text
stringlengths 9
2.4k
|
|---|
As a result, Jahan Khan led a campaign against Adina Beg in the Jalandhar Doab, pillaging the region. Adina Beg acquiesced to submitting tribute, but ignored summons to the Afghan court in Lahore. On one such occasion of being summoned, Adina Beg refused to trust Jahan Khan and fled to the Hill states, where he forged an alliance with Vadbhag Singh Sodhi and Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, the leader of the Dal Khalsa.
Jahan Khan dispatched a force under Murad Khan in response, meeting the alliance at the battle of Mahilpur, where the Afghans were defeated, resulting in the looting of the Jalandhar Doab. Further dispatches from Lahore were sent to quell the alliance but all were defeated, allowing the Sikhs to plunder the suburbs of Lahore.
Further complications occurred for the Afghans, as a Maratha force led by Raghunath Rao had arrived at Agra in May 1757 by the time Ahmad Shah was crossing the Indus River back to Afghanistan. The Maratha forces completely seized the Ganges Doab, and defeated Najib ud-Daula at the battle of Delhi in September 1757. Alamgir II was retained on the throne as a puppet, and Imad ul-Mulk remained as vizier. Adina Beg thus requested the Marathas to invade the Punjab, which Raghunath Rao accepted.
|
The Maratha invasion began in February 1758, advancing and reaching Sirhind in March, which was besieged. Abdus Samad Khan, the Afghan governor of Sirhind, fled the city but was eventually captured, with Sirhind being plundered after. The developments at Sirhind alerted Jahan Khan, who raised an army of 2,000 men and scouted far ahead of Lahore, but refused to give battle to the alliance. Upon receiving news that the Marathas were approaching Lahore, he began preparing to return to Afghanistan on 19 April.
Establishing camp at Shahdara, the Afghans retreated across the Ravi, leaving Lahore in lawlessness, and to be captured by the alliance. Afghan rearguard contingents were ambushed by the Marathas, emboldening Jahan Khan and Timur Shah to speed their progress to Afghanistan. Further close encounters at Eminabad saw the Afghans driven to the Chenab below Wazirabad, where they were attacked by the Marathas and Sikhs, who took some two hundred Afghan prisoners. After this encounter, modern scholarship designates the end of the Maratha pursuit. Near contemporary sources state that the Marathas were able to establish themselves at Attock, and possibly even Peshawar.
|
Kalat Rebellion (1758—1759).
With the Maratha conquest of the Punjab, Nasir Khan, the ruler of the Khanate of Kalat, declared his independence from Ahmad Shah. Attempts to conciliate and have Nasir Khan return to Afghan suzerainty failed, prompting Ahmad Shah to dispatch a force under Shah Wali Khan, which was defeated at Pringuez, forcing their retreat to Quetta.
Informed of the defeat, Ahmad Shah raised his own force and marched against Kalat in the summer of 1758. He met Nasir Khan in battle at Mastung, where the forces of Kalat were defeated, prompting Nasir Khan's withdrawal to Kalat, which Ahmad Shah besieged. The siege of Kalat continued for forty days to no avail, and numerous storming attempts by the Afghans failed.
Nasir Khan, beleaguered of having been trapped in his capital, opened peace negotiations with the Afghans, apologizing for his rebellion. Ahmad Shah, having no intentions to annex Kalat or to bestow the province unto another governor, reaffirmed Nasir Khan in his position. A treaty was made, stipulating that Nasir Khan would re-enter and recognize the suzerainty of Ahmad Shah, but he would pay no tribute, and would furnish troops when called upon for war paid by the Shah. After the treaty, Ahmad Shah married a cousin of Nasir Khan.
|
Months later, a dervish began a revolt by having an individual named Mir Khush Khan Durrani proclaimed as King. The rebellion however, was crushed with the dervish who instigated the revolt being executed, and Mir Khush Khan being blinded.
Fifth invasion of India (1759–1761).
Preoccupied with the uprising in Kalat, Ahmad Shah was unable to pursue a campaign against the Marathas, instead dispatching his generals, Jahan Khan and Nur ud-Din Bamizai, who were both defeated. In October 1759, Ahmad Shah began his fifth invasion of India. He had been invited by numerous rulers and religious leaders across India, including Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, who wrote to Ahmad Shah pleading for him to save the Muslims of India. Ahmad Shah utilized this in having it declared a jihad by religious leaders in Kandahar. Further invitations were sent by Najib ud-Daula, who wanted India to become a permanent extension of the Afghan empire. Alamgir II sent fervent requests to Ahmad Shah for aid, affirming his loyalty and informing him of the intentions of Imad ul-Mulk, who wished to assassinate him. Even Hindu rulers such as Madho Singh, the ruler of Amber, and Vijay Singh, the ruler of Marwar, were discontent over Maratha expansion, and sent letters to Ahmad Shah. Ahmad Shah also wished to avenge the defeat of his son, Timur Shah, and to reclaim the lost territories of the Punjab.
|
Beginning his invasion, Ahmad Shah split his forces to attack from two sides. Jahan Khan advanced from Kandahar to Kabul, and then through the Khyber Pass with an army of 20,000, while Ahmad Shah led a force of 40,000 through the Bolan Pass. He was further reinforced by Nasir Khan, and other Afghan chiefs, eventually fording the Indus on 25 October 1759. As Ahmad Shah entered the Punjab, Jahan Khan had forced the Maratha forces stationed at Attock to evacuate, pursuing them and battling at Rohtas, where the Maratha army was routed, forcing a withdrawal to as far as Delhi.
As this happened, Ahmad Shah approached Multan with his army. The Maratha governor in response, fled to Lahore, leaving the city to be captured without resistance. With the Afghans converging on Lahore, the Maratha forces withdrew to Batala, and then Sirhind, with some Maratha detachments being caught and destroyed. At Lahore, Jahan Khan battled with the Sikhs. No clear victor emerged, and the Afghans suffered some 2,000 dead, while Jahan Khan was wounded during the battle.
|
The approach of Ahmad Shah Durrani caused havoc throughout all of Northern India, causing Imad ul-Mulk to have Alamgir and Intizam-ud-Daulah murdered as a result, placing Shah Jahan III on the Mughal throne. Ahmad Shah continued advancing through the Punjab, with Jahan Khan seizing Sirhind on 27 November, with both armies uniting at Sirhind in December 1759.
Enraged by the execution of Alamgir, Ahmad Shah began racing toward Delhi. He reached Ambala on 20 December, and advanced toward Taraori, beginning a battle against the Marathas led by Dattaji Scindia. The advance guard of the Afghan army came in clash against the Marathas, and was initially routed, beginning a withdrawal. However, Ahmad Shah, ready to support the battle, dispatched 5,000 men under Shah Pasand Khan. The forces of Imad ul-Mulk in the battle completely fled at the sight of Shah Pasand's flag, and the Afghans attacked with muskets. Further detachments of the Afghan army sent by Ahmad Shah brought the battle to an end, with the Maratha force completely surrounded and destroyed.
|
Following the battle, Ahmad Shah forded the Yamuna and united with the forces of Najib ud-Daula and other Rohilla leaders at Saharanpur. The combined armies marched toward Delhi, encamping at Luni, some 10 kilometers from the Red Fort of Delhi on the other side of the Yamuna. Dattaji Scindia returned to Kunjpura following his defeat at Taraori, and began preparing to defend Delhi from the Afghan army. He first sent Imad ul-Mulk to prepare the defenses of the city. However, Imad ul-Mulk completely deserted the Marathas and fled to Suraj Mal.
Dattaji then advanced to Sonipat, attempting to track Ahmad Shah's movements, which was made difficult as the Afghans kept their movement confidential by killing every Indian that was found outside their houses. As a result, Dattaji established camp at Barari on 4 January 1760. On 9 January, Najib ud-Daula began crossing the Yamuna with Ahmad Shah following him, beginning the battle of Barari Ghat. The Maratha forces opposed the advance of the Afghans across the river but were overpowered by musketeers, with much of the Maratha army only armed with spears and swords. Dattaji, attempting to enter the fray himself, was shot either in the eye, or the ribs, causing his death. Further Maratha reinforcements were useless against the Afghan musket fire, forcing the Marathas to withdraw from the field with a thousand dead, and the Afghans victorious.
|
Having defeated the Marathas at Barari Ghat, Ahmad Shah entered Delhi, with his men plundering the city. Much of the population of the city had already fled, and he took Shah Jahan III under his protection instead of claiming the Mughal throne for himself. Ahmad Shah also placed Yaqub Ali Khan as governor of the city, a nephew of his vizier, Shah Wali Khan, before beginning to march against Suraj Mal.
Leaving Delhi on 27 January, Ahmad Shah besieged Deeg on 7 February, although not committing to the siege seriously. While besieging, he sent a detachment under Jahan Khan which routed a Maratha army on 11 February at Rewari. Following this, Ahmad Shah pursued a Maratha force led by Malhar Rao Holkar, who was stationed at Narnaul. After reaching Rewari, Ahmad Shah was evaded by Holkar, and the Maratha force crossed the Yamuna river on 26—27 February, entering Najib ud-Daula's territories. On 28 February, Holkar advanced to Sikandrabad, awaiting for news of the Afghan position. On 1 March 1760, Ahmad Shah dispatched a force of 15,000 under Jahan Khan, Shah Pasand Khan, and Qalandar Khan to halt the Maratha army. The Marathas were caught on 4 March and were completely routed at the battle of Sikandarabad, with many Maratha officers slain. Holkar himself fled for his life to Agra, and then to Bharatpur, meeting Suraj Mal.
|
With another victory over the Marathas, Ahmad Shah proceeded to Aligarh, which belonged to the Jats, and besieged it. Unable to receive any reinforcement, the fort surrendered to the Afghans. At Aligarh, Najib ud-Daula advised Ahmad Shah to rest and wait out for the summer and monsoon seasons to pass, especially as the summer had been so catastrophic for the Afghans during the fourth invasion of India. Najib ud-Daula used this to expel the Marathas from Shikohabad, Phaphund, and Bithoor.
As the Afghans settled in, they resorted to diplomacy to strengthen their position. Ahmad Khan Bangash, although an initial Maratha ally, was appealed to by Shah Wali Khan, Ahmad Shah's vizier, as an Afghan brother. Ahmad Khan thus allied with the Durranis and arrived at their camp on 13 April 1760. The Afghans also successfully negotiated with the ruler of Oudh, Shuja ud-Daula, who united with the Durrani camp in July 1760. Ahmad Shah also held friendly relations with the Rajputs, even declaring to them his intention to invade the Deccan in the winter.
|
As this occurred, the Marathas sent reinforcements under Sadashivrao Bhau, a cousin of the Peshwa, Balaji Baji Rao. The reinforcements also included Vishwasrao, the heir of the Maratha Confederacy, and nearly all significant Maratha commanders. Sadashivrao was described as an ignorant commander with a short temper and pride, ignoring the advice of more senior commanders who had experience in Northern India, and failing to anticipate certain outcomes.
The Maratha force reached Agra on 14 July. Sadashivrao, finding the Yamuna river overflowing, settled on advancing to Delhi. The Marathas advanced from Mathura and reached Delhi on 23 July, where it was stormed. The city fell to the Marathas, but the citadel held out. On 29 July, negotiations for the garrisons withdrawal went underway, and Yaqub Ali was allowed to leave the city with his men unharmed to Ahmad Shah's camp, with Maratha forces occupying the fort on 1 August.
The Marathas began facing difficulties when on 4 August, Suraj Mal and Imad ul-Mulk defected from the Marathas and returned to their posts. Furthermore, the Maratha army lacked food and feed for their horses. The situation became so difficult that Sadashivrao recorded in a letter that there was no food to pay for money, and that the men of the army alongside the horses were fasting. Peace negotiations corresponding from Ahmad Shah and the Marathas had also failed, with both seeking their own extensive demands.
|
By the end of September 1760, the Maratha camp was overridden with starvation. Ahmad Shah, however, was anxious to return to Afghanistan since his settling at Aligarh, as he never intended to form an Afghan empire based in India. The Marathas left Delhi on 10 October, which Ahmad Shah responded by having his army arrayed across the Yamuna. Sadashivrao, intending to seize Kunjpura, which had vast supplies, arrived before the city on 16 October. The battle of Kunjpura ensued which saw the Marathas victorious and the Afghan governor at Kunjpura, Najabat Khan, alongside Abdus Samad Khan killed. Ahmad Shah was unable to help the defenders of Delhi and Kunjpura due to him being stuck on the other side of the Yamuna.
Ahmad Shah, infuriated at the fall of Kunjpura, began preparing a ford over the flooded Yamuna river at Baghpat. The Afghan forces crossed between 25 and 26 October, massacring a Maratha detachment at near Sonipat. Another battle at Sambhalka saw the Marathas forced back to their camp now established at Panipat. On 30 October, Ahmad Shah reached Sambhalka, and arrayed before the Marathas on 1 November.
|
Najib ud-Daula was dispatched by Ahmad Shah to prevent Maratha supplies flowing in from Delhi, defeating the forces of Naro Shankar, the Maratha governor of Delhi. Saashivrao in response sent Govind Pant Bundela to invade the Rohilla territories and cut off Afghan supply. Marching with 12,000 horsemen, the Maratha detachment advanced as far as Meerut before being set upon by an Afghan contingent of 14,000 dispatched by Ahmad Shah on 17 December under Atai Khan, who slew Govind and routed the Maratha force, with large amounts of supplies being seized by the Afghans.
The Marathas were cut off from all supplies as a result, and a last desperate attempt for peace was sent by Sadashivrao, even agreeing on any term Ahmad Shah deemed fit. Najib ud-Daula shut down the idea and Ahmad Shah rejected peace. As starvation gripped the Maratha camp, Sadashivrao concluded with his cabinet of war on 13 January to attack the Afghans. On 14 January, the Maratha forces assembled and began marching on the Afghan camp. The numbers of the battle vary by source. Mehta presents the Afghans at having 79,800 men, and the Marathas 85,000, with numerous non-combatants. The Afghans had a gradual flow of manpower stream into the army while the Marathas did not, making it definite that the Marathas were far outnumbered at the battle.
|
Beginning the third battle of Panipat, Ibrahim Khan Gardi unleashed his cannons on the Afghans. However, the troops operating the cannons were completely inexperienced and upon firing, the artillery shots merely flew overhead the Afghan army. Ibrahim Khan, realizing his failure in this regard, held his cannon fire and instead engaged with a detachment of his troops against the Rohilla portions of Ahmad Shah's army. Other Maratha officers attempted to engage as well by Ibrahim Khan's forces, which was met with musket fire from the Rohillas that saw the Marathas beaten back with heavy casualties, while Ibrahim Khan's forces were devastated by Rohilla cavalry, resulting in the losses of over six battalions and Ibrahim Khan himself being wounded, with the Maratha left wing failing.
