Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Ethiopia" to "Evangelical Association"

Chapter I: Indo-European (1)

Text size

1. INDIC branch, represented by Gipsy dialects.
2. IRANIC branch, " " (a) Ossetian.
(b) Armenian.
3. HELLENIC branch, " " *(a) Greek.
(b) Romaic.
(c) Neo-Hellenic.
4. ITALIC branch, " " *(a) Latin.
**(b) Oscan.
**(c) Umbrian, &c.
/ (d) French.
| (e) Walloon.
| (f) Provencal.
| (g) Italian.
_Neo-Latin_ < (h) Ladin (Rumonsh, Rumansh,
| Rheto-Romance).
| (i) Spanish.
| (j) Portuguese.
\ (k) Rumanian.
5. CELTIC branch, represented by (a) Irish.
(b) Erse or Gaelic.
(c) Manx.
(d) Welsh.
**(e) Cornish.
(f) Low Breton.
6. TEUTONIC branch, represented by **(a) Gothic.
/ **(b) Norse or Old Norse.
| (c) Icelandic and Faeroese.
_Scandinavian_ < (d) Norwegian.
| (e) Swedish.
\ (f) Danish.
/ **(g) Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, or First
| English.
| (h) English.
| **(i) Old Saxon.
_Low German_ < (j) Platt-Deutsch or Low
| German.
| (k) Flemish } Netherlandish.
| (l) Dutch }
\ (m) Frisic.
/ **(n) Old High German.
| (o) Middle High German.
_High German_ < (p) New High or Literary
\ German
7. SLAVONIC branch, represented by *(a) Church Slavonic.
/ (b) Russian.
| (c) Ruthenian, Rusniak, or Little-
| Russian.
| (d) White Russian or Bielo-
_South-Eastern_ < Russian.
| (e) Bulgarian.
| (f) Servo-Croatian.
\ (g) Slovenian.
/ (h) Czech (Bohemian).
| (i) Slovakish.
_Western_ < (j) Polish.
| (k) Sorbian (Wendic, Lusatian).
\ *(l) Polabian.
8. LETTIC branch, represented by **(a) Old Prussian
(b) Lettish.
(c) Lithuanian.
9. UNATTACHED **?(a) Old Dacian.
(b) Albanian.
II. SEMITIC.
1. CANAANITIC branch, represented by *(a)Hebrew.
**(b)Phoenician or Punic.
2. ARABIC branch, represented by **(a) Arabic.
**(b) Mozarabic.
(c) Maltese.
III. FINNO-TATARIC (Turanian, Ural-Altaic, &c.).
1. FINNO-UGRIC languages (a) Samoyede.
(b) Finnish or Suomi.
(c) Esthonian, Livonian, Vepsish,
Votish.
(d) Lappish.
(e) Cheremissian.
(f) Mordvinian.
(g) Ziryenian and Permian.
(h) Votiak.
(i) Magyar.
2. TATAR-TURKISH languages (a) Turkish.
(b) Kazan Tatar, Crimean Tatar,
Bashkir, Kirghiz.
(c) Chuvash.
3. MONGOLIAN languages Kalmuk.
4. UNATTACHED Basque.

From this conspectus it appears that there are still about 60 distinct languages spoken in Europe, without including Latin, Greek, Old Slavonic and Hebrew, which are still used in literature or ecclesiastical liturgies. Besides all those which are spoken over extensive territories, and some even which are confined within very narrow limits, are broken up into several distinct dialects.

Political boundaries.

The boundaries of European countries have of course been determined by history, and in some cases only historical events can be held to account for their general situation, the influence of geographical conditions being seen only on a minute examination of details. In most cases, however, it is otherwise. The present political boundaries were all settled when the general distribution of population in the continent was in a large measure determined by the geographical conditions, and accordingly the lines along which they run for the most part show the influence of such conditions very clearly, and thus present in many cases a marked contrast to the political boundaries in America and Australia, where the boundaries have often been marked out in advance of the population. In Europe the general rule is that the boundaries tend to run through some thinly peopled strip or tract of country, such as is formed by mountain ranges, elevated tablelands too bleak for cultivation, relatively high ground of no great altitude where soil and climate are less favourable to cultivation than the lower land on either side, or low ground occupied by heaths or marshes or some other sterile soil; but it is the exception for important navigable rivers to form boundaries between countries or even between important administrative divisions of countries, and for such exceptions a special explanation can generally be found. Navigable rivers unite rather than separate, for the obvious reason that they generally flow through populous valleys, and the vessels that pass up and down can touch as easily on one side as the other. Minor rivers, on the other hand, flowing through sparsely peopled valleys frequently form portions of political boundaries simply because they are convenient lines of demarcation. A brief examination of the present political map of Europe will serve to illustrate these rules.

The eastern frontier of the Netherlands begins by running southwards
through a marsh nearly parallel to the Ems but nowhere touching it,
then winds south or south-westwards through a rather sparsely peopled
district to the Rhine. This river it crosses, it then approaches but
does not touch the Meuse, but runs for a considerable distance roughly
parallel to that river along higher ground, where the population is
much more scanty than in the valley. On the side of Belgium the Dutch
boundary is for the most part thoroughly typical, winding between the
dreariest parts of the Dutch or Belgium provinces of North Brabant,
Limburg and Antwerp. The Scheldt nowhere forms a boundary between
countries, not even at its wide estuary. The eastern frontier of
Belgium is quite typical both on the side of Germany and Luxemburg. It
is otherwise, however, on the south, there that country confines with
France, and indeed the whole of the north-east frontier of France may
be called a historical frontier, showing the influence of geographical
conditions only in details. One of these details, however, deserves
attention, the tongue in which it advances northwards into Belgium so
as to give to France the natural fortress of Givet, a tongue, be it
noted, the outline of which is as typical a boundary as is to be seen
in Europe in respect of scantiness of population, apart from the
fortress.

