tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46429150685454465872024-03-08T15:28:14.498-08:00WIKIPEDIA OF WARSAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.comBlogger203125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-1666461142818005732014-08-15T23:32:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:32:22.712-07:00Ottoman-Druse War (1631–1635)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman-Druse War (1631–1635)</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Empire vs. the Druse</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Lebanon</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
DECLARATION: None</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Suppression of the Druse</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OUTCOME: The Druse were defeated, and their leader,</div>
<div>
Fakhr ad-Din, executed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:</div>
<div>
Ottoman forces, 80,000; Druse, 25,000</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
CASUALTIES: Unknown</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
TREATIES: None</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Exiled to Tuscany after the OTTOMAN-DRUSE WAR</div>
<div>
(1611–1613), Fakhr ad-Din II (1572–1635) returned to</div>
<div>
Lebanon in 1618, then continued a program of territorial</div>
<div>
expansion and opposition to the Sublime Porte (the government</div>
<div>
of the Ottoman Empire). Armed exchanges were</div>
<div>
taking place by 1631, and, in 1633, Sultan Murad IV</div>
<div>
(1609–40) sent a major amphibious expedition against</div>
<div>
the Druse. While Murad’s fleet blockaded the coast of</div>
<div>
Lebanon, an 80,000-man army (made up of Syrians and</div>
<div>
Egyptians) defeated a Druse army numbering 25,000 men</div>
<div>
(and consisting of Maronites and mercenary troops in</div>
<div>
addition to the Druse). Fakhr fled the field and took</div>
<div>
refuge in the mountains. One of his sons was immediately</div>
<div>
captured and executed, and Fakhr was captured in 1634</div>
<div>
and executed the following year, as were two more of his</div>
<div>
sons. This brought an end to the war, but not to the Druse</div>
<div>
presence and influence in the region. As a ruling dynasty</div>
<div>
(called the Ma’n), the line of Fakhr ad-Din ended in 1697.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
See also TURKO-PERSIAN WAR (1623–1638).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Further reading: M. A. Cook, ed., A History of the</div>
<div>
Ottoman Empire to 1730 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge</div>
<div>
University Press, 1976); Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Hori-</div>
<div>
<div>
zon: A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,</div>
<div>
2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:</div>
<div>
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-77750744588208159122014-08-15T23:31:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:31:57.120-07:00Otto the Great, Conquests of (942–972)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Otto the Great, Conquests of (942–972)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Otto I vs. various rebels within<br />
Germany; Otto vs. the Slavs of middle Europe; Otto vs.<br />
the Magyars; Germany vs. France; Germany vs. Italy<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Central Europe and northern Italy<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Otto I sought to centralize<br />
German-speaking Europe and expand his kingdom.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Otto consolidated the German Reich and<br />
gained hegemony over much of Europe.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: At<br />
Lechfeld, Otto led an army of 10,000.<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
The son of Germany’s Henry I (c. 876–936), Otto I (the<br />
Great; 912–73) consolidated the German Reich by suppressing<br />
rebellious vassals (led by Thanknar, his half<br />
brother, and Henry, his younger brother) in the GERMAN<br />
CIVIL WARS (938–941) and ultimately by winning a decisive<br />
victory against the Hungarians at the battle of<br />
Lechfeld in 955 (see MAGYAR RAID, GREAT). But Otto’s<br />
ambition stretched beyond Germany, and even as he<br />
was quelling the early rebellions against his reign, he<br />
took the time to strengthen and expand his kingdom’s<br />
frontiers.<br />
In the East, he attacked and defeated the Slavs, consolidating<br />
his gains by founding a monastery in Magdeburg in<br />
941 and establishing two bishoprics in 948. In the North,<br />
he extended Christendom into Denmark, establishing four<br />
bishoprics there by 968. However, an early campaign in<br />
Bohemia failed, and it took Otto till 950 to force its prince,<br />
Boleslav I (d. 967), to submit and pay tribute.<br />
Otto was then in a position to deny any French claims<br />
to Lorraine, which he had taken when be put down the<br />
French-backed rebellion of 939 to 941. He also assumed<br />
the role of mediator in France’s internal struggles. He held<br />
a similar sway over Burgundy. In fact, when Burgundian<br />
princess Adelaide, the widowed queen of Italy, appealed to<br />
him after being taken prisoner by the Lombard prince<br />
Berengar (c. 900–966), Otto marched into Italy in 951,<br />
declared himself king of the Lombards, and married Adelaide<br />
(his first wife having died). Berengar became his vassal<br />
for the kingdom of Italy.<br />
Otto was forced to cut his first Italian campaign<br />
short when a revolt broke out in Germany in 953. Led by<br />
his son Liudolf (930–957), and backed by Conrad (d.<br />
955), duke of Lorraine, and Frederick, bishop of Mainz,<br />
the rebellion at first succeeded, forcing Otto to withdraw<br />
to Saxony. But the rebellion began to fail when the Magyar<br />
invasion allowed Otto to paint the rebels as traitors<br />
and enemies of the Reich in league with the invaders. In<br />
955, not only did Otto defeat the Magyars so decisively at<br />
Lechfeld that they never invaded again, he also captured<br />
the rebel stronghold at Regensburg, ending the rebellion.<br />
That year, too, Otto also won another major victory over<br />
the Slavs, which he followed with a series of campaigns<br />
that, by 960, had forced the utter subjugation of all the<br />
Slavs between the middle Elbe and the middle Oder<br />
rivers. By 968, even Mieszko (Mieczyslaw I) (c.<br />
930–992), prince of Poland, was paying tribute to the<br />
German king.<br />
Meanwhile, Otto’s old enemy and former vassal Berengar,<br />
free of German interference, was now threatening<br />
Rome. Pope John XII (d. 964) appealed to the German<br />
king for help. Otto’s price was the Holy Roman Empire.<br />
When Otto arrived in Rome on February 2, 962, he was<br />
crowned emperor, and 11 days later, he and the pope<br />
reached an agreement called the Privilegium Ottoianum,<br />
which regulated relations between emperor and pope and<br />
gave the emperor the right to ratify papal elections. Some<br />
say this provision was added later by Otto after he<br />
deposed John XII in December for treating with Berengar.<br />
In any case, Otto replaced John with Leo VIII (d. 965) as<br />
pope, then captured Berengar and dragged him back to<br />
Germany. In 966, Otto was back in Italy for a third campaign,<br />
this time to suppress a revolt by the Romans against<br />
his puppet pontiff, Leo VIII. Since Leo had been deposed<br />
by Benedict V (d. 966), and had since died, in 972 Otto<br />
appointed a new pope, John XIII (d. 972).<br />
Otto consolidated the German Reich and gave it peace<br />
and security from foreign attack. Enjoying something<br />
approaching hegemony over Europe, Germany under his<br />
rule experienced a cultural flowering that some scholars<br />
call the “Ottonian renaissance.”<br />
<br />
See also MAGYAR RAIDS IN FRANCE; MAGYAR RAIDS IN<br />
THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE; MAGYAR RAID INTO EUROPE,<br />
FIRST.<br />
<br />
Further reading: G. Barraclough, The Origins of Modern<br />
Germany (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1947); K. J. Leyser,<br />
Rule and Conflict in Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony<br />
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1984).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-44468062576919609002014-08-15T23:19:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:19:38.916-07:00Ottoman-Druse War (1611–1613)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman-Druse War (1611–1613)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Empire (through the<br />
pasha of Damascus) vs. Fakhr ad-Din II and the Druse of<br />
Lebanon<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Lebanon<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Ottoman sultan<br />
wanted to punish the Druse for an unauthorized alliance<br />
with Tuscany (Holy Roman Empire).<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Fakhr ad-Din was driven into exile.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Druse army, 40,000; pasha’s forces were larger<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
Fakhr ad-Din II (1572–1635), emir of the Druse in<br />
Lebanon, made the Druse dominant in the region. In<br />
1608, when he struck an alliance with Tuscany—effectively<br />
an alliance with the Holy Roman Empire—Ottoman<br />
sultan Ahmed (1589–1617) ordered the pasha of Damascus<br />
to conduct a punitive expedition against the Druse.<br />
Fakhr commanded an army of 40,000, a formidable force<br />
that readily countered the Ottoman action. The pasha<br />
mounted a larger assault in 1613, which defeated the<br />
Druse and sent Fakhr fleeing into Tuscan exile. (He<br />
returned in 1618 at the invitation of a new sultan, Osman<br />
II [1604–22].)<br />
<br />
See also AUSTRO-TURKISH WAR (1591–1606); TURKOPERSIAN<br />
WAR (1603–1612).<br />
<br />
Further reading: M. A. Cook, ed., A History of the<br />