Sadashivrao led an attack on the Afghan centre as well during this, with both sides numerically similar. Despite the Rohilla victory on the left wing, the Afghan centre was exposed, with the Marathas dismantling over three lines in the Afghan centre, and inflicting some 3,000 dead or wounded. At the pivotal moment, Ahmad Shah surged his reinforcements, some 4,000 Qizilbash to the right wing and 10,000 men to the Afghan centre. Ahmad Shah also dispatched his zamburaks, inflicting heavy casualties onto the Marathas. A counter-attack was thus launched by the Afghans across all fronts.
|
Amidst the fray, Vishwasrao was killed by a bullet. News of his death spread quickly throughout the Maratha camp, and it led to the desertion of over 2,000 Afghans and Rohillas that were in service of the Marathas. The Maratha left wing was thus dismantled, and routed. As the Rohillas launched their own attack, Holkar fled the battle. The Afghan left wing thus caved in on the centre, while the Maratha right wing was completely annihilated by Najib ud-Daula. Following this, Ahmad Shah advanced to the centre to command the final operation of battle.
Sadashivrao attempted to assault the Afghan centre twice but was pushed back with heavy losses. Ahmad Shah then ordered eight thousand reinforcements from his own tribe to attack, which saw Sadashivrao killed amidst the fray. The death of Sadashivrao saw all Maratha resistance dissipate and the Maratha centre was slaughtered. The Marathas who tried to escape the battle were pursued.
The casualties of the battle saw as low as 75,000 Marathas estimated to have been killed, to as high as 100,000. This included over 30,000 Marathas perishing in battle, another 10,000 being killed while retreating, and another 10,000 reported missing. While following the battle, 50,000 Maratha camp followers were massacred or sold to slavery.
|
Panipat resulted in the end of Maratha influence over Northern India. The day following the battle, Ahmad Shah entered the city of Panipat wearing jewels such as the Koh-i-Noor. The Afghan troops massacred any male over the age of fourteen and enslaved the woman and children of the city. Ahmad Shah afterward made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Bu Ali Shah Qalandar, and then left Panipat on 19 July to enter Delhi. Proceeding formally into the Red fort on 29 January, with the khutbah being read in his name and coins being struck. After resting for two months, Ahmad Shah's troops demanded to return to Afghanistan, as much of them had been unpaid for over a year and a half. As a result, after plundering Delhi, he began returning to Afghanistan on 20—22 March.
Ahmad Shah settled the affairs of India by placing Shah Alam II on the Mughal throne with Najib ud-Daula as his Bakhshi, with Jawan Bakht being recognized as heir to Shah Alam. Delhi was given to Najib ud-Daula and Jawan Bakht to rule together, while Imad ul-Mulk was permitted to serve as vizier again. No peace deal was made with the Marathas as the Maratha Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao died soon after Panipat.
|
While returning to Afghanistan, the Afghan army was attacked by the Sikhs under Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, who carried away stragglers. The Sikhs attacked the Afghan flanks typically at night but maintained distance to avoid the Afghan artillery and cavalry, and avoiding pitched battle. A surprise attack on the Beas river by the Sikhs freed many Maratha prisoners. In response, Ahmad Shah established defenses around his camp every night, and at Lahore, he sent numerous expeditions against the Sikhs that captured and killed many. He completed his return to Afghanistan by May 1761.
Rebellions in Afghanistan (1760—1762).
While Ahmad Shah campaigned, numerous incidents occurred throughout Afghanistan. When the Marathas occupied Delhi, an uprising triggered under Hajji Jamal Khan Zargarani, who followed off reports that Ahmad Shah had been killed, and proclaimed himself king of Afghanistan. At Kandahar, he struck coins. However, as news of Ahmad Shah's victories trickled in from India, he renounced his claim and fled for his life to a remote area of the country.
|
Another revolt that had began was under Darwish Ali Khan Hazara, who avoided Shah Pasand's forces, before eventually being allowed to return to Herat between 1761 and 1762. While in early 1761, Abd al-Khaliq Khan, alongside Dilawar Khan Ishaqzai and Zal Beg Popalzai, who were among Ahmad Shah's tribal council, rebelled. They first went toward the fortress of Grishk, falsely proclaiming that Ahmad Shah had been defeated in India, and declared Abd al-Khaliq as king. The combined forces from Griskh marched to Kandahar, making Ahmad Shah's son, Sulaiman Mirza abandon the capital.
Shah Pasand Khan was dispatched to crush the revolt, and he arrived before the city, elaborating that Ahmad Shah was alive. The rebellion's support thus dissipated and the leaders of the rebellion went to Shah Pasand's camp for mercy. Lesser involved individuals were spared, while Zal Beg Popalzai and other significant leaders were executed. Dilawar Khan fled to Herat where Timur Shah allowed him to become the commander of his personal bodyguard, while Abd al-Khaliq was imprisoned.
|
Sixth invasion of India (1762).
As Ahmad Shah retired to Afghanistan from his fifth invasion of India, the Sikhs defeated numerous of his governors, including a decisive battle at Gujranwala that resulted in the fall of Lahore in November 1761. Enraged at the defeat of his deputies, Ahmad Shah prepared for his sixth invasion of India, beginning it in February 1762.
With a light cavalry force, he dashed through the Punjab in a rapid march, with the news of which reaching the Sikhs who were engaged in a siege at Jandiala. The Sikhs raised the siege and withdrew, until their position was compromised by the Afghan governor of Malerkotla. Ahmad Shah led his forces including Zain Khan Sirhindi, catching the Sikhs at the village of Kup. The Sikhs, under Jassa Singh and Charat Singh, were completely defeated and massacred in an event known as the Vadda Ghalughara. Ahmad Shah had ordered that nobody wearing Indian clothes was to be left alive, with mostly camp followers including women and children being killed.
Following the battle of Kup, Ahmad Shah invaded through the domains of Patiala State, ruled by Ala Singh. Ahmad Shah stormed the fortress of Barnala, before Ala Singh produced himself before the Shah, submitting tribute. With this, Ahmad Shah returned to Lahore on 3 March after camping at Sirhind.
|
At Lahore, he assembled his forces and attacked Amritsar, arriving at the city on 10 April, a day before the Vaisakhi festival. The city was sacked and a massacre ensued where the Golden Temple was razed, being blown with gunpowder and the blood of men and cows polluting the lake surrounding it. While the temple was blown with gunpowder, a piece of shrapnel hit Ahmad Shah on the nose, causing an open wound that would plague him for the rest of his life.
Following this, Ahmad Shah rested at Lahore, intending to settle the affairs of India. He firstly sent an expedition toward Kashmir which had declared its independence under Sukh Jiwan Mal, which was successful and Kashmir was re-conquered. Other political settlements also occurred, with peace negotiations ensuing with the Marathas, while also calling upon Indian princes to recognize Shah Alam II as the Mughal Emperor.
Between April–May 1762, Zain Khan was defeated by the Sikhs at Harnaulgarh. During the summer months, Ahmad Shah moved his camp to Kalanaur. The Sikhs capitalized off of this, with Jassa Singh alongside Tara Singh invading the Jalandhar Doab, while Charat Singh plundered the regions north of Lahore.
|
In October 1762, Ahmad Shah possibly fought a battle at Amritsar, which is not accepted by all historians. The possible battle was fought under a complete solar eclipse that raged until the night, where Ahmad Shah withdrew to Lahore before returning to see the Sikhs had also withdrawn.
Afterward, Ahmad Shah placed a Hindu, Kabuli Mal, as the Durrani governor of the Punjab, believing it would bring stability. Ahmad Shah began withdrawing back to Afghanistan on 12 December, where while proceeding, he routed a Sikh army on the banks of the Ravi river. His health was significantly affected during the invasion as a result of the summer heat, adding to his wounded nose.
Encounters with the Qing (1763—1764, 1768—1769).
Fazil Biy, the ruler of Kokand, and other Kyrgyz chieftains pleaded to Ahmad Shah to aid them against Qing expansionism. Ahmad Shah, delighted to use a casus belli in the name of Islam, accepted, sending men to occupy the regions between Tashkent and Kokand, though these men later withdrew by 1764 as any alliance failed to be forged.
|
In 1763, Ahmad Shah had dispatched an embassy to the Qing. His aims in this are unknown, however, an embassy allowed Ahmad Shah to establish himself as an emperor. The letter he sent to the Qing emperor Qianlong is missing, but from the Qing reply, the letter was likely dedicated to his conquests and victory at Panipat, alongside Qing expansion.
The letter positioned Ahmad Shah's expansions as bringing order and stability to areas overrun with rebels and lawlessness (in reference to his campaigns in Iran and India). The battle of Panipat was strongly detailed in the letter, in what was likely a fath-nama, meaning a victory letter or declaration to celebrate ones victory. The Qing emperor ignored the effective threat and downplayed the Afghan victory.
In the second part of the letter, the Qianlong appeared much more defensive, in need of justifying the Qing conquest of the Dzungars and the Altishahr Khojas. He accused them of causing devastation and laying false accusations against him. A report also suggested that Ahmad Shah considered the territories the Qing claimed belonged to the Muslims. In reality, Ahmad Shah possibly wanted to establish spheres of influence, which was similarly done with the Ottomans which divided Iran between them, and a treaty with Bukhara that had established the Amu Darya as the border.
|
When the Afghan embassy had arrived in Beijing, the chief envoy, Khwaja Mirhan, had refused to kowtow before the Qing emperor. The Qing officials, in shock, demanded he kowtow, to which Mirhan acquiesced. This incident damaged the Qing-Afghan relations and Qianlong cut ties with the Afghans following this. No immediate consequence occurred, and the envoy was given favor.
Mirhan's refusal possibly came out of religious reasons, but the Qing received it as Ahmad Shah declaring himself equal to Qianlong. Qianlong, however, was reconciliatory and instead shifted blame on their escort. From Qianlong's view, he saw the Afghans as a significant power and attempted to impress the envoy and in contrast, Ahmad Shah, of the Qing empire. This was especially done in motivation of Altishahr's recent conquest and concerns over stability in the region.
Ahmad Shah's gifts to the Qing emperor included four horses, which were painted by the Qing court painter, Giuseppe Castiglione. Nonetheless, by the time of the envoy's return journey to Afghanistan, Qianlong made preparations to secure Qing territories.
|
In 1759, as the revolt of the Altishahr Khojas crumbled, two descendants of the Afaqi Sufi lineage crossed into Badakhshan, being pursued by the Qing forces. Fude, the Qing general of the expedition, demanded that Sultan Shah, the ruler of Badakhshan, to arrest the brothers. Sultan Shah accepted, likely wishing to have Qing military aid, especially against the Durrani Empire. Distrust occurred between the Qing and Sultan Shah due to the Afaqi descendants residing in Badakhshan for months, including Sultan Shah's possible initial refusal to hand them over, possibly intending to send them to Bukhara. Qianlong threatened invasion, which did not occur as one of the descendant's remains were sent to Yarkand.
The death of the Afaqi brothers spurned relations with the Afghans, causing Sultan Shah to plead to the Qing, claiming that Ahmad Shah intended to exact revenge for their deaths. No immediate Afghan invasion occurred. The Qing however, faced numerous frustrations with their tributaries in Central Asia, alongside a major insurrection in Uch-Turfan that required tremendous effort to defeat.
|
As a result, Qianlong adopted a policy of strict non-interference, realizing that Qing troops in Altishahr were significantly stretched and spread thin. The Afghans, however, seen as a threat, would show the weakness of Qing control in the region.
In August 1768, Qianlong was informed of the Afghan invasion of Badakhshan led by Shah Wali Khan in May, with Afghan forces seizing Sultan Shah's capital, Fayzabad, who fled north. A Qing agent, Yunggui, held the position that the Qing should interfere in the conflict. Qianlong, however, affirmed that military intervention would irrational, and strictly forbade any military interference. Historians see this as surprising, as the invasion by the Afghans threatened the Qing Empire itself.
Qing sources affirm that the Afghans established Sarimsaq, a child of the Afaqi's who escaped to Badakhshan, in Kunduz. Qianlong was distraught, as another possible revolt could revolve around Sarimsaq, with reports of Muslim travelers and funds being sent to Sarimsaq. This still did not convince Qianlong to act, and he refused to send any message negatively to Ahmad Shah at all. During this, Sultan Shah defeated the Afghan governor and reoccupied his capital, but feared another Afghan invasion, sending desperate letters to the Qing in the winter of 1768 to ask for help, claiming that Ahmad Shah would invade next year.
|
Qianlong harshly rebutted, blaming Sultan Shah for provoking the conflict with the Afghans and affirmed that he would only fight the Afghans if they actually invaded Qing territory. Sultan Shah wrote a letter to Emin Khoja in response in August 1769, expecting aid as he was a vassal, only to find himself totally abandoned. In December 1769, Sultan Shah wrote another letter which Qianlong received that accused him of failing to uphold his duties. Qianlong rebuked him, and stated that under no circumstances would the Qing aid him.
Qianlong had initially considered the Afghans tributaries, but after the former incident, he no longer even sought the prospect of any form of Durrani submission. His reply to Sultan Shah effectively saw the Qing recognize the Afghans as a rival power to them, with Qianlong recognizing that the Afghans were unable to be treated like tributaries. Rather than aiding the ruler of Badakhshan as his initial policy had implicated him to, Qianlong instead justified the Afghan invasion, prompted to by overextended armies, the distance, and stability. Instead, gambling on the difficult terrain between the Afghan and Qing realms for safety.
|
Within the year, Ahmad Shah occupied Badakhshan and Sultan Shah was executed.
Death and legacy.
Ahmad Shah may have suffered an injury due to a flying brick striking his nose when the Harimandir Sahib was destroyed with gunpowder. Other sources state that he suffered from what Afghan sources described as a "gangrenous ulcer", which may attribute to numerous illnesses, such as Leprosy, Syphilis, or a tumor.
