Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

[Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:
"^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)

2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
without surrounding empty lines.

3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
between subjects.

5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
with spaces and newlines.

6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
(as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.

Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
immediately follow the main title.

Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
spaces.

References to other articles in this work are in all upper
case (as in the original) and indented six spaces. They
usually begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".

Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
and in italics (as in the original). The bibliography in
Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
including URLs of available internet versions. This volume (5)
also includes a bibliography on page 3885.

----------Subject: Start--------
----------Subject: End----------
indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other
large block.

To search for words separated by an unknown number of other
characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words
"first" and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:
"first.{1,100}second"

End Transcriber's Notes.]

----------------------------------

[Image: Spine]

HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE
FROM THE BEST HISTORIANS, BIOGRAPHERS, AND SPECIALISTS

THEIR OWN WORDS IN A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF HISTORY
FOR ALL USES, EXTENDING TO ALL COUNTRIES AND SUBJECTS,
AND REPRESENTING FOR BOTH READERS AND STUDENTS THE BETTER
AND NEWER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

BY
J. N. LARNED

WITH NUMEROUS HISTORICAL MAPS FROM ORIGINAL
STUDIES AND DRAWINGS BY

ALAN O. REILEY

IN FIVE VOLUMES

VOLUME V—TUNNAGE TO ZYP
AND SUPPLEMENT

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

THE C. A. NICHOLS CO., PUBLISHERS
MDCCCXCV

COPYRIGHT, 1895,
BY J. N. LARNED.

The Riverside Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U. S. A.
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Map of the United States Showing its territorial development,
To follow page 3286.

Maps of the United States in 1783, in 1790, in 1803, in 1840, and in 1860, To follow page 3326.

Map of the principal theatre Of war in Virginia, 1861-1865,
To follow page 3434.

Map of the Vicksburg Campaign,
On page 3490.

Map of the Battle-field of Gettysburg,
On page 3501.

Map of the Battle-field of Chattanooga,
On page 3511.

Map of the Atlanta Campaign,
On page 3531.

SUPPLEMENT.

"Abelard" to "Wheatstone,"
Pages 3669 to 3811.

Chronology of important and indicative events,
Pages 3812 to 3856.

Lineage of European Sovereigns and great historical families,
Pages 3857 to 3883.

Selected Bibliography,
Pages 3885 to 3909.

List of works from which passages have been quoted in "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading," Pages 3910 to 3985.

{3129}

TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
A tax or custom of two shillings on the tun of wine and
sixpence on the pound of merchandise, which became, in
England, from the fourteenth century, one of the regular
parliamentary grants to the crown, for a long period. It grew
out of an agreement with the merchants in the time of Edward
II., to take the place of the former right of prisage; the
right, that is, to take two tuns of wine from every ship
importing twenty tuns or more,—one before and one behind the
mast.

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 17, sections 276-277 (volume 2)._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

TUPI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

TUPUYAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI, ETC.

TURAN.

"The old Persians, who spoke an Aryan tongue, called their own
land Iran, and the barbarous land to the north of it they
called Turan. In their eyes, Iran was the land of light, and
Turan was the land of darkness. From this Turan, the land of
Central Asia, came the many Turkish settlements which made
their way, first into Western Asia and then into Europe."

_E. A. Freeman,
The Ottoman Power in Europe,
chapter 2._

TURANIAN RACES AND LANGUAGES.

The name Turanian has been given to a large group of peoples,
mostly Asiatic, whose languages are all in the agglutinative
stage and bear evident marks of a family relationship. "This
race, one of the largest, both numerically and with regard to
the extent of territory which it occupies, is divided into two
great branches, the Ugro-finnish and the Dravidian. The first
must be again subdivided into the Turkish, including the
populations of Turkestan and of the Steppes of Central Asia,
as well as the Hungarians who have been for a long time
settled in Europe; and the Uralo-finnish group, comprising the
Finns, the Esthonians, the Tchoudes, and, in general, nearly
all the tribes of the north of Europe and Asia. The country of
the Dravidian branch is, on the contrary, to the south. This
branch is in fact composed of the indigenous people of the
Peninsula of Hindustan; Tamuls, Telingas, Carnates, who were
subjugated by the Arian race, and who appear to have
originally driven before them the negroes of the Australian
group, the original inhabitants of the soil, who are now
represented by the almost savage tribe of the Khonds. The
Turanian race is one of the oldest in the world. … The skulls
discovered in France, England and Belgium, in caves of the
close of the quaternary epoch, appear from their
characteristics to belong to a Turanian race, to the
Uralo-finnish group, and particularly resemble those of the
Esthonians. Wherever the Japhetic or pure Indo-European race
extended, it seems to have encountered a Turanian population
which it conquered and finally amalgamated with itself."

_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 1, chapter 4._

"From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that
the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours
—the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them—by the
name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar
ethnologic term Turanian."

_I. Taylor,
Etruscan Researches,
chapter 2._

TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of the.

See RUSSIA: A.D. 1869-1881.

TURDETANI, The.