Ottoman Empire to 1730 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge<br />
University Press, 1976); Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:<br />
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,<br />
2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:<br />
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-5490298992767587472014-08-15T23:18:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:18:15.447-07:00Ottoman-Druse War (1585)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman-Druse War (1585)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Turks vs. Lebanese Druse<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Lebanon<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Ottomans sought to<br />
suppress rebellion among the Druse.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: The Druse rebellion was suppressed, but, in<br />
Lebanon, the Druse remained an important political force.<br />
<br />APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
The Islamic sect known as the Druse was small but important<br />
during the 16th century. The Ottoman sultan Selim I<br />
(1467–1520) sought to placate Druse interests by naming<br />
Lebanon’s Fakhr ad-Din (d. 1544) emir of the Ottoman<br />
Empire’s Druse. However, in 1585, the Shi’ite ruler of<br />
Tripoli, Yusuf Sayfa (fl. 1580s), led an insurrection against<br />
the Ottoman sultan. The rebel forces encompassed a number<br />
of religious groups, including Druse led by Korkmaz<br />
(1544–85), the son of Fakhr ad-Din. The Ottomans put<br />
down the rebellion and executed Korkmaz. He was succeeded<br />
first by his uncle and then by Fakhr ad-Din II<br />
(1572–1635), grandson of Fakhr ad-Din. Although nominally<br />
under Ottoman control, the Druse came to dominate<br />
Lebanese politics.<br />
<br />
See also MAMLUK-PERSIAN-OTTOMAN WAR (1516–<br />
1517).<br />
<br />
Further reading: Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:<br />
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador, 2003);<br />
Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London: Palgrave<br />
Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The<br />
Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-68850586145140263422014-08-15T23:16:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:16:36.642-07:00Ottoman Conquest of Bulgaria (1369–1372)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman Conquest of Bulgaria (1369–1372)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Ottoman Turks (principally the<br />
Janissary corps) vs. the Bulgarians and Serbs<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Bulgaria and Macedonia<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Conquest of eastern<br />
Europe<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: The Ottomans seized control of Bulgaria and<br />
much of Macedonia.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
Under Murad I (1319–89), the Ottoman Empire pressed a<br />
program of invasion and expansion into eastern Europe.<br />
The conquest of Bulgaria was accomplished chiefly by the<br />
elite corps of troops Murad created. The Janissaries were<br />
former Christians who had been captured in childhood<br />
and raised as violently fanatic Muslims. Murad harnessed<br />
their fanaticism by shaping them into a disciplined body<br />
of infantry archers. The Janissary victory at the Battle of<br />
Cernomen in 1371 neutralized Serb resistance in the<br />
region of the Maritza River and led to the conquest not<br />
only of Bulgaria, but Macedonia as well.<br />
Over the next half millennium, the Janissaries would<br />
figure as an extremely powerful—and ultimately self-serving—<br />
force in Ottoman history.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Godfrey Goodwin, The Janissaries<br />
(London: Saqi Books, 1997); Colin Imber, Ottoman<br />
Empire: 1300–1650 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003);<br />
Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age,<br />
1300–1600 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-68352748480894452972014-08-15T23:14:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:14:55.509-07:00Ottoman Civil War (1559)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman Civil War (1559)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Son of Süleyman I the<br />
Magnificent, Selim vs. his brother, Bayazid<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the<br />
Ottoman sultanate<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Selim prevailed against Bayazid, who was<br />
executed.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
Süleyman I (the Magnificent; 1496–1566), was warned by<br />
his favorite wife, Roxelana (d. 1559), that his eldest son,<br />
Mustafa (d. 1553), was plotting against him. This was<br />
untrue, but the sultan did not pause to investigate;<br />
instead, he had Mustafa arrested and beheaded in 1553.<br />
This left the sons Süleyman had had by Roxelana in position<br />
to inherit the throne; however, upon Roxelana’s<br />
death, the two young men, Selim (c. 1524–74), and Bayazid<br />
(d. 1561), fell to disputing their inheritance. Bayazid<br />
raised an army to oppose Selim, Süleyman’s favorite. Selim<br />
defeated Bayazid at the Battle of Konya in 1559, whereupon<br />
Bayazid fled to Persia. Süleyman subsequently<br />
authorized Selim to dispatch executioners to Persia and<br />
paid Shahtahmasp I (r. 1524–76) to deliver Bayazid into<br />
their hands. Bayazid was killed in 1561.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Andre Clot: Suleiman the Magnificent:<br />
The Man, His Life, His Epoch (London: Saqi Books,<br />
1992); Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon: A History of<br />
the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador, 2003); Colin<br />
Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London: Palgrave<br />
Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: the<br />
Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-62927187293631053622014-08-15T23:13:00.003-07:002014-08-15T23:13:46.102-07:00Ottoman Civil War (1509–1513)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman Civil War (1509–1513)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Bayazid II vs. his sons<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the<br />
Ottoman sultanate<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Selim prevailed over his father and brothers<br />
and assumed the throne as Selim I.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Casualties included 40,000 Anatolian Shi’ites<br />
slain.<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
Although Bayazid II (1447–1513) had inherited a considerable<br />
empire from his father, Muhammad, or Mehmet, II<br />
(1429–81), he was never able to undertake the new conquests<br />
in Europe that the expansion-minded old sultan<br />
might have imagined to be the Ottoman legacy. For one<br />
thing, Bayazid had to turn much of his attention in the<br />
later years of his life to internal rebellion, especially in<br />
eastern Anatolia, where Turkoman nomads resisted not<br />
just the extension of the Ottoman administrative bureaucracy<br />
but also the empire’s Sunni orthodoxy. They developed<br />
a fanatical attachment to the Sufi and Shi’ite mystic<br />
orders, the most successful of which, the Safavids, used a<br />
combined religious and military appeal to conquer most of<br />
Persia. They then spread a message of religious heresy and<br />
political revolt, not only among the tribesmen but also to<br />
farmers and some city dwellers, Ottoman citizens who<br />
were beginning to imagine in this movement the answers<br />
to their own problems.<br />
At the same time, Bayazid was having trouble with the<br />
Janissaries who had been so instrumental in his own rise to<br />
power (see OTTOMAN CIVIL WAR [1481–1482]). Whereas<br />
Bayazid wished to name his son Ahmed (d. 1513) as his<br />
successor, the Janissaries much preferred his brother, Selim<br />
(1467–1520), governor of Trebizond. Bayazid, who had<br />
been put on the throne by the Janissaries despite his peaceloving<br />
nature, had throughout his reign only carried out<br />
military activities with reluctance, and Ahmed seemed to<br />
share his father’s personality. Selim, on the other hand, like<br />
the mercenary Janissaries, longed to return to Muhammad<br />
II’s aggressive style of conquest. When Bayazid seemed to be<br />
prepared to abdicate in Ahmed’s favor, Selim, governor of<br />
Trebizond, led an army to Adrianople, demanding that he<br />
be given a European province to govern. He wanted to<br />
ensure that he had sufficient power to topple Ahmed.<br />
Bayazid refused to accede to Selim’s demand, and Selim was<br />
defeated in battle. He returned to Trebizond in 1509.<br />
Then, in 1511, all the grievances disturbing the empire<br />
coalesced into a fundamentally religious uprising against<br />
the central government. The Shi’ite Turkoman nomads<br />
rebelled and took Bursa, the old Ottoman capital, about 150<br />
miles from Adrianople. Bayazid dispatched his grand vizier<br />
Ali Posa (fl. 1512) with a force to put down the Turkoman<br />
rebellion, an action that left him vulnerable to Ahmed’s<br />
pressure for abdication. The Janissaries threatened to revolt<br />
if Ahmed ascended the throne, so Bayazid decided not to<br />
abdicate. This prompted Ahmed to join with another<br />
brother, Kortud (d. 1513), in a rebellion in Anatolia. However,<br />
in 1512, Selim, backed by Persian allies, defeated<br />
Ahmed, then advanced to Adrianople. With the aid of the<br />
Janissaries, he at last compelled Bayazid’s abdication. Both<br />
Bayazid and Kortud were soon dead—poisoned. Selim pursued<br />
Ahmed, who was defeated in battle in 1513. Captured,<br />
he was put to death by strangulation. To ensure that he<br />
would now rule unopposed, Selim—now Selim I—ordered<br />
the deaths of all seven of his nephews, and four of his five<br />
sons. He then massacred 40,000 Anatolian Shi’ites to prevent<br />
