Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
The Ancient World Edit
Gallic Wars See Gaul. Galen See Hippocrates, Galen, and the Greek physicians. Gandhara Gandhara survived multiple conquests through the ancient and medieval periods. It was located on the Silk Road in the area that is now eastern Afghanistan and the northwest portion of Pakistan. Gandhara was a thriving center of trade and culture between the sixth century b.c.e. and the 11th century c.e. In Buddhist and Hindu texts Gandhara is described as lying along the Uttarapatha (northern path) connecting a high road that followed the Ganges River and continued east through the Punjab and the Taxila Valley into Bactria. In the Indian epic Mahabharata the kings of Gandhara are mentioned as being allies of the Kuravas in their wars against the Panduvas. The Greek historian Herodotus referred to the region as Paktuike and lists it as one of 20 provinces of the Persian Empire. During the Persian Empire, at the end of the reign of Cyrus II (558–530 b.c.e.) and under Darius I (521–486 b.c.e.), Gandhara was part of the seventh satrap. It was under the Achaemenid’s control (roughly between 530 and 380 b.c.e.) that administration of the government became organized, aligning itself within the Persian system. After 380 b.c.e. a series of small kingdoms arose in the region until the invasion by Alexander the Great in 327 b.c.e. Alexander’s control of the area was short-lived. The Mauryan Empire was launched from Gandhara. The founder, Chandragupta II (r. 322–298 b.c.e.) was a young man living in Taxila during the conquest by Alexander. After successfully launching an assault on the kingdom of Magadha, Chandragupta defeated the Selucid Greeks in 305 b.c.e. and went on to become ruler over much of India. For the next 150 years Gandhara was part of the Mauryan Empire. The great Mauryan ruler Ashoka, who lived from 304 to 232 b.c.e., was in his early career the governor of Gandhara. Under Ashoka, Buddhism began to fl ourish in the region. After the fall of the Mauryans, around 185 b.c.e., Demetrius, the king of Bactria, invaded Gandhara but did not occupy it for long. The reign of Gandhara’s king Menander, who ruled from the cities of Taxila and Sagala until 140 b.c.e., marked a brief period of independence. Following that period the kingdom came under the infl uence of Sakas, and by the beginning of the Common Era, the Parthians. Under the Parthians cultural and artistic ideas of the Greeks were brought to the centers of education and commerce. The famous Gandhara school of art began to apply Greek conventions to Buddhist fi gures. Gandharan artists were the fi rst to depict the Buddha in human form. Their emphasis was both on realism and the ideal beauty of G 153 the human form. While exquisite pieces of art from 50 b.c.e. to 400 c.e. survived, probably the most recognizable is the Fasting Buddha, which depicts a meditating Buddha whose bones are literally exposed due to his starvation. The golden age of Gandhara took place during the rule of the Kushans. Countless remains of Buddhist monasteries, large statues, and various Buddhist stupas survived from this era. The Kushan monarch Kanishka (128–151 c.e.) ruled his kingdom from Peshawar in Gandhara. The empire stretched from southern India to the border of Han China. From Peshawar, Buddhist culture, religion, and art were spread to the Far East. After 241 c.e. Gandhara became a vassal of the Sassanians. Until the fifth century it remained a center of culture, artistic activity, and commerce. This period was marked by the production of giant statues of the Buddha that were carved into mountainsides and other large statues that were placed in monasteries. By the middle of the fifth century the Huns invaded Gandhara, and the culture slid into a period of decay. Buddhism fell into decline, while some practice of Hinduism resurfaced. The Sassanids drove out the Huns in the middle of the sixth century. Even though the Sassanid Empire came under the control of Islam after 644, the Arabs seemed to have little interest in Gandhara. Buddhism continued there under Turkish rule until the area’s conquest by Hindushahi around 870. The Hindushahi capital was moved to Udabhandapura in Gand, and the kingdom once again prospered, at least through the early part of the Middle Ages. Around 1021 the region was taken over by Muslim leaders, and the kingdom of Gandhara was absorbed into the Islamic world. British archaeologists revived interest in the history of the region in the mid- 19th century. See also Kushan Empire. Further reading: Dani, A. H. Gandhara Art of Pakistan. Peshawar, Pakistan: University of Peshawar, 1968; Dani, A. H., and V. M. Mason, eds. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Paris: Unesc o, 1992–2005; Geoffroy- Schneiter, Berenice. Gandhara: The Memory of Afghanistan. New York: Assouline, 2001; Hussain, J. An Illustrated History of Pakistan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983; Salmon, Richard. Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999. Tim Davis Ganjin (688–763 c.e.) Buddhist monk Ganjin traveled to Japan to spread the Buddhist faith. He was born in the Chinese county of Jiangyin in Guangling (Yangzhou, Jiangsu). His name in Chinese is Jianzhenis (Chien-chen); Ganjin is the Japanese version. He entered the Buddhist temple of Daming at the age of 14. He studied at Chang’an (Ch’ang-an) for six years, starting at the age of 20. He then returned to the Daming Temple where he eventually became the abbot of the temple. He also trained in medicine and opened a hospital, the Beitian Court, at the Daming Temple. In 732 c.e. the Japanese government sent an emissary to China, including two priests searching for a precept transmitter to come to Japan. In 742 they met with Ganjin and his followers. None of Ganjin’s followers was willing to go, so he decided to go himself. The crossing from China to Japan across the East China Sea was dangerous, and it took six tries before Ganjin reached Japan in 753. During the fifth attempt, he lost his eyesight. Ganjin was welcomed at the Japanese capital in 754. That summer, in front of the Great Buddha Hall at Todai-ji, a ceremony was held in which the retired emperor Shomu, the empress dowager Komyo, the reigning empress Koken, and 440 clergy received the precepts. An order was issued to build a precept hall and living quarters for Ganjin. Ganjin’s arrival in Japan brought the transmission of the precept, in Japan, back toward a more orthodox way of doing it. In 756 Ganjin was appointed to the bureau of clergy, which controlled the issuing of certificates for ordination. The Japanese viewed protecting the nation as part of the clergy’s mission. The Japanese government expected the priests to work in support of the nation’s prosperity. The fact that Ganjin, who was Chinese, was appointed to the bureau speaks volumes about his skill and the level of his understanding of the Buddhist religion. Ganjin resigned from the bureau in 758 and returned to training priests. Ganjin continued to teach up until his death on June 22, 763. He is considered one of the founding fathers of Sino-Japanese medicine. See also Buddhism in China. Further reading: Hanayama, Shinsho. A History of Japanese Buddhism. Trans. by Kosho Yamamoto. Tokyo: Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, 1960; Kashiwahara, Yusen, and Koyu Sonoda. Shapers of Japanese Buddhism. Translated by Gaynor Sekimori. Tokyo: Ksei Publishing, 1994; Tamura, Yoshiro. 154 Ganjin Japanese Buddhism: A Cultural History. Trans. by Jeffery Hunter. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 2000. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Gaul In Roman times the term Gaul was used to describe two places: Cisalpine Gaul, which was the northern part of Italy occupied by Celtic tribes, and Transalpine Gaul, the area covering modern-day France and some surrounding areas, also inhabited by Celts. Although the Celtic tribes in both regions had much in common in terms of customs and religion, the histories of the two areas were very different. Both groups have their origins in the Bronze Age, and many of their weapons and ornaments are bronze. Some have seen them as descendants of the Scythians, but this is largely based on their early metalwork. During the period known as the “La Tène culture,” from as early as 500 b.c.e., they started using iron. In addition to the two parts of the Roman Empire formally known as Gaul, Celts of Gallic descent migrated to other parts of Europe, with settlements in the British Isles, western Spain and Portugal, and through central Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and even parts of modern-day Bulgaria. From the sixth century b.c.e. there is archaeological evidence of Etruscan settlements, and the Celts only started to arrive in the region in the fi fth and fourth centuries b.c.e. These Celts occupied Piedmont and Lombardy, and they lived side by side with the Etruscans as can be seen by Celtic and Etruscan graves found in the same cemeteries. According to Livy, when the Gauls arrived in northern Italy, they established 12 towns along either side of the Apennines and then another 12 further south. They moved into the area north of Rome during the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, who was king of Rome from 616 until 578 b.c.e., and one tribe called the Insubes made their headquarters in the region around Mediolanum (modern-day Milan). Subsequent tribes—the Cenomani, the Libui, the Salui, the Boii, the Lingones, and the Senones—then migrated into northern Italy. The last tribe settled in the Po Valley and rather than ejecting the Etruscans by force, they assimilated with them, gradually taking over the region and eroding the Etruscan cultural identity. THE GAULS ATTACK ROME In 386 b.c.e. the Gauls were strong enough to attack the city of Rome. They sacked the city, but in a famous story, Romans held out in the citadel, making entreaties to people in the nearby town of Veii, 12 miles away, to help. There was a secret route in and out of the citadel, and Livy surmised that it was a messenger who had been observed or followed that showed the Gauls the secret way into the citadel. One night the Gauls silently scaled the hillside to the citadel, but the geese that had been kept in honor of the goddess Juno squawked when they noticed the Gauls, and this alerted the Romans, who managed to drive off the Gauls. Although the Gauls attacked the Romans again during the fourth and third centuries b.c.e., the Romans managed to ally with nearby towns and defeat them in the great battle of Telamon in 225 b.c.e. In order to ensure that the Gauls were no longer a threat to Rome, the Romans then launched a massive war against the Gauls. After three years of bitter campaigning the Romans captured Mediolanum in 222 b.c.e. Their efforts against the Gauls came to a halt when the Carthaginian general Hannibal chose to attack Rome in 219 b.c.e. Crossing the Alps into Italy in 218 b.c.e., he won support from many of the Gauls in northern Italy, and these helped replenish his forces and supply his army. Although Hannibal’s armies defeated the Romans in four battles, they never succeeded in capturing Rome, and in 203 b.c.e. Hannibal was recalled to North Africa, where the Romans defeated him. After the Social War of 91–89 b.c.e., the Romans decided to create the colony of Cisalpine Gaul, with its southern border at the Rubicon River. All Roman settlers who lived there remained as Roman citizens, but the others were given “Latin rights,” and many resented this lower status that they retained until 49 b.c.e. when Julius Caesar made them Roman citizens. Two years after Caesar was killed, his successor Octavian (later the emperor Augustus Caesar), formally integrated the whole of Cisalpine Gaul into Italy. Augustus later divided it into four administrative districts. By this time Celtic infl uences had largely disappeared from this area, and most people spoke Latin. The geographer Strabo described it was one of the richest agricultural regions of the Roman Empire, and its people remained loyal to Rome, helping form Italy in the 19th century. TRANSALPINE GAUL The Romans had a similar experience with Transalpine Gaul, although their conquering of it took place much later than that of Cisalpine Gaul. Transalpine Gaul covers much of the area of modern-day France and also Belgium and parts of Germany. The English Channel to Gaul 155 the north, the Alps to the southeast, and the Pyrenees to the southwest defi ned its borders. Prior to the Roman occupation, the area was a loose confederation of Celtic tribes. There were Greek colonies along the southern coast of Gaul, the most important port being Massalia (modern-day Marseilles), which had been founded by the Phoenicians in about 600 b.c.e., as well as Avennio (modern-day Avignon) and Antipolis. The Romans called the Gauls the “Long-Haired Gauls,” ridiculing them for wearing trousers, tied at the ankle, and shoes. Some used body paint in battle, and in winter the Gauls wore heavy fur clothing and thick woolen cloaks. Some elements of their clothing seem to have been made out of checked cloth, which some have seen as the precursor to the tartans worn in Scotland and Ireland. In battle the Gauls used swords, large battle-axes and spears, protecting themselves with breastplates, helmets, and large shields. In early battles they used two-horse chariots and had some horsemen, which is why towns in Gaul were usually protected by a series of ditches to prevent a rapid chariot attack. For the most part their battle strength relied on numbers rather than strategy, which can explain their relatively easy defeat by the Romans. Most Gauls were based in village communities, although a large number of townships in central Gaul also fl ourished. Houses were built out of wood, with a thatched roof. Many houses were built into the ground to aid insulation during the winter. Although it was a civilization largely based on the use of bronze, the Gauls did have some small mines to locate copper. The diet was largely bread, meat, and vegetables. Transport was largely on foot or on horseback, with wealthier Gauls using chariots, especially in warfare. The Gauls worshipped using Druids, but the Romans were eager to end this practice. THE GALLIC WARS In 58 b.c.e. Julius Caesar embarked on the Gallic Wars with the initial aim of conquering some of central Gaul. After his term as consul of Rome, Caesar was made governor of both Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, the latter at that time only covering the area along the Mediterranean coast. Caesar discovered that there was a large tribe of Helvetians moving from modern-day Switzerland into Provincia, and Caesar hurriedly built and enlarged forts along the border of the region, forcing the Helvetians to move west. On the move were 386,000 Helvetians, including 100,000 warriors, and Caesar decided to engage them in battle when they were at their weakest. In June 58 b.c.e., at the Battle of Arar (or Saône), the Romans surprised 34,000 Helvetian warriors and apparently killed as many as 30,000 of them. Those who escaped and the main body headed west for the Loire. In July, at the Battle of Bibracte (Mount Beuvray), 70,000 Helvetian warriors attacked the Romans. Caesar had under his command about 30,000 legionnaires, about 20,000 Gallic auxiliaries, and 4,000 Gallic cavalry. The superior Roman discipline drove the Helvetians back to their camp where 130,000 Helvetian men, women, and children were slaughtered. Those who survived submitted and returned east. The Gallic Wars had begun with an attempt to avert a Helvetian attack, and while Caesar was preoccupied with them, a German tribe under their chief, Ariovistus, used the power vacuum to attack some Gallic tribes in modern-day Alsace. The Gauls there asked for help from the Romans, and Caesar’s armies, triumphant from their victory at Bibracte, managed to attack Ariovistus on September 10. The forces of Ariovistus were driven back, and with most of central Gaul under Roman control, Caesar withdrew his soldiers for the winter. At this point the Belgae, a tribe in northeastern Gaul, decided to rally together numerous other tribes to attack the Romans in the following year and raised 300,000 warriors. Caesar managed to outmaneuver his opponents, and at the Battle of Axona (Aisne) in March or April 57 b.c.e., the Roman forces destroyed the Belgae army of 75,000–100,000. In July another tribe, the Nervii, gathered together 75,000 men and attacked Caesar. In the Battle of Sabis (Sambre), Caesar only narrowly managed to achieve a victory, with 60,000 Nervii killed. For the winter of 57–56 b.c.e. Caesar withdrew his forces and returned to Gaul in order to keep up with developments in Rome. In 56 b.c.e. Caesar led his troops into modern-day Brittany, where he fought the Veneti, who had seized some ambassadors he had sent over the winter. This 156 Gaul Reconstruction of a reaping machine used in Gaul in ancient Roman times, from a description by Pliny. campaign was different because for the fi rst time Caesar put together a number of ships that supported his force on the land. His land progress was slow, but fi nally, in a battle in modern-day Quiberon Bay, the Roman galleys defeated the Gallic ships, preventing the Veneti from supplying their forts. In the fall of 56 b.c.e. Caesar marched his armies north to attack the Morini and the Menapii in modern-day Belgium. By the end of this year all of Gaul was under Roman control and had become a single political entity. As Britain and the Celts there had helped the Gauls resist the Romans, Caesar was eager to punish them and attacked Britain. In July of the following year he again went to Britain where he defeated a large Celtic force near modern-day London. While Caesar was on his second foray to Britain, news reached Caesar that the Gauls had surrounded a fort where Quintus Cicero was valiantly holding out. Caesar, by now with 10 legions at his disposal, marched to support Cicero and quickly overcame the Gauls. During the winter of 54–53 b.c.e. Caesar planned to subdue the Gauls who did not want Roman rule. At the same time the Arverni chief, Vercingetorix, had rallied another force to attack the Romans. Unlike previous opponents, Vercingetorix spent the winter training his forces. When Caesar attacked, rather than immediately engage him in battle, Vercingetorix started a policy of “scorched earth,” retreating and destroying any food or supplies that could be useful to the Romans. This drew the Romans into central Gaul where they captured Avaricum and then attacked the Gallic fortress of Gergovia. Despite many attempts, and a costly assault, the Romans were not able to capture Gergovia, and Caesar withdrew. After defeating some Gauls at the Battle of Lutetia (near modern-day Paris), he moved his armies south. The Gauls under Vercingetorix decided to attack and harass Caesar’s forces of 55,000 soldiers, 40,000 of whom were legionnaires. Caesar built a series of walls around the city to prevent the defenders from launching a sortie. Vercingetorix had managed to get allies to raise a massive army of 240,000, who attacked the Romans from the outside, while the Gauls inside emerged to attack the Romans. Caesar’s defenses prevented those outside from doing much damage, and inside, as supplies ran low, the Gauls were forced to eject all their women and children, who died of exposure and starvation. Finally, Vercingetorix surrendered and submitted. He was taken to Rome, where he was later executed. In 51 b.c.e. Caesar ran a series of small campaigns against small pockets of resistance, and by the end of it Gaul was fi rmly in Roman hands. The Gallic Wars had a dramatic effect on the nearly 10 million people of Gaul. The massive number of people killed in the battles, as well as those who died of exposure and starvation, resulted in vast tracts of Gaul being heavily depopulated and ready for many settlers to move there, not just from Italy but also from other parts of the empire. Transalpine Gaul became a Roman political unit until the fi fth century c.e., and under Augustus it consisted of four provinces: Narbonensis, Lugdunensis, Aquitania, and Belgica. GAUL UNDER ROMAN RULE During the many centuries of Roman rule the rich agricultural land attracted many Roman citizens and settlers from all over the empire. The Romans built a large series of roads, with the old Gallic city of Lugdunum (modernday Lyon) at the center of a series of important trade routes. Among the many settlers who came to live in Gaul were a number of men from the Holy Land. Herod Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, mentioned briefly in the Bible when Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus return from Egypt, was accused by the Romans of mismanaging the Jewish territory in Syria where he was the procurator. It was recorded that he was exiled to Gaul. His younger brother, Herod Antipas, the tetrach of Galilee and Perea, who was responsible for the execution of John the Baptist, was also later exiled to Gaul. During Roman rule Gaul prospered and became a major center for early Christianity, with a number of Christian saints being drawn from the region. However in the third century c.e. neglect of border defenses on the Rhine River meant more frequent invasions from Germans. Gaul was placed under the direct rule of Roman emperors, starting with Postumus, and more villages and towns were fortifi ed, and city walls strengthened. Gradually, however, the attacks by the Germans, the Franks, the Burgundians, and the Visigoths increased. The latter, in particular, took over much of southern Gaul, and in 410 the Visigoths even managed to sack Rome. However the Franks drove them out of the region. The period of Roman rule in Gaul was the subject of Julius Caesar’s The Gallic Wars, which was the earliest military history written by a main participant. Since Roman times Gaul has been the setting of large numbers of novels in French and English, including Sabine Baring-Gould’s Perpetua (1897), about the persecution of the Christians at Nîmes. There is also the diminutive French cartoon character Asterix, and his large friend Obelix, creations of the French writer René Goscinny (1926–77) and cartoonist Albert Underzo. The Gauls wear winged helmets and live in a village in Gaul that Gaul 157 has, somehow, managed to hold out against the Romans. These books have been translated into 15 languages, including Latin, and remain the most popular accounts of life in Gaul. See also late barbarians; Roman Empire; Roman historians; Rome: government. Further reading: Caesar. The Conquest of Gaul. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1982; Eluere, Christiane. The Celts: First Masters of Europe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1993; Fuller, J. F. C. Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier and Tyrant. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1965. Justin Corfi eld Gautama Buddha (c. 563–483 b.c.e.) religious leader Gautama Buddha is the historical personage referred to when people speak of Lord Buddha or simply the Buddha. However, according to Buddhist thought, there is in fact an infi nite stream of Buddhas who manifest according to the different phases of reality from the distant past of the universe to the far future. Gautama Buddha is the Buddha who is manifested in the phase of the universe in which we live. Buddhahood represents the state of having achieved enlightenment, and this enables the Buddha to demonstrate to others how to achieve nirvana, which is the state of enlightenment and the means of escaping from the otherwise eternal wheel of suffering caused by desire and represented by endless reincarnations. GAUTAMA BUDDHA’S EARLY LIFE The great majority of Asian Buddhists accept the reality of Gautama Buddha and see little value in establishing more accurate details. Buddha’s teachings were passed from monk to apprentice orally for some centuries, so it is possible for some errors to have entered into the canon. The only source of contention about historical details has been the dispute over the dates of Gautama Buddha’s life, which are generally taken to be c. 563–483 b.c.e., but are believed to be c. 448–368 b.c.e. in Japan. He was born into a high social position as a member of the Kshatriya, or warrior class, and his parents were royalty. His mother, Mahamaya, while carrying Guatama is said to have dreamt that the child would turn out to be either a universal ruler or a Buddha, depending on whether he remained at home or wandered abroad. Mahamaya visited her parents in the last month of her pregnancy and, while passing through Lumbini Park, gave birth. A guru of the king attended the child and then proclaimed the Buddhahood as the child’s destiny. On the child’s naming day, fi ve days after birth, 108 Brahmans attended to predict the future and also to worship the baby, as his father and guru had already done. He was then named Siddhartha, meaning “One Who Has Achieved His Goal.” Two days after that Mahamaya died, and Gautama was raised by his father Suddhodana’s second wife, known as Mahapajapati Gotami. The family lived in Gautama, and the name was taken by Buddha as a personal designation, even though it was never his own name. As a child, Gautama Buddha was pampered by his father and lived a life of luxury, in part because his father was reluctant to permit the boy to take up his destiny by wandering the world and preferred him to remain close by and become a universal, temporal ruler. Gautama was greatly interested in spiritual issues and at the age of seven was found in a jhani trance. This incident formed the basis of one of Buddha’s early sermons. Even though Guatama married the princess Yasodhara at the age of 16, his interest toward the spiritual and the ascetic never waned, although his marriage is believed to have been successful. BUDDHA’S GREAT RENUNCIATION This peaceful life continued until the age of 29 when, traveling the countryside in the company of his charioteer, he encountered a sick man, a decrepit and aged man, and fi nally a corpse. In a fourth encounter, he observed a yellow-robed man going about his business with an air of serenity. This coincided with the birth of Gautama’s son, whom he named Rahula (fetters), and he became determined to discover the secret by which the yellow-robed man was able to travel about the world apparently happily in the face of such misery. This epiphanic event is referred to as the Four Great Signs. Buddha left his wife and son to travel the world to try to attain detachment from the suffering of the world. This act is known as the Great Renunciation, which refers to Buddha’s rejection of all his family, his previous worldly possessions, and ties. Gautama wandered south into India and received teaching from a number of scholars. One of these was Alara Kalama, under whose tutelage Gautama achieved the mystical state known as the sphere of nothing, which he later recorded in one of his suttas. This achievement was a signifi cant one in spiritual terms, but the Buddha wanted to extend his learning until he was able to reach the ultimate state of nirvana, total enlightenment. Conse- 158 Gautama Buddha quently, he left his teacher and wandered further. During the next years Buddha found a peaceful environment at Uruvela and settled there to search for the truth. Five ascetics joined him, wishing to learn from him. Gautama sought enlightenment through the extreme application of asceticism. He spoke of this time, later, as one in which extreme fasting made his bones protrude through his skin, while also facing the travails of other forms of self-mortifi cation. Asceticism had long been an important strand of Indian religious thought. However, it can be divisive in society because the number of people who are able to participate is necessarily limited, while others, especially women, are obliged to continue domestic duties to make sure that society as a whole can continue to function. When Buddha ultimately rejected asceticism, he effectively ensured that Buddhism could inspire all members of society. Buddha’s retreat from extreme asceticism disappointed at least some of his early followers. However, the path of moderation in all things became a central part of Buddhist teachings. Buddha rejected the course that had left him so weak that on one occasion he fainted and was believed to be dead. Afterward he ate according to a healthy regimen and also took care of his bodily health. BUDDHA AND THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS Gautama entered a more productive search for enlightenment and eventually reached his goal. One morning he sat under a bodhi tree and resolved not to leave his position until he reached nirvana. It is recorded that this search involved a lengthy and diffi cult battle with the evil spirit Mara and his many minions. The Jatakas are the scriptures that describe Buddha’s previous lives prior to the incarnation in which he fi nally reached nirvana. They record the many virtuous works that Gautama Buddha completed, which meant that he accumulated many virtues that were transferred to him in his battle with Mara. They included the great virtues, or paramitas, which include patience, diligence, meditation, and transcendent wisdom. Buddha subsequently taught these to his followers. Armed with the paramitas, Gautama Buddha was able to resist the evil one, and by demonstrating close understanding of Mara’s armies and weapons he was able to defeat them. This enabled him to concentrate on the Four Noble Truths, which are that existence is suffering, which is caused by the nature of desire for impermanent things of the universe, that the suffering can be defeated nevertheless, and that it is the noble eightfold path which provides the means by which that victory can be achieved. The path requires right thinking, doing, speaking, and understanding. People should at all times be mindful of the existence of other people and things of the world and avoid committing any offense against the path toward nirvana, while also not hindering others from their own paths. These realizations enabled Gautama Buddha to achieve enlightenment under the bodhi tree when he was 35 years old. DISCIPLES AND THE SPREAD OF BUDDHISM Having reached nirvana, Buddha spent several more weeks under the bodhi tree contemplating additional aspects of the universe and of philosophy. He was persuaded to undertake a life of teaching and instruction, in part as a result of the intervention of the divine Sahampati. Buddha was initially reluctant to leave his position, but he acquiesced and then sought to convert others, including those ascetics who had previously rejected his teachings. The fi ve ascetics embraced Buddha’s teachings and became disciples of his: They were the fi rst monks, and their conversion marks the beginnings of the sangha, the monkhood that supports Buddhism and has come to be part of the triple gems that underlie a Buddhist society. Buddhism is now followed in most countries of eastern Asia, particularly in Japan, Korea, China, Thailand, and mainland Southeast Asia, and also in countries that have been Islamized. In the modern age Buddhism has spread to Western countries as well. The early disciples also had the opportunity to achieve enlightenment. Buddha joined them by traveling and seeking out those who would listen to his message. As was customary for those who had become enlightened, he accepted charity and food from people. When he returned to his hometown, his father was unhappy with the path that his son had chosen but relented his initial resistance, and peace was made. Many members of the palace were converted, and several of his family members were ordained into the sangha. Buddha was invited to the capital of the Kosala kingdom, where its ruler built a monastery for him. Buddha also attracted enemies. Among the many different religious beliefs of northern India, some were unhappy with the success of the Buddha’s teachings and sought to challenge his authenticity. However, the success of conversions greatly outweighed those of any religious opposition. By the age of 80 Buddha had presided over the creation of an effi cient sangha and could contemplate a growing number of followers. He undertook his last journey accompanied by a small number of followers. Wherever he went, the Buddha lived simply, accepting the charity of people and speaking to them about Gautama Buddha 159 the path to enlightenment. In the village of Beluva he became seriously ill. He recovered from the immediate illness, although was still in a frail condition. Knowing that his end was near, Gautama Buddha announced that he planned to die after three months and set about arranging his last affairs and his fi nal messages for his disciples. When all this had been achieved, he died. See also Buddhism in China; Buddhist councils; Kanishka. Further reading: Akira, Hirakawa. A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana. Edited and translated by Paul Groner. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1990; Armstrong, Karen. Buddha. New York: Penguin, 2004; Singh, Iqbal. Gautama Buddha. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. John Walsh Georgia, ancient Ancient Georgia (in Kartvelian called Sakartvelo, “the land of the Kartlians,” and in Greek and Latin, Iberia) refers to the mountainous region in the South Caucasus that includes the heartland of the Kartvelians as well as of the related Svan, Laz, and Mingrelians. Along with Albania to the east and Cholchis in the west, Iberia was the center of Christian political and ecclesiastical infl uence in the region until the Arab conquest in the seventh century c.e. The Arabic name for the region, Kurj, is the source of the English Georgia. The ancient Kartvelian capital, Mtskheta, became the seat of the Georgian patriarch after King Vakhtang Gorgasali (c. 446–510 c.e.) united Iberia/Sakartvelo with Cholcis and Albania. The church of Georgia remained nominally dependent on the more ancient church of Antioch until the Crusades cut off contact between Antioch and Georgia in the 12th century. This separation then allowed the Georgian Orthodox Church to develop on its own. It chooses its own patriarch, who since the sixth century has resided in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia since the Arab conquest. There are two traditions concerning the conversion of Georgia. The virgin missionary Nino arrived perhaps from Asia Minor and according to some sources converted King Mirian, establishing the second oldest Christian kingdom after Armenia. A second tradition relates that the apostle Andrew established the fi rst diocese of Georgia. This second tradition is attested later than that of Nino and becomes signifi cant in Georgian sources only around the time that the church of Georgia established itself as an independent church in the 12th century. In the Christological controversies of the fi fth century the church of Georgia, like the ancient church of Armenia, rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and remained faithful to a strict interpretation of Cyril of Alexandria’s Christological formula of “one incarnate nature of the Logos.” The Georgian and Armenian bishops condemned the Council of Chalcedon at the Council of Dvin in 553. In the early seventh century, under pressure to form a military and political alliance with the Byzantines, the Georgian church, led by Patriarch Kyrion II, embraced the Chalcedonian defi - nition, and the Armenian church excommunicated the Georgians at the Council of Dvin in 606. Kartveli, the language of Georgian classical literature, was fi rst committed to writing in the fi rst half of the fi fth century. The Georgian versions of the Christian Bible are important witnesses for the search for the earliest biblical texts. Georgian monasticism exerted considerable infl uence on Christian monasticism, with monasteries established in Palestine by the fi fth century and on Mt. Athos later on in the 10th century. Peter the Iberian, a Georgian prince and later the anti- Chalcedonian bishop of Maiuma, Gaza, and relatives of his are among the earliest and best- documented founders and promoters of Georgian monastic and pilgrim activity in Jerusalem and the nearby desert regions. One of Peter’s establishments was a hostel near David’s Tower in Jerusalem to care for pilgrims to the holy sites. The Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem was an important center of Georgian monasticism in the Holy Land. In Georgia monasticism is closely associated with the “Thirteen Saints,” 13 Syrian monks who, according to tradition, were responsible for introducing cenobitic (communal) monasticism into the Georgian homeland. See also Christianity, early; Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; Greek Church; Latin Church; Oriental Orthodox Churches; Syriac culture and church; Turabdin. Further reading: Braund, David. Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC–AD 562. Oxford: Clarendon Press; and Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Lang, David Marshall. The Georgians. Ancient Peoples and Places. New York: Praeger, 1966; Mepisashvili, Rusudan. The Arts of Ancient Georgia. Trans. by Alisa Jaffa. London: Thames and Hudson, 1979. Robert Phenix 160 Georgia, ancient Gilgamesh (third millenium b.c.e.) king and mythical hero Gilgamesh (meaning “the old man is now a young man”) is perhaps the greatest hero in ancient Near Eastern literature. The story of this hero is based on a legendary king of the same name who ruled the Mesopotamian city of Uruk sometime between 2700 and 2600 b.c.e. The name of Gilgamesh appears on the famous Sumerian King List, which dates to the late third millennium b.c.e. Later kings viewed Gilgamesh with great respect; some considered him as their personal god. As of yet, no inscriptions have been found that can be attributed to him. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the heroic tale of this legendary king. It is a compilation of various preexisting stories, some of which circulated as early as the Ur III dynasty in Sumer (c. 2100–2000 b.c.e.). There are two versions of this epic, the fi rst of which is the Old Babylonian version. This version dates to the second millennium b.c.e. and lacks the prologue and the famous fl ood story. The second is the standard version, which was discovered in Nineveh at the royal library of the seventh-century b.c.e. king Ashurbanipal of Assyria. Tradition states that a master scribe and incantation priest by the name of Sin-leqe-unnini was the author. This version has been found in a variety of areas ranging from Palestine and Syria to modern-day Turkey, in addition to Mesopotamia. There is also evidence that it was included in school writing exercises. Cylinder seals and statues depict a powerful hero grappling with wild animals, which scholars refer to as the “Gilgamesh fi gure,” though there is no written evidence to connect Gilgamesh with the hero as depicted. Some examples of this picture occur at times before the historical Gilgamesh ruled the city of Uruk. It is possible that this fi gure was connected with Gilgamesh at some point in Mesopotamian history. It is also possible that this heroic fi gure was connected with other Sumerian deities in extreme antiquity. As the epic opens, Gilgamesh is described as a tyrant. He forces the male citizens to complete his building projects while taking the young women for himself to satisfy his sexual desires. So oppressive is the reign of Gilgamesh that the people of the city cry out to the gods to give them relief. In response the gods create Enkidu, a being who is part man, part animal to challenge Gilgamesh. After engaging in battle and fi nding themselves to be near equals, the two become fast friends and adventuring heroes. On their fi rst adventure together they slay a giant named Humbaba (Huwawa), who is the guardian of a great cedar forest. After returning to Uruk, Gilgamesh is approached by the goddess Ishtar, who wants the hero to become her lover. He refuses her advances, which infuriates the goddess. She asks An, the father of the gods, to send the monstrous Bull of Heaven to destroy the heroes. After the monster kills hundreds of young men from the city, Enkidu seizes it by the tail, while Gilgamesh plunges a sword into its neck, killing it. After the Bull of Heaven is dead, Enkidu has a dream in which the council of the gods meets to decide which of the heroes should die for the killing of Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. They eventually decide on Enkidu, who dies after suffering an illness that lasts for seven days. Grief stricken, Gilgamesh refl ects on his own mortality and decides to search for the secret of eternal life. Gilgamesh hears that a man named Utnapishtim was granted eternal life by the gods. Utnapishtim had survived a great fl ood that destroyed humanity, after which he was granted eternal life by the gods. After Gilgamesh fi nds this man, Utnapishtim tells him that he cannot have eternal life in the same way. Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh of a certain plant that has the ability to make the old young again, and Gilgamesh leaves to fi nd this plant. After discovering it, Gilgamesh decides to bathe in a pool after his long journey. While he is bathing, a snake comes along and devours the plant, which is an etiological myth explaining why snakes shed their skins. The hero returns home to his city of Uruk sadder but wiser. He realizes that the only way a person can achieve immortality is by accomplishing great works that will outlive him in future generations. He looks around his city and sees the mighty walls he has built and is satisfi ed. If fame is a measure of immortality, then one might argue that Gilgamesh actually achieved it. This outlook is similar to the heroic outlook found in the Homeric epics and in the Greek mythology and pantheon. There is a 12th tablet, though it contains stories that do not quite fi t with the rest of the epic. In this tablet Enkidu is still alive. Gilgamesh accidentally drops two items down a hole, which leads to the underworld. Enkidu goes to fetch the items but discovers that he cannot return to the land of the living. The Epic of Gilgamesh is famous for its inclusion of the fl ood story, which resembles the one in Genesis of the Jewish scriptures. The Old Babylonian version, however, did not contain the fl ood, suggesting that it was not originally associated with Gilgamesh. The fl ood story existed in several forms in Mesopotamia including an Akkadian work entitled The Atrahasis Epic. See also Akkad; Babylon, early period; Fertile Crescent; scribes. Gilgamesh 161 Further reading: Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989; Foster, B. R. “Gilgamesh (1.132).” In William W. Hallo, ed. The Context of Scripture. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997; Tigay, Jeffrey H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. Dewayne Bryant Gnosticism See Christian Dualism. Gracchi (second century b.c.e.) Roman politicians The brothers Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (163–133 b.c.e.) and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (154–121 b.c.e.) were Roman politicians who tried to wrest power from the oligarchy that dominated the Roman Republic. Both were to introduce reforms aimed at giving more power to the “common man,” and political enemies killed them both. The Gracchi brothers came from one of the noble families of Rome. Their great-grandfather Tiberius Gracchus had been consul in 238 b.c.e.; a great-uncle, also called Tiberius Gracchus, was consul in 215 and 213 b.c.e.; and their father, also called Tiberius Gracchus, was consul in 177 and 163 b.c.e. In addition, their mother, Cornelia, was the daughter of Publius Scipio “Africanus,” the general who defeated the Carthaginian general Hannibal at the Battle of Zama in 202 b.c.e., ensuring Roman domination of the Mediterranean Sea. In a story told by Plutarch, the father of the two Gracchi brothers, an elderly man with a young wife, found two snakes on his bed. Seeking advice from priests, he was told that if he killed the male snake, he would die, whereas if he killed the female snake, his wife would die. He was not allowed to kill them both or to let them both go free. Deeply attached to his wife, the elderly politician killed the male one and died soon afterward, leaving his widow to bring up the 12 children. Only three of them survived adolescence—the two brothers Tiberius and Gaius, and a sister, Sempronia. Tiberius, the older of the two surviving brothers, was described by his biographer Plutarch as “gentle and composed,” and he spoke in a “decorous tone.” With his background and upbringing it was only natural that he would enter the political scene. In order to hold offi ce in the Roman Republic it was obligatory for a man to have served in the army or navy for 10 years. Tiberius Gracchus entered the military early and served at Carthage under his cousin Scipio Aemilianus (who was also the husband of his sister, Sempronia). He was then a quaestor in Spain in 137 b.c.e. under Gaius Hostilius Mancinus. Soon after this Tiberius Gracchus entered Roman politics. Tiberius Gracchus, elected tribune in 133 b.c.e., had a political platform by which he would reallocate government land and also enforce an old law that restricted the holding of arable land to a maximum of 500 iugera (about 335 acres) per person. There would then be a commission that would confi scate land from people who had holdings in excess of the law and hand it over in small parcels of land to army veterans and other loyal subjects. This would increase the agricultural base of the economy, reduce the “drift” of people moving to the cities, and help alleviate any possible food shortages. Furthermore, it would massively increase the number of Roman citizens in the countryside dominated by slaves (making a slave revolt a very real concern), and the rural population could also provide sons for Rome’s armies— city dwellers being more reluctant to enlist. As this would involve breaking up large estates that had sprung up on government land, the idea was hated by many of the senators whose families owned these estates. The idea raised by Gracchus was not entirely new, but he was the fi rst member of the elite to try to push it through and make it law. Some have seen this action as a cynical one to entice large numbers of people to vote for him and repopulate with his supporters areas where some of the small tribes lived. Others have viewed it as an economic necessity to provide a food supply for a burgeoning city. Many writers have hailed it as a process of land reform and referred to Tiberius Gracchus and his brother as protocommunists. It was abundantly clear that the Senate would not support any new law that would reduce their landownership, wealth, and power, and opponents of Tiberius Gracchus rallied their forces. However, Tiberius offered as a compromise that each child could hold an additional 250 iugera. The senators fl atly refused to consider this. As a result, Tiberius Gracchus decided not to put the matter to the Senate for debate but to put the bill for the new law to a people’s assembly. This was not illegal but broke some traditions going back several centuries by which the Senate could deliberate in the same way as U.S. congressional committees work. The move to take the bill to the People’s Assembly was vetoed by Marcus Octavius, one of the tribunes. Tiberius Gracchus then resubmitted it, and Octavius again vetoed it. This second veto was unprecedented and went 162 Gnosticism against the legal customs of the period, and to get it to the People’s Assembly, Tiberius Gracchus had Octavius removed from offi ce, which was also unprecedented. The bill became law, and redistribution began with the brother of Tiberius, Gaius, and also his father-in-law elected to the commission that oversaw the redistribution. At that point a quite separate scandal emerged. King Attalus III of Pergamum in modern-day Turkey died. He had probably been staying with the Gracchus family, and in his will the king left his estate to Rome. Tiberius Gracchus proposed acceptance of this, the Senate having the traditional right to foreign policy matters. Tiberius planned to distribute the property to Roman citizens, especially his supporters and the new landowners. Plans were made to bring charges against Tiberius Gracchus, and to escape conviction he decided to seek reelection as tribune. Immediately his enemies claimed that he was trying to become a dictator. With accusations of tyranny leveled against Tiberius Gracchus, many of his political allies deserted him. Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, a former consul and at that time the ponitfex maximus, and a few other senators, gathered together a large mob of supporters with the mission of “saving the Republic.” Serapio was a third cousin of Tiberius Gracchus but was also married to his mother’s sister, making him an uncle. Family ties, however, counted for nothing as the mob turned on Tiberius Gracchus on the Capitol. Tiberius Gracchus was beaten to death and his body fl ung into the Tiber River. Many of his supporters were also clubbed to death on the spot or died of their wounds. Publius Popillis Laenas became consul in 132 b.c.e. The death of Tiberius Gracchus is highlighted as the fi rst time in the Roman Republic that a political dispute had led to the murder of one of the major politicians of the period. Tiberius Gracchus had certainly been very popular with many people, including much of the elite, but the fear of him becoming a tyrant led to the revolt. The younger brother of Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Gracchus, had emerged on the political scene as a member of the land commission established in 133 b.c.e. He served as a quaestor in Sardinia. Gaius Gracchus set about rehabilitating the memory of his brother, punishing those who worked against him and introducing security measures to ensure he did not suffer the same fate. That done, he set about starting land redistribution again. Furthermore, he tried to establish colonies overseas, including one in Carthage, which would serve as loyal bases of Roman citizens in times of emergency. Gaius Gracchus was anxious to ensure that corn continued to be sold in Rome at subsidized prices, ensuring better public services in Rome, and regulating army service. He was also eager to reduce the administrative decision-making ability of the Senate. He proposed making all Latins and people from Latin states allied to Rome Roman citizens. This would, on the one hand, allow them the protection of Roman magistrates but would also make far more people eligible for land in the redistribution. His opponents were divided, and one, Gaius Fannius, whom Gaius Gracchus had supported as consul, rejected the ideas. Marcus Livius Drusus, on the other hand, suggested an even more radical policy involving the land in all colonies, almost in an attempt to “outbid” Gaius Gracchus. The bill to introduce these reforms was rejected, and Gaius Gracchus was not reelected. In 121 b.c.e. he and his key supporter Fulvius Flaccus decided to stage an armed insurrection, but the Senate issued a declaration of emergency powers. Flaccus was murdered, but Gaius Gracchus was able to escape with a trusted servant. As the two were cornered, Gaius Gracchus had his servant kill him, before his servant committed suicide. About 1,000 men who had supported him were arrested and executed, with their estates confi scated. The deaths of Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus were said to mark the start of the Roman revolution, during which the power of the Roman Republic’s elite was challenged and fi nally ended. See also Rome: buildings, engineers; Rome: decline and fall; Rome: government. Further reading: Briscoe, J. “Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus.” Journal of Roman Studies (1974); Brunt, P. A. Social Confl icts in the Roman Republic. London: Chatto and Windus, 1982; Liddell Hart, Basil. A Greater Than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus. London: Greenhill Books, 1992; Plutarch. Makers of Rome. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1965; Richardson, Keith. Daggers in the Forum: The Revolutionary Lives and Violent Deaths of the Gracchus Brothers. London: Cassell, 1976. Justin Corfi eld Great Wall of China Beginning in 324 b.c.e. three northern Chinese states with nomadic neighbors—Qin (Ch’in), Zhao (Chao), and Yan (Yen)—began to build defensive walls. After Qin unifi ed China in 221 b.c.e. the fi rst emperor ordered his most able general, Meng Tian (Meng T’ien), to connect these existing walls and extend them to form Great Wall of China 163 a unifi ed system of defense. The result is the Great Wall of China. For 10 years beginning in 221 b.c.e. Meng Tian commanded a force of 300,000 men (soldiers, convicts, and corvee laborers), who simultaneously campaigned against the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) and other nomads and built the wall. There is no detailed information about the project. The great historian Sima Qian (Ssu-ma Ch’ien) wrote this account in The Historical Records: “He [Meng Tian] . . . built a Great Wall, constructing its defi les and passes in accordance with the confi gurations of the terrain. It started at Lin-t’ao and extended to Liao-tung, reaching a distance of more than a myriad li. After crossing the [Yellow] River, it wound northward, touching the Yang mountains.” Controversy remains over the length of the Qin wall. Sima Qian used the word wan, which translates as “ten thousand” or “myriad” in English; myriad was often used to designate a large but not precise number. Regardless of its precise length, the logistics for its building was daunting, far more so than building a pyramid, because the wall advances and so the supply line is always changing. Moreover, it extends over mountains and semideserts where the local population was sparse and the weather inclement. A vast army of support personnel was also involved, and death among the workers must have been high. Legends that the bodies of the dead were used as wall fi llers have proved untrue from excavations; however, they refl ect the resentment the relentless demand for labor for the project created. Unlike the Ming wall built almost 2,000 years later of rocks and large fi red bricks, the Qin wall was made of tamped earth from local materials. The completed wall stretched from Gansu (Kansu) in the west to north of Pyongyang in present-day North Korea. The building of the wall and earlier Qin defeat of the Xiongnu also had the unintended result of solidifying and unifying the various Xiongnu tribes under their leader Maotun (Mao-t’un) in 209 b.c.e. The fall of Qin in 206 b.c.e. resulted in neglect in China’s northern defenses and Xiongnu incursions, which the fi rst Han emperor Gaozu (Liu Bang) was unable to check. After defeat by Maotun in a major battle in 200 b.c.e., Han and Xiongnu made peace under the Heqin (Ho-chin) Treaty, which made the Great Wall their boundary. Appeasement of the Xiongnu ended in 133 b.c.e. with major Han campaigns that ultimately broke The logistics behind building the Great Wall were daunting, as it extends over mountains and semideserts where the local population was sparse and the weather inclement. A vast number of support personnel was involved, and death among the workers must have been high. 164 Great Wall of China up the Xiongnu confederacy and led to Han expansion to the northwest. The Great Wall was extended across the Gansu Corridor to Yumenguan (Yu-men Kuan), with forts and frontier posts along the way. Military colonists guarded these posts, growing food, supplying provisions for government missions, and safeguarding horse stud farms for the cavalry. Many of the ruined Han forts and outposts remain to show the cost of the Pax Sinica that the Han created and that the Great Wall safeguarded. See also Qin (Ch’in) dynasty; Han dynasty. Further reading: Geil, William E. The Great Wall of China New York: Sturgis and Walton, 1909; Jagchid, Sechin, and Van Jay Symons. Peace, War, and Trade Along the Great Wall, Nomadic-Chinese Interaction through Two Millennia Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1989; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Lowe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Volume 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires 2211 b.c.e.– 220 c.e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Greek Church As cultural and political differences emerged between the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, Christians also found themselves drifting away from a simple unity based on its primitive origins. When Constantine the Great established a new capital on the European side of present-day Turkey in 325 c.e., it began a paradigm shift for citizens of the empire: The Roman Empire was no longer centered in Italy but in Constantinople. This realization began to dawn upon the Christians who were increasingly running the empire. Thus began a sense of the Greek Church, for Constantinople spoke Greek and refl ected a different approach to running the empire than the Latin and imperial administration of Rome. Nonetheless, it is better to locate the East-West split in Christianity in the latter half of the fi rst millennium c.e. than the fi rst half. The early church was primarily unaware of regionalization for the fi rst fi ve centuries. In fact, the Council of Chalcedon (451) organized the hundreds of bishoprics of the empire not by a Greek Church v. a Latin Church but simply by its recognition of historical prestige and dependency. There were fi ve spheres of infl uence among early Christians and so fi ve patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—and precisely in this order were they prioritized. Rome was always given pride of place among them, perhaps because it was the destination for Paul, the city of martyrdom for Peter, and the home of the caesars. Ironically enough, it was the church of Rome that always provided a defense of the “orthodox” position for Christians of the East in the early centuries of the faith. There were always disputes among the bishops, but in the fi rst half of the millennium Latin-speaking Rome and Greek-speaking Constantinople were not the disputants. The patriarch of Rome, called the pope because of his “papa” stature, had jurisdiction not only over the Latin-speaking Western Roman Empire but over parts of the Greek-speaking East, even over Greece itself. The Eastern Roman Empire had a collage of languages among its Christian citizens, including Coptic in Alexandria and Syriac in Antioch and Jerusalem. The emperors tried to impose unity among them all, but the Oriental Orthodox Churches of the Middle East were considered inferior partners in the empire. This second-rate status eventually infl uenced them to form their own churches. By the time of Justinian I, the word orthodox was used to describe correct (orthos) belief (doxos) in offi cial church teaching on the doctrines of the Trinitarian nature of God and the divine nature of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth in the face of heretical positions. It was not used to differentiate the Greek (Orthodox) Church from the Latin (Catholic) Church. This nuance of the Greek Church arose around the eighth or ninth century. An early challenge to unity between Rome and Constantinople occurred when John the Faster proclaimed himself as the “ecumenical patriarch” of Constantinople (582–595). This title may have been a challenge to the pope’s authority. More signifi cant for the prestige of both patriarchates were external factors like the Muslim invasions of Byzantine lands in the 600s c.e., and the consolidation of the Frankish tribes as the Holy Roman Empire (or Empire of the West) under Charlemagne. The Greek Church always gave a special role to the emperor to mediate disputes and to summon councils for the sake of unity, an idea that modern historians call Caesaropapacy. The Latin Church, on the other hand, allowed its patriarch the pope to be more independent from secular authorities and to resolve disputes by himself. Other small and divergent practices were goads in the process: Greeks allowed married men to become priests; the Latins increasingly sought celibates as priests; Greeks took communion with leavened bread, the Latins with unleavened bread; Greeks celebrated the same religious feasts as the Latins, but according to a different calendar. Oftentimes the two churches worked out agreements of toleration for their differences, but two issues hastened the day of divorce. Greek Church 165 First, the Byzantine emperor Leo banned the use of certain religious images, a policy called iconoclasm. While large numbers of Greek Church members opposed this decree, the pope summarily rejected it and was punished with the forfeiture of his lands in the Greek- speaking world to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. Even when the Greek Church resoundingly repudiated iconoclasm in the Second Council of Nicaea (787 c.e.), the pope did not receive his lands back. Second, the resolution of the iconoclastic controversy so invigorated the Greek Church that it began to expand its presence in the Slavic world. It sent out the great missionaries Cyril of Alexandria and Methodius to spread the faith in Bulgaria and Moravia. They greatly innovated religious customs of the church so that the Slavs could more easily accept Christianity. For example, they allowed the use of native languages in their religious services and writings instead of requiring traditional Greek, and they even concocted an alphabet that served this end. The pope refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch over these new mission fi elds. A compromise was worked out, but signifi cant damage was done to the relationship between the two leaders. With the tension already present for two centuries, it did not take much to cause the two churches to divide in an offi cial and structural way in 1054. The issue in fact was quite minor: the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist by the Catholics mentioned above, tolerated for centuries, now was exacerbated into a gaping chasm. The patriarch and the pope mutually excommunicated each other. When Constantinople acted, its dependent mission lands sided with her; thus, the West found itself cut off from the Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian churches, along with “Orthodox” Christians from Egypt and Syria. Now the Greek Church really became a separate institution, the Orthodox Church. At fi rst, most in the East and the West thought that the split would be temporary, just like other quarrels in the previous 300 years. The irreparability of the rupture, however, became apparent when crusaders invaded and sacked Constantinople in 1204 (called “the Rape of Constantinople”). The invaders stole cultural treasures, replaced Orthodox with Catholic bishops, and elevated a Latin bishop as the patriarch of Constantinople. Only Serbia and Bulgaria recognized this change in hierarchy, while the rest of the Orthodox world submitted to the Greek ecumenical patriarch in exile. The bad blood spoiled any hope for reconciliation, though later efforts at the Council of Lyon (1274) and Council of Florence (1438–45) were made. As the Greek civilization weakened before the Muslim invaders, Orthodox and Catholic overtures were made to soften the mutual excommunications. But always the rank-andfi le members objected and agreements collapsed. The prevailing bitterness was so poisonous that the Orthodox members preferred to live under the Muslims than submit to the Catholics. Under the Ottoman Muslims the sultan imposed the ecumenical patriarch as the spokesperson for all the Orthodox Christians in their empire. Through the compartmentalization of the Christians, the Ottomans could keep control of the church and enforce their bureaucratic standards. The Greek Church was too independent to embrace such uniformity. As nationalism took hold in the Balkans and elsewhere, self-governing national Orthodox churches spun off, until fi nally the Ottomans were themselves expelled in the 20th century and the resentments of national Orthodox churches toward Constantinople were exposed. Prophetic leadership for the Greek Church tended to come from its monastic base, especially from Mt. Athos. Top-down leadership rarely worked for the ecumenical patriarch in the same way as it did for the pope. Central directives were issued primarily through synods and councils. The monks brought a form of mysticism into the Greek Church that pervaded many of its devotions, theologies, and art forms. Monasteries had few institutionalized controls but functioned under spiritual masters known as abbots. In contrast, the Latin Church was infl uenced by the intellectual development of western Europe. It had to give logical explanations and rational tests for many of its doctrines, and monasteries were not given the central role in the spiritual guidance of the church. Neither pope nor bishop nor monastery was spared the pastoral reforms that wrenched the whole Latin Church in later centuries. See also Constantinople; Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; Oriental Orthodox Churches. Further reading: Geanakoplos, Deno John. Byzantine East & Latin West. New York: Harper and Row, 1966; Ware, Kallistos. The Orthodox Way. London: Mowbray, 1979; Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin Books, 1993. Mark F. Whitters Greek city-states The ancient Greeks revered the city-state, or polis, as something special, precious, and particularly their own. 166 Greek city-states The city-state distinguished their culture and provided a vehicle for their social and economic interactions. The great philosopher Aristotle regarded it as the only suitable living arrangement. Moreover, the Greeks believed that the polis distinguished Hellenics from other peoples whom they thought barbarian. The polis was more than a city-state; it was also a place of gathering, conversation, political evolution, civic pride, and artistic achievement. The roots of the polis lie in the aftermath of the Greek Dark Ages (1100–800 b.c.e.), which set in after the destruction of Mycenaeaen civilization. This time was referred to as the Homeric age, since it is thought that the events recounted in the Iliad took place then. By the end of the Dark Ages, migrations, particularly by a people referred to as the Dorians had changed the demographic landscape of Greece from the population of a large empire to lesser numbers of individuals living in smaller political units thanks to the creation of the polis. The Dorians came not as a mass migration but in small groups. Thus Greece became the home of the polis with many of them developing, large and small, throughout the country. In addition, the nature of the Greek countryside, rocky and divided by mountains, encouraged settlement in smaller numbers. The polis usually included a fortress called the acropolis, on an elevation, and an agora, or market. The population lived in the houses and farms surrounding this area and could vary greatly in size. Some were large like Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth, while others were extremely small. All seemed to have a strong sense of identity and patriotism; each might have their own god or goddess. Some, like Sparta, became land powers, while others, like Athens, depended on their navy. In addition, it was common for city-states to establish colonies in such places as Italy, France, and even Russia. Political arrangements differed among the poleis and in many cases the form of government would change over time. At the outset many of them had kings and some continued in this manner. Many city-states evolved from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy (the rule of the few) to a plutocracy (the rule of the wealthy), a tyranny (the rule of one), or a democracy (the rule of the people). In many poleis a sense of participation arose, but women, slaves, and resident aliens were excluded from the political process. The polis was also an artistic center. Two poleis stand out as examples of the various ways in which the citystate might develop. Sparta was the warrior society in which all institutions were dedicated to that end, and Athens was the open society, whose hallmark was the freedom and individualism of its citizens. Sparta was the major power in the Peloponnese. It reduced the native population to state slavery (helots) and after a dangerous rebellion created a fortress state under the guidance of Lycurgus. Spartan male citizens were trained for war, taken away from their mothers and taught by the state. Given physical exercise and martial training, they were also taught to spy on the helots and report those who might be suspect. Though life in Sparta seemed harsh, their discipline and courage won the plaudits of many other Greeks. Athens, on the other hand, set in Attica, with a fi ne harbor nearby, traveled in a different path. Having begun as a monarchy and transformed itself, largely thanks to its lawgiver Solon, the Athenians had evolved into a democratic polis, in which all free Athenian male citizens could participate. Popular assembly ran both the government and the judicial system, and Athens became a thriving and creative polis. Its major leader in the fi fth century b.c.e., Pericles, spoke of Athens as the school of Hellas, emphasizing its intellectual and cultural dominance over the rest of Greece. In many respects the fate of the Greek polis was closely connected to the relationship between these two rival cities. War against the Persians from 490 to 479 b.c.e. had been preceded by some bad feelings, but the actions of Athens and Sparta led the outnumbered Greeks to victory. In 490 b.c.e. the Athenians defeated the Persians at the Battle of Marathon, while the brave Spartans held the pass at Thermopylae in 480 b.c.e. long enough to slow down the Persians. Finally in at the Battle of Salamis, the Athenians destroyed the Persian fl eet. However, the amity between the two poleis did not last. Following the Persian wars the Athenians established a defensive alliance known as the Delian League with the ostensible purpose of protecting its members from future attacks. Athens controlled the treasury of the league on the island of Delos and began to use the money for its own purposes. In addition, member states were not allowed to opt out. Sparta responded by setting up its own alliance of poleis, known as the Peloponnesian League. The two defensive leagues fell into a disastrous confl ict known as the Peloponnesian War, beginning in 431 b.c.e. and ending in 404 b.c.e. Fought intermittently, the war caused great loss of life and destruction as Athens used naval strength against Sparta’s military dominance. The ultimate result was the total defeat of Athens, described by Thucydides. It ended with a brutal Spartan-controlled tyranny in Athens, and that city’s moral decline is seen in the trial and Greek city-states 167 execution of Socrates in 399 b.c.e. The fourth century b.c.e. began with Spartan supremacy, but this shifted to other cities such as Thebes and a recovered Athens. By 340 b.c.e., however, power shifted to Macedonia under Philip of Macedon and then, upon his death, to his son, Alexander the Great. See also Athenian predemocracy; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon; Homeric epics; Mycenae; Persian invasions. Further reading: Hansen, Mogens H. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Marc Schwarz Greek colonization Starting in the eigth century b.c.e. the Greek city-states planted colonies throughout the Aegean, Mediterranean, and Black Seas for the purpose of trade, acquisition of resources, and relief from population growth, famine, and drought. In the 700s b.c.e. the Greeks established colonies in Sicily, southern Italy, Egypt, and the Middle East. The colonies in Egypt and the Middle East extended trade routes to the major civilizations in those areas. In 700–600 b.c.e. Greece continued to found colonies in Sicily and Italy but also expanded into Thrace, the Hellespont, and Bosporus along the Black Sea, and North Africa. During the 600s b.c.e. the Greeks moved farther into the western Mediterranean. One of the primary causes for Greek colonization was food. As the population of a polis (city) grew, the polis experienced trouble growing enough food for the population because of a lack of land. The lack of food led to a willingness of the people to leave the city in search of land. In times of famine or drought people were also willing to leave the polis. The polis would also found colonies in areas where the colonist could trade for items that the polis needed. The mother polis would provide items such as pots, oil, tools, or weapons that the locals wanted, while the locals would provide wood, metals, and food in exchange. Colonists were also, at times, exiles from their polis. The majority of the colonists were males. Initially, a Greek colony was made up of people from a single polis. Their loyalty and ties to the polis they came from were not necessarily very strong. Instead, the colonists had a stronger loyalty to the man who had led them to the site of the new colony. The leader was called the oikist. The oikist was responsible for bringing fi re from the original polis’s hearth to the colony to show its connection to the founding polis. Upon founding of the colony, the oikist would be the leader of the city until his death. Before an expedition could set out for the chosen site, the oikist would visit the oracle at Delphi to see if the god Apollo approved of the new colony or not. There were several criteria used to determine what would be a good site for the colony. The site needed to have fertile land that the colonist could use to grow food. The colony also needed a good anchorage and needed to be defensible. The area chosen for the colony might be uninhabited. However, if there was a local population, the colony might choose to cohabitate with the local population or conquer them by force. Once the colonists arrived at the site, they would make a sacrifi ce to the gods and say prayers over the site. A plan would then be created for distribution of land to the colonists and to determine the layout of the city. The plan also made provisions for future growth on the new polis. The new colony normally carried over the traditions, religion, and laws of its founding polis, and the two cities normally favored each other in trading. The earliest colony has been dated at approximately 775 b.c.e. and was founded on the island of Pithecusae, which is about six miles off the Bay of Naples. It was founded to facilitate trade with the Etruscans. In the 730s b.c.e. the Greeks started colonizing Sicily, including founding the city of Syracuse (by Corinth) in 734 b.c.e. At this time the Greeks were also busy colonizing the coast of southern Italy. This area, Sicily, and southern Italy would come to be called Magna Graecia (Big Greece). Among the colonies in this area was the only one founded by Sparta, Taras (later known as Tarentum) in 706 b.c.e. Toward the end of the 700s and into the 600s b.c.e. the Greeks colonized the northern coast of the Aegean Sea in Thrace. This area offered timber, gold, silver, grain, and slaves for trade back to the Greek polis. During the 600s b.c.e. the Greeks colonized the Hellespont and Bosporus area, including the colony of Byzantium (later to be known as Constantinople and Istanbul), which was founded c. 667 b.c.e. From here the Greeks began colonizing the Black Sea from the mid-seventh to the sixth century b.c.e. The Greek colonies tended to be on the west and north coasts of the Black Sea. These coasts provided a sheltered port for the colonies because of the rivers that emptied into the Black Sea. Among the colonies founded here was Odessus (modern-day Odessa in the Ukraine). 