time, the debate reoccurred throughout the Middle Ages. Henry V died without an heir in 1125, the last of the Salian dynasty to rule. German nobles elected Lothar II of Saxony (r. 1125– 1137) as his successor. During the rule of the Salian dynasty, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire suffered near-constant internal conflict. Germany lost control of much of Italy, the papacy gained power within Europe, and the German nobility became strong at the expense of the Crown.The German Crown failed to curb the independence of its duchies at a time when centralized royal government was increasing in strength in France and England. As a result of this disunifying trend, Germany lost its place as a significant power in Europe. See also: Conrad II; Henry IV(HRE). FURTHER READING

Holmes, George, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Samoan Kingdoms

SAMANID DYNASTY (819–999 C.E.) The first indigenous Muslim-Persian dynasty that arose in Iran after the Arab conquest of the 700s. Gathering together a variety of Muslim and Persian artists and learned men, the Samanids contributed significantly to the development of an Iranian national identity and culture. The Samanid dynasty was named after its founder, Saman-Khuda, a member of the Persian aristocracy who claimed to be a descendant of the Sasanid general Bahram Chubin. Saman converted to Islam in the 720s, and in the early 800s his four grandsons were given provinces by the Abassid caliph, al-Mamun (r. 813–833), as reward for their loyalty to Islam. Saman’s grandson Nuh received Samarkand, Ahmad got Fergana; Shash was given Yahya, and Elyas was given to Herat. With these affluent cities, the Samanids were able to benefit greatly from trade all across Asia. By the rule of Saman’s great-grandson Nasr (the son of Ahmad)(r. 864–892), the Samanids reigned over a burgeoning realm. In 875, Nasr became governor of Transoxania, a region in the northern part of the Iranian province of Khurasan, adding yet another territory to Samanid control. Nasr’s brother, Ismail I (r. 892–907), defeated the Saffarids in Khurasan and the Azydites of Tabaristan in 900 and set up semiautonomous rule over both Transoxania and Khurasan, establishing a Samanid capital at Bukhara. The area under Samanid rule prospered, with major increases in industry and trade, as evidenced by the use of Samanid silver coins throughout northern Asia by the 900s. The cities of Bukhara and Samarkand developed into important cultural centers, where Persian art and literature flourished. Under the Samanids, the renowned poet Rudaki, regarded by many as the father of Persian poetry, became the first major poet to write in New Persian, which used the Arabic alphabet. The Saminids also encouraged scholarship in history, philosophy, and other forms of learning, which became the basis of Iranian Islamic culture. Samanid architecture was noteworthy, too. One of the most impressive examples is Ismail’s mausoleum, which is still standing in present-day Bukhara. Its originality resides in the perfect sym-

821

metry of the building, which is made entirely of brick, including ornamental patterns in brick basrelief. After about 950, Samanid power gradually began to wane, largely because of interruptions of commerce along northern trade routes and intense military pressure from the Turks in the north and the Ghaznavids in the east. Although Samanid power was revitalized briefly under Nuh II (r. 976–997), the increasing movement of Muslim Turks into the Abbasid Empire (in present-day Iraq) eventually led to further weakening of the Samanid state. With the overthrow of Abdul-Malik II (r. 999) by the Turkish Ghaznavids and Qarakhanids in 999, the capital of Bukhara fell and the Samanid dynasty faced imminent collapse. The last ruler of the dynasty, Ismail II (r. 1000–1005), struggled to keep Samanid territory, but his assassination in 1005 brought the Samanid dynasty to an end. See also: Banu Khurusan; Ghaznavid Dynasty; Saffarid Dynasty; Sasanid Dynasty.

SAMOAN KINGDOMS (200–1877 C.E.) Kingdoms located in the Polynesian archipelago of Samoa and populated by a series of chieftainships that vied for control of the islands before being colonized by Europeans. The Samoan Islands were first settled around 1000 b.c.e., probably by immigrants from the islands of Tonga. By 200 c.e., the Samoan Islands were themselves centers of population and cultural dispersement in eastern Polynesia, with trade routes set up with Fiji and Tonga. The historical Samoans were part of a maritime culture steeped in the Polynesian traditions of sailing, fishing, and navigation, but they also utilized the lush landscape of Samoa to cultivate various domestic crops, including yams, taro, and sugarcane. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most Samoan settlements were located along the coast of the islands, where the Samoan people had easier access to the resources of the sea. Samoan life was centered around communal extended families, and kinship ties were important in political as well as daily life. Oral traditions suggest that each Samoan family group elected a matai, or

822

Samoan Kingdoms

chief, from among their numbers. Theoretically, the matai in a village worked together in council to control village affairs. Disputes between villages often led to warfare, but the island terrain of Samoa made conquest difficult. Sighted by the Dutch in 1722, the Samoan Islands had, by the 1770s, become a relatively common stopover point for European traders along the Pacific spice route.Victimized by European diseases and the brutality of encounters with profit-seeking traders, the Samoans were unwelcoming to many of the early European settlers who began arriving afterward, and they soon developed a reputation in Europe as a bloodthirsty and aggressive people. Using weapons brought by the Europeans, the Samoan chieftain Malietoa Vainu’upo managed to wrest control of the islands during the late 1820s and 1830s. When he converted to Christianity at the promptings of the missionary John Williams, most of the islands found it politically expedient to follow suit, and mass conversions ensued. The conversions were further facilitated by a traditional Samoan prediction of the coming of a new, more powerful religion and by the general compatibility of native Samoan and Christian religious beliefs. As the nineteenth century progressed, Germany, England, and the United States began to jockey for power in Samoa. A series of foreign political machinations led to the islands changing hands several times, and it was not until 1962 that a portion of Samoa regained independence. The eastern Samoan Islands remain under U.S. control. See also: South Sea Island Kingdoms.

SAMSU-ILUNA (d. ca. 1712 B.C.E.) Ruler of Babylon (r. ca. 1749–1712 b.c.e.) in ancient Mesopotamia, the son and successor of Hammurabi (r. ca. 1792–1750 b.c.e.), who spent much of his reign suppressing rebellions by city-states on the northern and southern frontiers of his kingdom. During the reign of Samsu-iluna, the Babylonian Empire was gradually whittled down by war and revolt.The city-states of Larsa and Eshnunna broke away from Babylon around 1739 b.c.e., but they were reconquered around 1730 b.c.e. At that time, the walls of the cities of Larsa, Ur, and Uruk were razed by Samsu-iluna’s forces. The state of Elam, which Ham-

murabi had conquered in 1764 b.c.e., revolted successfully in the 1730s as well, resulting in a resounding defeat for Babylon. In addition, the area known as the Sealand, a portion of southern Babylonia bordering the Persian Gulf, became independent as well. Samsu-iluna, like his father Hammurabi, kept a series of administrative and legal texts recording his activities. In one such text, written around 1749 b.c.e., Samsu-iluna made the first known reference to the Kassites, whose incursions were successfully repelled by the Babylonian Empire. However, it was the Kassites who later conquered Babylon, around 1595 b.c.e., and proceeded to rule it for more than four centuries. By the end of Samsu-iluna’s reign, Babylon had lost the entire southern portion of its empire, and other frontier areas of the kingdom were under constant threat from groups wishing to break away or invade. Upon Samsu-Iluna’s death around 1712 b.c.e., he was succeeded on the throne by his son, Abieshuh (r. ca. 1711–1684 b.c.e.) See also: Hammurabi; Kassites.

SAMUDERA-PASAI (1200s–1500s C.E.) Islamic kingdom founded in the thirteenth century on the north coast of Sumatra that is regarded as the earliest Islamic kingdom in Southeast Asia The name Samudera derives from the Sanskrit word for “ocean.” A seaport of that name, located on the north coast of Sumatra, may have given rise to the name Sumatra for the entire island. The port of Samudera and its twin capital of Pasai lie on opposite sides of the Pasangan River. Samudera, the older site, was visited by Marco Polo in 1292. Polo was especially impressed by the palm wine of Samudera, “better than any wine or any other drink that was ever drunk.” Samudera-Pasai was probably the first Southeast Asian kingdom to be ruled by a Muslim. When Marco Polo visited, Sultan Malik al-Salih (r. ?–1297) was ruler of the kingdom. His tombstone, (which dates from 1297), still stands in Pasai. In the fourteenth century, the well-known Arab traveler, Ibn Battuta, visited Samudera twice, in 1345 and 1346, on trips to and from China. Ibn Battuta reported that he saw a ship belonging to the Pasai ruler in China, suggesting that Samudera-Pasai might have had close economic relations with the Chinese. The conversion of Samudera-Pasai to Islam is

S a n c h o I I I , t h e G r e at recorded in a fourteenth-century local historical romance, the Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai. In the text, the pre-Muslim name of the ruler at the time is given as Merah Silu, and he is identified with Malik al-Salih. The kingdom swiftly became an important center of dissemination for Islam through Southeast Asia. The first ruler of the Malay state of Malacca, Parameswara (r. ca. 1400–1424), became Muslim after marrying the daughter of a Pasai ruler. Sunan Gunung Jati, one of the nine wali or Sufi missionary teachers credited in folklore with having converted Java to Islam, came from Pasai. In the fourteenth century, Samudera-Pasai became a vassal of Majapahit, a powerful kingdom in Java. Samudera is listed among Majapahit’s territories in the Nagarakrtagama, a courtly text composed in Majapahit in 1365. According to other texts from the period, the Majapahit rulers had a monopoly over the trade that passed through Samudera and Pasai. They also had commercial connections from Gujarat and Bengal in India to Pegu and Tenasserim in Burma, as well as with Java and China. Despite Majapahit’s overlordship, the kingdom of Samudera-Pasai was perhaps the busiest commercial center in the Straits of Malacca during the fourteenth century. Pasai was a major pepper producer and also provided gold and benzoin (a resinous natural product used as incense). Pasai is also reported to have made silk, as well as importing large quantities of it, providing further evidence of the kingdom’s close connection with China. Samudera-Pasai managed to remain independent of Malacca’s control when that kingdom replaced Majapahit as the dominant state in the Straits of Malacca in the fifteenth century. The kingdom also maintained tributary relations with China during this period.The last record about Samudera-Pasai makes reference to a Diogo Lopes de Sequeira, a Portuguese traveler who visited in 1509. See also: Javan Kingdoms; Southeast Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Loeb, Edwin. Sumatra: Its History and People. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989. Miksic, John, ed. Indonesian Heritage: Ancient History. Vol. 1. Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996. Reid, Tony, ed. Indonesian Heritage: Early Modern History. Vol. 3. Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1996.

823

Ricklefs, M.C. A History of Indonesia Since c. 1200. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.

SANCHO III, THE GREAT (970–1035 C.E.)

Also known as Sancho III Garcés (r. 1004–1035), king of Navarre (frequently called Pamplona until the twelfth century), whose realm was the largest kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula during his reign. The son of García II (r. 994–1004) of Navarre, Sancho inherited the kingdom, which included Aragón, upon the death of his father in 1004. During his reign, Sancho annexed most of the rest of Christian Iberia, primarily through marriage, subterfuge, and implicit threat rather than open conquest. Between 1015 and 1019, Sancho seized the Frankish territories of Sobrarbe and Ribagorza from the Moors. He later became overlord of the county of Barcelona after forcing Count Berenguer Ramon I (r. 1017–1035) to become his vassal. Sancho gained control of Castile and the provinces of Vizcaya and Alava, through the inheritance of his wife, who was the sister of Count Garcia II (r. 1017–1029) of Castile. In 1017, Sancho became the young Garcia’s protector, and when the count was assassinated in 1029, Sancho took full control of that realm. Sancho also pressed Castile’s dynastic claims in the eastern part of Léon, the neighboring kingdom to the west. In 1034, he was crowned “emperor” of Léon in the Leonese capital of Valladolid, assuming the title as legitimate heir to the kingdom according to ancient Visigothic and Asturian traditions. All of these territorial gains took place in an era of civil strife among the Muslim rulers on the Iberian Peninsula, which helped to ease the Islamic threat to both Sancho and other Christian kings of Iberia. During Sancho’s reign, communication with Christians on the northern side of the Pyrenees Mountains increased, and French influence in his kingdom grew. Sancho encouraged the growth of monasteries modeled after the monastery of Cluny in France. His kingdom also benefited greatly from the increased traffic of Catholic pilgrims on their way to Santiago de Compostela in the northwestern corner of Iberia, the site of a shrine dedicated to the apostle of Christ, Saint James, and one of the most important pilgrimage sites in Europe.

824

S a n c h o I I I , t h e G r e at

In his will, Sancho redivided his lands among his four sons, provoking years of dynastic conflicts among their descendants in both Spain and Portugal. The idea of dividing the king’s domain after his death was rooted in the concept of feudal vassalage. Upon Sancho’s death in 1035, his son Garcia became King Garcia III of Navarre (r. 1035–1054); Ferdinand I was king of Castile (r. 1029–1065); Ramiro I ruled as king of Aragón (r. 1035–1069); and Gonzalo (r. 1035–1043) ruled the combined kingdom of Sobrarbe and Ribagorza. In the dynastic struggles that later ensued, Sancho’s son Ferdinand I reestablished control of Léon, and by 1064 he had successfully led the reconquest of Moorish lands as far south as present-day Coimbra in Portual, thus extending Castilian influence into the northern areas of that neighboring state.Yet, like his father, Ferdinand also divided his lands among his heirs, igniting twelfth-century conflicts between Portuguese and Spanish cousins. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Basque Kingdom; Castile, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; Lón, Kingdom of; Navarre, Kingdom of.

SANUSI DYNASTY (1837–1969 C.E.) Members of a Muslim religious movement in North Africa, which also became a ruling dynasty that held considerable political power, especially in opposing Italian rule in Libya in the early 1900s. The Sanusi dynasty was founded originally as a Sufi Islamic mystical order in the Arabian holy city of Mecca by an Algerian, Sayyid Muhammad al-Sanusi al-Idrisi (r. 1837–1859). Al-Sanusi, who claimed descent from the ancient Idrisid dynasty of Morocco, established the religious movement because he wanted to restore the simple and pure life of early Islam. After successfully advancing his faith among the Bedouin of the Hejaz region in western Arabia, alSanusi moved to the desert in Cyrenaica (the easternmost part of Libya) in 1843 and set up his first zawiyah, or monastery. Under al-Sanusi and his son and successor, Sayyid Muhammad al-Mahdi (r. 1859–1902), the movement spread quickly in Libya as a militant theocracy that asserted the Islamic principles of peace, equality, and brotherhood. By 1884, the Sanusi movement had thousands of followers and

more than one hundred monasteries spread throughout North Africa and beyond, and its political importance grew as well. In 1902, al-Mahdi was succeeded by his nephew, Ahmad al-Sharif (r. 1902–1916), who mainly had to deal with threats from other countries during his rule. Al-Sharif directed the Sanusi resistance against the French in the Sahara and against the Italians who invaded Libya in 1911. During World War I, the Sanusis sided with the Central Powers (Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire), and they unsuccessfully attacked Britishoccupied Egypt. Following the war, the Allied powers (France, Britain, and Russia) made al-Sharif give up his command, whereupon his cousin, Muhammad Idris (r. 1916–1969), took the reins of power. Idris ceded control of Libya’s coastal areas to Italy, but he set himself up as emir (prince) of the interior of Cyrenaica.The rise of fascism in Italy led to more conflict between the Sanusi and that country, and Libya became an Italian colony in 1931. During World War II, the Sanusis helped the Allies (Britain, France, and the United States) beat the Axis forces of Germany and Italy. After the war, in 1951, Libya became independent under Sanusi rule, with Idris taking the title of king. Called the Federal United Kingdom of Libya, the country was the only modern state established by a Sufi religious order. Elections and parliamentary sessions were held in 1952, and in 1953, Libya joined the Arab League. The kingdom became a member of the United Nations in 1955. In the mid-1950s, the oil industry in Libya began to develop rapidly, greatly enriching the country. In 1956, King Idris granted a 14-million-acre concession to American oil companies. Several years later, in 1961, he opened a 104-mile pipeline linking important interior oil fields to the Mediterranean Sea—enabling Libya to export oil for the first time. Later that year, the king decreed that Libya’s share of profits from agreements with oil companies would rise from 50 to 70 percent. In the early 1960s, internal tensions arose between the three semiautonomous provinces of Libya (Cyrenaica,Tripolitania, and Fazzan) and also among individual politicians in the kingdom. In order to improve the administration of the country, King Idris transformed Libya from a federation to a unitary state by abolishing the three provinces and their separate parliaments and

Sargon II establishing ten administrative divisions within the state.A council of ministers appointed by the king, and answerable to a single parliament, became responsible for overall administration of the state. Despite the great wealth brought in by oil, many of the Libyan people did not benefit from oil industry profits. Economic disparity in the country led to plots to overthrow the monarchy and to establish a more fundamentalist Islamic state. The plots finally succeeded in 1969, when a group of army officers led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, a devout Muslim, deposed King Idris, overthrew the Sanusi monarchy, and established the Libyan Arab Republic. The Gaddafi government put almost all of Libya’s economic activity under state control, including its oil industry. It also tried to constrain and dishonor the Sanusis by prohibiting members of the religious order from creating more meeting places and by implying that they encouraged corruption and distorted Islam. Despite actions to suppress the Sanusis, the Sanusi religious movement still exists and is a major source of opposition to the Gaddafi regime. See also: Islam and Kingship. FURTHER READING

Iliffe, John. Africans: The History of a Continent. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

SARGON II (d. 705 B.C.E.) King of the Assyrians (r. 721–705 b.c.e.) who strengthened the northern and eastern borders of Assyria and prevented the invading Cimmerians from conquering the empire. Sargon II, the founder of the last great Assyrian dynasty, may have been a usurper to the throne who gave himself the name Sargon, meaning “True King.” When Sargon II succeeded Shalmaneser V (r. 726– 722 b.c.e.), who may have been his brother, on the throne in 722 b.c.e., he found himself ruler of a restless empire. Many of the territories conquered by Tiglath-Pileser III (r. 744–727 b.c.e.), were growing restive, and Shalmaneser had left Sargon with several unfinished sieges. During Sargon’s reign, the kingdom of Assyria was reorganized into twentyprovinces, and the capital was moved from Kalah to Dur Sharrukin shortly before his death in 705 b.c.e. Early in his reign, Sargon faced difficulties on

825

multiple fronts: the Chaldeans and Aramaeans in the south, the kingdom of Urartu in the north, and Syria and Palestine in the west were all growing restless under Assyrian hegemony. Sargon had no sooner gained the throne before a rebellious Chaldean leader, Merodach-Baladan (also known as Mardukapal-iddina II, r. 722–710 b.c.e.), seized control of southern Babylonia. Although the details of Merodach’s revolt are somewhat unclear, it is evident that Sargon was unable to focus on this Babylonian revolt for another twelve years, during which time Merodach-Baladan continued to rule over Babylon. During Sargon’s early reign, it seems that he was first occupied with finishing the siege of the northern Israelite kingdom of Samaria, which Shalmaneser V had begun three years before. After taking Samaria and deporting and separating its Israelite tribes, Sargon proceeded to lay siege to and capture the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Carchemish. He also conquered the cities of Hamath, Ekron, and Gaza, collected tribute from King Ahaz of Judah (r. 730–715 b.c.e.), and defeated the Egyptians at Rafia, burning the city and deporting nearly 10,000 of its inhabitants. Sargon also defeated the armies of Assyria’s traditional enemy, the kingdom of Urartu, which was located to the north in the Caucasus region. With Urartu and other enemies subdued, Sargon finally turned his attention toward Babylon. In 709 b.c.e., he successfully reconquered the region, but he allowed Merodach-Baladan to go into exile in Elam, a decision that plagued his son and successor, Sennacherib (r. 704–681 b.c.e.), decades later. By the time he conquered Babylon, Sargon had also become concerned with the hordes of Cimmerians moving in from the north and massing along the Assyrian borders. Alarmed by the threat they posed, Sargon rode to meet them in 705 b.c.e. Sargon was killed in the ensuing battle, but his Assyrian forces defeated the Cimmerians, saving Assyria and most of western Asia from invasion. Upon Sargon’s death, he was succeeded by his son, Sennacherib. See also: Aramaen Kingdoms; Assyrian Empire; Palestine, Kingdoms of; Sennacherib; Shalmaneser V;Tiglath-Pileser III; Urartu Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Dijkstra, Henk, ed. History of the Ancient & Medieval World: Egypt and Mesopotamia. New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 1996.

826

Sargon II

Edwards, I.E.S., C.J. Gadd, and N.G.L. Hammond. The Cambridge Ancient History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

SARGON OF AKKAD (d. ca. 2279 B.C.E.) Great conqueror and the first ruler (r. ca. 2334– 2279 b.c.e.) of the ancient kingdom of Akkad, who created the first large, organized state in Mesopotamia and who spread Sumerian and Semitic civilization over a large empire. Sargon’s empire extended from the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to parts of present-day Turkey. Records from the time of Sargon’s reign are extremely rare, in part because his capital city of Akkad was eventually destroyed and has never been located. What is known of Sargon’s reign has been gleaned from rare contemporary texts, later copies of these texts, and Sumerian king lists, which are inscribed on various ancient stones and which do not always agree with one another. According to one ancient Akkadian text, Sargon was born to a priestess and a nameless wanderer. Supposedly, when Sargon was an infant, his mother placed him in a basket sealed by pitch and set it in the Euphrates River. Miraculously, the baby was saved from drowning by a gardener named Aqqi who adopted Sargon and raised him as his son.When Sargon grew up, he became cup-bearer to Ur-Zababa (r. ca. 2356–2350 b.c.e.), the king of Kish. This was a position of great influence and trust, as it was the cup-bearer’s responsibility to prevent the king from being poisoned. Around 2350 b.c.e., Ur-Zababa was killed or dethroned by King Lugalzaggisi of Uruk (r. ca. 2340–2316 b.c.e.), who had conquered and united the city-states of Sumer. Seizing this opportunity, Sargon raised an army and attacked Uruk around 2334 b.c.e. Soon after, he took the throne of Kish as lugal (king). Sargon’s move against Uruk proved to be the first step toward a life of conquest, and it was probably at this time that he adopted the name Sargon or Sharru-kin (“True King”). After Sargon became ruler of Sumer by taking control of Uruk, he proceeded to expand his empire, conquering most of Syria and Anatolia (present-day Turkey), as well as the kingdom of Elam and the two city-states of Mari and Ebla. With these conquests,

Sargon secured trade routes that stretched, according to one of Sargon’s surviving records, “as far as the Forest of Cedars [Lebanon] and the [Taurus] Mountains of Silver.” Sargon adopted a number of policies to deal with conquered lands. He allowed local officials to continue ruling if they swore allegiance to him.To maintain military control, he established the world’s first permanent army. He rewarded his troops by giving them large tracts of land, a policy that also helped to ensure their loyalty. Sargon also established a great trade network that brought merchants to Akkad from as far away as India. According to the Sumerian king list, Sargon’s rule lasted fifty-six years, the latter portion of which was troubled by rebellion, as some conquered lands began to chafe under Akkadian control. Nevertheless, when Sargon died around 2279 b.c.e., he passed to his successors, including his grandson Naram-Sin (r. 2254–2218 b.c.e.), one of the first empires in history. See also: Akkad, Kingdom of; Naram-Sin.

SASANID DYNASTY (224–651 C.E.) Ancient Persian dynasty that prospered for more than four centuries until it was destroyed by the Arabs between 637 and 651.The dynasty was named after Sasan, one of the ancestors (probably the grandfather) of its first ruler. The founder of the Sasanid dynasty was Ardashir I (r. 224–241), who overthrew the last king of Parthia,Artabanus V (r. 213–224), in 224. Persia had been ruled by the Parthian Empire for nearly five hundred years. The Sasanids established an empire whose size kept shifting as it responded to attacks from Rome and Byzantium in the west and various groups in the east. Ardashir I was clearly an able king and soldier, who also is credited with creating or rebuilding many cities, digging canals, and erecting bridges. Ardashir’s son and successor, Shapur I (r. 241– 272), continued the struggle against the various groups that threatened the Sasanid Empire. He even defeated, captured, and imprisoned the Roman emperor Valerian (r. 253–260) in 260. The expanded Sasanid Empire eventually reached from Sogdiana and Iberia (Georgia) in the north to the Mazun re-

S atava h a n a D y n a s t y gion of Arabia in the south, and from the Indus River in the east to the upper Tigris and Euphrates River Valleys of Mesopotamia in the west. Persian nationalism flourished under the Sasanid dynasty, and many of the traditions of the ancient Achaemenid dynasty (ca. 550–330 b.c.e.) were revived. Under the Sasanids, the government of the empire was centralized, and provincial officers reported to the Sasanid ruler.The state financed agriculture as well as the construction of roads and urban buildings. The Sasanids revived the ancient Zoroastrian religion and made it the official state religion, while sometimes persecuting those who practiced other faiths. Ardashir I used Zoroastrianism to centralize Sasanid authority and secure political stability. He worked hand in hand with Zoroastrian priests, and he even claimed to be God’s agent on earth, associating himself with signs of divine authority. Social classes became rigidly stratified under the Sasanids. Just below the Sasanid rulers and nobles was the clergy, which included priests, judges, temple guardians, teachers, and ascetics. Next in the social hierarchy was the military, followed by a class that included scribes and others who wrote official communications and historical records, plus physicians, astronomers, poets, and accountants.The lowest social class consisted of artisans, farmers, herdsmen, and merchants.This class system perhaps reflected a Sasanian obsession with control—rulers were always worried about maintaining stability. Although obsessed with control, the authority of early Sasanid rulers was curbed by a Zoroastrian principle that obliged the ruler to adhere to social justice and tolerance. The later Sasanid kings often neglected the notion of tolerance, however, supporting a religion that paid increasing attention to rites and practices rather than to beliefs and that desired power more than justice. The Sasanid period witnessed a flowering of art and culture, which was particularly noticeable in monumental architecture, striking sculptures, and intricate metalwork and gem engraving. The dome and vault construction typically associated with Persian architecture was of Sasanid origin, and the first recognized Persian carpet was from a Sasanid royal palace.The Sasanids also promoted learning and had books from both East and West translated into Pahlavi, the indigenous language of the Sasanids. The long reign of Shapur II (r. 309–379), one of the best-known rulers of the Sasanid dynasty, was

827

very successful militarily. Shapur was able to defeat Central Asian tribes and annex much of the area that they had taken back earlier. Then Shapur renewed warfare against the Romans and won control of the Roman province of Armenia in the Caucasus region. The Sasanid Empire reached its peak under Khusrau I (r. 531–579). Although Khusrau’s power was rooted in absolute monarchy, he was known as Khusrau the Just because his exercise of justice was based on political pragmatism as much as philosophy. He embellished his palace lavishly and worked closely with Zoroastrian priests, who certified his authority, thereby assuring their own favor in the political and social hierarchy. Khusrau I boosted Persia’s military might, which helped his successors expand Sasanid territory in Byzantium, reaching all the way to Constantinople by 620. However, a revived Byzantium retaliated several years later, in 626, during the rule of Khosru II (r. 590–628).The Byzantines attacked the capital city of Ctesiphon, forcing the king to flee. This loss greatly weakened the Sasanid dynasty, which collapsed when its last ruler,Yazdgard III (r. 632–652), died in 652 following the Arab conquest of Persia. See also: Achaemenid Dynasty; Parthian Kingdom.

SATAVAHANA DYNASTY (ca. 235 B.C.E.–225 C.E.)

Also called the Andhras dynasty, early ruling dynasty in the Deccan region of India, known for its currency, social reform, and religious tolerance. The Satavahana dynasty has been identified as originating in Andhradesa in northwestern India, but it may have begun in Maharashtra, a province in the northwestern part of the Deccan plateau. At some point, the Satavahanas lost their territories in the northwest and emerged as rulers of the Deccan in south-central India.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Sources of information about the Satavahanas are scarce and ambiguous. Some scholars claim that there were 19 kings in the dynasty, which ruled for 300 years, whereas others believe that there were 30 kings who ruled for 456 years. Andhradesa was part of the Maurya Empire under

828

S atava h a n a D y n a s t y

Asoka (r. 268–232 b.c.e.), but it became independent after Asoka’s death, under the leadership of the Satavahana ruler, Simuka (r. ca. 235–212 b.c.e.). According to tradition, Simuka was a capable leader who built Jain and Buddhist temples, but who later became wicked, was dethroned, and finally killed. Kanha, also known as Krishna (r. ca. 212–195 b.c.e.), succeeded Simuka as ruler of Maharashtra and continued to expand the Satavahana empire westward as far as the city of Nasik, famous for its temples and steps that go down to the sacred Godavari River. Satakarni I (r. ca. 195–193 b.c.e.), the son of either Kanha or Simuka, accomplished a great deal in his short reign. He performed a large number of sacrifices and two Asvamedha (horse) sacrifices. Taking advantage of the Greek invasions in the north, Satakarni I conquered the western part of the kingdom of Malwa and the territories now known as the Narmada Valley and Berar. He probably died on the battlefield. Vedisiri and Satisiri, Satakarni’s two young sons, succeeded Satakarni at his death in 193 b.c.e. But because they were minors, control of the kingdom fell to their mother, Nayanika, who ruled as regent with the help of her father, Maharathi Tranakayiro.Vedisiri died while still a youth, and Satisiri probably took over as king. Little is known of his reign, however. Satakarni II (r. 166–111 b.c.e.) continued the policy of conquest, taking eastern Malwa during his reign.The most important peacetime king of the Satavahana dynasty was Hala (r. 20–24 c.e.). Called the “poet king” and the “king of peace,” Hala married Lilavati, the daughter of the king of Ceylon. The most famous king of the Satavahana dynasty was the warrior Gautamiputra Satakarni (r. 70–95), who defeated the Sakas (Scythians) and Yavannas (Greeks) as well as the Pallava dynasty of southern India, bringing a vast territory under the control of the Satavahana dynasty. Gautamiputra’s kingdom stretched from the Bay of Bengal in the east to the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean in the west. A social reformer, he took an interest in the welfare of his subjects and only taxed when it was justified. The reign of Gautamiputra’s son and successor, Pulumayi II (r. 96–119), marked the high point of the Satavahana dynasty. Pulumayi was able to maintain the full extent of his father’s empire, and his rule was a time of great economic prosperity. From this point forward, however, the empire of the Satavahana began to fail. Pulumayi IV (r. ca. 215–225) was the last ruler of the main lineage of

the Satavahana dynasty. During his reign, the empire, worn out by time and wars, broke up into a number of small states ruled by the Abhira, Chutu, Ikashvaku, and Pallava dynasties.

POLITICAL SYSTEM AND COMMERCE The Satavahana monarchy was hereditary through the male line. Kings controlled everything in the kingdom, and they led their soldiers in battle, but they did not claim divine power. They ruled under the traditional customs of the kingdom and were guided by a code of laws known as the Dharmasastras. The Dharmasastras divided the empire into Janapadas, or small states, and then into Aharas, or districts. Each Ahara was administered by an appointed governor. Taxes were not excessive. Women had prominent roles in society and could own property. Foreign trade flourished under the Satavahanas. The ancient Romans sought Indian silk and spices, and those goods moved through Satavahana ports. The Satavahana system of currency, which consisted of silver, copper, and gold coins, spread throughout India. The material prosperity that developed under the Satavahanas paid for the army and encouraged religious tolerance, social reform, and the arts.

CULTURE The Satavahana rulers were Hindus of the Brahman, or priestly, class. They worshiped the Hindu gods Indra, Krishna, Siva, Vishnu, and others. However, Buddhism also flourished in the Satavahana kingdom. Skilled artisans carved many Buddhist chaityas (worship halls) and Viharas (monasteries) out of rock.The most famous chaitya is at Karle, in the province of Maharashtra. The Satavahana period is famous for its art, especially for its truly Indian style of art. During this period, craft and trade guilds were established that far outlasted the dynasty; many sculptures and stupas (dome-shaped shrines) from the Satavahana period survived for centuries, and some still exist today. See also:Andhra Kingdom;Asoka; Coinage, Royal; Indian Kingdoms; Malwa Kingdom; Maurya Empire. FURTHER READING

StrongJouveau-Dubreuil, G. Ancient History of the Deccan. Trans. V.S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. New Delhi: Classical Publications, 1978.

S av oy D y n a s t y

SAURASHTRA KINGDOM. See Kathiawar Kingdom

SAVOY DYNASTY (1032–1946 C.E.) European dynasty that ruled the region of Savoy in southeastern France and the Piedmont region of northwestern Italy, as well as the kingdoms of Sardinia, Sicily, and Italy. Savoy, located in the eastern French Alps south of Lake Geneva, was part of Burgundy in the fifth century.A territory of the kingdom of Arles by the tenth century, and then part of the Holy Roman Empire, Savoy was part of the territorial holdings of Humbert I “White Hands,” a feudal lord of Arles. In 1032, Humbert (r. 1000–1048), founded the house of Savoy when he gained the title count of Savoy.

EXPANSION OF SAVOY POWER Through marriage, diplomacy, and conquest, Humbert gradually expanded his holdings to include a number of areas in France, Switzerland, and Italy, including Bresse, Bugey, Chablais, Lower Valais, Gex, Ivrea, Pinerolo, Nice, parts of Vaud, and Geneva. Humbert’s son and successor, Count Odo of Savoy (r. 1051–1059), married Adelaide, the marchioness of Segusium (in the Italian province of Turin). Through her, the house of Savoy inherited the Piedmont region of Italy in 1091. The Piedmont had developed from Turin and Ibrea, the western provinces of the Lombard kingdom of Italy. When Prince Thomas I of Savoy (r. 1189–1233) died in 1233, Piedmont went to his younger son, Thomas II (r. 1233–1259). His son, Amadeus V (r. 1285–1323), united Piedmont with Savoy in 1285.

LOSSES AND DECLINE The title of count of Piedmont, along with Piedmontese territory, then went to the counts of Savoy. In 1434 the duke of Savoy, Amadeus VIII (r. 1391–1440), appointed his son Felix regent and retreated to Ripaille, on Lake Geneva, where he formed the Order of Saint Maurice. Five years later, the Council of Basel, which had broken with the main body of the Roman Catholic Church, elected

829

him anti-pope, and he was crowned as Pope Felix VI in Basel the following year. In 1449, Amadeus VIII ended the papal schism by recognizing Nicholas V as pope. Amadeus’s son and successor, Louis (r. 1440– 1465), married Anne de Lusignan, heir to the Crusader kingdoms of Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Armenia. As a result of this marriage, future dukes of Savoy bore the titles king of Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Armenia. By the late 1400s, the power of the Savoyard dukes was in decline and their territory was threatened by both the French and Swiss. From ancient times, the Piedmont had been a key prize for conquerors because of its Alpine passes, which provided access between Italy and France. As the Swiss expanded their territory and as wars with Italy raged (1494–1559), the Savoy duchy fell apart. Between 1475 and 1536, the Swiss succeeded in capturing lower Valis and the Vaud in Switzerland, and they declared Geneva independent. Meanwhile, King Francis I of France (r. 1515–1547) claimed what was left of the regions of Savoy and Piedmont. During the rule of Duke Emmanuel Philibert (r. 1553–1580), the house of Savoy regained most of its territory under the 1559 Treaty of Cateau–Cambrésis with France.That same year, Emmanuel Philibert married Margaret of Valois, the sister of King Henry II of France (r. 1547–1559). In 1563, the capital of the Savoy duchy shifted from Chambéry, which had been the seat of the counts of Savoy since 1232, to Turin. Although now linked geographically to Italy, the court of the Savoy duchy remained predominantly French in language and culture until the late 1700s.

NEW POWER IN ITALY Under the Peace of Utrecht (1713–1714), a series of treaties that concluded the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), the house of Savoy was granted rule over Sicily. Victor Amadeus II of Savoy (r. 1713–1720) ruled the island until 1720, when he was ousted and Sicily was returned to Austrian rule. As compensation, the house of Savoy received Sardinia, which Victor Amadeus ruled from 1720 to 1730. During the reign of Charles Emanuel IV (r. 1796–1802), the house of Savoy lost all its territory except Sardinia to Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1802,

830

S av oy D y n a s t y

Charles Emanuel IV abdicated as king of Sardinia and his brother, Victor Emmanuel I (r. 1802–1821), assumed the throne. Savoy and the Piedmont were recovered before Victor Emmanuel also abdicated in 1821 following a rebellion in the Piedmont. His brother Charles Felix (r. 1821–1831) succeeded him as king. Charles Felix died without heirs and was succeeded by Charles Albert (r. 1831–1849) of SavoyCarignan, who introduced a constitution in Sardinia in 1848. During his reign, the Savoy and Piedmont regions emerged as the center of the Risorgimento, a movement that eventually led to the unification of Italy.The efforts of the Italian nationalists eventually led Charles Albert to abdicate in favor of his son Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1849–1861). In 1860, Savoy and Nice were ceded to France, and in compensation,Victor Emmanuel II was given the Italian regions of Tuscany and Emilia. That same year, an Italian parliament opened in Turin, and in 1861, Victor Emmanuel II (r. 1861–1878) assumed the title of king of Italy. Victor Emmanuel was succeeded as king of Italy by his son, Umberto I (r. 1878–1900). His grandson, Victor Emmanuel III (1900–1946), abdicated the throne in 1946, after the end of World War II, and was succeeded by his own son, Umberto II (r. 1946). After only a few months, however, Umberto II abdicated and Italy became a republic. Umberto II was the last member of the house of Savoy to rule. See also: Sicily, Kingdom of. FURTHER READING

Koenigsberger, H.G. Medieval Europe, 400–1500. New York: Longman, 1987. Sauvigny, G. de Bertier de, and David H. Pinkney. History of France. Arlington Heights, IL: Forum Press, 1983. Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA DYNASTY (ca. 1800s–2000s C.E.) Politically powerful ducal family, based originally in Germany, which has placed rulers on the thrones of

Belgium, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, and Romania. The family has only been successful as rulers in Great Britain, where the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line is still in power under the name of the house of Windsor, and in Belgium, where they have ruled from the 1800s to the present.

ORIGINS AND SPREAD The German branches of Saxe, Coburg, and Gotha—all part of the house of Wettin—had been powerful for centuries. But it was not until 1826 that the lines were united when Ernest III (r. 1806– 1826), duke of Coburg and Saalfeld, inherited Gotha in central Germany upon the death of Frederick, its last duke. Ernest then became known as Ernest I of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (r. 1826–1844). Ferdinand, Ernest’s younger brother, had a son who became Ferdinand II of Portugal (r. 1837–1853) upon marrying Portugal’s Queen Maria II (r. 1834–1853) in 1837.Another Ferdinand, the nephew of Ferdinand II, was elected prince of Bulgaria in 1887 and then czar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria in 1908. Meanwhile, Ernest’s youngest brother Leopold, a military leader and government worker in Britain, France, and Russia, was elected king of an independent Belgium in 1831 and crowned Leopold I (r. 1831–1865). Ernest’s only sister, Victoria, married Edward, duke of Kent, who was the son of King George III of Great Britain (r. 1760–1820). The couple’s only child, Victoria (r. 1837–1901), later ruled as the longest-reigning monarch of Great Britain.

THE BELGIAN LINE The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty lasted longest in Belgium. During his thirty-four-year reign, Leopold I instituted a series of administrative and financial reforms that set Belgium on the way to becoming a major player in European politics. His daughter Carlotta became empress of Mexico in 1864 when her husband, Maximilian of Austria, was named emperor of Mexico (r. 1864–1867). However, a rebellion in Mexico led to the execution of Maximilian, and Carlotta was forced to flee the country. Leopold’s son, who took the Crown of Belgium as Leopold II (r. 1865–1909) upon his father’s death in 1865, was highly respected for his efforts to promote economic growth. But his imperialist zeal ensnared Belgium in a century-long struggle in the central African region of the Congo.

Saxon Dynasty

831

Albert I (r. 1909–1934), the nephew of Leopold II, came to the Belgian throne in 1909. His personal leadership of the Belgian resistance against Germany during World War I earned Albert international respect, as did his liberal social policies. His daughter Marie married Umberto II (r. 1946), the last king of Italy, who was forced out almost immediately after taking the throne as the Italian people initiated a republican government. The son and successor of Albert I, Leopold III (r. 1934–1951), was forced to abdicate because many Belgians believed that he had colluded with the Nazis during the war. He was succeeded by his popular and well-respected son, Baudouin (r. 1951–1993). Upon Baudouin’s death in 1993, the Crown passed to his younger brother, Albert II (r. 1993– ), the current reigning constitutional monarch of Belgium.

Great Britain, married King Ferdinand I (r. 1914–1927) of Romania in 1893.Their son, Carol II (r. 1930–1940), attempted to create a dictatorship but was overthrown. His son and successor, Michael II (r. 1940–1947) was ousted in the communist revolution of 1947. Another line of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty, in Portugal, came to an end with King Manuel II (r. 1908–1910), the great-grandson of Maria II and Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Manuel was driven from the throne in the republican revolution of 1910. The house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha survived in Bulgaria until 1946, when the Communist Party took control of the country and abolished the monarchy. Bulgaria’s ruling monarch, Simeon II (r. 1943–1946), the grandson of Ferdinand I of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was driven into exile, ending the dynasty’s rule.

THE BRITISH LINE

See also: Belgian Kingdom; Bulgarian Monarchy; English Monarchies; Romanian Monarchy;Victoria;Windsor, House of.

In Great Britain, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty entered the royal line through Victoria, the niece of King William IV (r. 1830–1837), who married her cousin, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Albert, who eventually earned the respect of the British people after a period of initial distrust, was intensely close to Victoria, and the couple saw Britain become the dominant world power of the nineteenth century. Their eldest son became King Edward VII (r. 1901–1910) upon Victoria’s death in 1901. While not as popular as his mother, Edward was still widely respected, especially for his efforts to forge a stronger relationship between Britain and France. His son, George V (1910–1936), came to the throne at a time when Europe was mobilizing and moving toward World War I. In order to dispel the perception that the royal family was tainted by its German origins, George changed the family’s dynastic name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. The house of Windsor continues to occupy the throne of Great Britain. The present monarch is Queen Elizabeth II (r. 1952– ).The British monarchy no longer has any political power, however, and its rulers function primarily as symbols of British national identity.

DECLINE ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE In other parts of Europe, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty has waned and disappeared as a ruling family. Marie, the granddaughter of Queen Victoria of

FURTHER READING

Hibbert, Christopher. Queen Victoria: A Personal History. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

SAXON DYNASTY (919–1024 C.E.) German dynasty that ruled various duchies and principalities in Central Europe and that held the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Around 900, the East Frankish state, one remnant of the Frankish empire of Charlemagne (r. 768– 814), contained five districts: Saxony, Franconia, Lorraine, Swabia, and Bavaria. Previously under the sway of Charlemagne’s descendants, by 900 each of these districts was headed by separate local leaders. With the end of the Carolingian dynasty, which had united the region, these dukes found it expedient to elect a single leader to try to regain some of the unity they had known under the Carolingians. They chose the weakest of their number, Conrad I, duke of Franconia, who ruled as German king (r. 911– 918). Conrad’s election marked the earliest beginnings of Germany, but he was a weak king. Under his rule, Germany lost significant territory to France. In addi-

832

Saxon Dynasty

tion, Conrad was unable to hold back the Magyars of Hungary, who had swept out of Asia and were steadily expanding westward into Europe. Deciding that a stronger king was needed to deal with such threats, the East Frankish dukes selected Duke Henry I of Saxony (known as Henry the Fowler) to be king (r. 919–936). Henry’s election marks the beginning of the Saxon dynasty’s rule of Germany. Henry I defeated the Magyars and expanded German territory eastward. He also gained the region of Lotharingia, which had been allied with France. As a result of his successes, Henry gained enough power to have his son, Otto I, designated as successor. As German king, Otto I the Great (r. 936–973) further consolidated the power of the house of Saxony and founded the Holy Roman Empire in the process. Otto deliberately set about to create an image of himself as the successor to the great Charlemagne, first by having himself elected at Aachen, Charlemagne’s capital. Otto successfully quashed internal rebellions in 939 and 953. In addition, he ended Magyar incursion into Western Europe once and for all in 955, at the battle of Lechfeld in southern Germany. In 962, Otto was crowned Western emperor by the pope, John XII, a title that later evolved into that of Holy Roman emperor. Otto established a policy of working closely with the higher clergy within his realm, and he granted considerable secular power to the Church. Initially, this policy proved sound. Because the clergy derived their power from the king, they were more likely to support him rather than powerful German dukes. Moreover, since the higher clergy were expected to be celibate, their titles could not be passed on to descendants. To ensure that his power would pass to his own descendants, Otto had his son and namesake crowned co-emperor in 967. Otto II (r. 973–983) had a brief and troubled reign, spending the first seven years suppressing rebellions. Upon his death in 983, Otto’s son and successor, Otto III (r. 983– 1002), was only an infant. But the power of the Saxon dynasty was such that Otto II’s widow, the Byzantine princess Theophanu, was able to serve effectively as regent for her son.When she died in 991, her mother-in-law, Adelaide, took over as regent. Otto III began ruling in his own right in 994 at age fourteen. Continuing the family policy of working closely with the clergy, Otto appointed two popes—his cousin, Gregory V, who crowned Otto

emperor, and his tutor, Gerbert, who took the name Sylvester II. Otto III died in 1002 without an heir and was succeeded by his cousin, Henry II of Bavaria (r. 1002–1024). As king and emperor, Henry II gained control of Italy as well as Germany.Yet, he struggled to maintain his power throughout his reign. Following his death in 1024, the Crown passed to Conrad II (r. 1024–1039), a Franconian noble of the Salian dynasty who was descended from a daughter of Otto I. With the accession of Conrad, the Saxon dynasty came to an end on the German and imperial thrones. The close association between the clergy and the popes was beneficial for the Saxon dynasty during the tenth century c.e. However, as the eleventh century progressed and the power of the popes increased, this relationship became problematic because the papacy increasingly challenged German hegemony. In addition, the early Holy Roman emperors were, of necessity, deeply involved in Italian affairs. As a result, the nobles of Germany were left to pursue their own interests, a situation that, some historians have argued, delayed the unification of Germany for centuries. See also: Holy Roman Empire; Otto I, the Great. FURTHER READING

Koenigsberger, H.G. Medieval Europe, 400–1500. New York: Longman, 1987. Stenton, F.M. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

SAXON KINGDOMS (ca. 100–1918 C.E.) Small territories in northern Germany that, like those of most Germanic tribes of late Roman and post-Roman Europe, were governed by a combination of forces—shared religion, a tribal assembly of free men, kings whose function may have been primarily religious, and war-leaders whom Roman writers often termed rex (king). The Saxon lands were regions ruled by a tribe, rather than a clearly delimited state ruled by a king, and in this sense, they were not true kingdoms.

EARLY SAXON RULE The Saxons first appear in classical writings in the second century. According to these early sources, the

Saxon Kingdoms Saxons inhabited an area in northern Germany below Denmark, near the mouth of the Elbe River. By the fourth century, they were raiding Britain and northern Gaul, and in the following centuries, invasions by war-bands of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians led to the establishment of permanent territories and eventually to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain. The Saxons who established kingdoms in Britain probably had not ruled as kings in the regions they had come from, but were leaders of war-bands held together by bonds of loyalty and promises of lands and plunder. Little is known about the tribal organization of the continental Saxons; they appear to have had no real central authority. Most pagan Germanic tribes had some form of assembly of free men that gave or withheld assent to decisions taken by their leaders. Some historians, particularly in the 1800s, saw in these assemblies the roots from which the concepts of elective and constitutional monarchy developed. Among these tribes, kings were chosen from within a royal family and were often separate from the leaders chosen in times of war. However, late Roman writers often identified the chieftains with whom they had contact as rex (king), or dux (duke or commander).

THE SAXONS AND FRANKS By the eighth century, there were three main divisions of Saxons in Germany: the central Angarians along the Weser River, the Eastphalians along the Elbe River, and the Westphalians along the Rhine River. All three peoples were pagan, which was one factor that brought them into conflict with the Christian Franks under Charlemagne (r. 768–814). Another factor was continued Saxon raiding into Frankish lands and the Frankish desire to create in the Saxon region a buffer state against tribes farther north and east. During Charlemagne’s first campaign against the Saxons in 772, he not only seized fortresses and hostages, but destroyed Irminsul, the Saxon sacred tree. Charlemagne finally conquered the Saxons between 772 and 804. For Charlemagne, political and religious domination of the Saxons went together. In 785 he made death the penalty for any Saxon refusing to be baptized, or for any who insulted Christianity deliberately or by failing to conform to its laws. Saxon revolts against Frankish rule and Frankish reprisals continued for many years, but Frankish and Anglo-Saxon missionaries, with the backing of Frankish military might, eventually converted the

833

Saxons to Christianity. Although the Saxons became part of the Carolingian Empire, they maintained their identity as a separate people within that empire as well as within the German kingdom and Holy Roman Empire that followed.

MEDIEVAL TO MODERN SAXONY From the tenth to the twelfth century, the duchy of Saxony was an important power within Germany. King Henry I of Germany (r. 919–936), known as Henry the Fowler, was the son of the first duke of Saxony, Otto (r. 880–912). In 1180, Saxony was divided among other duchies and archbishoprics following Duke Henry the Lion’s conflict with Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1152–1190) of the Holy Roman Empire. Only two small areas, Saxe-Lauenburg near Holstein and Saxe-Wittenberg near Leipzig, retained the name. Much of the old Saxon duchy was reunited in the German state of Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) following World War II. In the fifteenth century, the margravate (territory ruled by a margrave) of Meissen in eastern Germany also became known as Saxony, when its ruler, Frederick I the Warlike, became duke and elector of Saxony in 1422. Saxony (the area around the city of Dresden), under Frederick Augustus III (r. 1763–1827), sided with France during the Napoleonic Wars. In appreciation, Napoleon granted Saxony conquered Prussian territory and made Frederick king of Saxony in 1806. A significant portion of Saxony’s territory was ceded to Prussia by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, becoming the Prussian province of Saxony, though the kingdom of Saxony continued to exist. Defeated by Prussia in 1866, the kingdom became a part of the North German Confederation in 1867 and then part of the German Empire in 1871. Saxony still retained its own king, however.The last king of Saxony, Frederick Augustus III (r. 1904–1918), abdicated in November 1918, after Germany’s defeat in World War I. With the abdication of its king, the former Saxon kingdom became a state in the newly formed German Weimar Republic. See also:Charlemagne; Frankish Kingdom; Frederick I, Barbarossa; Holy Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Holmes, George, ed. Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

834

Scottish Kingdoms

SCOTTISH KINGDOMS The various kingdoms that have existed in Scotland from prehistoric times until the Act of Union, or Union of Crowns, with England in 1707.

ANCIENT SCOTLAND Scotland was originally ruled by a collection of scattered tribes and small kingdoms. By the beginning of the first centuries c.e., these tribes were of British Celtic origin, speaking a language related to modern Welsh and Cornish. The most prominent pre-Gaelic Scottish kingdoms were those of the Picts, who governed a large area of northern Scotland from the third century. Their fierceness in battle impressed the Roman occupiers of southern Britain, who gave them the name Picts (from the Latin word for “painted”) because of the blue patterns they drew on their skin.The Pictish kingdom of Fortriu was the dominant political power in Scotland until the ninth century. Like most other early Celtic kingdoms in Europe, the Picts practiced a pagan religion. During this same period, a British Celtic kingdom of Strathclyde, and an Anglo-Saxon kingdom of the Angles, known as Northumbria, also ruled over some parts of presentday southern Scotland.

the west coast of Scotland, became an important component of Scottish kingship. Around 840, a tribal chief named Kenneth macAlpin became king of the Scots (r. ca. 840–858). Two years later he took control of the Pictish kingdom through conquest and possibly matrilineal inheritance. Kenneth macAlpin was therefore the first ruler of a Scottish kingdom that encompassed most of modern mainland Scotland. MacAlpin apparently started the tradition by which kings were crowned on the symbolic Stone of Scone to cement their attachment to the land. The dynasty he established ruled Scotland until Duncan I (r. 1034–1040) became king in 1034. Duncan I, whose line was the house of Dunkeld, already ruled the small kingdom of Strathclyde, which he merged with the larger Scottish kingdom. Duncan was killed in 1040, probably by his cousin Macbeth, whose legend inspired the play of that name by William Shakespeare. Macbeth ruled Scotland until his death in 1057,

GAELIC KINGDOMS Around 500, the Scots, who were Gaelic-speaking Celts from northern Ireland, followed their king Fergus Mor to the west coast of Scotland and established the kingdom of Dalriada (named after an Irish kingdom of the same name). The Scots traced their heritage through a legendary genealogy back to Scota, who was supposedly the daughter of an Egyptian pharoah. The Scots practiced a pagan Celtic religion in which kingship had strong religious ties, especially to the physical land of the kingdom. Scottish Dalriada was less a centralized kingdom than a collection of petty tribal or clan-based kinship groups, the most prominent of which were the Cenel Loairn, Cenel nOengusa, and Cenel nGabrain. In the sixth century, Dalriada embraced Christianity under the guidance of Saint Columba, an Irish missionary who came to evangelize Scotland in 563. In time, a form of Celtic Christianity, with strong ties to the religious community on the isle of Iona off

Scotland’s King Malcolm III, also known as Malcolm Canmore, established the House of Canmore in the eleventh century. His life and reign are commemorated on this heraldic windowpane from Charlecote Park, a manor house in Warwickshire in England.

Scythian Empire when the throne passed to his distant relative Lulach. However, Lulach was deposed a year later by Duncan I’s son Malcolm III (r. 1057–1093), also known as Malcom Canmore (“big head” in Gaelic), who established the house of Canmore. Malcolm III’s Anglo-Saxon wife, Queen Margaret (Saint Margaret), helped change the nature of the Scottish kingdom by spreading Anglo-Saxon and Norman influence at the expense of traditional Gaelic heritage. The Anglo-Scots dialect replaced Gaelic in the lowland regions of Scotland, and older Celtic concepts of kingship and social structure faded. Because of Margaret’s religious devotion and influence, the Iona-based Celtic Christianity that had been so important to the Scottish kingdoms was superseded by strong ties to the mainstream Catholic Church. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Scottish kingdom expanded north and west at the expense of the small quasi-independent Viking kingdoms in the northern isles of Scotland, such as those ruled by the earls of Orkney and Shetland. Three Canmore kings named Alexander all fought to establish control over these regional Viking lords.The victory of Alexander III (r. 1249–1286) over Norway resulted in the Treaty of Perth (1266), in which Norway ceded most of its lands in Scotland.The Canmore dynasty continued to rule Scotland until the death of the Maid of Norway, Alexander III’s heir, in 1290.

835

rule an independent Scotland. Throughout much of their rule, they struggled with challenges from English monarchs as well as other Scottish quasikingdoms, such as the Gaelic remnant kingdom of the Lords of the Isles.When James VI of Scotland (r. 1567–1625) became James I of England (r. 1603– 1625) in 1603, the Stuart dynasty, as it was called thereafter, became rulers of both Scotland and England. In 1707, Queen Anne of England (r. 1702– 1714) signed the Act of Union, which merged the kingdom of the Scots with that of England and Wales, creating Great Britain. That act marked the end of a separate Scottish kingdom. See also: David I; David II; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Kenneth I (Kenneth MacAlpin); Lords of the Isles; Mary, Queen of Scots; Picts, Kingdom of the; Robert I (Robert the Bruce); Stewart Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Lynch, Michael. Scotland: A New History. London: Pimlico, 1992. Mackie, J.D. A History of Scotland. New York: Penguin Books, 1984. Roberts, John L. Lost Kingdoms: Celtic Scotland and the Middle Ages. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997. Ross, Stewart. Monarchs of Scotland. New York: Facts on File, 1990.

MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE KINGDOMS Throughout the medieval and early Renaissance periods, the Scottish kingdom, based in Edinburgh and Stirling, faced continual challenges from England and from fringe kingdoms in the northern and western isles. A two-year interregnum followed the end of the House of Dunkeld/Canmore in 1290, as potential Scottish heirs struggled among themselves and with Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307) over the throne. The coronation in 1306 of Robert I (Robert the Bruce, r. 1306–1329) ended this period of civil strife and English dominance. The house of Bruce was short-lived, however. After Robert’s son David II (r. 1329–1371) died in 1371, the throne passed to the Stewart dynasty through the marriage of Marjory Bruce, daughter of Robert the Bruce, to Walter Stewart, the sixth high steward of Scotland. The Stewarts were the last Scottish dynasty to

SCYTHIAN EMPIRE (flourished 700s–300s B.C.E.)

Wealthy and powerful empire that stretched from the Danube River of Europe in the west to the borders of China in the east.The empire was established by the Scythians, a nomadic people, probably of Iranian origin, who migrated from western Siberia in Central Asia to southeastern Russia during the eighth and seventh centuries b.c.e. The ancient Scythians spoke an Iranian language related to Old Persian. Centered around the present-day region of Crimea and the Black Sea in southern Russia, their empire lasted hundreds of years before it was forced to surrender to the Sarmatians, another nomadic people related to the Scythians, between the fourth and second centuries b.c.e.

836

Scythian Empire

FORMATION OF THE EMPIRE The Scythians were great warriors, who were especially skilled in horsemanship and who were perhaps the first horse-riding people in southern Russia. Their skill with horses made them a formidable foe militarily and also gave them great mobility, allowing them to travel swiftly across great distances. As the Scythians migrated into southern Russia in the ninth century b.c.e., they eventually arrived in the land of the Cimmerians, who ruled the Caucasus region and the vast plains north of the Black Sea.The Scythians fought against the Cimmerians for thirty years, finally defeating them and driving them southwestward into Anatolia (present-day Turkey). After the defeat of the Cimmerians, a group of Scythian people known as the Royal Scyths founded a kingdom in the Crimean region. The Royal Scyths served as the ruling class of this kingdom, while the native inhabitants of the region worked primarily as farmers. As Scythian power grew, their empire and power expanded southward into the ancient Near East, where they encountered opposition from a number of groups, including the Assyrians. In the late 600s b.c.e., taking advantage of a decline in Assyrian power, the Scythians launched devastating invasions into Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Allying with the Medes of Persia and the Babylonians, the Scythians contributed to the eventual collapse of the Assyrian Empire. After the collapse of Assyria, the Scythians began to encounter problems with their former allies, the Medes, who launched attacks in the early 500s b.c.e. that forced the Scythians back to the Caucasus region and Scythia, which was the core of the Scythian Empire. At this point, the empire extended from the northern border of Persia into southern Russia. Blocked from further expansion to the south, the Scythians invaded Eastern Europe, eventually extending their raids as far as present-day Poland and Austria.

SCYTHIAN CIVILIZATION The Scythians developed an extraordinary civilization, with highly developed skills in metalworking and superb metalwork featuring animal designs and motifs. Their decorative art embellished everyday objects, such as saddles, rugs, swords, and vases, many with depictions of solitary animals and battle scenes between animals. Both mythical and real crea-

tures were portrayed in a style that was uniquely Scythian. Since the Scythians remained a largely nomadic people, most of the objects they produced were not very large. Yet, they often contained precious materials and demonstrated excellent workmanship. Scythian society was headed by a wealthy class of aristocrats and chieftains, the Royal Scyths, who were buried in ornate graves containing elaborate gold items and other valuable objects. Around the third century b.c.e., these Scythian rulers intermarried with the Greeks, and Greek influence on Scythian society increased. Although they were nomads, the Scythians established a variety of permanent settlements.The huge fortified settlement of Kamenka on the Dnieper River, established in the late fifth century b.c.e., became the heart of the Scythian kingdom under the ruler Ateas (r. ?–339 b.c.e.), who was killed in a battle against Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.) in 339 b.c.e.)

DECLINE AND FALL The Scythians’ power began a slow decline in the late 500s b.c.e., but they remained strong enough to stop an invasion by Darius I of Persia (r. 521–486 b.c.e.) in 512 b.c.e. In the 300s b.c.e., Scythia regained some of its power, enough to resist attacks by the Macedonians under Philip II of Macedon. This resurgence of power was brief, however. By the late 300s, Scythian power began to decline dramatically, and in the 200s b.c.e., Scythia lost most of its territory in Russia to the Sarmatians, who invaded from their territory east of the Don River. With the loss of this territory, the Scythian Empire was reduced to part of the Crimean Peninsula and a narrow coastal strip along the Black Sea. The Scythian Empire was finally destroyed in the second century b.c.e., during the reign of king Palakus (r. ca. 100s b.c.e.), by the Sarmatians. Although the Scythians ceased to exist as a single nation, some Scythian tribes remained in the area in the Balkans and the Asian part of the Russian steppes. See also: Assyrian Empire; Medes Kingdom; Philip II of Macedon. FURTHER READING

Gorelik, M. V., E. N. Cernenko, and E. V. Gerneko. Scythians, 700–300 B.C. London: Osprey, 1983.

Second Empire

SECLUSION OF MONARCH Instances in which a monarch is separated from the court and society and remains secluded for a period of time. Monarchs may seclude themselves for many reasons, some personal and some institutional. Frederick II of Prussia (r. 1740–1786) chose moderate seclusion in the latter part of his reign because of his personal desire to live apart from society. Dwelling at Potsdam outside his capital of Berlin, Frederick had no royal court, saw his ministers only when he commanded, and communicated with his government by writing rather than in person. Undistracted by society, Frederick devoted his waking hours to work. Queen Victoria of England (r. 1837–1901) adopted a secluded existence because of the tremendous grief she experienced after the death of her husband, Prince Albert, in 1861. Victoria’s refusal to show herself publicly greatly inconvenienced the ministers who dealt with her and led to a decline in the monarchy’s popularity. Seclusion is a relative state. Monarchs have often tried to control zones of space with varying degrees of public access. Early modern English monarchs, for instance, established the Privy Chamber, a zone of the court where only the monarch and selected courtiers, servants, and family members were allowed. The Privy Chamber eventually became so crowded that a new secluded zone, the Bedchamber, was established where the monarch could have some privacy. Certain types of monarchical leadership make complete or even extended seclusion impossible. For example, monarchs with active military, social, or judicial roles cannot isolate themselves from their soldiers or subjects and expect to rule efficiently and effectively. Moves to institutionalize seclusion are often associated with the removal of a monarch from day-to-day government and have a particularly isolating effect in restricting the monarch’s access to information. Monarchs, such as the emperors of Japan, whose main role is carrying out ritual activities, are better able to function in seclusion than rulers who have policy and other responsibilities. Monarchical seclusion reached its height in China during the late Ming dynasty (1368–1644), when an entire district of Beijing, known as the “Forbidden City,” was given over to the imperial residence. Late Ming emperors had face-to-face interactions with few

837

people other than courtiers, eunuchs, concubines, and servants. Even major government ministers rarely saw the emperor. It is said that the last Ming emperor, Ch’ung Chen (r. 1627–1644), only learned of the rebellion against him when the rebels were actually climbing the walls of the Forbidden City. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Etiquette, Royal; Eunuchs, Royal; Harems; Servants and Aides, Royal.

SECOND EMPIRE (1852–1870 C.E.) Period in France during the reign of Louis Napoleon, president of the Second Republic (r. 1848–1852), after he staged a military coup and became Emperor Napoleon III (r. 1852–1870). Great economic success early on, followed by imperial growth and moves toward liberalization, were all hallmarks of the shortlived Second Empire. Having begun in a violent coup, the empire ended with the crushing defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871).

ORIGINS After his election to the presidency of the restored Republic in 1848, Louis Napoleon, the nephew of Emperor Napoleon I (r. 1804–1815), began a complex and deliberate process of securing and consolidating his power, with an eye to the eventual overthrow of the elected government. Popular with both the powerful clergy and the working classes, Louis, a consummate politician, played the many different political groups of republican France against one another. In 1851, he forced a constitutional crisis when he pushed for an amendment to remove the term limit for the presidency.When the amendment was rejected by the National Assembly, the stage was set for a military takeover. As president, Louis had filled key positions in government with men loyal to his ambitions. This helped ensure rapid victory, which came near the end of 1851 when the French army, in accordance with the plans of Louis and his half-brother Charles de Moray, took over the offices of the government. Louis immediately called for a popular vote on the proposed revisions to the constitution.Violent scare tactics and threats to deport his opponents allowed Louis to easily win the concessions regarding term

838

Second Empire

limits that he sought. By the autumn of 1852, another public referendum resulted in Louis being crowned as Emperor Napoleon III, an event that marked the establishment of the Second Empire.

SUCCESS AT HOME, TENSIONS ABROAD Emperor Napoleon III immediately went to work securing his power by promoting widespread economic growth. Although there was initially some internal resistance to the Second Empire, large public works projects, such as the redesign of Paris’s streets by civic planner Baron Haussmann, and easily available lines of credit for business and industrial leaders drowned concerns in a tide of new wealth. The lower classes were placated not only by the jobs created under the Second Empire, but by its esta-

blishment of many charitable organizations as well. Many French citizens felt as if the glorious days of Napoleon I had been restored, a feeling Napoleon enhanced with his decorous court. In the spirit of extending the glory of the Second Empire, France challenged Russian supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the decaying Ottoman Empire. The resulting conflict, the Crimean War (1854–1856), restored France as one of the major powers of Europe and allowed for the French construction of the Suez Canal through northeastern Egypt. After victory in the Crimean War, the Second Empire supported the Italian movement for national unity, thus pitting France against the Austrian Empire, which controlled northern Italy. But Napoleon betrayed the Italians and made peace with Austria in 1859, greatly damaging future relations between France and Italy, as well as causing the emperor’s popularity to sink at home. Fearful of overthrow, Napoleon conceded to numerous liberal demands and rescinded some of the onerous restrictions on individual freedom against which many in France had agitated. In an attempt to appease commercial interests, Napoleon also eliminated trade barriers between France and England in 1860. In an effort to further the imperial ambitions of France, the Second Empire took over part of Indochina in Southeast Asia, thus embroiling itself in a century-long colonial endeavor in that region.A similar experiment in Mexico from 1861 to 1867 proved disastrous; the French not only failed in their attempt to protect the rule of Emperor Maximilian (r. 1864–1867), but they seriously weakened their military as well by overcommitting forces to a far away region in a losing cause.This would prove fatal in the coming conflict with Prussia.

DECLINE AND DEFEAT

The nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor Napoleon III first served as president of France’s Second Republic.A man of ambition, he assumed dictatorial power and the title of emperor of the Second Empire in 1852. His reign lasted only until his deposition in a bloodless revolution in 1870.

By the late 1860s, it was becoming clear that Prussia, led by William I (r. 1861–1888) and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, was at the helm of a unifying Germany. Napoleon and his foreign minister, the duc de Gramont, concerned that French power would be threatened by a stronger Prussia, began to agitate for war in the late 1860s. An attempt by the French to block the accession of a Prussian prince to the throne of Spain in 1870 was met with hostility by Bismarck and William I, leading to heightened tensions. Bismarck, as desirous of German unification and glory as Napoleon was of French supremacy, effectively

Seleucid Dynasty maneuvered the French into declaring war in the summer of 1870 through the careful editing and publication of a secret Prussian document known as the Ems dispatch. Unprepared for war, the French were crushed by the Prussian military in just six months. Napoleon, captured while commanding his troops in September 1870, was subsequently deposed by a provisional French government established in his absence. Adolphe Thiers, the leader of the interim administration, negotiated a peace settlement with Prussia and became the first president of France’s Third Republic in the spring of 1871. The monumental collapse of the Second Empire after its early successes left a deep wound in French national pride and created a French-German rivalry that helped ignite the fires of World War I. See also: Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Napoleon III. FURTHER READING

Smith, William. Napoleon III: The Pursuit of Prestige. London: Collins and Brown, 1991.

SELEUCID DYNASTY (312–63 B.C.E.) Ruling dynasty centered in Asia Minor (presentday Turkey) and present-day Syria that emerged from the conquests of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) The Seleucid dynasty was founded in 312 b.c.e. by Seleucus I (312–281 b.c.e.), one of the generals and close friends of Alexander the Great. At Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e., Seleucus took over Babylonia, and in later years, he greatly expanded the kingdom. Seleucus did not take the title of king until after Alexander’s death. Also known by the title Nicator (“victor”), he became the most successful participant in the endless wars among the Diadochi, the successors to Alexander. By the end of Seleucus I’s reign, he controlled an empire that stretched from Asia Minor to the region of Bactria in Central Asia. The dynasty founded by Seleucus I drew from both Greek, Macedonian, and Near Eastern traditions of rule.The Seleucid monarch was theoretically not identified with a particular people. In practice, however, he identified strongly with Greek culture. Greeks and Macedonians comprised the vast major-

839

ity of the kingdom’s governing elite, which were known as the “King’s Friends.” The Seleucids claimed a particularly strong relationship with the Greek god Apollo. The Seleucid seal incorporated an anchor, an item traditionally associated with Apollo, and it was claimed that Seleucus I had a birthmark in the shape of an anchor. The Seleucids also patronized the traditional religion of Babylon, however, and presented themselves as rulers in the Mesopotamian and Persian traditions by adopting their monarchical customs. The original capital of the Seleucid dynasty was Seleucia on the Tigris River in Mesopotamia. For a brief period it was moved to Seleucia in Pieria in Macedonia, but then was finally settled at Antioch in Syria.The vast size of the Seleucid Empire made centralized authority virtually impossible. Drawing from the Persian political tradition of the Achaemenid dynasty, the early Seleucids divided the empire into large administrative districts ruled mostly by members of the royal family. The successors of Seleucus I lost much of their direct control over Iran and Bactria, where new Greek (Bactria) and non-Greek (Parthia) kingdoms arose. In the late third century b.c.e., Antiochus III (r. 223–187 b.c.e.), known as “Megas” (“the Great”), reasserted Seleucid overlordship over many of the lost territories in the east. He also advanced Seleucid power over Palestine and Phoenicia, areas that had long been contested by the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt. However, Antiochus III also suffered the first defeats at the hands of the power that would eventually cause the downfall of the Seleucids—Rome. While the Romans put pressure on the Seleucids from the west in the second century b.c.e., the rise of Parthia did so from the east. Even the acquisition of Palestine by Antiochus III proved more of a headache than an overall gain because of the volatile political situation there. Antiochus IV (r. 175–164 b.c.e.) was an avid promoter of Greek culture and the cult of the divine ruler. These policies provoked a revolt by the Jews in Palestine, led by the Maccabees, who eventually succeeded in splitting off Judea as an independent kingdom. Antiochus IV also was forced into a humiliating withdrawal from Egypt in 168 b.c.e. Just as he was on the verge of conquering that kingdom, the Roman Senate sent an emissary demanding that Antiochus withdraw. Faced with the growing threat of Roman power, he reluctantly agreed.

840

Seleucid Dynasty

Antiochus IV died in 164 b.c.e. while attempting to restore Seleucid power in the East. His death was followed by more Seleucid defeats as well as turmoil within the Seleucid house itself between the descendants of Antiochus IV and his brother and predecessor, Seleucus IV (r. 187–175 b.c.e.). In 140 b.c.e., Mithridates I (r. 171–138 b.c.e.) of Parthia captured the Seleucid ruler Demetrius II (r. 145–139 b.c.e.), and two years later he took Babylon. The Seleucids made a partial recovery under Antiochus VII (r. 139–129 b.c.e.), who advanced far into Parthian territory until he was killed in battle in 129 b.c.e. While the last Seleucids fought bitterly among themselves for control of the empire, the dynasty’s power dwindled in Syria.The late Seleucid state was briefly conquered by Tigranes (r. 96–55 b.c.e.) of Armenia, and Syria finally was reduced to a Roman province by the Roman general Pompey in 64 b.c.e. The last ruler of the Seleucid dynasty, Antiochus XIII (r. 69–64 b.c.e.) was murdered shortly after the Roman takeover of Syria. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Antiochus III, the Great; Hellenistic Dynasties; Macedonian Empire; Parthian Kingdom; Ptolemaic Dynasty.

SELIM I, THE GRIM (1467–1520 C.E.) Ottoman ruler (r. 1512–1520) who was known as Yavuz, or “the Grim,” for his cruel, if pragmatic, policies and his military prowess. Selim I was born in Amasya, a provincial town in northern Anatolia (present-day Turkey), where Ottoman princes were often raised and sent to practice the tools of rule in case of their eventual succession to the throne. Selim’s father, Beyezid II (r. 1481– 1512), named Selim heir to the throne in order to resolve a disruptive and destabilizing conflict between the young prince and his brother Ahmed over who would eventually rule. Under the Ottoman law of fratricide, sultans often executed their brothers and nephews to prevent such power struggles, as primogeniture (which gave firstborn sons the right of inheritance) was not used as a method of succession in the Turkic tribes that gave birth to the Osmanli dynasty. When Selim came to the throne in 1512, he made sure to rid the empire of all possible rivals for the throne, save for his favorite son Suleyman.

Selim’s short reign was marked by great military conquests. Instead of marching further into Europe, however, he turned south and eastward. In 1514 he won a major battle against the Safavid sultan of Persia, Ismail I (r. 1501–1524), settling a conflict over where the eastern borders of the Ottoman Empire would lie. He also brought several southeastern Anatolian provinces under Ottoman rule, bringing many Kurdish subjects into the empire. Soon Selim found himself at war with the Mamluk Empire of Egypt, which resented his southward expansion into their sphere of influence. In 1516, the Ottomans handed the Mamluks a major defeat near Aleppo (in present-day Syria), and proceeded to march rapidly across the desert to conquer Cairo. Selim’s military campaigns brought Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and much of the Arabian Peninsula under Ottoman rule. He thus became ruler over the three holiest cities of Islam: Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, thus winning the title “Protector of the Holy Places.” After these conquests, Selim returned to Anatolia, the center of the Ottoman Empire, and prepared to march from the city of Edirne on a new campaign against the island of Rhodes. On the way, he died of an infected boil in 1520, leaving the much-expanded empire to his son Suleyman I (r. 1520–1566), also known as Suleyman the Magnificent. See also: Beyezid II; Mamluk Dynasty; Ottoman Empire; Suleyman I, the Magnificent.

SELIM III, THE GREAT (1761–1808 C.E.)

Ottoman sultan (r. 1789–1807) who devoted his rule to attempts at reforming the institutions of the Ottoman Empire. The son of Sultan Mustafa III (r. 1757–1774), Selim grew up in the kafes, or “cage,” the part of the royal harem where Ottoman princes were imprisoned and raised in seclusion after the law of fratricide was abandoned. Such imprisonment and seclusion prevented the widespread killing of potential heirs, but it often impaired their leadership abilities by denying them the experience gained by earlier Ottoman princes, who often served as provincial governors and military leaders to test their mettle and

Seljuq Dynasty prepare them for rule. Instead of gaining that type of experience, Selim composed music and studied with tutors in the confinement of the palace walls. Selim became sultan in 1789 upon the death of his uncle, Abdulhamid I (r. 1774–1789), who had ruled after the death of Selim’s father, Mustafa. Selim immediately began efforts to revitalize the decaying Ottoman Empire, which had lost much of its military strength and bureaucratic efficiency. The Ottomans also had become increasingly subject to challenges from European imperialism. Selim set out to reform the army, rebuild the navy on European models, and rid the empire of the overpowerful, elite corps of Janissaries, which had dominated the Ottoman military since the 1600s. During his reign, the Ottomans forced the armies of Napoleon Bonaparte to withdraw from Egypt in 1801, but at the price of seeing Egypt become almost independent under the pasha Muhammad Ali (r. 1805–1848). The Ottomans also suffered a serious defeat in the second Russo-Turkish War, although the Treaty of Jassy in 1792 resulted in little territorial loss. Angered by Selim’s Westernizing reforms and military defeats, the Janissaries and conservative religious factions deposed him in 1807 and placed his mentally ill cousin, Mustafa IV (r. 1807–1808), on the throne.The Janissaries reimprisoned Selim in the harem where he had spent his youth. When army supporters stormed Constantinople in 1808 in an attempt to restore Selim to the throne, Mustafa ordered the execution of the former ruler. Despite Selim’s death, his supporters soon triumphed over Mustafa and executed him. They then installed Mustafa’s brother, Mahmut II (r. 1808– 1839), as the new sultan. Selim’s reforms were well intentioned, but they came too late to stop the continuing decline of the Ottoman Empire. See also: Muhammad Ali; Ottoman Empire

SELJUQ DYNASTY (900s–1308 C.E.) A Turkic dynasty that ruled a large swath of Central Asia and the Near East in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Seljuq (or Seljuk) dynasty emerged from Central Asia in the tenth century. Its founder was Seljuq, the chieftain of a nomadic Turkic tribe that originated in the steppes of Central Asia near the

841

Oxus River. Seljuq’s descendants, Muslim Turkic tribes led by his grandson Tughril Beg (r. 1038– 1063), moved westward and swiftly conquered much of present-day Iran. Tughril and his followers took the city of Isfahan in 1043 before marching on to Mesopotamia. In 1038, the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad, al-Qaim (r. 1031–1075), granted Tughril the title of sultan, and the Seljuqs became the first Islamic dynasty ruled by a leader with this title. Although the Seljuqs supported the declining Abbasid caliphate in order to gain religious legitimacy, they regarded the caliphate as a religious authority with little political importance. The Seljuqs under Tughril Beg conquered Baghdad, the seat of the caliphs, in 1055 and drove out the Shia Buyid dynasty, which had ruled the city since 946. During the remainder of his reign, Tughril battled the Egypt-based Fatimid dynasty for its lands in Syria, often ruling from his base camps rather than from his capitals of Nishapur and Isfahan in Iran. Tughril died in 1063 and was succeeded by his nephew, Alp Arslan (r. 1063–1072). Alp Arslan’s reign was a high point for the Seljuqs, who experienced continued military victories against the Fatimids in the south and the Armenians in the north. In 1064, Alp Arslan’s Seljuq army conquered the Armenian capital of Ani. After that victory, the Byzantine emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068– 1071), who had become increasingly frustrated by raids against his Anatolian territory from various Turkic tribes that had followed the Seljuqs westward, decided to attack the Seljuq kingdom. In 1071, Byzantine forces attacked the Seljuq army at Manzikert, near Lake Van in southeastern Anatolia. The Seljuqs defeated the Byzantine army resoundingly, and Anatolia was thereafter open to settlement by various Turkic tribes and kingdoms. This Islamic advance into Christian Byzantine territory troubled European leaders and was one of the factors that led them to launch the First Crusade. Alp Arslan had little interest in conquering the rest of Anatolia, and other Turkic kingdoms sprouted up in the conquered lands. A separate Seljuq kingdom, known as the Seljuq sultanate of Rum (Anatolia), was established at this time and was led by Sulayman ibn Qutalmish (r. 1077–1086). After Alp Arslan’s death in 1072, his son Malik Shah I (r. 1072–1092) became the Seljuq ruler. Malik developed the primary Seljuq sultanate of Hamadan, based in Baghdad, and became a patron of artists and

842

Seljuq Dynasty

writers, including the famous Persian poet Omar Khayyam. The Seljuq dynasty proved fruitful for the arts, and distinctive Seljuq architecture still graces many Turkish and Iranian cities today. After Malik Shah’s death, the Seljuq Empire continued to fragment into a series of small principalities and kingdoms. One reason for this dissolution was that primogeniture (inheritance by first-born son) was alien to the Turkic tribal traditions that underlay Seljuq rule. Therefore, multiple sons would inherit from a ruling father, splitting the land. Thus with each generation, the territory became more fragmented. The Christian Crusades were also a destabilizing force. Between the efforts of the Crusaders and the Khwarazm-shahs, a Seljuq successor state, the original empire was largely conquered and dismantled by 1157. The Seljuqs of Rum continued to rule in Anatolia, intermittently battling the Byzantine Empire and the rival Turkic kingdom of the Danishmends. In 1176, the Seljuqs handed the Byzantines a devastating defeat and were able to expand northward towards the Black Sea. However, the rule of the Seljuqs of Rum was short-lived. In 1243, the Mongols under Jenghiz Khan (Genghis Khan) decisively defeated the Seljuq army and made the Seljuq realm a vassal state, although Seljuq sultans continued to rule small remnants of Anatolian territory until 1308.

when the rebel leader Marduk-apla-iddina II (the Hebrew Bible’s Merodach-Baladan)—whom Sargon II had battled some eighteen years before—seized control of Babylon. Despite an alliance between the Babylonians and the Elamites, Sennacherib quelled the rebellion, but Merodach escaped. Leaving a governor to manage Babylon, Sennacherib set out with his armies to conquer the kingdom of Judah in Palestine, a campaign described in the Hebrew Bible. After seizing the Judean countryside in 700 b.c.e., Sennacherib laid siege to Jerusalem. But he retreated without finishing the siege, possibly as a result of a deadly pestilence that killed a significant number of his troops. In 689 b.c.e., Babylon revolted once again under the leadership of Merodach-Baladan II, assisted by the Elamites. This time, Sennacherib did not stop at quelling the uprising; he sacked the city of Babylon, burned it to the ground, and diverted the Euphrates River so that its waters would flood the ruins. Sennacherib was no longer troubled by Babylonian rebellion, but that was not his last experience with revolt. In 681 b.c.e., after he named his youngest son, Esarhaddon (r. 680–669 b.c.e.), as his heir, Sennacherib’s older sons Adrammelech and Sharezer revolted and assassinated their father. Upon Sennacherib’s death, Esarhaddon took the throne and his brothers fled the kingdom.

See also: Buyid (Buwayhid) Dynasty; Byzantine Empire; Fatimid Dynasty; Ottoman Empire;Turkic Empire.

See also:Assyrian Empire; Esarhaddon; Sargon II.

SERBIAN KINGDOM (1167–1459 C.E.) SENNACHERIB (d. ca. 681 B.C.E.) Assyrian monarch (r. 704–681 b.c.e.) who destroyed Babylon and rebuilt the city of Nineveh. The son of Sargon II (r. 721–705 b.c.e.), Sennacherib came to the Assyrian throne after his father’s death as an experienced military leader and soldier. The first two years of his reign were peaceful, and he concentrated his energies on rebuilding ancient city of Nineveh—an enormous task that required redirecting the Tebiltu River and doubling the size of the city. He constructed a new and vast palace called “the Incomparable,” which featured colossal metal statuary and an elaborate orchard and park. Annals of Sennacherib’s reign indicate that this period of peaceful construction ended in 703 b.c.e.,

Powerful kingdom that ruled in the Balkan region prior to the domination of that area by the Ottoman Turks in the fourteenth century. The history of Serbia dates back to the sixth century, when the first Serbian state blossomed. From then until the end of the twelfth century, Serbian history was marked by a brief period of stability followed by a series of internal crises that culminated in the mid-1100s with the establishment of the first kingdom of Serbia. In 1159, Stefan Nemanja (r. 1167–1196), whom the Byzantine emperor recognized as leader of Serbia, fought his brothers for control of the region. Nemanja emerged victorious and went on to establish the first kingdom of Serbia, founding a dynasty that ruled for nearly two hundred years. During his rule,

Serbian Kingdom sometimes aided by Byzantine allies, Nemanja expanded Serbian territories while building monasteries and other cultural institutions. Nemanja gave his eldest son,Vukan, rule of the Zeta region, which later became known as Montenegro. Nemanja’s second son, also named Stefan (r. 1196–1228), succeeded his father as leader of Serbia in 1196. The younger Stefan received much support from his younger brother, Sava, a well-respected monk who campaigned for social justice. Sava’s influence helped Stefan obtain a Crown and title from the pope in 1217, thus making Stefan Serbia’s first king. Two years later, in 1219, Sava became the first archbishop of Serbia, thus earning the kingdom both political and religious independence. After an initial period of rapid cultural and political growth, the Serbian kingdom grew stagnant under future generations of rulers. The reigns of Stefan’s sons—Radoslav (r. 1228–1234), Vladislav (r. 1234– 1243), and Uros I (r. 1243–1276)—were marked by Serbian dependence on the stronger neighboring states of Byzantium, Hungary, and Bulgaria.As a result of Hungarian influence, Uros I was succeeded in 1276 by his son Dragutin (r. 1276–1282), who had married a Hungarian princess. Dragutin abdicated the throne in 1282, passing control to his younger brother Milutin (Uros II) (r. 1282–1321). King Ladislaus IV of Hungary (r. 1272–1290) offered Milutin territory in northeastern Bosnia in order to maintain and strengthen the alliance between the two powers. Milutin proved to be a strong ruler and able diplomat, who continued his family tradition of building churches and promoting cultural growth, despite the fact that he was also engaged in multiple wars during his reign. Under his son, and successor, Stefan Decanski (r. 1321–1331), Serbia expanded its territory dramatically through the acquisition of Nis to the east and several sections of Macedonia to the south. Decanski continued his father’s architectural legacy with the construction of the Visoki Decani Monastery, one of the prime surviving monuments of medieval Serbian architecture. Serbia reached the height of cultural and political advancement in the fourteenth century under the rule of Stefan Dusan, who ruled first as king (r. 1331–1346) and then as tsar (r. 1346–1355). During his reign, the Dusanov Zakonic, a unique legal code granting judicial powers uncommon among feudal states, was devised and implemented. Serbian art

843

and architecture also flourished during Dusan’s reign, and territorial expansion led to a doubling of the size of the Serbian kingdom. Serbia, at this time, became the most powerful kingdom on the Balkan Peninsula. Upon his death in 1355, Dusan was succeeded by his son, Uros IV (r. 1355–1371), often called Uros the Weak. This name was apt, for Uros allowed the kingdom to become stagnant and dependent politically, socially, and economically. Ultimately, a state of anarchy developed, opening the door to aggression from the Ottoman Turks in Anatolia (present-day Turkey), who were hungry for territorial expansion. Succeeding rulers were unable to prevent Serbia’s further decline, and by 1459, the Ottoman Turks had completed their conquest of Serbia, and the kingdom became a part of the Ottoman Empire. Serbia remained fully under Turkish control for more than 350 years. In 1811, a Serbian patriot named Karadjordje led an uprising against the Turks. Though successful for a time, the rebellion faltered when the Turks returned to the Serbian city of Belgrade in 1813, forcing Karadjordje to flee to Austria. At the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish War (1828– 1829) Serbia became an autonomous principality of the Ottoman Empire. As an autonomous principality, Serbia was ruled by a series of princes who ruled as vassals of the Ottoman state. For a short period between 1842 and 1858, however, Serbia regained greater independence when Karadjordje’s son, Prince Aleksander (r. 1842–1858, returned and took control. However, Aleksander was eventually deposed by the Turks in 1858. In 1903, disturbed by political insurgencies, the Serbian parliament requested that Prince Peter Karadjordjevic, the son of Prince Aleksander, be allowed to assume the throne of Serbia as Peter I (r. 1903–1921). Peter I was committed to establishing autonomy for the kingdom of Serbia, and during the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), Serbia defeated Turkey and expanded its territory. Shortly before the Balkan War, in 1908, the Serbs and their neighbors, the Croatians, enraged by Austria’s annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, experienced an upsurge of nationalist sentiment that would have monumental consequences.This nationalism led to the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian, Gavrilo Princip, in 1914, which marked the beginning of World War I. After World War I, Serbia and other Balkan king-

844

Serbian Kingdom

doms combined as the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes under the rule of Peter I. However, threats from neighboring kingdoms, as well as internal disputes over religious, cultural, and political differences among the various nationalities, ultimately caused tensions within the kingdom. In 1919, Peter I imposed a dictatorship, hoping to keep his rule in place long enough to reestablish democracy in the newly renamed kingdom of Yugoslavia. He was unable to accomplish his goal, however, and after his death in 1921 the kingdom was ruled by a series of appointed regents. In 1945, at the end of World War II, the new communist leaders of Yugoslavia abolished the monarchy, ending centuries of royal rule in Serbia and the other Balkan kingdoms. See also: Austro-Hungarian Empire; Montenegro Kingdom; Ottoman Empire. FURTHER READING

Stavrinos, Leften Stavros. The Balkans Since 1453. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Temperly, Harold W. History of Serbia. New York: AMS Press,

SERVANTS AND AIDES, ROYAL Those who perform domestic, personal, or official duties for the ruler. Royal households need a wide variety of servants and aides to perform duties for monarchs and other members of the royal family and court. Their tasks range from preparing and serving meals, cleaning, or helping with the wardrobe to taking care of correspondence and advising the monarch on affairs of state. A social hierarchy within the royal household generally determined the duties and rank of servants. Individuals from the nobility might hold positions such as secretary, while working-class individuals may perform household cleaning and other menial tasks. Royal households can become quite large, with a multitude of servants assigned very specific duties. In the kitchens of King Charles VI of France (r. 1380– 1422), for example, specific servants were responsible for turning the spits on which meat was roasted, peeling vegetables and cleaning fish and poultry, keeping the fires going and water boiling, carving roasts and cooking poultry, and assisting the Strong Queux, or Head Cook (a hereditary position).

