Ottoman-Druse War (1631–1635)

Ottoman-Druse War (1631–1635)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Empire vs. the Druse

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Lebanon

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Suppression of the Druse

OUTCOME: The Druse were defeated, and their leader,

Fakhr ad-Din, executed.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:

Ottoman forces, 80,000; Druse, 25,000

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

Exiled to Tuscany after the OTTOMAN-DRUSE WAR

(1611–1613), Fakhr ad-Din II (1572–1635) returned to

Lebanon in 1618, then continued a program of territorial

expansion and opposition to the Sublime Porte (the government

of the Ottoman Empire). Armed exchanges were

taking place by 1631, and, in 1633, Sultan Murad IV

(1609–40) sent a major amphibious expedition against

the Druse. While Murad’s fleet blockaded the coast of

Lebanon, an 80,000-man army (made up of Syrians and

Egyptians) defeated a Druse army numbering 25,000 men

(and consisting of Maronites and mercenary troops in

addition to the Druse). Fakhr fled the field and took

refuge in the mountains. One of his sons was immediately

captured and executed, and Fakhr was captured in 1634

and executed the following year, as were two more of his

sons. This brought an end to the war, but not to the Druse

presence and influence in the region. As a ruling dynasty

(called the Ma’n), the line of Fakhr ad-Din ended in 1697.

See also TURKO-PERSIAN WAR (1623–1638).

Further reading: M. A. Cook, ed., A History of the

Ottoman Empire to 1730 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press, 1976); Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Hori-

zon: A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,

2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

Otto the Great, Conquests of (942–972)

Otto the Great, Conquests of (942–972)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Otto I vs. various rebels within
Germany; Otto vs. the Slavs of middle Europe; Otto vs.
the Magyars; Germany vs. France; Germany vs. Italy

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Central Europe and northern Italy

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Otto I sought to centralize
German-speaking Europe and expand his kingdom.

OUTCOME: Otto consolidated the German Reich and
gained hegemony over much of Europe.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: At
Lechfeld, Otto led an army of 10,000.

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

The son of Germany’s Henry I (c. 876–936), Otto I (the
Great; 912–73) consolidated the German Reich by suppressing
rebellious vassals (led by Thanknar, his half
brother, and Henry, his younger brother) in the GERMAN
CIVIL WARS (938–941) and ultimately by winning a decisive
victory against the Hungarians at the battle of
Lechfeld in 955 (see MAGYAR RAID, GREAT). But Otto’s
ambition stretched beyond Germany, and even as he
was quelling the early rebellions against his reign, he
took the time to strengthen and expand his kingdom’s
frontiers.
In the East, he attacked and defeated the Slavs, consolidating
his gains by founding a monastery in Magdeburg in
941 and establishing two bishoprics in 948. In the North,
he extended Christendom into Denmark, establishing four
bishoprics there by 968. However, an early campaign in
Bohemia failed, and it took Otto till 950 to force its prince,
Boleslav I (d. 967), to submit and pay tribute.
Otto was then in a position to deny any French claims
to Lorraine, which he had taken when be put down the
French-backed rebellion of 939 to 941. He also assumed
the role of mediator in France’s internal struggles. He held
a similar sway over Burgundy. In fact, when Burgundian
princess Adelaide, the widowed queen of Italy, appealed to
him after being taken prisoner by the Lombard prince
Berengar (c. 900–966), Otto marched into Italy in 951,
declared himself king of the Lombards, and married Adelaide
(his first wife having died). Berengar became his vassal
for the kingdom of Italy.
Otto was forced to cut his first Italian campaign
short when a revolt broke out in Germany in 953. Led by
his son Liudolf (930–957), and backed by Conrad (d.
955), duke of Lorraine, and Frederick, bishop of Mainz,
the rebellion at first succeeded, forcing Otto to withdraw
to Saxony. But the rebellion began to fail when the Magyar
invasion allowed Otto to paint the rebels as traitors
and enemies of the Reich in league with the invaders. In
955, not only did Otto defeat the Magyars so decisively at
Lechfeld that they never invaded again, he also captured
the rebel stronghold at Regensburg, ending the rebellion.
That year, too, Otto also won another major victory over
the Slavs, which he followed with a series of campaigns
that, by 960, had forced the utter subjugation of all the
Slavs between the middle Elbe and the middle Oder
rivers. By 968, even Mieszko (Mieczyslaw I) (c.
930–992), prince of Poland, was paying tribute to the
German king.
Meanwhile, Otto’s old enemy and former vassal Berengar,
free of German interference, was now threatening
Rome. Pope John XII (d. 964) appealed to the German
king for help. Otto’s price was the Holy Roman Empire.
When Otto arrived in Rome on February 2, 962, he was
crowned emperor, and 11 days later, he and the pope
reached an agreement called the Privilegium Ottoianum,
which regulated relations between emperor and pope and
gave the emperor the right to ratify papal elections. Some
say this provision was added later by Otto after he
deposed John XII in December for treating with Berengar.
In any case, Otto replaced John with Leo VIII (d. 965) as
pope, then captured Berengar and dragged him back to
Germany. In 966, Otto was back in Italy for a third campaign,
this time to suppress a revolt by the Romans against
his puppet pontiff, Leo VIII. Since Leo had been deposed
by Benedict V (d. 966), and had since died, in 972 Otto
appointed a new pope, John XIII (d. 972).
Otto consolidated the German Reich and gave it peace
and security from foreign attack. Enjoying something
approaching hegemony over Europe, Germany under his
rule experienced a cultural flowering that some scholars
call the “Ottonian renaissance.”

See also MAGYAR RAIDS IN FRANCE; MAGYAR RAIDS IN
THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE; MAGYAR RAID INTO EUROPE,
FIRST.

Further reading: G. Barraclough, The Origins of Modern
Germany (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1947); K. J. Leyser,
Rule and Conflict in Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1984).

Ottoman-Druse War (1611–1613)

Ottoman-Druse War (1611–1613)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Empire (through the
pasha of Damascus) vs. Fakhr ad-Din II and the Druse of
Lebanon

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Lebanon

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Ottoman sultan
wanted to punish the Druse for an unauthorized alliance
with Tuscany (Holy Roman Empire).

OUTCOME: Fakhr ad-Din was driven into exile.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Druse army, 40,000; pasha’s forces were larger

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

Fakhr ad-Din II (1572–1635), emir of the Druse in
Lebanon, made the Druse dominant in the region. In
1608, when he struck an alliance with Tuscany—effectively
an alliance with the Holy Roman Empire—Ottoman
sultan Ahmed (1589–1617) ordered the pasha of Damascus
to conduct a punitive expedition against the Druse.
Fakhr commanded an army of 40,000, a formidable force
that readily countered the Ottoman action. The pasha
mounted a larger assault in 1613, which defeated the
Druse and sent Fakhr fleeing into Tuscan exile. (He
returned in 1618 at the invitation of a new sultan, Osman
II [1604–22].)

See also AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1591–1606); TURKOPERSIAN
WAR (1603–1612).

Further reading: M. A. Cook, ed., A History of the
Ottoman Empire to 1730 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1976); Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,
2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

Ottoman-Druse War (1585)

Ottoman-Druse War (1585)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Turks vs. Lebanese Druse

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Lebanon

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Ottomans sought to
suppress rebellion among the Druse.

OUTCOME: The Druse rebellion was suppressed, but, in
Lebanon, the Druse remained an important political force.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

The Islamic sect known as the Druse was small but important
during the 16th century. The Ottoman sultan Selim I
(1467–1520) sought to placate Druse interests by naming
Lebanon’s Fakhr ad-Din (d. 1544) emir of the Ottoman
Empire’s Druse. However, in 1585, the Shi’ite ruler of
Tripoli, Yusuf Sayfa (fl. 1580s), led an insurrection against
the Ottoman sultan. The rebel forces encompassed a number
of religious groups, including Druse led by Korkmaz
(1544–85), the son of Fakhr ad-Din. The Ottomans put
down the rebellion and executed Korkmaz. He was succeeded
first by his uncle and then by Fakhr ad-Din II
(1572–1635), grandson of Fakhr ad-Din. Although nominally
under Ottoman control, the Druse came to dominate
Lebanese politics.

See also MAMLUK-PERSIAN-OTTOMAN WAR (1516–
1517).

Further reading: Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador, 2003);
Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The
Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001).

Ottoman Conquest of Bulgaria (1369–1372)

Ottoman Conquest of Bulgaria (1369–1372)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Turks (principally the
Janissary corps) vs. the Bulgarians and Serbs

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Bulgaria and Macedonia

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Conquest of eastern
Europe

OUTCOME: The Ottomans seized control of Bulgaria and
much of Macedonia.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

Under Murad I (1319–89), the Ottoman Empire pressed a
program of invasion and expansion into eastern Europe.
The conquest of Bulgaria was accomplished chiefly by the
elite corps of troops Murad created. The Janissaries were
former Christians who had been captured in childhood
and raised as violently fanatic Muslims. Murad harnessed
their fanaticism by shaping them into a disciplined body
of infantry archers. The Janissary victory at the Battle of
Cernomen in 1371 neutralized Serb resistance in the
region of the Maritza River and led to the conquest not
only of Bulgaria, but Macedonia as well.
Over the next half millennium, the Janissaries would
figure as an extremely powerful—and ultimately self-serving—
force in Ottoman history.

Further reading: Godfrey Goodwin, The Janissaries
(London: Saqi Books, 1997); Colin Imber, Ottoman
Empire: 1300–1650 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003);
Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age,
1300–1600 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001).

