Chapter XXXI: Front Matter (31)

No sooner was the war with Denmark over, than "Prussia showed
that it was her intention to annex the newly acquired duchies
to herself. This Austria could not endure, and accordingly, in
1866, war broke out between Austria and Prussia. Prussia
sought alliance with Italy, which she stirred up to attack
Austria in her Italian possessions. The Austrian army defeated
the Italian at Eustazza [or Custozza (see ITALY: A. D.
1862-1866)]; but the fortunes of war were against them in
Germany. Allied with the Austrians were the Saxons, the
Bavarians, the Würtembergers, Baden and Hesse, and Hanover.
The Prussians advanced with their chief army into Bohemia with
the utmost rapidity, dreading lest the Southern allies should
march north to Hanover, and cut the kingdom in half, and push
on to Berlin. The Prussians had three armies, which were to
enter Bohemia and effect a junction. The Elbe army under the
King, the first army under Prince Frederick Charles, and the
second army under the Crown Prince. The Elbe army advanced
across Saxony by Dresden. The first army was in Lusatia, at
Reichenberg, and the second army in Silesia at Heisse. They
were all to meet at Gitschin. The Austrian army under General
Benedek was at Königgrätz, in Eastern Bohemia. ... As in the
wars with Napoleon, so was it now; the Austrian generals ...
never did the right thing at the right moment. Benedek did
indeed march against the first army, but too late, and when he
found it was already through the mountain door, he retreated,
and so gave time for the three armies to concentrate upon him.
The Elbe army and the first met at Münchengratz, and defeated
an Austrian army there, pushed on, and drove them back out of
Gitschin on Königgrätz. ... The Prussians pushed on, and now
the Elbe army went to Smidar, and the first army to Horzitz,
whilst the second army, under the Crown Prince, was pushing
on, and had got to Gradlitz. The little river Bistritz is
crossed by the high road to Königgrätz. It runs through swampy
ground, and forms little marshy pools or lakes. To the north
of Königgrätz a little stream of much the same character
dribbles through bogs into the Elbe. ... But about Chlum,
Nedelist and Lippa is terraced high ground, and there Benedek
planted his cannon. The Prussians advanced from Smidar against
the left wing of the Austrians, from Horzitz against the
centre, and the Crown Prince was to attack the right wing. The
battle began on the 3d of July, at 7 o'clock in the morning,
by the simultaneous advance of the Elbe and the first army
upon the Bistritz. At Sadowa is a wood, and there the battle
raged most fiercely. ... Two things were against the
Austrians; first, the incompetence of their general, and,
secondly, the inferiority of their guns. The Prussians had
what are called needle-guns, breach-loaders, which are fired
by the prick of a needle, and for the rapidity with which they
can be fired far surpassed the old-fashioned muzzle-loaders
used by the Austrians. After this great battle, which is
called by the French and English the battle of Sadowa (Sadowa
(o Breve), not Sadowa (o Macron), as it is erroneously
pronounced), but which the Germans call the battle of
Königgrätz, the Prussians marched on Vienna, and reached the
Marchfeld before the Emperor Francis Joseph would come to
terms. At last, on the 23d of August, a peace which gave a
crushing preponderance in Germany to Prussia, was concluded at
Prague."

_S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, pages 390-394._

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866.
The War in Italy.
Loss of Venetia.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
Concession of nationality to Hungary.
Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian Empire.

"For twelve years the name of Hungary, as a State, was erased
from the map of Europe. Bureaucratic Absolutism ruled supreme
in Austria, and did its best to obliterate all Hungarian
institutions. Germanisation was the order of the day, the
German tongue being declared the exclusive language of
official life as well as of the higher schools. Government was
carried on by means of foreign, German, and Czech officials.
No vestige was left, not only of the national independence,
but either of Home Rule or of self-government of any sort; the
country was divided into provinces without regard for
historical traditions; in short, an attempt was made to wipe
out every trace denoting the existence of a separate Hungary.
All ranks and classes opposed a sullen passive resistance to
these attacks against the existence of the nation; even the
sections of the nationalities which had rebelled against the
enactments of 1848, at the instigation of the reactionary
Camarilla, were equally disaffected in consequence of the
short-sighted policy of despotical centralisation. ...
Finally, after the collapse of the system of Absolutism in
consequence of financial disasters and of the misfortunes of
the Italian War of 1859, the Hungarian Parliament was again
convoked; and after protracted negotiations, broken off and
resumed again, the impracticability of a system of provincial
Federalism having been proved in the meantime, and the defeat
incurred in the Prussian War of 1866 having demonstrated the
futility of any reconstruction of the Empire of Austria in
which the national aspirations of Hungary were not taken into
due consideration--an arrangement was concluded under the
auspices of Francis Deák, Count Andrássy, and Count Beust, on
the basis of the full acknowledgment of the separate national
existence of Hungary, and of the continuity of its legal
rights. The idea of a centralised Austrian Empire had to give
way to the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is in fact an
indissoluble federation of two equal States, under the common
rule of a single sovereign, the Emperor of Austria and King of
Hungary, each of the States having a constitution, government,
and parliament of its own, Hungary especially retaining, with
slight modifications, its ancient institutions remodelled in
1848. The administration of the foreign policy, the management
of the army, and the disbursement of the expenditure necessary
for these purposes, were settled upon as common affairs of the
entire monarchy, for the management of which common ministers
were instituted, responsible to the two delegations, co-equal
committees of the parliaments of Hungary and of the
Cisleithanian (Austrian) provinces. Elaborate provisions were
framed for the smooth working of these common institutions,
for giving weight to the constitutional influence, even in
matters of common policy, of the separate Cisleithanian and
Hungarian ministries, and for rendering their responsibility
to the respective Parliaments an earnest and solid reality.
{233}
The financial questions pending in the two independent and
equal States were settled by a compromise; measures were taken
for the equitable arrangement of all matters which might arise
in relation to interests touching both States, such as
duties, commerce, and indirect taxation, all legislation on
these subjects taking place by means of identical laws
separately enacted by the Parliament of each State. ...
Simultaneously with these arrangements the political
differences between Hungary and Croatia were compromised by
granting provincial Home Rule to the latter. ... Thus the
organisation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the basis of
dualism, and the compromise entered into between the two
halves composing it, whilst uniting for the purposes of
defence the forces of two States of a moderate size and extent
into those of a great empire, able to cope with the exigencies
of an adequate position amongst the first-class Powers of
Europe, restored also to Hungary its independence and its
unfettered sovereignty in all internal matters."