An elaborate title could add to a servant’s prestige.Among the many servants and aides in the court of Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) were four Gentleman Ushers, a Keeper of the Gardens, a Keeper of the Wardrobe, a Royal Barge Master, a Master of the Horse, and a Clerk of Her Majesty’s Green Cloth. In Great Britain today, the Lord Chamberlain directs the members of the queen’s household. Even though the specific duties in the royal household have evolved to meet modern needs, many of the servants and aides keep traditional titles, such as ladies-in-waiting. The Master of the Household, a position created in 1539 during the reign of Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547), oversees cleaning, upkeep of palace grounds, dining arrangements, and other domestic matters. Whereas the titles of royal servants in some royal courts may be lofty or complex, in other cases, the titles of aides are simple. For example, the Lovedu tribe of Africa is ruled by a queen who, according to tradition, does not marry.To insure a female heir, the royal council approves consorts for the queen. Chief among her servants are maidens, called wives, who manage the household. Although some servants and aides serve only the monarch, others perform duties for many members of the royal household. For instance, nursemaids, governesses, and tutors have often assumed the major responsibility for care of royal children. A wet-nurse was often employed to breastfeed infants. When Queen Victoria of England (r. 1837–1901) learned that her daughter Alice had breastfed one of her newborn children, the queen expressed her disapproval by naming a cow in the royal dairy “Princess Alice.” Children of monarchs often lived in separate apartments or wings of royal residences and would seldom see their parents, being cared for instead by a host of servants and aides. Travel for a ruler often meant that an entire retinue of servants would accompany the monarch on the trip. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (r. 1888– 1918) bought a retreat on an island in Greece so that his family could experience the simple life.Their life was not so simple, however, that a retinue of servants was not required.The Greeks were astounded by the size of the kaiser’s household, although the number of servants and aides he brought was far fewer than the approximately 3,500 that made up his court at home. Perhaps the most unusual, and sometimes powerful, servant in the employ of rulers in the past was

Seti I

845

the royal eunuch, found primarily in Middle Eastern and Asian cultures. Traditionally, eunuchs guarded the concubines in the king’s harem. It is said that some Chinese emperors had as many as 3,000 eunuchs in the royal household. Royal eunuchs sometimes had great status and power. Chinese parents would sometimes castrate their own sons, hoping that these boys could enter the royal household and achieve a position of power and status within it. Royal servants and aides have always been necessary in royal households and at the royal court. Without them, it would be almost impossible to keep the household and court functioning effectively, allowing sovereigns to attend to the important affairs of government. See also: Cooks, Royal; Courts and Court Officials, Royal; Education of Kings; Eunuchs, Royal; Grooms of the Stool; Harems.

SETI I (ca. 1333–1279 B.C.E.) Second king (r. ca. 1291–1279 b.c.e.) of Egypt’s Nineteenth dynasty (during the so-called New Kingdom period), who was renowned for his military triumphs and elaborate building projects. Seti I was the son and successor of Ramses I (r. 1293–1291 b.c.e.). Apparently inheriting his father’s military prowess, Seti I wasted no time leading his troops into battle. As soon as he became king, he led military campaigns into Sinai, Syria, and Palestine to reclaim territory from the Hittites and various nomadic tribes. Signing a peace treaty with the Hittites, Seti succeeded in strengthening Egyptian power to the east. As a result of his victories, Seti restored much of the territory and prestige that Egypt had lost during the Eighteenth dynasty. The military accomplishments of Seti I are depicted on the walls of the famous Temple of Karnak, an immense complex of temples built and expanded over a thirteen-year period that overlapped Seti’s reign. Seti added to Karnak the vast Hypostyle Hall, which, with its massive decorated columns, is regarded as one of the greatest architectural works in the world. Seti enlarged temples and built new ones throughout Egypt, especially in important religious centers such as Thebes, Abydos, and Karnak. Seti’s temple of Abydos has many magnificent basreliefs (sculpted designs raised slightly from a flat

Pharaoh Seti I of Egypt’s Nineteenth dynasty was renowned for his military victories and building projects.This painting from his tomb in the Valley of the Kings shows the goddess Hathor placing a magic collar on the pharaoh.According to Egyptian mythology, this made Seti the goddess’s mystical consort and connected him to her energy.

surface) that are considered among the finest examples of ancient Egyptian art. He also used this art form to adorn his tomb, which was the largest in the Valley of the Kings at Thebes.

846

Seti I

Seti I had four children, two boys and two girls; but his first son died unexpectedly at a very young age. Toward the end of Seti’s rule, he shared the throne with his second son, Ramses II (r. 1279–1212 b.c.e.), who went on to become perhaps the greatest pharaoh of Ancient Egypt. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Ramses II, the Great; Thebes Kingdom.

SHAH DYNASTY (1769 C.E.–Present) Nepalese dynasty from the Gurkha region that conquered the Kathmandu Valley in 1768 and unified Nepal under King Prithvi Narayan Shah (r. 1769– 1775). The Shah dynasty is perhaps best known for two spectacular massacres. In September 1846, during a period of palace intrigues, clan rivalries, and assassinations, Queen Lakshmidevi called for the military and administrative elite of Kathmandu to gather in the courtyard of the palace armory, or kot. In a turnabout that remains mysterious to this day, the troops of a military commander named Jang Bahadur attacked and decimated the assembled elite. Jang Bahadur proclaimed himself prime minister for life, taking the title Rana, and made the office hereditary. For good measure, he arranged marriages between his own children and the children of the royal family. For the next century the Ranas would rule autocratically and live lavishly, all the while assiduously courting British favor. The Ranas’ corrupt rule came to an end when British withdrawal from India deprived their unpopular regime of its prop. In 1951, under Indian protection, the Shah dynasty was restored by King Tribhuvan, who had become a rallying point for the anti-Rana forces. But the hopes raised by the restoration were not fulfilled under Tribhuvan or his son and successor King Mahendra (r. 1955–1974). Despite sporadic efforts at democratic reform, during the rule of King Birendra (r. 1974–2001) political factionalism frustrated real progress and popular discontent fed a Maoist insurgency, which established a base of strength in western Nepal. In June 2001, under circumstances that remain unexplained, virtually the entire royal family, including King Birendra, was gunned down in the palace— reportedly by Crown Prince Dipendra, who himself

died of a bullet to the temple. The only surviving members of the family were the Queen Mother, her younger son, the king’s brother Gyanendra, out of the country when the massacre occurred, and his son Paras. Gyanendra, considered much more of a hardliner than Birendra, succeeded to the throne. Summoning international support for Nepal’s war on terrorism, he escalated the battle against the insurgency, which by early 2005 controlled nearly all of the country outside Kathmandu.

SHAKA ZULU (d. 1828) Founder and paramount chief (r. 1816–1828) of the Zulu kingdom, who subjugated many states in southern Africa and made enemy peoples his vassals. Shaka was the illegitimate son of a Zulu chief, Senzangakona (r. 1781–1816), who controlled a clan in the area of modern Natal in South Africa. At the time of Shaka’s birth, the Zulu were a minor clan who lived within, and paid tribute to, the Nguni kingdom, then ruled by King Dingiswayo (r. ?–1816). Rejected by his father, and made to feel like an outsider because of his illegitimacy, Shaka left his clan when he was still quite young and went to the court of King Dingiswayo, to whom he offered his services. A natural warrior who had extraordinary strategic and tactical abilities, Shaka quickly distinguished himself in Dingiswayo’s army, helping to forge it into the most powerful military force in the region.This newfound military might was important because southern Africa at the time was in a state of extreme upheaval, as the Nguni and other Bantu peoples fought violently over ever-decreasing supplies of land for settlement and pasturage for their cattle herds. Shaka made use of his military regiments in an innovative way that rendered Nguni forces virtually unstoppable. He created a battle formation inspired by the horns of a bull, with two long extensions that could flank the enemy on either side, trapping them between, while a third rank marched forward to attack the enemy at the center. Coupled with this military tactic was Shaka’s own fierce appetite for violence. When he raided a village, the buildings were razed to the ground; the children, old men, and most of the women were slaughtered; and the survivors were forcibly impressed into Shaka’s troops. For as long as Dingiswayo lived, Shaka was con-

Shalmaneser III

847

SHALMANESER III (d. ca. 824 B.C.E.)

The son of Ashurnasirpal II (r. ca. 883–859 b.c.e.), Shalmaneser III succeeded to the Assyrian throne upon the death of his father in 859 b.c.e. Like his father, Shalmaneser pursued an expansionistic military policy. Unlike Ashurnasirpal II, however, Shalmaneser conducted military campaigns that only rarely were completely successful. Attempts by Shalmaneser III to overcome Syria around 853 b.c.e. resulted in only partial success. While he succeeded in subjugating northern Syria, repeated attempts to take the south and the city of Damascus all failed. Shalmaneser also failed to completely subjugate the kingdom of Urartu in the Caucasus region, although he returned from this area with much needed raw building materials. In 841 b.c.e., Shalmaneser marched his troops to the Mediterranean coast and managed to make King Jehu of Israel (r. 841–814 b.c.e.) his tributary. He also forced the Phoenician city-states of Sidon and Tyre to pay tribute to Assyria. By 832 b.c.e., Shalmaneser had invaded and conquered Cilicia in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and made that region a province of Assyria. One of the best-known artifacts from Shalmaneser’s reign, the Black Obelisk, details his policy of collecting tribute. Indeed, a number of Shalmaneser’s undertakings are represented not only in written records but also in Assyrian artworks, such as steles (stone pillars) and statues. Hammered bronze doors from the city of Imgur-Enlil depict many of Shalmaneser’s military campaigns. Shalmaneser’s reign was also notable for the construction of temples, canals, fortifications, and palaces. His palace at Kalah was of particular historical interest, for it was there that Shalmaneser erected the black marble obelisk detailing the accomplishments of his reign as well as an enormous ziggurat. The annals on the black obelisk at Kalah give some information regarding the events of 825 b.c.e., when several cities, including the ancient Assyrian capital of Nineveh, revolted against Shalmaneser under the leadership of one of his sons, Assur-danin-pal. With the help of another son, Shamshi-Adad, Shalmaneser III put down the revolt. Shalmaneser III died soon afterward, in 824 b.c.e., and was succeeded by his son, Shamshi-Adad V (r. 823–811 b.c.e.).

Assyrian monarch (ca. 858–824 b.c.e.) and builder who had only mixed success in his military campaigns.

See also: Assyrian Empire; Israel, Kingdoms of; Shalmaneser V; Urartu Kingdom.

tent to serve as commander of the Nguni army. However, when Dingiswayo died in 1816, Shaka had no intention of remaining a subordinate. He used the support of his deadly warriors to seize the whole of Dingiswayo’s realm, and by 1818 he had made good on his claim to rule, subduing all rivals and creating the Zulu kingdom. Shaka’s rise to kingship did little to change the focus of his life. Before becoming king he had been consumed by warfare, and he remained so afterward. As king of the Zulu, Shaka expanded his territories ever further, requiring conquered peoples to pay tribute, which enriched the kingdom and made the Zulu increasingly powerful. Shaka also pressed southward against the European settlers who were encroaching on the best lands in southern Africa. Under Shaka, the Zulu kingdom had no capital or formal administration. It was held together by the sheer terror that his military inspired in others. However, this did not stop the defection of several of his military commanders who, after making successful raids on his behalf, decided to keep the spoils of war and move elsewhere to establish their own kingdoms. One such commander, Mzilikazi (r. 1837–1868), left and founded the Ndebele kingdom. As his armies seemed to lose ground in the late 1820s, Shaka became increasingly unstable, and some of his people even thought he was going mad. Shaka died as he had lived, by violence. He was assassinated in 1828 by his half brothers, other sons of his father. One of these brothers, Dingane (r. 1828– 1840), claimed the kingship and become ruler of the Zulu kingdom that Shaka had created. See also: African Kingdoms; Mzilikazi; Ndebele Kingdom; Zulu Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Gump, James Oliver. The Formation of the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa: 1750–1840. San Francisco: E. Mellen Press, 1990. Oliver, Roland, and Anthony Atmore. Africa Since 1800. 5th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

848

Shalmaneser V

SHALMANESER V (d. 722 B.C.E.) Assyrian monarch (r. 726–722 b.c.e.) remembered chiefly for his siege of Palestinian Samaria in the 700s b.c.e. No Assyrian records from the reign of Shalmaneser V have survived because his successor, Sargon II (r. 721–705 b.c.e.), had them all destroyed after condemning Shalmaneser for blasphemous acts. Knowledge of his reign is thus largely dependent on outside sources, all of which pose some chronological confusion. The Bible gives an account of a campaign by Shalmaneser V against Samaria, to which he laid siege because of an Egyptian-backed revolt against Assyrian rule. After taking the city, the Assyrians deported the Israelites to foreign regions, a strategy commonly used to weaken the cohesiveness of a rebellious group. It is unclear whether this deportation was carried out by Shalmaneser or by his successor, Sargon II; the biblical source seems to conflate the two reigns, and ancient Assyrian texts suggest that it was, in fact, Sargon who transplanted the Israelite tribes. An account of Shalmaneser’s reign by the ancient historian Josephus reiterates the biblical version of the siege of Samaria and the deportation of the Israelites, and also seems to follow the Bible’s example in combining the reigns of Shalmaneser V and Sargon II under Shalmaneser’s name. Josephus refers to several campaigns as having been executed by Shalmaneser—including the successful subjugation of the Phoenician city-state of Tyre—that are clearly attributed to Sargon in ancient Assyrian texts. Although Shalmaneser V did not apparently participate in the siege against Samaria that resulted in the deportation of the Israelites, biblical texts may have ascribed some of Sargon II’s campaigns to him as well. Because Sargon II was so meticulous in erasing the records of Shalmaneser V after the latter’s death, we may never know definitively which actions belonged to which ruler. See also: Assyrian Empire; Sargon II.

SHAMSHI-ADAD I (d. 1776 B.C.E.) Early Assyrian monarch (r. 1808–1776 b.c.e.) who united several independent Assyrian city-states and

whose kingdom has been called the first Assyrian Empire. Shamshi-Adad’s father was king of the small citystate of Ekallatum. When King Naram-Sin (r. ca. 1830–1815 b.c.e.) of Eshnunna conquered Assyria around 1836 b.c.e., he also captured Ekallatum. Shamshi-Adad fled to Babylon, but he later returned to retake the city after Naram-Sin’s death. Around 1808 b.c.e., Shamshi-Adad invaded and conquered the city-state of Ashur, the ancient capital of Assyria. Shamshi-Adad continued to expand his kingdom by seizing land from Mari and Babylon and by taking control of important trade routes in Syria and Anatolia (present-day Turkey).At the height of his power, he controlled most of northern Mesopotamia. Although Shamshi-Adad united numerous city-states under Assyrian control, he allowed them to maintain local traditions and limited autonomy. Shamshi-Adad was a capable administrator who monitored all aspects of his kingdom. Like many ancient Mesopotamian kings, he engaged in an extensive building program, and his reign is especially known for the construction of canal and irrigation systems. He moved the Assyrian capital from Ashur to the city of Shubat-Enlil in the far northern part of Mesopotamia, leaving his sons to rule as viceroys of the city-states of Mari and Ekallatum on the Tigris River. Upon the death of Shamshi-Adad in 1776 b.c.e., his elder son, Ishme-Dagan (r. 1775-1736 b.c.e.), assumed the throne of Assyria. Shamshi-Adad’s successors, however, were not as capable rulers. The kingdom eventually collapsed, and the various citystates regained independence. See also: Assyrian Empire; Middle Eastern Dynasties.

SHAN KINGDOMS (1228–1555 C.E.) Kingdoms that dominated much of Myanmar (Burma) from the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries. The Shan were a Buddhist people who inhabited mainly the hilly plateau regions bordering China in the north, Laos in the east, and Thailand in the south. The Shan people began to expand from their homelands in the twelfth century, with the extension of their rule to the lowland regions of Myanmar.The Shan population in these areas continued to grow

S h a n g ( Yi n ) D y n a s t y with the influx of refugees fleeing the Mongol conquest of Nan Chao in 1253. By the thirteenth century, Shan power had grown substantially, and they set out to conquer Myanmar. After defeating the Mongols in the late thirteenth century and the Pagans in 1325, the Shan became kings of the states of Myinsaing, Pinya, and Sagaing. They also gained control of the Ahom kingdom in the region of Assam in India. The Burmans and other peoples of the lowland regions of Myanmar expelled the Shan from the Irrawaddy Delta in the fifteenth century, eventually retaking most of northern Myanmar. By 1555, the Shan, forced back to their homelands, had formed more than thirty small states ruled by hereditary chiefs, or sabwas. In 1766, the Shan repelled a Chinese invasion, but the attack left them exhausted and a declining power. By the nineteenth century, the sabwas had become tributaries to the Burman kings, to whom they paid tribute. Attacked by the Chinese again in 1873, the eastern Shan states were defeated in a gruesome campaign. The Shan had pleaded for military assistance from the Burman kings, but they were ignored, and the Chinese were able to hold onto their conquests in the region. The sabwas renounced their allegiance to the Burman state in the 1870s, creating chaos in northern Myanmar. The resulting confusion gave the British the opportunity they had been looking for to intervene in Burman affairs.The British annexed the Shan states in 1886 and left the Shan princes to rule under British supervision. The succession of the princes was also left to the approval of British colonial authorities. Not a part of the British colony of Burma, each Shan state maintained direct and independent treaty relations with the British. In 1922, the Shan principalities were united into the Federated Shan States within the British protectorate of Burma. A single Shan state was established by the Burman constitution of 1947, which promised Shan secession after ten years, if desired.Within months of Burma’s independence from Great Britain in January 1948, the new government declared the 1947 constitution null and attempted to impose direct rule of the Shan Federation. When the Shan states continued trying to secede under the terms of that constitution, the Burman government retaliated and stripped the princes of their weapons and privileges. The insult to their national dignity united the

849

Shans in a war against the Myanmar government in 1960. Although the autonomy of the Shan states has continued to be eroded by the government of Myanmar, the Shan people continue struggling to preserve their distinct ethnic heritage. See also: Burmese Kingdoms; Mon Kingdom; Pagan Kingdom; Pyu Kingdom; Southeast Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Harrison, Brian. South-East Asia: A Short History. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966. Minahan, James. Nations without States: A Historical Dictionary of Contemporary National Movements. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.

SHAN STATES. See Alaungpaya Dynasty SHANG (YIN) DYNASTY (ca. 1766–1122 B.C.E.)

The first Chinese dynasty from which artifacts and written documents have been recovered. The Shang dynasty was founded around 1766 b.c.e. when T’ang the Victorious (r. ca. 1766–1753 b.c.e.) of the Shang clan defeated the despotic ruler of the Hsia (Xia) dynasty, King Jie (r. ca. 1818–1766 b.c.e). At the time, the Hsia state consisted of numerous tribes. Instead of physically conquering these tribes, T’ang solicited their allegiance by convincing tribal leaders that the Hsia monarchs were tyrannical. After earning tribal support, Tang captured the Hsia capital near Zhengzhou, a major urban center, and exiled the last members of the Hsia dynasty. The Shang populace was originally nomadic. But after T’ang erected a capital at Xibo on the Luo River, he created an agricultural economy based mainly upon wheat, millet, and rice production. The Shang monarchs eventually relocated the capital in Zhengzhou, but around the fourteenth century b.c.e. they constructed a new capital called Anyang in Henan province. To solidify their power overly a widely dispersed populace, the Shang monarchs maintained a large standing army and frequently compelled peasants to complete public construction projects such as palaces, temples, and massive tombs.

850

S h a n g ( Yi n ) D y n a s t y

Shang (Yin) Dynasty T’ang

1766 B.C.E.– 1753 B.C.E.

T’ai Chia

1753–1720

Wu Ting

1720–1691

Ta Keng

1691–1666

Hsaio Chia

1666–1649

Yung Chi

1649–1637

T’ai Wu

1637–1562

Chung Ting

1562–1549

Wai Jen

1549–1534

Ho T’an Chia

1534–1525

Tsu I

1525–1506

Tsu Hsin

1506–1490

Wu Chia

1490–1465

Tsu Ting

1465–1433

Nan Keng

1433–1408

Yang Chia

1408–1401

P’an Keng

1401–1373

Hsiao Hsin

1373–1352

Hsiao I

1352–1324

Wu Ting

1324–1265

Tsu Keng

1265–1258

Tsu Chia

1258–1225

Lin Hsin

1225–1219

Keng Ting

1219–1198

Wu I

1198–1194

T’ai Ting

1194–1191

Ti I

1191–1154

Chou Hsin

1154–1122

After the capital of Anyang was completed, Shang society became more sedentary, and many historians believe this period marks the beginning of modern Chinese civilization. Shang scholars developed a written language and a precise calendar. Priests in the Shang society created a cohesive religion. The most revered religious figure was Di, a supreme deity who ultimately decided the outcome of crucial events such as battles. Other gods who controlled such natural elements as the rivers and mountains stood below Di. The ancestors of the Shang monarchs occupied the lowest supernatural tier. Royal priests used the bones of deceased oracles to invoke the spirits of previous monarchs.These spirits, unlike the living Shang monarch, had access to Di and could serve as intermediaries between Di and the current monarch. During the fourteenth century b.c.e., trade with Mesopotamia and other parts of southwestern Asia brought three crucial acquisitions to the Shang dynasty: wheat, goats, and knowledge of bronze metallurgy. The introduction of wheat and goats further transformed the Shang tribes into an agricultural society. Success in farming these two products also created a new, abundant wealth that helped to develop Shang society. The introduction of bronze greatly strengthened the Shang monarchy. Shang metallurgists crafted bronze chariots, daggers, axes, and spears. These objects made the Shang military even more formidable and elevated military leaders to a social position beneath only that of the royal family. Consequently, a new social order emerged in China. Prominent military leaders were granted large tracts of farmland as rewards for their military service. These leaders also were given peasants to work the farms. Although not technically enslaved, these peasants endured living conditions similar to those of peasants who had lived centuries earlier.The new landowners enjoyed an immense affluence. After paying the monarch a set tribute, they were allowed to keep the remainder of their profits, which were often spent on items such as jade statues, silk gowns, elaborately decorated pottery, and large bronze vessels for food and wine known as ding. The Shang dynasty crumbled in the eleventh century b.c.e. when the Chou (Zhou) tribe rebelled against the monarchy.The Chous were originally one of the nomadic tribes that had pledged fealty to the Shang dynasty. In return, the Shang monarchs had granted the Chous a large territory in the western portion of the empire and charged them with re-

Sheba, Queen of pelling any invaders. But two Chou kings, Wen and Wu, rejected this agreement and attacked the Shang capital at Anyang. Aided by a large number of Shang slaves and peasants, the Chou invaders successfully overthrew King Chou Hsin (Dixin) (r. ca. 1154– 1122 b.c.e.), the final Shang monarch, bringing an end to the Shang dynasty. To convince the other tribes to honor the new Chou dynasty, king Wen’s son proclaimed that Chou Hsin was an immoral king who had tortured his subjects and engaged in licentious behavior. These actions had egregiously defied the god Di. Therefore, overthrowing Chou Hsin was an example of divine retribution. This proclamation came to be known as the Mandate of Heaven and was subsequently used to justify the insurgency of each new dynasty.As Valerie Hansen claims in The Open Empire (2000), “Heaven would show that it had withdrawn support for the dynasty by sending natural disasters in the form of earthquakes, unusual celestial events, excessive rain, or drought, and/or man-made disasters.”

851

King Solomon of Israel because she had heard of his great wisdom and wanted to test it by asking him several riddles. Solomon answered each riddle, and the two monarchs bestowed lavish gifts on each other before she returned home. The Queen of Sheba is also mentioned in the New Testament, where Jesus refers to her as Queen of the South and praises her for seeking the wisdom of King Solomon. Her visit to Israel may also have been a trade mission to ensure her kingdom’s profitable commerce in frankincense and myrrh.

KORANIC AND RELATED VERSIONS The Koran contains another version of the story of the Queen of Sheba, also reflected in a number of later Arabic and Persian folk tales. In these sources, it is Solomon who goes to meet the queen, traveling south to her capital in Marib (Yemen). These tales call the queen “Bilqis” and portray her as a fair and caring ruler who worships the sun and the moon. Bilqis was the focus of several other versions of the

See also: Chou (Zhou) Dynasty; Hsia Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Chang, Kwang-chih. Shang Civilization. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1980. Hansen,Valerie. The Open Empire:A History of China to 1600. New York:W.W. Norton, 2000.

SHARQI DYNASTY. See Jaunpur Kingdom

SHEBA, QUEEN OF (ca. 900s B.C.E.) Legendary queen mentioned in the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Although the story of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon varies according to cultural tradition, in each tale she is beautiful, wealthy, and powerful.The exact location of the kingdom of Sheba is unknown, but it is probably an ancient name for a kingdom near present-day Yemen.

BIBLICAL VERSIONS The Christian and Jewish biblical account of the Queen of Sheba is found in the Old Testament. According to the biblical story, the queen met with

The visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon of ancient Israel has been celebrated in art and literature throughout the ages. In Renaissance Italy, the master sculptor Lorenzo Ghiberti depicted the meeting of the two monarchs on his bronze doors for the Baptistery of the Duomo in Florence.

852

Sheba, Queen of

legend as well. In one, Solomon hears that Bilqis and her subjects are sun worshippers and asks her to worship God instead. When she comes to his court, demons—who fear Solomon will be tempted to marry her—warn him that she has hairy legs and hooves.The tale does not make clear whether or not she marries Solomon, but she does become a believer in his God.

ETHIOPIAN VERSION Among various other versions, the most compelling is an Ethiopian story featuring a queen called Makeda. The queen learns about the wisdom and riches of King Solomon and is so impressed that she decides to go to Jerusalem to meet him. He welcomes her royally, and she stays for six months. The queen learns much from Solomon and even converts to his religion, Judaism. King Solomon falls in love with her, but she tells him she has to return home. However, she agrees to stay a little longer and becomes pregnant with his child. In some of the Ethiopian accounts, Solomon gives Makeda a banquet with particularly spicy food before she leaves, and then he invites her to stay overnight with him. She consents but first makes him promise that they will have separate beds and that he will not force himself on her. Solomon agrees, provided Makeda promises not to take anything in his palace.Their beds are on opposite sides of his chamber, and he places some water near her. Soon the seasoned food makes her unbearably thirsty, and she drinks some of the water. Solomon sees and stops her, saying that she has broken her promise by taking the water. She objects that water is too trivial and plentiful to count, but he argues that nothing is more precious than water since nothing can live without it. Makeda has to agree, so Solomon lets her drink and then takes her to bed. That night, Solomon dreams that a dazzling light, which he interprets as the divine presence, departs Israel and soars over Ethiopia. He tells Makeda of this dream before she leaves and says that her country might be blessed because of her. Soon after Makeda gets home, she gives birth to a son, whom she names Ebna Hakim (“son of the wise man”).When Ebna is twenty-two years old, Makeda sends him to visit his father, Solomon, who is delighted and wants him to stay and become his heir. Ebna is adamant about going back home, however, so Solomon sends the sons of his counselors with him because they can help convert Ebna’s people to Judaism. It is said that these young men stole the Ark

of the Covenant from Jerusalem and took it with them. Many people were indeed converted, establishing a community of Falasha (Black Jews) of Ethiopia, who still exist there in large numbers. According to this legend, the queen ruled until 955 b.c.e., after which Ebna Hakim succeeded to the throne as Menelik I, founding the first (Solomonic) of the great Ethiopian dynasties. See also: Sabaean Kingdom; Solomon. FURTHER READING

Madden, Annette. In Her Footsteps: 101 Remarkable Black Women from the Queen of Sheba to Queen Latifah. New York: Gramercy Books, 2001.

SHIH HUANG TI (SHIHUANGDI) (259–210 B.C.E.) Founder of the Ch’in (Qin) dynasty and ruler (r. 221–210 b.c.e.) of the first unified China, whose system of administration became the blueprint for all future Chinese dynasties. Shih Huang Ti (Shihuangdi) was born “Cheng the Upright” to King Chuang Hsiang (Zhuang Xiang) (r. 246 b.c.e.) in the western state of Ch’in (Qin). Although his real father may have been Lu Pu Wei (Lu Buwei), a wealthy merchant who bestowed his favorite concubine, Cheng’s mother, upon the king, Cheng was accepted as the Ch’in heir and demonstrated the same shrewdness and military skills that distinguished earlier Ch’in rulers. Cheng ascended to the throne of the Ch’in dynasty in 246 b.c.e. Under his rule, the Ch’in eliminated all rival feudal states by 221 b.c.e. King Cheng then declared himself Ch’in Shih Huang Ti, the “First August Emperor of the Ch’in.” As the title indicates, Shih Huang Ti envisioned a dynasty that would stretch far into China’s future. Together with his adviser, Li Ssu (Li Si), Shih Huang Ti implemented reforms that consolidated the former Warring States into a unified and centrally administered empire. He standardized weights, measures, currency, and the writing system; built roads, canals, and fortifications, and organized an effective bureaucracy to govern the empire. He expanded walled portions of Ch’in, which later became known as the Great Wall. His imposition of harsh laws and

Shilluk Kingdom his repression of all dissent allowed him to maintain absolute control, acts that condemned him in the eyes of some later historians. Over time, the superstitious side of Shih Huang Ti’s nature emerged. After three assassination attempts, he became obsessed with the pursuit of immortality. He searched for magical herbs and sent expeditions to find the mythical Isles of Penglai, where the immortals resided, so that he could learn their secret. When informed that these excursions had failed because of the interference of a large fish, he prowled the coastline himself until he spotted what he thought was the fish and killed it. Ironically, he died soon after this act. After Shih Huang Ti’s death in 210 b.c.e., Li Ssu secretly transported his body back to the capital of Xianyang; the smell of the decaying corpse on the six-week trip was disguised by the presence of several fish carts that surrounded the carriage. By not disclosing Shih Huang Ti’s death, Li Ssu was able to manipulate the succession to the throne. Despite his machinations, without the leadership of Shih Huang Ti, the Ch’in dynasty quickly toppled, coming to an end in 207 b.c.e. when Emperor Erh Shih was deposed by the Wei dynasty. Shih Huang Ti, the first emperor of imperial China, was buried in a magnificent tomb that he had been preparing since 247 b.c.e. He was guarded in death by a vast terra-cotta army, which archaeologists discovered in the mid-1900s. See also: Ch’in (Qin) Dynasty; East Asian Kingdoms.

SHILLUK KINGDOM (1500s C.E.–Present)

A tribal state on the west bank of the White Nile River in southern Sudan. Traditionally, the Shilluk have been primarily settled farmers and herdsmen. Most of their communities comprise a number of villages with a headman elected by a council consisting of members of the major families of the area. Historically, the Shilluk peoples have been unified under a reth, or divine king, selected from the sons of preceding kings. The hierarchical social structure of the kingdom consists of commoners, royal servants and slaves, and members of the royalty. The Shilluk

853

royalty can be traced back to their first king, the legendary Nyikang. According to legend, Nyikang was the son of the god Juok (believed to be creator of the world) and the mythical river creature Nyakaya. Nyikang’s birth had a specific purpose: to start a line of mortal kings. Although Nyikang is considered a divine king, all succeeding Shilluk kings are human and are regarded as his descendants. Initiation ceremonies for new Shilluk kings include a mock fight with Nyikang, after which his immortal spirit goes to inhabit them. Traditionally, the health and state of mind of Shilluk kings have been thought to predict good or bad luck for the kingdom. A healthy, brave, responsible, and capable king signified a flourishing kingdom, while an ailing, angry, weak, or depressed ruler was indicative of a suffering kingdom. If a king failed in his responsibilities to the kingdom, his wives had a duty to suffocate him so that Nyikang could come to dwell in a more dependable member of the royal family. Although the royal families were responsible for matters of state, the local headmen had a priestly function and watched over the day-to-day life of the Shilluk society.The men of the kingdom mainly took care of the animals, while the women worked in the fields and took care of domestic matters. Cattle were used as payment rather than food, and the size of herds was a measure of personal wealth. Before battles or rain-making rituals, the Shilluk sacrificed various animals to Juok and Nyikang, believing that Nyikang had created their nation and brought the rain to revitalize them after a long dry spell. In fact, Nyikang represented to the Shilluk the three major elements of their world: earth, sky, and water. The headmen of the tribes also prayed to ancestral spirits, believing that those spirits could bring harm or good. Shilluk life changed little over the centuries. For many years, the remoteness of the kingdom gave it some protection from invaders. However, during the period of European exploration and colonization, although the Shilluk suffered less than some of the other Nilotic tribes, it soon became clear that a new era had begun. As the world around them changed under European colonialism, the Shilluk became more of a tribe than a kingdom. FURTHER READING

Levy, Patricia. Sudan. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 1997.

854

S h o g u nat e

SHOGUNATE A regime in medieval and early modern Japan, in which the government was headed by a hereditary ruler known as the seii tai-shogun, or “barbariansubduing general.” Shogunal rule in Japan was military, and the shogun’s government was known as the bakufu, or “tent” government, after the tents that housed military commanders in the field. The position of shogun, like that of the Japanese emperor, was not necessarily held for life—many shoguns retired officially, while maintaining control over the government behind the scenes. (Retirement was one way of avoiding ritual duties that could take up much of a shogun’s time.) There was no fixed rule of succession, but like many military-based hereditary offices, the shogunate was held only by men (in contrast to the imperial office). Shoguns theoretically respected the position of the emperor at Kyoto, usually locating their own capitals elsewhere. In practice, however, strong shoguns controlled the imperial house, often determining the succession to the imperial throne. As shogunal dynasties continued, however, shoguns themselves often lost effective power. Lacking the divine aura possessed by the emperors, shoguns could also be challenged by leaders of rival noble dynasties. The shogunate emerged from the civil wars fought by houses of Japanese noble warriors in the twelfth century c.e. The first shogun was Yoritomo (r. 1192–1195) of the Minamoto family, who established the first shogunal capital at Kamakura.Yoritomo held power from 1185, but he did not receive the title of shogun from the emperor until 1192. Under Yoritomo, the shogun’s rule was essentially feudal, based on a network of personal loyalties. After Yoritomo’s death, much of the actual power of the shoguns passed into the hands of his widow, Masako, and her family, the Hojo. A succession of Hojos ruled as regents while the shogunal office was held by children or other puppets.The Hojos weathered several challenges, but their regime fell apart during the early fourteenth century in a series of civil wars launched by the emperor Go-Daigo (r. 1318–1339), who wanted to reassert imperial rule. The second major shogunal dynasty was the Ashikaga shogunate, founded by General Ashikaga Takauji (r. 1338–1358), who received the title of

In 1393, the Japanese shogun Yoshimitsu Ashikaga built the Kinkaku-ji, or Golden Pavilion, in the imperial capital of Kyoto as a symbol of his prestige and power. Originally intended as the shogun’s retirement villa, the Kinkaku-ji was converted into a temple after his death. After a fire in the 1950s, the temple was rebuilt according to the original design.

shogun from a puppet emperor in 1338. The Ashikaga established their headquarters in the imperial capital of Kyoto.The most successful of the Ashikaga shoguns was Yoshimitsu (r. 1369–1395), who abdicated in 1395. However, upon his death in 1408, the Ashikaga line lost its direct power, and much of the country fell into civil war. By the late sixteenth century, the title of shogun had fallen out of use. The most enduring shogunal dynasty was the last, the Tokugawa shogunate. It was founded by Tokugawa Ieyasu (r. 1603–1605) in 1603 after his victory over rival nobles at the battle of Sekigahara in 1600. Ieyasu retired after only two years as shogun, but he retained power until his death in 1616. The Tokugawa capital was Edo (present-day Tokyo), and the Tokugawa period of Japanese history is also referred to as the Edo period. Under the Tokugawa, the shogun directly controlled about one-quarter of Japan, including the major cities. The rest of the country was controlled indirectly, under the rule of local daimyo (nobles), some related to the Tokugawa family and some not. The Tokugawa family retained a measure of government control until the death of the last strong Tokugawa shogun, Yoshimune (r. 1716–1745) in

Shoguns 1751. Subsequent shoguns were, in effect, puppets of their ministers.The Tokugawa regime came under increasing foreign pressure in the early nineteenth century, and a growing movement of “imperial loyalism” attacked the shoguns as illegitimate usurpers of imperial power. Many of the leaders of the opposition to the shogunate came from daimyo families with a long tradition of independence from the Tokugawa. The last Tokugawa shogun,Yoshinobu (r. 1867–1868), abdicated under pressure from the daimyo in 1868, and the office of shogun was abolished. See also: Ashikaga Shogunate; Kamakura Shogunate; Minamoto Rulers; Tokugawa Shogunate; Yoritomo. FURTHER READING

Shinoda, Minoru. The Founding of the Kamakura Shogunate, 1180–1185. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Totman, Conrad D. Tokugawa Ieyasu, Shogun:A Biography. San Francisco: Heian, 1983.

SHOGUNS A reference to the title seii taishogun (“barbariansubduing generalissimo”), designating samurai warrior rulers of Japan appointed by the emperor to subdue imperial enemies, keep peace in the realm, and manage the affairs of the country. Shoguns were military dictators whose succession became hereditary by virtue of their control over and influence with the imperial court of the Japanese emperors.

ESTABLISHMENT OF SHOGUNAL RULE During the eighth and ninth centuries c.e., the term shogun appeared from time to time in Japan as a title awarded by the emperor, usually as a reward for leading a successful military expedition against disloyal factions or against “barbarians,” such as the Emishi tribes in northern Japan. The shoguns gained great power beginning in the eleventh century, and between then and 1868, three great shogunates, or governments ruled by shoguns, were the real power in Japan, while the emperors ruled merely in name. The first great shogunal government was the Kamakura shogunate (1192–1333), established by the warrior lord Minamoto noYoritomo (r. 1192–1195) in 1192 and named after the section of Kyoto where he

855

established his headquarters.The second was the Ashikaga shogunate (1338–1573), founded by Ashikaga Takauji (r. 1338–1358) in 1338.This was also known as the Muromachi period, since the shogunal headquarters was moved to the Muromachi section of Kyoto in 1378. The third great shogunal government was the Tokugawa shogunate, dating from the appointment of the warlord Tokugawa Ieyasu (r. 1603–1605) as shogun in 1603. Ieyasu moved the capital to Edo (present-dayTokyo), so the Tokugawa era is also known as the Edo period. This last great shogunate lasted until 1868, when the imperial powers of the Japanese emperors were restored under the Meiji rulers.

IN THE NAME OF THE EMPEROR Centralized power in Japan was always vested in the emperor, but until the end of the twelfth century, it was largely imperial councilors and regents who wielded power at court and who controlled the bureaucracy that collected taxes and administered law. At the same time, local lords who either administered or owned lands in the provinces represented an ever present counterforce, which sometimes threatened and sometimes supported the central government. Within this context, Japanese history is marked by nearly constant conflict between different aristocratic families for influence and power. The military leaders who became shoguns by exploiting these conflicts were dynamic, militarily competent, and politically shrewd leaders. They instituted sound government reforms, and if they did not end open conflict, they at least brought other military leaders temporarily under their control. Typically, however, after a generation or two, the shoguns who followed the founder of a shogunal dynasty became increasingly indolent, corrupt, or incompetent. At that point, a new line of hereditary regents and councilors would establish control over the hereditary shoguns, and they would rule in the name of the shoguns over a series of puppet emperors. This separation of title and power in Japanese history is referred to as “dyarchy,” for instead of overthrowing the emperor, the shoguns and their regents would legitimize their role though a complex chain of appointment that led back to the higher authority of the sovereign emperor of divine descent.

THE BAKUFU Under Yoritomo no Minamoto and thereafter, the shogunal government became known as the bakufu, a

856

Shoguns

word designating the field headquarters of a military commander and a description suggesting the idea of a temporary government called upon in times of stress and danger. While consistent with Zen Buddhist ideas of simplicity and discipline, the bakufu centers were more often seated in luxurious castles and surrounded with great wealth and culture. The Kamakura bakufu marked the rise to power of the samurai warrior class. Yoritomo rewarded his supporters with estates and offices and established the personalized lord-vassal relationship that characterized Japanese government for almost seven hundred years. His administrative reforms relied on personal loyalty and were developed to control conflicts between the military lords and the court aristocrats, as well as to contain overzealous policies of the powerful temples and shrines. The fiefs granted by Yoritomo were located strategically around the country and became the basis of the growing power of the daimyo, the local feudal landlords. Following the Kamakura period, the 250year span under the Ashikaga shoguns (from 1338 to 1573) was a period of constant civil war at all levels of government, further accelerating a process of decentralization and fragmented administrative control. The daimyo were finally brought under control during the last quarter of the sixteenth century through the military victories of Japan’s three most famous warlords—Oda Nobunaga (1534–1582), Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536–1598), and Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543– 1616), the only one to claim the title of shogun. The Tokugawa shoguns and their regents held the warrior classes in check for more than two hundred fifty years with a rigidly enforced status quo. The daimyo owed fealty, or loyalty, to the shogun and were required to administer government and taxation according to rigid shogunal guidelines for every level from province to village. Punishment for infractions was severe. Daimyos risked losing their domains if they displeased the shogun, who forced their families to live in Edo, the Tokugawa capital, and who managed their lives down to what they could wear and whom they could marry. See also:Ashikaga Shogunate; Buddhism and Kingship; Kamakura Shogunate; Minamoto Rulers; Oda Nobunaga; Shogunate; Tokugawa Ieyasu; Tokugawa Shogunate; Toyotomi Hydeyoshi; Yoritomo.

SHULGI (ca. 2000s B.C.E.) Most important ruler of the Third dynasty of Ur, an ancient city-state in the region of Sumeria in Mesopotamia. Shulgi (r. ca. 2094–2047 b.c.e.) was a skilled soldier, diplomat, administrator, and writer. Shulgi inherited the throne from his father, UrNammu (r. 2112–2095), the founder of the Third dynasty of Ur. The first twenty-one years of Shulgi’s forty-eight-year reign seemed to have been largely uneventful. In 2073 b.c.e., however, Shulgi began to reorganize his empire. First, he divided the kingdom into provinces and placed each province under the control of an appointed military commander. He also issued an order to organize state recordkeeping, resulting in numerous clear and precise records of Shulgi’s reign. Shulgi was not only a proponent of careful recordkeeping, he was also a skilled poet as well as a self-described linguist, musician, and wise arbitrator concerned with providing justice to his people. A strong proponent of education, he built new schools throughout Ur during his reign. He also instituted a uniform system of weights and measures, along with a bureau of standards to oversee their use, which remained standard until the fall of Babylon thousands of years later. Shulgi also restructured the Sumerian calendar and worked to preserve ancient texts from earlier periods of Sumerian history. Shulgi was a successful military leader as well. After building a large standing army, he conquered the province of Karakhar (in present-day Turkey and Iraq) in 2070 b.c.e. He proved victorious in later campaigns as well, especially against the hill-tribes of the north and east. During his reign, Ur became the dominant power in Mesopotamia. Shulgi died in 2047 b.c.e. and was succeeded by his sons, Amar Suena (r. 2046–2038 b.c.e.) and Shu Suen (r. 2037–2029 b.c.e.). But neither Shulgi’s tomb at Ur nor his dynasty survived long afterward. The same northern and eastern hill-tribes whom Shulgi had fought successfully during his reign swept down, captured Ur, and sacked it around 2004 b.c.e. Ur was never again to rise as a major power in the ancient Near East. See also: Ur-Nammu.

Siam, Kingdoms of

SHUPPILULIUMA I (flourished 1300s B.C.E.)

Hittite ruler (r. ca. 1344–1323 b.c.e.) and conqueror who forged an empire centered in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) that rivaled the empires of Egypt and Assyria. The son of the Hittite king Tudkhaliya III (r. ca. 1355–1344 b.c.e.), Shuppiluliuma served as a general in his father’s army, gaining several victories that earned him a reputation as a capable leader. He succeeded to the throne upon the death of his father. Shuppiluliuma began his reign by consolidating Hittite lands and strengthening the defenses of the Hittite capital of Hattusas. He then turned his attention to the borders of his empire.To the east lay the kingdom of Mitanni—a powerful ally of Egypt and the principal enemy of his predecessors. Shuppiluliuma successfully attacked and sacked the Mitanni capital of Wassukkani. When Egypt did not come to its ally’s aid, Shuppiluliuma’s army pushed further southward and conquered much of the Levant—in what is now present-day Syria and Lebanon. After these conquests, Shuppiluliuma returned to his capital at Hattusas to perform his religious duties, leaving his son Telipinus to defend Syria. During Shuppiluliuma’s absence, however, Telipinus was unable to prevent a new king, Artatama, from gaining control of a battered Mittani and forging a new alliance against the Hittites with the newly arisen Assyrian state. Shuppiluliuma traveled back to Syria, retook the territory that had been lost, and installed the son of Artatama’s predecessor on the Mittani throne. He was thus able to maintain Mittani as a buffer state between Assyria and the Hittite Empire, which was also known as Hatti. The annals of Shuppiluliuma, told by his son Mursili II (r. ca. 1321–1297 b.c.e.), give some insight into Shuppiluliuma’s growing influence in this period. While besieging the Mittani city of Karkamish (Carchemish), Shuppiluliuma had received a personal letter from the queen of Egypt, whom most scholars believe was Ankhesanemun, the widow of Tutankhamen (r. 1334–1325 b.c.e.), requesting one of Shuppiluliuma’s sons as a husband. Distrustful of

857

the offer, Shuppiluliuma sent a messenger to determine her sincerity. Reassured by a second personal letter from the queen, he complied with the request and sent his son Zannanza to Egypt. On the way to Egypt, Zannanza was assassinated. An angry Shuppiluliuma wrote to the Egyptian queen demanding an explanation and discovered that Egypt had a new pharaoh, Ay (r. ca. 1325–1321 b.c.e.). Hatti and Egypt returned to a state of war, but Shuppiluliuma did not live to see its conclusion. He died of a plague brought by Egyptian prisoners of war, sometime around 1323 b.c.e. Shuppiluliuma was succeeded by his son Arnuwanda II (r. 1322), who died soon after taking the throne, probably of the same plague that had killed his father.The Hittite throne then passed to Arnuwanda’s young and inexperienced brother, Mursili II. See also: Hittite Empire.

SIAM, KINGDOMS OF (1200s C.E.–Present)

Series of kingdoms located in the Southeast Asian region of Siam, renamed Thailand in 1939.The monarchy has been at the core of Siam’s history, from the first kingdom in Siam in the 1200s to the present day. The Thai people today continue to revere their kings, and they celebrate the fact that their national identity has remained intact for centuries, despite the many colonial efforts of other countries.

EARLY INFLUENCES Between 600 and 900, the Mon people of Burma moved east into Siam and formed new kingdoms there, building cities and quickly developing a civilized culture. Over the next few centuries, the Mon were confonted by other groups from the north, and as the region filled with people, local kingdoms emerged and vied for supremacy. Siam’s earliest kingdoms were the Davaravati kingdom, located in the central region of the country, and the Srivijaya Empire, whose realm stretched from the island of Sumatra and along the Malay Peninsula to the south. Over the course of 400 years, the power of these empires was gradually usurped by relatives of the Mon, the Khmer of Cambodia, whose

858

Siam, Kingdoms of Ayutthaya Kingdom (1350–1767)

Siam modernized rapidly during the reign of King Chulalongkorn from 1868 to 1910.This picture, from The Illustrated London News of June 17, 1882, shows the king, also known as Rama V, and his wife, Queen Saowabha.

Khmer kingdom covered Siam. While no longer the rulers of their land, the Mon retained influence through religion, introducing the Khmer and Thais to Buddhism.

Kingdom of Sukhothai (1238–1438) In 1238, Thai military leaders overthrew their Khmer rulers and established the first united Thai state, the independent kingdom of Sukhothai. During the Sukhothai period, called the “dawn of happiness,” Siam became known as a land of abundance with fatherly, compassionate rulers, including King Ramkhamhaeng the Great (r. 1279–1317), who is credited with creating the Thai alphabet. At its peak, the Sukhothai kingdom had 80,000 inhabitants and covered more land than modern-day Thailand. By 1350, however, a new state, the kingdom of Ayutthaya, began to emerge as a new power in the region. In the fourteenth century c.e., Sukhothai was conquered and incorporated into the Ayutthaya kingdom, and by 1438, Sukhothai ceased to exist.

Founded in 1350, the kingdom of Ayutthaya claimed sovereignty over all of Siam and parts of neighboring Burma, Cambodia, and Laos. This kingdom, which lasted for more than four hundred years, would have a lasting influence on all future kingdoms of Siam. The king of Ayutthaya both represented and sought the harmony of earthly and cosmic forces. He was sometimes referred to as a future Buddha or god-king. Symbolism was evident in the construction of great palaces, which had three concentric moats representing the three seas surrounding Mount Meru, the throne of the Hindu god Indra. On special occasions, the king had above him nine tiers of umbrellas as a “crown,” a symbol still found in Thailand’s royal regalia.The king’s princes and officials also were given symbols denoting their rank. Under Ayutthaya, the Thai culture flourished, especially in architecture, art, and literature. Europeans began to explore the Ayutthaya kingdom in the 1500s, beginning with the Portuguese and followed by the Dutch and the British, who declared the city of Ayutthaya as “big and impressive as London.” For most of the 1600s, Thais and Europeans traded goods freely. Late in the 1600s, however, Thai leaders became suspicious of European colonial ambitions, and they abruptly ended all trade, an embargo that lasted until the late 1800s.

Thonburi Era (1767–1782) In 1767, a Burmese army conquered and burned the city of Ayutthaya, killing many of its inhabitants. The Burmese, however, did not control Siam for long.That same year, a young Thai general named P’ya Taksin (r. 1767–1782) rallied his troops and drove out the Burmese, establishing a new Thai kingdom with a new capital at Thonburi, near the site of modern Bangkok. Thonburi’s location near the sea was strategic, providing for ease of trade and the import of arms, as well as a speedy withdrawal in the event of future Burmese attacks. A new capital was not enough to unite the people of Siam, however, and Taksin spent most of his brief fifteen-year reign trying to resolve political discord among the citizens.

CHAKRI DYNASTY (1782–Present) After King Taksin died in 1782, Rama I (r. 1782– 1809) became the first king of the Chakri dynasty. His descendants have reigned in an unbroken succession to the present day.

S i b l i n g s, Roya l Rama I transferred the capital of the Thai kingdom to Bangkok and began construction of a Grand Palace, which was finished by his successor, Rama II (r. 1809–1824). Rama III (r. 1824–1851) reopened the kingdom’s relationship with European countries and developed new trade opportunities with China. King Mongkut Rama IV (r. 1851–1868) was responsible for establishing the boundaries of modern Thailand. (He was also the subject of The King and I, a musical based on the memoirs of a British governess whom he employed to educate some of his eighty-two children.) During a period of commerce and expansion, Siam never lost its identity or its core land to Europeans eager to extend their empires. Its economy, however, became dependent on people from other countries, primarily the British, who purchased great quantities of rice. Mongkut’s son and successor, King Chulalongkorn, Rama V (r. 1868–1910), modernized Siam rapidly, abolishing slavery and establishing schools, rail lines, and roads. Under King Vajiravudh, Rama VI (r. 1910–1925), education became mandatory for all Thai children. During the reign of King Prajadhipok, Rama VII (r. 1925–1935), a group of civil servants and army officers staged a bloodless coup, overthrowing the current ruler and bringing an end to the era of absolute monarchy. In its place, a constitutional monarchy was established.

DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY Beginning with the rule of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Rama IX (r. 1946–present), Thai kings have been elected by a majority vote of the citizens of the country. In 1939, Siam was renamed Thailand, and, not long after, the Thai army overthrew the monarchy and ruled for the next few decades. However, student demonstrations in the 1970s brought military rule to an end and the monarchy was restored. King Rama IX is the longest reigning monarch in Thai history. See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Chakri Dynasty; Chulalongkorn; Khmer Empire; Mon Kingdom; Mongkut (Rama IV); Sukhothai Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Library of Nations: South-east Asia. Amsterdam: TimeLife Books, 1987. Williams, Lea E. Southeast Asia: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

859

SIBLINGS, ROYAL Members of a royal house including brothers, sisters, brothers-in-laws, and sisters-in-laws. Royal siblings have played several roles in royal courts, ranging from close advisers to bitter enemies. Rules of succession by primogeniture, or hereditary succession of the first-born son, often resulted in disputes within royal families over the order in which heirs would have rights to the throne. In several instances throughout history, one sibling has murdered another in an effort to guarantee a claim to the throne. Caracalla and Geta, sons of the Roman emperor Septimius Severus (r. 193–211 c.e.), were rivals for the throne throughout their lives. Their intense rivalry began when the older boy, Caracalla, was raised to be the heir, while Geta was often neglected. The rivalry between the two brothers was so bitter that on his deathbed, the emperor begged them to cooperate and reach some kind of agreement. The two came up with a plan to divide Rome so that each could rule half the empire. But less than a year after his father’s death in 211, Caracalla, dissatisfied with this plan, murdered Geta in front of their mother. Caracalla (r. 211–217) ruled all of Rome for a short time but was very unpopular, being perceived as a ruthless and vicious murderer. An even more extreme case of sibling rivalry is that of Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire (r. 1444–1446, 1451–1481) who implemented a “law of fratricide,” which allowed a new sultan to execute all of his siblings in order to prevent disputes over the throne. Upon ascending the throne, Mehmed II had his young brother murdered to ensure that his place as sultan was secure. One of his successors, Mehmed III (r. 1595–1603), utilized the law, killing off nineteen brothers and twenty sisters to avoid threats to his rule.While intended to make the rules of succession secure, the law of fratricide actually incited dynastic revolt since rebellion was the only alternative to being executed. In the Tudor dynasty of England, Lady Mary, daughter of King Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) and his first wife Catherine of Aragón, was responsible for raising her younger half-sister Lady Elizabeth. After her father remarried and declared Mary illegitimate, she became intensely jealous of her younger sister. Having previously been the heir to the throne, Mary

860

S i b l i n g s, Roya l

resented the fact that she was now required to serve Elizabeth as a lady in waiting.The rivalry between the two continued for years. After the early death of their young brother, King Edward VI (r. 1537–1553) in 1553, Mary seized the throne with the help of her supporters and ruled as Mary I (r. 1553–1558). Soon afterward, she had Elizabeth imprisoned in the Tower, believing that her younger sister had conspired in a rebellion against her. Not all royal sibling relationships were characterized by intense rivalry. Loyal siblings were often appointed to powerful posts within the Church or military or were sent to rule over regional territories. In the Angkor kingdom of Southeast Asia, for example, members of the royal family were ranked in order of their genealogical proximity to the monarch, and then they were appointed to different royal offices according to rank. The king’s brothers ruled various territories that fell under the control of the empire. Queens were ranked below princes and appointed to lesser positions that corresponded to their rank. In royal families that followed strict rules of male primogeniture, female siblings generally served a different role from the males. Since women were less frequently considered as eligible for succession, competition for the throne was less of a problem for female siblings. Older female siblings were frequently responsible for raising their younger siblings. The female siblings of their male counterparts often were married to other royal families for strategic political gain. Hieroglyphic records of ancient Maya civilization, for example, show that highranking women were married off to foreign nobility as a way to cement ties between major Mayan centers and their vassal cities. In the 1200s and 1300s, the Mongol rulers of China were able to use this strategy to control the kingdom of Koryo (in present-day Korea). Princesses of the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty were sent to Koryo to marry their kings. The sons of these marriages had rights of succession to the Koryo throne but also had loyalty to the Mongols, thus making Koryo an appendage of the Yuan dynasty. In ancient Egypt, marriage between brothers and sisters was considered acceptable within the royal family.This practice was carried out as a way of guaranteeing that succession of the throne stayed within the family; it was also believed to have strengthened the king’s right to the throne.This practice may have

also been carried out in order to keep property within the royal family, as this type of marriage would not include a dowry. Ancient records indicate that the pharaoh Tutankhamen (r. 1334–1325 b.c.e.) married his sister Ankhesenamun when he was just nine years old. The ancient Yamato state of Japan (ca. 40 b.c.e.–710 c.e.) collected taxes from regions it had conquered in the form of tributary siblings.The siblings of local leadership would be sent as servants to Yamato rulers, with the dual effect of garnering regional loyalty for the Yamato state as well as providing necessary labor to the court. See also: Blood, Royal; Competition, Fraternal; Descent, Royal; Dynasty; Genealogy, Royal; Incest, Royal; Inheritance, Royal; Legitimacy; Marriage of Kings; Primogeniture; Royal Families; Royal Line; Royal Pretenders; Sisters, Royal; Succession, Royal. FURTHER READING

Davidoff, Leonore. Worlds Between: Historical Perspectives on Gender and Class. New York: Routledge, 1995.

SICILY, KINGDOM OF (1139–1861 C.E.)

Former monarchical state established on the island of Sicily, in the Mediterranean Sea off the southern coast of the Italian Peninsula. Occupied for centuries by the Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, and Byzantines, Sicily did not emerge as a proper kingdom until the twelfth century. From that point forward, it was near the center of some of the major political struggles in the history of southern Europe.

ORIGINS The history of the kingdom of Sicily is closely connected with that of the nearby Naples kingdom, as the two frequently shared the same rulers.The kingdoms came into existence in the twelfth century, under the rule of Roger II (r. 1105–1154), the nephew of Norman nobleman Robert Guiscard. Roger’s uncle had helped drive the Byzantines out of Sicily and southern Italy in the eleventh century, and in 1139 Pope Innocent II granted him the lands

Sigismund that he captured. Although the reign of Roger II was a prosperous one, Norman rule over Italy and Sicily was lost eventually to the Hohenstaufen dynasty in 1194, under the powerful Holy Roman emperor, Henry VI (r. 1190–1197). The history of the kingdoms of Sicily and Naples began to diverge at the end of the Hohenstaufen reign in the mid-thirteenth century. In 1266, Pope Clement IV named Charles of Anjou head of the two kingdoms, largely in reaction to the Hohenstaufens’ refusal to grant papal supremacy throughout the Italian Peninsula. The reign of Charles of Anjou, who ruled as Charles I (r. 1266–1285), brought the Angevin dynasty to power in Naples and Sicily. Charles was thoroughly despised in Sicily, and resistance against his rule began to build. The situation on the island worsened until 1282, when Sicilian pro-independence leaders, supported by forces from the Byzantine Empire and the kingdom of Aragón in Iberia, staged an uprising known as the Sicilian Vespers Revolution.

A CENTURY OF STRUGGLE This led to nearly a century of intermittent warfare. The Sicilians named Peter I of Aragón their new king (r. 1282–1285), thus putting Aragonese forces on the island of Sicily in direct competition with the French Angevin rulers on the Italian Peninsula at Naples.The conflict was not resolved until 1373, when Joanna of Naples gave up her claims to Sicily, leaving the Aragón rulers firmly in control of the island. Aragónese rule in Sicily was decidedly different from the later Spanish domination over the kingdom of Naples, which was brutal and oppressive and granted little power to the people of Naples. Under Aragón supervision, Sicilian political bodies, especially the parliaments, were granted much autonomy, and the Sicilian people had, for a time, more sovereignty than almost any other group in Europe. Although the later years of Spanish rule saw rising political and economic tensions, these tensions never played themselves out fully in Sicily, overshadowed as they were by the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) and the War of the Polish Succession (1733–1735).These conflicts caused Sicily to change hands repeatedly, ultimately returning to an altered form of Spanish rule in the presence of the Spanish Bourbon king, Charles III (r. 1734–1759). Charles’s rule was progressive and enlightened, and he was widely respected by the people of Sicily.

861

FINAL YEARS The marriage of Charles’s son and successor, Ferdinand IV (r. 1759–1816), to Marie Caroline, the daughter of Maria Theresa of Austria and sister of Marie Antoinette of France, set the stage for more conflict in Sicily. Marie Caroline helped guide the Bourbon monarchy in Naples and Sicily into war with the French Republican government in the wake of the French Revolution of 1789. The ensuing battles between France and Spain ultimately led to Ferdinand’s declaration of rule over a unified Naples and Sicily, known as the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, in 1816. Ferdinand, henceforth known as Ferdinand I, was a brutal ruler and was widely despised by the Sicilian people, as were his successors. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies lasted until 1860, when it was conquered by Victor Emmanuel II of Italy (r. 1849–1878) and Giuseppe Garibaldi, who led the movement for Italian unification known as the Risorgimento. Although Sicily officially became part of Italy, it has maintained an uneasy relationship with the Italian mainland government ever since. See also: Angevin Dynasties; Aragón, House of; Aragón, Kingdom of; Charles III; Ferdinand I; Ferdinand II; Maria Theresa; Marie Antoinette; Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Sicily, Kingdom of; Victor Emmanuel II. FURTHER READING

Smith, Denis Mack. A History of Sicily. New York: Dorset, 1988.

SIGISMUND (1368–1437 C.E.) Margrave of Brandenburg (r. 1378–1415); king of Bohemia (r. 1419–1437), Germany (r. 1410–1437), and Hungary (r. 1387–1437); the last German-born Holy Roman emperor (r. 1433–1437); and the last emperor of the Luxembourg dynasty. The second son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (r. 1347–1378), Sigismund married Princess Marie of Hungary and Poland, a member of one branch of the Anjou dynasty. Marie became queen of Hungary (r. 1382–1385) upon the death of her father, Louis I (r. 1342–1382), in 1382, but she was deposed three years later because of dynastic conflicts with a branch of the Anjou line in Naples.

862

Sigismund

Charles III of Naples (r. 1381–1386) took the Hungarian throne as Charles II (r. 1385–1386) but ruled only briefly until his murder in 1386. Marie was then restored (r. 1386–1395), and her husband Sigismund was crowned king of Hungary in 1387. Sigismund consolidated his control over the country with the help of his brother, the emperor Wenceslas (r. 1378–1400). In 1395, Sigismund led a European crusade against the Ottoman Turks, who were advancing into Hungary from the south. But Ottoman sultan Beyazid I (r. 1389–1402) defeated the Europeans soundly at the battle of Nikopol in 1396. Meanwhile, Sigismund’s absence from Hungary, together with the death of Queen Marie in 1395, weakened his hold on that country, and Sigismund was forced to put down a revolt there in 1403. After the death of German king Rupert of the Palatinate (r. 1400–1410) in 1410, both Sigismund and his cousin, Jobst of Moravia, claimed victory in the imperial elections, as did the previously deposed Wenceslas, Sigismund’s brother. However, Jobst died, Wenceslas withdrew, and Sigismund became German king and Holy Roman emperor-elect. Upon taking the imperial throne, Sigismund persuaded the anti-pope, John XXIII (r. 1410–1415), to summon a Church council at Constance.The schism between the various contenders for the papacy ended in 1417, after two years of discussions, but not until the council had condemned the Czech religious reformer, John Hus, and burned him at the stake. Sigismund, who had guaranteed Hus safe conduct to the council, signed the death warrant, earning him the lasting hatred of the Czechs. Sigismund became king of Bohemia upon the death of his brother Wenceslas in 1419, but rebellious Bohemians opposed his accession to the throne. He convinced Pope Martin V (r. 1417–1431) to proclaim a crusade against the followers of Hus, but the Hussites defeated Sigismund and forced him to withdraw from the region. In 1421, a Czech assembly declared Sigismund deposed. Meanwhile, renewed attacks by Ottoman Turks occupied Sigismund in Hungary, while the Hussites began a series of successful incursions into Germany. Eventually, the Hussite rebellions ended with a religious agreement at the Council of Basel (1431– 1449) and led to Sigismund’s acceptance as king of the Bohemians in 1437. Shortly after gaining recognition as king of Bo-

hemia, Sigismund died. The last Holy Roman emperor of the Luxembourg dynasty, he arranged to be succeeded by his son-in-law, Albert of Austria, a member of the Habsburg dynasty, whose reign as King Albert II (r. 1438–1439) began a long period of Habsburg rule for the Holy Roman Empire. See also: Charles IV; Holy Roman Empire; Luxembourg Dynasty;Wenceslas IV. FURTHER READING

Heer, Friedrich. The Holy Roman Empire. New York: Praeger, 1968.

SIHANOUK. See Norodom Sihanouk SIKKIM KINGDOM (700s–1975 C.E.) Asian kingdom known for its spiritual and religious contributions to the world’s intellectual history. Sequestered by the Himalayan mountain ranges in the northern regions of India, Sikkim is often depicted in literary texts as a symbolical heaven, a “Shangri-la.” In addition to its idealization, its small size has been influential in determining its political history. Not much is known about Sikkim until the arrival of the Lepcha people in 700, migrants from upper Myanmar (Burma). The name Lepcha means the “ravine folk,” or Rong. The two other predominant ethnic groups in Sikkim are the Bhutias (from Tibet) and the Nepalese (from Nepal). Nestled between Bhutan and Nepal, Sikkim has always been exposed to invasions between these warring nations. The Bhutias first introduced Mahayana Buddhism to the Lepchas, who gradually converted from their original Shamanist beliefs, which included witchcraft and the worship of natural elements and seasons.The Lepchas were migrant farmers who lived in loosely bound, self-sufficient agrarian communities. The practice of distributing land for a farmer’s personal profit was lost by the seventeenth century, when the undisputed rule of monarchy was simultaneously established. Sikkim was ruled by monarchs for three centuries. The royal family of Sikkim has no political power, however.Traditionally, a king was not merely a political figure, but a great philosopher who had

Silla Kingdom succeeded to the highest spiritual realm of Buddhist teachings. The aura of spirituality attached to kingship was a result of the control that the Lamas, or Buddhist priests, had over Sikkim’s political and religious infrastructure. In the 1600s, the Lamas chose the first king, or Chogyal, of Sikkim. By that time, priests had been elevated to positions of political power, and they orchestrated the succession of kings and defined the rules of kingship. The most influential Lamas, the Red Lamas, had the responsibility of finding and anointing the ruler of Sikkim. According to custom, the Red Lamas followed the ambiguous clues of a current ruler’s dreams or visions, and then wandered in search of his reincarnation. In 1642, the search for a new ruler resulted in Sikkim’s first official king, a Tibetan named Phuntshog Namgyal (r. 1642–1670) (later known as Denjong Gyalpo). The Lamas made their choice on the basis of not only divinely inspired premonitions, but also of Namgyal’s royal lineage. Since the inception of the kingship in 1642, it can be said that the presence of a kingly figurehead synthesized the spiritual and political powers of Sikkim. The first Chogyal was a descendant of the legendary Tibetan prince, Khye-bum-sar.The political marriage of Sikkim and Tibet was sealed in 1268, when Khye-bum-sar adopted Sikkim as his home after a pilgrimage. He won the trust of the chief of the Lepchas,Thekongtek, who named Khye-bum-sar’s son as his successor. Khye-bum-sar’s substantial influence on Sikkim’s future signaled a change in the role of the ruler of the state. The combination of Khye-bumsar’s rise to power and his noble birth foreshadowed the beginning of sovereign rule in Sikkim, which began officially with Phuntshog Namgyal. Indeed, since the seventeenth century, every ruler of Sikkim has been a direct descendant of the legendary prince Khye-bum-sar. During the eighteenth century, Sikkim was under constant threat of invasion by the Bhutanese in the east and the Gurkhas from Nepal in the west. In 1700, the bitter fight for the throne between Phuntshog Namgyal’s grandchildren, Chador Namgyal (b. 1686), and his sister, Pende Ongmu, drove the princess to form an alliance with the Bhutanese against her brother. Ironically, both brother and sister were brutally assassinated in the same year, 1717, by loyal factions from opposing sides. This family feud initiated tremendous

863

territorial losses for Sikkim. Not until the British came to its aid in 1815 was Sikkim able to stave off invasions from Bhutan and Nepal. Foreign powers continued to infiltrate and agitate Sikkim’s stability in the mid-1800s. Great Britain offered to help, but its offer actually implemented British control over Sikkim’s borders with India and a trading route to Tibet. Eventually, in 1861, Sikkim became a protected territory of the British Empire. When Sir Tashi Namgyal (r. 1914–1963) became Sikkim’s Chogyal in 1914, he inherited a kingdom without national unity. Hoping to modernize and unite his country, Chogyal Tashi Namgyal established land reforms that allowed the people a share of the land. He also introduced democratic electoral reform, allowing representatives appointed by the people to represent each of Sikkim’s diverse ethnic groups. His son, Palden Thondup Namgyal (r. 19631975), became the king of Sikkim in 1963. Following India’s freedom from British rule in 1947, India became the new protector of Sikkim’s borders.A new treaty was signed with India in 1950, recognizing Sikkim’s independent sovereignty but allowing India to control Sikkim’s defense and external relations. By 1974, a number of different political factions in Sikkim merged to form the Sikkim Congress. These political factions began to agitate for independence and called for the end of the monarchy. Unable to resist their attempts to dethrone him, Chogyal Palden Thondup Namgyal urged the Indian government to intervene on his behalf. However, India responded by preparing a constitution for Sikkim in 1975, which established India’s annexation of Sikkim and abolished the monarchy. Sikkim is now a part of the Indian Union and one of the eight states in northeast India. See also: Indian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Kandell, Alice S. Mountaintop Kingdom: Sikkim. New York: Norton, 1971.

SILLA KINGDOM (ca. 57 B.C.E.–935 C.E.) One of Korea’s so-called Three Kingdoms, along with Koguryo and Paechke, that occupied the Ko-

864

Silla Kingdom

rean Peninsula from about 75 b.c.e to 934 c.e. Silla was the last of these Three Kingdoms to develop, and it outlived both of the others. The Silla kingdom began as a loose confederation of cities in the southeastern portion of the Korean Peninsula during the first century b.c.e. The kingdom was not unified as a single entity until the reign of King Naemul (r. 356–402 c.e.). Initially, the Silla

Kings of Silla Hyok-ko-se

57 b.c.e.–04 c.e.

throne had alternated among the region’s three leading families, but Naemul gained control of the throne for the Kim family and established a permanent hereditary monarchy. During its early years, Silla possessed a weak army and faced attacks from the neighboring kingdom of Paekche and overseas raids from Japan. To protect itself, the kingdom at first allied itself with

Song-dok

702–737

Hyo-song

737–742

Nam-hae

04–24

Kyong-dok

742–765

Yu-ri

24–57

Hye-gong

765–780

T’al-hae

57–80

Son-dok

780–785

Won-song

785–799

Pa-sa

80–112

Chi-ma

112–134

So-song

799–800

Il-song

134–154

Ae-jang

800–809

A-dal-la

154–184

Hon-dok

809–826

Por-hyu

184–196

Hung-dok

826–836

Nae-hae

196–230

Hi-gang

836–838

Cho-bun

230–247

Chom-hae

247–262

Min-ae

838–839

Mi-ch’u

262–284

Sin-mu

839

Yu-rye

284–298

Ki-rim

298–310

Kor-hae

540–576

Chin-ji

Mun-Song

839–857

Hon-an

857–861

Kyong-mun

861–875

576–579

Hon-gang

875–886

Chin-p’yong

579–632

Chong-gang

886–888

Son-dok

632–647

Chin-song

888–898

Chin-dok

647–654

Hyo-gong

898–913

Mu-yol

654–661

Sin-dok

913–917

Mun-mu

661–681

Kyong-myong

917–924

Sin-mun

681–692

Kyong-ae

924–927

Hyo-so

692–702

Kyong-sun

927–935

Silla Kingdom the third Korean kingdom, Koguryo.As Silla’s power increased, however, Koguryo recognized the growing threat and invaded the fledgling kingdom. Silla responded by joining forces with Paekche in an alliance to deter Koguryo and allow itself to develop. Silla society was extremely hierarchical. In 520, King Pophung (r. 514–540) instituted the “bonerank” system. Under this social hierarchy, potential heirs to the throne were designated as “hallowedbone” individuals, while other royal relatives were given “true-bone” status. Only true-bone members could hold high government and military positions. Six other bone-ranks also were established. Only members of the top three ranks could hold government office, own land, or receive military promotion. The three lower ranks consisted of peasants, artisans, farmers, and slaves. Bone-rank was used not only to establish position in society, but also to determine where individuals could live, what clothing they could wear, and what possessions they could own. Other aspects of Silla civilization mirrored this social stratification. Military posts, located throughout the kingdom, were occupied by groups of hwarang— young soldiers dedicated to the king, devoted to Buddhism, and ferocious in battle. The monarchy also implemented uniform and highly modern farming techniques, and Silla experienced a rapidly increasing affluence. This abundant wealth strengthened the monarchy and made Silla a powerful kingdom. Under the bone-rank system, Silla initially flourished. In 551, King Chinhung (r. 540–576 ) invaded Koguryo and captured a large portion of the Han River basin. He then renounced Silla’s alliance with Paekche and conquered its portion of the Han region as well. These two victories greatly increased Silla’s available farmland and provided access to the Yellow Sea, opening direct access to China. Silla’s relationship with China was pivotal over the next century. Enraged by their earlier defeats, Koguryo and Paekche joined forces and repeatedly attacked Silla during the six and seventh centuries. In response, Silla enlisted China’s support, and in 660 the two nations crushed the Paekche army, ending Paekche’s autonomy. Seven years later, Silla and China again united to overcome Koguryo. After these conquests, China energetically pursued control of the entire Korean Peninsula and established commanderies, or military outposts, in Paekche and Koguryo. Even more brazenly, China also located a commandery in Silla. Although Silla’s

865

King Munmu (r. 661–680) was the titular governor of the commandery, he was expected to obey the edicts of the Chinese protectorate in Pyongyang, where the Chinese colonial government was located. Silla, however, soon attacked the invading forces. In 671, Silla gained control of Paekche, and in 676, it reconquered the Han River territory it had previously annexed from Koguryo. With these victories, the unified Silla kingdom emerged. Unified Silla occupies a critical position in Korean history because it prevented the Chinese from obtaining complete control of the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, the military successes of the kingdom allowed the growth of an independent, unique culture characterized by historical writings, beautiful pottery, and its own architectural style. However, the kingdom’s rigid social hierarchy eventually destabilized Silla. After the expulsion of Chinese forces in 668, Silla monarchs possessed complete authority, and only a select number of “hallowed-bone” aristocrats living in the capital at Kyongju were granted any power.When this centralized authority alienated “true-bone” families living in outlying areas, Silla monarchs bequeathed large amounts of land to them in an effort to appease them. Because the land was granted in perpetuity and was tax exempt, lower class landowners were forced to pay unbearable tax levies instead. Some were reduced to slavery because of their debt, while others abandoned their land and joined groups of bandits that raided larger farms. Even though Silla’s “true-bone” families enjoyed the wealth created by their untaxed lands, they still resented their lack of political power.Their restlessness, coupled with the rapidly increasing number of dispossessed bandits, quickly undermined the monarchy. When King Kyongdok (r. 826–837) died in 837, the Silla monarchy crumbled and several prominent families battled for control. In 934, the kingdom of Koryo, which had developed in the former Koguryo region, conquered Silla and integrated it into its domain.The demise of Silla marked the end of Korea’s Three Kingdoms. See also: Koguryo Kingdom; Koryo Kingdom; Paekche Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Eckert, Carter J., et al. Korea Old and New. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.

866

S i s t e r s, Roya l

SISTERS, ROYAL Roles that sisters have played in monarchies at different periods and in different cultures. Royal sisters have occupied a variety of roles in relation to their brother rulers, from being heirs or rivals for power to serving as wives in order to secure succession or maintain the royal bloodline. In ancient Egypt, for example, it was customary for pharaohs to marry their sisters. By blocking the possibility of a pharaoh marrying into a nonnoble house, brother-sister marriages kept the royal bloodline pure and kept the pharaoh’s family separated from nonroyal Egyptians. If royal sisters had legitimate nonincestuous offspring, they could hope to compete with a male ruler’s own children. For this reason, royal sisters were sometimes prevented from marrying or were even forced into convents so that they would not bear children. Louis the Pious (r. 814–840), the sole surviving legitimate son of Charlemagne (r. 768–814), forced his sisters into convents immediately after succeeding to the throne. Royal sisters, like royal children, could also be diplomatic assets, however, to be married to individuals (or into realms) with whom a royal brother wished to form an alliance. King Charles II of England (r. 1660–1685), for example, married off his sister Henrietta to the duke of Orleans, brother of King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715). Henrietta’s position at the French court made her an invaluable informant and diplomatic go-between for her brother. Relations between a ruling brother and a sister at another royal court did not always go smoothly, however. While they were children, Frederick II of Prussia (r. 1740–1786) and his sister Wilhelmina were close, but conflict between Frederick and her husband, Margrave Frederick William of Bayreuth, led to a period of estrangement. Royal sisters could be influential political actors and patrons in their brothers’ courts, as was Marguerite of Navarre, the sister of King Francis I of France (r. 1515–1547). Marguerite was the author of the Heptameron, an important work of sixteenthcentury French literature, as well as a protector of several of the more Protestant-leaning preachers and theologians of the time. In those European kingdoms that allowed female succession to the throne, the eldest sister came after

the youngest brother in the line of succession. One of the best known examples of sisterly succession was that of the three legitimate children of Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–1547), whose only legitimate son, Edward VI (1547–1553), died a few years after his coronation and was succeeded by his eldest half-sister, Mary I (r. 1553–1558). When Mary died childless, she was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). While the childless Mary I was alive, her sister Elizabeth was a focus for opposition, enmeshed in a struggle very similar to those that took place between childless kings and their brothers. In states where succession was less settled, brothers and sisters openly contended for power. In the twelfth century c.e., the Byzantine royal sister, Anna Comnena, led a revolt shortly after the accession of her hated brother, Emperor John Comnenus (r. 1118–1143). John spared her life but sent her into exile. Peter the Great of Russia (r. 1682–1725) faced a fierce struggle for power with his sister Sophia, who ruled Russia as regent until Peter overthrew and imprisoned her in 1689. See also: Blood, Royal; Gender and Kingship; Incest, Royal; Inheritance, Royal; Queens and Queen Mothers; Royal Families; Siblings, Royal; Succession, Royal.

SLAVE DYNASTY. See Mu’izzi Dynasty SLAVERY, ROYAL Royal slaves are human beings considered to be property of kings and other royalty. Holding varying social positions from submissive and ill-treated laborers to powerful state officials, such slaves have been found over most of the world and attached to all religious faiths that considered slavery legitimate, including Christianity and Islam. The institution of slavery has existed since the earliest known kingdoms or state societies. Slavery formed a crucial part of the labor force and often of the military manpower and internal administration of kingdoms. There have been many forms of servitude, from full chattel slaves (bought and sold like animals) to

Sobhuza I the indentured servitude of family members working to pay off family debts. Although not all forms of slavery have been tied directly to enslavement and possession by royal rulers, there are relatively few kingdoms in history in which slavery has not existed. Slaves were acquired in three common ways: by capture, by purchase, and by breeding. In ancient times, the losers of battles were often captured by the victors and forced into slavery. As far back as early Rome, slaves were taken as spoils of war. Slaves greatly increased a society’s ability to produce goods and provide services to the kingdom and to the royal court.The reverse holds true for the land from which the slaves were taken. Through sheer volume, the practice of capturing the defeated in battles had the potential of weakening the social structure of a region. With his victories in northern Greece, the Roman general Aemilius Paullus captured and then sold 150,000 people into slavery, thus decimating the region’s population and providing further inoculation against future reprisals. Beginning in the seventh century, Muslim conquests and conversions added to this process, since the Islamic faith provided for the enslavement of infidels. In the fifteenth century, thousands of Javanese slaves of merchants living in the spice trade port of Malacca were converted to Islam, and, through their numbers, helped to improve relations between religiously conflicting Southeast Asian states. Religious differences between slave and master are also seen in the Saharan kingdom of Songhai, where the Muslim king Askiya Dawud (r. 1549–1583) enslaved nonMuslims to work on large plantations. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the countries that comprised the Ottoman Empire, slavery was legal and considered part of the social fabric in line with the natural order. Slaves in the Ottoman region belonged to distinct categories, including agricultural, domestic, and military slaves. An important category comprised eunuchs—castrated males. Because they could not produce children and could not become founders of competitive royal lines, they were given many important political positions (although many established their own petty states independent of the rulers at Constantinople). Eunuchs also were placed in charge of the royal harems, which likely included a number of female slaves. Slavery continued in the Ottoman region until World War I. At royal palaces, slaves served in various capacities, providing manual labor, attending to a royal,

867

and, on a rare occasions, serving as a king’s advisor. Slave women were often used for breeding either by their owners or by male slaves to produce slave offspring. Some female slaves, like those of Aztec King Axayacatl (r. 1469–1481), were concubines and lived at the palace in Tenochititlan. The concubines were likely local women from a lower class; their numbers could run into the hundreds. Slaves in royal courts were often physically different from the monarch they served. In the Mayan courts, people who were deformed either by birth or by being deliberately injured as children by breaking and disjointing back bones as a means to enhance their value, served as slaves. The most common deformities of these slaves were hunchbacks and/or diminutive statures; many of them served in bathhouses to bathe kings and queens. As well as being acquired as war captives, slaves were purchased from professional slave traders. Slavery in Africa existed for hundreds of years before the advent of the slave trade with Europe. By 1075, the African Saifawa dynasty of Kanem north of Lake Chad specialized in exporting slaves to the north. Europeans involved in the Atlantic slave trade and Arabs involved in the trade across the Indian Ocean (which lasted centuries longer than the Atlantic trade and involved far greater numbers) generally did not themselves capture slaves. Instead, they purchased the slaves from indigenous African kings, who captured them for sale to outsiders. The slave trade exploded after Europeans became involved in the early seventeenth century. Royal slavery has virtually vanished today with the fading importance of independent kingdoms. Still, forms of slavery persist in the disguised servitude of indentured laborers, indebted farmers, and palace servants.

SOBHUZA I (ca. 1780–1839 C.E.) Founder of the Swazi kingdom (r. ca.1815–1839) in southwestern Africa. A powerful leader of the Nguni people, Sobhuza I united various Nguni-speaking peoples in the late 1700s to create a new kingdom for himself. Instead of relying primarily on military means to achieve his goal, Sobhuza created a powerful network of personal loyalties between his clan and others in the

868

Sobhuza I

region. He accomplished this, in part, by arranging marriages between members of his clan and individuals from the households of neighboring chiefs. In this way, Sobhuza created kinship ties that did not exist previously. As leader of his own clan, he had the authority to allocate rights to use land, and he used this power to buy the favor of others among the Nguni. Once Sobhuza had gathered the independent Nguni chiefs under this authority, he advanced his ambitions militarily, calling upon his followers to join in a campaign of conquest throughout the region. In time, he succeeded in carving out an extensive territory, which became the Swazi kingdom. Sobhuza managed to hold this kingdom even in the face of challenges from the formidable Zulu peoples. By the late 1830s, Sobhuza’s authority was relatively secure, but he sought to secure his power by negotiating with the European forces that were growing stronger in the region. However, Sobhuza died in 1839, without completing the task of gaining British protection and assurances of autonomy. See also: African Kingdoms; Sobhuza II.

SOBHUZA II (1899–1982 C.E.) Modern ruler of the Swazi kingdom (r. 1921–1982) whose skillful diplomacy helped to restore the kingdom’s power in the face of powerful European colonial forces. A descendant of Sobhuza I (r. 1815–1839), Sobhuza II was born sixty years after the death of his ancestor and namesake, who was the founder of the Swazi kingdom. His eventual rule over Swaziland was determined at the time of his birth in 1899, when he was named heir to the throne. However, the Swaziland that Sobhuza II inherited when he took the throne in 1921 was much reduced in power and influence. European dominance in the region at that time meant that true autonomy was impossible, and any ruler would need extraordinary diplomatic skills to avoid becoming a mere puppet of the colonial powers. Sobhuza II proved exceptionally skilled and talented in that respect.Through skilled diplomacy, and by playing off European settlers, colonial officials, and local rivals against each other, he succeeded in keeping the settlers and the colonial government at bay, while retaining the respect and admiration of his people.

The king of Swaziland from 1921, Sobhuza II was a benevolent leader who helped negotiate his country’s independence from Great Britain in 1968. At the time of his death in 1982, he was the longest-reigning monarch in the world.

When Great Britain granted Swaziland independence in 1968, Sobhuza II remained on the throne as king. However, the legislation that established independence transformed his rule from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one. An extremely popular ruler, Sobhuza II remained on the throne until his death in 1982. He was succeeded by his son, Mswati III (r. 1986– ). See also: African Kingdoms; Sobhuza I.

S ol om on

SOBIESKI, JOHN. See John III SOGDIAN KINGDOM. See Central Asian Dynasties

SOKOTO CALIPHATE (1808–1903 C.E.) State forged from the conquest of the Hausa states of northern Nigeria during the jihad (holy war) of Uthman dan Fodio (r. 1804–1808), which became the largest independent state in all of western Africa in the nineteenth century. Prior to 1804, northern Nigeria was dominated by a collection of autonomous Muslim Hausa states. One of these states was Gobir, in which a young Fulani (Fulbe) man named Uthman dan Fodio grew up in the tradition of Islamic scholarship and eventually became a teacher of Islam of great renown. Uthman dan Fodio brought his personal vision of Islam to groups usually overlooked by most of his fellow Muslim teachers: women, the urban poor, and rural pastoralists who were looked down upon by the Hausa elites. He became so popular with the common people that the ruler of Gobir ordered his assassination. Escaping from Gobir, the young Muslim teacher organized an army that he led in a holy war against all the Hausa states of the region. Uthman dan Fodio declared that the aim of this jihad was to establish an ideal Muslim society in Africa. The jihad lasted four years, ending with Uthman dan Fodio’s conquest of Gobir.The Muslim caliphate he created consisted of the old Hausa states, now sworn to accept the religious authority emanating from the newly established capital city of Sokoto. Uthman dan Fodio, however, did not remain long at the apex of this new state. Instead, he retired to the quiet life of a scholar, leaving control of the caliphate in the hands of his brother,Abdullahi (r. 1808–1817), and his son, Muhammad Bello (r. 1817–1837). The conquest of the Hausa states was facilitated, in part, by Uthman dan Fodio’s sequential campaigns, attacking the states one at a time, and also by the failure of the ruling elites of those states to garner the support of their citizens. Had the Hausa states banded together to present a united opposition to Uthman’s jihad, he might have been stopped.

869

However, the states were far more accustomed to internal rivalries than to cooperation, and they thus fell quickly under Uthman’s attacks. During Uthman’s lifetime, the Sokoto caliphate was divided into two sections, with Abdullahi and Muhammad each administering one of them. Upon Uthman’s death in 1817, Muhammad assumed overall control of the caliphate, and Abdullahi served as his vizier. In each individual state within the empire, emirs (princes or commanders) were charged with handling local administrative issues under the close supervision of the Sokoto court. The Sokoto caliphate remained very powerful throughout the nineteenth century. In 1903, however, it was overthrown by the Hausa, who had allied themselves with British forces.The decisive battle of Sokoto, which overthrew the current regime, took place on March 15, 1903.After that time, the caliphs of Sokoto were appointed by the British, who claimed the region as part of their colony of Nigeria. See also: African Kingdoms; Caliphates; Islam and Kingship; Uthman dan Fodio.