another Turkoman rebellion. With his sultanate<br />
secure, Selim could then turn to new conquests.<br />
<br />
See also PERSIAN CIVIL WAR (1500–1503); TURKOPERSIAN<br />
WAR (1514–1516).<br />
<br />
Further reading: Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:<br />
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,<br />
2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:<br />
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman<br />
Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix<br />
Press, 2001).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-84626407082397664872014-08-15T23:12:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:12:28.362-07:00Ottoman Civil War (1481–1482)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman Civil War (1481–1482)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Bayazid II vs. Djem<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the<br />
Ottoman sultanate following the death of Muhammad II<br />
the Conqueror<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Djem was defeated several times and<br />
ultimately fled to Rhodes, where he was imprisoned for<br />
the rest of his life.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
Although Sultan Muhammad, or Mehmed II (the Conqueror;<br />
1429–1481) had greatly expanded the Ottoman<br />
Empire, leaving a firm foundation for the great future conquests<br />
of the 16th-century sultans, his death left unresolved<br />
many of the problems caused by his internal policies. The<br />
taxes he had imposed to finance his conquests, for example,<br />
had led during the last year of his reign to a virtual civil war<br />
in Constantinople between major factions of the janissaries<br />
and the Turkish aristocracy. Muhammad’s son, Bayazid<br />
(1447–1513), left Amaysa to assume the throne at the<br />
behest of the Janissaries, who dominated the capital militarily<br />
and whom Bayazid had courted with promises of a full<br />
amnesty for their rebellion and an increase in pay for their<br />
services, the latter always a key attraction for mercenary<br />
troops. Bayazid II’s first act was to kill the grand vizier, who<br />
had backed the other candidate for Muhammad’s throne,<br />
Djem (1459–95), governor of Karaman and Bayazid’s<br />
younger brother, who had already been proclaimed sultan<br />
in the old Ottoman capital of Bursa. Djem proposed to his<br />
brother that Bayazid rule Ottoman Europe and let Djem<br />
assume control of Anatolia. Bayazid rejected this proposal.<br />
He then managed to conciliate the nobility with his essentially<br />
pacific plans for consolidating his father’s empire,<br />
which downgraded the Janissaries. Bereft of his major support,<br />
Djem nevertheless came to fight. The two met in battle<br />
at Yenishehr in 1481. Defeated, Djem fled into exile in<br />
Mamluk Syria in the summer of 1481. In Cairo, he regrouped,<br />
and, in 1482, renewed his attack on Bayazid II,<br />
this time with Mamluk aid. Djem failed, however, to recruit<br />
support in Karaman, where the Turkoman nomads he had<br />
hoped to rally were instead attracted to Bayazid’s heterodoxy.<br />
Consequently, Djem was again defeated by his<br />
brother. This time, he fled to Rhodes, where the Knights<br />
Hospitalers kept him a captive—apparently at the request of<br />
Bayazid II, who paid them an annual fee for the service.<br />
However, another condition of Djem’s captivity—either<br />
explicit or understood—was that the Ottomans refrain from<br />
attacking Europe. For 13 years, Bayazid II left Europe<br />
unmolested, fearing that the Knights Hospitalers would<br />
release Djem. Upon Djem’s death (by poisoning, probably<br />
on Bayazid’s orders), Bayazid launched the VENETIAN-TURKISHWAR<br />
(1499–1503).<br />
<br />
Further reading: Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizon:<br />
A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador,<br />
2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire: 1300–1650 (London:<br />
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman<br />
Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Phoenix<br />
Press, 2001).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-21736150050863936442014-08-15T23:08:00.005-07:002014-08-15T23:08:45.346-07:00Ottoman Civil War (1403–1413)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Ottoman Civil War (1403–1413)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Four sons of Sultan Bayazid I of<br />
the Ottoman Empire<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Ottoman Empire<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the<br />
Ottoman sultanate<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: After a long civil war, one son emerged<br />
victorious and ruled as Muhammad I.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
When Sultan Bayazid I (1347–1403) was killed at the Battle<br />
of Angora in 1403, his death began a period known as<br />
the Interregnum, during which four of his six sons tore<br />
the fledgling Ottoman Empire apart in their quest for<br />
domination of the sultanate. Muhammad, or Mehmed I<br />
(1389–1421), captured Karaman and made this city his<br />
stronghold. Süleyman (d. 1411) had control of the empire’s<br />
European territories. Both Isa Bey (d. 1405) and<br />
Mustafa, or Musa Bey (d. 1413), took territories in Anatolia<br />
Turkey.<br />
Süleyman struck an alliance with the Byzantine<br />
Empire in 1405 and met Isa in battle. Defeating Isa’s<br />
army, he strangled his brother. Mustafa attacked Süleyman<br />
in 1406, fighting him and the Byzantine co-emperor<br />
John VIII Palaeologue (1390–1448) in Thrace. When<br />
Mustafa’s Serbian and Bulgarian allies fled the field, however,<br />
Süleyman was able to take Adrianople (Edirne), the<br />
Ottoman European capital. Mustafa regrouped, assembling<br />
an army of Turks and Wallachians, against Adrianople.<br />
In the course of the battle, Mustafa persuaded<br />
Süleyman’s contingent of Janissaries to defect to his side,<br />
and Süleyman was captured. Mustafa had him strangled<br />
as well.<br />
After the death of Süleyman, Mustafa laid siege to<br />
Constantinople but suffered defeat at sea. Despite this<br />
loss, Mustafa was still more powerful than Muhammad<br />
and was dominant in the region. He attacked Serbia in<br />
1406 and conquered Salonika, blinding its ruler, a son of<br />
Süleyman. Muhammad, however, with a large Turkish<br />
force and allied with the Byzantines, lifted Mustafa’s siege<br />
of Constantinople and regained the loyalty of the Janissaries.<br />
He waged unremitting war on Mustafa, fighting<br />
him in three separate battles before he definitively defeated<br />
his brother in 1413. Like Isa and Süleyman, Mustafa<br />
was executed by strangulation. Muhammad I<br />
assumed the Ottoman throne and set about rebuilding the<br />
empire.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Ducas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium<br />
to the Ottoman Turks, trans. Harry J. Magonlias. (Detroit:<br />
Wayne State University Press, 1975); Jason Goodwin,<br />
Lords of the Horizon: A History of the Ottoman Empire (New<br />
York: Picador, 2003); Colin Imber, Ottoman Empire:<br />
1300–1650 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Halil<br />
Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600<br />
(London: Phoenix Press, 2001).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-23135695084113110082014-08-15T23:08:00.004-07:002014-08-15T23:08:32.176-07:00Oswald’s Wars (1633–641)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Oswald’s Wars (1633–641)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Oswald, king of Bernicia, and<br />
Penda, king of Mercia vs. Cadwallon, king of Gwynedd,<br />
Wales; later, Oswald vs. Penda<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): England, primarily Northumbria<br />
and Wales<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Domination over Anglo-<br />
Saxon England<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Oswald amassed a large Anglo-Saxon<br />
kingdom, but was killed in battle by his former ally,<br />
Penda, who elevated Mercia to a long period of<br />
dominance over Anglo-Saxon England.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: No documents survive<br />
<br />
During the Middle Ages, England was a region of fragmented<br />
kingdoms. The death of Edwin (585–632), king of<br />
Deira, enabled Oswald (c. 605–641), son of the Bernician<br />
king Aethelfrith (fl. 593–616), to regain dominance of<br />
both Bernicia and Deira after he had been exiled from<br />
Northumbria (the region encompassing Bernicia and<br />
Deira) in 616. With King Penda (c. 577–655) of Mercia,<br />
Oswald now attacked King Cadwallon (d. 634) of<br />
Gwynedd, in northern Wales. After a year of combat, the<br />
forces of Cadwallon were defeated, and Cadwallon himself<br />
killed at the Battle of Heavenfield in 634.<br />
Oswald now fought to secure his Northumbrian borders<br />
and extend his realms south. Along with battle, he<br />
used a dynastic marriage to secure control of Wessex.<br />
This, however, turned his ally Penda against him, and the<br />
two led armies into combat at the Battle of Maserfeld in<br />
641. There Oswald fell, propelling Penda and the kingdom<br />
of Mercia to dominance over Anglo-Saxon England. Mercia<br />
would come to dominate England for a century and a<br />
half. Oswald, who had tried to bring peace to his realm<br />
and who founded a famous monastery at Lindisfarne to<br />
bring Christianity into pagan Northumbria, was later canonized.<br />
<br />
See also AETHEBALD’SWARS (733–750); AETHELFRITH’S<br />
WARS (593–616).<br />
<br />
Further reading: Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,<br />
