Chapter 3: , page 89 (2)

Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in
Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a
major part of the Peloponnesus—then beginning to be called
the Morea—by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted
by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger—nephew and namesake
of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the
conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was
invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as
it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him
in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally
succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks,
who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the
Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a
destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently
the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and
Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the
title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of
Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the
Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and
ravages.

_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 8._

ACHMET I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1603-1617.

ACHMET II., 1691-1695.

ACHMET III., 1703-1730.

ACHRADINA.

A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the
"outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the
island, which was the "inner city."

ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.

After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to
the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle
for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four
brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save
one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a
soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the
title of king. His authority was established over the greater
part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and
Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern
Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The
suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the
Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018,
when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were
surrendered to him.

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
book 2, chapter 2, section 2._

{7}

ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

ACOLAHUS, The.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

ACOLYTH, The.

See VARANGIAN or WARING GUARD.

ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.

After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to
deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of
which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in
the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion.
The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and
those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The
pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.

_Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 7._

ACRABATTENE, Battle of.

A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews
under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.

_Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews,
book 12, chapter 8._

ACRAGAS.

See AGRIGENTUM.

ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

ACRE: A. D.1187.
Taken from the Christians by Saladin.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.
The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.
Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.

See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.

ACRE: A. D. 1291.
The Final triumph of the Moslems.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

ACRE: 18th Century.
Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.

"Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the
history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of
Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost
entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored
its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway
comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by
the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and
adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique
marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."

_M. Malte-Brun,
System of Universal Geography,
book 28 (volume 1)._

ACRE: A. D. 1799.
Unsuccessful Siege by Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.

See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.

ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

See KORKYRA.

ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS, The.

"A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered
practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the
Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the
Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years,
during the administration of Pericles. … On entering through
the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and
beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings
anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less
elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and
exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of
alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or
fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice
known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the
Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an
Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in
the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator
might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their
dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary
sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or
modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our
best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor
collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods
and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of
the arts."

_J. A. St. John,
The Hellenes,
book 1, chapter 4._

"Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the
Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur,
surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks,
and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of
which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one
great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the …
sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of
Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on
the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets.
This would not have been consonant either with the customs or
the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica
crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,
and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the
necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained
uninhabited. … The western end of the Acropolis, which
furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one
hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow
that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to
fill up the space with a single building which should serve
the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a
suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and
sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the
Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in
Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution,
surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. … It may be
defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on
both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."

_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
section 8._

See, also, ATTICA.

ACT OF ABJURATION, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ACT OF MEDIATION, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

ACT OF SECURITY.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

{8}

ACT RESCISSORY.

See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.

ACTIUM: B. C. 434.
Naval Battle of the Greeks.

A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
Peloponnesian War.

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 1._

ACTIUM: B. C. 31.
The Victory of Octavius.

See ROME: B. C. 31.

ACTS OF SUPREMACY.

See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559 and 1662-1665.

ACULCO, Battle of (1810).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

ACZ, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.

ADALOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 616-626.

ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).

In diplomatic service.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1796-1801.

ADAMS, John Quincy.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1829.

ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773;
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.

ADDA, Battle of the (A. D. 490).

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

AD DECIMUS, Battle of (A. D. 533).

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

ADEL. ADALING. ATHEL.

"The homestead of the original settler, his house,
farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the
share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the
northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel;
the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the
owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified
also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman.
Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the
same name."

_William Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24._

See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.

ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

ADELANTADOS. ADELANTAMIENTOS.

"Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts
[in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of
Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by
further conquests."

_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520._

ADEODATUS II., Pope, A. D. 672-676.

ADIABENE.

A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of
country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was
originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with
Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary
kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was
seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently
held.

_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
page 140._

ADIRONDACKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADIRONDACKS.

ADIS, Battle of (B. C. 256).

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ADITES, The.

"The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in
the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their
progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."

_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History,
book 7, chapter 2._

See ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

ADJUTATORS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

ADLIYAH, The.

See ISLAM.

ADOLPH (of Nassau), King of Germany, A. D. 1291-1298.

ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, King of Sweden, A. D. 1751-1771.

ADOPTIONISM.

A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century,
which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not
truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma
is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop,
Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne
took active measures to suppress the heresy.

_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 12._

ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ADRIAN VI., Pope, A. D. 1522-1523.

ADRIANOPLE. HADRIANOPLE.

A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated
by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over
Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the
defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS
(VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the
capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389).
It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878
(see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave
its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and
the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).

ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.

See VENICE: A. D. 1177, and 14TH CENTURY.

ADRUMETUM.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

ADUATUCI, The.

See BELGÆ.

ADULLAM, Cave of.

When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he
sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the
Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from
Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to
Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now
feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. … Besides
these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some
of the original Canaanites—of whom the name of one at least
has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast
columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean
palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system
gathered round the hero of the coming age."

_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 22._

ADULLAMITES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

{9}

ADWALTON MOOR, Battle of (A. D. 1643).

This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.

_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 11._

ÆAKIDS (Æacids).

The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson
was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,
and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those
claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.

ÆDHILING.

See ETHEL.

ÆDILES, Roman.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

ÆDUI. ARVERNI. ALLOBROGES.