The mountainous frontiers of France on the east and south require
hardly any comment. Only in the Burgundy Gate between the Vosges and
the Jura has an artificial boundary had to be drawn, and even that in
a minor degree illustrates the general rule. The division of the
Iberian peninsula between Spain and Portugal goes back in effect to
the Christian reaction against the Moors. The valley of the Mino and
its tributaries establishes a natural connexion between Galicia and
the rest of Spain; but an independent crusade against the Moors
starting from the lower part of the valley of the Douro resulted in
the formation of the kingdom of Portugal, which found its natural
eastern limit on the scantily peopled margin of the Iberian tableland,
where the rivers cease to be navigable and flow through narrow gorges,
that of the Tagus, where the river marks the frontier, being almost
without inhabitants, especially on the Spanish side.

The greater part of the Italian boundary is very clearly marked
geographically, though we have to look back to the weakness of divided
Italy to account for the instances in which northern mountaineers have
pushed their way into southern Alpine valleys. Even in these parts,
however, there are interesting illustrations of geographical influence
in the way in which the Italian boundary crosses the northern ends of
the Lago Maggiore and the Lake of Garda, and cuts off portions of Lake
Lugano both in the east and west. In all these cases the frontier
crosses from one steep unpeopled slope to another, assigning the
population at different ends or on different sides of the lakes to the
country to which belongs the adjacent population not lying on their
shores.

Of the Swiss frontiers all that it is necessary to remark is that the
river Rhine in more than one place marks the boundary, in one,
however, where it traverses alluvial flats liable to inundation (on
the side of Austria), in the other place where it rushes through a
gorge below the falls of Schaffhausen. The southern frontier of
Germany is almost throughout typical, the northern is the sea, except
where a really artificial boundary runs through Jutland.

In the east of Germany and the north-east of Austria the winding
frontier through low plains is the result of the partition of Poland,
but in spite of the absence of marked physical features it is for the
most part in its details almost as typical as the mountainous frontier
on the south of Germany. All the great rivers are crossed. Most of the
line runs through a tract of strikingly scanty population, and the
dense population in one part of it, where upper Silesia confines with
Russian Poland, has been developed since the boundary was fixed.

In the Balkan Peninsula the most striking facts are that the Balkans
do not, and the Danube to a large extent does form a boundary.
Geographical features, however, bring the valley of the Maritsa
(eastern Rumelia) into intimate relation with upper Bulgaria, the
connexion of which with Bulgaria north of the Balkans had long been
established by the valley of the Isker, narrow as that valley is. On
the side of Rumania, again, it is the marshes on the left bank of the
Danube even more than the river itself that make of that river a
frontier. An examination of the eastern boundary of all that is
included in Russia in Europe will furnish further illustrations of the
general rule.

Finally, on the north-west of Russia it was only natural that the
Tornea and the Tana should be taken as lines of demarcation in that
thinly peopled region, and it was equally natural that where the
boundary between Norway and Sweden descends from the fjeld in the
south it should leave to Norway both sides of the valley of the
Glommen.

+-------------------+-------------+------------------------------------+--------+
| | Area. | Population. | |
| +-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+Pop. per|
| Countries. | English | About | About | About | sq. m. |
| | sq. m. | 1880. | 1890. | 1900. | |
+-------------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+--------+
| Austria-Hungary | 241,466 | 37,884 | 41,358 | 45,405[11]| 188 |
| Bosnia-Herze- | 19,735 | 1,336[1] | .. | 1,568[12]| 81 |
| govina[a] | | | | | |
| Liechtenstein | 61 | | 9[7] | .. | 147 |
| Belgium | 11,373 | 5,520 | 6,069 | 6,694[16]| 589 |
| Denmark[b] | 15,431 | 1,980 | 2,185 | 2,465[14]| 160 |
| France | 207,206 | | 38,343[7] | 38,596[14]| 186 |
| Monaco | 8 | .. | .. | 15[13]| |
| German Empire | 208,760 | 45,234 | 49,428 | 56,345[16]| 270 |
| Luxemburg | 1,003 | | | 237[16]| 247 |
| Greece | 24,974 | | 2,187[8] | 2,434[15]| 97 |
| Italy | 110,676 | 28,460[2] | | 32,450[14]| 293 |
| San Marino | 23 | .. | | 11[17]| 435 |
| Montenegro | 3,500 | .. | | 228[15]| 65 |
| Netherlands | 12,741 | 4,013[3] | 4,511[8] | 5,103[17]| 400 |
| Portugal | 34,347[c]| 4,160[4] | 4,660 | 5,423[16]| 153 |
| Rumania | 50,588 | | | 5,913[17]| 117 |
| Russia | 1,951,249 | 89,685[1] | .. |103,671[18]| 53 |
| Finland | 144,255 | 2,176[1] | .. | 2,555[11]| 18 |
| Servia | 18,762 | 1,908[5] | | 2,494[16]| 133 |
| Spain[a] | 191,994 | 16,432[6] | 17,262[9] | 18,618[16]| 97 |
| Andorra | 175 | .. | 5 | .. | 29 |
| Sweden | 173,968 | 4,566 | 4,785 | 5,136[16]| 30 |
| Norway | 126,053 | | 2,001[7] | 2,231[16]| 18 |
| Switzerland | 15,976 | 2,846 | 2,933[10]| 3,314[16]| 207 |
| Turkey (Europe)[e]| 66,840 | | | 5,892? | 90 |
| Bulgaria[f] | 37,323 | 2,008[2] | 3,154[10]| 3,733[14]| 100 |
| Crete | 3,328 | .. | 302[9] | 304[16]| 91 |
| Thasos | 152 | .. | .. | 12? | 79 |
| United Kingdom | 121,742 | 35,026[2] | 37,881[7] | 41,455[14]| 341 |
+-------------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+--------+
[a] Annexed by imperial decree to Austria-Hungary in 1908.
[b] Including Faeroe Islands.
[c] Area exclusive of Tagus and Sado inlets (together 161 sq. m.).
[d] Excluding Canary Islands.
[e] With Novi-bazar.
[f] Bulgaria proclaimed its independence of Turkey in 1908.