3rd ed. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1971).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-62558715708351964292014-08-15T23:07:00.003-07:002014-08-15T23:07:34.072-07:00Oruro Revolt (1736–1737)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Oruro Revolt (1736–1737)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Spain vs. the Oruro Indians<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Central Peru<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Rebellion against<br />
intolerable working and living conditions in the mines of<br />
central Peru<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: The rebels sacked the city of Oruro, but the<br />
rebellion was extinguished by Spanish colonial troops.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
The Oruro Indians of Peru were treated essentially as<br />
slaves by the mine owners in the central portion of that<br />
colony. The horrific conditions drove the Oruros to desperation,<br />
and they rallied behind Juan Santos, who led<br />
them in revolt. In 1737, they overran the city of Oruro<br />
before colonial troops put down the rebellion.<br />
<br />
Further reading: J.R. Fisher, Silver Mines and Silver<br />
Miners in Colonial Peru, 1776–1824 (Liverpool: Centre for<br />
Latin-American Studies, University of Liverpool, 1977).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-31655997027775537632014-08-15T23:05:00.001-07:002014-08-15T23:05:09.437-07:00Orléans, Siege of (1429)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Orléans, Siege of (1429)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: English forces for Henry VI and<br />
Burgundian allies vs. Joan of Arc and forces for the<br />
French heir Charles<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): City of Orléans in southern<br />
France<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: No formal declaration<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: A contest for the French<br />
throne following the death of King Charles VI.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: The dauphin ascended to the throne.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
English, 5,000; Joan was accompanied to Orléans by<br />
several hundred troops.<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: English, 500 killed or captured; French,<br />
unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
In 1420, during the HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR, England’s King<br />
Henry V (1387–1422) became heir to the French throne,<br />
by courtesy of the Treaty of Troyes, upon the death of<br />
French king Charles VI (1368–1422). The deal was<br />
denounced by Charles’s son, the dauphin, and his followers,<br />
and when Charles died, the dauphin claimed the crown<br />
as Charles VII (1403–61). Unfortunately, the English, too,<br />
decided to press their claim, and they allied with Philip III<br />
(the Good; 1396–1467), duke of Burgundy—whose forces<br />
controlled much of northern France—to keep Charles from<br />
taking the throne. As it happened, Henry V died the same<br />
year as Charles VI, so it was not he but his infant son,<br />
Henry VI (1421–71), in whose name the English regent,<br />
John Plantagenet (1389–1435), duke of Bedford, took control<br />
of English holdings in northern France. Five years after<br />
the death of this father, Charles VII had not yet been<br />
crowned, since Reims, traditional site of French coronations,<br />
lay under the control of his enemies.<br />
Even worse, Bedford soon attacked the south, sending<br />
5,000 troops to conquer Maine, a border region between<br />
those French lands recognizing Henry of England as king<br />
and those recognizing Charles as king. After taking Maine,<br />
Thomas de Montacute (d. 1428), earl of Salisbury,<br />
launched the siege of Orléans, a city which had become<br />
key to maintaining the dauphin’s ambition. Not only the<br />
French were unhappy with Salisbury. His action had been<br />
taken against the advice of the duke of Bedford himself,<br />
who argued for an advance into Anjou instead. Salisbury<br />
managed to capture some important places upstream and<br />
downstream from Orléans, along with the bridgehead fort<br />
on the south bank of the Loire River opposite the city<br />
itself, before he died from a battle wound on November 3.<br />
His successor in command, William de la Pole (1396–<br />
1450), earl of Suffolk, did little to advance the siege before<br />
December of 1428, when John Talbot (1384–1453 [later earl<br />
of Shrewsbury]) and Thomas Scales arrived to push him forward.<br />
Under their influence the English began to build<br />
impressive siegeworks, including forts, and to press harder<br />
on the city, and a French attempt to cut the besiegers’ line of<br />
supply was defeated in the Battle of the Herrings on February<br />
12, 1429. Still, as the weeks went by, Orléans held out.<br />
Part of the reason lay with a young French peasant<br />
girl, the deeply religious Joan of Arc (1412–31), who<br />
would lead the defense against the siege after forcing an<br />
audience with the dauphin and persuading him to accept<br />
what she saw as her divine mission to save the city. In fact,<br />
the defenders, under Jean d’Orléans (1403–68), comte de<br />
Dunois (bastard son of Charles VII’s late uncle Louis, duc<br />
d’Orléans [1372–1407]), were considering capitulation<br />
when Joan had her audience. At length, she persuaded<br />
Charles to send an army to relieve the besieged town.<br />
With several hundred of the dauphin’s troops, Joan set<br />
out for Orléans. From Chézy five miles upstream, Joan<br />
distracted the English with a diversionary feint against<br />
one of the English forts, and entered Orléans with supplies<br />
on April 30. On May 4 she attacked the principal<br />
English forts, and within three days they had all been<br />
stormed. Suffolk abandoned the siege. What was more,<br />
the English were forced out of Troyes, Châlons, and<br />
Reims. There, at last, Charles was crowned. Although ultimately<br />
the English would execute Joan as a witch and a<br />
heretic, the “Maid of Orléans” had loosened England’s grip<br />
on French lands for good.<br />
<br />
See also ROSES, WARS OF THE.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Anne Curry, The Hundred Years War<br />
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Desmond Stewart,<br />
The Hundred Years’ War: England in France, 1337–1453<br />
(New York: Penguin USA, 1999); Jonathan Sumption, The<br />
Hundred Years’ War: Trial by Fire (Philadelphia: University<br />
of Pennsylvania Press, 2000).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-16507402689622274352014-08-15T23:03:00.004-07:002014-08-15T23:03:27.411-07:00Orange River War (1846–1850)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Orange River War (1846–1850)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: The Boers vs. Great Britain<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): South Africa, between the Vaal<br />
and Orange rivers<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Frontier conflict between<br />
colonial rivals<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Inconclusive, although the British beat back a<br />
Boer incursion across the Vaal River<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Boers, 1,000; British, 1,000<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: 100 killed or wounded on both sides<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
Throughout much of the 19th century, the Boers (Dutch<br />
colonial farmers of South Africa) came into increasing<br />
conflict with the British who had control of the region.<br />
During 1835–37, some 12,000 Boers migrated northward<br />
and established their own independent states. Along the<br />
frontier between these new Boer states and the British<br />
colonial holdings warfare developed during 1846–50.<br />
There was only a single set battle, and no war was formally<br />
declared. However, the chronic conflict near the<br />
Great Kei River and in the area between the Orange River<br />
and the Vaal River was dubbed the Orange River War.<br />
The single major battle of the war, at Boomplaats, on<br />
August 29, 1848, resulted in the defeat of the Orange<br />
Colony Boers under General Andreas Pretorius (1798–<br />
1853) by a British force commanded by Sir Harry Smith<br />
(1787–1860). As a result, the Boers retreated across the<br />
Vaal, but violence continued sporadically.<br />
<br />
See also BOER UPRISING; BOER WAR, FIRST; BOER WAR,<br />
SECOND; BOER-ZULU WAR; JAMESON RAID.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Leonard Thompson, A History of<br />
South Africa (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,<br />
2001).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-67730962858003302472014-08-15T23:03:00.003-07:002014-08-15T23:03:24.000-07:00Oranges, War of the (1801)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Oranges, War of the (1801)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: France and Spain vs. Portugal<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Portugal<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: France wanted Portuguese<br />
cessions of territory and concessions of trade; under<br />
pressure from Napoleon, Spain cooperated in war against<br />
Portugal.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Portugal ceded territory in Brazil and<br />
Portugal and made other concessions; Napoleon was<br />
unsatisfied.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: Treaty of Badajoz, June 6, 1801<br />
<br />
Threatened by Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769–<br />
1821), Spain joined France in a brief war to compel Portugal<br />
to cede much of its territory to France and to close its<br />
ports to British trade. French forces, joined by Spanish<br />
troops under General Manuel Godoy (1767–1851), invaded<br />
in April 1801. The Portuguese were defeated along the<br />
Spanish border at the Battle of Olivenza, whereupon Godoy<br />
sent to the queen of Spain a basket of oranges picked at<br />
nearby Elvas, with a message announcing his intention to<br />
march to Lisbon. However, Portugal quickly agreed to the<br />
