MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.
His siege of Rhodes.
The last combination against Antigonus.
His defeat and death at Ipsus.
Partition of his dominions.
After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three
years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest
Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all
the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307
B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens,
with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money.
Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of
'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of
ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the
Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition
to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the
Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius
the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than
ten years. … During the first period of his administration
he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have
improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with
useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to
philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered
his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for
luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost
the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians
heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus;
his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city
to him, and to close his political career by retiring to
Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to
the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient
constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and
ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with
the basest and most abject flattery
See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
… Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early
in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to
Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to
its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that
ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient
naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size
of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and
so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the
strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also
conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy,
Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at
Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon
Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of
revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes,
which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was
from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his
name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain
attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and
grant the Rhodians peace.
See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
{2063}
Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great
progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was
besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus.
Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently
defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered
Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant
flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during
which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no
great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was
recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his
assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of
the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals
was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in
which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated.
Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death.
Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus,
whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to
Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at
Ipsus, refused to receive him."
W. Smith,
History of Greece,
chapter 45.
"After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to
divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in
the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had
achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted
either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that
they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share
all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not
clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor
is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor
was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not
only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the
Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of
Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother
Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty
remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by
Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the
garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right
as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however
began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his
claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in
its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to
withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native
princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of
Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken
advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to
establish their authority over extensive territories in the
west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus
must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it
transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor
because it would have been more desirable that he should have
triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory
led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise
have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained
confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have
subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the
inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the
traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and
his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus
founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his
father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of
Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew,
while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For
the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of
Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as
the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute
it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the
greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an
independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on
the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear
that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as
to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that
he should keep whatever he might acquire there."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 59 (volume 7).
ALSO IN:
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 86-87 (volume 3).
MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
Death of Casander.
Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.
Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.
Abdication and death of Ptolemy.
Murder of Seleucus.
Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.
"Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of
dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to
assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect
his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to
keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and
his preparations to reconquer his father's position.
Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another,
and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as
well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected
in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased,
apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts.
So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family
relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions
prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to
extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would
doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of
Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious
reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both
him and his son prisoners, and released them very
chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure
kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles,
so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the
poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom
he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the
battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world
arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king
Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and
friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter,
another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy
(Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy,
who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest
son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who
accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at
foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake,
installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life,
and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours,
nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject
before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the
first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a
half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister,
Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and
popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired
against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was
a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death.
{2064}
This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the
country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince
called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with
an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a
great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It
was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last
but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too,
in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B.
C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of
Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic
possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son
Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of
his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he
was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his
train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army
which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for
Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet
made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were
full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus
in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in
buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME:
B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to
make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their
affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change
of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were
pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from
recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos
established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard,
induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against
Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her
children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the
Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and
thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered
career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II.
(Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was
the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first
Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them,
Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant
for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and
doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the
Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by
his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom,
that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where
sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves.
Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the
suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria.
Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in
possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the
claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a
new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a
terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over
the world."
J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60 (volume 8).
MACEDONIA: B. C. 280-279.
Invasion by the Gauls.
Death of Ptolemy Keraunos.
See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
Strife for the throne.
Failures of Pyrrhus.
Success of Antigonus Gonatus.
His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.
"On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of
Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted
as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a
new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,
the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself
since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in
Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by
his father, and, having taken into his service a body of
Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master
of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus
Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of
Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia
and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian
king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this
combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his
claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,
and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this
fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the
Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,
Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his
schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing
in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of
Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus
had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose
recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The
Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others
occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above
all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,
ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair
prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body
of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.
273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him
battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his
soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a
wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,
placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who
might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,
if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,
instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and
employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic
knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon
the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition
into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough
and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped
to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the
capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.
Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the
city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately
threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.
{2065}
In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the
adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then
slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an
Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the
Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced
his second reign by establishing his influence over most of
the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with
the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta
and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies
rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon
succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by
the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising
prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even
acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the
son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,
re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,
invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out
of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but
from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was
able once more to devote his undivided attention to the
subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and
rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,
… he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain
possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.
