Chapter 3: , page 89 (3)

It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain
permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to
advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to
do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at
Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one
writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be
cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of
the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood
which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet
pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for
two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now
the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other
leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the
British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and
defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After
one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he
could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their
mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on
his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and,
after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he
captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been
destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command
of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been
taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni,
the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed
the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as
it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough,
brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first
considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of
Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington
called it 'The Song of Triumph.' … This proclamation, put
forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really
an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an
insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was
gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple
of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are
believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying
neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum
at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni
and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived
on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English
prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale),
who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were
brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp.
General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not
now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar
in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and
Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into
India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent
back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor.
{15}
Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. … The war
being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son
of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when
his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position
that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly
afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom
we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in
India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as
king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which
he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war,
when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs,
and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur
to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab
forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly
terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a
friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power
would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his
kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we
declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the
advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian
encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short
time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between
England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims
over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained
independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed
attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom,
including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This
was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days
after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere
Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of
Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the
Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone,
asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin,
however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of
'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a
neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was
at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had
he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would
have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he
was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold
acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William
Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000
muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded
that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a
friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers
revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government
that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country
which he brought under his power. However, after various
changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two
brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son,
Abdurrahman."

_P. F. Walker,
Afghanistan,
pages 45-51._

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

_G. B. Malleson,
History of Afghanistan,
chapters 11._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
The second war with the English and its causes.

The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle
of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice
royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord
Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly
inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the
dynastic quarrels of the Afghans … and in attempting to
cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and
arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. … Lord
Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his
successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in
1869. … Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He
refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge
himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he
promised that he would not press for the admission of any
English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return
expected by England for this attitude of friendly
non-interference was that every other foreign state, and
especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly
or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our
interests were so closely involved. … But a different view
was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was
supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir
Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as
contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them
desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta,
Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the
Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of
Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country.
In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir
Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was
ably maintained. … A Viceroy whose views were more in
accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to
be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord
Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving
effect to the new policy. He was instructed. … to continue
payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing
dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of
unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance
of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in
exchange for these advantages. … Lord Lawrence and those who
thought with him in England prophesied from the first the
disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of
the Afghans. … The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English
Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common
interest to the two Governments, was calculated … to excite
feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere
Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. …
Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and
consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and
Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. … The English Commissioner was
instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of
the Treaty was the admission of an English representative
within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request
on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand
proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy
formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation.
{16}
Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave
him to understand that the English would proceed to secure
their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew
his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the
two countries were in this uncomfortable condition,
information reached India that a Russian mission had been
received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of
the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war
with Russia. … As the despatch of a mission from Russia was
contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception
under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord
Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand
the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his
intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer
selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him
forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as
it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of
course the mission was not admitted. … An outcry was raised
both in England and in India. … Troops were hastily
collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was
thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier
at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the
formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing
aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of
England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct
territorial aggression. … As had been foreseen by all
parties from the first, the English armies were entirely
successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. … By the
close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the
Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in
January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the
resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken
to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was
drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as
regent. … Yakoob readily granted the English demands,
consenting to place his foreign relations under British
control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably
more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the
rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He
received in exchange a promise of support by the British
Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the
conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley
withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to
establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in
July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and
eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad
story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and
scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious
uniformity—the English Resident with his little garrison
trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan
mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself
respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident,
the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save
their hatred of English interference, the people seething with
anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the
Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack
upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879]
after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his
entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the
previous war was avoided. The English troops which were
withdrawn from the country were still within reach. … About
the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the
Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On
the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at
Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make
his formal entry into the city of Cabul. … The Ameer was
deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the
people required under pain of death, and the country scoured
to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late
outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of
retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the
English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was
cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of
some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass.
… A new and formidable personage … now made his appearance
on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the
late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had
sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported
by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take
place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to
20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. … It was
thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and
southern province. … The policy thus declared was carried
out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the
same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the
north signs were visible that the only possible successor to
the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. … The Bengal army
under General Stewart was to march northwards, and,
suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the
Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The
first part of the programme was carried out. … The second
part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious
disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the
withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. …
Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's
friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to
accept their overtures. Though little was known about him,
rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee,
and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of
June [1880] his army started. … But before the end of June
Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would
be assaulted. … General Burrows found it necessary to fall back
to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called
Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of
the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the
position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th
of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of
this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force,
numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously
defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns,
about half the English troops returned to Candahar.
{17}
General Primrose, who was in command, had no
choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment,
and wait till he should be rescued. … The troops at Cabul
were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster
reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army
under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered
city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry
out the intended withdrawal. … With about 10,000 fighting
men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a
successful issue his remarkable enterprise, … falling upon
the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short
distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the
forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British
force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively
refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent
occupation. … The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob
continued for a while, and until it was over the English
troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been
several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881]
occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the
evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally
accepted as Ameer."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 534-544._

ALSO IN
_A. Forbes,
The Afghan Wars,
part 2._

_Duke of Argyll,
The Afghan Question from 1841 to 1878_.

_G. B. Malleson,
The Russo-Afghan Question_.

----------AFGHANISTAN: End----------

AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.