_A. Pulszky, Hungary (National Life and Thought,
lecture 3)._

"The Ausgleich, or agreement with Hungary, was arranged by a
committee of 67 members of the Hungarian diet, at the head of
whom was the Franklin of Hungary, Francis Deák, the true
patriot and inexorable legist, who had taken no part in the
revolutions, but who had never given up one of the smallest of
the rights of his country. ... On the 8th of June [1867], the
emperor Francis Joseph was crowned with great pomp at Pesth.
On the 28th of the following June, he approved the decisions
of the diet, which settled the position of Hungary with regard
to the other countries belonging to his majesty, and modified
some portions of the laws of 1848. ... Since the Ausgleich the
empire has consisted of two parts. ... For the sake of
clearness, political language has been increased by the
invention of two new terms, Cisleithania and Transleithania,
to describe the two groups, separated a little below Vienna by
a small affluent of the Danube, called the Leitha--a stream
which never expected to become so celebrated."

_L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 35._

ALSO IN:
_Francis Deák, A Memoir, chapter 26-31._

_Count von Beust, Memoirs, volume 2, chapter 38._

_L. Felbermann, Hungary and its People, chapter 5._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Its new national life.
Its difficulties and promises.
Its ambitions and aims in Southeastern Europe.

"Peace politicians may say that a war always does more harm
than good to the nations which engage in it. Perhaps it always
does, at any rate, morally speaking, to the victors: but that
it does not to the vanquished, Austria stands as a living
evidence. Finally excluded from Italy and Germany by the
campaign of 1866, she has cast aside her dreams of foreign
domination, and has set herself manfully to the task of making
a nation out of the various conflicting nationalities over
which she presides. It does not require much insight to
perceive that as long as she held her position in Germany this
fusion was hopeless. The overwhelming preponderance of the
German element made any approach to a reciprocity of interests
impossible. The Germans always were regarded as sovereigns,
the remaining nationalities as subjects; it was for these to
command, for those to obey. In like manner, it was impossible
for the Austrian Government to establish a mutual
understanding with a population which felt itself
attracted--alike by the ties of race, language, and
geographical position--to another political union. Nay more,
as long as the occupation of the Italian provinces remained as
a blot on the Imperial escutcheon, it was impossible for the
Government to command any genuine sympathy from any of its
subjects. But with the close of the war with Prussia these two
difficulties--the relations with Germany and the relations
with Italy--were swept away. From this time forward Austria
could appear before the world as a Power binding together for
the interests of all, a number of petty nationalities, each of
which was too feeble to maintain a separate existence. In
short, from the year 1866 Austria had a raison d'être, whereas
before she had none. ... Baron Beust, on the 7th of February,
1867, took office under Franz Joseph. His programme may be
stated as follows. He saw that the day of centralism and
imperial unity was gone past recall, and that the most liberal
Constitution in the world would never reconcile the
nationalities to their present position, as provinces under
the always detested and now despised Empire. But then came the
question--Granted that a certain disintegration is inevitable,
how far is this disintegration to go? Beust proposed to disarm
the opposition of the leading nationality by the gift of an
almost complete independence, and, resting on the support thus
obtained, to gain time for conciliating the remaining
provinces by building up a new system of free government. It
would be out of place to give a detailed account of the
well-known measure which converted the 'Austrian empire' into
the 'Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' It will be necessary,
however, to describe the additions made to it by the political
machinery. The Hungarian Reichstag was constructed on the same
principle as the Austrian Reichsrath. It was to meet in Pesth,
as the Reichsrath at Vienna, and was to have its own
responsible ministers. From the members of the Reichsrath and
Reichstag respectively were to be chosen annually sixty
delegates to represent Cisleithanian and sixty to represent
Hungarian interests--twenty being taken in each case from the
Upper, forty from the Lower House. These two 'Delegations,'
whose votes were to be taken, when necessary, collectively,
though each Delegation sat in a distinct chamber, owing to the
difference of language, formed the Supreme Imperial Assembly,
and met alternate years at Vienna and Pesth. They were
competent in matters of foreign policy, in military
administration, and in Imperial finance. At their head stood
three Imperial ministers--the Reichskanzler, who presided at
the Foreign Office, and was ex officio Prime Minister, the
Minister of War, and the Minister of Finance. These three
ministers were independent of the Reichsrath and Reichstag,
and could only be dismissed by a vote of want of confidence on
the part of the Delegations. The 'Ausgleich' or scheme of
federation with Hungary is, no doubt, much open to criticism,
both as a whole and in its several parts. It must always be
borne in mind that administratively and politically it was a
retrogression.
{234}
At a time in which all other European nations--notably North
Germany--were simplifying and unifying their political
systems, Austria was found doing the very reverse. ... The
true answer to these objections is, that the measure of 1867
was constructed to meet a practical difficulty. Its end was
not the formation of a symmetrical system of government, but
the pacification of Hungary. ... The internal history of the