Treaty of Badajoz on June 6, 1801, shutting its ports to<br />
British trade, granting special trading status to France, ceding<br />
Olivenza to Spain, ceding part of Brazil to France, and<br />
paying monetary reparations. Napoleon, wanting more of<br />
Portugal itself, denounced the treaty, prompting Spain to<br />
take a stand against France. Napoleon threatened to devastate<br />
both Spain and Portugal, but he was unable to make<br />
good on his threat because of war pressures elsewhere.<br />
<br />
See also NAPOLEONIC WARS.<br />
<br />
Further reading: David Chandler, Campaigns of<br />
Napoleon (London: Cassell, 1997); Charles J. Esdaile, The<br />
Wars of Napoleon (London: Pearson, 1996); Gunther Eric<br />
Rothenberg, The Napoleonic Wars (London: Cassell,<br />
1999).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-15402490281788869032014-08-15T23:01:00.004-07:002014-08-15T23:01:41.535-07:00Oporto, Revolution at (1820)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Oporto, Revolution at (1820)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Oporto Jacobins vs. Great Britain<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Oporto and Lisbon, Portugal<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: Coup of August 24, 1820<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Jacobins sought the<br />
ouster of the British regency in Portugal.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: In a bloodless revolution, the British regency<br />
was evicted and the Portuguese king returned to his<br />
throne as a constitutional monarch.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: None<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />As a result of the British victory over Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
(1769–1821) in the PENINSULAR WAR from 1808 to 1814,<br />
Portugal came under the rule of a British regency, its king,<br />
John VI (1769–1826), having fled to Brazil to establish a<br />
government in exile. During the regency, Portuguese radical<br />
nationalists—popularly called Jacobins—fomented<br />
rebellion, calling for the removal of the British marshal in<br />
charge of the Portuguese army, William Carr Beresford<br />
(1768–1854). To counter the Jacobin movement, Beresford<br />
went to Brazil in an effort to persuade the king to<br />
return. In Beresford’s absence, on August 24, 1820, the<br />
Jacobin Club of Oporto conspired with high-ranking military<br />
officers to stage a coup d’état. A junta was summarily<br />
established, and the revolution was accomplished with<br />
nothing more than a volley of musket fire.<br />
The revolution spread to the Portuguese capital, Lisbon,<br />
within a matter of days. A quick revolt took place on<br />
September 15, 1820, and the junta ousted the regency<br />
and convened a session of the Cortes (parliament). The<br />
small contingent of British military was ejected from the<br />
country, Beresford was recalled to Britain, and John VI<br />
did return to Portugal, without the intermediation of a<br />
foreign regency and as a constitutional monarch. The<br />
king had left his first son behind as Emperor Pedro I<br />
(1798–1834) of Brazil, but his second son, Don Miguel<br />
(1842–66) could not reconcile his father’s return with his<br />
own ideas of absolute monarchy and his own ambitions<br />
for such a crown. Backed by his Braganza family in Portugal,<br />
he tried to extend their dynasty in a stop-and-go<br />
rebellion that ultimately led to the MIGUELITE WARS<br />
(1828–34).<br />
<br />
See also BRAZILIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE; PORTUGUESE<br />
CIVIL WAR (1823–1824); SPANISH CIVIL WAR<br />
(1820–1823).<br />
<br />
Further reading: James M. Anderson, History of Portugal<br />
(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group,<br />
2000); Antonio Henrique R. De Oliveira Marques, History<br />
of Portugal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972);<br />
H. V. Livermore, A New History of Portugal (New York:<br />
Cambridge University Press, 1976).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-39409002438043031472014-08-15T23:00:00.003-07:002014-08-15T23:00:44.147-07:00Opium War, Second (1856–1860)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Opium War, Second (1856–1860)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Great Britain and France vs.<br />
China<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): The China coast<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: England and France attacked China after<br />
the Arrow, a Chinese-owned ship flying the British flag,<br />
was seized by the Chinese.<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: After the First Opium<br />
War, the British and the French (and other Western<br />
powers, including the United States) sought further trade<br />
concessions and, once again, used China’s enforcement of<br />
its ban on the opium trade as an excuse to go to war and<br />
get them.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: China was forced to open more of its ports to<br />
British and other foreign trade and to grant Great Britain<br />
further land around Hong Kong in a “lease” to last 99 years<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Anglo-French forces, 17,700; Chinese forces, 30,000<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Anglo-French, nearly 900 killed or wounded;<br />
Chinese, more than 7,000 killed, wounded, or captured<br />
<br />
TREATIES: Treaty of Tientsin (Tianjin or Tianjian [Tientsin]),<br />
June 28, 1858 (reaffirmed and expanded in 1860)<br />
plus copycat treaties with France, Russia, and the United<br />
States<br />
<br />
The First OPIUM WAR resulted in the opening of several<br />
Chinese ports as well as the cession of Hong Kong to Great<br />
Britain. By 1856, the British (and the French) were restless<br />
for further trade concessions. In that year, Chinese officials<br />
seized the Arrow, a Chinese-owned ship flying the British<br />
flag and engaged in smuggling opium. The British, seeking<br />
to extend their trading rights in China, used the seizure as<br />
an excuse to renew hostilities. They were joined in the hostilities<br />
by the French, who used as their excuse the murder<br />
of a French missionary in the interior of China. In late<br />
1857 a combined English and French force attacked, occupying<br />
Canton (Guangzhou [Kwangchow]). Next, the force<br />
took forts near Tianjin, and treaties were concluded<br />
between China and Britain as well as similar treaties<br />
between China and France, Russia, and the United States.<br />
The new treaties with the Western powers caused<br />
widespread outrage in China and failed to receive ratification.<br />
Foreign diplomats were refused entrance to Beijing<br />
(Peking), and a British force was slaughtered outside of<br />
Tianjin in 1859. A renewed Anglo-French assault captured<br />
Tianjin and defeated a Chinese army outside of Beijing.<br />
The Chinese emperor, Xianfeng (Hsien-feng; 1831–<br />
61), fled, and his commissioners concluded new treaties<br />
embodying the provisions of the Tianjin agreement and<br />
adding four more ports to the list of those now open to<br />
foreign trade.<br />
Of special importance, the Kowloon Peninsula on the<br />
Chinese mainland was added to the Hong Kong colony,<br />
and in 1898 a large area beyond Kowloon, together with<br />
the surrounding islands (the “New Territories”), was<br />
leased to Great Britain for 99 years.<br />
<br />
See also BOXER REBELLION.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium<br />
Wars (New York: Harcourt, 1977); D. Bonner-Smith, The<br />
Second China War, 1856–1860 (New York: Hyperion,<br />
1994); W. Travis Hanes and Frank Sanello, The Opium<br />
Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption of<br />
Another (Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks Inc., 2002); Douglas<br />
Hurd, The Arrow War: an Anglo-Chinese Confusion, 1856–<br />
1860 (New York: Macmillan, 1967).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-38928034171148086532014-08-15T23:00:00.002-07:002014-08-15T23:00:36.636-07:00Opium War, First (1839–1842)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Opium War, First (1839–1842)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Great Britain vs. China<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): The China coast<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: China attacked the British ships sent to<br />
protect the opium trade on September 4, 1839.<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The British used Chinese<br />
trade policies against the importation of opium and<br />
China’s treatment of opium merchants as a cause for<br />
going to war and forcing “open” trade policies on the<br />
traditionally insular Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: China was forced to open its ports to British<br />
and other foreign trade and to grant a number of<br />
humiliating concessions<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
British forces, 12,000; Chinese forces, 45,000<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Britain, about 100 killed or wounded; China,<br />
about 6,800 killed, wounded, or captured<br />
<br />
TREATIES: Treaty of Nanking, August 29, 1842<br />
<br />
Basically trade wars in which Western nations gained<br />
commercial privileges in China, the Opium Wars (fought<br />
from 1839 to 1842 and 1856 to 1860) were the first major<br />
military confrontations between China and the European<br />
West. Since the beginning of the 19th century British<br />
traders had been illegally importing the drug into China,<br />
leading to widespread social and economic disruption and<br />
degradation. They not only ended Chinese isolation from<br />
other civilizations, but began for China a century of mistreatment<br />
and humiliation at the hands of foreign powers,<br />
leading to the decay of the Qing dynasty and, ultimately,<br />
revolution, civil war, and the ascendancy of communist<br />
