Albanian-Turkish Wars (1443–1478)

Albanian-Turkish Wars (1443–1478)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Albania vs. the Ottoman Empire

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Albania

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Ottomans sought to expand their empire and the influence of Islam, Albania to defend its sovereignty and protect the Christian faith against the infidel Turks.

OUTCOME: The Albanians repulsed 13 Turkish invasions before being defeated by Sultan Muhammad II, the Conqueror.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown


CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Albanian-Turkish truce of 1461

Under Sultan Murad II (1403[?]–51) the Ottoman Empire launched a series of brutal invasions into eastern Europe, hoping to seize Hungary, Serbia, and Albania. Unfortunately for Murad, in each region there appeared a talented military hero to frustrate Ottoman rapaciousness. In Hungary it was the legendary John Hunyadi (1387–1456) who repulsed the Turks (see HUNGARIAN-TURKISH WAR, [1441–1444]); in Serbia George Brankovitch (r. 1427–56) kept the Ottoman army at bay. In Albania the challenge fell to a far more unlikely prospect—George Castriota,better known as Skanderbeg (1405–68).The son of an Albanian vassal prince, Castriota had been captured by the Ottomans at a young age and taken to the sultan’s court, where he was raised and educated. There he lived the comfortable life of a courtier, becoming one of Murad’s favorites. Those at court addressed him with the title bey, Persian for “lord,” and at length the young hostage converted to Islam. Given the name Skanderbeg after serving in the Ottoman army, probably as a janissary, he could easily have lost himself in the luxuries and privileges of the Turkish harem. Instead, when Albania fell under the threat of attack by the Turks, he deserted the Ottoman army and returned to defend his homeland,renouncing Islam, reconverting to Christianity, and forming a league of the traditionally disputatious Albanian nobility.In fact, it was the very quarrelsomeness of the Albanian nobles, their internecine squabbling and disunity, that had made their country an attractive target for Ottoman aggression. United behind Skanderbeg, however, they were able to seize the purportedly impregnable Ottomanheld fortress of Krujë and launch, under Skanderbeg’s brilliant supervision, a successful military campaign against the Turks in 1443. For two decades and more Albania repulsed every Ottoman advance, some 13 invasions in all between 1444 and 1466. In hopes of ending the Turkish threat permanently as well as shoring up Albanian sovereignty, Skanderbeg in 1448 joined forces with Hungary’s John Hunyadi in an alliance that also included Serbia and Bosnia. It marked the only time Skanderbeg took the offensive against the Turks, but his quadruple alliance was swiftly defeated by Murad in October 1448 at the Second Battle of Kosovo. The defeat left Serbian and Bosnian independence in jeopardy and devastated Hungary militarily, but Skanderbeg became the hero of the entire Western world when he broke Murad’s siege of the stronghold at Krugë in 1451.Aid poured into Albania from every corner—Venice,Naples, Hungary, and the Vatican’s Papal States.That same year Murad died. He was succeeded by his son Sultan Muhammad II (1429–81), who soon became known as “Muhammad the Conqueror.” Muhammad did not, however, conquer either Hunyadi’s Hungary or Skanderbeg’s Albania, though not for want of trying. Holding the tenuous Albanian alliance together, often using guerrilla tactics, Skanderbeg met with success after success. In 1461 he won a major victory against Muhammad that allowed him to impose a 10-year truce on the Porte, as the Ottoman government was called, only to violate the peace himself when the Pope, who called Skanderbeg “the Champion of Christ,” asked him to launch a new crusade in 1463. Skanderbeg’s troops raided Macedonia and defeated the Turks in 1464 and again in 1465. In 1466 Sultan Muhammad personally led an invasion of Albania, conducting another heavy siege of Krujë and devastating the country. The sultan’s destructive campaign cost Skanderbeg his foreign allies, who deserted him by 1467. George Castriota, née Skanderbeg, aka Champion of Christ, died the following year. The Albanian nobles immediately resumed their bickering while conducting a desultory war against the Ottomans. When Krujë finally fell in 1471,Muhammad ordered all the inhabitants decapitated, a brutal harbinger of what the Albanians could expect when the Conqueror regained control of their country for the Ottomans, which he succeeded in doing by 1478.

Further reading: Kristo Frashëri, The History of Albania: A Brief Survey (Tirana, Albania: N. Pub., 1964).

Alaungpaya’s Wars of Conquest (1752–1760)

Alaungpaya’s Wars of Conquest (1752–1760)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Alaungpaya, a Burmese village headman vs. the Mon people, various other competing tribes, and French colonial interests

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Burma (Myanmar)

DECLARATION: No formal declaration

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The unification, under Alaungpaya, of the Third Burmese Empire

OUTCOME: Unification of Burma under the Konbaung dynasty

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: No formal treaty

Until 1751, the history of Burma (Myanmar) was a patchwork quilt consisting of competing tribes, dynasties, and colonial powers. During the mid-18th century Alaungpaya (1714–60), a village headman from the upper Burmese province of Moksobomyo, united these conflicting elements in a series of conquests, which, beginning in 1752,forged the powerful dynasty known as the Third Empire.The unification movement, which started almost accidentally,thrust the provincial leader into the international arena and elevated Alaungpaya to a symbol of Burmese nationalism.In 1751 Burma was essentially split in half. The middle and upper regions were ruled by the unpopular and declining Toungoo dynasty headquartered in Ava. The lower half was controlled chiefly by the Mons, based at Pegu, a dynasty backed by French colonial interests who had plans to invade the north. In 1752 the Mons, led by King Binnya Dala (d. 1774), began to carry out the invasion by taking Ava and capturing the Toungoo king, entirely unresisted. Flushed with this easy victory, Dala returned to Pegu in triumph, taking with him most of his army and leaving behind nothing more than a skeleton force and a military governor assigned the duty of obtain- 18 Agathocles’ War against Carthageing oaths of allegiance from the outlying provinces. Within the provinces was Alaungpaya’s village of Moksobomyo. Confronted with the decision of whether to become a vassal of the Mons, Alaungpaya chose to organize a resistance movement, and a few days later, when the Mon detachment arrived at the village, he met them with bullets, not obedience. Thus began a long and bloody series of wars. Dalaban, the Mon military governor, sent two regiments to take Moksobomyo in 1752, but by the end of the year Alaungpaya had defeated both. These victories, relatively minor in themselves, greatly fueled the resistance,and Alaungpaya capitalized on his triumphs to enlist supporters from all over the region. Invoking the spirit of nationalism and Burmese self-rule, Alaungpaya declared himself king of all Burma and renamed Moksobomyo Shwebo, making it the new capital of the empire. Fully aware that this and his earlier victories would result in a much larger Mon invasion, Alaungpaya dug in and prepared for their return. It did not take long for Dalaban to receive reinforcements from Pegu and proceed to Shwebo, where he surrounded Alaungpaya’s city, attacking it from all sides. For five days and nights the Mons bombarded the city, but Alaungpaya’s forces held strong. Growing impatient, Dalaban selected 1,500 of his best men to storm the walls of the city and open the gates, but before they could carry out their orders, Alaungpaya’s men decimated the elite force from their fortifications inside. After the battle Mon troops withdrew toward the Irrawaddy River. In response Alaungpaya unleased a massive offensive, forcing the Mons to break rank and attempt to float down the river to Pegu. Hundreds drowned, and Dalaban retreated to Ava.By the end of 1752, Alaungpaya had gained control of all of Upper Burma, including the Shan states, except for Ava. The following year he laid siege to Ava itself. Surprisingly,he was met with no resistance; the Mons had slipped out during the night. Alaungpaya left Ava to raise more support in the surrounding Shan provinces. On learning of his absence, the Mons returned, routed the small Burmese nationalist force left outside the gates, and laid siege to Ava. Alaungpaya, however, had anticipated the Mons’ move and returned to Ava with a massive force. Trapped between two Burmese armies, the Mons were defeated, thus paving the way for Alaungpaya’s conquest of Lower Burma. Lower Burma posed many problems for the Burmese leader. First among them was the growing French presence in the region, which included an informal alliance between the local French military commander and the Mons. Second, the British East India Company, which was at odds with the French in India, had become a formidable presence in the Burmese territory of Negrais. In 1755 Alaungpaya attacked the Mons in Lower Burma and forced them to retreat to the fortified cities of Pegu and Syriam. He then captured the port of Dagon, renamed it Rangoon, and interned several French and English ships in the harbor. Hoping to receive arms fromthe ships’ captains in exchange for their release, Alaungpaya was instead rebuffed by them. The colonial vessels managed to sail away at nightfall. Ill-equipped to storm Syriam and Pegu, Alaungpaya returned to Upper Burma to regroup.In 1756 he returned to Rangoon and moved on Syriam. For eight months the Burmese laid siege to the fortified city. Then, fearing the arrival of French reinforcements from India, Alaungpaya decided it was time to attack. Choosing a mere 93 of his best men—later called “The Golden Company of Syriam”—Alaungpaya sent them to scale the walls of Syriam and open the gates. In contrast to Binnya Dala’s fiasco at Shwebo, Alaungpaya’s men succeeded in their mission, and the Burmese troops routed the city, whereupon French military leaders, including oneCaptain Bruno, who had concluded an alliance with the Mons, were executed. Alaungpaya next proceeded to Myanaung to prepare for his conquest of Pegu. While there he concluded a treaty with the East India Company, through which, in return for acknowledging the British right to occupy Negrais, he received much-needed weapons and ammunition. In 1757 he successfully laid siege to Pegu, bringing about the abdication of Binnya Dala. Alaungpaya, already in firm control of Upper Burma, was now accepted as the ruler of Lower Burma as well. By 1759 British indifference to their own 1757 treaty prompted Alaungpaya to reclaim Negrais. The frontier with Siam still posed a threat, and in 1760 Alaungpaya laid siege to the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya. During the siege he was wounded, and he died retreating to Burma. At age 46 Alaungpaya had just begun to reshape the course of Burmese history. His abbreviated reign brought unity to the fragmented empire and established the Konbaung dynasty, which would rule into the next century.