SOLOMON (d. ca. 931 B.C.E.) King of Israel (r. ca. 970–931 b.c.e.) who was renowned for his wisdom and the splendor of his kingdom; reputed to be the author of the books of Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible. Solomon’s wisdom is described many times in the Bible; perhaps the best-known example is the story in which he proposes to slash a baby in two in order to find out which of two women claiming to be the baby’s real mother was telling the truth. The son of King David of Israel (r. 1010–970 b.c.e.) and Bathsheba, Solomon inherited a healthy kingdom upon his father’s death that included the regions of Israel and Judah as well as a number of vassal states and conquered realms. The kingdom of Israel at that time reached from the Red Sea to the Euphrates River. During the early years of his reign, Solomon lost Damascus in Syria and Edom near the Dead Sea, but he kept his kingdom strong by concentrating on the security of Israel and Judah. Solomon used diplomatic ties rather than military force to preserve and increase his control and maintain Israel’s security. He made many alliances, in-

870

S ol om on

cluding important ones with Phoenicia and Egypt. He had a large harem and took many of his wives in order to maintain alliances with other countries. He even kept Egypt from threatening Israel by marrying a pharaoh’s daughter. As a result of his many alliances, Solomon received many gifts and assistance from other lands. The Phoenicians helped him send trading ships to Ophir (a land renowned for its gold) and many other ports, and treasures such as gold, silver, ivory, horses, and linen poured into Solomon’s kingdom. Because of Solomon’s legendary wisdom, rulers from far-off lands, as well as his own subjects, came to the king for consultation. One of these rulers, the Queen of Sheba, brought Solomon gifts of gold, spices, and precious gems and was astonished by the magnificence of his court and his ability to answer her riddles. With his kingdom at peace, Solomon executed a major construction program designed to glorify the realm. Most remarkable was the growth of Jerusalem north of the old City of David.There Solomon built a magnificent palace and a great temple, with an entirely gold-covered interior, dedicated to Jehovah, the god of the Israelites. Jerusalem thus became the religious center of Israel as well as an important commercial and political center. The new buildings may have served as testaments to Solomon’s greatness, but they also contributed to Israel’s financial ruin because Solomon depleted treasury funds to maintain his luxurious court. Eventually, the people paid for Solomon’s extravagance when he imposed new taxes and forced labor in order to support the lavish splendor. Solomon also permitted his many foreign wives and concubines to build altars to their own foreign gods, thereby compromising the religious unity that had been one of Israel’s main strengths. He apparently even participated in pagan rituals and neglected the Israelite god. The apparent weakening of Solomon’s character was accompanied by his weakened hold over his people. Under his son Rehoboam (r. 930–914 b.c.e.), who succeeded Solomon after his death in 931 b.c.e., the kingdom was divided in two (the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah), and Solomon’s great temple was destroyed. See also: David; Hebrew Kings; Israel, Kingdoms of; Sabaean Kingdom.

SONG DYNASTY. See Sung Dynasty SONGHAI KINGDOM (900s–1600s C.E.) A powerful African empire that arose on the middle Niger River sometime during the ninth century, and became one of the greatest states of West Africa. The middle Niger region of West Africa was the home of a variety of peoples, primarily the Sorko, who fished the Niger River; the Do, who were primarily hunters; and the Gow, who were farmers. Each of these peoples maintained independent communities but traded with one another. Around the eighth century, however, the Sorko found that their mastery of the waterways gave them the opportunity to control this trade, for goods were mostly transported by boat.The Sorko grew wealthy by demanding payment for goods carried along the Niger River. They then began to conquer their neighbors, bringing the formerly independent communities under one rule.This was the beginning of the Songhai state.

EARLY YEARS By the ninth century, Songhai’s traders established contact with the Muslim trading center at Gao, one of the southernmost outposts of the trans-Saharan trade route. Muslim merchants exchanged salt from the north in return for food goods from Songhai. In addition, these merchants brought the teachings of Islam to the region. By the eleventh century, Songhai’s rulers had adopted the new religion. During Songhai’s first few centuries, the dominant power in western Africa was the empire of Ghana, which lay to the west. By the eleventh century, however, Ghana’s power was waning, and as it grew weaker, it was replaced by a new rising power, the kingdom of Mali. From the earliest days of Mali, its rulers desired to control the entire Niger River basin. This brought Songhai into Mali’s sphere of influence, and by the thirteenth century, Songhai was forced to pay tribute to Mali’s kings. In the fifteenth century, however, Mali was in decline as a result of internal strife, and Songhai began to assert its independence.

RISE TO DOMINANCE Songhai’s rise to regional dominance can be traced to the reign of Sunni Ali (r. 1464–1492). In the early 1400s, Songhai had suffered attacks by Tuareg raiders

Soninke Kingdom who swept down from the Sahara to disrupt the trade caravans. These raiders had even captured one of Songhai’s great trading cities,Timbuktu. Sunni Ali raised a powerful army and set out to recapture Timbuktu. His army won back the city and then went on to conquer lands that lay even further to the north. Sunni Ali eventually extended Songhai control far to the north and west, even claiming much land that once belonged to Mali. Ali’s son was the last of his lineage to rule Songhai. He was succeeded on the Songhai throne by Muhammad Ture (r. 1493–1528), who founded a new dynasty, the Askiyas. Ture used Islam to justify further wars of conquest. His devotion to Islam won him the support of powerful figures in the Muslim world, including the caliph of Egypt.Ture established Timbuktu as a center of Islamic scholarship and promoted the faith throughout his realm. He did not, however, force his subjects to convert to Islam. Ture is credited with greatly enhancing the transSaharan trade by subduing the Tuareg raiders, thus ensuring the security of the trade caravans.Ture promoted stability within the Songhai Empire as well. For instance, as new territories were brought under Songhai control, he replaced their traditional rulers with appointed officials who had earned his trust, and he charged each with creating a local army that could maintain order and collect tribute. Although Songhai enjoyed relative domestic peace, it was not immune to political turmoil. In 1528,Ture’s son, Musa (r. 1528–1531), growing impatient awaiting his turn on the throne, gathered a following and deposed Muhammad Ture. The next several decades were marred by further dynastic squabbles and, in the 1580s, a devastating drought. Life within the empire, however, was relatively peaceful, and over time the great Songhai army grew weak. Nonetheless, the empire continued to grow in wealth through its participation in the trans-Saharan trade.

DECLINE AND FALL In the late 1500s, Songhai’s wealth drew the attention of the sultan of Morocco,Ahmad II al-Mansur (r. 1578–1603). Al-Mansur equipped a force of some four thousand soldiers with the latest European firearms and sent them south across the desert to take Songhai by surprise. The Moroccan forces attacked near the city of Gao in 1591, and their superior weaponry earned them victory in the battle. Although the Moroccans were never able to

871

wholly subdue Songhai, they did force the once preeminent empire to pay tribute. In addition, the empire was broken up into several smaller states, each administered by governors appointed by al-Mansur. The court of the Moroccan sultan was too far away for him to easily control his new client state, and by 1660 the remnants of Songhai had ceased to acknowledge Moroccan rule. However, the Songhai Empire never regained territorial unity, and out of its remnants new kingdoms arose. Notable among these kingdoms was the Bambara state of Segu. See also: African Kingdoms; Bambara Kingdom; Ghana Kingdom, Ancient; Mali, Ancient Kingdom of; Sunni Ali. FURTHER READING

Robinson, Calvin R., Redman Battle, and Edward W. Robinson. The Journey of the Songhai People. Philadelphia, PA: Pan-African Federation Organization, 1987.

SONINKE KINGDOM (ca. 100–400 C.E.) Precursor to the ancient kingdom of Ghana, which was among the first of the trade-based kingdoms to arise in Western Africa, spurred by the growth of the trans-Saharan trade. The Soninke kingdom is named for its founders, Mande-speaking migrants who originally came from the region just south of the Sahara Desert. The reason for the migration of the Soninke people is unknown.Their early settlements were well situated to enable them to participate in the growing transSaharan trade, which was expanding southward as traders sought out sources of goods for growing markets. Initially, Soninke trade was based on locally grown grain, which they traded for salt. Soon, however, the Soninke learned that they could gain even greater wealth by controlling the trade in more highly prized products and goods, particularly gold, which was being produced in the forests of presentday Ghana. Some time around 100, a Soninke leader named Dinga Cisse (r. dates unknown) gained the support of several Soninke settlements, uniting them with the aim of conquering the gold-producing peoples of the region. According to Soninke legend, Dinga Cisse

872

Soninke Kingdom

proved his worth to the people by killing a goblin (a spirit generally considered to be malevolent) and marrying the goblin’s three daughters. More likely, Dinga Cisse defeated another local leader in battle and took that leader’s daughters as wives.These marriages created ties between Cisse’s followers and the clan that he had just conquered. However he came to power, Dinga Cisse established a settlement called Kumbi Saleh, which was located on the southern edge of the Sahara Desert, in what is today the country of Mauritania. From there, he was able to send out warriors to conquer neighboring groups, gradually extending his control into the gold-rich forests of Ghana and creating a monopoly on the flow of trade. As his wealth from trade increased, Dinga Cisse was able to build a powerful army and further strengthen his control over the region.The Soninke kingdom that he created soon became the dominant political and military power of the area. The kings that followed Dinga Cisse built upon these early successes, and by about 400, the Soninke kingdom had become the preeminent power of western Africa. By the fifth century, the line of Soninke kings was well established.These rulers took the royal title ghana, and it is by this term that the kingdom became known to the wider world. From a relatively small, local state, the Soninke kingdom eventually grew to become the great Ghana Empire, which dominated the region until it was supplanted by the kingdom of Mali, which was founded around 1210. See also: Ghana Kingdom, Ancient; Mali, Ancient Kingdom of; Sundjsata Keita. FURTHER READING

Shillington, Kevin. History of Africa. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989.

SOTHO (SUTO) KINGDOM (1830 C.E.–Present)

Kingdom in southern Africa established in the early nineteenth century by Moshoeshoe I (r. 1828– 1870), which is today a constitutional monarchy. The Sotho (also called Suto) are a Bantu-speaking people of the highveldt (grassland) region of southern Africa. Until the 1800s, the Sotho lived in small

communities ruled by hereditary chiefs. Like other Bantu peoples, their economy centered on cattlekeeping, and neighboring communities frequently raided one another to increase their own herds of cattle. Such raids were not particularly violent, and this state of affairs could conceivably have continued with little change were it not for the arrival of outsiders from the northeast, who invaded the highveldt territory of the Sotho in 1821. The newcomers were Hlubi and Ngwane peoples, displaced from their homelands by the violent military campaigns of Zulu leader, Shaka Zulu (r. 1816–1828). The Hlubi and Ngwane attacked the Sotho settlements with raiding parties, but unlike the traditional cattle raids that had been common occurrences, these attacks were devastating in their violence. Not content with stealing cattle, the foreigners burned villages to the ground, setting off wave after wave of starving refugees. This period is known as the mfecane, which means “the scattering.” Many thousands of Sotho died during the mfecane, but some found safety by fleeing into the hills.Among these survivors was a man named Moshoeshoe, the son of a minor clan chief. He organized the refugees into a military force, and by 1823 his following numbered in the thousands. Moshoeshoe led his people to Thaba-Bosiu, an easily defensible mountain stronghold, where he established the Sotho kingdom. Under Moshoeshoe I, the Sotho kingdom comprised a confederation of chieftaincies under his supreme rulership.To strengthen the bonds of loyalty between himself and the chiefs, Moshoeshoe took numerous wives from the chiefly families, using the kinship bonds thus formed to create a sense of unity among the kingdom’s different clans. Moshoeshoe ensured the survival of his kingdom by avoiding conflict with his powerful neighbors, the Zulus, Ndebele, and Ngwane. He paid tribute to their leaders in return for the promise that his lands would remain unmolested. Moshoeshoe further attempted an alliance with the white European settlers, the Boers (of Dutch ancestry), of the Cape Colony. He invited Christian missionaries from the Cape to settle in his kingdom, and he began to trade with the colony for modern firearms and horses. With a now formidable military, Moshoshoe was able to assert the independence of his kingdom and drive off would-be invaders. By 1840, the Sotho kingdom was one of the most powerful in southern Africa. Nonetheless, Moshoshoe could not stop the

S ou l ou qu e, Fau s t i n E l i e increasing encroachment of Boer settlers onto his lands, and he was forced to turn to the British for help. In 1868, the Sotho kingdom became a British protectorate and was called Basutoland. Upon Moshoeshoe’s death in 1870, the kingdom was annexed by the Cape Colony, which was then under British control. Although the Sotho kingship continued under British rule, the office of king was relegated to a primarily symbolic and ritual function. In 1966, Basutoland gained independence from British colonial rule and became a constitutional monarchy, known today as the kingdom of Lesotho. The government, then as now, was modeled on the British system: a prime minister acted as head of state, and the king served primarily as a figurehead. However, the king at that time, Moshoeshoe II (r. 1960–1990, 1994–1996), seeking to take a more direct role in governing the country, attempted to gain the support of the people by calling a rally at Thaba Bosiu, the stronghold that had formed the heart of the original Sotho kingdom. The prime minister, Chief Leabua Jonathan, placed the king under house arrest and ultimately forced him into exile. Moshoeshoe II was allowed to return to Lesotho in 1970 but had no significant role in government. In 1986, a military coup led by Major General Justin Metsing Lekhanya overthrew Chief Jonathan’s administration, and Lekhanya turned to Moshoeshoe II for support of the new regime. In return for that support, Lekhanya offered the king a more substantial role in the government. In 1990, when Moshoeshoe II opposed Lekhanya’s policies, he was once again forced into exile, replaced on the throne by his son, King Letsie III (r. 1990–1995, 1996–present). Another military coup, this time led by Colonel Elias Phisoane Ramaema, overthrew Lekhanya’s regime in 1991, and for a time the political situation in Lesotho was chaotic. In 1994, King Letsie came forward and dissolved the Ramaema government. In an effort to restore some sense of stability, he recalled Moshoeshoe II from exile and restored him to the throne. When Moshoeshoe II died in a car crash in 1996, Letsie III became king once again. See also: African Kingdoms; Moshoeshoe I; Mzilikazi; Ndebele Kingdom; Shaka Zulu; Zulu Kingdom.

873

FURTHER READING

Stevens, Richard P. Lesotho, Botswana, and Swaziland: The Former High Commission Territories in Southern Africa. London: 1967. Thompson, Leonard M. Survival in Two Worlds: Moshoeshoe of Lesotho, 1786–1870. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

SOULOUQUE, FAUSTIN ELIE (1785–1867 C.E.)

Illiterate ex-slave who became the self-proclaimed emperor of Haiti (r. 1849–1859). Faustin Elie Soulouque was born into slavery in the village of Petit Goave, Haiti, in 1785. His parents were of Mandingo descent, having been brought to Haiti as slaves from West Africa. His early childhood was spent in slavery, but on August 29, 1793, when he was eight years old, his owners granted him his freedom. In 1802, the black and mulatto population of Haiti revolted against French colonial rule and the institution of slavery. Soulouque joined the insurrection, which was led by Toussaint l’Ouverture, Jean-Jaques Dessalines (r. 1804–1806), Henri Christophe, Alexandre Petion, and Jean-Pierre Boyer. Although Toussaint was captured by French forces and died in prison, his revolution succeeded, and Dessalines became emperor of Haiti in 1804.As reward for his service in the revolution, Soulouque received the first of many promotions. Dessalines was assassinated in 1806, and the republic was split in two, with Henri Christophe controlling the north and Alexandre Petion the south. Soulouque served with Petion and once again distinguished himself enough to earn promotions and the trust of the president. When Petion died in 1820, Jean-Pierre Boyer succeeded him in office and reunited the northern and southern portions of Haiti. Soulouque transferred his allegiance to Boyer and continued to rise in the ranks of the army. However, when a rival to Boyer appeared on the horizon, Soulouque joined the newcomer to the political scene. This change in loyalty served Soulouque well, for the rival, Riviere Herard, became the next president of Haiti, and he rewarded Soulouque with more promotions. Herard’s successors did the same. In 1847,

874

S ou l ou qu e, Fau s t i n E l i e

however, the extreme volatility of Haitian politics left the island with no clearly designated ruler, and several political leaders put Soulouque’s name forward. Other candidates were also suggested, but Soulouque won the election, in part because he skillfully played to the (majority) black population, as opposed to the wealthier and more privileged mulatto faction. President Soulouque’s nation occupied one-third of the island of Hispaniola, the remainder of which comprised the Spanish colony of Santo Domingo. Soulouque saw no reason why his rule should not extend over the entire island, and in March 1849 he ordered 4,000 troops to invade Santo Domingo. The invasion failed, but this did not harm Soulouque’s popularity among the Haitian people. In August of that same year, he declared himself emperor to widespread popular support and with the blessing of the Haitian senate. Soulouque did not give up his dream of uniting the island under his rule, but for a time he postponed his imperial plans and addressed himself to domestic issues, both personal and political. In December 1849 he married a woman named Adelina. He presented Haiti with a new constitution but reserved the right to amend it whenever and however he chose. Soulouque’s rule was frequently brutal; he was not shy about ordering the execution of his rivals or using extreme force to put down localized rebellions. In 1852, three years after his imperial proclamation, he held an elaborate ceremony in Port-au-Prince during which he was formally crowned emperor. In 1855, Soulouque once again mounted an invasion of Santo Domingo, this time with twice as many troops. Once again he was forced to withdraw. In 1856, he tried and failed again.This time his military failure was exacerbated by an economic crisis at home, and the people of Haiti lost all patience with him. The minor insurrections that had plagued his rule over the years blossomed into a full-scale revolt, and in 1859 Soulouque was deposed. He fled to the French consulate for protection, and from there he arranged safe passage to Jamaica for himself and his family. He carried with him a great deal of wealth, much of which he had extorted from the government coffers. In the early months of 1867, the Haitian government granted Soulouque permission to return to his hometown of Petit Goave. Soulouque was now an old man and was growing increasingly frail. He died

on August 6, 1867, less than a year after coming home to Haiti.

SOUTH AMERICAN MONARCHIES Civilizations that developed in South America between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. The distinctive qualities of these societies were political centralization, agricultural economies, large territories, and relatively developed bureaucracies. Their autonomous development was interrupted by the arrival of the Spanish conquerors in the early 1500s.

THE CHIBCHAS (1200–1539 C.E.) The Chibchas, or Muiscas, were a civilization that developed in the Andean Mountains of western Colombia. According to recent studies, they originated in southern Central America and shared cultural patterns with the native peoples of Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama.

Historical Periods Scholars have divided Chibcha history into two periods. In the early period (800–1200) the Chibchas lived in numerous independent communities. The size of settlements varied, but the typical one had less than two hundred inhabitants. The main economic activity was agriculture, complemented by fishing, hunting, and gathering. During the early period, the Chibchas may have practiced long-distance trade to obtain gold artifacts related to status and religion.They may have also developed some craft specialization. By the end of the period, there was a significant population increase, possibly stimulated by climatic changes that made more agricultural land available. Some villages in the Cauca Valley and the area around present-day Bogotá had populations of about one thousand inhabitants. In the late-Chibcha period (1200–1539), a number of autonomous chiefdoms emerged. Among the largest of these were Bacatá (Bogotá), Hunza (Tunja), Iraca, Guatavitá, and Tundama. The most powerful chiefdoms were Bacatá and Hunza, which were constantly striving for hegemony over the others. The ruler of Bacatá was called zipa, while the ruler of Hunza was called zaque. The title of zipa was hereditary, and succession

875

S ou t h A m e r i c a n M ona rc h i e s was matrilineal (through the female line). The ruler was aided by uzaques, who performed administrative and military functions. Chibcha shamans were called xeques, and they had both political and religious authority.The elite of the society included gueches (warriors), artisans, and traders. At the bottom of the social hierarchy were commoners and slaves.

Bacatá Rulers Saguanmachica Nemequene Tisquesusa Sagipa

1470–1490 1490–1514 1514–1538 1538–1539

Mythical Origins and Political Conflicts According to a Chibcha myth, a divine couple came from the east to the Colombian Andes.The husband, named Bochica, was associated with the sun; his wife, Chia, was related to the moon. Bochica had a positive influence on the natives, teaching them basic cultural practices such as agriculture, pottery, and architecture. Chia, on the other hand, had a negative influence, practicing witchcraft and causing cataclysms.At the end of his life, Bochica left the chief of Iraca in charge of his religious powers. The chief of Iraca arranged peace among the different Chibcha chiefdoms and gained the acceptance of Hunzahúa, the zaque of Hunza, as the main leader. After conquering Fugasugá and Tibacuy, the zipa of Bacatá, Saguanmachica, threatened the authority of Hunzahúa. Both Saguanmachica and Hunzahúa died fighting each other. The next zipa, Nemequene, took over Guatavitá, Ubaque, Ubaté, Susa, and Fúquene.The conquest of Guatavitá was particularly significant because this chiefdom had an important ceremonial center. Nemequene died fighting against the zaque Quemuenchatocha. His successor, Tisquesusa, continued warring against Hunza. Around 1539, during a truce between Bacatá and Hunza, the Spanish conquistadors arrived in the Chibcha region.The Spaniards took over the Chibcha territory and killed the zipa. By then, the total Chibcha population is estimated to have been between 500,000 and 2.5 million.

THE AYMARAS (1200–1500 C.E.) The Aymaras were a pre-Columbian people who developed a state in the altiplano, a high-plateau region located in southeastern Peru and northwestern Bolivia, around Lake Titicaca. The Aymaras originated around 1200, but very little is known about them until they were conquered by the Incas in the fifteenth century. In the early fifteenth century, there were twelve Aymara kingdoms: Canchi, Cana, Caranga, Charca,

Hunza Rulers Hunzahúa Michua Quemuenchatocha Aquiminzaque

? 1470–1490 1490–1538 1537–1540

Inca Emperors Manco Cápac Sinchi Roca Lloque Yupanqui Mayta Cápac Cápac Yupanqui Inca Roca Yahuar Huacac Viracocha* Pachacuti* Topa Inca* Huayna Cápac* Huascar* Atahualpa*

ca. 1200? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1438–1471 1471–1493 1493–1524 1524–1532 1532

Vilcabamba State Rulers Túpac Hualpa Manco Inca Sayri Túpac Titu Cusi Yupanqui Túpac Amaru

1533 1533–1545 1545–1560 1560–1571 1571–1572

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

876

S ou t h A m e r i c a n M ona rc h i e s

Colla, Collagua, Collahuaya, Lupaca, Omasuyu, Pacasa, Quillaca, and Ubina.The Inca conquest of the altiplano began around 1430, and the last kingdoms to be subdued were Collas and Lupacas. As part of the Inca Empire, the Aymara region was called Collasuyu. Although the native Aymara dynasties were allowed to remain in power, they were subject to the Incas. In the late 1400s, the Aymaras launched a series of revolts against Inca rule, but the Incas put down these rebellions.

On the way, they decided to trap Ayar Cachi inside the cave at Tambotoco because they feared his magical powers. After a while, they converted Ayar Uchu into a sacred rock and left him at the foot of a hill. Finally, Ayar Auca tried to settle at Guayanaypata, a place that seemed suitable, and he turned into another sacred rock. He ordered Ayar Mango to found a kingdom at this site and to switch his name to Manco Cápac. Manco kept the four sisters as his wives.

THE INCAS (1400–1532 C.E.)

Inca Rulers

Inca civilization originated in the southern Andes of Peru. Over a short period of time, the Incas conquered most of the Peruvian coastal and highland regions, southern Colombia, Ecuador, northern Chile. and northwestern Argentina. The gradual conquest of the Inca realm by the Spanish began in 1532 and ended around 1570.

Historical Periods The Incas were originally an ethnic group located northwest of Lake Titicaca. Around the tenth century, they migrated north to the Urubamba Valley of Peru, founding the city of Cuzco. In the fourteenth century, the Inca began a rapid expansion through military conquests and political alliances. The Incas called their empire Tawantinsuyu (“Kingdom of the Four Quarters”). These quarters were Collasuyu (in the southern Andes), Chinchaysuyu (in the northern Andes), Contisuyu (along the southern coast), and Antisuyu (in the eastern Andean foothills).

Mythical Origins According to one Inca myth, the sun ordered his children, Manco Cápac and Mama Ocllo, to establish a kingdom on earth.The couple emerged from Lake Titicaca and headed north, looking for a place where Manco Cápac could thrust his magic staff. They found a place on a hill called Huanacauri, and the divine couple proceeded to establish a city nearby and called it Qosqo or Cuzco. According to another myth, four brothers and four sisters emerged together from a cave at the hill of Tambotoco, located south of Cuzco. The brothers were Ayar Uchu, Ayar Cachi, Ayar Mango, and Ayar Auca; the sisters were Mama Ocllo, Mama Huaco, Mama Ipacura, and Mama Raua. The eight siblings headed north, looking for a place to settle.

When a new Inca ruler came to power, he formed his own ayllu, or community, with his wives and children. Some scholars believe that the Incas had both a primary and a secondary ruler.There is debate on the mechanisms of succession, but it is possible that after the death of each ruler, his real and symbolic sons competed for power. Different historical accounts agree that Pachacuti (or Pachacútec) (r. 1438–1471), the ninth Inca ruler, began a great expansion of the empire. His son and successor, Túpac Inca Yupanqui, also known as Topa Inca (r. 1471–1493), conquered the Chimú Empire, located on the northern coast of Peru. He also extended the Inca Empire up to Ecuador and founded the city of Quito. Topa Inca was succeeded as ruler by his son, Huayna Cápac (r. 1493–1524), who died suddenly without a clear successor. Some scholars believe that Huayna Cápac died of smallpox, a disease that was introduced by the Spaniards in the Caribbean and that reached the Andes before the Europeans. After Huayna Capac’s death, two of his sons, Huáscar (r. 1524–1532) and his half-brother Atahualpa (r. 1532), began warring against each other for power. Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro arrived in Peru in 1532 during this civil war and captured Atahualpa.While Atahualpa was in captivity, his troops defeated and killed Huáscar. Pizarro decided to kill Atahualpa in order to reduce the possibility of Inca resistance. He then captured the Inca city of Cuzco and appointed a puppet ruler, Manco Inca (r. 1533–1545). Abused and mistreated, Manco Inca rebelled against the Spaniards in 1536. Failing to take Cuzco, he withdrew to Vilcabamba, a remote area in the Andes, and established an independent kingdom that resisted conquest until 1572, when the Spaniards defeated and killed the last Vilcabamba ruler,Tupac Amaru (r. 1571–1572).

S ou t h A s i a n K i n g d om s See also: Atahualpa; Huascar; Huayna Capac; Inca Empire; Maya Empire; Pachacuti;Virachocha. FURTHER READING

Murra, John V. Economic Organization of the Inca State. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1980. Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, María. History of the Inca Realm. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

SOUTH ASIAN KINGDOMS Numerous and varied kingdoms established throughout South Asia from ancient times to the early twentieth century. During the third millennium b.c.e., the first unified South Asian civilization formed in the Indus River basin. This civilization stretched from the northernmost and largest city, Harappa, to Mohenjo-daro, located 400 miles south along the Indus.The Harappan civilization included nearly forty cities. The Harappans developed an agricultural economy that featured sophisticated irrigation systems. They became the first civilization in the world to convert cotton into cloth, and their cities were laid out in efficient block patterns with functional sewage systems. The earliest incarnation of the Hindu god Shiva emerged during the Harappan period; artifacts depict him as both a fertility and war god. Around 1750 b.c.e., an unidentified disaster, possibly a major flooding of the Indus River, severely weakened the Harappans. Many of their cities were destroyed, while less developed nomads from the civilization’s outlying regions assumed control of the remaining communities. Consequently, the Harappans were unable to resist the encroachment of the Aryans, the first major invaders of South Asia. The Aryans had originated in Central Asia, but early Mongol raiders forced them from that region. As they splintered into tribes, the Aryans migrated as far west as Europe and southeastward to South Asia, crossing the Hindu Kush Mountains through the Khyber Pass and entering the Indus plain.

THE AGE OF THE ARYANS Although the Aryans referred to the Harappans as dasas, or dark-skinned slaves, they were in many ways less advanced than the native Harappans.The Aryans

877

lived in small migrant tribes, had not learned to carve or build with stone, lacked a written language, and left no evidence of art. However, they introduced three elements that permanently transformed South Asian civilization. First, they had mastered the use of iron, allowing them to fashion both weapons and farm implements. The weaponry, coupled with the endurance derived from their long migration, facilitated their defeat of the Harappans. Iron plows helped the Aryans convert the dense forests that separated the plains of the Indus and Ganges rivers, opening vast tracts of land to settlement and development. Second, the Aryans introduced the Vedas, the “Books of Knowledge.” The Vedas contained hymns, poems, and stories that detailed Aryan customs and traditions and became the basis of South Asian culture. They described the Aryan gods Indra, Varuna, Agni, and Soma, who later occupied important positions in Hinduism. Because the Aryans initially lacked a written language, the Vedas were orally preserved. Their language, Sanskrit, eventually became the dominant language of northern India. Finally, the Aryans instituted a social hierarchy that has come to be known as the caste system. The brahmans, consisting of priests and scholars, formed the highest class and were the most revered. Tribal leaders and warriors occupied the next class, the kshatriyas. All other Aryans belonged to the next class, the vaishyas. Eventually, the vaishyas class was divided into separate jati. Each jati consisted of a specific profession, such as blacksmiths or weavers. Finally, the shudra class consisted of slaves and conquered people, such as the Harappans. Eventually, a fifth-class designation, panchamas or “untouchables,” was applied to non-Harappan natives who succumbed to Aryan rule. During the next five centuries, between 1300 and 800 b.c.e., the Aryans became fully assimilated with their Harappan predecessors as they expanded across the northern reaches of the Indian subcontinent. As their populations and territories increased, the Aryan tribes’ ruling rajas (princes), advised by brahmanic councils, gained more power. The tribes also became less mobile and adopted the Harappans’ agricultural economy, while professions such as blacksmiths, weavers, and herders were developed. Aryan scholars created the Brahmanas, a second series of Vedas that stipulated a dual universe consisting of truth and falsehood. Strict, extensive sacrifices

878

S ou t h A s i a n K i n g d om s

Maurya Dynasty Chandragupta Maurya*

321–297 B.C.E.

Bahram

1240–1242

Mas’ud

1242–1246

Mahmud I

1246–1266

Bindusara

297–272

Balban

1266–1287

Asoka*

273–232

Kayqubadh

1287–1290

Dasaratha

232–224

Kayumarth

1290

Samprati

224–215

Satadhanva

215–209

Khalji Dynasty

Brihadratha

209–187

Firuz II Ibrahim I Muhammad I

Gupta Dynasty Chandragupta I

320–330

Umar

Samudragupta

335–375

Mubarak I

Chandragupta II

375–415

Khusrau

Kumaragupta I

415–455

Skandagupta

455–470

Kumaragupta II

470–475

Budhagupta

475–495

Narasimhagupta

495–510

Kumaragupta II

510–525

Vishnugupta

525–550

DELHI SULTANATE (1206–1526)

Mu’izzi Dynasty Aybak

1206–1210

Aram Shah

1210–1211

Iltutmish

1211–1236

Firuz I Radiyya

1236 1236–1240

1290–1296 1296 1296–1316 1316 1316–1320 1320

Tughluqid Dynasty Ghiyasuddin Tughluq Shah I

1320–1324

Muhammad bin Tughluq II

1324–1351

Firuz Shah III

1351–1387

Muhammad Shah III

1387–1388

Tughluq Shah II

1388–1389

Abu Bakr*

1389–1390

Alauddin Sikandar I

1390–1394

Nasiruddin Mahmud II

1394–1413

Daulat Khan Lodi

1413–1414

Sayyid Dynasty Khidr Khan

1414–1421

Mubarak II

1421–1434

879

S ou t h A s i a n K i n g d om s

Sayyid Dynasty (continued)

Suri Dynasty

Muhammad IV

1434–1445

Shir Shah Sur

1540–1545

Alam Shah

1445–1451

Islam Shah

1545–1553

Muhammad Adil

1553–1555

Lodi Dynasty Bahlul Lodi

1451–1489

Sikandar II

1489–1517

Ibrahim II

1517–1526

and rituals, performed by brahman priests, were required to help the Aryans discover truth and placate their gods.

THE FIRST INDIAN KINGDOMS By approximately 800 b.c.e., the Aryan tribes had consolidated into sixteen groups loosely resembling kingdoms, although they were still led by tribal councils. Among these, the kingdoms of Kosala and Magadha emerged as the two most powerful. Kosala, located in the northern reaches of modern India, relied upon the natural resources of the Himalayas for its wealth, and it became a dominant provider of furs and mineral ores. Magadha encompassed the Ganges plain and traded its agricultural products to enrich itself. During this period, trade with other regions as distant as Greece and China began, roads were constructed to increase this trade, and enormous cities, such as the Magadhan capital of Pataliputra, were built. Kosala and Magadha also incubated the growth of Buddhism. Over the centuries, dissent with the rigid brahmanic rituals had steadily intensified. A third series of Vedas, the Upanishads, emphasized the individual’s role in achieving enlightenment, or moksha. The Upanishads stated a belief in karma, that an individual’s actions would affect the quality of the following life. During the sixth century b.c.e., Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, refined these ideas. Gautama advocated virtue, pacifism, and poverty as the means to overcome the suffering and ignorance that was an inherent part of life. His teachings, the basis of Buddhism, rapidly gained popularity and were quickly disseminated.

Ibrahim III

1555

Sikandar III

1555

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

THE RISE OF INDIAN EMPIRES During the reigns of Bimbisara (r. ca. 540–491 b.c.e.) and his son, Ajatasatru (r. ca. 491–159 b.c.e.), their kingdom of Magadha subdued the Kosala kingdom, making Magadha the first significant empire in South Asia, stretching from modern Bengal in the east to Pakistan in the west. Although two subsequent dynasties replaced Bimbisara’s line, Magadha flourished until 326 b.c.e., when Alexander the Great of Macedonia (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) launched the second great invasion of South Asia.The Macedonians rapidly conquered Magadha’s western territories, but Alexander retreated when his weary troops threatened to rebel. Before he left the region, Alexander encountered Chandragupta Maurya, an outcast from the Magadhan royal family. Alexander’s victories inspired Chandragupta Maurya (r. 321–297 b.c.e.) to create his own empire. In 323 b.c.e., Chandragupta arranged the slaughter of the Magadhan monarchy, seized the capital at Pataliputra, and initiated the Maurya Empire, one of the largest and most powerful in South Asian history. To maintain this empire, Chandragupta assembled a massive army and created South Asia’s first bureaucracy. Different government agencies oversaw such functions as taxation, public projects, trade, and the census. The government employed all artisans and consequently controlled industries such as cotton weaving, metallurgy, and masonry. The Maurya emperor owned all land and natural resources, such as mines, but leases were provided to farmers. In return, the farmers were taxed one-fourth of their crops.

880

S ou t h A s i a n K i n g d om s

Built between 1638 and 1648 during the Mughal dynasty, the Red Fort in Delhi, India, is named for the red stone used in its construction.The magnificent building served as a palace, and the Delhi Gate, shown here, was originally the main entrance.

Chandragupta constantly sought to expand his empire. He eventually gained control over the northern portion of the Indian subcontinent, a territory that extended from present-day Afghanistan to Bangladesh. Chandragupta was also the first Indian ruler to make a concerted push over the Vindhya mountain range into southern India. A group of people known as the Dravidians, contemporaries of the Harappans, originally inhabited the southern portion of the Indian subcontinent.The Dravidians had possibly migrated from East Africa, riding rafts pushed by the monsoon winds across the Arabian Sea. The Aryans had occasionally clashed with the northern Dravidians, but the Deccan plateau served as a natural barrier between the two races. By about 300 b.c.e., the Dravidians had sepa-

rated into three main kingdoms: Kerala, Chola (Cola), and Pandya. These Dravidian kingdoms were fairly wealthy. They traded onyx, cotton, silks, and spices with the Southeast Asian kingdoms, with the Greeks, and with the Romans. Roman financial records contain complaints of the inordinate trade balance with these kingdoms. More importantly, however, these kingdoms oversaw the genesis of modern Hinduism.The conception of Vishnu and all his avatars (incarnations of forms) emerged from southern India, as did the figure of Krishna, a new incarnation of Shiva, and the pantheon of lesser Hindu gods. The Vedic brahmans throughout India gradually assimilated these deities, incorporating them into their brahmanic rituals. Chandragupta Maurya failed to conquer the Dra-

S ou t h A s i a n K i n g d om s

881

ROYAL PLACES

DELHI Delhi holds special significance for Hindus because it shares its location in northern India with Indraprashtha, the mystical capital in the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata. During the eleventh century C.E., the Tomara dynasty constructed the modern city of Delhi. In 1193, the Ghur dynasty conquered the city, and it remained under Muslim control until the Mughal Empire ended in 1857. Muslim rulers constantly rebuilt the city, renovating it as many as seven times over the centuries.The Mughals constructed buildings such as the Old Fort and the Jumma Masjid, which today stand as the most significant structures in the city.The city survived three major plunderings in 1398, 1739, and 1757, and continued to thrive when the British moved their colonial capital to Calcutta. But in 1912, the British constructed New Delhi, located six miles from the original city. It now serves as India’s capital, a visible symbol of the many transformations the India has endured.

vidian kingdoms, but he did subdue the rest of the Indian subcontinent. His grandson, Asoka (r. 268–232 b.c.e.), first sought to further Mauryan dominance. But after a bloody battle at Kalinga against the kingdom of Kalinga (Orissa) in 268 b.c.e., Asoka converted to Buddhism and adopted a pacifist philosophy.After his conversion,Asoka raised pillars inscribed with Buddhist beliefs throughout his empire. During his reign, Buddhism attained its greatest prominence in South Asia. When Asoka died in 232 b.c.e., the Maurya Empire quickly crumbled, although the dynasty retained control of Pataliputra for several centuries. For nearly five hundred years, no single empire unified the Indian subcontinent. The Indo-Greeks of Bactria (in present-day Afghanistan), descendants of the Macedonian invaders, briefly controlled the northwest portion of the subcontinent, but Scythian and Parthian invaders from Central Asia drove them further into India during the first century c.e. Although the Scythians and Parthians initially raided the region, they ultimately settled in it and assimilated with the native inhabitants. By the second century, the Shuga dynasty had replaced the Mauryas as the dominant force in the plains of the Ganges River. A series of lesser dynasties, such as the Kanvas and Satavahana, ruled the Deccan plateau, while the three Dravidian kingdoms remained intact in southern India until the Pallavas

dynasty defeated them in the tenth century. But despite the absence of a central power, South Asian civilization flourished. Trade was highly profitable, distinct forms of art and literature developed, and Hinduism continued its rapid growth. In 320, the Gupta dynasty attained control of the Gangetic plain and the abundant commerce that passed through it. Using this economic advantage, the Guptas reunited much of northern India under the Gupta Empire. During the reign of Chandra Gupta II (r. 375–415), the Guptas conquered western India as far as the Arabian Sea, and they signed treaties with various powers in the Deccan region. The ascendancy of the Guptas marked India’s Classical Age. The Guptas lavishly patronized the arts, encouraged the open practice of all religions, and built magnificent temples and other public structures. Emulating their Mauryan predecessors, the Guptas controlled all industries and land, renting it to farmers for a fixed rate.They also expanded trade with China and Southeast Asia. However, constant Hun raids from Central Asia drained the empire of its resources, and by 515, the Guptas lost control of their empire.

THE MUSLIM INVASION OF INDIA The Hun raids were a harbinger of the next major shift in South Asian power. In 622, the prophet Muhammad introduced Islam in Mecca on the Ara-

882

S ou t h A s i a n K i n g d om s

bian Peninsula. The spread of Islam was unprecedented, and Muhammad’s followers eagerly accepted his edict to wage jihad, or holy war, against members of opposing faiths. When Muslim leaders witnessed the treasures that traders brought from India, their desire for such goods increased enthusiasm for jihad. By the tenth century, eastern sultans had broken away from the main caliphate in Baghdad. One of these sultans, Mahmud of Ghazni (r. 998–1030), became the first Muslim leader to invade India. He launched numerous raids into northern India and ultimately conquered the Punjab region in the tenth century.When the Ghur dynasty replaced the Ghaznis in 1175, they expanded Muslim control over northern India and established a sultanate at Delhi, which became known as the Delhi sultanate. During the fourteenth century, the Tughluqs became the third Muslim dynasty to rule northern India. While the Tughluqs expanded Muslim control across northern India into Bengal and southward into the Deccan, they harshly persecuted the Hindu natives. In response, Hindu warriors retreated south and founded the Vijayanagar kingdom.The most prominent Tughluq sultan of Delhi, Muhammad Shah I (r. 1325–1351), also alienated his Muslim subjects. He forced many of them to occupy the harsh Deccan plateau, and he instituted disastrous economic policies. When a seven-year drought began in 1335, Muhammad Shah made little effort to provide relief to either Muslims or Hindus. Consequently, he faced widespread rebellion. Both the Bengal and Deccan governors founded their own sultanates, while Hindus in Rajputana frequently attacked Delhi. As a result, Muslim power in India temporarily shifted from Delhi to the newly established Bahmani sultanate in the Deccan. For two centuries, the Bahmanis and their successors repeatedly fought Hindu rivals in Vijayanagar, while two weak dynasties—the Sayyids and Lodis—struggled to maintain power in the Delhi sultanate. In 1526, Babur, the king of Kabul and a descendant of both Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227) and Tamerlane (r. 1370–1405), led the last significant invasion through the Khyber Pass into India. Babur (r. 1526–1530) deposed the Lodi dynasty from Delhi and established the Mughal Empire, the last major empire to rule India. The Mughal Empire reached its peak of power during the reign of Babur’s grandson Akbar the Great

(r. 1556–1605). Akbar greatly expanded the empire’s territory, developed its economy, and instituted a universal educational system. Although he heavily taxed Hindus and barred them from serving in his government, he refused to persecute them and allowed them to own property and businesses.Akbar also built countless public buildings that served both Muslims and Hindus. Consequently, Hindus were largely supportive of Akbar’s monarchy, and the Rajput rajas (princes) of Rajasthan even became his loyal allies. Unfortunately, Akbar’s successors squandered his wealth. When his great-grandson, Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707), assumed the Mughal throne in 1658, he pushed the empire’s control deeper into the Indian subcontinent. But he also eliminated Akbar’s policy of religious toleration and brutally suppressed the Hindus.The economic and military strains of Aurangzeb’s campaigns of conquest, coupled with increasingly prevalent Hindu rebellions, rapidly undermined the Mughal Empire. After Aurangzeb died in 1707, the Mughal Empire steadily declined. Although Mughal emperors remained in power until 1858, they increasingly served as puppets for the British East India Company. During the sixteenth century, the British, Portuguese, Dutch, and French battled for control of the enormously lucrative Indian trade. The British ultimately expelled the other Europeans from the region, and after Aurangzeb’s death, they gained control of the regions of Bengal, Orissa, and Bihar. In 1857, Indian troops (known as sepoys) serving under the British revolted in a massive uprising. When the Sepoy Mutiny erupted, the British accused the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah II (r. 1837– 1858), of abetting it. The British deposed him, and Britain formally took control of the subcontinent as a colony. British control of India lasted until 1947. After World War II drained Great Britain of much of its resources, the British abandoned most of their colonies. As their last act, the British united Bengal and Pakistan, the predominantly Muslim regions of the Indian subcontinent, as East and West Pakistan. The remaining area was designated as India. A rebellion in 1971 severed the two Pakistans, and an independent Bangladesh replaced the former East Pakistan. Despite this change, and the division between Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh and Hindu

S ou t h S e a I s l a n d K i n g d om s India, the tensions originally initiated by Mahmud of Ghazni’s first Muslim invasion of the subcontinent still remain. This is most evident in the Indian and Pakistani dispute over the region of Kashmir. See also: Akbar the Great; Asoka; Aurangzeb; Babur; Bahmani Dynasty; Chandragupta Maurya; Cola Kingdom; Delhi Kingdom; Ghaznavid Dynasty; Ghur Dynasty; Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms; Kalinga Kingdom; Kanva Dynasty; Kosala Kingdom; Magadha Kingdom; Mahmud of Ghazna; Maurya Empire; Mughal Empire; Pandya Dynasty; Rajasthan Kingdom; Satavahana Dynasty; Tughluq Dynasty; Vijayanagar Empire. FURTHER READING

Keay, John. India: A History. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2000. Stein, Burton. A History of India. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1998. Watson, Francis. India:A Concise History. Rev. ed. New York:Thames & Hudson, 2002.

SOUTH SEA ISLAND KINGDOMS (ca. 1000 B.C.E.–Present)

Kingdoms located on volcanic or coral islands scattered throughout the southern part of the Pacific Ocean. The South Sea Islands, often referred to as Oceania, comprise about twenty-five thousand islands and atolls. Ethnographically, the area is frequently divided into Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. Because of the great distances between settlements in Oceania, the islanders developed diverse customs, religious rites, and languages. Each island or small group of neighboring islands also developed its own system of government.The South Sea Island kingdoms included such places as French Polynesia, Tonga, Samoa, the Marquesas, the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, and Hawaii.

MIGRATING TO NEW LANDS Polynesia was one of the last regions of the world to be populated, with evidence indicating that the earliest inhabitants arrived around 1000 b.c.e. A num-

883

ber of archaeologists believe that these initial settlers migrated from Southeast Asia. However, some linguists and geneticists question this theory and suggest other possibilities for the origin of the islands’ populations. The early South Sea islanders were skilled navigators and traveled the vast area of the Pacific Ocean, settling on the most promising islands over several centuries. The Hawaiian Islands, north of the equator, were the last to be inhabited, sometime between 900 and 1300 c.e. According to a history of the Hawaiian Islands by King Kalakaua (r. 1874–1891), the first chief to bring his tribe to Hawaii was Nanaula, probably from the Samoan Islands. Later, chief Nanamaoa led his tribe to conquests of the big island of Hawaii and of Maui and Oahu.

TRIBAL ORGANIZATION Some South Sea islanders, such as the Maori of New Zealand and the early Hawaiians, lived in various villages, each led by a local tribal chief. Political power was decentralized because there was no ruling king. In other cultures, such as that on the island of Rotuma northwest of the Fiji Islands, the local chiefs selected a high king from among themselves.The king’s term of office was for varying periods of time but not usually for life. Among the tribes on Easter Island (Rapa Nui), the Miru were the highest ranking group, for they claimed to be direct descendants of the island’s first settler, Hotu-matua. The high chief of the island, who also served in a priestly role, came from the Miru tribe. In contrast, civil and religious powers were separated on the island of Mangala (part of the Cook Islands), where hereditary kings were entrusted with spiritual duties, and a victorious warrior was chosen as the head of government. Disputes inevitably arose among the various chieftains, and war was common in some areas. The mythology of Easter Island, for example, contains the story of wars between two tribes called the Long-ears and the Short-ears.With the arrival of European explorers in the South Sea Islands beginning in the sixteenth century, native ways of life were disrupted and displaced. Guns and gunpowder—supplied by white men in return for goods, women, or sometimes slaves—gave power-hungry chieftains an advantage over their rivals. In the Hawaiian Islands, King Kamehameha I (r.

884

S ou t h S e a I s l a n d K i n g d om s

The only remaining South Sea island kingdom is Tonga. Its current ruler, King Tupou IV, took the throne in 1965, and he rules as a constitutional monarch.

1795–1819) used guns to defeat rival kings and unite Hawaii under his rule, establishing a dynasty that lasted more than one hundred years. The Maori king Hongi Hika (r. ca. ?–1828) traveled to England in 1820 hoping to gain possession of double-barreled guns to use in his intertribal warfare.This intertribal fighting, coupled with diseases introduced by white men, greatly reduced the Maori native population of New Zealand.

KINGDOMS BECOME COLONIES European contact with the islands of the Pacific soon changed from an interest in commerce with native peoples to the desire to possess the islands themselves. During the nineteenth century, many Pacific Islands and island groups, such as Hawaii, New Zealand, and the Marquesas, underwent an explosion of European and American settlers.These foreign settlers claimed ownership of much of the native land and put in place their own forms of colonial government, usurping the rights of hereditary rulers. Christian missionaries from Europe and the United States also descended on the South Sea Islands and changed native beliefs and customs. Nevertheless, the island populations formed strong ties

with the homelands of the white settlers. For example, Tuvalu (formerly the Ellice Islands) became part of the Gilbert Islands, a British protectorate, in 1892. In 1916, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands became a British colony. Today, Tuvalu remains part of the British Commonwealth, with Elizabeth II of England (r. 1952– ) the titular ruler. On the Hawaiian Islands, European and American companies developed sugarcane and pineapple plantations and imported workers from Asia and the Pacific. In 1887, white settlers forced King Kalakaua to accept the so-called Bayonet Constitution, which took away much of his power and the land of many Hawaiian royals. The United States gained preeminence in Hawaii when Kalakaua granted the nation sole rights to the use of Pearl Harbor. Kalakaua’s successor, Queen Liliuokalani (r. 1891–1893), was deposed in 1893 by a group of American businessmen aided by United States Marines. Despite attempts by Hawaiians to restore her throne, President William McKinley formally annexed the Hawaiian Islands in 1898. In 1959, Hawaii became the fiftieth state, giving its people full U.S. citizenship. Since World War II, many changes have taken place in the way the islands of the Pacific are governed. Although some of the islands remain territories of foreign nations, such as the French Marquesas, others have reclaimed their autonomy. The island archipelago of Tonga is the only remaining monarchy in the Pacific. The hereditary king, Taufa’ahau Tupou IV (r. 1965–present) rules Tonga today with the help of a prime minister and deputy minister appointed for the life of the monarch.The thirty-seat legislative assembly of Tonga has only nine elected positions. See also: Hawaiian Kingdoms; Kamehameha I, the Great; Liliuokalani; Maori Kingdoms; Marquesas Kingdoms; Samoan Kingdoms; Tahitian Kingdom;Tonga, Kingdom of. FURTHER READING

Fornander,Abraham. An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origins and Migrations, and the Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. Boston: Charles E.Tuttle, 1981. Scarr, Deryck. A History of the Pacific Islands: Passages through Tropical Time. London: Routledge Curzon, 2001.

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s

SOUTHEAST ASIAN KINGDOMS Southeast Asia’s political development had already begun in the prehistoric period, but without written documents it is difficult to describe the process or processes responsible for the evolution of principalities throughout the region. Ancient Southeast Asian kingdoms were highly diverse and evolved in different directions. It is difficult at this point to form any general explanations for their paths of development, their rises, or their falls.

EARLY KINGDOMS During the late centuries b.c.e., certain parts of Southeast Asia were already showing signs of making the transition from village-level society to the formation of kingdoms. Evidence of trade with South Asia during the late prehistoric period has been found in central Thailand, west Java, and Bali. Socalled circular sites, consisting of large artificial mounds ringed by one or more concentric ditches or moats and embankments, have been found in northeast Thailand and in the “Terres Rouges” or Red Earth region along the border between Cambodia and Vietnam.These earthworks strongly suggest that local rulers had the ability to mobilize labor from more than just one settlement. In the late second century b.c.e., the kingdom of Nan-yueh, in what is now northern Vietnam, was conquered by the Han Chinese and absorbed into the empire. During this period, the area south of China’s Yangtze River was in the early stages of Chinese imperial influence, and Nan-yueh (or Nam-Viet) partook of this process. After a period during which Nan-yueh was governed by military commanders, the region around Hanoi was made a regular province of China. The Chinese were mainly interested in the commercial contacts that this conquest provided.The south was associated in the Chinese mind with rare and precious objects, such as perfumed woods and exotic birds’ feathers used for jewelry.The people of northern Vietnam embraced numerous features of Chinese culture but did not abandon their sense of their own nationhood. In the tenth century c.e., the Vietnamese finally threw off Chinese rule and reasserted their independence. It is not known how highly organized the preconquest kingdoms of Southeast Asia were.They seem to

885

have possessed a two- or possibly three-stage hierarchy of settlements, and the ceremonial bronze objects such as the enormous Dongson drums made in the north Vietnam area were circulated as far as New Guinea. This evidence suggests that the political organization of these kingdoms may also have been elaborate. Because they did not possess written documents, however, the system of administration they practiced may never be known.

THE HISTORIC ERA Southeast Asia enters the historic era around 200 c.e., when the first inscription was set up in the region at a site called Vocanh in southern Vietnam.The inscription, written in a script derived from South Asia, contains no date, but the style of the letters indicates that it was erected in the late second or early third century. Unfortunately, the inscription does not contain the name of any king or kingdom, and since the language used is Sanskrit, the ethnicity of the ruler who was probably responsible for its carving cannot be determined. Writing did not spread quickly through Southeast Asia, at least not on permanent materials such as stone. Nor did the first kingdoms form near the border with India, despite the fact that the early historic rulers of Southeast Asia adopted a great deal from South Asian culture. In the fourth century, the kingdom of Champa in southern Vietnam appears in inscriptions in the region.The Cham people, who were closely related to the Indonesians, Malays, and Filipinos, established several kingdoms, including Vijaya and Panduranga along the coast of southern Vietnam, which produced important works of architecture and art. They were also involved in maritime trade until they were defeated first by the Khmer people in the late twelfth century, and later by the Vietnamese, who encroached from the north and gradually infiltrated all their lands. One of the most prominent early kingdoms in Southeast Asia is known almost entirely from Chinese sources. From the third until the seventh centuries, Chinese records contain numerous references to the Funan kingdom. No inscriptions with a name corresponding to this Chinese transcription have been discovered, but numerous sites in the lower Mekong River area seem to correspond to the general area where Funan should have been located. Archaeological remains indicative from that area reveal a densely populated site with active trading relations

886

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s

BURMA Tagaung Dynasty Pyusawhti Thinlikyaung

167–242 344–387

Pagan Kingdom Anawrahta Sawlu 1077– Kyanzittha Alaungsithu Narathu Naratheinkha Narapatisithu Nantaungmya Kyaswa Uzana Narathihapate

1044–1077 1084 1084–1113 1113–1167 1167–1170 1170–1173 1173–1210 1210–1234 1234–1250 1250–1254 1254–1287

Ava Kingdom Thadominya Nga Nu Minkyiswasawke Minhkaung Thihathu Minhlange Kalekyetaungnyo Mohnyinthado Minrekyawswa Narapati Thihathura Minhkaung Shwenankyawshin Thohanbwa Hkonmaing Sithukyawhtin

1364–1368 1368 1368–1401 1401–1422 1422–1426 1426 1426–1427 1427–1440 1440–1443 1443–1469 1469–1481 1481–1502 1502–1527 1527–1543 1543–1546 1546–1552

Toungoo Dynasty Minkyinyo Tabinshwehti Bayinnaung Nandabayin Nyaung Tan Anaukpetlun

1486–1531 1531–1551 1551–1581 1581–1599 1599–1606 1606–1628

Minredeippa Thalun Pindale Pye Nayawaya Minrekyawdin Sane Taninganwe Mahadammayaza Dipati

1628–1629 1629–1648 1648–1661 1661–1672 1672–1673 1673–1698 1698–1714 1714–1733 1733–1752

Konbaung Dynasty Alaungpaya Naungdawgyi Hsinbyushin Singu Min Maung Maung Bodawpaya Bagyidaw Tharrawaddy Pagan Min Mindon Min Thibaw

1752–1760 1760–1763 1763–1776 1776–1782 1782 1782–1819 1819–1837 1837–1846 1846–1853 1853–1878 1878–1885

CAMBODIA Funan Kingdom Kaundinya late first century c.e. Fan Shih-man 202–225 Kaundinya II died before 434 Rudravarman 514–539

Chenla Empire Bhavavarman I Mahendravarman Isanavarman I Bhavavarman II Jayavarman I Jayadevi

550–600 600–611 611–635 635–650 650–713 713–?

Angkor Kingdom Jayavarman II Jayavarman III Indravarman I

802–834 834–877 877–889

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s

Angkor Kingdom (continued) Yasovarman I Harshavarman I Isanavarman II Jayavarman IV Harshavarman II Rajendravarman II Jayavarman V Udayadityavarman I Suryavarman I Udayadityavarman II Harshavarman III Jayavarman VI Dharanindravarman I Suryavarman II Dharanindravarman II Yasovarman II Tribhuvanadityavarman INTERREGNUM Jayavarman VII Indravarman II Jayavarman VIII Indravarman III Indrajayavarman Jayavarman Paramesvara

889–900 900–922 922–928 928–942 942–944 944–968 968–1001 1001–1002 1002–1050 1050–1066 1066–1080 1080–1107 1107–1113 1113–1150 1150–1160 1160–1165 1165–1177 1177–1181 1181–1219 1219–1243 1243–1295 1295–1308 1308–1327 1327–1353

THAILAND

Sukhothai Kingdom Rama Khamhaeng Lo Tai

1275–1317 1317–1347

Ayudhya Rama Tibodi Ramesuen Boromoraja I Tong Lan Ramesuen Ram Raja Intaraja Boromoraja II Boromo Trailokanat Boromoraja III

1350–1369 1369–1370 1370–1388 1388 1388–1395 1395–1408 1408–1424 1424–1448 1448–1488 1488–1491

Rama Tibodi II Boromaja IV Ratsada Prajai Keo Fa Khun Worawongsa Maha Chakrapat Mahin Maha Tammaraja Naresuen Ekatotsarot Intaraja II Jetta Atityawong Prasat Tong Chao Fa Jai Sri Sutammaraja Narai Pra Petraja Prachao Sua Tai Sra Maha Tammaraja II Utumpon Boromoraja V

887 1491–1529 1529–1534 1534 1534–1546 1546–1548 1548–1549 1549–1569 1569 1569–1590 1590–1605 1605–1610 1610–1628 1628–1630 1630 1630–1656 1656 1656–1657 1657–1688 1688–1703 1703–1709 1709–1733 1733–1758 1758 1758–1767

Bangkok Pya Taksin Rama I Rama II Rama III Rama IV* Rama V* Rama VI Prajadhipok (Rama VII) Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII) Bumipol Adulet (Rama IX)

1767–1782 1782–1809 1809–1824 1824–1851 1851–1868 1868–1910 1910–1925 1925–1935 1935–1946 1946–

Lang Chang Fa Ngum Sam Sene Tai Lan Kham Deng Pommatat

1353–1373 1373–1416 1416–1428 1428–1429

888

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s

Lang Chang (continued) Pak Houei Luong Tao Sai Paya Khai Chieng Sai Kam Kheut Sai Tiakapat Tene Kham La Sene Tai Som Pou Visoun Potisarat Settatirat Sene Soulinta Maha Oupahat Sene Soulinta Nakhone Noi INTERREGNUM Nokeo Koumane Tammikarat Oupagnouvarat Potisarat II Oupagnaovarat Souligna Vongsa Tian Tala Nan Tarat Sai Ong Hue

1429–1430 1430 1430–1433 1433–1434 1434–1435 1435–1438 1438–1479 1479–1486 1486–1496 1496–1501 1501–1520 1520–1548 1548–1571 1571–1575 1575–1580 1582–1583 1583–1591 1591–1596 1596–1622 1622–1623 1623–1627 1627–1637 1637–1694 1694–1700 1700 1700–1735

Vien Chang (Ventiane) Ong Long Ong Boun INTERREGNUM Chao Nan Chao In Chao Anou

1735–1760 1760–1778 1778–1782 1782–1792 1792–1805 1805–1828

Luang Prabang Kingkitsarat Khamone Noi Inthasom Sotikakuman Suriyavong

1707–1713 1713–1723 1723–1749 1776–1781 1781–1787

INTERREGNUM Anuruttha Mangthaturat Suksoem Chantharat Oun Kham Sakarin Sisavang Vong

1787–1791 1791–1816 1816–1837 1837–1850 1850–1870 1870–1891 1891–1904 1904–?

VIETNAM

The Tran Dynasty Tran Thai-Ton Tran Thanh-Ton Tran Nhon-Ton Tran Anh-Ton Tran Minh-Ton Tran Hien-Ton Tran Du-Ton Duong Nhut-Le Tran Nghe-Ton Tran Due-Ton Tran De-Hien Tran Thuan-Ton Tran Thieu-De

1225–1258 1258–1278 1278–1293 1293–1314 1314–1329 1329–1341 1341–1369 1369–1370 1370–1372 1372–1377 1377–1388 1388–1398 1398–1400

Later Le Dynasty Le Loi Le Nga Tran Cao Le Thai-To Le Thai-Ton Le Nhon-Ton Le Nghi-Dan Le Thanh-Ton Le Hien-Ton Le Tuc-Ton Le Ui-Muc De Le Tuong-Duc De Le Chieu-Ton

1418–1420 1420–1426 1426–1428 1428–1433 1433–1442 1442–1459 1459–1460 1460–1497 1497–1504 1504 1504–1509 1509–1516 1516–1522

889

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s

Later Le Dynasty (continued) Le Hoang-De-Xuan Le Trang-Ton Le Trung-Ton Le Anh-Ton Le The-Ton Nguyen Duong-Minh Nguyen Minh-Tri Le Kinh-Ton Le Thanh-Ton Le Chan-Ton Le Thanh-Ton Le Huyen-Ton Le Gia-Ton Le Hi-Ton Le Du-Ton Le De Duy-Phuong Le Thuan-Ton Le I-Thon Le Hien-Ton Le Man Hoang-De

1522–1527 1533–1548 1548–1556 1556–1573 1573–1597 1597 1597–1599 1599–1619 1619–1643 1643–1649 1649–1662 1662–1671 1671 1671–1705 1705–1729 1729–1732 1732–1735 1735–1740 1740–1786 1786–1804

The Mac Dynasty Mac Dang-Dung Mac Dang-Doanh Mac Phuc-Hai Mac Phuc-Nguyen Mac Mau-Hop Mac Toan Mac Kinh-Chi Mac Kinh-Cung Mac Kinh-Khoan Mac Kinh-Hoan

1527–1530 1530–1540 1540–1546 1546–1562 1562–1592 1592 1592–1593 1593–1623 1623–1638 1638–1677

The Trinh Dynasty of Tongking Trinh Kiem Trinh Coi Trinh Tong Trinh Trang

1539–1569 1569–1570 1570–1623 1623–1657

Trinh Tac Trinh Con Trinh Cuong Trinh Giang Trinh Dinh Trinh Sam Trinh Can Trinh Khai Trinh Phung

1657–1682 1682–1709 1709–1729 1729–1740 1740–1767 1767–1782 1782 1782–1786 1786–1787

Tay Son Dynasty Nguyen Van Nhac Nguyen Van-Hue Nguyen Quang-Toan

1778–1793 1788–1792 1792–1802

Nguyen Dynasty of Hue Nguyen Hoang Nguyen Phu-Nguyen Nguyen Phuc-Lan Nguyen Phuc-Tan Nguyen Phuc-Tran Nguyen Phuc-Chu Nguyen Phuc-Chu Nguyen Phuc-Khoat Nguyen Phuc-Thuan Nguyen Phuc-Anh Gia-Long Minh-Mang Thieu-Tri Tu-Duc Nguyen Duc Duc Nguyen Hiep-Hoa Kien-Phuc Ham-Nghi Dong-Khanh Thanh-Khai Duy-Tan Khai-Dinh Bao Dai

1558–1613 1613–1635 1635–1648 1648–1687 1687–1691 1691–1725 1725–1738 1738–1765 1765–1778 1778–1802 1802–1820 1820–1841 1841–1848 1848–1883 1883 1883 1883–1884 1884–1885 1885–1889 1889–1907 1907–1916 1916–1925 1926–1945

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

890

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s

as far west as India and indirectly with the Mediterranean Sea. Raw materials, especially metals such as tin, gold, and iron ore, were imported and processed here. The earliest writing in Southeast Asia has been discovered on this site, but it is in the form of short inscriptions in Hindu script and does not provide any true historical information. Further up the Mekong River, the site of Angkor Borei provides various pieces of evidence suggesting the possible location of a political capital for the Funan kingdom. In the seventh century, Chinese sources suggest that Funan broke into two kingdoms, Land and Water Zhenla, and that Land Zhenla defeated Water Zhenla, which subsequently disappeared. As a result, the center of political power in what is now Cambodia shifted from the lower Mekong to the Tonle Sap area. Historians have noted that this account poses numerous problems and may not be entirely accurate. The fact is that the lower Mekong was no longer an important locus of political or economic power after the early seventh century, whereas northwestern Cambodia became the center of one of the most powerful Southeast Asian kingdoms in history, subsequently known as Angkor. Another Southeast Asian kingdom (the name of which is unknown) enters history in the fourth century. A set of inscriptions commemorating sacrifices to Hindu gods erected in the Kutai region of east Borneo seem to suggest a kingdom that flourished briefly in this region but that quickly lapsed back into comparative obscurity. The first known kingdom in Java appeared in the fifth century. Several inscriptions in the area of Jakarta and Bogor commemorate the existence of Tarumanegara (r. ca. 400s), a king who appears to have been interested in the Hindu god Vishnu. Chinese records from around the same period report the arrival of the first known diplomatic embassies from Java.The kingdom’s center was located in the hinterland, perhaps in the environs of modern Bogor, but it also controlled a stretch of coast that enabled it to maintain maritime contact with distant countries. On the Malay Peninsula, no names of early kings are recorded, but the oldest inscriptions, from the fifth century, mention a “Red Earth Land” from which Buddhist sea captains set out to sail to South Asia. These inscriptions come from Kedah, northwest Malaysia, but the location of Red Earth Land and its political status are unknown.

The first inscription in the Mon language appeared around 600.The name of one early Mon kingdom in the region of central Thailand was Dvaravati. Little is known of the nature or extent of this state, however. There were probably several kingdoms in the Chao Phraya valley during the late first millennium. In the late seventh century, the kingdom of Srivijaya appeared in southern Sumatra. Srivijaya’s capital was located in the environs of modern Palembang, and the kingdom is sometimes known as SrivijayaPalembang. Srivijaya left several inscriptions dating from 682 to 686, both around Palembang and in other places in central and southern Sumatra. Srivijaya’s inscriptions are written in Old Malay, mixed with numerous terms in Sanskrit.The religion of the kingdom’s rulers was Buddhism of a type that has been termed Mahayana, Northern, or Esoteric Buddhism. Statues of Buddhist bodhisattvas have been discovered at Palembang, along with images of Buddha and deities such as Shiva and Ganesha. A Vishnu statue found on the island of Bangka just off southern Sumatra suggests that this deity was also popular there before the emergence of Srivijaya.

AUTHORITY IN EARLY SOUTHEAST ASIAN STATES The kingdom termed itself Srivijaya mandala (literally “circle”; figuratively a magical diagram describing the disposition of deities in patterns with mystical significance). The concept of the mandala was extremely influential in early Southeast Asian states. It seems that the rulers sought to portray themselves as the cakravartin, the supreme ruler analogous to the deity occupying the central place in a mandala. Subordinate rulers surrounded him, autonomous in many respects but whose glory was dimmed by the radiance of the figure at the center. By replicating the structure of the macrocosm implied by the mandala pattern, the ruler would ensure harmony and prosperity in his own domain. Thus, the practical authority of the central ruler was generally confined to the domain around his capital. More distant subordinate rulers may have been forced or threatened to declare vassalage to him, but their subjugation mainly required them to attend court on certain occasions to perform ceremonial obeisance, and to pay certain taxes and services to the central power. Otherwise, they governed their

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s own domains more or less in the same manner as the supreme ruler governed his. In Cambodia, the early rulers seem to have derived their authority from the ability to mobilize labor for constructing water retention systems or ponds. These early chiefs, called poñ, were replaced during the seventh and eighth centuries by rulers with different titles and probably different functions and attributes.Water symbolism no doubt remained significant to the continued dominance of the elite, however, as evidenced by the huge baray (large earthen structure built to retain water) built at Angkor and other satellite sites.

GENDER AND CULT IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN KINGDOMS Females were important in the calculation of rights to the throne in many Southeast Asian kingdoms. Rival claimants often used their maternal lineage to strengthen their legitimacy. In some cases, females became supreme rulers, both in Cambodia and later in Java and Sumatra.This was not common, however. Rather, the role of women was to provide a line of descent to which claimants to the throne could appeal in the case of disputed successions. Matrilineal connections were at least as pertinent as, if not more so than, patrilineal relatives. In Cambodia, certain priestly offices also descended in the female line, that is, from uncle to nephew. The so-called devaraja (“god-king”) cult of Southeast Asia has aroused much controversy. This phenomenon is mainly known through the Sdok Kak Thom inscription of 1052. Many scholars have assumed that this inscription describes a situation in which the founder of Angkor, Jayavarman II (r. ca. 802–850), claimed to be deified, but later scholars have shown that this is not accurate. By the tenth century, a Khmer ruler did claim to be divine, but this was apparently an innovation, not a continuation of a previous practice. Similarly, rulers in Java did not claim divinity until well after 1000. Southeast Asian rulers sought to embody several roles—as devotees of certain gods, ascetic adepts, distributors of wealth, and champions in warfare. South Asian martial epics, such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata of India, were popular in Southeast Asia at an early period, and kings seem to have sought to emulate or embody the qualities of the heroes of these texts.

891

MARITIME TRADE AND SOUTHEAST ASIAN KINGDOMS Southeast Asian kingdoms of the ninth through fourteenth centuries shared certain fundamental characteristics, but in other respects, they were quite distinct. The kingdom of Srivijaya and later Sumatran kingdoms, such as Melayu, relied mainly on maritime trade for prosperity and as a means of attracting followers in a landscape where the population was always sparse. In agrarian societies. where the population was less mobile, rulers could be more authoritarian. In early Burma and Cambodia, coinage, which had existed from the fifth century, was eventually abolished. The economies of these kingdoms seem to have been run strictly by royal command, whereby basic commodities were collected and redistributed by the administration. This made it possible to erect large monumental complexes. In Java, by contrast, though intensive agriculture was practiced, a maritime orientation also existed, and coinage of gold and silver evolved. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the local coinage was replaced by imported Chinese copper coins, which was more efficient in small-scale transactions. By the eighth century, Southeast Asian kingdoms attained a general form that they would retain for the next 500 years, marking the so-called Classical period. Then, in the fourteenth century, new religions began to gain adherents in the region—Theravada Buddhism on the mainland and Islam on the islands. At this time, the traditional kingdoms of Southeast Asia entered a period of flux that continued until the first Europeans arrived in the region in 1509. See also:Bangkok Kingdom; Cambodian Kingdoms; Champassak Kingdom; Chiangmai; Janggala Kingdom; Javan Kingdoms; Majapahit Empire; Minangkabau Kingdom; Nanchao Kingdom; Panjalu Kingdom; Samudera-Pasai; Sukhothai Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Coedés, George. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Ed.Walter F.Vella; trans. Susan Brown Cowing. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1975. Hall, D.G.E. A History of South-East Asia. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981.

892

S ou t h e a s t A s i a n K i n g d om s

Reid, Anthony. Charting the Shape of Modern Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2000.

SPANISH MONARCHS

House of Habsburg

SPANISH MONARCHIES (1516 C.E.–Present)

Kingdoms and dynasties in Spain since the unification of the various Iberian kingdoms in the early sixteenth century. The marriage of Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474– 1504) and Ferdinand of Aragón (r. 1479–1516) in 1474 laid the foundations for the unification of the various kingdoms that existed in the Spanish portion of the Iberian Peninsula.The future of a unified kingdom of Spain was assured when their grandson, Charles, assumed the throne in 1516 as Charles I (r. 1516–1556). A member of the Habsburg dynasty through his paternal grandfather, Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1493–1519), Charles also inherited the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, becoming Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1558) in 1519.

HOUSE OF HABSBURG Charles V was the first Habsburg monarch of the kingdom of Spain, which included the kingdoms of Castile, Aragón, and Navarre. In 1556, Charles gave the throne to his son, Philip, and later retired to a monastery, though he continued to take an active interest in politics. During Charles’s reign, the Spanish kingdom greatly expanded as a result of its discoveries and colonizing activities in the Americas. Philip II ruled not only Spain but also Naples and Sicily (r. 1554–1598) and Portugal (r. 1580–1598), as well as the Low Countries (present-day Belgium and the Netherlands). Philip’s rule was notable for many things, including the Spanish Inquisition, the defeat of the great Spanish Armada while attempting to invade England, and the revolt of the Netherlands, which led to that country’s independence. His greatest military success was in Portugal. As grandson of King Manuel I of Portugal (r. 1495–1521), Philip was recognized as the new Portuguese ruler when King Henry of Portugal (r. 1578–1580) died without an heir in 1580. Upon the death of Philip II in 1598, Spain and Portugal were passed to his son and grandson, Philip III (r. 1598–1621). During his reign, Spain became

Charles I Philip II* Philip III Philip IV Charles II

1516–1556 1556–1598 1598–1621 1621–1665 1665–1700

House of Bourbon Philip V Louis I Philip V (again) Ferdinand VI Charles III Charles IV Ferdinand VII

1700–1724 1724 1724–1746 1746–1759 1759–1788 1788–1808 1808

House of Bonaparte Joseph Napoleon

1808–1814

House of Bourbon Ferdinand VI Isabella II INTERREGNUM

1814–1833 1833–1868 1868–1870

House of Savoy Amadeus I (First Republic

1870–1873 1873–1874)

House of Bourbon Alfonso XII Alfonso XIII (Second Republic (Spanish State Juan Carlos

1874–1886 1886–1931 1931–1939) 1939–1975, dictatorship) 1975–Present

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

S pa n i s h M ona rc h i e s

893

The palace and monastery complex of San Lorenzo de El Escorial near Madrid was built in the 1500s by King Philip II of Spain. This masterpiece of austere classical Spanish Renaissance architecture contains a church, royal apartments, monastery, library, and crypt for Spanish kings.

involved in the Thirty Years War (1618–1648). His son and successor, Philip IV (r. 1621–1665), preferred to leave the affairs of state to others, as his father had done before him. During his reign, Spain continued its involvement in the Thirty Years War, and the monarchy also faced further unrest in the Netherlands and had to deal with the revolt of Portugal and Catalonia. The last Habsburg ruler of Spain was Charles II (r. 1665–1700), who was both physically and mentally disabled. His mother, Mariana of Austria, served as regent, but her sympathy to Austria was very unpopular in Spain. Charles, who was childless, designated Philip of Anjou as his heir, an action that precipitated the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) as various claimants all vied for the throne of Spain.The war ended with the Peace of Utrecht in 1714, and Philip of Anjou retained the Spanish throne as King Philip V (r. 1700–1724).

HOUSE OF BOURBON The Peace of Utrecht confirmed the House of Bourbon as the ruling family of Spain. However, Philip V’s king-

dom had been severely contracted as a result of the war.The Spanish Netherlands, Sardinia, Milan, Naples, and Sicily had all been lost, while Spain’s supremacy as a colonial power was in decline. Nevertheless, Philip V waged successful dynastic wars that won back Naples and Sicily for his son Don Carlos and gained Parma and Piacenza in Italy for another son, Philip. Don Carlos of Bourbon ascended the throne as Charles III (r. 1759–1788) in 1759, following the death of his half-brother, Ferdinand VI (r. 1746– 1759). Regarded as one of the greatest Bourbon kings of Spain, Charles instituted a variety of economic and administrative reforms in the kingdom. Charles IV (r. 1788–1808), the son and successor of Charles III, was forced to abdicate the throne by the European conquests of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon also forced Charles’s heir, Ferdinand VII (r. 1808, 1814–1833) into abdicating. Both monarchs were imprisoned in France while Napoleon’s brother Joseph Napoleon ruled on his behalf. In 1814, Ferdinand VII was restored to the throne after Napoleon abdicated his rule in France and fled to exile to the island of Elba.

894

S pa n i s h M ona rc h i e s

ROYAL PLACES

EL ESCORIAL In 1557, Philip II won a victory over the French at Saint-Quentin on August 10, the feast of St. Lawrence.To thank the saint for his victory, Philip vowed to build a magnificent palace and monastery complex.Work was begun in 1563 under the supervision of architect Juan Bautista de Toledo.The church was consecrated in 1586, and the pantheon, or royal crypt, was completed in 1654. Located northeast of Madrid, El Escorial is both an architectural gem and a treasure house of Spanish history and art reflecting the power and wealth of Spain’s Habsburg monarchs.

In 1812, during the Napoleonic invasions, the Spanish Cortes, or parliament, had introduced a liberal constitution. One of Ferdinand VII’s first actions after being restored to the throne in 1814 was to rescind this constitution, greatly angering many people in Spain. Numerous uprisings followed, and in 1820, Ferdinand restored the constitution. However, in 1823, with the assistance of France, Ferdinand again quashed the constitution in favor of more conservative rule. Disregarding the tradition of male inheritance, Ferdinand designated his only child, Isabella, as his heir, instead of his brother, Don Carlos. The accession of Isabella II (r. 1833–1868) sparked the socalled Carlist Wars, a civil war pitting the supporters of Don Carlos against those of Isabella. Deposed in 1868, Isabella II went into exile in France, and two years later, in 1870, she abdicated in favor of her son, Alfonso. In the meantime, however, the Cortes had established a constitutional monarchy and chose Duke Amadeus of Savoy as king. Amadeus I (r. 1870–1873) ruled for only three years before being replaced by the rightful Bourbon heir, Alfonso XII (r. 1874–1886) the son of Isabella II. A popular king,Alfonso XII ruled eleven years before dying in a cholera epidemic. His pregnant wife, Maria Christina, served as regent during the minority of their son, Alfonso XIII (r. 1886–1931). Alfonso came to the throne at the age of eighteen. Although he was personally popular, by this time the monarchy had become the target of social agitators and several attempts were made to assassinate the king. Unhappy with Spain’s parliamentary govern-

ment, Alfonso XIII supported General Miguel Primo de Rivera in establishing a military dictatorship in 1923. In 1931, a year after Rivera lost power, Alfonso went into exile in Italy after realizing that a majority of Spaniards favored a republic rather than a monarchy. Yet, shortly before Alfonso died in 1941, he designated his son, Don Juan de Bourbón, as his successor. The Spanish republic, which lasted from 1931 to 1939, was ultimately ended by the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), which was followed by the long dictatorship of General Francisco Franco. From his exile in Italy, Don Juan, along with monarchist supporters, arranged for his son, Prince Juan Carlos, to be placed under Franco’s supervision in the hopes that the monarchy would eventually be restored. Juan Carlos thus went to live in Spain and was educated at Spanish military academies and the University of Madrid. In 1969, Franco named the prince to be his successor, and after Franco’s death in 1975, Juan Carlos took the throne. His accession restored the Bourbon dynasty to the Spanish throne, and he presided over a peaceful transition in Spain from dictatorship to a democratic, constitutional monarchy. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Bourbon Dynasty; Castile, Kingdom of; Charles V; Ferdinand II and Isabella I; Habsburg Dynasty; Juan Carlos; Philip II. FURTHER READING

Carr, Raymond, Spain, 1808–1975. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.

S pa rta , K i n g d om o f

SPARTA, KINGDOM OF (ca. 900–100 B.C.E.)

Ancient city-state centered in Sparta in the Peloponnesian region of Greece that was known for its militaristic discipline and rigid social structure. Throughout much of its history, Sparta was a rival of Athens.

FOUNDING OF SPARTA Sometime around 900 b.c.e., several villages in Laconia, a region in the southern part of the Peloponnesus, united to form the city of Sparta. By 730 b.c.e., the Spartans had conquered the remaining Laconians, whom they called Perioikoi. Perioikoi could serve in the Spartan army, but they did not have the full privileges of Spartan citizenship, such as a voice in assemblies. After control of Laconia was complete, Sparta, under the leadership of King Theopompus (r. ca. 720–675 b.c.e.), began the First Messenian War, which resulted in the conquest of the neighboring territory of Messenia.Theopompus allotted Messenian land among the Spartans, who then used profits from the land for their support, giving them time to pursue their military training more fully.The Messenians were enslaved to work the land.There were so many slaves, called helots, that they formed the majority of the population of Sparta.

SPARTAN LAW AND GOVERNMENT According to tradition, about the time Sparta completed its conquest of Messenia, a legendary king called Lycurgus set out to reform the Spartan government with a new constitution. Under the new laws, each citizen of Sparta was equal, but citizenship applied only to those individuals of Spartan descent who were capable of bearing arms. The laws of Lycurgus also regimented every aspect of Spartan life. Lifelong military training was required, with boys being placed in military camps at the age of seven. Men and women lived virtually separate lives; the men resided in barracks, where their simple meals were eaten at common messes. All citizens, male and female, were required to abide by a code of absolute obedience to the laws. Spartan women were expected to produce healthy children in order to perpetuate the state. Babies thought too frail were left exposed on a moun-

895

taintop to die. Weakness of any sort was not tolerated in Spartan society. Sparta also forbade foreign travel and was suspicious of visitors, fearing the possible corruption of Spartan values. Spartan government consisted of a dual monarchy (two kings at the same time), a council of aristocrats, and an assembly of citizens.After Lycurgus’s reforms were put in place, a council of five officials called ephors was elected each year. Citizens elected as ephors had judicial powers that included bringing other officials to trial and imposing the death sentence on non-Spartans; they served only once on the council. The assembly of citizens, all male Spartans over the age of thirty, elected all council members and the ephors and had the responsibility for declaring war and approving royal decisions.

SPARTANS AT WAR Spartan society centered around military life, and wars were frequent in its history. The Messenian helots revolted in the Second Messenian War (ca. 650–630 b.c.e.), winning a significant victory at the battle of Senyclarus. Even though the Spartans were superior soldiers to the Messenians, it took Sparta nineteen years to defeat their opponents and enslave them again. Another lengthy conflict, the Tegean War (ca. 575–555 b.c.e.), resulted in the city-state of Tegea becoming a Spartan vassal, required to supply troops to Sparta and to follow Spartan policy, but remaining a sovereign kingdom. Throughout the sixth century b.c.e., Sparta developed alliances that became known as the Peloponnesian League, an organization of Greek city-states that contributed up to two-thirds of the troops under Spartan leadership. The League played a major role in Greek affairs, especially when the city-states were faced with invasions by the Persians in the GrecoPersian Wars (ca. 490–479 b.c.e.). During the wars with Persia, Sparta’s reputation as a military power earned it the command of the land defense of Greece. Perhaps its most famous action was the defense of Thermopylae, a coastal pass that the Persians had to traverse to reach southern Greece. In 480 b.c.e., a group of about three hundred Spartans, along with other Greek forces, defended Thermopylae against a huge Persian force numbering in the thousands. The Spartans held off the Persians for days before they were routed, giving other Greek forces time to prepare for war and eventually defeat the Persians.

896

S pa rta , K i n g d om o f

Although Sparta and Athens were allies in the Persian Wars, there was a long history of divisions between the two city-states. This division eventually resurfaced in open conflict between them. In 431 b.c.e., the long and debilitating Peloponnesian War began, pitting Sparta against Athens and its allies. Although Sparta was victorious, both it and Athens were irreparably damaged, and for the next century, Greece remained divided and at war with itself. During the fourth century b.c.e., Sparta, and all of Greece, faced another threat from outside forces: the Macedonian armies of Philip II (r. 359–336 b.c.e.) and of his son Alexander III, the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.). By the time of Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e., the Greek city-states were so weakened that they never regained their dominance. During the next few centuries, Sparta attempted but failed to regain its former glory, existing as just a minor Greek city-state. In the second century c.e., Sparta and the rest of Greece was absorbed by the Roman Empire, and the Visigoths destroyed the city of Sparta itself in 396. See also: Athens, Kingdom of; Mycenaean Monarchies; Persian Empire; Roman Empire; Trojan Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Cartledge, Paul. Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300–362 B.C. New York: Routledge, 2001.

SRIVIJAYA-PALEMBANG EMPIRE (600s–1200s C.E.)

Buddhist kingdom located in what is present-day Palembang and Jambi in southeast Sumatra, which during its height of power, controlled most of Sumatra, part of Java, and parts of the Malay Peninsula, and dominated the Malacca Straits, an important maritime trading route. First mentioned by early Chinese sources, Srivijaya was identified as a kingdom on the southeastern coast of Sumatra. By the seventh century, it was already active in trade between the Indian Ocean, China, and the Spice Islands in the Indonesian Archipelago. The kingdom probably came to dominate various harbors along the Sumatran coast, as well as the Straits of Malacca, which are located between Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula.

RISE TO POWER Srivijaya came to dominate the area for two main reasons. First, the southeastern coast of Sumatra had natural harbors, safe anchorage, and elaborate river systems that gave access to the interior.The swamps lining these rivers also offered protection against attack from the coast. The port of Palembang became a major transit center for various trade goods, including local forest products that were sold or exchanged for products from China and India. The southeastern coast of Sumatra also provided the easiest navigational access to China. Srivijaya-Palembang also rose to prominence because it was able to draw on networks of labor, mainly coastal Malay peoples. These networks were extremely effective in securing strategic sites for maritime settlements as well as in bringing ships to Palembang. Srivijaya-Palembang’s success in establishing its status depended largely on its naval supremacy and its ability to subdue potential rivals.

EARLY SRIVIJAYA AND ITS RULERS In 671, a Chinese monk named I-Ching visited Srivijaya-Palembang while on voyage from China to India. He referred to the capital as a center for Buddhist learning, where a large community of monks resided.While staying at a monastery in Palembang, I-Ching copied and translated various Buddhist texts into Chinese. His account of Srivijaya showed that it was already a center for Buddhist learning comparable to universities in India. According to an Old Malay inscription, in April 682, a king began a siddhayatra (expedition and search for spiritual power) that eventually brought victory, power. and wealth to Srivijaya.The king who commissioned the inscription was probably Jayanasa (r. ca. 680s), who founded a public park near Palembang in 684. There is little information about SrivijayaPalembang from this point until 775, when, according to another ancient source, a Srivijayan king sponsored Buddhist sanctuaries on the Malay Peninsula. This king may have been the father of a Sumatran princess who married a Javanese noble of the Sailendra dynasty and bore a son named Balaputra. Balaputra probably fled from Java in the ninth century to become the ruler of Srivijaya. Through him, the Sailendra dynasty came to the throne of SrivijayaPalembang. Srivijaya-Palembang probably reached its pinnacle

Sta n i s l au s I I of power and prosperity during the late eighth and early ninth centuries.Archaeological excavations in the Palembang region have unearthed evidence that economic activities flourished from the eighth through eleventh centuries. Scholars believe that Srivijaya’s influence during this period extended from southeasterm Sumatra as far as southern Thailand. It is uncertain whether Srivijaya-Palembang remained a cohesive unit throughout these three centuries. Chinese records suggest that Srivijaya’s power began to fade in the early ninth century.