[1] 1885. [10] 1888.
[2] 1881. [11] Census 1900.
[3] 1879. [12] Census 1895.
[4] 1878. [13] Estimate 1897.
[5] 1884. [14] Census 1901.
[6] 1887. [15] Census 1896.
[7] 1891. [16] Census 1900.
[8] 1889. [17] Census 1899.
[9] Census 1890. [18] Census 1897.

Population.

The preceding table shows the area of the countries of Europe, with their estimated or enumerated populations in thousands (000 omitted) at different dates.

A noteworthy feature of the distribution of population in Europe, especially in western, southern and central Europe, in modern times, is the high degree of aggregation in towns, which is exhibited in the following table[74] for the different countries or regions of the continent:--

+-----------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| | Percentage in Towns. | |
| +----------+-----------+ All Towns |
| | Over | From | over |
| | 100,000. | 20,000 to | 20,000. |
| | | 100,000. | |
+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| England and Wales | 34.8 | 23.5 | 58.3 |
| Scotland | 29.7 | 9.9 | 39.7 |
| Ireland | 14.2 | 5.3 | 19.5 |
| Norway | 10.8 | 6.8 | 17.6 |
| Sweden | 8.5 | 2.6 | 11.2 |
| Denmark | 19.4 | 6.6 | 26.0 |
| German Empire | 17.0 | 11.2 | 28.2 |
| Netherlands | 22.3 | 15.0 | 37.3 |
| Belgium | 18.6 | 12.0 | 30.6 |
| France | 13.7 | 10.3 | 24.0 |
| Spain and Portugal | 10.5 | 5.7 | 16.2 |
| Bosnia, Servia and Bulgaria | | 4.2 | 4.2 |
| Rumania | 4.6 | 7.2 | 11.8 |
| Hungary | 3.7 | 9.1 | 12.8 |
| Galicia and Bukovina | 2.0 | 4.8 | 6.8 |
| Cis-Leithan provinces of | | | |
| Austria (exclusive of the | | | |
| two latter) | 12.4 | 5.9 | 18.3 |
| Poland | 10.6 | 4.2 | 14.8 |
| Baltic Provinces, Russia | 11.4 | 8.3 | 19.7 |
| Moscow region[75] | 9.6 | 5.4 | 15.0 |
| Black earth governments, | | | |
| Great Russia[76] | 0.7 | 4.9 | 5.6 |
| Governments of middle and | | | |
| lower Volga[77] | 3.3 | 4.0 | 7.3 |
| South Russia[78] | 7.0 | 8.5 | 15.5 |
| Finland | 3.8 | 4.3 | 8.1 |
+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+

The following table contains a list of the towns with more than 100,000 inhabitants, not in every case according to the most recent census, but, in order to make the populations fairly comparable with one another, according to the nearest census or available estimate to 1900. Population in thousands (000 omitted):--

Comm. = commune. w. subs. = with suburbs.

[*] In 1800 only those to which an asterisk is prefixed rose above
100,000. Thirty-four out of the 144 towns enumerated in the list
above belong to the British Isles.

[+] The contiguous parliamentary boroughs of Birmingham and Aston
Manor.

[++] Part of Greater London.