A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the
Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]
which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give
to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little
inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."
G. Rawlinson,
Manual of Ancient History,
pages 261-263.
ALSO IN:
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 100-102.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 214-168.
The Roman conquest.
Extinction of the kingdom.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
MACEDONIA: B. C. 205-197.
Last relations with the Seleucid empire.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
Slavonic occupation.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7TH CENTURIES.
----------MACEDONIA: End----------
MACEDON IAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
MACEDONIAN PHALANX.
See PHALANX, MACEDONIAN.
MACEDONIAN WARS, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
MACERATA, Battle of (1815).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1815.
McHENRY, Fort, The bombardment of, by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
MACHICUIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
MACHINE, Political.
See STALWARTS.
MACK, Capitulation of, at Ulm.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
MACKENZIE, William Lyon, and the Canadian Rebellion.
See CANADA: A. D.1837; and 1837-1838.
----------MACKINAW: Start--------
MACKINAW (MICHILLIMACKINAC):
Discovery and first Jesuit Mission.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
MACKINAW:
Rendezvous of the Coureurs de Bois.
See COUREURS DE BOIS.
MACKINAW: A. D. 1763.
Captured by the Indians.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
----------MACKINAW: End--------
McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1890.
McLEOD CASE, The.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
MacMAHON, Marshal,
President of the French Republic, A. D. 1873-1879.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876; and 1875-1889.
MACON, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
McPHERSON, General: Death in the Atlanta campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA);
and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
MACRINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 217-218.
MACUSHI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
MADAGASCAR: A. D. 1882-1883.
French claims and demands enforced by war.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
MADEIRA ISLAND, Discovery of.
In the year 1419, Joham Gonçalvez Zarco and Tristam Vaz,
"seeing from Porto Santo something that seemed like a cloud,
but yet different (the origin of so much discovery, noting the
difference in the likeness), built two boats, and, making for
this cloud, soon found themselves alongside a beautiful
island, abounding in many things, but most of all in trees, on
which account they gave it the name of Madeira (wood)."
A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest,
book 1, chapter 1.
MADISON, James,
and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808 to 1817.
MADRAS: A. D. 1640.
The founding of the city.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
MADRAS: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken by the French.
Restored to England.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
MADRAS: A. D. 1758-1759.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
----------MADRID: Start--------
MADRID: A. D. 1560.
Made the capital of Spain by Philip II.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
MADRID: A. D. 1706-1710.
Taken and retaken by the French and Austrian claimants
of the crown.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1706; and 1707-1710.
MADRID: A. D. 1808.
Occupied by the French.
Popular insurrection.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
MADRID: A. D. 1808.
Arrival of Joseph Bonaparte, as king, and his speedy flight.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
MADRID: A. D. 1808 (December).
Recovery by the French.
Return of King Joseph Bonaparte.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
MADRID: A. D. 1812.
Evacuation by the French.
Occupation of the city by Wellington and his army.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
MADRID: A. D. 1823.
Again occupied by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
{2066}
MADRID, The Treaty of (1526).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
----------MADRID: End--------
MÆATÆ, The.
A common or national name given by the Romans to the tribes in
Scotland which dwelt between the Forth and the Clyde, next to
"the wall."
MÆOTIS PALUS,
PALUS MÆOTIS.
The ancient Greek name of the body of
water now called the Sea of Azov.
----------MAESTRICHT: Start--------
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1576.
The Spanish Fury.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1579.
Spanish siege, capture and massacre.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1632.
Siege and capture by the Dutch.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1673.
Siege and capture by Vauban and Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1676.
Unsuccessfully besieged by William of Orange.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1678.
Restored to Holland.
See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS AND TREATY.
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1793.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1795.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
----------MAESTRICHT: End--------
MAFRIAN.
See JACOBITE CHURCH.
MAGADHA, The kingdom of.
See INDIA: B. C. 327-312; and 312—.
MAGDALA, Capture of (1868).
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
MAGDEBURG: A. D. 1631.
Siege, storming, and horrible sack and massacre
by the troops of Tilly.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.
MAGELLAN, Voyage of.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
MAGENTA, Battle of (1859).
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
MAGESÆTAS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
MAGIANS.