"There is a tradition that the Turdetani (round Seville)
possessed lays from very ancient times, a metrical book of
laws, of 6,000 verses, and even historical records. At any
rate, this tribe is described as the most civilized of all the
Spanish tribes, and at the same time the least warlike."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 7._

"The most mixed portion of the Peninsular population … is that
of the water-system of the Guadalquiver and the parts
immediately south and east of it, … the country of the
Turdetani and Bastitani, if we look to the ancient
populations—Bætica, if we adopt the general name of the
Romans, Andalusia in modern geography; … it was the Iberians
of these parts who were the first to receive foreign
intermixture, and the last to lose it."

_R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 2._

TURDETANIA.

The ancient name of modern Andalusia, in Spain; known still
more anciently as Tartessus.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
Campaigns in the Thirty Years War and the war with Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644; 1646-1648;
and ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
The wars of the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
Campaigns against the Spaniards under Condé.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656; and 1655-1658.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
Last campaigns.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1667; 1672-1674;
and, 1674-1678.

TURGOT, Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

TURIERO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

----------TURIN: Start--------

TURIN: A. D. 312.
Defeat of Maxentius by Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

TURIN: 11-12th Centuries.
Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

TURIN: 12th Century,
Included in the original Italian possessions
of the House of Savoy.

See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

TURIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
Occupation by the French and restoration to the Duke of Savoy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

TURIN: A. D. 1559.
Held by France while other territory of the Duke of Savoy
was restored to him.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

TURIN: A. D. 1562-1580.
Evacuation by the French.
Establishment of the seat of government
by Duke Emanuel Philibert.
Increased importance.

See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

TURIN: A. D. 1639-1657.
Extraordinary siege within a siege.
The citadel, and its restoration by France to the Duke of Savoy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

TURIN: A. D. 1706.
Siege by the French and rout of the besiegers.

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

----------TURIN: End--------

{3130}

TURIN PAPYRUS, The.

An Egyptian papyrus preserved in the Turin Museum, for which
it was purchased from M. Drovetti, consul-general of France.
"If this papyrus were entire, the science of Egyptian
antiquities could not possess a more valuable document. It
contains a list of all the mythical or historical personages
who were believed to have reigned in Egypt, from fabulous
times down to a period we cannot ascertain, because the end of
the papyrus is wanting. Compiled under Ramses II. (19th
dynasty), that is, in the most flourishing epoch of the
history of Egypt, this list has all the characteristics of an
official document, and gives us the more valuable assistance,
as the name of each king is followed by the duration of his
reign, and each dynasty by the total number of years during
which it governed Egypt. Unfortunately this inestimable
treasure exists only in very small pieces (164 in number),
which it is often impossible to join correctly."

_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 1, section 2._

----------TURKESTAN: Start--------

TURKESTAN.

"Few even of the leading authorities are of accord as to the
exact meaning of such common expressions as Turkestán or
Central Asia. The Russians themselves often designate as
Central Asia the second great administrative division of their
Asiatic possessions, which is mainly comprised within the
Aralo-Caspian depression. But this expression is misguiding in
a geographical sense. To the portion of this division directly
administered by the Governor-General, whose headquarters are
at Tashkent, they give the still more questionable name of
Eastern Turkestán—the true Eastern Turkestán, if there be any,
lying beyond his jurisdiction in the Chinese province of
Kashgaria. … Russian Turkestán is bordered on the west by the
Caspian, the Ural river and mountains, on the east by the
Pamir plateau, the Tian-Shan and Ala-tau ranges separating it
from the Chinese Empire, northwards by the low ridge crossing
the Kirghis steppes about the 51st parallel, and forming the
water-parting between the Aralo-Caspian and Ob basins."

_Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel: Asia,
page 391-392._

Of the region sometimes called Chinese Turkestan, the name
"Kashgaria," "lately current in Europe, has no raison d'être
since the collapse of the independent state founded by Yakub
of Kashgar. In the same way the expression 'Kingdom of Khotan'
fell into disuse after the city of Khotan had ceased to be the
capital. The term 'Little Bokhara,' still in use some thirty
years ago, pointed at the former religious ascendancy of
Bokhara, but is now all the less appropriate that Bokhara
itself has yielded the supremacy to Tashkent. Lastly, the
expressions Eastern Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan are still
applicable, because the inhabitants are of Turki speech, while
the Chinese have again brought the country under subjection."

_E. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 2, chapter 3._

See, also, YAKOOB BEG.

TURKESTAN: Ancient.

See SOGDIANA.

TURKESTAN: 6th Century.
Turkish conquest.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

TURKESTAN: A. D. 710.
Mahometan conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

TURKESTAN: A. D. 1859-1865.
Russian conquest.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------TURKESTAN: Start--------

TURKEY.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after;
also, SUBLIME PORTE.

----------TURKS: Start--------

TURKS: 6th Century.
Beginning of their career.