DECLINE OF THE SRIVIJAYAN EMPIRE In the early eleventh century, the Srivijaya-Palembang Empire declined following attacks by the Cola (Chola) kingdom of southern India.The invaders succeeded in capturing the then Srivijayan ruler, Sangramavijayottungavarman of Kadaram (r. ca. 1020s). Although some scholars suggest that these attacks directly caused the downfall of Srivijaya-Palembang, the invasion might have been only one factor in the kingdom’s decline. Other factors may have included the expansion of Javanese power and the spread of Chinese shipping and settlement at rival ports during China’s Sung (Song) dynasty. In any event, by the 1200s, Srivijaya-Palembang was no longer a great imperial power. The center of power in the region had shifted to eastern Java. See also: Cola Kingdom; Javan Kingdoms; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

STANISLAS I (1677–1766 C.E.) King of Poland for two brief periods (r. 1704–1709, 1736), who was a celebrated advocate for Polish reform and independence during a fifty-year exile in France. In the 1700s Poland, though technically an independent kingdom, was dominated by its powerful neighbors, Sweden and Russia.The two powers vied for control by supporting rival candidates for the throne. In 1704, the invading Swedish monarch, Charles XII (r. 1697–1718), ordered an assembly of nobles to elect Stanislaw Leszczynski, a member of a prominent family of Protestant Polish aristocrats, as King Stanislas I. Five years later, the superior forces of Russia’s tsar, Peter I, the Great (r. 1682–1725), deposed the young ruler in favor of the man he had

897

replaced,Augustus II (r. 1697–1704, 1709–1733), of the German house of Saxony. After his deposition, Stanislas settled into a comfortable exile in France, Sweden’s ally. In 1726, he married his daughter Marie to King Louis V of France (r. 1715–1774) in order to ensure continued French support for his claim to the Polish throne. At the death of Augustus II in 1733, Stanislas returned to Poland, buoyed by a wave of antiforeign sentiment. Some 13,000 nobles elected him king by acclamation. But once again, and this time more promptly, the popular monarch was overthrown by force of Russian arms, as a rival assembly of 4,000 nobles met a few months later to choose Augustus III (r. 1733–1763), the son of Augustus II, to be king. Stanislas now fled to the Baltic port city of Danzig to await French support, but a successful Russian siege of the city forced him to flee from there as well. According to the terms of the peace settlement of 1735, the Treaty of Vienna, Augustus III remained the effective ruler of Poland. However, Stanislas was made duke of Lorraine, which was ceded by Austria to French control, and he was allowed to keep his honorary title of king of Poland. The exiled ruler set up a small but distinguished court in Luneville, the capital of the Lorraine duchy, surrounding himself with refined courtiers and philosophers. An humane and enlightened ruler, he proved to be a capable duke. Stanislas also maintained steady contact with his native Poland and educated many of his countrymen in local academies. Through his thought and writings, including the book, A Free Voice Insuring Freedom (1749), he continued to influence Polish politics and was widely admired for his calls for social and political reform. When Stanislas died in 1766, the duchy of Lorraine passed to the French Crown. See also: Louis XV; Peter I, the Great; Saxon Dynasty.

STANISLAUS II (1732–1798 C.E.) Last king of Poland (r. 1764–1795), who was the first fully constitutional monarch in Europe. Born Stanislaus Augustus Poniatowski, Stanislaus II was a member of a minor noble family related to the powerful Czartoryski family, a relationship that helped him further his career. In 1756, Stanislaus be-

898

Sta n i s l au s I I

came Polish ambassador to Russia. He was sent to the Russian capital of St. Petersburg, where he became the lover of Russian Grand Duchess Catherine, who later became Tsarina Catherine II, the Great. When King Augustus III of Poland (r. 1733–1763) died in 1763, Catherine, now the ruler of Russia, used her power to secure the election of Stanislaus as successor to the Polish throne. As a result, Russian influence in Poland grew substantially, and Russia’s ambassador to Poland played a significant role in ruling the country. Stanislaus revealed reformist tendencies in the choice of his coronation name, August, which was a reference to ancient Rome, whose civic devotion had become a model for enlightened Europeans of the time. Most of his reign, however, was marred by squabbling between rival reformist factions, and his attempts to forge an effective constitutional state were hampered by the repeated intervention of both Russia and Prussia. Stanislaus nonetheless managed to enact some reforms in economic, financial, military, and educational matters. He strengthened the kingdom’s central administration, opened public offices to the middle class, reorganized the educational system, and improved the lot of Polish peasants, although he did not abolish serfdom. Stanislaus also was a generous patron of the arts, science, and literature. In 1768, anti-Russian members of the Polish nobility, angered by Russian influence in the country, united and formed the Confederation of Bar. Two years later, in 1770, these nobles revolted and declared Stanislaus deposed. However, the Russians crushed the revolt, and, in 1772, Poland was partitioned between Russia, Prussia, and Austria, each of which took vast territories from the kingdom. Between 1788 and 1792, while Russia was distracted by a long war with the Ottoman Turks, the Polish Sejm (parliament) passed a series of dramatic reforms supported by Stanislaus. The high point of the reform movement was the adoption in 1791 of a written constitution, the May Constitition, which provided for a parliamentary monarchy. Russia, viewing a parliamentary monarchy as a threat to its influence in Poland, sought to restore the old system of government. Joined by Prussia, Russia invaded Poland in 1792. This resulted in a second partition of the kingdom in 1793 and left Stanislaus a vassal of Russia. Two years later, in 1795, the rest of Poland was

carved up among Russia, Prussia, and Austria, whose rulers agreed to end the Polish monarchy and retire the Crown. With no power to maintain the throne, Stanislaus had no choice but to abdicate that same year, becoming the last king of Poland. He retired to St. Petersburg, where he died in 1798. See also: Catherine II, the Great.

STEPHEN (ca. 1097–1154 C.E.) King of England (r. 1135–1154), grandson of William the Conqueror (r. 1066–1087), whose reign witnessed a period of instability and civil war. Although Stephen managed to retain the throne—except for a brief period when his cousin Matilda held it—the repeated challenges to his rule and resulting civil war greatly weakened his power. Many Norman nobles were able to take advantage of this to greatly increase their own power. Stephen’s reign is more noted for the disruption of civil life than for any accomplishments. The son of Count Stephen of Blois and Chartres, and Adela, the daughter of William the Conqueror, Stephen was raised not in Normandy or France, but in the household of King Henry I of England (r. 1100–1135), his mother’s brother. Stephen was thus well placed, when Henry I died without a male heir in 1135, to claim the throne of England for himself. However, Henry had a daughter, Matilda, who disputed her cousin Stephen’s claim. Although many nobles, including Stephen, had earlier sworn fealty to Matilda as Henry’s successor, Stephen was proclaimed king by England’s nobles after he arrived in London shortly after Henry’s death. Despite support from the English and Norman nobles, Stephen had difficulty governing, and in 1139, Matilda took advantage of the instability to invade England from France. She had support from King David I of Scotland (r. 1124–1153), who invaded England from the north but was soon defeated by Stephen’s forces. Matilda’s forces eventually captured Stephen at the battle of Lincoln in 1141. She reigned for a brief time but later was forced to exchange Stephen in order to free her ally and halfbrother, Robert of Gloucester, who had renounced his allegiance to Stephen and had been captured soon after Matilda’s success at Lincoln. Unable to maintain the throne, Matilda withdrew in 1148 and went to Normandy, leaving Stephen as king.

Stephen I

899

Stephen’s rule was challenged again in 1152 by Henry of Anjou, the son of Matilda and heir of Geoffrey of Anjou. Geoffrey had taken control of Normandy in 1144, giving his son Henry a powerful base from which to challenge Stephen. Henry was unsuccessful in his attempt to defeat Stephen. But under the Treaty of Westminster (1153), Stephen agreed that succession to the English throne would pass to Henry, who became Henry II (r. 1154–1189) when Stephen died in 1154. See also: English Monarchies; Henry II; William I, the Conqueror.

STEPHEN I (St. Stephen) (ca. 970–1038 C.E.) Hungarian duke (r. 997–1001) and first ruler of Hungary to bear the title of king (r. 1001–1038). He is now regarded as the patron saint of the nation. Stephen was the son of Geza (r. ca. 970–997), duke or prince of the Magyars (Hungarians) of the house of Arpad. At his birth, Stephen was given the pagan name Vajk, but in 985 he was baptized a Christian, together with his father, and given the name Stephen. In 996, Stephen married Gisela, daughter of German duke Henry II of Bavaria (r. 955–976, 985–995). Upon the death of his father, Geza, the following year, Stephen assumed rulership of the Magyars. However, because the hereditary principle was not yet firmly recognized, he had to fight rival pretenders. To strengthen his rule, Stephen persuaded Pope Sylvester II (r. 999–1003) to have him crowned king in a religious ceremony, probably in early 1001. The actual crown sent by the pope was eventually lost; the existing “St. Stephen’s Crown,” treasured by Hungarians as a priceless relic, was probably made after Stephen’s death. After consolidating his hold on the Magyar tribes, Stephen settled into a long peaceful reign, which he used to reorganize and centralize his realm. He divided the country into forty counties centered on royal forts, appointing a governor over each.All land not held by freeholders or the Church became Crown property.With two-thirds of tax revenue accruing to the king, Stephen guaranteed royal power for another hundred years, though a rudimentary Senate and Council were already in place.

Stephen I of Hungary was the first ruler of that country to bear the title of king. He united the Magyar people into a single nation and played a major role in Christianizing the country.The patron saint of Hungary, Stephen was canonized in 1083.

During Stephen’s reign, the population of Hungary became more stratified. Traditional chieftains and new landowners benefited from strict laws protecting property rights, and most peasants working on their lands became serfs. The inhabitants of royal towns and estates were generally assigned hereditary roles, such as artisan, soldier, farmer, hunter, or vineyard tender.Trade and agriculture expanded. Stephen invited Western clergy to staff two new archbishoprics, ten bishoprics, and many monasteries (where Latin religious and legal texts were compiled and a Latin alphabet was created for the Hungarian language). Several thousand churches were built at royal command, and most of the population was converted from paganism to Christianity. Stephen’s role in Christianizing Hungary led to his

900

Stephen I

canonization as a saint in 1083. Stephen died in 1038 and was succeeded by his nephew, Peter (r. 1038– 1041). See also: Arpad Dynasty.

STEWART DYNASTY (1371–1625 C.E.) Scottish dynasty that began as a family of hereditary courtiers and eventually won possession of the thrones of both Scotland and England. From their medieval origins in the 1100s, the Stewarts guided Scotland through wars, alliances, revolts, the Renaissance and Reformation, and finally union with England.

ORIGINS The long-lived Stewart dynasty originated in Normandy and came to Scotland by way of medieval England. Around 1136, King David I (r. 1124–1153) of Scotland (of the house of Dunkeld) made Walter Fitz-Alan, an Anglo-Norman knight, his Royal Steward. The Royal Steward was responsible for managing the royal household and was thus among the courtiers closest to the king. Walter and his descendants took the name of their hereditary office as a surname, and Steward was later changed to Stewart. The Stewart family’s prominence rose steadily within the kingdom. In the early 1300s, Scottish monarch Robert the Bruce (r. 1306– 1329) rewarded Walter Steward, the sixth member of the family to hold the office, with the hand of his daughter Marjory. Their son Robert, born in 1316, eventually became Robert II (r. 1371–1390), the first Stewart king of Scotland.

THE SCOTTISH THRONE When David II (r. 1329–1371) of the house of Bruce died childless in 1371, the throne passed to Robert Stewart, who, though his mother Marjory, was the closest male relative to the Bruce line. Despite a promising youth, Robert II ruled ineffectively, and in 1390, shortly before his death, he handed the throne over to his eldest son John, who chose to be crowned under the name Robert III (r. 1390–1406). Melancholy and left crippled by a horse, Robert III fared little better than his father. In 1406, as relations with England deteriorated, he sent his son James to France for safety. Robert III died in despair shortly after the English captured his son and heir.

James I (r. 1406–1437) began his rule inauspiciously as a prisoner of the English. While in England, he fell in love with and married Lady Joan Beaufort in 1424, after which he was released under the terms of the Treaty of London, which provided for James’s release in return for a large ransom. An accomplished poet and author of The Kingis Quair (a story of his captivity in England and romance with Lady Joan), James I ruled competently but made a number of enemies. Assassinated by a group of Scottish nobles in 1437, he was succeeded by his six-year-old son, James II (r. 1437–1460), who was called “the Fiery Face” for his red birthmark. James II’s early life was marked by political turmoil, and he spent much of his reign subduing the powerful and ambitious Black Douglas family. He also reformed the courts of justice and regulated Scottish coinage. James II was killed in 1460 when one of his own cannons exploded at Roxburgh, leaving the throne to his eight-year-old son, James III (r. 1460–1488). James III had a taste for fine living, to the dismay of some of his countrymen.Yet, his marriage to Margaret of Denmark in 1469 brought both the Orkney and Shetland Isles under the Scottish Crown. James’s attempts to make peace with England failed, however, leading to a tumultuous period that ended in an uprising in 1488 supported by his eldest son, in which James was defeated and murdered. Unlike his father, James IV (r. 1488–1513) possessed a talent for connecting with his subjects. The cosmopolitan monarch (known as “James of the Iron Belt” for the chain he wore around his waist as penance for his role in the uprising that led to James III’s murder) was fluent in several languages and was also a skilled administrator who improved judicial procedures in Scotland and encouraged the growth of manufacture. In 1503, James IV married Margaret Tudor, the daughter of King Henry VII of England (r. 1485–1509). This marriage would eventually have great consequences for the Stewart line. During yet another war with England, James IV died at the battle of Flodden in 1513 and was succeeded by his infant son, James V (r. 1513–1542). Like his grandfather, James III, the child king was subjected to a power struggle among his advisers. However, he ruled Scotland in his own right from the age of sixteen. James V did much to strengthen the ties of the socalled Auld Alliance, the special relationship between

St r at h c ly d e K i n g d om Scotland and France that was far more than a defensive pact against England, their mutual enemy. The Stewart dynasty stood at the heart of the Auld Alliance. One branch of the family, the Stewarts of d’Aubingy, was influential in the French court and often supplied captains of the Garde Ecossaise (Scots Guard) that protected the French kings. It was the Auld Alliance that led James V to successive marriages to Madeleine of France and Mary de Guise, the daughter of an extremely influential French noble family. Mary de Guise bore James his only surviving child, a daughter who became Mary, Queen of Scots (r. 1542–1567). When James lay ill and despairing over news of the Scottish defeat by the English at the battle of Solway Moss in 1542, he was heard to say of his dynasty: “It came with a lass and it will pass with a lass,” referring to Marjory Bruce and his baby daughter, Mary. Mary, Queen of Scots was not the last of the Stewart dynasty, however, although she was the last Stewart monarch to rule just Scotland. Mary’s life was as eventful and ill-fated as those of her Stewart forebears—from an early marriage to the French crown prince, which brought the Auld Alliance to the brink of union to her execution in England in 1587 on the grounds of conspiring in plots to murder the English queen, Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). Years before her execution, however, Mary had given up the Scottish throne because of religious conflicts in the country and scandal in her court. Faced with a loss of public support, she abdicated the throne in 1567 in favor of her infant son, who became James VI (r. 1567–1625)

THE ENGLISH THRONE It was through Mary, Queen of Scots that the Stewarts rose to the throne of England. When Queen Elizabeth I of England died in 1603, Mary’s son, James VI of Scotland, claimed the English throne on the basis of his descent from Margaret Tudor of England, his great-grandmother and the daughter of Henry VII. The so-called Union of Crowns in 1603 brought the Stewart king to the throne of England. From that point forward, the dynasty was known by the French spelling favored by both James and his mother: Stuart. See also: David I; Elizabeth I; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Mary, Queen of Scots;

901

Robert I (Robert the Bruce); Scottish Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Lynch, Michael. Scotland: A New History. London: Pimlico, 1992. Mackie, John Duncan. A History of Scotland. New York: Penguin, 1984. Ross, Stewart. Monarchs of Scotland. New York: Facts on File, 1990.

STRATHCLYDE KINGDOM (ca. 400–870 C.E.)

Ancient kingdom that developed in southern Scotland and northern England following the departure of Roman forces from Britain in 368. At its height, the kingdom of Strathclyde covered territory from the capital Ail-Cluathe (Dumbarton) to Wales. The origins of the Strathclyde kingdom began in the fourth century with the merger of two tribes, the Damnonii and the Votadini.These people were Britons whose language was an early form of Welsh. One of the first kings of the kingdom was Coel Hen (the Old King Cole of nursery rhymes), who ruled around 412. His successor, Ceretic Gulectic (ca. 420), moved the capital from the area of York (or possibly Trepain Law in Lothian) to the northwest. As his people were known as North Britons, the capital was called Dun Breatann, or “fortress of the Britons.” Cerectic Gulectic established the royal house of Strathclyde. The history of Strathclyde is very sketchy, and little is known of its rulers. One of the first mentions of the kingdom appears in early Irish literature, which tells of the battle of Muchramha, in which the Britons of Strathclyde fought against invading Irish forces in the third century c.e. Wars against the Scots, who came from Ireland, and the Picts, the native people of northern Britain, continued through Coel Hen’s reign. The kingdom of Strathclyde lasted until 870, when it was destroyed by Dublin-based Vikings. After the Viking victory, many Straythclyde nobles fled to northern Wales. In 1034, the remnants of these people merged with Alba (the early name for Scotland) to form the beginnings of the later kingdom of Scotland. See also: Scottish Kingdoms;Viking Empire.

902

St ua rt Dy na s t y

STUART DYNASTY (1603–1714 C.E.) Royal family originating in Scotland that ruled England throughout much of the 1600s, through the English civil war, the restoration of the monarchy, and the eventual deposition of the last Stuart monarch in the so-called Glorious Revolution. The house of Stuart produced four kings of England—James I (r. 1603–1625), Charles I (r. 1625–1649), Charles II (r. 1660–1685), and James II (r. 1685–1688)—and one queen—Anne (r. 1702– 1714). Originally the Scottish house of Stewart, the dynasty held the throne of Scotland from 1371 to 1625. In the sixteenth century, the spelling of the family name was changed to Stuart, reflecting French influences on the Scottish royal court.

FROM SCOTLAND TO ENGLAND The Stewarts, whose name derives from their hereditary post as stewards or overseers of the royal household, came to England from Brittany in the 1100s. Walter Stewart entered the service of King David I of Scotland (r. 1124–1153) and was thereafter appointed his official steward. In 1371, the Stewarts assumed the throne of Scotland with the coronation of Robert II (r. 1371–1390). The first Stuart king of England was James I, the son of Mary, Queen of Scots (r. 1542–1567), and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. When Mary remarried just two months after the suspicious murder of Lord Darnley in February 1567, she outraged Protestant preachers and many Scots and also alienated many nobles who had supported her. Forced to step down from the throne later that same year, she was succeeded by her infant son James, who became King James VI of Scotland (r. 1567–1625). The Stuarts came to the throne in England by way of succession problems in that kingdom and blood ties between James and the English Tudor dynasty. The last Tudor monarch of England, Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), had no direct heirs. As she approached old age, her choice of a successor became a subject of much speculation. Eventually, through a fortuitous set of circumstances, Elizabeth chose James, whose greatgrandmother was Margaret Tudor, the daughter of King Henry VII of England (r. 1485–1509), as her successor. Although Elizabeth had imprisoned and executed her rival for the throne—James’s Catholic

mother Mary, Queen of Scots—James was a staunch Protestant and an ally of Elizabeth. Upon the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England. His succession united the Crowns of England and Scotland, a unification that has lasted to the present day.

TROUBLES ARISE Upon the death of James I in 1625, his son Charles became the second Stuart monarch of England (and ruler of Scotland). Soon after he assumed the throne, Charles I came into conflict with Parliament over a number of issues, including the power and authority of the king.These conflicts grew into the English civil war, which resulted in Charles being beheaded by the Parliamentary Party in 1649. For the next nine years, England was ruled by Oliver Cromwell, a Parliamentarian leader who assumed the title Lord Protector. When Cromwell’s son Richard failed to live up to the office left open by his father’s death in 1658, the English eventually invited the Stuarts back to England. Charles and James Stuart, the two sons of Charles

The Stuart Dynasty ruled England during a turbulent period of the nation’s history, including struggles between king and Parliament and the clash between Catholicism and Protestantism. Charles II, shown in this portrait, was restored to the throne in 1660 after the 11-year Interregnum, during which England was without a monarch.

903

St ua rt Dy na s t y

Stuart, House of (1603–1714) James VI* of Scotland and I of England=Anne of Denmark (1603–1625)

Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales

Charles II* =Catherine (1649–1685) of Braganza

Elizabeth

Mary=William II of Orange+*

William III (1689–1702)

=

Charles I* =Henrietta Maria (1625–1649)

(1685–1688) James II* =Anne Hyde1 =Mary2 of Modena

Mary II (1689–1694)

Four other children

Anne* (1702–1714)

+See William and Mary *Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

I, had been living in France during the so-called Interregnum, the period of Parliamentary rule under the Cromwells.When they were recalled to England in 1660, the oldest son, Charles, took the throne as King Charles II. His reign, known as the Restoration because the monarchy had been restored, was a period of moral laxity and general prosperity. Charles II left no legitimate heirs, so at his death his younger brother James became James II. James was the last of the direct male line of Stuart kings. James II had converted to Catholicism years earlier. But as king, he promoted religious toleration in England, a necessary policy to appease English Protestants. However, when his staunchly Catholic wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son who might rule as a Catholic, Protestant leaders forced James from the throne in favor of his Protestant son-in-law, William of Orange, the husband of James’s Protestant daughter Mary.This bloodless transfer of power is known as the Glorious Revolution.

LAST STUART MONARCHS William III (r. 1689–1702) and Mary II (r. 1689– 1694) held the throne jointly and were succeeded by

James’s other Protestant daughter, Anne (1702– 1714). Anne left no heir, and her death in 1714 marked the end of Stuart rule in England. The next dynasty to occupy the English throne was the house of Hanover. Sophia of Hanover, the wife of German Elector Ernest Augustus (r. 1679–1698), was a granddaughter of King James I of England. Her son, George Louis of Hanover, became King George I of England (1714–1727), the first ruler of the Hanoverian dynasty. Although direct male descendants of the Stuart line were still alive and holding court in France, they were excluded from the English throne because of their Catholic faith. James II’s son, James Francis Edward Stuart, also known as the Old Pretender, attempted but failed to regain the throne for the Stuarts after the death of Queen Anne. His son, Charles Edward Stuart, also known as Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Young Pretender, likewise staged an invasion of Britain in 1745 on behalf of the Jacobites, or supporters of the Stuart line. Although the Jacobite armies made some initial advances, the attempt to regain England failed, destroying the last hopes of a Stuart restoration.

904

St ua rt Dy na s t y

See also: Anne; Charles I; Charles II; Elizabeth I; English Monarchies; Hanover, House of; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); James II; Mary, Queen of Scots; Stewart Dynasty;Tudor, House of;William and Mary. FURTHER READING

Ashley, Maurice. The House of Stuart:A Study in English Kingship. London: J.M. Dent, 1958. Kenyon, J.P. The Stuarts: A Study in English Kingship. London: Severn House, 1977. Lockyer, Roger. The Early Stuarts:A Political History of England, 1603–1642. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 1999.

SUBJECTS, ROYAL Those individuals under the authority of the ruling monarch or government. In the past, it was generally assumed that subjects owed loyalty to their monarchs in exchange for certain protections and services provided by the Crown. Over time, however, royal subjects began to demand more rights and political powers, which ultimately led to the decline of monarchical forms of government and the formation of democratic ones in their place.

EARLY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MONARCHS AND SUBJECTS Most historians agree that early forms of monarchical power were largely based on military prowess, wherein those individuals who could maintain the greatest military might became rulers. The earliest societies of which there are written records bear this out. Ancient Egyptian pharaohs, such as Menes (ca. 3100 b.c.e.), the founder of Egypt’s First dynasty, were great military leaders, as was Tang (ca. 1520 b.c.e.), the founder of the Shang dynasty in China.

The Ancient Period The fact that most early monarchs were military leaders suggests that royal subjects were generally indebted to their monarchs for protection and defense.Although subjects in both the Egyptian and Chinese civilizations had many freedoms, their ultimate loyalty was to the monarchy. The fact that many early monarchs such as these also served as religious figures helped to guarantee additional allegiance from their subjects.

Although the tradition of monarchs as military leaders would continue for some time, the widespread allegiance of royal subjects gradually diminished, especially with the democratic and republican ideals of the emerging Greek and Roman civilizations, which prospered until the fifth century c.e.Although several Roman emperors, including Caligula (r. 37–41) and Nero (r. 54–68), notoriously demanded total allegiance from their subjects, none were able to meet the needs of their people, and consequently they had largely unsuccessful reigns.

Feudal Subjects The obligations of monarchs to their subjects decreased drastically during the feudal era following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century. As feudal systems invested local lords with considerable power and responsibility, including military defense, royal subjects tended to be more immediately loyal to their local lord than to the monarch. The fact that local nobles were said to be representative of the king guaranteed the allegiance of subjects to the Crown in theory, but in practice this was rarely the case. In twelfth-century Japan, for instance, a feudal lord (or daimyo) named Minamoto Yoritomo (r. 1192–1195) grew so powerful that he led his local subjects in an armed overthrow of the imperial government and established the Kamakura shogunate, becoming the first shogun of Japan.

GROWING ALIENATION The end of the feudal era saw the return of “divine right” philosophies of monarchical power, which supposedly inspired total allegiance from royal subjects. How those subjects actually perceived their obligations to the Crown is a matter of debate. It is true, however, that none of the absolute monarchs of this period, such as King Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715), were able to fulfill their obligations to their people in such a way that the Crown did in fact hold total power. The beginning of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century saw notions of natural and civil rights gain in popularity, which resulted in diminished feelings of allegiance on the part of royal subjects. The growing political power of the middle class at this time furthered this alienation from the monarchy, as powerful local governments supported by the bourgeoisie (middle class) were now performing many of the services formerly provided by monarchs, such as military protection and public works.

S u c c e s s i o n, R o y a l SUBJECTS IN REVOLT Two major revolutions, the nonviolent Glorious Revolution in England in 1688 and the French Revolution that began in 1789, served to further change the definition of royal subjects. Both of these events stripped considerable political power from the monarchy and transferred it to more democratic bodies, thereby changing the object of subjects’ allegiance. In England, for instance, subjects were still said to have obligations to the Crown; however, “Crown” was no longer taken to mean the royal personage, but rather the government and nation as a whole. As monarchal power waned in the face of emerging democratic forms of government, subjects became less tied to specific monarchs and more committed to the nation as a whole. This led to the formation of modern constitutional monarchies, in which subjects have no real relationship to their monarchs beyond the strictly symbolic level. In most countries with this type of political organization, monarchs have little more actual political power than other individuals in the society. See also: Divine Right; Feudalism and Kingship; Military Roles, Royal; Power, Forms of Royal; Rights, Civil;Tyranny, Royal.

SUCCESSION, ROYAL Method by which the Crown passes from one monarch to the next. Most succession is hereditary. Generally, it passes to the eldest son, or, if there is no son, to the eldest female relative, with the male heirs almost always having preference over the females.This practice is called primogeniture, and it is still the guiding principle of a number of surviving monarchies today.

LAWS OF SUCCESSION Beginning in the early Middle Ages, France followed Salic Law, a Germanic Frankish law that did not allow for the possibility of a female succession. The Salic Law came from a code of law written about the time of Clovis (r. 481–511), king of the Salic Franks in northern Gaul. According to Salic Law, a daughter could not inherit property; moreover, no title could be passed through her. Hence, her sons could not inherit. If there were no surviving sons, the Crown would then go to the king’s nearest male relative. This practice followed ancient Roman law, in which

905

women were considered the property of their husbands and fathers. Some countries follow what is sometimes referred to as Semi-Salic Law, in which all male descendants from all branches of a dynasty have precedence over the female descendants. A female may inherit only if there are no male descendants in any of the dynastic lines. Russia, Austria, and a number of German states observed this practice, and it is still followed in the monarchies of both Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. Other countries follow what is called cognatic succession, or absolute primogeniture. In this form of succession, the eldest child of the monarch, either male or female, may inherit the throne.The system is still practiced in Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

MATRILINEAL SUCCESSION Most succession is patrilineal; that is, inheritance passes from the father to the son. Occasionally, however, succession can be matrilineal, in which the Crown passes through the female line, and a king may be succeeded by his brother or his sister’s son. Such succession is rare, although the Picts of early Britain are thought to have practiced it in the first through fourth centuries.There is no record of a Pictish son succeeding his father until the last years of the kingdom, at which point the Picts had joined with the Scottish kingdom to fight the Vikings. The change in the rules of Pictish succession may thus have been influenced by Scottish procedures. Finally, in some societies, such as Poland and some medieval German states, the ruler or monarch can be elected, usually by a representative body. In the case of Poland, members of the ruling dynasty were domini naturales (natural lords) from among whom the monarch was chosen. However, this method of selection, by election, is also rare. Poland is one country that practiced it through much of its history. From 1572 onward, candidates for the throne did not have to be from any particular dynasty, and all of the nobility were allowed to participate in electing the ruler. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, Poland encountered difficulties with this process, when its legislative body began to vote for foreign monarchs.

REGENCY OR WEAK MONARCHS The lack of an adult successor can be of particular concern to a monarchy. In such cases, high-ranking

906

S u c c e s s i o n, R o y a l

nobles are apt to struggle among themselves to serve as regent, or acting ruler, giving them control of the throne until the monarch is old enough or capable enough to rule. Regents may also be chosen to rule while an adult king is absent from the throne because of illness, to participate in military campaigns in foreign lands, or any other reason that leaves the throne temporarily vacant. Similarly, weak monarchs can also produce chaos in a kingdom, as different factions fight to dominate the ruler. Long-ruling monarchs who are weak may create such serious problems for the kingdom that they may be deposed. Moreover, when a monarch is ousted, problems regarding the succession to the throne are likely to follow, often resulting in civil strife or warfare. See also: Accession and Crowning of Kings; Blood, Royal; Descent; Inheritance, Royal; Kingdoms and Empires; Kings and Queens; Regencies; Reigns, Length of; Royal Families.

SUDANIC EMPIRES. See African Kingdoms

SUI DYNASTY (581–618 C.E.) Chinese dynasty that reunited China in the sixth century after more than three hundred years of political upheaval. The Sui dynasty succeeded the Northern Chou (Zhou) dynasty in the late 500s. For the preceding three centuries, China had endured the so-called Period of Disunion in which no single power controlled the country. In 581, however, a distant relative of the reigning Chou family, northern nobleman named Yang Chien (Jian), deposed the last Northern Zhou ruler, Hou Chu (Zhu), and executed the majority of Chou loyalists.Yang Chien assumed the royal appellation Wendi and founded the Sui dynasty. At first, Wendi (Wen Ti) (r. 581–604) forcefully consolidated the fragmented Chinese kingdom. In 587 he defeated the armies of the Later Liang dynasty in the Hubei province.Then, in 589, he easily conquered the Ch’en dynasty and captured its capital at Nanjing. Wendi next ensured his control by eliminating all of

the hereditary privileges of the aristocracy, including their claims to land and government positions. Wendi used an “equal field” system to redistribute his newly acquired land. All land was classified as either personal share land or perpetual holdings. Each household, depending on its size, was given an amount of personal share land to farm. In turn, individual families paid taxes based on the size of their share. Also, to show their gratitude for the land grants, adults were required to work on public construction projects. Each farm was reassessed every three years and could be expanded or decreased. Perpetual holding land was designated for the sole purpose of silk production. To staff the government, Wendi relied solely on civil service examinations and insisted that promotions be based only upon merit.Three departments, the sansheng, oversaw all governmental functions. Under previous dynasties, each province had maintained its own militia, but Wendi organized the national fubing, a unified army controlled by the monarchy. Wendi next initiated several massive public projects, beginning with the erection of a new capital, Daxingcheng. Designed to be the world’s largest city, it was not completed during the Sui dynasty. In 584, Wendi began constructing a large canal that would unite western Daxingcheng with eastern China. Finally, he rebuilt the Great Wall to diminish the constant threat of raids from the north and west by the Eastern Turks. Wendi died from a sudden illness in 604 and was succeeded by one of his younger sons, Yang Kuang (Guang) (r. 604–617).Yang Guang originally had not been named crown prince, but he skillfully denigrated his older brother until Wendi reduced the crown prince to commoner status. Subsequently, Yang Guang ascended the throne in 604 and assumed the royal title Yangdi (Yang Ti).

Sui Dynasty Wen Ti (Wendi)

581–604

Yang Ti (Yangdi)

604–617

Kung Ti (Gongdi)

617–618

Sukhothai Kingdom Yangdi immediately introduced a number of ambitious policies. He added a new level to the civil service examinations, the jinshi degree, which became the most prestigious degree in China for many centuries. He also extended the Sui territory by gaining control over much of the Silk Road, occupying the western Xinjiang province, and conquering northern Vietnam.To help protect his enlarged empire,Yangdi ordered a major expansion of the Great Wall in 607. Like his father, Yangdi also commissioned huge public projects. Even though the capital of Daxingcheng was far from completion, Yangdi constructed a second, eastern capital at Luoyang. He also erected numerous opulent pleasure palaces. Yangdi then reconstructed the original Grand Canal so that it stretched from Luoyang to Beijing, and he oversaw an enormous development in road building. These improvements established a highly effective infrastructure throughout the sprawling country. These projects, however, also bankrupted the Sui dynasty both financially and physically.To fund them, Yangdi raised taxes to unprecedented levels. Farmers struggled to pay these burdensome taxes, however, because several seasons of devastating flooding in the Yellow River basin had ruined much of the richest Chinese farmland. Conscription also depleted the population. Over one million peasants died during the expansion of the Great Wall and the construction of Daxingcheng and Luoyang. Finally, between 611 and 614, Yangdi launched three disastrous expeditions against the Korean kingdom of Koguryo. As a result, a huge revolution erupted in the Sui state and Yangdi was forced to flee to Jiangdu. He was deposed in 617 and assassinated the next year. For two years, Gongdi (Kung Ti) (r. 617–618), a child-emperor, served as the figurehead of the Sui dynasty. The country was ruled by the emperor’s regent, Li Yuan, who had been one of the leaders of the revolution against Yangdi. In 618, Li Yuan deposed the emperor, took the imperial name Kao Tsu (Gaozu) (r. 618–626), and established the T’ang dynasty. Despite the Sui dynasty’s brief existence, its accomplishments, such as the new civil service organization and greatly expanded canal system, provided a substantial foundation for the T’ang dynasty and benefited China for centuries. But these accomplishments came at a heavy cost for the Sui

907

emperors. Their young dynasty could not withstand the upheaval caused by such rapid changes. See also: T’ang Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Bingham, Woodbridge. The Founding of the Tang Dynasty:The Fall of Sui and the Rise of Tang. New York: Octagon Books, 1970. Hansen,Valerie. The Open Empire:A History of China to 1600. New York:W.W. Norton, 2000.

SUKHOTHAI KINGDOM (ca. 1200s–1300s C.E.)

Buddhist kingdom in central Thailand, centered on the city of Sukhothai, which was one of the most powerful kingdoms in the region during its zenith but then quickly declined. The Sukhothai kingdom rose to prominence with the overthrow of Khmer (Cambodian) control during the early decades of the thirteenth century. Two Thai chiefs brought about its independence by forming an alliance and defeating the Khmer governor of Sukhothai. One of these chiefs, Bang Klang Thao, was crowned king of Sukhothai and ruled as Sri Indraditya (r. 1238–1275). Indraditya’s third son and successor, Rama Khamheng (r. 1279–1317), became one of Thailand’s most prominent historical figures. In 1287, Rama Khamheng took a blood oath of sworn brotherhood with Mangrai of Chiangrai and Ngam Muang of Muang Phayao.This marked both the beginning of an alliance among the three subregions of Thailand and the first instance of Thai shared ethnic identity. Information on the geneology of Rama Khamheng is inscribed on a stele, or stone pillar, dated to 1292. The stele also includes other information pertinent to Rama Khamheng’s reign, such as a description of the capital city of Sukhothai. It also describes the establishment, in 1285, of a stupa (a Buddhist monument shaped like an earthen mound) in Sawankhalok and the construction of a stone throne at Sukhothai in 1292. Rama Khamheng conquered many towns during his long reign, including Saraluang in the east, Phetchaburi and Si Thammarat in the south, a number of towns

908

Sukhothai Kingdom

along the coast of the Martaban Gulf, and Luang Prabang in Laos. Chinese court records, The History of the Yuan, reveal two diplomatic missions to China during Rama Khamheng’s reign—one in 1295, at which Sukhothai presented the Chinese with a gold tablet and white horses with saddles and bridles, and another in 1299. These Chinese records suggest that Rama Khamheng died before 1299, but modern scholars believe his reign ended later. Unlike Rama Khamheng, his successors, Lo Thai (r. 1317–1354) and Li Thai (r. 1354–1376), were more interested in promoting Buddhism than in conquest. In 1349, the newly created kingdom of Ayuthia launched an expedition against Sukhothai and brought about the submission of Lo Thai. By 1350, Sukhothai had become a vassal of Ayuthia. In the fourteenth century, Sukhothai attempted to regain its independence. But it failed when the king of Ayuthia, Boromoraja I (r. 1370–1388), led a series of invasions to Sukhothai, culminating in the cession of Sukhothai’s western districts to Ayuthia in 1378. By 1438, Sukhothai had ceased to exist as a separate kingdom, having become merely a province of Ayuthia. See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Bangkok Kingdom; Siam, Kingdoms of; Southeast Asian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Gosling, Betty. Sukhothai: Its History, Culture, and Art. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Hall, D.G.E. A History of South-East Asia. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981. Wyatt, David. Thailand: A Short History. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1984.

SULEYMAN I, THE MAGNIFICENT (1494–1566 C.E.) The most renowned of all the Ottoman sultans, known to his countrymen as Suleyman Kanuni, or Suleyman the Lawgiver, and to the rest of the world as Suleyman the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566). Suleyman was born in 1494, the son of Sultan

Selim I (r. 1512–1520), and became Selim’s favorite child and carefully groomed successor. Suleyman inherited the throne in 1520 at age twenty-six, when Selim died en route to a new military campaign. Suleyman upheld the martial tradition of the early Ottoman sultans: thirty of his forty-seven years of rule were spent on military campaigns. Suleyman was feared and admired not only in his own empire, but throughout Europe and Asia. He captured Belgrade in 1521 and Rhodes in 1522. Suleyman’s forces crushed the Hungarian army at Mohacs in 1526, and his territorial gains in Hungary and Austria brought his armies to the gates in Vienna in 1529. The siege of Vienna was unsuccessful, but Suleyman’s conquests in Europe, Mesopotamia, and Persia brought the Ottoman Empire to the peak of its geographical expansion. He also expanded the dominance of the Ottoman navy, defeating the combined Venetian and Spanish fleets at the battle of Preveza in 1538. Under the leadership of the admiral Barbarossa, Suleyman’s vassal, the Ottoman navy dominated the Red Sea and Mediterranean, attacking the coast of North Africa and the territory of the Holy Roman Empire in Italy. Suleyman’s territorial gains were matched by his domestic achievements. He commissioned a comprehensive codification of Qur’anic and Ottoman law, the likes of which had never previously been undertaken in Islamic history, and therefore earned the name Kanuni, or Lawgiver. He wrote poetry and was a patron of arts, sponsoring the works of the great Ottoman architect Sinan. Suleyman fell in love with Hurrem, also called Roxelana, a Russian girl in his harem. In defiance of tradition and expectation, he married her and remained faithful throughout his lifetime. Suleyman was ruthless in the preservation of his empire. When some of his advisers, allied with Roxelana, convinced him that his beloved son and heir Mustafa was plotting a coup, Suleyman had Mustafa strangled, as he watched from behind a curtain. Suleyman died on campaign in Europe in 1566, and was succeeded by his son with Roxelana, Selim II (r. 1566–1574). With Suleyman’s death, the Ottoman dynasty’s height of splendor passed as well. See also: Ottoman Empire; Selim I, the Grim.

S u lta nat e s

909

During the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire ranked at the forefront of world powers—militarily, politically, and culturally. A great conqueror feared by Europeans, Suleyman laid siege to the city of Vienna in 1529, an event depicted in this sixteenth-century painting by an Islamic artist.

SULTANATES Territories ruled by a “sultan,” a term that derives from an Arabic root meaning “power.” In the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, the word “sultan” is used to describe spiritual or moral authority over people, but it also came to refer to all forms of governance. Although “sultan” had religious connotations, it denoted temporal as well as spiritual authority, and over time it became essentially a political title. Most Islamic sultans have been Sunni Muslims, members of the majority Islamic denomination. Monarchs of the rival Shi’a, or Shi’ite, branch of Islam, which denies the legitimacy of all but the first four caliphs

after the Prophet Muhammad, generally preferred other titles. A famous hadith, or Islamic oral tradition, says that the sultan is “the shadow of God on earth.” In Arabic literature, the word “sultan” still carries the meaning of power or government. Although various early Arab Islamic officials and governors were occasionally referred to as sultans, the Turkic Seljuk dynasty of the eleventh century was the first to regularly use the title for its rulers. The Seljuk sultan Tughril Beg (r. 1038–1063) of Persia was the first to issue coins bearing the word “sultan.” Traditionally, only the caliph, the spiritual leader of the Muslim community, was supposed to have the authority to grant kings and princes the right to use the title of sultan. The Abbasid caliph in Baghdad

910

S u lta nat e s

granted that right to Tughril, and after the rise of the Seljuks, “sultan” became a popular title for Muslim rulers. The Seljuks of Rum in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) also used the title, and Saladin (r. 1175– 1193), the famous Ayyubid ruler of Egypt, was sometimes referred to as a sultan in literature, although he did not use the title on his coinage. After the fall of the Abbasid caliphate in 1258, a number of Muslim rulers began to style themselves “sultans.” Most notably, the leaders of the powerful Mamluk dynasty of Egypt were called sultans, increasing the status of the title.The most famous sultans, however, were those of the Ottoman Empire. The first three Ottoman rulers were called beys, but the caliph in Cairo named Beyezid I (r. 1389– 1402) a sultan, and all of his successors bore the title also. The Ottoman sultans, who used various other titles such as “padishah,” eventually claimed the title “caliph” as well, explicitly linking religious authority to the vast political power exercised by the sultans. In the Ottoman Empire, when the word “sultan” was placed after a name it also meant princess or queen. For example, the mother of the reigning sultan was known by the title of “valide sultan.” The powerful example of the Ottomans later led other rulers to adopt the title. It was used by the rulers of Morocco from 1666 to 1957, when they became kings, and also by some minor West African Islamic rulers. Ahmad Mirza (r. 1909–1925), the last shah of Persia, also called himself a sultan. Fuad I of Egypt (r. 1917–1936) called himself a sultan before switching to the title of king. A parallel usage of the title “sultan” arose among Southeast Asian Muslim princes. Rulers in Sumatra, Java, Malacca, and parts of Malaya and Indonesia governed over sultanates during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Some, such as Sultan Agung (r. 1613–1645), the ruler of Mataram in Java, apparently appealed to religious authorities in Mecca for the right to use the title, in accordance with the tradition of the caliph’s authority to define who was and was not a sultan. Others simply assumed the title sultan when they converted to Islam. The most famous remaining sultan is the last of these Southeast Asian sultans, the sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah (r. 1967– ). The country of Oman on the Arabian Peninsula, ruled by Sultan Qaboos ibn Said since 1970, is the only other country that is still considered a sultanate.

See also: Islam and Kingship; Mamluk Dynasty; Ottoman Empire; Seljuq Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Goodwin, Jason. Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Picador, 2003. Robinson, Francis, ed. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

SUMATRAN KINGDOMS. See Acheh Kingdom; Sailendra Dynasty

SUMER. See Akkad, Kingdom of SUNDJATA KEITA (ca. 1210–1255 C.E.) Founder and first ruler (r. 1235–1255) of the ancient empire of Mali, which was located in the Sahel region of western Africa. Born of royalty, Sundjata Keita was the son of the king of the Mandinka, a state that paid tribute to the ancient kingdom of Ghana. Sundjata was not assured of the Mandinka throne, however, for his father had several sons, many of whom had greater claim, or greater opportunity to claim the throne. When Sundjata was only seven years old, his father died and an elder brother became king. This placed Sundjata’s life at risk, for his newly crowned brother viewed any male siblings as potential rivals to the throne. To protect her son, Sundjata’s mother took him and her other children into exile, spending time in several of the small kingdoms that dotted the landscape of western Africa at that time. They eventually settled in the kingdom of Mema, where Sundjata rose to some prominence in the royal court. Sundjata’s brother, as king of the Mandinka, faced many threats to his sovereignty, for neighboring states envied his wealth and sought to take it for their own.The kingdom of Ghana, to which the Mandinka often turned for assistance, was of little help because it was in decline and struggling with civil war. Sundjata’s brother was forced to flee his domain when one of his neighbors, the Soso, conquered the kingdom of Ghana and installed a new ruler, Sumanguru Kante

Sung (Song) Dynasty (r. dates unknown) upon the Ghana throne. Kante claimed Ghana’s former subject states as well, including the Mandinka kingdom, and his brutality inspired several unsuccessful revolts by the Mandinka people and other groups. Seeking a strong leader, the people of the Mandinka kingdom sent emissaries to Mema to beg Sundjata for help. Sundjata assembled an army and traveled back to the land of his birth. In 1235, his forces defeated Kante’s army in an epic battle near Krina, on the banks of the Niger River.The victorious Sundjata was then acclaimed king of the Mandinka. With the defeat of Kante, Sundjata became the most powerful king in the region, and his army was the greatest in western Africa. He invited the leaders of neighboring states to a council, at which he asserted his rule over all, establishing his own state as the successor to the once-great kingdom of Ghana. Thus, Sundjata founded the Mali Empire, which grew to become the largest, most powerful African empire of the time. At its greatest extent, Mali’s territory stretched from the fabled trading city of Timbuktu all the way to the Atlantic Coast and from the edges of the Sahara Desert southward to the forests of Ghana. Sources disagree on the length of Sundjata’s rule, but all accounts suggest that it lasted at least twenty years. He established his capital at Niani, the town of his birth. One reason for the success of Sundjata’s reign was the wisdom with which he administered conquered peoples. Sundjata allowed his subject states a great deal of autonomy, and he did not attempt to interfere in their customary rituals and practices. His military ensured the peace and guaranteed safe passage along the roads and trails used by traders, thus guaranteeing the free flow of goods to the transSaharan caravans from all parts of the empire. Sundjata converted to Islam during his reign, possibly as a concession to the Muslim traders who dominated the trans-Saharan trade from which Mali gained its great wealth.The manner and exact date of his death are unknown. He was succeeded on the throne by his son, Uli (r. 1255–1270). See also: Ghana Kingdom, Ancient; Mali, Ancient Kingdom of. FURTHER READING

McKissack, Fredrick, and Patricia McKissack. The Royal Kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay: Life in Medieval Africa. New York: Henry Holt, 1995.

911

Niane, D.T. Sundiata:An Epic of Old Mali. Trans. G. D. Pickett. London: Longman, 1965.

SUNG (SONG) DYNASTY (960–1279 C.E.)

Chinese dynasty famous for its advances in technology, painting, philosophy, and expansion of the examination system. China reached new heights under the Sung dynasty, leading the world in nearly every category. Advances in Chinese technology were unsurpassed. The flourishing economy introduced the world’s first paper currency. Cities blossomed into centers of culture and pleasure where the arts reached new heights.The printing of books created a more educated population, sparking a cultural renaissance and the birth of a new class, the scholargentry.

THE NORTHERN SUNG (960–1126) Five different dynasties rose and fell in northern China in the fifty years following the collapse of the T’ang dynasty (618–907). This time of chaos ended in 960 when Zhao Kuangyin (r. 960–976), a general under the last of these dynasties, the Later Zhou, proclaimed the Sung dynasty, in response to his officers’ request that he take control. This first period of Sung rule, with its capital at the city of Kaifeng, is known as the Northern Sung. Taking the reign name of Taizu, the new emperor reconquered much of China, including the feuding regional kingdoms that had ruled the south since the fall of the T’ang. To prevent further coup attempts, Taizu gave generous pensions to his generals and encouraged them to retire. Taizu instituted a highly centralized government, giving himself direct control over all areas of the administration. He promoted Confucianism and extended the examination system, which brought more educated men into his bureaucracy. His ministers debated policy openly, the prime minister held real power, and Taizu often deferred to the opinions of his advisers.Taizu was succeeded by his capable brother, Taizong (T’ai Tsung) (r. 976–997). The first five emperors of the Northern Sung dynasty were all intelligent, conscientious rulers who lived modestly and ruled humanely over a peaceful, prosperous realm.Although their empire enjoyed rel-

912

Sung (Song) Dynasty Huizong abdicated in favor of his son, but both were soon imprisoned by the Jin.

THE SOUTHERN SUNG (1127–1279)

Emperor Hui Tsung, the last ruler of China’s Northern Sung dynasty, was a patron of the arts. This painting on silk, painted several centuries after his reign, shows Hui Tsung taking part in a festival.

ative domestic peace, it faced constant threats from hostile border states. Militarily weak, the Northern Sung were forced to rely heavily on diplomacy to keep their empire intact.This policy included the paying of tributes to border states to prevent invasion. Military issues contributed to the Northern Sung’s financial difficulties. Defending the empire from its hostile neighbors was expensive, requiring tax increases that sparked public unrest. Hoping to revive the struggling empire, the famous reformer Wang Anshi, chief councilor to Emperor Renzong (r. 1022–1063), introduced a series of controversial economic and military reforms, including compulsory military service and the extension of credit to peasants. The last emperor of the Northern Sung, Huizong (Hui Tsung) (r. 1100–1126), was a famous patron of the arts whose reign ushered in a great era in Chinese painting. But Huizong spent extravagantly and was uninterested in politics. Financial troubles led him to raise taxes, which led to a rebellion in 1120. In 1127, Jurchen tribes from Manchuria attacked the Northern Sung empire, taking the capital of Kaifeng in 1126 and establishing the Jin dynasty (1127–1234).

A Sung prince, Gaozong, eluded the Jin and escaped south to found the Southern Sung dynasty. Gaozong (r. 1127–1162) established a new capital at the city of Hangzhou in the lower Yangtze River Valley. With a weak military, Gaozong opted for conciliation with the Jin, agreeing to pay them a large annual tribute to keep the peace. Centered on the great city of Hangzhou, the Southern Sung enjoyed a thriving economy.Tariffs on the growing foreign trade, encouraged by the government, filled government coffers. Chinese civilization flourished, surpassing that of the Northern Sung. but the military remained weak. Factionalism at court also plagued the dynasty, as did excessive bureaucracy.The number of regulations and cumbersome rituals mushroomed. In one famous instance, rules concerning the reception of Korean emissaries totaled 1,500 volumes. Moreover, surrounded by hostile states, the Sung were forced to expend large amounts on defense. Although Chinese civilization blossomed under the Southern Sung, a threat rose in the north as Genghis Khan expanded his Mongolian Empire. In 1234, the Mongols, led by Genghis Khan’s grandson Kublai Khan, captured north China from the Jin dynasty.The mighty Mongolian army then swept south, capturing the Southern Sung capital of Hangzhou in 1276. Three years later, the last of the Sung forces were destroyed in a sea battle in which the last Sung emperor, six-year-old Bing Di, was drowned.

A GOLDEN AGE The period of the Northern and Southern Sung dynasties was an era of unprecedented prosperity, technological advancement, and cultural renaissance in China.Trade flourished, printing spread, and the Chinese enjoyed a high standard of living in the world’s largest cities. Patronized by the emperors, Chinese painting reached new heights.As the examination system grew, a new class emerged that would dominate China for centuries.

Trade, Commerce, and Technology Under the Sung, the introduction of new strains of rice dramatically increased the rice crop, fueling a population surge that contributed to a rapid expan-

Sung (Song) Dynasty sion of cities. Both Sung capitals, at Kaifeng and Hangzhou, grew into thriving centers of culture and trade. Hangzhou, with a population of more than one million, became the largest city in the world at that time. City dwellers enjoyed bustling markets and entertainment quarters with numerous tea shops, restaurants, and theaters. Throughout China, the standard of living rose. But a dark side of the new prosperity was the spread of foot binding. Made possible by the new ease of living, this practice became very popular during the Sung as a mark of prestige. Young girls’ feet were bound tightly with cloth, forcing them to grow deformed into a small, curved shape that was considered feminine. As Sung cities swelled in size, demand increased for luxuries from abroad. Foreign trade, encouraged by the government, expanded dramatically. Chinese merchants sailed as far as the East Indies, trading Chinese silks, porcelain, copper, paper, and other manufactures for Indian spices and other foreign goods.Taxes on the bustling trade created large revenues for the government, surpassing land revenue for the first time. Domestic commerce also flourished under the Sung dynasty. Rivers and canals were filled with boats carrying goods within the thriving

913

empire. This increase in commerce fueled the demand for currency, prompting the introduction of the world’s first paper money. Sung technology was the most advanced in the world. The Sung dominated the seas with ships that carried up to 500 people and boasted four decks and six masts. The abacus and the compass came into use at this time. Numerous advances in military technology included the catapult and the cannon, and the first military use of gunpowder.Technical advancement extended to industry, with refinements in the production of silks, porcelain, and paper. Advances in metallurgy led to a dramatic increase in iron production.

Scholarship and the Arts The Sung emperors expanded the Confucian-based examination system, making it a central institution in Chinese life for the first time. The examinations tested knowledge of classical texts and were used to select the most talented scholars for the government bureaucracy. Efforts were made to avoid favoritism to the sons of wealthy families.The increased importance of the examinations in Chinese life led to the rise of a scholar-gentry class that replaced the old hereditary aristocracy as China’s elite. Led by the scholar-gentry, the Sung era was a

ROYAL RITUALS

SUNG LANDSCAPE PAINTING The art of landscape painting in China reached its pinnacle during the Sung dynasty (960–1279). Patronized by the Sung emperors, painting became a prestigious occupation for the first time.The era’s great painters studied at the imperial academy of painting, founded by Sung emperor Huizong (r. 1100–1126). Under Huizong’s son, Gaozong (r. 1127–1162), landscape painting reached its height. Paintings were done on paper and silk scrolls, oriented both vertically and horizontally.The silk scrolls later were unrolled slowly from right to left, allowing viewers to appreciate the unfolding scene in segments. Smaller pieces were painted to decorate fans or for collection into albums. Sung landscape paintings possess a dreamy, impressionistic quality and often feature mountains, which the Chinese considered sacred. Many of the paintings are quite large, depicting vast landscapes representing nature’s magnificence and power. Human figures appear small in these paintings, reflecting the Daoist belief in humanity’s insignificance in the cosmos.This attitude contrasted sharply with Western painting, where landscapes were considered mere background until centuries later.

914

Sung (Song) Dynasty

Sung Dynasty T’ai Tsu* (Taizu)

960–976

T’ai Tsung

976–997

Chen Tsung

997–1022

Jen Tsung

1022–1063

Ying Tsung

1063–1067

Shen Tsung

1067–1085

Che Tsung

1085–1100

Hui Tsung (Huizong)

1100–1126

Ch’in Tsung

1126–1127

Kao Tsung* (Gaozong)

1127–1162

Hsiao Tsung

1162–1189

Kuang Tsung

1189–1194

Ning Tsung

1194–1224

Li Tsung

1224–1264

Ku Tsung

1264–1274

Kung Ti

1274–1276

Tuan Tsung

1276–1278

Ti Ping

1278–1279

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

time of intellectual curiosity and experimentation. Sung scholars were prolific intellectuals, producing numerous encyclopedias and charting new frontiers in the arts, philosophy, and technology. A cultural renaissance occurred as Sung scholars began to reexamine their own past, studying Chinese history and classical texts. The study of ancient texts sparked the birth of Neo-Confucianism, a system of thought that would dominate Chinese thought until the twentieth century. Espoused by the scholar Zhu Xi (1130–1200), Neo-Confucianism revived and reformulated ancient Confucian ideas. Zhu Xi’s ideas emphasized humane behavior and empirical investigation and became China’s central political and ethical philosophy.

Although paper had been developed in China centuries previously, the Northern Sung were the first to print books. As printing spread, books became more widely available. The educated class grew, and more women learned to read and write. Chinese arts flourished under the Sung. Many Sung emperors patronized the arts, but the most enthusiastic was Emperor Huizong. A skilled painter in his own right, he founded an academy of the arts where artists developed new styles of painting. His massive collection of fine Chinese paintings numbered in the thousands. Under Huizong’s son, Gaozong, Chinese landscape painting reached its height. The Sung period is also notable for its beautiful porcelain and for the poetry of Su Dongpo (1037–1101), one of China’s greatest writers. See also: Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms; Genghis Khan; Kao Tsung (Gaozong); Kublai Khan; T’ai Tsu (Taizu); T’ai Tsung (Taizong); T’ang Dynasty;Yuan Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Chaffee, John W. Branches of Heaven:A History of the Imperial Clan of Sung China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

SUNGA DYNASTY (184–73 B.C.E.) A short-lived dynasty of the kingdom of Magadha in Central India that was able to stop Greek incursions from Bactria into northern India. The Sunga dynasty was founded in 184 b.c.e. by a military leader named Pusyamitra of the Maurya Empire of India.Angered that the Mauryan emperor, Brihadratha (r. ca. 194–187 b.c.e.), had failed to stop an invading Greek army under Demetrius I of Bactria (r. ca. 200–185 b.c.e.), Pusyamitra murdered the emperor in 187 b.c.e. When Demetrius withdrew his forces from northern India soon after because of wars at home, Pusyamitra (r. ca. 187–151 b.c.e.) seized the throne, establishing the Sunga dynasty.The fall of Brihadratha marked the end of the Maurya Empire. India lost the political unity it had enjoyed under the Mauryas and split up into a number of kingdoms. A militant Hindu, Pusyamitra is alleged to have planned to destroy the teachings of Buddha and to have offered money for the heads of monks of the

S u s e n yo s Jain religion. However, given the record of religious tolerance in ancient India, it is unlikely that these allegations are true. Moreover, Buddhism flourished during Pusyamitra’s rule. A period of peace and prosperity in the Magadha kingdom allowed Pusyamitra to conduct two asvamedha, or horse sacrifices, in which a horse was consecrated and allowed to wander freely for a year. The king would follow with his army, and if the horse crossed into another territory, that territory would have to fight or submit. If the liberation succeeded, the king would return as a hero and be entitled to add the term cakravartin (“universal monarch”) to his title. If the king failed, he would face ridicule. After one year, the horse would be returned amidst a great festival and would be sacrificed. Before one such asvamedha, the horse was captured by a squadron of Greek cavalry along the banks of the Indus River. After a battle, the Greeks were defeated. It has been speculated that the Greeks were the advance forces of Menander (r. 155–130 b.c.e.), ruler of Bactria (in present-day Afghanistan), who is thought to have led a large foray into central India but was repulsed by Pusyamitra. According to one ancient historian, Pusyamitra waged war against a Greek ruler for the sake of a beautiful woman and died fighting the Greeks around 151 b.c.e. He was succeeded by his son,Agnimitra (r. ca. 151–143 b.c.e.), who is portrayed as a great hero in the Kalidasa, a famous ancient Indian epic. According to tradition, there were ten Sunga rulers, but scholars know little about those who followed Pusyamitra. The last Sunga king, Devabhumi (r. ca. 85–75 b.c.e.), was murdered by the daughter of a female attendant when she posed as the queen. The mastermind behind the plot, Vasudeva (r. ca. 75–66 b.c.e.), ascended the throne and established the short-lived Kanvas dynasty (ca. 75–30 b.c.e.). See also: Indian Kingdoms; Indo-Greek Kingdoms; Kanva Dynasty; Maurya Empire.

SUNNI ALI (d. 1492 C.E.) Ruler of the Songhai Empire (r. 1464–1492), known for his great energy and leadership skills, who greatly expanded the borders of his empire. Sunni Ali was born into a powerful Muslim family of the Sunni dynasty, which had ruled the great

915

West African empire of Songhai since the 1300s. By the start of his reign, however, the empire had declined markedly in power and influence, as upstart kingdoms in the region challenged its supremacy. Worse yet, the centerpiece of Songhai, the great trading city of Timbuktu, had been conquered by fierce Tuareg raiders who swept down from the Sahara Desert. Sunni Ali, believing it his duty to restore Songhai to its previous glory, amassed an army and set forth to conquer the peoples who lived along the Niger River. In time, he succeeded in restoring Songhai rule over a vastly expanded territory. He achieved his greatest triumph in 1468, when he finally reclaimed Timbuktu and ousted the Tuaregs. Sunni Ali was not welcomed as a hero by the scholars and merchants of Timbuktu, however. Although he was Muslim, the leaders of the city doubted his devoutness. Moreover, Sunni Ali was brutal in his treatment of all those whom he believed were insufficiently respectful of his authority. In a city renowned for its tolerance of the free exchange of ideas, Sunni Ali came to be viewed as a tyrant. Sunni Ali exceeded even his own initial hopes for restoring the power of the Songhai Empire. Soon the state he created through conquest gathered a greater influence than it had ever known before. But his worldly glory was evanescent. In 1492 (some sources say 1493), Sunni Ali is said to have been riding his horse along the Koni River when his mount missed its footing. Horse and rider fell into the river and both drowned. See also: Islam and Kingship; Mali,Ancient Kingdom of; Songhai Kingdom.

SUSENYOS (ca. 1580–1632 C.E.) Emperor of Ethiopia (r. 1607–1632), who is remembered as a modernizer but whose efforts to break with Ethiopia’s traditional religion (Coptic Christianity) eventually led to his downfall. Born to the ruling family of Ethiopia, Susenyos was the nephew of Sarsa Dengel, who ruled the empire from 1563 to 1597.When Susenyos was still in his teens, Emperor Sarsa Dengel died and the throne passed to Dengel’s son, Ya’iqob (r. 1597–1603). At that time, succession to power in Ethiopia was a highly contentious issue, marked by bloody civil

916

S u s e n yo s

wars. When Ya’iqob died in 1607 and Susenyos inherited the throne, the new emperor was determined to institute a more orderly process for Ethiopian royal succession. Missionaries from the Roman Catholic Church had long sought to bring Ethiopia under the Vatican’s influence, and so in 1622 they convinced Susenyos that his conversion to Catholicism offered a greater chance of modernization and political stability for the Ethiopian Empire. Susenyos obligingly officially converted to Catholicism declaring that henceforth Catholicism would become the state religion. This decision constituted an important breach of tradition, however, because Ethiopia had long been affiliated with the Coptic Church and the patriarch of Alexandria. The Ethiopian people greatly resented this change, but Susenyos ignored them and approved an aggressive policy of Romanizing the church hierarchy and liturgy. Predictably, the people rebelled against such disrespect to the Coptic Church, the faith of their ancestors. The Ethiopian people were further outraged by the brutality with which Susenyos attempted to enforce religious reforms. Because he was so closely associated with the changes to the Ethiopian Church, Susenyos soon found that his rule had become hopelessly compromised by opposition and dissent. He sought to heal the divisions in his country by abdicating the throne in 1632, handing over the Crown to his son, Fasiladas (r. 1632–1667), who promptly reversed his father’s religious reforms and restored the Ethiopian Orthodox (Coptic) Church.

tury. The Anglo-Saxons established several small kingdoms that began in Southern England and eventually spread northward. According to legend, an Anglo-Saxon leader named Aelle landed in England in 477 and defeated the Britons, the Celtic group that inhabited the country. Aelle established the kingdom of Sussex in the south of England and became its first king. No records exist for Sussex from the reign of Aelle until 607. In that year, Ceolwulf (597–611), king of Wessex, is recorded to have waged war against the kingdom of Sussex. Toward the end of the seventh century, the peoples of Sussex were converted to Christianity by Wilfred of York, after his explusion from the kingdom of Northumbria in northern England. Sussex was one of the least powerful of the AngloSaxon kingdoms. In the seventh and eighth centuries, dominion over this region was often not held by a single monarch but was divided among several rulers. In the late seventh century, Prince Caedwalla of Wessex (r. 685–688) invaded the kingdom. Caedwalla was later overthrown by Berhthun and Andhun, two Sussex nobles, who ruled Sussex jointly. In 825, Sussex was conquered by Egbert (802–839), ruler of the more powerful kingdom of Wessex, and was incorporated into that realm. Sussex never reestablished itself as an independent kingdom.

See also: Aksum Kingdom; Amhara Kingdom; Haile Selassie I; Menelik II; Tewodros II; Zara Ya’iqob.

SWAHILI KINGDOMS

SUSSEX, KINGDOM OF (ca. 477–825 C.E.)

One of several early medieval Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England, located in what is now the modern county of Sussex in southern England. The name “Sussex” derives from the Anglo-Saxon word for South Saxons, one of a group of Germanic tribes that invaded England in the period following the retreat of the Roman Empire from Britain in the fifth cen-

See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Kent, Kingdom of; Mercia, Kingdom of;Wessex, Kindgom of.

(flourished ca. 970–1600 C.E.)

A series of primarily coastal settlements along the eastern length of the African continent, founded as outposts to service the Indian Ocean trade routes. Forty towns in all dotted the coastline for a thousand miles from Mogadishu in the north to Sofala in the south, and included settlements on the islands of Zanzibar, Pemba, and the Comoros. In these port cities, gold, exotic woods, iron, ivory, and slaves from Africa were traded for pottery, porcelain, and fabrics from the East. The name Swahili means “peoples of the coast.” Swahili settlements share a linguistic tradition (kiSwahili), a religion (predominantly Sunni Mus-

S wa z i K i n g d o m lim), and a founding motive as trade entrepôts, but through most of their history they have maintained independence from one another, never forming anything that could be called a true confederation. The Swahili people are predominantly ethnic Africans, but these indigenous people intermarried with the traders from Arabia who came in search of ivory, gold, and slaves between the years 970 and 1050. The first settlements to be founded were the more northerly, including settlements on the island of Lamu, off the Kenyan coast. The language is believed to have originated from the Bantu dialect spoken on these islands, with words added as the result of the cross-cultural trade. Around 1100, the Swahili language was recorded using Arabic letters. Between 1050 and 1200, the established Swahili towns received a new wave of Muslim immigrants who came from the Persian city of Shiraz and called themselves Shirazi. It was during this period that some of the most influential of the settlements located on Pemba, Kilwa, and Zanzibar developed and were ruled by members of the Shirazi dynasty. The Shirazi intermarried with the Swahili and soon families who aspired to high status began to assert claims to Arabic descent, giving rise to a ruling Afro-Arab class and classes of commoners and slaves who were primarily African. The mainland Swahili city of Mogadishu monopolized the trade in gold for about two centuries. Around 1200, however, Kilwa, which was located much closer to the gold-producing regions near the ports of Oman, appropriated the trade, eclipsing Mogadishu in importance and in wealth. The Swahili city-states reached the height of their power and influence between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. During these centuries, buildings were constructed in the unique Swahili architecture that used elaborate coral and stonework. Portuguese traders arrived in Africa during the sixteenth century and soon began conquering the Swahili trade centers. In the seventeenth century, the Omani sultanate captured the coastal cities of Africa and ruled there for the next two centuries. See also: Zanzibar Sultanate. FURTHER READING

Middleton, John. The World of the Swahili: An African Mercantile Civilization. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1992.

917

SWAZI KINGDOM (ca. 1815 C.E.–Present)

Established in the early nineteenth century, the longest enduring kingdom still in existence in the sub-Saharan region of Africa. The kingdom of Swaziland, located between the Union of South Africa and Mozambique, still retains its monarch, called the ngwenyama in the Swazi language. All the kingdom’s rulers have come from the Nkosi Dlamini clan, a subgroup of the Nguni people. The kingdom of Swaziland was founded in the early 1800s during a time of great demographic upheaval in southern Africa. At the time, European settlers from Cape Town in South Africa were moving northward in ever increasing numbers, displacing the indigenous peoples of the region.This migration of European settlers had a devastating impact on the cattle-keeping people of the region, because the lands where their cattle grazed were being taken to create farms for the European settlers. In response to the encroachment of European settlers, a powerful leader named Shaka Zulu (r. 1816–1828) created a militaristic kingdom, the Zulu kingdom, and led his warriors in raids against his neighbors, both African and European. Zulu warfare, in turn, touched off a series of massive population movements, as people fled from Shaka’s violence or formed their own warrior states. The Dlamini clan of the Nguni, which originated somewhere around Maputo in present-day Mozambique, felt threatened by the violence of the times. Around 1815, the clan’s leader, Sobhuza (r. ?–1839), led his people into the mountains in hope of finding greater safety there. Sobhuza then set about creating alliances with the predominantly Sotho peoples who lived in the region. To do this, he arranged marriages between important Nguni and Sotho families.Within a few years, Sobhuza had gained a large enough following to begin waging his own campaigns of conquest. His army became powerful enough to withstand challenges from even the powerful Zulu nation. Sobhuza died in 1839 and was succeeded on the throne the following year by his son, Mswati II (r. 1839–1865). Because the new king was too young to rule alone, his mother acted as regent until he came of age in 1846. Mswati secured the territorial gains achieved during Sobhuza’s rule, and he entered into a cooperative relationship with the British, who were

918

S wa z i K i n g d o m

ROYAL RITUALS

THE POWER OF ANCESTORS Although Swaziland is nominally a Christian nation, royal rituals invoke elements of Swazi traditional religion, which was powerfully influenced by ancestral cults. Nkosi Dlamini ancestors are believed to be the most powerful of all the ancestral spirits, to whom the ruler may appeal for help in ending drought or to guarantee a bountiful harvest. One of the Swazi king’s most important ritual performances occurs annually in December or January.This is called the inKwala (Festival of the First Fruits), during which the king performs a dance of renewal. By this dance, the king draws strength from the ancestors, and through his ritual renewal as an individual, the strength and good fortune of the Swazi people are also renewed.

interested in acquiring the region as a colonial possession. In 1863, Mswati demonstrated his loyalty to the British by attacking an outpost held by the Portuguese, who were Britain’s rivals in the region.The British rewarded Mswati by formally acknowledging his sovereignty. Mswati II died in 1865. The next three Swazi rulers—Ludvonga II (r. 1865–1874), Mbandzeni (r. 1874–1889), and Bhunu (r. 1889–1899)—continued the policy of cooperating with the British, who by this time had became the main colonial power in southern Africa. In return, Swaziland was granted limited autonomy, although it was subordinated to colonial rule. By the time Sobhuza II (r. 1921–1982) took the throne in 1921, the office of the king had become primarily ceremonial and symbolic. Nonetheless, Sobhuza II was successful in preventing the takeover of more land to colonial settlers, due largely to his skill in diplomacy and negotiations with the British. In the 1960s, Swaziland joined many other African colonial possessions in demanding independence, achieving it in 1968. Sobhuza II acknowledged the will of his people by creating a constitutional monarchy, patterned on the British system. Upon Sobhuza’s death in 1982, his son and successor, Mswati III (r. 1982–present), came to the Swazi throne. See also: African Kingdoms; Shaka Zulu; Sobhuza I; Sobhuza II; Zulu Kingdom.

FURTHER READING

Hamilton, Carolyn, ed. In Pursuit of Swaziland’s Precolonial Past. Manzini, Swaziland: Macmillan Boleswa, 1990. Kuper, Hilda. The Swazi: A South African Kingdom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1986.

SWEDISH MONARCHY (900s C.E.–Present)

Scandinavian kingdom that has existed from the Viking era to the present day. The kingdom of Sweden came into being in the tenth century when several small regional kingdoms were gradually consolidated under the rule of stronger leaders. Little is known of this early period. One significant early Swedish king was Olaf Skötkonung or Olaf III (r. 995–1022). In 1000, Olaf became the first Swedish king to convert to Christianity, although the kingdom as a whole was not converted to the Christian faith until the twelfth century. Through much of the early Middle Ages, the history of the Swedish monarchy was marked by a continual struggle between the Crown and regional interests under nobles with dynastic ambitions of their own. The Swedish monarchy was elective: the people, assembled in a parliament-type body known

Swedish Monarchy

919

King Carl XVI, shown with his wife, Queen Silvia, has ruled Sweden since 1973.The Swedish monarchy, like others in Scandinavia, is constitutional.The king is primarily a ceremonial head of state.

as the Thing, had to approve the king, who was usually a member of the royal family. In practice, it was the nobles who elected or deposed kings, and the kings themselves generally attempted to make the Crown hereditary by designating successors within their lifetime and even sharing rule with them. Gustavus I Vasa (r. 1523–1560) was the first ruler who attempted to make hereditary succession the norm. The three most important dynasties in the history of the Swedish monarchy are the Folkung, the Vasa, and the Bernadotte. The Folkung dynasty (1250– 1364), which began with Waldemar I (r. 1250– 1275), oversaw a period of increasing centralization in government and Swedish territorial expansion. The last ruler of the Folkung dynasty was King Magnus II (r. 1319–1364), who was briefly deposed by

his son, Erik XII (r. 1356–1359), and then lost Sweden to Albert of Mecklenburg (r. 1364–1389) in 1364. In 1389 Albert was defeated by the forces of Queen Margaret I of Denmark (r. 1387–1396), whose great-nephew Erik XIII became king of Sweden in 1396 with her as regent. In 1397 Sweden became part of the Kalmar Union, of which Erik became sole ruler upon Margaret’s death in 1412. The Vasa dynasty (1523–1654), founded by Gustavus I Vasa, ruled Sweden after the kingdom revolted against the Danes and ended the Kalmar Union. His son Erik XIV (r. 1560–1568) attempted, unsuccessfully, to gain control over the Baltic region, and fought Denmark, Poland, and the Hanseatic League from 1563 to 1570 without making any gains for the kingdom. Erik was deposed by his brother

920

Swedish Monarchy

Johan III (r. 1568–1592) in 1568. Gustavus II Adolphus (r. 1611–1632) of the Vasa dynasty made Sweden into a great military power and was one of the foremost generals during the Thirty Years War in Europe. His daughter, Queen Christina (r. 1632– 1654), was the last of the Vasa line, abdicating after secretly becoming a Roman Catholic in an overwhelmingly Protestant country. During the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) Sweden sided with England against French emperor Napoleon Buonaparte. Because of his disastrous domestic and foreign policies at this time, King Gustav IV (r. 1792–1809) was deposed in 1809 and replaced by his uncle, Carl XIII (r. 1809–1818). Sweden also was at war with Russia during this period and, forced to make peace on that front, it ceded Finland, which Sweden had controlled. In 1810, the childless Carl XIII adopted one of Napoleon’s marshals, Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, as his successor. Bernadotte assumed the name Carl Johan and took over the practical leadership of the country from the by-then senile king. Carl Johan broke with Napoleon, made an alliance with Russia, and acquired Norway from Denmark after invading that country. In 1818, he succeeded to the throne as Carl XIV of Sweden and Carl II of Norway (r. 1818– 1844). His accession to the throne marked the founding of the Bernadotte dynasty, which ruled both Sweden and Norway until Norway gained independence in 1905.The dynasty continues today as the royal family of Sweden. Today, Sweden has a hereditary constitutional monarchy. Throughout the 1800s, the Swedish parliament gained power as the political function of the monarchy declined. Between 1917 and 1919, the monarchy officially became a constitutional one, which meant that the king could no longer oppose the decisions of parliament. A constitution confirming the symbolic role of the monarch as head of state came into effect on January 1, 1975. Another recent change to the Swedish monarchy is the Act of Succession of 1979, which altered the law of primogeniture (inheritance by the oldest son) by allowing the oldest child rather than just the oldest son to succeed to the throne. Crown Princess Victoria, who was born in 1977 to King Carl XVI (r. 1973– ) and Queen Silvia, is the first Swedish princess to be affected by this change. Victoria, rather than her younger brother Carl, is heir to the throne of Sweden.

See also: Christina; Danish Kingdom; Folkung Dynasty; Gustavus I (Vasa); Gustavus II (Adolphus); Kalmar Union; Norwegian Monarchy; Vasa Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Anderson, Ingvar. A History of Sweden. Trans. Carolyn Hannay. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1956. Nordstrom, Bryan J. Scandinavia Since 1500. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

SYRIAN KINGDOMS (2000s B.C.E.–Present)

Diverse series of kingdoms that have ruled in the area around present-day Syria from ancient times to the twentieth century. Syria is a land of great antiquity, and the history of its kingdoms stretches from the earliest Mesopotamian empires to the aftermath of World War I. Greater Syria—an area that includes modern Syria and Lebanon, as well as parts of Anatolia (present-day Turkey), Jordan, and Palestine— was the birthplace or center of many great Middle Eastern dynasties, but it has also frequently been dominated by external powers.

ANCIENT KINGDOMS Inhabited from very early times by Semitic peoples, ancient Syria experienced successive waves of invasions during the third millennium b.c.e., including invasion by the Canaanites, Phoenicians,Aramaeans, and others. Among the earliest Semitic peoples to settle the region of Greater Syria were the Amorites, who came from the Arabian Peninsula around 2100 b.c.e. and established a number of small states. In the second millennium b.c.e., the Amorites ruled a powerful kingdom called Amurru, based at the ancient Syrian city of Mari. Another kingdom established in the region in the third millennium b.c.e. was that of Ebla in northern Syria. Ebla flourished from about 2400 to 2250 b.c.e. but was then nearly destroyed by Naram-Sin (r. 2254–2218), the king of Akkad in Mesopotamia. Ebla flourished again between about 2000 and 1800 b.c.e., although it was never able to regain the power and greatness it had achieved centuries before. From about the 1400s to 1200s b.c.e., the region of Greater Syria was dominated by the Hittite and

Sy r i a n K i n g d om s Egyptian empires, which competed for control of much of the ancient Near East. Rule over the region changed hands a number of times as Hittites and Egyptians struggled for hegemony. By about 1250 b.c.e., a seafaring people known as the Phoenicians had established several city-states along the Syrian coast, mostly in present-day Lebanon. The most important of these city-states were Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. Skilled navigators and traders, the Phoenicians traveled around the Mediterranean, establishing a commercial empire based on independent city-states located along the coast of North Africa and Southern Europe as far as present-day Spain. The Phoenician city-states along the Syrian coast lasted for centuries, until they were finally absorbed by Persian and Greek civilizations beginning in the 300s b.c.e. Beginning in the thirteenth century b.c.e., parts of Greater Syria were also ruled by the Israelites and the Aramaeans.The wealthy and powerful Aramaean kingdom, also known as the biblical kingdom of Aram, was based in the capital city of Damascus (in present-day Syria), while the Israelite kingdom was centered in Palestine. From the 1000s to 500s b.c.e., Syria suffered from periodic invasions and domination by the Assyrians.The Assyrian Empire eventually eclipsed the Aramaean kingdom, and then the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzer (r. 605–562 b.c.e.) conquered much of Syria in 606 b.c.e. and destroyed the Israelite capital of Jerusalem in 586 b.c.e. The Persian Empire took Syria from the Babylonians in the sixth century b.c.e.

HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN KINGDOMS The Greek Macedonian leader, Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), conquered the Persian Empire in the 330s, starting a period of Hellenic domination of Greater Syria. One of Alexander’s leading generals, Seleucus Nicator, inherited Syria upon Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e. and founded the Seleucid dynasty. The resulting kingdom of Syria ruled from its capital of Damascus from 301 to 64 b.c.e., despite competition from the Nabataean kingdom based at Petra (in present-day Jordan). The Roman occupation of Syria began in 64 b.c.e., and Syria was ruled as a Roman province for several centuries. After the division of Rome into Eastern and Western empires in the fourth century c.e., Syria became an important part of the Byzantine Empire. Under the Byzantines, a local Christian

921

Arab dynasty called the Ghassanids ruled Syria. Ghassanid rule lasted until 611, when the Sassanid rulers of Persia invaded Syria and took control. Although the Byzantine Empire retook Syria soon thereafter, its weak support of the Ghassanids left the kingdom vulnerable to a new empire rising in the Middle East—that of Islam.

ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN CRUSADER KINGDOMS In 635, Syria was invaded again, this time by Muslim armies that conquered Damascus and made Greater Syria part of an Islamic caliphate ruled from Arabia. Muawiya I (r. 661–680 ), leader of the Banu Umayya tribal dynasty, proclaimed himself caliph in 661 and moved his capital to Damascus, making Syria the center of a new Islamic kingdom ruled by the Ummayad dynasty. In 750, the Umayyads were conquered by another Arab dynasty, the Abbasids, who moved the caliphate to Baghdad. Abbasid rule over Greater Syria was incomplete, however: the Hamdani dynasty ruled much of northern Syria from their capital city of Aleppo before falling to the Seljuk Turks in 1049, and the Egypt-based Fatimid dynasty encroached on parts of Syria as well. In the eleventh century, the Crusades brought waves of European invasions to Greater Syria, which resulted in the establishment of several small Crusader states, namely, Edessa,Antioch, and Tripoli, and the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Nur al-Din, an Islamic prince from Iraq, retook much of Greater Syria from the Seljuks and Crusaders in the mid-1100s. His lieutenant, Saladin (r. 1175–1195), then completed the task, reconquering Jerusalem in 1187 c.e. and founding the Ayyubid dynasty.The Ayyubids and their fragmented successor states ruled Egypt and Syria until the Mamluk dynasty took power in 1250. Syria continued to suffer invasions and partial domination by Seljuk and Mongol kingdoms in the following years. However, it remained under superficial Mamluk control until 1517, when the Ottoman sultan Selim I (r. 1512–1520) conquered Greater Syria and made it part of the Ottoman Empire. Syria remained under Ottoman control until World War I and the Arab Revolt of 1916. The Hashemite-led Arab revolt against the beleaguered Ottoman Empire in 1916 resulted in the establishment in 1920 of a kingdom of Greater Syria under King Faisal I (r. 1921–1923). But Faisal was

922

Sy r i a n K i n g d om s

soon removed by the French, and the League of Nations made Syria part of the French Mandate, never again to be ruled by a formal monarchy. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Aramean Kingdoms; Ayyubid Dynasty; Crusader Kingdoms; Faisal I; Hashemite Dynasty; Mamluk Dynasty; Ottoman Empire; Palestine, Kingdoms of; Phoenician Empire; Saladin; Seljuq Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Mansfield, Peter. A History of the Middle East. New York: Penguin, 1992. Sicker, Martin. The Pre-Islamic Middle East. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.

T TAHITIAN KINGDOM (1789–1880) Protestant Polynesian island kingdom founded by Pomare II (r. 1803–1808) with the help of European mercenaries, incorporated into the French Empire in 1880. The Tahitian Islands were settled by Polynesian immigrants from the Society Islands. These immigrants soon built a culture and political system that, like most Polynesian states, was organized around the extended family. Tahitian family structures were intricate in their balance of authority, and each family was tied to a temple. Prominent families, led by arii nui—high chieftains—maintained their prominence only with the help of the religious priesthood. Archaeological evidence suggests that, before European contact, this priesthood practiced ritual human sacrifice. Europeans, primarily the French and the English, began to explore the islands in the 1700s. Awed by the natural beauty of the islands, they returned home with tales of the islanders as “noble savages” and of

Queen Pomare IV, who ruled from 1827 to 1877, was the last monarch of the Tahitian kingdom. Unable to prevent France from making Tahiti a protectorate, she was essentially a figurehead for the last thirty-one years of her reign.

the Tahitians’ alleged liberal sexual practices. In 1789, the famous mutiny on the ship Bounty left Fletcher Christian and his fellow mutineers available for hire as mercenaries by the Pomare family who, with the aid of European weapons and Protestant missionaries, came to control the islands, unifying them for the first time under King Pomare II. The king promptly established a Christian kingdom based on a scriptural code of laws. As European interest in the islands’ reputation as a paradise increased—helped by the works of Herman Melville, Paul Gauguin, and Robert Louis Stevenson—prostitution, foreign disease, and Christianity were introduced. Without natural immunity to the foreign diseases, the Tahitian population plummeted. Missionaries, insisting that many of the traditional Tahitian practices were shameful, had many of the native Tahitian temples destroyed.As Christianity—particularly Protestantism—became the ruling religion, much of traditional Tahitian religion was lost. Queen Pomare IV (r. 1827–1877), faced with

T ’ a i T s u ( Ta i z u ) squabbling missionaries, made a fateful wrong decision when she deported two French Roman Catholic missionaries in response to a Catholic-Protestant missionary dispute. The French, already eyeing the lush island as a potential colony, seized the pretext to wrest control of the islands from her, setting her up to rule as a figurehead. In 1880, King Pomare V abdicated under French pressure, accepting a generous pension in exchange for his Crown, and Tahiti became a French colony. See also: Pomare IV.

T’AI TSU (TAIZU) (928–976 C.E.) Chinese general who founded the Sung (Song) dynasty and ruled from 970 to 976. T’ai Tsu, meaning “Grand Progenitor,” was the posthumous title given to Chao K’uang-yin (Zhao Kuangyin), the founder of the Sung (Song) dynasty.T’ai Tsu served in the military of the Later Chou (Zhou) dynasty, the last of China’s so-called Five Dynasties, and was eventually appointed commander of the Palace Corps by Emperor Shih Tsung (Shizong) (r. 954–959). When Shih Tsung died in 959, his seven-year-old son, Kung Ti, succeeded him. Seizing this opportunity, a group of generals immediately staged a coup, deposed the child, and placed T’ai Tsu on the throne. T’ai Tsu recognized that military insurgencies had plagued the Five Dynasties. He therefore offered generous pensions and land allotments to most of the military leaders in return for their peaceful resignations. T’ai Tsu replaced these leaders with individuals he knew he could trust, and he insisted on commanding the military himself when it engaged in combat. He also dismissed many of the lower ranking military officials who had come to dominate the bureaucracy during the Five Dynasties period. To staff his new government, T’ai Tsu reintroduced the T’ang civil service examinations. Although nominally open to all citizens, the examinations required a high level of education that was available mainly to the upper classes.T’ai Tsu actively courted the support of the social elite. He developed the yin, a particular privilege that allowed male relatives of existing bureaucrats to take an easier exam and gain access to the government. During T’ai Tsu’s reign, the government bureaucracy consisted of members

923

of about one hundred families who successfully manipulated the yin. These individuals formed a new literati class that replaced the military’s influence upon the central government. After stabilizing the military and the bureaucracy, T’ai Tsu next sought to rebuild the entire T’ang Empire. Between 963 and 975, he defeated the lesser dynasties that controlled the Yangzi, Sichuan, Guangdong, Anhui, Jiangxi, and Hunan provinces. However, after two attempts, he failed to defeat the Khitans, who had gained a foothold in northern China during the Later Chin (Jin) dynasty.To prevent any Khitan raids,T’ai Tsu agreed to pay them a large annual tribute of silver and silk. The government struggled to make these payments, but the Khitans actually used much of the tribute to purchase other goods from Sung merchants. With the country relatively secure, the threat of military insurrection diminished, and the government run by the new literati,T’ai Tsu sought to develop a new Sung culture.T’ai Tsu portrayed himself as a benevolent ruler who abided by the Confucian virtues, and he expected these virtues to be reflected in Sung society. He actively patronized writers, philosophers, and other artists. T’ai Tsu also strongly emphasized familial relationships. He commissioned writers and poets to construct detailed genealogies of the most famous families in China. He also supported the Qingming festival, a ceremonial funeral rite that involved the entire family of a deceased individual. By the time T’ai Tsu died in 976, he had already created a strong foundation for the Sung dynasty. His policies of limiting the power of military commanders and expanding the role of the literati in the government provided his brother and successor, T’ai Tsung (Taizong) (r. 976–997), with the tools necessary to expand Sung control over the remnants of the T’ang Empire. Therefore, he had ably earned his royal appellation,T’ai Tsu, the “Grand Progenitor.” See also: Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms; Sung (Song) Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Hansen,Valerie. The Open Empire:A History of China to 1600. New York:W.W. Norton, 2000. Mote, F.W. Imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

924

T ’ a i T s u n g ( Ta i z o n g )

T’AI TSUNG (TAIZONG) (600–649 C.E.)