Lee writes: "Ahmad Shah gained poor health as a result of all his campaigns. Despite all attempts to treat it, a wound in his nose remained. The ulcer in his later years began eating into his brain". Following the advice of his physicians, he spent part of the summer in the cooler climate of the Margha plain in the Toba Achakzai range during the last few years of his life. He died of his illness on 4 June 1772 (2 Rabi' al-Awwal 1186) in Maruf, Toba Achakzai, east of Kandahar. Some other sources state that he died on 16 October 1772.
Ahmad Shah was buried in the city of Kandahar adjacent to the Shrine of the Cloak, where a large mausoleum was built. It has been described in the following way:
|
In his tomb his epitaph is written:
Durrani's victory over the Marathas influenced the history of the subcontinent and, in particular, the policies of the East India Company in the region. His refusal to continue his campaigns deeper into India prevented a clash with the company and allowed them to continue to acquire power and influence after they established complete control over the former Mughal province of Bengal in 1793. Fear of another Afghan invasion influenced company policy-makers for almost half a century after the Battle of Panipat. The acknowledgment of Durrani's military accomplishments is reflected in an intelligence report made by Company officials on the Battle of Panipat, which referred to Ahmad Shah as the 'King of Kings'. This fear led in 1798 to a Company envoy being sent to the Persian court in part to instigate the Persians in their claims on Herat to forestall a possible Afghan invasion of India that might have halted Company expansion. Mountstuart Elphinstone wrote of Ahmad Shah:
In Pakistan, a short-range ballistic missile Abdali-I, is named in the honour of Ahmad Shah Abdali.
Poetry.
Durrani wrote a collection of odes in his native Pashto. He was also the author of several poems in Persian. One of his most famous Pashto poems was "Love of a Nation":
|
Arthur Aikin
Arthur Aikin (19 May 177315 April 1854) was an English chemist, mineralogist and scientific writer, and was a founding member of the Chemical Society (now the Royal Society of Chemistry). He first became its treasurer in 1841, and later became the society's second president.
Life.
He was born at Warrington, Lancashire into a distinguished literary family of prominent Unitarians. The best known of these was his paternal aunt, Anna Laetitia Barbauld, a woman of letters who wrote poetry and essays as well as early children's literature. His father, Dr John Aikin, was a medical doctor, historian, and author. His grandfather, also called John (1713–1780), was a Unitarian scholar and theological tutor, closely associated with Warrington Academy. His sister Lucy (1781–1864) was a historical writer. Their brother Charles Rochemont Aikin was adopted by their famous aunt and brought up as their cousin.
|
In order to support himself, outside of his work with the British Mineralogical Society, the London Institution and the Geological Society, Aiken worked as a writer, translator and lecturer to the public and to medical students at Guy's Hospital. His writing and journalism were useful for publicising foreign scientific news to the wider British public. He was also a member of the Linnean Society and in 1820 joined the Institution of Civil Engineers.
He was highly esteemed as a man of sound judgement and wide knowledge. Aikin never married, and died at Hoxton in London in 1854.
Publications.
For "Rees's Cyclopædia" he wrote articles about chemistry, geology and mineralogy, but the topics are not known.
|
Ailanthus
Ailanthus (; derived from "ailanto," an Ambonese word probably meaning "tree of the gods" or "tree of heaven") is a genus of trees belonging to the family Simaroubaceae, in the order Sapindales (formerly Rutales or Geraniales). The genus is native from east Asia south to northern Australasia. One species, the Tree-of-Heaven ("Ailanthus altissima",) is considered a weed in some parts of the world.
Selected species.
The number of living species is disputed, with some authorities accepting up to ten species, while others accept six or fewer. Species include:
There is a good fossil record of "Ailanthus" with many species names based on their geographic occurrence, but almost all of these have very similar morphology and have been grouped as a single species among the three species recognized:
Ailanthus silk moth.
A silk spinning moth, the ailanthus silkmoth ("Samia cynthia"), lives on "Ailanthus" leaves, and yields a silk more durable and cheaper than mulberry silk, but inferior to it in fineness and gloss. This moth has been introduced to the eastern United States and is common near many towns; it is about 12 cm across, with angulated wings, and in color olive brown, with white markings. Other Lepidoptera whose larvae feed on "Ailanthus" include "Endoclita malabaricus", and "Atteva aurea" (commonly known as the Ailanthus webworm moth).
|
Aimoin of Fleury
Aimoin of Fleury (; ) was a medieval French monk and chronicler active in the late 10th and early 11th centuries. He was born at Villefranche-de-Longchat, in Southwestern France, about 960. Early in his life he entered the monastery of Fleury, where he became a monk and then passed the greater part of his life. Between c. 980 and 985 Aimoin wrote about Saint Benedict in the Abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire. His chief work is the "Historia Francorum", or "Libri V. de Gestis Francorum", which deals with the history of the Franks from the earliest times to 653, and was continued by other writers until the middle of the 12th century. It was much in vogue during the Middle Ages, but its historical value is now regarded as slight. It was edited in the 19th century by G. Waitz and published in the "Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores", Band xxvi (Hanover and Berlin, 1826–1892).
In 1004 Aimoin also wrote "Vita Abbonis, abbatis Floriacensis", the last of a series of lives of the abbots of Fleury, all of which, except the life of Abbo, have been lost. This was published by J. Mabillon in the "Acta sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti" (Paris, 1668–1701).
Aimoin's third work was the composition of books ii and iii of the "Miracula sancti Benedicti", the first book of which was written by another monk of Fleury named Adrevald ( – 878). This also appears in the "Acta sanctorum".
|
Akkadian Empire
The Akkadian Empire () was the first known empire, succeeding the long-lived city-states of Sumer. Centered on the city of Akkad () and its surrounding region, the empire united Akkadian and Sumerian speakers under one rule and exercised significant influence across Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Anatolia, sending military expeditions as far south as Dilmun and Magan (modern United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman) in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Akkadian Empire reached its political peak between the 24th and 22nd centuries BC, following the conquests by its founder Sargon of Akkad. Under Sargon and his successors, the Akkadian language was briefly imposed on neighboring conquered states such as Elam and Gutium. Akkad is sometimes regarded as the first empire in history, though the meaning of this term is not precise, and there are earlier Sumerian claimants.
Contemporary epigraphic sources.
Epigraphic sources from the Sargonic (Akkadian Empire) period are in relatively short supply, partly because the capital Akkad, like the capitals of the later Mitanni and Sealand, has not yet been located, though there has been much speculation. Some cuneiform tablets have been excavated at cities under Akkadian Empire control such as Eshnunna and Tell Agrab.
|
Other tablets have become available on the antiquities market and are held in museums and private collections such as those from the Akkadian governor in Adab. Internal evidence allows their dating to the Sargonic period and sometimes to the original location. Archives are especially important to historians and only a few have become available. The Me-sag Archive, which commenced publication in 1958, is considered one of the most significant collections. The tablets, about 500 in number with about half published, are held primarily at the Babylonian Collection of the Yale University and Baghdad Museum with a few others scattered about. The tablets date to the period of late in the reign of Naram-Sin to early in the reign of Shar-kali-shari. They are believed to be from a town between Umma and Lagash and Me-sag to be the governor of Umma. An archive of 47 tablets was found at the excavation of Tell el-Suleimah in the Hamrin Basin.
Various royal inscriptions by the Akkadian rulers have also been found. Most of the original examples are short, or very fragmentary like the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin and the Sargonic victory stele from Telloh. A few longer ones are known because of later copies made, often from the much later Old Babylonian period. While these are assumed to be mostly accurate, it is difficult to know if they had been edited to reflect current political conditions. One of the longer surviving examples is the Bassetki Statue, the copper base of a Narim-Sin statue:
|
A number of fragments of royal statues of Manishtushu all bearing portions of a "standard inscription". Aside from a few minor short inscriptions this is the only known contemporary source for this ruler. An excerpt:
Before the Akkadian Empire, calendar years were marked by Regnal Numbers. During Sargonic times, a system of year-names was used. This practice continued until the end of the Old Babylonian period, for example, "Year in which the divine Hammu[rabi] the king Esznunna destroyed by a flood.” Afterwards, Regnal Numbers were used by all succeeding kingdoms. During the Akkadian Empire 3 of the presumed 40 Sargon year-names are known, 1 (presumed 9) of Rimush, 20 (presumed 56) of Naram-Sin, and 18 (presumed 18) of Shar-kali-shari. Recently, a single year-name had been found "In the year that Dūr-Maništusu was established.” There are also, perhaps, a dozen more known, which cannot be firmly linked to a ruler. Especially with the paucity of other inscriptions, year-names are extremely important in determining the history of the Akkadian Empire. As an example, from one year-name, we know that the empire was in conflict with the Gutians long before its end. It attests the name of a Gutian ruler and marks the construction of two temples in Babylon as recognition of Akkadian victory.
|
The final contemporary source are seals and their sealing dates. These are especially important here, as markers, with the shortage of other Akkadian Empire epigraphics and very useful to historians. As an example, two seals and one sealing were found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur which contained the name of Sargons's daughter En-hedu-ana. This provided confirmation of her existence. The seals read "En-hedu-ana, daughter of Sargon: Ilum-pal[il] (is) her coiffeur" and "Adda, estate supervisor/majordomo of En-hedu-ana". At Tell Mozan (ancient Urkesh) brought to light a clay sealing of Tar'am-Agade (Akkad loves <her>), a previously unknown daughter of Naram-Sin, who was possibly married to an unidentified local "endan" (ruler).
Later copies and literary compositions.
So great was the Akkadian Empire, especially Sargon and Narim-Sin, that its history was passed down for millennia. This ranged on one end to purported copies of still existing Sargonic period inscriptions to literary tales made up from the whole cloth at the other. A few examples:
|
There were a number of these, passed down as part of scribel tradition including The Birth Legend of Sargon (Neo-Assyrian), Weidner Chronicle, and the Geographical Treatise on Sargon of Akkad's Empire.
Archaeology.
Identifying architectural remains is hindered by the fact that there are sometimes no clear distinctions between features thought to stem from the preceding Early Dynastic period, and those thought to be Akkadian. Likewise, material that is thought to be Akkadian continues to be in use into the Ur III period. There is a similar issue with cuneiform tablets. In the early Akkadian Empire tablets and the signs on them are much like those from earlier periods, before developing into the much different Classical Sargonic style.
With the capital, Akkad, still unlocated, archaeological remains of the empire are still to be found, mainly at the cities where they established regional governors. An example is Adab where Naram-Sin established direct imperial control after Adab joined the "great revolt". After destroying the city of Mari the Akkadian Empire rebuilt it as an administrative center with an imperial governor. The city of Nuzi was established by the Akkadians and a number of economic and administrative texts were found there. Similarly, there are Marad, Nippur, Tutub and Ebla.
|
Excavation at the modern site of Tell Brak has suggested that the Akkadians rebuilt a city ("Brak" or "Nagar") on this site, for use as an administrative center. The city included two large buildings including a complex with temple, offices, courtyard, and large ovens.
Dating and periodization.
The Akkadian period is generally dated to 2334–2154 BC (according to the middle chronology). The short-chronology dates of 2270–2083 BC are now considered less likely. It was preceded by the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia (ED) and succeeded by the Ur III Period, although both transitions are blurry. For example, it is likely that the rise of Sargon of Akkad coincided with the late ED Period and that the final Akkadian kings ruled simultaneously with the Gutian kings alongside rulers at the city-states of both Uruk and Lagash. The Akkadian Period is contemporary with EB IV (in Israel), EB IVA and EJ IV (in Syria), and EB IIIB (in Turkey).
Timeline of rulers.
The relative order of Akkadian kings is clear, while noting that the Ur III version of the Sumerian King List inverts the order of Rimush and Manishtushu. The absolute dates of their reigns are approximate (as with all dates prior to the Late Bronze Age collapse "c." 1200 BC).
|
History and development of the empire.
Pre-Sargonic Akkad.
The Akkadian Empire takes its name from the region and the city of Akkad, both of which were localized in the general confluence area of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Although the city of Akkad has not yet been identified on the ground, it is known from various textual sources. Among these is at least one text predating the reign of Sargon. Together with the fact that the name Akkad is of non-Akkadian origin, this suggests that the city of Akkad may have already been occupied in pre-Sargonic times.
Sargon of Akkad.
The earliest records in the Akkadian language date to the time of Sargon of Akkad, who defeated the Sumerian king Lugal-zage-si at the Battle of Uruk and conquered his former territory, establishing the Akkadian Empire. Sargon was claimed to be the son of a gardener in the Sumerian King List. Later legends named his father as La'ibum or Itti-Bel and his birth mother as a priestess (or possibly even a hierodule) of Ishtar, the Akkadian equivalent of the Sumerian goddess Inanna. One legend of Sargon from Neo-Assyrian times quotes him as saying
|
Later claims made on behalf of Sargon were that his mother was an "entu" priestess (high priestess). The claims might have been made to ensure a pedigree of nobility, since only a highly placed family could achieve such a position.
Originally a cupbearer (Rabshakeh) to a king of Kish with a Semitic name, Ur-Zababa, Sargon thus became a gardener, responsible for the task of clearing out irrigation canals. The royal cupbearer at this time was in fact a prominent political position, close to the king and with various high level responsibilities not suggested by the title of the position itself. This gave him access to a disciplined corps of workers, who also may have served as his first soldiers. Displacing Ur-Zababa, Sargon was crowned king, and he entered upon a career of foreign conquest. Four times he invaded Syria and Canaan, and he spent three years thoroughly subduing the countries of "the west" to unite them with Mesopotamia "into a single empire".
However, Sargon took this process further, conquering many of the surrounding regions to create an empire that reached westward as far as the Mediterranean Sea and perhaps Cyprus ("Kaptara"); northward as far as the mountains (a later Hittite text asserts he fought the Hattian king Nurdaggal of Burushanda, well into Anatolia); eastward over Elam; and as far south as Magan (Oman) — a region over which he reigned for purportedly 56 years, though only four "year-names" survive. He consolidated his dominion over his territories by replacing the earlier opposing rulers with noble citizens of Akkad, his native city where loyalty was thus ensured.
|
Trade extended from the silver mines of Anatolia to the lapis lazuli mines in modern Afghanistan, the cedars of Lebanon and the copper of Magan. This consolidation of the city-states of Sumer and Akkad reflected the growing economic and political power of Mesopotamia. The empire's breadbasket was the rain-fed agricultural system and a chain of fortresses was built to control the imperial wheat production.