168 Greek colonization In Africa the Greek colony of Cyrene was founded in c. 630 b.c.e. The colony exported ox hides, grain, woolens, and the plant silphium. The Greeks founded colonies in the western Mediterranean, the fi rst of which was Massalia (modern-day Marseille in southern France) in 600 b.c.e. Tin was a major export, as were iron, spices, slaves, and wheat. This was followed by several other poleis in southern France and eastern Spain during the 500s b.c.e. The Greeks built a trading post, named Al Mina, in Syria that they used to acquire copper and iron. They also established a trading post in Egypt, and Naucratis, during the seventh century b.c.e. The commodity they were most interested in was cereal, but they were also interested in papyrus, linen, and ivory. The Persians captured Naucratis in 525 b.c.e. See also Delphic oracle; Greek Church; Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric. Further reading: Boardman, John, Jasper Griffi n, and Oswyn Murray, eds. The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988; Budin, Stephanie Lynn. The Ancient Greeks: New Perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004; Camp, John, and Elizabeth Fisher. The World of the Ancient Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson, 2002; Orrieux, Claude, and Pauline Schmitt Pantel. A History of Ancient Greece. Trans. by Janet Lloyd. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Greek drama The Greeks invented drama from their wild religious ceremonies involving drinking, dancing, and revelry. This can be seen in the words that we use to describe drama today; for instance, theater originally meant “a spectacle or sight to behold,” which is related to the Ancient Greek word thauma, “a miracle.” This spectacle created by the Greeks involved and enveloped the entire population of a Greek town in secret rites honoring a god, usually Dionysus, whose followers carried phallic symbols, imbibed wine, and were transported to states of ecstasy. In Athens the theater building was considered a temple, and the god was believed to be present for the performances. The Greeks used the word orgy to describe these rites, in accordance with the original sense of the word as described by the Merriam Webster Dictionary: “secret ceremonial rites held in honor of an ancient Greek or Roman deity and usually characterized by ecstatic singing and dancing.” Nearly all of the parodies, melodies, and mysteries seen or heard in modern times are connected to ancient Greece, where those terms were invented. A parody was a song, or ode, about something (para, “about”). A mystery was a secret religious ceremony. A melody was the tune sung by the chorus. Modern television shows, movies, plays, and many popular songs emerged out of these intense Greek religious rites. This is true whether the movie is a comedy, a tragedy, or a satire. ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION The popular view is that Greek tragedy evolved out of jovial folk hymns to Dionysus, called dithyrambs, and that the other forms of drama evolved from this. Dithyrambs were composed as early as the seventh century b.c.e., and spread from Athens to many other Greek city-states. A chorus of up to 50 people sang the dithyrambs, and competitions enlivened religious festivals. Dionysus is also known as Bacchus, the god who roamed the world followed by throngs of crazed women (called Bacchantes or Maenads, from whom we get the term mania). The god and his followers were often found drunk on grape wine, which was held sacred to Dionysus. Originally, festivals honoring Dionysus took the form of choreographed dances performed by a chorus about an altar on an orchestra, or “dancing ground.” This evolved into performances designed to produce such a powerful rush of emotions that the entire audience achieved an intense communal emotional rush known as catharsis, which cleansed and revitalized the people. Catharsis became one of the hallmarks of performances of tragedy, a word that literally means “goat ode,” the goat being the symbol of Dionysus. In contrast, William Ridgeway claims that tragedy arose out of the worship of and communion with the dead. Since this communion was presided over by Dionysus as well, and since tragedy refers to a symbol of Dionysus, the worship of Dionysus was most likely integral to the inception and performance of tragedy. The 12- to 50-member chorus, singing, dancing, and critiquing throughout the play, was a major distinguishing facet of Greek tragedy. The chorus was held by some to represent the will and opinions of the society, as if the populace itself were onstage with the chorus, commenting upon and making sense of the action. Many famous Greek dramatists were successful playwrights and actors and were responsible for major innovations in the form of tragedy. Thespian of Icaria in 534 b.c.e. separated the leader of the chorus from the rest of the group, to become Athens’s fi rst actor, Greek drama 169 reading the parts of several characters and wearing a different mask for each. Thus, we now call actors thespians, after the man who, for the fi rst time, made a play that consisted of more than simply a chorus. Aeschylus, a highly honored Greek playwright, added a second actor and stage decorations to his play, while giving costumes to the already masked actors and chorus. His tragedies, such as Prometheus Bound, Agamemnon, and Seven against Thebes, portray humans who are punished by cosmic forces for their misdeeds and failings. Sophocles, another famous Greek author, added a third actor and in a groundbreaking move gave the actors more emphasis than the chorus. He also added three members to the chorus, bringing the total to 15. Comedies and satires evolved from tragedy. The oldest known comedies were breaks between tragedies or between parts of a single tragedy, in which exaggerated characters lampooned the tragedy in a spoof that closely followed the format, costumes, and masks of the tragedy. Soon entire comic plays arose. These are referred to as Old Comedy, referring to comedies performed in the period beginning with Pericles’ establishment of democracy c. 450 b.c.e. Old Comedy followed the strict format of tragedy and included the chorus. Satire was a third type of Greek drama that bridged the gap between comedy and tragedy. Satire, a word coming from the satyrs sacred to Dionysus, is a term for a play that was performed to make fun of tragedy and lighten the impact of the tragedies the audience had just seen. The satyrs were odd and amusing creatures who made possible a unique sort of parody of the typical tragedy. The hairy, half-human satyrs had the hoofed, short legs of a goat, together with the goat’s short horns, and the tail and ears of a horse. The chorus of satyrs was 170 Greek drama The ruins of an ancient Greek amphitheater with a commanding mountain view. Greek drama greatly infl uenced theaters all over Europe throughout Roman times and during the Middle Ages. always known to be jovial, bawdy, rustic, and roguish in their humor. Clearly, the illustrious citizens characterized in tragedies should be above such company—which is why it was so amusing to place them in the midst of a carousing chorus of satyrs. In attempting to fi t in with such a crowd, the famous characters had to suffer a certain loss of dignity, and thus, the satire made fun of the tragedy and perhaps also of itself. Notable authors such as Aristophanes ridiculed and satirized all aspects of the Greek society, particularly the famous, noble, and most upstanding citizens of their day, or even of revered, legendary fi gures. His Clouds lampooned the philosopher Socrates as a quarrelsome Sophist, and his Wasps attacked the Athenian courts and their proceedings. In satires the main characters were exaggerated buffoons, who spoke and performed every manner of nonsense. No aspect of society was sacred in these comedies, and often even the very gods were lampooned. No limits were placed on the extent to which the author could go to ridicule his subject. EXPERIENCING THE DRAMA Greeks devoted two to four major religious holidays a year entirely to seeing plays—much as with modern three-day music festivals. Contests were held to determine the best tetralogy, or set of four plays. Each tetralogy consisted of three tragedies followed by a satire. Each such quartet was performed on a single day, and many would never be repeated during the playwright’s lifetime. The festivals, called by such names as the Lesser Dionysia and the Greater Dionysia, were believed necessary to keep the cosmos in proper order, to enable the crops to grow, and the people to survive. Since the outlying villages held their own Dionysia on different days, it was possible to attend several such festivals during one season. These ceremonies were so important that their proper conduct was a major responsibility of the state, which selected the actors and the choruses—and charged wealthy citizens special taxes to defray the costs. All of Athens attended plays; those who could not afford to attend were provided with ticket money by the state. Dwarfi ng any modern theater, the Dionysian Theater held the whole town—estimates range from 14,000 to upward of 20,000 people. As these people were all Athenians, they were likely more homogenous in their outlook than a modern crowd. Thus, the playwright could address plays very directly to his audience, making fun of individual Athenians, suggesting a course of action on current issues, referencing an inside joke, or even jokingly accusing someone in the audience of misconduct. The people watched plays from morning to evening, still maintaining an appetite for the subsequent days’ performances. With a single-minded audience in such rapt attention, leading tragic poets had an enormous opportunity to make an impact upon the people and upon the political process in towns such as Athens. They were thought of as teachers of the populace and bore an incredible responsibility for shaping the character of a powerful nation-state. As these festivals were established at the urging of an oracle, all legal proceedings and business were put on hold. To disturb the proceedings, to strike the performers, or even to remove a person who had taken the wrong seat would be a crime that might well be punished with death. The theater was treated like a temple. The high priest of Dionysus was seated in the center of the front row. An altar of Dionysus stood in the orchestral dancing ground, and the audience was seated on stone benches on the hillside. Across the dancing ground was the skene, a building where the actors could change their costumes. Between the skene and the orchestra was the proskenion, which would later be called a stage. The chorus would parade in military formation up the paradoi, the entrance ramps leading to the proskenion. Greek drama greatly infl uenced drama all over Europe throughout Roman times and during the Middle Ages. Many modern movies bear the infl uences of ancient Greek authors. Modern songs have choruses. Even if some of the religious implications have been dropped, the Greek infl uence remains. See also Eleusis; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric; mystery cults; New Comedy. Further reading: Bates, Alfred, ed. The Drama: Its History, Literature and Infl uence on Civilization. London: Historical Publishing Company, 1906; An Intermediate Greek English Lexicon, Founded upon Liddell and Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986; Peck, Harry Thurston. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1898; Ridgeway, William. The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non European Races. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915; Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane. Tragedy and Athenian Religion. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2003. Joseph R. Gerber Greek mythology and pantheon Greek mythology developed out of the regional traditions and local cults that developed among ethnically Greek mythology and pantheon 171 similar but culturally distinct groups. Traditions and deities waxed and waned in popularity across the history of ancient Greece. Unlike many of their ancient contemporaries, the gods of the Greek pantheon were essentially human: shape-shifters capable of taking the forms of animals and natural phenomena, but otherwise human in appearance and attitude, as opposed to the animal-headed deities of the Near East. Mythology is a Greek word coined to refer to the systematic ordering of myths performed by classical writers such as Hesiod. Local traditions continued to be followed in the forms both of ritual and of stories told. In the classical literary works the stories were unifi ed and made largely consistent. But few Greeks would have known of any inconsistencies: If they believed his grandmother Gaia raised Zeus, they probably had not heard the versions of the myth that had him raised by a goat or the nymph Cynosura. Perhaps because of those regional traditions, while different gods were associated with different aspects of life, the lines between them were sometimes fuzzy. Hyperion and Apollo were both gods of the Sun, while Helios was the personifi cation of the Sun and Eos was the goddess of the dawn, functions that overlap and may indicate the coexistence of multiple preclassical sun god traditions. Further, there were gods associated only with a particular site: a nymph with a particular cave, a minor god with a particular river, and gods such as Adonis who were worshipped only at specifi c times. Theogonies (of which Hesiod’s is the most famous of the surviving texts) described the origins of the gods and were used in religious rituals and credited with supernatural powers. Singing a passage from a theogony could calm the sea, invoke the protection of the gods, or appease one’s supernatural enemies. In Hesiod’s theogony the world begins with Chaos, and the fi rst gods embodied basic concepts of early Earth: Uranus was the sky; Gaia, the earth; Pontos, the sea; and Aither, the light. Uranus and Gaia conceived 18 children: the 12 Titans—300-handed, 50-headed giants—and three Cyclopes. When Uranus imprisoned some of her children, Gaia implored the Titans to kill him. Only Cronus agreed, castrating and killing his father. He grew paranoid and proceeded to eat his own children as they were born, to prevent them from doing to him as he had done to Uranus. With Gaia’s help Cronus’s wife Rhea hid Zeus from him, and the young god and future patriarch of the pantheon slayed his father, freeing his siblings from the Titan’s stomach. The gods of primary importance to the Greek pantheon were the 12 Olympians, children and grandchildren of the Titans. The exact makeup of these 12 has varied, with various stories picking two from among Hebe, Helios, Hestia, Demeter, Dionysus, Hades, and Persephone. Constant, though, were the other 10 that follow: Zeus. The ruler of Mount Olympus and god of thunder and the sky. Zeus is the father of many fi gures from myth, famous for disguising himself to seduce some object of lust. Apollo, Ares, Artemis, and Hermes are his children, as are the heroes Perseus and Heracles. With Mnemosyne, the goddess of memory, he conceived the Muses. Hera. Zeus’s sister and wife. The goddess of marriage was often upset with Zeus for his philandering. In one story she gives birth to Hephaestus by herself to spite her husband for his many children with others. Hera may have evolved from an early pre-Hellenic goddess. Aphrodite. The goddess of love and beauty, born from the sea foam when Zeus threw his father’s castrated member into the ocean. Often portrayed as vain, the love over which she presides is more properly lust. She is unfaithful to her husband Hephaestus. Apollo. The god of music, poetry, and the Sun, Apollo was associated with numerous oracular sites, important to Greek culture and religious practice. He had both male and female lovers and sometimes pursued them as vigorously as his father had. Usually his wrath was reserved not for those who spurned him but those who stood between him and love: When Clytia, the sister of Leucothea whom he loved, betrayed them to her father, Apollo turned her into a sunfl ower, forced to follow the path of the Sun every day. Ares. The god of war, one of the gods associated with foreigners. Homer describes him as a native of Thrace. Artemis. The goddess of hunting, twin sister of Apollo. Though she was a goddess of chastity, she was also a goddess of fertility; though a virgin, she was the goddess of childbirth. She was also often associated with young people, teenagers, and preteens. Athena. The daughter of Zeus and goddess of wisdom, crafts, war, and cunning. She was the patron goddess of Athens, born from Zeus’s skull when he swallowed her pregnant mother. Hephaestus. The god of the forge, Aphrodite’s long-suffering husband and the most dim-witted of the gods. Hermes. Maybe the best example of the multiple functions of some of the gods: Hermes was the god of 172 Greek mythology and pantheon travel, commerce, speed, literature, athletes, thieves, liars, and standards of measure. Poseidon. God of the sea, a sibling of Zeus. Well known for his wrath, he was also the god and cause of earthquakes. The Olympians came to power after their war with the Titans and dwelled atop Mount Olympus, a real mountain, one of the highest in Europe at more than 9,000 feet. Many narratives centered on heroes like Aeneas and Perseus, and on their unusual births, often beginning with a god falling in love with a mortal (and sometimes disguising themselves in order to seduce the mortal). Other stories tell the mythical origins of cultural artifacts, such as the theft of fi re by Prometheus and Hermes’ creation of the lyre. Above all other historical events, many myth stories revolved around the Trojan War. While the war was most likely fought, it is doubtful it took on such a scale as myth has ascribed to it, and as the myths grew, the story of the war moved further and further from reality. What was probably a simple battle of conquest became in Greek myth an epic struggle that begins with Eris’s golden apple and proceeds to the judgment of Paris, his abduction of Helen of Troy, the deaths of Hector and Agamemnon, the fall of Troy, and the hero stories that became the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid. The Iliad and the Odyssey were Homer’s main works, though Homer, a blind poet, may not have actually existed. The poems recount the end of the Trojan War and Odysseus’s lengthy journey home in its aftermath. The Homeric hymns were also attributed to Homer in antiquity and use the same dactylic hexameter. They vary in length, another possible indication of multiple authorship, but each hymn focuses on one of the gods, singing his praises and telling his story. See also Greek drama; Greek oratory and rhetoric; Homeric epics. Further reading: Burgess, Jonathan S. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2002; Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985; Lenardon, R., and M. Morford. Classical Mythology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Bill Kte’pi Greek oratory and rhetoric Oratory and rhetoric were key components of Greek culture. The Hellenistic world was primarily an oral culture—as was most of the world prior to the invention of the printing press—with public lectures and performances being the primary literary form of the time. The orator (rhetor) was a celebrated fi gure in the society, and rhetoric (rhetorike), the art of the spoken word, was a strongly valued element of the classical education, with the most highly educated receiving particularly strong rhetorical training. Before the fi fth century b.c.e. rhetoric was not directly taught as a subject in itself; rather, students memorized important texts, usually poetry and especially the Homeric epics, which they would then perform at festivals. Stock phrases, proverbs, and maxims were memorized and employed when needed to make a speech more persuasive. Compositional and rhetorical skill was thus obtained by imitation of the features of classic texts rather than through direct instruction. This changed by the latter half of the fi fth century b.c.e.—the dawn of sophism. The study of rhetoric as a subject can be attributed in part to the necessity created by the fi fth-century b.c.e. Athenian judicial system, which required the prosecuting party and the defendant to give formal speeches arguing their cases. Well-organized and - executed speeches were more persuasive, a fact that led to the proliferation of handbooks of judicial rhetoric to give assistance to those preparing such speeches. Eventually, the system allowed a litigant to hire a speechwriter (famous speechwriters of this era include Lysias, Demosthenes, and Antiphon) to write a speech that the litigant would then memorize and deliver before the court. The structure of Athenian democratic government, which was easily infl uenced by smooth-talking political leaders, also helped lead to the study of rhetoric, since it could be employed as a tool with which the citizens (and thus Athens itself) could be swayed. It was at this time that the Sophists of the fi fth century b.c.e. (such as Gorgias and Protagoras, who were immortalized by Plato’s dialogues) came onto the scene, offering to teach argument and rhetoric to those willing to pay—often a great deal—for their services. The Sophists were a group of thinkers from all over the Greek world who, through their mastery of the spoken word, were regarded as masters of argument and debate. They emphasized that two contradictory arguments can be made about any given issue and that, at any given time, the weaker argument could be made the stronger, meaning that knowledge could never be absolute and debate should always remain open. Sophists acquired a reputation for being able to effectively and persuasively argue both sides of any given issue—as Protagoras’s Antilogies (Opposing statements) Greek oratory and rhetoric 173 and the late fi fth-century b.c.e. Dissoi Logoi (Double arguments) show. Above all, Sophists were interested in eristic, the art of refutation and verbal confl ict. Rhetorical contests were staged on occasion, such as on a feast day, with the audience enthralled by the skills of the best sophistic orators. Plato and Aristotle took an antagonistic stance toward the Sophists, regarding them as deceivers more interested in verbal sleight of hand and debate than in truth or reason, a view that has more or less remained to this day. The contributions of the Sophists to the art of oratory made an indelible mark on Hellenistic culture, as rhetoric as a skill in itself came to be emphasized and taught as a part of a standard education. After a child had learned to read and write (at seven or eight years old), he or she progressed to study with a grammaticus (grammarian). The handbook of Dionysius, Thrax, written in the early fi rst century b.c.e. and used as a textbook for the next 15 centuries, outlines this training in literature, which focused on grammar and basic literary criticism. At around 12 to 14 years old, the student would then begin the study of rhetoric taught by a rhetorician. Rhetorical instruction was made up of three fi xed elements. The fi rst two elements included the study of rhetorical theory and the study of models from prior literature (such as Homeric speeches, the dialogues of Plato, or the speeches of Demosthenes). After completion of the fi rst two elements, the student progressed to declamation exercises in which, after listening to speeches by the rhetorician, the student would receive an assigned topic on which he would write, memorize, and perform a speech based on a fi xed pattern for that type of speech and subject matter. SPEECH CATEGORIES Types of speeches were commonly divided into three categories. The deliberative speech was concerned with a decision to be made about the future, usually in political context, such as whether a given law should be passed or whether a war should be waged. The judicial speech was a speech that argued concerning the truth about past events and was typically used in the courtroom. The epideictic speech was typically for show or entertainment and dealt with topics such as beauty, credit and blame, or praise. As democratic city-states were replaced by imperial rule, its overall importance faded somewhat, as did the importance of judicial oratory. On the other hand, epideictic speech became the most common exhibition of trained oratory, often being used to celebrate military victories or feast days. Deliberative oratory continued to have some function in ambassadorial relations, military decisions, and management of local governments. Rhetorical art was usually divided into fi ve skills also called canons: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Invention involved the process of fi nding something to say; this skill was trained by learning conventional categories, topoi (common-places), which dealt with the main rhetorical possibilities for nearly any theme. For example, for an encomium (speech of praise), a person’s noble birth, parentage, noble deeds, education, friends, and courage (among other things) would be included among the possible topoi. This greatly aided the speechwriting process by giving concrete starting points for brainstorming. Each speech was organized based on four elements. The prooemium (introduction), sometimes called the proem, is not only to introduce the issue at hand but also to stir the feelings of the audience or (in the case of a judicial speech) to dispel prejudice. The diegesis (narrative or statement of facts) tells the speaker’s side of the story; the subjects involved should be characterized positively or negatively, depending on the goal of the speech. The pistis (proofs) section provides evidence for the case—by statement of fact, logical, ethical, or emotional appeals—in order to sway the audience. This section also included refutations of the opposing side’s anticipated arguments; later orators (such as Cicero or Quintilian) sometimes considered this refutation a separate section (the refutatio) of the speech directly following the pistis. The fi nal element of a speech is the epilogos (epilogue), in which the speaker reinforces his prior statements, attempts to reinforce a positive attitude in the audience toward himself and his argument, and closes with a forceful conclusion. After a slow decline in importance as Greek democracy gave way to the Roman Empire, classical Greek rhetoric experienced a revival of sorts in the Second Sophistic period of the mid-fi rst through the midsecond centuries c.e. This in turn had a great impact on Christian literature and oratory, as can be seen in Luke-Acts or fi gures such as Augustine of Hippo or John Chrysostom. As a result, the impact of Greek rhetoric continues today, with modern public speaking and literature heavily based on the principles of oratory produced in the Hellenistic Period. See also Greek city-states; Greek drama. Further reading: Clark, Donald L. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957; Kennedy, George A. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. 174 Greek oratory and rhetoric Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994; ——— . Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963; ——— . Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003; Kerferd, G. B. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981; Murphy, James J., and Richard A. Katula. A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003; Pernot, Laurent. Rhetoric in Antiquity. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005; Poulakos, John. Sophistical Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. Jason A. Staples Gregory the Great (c. 540–604 c.e.) pope and saint Gregory was born of a noble family that had already given the church two popes. A strong Christian upbringing and an excellent education in law prepared him for a future in both the civil and ecclesiastical realms. He was only 30 when his natural administrational abilities landed him the appointment of prefect of the city of Rome, a position bearing responsibility for the fi nances, food, and defense of the city. This was at a time when the invasion of the Lombards in other parts of Italy was causing a stream of refugees to descend on Rome. Gregory had only occupied this position for a short time when his father died, enabling Gregory to refocus the direction of his life and to respond to the grace of conversion, which he said he had long postponed. He left public offi ce and turned his family estate on the Caelian Hill into a monastery dedicated to St. Andrew. He also founded six monasteries on lands owned by his family in Sicily in order to provide for refugee monks who had to abandon their monasteries due to the invasions of the Lombards. As a monk at St. Andrew’s, he applied himself to prayer, meditation on the sacred scriptures, and the study of the Latin Fathers. His initial enthusiasm for the ascetical life led to excessive fasting, producing stomach ailments that plagued Gregory the rest of his life. Gregory was ordained a deacon by Pelagius II and sent to Constantinople as the pope’s representative at the Byzantine court (579–586 c.e.). In Constantinople, Gregory continued to live an ascetic life in the company of monks he had brought with him from St. Andrew’s. He also came into contact with the tradition of the Eastern Fathers and with Eastern monasticism and made important political and ecclesiastical contacts. At the suggestion of his monks, he began to give them a series of conferences of the book of Job, which would become his longest work, the celebrated Moralia. Returning to Rome, Gregory continued to advise the pope, now as one of the famed seven deacons of the city. During a plague that devastated the city, Gregory threw himself into aiding the stricken populace, organizing penitential processions and raising the spirits of the city. When Pelagius II succumbed to the plague, both the clergy and the people acclaimed Gregory pope. As the fi rst monk to accede to the chair of Peter, Gregory’s early letters as bishop of Rome testify to his struggle to reconcile an active life with his deepest desires for a life of contemplation. In reconciling these two vocations in his own life, he would insist on the need for every Christian, religious or lay, to practice the vita mixta, to balance the spiritual life with both works of charity and time for God alone. He would also draw on monks to help him in active ministries, either as bishops or as missionaries, as when he sent Augustine (future bishop of Canterbury) and 40 monks from St. Andrew’s to Britain in 597 to bring the gospel to the Anglo-Saxons. Pope Gregory’s continual endeavors to help his people were complicated by the emperor’s dilatory dealings with the barbarians. In 594 an exasperated Gregory took matters into his own hands, which—while evoking the displeasure of the emperor—resulted in saving the city from the destruction threatened by Agiluft, the Lombard king. In the wake of the civil government’s failure to take responsibility, the people would henceforth regard Gregory as their true leader and protector. Gregory’s writings include letters, homilies, commentaries on scripture, and works specifi cally directed to the clergy or to the laity. His works continue to be of great value for their teachings on morality, asceticism, and mysticism. Like Augustine of Hippo, whose writings he knew well, he continually combines lofty doctrine with personal experience. A theme that permeates all his works is the desire for God, who alone can fulfi ll a person’s interior emptiness. The desire results in interior peace, a peace coming from God, which means that the very desire for him is already a part of his peace. A work designed for the common people is the Dialogues, a series of discussions with a certain Peter the deacon. They were written during a period of natural catastrophes and barbarian invasions and are meant to show that holiness—through examples of sixth-century saints—is possible even in their own chaotic times. The Gregory the Great 175 second book of the Dialogues is totally given over to the life of Benedict and is the only ancient source for the life of this saint. For the clergy Gregory wrote his Pastoral Care, a work on the care of souls (the “art of arts” as he calls it) and is a guide for priests and bishops. It places emphasis on the need for a pastor to be a man of virtue and discernment who teaches by word and example. Gregory always considered the cleric to be a man of service, as is evident in the title he used for himself: servus servorum Dei or “Servant of the servants of God,” which every bishop of Rome has since adopted. It is diffi cult to know what contribution, if any, the saint made to what are now called the Gregorian Sacrament (missal used at Mass) and Gregorian chant (church music in Latin), but the attributions are worthy tributes to Gregory’s endeavor to enhance the liturgy of his day. The Western church observance of his feast day is September 3. See also Christianity, early; Greek Church; Latin Church; Ostrogoths and Lombards. Further reading: Dudden, Frederick H. Gregory the Great. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905; Markus, R. A. Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Gertrude Gillette Guangwu (Kuang-wu) (5 b.c.e.–57 c.e.) ruler, political and military leader Guangwu, or Guangwudi (Kuang-wu ti), restored the Han dynasty for 200 more years after defeating the usurper Wang Mang. He was born in 5 b.c.e. A member of the Liu clan that had ruled China since 202 b.c.e. under the Han dynasty, his given name was Xiu (Hsiu). His branch of the Liu family had escaped the persecution of Wang Mang (r. 9–23 c.e.), but in the aftermath of the Red Eyebrow Rebellion, and as Wang Mang’s power was collapsing, Guangwu had risen in revolt also and was proclaimed emperor in 25 c.e. Civil war continued until 36 c.e., before all rebels and other claimants to the throne were defeated. Because Chang’an (Ch’ang-an) lay in ruins from the civil war, Guangwu established his capital in Luoyang (Loyang) to the east, which had been the capital of the Eastern Zhou (Chou) dynasty (771–256 b.c.e.). It was also near to his home and power base. Thus, the reinstated Han dynasty became known as the Eastern Han or Later Han (25–220 c.e.), as distinct from the former, Western Han that ruled from Chang’an (202 b.c.e.– 9 c.e.). Luoyang was a planned city of half a million residents with a huge city wall pierced by 12 gates, surrounded by a moat, and connected by canal to the east. Guangwu devoted his reign to consolidation and reconstruction. He appointed his sons and supporters to key positions, took a land census, reduced taxes, and stabilized prices by buying surplus grain during years of abundant harvest for relief in years of want. As a result, the economy recovered. A supporter of Confucian ideology, he built schools and enlarged the state university at Luoyang until it had 30,000 students under his successors. He also strengthened the examination system to recruit qualifi ed offi cials. However, he sought to protect himself from powerful offi cials by relying on an inner secretariat whose staff was mainly drawn from the families of his consorts. The legacy of this practice, as during the Western Han dynasty, was power struggles and intrigues between members of different consort families during later reigns. In foreign policy he reasserted Chinese power to its traditional borders, to Seoul in Korea in the northeast and to northern Vietnam in the south. His reign saw the beginning of emigration of Chinese from the northwestern borderlands southward to the Yangtze (Yangzi) River valley. He strengthened lines of defensive walls in the north to protect against the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu). By a stroke of good fortune, dissension among the Xiongnu led the southern faction among them to surrender to China in 50 c.e.; they were allowed to settle in the Ordos region and in present-day northern Shanxi (Shansi) and part of Gansu (Kansu) Provinces. Due perhaps to war weariness Guangwu made a mistake in not taking advantage of the northern Xiongnu’s weakness by launching an expedition to dislodge them from their stronghold. It was during his grandson’s reign that northern Xiongxu power was broken, and they were sent in fl ight westward, making China supreme in the eastern regions. See also Confucian Classics. Further reading: Bielenstein, Hans. The Restoration of the Han Dynasty. 2 vols. Stockholm, Sweden: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1954, 1959; Twitchett, Denis, and John K. Fairbank, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur 176 Guangwu Gupta Empire Northern India was reunifi ed in 320 c.e. under the Gupta dynasty. For more than 200 years under the Guptas, India achieved great heights in culture and the arts. While Buddhism still prospered, popular Hinduism was emerging in a trend that persisted to modern times. Great temples were built, cave temples were excavated, and Sanskrit literature fl ourished. Indian merchants and religious teachers traveled widely throughout Southeast Asia, where India’s civilizing infl uence became deeply felt. Our documentary knowledge of the Gupta era comes from inscriptions on some columns and monuments, coins minted by various monarchs, and the writing of a Chinese monk, Fa Xian (Fa-hsien). India was politically fragmented and suffered from invasions after the fall of the Mauryan Empire in 184 b.c.e., and few historical documents survived. However, despite the disruptions, culture fl ourished. Greeks, Scythians, and Bactrians established states in the borderlands of the Indian subcontinent, as did the Yuezhi (Yuehchih), a people who fl ed the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) on China’s frontier to present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they established the Kushan Empire. The Kushan Empire lay on the Silk Road that linked ancient cultures and assimilated Indian, Persian, and Greco- Roman artistic styles and produced great Buddhist works of art that infl uenced religious art in China and Japan. In 320 c.e. a prince named Chandragupta (not related to the founder of the Mauryan dynasty) founded a new dynasty. He secured power in the Ganges Valley with a combination of war and a marriage alliance with a princess of an important clan and crowned himself King of Kings at Pataliputra (now Patna, also capital of the Mauryan dynasty). His son and successor Samudragupta (r. 335–376 c.e.) warred to secure obedience of most regions of northern India and southward to the Deccan Plateau. His son was Chandragupta II (r. 376–415 c.e.), whose reign was the high-water mark of the Gupta dynasty. His son, Kumaragupta I (r. 416– 454 c.e.), was the last great ruler of the dynasty and had to deal with the fi rst of another series of barbarian invaders, called the Huna in India, a Central Asian people known as the White Huns in the Byzantine Empire. They were among a great wave of Turko-Mongols who were invading Asia and Europe at the time. The fi rst wave of Huna crossed the Hindu Kush to raid the plains of India, weakening Gupta power and shrinking its control over the provinces. Another wave of Huna invaders starting around 500 c.e. dealt the deathblow to the Gupta Empire, which had entirely vanished by 550 c.e. India prospered under the Guptas. Agriculture thrived, producing a large number of staple and cash crops. Many artisans, organized into guilds, practiced their crafts in the cities. The state derived revenue primarily from taxing farm products; it also taxed trade and owned all salt and mineral operations and some industrial enterprises. Commerce was mainly conducted in government-minted coins. The names of rulers on Gupta coins are useful in establishing the dates of their reigns. With a fl ourishing economy, the Gupta monarchs lavished their support on Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain religions. Religious art and architecture thrived, and the Hindu temple emerged as India’s classic architectural form. Some temples were dedicated to a particular deity: Vishnu, Shiva, and the mother goddess being the most popular. The Gupta era was also the apogee of cave paintings and architecture. The cave temples dedicated to Hinduism and Buddhism at Ajanta and Ellora survive with sculptures and frescoes of religious and lay fi gures that refl ect fashions of the Gupta court. Gupta bronze and stone sculptures are the fi nest of India and became models for artists throughout much of Southeast Asia, especially in Cambodia, Sumatra, and Java. The Guptas were however less successful than the Mauryans in two important respects. Territorially, the Gupta Empire did not control southern India, nor did it control the crucial northwestern region, from which all early invaders entered India. Nor did it succeed in establishing a centralized system of government, as had the Mauryans. They had to be content with a feudaltype relationship with the regional rulers of their empire, except for the central Magadha region, which they ruled directly. Nevertheless, the early Gupta dynasty is important politically because it united much of India, which had been divided for more than fi ve centuries since the fall of the Mauryan Empire. It is important culturally because it became India’s classical age and established the standard in culture and the arts that later eras looked to for inspiration and emulation. See also Hindu philosophy. Further reading: Basham, A. L. The Wonder That Was India, A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent before the Coming of the Muslims. New York: Grove Press, 1954; Majumdar, R. C. An Advanced History of India. London: Macmillan, 1958; Mookerji, R. The Gupta Empire. Bombay, India: Hind Kitabs, 1959. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Gupta Empire 177 gymnasium and athletics The gymnasium and athletics were integral aspects of ancient Greek culture and society. The gymnasium provided a physical space where men gathered to exercise, participate in sports, and engage in intellectual discourse. The gymnasium and the closely associated palaestra also provided a place where athletes trained for competition in wrestling, boxing, pancratium, and track and fi eld. Besides these athletic events, ancient Greeks also played several ball games, some at a competitive level, but not in the Olympic Games. The best athletes in ancient Greece, who represented the city-states in the Olympic Games and other athletic events associated with major religious celebrations, were professionals supported by wealthy citizens. Praised and criticized by philosophers, athletics and athletes provided inspiration for artists, dramatists, poets, and sculptors. As Greece declined and Rome rose to dominate the Mediterranean, athletics evolved to meet the cultural and social needs of the Roman world until Christian rulers suppressed it the late fourth century c.e. The word gymnasium means “exercise for which one strips”; Greek men exercised and competed in the nude. The earliest gymnasiums, founded in the late sixth century b.c.e., were partly shaded sandy areas where men disrobed, rubbed themselves in olive oil, sprinkled sand on the oil, and exercised. After exercising, they removed the sandy oil from their bodies with a curved brass trowel, known as a strigil, and then bathed in a clear water stream. At their height gymnasiums had evolved into elaborate buildings with clubrooms, lounges, altars, and storage rooms for lotions, olive oil, and athletic powders. Bathtubs and showers replaced the streams for washing after exercise and competition. Attached to some gymnasiums was a palaestra, a smaller facility for specialized athletic instruction and training. Most palaestras, however, were separated from the gymnasium and were open only to professional athletes. A sanded fi eld surrounded by a colonnaded court, the palaestra was used for instruction and practice in wrestling, in which most healthy men participated regularly and with great enthusiasm. The gymnasium and the palaestra assumed a central focus in the everyday lives of Greek males. Many men visited the gymnasiums to watch others train and compete, play board games, discuss the issues of the day, and listen to an orator. As informal educational facilities, they were important meeting places for the mixing of generations, debate, and the exchange of ideas. Gymnasiums each had their own character and tone; whereas one might have been a haven for left-wing politics, another might have purported more conservative views. Others provided a refuge for male prostitutes, who profi ted from the subtle but tacit homosexuality that pervaded much of male Greek society. The largest gymnasiums, the Academia, the Lyceum, and the Cynosarges, were located in Athens. The Academia, the name of which endures to mean a place of higher learning, was the choice of Plato and his followers. On the other hand, Aristotle preferred the Lyceum, which has survived, linguistically at least, in the French lycée. Greeks participated in a variety of athletic events, including running, throwing, jumping, wrestling, and boxing; all of which were contested in the Olympic Games, one of four athletic competitions associated with periodic religious celebrations. Foremost among the running events was the stade, a race of approximately 656 feet (200 m), or the length of the stadium. Runners also contested the double stade, in which they sprinted to a pole at the end of the course, made a tight turn, and raced back to the starting line. Distance runners competed in a race of approximately 15,748 feet (4,800 m.), or 12 stades. DISCUS, JAVELIN, WRESTLING, AND BOXING Throwing events included discus and the javelin. The discus began as a round fl at stone before evolving into a bronze plate. The javelin measured six feet and had a small leather loop attached at the center of the shaft in which the athlete inserted two fi ngers. The athlete wound the loop around the javelin to create spin upon throwing it, maximizing its distance. The standing broad jump was performed with hand weights that the athlete swung back and forth to enhance the distance of the leap. The discus throw, javelin throw, standing broad jump, stade, and wrestling combined to form the pentathlon, an Olympic event, in which the most versatile athletes competed. Aristotle described the athletes who participated in the pentathlon as “the most beautiful because they are fi t for exercises for speed and for those of strength.” Wrestling, boxing, and the pancratium, a combination of wrestling and boxing, were violent, brutal contests of strength and will. Only the largest, heavily muscled, and toughest men throughout Greece competed in these sports, which were bound by few rules, no time limits, no ring, and no weight limit. Wrestling, a truly freestyle contest, permitted all types of holds, mostly to the upper body, and tripping to bring the opponent to his knees. Although prohibited from biting each other and gouging each other eyes, wrestlers fought until one brought the other to his knees three times. 178 gymnasium and athletics Wrestling, compared to boxing, was a mild event. Boxers bound their hands and wrists with heavy strips of leather, leaving only their fi ngers free. They combined blows to the head or neck with closed fi sts with open hand slapping to divert attention, cut the face, or close the eyes of the opposition. The bout lasted until one of the contenders was too exhausted to continue, knocked out, or raised his right hand to signal defeat. BALL GAMES Although not included in the Olympic Games, ball games were popular forms of exercise and play among the Greeks. Homer observed that women, children, and old men played ball games. In Sparta, the city-state known for its taste for war, the terms for “ball player” and “youth” were synonymous. In some palaestras, a room known as the sphairisteria was set aside for a ball game similar to modern handball. Although the rules of this game are unknown, records indicate that it was competitive. Moreover, the Greeks played a form of fi eld hockey, in which two opposing teams hit a small ball with curved sticks. One writer observed that the teams “strived to be the fi rst to drive the ball to the opposite end of the ground from that allotted to them.” Another ball game, episkyros, involved two opposing sides throwing a ball back and forth “until one side drives the other back over the goal line.” PROFESSIONAL ATHLETICS Greece’s best athletes, those who competed in the Olympic Games and similar athletic competitions, were professionals. Although they did not receive material rewards for their Olympic performances, wealthy patrons fi nanced their favorite athlete’s training, travel, and livelihood. While the dominance of wealthy aristocrats in Greek sport gave the impression of amateurism, the emergence of lower and working-class athletes in the middle of the fi fth century b.c.e. supported by wealthy citizens exposed the professionalism inherent in Greek sport. The emergence of athletic guilds in the second century b.c.e. legitimized professionalism, as the organizations provided athletes with a mechanism for collective bargaining to achieve an equitable competitive environment. Through collective bargaining, athletes gained a voice in scheduling games, making travel arrangements, obtaining personal amenities, and securing old-age pensions in the form of working as trainers and managers. Greek intellectuals praised athletics and exercise for preparing the body for the physical demands of life and forging the bond between the mind and body. Socrates said that the “body must bear its part in whatever men do; and in all the services required from the body, it is of the utmost importance to have it in the best possible condition.” For Plato, a student of Socrates, himself once a wrestler, who competed in the Isthmian Games, the ideal was the body and the mind “duly harmonized” through athletics. In The Republic, Plato engaged Socrates in a dialogue, arguing that gymnastic exercise was the “twin sister” of the arts for “the improvement of the soul.” Philosophers like Euripides criticized the athlete’s unyielding pursuit of glory through athletics and sport at the cost of maintaining lifelong health. “In their prime they made a brilliant spectacle as they go about and are the pride of the state; but when bitter old age comes upon them,” observed Euripides, “they become like old coats that have lost their resilience.” The athlete provided Greek artists and sculptors a subject in whom they could express their regard for physical beauty, strength, and symmetry. While Myron’s fi fth-century b.c.e. statue of the discus thrower, Discobolus, captured the physical ideal expressed by Plato, other sculptors and artists demonstrated the realism of athletics and sport. For example, Apollonius’s fi rstcentury b.c.e. bronze statue The Boxer not only displays the combatant’s beautifully proportioned muscular body but also the scarred face, gnarled hands, and broken nose common to the sport. Depictions of trim and fi nely proportioned runners painted on vases and cups were often juxtaposed against gaunt charioteers, grossly disproportioned wrestlers, and pitifully plump gymnasts. Similarly, dramatists and poets found inspiration in athletics. In Electra, Sophocles portrays Agamemnon’s son, Orestes, as a bold yet reckless charioteer competing in the Pythian Games at Delphi, who dies after being thrown from his chariot after losing control of it through a tight curve. In the following lines, the poet Pindar of Thebes celebrated the athlete’s pursuit of victory: For if any man delights in expense and toil And sets in action high gifts shaped by the gods, And with him his destiny Plants the glory which he desires, Already he casts his anchor on the furthest edge of bliss, And the gods honor him. At the height of Greek culture and society gymnasiums and athletics had spread throughout the entire Mediterranean region. Even as Greece declined in infl uence through the second century b.c.e., foreign cities and towns continued to build stadiums, hippodromes, gymnasiums, gymnasium and athletics 179 and palaestras. Often gymnasium culture confl icted with local values, as in the case of Jerusalem, where Orthodox Jews were offended by the nudity practiced at a gymnasium built there in 174 b.c.e. Of all the Mediterranean cultures infl uenced by Greece, the Etruscans on the Italian Peninsula were the most enthusiastic about Greek sports. Etruscans threw the discus and javelin, wrestled, boxed, ran footraces, and raced chariots, but in the context of preparing men for war. While the Etruscans graced their vases and urns with depictions of track and fi eld athletes, they did not fi nd their particular performances entertaining nor inspiring, and for that, they turned to gladiatorial contests and animal fi ghts. Although Greek sport persisted until the middle of the fi fth century c.e., its infl uence and importance in Mediterranean culture and society had greatly diminished under Roman and Christian rule. By the middle of the second century b.c.e. Rome had conquered Greece as well as the entire eastern Mediterranean. Although the Romans continued the Greek athletic festivals, mainly as a way to unify the eastern and western portions of their empire, they found Greek sports too individualistic, too competitive, and too focused on the participant rather than the spectator. Like the Etruscans, the Romans preferred spectacles, such as circuses, animal fi ghts, and gladiatorial combats, for their amusement. To describe these latter activities, the Romans used the Latin word, ludi, which meant a game in the sense of amusement or entertainment, as opposed to the Greek word, agon, which meant contest. Although Constantine the Great, the fi rst Christian emperor of Rome, abolished the pagan religious celebrations associated with the Olympic Games and other such athletic events, Greek athletes persisted until fi nal destruction of Olympia by two devastating earthquakes in 522 and 551 c.e. See also Greek city-states; Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric. Further reading: Baker, William J. Sports in the Western World. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988; Mandell, Richard C. Sport: A Cultural History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984; Young, David C. The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics. Chicago: Ares, 1984. Adam R. Hornbuckle
The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit
Gempei War Part of the Taira-Minamoto wars the Gempei War in Japan lasted from 1180 until 1185. It was fought between the Taira clan, which was losing infl uence, and the Minamoto clan, which hoped to replace the Taira clan. It resulted in a victory for the Minamoto clan, and the emergence of Minamoto Yoritomo as the shogun (“general who subdues barbarians”) in 1192. The name Gempei came from a contraction of the names Genji and Heike, which were the kanji characters for “Minamoto” and “Taira.” The Minamoto clan previously tried to topple the Taira, in the Hogen War of 1156 and the Heiji War of 1159–1160. In the fi rst the Minamoto had supported a rival claimant to the throne and lost. In the second, they staged a surprise coup but were decisively defeated by the Taira. In the Gempei War in 1180, as the Minamoto were gaining strength, the Taira attacked fi rst. Taira supporters surprised Prince Mochihito, the claimant to the imperial throne and favored by the Minamotos, at a temple near Kyoto. Deciding that it was impossible to defend the temple, they fl ed across the Uji River, removing the planks on the bridge across the river. However the Taira forces were able to ford the river and cornered their opponents. Yorimasa, injured by an arrow, commited ritual suicide by seppuku, disemboweling himself— the fi rst known time this had taken place. Soon afterward Prince Mochihito was killed. The Taira then capitalized on their victory at Uji by attacking Nara, the base of warrior monks opposed to them. Although the monks were in strong defensive positions, the Taira used their cavalry to great advantage, capturing and then destroying all the temples in Nara except Enryakuji. It is reported that 3,500 people were killed during the sacking of Nara. Following this, Minamoto Yoritomo, assisted by men from the Miura clan, tried to regroup, but the Taira launched a quick attack and routed them at the Battle of Ishibashiyama. Soon afterward Minamoto Yoritomo rallied his troops and turned on the Taira. At the Battle of Fujigawa, it was said that when a fl ock of birds surprised the Taira, they fl ed in panic. In 1181 Minamoto Yukiie attempted to attack Taira Tomomori, whose army was encamped along the Sunomata River. The Minamoto were driven back with heavy losses and retreated across the Yahagigawa River, pursued by the Taira. When Tomomori fell ill, the Taira pulled back. After a lull in fi ghting, in 1183 Taira Koremori launched an attack on a Minamoto castle at Hiuchiyama. The fortifi cations were capable of withstanding a siege, but a traitor from within the castle tied a message to an arrow and shot it into the Taira camp, showing how they could breach a dam around the castle. The Taira attacked and the Minamoto forces fl ed. Although the Taira won the fi rst part of the war, their leadership had grown arrogant and annoyed smaller clans, who were won over by the Minamoto. Making the most of this victory Taira Koremori pursued the Minamoto to Kurihara (also known as the Battle of Tonamiyama). Minamoto Yoshinaka cunningly split his forces and ambushed the Taira as they went through a mountain pass. By disguising the strengths of the three wings of the army, Minamoto Yoshinaka surrounded the Taira. It was the turning point in the war, as many of the Taira forces were killed, and they were forced to withdraw their garrison from Kyoto and fl ed along with their ally Emperor Antoku to Shikoku. On November 17, 1183, Minamoto Yoshinaka sent his ships against the Taira in the Battle of Mizushima— the fi rst naval battle of the Gempei War. The Taira were victorious, but soon afterward a Minamoto army captured the castle of Fukuryuji, which had been held by a supporter of the Taira. The Minamoto then tried to press their military advantages by engaging the Taira in another battle at Muroyama but were defeated. A struggle suddenly broke out with Minamoto Yoshinaka trying to wrest power from his cousins Minamoto Yoritomo and Minamoto Yoshitsune. Yoshinaka captured the Hojoji Palace in Kyoto, took Emperor Go-Shirakawa prisoner, and named himself shogun. Soon after the rest of the clan surrounded him, forcing him to choose between inevitable defeat in battle or fl ight. He chose the latter and his men fl ed across the Uji River, but Yoshitsune’s cavalry forded the river and in the second Battle of Uji, Yoshinaka was defeated. He made a fi nal stand at Awazu and was killed by an arrow. With Yoshinaka dead the Minamoto concentrated on the fi nal defeat of the Taira. At Ichi-no-Tani, the Minamoto attacked a Taira fortress near modern-day Kobe. The battle became legend in Japanese folklore, with many famous warriors engaging in combat. Eventually the 16-year-old Taira leader, Atsumori, was killed, later dramatized in plays and works of fi ction. The Minamoto then followed up their victory by attacking and defeating Taira allies at the Battle of Kojima. The last two battles of the war were both at sea. At Yashima on March 22, 1185, Minamoto Yoshitsune launched a surprise attack on the Taira. Bluffi ng that he had far more men, Yoshitsune sent the Taira into premature retreat, abandoning their fortifi cations at Shikoku. Most of the Taira fl eet escaped, but at the Battle of Dannoura, off the southern tip of Honshu island, on April 25, 1185, the Minamoto attacked their outnumbered opponents—it was estimated that the Minamoto used 850 ships against their opponents’ 500. At a crucial time a Taira ally switched sides and told the Minamoto which ship the six-year-old Emperor Antoku was hiding on. The Minamoto attacked it, killing the emperor along with his grandmother, a member of the Taira clan. With the Taira totally defeated, Minamoto Yoritomo, the older half brother of Yoshitsune, became the fi rst shogun in Japanese history and established what became the Kamakura Shogunate. It was not long before Yoshitsune, Yoshiie, and Yoshinaka were killed by orders of Yoritomo or were forced to commit suicide. The system of rule by the shogun continued, in several different forms, until the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Further reading: Sansom, George. A History of Japan to 1334. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958; Shinoda, Minoru. The Founding of the Kamakura Shogunate 1180–1185. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960; Turnbull, Stephen. The Samurai Sourcebook. London: Cassell & Co., 1998; ———. Japanese Warrior Monks a.d. 949–1603. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003. Justin Corfi eld Genghis Khan (c. 1167–1227) Mongol conqueror and ruler Genghis or Chinggis Khan means “universal ruler.” He was born Temuchin, the son of a minor Mongol chief, and overcame early obstacles to conquer the greatest empire of the world to date, which he bequeathed to his sons. Some believe he was a greater military strategist than Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon Bonaparte. At the time of his birth the varied people of the steppes (Turkic, Mongol, and others) lived in mutually warring tribes, raiding one another for animals and women and looting nearby sedentary populations. The harsh environment of the steppes where they lived provided little opportunity for agriculture, limiting the peoples to a nomadic lifestyle of herding and hunting. His father, Yesugei, died of poisoning at the hands of foes when Temuchin was eight years old, en route home after betrothing him to a girl from his mother, H’oelun’s, tribe. H’oelun and her sons were cast out to fend for themselves after Yesugei died; thanks to Temuchin’s cunning and ruthless determination, they survived. Eventually he married his betrothed, named Borte; received help from his father-in-law in establishing himself with followers and animals; and won allies. Borte was the mother of four sons (Juji Khan, Chagatai Khan, Ogotai Khan, and Tului Khan) and a daughter. Juji was born around the time his mother was rescued from captivity (she had been captured in a raid by Temuchin’s enemy), casting doubt on his paternity. These four sons became Temuchin’s principal heirs. 134 Genghis Khan FROM TEMUCHIN TO GENGHIS KHAN In complicated wars Temuchin and his allies won against tribes named the Naiman, Merkid, Oyirad, Tartar, Kereyid, and others, becoming master of the Mongolian plateau by 1205. A great council or khuriltai was convened in 1206 to signal the formation of a confederation at Burkan Khaldan, the holy mountain of the Mongols under Temuchin, and to give him the title Genghis Khan. From this point on all his followers, regardless of tribal affi liation, were called Mongols. In Mongol ideology the elevation of Temuchin to Genghis Khan was blessed by heaven and therefore it was his right to conquer and to bequeath his conquests to his family. Genghis Khan’s fi rst great achievement was to organize his men into a unifi ed army. He used the decimal system: Each 10-man group had a leader; 10 of these formed into a 100-man unit under a leader, and so on up, each commander being responsible for 10 men under him. In time the Mongolian component of his army grew to between 105,000 and 129,000 men. As his empire expanded, subject peoples incorporated into his infantry and cavalry followed the same organizational rules. The Mongolian army did not possess weapons or technology superior to those of its enemies. Its superiority lay in its discipline, mobility, coordination, and maneuverability. Records were necessary to administer his people, so in 1206 he ordered the creation a script for the Mongol language, and since the man designated for the task was an Uighur, he used the Uighur alphabet for that purpose. Genghis did not learn to read but ordered his sons to learn the written language. He also promulgated a code of laws and regulations in 1206, called yasa or yasaq, that provided severe punishment, for example, the death penalty applied to murder, major theft, adultery, malicious witchcraft, and other offenses. The severity of the laws resulted in an obedient society, which visitors observed with awe. CONQUEST OF XIXIA, JIN, AND KHWARAZM Genghis Khan’s conquests began in 1209 and his fi rst target was the Tangut kingdom to his southwest called Xixia (Hsi Hsia), leading his army personally. After withstanding a siege of their capital city the Xixia accepted peace terms: submission to Genghis Khan and a pledge to support him in future campaigns, and the king’s daughter given to Genghis as wife. After this demonstration of force two sedentary Turkic peoples, Uighurs and Qarluks, came to offer surrender. Both would go far under Mongol rule. Genghis Khan’s next victim was the Jurchen Jin (Chin) dynasty in north China. He set out against it in 1211 with three of his sons and 50,000 cavalrymen. Although no longer the ferocious fi ghters of a century ago, the Jin still had a 150,000 strong cavalry of Jurchen soldiers and an infantry of 300,000 to 400,000 Chinese men. Moreover the Jin Empire had over 40 million people, three million of whom were Jurchen, opposed to the Mongol nation of not much over a million people. In 1211–14 the Mongols devastated much of northern China and looted three of Jin’s fi ve capitals, until Jin submitted to a humiliating peace. Among the captives taken during this campaign was Yelu Chucai (Yeh-lu Ch’u-ts’ai), a learned man of Khitan background who had served in the Jin government. He would later play an important role in the government of Genghis and his son Ogotai that benefi ted their Chinese subjects. North China suffered enormously between 1214 and the fi nal fall of Jin in 1234, the result of Mongol raids, uprisings against Jin, and war between Jin and Southern Song (Sung). Meanwhile commanders under Genghis conquered the state called Khara Khitai, situated to the west of Mongolia, in 1218. This cleared the way for Genghis to march against Khwarazm (or Khwarizm), a Muslim state that included Afghanistan and northern Iran, in 1219. It involved taking heavily fortifi ed cities such as Harat and Samarkand, for which Mongols used the bloody tactic of using captured prisoners as human shields and moat fi llers for their assaulting forces. By 1223 Khwarazm had been subdued and Mongol governors had been installed and garrisons put in place. While his generals proceeded westward across the Caucasus and into western Eurasia, defeating the Russian princes, Genghis returned to Mongolia in 1225. There he planned the destruction of Xixia, which had earlier promised to supply Genghis with men and supplies in his future campaigns but had refused when he began his war against Khwarazm. Never forgiving anyone who had betrayed him, Genghis personally led the campaign against Xixia in 1226, destroying cities and the countryside and wrecking the irrigation works that rendered the land cultivable, and besieging its capital. Genghis Khan died in August 1227 because of complications from a fall while hunting in 1225. According to his wishes the war against Xixia continued until its destruction. His last orders were “The Tangut people are a powerful, good and courageous people, but they are fi ckle. Slaughter them and take what you need to give to the army. . . . Take what you want until you can take no more.” Genghis Khan’s body was returned to Mongolia; en route anyone who Genghis Khan 135 saw his cortege was killed. He was buried on Burkhan Khaldun; the exact burial place was kept secret and has not yet been found. Before his death he had divided his conquests among his four sons, who were his principal heirs, and other relatives, and appointed his third son, Ogotai, his successor as Grand Khan, subject to confi rmation by the Khurialtai. THE BRUTAL MILITARY LEADER Genghis Khan was unequaled as a military leader and conquered the largest empire yet seen and with unprecedented cruelty. He was a shrewd strategist who used many means to achieve his goals. He was a good psychologist who used terror and precedence to induce his enemies to surrender because any city that resisted would be razed and its people killed. He was a good organizer who militarized his whole people and saw to the logistical side of campaigns. He was adept at using spies and probing actions to take the measures of his enemies. He also used diplomacy to prevent his enemies from uniting or forming alliances. Finally he learned new military technologies and adapted to new needs, for example employing Middle Eastern siege engineers to help him take walled cities. To Christian Europeans he was the anti-Christ and Scourge of God. China had never experienced such brutal conquerors, who threatened to turn the agricultural country into pastureland for their horses. He was especially cruel to cities and city dwellers. In his sweep across north China in 1212–1213 over 90 cities were left in ruins. The Jin capital in modern Beijing burned for three months. Those persons his forces let live because they had skills became Mongol slaves or were allowed to return to their ruined homes to serve their new lords. See also Chagatai Khanate; Song (Sung) dynasty. Further reading: Brent, Peter. Genghis Khan. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill Book Company, 1976; Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes, A History of Central Asia. Trans. by Naomi Walford. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970; Khan, Chinggis. The Golden History of the Mongols. Trans. by Urgunge Onon. London: The Folio Society, 1993. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Genoa The city of Genoa (Genova), in Liguria in northern Italy, was an important Roman port that was founded in the fourth century b.c.e. It is believed to have gained its name from the Latin word ianua, meaning door, as it served as an entry point for many goods being shipped to nearby places. During the medieval period Genoa emerged as an important maritime republic controlling trade in much of the Mediterranean. The Roman connections with Genoa were largely severed in 641 c.e. when the Lombards invaded the region and captured the city. Over the next few centuries it weathered attacks by Barbary pirates from modern- day Algeria, who attacked much of the coastline and operated from bases in the nearby islands of Corsica and Sardinia. The citizens of Genoa put together a large naval force, captured the pirate bases on Corsica, and then attacked Sardinia and captured the island with the help of Pisa after 1284. It was during this period that Genoa emerged as a major power, establishing colonies in North Africa, Syria, at Morea in modern-day Greece, and even as far away as the Crimea. This resulted in a strong trading position aided by the Crusades. They were also eager to increase trade with northern Europe. In 1379 a Genoese merchant was murdered in London when members of the “London mob” heard that he wanted to develop Southampton as a Genoese port. Consuls controlled political power in Genoa until 1191; however, the system ended and power shifted to the podesta (mayors) and then the Capitani del Popolo (Captains of the People), who ruled from 1258 until 1340, except for short periods when foreign leaders ruled them. During the 12th century work began on the construction of the Cattedrale di San Lorenzo, in the center of Genoa. With a black and white striped Gothic marble facade (in part Romanesque and early Renaissance), now heavily identifi ed with Genoese architecture, it included a Chapel to St. John the Baptist, designed by Semenico and Elia Gagini and built from 1451 until 1465. It was said to have housed relics from St. John the Baptist, and a polished quartz platter on which Salome is said to have received the head of John the Baptist. It also held the Sacro Catino, a sacred cup that was supposedly given by the queen of Sheba to King Solomon, and later used by Jesus at the Last Supper. Salome’s plate and the sacred cup are currently in the cathedral’s museum. During this period the Venetians became jealous of the Genoese trade monopoly, and in 1298 the Genoese managed to defeat the Venetian fl eet at the Battle of Curzola. During the battle the Genoese captured a Venetian nobleman called Marco Polo (1254–1324) and imprisoned him in Genoa for a year before sending 136 Genoa him back to Venice. It was during his imprisonment that he wrote his Divisament du Monde (The Travels), about his visit to China. In 1340 the Genoese decided to follow the Venetian custom of electing a doge, and the fi rst was Simone Boccanegra. Under him and his successors Genoa fl ourished, and Genoese mercenaries became prominent in wars in Italy and in France. The money these mercenary bands earned massively enriched the city coffers. In 1358 when the poet and humanist Petrarch visited the city he described it as “superb.” Two of the great seafarers of the 1490s were also born in Genoa. Christopher Columbus was born there in 1451, the son of a wool comber. He went to sea at the age of 14 and fought the Barbary pirates. When he was 19 he was shipwrecked and ended up working in Portugal, later offering his services to the king of Spain. Giovanni Caboto, “John Cabot,” was also born in Genoa in 1425. He moved to England in 1490, settling at Bristol. After the voyages of Columbus, he led English voyages across the Atlantic. As with other city-states, the great families of Genoa fought each other for political power. The struggles among the Grimaldi, Dora, Spinola, and Fieschi families weakened the state and foreign powers vied for control of the city. Giovanni Visconti took control of the city government by force in 1353, holding it until 1356. In 1393 there were fi ve doges, and in 1396 France overran the city. Genoa managed to free itself from French rule in 1409 and was then controlled by Teodoro di Monteferrato. Twelve years later Filippo Maria Visconti took control of it. The French returned in 1458, but six years later the Sforza family was given control by France. The Sforzas were fi nally forced to fl ee in 1478 when the city rose up against them, but nine years later it was taken by Milan. Finally Andrea Doria (1466–1560), one of the great Genoese naval leaders, put together a constitution for Genoa that freed it of foreign domination but resulted in a dictatorial government that came to power after the Fieschi and the Cibo tried to seize power in 1547–48. See also Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Epstein, Steve. Genoa & the Genoese 958– 1528. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996; Hay, Denys. Europe in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. London: Longman, 1971; Howard, Edmund. Genoa: History and Art in an Old Seaport. Genoa: Sagep, 1982; Genoa in the medieval period: The city emerged as an important maritime republic, controlling trade in much of the Mediterranean. This provoked jealousy from the Venetians, which led to the battles between the two cities. Genoa 137 Nicoll, David. “Failure of an Elite: the Genoese at Crécy,” Osprey Military Journal (v.2, 2000). Justin Corfi eld Ghana, Mali, and Songhai Ghana, Mali, and Songhai were three of the greatest western African trading states. Beginning with Ghana as early as 300 c.e. and ending with the conquest of the Songhai by Morocco in the 16th century c.e., they dominated the trade of gold, salt, and merchandise between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Arab scholars and merchants as far away as Baghdad marveled at the wealth of these African states. The geographer al-Ya’qubi claimed that “gold is found in the whole of this country.” But the trade of gold and salt was not the only basis for West African civilization. Remarkable cultural, intellectual, and cultural achievements made Timbuktu and other cities famed centers for the production of books in theology, history, and science, books whose weight was often valued more highly than gold. Ghana, Mali, and Songhai were successful and well-organized states that overcame tribal divisions and fused traditional beliefs with the universal ambitions of Islam. The internal strength of these West African empires was what made the gold trade so successful. An intricate system of silent trade, transport, safe passage for merchants, and control over a vast array of tribes and different geographical zones from the Sahara desert of modern Mauritania to the thick jungles south of the Niger River kept the lifeblood of trade fl owing. When these empires declined, so too did the trade in gold. The historical sources for the empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai are written Arabic sources with a bias against non-Islamic beliefs, oral histories passed down by African griots or storytellers, and archaeology. Archaeological digs continue to reveal surprising secrets about the richness and strength of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, sometimes confi rming stories that were once dismissed as fantasy. Both written sources and oral traditions speak of the wealth and fame of the ancient kingdom of Wagadu. Arabic sources call the kingdom Ghana, a name that means “king” in the Soninke language. The vast kingdom included the modern-day countries of Mauritania, Senegal, and Mali. The climate of West Africa was dramatically different 1,000 years ago. Archaeological evidence suggests that the parched climate of the Sahara drastically expanded south after 800–1050 c.e., when the empire of Ghana was at its height. The capital of Ghana, Kumbi-Saleh, once the wealthiest city in West Africa, is now a remote archaeological site in the middle of the Sahara. Climate change had a dramatic impact on West Africa as the center of power moved from near Ghana in the north, to Mali in the center, to the Songhai farther in the south. The kingdom was matrilineal, meaning that the king inherited the throne through the mother’s line; his sister’s son succeeded the king. Matrilineal inheritance and the powerful position of women were constant features of traditional Saharan society. According to Al-Bakri, the king of Ghana followed traditional African beliefs but respected Muslims who came to trade in his kingdom, often putting them under his personal protection. The Almoravids, Berber, Muslim nomads from the desert attacked Kumbi-Saleh in 1076 c.e. and weakened much of the empire of Ghana. Nevertheless, Ghana remained strong until it was annexed by Mali, an even wealthier and larger trading empire that formed south of Ghana. The empire of Mali was founded by Sundiata, a king who not only overcame external enemies but his own physical disabilities to construct an empire second only to the vast Mongol horde of Asia. According to legend, Sundiata’s brothers were massacred by Sumanguru, king of the Sosso people, rivals of the Mandinke, and the people of Mali. Sundjata, considered a harmless invalid who could not even walk, was spared. Accounts tell how he was treated as an animal and taunted by other children. He learned to walk on iron braces and became one of the strongest warriors and hunters. In 1230 c.e., some 18 years after the massacre of his brothers, the young Sundjata organized an army and overthrew Sumanguru of the Sosso at the village of Kirina in 1235 c.e. The dramatic Battle of Kirina is still recounted by griots as a struggle between two great magicians. Sundjata, the hero, seemed to have both the power of Allah and the traditional African nature gods on his side. After his victory Sundjata united the Mandinke chieftains and gained control over all the southern ends of the trans-Saharan trading routes. The successors of Sundjata, including a former palace slave named Sakura, expanded and consolidated the empire, conquering the cities of Timbuktu and Gao. A pilgrimage to Mecca was one of the Five, or Six, Pillars of Islam and necessary for all believers who could afford the journey. Mansa Musa, who reigned from 1312 to 1337 c.e., made the most famed royal pilgrimage to Mecca. Egyptian scholars give accounts of an enormous and extravagant royal caravan that visited Cairo on the way to Mecca. The chronicler 138 Ghana, Mali, and Songhai Al-Maqrizi said that he paid so much gold in his purchases of fabrics, slaves, and provisions that he caused the value of gold currency in Cairo to drop dramatically. Mansa Musa not only returned to Mali from Mecca with greater devotion to Islam, but he brought several scholars and architects home with him, including the Andalusian architect al-Sahili, who helped transform the traditional architecture of Mali. Although he did not force the conversion of his people, he encouraged the growth of Islamic schools and developed a more methodical form of government using written Arabic. It could be argued that this tolerant fusion of West African and Muslim civilization made Mali one of the most advanced civilizations in the world. Using Eastern models, Mansa also established administrative and bureaucratic districts, keeping a close hold on his vast territories. The death of Mansa Musa (c. 1337 c.e.) led to a succession of kings unable to manage Mali’s enormous size. Berbers in the north threatened Timbuktu, while the Songhai people in the south began their rise as the last and most powerful of the West African empires: the kingdom of Songhai. The backbone of Songhai power was the mighty Niger River. As the empires of Ghana and Mali rose and fell, the Songhai fi shermen slowly expanded from a region south of the great bend of the river Niger. The Songhai founded the bustling trading city of Gao just south of this bend in the 1300s c.e. Most of the Songhai became clients of the Mali empire until 1435 c.e. when two Songhai princes, sensing the decline of Mali’s fortunes, demanded independence. They established a new dynasty called the Sunni. Muslim chroniclers remember the Muslim Askia Muhammad Touré as the most famous king of the Songhai. Using the message of Islam to rally his followers, he expanded the borders of Songhai into the east of Africa, connecting his empire with the Indian Ocean trade that went as far as China. Mahmud al-Kati, who wrote a major history of the Songhai, claimed that Askia lived for some 125 years. Although that may be an exaggeration, Askia and the river people of the Niger created a strong and magnifi cent empire that was not seriously threatened until the invention of fi rearms. Firearms gave the Moroccan army a signifi cant advantage when the Moroccan sultan Ahmed al-Mansur invaded the Songhai during the 1580s c.e. Half of the Moroccan army died of thirst and starvation as they crossed the Sahara. Still, the Songhai warriors were no match against the fi repower of the Moroccans. Soon, Songhai, the last of the great trading empires, was in ruins. Further reading: Ajayi, J. F., and M. Crowder, eds. History of West Africa. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972; Conrad, David. Empire of Medieval West Africa: Ghana, Mali and Songhay. New York: Facts On File, 2005; Levtzion, Nehemia, and Jay Spaulding. Medieval West Africa: Views from Arab Scholars and Merchants. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2003; McKissack, Patricia and Frederick. The Royal Kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay: Life in Medieval Africa. New York: Henry Holt, 1994. Allen Fromher Ghaznavids The Ghaznavid dynasty ruled eastern Afghanistan and parts of Iran and Pakistan from 977 to 1186. Sebuk- Tigin (r. 977–997), a former slave, founded the empire, ruling from the city of Ghazna, from which the dynasty obtained its name. Sebuk-Tigin had been a slave of the Turks and the military force that he led to supplant the previously ruling Samanid dynasty was also Turkish in origin. The Samanids were Iranian Muslims and the Ghaznavid Empire was also Muslim dominated, especially under subsequent rulers who were keen to Islamize the pagan-leaning Turks. The founder expanded his territory to the borders of India, with his son Mahmud of Ghazni (r. 998–1030). Eventually the Ghaznavids in the west and the Qara-Khanids to the east replaced the Samanids, with the Oxus River marking the border between them. It was during Mahmud’s reign that the Ghaznavid Empire reached its greatest extent, spanning from the Oxus to the Indian Ocean. However the death of Mahmud and the succession of Masud (r. 1031–41), ousting the short-term ruler Mehmed, proved the turning point of Ghaznavid fortunes as increasing pressure by the Seljuk Turks resulted in the Battle of Dandanqan in 1040, a disastrous defeat for Masud. Despite the much larger numbers of Ghaznavid troops, the more mobile cavalry of the Seljuk dynasty denied them access to water and other supplies and destroyed their morale. The battle caused the loss of the gained Iranian and Central Asia territory. The Ghaznavid Empire persisted until 1186, but its infl uence was greatly reduced and it is remembered largely by its artistic and cultural achievements rather than its temporal power. One of the most famous of Persian or Iranian poets was Firdawsi, whose masterpiece the Shahnamah (The epic of kings) was completed under the patronage of Mahmud. The epic tells the history and traditions of Persia and the stories of its rulers. It is considered a central Ghaznavids 139 part of Iranian culture and one of the world’s great works of literature. Mahmud’s patronage enabled him to recreate the Ghaznavid Empire as an Islamic state, which strengthened faith across the region the Ghaznavids controlled. The resulting artistic infl uence can be seen in the cultural production created within the Seljuk world. This included architectural forms and fi gurative painting styles. Ghurids captured Ghazna in 1149 and the last remaining outpost of Lahore in 1187. The city of Lahore was greatly increased by this and subsequently become a signifi cant urban and cultural center. See also Islam; Islam: literature and music in the golden age. Further reading: Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. Ghaznavids. Delhi: South Asia Press, 1992; Ferdowsi, Abdulqasem. The Persian Book of Kings. Trans. by Dick Davis. Washington, D.C.: Mage Publishers, 2004; Frye, R. N., ed. The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. John Walsh Ghazzali, Abu Hamid Muhammad, al- (1058–1111) Muslim theologian Al-Ghazzali (al-Ghazel in Latin) is one of the foremost Muslim theologians, comparable to Saint Augustine or Thomas Aquinas in Christianity. He was born in northeastern Iran and studied science and theology. As a young man, he was appointed by the Seljuk vizier Nizam al-Mulk to teach at the Nizamiyya madrasa (government sponsored school) in Baghdad. A popular professor, al-Ghazzali gave lectures that were widely attended and he became known in his lifetime as an expert on law and theology. He was familiar with classical Greek philosophy as well as Christian thought. Al-Ghazzali’s written works in Arabic number into the hundreds and include songs and poetry. His Incoherence of the Philosophers, a critique of the classical Greek philosophers and of Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina, who accepted classical thought, was read throughout the Islamic world and was translated into Latin. In The Revivial of the Religious Sciences, al- Ghazzali attacked the thought of the Greek philosopher Socrates. The latter work has been compared to the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. However, Ibn Rushd (Averroës), the great Islamic philosopher based in Córdoba, Spain, vehemently disagreed with al-Ghazzali’s refutation of Greek philosophy and wrote a blistering critique, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, in which he demolished al-Ghazzali’s assertions, one by one. In arguments that have resonance in the contemporary debate between secularists and supporters of religious thought, al-Ghazzali posited that the world was a creation of the divine being and disputed assertions that the world had no beginning or end. A crisis of faith around 1095 c.e. caused al-Ghazzali to quit teaching, and, after traveling to Jerusalem and Mecca, he returned to Iran, where he immersed himself in Sufi sm (Islamic mysticism). He wrote an autobiographical account of his spiritual journey in That Which Delivers from Error. Al-Ghazzali ultimately returned to teaching and became a foremost proponent of orthodox Sunni Islamic belief that, he argued, could be compatible with Sufi religious practices. Although they disagreed on specifi c points, both al-Ghazzali and Averroës sought to understand the interrelationship of philosophy and religion. See also Islam; Islamic law; Islam: literature and music in the golden age. Further reading: Watt, W. Montgomery. The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazali. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1953; ———. Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al- Ghazali. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963; ———. Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1985. Janice J. Terry Ghiberti, Lorenzo (1378–1455) Italian sculptor Lorenzo Ghiberti was born in Florence and trained as a goldsmith by his father, Bartoluccio Ghiberti, and as a painter prior to taking up sculpture. Ghiberti rose to prominence in 1401, with the announcement by the Opera of the Baptistery of a competition to construct a second set of bronze doors for the Baptistery in Florence. The competition, to be supervised by the powerful woolen cloth guild, the Arte di Calimala, required the set of doors to illustrate scenes from the Old Testament. In addition, the doors had to complement the fi rst set of doors completed by Andrea Pisano in the 1330s by continuing the quatrefoil design of the scenes. The doors designed by Pisano illustrated the life of John the Baptist, a patron saint of Florence. Abraham’s sacrifi ce of Isaac was chosen as the competition subject. The allure 140 Ghazzali, Abu Hamid Muhammad, alof such an important commission drew a number of entries from noted artists including Jacopo della Quercia and Filippo Brunelleschi. The young Ghiberti impressed the judges with his design and the fact that, save for the fi gure of Isaac, Ghiberti’s entry was cast in one piece. A work that required fewer castings required less bronze and was cheaper to produce. Ghiberti’s ability as a caster was cited by Giorgio Vasari in his Lives of the Painters, Sculptors & Architects as his reason for placing Ghiberti in front of Donatello and Brunelleschi as a sculptor. Art historians have struggled to date the beginning of the Renaissance, and many set it at 1401 and the competition for the Baptistery in Florence because of Ghiberti’s attention to illustrating depth, the use of classical references such as the nude Isaac, and the importance of patronage. While the competition was to illustrate the Old Testament, the subject was changed to the New Testament once Ghiberti was awarded the contract. Ghiberti’s winning Abraham panel was included in the third set of doors completed in 1452. The door contains 28 quatrefoils in seven rows of four scenes. The lowest two rows illustrate the four Evangelists and the four Fathers of the Church, while the New Testament scenes begin with the Annunciation. Now known as the North Doors, the commission for the New Testament scenes was completed in 1425. In addition to the Baptistery, Ghiberti received importance commissions for the niches at Orsanmichele. The Orsanmichele in Florence is an unusual building that served both as a granary for the city and as a shrine. The outside of the building contained niches that were assigned to various guilds to decorate with statues of their patron saint. The Calimala guild commissioned a bronze sculpture of their patron, John the Baptist, for their niche. Standing nearly eight feet tall the completed John the Baptist exhibits naturalism in its stance and the drape of the clothing that is one of the hallmarks of the Renaissance art. In 1419 the Arte del Cambio, the banker’s guild, commissioned for their niche a bronze St. Matthew noted for its classical style and exquisite gilding. In 1425 Ghiberti returned to the Baptistery to work on the North Doors commonly referred to as the Gates of Paradise. Focusing on the Old Testament, Ghiberti abandoned the preferred quatrefoil plan of partially gilded 28 scenes in favor of 10 fully gilded square scenes. In addition, in his own Commentaries (c. 1450–55) Ghiberti wrote regarding the doors: “I strove to imitate nature as clearly as I could, and with all the perspective I could produce, to have excellent compositions with many fi gures.” With the completion of the Old Testament series, Ghiberti retired in 1452. See also Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Brucker, Gene A. Renaissance Florence. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983; Hartt, Frederick, and David G. Wilkins. History of Italian Renaissance. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2003; Kleiner, Fred S., Christin J. Mamiya, and Richard G. Tansey. Gardner’s Art Through the Ages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003; Murray, Peter and Linda. The Art of the Renaissance. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1985; Stokstad, Marilyn. Art History. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2002; Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996. Abbe Allen DeBolt Ghiberti, Lorenzo 141 Ghiberti rose to prominence in 1401, winning a competition with his bronze door designs for the Baptistery in Florence. Giotto di Bondone (c. 1276–1336) Italian artist The early life, artistic training, and attributed works of Giotto di Bondone (commonly referred to as Giotto) are all shrouded in mystery and legend. In his Lives, Vasari provided the fi rst biography and chronicle of the works of Giotto. Giotto was born in 1276 in the village of Vespignano outside of Florence to a farmer named Bondone. While still a boy Giotto developed the ability, without formal training, to draw from nature using whatever material was available, such as the ground, stones, or sand. Giotto would make these drawings to pass the time while tending to his fl ock of sheep. Vasari tells us that his natural talent was so great that when Cimabue spotted his works while passing through his village he immediately sought the permission of Giotto’s father to take the 10-year-old Giotto to Florence to study with Cimabue as a member of his workshop. Giotto has received credit from art historians as being among the fi rst to abandon the medieval artistic tradition in favor of the early development of naturalism— a style that would be fully realized during the Italian Renaissance. Giotto received praise by such luminaries as Dante Alighieri in Divine Comedy, Giovanni Boccaccio in Decameron, and Vasari for breaking from what Vasari refers to as the “crude manner of the Greeks.” In his Lives, Vasari recounts two stories that illustrate the talent of Giotto. According to Vasari, Pope Benedict IX sent an emissary to Tuscany to see Giotto and to judge his fi tness for a papal commission. The courtier asked Giotto for a small drawing to take to the pope. Giotto, without using a compass or moving his arms, drew a perfect circle and instructed the shocked courtier to take that simple drawing back to the pope. Pope Benedict immediately recognized Giotto’s greatness and sent him papal commissions. This story is also credited with giving birth to the Italian proverb “Thou art rounder than Giotto’s circle.” The second story recounted by Vasari supports the claim that Giotto had a great gift for naturalism. As a boy in Cimabue’s workshop, Giotto painted a fl y on the nose of a fi gure painted by Cimabue. Upon his return to the workshop Cimabue tried to shoo the fl y away before realizing that it was just a painting. One of the earliest works successfully attributed to Giotto is the crucifi x (c. 1295) of Santa Maria Novella in Florence. Giotto’s crucifi x followed the design seen in Cimabue’s earlier crucifi x with Christ fl anked by images of the Virgin Mary and John the Evangelist. Giotto deviated from Cimabue with form clearly moving toward three-dimensional in its effect. The fi gures are also imbued with a humanity and emotion missing from earlier works. Italian Renaissance art historian Bernard Berenson credits him with the birth of modern painting particularly with regard to the portrayal of the human form. Throughout his career Giotto received commissions from patrons in Rome, Naples, Ravenna, and Padua. In 1305 he executed frescoes commissioned by Enrico Scrovegni for his chapel commonly known as the Arena Chapel. While the entrance wall is covered by a fresco 142 Giotto di Bondone Giotto di Bondone’s “Stigmatization of St. Francis” painted in 1300 using tempera and gold of the Last Judgment, a popular theme in medieval Italy, the remainder of the walls are devoted to a series of frescoes illustrating scenes of the life of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. In these frescoes Giotto employed simple but dramatic architectural and landscape elements to focus our attention on the massive forms and the story being told. This simple, but dramatic, style would infl uence future fresco painters such as Michelangelo. Art historians have long debated whether or not Giotto is responsible for the frescoes chronicling the life of St. Francis at his basilica in Assisi. As early as 1313 a chronicle written by Riccobaldo attributes the St. Francis cycle to Giotto. The attribution to Giotto was further supported in later centuries by the writings of Lorenzo Ghiberti in the 15th century and Vasari in the 16th century. In addition to painting, Giotto was also an architect and sculptor. As an architect, he is credited with the initial design and construction of the campanile of Saint Maria del Fiore (also known as the Duomo) in Florence. Giotto’s involvement with the construction ended upon his death, and construction continued under his former student Taddeo Gaddi. Giotto died in 1336 and was buried with honors within Saint Maria del Fiore. Further reading: Berenson, Bernard. Italian Painters of the Italian Renaissance. Phaidon Press, 1954; Cantor, Norman F. The Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: Harper Collins, 1994; Ferguson, Wallace K. Europe In Transition 1300– 1520. New York: Houghton Miffl in, 1962; Hartt, Frederick, and David G. Wilkins. History of the Italian Renaissance. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2003; Snyder, James. Medieval Art: Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1989; Stokstad, Marilyn. Art History. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2002; Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996. Abbe Allen DeBolt Godfrey of Bouillon (c. 1060–1100) king of Jerusalem One of the fi rst European nobles to depart on the First Crusade in 1095 was Godfrey of Bouillon. Godfrey led his troops from France to Constantinople and fought alongside other armies through Asia Minor to Jerusalem. After the crusaders took the city, they elected Godfrey as their ruler. Godfrey of Bouillon was the second son of Count Eustace of Boulogne and Ida, the daughter of the duke of Lower Lorraine. Godfrey’s mother designated him her heir, but when her father died Emperor Henry IV confi scated the duchy, leaving Godfrey the county of Antwerp and the lordship of Bouillon in the Ardennes. Godfrey nevertheless served the emperor loyally in his campaigns in Italy and Germany, and as his reward in 1082 Henry invested him as duke of Lower Lorraine, but as an offi ce rather than a hereditary fi ef. Cluniac monastic infl uences permeated Lorraine, and their pro-papal teachings may have infl uenced Godfrey to take up the cross. Godfrey’s administrative skills were not sharp and perhaps he realized his future as a duke was limited and saw the Crusades as a way to achieve more. Although he never gave up his imperial offi ce, he sold and mortgaged some of his lands, an indication that he had no intention of returning from the Holy Land. Each of these reasons, and a genuine enthusiasm for the cause, probably infl uenced his response to the pope’s call. After blackmailing Jewish communities and selling parts of his holdings, Godfrey amassed funds to equip a large force. The number of men following him gave him a great deal of prestige among other crusade leaders and drew more men to him. He was personable and with his tall, athletic frame and blond hair he appeared the ideal northern European knight and a perfect leader. By the time the crusaders took Jerusalem, there were only two viable candidates to lead the city, Raymond of Toulouse and Godfrey. Age, experience, and his relationship with the church probably made Raymond of Toulouse the better candidate, but he was unpopular. He too openly considered himself the secular leader of the crusaders, and his comrades viewed him as arrogant and too friendly with the emperor in Constantinople. The electors initially offered the leadership to Raymond. He refused, and said he would not wear a crown in the city where Christ wore his crown of thorns, hoping the comment would discourage others from taking the throne. The electors offered the role to Godfrey, who hesitated, and then said he would accept the position on the grounds that he would not have to take the title of king, but could be known instead as Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri, a phrase that has been translated as “Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher” or “Defender of the Holy Sepulcher.” Godfrey appeared sincere in his belief that the church should be the ultimate ruler in the Holy Land. After he accepted his role as ruler, Godfrey tricked Raymond into giving over control of the Tower of David, the military key to Jerusalem. Raymond, powerless and furious, left on a pilgrimage. Initially Godfrey’s forces included approximately 300 knights and 2,000 infantrymen. He had to defend Jerusalem, the port of Jaffa, Godfrey of Bouillon 143 and other towns, including Lydda, Ramleh, Bethlehem, and Hebron, from hostile native forces that occupied the countryside between towns. After falling out with Raymond, Godfrey’s relations with his nobles cooled, but most answered his call to defend the kingdom. Gradually Godfrey extended his power over the rural areas of Judea and Samaria. His reputation increased rapidly. As his powers in the Levant increased, Godfrey’s powers in his own lands waned and he found himself increasingly at the mercy of other nobles in the Holy Land. His vassals used his cordial nature to their advantage, while churchmen knew he could not deny the church and used his trust to undermine his authority. He needed replacements and ships, his nobles wanted political favors, and Godfrey was in no position to resist their demands. In June 1100 after a period of intense negotiations and travel, Godfrey collapsed at a hostel in Jaffa. Rumors of poisoning passed through the court, but he likely had typhoid. He hung on for nearly a month while politicians hovered around his sickbed, ready to take what they could on his death. He died July 18, 1100. Godfrey of Bouillon, at times a weak and unwise ruler, was nevertheless successful in his attempts to establish and expand his kingdom and earned respect for his courage, modesty, and faith. He was buried as the fi rst Christian ruler of Jerusalem on the hill of Golgotha, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the site of the Crucifi xion. Further reading: Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; France, John. Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Mayer, Hans Eberhard. The Crusades. Trans. by John Gillingham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988; Runciman, Steven. A History of the Crusades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951; Setton, Kenneth M., and Marshall W. Baldwin, eds. A History of the Crusades. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Kevin D. Hill gold and salt, kingdoms of For those who knew how to survive it, the Sahara was not an impenetrable desert as much as it was a vast, navigable ocean. Like ships on the ocean, large camel caravans have crossed vast distances on waves of sand for centuries, stopping at island oases along the way. The sahel, the Arabic word for shore, describes the semiarid region just below the Sahara. It was upon this inland shore that Arab and Berber traders deposited their most valuable goods: solid blocks of salt. Salt from the sea would not work as it quickly dissolved in the humid and vast region of West Africa. Only solid salt bars from the desert could be carried without spoiling. Salt was needed to replace fl uids in the body and for preserving food in a tropical climate where meat spoiled quickly. Salt was so valuable to the people of western Sudan that some were willing to pay the price of gold for salt. Gold was plentiful south of the Sahara. Ibn al Hamdhani, an Arab geographer, described gold growing there like carrots in the ground. Similarly salt was plentiful in the Sahara. The buildings in the town of Taghaza in the middle of the Sahara were built from blocks of salt. While the West Africans needed the salt for their diet, the North Africans needed gold for currency. Kingdoms, wealthy merchants, great empires, and kings would rise and fall on both sides of the Saharan shore, their fortunes largely dependent on the trade of salt and gold. With plentiful salt in the north but a lack of gold, and plentiful gold in the south with a lack of salt, the conditions for trade were perfect. Ironically the gold and salt miners almost never saw each other face to face. Merchants from the west and north traded, while the great empires of the south, Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, managed the trade. The gold miners, the Wangaran people, did not want to give up the secret locations of their mines deep in the dense rainforests of West Africa and would swear not to reveal information about the gold mines if captured. The gold and salt trade had an important impact on both the culture of the northern traders and sub- Sahara. Gold introduced the Mediterranean world to the enticing natural riches of Africa and fueled an economic boom. The sub-Saharan rulers similarly gained from the salt and from the new ideas and religious practices introduced by the northern traders, allowing them to create unifi ed states around Islam. See also Berbers. Further reading: Ajayi, J. F., and M. Crowder, eds. History of West Africa. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972; Conrad, David. Empire of Medieval West Africa: Ghana, Mali and Songhay. New York: Facts On File, 2005; Levtzion, Nehemia, and Jay Spaulding. Medieval West Africa: Views from Arab Scholars and Merchants. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2003; McKissack, Patricia and Frederick. The Royal Kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay: Life in Medieval Africa. New York: Henry Holt, 1995. Allen Fromherz 144 gold and salt, kingdoms of Golden Bull of 1356 Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (r. 1346–78) established a kind of constitution for the Holy Roman Empire in 1356, calling the document in which the new rules were laid out the “Golden Bull” (Bulla Aurea). It was called by that distinctive name for two reasons: fi rst, because of the medieval practice of affi xing to offi cial documents and important such declarations seals (Latin, bulla), the Latin word was transliterated into the English word bull and came to signify such offi cial documents themselves; second, because the particular seal on this important document was cast in gold it is the “Golden Bull.” However its signifi cance does not lie primarily in its name, but in its fundamental importance to the Holy Roman Empire’s future. The Holy Roman Empire was at different times a loose confederation of central European principalities. The various princes of the region cooperated to some degree as sovereigns and practiced election of an emperor. The year 1346 marked Charles IV’s election as emperor. By 1356 Charles IV, also king of Bohemia, realized that unlike in France and England, where monarchy had more fi rmly established itself and created more unifi ed states, the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire was relatively weak to unify the mostly German principalities. Lacking the ability to forge unity, and seeing the Holy Roman Empire as a confederation of states and the emperor as fi rst among princes of equal stature and power, Charles IV formulated the Golden Bull in 1356. The document sought to bring an imperial peace and more stable form to this confederation of mostly German principalities, which was characterized by diverse cultures, customs, ways of life, and languages. As a reform and restatement of the ancient constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, it would form a basis of government for the empire as the foundational constitutional document, until the empire was dissolved by Napoleon Bonaparte in the year 1806. Though some see the Golden Bull as creating anarchy in the name of constitutionalism, and others call it the Magna Carta of the German states, it was primarily concerned not with individual rights, but with the duties and rights of the princes who elected the emperor and helped him rule the empire. Articulated in 1356 at imperial diets at Nuremberg and Mainz, it formed the basis of imperial elections and set the number of electors at seven. It gave the seven electoral princes extensive rights including the privilege of both nomination and selection of the emperor. Stipulating that the king of Bohemia, who was then Charles IV, was to be one of the electors, it also elevated him over the other elector princes. In addition to the king of Bohemia, other electors were to be the archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne; the margraves of Miessen and Brandenburg; and the counts Palatine of the Rhine. Charles IV’s hope was that this arrangement would not only create unity among the elector princes and a balance of power, but also ensure hereditary succession through the regulated process of election. Producing the “king of the Romans,” as the Golden Bull called the elected emperor, it limited participation to the seven elector princes, even disallowing any direct participation by the pope. Voting was regularized specifi cally, and a majority of four votes was suffi cient for election, which would culminate in coronation by the pope in Rome. It also strengthened the individual positions of the seven electors within the empire. These “pillars” became a “college,” above the various legal estates of clergy, townspeople, and nobility. To alleviate the temptation to divide up electoral votes, the territories of the seven elector princes were made indivisible by inheritance. The princes also gained powers that accrued to them personally, such as the right to capital justice, and control of local mining, tolls, and coinage. Seven copies of the Golden Bull of 1356 still exist, having been preserved by several of the electoral princes and the cities of Nuremberg and Frankfurt. An interesting document, it limited government in the Holy Roman Empire, if only by ending the legal possibility of a hereditary empire in favor of an elective, if still very exclusive position as “king of the Romans.” Further reading: Barber, Richard. The Penguin Guide to Medieval Europe. New York: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1984; Barraclough, G. The Origins of Modern Germany. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1946; Jeep, John M., ed. Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2001; Kitchen, Martin. Germany: Cambridge Illustrated History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. John Farrell Gothic and Romanesque styles The term Romanesque is applied to architecture in medieval Europe during the 11th and 12th centuries which attempted to connect the early Middle Ages with the architecture of the Roman Empire, both in the materials used and in the form achieved. Building on Gothic and Romanesque styles 145 the Norman style, Romanesque became popular and was the first style to be used throughout Europe since Roman times, with examples being found across medieval Europe. Many of these buildings were religious structures, especially cathedrals and churches. The aspects of the Romanesque style, especially the round arch, make it similar to later Roman design with the use of thick walls, narrow openings, and stone vaulting as a method of support. Columns were replaced by piers, and there was intense use of geometry and rigidity in design. Romanesque cathedral design uses barrel and supporting vaults, and a cruciform layout. This system of construction seems to have first appeared in the Iberian Peninsula with the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela and the cathedral of Jaca being two of the more notable examples. In France, the abbey of Cluny, which no longer remains, was perhaps the epitome of Romanesque architecture. Elsewhere in Europe, there are many examples of Romanesque architecture in Italy, including the towers at San Gimignano; the cathedrals of Monreale, Palermo, Pisa, and Cefalu in Sicily; and parts of St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice. In France, the monastery church of Notre-Dame-du-Port in Clermont-Ferrand, the church at Périgneux in the Dordogne, and the Abbey of Senaque are among many examples. The Gothic style, from about 1150 until 1250, using the pointed arch, followed from the Romanesque style, with the term Gothic originally being used as a pejorative term in the 1530s to describe buildings, mainly cathedrals, that were seen as “barbaric.” The style actually has nothing to do with the Goths, but rather included characteristic features such as the pointed arch, ribbed vaults, and flying buttresses on the outside of buildings. The earliest significant building in the Gothic style appears to be the abbey church of Saint-Denis, near Paris, built around 1144. It was partially designed by Abbot Suger (1081–1151), who wanted to create a physical representation of his interpretation of Jerusalem and was criticized by contemporaries for his infatuation with the use of light that was to become influential in differentiating the Gothic style from that of the Romanesque. Much of this use of light was achieved by the use of stained glass, and the style started to become popular in northern France and then in England. It gradually spread throughout the rest of France, the Low Countries, Germany, Spain, and some parts of northern Italy. The major Gothic cathedrals in France are Notre- Dame de Paris, Amiens cathedral, Beauvais cathedral, Chartres cathedral, Reims cathedral, Rouen cathedral, and the cathedral of Laon. In England, the cathedrals at Canterbury, Ely, Gloucester, Lincoln, Peterborough, Salisbury, and Wells; Westminster Abbey; and York Minster are all in the Gothic style. In Germany and Austria, the main Gothic cathedrals are at Cologne, Freiburg, Regensburg, Ulm, and Vienna; the main ones in Spain are Burgos, León, Seville, and Toledo. In Italy, the cathedrals in Florence, Milan, Orvieto, and Siena are all Gothic in style. In Belgium, Antwerp cathedral is in the Gothic style, with the Town Hall at Ghent, and parts of the Cloth Hall at Ypres being secular representations of Gothic architecture. In Italy the Palazzo Vecchio and the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, and the Doges’ Palace in Venice; and in France part of Carcassonne, part of Mont Saint-Michel, and numerous chateaux are secular buildings in the Gothic style. There was a Gothic revival movement in the mid- 18th century, influencing the building of cathedrals and churches, many university buildings, and major secular and civic buildings. Further reading: Jantzen, Hans. High Gothic: The Classic Cathedrals of Chartres, Reims and Amiens. Princeton, NJ: 146 Gothic and Romanesque styles Cathédrale Saint-Pierre d’Angoulême in Charente, France, is one of the best remaining examples of Romanesque architecture. Princeton University Press, 1984; Swaan, Wim. The Gothic Cathedral. London: Ferndale Editions, 1981; Toman, Rolf, ed. Romanesque: Architecture, Sculpture, Painting. Cologne: Könemann, 1997; Wilson, Christopher. The Gothic Cathedral. London: Thames & Hudson, 1992. Justin Corfi eld Grand Canal Next to the Great Wall of China the Grand Canal was the most important engineering feat in ancient China and was undertaken during the Sui dynasty (581– 618). Earlier, during the Qin (Ch’in) dynasty and Han dynasty major canals had been built for land reclamation and irrigation and short canals for transportation. Sui Wendi (Sui Wen-ti), unifi er of China after three centuries of division, began the Grand Canal. He rebuilt and extended the old canals to link up the Yellow River with his capital Chang’an (Ch’ang-an) on the Wei River, then southward to the Yangzi (Yangtze) River at Yangzhou (Yangchow) in central China. His son Yangdi (Yang-ti) expanded the system to Hangzhou (Hangchow) on the coast south of the Yangzi, and northward to near modern Beijing, totaling 1,250 miles. The Grand Canal, completed in 605, symbolized the reunifi cation of the empire, economic growth, and integration. Over the centuries the growing wealth of the south became crucial to the defense of the nation’s vulnerable northern frontier. China was politically divided during the Song (Sung) dynasty. With the loss of all northern China at the end of the Northern Song in 1127, the Grand Canal fell to disuse. In1264 Kubilai Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, proclaimed himself grand khan and ruler of a new Yuan dynasty in China, with the capital city at modern Beijing, which he named Dadu (T’a-tu, meaning Great Capital). Kubilai needed grain from the Yangzi valley for his capital and had two choices for routes, by sea, where ships were subject to loss in storms, or via a safer inland waterway, the Grand Canal. He chose the canal route, which entailed repairing the old canal including a 135mile-long section near Dadu. Three million laborers were drafted for the task, which was completed in 1289. Maintenance was expensive and the canal again fell to disuse as the Yuan dynasty declined. The silted up sections were repaired in the early 15th century under the Ming dynasty. The Grand Canal fulfi lled several functions. It brought grains, cloth, tea, wine, and other products of the increasingly developed southeast to the politically dominant north. In integrating the country economically, it also played a vital role in the political unifi cation of China. The Grand Canal was built and maintained at a huge cost. Sui Yangdi conscripted over a million people for this project during his reign and labor became so short that women were also conscripted. However the million plus number was the grand total of all laborers, not the number at work at any time, because each laborer had to work for the government for only 20 days per year. Nevertheless the huge labor demands for Yangdi’s many projects caused widespread discontent that brought down his empire. Silting, currents, and the need to pull canal boats in areas of steep elevation posed diffi cult problems for supplying Chang’an’s 2 million people during the height of the Tang (T’ang) dynasty. The fact that boats were fully laden on the journey north but returned south mostly empty posed economic problems that were never solved. The diffi culty of supplying Chang’an was a major factor in abandoning it as the capital of China Grand Canal 147 A classic example of Gothic art and architecture is Notre-Dame de Reims cathedral in northern France. after the 10th century in favor of Luoyang (Loyang), Kaifeng (K’ai-feng), and Beijing. Further reading: Mote, Frederick W., and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 7, the Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988; Xiong, Victor Cunrui. Emperor Yang of the Sui Dynasty, His Life, Times, and Legacy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Gratian (d. 1160) Byzantine monk and scholar Little is known about Gratian. He was probably born at the end of the 11th century in Chiusi in Tuscany and died in Bologna around 1160. Around 1140 he completed his Decretum Gratiani, which made him one of the most renowned canonists of all time. The Decretum Gratiani not only replaced the preceding decrees but also provided a systematic and logical ordering of documents taken from existing collections supplemented by prescriptions of the popes Paschal II (1099–1118) and Innocent II (1130–1143) and of the Second Lateran Council (1139). Until the Code of Canon Law was published in 1917, it remained a standard work for canon law. Gratian was the first who taught canon law as an autonomous science, although the Byzantine Code of Justinian I had already served as a model in combining civil and religious laws into one code. Canon comes from the Greek word kanon and means a stem or a reed and a long and straight piece of wood, a wooden rule used by masons and carpenters, or a rule with which straight lines are drawn. Figuratively it is the rule of an art or of a trade, a model, a type, or a definitive list or catalog. With the rise of Christianity, kanon received a new meaning: commandments of God, or in Latin regulae fidei (norms of faith) and regulae morum (behavioral rules). It is in this sense of regulae morum that canon was taken up into law. These behavioral rules began with the Bible and the Didach¯e (Teaching of the Apostles). As new questions about the faith were posed, heretical and otherwise, church councils and synods were called to answer these questions. This was especially true of the first seven ecumenical councils, which tackled questions on the divinity of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the two natures of the one person of Christ, and Mary as the Mother of God, as well as the Council of Trent (1545–63), which answered the many questions of the Reformation. The answers in the form of decrees would be added on to the list of canons governing behavior of clerics and lay people alike. Over the course of time, as the church grew and branched out, and it became necessary for a rule of conduct to be collected for uniform interpretation and implementation of divine law spelled out in the sources cited. This was the basis of canon law. Gratian worked with a set method in which three parts may be clearly distinguished. The first part deals with the sources of the law. It also treats subjects concerned primarily with the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the clergy. The second part deals with procedure, secular property, religious orders, marriage, and confession. The last part deals with the rules on the sacraments, except for matrimony, and sacramentals. Prior to the middle of the 12th century only systematic collections of church prescriptions had existed. With his Decretum, Gratian published the first synthesis of the universally applicable canon law. At the same time he provided the later popes with a foundation upon which their decrees could rest. In spite of its renown and the great authority of the Decretum Gratiani, it remained a private collection with no universal force of law. The ecclesiastical authorities never officially recognized or approved the collection. Further reading: Winroth, Anders, Rosamond McKitterick, and Christine Carpenter, eds. Making of Gratian’s Decretum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Thomas Urban Greenland It is said that on a good day one can glimpse distant Greenland from Iceland. This may be an exaggeration, but the existence of links of land across the North Atlantic played a key role in Norse exploration, along with the development of new types of ships and new navigational technology and knowledge. The Faeroe Islands, not far from Britain and probably already known to the Romans, were settled first, early in the Viking age. From there the Vikings settled in Iceland, perhaps known to the ancients and certainly to the Irish, starting in the ninth century after evicting a few stray Irish monks. From Iceland the Norse continued west to Greenland in the second half of the ninth century, and then to the islands and coasts of North America by around 1000 c.e. 148 Gratian The Greenland of the Norse age of exploration was warmer and had more open land, allowing a limited agriculture. It was also uninhabited. The Eskimos and similar groups had yet truly to settle the area when the Norse came, although they did begin to penetrate south after their arrival and may have been a factor in the fi nal extinguishing of the colony in the 15th century. It was thus not misnamed, but in the ninth and 10th centuries was truly a green land and eminently suited for the Norse way of life with its fjords, turf, and seacarried wood from what is now Canada. Greenland was also known for its fi sheries and marine mammals, including the narwhal, a source of valuable ivory that later became the principal export of the Norse colony and was highly prized in medieval Europe. According to Icelandic tradition, mainly from his saga, it was Eiríkur Raudi, or Erik the Red, who was the motive force behind Norse settlement of Greenland, trying to outrun his own legal problems (he carried outlaw status in both Norway and Iceland). Over time two distinct settlements emerged there: Vestribyggd or Western Settlement, and Eystribyggd or Eastern Settlement. The former was the fi rst settled, in 986, and was located near modern Nuuk. The latter was around what is now Narsarsuaq and began a decade later. Scattered settlements arose in other places where conditions were favorable for fi shing or hunting. Both settlements prospered into the 12th century when a downturn in average temperature began, briefl y arrested by an improvement during the 14th century. By then it was too late, and the viability of the Norse of Greenland had declined to the point that survival was diffi cult, if not impossible. The Western Settlement was abandoned in the mid-14th century and the Eastern Settlement died out in the late 15th century. Ultimately isolation and a progressively more diffi cult environment with the beginning of the Little Ice Age (which put more icebergs into the seas, making travel more diffi cult) doomed the Eastern Settlement. Both settlements left behind substantial archaeological remnants, including fragments of the material culture of the era, preserved by the cold. This included clothing, in some cases in the latest European fashion. From these fragments it is clear that the Norse of Greenland tried to maintain at least the semblance of their European culture and its values. Also associated with Norse Greenland is evidence of wider contact with the islands and mainland of North America. The most famous example of this is the brief Norse settlement in Canada, Vinland (L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland). In addition archaeology and an examination of written sources have suggested Norse presence not only all and up down the Greenland coast, but on Baffi n Island and at points north and south and even farther into the interior. At some of these locations, Norse from Greenland came into contact with Native Americans, including the Eskimos, who were to replace the Norse in Greenland, perhaps by force. It is conspicuous that the only North American culture to make bronze was one in close contact with the Greenland Norse, who knew how to work with bronze. See also Ericson, Leif; Vikings: Iceland, Icelandic sagas; Vikings: North America; Vikings: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Further reading: Fitzhugh, William W., and Elisabeth I. Ward. Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000; Júlíusson, Árni Daniel, et al. Islenskur Sögu Atlas, 1. bindi: Frá öndverdu til 18. aldar. Reykjavík: Almenna Bókafélagid, 1989. Paul D. Buell Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) theologian and bishop Gregory Palamas was born in the city of Constantinople in 1296. His father was a prominent offi cial under Byzantine emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus. His father died while Gregory was an infant, and the emperor actively took a part in Gregory’s formation and education. Intelligent and hard working, Gregory was destined by his imperial patron for government service. But at the age of 20, Gregory left government service to take up monastic life at Mount Athos. Advancing in monastic life under his spiritual mentor (St.) Nicodemus of Vatopedi, he eventually became a priest and hermit at the small monastery of Glossia on Mount Athos. During this time he absorbed the teachings of such church fathers as Evagrius of Pontus, Macarius of Egypt, and Simeon the New Theologian. Moving to Thessalonika, he became a noted priest, preacher, and teacher while maintaining a strict monastic regimen. He gathered a small community of solitary monks around his church and began actively to teach the “Hesychast” (from the Greek hesychia meaning “calm, silence”) method of prayer and theology. During the 1330s Gregory was called to Constantinople to defend the Hesychasts against the “Scholastic” Gregory Palamas 149 teaching of the Italo-Greek monk Barlaam of Calabria. Barlaam taught that one could not “know God” through mental prayer. Influenced by Thomas Aquinas he insisted that knowledge of the existence of God could only be appropriated through intellectual activity. He ridiculed the teachings and prayer methods of the Hesychasts and attempted to disprove the Hesychasts’ claim to experience God through “the light of Tabor.” (Tabor was the place where Jesus [Christ] of Nazareth experienced his “transfiguration” into divine brilliance and energy.) Palamas’s most extensive written response to Barlaam was Apology for the Holy Hesychasts, commonly called the Triads. Palamas’s defense established the theological basis for the whole human person’s (body, spirit, and soul) being involved in the mystical experience. The whole person can be deified or united with the divine energies of Christ’s Tabor experience. This deification or “theosis” ultimately includes body, soul, and spirit, so a person enters into a real, but mystical union with God. In this incarnational way Palamas and the Hesychasts attempted to experience the presence of God through “divine energies.” Palamas helped to define the difference between the “divine essence” (which cannot be known) and “divine energies” (which can be known through how humans experience God’s presence). Palamas’s teachings were accepted as orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 1341, and Barlaam was condemned as a heretic and fled to Calabria. This did not end Palamas’ troubles, as Barlaam’s followers among monks and high clergy continued to dispute Palamas. He was imprisoned from 1344 to 1347. But after his release by Patriarch Isidore, he was elected archbishop of Thessalonika. During one of his trips to Constantinople, he was captured by Muslim pirates. He was beaten and tortured for preaching the Gospel to his fellow captives and Muslim captors. After a year he was ransomed and returned to Thessalonika. Palamas performed many miracles during his reign as archbishop, including healing many illnesses. He died on November 14, 1359, and was canonized by a church council in 1368. He is commemorated in the Byzantine Church on November 14 and the second Sunday of the most solemn season of the church, the Great Fast or Lent. Further reading: Palamas, Gregory. The Triads. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. Bryan Eyman Gutenberg, Johann (1397–1468) inventor The dissemination of knowledge occurred more quickly after Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1440. Gutenberg, the son of a businessman named Friele Gensfleisch zur Laden, was born in Mainz, Germany, and was a goldsmith by profession. Movable type made of wooden blocks had been developed by the Chinese but was a time-consuming process. In Holland and Prague, experiments on a sophisticated printing process were already taking place. Gutenberg’s goal was to reproduce medieval liturgical manuscripts by using movable pieces of metal blocks for each letter. Many copies of a book were printed without loss of color and design. An assembled page was placed into a frame, and afterward a heavy screw forced the printing block against the paper. He combined paper technology along with oil-based ink. With the financial backing of a rich German lawyer, Johann Fust, Gutenberg established the first printing press, ushering in an era 150 Gutenberg, Johann Page of the Bible printed by Gutenberg in 1456. The illuminated border is typical of a manuscript. of enlightenment. A large portion of society received an opportunity to read, and literacy was not confi ned to church, monastery, and nobility. The labor-intensive hand copying of books was no longer necessary, while the printing of books became fast and inexpensive. Gutenberg published the 42 Line Bible, or the Gutenberg Bible, in Mainz in 1445 after two years of hard labor. Each column had 42 lines, and the whole Latin Bible had 1,282 pages. He printed 180 copies, out of which 47 are still extant. The words from the original Bible were not changed. He sold copies of the Biblia Sacra at the Frankfurt Book Fair of 1455. Adolf of Nassau, the elector of Mainz, gave him a benefi ce in 1465. Gutenberg printed indulgences, slips of paper used by the church. He also produced parts of Aelius Donatus’s Latin grammar, Ars Minor, which had 24 editions. Persons trained by him established their own printing presses. Within a span of 50 years about 100,000 publications emerged. In libraries, books were to be distinguished from archival materials. Very soon, literacy expanded with the printing of maps, posters, pamphlets, and newspapers. Novel ideas of Renaissance Europe were fostered and preserved. National languages replaced Latin, a change important for the creation of nation-states. The invention of the printing press was received with opposition from the Catholic Church. The printers of Mainz fl ed after an attack from soldiers of the archbishop of Nassau in 1462. But European cities benefi ted from the printers’ skill. Some of the elite did not want to keep printed books along with hand-copied manuscripts in libraries. This dissipated gradually, and the printing press spread all over Europe. In 1476 William Caxton established the fi rst printing press in England at Westminster. He published Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’ Arthur. In the 1480s, a printing press opened in Andalusia, Spain. By the end of the 15th century, the printing industry existed in 250 cities of Europe. The 1,000 printing presses published 35,000 titles and 20 million copies. Afterward, Roman type styles replaced Gothic types and metal screws were used in place of wooden ones. The printing press in the 15th century was modest compared to a modern press. A standard press having fi ve workers could publish only fi ve books a year, but an important discovery had been made in the history of human civilization. Statues of Gutenberg adorn many places in Germany and notable institutions are named after him. Gutenberg is credited with transforming medieval Europe into a modern society, bringing about a scientifi c revolution. See also printing, invention in China. Further reading: Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979; Ing, Janet. Johann Gutenberg and His Bible: A Historical Study. New York: The Typophiles, 1988; Man, John. Gutenberg: How One Man Remade the World with Words. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002; McLuhan, H. Marshall. Gutenberg Galaxy, Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967; Morrison, Blake. The Justifi cation of Johann Gutenberg. London: Vintage, 2001; Pollard, Michael. Johann Gutenberg: Master of Modern Printing. San Diego, CA: Blackbirch Press, 2001. Patit Paban Mishra
The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) astronomer, mathematician, and physicist Galileo Galilei was the most important physical scientist of his time. His father, Vincenzo Galilei, performed significant experiments in musical science. After entering the University of Pisa in 1581 as a medical student, Galileo discovered mathematics and promptly became enraptured. The ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes became his intellectual hero. He supplemented classes in natural philosophy at Pisa with private mathematical study in Florence. He left Pisa without a degree in 1585 and became a mathematics tutor in Florence, where he established the isochronous nature of the pendulum— the fact that the frequency of a pendulum is a constant. In 1589, his Archimedes-inspired work won him the mathematics chair at Pisa. In 1592, Galileo became professor of mathematics at the University of Padua, Europe’s leading scientific university. Whatever the personal and financial stresses of the Padua years, they were Galileo’s most intellectually fruitful time. He moved from a highly mathematical approach to knowledge to a greater interest in experiment. He began to elaborate a non-Aristotelian approach to the problems of moving bodies. His most famous result was the discovery that the distance covered by a falling body varies with the square of the time of the fall—the “law of falling bodies.” Galileo’s work with the telescope in the early 17th century catapulted him to European fame. From what information he could gather, he designed his own, superior to the contemporary Dutch telescopes, in 1609. He observed the previously unknown moons of Jupiter. These were the first satellites of a planet (other than the Moon) ever known. The fact that the system of the planets could have more than one center helped support the Copernican theory. Galileo’s other discoveries included the mountains of the Moon, the phases of Venus, and the composition of the Milky Way out of innumerable stars. Galileo wanted to move to Tuscany in Florence. The naming of Jupiter’s moons the “Medicean stars” after the ruling Medici family of Tuscany was a brilliant stroke to win the duke’s favor, securing Galileo’s appointment as court mathematician. Galileo insisted that he be given the title not merely of mathematician, but philosopher as well. Since the actual physical nature of the universe was the province of natural philosophers, Galileo as a philosopher could make cosmological claims that he could not make as a mere mathematician. It was from Rome that Galileo faced what would prove to be the greatest challenge of his career, that of the church’s condemnation of Copernicanism. Church authorities were increasingly opposed to Copernicanism and Galileo as its principal Catholic champion. Copernicus’s On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres was placed on the church’s Index of Forbidden Books in 1616. Galileo argued that Copernicanism had no relevance to theology, but church authorities did not accept this position. Galileo’s works were still not specifically condemned. Despite his enormous importance in the development of astronomy, Galileo was not at all what the early modern period considered an astronomer. He was not concerned with the precise observations and elaborate calculations necessary to predict the courses of the stars that absorbed the vast majority of the labor of working astronomers. Galileo was more interested in making telescopic discoveries and establishing cosmological theory. The most significant work he wrote on astronomy after The Starry Messenger (1610) was Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World (1632). In this work, Galileo used the motion of the Earth to explain the tides. Galileo’s trial and conviction have been interpreted in many ways by historians. There were two dangers in Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World. One was its bold statement of support for the Copernican system. The other as that the pope, Urban VIII (Maffeo Barberini), became convinced after the dialogue’s publication, which in all probability he himself had licensed, that the dull-witted Simplicio was a satire of him. Urban reacted to Galileo’s ridicule by suppressing the Dialogue and establishing a commission to investigate the whole matter. After reading the commission’s report, Urban referred the Galileo case to the Roman Inquisition. The Inquisition summoned Galileo to Rome in the winter of 1632–33, a savage requirement to impose on an old man in ill health during a plague epidemic. On his arrival in Rome in February, he was imprisoned. Negotiations between Galileo and the inquisitors, who threatened torture, produced a public confession. On June 22, 1633, he was condemned to house arrest and the recitation of penitential psalms. He spent his arrest first in Rome, and from the end of 1633 to his death, at his own house outside Florence. See also Copernicus, Nicolaus; Descartes, René; scientific revolution. Further reading: Biagioli, Mario. Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993; Drake, Stillman. Galileo at Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978; Geymonat, Ludovico. Galileo Galilei. Stillman, Drake, trans. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965; Langford, Jerome J. Galileo, Science and the Church. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966; Shea, William R. Galileo’s Intellectual Revolution. London: Macmillan, 1972; Westfall, Richard S. Essays on the Trial of Galileo. Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1989. William E. Burns Gama, Vasco da (1460?–1524) Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama was a Portuguese explorer who discovered the sea route to India from Europe through the Cape of Good Hope. It is believed that da Gama was born in Sines, Portugal, in approximately 1460. He received his first important appointment in 1497 when he was named commander of a four-ship expedition that was to continue the work started by Bartolomeu Dias, who had attempted to find a route from Europe to India via the Cape of Good Hope. Dias’s expedition had only made it a short distance past the Cape of Good Hope. Da Gama’s expedition set out from Lisbon on July 8, 1497. The ships passed the Canary Islands on July 15, but then became separated in a fog. They were able to regroup on July 26 at the Cape Verde island of Santiago. 144 Gama, Vasco da Galileo offering his telescope to three women and pointing to the heavens—site of his astronomical discoveries Da Gama wanted to avoid the Gulf of Guinea, where Dias had had problems with the weather and currents. To do this da Gama sailed his ships out into the Atlantic Ocean, eventually coming within 600 miles of South America. When da Gama’s ships finally made landfall on November 7, they had been on the open sea for 96 days and had sailed 4,500 miles. The fleet spent the next eight days at St. Helena Bay before continuing on to the Cape of Good Hope, which they sailed around on November 22. Putting into Mossel Bay, da Gama’s crews broke up their supply ship and distributed the supplies to the other ships. They set off again on December 8. Making their way up the eastern coast of Africa the expedition anchored in the Kilimane River estuary, where they spent 32 days repairing their ships and nursing members of the crew who had come down with scurvy. From there they continued up the coast putting into Malindi on April 13, 1498. In Malindi, the local sultan gave da Gama a pilot, who left with them on April 24 as they set out to cross the Indian Ocean. Da Gama was successful in crossing the Indian Ocean and anchored off the city of Calicut, India, on May 20. He spent the next several months trying to work out a trade treaty with the local rajah, but because of the intervention of the local Muslim merchants, he was unable to reach an agreement and headed home at the end of August 1498. The trip back across the Indian Ocean proved to be much harder. By the time his ships put into Malindi (January 7, 1499), he was forced, because of losses among his crew, to burn one of his ships and proceed with only two ships. The ships sailed on and rounded the Cape of Good Hope on March 20, 1499. The ships became separated in a storm in April. The ship da Gama was on made it to Cape Verde, where he sent the ship on to Lisbon while he took his dying brother on a hired ship to the Azores, where his brother died. Da Gama Gama, Vasco da 145 Vasco da Gama delivers the letter of King Manuel of Portugal to the samorim (samutiri) of Calicut in India. With 13 ships full of goods he set sail for Portugal on December 28, 1502. King Manuel I rewarded him with the titles of admiral of the Indian Seas and count of Vidigueira. then went on to Lisbon, where he arrived in September 8, 1499, to a hero’s reception. Da Gama’s second voyage to India was in 1502 and was made up of 20 ships. During this voyage, he bombarded the city of Calicut. He was able to sign treaties with the rajahs in the cities of Cochin and Cannanore. With his remaining 13 ships full of goods he set sail for Portugal on December 28, 1502. He reached Lisbon on September 1, 1503. King Manuel I rewarded him with the titles of admiral of the Indian Seas and count of Vidigueira. Da Gama was called upon again in 1524 by King João III the Pious when Portuguese affairs in India had been declining. The king appointed him viceroy of India and sent him there with 14 ships. The fleet left Lisbon on April 9, 1524, and arrived at the Indian port of Chaul on September 5, 1524, having lost two ships along the way. By the end of the month, he had reached Goa, the Portuguese capital in India. Da Gama tried to put an end to the corruption, but his harsh ways did not help. Then on Christmas night of 1524, he passed away. His body was not returned to Portugal until 1538. See also ships and shipping; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Bedini, Silvio A., ed. The Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992; Burton, Rosemary, Richard Cavendish, and Bernard Stonehouse. Journeys of the Great Explorers. New York: Facts on File, 1992; Disney, Anthony, and Emily Booth. Vasco da Gama and the Linking of Europe and Asia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Geneva Geneva is the city-state seen by many as the capital of the Calvinist Reformation in Europe; others have viewed its disciplinary program as the prototype for the surveillance systems in totalitarian societies. The truth lies somewhere in the middle; John Calvin’s prominence as the leader of the reformed movement has tended to mask independent developments in the Calvinist Reformation that occurred elsewhere, and the focus on Geneva ignores the similar development of religious disciplinary institutions throughout all of Western Europe. The emergence of the Reformation in Geneva is intimately related to the city’s attempt to establish its own autonomy over against its sovereign, a princebishop who was a puppet of the neighboring Duchy of Savoy. Over the course of the later 15th and early 16th centuries, the most important governmental functions had been turned over to the city’s magistrates, an elected group of representatives led by magistrates called syndics. In possession of the organization of taxation, coinage, diplomacy, and criminal jurisdiction as well as military defense, the syndics and their followers drove the bishop out in the late 1520s. Because Geneva did not control much of its food-supplying hinterlands, this rebellion was possible through alliances with the nearby city-states of Bern and Fribourg. Bern sent Protestant preachers to the newly autonomous city, urging the population to cast out Catholicism just as they had exiled their bishop. In 1536, under the influence of the preaching of William Farel, the citizens of Geneva voted to renounce the Mass. Bern protected the vulnerable city from attempts by Savoy to reinstate its influence. In 1536, Farel called a French visitor, Jean Calvin, to serve as a fellow reformer within the city. In 1538, when they and their fellow preachers tried to impose religious authority over the civil authority of the city council, they were expelled. Calvin went to Strasbourg and undertook the rhetorical defense of the city when the Catholic reformist cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto attempted to call it back to the old church. Geneva recalled Calvin in 1541 to create a church for the community. His ordinances for the city were the first attempt to create a reformed city constitution and a model for other communities throughout Europe. Though they may seem harsh from the modern perspective (mandating church attendance, for example, and forbidding dancing), they were not met with resistance and indeed spread to other European communities. This model was particularly influential in the establishment of early North American colonies a century later. Immigrants fleeing persecution in Europe rapidly fled to Geneva, taking what they learned there along and instituting at later stations in their life (John Knox, the Scottish reformer, sojourned in Geneva in the 1550s and brought his experiences back to influence decisively the polity and doctrine of the Church of Scotland). But the presence of the immigrants and their growing religious, political, and financial influence caused tension among the native Genevans and a faction in the city always challenged Calvin’s authority. This faction, led by the local notable Ami Perrin, was defeated in 1555 after a riot and its partisans were executed, exiled, or thrown out of the city government. The Genevan reformers created a “Company of Pastors” as missionaries for the 146 Geneva reformed cause into France, where their success caused severe controversy and bloodshed as the so-called Huguenot (French Protestant) movement spread. Geneva was most famous for its institutions, such as the Company of Pastors. The organization of its church policy in a structure with preachers, doctors, elders, and deacons presaged later Presbyterian polities in Scotland. In 1559, it founded an academy for the purpose of educating future reformed leaders. But its most notorious institution was the Geneva Consistory, a religious and morals court that met regularly to provide religious discipline for the local population. Its records have been edited by Robert M. Kingdon and are a fascinating source for the social history and everyday life of the period. Although its influence was widespread, its severity has been overstated. Most people called before it for minor transgressions were asked to repeat the catechism, the vernacular prayers that had replaced prayers in Latin during the Reformation, or the content of sermons that all were required to attend. If they could not do so, they were generally warned to be more attentive and cited to return to the court to demonstrate that they had reformed their lives. In fact, only one individual was executed for heresy during all of Calvin’s regime in Geneva—the antitrinitarian heretic Miguel Servetus, who had managed previously to escape the clutches of the Spanish Inquisition. Controversy over Calvin’s participation in the decision to burn Servetus at the stake produced the first sustained debate about the grounds for religious tolerance in Europe. After Calvin’s death, the Genevan church was headed by Theodore Beza, who, as his mentor, refused to alter reformed theology for the sake of compromise. This insistence, along with the tendency to develop in a manner most useful for academic teaching rather than the care of souls, has caused historians to characterize the later Genevan reformation as doctrinaire and Scholastic. Geneva continued to be threatened by Savoy’s attempts to regain its territory well into the 16th century. The Genevan academy continued in importance, but it was supplemented by theological centers at Heidelberg, Leiden, Herford, and other locations in the Low Countries and France. The success of the consistory model led to its implementation in other Calvinist cities such as Emden and even in nonreformed areas of Europe. See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Luther, Martin; Puritans and Puritanism. Further reading: Kingdon, Robert M. Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France. Geneva: Droz, 1956; Monter, William. Calvin’s Geneva. New York: John Wiley, 1967; Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988. Susan R. Boettcher Genroku period in Japan Between 1688 and 1704, a rapidly expanding economy resulted in the expansion of the three major cities in Japan— Kyoto, Osaka, and Edo (Tokyo)—and the emergence of an urban culture. This was the result of 80 years of peace under the Tokugawa Shogunate, when many people chose to move from samurai castles or villages to urban centers. The Genroku period saw Edo as the administrative capital, Osaka as the commercial center of the country, and Kyoto, the former imperial capital, retaining some of the artistic talent. Although the period covers the years 1688–1704, some cultural historians use the term to refer to the whole period, of the rule of the fifth shogun, Tokugawa Tsunayoshi, which lasted from 1680 until 1709. During this period, there was a massive increase in the number of towns people (chonin) who started to throw off the restrictions of the traditional Japanese lifestyle. They indulged in creative expressions such as changes in dress, food, and customs. The emerging urban class accumulated possessions on a far wider scale than before and filled their houses with furniture and paintings. With more spare time they indulged in extravagance and devoted themselves to making and spending money. At the end of the 16th century, improved printing techniques originally developed in Korea were introduced into Japan. By the 1670s, books were available more cheaply, and hence accessible to the urban middle class and wealthier artisans, satisfying their hunger for learning. Typical books dealt with literature, history, and philosophy. In addition there were large numbers of books imported from China and Korea. During the height of the Genroku period, stories were published that dealt with ordinary life in the cities and the exploits of samurai. One popular writer and poet, Matsuo Basho - (1644–94), traveled extensively around Japan during the 1670s and 1680s and described the country as well as created an anthology of poetry, including some in haiku form. There was also interest in more artists who produced woodblock prints in the genre known as ukiyo-e. Suzuki Harunobu (c. 1725–70) was the first artist to produce Genroku period in Japan 147 full-color woodblock prints, developing a multicolor technique using between four and 10 colors. As a result of advances in printing, illustrated books became popular, as well as handbills and advertising for theatrical performances and geisha houses. In other areas of the arts, such as the bunraku puppet theater and kabuki theater, attendance increased with many ordinary people watching performances that had been the preserve of the daimyo and the samurai. Most actors who had previously worked in traveling troupes began to work in semipermanent theaters that allowed them to have a more settled life. The result was that acting became a more respectable profession. Playwright Chikamatsu Monzaemon (1653–1724) was the first to use the bunraku puppets to show everyday themes and ordinary emotions, writing a total of 100 plays, which were performed to large audiences. Although the Genroku period came to an end in the early 18th century, the literary and artistic advances were to be revived again during the Bunka-Bunsei period (1804–29), when Edo emerged as the sole cultural center of Japan. See also Bushido, Tokugawa Period in japan; Tokugawa bakuhan system, japan. Further reading: Dunn, C. J. Everyday Life in Traditional Japan. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1969; McClain, James L., and Wakita Osamu, eds. Osaka, the Merchant’s Capital of Early Modern Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Justin Corfield George I (1660–1727) first Hanoverian king of England George I of England came to the throne of England through the Act of Settlement of 1701. This legislation, passed by the British parliament, ensured the succession of Protestant heirs to the throne of England. James II of the House of Stuart had been a Roman Catholic and had been expelled in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Carried to England on a “Protestant wind,” his daughter Mary and her husband, William III of Orange, the stadtholder of the Netherlands, took his place on the throne. Although William would act as king, it was always clear that he did so through his wife, Mary. The line of succession was established so that if William and Mary were to die without producing an heir, the Crown would pass to Mary’s Protestant sister, Anne. Mary died in 1694, and William would follow her in death in 1702. Anne, who had been born in 1665, became queen on William’s death. Anne, too, would die without issue in 1714, and, under the explicit terms of the Act of Settlement, the throne passed to Sophia, the electress of Hanover in Germany. The English parliament decided to amend the law of succession to the throne in favor of the Protestant House of Stuart. In default of heirs from William III of Orange—who had ruled alone in England after the death of Mary in 1694—or Anne, the act declared that the English Crown would devolve upon Princess Sophia and her Protestant heirs. Ironically, Sophia died before Anne in August 1714. Therefore, the Crown of England passed to her son, who became George i, king of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as the elector of Hanover in the Holy Roman Empire. The lineage made George I’s succession direct and in accord with the Act of Succession. Born in 1660, George I was the son of Elector Ernest and Sophia, who was the granddaughter of James I of England. James himself, first the king of Scotland, had established the Stuart dynasty on the English throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the last of the House of Tudor to rule in England, in 1603. New in his realm, George I at first relied on advisers from Hanover. Although he was not a man of particularly acute knowledge, as had been King Charles II, he was able to judge those who had talent. He used these able men to govern his new kingdom for him. Under George I, John Churchill, the first duke of Marlborough, was allowed again to enjoy the fruits of his victories, as England’s most respected general. In politics, Robert Walpole was the brightest star. A leading member of the Whig Party, Walpole became so central to the administration of government that some historians consider him the first British prime minister. However, Walpole’s period of favor with the king was relatively brief. His concern that George I was subordinating England’s interests to Hanover, especially since the British sacrifices in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–13), led to a complete rupture with the monarch. Walpole left office and George’s own son, the future George II, left the royal palace to set up an opposing government. Three years after he broke with Walpole, George I invited Walpole back to his government in 1720. Moreover, Walpole effected a reconciliation between the king and his son. By 1724, Walpole and his brother-in-law, Charles, Viscount Townshend, virtually were the government. In foreign and military affairs, George I had difficulty in his choice of advisers. In September 1715, John Erskine, the earl of Mar, raised the standard of Anne’s 148 George I half brother James, whose goal was to attempt a restoration of a Catholic Stuart dynasty in Scotland. Mar represented perhaps George’s worst political mistake; Mar turned against the king after he was driven out of government. Parliament passed the Riot Act and 100,000 British pounds was offered for the apprehension of James. With the Jacobites, as the supporters of James were known (James is Jacobus in Latin), the British military authorities immediately turned toward Marlborough. On November 13, 1715, the government troops under the duke of Argyll defeated the Jacobites at Sheriffmuir. Mar withdrew, and by the time James finally arrived, the most that he could do was to evacuate some of his followers back with him to France. George’s punishment against his enemies was swift and harsh; 30 Jacobites were executed. Still, the Jacobites rose again four years later in a rebellion against Scotland launched from Spain. As with the majority of the British, the Lowland Scots had come to associate George I with stability that made everyday life feel safe. Thus, by 1724, England enjoyed a peaceful life, with a steady government led by Walpole. In 1727, George I suffered a stroke and died on his way to his beloved Hanover. See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Reformation, the. Further reading: Churchill, Winston S. The Age of Revolutions. New York: Bantam Books, 1963; Churchill, Winston S. Marlborough: His Life and Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. John Murphy George II (1683–1760) king of England George II was born into the House of Hanover in 1683 in the Schloss (Castle) Herrenhausen, which had been the seat of the dynasty since George, the duke of Brunswick- Luneberg, moved to Hanover during the Thirty Years’ War. When George II’s father became king of England, the court moved from Herrenhausen to London. Unlike George i, who had a bevy of mistresses, George II was devoted to his wife, Caroline of Anspach, whom he wed in 1705. Caroline, the daughter of the margrave of Brandenburg-Anspach, accompanied her husband to England when his father, usually known as the elector of Hanover, became king of England in 1714. Caroline of Anspach was one of the most illustrious women of her age and a patroness of science and philosophy. When the great philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646– 1716) was at Schloss Herrenhausen, Caroline was his best student. The rule of George I featured a stormy relationship between George I and his son. In a dispute over British policy in Germany, the future George II broke with his father when Robert Walpole, George I’s prime minister, felt that British interests were being subordinated to those of Hanover in Europe. With Caroline’s help, the future George II set up what amounted to a government in exile at Leicester House, where Caroline established a learned salon similar to what she had at Schloss Herrenhausen. However, father and son were reconciled and in 1720, Walpole returned to the government. When George I died in Germany in 1727, his son immediately became king, as much a testimony to the skill of Walpole as to the Act of Succession of 1701. When James Edward Stuart, the son of James II, invaded Scotland in 1715 and 1719, it showed the value of his legislation in the eyes of those who favored the Hanovers over the Stuarts. For the duration of George I’s reign and much of George II’s, the threat of a Stuart restoration to the throne was real. In 1745, the son of James Edward, Bonnie Prince Charlie, did in fact land in Scotland and administer two stinging defeats to the Hanoverian army at Prestonpans and Falkirk and occupied Scotland. This precipitated the greatest crisis of George II’s kingship. Bonnie Prince Charlie reached as far south as Derby in England, but concerned about a lack of support among the English, he began his retreat north again. George II, who at Dettingen in 1743 in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48) had been the last British king to take part in a battle, sent his son, George Augustus, duke of Cumberland, in pursuit of Bonnie Prince Charlie. At Culloden Moor in April 1746, Cumberland defeated him in a decisive engagement. Aside from the Stuart threat, the kingdom, which included Scotland and Ireland, enjoyed peace and stability, shown by the rise of the middle class and the birth of modern English literature. Henry Fielding gained prominence in the reign of George II. Fielding’s satiric plays incurred the wrath of Walpole, who set about closing Fielding’s theater. Rebounding from this defeat, he would go on to write his greatest novel, The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling (1749), which perhaps better than any other work presents life in the time of the second George. Daniel Defoe had an active career through the reigns of Queen Anne, George I, and George II. In 1756, Britain became involved in the Seven Years’ War, which had actually begun in the conflict George II 149 between the British and French colonies in North America in 1754. The war soon spread to encompass much of the world, although the decisive battles would be fought in Europe and America. Britain’s greatest ally was Frederick the Great of Prussia, an admirer of the French field marshal Maurice de Saxe. The use of English money as a subsidy, an inheritance from Walpole’s passionate pursuit of mercantilism, enabled Frederick to field an army that, along with his undisputed military genius, would keep at bay the combined forces of France, the Austrian Empire, and Russia. William Pitt was an accomplished and reliable wartime prime minister for England. He strategically strengthened the British navy, sent fleets where they would be most effective, and oversaw supply exchanges with allies. After several years of reverses, British arms in 1758 scored several victories against France, earning both the king and Pitt great popularity among the people. In 1760, at the height of his power, George tragically succumbed to a stroke. Since his son Frederic Louis had died in 1751, his grandson succeeded him on the throne as George III. From his grandfather, George III inherited a monarchy—and an empire—at the height of its power and prestige. See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Stuart, house of; Reformation, the. Further reading: Plumb, John Howard. The First Four Georges. Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1975; Van der Kiste, John. George II and Queen Caroline. Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1998; White, John Manchip. The Life and Times of Maurice, Comte de Saxe, 1696– 1750. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally, 1962. John Murphy Glorious Revolution The 1688 Glorious Revolution, sometimes known as the “Bloodless Revolution,” represented a culminating stage in Britain’s tumultuous 17th century history, a history characterised by the struggle between king and Parliament, and most notably, between Catholic and Protestant. The crisis of 1688 came about following the succession of James II to the throne following the death of his brother, Charles II, in 1685. James was a committed Catholic; he hoped to strengthen the Catholic position if not restore it and return lost powers to the monarchy. James also wanted to transform and expand the army, which was dominated by a Protestant officer corps of aristocrats and gentlemen. James desired more Catholic officers whose loyalty was to the Crown. A more Catholic army might help him pursue his political agenda. This agenda brought him into conflict with the Test Act, passed under Charles II, which required all those seeking military or civil posts to accept the Anglican Church and its teachings. Following the earlier suppression of the Monmouth and Argyll rebellions, James was emboldened and started his campaign to reject the Test Act, and appointed Catholic loyalists to key state and university positions. He issued a Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, which ended penal laws against Catholics, and followed this with a Second Declaration of Indulgence in 1688, which furthered the pro-Catholic policy and led to unrest among his bishops, and the alienation of both the Tories and Whigs in Parliament. James increased the political divides within the country, and when his wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son on June 10, 1688, there was now the prospect of a Catholic succession. The conspiracy to overthrow James began in earnest, and a mixed Tory and Whig parliamentary group approached the Dutch prince, William of Orange, and his wife, Mary, the Protestant daughter of James, to go to England to assume the throne. William agreed to accept the Crown in order to gain English resources for his war against Louis Xiv of France. William landed at Brixham, near Torbay in Devon, on November 5, 1688, with an army of some 14,000 composed mainly of Dutch, Brandenburger, Finnish, Swedish, and French troops. Although James’s army stationed on Salisbury Plain had double the manpower, his confidence failed, and on November 23, he withdrew toward London. His meddling with the army now took its toll and many of his men deserted, including Lord Churchill (later duke of Marlborough), so that by December 10, his force was reduced to approximately 4,000 men. Lord Feversham, James’s leading commander, interpreted the situation as hopeless and disbanded his army without a fight. On December 17, Dutch Guards took over Whitehall, the seat of government, and James attempted to flee the country. He was captured in Kent, but eventually was allowed to leave England. The taste for further regicide had passed. In 1689, a Convention of Parliament decided that James’s departure was an abdication. William and Mary could now accept the throne on February 13, 1689, as legitimate joint rulers. To prevent future disruptions of this sort, Parliament passed a Declaration of Rights and a Bill of Rights in 1689. These acts redefined the monarch’s position and authority in regard to 150 Glorious Revolution his/her subjects, ending absolutism and any possibility of a Catholic monarchy. This redefinition of power created a constitutional monarchy, the form of government that continues today. James however was not finished with his struggle to regain the throne. In 1689–90 he turned his attention to Scotland and Ireland, where he hoped to exploit nationalist and Catholic feeling. This first Jacobite rebellion in Scotland failed, and it led to the construction of Fort William to subdue the region. In March 1689, James landed in Ireland with French troops thinking it would become a base to retake England. At Enniskillen, the Jacobites were pushed back. In June 1690, William landed his forces in Ireland and encountered James’s army at the Boyne on July 1, 1690. William outflanked the Jacobite army, who were forced to retreat, while James once more fled to France. The remnants of James’s army continued to struggle on. They suffered further defeat at Aughrim on July 12, 1691, before surrendering totally that October. The Glorious Revolution, according to some historians, was more of a coup d’etat than a revolution proper and might better be described as the Revolution of 1688. The after-effects were not bloodless. The revolution helped seal English rule over Ireland, the seed of future unrest. However, its most lasting effects were constitutional monarchy, the end of absolutism, and the ascendancy of Parliament as the nation’s paramount political force. See also absolutism, European; Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Reformation, the. Further reading: Childs, John. The Army, James II and the Glorious Revolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1980; Cruickshanks, Eveline. The Glorious Revolution. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2000; Israel, Jonathan I., ed. The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and Its World Impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Miller, John. The Glorious Revolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 1997. Theodore W. Eversole Goa, colonization of This port city on the west coast of India was the center of Portuguese influence in India from 1510 until 1961, and at its height, in the early 17th century, was one of the great cities in the region. Goa as a port dates to the third century b.c.e. A Portuguese force under Afonso de Albuquerque with 20 ships and 1,200 men took the town in 1510 from Muslim rulers. Albuquerque had all Muslim men there killed, and gradually a Portuguese town of Goa began. The nearby regions of Bardez and Salcete were added to the areas under Portugal’s control and these areas together became known as the “Old Conquests.” Missionaries arrived, the most famous being Spanish Jesuit Francis Xavier (later sainted). The Inquisition was established in Goa in 1560 and operated until 1774. Goa was initially threatened by a large Muslim force, which, in 1570, besieged the city for nearly a year. When Portugal merged with Spain in 1580, Goa was attacked by the English and the Dutch also. Goa thrived in the early 17th century and was said to exceed Lisbon in wealth with a population of 200,000. However Goa was located in a swampy area and diseases caused major health problems. In the late 18th century, Portugal acquired additional lands near to its original holdings. These areas became known as the “New Conquests.” There were major differences between the “Old Conquests” and the “New Conquests.” In the former the population was overwhelmingly Catholic while in the latter there were large numbers of Hindus and Hindu temples survived. Freedom of worship was restored to the Hindus in 1833. In 1752, the capital was moved from Goa to Panaji for health reasons. The old capital had been easy to protect from attack since the British accepted the Portuguese enclave on the west coast of India. Defense from enemies was no longer a problem. Goa continued as a Portuguese colony until 1961. Further reading: Cartia, Helder. Palaces of Goa: Models and Types of Indo-Portuguese Civil Architecture. London: Robert Hale, 1999; Kaye, Myriam. Introduction to Bombay and Goa. Hong Kong: Odyssey Guides, 1991; Leasor, James. The Sea Wolves. London: Corgi, 1980; Rémy. Goa: Rome of the Orient. London: Arthur Barker, 1957; Turner, Christopher. Visitor’s Guide to Goa. Ashbourne, UK: MPC, 1995. Justin Corfield Godunov, Boris (c. 1551–1605) Russian czar Boris Godunov was born in about 1551 and was one of the transitional figures in a nation’s history who keeps the machinery of state running in times of crisis. Godunov first came into prominence as one of the apparatchiks of Godunov, Boris 151 Ivan IV (the Terrible), who helped that czar organize his social and administrative system. This must have also clandestinely involved operating the oprichnina, the secret state police that Ivan used to keep his realm in a state of terror. The oprichniki, as they were called, used to ride through Russia with wolves’ heads tethered to their saddles to frighten the population into submission. Ivan IV died in 1584 at the height of his power, having carried on a long correspondence with none other than Queen Elizabeth I of England. In the year after his death, the Cossack Yermak died in Siberia, but not before starting the massive Russian drang nach osten (drive to the east) that would take the Russians to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. There they established the city of Vladivostok. When Ivan died, his son Theodore succeeded him to the throne as Theodore I. Theodore charged Boris with leading the Russian counterattack again Kuchum, the Siberian khan who had killed Yermak. Under Boris’s firm military hand, the Russians built two fortified trading posts at Tobolsk and Tyumen to guard their new frontier in Siberia. Theodore’s younger brother, Dimitri, died in 1591, and Theodore followed him in 1598. Whatever scruples the Russians may have had in the deaths of Ivan’s two sons, they were willing to sacrifice everything on the altar of expediency. Caught between a hostile Poland and Ottoman Turkey, they needed a strong man in the Kremlin to guide the affairs of the state, and Boris seemed the most likely candidate. Any doubts about Boris’s suitability to rule had been washed away in the year of Dimitri’s death. In that year, a vast horde of 150,000 Tartars swept out of the Crimean Khanate. Khan Ghazi Gerei II was determined to destroy Russia before it could attack the Crimea. On July 4, 1591, outside Moscow Boris met the Tartars with a fraction of the Russian army. The muskets and artillery held by Boris and his commander, Prince Theodore Mstislavsky, wreaked terrible slaughter as thousands of Tartars were killed or wounded. The next day, Godunov and Mstislavsky launched a furious pursuit of the panicstricken Tartars, marking the beginning of the decline of the Crimean Khanate. To the Russian people, Boris was obviously the man to lead them, and he was raised to be czar by the Russian Great Assembly in February 1598. Constantly insecure on his throne, Boris feared one family among the boyars—the Romanovs. Ivan IV’s first wife, Anastasia, had been a member of the Romanov family and had been the wife of Theodore I. With the death of Theodore I, the Riurik dynasty became extinct, and the Romanovs had an excellent claim on the throne. In June 1601, Boris moved against the Romanovs, taking their lands and banishing them from Moscow. He continued efforts to modernize the medieval Grand Duchy of Muscovy into the Russian empire. The Russian Orthodox Church was formally organized, and Boris continued a policy of peace in the west. In 1604, Boris faced a new danger. A challenger to the throne, known as the False Dimitri, appeared, supported by the Poles, who were determined to weaken the growing Russian state. Dmitri claimed to be the son of Ivan come back to claim his father’s throne. People rallied to him. The Cossacks, always looking for an opportunity for a good fight and loot, joined his cause. In spring 1604, Boris’s brother and minister of the interior, Simeon, led a force against the Cossacks. However, he was defeated by them and sent back with the message that the Cossacks would soon enough arrive with the real czar—Dimitri. In November 1604, Dimitri committed a grave tactical mistake. Rather than pressing on to take Moscow, he committed his army to the prolonged siege of the city of Novgorod Seversk. The commander of Novgorod Seversk, Peter Basamov, managed to defeat all attempts to take the town. On January 20, 1605, battle erupted. None could make headway against the closely mustered musketeers and artillery of Boris’s army. However, in a major tactical blunder, the leaders of Boris’s relief army squandered their victory. Rather than pursue the enemy into the steppes, they instead decided on punishing the cities that had sworn allegiance to the false czar. Suddenly in April 1605, Czar Boris died; many suspected he had been poisoned. In May 1605, Peter Basamov, the defender of Novgorod Seversk, swore allegiance to Dimitri. With Peter’s support, Dimitri entered Moscow in triumph. Both Dimitri and Basamov would be killed. Foreign invasion and internal dissent continued to tear apart the Russian state. See also Mughal Empire; Ottoman Empire (1450– 1750). Further reading: Bartlett, Roger. A History of Russia. New York: Palgrave, 2005; Chambers, James. The Devil’s Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe. New York: Atheneum, 1979; Duffy, James P., and Vincent L. Ricci. Tsars: Russia’s Rulers for over One Thousand Years. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995; Hildinger, Erik. Warriors of the Steppe, a Military History of Central Asia, 500 b.c. to 1700 a.d. New York: Da Capo, 1997; Hingley, Ronald. Russia: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2003; Lincoln, W. 152 Godunov, Boris Bruce. Romanovs: Autocrats of All the Russians. New York: Doubleday, 1981. John Murphy Great Wall of China, the Most of the Great Wall of China that stands now was built in the second half of the 16th century during the Ming dynasty to connect the principal garrison points of the Ming defensive system against Mongol attacks. Being northern nomads the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty had no need for the Great Wall as a defense barrier. In 1368, a Chinese rebel, Zhu Yuanzhang (Chu Yuan-chang), ended the Yuan dynasty, established the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), and gained complete control of both Inner and Outer Mongolia almost to Lake Baikal and to Hami in the northwest. His son Yongle (Yung-lo), the third Ming emperor, was also a seasoned commander and personally led five campaigns into Mongolia in the early 15th century. Then he chose a defensive posture against the approximately 2 million Mongols whose homeland stretched from northwestern Manchuria, across Mongolia and modern Xinjiang (Sinkiang). Mongols still nurtured the dream of rebuilding the empire of Genghis Khan but fortunately for the Ming, they were divided and often warred with one another. In a pattern that went back for 2,000 years, the sedentary Chinese and their nomadic northern neighbors had conducted official trade under the tributary system. Thus Mongol chiefs were enrolled as Ming vassals, paid tribute, and received gifts in return. Mongols also sold livestock, especially horses, to the Chinese in exchange for Chinese raw materials and manufactured goods such as silks, tea, and metals. Great Wall of China, the 153 The Great Wall of China meanders across mountains and valleys. Most of the Great Wall that stands now was built during the second half of the 16th century during the Ming dynasty. After his conquests, Emperor Yongle (r. 1402–24) decided to withdraw to an inner line of defense and divided the northern border into the Nine Defense Areas, each guarded by a garrison along a line that eventually became the Great Wall. It stretched from Shanhaiguan (Shanhaikuan) or Mountain Sea Pass in the east to Jiayuguan (Chiayukuan) 1,500 miles to the west. It was a gigantic project. Stone was used for the lower courses, facing, and gates, while rubble filled the core. Huge kilns fired large bricks where stone was not available; bricks were also used for the towers and crenellations. Although not uniform throughout most of the wall measured 35 feet high and 25 feet wide at the top with towers every half a mile or so that reach to 50 feet. Where the land is mountainous the wall followed the crest of the ridges; it blocked roadways and damned rivers. Since the Ming capital Beijing (Peking) was close to the wall (one day’s ride), more than a hundred passes or barriers with monumental gateways guarded strategic points along the eastern section to the sea at Sanhaiguan. At the western terminus at Jiayuguan (Chiayukuan) at the northwestern tip of Gansu (Kansu) province another formidable fortress marked the starting point of the Silk Road. The Great Wall was Ming China’s inner line of defense against the nomadic Mongols in the north and wall building continued to the end of the dynasty. Yet it was not totally effective because the Mongols were able to breach or bypass it. Its building exhibited sophisticated technology and consumed vast resources. Further reading: Jagchid, Sechin, and Van Jay Symons. Peace, War, and Trade along the Great Wall, Nomadic-Chinese Interaction through Two Millennia. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1989; Waldron, Arthur N. The Great Wall of China: From History to Myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Guicciardini, Francesco (1483–1540) historian, diplomat, and statesman Guicciardini was born in Florence to patrician parents. After receiving a humanistic education, he obtained a degree in civil law from the University of Padua and began practicing law in Florence. In a calculated maneuver that was designed for political advancement, he married Maria Salviati, whose family was aligned with the Medici. Within a few years of his marriage, he became ambassador to Ferdinand of Aragon for the Republic of Florence and later served in the Florentine government when the Medici family held political power. Although Guicciardini was critical of clerical abuses in the church, he did not hesitate to accept political preference from the papacy when it was to his advantage. He was an official in several cities and territories in the Papal States under popes Leo X and Clement VII and served as counselor and papal lieutenant general for the latter. Guicciardini’s writings on politics and history are extensive. They include a history of Florence and a critique of his friend Niccolò Machiavelli’s Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy. However, today Guicciardini is appreciated primarily for his Ricordi and for his magnum opus, The History of Italy. The Ricordi’s maxims offer a set of reflections on politics, history, and the conduct of life. Those that deal with Guicciardini’s sense of history demonstrate that he held a view of history that differed from that of Machiavelli and humanist historians, who perceived history as exemplary and counseled their contemporaries to imitate ancient Rome. Guicciardini stressed that the mutability of human affairs, driven by the conflicting self-interests of leaders, coupled with the unpredictability of fortune make it impossible to derive lessons from history. To expect his contemporaries to act like citizens of ancient Rome, he wrote, was similar to expecting a jackass to behave like a horse. Guicciardini believed that the value of history lies in its ability to preserve the memory of the past. The History of Italy is the product of his mature thinking about the momentous events that he participated in or was witness to from the l490s to 1534. Its scope and its stress on the self-aggrandizement of the secular and religious leaders of the time give the book an appeal that far exceeds the parochial orientation of humanist history. The book opens with the invasion of Italy in 1494 by the forces of Charles VIII of France, an event that Guicciardini regarded as calamitous because it opened the door to repeated invasions by European powers. It marked the end of city-state hegemony on the peninsula and the balance of power politics brokered by Lorenzo de’ Medici. The discovery of the New World, the spread of syphilis in Europe, and an awareness of the impending rift in Christianity are also features of the book. The History ends with the rapacious sack of Rome by the Imperial forces of Charles V and the death of Pope Clement VII. Guicciardini was 154 Guicciardini, Francesco completing the History when he died at his estate in Santa Margherita on May 22, 1540. Further reading: Bondanella, Peter. Francesco Guicciardini. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1976; Gilbert, Felix. Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965; Phillips, Mark. Francesco Guicciardini: The Historian’s Craft. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. Louis B. Gimelli
Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit
Garibaldi, Giuseppi (1807–1882) unifi er of Italy Giuseppi Garibaldi, known as the Liberator in Italy, was born in Nice, the port of Piedmont-Sardinia. By 1824 he was a sailor and was committed to the unifi cation of Italy. In 1834, after acquiring a license as a merchant captain, he took part in an abortive republican rising in Genoa. Sentenced to death, he fl ed to South America, where he married his fi rst wife, Anita, who was to fi ght beside him in all of his battles. Between 1836 and 1848 he was active as a soldier and a naval captain in the area around São Paulo in its ultimately futile attempt to break away from Brazil. Transferring his services at Orientale Province, he supported the province’s attempt to establish its independence by forming the Italian Legion and being placed in charge of the defense of Montevideo and the small Orientale (Uruguayan) fl eet. His victories at Cerro and Sant’ Antonio helped to establish Uruguayan independence. In 1848 he returned to Italy and volunteered to fi ght for Italian unifi cation. Afterward he aided in military efforts to fi ght off French attacks on the Roman republic and defeat the forces of the Bourbon rulers of Naples. In the summer of 1849, when the Roman republic fell to overwhelming French forces, he disbanded his troops in San Marino. After being pursued by Austrian armies, he departed for America. His wife died during the retreat. Garibaldi returned to Italy in 1854 and in 1859 took part in battles against Austrian forces, enjoying many victories. The great moment of his life occurred in 1860. Landing with 1,000 volunteers in May with his “Red Shirts” in Sicily, he defeated the Neapolitan army and drove it out of Sicily. By September and October, he had defeated the Neapolitan army on the mainland at the Battles of Reggio and the Volturno. He also arrived in Naples, and, by November, all of Naples and Sicily were in his hands. He then, although republican in sympathy, gave basically the whole of southern Italy to the Piedmontese monarchy. After unsuccessful attempts to unite Rome with the new Italian state, he returned to battle in 1866, when he led a voluntary army against Austria. He defeated the Austrians at Monte Saello, Darso, Condino, and Bezzecca in July 1866. The war ended with Venetia being united with Italy. In the 1860s, he volunteered for the French army in the Franco- Prussian War after France declared itself a republic. He secured victories at Châtillon, Autun, and Dijon. Rome was occupied during the war as French troops withdrew. Garibaldi served in the French assembly for four years and then returned to Italy, where he was sporadically active in politics. For most of the decade, however, he was in retirement on the island of Caprera north of Sardinia. A skilled seaman and soldier, he was moderate enough to avoid the temptation of power. Garibaldi could have gained power in Naples and Sicily, but, guided by his vision of a united Italy, he shelved his republican convictions so as to form the second vision. His role in the founding of Uruguay G and Italy puts him in rare company as a father of two nations. See also Italian nationalism/unifi cation; Uruguay, creation of. Further reading: Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. Refl ections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Macmillan, 1991; Bayles, Derek. The Risorgimiento and Unifi cation of Italy. New York: Allen and Unwin, 1982; Hobsbaum, Eric. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Mosse, Werner Eugen. Liberal Europe: The Age of Bourgeois Realism, 1848–1878. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1974; Trevelyan, G. M. Garabaldi and the Making of Italy. New York: Phoenix Press. Reprint, 2002; Weiss, John. Conservatism in Europe. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977. Norman C. Rothman gauchos This was the name given to the horsemen who worked on the Argentine and Uruguayan pampas from the middle of the 18th century until the late 19th century, having a similar image in Latin America as the cowboys have in North America. The term is sometimes also applied to horsemen in Chilean Patagonia, in southern Paraguay, and in Brazil, where the Portuguese term gaúcho is used. There are many theories about the origin of the word gaucho. It was fi rst used around the time of the independence of Argentina in 1816, and some claim it is a corruption of the term quechua, or huachu, meaning “orphan” or “vagabond”. Others say it derives from the Arabic word chaucho, which is a Middle Eastern term for a type of whip used in herding animals. The Spanish introduced cattle into Argentina in 1531 when they established the fi rst settlement at Buenos Aires. Five years later Indians destroyed the fort, and it was not until 1580 that the Spanish reestablished a presence at Buenos Aires. By that time, cattle that had escaped nearly 50 years earlier had bred and started to form large herds in the pampas. Horsemen rounded up the cattle, and by the early 18th century an important beef and leather industry was fl ourishing. The ability to salt beef and, by the mid-19th century, to refrigerate it ensured that the Argentine and Uruguayan economy would be dominated by the beef industry. The men who rounded up the cattle and wild horses were well known for their skills of horsemanship and their ability to live in the pampas and in Patagonia, in southern Argentina, and Chile. They gained a reputation for being fearless and tough, but also for maintaining feuds and being cruel in fi ghting. Unlike the North American cowboy who tended to be of Spanish or British stock, the gauchos came from a variety of backgrounds. Some were of Spanish descent, but most were mestizos (of mixed European and Indian descent). There were also numbers of black—descendants of African slaves brought to the Americas—and mulattos (of mixed black and European ancestry). As with the North American cowboys, gauchos rode and fought prodigiously. They used the lasso, the curved knife, and also the boledoras (or bolas). This last weapon was a leather cord that had three iron or stone balls sewn into it. It was thrown at the legs of an animal and, entwining itself quickly, would bring the creature to the ground. Gauchos also had a characteristic dress—with a broad sombrero, a shirt, wide trousers known as bombachas, tied at the ankles, and tight- Known in Italy as the Liberator, Giuseppe Garibaldi was instrumental in the creation of two independent nations. 150 gauchos fi tting leather boots. In cold weather they would wear a woolen poncho that was either a quiet sandy color or very brightly colored wool. During the 1850s, many gauchos in Entre Ríos wore red to show their support for their local leader, Urquiza. On his saddle a gaucho would often carry a rolled blanket. When not riding with the cattle, gauchos lived in small mud huts, where families slept on piles of hides. Most were nominally Roman Catholic, although their religious beliefs tended to include local superstitions. As with their North American counterparts, they would spend much of their spare time drinking, gambling, playing the guitar (or later the accordion), and singing about their exploits or those of other gauchos. They generally ate beef and drank yerba maté, a local herbal drink consumed communally. During the 1820s much of the land of Argentina was taken over by a small number of pastoralists and speculators who formed massive estancias. This resulted in the gauchos becoming employees of these cattle barons, to whom they were unswervingly loyal. A few of these men became caudillos or warlords controlling provinces and infl uencing national politics in both Uruguay and Argentina. During the fi ghting between the Unitarists (based in Buenos Aires and believing in a strongly centralized government) and the Federalists (who wanted regional autonomy), the gauchos supported the latter. Led by men like Urquiza, they earned a reputation for being fearless in battle and utterly ruthless to their opponents, especially after the massacres that followed the capture of Quinteros in 1858. Gradually, the regional leaders began to lose their infl uence, and the murder of Urquiza in 1870 marked the end of the political infl uence of the gauchos. The importance of the railways that began to cover much of northern and central Argentina also helped erode their economic power. Some were able to continue as farmhands, while others moved to the cities. In Uruguay, the role of the gaucho in politics had ended fi ve years earlier than in Argentina with the end of the cycle of wars for control of the country. However, they remained an important part of Uruguayan life into the 20th century. In both Chilean and Argentine Patagonia, gauchos remained until the early 20th century, but never as the political or military force they had been farther north. Many people had a long-time fascination with gauchos, and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, in Facundo (1845), subtitled Life in the Argentine Republic in the Days of the Tyrants; or, Civilization and Barbarism, wrote one of the few detailed accounts about gauchos when they were at the height of their political power. As with the North American cowboys, it was just as the gauchos began to lose their importance that books on them started to be published. La literatura gauchesca became popular with Estanislao del Campo’s epic Fausto (1866) and José Hernández’s epic poem El gaucho Martín Fierro (1872). Some gaucho ballads and folk stories were also recorded and published, and in Uruguay books by Javier de Viana and Carlos Reyes became popular. One of the most famous novels was Ricardo Güiraldes’ Don Segundo Sombra (1926). There are still many traces of gauchos in Argentina, Uruguay, and Chilean Patagonia, and gaucho-style leatherwork can be seen in all three countries, as well as in southern Paraguay and parts of Brazil. In Calle Florida in Buenos Aires, expensive restaurants specializing in beef have people dressed as traditional gauchos, and the Museo del Gaucho y de la Moneda (Museum of Gauchos and Money) in Montevideo is popular with many tourists. There are also some estancias in Argentina and Uruguay that allow tourists to experience a small part of the gaucho life and culture. See also Uruguay, creation of. Further reading: Bruggmann, Maximilien. Gauchos. Paris: Bibliothèque des Arts, 1978; Koebel, W. H. Modern Argentina. London: Francis Griffi ths, 1907; Oliven, Ruben George. Tradition Matters: Modern Gaucho Identity in Brazil. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996; Slatta, Richard W. Gauchos and the Vanishing Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983. Justin Corfi eld German unifi cation, wars of The period between 1864 and 1871 saw three wars that resulted in the unifi cation of Germany. In essence, this period saw the formation of a German state under the infl uence of Prussia, guided by its chief minister, Otto von Bismarck. Prussia had put itself in a good position to lead Germany. The German Zollverein, or Customs Union, that broke down physical and fi nancial barriers had been formed in 1819. By 1842, under Prussian leadership, it included most of central and northern Germany. Its rival, Austria, was kept out on the grounds that the bulk of its empire was non-German and outside the traditional borders of The Holy Roman Empire and its successor, the German Confederation. In addition, Prussia had gained millions of new German subjects by German unification, wars of 151 the Congress of Vienna in return for giving up some of its Polish subjects; it received much of Saxony, much of the Rhineland and Westphalia, and dominated northern and western Germany. It had the effect of turning Prussia into a German state. In Bismarck, appointed in 1862, it had a practitioner of power politics who could gauge the attitude of his opponents and take advantage of opportunities. It was unlucky that neither of Germany’s neighbors, France nor Russia, would welcome a united Germany and might combine to stop it. Bismarck secured the acquiescence of Russia by providing assistance to Russia when it put down Polish disturbances in 1863. Moreover, he promised Russia that he would aid them in future Polish-related problems, thereby gaining a secure eastern front and the avoidance of a two-front confl ict. Bismarck had as his goal the expansion of Prussia. If this resulted in the unifi cation of Germany, it would be a positive by-product. The two obstacles were Austria and France. Although polyglot in composition, Austria’s ruling dynasty had held the position of emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the precursor of the German Confederation between 1438 and 1806. France had benefi ted from the disunity of Germany for over three centuries. THE FIRST WAR The fi rst of the three wars was over the provinces of Schleswig and Holstein. The provinces that were either German in composition, as in the case of the Holstein, or partly German, as in the case of Schleswig, were united to Denmark by family inheritance through the house of Oldenburg, With the impending end of the direct male line of the crown of Denmark, the German Confederation claimed the two duchies. Denmark promised to respect the political independence of the two duchies. This agreement was violated in November 1863, when the new king, Christian IX, accepted a constitution that included the incorporation of the northern mixed population duchy of Schleswig into Denmark proper. When Denmark refused to cancel this act, Austria and Prussia as representatives of the Confederation, declared war. The Austrians, geographically separated from Schleswig-Holstein, would have been content to allow the duchies to remain tied to the crown of Denmark by a personal union. Bismarck, however, was determined to add the duchies by one means or another. Denmark, certain that the powers would aid her, refused. War resulted. The Jutland Peninsula was occupied between January and April 1864. After an attempt at mediation by the Great Powers between April and June 1864 failed, hostilities were renewed. Bismarck made some vague hints to Napoleon III of compensation, perhaps in Belgium or Luxembourg, to secure French neutrality. Britain, under a liberal Whig administration, was sympathetic to German nationalist feeling, and Russia’s neutrality had already been secured. Therefore, hostilities were renewed, and by fall much of the Jutland Peninsula had been occupied and the major Danish island of Funen had been threatened. Denmark’s position was such that it was forced to sign the Treaty of Gastein. As a result, Austria administered Holstein, and Prussia controlled Schleswig on behalf of the German Confederation. WAR BETWEEN GERMANY AND AUSTRIA It was nearly inevitable that confl ict would then occur between Austria and Prussia. Austria had nothing to gain by keeping Holstein separated from Austria by central and northern Germany, while Prussia could annex Schleswig-Holstein to connect Prussian Brandenburg with its Rhenish possession. When Austria proposed that the provinces be returned to the legitimate heir of the senior cadet line of the house of Denmark, Bismarck said this was a violation of the Treaty of Gastein and sent troops into Holstein. Austria, supported by the majority of members of the German Confederation, declared war on June 1, 1866. The Austrians at the time were distracted by a domestic crisis with the Hungarians and started the war at a disadvantage. Bismarck had concluded a treaty with Italy on April 8, 1866, in which Italy agreed to participate on the side of Prussia should war occur within three months. In return, Italy was to receive Austria-administered Venetia. Once again, Bismarck secured the neutrality of France through vague promises of compensation after the wary Napoleon III indicated that he would like to annex Rhenish Hesse, the fortress of Mainz, Luxembourg, the Saar, and parts of Belgium. Bismarck rejected those demands and saved them for future reference in case of need of French assistance or neutrality. The Austro-Prussian War is often called the Seven Weeks’ War because of its duration. Prussia had superiority in spite of its inferiority of population. Since 1862 the Prussians had been updating their military. They had developed military training and tactics involving quick fl anking pincer movements. As a result, in spite of opposition from German states such as Hanover, Bavaria, Baden, Hesse, Wurttemberg, Saxony, and others, the Prussian armies advanced very 152 German unification, wars of quickly. They defeated the Hanover army at Langensalza on June 29 and occupied Nuremberg and northern Bavaria by July 1. In the meantime, Prussian armies occupied Hesse- Cassel, Nassau, and Frankfurt. The decisive action came in July. Since Austria had sent some of its army to meet the Italians, whom they defeated at the Battle of Custozza on June 24, and some troops remained in Hungary, a way was opened for a Prussian thrust to the capital of Vienna. Therefore, in von Moltke’s plan, three Prussian armies advanced from Saxony and Silesia into Bohemia. The Austrian commander general von Benedek took up a position at Koniggratz (known as Sadowa in Czech), where on July 3 he was attacked by the united fi rst and second Prussian armies. They were joined by the Prussian third army under the crown prince, which turned the tide of battle. This intervention ended with an Austrian rout and an opening to Vienna. The war ended, although the peace agreement at Nikolsburg was not signed until July 26. AFTER THE SEVEN WEEKS’ WAR The consequences of the Austrian defeat were greater for the German Confederation than for Austria. Austria had to pay a war indemnity, cede Venetia to Italy and Holstein to Prussia. Henceforth, Austria was to be excluded from German affairs. The German Confederation paid a heavier price. Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and Frankfurt were directly annexed to Prussia. This had the effect of connecting all of Prussia’s possessions in northern and western Germany. Prussia now composed more than half of Germany. There were other consequences of the Seven Weeks’ War in terms of German unifi cation. The old German Confederation was replaced by the North German Confederation of all German territory north of the Main. The four states south of the Main (Baden, Bavaria, grand ducal Hesse, and Wurttemberg) could form a South German Confederation. They had sided against Prussia, but escaped punishment except for a reduced war indemnity and an offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia. The southern states consented to Prussian troops being introduced into the military fortifi cations after Bismarck revealed Napoleonic demands. The North German Confederation included the kingdom of Saxony, the former Hanseatic cities of Bremen, Lübeck, and Hamburg, the grand duchy of Brunswick, Mecklenberg, Oldenberg, and 13 other duchies and principalities. The North German Confederation was arranged so that Prussia dominated. To further emphasize this, the presidency of the confederation was given to the king of Prussia, and the direction of the affairs of the confederation was placed in the hands of a chancellor, in this case, Bismarck. The authority of the confederation extended to foreign policy, the army, and economic affairs. The constitution of the confederation established a unifi ed commonweal in criminal justice, economic, and judicial affairs. The laws of the North German Reich were to have precedence over the laws of the states. The states could maintain their own administrative system, educational affairs, and church affairs. Although the upper house, or Reichstag, gave each state one vote, the lower house, the Bundesrat, based on universal male franchise, was controlled by Prussia, with its greater population. Also, the Bundesrat had the right with the approval of the president (king of Prussia) to dissolve the Reichstag. He semi-coerced the South German states into closer association by saying that a new customs union that would replace the Zollverein had to be operated through a customs-parliament that met in Berlin. Not wishing to forfeit the large market, the South German states entered into the new custom-parliament that had equal representation from the South German states and the North German Confederation. The South German confederation that might have served as a partial obstacle to further unifi cation never materialized, as Baden and Wurttemberg were not willing to put themselves under Bavarian leadership. Much of the reason for this was a perceived loss of power against Bavaria, which had over half of the population of the South German states. The next few years, from 1867 to 1870, Bismarck used to fi rm up support both within and without. PRELUDE TO WAR WITH FRANCE French demands for parts of southern Germany and also Luxembourg had been put in writing. This, when disseminated, stirred up nationalism throughout Germany, including in the South German states. The French demands upon Belgium alienated the British, who considered themselves the protector of Belgium. Austria was alienated from France when Bismarck leaked the negotiations with France prior to the Austro-Prussian War. Italy would not support France as long as French troops remained in Rome. Russia was already bound to Prussia by the 1863 agreement. The immediate cause of the third war that led to German reunifi cation was the German unification, wars of 153 succession to the throne of Spain after a revolution had ejected its previous occupant. The Spaniards asked a member of the Catholic branch of the Hohenzollern (the Prussian royal family) to accept the appointment of a constitutional king of Spain. This proposal caused great indignation in France, which threatened war if a Hohenzollern accepted the throne. The French felt that Hohenzollern princes in Spain and Germany would put them in a vise. After some weeks of hesitation, the Hohenzollern prince Leopold withdrew his candidacy. It appeared that after several years of diplomatic setbacks, the French had gained a victory. However, a feeling developed that the renunciation was not enough. They sent their ambassador to Prussia to the town of Ems, where the Prussian king William I was taking the waters. The ambassador asked William to guarantee that he would never again permit the Hohenzollern to seek the throne. The king refused to undertake such a task. He then sent a telegram to Bismarck describing the incident. This famous Ems Telegram was edited and abbreviated by Bismarck so that it appeared that the French ambassador had been brusque to the point of insult to the Prussian king, while the Prussian king had been equally short to the point of offense to the French ambassador. The message was then published in an abbreviated form. Public opinion in both countries was incensed. The French declared war on July 15, 1870. THE THIRD WAR Although the Prussians and the French appeared equal, Prussia had certain advantages. First, the French military was still somewhat demoralized from its ill-starred adventure in Mexico between 1863 and 1867. Second, parts of the French army were tied down in parts of Indochina and Algeria, where they were busily establishing the French overseas empire. Finally, the Prussians ultimately had an advantage in manpower. The South German states had to recognize the stipulations of their offensive and defensive alliances with Prussia that put their forces under Prussian command in the event of war. The Prussians could also count on the manpower of the North German Confederation in addition to their own. Altogether, there was an army of a unifi ed Germany of 1.2 million as opposed to a French army of 500,000, some of whom were overseas. The Prussians immediately acted upon prearranged battle plans. Three armies were immediately formed for the purpose of invading French territories from three separate directions. General Steinmetz advanced from the Moselle, Prince Frederick Charles from the Palatinate to Metz, and the crown prince from the upper Rhine to Strasbourg. The war was fought in two phases; July– September and September–February. At fi rst, events went well for the French. They advanced into the Saar district in late July 1870 and won a small victory. So confi dant were they of victory that they drew up plans for a partition of Prussia and a redistribution of the coal-rich Saar district. They would soon be disillusioned as Prussia/Germany scored a number of victories in August. On August 4 and August 6 the crown prince won victories over Marshal MacMahon at the Battles of Weissenburg and Worth and forced him to evacuate Alsace. Strasbourg, the capital of Alsace, fell by the end of the month. The Germans also advanced into Lorraine and approached its capital of Nancy. Two other German armies surrounded the troops of Marshal Bazaine at the key city of Metz and at bloody battles at Vionville and Gravelotte on August 16 and August 18 repulsed the attempts of the French to break out of the ring. When Marshal MacMahon attempted to get around the German north fl ank to relieve Bazaine at Metz, he discovered the road was already closed. When he attempted to break through against superior numbers of troops, he was decisively defeated at Sedan on September 1 and surrendered together with his army and the emperor on September 2. The war continued for another fi ve months, but the French Empire fell. The French request for an armistice was not accepted, due to their unwillingness to surrender Strasbourg, Metz, Toul, and Verdun. The main German army then advanced against Paris, and the main fortresses of Metz and Verdun fell in September and Strasbourg in October. The last frontier fortress, Belfort, fell in mid- February 1871. In the meantime, Paris was besieged between late September and late January 1871, and most of northern France was the scene of battles. The attempt by French troops from the north and the Loire Valley to relieve Paris failed, and ultimately it too fell on January 28, 1871. The last remaining effi cient army of the French was pushed into Switzerland, where it was interned early in February 1871. A preliminary peace was signed on February 26. The offi cial treaty that ended the war was the Treaty of Frankfurt, on May 10, 1871. In its provisions, Alsace, northern Lorraine, and the city of Metz were ceded to Germany. (After the fi nal formation of the German Empire, Alsace-Lorraine became a common province of the empire.) Moreover, France had to pay 5 mil- 154 German unification, wars of lion francs in war indemnity. German troops occupied central and southern Lorraine until the indemnity was paid (in 1875). German troops occupied Paris until the Treaty of Frankfurt was approved by the national assembly in May 1871. END RESULTS The most important result of the Franco-Prussian War was the unifi cation of Germany. The feeling of nationalism that swept Germany in the wake of the war led the South German states into negotiations. After some special concessions, especially by Bavaria, which retained the right to control its own army in times of peace, the South German states entered the confederation. After further maneuvers by Bismarck, the question of a new German Empire led by the king of Prussia, fi rst by the king of Bavaria and then by a delegation from the North German Confederation, was presented. Upon acceptance on January 18, 1871, the king of Prussia became German emperor. This last title took the place of emperor of Germany in deference to German dynasties that did not wish to be offi - cially subordinated to the Hohenzollerns. The constitution that covered the old North German Confederation plus the South German states plus Alsace-Lorraine was adopted on April 14, 1871. The form of government adopted by this new state closely refl ected the government of the North German Confederation, with special concessions to the South German states, such as control of posts and telegraphs and the right to post taxes on beer and brandy. The new state automatically became the strongest state in Europe due to its army and its manufacturing base. See also Italian nationalism/unifi cation. Further reading: Berdahl, Robert M. The Politics of the Prussian Nobility: The Development of a Conservative Ideology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988; Blackburn, David. The Long Nineteenth Century: A History of Germany 1780–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; Gall, Lothar. Bismarck and the German Empire. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1960; Hobsbawn, Eric J. Nation and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993; Plfanze, Otto. Bismarck and the Development of Germany: The Period of Unifi cation, 1815–1871. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990; Weiss, John. Conservatism in Europe. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977. Norman C. Rothman German Zollverein The establishment of the Deutscher Zollverein (German Customs Union) was an important step toward the goals of industrializing and unifying Germany. The German states, numbering more than 300 principalities, were bound together in the loosely federated Holy Roman Empire. After the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the Federated League of States, consisting of 39 states with different systems, made German unifi cation diffi cult. The eventual rise of Pan-Germanism, along with the Zollverein, facilitated progress toward unity. Even Prussia, Germany’s most powerful state, had 67 tariff systems. In all of Germany, there were three currency systems. There were many border checkpoints, numerous units of measurement, and different customs laws. The pioneering idea of economic unifi cation came from Prussia, which did away with internal tariffs and established free trade throughout its scattered territories in 1818. The internal customs boundaries of different Prussian provinces became a thing of the past, with one uniform tariff against non- Prussian countries. Prussian efforts at economic integration were such a success that they were replicated by other German states. Moreover, the Customs Union of Prussia could protect local industries against a fl ood of imported British goods. The two main Prussian export items, corn and linen, had been affected by British policy, and the 1818 union made these easier to sell. Anhalt, Schwarzburg Sondershausen, and Hessen-Darmstadt joined the Prussian Union in 1828. Two other units joined up independently of the Prussian Union, as they did not want to be under Prussian authority. Saxony, the Thuringian statelets, Hessen-Kassel, Nassau, Frankfurt, Hannover, Braunschweig, and Oldenburg established the Central German Customs Union in 1828, and after fi ve years in the south, the Bavarian-Wuerttembergian Customs Union was founded. All three unions integrated themselves into a Zollverein in 1834 to reap the obvious economic benefi ts. The custom barriers were no longer in place, and a uniform tariff was applied to states outside the Zollverein. Goods coming from outside were taxed on a joint account of the member states and the proceeds were divided. The introduction of a uniform currency, the Vereinsthaler, standardized the different currencies. The Zollverein consisted of 17 states and represented a population of about 26 million people. Its considerable size resulted in the growth of industries German Zollverein 155 with the application of a free-trade policy. The Customs Union also witnessed the lessening of Austrian infl uence and the gradual dominance of Prussia, facilitating the task of unifi cation afterward. Economic leadership of Prussia would soon challenge Austria’s presidency in the German Confederation. Austria, along with the two Mecklenburgs and Hanseatic towns, had remained outside the Zollverein, but Baden and Nassau joined in 1836. After six years, Braunschweig and Luxemburg also became members of the Customs Union. In 1835 the German railroads opened in Bavaria, and economist Georg Friedrich List planned railways across the whole of Germany. He had rejected the idea of diplomatic missions or bilateral treaties with European countries. Prussia signed commercial treaties with Britain, France, and Belgium, making the Zollverein even more powerful. The railroads connecting Cologne in Prussia with Antwerp in Belgium were completed in 1843, and the next year the two states signed a trade agreement. By 1848–49 there were 3,000 miles of railway lines in Prussia. In 1851 Hanover and Oldenburg joined the Customs Union. The Deutscher Handlestag (the national chamber of commerce) was established in 1861 at the request of German economists, who were clamoring for greater economic unifi cation. The Zollverein was dissolved as the southern German states supported Austria in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. The next year it was established again with no individual state having veto power. The constitution of the renewed Zollverein established the Zollbundesrat (the Federal Council of Customs) consisting of emissaries of individual rulers and an elected Zollparlament (Customs Parliament). Prussian dominance was signifi cant, and other German states wanted to join. Schleswig- Holstein, Kausenburg, and Mecklenburg became members in 1868. The regulations of Zollverein became part of the laws of the newly created German nation. Alsace- Lorraine, taken from France after the victory in 1870s Franco-Prussian War, joined the Customs Union in 1872. The Hanseatic cities followed suit in 1888. The dominance of Prussia made German unifi cation inevitable. Liberating the German states from the oppressive burden of numerous tariffs and taxes, the Zollverein paved the way for economic transformation of the German Empire. See also Bismarck, Otto von; German Unifi cation, Wars of. Further reading: Borchardt, Knut. Perspectives on Modern German Economic History and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Davis, John R. Britain and the German Zollverein, 1848–66; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997; Henderson, William O. The Zollverein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939; Price, Arnold H. The Evolution of the Zollverein. New York: Octagon, 1973. Patit Paban Mishra Gilded Age Named after an 1873 novel by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner, this era of growth and excess following the American Civil War would more than live up to the authors’ sarcasm. As American industry and agriculture began to outpace European competition, some entrepreneurs and corporate leaders became very wealthy, while the gap between rich and poor widened dramatically. Lavish public displays of self-indulgence by a small but growing number of newly rich Americans provided the “gilding” for this time of great social and political confl ict. THE “GILDED” ECONOMY Although the late 19th century was a time of simmering worldwide economic distress that regularly erupted into panics and recessions, the United States, having overcome the single greatest challenge to its potential power, grew enormously during the years after the Civil War. The seeds were planted during the war when Union president Abraham Lincoln and Congress encouraged western agriculture, set in motion the long-anticipated transcontinental railroad project, and awarded lucrative contracts to suppliers of war materials. Historians call the post–Civil War era an age of “incorporation.” Previously, the industrial economy had been localized, mostly hiring nearby workers and serving local or regional customers. Now, new kinds of businesses and businessmen were creating national combinations of fi nancial and industrial power. The corporation was a business model designed to be a faceless entity within which individual capitalists could make products and accrue wealth without fear of personal liability. The corporate structure was the engine that propelled the enormous growth of railroads, steel, meat-packing, and petroleum. Few of these new industrialists were “faceless” for very long. Economic uncertainty made it possible for the bravest (or most ruthless) entrepreneurs to impose order on important industries by squeezing out smaller players and creating huge new combines, or trusts. 