quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
the infidels."
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
C. Torr,
Rhodes in Modern Times,
chapter 1.
J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 10 (volume 1).
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.
Occupation of Malta.
Improvement and fortification of the island.
The great siege.
The Turks repelled.
"Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]
predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part
of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to
the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own
interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no
revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged
with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made
frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and
dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this
transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he
not only relieved himself of all further expense on its
account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of
his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his
brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It
was not very long before the wilderness before them was to
blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was
brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.
Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the
rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was
soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In
a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,
which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its
garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works
was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the
accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not
until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are
now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices
that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride
of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to
battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils
of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights
of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the
Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the
East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,
"resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the
knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by
driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a
formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de
la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long
in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself
for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He
addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He
summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to
Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming
struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and
military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia
of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000
men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and
Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,
strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition
for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette
could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000
men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already
arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their
way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The
Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It
comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a
number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,
independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,
was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The
command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One
of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the
Spaniards at Gelves.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
episodes of war in the 16th century.
{1665}
The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
… The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
children,—are said to have perished."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapters 2-5.
ALSO IN:
W. Porter,
History of the Knights of Malta,
chapters 15-18 (volume 2).
S. Lane-Poole,
Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
chapter 13.
HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.
Decline and practical disappearance of the order.
"The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the
Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on
the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest
and affluence produced gradually their usual
consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The
'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long
years, in which there were no events to bind them together in
united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had
become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789
the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European
nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had
received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their
grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully
contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in
his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the
confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when
the revolutionists obtained supreme power."
W. Tallack,
Malta,
section 8.
"In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
(of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
{1666}
[Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting
hospitals."
F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
part 1, chapter 20.
----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------
HOSPODAR.
"A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =
Lord)."
J. Samuelson, Roumania,
page 209, foot-note.
HOSTIS.
See PEREGRINI.
HOTTENTOTS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and A. D. 1486-1806;
also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.
HOUSE OF KEYS, The.
See MANX KINGDOM.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
See LORDS, HOUSE OF.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
HOUSECARLS.
"No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent
military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.
1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly
under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These
were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so
much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls
were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an
institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well
as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under
Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at
their head."
E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 6, section 2,
and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).
HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
HOVAS, The.
See MALAYAN RACE.
HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758.
HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord,
and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)
Naval Victory (1794).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American
Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);
1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).
HRINGS OF THE AVARS.
See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.
HUAMABOYA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
HUANCAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
HUASTECS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.
HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY,
Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.
HUECOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.
----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------
HUGUENOTS.
First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.
Ascendancy in Navarre.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
The Massacre at Fort Caroline.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.
The Wars of Religion in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.
The Edict of Nantes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
Continued desertion of nobles.
Leadership of the clergy.
Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.
Renewed revolt.
Second Treaty of Montpellier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
Revolt in alliance with England.
Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
End of political Huguenotism in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.
Revived persecution under Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
The climax of persecution in France.
The Dragonnades.
The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
The great exodus.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
----------HUGUENOTS: End--------
HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
HULL: Siege by the Royalists.
Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.
C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 12.
See, also,
WINCEBY FIGHT.
HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
HULST, Battle of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
HUMANISM.
See RENAISSANCE.
HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
{1667}
HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.
HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.
HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.
HUMBLEDON, Battle of.
See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.
HUNDRED, The.
"The union of a number of townships for the purpose of
judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is
known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering
to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the
'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,
which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,
has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use
of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in
comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent
its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred
judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains
abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration
of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of
the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other
enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may
be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive
organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial
hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is
capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been
regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of
land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to
the host; as representing the original settlement of the
hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of
which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar
to English history, and the same result may have followed from
very different causes as probably as from the same causes,
here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already
stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in
hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was
carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems
reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,
we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the
hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake
court, was held every month; it was called six days before the
day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was
attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their
stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the
reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal
jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial
court leet."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).
"By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much
diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between
township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of
the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost
everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred
had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of
its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and
should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of
the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but
they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name
soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,
for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred
flourished and became the political unit, like the township in
New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the
district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it
was also the representative district. … The hundred had also
its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects
like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings
enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often
exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution
they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct
in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the
county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this
day."
J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the United States,
chapter 4, section 1.
HUNDRED DAYS, The.
The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
Hundred Days.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The
See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.
----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------
HUNGARIANS, The.
"Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the
Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The
original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called
Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian
mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,
who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the
most important of the western branches are the Finns and
Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk
Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great
Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish
tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the
plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the
reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.
They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the
name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has
been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is
difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the
foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the
degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by
historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;
but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,
the description given of them by an old chronicler of the
ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely
with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."
Dr. W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55.
"That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural
Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions
being against it. Hence it is just possible that a
whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the
Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most
Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."
R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 11.