Images of Sargon were erected on the shores of the Mediterranean, in token of his victories, and cities and palaces were built at home with the spoils of the conquered lands. Elam and the northern part of Mesopotamia were also subjugated, and rebellions in Sumer were put down. Contract tablets have been found dated in the years of the campaigns against Canaan and against Sarlak, king of Gutium. He also boasted of having subjugated the "four-quarters" — the lands surrounding Akkad to the north, the south (Sumer), the east (Elam), and the west (Martu). Some of the earliest historiographic texts (ABC 19, 20) suggest he rebuilt the city of Babylon ("Bab-ilu") in its new location near Akkad.
|
Sargon, throughout his long life, showed special deference to the Sumerian deities, particularly Inanna (Ishtar), his patroness, and Zababa, the warrior god of Kish. He called himself "The anointed priest of Anu" and "the great" ensi" of Enlil" and his daughter, Enheduanna, was installed as priestess to Nanna at the temple in Ur.
Troubles multiplied toward the end of his reign. A later Babylonian text states:
It refers to his campaign in "Elam", where he defeated a coalition army led by the King of Awan and forced the vanquished to become his vassals.
Also shortly after, another revolt took place:
The Bible refers to the city of Akkad in the Book of Genesis, which states:
Nimrod's historical inspiration remains uncertain, but he has been identified with Sargon of Akkad by some scholars who also propose that the name of Sargon's grandson and successor Naram-Sin is the root of Nimrod's, while others have noted similarities between Nimrod and the legendary Gilgamesh, king of Uruk (Erech).
Rimush and Manishtushu.
|
Sargon had crushed opposition even at old age. These difficulties broke out again in the reign of his sons, where revolts broke out during the nine-year reign of Rimush (2278–2270 BC), who fought hard to retain the empire, and was successful until he was assassinated by some of his own courtiers. According to his inscriptions, he faced widespread revolts, and had to reconquer the cities of Ur, Umma, Adab, Lagash, Der, and Kazallu from rebellious "ensis": Rimush introduced mass slaughter and large scale destruction of the Sumerian city-states, and maintained meticulous records of his destructions. Most of the major Sumerian cities were destroyed, and Sumerian human losses were enormous:
Rimush's elder brother, Manishtushu (2269–2255 BC) succeeded him. The latter seems to have fought a sea battle against 32 kings who had gathered against him and took control over their pre-Arab country, consisting of modern-day United Arab Emirates and Oman. Despite the success, like his brother he seems to have been assassinated in a palace conspiracy.
|
Naram-Sin.
Manishtushu's son and successor, Naram-Sin (2254–2218 BC), due to vast military conquests, assumed the imperial title "King Naram-Sin, king of the four-quarters" ("Lugal Naram-Sîn, Šar kibrat 'arbaim"), the four-quarters as a reference to the entire world. He was also for the first time in Sumerian culture, addressed as "the god (Sumerian = DINGIR, Akkadian = "ilu") of Agade" (Akkad), in opposition to the previous religious belief that kings were only representatives of the people towards the gods.
He also faced revolts at the start of his reign, but quickly crushed them.
Naram-Sin also recorded the Akkadian conquest of Ebla as well as Armanum and its king.
To better police Syria, he built a royal residence at Tell Brak, a crossroads at the heart of the Khabur River basin of the Jezirah. Naram-Sin campaigned against Magan which also revolted; Naram-Sin "marched against Magan and personally caught Mandannu, its king", where he instated garrisons to protect the main roads. The chief threat seemed to be coming from the northern Zagros Mountains, the Lulubis and the Gutians. A campaign against the Lullubi led to the carving of the "Victory Stele of Naram-Suen", now in the Louvre. Hittite sources claim Naram-Sin of Akkad even ventured into Anatolia, battling the Hittite and Hurrian kings Pamba of Hatti, Zipani of Kanesh, and 15 others.
|
The economy was highly planned. Grain was cleaned, and rations of grain and oil were distributed in standardized vessels made by the city's potters. Taxes were paid in produce and labour on public walls, including city walls, temples, irrigation canals and waterways, producing huge agricultural surpluses. This newfound Akkadian wealth may have been based upon benign climatic conditions, huge agricultural surpluses and the confiscation of the wealth of other peoples.
In later Assyrian and Babylonian texts, the name "Akkad", together with "Sumer", appears as part of the royal title, as in the Sumerian LUGAL KI-EN-GI KI-URI or Akkadian "Šar māt Šumeri u Akkadi", translating to "king of Sumer and Akkad". This title was assumed by the king who seized control of Nippur, the intellectual and religious center of southern Mesopotamia.
During the Akkadian period, the Akkadian language became the lingua franca of the Middle East, and was officially used for administration, although the Sumerian language remained as a spoken and literary language. The spread of Akkadian stretched from Syria to Elam, and even the Elamite language was temporarily written in Mesopotamian cuneiform. Akkadian texts later found their way to far-off places, from Egypt (in the Amarna Period) and Anatolia, to Persia (Behistun).
|
Submission of Sumerian kings.
The submission of some Sumerian rulers to the Akkadian Empire, is recorded in the seal inscriptions of Sumerian rulers such as Lugal-ushumgal, governor (ensi) of Lagash ("Shirpula"), circa 2230–2210 BC. Several inscriptions of Lugal-ushumgal are known, particularly seal impressions, which refer to him as governor of Lagash and at the time a vassal (, "arad", "servant" or "slave") of Naram-Sin, as well as his successor Shar-kali-sharri. One of these seals proclaims:
It can be considered that Lugal-ushumgal was a collaborator of the Akkadian Empire, as was Meskigal, ruler of Adab. Later however, Lugal-ushumgal was succeeded by Puzer-Mama who, as Akkadian power waned, achieved independence from Shar-Kali-Sharri, assuming the title of "King of Lagash" and starting the illustrious Second Dynasty of Lagash.
Collapse.
The empire of Akkad likely fell in the 22nd century BC, within 180 years of its founding, ushering in a "Dark Age" with no prominent imperial authority until the Third Dynasty of Ur. The region's political structure may have reverted to the "status quo ante" of local governance by city-states.
|
By the end of Sharkalisharri's reign, the empire had begun to unravel.
After several years of chaos (and four kings), Shu-turul and Dudu appear to have restored some centralized authority for several decades; however, they were unable to prevent the empire from eventually collapsing outright, eventually ceding power to Gutians, based in Adab, who had been conquered by Akkad during the reign of Sharkalisharri.
Little is known about the Gutian period, or how long it endured. Cuneiform sources suggest that the Gutians' administration showed little concern for maintaining agriculture, written records, or public safety; they reputedly released all farm animals to roam about Mesopotamia freely and soon brought about famine and rocketing grain prices. The Sumerian king Ur-Nammu (2112–2095 BC) cleared the Gutians from Mesopotamia during his reign.
The "Sumerian King List", describing the Akkadian Empire after the death of Shar-kali-shari, states:
However, there are no known year-names or other archaeological evidence verifying any of these later kings of Akkad or Uruk, apart from several artefact referencing king Dudu of Akkad and Shu-turul. The named kings of Uruk may have been contemporaries of the last kings of Akkad, but in any event could not have been very prominent.
|
The period between BC and 2004 BC is known as the Ur III period. Documents again began to be written in Sumerian, although Sumerian was becoming a purely literary or liturgical language, much as Latin later became in Medieval Europe.
One explanation for the end of the Akkadian empire is simply that the Akkadian dynasty could not maintain its political supremacy over other independently powerful city-states.
Natural causes: drought, seasonal weather patterns.
One theory, which remains controversial, associates regional decline at the end of the Akkadian period (and of the First Intermediary Period following the Old Kingdom in Ancient Egypt) with rapidly increasing aridity, and failing rainfall in the region of the Ancient Near East, caused by a global centennial-scale drought, sometimes called the 4.2 kiloyear event. Harvey Weiss has shown that Peter B. de Menocal has shown "there was an influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation on the streamflow of the Tigris and Euphrates at this time, which led to the collapse of the Akkadian Empire". More recent analysis of simulations from the HadCM3 climate model indicate that there was a shift to a more arid climate on a timescale that is consistent with the collapse of the empire.
|
Excavation at Tell Leilan suggests that this site was abandoned soon after the city's massive walls were constructed, its temple rebuilt and its grain production reorganized. The debris, dust, and sand that followed show no trace of human activity. Soil samples show fine wind-blown sand, no trace of earthworm activity, reduced rainfall and indications of a drier and windier climate. Evidence shows that skeleton-thin sheep and cattle died of drought, and up to 28,000 people abandoned the site, presumably seeking wetter areas elsewhere. Tell Brak shrank in size by 75%. Trade collapsed. Nomadic herders such as the Amorites moved herds closer to reliable water suppliers, bringing them into conflict with Akkadian populations. This climate-induced collapse seems to have affected the whole of the Middle East, and to have coincided with the collapse of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.
This collapse of rain-fed agriculture in the Upper Country meant the loss to southern Mesopotamia of the agrarian subsidies which had kept the Akkadian Empire solvent. Water levels within the Tigris and Euphrates fell 1.5 meters beneath the level of 2600 BC, and although they stabilized for a time during the following Ur III period, rivalries between pastoralists and farmers increased. Attempts were undertaken to prevent the former from herding their flocks in agricultural lands, such as the building of a wall known as the "Repeller of the Amorites" between the Tigris and Euphrates under the Ur III ruler Shu-Sin. Such attempts led to increased political instability; meanwhile, severe depression occurred to re-establish demographic equilibrium with the less favorable climatic conditions.
|
Richard Zettler has critiqued the drought theory, observing that the chronology of the Akkadian empire is very uncertain and that available evidence is not sufficient to show its economic dependence on the northern areas excavated by Weiss and others. He also criticizes Weiss for taking Akkadian writings literally to describe certain catastrophic events.
According to Joan Oates, at Tell Brak, the soil "signal" associated with the drought lies below the level of Naram-Sin's palace. However, evidence may suggest a tightening of Akkadian control following the Brak 'event', for example, the construction of the heavily fortified 'palace' itself and the apparent introduction of greater numbers of Akkadian as opposed to local officials, perhaps a reflection of unrest in the countryside of the type that often follows some natural catastrophe. Furthermore, Brak remained occupied and functional after the fall of the Akkadians.
In 2019, a study by Hokkaido University on fossil corals in Oman provides an evidence that prolonged winter shamal seasons led to the salinization of the irrigated fields; hence, a dramatic decrease in crop production triggered a widespread famine and eventually the collapse of the ancient Akkadian Empire.
|
Government.
The Akkadian government formed a "classical standard" with which all future Mesopotamian states compared themselves. Traditionally, the "ensi" was the highest functionary of the Sumerian city-states. In later traditions, one became an "ensi" by marrying the goddess Inanna, legitimising the rulership through divine consent.
Initially, the monarchical "lugal" ("lu" = man, "gal" =Great) was subordinate to the priestly "ensi", and was appointed at times of troubles, but by later dynastic times, it was the "lugal" who had emerged as the preeminent role, having his own "é" (= house) or "palace", independent from the temple establishment. By the time of Mesalim, whichever dynasty controlled the city of Kish was recognised as "šar kiššati" (= king of Kish), and was considered preeminent in Sumer, possibly because this was where the two rivers approached, and whoever controlled Kish ultimately controlled the irrigation systems of the other cities downstream.
As Sargon extended his conquest from the "Lower Sea" (Persian Gulf), to the "Upper Sea" (Mediterranean), it was felt that he ruled "the totality of the lands under heaven", or "from sunrise to sunset", as contemporary texts put it. Under Sargon, the "ensi"s generally retained their positions, but were seen more as provincial governors. The title "šar kiššati" became recognised as meaning "lord of the universe". Sargon is even recorded as having organised naval expeditions to Dilmun (Bahrain) and Magan, amongst the first organised military naval expeditions in history. Whether he also did in the case of the Mediterranean with the kingdom of Kaptara (possibly Cyprus), as claimed in later documents, is more questionable.
|
With Naram-Sin, Sargon's grandson, this went further than with Sargon, with the king not only being called "Lord of the Four-Quarters (of the Earth)", but also elevated to the ranks of the "dingir" (= gods), with his own temple establishment. Previously a ruler could, like Gilgamesh, become divine after death but the Akkadian kings, from Naram-Sin onward, were considered gods on earth in their lifetimes. Their portraits showed them of larger size than mere mortals and at some distance from their retainers.
One strategy adopted by both Sargon and Naram-Sin, to maintain control of the country, was to install their daughters, Enheduanna and Emmenanna respectively, as high priestess to Sin, the Akkadian version of the Sumerian moon deity, Nanna, at Ur, in the extreme south of Sumer; to install sons as provincial "ensi" governors in strategic locations; and to marry their daughters to rulers of peripheral parts of the Empire (Urkesh and Marhashe). A well documented case of the latter is that of Naram-Sin's daughter Tar'am-Agade at Urkesh.
|
Records at the Brak administrative complex suggest that the Akkadians appointed locals as tax collectors.
Economy.
The population of Akkad, like nearly all pre-modern states, was entirely dependent upon the agricultural systems of the region, which seem to have had two principal centres: the irrigated farmlands of southern Iraq that traditionally had a yield of 30 grains returned for each grain sown and the rain-fed agriculture of northern Iraq, known as the "Upper Country."