Ottoman Civil War (1559)

Ottoman Civil War (1559)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Son of Süleyman I the
Magnificent, Selim vs. his brother, Bayazid

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the
Ottoman sultanate

OUTCOME: Selim prevailed against Bayazid, who was
executed.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

Süleyman I (the Magnificent; 1496–1566), was warned by
his favorite wife, Roxelana (d. 1559), that his eldest son,
Mustafa (d. 1553), was plotting against him. This was
untrue, but the sultan did not pause to investigate;
instead, he had Mustafa arrested and beheaded in 1553.
This left the sons Süleyman had had by Roxelana in position
to inherit the throne; however, upon Roxelana’s
death, the two young men, Selim (c. 1524–74), and Bayazid
(d. 1561), fell to disputing their inheritance. Bayazid
raised an army to oppose Selim, Süleyman’s favorite. Selim
defeated Bayazid at the Battle of Konya in 1559, whereupon
Bayazid fled to Persia. Süleyman subsequently
authorized Selim to dispatch executioners to Persia and
paid Shahtahmasp I (r. 1524–76) to deliver Bayazid into
their hands. Bayazid was killed in 1561.

Further reading: Andre Clot: Suleiman the Magnificent:
The Man, His Life, His Epoch (London: Saqi Books,
1992); Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon: A History of
the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador, 2003); Colin
Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: the
Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001).

Ottoman Civil War (1509–1513)

Ottoman Civil War (1509–1513)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Bayazid II vs. his sons

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the
Ottoman sultanate

OUTCOME: Selim prevailed over his father and brothers
and assumed the throne as Selim I.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Casualties included 40,000 Anatolian Shi’ites
slain.

TREATIES: None

Although Bayazid II (1447–1513) had inherited a considerable
empire from his father, Muhammad, or Mehmet, II
(1429–81), he was never able to undertake the new conquests
in Europe that the expansion-minded old sultan
might have imagined to be the Ottoman legacy. For one
thing, Bayazid had to turn much of his attention in the
later years of his life to internal rebellion, especially in
eastern Anatolia, where Turkoman nomads resisted not
just the extension of the Ottoman administrative bureaucracy
but also the empire’s Sunni orthodoxy. They developed
a fanatical attachment to the Sufi and Shi’ite mystic
orders, the most successful of which, the Safavids, used a
combined religious and military appeal to conquer most of
Persia. They then spread a message of religious heresy and
political revolt, not only among the tribesmen but also to
farmers and some city dwellers, Ottoman citizens who
were beginning to imagine in this movement the answers
to their own problems.
At the same time, Bayazid was having trouble with the
Janissaries who had been so instrumental in his own rise to
power (see OTTOMAN CIVIL WAR [1481–1482]). Whereas
Bayazid wished to name his son Ahmed (d. 1513) as his
successor, the Janissaries much preferred his brother, Selim
(1467–1520), governor of Trebizond. Bayazid, who had
been put on the throne by the Janissaries despite his peaceloving
nature, had throughout his reign only carried out
military activities with reluctance, and Ahmed seemed to
share his father’s personality. Selim, on the other hand, like
the mercenary Janissaries, longed to return to Muhammad
II’s aggressive style of conquest. When Bayazid seemed to be
prepared to abdicate in Ahmed’s favor, Selim, governor of
Trebizond, led an army to Adrianople, demanding that he
be given a European province to govern. He wanted to
ensure that he had sufficient power to topple Ahmed.
Bayazid refused to accede to Selim’s demand, and Selim was
defeated in battle. He returned to Trebizond in 1509.
Then, in 1511, all the grievances disturbing the empire
coalesced into a fundamentally religious uprising against
the central government. The Shi’ite Turkoman nomads
rebelled and took Bursa, the old Ottoman capital, about 150
miles from Adrianople. Bayazid dispatched his grand vizier
Ali Posa (fl. 1512) with a force to put down the Turkoman
rebellion, an action that left him vulnerable to Ahmed’s
pressure for abdication. The Janissaries threatened to revolt
if Ahmed ascended the throne, so Bayazid decided not to
abdicate. This prompted Ahmed to join with another
brother, Kortud (d. 1513), in a rebellion in Anatolia. However,
in 1512, Selim, backed by Persian allies, defeated
Ahmed, then advanced to Adrianople. With the aid of the
Janissaries, he at last compelled Bayazid’s abdication. Both
Bayazid and Kortud were soon dead—poisoned. Selim pursued
Ahmed, who was defeated in battle in 1513. Captured,
he was put to death by strangulation. To ensure that he
would now rule unopposed, Selim—now Selim I—ordered
the deaths of all seven of his nephews, and four of his five
sons. He then massacred 40,000 Anatolian Shi’ites to prevent
another Turkoman rebellion. With his sultanate
secure, Selim could then turn to new conquests.

See also PERSIAN CIVIL WAR (1500–1503); TURKOPERSIAN
WAR (1514–1516).

Further reading: Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,
2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman
Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix
Press, 2001).

Ottoman Civil War (1481–1482)

Ottoman Civil War (1481–1482)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Bayazid II vs. Djem

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the
Ottoman sultanate following the death of Muhammad II
the Conqueror

OUTCOME: Djem was defeated several times and
ultimately fled to Rhodes, where he was imprisoned for
the rest of his life.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

Although Sultan Muhammad, or Mehmed II (the Conqueror;
1429–1481) had greatly expanded the Ottoman
Empire, leaving a firm foundation for the great future conquests
of the 16th-century sultans, his death left unresolved
many of the problems caused by his internal policies. The
taxes he had imposed to finance his conquests, for example,
had led during the last year of his reign to a virtual civil war
in Constantinople between major factions of the janissaries
and the Turkish aristocracy. Muhammad’s son, Bayazid
(1447–1513), left Amaysa to assume the throne at the
behest of the Janissaries, who dominated the capital militarily
and whom Bayazid had courted with promises of a full
amnesty for their rebellion and an increase in pay for their
services, the latter always a key attraction for mercenary
troops. Bayazid II’s first act was to kill the grand vizier, who
had backed the other candidate for Muhammad’s throne,
Djem (1459–95), governor of Karaman and Bayazid’s
younger brother, who had already been proclaimed sultan
in the old Ottoman capital of Bursa. Djem proposed to his
brother that Bayazid rule Ottoman Europe and let Djem
assume control of Anatolia. Bayazid rejected this proposal.
He then managed to conciliate the nobility with his essentially
pacific plans for consolidating his father’s empire,
which downgraded the Janissaries. Bereft of his major support,
Djem nevertheless came to fight. The two met in battle
at Yenishehr in 1481. Defeated, Djem fled into exile in
Mamluk Syria in the summer of 1481. In Cairo, he regrouped,
and, in 1482, renewed his attack on Bayazid II,
this time with Mamluk aid. Djem failed, however, to recruit
support in Karaman, where the Turkoman nomads he had
hoped to rally were instead attracted to Bayazid’s heterodoxy.
Consequently, Djem was again defeated by his
brother. This time, he fled to Rhodes, where the Knights
Hospitalers kept him a captive—apparently at the request of
Bayazid II, who paid them an annual fee for the service.
However, another condition of Djem’s captivity—either
explicit or understood—was that the Ottomans refrain from
attacking Europe. For 13 years, Bayazid II left Europe
unmolested, fearing that the Knights Hospitalers would
release Djem. Upon Djem’s death (by poisoning, probably
on Bayazid’s orders), Bayazid launched the VENETIAN-TURKISHWAR
(1499–1503).

Further reading: Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,
2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman
Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix
Press, 2001).

Ottoman Civil War (1403–1413)

Ottoman Civil War (1403–1413)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Four sons of Sultan Bayazid I of
the Ottoman Empire

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the
Ottoman sultanate

OUTCOME: After a long civil war, one son emerged
victorious and ruled as Muhammad I.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

When Sultan Bayazid I (1347–1403) was killed at the Battle
of Angora in 1403, his death began a period known as
the Interregnum, during which four of his six sons tore
the fledgling Ottoman Empire apart in their quest for
domination of the sultanate. Muhammad, or Mehmed I
(1389–1421), captured Karaman and made this city his
stronghold. Süleyman (d. 1411) had control of the empire’s
European territories. Both Isa Bey (d. 1405) and
Mustafa, or Musa Bey (d. 1413), took territories in Anatolia
Turkey.
Süleyman struck an alliance with the Byzantine
Empire in 1405 and met Isa in battle. Defeating Isa’s
army, he strangled his brother. Mustafa attacked Süleyman
in 1406, fighting him and the Byzantine co-emperor
John VIII Palaeologue (1390–1448) in Thrace. When
Mustafa’s Serbian and Bulgarian allies fled the field, however,
Süleyman was able to take Adrianople (Edirne), the
Ottoman European capital. Mustafa regrouped, assembling
an army of Turks and Wallachians, against Adrianople.
In the course of the battle, Mustafa persuaded
Süleyman’s contingent of Janissaries to defect to his side,
and Süleyman was captured. Mustafa had him strangled
as well.
After the death of Süleyman, Mustafa laid siege to
Constantinople but suffered defeat at sea. Despite this
loss, Mustafa was still more powerful than Muhammad
and was dominant in the region. He attacked Serbia in
1406 and conquered Salonika, blinding its ruler, a son of
Süleyman. Muhammad, however, with a large Turkish
force and allied with the Byzantines, lifted Mustafa’s siege
of Constantinople and regained the loyalty of the Janissaries.
He waged unremitting war on Mustafa, fighting
him in three separate battles before he definitively defeated
his brother in 1413. Like Isa and Süleyman, Mustafa
was executed by strangulation. Muhammad I
assumed the Ottoman throne and set about rebuilding the
empire.

Further reading: Ducas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium
to the Ottoman Turks, trans. Harry J. Magonlias. (Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1975); Jason Goodwin,
Lords of the Horizon: A History of the Ottoman Empire (New
York: Picador, 2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire:
1300–1650 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Halil
Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600
(London: Phoenix Press, 2001).