two halves of the empire flows in two different channels. Graf
Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, had a comparatively easy task
before him. There were several reasons for this. In the first
place, the predominance of the Magyars in Hungary was more
assured than that of the Germans in Cisleithania. It is true
that they numbered only 5,000,000 out of the 16,000,000
inhabitants; but in these 5,000,000 were included almost all
the rank, wealth, and intelligence of the country. Hence they
formed in the Reichstag a compact and homogeneous majority,
under which the remaining Slovaks and Croatians soon learnt to
range themselves. In the second place, Hungary had the great
advantage of starting in a certain degree afresh. Her
government was not bound by the traditional policy of former
Vienna ministries, and ... it had managed to keep its
financial credit unimpaired. In the third place, as those who
are acquainted with Hungarian history well know, Parliamentary
institutions had for a long time flourished in Hungary. Indeed
the Magyars, who among their many virtues can hardly be
credited with the virtue of humility, assert that the world is
mistaken in ascribing to England the glory of having invented
representative government, and claim this glory for
themselves. Hence one of the main difficulties with which the
Cisleithanian Government had to deal was already solved for
Graf Andrassy and his colleagues."--_Austria since Sadowa
(Quarterly Review, volume 131, pages 90-95)._--"It is difficult
for anyone except an Austro-Hungarian statesman to realise the
difficulties of governing the Dual Monarchy. Cisleithania has,
as is well-known, a Reichsrath and seventeen Provincial Diets.
The two Austrias, Styria, Carinthia, and Salzburg present no
difficulties, but causes of trouble are abundant in the other
districts. The Emperor will probably end by getting himself
crowned King of Bohemia, although it will be difficult for him
to lend himself to a proscription of the German language by
the Tsechs, as he has been forced by the Magyars to lend
himself to the proscription in parts of Hungary of Rouman and
of various Slavonic languages. But how far is this process to
continue? The German Austrians are as unpopular in Istria and
Dalmatia as in Bohemia; and Dalmatia is also an ancient
kingdom. These territories were originally obtained by the
election of the King of Hungary to the crown of the tripartite
kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Is 'Ferencz
Jozsef' to be crowned King of Dalmatia? And is Dalmatia to
have its separate Ministry and its separate official language,
and its completely separate laws? And what then of Fiume, the
so-called Hungarian port? Then, again, Galicia is also an
ancient kingdom, although it has at other times formed part of
Poland; and the Emperor is King of Galicia, as he is King of
Bohemia and Dalmatia. Is he to be crowned King of Galicia? And
if so, is the separate existence of Galicia to be a Polish or
a Ruthenian existence, or, indeed, a Jewish? for the Jews are
not only extraordinarily powerful and numerous there, but are
gaining ground day by day. The Ruthenians complain as bitterly
of being bullied by the Poles in Galicia as the Croats
complain of the Magyars. Even here the difficulties are not
ended. The Margraviate of Moravia contains a large Tsech
population, and will have to be added to the Bohemian kingdom.
Bukowina may go with Galicia or Transylvania, Austrian Silesia
may be divided between the Tsechs of Bohemia and Moravia on
the one part, and the Poles or Ruthenians or Jews of Galicia
on the other. But what is to become of that which, with the
most obstinate disregard of pedants, I intend to continue to
call the Tyrol? Trieste must go with Austria and Salzburg, and
the Northern Tyrol and Styria and Carinthia no doubt; but it
is not difficult to show that Austria would actually be
strengthened by giving up the Southern Tyrol, where the
Italian people, or at least the Italian language, is gaining
ground day by day. There really seems very little left of the
integrity of the Austrian Empire at the conclusion of our
survey of its constituent parts. Matters do not look much
better if we turn to Trans-Leithania. Hungary has its
Reichstag (which is also known by some terrible Magyar name),
its House of Representatives, and its House of Magnates, and,
although there are not so many Provincial Diets as in Austria,
Slavonia and the Banat of Croatia possess a Common Diet with
which the Magyars are far from popular; and the Principality
of Transylvania also possessed separate local rights, for
trying completely to suppress which the Magyars are at present
highly unpopular. The Principality, although under Magyar
rule, is divided between 'Saxons' and Roumans, who equally
detest the Magyars, and the Croats and Slovenes who people the
Banat are Slavs who also execrate their Ugrian rulers,
inscriptions in whose language are defaced whenever seen.
Croatia is under-represented at Pest, and says that she goes
unheard, and the Croats, who have partial Home Rule without an
executive, ask for a local executive as well, and demand Fiume
and Dalmatia. If we look to the numbers of the various races,
there are in Austria of Germans and Jews about 9,000,000 to
about 13,000,000 Slavs and a few Italians and Roumans. There
are in the lands of the Crown of Hungary 2,000,000 of Germans
and Jews, of Roumans nearly 3,000,000, although the Magyars
only acknowledge 2,500,000, and of Magyars and Slavs between
five and six millions apiece. In the whole of the territories
of the Dual Monarchy it will be seen that there are 18,000,000
of Slavs and only 17,000,000 of the ruling races--Germans,
Jews, and Magyars--while between three and four millions of
Roumans and Italians count along with the Slav majority as
being hostile to the dominant nationalities. It is difficult
to exaggerate the gravity for Austria of the state of things
which these figures reveal."