Southern Iraq during Akkadian period seems to have been approaching its modern rainfall level of less than per year, with the result that agriculture was totally dependent upon irrigation. Before the Akkadian period, the progressive salinisation of the soils, produced by poorly drained irrigation, had been reducing yields of wheat in the southern part of the country, leading to the conversion to more salt-tolerant barley growing. Urban populations there had peaked already by 2,600 BC, and demographic pressures were high, contributing to the rise of militarism apparent immediately before the Akkadian period (as seen in the Stele of the Vultures of Eannatum). Warfare between city states had led to a population decline, from which Akkad provided a temporary respite. It was this high degree of agricultural productivity in the south that enabled the growth of the highest population densities in the world at this time, giving Akkad its military advantage.
|
The water table in this region was very high and replenished regularly—by winter storms in the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates from October to March and from snow-melt from March to July. Flood levels, that had been stable from about 3,000 to 2,600 BC, had started falling, and by the Akkadian period were a half-meter to a meter lower than recorded previously. Even so, the flat country and weather uncertainties made flooding much more unpredictable than in the case of the Nile; serious deluges seem to have been a regular occurrence, requiring constant maintenance of irrigation ditches and drainage systems. Farmers were recruited into regiments for this work from August to October—a period of food shortage—under the control of city temple authorities, thus acting as a form of unemployment relief. Gwendolyn Leick has suggested that this was Sargon's original employment for the king of Kish, giving him experience in effectively organising large groups of men; a tablet reads, "Sargon, the king, to whom Enlil permitted no rival—5,400 warriors ate bread daily before him".
|
Harvest was in the late spring and during the dry summer months. Nomadic Amorites from the northwest pastured their flocks of sheep and goats to graze on the crop residue and were watered from the river and irrigation canals. For this privilege, they had to pay a tax in wool, meat, milk, and cheese to the temples, who distributed these products to the bureaucracy and priesthood. In good years, all went well, but in bad years, wild winter pastures were in short supply, nomads sought to pasture their flocks in the grain fields, resulting in conflicts with farmers. It appeared that the subsidizing of southern populations by the import of wheat from the north of the Empire temporarily overcame this problem, and it seems to have allowed economic recovery and a growing population within this region.
Foreign trade.
As a result, Sumer and Akkad had a surplus of agricultural products but was short of almost everything else, particularly metal ores, timber and building stone, all of which had to be imported. The spread of the Akkadian state as far as the "silver mountain" (possibly the Taurus Mountains), the "cedars" of Lebanon, and the copper deposits of Magan, was largely motivated by the goal of securing control over these imports. One tablet, an Old Babylonian Period copy of an original inscription, reads:
|
International trade developed during the Akkadian period. Indus–Mesopotamia relations also seem to have expanded: Sargon of Akkad (circa 2300 or 2250 BC), was the first Mesopotamian ruler to make an explicit reference to the region of Meluhha, which is generally understood as being the Balochistan or the Indus area.
Culture.
Akkadian art.
In art, there was a great emphasis on the kings of the dynasty, alongside much that continued earlier Sumerian art. Little architecture remains. In large works and small ones such as seals, the degree of realism was considerably increased, but the seals show a "grim world of cruel conflict, of danger and uncertainty, a world in which man is subjected without appeal to the incomprehensible acts of distant and fearful divinities who he must serve but cannot love. This sombre mood ... remained characteristic of Mesopotamian art..."
Akkadian sculpture is remarkable for its fineness and realism, which shows a clear advancement compared to the previous period of Sumerian art.
Seals.
|
The Akkadians used visual arts as a vehicle of ideology. They developed a new style for cylinder seals by reusing traditional animal decorations but organizing them around inscriptions, which often became central parts of the layout. The figures also became more sculptural and naturalistic. New elements were also included, especially in relation to the rich Akkadian mythology.
Language.
During the 3rd millennium BC, there developed a very intimate cultural symbiosis between the Sumerians and the Akkadians, which included widespread bilingualism. The influence of Sumerian on Akkadian (and vice versa) is evident in all areas, from lexical borrowing on a massive scale, to syntactic, morphological, and phonological convergence. This has prompted scholars to refer to Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millennium as a "sprachbund".
Akkadian gradually replaced Sumerian as a spoken language somewhere around 2000 BC (the exact dating being a matter of debate), but Sumerian continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial, literary, and scientific language in Mesopotamia until the 1st century AD.
|
Poet–priestess Enheduanna.
Sumerian literature continued in rich development during the Akkadian period. Enheduanna, the "wife (Sumerian "dam" = high priestess) of Nanna [the Sumerian moon god] and daughter of Sargon" of the temple of Sin at Ur, who lived –2250 BC, is the first poet in history whose name is known. Her known works include hymns to the goddess Inanna, the "Exaltation of Inanna" and "In-nin sa-gur-ra". A third work, the "Temple Hymns", a collection of specific hymns, addresses the temples and their occupants, the deities to whom they were consecrated. The works of this poet are significant, because although they start out using the third person, they shift to the first person voice of the poet herself, and they mark a significant development in the use of cuneiform. As poet, princess, and priestess, she was a person who, according to William W. Hallo, "set standards in all three of her roles for many succeeding centuries"
In the "Exultation of Inanna",
The kings of Akkad were legendary among later Mesopotamian civilizations, with Sargon understood as the prototype of a strong and wise leader, and his grandson Naram-Sin considered the wicked and impious leader ("Unheilsherrscher" in the analysis of Hans Gustav Güterbock) who brought ruin upon his kingdom.
Technology.
A tablet from the periods reads, "(From the earliest days) no-one had made a statue of lead, (but) Rimush king of Kish, had a statue of himself made of lead. It stood before Enlil; and it recited his (Rimush's) virtues to the idu of the gods". The copper Bassetki Statue, cast with the lost wax method, testifies to the high level of skill that craftsmen achieved during the Akkadian period.
|
Ajax the Lesser
Ajax ( "Aias" according to Graves means "of the earth".) was a Greek mythological hero, son of Oileus, the king of Locris. He was called the "Ajax the Less", the "lesser" or "Locrian" Ajax, to distinguish him from Ajax the Great, son of Telamon. He was the leader of the Locrian contingent during the Trojan War. He is a significant figure in Homer's "Iliad" and is also mentioned in the "Odyssey", in Virgil's "Aeneid" and in Euripides' "The Trojan Women". In Etruscan legend, he was known as "Aivas Vilates".
Description.
In the account of Dares the Phrygian, Ajax was described as "stocky, powerfully built, swarthy, a pleasant person, and brave."
Mythology.
Life.
Ajax's mother's name was Eriopis. According to Strabo, he was born in Naryx in Locris, where Ovid calls him "Narycius heros". According to the "Iliad", he led his Locrians in forty ships against Troy. He is described as one of the great heroes among the Greeks. In battle, he wore a linen cuirass (, ), was brave and intrepid, especially skilled in throwing the spear and, next to Achilles, the swiftest of all the Greeks. The chronicler Malalas portrayed him as "tall, strong, tawny, squinting, good nose, curly hair, black hair, thick beard, long face, daring warrior, magnanimous, a womanizer."
|
In the funeral games at the pyre of Patroclus, Ajax contended with Odysseus and Antilochus for the prize in the footrace; but Athena, who was hostile towards him and favored Odysseus, made him stumble and fall, so that he won only the second prize.
In later traditions, this Ajax is called a son of Oileus and the nymph Rhene, and is also mentioned among the suitors of Helen. After the taking of Troy, he rushed into the temple of Athena, where Cassandra had taken refuge, and was embracing the statue of the goddess in supplication. Ajax violently dragged her away to the other captives. According to some writers, he raped Cassandra inside the temple. Odysseus called for Ajax's death by stoning for this crime, but Ajax saved himself by claiming innocence with an oath to Athena, clutching her statue in supplication.
Death.
Since Ajax dragged the supplicant from her temple, Athena had cause to be indignant. According to the "Bibliotheca", no one was aware that Ajax had raped Cassandra until Calchas, the Greek seer, warned the Greeks that Athena was furious at the treatment of her priestess and she would destroy the Greek ships if they did not kill him immediately. Despite this, Ajax managed to hide at the altar of a deity where the Greeks, fearing divine retribution should they kill him and destroy the altar, allowed him to live. When the Greeks left without killing Ajax, despite their sacrifices, Athena became so angry that she persuaded Zeus to send a storm that sank many of their ships.
|
As Ajax was returning from Troy, Athena hit his ship with a thunderbolt and the vessel was wrecked on the Whirling Rocks (). But he escaped with some of his men, managing to cling onto a rock through the assistance of Poseidon. He would have been saved in spite of Athena, but he then audaciously declared that he would escape the dangers of the sea in defiance of the immortals. Offended by this presumption, Poseidon split the rock with his trident and Ajax was swallowed up by the sea. Thetis buried him when the corpse washed up on Mykonos. Other versions depict a different death for Ajax, showing him dying when on his voyage home. In these versions, when Ajax came to the Capharean Rocks on the coast of Euboea, his ship was wrecked in a fierce storm, he himself was lifted up in a whirlwind and impaled with a flash of rapid fire from Athena in his chest, and his body thrust upon sharp rocks, which afterwards were called the rocks of Ajax.
After Ajax's death, his spirit dwelt in the island of Leuce. The Opuntian Locrians worshipped Ajax as their national hero, and so great was their faith in him that when they drew up their army in battle, they always left one place open for him, believing that, although invisible to them, he was fighting for and among them. The story of Ajax was frequently made use of by ancient poets and artists, and the hero who appears on some Locrian coins with the helmet, shield, and sword is probably this Ajax.
Other accounts of Ajax's death are offered by Philostratus, Euripides, and the scholiast on Lycophron.
Art.
The abduction of Cassandra by Ajax was frequently represented in Greek works of art, such as the chest of Cypselus described by Pausanias and in extant works.
|
Ajax the Great
Ajax () or Aias (; , "Aíantos"; archaic ) is a Greek mythological hero, the son of King Telamon and Periboea, and the half-brother of Teucer. He plays an important role in the Trojan War, and is portrayed as a towering figure and a warrior of great courage in Homer's "Iliad" and in the Epic Cycle, a series of epic poems about the Trojan War, being second only to Achilles among Greek heroes of the war. He is also referred to as "Telamonian Ajax" (, in Etruscan recorded as "Aivas Tlamunus"), "Greater Ajax", or "Ajax the Great", which distinguishes him from Ajax, son of Oileus, also known as Ajax the Lesser.
Family.
Ajax is the son of Telamon. Telamon was the son of Aeacus and grandson of Zeus, and his first wife Periboea. By Telamon, he is also the elder half-brother of Teucer. Through his uncle Peleus (Telamon's brother), he is the cousin of Achilles.
The etymology of his given name is uncertain. By folk etymology, his name was said to come from the root of "aiazō" which means "to lament", translating to "one who laments; mourner". Hesiod provided a different folk etymology in a story in his "The Great Eoiae", where Ajax the great receives his name when Heracles prays to Zeus that a son might be born to Telemon and Eriboea: Zeus sends an eagle ("aetos" αετός) as a sign, and Heracles then bids the parents call their son Ajax after the eagle.
|
Many illustrious Athenians, including Cimon, Miltiades, Alcibiades and the historian Thucydides, traced their descent from Ajax. On an Etruscan tomb dedicated to Racvi Satlnei in Bologna (5th century BC), there is an inscription that says "aivastelmunsl", which means "[family] of Telamonian Ajax".
Mythology.
Description.
In the account of Dares the Phrygian, Ajax was illustrated as ". . .powerful. His voice was clear, his hair black and curly. He was perfectly single-minded and unrelenting in the onslaught of battle." Meanwhile, In Homer's "Iliad" he is described as of great stature, colossal frame, and strongest of all the Achaeans. Known as the "bulwark of the Achaeans", he was trained by the centaur Chiron (who had trained Ajax's father Telamon and Achilles' father Peleus and later died of an accidental wound inflicted by a poison arrow belonging to Heracles). He was described as fearless, strong, and powerful but also with a very high level of combat intelligence. Ajax commands his army wielding a huge shield made of seven cowhides with a layer of bronze. Most notably, Ajax is not wounded in any of the battles described in the "Iliad", and he is the only principal character on either side who does not receive substantial assistance from any of the gods (except for Agamemnon) who take part in the battles, although, in book 13, Poseidon strikes Ajax with his staff, renewing his strength. Unlike Diomedes, Agamemnon, and Achilles, Ajax appears as a mainly defensive warrior, instrumental in the defense of the Greek camp and ships and that of Patroclus' body. When the Trojans are on the offensive, he is often seen covering the retreat of the Achaeans. Significantly, while one of the deadliest heroes in the whole poem, Ajax has no aristeia depicting him on the offensive.
|
Trojan War.
In the "Iliad", Ajax is notable for his abundant strength and courage, seen particularly in two fights with Hector. In Book 7, Ajax is chosen by lot to meet Hector in a duel which lasts most of a whole day. Ajax at first gets the better of the encounter, wounding Hector with his spear and knocking him down with a large stone, but Hector battles on until the heralds, acting at the direction of Zeus, call a draw, with the two combatants exchanging gifts, Ajax giving Hector his "war-belt, glistening purple" and Hector giving Ajax his "silver-studded sword"
The second fight between Ajax and Hector occurs when the latter breaks into the Mycenaean camp, and battles with the Greeks among the ships. In Book 14, Ajax throws a giant rock at Hector which almost kills him. In Book 15, Hector is restored to his strength by Apollo and returns to attack the ships. Ajax, wielding an enormous spear as a weapon and leaping from ship to ship, holds off the Trojan armies virtually single-handedly. In Book 16, Hector and Ajax duel once again. Hector then disarms Ajax (although Ajax is not hurt) and Ajax is forced to retreat, seeing that Zeus is clearly favoring Hector. Hector and the Trojans succeed in burning one Greek ship, the culmination of an assault that almost finishes the war. Ajax is responsible for the death of many Trojan lords, including Phorcys.
|
Ajax often fought in tandem with his brother Teucer, known for his skill with the bow. Ajax would wield his magnificent shield, as Teucer stood behind picking off enemy Trojans.
Achilles was absent during these encounters because of his feud with Agamemnon. In Book 9, Agamemnon and the other Mycenaean chiefs send Ajax, Odysseus and Phoenix to the tent of Achilles in an attempt to reconcile with the great warrior and induce him to return to the fight. Although Ajax speaks earnestly and is well received, he does not succeed in convincing Achilles.
When Patroclus is killed, Hector tries to steal his body. Ajax, assisted by Menelaus, succeeds in fighting off the Trojans and taking the body back with his chariot; however, the Trojans have already stripped Patroclus of Achilles' armor. Ajax's prayer to Zeus to remove the fog that has descended on the battle to allow them to fight or die in the light of day has become proverbial. According to Hyginus, in total, Ajax killed 28 people at Troy.
Death.
|
The Belvedere Torso, a marble torso now in the Vatican Museums, is considered to depict Ajax "in the act of contemplating his suicide".
