systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his
rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his
insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning
which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant
arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in
his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless
cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy,
and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish
barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the
civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's
daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic
tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his
nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him.
Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted
an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and
preserve, in which men and their works should supply the
objects and zest of the chase."
R. W. Church,
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 1.
{1688}
"He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was
formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the
art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the
Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of
the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian
Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and
Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had
remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a
century before."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
"The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy
Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts
is not to be easily matched in the history of our race.
Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the
only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat.
The impression left upon us by what history records of him is
that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers
unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some
doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the
wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China
on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in
front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who
ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his
right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep
as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with
Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember
that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can
have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and
Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His
own personal government, if government it can be called, may
very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the
modern Hungary and Transylvania."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).
"As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of
Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated
between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian
hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in
the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin
it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the
long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled
into a huge village."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 34.
HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.
Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed
against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had
been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war.
"It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had
surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the
Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns
immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair,
and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and
carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople
the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor
thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to
be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate
the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his
merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague
terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium,
its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south
of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both
of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A
truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated
its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they
reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result
the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes.
Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities
levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of
his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen
days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of
6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an
annual tribute."
J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 4.
HUNS: A. D. 451.
Attila's invasion of Gaul.
In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host
which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward
the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was
said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects
of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in
Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused
tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war.
The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with
the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its
provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of
conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage
riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and
Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the
warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the
plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and
after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the
conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by
the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of
Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a
bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with
resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the
Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who
served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of
danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the
flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary
chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly
stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into
the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a
long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of
Orleans."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 35.
Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,
who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western
Empire, had brought about a general combination of the
barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It
included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of
Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the
Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments
of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,
and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The
latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city
were already crumbling under his battering rams when the
banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila
retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere
within the wide extent of what were anciently called the
Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country
surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.
451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued
Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.
{1689}
The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;
according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a
victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose
king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their
own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and
quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably
best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.
As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has
chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good
reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from
Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named
the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the
battle of Mery-sur-Seine."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).
"It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian
hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and
said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement
of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of
terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he
was most widely and most fearfully known."
Sir E. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
chapter 6.
HUNS: A. D. 452.
Attila's invasion of Italy.
In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain
of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters
in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he
nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he
set his host in motion again, directing its march to the
Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of
Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich,
was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of
the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of
abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his
shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns
to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was
carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the
defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to
Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila
was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was
absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of
the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. …
When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used
fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as
Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the
siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses
may have been left standing, and others must have slowly
gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained
all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately
cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the
City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow.
… The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more
terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through
the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua),
Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At
Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns
were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who
did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the
fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the
islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of
the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in
time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The
valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the
invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome
as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the
world? This was the great question that was being debated in
the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all
for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into
the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later
ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut
off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of
Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently
insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was
prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from
Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the
head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo
I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific
disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly
ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to
peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in
fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the
Appennines, but not beyond.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 35.
See, also,
VENICE: A. D. 452.
HUNS: A. D. 453.
Death of Attila and fall of his empire.
Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a
drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year
453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under
which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his
death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of
his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on
the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority
of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the
Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned
allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the
Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital
struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less
famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with
that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of
civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns;
but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered
the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of
the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the
royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in
the barbarian world."
J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 4.
"Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead
upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The
rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and
over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of
Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we
saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,
Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in
the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which
we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser
Scythia.'
{1690}
Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up
the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these
fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern
himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and
north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's
domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and
victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of
Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and
Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended
kings of the Ostrogoths."
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).
HUNS:
Attila in Teutonic legend.
"Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror
it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over
the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon
forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a
long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in
the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila,
before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled,
with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter
bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that
Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen
Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is
surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre.
Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of
a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of
his real might can be detected only at rare intervals,
fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a
by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the
impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little
more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people
for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by
which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a
far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."
G. T. Dippold,
Great Epics of Mediæval Germany,
chapter 4.
----------HUNS: End--------
HUNS, The White.
"It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of
Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced
between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east
which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the
middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of
the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom
Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called
Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to
be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and
the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be
quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the
Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the
Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or
sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the
Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during
the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east
of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and
that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic
or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200,
had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White
Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were
quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila.
… They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were
decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns
were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns
were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well
civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they
belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 14.