The second emperor (r. 626–649) of the T’ang dynasty and one of the greatest of China’s early emperors. T’ai Tsung, meaning “Grand Ancestor,” was the posthumous title of Li Shimin. In 618 T’ai Tsung helped his father, Kao-Tsu (Gaozu) (r. 618–626), overthrow the Sui dynasty and establish the T’ang dynasty. After Kao Tsu ascended the throne,T’ai Tsung became a general in the imperial army and successfully subdued rebellious forces throughout the new empire. His victories gained him a widespread popularity among the T’ang populace. Alarmed by this popularity, Kao Tsu plotted with T’ai Tsung’s two older brothers to demote or even assassinate him. After discovering their scheme, T’ai Tsung killed his oldest brother and ordered one of his officers to kill the other brother. Then, in 626, T’ai Tsung forced his father to abdicate the throne, and he assumed control of China. Although his succession had been achieved violently, T’ai Tsung oversaw a great period of prosperity for the T’ang dynasty. In 630, he ensured China’s national security by subduing the eastern Turks, whose raids had plagued China for centuries. With the Turkish threat removed, China regained control of the Silk Road and the immense wealth its trade generated. T’ai Tsung eschewed China’s traditional distrust of foreigners and allowed Arab, Jewish, and Persian merchants to work in Changan, the T’ang capital.These merchants introduced cultural and religious influences never before experienced in China. Chief among these influences was Buddhism.T’ai Tsung personally practiced Confucianism, and he built Confucian temples in every county. But he also recognized the importance of Buddhism to the Chinese public. During his reign, Zen Buddhism emerged in China. Traditional Buddhism maintained that enlightenment could be obtained only through arduous study and meditation, but Zen Buddhism argued that it could be suddenly achieved through intuition. When the famous Zen Buddhist scholar Xuanzang returned from India, T’ai Tsung built the Wild Goose Pagoda, which still stands, to house and honor him. T’ai Tsung also improved the bureaucracy of the T’ang Empire. He expanded the civil service examinations that his father had reintroduced. Kao Tsu had

largely relied on officials from his native region in northwestern China to staff the government. But T’ai Tsung actively recruited qualified officials from across the country in order to make the bureaucracy more representative. He embraced the Confucian principle that a ruler should be manifestly beneficent, and he relied upon his ministers to guide him and shape public policy. As one of his most significant acts, T’ai Tsung reshaped the T’ang law code that his father had introduced. He divided it into two sections. The first listed the general principles of T’ang law; the second described specific crimes and their corresponding punishments. Local magistrates prosecuted most crimes and passed judgments dictated by the code, but provincial governors handled more serious cases. Only the emperor could approve the death penalty. The law code also recognized three social classes: the privileged, commoners, and inferiors. Members of the lower classes generally received harsher punishments. But the code also made exceptions for certain individuals. For example, children, pregnant women, and seniors older than ninety could not be executed. Individuals with disabilities such as blindness, deafness, or amputated limbs also generally received light sentences. Finally,T’ai Tsung commanded that the law code be reformed every fifteen years so that it would not become outdated. Because of its efficiency, the T’ang law code was widely copied throughout Asia. As T’ai Tsung aged, he struggled to ensure his succession. T’ai Tsung’s first heir, his eldest son, was mentally ill, disdained the T’ang court, and refused to speak Chinese. When T’ai Tsung learned that the heir had plotted to kill his brothers and potential rivals, he executed his oldest son and named his ninth son, Kao Tsung (Gaozong) (r. 649–683), to succeed him.When T’ai Tsung died in 649, Kao Tsung and his wife, Empress Wu, initiated a period in which the T’ang bureaucracy became increasingly corrupt. Despite this growing corruption, T’ai Tsung had solidified the rule of the T’ang dynasty and positioned it to be one of the strongest in Chinese history. See also: T’ang Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Embree, Ainslie, ed. Encyclopedia of Asian History. New York: Scribner, 1988. Hansen,Valerie. The Open Empire:A History of China to 1600. New York:W.W. Norton, 2000.

Ta m e r l a n e ( Ti m u r L e n g ) Macgowan, J. The Imperial History of China. 2nd ed. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1973. Perkins, Dorothy. Encyclopedia of China. New York: Facts on File, 1999.

TAIFA RULERS (ca. 1009–1091 C.E.) Petty Muslim rulers, known as the “party (or faction) kings” (Muluk al-Tawa’if in Arabic), who created independent kingdoms in the Islamic areas of the Iberian Peninsula that had previously been combined under the Cordoban court of the Umayyad caliphate. The Taifa appeared in the early eleventh century at a time of extreme political disintegration after the dissolution of the Cordoban Umayyad caliphate in Iberia. Following the rule of the Umayyad caliph, Hisham II (r. 976–1009), and the ensuing civil war, the caliphate was no more than a puppet government. As a result, the various Taifas were able to establish independent kingdoms through the area. At least twenty-three Taifa states were created between 1009 and 1091, when the Almoravids of North Africa conquered the last of them.The Berber Taifa states included the Aftasids of Badajoz, the Dhu al-Nunids of Toledo, and the Hammudids of Malaga. The Andalusian Taifas, or Hispano-Arabs, consisted of the Abbadids of Sevilla, the Jahwarids of Córdoba, and the Hudids of Zaragoza.The Saqalibah (Slav mercenaries) had no dynasties but formed taifa kingdoms such as Tortosa, Denia, and Valencia. There were many wars between the Taifa states, which did not hesitate to seek both Christian assistance against enemy Muslim kings and North African support against Christian princes. Because they were not unified, the Taifa kingdoms became easy targets of the Christian reconquista (reconquest) of Iberia. Before long, the Taifa kingdoms of Toledo, Badajoz, Zaragoza, and even Sevilla were paying tribute to the Christian king, Alfonso V, the Brave of León (r. 999–1028). Although they proved politically inept, the Taifa kings did succeed in promoting a great Islamic cultural resurgence in Iberia. Taifa courts, set up in principal cities such as Córdoba,Toledo, Sevilla, and Zaragoza, developed into Islamic centers that competed with each other for artists and intellectuals. As in the courts of the Islamic caliphates, they supported poets and encouraged the study of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. Out of the

925

Taifa era emerged such notables as the poet-king alMutamid of Sevilla (r. 1069–1091) and the poetphilosopher-scholar Ibn Hazm. See also: Almoravid Dynasty; Caliphates; Córdoba, Caliphate of; Umayyad Dynasty.

TAIZONG. See T’ai Tsung TAIZU. See T’ai Tsu TAKAUJI ASHIKAGA. See Ashikaga Shogunate

TAMERLANE (TIMUR LENG) (1336–1405 C.E.)

Mongol conqueror (r. 1370–1405), self-proclaimed restorer of the Mongol Empire, and founder of the Timurid dynasty (1370–1507), who, by reviving the military techniques of Genghis Khan (r. 1206– 1227), subdued a territory that stretched from Mongolia to the Mediterranean Sea. By the time of Tamerlane’s birth in 1336, the Mongol Empire had deteriorated into a series of squabbling smaller states, called khanates. Tamerlane, born Timur and later contemptuously dubbed Timur Leng (Timur the Lame) by his Persian enemies, was a member of the Islamic Barlas tribe, who were vassals of the Chagatai khanate in Transoxania (modern-day Uzbekistan). When the leader of the Chagatai khanate, Amir Kazgan (r. ?–1357), died in 1357,Timur declared his allegiance to a rival khan,Tughluq Temur, who occupied Chagatai’s chief city, Samarkand, in 1361.Tughlug named Timur minister of the khanate and adviser to the khan’s son, Ilyas Khoja. Soon afterward, however,Timur defected to join his brother-in-law, Amir Husayn, in a coup to gain possession of the region. By 1366 they had done so, and Tamerlane then promptly turned on Husayn, besieging him and his forces in Balkh and proclaiming himself khan of Chagatai when Husayn was assassinated. Over the next three decades, through treachery,

926

Ta m e r l a n e ( Ti m u r L e n g )

The Mongol leader Tamerlane, or Timur, conquered and controlled a vast territory that stretched from Mongolia to the Mediterranean Sea. As depicted in this painting of the Persian School, Tamerlane besieged the city of Herat in 1381 and made it the capital of his empire.

the Byzantine Empire. As a ruler he was ruthless. While occupied with defeating the Golden Horde, he was troubled by revolts in Persia. He responded by ordering entire cities in Persia utterly razed, their populations massacred, and towers built of the skulls.When Tamerlane died in 1405, he was preparing to invade China. Although not a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, Tamerlane saw himself as the spiritual successor of that great conqueror. He also considered himself a devout Muslim—although, in the Mongol warrior tradition, he both drank and gambled to excess. He often referred to himself as the “Scourge of God,” detailing the punishment of sinners as his destined duty.Yet, addicted to debate and chess, he was also a great patron of the arts, and throughout his reign he took great care to protect the artisans and educators of the cities he ravaged, often having them escorted safely to Samarkand even as their home cities were being demolished. Scornful of the growing Turkish influences upon his increasingly settled people, Tamerlane encouraged a revival of the nomadic principles of traditional Mongol life, even as he rebuilt Samarkand into the most magnificent city in Asia. The Gur-e Amir, his mausoleum in Samarkand, is regarded as a masterpiece of Islamic architecture, and the mosaic-encrusted structures of the city remain as a bizarre but beautiful monument to the destroyer of so many great capitals, who never established a permanent residence. After Tamerlane’s death in 1405, the empire he ruled was divided, as he had indicated it should be, between his two sons and his grandsons.The result, perhaps inevitably, was civil war, after which the territory was reunified by Tamerlane’s youngest son, Shagh Rokh (r. 1405–1447). This reunification ensured the continuance of the Timurid dynasty, which ruled the empire until the beginning of the sixteenth century. See also: Genghis Khan; Mongol Empire.

deceit, and the utilization of the highly effective techniques of mobile warfare developed by Genghis Khan, the charismatic Tamerlane led his army in bloody conquest throughout central and southwestern Asia, establishing an empire that stretched from the Russian steppes to the Hindu Kush Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea. He defeated the empire of the Golden Horde in Russia, sacked Baghdad and Damascus, and accepted the surrender of Egypt and

T’ANG DYNASTY (618–907 C.E.) Chinese dynasty that attained power when an outbreak of peasant revolutions weakened the Sui dynasty. Li Yuan, the founder of the T’ang dynasty, was originally a Sui military commander in the Gansu and Shanxi provinces, where he suppressed serious rebellions. In 617, however, he recognized the im-

T’ang Dynasty pending collapse of the Sui dynasty. Seizing the opportunity, he joined rebel forces and attacked the Sui capital at Daxingcheng. In 618, he deposed the last Sui monarch, Kung Ti (Gongdi) (r. 617–618), and changed the capital’s name to Changan. Li, known by his posthumous title Kao Tsu (Gaozu) (r. 618–626), realized that most Sui social institutions were still fundamentally sound. Therefore, he retained the sansheng, the three departments that comprised the bureaucracy, the Sui civil service examinations, and the “equal field” land distribution system. However, he reformed the two areas that had crippled the Sui dynasty: overtaxation and unreasonably long military service. Kao Tsu created the zuyongdiao, a fixed tax levied on grain and cloth, and he limited the length of military obligation. Most notably, in 624, he codified the Sui laws, creating uniform legal standards throughout the country. In 626, Kao Tsu’s second son, T’ai Tsung (Taizong), killed his older brother and deposed his

927

father.T’ai Tsung (r. 626–649) significantly increased the T’ang dynasty’s control over the country. He divided China into ten dao, or administrative units, and decreased corruption by rotating his ministers among them. He also greatly expanded the army and defeated the Eastern Turks, China’s most dangerous enemy. Under T’ai Tsung, the T’ang dynasty experienced its first great period of prosperity. When T’ai Tsung died in 649, his son Kao Tsung (Gaozong) (r. 649–683) assumed the throne. After suffering several strokes, Kao Tsung increasingly relied upon his wife, Empress Wu, to rule. The empress, Kao Tsung’s former concubine, had convinced the emperor to divorce his first wife and marry her after she produced two sons. Wu brazenly filled the bureaucracy with her supporters and dismissed her opposition. However, she initially balanced this favoritism with qualified candidates who had passed the jinshi examination. Wu also oversaw two major military victories. In the west, China gained control

The T’ang Dynasty ruled China during one of the greatest periods in that nation’s long history. For three centuries, the T’ang witnessed a flourishing of literature, art, trade, Buddhism, and Confucian education and administration. This painting on silk, titled The Thirteen Emperors, portrays the T’ang rulers of the seventh century.

928

T’ang Dynasty

T’ang Dynasty Kao Tsu

618–626

T’ai Tsung* (Taizong)

626–649

Kao Tsung* (Gaozong)

649–683

Chung Tsung

684

Jui Tsung

684–690

Wu Tse-T’ien* (Wu Zetian)

690–705

Chung Tsung

705–710

Jui Tsung

710–712

Hsuan Tsung

712–756

Su Tsung

756–762

Tai Tsung

762–779

Te Tsung

779–805

Shun Tsung

805

Hsien Tsung

805–820

Mu Tsung

820–824

Ching Tsung

824–827

Wen Tsung

827–840

Wu Tsung

840–846

Hsiuan Tsung

846–859

I Tsung

859–873

Hsi Tsung

873–888

Chao Tsung

888–904

Chao Hsuan T’i

904–907

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

of all land as far as the border of Persia. In the east, the Tang temporarily subdued their ancient nemesis, the Korean kingdom of Koguryo. These successes, however, sapped the monarchy’s resources. Wu increasingly raised taxes to fund the augmented empire and struggled with rising civil dissension. After her husband died in 683, she even-

tually deposed her two sons, Chung Tsung (Zhongzong) (r. 684) and Jui Tsung (Ruizong) (r. 684–690), and executed the majority of the T’ang royal family. Wu’s constant scheming eventually imploded. She died in 705 after reinstating Chung Tsung as her successor. But Chung Tsung’s wife, Empress Wei, poisoned him.The brief reign of the empress was extremely corrupt because her retainers ignored the country’s problems. But in 712, Chung Tsung’s nephew, Hsuan Tsung (Xuanzong), deposed the empress and instituted a new government. Hsuan Tsung (r. 712–756) removed Wei’s corrupt ministers, increased the number of dao from ten to fifteen, and assigned new governors to each one. He divided the military into ten units and enlisted qualified commanders to lead them. By improving the granary and canal systems, he improved over 800,000 farms and enjoyed a corresponding increase in tax collections. As a result of such policies, the first decades of Hsuan Tsung’s rule saw the Tang dynasty regain its former prosperity. As Hsuan Tsung aged, however, he became enchanted with mystical Daoism and allowed his chief minister Li Linfu to run the government. When Li died in 752, a power struggle ensued. In 755, a powerful military governor named An Lushan attacked and occupied the T’ang capital at Luoyang. Hsuan Tsung was then deposed in favor of his son, Su Tsung (Suzong) (r. 756–762). Although An Lushan was assassinated in 757, his rebellion had significantly weakened the T’ang dynasty, and other military leaders assumed virtual control over their districts. Consequently, the T’ang monarchy lost a large portion of the taxes collected in those areas. To replace this revenue, the emperor Te Tsung (Dezong) (r. 779–805) initiated a new tax in 780. He solicited the support of the aristocracy by ending the “equal land” system and allowing them to amass large estates.The new taxes and increased land values forced many peasants to become tenant farmers. Through these maneuvers, Te Tsung and his successor, Hsien Tsung (Xianzong) (r. 805–820), regained the monarchy’s power. But the T’ang society was still weak. When harsh weather ruined several harvests in the 830s, peasant rebellions erupted and lasted for three decades. Finally, in 875, an outlaw named Huang Chao organized a massive revolt that irreparably crippled the T’ang dynasty and instigated a bloody struggle for control of China. In 903, Zhu Wen, a former military commander,

Ta r q u i n D y n a s t y captured Changan and killed almost all government officials. Four years later, he deposed the last T’ang monarch, Chao Hsuan T’i (Zhaoxuan) (r. 904–907), and founded the Later Liang dynasty. The T’ang dynasty, one of the most powerful in China’s history, ultimately could not maintain its vast empire. See also: Hsuan Tsung (Xuanzong); Kao Tsung (Gaozong); Sui Dynasty; T’ai Tsung (Taizong); Wu Tse-t’ian (Wu Zetian) (Wu Zhao). FURTHER READING

Benn, Charles D. Daily Life in Traditional China: The Tang Dynasty. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.

TARA HIGH KINGSHIP. See Irish Kings

TARQUIN DYNASTY (ca. 616–510 B.C.E.)

Last Etruscan dynasty of early Rome that included three rulers: Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (r. ca. 616–579 b.c.e.), Servius Tullius (r. ca. 578–535 b.c.e.), and Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (r. ca. 534–510 b.c.e.).These three rulers expanded the boundaries of Rome and built much of the infrastructure that would serve the city for centuries. Roman legend attributes the ancestry of Romulus, the mythical founder of Rome, to the gods rather than to the Etruscans. Moreover, there are no records or hints that Numa Pompilius, the mythic king of Rome, was from the region of Etruria (home of the Etruscans) either. However, both the third and fourth monarchs of Rome, Tullus Hostilius (r. ca. 673–642 b.c.e.) and Ancus Marcius (r. ca. 642–617 b.c.e.), have Etruscan names and seem much more likely to have been historical personages than their two predecessors. Legendary sources agree, however, that the Roman ruler Lucius Tarquinius Priscus came from Etruria. According to legend, when he entered Rome, his future wife, Tanaquil, witnessed an eagle snatch the cap from his head and return it. She interpreted this as a sign that Priscus would soon rule in

929

Rome. He did, beginning his rule around 616 b.c.e. as the first ruler of the Tarquin dynasty. During his reign, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus drained the land that became the Forum Romanum, built the great arena known as the Circus Maximus, and captured a number of neighboring towns, incorporating them into Greater Rome. Disinheriting and exiling his sons because of yet another omen, Tarquinius Priscus adopted a young slave, Mastarna, and made him heir to the throne. The sons of Rome’s previous king, Ancus Marcius, returned to Rome around 579 b.c.e. and hired two farmers to kill Priscus.They succeeded but were unable to claim the throne. Instead, Mastarna, now called Servius Tullius, inherited the kingship. Tullius reorganized and retrained the Roman army into heavily armored infantry (probably patterned on the successful Greek infantry troops known as hoplites). He also emulated the closely packed Greek phalanx (a troop formation) for his new legions. Having incorporated the Quirinal,Viminal, and Esquiline hills into Rome, Servius Tullius also built the first wall around the city. Meanwhile, Tanaquil, the widow of Tarquinius Priscus, raised her son Tarquinius Superbus in exile, but they returned to Rome in 534 b.c.e. to claim the throne. Tullius appealed to the people of Rome, but the aristocrats backed Tarquinius Superbus.They felt that Tullius had been far too even-handed with the lower classes, and Superbus subsequently had Tullius assassinated. Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as Tarquin the Proud, made important contributions to Rome. He built the great temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, the Cloaca Maxima (the enormous sewage drain that made the Forum habitable), and extended Roman territory in several directions. However, Superbus proved to be a cruel and intolerant autocrat. He was deposed by the Roman Senate in 510 b.c.e., bringing an end to the Tarquin dynasty and to the Roman monarchy. From this point until the reign of the Emperor Augustus, Rome was a republic without a king. Gladiatorial combat; public sanitation; reliance on and reverence for omens, augurs, and soothsayers; a military based on discipline and training; and a hatred of tyrants and autocrats (due especially to Tarquinius Superbus): these were the emblems and principles created during the reign of the Tarquin dynasty. These practices and ideas shaped Rome

930

Ta r q u i n D y n a s t y

throughout the period of the Roman Republic, and they remained strong even after Rome became an empire. See also: Etruscan Kingdoms; Roman Empire;Tarquin the Proud.

TARQUIN THE PROUD (555–496 B.C.E.)

Third and last of the ancient Roman kings (r. ca. 534–510 b.c.e.) of the Tarquin dynasty, known to have been of Etruscan ancestry. The son of Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (r. ca. 616–578 b.c.e.), Tarquin the Proud ruled Rome mercilessly from about 534 until 509 b.c.e., but he was eventually deposed by the Roman Senate, thus precipitating the creation of the Roman Republic. In 578 b.c.e.,Tarquinius Priscus was murdered by the sons of his kingly predecessor, Ancus Marcius (r. 642–617 b.c.e.). Priscus’s son, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, was raised in exile by his mother,Tanaquil. In the meantime, another Etruscan, Servius Tullius (r. 578–534 b.c.e.), stepped in and became a popular ruler in Rome. After Tarquin reached maturity, he returned to Rome in 534 b.c.e. and challenged Tullius’s legitimacy to rule. Servius submitted his popularity to a plebiscite and won the vote. However, receiving the support of many of the Roman aristocracy, Tarquin had Servius assassinated. The wealthy families who had supported Tarquin’s challenge to Servius soon found that they had substituted an autocrat for a strong, fair-minded ruler.Tarquin wasted no time in asserting his power. Much to the horror of the aristocracy, he sentenced free men to forced labor, crucified citizens in the Roman Forum, and made it very clear to all that his power was absolute. [It should be noted that all sources of information for this are Roman; no Etruscan records are available, so it is possible that these sources present a one-sided view of Tarquin.] Experiencing growing unrest among his subjects, Tarquin declared what he hoped would be popular wars against the neighboring Volscians and Rutuli. This tactic seemed to be working until one of his family returned from the front and raped Lucrece, the wife of a leading Roman citizen.

Lucius Junius Brutus was both the nephew of Tarquin and the best friend of Lucrece’s husband. In 508 b.c.e., he exhorted the Roman Senate to depose Tarquin and expel all his family from Rome.The Senate agreed and deposed Tarquin. They then formed a new type of government, a res publica (or commonwealth) that would be headed by two equal officials called consuls, each elected for a period of only one year. This marked the end of the Roman monarchy and the beginning of the Roman Republic. Tarquin fled to Etruria, the land of the Etruscans, and persuaded his distant kinsman, Lars Porsena, to attack and reclaim Rome for the Etruscans. Porsena agreed and prevailed against the Romans. However, Porsena did not replace Tarquin on the throne, and within a decade, Rome had ended Etruscan rule for good. The Roman Republic that emerged would thrive for over four hundred years. See also: Dethronement; Etruscan Kingdoms; Roman Empire;Tarquin Dynasty.

TAUFA’AHAU TUPOU IV (1918– ) King of Tonga (r. 1965–present) who was responsible for ending Tonga’s status as a British protectorate but whose long rule has been plagued by financial scandal and the Tongan democratic movement. King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV inherited the Tongan throne from his mother, Queen Salote Tupou III (r. 1918–1965), upon her death in 1965.Almost immediately after taking the throne, the new king—already in his forties and an alumnus of the Sydney University law school in Australia—set about modernizing his country and encouraging tourism. After organizing the construction of Tonga’s first modern hotel and an airport that could handle jet aircraft, King Taufa’ahau turned his attention to the seventy-year-old agreement with Great Britain that made Tonga a British protectorate. A new treaty was negotiated in 1968, and in 1970 the British granted emancipation from protectorate status, making Tonga an independent nation. Since then, the king of Tonga has been responsible for the kingdom’s foreign affairs and defense. As Taufa’ahau encouraged foreign contact, more and more of his subjects spent time abroad, studying or working in democratic countries. In the late 1980s, Tonga’s first independent newspaper, Kele’a,

Ta x a t i o n was founded. Since that time, Taufa’ahau’s administration has been rocked again and again by financial scandal, often connected to the king’s management of foreign affairs. When the Tongan parliament met in a special session in 1991 to amend the Tongan constitution to permit the sale of Tongan passports to foreign nationals—a practice declared unconstitutional by the Tongan High Court—hundreds of Tongans participated in the island’s first protest.When Taufa’ahau disregarded public opinion and continued the sale of the documents, a pro-democracy conference was organized, resulting in elections being held in 1993.Taufa’ahau was able to ignore calls for reform, however, since the Tongan constitution guarantees twenty-one of the thirty seats in parliament to hereditary nobles. Since the first elections in 1993, King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV has continued to refuse to recognize the Tonga Human Rights Democracy Movement, and most experts expect the Tongan monarchy to stay in place as long as Taufa’ahau lives. See also: South Sea Island Kingdoms.

TAXATION Any process whereby the government of a state raises income through direct and compulsory contributions from its citizens. Taxation is the primary means through which states, including monarchies, obtain the funds necessary to operate and provide their inhabitants with services such as education and national defense.Taxation is also used to protect the domestic economy by placing high tariffs on imported goods. Taxes have been in place throughout recorded history and have frequently been a source of intense political disputes, sometimes leading even to warfare. Historically, monarchs have been especially vulnerable to popular unrest over taxation, as their subjects generally have had little or no influence over how their taxes are spent.

EARLY FORMS OF TAXATION Taxation can be traced at least as far back as the dynasties of ancient Egypt, all of which operated rudimentary tax systems. One of the earliest forms of taxation was the extraction of physical labor from the pharaoh’s subjects, generally to build civic proj-

931

ects such as temples or mausoleums. Many durable goods, especially those relating to agricultural production, were taxed, including livestock, grains, and cooking oils. Like modern states, the Egyptian kingdoms exempted certain people from paying taxes, as is evident from inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone, which describes the rescinding of specific taxes by Pharoah Ptolemy VI (r. 180–145 b.c.e.). Taxation continued throughout the Greek and Roman periods, with the Greeks raising taxes explicitly for the purpose of funding the military. The Greeks also issued the first tax refunds, sending excess money back to the populace. The Roman Empire is well-known for its advanced monetary and taxation system, especially as it developed under the reigns of Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.) and the emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) Both rulers promoted a comprehensive system of personal, sales, trade, poll, inheritance, and property taxes that helped fuel the rapid expansion of the Roman Empire. Massive civic projects such as welfare, aqueduct systems, and a network of roads that stretched throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe were funded with Roman tax revenues. Some historians have argued that the Roman tax system became so excessive that it actually stifled the economy and contributed to the downfall of the empire. Beginning in the third century b.c.e., the Ch’in (Qin) dynasty in China initiated the most spectacular public works project in history, the building of the Great Wall of China. Construction of the Great Wall was funded almost entirely by a system of heavy personal and agricultural taxes, and it was built using tens of thousands of forced laborers. Construction of the Great Wall was such a massive project that neither the wall nor the tax system that funded it came to an end until the Ming dynasty.

THE FEUDAL AND MODERN ERAS Throughout the Middle Ages, taxes continued to be levied worldwide, most notably through the feudal economic systems of Western and Eastern Europe, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Although significant distinctions can be drawn between the feudal systems of these areas, they all had one thing in common: a structure in which the monarchy and its local representatives (the nobility) held absolute ownership of all arable land, and extracted labor and payment from the peasants who farmed the land in exchange for military protection and the right of

932

Ta x a t i o n

subsistence. Although the collapse of the feudal system in Europe in the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries did much to liberate peasants and the working classes from exploitation, it did not result in the remission of taxes, which were levied on things ranging from land and crops to tea and paper. It was taxes on tea and paper that galvanized the most famous tax revolt in history, the American Revolution against Britain’s King George III (r. 1760– 1820). Because the British colonists in America had no influence over how their tax money was spent, they deeply resented taxes and pushed to force the British government to guarantee the rights of political representation along with the obligations of taxation. The British Crown would not agree, however, and its refusal led directly to the American Revolution. Today, taxation occurs in almost every nation on the globe, including the surviving kingdoms scattered around the world. These taxation systems range from simple tithing (giving a percentage of income or goods) to immensely complex systems that employ entire industries of specialists. See also: Commmerce and Kingship;Tribute. FURTHER READING

Webber, Carolyn, and Aaron Wildavsky. A History of Taxation and Expenditure in the Western World. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986.

TEMUCHIN. See Genghis Khan TEWODROS II (1816–1868 C.E.) Emperor of Ethiopia (r. 1855–1868), who was called the “King of Kings” for his efforts to reunify Ethiopia and restore it to the glory of its earlier days. The man who became known to history as Tewodros was named Kasa at the time of his birth, in 1816, to parents of noble descent. A child of status and privilege, Kasa was educated by monks of the Ethiopian Orthodox (Coptic) Church. By the early 1800s, Ethiopia had suffered nearly a hundred years of internal conflict, having become fragmented into dozens of small, independent groups that waged constant warfare with their neighbors. The unity of Ethiopia’s earlier days, which had contributed to the greatness of the kingdom, seemed irrecoverable.

As a young man, Kasa became convinced that he was destined to reunify his country. He became an outlaw, making a dubious living through armed robbery in the countryside. His exploits gained him notoriety, however, and attracted many followers. By 1852, Kasa had amassed a large army and began his mission in earnest, aiming to seize the throne of Ethiopia and establish himself as ruler. Within three years he had succeeded in his goal, and at his coronation he took the Christian name of Tewodros (Theodore). Tewodros found it difficult to create unity from the fractious collection of strongmen and warlords who constituted the only real authority throughout much of Ethiopia.Thus, in the mid-1860s, he turned to the British for help in restoring order to Ethiopia and in modernizing the nation. The British ignored his requests for assistance, however. Angered by their unwillingness to help,Tewodros made a diplomatic error of major proportions: he ordered the British consul and other foreigners to be seized and thrown into prison. The British ignored Tewodros no longer, but their attentions were not what he had originally hoped to receive. In 1868, the British retaliated by attacking Tewodros’s fortress in Magdala, forcing him to release his prisoners. In April 1868, Tewodros acknowledged his failure as ruler by committing suicide. See also: Aksum Kingdom; Amhara Kingdom; Haile Selassie I; Menelik II; Tewodros II; Zara Ya’iqob. FURTHER READING

Rubenson, Sven. King of Kings: Tewodros of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Haile Sellassie I University, 1966.

THEATER, ROYAL Dramatic presentations sponsored by monarchs and often performed at the royal court. The principal involvement of monarchs in the theater has been as patrons and founders of theaters or acting companies. One of the few rulers known to have actually written plays is the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius the Elder (ca. 430–367 b.c.e), whose now lost work he submitted to the competition at Athens. The Roman emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), also began but then abandoned work on a tragedy about the ancient Greek hero Ajax.The most prolific

Th e b e s K i n g d o m playwright among sovereigns was Catherine II the Great of Russia (r. 1762–1796), who wrote several plays and opera libretti in Russian that were later performed. Catherine’s plays served her cultural agenda by attacking Russian backwardness and Freemasonry. Many monarchs have founded theaters or acting companies, or otherwise promoted the theater. Catherine II of Russia founded an Opera House in the Winter Palace in 1763 and the Hermitage Theater in St. Petersburg in 1785.The royal and theatrical worlds were deeply connected during the reigns of kings James I (r. 1603–1625) and Charles I (r. 1625–1649) of England. James I’s predecessor on the English throne, Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), had generally limited plays before the court to groups of six or eight at certain holidays such as Christmas. James I increased the number of plays and dramatic performances presented before the court on these occasions, and he also had plays presented at other times of the year as well. James I took over a leading company of players, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, and re-styled it as the King’s Servants. Other leading companies were sponsored by other members of the royal family. James I also fostered the career of the playwright Ben Jonson. The British monarchy’s involvement in the theater continued under James’s son and successor, Charles I. Charles’s wife, Henrietta Maria, actually appeared on stage with her ladies in some court theatricals, attracting unfavorable notice from Puritans who condemned actresses as prostitutes. The Puritans, after their victory in the English Civil War of the 1640s, abolished both the monarchy and the theater. Although both came back with the Restoration of Charles II (r. 1660–1685) in 1660, the close connection of the English royal court and the theater was never restored. Charles did participate in the theater in one way that was common among kings, however—he took an actress, Nell Gwyn, as his mistress. Of the many actors or actresses who became the sexual partners of monarchs, the best known is Theodora, who became the wife and empress of the Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565 c.e.) of the Byzantine Empire. See also: Arenas, Royal; Catherine II, the Great; Charles I; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Literature and Kingship; Music and Song; Ritual, Royal;Theodora.

933

THEBES KINGDOM (ca. 1570–1085 B.C.E.)

Kingdom that flourished in Egypt during a period known as the New Kingdom (ca. 1550–332 b.c.e.). Located on the Nile River in the southern part of Egypt, the ancient city of Thebes became the capital of Egypt during the Twelfth dynasty (1991–1775 b.c.e) but reached its height of importance during the Eighteenth to Twentieth dynasties (ca. 1570– 1070 b.c.e.). Thereafter it began to decline as the center of Egyptian rule shifted further north. For a time in the tenth century b.c.e., Thebes was also a separate kingdom under sacerdotal, or priestly, rule. Although Thebes developed very early from a number of small villages, it remained a relatively obscure site until about 2100 b.c.e., when one of its leading families established Egypt’s Eleventh dynasty (2134–1991 b.c.e.). The city quickly gained prominence as both a royal residence and as the seat of worship of the god Amun. Thebes also became the burial place of many Egyptian kings and nobles, who were buried in great splendor in the nearby Valley of the Tombs. Thebes is particularly well known for these tombs and its magnificent temples, many of which are wellpreserved because of the dry climate. The famous temples of Karnak and Luxor were built on the east bank of the Nile, while the well-known funerary temples and royal burial places—including that of King Tutankhamen in the Valley of the Kings—were erected on the west bank of the river.

TEMPLE OF KARNAK Ancient Egyptians called the Temple of Karnak “Ipetisut,” which means “the most select of places.” It is actually a complex of temples dedicated mainly to the gods Amun, Mut, and Khonsu. Nearly all the New Kingdom kings added on to the complex, which grew to be Egypt’s greatest religious gathering place. The Temple of Amun, the principal god of Thebes in the New Kingdom, was built by Rameses III (r. 1182–1151 b.c.e.) during the Twentieth dynasty.The Temple of Montu, the war god, dates from the Eighteenth dynasty under Amenhotep III (r. 1386–1349 b.c.e.). Ancient warriors asked the god Montu to look after Thebes when they went off to battle. The Temple of Mut (Amun’s wife) also was built by Amenhotep III. The temple complex at Karnak in-

934

Th e b e s K i n g d o m

The Thebes Kingdom prospered under several of the best-known and most powerful pharaohs in Egyptian history. One of these was Tutankhamen, whose tomb in the Valley of the Kings contained many beautiful artifacts and murals, including this painting of the king’s funeral cortege.

cluded a number of smaller temples and Sacred Lakes where the priests bathed and cleaned implements for divine rites.

TEMPLE OF LUXOR South of Karnak, the Temple of Luxor—considered the dwelling place of Amun—was known to the ancient Egyptians as “Ipt rsyt” or the “southern sanctuary.” The temple was the center of the most important festival in Thebes, the festival of Opet, which fused the current ruler’s human aspect and his divine office. The festival of Opet was basically a procession of images of the royal family and the gods carried on barges along the Nile from the Temple of Karnak to the Temple of Luxor. Many soldiers, dancers, musicians, and important officials walked alongside the barges on the riverbanks.The festival was a time for people to ask favors of the kings’ or gods’ images.

After the king arrived at the temple with his priests, he and his ka (divine essence, created at birth) were merged, thereby transforming the king into a god. This festival and the Temple of Luxor served as the power base of the pharaoh’s government.

FUNERARY TEMPLES As part of the funerary cult of the kings, numerous temples were built on the plain between the Nile River and the valleys where kings were buried because there was no room for the temples to be placed next to the royal tombs. Like the temples connected to the pyramids, they were the site of rituals to ensure the king’s immortality and passage to the next world as a god. The most important and best-preserved examples of these are the temples of Eighteenth dynasty rulers Hatshepsut (r. 1503–1483 b.c.e.) and Tuthmosis III (r. 1504–1450 b.c.e.), Nineteenth dynasty pharoahs Seti I (r. 1291–1279

Th e o d o r a b.c.e.), and Ramses II (r. 1279–1212 b.c.e.), and Ramses III of the Twentieth dynasty.

THE VALLEY OF THE KINGS The Valley of the Kings on the west side of the Nile contains many of the tombs of New Kingdom rulers. The area was chosen because it was near Thebes and had a mountain peak perhaps reminiscent of the Pyramids. More than sixty royal tombs have been discovered there, most with rock-cut corridors, burial chambers, halls, and pillars. The walls and ceilings were adorned with representations of the king’s journey from the present to the afterlife, with illustrations and inscriptions from a variety of funerary texts. The earliest royal tomb in the area is that of Tuthmosis I (r. 1524–1518 b.c.e.) of the Eighteenth dynasty, and the latest is the tomb of Ramses XI (r. 1098–1070 b.c.e.) of the Twentieth dynasty. The most famous and well-preserved tomb, however, is that of the young pharaoh Tutankhamen (r. 1334– 1325) of the Eighteenth dynasty. His burial site— complete with the ruler’s mummy and a large amount of treasure—was discovered by English archaeologist Howard Carter in 1922 and is considered one of the greatest archaeological discoveries ever made. Tutankhamen was buried in three nesting coffins. The outer two were covered with gold leaf, and the inner one was solid gold encrusted with gemstones.A mass of jewelry and amulets were found with the mummy, as well as a splendid gold portrait mask. Four shrines of hammered gold over wood surrounded the coffins; and furniture, statues, clothing, a chariot, weapons, and many more items filled the other rooms of the burial place. Much of this treasure is now on display at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. See also: Hatshepsut; Ramses II, the Great; Seti I; Tutankhamen.

THEODORA (d. 548 C.E.) Byzantine empress, the wife of Emperor Justinian I the Great (r. 527–565), whose skill and intelligence helped to advance the Byzantine Empire. Theodora’s birthplace is the subject of debate: she was born either on the Greek island of Crete or in Syria. The daughter of a bear trainer, Theodora worked during her youth as a mime and an actress,

935

an occupation likened to prostitution at that time. A daring entertainer, she frequently performed at the Hippodrome (a public stadium) in Constantinople, the capital city of the Byzantine Empire, where she was known for her acrobatics. At age sixteen, Theodora traveled widely in northern Africa, where she remained for four years before returning to Constantinople. During these journeys, she went to the city of Alexandria in Egypt, where she learned about Monophysitism, a form of Christianity that viewed Christ as wholly divine. This view of Christ was contrary to Orthodox Christian belief, which viewed Christ as both human and divine. Theodora’s support for Monophysitism put her in opposition to the Orthodox Christian church that was the accepted faith of the Byzantine Empire.Yet, through her influence, Justinian attempted to reconcile these competing Christian beliefs. When Theodora returned to Constantinople in 522, she became a wool spinner near the palace of Emperor Justin I (r. 518–527), where she drew the attention of the emperor’s nephew Justinian, who was a high government official. Theodora was both beautiful and intelligent, qualities that caused Justinian to fall in love with her and to campaign against an old Roman law that forbade government officials from marrying actresses. Justinian and Theodora were married in 525.Two years later, in 527, Justinian succeeded to the throne at the death of his uncle. He and Theodora ruled as emperor and empress, unofficial joint monarchs. In some ways,Theodora was a much stronger individual than her husband. During the Nika revolt of 532—when two rival political groups started a riot and proclaimed a new emperor—Justinian was prepared to flee Constantinople. But Theodora gave a moving public speech about the greater significance of the life of someone who died as a ruler over that of someone who lived but was nothing. She convinced Justinian and his officials to attack the rebels, and the resulting victory saved Justinian’s throne. A pioneer advocate for the rights of women, Theodora passed laws that prohibited forced prostitution and established homes for prostitutes. She also enacted laws that granted women more rights in divorce, allowed women to inherit property, and established the death penalty for rape. See also: Byzantine Empire; Justinian I.

936

Th e o d o r a

FURTHER READING

Browning, Robert. The Byzantine Empire. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992. Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987. Vasiliev, Alexander A. History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952.

THEODERIC THE GREAT (ca. 454–526 C.E.)

King of the Ostrogoths (r. 474–526) and conqueror of Italy, who adopted many Roman ideas and policies while remaking the land into a Goth kingdom. The son of King Thiudimir (r. ca. 469–474) of the Ostrogoths by a concubine, Theoderic was born around 454 in the Roman province of Pannonia (in central Europe in present-day Hungary). His given name was Dietrich, a common Germanic name that translated in Latin to Theodericus. Theoderic’s father, along with his brothers, Valamer and Videmer, led the Ostrogoths as part of an alliance of nations fighting the Romans and Visigoths on behalf of the Huns. After losing the war, Thiudimir was forced to sign a peace treaty with the Romans around 464, stipulating that the young Theoderic be sent as a slave to Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Theoderic stayed in Constantinople for about ten years, absorbing Greco-Roman culture and values more than any previous barbarian ruler had. Even so, Theoderic remained true to the nature of his Ostrogothic people by being well versed in the ways of war and never learning to read or write. Theoderic returned to Pannonia at the death of his father in 474. Elected king, he took control of the eastern portion of the Ostrogothic lands and began to establish himself as a military ruler by defeating the Samartians, a people in central-eastern Europe that had plagued the Romans for years. Theoderic’s ambitions on the battlefield enabled the Ostrogoths to take control of new lands along the lower Danube River, and he also earned for them the status of Roman federates. Theoderic’s relationship with the Byzantine Em-

peror Zeno (r. 474–491) was inconsistent, swinging constantly between deepest friendship and outright hostility. Between his successful campaigns against Macedonia in 479 and Thessaly in 482, Theoderic helped Zeno put down two major rebellions within the Byzantine Empire. Theoderic’s attention to his own rule took precedence after the death of his chief rival, Theoderic Strabo. With Strabo’s death, Theoderic gained complete control of the Ostrogoths, and, in 484, he was elected to the consulship in Constantinople and given the title Flavius Theodoricus. Soon after, he had Strabo’s son assassinated in order to remove any threat to his own power. By 486,Theoderic was able to threaten Constantinople, occupying its outlying areas and cutting off its water supply. Eager to remove Theoderic as a threat to the Byzantine Empire, Emperor Zeno encouraged the Ostrogothic leader to invade Italy in 488 and expel Odoacer (r. 476–493), the Germanic chieftain who had overthrown the last emperor of the West, Romulus Augustus (r. 475–476), in 476. Conquering Italy would give Theoderic a homeland for his wandering people while also removing him as a threat to Zeno. Theoderic’s forces marched west and challenged Odoacer, defeating him in a series of battles before blockading him in the city of Ravenna in 493. A local bishop finally arranged for a truce between Theoderic and Odoacer.Theoderic, supported by the Church, offered what seemed to be remarkably generous terms. He had no intention of honoring them, however. Theoderic invited Odoacer, Ocoacer’s son, and his chief officers to a banquet. As soon as Odoacer was seated,Theoderic drew his sword and slew his opponent. Odoacer’s wife, Sunigilda, was imprisoned and left to die of starvation, and his son,Thelane, was sent to Gaul and murdered there. While violent and unpleasant, Theoderic brought a period of peace and prosperity to Italy. He claimed kingship of Italy in 493, and in 497, he was proclaimed king of the Goths and the Romans by the Byzantine emperor,Anastasius I (r. 491–518). Theoderic took the surplus wealth from Italy and sent it to his own capital at Ravenna. He spent the remainder of his reign strengthening his new realm. A devout Arian (a Christian sect founded by the North African theologian Arius in the fourth century), Theoderic tolerated all Christian sects, a remarkable policy in an age of religious intolerance. He also pro-

Th e o d o s i u s I , t h e G r e a t moted the growth of agriculture and commerce in Italy, and he improved public works by repairing Roman aqueducts and baths at Verona and Pavia. As king of the Ostrogoths in Italy, Theoderic pledged allegiance to the emperor in Constantinople, and he intended to ensure that Italy remained part of the Roman Empire. He respected Roman institutions and laws, allowing Italy to be run by Romans using Roman methods but under Theoderic’s administration. The Romans themselves were sufficiently impressed by his power to grant him the title of Augustus. Theoderic further consolidated his power through marital alliances. He married his daughter to Alaric II (r. 484–507), the Visigoth king of Spain and southern Gaul, and he took for his own wife Audofleda, the sister of the great Frankish king, Clovis I (r. 481–511). When Theoderic died in 526, his daughter Amalasuntha served as regent for her son, Athalaric (r. 526–534). See also: Byzantine Empire; Ostrogoth Kingdom; Roman Empire. FURTHER READING

Moorhead, John. Theoderic in Italy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

THEODOSIUS I, THE GREAT (346–395 C.E.)

Roman emperor (r. 379–395) who made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380. Theodosius was born into an aristocratic GalloRoman family in Gallaecia, in modern-day Spain. His father was an accomplished general and politician who was executed by political enemies in 376. After his father’s death, Theodosius withdrew from public life and went to his provincial estates in Spain, content to be alive after the rapid change in Roman politics that had brought down his father. Before his father’s death,Theodosius had earned a reputation as a skilled soldier and leader of men, as well as a capable and intelligent statesman. At his point in his life, however, he little expected to return to the heights of imperial politics.

937

Theodosius remained in Spain until 378, when the Emperor Gratian (r. 375–383), ruler of the Western Empire, chose him to rule the Eastern Empire after its ruler,Valens (r. 364–378), was defeated and killed by the Visigoths. Gratian chose Theodosius largely because he was not beholden to any protector at court. Gratian also knew of Theodosius’s family and his abilities. In 379,Theodosius became emperor of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, and he immediately faced a serious challenge.The Roman Empire had always depended upon its military might for stability, but with its defeat by the Visigoths, the Romans lost the military initiative and looked vulnerable. Over the next four years,Theodosius dealt cunningly with the Visigoths, eventually reaching an agreement with them to settle peaceably in the region of Thrace, north of Greece. As part of the agreement,Theodosius also allowed the Visigoths to settle in Pannonia, a Roman province in Central Europe. Although Germanic incursions into the empire did not cease during Theodosius’s reign, they did slow to a manageable pace. Theodosius’s great contribution to the empire came when he made Roman Christianity the official state religion in 380. Although Christianity was already a recognized religion in the empire as a result of the conversion of Emperor Constantine I (r. 306–337), Roman Christianity was not the major religion around the Mediterranean. Arianism, a form of Christianity that stressed the human nature of Jesus, claimed more adherents prior to Theodosius’s reign. After Theodosius was baptized into the Roman Christian faith in 380, he issued an edict that banned Arianism. Officially, the laws of Theodosius severely punished unorthodox Christian practice, although, in reality, the laws were never enforced during his lifetime. However, the same set of laws was used to actively repress pagan belief, and many traces of polytheism were wiped out in Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor. By the time of his death in 395, Theodosius ruled over a truly Christian empire. See also: Alaric I; Byzantine Empire; Christianity and Kingship; Constantine I, the Great; Roman Empire.

THESEUS. See Greek Kingdom, Ancient

938

Th e s s a l o n i k a K i n g d o m

THESSALONIKA KINGDOM

took control of Macedonia, and Thessalonika was handed over to the Roman consul, Aemilius Paulis.

(316 B.C.E.–1430 C.E.)

ROMAN RULE Kingdom in northeastern Greece, an important power for a brief period in the fourth century b.c.e., that later became a sub-kingdom of the kingdom of Macedonia and the Roman Empire. During the time of Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), the Greeks and Macedonians established a number of major trade routes and new trading centers in the eastern Mediterranean and the ancient Near East. One such trading center was founded near the ancient city of Thermes in 316 b.c.e. by Cassander, an officer in Alexander’s army who later became king of Macedonia (r. 305–297 b.c.e.). Situated at the northeastern corner of the Thermaic Gulf, the new city was on the overland trade route from Italy to the East. Trade routes also led north from the city into a vast hinterland and south via the Aegean Sea. Since Cassander founded the new city in the same year that he was married, he named it after his bride, Thessalonika, who was the stepsister of Alexander the Great.

THE MEETING PLACE OF CIVILIZATIONS Thessalonika’s harbor provided a safe port for Macedonia’s large merchant fleet and navy. Ships from every part of the Aegean Sea, Syria, Phoenicia, and Egypt brought products and people from foreign lands.With them came elements of new civilizations and religious beliefs. The city had a temple to the Egyptian god, Sarapis, and a crypt was constructed for mystical worship. A small Jewish community developed that, much later, became the basis for an expanding Christian community after that religion was founded. By the second century b.c.e.,Thessalonika had become a crowded city-state that had a vassal-like relationship with the kingdom of Macedonia. Built on a hillside overlooking the sea, it was surrounded by formidable walls and crowned by a spacious acropolis. The government was headed by a king, who consulted with a council of magistrates, a superintendent, and a military governor. In 168 b.c.e., the last king of Macedonia, Perseus (r. 179–168 b.c.e.), lost the battle of Pydna to the Romans at the end of the Third Macedonian War (171–168 b.c.e.). With this victory, the Romans

The Romans divided Macedonia into four districts and named Thessalonika the capital of the second district.They allowed Thessalonika to keep its ancestral laws and have its own officials and privileges, which the city would keep until 1430 c.e., when the Ottoman Turks took control of the region. But the Romans would not permit travel or contact between the districts, hoping to break up further the former Macedonian Empire. A groundswell of opposition to Roman rule eventually led to a revolt among the Macedonians, which the Romans put down in 149 b.c.e. This time, the Romans formally annexed Macedonia, including Thessalonika, and in 146 b.c.e. it became the first Roman province outside Italy. Thessalonika grew in importance and wealth when the Romans built a major road, the Via Egnatia, through the region around 145 b.c.e.The Via Regina, a main spur of the Via Egnatia, crossed Thessalonika from west to east, improving the old trade route and increasing east-west trade in the city. The Romans conquered more of the valleys to the north, opening up the Balkans to Thessalonika and making the city the trading center of the ancient world. Prosperity did not come without danger. The Thracians overran Macedonia in 57–55 b.c.e., but they were no threat to Thessalonika’s high walls. A decade later, during Rome’s civil war, Thessalonika was threatened again. At the battle of Philippi in 42 b.c.e., the Roman general Marcus Junius Brutus promised his troops they could plunder Thessalonika after the battle. Fortunately, Brutus lost the battle to Mark Antony and Octavian, the heir of Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 b.c.e.). Rome declared Thessalonika a free city, allowing it to mint its own coins and retain its political organization. Between the first and fourth centuries c.e.,Thessalonika grew into one of the great cities of the Roman Empire, becoming a center of intellectual thought and religious worship.These golden years of prosperity ended in the fourth century, at a time when the Byzantine Empire ruled the Balkan region.

CENTURIES OF DECLINE Under the Byzantines, Thessalonika was the secondmost important city of the Eastern Roman Empire,

Th i b aw after Constantinople. Byzantine rule, however, marked the beginning of Thessalonika’s decline as well as the start of persecution at the hands of other powers. In 390, thousands of the city’s inhabitants were massacred on the orders of the emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395) after they rioted over a chariot race. In every century thereafter, the Thessalonians were persecuted by conquerors—the Saracens, Bulgarians, Normans, Franks, Romanians, and Venetians all plundered the city. Finally, in May 1430, the Ottoman Turks, under Sultan Murad II (r. 1421–1451), launched a massive attack on Thessalonika.The Turks plundered the city, removing all evidence of wealth, and turned its Christian churches into mosques. Under the Ottomans, the city was renamed Seanik, and it remained under Turkish control until 1912. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Byzantine Empire; Macedonian Empire; Macedonian Kingdom; Ottoman Empire; Roman Empire

THIBAW (1858–1916 C.E.) The last king of Myanmar and the last ruler of the Alaungpaya dynasty. The younger son of King Mindon (r. 1853–1878), Thibaw (r. 1878–1885) had a relatively short reign that ended with the colonial occupation of upper Myanmar by the British.Throughout his rule, Thibaw was strongly influenced by his wife, Supayalat, and her mother. His reign was accompanied by extensive violence and suffering. During the reign of King Mindon, the British annexed lower Myanmar. When Thibaw took the throne, he sought to enlist French aid in order to stop any further incursions by the British. In 1883 he sent a mission to Paris in hopes of securing arms from the French. His diplomatic efforts met with some success—a treaty was announced two years later, and a French consul arrived at Mandalay soon after. Although the treaty was described as a commercial agreement, it was also said that Thibaw had granted the French economic incentives in exchange for a political alliance. As a result, it now seemed possible that upper Myanmar would be incorporated into the French Indochina. The British, meanwhile, growing suspicious of French intentions in the region, saw their own rela-

939

tions with Myanmar collapse. The British Residency in Mandalay had closed down in 1879 because of concerns over security. Upon learning of the French treaty with Thibaw, British officials, owing partly to Chinese and European merchant interests in Rangoon, Calcutta, and London, began demanding the annexation of upper Myanmar. Their demands were now supported by British fears that France would do so first. Thibaw himself soon presented an opportunity for British involvement and expansion. He accused a British-owned timber firm, the Bombay-Burmah Trading Corporation, which owned a lease to extract teak from the Ningyan forest in upper Burma, with cheating the government. After Thibaw requested and was refused a 250,000-pound loan from the firm, the king demanded a fine of the same amount. The matter was taken up by the British government of India, chiefly Indian viceroy Lord Dufferin, who sent an ultimatum to Thibaw in 1885 requesting that the case be reconsidered.Thibaw refused to allow an appeal of the case outside his own country, but the matter was soon taken up by the British. Thibaw was disappointed if he was hoping for French support in a showdown with the British.The French, facing a renewal of hostilities with China in 1885 after a misunderstanding over withdrawal of Chinese forces in the region of Tonkin in northern Vietnam, would be able to offer little support to Thibaw.The British used the opportunity to increase pressure on upper Myanmar by demanding a permanent British resident at the capital, the right to trade with the Chinese in Yunnan province, and, perhaps most inflammatory to Thibaw, the right to control Myanmar’s foreign relations. Thibaw’s rejection of the demands led to a British invasion of upper Myanmar on November 14, 1885. The British captured Mandalay two weeks later, although sporadic warfare continued throughout much of the rest of the country. Thibaw was deposed, and upper Myanmar was incorporated into the province of British Myanmar, from which it was directly administered until 1897. Siam, acting as a buffer between British and French spheres of influence, survived as an independent state. Thibaw was exiled to India and remained there until his death in 1916. See also: Alaungpaya Dynasty; Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

940

Th r a c e K i n g d o m

THRACE KINGDOM (480–345 B.C.E.) Short-lived rural kingdom in the southern Balkan region, comprising northeastern Greece and southern Bulgaria, that was eventually incorporated within the greater power of the Macedonian kingdom. The boundaries of Thrace changed continually throughout history. But in the 400s b.c.e., the kingdom of the Odrysae, the leading tribe of Thrace, covered all of Bulgaria, northeast Greece, and parts of Anatolia (present-day Turkey). The Thracian peoples included warlike tribal dwellers in the mountainous regions and more peaceable counterparts on the plains of Thrace. The latter came into contact with the Greek colonies around the Aegean Sea in the early 300s b.c.e.Thracians lived in open villages and did not develop urban centers until Roman times. Largely as a result, they never achieved a strong sense of national identity. From the 700s b.c.e., the Greeks colonized the coast of Thrace, but the Thracian people resisted Greek domination. Thrace was conquered by the Persians in 516 b.c.e., and it remained a Persian vassal state until 479 b.c.e. During that time, various Persian customs were introduced into Thrace. In 480 b.c.e., some of the Thracians joined forces with Persia and fought against the Greeks. Shortly after this conflict, Teres (r. ca. 480–460 b.c.e.), the first king of the Odrysae, attempted to create an independent kingdom for the Thracians out of existing territories occupied by the various Thracian tribes. His son and successor, Sitalkes (r. ca. 460–428 b.c.e.), enlarged this kingdom and declared himself king of the Thracians.Although Sitalkes made a rather bold political move by allying himself with the Athenians against the Macedonians, his invasion of Macedonia in 429 b.c.e. was largely ineffectual. Sitalkes’s Odrysian lineage remained in power in Thrace for several generations. During the reign of Kotys I (r. ca. 384–359 b.c.e.), Thrace declared war against Athens, a campaign in which Kotys was assisted by his Athenian son in-law, Iphicrates. After Kotys’s death in 359 b.c.e., the kingdom was split into three parts and ruled by a series of princes, including Kotys’s son, Kersouleptes (r. ca. 359–341 b.c.e.). Odrysian rule came to an end in the mid-300s b.c.e., when King Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 b.c.e.) invaded Thrace and made it a tributary of the Macedonian kingdom, thus ending Thracian in-

dependence.When Philip died in 336 b.c.e., his son Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.) came to power, but Alexander left Thrace under the control of his generals.After Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e., his general Lysimachus took control of Thrace, which became a protectorate under the rule of Macedonia. See also: Alexander III, the Great; Macedonian Kingdom; Philip II of Macedon. FURTHER READING

Archibald, Z.H. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Theodossiev, Nikola. North-Western Thrace from the Fifth to the First Centuries BC. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000. Fol, Alexander, and Ivan Marazov. Thrace & the Thracians. Trans. Nevyana Zhelyaskova. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977.

THREE KINGDOMS (220–266 C.E.) Period following the fall of the Han dynasty in 220 in which three rival kingdoms ruled China. As the Han dynasty disintegrated in the early third century, three powerful generals emerged as China’s new leaders. Initially charged by the Han with suppressing rebel groups, the generals established regional power bases and declared three rival dynasties to replace the Han. General Cao Cao established control in the north with his base at the city of Luoyang. In 220, his son, Cao Pi (r. 220–226), proclaimed the Wei dynasty (220–266) and forced the last Han emperor to resign. Cao Pi, whose regnal name is Wei Wendi, ruled over a highly centralized, warlike state that was almost constantly in battle with its neighbors.The Wei instituted a system of recruiting for the civil service based on a candidate’s merit rather than on family connections. They created large state farms for resettled landless peasants.The Wei also established military colonies for their armies of farmer-soldiers—self-sufficient communities whose members were expected to farm and fight. Although Cao Pi established a strong Confucian state, his successors were all weak rulers plagued by constant attacks from tribes to the north. A second kingdom was founded in the west by Liu Bei, a relative of the Han imperial family. Liu Bei

Th u t m o s e I I I proclaimed the Shu Han dynasty (221–263), with its capital at Chengdu. Known as Emperor Shu Han Xuande (r. 221–223), Liu Bei presided over a prosperous state centered on Sichuan and the surrounding area. The kingdom also expanded steadily, eventually encompassing Yunnan and parts of present-day Myanmar (Burma). In the south, the Han general Sun Quan founded the Wu dynasty (222–280). Known as Emperor Wu Wudi (r. 222–252), Sun Quan established his capital at Jianking. Cut off from access to the north and west by its rival dynasties, the Wu looked to the south, establishing contacts with the kingdoms of Southeast Asia and India. All three kingdoms claimed to be the legitimate rulers of China, but the Wei dynasty, with a much larger population and a more powerful army than its rivals, has generally been considered the true continuation of the imperial line. In 263 the Wei gained the upper hand when Yuandi (r. 260–266), the last Wei emperor, succeeded in conquering the Shu Han dynasty. However, two years later Yuandi was, in turn, ousted by a general, Sima Yuan, who founded the Western Jin dynasty (266–316), also based in Luoyang. In 280, the Jin conquered the Wu dynasty, reuniting China under one rule. The brief era known as the Three Kingdoms inaugurated a period of disintegration and disorder in China that would last until the Sui dynasty in 589. Known as the Six Dynasties period, it was an era marked by military struggles, the decline of the Confucian social order, and the spread of Buddhism into China from India.The elite, disenchanted with politics, became less interested in the Confucian ideals of public service. Individualism and unconventional behavior became fashionable among the wealthy, while life grew harsher for those at the bottom of the social scale. The Three Kingdoms was a fruitful period for the arts and especially for poetry. The Wei leaders Cao Cao and Cao Pei were both talented poets. Later Chinese writers would look back on the Three Kingdoms as a chivalrous and romantic era, idealized in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of China’s greatest novels. Written during the Ming dynasty, the work describes imaginary events based on real figures from the Three Kingdoms period, immortalizing their heroic feats in battle. Guan Yu, a real historical figure of the period, became known as Guan Di, god of war. See also: Han Dynasty; Sui Dynasty.

941

THUTMOSE III (ca. 1504–1450 B.C.E.) Among the best known of ancient Egypt’s pharaohs (r. 1490–1450 b.c.e.), who left behind a legacy of such important monuments as the Temple of Amon at Karnak and Cleopatra’s Needle in Heliopolis. Thutmose III was born during the Eighteenth dynasty, the son of Pharaoh Thutmose II (r. ca. 1494–1490 b.c.e.) and one of the pharaoh’s secondary wives, a woman named Isis. Thutmose II’s true wife (his sister) was Queen Hatshepsut (r. 1490– 1468 b.c.e.), who had taken over the running of the kingdom from her ineffectual husband years before. When Thutmose II died shortly after the birth of this new son, Hatshepsut assumed the role of regent, maintaining her grip on the throne. Hatshepsut ordered monuments to be built in her honor throughout Egypt. When Thutmose III was of an age to challenge her claim to power, she sent him off to the military. He became a noted warrior— necessarily so, for his stepmother’s preoccupation with self-commemoration and other internal concerns led her to neglect her more distant provinces in Syria and Palestine, which took advantage of her inattention by rebelling. Thutmose managed to regain these possessions and extend Egypt’s territory even further. His own commemorative monuments claim that he conquered more than 350 cities before he retired from the field of battle. Hatshepsut did not relinquish her control over Egypt to Thutmose until after more than twenty years of rule, and there is speculation that Thutmose, tiring of having little power, finally decided to hasten her demise in 1468 b.c.e.The degree to which he resented her control can be measured by the thoroughness with which he set about having her monuments torn down or defaced, replacing them with his own. At the time of Hatshepsut’s death, Egypt faced a new challenge to its authority in Syria, and Thutmose III led his army against the insurgents. The ensuing battle of Megiddo (ca. 1468 b.c.e.) took place a little to the southeast of today’s Haifa, Israel. It was one of the most famous military campaigns of ancient Egypt. In accordance with royal traditions, Thutmose took as his queen his half-sister Meryetre, the daughter of Hatshepsut, and together they had a son, Amenhotep II (r. 1438–1412 b.c.e.), who became the heir to the throne. Thutmose III is believed to

942

Th u t m o s e I I I

have died around 1436 b.c.e. His original tomb was looted, as happened with the burial sites of many of Egypt’s pharaohs. During the Twentieth dynasty (1185–1070 b.c.e.), his mummy and those of other pharaohs whose tombs had been disturbed were reinterred in the Valley of the Kings, where archaeologists discovered them in 1881. See also: Egyptian Dynasties, Ancient (Eighteenth to Twenty-sixth); Funerals and Mortuary Rituals; Hatshepsut.

TIBERIUS (42 B.C.E.–37 C.E.) Roman emperor (r. 14–37 c.e.), whose image as an illustrious military commander was tarnished by the cruelties and perversions he practiced in the last decade of his reign. Born to the ancient Claudian gens, or clan, Tiberius was embroiled in politics at an early age. His father was Tiberius Claudius Nero, one of Julius Caesar’s naval commanders, who advocated the succession of Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) rather than Octavius after Caesar’s assassination in 44 b.c.e. This made the older Tiberius particularly vulnerable when Octavius, soon to be the emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), demanded that he divorce his beautiful, pregnant young wife, Livia Drusilla, so that Octavius could marry her. This marriage brought the young Tiberius and his newborn brother, Drusus, into the royal household to be raised alongside Augustus’s nephew Marcellus. Augustus took Tiberius with him to the Gallic frontier when the boy was only thirteen years old, and gave Tiberius his first major command when he was only twenty-two. This campaign resulted in a major military success, as Tiberius quickly and efficiently subdued the Balkan region of Pannonia.A celebratory triumph was held for Tiberius upon his return to Rome, marking the crest of his tragic life. Shortly before this military adventure, Tiberius had married Vipsania, an unusual royal union made on the basis of mutual attraction rather than political expediency. Tiberius likewise basked in the love and admiration of his brother, Drusus, who was also pursuing a successful military career. In 9 b.c.e., Tiberius’s brother fell from his horse while on campaign in Germany; Tiberius rode for three days without rest to reach him just as he died.

Returning grief-stricken to Rome, he learned that Roman general Marcus Agrippa, a good friend of Augustus, had also just died and that Augustus had decided that Tiberius must put aside his beloved Vipsania and immediately marry Augustus’s only daughter, Julia, the widow of Agrippa. Urged on by his scheming mother Livia, and fearful of angering the emperor,Tiberius saw no options and complied. However, the worldly, lascivious Julia was unhappy with this match to the taciturn and reluctant Tiberius, and she was soon enjoying affairs with numerous suitors. Tiberius thus found himself in an awkward situation. Augustus had passed a law that mandated death for any adulterous spouse of the noble class. But Tiberius felt certain that the emperor would never forgive anyone who brought the topic of Julia’s wandering ways to the emperor’s attention. His solution was to have himself assigned to various military duties—as far away from Rome as possible. Meanwhile,Tiberius’s string of military successes recovered the legionary eagles lost by Crassus in Parthia and by Varus in Germany. He returned home to great acclaim, but facing the same domestic problem with Julia, he exiled himself, in 6 b.c.e., to the island of Rhodes and a life of idleness. During Tiberius’s ten years in Rhodes, the affairs of his wife were brought to her father’s attention by others and she was exiled for life. Refused permission to return to Rome,Tiberius fell into ever more peculiar and solitary pursuits. Upon the death and disgrace of two more of Augustus’s potential heirs, Tiberius was finally recalled to Rome, and Augustus, who had never really liked his stepson, declared Tiberius his adopted son. In 14 c.e., the emperor Augustus died (some suggest by the hand of Tiberius’s mother, Livia), and Tiberius accepted appointment as emperor by the Roman Senate at the age of fifty-four. The first few years of his reign were models of temperance and wise rule. Tiberius abolished gladiatorial games, stopped military expansion of the empire in favor of consolidation and defense, prudently managed state finances, and justly sat in judgment on many complex legal cases. The kernel of his future excesses, however, could be found even in this early period in the rise of delatores, or informers.Tiberius passed a decree whereby any person or informer could accuse any other citizen of treason; if that charge were proved, the informer would receive a significant portion of the

Ti b e t a n K i n g d o m accused’s estate, the balance passing to the state.The terror and injustice resulting from this rule touched all classes of citizens and stood as a monument to Tiberius’s greed and growing paranoia. Yet, it was not until after the death of his son Drusus in 27 that Tiberius’s reign began its descent into monstrous ruthlessness. Tiberius moved to the island of Capri and put the day-to-day running of the empire into the hands of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, the ambitious captain of the Praetorian Guard. For four years, Sejanus ruled Rome in Tiberius’s name and with a ruthlessness not seen for many years in that city. Just as Sejanus was finalizing the consolidation of his power,Tiberius learned that Sejanus had been responsible for the murder of Tiberius’s son Drusus.Tiberius smuggled a letter into the Senate that denounced Sejanus as a traitor. Returning to Rome in 31, Tiberius presided over the murder and torture of everyone who had had any positive dealings with Sejanus. Suffering from numerous ailments, and in search of a successor, Tiberius named his grandnephew Caligula (r. 37–41) as his heir. In doing so, he played a final trick on Rome, perhaps by design, by naming an individual about whom he said, “I am nursing a viper in Rome’s bosom.” On March 15, 37, Tiberius slid into a coma after participating in a ceremonial athletic event. Caligula informed the Senate that Tiberius was dead and was quickly proclaimed emperor.The next evening, however, Tiberius awoke, sat up in bed and asked for food. Caligula’s henchman, the Praetorian captain who had executed and succeeded Sejanus, moved to the old man’s bedside and calmly smothered Tiberius in his blankets.

943

(r. ca. 600–627) united a number of small kingdoms within Tibet and established himself as king, founding the Yar-Lyn dynasty. Under this dynasty,Tibet became a powerful and aggressive state, invading both India and China from time to time. The power of the Tibetan kingdom expanded under Namri’s successors, including Songsten Gampo (r. ca. 627–649).Tibetan tradition considers Songsten Gampo to be the reincarnation of Avalokitesvara, a Buddhist bodhisattva, or enlightened one. The belief that each Dalai Lama, the Tibetan high priest, is also a reincarnation of this deity provided the monarchy with a sense of legitimacy. During this early period,Tibet developed its first diplomatic relations with the T’ang dynasty of China, and Songsten Gampo married a T’ang princess. However, like much of early Tibetan history, little more is known about the relation between Tibet and China at this time. After the reign of Songsten Gampo, a period of indecisive conflict began between Tibet and China

See also: Augustus; Caligula; Julio-Claudians; Roman Empire.

TIBETAN KINGDOM (100s B.C.E.–1949 C.E.)

Central Asian kingdom, dating from as early as the second century b.c.e., that is now part of the People’s Republic of China. The kingdom of Tibet was founded around the second century b.c.e., but it remained relatively obscure and isolated until the seventh century c.e. Around 600, a Tibetan leader named Namri Gampo

For most of its history, the Kingdom of Tibet has been a religious state, based on a close relationship between Buddhist and secular authorities. The religious leader of Tibetan Buddhism is called the Dalai Lama. The third Dalai Lama, who lived in the sixteenth century, is portrayed in this gilded copper figurine.

944

Ti b e t a n K i n g d o m

that continued for more than two hundred years. By the mid-800s, shortly after the Tibetans made peace with their Chinese neighbors, the kingdom collapsed and broke apart into a series of largely feudal states. Throughout this early period,Tibet was a religious state closely affiliated with the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, which the Tibetans refined further into their own distinct Buddhist sect.The religious aspect of Tibetan government manifested itself in the close relationship that existed between the higher levels of Buddhist clergy and the secular authorities. In the 1200s, Tibet was conquered by the Mongols, who reunited the kingdom under a series of religious leaders, the Sakyas. Tibet became a truly religious kingdom in 1254 with the Mongol appointment of Drogon Chogyal Phagpa (r. 1254–1280) as Lama, or priest. In the seventeenth century, the Tibetan kingdom was ruled for the first time by a high priest, or Dalai Lama. The influence of Mongols in Tibet remained strong until the 1700s, when the Chinese Ch’ing dynasty invaded the kingdom and entered Lhasa, the capital. From this point onward, the Chinese claimed to be sovereign in Tibet, despite the largely nominal nature of their authority in this secluded kingdom. In 1949, China officially annexed the Tibetan kingdom, an action that was codified in a joint agreement between Tibet and Communist China, which declared Tibet a “national autonomous region” under the leadership of a Chinese-controlled Dalai Lama. Within a decade, as the Chinese infringed on the monarchic privileges and powers of the indigenous Tibetan leadership,Tibetans revolted, prompting the Dalai Lama to flee to India, where a government in exile was established. Although Tibet remains part of China, the Chinese–Tibetan relationship is highly controversial, and there is an active movement among Tibetan exiles and their supporters to free Tibet from Chinese rule. Throughout Tibetan history, the fortunes of the kingdom generally have been related to its geographic seclusion. In periods of relative independence, Tibet has struggled to maintain itself as a cohesive political unit. At other times, when Tibet has been dominated by other states, the region has been much more successful at maintaining a sense of unity and cohesion. See also: T’ang Dynasty.

TIGLATH-PILESER III (d. ca. 727 B.C.E.)

Assyrian monarch (r. ca. 744–727 b.c.e.) under whose leadership the Assyrian Empire was restored following decades of decline and reached its greatest extent. The events surrounding Tiglath-Pileser’s rise to power are mysterious. Some evidence suggests that he usurped the throne during a rebellion against the ruling king, Ashur-nirari V (r. 754–745 b.c.e.). Whatever the situation of his succession, TiglathPileser III came to assume power over a state that had gone thirty years without a strong monarch. Weakened by internal unrest, and extended past the limits of its bureaucracy, Assyria was in need of an excellent soldier and administrator if it were to continue as an empire. In Tiglath-Pileser III, it got both. Tiglath-Pileser demonstrated his administrative abilities by redistricting the Assyrian provinces, giving individual governors less power and less potential for revolt, and by reducing the size of the territory they controlled. He also altered the tax structure of the Assyrian Empire to make its distribution more equitable, and he courted support from the Babylonian priesthood by subsidizing religious building projects. His restructuring activities were not restricted to the civilian stage.Tiglath-Pileser also created Assyria’s first standing army, comprised largely of foreign mercenaries. This proved to be a successful move; as leader of this new kind of army, Tiglath-Pileser conquered the kingdom of Urartu, spread Assyria’s borders to encompass Arpad and the urban centers of the Mediterranean coast, and dominated Israel. In Arpad, Tiglath-Pileser set the pattern for later Assyrian policy toward political annexation; he appointed an Assyrian governor rather than a local king to oversee the city, turning the conquered regions into provinces. Tiglath-Pileser also adopted a policy of forced migrations, or deportations, moving thousands of individuals from the conquered territories. In 728 b.c.e., Tiglath-Pileser seized Babylon by taking advantage of an Aramaean rebellion there and declared himself king, thus linking the two kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon. In his later years,Tiglath-Pileser retired from campaigning to enjoy the amenities of the palace at Kalakh, which had originally been built by Shal-

Ti o K i n g d o m maneser III (r. ca. 858–824 b.c.e.), but which TiglathPileser remodeled, filling it with examples of Assyrian art and treasures he had collected throughout his reign. Upon his death around 727 b.c.e., TiglathPileser III was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser V (r. 726–722 b.c.e.), who could not live up to his father’s level of administrative or military prowess. See also: Aramean Kingdoms; Assyrian Empire; Shalmaneser III; Shalmaneser V.

TIKAR KINGDOM (1600s C.E.–Present) Also called Bamum (Bamoun, Bamoum), one of the largest of several kingdoms to emerge in the grasslands region of Cameroon in west-central Africa. The Tikar kingdom was founded in the seventeenth century by a leader named Nshare. Prior to that time, Tikar communities were largely autonomous, each ruled by a local chief. Nshare was the ambitious son of one such chief. However, he was a younger son, and as such, he was not in line to inherit his father’s position. Because Nshare had no hope of inheriting from his father, he recruited a number of followers and set out to create a kingdom of his own in the grassfields region of present-day Cameroon. After establishing a settlement, Nshare led his followers in a series of wars of conquest against the neighboring peoples. He declared himself king (called fon, which means “ruler” and can refer to both males and females) and established a capital in the settlement of Fumban, which became famous as a center for highly elaborated court music featuring rattles, flutes, and drums. The Tikar kingdom had eighteen fon in all, beginning with Nshare (r. dates unknown) and ending with Njoya (r. dates unknown), who used the title fon from 1885 to 1919 but then took the title of sultan after converting to Islam. Njoya was the last independent king of Tikar, inheriting the throne after his father, Ngungure (r. dates unknown), was killed in battle. Njoya was only about thirteen years old at the time of his accession, so his mother, Nsangu, served as regent until 1895, when Njoya was finally considered old enough to rule on his own. Tikar independence ended abruptly in 1902, when Germany seized the kingdom as part of its colonial holdings in Africa. Njoya cooperated with German colonial officials, and in return, he was per-

945

mitted to retain a degree of autonomy. During his reign, he introduced a number of innovations to Tikar, including the development of a written alphabet for the Bamum language. In 1915, the Germans lost their colonial possessions in Africa, and Tikar was claimed by France. Because Njoya had earlier cooperated with the German administrators, the French considered him unreliable. They deposed him in 1924, and around 1930, Njoya was sent into exile. He died in 1933. The French installed Njoya’s son, Njimoluh (r. 1933–1997), as king in 1933. Njimoluh remained on the throne until his death in 1997, but his authority was limited, first by the French and later by the government of the independent Republic of Cameroon. Upon his death, Njimoluh was succeeded on the throne by his son, Mbombo (r. 1997–present). See also: African Kingdoms; Bamileke Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Fowler, Ian, and David Zeitlan, eds. African Crossroads: Intersections Between History and Anthropology in Cameroon. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1996.

TIMUR LENG. See Tamerlane TIMURID DYNASTY. See Asian Dynasties, Central;Tamerlane

TIO KINGDOM (1400s–1891 C.E.) One of several kingdoms to arise in the Congo region of Central Africa as a result of participation in trade with the Swahili settlements on the East African coast. Prior to the fifteenth century, the Tio people lived in small, autonomous chiefdoms along the Congo River north of Malabo Pool.Their location along the river brought them into contact with traders, who transported goods to the eastern coast of Africa and the Swahili trade centers there. At some point during the 1400s, the independent Tio chiefdoms united under a single leader, which

946

Ti o K i n g d o m

made them better able to seize control over the transportation of trade goods. By charging traders for safe passage through their territory, the Tio rulers were able to amass a great deal of wealth. This, in turn, permitted them to develop a superior military with which to conquer neighboring groups. With their military advantage, the Tio thus came to dominate their region. But they never developed a centralized administration for their state. Instead, Tio rulers depended on the army to collect tribute from all peoples who wanted to pass through Tio territory with trade goods. The actual governance of these peoples was never brought under Tio authority but remained in the hands of traditional leaders. In the 1600s, Swahili traders from the great coastal cities in the east made their way to the Malabo Pool region, hoping to increase the flow of trade. The traders particularly wanted to increase the traffic in slaves, which were in high demand throughout the Indian Ocean trade territory.The Swahili traders broke the Tio monopoly on trade because they were willing to deal with anyone who had slaves for sale and did not limit their dealings to the Tio. Peoples who had previously been subject to the Tio king thus were now able to afford to build up their own military forces and to offer more effective resistance to Tio demands for tribute. Over the next two centuries, rebellions became increasingly frequent, as former Tio tributaries broke away and established independent chieftaincies.The Tio kings were forced to expend much of their own wealth on their military, as they struggled to maintain control over the region. By the early 1800s, European interests were well entrenched throughout much of Africa, with England, France, and Germany each seeking to claim colonies on the continent. In the Congo, France set out to establish a powerful military presence, and by the 1880s it had succeeded in eliminating European rivals for the region. French colonial officials believed that it would be easier to gain control over the indigenous populations by further reducing the power of the Tio kings. To this end, the French provided support for local chiefs in their rebellions against the Tio ruler, ultimately destroying what remained of kingly authority in the region. In 1891, what remained of the Tio kingdom was absorbed into the newly formed French Congo Colony. See also: African Kingdoms; Swahili Kingdoms.

FURTHER READING

Vansina, Jan. The Tio Kingdom of Middle Congo: 1880–1892. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

TITUS (39–81 C.E.) Roman emperor (r. 79–81) who brought to the imperial throne an unflinching and successful history of military service in Britain, Germany, and Judaea, as well as a reputation for debauchery and dissolute living. Titus Flavius Vespasianus was the eldest son of the emperor Vespasian (r. 69–79) and brother of the emperor Domitian (r. 81–96). The well-favored son of one of the greatest Roman emperors,Titus began his military career stationed in Britain during the bloody Boadiccean Revolt in 60. In 67, the young military commander accompanied his father to Germany and, two years later, commanded a legion in Judaea in Palestine. Titus actively championed his father’s claim to the imperial throne, and, when Vespasian became emperor in 69, one of his first acts was to appoint Titus commander of the war in Judaea. In 70, Titus ruthlessly put down the remaining Jewish revolts and razed Jerusalem to the ground. He returned to Rome with many Jewish religious and secular treasures.Titus’s soldiers urged him to challenge the wise and popular Vespasian for supremacy, but Titus declined and entered Rome without his legions to enjoy a co-triumph with his father. Vespasian rewarded Titus by appointing him commander of the Praetorian Guard. Over the next few years, Titus also was made co-censor with his father and served as consul several times (consul and censor were the highest senatorial positions in Rome). Titus’s popularity with the people of Rome waxed and waned, depending on the nature and success of his military assignments. Moreover, his long relationship with Berenice, the daughter of King Herod Agrippa II of Judaea (r. 49–92), was a source of friction with the Roman populace.They feared a reprise of the strong Asian influence Rome had felt from Queen Cleopatra as a result of her relationship with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. In 79, Vespasian died after an enormously successful ten-year reign, and Titus became emperor. Shortly after he succeeded to the throne, it became

Ti w a n a k u K i n g d o m

947

public works projects, such as the completion of the Colosseum (the Flavian Amphitheater) and the Flavian Baths, drastically reduced the state treasury. Within a short time, the treasury had sunk to the low level it had been at before his father’s scrupulous thrift and economic policies made Rome solvent. In 81, at the age of forty-one, Titus died in the same farmhouse where his father had died only two years before. His relationship with his younger brother, Domitian, had never been good. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that several contemporaries attributed Titus’s premature death to Domitian, who succeeded his brother to the throne. See also: Arenas, Royal; Baths, Royal; Roman Empire.

TIWANAKU KINGDOM (ca. 1500 B.C.E.–1200 C.E.)

The Arch of Titus in Rome commemorates the conquest of Judea and capture of Jerusalem by the Emperor Titus in 66 to 70 c.e. This relief carving on the inside wall of the arch depicts the triumphal procession, with booty from the temple at Jerusalem, including the sacred menorah, or candleholder.

apparent that his new responsibilities had changed the harsh military commander and ladies’ man. Whatever the cause of his newfound gentleness and kindness,Titus became greatly loved by the people of Rome during his brief rule. Unfortunately, Titus’s brief time as emperor also witnessed several major natural catastrophes over which he had no control. One of these was the eruption of Vesuvius and the tragedy of Pompeii in 79. That catastrophe was followed by a great fire in Rome in the same year, which destroyed most of the older public buildings still made of wood. Tragedy struck again, in 81, when a horrible plague afflicted the city and the surrounding areas, decimating the population. In response to these events,Titus generously borrowed from the state treasury to provide public and private aid. The disasters, however, along with Titus’s massive

Ancient empire of Peru and Bolivia, one of the oldest and most splendid civilizations of South America, that reached its peak of power around the 700s c.e. The Tiwanaku culture started around 1500 b.c.e. in the south-central highlands near Lake Titicaca in Bolivia and gradually spread from there along the highlands and coast of most of Peru. Tiwanaku was one of a number of dynastic states that emerged in the Andean area before the Spanish Conquest, and its power declined well before the Inca Empire began to dominate the region that now includes present-day Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and northern Chile. At its peak, Tiwanaku held power over a large part of present-day eastern and southern Bolivia, northwestern Argentina, northern Chile, and southern Peru. Its influence was largely due to its impressive “raised-field system” of agriculture, which used elevated planting beds separated from each other by small irrigation canals. The canals were designed to keep the crops from freezing on cold nights by preserving the heat from the daytime sun and for growing algae and aquatic plants used as fertilizer. From the 100s to late 300s c.e., Tiwanaku was a small local state, with little influence beyond its core area around Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. Between about 375 and 725, however, the kingdom began to expand and become a regional power. During this time, Tiwanaku developed a centralized administration and a

948

Ti w a n a k u K i n g d o m

hierarchy of social classes based primarily on wealth and occupation. The final stage of the Tiwanaku kingdom, from about 725 to 1200, saw significant territorial expansion and the development of a complex, multiethnic society. Tiwanaku conquests during this period included a large part of the Pacific Coast from central Peru to northern Chile, and highland regions extending into the Andes Mountains. Around 1200, the Tiwanaku kingdom began to decline, and by the next century it had disappeared. Experts are not sure what caused this decline and disappearance, although some attribute it to climate change and extended drought. Tiwanaku civilization is known primarily from archaeological sites and ruins. The main Tiwanaku archaeological site is located in the high Altiplano area south of Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. The site contains many stone structures, earthen mounds, stairways, plazas, and reservoirs. Building stones at the site, weighing up to 100 tons, were brought from a quarry three miles away.The site’s renowned Gateway of the Sun was cut from a 10-foot-high stone and was carved with representations of humans, the condor, and the sun god.These typical Tiwanaku symbols also appear in the region’s textile designs and pottery. Other noteworthy examples of Tiwanaku construction are the Akapana Pyramid, a large earthen platform mound or stepped pyramid faced with finegrained volcanic rock, and the Kalasasaya, a large rectangular-shaped enclosure built with alternating rectangular blocks and taller stone columns and containing many carved stone figures. The enormous amount of planning and labor required for such vast and complex construction projects suggests that the Tiwanaku civilization must have been strictly governed and regimented. It is not clear whether the area near Lake Titicaca was the center of Tiwanaku origin or the capital of the empire at its peak, but these remarkable archaeological sites do seem to point to extensive Tiwanaku cultural, and perhaps political, influence. See also: Huari (Wari) Empire; Inca Empire; Moche Kingdom; South American Monarchies.

TOKUGAWA IEYASU (1543–1616 C.E.) The last of the three great Japanese warlords (r. ca. 1590–1616) who unified Japan after a century of

struggle among sengoku (warring clans), who vied for ascendancy following the Onin War (1467–1477). Born Natsudiara Takechiyo, Ieyasu was the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate that ruled Japan from 1603 to the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Tokugawa Ieyasu learned warfare and negotiation alongside the warriors in feudal Japan. Kidnapped at age four by the Oda family during clan infighting, Ieyasu was eventually freed by Oda Nobunaga when that great warrior of the Oda clan defeated the Imagawa clan in 1560. In the 1570s, Ieyasu fought for Nobunaga, but in 1579, when his family was accused of conspiring against Nobunaga, Ieyasu ordered his son to commit suicide and executed his wife. In 1585, after initially opposing Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi (r. ca. 1590–1598), the year before, Ieyasu paid tenuous homage to Hideyoshi and married Hideyoshi’s sister. In 1590, Ieyasu’s support was crucial to the Hideyoshi forces at the siege of Odawara castle, a victory that made Hideyoshi dictator of Japan. During the Odawara siege, Hideyoshi contrived to keep Ieyasu loyal but under control: Hideyoshi granted Ieyasu eight provinces in the Kanto region in eastern Japan near the fishing village of Edo (presentday Tokyo) in place of the five provinces Ieyasu then held near Kyoto. This kept Ieyasu far from Hideyoshi’s capital at Kyoto. Though attached to Hideyoshi’s headquarters during military campaigns against Korea in 1592 and 1597, Ieyasu provided no troops. Instead, he kept his retainers (soldiers and landowners who fought with him) home to build up his new realms. Ieyasu was one of five regents sworn to support the Toyotomi succession and the first to plot against it. In October 1600, Ieyasu launched the battle of Sekigahara, a reported gathering of 150,000 warriors; his victory established the supremacy of the Tokugawa clan over Japan for 250 years. In 1603, Ieyasu persuaded the emperor to name him shogun. Ieyasu retired two years later, passing the shogunate to his third son, Hidetada (r. 1605– 1623), thus exploiting the typical Japanese means of legitimizing succession while holding on to power. In 1615, Ieyasu forced Hideyoshi’s son, Hideyori, to abandon all claims to power and commit suicide; at the same time, he beheaded Hideyori’s seven-yearold son. As shogun, Ieyasu’s main concern was to rebuild Japan after years of civil war. He built upon the poli-

949

To k u g aw a S h o g u n a t e cies of both Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, in particular, redistributing captured domains among loyal daimyo (feudal lords). Ieyasu also promulgated new laws in 1615 to constrain both the courts and the military clans, instituting rigid policies based on enforced orthodoxy and stability. When Ieyasu died in 1616, his dynasty was intact, and it continued for another 250 years. See also: Oda Nobunaga; Tokugawa Shogunate; Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

TOKUGAWA SHOGUNATE

ese ruling classes depended upon carefully regulated taxes on peasant rice production. Forbidden to leave their lands, peasants nonetheless slipped away to the cities during hard times to become tradesmen. The third class in Tokugawa society were the artisans, who were allowed to sell their goods. The most prestigious craft was swordmaking, since the samurai valued high-quality swords. Below the artisans were the merchants, who, according to Confucian belief, were the lowest of the classes because they lived off the labors of others. Merchants were not considered important enough to be tightly regulated or highly taxed. This gave them considerable leeway to serve as entrepreneurs and moneylenders, and many members of the ruling classes became deeply in debt to merchants.

(1603–1868 C.E.)

A more than 250-year period during which Japan was ruled by the Tokugawa dynasty. The shogunate lasted from the appointment of warlord Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543–1616) as shogun in 1603 until the Meiji restoration in 1868, at which time direct imperial rule was restored in Japan. In contrast to earlier periods of recurrent and violent civil warfare in Japan, the Tokugawa era was a largely peaceful era of economic expansion. The Tokugawa leaders stabilized Japan under a rigid social structure.