See LIBYANS.

AFRICA: The Roman Province.

"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had
doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman
Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian
inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the
fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far,
all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the
developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim
of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of
North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. … The
arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite
after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes
as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman
government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa,
and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the
kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia.
We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman
subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it
like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia
as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of
the native governments. … As for the previous rulers, so
also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a
limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial
supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or
taking back of the frontier in Africa. … The former
territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier
kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or,
as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until
the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name
[Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the
river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well
as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. …
Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. … The
Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the
Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed
it; but … probably the whole south as far as the great
desert passed as imperial land."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 13._

See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.

AFRICA: The Mediæval City.

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

AFRICA:
Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
and 908-1171;
also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
and SUDAN.

AFRICA:
Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.
The rounding of the Cape.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.

AFRICA:
Dutch and English Colonization.

See SOUTH AFRICA.

AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.
Settlement of Sierra Leone.

See SIERRA LEONE.

AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.
The founding of Liberia.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
Partition of the interior between European Powers.

"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin
Conference of 1884-1885 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that
Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely
considered. … The founding of the Congo Independent State
was probably the most important result of the Conference. …
Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours,
Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to
their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea.
… The compromise … arrived at placed the Mission Station
of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The
frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of
Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from
the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company,
constituted by a royal charter, … "was given administrative
powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions
thereby placed under British protection … apart from the Oil
Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown,
embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern
frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories
of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its
confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany
and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and
action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and
in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German
sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich.
… At present it allows the French Congo territories to
expand along the western bank of the M'bangi … provided no
other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in
which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the
conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On
the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention
by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks
of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier
in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit
of the basin of the Casini.
{18}
On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which
France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left
to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for
German Colonization—Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count
Pfeil—quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha,
Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were
conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters … armed
with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On
the 27th February, the day following the signature of the
General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief,
or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German
Colonization the territories … acquired for them through Dr.
Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was
proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon
the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles
knew no bounds. … Prior to 1884, the continental lands
facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British
influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and
the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of
the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and
the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty
of the Sultan. … Still, Great Britain had no territorial
claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally
protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no
effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German
Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and
the British and German Governments arranged questions between
them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886,
which was afterwards superseded by the more definite
Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In
April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization
were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with
Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took
over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of
Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal
charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an
enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently
the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series
of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs,
whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over
vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and
Cape Frio. … It was useless for the Cape colonists to
protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to
the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. … On 3rd
August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa
was founded, and …. received the Imperial sanction for its
incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was
formed—the German West-Africa Company—and the
administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial
Commissioner. … The intrusion of Germany into South-West
Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the
extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi.
Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer
insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had
adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land,
having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its
territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was
absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was
added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions.
Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection.
By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain
acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the
early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over
the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a
British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country
bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions
in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east,
and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at
this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having
obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the
British South Africa Company, … On the 29th October 1889,
the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter.
It was declared in this charter that the principal field of
the operations of the British South African Company shall be
the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other
boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land
was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great
Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the
continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over
the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over
Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now
to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took
formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of
Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from
Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of
Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of
King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian
troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of
Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces,
except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the
result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th
September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and
its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and
Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891,
Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of
Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has
practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no
hold over Abyssinia. … Italy has also succeeded in
establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties
concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh
(about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North
latitude)—a distance of 450 miles—were placed under Italian
protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her
Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. … The
British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now
extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute
(43° 15' East longitude). … The activity of France in her
Senegambian province, … during the last hundred years …
has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her
territory. … The French have established a claim over the
country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia.
{19}
A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra
Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at
Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal
withdrew all rights over Dehomé. … Recently, a French sphere
of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan
regions between Algeria and Senegambia. … Declarations were
exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain]
with the following results: France became a consenting party
to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great
Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over
Madagascar. … And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of
influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean
possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on
Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere
of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs
to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of
July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main
provisions the following definitions of territory: "The
Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention
of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria
Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to
the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the
western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to
be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro
within the British sphere. … Treaties in that district were
made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr.
Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin
Pasha. … (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of
influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally
drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence
it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores
of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River
Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was
continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the
Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern
frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River
and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of
influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of
Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile
watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her
Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on
the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the
islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the
Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south
latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line
was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give
Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.)
The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony
was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger
Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade
zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as
applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and
Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the
dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal
zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain,
however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have
since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany
within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia.
Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was
ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June,
1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain
acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion
of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the
Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted
passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the
confines of the Congo Independent State and German East
Africa. … Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower
Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo
Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake
Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the
South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West
Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her
provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo
Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. … On
May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an
end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent
State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the
country was equally divided between the disputants. … Lord
Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very
wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by
the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of
goods through territories in which two or more powers are
indirectly interested."

_A. S. White,
The Development of Africa,
Second Edition, Revised, 1892._

ALSO IN:
_J. S. Keltie,
The Partition of Africa,
chapter 12-23._

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.

AFRICA: The inhabiting races.

The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in
number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone,
stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who
comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs
(with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between
Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole
South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in
that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include
with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and
Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are
occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including
Abyssinians and Gallas.