Oswald’s Wars (1633–641)

Oswald’s Wars (1633–641)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Oswald, king of Bernicia, and
Penda, king of Mercia vs. Cadwallon, king of Gwynedd,
Wales; later, Oswald vs. Penda

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): England, primarily Northumbria
and Wales

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Domination over Anglo-
Saxon England

OUTCOME: Oswald amassed a large Anglo-Saxon
kingdom, but was killed in battle by his former ally,
Penda, who elevated Mercia to a long period of
dominance over Anglo-Saxon England.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: No documents survive

During the Middle Ages, England was a region of fragmented
kingdoms. The death of Edwin (585–632), king of
Deira, enabled Oswald (c. 605–641), son of the Bernician
king Aethelfrith (fl. 593–616), to regain dominance of
both Bernicia and Deira after he had been exiled from
Northumbria (the region encompassing Bernicia and
Deira) in 616. With King Penda (c. 577–655) of Mercia,
Oswald now attacked King Cadwallon (d. 634) of
Gwynedd, in northern Wales. After a year of combat, the
forces of Cadwallon were defeated, and Cadwallon himself
killed at the Battle of Heavenfield in 634.
Oswald now fought to secure his Northumbrian borders
and extend his realms south. Along with battle, he
used a dynastic marriage to secure control of Wessex.
This, however, turned his ally Penda against him, and the
two led armies into combat at the Battle of Maserfeld in
641. There Oswald fell, propelling Penda and the kingdom
of Mercia to dominance over Anglo-Saxon England. Mercia
would come to dominate England for a century and a
half. Oswald, who had tried to bring peace to his realm
and who founded a famous monastery at Lindisfarne to
bring Christianity into pagan Northumbria, was later canonized.

See also AETHEBALD’SWARS (733–750); AETHELFRITH’S
WARS (593–616).

Further reading: Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,
3rd ed. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1971).

Oruro Revolt (1736–1737)

Oruro Revolt (1736–1737)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Spain vs. the Oruro Indians

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Central Peru

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Rebellion against
intolerable working and living conditions in the mines of
central Peru

OUTCOME: The rebels sacked the city of Oruro, but the
rebellion was extinguished by Spanish colonial troops.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

The Oruro Indians of Peru were treated essentially as
slaves by the mine owners in the central portion of that
colony. The horrific conditions drove the Oruros to desperation,
and they rallied behind Juan Santos, who led
them in revolt. In 1737, they overran the city of Oruro
before colonial troops put down the rebellion.

Further reading: J.R. Fisher, Silver Mines and Silver
Miners in Colonial Peru, 1776–1824 (Liverpool: Centre for
Latin-American Studies, University of Liverpool, 1977).

Orléans, Siege of (1429)

Orléans, Siege of (1429)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: English forces for Henry VI and
Burgundian allies vs. Joan of Arc and forces for the
French heir Charles

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): City of Orléans in southern
France

DECLARATION: No formal declaration

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: A contest for the French
throne following the death of King Charles VI.

OUTCOME: The dauphin ascended to the throne.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
English, 5,000; Joan was accompanied to Orléans by
several hundred troops.

CASUALTIES: English, 500 killed or captured; French,
unknown

TREATIES: None

In 1420, during the HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR, England’s King
Henry V (1387–1422) became heir to the French throne,
by courtesy of the Treaty of Troyes, upon the death of
French king Charles VI (1368–1422). The deal was
denounced by Charles’s son, the dauphin, and his followers,
and when Charles died, the dauphin claimed the crown
as Charles VII (1403–61). Unfortunately, the English, too,
decided to press their claim, and they allied with Philip III
(the Good; 1396–1467), duke of Burgundy—whose forces
controlled much of northern France—to keep Charles from
taking the throne. As it happened, Henry V died the same
year as Charles VI, so it was not he but his infant son,
Henry VI (1421–71), in whose name the English regent,
John Plantagenet (1389–1435), duke of Bedford, took control
of English holdings in northern France. Five years after
the death of this father, Charles VII had not yet been
crowned, since Reims, traditional site of French coronations,
lay under the control of his enemies.
Even worse, Bedford soon attacked the south, sending
5,000 troops to conquer Maine, a border region between
those French lands recognizing Henry of England as king
and those recognizing Charles as king. After taking Maine,
Thomas de Montacute (d. 1428), earl of Salisbury,
launched the siege of Orléans, a city which had become
key to maintaining the dauphin’s ambition. Not only the
French were unhappy with Salisbury. His action had been
taken against the advice of the duke of Bedford himself,
who argued for an advance into Anjou instead. Salisbury
managed to capture some important places upstream and
downstream from Orléans, along with the bridgehead fort
on the south bank of the Loire River opposite the city
itself, before he died from a battle wound on November 3.
His successor in command, William de la Pole (1396–
1450), earl of Suffolk, did little to advance the siege before
December of 1428, when John Talbot (1384–1453 [later earl
of Shrewsbury]) and Thomas Scales arrived to push him forward.
Under their influence the English began to build
impressive siegeworks, including forts, and to press harder
on the city, and a French attempt to cut the besiegers’ line of
supply was defeated in the Battle of the Herrings on February
12, 1429. Still, as the weeks went by, Orléans held out.
Part of the reason lay with a young French peasant
girl, the deeply religious Joan of Arc (1412–31), who
would lead the defense against the siege after forcing an
audience with the dauphin and persuading him to accept
what she saw as her divine mission to save the city. In fact,
the defenders, under Jean d’Orléans (1403–68), comte de
Dunois (bastard son of Charles VII’s late uncle Louis, duc
d’Orléans [1372–1407]), were considering capitulation
when Joan had her audience. At length, she persuaded
Charles to send an army to relieve the besieged town.
With several hundred of the dauphin’s troops, Joan set
out for Orléans. From Chézy five miles upstream, Joan
distracted the English with a diversionary feint against
one of the English forts, and entered Orléans with supplies
on April 30. On May 4 she attacked the principal
English forts, and within three days they had all been
stormed. Suffolk abandoned the siege. What was more,
the English were forced out of Troyes, Châlons, and
Reims. There, at last, Charles was crowned. Although ultimately
the English would execute Joan as a witch and a
heretic, the “Maid of Orléans” had loosened England’s grip
on French lands for good.

See also ROSES, WARS OF THE.

Further reading: Anne Curry, The Hundred Years War
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Desmond Stewart,
The Hundred Years’ War: England in France, 1337–1453
(New York: Penguin USA, 1999); Jonathan Sumption, The
Hundred Years’ War: Trial by Fire (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 2000).

Orange River War (1846–1850)

Orange River War (1846–1850)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: The Boers vs. Great Britain

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): South Africa, between the Vaal
and Orange rivers

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Frontier conflict between
colonial rivals

OUTCOME: Inconclusive, although the British beat back a
Boer incursion across the Vaal River

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Boers, 1,000; British, 1,000

CASUALTIES: 100 killed or wounded on both sides

TREATIES: None

Throughout much of the 19th century, the Boers (Dutch
colonial farmers of South Africa) came into increasing
conflict with the British who had control of the region.
During 1835–37, some 12,000 Boers migrated northward
and established their own independent states. Along the
frontier between these new Boer states and the British
colonial holdings warfare developed during 1846–50.
There was only a single set battle, and no war was formally
declared. However, the chronic conflict near the
Great Kei River and in the area between the Orange River
and the Vaal River was dubbed the Orange River War.
The single major battle of the war, at Boomplaats, on
August 29, 1848, resulted in the defeat of the Orange
Colony Boers under General Andreas Pretorius (1798–
1853) by a British force commanded by Sir Harry Smith
(1787–1860). As a result, the Boers retreated across the
Vaal, but violence continued sporadically.

See also BOER UPRISING; BOER WAR, FIRST; BOER WAR,
SECOND; BOER-ZULU WAR; JAMESON RAID.

Further reading: Leonard Thompson, A History of
South Africa (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
2001).

Oranges, War of the (1801)

Oranges, War of the (1801)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: France and Spain vs. Portugal

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Portugal

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: France wanted Portuguese
cessions of territory and concessions of trade; under
pressure from Napoleon, Spain cooperated in war against
Portugal.

OUTCOME: Portugal ceded territory in Brazil and
Portugal and made other concessions; Napoleon was
unsatisfied.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Treaty of Badajoz, June 6, 1801

Threatened by Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769–
1821), Spain joined France in a brief war to compel Portugal
to cede much of its territory to France and to close its
ports to British trade. French forces, joined by Spanish
troops under General Manuel Godoy (1767–1851), invaded
in April 1801. The Portuguese were defeated along the
Spanish border at the Battle of Olivenza, whereupon Godoy
sent to the queen of Spain a basket of oranges picked at
nearby Elvas, with a message announcing his intention to
march to Lisbon. However, Portugal quickly agreed to the
Treaty of Badajoz on June 6, 1801, shutting its ports to
British trade, granting special trading status to France, ceding
Olivenza to Spain, ceding part of Brazil to France, and
paying monetary reparations. Napoleon, wanting more of
Portugal itself, denounced the treaty, prompting Spain to
take a stand against France. Napoleon threatened to devastate
both Spain and Portugal, but he was unable to make
good on his threat because of war pressures elsewhere.

See also NAPOLEONIC WARS.

Further reading: David Chandler, Campaigns of
Napoleon (London: Cassell, 1997); Charles J. Esdaile, The
Wars of Napoleon (London: Pearson, 1996); Gunther Eric
Rothenberg, The Napoleonic Wars (London: Cassell,
1999).