SOCIAL CLASSES In 1615,Tokugawa Ieyasu decreed a fixed hierarchy of four social classes in Japan: warrior (or samurai), peasant, artisan, and merchant.The samurai, the leading class, represented perhaps only about two million of the thirty million people in Japan at the time. Although shoguns and daimyo (feudal landowners) relied on samurai retainers, they no longer needed large armies. No longer needed primarily for their skills as warriors, samurai became the administrators, advisers, teachers, scholars, policemen, guards, and bureaucrats of the Tokugawa shogunate. Ironically, although the role of the samurai as warrior declined drastically, the samurai bushido virtues, “the way of the warrior,” a type of chivalry and code of conduct, represented the highest ideals of Tokugawa culture. The bulk of the Japanese population during the Tokugawa shogunate were peasants, who, in the neoConfucian philosophy of the period, were considered the second most important class because they were essential “producers.” Moreover, the income of the Japan-

TOKUGAWA ADMINISTRATION Tokugawa Ieyasu governed with a delicate balance, ruling with strict authoritarian control yet allowing

Tokugawa Shogunate Ieyasu*

1603–1605

Hidetada

1605–1623

Iemitsu

1623–1651

Ietsuna

1651–1680

Tsunayoshi

1680–1709

Ienobu

1709–1712

Ietsugu

1713–1716

Yoshimune

1716–1745

Ieshige

1745–1760

Ieharu

1760–1786

Ienari

1787–1837

Ieyoshi

1837–1853

Iesada

1853–1858

Iemochi

1858–1866

Yoshinobu

1867–1868

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

950

To k u g aw a S h o g u n a t e

loyal daimyo (feudal lords) considerable power and opportunity for gaining wealth within their own realms—as long as they followed the rules and collected and paid their allotted taxes. The system was not so much centralized as institutionalized on the basis of a strict hierarchy. In 1625, Ieyasu’s son and successor, Tokugawa Hidetada (r. 1605–1623), instituted the “alternate attendance” decree, which required daimyo to reside every other year at the capital of Edo (present-day Tokyo) while their wives and families resided there year round as virtual hostages.The system stimulated urban growth, for the daimyo spent large portions of their agriculturally derived incomes on travel to and from the provinces and the capital and on maintaining stylish residences in Edo. Throughout the Tokugawa period, the powerless Japanese emperors lived away from Edo in Kyoto, the imperial capital, with virtually no connection to the populace. The imperial court obliged the Tokugawas by bestowing legitimacy of office on the shoguns, and, in return, they were kept in luxury in Kyoto.

URBAN MODERNISM By 1800, the Tokugawa capital of Edo was the largest city in the world with a population of about a million; Osaka and Kyoto each numbered about half that.These cities sustained the sophisticated and popular culture of the ukiyo (“floating world”) districts at their outer edges. Upper, lower, and bourgeois classes converged in the ukiyo districts to enjoy the ribald pleasures of puppet theater and kabuki drama; to buy easily available titillating novels, haiku, and woodcuts; or to seek out the ritualized commerce with geishas and prostitutes of both sexes.

A CLOSED NATION The Tokugawa shoguns were wary of foreign influences after their initial encounters with European missionaries. By the 1630s, the shoguns banned Christianity from Japan and forced out most Christian missionaries. By 1639, only the Dutch, the Chinese, and some Koreans were permitted to trade with Japan, and only in tightly proscribed areas. No Japanese could leave Japan upon penalty of death. Only when American Admiral Matthew Perry steamed into Tokyo Bay in 1853 did Japan’s selfimposed isolation end. Although Japan was closed to outside influences, it was not closed to learning. Under the Tokugawa

shoguns, the Japanese literacy rate grew to one of the world’s highest, with an estimated 45 percent of males and 15 percent of females able to read and write. Nobles, samurai, and wealthy merchants sent their children to private schools or educated them at home. In villages and towns, priests and samurai taught other children at Buddhist temple schools, which charged little or no tuition.

DECLINE Despite its efficient administration and progress in education and other fields, the Tokugawa era eventually drew to a close. By the mid-nineteenth century, faced with declining agricultural revenues, the Tokugawa shogunate faced increasing instability and disorder among the peasants and the displaced ronin (masterless samurai). The ever-growing strength of the merchant and urban classes further undermined the power base of the shogunate. The appearance of Western gunboats in Japan’s harbors in 1853 signaled the beginning of the end for the Tokugawa rulers. The shogunate was finally brought down in 1868 by young, radical, wealthy tazama, or “outer daimyo” from the outlying provinces. This group of reformers blamed corrupt shoguns for the humiliating treaties imposed by Western powers following the arrival of U.S. and European ships in the mid-1800s. The reformers expressed a developing Japanese nationalism that rejected “imported” ideas, such as Chinese Confucianism. Instead, they championed the ancient Japanese religion, Shintoism, as well as other aspects of traditional Japanese culture. The reformers successfully “restored” power to the imperial office in 1868, with the accession of the 15-year-old Meiji emperor, Matsuhito (r. 1868– 1912) to the throne of Japan. The last Tokugawa shogun, Yoshinobu (r. 1867–1868), relinquished power to the emperor in that same year, bringing the Tokugawa shogunate and era to a close. See also: Meiji Monarchy; Oda Nobunaga; Tokugawa Ieyasu;Toyotomi Hideyoshi;Yamato Dynasty.

TOLTEC EMPIRE (900s–1100s C.E.) One of the principal Mesoamerican civilizations, located in Mexico, which built upon the cultural innovations of the Olmec people and dominated the region from the tenth to twelfth century.

To l t e c E m p i r e

One of the most important deities of the Toltec and Aztec cultures of Mesoamerica was Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent. The god of the wind, learning, and the priesthood, as well as a creator and civilizer, he was revered as the patron of arts and inventor of metallurgy.

The Toltec Empire had its beginnings around 900, when a group of Nahuatl-speaking people migrated from the north into the area now known as the Mexican state of Hidalgo.This region had long been under the control of the Teotihuaca, who had themselves taken over the territory once ruled by the Olmec (ca. 1400 b.c.e. to 500 b.c.e.). Around 800 c.e. the Teotihuaca capital was attacked by outsiders, the so-called chichimec, or “wild peoples.”The attack left the Teoti-

951

huacas weakened, and their control over their more distant territorial possessions was broken. From the time of the Olmec kingdom, the peoples of central Mexico were divided into two groups: those who practiced maize agriculture and were therefore “civilized,” and those who did not and were thus considered “wild.” The Toltec were of the first group, from at least the time of their earliest appearance in the central Mexico region. The Toltec migration into central Mexico occurred some time after the fall of the Teotihuaca Empire, around 900. Under the leadership of a ruler named Mixcoatl, they took over the Teotihuaca capital city (also called Teotihuaca). The first king of the Toltec, Mixcoatl (r. dates unknown), immediately began a campaign of conquest against neighboring settlements and small states. When Mixcoatl died, apparently murdered by rivals among his kin group, he was succeeded by his son, Ce Acatl Topiltzin (r. dates unknown).The empire begun by Mixcoatl was expanded further by Topiltzin, who took as his royal name Quetzalcoatl, after the feathered serpent god of Toltec (and, previously, Olmec) religion. Around 780, Topiltzin moved the capital from Teotihuaca to Tula (also called Tollan), which is about eighty miles north of modern-day Mexico City. At Tula, Topiltzin ordered the construction of a major ceremonial center. Tula also became a truly urban settlement with a large resident population. At its peak, the city appears to have been home to about forty thousand inhabitants. The Toltec Empire, like its predecessors, was com-

ROYAL RITUALS

TOLTEC ART The influence of Toltec art is evident throughout the Mesoamerican region, and many Toltec motifs were adopted by successor states such as the Aztec.The most ubiquitous motif is the Chac Mool. The name Chac is Mayan, but the figure predates their empire and is properly attributed to the era of Toltec dominance. Chac Mool presents a reclining figure, often carved in basalt or cast in terra cotta, representing the rain god, who was believed to act as a messenger between this world and the supernatural.The Chac Mool figure often served as an altar, and atop its chest it clasps a bowl or dish into which offerings could be placed.

952

To l t e c E m p i r e

posed of a mixture of peoples.The Toltec focused on collecting tribute in the form of maize and slaves, rather than on imposing a unified political structure. This pattern of conquest and demand for tribute, which appears to have been copied from the Olmec by way of the Teotihuaca, constituted a major weakness, for there was great hostility among the various conquered groups, and they rebelled frequently. In order to quell uprisings, the Toltec developed a professional military, perhaps the first truly professional army to be formed in the region.The military was necessary for another reason as well.Whether or not their predecessor states practiced human sacrifice (a question still unresolved), the Toltec most certainly did. Among the most desirable sacrifices were captive enemy warriors, and since sacrificial ceremonies were held frequently, the army was kept busy acquiring appropriate victims for the rituals. It was the Toltec who established the custom of offering the living heart of sacrifices to the gods. Although this practice may also have been followed by earlier peoples, the only definitive evidence of its occurrence is linked to the Toltec era. The gods to whom the sacrifices were offered, however, were the same as the gods that had been honored by the earlier civilizations of the region: the “were-jaguar” (essentially human in form but possessing a jaguar’s snout) and the feathered serpent, Quetzalcoatl, from whom King Topiltzin took his royal name.The Toltec military was organized into three ritual cults, honoring the jaguar, the coyote, and the eagle. The Toltec kings controlled the region for only a short time, most likely because they maintained only a loose hold over their subject peoples. The last Toltec king, Huemac (r. ca. ?–1174), died around 1174, four years after the Toltec capital was ransacked and destroyed by his rebellious subjects. Among those who joined in the rebellion to overthrow the Toltec was a powerful upstart group that came to be known as the Aztec (also called Mexica). The Aztec became the next, and last, indigenous empire to rule central Mexico before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the early 1500s. See also: Aztec Empire; Maya Empire; Olmec Kingdom; Zapotec Empire. FURTHER READING

Coe, Michael D. The Aztecs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973.

———. The Maya. 6th ed. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1999. Davies, Nigel. The Toltecs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977.

TOMARA DYNASTY (ca. 736–1150 C.E.) Dynasty that ruled northwest India for several centuries and supposedly founded the modern city of Delhi. The Tomaras were one of the thirty-six clans of the Rajputs, various princely clans of northern and central India. The Tomaras, who inhabited the Hariyana country in northwestern India, established their capital at Dhillika in 736. Because modern Delhi eventually emerged near this location, some historians credit the Tomaras with founding the city. Even if the Tomaras did not found Delhi, they gained control of the young city in the eleventh century. Initially, the Pratiharas, another Rajput clan, dominated and ruled the other clans. Jaula, the earliest recorded Tomara leader, held an important position as manager of the king’s affairs in the Pratihara court. In the late ninth century, his descendant, Vjarata, attained an even higher position in the Pratihara court. He used this position to increase Tomaran power among the thirty-six clans. Because the Rajput clans believed that bravery and honor in warfare were admirable characteristics, frequent warfare erupted among the clans. Consequently, Rajput society was also very unstable, and most resources were devoted solely to the military rather than to other social institutions. Consequently, ruling factions could be quickly upended. Vjarata and his two successors, Jajjuka and Gogga, took advantage of the violent nature of Rajput society and waited patiently while the Pratiharas’s strength steadily declined. By the early years of the eleventh century, they had achieved independence from the Pratiharas and had gained control over Delhi. When Jajjuka died and Gogga became the sole ruler, he tempered the emphasis on military spending. He constructed three magnificent temples on the Sarasvati River that were dedicated to the god Vishnu, and he encouraged Hindu pilgrims to come and worship at Delhi. The Tomaras were unable to relinquish their vio-

To m b s , R o y a l lent proclivities, however. One of Gogga’s successors, Rudrena, lost a decisive battle to the Chahamanas, one of the earliest group of Muslim invaders in India. After this defeat, the Chahamanas steadily stripped power from the weakening Tomaras. Finally, the last major Tomara monarch, Salavana, suffered a devastating loss to the Chahamanas near the end of the eleventh century. Although the Tomaras managed to maintain control of their homeland in the Hariyana region for another century, their period as an influential power had ended. See also: Indian Kingdoms; Rajasthan Kingdom.

TOMBS, ROYAL Burial places and monuments constructed especially for monarchs, often built to represent their power and the glory of their rule. Throughout history, deceased royalty have been entombed in magnificent and elaborate tombs. The concept of the tomb, a vault constructed either partly or entirely above ground, as a chamber or dwelling place for the dead is widespread. The idea may have originated in the practice, known since prehistoric times and common among so-called primitive peoples of all eras, of burying the dead beneath their place of dwelling. This may account for the recurrence in different periods and places of funeral mounds and chambers: the prehistoric barrow, beehive tomb of Mycenaean civilization, mausoleum of Persian and Roman royalty, Egyptian pyramids, and stupa of Asia.

953

by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan (r. 1628–1658) in honor of his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal.

THE STUPA Buddhist resting places for dead royalty were called stupas. The first prototypes appeared around 700 b.c.e. in India and were enormous mounds of earth. The stupa became a symbol of the Buddha; more precisely, it became a symbol of his final release from the cycle of birth and rebirth. Stupas commonly rest on a square pedestal and are carefully aligned with the four cardinal points of the compass. Wooden masts typically embedded in the center of these mounds most likely carried umbrellas that served as a symbol of royalty and authority. Asoka Maurya (268–232 b.c.e.), one of the most famous Buddhist rulers of India, built the world’s most well-known stupa, the Great Stupa, which stands on the hilltop of Sanchi in India.

THE PYRAMIDS The monumental pyramids in Egypt were developed around the period of the Fourth dynasty (ca. 2680–2544 b.c.e.) and continued to be the favored form of royal burial through the Sixth dynasty (ca. 2407–2255 b.c.e.). Each Egyptian pharoah built his own pyramid, often taking many years and massive amounts of raw materials and labor, in which his mummified body would be preserved and protected from sacrilege. The three pyramids of Giza, near Cairo, are the largest and finest of their kind. The Great Pyramid of Cheops was designated one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and is the largest pyramid ever built.

SARCOPHAGI THE MAUSOLEUM The mausoleum, favored by Persian and Roman royalty, was a sepulchral structure of grand scale and architectural pretension. The term mausoleum originates from the monumental tomb of Mausolus of Halicarnassus, the tyrant of Caria in southwestern Asia Minor, built between about 353 and 351 b.c.e. This so-called mausoleum was considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. A noteworthy ancient Roman mausoleum was that of the emperor Hadrian (r. 117–138 c.e.), which was originally a great circular drum sheathed in marble. Perhaps the most celebrated mausoleum, the Taj Mahal, located in Agra in northern India, was built

Sarcophagi, meaning “flesh eaters” in Greek, were used throughout the world as an elaborate burial casket that was not buried in the ground.The name was first used to identify a special marble that the Greeks believed would destroy the entire body, except for the teeth, within a few weeks. The sarcophagus of a deceased ruler was often carved with elaborate scenes and bas reliefs (sculpted figures raised slightly from a flat surface) depicting the deceased’s former glory. Among the world’s great rulers entombed in sarcophagi are the Egyptian pharoah Tutankhamen (r. 1334–1325 b.c.e.), Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), and French emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte (r. 1804–1815).

954

To m b s , R o y a l

CHURCHES AS TOMBS Since the medieval period in Europe, churches have become the preferred final resting place for many deceased kings and royalty.Westminster Abbey, in London, England, is the burial place for eighteen English monarchs. Many kings and queens are buried near the shrine of Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066) or in the chapel dedicated to Henry VII (r. 1485–1509). The last king to be buried in Westminster Abbey was George II (r. 1727–1760).The church and Dome des Invalides, in Paris, France, contains the tomb of Napoleon I, while Aachen Cathedral in Germany is the final resting place of Charlemagne (r. 768–814). See also: Funerals and Mortuary Rituals; Iconography.

TONGA, KINGDOM OF (ca. 1000s B.C.E.–Present)

Located in the southern Pacific northwest of New Zealand, the only existing ancient Polynesian kingdom that has survived uncolonized by the Europeans. Although the Tongan archipelago may have been lightly populated as early as 3000 b.c.e., modern Tongans are descended primarily from the Polynesian Lapita people who colonized the islands during the first millennium b.c.e. The Norwegian archaeologist and explorer Thor Heyerdahl saw similarities between Lapita oral history and the legends of the Incas of South America: both groups traced the ancestry of their royal house to the sun. Most scholars, however, believe that the Lapita people originated in Asia rather than the Americas and migrated to the islands by sea. The Tongan system of government, as instituted and maintained by the Lapita, was highly stratified and was centralized around the powerful and semidivine figure of the king, or tui.War and conquest were viewed as the proper occupations of men, and the Tongan state was highly aggressive. By the end of the thirteenth century c.e., the Tongan Empire had spread to include parts of Fiji, Samoa, and even the Hawaiian Islands. Over time, the power of the tui was dispersed to a number of chiefs, all of whom were related to the tui by blood. Tonga was little affected by European exploration until the early part of the nineteenth century. (Cap-

tain James Cook, who called Tonga the Friendly Islands, did not stay long enough to realize that the friendliness of the Tongans was part of a plot to kill him and loot his ship.) In 1826, however, Methodist missionaries established the first Christian mission on the island, and Chief Taufa’ahau, later King George Tupou I (r. 1845–1893), converted to Christianity in 1831. Mass conversions soon followed as individual Tongans followed the example of their native ruler. Like Queen Pomare of Tahiti, Taufa’ahau utilized guns provided by the Europeans to conquer and unify all of the Tongan archipelago, a process that was completed by 1845. As George Tupou I, he married the daughter of the hereditary tui and proclaimed himself the new tui. In 1862, he adopted a constitution that made Tonga a constitutional monarchy with a written code of laws. By 1888, Tonga was recognized as an independent state by Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. When George Tupou I died in 1898, he was succeeded by his great grandson, George Tupou II (r. 1893–1918), who allowed the British to take control of Tongan foreign affairs in return for protection against colonization. Upon his death in 1918, his statuesque daughter, Queen Salote Tupou III (r. 1918–1965), only eighteen at the time, took over the throne. Salote proved a popular ruler, concerned with improving the educational and humanitarian conditions of the populace. Her son and successor, who took the name King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV (r. 1965– ) upon his coronation in 1965, has been more controversial, hailed by some as a modern leader but scorned by others as an enemy of democracy. In 1970, the British released control of Tongan foreign affairs, and the archipelago once more became an independent state. See also: George Tupou I; Pomare IV; South Sea Island Kingdoms.

TONKING KINGDOM (ca. 100s B.C.E.–1873 C.E.)

Also Tonkin or Tongking, a kingdom that included most of present-day northern Vietnam. In 111 b.c.e., the Chinese conquered the area in the Red River Valley (in present-day northern Viet-

To r o K i n g d o m nam) and divided it into three regions; Tonking, Annam, and Cochin China. The region of Tonking covered the Red River Valley and the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam and shared an eastern border with the Gulf of Tonkin. The Chinese ruled the region as a province until the Vietnamese forced them out in 939 c.e. and established an independent kingdom. With the conquest of the rival Champa kingdom in the fifteenth century, Tonking began to expand into central Vietnam and then into the south. In 1558,Vietnam was divided under the Le dynasty, and the Trinh family seized control of Tonkin.The capital of the northern half of the Tonking kingdom at this time was named Tonkin (modern Hanoi). Europeans eventually came to use this name to describe all of northern Vietnam. In 1873, French colonists invaded and occupied the region of Tonkin, calling their newly acquired territory Tonking. During World War II, the region was occupied by the Japanese. After the war, Tonkinese and Annamese nationalist leaders joined in demanding independence for the state of Vietnam, and Tonkin was torn by guerrilla warfare between the French and the Viet Minh nationalists.The Vietnamese never used this name to describe their territory. See also: Funan Kingdom; Le Dynasty; Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty;Trinh Dynasty.

TORO KINGDOM (1822 C.E.–Present) One of four traditional kingdoms (with Nyoro, Ganda, and Ankole) located in what is now the nation of Uganda in central Africa. The Toro kingdom was established as an independent political entity in 1822. Prior to that, it was an important constituent region of the Bunyoro or Nyoro kingdom. Graced with fertile pasturage, the Toro territory is home to some of Bunyoro’s most prosperous pastoralist groups. It also contains important mineral resources, particularly salt. It seceded from Bunyoro primarily because many of the Toro pastoralists were angry with Bunyoro’s policy of accommodating European immigrants. The first king of Toro was Olimi Kaboyo (r. ca. 1830–?), a son of the reigning Bunyoro omukama (king), Kyebambe III Nyamutukula (r. 1786–1835). Toro’s independence, therefore, did not mark an abrupt break with the state from which it seceded,

955

but was rather an administrative and political arrangement meant to alleviate tensions that were mounting in the region. Toro’s independence was challenged by internal dissension as well as external threat. Internally, the greatest problems arose over succession to the throne. Kaboyo ruled until sometime in the 1860s, and when he died his two sons fought over the right to rule. The succession was assured only when one brother succeeded in killing the other.The successful brother, Nyaiki Kasunga (r. 1866–1870), did not have long to enjoy his success, however. In 1870, a powerful new ruler, Kabarega (r. 1870–1898), rose to power in Bunyoro (Nyoro) and almost immediately launched an invasion of Toro, hoping in this way to restore his empire to some semblance of its past prosperity.Although Kasunga succeeded in forestalling Kabarega, the reprieve was only temporary. Kasunga died sometime during the 1870s. After Kasunga’s death, a series of ten kings held the Toro throne, each briefly, until 1876. First was Kasunga’s son, Mukabirere (r. ca. 1872–1875), whom Kabarega again attacked. This time the Bunyoro campaign was more successful, and the new king, who had held the throne for only a year, was captured. His son and successor, Mukalusa, fared no better, for he too was captured almost immediately upon claiming the throne. With a dearth of male heirs, the next person who attempted to rule Toro was Kasunga’s sister, Byanjeru (r. 1875). She was deposed, but this time the threat came from a new source: the neighboring kingdom of Buganda.The Buganda king installed one of his own people on the Toro throne, but once again Kabarega invaded and ousted him in 1876, retaking Toro into the Bunyoro kingdom, where it remained a subordinate territory for the next fourteen years. The Buganda ruler who had been briefly installed upon the throne was Nyamuyonjo (r. 1876), and he did not survive the violence that removed him from power. However, he had a young brother, Kasagama, who made his way safely back to Buganda. A captain in the British colonial service saw advantages to British interests in the region’s political upheaval, so in 1891, he lent the power of his forces to the Kasagama faction, installing the young Kasagama on the Toro throne. Upon becoming king, Kasagama took the royal name of Kyebambe IV. His rule was immediately challenged by a renewed attack by Kabarega’s forces, and within two years the king was

956

To r o K i n g d o m

driven from his palace. He fled into the mountains, where he established a resistance base. It was only with the establishment of British colonial rule in the early 1890s that the constant violence between Toro and its neighbors was finally brought to an end. Kasagama IV was restored to the throne and became the first of the Toro kings to rule for any appreciable length of time, from 1894 to 1929. Upon his death his son, George Rukidi Kamurasi (r. 1929–1965), assumed the throne without incident. During the reign of these two kings,Toro was able to exploit its resources, especially the salt industry. In later years the Toro economy received further boosts from copper mining, tea plantations, and tourism. Unfortunately, Toro’s hard-won peace and prosperity was abruptly ended with the violence that erupted throughout Uganda during the mid-1960s, as British colonial rule came to a close. In 1965, a new king, Patrick Kaboyo (r. 1965–1966), had taken the throne just as violence throughout the colonial territory reached its peak. Within a year he was forced to flee into exile, and in 1967 the Toro kingdom was abolished by A. Milton Obote, prime minister of the newly independent state of Uganda. In 1993, Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, rescinded the order abolishing traditional kingdoms. The current king, Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru Rukidi IV (r. 1995–present), inherited the throne when he was only three years old.As a result, regents administered the kingdom on his behalf during his minority. See also: African Kingdoms; Ankole Kingdom; Ganda Kingdom; Nyoro Kingdom.

moving south and capturing the Irrawaddy Delta region. After taking the Mon capital of Pegu, Tabinshwehti was crowned king of all Myanmar at the city of Bagan in 1544. Following defeats against coastal Arakan peoples to the west and Thai forces to the east,Tabinshwehti died in 1550 and was succeeded by his brother-inlaw, Bayinnaung (r. 1550–1581). Using a succession of military campaigns, Bayinnaung made Toungoo the most powerful state in the region. He marched twice on the kingdom of Ayutthaya (centered at Bangkok) and by 1569 had conquered the entire Chao Phraya Valley. However, Bayinnaung’s wars cost Myanmar dearly, and with his death 1581 the kingdom, exhausted of resources, began to fragment and decline. Under Bayinnaung’s grandson, Anaukpetlun (r. 1605–1628), the country suffered a series of rebellions. During his rule, the Toungoo dynasty also moved its capital to Ava, where it remained until 1752. Through a combination of a weakening political status, French encouragement of Indian encroachment in the region, and the rejuvenation of southern Myanmar by British and Dutch commercial activity, the neighboring Pegu kingdom rose in rebellion against the Toungoo dynasty in the 1700s. Following a century and a half of gradual disintegration, and besieged both internally and externally, the Toungoo dynasty finally collapsed in 1752 with the fall of the resurrected capital of Ava and the death of the last ruler of the dynasty, King Mahadammayazadipati (r. 1733–1752). See also: Ayutthaya Kingdom; Burmese Kingdoms; Pegu Kingdoms; Shan Kingdoms.

FURTHER READING

Karugire, Samwiri R. A Political History of Uganda. Exeter, NH: Heinemann, 1980.

TOUNGOO DYNASTY (1486–1752 C.E.) Also called Taungui, generally considered the second dynasty of Burma (present-day Myanmar). Founded by King Minkyinyo (r. 1486–1531) of Toungoo, a small state in Burma, the Toungoo dynasty united Myanmar by conquering the Shan people in northern Myanmar and the Mon in southern Myanmar. Minkyinyo’s successor, King Tabinshwehti (r. 1531–1550), expanded the kingdom by

TOYOTOMI HIDEYOSHI (1536–1598 C.E.)

The Japanese samurai leader (r. ca. 1590–1598) who consolidated control as dictator after the death of the warlord and dictator Oda Nobunaga. Born into a peasant family, Hideyoshi rose to power as a soldier and gifted military commander in the forces of Oda Nobunaga, becoming Nobunaga’s leading general. After Nobunaga’s death in 1582, Hideyoshi gradually consolidated his power, and, by 1590 he ruled Japan as a dictator.

Tr a j a n Short, thin, and ugly, Hideyoshi had been dubbed “Saru,” or monkey, by Nobunaga. Described as cheerful, intelligent, and well liked, he secured his position over Nobunaga’s heirs through military prowess and strategic alliances with other warlords. Hideoyoshi shared his wealth with loyal feudal lords and spent it to enhance the image of the imperial court. The emperor thus awarded him the family name Toyotomi, “abundant provider.” He was popularly considered a generous and benevolent ruler, particularly during the early years of his rule. In 1584, Hideyoshi came to terms with his main rival,Tokugawa Ieyasu, the powerful daimyo, or hereditary warlord, who later became shogun of Japan.The next year, in 1585, the emperor named Hideyoshi kampaku, imperial regent-councilor, thereby enhancing Hideyoshi’s stature with a position previously held by the powerful Fujiwara family. As such, Hideyoshi’s pronouncements had immediate effect on life in Japan in the period of the Ashikaga shogunate, and this carried into the Tokugawa shogunate that followed. In 1585, Hideyoshi ordered the “Great Sword Hunt,” forbidding Japanese farmers from possessing arms and collecting weapons from them. In 1591, his Edict on Changing Status froze the class structure in Japan by forbidding townspeople from becoming soldiers and samurai from living anywhere but in the castle lands of their lords. As a result of this edict, there would be no more peasant-born rulers like himself who could exploit social mobility to rise to power. Hideyoshi further constrained the populace by reviving the practice of collective responsibility, whereby an entire village group would be punished for the wrongdoing of an individual villager. In 1587, he outlawed Christianity and ordered the expulsion of the Jesuits from the country. Hideyoshi continued Nobunaga’s policy of assigning lands strategically to his retainers, or supporters, swapping realms to move the less trusted further away from his capital at Kyoto. He continued land surveys and the standardization of weights and measures, and completed a public census in 1590. Hideyoshi was ostentatious in the extreme. He built lavish palaces at Osaka and Momoyama. He was famous for personally serving tea to more than eight hundred people at the Grand Kitano Tea Ceremony in 1585 and for hosting a lavish five-day ceremonial visit by the emperor in 1588. He also starred in his own productions of traditional Japanese Noh dramas, which were performed to audiences of nobles.

957

After 1590, Hideyoshi appears to have succumbed to his less admirable traits, becoming cruel in his attempt to secure the line of Toyotomi succession and obsessed with the idea of conquering China. The chosen route to China was through the Korean Peninsula. Unfortunately for Japan, Hideyoshi’s devastating invasions of the Korean Peninsula in 1592 and 1597 earned Japan centuries of enmity from the Koreans. He directed the invasion from Japan while his forces—between 150,000 and 200,000 men— were repelled by the Koreans. Just before his death in 1598, Hideyoshi ordered the last of his troops to withdraw from Korea. Hideyoshi’s role in history is subject to ongoing debate. Nevertheless, he continues to be one of the most studied men in Japanese history, and he remains a popular historical figure with the Japanese public. See also: Oda Nobunaga; Tokugawa Ieyasu; Tokugawa Shogunate.

TRAJAN (ca. 53–117 C.E.) Popular and generous emperor of Rome (r. 98–117) whose reign was notable for its stability during a time of Roman territorial expansion. Marcus Ulpius Trajanus was born in the Roman province of Spain around 53. His family, originally from Northern Italy, was very powerful. Trajan’s father, who shared the same name as his son, was a member of the Roman Senate and a war hero. Named consul in 70, when Trajan was seventeen years old, the elder Trajanus was appointed governor of the province of Syria in 75.Trajan followed his father to Syria and distinguished himself in the Roman army there, and in 85 he was given command of a Roman legion and posted in his native Spain. While serving in Spain, Trajan led his troops northwest to fight against the German tribes that were revolting against then-emperor Domitian (r. 81–96). His service in this action earned him the gratitude of the emperor, and he was elected consul in 91. Domitian, a widely unpopular ruler, was murdered in 96, but his successor, the emperor Nerva (r. 30–98) was equally impressed by the young Trajan. Nerva named Trajan governor of the upper German province in 97. Nerva’s grip on power was shaky at best. He was not well loved by the military, which was prone to fo-

958

Tr a j a n

ment conspiracies against rulers of whom they did not approve. To shore up the military’s support, Nerva looked about for a popular leader to adopt as co-regent and successor.Trajan’s family connections, personal reputation, and popularity with the troops made him the perfect choice. When Nerva died sixteen months later, in 98,Trajan was suddenly called to Rome to take his place on the imperial throne. Instead of hurrying to the capital, however,Trajan took nearly a year to return, using the time to visit the troops stationed in Germany and Gaul, thus assuring the support of the military for the rest of his rule. Upon arriving in Rome, he displayed an equal wisdom in dealing with the often fractious Senate, personally appearing before the senators and according them the greatest respect. During his administration,Trajan paid equal attention to domestic and imperial matters. At home, he initiated public works, instituted a program to provide support for the poor, and called upon wealthy citizens to give greater public service and investment.Abroad, he initiated several military campaigns, expanding the empire’s borders and accumulating a great deal of wealth in the process. Much of this wealth was conspicuously spent to increase Trajan’s popularity with the masses, particularly on chariot races, gladiatorial contests, and other great spectacles. Militarily, Trajan was an aggressive leader. During his reign, Rome added the provinces of Dacia (106), Arabia (106), and Armenia (114) to the growing list of Roman provinces. He also succeeded in wresting control of territories in Asia Minor that had been controlled by a rival power, the Parthians.Trajan personally participated in victory over the Parthians, advancing all the way to the Persian Gulf, but continued unrest in the region drove him to withdraw his troops to Syria in 116. In that same year he suffered a stroke and was forced to begin the return to Rome. But he died en route, on August, 9, 117, and was succeeded by his adopted kinsman, Hadrian (r. 117–138). See also: Hadrian; Roman Empire.

TRAN DYNASTY (1225–1400 C.E.) A Vietnamese dynasty of the Dai Viet kingdom (in present-day northern Vietnam) that succeeded the powerful Later Li dynasty (1009–1225). Tran rule was marked by a series of wars with the Yüan (Mongol) dynasty of China and the Champa kingdom to the south. The Tran dynasty was established in 1225 as a result of an arranged marriage between a young Tran princess and Li Chieu-Hoang (r. 1224–1225), the last ruler of the Li dynasty.To make the Dai Viet kingdom a powerful force in the region, the Tran monarchs continued many of the land reforms, administrative improvements, and educational policies of their Li predecessors. But in 1257, they had to refocus their attention on the first of three Mongol invasions. The Mongol armies of Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1284), with the aim of controlling the Red River Delta in northern Vietnam, attacked the Vietnamese three times during the 1200s—in 1257, 1284, and 1287. Each time, the Vietnamese successfully resisted the Mongol incursions, finally defeating the Chinese under the leadership of General Tran Hung Dao, who is considered one of the greatest heroes of Vietnamese history. Meanwhile, tensions with the Tran’s southern neighbors, the Kingdom of Champa, dated back to the early days of Vietnamese independence in the 900s. These tensions culminated in a series of wars with Champa during the thirteenth century.The Tran eventually gained power over much of Champa, but Dai Viet was left drained of its resources and vulnerable to peasant insurrections after decades of fighting. In 1400, General Ho Quy-ly overthrew the Tran ruler, Tran An (Thieu De), and seized control of the throne, ending Tran rule and establishing the shortlived Ho Dynasty (1400–07).With the fall of the Ho dynasty in 1407, Dai Viet entered a period of Chinese control under China’s Ming dynasty. See also: Southeast Asian Kingdoms; Vietnamese Kingdoms.

FURTHER READING

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors. New York: Scribner’s, 1985. Nardo, Don. The Roman Empire. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1994. Starr, Chester. A History of the Ancient World. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

TRASTAMARA, HOUSE OF (1369–1504 C.E.)

Iberian dynasty descended from Henry of Trastamara, the half-brother of King Pedro I of Castile and

Tr e a s o n, R o y a l León (r. 1350–1369), which was the last ruling dynasty before most of the Iberian kingdoms were united to form the kingdom of Spain. Henry of Trastamara was the illegitimate son of King Alfonso XI of Castile (r. 1312–1350), whose eldest son, Pedro, assumed the throne upon Alfonso’s death in 1350. After Pedro became king, Henry attempted several unsuccessful uprisings against his half-brother Pedro, who defeated Henry with the assistance of Edward, the Black Prince, the eldest son of King Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377) After the English withdrew, however, Henry ousted and killed Pedro. In 1369 Henry took the throne as Henry II of Castile and León, establishing the House of Trastamara as the reigning house of the joint kingdoms. Despite opposition from John of Gaunt, another son of Edward III of England and Pedro’s son-in-law, Henry II maintained his title, which passed on to his descendants. When Henry died in 1379, he was succeeded on the throne by his son, John I (r. 1379–1390), who tried unsuccessfully to unite the Crowns of Castile and Portugal. John was also forced to defend his Crown against John of Gaunt, and he arranged a marriage between his son, Henry, and John of Gaunt’s daughter to eliminate this threat. Henry took the throne as Henry III (r. 1390–1406) upon his father’s death in 1390. Under Henry III, the Trastamara dynasty consolidated its power against the nobility of the kingdom. Henry III also sponsored the colonization of the Canary Islands, which lay off the northeastern coast of Africa. Henry’s successor, his son John II (r. 1406– 1454), was a sickly ruler who showed little interest to government, entrusting it to a court favorite, Alvaro de Luna. John II preferred the arts and literature, and during his reign, the Trastamara court became known for its great poetry and brilliant festivals. Another branch of the Trastamara dynasty ruled the kingdom of Aragón from 1412 to1516. It was founded in that kingdom by Ferdinand I of Antequera (r. 1412–1416), the son of John I of Castile, who was chosen to take the Aragónese throne left vacant when its ruler, Martin of Aragón (r. 1396–1410), died without an heir in 1410. Ferdinand’s son and successor, Alfonso V, the Magnanimous (r. 1416– 1458), ruled not only Aragón but also Sicily and Naples. Eventually leaving Aragón under the rule of his brother, John II of Aragón (r. 1458–1479), he

959

spent the remainder of his life in Naples, where he attempted to introduce Spanish institutions and played an important role in Italian politics. The best known Trastamara rulers were Isabella I of Castile (r. 1474–1504) and Ferdinand II of Aragón (r. 1479–1516). Their marriage joined the Crowns of Castile and Aragón and laid the foundations for the united kingdom of Spain. They were also the last Trastamara rulers of their kingdoms and of Spain. See also: Aragón, Kingdom of; Castile, Kingdom of; Iberian Kingdoms; León, Kingdom of; Spanish Monarchies.

TREASON, ROYAL Accusations or charges brought against a monarch for acts of disloyalty or for actions that compromise the security or integrity of the state. Under some unusual circumstances, monarchs throughout history have been charged with treason. Most monarchs who have been accused of treason were defeated claimants or usurpers of the throne. The traitors were defined as never having been legitimate monarchs at all, and their treason was against the legitimate monarch rather than the nation. One of many examples of this type of treason is Lady Jane Grey, who briefly claimed the throne of England after the death of Edward VI (r. 1547–1553) in 1553. Defeated by Edward’s half-sister Mary I (r. 1553– 1558), Grey was eventually executed, but as a private individual rather than as a queen. Another type of monarch-traitor is one owed allegiance to a higher monarch. For example, before conquering England, William the Conqueror (r. 1066–1087) treated Harold II Godwinson of England (r. 1066) as an oathbreaker for having violated a feudal oath he allegedly swore to support William’s candidacy for the English throne. Monotheistic religions have sometimes charged individuals rulers with betraying God. The bestknown example in the Christian tradition is the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (r. 360–363), called “apostate” because he was brought up a Christian but later converted to paganism. Christians viewed Julian’s death in battle against the Persians in 363 as divine punishment for his act of treason against God. The idea that a legitimate king could be a traitor

960

Tr e a s o n, R o y a l

to the people or the nation was slow to emerge. It would have been difficult to even conceive of a traitor-king in societies based on personal monarchy, where treason was a crime committed against the king, never by him. Charles I of England (r. 1625– 1649) was accused of treason (in his capacity as king) by the victorious Parliamentarians after the English Civil War.The judges at his trial claimed that Charles had committed treason by attempting to exceed his lawful powers and becoming a tyrant, as well as by invoking the aid of foreign princes to do so. Similar accusations were made against Louis XVI of France (r. 1774–1792) during the French Revolution, when he was accused of undermining the Revolution and plotting with foreigners. In the case of both Charles I and Louis XVI, the execution of the king after a public trial was part of a transition from monarchical to republican rule. There have been several cases in the twentieth century of monarchs being treated as betrayers of the nation. One involves Pu Yi (r. 1908–1912), the last ruler of the Ch’ing (Qing) dynasty, who became puppet-emperor of the Japanese-controlled state of Manchukuo. As monarchy has become less central to political culture, however, the condemnations of monarchs, whether by trial or otherwise, have not had the impact of those of Charles I and Louis XVI. See also: Charles I; Deaccession; Dethronement; Executions, Royal; Julian the Apostate; Legitimacy; Louis XVI; Oaths and Oath-taking; Rebellion, Rites of Royal; Regicide; Succession, Royal;Tyranny, Royal.

TRIBUTE Money or other valuable contribution exacted by a ruler from his subject nations; it is often exacted for peace or protection from invasion by other countries. The practice of paying tribute is found throughout all centuries and all civilizations. In 586 b.c.e., for example, King Zedekiah (r. 598–586 b.c.e.) of Judea ignored the advice of the prophet Jeremiah and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon (r. 604–562 b.c.e.). As a result, Babylonian armies sacked Jerusalem, taking Zedekiah, the wealth of Jerusalem, and other survivors of the conquest back to Babylon as tribute. The Roman Empire collected tribute from vari-

ous peoples under its rule, appointing tax collectors to the conquered regions or provinces. The tax collectors were expected to collect a certain amount of tribute, but whatever they took beyond that was theirs to keep. As a result, the system became corrupt and, not surprisingly, in some provinces tax collectors were particularly hated. In ancient Judea, tax collectors were considered unclean. One reason the Britons revolted against the Romans in 60 b.c.e. was because of the high taxes they were forced to pay to the emperor. In some empires, particularly in ancient times, emperor-worship was also exacted as a form of tribute. In ancient Rome, for example, the later emperors declared themselves to be gods and demanded to be adored by citizens. Subject nations and Christians who refused to do so were dealt with harshly. The Vikings extorted tribute in the form of Danegeld, an amount of gold or silver demanded of peoples the Vikings threatened. Following the Viking plunder of Paris in 843, Charles the Bald, king of the Franks (r. 843–877), paid Viking warriors seven thousand pounds of silver. Danegeld was an easy way to obtain plunder without having to fight for it; the Vikings frequently took the plunder and then reneged on the agreement not to attack again. Such was the case in East Anglia in England: in 865, the Vikings took their Danegeld in the form of cavalry mounts, but they returned five years later to raid the area again. In medieval Europe, serfs paid labor as a form of tribute in exchange for a piece of land, military protection, and other benefits they received from the overlord, such as the use of his mill and his winepress. In return, serfs paid a tribute of as much as three days of labor every week, farming the lord’s fields, digging ditches, and repairing roads and bridges. For hundreds of years, the Barbary pirates, operating from bases in North Africa, plundered ships in the Mediterranean Sea and collected tribute from European powers for protection. In the early 1800s, the United States fought an undeclared war against the Barbary pirates under the slogan “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!” Demands for tribute often led to disaffection and rebellion among royal subjects and vassal states. For example, the Aztec Empire demanded that its subject peoples give not only part of the harvest but also captives to be sacrificed to the Aztec gods. Consequently, when Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortes

Tr o j a n K i n g d o m landed in Mexico in 1519, he easily found a number of groups that were ready to ally themselves with him to throw off the Aztec yoke. Similarly, even before the height of its power, the British Empire lost the American colonies over a form of tribute. The trouble began when, to finance the French and Indian Wars in North America, the English government tried to collect tribute in the form of a tax. In 1764, the British tried to enact new taxes with the Revenue Act, called the Sugar Act in the colonies, When that failed, they passed the Stamp Act in 1765. American colonists felt that they were not fairly represented in Parliament and thus should not have to pay any taxes Parliament issued; this became one of the issues behind the American Revolution. Although the collection of tribute often enriched an empire in the short term, in the long run, tribute usually weakened the empire because it became a source of discontent among subject peoples. In the end, this often caused the empire to lose both territory and power. See also: Taxation.

961

southern halves of the country, respectively. Both families claimed loyalty to the Le monarchs, who became mere puppet rulers. The Trinh rulers spent much of the seventeenth century trying, unsuccessfully, to oust the Nguyen family and regain control of the southern territory. Isolated skirmishes between the two families occurred throughout the 1700s, leaving both the north and the south war-torn and vulnerable to peasant revolts. In 1771 the Tay Son brothers capitalized on peasant unrest and organized an uprising that sought to redistribute land from the hands of a few wealthy landlords to the poor.The Tay Son brothers took control of Vietnam late in the eighteenth century, ending the Le dynasty and the Trinh family’s rule. See also: Le Dynasty; Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty; Vietnamese Kingdoms.

TROAD KINGDOM. See Trojan Kingdom

FURTHER READING

Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1935. Leckie, Robert. George Washington’s War. New York: HarperPerennial: 1992.

TRINH DYNASTY (1545–1787 C.E.) Dynasty that ruled the northern half of Vietnam, known as the Tonking kingdom, in the name of the Le dynasty from the mid-sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. The Trinh dynasty ruled northern Vietnam, also known as the Tonking kingdom, in the name of the Le dynasty after the Le rulers lost control of their own territory. In 1527, Mac Dang Dung, a member of the powerful Mac family, usurped the throne from the Le family. Eight years later, the powerful Nguyen family reestablished the Le monarchs and drove the Mac family out of central and southern Vietnam. The Le dynasty did not have real power in Vietnam from that point on. Instead, power was shared between the rival Trinh and Nguyen families, who each capitalized on the power vacuum created by the weak Le rulers and took control of the northern and

TROJAN KINGDOM (SECOND AND FIRST MILLENNIA B.C.E.)

Semilegendary kingdom in the eastern Mediterranean, located in Anatolia (present-day Turkey), that was immortalized in the works of the ancient Greek poet Homer. Prior to 1870, many historians and archaeologists considered the heroic world of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey to be fantasy. However, the discoveries of German businessman and amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann changed that view. In the late 1800s, Schliemann set out to discover the legendary city of Troy using Homer’s epics as a guide. He found the ruins of the city on the northwest coast of Turkey in an area now called Hissarlik. Despite Schliemann’s discovery, much of Troy’s history remains shrouded in legend. Other than archaeology, the primary sources for Trojan history are Homer’s epics and the Aeneid, a work written in the first century b.c.e. by the Roman poet Virgil.The archaeological evidence revealed that Troy was located at the western end of the Hellespont, the narrow waterway connecting the Aegean Sea and Black Sea.

962

Tr o j a n K i n g d o m struction of their city at the hands of the Mycenaeans. The continued fascination with Troy generated by the epics of Homer and Virgil eventually resulted in Schliemann’s discovery of the city more than three thousand years after its fall to the Mycenaeans. See also: Minoan Kingdoms; Mycenaean Monarchies; Sparta, Kingdom of.

TSARS AND TSARINAS

Ruler of the semi-legendary Trojan Kingdom, gentle, old Priam was a central figure in Homer’s epic poem of the Trojan War, the Iliad. This bas relief frieze depicts a scene from that story, in which Priam begs the Greek hero Achilles for the body of his son Hector, whom Achilles killed in the fighting.

This strategic location gave the city control over any trade between the two areas. Around 1200 b.c.e., the economically powerful Troy confronted the military might of the Greek Mycenaeans in the Trojan War. According to Homer, the Mycenaeans and Trojans fought this war over Helen, the wife of King Menelalus of Sparta. Helen had either fallen in love with or been kidnapped by Paris, the son of King Priam of Troy. In the Iliad, the Trojan war is a conflict between the major powers of the ancient Mediterranean world, as well as between the gods, who disagreed over which side should prove victorious. Historically, however, the war was most likely fought over control of the Hellespont and the economic power that came with it. It is not known whether the war destroyed Troy, although the archaeological record indicates that the last remains of the city were burned to the ground in the twelfth century b.c.e. The legend of Troy continued to attract interest well after the disappearance of the Trojans and Mycenaeans from history. During the great classical age of Greece, the Greeks regarded Homer’s epics as history. In his Aeneid,Virgil claimed that the Trojan hero Aeneas founded Rome after he and his people escaped the de-

Titles used by the rulers of Russia from 1547 to 1918, derived from Caesar, one of the designations for the rulers of the Roman and Byzantine empires. Tsarina is the feminine form of the title used in English; the Russian form is tsaritsa. The rulers of the state of Muscovy were called grand dukes (velikiye knyazya) when they were under the overlordship of the Tatars during the Middle Ages.The title of tsar was first taken officially by Ivan IV (“The Terrible”) (r. 1533–1584) at a coronation in 1547. The use of the new title was a means of cementing an imperial conception of rulership that had been growing for some time in Russia. Medieval Russians saw the Byzantine emperor as head of all Orthodox Christians. They called the Byzantine capital Tsargrad (the city of Caesar), and often used tsar to refer to kings.When the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the imperial leadership came to an end. In 1472, Grand Duke Ivan III of Moscow-Vladimir (r. 1462–1505) married Sofia Palaeologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. Sofia brought an exalted view of imperial rule to her new country. Subsequently, Ivan III sometimes used the title tsar in an unofficial capacity, and the head of the Orthodox Church, the Metropolitan, referred to Ivan III as “The New Constantine.” In officially taking the title of tsar, Ivan IV believed he was inheriting the emperor’s imperial rule and leadership of the Orthodox Church.The title became part of the official designation of all subsequent Russian rulers. In 1721, after the Peace of Nystad, Peter I (r. 1682–1725) received the title “The Great.” At this time, he also began calling himself the “Emperor and Autocrat of all Russia” and “Tsar of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia.”Thereafter, tsar remained as a secondary title, equivalent to king, but it remained a popular designation for the Russian ruler.

Tu d o r , H o u s e o f The terms tsar and tsarina died out with the last rulers of the Romanov dynasty, Tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894–1917) and his wife, the Tsarina Alexandra, who were deposed and later murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918, during the Russian Revolution. The rulers of Bulgaria from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries also called themselves tsars, and the use of the term was revived for the kings of Bulgaria between 1908 and 1946. See also: Byzantine Empire; Caesars; Ivan IV, the Terrible; Riurikid Dynasty; Romanov Dynasty; Rus Princedoms.

TSHEKEDI KHAMA (1906–1959 C.E.) Regent of Bechuanaland (r. 1925–1950) who sought to maintain his country’s autonomy from European colonial powers. Although not a king in his own right, Tshekedi Khama served as regent of Bechuanaland (presentday Botswana) from 1925 to 1950. His father, Khama III (r. 1875–1923), was a ruler of the Bamangwato people, and his older brother, Sekgoma II (r. 1923– 1925), was expected to inherit the Bamangwato throne. Befitting his status as son of a king, Tshekedi Khama received a fine education and was sent to attend college in South Aftica. Before completing his studies, however, he was called home to attend the funeral of his brother, Sekgoma II, and to assume the regency for the new king, his nephew Seretse Khama (r. 1925–1966), who was then only four years old. As regent, Tshekedi’s greatest concern was to maintain some semblance of autonomy and integrity for Bechuanaland in the face of ever increasing pressures from encroaching Western interests, such as the British South Africa Company (BSAC), a major mining enterprise. An accomplished politician and diplomat,Tshekedi succeeded in forcing the BSAC to withdraw from Bechuanaland in 1934. His efforts did not always lead to success, however. Bechuanaland was, after all, a colonial possession of Great Britain, and whatever independence he might achieve would always be limited.This was made clear in 1933, when Tsekedi’s handling of a criminal case involving a young white man led to a sentence of flogging. This punishment raised the ire of the British, who forced Tshekedi to resign his position as

963

regent. He was reinstated soon after, however, in the face of great public outcry at his treatment. In 1948 Tshekedi’s regency was drawing to a close, for Seretse was now an adult.Tshekedi’s popular support was so high, however, that he had retained his position long after Seretse came of age, permitting the young king to complete his education and to travel. However, support for Tshekedi dropped dramatically when Seretse announced that he intended to marry a white Englishwoman. Tshekedi was strongly opposed to this marriage, in decided contrast to the majority of the populace. He thus fell out of favor with the king and was exiled to Britain in 1950. Yet, he remained active in Bechuanaland politics. He died in London in 1959. See also: Khama III.

TUDOR, HOUSE OF (1485–1603 C.E.) One of the most powerful ruling families of England, whose monarchs expanded royal power and brought about a great cultural flowering. The house of Tudor originated with Owen Tudor (ca. 1400–1461), a Welshman of ancient lineage who served as squire to King Henry VI (r. 1422–1471) and fought for the house of Lancaster against the house of York during the so-called Wars of the Roses (1455–1485).Through his service to the king and his marriage to Catherine of Valois, the widow of Henry V (r. 1413–1422), Owen Tudor greatly elevated his fortunes and his social standing.

ATTAINING AND SECURING THE THRONE Owen Tudor’s grandson, Henry Tudor, defeated the Yorkist ruler, King Richard III (r. 1483–1485), at Bosworth Field in 1485, a battle that ended the Wars of the Roses. Henry then assumed the Crown as king Henry VII (r. 1485–1509) through a tenuous genealogical claim to the house of Lancaster. His mother was the great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, who was the father of the first Lancastrian monarch, King Henry IV (r. 1399–1413) Henry VII married Elizabeth, the heiress of the house of York, which united the warring houses of Lancaster and York and solidified his claim to the throne.The union did not quell civil unrest, however, and Henry VII’s reign was filled with threats to na-

964

Tu d o r , H o u s e o f regency was established to rule for him until he came of age. He never got the chance because he contracted tuberculosis and died in 1553.

LATER TUDORS

Queen Mary I of the Tudor Dynasty took the English throne upon the death of her younger brother, Edward VI, in 1553. Strong-willed and self-possessed like her father, Henry VIII, Mary I was determined to restore Catholicism to England. Her treatment of Protestants earned her the nickname Bloody Mary.

tional stability, including revolts and rival claimants to the throne. Nevertheless, when Henry died in 1509, the Tudor lineage had been firmly established, and the Crown passed to his son Henry, who became Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547). Henry VIII was one of the most famous English monarchs, largely because of his many marriages and his role in fostering the English Reformation. By about 1427 Henry, unhappy with the inability of his wife Catherine of Aragón to produce a male heir, and infatuated with the young Anne Boleyn, desired an annulment. When the pope would not grant him one, Henry broke with the Church and married Anne in 1533, ushering in the Protestant Reformation in England. When Henry VIII died in 1547, the throne went to his only legitimate son, Edward VI (r. 1547–1553), the product of Henry’s marriage to his third wife, Jane Seymour. Only nine years old when he became king, Edward never ruled in his own right; instead, a

With the death of Edward VI, Henry’s hope for a male heir faltered; the most direct claimants to the throne were all female. In the last months of his life, Edward had decided to pass over his two older halfsisters, Mary and Elizabeth, and name as heir Lady Jane Grey, daughter of Edward’s protector, the duke of Northumberland. However, Lady Jane Grey ruled for only nine days before Mary Tudor seized power, becoming Mary I (r. 1553–1558). Mary was the Catholic daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragón. In 1554, Mary married Philip II of Spain (r. 1556–1598), also a Catholic, and reestablished Catholicism in England. The Church of England had taken hold in the country, however, and bloody religious conflict ensued. Mary earned the nickname “Bloody Mary” as a result of the torture and execution of Protestants that occurred during her reign. Mary died childless in 1558. Her successor, her younger sister Elizabeth, was the Protestant daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) reestablished the Church of England and became immensely popular with the people. Throughout her long reign, she displayed remarkable skill as a politician, choosing her advisers wisely and paying close attention to her self-presentation and the way the English people perceived her. Elizabeth chose never to marry, instead becoming “the Virgin Queen.” This was a dangerous political move, however. The closest heir to the throne was Mary, Queen of Scots, the controversial ruler of Scotland (r. 1542–1567). Thus, English Protestants were desperate for Elizabeth to marry and ensure a Protestant dynasty. Rather than marrying and compromising her power, however, Elizabeth took a different approach. When Mary, Queen of Scots, fell into difficulty in Scotland in 1567 after being suspected of murdering her husband, Lord Darnley, Elizabeth offered her sanctuary in England.That sanctuary turned into imprisonment, however, and Mary was eventually executed for plotting against Elizabeth. Elizabeth faced other challenges to Protestant stability. Excommunicated by the pope in 1570, she was

965

Tu d o r , H o u s e o f

Tudor, House of (1485–1603) Henry VII = Elizabeth of York (1485–1509)

Arthur, Prince of Wales

Henry VIII* = Catherine = Anne Boleyn2 = Jane Seymour3 (1509–1547) of Aragón1

Philip II* of Spain = Mary I (1553–1558)

Elizabeth I* (1588–1603)

Margaret

Mary

Edward VI* (1547–1553)

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

the target of repeated assassination attempts, and in the 1580s England engaged in a major military conflict with Spain. Despite the turbulent political and religious situation of the time, Elizabeth’s reign, known as the Elizabethan age, was a high point of the English Renaissance, producing brilliant writers including Edmund Spenser, Sir Philip Sidney, and William Shakespeare.

END OF THE DYNASTY AND ITS LEGACY As Elizabeth approached old age, her choice of successor became a matter of heated speculation. The many civil conflicts of the sixteenth century had left the line of succession vague and disputed, and potential successors courted her favor vigorously. Her choice in the end was surprising to many: James VI of Scotland (r. 1567–1625), the only son of her former enemy Mary, Queen of Scots. James was descended from Margaret Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII. By selecting James as her heir, Elizabeth inaugurated a new English dynasty, the house of Stuart, and effected political consolidation between the former bitter enemies, England and Scotland. The Tudor era, though a violent and turbulent period in English history, ushered in many important changes.The end of the Wars of the Roses and the as-

cent of the first Tudor monarchs marks the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance in England. Henry VIII inadvertently brought about a major religious change, beginning the process whereby England became one of Europe’s most powerful Protestant nations. Under the Tudors, as well, England began promoting exploration of the New World, beginning the country’s growth as an imperial power. Literature and the arts flourished under the Tudors, particularly during the Elizabethan period. See also: Edward VI; Elizabeth I; Henry VII; Henry VIII; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Lancaster, House of; Mary I, Tudor; Mary, Queen of Scots; Richard III; Stuart Dynasty; York, House of. FURTHER READING

Griffiths, Ralph A., and Roger S. Thomas. The Making of the Tudor Dynasty. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. Mackie, J.D. The Earlier Tudors. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Ridley, Jasper. The Tudor Age. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1990. Williams, Penry. The Later Tudors: England, 1547– 1603. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

966

Tu g h l u q D y n a s t y

TUGHLUQ DYNASTY (1320–1414 C.E.) Turko-Afgan dynasty, rulers of a sultanate centered in the city of Delhi in India, that created an empire but ultimately was unable to hold it together. In 1320, a Hindu military leader named Khushraw Khan (r. 1320) murdered Sultan Qutbuddin Mubarak I (r. 1316–1320) and took over the Delhi sultanate. Within the year, the Muslim leader Ghazi Malik attacked and defeated Khushraw. Ghazi Malik took the throne as Ghiyasuddin Tughluq I (r. 1320–1324), the founder of the Tughluq dynasty in Delhi. Malik’s first priority as sultan was to cleanse the countryside of all Mongols, whom he hated and regarded as unruly and a threat to peace. He then set out to build an empire, capturing Telingana and Bengal, kingdoms in central and northeastern India, in the first two years of his reign. Muhammad II bin Tughluq (r. 1324–1351), who succeeded his father as sultan in 1324, attempted to maintain the political momentum toward empire. A time of continual centralization and expansion, his reign marked the high point of Tughluq power, but decline set in toward the end of his rule. Under Muhammad II, many non-Muslim Indians rose to high and extremely responsible offices within the sultanate. In an effort to gain the support of the peasants and increase revenue, Muhammad proposed a scheme to improve agricultural output and advanced loans to the villagers.These efforts led to a measure of political unity known previously only in the time of the great Maurya Empire (321–185 b.c.e.) Muhammad’s measures were not sufficient to hold the empire together, however. In the north, he had to contend with Hindu revolts and a new Mongol pressure from Afghanistan.To quell dissent in the southern Deccan region, he moved his capital from Delhi to the city of Deogiri, 700 miles to the south, in 1327, but this made little difference. While Muhammad spent his time putting down rebellions, a total of twenty-two, Muslim nobles and Hindu leaders continued to revolt. Several small Hindu states were formed, the most important of which was Vijayanagar, which was established in 1336. The sultanate of Madura broke away from Muhammad in 1335, and the rest of the south broke away to form the Bahmani kingdom in 1347. Firoz Shah Tughluq (1351–1388), a nephew of Tughluq I, moved the capital of the sultanate back to

Delhi soon after taking the throne in 1351. A mild and gentle ruler, Firoz established an infrastructure that included the largest network of canals in premodern India, as well as many towns, mosques, colleges, and hospitals. Firoz also commissioned Persian translations of some important Sanskrit texts. But despite his efforts, the empire continued to crumble. When Firoz Tughluq died in 1388, the sultanate was in a state of serious decline. Subsequent succession disputes and palace intrigues only accelerated its pace, as several independent Muslim states arose in former Tughluq territory. In 1398, a Mongol warrior named Tamerlane, who had served with the son of Genghis Khan, swept in with his army from the northwest, defeated the Tughluq army, and sacked the city of Delhi.This defeat marked the end of Tughluq power, although members of the dynasty continued to rule a tiny kingdom until 1414, when the Sayyid dynasty took control of what remained of the Tughluq kingdom, a small district around Delhi. See also: Bahmani Dynasty; Delhi Kingdom; Maurya Empire; Mongol Empire; Tamerlane (Timur Leng).

TULUNID DYNASTY (868–905 C.E.) The first independent Muslim dynasty of Egypt, which was noted for its fine art and architecture. The Tulunid dynasty of Egypt was founded in 868 by Ahmad ibn Tulun (r. 868–884).The son of a Turkish slave, Tulun became a soldier and then served as head of the caliph’s guard at the court of Caliph alMa’mun (r. 813–833) of the Abbasid dynasty. In the 860s, the caliph awarded Tulun’s stepfather with the governorship of Egypt, but the older man decided to send the young Tulun in his place as vice-governor. Tulun arrived at the Egyptian capital of Al-Fustat in 868. Four years later, in 870, his stepfather died and Tulun was granted full governorship of Egypt by the Abbasid caliph. Within a short time, however, Tulun had established an independent military in Egypt and stopped sending taxes to the caliphate. He also established a new capital at Al-Qata’i. Ahmad ibn Tulun nearly lost control of Egypt around 872 when the Abbasids tried to regain control of the province. But he was able to retain his autonomy by paying them off with gifts. Then, around 875 or 877, Tulun refused to send tribute to Bagh-

Tu r k i c E m p i r e dad. The caliph sent an expedition against him, but this was eventually abandoned. In 878, Ahmad ibn Tulun rebelled against the Abbasids and occupied the region of Syria. The arts flourished in Egypt under Tulun’s rule, and in 879 the Mosque of Ahmad ibn Tulun was built in Al-Qata’i to immortalize his name. By 880,Tulun had begun to mint coins in his own name, which had previously been the sole prerogative of the caliphs. He encouraged not only the arts and architecture, but also stimulated agricultural development, industry, trade, and commerce in Egypt. Ahmad ibn Tulun died in 884 after contracting dysentery in Syria while on military campaign there. Tulun was succeeded by his son, Khumarawayh (r. 884–896), who proved to be a moderately effective ruler. Shortly after his father’s death, in 885, he invaded Palestine and defeated an Abbasid army there. Yet, despite this initial success, the financial and military situation of the Tulunid dynasty deteriorated under his leadership. Khumarawahy’s successors—Jaysh (r. 896), Harun (r. 896–905), and Shayban (r. 905)—fared poorly as leaders, and in 905 the Abbasids managed to reconquer Egypt.The Abbasids brought the surviving members of the Tulunid family to Baghdad and destroyed the capital of Al-Qata’i. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Caliphates; Islam and Kingship.

TUPAC YUPANQUI (d. 1493 C.E.) Incan ruler (r. ca. 1471–1493), also known as Topa Inca, who was one of history’s most successful conquerors.Through his military exploits,Tupac secured a territory for the Inca comparable to that of the Roman Empire at its height. The son of the great Inca ruler Pachacuti (r. 1438–1471), Tupac Yupanqui (Topa Inca) began his military exploits under the aegis of his father, who appointed Tupac leader of a campaign to conquer the lands north of the Inca Empire.Tupac did so with extraordinary thoroughness. After defeating the Inca’s ancestral enemies, the Chanca, he continued north, attacking and conquering the kingdom of Chimu and extending the borders of the Inca Empire as far north as present-day Quito in Ecuador. Having extinguished the two greatest military

967

threats to Incan security—the Chanca and Chimu— Tupac returned to the Inca capital of Cuzco. Faced with a state that had increased dramatically in size, Pachacuti and Tupac worked together quickly to institute a number of administrative reforms that would allow the Inca to rule their growing empire more effectively.This included forming a highly centralized bureaucracy and codifying Inca law. In 1471, Pachacuti chose to abdicate the throne in favor of Tupac, who soon left Cuzco to lead another military campaign—this time attempting to conquer the rain forest lands near the River Tono to the east. While he was gone, a revolt broke out near Lake Titicaca, when it was rumored that Tupac had died in the jungle. The Inca ruler was forced to abort the campaign to quell the unrest. After successfully putting down the rebellion at Lake Titicaca, Tupac turned his armies southward, adding the highland region of Bolivia, northwestern Argentina, and northern Chile to his empire. In 1476, Tupac turned inward to conquer the coastal region of southern Peru, which, though surrounded by the Inca Empire, had still not been incorporated into it. This proved to be a time-consuming enterprise, as Tupac attacked each valley separately. It took more than three years before all coastal Peru was firmly under Inca rule. Quenched, perhaps, of his taste for conquest, Tupac devoted the remainder of his rule to improving the administration of the empire. He continued policies of ethnic resettlement, state land ownership, and state-supported religion that he had developed with his father. He also instituted other policies, such as imposing Quechua as the official language, which were designed to strengthen the political unity of the diverse Inca Empire.This unity held for the duration of Tupac’s rule and even after his unexpected death in 1493, despite a dispute over the succession. Tupac Yupanqui was succeeded by his son, Huayna Capac (r. 1493–1524), who was the last great Inca to rule over a united Incan empire. See also: Chimu Empire; Huayna Capac; Inca Empire; Pachacuti; South American Monarchies.

TURKIC EMPIRE (552–840 C.E.) Kingdom located in the Central Asian steppe region that flourished between the sixth and ninth centuries.

968

Tu r k i c E m p i r e

The Turks began as a tribal vassal of the Chinese in the mid-sixth century.Their transition from vassal to overlord was initiated by a revolt against Chinese rule in 552. As a result of this revolt, their Turkish chief, Tumin (r. 552–562), was named khan (lord, prince) of Mongolia. A decade later, the successors to Tumin began to expand their realm by allying with the Sasanid dynasty of Persia to capture the city of Soghia from the Huns. In exchange for the alliance with the Sasanids, the Turks were required to allow the Persians to claim the region of Bactria. However, the Turks soon took Bactria for themselves, once they had assurances that the Byzantine Empire would remain neutral in any relations between the Turks and Persians. The death of the second Turkic khan, Istemi (r. ca. 562–576), brought a destabilizing element into the ruling house with its new ruler, Tardu (r. ca. 576–603). Despite the benefits reaped as a result of the alliance with the Byzantine Empire,Tardu waged war on the Byzantines over a period of nearly fifteen years. Furthermore, he sought to capitalize on domestic difficulties in the neighboring Chinese Empire by besieging it in 601. The Chinese eventually pushed back the Turks, and shortly afterward,Tardu died. His death allowed internal dissension within the realm to divide the Turks of the eastern and western portions into separate kingdoms. In addition to the larger Turkic khanate splitting in two, the western Turkish kingdom split into smaller states. This period of Turkic division was disastrous for the eastern Turks, who eventually fell prey to the Chinese and became a protectorate of the T’ang dynasty. In the west, however, by the late 620s, a semblance of unity began to reemerge. This renewed cohesion made it possible for the Turkic realm to expand west to the Caspian Sea and south to India. In spite of the success of the western Turks in reintegrating themselves as a political unit, they also fell victim to T’ang maneuvering, as the T’ang encouraged various nomadic groups in the Turkic domains to rebel. As a result, when the reigning khan, T’ung Shih-hu (r. ca. ?–630), was murdered in 630, the western Turkic realm disintegrated once again. It took another half-century for the Turks to liberate themselves from Chinese control. In 682, the Turks rebelled against the Chinese and successfully liberated themselves. This revolt, led by Tonyukuk (r. ca. 682–691), was made possible by the

wide dispersion of the Chinese military throughout the Asian steppes. Once the Chinese had been overthrown,Tonyukuk named himself khan and began the process of joining the various eastern Turkic tribes of Mongolia into a single cohesive empire. For the next thirty-five years, particularly after the accession of Kapgan (r. ca. 691–716) in 691, the eastern Turks faced continued tension and conflict with the western Turks.They also made unremitting attempts to keep the Chinese destabilized by making repeated incursions into Chinese territory. Following the death of Kapgan, Tonyukuk’s sonin-law, Bilga (r. 716–734), came to the throne. Bilga used the pillaging of Chinese borderlands as a bargaining chip with which he negotiated peace with the T’ang in 722.After Bilga died of poisoning in 734, he was succeeded by Tangri (r. 734–741), who was also murdered.Tangri’s death once again destabilized the Turkic Empire, plunging it into a series of domestic conflicts and rebellions. The rebellions ended with the accession of the Uighur tribe to power in Mongolia in 744. For the next fifty years, the Turks held the Chinese as tributaries.This prestigious status lasted until the death of Baga Tarkan (r. 779–789), and Turkic decline accelerated under the short reign of his successor, Kuluge Bilge (r. 789–790). By 805, the Turkic Empire had begun to disintegrate as it had done in the past. Its decline was furthered by the onset of war with the Turks’ northern neighbors, the Kyrgyz. This war, in combination with internal struggles within the Turkic realm, allowed the Turks to be conquered by the Kyrgyz in 840, effectively ending the Turkic khanate. See also: Asian Dynasties, Central; T’ang Dynasty.

TUTANKHAMEN (d. ca. 1325 B.C.E.) Young Egyptian pharaoh (r. ca. 1334–1325 b.c.e.), sometimes referred to as the “boy-king,” whose burial site in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings was found almost intact in 1922 by English archaeologist Howard Carter. Very little is known about Tutankhamen’s short life and reign. He was only nine years old when he became the twelfth pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty, and the realm he inherited was not strong.Tu-

Tu t s i K i n g d o m tankhamen reigned only until age eighteen, when he suffered a mysterious death. Medical examination of his mummy indicated that he was most likely a brother of Pharaoh Smenkhkare (r. ca. 1336–1334 b.c.e.) and son-in-law of Pharaoh Akhenaten (r. ca. 1350–1334 b.c.e.), and that he probably became pharaoh after their deaths. Evidence suggests that Tutankhamen spent his early years in Akhenaten’s capital, Akhetaton (Tel elAmarna). Possibly to make his ascendancy to the throne more certain, Tutankhamen was married to the third daughter of Akhenaten, who was probably the royal family’s oldest surviving princess. Since he was so young when he became king, high-ranking officials—especially the vizier Ay and the general Horemheb—governed Egypt during most of his reign. These officials also moved the capital back to Thebes and put a stop to the monotheistic religious cult of Aten that had been established by Akhenaten. The principal military action during Tutankhamen’s reign, led by General Horemheb, was a battle against

969

the Hittites.Tutankhamen died suddenly at the time of a battle against the Mitanni kingdom in northern Syria. Upon his death, the throne passed to the vizier, Kheperkheprure Ay (r. ca. 1325–1321), who apparently also married Tutankhamen’s widow, Ankhesenamen. Like many Egyptian royal tombs, Tutankhamen’s tomb had been looted in ancient times, but for some reason not much was taken.The tomb was closed up again and hidden from sight, buried by rock debris from a later construction nearby. When Howard Carter cleared away the debris in 1922, he found steps leading down to the tomb’s entry. Archaeologists and scholars have learned a lot about ancient Egyptian civilization from King Tut’s tomb, which is considered one of the greatest ever made. Tutankhamen’s mummy was found inside three highly decorative coffins. The innermost one was made of solid gold, shaped like a human with a painted representation of Tutankhamen. A magnificent gold funerary mask covered Tutankhamen’s face. The tomb’s burial chamber and other rooms contained an enormous amount of gold, jewels, weapons, furniture, statuary, clothes, and other extraordinary objects, such as golden beds and couches from a state chariot, perfume that remained aromatic in sealed pots, and remarkably well-preserved flower garlands. Probably the most magnificent piece was a gold and silver throne covered with jewels. Much of the treasure from Tutankhamen’s tomb can now be viewed at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. See also: Akhenaten; Hittite Empire; Mitanni Kingdom.

TUTSI KINGDOM (1400s–1890 C.E.)

Although only a boy when he ruled, and insignificant in terms of his accomplishments,Tutankhamen is one of the best-known pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. His fame rests largely on the amazing artifacts found in his tomb when it was unearthed in 1922. Among them was this gold death mask inlaid with semi-precious stones.

Kingdom in east-central Africa, located in what is today Rwanda, that was originally inhabited by a people called the Twa and that established a social structure that has colored the history of the region down to the present day. Sometime in the 1100s, a wave of immigration in east Africa brought Hutu agriculturalists to the region of present-day Rwanda, where they settled in farming communities alongside the Twa people. In the fifteenth century, a new group of immigrants arrived in the region, this time cattle pastoralists coming into the region from the north. These were the ancestral Tutsi people, led by a man named Ruganzu

970

Tu t s i K i n g d o m

Bwimba. Ruganzu Bwimba selected an area near present-day Kigali and settled there, establishing the early foundation of the Tutsi kingdom. The Tutsi had a long tradition of raiding and territorial dominance, which put their new neighbors, the Twa and Hutu, at a disadvantage. Neither of these peoples had any sort of martial tradition, so when the Tutsi clan chiefs began to exert their claims to dominance over the territory, the Twa and Hutu peoples found themselves easily subdued and absorbed. The subjugation of the Hutu was completed in the seventeenth century under the rule of Ruganu Ndori (r. ca. 1600–1624), and the Tutsi kingdom achieved its greatest extent in the nineteenth century under King Kigeri Rwabugiri (r. 1853–1890). In 1890, however, the entire region came under the colonial control of Germany, and the Tutsi kingship was stripped of its authority and autonomy. The Tutsi kingdom was structured along the lines of a feudal kingship, with leadership roles restricted to those of Tutsi descent, while the Hutu served a subordinate role as serfs. At the head of society was the mwali, or king, who ruled with the assistance and advice of a subordinate chiefly class, also drawn from ethnic Tutsis. Each Tutsi chief controlled an umusozi, roughly the equivalent of a fiefdom, which comprised a hilltop settlement and surrounding agricultural fields. Below the chiefs came the ethnic Hutu, who worked the farms of the umusozi at the discretion of the Tutsi leadership.These strict social divisions led to the formation of powerful resentments on the part of the Hutu against their Tutsi rulers. These underlying resentments may be seen as the forerunner of much of the ethnic violence that has erupted periodically between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda today. See also: African Kingdoms.

TYRANNY, ROYAL The assumption of absolute power by a monarch, also known as despotism or autocracy. Tyranny has manifested itself at various points throughout the history of virtually every nation, and it is, as some historians have argued, a natural consequence of monarchical forms of government. Though it is common to speak of some rulers as “en-

lightened despots,” in reality few royal personages who have enjoyed anything approaching absolute power have wielded such power to the betterment of their people. Tyranny is generally considered to rival anarchy as the most destructive form of political organization. Historically, tyrannical reigns have rarely been long, as tyrannies are weakened both by internal opposition and by the effect of decisions made by the monarch, which are rarely undertaken for the good of the nation or the people. Fear of, and resistance to, tyranny is one of the primary motivating reasons for the gradual shift away from monarchy and toward democracy.

ORIGINS OF TYRANNY The history of tyranny is characterized by a fundamental twist in the definition of the word. Ancient Greek society saw the reign of many rulers known as tyrannos (tyrants), who were not necessarily despotic or disliked. Greek tyrants were merely those rulers who had seized power through illegal means, such as a military overthrow. Ancient Greek tyrants generally were able to gain power with widespread support of the people, usually emphasizing one issue or several related issues and claiming to promote some kind of reform. The tyrants would often try to preserve their legacy by declaring their reign hereditary, which moved their tyrannies toward monarchies. Many Greek tyrants, such as Pisistratus of Athens (r. 560–527 b.c.e.), were actually very capable and generous rulers, who remained well liked throughout their reign. However, the inherently volatile nature of tyrannies—in which the ruler was only as strong as his military—caused this form of government to eventually give way to limited democracy by the third century b.c.e. It was after this point that the word “tyranny” began to acquire a negative connotation, as the democratic Greeks viewed the time of tyranny as a period of virtual anarchy and barbarism.

Tyranny in Rome Although “tyranny” had not developed into its modern meaning in ancient times, there were many leaders then who would now be called tyrannical. One of the most famous of these was Tarquin the Proud, a semilegendary king who ruled Rome as an absolute monarch in the sixth century b.c.e. until he was overthrown, possibly after the infamous, and possi-

Ty r a n n y, R o y a l

971

ROYAL RELATIVES

A PERSISTANT TYRANT—PISISTRATUS (ca. 605–527 B.C.E.) Pisistratus was a tyrant of Athens known for his generally benevolent rule. Little is known of his background, but it is clear that he enjoyed the support and friendship of the great Athenian statesman Solon and that he had distinguished himself in battle as a young man. In the years immediately before 560 b.c.e., Pisistratus began to agitate against the aristocracy then in power in Athens, and he became an informal leader and representative of the poor. After gathering military strength, Pisistratus attacked Athens, taking charge of the city in 560. Unable to maintain his power, he was exiled almost immediately. Still popular, he returned in 559 b.c.e., this time to rule for three years before being driven out once again by the Athenian aristocracy. Pisistratus returned to Athens once more in 546 b.c.e., subduing his enemies for good. His reign as tyrant was a prosperous time for Athens, and he was able to lift some of the tax burden on rural farmers, gaining him even greater popularity. Pisistratus encouraged cooperation among the various peoples of the Mediterranean, promoted the literary arts, revived popular religious festivals and groups, and built many temples and monuments. Although he gave preference to friends and family members for government positions and practiced hostage-taking as a political policy, contemporary sources viewed him most favorably.

bly legendary, rape of the virtuous Roman matron Lucretia by his son, Sextus Tarquinius. It is not known how much of the Tarquin story is true, but Tarquin the Proud is generally considered to have been the last king of Rome, and the Romans used his rule as justification for establishing a new republican form of government. Despite the example of Tarquin, the early Roman Empire would see several figures who ruled despotically, most notably the emperors Caligula (r. 37–41 c.e.) and Nero (r. 54–68 c.e.).

Tyranny and Feudalism In the first few centuries following the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476 c.e., there was little opportunity for royal tyranny in either Europe or the Near East, as those regions fell under the control of a series of much smaller, less centralized monarchies, and then into feudalism. In the Far East, in China, the tyranny of the Ch’in (Qin) dynasty had been overthrown in the third century b.c.e., and a feudal system was established that lasted hundreds of years. Similar phenomena would

later occur in Russia and Japan. Monarchs of the feudal period in Europe and Asia were sometimes described as tyrannical, but rarely if ever did any of them gain the amount of political power required for such a designation to be accurate.

TYRANNY RESURFACES Royal tyranny reemerged at the end of the feudal era, as political philosophies promoting the divine right of kings gained popularity among monarchs.The divine right theory held that monarchs enjoyed their rule as a mandate from God and that their authority thus could not be criticized by human standards. The first two English kings of the Stuart dynasty, James I (r. 1603–1625) and Charles I (r. 1625–1649), both attempted to put the philosophy of divine right into practice and rule autocratically. Both kings dissolved the British Parliament and ruled alone for brief periods, but neither was able to successfully maintain absolute power. Seventeenth-century France also succumbed to royal absolutism, under the rule of King Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715).The reign of Louis’s predecessor, his

972

Ty r a n n y, R o y a l

father Louis XIII (r. 1610–1643), had seen the monarchy rise in strength thanks to the crafty political schemes of Cardinal Richelieu, and Louis XIV pursued this to its fullest extent. Using the support of the emerging French middle class to build antagonism toward powerful French nobles, Louis XIV was able to assume almost total control over the government. However, the tyranny of the French monarchy began to wane with Louis’s death in 1715. The French Revolution that began in 1789 and led to the death of King Louis XVI (r. 1774–1792) and the establishment of a republic struck a severe blow against royal power throughout Europe.

NAPOLEON AND THE END OF TYRANNY Despite the democratic uprising of the French Revolution, France quickly fell back under the power of an absolute ruler, this time in the person of Napoleon Bonaparte (r. 1804–1814; 1815). Though not a monarch in the traditional sense, Napoleon ruled with a royal authority surpassing even that of Louis XIV. Historians continue to debate the value of Napoleon’s reign, but it is beyond dispute that he ruled as a vigorous tyrant. Fittingly, Napoleon’s brief tenure as absolute ruler helped foster many of the democratic movements that characterized Europe’s political development over the next two hundred years. Although the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries witnessed several governments around the world in which absolute power was effectively invested in one person (such as Nazi Germany), none of these were monarchies in the traditional sense. Indeed, the rapid spread of democracy around the world in the post-Napoleonic era ensured that royal tyranny would remain a thing of the past. See also: Caligula; Charles I; Divine Right; Feudalism and Kingship; James I of England (James VI of Scotland); Louis XIV; Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Nero; Power, Forms of Royal; Tarquin the Proud.

TWO SICILIES, KINGDOM OF THE. See Naples, Kingdom of; Sicily, Kingdom of

TZ’U HSI (CIXI), EMPRESS (1835–1908 C.E.)

Consort to Chinese emperor Xianfeng, who used her role as empress dowager to rule China for nearly fifty years. One of the most powerful women in Chinese history, Tz’u Hsi became a concubine of Ch’ing emperor Xianfeng in 1851. On his death,Tz’u Hsi seized power by claiming the throne for her six-year-old son,Tongzhi, and establishing herself as his regent. Tz’u Hsi ruled China from behind a screen in the throne room. As a woman, discretion required that she remain hidden when meeting with government ministers. In the early years of her regency,Tz’u Hsi suppressed the anti-Ch’ing Taiping Rebellion and helped restore Ch’ing power after the invasion of Beijing by Western forces in 1860. Although Tongzhi was the emperor in name, he never had any real power. He led a dissipated life and died in 1875 while still in his teens. After Tongzhi’s death,Tz’u Hsi retained power by installing her fouryear-old nephew, Guang Xu, on the throne. Guang Xu was intimidated by Tz’u Hsi and remained dominated by her for most of his life. Tz’u Hsi supported the Boxer movement, which called for removing foreigners from China.The Boxers, believing they possessed magical powers that made them immune to foreign bullets, laid siege to foreign legations in China in 1900. After Western troops defeated the Boxers, Tz’u Hsi was forced to pay a large indemnity to foreign nations. Tz’u Hsi was out of touch with the empire’s problems.The bureaucracy was rife with corruption, while foreign nations constantly encroached on Chinese territory. Tz’u Hsi was also extravagant. In 1893, she diverted money from the navy to build herself a palace, complete with a huge marble boat. China’s ill-equipped navy was routed by the Japanese in 1894, losing the war over Korea. Emperor Guang Xu asserted himself in 1898 by issuing the “Hundred Days’ Reform,” a series of edicts that called for sweeping reforms to modernize China’s institutions. The conservative Tz’u Hsi opposed the reforms and ordered Guang Xu locked up in the summer palace, where he remained a virtual prisoner for the rest of his life. In her final years, Tz’u Hsi abandoned some of her conservativism, promising to institute constitutional government by 1916. She died in 1908 at age

Uighur Empire seventy-three. In a highly suspicious coincidence, the thirty-seven-year-old Guang Xu had died the previous day. Tz’u Hsi had chosen a grandnephew, the three-year-old P’u I (Pu Yi), to succeed him. See also: Ch’ing (Qing) Dynasty; Pu Yi.

U UDAIPUR KINGDOM (ca. 1568–1707 C.E.)

Rajput kingdom that arose in the northeastern Rajasthan region of India during the reign of the Mughal Empire. Udaipur originally existed as a city in the kingdom of Mewar in the Rajasthan region of India. During the reign of the Mewar king, Udaya Singh (r. 1537–1572), in the mid-sixteenth century, a series of violent Mughal raids razed the Mewar capital at Chitor. In 1568, after the last of these raids, Udaya Singh constructed the city of Udaipur, which would eventually replace Chitor as the capital. Udaipur was built in the mountainous region of Mewar, making it easier to defend than the more exposed Chitor. Udaya Singh soon utilized this new refuge. In 1568, the Mughal emperor, Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605), invaded Rajasthan again. Udaya fled Chitor, leaving 8,000 soldiers and 40,000 residents to oppose the Mughals. When Akbar and his massive army approached, the defenders launched a jauhar, or a suicidal attack against the more powerful enemy. Akbar slaughtered all of the defenders and completely destroyed all remains of Chitor. Subsequently, Udaipur became the new capital of Mewar. In 1654, after nearly a century of subservience to the Mughals, Mewar sought to regain its independence.The Mewar ruler at that time, Raja Singh I (r. 1652–1680), deliberately reconstructed the Chitor fortress. But Shah Jahan (r. 1628–1658), the Mughal emperor, discovered this activity and sent an expedi-

973

tionary force to oversee the permanent destruction of the fortress and occupy the region around Chitor. As a result, Raja Singh only retained control of the area surrounding Udaipur. The kingdom thus came to be known as Udaipur instead of Mewar. Three years later, in 1657, Shah Jahan became extremely ill, and a struggle arose among his sons for control of the empire. Raja Singh wisely allied himself with the emperor’s son, Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707), and helped him to eventually secure the Mughal throne. In return, Aurangzeb gave Raja Singh title to four districts surrounding Udaipur and a large payment of treasure. Under Aurangzeb’s beneficence, Udaipur reached the peak of its power. Soon, however, Aurangzeb extorted his weaker ally. The emperor wished to completely subjugate Rajasthan, and Udaipur offered the quickest path to that goal. To stem the impending invasion, Jaya Singh (r. 1680–1699), Raja Singh’s successor, signed a new treaty with the Mughal Empire in 1681. He ceded several strategic districts to the Mughals and pledged military support for the Mughal campaign against Rajasthan. He also swore that his heir would be a Mughal vassal. The treaty temporarily sustained the stability and autonomy of Udaipur. But it also irrevocably linked Udaipur with the Mughal Empire. When the empire’s dominance faded, Udaipur lacked any support. The other Rajasthan states, resentful of Udaipur’s alliance with and obedience to the Mughals, attacked and soon crippled the kingdom. In 1770, the British easily overtook the weakened Udaipur kingdom and incorporated it into their expanding Indian colony. See also: Aurangzeb; Indian Kingdoms; Jahan, Shah; Mughal Empire; Rajasthan Kingdom.

UIGHUR EMPIRE (744–840 C.E.) Empire established in western China and Mongolia by the Uighurs, a nomadic people who overthrew the Turkish khanate in Mongolia in the 700s c.e. and established their own state. In the third century, a group of Turkish tribes moved across Asia and settled in the vast plains of western China. For almost three hundred years, a tribe called the Tuchuehs dominated the others and established a Muslim khanate. During the seventh century, however, the nomadic Uighurs formed an alliance known as the “Nine Clans.”