MAGI.
The priesthood of the ancient Iranian religion—the religion
of the Avesta and of Zarathrustra, or Zoroaster—as it existed
among the Medes and Persians. In Eastern Iran the priests were
called Athravas. In Western Iran "they are not called
Athravas, but Magush. This name is first found in the
inscription which Darius caused to be cut on the rock-wall of
Behistun; afterwards it was consistently used by Western
writers, from Herodotus to Agathias, for the priests of Iran."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 8 (volume 5).
"The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long
subsequent to Darius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or
caste, originally perhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come
to be recognised as a true priestly order; and was entrusted
by the Sassanian princes with the whole control and direction
of the religion of the state. Its chief was a personage
holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He bore
the title of 'Tenpet,' 'Head of the Religion,' or 'Movpetan
Movpet,' 'Head of the Chief Magi.'"
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 28.
"To the whole ancient world Zoroaster's lore was best known by
the name of the doctrine of the Magi, which denomination was
commonly applied to the priests of India, Persia, and
Babylonia. The earliest mention of them is made by the prophet
Jeremiah (xxxix. 3), who enumerated among the retinue of King
Nebuchadnezzar at his entry into Jerusalem, the 'Chief of the
Magi' ('rab mag' in Hebrew), from which statement we may
distinctly gather that the Magi exercised a great influence at
the court of Babylonia 600 years B. C. They were, however,
foreigners, and are not to be confounded with the indigenous
priests. … The name Magi occurs even in the New Testament.
In the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ii. 1), the Magi
(Greek 'magoi,' translated in the English Bible by 'wise men')
came from the East to Jerusalem, to worship the new-born child
Jesus at Bethlehem. That these Magi were priests of the
Zoroastrian religion, we know from Greek writers."
M. Haug,
Essays on the Religion of the Parsis, 1.
See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.
MAGNA CARTA.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.
MAGNA GRÆCIA.
"It was during the height of their prosperity, seemingly, in
the sixth century B. C., that the Italic Greeks [in southern
Italy] either acquired for, or bestowed upon, their territory
the appellation of Magna Græcia, which at that time it well
deserved; for not only were Sybaris and Kroton then the
greatest Grecian cities situated near together, but the whole
peninsula of Calabria may be considered as attached to the
Grecian cities on the coast. The native Œnotrians and Sikels
occupying the interior had become hellenised, or
semi-hellenised, with a mixture of Greeks among them—common
subjects of these great cities."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22.
On the Samnite conquest of Magna Græcia
See SAMNITES.
MAGNANO, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D, 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
MAGNATÆ, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
MAGNESIA.
The eastern coast of Thessaly was anciently so called. The
Magnetes who occupied it were among the people who became
subject to the Thessalians or Thesprotians, when the latter
came over from Epirus and occupied the valley of the Peneus.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 3.
Two towns named Magnesia in Asia Minor were believed to be
colonies from the Magnetes of Thessaly. One was on the south
side of the Meander; the other, more northerly, near the river
Harmus.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 13.
MAGNESIA, Battle of (B. C. 190).
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
MAGNUS I., King of Denmark,
A. D. 1042-1047.
Magnus I. (called The Good), King of Norway, 1035-1047.
Magnus I., King of Sweden, 1275-1290.
Magnus II., King of Norway, 1066-1069.
Magnus II., King of Sweden, 1319-1350, and 1359-1363;
and VII. of Norway, 1319-1343.
Magnus III., King of Norway, 1093-1103.
Magnus IV., King of Norway, 1130-1134.
Magnus V., King of Norway, 1162-1186.
Magnus VI., King of Norway, 1263-1280.
{2067}
MAGYARS, The.
See HUNGARIANS.
MAHARAJA.
See RAJA.
MAHDI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 775-785.
MAHDI, The.