Oporto, Revolution at (1820)

Oporto, Revolution at (1820)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Oporto Jacobins vs. Great Britain

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Oporto and Lisbon, Portugal

DECLARATION: Coup of August 24, 1820

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Jacobins sought the
ouster of the British regency in Portugal.

OUTCOME: In a bloodless revolution, the British regency
was evicted and the Portuguese king returned to his
throne as a constitutional monarch.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: None

TREATIES: None

As a result of the British victory over Napoleon Bonaparte
(1769–1821) in the PENINSULAR WAR from 1808 to 1814,
Portugal came under the rule of a British regency, its king,
John VI (1769–1826), having fled to Brazil to establish a
government in exile. During the regency, Portuguese radical
nationalists—popularly called Jacobins—fomented
rebellion, calling for the removal of the British marshal in
charge of the Portuguese army, William Carr Beresford
(1768–1854). To counter the Jacobin movement, Beresford
went to Brazil in an effort to persuade the king to
return. In Beresford’s absence, on August 24, 1820, the
Jacobin Club of Oporto conspired with high-ranking military
officers to stage a coup d’état. A junta was summarily
established, and the revolution was accomplished with
nothing more than a volley of musket fire.
The revolution spread to the Portuguese capital, Lisbon,
within a matter of days. A quick revolt took place on
September 15, 1820, and the junta ousted the regency
and convened a session of the Cortes (parliament). The
small contingent of British military was ejected from the
country, Beresford was recalled to Britain, and John VI
did return to Portugal, without the intermediation of a
foreign regency and as a constitutional monarch. The
king had left his first son behind as Emperor Pedro I
(1798–1834) of Brazil, but his second son, Don Miguel
(1842–66) could not reconcile his father’s return with his
own ideas of absolute monarchy and his own ambitions
for such a crown. Backed by his Braganza family in Portugal,
he tried to extend their dynasty in a stop-and-go
rebellion that ultimately led to the MIGUELITE WARS
(1828–34).

See also BRAZILIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE; PORTUGUESE
CIVIL WAR (1823–1824); SPANISH CIVIL WAR
(1820–1823).

Further reading: James M. Anderson, History of Portugal
(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group,
2000); Antonio Henrique R. De Oliveira Marques, History
of Portugal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972);
H. V. Livermore, A New History of Portugal (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1976).

Opium War, Second (1856–1860)

Opium War, Second (1856–1860)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Great Britain and France vs.
China

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): The China coast

DECLARATION: England and France attacked China after
the Arrow, a Chinese-owned ship flying the British flag,
was seized by the Chinese.

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: After the First Opium
War, the British and the French (and other Western
powers, including the United States) sought further trade
concessions and, once again, used China’s enforcement of
its ban on the opium trade as an excuse to go to war and
get them.

OUTCOME: China was forced to open more of its ports to
British and other foreign trade and to grant Great Britain
further land around Hong Kong in a “lease” to last 99 years

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Anglo-French forces, 17,700; Chinese forces, 30,000

CASUALTIES: Anglo-French, nearly 900 killed or wounded;
Chinese, more than 7,000 killed, wounded, or captured

TREATIES: Treaty of Tientsin (Tianjin or Tianjian [Tientsin]),
June 28, 1858 (reaffirmed and expanded in 1860)
plus copycat treaties with France, Russia, and the United
States

The First OPIUM WAR resulted in the opening of several
Chinese ports as well as the cession of Hong Kong to Great
Britain. By 1856, the British (and the French) were restless
for further trade concessions. In that year, Chinese officials
seized the Arrow, a Chinese-owned ship flying the British
flag and engaged in smuggling opium. The British, seeking
to extend their trading rights in China, used the seizure as
an excuse to renew hostilities. They were joined in the hostilities
by the French, who used as their excuse the murder
of a French missionary in the interior of China. In late
1857 a combined English and French force attacked, occupying
Canton (Guangzhou [Kwangchow]). Next, the force
took forts near Tianjin, and treaties were concluded
between China and Britain as well as similar treaties
between China and France, Russia, and the United States.
The new treaties with the Western powers caused
widespread outrage in China and failed to receive ratification.
Foreign diplomats were refused entrance to Beijing
(Peking), and a British force was slaughtered outside of
Tianjin in 1859. A renewed Anglo-French assault captured
Tianjin and defeated a Chinese army outside of Beijing.
The Chinese emperor, Xianfeng (Hsien-feng; 1831–
61), fled, and his commissioners concluded new treaties
embodying the provisions of the Tianjin agreement and
adding four more ports to the list of those now open to
foreign trade.
Of special importance, the Kowloon Peninsula on the
Chinese mainland was added to the Hong Kong colony,
and in 1898 a large area beyond Kowloon, together with
the surrounding islands (the “New Territories”), was
leased to Great Britain for 99 years.

See also BOXER REBELLION.

Further reading: Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium
Wars (New York: Harcourt, 1977); D. Bonner-Smith, The
Second China War, 1856–1860 (New York: Hyperion,
1994); W. Travis Hanes and Frank Sanello, The Opium
Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of
Another (Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks Inc., 2002); Douglas
Hurd, The Arrow War: an Anglo-Chinese Confusion, 1856–
1860 (New York: Macmillan, 1967).

Opium War, First (1839–1842)

Opium War, First (1839–1842)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Great Britain vs. China

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): The China coast

DECLARATION: China attacked the British ships sent to
protect the opium trade on September 4, 1839.

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The British used Chinese
trade policies against the importation of opium and
China’s treatment of opium merchants as a cause for
going to war and forcing “open” trade policies on the
traditionally insular Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty.

OUTCOME: China was forced to open its ports to British
and other foreign trade and to grant a number of
humiliating concessions

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
British forces, 12,000; Chinese forces, 45,000

CASUALTIES: Britain, about 100 killed or wounded; China,
about 6,800 killed, wounded, or captured

TREATIES: Treaty of Nanking, August 29, 1842

Basically trade wars in which Western nations gained
commercial privileges in China, the Opium Wars (fought
from 1839 to 1842 and 1856 to 1860) were the first major
military confrontations between China and the European
West. Since the beginning of the 19th century British
traders had been illegally importing the drug into China,
leading to widespread social and economic disruption and
degradation. They not only ended Chinese isolation from
other civilizations, but began for China a century of mistreatment
and humiliation at the hands of foreign powers,
leading to the decay of the Qing dynasty and, ultimately,
revolution, civil war, and the ascendancy of communist
rule.
The First Opium War began when British merchants
ignored a Chinese prohibition against the importation of
opium. On March 30, 1839, the Chinese imperial commissioner,
Lin Zexu (Lin Tse-hsü)—frustrated by the insouciance
of British merchants toward official China—
confiscated and destroyed all the smuggled opium in
British warehouses and ships in Canton (Guangzhou
[Kwangchow]), British tempers, from merchant to skivvy,
flared, and the antagonism between the British and Chinese
officialdom only increased a few days later when
drunken British sailors killed a Chinese villager. The
British government, which did not recognize the Chinese
legal system, refused to turn the accused men over to the
local courts.
Hostilities broke out, and Britain responded by dispatching
warships and troops to attack the China coast. In
rapid succession, the cities of Hangzhou (Hangchow),
Hong Kong, and Canton fell under attack and were blockaded
by the British. A small amphibious force sailed up
the Pearl River and assaulted the fortifications surrounding
Canton. The city fell in May 1841, followed soon by
Amoy and Ningbo (Ning-po). After a lull in the fighting
when disease struck the British forces, renewed efforts
resulted in the taking of Shanghai and Xinjiang (Chinkiang).
Outmatched by British troops and equipment, the
Chinese capitulated when British navy ships appeared in
August 1842.
The subsequent Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking) was
harsh. In addition to agreeing to pay a $20 million indemnity,
the Chinese opened the ports of Canton, Xiamen
(Amoy), Fuzhou (Foochow), Ningbo, and Shanghai to
British trade and residence. China also granted Britain the
right of “extraterritoriality,” whereby British residents in
China were subject not to Chinese legal jurisdiction but to
that of special consular courts. The greatest prize ceded to
the Crown was Hong Kong, which was transferred to
Britain in perpetuity.
The trade and legal concessions made to the British
under the treaty were soon extended to other Western
powers, and China’s long isolation came to an end. The

Second OPIUM WAR erupted in 1856.

Further reading: Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium
Wars (New York: Harcourt, 1977); Hsin-pao Chang, Commissioner
Lin and the Opium War (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1964); Peter Ward Fay, The Opium
War, 1840–1842 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1975); W. Travis Hanes and Frank Sanello,
The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption
of Another (Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks Inc.,
2002).

Onin War (1467–1477)

Onin War (1467–1477)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Rival shogun clans

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Kyoto and environs

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the
shogunate

OUTCOME: The issues of succession remained unresolved
throughout the long and ruinous war.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

A feudal dispute erupted into chaotic warfare in western
Japan. Yoshimasa (1435–90), the Ashikaga shogun (mili-
tary overlord), retired in 1467, triggering a dispute over
succession to his shogunate. Rival families started a fullscale
war in and about Kyoto, which was largely destroyed
in the conflict. Even though the leaders of the
warring factions, Yamana Mochitoyo (1404–73) and Hosokawa
Katsumoto (c. 1430–73), both died in 1473, their
partisans continued to fight, ultimately bringing some
dozen major military families into the fray and laying
waste to the entire region around Kyoto. The Onin War
produced nothing but general ruin and failed to resolve
the succession to the shogunate.

See also JAPANESE CIVIL WARS (1450–1550).

Further reading: Thomas Keirstead, The Geography of
Power in Medieval Japan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1992); H. Paul Valery, The Onin War (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1966).