"We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these
formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march
towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these
colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and
extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the
Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the
epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their
manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly
improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long
residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain
a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a
name which they derived from the change of their complexion,
soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which,
under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a
temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who
exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their
luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."
E. Gibbon.
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 26.
The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.
See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.
HUNTER, General David.
Command in Kansas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Emancipation Order.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).
Command in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).
HUPAS, OR HOOPAHS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.
----------HURON, Lake: Start--------
HURON, Lake:
Discovery.
See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.
HURON, Lake: A. D. 1679.
Navigated by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
----------HURON, Lake: End--------
HURONS, OR WYANDOTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.
HUSCARLS.
See HOUSECARLS.
HUSSARS.
Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in
1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the
attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign.
Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the
utmost speed, the most important of which was the
establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was
enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the
'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."
E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
page 50.
HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.
{1691}
HUSTINGS.
COURT OF HUSTING.
"The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of
London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of
Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway
once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen.
The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and
[dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies,
according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,'
in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in
Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term
'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied
at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts,
usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of
electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its
strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The
Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the
City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling
disputes between citizen and citizen."
R. R. Sharpe,
Introduction to Calendar of Wills,
Court of Husting, London.
HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638;
and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas,
and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,
NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).
HWICCAS.
A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in
Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was
conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king
Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh.
The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from
the throne.
J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
pages 129-208.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.
"The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ
[Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month
Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. …
Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo,
was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the
flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast
seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a
lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by
the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over
death itself.'
G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
Note, book 9, section 7.
ALSO IN:
E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
volume 1, page 222.
HYBLA.
"There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as
the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here
with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were
called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island,
now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the
place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted.
This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous
for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount
Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is
now called Paterno."
E. A. Freeman,
Story of Sicily,
page 33.
HYDASPES, The.
The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab,
on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain
attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 53.
HYDER ALI AND TIPPOO SAIB,
English Wars with.
See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783;
and 1785-1793.
HYDERABAD OR HAIDERABAD,
The Nizam of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.
HY-IVAR, The.
See NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.
HYKSOS, The.
See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.
HYLLEANS, The.
"The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative,
but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to
have been known to the geographers only from mythological
writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of
Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
volume 1, introduction.
HYMETTUS.
One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its
excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base,
which scented the air with their delicious perfume."
M. and R. P. Willson,
Mosaics of Grecian History,
page 9.
HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.
"As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or
anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families
are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan
names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the
south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan,
their mutual ancestors."
T. D. McGee,
Popular History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).
HYPATIA.
See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.
HYPERBOREANS, The.
A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond
the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in
the extreme north.
HYPHASIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.
HYRCANIA.
HYRCANIAN SEA.
"The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran]
on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of
Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner
of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three
degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty
ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian
region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east
longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel
to one another, having a general direction of east and west.
… Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani;
and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania
(Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined
came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the
region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains
were celebrated by the ancient writers."
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1.
"In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania]
is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here,
according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with
forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in
the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down
to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen
grains without any special sowing."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1.
See, also, PARTHIA.
{1692}
I.
IAPYGIANS, The.
See ITALY, ANCIENT;
also, ŒNOTRIANS.
IAZYGES, OR JAZYGES, The.
See LIMIGANTES.
IBERA, Battle at.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
IBERIANS, The eastern.
"The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of
later writers. The name is found under the various forms of
Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence
the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented
as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so
that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of
the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe
that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their
neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the
original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which
have defied the destroying touch of time for more than
twenty-four centuries."
G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix 1.
See, also, ALARODIANS.
If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin
of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection
does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and
subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.
IBERIANS, The western.
"The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess
exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the
Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and
may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking
peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which
occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and
north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be
any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people
being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have
left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of
their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they
were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars
of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and
Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was
apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout
the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it
is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical
characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new
invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of
history. … These two races were in possession of Spain
during the very earliest times recorded in history, the
Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or
Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along
the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then,
as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution
of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have
noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian
Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne,
the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection
also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred
from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' …
Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul
as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so
they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of
Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the
Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were
subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English
invaders."
W. B. Dawkins,
Early Man in Britain,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
I. Taylor,
Origin of the Aryans,
chapter 2, section 5.
See CELTS; LIGURIANS;
AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES;
AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY;
and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.
IBERION.
See ALBION.
IBRAHIM,
Caliph, A. D. 744.
Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.
ICARIA, Attica.
One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where
Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making
by Dionysus.
ICARIA, in the Ægean.
An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians,
who used it chiefly for their pasture land.