"At the equal distance of 2,000 miles from the Caspian, the
Icy, the Chinese, and the Bengal seas, a ridge of mountains is
conspicuous, the centre, and perhaps the summit, of Asia,
which, in the language of different nations has been styled
Imaus, and Caf, and Altai, and the Golden Mountains, and the
Girdle of the Earth. The sides of the hills were productive of
minerals; and the iron-forges, for the purpose of war, were
exercised by the Turks, the most despised portion of the
slaves of the great khan of the Geougen. But their servitude
could only last till a leader, bold and eloquent, should arise
to persuade his countrymen that the same arms which they
forged for their masters might become in their own hands the
instruments of freedom and victory. They sallied from the
mountain; a sceptre was the reward of his advice. … The
decisive battle which almost extirpated the nation of the
Geougen established in Tartary the new and more powerful
empire of the Turks. … The royal encampment seldom lost sight
of Mount Altai, from whence the river Irtish descends to water
the rich pastures of the Calmucks, which nourish the largest
sheep and oxen in the world. … As the subject nations marched
under the standard of the Turks, their cavalry, both men and
horses, were proudly computed by millions; one of their
effective armies consisted of 400,000 soldiers, and in less
than fifty years they were connected in peace and war with the
Romans, the Persians, and the Chinese. … Among their southern
conquests the most splendid was that of the Nephthalites, or
White Huns, a polite and warlike people, who possessed the
commercial cities of Bochara and Samarcand, who had vanquished
the Persian monarch, and carried their victorious arms along
the banks and perhaps to the month of the Indus. On the side
of the west the Turkish cavalry advanced to the lake Mæotis
[Sea of Azov]. They passed that lake on the ice: The khan, who
dwelt at the foot of Mount Altai, issued his commands for the
siege of Bosphorus, a city the voluntary subject of Rome and
whose princes had formerly been the friends of Athens."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 42._

_W. Smith,
Note to
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 42._
{3131}

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Newman,
Lectures on the History of the Turks
(Historical Sketches, volume 1), lectures 1-4._

See, also, TARTARS; and MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: RACES EXISTING.

TURKS: A. D. 710.
Subjugation by the Saracens.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

TURKS: A. D. 815-945.
Slaves and masters of the Caliphate.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.

TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
The Gaznevide empire.

The decline of the Caliphate at Bagdad in the 9th century was
signalized by the rise to practically independent power of
several dynasties in its Persian and Central Asian dominions.
Among these was the dynasty of the Samanides who ruled, for a
hundred and twenty-five years, an extensive dominion in
northern Persia and modern Afghanistan and in the Turkoman
regions to the Oxus and beyond. In this dominion of the
Samanides was included the Turkish tribes which had submitted
to Islam and which were presently to become the master
champions of the faith. Their first attainment of actual
empire in the Moslem world was accomplished by the overthrow
of the Samanide princes, and the chief instruments of that
revolution were two Turks of humble origin—Sebectagi, or
Sabektekin, and his son Mahmud. Sebectagi had been a slave (in
the service of a high official under the Samanides) who gained
the favor of his masters and acquired command of the city and
province of Gazna; whence his famous son Mahmud was called the
Gaznevide, and the wide conquests which the latter made are
sometimes distinguished as the Gaznevide empire. "For him the
title of Sultan was first invented [see SULTAN]; and his
kingdom was enlarged from Transoxiana to the neighbourhood of
Ispahan, from the shores of the Caspian to the mouth of the
Indus. But the principal source of his fame and riches was the
holy war which he waged against the Gentoos of Hindostan. …
The Sultan of Gazna surpassed the limits of the conquests of
Alexander; after a march of three months, over the hills of
Cashmir and Thibet, he reached the famous city of Kinoge, on
the Upper Ganges, and, in a naval combat on one of the
branches of the Indus, he fought and vanquished 4,000 boats of
the natives. Delhi, Lahor, and Multan were compelled to open
their gates; the fertile kingdom of Guzarat attracted his
ambition and tempted his stay." The throne of Mahmud scarcely
outlasted himself. In the reign of his son Massoud, it was
nearly overturned by another Turkish horde—later comers into
the region of Bokhara from the steppes beyond. In a great
battle fought at Zendecan, in Khorassan, A. D. 1038, Massoud
was defeated and driven from Persia to a narrowed kingdom in
Cabul and the Punjaub, which survived for more than a century
longer and then disappeared.

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 57._

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Newman,
Lectures on the History of the Turks
(Historical Sketches, volume 1), lecture 4._

See, also, INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

TURKS: (Seljuk), A. D. 1004-1063.
Conquests of Seldjuk and Togrul Beg.

"The history of the origin of the Seldjukides is obscured by
numerous myths, but it appears from it that Seldjuk, or more
correctly Seldjik, the son of Tokmak, and Subash, commander of
the army of a prince named Pigu or Bogu, were expelled from
their native steppes for some crime, and forced to seek their
fortunes in strange countries. Seldjuk, with 100 horsemen,
1,000 camels, and 50,000 sheep, migrated to a place on the
southern confines of the desert, in the neighbourhood of Djend
[described as distant twenty fersakhs from Bokhara]. He
settled there and, with all his followers, embraced Islamism."
Under Seldjuk and his two grandsons, Togrul and Tchakar, the
Seldjukides grew formidable in numbers and power, on the
border of the empire of Mahmud the Ghaznevide, then rising on
the ruins of the principality of the Samanides. Thinking to
control these turbulent kinsmen of his race, Mahmud unwisely
proposed to them to quit the country they occupied, between
the Oxus and the Jaxartes, and to settle themselves in
Khorasan. "In the year … (1030), that is, within a year of the
death of Sultan Mahmud, we find the Seldjukides west of Merv,
on the ground now occupied by the Tekke-Turkomans, in the
neighbourhood of the southern cities of Nisa and Abiverd, from
which point they molested the rich province of Khorasan by
constant raids, as grievously as is done by the Turkomans to
this very day.' When it was too late, the Ghaznevide Sultan
attempted to expel the marauders. His armies were routed, and
the grandsons of Seldjuk were soon (A. D. 1039) in undisputed
possession of the whole of Khorasan, with the rich and
flourishing cities of Merv, Balkh, and Nishabur. A few years
later they had pushed forward "over the ruins of the former
power of the Buyyides [or Bouides, of Persia] to Azerbaïdjan,
and, in the year 446 (1054) the skirmishers of the Turkish
army, led by Togrul Beg, penetrated into the interior of the
eastern Roman Empire [that is, into Asia Minor]; and although
the bold inhabitants of the desert in their raid on the land
of the Cæsars were bent rather on plunder than on actual
conquest, yet even their temporary success against the great
name of Rome—so long one of awe to the ancient
Asiatic—increased enormously the prestige and reputation of
the Seldjukides. Togrul Beg was said to meditate a pilgrimage
to Mecca, with the object at the same time of clearing the
road thither, which the state of anarchy in Bagdad had long
rendered unsafe."