_The Present Position of European Polities (Fortnightly
Review, April, 1887)._

{235}

"In past times, when Austria had held France tight bound
between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, she had aspired
to a dominant position in Western Europe; and, so long as her
eyes were turned in that direction, she naturally had every
interest in preserving the Ottoman Empire intact, for she was
thus guaranteed against all attacks from the south. But, after
the loss of her Italian possessions in 1805, and of part of
Croatia in 1809, after the disasters of 1849, 1859 and 1866,
she thought more and more seriously of indemnifying herself at
the expense of Turkey. It was moreover evident that, in order
to paralyse the damaging power of Hungary, it was essential
for her to assimilate the primitive and scattered peoples of
Turkey, accustomed to centuries of complete submission and
obedience, and form thus a kind of iron band which should
encircle Hungary and effectually prevent her from rising. If,
in fact, we glance back at the position of Austria in 1860,
and take the trouble carefully to study the change of ideas
and interests which had then taken place in the policy of
France and of Russia, the tendencies of the strongly
constituted nations who were repugnant to the authority and
influence of Austria, the basis of the power of that empire,
and, finally, the internal ruin with which she was then
threatened, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that
Austria, by the very instinct of self-preservation, was forced
to turn eastwards and to consider how best she might devour
some, at least, of the European provinces of Turkey. Austrian
statesmen have been thoroughly convinced of this fact, and,
impelled by the instinct above-mentioned, have not ceased
carefully and consistently to prepare and follow out the
policy here indicated. Their objects have already been
partially attained by the practical annexation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in 1878 [see TURKS: A. D. 1878]; and it was
striking to observe with what bitter feeling and resentment
this measure was looked upon at the time by the Hungarian
section of the empire. ... Russia has never made any secret of
her designs upon Turkey; she has, indeed, more than once
openly made war in order to carry them out. But Austria
remains a fatal obstacle in her path. Even as things at
present stand, Austria, by her geographical position, so
commands and dominates the Russian line of operations that,
once the Danube passed, the Russians are constantly menaced by
Austria on the flank and rear. ... And if this be true now,
how much more true would it be were Austria to continue her
march eastwards towards Salonica. That necessarily, at some
time or other, that march must be continued may be taken for
almost certain; but that Austria has it in her power to
commence it for the present, cannot, I think, be admitted. She
must further consolidate and make certain of what she has.
Movement now would bring upon her a struggle for life or
death--a struggle whose issue may fairly be said, in no
unfriendly spirit to Austria, to be doubtful. With at home a
bitterly discontented Croatia, strong Pan-slavistic tendencies
in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, a Greek population
thoroughly disaffected, and a Hungary whose loyalty is
doubtful, she would have to deal beyond her frontiers with the
not contemptible armies, when combined, of Servia, Bulgaria,
and Greece, whose aspirations she would be asphyxiating for
ever, with a bitterly hostile population in Macedonia, with
the whole armed force of Turkey, and with the gigantic
military power of Russia; whilst it is not fantastic to
suppose that Germany would be hovering near ready to pounce on
her German provinces when the 'moment psychologique' should
occur. With such a prospect before her, it would be worse than
madness for Austria to move until the cards fell more favourably
for her."

_V. Caillard, The Bulgarian Imbroglio (Fortnightly
Review, December, 1885)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1878.
The Treaty of Berlin.
Acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUTERI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

AUTUN: Origin.

See GAULS.

AUTUN: A. D. 287.
Sacked by the Bagauds.

See BAGAUDS.

----------AUTUN: End----------

AUVERGNE, Ancient.
The country of the Arverni.

See ÆDUI;
also GAULS.

AUVERGNE, The Great Days of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.

AUXILIUM.

See TALLAGE.

AVA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

AVALON.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
and MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

AVARICUM.

See BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.

AVARS, The.