Old Zurich War (1436–1450)

Old Zurich War (1436–1450)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Zurich and Austria (with French
aid) vs. Schwyz, Glarus, and the Swiss Confederacy

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Zurich and the Toggenburg

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Control of the Toggenburg

OUTCOME: Zurich relinquished the Toggenburg to
Schwyz, and the house of Savoy was installed in the
Aargau (Switzerland).

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Schwyz and Swiss Confederacy, 20,000; Zurich and allies,
40,000

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Peace of Ensisheim, 1444; Peace of Constance,
1446

The Old Zurich War grew from a territorial dispute created
by the death of the last count of Toggenburg in 1436.
The Toggenburgs, always vassals of either German kings
or Holy Roman Emperors, boasted extensive possessions
in what is now northeastern Switzerland. The dying off of
the dynasty not only raised questions about who would
rule some of the large Toggenburg holdings but fed the
greed of nearby towns. The Toggenburg lands were
bounded to the west and to the southwest by the free
cities of Zurich, Schwyz, and Glarus—all members of the
Swiss Confederation. To the southeast, Toggenburg possessions
bordered lands held by two of the three leagues
later known collectively as the Grisons.
While the southeasternmost part of the territory was
quickly claimed (and occupied) by the newly formed
Zehngerichtenbund (League of Ten Jurisdictions), the rest
of the Toggenburg inheritance fell open to dispute. The
House of Raron (in distant Valais) managed successfully to
claim most of the countship, but the dependencies nearest
to Lake Zurich and a tract to the east of them was
promptly invaded by the men of Schwyz, who blocked the
road to Zurich. These moves were, of course, fiercely
resented by Zurich, whose leaders desired to control at
least the shore of the lake if nothing else. When a meeting
of the Swiss confederates in 1437 authorized Schwyz and
Glarus to retain nearly all the occupied zone, Zurich
rejected the settlement out of hand and appealed to the
Imperial Diet in 1440. The Austrian duke and German
king Frederick III (1415–43) allied his forces with Zurich,
which prompted Schwyz and its ally Glarus to declare war
on Zurich and Austria.
During the opening clash, Zurich’s burgomaster, at
the head of its army, was killed, sending the forces of
Zurich into headlong retreat. The Imperial Diet now called
for conciliation, whereupon Zurich broke with Austria,
which rejected the directive of the Diet. Joining the side of
Schwyz, the Swiss Confederacy aided the city with some
20,000 troops in its siege against Zurich. Frederick
obtained aid from France—40,000 men—who were nevertheless
defeated by the much smaller Schwyz-Swiss
Confederacy force in 1444.
The Peace of Ensisheim was concluded in 1444, but
Zurich refused to be a party to it. Two years later, however,
the Peace of Constance ended the Austrian-Zurich alliance
and gave some territory back to Zurich, but yielded to
Schwyz most of Toggenburg. Austria remained involved in
sporadic fighting in the region until a special court of arbitration
ordered Austria out of the Aargau (Switzerland)
altogether and installed there the house of Savoy. Ultimately,
the major portion of the Toggenburg countship
was sold by the house of Raron to the prince-abbot of
Sankt Gallen in 1468, only to become a ground for discord
during the Swiss Reformation (see the VILLMERGEN WAR,
SECOND).

Further reading: William Martin, Switzerland: From
Roman Times to the Present (New York: Praeger, 1971).

Og’s Rebellion (1480)

Og’s Rebellion (1480)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Angus Og vs. the Macdonald and
Maclean clans

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Northwestern Scottish Highlands

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Domination of the
Highlands

OUTCOME: Og defeated his father, the Lord of the Isles,
and caused great and violent feuding throughout the
Highlands.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown, but the Battle of Bloody Bay is
believed to have been extraordinarily savage.

TREATIES: None

In the northwest of Scotland, the Macdonald clan dubbed
themselves the “Lords of the Isles” and rebelled against
the Scottish Crown in the MACDONALD REBELLION in
1411. After years of chronic unrest and uprising, the
Crown reached an agreement with the Macdonalds,
which, however, turned Angus Og (d. 1490), bastard son
of the current lord of the Isles, against his father as well as
the Crown. His break with his father divided the northwestern
Highlands into two warring factions. In 1480, at
the Battle of Bloody Bay, Og, allied now with the Macleod
and MacKenzie clans, fought his father and his allies, the
Macleans. Og not only enjoyed victory, he captured and
imprisoned his father (as well as two of his principal
Maclean officers) and persisted in stirring up violent feuding
in the Highlands. The assassination of Og in 1490
ended this.

Further reading: W. Croft Dickinson, Scotland from
the Earliest Times to 1603, 3rd rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1977).

Offa’s Wars (771–796)

Offa’s Wars (771–796)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Mercia’s Offa vs. various
rebellious lords and subkings and the Welsh

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): England below Yorkshire

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The forging of Anglo-
Saxon England

OUTCOME: Offa obtained and maintained control over
most of England south of Yorkshire; Wales remained
wildly independent.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: No documents survive

From ancient Mercian lineage, Offa (d. July 796) became
one of the more powerful Anglo-Saxon kings in England
after he seized the throne during a civil war following the
murder of his cousin, King Aethelbald (r. 716–57). Ruthlessly
suppressing the small states in and around Mercia,
he forged a united kingdom south of Yorkshire. By 774,
lesser kings in the region were paying him homage as
“king of the English,” and he married his daughters to the
rulers of Wessex and Northumbria. Offa’s England was,
however, an unstable place, and in addition to the wars he
had waged to unite the kingdom before 774, he was forced
afterward to engage in a number of disciplinary conflicts
from 775 through 796 against upstart rebels, most often in
Kent, but also in Wessex and East Anglia.
Offa’s goal throughout was to establish himself on a
par with the monarchs of continental Europe, and though
he quarreled frequently with the king of the Franks,
Charlemagne (c. 742–814) nevertheless concluded a commercial
treaty with Offa in 796. Offa was also on good
terms with Rome and allowed Pope Adrian I (pope from
772–95) to increase his control over the sometimes maverick
English church. None of his European prestige,
however, helped Offa much with the Welsh, who stoutly
resisted conquest, and Offa ultimately gave up on these
stubborn people, erecting an earthen boundary, Offa’s
Dyke, to separate England from Wales—and to provide
something of a fortified position to defend against raids
and other incursions.

See also AETHELBALD’S WARS.

Further reading: Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,
3rd ed. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1971).

Odaenathus’s Gothic Campaign (266)

Odaenathus’s Gothic Campaign (266)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Odaenathus vs. Goth raiders

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Asia Minor

DECLARATION: Unknown

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Backed by his patron,
Rome’s emperor Gallienus, Odaenathus launched a
punitive expedition against the Goths.

OUTCOME: Odaenathus subdued the barbarian raids but
was soon afterward murdered.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

In the middle of the third century, the Goths took advantage
of Rome’s wars with Persia to ravage Asia Minor. Teutonic
“barbarians” of mixed Scythian and German stock,
though less Asian than the Sarmatians, they consisted of
two main groups: the Ostrogoths, or East Goths, from the
Dnieper-Don steppes, who were primarily horsemen, and
Visigoths, or West Goths, from the Carpathians, who
relied primarily on infantry. But the Goths also became a
seafaring people, and their most destructive raids into the
Roman Empire came by water, across the Black and
Aegean Seas.
During the ROMAN-PERSIAN WAR (257–261), a Romanized
Arab, Septimus Odainath (or Odaenathus) (d. c.
267), prince of Palmyra, rose to prominence by effectively
defending the empire’s eastern provinces against Shapur I
(d. 272), who had captured the Roman emperor Valerian
(d. c. 261) in battle, and by defeating and executing one of
the “Thirty Tyrants” named Quietus (d. c. 261). After
Valerian died in captivity, the new emperor Gallienus (d.
268) graced Odaenathus with the title “Dux Orientus”
and made him a virtual coruler of the Eastern Empire.
Accompanied and aided by his wife, Zenobia (d. after
274), Odaenathus led the ARAB INVASION OF PERSIA in 262
and had recaptured Rome’s lost provinces east of the
Euphrates by 264.
Because he was already in the area, it was only natural
that Odaenathus take on the Goths then raiding throughout
Asia Minor. Backed by Gallienus and reinforced with
Roman troops, Odaenathus launched his army of light
foot soldiers and Arabian cavalry on a successful punitive
expedition against the Goths in 266. The expedition, however,
is mostly significant for its conclusion. Soon after
completing his last “mission” for Rome, the Dux Orientus
was murdered, at which point his title passed to his son,
Vaballathus (d. c. 273), but his power—over Palmyra and
the Eastern Empire—effectively passed to his widow, celebrated
for her beauty and her military acumen, but not
necessarily for her loyalty to Rome (see ZENOBIA’S CONQUEST
OF EGYPT and AURELIAN’S WAR AGAINST ZENOBIA).

Further reading: Peter Brown, The World of Late
Antiquity, A.D. 150–750 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989);
Richard Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s Revolt
against Rome (reprint, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1995).

Octavian’s War against Pompey (40–36 B.C.E.)

Octavian’s War against Pompey (40–36 B.C.E.)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Octavian vs. Pompey the
Younger

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Sicily and Sardinia

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: At issue was control of
Sardinia and Sicily in an effort to secure a reliable supply
of grain for Rome.

OUTCOME: Octavian ultimately prevailed, capturing both
Sardinia and Sicily and ensuring the free passage of grain
to Rome.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown; Octavian dispatched a fleet of 120 vessels
against Pompey’s smaller fleet.

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Treaty of Misenium, 39 B.C.E.