Further reading: Maung Htin Aung, The History of Burma (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967).

Alaric’s Second Invasion of Italy

Alaric’s Second Invasion of Italy - See VISIGOTHIC RAIDS ON THE ROMAN EMPIRE: ALARIC’S SECOND INVASION OF ITALY.

Alaric’s First Invasion of Italy

Alaric’s First Invasion of Italy - See VISIGOTHIC RAIDS ON THE ROMAN EMPIRE: ALARIC’S FIRST INVASION OF ITALY.

Alaric and Stilico, Wars

Alaric and Stilico Wars - See STILICHO’S WARS WITH THE VISIGOTHS; VISIGOTHIC RAIDS ON THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

Afghan War between Ghur and Ghazna (1148–1152)

Afghan War between Ghur and Ghazna (1148–1152)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ghur (Ghor) vs. Ghazna (modern Ghazni)

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Present-day Afghanistan and Iran

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Ghur fought for independence from Ghazna, which it also sought to displace.

OUTCOME: Ghur gained ascendency over its former master.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

Mahmud of Ghazna (971–1030) controlled Khorosan (in Iran) and Afghanistan by 999 and raided northern India, gaining wealth that financed his further conquests in Afghanistan. His death in 1030, however, brought about the gradual decline of once-powerful Ghazna (in east-central Afghanistan) and, in consequence, a loosening of its grip on the tributary state of Ghur, a mountain-enclosed region of central Afghanistan. Saif ud-din Suir (r. 1146–49) and Ala-ud-din (r. 1150–75) led a Ghurid uprising against Ghazna beginning in 1148 and culminating in the siege and sacking of the capital city of Ghazna (called Ghazna or Ghazni). The siege was protracted into 1152, by which time the last of the Ghaznavids had been driven into India.Although sacked, the city of Ghazna was spared from total destruction. It served later as a secondary capital in the ascendent kingdom of Ghur.


Further reading: Clifford Edmond Bosworth, The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977).

Afghan War, Third (1919)

Afghan War, Third (1919)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Afghanistan vs. Britain (Anglo-Indian forces)

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): India (Bagh region) and Afghanistan

DECLARATION: May 1919, proclamation of jihad (holy war)

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Afghanistan sought independence from all foreign domination.

OUTCOME: Armistice and British recognition of Afghan independence

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Afghans, 10,000; Anglo-Indian forces, comparable

CASUALTIES: Afghan, unknown; Anglo-British, 236 killed,615 wounded

TREATIES: Treaty of Rawalpindi, August 8, 1919

During WORLD WAR I Afghanistan successfully struggled to remain neutral. However, throughout the period 1914–18 Germany and its ally Turkey provoked anti- British religious agitation within the country. Britain tried to quell anti-British sentiment within the government by granting Afghanistan liberal subsidies. The funds were well spent, in that Afghanistan remained neutral for the duration of the Great War. Shortly after the Armistice, however, Amanullah Khan (1892–1960) ascended the Afghan throne as the nation’s new emir following the assassination of his father, Habibullah (1872–1919). Amanullah was backed by the army and the radically nationalist Young Afghan Party, which, in 1919, gave him a mandate to declare independence, including freedom from all foreign influence, especially that of Russia and Britain. As in previous conflicts with the country, British officials were concerned that an independence movement in Afghanistan would threaten Britain’s colonial hold on India. Following British saber rattling, Amanullah proclaimed a jihad (holy war) against Britain and sent some 10,000 troops across the Indian border and into the province of Bagh, which was occupied on May 3, 1919. In response, an Anglo-Indian force under General Reginald Dyer (1864–1927) was dispatched through the Khyber Pass to Landi Kotal and, from here, drove the invaders out of Bagh by May 11. Punitive air raids against Afghan cities were also ordered.The Anglo-Indians then invaded Afghanistan as far as Dakka. In the meantime, the British air raids on Jalalabad and the Afghan capital city of Kabul were taking their toll. Amanullah sued for peace, and an armistice was concluded on May 31, followed by the Treaty of Rawalpindi on August 8, whereby Britain acknowledged Afghan independence in return for an Afghan pledge to cease harassment of the Afghan-Indian border.The peace proved nominal at best, as Afghan guerrillas sporadically continued to open fire along the border.On November 22, 1921, the Treaty of Rawalpindi was reaffirmed, and the British discontinued their practice of subsidy payments.

See also AFGHAN WAR, FIRST; AFGHAN WAR, SECOND.

Further reading: Edgar O’Ballance, Afghan Wars, 1839–1992 (New York: Brassey’s, 1993).

Afghan War, Second (1878–1880)

Afghan War, Second (1878–1880)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Britain vs. Afghans under Sher Ali Akbar Khan

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Afghanistan

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The British invaded Afghanistan in response to the pro-Russian stance of Sher Ali Akbar Khan, Afghan emir, which threatened the northern approaches to colonial India.

OUTCOME: Creation of a pro-British government under Abdur Rahman

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:35,300 Anglo-Indian troops; as many as 100,000 Afghans

CASUALTIES: British, 1,850 killed in action, and 8,000 dead from disease; Afghans, 8,900 killed in action

TREATIES: May 26, 1879, treaty with Emir Yakub Khan

When Sher Ali Akbar Khan (1825–79) succeeded his father, Dost Muhammad (1793–1863), as emir of Afghanistan,he made diplomatic overtures to the Russians yet refused to receive a British delegation. This provoked a British invasion on November 20, 1878. General Sir Frederick Roberts led Anglo-Indian troops from India and quickly took the frontier passes. Soon, 35,300 Anglo-Indian troops were in the country. When Roberts defeated an army under Sher Ali at Peiwar Kotal on December 2,the emir fled and was replaced by his son Yakub Khan (1849–?), who concluded a treaty of peace with Britain on May 26, 1879. A British diplomat, Sir Louis Cavagnari,was installed in Kabul.On September 3, 1879, thousands of Afghans stormed the British residency in Kabul, killing Cavagnari and others.This provoked reprisal in the form of a force of 2,558 British regulars and 3,867 Sepoy troops, again under Sir Frederick Roberts, which defeated an 8,000-man Afghan army at the Battle of Charasia, southwest of Kabul, on October 6, 1879. Six days later the British marched on and occupied Kabul as well as its fortress, Bala Hissar, prompting the abdication of Yakub Khan; he sought British protection from insurgents who called for a holy war against the British. An estimated 100,000 Afghans took up arms against the occupiers of Kabul. Remarkably, however, the vastly outnumbered Roberts broke through the Afghan lines, outflanked the besiegers, and succeeded in dispersing the army. Troops under Sir Donald Stewart conducted mop-up operations that restored British control until June 1880, when Ayub Khan (1854–1914), brother of Yakub Khan, laid claim to the Afghan throne. With 15,000 men, Ayub marched on Kandahar. In response General G. R. S.Burroughs led a force of 2,467 Anglo-Indians to block Ayub Khan. The result was the Battle of Maiwand, fought on July 27, 1880. Ayub dealt the outnumbered Anglo-Indian force a severe blow, destroying half of it.After defeating Burroughs, Ayub Khan continued his march on Kandahar. On August 9, 1880, however, Sir Frederick Roberts led 9,896 Anglo-Indian troops and a special transport corps on a lightning advance to Kandahar, where he planned to intercept Ayub Khan. Completing the 313-mile journey, much of it in mountainous terrain, in just 22.16 Afghan War, Second days, Roberts’s force reached Kandahar on September 1 and immediately launched an attack. Stunned, Ayub’s troops were routed, and Ayub Khan fled to Herat. The Battle of Kandahar ended the Second Afghan War and brought about the establishment of a pro-British government under Amin Abdur Rhaman Khan (r. 1880–1901).The following year, after the British forces again withdrew from Afghanistan, Ayub Khan led a rebellion against Abdur Rhaman, who, however, rapidly crushed the insurgent movement. Ayub Khan fled to Persia, and Abdur Rhaman established a stable government.

See also AFGHAN WAR, FIRST; AFGHAN WAR, THIRD.Further reading: Edgar O’Ballance, Afghan Wars, 1839–1992 (New York: Brassey’s, 1993).

Afghan War, First (1839–1842)

Afghan War, First (1839–1842)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Britain vs. Afghans under Dost Muhammad

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Afghanistan and northern India

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Anxious to protect the northern approaches to colonial India, the British sought to check Russian influence in the region by replacing Dost Muhammad, an Afghan emir sympathetic to the Russians,with Shah Shuja, a ruler who favored the British.

OUTCOME: British losses were heavy, and although a punitive expedition prevailed against the Afghans, British forces (and commercial interests) withdrew from the country.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: The British fielded more than 30,000 men, including 6,000 Afghan levies; at Kandahar in 1842, Dost Muhammad fielded 20,000 Afghan troops.

CASUALTIES: More than 5,000 British dead; total Afghan losses are not known, but 1,500 were killed between 1839 and 1841.