_A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 6._

"Togrul Beg, under pretence of a pilgrimage to Mekka had
entered Irak at the head of a strong army, and sought to
obtain admission into Baghdad. The khalif, in opposition to
the advice of his vizier and the officers of the Turkish
militia, consented; on the 22nd Ramadan, 447 (December, 1050),
the name of Togrul was inserted in the public prayer; and
three days after he made his entry into the city. He had taken
an oath, before entering, to be the faithful and obedient
servant of the khalif; but it is needless to add that he broke
this immediately afterwards, and occupied the city in force. A
dispute broke out between the Seljuk soldiers and some
shop-keepers. The Baghdad Turks took the side of the citizens,
the foreigners were driven out, and several of them killed and
wounded. This riot was followed by a general attack upon the
ill-fated city by the army of Togrul Beg. It was useless for
the khalif and his vizier to protest their innocence. The
Turkish chief denounced them as the murderers of his soldiers,
and summoned the vizier to his camp to explain his conduct.
{3132}
On his arrival there he was arrested and flung into prison.
With this occurrence the rule of the Bouides in Baghdad may be
said to have terminated, and that of the Seljuks commenced.
Togrul Beg remained for a year inactive in Baghdad, neither
visiting the khalif nor heeding his entreaties to put an end
to the ravages and outrages perpetrated by his fierce and
lawless soldiery on the wretched townspeople." The khalif was
forced, nevertheless, to crown Sultan Togrul with two crowns,
one to represent the sovereignty of Persia and the other the
sovereignty of Arabia, and to confer on him the title of "The
Sultan of the Court, the Right Hand of the Chief of Believers,
the King of the East and of the West." The Seljuk sultan was
now master of the Asiatic Mahometan empire. But civil war was
still protracted for a period, by struggles of the partisans
of the Bouides, assisted by the Fatimite Kalif of Egypt, and
the unfortunate city of Baghdad suffered terribly at the hands
of each party in turn. Togrul Beg, in the end, destroyed the
opposition to his rule, and was at the point of marrying one
of the kalif's daughters, when a sudden illness ended his
life, A. D. 1063. He was succeeded by his nephew, Alp Arslan,
who extended the empire of the Seljukides in Asia Minor and
Armenia.

_R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 3, chapter 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.
Conquests of Alp Arslan.

"Alp Arslan, the nephew and successor of Togrul Beg, carried
on the havoc and devastation which had marked the career
through life of his uncle. Togrul Beg had on two or three
occasions invaded the Asiatic territories of the Byzantine
Emperor; Alp Arslan carried these partial conquests to
completion. He invaded in person the northern parts of Armenia
and Iberia. He laid waste the country in the cruellest manner,
for it was the notion of these barbarians that a country was
not really conquered unless it was also depopulated. Iberia
had been long celebrated for the industry of its inhabitants,
the wealth of its numerous towns, and the valour of its
people. There is no doubt they could have flung back the
invaders had the Byzantine Empire come to their aid. But
avarice was the dominant passion of the Emperor, Constantine
X., and rather than disburse his loved hoards, he preferred to
look idly on, while his fairest provinces were laid waste and
overrun. The country was, in consequence, compelled to submit
to the Seljuk Turks, and the invaders settling upon it, like a
swarm of locusts, swiftly converted the happiest and most
flourishing portion of Asia into a scene of poverty and
desolation. From Iberia, Alp Arslan passed into Armenia. Ani,
the capital, was stormed and taken, after a gallant defence,
on the 6th June, 1064. … So great was the carnage that the
streets were literally choked up with dead bodies; and the
waters of the river were reddened from the quantity of bloody
corpses."