AUTHORITIES.--Elisee Reclus, vols. i. to v. of _Nouvelle Geographie
universelle_ (Paris, 1876-1880), translated by E.G. Ravenstein and
A.H. Keane (vol. i. Southern Europe, vol. ii. France and Switzerland,
vol. iii. Austria-Hungary, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, vol.
iv. The British Isles, vol. v. Scandinavia, Russia in Europe, and the
European islands, translation undated); G.G. Chisholm, "Europe" (2
vols.) in Stanford's _Compendium of Geography and Travel_ (London,
1899, 1902); Kirchhoff and others, _Die Landerkunde des Erdteils
Europa_, vols. ii. and iii. of _Unser Wissen von der Erde_ (comprising
all the countries of Europe except Russia) (Vienna, &c., 1887-1893);
A. Philippson and L. Neumann, _Europa, eine allgemeine Landerkunde_
(Leipzig, 1895, 2nd edition by A. Philippson, 1906); Joseph Partsch,
_Central Europe_ (London, 1903) (embraces Belgium, the Netherlands,
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Rumania, Servia, Bulgaria and Montenegro
treated from a general point of view); Joseph Partsch, _Mitteleuropa_
(Gotha, 1904) (the same work in German, extended and furnished with
additional coloured maps); M. Fallex and A. Moirey, _L'Europe moins la
France_ (Paris, 1906) (no index); A. Hettner, _Europa_ (Leipzig, 1907)
(an important feature of this work is the division of Europe into
natural regions); Vidal de la Blache, _Tableau de la geographie de la
France_ (Paris, 1903) (contains a most instructive map embracing
western and central Europe to about 42 deg. N. and 24 deg.-26 deg. E., showing the
former extent of forest, the distribution of soils earliest fit for
cultivation, of littoral alluvium and of the mines of salt and tin
which were so important in early European commerce); H.B. George, _The
Relations of Geography and History_ (Oxford, 1901) (deals very largely
with Europe); W.Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_ (London, 1900); J.
Deniker, _The Races of Man_ (London, 1900); R.G. Latham, _The
Nationalities of Europe_ (London, 2 vols., 1863); J.G. Bartholomew,
"The Mapping of Europe," in _Scot. Geog. Magazine_ (1890), p. 293;
Joseph Prestwich, _Geological Map of Europe_ (Oxford, 1880); A. Supan,
_Die Bevoelkerung der Erde_ (viii. Gotha, 1891, and x. Gotha, 1899);
Strelbitsky, _La Superficie de l'Europe_ (St Petersburg, 1882); Oppel,
"Die progressive Zunahme der Bevoelkerung Europas," _Petermanns
Mitteil._ (Gotha, 1886); Dr W. Koch, _Handbuch fuer den
Eisenbahn-Gueterverkehr_ (Berlin), published annually (gives railway
distances on all the lines of Europe except those of the British
Isles, Greece, Portugal and Spain); _Verkehrsatlas von Europa_
(Leipzig), frequently re-issued; _Grosser Atlas der Eisenbahnen von
Mitteleuropa_ (Leipzig); _Verlag fuer Boersen_ and _Finanzliteratur_,
frequently re-issued (gives kilometric distances between a great
number of places and a great variety of other information in the
text); K. Wiedenfeld, _Die nordwesteuropaeischen Welthaefen_ (Berlin,
1903) (an important work discussing the geographical basis of the
commercial importance of the seaports of London, Liverpool, Hamburg,
Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Havre). Papers relating to
the climate of Europe: J. Hann, "Die Vertheilung des Luftdruckes ueber
Mittel- und Sued-Europa" (based on monthly and annual means for the
period 1851-1880), in Penck's _Geograph. Abhandlungen_ (vol. ii. No.
2, Vienna, 1887); A. Supan, "Die mittlere Dauer der
Haupt-Waerme-perioden in Europa," _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1887), pl. 10,
and pp. 165-172; Joseph Reger, "Regenkarte von Europa," in _Petermanns
Mitteil._ (1903), pl. 1; A. Supan, "Die jahreszeitliche Verteilung der
Niederschlaege in Europa," &c., _ibid._ (1890), pl. 21, and pp.
296-297; P. Elfert, "Die Bewoelkung in Mitteleuropa mit Einschluss der
Karpatenlaender," _ibid._ (1890), pl. 11 and pp. 137-145; Koenig, "Die
Dauer des Sonnenscheins in Europa," in _Nova Acta Leopoldina Karol.
der deutschen Akad. der Naturforscher_, vol. lxvii. No. 3 (Halle,
1896); E. Ihne, "Phaenologische Karte des Fruehlingseinzugs in
Mitteleuropa," in _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1905), pl. 9, and pp. 97-108;
A. Angot, "Regime des pluies de la peninsule iberique," in _Annales du
bur. cent. meteor. de France_ (1893, B. pp. 157-194), and "Regime des
pluies de l'Europe occidentale," _ibid._ (1895, B. pp. 155-192); E.D.
Brueckner, "Die Klimaschwankungen seit 1700," in Penck's _Geographische
Abhandlungen_, iv. Pl. 2 (Vienna, 1890); Supan, "Die Verschiebung der
Bevoelkerung in Mitteleuropa mit Einschluss der Karpatenlaender,"
_Petermanns Mitteil._ (1892); Block, _L'Europe politique et sociale_
(2nd ed., 1892); E. Reclus, "Hegemonie de l'Europe," in _La Societe
nouvelle_ (Brussels, 1894). Publications relating to the measurement
of a degree of longitude on the parallel of 52 deg. N. from Valentia
(Ireland) to the eastern frontier of Russia: (1) Stebnitsky, account
of the Russian section of this work in the _Memoirs_ (Zapiski) _of the
Milit. Topog. Section of the Russian General Staff_, vols. xlix. and
l. (St. Petersburg, 1893) (in Russian, see notice in _Petermanns
Mitteil._ (1894), _Litteraturbericht_, No. 289); (2) and (3) _Die
europaeische Laengengradmessung in 52 deg. Br. von Greenwich bis Warschau_;
(2) Part i., Helmert, _Hauptdreiecke und Grundlinienanschluesse von
England bis Polen_ (Berlin, 1893); (3) Part ii., Bersch and Krueger,
_Geodaetische Linien, Parallelbogen, und Lothabweichungen zwischen
Feaghmain und Warschau_ (Berlin, 1896); J.G. Kohl, _Die geographische
Lage der Hauptstaedte Europas_ (Leipzig, 1874); Paul Meuriot, _Des
agglomerations urbaines dans l'Europe contemporaine_ (Paris, 1898);
Scharff, _The History of the European Fauna_ (London, 1899).
(G. G. C.)

2. POLITICAL HISTORY

The origin of the name of Europe has been dealt with above, and the difficulty of any exact definition of the geographical limits covered by this term has been pointed out. A similar difficulty meets us when we come to deal with European history. We know what we mean when we speak of European civilization, though in its origins, as in its modern developments, this was not confined to Europe. In one sense the history of Europe is the history of this civilization and of the forces by which it was produced, preserved and developed; for a separate history of Europe could never have been written but for the alien powers by which this civilization was for centuries confined within the geographical limits of the European continent. Moreover, within these geographical limits the tradition of the Roman empire, and above all the organization of the Catholic Church, gave to the European nations, and the states based upon them, a homogeneity which without them could not have survived. The name of Europe, indeed, remained until modern times no more than "a geographical expression"; its diplomatic use, in the sense of a group of states having common interests and duties, is, indeed, no older than the 19th century; in the middle ages its place was taken by the conceptions of the Church and the Empire, which, though theoretically universal, were practically European. Yet the history of the states system of Europe, though enormously influenced by outside forces, possesses from the first a character of its own, which enables it to be treated as a separate unit. This historical Europe, however, has never been exactly commensurate with Europe considered as a geographical division. Russia, though part of Europe geographically--even if we set the limits of Asia at the Don with certain old geographers--had but slight influence on European history until the time of Peter the Great. The Ottoman empire, though its influence on the affairs of Europe was from the first profound, was essentially an Asiatic power, and was not formally introduced into the European system until the treaty of Paris of 1856. It still remains outside European civilization.