TREATIES: None


In an attempt to protect the northern approaches to colonial India, the British sought to replace Dost Muhammad (1793–1863), the Afghan emir whose friendly relations with the Russians were perceived as a threat to British control, with former emir Shah Shuja (1780–1842), who was sympathetic to British interests. An Anglo-Indian army of 21,000 under General Sir John Keane occupied Kandahar in April 1839, successfully attacked Ghazni on July 21, and took Kabul on August 7. Keane captured Dost Muhammad and restored to power Shah Shuja. Leaving the superannuated major general William G. K. Elphinstone (d. 1842) with a 4,500-man garrison at Kabul to support two British diplomats there (Sir William Macnaghten [1793–1841] and Sir Alexander Burnes [1805–41]), Keane returned to India with his main force.Kabul remained relatively quiet until November 1841, when Sher Ali Akbar Khan (1825–79), son of Dost Muhammad, led an uprising against the British presence in the Afghan capital. The two British diplomats were murdered, and Elphinstone’s garrison was besieged. On January 6, 1842, Elphinstone surrendered to Akbar Khan in exchange for a grant of safe passage to India for his 4,500-man command and some 12,000 civilian refugees. On January 13, however, at the Khyber Pass, Akbar’s troops violated the safe conduct and overwhelmed Elphinstone’s already demoralized troops. Most were massacred, together with the civilian refugees. Of the small number taken prisoner, few survived captivity. A small British garrison at Ghazni also surrendered, but troops at Kandahar and Jalalabad resisted and held out. In April 1842 Akbar’s followers assassinated Shah Shuja, and that same month Sir George Pollock led an Anglo-Indian punitive expedition against the Khyber Pass. Successfully breaching it, he broke the siege of Jalalabad on April 16, then proceeded to Kabul. Here, on September 15, Pollock’s expedition rescued 95 prisoners, all that remained of Elphinstone’s garrison and its civilian charges. Pollock now ordered severe reprisals against the Afghans, including the destruction of the citadel and great bazaar of Kabul. With victory achieved, the British East India Company, chief trading force in the region, decided that it was both too dangerous and insufficiently profitable to remain in Afghanistan. In December British forces and civilians evacuated the country, and Dost Muhammad was given British permission to resume his reign as emir. He ruled until his death in 1863.
See also AFGHAN WAR, SECOND; AFGHAN WAR, THIRD.Further reading: Edgar O’Ballance, Afghan Wars, 1839–1992 (New York: Brassey’s, 1993).

Afghan Revolt (699–701)

Afghan Revolt (699–701)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Arabs vs. Afghans; then Arab governor of the eastern provinces vs. rebels led by Ibn al-Ash’ath

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Afghanistan and much of Mesopotamia (Iraq)

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Afghans rebelled against Arab rule, then an Arab general rebelled against the Muslim governor of the eastern provinces of the Muslim caliphate.

OUTCOME: Both the Afghan rebellion and that of Ibn al-Ash’ath were put down.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

The famous Peacock Army of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusef (661–714), the Muslim governor of the eastern provinces of the caliphate, set out in 699 to regain control of what is today southeast Afghanistan from Afghan rebels. Known for their colorful military garb—hence the name “Peacock”—the army under Kindah tribesman Ibn al-Ash’ath (d. 704) defeated the rebels and was posted to the region for an indefinite period of time. The Kindah military leader refused to obey this posting order from al-Hajjaj and took part of the army back to Mesopotamia. Having gathered support along the march, he clashed with troops of al-Hajjaj in January 701 at Tustar and defeated them. Ibn al- Ash’ath then set out for Basra and Kufa, where he won the Battle of Dayr at-Jamajim. He occupied the important port city of Basra. However, his run of successes on the battlefield ended at the Battle of Maskin on the Dujail River in 701, where al-Hajjaj, reinforced by Syrian troops provided by caliph Adb al-Malik (646/647–705), dealt a decisive blow against Ibn’s rebel army. Basra returned to the control of the caliphate, and the rebellion collapsed.

Further reading: Clifford Edmond Bosworth, The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977).

Afghan Rebellions (1709–1727)

Afghan Rebellions (1709–1727)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ghilzai and Abdali Afghans (with Uzbek participation) vs. Safavid Persian rulers of Afghanistan

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Afghanistan and Persia

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Afghan forces sought independence from the Safavid Persians.

OUTCOME: An independent Afghan state was established, but much of Afghanistan remained under Persian rule until the PERSIAN-AFGHAN WAR (1726–1738).

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown; at the important battle of Herat (1719) the Persians fielded at least 30,000 men.

CASUALTIES: At Kandahar in 1709 the Persians lost 24,000; at Herat the Persians lost 10,000.

TREATIES: None

In 1709 the Ghilzai Afghans rebelled at Kandahar against their Persian overlords after the Persians attempted to impose Shiite religious doctrine on the mostly Sunni Ghilzai. Kandahar quickly fell to the Ghizai, and all Persian attempts to retake the city during 1709–10 failed. In 1711 Khusru Khan (d. 1711) led a new expedition against the city, setting up a siege. The Ghilzai defenders were on the verge of surrender when Afghan raiders menaced the attackers. Seeing that the Persians were vulnerable, the Ghilzai, led by Mir Vais (d. 1715) took the offensive, sallying out from the city and killing Khusru Khan and 24,000 of his 25,000-man force. Mir Vais then declared Afghanistan independent.

The example of the Ghilzai triumph at Kandahar inspired another Afghan people, the Abdali of Herat, to rise under the leadership of Asadullah Khan (fl. 1717–25) in 1717. After liberating their city, the Abdali joined forces with the Uzbeks and invaded the Persian province of Khorasan.

The Persians responded in 1719 with a 30,000-man army sent to retake Herat. Outnumbered two to one, Asadullah nevertheless defeated the invaders, inflicting some 10,000 casualties while suffering 3,000 killed and wounded.

In 1720 the Ghilzai invaded Persia, taking the city of Kurman. However, the invaders were driven back before the end of the year. War between Afghanistan and Persia settled into a series of border raids until January 1722, when the Ghilzai again took Kerman. From there they invaded Gulnabad, just 11 miles east of the Persian capital of Isfahan. A Persian army of 50,000 was sent against the invaders but was itself driven off, and the Ghilzai laid siege to Isfahan for the next six months. The city’s garrison surrendered in October 1722, Shah Husain (1702–48) abdicated, and Mahmud Khan (d. 1725), son of Mir Vais, established an Afghan government in Isfahan.

As the Safavid Persian collapse became apparent, Russian and Turkish forces rushed into the country in an attempt to seize power (see RUSSO-PERSIAN WAR [1722–1723]). The Ghilzai Afghans, however, fought on, taking Tehran in 1725, then defeating the forces of the Ottoman Turks as well as the Russians. In the meantime, a new and powerful leader, Nadir Khan (1688–1747), rose among the Persians and delayed the final liberation of Afghanistan until mid-century.

Further reading: Mohammed Ali, A Short History of Afghanistan (Kabul: N. Pub., 1970); Louis Dupree, Afghanistan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973).

Afghan-Persian Wars

Afghan-Persian Wars - See PERSIAN-AFGHAN WAR (1726–1738); PERSIAN-AFGHAN WAR (1798); PERSIAN-AFGHAN WAR (1816); PERSIAN-AFGHAN WAR (1836–1838); PERSIAN-AFGHAN WAR (1855–1857)

Afghan-Maratha War (1758–1761)

Afghan-Maratha War (1758–1761)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Afghani invaders of the Punjab vs. the Marathas of west-central India

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): The Punjab, India

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Marathas waged war to eject the Afghans from the Punjab.

OUTCOME: After initial Maratha victories, Ahmad Shah Duranni, the Afghani leader, decisively defeated the Marathas at the Battle of Panipat. Nevertheless, an insurrection of Sikhs prompted Ahmad to withdraw to Kabul.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: The largest Maratha force numbered 300,000 men; the Afghani force was much smaller.

CASUALTIES: Total casualties are not known. However, the Marathas are reported to have suffered 75,000 killed and 30,000 captured at the culminating battle of Panipat.

TREATIES: No formal treaty ended the war.

With the death of Nadir Shah in 1747, the Persian Empire broke apart (see PERSIAN CIVIL WAR [1747–1760]), and Afghanistan became an independent state under Ahmad Shah Duranni (c. 1722–73). Ahmad immediately sought control of the Punjab and upper Ganges region (collectively, western Hindustan). On March 11, 1748, he invaded the Punjab, but was repelled at the Battle of Manupar. He invaded again in 1751, and this time annexed the region. During 1756–57 Ahmad invaded and sacked Delhi but could not overthrow the Mogul emperor, Alamgir II (r. 1754–59), because he had to return to Kabul to put down a growing insurrection there.

With Ahmad absent from the region, the vizier at Delhi ordered Balaji Rao (also called Sedushao Rao Bhau, or, simply, Sadashiv) (r. 1740–61) to lead his people, the Marathas, proud warriors of the Deccan, in a war against the Afghani occupiers of the Punjab. Balaji Rao eagerly embraced his mission, rapidly defeated the Afghans, and took Lahore. In 1759, however, Ahmad Shah Durrani returned to India, recaptured Lahore, and once again occupied Delhi. Alamgir II was assassinated, presumably to prevent his supporting Ahmad, but Ahmad refused the Mogul throne, choosing instead to install Shah Alam II (1728–1806) as the new Mogul emperor.

During December 1760 Ahmad’s large army faced off against some 300,000 Marathas, with both armies hunkered down in fortified positions. Skirmishes occurred— at least one that amounted to an atrocity, as some 5,000 Afghans slaughtered 20,000 unarmed Maratha camp followers as they foraged for food.

At last, on January 14, 1761, the armies fought the culminating Battle of Panipat. Rao Bhau was killed— beheaded—and as many as 75,000 Marathas were slain (some sources report 20,000). Large numbers, perhaps as many as 30,000, were captured and subsequently ransomed. Maratha expansion into northern India was halted; however, Ahmad did not remain in occupation of the Punjab. An insurrection among the Sikhs forced his withdrawal to Kabul, creating a power vacuum that threw the entire subcontinent into chaos and paved the way for British colonial expansion in India.

Further reading: Sir Jaunath Sarkar, House of Hivaji: Studies and Documents on Maratha History (Calcutta: Longman, 1978).