"According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling
caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor
the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';
and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the
rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
A. J. Patterson,
The Magyars,
volume 1, chapter 1.
{1668}
HUNGARIANS:
Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.
"The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and
probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by
internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home
for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores
of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly
struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the
very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the
eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their
chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the
frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the
conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of
about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,
and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The
country which they prepared to take possession of, and the
central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up
into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin
and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and
Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with
his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four
centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most
dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost
unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from
victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the
land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the
same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the
Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.
Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on
the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was
Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far
from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody
adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken
by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor
Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.
The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought
the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down
from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient
to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths
of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by
mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from
the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were
simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the
inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of
Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were
repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy
tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her
geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of
these new neighbours."
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 1, chapter 1.
See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.
HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.
Ravages in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.
HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
Repulse from Germany.
"The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by
the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,
in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the
Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the
Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his
son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest
estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic
faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and
they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the
heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho
dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,
unless they were true to each other, their religion and
country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were
reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in
eight legions, according to the division of provinces and
tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].
… The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly
passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the
Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the
baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The
battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the
Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with
an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought
under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in
merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred
years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the
flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers
of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the
hope of mercy."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
chapter 55.
ALSO IN:
W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 135 (volume 1).
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 2, pages 656-665.
A. W. Grube,
Heroes of History and Legend,
chapter 8.
----------HUNGARIANS: End--------
HUNGARY:
Ancient.
See DACIA, and PANNONIA.
HUNGARY:
The Huns in possession.
See HUNS.
HUNGARY:
The Avars in possession.
See AVARS.
HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
Christianization of the Magyars.
Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.
"King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN
EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan
Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was
never again able to cross, and even within these limits the
Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part
they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to
exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast
they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from
the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to
develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours
gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …
Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke
of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,
and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her
influence in favour of her religion.
{1669}
She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came
to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and
Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic
conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the
'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of
the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He
sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was
able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great
Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,
continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to
Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and
solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name
of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort
of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially
from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate
relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the
empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir
presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,
daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of
Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another
married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,
Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European
states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by
Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the
position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its
conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar
historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the
invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king
Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use
persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he
hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an
ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who
graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,
and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that
he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the
Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to
Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege
of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of
the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity
of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,
however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,
still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this
great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom
between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of
Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.
His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in
the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his
son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written
his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as
a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were
harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of
August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his
nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was
driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the
country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a
tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of
Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother
Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with
revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in
1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails
in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This
prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry
IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating
position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him
of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for
having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged
to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling
against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged
the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience
to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in
the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He
was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to
make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The
dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …
The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]
was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been
elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left
the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made
himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had
himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of
Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,
Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted
them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself
crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this
time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very
much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria
in later times."
L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapters 5-6.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.
Hostilities with the first Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
The Golden Bull of King Bela.
Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
The end of the Arpad dynasty.
"Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
several important events. Having entirely reduced
Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
German settlers received from the king a separate district,
being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
throne in 1205. …
{1670}
Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
of this charter were as follows:
1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;
2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
previously tried and legally sentenced;
3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the
property of the nobles;
4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
of the country, they were to be paid by the king;
5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor
given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.
The most important point, however, was article 31st, which
conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case
of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions
contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower
clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the
determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of
the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the
charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning
of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions
caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary
in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,
after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in
Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a
greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary
with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the
Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and
Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of
Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions
facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on
the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the
total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with
astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a
few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not
contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised
snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making
their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths
of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo
was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of
state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a
proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king
[calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed
the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable
people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their
homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work
of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and
then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in
the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the
Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving
assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a
prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to
Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime
Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the
death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne
by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen
was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied
himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew
and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called
the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal
dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were
continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own
tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,
was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the
house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with
Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his
son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops
before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to
sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew
having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this
matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.
Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.
Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,
who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of
his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring
them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of
Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 1, chapter 2.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.
Wallachian struggle for independence.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
Conquests of Louis the Great.
Beginning of wars with the Turks.
The House of Austria and the disputed crown.
On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
{1671}
This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
Austria, who reigned only two years."
C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe, period 5.
"Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first
prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of
Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the
Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had
married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,
Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured
for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German
Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,
to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with
her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though
40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future
husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in
Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her
to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian
nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his
dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund
expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon
after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and
immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her
agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.
He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.
… The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both
to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal
expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,
before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,
forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity
and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti
Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;
while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king
in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged
the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the
clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the
feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations
were now adopted respecting the military system of the
kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually
to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus
[Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of
the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of
Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife
Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long
minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her
to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown
should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging
that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would
endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the
duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the
Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.
… Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the
court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth
brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,
was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of
the arrangement that had been made; and the news having
arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor
of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry
the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the
Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had
accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.
… The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was
headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was
compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,