The true Avars are represented to have been a powerful
Turanian people who exercised in the sixth century a wide
dominion in Central Asia. Among the tribes subject to them was
one called the Ogors, or Ouigours, or Ouiars, or Ouar Khouni,
or Varchonites (these diverse names have been given to the
nation) which is supposed to have belonged to the national
family of the Huns. Some time in the early half of the sixth
century, the Turks, then a people who dwelt in the very center
of Asia, at the foot of the Altai mountains, making their
first appearance in history as conquerors, crushed and almost
annihilated the Avars, thereby becoming the lords of the
Ouigours, or Ouar Khouni. But the latter found an opportunity
to escape from the Turkish yoke. "Gathering together their
wives and their children, their flocks and their herds, they
turned their waggons towards the Setting Sun. This immense
exodus comprised upwards of 200,000 persons. The terror which
inspired their flight rendered them resistless in the onset;
for the avenging Turk was behind their track. They overturned
everything before them, even the Hunnic tribes of kindred
origin, who had long hovered on the north-east frontiers of
the Empire, and, driving out or enslaving the inhabitants,
established themselves in the wide plains which stretch
between·the Volga and the Don. In that age of imperfect
information they were naturally enough confounded with the
greatest and most formidable tribe of the Turanian stock known
to the nations of the West. The report that the Avars had
broken loose from Asia, and were coming in irresistible force
to overrun Europe, spread itself all along both banks of the
Danube and penetrated to the Byzantine court. With true
barbaric cunning, the Ouar Khouni availed themselves of the
mistake, and by calling themselves Avars largely increased the
terrors of their name and their chances of conquest." The
pretended Avars were taken into the pay of the Empire by
Justinian and employed against the Hun tribes north and east
of the Black Sea.
{236}
They presently acquired a firm footing on both banks of the
Danube, and turned their arms against the Empire. The
important city of Sirmium was taken by them after an obstinate
siege and its inhabitants put to the sword. Their ravages
extended over central Europe to the Elbe, where they were
beaten back by the warlike Franks, and, southwards, through
Moesia, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, even to the
Peloponnesus. Constantinople itself was threatened more than
once, and in the summer of 626, it was desperately attacked by
Avars and Persians in conjunction (see ROME: A. D. 565-628),
with disastrous results to the assailants. But the seat of
their Empire was the Dacian country--modern Roumania,
Transylvania and part of Hungary--in which the Avars had
helped the Lombards to crush and extinguish the Gepidæ. The
Slavic tribes which, by this time, had moved in great numbers
into central and south-eastern Europe, were largely in
subjection to the Avars and did their bidding in war and
peace. "These unfortunate creatures, of apparently an
imperfect, or, at any rate, imperfectly cultivated
intelligence, endured such frightful tyranny from their Avar
conquerors, that their very name has passed into a synonyme
for the most degraded servitude."

_J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4._

ALSO IN: _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, chapter 42.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

AVARS: 7th Century.
The Slavic Revolt.

The Empire of the Avars was shaken and much diminished in the
Seventh Century by an extensive rising of their oppressed
Slavic subjects, roused and led, it is said, by a Frank
merchant, or adventurer, named Samo, who became their king.
The first to throw off the yoke were a tribe called the
Vendes, or Wendes, or Venedi, in Bohemia, who were reputed to
be half-castes, resulting from intercourse between the Avar
warriors and the women of their Slavic vassals. Under the lead
of Samo, the Wendes and Slovenes or Slavonians drove the Avars
to the east and north; and it seems to have been in connection
with this revolution that the Emperor Heraclius induced the
Serbs or Servians and Croats--Slavic tribes of the same race
and region--to settle in depopulated Dalmatia. "'From the year
630 A. D.' writes M. Thierry, 'the Avar people are no longer
mentioned in the annals of of the East; the successors of
Attila no longer figure beside the successors of Constantine.
It required new wars in the West to bring upon the stage of
history the khan and his people.' In these wars [of Pepin and
Charlemagne] they were finally swept off from the roll of
European nations."

_J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4._

AVARS: A. D. 791-805.
Conquest by Charlemagne.

"Hungary, now so called, was possessed by the Avars, who,
joining with themselves a multitude of Hunnish tribes,
accumulated the immense spoils which both they themselves and
their equally barbarous predecessors had torn from the other
nations of Europe. ... They extended their limits towards
Lombardy, and touched upon the very verge of Bavaria. ... Much
of their eastern frontier was now lost, almost without a
struggle on their part, by the rise of other barbarous
nations, especially the various tribes of Bulgarians." This
was the position of the Avars at the time of Charlemagne, whom
they provoked by forming an alliance with the ambitious Duke
of Bavaria, Tassilo,--most obstinate of all who resisted the
Frank king's imperious and imperial rule. In a series of
vigorous campaigns, between 791 and 797 Charlemagne crushed
the power of the Avars and took possession of their country.
The royal "ring" or stronghold--believed to have been situated
in the neighborhood of Tatar, between the Danube and the
Theiss--was penetrated, and the vast treasure stored there was
seized. Charlemagne distributed it with a generous hand to
churches, to monasteries and to the poor, as well as to his
own nobles, servants and soldiers, who are said to have been
made rich. There were subsequent risings of the Avars and
wars, until 805, when the remnant of that almost annihilated
people obtained permission to settle on a tract of land
between Sarwar and Haimburg, on the right bank of the Danube,
where they would be protected from their Slavonian enemies.
This was the end of the Avar nation.

_G. P. R. James, History of Charlemagne, books 9 and 11._

ALSO IN: _J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 7._

----------AVARS: End----------

AVARS, The Rings of the.
The fortifications of the Avars were of a peculiar and
effective construction and were called Hrings, or Rings. "They
seem to have been a series of eight or nine gigantic ramparts,
constructed in concentric circles, the inner one of all being
called the royal circle or camp, where was deposited all the
valuable plunder which the warriors had collected in their
expeditions. The method of constructing these ramparts was
somewhat singular. Two parallel rows of gigantic piles were
driven into the ground, some twenty feet apart. The
intervening space was filled with stones, or a species of
chalk, so compacted as to become a solid mass. The sides and
summit were covered with soil, upon which were planted trees
and shrubs, whose interlacing branches formed an impenetrable
hedge."

_J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 9._

AVEBURY.

See ABURY.

AVEIN, Battle of (1635).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

AVENTINE, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

AVERNUS, Lake and Cavern.