----------ICELAND: Start--------
ICELAND:
Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.
See THULE.
ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.
Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.
A Norse Commonwealth.
Development of the Saga Literature.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.
ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874.
Political relations with Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
----------ICELAND: End--------
ICELANDIC "THING," The.
See THING.
ICENI, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.
ICONIUM, Sultans of.
See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.
ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, The.
"Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth
century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the
worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence
spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both
to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it
appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the
Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of
the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the
portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the
sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom
the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to
Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the
churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only
protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having
assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to
be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These
first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the
emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a
very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far
more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with
the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping
religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the
Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil
entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all
images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the
cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of
them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated.
{1693}
… A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the
Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For
the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by
the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of
gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true
religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and
Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. …
The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of
the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either
massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by
these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy,
and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented
him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and
indignation, he vented his fury against images and their
worshippers, much more violently than before. For having
assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of
Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted
Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be
committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments
upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity
was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two
parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and
worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae,
who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties
furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and
assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly
prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine
at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either
of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss
of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is
to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in
behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus
by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to
the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he
laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images,
in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the
monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than
his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were
governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious
matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at
Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this
controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general
council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary,
according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned
images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death
of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his
father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of
images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle
measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV.
being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his
perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became
triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire
during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to
establish her authority, after entering into a league with
Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in
Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the
second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors,
together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople,
were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was
established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the
Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground
between the contending parties; for they decided, that images
were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches,
but that no religious worship could be offered to them without
dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at
the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with
the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be
drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to
the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his
approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of
the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely
and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by
such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his
formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in
the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the
Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council
approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne,
and forbid the worship of images."
J. L. von Mosheim,
Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 10, section 101.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49.
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1.
H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 6.
See, also,
PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
ICTIS.
An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to
have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to
Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the
mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's
Mount, is a disputed question.
IDA, Mount.
See TROJA.
----------IDAHO: Start--------
IDAHO:
The Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
IDAHO: A. D. 1803.
Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
Grounds of American possession.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
IDAHO: A. D. 1863.
Organized as a Territory.
The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of
Congress passed March 3, 1863.
IDAHO: A. D. 1890.
Admission to the Union as a State.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
----------IDAHO: End--------
IDES.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
IDLE, Battle of the.
Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles,
and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.
IDOMENE, Battle of.
One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the
Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by
Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general
Demosthenes, B. C. 426.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6).
IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
IDUMEANS, The.
See EDOMITES.
IERNE.
See IRELAND: THE NAME.
{1694}
IGANIE, Battle of (1831).
See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
IGUALA, The Plan of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
IKENILD-STRETE.
See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
ILA.
ILARCH.
The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to
their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was
commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.
G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1.
ILERDA.
Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign
against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.
See ROME: B. C. 49.
ILIAD, The.
See HOMER.
ILIUM.
See TROJA.
ILKHANS, The.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.
ILLINOIA,
The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
----------ILLINOIS: Start--------
ILLINOIS:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and ILLINOIS.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673.
Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682.
LaSalle's fort and colony.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735.
The French occupation.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750.
The "Illinois country" under the French.
"For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the
region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan,
and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south.
The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but
little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a
later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the
'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate
government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the
Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were
remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with
the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy
amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their
settlements were usually in the form of small, compact,
patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around
their old men and patriarchs."
J. W. Monette,
History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
the Mississippi,
volume 1, pages 181-183.
See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.
Settlements and population.
"Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper
Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their
respective villages. These were:
1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five
miles below the present site of St. Louis;
2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles
above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;
3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve
miles above Kaskaskia;
4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles
above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the
Mississippi River;
5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;
6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and
about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.
These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the
Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the
French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or
3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of
France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500
souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to
460 souls, in 1773."
J. W. Monette,
History of the Discovery and Settlement
of the Mississippi Valley,
volume 1, pages 167-168.
"The population of the French and Indian villages in the
district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is
largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis
Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750,
and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have
here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the
cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three
villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five
leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river
called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps,
eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red
slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain
more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does
not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of
Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois
nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of
that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or
five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen
families, except at the principal village, where there were
three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near
eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all
tribes."
J. Wallace,
History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,
chapter 16.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
The king's proclamation excluding settlers.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
Possession taken by the English.
"The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally
to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the
Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council
held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the
Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,
and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren
will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when
Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their
elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,
had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We
follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,
'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees
begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became
their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word