_R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 3, chapter 2._

"So far as one can judge from the evidence of modern and
mediæval travellers and of Byzantine historians, Asia Minor,
at the time of the Seljuk invasion of Alparslan, was thickly
occupied by races who were industrious, intelligent, and
civilised—races with a certain mixture of Greek blood and
mostly Greek as to language. The numerous provincial cities
were the centres of civilisation. Their walls and
amphitheatres, their works of art, aqueducts, and other public
buildings, give evidence of a long-continued sense of
security, of peaceful and progressive peoples, and of a
healthy municipal life. Wealth was widely diffused. … It was
against this prosperous portion of the Empire, which had
contributed largely to the wealth of the capital, that
Alparslan turned his attention when the border states were no
longer able to resist his progress. … The Strong Lion of the
Seljuks devoured many cities and devastated the fairest
provinces. Cappadocia was laid waste; the inhabitants of its
capital, Cæsarea, were massacred. … Mesopotamia, Mitylene,
Syria, and Cilicia were plundered."

_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 2._

The career of Alp Arslan in Asia Minor was opposed by a
courageous and vigorous emperor, Romanus Diogenes, or Romanus
IV.; but Romanus exposed himself and his army rashly to the
chances of a battle at Manzikert, A. D. 1071, on which all was
staked. He lost; his army was routed, and he, himself, was
taken prisoner. He was released on signing a treaty of peace
and agreeing to pay a heavy ransom; but a revolution at
Constantinople meantime had robbed him of the throne, deprived
him of the means of fulfilling his engagements, and brought
upon him, soon afterwards, a cruel end. Alp Arslan, provoked
by the repudiation of the treaty, revenged himself on the
ill-fated country which lay at his mercy. "Every calamity of
this unfortunate period sinks into insignificance when
compared with the destruction of the greater part of the Greek
race, by the ravages of the Seljouk Turks in Asia Minor."

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 3, chapter 1, section 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1073-1092.
The empire of Malek Shah and its subordinate Sultans.

Alp Arslan, assassinated in 1073, "was succeeded by his son,
Malek Shah, in whose reign the power of the Seljukian Turks
attained its greatest height. … Turkestan, the home of his
race, including Bokhara and Samarcand, was annexed by Malek,
and the rule of the shepherd Sultan was admitted at Cashgar.
In addition to Persia and the countries just mentioned, his
territory included at one time nearly the whole of what is now
Turkey in Asia. … The Seljukian empire, however, broke up on
the death of Malek, which took place in 1092, and, after a
period of civil war, was divided into four parts. … The only
one of the divisions … with which I am concerned is that which
was carved out of the dominions of the Roman empire, and of
which the capital was, for the most part, at Iconium, a city
which to-day, under the name of Konieh, retains somewhat of a
sacred character among the Turks, because of its connection
with the first Sultans who obtained the right to be Caliphs.
Sultan Malek, eighteen years before his death, had prevented a
quarrel with Suliman, his cousin, by consenting to allow him
to be Sultan of the Seljuks in the lands of the Christian
empire. With Suliman there begins the famous line of robber
chiefs who are known as Seljukian Sultans of Rome or Roum, or
as Sultans of Iconium."

_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 2._

{3133}

"The dominion of Suleiman over the greater part of Asia Minor
was recognised by a treaty with the Byzantine empire in 1074,
when Michael VII. purchased the assistance of a Turkish
auxiliary force against the rebellion of Oursel and his own
uncle John Dukas. Nicephorus III. ratified the treaty
concluded with Michael VII., augmented the power of the Turks,
and abandoned additional numbers of Christians to their
domination, to gain their aid in dethroning his lawful prince;
and Nicephorus Melissenos, when he rebelled against Nicephorus
III., repeated a similar treason against the traitor, and, in
hopes of gaining possession of Constantinople, yielded up the
possession of Nicæa to Suleiman, which that chief immediately
made the capital of his dominions. … When Alexius ascended the
throne [Alexius I. A. D. 1081], the Seljouk conquests in Asia
Minor were still considered as a portion of the dominions of
the Grand Sultan Malekshah, the son of Alp Arslan, and
Suleiman, the sultan of Nicæa, was only his lieutenant, though
as a member of the house of Seljouk, and as cousin of
Malekshah, he was honoured with the title of Sultan. The
prominent position which his posterity occupied in the wars of
the Crusaders, their long relations with the Byzantine empire,
and the independent position they held as sultans of Iconium,
have secured to them a far more lasting place in history than
has been obtained by the superior but less durable dynasty of
the grand sultans. … Toutoush, the brother of Malekshah, who
acted as his governor at Damascus at the same time, became the
founder of the Syrian dynasty of Seljouk sultans."

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

The empire of Malek Shah "was as vast as that of the Sassanian
kings in the height of their glory. He encouraged the
cultivation of science and literature, and his reign is famous
for the reformation of the Calendar [in which work Omar
el-Khayyam, the poet, was one of the astronomers employed]. An
assembly of an the astronomers of Persia adopted a system of
computing time which Gibbon says 'surpasses the Julian and
approaches the accuracy of the Gregorian æra.' It was called
the Jalalæan æra, from Jalalu-'d-Din, 'Glory of the Faith,'
one of the titles of Malik-Shah, and commenced on March 15,
1079."

_C. R. Markham,
History of Persia,
chapter 6._

TURKS: A. D. 1092-1160.
Dissolution of the empire of Malek Shah.