974

Uighur Empire

These nine tribes increasingly resisted Turkish control of Mongolia. In 744, their resistance culminated in a fierce battle. The nine clans, led by the Uighurs, emerged victorious and ended Turkish control of the region. Buoyed by their role in the victory, the Uighurs subjugated the other tribes and formed their own empire. Kuli Peilo (Qutlugh Bilga Kul Khan) (r. 744–747), a mighty Uighur warrior, became the empire’s first ruler. In 747 Peilo’s successor, Moyencho (Bolmish Bilga Khan) (r. 747–759), constructed a capital named Karabalghasun on the Orkhon River. Attempting to curb the Uighurs’ nomadic lifestyle, Moyencho oversaw the cultivation of permanent farmland, formed a variety of artisan guilds, and erected a second city on the Selenga River to serve as a commercial center. He also instituted Manichaeism as the official state religion. Although the Uighurs did not completely abandon their nomadic traditions, they established a culture and literature that were widely admired in Asia. As the Uighur society developed, the Uighur monarchs established an uneasy relationship with the T’ang dynasty of China.The Chinese had initially attempted to conquer the Uighurs, but the Uighurs possessed a highly skilled cavalry and defeated the attackers. Recognizing their strength, the Uighurs exerted control over the portion of the Silk Road that passed through their territory, exacting heavy taxes from all merchants who passed through their domain. The Chinese ruefully paid these taxes because they knew the Uighurs possessed the power to block all trade along their stretch of the Silk Road. Eventually, the Uighurs formed a tenuous alliance with the T’ang dynasty because the formidable Tibetan army threatened both groups.With their combined forces, the Uighurs and Chinese were able to deter a potential Tibetan invasion in the mid-eighth century. When the Chinese rebel, An Lu-shan, attempted to overthrow the T’ang dynasty in 755, the Uighurs honored their alliance with the T’ang. The combined forces of the Uighur cavalry with the T’ang army easily defeated An Lu-shan’s rebels. After stopping the rebellion, the T’ang monarch, envious of the Uighur cavalry, negotiated an agreement with the Uighurs under which the Uighurs would provide horses and training in return for Chinese silk. Both kingdoms initially benefited, but by the 780s, the Uighurs increasingly manipulated the arrangement. They provided their weakest horses to the Chinese, yet they still received the choicest silks. They angered the

Chinese by treating them with disdain and mocking their military proficiency. Uighur clans also sporadically looted western Chinese communities. Still, the alliance between the Uighurs and the T’ang dynasty persisted because Tibet posed a constant threat, and the Uighur cavalry, combined with the Chinese army, provided the best deterrent to a Tibetan invasion. In 788, the Tibetan ruler allied with the Pratihara Raja of India and proposed a joint invasion of China. Meanwhile, to fortify the alliance between the Uighurs and the T’ang dynasty, the Uighur qaghan, or emperor, married a T’ang princess. In 821, another marriage occurred between the two royal families, and the Uighur qaghan demanded a massive dowry of silk, jewels, pottery, and other handicrafts.The Uighurs continued their unbalanced trade with the Chinese, threatening to blockade the Silk Route if the Chinese refused. Largely as a result of this unbalanced trade, the Uighurs enjoyed their greatest power and prosperity during the early years of the ninth century. Uighur fortunes rapidly diminished thereafter, however. In the early 830s, internal strife crippled the Tibetan kingdom. Freed from this threat, the Chinese rejected their enforced trade agreement with the Uighurs. At first, the Uighurs threatened to attack the Chinese. But in 840, the last Uighur emperor died without leaving a successor. The absence of a strong leader soon weakened the Uighur Empire, leaving it highly vulnerable. In 844, the Kirghiz people invaded from the north and overran both the Uighur Empire and Tibet. China, less fearful of the Kirghiz than the Uighur cavalry, refused to aid their former allies.The Uighurs fled to the south and established a new kingdom called Kocho, but they were eventually conquered by the Mongols. See also: T’ang Dynasty;Tibetan Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Ben-Adam, Justin. Oasis Identities: Uighur Nationalism along China’s Silk Road. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

ULSTER KINGDOM (353 B.C.E.–1603 C.E.) An ancient and medieval kingdom in northern Ireland. At the beginning of the Christian era, most of

U m ay ya d D y n a s t y northern Ireland was ruled by a people called the Ulaid, probably Celts from Britain. (Ulster comes from Ulaid plus the Norse stadhr or place.)

THE UÍ NEILL KINGS In the fifth century, the Ulaid were subjugated by the Uí Neill dynasty, who established their rule over the territory.The Uí Neill traced their descent from Eremon, one of the two sons of Míle Easpain, who, according to legend, had arrived in Ireland at the end of the second millennium b.c.e. The name of the dynasty came from a descendant of Eremon named Niall Naoi-Ghiallach (r. ca. 445–452 c.e.), a high king of Ireland. His nickname, “Niall of the Nine Hostages,” indicates that he was a powerful ruler and conqueror. According to legend, Niall carried out sea raids along the coasts of England, Scotland, France and Italy. By Niall’s time, Ulster was divided into three kingdoms: Uladh or Ulida (home of the Ulaid), Orghialla or Oriel to the south, and Tir Eóghain or Tyrone to the northwest. Niall’s sons set up the northern Uí Neill kingdom in Ulster, while another branch of the family set up the southern Uí Neill kingdoms in the kingdom of Meath. The dynastic designation Uí Neill became the name O’Neill after the death of high king Niall Glúin Dubh (r. 916–919), when his grandson Domnall (r. 956–980) became the first to adopt this surname.

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE ENGLISH In 1169, the English conquest of Ulster began when a Norman knight, John de Courcy, invaded Ireland and established an earldom at Ulster. But the Norman invasion met with resistance from Ulster king Aodh Macaemb Toinsleag (r. 1166–1177), who came to the aid of the Irish high king, Rory O’Connor (r. 1166–1186), in his fight against Henry II (r. 1154–1189) of England. Aodh was killed in battle by the Normans in 1177, but the resistance in Ulster continued. Ulster king Brian O’Neill (r. 1241–1260) was the last native high king of Ireland. He joined an Irish confederacy to drive out the English in 1256 but was defeated and killed by the Normans at the battle of Downpatrick in 1260. Brian’s son, Domnall (r. 1283–1325), became king in 1283 but was deposed by the Normans.The Irish restored him in 1295, and he continued to reign until 1325. In the fourteenth century, the O’Neill divided

975

into two branches: the O’Neill of Tyrone and the O’Neill of Clandeboy. All but two of the subsequent kings of Ulster came from the line of Tyrone. In 1542, after Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) of England declared himself king of Ireland, the king of Ulster, Conn Bacach (r. 1520–1559), submitted to the English king in exchange for becoming earl of Ulster, but his outraged people rebelled on his return home. His youngest son, Seán an Díomais (r. 1559–1567), succeeded him and carried on the war against the English. A peace was declared, and Seán went to England to hold a conference with Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603), in which he defended the rule of the Irish kings. His successor, Tairrdelbach Luimneach O’Neill (r. 1567–1593), defeated Walter, the earl of Essex, and consolidated the peace. He abdicated in 1593 in favor of Aodh Ruadh (Red Hugh) (r. 1593–1603), the last Irish king of Ulster, who carried on the war against the English until he was defeated in battle at Kinsale in 1601 and went into exile in 1603. See also: Connaught Kingdom; Leinster Kingdom; Meath Kingdom.

UMAYYAD DYNASTY (ca. 600–1009 C.E.)

Middle Eastern Islamic dynasty with roots in the preIslamic age, whose leaders ruled as caliphs from the ancient city of Baghdad (in present-day Iraq). The Umayyad dynasty originated in pre-Islamic Arabia as a prominent Meccan family called the Banu Umayya, named after a founding ancestor, Ummaya, who was a distant relative of the Prophet Muhammad.As converts to Islam, the Umayyads preserved their power and influence in the new political and religious regime created by the Prophet in the early 600s.

EARLY RULE In 644, Uthman ibn Affan, a member of the Umayyad dynasty, became the third caliph of Islam (r. 644– 656). However, he was assassinated in 656, and Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin, became the fourth caliph (r. 656–661). Uthman’s Umayyad kin resented Ali’s election as caliph. One of them, Muawiya ibn Ali Sufyan, used his position as governor of Syria to help challenge

976

U m ay ya d D y n a s t y

One of the oldest Islamic houses of worship in the world, the Great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria, was built between 705 and 715 c.e. on the site of a former Roman temple and a later Christian basilica. The magnificent interior courtyard is decorated with mosaics and surrounded by dozens of arches.

Ali’s rule, resulting in a civil war within the new Islamic community.The two rivals fought at the battle of Siffin in 657 and then decided to negotiate. Ali, whose authority and popularity were undermined by his willingness to agree to arbitration, was assassinated in 661. Muawiya (r. 662–680) then proclaimed himself caliph and made Damascus the capital of the Islamic caliphate. Muawiya worked to consolidate his rule, making a truce with the Byzantine Empire and relying on family and tribal alliances. His reign is traditionally viewed as the start of a new phase in Islamic history, marking the shift from the reigns of the first four caliphs, regarded as religiously chosen, to a hereditary dynastic caliphate. Muawiya designated his son Yazid as his successor, but at Muawiya’s death in 680,Yazid was challenged

by Husayn, the son of Ali ibn Ali Talib and the Prophet’s daughter Fatima. Husayn died in the resulting battle at Karbala in Iraq in 680, and Yazid ruled as caliph (r. 680–683). After Yazid’s death in 683, civil war erupted again, and another branch of the Banu Umayya took control, with Marwan I ruling Syria and Egypt (r. 684–685). Marwan’s son and successor,Abd al-Malik (r. 685–705), reconquered areas that had split away during the civil wars, including Iraq.

DECLINING POWER The legacy of civil war and autocratic rule tarnished the image of the Umayyads in many histories, especially those written during succeeding Islamic dynasties. Nonetheless, from their capital of Damascus, the Umayyad caliphs formed a highly successful dy-

U n i t e d A r a b E m i r at e s nasty. Under the reign of Abd al-Malik and that of his son al-Walid (r. 705–715), Islamic armies conquered North Africa and Spain and nearly took Constantinople from the Byzantines.They also made some headway into India and Central Asia. Abd al-Malik also supervised construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and started work on the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. Under Umayyad rule, the Islamic faith began to spread among the conquered Arab peoples of the eastern Mediterranean, creating a new group of faithful who were distinct from the conquering armies that had originated in the Arabian Peninsula. Over time, however, increasing territorial expansion and diversity of the empire helped undermine the Umayyad dynasty that had enabled Islam to flourish. In 717, the dynasty suffered a destabilizing defeat by the Byzantine army. Internal tribal feuding and Egypt-based Abbasid opposition to Umayyad rule became stronger, and in 744 Caliph Walid II (r. 743–744) was assassinated.Yet another civil war followed, and in 750 the Abbasid dynasty of Egypt deposed the last Umayyad caliph, Marwan II (r. 744–750), and slaughtered most of his family.

UMAYYAD RULE IN IBERIA One Umayyad prince, Abd al-Rahman ibn Muawiya, escaped the Abbasid conquest and slaughter and fled Syria for the Iberian Peninsula. In 755 he took control of al-Andalus, the Muslim-ruled region in southern Iberia that the Umayyads had taken from the Visigoths in 711. Abd al-Rahman (r. 756–788) made Córdoba the capital of this new Umayyad dynasty, which became one of the most renowned of all Islamic kingdoms. Abd al-Rahman began construction of a Great Mosque in the city of Córdoba and started to create a capital to rival Damascus. His descendant and namesake,Abd al-Rahman III (r. 912–961), governed al-Andalus at its peak of power as caliph of Córdoba. During his rule, that city was a great intellectual and religious center where Muslims, Jews, and Christians co-existed peacefully and prosperously. Islamic Spain continued to flourish under alHakam II, who ruled from 961 to 976 and founded a great library in Córdoba. At the beginning of the eleventh century, however, the Umayyad caliphate in Córdoba began to fragment due to financial pressures and war with neighboring states. By the 1010s, al-Andalus had become a collection of smaller kingdoms. These separate kingdoms were not reunited

977

until the 1050s, when the Almoravid dynasty conquered the splinter states and ended Umayyad rule. See also: Abbasid Dynasty; Almoravid Dynasty; Islam and Kingship.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (1971–Present)

Country on the eastern Arabian Peninsula, bordering the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, that is a federation of seven sheikdoms: Abu Dhabi (the capital), Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Qaiwain, Ras al-Khaimah, and Fujairah. The country’s diverse geography includes a vast desert interior, coastal lowlands along the shore of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, the rocky Hajar Mountains in the north, and nearly two hundred islands in the Gulf.The area has been almost entirely Islamic since the seventh century. Archaeological evidence indicates that humans first inhabited the area of the present-day United Arab Emirates around 6000 or 5000 b.c.e. By 600 c.e. the area experienced migration mostly from Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The area changed little for centuries. Then, in the early 1500s, Portugal seized control of the rich shipping opportunities that had developed in the Gulf. Great Britain took over about a century later when one of the local tribes, the Qawasim, threatened British maritime dominance in the Gulf.The British forced a series of truces on the native rulers between 1820 and 1892 (when the emirates were called the Trucial States), restricting the area’s international trade in return for British protection. Following World War II, Great Britain returned autonomy to the emirates and left the area completely when the federation of the United Arab Emirates was formed in 1971. Meanwhile, vast quantities of oil had been discovered around 1960 in Abu Dhabi, which became the capital of the new federation. Oil exports brought significant revenue to Abu Dhabi, whose ruler, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan (r. 1966–2004), used the new riches to modernize his emirate. He also distributed some of the wealth to the other emirates that did not have major oil reserves. The remarkable guidance of Sheikh Zayed and the rulers of the other emirates, along with an effective new political structure that combined federal jurisdiction

978

U n i t e d A r a b E m i r at e s

with local authority in individual emirates, enabled the United Arab Emirates to become a notable example of Arab unity and political stability. At the top of the federal government is the Supreme Council, which consists of the rulers of each emirate. Those seven rulers elect the country’s president and vice president from among themselves for five-year terms. Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Zayed was elected president for the first term and has been reelected ever since. The president, in consultation with the Supreme Council, chooses a prime minister to head the Council of Ministers, an executive body with twenty-one members selected from the various emirates. On the legislative side, the forty-member Federal National Council has the power to amend proposed federal laws and the authority to question the performance of any federal ministry when it receives citizens’ complaints. The emirates’ members on this council are proportional in number to their population and are chosen by the rulers. The federal government also has an independent judiciary branch, whose highest court is the Supreme Court, composed of five judges appointed by the Supreme Council. The judges rule on the constitutionality of federal laws and arbitrate disputes between emirates. The lower Courts of First Instance mainly hear commercial and civil cases between the federal government and citizens of the Emirates. Each of the emirates also has a court system for cases that are not under federal jurisdiction. This governmental structure has served the country well, and the United Arab Emirates has changed from one of the poorest nations in the world to one of the richest.The political leaders also have been astute enough to diversify the economy, taking advantage of agricultural, manufacturing, and mining resources so that the country is not dependent only on oil and natural gas. As a result, the United Arab Emirates has become a leading center of trade and commerce in the Middle East.

URARTU KINGDOM (ca. 1000–600 B.C.E.)

Ancient kingdom located in mountainous regions of eastern Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and Armenia (in the Caucasus region), known for its ongoing

provocation of the powerful Assyrian Empire. In the Hebrew Bible, the kingdom of Urartu is referred to as Ararat. Around 1000 b.c.e., disparate groups of Hurrian tribes in eastern Anatolia united to form the kingdom of Urartu. The most likely explanation for the banding together of the Hurrians was to provide stronger defense against their enemies, most notably the powerful Assyrians of Mesopotamia. The kingdom of Urartu was centered in the highlands surrounding Lake Van, north of the Tigris River. The first king of Urartu was called Arame (r. ca. 1000–? b.c.e.). The kingdom of Urartu was almost constantly at war with the Assyrians to their south. Unable to defeat the powerful Assyriana in any battles, Urartu nevertheless remained a difficult enemy for Assyria. Around 850 b.c.e., King Sarduri I of Urartu (r. ca. 850–? b.c.e.) founded a capital city in a wellfortified location at Van, overlooking a lake and surrounded by high mountains. With the Assyrian empire in a period of decline at this time, Sarduri began an expansion of Urartu territory that lasted for the next century. Urartu became an important and significant power in the region under Menua (r. ca. 810–785 b.c.e.). Its territory grew as far as Lake Urmia in the east and northern Syria in the west. Most importantly, its conquests gave Urartu control of the important caravan trade routes through the area. By the reign of Argitis I (r. ca. 785–750 b.c.e.), Urartu had achieved its greatest stature, rivaling the size and influence of the Assyrians at this time. The Assyrians regained their strength under Tiglath-pileser III (r. 745–727 b.c.e.), who managed to defeat King Sarduris II of Urartu (r. 750–735 b.c.e.) in a series of campaigns and regain control of much of Assyrian territory in the south. In 736 b.c.e., Tiglath-pileser attempted to capture the Urartian capital at Van. Although Tiglath-pileser failed to capture the capital for his own, the Urartian kingdom never fully recovered from these battles. It was a badly weakened Urartu that faced Sargon II of Assyria (r. 722–705 b.c.e.) in 714 b.c.e. King Rusas of Urartu (r. 735–714 b.c.e.), the son and successor of Sarduris II, suffered defeat and annexation by Assyria. Despite this victory, however, Urartu remained relatively powerful and prosperous for several decades. Soon, however, Urartu faced another formidable threat, repeated invasions by warriors from the Cau-

Uthman dan Fodio casus Mountains and beyond in the north—the Cimmerians and Scythians.These invasions further weakened the kingdom, and when the Medes and Babylonians destroyed the Assyrian Empire around 600 b.c.e., the kingdom of Urartu was absorbed by the Medes kingdom and ceased to exist. See also: Assyrian Empire; Medes Kingdom; Sargon II; Scythian Empire;Tiglath-Pileser III.

UR-NAMMU (d. ca. 2095 B.C.E.) Ancient ruler of Ur (r. ca. 2112–2094 b.c.e.), a citystate in Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, and founder of the kingdom’s Third dynasty, who some scholars believe was the author of the first recorded set of law codes. Little is known about the life of Ur-Nammu before he became king of Ur. A successful general, he was made military governor of Ur by King Utukhegal of Uruk (r. ca. 2119–2112 b.c.e.). Upon Utukhegal’s death, Ur-Nammu proclaimed himself king, assuming a number of titles, including lord of Uruk, lord of Ur, and king of Sumer and Akkad. As king, Ur-Nammu set about to extend his influence in southern and central Mesopotamia, largely through diplomacy and negotiation rather than military conquest. One exception to this, however, was his conquest of the rival city-state of Lagash, which Ur-Nammu apparently undertook in order to redirect trade routes in southern Mesopotamia. Ur-Nammu proved to be a skilled and competent ruler. Under his rule, Ur regained many former territories, and it established trading practices that brought great prosperity, making Ur the wealthiest city-state in Mesopotamia. Ur-Nammu launched a major building program as well, constructing irrigation canals, temples, and other buildings and public works. One of the most magnificent buildings started during the reign of Ur-Nammu was a ziggurat, or tower-temple, built in honor of Nanna, the moon-god of Ur. The remains of this ziggurat still stand today at the site of Ur in presentday Iraq. Ur-Nammu is also is credited with fostering a revival in the arts and in Sumerian literature. Ur-Nammu was one of the first rulers of the ancient world to write down a code of law for his subjects, although some scholars attribute this codification to his son and successor, Shulgi (r. ca. 2094–2047 b.c.e.). Fragments of these laws have been found writ-

979

ten on ancient cuneiform tablets at archaeological sites at Ur. Unusual in a time of harsh punishments such as “an eye for an eye,” Ur-Nammu set monetary punishments for most crimes instead. Ur-Nammu died in battle while waging war against the Gutians, a nomadic people to the east who once ruled Ur but had been driven out by King Utukhegal. Upon his death, the throne passed to his son, Shulgi, during whose fifty-year reign Ur expanded even further to the east and north. See also: Akkad, Kingdom of; Shulgi.

UTHMAN DAN FODIO (1754–1817 C.E.) First ruler (r. 1804–1817) of the Sokoto caliphate of northern Nigeria, who is remembered as much for his scholarship as for his political achievements. Pilgrims still travel to his tomb in Sokoto to pay their respects. Uthman dan Fodio was born to a learned Islamic family in the Fulani town of Gobir, in present-day Nigeria. His full name was Uthman ibn Muhammad Fudi ibn Uthman ibn Salih. Classically educated in Islam, he learned to speak Arabic fluently. Uthman began his adult life in the tradition of his family, first as a scholar and, later, as preacher of Islam. His role as a Muslim teacher took him throughout Fulani territory. As a preacher in rural areas and small towns, he broke with customary practice and spoke in the simple vernacular of the common people. Before long, Uthman had gathered a large following of students and supporters, which brought him to the attention of the court of the sultan at Gobir, one of the Hausa kingdoms of northern Nigeris. By the end of the eighteenth century, Uthman had spread his message of hope for the poor far and wide. His popularity dismayed the sultan, however, who saw the young Islamic scholar as a potential threat and determined to remove him from the sultanate. But Uthman succeeded in getting himself elected imam (religious leader) and declared a jihad (holy war) against all who refused to acknowledge his authority. Uthman’s call to arms inspired many of his followers to fight in his name. By 1806, Uthman was ready to extend his jihad beyond Fulani territory, into neighboring Hausaland. Within two years, his supporters had taken the powerful city of Zaria, the last stronghold of Hausa resis-

980

Uthman dan Fodio

tance against Uthman’s expansion. With this conquest, Uthman completed the creation of the Sokoto caliphate. To make his rule more effective, he established four regional districts, and delegated control over them to loyal members of his family. Now approaching age sixty, Uthman retired from rule, becoming once again a teacher. He moved to Sokoto in 1815, and this town became the seat of his government. Uthman died there two years later. See also: Sokoto Caliphate. FURTHER READING

Last, Murray. The Sokoto Caliphate. New York: Humanities Press, 1967.

UTKALA (ORISSA) KINGDOM (ca. 1076–1568 C.E.)

Kingdom that existed on India’s east coast between Bengal and Vijayanagar from the eleventh through sixteenth centuries. Around 1076, a tribal leader named Anantavarman Choda Ganga (r. ca. 1076–1118) united the small tribes that inhabited the region south of Bengal in India. He named the new kingdom Orissa (today it is known as Utkala) and installed himself as the kingdom’s first monarch. The new ruler vigorously supported the region’s Hindu traditions and he erected a large temple at Puri. Ganga and his successors, most notably Narasimha I (r. ca. 1238–1264), constantly struggled to protect Orissa (Utkala) from Muslim invasion. For two centuries, Muslim control had extended across the Deccan, and only the kingdoms of Orissa and Vijayanagar remained unconquered. However, these two kingdoms failed to unite because of periodic disputes over the small kingdom of Kondavidu, which was located between them. After the death of Narasimha I in 1264, the Muslims, first during the Tughluq dynasty and then during the Bahmani dynasty, steadily encroached into Orissan territory and eroded the authority of its monarchs. Finally, in 1434, the citizens of Orissa, dismayed by the kingdom’s decline, rebelled against the monarchy.A merchant named Kapilendra led the insurrection. With the support of the vaishyas, or members of the working class, he overthrew the last

ruler of the Ganga dynasty, Bhanudeva IV (r. ca. 1414–1434), and became king. Kapilendra (r. 1434–1467) established the Suryavamsa dynasty. He immediately sought to reacquire Orissa’s lost lands and, in doing so, he expanded the kingdom even further. In 1454 he conquered the kingdom of Kondavidu to the south, while in the north he annexed portions of Bengal, pushing Orissa’s border past its traditional boundary at the Ganga River. Kapilendra, however, lacked the diplomatic skill needed to sustain his conquests. Religious differences prevented peaceful relations with Bengal and the Bahmani kingdom, and Kapilendra avoided making an alliance with Vijayanagar because of past disputes with that kingdom. Consequently, Kapilendra’s successors failed to maintain his advances. First, his son, Purushottama (r. 1467–1497), lost Kondavidu to the Bahmanis. His successor, Prataparuda (r. 1497–1540), relinquished much of Orissa’s southern territory to Vijayanagar, while the northern conquests were returned to Bengal. During the reign of Prataparuda, Orissa lost its preeminent position. Prataparuda died in 1540, and the Suryavamsa dynasty, which had originally sprung from civil unrest, succumbed to new unrest. Members of the writer caste, led by a leader named Govind, used the kingdom’s misfortunes to incite the public to rebellion. Govind (r. 1541–1549) then seized the throne and formed the Bhoi dynasty. However, the Bhoi rulers failed to reverse Orissa’s misfortunes and yet another revolt erupted. In 1559, an Orissan general, Mukunda Harichandana (r. 1560–1568), staged a coup to prevent an imminent Muslim invasion of the kingdom. But in 1568, despite Mukunda’s efforts, Bengal easily overwhelmed the feeble kingdom. Orissa had withstood threats from three stronger enemies for five centuries, but the resulting turmoil finally led to its demise. See also: Bahmani Dynasty; Indian Kingdoms; Kondavidu Kingdom;Vijayanagar Empire.

UZBEK KINGDOM (ca. 1500s–1865 C.E.) Central Asian kingdom established by the Uzbeks, a nomadic group of people who united under the leadership of Khan Abdullah (r. 1538–1598) in the sixteenth century, who invaded the area now known as Uzbekistan.

Va k a t a k a D y n a s t y The Uzbek people took their name from Uzbeg Khan (r. 1312–1340), a leader from the Golden Horde khanate from whom they claimed dynastic descent. By 1510, after defeating the states controlled by the Timurid dynasty, the Uzbek controlled the area between the Amu-Darya River and the SyrDarya River to the south and east of the Aral Sea. The Uzbeki ruler, Khan Abdullah (r. 1538–1598), extended his rule over parts of Persia, Afghanistan, and Turkistan. But his empire broke up into separate principalities—the khanate of Khiva and the khanate of Bukhara (Bulchoro)—around 1586, when Abdullah was defeated in battle by the future Safavid ruler of Iran, Shah Abbas I (r. 1588–1629). By the late sixteenth century, the Uzbek khans controlled much of what is now Central Asia, and they remained in control of that region until the late 1800s. Of the two Uzbek states, the khanate of Khiva (1511–1920), located in the steppes north and east of present-day Uzbekistan, was ruled by the ArabShahid dynasty (ca. 1515–1804) and the Quongrat dynasty (ca. 1763–1920). The khanate of Bukhara (1533–1920), located in the area that includes parts of the present-day republics of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, was controlled first by the Shaibanid dynasty (1533–1756) and then by the Manghit dynasty (1756–1920). The Uzbek leader, Khan Shah Rukh Beg (r. ca. 1700–?), established the khanate of Khokand at the beginning of the eighteenth century. It consisted of an area that included part of present-day Turkmenistan. The city of Khokand served as the western capital of the Chinese Ming dynasty from 1777 to 1825. In the early eighteenth century, the khan of Khiva asked Russian tsar Peter the Great (r. 1682–1725) for help in defending his land against the Turkmen and Kazaks. By the time Russian help arrived in 1717, it was no longer needed because many of the Uzbeks had been massacred. Tsar Nicholas I (r. 1825–1855) made another effort to enter the area in 1839, with little success. Conflict with Russia started in 1865. By the end of the hostilities, the khanates of Bukhara and Khiva were joined to the Russian Empire in 1868 and 1873, respectively. Kokand was annexed into the Russian Empire in 1876. Both Khiva and Bukhara remained under their native khans as Russian protectorates until the Red Army conquered the region during the Russian civil war. On February 2, 1920, Soviet troops captured

981

Khiva, resulting in the abolition of the khanate of Khiva. In September 1920, Soviet troops captured Bukhara, and that khanate was abolished. In December 1922, Uzbekistan, the region of the former Uzbek khanates, became one of the republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. See also: Golden Horde Khanate; Safavid Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Allworth, Edward A. The Modern Uzbeks: From the 14th Century to the Present:A Cultural History (Studies of Nationalities of the USSR). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1990. Macleod, Calcum, and Bradley Mayhew. Uzbekistan: The Golden Road to Samarkand (Odyssey Guides). New York: Odyssey, 2002. Soucek, Svatopluk. A History of Inner Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

V VAKATAKA DYNASTY (ca. 220–520 C.E.) Dynasty that emerged in the Deccan plateau region of India during the third century. The Vakataka dynasty assumed control over parts of the Deccan plateau region when the Satavahana dynasty collapsed in the early years of the third century. The Satavahanas had controlled much of the Deccan for nearly three centuries, but they relied upon feudal governors to oversee much of their vast empire.When the dynasty crumbled as a result of internal struggles and external threats from the Maharashtra state, these governors turned their feudal states into autonomous kingdoms. Vindhyasakti (r. ca. 255–275), the first Vakataka monarch, had been one of these feudal governors, appointed by the Satavahanas to govern the Madhya Pradesh and Berar regions.When the Satavahana dy-

982

Va k a t a k a D y n a s t y

nasty faltered, Vindhyasakti took control of the regions and established the Vakataka dynasty. His accession to the throne was fairly peaceful because the Satavahanas lacked the strength to oppose him and the local inhabitants did not offer any resistance. Some historians believe that Vindhyasakti attacked his former rulers and annexed parts of central India, but textual proof for such speculation is unreliable. When Vindhyasakti died after a long reign, he was succeeded by his son, Pravarasena I (r. ca. 275–335). Pravarasena I forcefully consolidated his realm, conquering the remaining parts of Madhya Pradesh and Berar and leading several successful invasions into central India. Records describe him as the “universal king” because he gained control over much of the Deccan region. Pravarasena I also vigorously supported the Brahmanical religion, the forerunner of modern Hinduism. Pilgrims from across India journeyed to Madhya Pradesh to witness the massive sacrifices that Pravarasena commissioned for Brahmanical rites. After the death of Pravarasena’s successor, Rudrasena I (r. ca. 335–360), in the mid-fourth century, the Vakatakas increasingly fell under control of the Guptas, a powerful dynasty from western India.The Gupta monarchs arranged repeated marriages between their family and the Vakatakas, and the Vakataka monarchs soon adopted the Gupta ancestry instead of their own. After the death of the Vakatakan king Rudrasena II (r. ca. 385–390) in the late fourth century, only a young son was left to succeed him. Because Rudrasena’s wife, Prabhavati Gupta, was a Guptan princess, the ruler of the Gupta Empire expected to gain even greater control over the Vakatakan dynasty. But Prabhavati protected her son from Guptan influence and raised him to free the Vakatakas from Guptan domination. In 410, when Pravarasena II finally took the throne, he followed his mother’s wishes and expelled the Guptas from all Vakataka territory. Pravarasena II also conquered parts of the Malwa Empire of central India. Freed of Guptan influence, the Vakatakas enjoyed another century of autonomy. Their control over Madhya Pradesh and Berar remained unchallenged until the early part of the sixth century. In 510, the Vakataka monarch, Harishena (r. ca. 480–510), died without leaving any heirs. During the resulting struggle for succession, the Chalukya dynasty of the western Deccan region invaded the Vakataka kingdom and ended nearly three centuries of Vakataka control in western India.

See also: Gupta Empire; Indian Kingdoms; Satavahana Dynasty.

VALOIS DYNASTY (1328–1589 C.E.) French ruling dynasty that began with King Philip VI (r. 1328–1350) and ended in 1589 with the death of Henry III (r. 1574–1589).The Valois dynasty saw the transition of France from the uncertainty of a medieval feudal kingdom to a strong and centralized state.The house of Valois, which took its name from the Valois region of northeastern France, followed the Capetian dynasty and preceded the Bourbon dynasty on the throne. When the Capetian ruler Charles IV (r. 1322– 1328) died without a male heir in 1328, Salic Law (which prohibited female succession) prevented his daughters from inheriting the throne. Thus, Philip of Valois, a first cousin of the king and grandson of Philip III (r. 1270–1285), became Philip VI of France. His succession was disputed by a nephew of Charles IV, Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), which contributed to the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453). The first seven Valois monarchs, known as the Capetian Valois (1328–1498), passed the succession from father to son, and later to Valois cousins under the Orleans and Angouleme branches of the family. During the early years of the Valois dynasty, the monarchy was beset by war and crises, including the capture of King John II (r. 1350–1364) by the English at the battle of Poltiers in 1356. During the reign of Charles V (r. 1364–1380), however, the monarchy began to recover. Moreover, during his reign, formalized and theatrical rituals, such as an elaborate coronation ceremony, helped strengthen the idea of the king as an almost sacred figure. During the reign of Charles VII (r. 1422–1461), France ended its war with England in 1453. Through his willingness to pardon those who had supported the English, Charles VII was able to increase his own support and strengthen the French monarchy at the expense of the feudal lords and the Church. Over the next half-century, the marriages and conquests of Louis XI (r. 1461–1483) and Charles VIII (r. 1483–1498) consolidated the basis for modern France. The other rulers of the Valois dynasty were Charles VI the Well Beloved (r. 1380–1422), Louis

Va n d a l K i n g d o m XII (r. 1498–1515), Francis I (r. 1515–1547), Henry II (r. 1547–1559), Francis II (r. 1559–1560), Charles IX (r. 1560–1574), and Henry III (r. 1574–1589). The dynasty came to an end when Henry III died childless in 1589. See also: Bourbon Dynasty; Capetian Dynasty; Charles VII; Francis I; French Monarchies; Louis XI.

VANDAL KINGDOM (400s–534 C.E.) Kingdom of Germanic barbarians that filled the power vacuum caused by the fall of the Roman Empire and eventually located in North Africa. Originating in southern Scandinavia, the Vandals were one of the many Germanic peoples who migrated to the weakened Roman Empire early in the fifth century. The Vandal rulers were sometimes called Kings of the Vandals and the Alans, since, shortly after their entry into the Roman Empire, they had absorbed a fragment of the Iranian-speaking Alan peoples.The Vandals eventually made their way through Spain, finally settling in North Africa under the leadership of the greatest of their kings, Gaiseric (r. 429–477), who had succeeded his brother, Gunderic (r. 406–428), as the Vandal ruler.

983

leader of the time to build a fleet. In 455, he crowned his anti-Roman career by sacking the city of Rome, a sack so destructive that it gave the current meaning to the word “vandal.” After destroying Rome, Gaiseric added Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic Islands to the Vandal kingdom, and he fended off all Roman attempts at counterattack.

VANDAL NORTH AFRICA The Vandals were Arian Christians, a Christian sect that denied the Trinity and claimed that Christ had been created by the Father rather than coexisting with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This belief was common among the various Germanic peoples, including the Ostrogoths and Visigoths. Most of the nonGermanic population of North Africa was not Arian, and unlike many other Arian German kingdoms, the Vandals persecuted the non-Arian population. While Gaiseric regularly plundered and oppressed the Roman population of North Africa, religious persecution aimed specifically at Christians who believed in the Trinity seems to have begun with his son and successor, Hunneric (r. 477–484). The religious distinction between Arians and non-Arians helped the Vandals maintain their separate identity rather than merge with the Romanized North African population they had conquered. Even so, many of the Vandal elite adopted some aspects of the culture of the Roman elite.

THE REIGN OF GAISERIC In 429, Gaiseric led the Vandals across the Straits of Gibraltar to the coast of North Africa. After conquering North Africa, the Vandals agreed, in 435, to settle in the area as allies of the Roman Empire, leaving only the North African state of Carthage under direct Roman control. This agreement proved to be only temporary, for the Vandals took Carthage as well in 439.That year became the starting date of the official Vandal calendar, which was dated by the years that the Vandal king had been on the throne rather than by the years of Roman consuls, as was common in other barbarian territories. The Vandals also differed from other barbarians in not putting the head of the current Roman emperor on their coins. In 442, Rome recognized Gaiseric as the independent ruler of North Africa, rather than as a subordinate ally. Gaiseric fully exploited his highly strategic position. From his North African base, he was able to threaten the heart of the Western Roman Empire in Italy. Gaiseric was the only barbarian

END OF THE VANDAL KINGDOM The Vandal kingdom eventually fell as a result of two main factors: the aggressive policies of Byzantine emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565) in the western Mediterranean, and the division between two claimants for the Vandal throne, Hilderic (r. 523–530) and Gelimer (r. 530–534). Hilderic, whose mother was the daughter of the Roman emperor Valentinian III (r. 425–455), followed a policy of friendship with Byzantium as well as toleration of his Roman Catholic subjects. When the anti-Byzantine Gelimer deposed and imprisoned Hilderic in 531, the Byzantines called for the overthrow of the usurper. Byzantine forces, landing in North Africa in 533 under the leadership of General Belisarius, were welcomed by the Roman population of the Vandal kingdom. Belisarius defeated Gelimer at the battle of Tricamarum in late 533, and Gelimer surrendered the following year. (He had already executed Hilderic.)

984

Va n d a l K i n g d o m

Gelimer was later paraded around the Hippodrome, or racing arena, in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople. The remaining Vandal nobility were taken from North Africa and settled along the Persian frontier of Byzantium.The defeated Vandal kingdom was no more. See also: Byzantine Empire; Justinian I.

VARANGIAN KINGDOMS (ca. 800–1150 C.E.)

Loosely formed kingdoms that preceded the establishment of modern Scandinavian kingdoms such as Sweden and Finland. Early inhabitants of Russia used the designation Variagi to denote members of the tribes of eastern Scandinavia. They also referred to the Baltic Sea as the Varangian Sea.The term derives from the ancient Scandinavian word vaeringjar, which was used to describe Scandinavian warriors who sold their services to the Byzantium Empire. The Varangians’ kingdoms were, in effect, groups of loosely affiliated tribes that populated Scandinavia in the Middle Ages. The tribes were predominantly nomadic, although several sizable settlements developed on the Baltic Sea during the eighth and ninth centuries. These settlements grew into significant economic centers, and Varangian merchants traded both Asian and European goods across northern Europe. The Varangians received the most recognition, however, for their military prowess. Varangian warriors frequently plundered surrounding countries and often fought one another for the opportunity to attack a specific land. The Varangians also served as mercenaries, protecting the nobility and merchants in lands as distant as Greece, Byzantium, and Armenia. However, they achieved their most lasting fame as the founders of the Rus kingdoms in present-day Russia and Ukraine. During the ninth century, leaders of the Rus tribes invited the Varangian leader Rurik to inhabit their lands and protect them from the raids of competing Varangian tribes. Rurik accepted and settled his followers in Novgorod in 862, laying the foundation for what came to be known as Kievan Rus.Two of Rurik’s subordinates, Askold and Dir, with his consent, moved south and occupied Kiev.When Rurik died in

879, his kinsman Oleg (r. 879–912) assumed control of Novgorod and sought to consolidate the Rus kingdoms under his command. He launched a campaign against Askold and Dir that culminated with their executions in 882.That same year, Oleg transferred his capital from Novgorod to Kiev, which remained the capital of Kievan Rus until 1169. Oleg and his successors controlled the Rus kingdoms and later the tsardom of Russia until 1598. They greatly expanded the Rus borders and widely subjected the Rus inhabitants to their rule. Because of this control, some historians contend that the Varangians actually founded modern Russia. However, this ignores the fact that the Slavic inhabitants of the Rus kingdoms greatly outnumbered the Varangians and had settled the land nearly two centuries earlier. Although Oleg and his successors did control the Rus kingdoms for centuries, the majority of Rurik’s original followers were soon assimilated into the Rus population. By 980, when Vladimir Sviatoslavich became Grand Prince Vladimir I of Kiev (r. 980–1015), the Varangians no longer controlled the Rus throne. However, their influence over Rus affairs had not entirely dissipated. Both Vladimir and his son,Yaroslav the Wise (r. 1019–1054), who became grand prince in 1019, paid Varangian mercenaries to once again enter the Rus kingdoms. In these instances, however, the Varangians were not asked to repel foreign invaders. Instead, Vladimir and Yaroslav used the Varangians to fortify their power in Rus and unite the competing principalities. By the early 1100s, the term Variagi had begun to disappear across Europe as the Varangian tribes consolidated and developed into the modern Scandinavian nations. Rus writings from this period refer to the svei, or Swedes, and the murmany, or Norwegians. Variations of these terms also appear in other European historical writings. Ironically, the Russian term variag was transformed to describe a peasant class of peddlers, a far removal from the ferocious implications of the term used to describe their predecessors. Yet the Varangians had a lasting influence on the shape of modern Europe. Their descendants formed the nations of modern Scandinavia, and, although they did not create the Russian state, they helped to preserve it during its earliest years of inception, protecting its Slavic inhabitants and providing them with a governing authority.

Ve n e t i a n D o g e s See also: Kiev, Princedom of; Rurik; Rus Princedoms;Yaroslav I, the Wise. FURTHER READING

Freeze, Gregory L., ed. Russia: A History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia: 980–1584. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

VASA DYNASTY (1523–1654 C.E.) Family of Swedish rulers in the 1500s and 1600s, one of whom, Gustavus II Adolphus (r. 1611–1632), was a leading commander during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). The Vasa dynasty of Sweden was founded by Gustav Vasa or Gustavus I (r. 1523–1560), who was elected king in 1523 when Sweden rose in revolt against the Kalmar Union (1397–1523). During Gustavus I’s reign, Sweden gradually became a Protestant country. Gustavus I was succeeded by his eldest son, Erik XIV (r. 1560–1568). During much of Erik’s reign, Sweden was at war with Poland and Denmark over control of Baltic trade. Mentally unstable, Erik was deposed in 1568 after murdering some of his own nobles. He was succeeded by his brother Johan III (r. 1568–1592). Johan III married the daughter of the king of Poland, and in 1587 their son Sigismund was elected King Sigismund III of Poland (r. 1587–1632), establishing the Vasa dynasty there. On Johan’s death, Sigismund also succeeded to the Swedish throne (r. 1592–1599). But in 1599 he was deposed as king of Sweden in favor of his uncle Carl or Charles IX (r. 1599–1611), as a result of continuing conflicts between Sweden and Poland over Estonia and Sigismund’s adherence to Catholicism. Sigismund was succeeded on the throne of Poland by his sons Wladislaw IV (r. 1632–1648) and John II Casimir (r. 1648–1668). John II Casimir was deposed in 1668, ending Vasa rule in Poland. The son and successor of Carl IX, Gustavus II Adolphus (r. 1611–1632), made Sweden’s armies among the best in Europe, distinguishing himself as a Protestant commander during the Thirty Years’ War. When he was killed during the battle of Lützen in 1632, the throne went to his six-year-old daughter

985

Christina (r. 1632–1654), although the country was ruled by a regent, Axel Oxenstierna, until Christina began ruling in her own right in 1644. Christina abdicated in 1654 in favor of her cousin, Charles X Gustavus (r. 1654–1660). His accession to the throne marks the beginning of the Wittelsbach dynasty. Christina abdicated because of her secret conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. Since 1617, Sweden had required its monarchs to be Lutheran. During the reign of the Vasas, Sweden went from being a troublesome territory ruled by the Danes to an important power in the Baltic region and a significant player in European politics. See also: Christina; Gustavus I (Vasa); Gustavus II (Adolphus); Swedish Monarchy.

VENETIAN DOGES (687–1797 C.E.) Executive officers of the Italian city of Venice from the Middle Ages to the city’s defeat by Napoleon in 1797. Elected from among the city’s aristocrats, the Doges of Venice were, by law, required to live the remainder of their lives in the Doges’ Palace and its surrounding structures and grounds. Italian merchants and fisherman seeking refuge from the invading Germanic Huns founded the Italian city of Venice in 421.The office of doge first appeared in 687, when the leaders of the city elected a single leader to help defend the city against the Lombards. In the seventh and eighth centuries, Venice came under the control of the Byzantine Empire, and doges were chosen by imperial decree. By the year 1000, however, Venice was once again independent and increasing its power and influence throughout the Adriatic and Dalmatian coasts. Venice became exceedingly wealthy during the Crusades, when Venetians provided transport to the Crusaders and helped finance crusading efforts. The ancient Venetian family of Dandolo produced four doges during this period, including Enrico Dandolo (r. 1192–1205), who, in the Fourth Crusade, helped divert the Crusaders in 1202 to Zara and in 1203 to Constantinople.Though aged and blind, Enrico commanded the Crusader fleet in the capture of Constantinople in 1204, ensuring that Venice received the most valuable share of the wealth gained from the effort. Another well-known doge from the Dandolo family, Andrea Dandolo (r. 1343–1354),

986

Ve n e t i a n D o g e s

The doges of Venice were required by law to live in the Palazzo Ducale (Doges’ Palace) after their election. The most impressive secular building in Venice and located in St. Mark’s Square, the palace served not only as the doges’ residence, but also as the senate house, administrative center, hall of justice, public archives, and prison.

had been a professor of law before his election, and he rewrote Venetian law during his tenure. By the late 1300s, members of the great council of Venice, made up of leading nobles, had replaced the general citizenry in the election of the doges.The Council of Ten, as the group became known, gained great power, and the doge became largely only a figurehead. The Republic of Venice reached its peak of power and prosperity in the early 1400s, when it was a great European power, a center of culture and learning, and a wealthy commercial center. By the mid-fifteenth century, however, the city, known as the “queen of the seas,” began to decline, in part because of the fall of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, to the Ottoman Turks.The capture of Constantinople reduced Venetian trade with the Levant, thus limiting the city’s revenues. In addition, the European discovery of the Americas transferred commercial power to Spain, Portugal, and other nations. Venice’s place in European politics diminished further in the sixteenth century, after the French invaded Italy in 1494. Although Venice escaped the initial onslaught by shrewdly allying itself with France,

the city-state could not compete with the larger and growing states of northern and Western Europe. The doges, who were not monarchs as much as executive officers with limited political power, played an important ceremonial role in Venice. On Ascension Day in 1177, Pope Alexander III had given the city a golden ring to commemorate its mastery of the sea. Every year afterward, the ruling doge threw a golden ring into the Adriatic Sea on Ascension Day in symbolic representation of Venice’s marriage with the sea. The fall of Venetian territories to the Ottoman Turks—Cyprus in 1471, Crete in 1669, and the Peloponnesus of Greece in 1715—effectively ended Venetian dominance in the eastern Mediterranean region. By the eighteenth century, the city’s politics were stagnant, the doges merely powerless aristocrats. With the conquest of Italy by Napoleon in 1797,Venice came under the control of Austria, and the political office of the doge effectively ended, as the city fell under Austria’s Habsburg rulers. See also: Byzantine Empire; Lombard Kingdom; Napoleon I (Bonaparte); Ottoman Empire.

Vi c t o r i a

VICTOR EMMANUEL II (1820–1878 C.E.)

King of Sardinia (r. 1849–1861) and the first ruler of a unified kingdom of Italy (r. 1861–1878). A charismatic leader who was popular for his liberal politics, Victor Emmanuel steadfastly lent his support for a unified Italy in the crucial and turbulent 1850s and early 1860s, thus helping to hold together the struggling nation and secure him as its first king. A member of the influential and long-lasting house of Savoy, Victor Emmanuel was born in 1820 to Charles Albert (r. 1831–1849) and Maria Teresa, the king and queen of the independent kingdom of Sardinia, which they ruled from the Piedmont region of mainland Italy. Charles Albert, though a controversial ruler, was able to achieve some favor both at home and abroad for his free-trade economic policies and his somewhat reluctant support of a Sardinian constitution. After two unsuccessful wars against Austria, however, Charles Albert exiled himself to Portugal and turned over the kingdom to his son Victor Emmanuel, who became king in 1849. Victor Emmanuel inspired great loyalty in his people, quickly becoming known as the “Honest King.” This was largely due to his continued support of the constitution drafted during his father’s rule, and the strong popular appeal he had in the Piedmont. His position as a strong defender of Italian rights was fortified by his choice of the skilled diplomat Camillo Benso di Cavour as his prime minister. Both Cavour and Victor Emmanuel were fervent supporters of Italian unification, and this desire to see the states of Italy joined together put them at the center of an alliance movement known as the “Risorgimento” (revival or rebirth). In the wake of both the Crimean War (1853–1856) and wars with Austria, many of the independent states of Italy voted to join with Sardinia, and in February of 1861 Victor Emmanuel became the first king of a unified Italy. The final years of his reign were largely spent fortifying his new kingdom and pulling together the few small areas—including the Papal States such as Rome—which had not united with Italy originally. Rome became the capital of the fully unified Italy in 1871, though not without some difficulty and controversy. It was not until 1929 that the question of whether Italy or the pope had proper authority over Rome was settled. When

987

Victor Emmanuel died in 1878, the Crown passed to his son, Humbert I (r. 1878–1900). See also: Abdication, Royal; Diplomacy, Royal; Power, Forms of Royal; Servants and Aides, Royal.

VICTORIA (1819–1901 C.E.) Longest reigning monarch of Great Britain, who ruled from 1837 until her death in 1901. Notable for both the allegiance she inspired in her subjects and the practicality with which she oversaw England’s rise as the dominant industrial, military, and colonial power of the nineteenth century, Victoria outlasted numerous political uprisings and reforms, the expansion of the British Empire to every continent, twenty changes of prime minister, and seven assassination attempts. The year before Victoria succeeded to the throne, she saw London greet its first railway; by the time of her death, the automobile, the telephone, the subway, and the motion picture had all made their debut.

THE YOUNG QUEEN The daughter and only child of Edward, duke of Kent, and Victoria, princess of Saxe-Coburg,Victoria came to the throne at the age of eighteen, succeeding Edward’s elder brother, King William IV (r. 1830–1837). In contrast to her grandfather, the “mad” King George III (r. 1760–1820), and her uncle, the adulterous and flamboyant George IV (r. 1820–1830), Victoria was conservative in her personal morals and contentedly domestic in her disposition, both qualities which have since come to be identified with the spirit of the age.This apparent reserve, however, concealed a queen who had a fervent desire to be informed of the policies and actions of her government. The prime minister at the time of her accession, Lord Melbourne, encouraged this interest in the young queen and, whether deliberately or not, garnered Victoria’s support for the Whigs, his own political party. Victoria’s friendliness toward Whig politics was somewhat tempered after her 1840 marriage to Albert, her first cousin and a member of the royal house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who favored a more conservative political stance and frequently sided with the Tory party. Victoria and Albert, who had

988

Vi c t o r i a

nine children together, were deeply devoted to one another despite Albert’s relative unpopularity with the British public, which was largely due to nationalist anxiety about his German roots.

THE MIDDLE YEARS Despite his Tory sympathies, Albert encouraged Queen Victoria to remain above party allegiances, as befits the sovereign in the British system of constitutional monarchy. Although she never completely freed herself from the pull of political factions, both Whig and Tory, Victoria did manage to remain relatively neutral during much of her reign. By choosing to remain informed of the political scene but keeping her own opinions and influence mostly private, Victoria was able to lend credence to the increasingly democratic temper of the period. The other great influence Albert had on Victoria as a monarch was through his fervent support of the sciences and arts. This interest came to a head with

the 1851 Great Exhibition, a showcase of the artistic and scientific developments that were occurring both in Britain and abroad. Held in an architectural marvel known as the Crystal Palace, the five-monthlong Exhibition was a smashing success, drawing visitors from around the globe. The proceeds from the event were so great that they funded a new museum, the Victoria and Albert, which remains to this day one of the most popular public museums in the world.The Great Exhibition was one of the defining moments of Queen Victoria’s reign. Victoria’s excitement over the success of the Great Exhibition was short-lived, however, as two events quickly occurred that threw a pall over her reign.The first was the badly bungled Crimean War, which lasted from 1853 to 1856 and cost many unnecessary British casualties due to poor planning and ineffective communications. The second, and much more personally devastating event for Victoria, was the death of Albert in 1861. Her husband’s early death—most likely from typhoid fever—sent Victoria into a decades-long period of mourning from which she never completely emerged. After Albert’s death,Victoria was rarely seen in public, splitting her time between Balmoral Castle in Scotland and the royal residence of Osborne on the Isle of Wight.

THE LONG END

The last ruler of the House of Hanover in Great Britain, Queen Victoria ruled for sixty-four years. A fervent supporter of the arts and sciences, she ruled during an era that was arguably the social and cultural peak of the British Empire. It came to be known as the Victorian Age.

The final forty years of Victoria’s reign were marked by the rapid expansion of the British Empire, which acquired colonies and territories across the globe, most notably in Africa, Australia, and the Indian subcontinent. The development of the empire further solidified Great Britain’s place as the dominant economic and political power of the time. Although Victoria herself hated racial prejudice, Britain’s imperial growth was largely accompanied by racist beliefs and practices. These attitudes and the resentment they caused came to haunt the British in the twentieth century, which saw the dismantling of the empire. Victoria died peacefully at Osborne in 1901, having recently celebrated her Diamond Jubilee (sixty years as monarch) in 1897.The nation went into deep mourning as the Crown passed to her eldest son, Edward VII (r. 1901–1910). Victoria had a total of nine children and forty grandchildren, connecting her by blood or marriage to nearly every royal family in Europe. See also: Colonialism and Kingship; English Monarchies; George III; National Identity;

Vi e t n a m e s e K i n g d o m s Queens and Queen Mothers; Reigns, Length of; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty. FURTHER READING

Hibbert, Christopher. Queen Victoria: A Personal History. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Vallone, Lynne. Becoming Victoria. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.

VIETNAMESE KINGDOMS (207 B.C.E.–1955 C.E.)

Kingdoms that occupied the area of present-day Vietnam from 207 b.c.e. to the modern era, many of which sought to expand their territory while maintaining independence from their northern neighbor, China. The first nonlegendary kingdom in Vietnamese history, the kingdom of Nam Viet, was established in 207 b.c.e when former Chinese general Trieu Da (Zhao Tuo in Chinese) overthrew the Chinese overlords in Vietnam and appointed himself ruler of a territory that included present-day southern China and northern Vietnam. This new kingdom of Nam Viet lasted until 111 b.c.e., when it was conquered by the Chinese and renamed the kingdom of Annam, meaning “pacified south.” This marked the beginning of a long period of Chinese domination over Vietnam. In 939 c.e., after more than one thousand years of Chinese rule, a series of uprisings broke out in Vietnam. The Vietnamese people, led by Ngo Quyen, drove out their Chinese overlords and established an independent state, the kingdom of Dai Viet (Great Viet State). This kingdom was based in the fertile Red River Delta region of northern Vietnam. The Dai Viet kingdom thrived politically, economically, and culturally under the Li dynasty (1009–1225) while the powerful kingdom of Champa occupied the central and southern coastal regions of Vietnam. Established in the second century, the kingdom of Champa dominated central Vietnam for more than one thousand years. The Chams occupied only the central part of the region until the sixth century, when they conquered their neighbors to the south, the kingdom of Funan. With this conquest, the Chams gained control over the Mekong River Delta, making them an even more formidable force against Dai Viet. The kingdoms of Dai Co Viet and Champa

989

fought several wars during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries under the Li,Tran, and Ho dynasties of Dai Viet. In 1407, the armies of China’s Ming dynasty invaded Vietnam and took control of the kingdom of Dai Viet. However, the Chinese were able to maintain control of the territory for only a brief period of time before a wealthy Vietnamese landowner and rebel leader named Le Loi initiated a rebellion that forced out the Chinese. In 1428, Le Loi founded the Le dynasty (sometimes called the Later Le dynasty) and ruled as Le Thai To (r. 1428–1433).The kingdom of Dai Viet flourished under Le Thai To and his successors, who instituted policies that promoted the arts and improved agricultural techniques. After regaining its independence from China, the kingdom of Dai Viet began putting increasing pres-

Monarchy in Vietnam ended in 1945, when the last ruler of the Nguyen dynasty, Bao Dai, was forced to abdicate by Vietnamese communists. Shown here with the French army general Raoul Salan, Bao Dai served as chief of state of Vietnam from 1949 to 1955, when he was deposed in a popular referendum.

990

Vi e t n a m e s e K i n g d o m s

sure on the kingdom of Champa under a new policy of territorial expansion. Food shortages and limited land resources had begun to hinder the growing population of Dai Viet and, as a result, the kingdom sought to expand its territory. In 1471, under the rule of Le Thanh Tong (r. 1460–1497), Dai Viet defeated the Chams along the central coast and destroyed their kingdom. The Chams were forced to move further south. Fighting erupted periodically between the north and south for generations. The conflict generally involved the northern Trinh family and southern Nguyen family, each of which sought control of the other’s territory. In 1802, the Nguyen family, under the leadership of Nguyen Anh (r. 1788–1820), gained control of the entire country and renamed it Vietnam (“the people of the south”).The Nguyen dynasty continued to rule Vietnam directly until it became a colony of France in the late 1800s and was broken up and merged with other parts of French Indochina. Thereafter, Vietnamese rulers were merely appointed representatives of the French colonial administration.The last Nguyen ruler of Vietnam, BaoDai (r. 1926–1955), was deposed by a popular referendum in 1955, which ended the monarchy. See also: Champa Kingdom; Funan Kingdom; Le Dynasty; Nam Viet Kingdom; Nguyen Anh; Nguyen (Hue) Dynasty; Tran Dynasty; Trinh Dynasty.

VIJAYANAGAR EMPIRE (1336–1614 C.E.)

Powerful Hindu Empire located in southern India, originally part of the Hoysala kingdom, that was founded in the fourteenth century after the destruction of the Hoysala and Pandya states by Muslim invaders from the north. In the early fourteenth century, the king of Hoysala, Vir Ballala III (r. ca. 1291–1336), built the city of Anegundi on the Tungabhadra River and appointed two brothers, Harihara and Bukka, to defend it against Muslim incursions. When Ballala died around 1336, the brothers renamed the city Vijayanagar and proclaimed their independence from the Hoysala kingdom. Harihara became the first ruler of Vijayanagar as

Harihara I (r. 1336–1354), designating his dynasty as the Sangama dynasty in honor of his father, Sangama of Warrangal. Harihara I and his successors greatly expanded Vijayanagar’s territory, first by conquering the remains of Hoysala and then by expanding into the Kanara, Mysore, Kanchi, and Chingleput regions. By 1406, Vijayanagar controlled nearly all of the southern Indian subcontinent. To maintain their authority over this wide area, the rulers of Vijayanagar divided the kingdom into six provinces, with a governor appointed to each. These provincial governors enjoyed significant autonomy, but they were required to supply military forces and large tax payments to the central government. In turn, the governors relied on local assemblies, called panchayat, to oversee municipal affairs. The rulers of Vijanagar themselves were fairly generous, and they adopted dharma as their primary inspiration. This ancient Hindu moral and religious code asserted that a monarch’s foremost concern is the welfare of his people. Each Vijanagar ruler selected a council of ministers, picked from different castes, who were responsible for areas such as defense, trade, agriculture, and taxation. Despite its increasing prosperity, Vijayanagar faced a constant threat from its northern neighbor, the Bahmani kingdom.The two states frequently battled for supremacy in southern India.With the death of the powerful Vijayangar ruler, Deva Raya II (r. 1422–1446), in 1446, the kingdom lacked a forceful ruler and was left vulnerable. Seizing the opportunity, the Bahmani kingdom invaded and gained control over significant portions of Vijayanagar. Bahmani control lasted forty years, with Vijanagar rulers serving as mere vassals. Then, in 1486, a Vijayanagar governor named Saluva Narasimha (r. 1486–1491) organized the kingdom’s forces, expelled the Bahmani army, and assumed the throne.This transition, known as the First Usurpation, marked the beginning of the Saluva dynasty. Narasimha restored the provincial governments of Vijayanagar and rebuilt the kingdom’s economy. Narasimha died after ruling for only five years. His sons were highly ineffective monarchs, and they quickly squandered their father’s success. In 1505, as civil unrest paralyzed the kingdom, an army commander named Vira Narasimha (r. 1505–1509) deposed the Saluvas and took the throne. His action, known as the Second Usurpation, ushered in the Tuluva dynasty.

Vi k i n g E m p i r e When Vira Narasimha died in 1509, his younger brother, Krishnadeva Raya (r. 1509–1529), became king. The most successful Vijayanagar monarch, Krishnadeva Raya protected the kingdom from repeated attacks and was never defeated in battle. He also greatly developed the kingdom’s economy. Under his authority, all land was assessed as wetlands, dry land, orchards, or forest, and was taxed according to its use, with tax revenue used primarily to finance the military. Krishnadeva Raya also encouraged industrial expansion, and Vijayanagar soon possessed major textile, mining, fragrance, and metallurgy industries. The kingdom actively traded with numerous Asian nations and maintained a large merchant fleet. Krishnadeva Raya allowed the Portuguese to establish a trading post on Vijayanagar’s west coast. Vijayanagar experienced a cultural explosion under Krishnadeva Raya. He recruited scholars from all areas of India and encouraged them to write in their native languages. The government commonly subsidized poets, philosophers, and historians and financed the construction of temples and public facilities. Unfortunately, Krishnadeva Raya’s successors were weak rulers. In 1542, his nephew Sadasiva (r. 1542–1570) assumed the throne, but he allowed his adviser, Rama Raya, to control the kingdom. Raya envisioned a greatly expanded Vijayanagar in control of all of India. To fulfill this vision, he made shifting alliances with the kingdoms of Ahmadnagar, Golconda, and Bijapur, which were former provinces of the Bahmani kingdom. In 1543,Vijayanagar joined Golconda and Bijapur in an invasion of Ahmadnagar. But the Vijayanagar forces so badly ravaged the conquered country that the Muslim kingdoms united against Vijayanagar in disgust. The three kingdoms exacted their revenge in 1565, invading Vijayanagar and massacring Raya and his forces. However, internal dissent again flared among the three allies and prevented them from completely dismantling Vijayanagar. Consequently, the kingdom maintained its autonomy but in a greatly weakened state. Raya’s brother, Tirumala (r. 1570–1572), deposed Sadasiva in 1570 and founded the Aravidu dynasty, the last dynasty of Vijayanagar. After taking control of the kingdom, the Aravidu dynasty struggled to maintain its power.The provincial governors refused to acknowledge any central authority, and the kingdom steadily dissipated. In

991

1642, the last Vijayanagar monarch, Sriranga III (r. 1642–1670), assumed the throne. Ultimately, Ranga proved unable to resist attacks from Bijapur and Golconda, and he could not convince the provincial governors to supply military forces. The provinces declared their independence, and so the Vijayanagar Empire collapsed and ended. See also: Ahmadnagar Kingdom; Bahmani Dynasty; Golconda Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Karashima, Noboru. Towards a New Formation: Southern Indian Society Under Vijayanagar Rule. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Stein, Burton. Vijayanagar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

VIKING EMPIRE (ca. 1017–1042 C.E.) Not an enduring political entity, but rather an eleventhcentury union of Denmark, England, and Norway under the rule of Cnut the Great (r. 1013– 1035), which did not survive long after his death. Between the 800s and 1000s, the Vikings founded kingdoms and colonies in places as far-flung as Ireland, Scotland, Normandy, Russia, Iceland, and Greenland, and there is some evidence they may have settled for a time in Newfoundland. However, there was little or no political connection between these colonies and the kingdoms from which they originated. The Viking Empire as such was the work of just one family, the Skjoldung dynasty of Denmark. It lasted but a short time and encompassed little more than Denmark and England.

FOUNDATION BY SVEYN FORKBEARD King Svend or Sveyn I of Denmark (r. 986–1014), also known as Sveyn Forkbeard, was a son of Harald Bluetooth (r. 940–986), the king who first unified much of Denmark under one crown. In the late tenth century, England suffered much raiding by Viking bands. Sveyn, secure in his control of Denmark, may initially have intended nothing more than similar raids to gain wealth. He first attacked England in 994 but showed no sign of planning to conquer the country at that time. Instead, he returned to Scandinavia to fight Olaf Tryggvason, who had fought in England for both Sveyn and the English king, Ethelred II (r.

992

Vi k i n g E m p i r e

The foundation of the Viking Empire was laid by King Sveyn I of Denmark, who united the Danes under one crown in the mid-tenth century. His attack on England in 994 is depicted in this early illustrated manuscript.

978–1016), and had made himself King Olaf I of Norway (r. 994–999). Like his father Harald Bluetooth, Sveyn regarded himself as overlord of Norway, and Olaf’s kingship was a direct challenge that could not be ignored. Sveyn defeated Olaf in battle in the year 1000.At this time Sveyn was probably also overlord of Sweden, since its king, Olaf Skötkonung (r. 994–1023), was his stepson and “sköt” means tribute (which implies a tributary relationship). The conquered territories of Norway were ruled by Olaf Skötkonung and by Earl Eirik Haakonson of Hladir under Sveyn. Due to generations of invasions, there was already

a large Danish or Norse population in England. This population was concentrated in the area of the Danelaw, the north and east of England, where Norse rather than English customary law prevailed. In 1002, King Ethelred II of England (r. 978–1016) ordered a slaughter of the Danes, known as the St. Brice’s Day Massacre; among those killed was Sveyn’s sister. Sveyn sought revenge by raiding England extensively between 1003 and 1005. His fleets and armies continued to attack and exact tribute throughout the next decade as well. English districts and towns submitted to him and in December 1013, Ethelred having fled to Normandy, Sveyn was pro-

Vi k i n g E m p i r e claimed king of England. He died just over a month later.

AN EMPIRE UNDER CNUT THE GREAT Upon Sveyn’s death, his son Cnut (also known as Knut or Canute) became king in England, while Cnut’s older brother Harald II (r. 1014–1018) ruled in Denmark. The English drove Cnut out in 1014, but with his brother’s backing he returned in 1015. Ethelred II died in 1016, and his son Edmund II Ironside (r. 1016) offered Cnut stiff resistance until Edmund’s death later that year. Cnut was then acknowledged king of England. He became king of Denmark in 1018 or 1019, following his brother’s death. Sweden, however, withdrew from the sphere of Danish influence. Olaf Skötkonung and his son Anund Jakob (r. 1022–1050) did not offer Cnut the support Olaf had given Sveyn, and their policies often ran contrary to Danish interests. Cnut’s rule of England and Denmark marks the apogee and nearly full extent of a single political entity that could be considered the Viking Empire. Cnut regarded himself as king of England rather than as merely a successful Viking raider with a wealthy territory to plunder. He defended the country against Viking attacks and issued law codes that continued the traditions of English or Anglo-Saxon law. Cnut also issued coins, a traditional method of advertising the legitimacy of one’s rule, and modeled his Danish coinage on the longer established English currency. Cnut’s rule was not untroubled. In 1026, his regent in Denmark, his brother-in-law Earl Ulf, revolted against him and united with King Olaf II Haraldsson (Saint Olaf) of Norway (r. 1016–1030) and King Anund Jakob of Sweden (r. 1022–1050). Cnut put down the revolt and maintained control of his two realms of England and Denmark, but he did not win an outright victory. In 1028, Cnut drove Olaf Haraldsson out of Norway. After Olaf returned and was killed while fighting Norwegian opposition in 1030, Cnut appointed his own son Sveyn and Sveyn’s English mother Aelfgifu co-rulers of Norway. However, the Norwegians drove them out in 1035, and both died soon thereafter. Cnut also claimed to be king of Sweden and may have held the allegiance of some Swedish nobles, but there is little evidence for any real overlordship of Sweden on Cnut’s part.

993

THE DISINTEGRATION OF EMPIRE Cnut had two sons, Sveyn and Harald Harefoot, with Aelfgifu, the daughter of an English nobleman.While married to Aelfgifu, he also married Ethelred’s widow, Emma of Normandy. Cnut and Emma agreed that only their sons could inherit the throne of England, excluding Aelfgifu’s sons as well as the son of Ethelred and Emma, Edward. Harthacnut, the son of Cnut and Emma, was raised mostly in Denmark and acted as Cnut’s representative there. When Cnut died in 1035, Harthacnut succeeded to the throne of Denmark (r. 1035–1042) while at war with King Magnus I of Norway (r. 1035–1046). Harald Harefoot became king of England (r. 1037–1040) instead of his halfbrother Harthacnut after a dispute over the succession, which was never entirely resolved. In 1039 Harthacnut began preparations to invade England. When Harald Harefoot died in 1040, Harthacnut added the throne of England to his rule. However, the two kingdoms were not destined to remain united. Harthacnut died in 1042 without an heir, and the English elected his half-brother, Edward, son of Emma and Ethelred, as king. Known as Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066), Edward proved an ineffectual king, unable to maintain his authority over the English nobles. Meanwhile, Cnut’s nephew Sveyn Estrithson claimed the Crown of Denmark but was rejected by the Danes, who chose instead to be ruled by Magnus of Norway (r. 1035–1046). Upon Magnus’s death in 1046, Sveyn Estrithson became king of Denmark. Sveyn was unable to make good on any claim to the English Crown, however, and his hold on Denmark was threatened by Harald Hardraade of Norway. As Magnus’s heir, Harald claimed an inheritance from Harthacnut and made a bid for the English Crown. In 1066 he died fighting against Harold Godwinson at the battle of Stamford Bridge, a few weeks before the English Crown was lost to William the Conqueror, the Norse-descended duke of Normandy. An attempt to assert a Viking claim to Cnut’s empire was made by his nephew Sveyn Estrithson in 1069, when, in response to English pleas for aid, the Danes invaded northern England.The Danes eventually accepted tribute from William the Conqueror and withdrew, leaving their English allies to William’s mercy. Danish fleets raided England in 1075, but a planned invasion by Cnut II of Denmark (r. 1080–1086) in 1085 was never carried out. The brief period of the Viking Empire had passed.

994

Vi k i n g E m p i r e

The enduring legacy of the Viking Empire founded by Sveyn Forkbeard and ruled by Cnut the Great was its cultural and linguistic contribution to England.Through much of the later Middle Ages, the persistence of a free peasantry in the former Danelaw region, at a time when serfdom was the more common legal status of English peasants, can be attributed to the Viking influence. Speakers of modern English also continue to experience the linguistic heritage of the Vikings, using a variety of words—such as earl, skirt, and skill—that are derived from Old Norse roots. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Cnut I; Danish Kingdom; Edward the Confessor; Harald III Hardraade; Harold II Godwinson; Norwegian Monarchy; Olaf II (Saint Olaf); Swedish Monarchy. FURTHER READING

Garmonsway, G.N., trans. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: Dent, 1953. Holmes, George, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Jones, Gwyn. A History of the Vikings. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Lawson, M.K. Cnut:The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century. New York: Longman, 1993. Page, R.I. Chronicles of theVikings:Records,Memorials,and Myths. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Sawyer, Peter, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1997. Stenton, Sir Frank. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

VIRACOCHA (d. 1438 C.E.) Eighth Great Inca (r. ca. 1390s–1438), who ruled during the transitional period when the kingdom of the Incas became a true empire. Hatun Tapac, son of Yahuar Huacac, took the name Inca Viracocha upon becoming the eighth king to rule over Tahuantinsuyo (the Quechua name for the kingdom and empire of the Incan people). Viracocha is also the name of the creator god upon whom the Incan religion was based. It was the god Viracocha who gave rise to Inti, the sun god, and it is from Inti that the Incan rulers traced their descent.

Viracocha Inca was the first Inca king to assume the title of Sapa Inca, which means “supreme ruler.” When Viracocha Inca came to power sometime in the 1390s, his realm extended only throughout the Valley of Cuzco, but Viracocha had grander ambitions. From the Inca capital at Cuzco, he sent his sons out on campaigns of conquest throughout the Andean region. One of these sons, Pachacuti, is credited with extending Incan rule as far north as present-day Ecuador and as far south as the Nazca Plains along the coastal region of present-day Peru. The conquered peoples were assimilated into the Incan state through treaties, marital alliances, and other political means, but were allowed to retain their own local leaders. Quechua became the official language spoken throughout the realm. Between 1390 and 1420, an external threat arose to challenge the supremacy of the Inca Empire. A people called the Canchos created a rival state to the north, and Viracocha was forced to amass an army to ward off the danger.According to tradition, the Canchos attacked in force in the 1430s. Uncertain that his army could defeat them,Viracocha Inca fled into the mountains with his eldest son and official heir, Urco. Pachacuti, on the other hand, remained behind to face the enemy and was ultimately victorious. When the Canchos were finally defeated, the people turned away from Viracocha Inca and Urco for having abandoned the empire to its fate. Instead, they threw their support behind Pachacuti, who had acquitted himself as a hero. Around 1438, Pachacuti (r. 1438–1471) became the ninth and, arguably, the greatest of the Inca rulers. Under his reign, the Inca built great roadways linking all the important urban and ritual centers of the empire. Pachacuti also ordered the construction of some of the greatest ceremonial sites of the Inca world, including the city of Machu Picchu deep in the Andes Mountains. By the end of Pachacuti’s reign, Tahuantinsuyo had achieved its greatest economic, artistic, architectural, and religious development. See also: Atahualpa; Huayna Capac; Inca Empire; Pachacuti; South American Monarchies.

VISIGOTH KINGDOM (395–711 C.E.) Early kingdom established by the Visigoths, a migrating Germanic people who eventually established a

995

Vi s i g o t h K i n g d o m kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula in what is presentday Spain. The earliest Visigoths appear in the historical record as one of the Germanic groups opposing the Roman Empire. Their leaders were elected warchiefs. Unlike most other Germanic tribes, the Visigoths retained elected leaders, never shifting to a fully hereditary kingship. The first Visigothic leader to be identified as a king is Alaric I (r. 395–410), whose forces sacked Rome in 410.

THE VISIGOTHS IN SOUTHERN FRANCE From Italy, the Visigoths moved westward to southern France, where they settled as Roman allies—a shift not uncommon in the tulmutuous political period of the later Roman Empire. From that base in France, they migrated into the Iberian Peninsula.The most significant king of this phase of Visigothic history was Euric (r. 466–484), under whom the Visigothic kingdom, with its capital at Toulouse, reached its greatest geographical extent, incorporating most of Iberia along with southern France. Euric also formally renounced Roman sovereignty over the Visigoths, although they had long enjoyed de facto independence. The history of the Visgothic kingdom was marked by religious conflict. The Visigoths, like other Germanic peoples at this time, were Arian Christians. Arians believed that Christ had been created by God rather than being coeternal, as the Roman Church believed. This meant that Visigothic kings could never be fully sure of the loyalty of the Roman church in their dominions, although they did not attempt to destroy it. After defeat by the Franks under Clovis (r. 481–511) in 507 and the death in battle of Euric’s successor, Alaric II (r. 484–507), the Visigothic kingdom was driven out of nearly all of its possessions in France, and it reorganized itself on the basis of its Spanish territories.

Visigoth Kingdom Alaric I*

395–410

Ataulf

410–415

Sigeric

415

Wallia

415–419

Theodoric I

419–451

Thorismund

451–453

Theodoric II

453–466

Euric

466–484

Alaric II

484–507

Gesalech

507–511

Amalaric

511–531

Leovigild

568–586

Reccared I*

586–601

Sisebut

612–621

Chindaswinth

642–653

Recceswinth (coruler with his father Chindaswinth) Egica

649–653; 653–672 (king) 687–702

Witiza (coruler with his father Egica)

697–702; 702–710 (king)

Roderic*

710–711

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

VISIGOTHIC SPAIN The most important rulers in sixth-century Visigothic Spain were Leovigild (r. 568–586) and his son Reccared (r. 586–601). Leovigild reinvigorated the Visigothic monarchy, defeated the kingdom of the Suevi in northwestern Spain and incorporated it into the Visigothic kingdom, and drove the Byzantine Empire from all but a few small footholds in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula. He also established

a permanent capital at Toledo. (Previously,Visigothic rulers had traveled throughout their kingdoms rather than living in a central place.) Leovigild vigorously promoted Arianism, apparently hoping to end the religious division of the Visigothic kingdom by converting large numbers of his Christian subjects to that branch of the faith.This

996

Vi s i g o t h K i n g d o m

project had little success, however. His successor, Reccared, took the opposite approach to attain religious uniformity, converting with his family to the Roman faith and vigorously suppressing Arianism. The seventh-century Visigothic monarchy was marked by strong cooperation between church and state, with the king making ecclesiastical as well as civil and military appointments and working closely with the bishops. Beginning with Reccared, Visigothic kings adopted the rite of anointment with holy oil at coronations, which gave the kings a particularly sacred status. The Roman Catholic Church in Spain, though in communion with Rome, was more subject to the king than to the pope. One aspect of the strongly sacral nature of Visigothic kingship was a series of decrees against the Jews. The Catholic Visigothic kings were an exception to the generally tolerant practices of Germanic barbarian kings toward the Jews in the early Middle Ages. King Sisebut (r. 612–621) ordered that Jews be forcibly baptized or exiled from the kingdom. Sisebut was also one of the most learned early medieval kings, writing in Latin a Life of St.Desiderius and serving as a patron of the great medieval encyclopedist, Isidor of Seville. Legislation, as well as war and religious leadership, was an important component of Visigothic kingship.The legal decrees and codes issued by Visigothic rulers show a development away from different laws for different groups toward a single code of law for all peoples in the kingdom.This process of assimilation, encouraged by Reccared’s abandonment of a separate Visigothic religious identity, culminated in the Laws of the Visigoths, issued in 654 by King Recceswinth (r. 653–672). Recceswinth, following the path laid out by his father king Chindaswinth (r. 642–653), explicitly abolished previous codes of Visigothic and Roman law in favor of a law that applied uniformly over all Visigothic territory.

THE END OF THE VISIGOTHS Late seventh-century Visigothic kings, though supported by the church, suffered disputed successions, rebellions, and problems with the nobility. A dispute between two claimants to the throne seriously weakened the kingdom prior to the Arab invasion in 711. The Arab Moors also benefited from the Visigothic rulers’ alienation of the Jewish population, who welcomed the Muslim invaders as liberators. The last Visigothic ruler, King Rodrigo or Roderic (r. 710–711)—around whom many legends later devel-

oped—was killed in battle against the Arabs, bringing the Visigothic kingdom to an end. See also: Alaric I; Christianity and Kingship; Reccared I; Roderic; Spanish Monarchies. FURTHER READING

James, Edward, ed. Visigothic Spain: New Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

VLACH PRINCIPALITY (1290–1462 C.E.)

A Balkan principality, also called Walachia, the most famous ruler of which was Vlad Tepes (r. 1448, 1456–1462, 1476), known as Vlad the Impaler and the inspiration for the fictional character Dracula. The Vlachs are believed to have originally come from Thrace, a remnant of the indigenous population ruled by the Eastern Roman Empire, who were split off from their erstwhile rulers with the disintegration of the empire and the invasion of Slavic tribes into the region.These people established themselves in the mountains, where they maintained a pastoral lifestyle based on sheep herding. For centuries they were subject to one of the various powers of the region, paying tribute in return for being left to themselves. In 1186, however, the demands for tribute became excessive enough to inspire two Vlachian brothers, Ivan and Peter, to lead a revolt. Their aim was to establish an autonomous nation. The realization of this dream would have to wait until 1290, when Basarab the Great (r. ca. 1290– 1352) finally succeeded in uniting the Vlachs into a single political entity. He was the first Vlach prince, establishing the royal house of Basarab and ruling until his death in 1352. The house of Basarab constituted two rival subclans, the Danesti and the house of Mircea the Old (r. 1386–1418). All the Vlach princes (called voivodes) came from one of these two clans, selected by a council of nobles called boyars. Vlach politics, both internal and international, were particularly difficult and often bloody. Succession to the throne was a hard-won affair, with assassination a commonly used stratagem to advance a prospective voivode’s chances. In addition, dissatisfied boyars who felt their king was not attentive enough to their needs were just as quick to display their anger with poison or knives. Beyond the borders of the

Vladimir Princedom principality, powerful neighbors contended for control of the region, and Vlach independence required careful attention to strategic alliances with Hungarians on one side and the Byzantine Empire (and later the Ottoman Turks) on the other.Vlach rulers had to be personally powerful and ruthless. Vlachia’s most famous voivode, and the last to rule with some semblance of independence, was born in1431.This was Vlad IV, variously called Vlad Draculea,Vlad Tepes, and Vlad the Impaler. His father, also named Vlad, was frustrated that the house of the Danesti currently held the throne, which he believed rightfully belonged to him as the son of Mircea the Old.True to standard political practice in Vlachia, he ordered the assassination of the ruling prince, Alexandru I (1431–1436), and took over the country, ruling as Vlad II (1436–1442).This action did not go unnoticed by pro-Danesti boyars, however, and in 1447 they returned the favor, murdering both Vlad and his eldest son, Mircea, and placing their own candidate,Vladislav II (1447–1448), on the throne. Vlad Tepes reacted to the murder of his father and brother in the only way he could: He vowed to retake the throne. Accordingly, he enlisted the aid of his powerful neighbors, the Ottoman Turks, and with their support he seized the throne in 1448.This victory was short-lived, however, and a Danesti rival forced him out after only two months.This time Vlad turned to the Hungarians for help in ousting the Danesti king. He succeeded in 1456 and again proclaimed himself prince. The next six years were epic in their violence, as Vlad demonstrated the obsession that earned him his nickname, the Impaler. This was his chosen method of making a point to foreign powers, and his favorite form of punishment when establishing control within his kingdom. Impalings were conducted on a grand scale, with hundreds of people left hanging on stakes in village courtyards and surrounding his palace. His victims often earned this brutal, deadly punishment by committing only minor crimes. In 1462 the Vlach principality fell to invading Turks, and Vlad fled to the court of the Hungarian king for safety. Instead, he was imprisoned, and the Hungarian king supported Vlad’s brother Radu (called “the Handsome”) instead. Radu soon died, however, perhaps assassinated, and a new Danesti prince took the throne. Hungary, however, preferred Vlad over the new voivod, and set their prisoner free to try to retake his kingdom. Vlad struck an alliance with a cousin, Prince Stephen the Great, who ruled the principality of

997

Moldavia. Together they defeated the Danesti faction, but upon seeing Vlad installed as king, Stephen withdrew to his own principality, taking his army with him.The Ottoman Turks saw this moment as an opportunity. Seeing Vlachia helpless and lacking any credible military force, the Ottomans sent their armies pouring over the border. Vlad was forced to take to the battlefield to defend his principality, and was slain in the ensuing battle. His head was carried back to Constantinople as a trophy of war, and was hung on a pike to demonstrate that the cruel king was truly dead. See also: Byzantine Empire; Ottoman Empire.

VLADIMIR PRINCEDOM (1125–1238 C.E.)

A powerful princedom in the Rus kingdoms that flourished from the twelfth to thirteenth centuries. During the late tenth century, East Slavic tribes from Novgorod (in present-day Russia) migrated into the region between the Oka and Volga rivers and settled an area that eventually became known as Vladimir-Suzdal. Over the next two centuries, the settlers established several key communities, including Rostov, Yaroslavl, Murom, and Suzdal. These cities became known for the highly skilled artisans who inhabited them, and regional merchants sold their pottery and metallic products throughout the Kievan Rus, Bulgaria, and Byzantium. As the Rus kingdoms became more consolidated under the rule of Oleg (r. 882–912) and his successors in the tenth century, the cities in the region attempted to retain their autonomy by supplying warriors for Oleg’s forces and paying an annual tribute to Kiev. However, during the reign of the Kievan grand prince Vladimir I Sviatoslavich (r. 980–1015), the region increasingly succumbed to Kievan authority.Vladimir strengthened the region’s ties to Kiev by installing his most loyal supporters as landowners and placing the local farmers under their control. These new feudal servants, the smerdy, resented the imposition of a new ruling class. In 1024, during the reign of Vladimir’s son, Yaroslav the Wise (r. 1019–1054), the smerdy rebelled, but Yaroslav quickly suppressed the revolution. When Yaroslav died in 1054, the Rus kingdoms were divided among his sons. One of them,Vsevolod

998

Vladimir Princedom

Yaroslavich, was granted Rostov and the surrounding lands.Yaroslav’s sons frequently clashed, and the Rus kingdoms gradually dissolved into competing principalities.When Vsevolod’s son,Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, assumed control of Rostov in 1093, he declared Rostov’s independence from Kievan control and established the Principality of Suzdal. To protect the new province, he built a powerful fortress, named Vladimir, near the Kliaz’ma River.These actions initiated the Vladimir princedom. Vladimir Monomakh’s son, Yurii Dolgorukii (r. 1149–1157), further solidified Suzdal’s independence. He built additional fortresses, repelled a Bulgarian invasion, and quelled a disturbance among his own landowners. Prince Yurii also encouraged an expansion of the artisan class, and their prevalence increased the region’s prosperity. In 1155, encouraged by his military and economic successes, Prince Yurii attacked and conquered Kiev. The victory dramatically reshaped the Rus kingdoms.Yurii’s son and successor, Andrei Bogoliubskii (r. 1157–1174), moved the Rus capital to Vladimir and made the Vladimir-Suzdal the center of the Rus realm. Andrei vastly expanded the Rus army. To ensure his soldiers’ loyalty, he granted them large amounts of land and gave them complete control over the inhabitants, thereby creating a highly subservient peasant class. Like his father, Andrei also favored the artisan class; his cultivation of their support secured his power. A cultural explosion also occurred during Andrei’s reign. He patronized artists and architects, and he commissioned several historical writings. These writings often served a propagandistic purpose, proclaiming that Vladimir Monomakh had created the principality and introduced Christianity to it. Andrei’s control, however, was not complete. In 1174, a group of nobles assassinated him, temporarily disrupting the principality’s dominance. After two years of internecine struggles, Andrei’s son Vsevolod (r. 1176–1212) assumed the throne. Over the next twenty years, Vsevolod waged campaigns against the other principalities, and only Novgorod escaped his complete control. Vsevolod also increased his power by defeating the Polovtsians, who had staged frequent, devastating raids on Kiev and southern Rus. A contemporary historical chronicle, the Song of Igor’s Campaign, extols his victory and designates Vesvolod as the most powerful leader in Rus. Vsevolod’s reign marks the apex of the Vladimir-

Suzdal principality. After his death in 1212, his sons, Konstantin (r. 1212–1218) and Yurii (r. 1212–1238), disagreed on how to rule Vladimir-Suzdal. Konstantin wished to restore the prominence of Rostov; he demanded a separate principality for Rostov with its own government. In 1216, when Konstantin briefly banished Yurii, he divided Vladimir-Suzdal into three separate principalities. Although Yurii regained power in 1218 and forcefully reunited the Valdimir-Suzdal, the decentralization had permanently weakened the region’s power. In 1238, the Mongols invaded the Rus kingdoms and devastated the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, initiating over two hundred years of Mongol rule. Yet the shift of influence from Kiev to VladimirSuzdal during this period had lasting implications. The cultural traditions that emerged during Vladimir-Suzdal’s ascendancy sustained a sense of Rus nationality during the Mongol occupation. Eventually, the Principality of Moscow would arise from the former Vladimir-Suzdal principality, and its leaders would defeat the Mongols and establish the modern Russian nation. See also: Kiev, Princedom of; Rus Princedoms. FURTHER READING

Hartog, Leo de. Russia and the MongolYoke. New York: British Academic Press, 1996. Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia: 980–1584. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

W WALDEMAR I, THE GREAT (1131–1182 C.E.)

King of Denmark (r. 1157–1182) following a generation of chaos and dynastic war, who established the basis for Denmark’s strength and prosperity in succeeding generations.

Wa n g K o n Waldemar (or Valdemar) the Great was one of three rival claimants to the Danish throne in the midtwelfth century. After years of conflict, the kingdom was divided between them. One of the three, Sveyn III (r. 1146–1157), held a feast around 1156 or 1157 to celebrate this negotiated peace. At the feast he murdered one rival, but Waldemar escaped in the dark. When Sveyn III was killed by a peasant in Waldemar’s territory of Jutland not long afterward, Waldemar became undisputed king of Denmark in 1157. In the beginning of Waldemar’s reign he acknowledged the overlordship of the Holy Roman emperor Frederick I (r. 1152–1190), but in 1165 he reneged on his support of Frederick’s chosen anti-pope, and in 1170 had his son, later Cnut IV (r. 1182–1202), anointed co-ruler. With both of these actions, taken without the Holy Roman emperor’s approval, Waldemar declared his independence of Frederick’s overlordship. A Slavic people called the Wends from the island of Rügen in the Baltic Sea had been raiding Denmark during the period of civil war between the claimants to the Danish throne. Waldemar’s great achievement was his victory over them in 1169. With the support of the Church he invaded Rügen, conquered the island, and destroyed the Wends’ pagan shrines. Henry the Lion (r. 1142–1180), duke of Saxony and Bavaria and overlord of the Wends, demanded reparations. At first, Waldemar complied, but he later went to war against the Wends living on the Baltic coast. Waldemar needed a base from which to command the eastern end of the Oresund, the narrow passage between the North Sea and the Baltic. In 1167, his ally, Archbishop Absalon of Lund, founded Copenhagen, building a fortress where previously only a fishing village existed. This gave Denmark a naval base on the Baltic and, in a time when water was the major route for trade and communications, easy access to Scania, the southernmost part of Sweden. On this strong foundation, Waldemar’s son and successor Cnut IV began a period of Danish expansion.When Waldemar I died in 1182, he left a Denmark that was strong, prosperous, and stable, none of which it had been when he took the Crown. See also: Danish Kingdom; Frederick I, Barbarossa; Jutland Kingdom.