156 Gilded Age Especially in California, railroad barons, including Leland Stanford and Collis P. Huntington, used cutthroat tactics to dominate the most favorable routes, raising shipping rates once they had achieved control. In the 1870s midwesterner John D. Rockefeller created Standard Oil, gaining 90 percent control of the oil business and making a fortune even before the rise of the automobile. Scots-born Andrew Carnegie had successful careers in telegraphy and railroads before turning Pittsburgh into the world’s steel capital and becoming one of the world’s richest men. Carnegie gave away all his millions before he died in 1919, and Rockefeller was also an important benefactor. But many of the new capitalist class were less modest. As the railroad Vanderbilts and others built luxurious summer homes in Newport, Rhode Island, and Carnegie’s chief lieutenant, Henry Frick, built virtual palaces in Pittsburgh and (later) on New York’s Fifth Avenue, the gilded gap between rich and poor became more obvious. The new industrialists’ gaudy parties and spending sprees were covered in breathless detail by American newspapers. Meanwhile, the urban middle class was growing. Industrialists created large organizations staffed by middle managers and served by engineers, lawyers, accountants, and other rising professionals. But for industrial laborers, whether skilled or unskilled, prospects were bleaker. GILDED AGE POLITICS Historians still disagree whether the business leaders of the Gilded Age were rapacious robber barons or admirable captains of industry. In either case, those building mighty industries took full advantage of the political and social attitudes of their era to amass enormous fortunes and wield great power. In a time of weak federal power, with Congress closely divided between Republicans and Democrats (although Republicans dominated the presidency), there were few legal barriers to the creation of great wealth by any means necessary. Railroad interests (already owing much of their success to huge federal land grants and other valuable concessions) were particularly known for making deals, legal and illegal, with federal, state, and local offi cials. There was no corporate income tax, no meaningful regulation of stock transactions, and no barriers to monopolistic vertical trusts. Someone like Rockefeller could control every aspect of his business, from owning oil-rich properties to pumping oil out of the ground to selling Standard Oil’s distinctive red cans to retail customers. Not until 1890 did Congress pass the Sherman Antitrust Act, a weak but groundbreaking attempt to make the most blatantly brazen business practices punishable by fi nes and prison terms. The era’s general lack of regulation was part of the larger ideology of laissez-faire, the idea that only an economic system free from governmental interference could build wealth, social order, and national success. Dating back to the 18th-century writings of British economist Adam Smith, laissez-faire in the Gilded Age found a strong philosophical ally in the new creed of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism arose in Britain, where writer Herbert Spencer, among others, developed a sociological theory based on Charles Darwin’s pathbreaking 1859 theory of evolution. Darwin’s was a biological study of the origins, development, distribution, and extinction of living organisms over many millions of years. Social Darwinism, led in the United States by William Graham Sumner, a Yale University professor, applied Darwin’s discoveries and theories to the existing social and economic order. Sumner and others discovered that Darwin’s laws exactly validated what was happening in industrial societies like those of the United States and Britain. Inequality was a law of nature. Those who succeeded were nature’s fi ttest; those who failed or fell behind proved that only the strongest could or should survive. Helping the poor was a fool’s game. “While the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race,” said Carnegie. “Nature’s cure for most social and political diseases is better than man’s,” declared the president of Columbia University. Survival of the fi ttest, wrote Rockefeller, is “a law of nature and a law of God.” Social Darwinism and laissez faire worked in tandem to diminish worker power and autonomy. A laborer, the era’s ideology maintained, was free to sell his (or her) services to the highest bidder, but not free to join with other workers to demand from employers or government protection and improvement of their conditions. By the 1880s the U.S. Supreme Court, in the name of economic liberty of contract, was regularly striking down efforts to raise wages, limit work hours, abolish sweatshops, and form unions. GILDED AGE OPPONENTS People who worked for or depended on the new industrial system did not meekly resign themselves to the insecurity and cruelty of industrial labor. The era was beset by strikes, riots, and political radicalization among workers even before unprecedented tides of new Gilded Age 157 immigrants began arriving in the 1880s. Farmers and laborers in the predominantly agricultural West and South agitated against exploitative railroads and condemned currency and trade policies that kept them in debt. The Gilded Age’s fi rst major upheaval was the Great Railroad Strike that erupted in 1877, the fourth year of a major recession. Starting that July in Baltimore, where the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Company had imposed a 10 percent pay cut on workers, the strike spread to rail yards across the nation. It was the fi rst coast-to-coast strike in U.S. history. At fi rst, the strikers were hailed by other workers and local people also fed up with railroad practices. But President Rutherford B. Hayes, provoked by some acts of worker violence, soon called out federal troops to protect railroad property. A hundred people, mostly strikers, died. Government intervention against workers on behalf of corporations became a hallmark of Gilded Age labor relations. An 1886 strike against Chicago’s McCormick Reaper Company also resulted in bloodshed and fears of mounting social disorder blamed on anarchist ideas percolating out of Europe. At Haymarket Square, where workers were protesting police violence that had killed four McCormick strikers, a bomb exploded, killing a policeman. Police raided radical and labor organizations and arrested eight anarchists. On little evidence, all eight, including six German and one English immigrant, were convicted of the bombing, and four were hanged. Five months later in New York, the Statue of Liberty, France’s salute to the promise of American freedom, was ceremoniously unveiled. The upsurge in union militancy was accompanied by a rising tide of local and national political organizing. The relatively egalitarian Knights of Labor played major roles in the railroad and McCormick strikes, but lost ground to the better organized American Federation of Labor (AFL), founded in 1886 and focused on achieving the eight-hour day. Traditional farmer organizations, like the Grange, became more outspoken. In the 1880s the Greenback-Labor Party twice fi elded presidential candidates in an effort to change monetary policies unfavorable to farmers. It was a precursor to populism’s Peoples Party a few years later. GILDED AGE CRITICS Even people like William Graham Sumner, America’s apostle of Social Darwinism, knew that much was amiss in his society. Although opposed to government meddling, Sumner was a moralist who distinguished between honest and productive capitalists, who used their power for greater good, and plutocrats who corruptly worked the political system to steal special privileges for themselves. Other critics of his era were ready to go much farther. These included social observers with alternate political agendas, critics who zeroed in on specifi c examples of corruption and injustice, and a host of utopian writers, many of whom imagined perfected societies in which people and their marvelous machines always behaved properly. Henry George was a California newspaper editor who lost his labor-union-backed bid to become New York City’s mayor in 1886. In a best-selling book, Progress and Poverty, fi rst published in 1879, George laid out a plan he called the “single tax.” This tax on land, George believed, would assure that all Americans could own some land by preventing the wealthy and powerful from buying up too much property. It was a sort of freesoil promise for urban dwellers that avoided socialistic solutions to the nation’s inequities. Single-tax societies sprang up across the nation. In some big city churches, ministers like Baptist Walter Rauschenbusch worked with labor unions to develop programs to aid the poor and immigrants with better health care, housing, and help for the unemployed. A counterattack on the tenets of Social Darwinism, this Social Gospel movement was a predecessor of Progressivism. Jacob Riis, a Danish immigrant newspaperman, used photography to reveal problems in Gilded Age society. His New York City photos and commentary collected in the 1890 book How the Other Half Lives showed successful middle-class urbanites what was happening to the ignored or abused “other half”—unwashed, untutored, miserable, and much to the consternation of the comfortable middle class, possibly ready to rise up in anger. The Gilded Age brought forth a torrent of utopian fi ction, foreseeing battles between rich and poor ending in social cataclysm or even America’s total destruction. The most infl uential and positive of the utopians was Edward Bellamy, a Massachusetts writer, whose bestselling Looking Backward: 2000–1887 came out in 1888. Awaking in a perfectly clean, calm, and prosperous Boston, Bellamy’s hero learns how America overcame the evils it was experiencing in the 19th century by introducing marvelous new machines and assuring all citizens enough of what they need and work tailored to their abilities. Bellamy Societies sprang up across the country as people argued the merits of his vision. Although there is some dispute about when the Gilded Age ended, the depression of 1893–97, the emer- 158 Gilded Age gence of Progressivism, and the onset of World War I all worked to bring this historic era to an end. Some believe that the United States has experienced repetitions of the Gilded Age in the 20th century and will continue to do so in the 21st. But these new gilded ages are unlikely to reveal the same combination of upperclass excess, ferocious industrial growth, government inertia, and worker/farmer anger that produced the era satirized by Mark Twain. See also fi nancial panics in North America; labor unions and labor movements in the United States; newspapers, North American; political parties in the United States; railroads in North America. Further reading: Cashman, Sean Dennis. America in the Gilded Age: From the Death of Lincoln to the Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: New York University Press, 1993; Edwards, Rebecca. New Spirits: Americans in the Gilded Age, 1865–1905. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; Trachtenberg, Alan. The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982. Marsha E. Ackermann Gladstone, William (1809–1898) British prime minister and reformer William Ewart Gladstone, one of the dominant prime ministers in British history, was born in Liverpool, England, on December 29, 1809. Although his legacy is as a great Liberal reformer, he began his career as a Tory member of Parliament for Newark in December 1832. The year 1832 was important because it witnessed the passage of the Great Reform Bill of 1832, a fi rst and historic step to enfranchise a larger segment of the British population. Before this, members of Parliament were often chosen by corrupt lords or magnates, which guaranteed the election of members handpicked by the infl uential local political power. The passage of successive Reform Bills in the 19th century is considered to have been the main reason that Britain missed the tides of revolution that swept through Europe during the same period. For a man who would be a Liberal standard-bearer, Gladstone’s fi rst speeches, which marked him as a great orator, were in favor of slavery, at a time when William Wilberforce was attempting to have the institution banned. While author Philip Magnus says Gladstone was opposed to the actual institution of slavery, he was against the sudden abolishment of slavery without due planning. Otherwise, in Gladstone’s words, emancipation from slavery would be “more fl eeting than a shadow and more empty than a name.” In spite of Gladstone’s perorations, Wilberforce’s dream was realized. Gladstone’s evident parliamentary skills brought him to the attention of the Tory Party’s prime minister Robert Peel. Two years after his maiden appearance in Parliament, Gladstone joined Peel’s government as a junior lord of the treasury and then as an undersecretary at the Colonial Offi ce in 1835, at a time when British relations were becoming tangled over the importation of opium from British India (then governed by the quasi-governmental British East India Company) to the Chinese Qing (Ching) dynasty. Peel’s overall reputation as a reformer may have played a role in the gradual evolution of Gladstone’s political view. When Peel resigned as prime minister in 1835, Gladstone loyally followed him. In 1841, when Melbourne fell from power, Queen Victoria asked Peel to form another Tory government. In 1843 Peel rewarded Gladstone’s loyalty by appointing him to the prestigious position of president of the board of trade. Gladstone’s evolving liberal agenda ultimately cost him the support of his long-time patron, the duke of Newcastle. Still, Gladstone retained his position in Peel’s cabinet until Lord John Russell formed a Whig government in July 1847. Serving under Peel, Gladstone became aware of the problems in Ireland and embarked on the political cause of home rule for Ireland that would dominate the later years of his political life. By the fall of Peel’s administration, Gladstone had already become a rising force in the Tory Party. In 1847 he became the member of Parliament for Oxford University, a unique indication of the value of Oxford to the nation. When the Tory George Gordon, Lord Aberdeen, formed a coalition government in 1852, Gladstone became chancellor of the exchequer. Once the Crimean War began in 1854, the Aberdeen government was blamed for all the mismanagement that dogged the British army in the long and bloody struggle with Russia, which Britain fought as an ally of the Ottoman Empire. Aberdeen’s government fell in 1857, perhaps the last casualty of the Crimean War. Aberdeen himself would die in 1860. By this time, Gladstone had earned such a name as a competent public servant that Henry Temple, Lord Palmerston, the Whig who had formed the coalition ministry with Aberdeen, offered Gladstone his old position as chancellor of the exchequer in June 1859. Taking offi ce necessitated Gladstone giving up Gladstone, William 159 the conservative Tory Party and joining Palmerston’s Liberals, as the Whigs were now being called. Oxford University, as Tory as it had been when it supported King Charles I in the English Civil War, abandoned Gladstone, and he was forced to take a seat as the Liberal member of Parliament for South Lancashire. When Palmerston died in 1865, Lord John Russell became prime minister and requested that Gladstone stay on at the exchequer. Moreover, Gladstone became leader of the Liberals in the House of Commons. VOICE OF PROGRESSIVISM On March 12, 1866, Gladstone emerged as the voice of progressivism in the British parliament when he proposed the Second Reform Bill. Although the lack of Conservative support doomed the bill and Russell’s ministry, it was clear that the time had come to extend the voting franchise once again. The workers in the factories were demanding more of a say in their government. Meanwhile, Gladstone’s premonitions about Ireland were coming true. When Edward Stanley became prime minister in 1866, Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative leader in the House of Commons, also realized that another reform bill had become a political necessity. Together, in a rare display of partisan unity, the two future political rivals joined forces and mustered enough votes to pass the Second Reform Bill in 1867. In the same year the Conservatives were defeated in the general elections and Gladstone became prime minister. While the Reform Bill opened the franchise far wider, it nevertheless still left open the voting system for abuse. In 1872 Gladstone passed the Ballot Act to ensure secret, safe, voting. In 1874 Disraeli became the new prime minister, inaugurating the fascinating political situation where the two most powerful and astute politicians of their day took turns holding the offi ce of prime minister. It was also a time of epochal change for Britain, for from this time on the events of its growing empire took perhaps even greater involvement of its government than the affairs at home which had previously commanded all the talents of Gladstone and Disraeli. In 1875 the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire rebelled against Turkish rule. Sultan Abdul Aziz began a reign of terror, killing thousands of men, women, and children. The rebellion ultimately led to Russian intervention on the side of the Christian Slavs. Gladstone, motivated by reports of the slaughter, wrote his Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East in 1876. As Russian troops swept down the Balkans, Disraeli, as prime minister, deployed the British Mediterranean Fleet off Constantinople. War between the Russians and Great Britain was fi nally averted when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck chaired the Congress of Berlin in 1878 to effect a diplomatic solution to the Balkan crisis. In 1880 Parliament was dissolved by Disraeli in March. Disraeli, thinking he could score an impressive political triumph, lost the general election, and Gladstone was returned to offi ce as prime minister. While reversing Disraeli’s stern policy toward the Turks, Gladstone found himself increasingly embroiled in colonial affairs, especially in southern Africa. A British victory over the Zulus in July 1879 had made England the dominant power in South Africa. When British troops under General George Colley were slaughtered in the Battle of Majuba Hill, instead of taking revenge, Gladstone granted political self-government to the Boers in their Transvaal Republic. Either through advancing age or a godlike determination that he alone knew what was best, Gladstone almost always found himself at odds with the British people on imperial matters. In 1875 Disraeli bought the controlling interests in the Suez Canal from the bankrupt Khedive Ismail of Egypt and Gladstone was later forced to send a British expeditionary force to Egypt. Gladstone now was confronted with a virtual British colony in Egypt. His imperial involvement did not end there. Years of Egyptian misrule had led to a rebellion in the Sudan led by Muhammad Ahmad Abdullah, who called himself the Mahdi, the Rightly Guided One. One Egyptian expedition under General William Hicks to crush the Mahdi ended in total defeat, and the Mahdi created a separate Sudanese state. In 1884 Gladstone sent British hero General Charles “Chinese” Gordon to the Sudan to evacuate Egyptians from the capital of Khartoum. When it became clear that Gordon was determined to remain in Khartoum, Gladstone authorized a British relief expedition to be sent up the Nile to Khartoum, all the while hoping Gordon would change his mind at the last moment. When the fi rst elements of the relief force fi nally reached Khartoum in January 1885, it was clear that the city had fallen to the Mahdi and Gordon had been killed. As a result of this, Gladstone was blamed for the murder of Gordon, a national hero. Gladstone continued to pursue the policy of political reform that had been dearest to his heart. In 1886, riding on his new popularity among the working class, Gladstone was elected yet again to serve as prime 160 Gladstone, William minister. The other issue that mattered to him was home rule for Ireland, an attempt to make amends for generations of misguided and sometimes brutal British rule against the Irish people. On this issue, both the Tory Party and the conservatives of the Liberal Party joined forces against him, determined to preserve primacy for the British—and avoid any political autonomy for the Irish at all costs. In the general election of 1886, Gladstone’s government was defeated, with his advocacy of home rule for Ireland the deciding factor. Robert Cecil, the marquess of Salisbury, was given permission by Queen Victoria to form a government, drawn entirely from the Tory Party. In 1892 Gladstone was elected yet a third time to serve as prime minister. In 1893, his Irish home rule bill was fi nally passed in the House of Commons, by a vote of 307 to 267. Victory seemed near. Yet the bill still had to pass the House of Lords, where the alliance between the Tory Party and the industrial and land-owning magnates of Ireland opposed to home rule was fi rm. Opposition was led by Lord Salisbury, who referred to Irish home rule as “this treacherous revolution.” The House of Lords defeated the bill by a vote of 419 to 41. On March 1, 1894, Gladstone addressed the House of Commons for the last time and resigned as prime minister. He died on May 19, 1898. See also Africa, exploration of; revolutions of 1848; South Africa, Boers and Bantu in; Sudan, condominium in. Further reading: Bond, Brian, ed. Victorian Military Campaigns. New York: Praeger, 1967; Kinross, Lord. The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire. New York: Quill, 1977; Magnus, Philip. Gladstone. New York: Dutton, 1964; O’Faolain, Sean. The Irish: A Character Study. New York: Devin-Adair Publishers, 1979; Palmer, Alan. The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1994. John F. Murphy, Jr. Gokhale, G. K. (1866–1915) Indian nationalist leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale, the founder of the Servants of India Society, was one of the outstanding leaders of the Indian freedom movement in its earlier phase. He was born in Kotluk in the Ratnagiri district of the Bombay Presidency on May 9, 1866, to Chitpavan Brahmin, Krishnarao and Satyabhama. His father, who had risen from a clerk to police personnel, sent him to an English school in Kolhapur. He had a prodigious memory and received a bachelor of arts degree from Elphinston College in Bombay (now Mumbai) at the young age of 18. He taught fi rst at the New English School at Pune and then at Ferguson College of the Deccan Educational Society from 1866 to 1904. At the same time, Gokhale came under the infl uence of a social reformer and judge, Mahadev Govind Ranade, who encouraged him to write articles in the English weekly, the Mahratta, and later to publish a daily newspaper titled Jnanaprakash, where he put forth his moderate views on politics. He was the Secretary of Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, founded by Ranade from 1890 to 1895, and edited its journal. There was a disagreement with Bal Gangadhar (B. G.) Tilak, another notable leader, over the question of lifetime membership in the Deccan Educational Society. After Tilak’s resignation, Gokhale and Ranade established the Deccan Sabha in 1896, which aimed at promoting liberalism and moderation in Indian politics. Gokhale joined the Indian National Congress (INC) and was its joint secretary in 1895. He met Mohandas Gandhi in 1896 and the two developed a lifelong friendship. Gandhi later wrote a book titled Gokhale, My Political Guru. Gokhale went to London in 1898 to give evidence before the Welby Commission, which had been convened by the British parliament to look into the complicated question of Indian expenditure. He protested the draining of wealth from India and the exploitation of the country and severely criticized the use of Indian revenue to fi nance military operations outside India. In 1899 he was elected to the Bombay Legislative Council and worked on famine relief, land alienation, and municipal government. He was elected to the Imperial Legislative Council in 1902, where he argued for granting responsible government to India and fundamental rights to its citizens. In June 1905 Gokhale founded the Servants of India Society to promote Indian national interests by peaceful means. Gokhale, as a moderate politician, had professed loyalty to the British Empire, but at the same time advocated for India the type of self-government enjoyed in Canada and Australia. In 1905 there was a tremendous upsurge against British rule as a result of the partition of Bengal by Viceroy Lord Curzon. It was a time of frenetic activities for Gokhale, who was elected president of the INC. He traveled to England in October to meet British parliamentarians and liberals and championed the cause Gokhale, G. K. 161 of India with eloquence and clarity. His presidential address to the congress in December 1905 was a scathing attack on the British government and its repressive policy toward antipartition Indians. Gokhale next worked to avert a split in the INC between congress old guards and extremists led by Tilak. Moderates like Gokhale favored constitutional reforms, which were helped when the British government announced the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909, which introduced the system of limited elections that pleased the Indian moderates. Gokhale was also concerned with the problems of Indians living in South Africa. On Gandhi’s invitation, he went there in October 1912. He also served as a member of the Royal Commission on the Public Services in 1912, where he advocated greater Indian representation in the upper ranks of government services, but his proposals were not carried out because of opposition by British members. The years of hard work weakened Gokhale’s health, and he died on February 19, 1915. Gokhale had started his life in a humble way and became one of the greatest leaders in the country’s history, thanks to his spirit of dedication, capability, public spirit, and selfl ess service. Leading an austere life, he was popular with his countrymen. It was not without reason that Gandhi regarded him as his preceptor. See also Indian Mutiny. Further reading: Gandhi, M. K. Gokhale, My Political Guru. Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1958; Mascreen, P. J. Makers of Modern India. New Delhi: Kalyani Publisher, 1983; Mathur, D. B. Gokhale, A Political Biography: A Study of His Services and Political Ideas. Bombay: Manaktalas, 1966; Naidu, Sarojini. Reminiscences of Mr. Gokhale. Poona: Arya Bhushan Press, 1915; Nanda, B. R. Gokhale: The Indian Moderates and the British Raj. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977; Wolpert, Stanley A. Tilak and Gokhale: Revolution and Reform in the Making of Modern India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962. Patit Paban Mishra Gong (Kung), Prince (1833–1898) Chinese statesman Prince Gong was the title given to Ixin (I-hsin), sixth son of Emperor Daoguang (Tao-kuang) of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty and half brother of his successor, Emperor Xianfeng (Hsien-feng), a depraved and inept ruler. In 1853 Prince Gong was appointed Grand Councilor and took responsibility for the defense of the capital area as the Taiping rebels threatened. His mettle was put to the test in 1860 when British and French forces marched on Beijing (Peking) in retaliation for China’s reneging on the Treaty of Tianjin (Tientsin) of 1858. Xianfeng and his court fl ed the capital to Rehe (Jehol), where the Qing emperors had a resort palace, leaving Prince Gong to deal with the invaders without soldiers under his command and few offi cials to assist him. The British and French forces looted and then burned the emperor’s Summer Palace and forced Prince Gong to sign the Treaty of Beijing. This treaty confi rmed the Treaty of Tianjin and in addition granted Britain and France the right to station permanent envoys in Beijing, the lease of Kowloon (adjacent to Hong Kong) to Great Britain, the opening of Tianjin as a treaty port, and increased the indemnity to both victor nations. Xianfeng abandoned himself to dissipation and died in Rehe in 1861, leaving the throne to his fi ve-year-old son under a council of fi ve regents that did not include Prince Gong. In the ensuing power struggle, Gong allied with the two dowager empresses (widows of Xianfeng) and executed a coup that toppled the regents. Thereupon the dowager empresses Ci’an (Tz’u-an), wife of Xianfeng, and Cixi (Tz’u-hsi), mother of the boy emperor, assumed the powers of state with Gong as prince regent. Events of 1860 changed Prince Gong’s attitude toward Westerners from one of hostility to respect. He found allies in two prominent Manchu noblemen, including his father-in-law Gueiliang (Kuei-liang) and Wenxiang (Wen-hsiang), and Han Chinese offi cials Zeng Guofan (Tseng Kuo-fan), Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-Chang), and Zho Zongtang (Tso Tsung-t’ang) because all favored reforms. Prince Gong modernized the conduct of foreign affairs, establishing a new offi ce called the Zongli Yamen (Tsungli Yamen) that took charge of foreign relations with Western powers for the next 40 years. He also set up two offi ces to supervise foreign trade in treaty ports in northern and southern China and the Imperial Maritime Customs Service to collect duties and fees mandated by treaties made with Western nations and appointed two Englishmen, Robert Lay and Robert Hart, to head this offi ce. In order to train young men as interpreters, he established a language school called the Tongwen Guan (T’ung-wen kuan), which soon expanded to include modern subjects such as geography, mathematics, and astronomy; later this school became National 162 Gong (Kung), Prince Beijing University. It remains China’s most prestigious university. He also had works of international law translated into Chinese, which he used to China’s advantage in dealings with Western nations. In time, the ambitious dowager empress Cixi began to resent Prince Gong’s powers. When Tongzhi died in 1874, Cixi seized the occasion to appoint her threeyear- old nephew the new emperor in a power play that enabled her to become regent. With her position fi rmly established and with the death of his allies Wenxiang in 1876 and Ci’an in 1881, Prince Gong became sidelined and increasingly discouraged. To show her power and control, Cixi chastised Prince Gong for concocted misdeeds, ignored his advice, and led China toward collision with France and Japan with catastrophic results. Prince Gong was a pragmatic statesman who steered China toward stability and a quarter century of peace after the disaster of 1860. He also left numerous compilations on the conduct of state during his decades in power and two collections of verse. See also Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline; Taiping Rebellion; Tongzhi Restoration/Self-Strengthening Movement. Further reading: Biggerstaff, Knight. The Earliest Modern Government Schools in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1961; Cohen, Paul A., and John E. Schreker, eds. Reform in Nineteenth-Century China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976; Hummel, Arthur W., ed. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Press, 1944; Wright, Mary C. The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism, The T’ung-chih Restoration, 1862–1874. New York: Atheneum, 1966. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Gordon, Charles (1833–1985) British military offi cer, adventurer Charles George Gordon was a British army offi cer. His famous early exploits in China between 1862 and 1864 earned him the name “Chinese Gordon,” while his later actions and death in Khartoum, the Sudan, gained him the epithet “Gordon of Khartoum.” Gordon was trained as an army engineer and saw action in the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. He was sent to China in 1860 and took part in the capture of Beijing (Peking) in the second Anglo- Chinese War. In 1862 he was sent to Shanghai, China’s premier port of international trade. Southern China was then in the throes of the serious Taiping Rebellion (1850–64), centered in Nanjing (Nanking), the rebel capital. In 1860 the army of the Taiping Loyal King threatened Shanghai. To defend themselves the rich merchants of the city commissioned Frederick Ward, an American adventurer, to organize a mercenary army. With soldiers recruited from among Western deserters, Ward’s rifl e squadron captured Sunjiang (Sunkiang), a town near Shanghai, and turned back the rebels. In 1861 Ward recruited 100 European offi cers and expanded his force with 4,000–5,000 Chinese and 200 Filipino soldiers, whom he armed and drilled in the Western fashion. This force won many battles and repulsed another attack on Shanghai in 1862, for which the Chinese government named it the Ever-Victorious Army. After Ward died of wounds in 1862, another American, Henry A. Burgevine, was named commander, but he was soon relieved from command due to the many problems he caused. Gordon was next appointed to lead this army with British government permission. He served under the overall command of Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang), governor of Jiangsu (Kiangsu) Province, in which both Nanjing and Shanghai were located. Between 1862 and 1864 the Ever Victorious Army fought in 33 actions against the Taipings. Gordon’s most famous victory was taking Suzhou (Soochow), an important city between Nanjing and Shanghai, from the rebels. The Taiping Rebellion ended in 1864 with the capture of Nanjing and the suicide of the rebel leader. The Qing (Ch’ing) government rewarded Gordon with the rank of general, which entitled him to wear the Yellow Jacket (equivalent of a high military decoration). With the end of the rebellion, the Ever Victorious Army was disbanded, and Gordon returned to England for reassignment by the British army. The Ever Victorious Army was important, because it was the fi rst Chinese fi ghting force to use Western fi rearms and training; its effectiveness showed the superiority of Western military techniques and technology. Gordon was stationed in Britain until 1871 and then undertook tours of duty overseas, mainly in Egypt and the Sudan. In 1884 the British government sent him to the Sudan to extricate the Egyptian garrison (Egypt claimed overlordship over the Sudan) from the forces of the Mahdi, a Sudanese religious leader in revolt against the Egyptians. Gordon’s small force was besieged in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, by the forces of the Mahdi and was killed two days before a British relief force arrived on January 22, 1885. In death, this colorful British offi cer who had earlier Gordon, Charles 163 earned the name “Chinese Gordon” became known as “Gordon of Khartoum.” See also Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars; Gladstone, William; Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline; Sudan, condominium in. Further reading: Allen, Bernard M. Gordon in China. London: Macmillan, 1933; Smith, Richard J. Mercenaries and Mandarins: The Ever-Victorious Army in Nineteenth Century China. New York: KTO Press, 1978; Wilson, Andrew. The “Ever-Victorious Army.” Boston, MA: Adamant Media Corporation, 2001. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Government of India Act (1858) The Government of India Act of 1858 was an act of the British parliament that ended the existence and long tenure of the British East India Company in India and transferred its power and assets directly to the British Crown. Thus ended the role that the remaining 1,700 shareholders in the company had, directly or indirectly, over the lives of 250 million Indian people. This revocation of the company happened in spite of the fact that the charter of the East India Company had been renewed in 1853. The impetus for the Government of India Act was the Indian Mutiny (or the War of Independence, as the Indians later called it) that took place in 1857 and shook the power of the British in India. The British East India Company was founded in 1600. Initially lucrative, it incurred large losses beginning in the 1700s and had to be bailed out by the British government, in William Pitt’s India Act of 1784. The East India Company’s deep fi nancial trouble continued after the Indian Mutiny, leading to an overhaul in 1858. The main provision of the bill that was passed by Parliament transferred the territories of the East India Company to the British Crown. This meant that all treaties and contracts made by the company would be honored by the British government, including a debt of £98 million, one-ninth of the entire British government’s national debt. The rule of India was placed in the hands of the secretary of state for India who was able to deal directly on Indian matters under the prime minister’s administration. The British government would also appoint a governor-general who was under the secretary of state for India. The bill was introduced by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and was passed on February 18, 1858. It fi nally became law on August 2, 1858, and started the period of direct rule of India that lasted until independence for India and Pakistan in August 1947. Further reading: Edwardes, Michael. Raj. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1967; Gardner, Brian. The East India Company: A History. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1971; Hibbert, Christopher. Great Mutiny: India 1857. New York: Penguin, 1980; Ward, Andrew. Our Bones Are Scattered. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996. Justin Corfi eld Grant, Ulysses S. (1822–1885) American general and president Ulysses S. Grant commanded the Union armies during the American Civil War and was the 18th president of the United States. Hiram Ulysses Grant was born on April 27, 1822, in Point Pleasant, Ohio. When his 164 Government of India Act (1858) Gordon and his force were besieged in Khartoum, and he was killed two days before a British relief force arrived. paperwork for admission to the Military Academy at West Point was submitted, the congressman submitting the paperwork made the mistake of listing his name as Ulysses Simpson Grant, which he never changed. Grant graduated 21st in his class of 39, was commissioned a second lieutenant on July 1, 1843, and was assigned to an infantry regiment. During the Mexican- American War his regiment was initially attached to Zachary Taylor’s army, then to Winfi eld Scott’s army to capture Mexico City. Grant fought in all the major battles during the campaign and was breveted to captain. But his offi cial rank was only raised to fi rst lieutenant after the war. He married Julia Dent in August 1848 and served in several posts after the war, rising to the rank of captain in August 1853. Grant resigned his commission in July 1854 to return to his family. Grant tried several different business ventures and ended in business with his father and brothers in Galena, Illinois. At the start of the Civil War he volunteered with the Illinois militia and was eventually given command of a regiment in July 1861. He was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in August. He led a force against the Confederate forts of Henry and Donelson in February 1862. When he demanded the unconditional surrender of Fort Donelson, the northern newspapers dubbed him “Unconditional Surrender” (U.S.) Grant. Grant spent much of 1863 attempting to capture Vicksburg, Mississippi. It was not until May 1863 that he was able to drive the Confederate army back into Vicksburg and lay siege to it. After almost two months, Vicksburg surrendered to him on July 4, 1863. With the fall of Vicksburg, Grant was promoted to major general. In October he led a Union army that lifted the Confederate siege of Chattanooga, Tennessee. President Abraham Lincoln gave him command of all the Union armies and the job of bringing the war to an end. Grant joined the Army of the Potomac that was facing General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Grant spent most of 1864 trying to destroy Lee’s army and fi nally settled into a siege at Petersburg, Virginia. Grant was able to trap Lee’s army during a breakout attempt, and he forced Lee to surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. After the surrender of Lee’s army, the remaining Confederate armies also surrendered and brought the war to an end. Grant was rewarded by Congress with the revived rank of full general in July 1866. Grant ran for president in 1868 as a Republican and served two terms, from 1868 to 1876. Unfortunately, he was not much of a politician, and corruption was a problem during his administration, although Grant was not personally involved. However, he also did not take a fi rm stance against corruption in his administration, favoring colleagues and friends despite mounting evidence of their corruption. During his administration, Grant proposed the annexation of Santo Domingo both as a way to improve civil rights issues in the South and to attempt to force Cuba to abandon slavery. The measure was voted down in Congress, mainly due to the infl uence of Senator Charles Sumner. He also signed America’s fi rst national park (Yellowstone) into existence. Grant’s inability to handle fi nancial matters caused him problems after his terms as president, eventually causing him to go bankrupt. In order to try to pay off his debts and provide for his family, he wrote his memoirs, which turned out to be a great success. Suffering from throat cancer, Grant fi nished his memoirs days before he died on July 23, 1885. See also Reconstruction in the United States. Further reading: Catton, Bruce. U.S. Grant and the American Military Tradition. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1954; Grant, Ulysses S. Memoirs and Selected Letters: Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Selected Letters 1839–1865. New York: Library of America, 1990; Smith, Jean Edward. President Grant with his wife, Julia, and son Jesse in 1872. Grant’s term in offi ce was plagued by scandals caused by his associates. Grant, Ulysses S. 165 Grant. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001; Warner, Ezra J. Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1964. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Great Awakening, First and Second The First and Second Great Awakening are names given to two periods of religious revival that occurred over wide geographic areas in the 18th and 19th centuries. Revivals occur in many religions throughout the world, but they are often identifi ed with American evangelicalism. The awakenings exerted immense infl uence on American culture, as later generations of Christians emulated these revivals, hoping to recreate their benefi ts, including unusually high numbers of conversions and an intensifi ed piety and commitment. The idea of a nationwide revival inspires a deep longing among evangelicals to see the nation morally renewed. The causes of religious revivals are impossible to specify, though contributing factors can be identifi ed. The effects usually consist of greater preoccupation with spiritual things among the awakened: prayer, spiritual concern, communal harmony, and moral reform. THE FIRST GREAT AWAKENING The First Great Awakening began in the 1730s, touching most English-speaking populations around the North Atlantic. In New England, descendants of the Puritans were conscious of having fallen away from the severe moralism and intense religious devotion of their forefathers, seizing instead the new economic opportunities offered by the expanding Atlantic market. Christians of the middle colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey struggled to maintain identity and cohesion in a highly diverse religious environment utterly unlike the Europe their churches had been formed in. Churches in the southern colonies, largely Anglican, served a plantation elite, leaving the poor, and especially slaves, unevangelized. The awakening’s fi rst interpreter was one of its major leaders, Jonathan Edwards. In 1734 and 1735 Edwards’s church experienced some “surprising conversions” which he believed were the beginnings of a revival. His Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, written in 1737, advertised these events and what Edwards thought they portended across the Atlantic world. Churches prayed for revival, preachers emphasized the need to experience the “new birth.” Edwards speculated that the revival was part of God’s plan to evangelize the world and usher in the millenial reign of Christ. While many preachers accepted Edwards’s speculations, their overriding concerns matched those of ordinary people: assuring their personal salvation rather than the salvation of the masses. CONVERSION AND GEORGE WHITEFIELD Conversion had always been a church and community affair. Most Protestant traditions taught that experiences of God had to be confi rmed, through one means or another, by the local community of believers. Only then could the individual trust that the experience was real. The revivalists of the First Great Awakening, while far from antiecclesiastical, made the church secondary to the transaction that took place between an individual and God, and most taught that if a person truly believed, they could be assured they were converted. Thus, for people coping with more diverse communities, geographical mobility, and the declining authority of communal hierarchies, the revivals offered new paths to spiritual life. Itinerant preacher George Whitefi eld (1714–70) emphasized the simplicity of conversion: “Believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved.” In a society increasingly characterized by the dislocations of urban and frontier existence, this streamlined model of conversion was particularly effective. Where earlier forms of conversion required one to agree with nuances of church doctrine, as well as fi nd a place in a local community, in Whitefi eld’s preaching these fell to the background. What was central was the transaction between an individual and God. Whitefi eld’s popularity was in large part due to the nature of his message: He told ordinary people there was another way to salvation, and it did not require placating other human beings. Other factors surely contributed to his celebrity: youth, good looks, voice (which was both loud and pleasant, he had originally aspired to be an actor), and the controversy he generated by itinerating with no fi xed pulpit. All appealed to the mass audiences he attracted, estimated by his friend and supporter Benjamin Franklin at up to 20,000 on some occasions. Whitefi eld’s evangelistic tours, which began in 1739, revolutionized American expectations and left an altered religious landscape. Churches debated his call for a more evangelical theology and preaching. Many split, allowing for religious choice in towns where none existed before. Numerous preachers took his simple message, his appeals to the emotions, as 166 Great Awakening, First and Second well as his penchant for controversy, and carried them farther, sometimes to extremes, as Protestants divided into the pro-revival (“New Light”) and anti-revival (“Old Light”) camps. New Lights sent missionaries to Indians, evangelists to work among slaves, and, most important, supported numerous educational initiatives, such as the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), which called Edwards as its fi rst president. Pastors and scholars, infl uenced by the revival and eager to see it replicated, fi lled pulpits and lecterns throughout the colonies and infused the American culture with New Light ideas. THE SECOND GREAT AWAKENING The Second Great Awakening (1790–1840) was characterized by emotional preaching, outdoor assemblies, and sophisticated (for their time) publicity efforts. It spanned by some reckonings almost half a century, occurring in various regions and with a motley assemblage of leaders and participants. The energies it unleashed left an even deeper impression on the United States than the fi rst and is seen by some historians as the beginning of modern revivalism. If the fi rst was evangelical in the sense that it emphasized individual conversion over confessional loyalty or church membership, the second institutionalized almost all the themes that currently defi ne evangelicalism: revivalism, publishing ventures (especially Bibles and tracts), moral crusades, and the use of political means to reform society according to a specifi c Protestant vision. In addition, new religious groups, known as upstart sects of Baptists and Methodists, and distinctively American movements, such as Adventism and Mormonism, grew out of the awakening. Slaves and free blacks converted in signifi cant numbers for the fi rst time, altering southern religious styles in the process. The 1760s–90s were a low point in religious adherence and belief in the United States, with enlightened deism infl uential among elites; churches and personal morals disrupted by war; and politics, commerce, and westward migration competing with religion for popular interest. In New England, Yale’s Timothy Dwight warned that the new nation was sliding toward infi - delity. Clergy in that region were generally Federalists, supporting the old, pre-Revolutionary hierarchies: Men of education, wealth, and character needed to control politics and culture. The Revolution had turned those assumptions upside down, and, as power migrated into the hands of non-elites, conservatives feared for social order. Revival, said Dwight, would instill virtues such as respect for authority in what otherwise might become an unruly rabble. Concerned that the French Enlightenment was in vogue among Yale’s students, Dwight’s chapel sermons eventually sparked a revival. This phase of the awakening stressed the danger posed to youth by imported or innovative ideas and movements, offering revivals themselves as the antidote to the specter of national degeneration. FRONTIER REVIVAL Similar concerns in the South led to small revivals at several colleges. Graduates impressed by these events joined the swarm of migrants pouring onto the frontiers of Kentucky and Tennessee. There, widely dispersed populations had run ahead of all institutions, including churches, and were living in moral chaos. Evangelists found people starved both for the comforts of the Gospel as well as entertainment, and preachers determined to provide them with both. It is here that the frontier camp-meeting had its start. Meetings derived from Scottish Presbyterians, who gathered annually in multi-church outdoor communion services that lasted several days, involved a series of sermons, refl ection, repentance, and fi nally a mass celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This practice was carried to the frontier and evolved into something uniquely American. Old World sacramental decorum was traded for the boisterous, uninhibited expressions of the frontier. The result was the “Great Revival” of Cane Ridge, Kentucky, where thousands congregated in 1800–01. Cane Ridge was notorious for its bizarre phenomena: crying out, jerking, uncontrollable laughter, and swooning. To many, these signifi ed true supernatural work; many preachers encouraged them. The active participation of marginalized segments of society—plain folk, blacks, and women—may have contributed to the uninhibited nature of these revivals. The open market of religious choice that America now was meant that these groups had the power to affect, if not determine entirely, the style and the content of revival preaching. Democratic appeal became an essential requirement for frontier religion. Calvinism (predestination) was jettisoned to make room for more emphasis on individual ability. Sermons had to be practical, simple, and entertaining. The result was a religion that hewed close to the concerns, but also the prejudices, of the local community. Once critics of slavery, evangelicals in the South found themselves accommodating the system to better attune the sermons to the local populace. Previously marginal churches such as the Methodists and Baptists bested competitors in popular appeal and came to dominate Great Awakening, First and Second 167 the South. Abolitionism received an infl ux of zealous evangelicals in the North, while slavery enjoyed the blessings of all the evangelical churches of the South. THE LEGACY OF THE AWAKENINGS The Methodists’ powerful presence in antebellum America enticed other groups to adopt their style. Perhaps the most important fi gure in this regard was also one of the century’s most important religious fi gures, Charles Grandison fi nney. A lawyer when he converted, he developed a theology and preaching style that would produce revivals. He adopted Arminian (free-will) views of human ability, arguing that conversion was an individual act that required no special divine grace. He preached in a way that argued his case and demanded an immediate decision. He brought a revivalism forged on the frontier to the urbanized Northeast and eventually the world. His ideas—and the legacy of the Second Great Awakening—were passed on in his Lectures on Revivals of Religion in 1835. He and many other leaders became important voices for abolition, womens’ rights, health reform, the perfectibility of society, various moral reforms, and missions. Neither awakening had as much of a numerical effect on the churches as their promoters hoped and claimed. What they did effect was a revolution in how churches operated in a diverse, democratic society. Protestants became open to experiment and were determined to grow in national infl uence, making evangelicalism the powerful movement it remains today. Further reading: Bushman, Richard L. The Great Awakening: Documents on the Revival of Religion, 1740–1745. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989; Lambert, Frank. Inventing the “Great Awakening.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001; Tracy, Joseph. Great Awakening. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1989. John H. Haas Great Game See Afghan Wars; Anglo-Russian rivalry. Great Plains of North America The Great Plains of North America extend about 2,400 miles from parts of the Northwest Territories to Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In the United States, they continue southward through sections of Montana, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, into Mexico, and about 1,000 miles from the foothills of the Rocky Mountains eastward to Indiana. The area of the Great Plains is 1.2 million square miles, with 700,000 square miles in Canada and 500,000 square miles in the United States. The High Plains, a higher region of the Great Plains west of the 100th meridian, are arid and receive only 20 inches or less of rainfall a year, making the land suitable for range animals or marginal farms. The southern part of the Great Plains lies over the Ogallala aquifer, an immense underground layer of water-bearing rock dating from the last ice age. Drought devastates the plains about every 25 years and dust storms ravage it as well. As Meriwether Lewis noted in his journal, vast herds of bison ranged on the Great Plains and provided the foundation for the lives and culture of the Native American tribes like the Blackfeet, Crow, Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, and others. Much of this territory was acquired by the United States from France in the Louisiana Purchase and was then opened to settlement. After European settlers nearly exterminated the buffalo and removed Native Americans to Indian reservations, they opened the Great Plains to ranching and grazing. The Homestead Act of 1862 and later the Dominion Lands Act of 1871 in Canada opened the Great Plains for settlement and farming. A settler could claim up to 160 acres of land if he and his family lived on it and cultivated it for a period of time. Thousands of Americans and immigrants built homesteads. Many were not skilled dryland farmers and failed, as they were unprepared for the rigors of life on the Great Plains. In the early 1920s historian Walter Prescott Webb introduced his Great Plains thesis stating, “. . . for this land, with the unity given it by its three dominant characteristics, has from the beginning worked its inexorable effect upon nature’s children. The historical truth that becomes apparent in the end is that the Great Plains have bent and molded Anglo-American life, have destroyed traditions, and have infl uenced institutions in a most singular manner.” He stressed the environmental distinctiveness of the Great Plains and differentiated them from the rest of the North American continent. He cited the comparatively level land surface on the plains, the absence of trees, the semiarid climate, and argued that two important physical characteristics across the plains were missing. These elements were water and abundant timber, and their lack made the Great Plains environmentally unique. 168 Great Game The second part of Webb’s thesis stressed that the Great Plains represented an institutional chasm. He argued that Anglo-American lifestyles and institutions were adapted to wet, well-timbered environments, and Americans had evolved mainly from the wet and timbered regions of northwestern Europe. When they immigrated to North America, they settled along the Atlantic seaboard, a region of plentiful rainfall and dense forests. They settled the region successfully because their lifestyles, tools, methodologies, and institutions were suited to this physical environment. When settlers came to the Great Plains, the culture and customs that they brought with them from the East made it diffi cult for them to cope with the foreign environment for long periods of time. Settlement jumped from the wet forests of the East to the western Pacifi c slope of California and Oregon, leaving the corridor known as the Great American Desert uninhabited and undeveloped. They had to adapt their institutions and lifestyles to the plains. On the Great Plains, the horse, the Colt revolver, the Winchester carbine, the open-range cattle industry, barbed wire, sod housing, windmills, dry land farming, and irrigation, as well as new laws, were all part of the process of adaptation. See also Jefferson, Thomas; Lewis and Clark Expedition; Manifest Destiny. Further reading: Bochert, John R. America’s Northern Heartland. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987; Danbom, David B. Born in the Country: A History of Rural America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995; Frazier, Ian. Great Plains. New York: Picador Press, 2001; Stegner, Wallace. Wolf Willow, A History, a Story, and Memory of the Last Plains Frontier. New York: Viking Compass Book, 1966; Webb, Walter Prescott. The Great Plains. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981. John H. Barnhill Greek War of Independence The Ottoman Empire had ruled all of Greece, with the exception of the Ionian Islands, since its conquest of the Byzantine Empire over the course of the 14th and 15th centuries. But in the 18th and 19th centuries, as revolutionary nationalism grew across Europe (due, in part, to the infl uence of the French Revolution) and the power of the Ottoman Empire declined, Greek nationalism began to assert itself and drew support from western European “philhellenes.” By that time, the desire for independence was common among Greeks of all classes, whose Hellenism, or sense of Greek nationality, had long been supported by the Greek Orthodox Church, by the survival of the Greek language, and by the administrative arrangements of the Ottoman Empire. In Odessa (a port on the Black Sea now in Ukraine) in 1814, Athanasios Tsakalof, Emmanuel Xanthos, and Nikolaos Skoufas founded a Greek Independence Party, called Philiki Etairia (Friendly Society). The founders recruited merchants and rich expatriates abroad, as well as military leaders, priests, and intellectuals. The fall of Napoleon I in 1815 released many military adventurers from whom the Greeks could learn the art of contemporary warfare. Vienna, Great Britain, and the United States were havens of refuge and planning for Greek émigrés. The obvious candidate to lead the Philiki Etairia was Ioannis Kapodistrias. In 1808 he was invited to St. Petersburg and in 1815 he was appointed by Czar Alexander i as foreign minister of Russia. The message of the society spread quickly and branches opened throughout Greece. Members met in secret and came from all spheres of life. The leaders held the fi rm belief that armed force was the only effective means of liberation from the Ottoman Empire and made generous monetary contributions to the freedom fi ghters. With the support of Greek exile communities and covert assistance from Russia, they prepared for a rebellion. Only a suitable opportunity of revolt was needed, and this was provided by the rebellion of Ali Pasha against Sultan Mahmud II. While the Turks were preoccupied with this threat, the Greeks rose to war. The start of the uprising can be set as March 6, 1821, when Alexandros Ypsilanti, the leader of the Etairists, crossed the Prut River into Turkish-held Moldavia with a small force of troops, or on March 23, when rebels took control of Kalamata in the Peloponnese peninsula. Regardless, on March 25, 1821, Bishop Germanos raised the Greek fl ag as the banner of revolt at the monastery of Aghia Lavra in the Peloponnese. The ensuing revolution went through three phases: local successes in 1821–25, the crisis caused by the Egyptian intervention on behalf of the Ottoman Empire in 1826–28, and a period of overwhelming European intervention on behalf of the Greeks ending in Turkish recognition of Greek independence in 1832. From the beginning, the revolution had great momentum. Simultaneous risings took place across the Peloponnese, central Greece, including Macedonia, and the islands of Crete and Cyprus. Fighting broke Greek War of Independence 169 out throughout the Peloponnese, with freedom fi ghters laying siege to the most strategic Turkish garrisons and razing the homes of thousands of Turks. The worst atrocity occurred in Tripolitsa (today Tripolis), where 12,000 Turkish inhabitants were massacred. The Turks retaliated with massacres in Asia Minor, most notoriously on the island of Chios, where more than 25,000 civilians were killed. The fi ghting escalated throughout the mainland and many islands. Using the element of surprise, and aided by Ottoman ineffi ciency, the Greeks succeeded in taking control of vast areas. Within a year the Greeks had captured the Peloponnese, Athens, and Thebes. In January 1822 the rebels declared the independence of Greece. The Turks attempted three times between 1822 and 1824 to invade the Peloponnese but were unable to take the area back from the victorious Greeks. The Ottomans, however, soon recovered and retaliated violently. The retribution drew sympathy for the Greek cause in western Europe, although the British and French governments suspected that the uprising was a Russian plot to seize Greece from the Ottomans. The Greeks were unable to establish a coherent government and soon fell to fi ghting among themselves. They lacked unity of objectives and strategy, and the objectives of the different classes and regions were too disparate to be reconciled. In 1822 two Greek governments existed, and by 1824 open civil war prevailed in Greece. In 1823 civil war broke out between the guerrilla leader Theodoros Kolokotronis and Georgios Kountouriotis, who was head of the government that had been formed in January 1822. After a second civil war in 1824, Kountouriotis was fi rmly established as leader. These internal rivalries prevented the Greeks from extending their control and from fi rmly consolidating their position in the Peloponnese. EGYPT’S RESPONSE Fighting between Greeks and Ottomans continued until 1825, when the sultan asked for help from his most powerful vassal, Egypt. Egypt was then ruled by Muhammad Ali Pasha, who had built up a large army and new naval fl eet. The Egyptian force, under the command of Ali’s son Ibrahim, quickly gained control of the seas and Aegean Islands. With the support of Egyptian sea power, the Ottoman forces successfully invaded the Peloponnese. They recaptured the town of Athens in August 1826, and the Acropolis, symbol of Greece’s former greatness, fell to the Turks in June 1827. The Western powers were reluctant to intervene, fearing the consequences of creating a power vacuum in southeastern Europe, where the Turks still controlled much territory. In Europe, however, the revolt aroused widespread sympathy. Greece was viewed as the cradle of Western civilization, and it was lauded by romanticism. The sight of a Christian nation attempting to cast off the rule of a Muslim empire also appealed to the European public. Help did come from the philhellenes— aristocratic young men, recipients of a classical education, who saw themselves as the inheritors of a glorious civilization, willing to fi ght to liberate its oppressed descendants. Philhellenes included Percy Bysshe Shelley, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, Victor Hugo, and George Gordon, Lord Byron. Byron spent time in Greece but died from fever in 1824. Byron’s death did even more to augment European sympathy for the Greek cause. EUROPEAN INTERVENTION The Greek cause was saved by the intervention of the European powers. Favoring the formation of an autonomous Greek state, they offered to mediate between the Turks and the Greeks in 1826 and 1827. When the Turks refused, a combined Russian, French, and British fl eet destroyed the Turkish-Egyptian fl eet in the Bay of Navarino in October 1827. This was the decisive moment in the war, although the British admiral Codrington ruined his career because he had not been ordered to achieve such a victory. Although the Battle of Navarino severely crippled the Ottoman forces and made the independence of Greece practically certain, another two years passed before the fi ghting ended and nearly fi ve before the new state took shape. In October 1828 the French landed troops in the Peloponnese to stop the Ottomans. Under French protection, the Greeks were able to form a new government. In April 1827 Kapodistrias was elected as provisional president of Greece by the third National Assembly. The Greeks then advanced to seize as much territory as possible, including the ancient cities of Athens and Thebes. Again the Western powers intervened, and Ottoman sultan Mahmud II even proclaimed a holy war. Russia sent troops into the Balkans and engaged the Ottoman army in another Russian-Turkish war in 1828–29. Fighting continued until 1829, when, with Russian troops at the gates of Constantinople, the sultan accepted Greek independence by the Treaty of Adrianople, or Edirne, in 1829. In 1830 the Greeks still had in mind a future ruler who would remain the sultan’s vassal. The treaty 170 Greek War of Independence of Adrianople made this impossible, and in February 1830, the throne of Greece was offered to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. In 1832, however, the 17-year-old Bavarian prince Otto from the House of Wittelsbach accepted the Greek throne and became King Otho of the newly independent state. Neither the boundaries nor the constitution of the new Greek state were yet settled, and the state at the time was much smaller than in the present day. See also Balkan and East European insurrections; Muhammad Ali; Russo-Turkish War and Near Eastern Crisis. Further reading: Brewer, David. The Flame of Freedom: The Greek War of Independence, 1821–1833. London: J. Murray, 2001; Brewer, David. The Greek War of Independence: The Struggle for Freedom from Ottoman Oppression and the Birth of the Modern Greek Nation. New York: Overlook Press, 2001; Finlay, George. History of the Greek Revolution, and the Reign of King Otho. London: Zeno, 1971. Martin Moll Guangxu (Kuang-hsu) (1871–1908) Chinese ruler Guangxu’s personal name was Zaitian (Tsai-t’ien). He was born in 1871 and chosen emperor by the dowager empress Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) when her son and his cousin the emperor Tongzhi (T’ung-chih) died without heirs. His youth ensured another long regency by the ambitious and unscrupulous Cixi. Guangxu was bright and studious, studied English and traditional subjects under able tutors, and grew up to be a man of character and moral convictions. In 1889 Cixi married him to her niece in order to increase her web of control over him, and though she then formally retired to her luxurious Summer Palace, she continued to dictate policy and make key appointments, leaving Guangxu practically powerless. China’s catastrophic defeat by Japan in the Sino- Japanese War (1894–1895) convinced Guangxu that dramatic and immediate reforms were needed to save the nation. He therefore supported a group of reformers led by Kang Youwei (K’ang Yu-wei) in 1898 and promulgated laws that would modernize China modeled on Japan’s Meiji Restoration. He was betrayed to Cixi by General Yuan Shikai (Yuan Shih-k’ai), who struck quickly to imprison Guangxu, crushing the reformers, who were killed, imprisoned, or exiled. In retrospect, Guangxu’s attempt to change China was called the Hundred Days of Reform. It is believed that Cixi wanted to dethrone or kill Guangxu but was prevented from doing so due to protests by powerful provincial governors and through diplomatic influence of the Western powers. Cixi’s reactionary rule culminated in the Boxer Rebellion, the besieging of foreign diplomatic compounds in Beijing (Peking) by her supporters, the Boxers, and the capture of the capital by Western relief forces in 1900. She decided to flee the capital and took the captive emperor with her, murdering his courageous consort Zhen Fei (Chen-fei) for suggesting that he stay behind to negotiate with the Western powers. When the fugitive Cixi and the court returned to Beijing in 1902 after the settlement of the Boxer fiasco, she made Guangxu take the blame for what had happened. Guangxu endured his imprisonment with patience, reading and preparing for the day when he would be free to rule after his adoptive mother died. She died from illness on November 15, 1908, at 73, at which time the palace announced that he had suddenly died on the previous day at age 37. It is widely believed that he died an unnatural death at the hands of her supporters, with or without her consent. Thus ended the tragic life of Emperor Guangxu, who could never escape the control of his vicious aunt/adoptive mother. Before her death Cixi had named her infant great-nephew successor of the childless Guangxu. The boy ruled as Emperor Xuantong (Hsuan-tung) between 1909–11; he was the last emperor of the Qing dynasty. See also Li Hongzhang; Tongzhi Restoration/Self- Strengthening Movement. Further reading: Chen, Keji, and You Benlin. Imperial Medicaments: Medical Prescriptions Written for Empress Dowager Cixi and Emperor Guangxu with Commentary. New Delhi, India: Foreign Languages Press, 1996; Cohen, Paul A., and John E. Schreker, eds. Reform in Nineteenth- Century China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976; Fairbank, John K., ed. Cambridge History of China. Vol. 10, Part 1, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978; Hummel, Arthur, ed. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, Vol. I. Washington: United States Printing Office, 1944. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur
Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit
Galveston flood In 1900 Galveston, located on an island in the Gulf of Mexico about 50 miles southeast of Houston, was Texas’s fourth-largest city and a bustling port. On September 8 a presumed Category 4 hurricane, accompanied by ferocious tidal surges, smashed into Galveston, killing at least 6,000 of its 38,000 residents and possibly twice as many. Some 10,000 lost their homes. These fatalities make it still the worst single disaster in U.S. history. Although the storm had wiped out Galveston’s rail link to the mainland, recovery began almost immediately, spearheaded by city officials, who appointed a relief committee on September 9, and the American Red Cross, under the leadership of 78-year-old Clara Barton, who arrived September 17. Restoring water and telegraph services was the first priority. By the third week saloons and the port had reopened, even as dead bodies continued to wash up on the island for at least a month after the disaster. Armed with federal, state, and private donations, the people of Galveston mounted a hugely expensive project to protect the low-lying 27-mile-long island from future hurricanes. A 17-foot-high seawall was built along the island’s Gulf Coast. (By the 1960s its length had grown to more than 10 miles.) In 1902 Galveston launched an even more ambitious project designed to boost the island’s overall elevation above sea level. In eight years some 500 city blocks were raised. Some 16 million cubic yards of sand were dredged from the Gulf of Mexico and pumped onto the island, where workers used jacks to raise structures, including utilities, and then shoveled the sand underneath. Most of the city is now 15 feet higher than its preflood level. A major hurricane in 1915 flooded much of the city, but that time Galveston survived. The catastrophe had mixed effects on Galveston residents as they struggled to restore their way of life. In 1901 Galveston replaced its city government with five commissioners appointed by Texas’s governor. Soon known as the Galveston Plan, this progressive municipal reform was seen as a way to supplant local cronyism with expertise and was widely imitated. Although the Red Cross tried to deal fairly with African-American flood survivors, many of them homeless, bogus stories of black violence, thievery, and refusal to join in recovery efforts circulated in the smitten city. As the city recovered, Jim Crow restrictions intensified, and African-American political power was further weakened. Galveston would never again compete with archrival Houston or any other major city. Remade as a resort town, Galveston for years wooed tourists with night spots, big-name entertainment, and illegal gambling. By 1904 the disaster at Galveston had been turned into an entertainment attraction, both at the St. Louis World’s Fair and at Brooklyn’s Coney Island amusement park, where paying patrons could view a simulation of the destruction. In 1960 folk musician Tom Rush published and later recorded “Wasn’t It a Mighty Storm,” a song that sensitively portrayed the horror of G the September day “when death come howling on the ocean/death calls, you gotta go.” Further reading: Bixel, Patricia Bellis, and Elizabeth Hayes. Galveston and the 1900 Storm: Catastrophe and Catalyst. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000; Larson, Erik. Isaac’s Storm: A Man, a Time, and the Deadliest Hurricane in History. New York: Crown Publishers, 1999. Marsha E. Ackermann Gandhi, Mohandas K. (1869–1948) Indian nationalist leader The Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who dominated the Indian political scene for three decades, became an internationally acclaimed person for his nonviolent path of struggle to achieve Indian independence from British colonial rule. Through ahimsa (nonviolence) and satyagraha (true force, nonviolent protest), he led one of the largest mass movements in world history. Gandhi dedicated his life to the quest for truth and justice. He was called the mahatma (noble soul). In his varied career he led the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, conducted passive resistance against the British, and dedicated his life to the uplift of millions of Indians. Gandhi had been criticized and vilifi ed but remained true to his convictions and led a life of austerity and simplicity. He was born in Porbandar, Gujarat, India, on October 2, 1869, to Karamchand and Putlibai. Gandhi was greatly infl uenced by the honesty and integrity of his father, who served as prime minister in the state of Rajkot. Putlibai’s religious nature created a lasting impression on Gandhi. He married at the age of 13 to Kasturbai, a noble lady of high moral character. Gandhi was also deeply moved by the saga of honesty, sacrifi ce, and dedication in Hindu mythology. After fi nishing his schooling he went to the Inner Temple in London in November 1888. He came back to India after three years and left for South Africa in 1893 to take up a legal career. Gandhi’s 20-year stay in South Africa was instrumental in the blossoming of his philosophy and his course of action against injustice. Humiliating experiences and the racial arrogance of the whites there made him determined to fi ght against apartheid. The offi cial discrimination against nonwhites caused him to help the minority community of Indians. His creed was one of peaceful coexistence of all communities, regardless of color or religion. Gandhi charted out a course of action of passive resistance against the government by demonstrations. He was deeply infl uenced by the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita, Jainism, the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the literature of U.S. author Henry David Thoreau (1817–62), English writer John Ruskin (1819–1900), and Russian Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910). In a campaign of passive resistance, nonviolence was the driving force, and noncooperation was the action itself. Gandhi organized campaigns and demonstrations against humiliating laws applied to nonwhites. He set up the Natal Indian Congress in 1894 to redress the grievances of Indian immigrants. Gandhi became a prominent fi gure and was engaged in civil rights issues. He was in India twice for short visits and acquainted the editors of newspapers and Indian National Congress (INC) leaders with the conditions in South Africa. Gandhi journeyed on trains and was appalled by the condition of common Indians. On his return to South Africa he changed his lifestyle to one of utter simplicity and also undertook to fast. Gandhi did not see the British as the enemy and was prepared to help them in case of need. At the time of the Boer War, he organized the Indian ambulance corps. Gandhi was a prolifi c writer, and he wrote Hind Sawraj (Self-government of India) and published a journal, Indian Opinion, in 1904. He began to experiment with many novel ideas in the community fi rm that he set up in Phoenix. In 1910 he established another cooperative colony (Tolstoy Farm) for Indians near Durban. Gandhi organized a satyagraha against the obnoxious laws of the Transvaal government, which required the registration of Indians. Gandhi was jailed several times during the agitation. General Jan Christiaan Smuts at last conceded to many of Gandhi’s demands and brought about reforms. Gandhi decided to return to India. Great Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914, two days before Gandhi reached London. He organized a medical corps in August 1914. After his return to India the next year, he urged the people to support the British in their time of crisis. The colonial government rewarded him with a medal, and he earned the sobriquet “recruiting agent of the government.” Gandhi traveled the length and breadth of India. He took up the cause of indigo cultivators in Champaran and workers in Ahmedabad mills. He was emerging as a mass leader and gave a new direction to the Indian freedom movement under the congress. It became an umbrella organization that drew support from all classes of the population. The Congress Party underwent a thorough revamping due to Gandhi’s organizational skill. The 118 Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhian era in the Indian nationalist struggle began in 1919. After the draconian Rowlatt Act, which empowered the authorities to arrest and detain without trial, was passed, Gandhi called for a general strike in April 1919. The government suppressed the agitation, and the brutality of colonial masters was evident after the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre of April 13. A large number of Muslims joined the congress after Gandhi’s support of the Khilafat movement, which fought to preserve the authority of the Ottoman sultan. With the noncooperation movement under Gandhi’s leadership, a new phase of struggle against the British Raj began. A special session of the AICC met in Calcutta in September 1920 to start the movement with a boycott of educational institutions, law courts, elections, and legislatures. There was to be the promotion of Hindu-Muslim unity, along with use of homespun garments of khaddar. The goal was the attainment of swaraj, or self-government. The December annual session held in Nagpur endorsed the idea. A large number of students, women, peasants, and workers from different parts of the country participated. Demonstrations and strikes greeted the November 1921 visit of the prince of Wales. Noncooperation and Khilafat went hand in hand under Gandhi, who had renounced the title of kaiser-i-hind that had been conferred on him by the British. Following a policy of repression, the government banned the Khilafat and congress. After police fired on demonstrations on February 5, 1922, at Chauri Chaura in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh, the police station was attacked, resulting in the death of 22 police personnel. Gandhi was stunned by this path of violence and suspended the noncooperation movement. He was steadfast in his commitment to nonviolent methods. Freedom through violence was not on his agenda. People in general and INC leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964) and Subhas Chandra Bose (1897–1945) were annoyed by the decision, and some congressmen, like Motilal Nehru (1861–1931), launched a program of council entry through the newly formed Swaraj Party of 1923. Gandhi was arrested in March 1922 and given six years’ imprisonment for treason in an Ahmedabad court. Gandhi was not only interested in swaraj, but also in the social and economic emancipation of the people. He was a crusader for economic and social reforms. His emphasis on swadeshi meant the use of hand-made goods from his home country rather than foreign machine-made goods. People were mobilized to boycott foreign goods. Handicraft was emphasized in education also. The hand weaving of dresses and the development of handicrafts, Gandhi hoped, would be a panacea for India’s poverty, economic backwardness, and unemployment. Gandhi’s economic philosophy was also part of his strategy against colonial rule, as the boycott of foreign goods would adversely affect British industry. Gandhi was not opposed to industrial revolution per se, but he desired to create a framework, keeping in mind the economic condition of India under alien rule. Gandhi was back on the political scene in 1930 with his movement of civil disobedience. He launched the salt satyagraha with his famous Dandi March in March 1930. He and his followers covered a distance of 241 miles to the Arabian Sea to make salt. These civil disobedience movements witnessed participation in large numbers by tribal people, peasants, and women. Gandhi was arrested in May, but the British government agreed to negotiations. The movement was suspended by the pact signed between Gandhi and Viceroy of India Lord Irwin (1881–1959) in March 1931. He also was the INC delegate to the Second Round Table held in London, but the British government refused to grant self-government to the Indians. Gandhi was jailed again, Gandhi, Mohandas K. 119 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi dominated the Indian political scene for three decades. and the civil disobedience movement was withdrawn by him in May 1934. Gandhi devoted himself to social and economic reconstruction work. Indian politics began to change at the time of World War II. Gandhi had a difference of opinion with Subhas Bose, who parted from the congress. The British were not in a mood to give independence, and Gandhi launched another movement. With the call of “Do or Die,” the Quit India Movement was launched on August 8, 1942, and spread throughout the country. The British could not hold to the empire after the war due to domestic diffi culties and offered India independence. India experienced unprecedented communal violence, and Gandhi toured the riot-affected area in support of Hindu-Muslim unity. The demand for the creation of Pakistan had been raised, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah (1876–1948) was relentless in his pursuit of the two-nation theory. Talks between Jinnah and Gandhi failed. Partition was inevitable. Gandhi’s insistence that Pakistan should get its due share of monetary assets angered Hindu fundamentalists. A fanatic named Nathuram Godse (1910–49) assassinated him on January 30, 1948, while he was on his way to evening prayers. Further reading: Chandra Joshi P. Mahatma Gandhi: The New Economic Agenda. Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 1996; Dalton, D. Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993; Fischer, Louis, ed. The Essential Gandhi. New York: Random House, 2002; Gandhi, Mahatma. An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Mahadev Desai, trans. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993; Gandhi, Mahatma. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Government of India, 1989; Nanda, B. R. Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography: Complete and Unabridged. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996; ———. In Search of Gandhi: Essays and Refl ections. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002; Shepard, Mark. Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths: Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, and Satyagraha in the Real World. Los Angeles: Shepard Publications, 2002. Patit Paban Mishra Garvey, Marcus (1887–1940) Jamaican writer The list of players involved in the 20th-century social empowerment and civil rights movements for blacks could not be complete without the story of Marcus Garvey and the movement for separatist black nationalism started by him early in the century and known as the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). The tenets of the UNIA as an organization and the “Garveyites” as adherents to both were a complex mixture of race, class, politics, nationalism, and ideological confl icts surrounding the issue of blacks and their position in the world. Even today Garvey’s ideologies have some black leaders praising him for raising social consciousness in the 1910s and 1920s and others condemning him as a counterproductive obstacle to efforts for civil rights. Marcus Mosiah Garvey was born on August 17, 1887, in St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica, at a time when blacks in Jamaica were largely landless, poor, and wanting Marcus Garvey fought for the idea of a separate, unifi ed black culture and a sovereign black nation. 120 Garvey, Marcus better conditions. By the time Garvey was a teenager he had become cognizant of the lines dividing blacks and whites. Garvey supplemented his schooling with time spent reading from his father’s library, fueling his own curiosities about the outside world. At 15 he began to learn the printer’s trade, and in 1905 he moved to Kingston, Jamaica’s capital city, where he eventually became a master printer. This knowledge of the printing business proved invaluable when he started his own newspapers and journals as a part of the organizations he founded. By 1909 when he was 22, Garvey had learned that residents of Kingston liked to argue the sociopolitical ideas of the time. He found himself getting involved in these political and intellectual debates that dealt with the betterment of blacks in Jamaica and addressed the problems associated with imperialistic colonial rule. Seeking other work in 1910, Garvey traveled to Costa Rica to work for the giant American-owned United Fruit Company. He was arrested for agitating for better working conditions, left Costa Rica, and began traveling around Latin America, noticing the generally oppressed state of black workers. In 1912 Garvey went to England hoping to address Britain’s colonial rule and its promotion of disparity between blacks and whites in the Caribbean and Central America. In London he got a job working for the Africa Times and Orient Review, one of the foremost Pan-African publications of the day. Garvey returned to Jamaica in 1914 and immediately began the UNIA. His intent was to develop a separatist, nationalistic movement of international scope, meaning that it would allow the blacks of the world to eventually achieve a unifi ed culture separate from the whites, including a separate country that would become a sovereign central nation for the world’s blacks. These goals were the hallmark of “Garveyism.” Garvey came to America in 1916 to solicit the support of American blacks. In 1917 New York City’s Harlem district was virtually the world’s capital of black culture, and Garvey chose this as his temporary base. By 1918 Garvey was publishing Negro World, the internationally distributed paper that would be the voice of the UNIA, and he decided to stay in Harlem and run the UNIA headquarters from there. Garvey’s promotion of totally separate cultural spheres through his separatist ideals went so far as the conducting of (unsuccessful) negotiations between the UNIA and the African country of Liberia between 1922 and 1924 to allow establishment of settlements of black Americans. This caused considerable consternation among both blacks and whites in America and abroad. Other prominent black-rights groups such as the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), led by the widely respected W. E. B. DuBois, increasingly criticized Garvey for hurting the cause of black unity and advancement. Garvey had his followers but was also criticized for his pursuit of racial separation, which was deemed counterproductive to the racial cooperation being sought by the NAACP. Almost since his arrival in America, Garvey had been the object of scrutiny by governmental and corporate agencies that viewed his ideologies as subversive. Garvey was accused of fraud on several occasions because he attempted to start new businesses that would allegedly benefi t the members of the UNIA but that proved to be fi nancial fi ascos. The bestknown one was the 1919 venture known as the Black Star Line Steamship Corporation, which involved the purchase of obsolete ships using hopeful investors’ money to start international freight and passenger shipping lines. The end of Garvey’s hopes for operating his organization from America came in 1922 when he and the top offi cials of the Black Star Line were indicted for mail fraud concerning the Black Star Line’s business practices. Garvey’s trial ended with a conviction in 1923, which he appealed. The appeal was rejected in 1925, and Garvey was sent to prison in Atlanta until 1927, when his fi ve-year sentence was commuted. Upon his release, Garvey was deported back to Jamaica. Garvey went back to England in 1928, where he unsuccessfully attempted to revive interest in the UNIA’s goals. He died in London of complications from a stroke on June 10, 1940. Further reading: Cronon, E. David. Black Moses: The Story of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969; Lawler, Mary. Marcus Garvey. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1988; Martin, Tony. Race First: The Ideological and Organizational Struggles of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Dover, MA: The Majority Press, 1976; Vincent, Theodore G. Black Power and the Garvey Movement. Berkeley, CA: The Ramparts Press, 1971. Mike Rayburn Garvey, Marcus 121 Geneva Conventions The Geneva Conventions and their subsequent protocols are a series of four treaties regarding the fundamental rules of humanitarian concerns of soldiers and noncombatants during warfare. They were fi rst established in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864. In addition, there are three protocols added to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit certain methods of warfare and deal with issues regarding civil wars. The fi rst Geneva Convention dealt exclusively with the care of wounded soldiers on the battlefi eld and was later amended to cover warfare at sea and prisoners of war. The Red Cross, an international philanthropic organization, was formed because of the First Geneva Convention. Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, was instrumental in campaigning for the ratifi cation of the fi rst Geneva Convention by the United States, which signed it in 1882. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), under the fi rst Geneva Convention, chapter 1, article 3, was recognized as an impartial humanitarian body permitted to offer its services during confl icts, and its emblem would be recognized as a neutral organization to parties to the confl ict. This was later amended to include the emblems of the International Red Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun humanitarian organizations. In brief the seven fundamental rules that form the tenets of the Geneva Conventions and protocols are: 1. Civilians not taking part in the confl ict are entitled to respect for their lives and their moral and physical integrity; and shall in all instances be treated humanely. 2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders. 3. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for by the party to the confl ict that has them in their power. Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports, and equipment. The Red Cross and Red Crescent are two signs of such protection and must be respected. 4. Captured combatants and civilians are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights, and convictions. They shall be protected against acts of violence and have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief. 5. Everyone shall have the right to fundamental judicial guarantees. No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment, or cruel or degrading treatment. 6. It is prohibited to employ weapons that would produce unnecessary or extreme losses or excessive suffering. 7. Civilians shall be protected from attack and not the subject of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives. In 1949 each convention was revised and ratifi ed after the horrifi c loss of human life in World War II. These revisions had their basis in part in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Peace Conferences, which were initiated by Russian czar Nicholas II to discuss peace and disarmament during the Japanese-Russian confl icts. The original Hague Peace Conferences led to the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the precursor to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Further reading: Bailey, T. A. A Diplomatic History of the American People. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974; International Court of Justice. International Court of Justice Charter. Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Rosenne, S. The World Court: What It Is and How It Works. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003. Paul von Jankowsky Giichi Tanaka (1863–1929) Japanese politician Tanaka Giichi was a Japanese soldier, politician, and prime minister of Japan from April 20, 1927, to July 2, 1929. He was born on June 22, 1863. Tanaka served in the Japanese military in the Russo-Japanese War (1904- 1905) and quickly parlayed a successful combat campaign into a rapid ascent to positions of greater power. In 1915 Tanaka took the position of subchief of Central Major State and in 1920 the rank of general. Prime Ministers Hara Takashi (1918–21) and Yamamoto Gonnohyoe (1923–24) appointed him war minister. During his tenure, Tanaka supported the Siberian Expedition, sending Japanese troops to Russia. He offi cially retired from military service in 1921 in order to work with and later lead the Seiyukai political party. Tanaka, like many of his contemporaries, emerged as a signifi cant military voice after Japan’s decisive victory over Russia and when Japan dealt with the fallout of its own modernization program. Thus, Tanaka in many ways symbolized the new and modern Japanese military mind. 122 Geneva Conventions By 1927 Giichi successfully gained the position of prime minister and served concurrently as foreign affairs minister. His foreign policy was both aggressive and interventionist. Most notably, Giichi intervened militarily in Shandong (Shantung), China, in 1927 in order to prevent Chiang Kai-shek from uniting the country. Domestically, he worked to suppress opposition and has been accused of manipulating elections in order to extend his rule. He is the reputed author of the “Tanaka Memorial”— the Imperial Conquest Plan for the taking of Manchuria, Mongolia, the whole of China, and then the Soviet Far East and Central Asia. Japan claimed the plan was a forgery. What cannot be denied, however, is that the so-called Tanaka plan refl ected much of the foreign policy of Japan during the 1930s and 1940s and ultimately led to World War II. His fall came from within his own administration. His supporter Kaku Mori, with ties to two secret Japanese societies, the zaibatsu and radical groups, was able to infl uence him and his policies as prime minister—the implementation of interventionist policies toward both Manchuria and Mongolia. Thus, Japan backed in 1928 the successful assassination of Manchurian warlord Zhang Zolin (Chang Tso-lin) in an attempt to seize Manchuria. Due to quick Chinese response, the plotters failed to seize Manchuria until 1931 as a result of the Manchurian incident. Giichi’s political career came to an end with his signing of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Opponents criticized him for exceeding his power and failing to take into account the sovereignty of the emperor. The failure in Manchuria and Kellogg- Briand led to his resignation and the succession of Hamaguchi Osachi as prime minister. He died on September 29, 1929. Further reading: Tsurumi Kazuko. Social Change and the Individual: Japan Before and After Defeat in WWII. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970. Matthew H. Wahlert Gold Coast (Ghana) The modern West African nation of Ghana was called the Gold Coast until 1957. This small African country is nestled just under the continent as it juts out into the Atlantic Ocean a few miles above the equator. Ancient in its history and traditional in its ethos, the Gold Coast garnered its name from the Portuguese in the 15th century. Calling the area “da Mina” or “El Mina,” denoting the mines, the Portuguese were astounded at the vast deposits of easily accessible gold. By 1472 the Portuguese had built a fort at El Mina to facilitate the emerging Atlantic trade system in gold, ivory, salt, slaves, and timber. Both historic and contemporary ties made Ghana a major cultural and symbolic icon in the consciousness of African Americans. Although the Gold Coast had several European nations as its primary trading partners, it is its British heritage that defi nes the contemporary nation. Envious of Portugal’s success and wealth, other European nations began to explore West Africa. By 1600 the Dutch had built several forts along the coastal inlets of the Gold Coast at Komenda and Kormantsil. In 1637 the Dutch eclipsed the Portuguese as Ghana’s major trading partner when they seized Elmina Castle, and in 1642 they confi rmed their regional hegemony by forcing the Portuguese to retreat from Fort St. Anthony at Axim. Dutch success gave strength to the ambitions of other European powers. Thus, the British, Danes, and Swedes started to engage in regular trade as they built their own forts along the Gold Coast. In these areas they exchanged alcohol, cloth, guns, and ammunition for African commercial and human commodities. Having ruled the area and exploited its wealth for almost 300 years, the Dutch ceded their position in the Gold Coast to the British in 1872. Rushing to confi rm the hegemony of the British Empire, England annexed the Gold Coast as a Crown Colony in 1878. But after fi ghting several wars with local chiefs, the British still only controlled part of the area. Despite the superior weapons and cohesion of the British military, it was not able to conquer the Gold Coast easily. Many different groups fought the British, who attempted to exploit local ethnic and regional divisions. By allying themselves with the Fante on the coast, the British became the enemies of the Ashanti. This early and pragmatic decision cost the British thousands of lives over many decades. The Ashanti, foremost among the local groups who fought the British, proved England’s most capable foe. From the time that the British sent ambassadors to Kumasi between 1817 and 1821 to discuss peace with King Osei Bonsu (the Asantehene) to their defeat in 1900, the Ashanti rejected British claims. The Ashanti people were victorious during the 1823–24 Ashanti-Denkyira War, despite a British-Fante Gold Coast (Ghana) 123 alliance that supported the Denkyiras. With superior armaments the British defeated the Ashanti at the Battle of Kantamanto near Dodowa, and in 1831 George MacLean signed a treaty with the Ashanti. Although this did not ensure the pacifi cation of the region, by 1876 the British confi rmed their mastery over the region by moving the capital to present-day Accra. The last war in Ashanti history was led by Nana Yaa Asantewaa, the queen mother. She led an attack on the British fort in Kumasi in 1900 in response to the arrogant demand by Arnold Frederick Hodgson that the king deliver “the golden stool” to the British governor as a sign of surrender. The queen mother, having enormous power in a matrilineal society, led her people to war. Despite courageous and skillful fi ghting, the Ashanti were defeated; however, refusing to violate the sanctity of the customary institutions, the elders provided a fake stool to the British as they sued for peace to end the bloodshed and save their nation. The ancient golden stool, the national symbol of sovereignty and power, remained hidden and has never been occupied by a European. As part of the British Empire, confi rmed and carved up at the Conference of Berlin in 1885, Ghana began to emerge as a modern nation-state. The British sent some of the most able African students to study in the United States and Europe. In addition, participation in two world wars allowed many soldiers from the Gold Coast to experience the Western world. After World War II African soldiers and students returned home; students, members of the privileged elite, had not been indoctrinated as the British had assumed, but returned to begin the process of decolonization. These educated men and women rejected their comfortable and safe lives as members of the colonial bureaucracy and established a series of political organizations designed to raise the political consciousness of the people. Many realized that colonization was a form of economic exploitation and that the system was economically unfair to Africans and structured to the advantage of the British. Moreover, having been treated with dignity in Europe and America, these educated and sophisticated Africans chafed under the humiliations they often endured at the hands of local colonial administrators. KWAME NKRUMAH In particular, Kwame Nkrumah, who had attended Lincoln University in Pennsylvania and read positive messages about being black written by Marcus Garvey and W. E. B. Dubois, began to organize a nationalist movement. He was also infl uenced by the speeches and rhetoric of the Pan-African Conference held in Manchester, England, in 1945. From this conference forward, Africans in particular and people of color in general began to question European notions of racial superiority, the administration of colonial justice, and the negative effects of imperial fi nancial systems. The agitation and anticolonial struggles in the Gold Coast forced the British to grant some local selfgovernment. Finally, despite false imprisonment, violent repression, and the manipulation of ethnic and religious hostilities, Britain had to concede to demands for independence. In 1957 the Gold Coast became an independent nation, the fi rst independent nation in Africa south of the Sahara. See also Pan-Africanism. Further reading: DeCorse, Christopher R. An Archaeology of Elmina: Africans and Europeans on the Gold Coast, 1400– 1900. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press, 2001; Kimble, David. A Political History of Ghana: The Rise of Gold Coast Nationalism, 1850–1928. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963; Perbi, Akosua Adoma. A History of Indigenous Slavery in Ghana: From the 15th to the 19th Century. Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2004; St. Clair, William. The Grand Slave Emporium: Slave Coast Castle and the British Slave Trade. London: Profi le Books, 2006. Alphine W. Jefferson Goldman, Emma (1869–1940) feminist and radical anarchist Emma Goldman, also known as “Red Emma,” was born to Jewish parents on June 27, 1869, in Kaunas, Lithuania (Kovno, Russia) in a climate of mounting czarist repression marked by periodic pogroms. In order to avoid such threats her family moved when she was 13 to St. Petersburg. Economic circumstances, however, ended her formal schooling and forced her to take up work as a corset maker in a factory. In an effort to improve family prospects, Goldman and her half sister immigrated to America, where they joined another sister in Rochester, New York. There Goldman gained employment at $2.50 a week as a seamstress in a clothing factory. Events surrounding the Chicago Haymarket Square riots of 1886 and the subsequent trial, conviction, and hanging of the accused agitators drew her into the anarchist cause. Following a short marriage to Jacob Kershner, Goldman, now age 124 Goldman, Emma 20, headed east, fi rst to New Haven, Connecticut, and eventually to New York City, where she soon fell under the infl uence of Johann Most (1846–1906), a revolutionary editor of a German paper. Goldman’s political development also saw her embrace the anarchist teachings of Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) with their emphasis on individualism and revolution. She accepted the concept of “propaganda by deed” and supported friend, sometime lover, and fellow anarchist Alexander Berkman’s 1892 plot to assassinate Carnegie Steel industrialist Henry Clay Frick. The attack only injured Frick but nevertheless brought Berkman a 22-year prison sentence. Although Goldman was not convicted, she did receive a year in New York’s Blackwell Island Prison on a separate charge of encouraging the unemployed to use force to achieve their demands. A further arrest came in 1901 following Leon Czolgosz’s (1873–1901) assassination of President William McKinley; however, Goldman was ultimately not charged. In 1906 following Berkman’s parole from prison, Goldman joined him and began editing the monthly journal Mother Earth, which ran until 1917. Mother Earth became a forum for her writing and anarchistfeminist political ideas. Her radical propaganda was winning her more enemies than friends, though, and in 1908 her citizenship was revoked. In 1914 she was again accused of involvement in bombing plots, this time supposedly against the oil baron J. D. Rockefeller, and in 1916 she was imprisoned for distributing birth control leafl ets. Berkman at this stage had moved to San Francisco and was contributing to another anarchist journal, the Blast. The coming of World War I prompted Goldman to campaign against U.S. participation, and she, along with Berkman, led No Conscription League protests, which confl icted with the 1917 Espionage Act. Searches of her offi ces produced incriminating documents and information on fellow revolutionaries. The material and correspondence would later aid investigators in their roundup of radicals. Her antiwar activities and agitation brought her further legal attention and another jail sentence, this time of two years. While in prison she developed a friendship with Gabriella Segata Antolini, a fellow anarchist and an associate of the radical anarchist editor Luigi Galleani (1861–1931). The immediate aftermath of World War I, coming on the heels of the 1917 communist revolution in Russia, produced heightened U.S. fears of radical subversion. The U.S. attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, supported by eager federal investigative agents such as the young J. Edgar Hoover, instituted a campaign, subsequently labeled the Red Scare of 1919–20, to deport immigrant radicals as undesirable aliens. Goldman and Berkman found themselves in this group, and on December 1, 1919, they and 247 other radicals were put on the U.S.S. Buford for transport to Russia. This journey took them to the heartland of the unfolding Bolshevik Revolution. Communist actions soon undercut their initial enthusiasm for this socialist experiment. Leaving Russia in 1921, Goldman divided her time between England and France and eventually acquired a house in Saint Tropez. In 1931 while living in the south Goldman, Emma 125 Emma Goldman was jailed repeatedly for her views as the United States underwent a Red Scare following the Russian Revolution. of France, she completed her autobiographical volume, Living My Life. Now in possession of a British passport, she was able to travel and lecture, even returning to the United States for a lecture tour in 1934. The rise of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s gave Goldman new opponents for her political campaigns, and the coming of the Spanish civil war in 1936 provided her with a new cause to champion. However, shortly before the outbreak of the war in 1936 she suffered the loss of her longtime companion and anarchist associate, Alexander Berkman, who after suffering from serious pain and chronic illness committed suicide. Visits to Spain in 1937 and 1938 convinced Goldman that more action was needed, and she joined with others to help the Committee to Aid Homeless Spanish Women and Children. While on a visit to Toronto, Canada, Goldman suffered a stroke and died on May 14, 1940. U.S. authorities permitted her burial in what is now the Forest Home Cemetery in Forest Park, Illinois, close to the burial plots of the executed Haymarket Riot anarchists. See also anarchist movements in Europe and America. Further reading: Falk, Candace. Love, Anarchy and Emma Goldman. Camden, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990; Goldman, Emma. Anarchism and Other Essays. Cosimo, 2006; ———. Living My Life. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1931; Moritz, Teresa, and Albert Moritz. The World’s Most Dangerous Woman: A New Biography of Emma Goldman. Vancouver: Subway Books, 2002; Zinn, Howard, ed. Heroes and Martyrs: Emma Goldman, Sacco and Vanzetti and Revolutionary Struggle. Audio CD. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2000. Theodore W. Eversole Gómez, Juan Vicente (c. 1857–1935) Venezuelan dictator The dictator who controlled Venezuela from 1909 until 1935, Juan Vicente Gómez was offi cially president on four occasions, from 1909 until 1910, from 1910 until 1914, from 1922 until 1929, and from 1931 until 1935. As a result of the brutal manner in which he ran the country, he was either known as El Brujo (“the sorcerer”) or simply El Bagre (“the catfi sh”). It is not known for certain when Juan Vicente Gómez was born, although it was probably on July 24, 1857. He was of Indian ancestry, and he was born at San Antonio del Táchira in the northwest of Venezuela, close to the border with Colombia. Despite having no formal education—he was barely literate—he rose to prominence around his hometown and joined the private army of Cipriano Castro in 1899. When Castro captured Caracas in October 1899, he became president and appointed Gómez his vice president. In this capacity Gómez was able to crush attempts to oust Castro. However, on December 20, 1908, when Castro was in Europe recuperating from an illness, Gómez seized power, and in February 1909 he took the opportunity of appointing himself provisional president, becoming president when Castro was formally deposed on August 11. From then until his death, he controlled the country either directly or through “puppet” presidents. On April 19, 1910, Gómez formally stood down as president, appointing Emilio Constantino Guerrero acting president. However, Guerrero was replaced 10 days later by Jesús Ramón Ayala, who lasted just over a month, until June 3, when Gómez became president for the second time. On April 19, 1914, he was replaced by Victorino Márquez Bustillos, who remained in offi ce as provisional president for eight years until Gómez reassumed the presidency again on June 24, 1922. For most of that time, all important decisions were still made by Gómez from his home at Maracay. He then relinquished the position to two successive acting presidents, Juan Bautista Pérez and Pedro Itriago Chacín. On July 13, 1931, Gómez began his fourth term, which ended with his death. During his time running Venezuela, Gómez ensured that the country achieved a degree of economic independence but with rampant corruption managed to make himself reputedly the wealthiest man in South America. Much of the wealth of the country came from oil, which in 1918 was found near Lake Maracaibo. Gómez drove a hard bargain with the British, Dutch, and U.S. oil companies, using the newly found wealth to pay off Venezuela’s national debt as well as enrich himself. By the late 1920s Venezuela was the world’s largest exporter of oil. Gómez was ruthless to political opponents, who were jailed by the thousands. Many were put in huge leg irons, crippling them for life, and others were hung by meat hooks until they were dead. At the same time Gómez started acquiring companies, farms, and industrial concerns for himself. He had spies and agents keeping a constant watch on the population, and his army was always one of the best equipped in South America. Gómez destroyed much of the power of the local political caudillos and also the Roman Catholic Church. He protected his own herds of cattle from disease but allowed those of others to suf- 126 Gómez, Juan Vicente fer. Although he personally did not like coffee, he owned many coffee plantations as well as sugarcane plantations and ranches. Gómez himself lived in the governor’s palace in Maracay, which was equipped with escape passages. It was said that the reason why the town had such good roads was in case he had to fl ee. He never drank or smoked but had affairs with many women and boasted that he had fathered between 80 and 90 children. Many of these were given jobs in the public administration, giving rise to charges of nepotism. Even when he was dying, Gómez was still searching for a woman to marry so that he might have at least one legitimate child. He died on December 17, 1935, at Maracay and was buried in a massive mausoleum he had built some years earlier in the town’s cemetery. As soon as news reached Caracas and other places, people rushed into the streets to cheer and celebrate for two days. In an orgy of pent-up rage, they looted or burned down houses of his relatives and supporters and even attacked the oil installations at Lake Maracaibo. His political opponents and some allies turned on his family. His property, valued at $200 million at his death, was seized by the state, and most of his children were forced into exile. Further reading: McBeth, B. S. Juan Vicente Gómez and the Oil Companies in Venezuela, 1908–1935. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Justin Corfi eld Gompers, Samuel (1850–1924) U.S. labor leader Samuel Gompers, who ushered in a new era of organized labor in the United States, was born on January 27, 1850, in London. At the age of 13 he emigrated and settled on Houston Street, New York. He was interested in trade union activities and joined the local United Cigar Makers in 1864. He became the president of the Cigar Makers’ International Union (CMIU) in New York City at the age of 25. Gompers was very much concerned with the plight of labor at a time when labor unions were not very strong. A man of conservative outlook, he preferred to work within the capitalist system. He was not in favor of independent political action and radicalism, was opposed to violence, advocated a moderate approach, and hesitated to call strikes. His agenda was provision of basic needs for workers: shorter work hours, more wages, safe working environments, and union protection. He became one of the founding members of the Federation of Trades and Labor Unions (ATLU), which was established in 1881. Gompers was the chairperson and remained the vice president for fi ve years. In 1886 it changed its name to the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and Gompers was its president for 40 years. The governing philosophy behind the AFL was similar to that of the ATLU. Gompers was convinced that craft unions were far better organizations for extracting maximum concessions than industrial unions. The former were restricted to skilled workers in one particular trade, whereas the latter could organize workers of any skill in a particular industry. For Gompers, economic organization was essential. Persons were employed to recruit new members from nonunion shops. An emergency fund was created for the workers in case of a strike. Under the leadership of Gompers, the AFL swelled in membership. From a membership of 250,000 in 1890, the AFL increased to 1.7 million by 1904. Gompers also helped to establish the Women’s Trade Union League in 1903. Although Gompers was not aligned with any political party, under his stewardship the AFL supported prolabor candidates in elections. The AFL also was instrumental in enacting measures in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures that were favorable to labor. President Woodrow Wilson appointed Gompers a member of the advisory committee to the Council of National Defense, which was created by Wilson to outline areas of the economy vital in a time of war. Gompers was instrumental in mobilizing labor support for the war effort. He also joined the National War Labor Board, created in April 1918, which gave the workers an eight-hour day, equal pay for women doing equal work, and a minimal living standard. Gompers was at the Paris Peace Conference after the end of World War I as a member of the Commission on International Labor Legislation for creating an organization with international dimensions under the League of Nations. As chairperson, he was responsible in a substantial way for the creation of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Gompers helped various labor federations in Latin American countries. In 1921 he attended the congress of the Pan-American Federation of Labor in Mexico City despite deteriorating health. He had to be taken to the hospital in San Antonio, Texas, where he died on December 13, 1924. Gompers’s efforts had resulted in a defi nite wartime labor policy of the U.S. government, and this policy was the foundation of the labor rights stipulated in the New Deal. Gompers had left a lasting impression not Gompers, Samuel 127 only in the history of the AFL, but also on the whole of the U.S. labor moment. Further reading: Gompers, Samuel. Seventy Years of Life and Labor: An Autobiography. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1925; Livesay, Harold C. Samuel Gompers and Organized Labor in America. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978; Taft, Philip. The A.F. of L. from the Death of Gompers to the Merger. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959; ———. The A.F. of L. in the Time of Gompers. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957; Welsh, Douglas. The USA in World War I (Americans at War). New York: Galahad Books, 1982. Patit Paban Mishra Good Neighbor Policy (1933–1945) The Good Neighbor Policy, announced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) during his fi rst inaugural address on March 4, 1933, at the height of the Great Depression, was a response to the powerful backlash against U.S. military intervention in the Caribbean and Central America over the previous 35 years. “In the fi eld of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor,” Roosevelt declared, “the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others. . . .” In effect, FDR’s policy shift amounted to a repudiation of his cousin Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. From 1898 to 1933, the United States had intervened militarily, economically, and politically in Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and elsewhere, creating an informal empire in its “backyard,” with the aim of creating “order” and “stability” and asserting U.S. economic and geopolitical domination of the region, to the exclusion of European powers. This openly interventionist policy had generated a fi restorm of protest throughout much of Latin America and Europe. By the late 1920s it was clear that the unintended consequences of U.S. intervention were overshadowing its intended effects. The Good Neighbor Policy has thus been interpreted as a new stage in U.S. efforts to dominate the region, in the context of the Great Depression, the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, and the threat to U.S. interests in Asia posed by imperial Japan. Overall the policy proved very effective, disarming critics, dampening opposition, and garnering important allies across the hemisphere. Its most important effects arguably came during World War II, when governments throughout Latin America backed the Allies in their war against Germany and Japan. The short-term antecedents to the policy have been traced to president-elect Herbert Hoover’s tour of Latin America in late 1928, following the sixth Pan- American Conference in Havana in January (at which U.S. policy came under heavy criticism), when he announced his hope that the nations of the Western Hemisphere might get along like “good neighbors.” Under FDR the Good Neighbor Policy assumed military, economic, political, and cultural dimensions. Militarily, the United States withdrew its troops from Nicaragua (January 1933, an event predating formal announcement of the new policy, and in the works since late 1928) and Haiti (1934) and refused to send troops to help stabilize Cuba during the crisis of 1933–34. Also in 1934, the United States abrogated the 1901 Platt Amendment to the Cuban constitution, thus forfeiting its right to intervene militarily in Cuban affairs. Economically, the United States actively encouraged trade and investment throughout the hemisphere while also wielding the carrot and stick of U.S. economic aid, loans, and technical assistance. In 1934, emblematic of the policy shift, Congress created the Export-Import Bank to assist U.S. fi rms doing business overseas and passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which authorized bilateral trade agreements with individual countries. Politically, the United States affi rmed its commitment to nonintervention in Latin American affairs at the 1933 Pan-American Conference in Montevideo and in 1936 at the Buenos Aires Conference. The policy was put to a major test in the Mexican and Bolivian oil crises of 1938–39, when FDR refused to respond militarily to nationalist expropriations of U.S. property. The refusal overturned decades of U.S. policy toward its southern neighbors, in which the U.S. government’s right to protect U.S. “lives and property” was used to justify military intervention. The policy had an important cultural dimension as well, ranging from music, fi lm, and printed texts to joint resolutions at inter-American conferences emphasizing the unity and distinctiveness of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. After World War II, the policy was subsumed under the rubric of “national security” and hemispheric security in the context of the cold war and the fi ght against the perceived menace of international communism. The origins, characteristics, and consequences of the Good Neighbor Policy have spawned an expansive literature. 128 Good Neighbor Policy (1933–1945) Further reading. Gellman, Irwin F. Good Neighbor Diplomacy: United States Policies in Latin America, 1933–1945. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979; Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Michael J. Schroeder Great Depression, worldwide The most dramatic economic shock the world has ever known began on October 24, 1929, “Black Thursday.” After years of large-scale speculations, with millions of investors borrowing money to chase the dream of easy riches and hundreds of banks willing to accept stocks as collateral, stock prices eventually far exceeded the companies’ actual productivity, and the bubble burst. The collapse of the New York stock exchange continued through October 29 (“Black Tuesday”), and during the following days and weeks countless investors found themselves broke, while hundreds of banks were forced to default on their loans. By the early 1940s Dow Jones stock prices were still approximately 75 percent below the 1929 peak, a level that was only reached again in 1955. The Federal Reserve refused to provide emergency lending to help key banks to at least partially recover from their losses, so that the number of banks in operation almost halved over the next four years, driving thousands of business Great Depression, worldwide 129 New York City residents in a breadline beside the Brooklyn Bridge during the Great Depression. Rampant unemployment, the widespread failure of economic institutions, and crop failures created the greatest economic disaster in modern world history. owners to the wall as their banks called in loans to stay afl oat. Furthermore, because the banking system could no longer supply the necessary liquidity, new business enterprises could not be undertaken, and millions of workers lost their jobs with little hope of regaining them in the near future. In 1933 and 1934 one-half of the total U.S. workforce was jobless or underemployed. To make things worse, home mortgages and loans had produced a huge amount of consumer debt, and although incomes decreased, debts did not. Predictably, consumer spending declined dramatically: Between 1929 and 1933 expenses for food and housing went down by more than 40 percent, with crop prices following the same downward path. The crisis in the fi nancial markets had set off a domino reaction, but U.S. president Herbert Hoover was a steadfast advocate of laissez-faire principles and believed that the “invisible hand” of the market and the moral fi ber of the American people would ensure that everything would eventually work out. In keeping with the contemporary tendency to manage economic problems by trade measures, Hoover adopted austerity policies, and on June 17, 1930, he signed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, which doubled import duties on selected goods, causing other Western countries, already burdened by war debts and reparations dating back to the Versailles Treaty of 1919, to react by raising their own import tariffs. This provoked a major disruption of world trade. WORLD ECONOMIC DISASTER Internationally, a combination of high external debt, falling export prices, government fi scal diffi culties, and internal banking crises spelled disaster for the world economy. Latin American countries, the most dependent on selling raw materials to U.S. industries, were the fi rst to default on their debts. Bolivia defaulted in January 1931, Peru in March of the same year, Chile in July, and Brazil and Colombia in October. Europe was hit in 1931, when several banking crises translated into foreign exchange and fi scal crises. Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Greece were forced to default in 1932, followed by Austria and Germany in 1933. Austria’s largest bank, Vienna’s Kreditanstalt, failed in May 1931, an event that sent shockwaves across Europe. Depositors rushed to withdraw their money from banks that were perceived to be in weak fi nancial conditions and, in so doing, they compromised the stability of the entire banking systems of several countries. By mid-June, many German banks had collapsed. The three largest Italian banks were rescued by the Fascist regime. One of the main consequences of this chain reaction was that trust in sovereign loans was shattered. The social and political repercussions were catastrophic. Industrial unemployment in the United States averaged 37.6 percent in 1933, while Germany reached its highest rate at 43.8 percent, the United Kingdom at 22.1, Sweden at 23.7, Denmark at 28.8, and Belgium at 20.4 percent. In western Canada more than one-fi fth of the labor force remained unemployed throughout the 1930s. Meanwhile, in the United States, the penal system became increasingly punitive. More executions were carried out than in any other decade in U.S. history, and there was also a sharp rise in imprisonment. Crime rates did not signifi cantly rise, but the mass media popularized the idea that the social order was on the verge of collapse, generating a “crime wave” frenzy among the public. SLUMP STABILIZED By the early 1930s, the economic slump had destabilized the international political order, the erosion of liberal values was at an advanced stage, and welfarist costbenefi t analysis had gained appeal and credibility. Prompted by the need to cut down on public spending and by the moral panic generated by the Great Depression, several governments of the most advanced democratic countries lost confi dence in the effectiveness of social reforms and undertook programs for the involuntary sterilization of thousands of citizens. It was argued that under exceptional circumstances, basic rights could be withheld and that in order to reduce the burden on the public purse, social services should only be granted to those whose social usefulness and biological capability were past doubt. In the Weimar Republic, the country hardest hit by the depression, this ideological shift produced a radicalization of medical views on racial hygiene and “euthanasia.” Trade protectionism, nationalism, and the growing appeal of fascism were among the most tragic results of the depression. Earlier enthusiasm for internationalism, cosmopolitan law, and international institutions completely disappeared, replaced by the feeling that large-scale confl icts between powers were once again inevitable. In the Far East during the 1920s, hundreds of villages in the Chinese hinterland had seen their consumption patterns change dramatically as a consequence of the marketing campaigns of transnational corporations, which employed hundreds of thousands of Chinese 130 Great Depression, worldwide peasants. However, the progressive internationalization and connectedness of the Chinese economy meant that it became increasingly vulnerable to trade fl uctuations. When the depression took place, the entire structure of Chinese agricultural production was hit with unprecedented force: The process of pauperization of the countryside population seemed unstoppable. Two major consequences ensued, the strengthening of the Communist Party and a major diaspora of Chinese emigrants seeking a better future abroad. In Japan, a country that was heavily dependent on foreign trade, unemployment soared, and labor disputes became more and more frequent and violent, as did anti-Japanese insurgent movements in Korea and Taiwan. Rural debt forced poor tenant farmers to sell their daughters as prostitutes, and thousands of small businesses were gradually absorbed by the zaibatsu, huge fi nancial combines that pushed for more authoritarian and imperialistic policies. In the United States, Hoover’s seeming idleness was interpreted by millions of U.S. voters as callousness, and the presidential candidate for the Democrats, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who evoked a more interventionist and caring state, won a landslide victory in 1932. His presidency will be forever identifi ed with the New Deal, a series of Keynesian relief, recovery, and reform measures. This program revitalized the economy by reinvigorating mass consumption through defi cit spending and restored psychological confi dence and people’s trust in U.S. institutions and in the future by effectively reshaping their expectations. Ultimately, the U.S. economy was reinvigorated by these measures but also by the industrial demands brought about by the coming of World War II. Defi cit spending for government-funded public works programs was successfully used to aid economic recovery in Social Democratic Sweden but also in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and imperialist Japan. These countries were among the fi rst to overcome the crisis. On the other hand, in Britain and France, two countries whose currencies were pegged to the gold standard, mostly for reasons of national pride, a genuine recovery only began when large-scale rearmament was undertaken as a reaction to the National Socialist threat. It is noteworthy that those countries that remained on the gold standard fared far worse than those that did not. In the fi nal analysis, the depression lasted for about a decade and was aggravated by a steadfast and selfdefeating loyalty to the gold standard, as well as by increased wealth inequality and fi nancial speculation. It was brought to an end not by the concerted effort of fair-minded and judicious leaders committed to the cause of world prosperity and peace, but by a vast military buildup leading straight into World War II. Further reading: Basingstoke, Patricia C. The Great Depression in Europe: 1929–1939. New York: MacMillan, 2000; Bernanke, Ben S. Essays on the Great Depression. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000; Garside, William R., ed. Capitalism in Crisis: International Responses to the Great Depression. London: Pinter, 1993; James, Harold. The End of Globalization. Lessons from the Great Depression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001; Parker, Randall E. Refl ections on the Great Depression. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2002; Rothermund, Dietmar. The Global Impact of the Great Depression: 1929–1939. London: Routledge, 1996. Stefano Fait Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere The formal concept of the Greater East Asia Co- Prosperity Sphere was announced at a press conference on August 1, 1940, by Japanese prime minister Matsuoka Yosuke. It was to be an autarkic bloc of Japanese- led Asian nations free from Western infl uence or control. Greater East Asia included both East Asia and Southeast Asia. Japan’s imperialist leaders regarded its values and ideals as superior to those of the rest of the world, including its East Asian neighbors. They took upon themselves the right to replace what they regarded as the conservative and negative infl uences of China and India within its borders. Japan would “civilize” the rest of Asia. The method chosen to spread the “benefi ts” of Japanese civilization was the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Meiji Restoration of 1868 brought Japan back into diplomatic contact with the West. Exposure brought awareness that the West far surpassed Japan technologically. Japanese leaders realized that to avoid the humiliation of being treated as a second-class country Japan would have to modernize on the Western model. To develop a “rich economy and strong army,” Japan began modernizing its political, economic, and military systems. As early as the 1880s Japanese intellectual leaders such as Fukuzawa Yukichi encouraged the idea that Japan had a manifest destiny to be Asia’s leader. Imperialist groups such as the Black Dragon Society and Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere 131 Kita Ikki became popular forums for those who wanted to expel the foreigners. JAPANESE IMPERIALISM Japan believed it had earned its right to be as imperialistic as Western nations. As a result, Japan began subjecting its neighbors to its rule. It expanded into Hokkaido, subdued the indigenous Ainu, established treaty ports with extraterritoriality in Korea, took the Ryukyus, and fought a successful war with China. Expansion was to gain prestige, materiel, and markets, similar to the goals of imperialism of the Western nations. Indicating how successfully it had mastered the Western ways of imperialism and modernism, Japan beat Russia soundly in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. But the Western nations still looked down on Japan, which it resented. At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the Western powers rejected a Japanese demand for insertion of a racial equality clause in the League of Nations covenant. As a result, Japan felt the need to prove that it was as superior. By 1932 Japan had subjected Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria to its control. The local populations of the conquered lands were exploited for the benefi t of Japan. After nearly half a century of conquest and exploitation, Japan enunciated the concept of the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as justifi cation for its aggression. Anticipating a long struggle to develop the new Asia under Japan, its war planners established a multistage process to acquire resources of the region as follows: Raw materials and surplus food would come from the southern region, while Manchuria and North China would provide the resources for heavy industry. The remaining areas of the sphere and parts of Asia outside it would serve as Japan’s market. Japan would oversee the whole by providing planning, tools, skills, and military control. GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES The geographic boundaries of the sphere were fl uid, varying over time and political circumstance. They encompassed the Micronesian mandates and often Melanesia and Polynesia and consistently included Hawaii. It had three concentric rings. The innermost one included Japan, Korea, and Manchuria. A second ring would include China and extend to Hawaii. A third ring would include whatever area was necessary to guarantee the total economic self-suffi ciency of greater East Asia. Areas of the sphere were divided into four categories. Some lands were to be annexed outright; they included Guam, Mindanao, and Hawaii. Others, including Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, were to become protectorates. Some would be independent but would have unbreakable economic and defense bonds with Japan; these would be Hong Kong, Thailand, and the Philippines. The fourth group was independent states with economic ties to Japan; they would include Australia, New Zealand, and India. Japan had economic rationale for enlarging the sphere. It felt heavy pressure to fi nd sources to become economically self-suffi cient due to a Western embargo on key resources. It needed the oil of the Dutch East Indies and the rubber of Indochina to support its industries and its military venture in China. It also justifi ed its imperialism by a perceived need for guaranteed markets for its manufactured goods as well as space for colonization by its people. The Japanese had to sell their exploitative venture to the exploited. Their slogan was “Asia for Asians,” and their message was the imperative of freeing Asia from the Western yoke. They promised economic equity and growth. To provide cover for their conquest, they installed puppets, local people who had the power to declare independence from the Western powers but not the power to exercise independence from Japan. On December 12, 1941, Japanese media announced that the just-begun war it had instigated by attacking the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands in Asia was the “Greater East Asia War,” a crusade to rid greater East Asia of Chiang Kai-shek, communism, and Westerners. Defeat by the United States and the Allies in 1945 ended Japan’s imperial dream and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. See also Sino-Japanese War; World War II. Further reading: Beasley, W. G. Japanese Imperialism, 1894– 1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987; Gordon, Bill. Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Available online. URL: http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/coprospr.htm. Accessed March 2000; UCLA Center for East Asian Studies. Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. http://www.isop. ucla.edu/eas/restricted/geacps.htm (cited April 2006). John H. Barnhill great migrations (1900–1950) During the period 1900 until 1950, there were vast migrations of people around the world—some peo- 132 great migrations (1900–1950) ples having to fl ee as refugees and others voluntarily migrating in order to have a better standard of living, with numbers of indentured laborers going to work in other lands, often staying there. In addition, there were large mass pilgrimages, such as those of Muslims on the Haj to Mecca, Shi’i Muslims to Karbala on the commemoration of the Day of Ashura, and Hindus to the River Benares. Mention should also be made of the Russian Orthodox pilgrims, whole villages of whom made pilgrimages to Jerusalem in the early years of the century. WORLD WAR I The period before World War I saw the advent of massive ocean liners that took many tourists, but also settlers, across the Atlantic from Europe to the United States. Among the 1,317 passengers on the R.M.S. Titanic were large numbers of Irish seeking a better life in the Americas. At the same time many British left the British Isles to seek a new life in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa—those going to Australia being guaranteed a job under an Australian government incentive scheme. Many of these stayed in Australia, with large numbers serving in the Australian Expeditionary Force in World War I. There were also French and Italians moving to Algeria, where they established farms and small businesses, and signifi cant numbers of British moving to Argentina, many to work on the railways. Political troubles during this period saw some Russians, especially after 1906, moving permanently, including numbers to Australia to work on the railways, as well as many Russian Jews leaving Russia owing to the pogroms, with many settling in the United States. There were also some Armenians and Christians leaving the Ottoman Empire before and during the Balkan Wars. Indentured laborers from India moved to South Africa, to Ceylon for work on tea plantations, and to Malaya to work on the rubber plantations and tin mines, with others from Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies moving to the West Indies, including numbers from the latter for Suriname. Many Chinese went to work in Transvaal, South Africa, on the goldfi elds, and men from Barbados and other places in the West Indies went to work on the Panama Canal. During World War I there were many migrations, especially in the Balkans, with Serbia being invaded by Austria-Hungary, and many Serbs having to fl ee Belgrade and other cities. In addition, there were internal migrations in Bosnia and Albania, also with Bulgars having to evacuate Thrace. Similarly, many Armenians were forced to migrate, and the end of the war resulted in war between Greece and the Turks, with Greeks in Turkey, such as in Smyrna, fl eeing the Turks. There were other conflicts that followed World War I including the Russian Civil War, which led to the fl ight of many White Russians and Ukrainians, including numbers moving to Harbin and Shanghai in China, as well as major smaller migrations associated with the formation of Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania (especially in Memel/Klaipeda), and Poland. Some ethnic Hungarians from Vojvodina left for Hungary, Mennonites left for Paraguay and other places, and the Irish civil war saw many Protestants leaving the newly created Irish Free State and others fl eeing the fi ghting and settling in Northern Ireland or on the British mainland. In Asia, large numbers of Britons continued to go to India, Malaya, China, and Hong Kong, with Chinese moving to Malaya for the tin mines and Indians continuing to go to Malaya for the rubber plantations. Large numbers of Koreans also left Japanese-occupied Korea for Manchuria. In the United States, many people moved to northern cities like Detroit, New York, Cleveland, and Chicago with the establishment of large auto works and other industrial centers like Pittsburgh. Many of those who migrated north were African Americans looking to escape the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. Additionally, with the halt on European immigration during World War I, African Americans were able to fi nd work in northern factories. The scope of the migration was huge: The African-American population in Detroit swelled from 6,000 in 1910 to nearly 120,000 by the start of the Great Depression. BETWEEN THE WARS During the 1920s and 1930s, there was continued British migration to India, Malaya, China, Hong Kong, and Singapore, to Burma with the enlarging of Burma Oil, as well as others going to Africa, especially with the copper mines at Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia (modern-day Zambia), and elsewhere. Other Europeans also moved to Rhodesia and South Africa, with some Italians moving to Argentina. Lebanese and Syrian traders started to establish themselves in the Caribbean and in West Africa, with many Indian traders and professionals moving to seek greater opportunities in East Africa. The Italians encouraged many of their people to settle in Africa, with numbers moving to Libya, Italian Somaliland, Eritrea, and also, after 1936, to Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Most left great migrations (1900–1950) 133 at the end of World War II, although some, especially farmers, remained. In China, owing to people wanting to flee the warlords and also the subsequent civil wars, many Chinese left for Southeast Asia and elsewhere. The economic problems in Japan resulted in Japanese moving to Brazil, Peru, and Paraguay, with the harsher Japanese rule in Korea causing even more Koreans to flee to find work in Manchuria. The establishment of constitutional government in Siam (Thailand) saw the departure of some Thai royalists. The most noticeable forced migration was that of Jews leaving Germany for a new life in the United States and other places. This coincided with the depression and many countries introducing measures to stop migrants arriving, such as Australia starting to use the now discredited “dictation test” and other legal restraints. As a result, many of the Jews leaving Europe had to seek refuge in any country that would take them, with numbers moving to China and settling in the international city of Shanghai and other cities such as the northern Chinese city of Harbin, and others migrating to places like Bolivia, which welcomed migrants. Other migrations forced by the rise of Adolf Hitler included numbers of Germans from eastern Europe moving to Germany, including many Germans from the Baltic States, and also others from Poland and Czechoslovakia. There were also major moves during the 1920s and 1930s within countries. The great Mississippi flood of 1927 displaced hundreds of thousands of African-American farm workers, who migrated both north and west. The dust bowl in the United States sent large numbers from states on the Great Plains, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota primarily, to California as their farms failed. This came about because of the failure of large numbers of farms and represented a massive move. It is estimated that one out of four families was forced to leave the area. The subsequent establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority and other projects of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal saw people moving to where work could be found. Prior to that, work on the Hoover Dam had also attracted many people to Boulder City, Nevada. Many people throughout Latin America also headed to the big cities with the emergence of massive cities such as Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Mexico City. Other cities in Africa and Asia also proved to be magnets to people from the countryside—Tangier, Algiers, Bone, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Salisbury, Nairobi, Mombasa, and Dar-es-Salaam are some examples. WORLD WAR II During World War II, the Germans, after overrunning much of Europe, caused the “migration” of many of the people in the occupied territories. Many fl ed the fi ghting and the massacres by the Germans, and there were also 10 million “foreign workers” who were forced to take up employment in Germany, the largest movement of forced laborers since the end of slavery. The Japanese victories in the Pacifi c also saw large-scale movement of people, with Japanese civilians and Korean laborers settling into newly captured territories, indentured laborers from the Netherlands East Indies moving to Singapore, and the “Comfort Women” being forced to work in Japanese-run brothels for their armed forces throughout their newly won lands. The fi ghting also saw large numbers of people fl eeing places to avoid the war, including Britons to Africa, especially Kenya, and wealthy Chinese escaping from the Japanese for Ceylon (modern-day Sri Lanka) and Australia. In the United States, African- American workers moved north, following jobs as industrial production in the North, Northeast, and West increased due to the war effort. Major migrations took place in the Balkans, especially Yugoslavia, during and after the war, and Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union deported whole nationalities during the war, including the Volga Germans and later the Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Kalmyks, and Crimean Tartars. Many were relocated in Kazakhstan in Soviet Central Asia. The end of the war saw many Japanese, German, and Italian civilians being forced to return, respectively, to Japan, Germany, and Italy. Famine in Annam (central Vietnam) in 1945 also saw a large movement of people from that region. The period from 1945 until 1950 saw many people leaving their places of residence in Europe and displaced persons camps being established to accommodate refugees, war orphans, and other stateless people— a large number of whom migrated to Australia, some working on projects such as the Snowy Mountain Scheme, which later led to the adoption of multiculturalism in Australia and other places. The end of fi ghting saw many eastern Europeans, including large numbers of Poles, returning to their homelands, and others such as Free Poles and anticommunists from the Baltic states being forced to establish new lives throughout the West, especially in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The Volga Germans were able 134 great migrations (1900–1950) to leave the Soviet Union, and the Greek Civil War (1946–49) saw many Greeks and Macedonians leave the region. Most of the Jews who survived the Holocaust left Europe. Many of these settled in Israel, Australia, the United States, and South America, especially in Argentina. There were also the “Ratlines” for Nazi war criminals and others suspected of being Nazi war criminals fl eeing to South America, often with travel documents furnished by the Vatican. Many others also found a new life in Latin America, with many Spaniards and Italians encouraged to settle in Argentina by Evita Perón, while at the same time many Britons left Argentina following Juan Perón’s nationalization of the formerly British-owned railways. Britons during this period also started settling in Rhodesia and South Africa, as well as the “£10 Poms,” with many assisted migrants moving to Australia. Fairbridge and other children’s settlement schemes also saw many British boys and girls being settled in Rhodesia, Australia, and South Africa. Similarly, the great wealth being generated in Rhodesia and South Africa saw large numbers of Africans move in search of work, although many migrant workers from Mozambique were expelled from South Africa following the introduction of apartheid. Mention should also be made of the expatriates who went to work in the emerging oil industry in the Middle East, in Abadan, Basra, and other places. There were also movements in the Middle East, with many Palestinians leaving their lands in the wars that followed the establishment of Israel. The largest migration of this period was undoubtedly the movement that followed the partition of India in 1947, with the British and many Anglo-Indians leaving and more importantly large numbers of Hindus leaving Pakistan and many Muslims leaving India for Pakistan. Many Armenian refugees on a Black Sea beach in 1920. In the years during and between the two world wars, millions of people around the world moved, either voluntarily or because of diffi cult conditions, causing a massive shift in world population. great migrations (1900–1950) 135 136 great migrations (1900–1950) also moved within both India and Pakistan, especially the former, which saw Muslims from the countryside move to areas where they were in greater numbers. Within Pakistan there was also a major movement of people to Karachi, which became the capital of Pakistan. Large numbers of Indians also had to leave Burma before and after it became independent in 1948. Further reading: Bonnifi eld, Matthew Paul. The Dust Bowl: Men, Dirt and Depression. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1978; Dinnerstein, Leonard, and David M. Reimers. Ethnic Americans: a History of Immigration. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999; Heilbut, Anthony. Exiled in Paradise: German Refugee Artists and Intellectuals in America, from the 1930s to the Present. New York: Viking Press, 1983; Marrus, Michael Robert. The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985; Nugent, Walter. Into the West: The Story of Its People. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1999; Skran, Claudena M. Refugees in Inter- War Europe: The Emergence of a Regime. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995; Spitzer, Leo. Hotel Bolivia: The Culture of Memory in a Refuge from Nazism. New York: Hill & Wang, 1998. Justin Corfi eld