"Melikshah's reign was certainly the culminating point of the
glory of the Seldjukides. … Mindful of the oriental adage,
'Perfection and decay go hand in hand,' he determined as far
as possible to provide, during his own lifetime, against
discord breaking out amongst those who should come after him,
by dividing the empire between his different relations.
Anatolia was given to Suleiman Shah, whose family had hitherto
governed Gazan; Syria fell to his brother Tutush, the
adversary of the Crusaders; Nushtekin Gartcha, who had raised
himself from slavery to the rank of generalissimo, and who
became later the founder of the dynasty of the Khahrezmides,
was invested with Khahrezm; Aksonghar got Aleppo; Tchekermish
Mosul, Kobulmish Damascus, Khomartekin Fars, and his son
Sandjar was entrusted with the administration of Khorasan and
Transoxania. These precautions proved, however, ineffectual to
preserve the dynasty of the Seljukides from the common fate of
oriental sovereign races, for after the death of Melikshah,
which took place in 485 (1092), his son Berkyaruk (the Very
Brilliant One) had scarcely ascended the throne before the
flames of discord were kindled amongst the numerous members of
the family, and they speedily fell a prey to the generals and
the other relations of the deceased prince." Sandjar, who died
in 1160, "was almost the only one of all his race who took to
heart the decay of their power in their old hereditary
dominions, or made any earnest endeavour to arrest it."

_A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 6._

TURKS: A. D. 1097-1099.
First encounters with the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

TURKS: A. D. 1101-1102.
Destruction of three hosts of Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

TURKS: A. D. 1193.
Overthrow by the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM

TURKS: (Ottoman): A. D. 1240-1326.
Origin and rise of the modern Turkish power.

On the final defeat and death, in Kurdistan, of the last
Khuarezmian or Carizmian prince, who was pursued relentlessly
by the Mongols of Jingis Khan and his successors, there was
dissolved an army which included various Turkish hordes. The
fragments of this Khuarezmian force were scattered and played
several important parts in the history of the troubled time.
"The bolder and more powerful chiefs invaded Syria, and
violated the holy sepulchre of Jerusalem; the more humble
engaged in the service of Aladin, Sultan of Iconium, and among
these were the obscure fathers of the Ottoman line. They had
formerly pitched their tents near the southern bank of the
Oxus, in the plains of Mahan and Nesa; and it is somewhat
remarkable that the same spot should have produced the first
authors of the Parthian and Turkish empires. At the head or in
rear of a Carizmian army, Soliman Shah was drowned in the
passage of the Euphrates. His son Orthogrul became the soldier
and subject of Aladin, and established at Surgut, on the banks
of the Sangar, a camp of four hundred families or tents, whom
he governed fifty-two years both in peace and war. He was the
father of Thaman, or Athman, whose Turkish name has been
melted into the appellation of the Caliph Othman; and if we
describe that pastoral chief as a shepherd and a robber, we
must separate from those characters all idea of ignominy and
baseness. Othman possessed, and perhaps surpassed, the
ordinary virtues of a soldier, and the circumstances of time
and place were propitious to his independence and success. The
Seljukian dynasty was no more, and the distance and decline of
the Mogul Khans soon enfranchised him from the control of a
superior. He was situate on the verge of the Greek empire. The
Koran sanctified his 'gazi,' or holy war, against the
infidels; and their political errors unlocked the passes of
Mount Olympus, and invited him to descend into the plains of
Bithynia. … It was on the 27th of July, in the year 1299 of
the Christian era, that Othman first invaded the territory of
Nicomedia; and the singular accuracy of the date seems to
disclose some foresight of the rapid and destructive growth of
the monster. The annals of the twenty-seven years of his reign
would exhibit a repetition of the same inroads; and his
hereditary troops were multiplied in each campaign by the
accession of captives and volunteers.
{3134}
Instead of retreating to the hills, he maintained the most
useful and defensible posts, fortified the towns and castles
which he had first pillaged; and renounced the pastoral life
for the baths and palaces of his infant capitals. But it was
not till Othman was oppressed by age and infirmities that he
received the welcome news of the conquest of Prusa, which had
been surrendered by famine or treachery to the arms of his son
Orchan. … From the conquest of Prusa we may date the true era
of the Ottoman empire. The lives and possessions of the
Christian subjects were redeemed by a tribute or ransom of
thirty thousand crowns of gold; and the city, by the labors of
Orchan, assumed the aspect of a Mahometan capital."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 64._

"Osman is the real Turkish name, which has been corrupted into
Othman. The descendants of his subjects style themselves
Osmanlis, which has in like manner been corrupted into
Ottoman."

_Dr. W. Smith,
Note to
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 64._

TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359.
Progress of conquests in Asia Minor.

The Janissaries.

"Orchan [the son and successor of Othman] had captured the
city of Nicomedia in the first year of his reign (1326); and
with the new resources for warfare which the administrative
genius of his brother [Alaeddin] placed at his command, he
speedily signalised his reign by conquests still more
important. The great city of Nice [Nicæa] (second to
Constantinople only in the Greek Empire) surrendered to him in
1330. … Numerous other advantages were gained over the Greeks:
and the Turkish prince of Karasi (the ancient Mysia), who had
taken up arms against the Ottomans, was defeated; and his
capital city, Berghama (the ancient Pergamus), and his
territory, annexed to Orchan's dominions. On the conquest of
Karasi, in the year 1336 of our era, nearly the whole of the
north-west of Asia Minor was included in the Ottoman Empire;
and the four great cities of Brusa, Nicomedia, Nice, and
Pergamus had become strongholds of its power. A period of
twenty years, without further conquests, and without war,
followed the acquisition of Karasi. During this time the
Ottoman sovereign was actively occupied in perfecting the
civil and military institutions which his brother had
introduced; in securing internal order, in founding and
endowing mosques and schools, and in the construction of vast
public edifices. … Orchan died in the year 1359 of our era, at
the age of seventy-five, after a reign of thirty-three years,
during which the most important civil and military
institutions of his nation were founded, and the Crescent was
not only advanced over many of the fairest provinces of Asia,
but was also planted on the European continent."