In Sophocles' play "Ajax", a famous retelling of Ajax's demise, after the armor is awarded to Odysseus, Ajax feels so insulted that he wants to kill Agamemnon and Menelaus. Athena intervenes and clouds his mind and vision, and he goes to a flock of sheep and slaughters them, imagining they are the Achaean leaders, including Odysseus and Agamemnon. When he comes to his senses, covered in blood, he realizes that what he has done has diminished his honor, and decides that he prefers to kill himself rather than live in shame. He does so with the same sword which Hector gave him when they exchanged presents. From his blood sprang a red flower, as at the death of Hyacinthus, which bore on its leaves the initial letters of his name "Ai", also expressive of lament. His ashes were deposited in a golden urn on the Rhoetean promontory at the entrance of the Hellespont.
Ajax's half-brother Teucer stood trial before his father for not bringing Ajax's body or famous weapons back. Teucer was acquitted for responsibility but found guilty of negligence. He was disowned by his father and was not allowed to return to his home, the island of Salamis off the coast of Athens.
|
Homer is somewhat vague about the precise manner of Ajax's death but does ascribe it to his loss in the dispute over Achilles' armor; when Odysseus visits Hades, he begs the soul of Ajax to speak to him, but Ajax, still resentful over the old quarrel, refuses and descends silently back into Erebus.
Like Achilles, he is represented (although not by Homer) as living after his death on the island of Leuke at the mouth of the Danube. Ajax, who in the post-Homeric legend is described as the grandson of Aeacus and the great-grandson of Zeus, was the tutelary hero of the island of Salamis, where he had a temple and an image, and where a festival called "Aianteia" was celebrated in his honour. At this festival a couch was set up, on which the panoply of the hero was placed, a practice which recalls the Roman Lectisternium. The identification of Ajax with the family of Aeacus was chiefly a matter which concerned the Athenians, after Salamis had come into their possession, on which occasion Solon is said to have inserted a line in the "Iliad" (2.557–558), for the purpose of supporting the Athenian claim to the island. Ajax then became an Attic hero; he was worshipped at Athens, where he had a statue in the market-place, and the tribe "Aiantis" was named after him. Pausanias also relates that a gigantic skeleton, its kneecap in diameter, appeared on the beach near Sigeion, on the Trojan coast; these bones were identified as those of Ajax.
Palace.
In 2001, Yannis Lolos began excavating a Mycenaean palace near the village of Kanakia on the island of Salamis which he theorized to be the home of the mythological Aiacid dynasty. The multi-story structure covers and had perhaps 30 rooms. The palace appears to have been abandoned at the height of the Mycenaean civilization, roughly the same time the Trojan War may have occurred.
|
Alaric I
Alaric I (; , 'ruler of all'; – 411 AD) was the first king of the Visigoths, from 395 to 410. He rose to leadership of the Goths who came to occupy Moesia—territory acquired a couple of decades earlier by a combined force of Goths and Alans after the Battle of Adrianople.
Alaric began his career under the Gothic soldier Gainas and later joined the Roman army. Once an ally of Rome under the Roman emperor Theodosius, Alaric helped defeat the Franks and other allies of a would-be Roman usurper. Despite losing many thousands of his men, he received little recognition from Rome and left the Roman army disappointed. After the death of Theodosius and the disintegration of the Roman armies in 395, he is described as king of the Visigoths. As the leader of the only effective field force remaining in the Balkans, he sought Roman legitimacy, never quite achieving a position acceptable to himself or to the Roman authorities.
He operated mainly against the successive Western Roman regimes, and marched into Italy, where he died. He is responsible for the sack of Rome in 410; one of several notable events in the Western Roman Empire's eventual decline.
|
Early life, federate status in the Balkans.
According to Jordanes, a 6th-century Roman bureaucrat of Gothic origin—who later turned his hand to history—Alaric was born on Peuce Island at the mouth of the Danube Delta in present-day Romania and belonged to the noble Balti dynasty of the Thervingian Goths. There is no way to verify this claim. Historian Douglas Boin does not make such an unequivocal assessment about Alaric's Gothic heritage and instead claims he came from either the Thervingi or the Greuthung tribes. When the Goths suffered setbacks against the Huns, they made a mass migration across the Danube, and fought a war with Rome. Alaric was probably a child during this period who grew up along Rome's periphery. Alaric's upbringing was shaped by living along the border of Roman territory in a region that the Romans viewed as a veritable "backwater"; some four centuries before, the Roman poet Ovid regarded the area along the Danube and Black Sea where Alaric was reared as a land of "barbarians", among "the most remote in the vast world."
|
Alaric's childhood in the Balkans, where the Goths had settled by way of an agreement with Theodosius, was spent in the company of veterans who had fought at the Battle of Adrianople in 378, during which they had annihilated much of the Eastern army and killed Emperor Valens. Imperial campaigns against the Visigoths were conducted until a treaty was reached in 382. This treaty was the first "foedus" on imperial Roman soil and required these semi-autonomous Germanic tribes—among whom Alaric was raised—to supply troops for the Roman army in exchange for peace, control of cultivatable land, and freedom from Roman direct administrative control. Correspondingly, there was hardly a region along the Roman frontier during Alaric's day without Gothic slaves and servants of one form or another. For several subsequent decades, many Goths like Alaric were "called up into regular units of the eastern field army" while others served as auxiliaries in campaigns led by Theodosius against the western usurpers Magnus Maximus and Eugenius.
|
Rebellion against Rome, rise to Gothic leadership.
A new phase in the relationship between the Goths and the empire resulted from the treaty signed in 382, as more and more Goths attained aristocratic rank from their service in the imperial army. Alaric began his military career under the Gothic soldier Gainas, and later joined the Roman army. He first appeared as leader of a mixed band of Goths and allied peoples, who invaded Thrace in 391 but were stopped by the Roman general Stilicho. While the Roman poet Claudian belittled Alaric as "a little-known menace" terrorizing southern Thrace during this time, Alaric's abilities and forces were formidable enough to prevent the Roman emperor Theodosius from crossing the Hebrus River.
Service under Theodosius I.
By 392, Alaric had entered Roman military service, which coincided with a reduction of hostilities between Goths and Romans. In 394, he led a Gothic force that helped Emperor Theodosius defeat the Frankish usurper Arbogast—fighting at the behest of Eugenius—at the Battle of Frigidus. Despite sacrificing around 10,000 of his men, who had been victims of Theodosius' callous tactical decision to overwhelm the enemies' front lines using Gothic "foederati", Alaric received little recognition from the emperor. Alaric was among the few who survived the protracted and bloody affair. Many Romans considered it their "gain" and a victory that so many Goths had died during the Battle of Frigidus River. Alaric biographer Douglas Boin (2020) posited that seeing ten thousand of his (Alaric's) dead kinsmen likely elicited questions about what kind of ruler Theodosius actually had been and whether remaining in direct Roman service was best for men like him. Refused the reward he expected, which included a promotion to the position of magister militum and command of regular Roman units, Alaric mutinied and began to march against Constantinople.
|
On 17 January 395, Theodosius died of an illness, leaving his two young and incapable sons Arcadius and Honorius in Stilicho's guardianship. Modern writers regard Alaric as king of the Visigoths from 395. According to historian Peter Heather, it is not entirely clear in the sources if Alaric rose to prominence at the time the Goths revolted following Theodosius's death, or if he had already risen within his tribe as early as the war against Eugenius. Whatever the circumstances, Jordanes recorded that the new king persuaded his people to "seek a kingdom by their own exertions rather than serve others in idleness."
Semi-independent action in Eastern Roman interests, Eastern Roman recognition.
Whether or not Alaric was a member of an ancient Germanic royal clan—as claimed by Jordanes and debated by historians—is less important than his emergence as a leader, the first of his kind since Fritigern. Theodosius's death left the Roman field armies collapsing and the Empire divided again between his two sons, one taking the eastern and the other the western portion of the Empire. Stilicho made himself master of the West and attempted to establish control in the East as well, and led an army into Greece. Alaric rebelled again. Historian Roger Collins points out that while the rivalries created by the two halves of the Empire vying for power worked to Alaric's advantage and that of his people, simply being called to authority by the Gothic people did not solve the practicalities of their needs for survival. He needed Roman authority in order to be supplied by Roman cities.
|
Alaric took his Gothic army on what Stilicho's propagandist Claudian described as a "pillaging campaign" that began first in the East. Historian Thomas Burns's interpretation is that Alaric and his men were recruited by Rufinus's Eastern regime in Constantinople, and sent to Thessaly to stave off Stilicho's threat. No battle took place. Alaric's forces made their way down to Athens and along the coast, where he sought to force a new peace upon the Romans. In 396, he marched through Thermopylae and sacked Athens, where archaeological evidence shows widespread damage to the city. Stilicho's propagandist Claudian accuses his troops of plundering for the next year or so as far south as the mountainous Peloponnese peninsula, and reports that only Stilicho's surprise attack with his western field army (having sailed from Italy) stemmed the plundering as he pushed Alaric's forces north into Epirus. Zosimus adds that Stilicho's troops destroyed and pillaged too, and let Alaric's men escape with their plunder.
Stilicho was forced to send some of his Eastern forces home. They went to Constantinople under the command of one Gainas, a Goth with a large Gothic following. On arrival, Gainas murdered Rufinus, and was appointed magister militum for Thrace by Eutropius, the new supreme minister and the only eunuch consul of Rome, who, Zosimus claims, controlled Arcadius "as if he were a sheep". A poem by Synesius advises Arcadius to display manliness and remove a "skin-clad savage" (probably referring to Alaric) from the councils of power and his barbarians from the Roman army. We do not know if Arcadius ever became aware of this advice, but it had no recorded effect.
|
Stilicho obtained a few more troops from the German frontier and continued to campaign indecisively against the Eastern empire; again he was opposed by Alaric and his men. During the next year, 397, Eutropius personally led his troops to victory over some Huns who were marauding in Asia Minor. With his position thus strengthened he declared Stilicho a public enemy, and he established Alaric as "magister militum per Illyricum" Alaric thus acquired entitlement to gold and grain for his followers and negotiations were underway for a more permanent settlement. Stilicho's supporters in Milan were outraged at this seeming betrayal; meanwhile, Eutropius was celebrated in 398 by a parade through Constantinople for having achieved victory over the "wolves of the North". Alaric's people were relatively quiet for the next couple of years. In 399, Eutropius fell from power. The new Eastern regime now felt that they could dispense with Alaric's services and they nominally transferred Alaric's province to the West. This administrative change removed Alaric's Roman rank and his entitlement to legal provisioning for his men, leaving his army—the only significant force in the ravaged Balkans—as a problem for Stilicho.
|
In search of Western Roman recognition; invading Italy.
First invasion of Italy ( 401–403).
According to historian Michael Kulikowski, sometime in the spring of 402 Alaric decided to invade Italy, but no sources from antiquity indicate to what purpose. Burns suggests that Alaric was probably desperate for provisions. Using Claudian as his source, historian Guy Halsall reports that Alaric's attack actually began in late 401, but since Stilicho was in "Raetia" "dealing with frontier issues" the two did not first confront one another in Italy until 402. Alaric's entry into Italy followed the route identified in the poetry of Claudian, as he crossed the peninsula's Alpine frontier near the city of Aquileia. For a period of six to nine months, there were reports of Gothic attacks along the northern Italian roads, where Alaric was spotted by Roman townspeople. Along the route on "Via Postumia", Alaric first encountered Stilicho.
|
Historian A.D. Lee observes, "Alaric's return to the north-west Balkans brought only temporary respite to Italy, for in 405 another substantial body of Goths and other barbarians, this time from outside the empire, crossed the middle Danube and advanced into northern Italy, where they plundered the countryside and besieged cities and towns" under their leader Radagaisus. Although the imperial government was struggling to muster enough troops to contain these barbarian invasions, Stilicho managed to stifle the threat posed by the tribes under Radagaisus, when the latter split his forces into three separate groups. Stilicho cornered Radagaisus near Florence and starved the invaders into submission. Meanwhile, Alaric—bestowed with codicils of "magister militum" by Stilicho and now supplied by the West—awaited for one side or the other to incite him to action as Stilicho faced further difficulties from more barbarians.
Second invasion of Italy, agreement with Western Roman regime.
Sometime in 406 and into 407, more large groups of barbarians, consisting primarily of Vandals, Sueves and Alans, crossed the Rhine into Gaul while about the same time a rebellion occurred in Britain. Under a common soldier named Constantine it spread to Gaul. Burdened by so many enemies, Stilicho's position was strained. During this crisis in 407, Alaric again marched on Italy, taking a position in Noricum (modern Austria), where he demanded a sum of 4,000 pounds of gold to buy off another full-scale invasion. The Roman Senate loathed the idea of supporting Alaric; Zosimus observed that one senator famously declaimed "Non est ista pax, sed pactio servitutis" ("This is not peace, but a pact of servitude"). Stilicho paid Alaric the 4,000 pounds of gold nevertheless. This agreement, sensible in view of the military situation, fatally weakened Stilicho's standing at Honorius's court. Twice Stilicho had allowed Alaric to escape his grasp, and Radagaisus had advanced all the way to the outskirts of Florence.
|
Renewed hostilities after Western Roman coup.
In the East, Arcadius died on 1 May 408 and was replaced by his son Theodosius II; Stilicho seems to have planned to march to Constantinople, and to install there a regime loyal to himself. He may also have intended to give Alaric a senior official position and send him against the rebels in Gaul. Before Stilicho could do so, while he was away at Ticinum at the head of a small detachment, a bloody coup against his supporters took place at Honorius's court. It was led by Honorius's minister, Olympius. Stilicho's small escort of Goths and Huns was commanded by a Goth, Sarus, whose Gothic troops massacred the Hun contingent in their sleep, and then withdrew towards the cities in which their own families were billeted. Stilicho ordered that Sarus's Goths should not be admitted, but, now without an army, he was forced to flee for sanctuary. Agents of Olympius promised Stilicho his life, but instead betrayed and killed him.
Alaric was again declared an enemy of the emperor. Olympius's men then massacred the families of the federate troops (as presumed supporters of Stilicho, although they had probably rebelled against him), and the troops defected "en masse" to Alaric. Many thousands of barbarian auxiliaries, along with their wives and children, joined Alaric in Noricum. The conspirators seem to have let their main army disintegrate and had no policy except hunting down supporters of Stilicho. Italy was left without effective indigenous defence forces thereafter.
|
As a declared 'enemy of the emperor', Alaric was denied the legitimacy that he needed to collect taxes and hold cities without large garrisons, which he could not afford to detach. He again offered to move his men, this time to Pannonia, in exchange for a modest sum of money and the modest title of Comes, but he was refused because Olympius's regime regarded him as a supporter of Stilicho.
