Fandom

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History H

749pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

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

Hadrian (76–138 c.e.) Roman emperor Hadrian ruled Rome from 117 to 138 c.e. as one of the “fi ve good emperors.” He traveled frequently, secured and improved the administration of the empire, and was one of the ablest men of his time. His most well-known achievement outside Rome is Hadrian’s Wall, covering 73 miles of Rome’s northern frontier in Britain. Hadrian was born January 24, 76 c.e., to a wellconnected family. The future emperor Trajan was his father’s cousin and became 10-year-old Hadrian’s guardian when his father died. Hadrian rose quickly through the military ranks and held major offi ces. At age 24 he married a grandniece of Trajan, Sabina. Theirs was a childless and perhaps loveless match. Hadrian was legate and acting governor of Syria when Trajan died in 117. His adoption by Trajan was announced, and the army accepted him as the new emperor under the name Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus. His reign began with the execution of four of Trajan’s high-ranking associates, which did not endear him to the Senate of Rome.Unlike previous emperors, Hadrian sought to secure his borders, not expand them, and to stabilize the empire. He is mainly remembered for his building projects, his administrative improvements, his concern for his armies, and his travels. Trusted representatives in Rome, and possibly a secret police force, allowed him to be absent from the capital for years. Much information about Hadrian comes from a suspect source, the Historia Augusta, which is full of intentionally misleading information about the Roman emperors. However, he was undeniably a unique, eclectic, and often brilliant man. It is known that he spent half his reign traveling, mostly in the East, from inscriptions, commemorative coins, and contemporary accounts. Some of Hadrian’s poetry and bits of his autobiography survive. Hadrian traveled through Gaul and Germany in 121 and commanded an oaken palisade to be built to secure the German frontier. In Britain the next year Hadrian observed the northern frontier separating Roman legions from the troublesome Pictish tribes. Hadrian ordered the wall and fortifi cations to be built. He then left to suppress revolts in Mauretania and Parthia and never returned to Britain or the western part of his empire. The wall was built with signal towers of about 20 sq. feet erected fi rst, paced out regularly between castles placed every Roman mile, and then the wall was fi lled in between them. The original construction included a turf wall in parts, and the width of the stone wall varied from 7.5 to 9.5 feet. The defense network of Hadrian’s Wall eventually comprised 158 towers, 80 mile-castles, and 16 forts that could house up to 800 men each. The stone wall measured up to 16 feet high—not including the breastworks. Wherever physically possible, a ditch ran along the north side of the wall, 9 feet deep and 30 feet wide. On the south side a vallum (rampart) made up of a ditch, with mounds of the H 181 excavated material on either side, blocked access from the south and may have marked the military zone. Other building projects completed by the emperor Hadrian included the Pantheon in Rome, started by Agrippa, and the temple to Olympian Zeus in Athens, begun six centuries earlier. Hadrian also designed his own villa and gardens in Tivoli; he founded cities and built harbors, aqueducts, temples, baths, gymnasiums, and markets throughout the empire. Hadrian’s attempts to build a temple to Zeus on the ruins of the Temple in Jerusalem and his outlawing of circumcision sparked a violent rebellion in Judaea in 132, led by Bar Kokhba. Hadrian selected Antoninus Pius as his successor and persuaded Antoninus to adopt two further heirs, who did in fact corule Rome after Antoninus’s death: Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. Hadrian died on July 10, 138. By 155 the Roman frontier had fallen back to Hadrian’s Wall and remained there until the late fourth or early fi fth century, when the Roman army left Britain. See also Antonine emperors; Jewish revolts; Roman Empire; Rome: buildings, engineers. Further reading: Birley, Anthony R. Hadrian, the Restless Emperor. New York: Routledge, 1997; Boatwright, Mary T. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000; Forde-Johnston, James. Hadrian’s Wall. London: Michael Joseph, 1978; Speller, Elizabeth. Following Hadrian. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Vickey Kalambakal Hagia Sophia The cathedral church of Constantinople, built on the ruins of an earlier church, dates back to the fourth century c.e. hagia sophia in Greek means “holy wisdom,” referring to the holy wisdom of God, a theological concept much discussed in religious traditions. The original church was destroyed by fi re in 532 during a massive riot against the government of Emperor Justinian I (527–565 c.e.). Justinian restored order and commanded the construction of Christendom’s then greatest church. The plan was designed by architects Anthemios of Tralles and Isidore of Miletos and took, according to one source, two teams of 5,000 workers fi ve years to complete. The magnifi cence of the church was apparent upon its consecration in 537, when Justinian reportedly declared, “O Solomon [the legendary builder of the Temple in Jerusalem], I have outdone thee!” The church is approximately 250 feet long, 230 feet wide, and sits beneath a dome 100 feet in diameter that reaches nearly 185 feet from the ground. The dome rests on four arches (themselves supported by four massive piers). Beneath the dome are openings that let light in, creating an appearance that the dome rests on air, held up by heaven itself. The dome’s design was extremely bold and suffered as a result, collapsing in 558. The dome was repaired but was susceptible to damage by earthquakes in subsequent centuries. Hagia Sophia radiated Orthodox Byzantine power and wealth. Its interior mesmerized onlookers with the sparkle of a ceiling covered in gold, a sanctuary adorned by 40,000 pounds of silver, glowing mosaics, and decorative marble, all of which proclaimed the glory of Byzantium. For building this church, the memory of Emperor Justinian in the Byzantine mind was outdone only by that of Constantine the Great, who built Constantinople. A mosaic in the Hagia Sophia’s narthex depicts each emperor offering his monument to the Virgin Mary holding the Christ Child. Constantinople and Hagia Sophia came to epitomize Byzantium for the next millennium of Byzantine history. As the church of the Orthodox Patriarch, Hagia Sophia served as the liturgical center of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire. It also played a central role in the empire’s political life as the location where the patriarch crowned each new emperor. It also played an essential part in imperial processions and the expression of Byzantine power to foreign ambassadors. The sight of the Hagia Sophia impressed visitors from Western Christendom, the Slavic lands, the Muslim world, and the various tribes of the north. When, in the 10th cen- Hadrian’s Wall spans 73 miles on the Roman northern border in Britain and was built to separate Romans from barbarians. 182 Hagia Sophia tury, for example, Russian visitors sent by Vladimir of Kiev visited Constantinople, the emperor sent them to behold the worship in the cathedral (expecting them to be impressed). In fact, they were so mesmerized by the experience, they declared that were uncertain whether they were in heaven or on earth. Vladimir and the Russians soon converted to Orthodox Christianity. The cathedral remained the great monument of Orthodox Byzantium until 1453, when the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople under Sultan Mehmet II. The sultan converted it into a mosque, adding minarets. When the Ottoman Empire ended in the early 20th century, Turkish ruler Kemal Atatürk converted the building into its present role, a museum. See also Greek Church; Latin Church; Oriental Orthodox Churches; pilgrimage; wisdom literature. Further reading: Browning, R. Justinian and Theodora. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971; Maas, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Moorhead, J. Justinian. London: Longman, 1994. Matthew Herbst Hammurabi See Babylon, early period. Han dynasty Liu Bang (Liu Pang), a commoner, founded the Han dynasty (202 b.c.e.–220 c.e.), restoring unity, continuing the good reforms made by the Qin (Ch’in) dynasty, abolishing cruel Qin laws, and laying solid foundations that would sustain it for 400 years. The dynasty is divided into two segments: the Western Han (202 b.c.e.