Afghanistan, Taliban Conquest of Afghanistan

Afghanistan, Taliban Conquest of Afghanistan - See TALIBAN CONQUEST OF AFGHANISTAN.

Afghan Civil War (1979–1992)

Afghan Civil War (1979–1992)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: 1. Regime of Mohammed Daoud vs. leftist Afghan army and air force units. 2. Muslim mountain tribes vs. leftist government under Nur Mohammed Taraki, with Soviet alliance. 3. Soviet-backed government of Babrak Karmal, with Soviet alliance, vs. mujahideen (Afghan Muslim army of rebellion).

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Kabul, Afghanistan, and the mountainous region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The period of civil war began with a leftist coup against President Mohammed Daoud, then developed into a Muslim reaction against the leftist government, which brought modern reforms unwelcome to the Muslims. As the Soviet Union became more deeply involved in the war, more Afghans joined the rebellion against what they considered Soviet invaders. As for the USSR, it sought to maintain Afghanistan as a buffer state against Chinese-influenced Pakistan.

OUTCOME: The mujahideen waged a tenacious campaign against the Soviet forces, ultimately driving them out; once what had become the “common” enemy was gone, however, the rebels failed to create a viable government, and Afghanistan split into a multitude of factions ruled by warlords.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: About 250,000 rebels, mainly mujahideen; Afghan army in 1978, 105,000, many deserting to the rebel cause; Soviet troops, 100,000

CASUALTIES: In the initial coup, some 3,000 were killed on both sides. During 1979, before massive Soviet intervention, 10,000 Afghan government troops were killed, and perhaps 20,000 rebels died. During the long period of Soviet intervention, 11,987 Soviet troops were killed and 51,367 wounded; rebel deaths are unknown, but it is estimated that land mines may have killed as many as 200,000 Afghan civilians.

TREATIES: Troop withdrawal agreement, 1987

Mohammed Daoud (1909–78) became president of Afghanistan after a coup that ousted King Mohammed Zahir Shah in 1973. On April 27, 1978, rebellious units of the Afghan military, mainly armor and air force, attacked Daoud’s presidential palace in Kabul, which was defended by 2,000 Republican Guards and two loyalist Afghan army divisions.Nevertheless, after a 36-hour battle, the palace fell to the rebels. Daoud, along with his wife, brother, three sons, and several grandchildren, was killed. In his place the rebels proclaimed a new prime minister as head of state, Nur Mohammed Taraki (1917–79), leader of the Marxist-Leninist Khalq Party, also known as the People’s Faction Party.

No sooner was the Taraki government proclaimed than opposition arose against it, primarily among the Muslim mountain tribes, who formed an army of rebellion, the mujahideen. The Soviet Union sent increasing amounts of military aid to the Taraki regime, but in April 1979 the city of Herat fell to the mujahideen rebels. Between 4,000 and 8,000 died in fighting in and around Herat.

On February 14, 1979, in Kabul, Adolph Dubs, the U.S. ambassador, was abducted and then killed in a shootout between rebel and government forces. A bloody guerrilla war developed, in which some 10,000 government troops were killed and some 20,000 rebels were slain during 1979. By the autumn of 1979 rebel forces controlled In the meantime the Taraki government split into its own warring Marxist factions, and in September 1979 Taraki was overthrown and killed in a coup staged by his right-hand man, Hafizullah Amin (1929–79). A Marxist zealot, Amin began promulgating anti-Soviet rhetoric, stirring Afghanistan to the point of a Marxist revolution that had more in common with Maoist doctrine than with Soviet communism.

The Soviet Union invaded, the Kremlin ordering the 105th Guards Airborne Division from Tadzhik to the Bagram Airbase in Kabul. On December 20 a Soviet armored division seized the Salang Tunnel, the major overland route between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. On Christmas Eve 1979 the Soviets began a massive airlift into Kabul International Airport. Within 72 hours the Soviets had landed the airborne division and more than 5,000 special forces troops and seized strategic points in Kabul, while four motorized rifle divisions rolled across Afghanistan’s northern border. In the early morning hours of December 28 Darulaman Palace had been seized, and the Soviets issued a communique stating that Amin had been sentenced to death by a revolutionary tribunal. Other sources believe he was killed in the initial palace battle. Also killed in the fighting was Lieutenant General Paputin, the Soviet Union’s deputy minister of the interior.

Having executed Amin and replaced him with a handpicked puppet, Babrak Karmal, long a foe of both Taraki and Amin, Soviet air and land forces—more than 100,000 troops—sought to crush resistance in a single stroke. What they encountered, however, was a widespread and grimly determined national resistance spearheaded by the mujahideen, who received aid from the United States as well as Pakistan. Despite the assistance, the mujahideen were poorly equipped, and yet they consistently prevailed against the vast Soviet forces. In fact, the Soviet situation in Afghanistan was repeatedly compared to that of the United States in the long Vietnam War, in which the technologically advanced forces of a modern imperialist power were stymied by comparatively primitive but absolutely committed indigenous opposition.

In 1986, as the war ground on, the demoralized Soviets withdrew support from Karmal, who resigned and was replaced by Sayid Mohammed Najibullah, former head of Afghanistan’s much-feared secret police. In the meantime, in January 1987 an international Islamic conference petitioned the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops, and Najibullah simultaneously announced plans for a ceasefire. Seven mujahideen groups rejected the cease-fire, demanding direct negotiation with the USSR rather than its “puppet government.” Militarily, the Soviet position continued to deteriorate, and in November 1987 Najibullah called a summit of tribal leaders, who approved a new constitution and elected Najibullah president. In April 1988 an international agreement was concluded for the withdrawal of Soviet troops, and half were withdrawn by August 15, 1988, and the remainder by February 15, 1989. Even so, many of the mujahideen continued to fight, and Najibullah declared a state of emergency from February 1989 to May 1990, when the constitution was amended to allow the formation of political parties. The reforms, however, did not stop the fighting, and in April 1992 mujahideen forces occupied Kabul, sending Najibullah into hiding and bringing about his resignation.

See also TALIBAN CONQUEST OF AFGHANISTAN; UNITED STATES’S WAR ON TERRORISM.


Further reading: Henry S. Bradsher, Afghan Communism and Soviet Intervention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Edgar O’Ballance, Afghan Wars, 1839–1992 (New York: Brassey’s, 1993); Russian General Staff, The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2002).

Afghan Civil War (1928–1929)

Afghan Civil War (1928–1929)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Initially, various Afghan tribes vs. the government of Emir Amanullah Khan in Kabul; then Pashtun rebels vs. the Tajik followers of the bandit usurper Habibullah Ghazi

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Kabul, Afghanistan

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Initially, rebels sought to reverse the emir’s modern reforms and protect their tribal and Muslim traditions; outlaw leader Habibullah Ghazi wanted to depose the emir and take his place as ruler of Afghanistan; the Pashtuns wished to overthrow the usurper and return the throne to a “legitimate” ruler from the Musabihan clan.

OUTCOME: Amanullah abdicated in favor of his brother,who in turn abdicated under threat of attack from  Habibullah, who was in turn ousted and executed by the Musabihans, placing Nadir Shah on the throne and, with British help, reuniting the country.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Royal army, 15,000; rebel numbers unknown

CASUALTIES: Rebel casualties, 15,000 killed; royal casualties unknown

TREATIES: None

When Amanullah Khan (1892–1960) became emir of Afghanistan in 1919, he vowed to modernize his country and destroy the influence of foreign powers over its internal affairs. As he went about professionalizing his army, streamlining the civil bureaucracy, and in general creating a modern administrative system, he alienated and offended many of those who had initially supported him. Then, on November 12, 1928, Shinwari tribesmen rose in revolt in Jalalabad because Amanullah’s reforms had begun to erode traditional tribal life. Encouraged by religious leaders, who were also offended by modern reforms that challenged venerable Muslim theology, the Shinwari marched on the capital of Kabul. Amanullah was shocked to discover that his reforms lacked support even among his soldiers, the majority of whom, angered at the emir’s rigid insistence on military professionalism, refused to answer his call to arms. Realizing that his opponents had successfully managed a full-scale revolt, desperate to preserve what he could of his progressive government, and anxious to maintain his family’s rule of Afghanistan, Amanullah abdicated in mid-January 1929 in favor of his weaker older brother, Inyatollah, and fled to India.


The events in Kabul did not escape the notice of an outlaw leader and Tajik tribesman named Bacha-i-Saqao (d. 1929). Shrewdly assessing both the potential of the Shinwari uprising and the timidity of the new emir, Bacha led his strong band on his own march against the capital. Inyatollah had been emir of Afghanistan for three days when his fears of the Shinwari and Bacha’s Tajiks got the better of him. He, too, abdicated, escaping to join his brother in exile in India, while Bacha—former army deserter, erstwhile bandit of the Khyber Pass—proclaimed himself emir under the name of Habibullah Khan. Amanullah, now desperate to reclaim his throne, returned to Kandahar, where he assembled an army and marched on Kabul in the spring of 1929. Habibullah attacked him en route, and the defeated Amanullah Khan fled the country for good.

Though Habibullah successfully defended his crown from other claimants throughout the summer, the new emir’s rule quickly deteriorated, and much of his support vanished, not so much because of his checkered past as because he was a Tajik, the first “outsider” to rule Afghanistan since before the coming of the Greeks. Most Afghans were Pashtuns, a tribe that had initially supported Habibullah but was the first to turn on him. They demanded, of course, a Pashtun ruler. Among the Pashtuns the major pretenders to the throne were the Musabihans, a clan directly descended from the great 19th-century Afghan ruler Dost Muhammad (1793–1863).