Europe, then, as we now conceive the term in its application to the political system and the type of culture established in this part of the world, may, broadly speaking, be traced to four principal origins: (1) The Aegean civilization (Hellenic and pre-Hellenic); (2) the Roman empire; (3) Christianity; (4) the break-up of the Roman empire by the Teutonic invasions. All these forces helped in the development of Europe as we now know it. To the Aegean civilization, whether transformed by contact with Rome, and again transformed by the influence of Christianity and the religious genius of the middle ages--or rediscovered during the classical Renaissance--Europe owes the characteristic qualities of its thought and of its expression in literature and art. From republican Rome it largely draws its conceptions of law and of administrative order. From the Roman empire it inherited a tradition of political unity which survived, in visible form, though but as a shadowy symbol, until the last Holy Roman emperor abdicated in 1806; survived also, more fruitfully, in the rules of the Roman lawyers which developed into modern international law. Yet more does Europe owe to Christianity, an Asiatic religion, but modified by contact with Greek thought and powerfully organized on the lines of the Roman administrative system. The Roman Church remained a reality when the Roman empire had become little more than a name, and was throughout the period of chaos and transformation that followed the collapse of the Roman empire the most powerful instrument for giving to the heterogeneous races of Europe a common culture and a certain sense of common interests.

The history of Europe, then, might well begin with the origins of Greece and Rome, and trace the rise of the Roman empire and the successive influence upon it of Hellenism and Christianity. These subjects are, however, very fully dealt with elsewhere (see AEGEAN CIVILIZATION; GREECE; ROME; CHURCH HISTORY); and it will, therefore, be more convenient to begin this account with the Teutonic invasions and the break-up of the Roman empire, events which mark the definite beginning of the modern European states system.

In a sense the Roman empire had been already "barbarized" before the invasions of the barbarians _en masse_. Land left vacant by the dwindling of the population was colonized by immigrants, Teutonic and other, from beyond the frontiers; the Roman legions were largely recruited from Germans and other non-Romans, some of whom even rose to the imperial purple. Thus, in the end, the Roman emperor, with his guard and his household, ruling over an empire mercilessly exploited to fill his treasury, was essentially indistinguishable from those barbarian chiefs, with their _antrustions_ and their primitive fiscal methods, who entered into portions of his inheritance and carried on the traditions of his rule.

The history of the Teutonic peoples prior to their organized invasions of the empire is dealt with elsewhere (see TEUTONIC PEOPLES). It was in the 4th century that the pressure of their advance was first felt on the frontiers, and this led to a change in the government of the empire which was to have notable consequences. In A.D. 330 Constantine had transferred the capital from Rome to Byzantium (Constantinople), but the empire, from the Forth to the Tigris, continued to be administered successfully from a single centre. Not, however, for long: the increasing perils from without made a closer supervision essential, and after the death of Theodosius I. (395) the empire was divided between emperors of the East and West. It was the beginning not only of the break-up of the empire, but of that increasing divergence between the eastern and western types of European religion and culture which has continued to this day.

The pressure of the Teutonic invasions became increasingly strong during the reigns of the emperor Valens and his successors. These invasions were of two types, (1) migrations of whole peoples with their old German patriarchal organization complete, (2) bands, larger or smaller, of emigrants in search of land to settle on, without tribal cohesion, but organized under the leadership of military chiefs. The earlier invaders, Goths and Vandals, and later the Burgundians and Lombards were of the first type; to the second belonged the Franks, "free" men from the Saxon plain, and the Saxon invaders of Britain. The distinction was a vital one; for the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Lombards never took root in the soil, and succumbed in turn, while the Frankish and Saxon immigrants, each man lord in his own estate, not only maintained themselves, but set up at the cost of the Roman organization and of the power of their own kings a wholly new polity, based on the independence of the territorial unit, which later on was to develop into feudalism.

The Teutonic Invasions.

It was owing to the pressure of Turanian invaders from the East that the Teutonic peoples were first forced to take refuge within the empire. In 378 the Goths defeated and slew the emperor Valens in a battle near Adrianople; in 410 Alaric, king of the West Goths, sacked Rome; and shortly after his death the Goths passed into Gaul and Spain. In 429 Gaiseric, king of the Vandals, at the invitation, it is said, of the governor Bonifacius, passed over from Spain to Roman Africa, which became the centre of another Teutonic kingdom, soon established as a great naval power which for a while commanded the Mediterranean and devastated the coasts of Italy and Sicily with its piracies.

Meanwhile the Franks and Burgundians were pressing into Germany and Gaul, while from 449 onwards the Saxons, the Angles and the Jutes invaded and occupied Britain. For a moment it was doubtful if the Aryan or Turanian races would be supreme, but in 451 Attila, king of the Huns, was decisively beaten in the battle of Chalons by a combination of Franks, Goths and Romans, under the Roman general Aetius and Theodosius, king of the Goths. This battle decided that Europe was to be Christian and independent of Asia and Africa. In 476 the succession of Western emperors came to an end with Odoacer's occupation of Rome, and with the decision of the Roman senate that one emperor was enough, and that the Eastern emperor, Zeno, should rule the whole empire. For a time Theodoric, king of the East Goths, ruled Italy, Gaul and Spain; but after his death in 526 the empire of the East Goths was shattered, and changes took place which led to the rise of independent Teutonic kingdoms in Gaul and Spain. In Gaul Clovis (d. 511), the king of the Franks, had already established his power, and in Spain, the West Gothic kingdom, with its capital at Toledo, now asserted its Teutonic independence. Under the emperor Justinian (527-565), indeed, the Roman empire seemed in a fair way to recover its supremacy; the Vandal kingdom in Africa was destroyed; in 555 the Byzantine general Narses finally shattered the power of the East Goths in Italy, and the exarchate of Ravenna was established in dependence on the Eastern emperor; the West Goths were forced to give up the south of Spain; and the Persians were checked. But with the death of Justinian troubles began. In 568 the Lombards, under Alboin, appeared in Italy, which they overran as far south as the Tiber, establishing their kingdom on the ruins of the exarchate. Though in Asia the emperor Heraclius, in a series of victorious campaigns, broke the Persian power and succeeded even in extending the Roman dominion, Italy, save for a while Ravenna itself and a few scattered sea-coast towns, was thenceforth lost to the empire of which in theory it still formed a part.