–9 c.e.), with its capital city at Chang’an (Ch’ang-an), and Eastern Han (25–220 c.e.), with its capital city at Luoyang (Loyang), interrupted by the reign of Wang Mang, who usurped the throne and attempted to establish a new dynasty between 9 and 23 c.e. Han achievements set the standard for subsequent dynasties and are so admired to the present that about 95 percent of Chinese call themselves Han people. LIU BANG The sudden death of the hated fi rst emperor of the Qin in 209 b.c.e. inspired many revolts throughout China. Two men emerged—one was an aristocrat and brilliant general named Xiang Yu (Hsiang Yu), who won every battle but lost the contest because of his arrogance and cruelty; the other was Liu Bang, whose generosity and humanity won him the throne. Liu is remembered by his posthumous title, Gaodi (Kao-ti), which means “high emperor,” or Gaozu (Kao-tsu), which means “high progenitor.” Gaozu (r. 202–195 b.c.e.) had two huge immediate tasks. One was to deal with the Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu), fi erce nomads to the north, whose raids threatened Han security and who gave shelter to defectors from the new and unstable dynasty. Defeated by the Xiongnu’s superior cavalry in 201 b.c.e. Gaozu made peace with them in the Heqin (Ho-ch’in) treaty, appeasing the Xiongnu by regularly giving them food, silk, and silver and periodically a princess as bride for the Xiong nu chief. The treaty was renewed for more than six decades. Gaozu’s second problem was domestic. The people were exhausted by war and ruined by high Qin taxes. He cut the land tax to one-fi fteenth of the crop (later reduced to one-thirtieth) and instituted frugal spending policies that led to recovery and prosperity. He modifi ed the organization of the empire that he had inherited from Qin by retaining the commanderies and counties in about half of the territory, while creating princedoms and feudal realms in the remaining half to reward his allies and in recognition of the power of some former feudal houses. The laissez-faire policy of Gaozu and his successors (they included his wife Empress Lu, who ruled as regent between 195 and her death in 180 b.c.e.) lasted for 60 years. EMPEROR WU Han Wudi (Han Wu-ti), the Martial Emperor, came to the throne in 141 b.c.e. at age 16 and ruled until 87 b.c.e. Bold and assertive, he was unwilling to appease the Xiongnu any longer, and his people agreed. Historians characterize his reign as epitomizing the Yang (male) model of aggressiveness, opposed to the Yin (female), or quiescent, model of his predecessors. Domestically Emperor Wu worked to reduce the lands and emasculate the powers of the princes and lords, effectively reducing them to impotence. He also confronted the power of the rich merchants who had amassed huge landed estates at the expense of independent farmers, avoided paying taxes, and charged usurious interests on loans. He enacted laws that taxed the merchants heavily, forbade them to own land, and nationalized the salt, liquor, and iron industries. He also established an “evernormal granary” whereby the state regulated the supply and price of grain, ending merchant speculation in basic commodities. Wudi’s domestic reforms were partly Han dynasty 183 to strengthen his hand in confronting the Xiongnu. He sent an envoy, Zhang Qian (Chang Ch’ien), to seek allies in the Yuezhi (Yueh-chih), also victims of the Xiongnu. After amazing adventures Zhang found the Yuezhi settled in modern Afghanistan. Even though they refused the offered alliance, Zhang’s journey opened Wudi’s eyes to the possibilities of trade with Central Asia and beyond. Wudi’s war against the Xiongnu began in 133 b.c.e. and continued on and off through the Han dynasty, until defeat forced some of the fragmented Xiongnu people to submit and others to fl ee westward. Chinese armies would campaign and subdue lands that are modern Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang (Sinkiang), while establishing protectorates among the oasis states throughout Central Asia. The Great Wall of China was extended. At the same time Wudi’s armies subdued and annexed northern Korea and the Nanyue (Nan-yueh) state that stretched from modern Guangdong (Kwangtung) and Guangxi (Kwanghsi) Provinces in southern China to northern Vietnam. Chinese power established the Pax Sinica across the eastern part of the Eurasian continent at the same time that the Roman Empire enforced the Pax Romana in western Asia and much of Europe. International trade fl ourished as a result, with camel caravans carrying luxury goods along routes called the Silk Road by modern-day historians and ships that linked China to Southeast Asia, India, and Roman Middle East. In addition to trade the Silk Road was important in introducing Buddhism from India to China. CONFUCIANISM AND DAOISM Gaozu banned Legalism as the governing principle of his empire but professed no political ideology. Confucian scholars fl ocked to serve him, and he employed them to teach his sons and draw up state ceremonies and rituals that dignifi ed the government. Confucians also dominated education. It was Wudi who confi rmed Confucianism as the offi cial ideology of the dynasty and banned people who professed other philosophies from state service. Under the infl uence of a great Confucian scholar, Dong Chungshu (Tung Chung-shu; c. 179–104 b.c.e.), whose interpretation of Confucianism became state orthodoxy, he founded a state university whose curriculum was based on Confucianism and instituted examinations for aspiring offi cials that were based on the Confucian Classics. By the mid-second century c.e. the university had more than 30,000 students. Confucianism would remain China’s state ideology until the 20th century and, because of China’s political and cultural dominance, would be the guiding political philosophy of Korea, Vietnam, and Japan also. Han rulers and people were eclectic in their beliefs and practices, which included philosophical Daoism (Taoism) and religious or popular Daoism, which combined local religious cults and ancestor worship. Around the beginning of the Common Era, Buddhism entered northern China via the Silk Road and southern China by the sea route. It was initially an exotic foreign religion practiced by non-Chinese. Buddhism and popular Daoism borrowed vocabulary, religious rituals, and practices from each other. LITERATURE In literature the Han dynasty was distinguished for great works of history. Two families produced towering historians who have been admired and emulated for the next 2,000 years. The fi rst was the Sima (Ssu-ma) family that produced a father-son team Sima Dan (Ssu-ma T’an) and his more famous son Sima Qian (Ssu-ma Ch’ien), who held the title of grand astrologer in the court of Wudi. Together they wrote the monumental history of the Chinese world up to their time titled Shiji (Shih-chi), or Records of the Historian. This 130-chapter tome is admired for its organization and style and became the model for later dynastic histories. The second family was surnamed Ban (Pan) and consisted of father Ban Biao (Pan Piao), who began writing the classic titled Hanshu (Han-shu), or Book of Han, completed by his son Ban Gu (Pan Ku) and daughter Ban Zhao (Pan Ch’ao). His other son, Ban Chao (Pan Ch’ao), was a famous general and diplomat. These two historical works set the hallmark for historiography, which is one of the great contributions of Chinese civilization. The invention of paper during the Eastern Han would have important consequences in advancing intellectual activities. LIFE IN HAN CHINA Han China had a large population for ancient times. The census in 1 c.e. had a registered population of 56 million people. Most lived in northern China, and most were freehold farmers living in families of fi ve to six persons. Marriages were monogamous, except for rich and powerful men, who could have concubines. All able-bodied men served for one year in the army at age 23, then in the reserve until 56. They were also liable for corvée labor service on public works for one month a year. All adults also paid a poll tax. The government took an active part in agricultural development, sponsoring major irrigation projects, settling people on newly opened farmlands, and promoting the use of iron agricultural tools and new crops. Men tilled 184 Han dynasty the land, while women raised silkworms and spun silk cloths. The government also sponsored state industries in producing salt, iron, and silk textiles and fi nanced large trading caravans; it also encouraged private enterprise, some employing thousands of workers. Bronze coinage replaced barter in trade. While strong earlier rulers in both Western and Eastern Han eras promoted independent small farmers, their weak successors allowed usury and exploitation by the rich, leading to the growth of large estates and the eviction of small farmers. Social and economic inequities led to peasant rebellions that contributed to the fall of both the Western and Eastern Han. Women did not receive formal education, take examinations, or enter government service; however, wives, mothers, and grandmothers of emperors often played powerful roles in governing. It began with Empress Lu, wife of Gaozu, who totally dominated her son and grandsons as regent and contemplated establishing her own dynasty. Even the powerful Wudi could not control his consorts and their families. Empress dowagers in the latter part of both Western and Eastern Han often placed minors on the throne so they could rule. The usurper Wang Mang was the last of many of the Wang family to grasp power through his female relative the empress Wang. To escape their mothers and wives some emperors promoted their favorite eunuchs to power. Eunuch abuse of power was another contributing factor to the fall of the Haan dynasty in 220 c.e. See also Buddhism in China; Confucianism as a state ideology; Great Wall of China; Guangwu (Kuang-wu); Maotun (Mao-t’un). Further reading: Hinsch, B. Women in Early Imperial China. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld, 2002; Pirazzoli- t’Serstevens, Michele. The Han Dynasty. New York: Rizolli, 1982; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 b.c.e.–220 c.e. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; Wang, Zhongshu. Han Civilization. Trans. by K. C. Chang, et al. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hannibal (247–183 b.c.e.) Carthaginian general Between the years 264 and 146 b.c.e., the Romans and Carthaginians fought three wars known as the Punic Wars that eventually led to the destruction of Carthage. The First Punic War lasted from 264 until 241 b.c.e. and resulted in Carthage losing control of Sicily to the Romans. Hannibal Barca led the Carthaginian invasion of Italy during the Second Punic War, which ran from 219 to 202 b.c.e. At the Battle of Zama, in 202 b.c.e., Scipio (who gained the title Africanus because of his victory) defeated Hannibal. The Carthaginians sued for peace, which lasted until the Third Punic War from 149 to 146 b.c.e. The third war ended with the complete destruction of the city of Carthage and the enslavement of the population. The First Punic War was fought for control of Sicily. At the start of the war the Carthaginians controlled most of Sicily. Carthage was interested in trade with other civilizations, and its power base was its fl eet. Rome, on the other hand, did not have a fl eet but had a very powerful army. Because of the difference in power bases, the two powers had coexisted easily with each other up until the time of the First Punic War. What brought about the war was a request by a group of men called the Mamertines, who had taken control of the town of Messana. They had been defeated by the Syracusans and then occupied by the Carthaginians, who did not want the Syracusans to occupy Messana. The Mamertines then requested Roman aid to get rid of the Carthaginians. The Romans decided to come to the aid of the Mamertines and in 264 b.c.e. moved troops to Sicily, which were able to gain control of Messana when the Carthaginian garrison withdrew from the town. The Romans negotiated with the Syracusans and other towns in Sicily and convinced them to join the Romans in the war. Because of their fl eet, the Carthaginians were able to keep control of many of the coastal cities. To fi nish the conquest of Sicily the Romans needed to build a fl eet, and in 260 b.c.e. the Roman fl eet took to the seas and began its campaign to drive the Carthaginians from the seas around Sicily. The Romans won several naval battles during the period from 260 to 256 b.c.e. The Romans had decided to try a different strategy to invade Africa in an attempt to defeat the Carthaginians on their home territory and end the war. The Romans sailed from Messana toward Africa but were intercepted by the Carthaginian fl eet. The Carthaginians were eventually overcome by Roman tactics and lost more than a third of their fl eet, at which point they fl ed from the battle. The battle delayed the Roman invasion of Africa but only temporarily. The invasion fl eet reached Africa later that year and left the army to lay siege to Carthage. Calling for support to defend the city, Carthage received mercenaries Hannibal 185 from the Greeks, including a Spartan general who in 256 b.c.e. led the Carthaginian army in an attack on the Roman army. The Roman army was routed, and the siege, lifted. The remains of the Roman army were evacuated later that year back to Rome. The focus of the war then returned to Sicily. From 254 until 243 b.c.e. the Romans and Carthaginians fought in Sicily with neither side being able to gain the upper hand in the fi ghting. Then in 243 b.c.e. the Romans, with a new fl eet, were able to again defeat the Carthaginians at sea and stop the fl ow of supplies to Sicily. With the loss of supplies and support the Carthaginian commander, Hamilcar Barca (Hannibal’s father), was forced to work out terms with the Romans. Hannibal was born in 247 b.c.e. Hamilcar had been the commander of the Carthaginian troops in Sicily at the end of the war and spent the rest of his life trying to gain revenge on the Romans for the defeat. In 237 b.c.e. at a religious festival, Hamilcar had his son Hannibal take an oath to remember that the Romans were their sworn enemies. That same year Hannibal accompanied his father to Spain, where he stayed until his return to Carthage in 228 b.c.e., after his father’s death, to fi nish his schooling. He returned to Spain in 224 b.c.e. to command the cavalry forces for his brother-in-law until his brother-in-law died in 220 b.c.e. The army then voted Hannibal its new leader. Hannibal would prove to be an excellent strategist and tactician. Hannibal’s conquest of Spain eventually brought him into confl ict with the Romans when he captured the town of Saguntum. In 218 b.c.e. Hannibal and his army left Spain and headed for Italy, where he would campaign for the next 15 years. Hannibal took his army, including war elephants, across the Alps and into Italy. His army was not large enough to capture and occupy the cities in Italy, so Hannibal tried to break up the Roman confederation, which would reduce Rome’s power and allow Carthage to win the war. In 218 b.c.e. Hannibal defeated a Roman army near the Trebia River where it fl owed into the Po River. With this victory most of Cisalpine Gaul sided with Hannibal. The following spring he moved south, and Hannibal was able to lure the Roman army into a trap, where his army killed 15,000 of the 21,000 Roman soldiers. Hannibal continued to pillage and burn the Italian countryside but could not take the city of Rome, nor would the Romans give up. A victory at Cannae was Hannibal’s high point. He continued to campaign in Italy over the next 11 years, but the Romans slowly gained the upper hand against the Carthaginians. The Carthaginians tried to expand the war, and an army was sent to Sardinia but due to bad weather was delayed and arrived after the Romans, who defeated them. Hannibal was also able to convince Philip of Macedon to attack the Romans in Illyria. The Romans gathered a number of allies in Greece, which allowed them to hold Philip in check. During 216 to 205 b.c.e. Hannibal found himself more and more tied to protecting the cities of the Roman provinces that had sided with him. In 204 b.c.e. the Romans took the war to Africa by sending an army under the command of Scipio Africanus, attempting to end the war. With the Roman invasion of Africa, Hannibal was recalled from Italy to command the army that was protecting Carthage. The years of war had fi nally worn down the Carthaginian army, and it was routed from the battlefi eld by the Romans. Having lost the battle, the Carthaginians were in no shape to continue the war and made peace with the Romans. Hannibal helped to rebuild Carthage after the war, which irritated the Romans, who forced him into exile in 196 b.c.e. The Romans continued to pursue Hannibal, and in 183 b.c.e., he committed suicide. The fi nal war, the Third Punic War, was fought from 149 to 146 b.c.e. The Romans insisted that the 186 Hannibal Ancient tombs near Carthage, Tunisia. The Third Punic War resulted in Carthaginian casualties of 90 percent of the population. Carthaginians abandon their city, which they refused to do. When the siege was completed and the city was captured in 146 b.c.e., 90 percent of the population was dead. The remainder were sold into slavery, and the city of Carthage was destroyed. See also Roman Empire; Rome: government; Syracuse. Further reading: Bagnall, Nigel. The Punic Wars, 263–146 BC. New York: Routledge, 2003; Dupuy, R. Ernest, and Trevor N. Dupuy. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, from 3500 B.C. to the Present. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993; Dupuy, Trevor N., Curt Johnson, and David L. Bongard. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992; Goldsworthy, Adrian. The Punic Wars. London: Cassell and Co., 2000; Lancel, Serge. Hannibal. Translated by Antonia Nevill. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1998; Scullard, H. H. A History of the Roman World, 753 to 146 BC. London: Routledge, 2003. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Han Wudi (Han Wu-ti) (125–187 b.c.e.) Chinese emperor Han Wudi reigned between 141 and 187 b.c.e., the longest in Chinese history until the 18th century. He undertook many domestic reforms that changed the course of Han history and for subsequent eras. His foreign policy and wars resulted in Chinese expansion to unprecedented heights and opened up international trade and contacts between China and the rest of the ancient Eurasian world. For these accomplishments he was called Wudi, wu meaning “martial” and di meaning “emperor.” In 141 b.c.e. a young man of 16 years old ascended the Chinese throne upon the death of his father Emperor Jing (Ching). The event inaugurated an era of active government at home and expansion abroad. Until his reign the Han government had focused on light taxes and laissez-faire domestic policies to promote economic growth. Its foreign policy was based on appeasing the fi erce nomadic Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu) in the north through Heqing (Ho-ch’ing) treaties whereby the Han regularly gave the Xiongnu large quantities of silver, silk, and food in return for peace. Appeasement, however, did not end Xiongnu raids. WARS AND EXPANSION After 135 b.c.e. China would take the offensive. With a large population, ample resources, and a brimming treasury Wudi initiated all-out war against the Xiongnu. It was preceded by dispatching an emissary named Zhang Qian (Chang Ch’ien) westward to fi nd and form an alliance with the Yuezhi (Yueh-chih), a nomadic group that had been worsted by the Xiongnu earlier and had fl ed to fi nd a new home. Zhang failed to recruit the Yuezhi when he fi nally found them settled in modern Afghanistan, but the report of his travels motivated the emperor to pursue expansion into Central Asia for allies and trade. Emperor Wu never personally campaigned but was served by talented and ambitious generals, some of whom were related to his empresses or consorts. For example, Generals Wei Qing (Wei Ch’ing) and Huo Qubing (Huo Ch’u-ping) were related to two of his empresses, and Li Guangli (Li Kuang-li) was the brother of a favorite consort. All three earned fame in defeating the Xiongnu. In 127 b.c.e. Chinese forces retook lands south of the Yellow River; it was followed by several large expeditions resulting in the surrender of one Xiongnu king with a large number of his tribesmen. Commanderies and dependent states were established in the conquered areas, Chinese colonists were settled on some of the land, and tribal people were brought under Chinese authority. Major campaigns against the Xiongnu came to a halt in 117 b.c.e. In 112 b.c.e. Han generals crushed another tribal group called the Qiang (Ch’iang), proto-Tibetans and allies of the Xiongnu in the northwest. In 