rule.<br />
The First Opium War began when British merchants<br />
ignored a Chinese prohibition against the importation of<br />
opium. On March 30, 1839, the Chinese imperial commissioner,<br />
Lin Zexu (Lin Tse-hsü)—frustrated by the insouciance<br />
of British merchants toward official China—<br />
confiscated and destroyed all the smuggled opium in<br />
British warehouses and ships in Canton (Guangzhou<br />
[Kwangchow]), British tempers, from merchant to skivvy,<br />
flared, and the antagonism between the British and Chinese<br />
officialdom only increased a few days later when<br />
drunken British sailors killed a Chinese villager. The<br />
British government, which did not recognize the Chinese<br />
legal system, refused to turn the accused men over to the<br />
local courts.<br />
Hostilities broke out, and Britain responded by dispatching<br />
warships and troops to attack the China coast. In<br />
rapid succession, the cities of Hangzhou (Hangchow),<br />
Hong Kong, and Canton fell under attack and were blockaded<br />
by the British. A small amphibious force sailed up<br />
the Pearl River and assaulted the fortifications surrounding<br />
Canton. The city fell in May 1841, followed soon by<br />
Amoy and Ningbo (Ning-po). After a lull in the fighting<br />
when disease struck the British forces, renewed efforts<br />
resulted in the taking of Shanghai and Xinjiang (Chinkiang).<br />
Outmatched by British troops and equipment, the<br />
Chinese capitulated when British navy ships appeared in<br />
August 1842.<br />
The subsequent Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking) was<br />
harsh. In addition to agreeing to pay a $20 million indemnity,<br />
the Chinese opened the ports of Canton, Xiamen<br />
(Amoy), Fuzhou (Foochow), Ningbo, and Shanghai to<br />
British trade and residence. China also granted Britain the<br />
right of “extraterritoriality,” whereby British residents in<br />
China were subject not to Chinese legal jurisdiction but to<br />
that of special consular courts. The greatest prize ceded to<br />
the Crown was Hong Kong, which was transferred to<br />
Britain in perpetuity.<br />
The trade and legal concessions made to the British<br />
under the treaty were soon extended to other Western<br />
powers, and China’s long isolation came to an end. The<br />
<br />
Second OPIUM WAR erupted in 1856.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium<br />
Wars (New York: Harcourt, 1977); Hsin-pao Chang, Commissioner<br />
Lin and the Opium War (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard<br />
University Press, 1964); Peter Ward Fay, The Opium<br />
War, 1840–1842 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina<br />
Press, 1975); W. Travis Hanes and Frank Sanello,<br />
The Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption<br />
of Another (Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks Inc.,<br />
2002).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-61915250646646406542014-08-15T22:58:00.000-07:002014-08-15T22:58:05.167-07:00Onin War (1467–1477)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Onin War (1467–1477)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Rival shogun clans<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Kyoto and environs<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Succession to the<br />
shogunate<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: The issues of succession remained unresolved<br />
throughout the long and ruinous war.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
A feudal dispute erupted into chaotic warfare in western<br />
Japan. Yoshimasa (1435–90), the Ashikaga shogun (mili-<br />
tary overlord), retired in 1467, triggering a dispute over<br />
succession to his shogunate. Rival families started a fullscale<br />
war in and about Kyoto, which was largely destroyed<br />
in the conflict. Even though the leaders of the<br />
warring factions, Yamana Mochitoyo (1404–73) and Hosokawa<br />
Katsumoto (c. 1430–73), both died in 1473, their<br />
partisans continued to fight, ultimately bringing some<br />
dozen major military families into the fray and laying<br />
waste to the entire region around Kyoto. The Onin War<br />
produced nothing but general ruin and failed to resolve<br />
the succession to the shogunate.<br />
<br />
See also JAPANESE CIVIL WARS (1450–1550).<br />
<br />
Further reading: Thomas Keirstead, The Geography of<br />
Power in Medieval Japan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University<br />
Press, 1992); H. Paul Valery, The Onin War (New<br />
York: Columbia University Press, 1966).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-17416984575715120912014-08-15T22:55:00.003-07:002014-08-15T22:55:26.382-07:00Old Zurich War (1436–1450)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Old Zurich War (1436–1450)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Zurich and Austria (with French<br />
aid) vs. Schwyz, Glarus, and the Swiss Confederacy<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Zurich and the Toggenburg<br />
<br />DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Control of the Toggenburg<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Zurich relinquished the Toggenburg to<br />
Schwyz, and the house of Savoy was installed in the<br />
Aargau (Switzerland).<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Schwyz and Swiss Confederacy, 20,000; Zurich and allies,<br />
40,000<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: Peace of Ensisheim, 1444; Peace of Constance,<br />
1446<br />
<br />
The Old Zurich War grew from a territorial dispute created<br />
by the death of the last count of Toggenburg in 1436.<br />
The Toggenburgs, always vassals of either German kings<br />
or Holy Roman Emperors, boasted extensive possessions<br />
in what is now northeastern Switzerland. The dying off of<br />
the dynasty not only raised questions about who would<br />
rule some of the large Toggenburg holdings but fed the<br />
greed of nearby towns. The Toggenburg lands were<br />
bounded to the west and to the southwest by the free<br />
cities of Zurich, Schwyz, and Glarus—all members of the<br />
Swiss Confederation. To the southeast, Toggenburg possessions<br />
bordered lands held by two of the three leagues<br />
later known collectively as the Grisons.<br />
While the southeasternmost part of the territory was<br />
quickly claimed (and occupied) by the newly formed<br />
Zehngerichtenbund (League of Ten Jurisdictions), the rest<br />
of the Toggenburg inheritance fell open to dispute. The<br />
House of Raron (in distant Valais) managed successfully to<br />
claim most of the countship, but the dependencies nearest<br />
to Lake Zurich and a tract to the east of them was<br />
promptly invaded by the men of Schwyz, who blocked the<br />
road to Zurich. These moves were, of course, fiercely<br />
resented by Zurich, whose leaders desired to control at<br />
least the shore of the lake if nothing else. When a meeting<br />
of the Swiss confederates in 1437 authorized Schwyz and<br />
Glarus to retain nearly all the occupied zone, Zurich<br />
rejected the settlement out of hand and appealed to the<br />
Imperial Diet in 1440. The Austrian duke and German<br />
king Frederick III (1415–43) allied his forces with Zurich,<br />
which prompted Schwyz and its ally Glarus to declare war<br />
on Zurich and Austria.<br />
During the opening clash, Zurich’s burgomaster, at<br />
the head of its army, was killed, sending the forces of<br />
Zurich into headlong retreat. The Imperial Diet now called<br />
for conciliation, whereupon Zurich broke with Austria,<br />
which rejected the directive of the Diet. Joining the side of<br />
Schwyz, the Swiss Confederacy aided the city with some<br />
20,000 troops in its siege against Zurich. Frederick<br />
obtained aid from France—40,000 men—who were nevertheless<br />
defeated by the much smaller Schwyz-Swiss<br />
Confederacy force in 1444.<br />
The Peace of Ensisheim was concluded in 1444, but<br />
Zurich refused to be a party to it. Two years later, however,<br />
the Peace of Constance ended the Austrian-Zurich alliance<br />
and gave some territory back to Zurich, but yielded to<br />
Schwyz most of Toggenburg. Austria remained involved in<br />
sporadic fighting in the region until a special court of arbitration<br />
ordered Austria out of the Aargau (Switzerland)<br />
altogether and installed there the house of Savoy. Ultimately,<br />
the major portion of the Toggenburg countship<br />
was sold by the house of Raron to the prince-abbot of<br />
Sankt Gallen in 1468, only to become a ground for discord<br />
during the Swiss Reformation (see the VILLMERGEN WAR,<br />
SECOND).<br />
<br />
Further reading: William Martin, Switzerland: From<br />
Roman Times to the Present (New York: Praeger, 1971).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-9940828791896712542014-08-15T22:54:00.001-07:002014-08-15T22:54:39.537-07:00Og’s Rebellion (1480)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Og’s Rebellion (1480)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Angus Og vs. the Macdonald and<br />
Maclean clans<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Northwestern Scottish Highlands<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Domination of the<br />
Highlands<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Og defeated his father, the Lord of the Isles,<br />
and caused great and violent feuding throughout the<br />
Highlands.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown, but the Battle of Bloody Bay is<br />
believed to have been extraordinarily savage.<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
In the northwest of Scotland, the Macdonald clan dubbed<br />
themselves the “Lords of the Isles” and rebelled against<br />
the Scottish Crown in the MACDONALD REBELLION in<br />
1411. After years of chronic unrest and uprising, the<br />
Crown reached an agreement with the Macdonalds,<br />
which, however, turned Angus Og (d. 1490), bastard son<br />