Following the death of Pompey the Great (106–48 B.C.E.)
in the Great ROMAN CIVIL WAR (50–49 B.C.E.), his son
Pompey the Younger (Sextus Pompeius Magnus) (75–35
B.C.E.) fled to Egypt and then to Spain, where he continued
to oppose the forces of Julius Caesar (100–44 B.C.E.)
and his successors. Pompey the Younger captured Sicily
and, operating from there, blockaded shipments of grain
to Rome. From there, too, he launched an attack on Sardinia,
which he seized from Octavian (63 B.C.E.–14 C.E.)
in 40 B.C.E. This prompted Octavian and Mark Antony (c.
83–30 B.C.E.) to conclude the Treaty of Misenium with
Pompey the Younger, by which Pompey was made governor
of Sicily and Sardinia and was compensated for property
seized from Pompey the Great. In return, Pompey the
Younger agreed to transport grain to Rome.
The treaty did not long endure. In 38, Octavian
regained Sardinia, but when he attempted to capture Sicily
as well, his fleet fell victim to a combination of Pompey’s
sailors and a severe storm.
In 36, Octavian launched a new naval attack against
Pompey’s Sicily, sending against him 120 ships under Marcus
Vipsanius Agrippa (63–12 B.C.E.). At the naval Battle
of Naulochus, Pompey’s fleet was defeated. Pompey himself
escaped to Asia Minor, but was captured in 35 by
Mark Antony and was subsequently killed. Rome never
again suffered a threat to its supply of grain.

See also OCTAVIAN’S WAR AGAINST ANTONY; ROMAN
CIVIL WAR (43–31 B.C.E.).

Octavian’s War against Antony (33–30 B.C.E.)

Octavian’s War against Antony (33–30 B.C.E.)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Mark Antony and Cleopatra vs.
Octavian

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Egypt

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Possession and control of
Egypt

OUTCOME: Antony and Cleopatra were defeated; Octavian
conquered Egypt and subsequently, as Caesar Augustus,
was the first emperor of the Roman Empire.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Antony and Cleopatra’s forces, 40,000; Octavian’s forces,
40,000

CASUALTIES: At Actium, 5,000 of Antony’s men died.

TREATIES: Egyptian capitulation and tribute, 30 B.C.E.

After the assassination of Julius Caesar (100–44 B.C.E.) in
44 B.C.E., two of his cohorts, his second-in-command Marcus
Aemilius Lepidus (d. c. 13 B.C.E.) and his right-hand
man Marcus Antonius (c. 83–30 B.C.E. [“Mark Antony” to
the English-speaking, Shakespeare-reading world]) formed
the Second Triumvirate with Caesar’s nephew and adopted
heir, 18-year-old Gaius Octavius (63 B.C.E.–14 C.E.; called
Octavian by English scholars and soon to be known
throughout the world and for eternity as Rome’s first and
greatest emperor, Augustus Caesar. Though the three,
with good reason, hardly trusted one another, they managed
to coexist until 36 B.C.E., when Lepidus—resentful of
the growing domination of the triumvirate by Octavian
and Antony—attacked Octavius in Sicily, only to lose his
army to the younger man and find himself placed under
lifelong armed guard.
Meanwhile, Antony—having taken Rome’s Eastern
Empire as his share of the Triumvirate’s division of
power—was refused aid by Octavian in the further execution
of the ongoing ROMAN-PARTHIAN WAR (55–38 B.C.E.)
So, instead, Antony turned to Julius Caesar’s former lover,
Cleopatra (69–30 B.C.E.), queen of Egypt. Thus began one
of the great sexual-political-military liaisons of history, a
heated affair hardly affected by the fact that in 40 B.C.E.,
when Antony returned to Rome to patch up matters with
Octavian, he entered into a politically necessary marriage
with Octavian’s sister, Octavia (69–11 B.C.E.). The speed
with which Antony returned to Egypt and the openness of
his infidelity with Cleopatra affronted not only his official
wife but enraged her powerful brother. Octavian was soon
joined in his anger by the whole of Rome itself when news
spread that Antony was turning over liberal patches of the
Eastern Empire to Cleopatra and her children, three of
them in fact sired by Mark Antony.
Pushed by Octavian, the Roman Senate declared war
on Antony and Egypt. Antony was portrayed throughout
Rome as a traitor, and Octavian was thereby able to persuade
all of Italy and the western Roman provinces to
withdraw allegiance from Antony and swear loyalty to
himself. Officially, Antony was stripped of all Roman titles
and honors, and the Senate declared war on Cleopatra,
which was also war against Antony.
Together, Antony and Cleopatra assembled an army
and a fleet, which sailed to Greece during 32–31 B.C.E. to
wait out the winter. In the spring, Octavian and his lieutenant,
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (63–12 B.C.E.), crossed
the Adriatic with a force of comparable size to that of
Antony. On September 2, 31, the Battle of Actium was
fought on the Ionian coast of Greece. While Agrippa
blockaded Antony’s fleet, Octavian cut off the overland
supply routes of his army. Antony then ordered a retreat
and took his chances running the naval blockade. Most of
the ships, together with the troops they held, were sunk or
surrendered. Antony and Cleopatra made it successfully
through the blockade, however, and managed to regroup.
In 30, when Octavian invaded Egypt, Antony was at first
able to mount a creditable defense, pushing the Romans
back before they reached Alexandria. However, Antony’s
army soon deserted to the enemy, leading both Antony
and Cleopatra to commit suicide.
Octavian looted the treasures of Ptolemaic Egypt and
forced the Egyptians to pay a heavy tribute. With the conquest
of Egypt, Octavian was the preeminent leader of the
known world. As Caesar Augustus, he became the first
emperor of the Roman Empire.

See also OCTAVIAN’S WAR AGAINST POMPEY; ROMAN
CIVIL WAR (49–44 B.C.E.); ROMAN CIVIL WAR (43–31
B.C.E.).

Further reading: Anthony Everitt, Cicero: The Life and
Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician (New York: Random
House, 2002); A. H. Jones, Augustus (New York: W. W.
Norton, 1970); E. S. Schuckburgh, Augustus Caesar (New
York: Barnes and Noble, 1995).

Aztec Wars of Expansion (c. 1428–1502)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Aztecs vs. rival tribes; during a
brief civil war, the rival Aztec cities of Tenochtitlán and
Tlatelolco fought.

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Mexico

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Imperial expansion

OUTCOME: The Aztecs conquered and subjugated most
rival tribes, primarily to the south of their capital at
Tenochtitlán (modern Mexico City).

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: At
the Battle of Zamacuyahuac the Aztecs fielded 24,000 men.

CASUALTIES: At the Battle of Zamacuyahuac the Aztecs
lost 20,000 men.

TREATIES: No documents have been identified.

The Aztecs first appeared as a nomadic warrior tribe who
settled on two islands in Mexico’s Lake Texcoco, Tenochtitlán
and Tlatelolco, about 1325. These island locations
were natural fortresses from which the Aztecs waged a
series of expansionist wars against lesser tribes.
During the reign of the “Black Serpent,” Emperor Itzcoatl
(1428–40), the Aztecs fought the Tepanaca tribe,
who lived on the western shore of Lake Texcoco. This
tribe, correctly fearing Aztec aggression, attempted to
blockade Tenochtitlán and Tlatelolco, effectively holding
the Aztecs under siege and cutting off all supplies, including
water. Itzcoatl led an expedition against the Tepanaca
in 1428. It developed into a prolonged war, but by 1430
the Aztecs had gained the initiative and laid siege to the
rival tribe in its own capital. With the Tepanaca crushed,
Itzcoatl took the war to its ally, the people of the city of
Xochimilco, which fell in 1433, bringing the first phase of
Aztec aggression to an end.
Under Montezuma I (also called Moctezuma I, or
Ilhuicamina, “One Who Frowns Like a Lord”), the Aztecs
undertook an even more aggressive campaign of expansion.
From 1440 to 1468, the span of this emperor’s reign,
the Aztec Empire was pushed far to the south of Tenochtitlán.
Montezuma I established the Aztecs as a powerful
trading people, and the empire flourished.
Montezuma I was succeeded by Axayactl, who pressed
the Aztec program of expansion eastward all the way to
the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time he further enlarged
the Aztec sphere of influence to the southwest, stopping
only at the Pacific coast.
In 1473 a civil war (sometimes called the War of Defilement)
broke out between Tenochtitlán and Tlatelolco.
Tlatelolco struck alliances with other Aztec cities opposed
to the power of Tenochtitlan. However, Tlatelolco unwisely
provoked war prematurely, before any of its allies could be
brought to bear on the conflict, and Tenochtitlán acted
swiftly to crush its rival.
The next recorded Aztec war came five years later, in
1478. Tenochtitlán at this point had become the central
city of a three-city league, which included Tlacopán and
Texcoco. The league launched a war against the Tarascans,
a traditional mutual enemy. Under Axayactl’s inept command,
however, the army of the league was deployed in a
piecemeal and divided fashion. This violation of a timeless
tactical principle—never divide your forces in the face of
the enemy—brought on disaster at the Battle of Zamacuyahuac.
On the first day of the battle, the Aztec forces
were defeated in detail. Axayactl regrouped on the second
day and led a make-or-break charge against the Tarascans.
The result was an even worse defeat. Of 24,000 league
forces deployed, all but 4,000 fell in battle.
By 1481 the Aztecs had fully recovered from the disaster
at Zamacuyahuac, and in the six-year reign of Emperor
Tizoc, from 1481 to 1486, they pushed the frontier of their
empire to the southeast. On balance, the Aztecs gained significant
territory, although the war of expansion was by no
means an unqualified success. The era of true imperial triumph
came under the reign of Ahuitzotol, from 1486 to
1502, when Aztec forces made an extensive sweep, primarily
far to the south. These southern acquisitions spanned
both coasts.

See also SPANISH CONQUEST OF MEXICO.