111 b.c.e. Wudi presided over a victory parade north of the Great Wall of China in which 12 generals and 180,000 cavalry troops took part. He lavishly rewarded victorious offi cers and men and punished generals who failed. The Great Wall was expanded to the Jade Gate in the northwest, and garrisons were stationed along strategic points to deal with sudden raids, to prevent Chinese deserters from joining the Xiongnu, and to protect trade along the newly opened up Silk Road. These measures ended the Xiongnu stranglehold on Chinese trade with lands to the west. Chinese power focused on maintaining friendly relations with tribes and oasis states across Central Asia that were hostile to the Xiongnu, enrolling them as vassal states. Rulers of vassal states sent tribute and their sons to China for education (and as hostages). They received in return lavish gifts and trade privileges and occasionally a Han princess in marriage. Trade fl ourished between China, India, Central Asia, Persia, and Rome. But the Xiongnu menace did not end, and more large campaigns were launched during and after Wudi’s reign. One, for example, led by General Li Guangli reached as far as Ferghana in Central Asia in 104 b.c.e. Han Wudi 187 Wudi’s generals also campaigned in the South, Southwest, and Korea. The major obstacles to expansion to the south were terrain and climate. Between 112 and 111 b.c.e. Han forces totaling 100,000 men subdued the Nanyue (Nan-yueh) along the southern coast to the Red River valley. Other armies subdued aboriginal peoples in Yunnan, Sichuan (Szechwan), and Hainan Island. The lands annexed as a result formed nine commanderies across modern Guangdong (Kuangtung), Guangxi (Kuanghsi), Yunnan, Sichuan, and Hainan Provinces, and northern Vietnam. In 109 b.c.e. a 50,000-man army marched to Korea, conquering the northern part of the peninsula, adding four more commanderies. The campaigns expanded the empire and made it more secure, but at a huge human and fi nancial cost. The treasury was emptied, resulting in new taxes and state monopolies over iron, salt, and liquor to raise revenue. These measures led to widespread discontent. DOMESTIC POLICY Wudi’s reign was also important for other achievements. He systematized the recruitment of civil servants based on examinations and established a state university to train candidates. Their curriculum was based on the philosophy of Confucius under standardized interpretation. He also created many commanderies under direct central government control and dramatically reduced the land under the feudal princes and lords and their power. He also established vassal states and dependencies in areas with tribal (non-Chinese populations) that became standard practice for subsequent Chinese government’s dealings with frontier peoples. He adopted rituals and ceremonies of state that also became standard for subsequent dynasties. Wudi took an active role in measures to control fl oods along the Yellow River, supervised the settlement of people in conquered lands, and sponsored large caravans for trade with western lands. DYNASTIC CRISES Ironically, Wudi’s inability to control his wives and consorts led to dynastic crises. His fi rst wife, Empress Chen (Ch’en), had no son, and their daughter was found practicing witchcraft against her father, leading to Empress Chen’s demotion. Several of his consorts were also later accused of practicing witchcraft that led to witch hunts, trials, and executions. In a superstitious age witchcraft was a feared crime. His second wife, Empress Wei (her brothers were powerful generals) and her son, the crown prince, staged a coup against him in 91 b.c.e. that led to fi ghting between the Wei family and the Li family, relatives of a powerful consort. It failed, and the empress and crown prince were forced to commit suicide. In 87 b.c.e., when gravely ill, he appointed an eight-yearold son by a consort named Lady Zhao (Chao) crown prince because she had no powerful relatives. She soon died, rumored murdered. The personality of Wudi remains an enigma. Despite some personal and policy failings, he is one of the most powerful monarchs in Chinese history. See also Han dynasty. Further reading: Gale, Esson M., trans. Discourse on Salt and Iron: A Debate on State Control of Commerce and Industry in Ancient China. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1931; Kierman, Frank A., and John K. Fairbank, eds. Chinese Ways in Warfare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971; Loewe, Michael. Crisis and Confl ict in Han China, 104 B.C. to A.D. 9. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Volume 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Helena (c. 255–c. 330 c.e.) ruler, saint, emperor’s mother Helena was the mother of Constantine the Great. She was born of humble estate at Drepanum in Bithynia. According to Ambrose, the early church bishop, she was a simple innkeeper. She married Constantius Chlorus, a soldier, by whom she bore Constantine (c. 274 c.e.). Later, Constantius divorced Helena in order to enter into a more politically advantageous marriage. The son, however, did not forget his mother, and when Constantine became emperor in 306 c.e., he had her raised to a place of honor, which culminated in the title of Augusta (emperor’s mother). Constantine also renamed the place of her birth Helenopolis in her honor. According to the early church historian Eusebius, Helena’s conversion to Christianity was due to the infl uence of her son; but Theodoret’s more credible account is that the mother nurtured in her son openness to the faith. Nonetheless, she bore religious stature and sanctity in her own right and had remarkable infl uence on her son. Constantine had his second wife, Fausta, and their son Crispus executed. His mother had acted not in support of her daughter-in-law but rather had been involved in bringing about her downfall. 188 Helena Helena took to the Christian faith with zeal, as is testifi ed by her piety, her generosity to the poor, and her devotion to the sacred places of pilgrimage in Palestine, revered by early Christians as the Holy Land. In 326, Helena, well into her 70s, went on pilgrimage there. She stayed in Palestine for some time, exercising her right to the imperial treasury by having two major basilicas built in great splendor, one in Bethlehem (Church of the Nativity) and one on the Mount of Olives (Church of the Ascension). At the same time, her son was having the Church of the Holy Sepulcher built over the sites of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth’s death and resurrection. Her collaboration with her son caused church architecture to create a Christian landscape throughout the empire, in the Holy Land, Rome, and Constantinople. The discovery of the “True Cross” (thought to be that upon which Jesus died) is attested to by Cyril of Alexandria and Egeria, but the tradition that sprang up at the end of the fourth century c.e. (mentioned by Ambrose, Sulpicius Severus, and Rufi nus) that Helena had discovered the True Cross and that it was identifi ed by a miracle seems likely to be an embellishment, given Eusebius and Cyril’s silence on this point. She supposedly had this precious relic deposited in Rome at the Church of Santa Croce, which she built especially for this purpose. Her renown, however, rests fi rmly on the facts that she was a woman of immense power and wealth who spent the latter part of her life in acts of Christian charity. Her close identifi cation with her son, Constantine, set the model for the role of the Christian Augusta for subsequent centuries. Her feast is celebrated on August 18 in the Latin Church calendar and on May 21 (along with her son) in the Greek Church calendar. See also Christianity, early. Further reading: Thiede, Carsten Peter, and Matthew d’Ancona. The Quest for the True Cross. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Gertrude Gillette and Cornelia Horn Helen of Troy According to the Iliad, the abduction of Helen, wife of the king of Sparta, sparked the 10-year-long Trojan War. Helen is thought to have been born around 1225 b.c.e. According to Homer, who is credited as author of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, Helen’s father was the god Zeus, and her mother was Nemesis, a goddess who fl ed Zeus by changing into a goose. Zeus became a swan so that he could mate with her. The resultant egg, containing Helen, was found by a shepherd who brought it to the king and queen of Sparta, Tyndareus and Leda. Another legend names Leda as Helen’s mother, seduced by Zeus in his swan guise. Leda laid two eggs, one with Helen and her brother Polydeuces, and a second containing Clytemnestra and Castor. Helen’s brothers and protectors are collectively known as the Dioscuri. When Helen was kidnapped, the Dioscuri raised an army and retrieved her. They died before the Trojan War commenced. Helen’s sister Clytemnestra had married twice by the time Helen returned to Sparta; her second husband, Agamemnon, had murdered her fi rst husband. Legends recount that between 29 and 99 suitors from all parts of Greece came to court Helen, including Odysseus, Ajax, Ajax the Greater, and Patroclus—all of whom would play roles in the Trojan War. Tyndareus, Helen’s human father, made the men swear to defend the chosen bridegroom, then selected Menelaus, Agamemnon’s brother, as Helen’s husband. During the fi rst nine years of their marriage Helen had at least one child and possibly as many as fi ve. As Tyndareus’s sons had died, Menelaus eventually became king of Sparta. In a separate series of events, the goddess Aphrodite promised Paris, prince of Troy, that he should possess the most beautiful woman in the world. Paris arrived in Sparta, and—while Menelaus was attending his grandfather’s funeral—Paris took Helen, her personal slaves, and a great deal of treasure and set sail for Troy. Menelaus led an embassy to Troy demanding Helen’s return. When that failed, he reminded the many suitors of their oath. Armies were raised, and the Trojan War began. Various authors described amours between Helen and Achilles, or Priam’s other sons during the long war. Most agree that when Paris was killed, two of his brothers fought over Helen. Deiphobus won and married her. After 10 years of war, Troy was burned and sacked. In some tales Helen helped the Greeks storm Troy by giving the signal to the army outside, but in the Odyssey Homer says that she taunted the men hiding in the Trojan horse by imitating their wives’ voices. Menelaus killed Deiphobus and rushed at Helen, determined to kill her as well but once again fell under the spell of her beauty. Anxious to set sail and bring his newly recovered wife home, Menelaus neglected to make proper offerings to Athena. The offended goddess caused Menelaus and Helen to be driven off course for eight years. Although Euripides says that Helen was carried away by Apollo to become Helen of Troy 189 immortal, and other legends describe her suicide or murder, most authors return Helen to Sparta and a life of quiet prayer, weaving, and virtue. See also Greek city-states; Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Homeric epics. Further reading: Bell, Robert E. Women of Classical Mythology. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 1991; Homer. The Iliad. Edited. by A. T. Murray and W. F. Wyatt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999; ———. The Odyssey. Edited by E. McCrorie and R. P. Martin. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004; Hughes, Bettany. Helen of Troy: Goddess, Princess, Whore. New York: A. Knopf, 2005; Thomas, Carol G., and Craig Conant. The Trojan War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005. Vickey Kalambakal Hellenistic art The Hellenistic Period of Greek art lasted from the fourth century b.c.e. to approximately the time of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth, a period of more than 300 years. Unlike earlier Greek art, which consisted predominantly of art of Greece itself, Hellenistic art was more diverse culturally and geographically. Because Hellenistic art arose after the conquests of Alexander the Great, it also included art from the Greek-infl uenced regions of Alexander’s empire. Hellenic Greece consisted of the mainland and nearby Aegean Sea islands, Ionia (the western coast of Turkey), southern Italy, and Sicily (Magna Graecia) and, by the dawn of the Hellenistic Period, also Egypt, Syria, and other lands of the Near East. Greek culture had its origins in Mycenae. Mycenae established a painted pottery that persisted into later Greek art. Mycenaean civilization could not withstand the disruptions of the Trojan War. After a period of civil war and invasion Mycenae collapsed around 1100 b.c.e. The Greek cities entered the Greek Dark Ages (1100–750 b.c.e.), characterized by population decline, impoverishment, and isolation. PRECEDING PERIODS Not all was bleak during the Greek Dark Ages. During this period Dorians spread through the peninsula, and Greeks settled Ionia. Around 800 b.c.e. the revival that would culminate in Hellenic art began. Athenian artisans created protogeometric pottery with abstract designs, being in its precision of detail a precursor of later Greek art. The Archaic Period followed and lasted until around 480 b.c.e. Artists came increasingly under the infl uence of outside ideas and styles. By the sixth century b.c.e. Greek art included vase painting that was unsurpassed artistically and technically. The human fi gure reappeared in Greek art after the Dark Ages and initially was highly abstract. Greeks invented life-sized, freestanding stone sculptures of humans. There was an Egyptian infl uence, but the Greeks wanted an accurate depiction; however, they confl ated accuracy with perfection or ideal representation, making the statues larger than life. The mastery of the human form was matched by a mastery of the technique of imparting the impression of motion in a static object. These developments lasted from the Hellenic through the Hellenistic Periods. After the fi fth-century b.c.e. Persian wars, Athens established an empire and spent the century in rivalry with Sparta. Midway through the fi fth century b.c.e., the Classical Period began. Greece’s classical age lasted 480–338 b.c.e. This is the period between the onset of confl ict with Persia and the conquest of Greece by Philip of Macedon and his son, Alexander. Greek artists had mastered representation of the human body in sculpture, with fi gures both at rest and in action refl ecting calm and ordered beauty and achieving near godlike perfection. Greek painting of the age no longer exists, but ancient writers extolled it. Vase decorations hint at the mastery of form and line that characterized Greek sculpture. Greek art established the basic themes, forms, and attitudes of Western culture: mimesis (imitation of nature), the nude human fi gure (man is the measure of all things, or humanism), architectural structural elements, decorative motifs, and types of buildings. With the Persian conquest the classical age ended. In its stead arose the Hellenistic Period. Alexander extended his father’s empire into Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, and India from 334 to 323 b.c.e. His death in 323 b.c.e. is the traditional date used as the demarcation between Hellenic and Hellenistic art, the former the art of the Greeks, the latter the art of the Greek speakers of whatever ethnicity. Another differentiation is that Hellenic Greece was a time of city-states, while the Hellenistic era was a time of monarchies of larger size. HELLENISTIC ART Alexander’s empire broke apart on his death, with several Hellenistic (Greek-like) kingdoms appearing. The great art centers of the mainland gave way to cities on islands such as Rhodes or in the eastern Mediterranean (Alexandria, Antioch, and Pergamum). Sculpture had tendencies toward classicism, rococo, and baroque—in other words, no clear direction or restriction. Art glo- 190 Hellenistic art rifi ed the gods and great athletes, but it also served to decorate the homes of the newly rich. Heroic portraits and massive groups were popular, but so were humble themes and portrayals of human beings in all walks and stages of life— even caricature became popular. From architecture came an awareness of space that added landscapes and interiors to sculpture and painting. Whereas Hellenic art was restrained and attempted to show the perfect and the universal, Hellenistic art was preoccupied with the particular rather than the universal. Patrons and artists alike preferred individuality, novelty (including ethnicity and ugliness), and artistic inventiveness. Hellenistic art built on the classical concepts, but became more dramatic, with sweeping lines and strong contrasts of light, shadow, and emotion. Idealism gave way to naturalism, the culmination of the works of fourth-century b.c.e. sculptors Lysippos, Skopas, and Praxiteles, all of whom emphasized realistic expression of the human fi gure. Greatness and humility, characteristic of the Charioteer of Delphi, gave way to bold expression during tense moments, typifi ed by the Boy Jockey. Unlike Hellenic art, sculptures showed extreme emotion: pain, stress, anger, despair, or fear, but depiction of the outward subject was insuffi cient for many Hellenistic sculptors. Posture and physical characteristics were used to show thoughts, feelings, and attitudes. Hygeia, of which only the head remains, is a statue that refl ects the Hellenistic style. Although done in conformance to classical standards and ideals, Hygeia has an expression of concern and understanding. INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS Hellenistic art was an expression of the prosperity and new social structure that arose in the areas of Alexander’s empire. Public support for the arts continued, but individual citizens also began patronizing artists. Rather than create monuments to gods or kings, they bought art that was secular and personal. An example of great art put into an environment is the Altar of Zeus from Pergamum (c. 180 b.c.e.), which Greek artists created for Eumenes II. Enclosed by a high podium decorated with a frieze of the battle between the gods and the Giants, it shows classical iconography as well as baroque exaggeration of movement and emotion and a background of swirling draperies. Samples of Hellenistic painting are mostly in the facades and interiors of chamber tombs and mosaics, as well as in Roman copies. Hellenistic art also plays with erotic themes through depictions of Aphrodite, Eros, the Satyrs, Dionysus, Pan, and hermaphrodites. Female nudes were highly popular, and many examples remain, including the well-known Aphrodite of Melos (Venus de Milo). The proportions and curves of the Venus are still the standard for modern beauty. Hellenistic art for home use included mosaics, garden statuaries, painted stucco wall decorations, and marble furnishings. Hellenistic art infl uenced Rome and through the Romans the Italian Renaissance. Hellenistic architecture fl ourished with the spread of the empire, leading to a demand for new buildings. Rather than a building occupying any empty space, architects attempted to make the building aesthetically compatible with its surroundings. Hellenistic architects popularized the long-established stoa, a long rectangular building with a roof supported in the front by columns. Stoas served as offi ces, classrooms, law courts, shopping centers, and gathering places in bad weather, or for socializing. The fi rst woman architect, Phile of Priene, who lived around 100 b.c.e., designed a reservoir among other works. Mosaics were made before the third century b.c.e. from small pieces of colored river pebbles. Early in the third century b.c.e. tesserae, squares of cut glass or stone, were