of the current lord of the Isles, against his father as well as<br />
the Crown. His break with his father divided the northwestern<br />
Highlands into two warring factions. In 1480, at<br />
the Battle of Bloody Bay, Og, allied now with the Macleod<br />
and MacKenzie clans, fought his father and his allies, the<br />
Macleans. Og not only enjoyed victory, he captured and<br />
imprisoned his father (as well as two of his principal<br />
Maclean officers) and persisted in stirring up violent feuding<br />
in the Highlands. The assassination of Og in 1490<br />
ended this.<br />
<br />
Further reading: W. Croft Dickinson, Scotland from<br />
the Earliest Times to 1603, 3rd rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon<br />
Press, 1977).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-80686024876995270842014-08-15T22:53:00.003-07:002014-08-15T22:53:30.107-07:00Offa’s Wars (771–796)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Offa’s Wars (771–796)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Mercia’s Offa vs. various<br />
rebellious lords and subkings and the Welsh<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): England below Yorkshire<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The forging of Anglo-<br />
Saxon England<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Offa obtained and maintained control over<br />
most of England south of Yorkshire; Wales remained<br />
wildly independent.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: No documents survive<br />
<br />
From ancient Mercian lineage, Offa (d. July 796) became<br />
one of the more powerful Anglo-Saxon kings in England<br />
after he seized the throne during a civil war following the<br />
murder of his cousin, King Aethelbald (r. 716–57). Ruthlessly<br />
suppressing the small states in and around Mercia,<br />
he forged a united kingdom south of Yorkshire. By 774,<br />
lesser kings in the region were paying him homage as<br />
“king of the English,” and he married his daughters to the<br />
rulers of Wessex and Northumbria. Offa’s England was,<br />
however, an unstable place, and in addition to the wars he<br />
had waged to unite the kingdom before 774, he was forced<br />
afterward to engage in a number of disciplinary conflicts<br />
from 775 through 796 against upstart rebels, most often in<br />
Kent, but also in Wessex and East Anglia.<br />
Offa’s goal throughout was to establish himself on a<br />
par with the monarchs of continental Europe, and though<br />
he quarreled frequently with the king of the Franks,<br />
Charlemagne (c. 742–814) nevertheless concluded a commercial<br />
treaty with Offa in 796. Offa was also on good<br />
terms with Rome and allowed Pope Adrian I (pope from<br />
772–95) to increase his control over the sometimes maverick<br />
English church. None of his European prestige,<br />
however, helped Offa much with the Welsh, who stoutly<br />
resisted conquest, and Offa ultimately gave up on these<br />
stubborn people, erecting an earthen boundary, Offa’s<br />
Dyke, to separate England from Wales—and to provide<br />
something of a fortified position to defend against raids<br />
and other incursions.<br />
<br />
See also AETHELBALD’S WARS.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Frank Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,<br />
3rd ed. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1971).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-25616430175958422702014-08-15T22:53:00.002-07:002014-08-15T22:53:22.866-07:00Odaenathus’s Gothic Campaign (266)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Odaenathus’s Gothic Campaign (266)</h2>
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Odaenathus vs. Goth raiders<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Asia Minor<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: Unknown<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Backed by his patron,<br />
Rome’s emperor Gallienus, Odaenathus launched a<br />
punitive expedition against the Goths.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Odaenathus subdued the barbarian raids but<br />
was soon afterward murdered.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: None<br />
<br />
In the middle of the third century, the Goths took advantage<br />
of Rome’s wars with Persia to ravage Asia Minor. Teutonic<br />
“barbarians” of mixed Scythian and German stock,<br />
though less Asian than the Sarmatians, they consisted of<br />
two main groups: the Ostrogoths, or East Goths, from the<br />
Dnieper-Don steppes, who were primarily horsemen, and<br />
Visigoths, or West Goths, from the Carpathians, who<br />
relied primarily on infantry. But the Goths also became a<br />
seafaring people, and their most destructive raids into the<br />
Roman Empire came by water, across the Black and<br />
Aegean Seas.<br />
During the ROMAN-PERSIAN WAR (257–261), a Romanized<br />
Arab, Septimus Odainath (or Odaenathus) (d. c.<br />
267), prince of Palmyra, rose to prominence by effectively<br />
defending the empire’s eastern provinces against Shapur I<br />
(d. 272), who had captured the Roman emperor Valerian<br />
(d. c. 261) in battle, and by defeating and executing one of<br />
the “Thirty Tyrants” named Quietus (d. c. 261). After<br />
Valerian died in captivity, the new emperor Gallienus (d.<br />
268) graced Odaenathus with the title “Dux Orientus”<br />
and made him a virtual coruler of the Eastern Empire.<br />
Accompanied and aided by his wife, Zenobia (d. after<br />
274), Odaenathus led the ARAB INVASION OF PERSIA in 262<br />
and had recaptured Rome’s lost provinces east of the<br />
Euphrates by 264.<br />
Because he was already in the area, it was only natural<br />
that Odaenathus take on the Goths then raiding throughout<br />
Asia Minor. Backed by Gallienus and reinforced with<br />
Roman troops, Odaenathus launched his army of light<br />
foot soldiers and Arabian cavalry on a successful punitive<br />
expedition against the Goths in 266. The expedition, however,<br />
is mostly significant for its conclusion. Soon after<br />
completing his last “mission” for Rome, the Dux Orientus<br />
was murdered, at which point his title passed to his son,<br />
Vaballathus (d. c. 273), but his power—over Palmyra and<br />
the Eastern Empire—effectively passed to his widow, celebrated<br />
for her beauty and her military acumen, but not<br />
necessarily for her loyalty to Rome (see ZENOBIA’S CONQUEST<br />
OF EGYPT and AURELIAN’S WAR AGAINST ZENOBIA).<br />
<br />
Further reading: Peter Brown, The World of Late<br />
Antiquity, A.D. 150–750 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989);<br />
Richard Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s Revolt<br />
against Rome (reprint, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan<br />
Press, 1995).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-86568939190650662112014-08-15T22:50:00.003-07:002014-08-15T22:50:41.059-07:00Octavian’s War against Pompey (40–36 B.C.E.)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Octavian’s War against Pompey (40–36 B.C.E.)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Octavian vs. Pompey the<br />
Younger<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Sicily and Sardinia<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: At issue was control of<br />
Sardinia and Sicily in an effort to secure a reliable supply<br />
of grain for Rome.<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Octavian ultimately prevailed, capturing both<br />
Sardinia and Sicily and ensuring the free passage of grain<br />
to Rome.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Unknown; Octavian dispatched a fleet of 120 vessels<br />
against Pompey’s smaller fleet.<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: Unknown<br />
<br />
TREATIES: Treaty of Misenium, 39 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Following the death of Pompey the Great (106–48 B.C.E.)<br />
in the Great ROMAN CIVIL WAR (50–49 B.C.E.), his son<br />
Pompey the Younger (Sextus Pompeius Magnus) (75–35<br />
B.C.E.) fled to Egypt and then to Spain, where he continued<br />
to oppose the forces of Julius Caesar (100–44 B.C.E.)<br />
and his successors. Pompey the Younger captured Sicily<br />
and, operating from there, blockaded shipments of grain<br />
to Rome. From there, too, he launched an attack on Sardinia,<br />
which he seized from Octavian (63 B.C.E.–14 C.E.)<br />
in 40 B.C.E. This prompted Octavian and Mark Antony (c.<br />
83–30 B.C.E.) to conclude the Treaty of Misenium with<br />
Pompey the Younger, by which Pompey was made governor<br />
of Sicily and Sardinia and was compensated for property<br />
seized from Pompey the Great. In return, Pompey the<br />
Younger agreed to transport grain to Rome.<br />
The treaty did not long endure. In 38, Octavian<br />
regained Sardinia, but when he attempted to capture Sicily<br />
as well, his fleet fell victim to a combination of Pompey’s<br />
sailors and a severe storm.<br />
In 36, Octavian launched a new naval attack against<br />
Pompey’s Sicily, sending against him 120 ships under Marcus<br />
Vipsanius Agrippa (63–12 B.C.E.). At the naval Battle<br />
of Naulochus, Pompey’s fleet was defeated. Pompey himself<br />
escaped to Asia Minor, but was captured in 35 by<br />
Mark Antony and was subsequently killed. Rome never<br />
again suffered a threat to its supply of grain.<br />
<br />
See also OCTAVIAN’S WAR AGAINST ANTONY; ROMAN<br />
CIVIL WAR (43–31 B.C.E.).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-87697153998246011472014-08-15T22:49:00.002-07:002014-08-15T22:49:52.107-07:00Octavian’s War against Antony (33–30 B.C.E.)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Octavian’s War against Antony (33–30 B.C.E.)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Mark Antony and Cleopatra vs.<br />
Octavian<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Egypt<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Possession and control of<br />
Egypt<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: Antony and Cleopatra were defeated; Octavian<br />