First siege of Rome, agreed ransom.
When Alaric was rebuffed, he led his force of around 30,000 men—many newly enlisted and understandably motivated—on a march toward Rome to avenge their murdered families. He moved across the Julian Alps into Italy, probably using the route and supplies arranged for him by Stilicho, bypassing the imperial court in Ravenna which was protected by widespread marshland and had a port, and in September 408 he menaced the city of Rome, imposing a strict blockade. No blood was shed this time; Alaric relied on hunger as his most powerful weapon. When the ambassadors of the Senate, entreating for peace, tried to intimidate him with hints of what the despairing citizens might accomplish, he laughed and gave his celebrated answer: "The thicker the hay, the easier mowed!" After much bargaining, the famine-stricken citizens agreed to pay a ransom of 5,000 pounds of gold, 30,000 pounds of silver, 4,000 silken tunics, 3,000 hides dyed scarlet, and 3,000 pounds of pepper. Alaric also recruited some 40,000 freed Gothic slaves. Thus ended Alaric's first siege of Rome.
|
Failed agreement with the Western Romans, Alaric sets up his own emperor.
After having provisionally agreed to the terms offered by Alaric for lifting the blockade, Honorius recanted; historian A.D. Lee highlights that one of the points of contention for the emperor was Alaric's expectation of being named head of the Roman Army, a post Honorius was not prepared to grant to Alaric. When this title was not bestowed onto Alaric, he proceeded to not only "besiege Rome again in late 409, but also to proclaim a leading senator, Priscus Attalus, as a rival emperor, from whom Alaric then received the appointment" he desired. Meanwhile, Alaric's newly appointed "emperor" Attalus, who seems not to have understood the limits of his power or his dependence on Alaric, failed to take Alaric's advice and lost the grain supply in Africa to a pro-Honorian "comes Africae", Heraclian. Then, sometime in 409, Attalus—accompanied by Alaric—marched on Ravenna and after receiving unprecedented terms and concessions from the legitimate emperor Honorius, refused him and instead demanded that Honorius be deposed and exiled. Fearing for his safety, Honorius made preparations to flee to Ravenna when ships carrying 4,000 troops arrived from Constantinople, restoring his resolve. Now that Honorius no longer felt the need to negotiate, Alaric (regretting his choice of puppet emperor) deposed Attalus, perhaps to re-open negotiations with Ravenna.
|
Sack of Rome.
Negotiations with Honorius might have succeeded had it not been for another intervention by Sarus, of the Amal family, and therefore a hereditary enemy of Alaric and his house. He attacked Alaric's men. Why Sarus, who had been in imperial service for years under Stilicho, acted at this moment remains a mystery, but Alaric interpreted this attack as directed by Ravenna and as bad faith from Honorius. No longer would negotiations suffice for Alaric, as his patience had reached its end, which led him to march on Rome for a third and final time.
On 24 August 410, Alaric and his forces began the sack of Rome, an assault that lasted three days. After hearing reports that Alaric had entered the city—possibly aided by Gothic slaves inside—there were reports that Emperor Honorius (safe in Ravenna) broke into "wailing and lamentation" but quickly calmed once "it was explained to him that it was the city of Rome that had met its end and not 'Roma'," his pet fowl. Writing from Bethlehem, St. Jerome (Letter 127.12, to the lady "Principia") lamented: "A dreadful rumour reached us from the West. We heard that Rome was besieged, that the citizens were buying their safety with gold … The city which had taken the whole world was itself taken; nay, it fell by famine before it fell to the sword." Nonetheless, Christian writers also cited how Alaric ordered that anyone who took shelter in a Church was to be spared. When liturgical vessels were taken from the basilica of St. Peter and Alaric heard of this, he ordered them returned and had them ceremoniously restored in the church. If the account from the historian Orosius can be seen as accurate, there was even a celebratory recognition of Christian unity by way of a procession through the streets where Romans and barbarians alike "raised a hymn to God in public"; historian Edward James concludes that such stories are likely more political rhetoric of the "noble" barbarians than a reflection of historical reality.
|
According to historian Patrick Geary, Roman booty was not the focus of Alaric's sack of Rome; he came for needed food supplies. Historian Stephen Mitchell asserts that Alaric's followers seemed incapable of feeding themselves and relied on provisions "supplied by the Roman authorities." Whatever Alaric's intentions were cannot be known entirely, but Kulikowski certainly sees the issue of available treasure in a different light, writing that "For three days, Alaric's Goths sacked the city, stripping it of the wealth of centuries." The barbarian invaders were not gentle in their treatment of property as substantial damage was still evident into the sixth century. Certainly the Roman world was shaken by the fall of the Eternal City to barbarian invaders, but as Guy Halsall emphasizes, "Rome's fall had less striking political effects. Alaric, unable to treat with Honorius, remained in the political cold." Kulikowski sees the situation similarly, commenting:
But for Alaric the sack of Rome was an admission of defeat, a catastrophic failure. Everything he had hoped for, had fought for over the course of a decade and a half, went up in flames with the capital of the ancient world. Imperial office, a legitimate place for himself and his followers inside the empire, these were now forever out of reach. He might seize what he wanted, as he had seized Rome, but he would never be given it by right. The sack of Rome solved nothing and when the looting was over Alaric's men still had nowhere to live and fewer future prospects than ever before.
|
Still, the importance of Alaric cannot be "overestimated" according to Halsall, since he had desired and obtained a Roman command even though he was a barbarian; his real misfortune was being caught between the rivalry of the Eastern and Western empires and their court intrigue. According to historian Peter Brown, when one compares Alaric with other barbarians, "he was almost an Elder Statesman." Nonetheless, Alaric's respect for Roman institutions as a former servant to its highest office did not stay his hand in violently sacking the city that had for centuries exemplified Roman glory, leaving behind physical destruction and social disruption, while Alaric took clerics and even the emperor's sister, Galla Placidia, with him when he left the city. Many other Italian communities beyond the city of Rome itself fell victim to the forces under Alaric, as Procopius ("Wars" 3.2.11–13) writing in the sixth century later relates:
For they destroyed all the cities which they captured, especially those south of the Ionian Gulf, so completely that nothing has been left to my time to know them by, unless, indeed, it might be one tower or gate or some such thing which chanced to remain. And they killed all the people, as many as came in their way, both old and young alike, sparing neither women nor children. Wherefore even up to the present time Italy is sparsely populated.
|
Whether Alaric's forces wrought the level of destruction described by Procopius or not cannot be known, but evidence speaks to a significant population decrease, as the number of people on the food dole dropped from 800,000 in 408 to 500,000 by 419. Rome's fall to the barbarians was as much a psychological blow to the empire as anything else, since some Romans citizens saw the collapse as resulting from the conversion to Christianity, while Christian theologians like St.Augustine (writing "City of God") responded in turn. Lamenting Rome's capture, famed Christian theologian Jerome, wrote how "day and night" he could not stop thinking of everyone's safety, and moreover, how Alaric had extinguished "the bright light of all the world." Some contemporary Christian observers even saw Alaric—a professed Christian—as God's wrath upon a still pagan Rome.
Move to southern Italy, death from disease.
Not only had Rome's sack been a significant blow to the Roman people's morale, they had also endured two years' worth of trauma brought about by fear, hunger (due to blockades), and illness. However, the Goths were not long in the city of Rome, as only three days after the sack, Alaric marched his men south to Campania, from where he intended to sail to Sicily—probably to obtain grain and other supplies—when a storm destroyed his fleet. During the early months of 411, while on his northward return journey through Italy, Alaric took ill and died at Consentia in Bruttium. His cause of death was likely fever, and his body was, according to legend, buried under the riverbed of the Busento in accordance with the pagan practices of the Visigothic people. The stream was temporarily turned aside from its course while the grave was dug, wherein the Gothic chief and some of his most precious spoils were interred. When the work was finished, the river was turned back into its usual channel and the captives by whose hands the labour had been accomplished were put to death that none might learn their secret.
|
Aftermath.
Alaric was succeeded in the command of the Gothic army by his brother-in-law, Ataulf, who married Honorius' sister Galla Placidia three years later.
Following in the wake of Alaric's leadership, which Kulikowski claims, had given his people "a sense of community that survived his own death...Alaric's Goths remained together inside the empire, going on to settle in Gaul. There, in the province of Aquitaine, they put down roots and created the first autonomous barbarian kingdom inside the frontiers of the Roman empire." The Goths were able to settle in Aquitaine only after Honorius granted the once Roman province to them, sometime in 418 or 419. Not long after Alaric's exploits in Rome and Athaulf's settlement in Aquitaine, there is a "rapid emergence of Germanic barbarian groups in the West" who begin controlling many western provinces. These barbarian peoples included: Vandals in Spain and Africa, Visigoths in Spain and Aquitaine, Burgundians along the upper Rhine and southern Gaul, and Franks on the lower Rhine and in northern and central Gaul.
Sources.
The chief authorities on the career of Alaric are: the historian Orosius and the poet Claudian, both contemporary, neither disinterested; Zosimus, a historian who lived probably about half a century after Alaric's death; and Jordanes, a Goth who wrote the history of his nation in 551, basing his work on Cassiodorus's "Gothic History".
|
Alaric II
Alaric II (, , 'ruler of all'; ; – August 507) was the King of the Visigoths from 484 until 507. He succeeded his father Euric as King of the Visigoths in Toulouse on 28 December 484; he was the great-grandson of the more famous Alaric I, who sacked Rome in 410. He established his capital at Aire-sur-l'Adour ("Vicus Julii") in Aquitaine. His dominions included not only the majority of Hispania (excluding its northwestern corner) but also Gallia Aquitania and the greater part of an as-yet undivided Gallia Narbonensis.
Reign.
Herwig Wolfram opens his chapter on the eighth Visigothic king, "Alaric's reign gets no full treatment in the sources, and the little they do contain is overshadowed by his death in the Battle of Vouillé and the downfall of the Toulosan kingdom." One example is Isidore of Seville's account of Alaric's reign: consisting of a single paragraph, it is primarily about Alaric's death in that battle.
The earliest-documented event in Alaric's reign concerned providing refuge to Syagrius, the former ruler of the Domain of Soissons (in what is now northwestern France) who had been defeated by Clovis I, King of the Franks. According to Gregory of Tours' account, Alaric was intimidated by Clovis into surrendering Syagrius to Clovis; Gregory then adds that "the Goths are a timorous race." The Franks then imprisoned Syagrius, and once his control over Syagrius' former kingdom was secure, Clovis had him beheaded. However, Wolfram points out that at the time "Clovis got no farther than the Seine; only after several more years did the Franks succeed in occupying the rest of the Gallo-Roman buffer state north of the Loire." Any threat of war Clovis could make would only be effective if they were neighbors; "it is nowhere written that Syagrius was handed over in 486 or 487."
|
Despite Frankish advances in the years that followed, Alaric was not afraid to take the military initiative when it presented itself. In 490, Alaric assisted his fellow Gothic king, Theodoric the Great, in his conquest of Italy by dispatching an army to raise Odoacer's siege of Pavia, where Theodoric had been trapped. Then when the Franks attacked the Burgundians in the decade after 500, Alaric assisted the ruling house, and according to Wolfram the victorious Burgundian king Gundobad ceded Avignon to Alaric. By 502 Clovis and Alaric met on an island in the Loire near Amboise for face-to-face talks, which led to a peace treaty.
In 506, the Visigoths captured the city of Dertosa in the Ebro valley. There they captured the Roman usurper Peter and had him executed.
Battle of Vouillé and aftermath.
After a few years, however, Clovis violated the peace treaty negotiated in 502. Despite the diplomatic intervention of Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths and father-in-law of Alaric, Clovis led his followers into Visigothic territory. Alaric was forced by his magnates to meet Clovis in the Battle of Vouillé (summer 507) near Poitiers; there the Goths were defeated and Alaric slain, according to Gregory of Tours, by Clovis himself.
|
The most serious consequence of this battle was not the loss of their possessions in Gaul to the Franks; with Ostrogothic help, much of the Gallic territory was recovered, Wolfram notes, perhaps as far as Toulouse. Nor was it the loss of the royal treasury at Toulouse, which Gregory of Tours writes Clovis took into his possession. As Peter Heather notes, the Visigothic kingdom was thrown into disarray "by the death of its king in battle". Alaric's heirs were his eldest son, the illegitimate Gesalec, and his younger son, the legitimate Amalaric, who was still a child. Gesalec proved incompetent, and in 511 King Theodoric assumed the throne of the kingdom ostensibly on behalf of Amalaric—Heather uses the word "hijacked" to describe his action. Although Amalaric eventually became king in his own right, the political continuity of the Visigothic kingdom was broken; "Amalaric's succession was the result of new power structures, not old ones," as Heather describes it. With Amalaric's death in 531, the Visigothic kingdom entered an extended period of unrest which lasted until Leovigild assumed the throne in 569.
|
Ability as king.
In religion Alaric was an Arian, like all the early Visigothic nobles, but he greatly mitigated the persecution policy of his father Euric toward the Catholics and authorized them to hold in 506 the council of Agde. He was on uneasy terms with the Catholic bishops of Arelate (modern Arles) as epitomized in the career of the Gallo-Roman Caesarius, bishop of Arles, who was appointed bishop in 503. Caesarius was suspected of conspiring with the Burgundians, whose king had married the sister of Clovis, to assist the Burgundians capture Arles. Alaric exiled him for a year to Bordeaux in Aquitania, then allowed him to return unharmed when the crisis had passed.
Alaric displayed similar wisdom in political affairs by appointing a commission headed by the referendary Anianus to prepare an abstract of the Roman laws and imperial decrees, which would form the authoritative code for his Roman subjects. This is generally known as the "Breviarium Alaricianum" or Breviary of Alaric.
Legacy.
The (Alaric's Mountain), near Carcassonne, is named after the Visigoth king. Local rumour has it that he left a vast treasure buried in the caves beneath the mountain.
The (Alaric's Canal) in the Hautes-Pyrénées department is named after him.
|
Albertus Magnus
Albertus Magnus ( – 15 November 1280), also known as Saint Albert the Great, Albert of Swabia
or Albert of Cologne, was a German Dominican friar, philosopher, scientist, and bishop, considered one of the greatest medieval philosophers and thinkers.