This catastrophe produced one result the importance of which it is impossible to exaggerate; the development of the political power of the papacy. At the beginning of the 6th century Rome, under Theodoric the Goth, was still the city of the Caesars; the tradition of its ancient life was yet unbroken; at the end of the century Rome, under Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), had become the city of the popes. And with the city the popes entered into some of the inheritance of the Caesars; in the world-wide activity of Gregory we already have a foreshadowing of universal claims, often effectively asserted, which made the great medieval popes, in a truer sense than the medieval emperors, the representatives of the idea of Roman imperial unity (see ROME, sec. ii. _Middle Ages_; PAPACY).

The Hegira, A.D. 622. Rise of Mahommedanism.

The next event that profoundly affected the history of Europe was the rise of Mahommedanism. In A.D. 622, sixteen years after Gregory's death, occurred the flight (_Hijra_) of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which fixed the memorable era of the Hegira. The full force of the militant religion founded by the Arab prophet was not felt till after his death (632). The emperor Heraclius, the vigour of his manhood passed, was unable to meet this new peril; the Arabs, strong in their hardy simplicity, and new-born religious fanaticism, and aided by the treason and cowardice of the decadent Roman governing classes, overran Asia Minor, conquered Egypt and the whole of northern Africa, overwhelmed the Gothic kingdom in Spain, and even penetrated beyond the Pyrenees to the conquest of the province of Narbonne. One of the chief effects of these Arab conquests was that Christian civilization became gradually confined to Europe, another was that the trade routes to the East were closed to the Western nations. The conquest of Narbonne marked the limit of the advance of Islam in western Europe, for in 732 the Arabs were overthrown by Charles Martel in the battle of Tours, and a few years later were driven out of Gaul. In Spain, however, they succeeded in maintaining themselves throughout the middle ages; developing a high type of civilization which had a considerable influence on the intellectual life of medieval Europe; and it was not till 1494 that Granada, their last possession in the peninsula, was conquered by the Christian monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella.

The Carolingians.

The battle of Tours emphasized and increased the power and reputation of Charles Martel. As a mayor of the palace to the decadent Merovingian successors of Clovis, he was virtually ruler of the Franks, and, after his death, the last of the _rois faineants_ of the house of Merovech was deposed, and Pippin, Charles's son, was elected king of the Franks. The prestige of the Carolingian house (to give it the name it was later known by) was increased when, at the urgent entreaty of Pope Stephen III., Pippin marched into Italy and saved Rome from the Lombards, who were endeavouring to extend their power southwards. Pippin's son Charles (Charlemagne) finally conquered the Lombards in 774 and thus added part of northern Italy to his dominions.

The coronation of Charles the Great as emperor. 800.

In 797 an event of the highest importance to the European world took place. The emperor Constantine VI. was deposed by his mother Irene, who seized the throne. Thereupon Pope Leo and the Roman people definitely threw off the authority of the emperors of Constantinople, on the ground that a woman could not hold the position of Caesar. In 800 Leo crowned Charlemagne emperor at Rome, and henceforth till 1453, when Constantinople was conquered by the Turks, there was an Eastern and a Western empire. Till his death in 814 Charlemagne was king of the Franks as well as emperor. His kingdom embraced not only all German and modern France, but included a large part of Italy and Spain as far as the Ebro. Under his rule western Europe was united in a powerful empire, in the organization of which the principles of Roman and Teutonic administration were blended; and, after his death, he left to his successors, the Frankish and German kings, the tradition of a centralized government which survived the chaos of the period that followed, and the prescriptive right to the title and prestige of Roman emperors--a tradition and a claim that were to exercise a notable effect on the development of European history for centuries to come. (See FRANCE: _History_ and CHARLEMAGNE.)

Europe after the death of Charlemagne.

The period from the death of Charlemagne (814) to the 12th century is characterized in western Europe by the general weakening of the idea of central government and by the rise of feudalism. During the same period the East Roman or Byzantine empire escaped disruption and, preserving the traditions of Roman civil and military administration, formed an effective barrier for Europe and Christendom against the advancing tide of Islam. At the same time, however, the growing divergence between the Eastern and Western Churches, which had been accentuated by the iconoclastic controversy (see ICONOCLASTS), and was destined in 1053 to culminate in a definite schism, was gradually widening the breach between the two types of European civilization, which came into violent conflict at the beginning of the 13th century, when crusaders from western Europe captured Constantinople and set up a Latin empire in the East (see ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER; CHURCH HISTORY; CRUSADES). In western Europe, meanwhile, the unity of the empire did not long survive Charlemagne. Its definite break-up dates from the treaty of Verdun (843), by which Charles the Bald received Neustria, Aquitaine and western Burgundy, Louis the German Bavaria, Swabia, Saxony and Thuringia, and the emperor Lothair the middle kingdom known by his name, the _regnum Lotharii_ or Lotharingia (see LORRAINE). By the partition of Mersen (870) Lotharingia itself was divided between the West and East Frankish realms--France and Germany, terms which from this time begin to represent true national divisions. With the treaties of Verdun and Mersen the history of the European state system may be said to begin.