"The religion of Islam acknowledges the mission of Jesus, but
not His divinity. Since the Creation, it teaches, five
prophets had appeared before the birth of Mahomet—Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—each being greater than his
predecessor, and each bringing a fuller and higher revelation
than the last. Jesus ranks above all the prophets of the old
dispensation, but below those of the new, inaugurated by
Mahomet. In the final struggle He will be but the servant and
auxiliary of a more august personage—the Mahdi. The literal
meaning of the word Mahdi is not, as the newspapers generally
assert, 'He who leads,' a meaning more in consonance with
European ideas, but 'He who is led.' … If he leads his
fellow-men it is because he alone is the 'well-guided one,'
led by God—the Mahdi. The word Mahdi is only an epithet which
may be applied to any prophet, or even to any ordinary person;
but used as a proper name it indicates him who is
'well-guided' beyond all others, the Mahdi 'par excellence,'
who is to end the drama of the world, and of whom Jesus shall
only be the vicar. … The Koran does not speak of the Mahdi,
but it seems certain that Mahomet must have announced him. …
The idea of the Mahdi once formed, it circulated throughout
the Mussulman world: we will follow it rapidly in its course
among the Persians, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of
the Soudan; but without for an instant pretending to pass in
review all the Mahdis who have appeared upon the prophetic
stage; for their name is Legion."
J. Darmesteter,
The Mahdi, Past and Present,
chapters 1-2.
See, also,
ISLAM; ALMOHADES;
and EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.
MAHDIYA:
Taken by the Moorish Corsair, Dragut,
and retaken by the Spaniards (1550).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
MAHMOUD I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1730-1754.
Mahmoud II., Turkish Sultan, 1808-1839.
Mahmoud, the Afghan, Shah of Persia, 1722-1725.
Mahmoud, the Gaznevide, The Empire of.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: Start--------
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
The Mission of the Prophet.
Mahomet (the usage of Christendom has fixed this form of the
name Mohammad) was born at Mecca, on or about the 20th day of
August, A. D. 570. He sprang from "the noblest race in Mecca
and in Arabia [the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashem].
To his family belonged the hereditary guardianship of the
Kaaba and a high place among the aristocracy of his native
city. Personally poor, he was raised to a position of
importance by his marriage with the rich widow Khadijah, whose
mercantile affairs he had previously conducted. In his
fortieth year he began to announce himself as an Apostle of
God, sent to root out idolatry, and to restore the true faith
of the preceding Prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Slowly
and gradually he makes converts in his native city; his good
wife Khadijah, his faithful servant Zeyd, are the first to
recognize his mission; his young cousin, the noble Ali, the
brave and generous and injured model of Arabian chivalry,
declares himself his convert and Vizier; the prudent, moderate
and bountiful Abu-Bekr acknowledges the pretensions of the
daring innovator. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet
keeps unflinchingly in his path; no threats, no injuries,
hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and
the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far purer and
better morality than had ever been set before them. He claims
no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asks but for
simple toleration, for free permission to win men by
persuasion into the way of truth. … As yet at least his
hands were not stained with blood, nor his inner life with
lust."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 2.
After ten years of preaching at Mecca, and of a private
circulation and repetition of the successive Suras or chapters
of the Koran, as the prophet delivered them, Mahomet had
gained but a small following, while the opposition to his
doctrines and pretensions had gained strength. But in A. D.
620 (he being then fifty years of age) he gained the ear of a
company of pilgrims from Medina and won them to his faith.
Returning home, they spread the gospel of Islam among their
neighbors, and the disciples at Medina were soon strong enough
in numbers to offer protection to their prophet and to his
persecuted followers in Mecca. As the result of two pledges,
famous in Mahometan history, which were given by the men of
Medina to Mahomet, in secret meetings at the hill of Acaba, a
general emigration of the adherents of the new faith from
Mecca to Medina took place in the spring of the year 622.
Mahomet and his closest friend, Abu Bakr, having remained with
their families until the last, escaped the rage of the
Koreish, or Coreish, only by a secret flight and a concealment
for three days in a cave on Mount Thaur, near Mecca. Their
departure from the cave of Thaur, according to the most
accepted reckoning, was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. This
is the date of the Hegira, or flight, or emigration of Mahomet
from Mecca to Medina. The Mahometan Era of the Hegira, "though
referring 'par excellence' to the flight of the Prophet, …
is also applicable to all his followers who emigrated to
Medina prior to the capture of Mecca; and they are hence
called Muhâjirîn, i. e., the Emigrants, or Refugees. We have
seen that they commenced to emigrate from the beginning of
Moharram (the first month of the Hegira era) two months
before." The title of the Muhâjirîn, or Refugees, soon became
an illustrious one, as did that of the Ansar, or Allies, of
Medina, who received and protected them. At Medina Mahomet
found himself strongly sustained. Before the year of his
flight ended, he opened hostilities against the city which had
rejected him, by attacking its Syrian caravans. The attacks
were followed up and the traffic of Mecca greatly interfered
with, until January, 624, when the famous battle of Bedr, or
Badr, was fought, and the first great victory of the sword of
Islam achieved.