conquered Egypt and subsequently, as Caesar Augustus,<br />
was the first emperor of the Roman Empire.<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS:<br />
Antony and Cleopatra’s forces, 40,000; Octavian’s forces,<br />
40,000<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: At Actium, 5,000 of Antony’s men died.<br />
<br />
TREATIES: Egyptian capitulation and tribute, 30 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
After the assassination of Julius Caesar (100–44 B.C.E.) in<br />
44 B.C.E., two of his cohorts, his second-in-command Marcus<br />
Aemilius Lepidus (d. c. 13 B.C.E.) and his right-hand<br />
man Marcus Antonius (c. 83–30 B.C.E. [“Mark Antony” to<br />
the English-speaking, Shakespeare-reading world]) formed<br />
the Second Triumvirate with Caesar’s nephew and adopted<br />
heir, 18-year-old Gaius Octavius (63 B.C.E.–14 C.E.; called<br />
Octavian by English scholars and soon to be known<br />
throughout the world and for eternity as Rome’s first and<br />
greatest emperor, Augustus Caesar. Though the three,<br />
with good reason, hardly trusted one another, they managed<br />
to coexist until 36 B.C.E., when Lepidus—resentful of<br />
the growing domination of the triumvirate by Octavian<br />
and Antony—attacked Octavius in Sicily, only to lose his<br />
army to the younger man and find himself placed under<br />
lifelong armed guard.<br />
Meanwhile, Antony—having taken Rome’s Eastern<br />
Empire as his share of the Triumvirate’s division of<br />
power—was refused aid by Octavian in the further execution<br />
of the ongoing ROMAN-PARTHIAN WAR (55–38 B.C.E.)<br />
So, instead, Antony turned to Julius Caesar’s former lover,<br />
Cleopatra (69–30 B.C.E.), queen of Egypt. Thus began one<br />
of the great sexual-political-military liaisons of history, a<br />
heated affair hardly affected by the fact that in 40 B.C.E.,<br />
when Antony returned to Rome to patch up matters with<br />
Octavian, he entered into a politically necessary marriage<br />
with Octavian’s sister, Octavia (69–11 B.C.E.). The speed<br />
with which Antony returned to Egypt and the openness of<br />
his infidelity with Cleopatra affronted not only his official<br />
wife but enraged her powerful brother. Octavian was soon<br />
joined in his anger by the whole of Rome itself when news<br />
spread that Antony was turning over liberal patches of the<br />
Eastern Empire to Cleopatra and her children, three of<br />
them in fact sired by Mark Antony.<br />
Pushed by Octavian, the Roman Senate declared war<br />
on Antony and Egypt. Antony was portrayed throughout<br />
Rome as a traitor, and Octavian was thereby able to persuade<br />
all of Italy and the western Roman provinces to<br />
withdraw allegiance from Antony and swear loyalty to<br />
himself. Officially, Antony was stripped of all Roman titles<br />
and honors, and the Senate declared war on Cleopatra,<br />
which was also war against Antony.<br />
Together, Antony and Cleopatra assembled an army<br />
and a fleet, which sailed to Greece during 32–31 B.C.E. to<br />
wait out the winter. In the spring, Octavian and his lieutenant,<br />
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (63–12 B.C.E.), crossed<br />
the Adriatic with a force of comparable size to that of<br />
Antony. On September 2, 31, the Battle of Actium was<br />
fought on the Ionian coast of Greece. While Agrippa<br />
blockaded Antony’s fleet, Octavian cut off the overland<br />
supply routes of his army. Antony then ordered a retreat<br />
and took his chances running the naval blockade. Most of<br />
the ships, together with the troops they held, were sunk or<br />
surrendered. Antony and Cleopatra made it successfully<br />
through the blockade, however, and managed to regroup.<br />
In 30, when Octavian invaded Egypt, Antony was at first<br />
able to mount a creditable defense, pushing the Romans<br />
back before they reached Alexandria. However, Antony’s<br />
army soon deserted to the enemy, leading both Antony<br />
and Cleopatra to commit suicide.<br />
Octavian looted the treasures of Ptolemaic Egypt and<br />
forced the Egyptians to pay a heavy tribute. With the conquest<br />
of Egypt, Octavian was the preeminent leader of the<br />
known world. As Caesar Augustus, he became the first<br />
emperor of the Roman Empire.<br />
<br />
See also OCTAVIAN’S WAR AGAINST POMPEY; ROMAN<br />
CIVIL WAR (49–44 B.C.E.); ROMAN CIVIL WAR (43–31<br />
B.C.E.).<br />
<br />
Further reading: Anthony Everitt, Cicero: The Life and<br />
Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician (New York: Random<br />
House, 2002); A. H. Jones, Augustus (New York: W. W.<br />
Norton, 1970); E. S. Schuckburgh, Augustus Caesar (New<br />
York: Barnes and Noble, 1995).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4642915068545446587.post-50278266053004427402014-08-15T22:45:00.001-07:002014-08-15T22:45:35.137-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Aztec Wars of Expansion (c. 1428–1502)</h2>
<br />
PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Aztecs vs. rival tribes; during a<br />
brief civil war, the rival Aztec cities of Tenochtitlán and<br />
Tlatelolco fought.<br />
<br />
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): Mexico<br />
<br />
DECLARATION: None<br />
<br />
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Imperial expansion<br />
<br />
OUTCOME: The Aztecs conquered and subjugated most<br />
rival tribes, primarily to the south of their capital at<br />
Tenochtitlán (modern Mexico City).<br />
<br />
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: At<br />
the Battle of Zamacuyahuac the Aztecs fielded 24,000 men.<br />
<br />
CASUALTIES: At the Battle of Zamacuyahuac the Aztecs<br />
lost 20,000 men.<br />
<br />
TREATIES: No documents have been identified.<br />
<br />
The Aztecs first appeared as a nomadic warrior tribe who<br />
settled on two islands in Mexico’s Lake Texcoco, Tenochtitlán<br />
and Tlatelolco, about 1325. These island locations<br />
were natural fortresses from which the Aztecs waged a<br />
series of expansionist wars against lesser tribes.<br />
During the reign of the “Black Serpent,” Emperor Itzcoatl<br />
(1428–40), the Aztecs fought the Tepanaca tribe,<br />
who lived on the western shore of Lake Texcoco. This<br />
tribe, correctly fearing Aztec aggression, attempted to<br />
blockade Tenochtitlán and Tlatelolco, effectively holding<br />
the Aztecs under siege and cutting off all supplies, including<br />
water. Itzcoatl led an expedition against the Tepanaca<br />
in 1428. It developed into a prolonged war, but by 1430<br />
the Aztecs had gained the initiative and laid siege to the<br />
rival tribe in its own capital. With the Tepanaca crushed,<br />
Itzcoatl took the war to its ally, the people of the city of<br />
Xochimilco, which fell in 1433, bringing the first phase of<br />
Aztec aggression to an end.<br />
Under Montezuma I (also called Moctezuma I, or<br />
Ilhuicamina, “One Who Frowns Like a Lord”), the Aztecs<br />
undertook an even more aggressive campaign of expansion.<br />
From 1440 to 1468, the span of this emperor’s reign,<br />
the Aztec Empire was pushed far to the south of Tenochtitlán.<br />
Montezuma I established the Aztecs as a powerful<br />
trading people, and the empire flourished.<br />
Montezuma I was succeeded by Axayactl, who pressed<br />
the Aztec program of expansion eastward all the way to<br />
the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time he further enlarged<br />
the Aztec sphere of influence to the southwest, stopping<br />
only at the Pacific coast.<br />
In 1473 a civil war (sometimes called the War of Defilement)<br />
broke out between Tenochtitlán and Tlatelolco.<br />
Tlatelolco struck alliances with other Aztec cities opposed<br />
to the power of Tenochtitlan. However, Tlatelolco unwisely<br />
provoked war prematurely, before any of its allies could be<br />
brought to bear on the conflict, and Tenochtitlán acted<br />
swiftly to crush its rival.<br />
The next recorded Aztec war came five years later, in<br />
1478. Tenochtitlán at this point had become the central<br />
city of a three-city league, which included Tlacopán and<br />
Texcoco. The league launched a war against the Tarascans,<br />
a traditional mutual enemy. Under Axayactl’s inept command,<br />
however, the army of the league was deployed in a<br />
piecemeal and divided fashion. This violation of a timeless<br />
tactical principle—never divide your forces in the face of<br />
the enemy—brought on disaster at the Battle of Zamacuyahuac.<br />
On the first day of the battle, the Aztec forces<br />
were defeated in detail. Axayactl regrouped on the second<br />
day and led a make-or-break charge against the Tarascans.<br />
The result was an even worse defeat. Of 24,000 league<br />
forces deployed, all but 4,000 fell in battle.<br />
By 1481 the Aztecs had fully recovered from the disaster<br />
at Zamacuyahuac, and in the six-year reign of Emperor<br />
Tizoc, from 1481 to 1486, they pushed the frontier of their<br />
empire to the southeast. On balance, the Aztecs gained significant<br />
territory, although the war of expansion was by no<br />
means an unqualified success. The era of true imperial triumph<br />
came under the reign of Ahuitzotol, from 1486 to<br />
1502, when Aztec forces made an extensive sweep, primarily<br />
far to the south. These southern acquisitions spanned<br />
both coasts.<br />
<br />
See also SPANISH CONQUEST OF MEXICO.<br />
<br />
Further reading: Frances Berdan, The Aztecs of Central<br />
Mexico: An Imperial Society (Fort Worth, Tex.: Harcourt<br />
Brace College, 1990); John Bierhorst, tr., History and<br />
Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca (Tempe:<br />
University of Arizona Press, 1998); Ross Hassig, War and<br />
Society in Ancient Mesoamerica (Berkeley: University of<br />
California Press, 1992); Richard F. Townsend, The Aztecs<br />
(London and New York: Thames and Hudson, 2000).</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11857280031191275081noreply@blogger.com0