Rise of feudalism.

At first, indeed, it seemed as though the nascent states were about to be dissolved by disruption from within and attacks from without. All alike were subject to the attacks of the Norse sea-rovers, hardy pirates who not only scourged all the coasts of Europe but penetrated, burning and harrying, far inland up the great waterways. Meanwhile, the weakening of central government due to dynastic struggles had led to the growth of independent or semi-independent powers within the states themselves. The Frank landowners had successfully asserted their independence of the jurisdiction of the king (or emperor) and his officials; the imperial officials themselves, dukes or counts, had received grants of lands with similar immunities (_beneficia_), and these had become hereditary. Thus sprang up a class of great territorial nobles to whom, amid the growing anarchy, men looked for protection rather than to the weak and remote central power; and so, out of the chaos that followed the break-up of the empire of Charlemagne, was born the feudal system of the middle ages (see FEUDALISM). This organization was admirable for defence; and with its aid, before the close of the first decade of the 10th century, the frontiers of France and Germany had been made safe against the northern barbarians, who had either been driven off and barriers erected against their return--e.g. the marks established by Henry the Fowler along the middle Elbe--or, as in the case of the Normans, absorbed into a system well adapted for such a process. By the treaty of St Claire-sur-Epte (911) between Charles the Simple and Rollo, chief of the Norsemen, the Normans were established in the country since known as Normandy (q.v.), as feudatories of the French crown. In England, by the treaty of Wedmore (878) between Alfred and the Danish king Guthrum, the Danes had already been established in a large part of England.

Royalty and feudalism.

Feudalism, by the time the Northmen had been subdued by its aid, was quite firmly established in the western part of Europe. During the 11th century it was carried by the Normans into England, into Sicily and southern Italy, and by the nobles of the first crusade into the newly established kingdom of Jerusalem (1099). By the kings of France, England and Germany, however, who saw themselves in danger of being stripped of all but the semblance of power by its delegation to their more or less nominal vassals, the feudal organization was early recognized as impossible as a form of state government, if the state was to be preserved; and the history of the three great European powers during the succeeding centuries is mainly that of the struggle of the sovereigns against the disruptive ambitions of the great feudal nobles. In England the problem was, from the outset, simplified; for though William the Conqueror introduced the system of feudal land tenure into England in 1066 he refused to set it up as his system of government, retaining alongside of it the old English national policy. In France, on the other hand, feudalism as a system of government had become firmly established; and it was not till the days of Philip Augustus (1180-1223) and Louis IX. (1226-1270) that the monarchy began to get the upper hand. From this time until the 17th century the power of the French monarchy, in spite of occasional lapses, grew steadily stronger. The reverse was the case with the German kingship. Its association with the undefined claims involved in the title of Roman emperor, traditionally attached to it, and notably those to authority in Italy, necessitated concession after concession to the feudal nobles, in order to purchase their support for their assertion. The kingship, moreover, became elective; the imperial title was obtainable only at Rome at the hands of the pope; and the German kings thus became entangled in contests, not only with their own vassals, but with the tremendous spiritual force of the medieval papacy by which, for its own ends, the spirit of feudal insubordination was from time to time fomented. Thus in Germany the feudal nobles gradually acquired a sovereign status which, in some cases, has survived the territorial rearrangements of the 19th century and left its mark on the federal constitution of modern Germany; while the kingship and the imperial title grew more and more shadowy till in 1806 it vanished altogether. (See ENGLISH HISTORY; FRANCE: _History_, GERMANY: _History_.)

The rise of the house of Capet.

In France the process by which a strong hereditary monarchy was established was a slow one. During the greater part of the 10th century the Carolingians, stripped of the vast domains which had been the basis of the power of Pippin, owed their continued existence to the forbearance of Hugh the Great, count of Paris. In 987, however, the last Carolingian king died, and Hugh Capet, son of Hugh the Great, the most powerful of the territorial magnates, was chosen king of France. With his election dates the real beginning of the French monarchy, and under him and his successors Paris became the capital of France. Hugh's election, however, was the work of the great feudatories, and France remained divided among a number of great fiefs, of which the chief were Brittany, Anjou, Flanders, Vermandois, Champagne, Burgundy, Aquitaine, Poitou, Gascony, Toulouse and Normandy.

The royal power in Germany.

While the central power in France advanced slowly but steadily, the development of the royal authority in Germany was in the 10th and 11th centuries more rapid. In 911 the German magnates had elected Conrad the Franconian to reign over them, and in 919 Henry "the Fowler" of Saxony, "whose reign forms one of the great turning-points in the history of the German nation." He defeated the Hungarians, the Slavs and the Danes, and by encouraging the growth and development of towns he contributed greatly to the formation of the German kingdom. His immediate successors, Otto the Great and Otto II., continued his work, which was only interrupted for a short time during the reign of the idealist Otto III., whose "cosmopolitan imperialism" brought him into collision with the German Church and to some extent with the German nobles. Henry II. (1002-1025) asserted with success his authority over Germany, and his successor Conrad II., who belonged to the Salian or Franconian line, did much to secure unity and prosperity to the Empire. His son and successor Henry III. (1039-1056) governed Germany wisely, and his reign witnessed the culminating point of the Holy Roman Empire. At the time of his death it seemed probable that Germany, like England and France, would gradually escape from the thraldom of the great feudatories. The future of the German monarchy depended upon the ability of future kings to suppress the forces of feudal disintegration in Germany, and to withstand the temptation of struggling to establish their influence over Italy. Unfortunately for German kingship Henry IV. (1056-1106) was only six years old on his accession, and when he became a man he found that the papacy under Hildebrand's influence was practically independent of the emperor. Had Henry confined his efforts to coercing the German barons he might, like the Normans and Angevins in England, and like the Capetians in France, have proved successful. Unfortunately for Germany Henry entered upon the famous contest with the papacy under Gregory VII. (1073-1080), which ended in the 13th century in the defeat of the Empire in the person of Frederick II. The struggle began in 1073 over the question of investiture (q.v.), and widened into a duel between the spiritual and temporal powers. During the early years of the contest the influence of the papacy reached a high pitch and made itself felt in the crusading movement, which received its first impetus from Pope Urban II., who appealed to Europe at the council of Clermont in 1095 to recover the Holy Places from the Turks.