The eldest of the Musabihan brothers, General Muhammad Nadir Khan (1880–1933), was Amanullah’s cousin and had served as his minister of defense before resigningin protest over the former emir’s military reforms. Just returned from Europe, Nadir Khan organized an army in the late summer of 1929 with plans to retake Kabul. He had originally hoped for direct support from the British, but when he sought their help, they refused him, calculating that if they were to back Nadir Khan and the Musabihan coup were to fail, the English would then be personae non grata in Kabul regardless of who sat on the throne.Instead, London cautiously offered tacit assistance and setup guidelines to follow in maintaining officially its neutrality.The British did allow Nadir Khan (and others) in the British-held North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to cross the border freely into Afghanistan, though they frowned on back and forth traffic and banned outright the use of the NWFP as a sanctuary or a recruiting ground for rebels. Since the British, however, made it fairly clear they would do little, if anything, to enforce these restrictions, Nadir Khan could safely ignore them.

At length, the Musabihans were able to gather enough men, most of them from the NWFP, to march confidently on Kabul. On October 10 Nadir Khan’s forces took the city, and Habibullah fled. On October 16 Nadir Khan assumed the throne, renaming himself Nadir Shah. Scarcely a fortnight later Habibullah was captured and executed in the town of Kohistan on November 3, 1929. Once in power, Nadir Shah, with British help, instituted reforms, restored order, and placated those who remained loyal to his exiled cousin Amanullah. In 1932, a year before his death, Nadir Shah established a constitutional government in a unified Afghanistan.

Further reading: Michael Barthorp, Afghan Wars and the North-West Frontier 1839–1947 (New York: Sterling, 2002); Edgar O’Ballance, Afghan Wars, 1839–1992 (New York: Brassey’s, 1993).

Aethelfrith’s Wars (593–616)

Aethelfrith’s Wars (593–616)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Northumbria vs. (in succession) the Dalriad Scots and the Britons

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Scotland, Wales, and Nottingham

DECLARATION: None recorded

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Struggle for dominance among the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy (i.e., Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia).

OUTCOME: Aethelfrith achieved dominance in the heptarchy, only to be slain in battle by the ally of a rival.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None recorded

Although the 593–616 series of conflicts among the kings of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy is collectively called the Aethelfrith’s Wars, their culmination put Edwin (r. 616–632) on the throne as the first Christian king of Northumbria.

Aethelfrith (d. 616), king of the Anglian kingdom of Bernicia, married the princess of neighboring Deira in 588 or 590, thereby uniting the kingdoms as Northumbria and sending into exile Edwin, the heir apparent to the Deiran throne. Beginning in 593, Northumbria warred sporadically with the Britons. In 603 Aethelfrith faced a new threat from the north, but successfully defended his borders against the incursion of Scottish invaders from Dal Riata (the Delriad Scots under King Aidan) and Britons of Strathclyde, defeating both at the battle of Daegsaston. This elevated Northumbria to preeminence among the kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, making it the most formidable power below the Firth of Forth.

In about 616 Aethelfrith led his Northumbrians westward as far as the Dee River at Chester. Here Aethelfrith’s forces confronted Britons under Selyf Sarffgadau, or Solomon (c. 586–616), king of the Welsh kingdom of Powys. Some 1,250 monks from the monastery at Bangor came to the fore to pray for Solomon’s success. Aethelfrith ordered his army against the unarmed monks, all but 50 of whom were slaughtered. This signaled the start of the general battle, in which the Northumbrians routed the Britons, killing Solomon in the course of battle. The Welsh peninsula was now completely cut off from the rest of Britain. In the meantime, however, the exiled Edwin had concluded an alliance with Raedwald, king of East Anglia. Raedwald attacked Aethelfrith at the Battle of the Idle (616), near modern Nottingham. He not only defeated the Northumbrian king, but killed him as well, thereby enabling Edwin to assume the Northumbrian throne as that region’s first Christian king.

Edwin went on, later in 616, to defeat the Britons in north Wales and Anglesea, thereby assuring the continued supremacy of Northumbria. Edwin died in the Battle of Hatfiled Chase (632) at the hands of Cadwallon, a north Welsh king. Nevertheless, Northumbria’s dominance of the heptarchy continued through 641 under Edwin’s successor,Oswald.

Further reading: Albany F. Major, Early Wars of Wessex (Poole, U.K.: Blandford Press, 1978); David A. E. Peteret, ed., Anglo-Saxon History: Basic Readings (New York: Garland, 2000).

Aethelbald’s Wars (733–750)

Aethelbald’s Wars (733–750)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Mercia vs. Wessex and Northumbria

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): England

DECLARATION: Not known; probably none

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Mercian king Aethelbald and his cousin-successor, Offa, invaded Wessex and Northumbria with the purpose of establishing Mercian dominance of Anglo-Saxon England, thereby effecting the first real unification of England.

OUTCOME: Wessex was successfully invaded in 733 and Northumbria in 744, ultimately resulting in the unification of much of England under Aethelbald and his successor, Offa.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: No surviving documents

Aethelbald (r. 716–757) was king of Mercia, the richest and most powerful kingdom of Anglo-Saxon England. He set out to parlay this advantage into out-and-out political supremacy among the kings and disparate kingdoms of Britain. His first step, in 733, was to invade Wessex in the south of England, seizing it from the Britons. He next invaded Northumbria in 744 and again in 749, causing great hardship and devastation in the region. During this period he also asserted dominance over kings of the regions bordering Wales by assisting them in defendingagainst Welsh border incursions.

By the end of the 740s Aethelbald’s conquests had earned him the title “king of Britain,” and he was recognized as an equal by no less a figure than Charlemagne (c. 742–814). Historians generally concede that he effected the first meaningful unification of England. Nevertheless, his reign following the conquest of Wessex and Northumbria was marked by an intense civil war, and Aethelbald himself was assassinated by his bodyguard in 757. His cousin Offa (r. 757–796), who had participated in Aethelbald’s campaigns only to oppose him in the civil war, succeeded him to the Mercian throne.

See also OFFA’S WARS (771–796).

Further reading: Albany F. Major, Early Wars of Wessex (Poole, U.K.: Blandford Press, 1978); David A. E. Peteret, ed., Anglo-Saxon History: Basic Readings (New York: Garland, 2000).

Acoma Revolt (1599)

Acoma Revolt (1599)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Acoma Indians vs. Spanish Empire

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): American Southwest

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Acoma were resisting Spanish conquest and enslavement; the Spanish wished to make an example of the Acoma.

OUTCOME: The Acoma were defeated and brutally punished.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Spain, 400; Indians, approximately 200–300

CASUALTIES: Spanish, fewer than 50 killed or wounded; Indians, 100–150 killed or wounded, approximately 80 intentionally maimed

TREATIES: None

The history of Spain in the New World is deeply colored by popular myth, and one of the most pervasive of those myths paints the Spanish as unceasingly avaricious and aggressive in conquest. In truth, by the second half of the 16th century, Spain was so deeply embroiled in European wars that it largely neglected its New World interests. In 1579 the English seafarer Sir Francis Drake (1540[?]–96) entered a California bay and laid claim to a land he called “New Albion.” Though nothing came of this singular act, it was enough to prompt the Spanish viceroy in Mexico City to warn the royal court in Madrid that the Spanish colonies might soon be imperiled. Even then the Crown did nothing to protect the northern frontier of its New World holdings for almost two decades.


It was not until 1598 that an expedition was dispatched north from Mexico. On April 30 Don Juan de Oñate (1550–1630) reached present-day El Paso, Texas, and laid claim to what he called “New Mexico,” a province stretching from Texas to California. Oñate brought with him the seeds of a colony: 400 men, women, and children, 7,000 head of livestock, and some 80 wagons. With his meager forces, Oñate pressed farther north, aggressively colonizing the pueblo country.

The Indians of the pueblos were not traditionally warriors, and, therefore, Oñate met no resistance—except at Acoma, in western New Mexico. As he had in the case of the other pueblos, Oñate sent squads of conquistadores to inform the Indians that they were now subjects of the Spanish Crown and that they had to renounce their pagan religion and abide by Spanish law. Whereas the other pueblos had meekly consented, the people of Acoma responded by killing 13 soldiers of the advance party, including three officers of noble blood. Oñate could not let this resistance go unpunished, but, situated atop a steep-walled mesa, the Acoma pueblo was a very formidable objective. Nevertheless, in January 1599 Oñate’s troops fought their way to the top of the mesa, stormed the pueblo, and killed most of Acoma’s warriors.

The conquistadores took captive 500 women and children. About 80 noncombatant men over the age of 25 were sentenced to amputation of one foot and enslavement for a period of 20 years. Women as well as children over the age of 12 were not maimed but were likewise sentenced to long terms of slavery. Children under 12 were turned over to priests to be raised as Catholics. Oñate’s men also seized two Hopis, basically innocent bystanders who had the misfortune to be visiting Acoma during the siege, and amputated their right hands. He sent them to their home pueblo in this condition as a warning about the consequences of rebellion.

In and of itself, the Acoma Revolt was short lived, but it had disproportionate historical consequences, creating a precedent of chronic hostility between whites and Indians in the Southwest. The Spanish Crown advanced much of its colonization effort by granting individuals the authority to possess and govern huge tracts of territory, provided that they financed the necessary military and commercial expeditions. Oñate, moved by visions of New World gold and silver, invested his personal fortune in the pueblo country. Unfortunately for Oñate, and even more so for the Native Americans who fell under his jurisdiction, in the months and years following the Acoma Revolt, the country yielded neither gold nor silver, and it failed even to produce sufficient food for the colonists. Ever more desperate, Oñate worked “his” Indians harder and with greater cruelty. His brutal policies toward them were finally too much even for colonial authorities, who, 15 years after he had first marched into the province, called on him to face charges of brutality and poor governance.He was assessed heavy fines.

Further reading: Alan Axelrod, Chronicle of the Indian Wars: From Colonial Times to Wounded Knee (New York: Prentice Hall General Reference, 1993); Alan Gallay, ed., Colonial; Wars of North America 1512–1763 (New York: Garland, 1996); David J. Weber, The Spanish Frontier in North American (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992).