Further reading: Frances Berdan, The Aztecs of Central
Mexico: An Imperial Society (Fort Worth, Tex.: Harcourt
Brace College, 1990); John Bierhorst, tr., History and
Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca (Tempe:
University of Arizona Press, 1998); Ross Hassig, War and
Society in Ancient Mesoamerica (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1992); Richard F. Townsend, The Aztecs
(London and New York: Thames and Hudson, 2000).

Axe, War of the (1846–1847)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: British colonists of South Africa
vs. the Xhosa tribes

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Vicinity of the Great Kei River in
South Africa

DECLARATION: No formal declaration

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Part of a century-long
conflict between the Xhosa people and white settlers

OUTCOME: The Xhosa were driven from their homelands
when the English Crown annexed contested lands.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None

As British colonists and Dutch Boers settled more and
more of South Africa, they began to encroach on the
Xhosa people, who were increasingly hard pressed by
unremitting famine and drought. The Xhosa responded by
harassing the colonists, principally by cattle theft and
raids on trading posts.
In 1846 British authorities dispatched a small number
of troops to patrol “Kaffirland”—the Xhosa were derisively
called Kaffirs by the British—after a Xhosa tribesman had
escaped from detention at Fort Beaufort. He was being held
for having allegedly stolen an axe. The troops demanded
that the Xhosa give up the escaped detainee, and when
they refused a war erupted. For just under two years, the
Xhosa harried the frontier of British and Boer settlement.
There were no formal “set” battles in the War of the Axe,
but British troops unrelentingly policed the region until
the Xhosa were driven not only from the frontier but out of
their homeland entirely. The region vacated was annexed
by the British Crown.

See also BOERWAR, FIRST; BOERWAR, SECOND (GREAT);
BOER-ZULUWAR.

Further reading: Noel Mostert, Frontiers: The Epic
of South Africa’s Creation and the Tragedy of the Xhosa
People (New York: Knopf, 1992); J. B. Peires, House of
Phalo: A History of the Xhosa People in the Days of Their
Independence (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1982).

Avar-Xiongnu War (c. 380)

Avar-Xiongnu War (c. 380)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Avars vs. Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu)
Huns

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Northern China

DECLARATION: Unknown

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Expansion of the Avar
dynasty

OUTCOME: The Xiongnu peoples were defeated.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Unknown

The Avars, a Mongol people from the steppe regions of
inner Asia, began a clanlike existence around the middle
of the fourth century. Within their ranks arose a powerful
leader named Toulon (fl. fourth century), who pushed his
people to move south. Around 380 the Avars, led by
Toulon, defeated the Hun band known as the Xiongnu.
The Avars pushed the Xiongnu to the south and west and
apparently exacted tribute from them. Following his triumph
Toulon took the title of khan. With the defeat of the
Xiongnu, the Avars continued their migration. During the
6th and 7th centuries they would wage war on the Northern
Wei Empire, amassing a powerful empire themselves
(see AVAR WARS FOR EMPIRE).

Further reading: J. J. Saunders, The History of the
Mongol Conquests (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2001); E. A. Thompson, The Huns (London:
Blackwell, 1999).

Avar Wars for Empire (562–601)

Avar Wars for Empire (562–601)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Avars vs. Franks, Bulgars, Slavs,
and Romans

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Germany, Italy, and the Baltic
Peninsula

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Chased from Central Asia,
the Avars were determined to conquer an empire in the
West.

OUTCOME: Decades of conquest left the Avars with
an empire stretching east from the Julian Alps to the
Volga and south from the Danube River valley to the
Baltic Sea.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: None recorded

Native to the steppes that lay between the Volga, Kama,
and Ural Rivers, the Avars, akin to the Huns and Tartars,
were driven from their homeland by the Turks around 555.
Relocating to the northern Caucasus, the Avars, under the
leadership of their great chief, Baian (fl. sixth century),
were determined to conquer central Europe and dominate
the region as they once had Central Asia. In 562 the Avars
invaded westward into Germany, but, during the course of
several large battles in Thuringia, they were repulsed by
the counterattacking Franks, led by the sons of Clotaire I
(d. 561). The Avars then looked to the east and made raids
into the eastern Roman Empire in 564 before concluding
an alliance with the Germanic Lombards in their war
against the Gepidae in Italy. In exchange for Avar support,
the Lombards agreed to give the Avars 10 percent of their
livestock and any conquered Gepidae territory.
In a classic pincer movement the Avars invaded from
the northeast while the Lombards attacked from the
northwest, converging in the Danube River valley and
crushing the Gepidae. Alboin (d. 572), king of the Lombards,
personally slew the Gepidae king and then took his
reluctant daughter as a bride. The Avars and the Lombards
followed their victory with a campaign that decimated the
Gepidae lands. Seeing the ferocity with which the Avars
waged war, Alboin realized that they—having annexed all
Gepidae lands—were now potentially his most dangerous
enemy. He quickly concluded a new alliance with them
and migrated south across the Alps and into northern
Italy, leaving Pannonia and Noricum to the Avars but
putting enough distance behind him to create a buffer
zone between the two people.
In the east Justinian (b. 483), who had managed to
hold the Roman Empire together through sheer force of
will and his tremendous personal influence, died in 565.
Several years later Baian recognized that the empire lay
vulnerable, and he fully intended to take advantage of the
situation. The king of the Avars turned his attention especially
to the city of Sirmium. The Romans had occupied
the city during the joint Avar-Lombard attack on the Gepidae,
but Baian reasoned that it was rightly his, since it had
been a Gepidaen city, and—as everyone knew, per his
agreement with Alboin—all Gepidae now belonged to
him. When the Romans refused to hand Sirmium over,
Baian laid siege to the city and at the same time offered
generous terms. All he wanted, he said, was a silver plate,
some gold, and a ceremonial toga; he would gladly break
off the siege, since he had fighting to do elsewhere, but to
come away with nothing would be disgraceful before his
allies. Sirmium’s city elders had no authority to accept
terms but passed them on to Rome, recommending their
acceptance. While he was waiting for a reply, Baian sent
10,000 Huns into Dalmatia to ravage the countryside as a
show of force. The emperor Justin II (d. 578), and later
Tiberius (d. 582), refused to accept either the terms or the
surrender of Sirmium and hastily prepared for war. The
subsequent Roman offensives were ill-advised and never
successful. In 580 the Avars took Sirmium for good.
After securing Sirmium, Baian swept south against the
Slavs and marched through the Balkans undefeated, reaching
the Aegean Sea in 591 and again in 597. The southward
expansion would mark the zenith of Avar supremacy.
For more than a quarter century Baian and the Avars were
essentially without military peer in central Europe. Save
for the early defeat at the hands of the Franks, Baian was
never defeated in the field. His luck would end, however,
with the ascension of the emperor Maurice (582–602).
Although Tiberius died in 582, Maurice was not able to
consolidate his power and sufficiently gain control of the
army for another decade. But beginning in 595 Maurice
and his general, Priscus (fl. sixth century), engaged in a
series of decisive campaigns ranging from the Black Sea to
the Theiss River, successfully gaining the upper hand
against the Avars. In 601 Priscus soundly defeated Baian
on the south bank of the Danube at the Battle of Viminacium.
Although Baian’s defeat at Viminacium ended the
Avars’ unchecked dominance in the region, Baian maintained
suzerainty over an empire that stretched east from
the Julian Alps to the Volga and south from the Danube
River valley to the Baltic Sea.

See also AVAR-XIONGNU WAR.

Further reading: J. J. Saunders, The History of the
Mongol Conquests (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2001); E. A. Thompson, The Huns (London:
Blackwell, 1999).

Austro-Turkish War (1716–1718)

Austro-Turkish War (1716–1718)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Austria (with Venice) vs.
Ottoman Empire

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Hungary and the Balkans

DECLARATION: Austria declared war on the Ottomans,
in 1716.

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Possession of Hungary
and the Balkans

OUTCOME: The Ottomans were decisively defeated,
relinquishing to Austria Hungary and most of the Balkans.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Austria, 123,000 men; Ottoman Empire, approximately
310,000 men

CASUALTIES: Austria, 40,000 killed and wounded; Ottoman
Empire, more than 80,000 killed and wounded

TREATIES: Treaty of Passarowitz, July 21, 1718

At the opening of 1716, Austria’s emperor Charles VI
(1685–1740) joined in an alliance with Venice against the
Ottoman Empire. While the Venetians fought the Ottomans
chiefly at sea (see VENETIAN-TURKISH WAR [1714–
1718]), Austria bore the brunt of the land war. When
110,000 Ottoman troops advanced northward from Belgrade,
Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663–1736) intercepted
with 63,000 soldiers at Peterwardein. Despite Ottoman
superiority of numbers, the Austrians prevailed, killing
6,000 Ottoman troops and wounding as many as 14,000
while suffering losses of 3,000 killed and 2,000 wounded.
From Peterwardein, Eugene laid siege to the Ottoman
stronghold at Temesvár. After five weeks, on October 14,
1716, Temesvár fell. It was the last Ottoman fortress in
Hungary.
During the summer of 1717, Eugene besieged Belgrade,
most formidable of the Ottoman’s European fortress
cities. Eugene had 60,000 men against the Ottoman garrison
of 30,000, but an Ottoman relief force of 180,000 men
advanced against Eugene. Taking the initiative, Eugene
led 40,000 against this vast force, winning a remarkable
victory on August 16, 1717. Ottoman losses at this battle
were 20,000 dead or wounded. The Austrians suffered
5,400 killed or wounded. The relief force having withdrawn
from the field, Belgrade surrendered to Eugene on
August 21, 1717.
The fall of Belgrade laid open Serbia, Wallachia, and
the Banat to the Austrian army, and the Ottoman losses
continued to mount. The Ottomans sued for peace, and
on July 21, 1718, the Treaty of Passarowitz was concluded,
giving Austria Temesvár and Belgrade as well as
part of Wallachia, while Venice garnered Dalmatia and a
portion of Albania. In all, Austria had suffered 40,000
casualties, killed or wounded, but had inflicted almost
precisely twice this number of casualties on the Ottoman
forces.