999

WANG KON (d. ca. 943 C.E.) Founder of the Koryo dynasty in Korea. Wang Kon was descended from a local aristocratic family in the Kaesong region of Korea’s Silla kingdom. As a young man, he served in the military under General Kungye and was stationed at a fortress on Kanghwa Island, where he helped protect Silla’s southwest coast from pirate raids. Wang Kon was rapidly promoted and ultimately selected as Kungye’s chief minister. By the late 800s, the Silla government had begun to deteriorate rapidly. Peasants, forced from their land by intolerable taxes, formed large groups of bandits and terrorized rural communities. The aristocracy was also restless; Silla’s rigid bone-rank system (a hierarchical social system) barred many aristocrats from high government positions. Kungye and another general, Kyonhwon, exploited this unrest and organized large groups of bandits into formidable armies. In 892, Kyonhwon attacked the Silla capital and executed the king. Unwilling to let Kyonhwon gain absolute control, Kungye and Wang Kon blocked his further expansion. In 901, Kungye annexed his own region of Silla and established the Later Koguryo dynasty, named after the former kingdom of Koguryo. But Kungye’s extreme cruelty led to his assassination in 918. After his death, Wang Kon assumed control and renamed the kingdom Koryo. At first, Wang Kon allied himself with Silla to counter Kyonhwon’s military strength. In 930,Wang Kon decisively defeated Kyonhwon’s forces at Andong. Assured of his strength, Wang Kon then demanded that the Silla king relinquish control of the kingdom. Subsequently, in 935,Wang Kon united the entire Korean Peninsula. To secure the monarchy, Wang Kon abolished Silla’s bone-rank system and actively recruited both the Silla aristocracy and descendants of the original Koguryo monarchy to apply for important government posts. These actions created a new, influential elite social class. To further ease tensions within the new kingdom, Wang Kon married a princess from the Silla royal family and arranged numerous marriages among his family and the Silla aristocratic families. In many cases, Wang Kon even allowed these families to adopt his royal surname. Many rural landowners, however, still retained

1000

Wa n g K o n

control over groups of bandits and resisted Wang Kon’s authority. As a result, Wang Kon failed to achieve complete control of Koryo during his rule. Nevertheless, he had established a kingdom and a dynasty, the Wang dynasty, which would control the Korean Peninsula for more than four centuries— from the early 900s to the late 1300s. See also: Koguryo Kingdom; Koryo Kingdom; Silla Kingdom.

WANLI (1563–1620 C.E.) Chinese emperor (r. 1573–1620) whose long reign marked the decline of the Ming dynasty.The third son of Emperor Longqing (r. 1567–1572),Wanli began his reign at the height of the Ming dynasty. In the early years of his rule, aided by the capable minister Zhang Zhuzheng, the intelligent Wanli was active in state affairs. However, following Zhang’s death, Wanli grew frustrated with squabbles at court among his ministers. Disillusioned, at the age of twenty-five he withdrew completely from his imperial duties and never returned to them, although he remained emperor. Wanli refused to leave the Forbidden City, the royal family’s palace and the center of China’s government, and for years on end, he did not meet with his ministers. Government posts went unfilled. Foreign visitors kowtowed to an empty throne. Using state funds,Wanli spent lavishly on clothing, palaces, and other luxuries for himself and his family. Idle and self-indulgent, he grew too fat to stand without help. Only the royal family and the eunuchs—the castrated men who served within the palace—were allowed inside the Forbidden City. Because Wanli refused to leave the palace to meet with his ministers, the eunuchs became the sole source of communication between the emperor and the outside world.This situation gave the eunuchs great power, and a corrupt system dominated by the eunuchs controlled the empire’s affairs. During Wanli’s reign, more than ten thousand eunuchs lived in Beijing. Despite Wanli’s refusal to govern, his reign was a time of economic growth and prosperity. Increased food production, due to new crops such as maize introduced from the Americas, caused China’s population to surpass 100 million. The rise of manufacturing gave birth to a new merchant class and brought new wealth to China.Trade increased as in-

ternational demand mushroomed for Chinese manufactures like silk and porcelain. This prosperity in turn stimulated cultural and intellectual activity. Militarily,Wanli’s reign faced multiple challenges. Chinese armies had to contend with incursions by tribes from Mongolia, the rebellion of minority tribes in the southwest, and war with Japan over Korea. Meanwhile, the Manchu tribesmen were gathering strength in northeast China, where they invaded and occupied the Liaodong region in 1618. By the end of Wanli’s long, inactive reign, the empire was crumbling from within. In a few decades, the well-organized Manchus would topple the Ming dynasty. See also: Ming Dynasty.

WARFARE For most of recorded history, warfare has been an accepted preoccupation of monarchs. Through war, monarchs have extended their power, frightening people into accepting their leadership, and gaining the loyalty of their followers by distributing the spoils. Through the capacity to wage war, monarchs have gained legitimacy in the eyes of their people by promising to protect them in a violent world. In spite of the advocacy of peace by philosophers going back as far as the Chinese scholar Mencius (372–289 b.c.e.), it is really only since World War I (1914–1918) that the inevitability of war has been questioned.

MONARCHS AS CONQUERORS Because war was always thought of as a necessary part of human life, monarchs since the earliest times have needed to assert themselves as warriors—or as leaders of warriors—in order to have credibility. In fact, many of the earliest written records were made to boast of the conquests of kings.An inscription written at the command of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I (r. 1274–1245 b.c.e.) celebrates his defeat of his enemies, the Hurrians, in terms that make a virtue of ruthlessness: “I fought a battle and accomplished their defeat. I killed countless numbers of his defeated and widespreading hosts. . . . Their lands I brought under my sway, and the rest of their cities I burned with fire.” On the other side of the world, the Maya kings of the Classic period (25–900 c.e.) had huge stone steles built to memorialize, through pictures in relief

Wa r f a r e and carved hieroglyphic writing, their victories in battle. The great epics of earliest literature—the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Hindu Mahabharata, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, the Icelandic sagas—all focus on the wars and fights of kings. The lesson of literature and written history has consistently been that kings are remembered most of all for their military prowess. Those monarchs who have come to be known as “the Great”—Darius I of Persia (r. 521–486 b.c.e.), Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 b.c.e.), Holy Roman emperor Otto I (936–973 c.e.), Mughal emperor Akbar I (1556–1605), Louis I of Hungary (r. 1342–1382), Frederick II of Prussia (r. 1740–1786)—have mostly earned that epithet by expanding their kingdoms through territorial aggression and military conquest. It is a lesson that ambitious monarchs have found hard to ignore. For the kings of the Aztecs of Mexico, warfare was actually a prerequisite of kingship.The process of becoming king involved three stages: First there was a four-day period of withdrawal and fasting, during which the new king, dressed only in a loincloth, burned incense to the gods, offered blood pricked from his limbs and earlobes, and contemplated the responsibilities of kingship.Then there was the coronation, when he was invested with the magnificent regalia of kingship and made a public appearance thus attired.After that there was the coronation war:

1001

Unless the new king successfully attacked an enemy and brought back prisoners of war and booty, his legitimacy was felt to be unproven. The final step was confirmation, when gifts were received, honors were distributed, there were feasts and speeches and music, and the prisoners of the coronation war were sacrificed to the principal god, Huitzilopochtli.

MONARCHS AS DEFENDERS Of course, war is not always a matter of choice. When an outside aggressor threatens a kingdom, a monarch who can lead the defense of the country bravely and effectively, identifying with the people’s sufferings, will earn their gratitude. Alfred the Great of England (r. 871–899) earned his title first by defending his country against the Danish invaders and then by cultivating the benefits of peace: literature, scholarship, and the arts. Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558–1603) was inclined by education and temperament to avoid conflict, but she had no hesitation about adopting a militaristic stance when it was necessary for defense. When in 1588 England was threatened with invasion by the navy of Philip II of Spain (r. 1556–1598)—the great Spanish Armada—Elizabeth made an appearance among her troops as they awaited battle. By her presence, and by making a speech of classic kingly aggression in which she took on the military role, Elizabeth

ROYAL RITUALS

AZTEC CORONATION RITUALS For the kings of the Aztecs of Mexico, warfare was actually a prerequisite of kingship.The process of becoming king involved three stages: First there was a four-day period of withdrawal and fasting, during which the new king, dressed only in a loincloth, burned incense to the gods, offered blood pricked from his limbs and earlobes, and contemplated the responsibilities of kingship.Then there was the coronation, when he was invested with the magnificent regalia of kingship and made a public appearance thus attired. After that there was the coronation war: Unless the new king successfully attacked an enemy and brought back prisoners of war and booty, his legitimacy was felt to be unproven. The final step was confirmation, when gifts were received, honors were distributed, there were feasts and speeches and music were presented, and the prisoners of the coronation war were sacrificed to the principal god, Huitzilopochtli.

1002

Wa r f a r e

had an electrifying effect on the soldiers’ morale. She said: “I am come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood. . . . I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too . . . to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms.”

MONARCHS AS NATIONAL SYMBOLS By the twentieth century, most European monarchs had little real power, but in wartime some of them became important symbols for their countries. In World War II, King George VI of England (r. 1936–1952) or King Christian X of Denmark (r. 1912–1947) could do little against the Nazi terror. But when King George and his wife, the former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, refused to leave London during the Blitz, and when they toured bombed areas and talked to people who had lost their homes, they became a focus of affection and comfort for their embattled subjects. When Buckingham Palace was bombed, the queen responded with the comment, “I’m glad we’ve been bombed, it makes me feel I can look the East End in the face.” King Christian had a much more difficult task, for his country was occupied by Adolf Hitler’s army in April 1940.The king refused to leave Denmark or to make concessions to the occupying forces; although he was in his seventies, he continued his habit of a daily horseback ride around the city, without bodyguards, until the Germans placed him under house arrest in 1943. His quiet disregard of the Germans came to symbolize for his people their own secret resistance. Although there was no open revolt against the German invaders, the Danes succeeded in smuggling 7,500 of the 8,000 Danish Jews to safety in Sweden. See also: Conquest and Kingships; Kingdoms and Empires; Military Roles, Royal; Naval Roles.

WARI. See Huari Empire WARRI KINGDOM. See Itsekeri Kingdom

WEDDINGS, ROYAL The ceremonies by which monarchs marry. Though not a constitutional ceremony like the royal coronation, a royal wedding is important because it is a celebration of the continuation of a dynasty through marriage and children, and therefore the continuance of the state. Royal weddings are usually celebrated with great pomp, demonstrating the symbolic importance of monarchy as the center of power and national identity.

WEDDINGS AND POLITICAL ALLIANCES A royal marriage is often made to cement an alliance between the countries of the bride and groom, and the accompanying ceremonies celebrate its political importance. A royal wedding was one of the few occasions in many societies in which a queen had real political importance. For example, in 1660, for the wedding of Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715) and the Spanish Infanta, María Teresa, which sealed a peace treaty between the two countries, French dramatist Pierre Corneille wrote an allegorical prologue to his drama The Conquest of the Golden Fleece. It depicted Hymen (or marriage) holding a shield with the Infanta’s face on it to drive away Discord and Envy.

ROYAL COURTSHIP Even in arranged royal marriages, the fiction is often maintained that the union is personal. In early modern Europe, though marriages to foreign brides were always arranged, the romantic conventions of courtly love were observed.The royal groom would often visit his bride in disguise before the official meeting, as Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) did with Anne of Cleves. In the kingdom of Swaziland in southern Africa, the courtship practice is quite public. During the annual Reed Dance performed by the country’s young girls, which celebrates the nation’s roots and the girls’ passage into womanhood, the king examines the young women and chooses his brides from among them.

WEDDING RITES Royal wedding rites resemble those of most marriages in the society, but with an emphasis on the law of inheritance. During royal wedding ceremonies in later medieval Europe, the royal couple joined right hands.

We i D y n a s t i e s

1003

cattle legalized the marriage and made the children legitimate. During the ceremony, the bride carried a long spear in her hand and turned the point to the king to show that she chose him as her husband.

ROYAL WEDDINGS AND THE NATION

Royal weddings are generally known for their pageantry, which reinforces the authority and tradition of the monarchy. One of the most celebrated royal weddings of the twentieth century was that of Prince Charles of England and Lady Diana Spencer at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London on July 29, 1981.

However, in the case of a morganatic marriage (a union in which the husband was of royal rank, but the bride of lower rank), the groom offered the bride his left hand. Morganatic marriages were thus called marriages of the left hand.The children of morganatic marriages were generally barred from taking the throne. Royal wedding-night customs in Europe included observing the preparations for the all-important consummation of the marriage and the displaying of blood-spotted sheets as evidence of the bride’s virginity. In some societies, where less importance is placed on virginity, a wedding may go through stages. When the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, married Princess Manitfombi of Swaziland in 1971, the couple had lived together and had children before finalizing the marriage, which took place when the king chose Manitfombi as his main wife among several. The king’s gift to the bride’s father of 200

Since royal weddings are important to the whole country, the celebrations usually contain elements and activities that are intended for the people, such as feasts and dances. At a traditional royal Hindu wedding in Nepal, the royal family would give food and clothing to the needy at the palace gates to ensure the blessing of the gods on the marriage. A royal wedding can serve a model of marriage for other couples in the nation. In Japan, for example, up until the twentieth century, there had not been any religious component to imperial wedding ceremonies. But the marriage of Crown Prince Yoshishito and Princess Sadako in 1900, celebrated with a newly created Shinto rite, inspired religious and monogamous marriage among the Japanese people, previously known for their high rates of divorce and polygamy. The ceremonial of a royal wedding provides continuity with the nation’s past. But in modern nonWestern societies, traditional wedding customs of the country are sometimes combined with Western traditions. At one twentieth-century wedding in the Saudi Arabian royal family, for example, the sisters of the bride wore European designer dresses, while traditional belly dancers entertained the guests. Royal weddings, such that of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in England in 1981, can project an image of both traditional royal pomp and splendor and fairy tale romance for the world, although that particular romance ended in divorce. Nevertheless, a royal wedding always raises the hopes of many people in the country, because it is not just the wedding of two individuals: it is a national event, more visibly so than ever in the age of mass communications. See also: Blood, Royal; Consorts, Royal; Incest, Royal; Marriage of Kings; Queens and Queen Mothers.

WEI DYNASTIES (386–557 C.E.) Chinese dynasty of the Sixteen Kingdoms period whose non-Chinese rulers were important patrons of

1004

We i D y n a s t i e s

Buddhist art. Following the collapse of the Han dynasty in 220, China entered a 300-year period of disunity in which the north and south were divided politically. Beginning in the fourth century, the north was ruled by a series of dynasties founded by non-Chinese tribes. Known as the Sixteen Kingdoms (301–439), these dynasties were all short-lived until the emergence of the Northern Wei dynasty in 386. The Northern Wei was founded by a tribal people from southern Manchuria known as the Xianbei or Toba. Having defeated rival kingdoms in the north, the Wei rulers established their capital at the city of Datong. Vastly outnumbered by their Chinese subjects, the northern rulers relied on Chinese advisers to help them rule. They employed China’s traditional government institutions, staffing the bureaucracy with Chinese officials. Lacking a written language, the Wei rulers adopted the Chinese script. In 494 Emperor Xiao Wendi (r. 471–499) moved the capital south to Luoyang. Xiao Wendi advocated assimilation into Chinese society, encouraging intermarriage and requiring that his Xianbei subjects speak Chinese, wear Chinese clothing, and adopt Chinese names. Aspiring to rule all of China, the Northern Wei strengthened the northern Chinese military. Their rule also saw an improvement in the crippled Chinese economy. In the late fifteenth century, the Wei rulers instituted the “equal-field” system. Designed to prevent land from accumulating in large tax-free estates, the system assigned land to peasants that reverted to the state on their death. The Wei also increased the amount of land under cultivation by resettling large numbers of peasants onto deserted farmland. Despite the chaos of the Sixteen Kingdoms period, culture flourished. Buddhism spread rapidly and served as a uniting force and an inspiration to artists. Northern Wei rulers, most of whom were Buddhists, commissioned the carving of thousands of magnificent Buddhist sculptures at the famous caves of Yungang and Longmen. The first Chinese encyclopedia was compiled for a Wei ruler in the third century. In 524, civil war broke out and Luoyang was sacked, but order was restored briefly in 534–535 under two new Wei dynasties, the Eastern and Western Wei. In 550 and 557 they were replaced by the Northern Qi and the Northern Chou dynasties, respectively. See also: Han Dynasty; Liang Dynasties; Sui Dynasty;Three Kingdoms.

WELSH KINGDOMS (ca. 500s–1200s C.E.)

Series of small kingdoms that developed in Wales following the Roman withdrawal from Britain, which maintained their independence from England until the thirteenth century. Wales was one of the few parts of Britain not conquered by barbarian invaders after the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century, remaining a British region after the Anglo-Saxon invasion and settlement of neighboring England. The word “Welsh” is derived from the Old English word wealh (“foreigner”), which the people of Wales applied to the Britons. By the sixth century, Wales was divided into a number of small kingdoms or principalities that warred with one another and with the various AngloSaxon kingdoms in England.Throughout this period, there was a tendency for larger kingdoms to absorb smaller ones, but these larger territories often broke up again once the influence of the strong ruler who united them had passed. There were four major kingdoms in Wales during the early medieval period: Gwynedd, Powys, Dyfed, and Deheubarth, and a number of lesser ones, including Ceredigion, Glywysing, and Gwent. Welsh kingship tended to descend within a family group, but strict primogeniture (inheritance by the eldest son) was not adhered to, and legitimacy was not of prime importance for eligibility to the throne. In the tenth century, Wales was largely united under Hywel Dda (r. ca. 909–949 or 950), who ruled Ceredigion, Dyfed, and Gwynedd. However, Athelstan (r. 924–939), king of Wessex and Mercia, demanded tribute from the Welsh princes. After the Norman conquest of 1066, William I of England (r. 1066–1087) and the Anglo-Norman kings who followed granted fiefs in Wales to English and Normans in an attempt to subdue the Welsh. Campaigns by England to conquer Wales continued throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In the thirteenth century, the title of “prince” was used more often than “king” for the leading men of the Welsh territories. Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (r. 1246–1282), prince of Gwynedd, who had done homage for his territory to Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307), styled himself prince of Wales, claiming lordship over most of the Welsh principalities. Llywelyn rebelled unsuccessfully against Edward I

We n c e s l a s I V in 1277, but he died in battle during a second rebellion in 1281. Edward I promised the Welsh a prince of their own nation and proclaimed his son, who was born in Caernarvon Castle in Wales, as prince of Wales, a title used ever since to designate the crown prince of England and Great Britain. Although there were further Welsh rebellions against England, most notably under Owain Glendower between 1402 and 1416, the Act of Union of 1536 established English hegemony over Wales, and the two countries have remained joined up to the present day. See also: Deheubarth Kingdom; Dyfed Kingdom; Edward I; Glywysing Kingdom; Gwent Kingdom; Gwynedd Kingdom; Llywelyn ap Gruffydd; Powys Kingdom. FURTHER READING

Holmes, George. ed. Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Poole, A.L. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta: 1087–1216. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Powicke, Sir Maurice. The Thirteenth Century: 1216– 1307. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. Stenton, Sir Frank. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Walker, David. Medieval Wales. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

WEN TI (WENDI) (541–604 C.E.) Chinese emperor (r. 581–604) who founded the Sui dynasty and made Confucianism the state doctrine of China. Born Yang Chien (Yang Jian),Wen Ti (Wendi) was a member of an aristocratic family from northwestern China. He served as an official for the Northern Chou dynasty (557–581), the last in a series of shortlived dynasties that ruled northern China in the period of political disunity known as the Southern and Northern dynasties. Wen Ti’s daughter married the heir to the Chou throne, who died in 578, leaving a young son to take the throne with Wen Ti as his regent. Wen Ti soon

1005

seized the throne, ordered all of the Chou princes killed, and proclaimed the new Sui dynasty (581– 618). He justified his actions as necessary for the defense of his family’s religion, Buddhism, which had been attacked by the Chou rulers. From his northern power base,Wen Ti moved his armies south, defeating the southern state of Chen in 589 to reunite China under a single rule for the first time in 300 years. Wen Ti established the Sui capital at the city of Daxincheng (modern-day Xi’an). A skilled administrator, he centralized the government, broadened the tax system, and improved internal transport.Wen Ti adopted the political institutions of China’s first empires, the Ch’in (Qin) and Han dynasties, instituting the examination system that selected scholars to serve in the bureaucracy. He implemented Confucianism as his doctrine of state, avoided extravagance at his court, and instituted the uniform application of laws in which even the nobility were held accountable for crimes. Wen Ti held regular Buddhist ceremonies at his court and sponsored the building of thousands of Buddhist temples and statues. He also ordered the restoration of Buddhist art defaced by previous dynasties. Wen Ti’s wife refused to allow him to take other consorts, going so far as to kill another woman with whom he fell in love. After Wen Ti died in 604 c.e., he was succeeded by his son, Yang Ti (Yangdi) (r. 604–617). See also: Han Dynasty; Liang Dynasties; Sui Dynasty;T’ang Dynasty;Wei Dynasties.

WENCESLAS IV (1361–1419 C.E.) German king (r. 1378–1400) and king of Bohemia (r. 1363–1419) who was a peace-loving and gifted ruler, but whose administrative neglect and temperamental nature brought his realms to near anarchy at a time when they were facing numerous domestic challenges. Son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (r. 1346–1378), Wenceslas became king of Germany (although he remained uncrowned as Holy Roman emperor) upon his father’s death in 1378. Unfortunately, he succeeded to these thrones at a time when many German princes were in conflict with the larger imperial towns over privileges and other issues.Wenceslas refused to become involved in Ger-

1006

We n c e s l a s I V

man affairs, preferring instead to remain in Bohemia, the kingdom he ruled from 1363, when his father handed over power. In 1380, Wenceslas ignored the request of German princes to appoint a Reichsverweser (imperial governor), angering these powerful nobles and leading to a long period of unrest and rebellion. After ten years of near anarchy, including a civil war (1386– 1389), and after taking Hungary (1388) with the help of his half-brother, Sigismund, the German conflicts were resolved when Wenceslas sided with the princes against the imperial towns. His late support did not impress the German princes, however, who plotted against Wenceslas and imprisoned him for a short time in Bohemia in 1394. He angered the German princes again in 1395, when he sold the hereditary fiefdom of Milan to Gian Galeazzo Visconti, placing it further from German control. In 1396,Wenceslaus once again provoked the ire of the princes by appointing Sigismund as Reichsverweser. In 1397,Wenceslas became involved in the Great Schism of the Western Church, a period when there were two, sometimes three, rival popes, all with a claim to the papal throne in Rome. At first,Wenceslas supported Pope Urban VI.Then, possibly because Urban would not officially crown him Holy Roman emperor, Wenceslas allied with Charles VI of France (r. 1380–1422), who suggested that all the current popes should resign and a new one be elected. Meanwhile, frustrated with Wenceslas’s lack of interest in their continuing problems, the four German electors invited him to meet with them. When Wenceslas refused to attend the meeting, they deposed him in August 1400 and elected Rupert (Ruprecht) III (r. 1400–1410), count Palatine of the Rhine, as king of Germany (although he was never crowned as Holy Roman emperor).Wenceslas refused to recognize Rupert, instead considering himself to be the rightful German king for the rest of his life. In 1402, Sigismund deposed his half-brother Wenceslas as king of Bohemia. Imprisoned once more, Wenceslas was ultimately able to reclaim the Bohemian throne but at the price of yielding any real power to a royal council. After regaining control of Bohemia,Wenceslas withdrew from most state activities. He did become embroiled in religious affairs, however, when he backed the supporters of Bohemian religious reformer John Huss. But he did nothing to prevent the execution of Huss as a heretic in 1415, which angered many of his Bohemian subjects.

When Wenceslas died in 1419, what was left of his power passed to Sigismund, who became king of Bohemia. Sigismund already ruled as German king (r. 1410–1437) and king of Hungary (r. 1387– 1437), and in 1433 he was crowned Holy Roman emperor (r. 1433–1437), an official honor that his brother had never achieved. See also: Charles IV; Holy Roman Empire; Luxembourg Dynasty; Sigismund.

WESSEX, KINGDOM OF (400s–900s C.E.)

Anglo-Saxon kingdom in England that flourished in the early Middle Ages and eventually established dominance over nearly all of the country. Very little reliable information is available about the kingdom of Wessex.The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, an early source of Anglo-Saxon history, states that the West Saxon kingdom was founded by the Saxon warlords Cerdic and his son Cynric in 495, although recent historians believe the date was probably some forty years later. Cerdic and Cynric arrived in southern England from the European continent and quickly conquered the Isle of Wight.They expanded from this base, setting up their new kingdom in western England, in the area that now includes the counties of Hampshire, Dorset,Wiltshire, and Somerset. During the early years of the kingdom of Wessex, power was not always held by a single king but was often shared among family members, and power did not necessarily descend from father to son. For the first centuries of its existence, Wessex battled for dominance with the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, particularly Northumbria and Mercia. The high points of the first centuries of Wessex were the reign of Ceaulin (r. 560–593), who extended the borders of Wessex to the north, and the period in the late seventh century, when Wessex dominated the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. King Ine (r. 688–726) was the first ruler of Wessex to set up a code of laws, but after his death, the kingdom fell into a period of anarchy. In the eighth century, under King Egbert (r. 802–839), Wessex continued to expand, first to the west in the regions of Devon and Cornwall. By 826,

Wi l d e r n e s s , R o y a l L i n k s t o Egbert had conquered the neighboring kingdoms of Kent, Essex, and Sussex, and within three years he had become overlord of the remaining Anglo-Saxon kings. Egbert’s successors, however, were faced with defending the realm against powerful outsiders. In the mid-800s, the armies of the Danes invaded England. Although other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms fell before the Danes, Wessex successfully repelled the Danish threat. Egbert’s grandson Alfred (r. 871–899), known to history as Alfred the Great, recaptured the city of London from the Danes in 886 and became ruler of all the English not under Danish control. In the 900s, Alfred’s successors, including his son Edward the Elder (r. 899–924), and grandsons Athelstan (r. 924–939) and Edmund (r. 939–946), gradually regained control over the rest of England from the Danes, including the region known as the Danelaw in eastern England. Alfred’s grandson Eadred (r. 946–955) became the first king of Wessex to rule all of England.This unity was threatened and broken by Viking invaders in the eleventh century, but the House of Wessex continued to rule until 1016 with the death of Edmund II, Ironside, the last of Alfred’s lineage. See also: Alfred the Great; Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Danish Kingdom; Kent, Kingdom of; Mercia, Kingdom of; Sussex, Kingdom of.

WILDERNESS, ROYAL LINKS TO Relationship of royalty to natural wilderness or the concept of wilderness. Royalty can be viewed as the uppermost level of the nobility in a realm. Aside from the political functions that are fulfilled by the nobility, royalty also embodies a series of symbolic functions that help to define it as aristocracy. By extension, it is through some of these symbolic functions that royalty is set apart from being merely aristocratic. Royalty’s symbolic relationship with the wilderness, as well as the political or legal functions that parallel this relationship, is an excellent example of the function that royals serve in a society. In many societies, royalty and the aristocracy are viewed as high culture, thereby creating a standard by which the cultural value of a society and its civilization can be judged. The Bourbon dynasty of France, Queen Victoria of England, the emperors of ancient

1007

Rome, and the Egyptian pharaohs all served as benchmarks for measuring the culture of their society. Culture and civility are the symbolic antithesis of the wilderness. The natural world of wild animals, the unrestricted activity of nature, and the inability to restrain unbridled passion and “wildness” are all embodied in the idea of wilderness. It is through the rivalry between the high culture of royalty and the unrestrained wilderness that some of the symbolic functions of royalty and monarchs have developed. Royalty in England provides a useful illustration. One of the most common and early representations of the wilderness in England was the forest, the place where individuals were forced to confront nature. Only the English monarch had jurisdiction in the forest, and the civil laws of the people were suspended there. Within the forest, English subjects gave up their rights and became wholly subject to royal authority. Symbolically, this gave the English monarch, the highest symbol of civility and culture in society, the right to control the wilderness and impose civilization on it. This ability to impose civilization on the wilderness was exemplified in the hunt. Until modern times, the hunt occurred in the forest, on royal lands, and individuals could participate only with the permission of the king or a royally appointed protector of the forests. The common people were excluded from taking part in all but the most cursory aspects of the hunt, such as flushing out game. The European practice of the hunt was also embedded with symbolism, etiquette, and rules of practice, all of which served to elevate the sport to a level applicable to the aristocracy and royalty. The hunt represented a way of acting, a code of civility. Royal participation in the hunt thus reflected a series of symbolic meanings for royal actions. It represented the confrontation between the most refined aspects of society—royalty—and the most unrefined aspects of nature—the forest or wilderness. The success of the hunting party symbolized the victory of civilization over the wilderness. This symbolic relationship can also be extended to other aspects of royal and aristocratic life. Among the most obvious is the royal garden. The garden symbolized the ability of society to bend the wilderness to its will. Another symbolic example of the royal subjugation of the wilderness was royal encouragement for extending culture and societal norms to areas of the world as yet explored.This in-

1008

Wi l d e r n e s s , R o y a l L i n k s t o

cluded the exploration of the Americas and Africa by Europeans and the granting of royal monopolies to trading companies or religious groups to gain natural resources or convert aboriginals in the name of the monarch. In the modern era, the decline in the belief that royalty epitomized the highest forms of culture has coincided with a rising dominance of popular culture and changing views about monarchy and democracy, as well as about the nature and function of the wilderness. See also: Behavior, Conventions of Royal; Hunting and Kingship; Landholding Patterns; Parks, Royal; Rights to Animals; Rights, Land.

WILHELM II (1859–1941 C.E.)

the German people, beliefs that strongly influenced his politics. Neither Wilhelm’s marriage in 1881 to Auguste Victoria of Augustenburg, nor the birth of his son Wilhelm in 1882, did much to calm his passion for military action on Germany’s behalf. Some historians believe that Wilhelm’s maimed left arm (it was withered when he was born), may have been a factor in his aggressive psychology, though this is certainly debatable.

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT Immediately upon his accession to the throne in 1888,Wilhelm came into conflict with Otto von Bismarck, the German chancellor who had run the empire almost single-handedly since its inception. Wilhelm’s authoritarian attitude made it impossible for him to share power with Bismarck, and so the chancellor was replaced in 1890. From then on,Wil-

German emperor (r. 1888–1918), whose fervent desire to lead his nation to international greatness helped produce the European tensions that culminated in World War I. In an era of increasing pressure for more democratic forms of government,Wilhelm II ruled as a near autocrat, and his passion for Germany fostered a spirit of strong nationalism and imperial privilege. However, these twin specters of nationalism and imperialism drove Europe into the bloodiest and most destructive war that the world had yet seen, and that ultimately brought about the end of the German Empire.

RISE TO POWER Born into one of the most powerful families in Europe, the house of Hohenzollern, Wilhelm was the son of German Crown Prince Frederick (later Emperor Frederick III, r. 1888) and Princess Victoria, daughter of Queen Victoria of England.Wilhelm was also the grandson of Wilhelm I (r. 1861–1888), the first emperor of a united Germany, who had led his nation to a position of power in Europe. When Wilhelm I died in 1888, Frederick succeeded him but died of throat cancer only three months into his reign, thereby putting Wilhelm on the throne. Unlike the popular Frederick, who was a great supporter of cultural development and liberal politics, Wilhelm was deeply authoritarian and interested first and foremost in military growth and imperial expansion.Wilhelm was a strong believer in the divine right of kings, as well as in the greatness of

The last emperor of Germany and king of Prussia, Kaiser Wilhelm II (at right) ruled at a time when nationalist feelings were pushing Europe toward armed conflict. A cousin of England’s King Edward VII (at left), the kaiser found himself at war with his relative in 1914.Wilhelm II was forced to abdicate after Germany lost World War I.

Wi l h e l m i n a helm faced little significant internal opposition to his policies. Related by blood to England’s royal family, Wilhelm had a strong interest in staying on good terms with the British. However, his push for German imperial expansion and naval growth drove a wedge between the two nations, leading England to unite with France and Russia in an alliance known as the Triple Entente. The rivalries between the major European powers created a rapid and competitive scramble for imperial dominions (fueled by Germany), commonly known as the “scramble for Africa” because that continent was the focus of most colonial expansion in the 1890s and early 1900s. The enmity between the imperial powers was such that Germany and France nearly went to war several times over Morocco. The Triple Entente was poised in opposition to the Triple Alliance, which linked Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. Although the Triple Alliance was formed before Wilhelm reached the throne, he continually renewed the pact throughout his reign. The tension between these two great coalitions pushed Europe to the brink of World War I.

DECLINE AND DEFEAT With most of his attention focused on international affairs, Wilhelm’s major domestic concern was the army and navy, which he viewed as essential to German survival. Both military branches underwent great expansion and overhaul during Wilhelm’s reign, ostensibly to maintain German security and peace abroad, but also with an eye toward extending the empire. Although Wilhelm promised some liberalizing social reforms, he did little to make good on his promises because his mind was focused on the international scene. The tense situation in Europe that Wilhelm had helped create was exacerbated by the assassination in 1914 of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by a Serbian radical. Shortly after Franz Ferdinand’s death, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, thus initiating the conflict that became World War I. Because of Germany’s alliance with Austria-Hungary, Wilhelm supported the Austrian declaration against Serbia and quickly followed it with declarations of war against Russia and France, which he feared were mobilizing to attack him. Counting on Britain to remain neutral, Wilhelm found himself facing powerful enemies on all fronts

1009

when the British government declared war on Germany, citing the German offensive as pretext. Although nominally at the helm of German forces during the war,Wilhelm exerted very little real military control. By the last years of the war, Germany was run by a council of military and business leaders who held considerable power. After Germany’s surrender at the end of World War I, popular pressure forced Wilhelm to abdicate the throne in 1918, and he lived the rest of his life in exile in Holland.With Wilhelm’s abdication, the German Empire had come to an end.The desperate economic condition of the country after the war, however, set the stage for the rise of Adolf Hitler and an even more destructive conflict. See also:Austro-Hungarian Empire; Colonialism and Kingship; Hohenzollern Dynasty; Imperial Rule; Military Power, Royal; Nationalism.

WILHELMINA (1880–1962 C.E.) Queen of the Netherlands during World Wars I and II, who was beloved by her subjects for her courage and her common sense. Wilhelmina Helene Pauline Maria Orange-Nassau Waldeck-Pyrmont was born on August 31, 1880, in The Hague, the capital of the Netherlands. She was the only child of then king Willem III (William III) and his second wife, Emma of Walderk Pyrmont. At the time of Wilhelmina’s birth, the institution of the monarchy was still somewhat new in the Netherlands.The nation had been a republic until only sixty-five years earlier, when the monarchy was established. Willem III was not a particularly effective ruler and earned little general support for the office of the king. During her fiftyyear reign, however,Wilhelmina gained the trust and loyalty of her people to a degree that could not have been anticipated. King Willem died in 1890, when Wilhelmina was only ten years old. Since there were no suitable male relatives,Wilhelmina was the only legitimate claimant to the throne. As she was still very young, however, her mother was made regent, handling the day-to-day details of administering the country while the young queen was educated in her royal responsibilities. On her eighteenth birthday,Wilhelmina formally assumed her place as ruler of the Netherlands, and her coronation was held in The Hague on September 6, 1898. Wilhelmina proved to be a practical, level-headed

1010

Wi l h e l m i n a

queen. She understood her role as ruler in a limited monarchy, and was respectful of the authority that properly belonged to the parliament. She saw her role as providing direction and support to her people, and during the early years of her rule she committed herself to initiating policies aimed at developing and improving the nation’s economy and institutions. As with all rulers,Wilhelmina knew that she must provide an heir to the throne, and in 1901, she wed a member of the German nobility, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. The couple had just one child, a daughter named Juliana, who was born in 1909. Duke Henry never played a role in the Dutch government, and after he died in 1934, the queen never remarried. Wilhelmina’s first real test as leader came with the outbreak of World War I. It is largely through the queen’s efforts that the Netherlands succeeded in maintaining neutrality during that conflict, thus sparing the Dutch people much of the destruction experienced by neighboring countries.When the war was ended, Wilhelmina instituted social and economic reforms that strengthened her country’s standing among the nations of Europe, earning the respect of her government and the loyalty of her subjects. Wilhelmina’s greatest test, however, came with the onset of World War II. Although she hoped to keep the Netherlands neutral, that proved to be impossible. When Hitler’s troops invaded the Netherlands in May 1940, the queen was forced to flee to England to avoid capture. There she established a government in exile. Though Wilhelmina was safe in England, her mind and heart remained in the Netherlands with her subjects. Throughout the war, she broadcast radio speeches urging courage and denouncing the Nazi occupying forces. Her broadcasts played no small part in strengthening the resolve of the Dutch, and inspired her people to acts of resistance, both small and large, that frustrated their would-be conquerors. When Allied forces liberated the Netherlands from the Nazis, Wilhelmina made ready to return home. In May 1945, cheering crowds welcomed the queen back to the royal palace in The Hague. Wilhelmina immediately turned her attention to developing a program for restoring the nation’s economy and infrastructure, which had been severely damaged during the years of Nazi occupation. By this time, however,Wilhelmina was in her sixties and suffering from ill health. Recognizing that

her country needed a strong ruler to oversee the postwar reconstruction, she abdicated her throne in favor of her daughter, Juliana, in 1948. Wilhelmina then retired to her summer palace, Het Loo, in the city of Apeldoorn, and began writing her memoirs: Lonely but Not Alone, which were first published in The Hague in 1959 and translated into English in 1960. She died at Het Loo in 1962. See also: Orange-Nassau, House of. FURTHER READING

Wilhelmina, Queen of the Netherlands. Lonely but Not Alone. Trans. John Peereboom. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

WILLIAM (1650–1702 C.E) AND MARY (1662–1695 C.E.) King (r. 1689–1702) and queen (r. 1689–1695) of England who ruled jointly after taking the throne in the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. The accession of William and Mary ended a period of great religious and political controversy in England, and their reign, which took place under a newly ratified Bill of Rights, marked the beginning of modern parliamentary government in Great Britain.

RISE TO POWER William (who would take the throne as William III) was born in 1650 in the Netherlands to William II, prince of Orange (r. 1647–1650), and Mary, the oldest daughter of King Charles I (r. 1625–1649) of England.As a young man,William distinguished himself in battle and was named the stadholder, or chief magistrate, of the Netherlands in 1672, a position his father had held before his death. In 1677 William wed Mary of York. A member of England’s powerful Stuart dynasty, Mary was the oldest daughter of James II (r. 1685–1688) of England and Anne Hyde, his first of two wives. Along with her younger sister Anne (who would later become Queen Anne of England, r. 1702–1714), Mary was raised as a Protestant, even though her father had strong Catholic leanings. Her marriage to William, who was also Protestant, was designed to create a political alliance to defend against Catholic influence in England.

Wi l l i a m I When Mary’s father came to the English throne as James II in 1685, controversy engulfed the British populace. Most of the English people, and nearly all of the wealthy and powerful ones, were Protestant and were outraged at the notion of a Catholic king on the throne. Matters came to a head in 1688 when James’s staunchly Catholic second wife, Mary of Modena, had a son, thereby securing a Catholic heir to the Crown. British Parliamentarians, feeling they had no other alternative, asked William of Orange to invade England and claim the throne. In the autumn of 1688, William and a sizable army landed in England and advanced to London without meeting any serious resistance. After taking the city,William ordered safe passage for James out of England. He then accepted the Crown from Parliament in the spring of 1689 and was declared joint-sovereign with his wife Mary.The throne, however, came with a price—Parliament took the opportunity to redefine the relationship between the monarch and the state in a newly drafted Bill of Rights (1689). Along with declaring that James had abdicated and that a Catholic could not occupy the throne, the Bill of Rights shifted the balance of power from the king to Parliament, and declared specific civil rights inalienable, thus marking the first step toward a more democratic form of government.The power of Parliament got another boost in 1701, when William agreed to the Act of Settlement, a measure that forbade English monarchs from leaving the country, using English armies to defend foreign territory, or granting royal pardons without the consent of Parliament.

ON THE THRONE William and Mary were not particularly well liked in England, although history has judged them somewhat better.William, an immensely skilled diplomat in international affairs, was never able to replicate his success on the domestic front. Seen as coldhearted and even cruel, he was unable to win the trust of the English people, even though he did much to advance both freedom of worship and the press. Mary’s unpopularity was in part a corollary of William’s and was also owing to the fact that the couple never had children, thus leaving no heir to the throne. As the arch-enemy of Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715),William was deeply involved in foreign affairs, frequently leaving England to confer with other heads of state or to lead his troops into battle

1011

against them. Although his side did not fare well militarily in the War of the Grand Alliance (1688– 1697), known in America as King William’s War, William was able to preserve his coalition with Austria and the Netherlands long enough to keep France in check. Just before his untimely death in 1702, as England was poised for yet another war with France,William unsuccessfully attempted to push through a peace plan that he believed would provide long-term European security. Many aspects of this plan were later adopted in the treaty known as the Peace of Utrecht (1713), which laid much of the modern foundation of Europe. Both William and Mary died relatively young, Mary succumbing to smallpox in 1695 and William passing away after a fall from a horse in 1702. Mary’s sister Anne, with whom the couple had had a controversial disagreement over money, estates, and the influence of Anne’s friends that set the siblings at odds in 1692, took the throne. Anne, also childless, was to be the last monarch of the house of Stuart. See also: Abdication, Royal; Anne; James II; Orange-Nassau, House of; Queens and Queen Mothers; Rights, Civil; Stuart Dynasty; Succession, Royal. FURTHER READING

Hoak, Dale, and Mordechai Feingold, eds. The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch Perspectives on the Revolution, 1688–89. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996. Van der Zee, Barbara, and Henri A. Van der Zee. William and Mary. New York: Knopf, 1973.

WILLIAM I (1772–1843 C.E.) First king of the Netherlands (r. 1813–1840), whose refusal to yield to the liberal ideals of his people ultimately cost him the throne. Although his early actions helped modernize the agricultural and industrial sectors of the Dutch economy,William I is remembered primarily for the internal turmoil that gripped the Netherlands under his rule and that eventually led to his abdication. Born into the powerful House of Orange-Nassau in 1772, William was the son of William V (r. 1751–1795), who was stadholder (chief magistrate)

1012

Wi l l i a m I

of the United Netherlands provinces, and Sophia Wilhelmina, a princess of Prussia. In order to further strengthen the House of Orange-Nassau, William married Frederica Wilhelmina, a cousin of his mother’s who was also a Prussian princess. As the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars became increasingly apparent, the major European powers in 1815 convened an international conference, known as the Congress of Vienna, whose purpose was the redesign of Europe for peacetime settlement.The Congress awarded William, who had distinguished himself in battle during both the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the kingdom of the Netherlands, which included Belgium and the grand duchy of Luxembourg. He took the throne in 1815 to much popular approval. Difficulties arose quickly, however, as William was unable to balance the needs of his native Dutch people with those of his Belgian subjects. William’s sympathy with the Dutch alienated the Belgians, and this situation was worsened when the king declared Dutch to be the official national language of the kingdom.William’s attempts to limit the freedom of the Belgian press proved the breaking point for the Belgians, leading to a revolution in 1830. Caught completely off-guard by this revolt, the Dutch were driven out of Belgium forever. William’s troubles continued throughout the 1830s as the Dutch people lobbied for more democratic political institutions and less monarchical authority. With public pressure for liberalization mounting, the king abdicated the throne in 1840. William spent his remaining years on a family estate in Silesia, a Prussian province, with the Crown of the Netherlands passing to his son, King William II (r. 1840–1849). See also: Abdication, Royal; Belgian Kingdom; Netherlands Kingdom; Orange-Nassau, House of.

WILLIAM I, THE CONQUEROR (1028–1087 C.E.)

Duke of Normandy and first Norman king of England (r. 1066–1087), who was variously known as William the Bastard, William the Conqueror, and William the Great.With the aid of an army of 7,000

Normans, William conducted the last successful invasion of England in 1066.

EARLY LIFE AND CLAIM TO ENGLAND William was born in 1028 to Duke Robert of Normandy (r. 1027–1035) and to Arlette, a tanner’s daughter. Before Duke Robert died in 1035 he designated William as his heir, despite the fact that it was highly unusual for a nobleman to acknowledge an illegitimate child as heir. At the age of fifteen, William was knighted by King Henry I of France (r. 1031–1060), and he accepted the king as his overlord. By 1047, the young Duke William was fighting skirmishes and battles against this same king in order to maintain the integrity of Normandy’s borders. After ten years of such engagements, William had become a hardened and experienced warrior, ready to grasp whatever challenge fate presented him. Meanwhile, William’s distant cousin, King Edward the Confessor of England (r. 1042–1066), had spent many years in Normandy with his mother, Emma of Normandy. In gratitude for the protection he received there, Edward promised in 1051 to make William heir to the English throne.William remembered this promise, but Edward, upon returning to England, changed his mind and declared Harold Godwinson his successor. In any case, the original promise had no real authority unless confirmed by the Anglo-Saxon ruling body, the Witan, who supported Harold. Encouraged by Harold Godwinson’s alienated brother, Tostig, William prepared a large invading force to accompany him to England to claim the English throne. Meanwhile, Tostig persuaded the Norwegian king, Harald III Hardrada (r. 1045–1066), to invade England simultaneously in the north.

INVASION AND CONQUEST OF ENGLAND William’s Norman fleet landed in England at Pevensey, near Hastings, on September 28, 1066, with 4,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. He immediately built a camp and began burning and pillaging the surrounding countryside. Three days earlier, and hundreds of miles to the north, Harold Godwinson—now Harold II of England (r. 1066)—had won the battle of Stamford Bridge against his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada. Soon afterward, Harold learned of

Wi l l i a m I , t h e C o n q u e r o r

1013

The conquest of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror of Normandy changed the course of English history and Western civilization. The Bayeux Tapestry, embroidered in France in the eleventh century, recounts the events leading up to and including the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066. This detail from the 230-foot-long tapestry shows William the Conqueror directing his troops.

William’s landing and, despite all advice against it, force-marched the remnants of his exhausted forces to the south, hoping to surprise William and prevent further destruction of the English countryside. Harold arrived at Senlac Hill (near Hastings) on October 14, 1066, and faced William and his Norman troops in battle.The battle of Hastings was long and hard-fought. William had three horses killed from under him during the day.The English infantry, with their double-handed axes, were among the toughest foot soldiers of their day. Moreover, Harold had positioned his men at the top of a hill, forcing the Normans to charge upwards, thus reducing much of the advantage that mounted Norman troops might have. However, the Normans had a weapon that the English lacked: the crossbow. In the end, Harold was shot in the eye with an arrow from a Norman archer’s bow. As he fell from his horse, he was cut down by surrounding Normans

soldiers. The English broke when they saw Harold’s fall, and William’s forces won the day, making William’s invasion a success.

CONSOLIDATION AND RULE William I was crowned king of England in the cathedral at Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day, 1066. Even before his coronation, however, William had begun the work of consolidating his new kingdom. Aptly named “The Conqueror” by posterity, William ruled England as a conquered land. He used its resources as political assets, taking the best properties from their former Saxon owners and giving them to his most trusted Norman aides and favorites. He siphoned off the wealth he collected as taxes to pay for the wars he continued to conduct in England, France, Ireland, and Wales. William’s influence changed the very character of the land he ruled. Throughout England, large tracts

1014

Wi l l i a m I , t h e C o n q u e r o r

ROYAL RITUALS

WILLIAM’S LANDING Although William the Conqueror enjoyed auspicious weather when he crossed the English Channel with his invasion force, an unfortunate mishap occurred when he first stepped from his boat to the shore. He fell face down on the beach. As he fell, a hush went through the entire invading force.These were strong men, ruthless men, but they were also powerfully superstitious, and their leader’s mishap seemed a bad omen.William, who had caught himself on his two hands, rose from the ground with his arms raised and cried out, “I thus with both hands lay my grasp on this sod.” His men cheered their leader, sure of his quick wits, if not his honesty.

of land were set aside as Crown lands. In one large parcel designated the New Forest, he destroyed all churches, villages, and farms in order to accommodate a private game preserve where only royal hunting parties were allowed (trespassers and poachers were blinded if caught).William responded to rebellions in the north with depredations so great that English agriculture and commerce in that region did not fully recover for many centuries. William I placed many Normans into positions of power throughout England, but his policy was not limited to the secular world. In 1070, he brought Lanfranc, the bishop of Caen, to England and installed him as the new archbishop of Canterbury. Before long, most of the higher offices in the English church were occupied by Norman clergy. William separated the ecclesiastical courts from the secular courts, and he employed the secular branch as enforcers of ecclesiastical decrees.Yet, he declared that no papal edict should be decreed nor any papal official enter England without his personal approval. He also declared that the decisions of the national assembly of the bishops of England, which had been a significant part of the Anglo-Saxon Witan, would have no validity unless approved personally by him. Under William the Conqueror, England was, perhaps, safer for the casual traveler than it had been before the Norman invasion. However, this greater safety came with a price. All the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of England now dwelt in terror of the vicious exactions and penalties that came with the new Norman laws.

One of the great cultural accomplishments of William’s reign, the Domesday Book of 1085, a general census of England, was created for the purpose of facilitating efficient and complete taxation and seizure of property.This census was completed with a thoroughness and speed unsurpassed in medieval history.

DEATH AND LEGACY Even after the invasion, William spent much of his time in his homeland of Normandy. It was during one of these stays, in 1087, that the French king, Philip I (r. 1060–1108), made a disparaging jest regarding William’s substantial girth. In response, William ordered the city of Nantes and its environs burned down.While William was surveying the devastation he had ordered, his horse stumbled, and William suffered grave injuries when he was thrown against the iron pommel of his saddle. He was taken to a nearby abbey at Caen, where he made his confession and then died. Besides the establishment of autocracy and despotism, William’s legacy—the Norman legacy to England—included improved trade with the European mainland, a robust feudalism, and the French language, which blended with Anglo-Saxon to lay the foundations for modern English. Moreover,William’s opportunistic adventuring had forever changed the map of Western civilization. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Conquest and Kingships; Edward the Confessor; English

Wi n d s o r , H o u s e o f Monarchies; Harald III Hardraade; Harold II Godwinson; Military Roles, Royal; Norman Kingdoms. FURTHER READING

Durant, Will. The Age of Faith. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1950. Douglas, David C. William the Conqueror:The Norman Impact upon England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.

WILLIAM II (WILLIAM RUFUS) (1056–1100 C.E.)

Second Norman king of England (r. 1087–1100), known as Rufus for his reddish complexion, who sought to extend Norman power in France and antagonized the church in England through his policies. William Rufus was the second surviving son of William, duke of Normandy, and Matilda of Flanders. In 1066, while William Rufus was still a child, his father invaded Anglo-Saxon England and defeated the last Anglo-Saxon ruler, Harold II Godwinson (r. 1066). Duke William took the English throne as king William I (r. 1066–1087), becoming the first Norman ruler of England. When William the Conqueror died in 1087, he bequeathed the title and lands of his native Normandy in France to his oldest son, Robert. William Rufus, his second and favorite son, received what turned out to be the more valuable bequest, the Crown of England. The reign of William II was plagued by violence. The other Norman barons tried to oust William in favor of his brother in order to keep England and Normandy under a single ruler.William faced rebellions in 1088 and 1095, each of which was led by Odo of Bayeaux, the earl of Kent, a half-brother of William the Conqueror. William II attempted to extend his power by leading military campaigns into Wales and Scotland. In 1091, he succeeded in dominating King Malcolm III of Scotland (r. 1058–1093), whom his soldiers killed two years later, in 1093. In 1097, William launched an unsuccessful invasion into Wales. His major military efforts, however, focused on attempting to reclaim Normandy from his brother Robert, a battle that was waged from 1089 to 1096. He also at-

1015

tempted to gain additional territory in France, leading campaigns into the regions of Maine and Vexin. Eventually, Robert left Normandy in the hands of William while he went to the Holy Land on Crusade in 1096. William ruled England with a firm hand, gaining the antipathy of many of the old Anglo-Saxon barons. He also aroused the anger of the Church by selling Church appointments and taking revenues from abbeys and other Church lands.William’s reign ended abruptly in 1100, when he was shot in the back with an arrow while hunting. There is some evidence to suggest that the death was not an accident, but rather a political assassination. The Crown passed to William’s younger brother, Henry I (r. 1100–1135), the third surviving son of William the Conqueror. See also: Anglo-Saxon Rulers; Norman Kingdoms;William I, the Conqueror.

WILLIAM III. See William and Mary WINDSOR, HOUSE OF (1917 C.E.–Present)

Reigning royal house of Great Britain, which was given the name of Windsor by King George V (r. 1910–1936).The house of Windsor is actually made up of the descendants of Queen Victoria (r. 1837–1901) of the house of Hanover and her husband, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Although perhaps the most visible of any ruling house in British history because of modern communications, the house of Windsor is also the least powerful, having seen the monarchy transformed from a center of political power to a symbolic institution that serves to unite the British people.

ORIGINS King George V came to the throne in 1910 during a time of widespread nationalist movements throughout Europe, when the very notion of royal power was being called into question. As nationalist pressures and the imperialist conflicts with which they were entwined drove Europe into World War I, Britain found itself facing a powerful enemy in Germany.The British populace developed a hatred of all

1016

Wi n d s o r , H o u s e o f

England’s royal House of Windsor originated with King George V, who changed the dynastic name from the German “Wettin” during World War I.The king (bearded) poses here with his wife, Queen Mary (seated), and his children—the future King Edward VIII, the future King George VI, son Henry, and daughter Mary.

things German, and George V and the royal family came under attack for their German origins. George’s grandmother, the venerated Queen Victoria of the German House of Hanover, had married a German prince, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Therefore, the British royal family was, in fact, almost entirely German. Taking the very Englishsounding name Windsor from the English royal palace, George issued a declaration in 1917 renaming the descendants of Victoria, and the house of Windsor was born.

DISSOLVING POWER AND CRISIS Immediately after World War I, the British Empire, still the largest in the world, began to submit to demands for autonomy from its colonies and other territorial possessions.The sheer cost of maintaining the empire became prohibitive as well, and the period

from 1920 to 1965 saw the effective dismantling of the British Empire. Simultaneously, the power balance of the constitutional monarchy shifted, and the elected members of the British Parliament became the sole voice in government affairs.The royal family came to be seen in a purely ceremonial light, embodying the British national character but having little say in British politics. The house of Windsor experienced a major crisis with the death of George V in 1936. George’s eldest son and successor, Edward VIII (r. 1936), was deeply in love with an American woman named Wallis Simpson. Mrs. Simpson, to the dismay of many English, not only had no royal blood but also had two exhusbands. Opposing divorce on any grounds, the Church of England forced Edward into a difficult decision: royal duty or love. Edward, in one of the most famous actions in history, abdicated the throne and

Wi t c h c r a f t a n d S o r c e r y

Windsor, House Of George V

1910–1936

Edward VIII George VI

1936 1936–1952

Elizabeth II*

1952–

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

married Wallis Simpson, giving the Crown to his younger brother, who thus became George VI (r. 1936–1952). George VI, having neither expected nor desired the throne, was wholly unprepared to rule, and he received a great deal of public criticism early in his reign. A very shy and private man, George did not initially fare well as a public representative of British national identity.With Europe again at war in 1939, the British people needed a strong national leader, and they began to turn from George to Winston Churchill, the prime minister. George, however, quickly proved himself up to the challenge, and his popularity soared when he decided to remain in London during its darkest days, visiting both troops and civilians and promising to defend Buckingham Palace.

CONTEMPORARY STABILITY George’s death in 1952 brought a new era of publicity to the royal family, as his eldest daughter, Queen Elizabeth II (r. 1952–present), took the throne in a ceremony broadcast around the world on television and radio. With her husband Philip of Mountbatten, duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth had four children, including Charles, prince of Wales, the heir to the throne. Elizabeth continued the role of British representative established by her father and grandfather, traveling widely around the British Commonwealth and meeting numerous world leaders. She also brought the royal family into charity work, and her efforts to raise money for a variety of causes have been praised extensively. Elizabeth celebrated her Golden Jubilee in 2002, commemorating fifty years on the throne. The marriage of Elizabeth’s son Charles to Diana Spencer in 1981 was one of the most widely viewed

1017

events in the history of television, and the marriage was a constant source of interest in the popular press. Their marital difficulties in the 1990s, culminating with a divorce in 1996, were also widely followed. Though the pair’s infidelities and lavish lifestyle generated much discussion about the necessity of maintaining the monarchy, Diana’s death in an automobile accident in 1997 united the public, both in Britain and around the world, in support and grief. The couple had two sons, Prince Henry and Prince William; William, as first born, is the heir to the throne. See also: Abdication, Royal; Elizabeth II; Hanover, House of; National Identity; Power, Forms of Royal; Queens and Queen Mothers; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty;Victoria. FURTHER READING

Douglas-Home, Charles. Dignified & Efficient:The British Monarchy in the Twentieth Century. Brinkworth,Wilts, UK: Claridge Press, 2000.

WITCHCRAFT AND SORCERY Supernatural activities that have sometimes been thought to affect monarchs and that rulers have worked to eliminate from their realms. Even the most powerful of monarchs could be considered vulnerable to witchcraft and sorcery. Witchcraft against a monarch had a particularly public aspect, pitting the witch against the community as a whole rather than against a particular individual or family. For example, many traditional African societies distinguish between private witchcraft and witchcraft against a king. In private witchcraft in these societies, it is proper to seek reconciliation between the witch and victim, possibly with the payment of a fine. In witchcraft against the king, however, the prescribed societal response is punishment rather than reconciliation, and the appropriate punishment is death at the king’s pleasure.

WITCHCRAFT AT COURT In the past, kings have used accusations of witchcraft against their enemies, and factions of courtiers have brought such charges against their rivals.Women, less able to use violence or official position to advance their interests, were particularly vulnerable to accu-

1018

Wi t c h c r a f t a n d S o r c e r y

sations of sorcery, and sometimes these accusations could reach high up the social scale. For example, the dowager queen of England, Joan of Navarre, was accused of using sorcery to attempt the murder of her stepson, King Henry V (r. 1413–1422), and was imprisoned from 1419 to 1422. A group of people more likely to be accused of sorcery were those who had come from obscure backgrounds to enjoy the monarch’s favor. The rise of the hitherto obscure favorite was often attributed to witchcraft. Guichard of Troyes, a French bishop who had risen from an obscure background, was accused in 1308 of having committed a number of murders by magic, and of preparing a special poison out of adders, scorpions, toads, and spiders for the royal princes. Charges were eventually dropped. The monarch’s sexual or reproductive functioning was commonly involved in accusations of hostile witchcraft. One of the most famous cases was the Affair of the Poisons, which occurred in France under King Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715).The king’s mistress, Madame de Montespan, was accused of using magic to keep the king’s love and to render the queen sterile.As often happened, the persons actually executed in this case were lower-class magical specialists, while Madame de Montespan was sent to a convent. It was far rarer for a reigning monarch himself or herself to be accused of witchcraft. One exception was Henri III of France (r. 1574–1589), a very unpopular ruler, who was accused of being a witch and of performing secret magical rituals.

KINGS AGAINST WITCHES Monarchs who felt threatened by rivals or other opponents could launch witch-hunts extending far beyond the boundaries of the court. James VI of Scotland (r. 1567–1625), for example, encouraged the persecution of a number of witches in North Berwick from 1590 to 1592, advising the legal authorities on tactics of torture and interrogation. James even wrote a book on witchcraft, Daemonologie (1597), endorsing the idea that witches were deadly enemies of Christendom. In 1768, the Chinese emperor Ch’ien Lung (Qianlong) (r. 1735–1799) launched a massive, nationwide persecution of wandering monks, vagrants, and other alleged “sorcerers” following reports that some had attempted to conjure up spirit armies that would threaten the regime. Kings also were perceived as having particular powers against witches and sorcerers. A common

theme of late sixteenth- and early seventeenthcentury European masques (court theatrical performances) was how only the monarch could dispel evil enchantments. A common belief among modern Europeans was that magistrates performing their duties were immune from attacks by witches. This “magisterial immunity” was thought to be a result of state officials sharing in the monarch’s own divine favor.

KINGS AGAINST WITCH-HUNTERS The ruler would sometimes claim a particular ability to discern false accusations of witchcraft. After James VI of Scotland ascended the English throne as James I in 1603, he moderated his position on witchcraft, intervening on several occasions to demonstrate the innocence of particular accused persons. He was much less likely to invervene, however, and was more supportive of accusations of witchcraft if the witch was accused of acting against the king. Shaka Zulu (r. 1816–1828) of the Zulu kingdom once set a trap for professional witch-finders. Shaka secretly smeared blood on his own dwelling, considered by the Zulus to be a hostile magical act, and he then encouraged witch-finders to accuse others of the deed. After revealing the true source of the blood, he massacred the witch-finders. When monarchs claimed miraculous powers, their supporters were careful to distinguish these powers from those of evil witches. Otherwise, royal opponents might equate the abilities of the monarch with those of witches. Indeed, such was the case in the sixteenth century when the Jesuit demonologist Martin del Rio suggested that when the Protestant Queen of England Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) claimed to heal victims of scrofula (a glandular swelling) with her royal touch, she might be a witch using powers derived from Satan. See also: Healing Powers of Kings; Regicide.

WU TSE-T’IEN (WU ZETIAN) (WU ZHAO) (625–705 C.E.) Chinese ruler (r. 690–705) of the T’ang dynasty, also known as Wu Hou, who was the only ruling female emperor in Chinese history. Named Wu Zhao at birth, Wu Tse-t’ien (Wu Zetian) was the daughter of a wealthy family. As a

Xerxes young woman, she was noticed for her beauty and became a concubine of Emperor T’ai Tsung (Taizong) (r. 626–649).Well-read and ambitious,Wu Tse-t’ien later became consort to his son, Emperor Kao Tsung (Gaozong) (r. 649–683) and quickly established great influence over him. She convinced Kao Tsung to remove his current empress, Empress Wang, and make her his new empress. Beautiful and intelligent,Wu Tse-t’ien was also notoriously ruthless. Once installed as empress, she had the former empress killed and ordered all of her rivals at court executed or exiled, replacing them with her own supporters. Her secret service terrorized the officials and the aristocracy in brutal purges, sniffing out and executing anyone believed to be disloyal. The strong-willed Wu Tse-t’ien dominated the sickly emperor and eventually became the virtual ruler of China. As empress, she participated in the imperial rites traditionally performed solely by the emperor. In 660 b.c.e., her power increased further when a stroke paralyzed Kao Tsung, leaving Wu Tset’ien in total control of the empire. To maintain power after her husband’s death in 683, Wu Tse-t’ien ordered the poisoning of Kao Tsung’s son and chosen successor, Li Hung (Li Hong). She then arranged for her own son, Li Che (Li Zhe), to be named heir to the throne. Li Che ascended to the throne as Chung Tsung (Zhongzong) (r. 684, 705–710), but his initial reign lasted a mere six weeks. Angered by the power exerted by Chung Tsung’s wife, Empress Wei, Wu Tze-t’ien removed him from the throne and placed him under house arrest. She replaced him with a younger son, Jui Tsung (Ruizong) (r. 684–690, 710–712) but maintained an iron grip on the reigns of power. In 690, Jui Tsung abdicated in Wu Tze’tien’s favor, and she proclaimed herself emperor of a new Chou (Zhou) dynasty.This was the first and only time in Chinese history that a woman took the title of emperor. A gifted ruler, Wu Tze-t’ien surrounded herself with talented administrators chosen from among China’s scholar class rather than the local aristocracy. During Kao Tsung’s reign, she expanded China’s power in Central Asia and defeated Korea. Wu Tzet’ien was also a skilled propagandist.To win popular support for her rule, she had her supporters circulate a document purported to be an ancient Buddhist text.The document predicted the reincarnation of a female deity, the Buddha Maitreya, as a benevolent leader who would come to power in China and rid

1019

the world of suffering.To promote the image of herself as a deity, Wu Tze-t’ien ordered the building of temples throughout the empire in honor of the Buddha Maitreya (“Buddha of the future”). A giant statue of the Buddha Maitreya was carved at the famous caves at Longmen, and its features are said to resemble those of Wu Tze-t’ien. For decades, first as empress and then as emperor, Wu Tze-t’ien eluded numerous attempts by T’ang princes to dethrone her. She did not falter until old age, when she began to lose public support and her grip on power slipped. In 705, shortly before her death, court officials forced Wu Tze-t’en to abdicate in favor of her son, Chung Tsung, who finally emerged from seclusion to retake the throne. See also: T’ai Tsung (Taizong);T’ang Dynasty.

X XERXES (ca. 518–465 B.C.E.) Ruler of Persia (r. 485–465 b.c.e.) at the height of its expansion, who was characterized by historians of his day as cruel, vain, and cowardly. Xerxes is mentioned in the works of both the ancient Greek historian Herodotus and the Greek philosopher Plato. In the Bible he is called Ahasuerus. Born in approximately 518 b.c.e., Xerxes was the son of Darius I (r. 521–486 b.c.e.), then the reigning king of Persia. His mother, Atossa, was of equally royal lineage; she was the daughter of Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 b.c.e.), the first king of Persia’s Achaemenid dynasty. During his lifetime, Darius was committed to conquering Greece, sending expedition after expedition to invade the powerful city-states of this region. In 485 b.c.e., while preparing to launch the third of these invasions, Darius died. Xerxes duly assumed his father’s throne. His first actions were dictated by the unrest in his newly inherited empire. At the time

1020

Xerxes

Persia controlled a vast territory, extending into the Asian steppes and Asia Minor, and including the tributary states of Egypt and Babylon. Rebellions arose in both Egypt and Babylon during the early years of Xerxes’s reign. He invaded Egypt in 484 b.c.e. to put down the rebels there, and in 482 b.c.e. he sent forces to reconquer Babylon. Xerxes also resolved to fulfill his father’s dream of conquering Greece, and by 480 b.c.e. he had amassed a huge army for the task. Hoping to surprise his enemies by attacking from an unexpected quarter, he commissioned a massive fleet and then had the ships lashed together to form a bridge that spanned the Hellespont (the narrow strait that separates Asia Minor from the Greek region of Thrace). His bridge of boats was so long, and his army so great, that it took a week for all his soldiers to march into Greek territory. Xerxes himself rode at the head of his army, marching directly toward Athens. Along the way, Xerxes was forced to bring his troops through mountainous terrain. In a narrow pass called Thermopylae, his army confronted a band of defenders from the Greek city-state of Sparta, which had allied itself with Athens. Xerxes’s force had far superior numbers, and he was ultimately victorious in this battle, but the fierce spirit the Spartans exhibited during this battle earned this event a prominent place in history. Once through the pass at Thermopylae, Xerxes continued his inexorable march on Athens. At the sight of his army, perhaps 300,000 strong, the population of the great city fled, and Xerxes’s soldiers looted the wealthy center of Greek culture. Xerxes may have believed that he had finally achieved his father’s great dream, but the Greeks had other ideas. With the support of allies throughout the region they took the battle to the sea, where the advantage was to the Greek navy. Xerxes’s fleet was destroyed at the battle of Salamis in 480 b.c.e. The following year, the ground troops suffered defeat at the battle of Plataca in central Greece, and Xerxes was ultimately forced to withdraw back into Asia Minor. Back home, Xerxes found that his empire was crumbling into squabbling factions and that his obsession with conquering Greece had earned him little loyalty and few friends. His personal bodyguard eventually turned against him, and one of their number assassinated him in 465 b.c.e. Xerxes’s reign marked the beginning of Persia’s decline, and his successors could only watch as other powers in the re-

gion came to claim the territories that once belonged to Persia. See also: Cyrus the Great; Darius I, the Great; Persian Empire.

XIA (HSIA) DYNASTY (ca. 2200–1750 B.C.E.)

Traditionally recognized as the first of the ancient dynasties of China, though its existence has been the subject of much debate. According to legends, beginning around 2500 b.c.e., China was ruled first by the Three Sovereigns and then by the Five Emperors. During the reign of the fifth emperor, Shun, floods devastated the land. Shun asked the engineer Yu to find a way to drain the waters.Yu labored for years, dredging channels that became the rivers leading to the sea in North China and proving his commitment and diligence. As a reward for Yu’s efforts, Shun appointed him successor to the throne, and Yu’s accession around 2204 b.c.e. marked the establishment of the Xia (Hsia) dynasty. Although chroniclers of later periods, such as Sima Qian, court historian in the second century b.c.e., provide accounts of the Xia dynasty, the lack of written documentation from the period casts doubt on its existence. Certainly between 3000 and 2000 b.c.e. a complex Bronze Age civilization, the Shang, emerged from the neolithic cultures found in China previously. A stable centralized government, writing, domestication of horses, metal-working, and class distinctions characterized this emerging culture. Archaeological excavations since the latter part of the twentieth century have attempted to determine whether this more sophisticated civilization could be correlated to an actual Xia dynasty. In 1959, archaeologists digging near Luoyang in eastern China uncovered a settlement with a palace and various bronze, jade, and pottery relics, which was dated 2100 to 1800 b.c.e. Several theories subsequently developed regarding this evidence. Some historians believed that the area could have been a capital of the Xia dynasty. Others argued that the site was an early stage of the Shang dynasty, already known to have been dominant from the mid-eighteenth century b.c.e. until its overthrow by the Chou dynasty around 1022 b.c.e. A third group of historians saw

Ya m a t o D y n a s t y the site as a later neolithic settlement, which made the transition into the Shang dynasty. In an effort to quell the controversy, the Chinese government in 1996 funded the Hsia-Shang-Chou Chronology Project. Chinese archaeologists and scholars worked at Luoyans and other sites for several years, concluding that the Xia dynasty was founded by mythological Emperor Yu, also called Yu the Great, and endured until the founding of the Shang dynasty. See also: Chou (Zhou) Dynasty; Shang (Yin) Dynasty.

XUANZONG. See Hsuan Tsung

Y YADAVA DYNASTY (1100s–1300s C.E.) Ruling family of the Hindu kingdom of Maharashtra, located in central India, which was conquered by the rulers of the Delhi Sultanate in the fourteenth century. The Yadavas were initially vassals of the Calukyas, a ruling family of Gujarat who were eventually undermined by Hindu feudal states to the south. By the twelfth century, the kingdom of the Yadavas reigned supreme in the Deccan, a large plateau bordered by the mountainous eastern and western Ghats ranges that makes up much of southern India. Around 1185, a Yadava leader named Bhillama (r. ca. 1185–1192) revolted against the Chalukyas and also attacked the Hoysalas of the Mysore region in the south and the Paramaras of Malwa in the north. He then founded the city of Devagiri (which means “abode of Gods”) as his capital. From that point on, the dynasty was known as the Yadavas of Devagiri. Next in line after Bhillama was Jaitugi (r. ca. 1192–1200), who was forced to recognize the

1021

suzerainty of the Hoysalas. But his much more powerful successor, Singhana (ca. 1200–1247), brought theYadava dynasty to its peak, with military triumphs over the Hoysalas and the Karad Silharas. The Yadava rulers who followed Singhana, including Krishna (r. ca. 1247–1261) and Mahadeva (r. ca. 1261–1271), did not fare as well with their expansionist policies. Mahadeva’s son and successor, Ammana (r. 1271), was deposed by Krishna’s son Ramachandra (r. 1271–1311), who had no trouble capturing Devagiri. Ramachandra’s reign went well in the beginning, as he overpowered the Hoysalas and other rival states. However, in 1294, a Muslim army led by the Delhi sultan, Firuz II (r. 1290–1296), attacked the Yadava kingdom and made it a tributary.The Yadavas’s attempts to regain Maharashtra were fruitless. Ramachandra was able to reign until 1311 by paying a heavy ransom to Delhi. But when his son, Sankaradeva (r. 1311–1313), succeeded him in 1311, the new Yadava ruler stopped sending tribute to Delhi; as a result, he was killed in 1313. Soon afterward, Ramachandra’s son-in-law, Harapaladeva (r. 1313–1317), managed to organize a revolt and drive out the Muslims for a while. But the sultanate regained control of the kingdom in 1317 and changed the name of the Yadava capital to Daulatabad. With this defeat, the Yadava dynasty came to an end. See also: Calukya (Chalukya) Dynasty; Delhi Kingdom; Indian Kingdoms; Khalji Dynasty.

YAMATO DYNASTY (ca. 40 B.C.E.–Present)

The ruling dynasty of Japan, named after the Yamato River and the surrounding region near Kyoto, which is cited as the world’s longest surviving dynasty. According to tradition, theYamato dynasty was founded over 2,500 years ago by the emperor Jimmu Tenno (ca. 40–10 b.c.e.), the semilegendary great-great grandson of the Japanese sun goddess, Amaterasu. At the end of World War II, the American occupation forces in Japan forced Emperor Hirohito (r. 1926–1989) to give up the traditional claim to divinity that Japanese emperors had claimed for centuries. Nonetheless, the Yamato dynasty remains the symbol of the Japanese state.

1022

Ya m a t o D y n a s t y

Yamato Period Jimmu* Suizei Annei Itoku Kosho Koan Korei Kogen Kaika Sujin Suinin Keiko Seimu Chuai Ojin Nintoku Richu Hanzei Ingyo Anko Yuryaku Seinei Kenzo Ninken Buretsu Keitai Ankan Senka Kimmei Bidatsu Yomei Sushun Suiko Jomei Kogyoku Kotoku Saimei Tenji

40–10 b.c.e. 10 b.c.e.–20 c.e. 20–50 50–80 80–110 110–140 140–170 170–200 200–230 230–258 258–290 290–322 322–355 355–362 362–394 394–427 427–432 432–437 437–454 454–457 457–489 489–494 494–497 497–504 504–510 510–527 527–535 535–539 539–571 572–585 585–587 587–592 593–628 629–641 642–645 645–654 655–661 661–672

Kobun Temmu Jito Mommu

672 672–686 686–697 697–707

Nara Period Gemmei Gensho Shomu Koken Junnin Shotoku Konin

707–715 715–724 724–749 749–758 758–764 764–770 770–781

Heian Period Kammu Heizei Saga Junna Nimmyo Montoku Seiwa Yozei Koko Uda Daigo Suzaku Murakami Reizei Enyu Kazan Ichijo Sanjo Go-Ichijo Go-Suzaku Go-Reizei Go-Sanjo Shirakawa

781–806 806–809 809–823 823–833 833–850 850–858 858–876 876–884 884–887 887–897 897–930 930–946 946–967 967–969 969–984 984–986 986–1011 1011–1016 1016–1036 1036–1045 1045–1068 1068–1073 1073–1087

1023

Ya m a t o D y n a s t y

Heian Period (continued) Horikawa Toba Sutoku Konoe Go-Shirakawa Nijo Rokujo Takakura Antoku

1087–1107 1107–1123 1123–1142 1142–1155 1155–1158 1158–1165 1165–1168 1168–1180 1180–1185

Kamakura Period Go-Toba Tusuchimikado Juntoku Chukyo Go-Horikawa Shijo Go-Saga Go-Fukakusa Kameyama Go-Uda Fushimi Go-Fushimi Go-Nijo Hanazono

1185–1198 1198–1210 1210–1221 1221 1221–1232 1232–1242 1242–1246 1246–1260 1260–1274 1274–1287 1287–1298 1298–1301 1301–1308 1308–1318

Period of Dual Dynasties SOUTHERN IMPERIAL COURT Go-Daigo 1318–1339 Go-Murakami 1339–1368 Chokei 1368–1383 Go-Kameyama 1383–1392 NORTHERN IMPERIAL COURT Kogon 1331–1333 Komyo 1335–1348

Suko Go-Kogon Go-Enyu

1348–1351 1351–1371 1371–1382

Muromachi Period Go-Kamatsu Shoko Go-Hanazono Go-Tusuchmikado Go-Kashiwabara Go-Nara Ogimachi

1382–1412 1412–1428 1428–1464 1464–1500 1500–1526 1526–1557 1557–1586

Tokugawa Period Go-Yozei Go-Mizunoo Meisho Go-Komyo Gosai Reigen Higashiyama Nakamikado Sakuramachi Momozono Go-Sakuramachi Go-Momozono Kokaku Ninko Komei

1586–1611 1611–1629 1629–1643 1643–1654 1655–1663 1663–1687 1687–1709 1709–1735 1735–1747 1747–1762 1762–1771 1771–1779 1780–1817 1817–1846 1846–1867

Modern Period Meiji Taisho Showa (Hirohito*) Akihito

1867–1912 1912–1926 1926–1989 1989–

*Indicates a separate alphabetical entry.

1024

Ya m a t o D y n a s t y

MYTH AND HISTORY The early dynastic history of Japan is documented in sparse historical and archaeological records. According to two chronicles from the eighth century, the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, the imperial line of Japan traces in lineage back to the semilegenday Jimmu in 660 b.c.e. Modern scholars, however, date Jimmu’s reign to the late first century b.c.e. Other early accounts credit Empress Himiko with establishing the Yamato clan. Chinese sources indicate that this was in 238 c.e. Still other legends say that Himiko was the daughter of Emperor Suijin and that she deposited the sacred mirror of Amaterasu at the imperial shrine in Ise in 5 b.c.e. The date on which the dynasty was founded is obviously in conflict. In any event, by about 500 c.e., theYamato imperial line was secured.Yet, the imperial succession was, historically, under the control of powerful Japanese aristocratic and landowning families. Except for six or so early reigning female emperors, an empress in 1630, and another in 1762, the line of Yamato succession was male. Given the acceptance of multiple imperial consorts, even into the twentieth century, there was always an available heir to the throne. If the empress did not have suitable sons, she might be pressed to adopt a nephew or the son of an imperial concubine who would then be appointed child emperor under a powerful regent or counselor.

DYARCHY—TITLE VERSUS POWER More often than not, Japan’s emperors were merely puppet rulers. The Yamato dynasty survived an alleged 2,500 years because those leaders who held real power in Japan never actually overthrew the emperor but allowed him to remain on the throne as a puppet.These leaders based their right to rule on the legitimacy of positions sanctioned, however circuitously, by the imperial office. Power might rest with an imperial regent, counselor, or shogun, or with the shogun’s regent or counselor. In any of these cases, however, the emperor was the theoretical fountainhead of power.

Power Behind the Throne Until the late nineteenth century, the scions of five great families—the Soga, Fujiwara, Minamoto, Ashikaga, and Tokugawa—were the true rulers of Japan. From about the mid-400s to the mid-600s, the noble Soga family exercised control, primarily through intermarriage with the imperial family.

Next came the Fujiwara family, which established control in the mid-600s, reaching ascendancy in the mid-800s and lingering until the early twelfth century. The Fujiwara clan supplied generations of daughters as empresses and consorts, and hundreds of fathers, grandfathers, fathers-in-law, and uncles as regents (sessho) and counselors (kampaku). Rare was the emperor who did not have a Fujiwara mother.

Shogunates At the end of the twelfth century, Minamoto Yoritomo, a member of a minor branch of the imperial family, triumphed in a series of dynastic struggles and received from the emperor the title of shogun (generalissimo). The autocratic rule of the shoguns, maintained with the support of samurai warriors, lasted intermittently for nearly seven hundred years. The Ashikaga shoguns ruled from 1338 to 1573, and the Tokugawa shoguns from 1603 to 1868. The three shogunates were divided by periods of social unrest and war among the clans. Although the Japanese emperors survived during these seven hundred years, they were often lived in isolation, ignored by the population and periodically reduced to great poverty.

MEIJI RESTORATION In 1868, a group of young nationalist reformers and samurai daimyo (landowners) overthrew the Tokugawa shoguns, moved the imperial court from Kyoto to the shogunal palace in Tokyo, and restored the power of the emperor, in this case, the emperor Mutshihito (r. 1867–1912). This was the beginning of the so-called Meiji Restoration.The Meiji reformers blamed corrupt and incompetent shoguns for cravenly accepting disadvantageous treaties enforced by Western gunboats. These reformers, the new “powers behind the throne,” industrialized and modernized Japan, drawing liberally on Western ideas, which they typically made more Japanese in their application. Under the emperor’s decree, the Meiji abolished the daimyo feudal land system, set up an educational system that drew from European ideas, set up a parliament (Diet) and a cabinet, and issued a constitution. They also popularized the emperors as a national symbol, emphasizing imperial divinity. By 1920, the imperial myth of divine descent was virtually dogma. In the mid-twentieth century, the wealthy and military classes of Japan carried the country into a

Ya ’ r u b i D y n a s t y disastrously aggressive military dictatorship that ended with World War II. But Emperor Hirohito, the current Yamato ruler at that time, survived under American protection as a useful icon. Today, Emperor Akihito (r. 1989–) and Empress Michiko, the first commoner to marry into the Yamato imperial family, serve as national symbols dedicated to serving their nation. No longer considered divine, Japan’s emperors also hold almost no real power. They are merely figureheads, as they were during the many centuries of rule by the shoguns. See also: Ashikaga Shogunate; Fujiwara Dynasty; Heian Period; Jimmu; Kamakura Shogunate; Minamoto Rulers; Nara Kingdom, Tokugawa Shogunate.

YAROSLAV I, THE WISE (978–1054 C.E.)

Grand duke of Kiev (r. 1019–1054), who consolidated the power of Kiev and united the Kievan Rus principalities. Yaroslav was the son of Prince Vladimir I of Kiev (r. 978–1015) and Princess Rogneda of Polotsk. When Yaroslav was ten years old, his father sent him to live with noble families in the principality of Novgorod. This decision had serious repercussions. In 1014,Yaroslav supported the Novgorodians in their decision to withhold tributary payments to Kiev. He then hired the Varangians, mercenary Scandinavian soldiers, to protect Novgorod from a Kievan invasion. Through these actions, Yaroslav successfully wrested control of the principality from his father. When Vladimir I died in 1015, Yaroslav’s brother Sviatopolk (r. 1015–1019) assumed the Kievan throne. Relying again upon his alliance with the Novgorodians and Varangians,Yaroslav attacked his brother’s forces in September 1015. With the aid of Polish allies, Sviatopolk repelled Yaroslav’s forces for four years. But in 1019, after a mighty attack,Yaroslav gained control of Kiev.Although he faced various threats during the next twenty years, many initiated by his own relatives, Yaroslav managed to consolidate the Kievan kingdoms to a greater degree than any of his predecessors. Yaroslav also arranged marriages to solidify his control and to gain an international position for Kiev. His sister married the king of Poland, his

1025

daughter Anna married King Henry I of France (r. 1031–1060), and Yaroslav himself married Ingegard, the daughter of Olaf Skotkonnung, king of Sweden (r. 995–1022). Consequently, Yaroslav became the first Russian ruler to engage in European affairs. His only foreign misstep was a failed attack against the Byzantine capital of Constantinople in 1043. Yaroslav oversaw fundamental developments in Kiev’s social institutions. Unlike previous rulers, he openly supported Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and he built stunning churches such as the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev. He also encouraged the immigration of Byzantine artisans and teachers, resulting in some of the earliest Russian writings. In 1016, he published the Justice of Yaroslav, a new legal code for Kiev. To ensure that the Rus kingdoms would remain unified after his death and to prevent dissension among his three sons,Yaroslav crafted the Testament of Yaroslav.The document urged his sons to sustain a triumvirate and avoid any crippling civil wars.Although his sons managed to maintain Kiev’s prominence, civil wars eventually weakened the kingdom, making it vulnerable to an invasion by the Mongols in 1236. See also: Kiev, Princedom of; Rus Princedoms; Vladimir Princedom.

YA’RUBI DYNASTY (ca. 1625–1743 C.E.) Islamic dynasty that ruled Oman, on the Arabian Peninsula, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, expelling the Portuguese from the region and creating a strong maritime power that included control over Zanzibar and other areas of the East African coast. The Ya’rubi dynasty was established around 1625, when Nasir ibn Murshid (r. 1625–1649) was elected imam (guide or leader) of Oman and established a capital at Rustaq. Nasir united the country under the beliefs of Ibadi Islam, a Muslim sect that had been adopted by various Omani tribes as early as the seventh century. He also began a military campaign against the Portuguese in Oman, attacking the trading port of Muscat and capturing the cities of Quriyat, Sur, and Julfar. In 1643, Nasir captured Sohar, but in 1648 he was forced to sign a treaty with the Portuguese allowing them to retain control of Muscat. Nasir died in 1649 and was succeeded by Sultan I (r. 1649–1679), who immediately broke the treaty with the Portuguese and recaptured Muscat in 1650.

1026

Ya ’ r u b i D y n a s t y

Sultan’s expeditions stimulated the creation of an Omani navy and increased the influence of both Oman and its merchants in the region. He moved the capital to Nizwa and rebuilt various towns in the kingdom. Upon the death of Sultan I in 1669, he was succeeded by Abu al-Arab (r. 1679–1692). Soon after, a power struggle ensued between al-Arab and his brother, Saif ibn Sultan. Saif took the throne in 1692 after his brother committed suicide. During his rule, Saif I (r. 1692–1711) rebuilt the Omani navy and renovated the country’s irrigation system, the falaj, which had been greatly neglected. Saif also moved the capital back to Rustaq from Nizwa. Saif died in 1711 and was succeeded by his son, Sultan II (r. 1711–1719). Ya’rubid power declined during his reign, as the treasury was depleted by military campaigns and large building projects. By the reign of Sultan II, hereditary succession had become firmly established in the kingdom. This principle went against the beliefs of Ibadi Islam, however. The resulting tension between religious and tribal leaders resulted in the outbreak of civil war after Sultan II died in 1719 and left a minor, his son, Saif II (r. 1719–1743), on the throne. Omani tribal leaders backed Saif II as the legitimate successor, but religious leaders chose another individual, Muhanna, to rule. Saif II was eventually proclaimed imam in 1728, but his rule continued to be opposed by a succession of rivals. In 1738, Saif II rebuffed an invasion of Oman by the Persians. But four years later, in 1742, he asked the Persians for assistance during an attempt by opposing factions to depose him. Continuing dynastic disputes greatly weakened the Ya’rubi dynasty. In 1749, an opposition leader, Ahmad ibn Sa’id (r. 1749–1783), became imam and founded the Al-Bu-Sa’id dynasty, bringing an end to rule by the Ya’rubids. See also: Arabia, Kingdoms of; Middle Eastern Dynasties.

YELLOW EMPEROR. See Huang Ti YEMEN RULERS (ca. 900s B.C.E.–Present) Rulers of the territory of Yemen, in the southern western corner of the Arabian Peninsula.

From about the tenth century b.c.e.,Yemen was the commercial center of ancient Arabian civilization. The fertile land produced an abundance of spices that were much in demand and easily traded throughout the region. Among the ancient kingdoms that prospered at this time were those of the Minaean, Sabaean, and later the Himyarites. Most well known of the rulers of this time was the legendary queen of Sheba, who visited King Solomon of Israel (r. 970–931 b.c.e.). In the eighth century c.e., northern Yemen became the destination of members of the Shi’ite sect of Islam, who were fleeing from persecution further north. One of their leaders, al-Hadi ilal Haqq, who claimed descent from the Prophet Muhammad, declared himself imam (guide or leader) and founded the Rassid dynasty, which followed a sect of Shi’ite Islam called Zaydism. Although other conquerors would officially claim this territory in succeeding centuries, the Rassid dynasty retained unofficial local control over northern and eastern Yemen until the twentieth century. In the sixteenth century, Yemen became part of the Ottoman Empire. Qasim the Great (r. ca. 1592–1620), an imam of the Shi’ite Islamic sect called Zaydism, revolted against the Ottomans in the late sixteenth century and gained a period of independence for Yemen. By the eighteenth century, however, Zaydi power had weakened, and the Ottomans regained control. In the nineteenth century, when Great Britain needed to retain access to their vital trading routes to India, they made the strategically situated area of southern Yemen a British protectorate. The Zaydi imam, Yahya (r. 1904–1948), gained control of northern Yemen from the Ottomans in 1918. Although he tried to gain control over the south, he was thwarted by the British.Yahya was assassinated in 1948 and was succeeded by his son, Ahmad (r. 1948–1962), who also fought against the British over control of the south. Immediately after Ahmad’s death in 1962, a coup led by Colonel Abdullah al-Sallal succeeded in taking power from the monarchy and formed the Yemen Arab Republic in the north, with Sallal as president. Soon thereafter, in 1967, the strongest of the groups opposed to British rule in southern Yemen took control and create