A gloomy lake called Avernus, which filled the crater of an
extinct volcano, situated a little to the north of the Bay of
Naples, was the object of many superstitious imaginations
among the ancients. "There was a place near Lake Avernus
called the prophetic cavern. Persons were in attendance there
who called up ghosts. Anyone desiring it came thither, and,
having killed a victim and poured out libations, summoned
whatever ghost he wanted. The ghost came, very faint and
doubtful to the sight, but vocal and prophetic; and, having
answered the questions, went off."

_Maximus Tyrius, quoted by C. C. Felton, in Greece,
Ancient and Modern, c. 2, lecture 9._

See, also, CUMÆ: AND BAIÆ.

AVERYSBORO, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH:
THE CAROLINAS).

AVIGNON: 10th Century.
In the Kingdom of Arles.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1226.
Siege by Louis VIII.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

{237}

AVIGNON: A. D. 1309-1348.
Made the seat of the Papacy.
Purchase of the city by Clement V.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1367-1369.
Temporary return of Urban V. to Rome.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1377-1417.
Return of Pope Gregory XI. to Rome.
Residence of the anti-popes of the great Schism.

See PAPACY: A. D.1377-1417.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution and Anarchy.
Atrocities committed.
Reunion with France decreed.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1797.
Surrendered to France by the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D: 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

AVIGNON: A. D. 1815.
Possession by France confirmed.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

----------AVIGNON: End----------

AVIONES, The.

"The Aviones were a Suevic clan. They are mentioned by
Tacitus in connexion with the Reudigni, Angli, Varini,
Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones, all Suevic clans. These
tribes must have occupied Mecklenburg-Schwerin,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Sleswick-Holstein, the Elbe being
their Eastern boundary. It is, however, impossible to define
their precise localities."

_A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Minor Works of
Tacitus, Geographical Notes to the Germany._

AVIS, The House of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.

AVIS, Knights of.

This is a Portuguese military-religions order which originated
about 1147 during the wars with the Moors, and which formerly
observed the monastic rule of St. Benedict. It became
connected with the order of Calatrava in Spain and received
from the latter its property in Portugal. Pope Paul III.
united the Grand Mastership to the Crown of Portugal.

_F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4._

See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

AVITUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455-456.

AVVIM, The.
The original inhabitants of the south-west corner of Canaan,
from which they were driven by the Philistines.

_H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4._

AYACUCHO, Battle of (1824).

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

AYLESBURY ELECTION CASE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

AYLESFORD, Battle of (A. D. 455).

The first battle fought and won by the invading Jutes after
their landing in Britain under Hengest and Horsa. It was
fought at the lowest ford of the river Medway.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

AYMARAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AYOUBITE OR AIYUBITE DYNASTY.

See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

AZINCOUR (AGINCOURT), Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AZOF OR AZOV: A. D. 1696.
Taken by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

AZOF: A. D. 1711.
Restoration to the Turks.

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

AZOF: A. D. 1736-1739.
Captured by the Russians.
Secured to them by the Treaty of Belgrade.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

----------AZOF: End----------

AZTEC.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT; and A. D. 1325-1502;
also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

"No nation ever reduced it [pictography] more to a system. It
was in constant use in the daily transactions of life. They
[the Aztecs] manufactured for writing purposes a thick coarse
paper from the leaves of the agave plant by a process of
maceration and pressure. An Aztec book closely resembles one
of our quarto volumes. It is made of a single sheet, 12 to 15
inches wide, and often 60 or 70 feet long, and is not rolled,
but folded either in squares or zigzags in such a manner that
on opening there are two pages exposed to view. Thin wooden
boards are fastened to each of the outer leaves, so that the
whole presents as neat an appearance, remarks Peter Martyr, as
if it had come from the shop of a skilful book binder. They
also covered buildings, tapestries and scrolls of parchment
with these devices. ... What is still more astonishing, there
is reason to believe, in some instances, their figures were
not painted, but actually printed with movable blocks of wood
on which the symbols were carved in relief, though this was
probably confined to those intended for ornament only. In
these records we discern something higher than a mere symbolic
notation. They contain the germ of a phonetic alphabet, and
represent sounds of spoken language. The symbol is often not
connected with the idea, but with the word. The mode in which
this is done corresponds precisely to that of the rebus. It is
a simple method, readily suggesting itself. In the middle ages
it was much in vogue in Europe for the same purpose for which
it was chiefly employed in Mexico at the same time--the
writing of proper names. For example, the English family
Bolton was known in heraldry by a 'tun' transfixed by a
'bolt.' Precisely so the Mexican Emperor Ixcoatl is mentioned
in the Aztec manuscripts under the figure of a serpent,
coatl,' pierced by obsidian knives, 'ixtli.' ... As a syllable
could be expressed by any object whose name commenced with it,
as few words can be given the form of a rebus without some
change, as the figures sometimes represent their full phonetic
value, sometimes only that of their initial sound, and as
universally the attention of the artist was directed less to
the sound than to the idea, the didactic painting of the
Mexicans, whatever it might have been to them, is a sealed
book to us, and must remain so in great part. ... Immense
masses of such documents were stored in the imperial archives
of ancient Mexico. Torquemada asserts that five cities alone
yielded to the Spanish governor on one requisition no less
than 16,000 volumes or scrolls! Every leaf was destroyed.
Indeed, so thorough and wholesale was the destruction of these
memorials, now so precious in our eyes, that hardly enough
remain to whet the wits of antiquaries. In the libraries of
Paris, Dresden, Pesth, and the Vatican are, however, a
sufficient number to make us despair of deciphering them, had
we for comparison all which the Spaniards destroyed. Beyond
all others the Mayas, resident on the peninsula of Yucatan,
would seem to have approached nearest a true phonetic system.
They had a regular and well understood alphabet of 27
elementary sounds, the letters of which are totally different
from those of any other nation, and evidently originated with
themselves. But besides these they used a large number of
purely conventional symbols, and moreover were accustomed
constantly to employ the ancient pictographic method in
addition as a sort of commentary on the sound represented. ...
With the aid of this alphabet, which has fortunately been
preserved, we are enabled to spell out a few words on the
Yucatecan manuscripts and façades, but thus far with no
positive results. The loss of the ancient pronunciation is
especially in the way of such studies. In South America, also,
there is said to have been a nation who cultivated the art of
picture-writing, the Panos, on the river Ucayale."