Canonized in 1931, he was known during his lifetime as "Doctor universalis" and "Doctor expertus"; late in his life the sobriquet "Magnus" was appended to his name. Scholars such as James A. Weisheipl and Joachim R. Söder have referred to him as the greatest German philosopher and theologian of the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church distinguishes him as one of the Doctors of the Church.
Biography.
It seems likely that Albertus Magnus was born sometime before 1200, given well-attested evidence that he was aged over 80 on his death in 1280. Two later sources say that Albert was about 87 on his death, which has led 1193 to be commonly given as the date of Albert's birth, but this information does not have enough evidence to be confirmed. Albert was probably born in Lauingen (now in Bavaria), since he called himself 'Albert of Lauingen', but this might simply be a family name. Most probably his family was of "ministerial" class; his familial connection with (being son of the count) the Bollstädt noble family is almost certainly mere conjecture by 15th century hagiographers.
|
Albert was probably educated principally at the University of Padua, where he received instruction in Aristotle's writings. A late account by Rudolph de Novamagia refers to Albertus' encounter with the Blessed Virgin Mary, who convinced him to enter Holy Orders. In 1223 (or 1229), he became a member of the Dominican Order, and studied theology at Bologna and elsewhere. Selected to fill the position of lecturer at Cologne, Germany, where the Dominicans had a house, he taught for several years there, as well as in Regensburg, Freiburg, Strasbourg, and Hildesheim. During his first tenure as lecturer at Cologne, Albert wrote his "Summa de bono" after having a discussion with Philip the Chancellor concerning the transcendental properties of being. In 1245, Albert became master of theology under Guerric of Saint-Quentin, the first German Dominican to achieve this distinction. Following this turn of events, Albert was able to teach theology at the University of Paris as a full-time professor, holding the seat of the Chair of Theology at the College of St. James. During this time Thomas Aquinas began to study under Albertus.
|
Albert was the first to comment on virtually all of the writings of Aristotle, thus making them accessible to wider academic debate. The study of Aristotle brought him to study and comment on the teachings of Muslim academics, notably Avicenna and Averroes, and this would bring him into the heart of academic debate.
In 1254, Albert was made provincial of the Dominican Order and fulfilled the duties of the office with great care and efficiency. During his tenure, he publicly defended the Dominicans against attacks by the secular faculty of the University of Paris, commented on John the Evangelist, and answered what he perceived as errors of the Islamic philosopher Averroes.
In 1259, Albert took part in the General Chapter of the Dominicans at Valenciennes together with Thomas Aquinas, masters Bonushomo Britto, Florentius, and Peter (later Pope Innocent V), establishing a "ratio studiorum" or program of studies for the Dominicans that featured the study of philosophy as an innovation for those not sufficiently trained to study theology. This innovation initiated the tradition of Dominican scholastic philosophy put into practice, for example, in 1265 at the Order's "studium provinciale" at the convent of Santa Sabina in Rome, out of which would develop the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelicum".
|
In 1260, Pope Alexander IV made him bishop of Regensburg, an office from which he resigned after three years. During the exercise of his duties he enhanced his reputation for humility by refusing to ride a horse, in accord with the dictates of the Order, instead traversing his huge diocese on foot. In 1263, Pope Urban IV relieved him of the duties of bishop and asked him to preach the eighth Crusade in German-speaking countries. After this, he was especially known for acting as a mediator between conflicting parties. In Cologne, he is known not only for being the founder of Germany's oldest university there, but also for "the big verdict" (der Große Schied) of 1258, which brought an end to the conflict between the citizens of Cologne and the archbishop. Among the last of his labors was the defense of the orthodoxy of his former pupil, Thomas Aquinas, whose death in 1274 grieved Albert (the story that he travelled to Paris in person to defend the teachings of Aquinas can not be confirmed).
Albert was a scientist, philosopher, astrologer, theologian, spiritual writer, ecumenist, and diplomat. Under the auspices of Humbert of Romans, Albert molded the curriculum of studies for all Dominican students, introduced Aristotle to the classroom and probed the work of Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus. Indeed, it was the thirty years of work done by Aquinas and himself that allowed for the inclusion of Aristotelian study in the curriculum of Dominican schools.
|
After suffering declining health in 1278, he died on 15 November 1280 in the Dominican convent in Cologne, Germany. His relics are located in a Roman sarcophagus in the crypt of the Dominican St. Andrew's Church in Cologne. His body was claimed to be incorrupt during an exhumation three years after his death. However, a later exhumation in 1483 found that only a skeleton remained.
Albert was beatified in 1622. He was canonized and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church on 16 December 1931 by Pope Pius XI and the patron saint of natural scientists in 1941. St. Albert's feast day is November 15.
Among the first biographical sources, there were Heinrich von Herford and Luis of Valladolides and, in modern times, the study by James A. Weisheipl (1980), who reconstructs the life and works of Albertus Magnus taking into account all previous biographies and places his date of birth around 1200.
Writings.
Albert's writings collected in 1899 went to thirty-eight volumes. These displayed his prolific habits and encyclopedic knowledge of topics such as logic, theology, botany, geography, astronomy, astrology, mineralogy, alchemy, zoology, physiology, phrenology, justice, law, friendship, and love. He digested, interpreted, and systematized the whole of Aristotle's works, gleaned from the Latin translations and notes of the Arabian commentators, in accordance with Church doctrine. Most modern knowledge of Aristotle was preserved and presented by Albert.
|
His principal theological works are a commentary in three volumes on the Books of the Sentences of Peter Lombard ("Magister Sententiarum"), and the "Summa Theologiae" in two volumes. The latter is in substance a more didactic repetition of the former.
Albert's activity, however, was more philosophical than theological (see Scholasticism). The philosophical works, occupying the first six and the last of the 21 volumes, are generally divided according to the Aristotelian scheme of the sciences, and consist of interpretations and condensations of Aristotle's relative works, with supplementary discussions upon contemporary topics, and occasional divergences from the opinions of the master. Albert believed that Aristotle's approach to natural philosophy did not pose any obstacle to the development of a Christian philosophical view of the natural order.
Albert's knowledge of natural science was considerable and for the age remarkably accurate. His industry in every department was great: not only did he produce commentaries and paraphrases of the entire Aristotelian corpus, including his scientific works, but Albert also added to and improved upon them. His books on topics like botany, zoology, and minerals included information from ancient sources, but also results of his own empirical investigations. These investigations pushed several of the special sciences forward, beyond the reliance on classical texts. In the case of embryology, for example, it has been claimed that little of value was written between Aristotle and Albert, who managed to identify organs within eggs. Furthermore, Albert also effectively invented entire special sciences, where Aristotle has not covered a topic. For example, prior to Albert, there was no systematic study of minerals. For the breadth of these achievements, he was bestowed the name "Doctor Universalis."
|
Much of Albert's empirical contributions to the natural sciences have been superseded, but his general approach to science may be surprisingly modern. For example, in "De Mineralibus" (Book II, Tractate ii, Ch. 1) Albert claims, "For it is [the task] of natural science not simply to accept what we are told but to inquire into the causes of natural things."
Alchemy.
In the centuries since his death, many stories arose about Albert as an alchemist and magician. "Much of the modern confusion results from the fact that later works, particularly the alchemical work known as the "Secreta Alberti" or the "Experimenta Alberti", were falsely attributed to Albertus by their authors to increase the prestige of the text through association." On the subject of alchemy and chemistry, many treatises relating to alchemy have been attributed to him, though in his authentic writings he had little to say on the subject, and then mostly through commentary on Aristotle. For example, in his commentary, "De mineralibus", he refers to the power of stones, but does not elaborate on what these powers might be. A wide range of Pseudo-Albertine works dealing with alchemy exist, though, showing the belief developed in the generations following Albert's death that he had mastered alchemy, one of the fundamental sciences of the Middle Ages. These include "Metals and Materials"; the "Secrets of Chemistry"; the "Origin of Metals"; the "Origins of Compounds", and a "Concordance "which is a collection of "Observations on the philosopher's stone"; and other alchemy-chemistry topics, collected under the name of "Theatrum Chemicum". He is credited with the discovery of the element arsenic and experimented with photosensitive chemicals, including silver nitrate. He did believe that stones had occult properties, as he related in his work "De mineralibus". However, there is scant evidence that he personally performed alchemical experiments.
|
According to legend, Albert is said to have discovered the philosopher's stone and passed it on to his pupil Thomas Aquinas, shortly before his death. Albert does not confirm he discovered the stone in his writings, but he did record that he witnessed the creation of gold by "transmutation." Given that Thomas Aquinas died six years before Albert's death, this legend as stated is unlikely.
Astrology.
Albert was deeply interested in astrology, as has been articulated by scholars such as Paola Zambelli and Scott Hendrix. Throughout the Middle Ages –and well into the early modern period– astrology was widely accepted by scientists and intellectuals who held the view that life on earth is effectively a microcosm within the macrocosm (the latter being the cosmos itself). It was believed that correspondence therefore exists between the two and thus the celestial bodies follow patterns and cycles analogous to those on earth. With this worldview, it seemed reasonable to assert that astrology could be used to predict the probable future of a human being. Albert argued that an understanding of the celestial influences affecting us could help us to live our lives more in accord with Christian precepts. The most comprehensive statement of his astrological beliefs is to be found in two separate works that he authored around 1260, known as the "Speculum astronomiae" and "De Fato". However, details of these beliefs can be found in almost everything he wrote, from his early "De natura boni" to his last work, the "Summa theologiae". His "speculum" was critiqued by Gerard of Silteo.
|
Tides and the Moon.
Albert considered the tides to be influenced by the moon. Based on ancient Greek theories of light and Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi’s astrological explanations, he proposed a mixed theory where the Moon doubly attracts the water by its intrinsic astrological humid nature and by the heat that the moonlight produces.
Matter and form.
Albert believed that all natural things were compositions of matter and form, to which he referred as "quod est" and "quo est". Albert also believed that God alone is the absolute ruling entity. Albert's version of hylomorphism is very similar to the Aristotelian doctrine.
Music.
Albert is known for his commentary on the musical practice of his times. Most of his written musical observations are found in his commentary on Aristotle's "Poetics". He rejected the idea of "music of the spheres" as ridiculous: movement of astronomical bodies, he supposed, is incapable of generating sound. He wrote extensively on proportions in music, and on the three different subjective levels on which plainchant could work on the human soul: purging of the impure; illumination leading to contemplation; and nourishing perfection through contemplation. Of particular interest to 20th-century music theorists is the attention he paid to silence as an integral part of music.
|
Metaphysics of morals.
Both of his early treatises, "De natura boni" and "De bono", start with a metaphysical investigation into the concepts of the good in general and the physical good. Albert refers to the physical good as "bonum naturae". Albert does this before directly dealing with the moral concepts of metaphysics. In Albert's later works, he says in order to understand human or moral goodness, the individual must first recognize what it means to be good and do good deeds. This procedure reflects Albert's preoccupations with neo-Platonic theories of good as well as the doctrines of Pseudo-Dionysius. Albert's view was highly valued by the Catholic Church and his peers.
Natural law.
Albert devoted the last tractatus of "De Bono" to a theory of justice and natural law. Albert places God as the pinnacle of justice and natural law. God legislates and divine authority is supreme. Up until his time, it was the only work specifically devoted to natural law written by a theologian or philosopher.
Friendship.
|
Cultural references.
The iconography of the tympanum and archivolts of the late 13th-century portal of Strasbourg Cathedral was inspired by Albert's writings. Albert is frequently mentioned by Dante, who made his doctrine of free will the basis of his ethical system. In his "Divine Comedy", Dante places Albertus with his pupil Thomas Aquinas among the great lovers of wisdom ("Spiriti Sapienti") in the Heaven of the Sun.
In "The Concept of Anxiety", Søren Kierkegaard wrote that Albert, "arrogantly boasted of his speculation before the deity and suddenly became stupid." Kierkegaard cites Gotthard Oswald Marbach whom he quotes as saying "Albertus repente ex asino factus philosophus et ex philosopho asinus" [Albert was suddenly transformed from an ass into a philosopher and from a philosopher into an ass].
In Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", the titular scientist, Victor Frankenstein, studies the works of Albertus Magnus.
Pastor Johann Eduard Erdmann considered Albert greater and more original than his pupil Aquinas.
|
In "Open All Hours", Arkwright invents St Albert's day so Granville can check customers' pockets.
Influence and tribute.
A number of schools have been named after Albert, including Albertus Magnus High School in Bardonia, New York; Albertus Magnus Lyceum in River Forest, Illinois; and Albertus Magnus College in New Haven, Connecticut.
Albertus Magnus Science Hall at Thomas Aquinas College, in Santa Paula, California, is named in honor of Albert. The main science buildings at Providence College and Aquinas College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, are also named after him.
The central square at the campus of the University of Cologne features a statue of Albert and is named after him. Made by Gerhard Marcks around 1950s, this statue is one of four replicas found in different places around the world (along with University of Jena, University of the Andes, and University of Houston).
The Academy for Science and Design in New Hampshire honored Albert by naming one of its four houses Magnus House.
As a tribute to the scholar's contributions to the law, the University of Houston Law Center displays a statue of Albert. It is located on the campus of the University of Houston.
|
The Albertus-Magnus-Gymnasium is found in Rottweil, Germany.
In Managua, Nicaragua, the Albertus Magnus International Institute, a business and economic development research center, was founded in 2004.
In the Philippines, the Albertus Magnus Building at the University of Santo Tomas that houses the Conservatory of Music, College of Tourism and Hospitality Management, College of Education, and UST Education High School is named in his honor. The Saint Albert the Great Science Academy in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, which offers preschool, elementary and high school education, takes pride in having St. Albert as their patron saint. Its main building was named Albertus Magnus Hall in 2008. San Alberto Magno Academy in Tubao, La Union is also dedicated in his honor. This century-old Catholic high school continues to live on its vision-mission up to this day, offering Senior High school courses.
Due to his contributions to natural philosophy, the bacterium "Agrobacterium albertimagni", the plant species "Alberta magna", the crustacean "Bodigiella albertimagni", the fossil brachiopod "Albasphe albertimagni", and the asteroid 20006 Albertus Magnus were named after him.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.