Achinese War (1873–1907)

Achinese War (1873–1907)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: The Netherlands vs. Acheh

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Northeastern Sumatra

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Dutch sought to quell piracy in the East Indies, subjugate the Achinese Muslims, and colonize all of Indonesia; the Achinese sought to maintain their independence and continue their lucrative raids against imperial trade.

OUTCOME: More than a quarter century of bitter guerrilla warfare culminated in Dutch control of Acheh.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Dutch, 10,500; Achinese, unknown

CASUALTIES: Dutch, 2,317 killed; Achinese, 11,187 killed

TREATIES: Treaty of 1903

By the mid-19th century Indonesia had long been colonized by both English and Dutch commercial interests, drawn by the lucrative spice and tobacco trades. With the advent of steam power and the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, the trade grew even more profitable, enhancing the economic and political appeal of the Indonesian colonies. For centuries pirates from Acheh, or Achin (today called Atjeh), in northern Sumatra had raided both English and Dutch trading vessels with near impunity.

Though a problem for both Britain and the Netherlands, Indonesian pirates embarrassed the Dutch more, since they had for so long claimed that the Dutch East India Company controlled the island chain as one big colonial trading juggernaut. Such a claim had made them traditionally responsible for security in the region. With the opening of the Suez Canal, however, most of the East Indian commercial traffic was rerouted for efficiency through the Strait of Malacca, which was controlled by the British. The two colonial powers reached a modus vivendi in the East Indies: The British would allow the Dutch passage through the strait and turn a blind eye to their handling of the Achinese problem—if, in return, the Dutch abolished the higher rates they charged for non-Dutch shipping and permitted British-held Singapore to continue its trade with the regions of Sumatra that the Dutch had recently subjugated.

After the British recognized the Dutch interest in Acheh, the Netherlands in 1873 launched two armed expeditionary forces to conquer the rebellious Achinese Muslims, bring the pirate raids to an end, and establish Dutch dominance throughout all of Sumatra. Dutch forces quickly seized the Achinese palace in the regional capital, Kutaradja. However, an epidemic of cholera struck the Dutch forces, and a long and ugly guerrilla war followed. For 20 years the Dutch tried to root the Achinese guerrillas out of the Sumatran jungles until the bitter war began to absorb Dutch Indonesia’s annual trade surplus. With profits falling, the Dutch in 1893 made a concerted effort to win the hearts and minds of the natives who did not openly support the rebels by enlisting the aid of a local chief, to whom they offered a position of high rank in their proposed colonial government. The plan backfired two years later when the chief spurned the colonials and took all his followers with him to the rebels.

It took another decade for the Dutch to gain the upper hand. In 1903 Muhammad Daud, sultan of Acheh, sick of the fighting, concluded a treaty with the Netherlands, recognizing Dutch sovereignty and relinquishing his throne.

Many of the Achinese rebels, however, refused to accept Dutch rule and took to the jungles again, continuing to wage guerrilla war. Caught in a quagmire in which they had already invested too much, the Dutch embarked on a “castle strategy,” systematically building garrisons and fortifications for Dutch troops across the island. In 1907, with the Dutch treasury all but empty and the Dutch colonists universally despised throughout Indonesia, the Netherlands finally managed to crush the Achinese resistance. At long last, the Dutch ruled unchecked over the Spice Islands and dominated the spice and tobacco trade.

Further reading: Frances Gouda, Dutch Culture Overseas: Colonial Practice in the Netherlands Indies, 1400–1942 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996); M. C. Ricklefs, A History of Modern Indonesia (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2002).

Achinese Sackings of Johore (1613–1615)

Achinese Sackings of Johore (1613–1615)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Acheh vs. Johore

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Johore and Perak in southern Malaysia

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Acheh sought to take advantage of the Portuguese-Dutch colonial war in the East Indies to grab the mineral-rich Perak region. They thus hoped to preempt the Dutch from establishing an entrêpot at Johore, from whence they could both control the Spice Islands trade and easily threaten nearby Acheh.

OUTCOME: Acheh sacked and razed Johore and became a player in the Spice Islands trade; the Dutch set up Batavia as their entrêpot in Indonesia.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Possibly 100,000 Achinese troops; Johore forces, unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

At the dawn of the 17th century, the Dutch and the Portuguese both claimed supremacy in Indonesia and thus over trading rights to the fecund Spice Islands of Malaysia.The Dutch had begun to challenge Portugal’s naval superiority as far back as 1579, almost immediately after the Netherlands had wrung independence from Spain. Dutch ships launched incursions into all of Portugal’s far-flung colonies, and for more than a quarter century the two European powers battled for control of trade routes in the South China Sea, the Java Sea, and the Indian Ocean. As Portuguese sea power waned and the Dutch navy suffered growing pains, a power vacuum appeared in Indonesia. As the Portuguese chased the Dutch out of Malacca and the Dutch did the same to the Portuguese in east Indonesia, the sultan of Acheh (or Achin)—an independent province in northern Sumatra—rushed to fill the vacuum. Iskandar Shah (1583?–1636) quickly became leader of the most powerful military force in the region and expanded Achinese trade in the Spice Islands. Iskandar knew that the Netherlands was looking for a central entrêpot at which to locate its trading capital, and he guessed correctly that Johore, capital city of Perak (an area of southern Malaysia rich in mineral deposits), was a prime candidate. Iskandar’s strategy in sending the Achinese army against Johore was twofold: He wanted first to establish his dominance over Perak before either the Dutch or the Portuguese had a chance to stop him. Second, he wanted to prevent a Dutch move into Achinese Sumatra, his immediate sphere of influence. In the event, Johore was no match for the powerful Achinese army, which mercilessly sacked the Perakian capital in 1613. Two years later the Achinese returned and completely razed Johore.

Although the colonial PORTUGUESE-DUTCH WARS IN THE EAST INDIES, which had begun in 1601, would not end until 1641, the Dutch actually began to exercise hegemony over the region as early as 1610. For the time being, at least, Acheh had succeeded in keeping the Dutch out of Johore. The Netherlands selected Batavia as the trading center for the Dutch United East India Company, and the Dutch onslaught would not truly vanquish Acheh for nearly three centuries (see ACHINESE WAR.).

Further reading: Richard J. Wilkinson, History of the Peninsular Malays, with Chapters on Perak and Selangor (1923; reprint ed., New York: AMS Press, n.d.).

Achinese Rebellion (1953–1959)

Achinese Rebellion (1953–1959)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Acheh’s Muslim rebels vs. the Republic of Indonesia

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Northern Sumatra

DECLARATION: None


MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Indonesia, having finally won independence from the Dutch, sought to consolidate the republic by annexing Acheh; Acheh’s Muslim majority, desiring a strict theocracy, fought to maintain autonomy from the republic.

OUTCOME: Acheh lost its independence but maintained autonomy in religious matters and over local customs and law.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Very limited

TREATIES: None

In the fall of 1953 Achmed Sukarno (1901–70), first president of the three-year-old Republic of Indonesia (see INDONESIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE), announced his plans to annex the small independent state of Acheh, or Achin (now Atjeh), which lay in northeastern Sumatra. Devoutly Muslim, the Achinese feared a loss of religious autonomy because Sukarno, although Muslim himself, was a strict secularist. Wanting to maintain a theocracy, they vehemently opposed the annexation. Led by Acheh’s military governor, Tengku Daud Beureuh (1906–87), the fundamentalist Muslims rose in open revolt on September 20, 1953, attacking army bases and police stations in an attempt to garner enough additional firepower to stage a full-scale rebellion.

Failing to foment the general revolt they had planned, the Achinese waged intermittent guerrilla warfare for the next four years before a cease-fire was agreed to in March 1957. Sukarno declared Acheh a separate province, but this concession provoked other provinces to rebel, hoping for a similar limited sovereignty of their own (see INDONESIAN WARS). Recognizing that the Indonesian forces were now stretched thin, the Achinese rebels renewed hostilities. Sukarno was forced to the bargaining table in 1959, this time establishing Acheh as a “special district” of Indonesia with full autonomy in matters of religion and local law. This arrangement endured until 1989, when a Free Acheh Movement was formed and turned militant. For more than a decade, guerrilla violence was rampant, resulting in an estimated death toll of some 5,000 on both sides before the Acheh guerrillas concluded a cease-fire on June 2, 2000.

Further reading: Bernard Dahm, Sukarno and the Struggle for Indonesian Independence (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983); C. L. M. Penders, The Life and Times of Sukarno (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974).

Achaean-Spartan Wars

Achaean-Spartan Wars - See SPARTAN-ACHAEAN WAR (228–226 B.C.E.); SPARTAN-ACHAEAN WAR (193–192 B.C.E.); SPARTAN-ACHAEAN WAR (189–188 B.C.E.).

Achaean War (146 B.C.E.)

Achaean War (146 B.C.E.)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Rome vs. the Achaean League

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): South-central Greece

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: For the Achaeans the issue was the strength of the Achaean League, which they hoped to force Sparta to join; for the Romans, the object was to maintain their protectorate over Sparta.

OUTCOME: The Achaean League was dissolved, and Rome gained hegemony over all of Greece.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

In the shaky political environment of Greece in the second century B.C.E., many of the smaller city-states entered into regional military-political alliances as a security measure against the empires to the north, primarily Macedonia, and the larger Greek city-states, especially Sparta. Although Athens and Sparta stood alone because of their size, they occasionally joined the Aetolian League in northern Greece or the Achaean League—made up of citystates from the Peloponnese—in temporary alliances. Both leagues hoped to gain the two major powers as permanent members, but Athens was strong enough on its own, and Sparta was under Roman protection.