{2068}
The 300 warriors of Bedr formed "the peerage of Islam." From
this time the ascendancy of Mahomet was rapidly gained, and
assumed a political as well as a religious character. His
authority was established at Medina and his influence spread
among the neighboring tribes. Nor was his cause more than
temporarily depressed by a sharp defeat which he sustained,
January, 625, in battle with the Koreish at Ohod. Two years
later Medina was attacked and besieged by a great force of the
Koreish and other tribes of Arabs and Jews, against the latter
of whom Mahomet, after vainly courting their adhesion and
recognition, had turned with relentless hostility. The siege
failed and the retreat of the enemy was hastened by a timely
storm. In the next year Mahomet extorted from the Koreish a
treaty, known as the Truce of Hodeibia, which suspended
hostilities for ten years and permitted the prophet and his
followers to visit Mecca for three days in the following year.
The pilgrimage to Mecca was made in the holy month, February,
629, and in 630 Mahomet found adherents enough within the city
and outside of it to deliver the coveted shrine and capital of
Arabia into his hands. Alleging a breach of the treaty of
peace, he marched against the city with an army of 10,000 men,
and it was surrendered to him by his obstinate opponent, Abu
Sofiân, who acknowledged, at last, the divine commission of
Mahomet and became a disciple. The idols in the Kaaba were
thrown down and the ancient temple dedicated to the worship of
the one God. The conquest of Mecca was followed within no long
time by the submission of the whole Arabic peninsula. The most
obstinate in resisting were the great Bedouin tribe of the
Hawazin, in the hill country, southeast of Mecca, with their
kindred, the Bani Thackif. These were crushed in the important
battle of Honein, and their strong city of Tayif was
afterwards taken. Before Mahomet died, on the 8th June, A. D.
632, he was the prince as well as the prophet of Arabia, and
his armies, passing the Syrian borders, had already
encountered the Romans, though not gloriously, in a battle
fought at Muta, not far from the Dead Sea.
Sir W. Muir,
Life of Mahomet.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 50.
J. W. H. Stobart,
Islam and its Founder,
chapters 3-9.
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
chapters 6-39.
R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Arabs,
part 1, chapters 1-3.
See, also,
ISLAM, and ERA, MAHOMETAN.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
Abu Bekr.
Omar.
The founding of the Caliphate.
Conquest of Syria.
The death of Mahomet left Islam without a head. The Prophet
had neither named a successor (Khalif or Caliph), nor had he
instituted a mode in which the choice of one should be made.