The eastern Empire and the Crusades.

During the 11th century the Eastern Empire was attacked by the Russians, the Normans and the Seljuks. The emperor Alexius Comnenus found himself on his accession in 1081 threatened by the Seljuks (the victors in the decisive battle of Manzikert in 1071) and by the Sicilian Normans who in 1081 besieged Durazzo. In 1083 he defeated the Normans in the battle of Durazzo, and with the death of Robert Guiscard in 1085 all danger from a fresh Norman invasion passed away. But the first crusade brought new anxieties to Alexius, for he feared that the crusaders might attack Constantinople. That fear removed, he took advantage of the increased connexion between eastern and western Europe by bestowing commercial privileges upon the Italian trading republics, who thus gained access to the ports of the Empire on easy terms.

The Crusades and the Hildebrandine reformation.

With the era of the Crusades, which lasted till the middle of the 13th century, Europe entered upon a period of change, the importance of which is realized by contrasting the condition of western Christendom in the 11th with its condition in the 13th century. Between the opening and close of the crusading movement Europe underwent a complete revolution. While the Crusades tended to enhance the prestige and authority of the papacy and the power of European monarchs, they also led to increased knowledge of the East, to the rapid development of commerce, to the introduction of new industries, to the rapid decline of the influence of the feudal nobility, and to the rapid development of town life (see COMMUNE). At the same time the Hildebrandine reformation was having an immense influence upon the intellectual condition of Europe. The 12th century saw the establishment of many new monastic orders (see MONASTICISM), and at the same time a remarkable speculative and literary revival (see SCHOLASTICISM). This movement owed not a little of its success to the influence of the Crusades, which stirred up intellectual as well as commercial activity. This intellectual activity, as well as the fruits of commercial expansion, were--since learning was still a monopoly of the clerical order--weapons in the hands of the papacy, which in the 12th century attained the height of its power, if not of its pretensions. It is, indeed, impossible to exaggerate the influence of the Roman Church upon the development of Europe at this period. The popes, in fact, represented Europe in a sense that could not be predicated of the emperors; the terror of their spiritual power, their vast wealth derived from the tribute of all the West, their unique experience of international affairs, and--in the case of the great popes of this epoch--the superiority of their minds and characters, made them not only the spiritual rulers of Europe, but the effective centres of whatever political unity it possessed. As a Byzantine observer was to observe of Innocent III., they had become the successors of the Caesars rather than of Peter (see PAPACY).

Growth of the royal power in France.

Nowhere were the beneficial effects of the Crusades seen more clearly than in France. The smaller fiefs were steadily absorbed by the greater lordships, which in their turn fell victims to the royal power. It might almost be said that "modern France is a creation of the Crusades." The effects of the crusading movement were felt in France as early as the reign of Louis VI. (1108-1137). Aided by his able minister Suger, Louis managed before his death to add to the possessions of his house the Ile de France and a prospective claim to Poitou and Aquitaine. Under his successor Louis VII. (1137-1180) the consolidation movement was checked owing to the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine (after her divorce from Louis VII.) to Henry II of England. By the addition of his wife's lands (Gascony and Guienne) to those which he had already inherited from his father and mother (Normandy, Anjou, Touraine and Maine) Henry was enabled to form the powerful though short-lived Angevin empire. But the lost ground was rapidly recovered by Philip Augustus (1180-1223), who took advantage of the weakness and folly of John of England, and before 1215 had united firmly to France Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Touraine. Louis VIII. and Louis IX. adhered firmly to the policy of Philip IV., and in 1258, by the treaty of Paris, Henry III. of England recognized the loss of Poitou. There thus remained to England out of the vast continental domains of Henry II. only Gascony and Guienne.

General results of the Crusades.

The rest of Europe was also in various degrees affected by the Crusades. While Spain was occupied in a crusade of her own against the Moors and gradually driving them into Granada, Germany, Italy, and to some extent England, were interested in, and influenced by, the Crusades against the Turks. During the absence of many of the nobles in the East the growth of towns and the development of the mercantile class proceeded without interruption. The trading classes demanded strong governments and equal justice, and vigorously supported the monarchs in their suppression of feudalism.

During the 12th and 13th centuries the Crusades thus proved a large factor in the commercial prosperity of the Italian maritime states, an "open door" between East and West was secured, and reinforcements from Europe were poured into Syria as long as the peoples of the West regarded the stability of the Latin kingdom of Syria as a matter of prime importance. During the crusading period a check was placed to the tide of Mahommedan conquest, while to the caliphate the Crusades proved a perpetual drain upon its material resources. To the Mahommedans the possession of the Holy Places by the Christians was as great a humiliation as their desecration by the Mahommedans was to the crusaders. Unfortunately the Crusades led to a disastrous schism between the Byzantine empire and western Christendom, which had calamitous results. The decay of the crusading spirit was a necessary result of the growth of the consolidation of the European nations, but the price paid was the fall of Constantinople and the establishment of the Turks in eastern Europe. The Crusades thus not only postponed the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks for some two hundred years, but led, as had already been said, to a vast expansion of commerce, as seen in the rapid growth and development of the Italian cities, and to a striking development of town life.

The struggle between the Empire and the papacy.

Previous Next

Comments

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Ethiopia" to "Evangelical Association"Chapter I: Indo-European (1)

0%36 min left in chapter