When Rome became preoccupied with the total destruction of Carthage in the Third PUNIC WAR of 149–146 B.C.E., the Achaeans, although poorly organized themselves, took advantage of Sparta’s vulnerability and attacked, hoping to force the city-state to become a permanent member of the league. The Roman Senate quickly dispatched Consul Lucius Mummius Achaicus (fl. mid- 100s) to Greece. There he promptly defeated the Achaean army, which mostly consisted of poorly trained slaves led by Critolaus (d. before 111) near Corinth. Lucius then sacked Corinth and burned it to the ground. The Achaean League was dissolved, and Rome subjugated all of Greece, ending the illusion of independence by rendering the Greeks slaves. Officially, Macedonia and Greece, under the collective name of Achaea, were annexed to Rome.

Further reading: Keith R. Bradley, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 B.C.E.–70 B.C.E. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998).

Abushiri’s Revolt

Abushiri’s Revolt - See BUSHIRI’S UPRISING.

Abu Muslim’s Revolt

Abu Muslim’s Revolt - See ABBASID REBELLION.

Abenaki War, Third (Dummer’s War) (1722–1727)

Abenaki War, Third (Dummer’s War) (1722–1727)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Abenaki Indians vs. English settlers

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Maine frontier, New Hampshire White Mountain region, and Vermont Green Mountain region

DECLARATION: Declaration of Massachusetts Governor Samuel Shute, 1722

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Abenakis’ object was to counter increasing English incursion into their lands. The English declaration of war was based on the accusation that the Abenakis were “Robbers, Traitors and Enemies to his Majesty King George.”

OUTCOME: Although the English settlers continued to occupy many frontier lands, Dummer’s Treaty guaranteed Abenaki rights to exclusive ownership of certain lands, to maintain a priest of their religion (Catholicism), and to hunt and fish on lands occupied by the English.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Dummer’s Treaty, 1727 The Third Abenaki War is also known as Dummer’s War, Grey Lock’s War, Father Rasles’s War, and Lovewell’s War. Officially, warfare between the English and the Abenakis had been ended by the Treaty of Portsmouth, which followed the Treaty of Utrecht, ending QUEEN ANNE’SWAR in 1713. In fact, neither the Portsmouth nor Utrecht treaties addressed the fundamental issues of the occupation of land that had triggered an enduring conflict between the Abenakis and the English (see ABENAKI WAR, FIRST). As the English colonial population continued to grow, the land issues only became more pressing and provocative. Additional treaties were concluded between colonists and Abenakis in 1717 and 1719, but the Indians continued to suffer abuse at the hands of unscrupulous and rapacious English traders and the incursion of settlers onto their lands. Especially galling was the erection of well-garrisoned English forts along the Abenaki frontier. In the face of an increasing number of violent confrontations between Abenakis and English settlers, Governor Samuel Shute (1662–1742) of Massachusetts (Maine being then a part of that colony) formally declared war on the Indians in 1722, calling them “Robbers, Traitors and Enemies to his Majesty King George.”

Earlier major conflicts with the Abenakis had been closely connected with international wars: KING WILLIAM’S WAR, Queen Anne’s War, and KING PHILIP’S WAR. The Third Abenaki War, however, was a local conflict, with troops of Massachusetts and New Hampshire pitted against the Abenakis. The New York colony and the powerful Iroquois Confederacy remained neutral observers of the action.Most of the fighting was typical of white-Indian combat,a vicious but small-scale guerrilla routine of raid and counterraid. The English, however, also had a strategic objective in targeting the French Jesuit missionary Sebastian Rasles (1652–1724), who the English blamed for having incited the Abenakis to continual warfare. Militia captain Jeremiah Moulton assassinated Rasles in 1724,then destroyed his missionary village at Norridgewock. The killing of Rasles did demoralize the Abenakis, who were also discouraged by the defeat of their allies, the Pigwackets, the following spring. Militia captain John Lovewell (d. 1725) defeated Pigwacket warriors in the White Mountains then burned the major Indian town at Penobscot. Following the death of Rasles and the defeat of the Pigwackets, many Abenakis fled to Canada seeking refuge among the French missionaries there.

In the meantime, to the west, in the Green Mountains of present-day Vermont, the English were not prevailing. The war chief Grey Lock (fl. 1723–28) led his band of Missisquoi Abenakis from the Champlain Valley in a series of destructive raids along the Massachusetts frontier. To counter these attacks, the English built Fort Dummer near present-day Brattleboro, Vermont. This proved ineffective at neutralizing Grey Lock, who continued to harass the Vermont frontier even after the eastern Abenakis signed Dummer’s Treaty of 1727, which officially ended the Third Abenaki War. This treaty granted the Abenakis the right to some lands they already had, the right to maintain a priest of their religion (Catholicism), and the right to hunt and fish even on English-occupied lands in the northern frontier region. The treaty has been the legal basis for a number of 20th-century court cases involving the rights of Maine Indians.

See also LOVEWELL’S WAR.

Further reading: Alan Axelrod, Chronicle of the Indian Wars: From Colonial Times to Wounded Knee (New York:Macmillan General Reference, 1993); Colin G. Calloway,The Western Abenakis of Vermont, 1600–1800 (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 1990); Alan Gallay, ed., Colonial; Wars of North America 1512–1763 (New York: Garland, 1996); Mrs. Johnson, Narrative of the Captivity ofMrs. Johnson (New York: Garland, 1990).

Abenaki War, Second

Abenaki War, Second - See QUEEN ANNE’S WAR.

Abenaki War, First (1675–1678)

Abenaki War, First (1675–1678)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Abenaki Indians vs. English settlers

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Maine frontier

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Abenakis’ object was to counter English incursion into their lands.

OUTCOME: Although the English settlers remained in the region, colonial authorities promised annual tribute payments.


APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Untitled treaty of 1678

The Abenaki (or Abnaki) Indians lived in the border region between New England and New France and were often staunch allies of the French against the English. The Abenakis were not a single tribe, but a loosely confederated collection of Algonquian tribes (including the Penobscots, Kennebecs, Wawenocks, and Androscoggins of New England’s eastern frontier; the Pigwackets, Ossipees, and Winnipesaukes of the White Mountains; the Pennacooks of the Merrimack Valley; the Sokokis and Cowasucks in the upper Connecticut Valley; and the Missisquois and other groups in Vermont) broadcast throughout the region of present-day Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and southern Quebec. The English often referred to these tribes collectively as “the Eastern Indians.”

While friendly relations were established with the French at first contact by Samuel de Champlain during 1604–05, enmity between the Indians and the English developed simultaneously after English colonists abducted five Abenakis and shipped them to England. From this time forward the Abenakis allied themselves with the French and periodically fought against the English. Although some historians treat the First Abenaki War as part of KING PHILIP’S WAR, its action was sufficiently distant from the theater of that conflict to classify it separately.As English colonists made increasingly deeper incursions into Abenaki territory along the Maine border, the Abenakis conducted guerrilla warfare against outlying frontier settlements. In hit-and-run raids a number of settlers were taken captive and were either adopted into the tribe or sold to the French.

During the course of this conflict, the English defeated King Philip (d. 1676) and his geographically adjacent allies but failed to defeat the Abenakis. With outlying northern settlements terrorized and devastated, colonial authorities concluded a treaty with the Abenakis in 1678, pledging an annual tribute in return for permission to retain frontier settlements. The treaty brought no lasting peace, and the Abenaki War proved to be a prelude to other conflicts involving Abenaki warriors, who often fought under the command of French officers.

See also ABENAKI WAR, THIRD; KING WILLIAM’S WAR;
QUEEN ANNE’S WAR.

Further reading: Alan Axelrod, Chronicle of the Indian Wars: From Colonial Times to Wounded Knee (New York: Prentice Hall General Reference, 1993); Colin G. Calloway, The Western Abenakis of Vermont, 1600–1800 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990); Alan Gallay, ed., Colonial; Wars of North America 1512–1763 (New York: Garland, 1996); Mrs. Johnson, Narrative of the Captivity of Mrs. Johnson (New York: Garland, 1990)

Abd el-Krim’s Revolt

Abd el-Krim’s Revolt - See RIF WAR (1919–1926).

Abd el-Kader, Third War of (1840–1847)

Abd el-Kader, Third War of (1840–1847)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Forces of Amir Abd el-Kader of Algeria with some aid from Morocco vs. French colonial forces


PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Algeria

DECLARATION: No formal declaration

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Algerian independence from French colonial rule

OUTCOME: Abd el-Kader’s defeat and exile resulted in France’s domination of Algeria.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: 50,000 Algerians (Algerians and Moroccans); 100,000 French

CASUALTIES: French casualties in Algeria from 1830 to 1847 were nearly 10,000 killed and 35,000 wounded. Untold numbers of foreign legionnaires also died. Algerian casualties were in the tens of thousands.

TREATIES: Treaty of Tangier, September 10, 1844, ended Moroccan involvement.

When French expeditionary forces successfully invaded Algeria in July 1830, King Charles X (1757–1836) of France mistakenly believed that a foreign conquest would help silence the growing opposition at home to his increasingly reactionary government. By the end of the month, the agitation of Paris radicals had culminated in a revolution that forced his abdication. The subsequent transition from the absolute rule of Charles X to the constitutional monarchy of the new king, Louis-Philippe (1773–1850), left the “Algeria question” unresolved. In the absence of a firm policy and adequate support, French colonial forces were compelled to concede more and more to the Muslim nationalist Amir Abd el-Kader (1808–83), whose first two wars of harassment had confined the French presence in the North African country to just a few seaports. (See ABD EL-KADER, FIRST WAR OF; ABD ELKADER, SECOND WAR OF.) By 1840 internal conditions in France had stabilized, and the repeated requests of colonial general Thomas-Robert Bugeaud (1784–1849) for support were finally answered, thereby triggering the seven-year conflict known as the Third War of Abd el-Kader. The 1837 Treaty of Tafna between Abd el-Kader and the French colonial regime allowed the amir to create an efficient state around French holdings. He built a regular army of more than 2,000 men, stockpiled weapons, and sold surplus crops to the British to finance his regime. More important, the amir spread his message of independence and nationalism throughout Algeria, whose population broadcast anticolonial sentiment across the region. Therefore, when the French violated the terms of the Tafna agreement by crossing the Iron Gates of Oran in the late 1830s, Abd el-Kader was prepared for a long and bloody struggle.