The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit
Gaitán, Jorge Eliécer (1903–1948) Colombian politician and reformer Remembered mainly for the tragic manner of his death and the convulsions of violence sparked by his assassination on April 9, 1948—an event precipitating an explosion of popular outrage in Bogotá (the Bogotazo), and soon after, La Violencia (The Violence), which wracked Colombia through the 1950s and after—Jorge Eliécer Gaitán was born to a poor family on January 23, 1903. Entering school for the first time at age 11, and graduating from law school in 1924, Gaitán became a professor at the National University of Colombia and in 1926 earned his doctorate in jurisprudence at the Royal University of Rome. Politically active from 1919 in the Colombian Liberal Party, in 1933 he broke with the Liberals to found the Revolutionary Leftist National Union (Unión Nacional Izquierdista Revolucionaria, or UNIR). His rise to prominence rested on his keen political skills, gifted oratory, populist message, and capacity to make that message resonate among ordinary people—especially workers and the poor. His discourse was filled with references to “the people,” a source of moral good, in contradistinction to “the oligarchy,” a force of evil, corruption, and oppression. Denouncing poverty, inequality, exploitation, and oppression, he advocated economic justice and reconfiguring the nation’s political life. In 1935 he rejoined the Liberal Party, and in 1936 became mayor of Bogotá, an office he filled for eight months. In 1940 he was named minister of education, and from 1943 to 1944 served as labor minister. In 1945 he was nominated as the Liberal Party’s candidate in the May 1946 presidential elections, but was defeated at the polls due to a Liberal split, coming in third after Conservative Mariano Ospina Pérez, who triumphed, and the runner-up, Liberal Gabriel Turbay. Named Liberal Party chief in 1947, he was widely considered the favorite for the 1950 presidential elections. His assassin, Juan Roa Sierra, was killed by rioters moments after Gaitán’s death, leading to much speculation about who was behind the assassination. Gaitán’s daughter, Gloria Gaitán, 11 years old at the time of her father’s death, later implicated the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and its Operation Pantomime. No definitive evidence has surfaced to prove the allegation, which is nonetheless consistent with the broader U.S. cold war effort in the postwar years to stem populist leftist movements in Latin America and elsewhere. The assassination took place during the Ninth Pan-American Conference in Bogotá, and its Latin American Youth Conference, attended by Gaitán supporter Fidel Castro of Cuba, among others. See also Colombia, La Violencia in (1946–1966). Further reading: Bergquist, Charles, Ricardo Peñaranda, and Gonzalo Sánchez, eds. Violence in Colombia: The Contemporary Crisis in Historical Perspective. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1992; Braun, Herbert. The Assassination of Gaitán: Public Life and Urban Violence in Colombia. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Michael J. Schroeder G Gandhi, Indira (1917–1984) Indian prime minister Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi (November 19, 1917–October 31, 1984) was the third (1966–77) and sixth (1980– 84) prime minister of India and the first woman to hold that office. Her legacy is very complex. Gandhi was the daughter of the first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964). She was a member of the Indian National Congress, a nationalist organization established during British rule in 1885. In the 1930s Gandhi began the Vanara Sena, a movement that consisted of young people who participated in marches and protests to support the independence movement and also distributed nationalist propaganda and illegal materials. While attending Oxford University, Gandhi met a young Parsee activist and Congress Party member, Feroze Gandhi (1912–60). The two eventually returned to India and were married in 1942. They had two sons, Rajiv (1944–91) and Sanjay (1946–80). Shortly after their marriage she and Feroze joined Mohandas Gandhi’s (1869–1948) nonviolent action against the British, which landed them in jail. Shortly after independence Gandhi moved to Delhi to aid her father, and Feroze accepted a position in Allahabad as a writer for a Congress Party newspaper. During India’s first election, Gandhi worked as campaign manager for both her father and her husband. Nehru won the election and became the first prime minister of India; Feroze won a seat in Parliament. Friction between Nehru and Feroze Gandhi caused the couple’s official separation. Feroze Gandhi suffered a heart attack in 1957 and after a brief reconciliation with Indira and their two sons, died in 1960. Gandhi’s political career took off. She was elected president of the Congress Party in 1960 and subsequently became Nehru’s chief of staff and major political adviser. After her father’s death in 1964, India’s second prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, appointed her minister for information and broadcasting in his cabinet. In this position she became a very popular figure, as she traveled to many non-Hindi-speaking regions and calmed rising violence against the imposing of Hindi as India’s national language. She also gained popularity when she refused to leave volatile border regions where she was vacationing when the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 broke out. After Prime Minister Shastri died, Gandhi won the election and become the third prime minister. She immediately began successful programs to aid farmers in the production of staple foods. In 1971 she met her first major crisis when East Pakistan declared independence. Events culminated in another Indo-Pakistani War in 1971. India’s intervention led to the defeat of Pakistani forces and independence for Bangladesh. India detonated a nuclear device and joined the nuclear club in 1974 under her leadership. The Congress Party, however, suffered schism. One reason was her shifting of power away from the individual states to the central government. She was accused of fraud and was found guilty. Her sentence was removal from office and prohibition from running in elections for six years, which she appealed, thus remaining in office until the appeal could be heard. She then countered the advice of President Fakhuruddin Ali Ahmed to declare a state of emergency that would give the prime minister and her government unchecked power. On June 26, 1975, the emergency proclamation was ratified by Parliament. Elections were postponed. The emergency government she led 158 Gandhi, Indira Indira Gandhi was the third prime minister of India following independence and the first woman to hold the office. had unlimited power of detention and censorship and persecuted many members of opposing parties. However, the economy flourished, and violence decreased. The emergency ended in 1977, possibly because she believed in her popularity. She called for elections, was beaten handily by the Janata Party, and stepped down. Her measures in imposing and leading the government during the emergency split the Congress with an offshoot wing called Congress-I supporting her. The Janata government immediately sought to prosecute the former prime minister for her illegal acts. It reviewed, and the president called for, new elections in 1980, in which the Congress-I won a landslide victory. Gandhi’s final term as prime minister had to deal with challenges from the Sikh Akal Takht extremist movement, which sought autonomy for Punjab, a state with a Sikh majority. Gandhi countered by ordering the Indian army to raid the Golden Temple in Amritsar, a site holy to Sikhism. The raid resulted in an uproar among the Sikh minority. Two of Gandhi’s Sikh bodyguards assassinated her on October 31, 1984. See also Gandhi, Rajiv, and Sonia S. Further reading: Dua, Bhagwan D. “Federalism or Patrimonialism: The Making and Unmaking of Chief Ministers in India.” Asian Survey 25, no. 8 (August 1985); Hardgrave, Robert L. “India in 1984: Confrontation, Assassination, and Succession.” Asian Survey 25, no. 8 (February 1985); Jayakar, Pupul. Indira Gandhi: An Intimate Biography. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992; Klieman, Aaron S. “Indira’s India Democracy and Crisis Government.” Political Science Quarterly 9, no. 2 (Summer 1981); Malhotra, Inder. Indira Gandhi: A Personal and Political Biography. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1989; Paul, Swraj. Indira Gandhi. London: Royce, 1985. Caleb Simmons Gandhi, Rajiv, and Sonia S. (1944–1991 and 1946– ) Indian politicians Rajiv Ratna Gandhi was the seventh prime minister of India, following in the footsteps of both his grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964) and his mother, Indira Gandhi (1917–84). After finishing high school in India, Rajiv, like most children of prominent Indian families, went to England for further education. He attended Imperial College London and Cambridge University. At Cambridge Rajiv met Sonia Maino, an Italian student, and despite opposition from her family she moved to India and the two were married in 1968. Rajiv and Sonia had two children, Rahul and Priyanka. Rajiv initially showed no interest in politics. He worked as an airline pilot for Indian Airlines. However, after the death of his brother, Sanjay (1946–80), Rajiv was persuaded to enter politics by his mother. He was criticized for his lack of experience and viewed as merely a successor of a Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. In 1981, Rajiv won the Parliament seat vacated by his brother and became a top adviser to Indira. He became the leader of the Congress Party’s youth movement, the Youth Congress, and won popularity as a young progressive leader. After Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984, President Zail Singh dissolved Parliament, and new elections were held. Rajiv was named president of the Congress Party, which won a landslide, and Rajiv assumed the role of prime minister of India. Immediately after taking office Rajiv began changing foreign policy to strengthen relations with the United States and distance India from the Soviet Union. He also began to reform governmental quotas, tariffs, taxes, and educational spending policies, extending the opportunity to receive an education to lower-class citizens. Rajiv also promoted human rights and peace within India and abroad. His policies reconciled disaffected Sikhs in Punjab. He also sent an arbitration and peacekeeping corps to Sri Lanka to mediate between the government and rebels called the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). After a treaty was signed, conflict broke out between the Indian forces and the rebels over disarmament. Many Indian soldiers were killed, forcing Rajiv to withdraw his forces. Rajiv’s image was further tarnished by a scandal involving foreign defense contracts that paid highranking Indian officials. He lost the following election. Rajiv, however, remained the president of the Congress Party and the leader of the opposition. On May 21, 1991, he was assassinated by a suicide bomber from Sri Lanka opposed to his interventions in her country, while he was campaigning for reelection. His death once again united the Congress Party, which regained a majority in Parliament. Sonia, his widow, was urged to enter politics and assume the seat vacated by her husband. She refused and remained outside of the political arena until shortly before the 1998 elections. She then announced her candidacy for a seat in Parliament, and later she also won the presidency of Gandhi, Rajiv, and Sonia S. 159 the Congress Party, now in opposition. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governed India to 2004. In the 2004 elections the Congress Party once again won a majority. She was unanimously elected as the new prime minister of India but declined due to the controversy surrounding her foreign birth. She in turn appointed former economist Manmohan Singh, the former finance minister, as the first Sikh prime minister of India. See also Tamil Tigers. Further reading: Chaterjee, Rupa. Sonia Gandhi: The Lady in the Shadows. Dehli: Butala Press, 1999; Hardgrave, Robert L. “India in 1984: Confrontation, Assassination, and Succession.” Asian Survey 25, no. 2 (February 1985); Mehta, Ved. Rajiv Gandhi and Rama’s Kingdom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994; Nugent, Nicholas. Rajiv Gandhi: Son of a Dynasty. London: BBC Books, 1990; Thakur, Ramesh. “A Changing of the Guard in India.” Asian Survey 38, no. 6 (June 1998); Sanghvi, Vijay. Congress Resurgence Under Sonia Gandhi. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications, 2004. Caleb Simmons Gang of Four and Jiang Qing The epithet “Gang of Four” was Mao Zedong’s (Mao Tse-tung) name for his wife, Jiang Qing, and her three lieutenants, Yao Wenyuan (Yao Wen-yuan), Zhang Chunqiao (Chang Ch’un-ch’iao), and Wang Hongwen (Wang Hung-wen) in 1976; the four rose to power during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–76). Jiang had hoped to succeed her husband as leader of the Chinese Communist Party when he died, with the assistance of her three confederates. Instead, they fell from power within a month of his death, were tried for high crimes in 1980, and were convicted. Jiang Qing (1913–91) was an actress in Shanghai before she went to Yan’an (Yenan). She became Mao’s secretary, then his wife, over the objection of his colleagues, who reputedly made him promise to keep her out of politics for at least 20 years. Largely sidelined from running the party since 1960 as a result of the failed Great Leap Forward, Mao promoted her to great prominence in 1966 to help him recapture power. Together they unleashed the Cultural Revolution and empowered the youthful Red Guards to inflict a reign of terror that eliminated Mao’s enemies. Jiang Qing took control of the media and banned all entertainment except for the eight “model operas” that she authorized. However, before his death in September 1976, Mao appointed Hua Guofeng (Hua Kuo-feng), minister of public security and acting premier, to be his successor. Jiang then planned to mount a coup and assassinate the senior party leaders with the aid of her lieutenants and the militia, which was loyal to them. But they were preempted by Hua, who had the support of the senior party and military leaders. Hua invited the Gang of Four to attend an emergency meeting of the Politburo (the supreme council of the Communist Party) at its headquarters at midnight on October 5. Zhang, Wang, and Yao fell into the trap and were arrested as they arrived for the meeting; Jiang was captured while still in bed. None of their supporters rose to their aid. This event was called the Smashing of the Gang of Four. Nevertheless it took four years before the Gang of Four was brought to trial for crimes they had committed against the state and people because of the difficulty of assessing Mao’s role in what transpired during the Cultural Revolution. In November 1980 a special court charged them with framing and persecuting party and government leaders, torturing and killing more than 34,750 people, and plotting an armed uprising in Shanghai after Mao’s death. Although the others admitted guilt, Jiang remained defiant, claiming that she had acted as Mao’s dog, doing his bidding. The trial lasted two months and resulted in death sentences for Jiang and Zhang, with a two-year suspended execution. Wang was sentenced to life and Yao received 20 years. Some sources say that Jiang committed suicide in jail in 1991. Wang died in 1992, Zhang died in 2005, and Yao died in 2006. See also Deng Xiaoping. Further reading: Terrill, Ross. Madame Mao: The White Boned Demon. Rev. ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999; Witke, Roxane. Comrade Chiang Ch’ing. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Gaulle, Charles de (1890–1970) French president Charles de Gaulle represented French strength and resilience throughout his career, first as an officer during World War I and the interwar period, then as leader of the Free French government abroad during World War II, and finally as the president of the republic during an era characterized by prosperity and foreign policy 160 Gang of Four and Jiang Qing challenges. His determination to defend France’s independence and freedom of action earned him both plaudits and criticism. His social and cultural conservatism frustrated French youths of the late 1960s, although his supporters appreciated his respect for tradition. De Gaulle received a solid, humanist education at Catholic-run schools. His father, Henri, was a teacher of history and letters. Having decided not to continue in his father’s footsteps, De Gaulle entered the military academy of Saint-Cyr in 1908. He joined the infantry because it would be exposed to direct fire in wartime. He served as a student officer under Colonel Philippe Pétain. Following graduation from Saint-Cyr in 1912, de Gaulle chose to join Pétain’s 33rd Infantry Regiment from Arras. Lieutenant de Gaulle received several wounds during World War I, though he returned to combat as soon as he recovered from them. He became a colonel before he received a third, nearly fatal wound during the battle of Verdun in 1916. Left for dead, he became a prisoner of war under German supervision. He attempted escape five times without success. After armistice he briefly returned to France before being posted to Poland. He helped to organize an army to fight against the Soviet Red Army. He spent the years after his 1921 marriage to Yvonne Vendroux in France. In 1931 he joined the general secretariat of National Defense in Paris, where he became involved in politics for the first time. He also commenced writing and theorizing about warfare during the interwar period. He published several articles that attracted attention due to his unorthodox claims; de Gaulle recommended that commanders adapt to the particular features of their situation. In a series of lectures at the Ecole Supérieure de Guerre, under Pétain, he considered possible reforms of the military. De Gaulle advocated the creation of a corps that combined firepower and mobility in the interest of rapid, daring offensives. After France declared war against Germany in September 1939, de Gaulle became commander of the 5th Army. After the French troops had been pushed back and many evacuated from Dunkirk, de Gaulle left for London with his aide-de-camp, Geoffroy de Courcel. He expected that the French government would continue the war from abroad. In response to Pétain’s announcement of armistice with Germany, General de Gaulle made his first appeal for continued resistance. Relatively few in France heard the initial message; the next day, however, the press promulgated de Gaulle’s call to arms. In succeeding days, de Gaulle repeated his rejection of the armistice and of Pétain’s government. De Gaulle organized the Free French Forces and, with the help of French jurist René Cassin, ensured that they would retain their national identity and enjoy a special status when fighting amoung British soldiers. The Free French soldiers would assist the Allies during the campaigns in North Africa, Italy, and France. De Gaulle established a series of committees designed to give structure to the Free French. The French National Committee, created in September 1941, began as the focal point for the government in exile. Soon after de Gaulle settled in Algiers he organized the French Committee for National Liberation, on June 3, 1943. He helped to coordinate the resistance within France by deputizing Jean Moulin to lead the National Council for the Resistance. De Gaulle disagreed with the new Constituent Assembly, chosen through elections held in October 1945, about the form of the new French state, so he resigned on January 20, 1946. On April 14, 1947, de Gaulle launched the Rassemblement du Peuple Français (RPF), which he intended as a “gathering” of loyal Frenchmen who opposed the weak executive and sweeping social legislation planned by the government of the Fourth Republic. In practice, the RPF served as a political party akin to the others. The RPF enjoyed local electoral success but had little effect on national politics given their small numbers in the National Assembly. The RPF staged a resurgence in 1958 when de Gaulle returned to the fore after years in the political “desert.” Between 1955 and 1958 de Gaulle relaxed at his estate at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises. He remained attuned to current events, especially to the crisis of the Fourth Republic as it confronted the independence movement in Algeria that began with a November 1, 1954, insurrection. Some influential people called for de Gaulle to take control as a means of preventing civil war. On May 19, 1958, de Gaulle expressed his willingness to lead the republic, though he had no intention of staging a coup. On May 29 then-president René Coty called upon de Gaulle to form a government. The National Assembly accepted his presidency on June 1; he received the power to rule by decree for a six-month period and to introduce constitutional reforms. The constitution approved on September 29, 1958, brought the Fifth Republic into existence and provided for a strong executive and an influential parliament. De Gaulle received a large plurality in presidential elections and assumed the powers given to the president under the new constitution on January 8, 1959. As president of France, de Gaulle intended to resolve the Algerian crisis, to direct France’s relations with her Gaulle, Charles de 161 European neighbors, and to ensure her independence relative to the United States. He traveled to Algeria on numerous occasions, finally concluding that France had to give the colony its independence. Negotiations proved difficult, given multiple factions in Algeria and the failed putsch staged by French generals in April 1961. After almost a year of talks the Évian Accords were signed on March 22, 1962, and then accepted by the French and the Algerians through referenda. De Gaulle made important contributions to the formation of a united Europe, though he never accepted the need for France to surrender any sovereignty in the process of building the European Union. He adhered to the requirements instituted by the Treaty of Rome, signed just prior to his arrival in office, by initiating financial reforms and by reducing customs duties and tariffs imposed on trade with other European countries. He pursued cordial relations with Germany; German chancellor Konrad Adenauer and de Gaulle signed the Elysée Treaty on January 22, 1965. De Gaulle also directed his attention to ensuring French national independence during the cold war. Although always opposed to communism and a supporter of capitalism, as made evident by his immediate encouragement of American president John F. Kennedy during the Berlin crisis (1961) and the Cuban missile crisis (1962), he nonetheless believed it important for France to retain a “free hand” in the world. In his quest to preserve France’s international stature de Gaulle continued the nuclear program started after World War II; France exploded its first atomic bomb in the Sahara in February 1960. De Gaulle gradually pulled France out of the NATO military command, though the country remained part of the alliance even after 1966. De Gaulle further demonstrated his determination to maintain an autonomous foreign policy by his decision to recognize the People’s Republic of China in 1964. He criticized the U.S. war in Vietnam during a 1966 speech in Cambodia. He justified his encouragement of Québecois independence activists as being in line with his lifelong opposition to imperialism and his belief in the right to national self-determination. On the other hand, he developed amicable relations with the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite states. Despite hesitations and almost no campaigning, de Gaulle won reelection to the presidency over François Mitterrand in 1965. Yet trouble was on the horizon. Although his tenure was generally a time of economic prosperity and modernization, many citizens chafed at the lack of social and cultural modernization. The events of May 1968, when students and labor union members engaged in protests and strikes, posed a problem for de Gaulle. Much to the public’s consternation he disappeared from France by helicopter on May 29. After returning from an evening in Baden Baden, where he consulted with a French general, he gave a radio address in which he stressed the need to remain intransigent about the necessity of public order. The legislative campaigns that followed de Gaulle’s dissolution of the assembly did little to eliminate the social fissures that had been revealed and exacerbated by the events of May 1968. The president became more cut off from the citizenry, while the new assembly refused necessary reforms. Ignoring his advisers, de Gaulle put planned reforms of the Senate to referendum in 1969. French voters responded negatively. He immediately announced his resignation and returned to his estate. In the year prior to his death he wrote his Mémoirs d’espoir (only the first volume of which was completed) and received visitors at his estate. De Gaulle was buried in the local church according to his instructions. See also Algerian revolution. 162 Gaulle, Charles de The head of the Free French during World War II, Charles de Gaulle (right) led France through the postwar period. Further reading: De Gaulle, Charles. The Complete War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964; De Gaulle, Charles. Memoirs of Hope: Renewal and Endeavor. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971; Lacouture, Jean. De Gaulle: The Rebel, 1890–1944. Translated by Patrick O’Brian. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990; Lacouture, Jean. De Gaulle: The Ruler, 1945–1970. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: W.W. Norton, 1992. Melanie A. Bailey gay liberation movements The birthplace of the modern gay liberation movement in the United States is usually considered to be the Stonewall Inn, where riots took place in June 1969 in New York City. The Stonewall Riots and the social movement they engendered were influential in many countries. Stonewall did not occur in a vacuum, and there were social movements advocating gay liberation in the United States and elsewhere long before 1969. Although gay and lesbian communities thrived in certain cities early in the 20th century in the United States, the fact that same-sex behavior was both illegal and widely considered immoral made it difficult for gay people to organize. The Society for Human Rights, founded by Henry Gerber in Chicago in 1924, was shut down by the police a few months into its existence. Several longer-lasting organizations were founded after World War II, including the Mattachine Society in Los Angeles in 1951 (for men); ONE, Inc., in Los Angeles in 1952 (for men and women); and The Daughters of Bilitis in 1955 in San Francisco (for women). These organizations were more conservative than the post-Stonewall gay liberation organizations, and often stressed how similar homosexuals were to heterosexuals and advocated “blending in” to the dominant culture. The Stonewall Riots took place in Greenwich Village on the weekend of June 27–29, 1969. Not coincidentally, Judy Garland, an icon of the gay community, died on June 27, 1969. Although eyewitness accounts of the actual events of the Stonewall Riots differ, all agree that the precipitating event was a police raid in the early morning of June 28 on the Stonewall Inn, a bar on Christopher Street frequented by members of the gay community. Patrons of gay bars were used to police raids; normally the patrons would peacefully allow themselves to be arrested, but on June 28 they decided to fight back. The situation quickly turned into a brawl outside the bar. Passersby joined in the action, people began throwing stones and bottles, and eventually the outnumbered police had to take refuge in the bar. A riot-control unit was summoned, and the crowd was dispersed, but on the evening of June 28 another large crowd gathered outside the Stonewall, and there were more confrontations with the police into the early morning of June 29. A change of spirit was noted in the gay community, as gay people realized that they did not need to accept second-class status and that they had sufficient strength in numbers to resist harassment from the police or anyone else. The first modern gay liberation organization, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), was formed a month after Stonewall. It was modeled more on other radical social organizations of the 1960s such as the Black Panthers. The GLF’s agenda was radical: They believed a societal transformation was necessary to ensure the rights of gay and lesbian people, and they also opposed racism, sexism, and militarism. Many other gay liberation groups were formed in the following years. The success of these organizations in winning full civil rights for gay people was uneven and varied within the United States. The word homosexual first appeared in a German pamphlet published in 1869, and Germany was the home of many pioneer theorists of gay liberation as well as the first gay liberation movement of the modern era. Leaders included Adolf Brand (1874–1995), publisher of the first homosexual literary journal, Der Eigene; Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935), the most prominent leader of the early German gay liberation movement; and Kurt Hiller (1885–1972). Although same-sex activities were technically illegal in both Germany and Austria, in fact the laws were frequently ignored, and a thriving homosexual subculture existed in major cities. This period of freedom came to a halt with the rise of National Socialism. More than 100,000 homosexuals were arrested during the Nazi years, many serving time in prison or concentration camps. Gay and lesbian activism revived in the 1970s in Germany and Austria, and in 2006 both countries recognized same-sex civil unions. The Netherlands was also a leader in gay liberation: The country legalized same-sex behavior among adults in the 19th century. In the 1970s many gay and lesbian groups formed, and most forms of discrimination against gay people were abolished. In 2001 the Netherlands became the first country to recognize same-sex marriage, including the right to adopt children. Many western European countries had gay liberation movements similar to those in the United gay liberation movements 163 States in the 1960s and 1970s, as did countries with a predominantly European culture such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In many ways, gay men and lesbians in these countries had more rights than they did in the United States. Most European countries have decriminalized homosexual behavior and have outlawed discrimination against homosexuals. Belgium and Spain became the second and third countries to recognize same-sex marriage, in 2003 and 2005, respectively, and many other countries recognize same-sex civil unions, including Portugal, France, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Hungary, Croatia, and Denmark. The idea of gay liberation and antigay prejudice became more prominent with the onset of AIDS. Originally, AIDS was referred to as gay-related immune deficiency (GRID) until it became evident that the disease was not limited to the homosexual community. For many, AIDS was seen as divine retribution against the homosexual lifestyle; others saw the disease as a justification for antigay discrimination. It is difficult to generalize about gay liberation in non-Western countries. In some countries the history of rights for gay people is similar to that of western Europe. In general, greater prosperity may be associated with greater personal freedom, but this is not always the case. For instance, Singapore, which has one of the highest standards of living in the world, outlaws homosexual behavior between men. Japan, an equally industrialized country, has a history of tolerance of homosexual behavior; gay organizations within that country have been oriented more toward entertainment and culture than political reform. In Turkey, a country that in 2006 hoped to become a member of the European Union, same-sex behavior is not technically illegal but gay people are often harassed by the police. This combination makes the formation of a gay liberation movement difficult, but two Turkish gay liberation organizations were founded in the 1990s: Lambda Istanbul (for men and women) and Sappho (for women). Further reading: Blasius, Mark, and Shane Phelan, eds. We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics. New York: Routledge, 1997; Carter, David. Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004; Drucker, Peter, ed. Different Rainbows. London: Gay Men’s Press, 2000; International Lesbian and Gay Association. World Legal Survey. http:// www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/ilga_world_legal_ survey%20introduction.htm (cited June 2006); Vaid, Urvishi. Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Lesbian and Gay Liberation. New York: Anchor Books, 1995. Sarah Boslaugh General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was an international agreement, originally between 23 nation-states, resulting from meetings held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1947. Its goal was to promote global trade through a reduction in tariff barriers and other obstacles to the free flow of goods and services. Born at the dawn of the cold war (1947–91) and shaped most by the commercial and security concerns of the United States and western Europe, GATT was the principal international agreement governing commercial and tariff policies until its subsumption by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. GATT was originally conceived as the International Trade Organization (ITO), which would complement the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, both founded at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. Because the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the ITO charter, President Harry S. Truman issued an executive order making the United States a signatory to GATT. Although GATT had no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance by signatory states, it survived principally through its members’ voluntary adherence to its provisions, and fears of trade retaliation if they did not. Neither an international body nor a formal treaty, GATT was renegotiated many times, in a series of “rounds” named after the cities or countries in which the meetings took place, or after a country’s leader—for example, the Geneva Round (1955–56); the Kennedy Round, held in Geneva and named after U.S. President John F. Kennedy (1964–67); the Tokyo Round (1973–79); and the Uruguay Round (1986–93). Among the most important aspects of the resulting agreements concerned the principle of “most favored nation status,” or nondiscrimination, in which no signatory could discriminate against another without discriminating against all. Typically, the supplier(s) of a particular commodity negotiated with the consumer(s) of that commodity regarding tariffs, regulatory quotas, and related issues. Once an agreement was reached, it became part of GATT, shared by all member nations. As a result, average world tariffs on industrial commodities declined to 13 percent by the mid-1960s. 164 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Critics charged that GATT systematically favored the world’s most advanced industrial countries and locked the producers of primary export products into a permanent subordinate status within the global economic system. Pointing to the historical example of the United States, in which tariffs were routinely used to promote domestic industries, opponents of GATT accused it of perpetuating global economic inequalities and undermining the principle of national sovereignty. GATT’s defenders countered that tariffs and quotas constituted unfair trading practices, and that free trade agreements in general increased the world’s wealth by increasing trade and encouraging individual countries to leverage their comparative economic advantages. GATT’s successor, the WTO, a permanent body of the United Nations, which in 2007 had 145 members, does have enforcement mechanisms. Critics denounce the WTO as a tool of wealthy multinational corporations. Its defenders regard it as essential in ensuring the free flow of goods, services, and ideas. Debates regarding the efficacy and ethics of GATT and the WTO will likely remain heated. Further reading: Debroy, Bibek. Beyond the Uruguay Round: The Indian Perspective on GATT. New Delhi: Sage, 1996; Hockin, Thomas A. The American Nightmare: Trade Politics after Seattle. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001; Sandbrook, Richard, ed. Civilizing Globalization: A Survival Guide. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003. Michael J. Schroeder Germany (post–World War II) At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the leaders Winston Churchill of Great Britain, Franklin Roosevelt of the United States, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union agreed that Germany would be divided into four zones of occupation following its military defeat. The three countries and the French would each control one zone. In addition the capital city of Berlin, which lay within the Soviet zone, would also be divided into four sectors, one for each ally. The political leaders did not anticipate that these occupation zones would lead to a formal division of Germany into two separate nations. But in the context of growing tensions between Western and Eastern Allies, which laid the basis for the cold war, Germany became the primary battleground in a new kind of war, one of ideology rather than direct conflict. The division, formally made in 1949, lasted until reunification on October 3, 1990. The three western zones fused together as the Federal Republic of Germany, a nation reconstituted as a parliamentary democracy; the Soviet zone became the German Democratic Republic, with a communist-dominated government. Initially, the Allies endeavored to administer their zones by developing interzonal policies, through the auspices of the Allied Control Council. As part of their reparations the Soviets began to strip their zone of foodstuffs, livestock, transportation networks, and even entire factories. A major breaking point occurred in early 1948 as the three Western Allies—joined by Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg—called for the western zones of occupation to be eligible for Marshall Plan aid from the United States. This paved the way for a proposal to fuse the three western zones together economically and to introduce a common currency, the deutschmark, in May 1948. The former Allies were now clearly on opposite sides of a new war, and former enemies, the Germans, had become the respective allies of the two hostile superpowers. legacy of the third recih Each of these new German nations had to grapple with the legacy of the Third Reich as they wrote new constitutions, revised legal codes, rebuilt their devastated economies, and struggled to find a new identity. A first step in the process was for occupation authorities to allow the revival or creation of political parties. Occupation authorities first encouraged politics to resume at the local and regional levels, while the question of national unity remained uncertain. By 1947 each of the regions, or Länder, in the western zones of occupation was led by a minister president, who was chosen by directly elected parliamentary assemblies. A similar process emerged in the Soviet zone, but with much less freedom of choice. It was apparent that the four occupation zones would not be unified as one political entity. The Western powers began to take steps toward encouraging the fusing of their zones, politically as well as economically. They authorized the West Germans to hold a constitutional assembly, draft a constitution, and secure its ratification by the state parliaments. This assembly convened in September 1948 and worked for nine months, compromising over issues such as the balance between state and federal powers. West Germany ratified its constitution in May 1949, held its first nationwide elections in August 1949, and narrowly chose Konrad Adenauer as its first chancellor. Germany (post–World War II) 165 In the Soviet zone, the process of encouraging German- style socialism was abandoned in the Soviet drive to secure compliance from its satellite states by 1947. In its stead, political parties on the Left called a People’s Congress into session at the end of 1947. By October 1948 this congress of about 2,000 delegates had written and approved a constitution for what would become East Germany. On October 7, 1949, the Congress voted unanimously to form the German Democratic Republic. Economic rebuilding in West Germany received an enormous boost from the United States through Marshall Plan aid. This led to the German Economic Miracle; by the mid-1950s the West German economy was robust. The volume of foreign trade tripled between 1954 and 1964, while unemployment dropped from between 8 and 9 percent in 1952 to less than 1 percent by 1961. In 1957 Germany joined with five other western European nations (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy) in the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC created a common market, which allowed for the free movement of goods and people, facilitated stronger economic growth in a collective sense, and eliminated taxes and tariffs among its members. Amid considerable internal controversy and over strong French protest, West Germany also rearmed itself and joined NATO in 1955. East Germany’s economy was closely tied to that of the Soviet Union, as it instituted centralized economic planning, reduced private ownership of property, and seized and either collectivized or redistributed farmlands. In 1950 it joined Comecon, and in 1955, the Warsaw Pact. Relations between the East Germans and the Soviets were strained during the first decade of West German existence, exacerbated by the Soviets’ stripping of the eastern zone in the immediate aftermath of the war; the brutal treatment of German civilians, particularly women, at the hands of the Soviet military; and the economic hardships created by the transition to state-centralized economic planning. It also led to a serious drain of workers; by 1952 more than 700,000 East Germans had fled to the West. Tensions between West and East Germany increased again in the late 1950s, sparked by the steady stream of young, productive, educated workers from East Germany to West Germany. In the summer of 1961, by which time more than 3 million East Germans had fled to the west since 1949, Nikita Khrushchev, premier of the Soviet Union, spoke out against the infiltration of Western saboteurs and imperialists into the East and the necessity of “protecting” the people of East Germany from Western propaganda. This war of words culminated on August 13, 1961, when the citizens of the divided city of Berlin awoke to the sounds of construction. East German soldiers began to build a wall, one that eventually stretched for more than 100 miles, completely encircling the city of West Berlin, with minimal access through military checkpoints. The wall cut across streets and through subway and train stations, and separated families, religious congregations, and friends, dividing them for 28 years and 4 months, until it fell on November 9, 1989. The 1960s in West Germany were marked by generational conflict and the resurgence of the political left. Student movements in the 1960s in West Germany grew in response to a host of causes: nuclear disarmament, outdated curriculum and inadequate resources at universities, and Bonn’s support for U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In 1966 the West German economy, which had boomed for more than 15 years, suffered a depression, leading to increased unemployment and stagnation in industrial production. In addition, the political dominance of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU) came to end, as the parties were forced to build a coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) to formulate policy in November 1966. This marked the first incursion of the SPD into the postwar West German cabinet. The power of the SPD continued to rise, culminating with its electoral victory in 1969, which gave it the majority of seats within the parliament and propelled Willy Brandt into the position of chancellor, which he held until May 1974. Within East Germany, the economy stabilized. The government, under the control of Walter Ulbricht, ensured higher production of consumer goods, built limited flexibility into centralized economic planning, and achieved an average annual increase in industrial production of 7 percent by 1967. Greater choices among clothing, food, and leisure activities also grew. But by the late 1960s, the climate turned harsher; under a new constitution, basic freedoms, such as the rights to emigrate, were stripped away. Ulbricht resigned in 1971. During the late 1960s the development of Ostpolitik, a thawing of relations between East and West, mediated the strict foreign policy of the Hallstein doctrine, established in 1955. This doctrine stated that the Federal Republic of Germany was the sole authoritative government of the German people and as such demanded that diplomatic recognition never be extended to East Germany. Among the practical implications of this policy was the fact that West Germany did not extend diplomatic relations to any of the Soviet satellite states in eastern Europe. Given the economic downturn and the need for expansion of export markets, the new coalition government first extended trade relations, and 166 Germany (post–World War II) then diplomatic relations, with states in eastern Europe. Negotiations culminated in December 1972, when the governments of West and East Germany signed the Basic Treaty, which guaranteed respect for the borders, officially recognized each other’s independence, and promised to renounce the use of force. reunification Since October 3, 1990, Germany has been a unified country again. Germany was first unified and subsequently became a nation-state in 1871. The date October 3, 1990, marks the day West Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, or BRD) integrated East Germany (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or DDR) under one political system: the democracy (Rechtsstaat) of the Federal Republic of Germany. Five new states were added to the existing 11, and the population grew by about 18 million, making Germany, with over 80 million inhabitants, the most populous country of the European Union. In 2000 Berlin again became the capital of Germany. By 1989 the two states had established themselves firmly as separate players on the world stage, with West Germany never having given up on the possibility of reunification. In January of that year, however, Erich Honecker—the GDR head of state and general secretary of the communist SED Party—confidently declared that the Berlin Wall would still stand in 50 or 100 years. Nonetheless, reform movements had begun to ripple through a few communist countries, beginning with the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, and in September 1989 Hungary opened its borders to Austria, allowing thousands of East Germans to escape via Hungary and Austria to West Germany. The festivities for the 40th anniversary of East Germany, on October 7, 1989, were accompanied by demonstrations demanding democracy and freedom of expression. Moreover, the vast majority of East Germans could monitor the wealth of West Germany via radio and television, and the contrast was too stark to be tolerated any longer. Even the “big brother,” the Soviet Union, talked of reforms, and in 1989 its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, famously admonished the East German government to engage in change. By mid- October Honecker, who had been in power since 1971, was forced to resign and Egon Krenz took over. October continued to be marked by numerous sizable demonstrations. On November 7 the East German government resigned while the demonstrations continued. On the evening of November 9 the East German leadership suddenly opened the borders to West Germany and to West Berlin, permitting thousands of East Germans to visit the West for the first time in their lives. Germany (post–World War II) 167 The modern skyline of Frankfurt, Germany. After reunification, the German government strongly supported moves toward greater European integration and common action, but the German population was less certain. The remaining months brought rapid change for East Germans and their country. On November 10 East German soldiers began to take down the wall, and Hans Modrow became the new head of state. In December the Brandenburg Gate opened up to two-way traffic. Early 1990 saw more demonstrations. In February Helmut Kohl, chancellor of West Germany, met with Gorbachev, who granted Germany the right to unify and to do so at its own pace. In East Germany free elections were held in March for the first time, and in April, Lothar de Maizière became head of state; his coalition decided to unify East and West Germany according to Article 23 of West Germany’s constitution. Negotiations began between East Berlin and Bonn and between the Allied forces, who still had soldiers in both Germanies. In June another symbol of the divided states, the border crossing at Checkpoint Charlie, was demolished. In July the West German mark was designated as the common currency for both Germanies. In late August East German leaders decided that East Germany would join West Germany on October 3, 1990, and on September 12, 1990, the four Allied powers, the foreign minister of West Germany, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and de Maizière signed the reunification contract in Moscow. Germany regained its sovereignty on October 1, and the four Allied powers suspended their rights. On October 3, 1990, Germany, after 45 years of separation, was once again one country. The date became an official holiday in Germany. 1991 to the present Following political reunification with the former German Democratic Republic on October 3, 1990, the Federal Republic of Germany grappled with how to merge its economic structures, legal codes, educational institutions, and most important, population into one unified nation; arguably the larger process is not yet complete. In addition, the stunningly quick reunification, not even one year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, brought with it unintended and unforeseen consequences. Germany struggled with an economic downturn, the pressure of larger political integration with the European Union, spikes in both anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and the growth of splinter political parties on the far Right and far Left, while still facing the fundamental question of whether or not the Germans truly stand as one people. One of the first steps after signing the official treaty to reunify the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic under article 23 of the Basic Law was to make provisions for including the former East German lands in the parliamentary system. In the first post-unification election, in December 1990, Helmut Kohl’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) won the most seats in four of the five former eastern states; the only state where the CDU polled the second-largest number of votes was in Brandenburg, where the Social Democratic Party (SPD) won more votes. The CDU continued to hold control of the government until the national elections of 1998 brought the SPD, under the leadership of Gerhard Schröder, into power. However, its inability to garner a clear majority of votes ushered in the so-called Red-Green coalition, building an alliance between the SPD and the Green Party. The CDU regained control over the government in the elections of May 2005, resulting in the election of Germany’s first female chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is also the first chancellor of reunified Germany to have come from the former eastern lands. In June 1991 the capital of Germany was transferred to Berlin. By 1994 a plan for moving the institutions of government had been drafted, and the process was complete by 1999. This vote had important implications, economic as well as symbolic. Undertaking this massive transfer of labor, offices, and institutions from Bonn to Berlin was extremely expensive; some estimates of costs ranged as high as $70 billion. This was fiercely debated given the shaky economic ground of Germany in the early 1990s. However, moving the capital to its historic place had another set of meanings. Placing the seat of government within former eastern lands indicated the state’s commitment to full integration of the two portions of Germany and shifted the orientation of the government further to the east. As a unified state, Germany is the most populous in western and central Europe at more than 80 million inhabitants. It is the third-largest state in terms of land and also one of the most industrialized and prosperous nations in Europe. But despite these advantages in population and industrial capability, the economic recession of 1992 had devastating effects on the newly unified German nation. The integration process proved to be ruinous for the eastern region; as demand for their products dropped off precipitously, hundreds of factories closed and millions of workers lost their jobs. Despite some optimistic projections, deindustrialization was the immediate effect, not economic growth. Between 1990 and 1991 the Gross National Product (GNP) of the East declined by 33.4 percent. Industrial production fell by 67 percent in 1990–92, while the prices of goods increased by 12 percent. A total of 3 million jobs were lost, amounting to close to 50 percent of its total workforce. The agricultural sector was particularly hard hit, losing 800,000 jobs from a total 168 Germany (post–World War II) of about 1 million. Older workers were at a serious disadvantage, lacking the education and skills necessary in the transition economy. Of the workers aged 52 to 63 who were employed before the fall of the wall, 90 percent were unemployed following unification. Economic development in the East would rebound slowly. Any waste was slashed at those entities that did manage to stay afloat. A complicating factor was that the “natural” market for their goods and services was floundering. Another difficulty encountered in the process was dealing with the claims (more than 1.5 million) of those who had lost property under the establishment of the communist state in 1949. When the Treuhand concluded its operations in 1994, it was running a deficit of 300 billion marks, a debt that had to be assumed by the unified German government. When the economic recession of 1992 hit, its impact was even more severe in the East. By 1993 more than 10 percent of the German workforce was unemployed, the highest level in the West in more than three decades, and an unheard-of phenomenon in the east, where chronic unemployment underneath communism did not exist. Although unemployment reached its nadir in late 1994, it continued at rates higher than before unification. As of 1997 eastern unemployment stood at 18.3 percent, whereas in the West it was 9.7 percent. By the end of 2005 unemployment rates overall stood at just over 11 percent. The German government, under the leadership of Helmut Kohl, remedied this drain on economic resources in part through an increase in taxes. This tension between “Wessis” and “Ossis” persists, with many in the East feeling as if their entire former way of life has been discredited and devalued, and many in the West blaming the East for difficult economic times. A common expression is that a wall remains in the heads of many, still separating West and East. One of the most visible, public reactions against the economic downturn and the dislocations caused by reunification was the backlash against foreigners. With the fall of communism across eastern Europe, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the regional conflict in the Balkans, the number of people seeking asylum in Germany jumped dramatically in the 1990s, at precisely the same time that the country was struggling to provide jobs, housing, and basic welfare to its own citizens. One aspect of the fallout from this development was an increase in the membership of right-wing political parties that emphasize “Germany for the Germans.” Although the public reaction against “foreigners” was even more negative in the former eastern lands than in the West, across Germany violence reached a height in 1992, with more than 2,600 violent acts taken against immigrants, their neighborhoods, and their businesses. This led to stricter asylum legislation in 1993 as well as widespread public demonstrations against the acts and the attitudes that lay behind them. A more recent development was a strong immigration stream of Jews, particularly from the former Soviet Union, which led to some spikes in anti-Semitism. One of the largest groups suffering dislocations following unification was working women. In West Germany, women were not encouraged to hold full-time jobs and develop careers; in East Germany women were an integral part of the workforce. In 1989 at the time of the fall of the wall, only 51 percent of women were working in West Germany while 91 percent were employed in the East. After unification, as unemployment skyrocketed in the East, women were disproportionately represented among those who lost their jobs. Marriage and birth rates in the former eastern lands dropped drastically in the years immediately following unification, and divorce rates surged. Germany’s position within Europe also shifted after unification, with important debates about the country’s role within larger institutions—such as NATO and the emerging European Union—garnering public attention both in Germany and in the larger international arena. Although the German government strongly supported moves toward greater integration and common action, the German population was less certain. For example, when the European Union was trying to launch its common currency, the euro, in 1998, six out of 10 Germans did not want to give up the deutschmark in exchange for the euro. In 2005 an attempt to adopt a political constitution for the European Union was defeated in both Germany and France. Although economic unification clearly had its benefits for the German economy, its people remained wary. However, the German public still strongly supported the military alliance, NATO, as a means of providing for security and coordinated international efforts to combat crime and terrorism. See also Berlin blockade/airlift. Further reading: Ash, Timothy Garton. In Europe’s Name: Germany and the Divided Continent. New York: Random House, 1993; Brockmann, Stephen. Literature and German Reunification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Craig, Gordon. The Germans. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1982; Fisher, Marc. After the Wall: Germany, the Germans and the Burdens of History. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995; Fulbrook, Mary. The Divided Nation: A History of Germany, 1918–1990. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991; Geipel, Germany (post–World War II) 169 Gary, ed. Germany in a New Era. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute, 1993; Jarausch, Konrad. The Rush to German Unity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Padgett, Stephen, ed. Parties and Party Systems in the New Germany. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth, 1993; Tipton, Frank B. A History of Modern Germany Since 1815. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003; Turner, Henry Ashby, Jr., Germany from Partition to Reunification. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992; ———. The Two Germanies Since 1945. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987; Wallach, H. G. Peter, and Ronald A. Francisco. United Germany: The Past, Politics and Prospects. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992. Anke Finger and Laura J. Hilton Ghana Ghana celebrated its independence from Britain on March 7, 1957. Ghana, formerly the Gold Coast, merged with a part of British Togoland, a former part of German West Africa ceded to Britain after World War I. Ghana was the first nation in Africa south of the Sahara to overthrow a colonial power; its independence was a momentous event for the people in the new nation and for people in the African diaspora everywhere. Ghana was deliberately named to highlight its historical political situation as the sixth African nation to receive independence from a major colonial power. Ghana’s leaders sought to link their nation to one of the great West African kingdoms of the past. This name represented both a political victory and a symbolic hope for black people everywhere. Held up as a symbol of black intelligence, self-determination, and power, Ghana’s independence led to many idealistic expectations. Its new leader, Kwame Nkrumah, had spent time in prison in the struggle for independence, and he led a nation with many contradictory expectations. Fueled by the positive outcome of his many years fighting for independence and imbued with a Pan-Africanist ideology, a nationalist outlook, and mounting racial pride, Nkrumah liked neither the capitalism of the West nor the communism of the East. He articulated a nationalist ideology that celebrated and encouraged traditional African culture and dress. In addition, he embraced the Pan-Africanism he had been exposed to as a student in the United States and London. He supported the development of racial identity and linked himself to the ideals of Marcus Garvey and W. E. B. Du Bois. What became known as “Nkrumahism” started out as a hybrid economic and social philosophy that combined the best practices from both systems. Nkrumah’s “African Socialism” became the model for organizing society in Tanzania under Julius Nyerere and in Kenya under Jomo Kenyatta. Nkhrumah’s articulations of selfdetermination also influenced the doctrine of Pan-Arabism championed by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nkrumah demanded free education on all levels and the development of rural health care as well as the construction of bridges, roads, railroads, and waterways to build up Ghana’s economy. Ghana’s independence had major consequences for global politics and the lessening of European hegemony. In the decades following Ghana’s independence, many linked the dissolution of the British Empire, the end of Portuguese colonial power in Africa, and the destruction of the apartheid system in South Africa to Ghanaian independence. Nkrumah instituted many customary practices to help maintain order and restore stability. While utilizing the British model of government at the superstructure level, Nkrumah sought to empower local chiefs and elders by restoring respect for and interest in traditional structures of society. Elders, healers, and local officials were all enlisted in his effort to make Ghana a stable nation. Although many blame Nkrumah for destroying the country with his socialist polities and making it ripe for coups, his vision led to Ghana’s independence and also defined the ethos of the new nation. Many of Nkrumah’s policies failed. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction with his government in the years leading to his ouster in 1966. Sixteen years of instability followed his exile. In 1981 Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings seized power in a countercoup. He suspended the constitution and banned political parties. In 1992 a new constitution was approved, free elections were held, and Rawlings was elected to two four-year terms. Under the terms of the 1992 constitution, executive power was vested in the president, who was named head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. Rawlings was reelected president in 1996. Legislative power was vested in a single parliamentary chamber consisting of between 160 and 200 members chosen through direct adult suffrage for renewable four-year terms. Given that Rawlings could not be elected to a third term, John Kufuor, a rather unknown politician, was elected president in 2000. An effective leader, he was reelected in 2004. The politics of modern Ghana followed two trajectories: a doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism and the socialist-inspired revolutionary practices of Nkrumah. Kufuor expanded and refined a third political tradition, introduced by Rawlings: He 170 Ghana continued policies of universal rural development while simultaneously opening up the private sector to external development and foreign investment. Much of the current economic and social optimism in Ghana is tied to an enlightened ruling class with close ties to the United States and Great Britain, and a successful diaspora of almost 2 million people who send almost half a billion dollars to Ghana every year. With a multilanguage, multiethnic, and diverse population, Ghana is a pluralistic society. Ghana has also been successful in attracting foreign investments from India, China, Lebanon, and other nations. Ghana also has a highly educated population of about 20 million people. It operates a 12-year preuniversity educational system and has five public universities, private universities, eight polytechnics, and 22 technical institutions as well as many educational exchange programs around the globe. Ghana has substantial economic potential. As a stable nation with a credible government, a working infrastructure, and a highly trained population, Ghana’s future seems bright. Although cacao is Ghana’s best-known crop, other major exports include bauxite, diamonds, gold, foodstuffs, handicrafts, and timber. As a popular tourist destination, Ghana is well known internationally. Further reading: Boateng, Charles Adom. The Political Legacy of Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003; Davidson, Basil. The Empire of Ghana: Let Freedom Come: Africa in Modern History. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978; Falola, Toyin, ed. Ghana in Africa and the World: Essays in Honor of Adu Boahen. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 2004; Gocking, Roger S. The History of Ghana. Oxford: Greenwood, 2005. Alphine W. Jefferson globalization First investigated by Canadian scholar Marshall Mc- Luhan in 1964 and then further explored since the 1970s, globalization is the process through which world populations become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, both culturally and economically. The process is often perceived by its critics as creating a sense of standardization throughout the globe and reinforcing economic inequalities between developed and underdeveloped countries. Advanced capitalism, enhanced by technological developments such as the Internet and electronic business transactions, is seen as stretching social, political, and economic activities across the borders of communities, nations, and continents. Global connections and the circulation of goods, ideas, capital, and people have deepened the impact of distant events on everyday life. Thus globalization entails two related phenomena: the development of a global economy and the rise of a global culture. The major transnational financial, political, and commercial institutions that are instrumental to globalization are the G8, the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Samuel Huntington coined the expression Davos Culture in his book The Clash of Civilizations (1996) to define such universal civilization. The phrase Davos Culture takes its name from Davos, the Swiss town that had hosted a preponderance of World Economic Forum meetings since 1971. The members of Davos Culture share the same visions of democracy and individualism, obviously favoring capitalism and the free market. The appeal of Davos Culture reaches across the political spectrum, often leading liberals and conservatives to share the same table. It has been noted that the 2005 meeting at Davos included not only a large contingent of the George W. Bush administration and the Republican Party but also a considerable representation of the Democratic Party, led by former president Bill Clinton and former vice president Al Gore. The rise of a new global economy involves a discrepancy between a huge decentralization of production processes, often to developing countries where manpower is cheaper and unions are weaker, and a simultaneous centralization of command and control processes in rich economies. Corporations, whose level of accountability to the general public has increasingly been questioned, are perceived to have replaced governments in economic and social control. Corporations involved in this massive exposure of exploitative labor practices have included Gap, Wal-Mart, Guess, Nike, Mattel, and Disney. Antiglobal organizations are also investigating the links between transnational corporations and totalitarian regimes in developing countries. Parallel to economic globalization is the phenomenon of cultural globalization. Its supporters claim that the rise of a global culture entails multiculturalism and a hybridization of national cultures. The creation of a global culture will also build a more peaceful world, based on shared cultural values. Critics of cultural globalization point out its darker side, claiming that cultural globalism destroys all local traditions and regional distinctions, creating a homogenized world culture. Local cultures are replaced by a uniform and single culture, globalization 171 dictated by the same powerful corporations that control the global economy. In addition, globalization through economic commoditization—the spreading of Western values and lifestyles through the selling of Western goods throughout the world—is not such a simple and straightforward process. In regard to economic globalization, cultural globalization has given rise to movements for resistance. Antiglobal theorists stress how corporations have hijacked culture and education through their aggressive marketing practices. The antiglobalization movement was thrown from the fringes to the center of political debates thanks to the protests in Seattle against the World Trade Organization in November 1999. Since then, major financial and commercial summits of the G8, the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank were disrupted by mass demonstrations in the streets of Washington, D.C.; Genoa; and Prague. After January 2001 annual counter-meetings were held at the World Social Forum in Pôrto Alegre, Brazil, under the slogan “Another World Is Possible.” Alternative media and communication networks such as Indymedia have been established to turn the Internet, one of the tools that makes globalization feasible, into a powerful anti-global weapon. In reaction to power centralization typical of the corporate world, antiglobal activists argue for fragmentation and radical power dispersal. Further reading: Appadurai, A. Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001; Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996; Klein, N. Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate. London: Flamingo, 2002; ———. No Logo. London: Flamingo, 2000; Ross, A. No Collar: The Humane Workplace and Its Hidden Costs. New York: Basic Books, 2002; Stiglitz, J. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003. Luca Prono Gorbachev, Mikhail (1931– ) Soviet president Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev was general secretary of the Communist Party, then president of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991. He was a reformer who attempted to fix the economic problems of the system and wanted democracy to grow within the country. He presided over the dismemberment and collapse of his nation. Gorbachev was born on March 2, 1931, in a small village in the Stavropol region in south Russia. Both his grandfathers were arrested as kulaks during a collectivization drive of 1928–33. His father joined the Communist Party and was a veteran of the Great Patriotic War (1941–45). Gorbachev himself was an eager student, joined the Communist Youth League, and gained acceptance to the law faculty at Moscow State University in 1950. He completed his studies in 1955. During his time in Moscow he met his future wife, Raisa Maksimovna Titorenko, who would play a crucial supporting role in his reforms throughout their lives. While in Moscow, Gorbachev gained a reputation as something of a liberal, publicly approving of the reformist efforts of the current leader, Nikita Khrushchev. He also became close friends with a Czech student, Zdenek Mlynar, who would be active in Czechoslovak politics during the reformist Prague Spring of 1968. After graduation, Gorbachev returned to Stavropol, where he practiced law for a few years. He was elected first secretary of the Stavropol city Komsomol committee in 1956. From there he began a quick ascent. In 1962 he moved to the Communist Party administration. He became first secretary of the Stavropol city party organization in 1966. In 1970 he rose to first secretary of the Stavropol region. After eight years he moved to Moscow, where he became the Central Committee secretary for agriculture. Within two years he was a full member of the Politburo, the ruling council of the Soviet state. Finally, in March 1985, he was chosen as general secretary of the Communist Party. Even before Gorbachev became general secretary, he was thinking about ways to reform the system. His ini- 172 Gorbachev, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan sign the INF Treaty limiting the use and production of ground-based ballistic missiles. tiatives followed a path laid out by the previous general secretary, Yuri Andropov. These were fairly conservative, calling for higher levels of productivity of labor. In 1986 Gorbachev announced a set of more radical proposals that he called perestroika, or restructuring. Perestroika called for decentralization and self-accounting for industries. He continued to innovate, even allowing cooperatives in order to gain control of illegal economic activities. None of his reforms challenged the basic nature of the Soviet Union’s planned economic system. democratization Political reforms became an integral part of perestroika. Because Gorbachev’s economic reforms were criticized and often ignored by entrenched party officials, he sought to remove them and bring new initiative through democratization. Multicandidate elections within the Communist Party were announced in 1987. Those elections were held in 1988, with thousands of contests throughout the country. When the Congress of People’s Deputies met afterward, it represented a newly reformed Communist Party that pushed Gorbachev to implement additional changes. Perhaps the most traumatic moment of Gorbachev’s reign occurred when the Chernobyl nuclear station exploded in April 1986. A mix of unsafe construction, insufficient maintenance, and human error led to the worst radiation leak in history. In its wake, Gorbachev launched the policy of glasnost, or openness, in earnest. At first it involved a few magazines and journals, such as Ogonek and Moscow News, but it quickly spread to almost all other media. These outlets began to publish stories that openly revealed the problems that faced the Soviet Union—including poverty, corruption, and divorce. In addition, there was a broad reexamination of Soviet history, leading to harsh criticism of Joseph Stalin and even Vladimir Lenin. Literary works and authors that had been banned reappeared, such as Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita and Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago. Glasnost brought an ambivalent response from the Soviet public. Many were happy to see the truth of the past revealed but many, perhaps a majority, felt that these revelations unnecessarily blackened the reputation of the Soviet Union. The pent-up hostility of the nations inside the Soviet Union was also released by Gorbachev’s economic, political, and cultural reforms. Beginning in Uzbekistan in 1986 national groups began to resist decisions made in Moscow. Arguments between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over a small piece of territory led to violent clashes in 1988 and demonstrated the increasing weakness of central authority. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania announced their sovereignty starting in 1988. A movement even began among the Russians, led by Boris Yeltsin, to limit the power of the Soviet government over their territory. The increasing pressure from these national groups weakened Gorbachev’s ability to hold the Soviet Union together. meeting with reagan Foreign affairs were the area where Gorbachev had the most success. Gorbachev pursued a policy of reducing international tension from the beginning of his rule. After 1985 Gorbachev quickly moved toward negotiations that would eventually lead to the end of the cold war. He met with U.S. president Ronald Reagan repeatedly throughout the 1980s. These meetings culminated in the first arms control treaty in a decade, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which removed both U.S. and Soviet nuclear-tipped missiles from Europe. The good relations continued with President George H. W. Bush, although Gorbachev was never able to gain the large restructuring loans that he had hoped for from the Western powers. The Soviet allies in eastern Europe benefited from Gorbachev’s approach to foreign policy. The centripetal forces unleashed by perestroika did not stop at the Soviet border. Gorbachev, however, felt that it was unwise to attempt to keep eastern Europe forcibly under Soviet control. Conservative regimes in the Soviet bloc were unable to respond to perestroika and glasnost. When they appealed to Gorbachev for military help, he refused. Once his policy of nonintervention became clear, these regimes unraveled very quickly. All of the communist states collapsed in 1989. Gorbachev received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for his leading role in the reduction of international tensions and the generally peaceful transition to democracy. With the end of Soviet dominance over eastern Europe, Gorbachev faced increasing internal resistance to his reforms. He tried to strengthen his political position by convincing the Congress of People’s Deputies to create a new position—president of the Soviet Union— and elect him to it in March 1990. He also proposed the most radical transformation of the Soviet economy so far. Called “the 500 Days,” it was supposed to move the planned economy quickly to a market-based one. He abandoned it before it truly started. Within a few months Gorbachev moved in the opposite direction. He brought in new advisers who held a conservative vision for the future of the Soviet Union. This conservative swing reached its peak in January 1991, when Soviet Gorbachev, Mikhail 173 troops moved into Lithuania in an attempt to prevent its declaration of independence. In spring 1991 Gorbachev proposed a new arrangement that would greatly decentralize power but keep the Soviet Union together. He called a nationwide referendum to vote on this new structure. It was approved by almost 75 percent of those who voted in March. However, Gorbachev’s archrival Boris Yeltsin used the referendum to create a position of president of the Russian Federation, from which he was able to undermine Gorbachev and his plans to hold the Soviet Union together. The new, weaker union was scheduled to go into effect on August 20, 1991. The weakness in this agreement led a group of conservatives to attempt to restore the centralized power of the Soviet state. A coup attempt was launched on August 19 by men that Gorbachev had appointed earlier. Gorbachev was placed under house arrest and the plotters declared martial law. The coup attempt was quickly defeated. Resistance from Yeltsin, now president of the Russian Federation, and thousands of Muscovites who gathered outside the Russian parliament convinced the army to remain uninvolved in the political struggle. The coup plotters gave in a few days later. When Gorbachev returned from house arrest, his power was fatally weakened. Yeltsin took the initiative after the failed coup. Yeltsin banned the Communist Party in Russia and undermined Gorbachev’s last attempts to hold the state together. After months of futile negotiation, Gorbachev resigned as president on December 25, and the Soviet Union was officially disbanded on December 31, 1991. Gorbachev remains active in Russian political life, though he is intensely disliked by most Russians. He ran for president of Russia in 1996 but received less than 1 percent of the vote. In 2006 he was the head of the Gorbachev Foundation in Moscow and traveled the world giving speeches. He is also the author of numerous books and a commentator on Russian and world politics. See also Armenia and Azerbaijan; cold war; Soviet Union, dissolution of the. Further reading: Beschloss, Michael, and Strobe Talbott. At the Highest Level: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War. New York: Little Brown, 1994; Boldin, V. I. 10 Years That Shook the World. New York: Basic Books, 1994; Brown, Archie. The Gorbachev Factor. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; Gorbachev, Mikhail. Memoirs. New York: Doubleday, 1996; ———. Perestroika. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987; Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; McCauley, Martin. Gorbachev. New York: Longman Publishers, 1998. Karl Loewenstein Graham, Billy (William Franklin Graham) (1918– ) evangelical leader William Franklin (Billy) Graham is one of the bestknown and respected religious leaders of the 20th century. His influence has been immense in his roles as evangelist, as a shaper of modern evangelicalism, and as a link between evangelicalism and prominent political leaders, particularly Republican presidents. Graham was raised and educated in a Southern, fundamentalist milieu, but by the 1940s had graduated from Wheaton College in Illinois and had become a world-roaming evangelist with Youth for Christ. A 1949 Los Angeles crusade brought him to the attention of William Randolph Hearst, who helped boost his career among a national audience. This crusade set the pattern for Graham’s evangelistic appeal: In a context of cold war anxieties, Graham urged personal and national repentance to avoid divine judgment. Throughout his career Graham’s preaching would remain simple and direct, stressing that the answers to all essential questions are to be found in God through Jesus Christ. In other respects, however, Graham departed significantly from the conservatism of many of his constituents. He refused to allow his audiences to be segregated by race, as was common in the South when he began his ministry. Beginning with his 1957 crusade in New York City, he agreed to cooperate with mainline churches. Fundamentalists who insisted that no fellowship could be maintained with theological liberals considered this a fatal compromise. Far from accommodating any kind of liberalism, however, both of these positions followed from Graham’s principled biblicism. Indeed, along with several other figures, Graham was critical in shaping a post-fundamentalist stance for conservative Protestantism in the 1950s. Through the National Association of Evangelicals and Christianity Today, Graham and others helped evangelicals shed what many saw as the angry selfrighteousness of fundamentalism, as well as emerge from the cultural ghetto that kept them separated from “the world” and at the same time prevented their engaging it. 174 Graham, Billy (William Franklin Graham) Graham’s belief that modern men and women were desperate for the Bible’s message led him to work with non-evangelicals who supported his crusades. It also made him welcome the attention of U.S. presidents who were eager to profit from associating with him. These were mostly symbiotic relationships: Politicians sought the approval of Graham’s constituency, and evangelicals in turn moved closer to the cultural mainstream. Graham would later express some regret that he had allowed himself to be used, especially by Richard Nixon, who aggressively cultivated religious conservatives. At the time it had seemed an appropriate way to bring biblical truths to the ears of the powerful. In the 1980s, Graham would again shock his more conservative supporters by questioning the morality of the nuclear arms buildup. Further reading: Graham, Billy. The Collected Works of Billy Graham. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Martin, William. A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story. New York: William Morrow, 1991. John Haas Great Leap Forward in China (1958–1961) The People’s Republic of China (PRC) followed the Soviet Union’s model of planned economy on the socialist model. The success of the First Five-Year Plan (1953–57), undertaken with Soviet financial and technical aid, prompted the government to announce a more ambitious Second Five-Year Plan for 1958–62 that called for a 75 percent increase in industrial and agricultural production. This was not enough for party leader Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), who proclaimed a “Great Leap Forward” in February 1958 with the goal of passing Great Britain in industrial production by 1972. It mandated an average 18 percent increase in steel, electricity, and coal production for that year. This was only the beginning of a series of escalating and totally unattainable goals for production. Mao called on the Chinese people to “walk on two legs,” that is, to use modern and sophisticated plants built with Soviet aid to make steel, along with primitive “backyard” furnaces manned by millions of untrained workers. By late 1958, 600,000 backyard furnaces had been built throughout China that smelted pots, pans, and farm implements, with wood from forests as fuel, and that produced millions of tons of unusable metal in order to fulfill their quotas and avoid punishment. To mobilize all the available labor force and to complete the socialist transformation of the people, more than 500 million peasants, or more than 98 percent of the rural population, were organized into 26,000 People’s Communes that controlled all aspects of their lives. In addition, some city people were organized military fashion into urban communes. Afraid of failure to realize Mao’s fantastic expectations, local Communist bosses competed with one another to announce overachievement of quotas and goals, which allowed the government to announce at the end of 1958 that industrial production for that year had exceeded that of 1957 by 65 percent. In launching the Great Leap Forward Mao was also motivated by his disapproval of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, whom Mao castigated as “revisionist” for giving incentives to improve productivity in Soviet agriculture. He boasted that he had found a shortcut, through the People’s Communes, to reach the ultimate Marxist utopia ahead of the Soviet Union and thus the right to lead the world communist movement. The Soviet Union, however, firmly rejected Mao’s claims when Khrushchev declared that “society cannot leap from capitalism to communism.” The debate over the validity of the Great Leap Forward widened the split in the international communist movement and contributed to worsening relations between China and the Soviet Union. In reality the Great Leap Forward brought unprecedented disaster to the Chinese people. By 1959 it was no longer possible for the government to deny that the economy had been crippled. The people were exhausted and demoralized, and famine stalked the land. Economists estimated that the economy had declined by $66 billion, and demographers concluded that more than 30 million people had died of starvation in the Mao-made famine, the worst in world history. At the Lushan Conference of communist leaders Mao had to admit his folly, stepped down from chairmanship of the PRC, and let others who had not lost touch with reality—called pragmatists—run the country to bring it back from ruin. See also Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976). Further reading: Becker, Jasper. Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine. New York: Henry Holt, 1998; Li Zhisui. The Private Life of Chairman Mao. Translated by Tai Hung-chao. New York: Random House, 1994; MacFarquhar, Roderick, and John K. Fairbank, eds. Cambridge History of China, vol. 14, The People’s Republic of China, part 1: The Emergence of Great Leap Forward in China (1958–1961) 175 Revolutionary China, 1949–1965. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976) The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (shortened to Cultural Revolution) that disrupted and ruined life, destroyed innumerable cultural artifacts, and caused the deaths of countless people between 1966 and 1976 was a power struggle within the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The background for this event was the catastrophic economic losses suffered in the Great Leap Forward that the chairman of the CCP and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), instigated between 1958 and 1960. It led to a successful challenge to Mao’s power by pragmatic senior leaders in the party and compelled Mao to give up his state chairmanship to his second in command, Liu Shaoqi (Liu Shao-ch’i), and actual running of the CCP to Party Secretary Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-p’ing). These men—called pragmatists—dismantled the communes, scrapped the backyard furnaces, and restored private plots to peasants. Their measures led to a gradual economic recovery but left Mao seething impotently. To recover power, Mao turned to his wife, Jiang Qing, who had been out of the limelight and held little power until now. She went to Shanghai and formed an alliance with local Communist leaders Zhang Chunqiao (Chang Chun-ch’iao), Yao Wenyuan (Yao Wenyuan), and a young factory activist named Wang Hongwen (Wang Hung-wen)—they would later be labeled the Gang of Four. Mao next called on young people, mostly students in secondary schools and universities, to form Red Guard units. Using Mao’s sayings, collected in a little Red Book, as their “Bible,” they became his vanguard in denouncing and harassing party bureaucrats, intellectuals, and anyone in power who might oppose Mao. They also destroyed anything they considered “old” and therefore bad, including countless cultural treasures. Jiang took charge of the media. She banned most forms of cultural expression, including Western classical music (Beethoven was denounced as a counterrevolutionary), Chinese operas, movies, and so on, and replaced them with so-called revolutionary operas. Schools were closed, and intellectuals were sent to forced labor camps and for “reeducation.” The Red Guards attacked Liu Shaoqi as a revisionist; he was dismissed and humiliated, and later died in prison. Deng Xiaoping was also purged, as were countless others. Among top leaders Premier Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai) was only one of a few who retained his post. At the height of their power between August and November 1966, Mao eight times reviewed the Red Guards at Tiananmen Square in Beijing (Peking) and lauded them for their revolutionary zeal. While most senior CCP leaders were ousted and imprisoned, the star of Minister of Defense Lin Biao (Lin Piao) rose. When the Red Guards became totally uncontrollable and began battling among themselves Mao called on Lin to use the army to put them down. Most Red Guards were then “sent down” to the countryside for “reeducation.” Lin was elevated to vice chairman of the Central Committee of the CCP in 1968 and was designated Mao’s “closest comrade-in-arms and successor” in the revised CCP constitution. A power struggle next developed between Mao and Lin, each plotting to eliminate the other. In September 1971 Lin, his powerful wife Ye Qun (Yeh Chun), and their son, an air force officer, plotted to assassinate Mao and seize power in a coup d’état. Upon the plan’s discovery they fled toward the Soviet Union in an air force jet piloted by the younger Lin, which crashed in Outer Mongolia, killing them all. Several of Lin’s confederates were arrested but the news of the attempted coup and Lin’s death was kept a secret until 1973. With Lin dead Jiang Qing and her allies became even more powerful, and Jiang pressured the ailing Mao to confirm her as his successor. Zhou Enlai and other senior party leaders opposed her and rehabilitated the disgraced Deng Xiaoping, whom Zhou groomed as successor. When Zhou died in January 1976, Deng’s position became insecure and he disappeared from public view, seeking refuge in southern China, where a local military commander protected him. Finally, just before he died Mao chose a dark horse to succeed him with the words “with you in charge I am at ease” scribbled on a sheet of paper. He was former minister of public security, Hua Guofeng (Hua Kuo-feng). Mao died on September 9, 1976. A power struggle ensued among Jiang and her allies, and Hua Guofeng and the resurfaced Deng Xiaoping and other CCP elders. On October 12 the Gang of Four were arrested in a dramatic showdown. These events ended the Maoist era, the succession struggle, and a decade of unprecedented turmoil called the Cultural Revolution. See also Great Leap Forward in China (1958–1961). 176 Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966 –1976 ) Further reading: Dittmer, Lowell. Liu Shao-ch’i and the Chinese Cultural Revolution: The Politics of Mass Criticism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975; Gao, Yuan. Born Red: A Chronicle of the Cultural Revolution. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987; MacFarquhar, Roderick, and Michael Schoenhals. Mao’s Last Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006; Thurston, Ann F. Enemies of the People: The Ordeal of Intellectuals in China’s Great Cultural Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Great Society (U.S.) President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society was an aggressive agenda of domestic legislative reforms. Introduced at a speech given at the University of Michigan in May 1964, Johnson’s list of programs seemed limitless, and would lead, he hoped, to better schools, better health, better cities, safer highways, a more beautiful nation, support for the arts, and more equality. By the time Johnson became president, he had already had three decades of political experience. During his tenure in Congress, he had experienced New Deal legislation and the mobilization of resources against enemies in World War II. Once he became president, Johnson decided to use all of the powers given to him to extend and even surpass the New Deal’s progressive record. With his landslide victory in the 1964 election, he had a powerful mandate and a large Democratic majority in Congress. These factors gave Johnson what he needed to carry out his plan. He was particularly interested in equality of opportunity, improved urban conditions, an improved educational system, ending poverty, and implementing racial justice. The Housing and Urban Development Act was put into effect in 1965. It offered reduced interest rates to builders of housing for the poor and elderly. In addition, it allocated funds for urban beautification programs, health programs, recreation centers, and improvements to inner-city housing and provided a rent-supplement program for the poor. To streamline and control programs, the law made it mandatory that all applications for federal aid to cities be approved by city or regional planning agencies. To administer the new programs, Congress created a new cabinet secretary and agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1964 Congress granted nearly $400 million for masstransit planning. In 1966 Congress allocated even more funds for that purpose, and created a new agency, the Department of Transportation, to administer them. The Model Cities Act of 1966 granted $1.2 billion for slum clearance and removal. The goal of the act was to revitalize inner-city life in many respects, including housing, schools, job training, recreation, and health care. The law gave funds to new model communities. Another of Johnson’s goals was to improve the quality of education. Johnson, a former teacher, envisioned the Great Society as one in which all children could enrich their minds. To achieve this, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 and allocated over $1 billion for programs to aid children who were seen as educationally deprived. The bulk of that money went to schools in poor districts. However, the bill also targeted bilingual education for Hispanic children and the education of disabled children. In addition to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act was also passed in 1965. This act created a federal scholarship and loan program for college students and provided library grants to colleges and universities to increase their resources. These two acts had an enormous impact on the state of education in the United States, but also increased government expenditures substantially. In 1965 alone, government spending on education was over $4 billion. The Great Society drastically improved the state of healthcare. Johnson’s Medicare bill was enacted by Congress in 1965 and provided health insurance for all Americans over the age of 65. Medicare was initially provided with a fund of $6.5 billion, with long-range funding to come from increased social security payroll deductions. To increase the number of health professionals, Congress passed funding for nursing and medical schools and provided scholarships for students to enter those fields. Medicare’s companion program, Medicaid, administered through state welfare systems, provided healthcare for poor Americans. Preserving the environment and national splendor was another of Johnson’s Great Society goals. Johnson sought to combat the effects of industrialization, which included shrinking wilderness areas, vanishing species of wildlife, a degradation of the landscape, and pollution. During Johnson’s presidency, Congress passed nearly 300 pieces of legislation relating to beautification, pollution, and conservation—amounting to expenditures of $12 billion. Another aspect of Johnson’s Great Society was the “war on poverty.” One of the largest pieces of legislation passed to wage the war on poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act, passed in August 1964. The act had 10 major parts. Head Start offered basic skills Great Society (U.S.) 177 training to preschoolers. The Upward Bound program helped gifted students from poor families attend college. Another section of the act expanded the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act, which focused on job training. Job Corps was created to teach important and marketable skills to inner-city youth, and the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) was a domestic parallel to President John F. Kennedy’s Peace Corps. The Legal Services Program provided lawyers to defend the rights of low-income citizens. Other parts of the Economic Opportunity Act funded public works programs in poor and rural areas and provided loans for small farmers and small businesses. To administer the war on poverty, the act created the Office of Economic Opportunity. Another section of the Economic Opportunity Act was the Community Action Program. It allocated $300 million for local antipoverty programs. This initiative reflected the belief held by some that social-policy formation had too many experts and bureaucrats and lacked grassroots input. By 1966 more than 1,000 Community Action Programs were in place, including in many African-American and Mexican-American inner-city neighborhoods. They led to increased community activism. The programs encouraged political organization and community development, and when used as intended, their funds went to education, medical services, and legal services. court decisions The Supreme Court had its part in the Great Society as well. The Court’s decisions improved individual rights, equal protection under the law, and electoral processes. To help give all citizens an equal voice at the polls, Baker v. Carr (1962) made states do all that was practical to maintain population balance in the drawing of congressional and state legislature lines. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) ensured that poor people would have legal counsel provided to them by the court if they could not afford to pay. The 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona mandated that people be informed of their legal rights when placed under arrest. Civil rights was another integral part of the Great Society. However, it was also one of the hardest to achieve. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, opponents of the bill filibustered for 75 days. However, on June 11, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73 to 27. The bill targeted racism in American life. It made it easier for the attorney general to take part in all civil rights cases and allowed him or her to prosecute segregated school districts and election officials who denied voting rights to black Americans. Other sections forbade discrimination in public facilities, hiring, and federally funded programs. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 authorized federal officials to register voters and oversee elections. It outlawed long-standing measures used primarily in southern states to keep African Americans from voting. By mid-1966 a half-million African Americans were registered to vote in the South; by 1968 nearly 400 African Americans held elected office in that region. A final civil rights measure, the Open Housing Act, was passed in 1968 and outlawed racial discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. Also under the heading of civil rights was the Immigration Act of 1965, which abolished discriminatory national-origins policies. Although some of Johnson’s Great Society measures were received with mixed feelings, they helped overall to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans. The impact of his legislation is still felt today. However, even with all of the success of President Johnson’s Great Society, his presidency was marred by the stigma of Vietnam, the cost of which curtailed spending on some of his Great Society programs. His noble and idealistic crusade was cut short by a bitter and unpopular war. See also Vietnam War. Further reading: Andrews, John A. Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. Chicago: I.R. Dee, 1998; Bernstein, Irving. Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Bornet, Vaughn Davis. The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1983; Kearns-Goodwin, Doris. Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. New York: New American Library, 1976. James E. Seelye, Jr. Greek Junta The Greek Junta is the name given to the April 21, 1967, military coup that after seven years ended Greek parliamentary democracy. The suggested reason for this military action was the prevention of an impending communist takeover. However, there remains little or no evidence to confirm that this threat was real. The immediate background to the event was a series of social, economic, and political developments in the period from 1963 to 1967 that affected Greek stability. Particularly unsettling was the election of George Papandreou’s Center Union government in February 1964. Papandreou attempted a number of social and 178 Greek Junta economic reforms and promoted his more radical son, Andreas Papandreou, to the economics ministry, which caused splits in his own party. A leftist conspiracy of military personnel known as ASPIDA, which implicated Andreas and threatened the monarchy and the existing military structure, was also uncovered during this time. Papandreou resigned in July 1965. Greece then entered a period of continual uncertainty with a series of unsatisfactory governments that failed to establish a solid governing base. The king eventually proposed new elections for May 1967. The Right, especially within the military, had become suspicious of these political maneuvers and the accompanying instability. Many of the officers came from the lower social classes and felt that their rise and prestige had been undermined by the country’s corrupt political elite. In addition to social tension, Cyprus, under Archbishop Makarios’s leadership, was demanding concessions from the island’s Turkish minority, who threatened to bring about outright war with Turkey. A Turkish invasion was prevented in 1964 by the United States and peace was maintained to a degree by United Nations peacekeeping forces. Additionally, Greece’s King Constantine II was coping with youth and inexperience, having been king only since March 1964. The threat of George Papandreou’s return to power motivated the king to plan his own revolt, which was also scheduled for April 21, 1967. However, this coup was circumvented by a group of young officers. Their action changed the course of postwar Greek history and took the entire political establishment by surprise. Led by Colonels Georgios Papadopoulos and Nicholas Makarezos and Brigadier Stylianos Pattakos and backed by a vague revolutionary council, the army struck on the morning of April 21. Their plan, codenamed Prometheus, proved effective. Communications were seized, as were other key civic and military installations, and martial law was declared, which appeared to be endorsed by the king and his advisers. Constantine attempted a countercoup in December 1967; it was ill-conceived and failed even before it started. Following this fiasco, Constantine’s final recourse was to flee into exile with his family. The junta’s political philosophy was ill-defined but generally paternalistic and authoritarian, with populist overtones designed to appeal to the peasantry and workers. They promoted Greek nationalism and proclaimed themselves to be defenders of Greek values, civilization, and Christianity. In essence, the junta wanted to discipline Greek society and, in 1968, produced a new authoritarian constitution to allow them to do so. They made frequent use of propaganda and the secret police (Asphaleia) and military police (ESA) to silence critics and opponents. Human rights abuses were numerous. Such violations gave the colonels a bad international reputation within Europe and left them with few friends. Colonel Georgios Papadopoulos soon rose to command the regime, a position he held until November 1973. The regime managed to maintain its membership in nato while suffering only minor criticisms, although U.S. military aid was curtailed from 1967 to 1973. Greece’s strategic position in the Mediterranean in the face of cold war realities meant that the United States needed Greek ports to be open to the Sixth Fleet. The junta eventually failed because of its inability to govern effectively or respond to external crises. By relying on crude suppression, the colonels destroyed any chance for popular support. Campaigns against the regime, such as Andreas Papandreou’s Panhellenic Liberation Movement, were maintained from abroad. But the most important cause was the rise of an active university student opposition. A weakened leadership threatened the regime’s ability to rule. This, in turn, led Dimitrios Ioannidis—a previous secret police head— to seize junta leadership from Papadopoulos. Ioannidis then searched for a populist/nationalist cause to restore the government. A confrontation with Turkey over oil deposits in the Aegean seemed the ideal circumstance. The junta attempted in July 1974 to overthrow Makarios in Cyprus. Turkey responded by invading the Turkish side of the island. Ioannidis thought he had the military challenge he needed, but dissent and dissatisfaction in the heart of the military establishment left him isolated. The only resolution to the junta’s failure was a return to legitimacy, which was now backed by the military itself. Former prime minister Konstantinos Karamanlis returned from exile in Paris and restored democratic government. He reintroduced political parties, created a new constitution modeled on that of France, and purged junta supporters from the military and civil service. He also sought a referendum on the future of the monarchy, which produced a 70 percent majority against the restoration of the king. The new constitution of 1975 increased the powers of the executive in the form of a president. The junta leaders were tried and given death sentences, which were later commuted. The junta’s civilian supporters avoided major criminal trials. Some military and police officers were convicted of more serious crimes. The demise of the Greek Junta 179 junta came without much bloodshed and with a general spirit of leniency. See also Cyprus, Turkish invasion of. Further reading: Couloumbis, Theodore. The Greek Junta Phenomenon. New York: Pella, 2004; Georghiou, Vassos. The Unrepentant. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2005; McNeill, William H. Metamorphosis of Greece since World War II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978; Woodhouse, C. M. The Rise and Fall of the Colonels. London: Granada, 1985; Yennaris, Costas. From the East: Conflict and Partition in Cyprus. Cambridge: Elliot and Thompson, 2003. Theodore W. Eversole Green Revolution The term Green Revolution refers to the incredible transformation of agriculture in developing nations between the 1940s and 1960s. Programs of agricultural research and the development of infrastructure led to significant increases in agricultural production. The Green Revolution has had significant social and ecological impact on the world, and because of this has been equally praised and criticized. For English wheat yield to increase from one-half metric ton per hectare to two metric tons took 1,000 years; the increase from two to six metric tons took only 40 years. The change took place due to improvements in breeding, agronomy, and the use of pesticides and fertilizers. The result was that by the second half of the 20th century most industrial countries were agriculturally self-sufficient. Developing countries were less fortunate. Colonial powers invested little in the food production systems of their colonies and did nothing to slow population growth, so by independence in the 1950s–1960s, the new nations were approaching a crisis. By the mid- 1960s hunger and malnutrition were widespread. Asia was particularly dependent on food aid from developed countries. India suffered back-to-back droughts in the mid-1960s, exacerbating the problem. The Rockefeller and Ford foundations led in the establishment of the international agricultural research system to adapt the latest science and technology to the Third World. Efforts focused on rice and wheat, two of the principal sources of food in the developing world. U.S. Agency for International Development administrator William S. Gaud coined the term “Green Revolution” in 1968. The Green Revolution spread rapidly. By 1970 approximately 20 percent of the Third World’s wheat area and 30 percent of the rice land in developing countries were planted in high-yield varieties. By 1990 the share was 70 percent for both. The Green Revolution led to markedly improved yields of cereal grains during the 1960s–1970s due to the development of new seeds through genetics. The beginnings came in Mexico during the 1940s when Dr. Norman E. Borlaug led a team that developed a strain of wheat that was resistant to disease and efficient in converting fertilizer and water into grain. Shorter and sturdier stalks were necessary to allow the plant to hold the larger grain yield. Borlaug developed dwarf varieties with the requisite characteristics. Initially, Mexico was importing half the wheat it needed. By 1956 it was self-sufficient, and by 1964 it was exporting half a million tons annually. Equal success in India and Pakistan kept millions of people from starving. As the technologies spread through the world, crop yields increased each year. But as production of rice and wheat and other genetically altered crops grew, output of other indigenous crops, including pulses, declined. After wheat came corn, although with less success. Building on the efforts of China, Japan, and Taiwan, the International Rice Research Institute developed semidwarf rice plants. By 1992 a network of 18 research centers, primarily in developing countries, continued the effort to improve yields. Funding came from the Rockefeller Foundation and other private foundations, nation- 180 Green Revolution The Green Revolution created higher crop yields, but also may have contributed to widespread environmental damage. al governments, and international agencies including the World Bank. At the same time the Green Revolution came under criticism because it requires fertilizer, irrigation, and other tools unavailable to impoverished farmers. Further, it may be ecologically harmful. Most important, its emphasis on monoculture leads to a loss of genetic diversity. Academic critics, such as the economist Arartya Sen, note that increasing food production does not necessarily lead to improved food security. Most industrialized nations consume Green Revolution hybrids. The crops are created through crossbreeding or random mutagenesis to improve crop yield and increase durability to allow for longer shipment and storage times. Other alterations allow plumper tomatoes or straighter rows of corn. Uniformity eases mechanical harvest. Modified strains still depended heavily on the high use of fertilizers, which consume fossil fuels, instead of the traditional crop rotation, mixing of crops, and use of animal manure. And large-scale irrigation entailed the use of large volumes of natural monsoon and other water sources. It also required poor farmers to use simple irrigation techniques. Control of pests and weeds by pesticides and herbicides also improved the crops. The Green Revolution allowed a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978–79. India became one of the world’s largest producers, and an exporter of food grain. No other nation matched India’s success. The Green Revolution also allowed food production to match population growth. Mechanization has reduced the need for low-skilled human labor. Farmers and agricultural workers have seen increases in income as production costs have dropped markedly. Mechanization encouraged collectivization— or corporatism—because the machines are too expensive for small landowners. After the initial exploitation, real improvement occurred for many poor farmers. Between 1970 and 1995, real per capita incomes in Asia almost doubled, with a decline in poverty from nearly 60 percent to less than 33 percent. As population increased 60 percent between 1975 and 1995, poverty decreased from 1.15 billion to 825 million people. India’s rural poor before the mid-1960s ranged from 50 to 65 percent; by 1993 the number was about 33 percent. Vandana Shiva and other critics of the Green Revolution object to the emphasis on genetically modified, high-yield crops at the expense of quality ones. The dependence on a few strains increases the risk of disaster should a new crop pest arise. The revolution also makes populations dependent on external sources of food. And the potential for future improvement through breeding of different strains is weakened. Critics also note that the reduction in crop types leads to a less varied, less healthy diet, because the crops are produced for volume, not nutritional quality. Herbicides kill wild plants that are traditionally eaten as vegetables, further restricting the variety in many diets. Pesticides also kill the fish in rice paddies. Water buffalo exposed to the pesticide-rich land develop hoof-and-mouth disease. Some villages that were previously self-sufficient are suddenly enduring famine that seems irreversible. Supporters note that the Green Revolution has created higher gross nutrition levels and increased the intake of calories. To promote variety, advocates encourage the planting of vegetable gardens. The newer varieties have improved nutrient content, for example, the “golden rice” with increased carotene, and there is more attention to developing altered versions of less common crops. High-yield sorghum, millet, maize, cassava, and beans are now available. The Green Revolution changes social arrangements. Many hybrids are sterile. Others are sold with the restriction that farmers cannot save seed. Farmers have to buy seed each year, and the seed they buy is usually hybrid because traditional seeds produce much less. The Green Revolution also brought traditional subsistence farmers into the world of large-scale industrial agriculture. Many are forced off their farms and into urban poverty because their small holdings are not competitive with the large agribusinesses. Dependence on chemical fertilizers also leads to ecological damage such as on the Pacific island of Nauru, which was mined extensively for its phosphates. Chemical runoff from fields pollutes streams and other water supplies. DDT and other chemicals used in the early Green Revolution have given way to safer varieties, but the impact remains. Critics claim that the Green Revolution’s methods destroy land quality because irrigation increases salinity, soil erosion increases, and the soil loses organic material and trace elements due to reliance on artificial means of stimulating growth. The soil weakens, and chemical dependency grows until the soil finally fails. Supporters counter that new techniques will develop as resources become scarce or environmental damage becomes likely. They note that no-till farming has decreased erosion. And work continues on the development of alternative energy sources, disease- and pestresistant crops, and closed nutrient cycles. Further reading: Cornell’s Program on Science. Technology, and Society, Food, Population, and Employment; The Impact of the Green Revolution. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1973; Hossain, Mahabub. Nature and Impact of the Green Green Revolution 181 Revolution in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1988. John H. Barnhill Grenada, U.S. invasion of (1983) On October 25–28, 1983, the United States—under President Ronald Reagan—invaded the small Caribbean island-nation of Grenada, deposed its leftist government, and installed a government more in keeping with the Reagan administration’s perception of U.S. geostrategic interests in the Western Hemisphere. A clear violation of international law, the action garnered widespread domestic popular and bipartisan support, while being roundly condemned by much of the international community. The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned the invasion; in the Security Council the United States cast the sole dissenting vote on a resolution condemning it. The invasion boosted Reagan’s popularity at home; intimidated leftist movements and parties throughout the circum-Caribbean; and resulted in a corrupt and elite-dominated post-invasion government characteristic of the region. Undertaken by some 7,000 U.S. troops, the invasion caused 118 deaths (19 U.S.; 69 Grenadan; 25 Cuban) and 533 were wounded, while U.S. forces detained 638 Cubans as prisoners of war. U.S. forces withdrew from the island in December. The invasion’s antecedents have been traced to the intensification of the cold war under Reagan; the 1979 triumph of the leftist Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua; ongoing leftist revolutionary movements and civil wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, and elsewhere in the circum- Caribbean; and the March 13, 1979, coup d’état in Grenada by the leftist New Jewel Movement, led by the charismatic Marxist-influenced attorney Maurice Bishop. Independent from Great Britain since 1974, Grenada was ruled from 1974 to 1979 by Prime Minister Sir Eric Gairy, widely considered despotic and notorious for his preoccupations with the occult, whose “Mongoose Squad” kept his opponents in check and himself in power. Most of the island’s 110,000 inhabitants welcomed the New Jewel coup. From 1979 to 1983, the economy grew at an average of 9 percent (very high for the Caribbean during this period, which included a global recession in 1981–82); unemployment declined from 45 to 14 percent; literacy rates increased from 85 to 98 percent; and the nation’s health, education, and welfare systems were reformed and expanded. Bishop, as much a nationalist as socialist and influenced as much by Jamaican musician Bob Marley as by Marx, articulated a socialist, anti-imperialist vision at odds with express U.S. economic, strategic, and security interests in the region. The Bishop government did not hold elections as promised, imposed press censorship, jailed political opponents, and lent rhetorical support to the Soviet Union and Cuba. On October 19, 1983, New Jewel hard-liner Bernard Coard ousted Bishop, precipitating islandwide protests and a general strike. After crowds forced Bishop’s release, Coard’s forces killed several dozen protesters and executed Bishop and two cabinet members. The main U.S. rationale for its invasion was to protect the lives of more than 800 U.S. medical students at the St. George’s School of Medicine, whom the Reagan administration claimed were in imminent danger and prevented from departing. The Grenada invasion comprises a minor but revealing episode in the late cold war in the Western Hemisphere. Further reading: Dunn, Peter M., and Bruce W. Watson, eds. American Intervention in Grenada: The Implications of Operation “Urgent Fury.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985; Lewis, Gordon K. Grenada: The Jewel Despoiled. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. Michael J. Schroeder Guatemala, civil war in (1960–1996) From 1960 to 1996, the nation-state of Guatemala was convulsed by a civil war that caused the deaths of at least 200,000 people. The worst years of the violence were 1981–82, when the U.S.-backed government launched what has been accurately characterized by the Report of the Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification as “acts of genocide” against the country’s majority indigenous population. The same report concluded that “[the] majority of human rights violations occurred with the knowledge or by order of the highest authorities of the State.” An important component of the cold war in the Western Hemisphere, the history of Guatemala from 1954 to 1996 was mostly shaped by the country’s extreme inequalities in landowning, wealth, and power; U.S. military assistance and economic and political intervention expressly intended to combat the perceived threat of international communism; a dictatorial Guatemalan state dominated by the military and backed by the U.S. government, the country’s traditional landholding oligarchy, and right-wing paramilitaries; and the struggles 182 Grenada, U.S. invasion of (1983 ) of civil society—including labor unions, peasant leagues, indigenous and human rights groups, political parties, and guerrilla organizations—to create a more just and equitable society. The short-term origins of the civil war have been traced to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency– orchestrated coup of 1954, following a decade of farreaching reforms, which overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz and installed a military dictatorship headed by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. In 1960 a group of junior officers revolted and formed an even more hard-line military government. In the early 1960s several guerrilla organizations became active in rural districts, including the Guerrilla Army of the Poor (EGP); the Revolutionary Organization of Armed People (ORPA); and the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR). In 1982, the guerrilla organizations combined to form the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG). Beginning in 1966 the army launched a major counterinsurgency campaign in rural areas that eliminated most armed resistance to the regime. Guerrilla operations continued in urban areas through economic sabotage and targeted assassinations. Repression by the military, right-wing paramilitaries, and death squads such as the White Hand intensified—with tortures and murders of labor organizers, community activists, students, professionals, and other suspected leftists. In March 1982 a military coup installed as president General Efraín Ríos Montt, a right-wing extremist, 1974 presidential candidate, and lay pastor in the evangelical Protestant “Church of the Word.” His presidency (1982–83) is linked to the worst human rights abuses in the 36-year civil war, with human rights organizations amply documenting the “acts of genocide” perpetrated by his government. In March 1994 a United Nations–sponsored peace process resulted in an accord between the URNG and the government. In January 1996 Álvaro Arzu, candidate of the center-right National Advancement Party (PAN), was elected as president. The final peace accord was signed on December 29, 1996, formally ending the 36-year civil war, the major events of which are amply documented in the 1999 CEH Report and related reports. Further reading: Guatemala, Memory of Silence, Tz’inil Na’tab’al, Report of the Commission For Historical Clarification. (CEH), 1999, http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/report/ english/toc.html (accessed February 12, 2007); Guatemala, Never Again! REMHI, Recovery of Historical Memory Project: The Official Report of the Human Rights Office, Archdiocese of Guatemala. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999. Michael J. Schroeder Guevara, Ernesto “Che” (1927–1967) Latin American revolutionary An iconic Latin American revolutionary whose visage remains emblematic of leftist and Marxist struggles throughout the continent and world, Ernesto Guevara de la Serna joined Fidel Castro’s 26 July Movement in late 1955. An exceptionally effective guerrilla leader, his charisma, intelligence, and revolutionary idealism soon made him one of the leading figures of the early years of the Cuban revolution. He was the primary impetus behind the notion of the socialist “New Man,” at the core of many Cuban government policies in the early 1960s, in which revolutionary fervor was seen as more fundamental than material incentives (such as wages and benefits) in propelling workers to produce. Convinced that Cuba’s successes could be duplicated in other countries through what he called the “foco” theory of revolution, in which a small band of revolutionaries could spark a mass insurrection and topple dictatorships, he journeyed to Bolivia in 1967 to test his theory. The anticipated popular uprising failed to materialize, and after a few months he was captured and executed by the Bolivian military. His writings on revolution and guerrilla warfare remain classics of the era. Born on June 14, 1927, to a wealthy landowning family in Rosario, Argentina, Guevara was a frail and sickly boy, suffering asthma that plagued him throughout his life. Raised Roman Catholic, because of his asthma he was educated mainly at home by his mother, Celia de la Serna y Llosa, and his four siblings. His father, Ernesto Guevara Lynch, was a businessman and for a time ran a mate (tea) farm owned by his wife. Both were committed leftists. From his mother, to whom he remained emotionally close throughout his life, he acquired his lifelong passion for books, learning, and politics. In 1943 when Guevara was 16, his family moved to Córdoba. After completing his high school studies he began studying engineering. In 1947 he and his family moved to Buenos Aires, where he entered the university to study engineering before switching to medicine. In 1951 he and a friend embarked on a yearlong motorcycle journey through South America, where he saw firsthand the continent’s poverty and social injustices (as portrayed in his journals and dramatized in the 2004 film The Motorcycle Diaries). Graduating from Guevara, Ernesto “Che” 183 medical school in 1953, he journeyed through Bolivia and Peru to Guatemala, where he witnessed the social revolution under President Jacobo Arbenz. After Arbenz’s overthrow in a U.S.-orchestrated coup in 1954, which steeled Guevara’s anti-imperialism, Guevara journeyed to Mexico and established contact with Cuban exile Fidel Castro. Convinced that Castro was the visionary revolutionary he had long sought, he joined Castro’s 26 July Movement and soon became one of its leaders. The group embarked for Cuba in November 1956, and for the next two years Guevara played a central role in the guerrilla war against Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista, earning a reputation as a skilled and sometimes ruthless commander. After Batista’s ouster in January 1959, Guevara was appointed to the National Institute of Agrarian Reform, and later became president of the National Bank, minister of industries, and ambassador to the United Nations. During this period he developed his ideas regarding the socialist New Man and his foco theory of revolution. After failing in several attempts to launch socialist revolutions in other countries (including Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Congo), in late 1966 he traveled to Bolivia in the hope of sparking a mass insurrection. On October 8, 1967, he and his bedraggled forces were captured by the Bolivian military, and the next day he was executed. He is widely considered one of the most important revolutionary figures of the 20th century. Further reading: Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. New York: Grove Press, 1997; Castañeda, Jorge G. Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara. New York: Knopf, 1997. Michael J. Schroeder Gulf War, First (1991) The First Gulf War was fought by a coalition of forces from 34 countries against Iraq in 1991 in response to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The war began because of several crises stemming from the Iran-Iraq War of 1980– 88. The Iran-Iraq War ended on August 8, 1988. Iraq was left with huge debts, largely to other Arab nations that had helped to finance the war, and extensive material damage; however, the Iraqi military had benefited from the war by becoming the strongest military force in the Gulf region. Immediately following the cessation of the Iran-Iraq War, the Kuwaiti government made the disastrous decision to increase its oil production in violation of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) agreements. The Kuwaitis increased oil extraction from the Rumaila oil wells, which lay on disputed territory with neighboring Iraq. Iraqi revenues were 90 percent dependent on oil, and the Kuwaiti increase in oil production helped to lower oil prices and slowly began to strangle Iraq economically. Kuwait’s leaders, the Al-Sabah family, ignored Iraq’s protestations. Until the early 20th century Kuwait had been a semi-independent emirate administered from Baghdad under the Ottoman Empire. During the 19th century British influence in the Gulf and in Kuwait in particular increased, and after World War I Britain was responsible for drawing the borders between the two nations. Although Iraq ultimately established diplomatic relations with Kuwait, many Iraqis continued to view it as part of Iraq. strategic access Iraq also owed $14 billion from the Iran-Iraq War to Kuwait; Iraq had expected that Kuwait would cancel the debt since Iraq had fought and suffered during the long war with Iran while the oil-rich nations in the region had helped to finance the struggle. However, Kuwait not only refused to cancel the debt, it demanded its immediate repayment. During the Iran-Iraq War many of Iraq’s limited port facilities in the Shatt al-Arab were destroyed, leaving Iraq almost landlocked. Kuwait had greater strategic access to the Persian Gulf, which Iraq viewed as essential were hostilities to erupt again with Iran. From 1988 to 1990, Saddam Hussein increased his threats against Kuwait, asking for cancellation of Iraq’s debts. He also sought help from King Hussein of Jordan to mediate the problems. In July 1990 Saddam met with U.S. ambassador April Glaspie and stated his grievances regarding Kuwait; Glaspie gave him a controversial response that he took to mean that the United States would not become involved in the dispute if he took stronger steps to rectify the problem. On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi military quickly overran and occupied all of Kuwait, and the ruling family fled the country. Hussein justified the invasion based on Kuwait’s slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields across the border, as well as his complaints over debt cancellation. He also appealed to Arab nationalism, claiming that Kuwait was part of Iraq, calling it the 19th province of Iraq. Immediately after the invasion the United Nations (UN) passed Resolution 660 condemning the invasion and demanding an immediate withdrawal. UN Resolution 661 then imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Saudi Arabia was alarmed by the invasion and the mounting power of the Iraqi military, which was within 184 Gulf War, First (1991) striking distance of the vast Saudi Hama oil wells. In Operation Desert Shield, begun on August 7, 1990, the U.S. military beefed up its forces in Arabia to defend its Saudi ally from a possible Iraqi attack. In addition, the UN placed a January 15, 1991, deadline for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The United States and the UN assembled a coalition force of 34 countries to implement this resolution by force should Iraq fail to comply. On January 12, 1991, the U.S. Congress narrowly approved the use of U.S. military force in an operation against Iraq. When Iraq failed to comply with the January 15 deadline, coalition forces initiated Operation Desert Storm on January 17, 1991, with a massive monthlong air campaign against Baghdad and much of Iraq. The air attacks, over 1,000 in number, disabled military and communication installations and severely weakened the Iraqi military and infrastructure. Coalition forces launched a ground attack, Operation Desert Sabre, on February 24, 1991; they quickly overwhelmed the thinly stretched Iraqi forces, and after only 100 hours President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire. Iraqi troops hastily retreated back across the border, setting Kuwaiti oil fields on fire as they withdrew. This caused massive environmental damage that persisted into the 21st century. Iraqi troops also dumped approximately 1 million tons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf. The quick victory was a surprise, and the war ended sooner than predicted. Kuwait City was recaptured, and on February 27, 1991, Kuwait was officially liberated and the Iraq-Kuwait border was restored. However, Saddam Hussein was not captured, and he remained in power. Allied forces did not pursue him and did not try to occupy Iraq, although they did advance to within 150 miles of the capital of Baghdad. President Bush justified this decision by noting that the goal of the coalition had been to liberate Kuwait. However, the U.S. administration hoped that continued economic sanctions against Iraq, as well as assistance for resistance groups within Iraq (such as Shi’i and Kurdish factions), would lead the Iraqi people to revolt against Hussein and oust him from power. But Hussein ruthlessly repressed any uprisings. Although the sanctions caused the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqis, mostly women and children, they had little effect on Hussein’s regime, which actually extended its political control over a nation badly crippled by years of war. Thus the First Gulf War was a military success, succeeding in liberating Kuwait, but it did not change the Iraqi regime. Consequently the United States, Great Britain, and a small number of other nations moved to oust Hussein and occupy Iraq in the Second Gulf War, beginning in 2003. Further reading: Aburish, Said K. Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge. London: Bloomsbury, 2000; Sciolino, Elaine. The Outlaw State: Saddam Hussein’s Quest for Power and the Gulf Crisis. New York: John Wiley, 1991. Katie Belliel Gulf War, Second (Iraq War) The invasion of Iraq officially began on March 20, 2003, under the name “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The stated justification for the invasion was that Saddam Hussein, ruler of Iraq, had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and supported terrorism, and that the Iraqi people were suffering under his tyranny and needed to be freed. The United States contended that Iraq was in violation of both United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1441 and the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, which ended hostilities after Desert Storm. Both of these documents prohibited Iraq from possessing or researching WMDs. Saddam’s links to terror were indirect and centered mostly on monetary rewards provided to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and to the families of the “victims of Israeli aggression.” Allegations that Saddam was linked in some way to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were never supported by evidence. A “Coalition of the Willing” was created by the United States in the time after September 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 though 98 percent of the Coalition troops were British and American. The Coalition forces assembled for the attack on Iraq numbered just under 300,000. The Iraqi army numbered 390,000 soldiers, plus 44,000 Fedayeen and potentially 650,000 reserves. The 2003 invasion was not preceded by an extended bombing campaign, as was the 1991 attack. The strategy for the 2003 invasion depended on speed and precision strikes to destroy Iraqi command rapidly enough to ensure that the defenses would quickly collapse. A primary strategic goal of the Coalition was to limit damage to Iraq’s oil production capability; key sites related to the oil industry were to be secured as quickly as possible. The course of the invasion was designed to prevent both the destruction of oil sites and to limit the Iraqi army’s ability to concentrate their defenses. The U.S. Army moved west through the Iraqi desert and then headed north toward Baghdad while the marines Gulf War, Second (Iraq War) 185 moved directly toward Baghdad along the main Iraqi Highway One. British forces concentrated on securing southeastern Iraq, particularly the Basra area. Major actions took place at Nasiriyah and Karbala where the Iraqis defended important crossroads and bridges over the Euphrates River. In the third week of the invasion, U.S. forces entered Baghdad. Raids called “Thunder Runs” were launched on April 5 and 7 to test Iraqi defenses in the capital and to capture the key objectives of the Baghdad Airport and Saddam’s palace complex. The city of Baghdad was formally occupied on April 9. Saddam was declared deposed and went into hiding, and many Iraqis rejoiced by defacing his monuments. The initial invasion had lasted a mere 21 days. Looting followed the fall of the regime, with store goods, museum items, and military arms and equipment being targeted, as did outbreaks of violence between tribes and cities based on old grudges. Coalition troops began searching for Saddam, Iraqi politicians and leaders of the Ba’ath Party, military leaders, and Saddam’s family members. On July 22, 2003, Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, along with a grandson, were killed during a standoff at their fortified safe house in Mosul. Saddam was captured on December 13, 2003, near his hometown of Tikrit. In all, 300 top leaders from Saddam’s regime were killed or captured along with a large number of lower-level troops and government officials. After the fall of Baghdad and Saddam’s regime, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was formed 186 Gulf War, Second (Iraq War) Two U.S. Marines speak with a local Iraqi woman during a security patrol in Saqlawiyah, Iraq. The marines were assigned to Weapons Platoon, Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. to run Iraq until power could be turned over to the Iraqis. The CPA was led by Paul Bremer. The CPA officially controlled Iraq from April 21, 2003, until June 28, 2004. The CPA opposed holding elections in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam and wanted to hand power over to an appointed interim Iraqi government, which would be chosen by the Coalition. A second group formed in early 2003 was the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). The ISG was charged with finding the WMDs that Iraq was alleged to possess. They could not find any WMDs or programs to build them even though Iraq was known to have had nuclear, biological, ballistic missile, and chemical weapons programs prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The media explored a new format to cover the war by “embedding” journalists inside military units. The war also saw for the first time soldiers instantly reporting their activities by means of digital cameras, cell phones, and the Internet. Uncensored soldiers’ stories, photos, Web blogs, and movies became available shortly after events took place. Arabic news networks such as al Jazeera provided the Islamic viewpoint and was available worldwide though satellite TV and on the Internet. On May 1, 2003, major combat operations were declared over by U.S. president George W. Bush. Peace was short-lived, as a disjointed insurgency took hold in Iraq with many factions fighting for control. They included religious radicals, Fedayeen, Ba’athists, foreign Arabs, and other Muslim jihadis—and Iraqis opposed to the occupation. The insurgency was a chaotic decentralized movement with as many as 40 separate groups fighting for control. The picture was further clouded as each group was splintered into large numbers of semiautonomous cells. Insurgent attacks increased around Iraq, but especially in the “Sunni Triangle,” home to most of the Sunni population. Insurgents used guerrilla-style tactics, employing suicide bombs, mortars, rockets, ambushes, snipers, car bombs, sabotage of the infrastructure, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). In late 2004 the focus of insurgent attacks switched from Coalition forces to the newly elected Iraqi government and its collaborators, including the Shi’i population. Many of the attacks were carried out by foreign fighters. At the end of March 2004 insurgents in the town of Fallujah ambushed and killed four private military contractors from the Blackwater USA Corporation. Pictures of their burned bodies hanging from a bridge were distributed around the world, causing outrage among Americans. Blackwater was one of many private companies that provided specialized services and expertise needed by the U.S. military. The employees or contractors of these companies are typically men with special-forces or police backgrounds. They are paid much more money than they would make in the official armed forces. This has led many to label them “mercenaries.” It is believed that there were more than 100,000 private contractors in Iraq around 2007. Two fierce battles were fought after attacks were launched by the U.S. Marines to gain control of Fallujah after the Blackwater incident. The first battle in April 2004 was not successful and ended with the Marines withdrawing. The second battle, fought in November and December 2004, resulted in the death of more than 5,000 insurgents and the complete takeover of Fallujah. The battles for Fallujah are considered to be the heaviest urban fighting the U.S. Marines have done since the battle for Hue fought in Vietnam during 1968. On June 28, 2004, the CPA transferred sovereignty of Iraq to the Iraqi Interim Government, which was charged with holding national elections. The elected Iraqi government would then draft a new constitution. The Interim Government was also to try Saddam Hussein for his many crimes. At the end of his first trial, Saddam was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity and was executed by hanging on December 26, 2006. The Iraqi constitution was ratified on October 15, 2005, and a general election was held on December 15 to choose the new national assembly. In a first for Iraq, the constitution stipulated that 25 percent of the assembly seats must be held by women. An escalation in sectarian violence followed, as the Sunni minority feared their power slipping into the hands of the Shi’i majority. Sunni bombers destroyed a very important Shi’i mosque and ignited a cycle of revenge violence in which both sides used bombs, ambushes, and death squads against both politicians and civilians. Violence between the Shi’i and Sunni escalated to the point that the United Nations (UN) has labeled it an “almost civil war situation.” Many feared that this sectarian violence could spread to other countries in the Middle East, especially if Iraq was splintered into independent Sunni, Shi’i, and Kurdish states. Many of the opposition insurgents and suicide bombers were in fact foreign Sunni Arabs who came to Iraq to fight against the United States and against the Shi’i. One of the most notable foreign insurgent leaders was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Born in Jordan, he moved around the Middle East and Central Asia working as a terrorist and jihadi before taking leadership of al- Qaeda in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. He was killed on June 7, 2006, when his safe house located north of Gulf War, Second (Iraq War) 187 Baqubah was hit by smart bombs dropped by U.S. aircraft. Al-Qaeda has continued its violent campaign in Iraq. The war continued as 2007 saw a rising death toll. The number of Iraqis killed in the war is not known. Some estimates are as high as 900,000 Iraqi dead from all causes related to the war. In addition, an estimated 2 million Iraqis are said to have fled to Syria or Jordan. The number of Coalition forces killed is much clearer: more than 4,052 Americans and 309 other forces by April 2008. Private contractors killed and wounded are not included in this figure and have not been published. Further Reading: Kegan, John. The Iraq War: The Military Offensive, from Victory in 21 Days to the Insurgent Aftermath. New York: Knopf, 2004; Shawcross, William. The Allies: The United States, Britain and Europe in the Aftermath of the Iraqi War. London: Atlantic, 2003. Collin Boyd