See also AUSTRO-TURKISHWAR (1566); AUSTRO-TURKISH
WAR (1551–1553); AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1591–1606);
AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1663–1664); AUSTRO-TURKISH
WAR (1683–1699).

Further reading: Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare:
1500–1700 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University
Press, 1999); V. J. Parry and M. J. Kitch, Hapsburg and
Ottoman Empires (London: Sussex Publications, 1982);
Karl A. Roider, Austria’s Eastern Question, 1700–1790
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982).

Austro-Turkish War (1663–1664)

Austro-Turkish War (1663–1664)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Austria (with French and
German mercenaries) vs. Ottoman Empire

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Hungary and Transylvania

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: A continuation of the
Transylvanian-Turkish War of 1657–62, this war was
fought over possession of portions of Hungary

OUTCOME: Turkey was confirmed in its suzerainty over
Transylvania, but Transylvania and part of Hungary were
demilitarized for a period of 20 years.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Austria, 60,000; Ottoman Empire, 120,000

CASUALTIES: Austria (and mercenaries), 9,000 killed;
Ottoman Empire, 8,000 killed

TREATIES: The Treaty of Vasvar, 1664

Ottoman victory in the TRANSYLVANIAN-TURKISH WAR of
1657–62 emboldened the Ottomans to invade Hungary
with some 120,000 men under Grand Vizier Ahmen
Koprulu Pasha (1635–76) in 1663. Ultimately, the Ottomans
had as their objective the taking of Vienna itself.
However, an Austro-Hungarian force under Adam Forgach
(1643–63) successfully blocked the advance of the invaders
at Neuhausel, and the advance did not resume until spring
1664, now with an army reduced to about 80,000 men.
The Ottoman force was met in battle by some 60,000
Austrians (augmented by French and German mercenaries)
at the convent of St. Gotthard on the Raab River on
August 1, 1664. Prince Charles of Lorraine (1604–75)
engaged in single combat with an unidentified Ottoman
artillery officer. Charles killed his opponent, which
thereby neutralized Ottoman artillery. In the meantime,
Austrian cavalry and mercenary infantry prevailed against
the numerically superior Ottoman force.
Losses were very heavy: perhaps 9,000 Austrians and
mercenaries killed and 8,000 Ottoman troops killed. Both
sides were eager for peace and on August 11 concluded
the Treaty of Vasvar, calling for 20 years of peace.

See also AUSTRO-TURKISHWAR (1566); AUSTRO-TURKISH
WAR (1551–1553); AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1591–1606);
AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1683–1699); AUSTRO-TURKISH
WAR (1716–1718).

Further reading: Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare:
1500–1700 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University
Press, 1999); V. J. Parry and M. J. Kitch, Hapsburg and
Ottoman Empires (London: Sussex Publications, 1982).

Austro-Turkish War (1551–1553)

Austro-Turkish War (1551–1553)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Austria vs. Ottoman Turks (with
French alliance)

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Hungary

DECLARATION: None

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Possession of Hungary

OUTCOME: The war was inconclusive but resulted in the
three-way division of Hungary among Austria, the Ottoman
Empire, and Transylvania, making the area a powderkeg.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Unknown

CASUALTIES: Unknown

TREATIES: Although fighting ceased in 1553, the Treaty of

Constantinople was not concluded until 1563.
The Peace of Adrianople, which ended the AUSTRO-TURKISH
WAR (1537–1547), was slated to hold for five years. But
Austria’s signatory, Archduke Ferdinand (1503–64), broke
the treaty in 1551 because Buda, now in the hands of the
Ottomans, separated Austrian Hungary from Transylvania.
Ferdinand invaded Transylvania, laying siege to Lippa, the
Transylvanian capital. The Ottomans launched a counteroffensive.
In 1551 Ottoman amphibious forces captured
Tripoli, which had been held by the Knights of St. John.
While Ottoman and French ships raided the Mediterranean—
capturing Bastia on Corsica in 1553—Ottoman
land forces concentrated on Hungary. In 1551 three key
fortresses fell to the Ottomans, leading to the collapse of
Temesvár, which became an Ottoman province. An Ottoman
attack on the fortress city of Erlau failed in 1552,
prompting the Ottomans to sue for peace. It was a proposal
the beleaguered Austrians quickly accepted.
Both sides sought to exploit the armistice. The Ottomans
were able to turn full attention to the TURKO-PERSIAN
WAR (1526–1555), and the Austrians used the interval of
peace to attempt the consummation of the annexation of
Hungary. In the end a treaty of 1563 created the worst possible
scenario with regard to Hungary. It was trisected into
three hostile regions, one controlled by Transylvania, one
by Austria, and the third by the Ottomans. The stage was
set for a long series of wars: AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1566),
AUSTRO-TURKISHWAR (1591–1606), AUSTRO-TURKISHWAR
(1663–1664), AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1683–1699), and
AUSTRO-TURKISHWAR (1716–1718).

Further reading: Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare:
1500–1700 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University
Press, 1999); V. J. Parry and M. J. Kitch, Hapsburg and
Ottoman Empires (London: Sussex Publications, 1982).

Austro-Turkish War (1683–1699)

Austro-Turkish War (1683–1699)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Austria (with a Holy League
consisting of the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Poland,
and, after 1686, Moscow) vs. Ottoman Empire

PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Hungary and the Balkans

DECLARATION: None recorded

MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Primarily, the possession
of Hungary

OUTCOME: The Ottomans, badly defeated, were driven
out of Hungary.

APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:
Holy League, 142,343; Ottoman Empire, 200,000

CASUALTIES: Holy League, 49,200 killed or wounded;
Ottoman Empire, 156,000 killed or wounded

TREATIES: The Treaty of Karlowitz, January 26, 1699

On March 3, 1683, an Ottoman army of 200,000, allied
with a Transylvanian force, invaded Hungary from Adrianople.
Austria and Poland united to defend against the
invaders, 150,000 of whom commenced a siege of Vienna
on July 17, 1683 (see VIENNA, SIEGE OF). Vienna’s garrison
consisted of about 11,000 regular troops and 6,000 volunteers.
However, the defenders possessed superb artillery,
which held off the Ottomans until September 12, 1683,
when an Austro-Polish force of more than 60,000 arrived.
By this point the Viennese garrison had lost 5,000 regulars
and 1,700 volunteers, although the Ottomans had suffered
losses amounting to some 40,000 killed or wounded, so
that when the Austro-Polish force attacked from the
heights of Kahlenberg, they faced a reduced Ottoman-
Transylvanian force of about 138,000. Immediately seizing
the initiative, the Austro-Polish army made a devastating
attack that cost the Ottomans 15,000 killed and as many as
25,000 wounded. The Austro-Polish relief force lost 1,800
killed and 3,200 wounded.
As the Ottoman force retreated the Austro-Polish
army pursued. The Ottoman column crossed the Danube
on a boat bridge, which collapsed, adding another 7,000
fatalities to the Ottoman toll.
The victory at the Siege of Vienna brought an end to
the Ottoman threat against Europe. However, the war continued,
albeit with many lulls. In 1684 Charles of Lorraine
(1604–75) attempted to take Buda, which the Ottomans
had held for 145 years. Charles failed, and half of his
34,000-man army perished. A second siege resulted in victory,
however, on September 2, 1686, although Austrian
losses in this campaign amounted to some 20,000 killed or
wounded.
On August 12, 1687, Charles defeated the Ottomans
at the Battle of Harkány, inflicting some 20,000 casualties.
This victory liberated Croatia from the Ottoman Empire.
In 1687 Sultan Mohammed IV (1648–87) was overthrown,
and the new sultan, Süleyman II, renewed the
struggle against the Austrians and their allies. Holy League
forces were defeated at Zernyest, Transylvania, in August
1690, allowing the Ottomans to capture most of Serbia
by October. Belgrade fell to the Turks on October 8. In
response Louis of Baden (1655–1707) led Holy League
forces in a counteroffensive and defeated a combined Ottoman-
Transylvanian force at the Battle of Szalánkemén on
August 19, 1691, inflicting some 20,000 casualties on the
80,000-man army. With this Transylvania became a Hapsburg
possession.
The war continued in desultory fashion until Sultan
Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703) invaded Hungary with 50,000
troops in 1697. At the Battle of Zenta on September 11
Mustafa’s force was met by 31,343 Holy League troops
under Eugene of Savoy (1663–1736). Eugene attacked
when the Ottoman army was divided on either side of the
River Theiss and was in the process of crossing a bridge.
Eugene destroyed the bridge, then drove the invaders into
the river, killing perhaps as many as 29,000 while suffering
no more than 50 casualties himself, killed and wounded.
Zenta was one of the worst defeats suffered by the
Ottoman Empire, and it prompted the Treaty of Karlowitz,
concluded on January 26, 1699. Austria received most of
Hungary and Transylvania, and the Hapsburgs thereby
supplanted the Ottomans as the major power in southeastern
Europe.

See also AUSTRO-TURKISHWAR (1566); AUSTRO-TURKISH
WAR (1551–1553); AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1591–1606);
AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1663–1664); AUSTRO-TURKISH
WAR (1716–1718).

Further reading: Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare:
1500–1700 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University
Press, 1999); V. J. Parry and M. J. Kitch, Hapsburg
and Ottoman Empires (London: Sussex Publications,
1982).