used. The Alexander Mosaic from second-century b.c.e. Pompeii shows Alexander the Great battling Darius III, probably during the Battle of Issus. The Hellenistic Period was a time of booming commerce and trade, generating a need for large amphorae, Hellenistic art 191 The Altar of Zeus is an example of Hellenistic art, with the fi gures on its frieze showing exaggerated movement and emotion. vessels for carrying wine, oil, and other liquids in volume. Other pottery products included molded terracotta oil lamps and fi gurines. The fi gurines, Tanagra fi gures, depict scenes of everyday Hellenistic life: women reading, dancing, or playing instruments or actors, cooks, bakers, barbers, and people playing games and gossiping. When Rome defeated the last of the Hellenistic kingdoms, Egypt, in 31 b.c.e. at the Battle of Actium, the Hellenistic Period ended. According to Pliny the Elder, with the onset of the Hellenistic Period, “Cessavit deinde ars” (“Then art disappeared”). See also Athenian predemocracy; Greek city-states; Greek colonization; Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric; Hellenization. Further reading: Boardman, John, Jasper Griffi n, and Oswyn Murray. The Oxford Illustrated History of Greece and the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988; Erskine, Andrew. A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005; Green, Peter. Hellenistic History and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993. John H. Barnhill Hellenization Hellenization was the spread of Greek culture and the assimilation into Greek culture of non-Greek peoples. It was a notable trait of ancient Greek civilization, an approach to other cultures that was not merely invasive or dominant but transformative. This set an example later followed by the Roman Empire, Christianity, and the British Empire, essentially establishing a framework within which much of Western history can be discussed. The products of culture spread by Hellenization included the Greek language and writing system, its myths and religion, and its technology and art—not mere ideas but practical and exploitable benefi ts. The Hellenes, or Greeks, were so-called by classical writers because they were the descendants of Hellen, the son of Deucalion (son of Prometheus) and Pyrrha (daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora). They were assimilators from the start. When they came to inhabit the isles and mainland of what is now Greece, they displaced the indigenous Pelasgians, bringing with them some form of their writing, language, religion, and art. The Pelasgians were unrelated to the Hellenes in any signifi cant sense: Some modern scholars even believe their language was pre-Indo-European, unintelligible to the Greeks on fi rst contact. The native culture was soon absorbed into that of the new arrival. Though Herodotus attests to some Pelasgian groups surviving with mutually intelligible language, most intermarried and became fully Greek, invisible, and largely forgotten. The most important period of Hellenization by far was that which transpired under the reign of Alexander the Great. Extending the reach of his rule to staggering extents after his father’s unifi cation of the Greek city-states—to Egypt, India, Persia, and across the eastern Mediterranean—Alexander did not limit this rule to simple military conquest and tribute collection. He integrated his army, allowing non-Greek, non-Macedonian troops in the same units as natives and strongly encouraging intermarriage with foreign women to blur the barriers between the conquering and conquered peoples. He set up schools to teach children Greek language and culture and built gymnasiums, cultural centers associated with exercise (especially gymnastics and wrestling), medicine, and communal bathing, in the cities he conquered. The gymnasium was at the center of social culture in ancient Greece, much like the public houses of medieval Europe. Upon Alexander’s death, though, the widespread nature of Greek civilization gave way to the so-called Hellenistic Period. Under Alexander, Greek cities had diminished in importance to Greek culture, sharing their infl uence over the social, economic, and intellectual world with new additions such as Alexandria and Rhodes. The world became more Greek, but Greece in turn became worldlier, and especially more Persian. It would not be so centralized again until the fall of the Roman Empire in the West left Constantinople as the capital of the Byzantine Empire. In the meantime even Roman-controlled areas became more and more Hellenized. Greek was the language of trade and culture, the common tongue necessary for travelers. Palestine became strongly Hellenized, to the extent that Greek forms of names displaced the Semitic originals—with Yeshua becoming Jesus, for instance. More and more Jewish leaders feared that their people would lose their identity. Many Jewish practices and movements in antiquity were thus responses to Hellenization, whether they were revolutionary movements that sought to restore Jewish self-governance and an exclusivity of culture or syncretic sects that blended traditional Jewish religion with pagan elements. Whatever Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth’s contact with Greek culture, Christianity became extremely Hellenized in the wake of his death. The New Testament was written in Greek, and many early Christians were proselytes, Greek-speaking Gentiles who followed Jewish 192 Hellenization cultic practices without converting. The sophistication of Pauline theology, the Johannine books (the Gospel and Revelation of John), and the writings of the early apostolic fathers up to and including Augustine of Hippo were deeply infl uenced by Greek philosophy and the Hellenized intellectual climate of the Roman Empire. The concept of Logos so central to Johannine Christology— the Gospel of John states in its fi rst verse, “in the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God”—was not simply a Greek word which loses signifi cance in translation (commonly translated as “word,” it also means logic, reason, principle, and thought), but a well-explored concept in Greek philosophy. Heraclitus had used it in reference to the order and rationality of the universe, and Aristotle, in developing his system of logic. The Stoics, who may have infl uenced Jesus or his followers and certainly had much in common with them, formulated logos as the engine of creation, the underlying force that gave life to existence. After the fall of Rome the Byzantine Empire identifi ed itself strongly as a Hellenic Christian empire: ethnically Greek, religiously Christian, and the inheritors of both classical Greek culture and the Roman right of rule. Surrounded by Persian and, later, Muslim enemies, it underwent several periods of Hellenic revival, with “Greek” and “Christian” increasingly associated together—the fi - nal step in the long history of Hellenization. See also Greek Church; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric; Hellenistic art. Further reading: Boardman, John. The Greeks Overseas. London: Thames and Hudson, 1999; Hall, Jonathan. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Heritage. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002; Morris, Ian. “Mediterraneanization.” Mediterranean Historical Review (v.14, 2002); Sherratt, Andrew and Susan. “The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium B.C.” World Archaeology (v.24, 1993). Bill Kte’pi Herculaneum See Pompeii and Herculaneum. heresies Early Christian theology had the problem of reconciling the belief in only one God, taken over from Judaism, with the belief that both Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth and his father are God. One solution to this problem was Monarchianism, which means that God consists of only one person, or hypostasis. Dynamic Monarchianism, also called Adoptionism, may be Jewish in origin, but its fi rst known exponent was Theodotus, a leatherworker from Byzantium c. 200 c.e. He taught that until Jesus’ baptism, he was only a man on whom Christ, a dynamis (power) of God, then descended. Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch until deposed by a council of bishops in 268 c.e., probably was also an Adoptionist. Modalist Monarchianism, or modalism, means that Jesus, the (his) Father, and the Holy Spirit are different modes of the same person, or hypostasis. The fi rst known modalist was Noetus, condemned by the elders of Smyrna or Rome c. 200 c.e. Noetus affi rmed that Christ is the Father, who was born, suffered, and died, which Tertullian (c. 160–c. 220 c.e.) called patripassianism. Sabellius, a Libyan, gained the trust of Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus I but was excommunicated by the latter in c. 217 c.e. Sabellius avoided patripassianism by proposing three modes of a divine monad, Father as creator, Son as redeemer, and Spirit as inspirer. It is uncertain whether Sabellius taught that each mode was replaced by the next so that Father, Son, and Spirit did not exist all at once, or taught an economic trinity as did Tertullian and others, that is that God existed fi rst only as Father, but after the creation as both Father and Son, and as Father, Son, and Spirit after Pentecost. Like Sabellius, Marcellus (c. 280–c. 375 c.e.), bishop of Ancyra, said that Christ did not preexist his birth, and his kingdom would end. Marcellus’s monad expanded to a dyad at creation, to a triad at Pentecost, but the triad would contract into the monad after judgment. Athanasius, allied with Marcellus in defending the idea that Jesus is “one substance” with God, later repudiated Marcellus, probably because Marcellus denied Christ’s eternity and because Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, Marcellus’s pupil, was accused of adop tionism. Marcellus recanted, conceding the Son’s eternity, but never three divine hypostases. The