_A. H. Keane,
The African Races (Stanford's Compendium:
Africa, appendix)._

ALSO IN:
_R. Brown,
The Races of Mankind,
volumes 2-3._

_R. N. Cust,
Sketch of the Modern Languages of Africa_.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.

----------AFRICA: End----------

AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGADE.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.

AGAS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.

AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

AGE OF STONE. AGE OF BRONZE, &c.

See STONE AGE.

{20}

AGELA. AGELATAS.

The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly
trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of
which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the
Agelatas.

_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 2._

AGEMA, The.

The royal escort of Alexander the Great.

AGEN, Origin of.

See NITIOBRIGES.

AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.

See SENONES.

AGER PUBLICUS.

"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her
early history. … Large tracts of country became Roman land,
the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager
publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this
land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which
it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most
curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. … That
part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor
given remained public property, and it was occupied, according
to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a
Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this
occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took
what he could, and more than he could use profitably. … We
should be more inclined to believe that this public land was
occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes;
but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them.
There was no survey made of the public land which was from
time to time acquired, but there were certainly general
boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had
become public property. The lands which were sold and given
were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. … There
is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were
originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however,
that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least,
were due to the state."

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 11._

AGGER.

See CASTRA.

AGGRAVIADOS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGHLABITE DYNASTY.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D.715-750.

AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.

AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AGINNUM.
Modern Agen.

See NITIOBRIGES.

AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

AGNATI. AGNATIC.

See GENS, ROMAN.

AGNIERS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.

AGOGE, The.

The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the
ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the
young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.

_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1._

AGORA, The.

The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the
centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even
earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with
the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it
generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of
the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest
part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of
commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here
even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation,
for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the
oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive
games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication,
both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and
states was carried on; from here started the processions which
continually passed between holy places of kindred origin,
though locally separated. Although originally all public
transactions were carried on in these market-places, special
local arrangements for contracting public business soon became
necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently
rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching
the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most
likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of
Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between
the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of
Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of
Athenian commerce. … The description by Vitruvius of an
agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of
post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular
in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The
numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of
marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for
walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all
marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the
remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
translated by Hueffer,
part 1, section 26._

In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was
called the Agora.

_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 20._

AGRÆI, The.

See AKARNANIANS.

AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.

"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman
laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these
laws all land was declared common property, and that at
certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and
made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It
is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences
of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known
to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were
thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian
laws were not private property, but the property of the state.
They were, originally, those public lands which had been the
domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any
City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an
Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in
whole or in part."

_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 8._

See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.

{21}

AGRI DECUMATES, The.

"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a
triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the
confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an
enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and
presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river
to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most
part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman
defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an
enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of
Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many
of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original
inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to
have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The
intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered
in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the
district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri
Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially
connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt
made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much
later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of
Augustus]."

_C. Merivale,
History of the Roman,
chapter 36._.

"Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
Decumates of the Roman writers."

_R G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 8._

See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.

AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

AGRIGENTUM.

Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek
colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older
colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid
cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified
by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious
tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was
destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by
Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and
grandeur.

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 3._

See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.

Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.

See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.

AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

AIGINA.

See ÆGINA.

AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

AIGUILLON, Siege of.

A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An
English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny,
held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of
the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.

_J. Froissart,
Chronicles,
volume 1, book 1, chapter 120._

AIX, Origin of.

See SALYES.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE:
The Capital of Charlemagne.

The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of
Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the
French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of
the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome
arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia—palaces,
gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,—for the
erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid
under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe.
It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there
that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that
foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch
perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and
the improvement of music."

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 17._

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,
The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
Succession (1748).

The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
influence of England and Holland … forced the peace upon
Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
Cape Breton. … The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
remained with the Genoese.
{22}
For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
[the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
vexed questions had been set at rest. … Of all the ambitious
projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
Frederick alone was substantially realized."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3._

"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin
and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many
conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe,
it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross
inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned
to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all
endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the
electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most
deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not
only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost
its own patrimonial possessions. … The most trying problem
is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of
Hungary [Maria Theresa]. … The verdict of history, as
expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of
writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice
of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was
formed against her."

_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia, 1745-1756,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN
_W. Russell,
History of Modern Europe,
part 2, letter 30._

_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 108 (volume 3)._

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.

"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least
important, but at the same time one of the most estimable
peoples in Greece … our knowledge is only fragmentary. The
boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the
people spoken of as a political whole. … Thucydides speaks,
by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an
institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had,
in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for
judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the
supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not
in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own
time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of
Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already
held there. … Of the constitution of the League we know but
little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and
probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been
held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had
entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in
Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General
with high authority. … The existence of coins bearing the
name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity
enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of
particular cities also occur."

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 4, section 1._

AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).

The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the
ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours
in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between
the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf:
they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the
Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with
the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners,
sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and
half-Epirotic,—like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians.
Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were
subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in
unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of
plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be
unarmed. … Notwithstanding this state of disunion and
insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose
political league among themselves. … The Akarnanians appear
to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical
ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the
Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the
Grecian heroes,—Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and
Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and
other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to
be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the
Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman,
and so they seem to have continued with little alteration
until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of
them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter
enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact
of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian
accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in
socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that
this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the
Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the
Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,—a people the
most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the
Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in
marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the
Akarnanian character."