His nephew and son-in-law—"the Bayard of Islam," the
lion-hearted Ali—seemed the natural heir of that strangely
born sovereignty of the Arab world. But its elders and chiefs
were averse to Ali, and the assembly which they convened
preferred, instead, the Prophet's faithful friend, the
venerable Abu Bekr. This first of the caliphs reigned modestly
but two years, and on his death, July, A. D. 634, the stern
soldier Omar was raised to the more than royal place. By this
time the armies of the crescent were already far advanced
beyond the frontiers of Arabia in their fierce career of
conquest. No sooner had Abu Bekr, in 632, set his heel on some
rebellious movements, which threatened his authority, than he
made haste to open fields in which the military spirit and
ambitions of his unquiet people might find full exercise. With
bold impartiality he challenged, at once, and alike, the two
dominant powers of the eastern world, sending armies to invade
the soil of Persia, on one hand, and the Syrian provinces of
the Roman empire, on the other. The invincible Khaled, or
Caled, led the former, at first, but was soon transferred to
the more critical field, which the latter proved to be. "One
of the fifteen provinces of Syria, the cultivated lands to the
eastward of the Jordan, had been decorated by Roman vanity
with the name of 'Arabia'; and the first arms of the Saracens
were justified by the semblance of a national right." The
strong city of Bosra was taken, partly through the treachery
of its commander, Romanus, who renounced Christianity and
embraced the faith of Islam. From Bosra the Moslems advanced
on Damascus, but suspended the siege of the city until they
had encountered the army which the Emperor Heraclius sent to
its relief. This they did on the field of Aiznadin, in the
south of Palestine, July 30, A. D. 634, when 50,000 of the
Roman-Greeks and Syrians are said to have perished, while but
470 Arabs fell. Damascus was immediately invested and taken
after a protracted siege, which Voltaire has likened to the
siege of Troy, on account of the many combats and
stratagems—the many incidents of tragedy and romance—which
poets and historians have handed down, in some connection with
its progress or its end. The ferocity of Khaled was only half
restrained by his milder colleague in command, Abu Obeidah,
and the wretched inhabitants of Damascus suffered terribly at
his hands. The city, itself, was spared and highly favored,
becoming the Syrian capital of the Arabs. Heliopolis (Baalbec)
was besieged and taken in January, A. D. 636; Emessa
surrendered soon after. In November, 636, a great and decisive
battle was fought with the forces of Heraclius at Yermuk, or
Yermouk, on the borders of Palestine and Arabia. The
Christians fought obstinately and well, but they were
overwhelmed with fearful slaughter. "After the battle of
Yermuk the Roman army no longer appeared in the field; and the
Saracens might securely choose, among the fortified towns of
Syria, the first object of their attack. They consulted the
caliph whether they should march to Cæsarea or Jerusalem; and
the advice of Ali determined the immediate siege of the
latter. … After Mecca and Medina, it was revered and visited
by the devout Moslems as the temple of the Holy Land, which
had been sanctified by the revelation of Moses, of Jesus, and
of Mahomet himself." The defense of Jerusalem, notwithstanding
its great strength, was maintained with less stubbornness than
that of Damascus had been. After a siege of four months, in
the winter of A. D. 637, the Christian patriarch or bishop of
Jerusalem, who seems to have been first in authority, proposed
to give up the Holy City, if Omar, the caliph, would come in
person from Medina to settle and sign the terms of surrender.
Omar deemed the prize worthy of this concession and made the
long journey, travelling as simply as the humblest pilgrim and
entering Jerusalem on foot.
{2069}
After this, little remained to make the conquest of all Syria
complete. Aleppo was taken, but not easily, after a siege, and
Antioch, the splendid seat of eastern luxury and wealth, was
abandoned by the emperor and submitted, paying a great ransom
for its escape from spoliation and the sword. The year 639 saw
Syria at the feet of the Arabs whom it had despised six years
before, and the armies of the caliph were ready to advance to
new fields, east, northwards, and west.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 51.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
Mahomet and His Successors,
volume 2, chapters 3-23.
S. Ockley,
History of the Saracens: Abubeker.
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapters 2, 11, 19-21.
See, also,
JERUSALEM: A. D. 637;
and TYRE: A. D. 638.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
Conquest of Persia.
During the invasion of Syria, Abu Bekr, the first of the
Caliphs, sent an expedition towards the Euphrates, under
command of the redoubtable Khaled (633). The first object of
its attack was Hira, a city on the western branch of the
Euphrates, not far from modern Kufa. Hira was the seat of a
small kingdom of Christian Arabs tributary to Persia and under
Persian protection and control. Its domain embraced the
northern part of that fertile tract between the desert and the
Euphrates which the Arab writers call Sawad; the southern part
being a Persian province of which the capital, Obolla, was the
great emporium of the Indian trade. Hira and Obolla were
speedily taken and this whole region subdued. But, Khaled
being then transferred to the army in Syria, the Persians
regained courage, while the energy of the Moslems was relaxed.