_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 2._

It is with Othman's son Orkhan that the Ottoman Empire really
begins. He threw off his nominal allegiance to the Sultan [of
Iconium], though he still bore only the title of Emir. And in
his time the Ottomans first made good their footing in Europe.
But while his dominion was still only Asiatic, Orkhan began
one institution which did more than anything else firmly to
establish the Ottoman power. This was the institution of the
tribute children. By the law of Mahomet … the unbeliever is
allowed to purchase life, property, and the exercise of his
religion, by the payment of tribute. Earlier Mahometan rulers
had been satisfied with tribute in the ordinary sense. Orkhan
first demanded a tribute of children. The deepest of wrongs,
that which other tyrants did as an occasional outrage, thus
became under the Ottomans a settled law. A fixed proportion of
the strongest and most promising boys among the conquered
Christian nations were carried off for the service of the
Ottoman princes. They were brought up in the Mahometan faith,
and were employed in civil or military functions, according to
their capacity. Out of them was formed the famous force of the
Janissaries, the new soldiers who, for three centuries, as
long as they were levied in this way, formed the strength of
the Ottoman armies. These children, torn from their homes and
cut off from every domestic and national tie, knew only the
religion and the service into which they were forced, and
formed a body of troops such as no other power, Christian or
Mahometan, could command. … While the force founded by Orkhan
lasted in its first shape, the Ottoman armies were
irresistible. But all this shews how far the Ottomans were
from being a national power. Their victories were won by
soldiers who were really of the blood of the Greeks, Slaves,
and other conquered nations. In the same way, while the
Ottoman power was strongest, the chief posts of the Empire,
civil and military, were constantly held, not by native Turks,
but by Christian renegades of all nations. The Ottoman power
in short was the power, not of a nation, but simply of an
army."

E. A. Freeman,
The Ottoman Power in Europe,
chapter 4.

The name of Yeni Tscheri, which means 'new troops,' and which
European writers have turned into Janissaries, was given to
Orchan's young corps by the Dervish Hadji Beytarch."

_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389.
The conquests in Europe of Amurath I.

"The dissensions of the elder and younger Andronicus [Emperors
at Constantinople, the younger—a grandson—in revolt and the
elder finally deposed, A. D. 1320-1328], and the mistaken
policy of Cantacuzene [Great Domestic of the empire, regent,
after the death of Andronicus the younger, A. D. 1341, and
then usurper of the throne from 1341 until 1355], first led to
the introduction of the Turks into Europe; and the subsequent
marriage of Orchan with a Grecian princess was acceded to by
the Byzantine court as a faint bond of peace between a dreaded
conqueror and a crouching state. The expectation of
tranquillity was, however, fatally blasted; and, in the last
quarrel of Cantacuzene with his pupil [John Palæologus, the
youthful son of Andronicus the younger, who was deprived of
his crown for fourteen years by Cantacuzene], the disastrous
ambition of the former opened the path of Solyman, the son of
Orchan, across the Hellespont [A. D. 1356], and laid the
northern provinces of the kingdom open to the temporary
ravages of the barbarians, thus inflicting a lasting and
irremediable injury on the liberties of Christendom. The
exploits of Solyman, however, led to no other permanent
results than the example which they left to the ambition of
Amurath I., who, amongst his earliest achievements, led his
victorious army across the Hellespont [A. D. 1360], ravaged
the extended district from Mount Hæmus to the Straits, and,
taking possession of Adrianople [A. D. 1361], made it the
first seat of his royalty, and the first shrine of
Mahomedanism in Europe.
{3135}
His conquests had now drawn a circle round the enfeebled
dominions of the Emperor; and the submission of John
Palæologus, together with his political views in more distant
quarters, alone prevented Amurath from contracting the
circumference to the centre, and annihilating the empire of
the East, by seating himself on the throne of Byzantium. For
the present, he turned his back upon the city, and pursued his
course towards the wilds of Bulgaria and Servia."