_D. G. Brinton, The Myths of the New World, chapter 1._

----------AZTEC: End----------

{238}

B.

BABAR,
King of Ferghana, A. D. 1494-;
King of Kabul, A. D. 1504-;
Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1526-1530.

BABENBERGS, The.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

BABYLON: The City.

"The city stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a
hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the
entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs. While such
is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that
approaches it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a
broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall
fifty royal cubits in width and two hundred in height. ... And
here I may not omit to tell the use to which the mould dug out
of the great moat was turned, nor the manner wherein the wall
was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the soil which they
got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a
sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in
kilns. Then they set to building, and began with bricking the
borders of the moat, after which they proceeded to construct
the wall itself, using throughout for their cement hot
bitumen, and interposing a layer of wattled reeds at every
thirtieth course of the brick. On the top, along the edges of
the wall, they constructed buildings of a single chamber
facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse
chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred
gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The
bitumen used in the work was brought to Babylon from the Is, a
small stream which flows into the Euphrates at the point where
the city of the same name stands, eight days' journey from
Babylon. Lumps of bitumen are found in great abundance in this
river. The city is divided into two portions by the river
which runs through the midst of it. This river is the
Euphrates. ... The city wall is brought down on both sides to
the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of the wall,
there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of burnt
bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the
streets all run in straight lines; not only those parallel to
the river, but also the cross streets which lead down to the
water side. At the river end of these cross streets are low
gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the
great gates in the outer wall, of brass, and open on the
water. The outer wall is the main defence of the city. There
is, however, a second inner wall, of less thickness than the
first, but very little inferior to it in strength. The centre
of each division of the town was occupied by a fortress. In
the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a wall of
great strength and size: in the other was the sacred precinct
of Jupiter Belus, a square enclosure, two furlongs each way,
with gates of solid brass; which was also remaining in my
time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of solid
masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was
raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to
eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path
which winds round all the towers. . . . On the topmost tower
there is a spacious temple."

_Herodotus, History, translated by G. Rawlinson,
book 1, chapters 178-181._

According to Ctesias, the circuit of the walls of Babylon was
but 360 furlongs. The historians of Alexander agreed nearly
with this. As regards the height of the walls, "Strabo and the
historians of Alexander substitute 50 for the 200 cubits of
Herodotus, and it may therefore be suspected that the latter
author referred to hands, four of which were equal to the
cubit. The measure, indeed, of 50 fathoms or 200 royal cubits
for the walls of a city in a plain is quite preposterous. ...
My own belief is that the height of the walls of Babylon did
not exceed 60 or 70 English feet."

_H. C. Rawlinson, note to above._-

See, also, BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.

BABYLON OF THE CRUSADERS, The.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

BABYLONIA, Primitive.

(So much new knowledge of the ancient peoples in the East has
been and is being brought to light by recent search and study,
and the account of it in English historical literature is so
meagre as yet, that there seems to be good reason for
deferring the treatment of these subjects, for the most part,
to a later volume of this work. The reader is referred,
therefore, to the article "Semites," in the hope that, before
its publication is reached, in the fourth or fifth volume,
there will be later and better works to quote from on all the
subjects embraced. Terrien de Lacouperie's interesting theory,
which is introduced below, in this place, is questioned by
many scholars; and Professor Sayce, whose writings have done
much to popularize the new oriental studies, seems to go
sometimes in advance of the sure ground.)

The Sumirians, inhabitants of the Shinar of the Old Testament
narrative, and Accadians, who divided primitive Babylonia
between them, "were overrun and conquered by the Semitic
Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first
half of the country to fall under the sway of the new comers.
It is possible that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated
Chaldees or Chaldeans in the authorized version, is the
Babylonian 'casidi' or conquerors, a title which continued to
cling to them in consequence of their conquest. The Accadiaus
had been the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which
afterwards developed into the cuneiform or wedge-shaped
writing; they had founded the great cities of Chaldea, and had
attained to a high degree of culture and civilization. Their
cities possessed libraries, stocked with books, written partly
on papyrus, partly on clay, which was, while still soft,
impressed with characters by means of a metal stylus.
{239}
The books were numerous, and related to a variety of subjects.
... In course of time, however, the two dialects of Sumir and
Accad ceased to be spoken; but the necessity for learning them
still remained, and we find, accordingly, that down to the
latest days of both Assyria and Babylonia, the educated
classes were taught the old extinct Accadian, just as in
modern Europe they are taught Latin."

