Chapter XIII: Part 13

Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in
Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which
sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely
compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the
celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association
was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the
lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very
adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed
at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a
regularly organized police, it then consisted of a
confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a
solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties
in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by
deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose,
transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws
which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the
sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed
force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of
1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and
inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. …
In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that
if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his
property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to
the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the
king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be
put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand
and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the
license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile,
and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was
one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project
for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into
the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at
Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially
from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial
in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom;
and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case,
against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the
suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the
maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its
jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the
highways or in the open country, and in cities by such
offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape;
and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of
18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or
householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman,
whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence
of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the
villages through which he was supposed to have passed were
sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood,
stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with
such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of
two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty
families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction
of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified
cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of
deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually
convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions
were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the
execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular
constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages
attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so
decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the
check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it
required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect
its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting
from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation
by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of
the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in
1498, the objects for which it was established having been
completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the
nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed.
The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate
functionaries were retained for the administration of justice,
over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate
jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa
Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name,
dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with
various modifications of form, down to the present century."

_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
introduction, section 1, with foot-note,
and part 1, chapter 6._

{1660}

HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

HOLY JUNTA, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------

HOLY LEAGUES:
Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of
Smalcald.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia
against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------

HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

HOLY OFFICE, The.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
Its origin.

See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

Its extinction.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.

"A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine
of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret,
and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their
kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round
which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the
Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh.
The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to
frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it
a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as
Holyrood House."

_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 20 (volume 2)._

The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was
carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone,"
by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and
then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which
it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

HOMAGE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.

HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

"When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person
historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the
main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful
poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the
world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is
conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different
from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.'
… At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the
poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a
school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making
it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the
question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted,
whether they present substantially the character of what may
be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually
diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of
the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a
far greater amount of information than is to be found in any
other literary production of the same compass. In the second
place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be
had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the
utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to
us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most
gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they
became such as in later times we know them. … And this
picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars
and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an
age been so completely placed upon record. … We are …
probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place
to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his
knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an
ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. …
It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of
Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the
time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching
revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for
those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this
belief involves the further proposition that the poet was
severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects
of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon
the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a
perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an
historical character. … The question … has to be decided …
by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I
venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an
European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian
Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when
the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the
race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its
close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy
was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking
the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol
of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform
assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length
pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After
slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the
publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack.
… Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at,
or till long after, the period of their composition; and that
works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written
characters, could not have been transmitted through a course
of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they
could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at
a later date."

_W. E. Gladstone,
Homer (Literature Primers),
chapters 1-2._

{1661}

"Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total
unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion
reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so
remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition
that when they were composed the revolution in question had
not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

_A. M. Clerke,
Familiar Studies in Homer,
chapter 1._

"It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have
the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards
the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of
the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer
makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist
a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions
for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city
'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such
as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.

It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the
poems describe was one which really existed in the place where
they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking
illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that
we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time
before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the
traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But
the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for
there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation
which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which
we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered
by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of
these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with
Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be
far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in
dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains
the question of the historical basis which may underlie the
story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of
Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that
the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But
here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those
of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to
confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the
tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey
are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been
gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued
at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century
ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition,
and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical
view."

_W. Leaf,
Companion to the Iliad,
introd._

"It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and
Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian,
Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far
from the coast on which these three names were attached to
successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the
ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must
turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims
of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the
chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient
seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not
actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the
seat of Achæan empire."

_D. B. Monro,
Homer and the Early History of Greece
(English Historical Review, January, 1886)._

"I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a
single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration
which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This
primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B.
C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia,
and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original
nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece
proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was
carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out;
and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local
traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and
Ionian society."

_R. C. Jebb,
The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
page 14._

_R. C. Jebb,
Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey._

"We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The
inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory
seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly
exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great
harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and
sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more
difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may
make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we
have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity,
the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to
do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and
compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse
places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient,
demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the
opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of
literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the
'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

_A. Lang,
Homer and the Epic,
chapters 7 and 13._

HOMERITES, The.