Full-scale war broke out in 1840, after Abd el-Kader’s forces (numbering at most 2,000 regulars and volunteers from desert tribes) had sacked the French settlement of Mitidja. General Bugeaud, who had reinforcements from the mainland, sent his mobile columns into the countryside to punish the Algerian’s followers. Using the unconventional tactic of surrounding individual villages, the French general sought to starve the Algerians into submission one settlement at a time. For his part, Abd el-Kader avoided large battles, preferring small-scale skirmishes and employing his cavalry hit-and-run style. In 1841 the French destroyed Abd el-Kader’s fortified sites in Algeria, whereupon the amir fled to Oran on the northwest coast. Another defeat at the northwestern town of Tlemcen the following year seemed at last to have crushed out the resistance movement, but Abd el-Kader managed to escape to Morocco, where the sultan Abdurrahman aided him by sending troops to the Algerian border. General Bugeaud defeated the Moroccans soundly at the Battle of Isly on August 14, opposing some 40,000 men of the two native leaders with his 8,000 infantrymen and superior artillery. Sultan Abdurrahman concluded the Treaty of Tangier on September 10, 1844, with the French, effectively ending Moroccan support for Abd el-Kader. Despite the setback, Abd el-Kader reentered Algeria and continued his program of resistance from the interior of the country, where he was able to evade the encroaching French columns.

By July 1846 the French had virtually wiped out Algerian resistance, and Abd el-Kader once again sought refuge in Morocco. This time, however, the sultan viewed Abd el-Kader as a liability and refused to admit him. Denied this last refuge and weary after some 15 years of resistance, Abd el-Kader surrendered in 1847 to Bugeaud’s successor, Louis-Philippe’s son, General Christophe de Lamoricière (1806–65). Sent to France, where he was imprisoned, Abd el-Kader was pardoned by Louis-Napoleon (1808–73) in 1852 and returned to Algeria a national hero.

Further reading: Charles Henry Churchill, The Life of Abdel Kader, Ex-Sultan of the Arabs of Algeria (London: Chapman and Hall, 1867); Roland Oliver and Anthony Atmore, Africa since 1800 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Abd el-Kader, Second War of (1835–1837)

Abd el-Kader, Second War of (1835–1837)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Amir Abd el-Kader of Oran vs. competing tribes and French colonial forces

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Chelir, Miliana, Media, and Macta, Algeria

DECLARATION: No formal declaration


MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Independence from French colonial rule

OUTCOME: The Amir was made master of the entire interior of Oran and the Titteri, reducing the French colonial realm to a few seaports only.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: 30,000 French; 45,000 Algerians

CASUALTIES: French casualties in Algeria from 1830 to 1847 were nearly 10,000 killed and 35,000 wounded. Untold numbers of French legionnaires also died (some 110,000 in all French adventures during the 19th century). Algerian casualties, while in the tens of thousands, are not known.

TREATIES: Treaty of Tafna, 1837


The Treaty of Desmichels in 1834 between the French colonial government and Muslim nationalist leader Abd el-Kader (1808–83) gave the Algerian ruler control of the whole interior of Oran, where he organized an efficient government headquartered in the capital city of Mascara, trained and supplied an army of volunteers, and subsequently renewed his war of harassment against the French colonials in 1835. (See ABD EL-KADER, FIRST WAR OF.) His first objective, however, was to spread Algerian nationalism to the desert tribes around Mascara in order to unify his new territories. The Second War of Abd el-Kader, which lasted from 1835 to 1837, served the dual purposes of unification and resistance.During the war Abd el-Kader imposed his rule on all the tribes of the Chelif into the Titteri. He then enlisted the desert tribes into his militia and proceeded to occupy the territory of Meliana and, eventually, Medea. At Macta Abd el-Kader defeated the French in a decisive battle,which forced the French commander, General Thomas- Robert Bugeaud (1784–1849), into negotiations. This was a humiliation for the French Foreign Legion, newly created by King Louis-Philippe (1773–1850) to combat Abdel Kader and other rebels. The resulting Treaty of Tafna in 1837, signed by Bugeaud and Abd el-Kader, made the amir master of the entire interior of Oran and the Titteri, reducing the French colonial realm to a few seaports only and creating the basis for another war, the Third War of ABD EL-KADER, which was destined to last seven years.

Further reading: Charles Henry Churchill, The Life of Abdel Kader, Ex-Sultan of the Arabs of Algeria (London: Chapman and Hall, 1867); Roland Oliver and Anthony Atmore, Africa since 1800 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Abd el-Kader, First War of (1832–1834)

Abd el-Kader, First War of (1832–1834)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Muslim nationalists led by Amir Abd el-Kader vs. French colonial forces

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Oran and Mostaganem, Algeria

DECLARATION: No formal declaration

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Independence from French colonial rule

OUTCOME: The French conceded control of the interior of Oran to Abd el-Kader.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: 3,200 French legionnaires; number of Muslim nationals:unknown

CASUALTIES: French casualties in Algeria from 1830 to 1847 were nearly 10,000 killed and 35,000 wounded.Untold numbers of foreign legionnaires also died. Algerian casualties were in the tens of thousands.

TREATIES: Desmichels Treaty, 1834


In 1827 the dey of Algiers accosted the French consul with a fly-whisk, an act for which he refused to apologize, thereby giving the French a pretext for invading the North African country, which they did in 1830. Offering little resistance, the dey went into exile, and a loosely organized French colonial government was established. Lacking experience in ruling a Muslim society, the French were able to exercise control only in the coastal areas around Algiers, leaving considerable authority in the hands of provincial leaders in the hinterlands. Among those leaders was Abd el-Kader (1808–83), a young Algerian nationalist who ruled Mascara. A brilliant military strategist and devout Muslim, Abd el-Kader organized a relentless campaign of harassment against the French that resulted in a 15-year series of wars. The First War of Abd el-Kader lasted from 1832 to 1834 and was triggered by the violence with which the French attempted to impose their policies on the Algerians after King Louis-Philippe (1773–1850) created the French Foreign Legion on March 10, 1831, to battle colonial insurgency. Some 3,000 legionnaires, 2,196 of them German and 571 Italian, had arrived in Algeria by December 1, 1832. Abd el-Kader organized small bands of guerrillas to attack French troops around Oran and Mostaganem. Riding the growing tide of nationalism in Algeria, he was able to transform the guerrilla resistance movement into a fullfledged struggle for independence. The French, poorly organized, finally conceded to Abd el-Kader in 1834 by signing the Desmichels Treaty, which not only gave him the whole interior of Oran but also the title of Commander of the Believers. More importantly, the Desmichels Treaty secured Abd el-Kader’s position as champion of Arab Algerian nationalism, a movement that would sweep aside the fragile peace of Desmichels within less than a year.

See also ABD EL-KADER, SECONDWAR OF; ABD EL-KADER, THIRDWAR OF.

Further reading: Charles Henry Churchill, The Life of Abdel Kader, Ex-Sultan of the Arabs of Algeria (London: Chapman and Hall, 1867); Roland Oliver and Anthony Atmore, Africa since 1800 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Abbasid Rebellion (Abu Muslim’s Revolt) (747–750)

Abbasid Rebellion (Abu Muslim’s Revolt)(747–750)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: The Muslim Arab Abbasids vs. Persia’s ruling family, the Ummayyads

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Khorasan, Persia

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: At issue was who should rule the Muslim empire; the Abbasids wanted the throne;the Ummayyads sought to prevent them from taking it.

OUTCOME: The last Ummayyad caliph was deposed and murdered; Abu al-Abbas became the first Abbasid caliph,establishing a new dynasty.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

In 747 Muslim Arabs, claiming descent from Al-Abbas (d. 653), the uncle of the prophet Muhammad (570–632), revolted in Persia against the Ummayyad dynasty, which then ruled the Arab world (most of today’s Middle East, the African coast of the Mediterranean, and the Iberian Peninsula). These “Abbasids,” were led by Abu Muslim (728–755), a man from obscure and lowly origins in Persia. Befriending the Abbasid imam in Persia, he became the agent of the family’s ascension to power. Under Abu Muslim’s black banners, the Abbasids stormed the Ummayyad city of Merv in the northeastern province of Khorasan in 748. The Ummayyad caliph, Marwan III (d. 750) attempted to crush the Abbasids, only to see his forces soundly defeated by them at the battles of Nishapur, Jurjan, Nehawand, and Kerbela. The revolt quickly spread from Persia to other areas of the Muslim empire. Marwan rallied those faithful to him and led them personally to battle but was defeated again, this time decisively, at Mesopotamia’s Great Zab River in 750. The caliph fled to Egypt and exile and, once there, was murdered. By then the general uprising in Persia and Mesopotamia had permitted Abu Muslim’s confederate, Abu al-Abbas as-Saffan (722–754), to declare himself caliph at Kufa, a Mesopotamian city on the Euphrates River. Abul Abbas thus became the first ruler in Persia’s Abbasid dynasty.

Further reading: Mas’Udi, The Meadows of Gold: The Abbasids (London: Kegan Paul, 1989); James E. Montgomery, Abbasid Studies: Occasional Papers of the School of Abbasid Studies, Cambridge, 6–10 July 2002 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); M. Z. Shaban, The Abbasid Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).