_A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2._

"Since Sumir, the Shinar of the Bible, was the first part of
the country occupied by the invading Semites, while Accad long
continued to be regarded as the seat of an alien race, the
language and population of primitive Chaldea have been named
Accadian by the majority of Assyrian scholars. The part played
by these Accadians in the intellectual history of mankind is
highly important. They were the earliest civilizers of Western
Asia, and it is to them that we have to trace the arts and
sciences, the religious traditions and the philosophy not only
of the Assyrians, but also of the Phœnicians, the Aramæans,
and even the Hebrews themselves. It was, too, from Chaldea
that the germs of Greek art and of much of the Greek pantheon
and mythology originally came. Columnar architecture reached
its first and highest development in Babylonia; the lions that
still guard the main entrance of Mykenæ are distinctly
Assyrian in character; and the Greek Herakles with his twelve
labours finds his prototype in the hero of the great Chaldean
epic. It is difficult to say how much of our present culture
is not owed to the stunted, oblique-eyed people of ancient
Babylonia; Jerusalem and Athens are the sacred cities of our
modern life; and both Jerusalem and Athens were profoundly
influenced by the ideas which had their first starting-point
in primæval Accad. The Semite has ever been a trader and an
intermediary, and his earliest work was the precious trade in
spiritual and mental wares. Babylonia was the home and mother
of Semitic culture and Semitic inspiration; the Phœnicians
never forgot that they were a colony from the Persian Gulf,
while the Israelite recounted that his father Abraham had been
born in Ur of the Chaldees. Almost the whole of the Assyrian
literature was derived from Accad, and translated from the
dead language of primitive Chaldea."

_A. H. Sayce, Babylonian Literature, pages 6-7._

_A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2._

"The place of China in the past and future is not that which
it was long supposed to be. Recent researches have disclosed
that its civilization, like ours, was variously derived from
the same old focus of culture of south-western Asia. ... It
was my good fortune to be able to show, in an uninterrupted
series of a score or so of papers in periodicals, of
communications to the Royal Asiatic Society and elsewhere,
published and unpublished, and of contributions to several
works since April 1880, downwards, that the writing and some
knowledge of arts, science and government of the early
Chinese, more or less enumerated below, were derived from the
old civilization of Babylonia, through the secondary focus of
Susiana, and that this derivation was a social fact, resulting
not from scientific teaching but from practical intercourse of
some length between the Susian confederation and the future
civilizers of the Chinese, the Bak tribes, who, from their
neighbouring settlements in the N., moved eastwards at the
time of the great rising of the XXIII. century B. C. Coming
again in the field, Dr. J. Edkins has joined me on the same
line."

_Terrien de Lacouperie, Babylonia and China
(Academy, Aug. 7, 1880)._

"We could enumerate a long series of affinities between
Chaldean culture and Chinese civilization, although the last
was not borrowed directly. From what evidence we have, it
seems highly probable that a certain number of families or of
tribes, without any apparent generic name, but among which the
Kutta filled an important position, came to China about the
year 2500 B. C. These tribes, which came from the West, were
obliged to quit the neighbourhood, probably north of the
Susiana, and were comprised in the feudal agglomeration of
that region, where they must have been influenced by the
Akkado-Chaldean culture."

_Terrien de Lacouperie, Early History of Chinese
Civilization, page 32._

See, also, CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

BABYLONIA: The early (Chaldean) monarchy.

"Our earliest glimpse of the political condition of Chaldea
shows us the country divided into numerous small states, each
headed by a great city, made famous and powerful by the
sanctuary or temple of some particular deity, and ruled by a
patesi, a title which is now thought to mean priest-king, i.
e., priest and king in one. There can be little doubt that the
beginning of the city was every where the temple, with its
college of ministering priests, and that the surrounding
settlement was gradually formed by pilgrims and worshippers.
That royalty developed out of the priesthood is also more than
probable. ... There comes a time when for the title of patesi
is substituted that of king. ... It is noticeable that the
distinction between the Semitic newcomers and the indigenous
Shumiro-Accadians continues long to be traceable in the names
of the royal temple-builders, even after the new Semitic
idiom, which we call the Assyrian, had entirely ousted the old
language. ... Furthermore, even superficial observation shows
that the old language and the old names survive longest in
Shumir,--the South. From this fact it is to be inferred with
little chance of mistake that the North,--the land of Accad,--
was earlier Semitized, that the Semitic immigrants established
their first headquarters in that part of the country, that
their power and influence thence spread to the South. Fully in
accordance with these indications, the first grand historical
figure that meets us at the threshold of Chaldean history, dim
with the mists of ages and fabulous traditions, yet
unmistakably real, is that of the Semite Sharrukin, king of
Accad, or Agade, as the great Northern city came to be
called--more generally known in history under the corrupt
modern reading of Sargon, and called Sargon I., 'the First,'
to distinguish him from a very famous Assyrian monarch of the
same name who reigned many centuries later. As to the city of
Agade, it is no other than the city of Accad mentioned in
Genesis x, 10. It was situated close to the Euphrates on a
wide canal just opposite Sippar, so that in time the two
cities came to be considered as one double city, and the
Hebrews always called it 'the two Sippars'--Sepharvaim, which
is often spoken of in the Bible. ... The tremendously ancient
date of 3800 B. C. is now generally accepted for Sargon of
Agade--perhaps the remotest authentic date yet arrived at in
history."

_Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4._

{240}