See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

HOMESTEAD ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).

HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.

A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding
army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by
the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the
Battle of Humbledon.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

SEE ARIANISM.

HOMS, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

----------HONDURAS: Start--------

HONDURAS:
Aboriginal inhabitants.
Ruins of Ancient Civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1502.
Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1524.
Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

{1662}

HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.
Separation from Spain and independence.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
Attempted federations and their failure.
The British colony.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

----------HONDURAS: End--------

HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

HONE, William, The Trials of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HONEIN, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842.
Ceded to Great Britain.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONG MERCHANTS.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONORIUS,
Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.
Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.
Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.
Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.
Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

HONOURS, Escheated.

"When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the
hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated
with the general body of the county or counties in which it
lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole
apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under
the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession
of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out
again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1)._

HOOD, General John B.
The Atlanta campaign.

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

HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA),
and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

Transfer to Chattanooga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
also, 1482-1493.

HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

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

HOPLITES.

Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

See PHYLÆ.

HORESTII, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

HORIKANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.

HORITES, The.

The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At
the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed
many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land.
They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests
very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

_H. Ewald,
History of Israel, introduction,
section 4._

F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided
into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim
and the Anakim.

_Manual of Ancient History,
book 6, chapter 1._

See, also,
JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

HORMUZ, Battle of.

The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz,
in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was
overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New
Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 3._

HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

HORN, Cape.
Discovered by Drake (1578).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

HOSPES. HOSPITES. HOSPITIUM.

"In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and
Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent
tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger
was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for
a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation
which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form
previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who
might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his
protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal.
… An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the
parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to
each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double
signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an
entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the
covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. …
The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. …
The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their
descendants might recognise each other. This token, called
'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process
of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common
for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any
individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of
the whole community."

_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 3._

----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights:
A. D. 1115-1310.
The origin and rise of the order.

"Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,
had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission
of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of
the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the
Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks
were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A
nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of
pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated
to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of
Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,
to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the
bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the
faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with
attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of
Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the
hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the
sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.
Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;
his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the
Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from
the monastery.
{1663}
They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed
for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight
points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia
to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as
brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of
the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight
of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of
Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in
the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

_T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2._

To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military
character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care
of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which
characterized the Knights of St. John during all their
subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was
drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three
classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms
and form a military body for service in the field against the
enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem
in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or
gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly,
the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank,
and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the
care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were
considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual
three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the
Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order
spread and the number of its members and convents increased,
it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or
'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were
ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France,
Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black
robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight
points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all
Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged;
but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights
should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground.
… It was not long before the new Order found a field for the
exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were
always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every
battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their
gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted
fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of
every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the
King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal
kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its
ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see
JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there
the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and
fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel
and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their
pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and
turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the
Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to
cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying
pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the
enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence
they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in
a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

_F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
part 1, chapter 3-6._

ALSO IN:
_Abbe de Vertot,
History of the Knights Hospitallers,
books 1-3 (volume 1)._

_A. Sutherland,
Achievements of the Knights of Malta,
chapters 1-9 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310.
Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

"The most important conquest of the time … was that of
Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
both from its durability and from the renown of the
conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had
been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to
remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form
a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests
from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to
maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited
permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the
Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and
bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences,
besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under
the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb,
the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes.
So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they
sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to
withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its
dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him
with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus
dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the
siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the
city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this
beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian
Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the
chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb
at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a
romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained
the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening
to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a
class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The
little realm they governed as an independent state consisted
of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos,
Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite
continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus,
and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still
overhang the sea."

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_W. Porter,
History of the Knights of Malta,
chapters 7-10 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482.
Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522.
Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned
his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at
that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small
state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of
Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the
field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,
appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of
5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers
de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour
rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous
juncture.
{1664}
No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's
vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the
Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common
enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes
to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and
trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security
against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,
with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,
exhorted the contending powers to forget their private
quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
the infidels."