_Sir J. E. Tennent,
History of Modern Greece,
volume 1, chapter 4._

"Hitherto the Turkish victories in Europe had been won over
the feeble Greeks; but the Ottomans now came in contact with
the far more warlike Sclavonic tribes, which had founded
kingdoms and principalities in Servia and Bosnia. Amurath also
menaced the frontiers of Wallachia and Hungary. The Roman See,
once so energetic in exciting the early crusades, had
disregarded the progress of the new Mahometan power, so long
as the heretical Greeks were the only sufferers beneath its
arms. But Hungary, a country that professed spiritual
obedience to the Pope, a branch of Latin Christendom, was now
in peril; and Pope Urban V. preached up a crusade against the
infidel Turks. The King of Hungary, the princes of Servia, of
Bosnia and Wallachia, leagued together to drive the Ottomans
out of Europe; and their forces marched towards Adrianople
until they crossed the river Marizza at a point not more than
two days' journey from that city." A single battle, fought on
the Marizza, in 1363, broke this first Sclavonic league
against the Turks, and Amurath proceeded in his acquisition of
towns and territory from the Servians and Bulgarians until
1376, when both people purchased a short peace, the former by
paying a heavy annual tribute of money and soldiers, the
latter by giving their king's daughter to the Turk. The peace
thus secured only gave an opportunity to the Sclavic nations
to organize one more great attempt to cast out their
aggressive and dangerous neighbor. Servia led the movement,
and was joined in it by the Bulgarians, the Bosnians, and the
Skipetars of Albania, with aid likewise promised and rendered
from Hungary, Wallachia, and Poland. But nothing prospered in
the undertaking; it served the ambition of the Turks and
quickened their conquest of southeastern Europe. Amurath fell
upon Bulgaria first (A. D. 1389), broke down all resistance,
dethroned the king and annexed his state to the Ottoman
dominions. A few weeks later in the same year, on the 27th of
August, 1389, the great and famous battle of Kossova was
fought, which laid the heavy yoke of Turkish tyranny upon the
necks of the Servian people, and the memory of which has been
embalmed in their literature. Amurath was assassinated in the
hour of victory by a despairing Servian nobleman, but lived
long enough to command the execution of the captive Servian
king.

_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 2._

_Madame E. L. Mijatovich,
Kossovo._

See, also,
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9-16TH CENTURIES.

TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.
The conquests of Bajazet.
The Emir becomes Sultan.
His overthrow and capture by Timour.

"The character of Bajazet, the son and successor of Amurath,
is strongly expressed in his surname of Ilderim, or the
Lightning; and he might glory in an epithet which was drawn
from the fiery energy of his soul and the rapidity of his
destructive march. In the fourteen years of his reign he
incessantly moved at the head of his armies, from Boursa to
Adrianople, from the Danube to the Euphrates. … No sooner had
he imposed a regular form of servitude on the Servians and
Bulgarians than he passed the Danube to seek new enemies and
new subjects in the heart of Moldavia. Whatever yet adhered to
the Greek empire in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly,
acknowledged a Turkish master. … The humble title of emir was
no longer suitable to the Ottoman greatness; and Bajazet
condescended to accept a patent of sultan from the caliphs who
served in Egypt under the yoke of the Mamelukes—a last and
frivolous homage that was yielded by force to opinion, by the
Turkish conquerors to the House of Abbas and the successors of
the Arabian prophet. The ambition of the sultan was inflamed
by the obligation of deserving this august title; and he
turned his arms against the kingdom of Hungary, the perpetual
theatre of the Turkish victories and defeats. Sigismond, the
Hungarian king, was the son and brother of the emperors of the
West; his cause was that of Europe and the Church; and on the
report of his danger, the bravest knights of France and
Germany were eager to march under his standard and that of the
cross. In the battle of Nicopolis [September 28, A. D. 1396],
Bajazet defeated a confederate army of 100,000 Christians, who
had proudly boasted that if the sky should fall they could
uphold it on their lances. The far greater part were slain or
driven into the Danube; and Sigismond, escaping to
Constantinople by the river and the Black Sea, returned, after
a long circuit, to his exhausted kingdom. In the pride of
victory, Bajazet threatened that he would besiege Buda; that
he would subdue the adjacent countries of Germany and Italy;
and that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on the
altar of St. Peter at Rome. His progress was checked, not by
the miraculous interposition of the apostle, not by a crusade
of the Christian powers, but by a long and painful fit of the
gout. … At length the ambition of the victorious sultan
pointed to the conquest of Constantinople; but he listened to
the advice of his vizir, who represented that such an
enterprise might unite the powers of Christendom in a second
and more formidable crusade. His epistle to the emperor was
conceived in these words: 'By the divine clemency, our
invincible scimitar has reduced to our obedience almost all
Asia, with many and large countries in Europe, excepting only
the city of Constantinople; for beyond the walls thou hast
nothing left. Resign that city; stipulate thy reward; or
tremble for thyself and thy unhappy people at the consequences
of a rash refusal.' But his ambassadors were instructed to
soften their tone, and to propose a treaty, which was
subscribed with submission and gratitude. A truce of ten years
was purchased by an annual tribute of thirty thousand crowns
of gold." The truce was soon broken by Bajazet, who found a
pretext for again demanding the surrender of Constantinople.
He had established his blockade of the city and would surely
have won it by famine or assault if Timour's invasion of Asia
Minor (A. D. 1402) had not summarily interrupted his plans and
ended his career. Defeated at the battle of Angora and taken
prisoner by the Tartar conqueror, he died a few months
later—whether caged like a beast or held in more honorable
captivity is a question in some dispute.

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 64-65._

See, also, TIMOUR.

{3136}

TURKS: A. D. 1393.
Wallachian capitulation.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-18TH CENTURIES (ROMANIA, ETC.).

TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.
Prostration and recovery.
Conquests of Mahomet and Amurath II.