"The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or
Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies
between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river
was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The
Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town
was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121]
the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the
supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous
country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile
valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of
the Allier and the Loire. … They were on friendly terms with
the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who
occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère).
… In order to break the formidable combination of the
Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui,
who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni.
… A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier
between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their
new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and
kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which
the Romans practiced when it was useful."

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 21._

See, also, GAULS.

Ægæ.

See EDESSA (MACEDONIA).

ÆGATIAN ISLES, Naval Battle of the (B. C. 241).

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ÆGEAN, The.

"The Ægean, or White Sea, … as distinguished from the
Euxine."

_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
page 413, and foot-note._

ÆGIALEA. ÆGIALEANS.

The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and
its inhabitants.

See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆGIKOREIS.

See PHYLÆ.

ÆGINA.

A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and
Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied
by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to
Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power
and commercial importance, and became for a time the most
brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian
war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the
Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the
allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they
offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians
thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to
interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages
to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See
GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great
extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor
with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence
to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and
in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking
possession of their discomfited rival.

_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
volume 1, chapter 14._

Also in
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, volume 4, chapter 36._

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.
Defeat and subjugation.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
Their settlement at Thyrea.

See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

ÆGINA: B. C. 210. Desolation by the Romans.

The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they
entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was
signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city
having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was
reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings
of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 8, section 2._

ÆGINETAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).

A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in
his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.

_Thucydides,
History,
book 3, section 97._

ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ÆLFRED.

See ALFRED.

ÆLIA CAPITOLINA.
The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS, The.

"The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of
which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. …
enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved,
or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law
prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the
assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for
watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was
held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."

_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 16._

ÆMILIAN WAY, The.

"M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. …
constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian
Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to
Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great
north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to
Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the
colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across
the Appenines to Arretium."

_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 41._

ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.

{10}

ÆOLIANS, The.

"The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according
to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to
obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into
three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. … All
the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and
of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common
name of Æolians—a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was
incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among
which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be
assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the
two former races, though even these were scarcely in any
quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be
found a single original stock, to which others had merely been
attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples
assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is
recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is
found between the several members of this race as between
Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood
nearer to the former, others to the latter. … A thorough and
careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that
the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main
races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian,
while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater
number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."

_G. F. Schöman,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 1, chapter 2._

In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians,
appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is
represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were
Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and
Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike,
Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be
distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon,
as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and
presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them
to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes
even by defiance."

_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 6._

See, also, THESSALY, DORIANS AND IONIANS,
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

ÆQUIANS, The.

See OSCANS; also LATIUM;
and ROME; B. C. 458.

ÆRARIANS.

Roman citizens who had no political rights.

See CENSORS, ROMAN.

ÆRARIUM, The.

See FISCUS.

ÆSOPUS INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ÆSTII, or ÆSTYI, The.

"At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the
Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii,
whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the
Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They
worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol
the device of a wild boar. … They often use clubs, iron
weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn
and other produce than might be expected from the general
indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and
are the only people who gather amber, which they call
glesum."—"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to
the north-east of the Vistula. … The name still survives in
the form Estonia."

_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb, with note._

See, also, PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

ÆSYMNETÆ, An.

Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried
not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring
tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power,
under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of
æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the
title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which
succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an
extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of
protector or dictator."

_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 10._

ÆTHEL. ÆTHELING.

See ETHEL, and ADEL.

ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.

See ETHELBERT, etc.

ÆTOLIA. ÆTOLIANS.

"Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early
times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a
savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an
Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized.
The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the
most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes
and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life
being preferred universally. … It was not till the wars
which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians
formed a real political union, and became an important power
in Greece."

_G. Rawlinson,
Manual of Ancient History,
book 3._

See also,
AKARNANIANS, and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE, The.

"The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions
been written down in the shape of a formal document, would
have presented but few varieties of importance. The same
general form of government prevailed in both; each was
federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly,
its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head
of all. The differences between the two are merely those
differences of detail which will always arise between any two
political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from
the other. … If therefore federal states or democratic
states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or
strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should
see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral
characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political
conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some
faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political
conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in
which we know it best [last half of third and first half of
second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. … The
counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to
mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political
aggrandisement."

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 6_.

The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in
continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and
they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their
agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it
was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle
with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end,
B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its
nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 7-9._

ALSO IN _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63-66._

{11}

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
Founding of Herat and Candahar.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;
and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.
In the Syrian Empire.

See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: 310-301 and after.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.
The Ghaznevide Empire.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.
Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.
Conquest by Timour.

See Timour.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1504.
Conquest by Babar.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1722.
Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.
Conquest by Nadir Shah.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
His Conquests in India.

See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
English interference.

"Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed
Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth
had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a
wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit,
who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was
lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance
that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in
1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh
ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor,
which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England,
and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at
length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at
length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and
in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After
the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a
prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in
making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man
thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863,
uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British
occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the
legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan
was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one
sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one
of the youngest. … Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed
was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and
dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been
addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation
of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost
Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the
Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs,
no longer truculent, but courteous. … There was a fine
rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine
chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our
hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty
to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the
second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in
Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His
schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that
certain arrangements were entered into between him and the
Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's
part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian
Government replied that to afford him assistance would be
inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the
Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed
financially toward his undertaking by granting him four
months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a
scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne,
but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a
successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on
Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in
extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it,
and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed
Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his
artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the
south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the
Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the
Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part
availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of
British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression,
he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by
a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had
crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded
Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March,
1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his
lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of
the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other
independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was
soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of
disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia
which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered
in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly
undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says
Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger
entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to
Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission,
which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without
definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious
man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the
Persian army began the siege of Herat. … The Dost made no
concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia,
in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for
assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the
Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations
with the western powers if he were given reason to expect
countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian
Government. … The situation of Burnes in relation to the
Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a
Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose
credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if
that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to
Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took
small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes
that he cared for no connection except with the English, and
Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in
the sincerity of those declarations.
{12}
But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed
to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to
indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence.
It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became
hopeless. … The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his
promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to
obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction,
and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the
Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian
minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit
at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been
discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about
the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which
Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation,
connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his
official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and
garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to
deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since
he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had
gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the
character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he
had no design of obstructing the existing situation in
Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date,
that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to
discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah
Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our
protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs
now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following
June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul,
escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no
explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our
frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central
Asia—a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the
most arduous marching ground in the known world. … Lord
William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the
project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley
regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks
and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of
infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic
sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to
settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march
into that country."

_A. Forbes,
The Afghan Wars,
chapter 1._

ALSO IN;
_J. P. Ferrier,
History of the Afghans,
chapter 10-20._

_Mohan Lal,
Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
volume 1._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
The revolt at Cabul.
Horrors of the British retreat.
Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
Sale's defence of Jellalabad.

"To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the
friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to
join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was
contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah
for the restoration of the banished house. The
expedition—which according to the original intention was to
have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of
Shah Soojah and the Sikhs—rapidly grew into an English
invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on
the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General
Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of
these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the
highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would
not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through
their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,-
the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length,
with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the
loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all
collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The
want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to
Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern
Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards
the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a
fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty
movements the English had left their battering train behind,
but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder,
and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor
did the English army encounter any important resistance
subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him,
and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo
Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah
Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the
fortress Palace of Cabul. … For the moment the policy seemed
thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a
fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one
dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the
unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. … Dost
Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English
envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family
to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was
there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both
the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he
had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a
victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their
policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that
the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their
successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led.
For while the English officials were blindly congratulating
themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to
an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all
sides visible. … The removal of the strong rule of the
Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the
other families and tribes. The whole country was full of
intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the
English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders.
But they soon found that the hopes excited by these
negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had
bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be
disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did
not find that they derived any advantages from the
establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every
Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the
predominance of the English infidels.
{13}
But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of
sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in
spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the
people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion
that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold
upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived
himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a
portion of the English army, under General Sale, into
Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy
the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his
successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken
by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition
of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface
was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from
that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The
army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of
General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man.
But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul,
was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and
liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but
was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting
in the vigour and decision which his critical position was
likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English
Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had
persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances,
and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul
and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great
conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every
important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening
of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was
held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be
made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning
an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir
Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates,
and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's
army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The
evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and
rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at
once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's
house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance.
Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which
marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this
crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of
the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative
security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far
too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an
entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on
almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness
of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored
within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at
some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was
made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time
onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible
supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position.
The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy
and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some
flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of
helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might
even yet have been averted by a little firmness. … But the
commander had already begun to despair, and before many days
had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy.
Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances
but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as
well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide
the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar
Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the
beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern
mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the
insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent
chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he
promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if
a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes.
… While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he
intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double
dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent
messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should
make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their
troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition
was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops
to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to
complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the
presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against
whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's
own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing
but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major
Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at
length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of
the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all
the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort
to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey
had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors
of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English
military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life
out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or
shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of
camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which
lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could,
had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is
uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd—it can scarcely be
called an army—was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of
the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with
Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the
married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two
generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope
that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
volume 4, pages 61-66._

{14}

"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again.
Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before
very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to
lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling
remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass—a dark,
steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable
toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had
barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was
finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap;
the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped
from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to
Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their
own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the
number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by
straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached
Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon,
came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had
numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The
curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for
any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful
catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and
reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of
Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and
shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the
worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is
all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our
successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in
this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before
Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out
and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the
treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly
declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale
rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and
military commander with the knives at their throats.' General
Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold
this place on the part of Government until I receive its order
to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the
turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was
at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to
have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a
succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the
place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most
formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the
garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets,
re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the
gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every
attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at
length, when it became certain that General Pollock was
forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they
determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out
of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and
completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly
fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad
[April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and
dispersed. … Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we
had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne
of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon
after the departure of the British, … and his body, stripped
of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a
ditch."

_J. McCarthy,
History of our own Times,
volume 1, chapter 11._

ALSO IN
_J. W. Kaye,
History of the War in Afghanistan._

_G. R. Gleig,
Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan_.

_Lady Sale,
Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan._

_Mohan Lal,
Life of Dost Mohammed,
chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
The British return to Cabul.
Restoration of Dost Mahomed.