_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 2 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_C. Torr,
Rhodes in Modern Times,
chapter 1. _

_J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 10 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.
Occupation of Malta.
Improvement and fortification of the island.
The great siege.
The Turks repelled.

"Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]
predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part
of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to
the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own
interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no
revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged
with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made
frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and
dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this
transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he
not only relieved himself of all further expense on its
account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of
his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his
brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It
was not very long before the wilderness before them was to
blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was
brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.
Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the
rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was
soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In
a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,
which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its
garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works
was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the
accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not
until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are
now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices
that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride
of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to
battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils
of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights
of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the
Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the
East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,
"resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the
knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by
driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a
formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de
la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long
in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself
for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He
addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He
summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to
Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming
struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and
military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia
of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000
men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and
Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,
strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition
for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette
could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000
men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already
arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their
way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The
Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It
comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a
number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,
independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,
was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The
command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One
of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the
Spaniards at Gelves.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
episodes of war in the 16th century.
{1665}
The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
… The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
children,—are said to have perished."

_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapters 2-5._

ALSO IN:
_W. Porter,
History of the Knights of Malta,
chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._

_S. Lane-Poole,
Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
chapter 13._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.
Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

"The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the
Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on
the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest
and affluence produced gradually their usual
consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The
'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long
years, in which there were no events to bind them together in
united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had
become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789
the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European
nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had
received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their
grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully
contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in
his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the
confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when
the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

_W. Tallack,
Malta,
section 8._

"In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
(of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
{1666}
[Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting
hospitals."

_F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
part 1, chapter 20._

----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------

HOSPODAR.

"A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =
Lord)."

_J. Samuelson, Roumania,
page 209, foot-note._

HOSTIS.

See PEREGRINI.

HOTTENTOTS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and A. D. 1486-1806;
also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

HOUSE OF KEYS, The.

See MANX KINGDOM.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

See LORDS, HOUSE OF.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSECARLS.

"No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent
military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.
1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly
under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These
were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so
much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls
were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an
institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well
as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under
Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at
their head."

_E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 6, section 2,
and appendix, note kkk (volume 1)._

HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

HOVAS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

Naval Victory (1794).

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

HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);
1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

HUAMABOYA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

HUANCAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

HUASTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY,
Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.

HUECOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------

HUGUENOTS.
First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.
Ascendancy in Navarre.

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.
The Wars of Religion in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.
The Edict of Nantes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
Continued desertion of nobles.
Leadership of the clergy.
Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.
Renewed revolt.
Second Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
Revolt in alliance with England.
Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
End of political Huguenotism in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.
Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
The climax of persecution in France.
The Dragonnades.
The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
The great exodus.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

----------HUGUENOTS: End--------

HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 12._

See, also,
WINCEBY FIGHT.

HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HULST, Battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

HUMANISM.

See RENAISSANCE.

HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

{1667}

HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.

HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

HUMBLEDON, Battle of.

See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.

HUNDRED, The.

"The union of a number of townships for the purpose of
judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is
known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering
to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the
'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,
which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,
has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use
of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in
comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent
its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred
judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains
abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration
of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of
the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other
enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may
be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive
organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial
hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is
capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been
regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of
land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to
the host; as representing the original settlement of the
hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of
which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar
to English history, and the same result may have followed from
very different causes as probably as from the same causes,
here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already
stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in
hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was
carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems
reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,
we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the
hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake
court, was held every month; it was called six days before the
day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was
attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their
stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the
reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal
jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial
court leet."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1)._

"By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much
diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between
township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of
the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost
everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred
had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of
its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and
should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of
the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but
they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name
soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,
for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred
flourished and became the political unit, like the township in
New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the
district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it
was also the representative district. … The hundred had also
its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects
like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings
enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often
exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution
they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct
in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the
county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this
day."

_J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the United States,
chapter 4, section 1._

HUNDRED DAYS, The.

The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
Hundred Days.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The

See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------

HUNGARIANS, The.