In an encounter called the Battle of the Bridge, A. D. 635,
the latter experienced a disastrous check; but the next year
found them more victorious than ever. The great battle of
Cadesia (Kadisiyeh) ended all hope in Persia of doing more
than defend the Euphrates as a western frontier. Within two
years even that hope disappeared. The new Arab general, Sa'ad
Ibn Abi Wakas, having spent the interval in strengthening his
forces, and in founding the city of Busrah, or Bassora, below
the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as that of
Kufa, which became the Moslem capital, advanced into
Mesopotamia, A. D. 637, crossing the river without opposition.
The Persian capital, Ctesiphon, was abandoned to him so
precipitately that most of its vast treasures fell into his
hands. It was not until six months later that the Persians and
Arabs met in battle, at Jalula, and the encounter was fatal to
the former, 100,000 having perished on the field. "By the
close of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved
over the whole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to
Susa." Then a brief pause ensued. In 641 the Persian king
Isdigerd—last of the Sassanian house—made a great, heroic
effort to recover his lost dominions and save what remained.
He staked all and lost, in the final battle of Nehavend, which
the Arabs called "Fattah-hul-Futtuh," or "Victory of
Victories." "The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian
power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying
continually from place to place, prolonged an inglorious
existence for the space of ten more years—from A. D. 641 to
A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to
pieces on the occasion of 'the victory of victories,' and made
no other united effort against the Arabs. Province after
province was occupied by the fierce invaders; and, at length,
in A. D. 651, their arms penetrated to Merv, where the last
scion of the house of Babek had for some years found a refuge.
… The order of conquest seems to have been the following:
Media, Northern Persia, Rhagiana, Azerbijan, Gurgan, Tantrist,
and Khorassan in A. D. 642; Southern Persia, Kerman, Seistan,
Mekran, and Kurdistan in A. D. 643; Merv, Balkh, Herat, and
Kharezm in A. D. 650 or 652."
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 26, and foot-notes.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
volume 2, chapters 25-34.
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapters 10-18, 25-26.
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
Conquest of Egypt.
"It was in the nineteenth or twentieth year of the Hegira [A.
D. 640 or 641] that Amru, having obtained the hesitating
consent of the Caliph, set out from Palestine for Egypt. His
army, though joined on its march by bands of Bedouins lured by
the hope of plunder, did not at the first exceed 4,000 men.
Soon after he had left, Omar, concerned at the smallness of
his force, would have recalled him; but finding that he had
already gone too far to be stopped, he sent heavy
reinforcements, under Zobeir, one of the chief Companions,
after him. The army of Amru was thus swelled to an imposing
array of from 12,000 to 16,000 men, some of them warriors of
renown. Amru entered Egypt by Arish, and overcoming the
garrison at Faroma [ancient Pelusium], turned to the left and
so passed onward through the desert, reaching thus the
easternmost of the seven estuaries of the Nile. Along this
branch of the river he marched by Bubastis towards Upper
Egypt,"—and, so, to Heliopolis, near to the great ancient
city of Misr, or Memphis. Here, and throughout their conquest
of Egypt, the Moslem invaders appear to have found some
goodwill towards them prevailing among the Christians of the
Jacobite sect, who had never become reconciled to the Orthodox
Greeks. Heliopolis and Memphis were surrendered to their arms
after some hard fighting and a siege of no long duration.
"Amru lost no time in marching upon Alexandria so as to reach
it before the Greek troops, hastily called in from the
outlying garrisons, could rally there for its defence. On the
way he put to flight several columns which sought to hinder
his advance; and at last presented himself before the walls of
the great city, which, offering (as it still does) on the land
side a narrow and well-fortified front, was capable of an
obstinate resistance. Towards the sea also it was open to
succour at the pleasure of the Byzantine Court. But during the
siege Heraclius died, and the opportunity of relief was
supinely allowed to slip away." In the end Alexandria
capitulated and was protected from plunder (see LIBRARIES,
ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA), paying tribute to the conquerors. "Amru,
it is said, wished to fix his seat of government at
Alexandria, but Omar would not allow him to remain so far away
from his camp, with so many branches of the Nile between. So
he returned to Upper Egypt. A body of the Arabs crossed the
Nile and settled in Ghizeh, on the western bank—a movement
which Omar permitted only on condition that a strong fortress
was constructed there to prevent the possibility of their
being surprised and cut off.
{2070}
The headquarters of the army were pitched near Memphis. Around