Orthodox Church accepted Marcellus’s followers. Adoptionists and modalists seem antithetical but were lumped together, as were Paul of Samosata and Sabellius. After all, Photinus was Marcellus’s pupil. Pope Callistus was said sometimes to favor Sabellius (modalist), sometimes Theodotus (dynamic), and said: “ . . . after [the Father] had taken unto himself fl esh, [he] raised it to the nature of Deity. . . . ” If, for Callistus, Jesus was not divine from birth, Callistus was adoptionistic. Modalists, who merged Father and Son, sometimes so sharply separated the divine Christ from the human Jesus that he seemed to be a “mere man,” as with Adoptionists. heresies 193 Around 155 or 172 c.e., a mystic named Montanus claimed that the Spirit was speaking through him. He put himself into trances progressing to ecstatic states in which he spoke in tongues, interpreted by his followers. The Spirit’s message was that the Last Judgment would very soon take place in Pepuza in Phrygia. Other revelations commanded fasts, no sex even for married couples, seeking of martyrdom, and the inability of the church to absolve serious sins. Tertullian was the greatest Montanist but was unaware of Montanist women clergy, the principle of which he condemns. Montanism was called the “New Prophecy,” but its goal was to restore the church’s original purity and gifts of the Spirit. In earliest Christianity, phenomena such as speaking in tongues and prophecy conferred spiritual authority. However, by 155 c.e. bishops replaced the authority of charismatic individuals, claiming apostolic succession. Each bishop received his authority from his predecessor in a chain leading back to an apostle. Montanists claimed revelations independent of bishops. Ironically, Montanus founded a tightly organized church, which had its own scriptures to supplement the Bible, a patriarch at Pepuza, “associates” between patriarch and bishops, bishops, priests, and deacons, who all received salaries supported by collections. One pope nearly approved Montanism, but the mainline Christians in Asia Minor responded with councils, excommunications, and even exorcisms. The Last Judgment did not arrive as predicted by Montanists. Tongues, prophecy, and asceticism also declined. Montanism thus repeated the experience of the mainline church, except that Montanism disappeared by the early Middle Ages. One result of Montanus’s and others’ claims to special revelations supplementing the Gospels and the letters of the apostles was that the church formed a list of authoritative writings that eventually became the New Testament. Montanists were sometimes called Sabellians, perhaps because Montanus claimed that both Father and Spirit spoke through him. Father, Son, Spirit, and Montanus might seem to be one person, especially since Montanus is reported to have said, “I am the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Montanus taught that the Father revealed himself to the Jews, the Son to the fi rst Christians, and the Spirit to Montanus. This schema could fi t Sabellius’s understanding of the Trinity as three temporary divine modes. See also apocalypticism, Jewish and Christian; Arianism; Christianity, early; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Nicaea, Council of; Oriental Orthodox Churches. Further reading: Crown, Alan D., ed. The Samaritans. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr (Siebeck), 1989; Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1978. Montgomery, James A. The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology, and Literature. Reprint, New York: Ktav, 1967; Schoeps, Hans J. Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Grant R. Shafer Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon Greek historians Still in a state of formation as late as the eighth century b.c.e., the Odyssey and the Iliad, the Homeric epics, represented the foundational myths of early Greek civilization. They were histories of the Trojan War—informative, didactic, and entertaining. Some two centuries later another confrontation was rendered epic, this time in the hands of Herodotus: the Persian Wars (499–479 b.c.e.). Herodotus depicted them as a clash of civilizations, the protodemocratic city-states of Greece staving off the autocratic Achaemenids of Persia. Accent was placed on an insuperable divide between a hazily defi ned, but diametrically opposed East and West. To this struggle Herodotus added substantial doses of genealogy, ethnography, and geography. He may have been the Father of History, an epithet fi rst bestowed on him by the Roman Cicero, but Herodotus was the son of epic poetry. Little is known of Herodotus’s life, save that which is revealed in his work. In the early fi fth century b.c.e. he was born in Halicarnassus (modern Bodrum, Turkey). His journeys began prior to 454 b.c.e., when he was banished by Lygdamis, a local tyrant. Herodotus visited Babylon, Phoenicia, Egypt, southern Russia, and Athens, settling in the Athenian colony of Thurii in southern Italy in 443 b.c.e. Written sometime between 450 and 425 b.c.e., Herodotus’s work is divided into nine books. This partitioning was a development of the third century b.c.e., carried out at the library of Alexandria. The fi rst three books cover the reigns of Cyrus II (r. c. 559–529 b.c.e.) and Cambyses II (r. 529–521 b.c.e.), as well as the accession of Darius I (521–486 b.c.e.). The second triad treats the rule of Darius I. The third and fi nal section explores the kingship of Xerxes I (485–465 b.c.e.). The title of Herodotus’s work was Histories. At its origin, historía also meant “inquiry” or “research.” Since the 19th century, Herodotus has often been regarded as an amateur of history. His technique and methodology were trifl ing. Traditions, legends, and 194 Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon personal interviews misled him. He does demonstrate a desire to track down the most trustworthy evidence; however, much still separated Herodotus from the practices of contemporary historiography. The work of Herodotus and that of Thucydides contrasts starkly, even though they were contemporaries. Eons seem to separate the tone, character, and style of their respective works. Herodotus is fl ighty and imprecise. Thucydides is sharp and probing. Some have suggested that because Thucydides is devoid of metrical elements, this indicates that poetry and prose had fi - nally parted ways. Thucydides’ aristocratic background and wealth, derived from family mines in Thrace, may have caused this difference. He was also educated in the cultural lighthouse on the Aegean that was Athens at its height. The Sophists of late fi fth-century Greek culture also infl uenced Thucydides. Only a few fragments of the Sophists’ actual writings survive, but their impact was primordial and has been compared to the 18thcentury Enlightenment. They provided instruction in rhetoric, grooming men for oratorical life in the radical democracy of Athens. They were less interested in the ethical implications of a given argument and more in the persuasiveness of its delivery. For Plato such a lack of moral compass was troublesome. Thucydides was one of 10 Athenian generals elected in 424 b.c.e. When Sparta took Amphipolis, Thucydides bore the brunt of the failure. His remaining years were spent in exile, some of them in Thrace but others among the enemies of Athens, where he collected historical material. As an aristocrat, Thucydides idealized the Periclean model of democracy. Thucydides is often taken as a model of objectivity, bringing history into the orbit of science. From the twists and turns of the war between Greek city-states Thucydides tried to extrapolate fundamental principles of human and political behavior. Long held to be the lesser third of the great triumvirate of Greek historians, Xenophon was demoted further by the 1906 discovery of a papyrus fragment that covers the years 396–395 b.c.e. Some would attribute its authorship to Cratippus, but this is inconclusive. The anonymous Oxyrhynchus historian offers a corrective to Xenophon’s work. Revered across the fourth century b.c.e., largely as a philosopher, his entire oeuvre survived. As an associate of Socrates, Xenophon’s interpretation of Socratic thought was taken, incorrectly, to rest on par with that of Plato. Another factor contributing to Xenophon’s renown was his prose. For generations it served as stylistic model for students to emulate. Xenophon is dismissed as fathoming little of the events he chronicled. His Hellenica is that work whose interpretive underbelly was exposed by the Oxyrhynchus historian. It is, as its title would suggest, a history of Greece. Xenophon chronicles the fall of Athens in 404 b.c.e., then the political instability of the three-way struggle between Athens, Sparta, and Thebes, down to the Battle of Leuctra (371 b.c.e.). Glaring omissions and biases have been noted in his work: his failure to address the Second Athenian Confederacy of the 370s b.c.e. and his tendency to look too favorably upon Sparta, despite his own Athenian background. Xenophon’s other works include a historical novel depicting the idealized education of Cyrus II, the founder of the Persian Achaemenid dynasty and assorted treatises on estate management, hunting, horsemanship, and the duties of a cavalry offi cer. Sometimes taken as a historical work but also readily dismissed as the mere memoir of a military commander, Xenophon’s Anabasis details events of 401–399 b.c.e. In a taut third-person narrative he recounts the failed exploits of Cyrus the Younger, the junior sibling of the Persian king Artaxerxes II. There is speculation as to why the work was composed. Some suppose that it was intended as a corrective to another account of these same events, portraying Xenophon in an unfl attering light. Others reach further, claiming that the intent was to demonstrate the extent of Persian weakness, letting an army of such a size escape. If the Anabasis was indeed such an invitation, three-quarters of a century would pass before Alexander the Great would accept it, bringing a close to the epoch which had begun with Greeks playing prey to the Persians, documented fi rst by Herodotus. See also Athenian predemocracy; Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Greek oratory and rhetoric; Persian invasions; sophism. Further reading: Brown, Truesdell S. The Greek Historians. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1973; Bury, J. B. The Ancient Greek Historians. Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacifi c, 2002; Finley, John H., Jr. Thucydides. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942; Grant, Michael. Greek and Roman Historian: Information and Misinformation. London: Routledge, 1995; Lateiner, Donald. The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1989. R. O’Brian Carter Herods (37 b.c.e.–92 c.e.) Jewish kings The Herods were Jewish client kings of Rome who governed between 37 b.c.e. and 92 c.e. in the area that Herods 195 included signifi cant potions of modern Israel, southern Syria, southern Lebanon, and Jordan. Rome appointed client kings with limited military and taxation powers in the provinces in the Eastern Roman Empire. They were called either ethnarchs or tetrarchs; a tetrarch ranked below an ethnarch. The principal function of these client kings was to carry out the will of Rome. The Senate declared Herod the Great king of the Jews in 40 b.c.e. He actually came to the throne in 37 b.c.e. after overcoming Antigonus, his opponent. Though called king, Herod was in reality an ethnarch. He is called Herod the Great because he was the fi rst Herod from whom all the other Herods descended. He was also a great builder. The Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the amphitheater in Caesarea were two of his most monumental projects. Remains of these magnifi cent structures can still be seen in Israel today. Notwithstanding, the Jews loathed Herod because of his Idumaean origin and cruelty, especially toward the end of his life. A man given to suspicion and jealousy, he even killed his own beloved wife, Mariamne, and the two sons whom he had by her. According to the New Testament, he massacred innocent male children who were two years old and under in Bethlehem because he feared that a future king might have been born there (Matt. 2:16). Herod died in 4 b.c.e., and his territory was divided among his three sons: Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip. After Herod’s death, his son Archelaus became ethnarch over Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea. A cruel man like his father, Herod Archelaus had none of his father’s graces. According to the Jewish historian Josephus in Jewish War, he began his rule by killing 3,000 men. Rome deposed him in 6 c.e. because of great unpopularity and placed his territory under Roman procurators. Originally, procurators were fi nance offi cers chosen from the equestrian (knight) rank in Rome, but in time they came to exercise military powers as well. Herod Antipas (4 b.c.e.–39 c.e.) was tetrarch over Galilee and Perea (in modern Jordan) for 40 years. Pilate had Antipas try Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth because Jesus was from Galilee. Antipas rebuilt Sepphoris into a major metropolis and built a new city, Tiberias, named after Emperor Tiberius (14–37 c.e.), on the southwestern shores of Galilee. He married Herodias, his niece and the wife of Philip (Boethus), for which he was rebuked by John the Baptist. Herod Antipas had John beheaded for this offense. Antipas died as an exile in Gaul. Herod Agrippa I (37–44 c.e.), a brother of Herodias, was a grandson of Herod the Great by Mariamne (whom Herod killed). Wilting under a mountain of debts, he came to hold the throne because of his friendship with Rome. While studying in Rome, he befriended Gaius Caligula (37–41 c.e.). After becoming emperor, Caligula made him a king and gave him the former territories of his uncle Philip, another Herodian tetrarch, and of Lysanias, who was tetrarch of Abilene (near Damascus). Later, in 39 c.e. Caligula banished Antipas and gave his territory to Agrippa I. Then, after Caligula died, Emperor Claudius (41–54 c.e.) gave him Judaea as well, which had been under Roman procurators. Agrippa I, a man rather liked by the Jews, ruled over a larger territory than any of the other Herods did. He killed James the son of Zebedee and put the apostle Peter in prison to please the Jews. He suddenly died in 44 c.e. of some horrible stomach disease. When Agrippa I died, Rome put Judaea back in the hands of procurators. Herod Agrippa II (50–92 c.e.) was son of Agrippa I. Only 17 at the time of his father’s death, Agrippa II was deemed too young to be king. In 50 c.e. Claudius gave him Chalcis in southern Lebanon, his uncle’s territory. In 53 c.e. Claudius exchanged it with the former territories of Philip the tetrarch and Lysanias. The Romans sought the advice of Agrippa II in matters pertaining to Jews and gave him authority over the Temple and the appointment of high priests. Agrippa II is the Agrippa who heard the apostle Paul. Agrippa II fi nished the renovation of the Jewish Temple in 63 c.e., only to see it burned down in 70 c.e. by Titus, who later became emperor (79–81 c.e.). Agrippa’s sister Bernice was a consort of Titus. An amiable man, he was the last of later the Herods to rule. See also Apostles, Twelve; Christianity, early; Israel and Judah; Jewish revolts; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); Roman Empire; Rome: government; Syriac culture and church. Further reading: Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003; Perowne, Stewart. The Later Herods: The Political Background of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1958. Schürer, Emil, Géza Vermès, and Fergus Millar. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135). Vol. 1. Edinburgh, Scotland: Clark, 1973. P. Richard Choi Hesiod (c. 800 b.c.e.) Greek poet Hesiod was a poet whose works are some of the oldest and most celebrated in Greek literature. If the Greeks 196 Hesiod revered Homer as an inspired storyteller and collector of the heroic tales, then Hesiod must rank as his counterpart in narrating the background epic myths and fi lling in missing details. Most now agree that Hesiod wrote after the circulation of the Homeric epics, many centuries after the elusive Homer lived, perhaps around 800 b.c.e. He was an immigrant to the Greek world, having moved from Asia Minor to Boeotia. His father had moved either to fi nd refuge or farmland on the Greek mainland. Thus, it is not surprising that the lessons and lore of Hesiod often can be found in Akkadian, Hittite, Mesopotamian, and Hebrew literature, because these are the older cultures of his ancestral past. Hesiod was a peasant, scraping out a living as a farmer, sweating under the hot summer sun and shivering in his hut when the winter rains fell. Though he and Homer vied for the following of the Greek-reading public, they could not have been less alike in their values and social milieu. Homer probably was a bard in the service of the rich and aristocratic, while Hesiod was something like a prophet in the cause of justice. Hesiod’s life and excellence were not a refl ection of Homer’s battlefi eld and martial prowess, but of the cornfi eld and sweat equity. Yet this humble and hard worker claims to have had a mystical experience one day while shepherding his fl ocks. The nine divine Muses (sometimes called the Graces) visit and inspire him to write his fi rst work, Theogony, a poem about the origins and genealogies of the divinities of Greek mythology. They reveal the background of the Olympian gods: It turns out that the deities are sprung from dysfunctional and violent family roots, where one generation plots the downfall of the earlier one. Hesiod is not content merely to divulge divine names and ancestry; he also reveals an ethical and philosophical element in the poem that helps his audience learn the lessons of mythology for their own lives. His next poem is also an ethical exercise, entitled Work and Days. Here he ties his material together into something like a sermon on how to live a good life. He narrates three myths: Prometheus and Pandora; the Five Cosmic Ages of Humanity; and the Hawk and Nightingale allegory. All three point out to the reader the advantages of honesty and hard work. He criticizes his brother Perses, who unjustly and corruptly is trying to steal land and wealth without working for it. Hesiod represents the rising class of peasants and townsfolk centuries after Homer’s aristocratic vision loses touch with Greek reality. Hesiod sets himself up as something like a biblical prophet. He fi nds his identity in the lower classes and gives voice to their suffering. He makes no claim to royal birth, public offi ce, or military victory, but he is not afraid to speak in the fi rst person singular and is confi dent that his advice is divinely inspired. Modern readers might fi nd his contempt for women, his surliness, and his self-righteousness less palatable. See also Greek mythology and pantheon; pre- Socratic philosophers; prophets. Further reading: Hesiod, Poems of Hesiod. Trans. by R. M. Frazer. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983; Wender, Dorothea, trans. and ed. Hesiod and Theognis. New York: Penguin, 1982. Mark F. Whitters Hezekiah (8th–7th century b.c.e.) king and ruler Biblical scholars increasingly view Hezekiah as the most capable king in Israel and Judah back to the time of David and Solomon. Only kings Ahab and Josiah can compare with him as far as running domestic and foreign affairs. He presided over a period of religious reform, Assyrian belligerence, and Samarian decline. Assyria had reached its full imperial extent, and somehow Hezekiah was able to turn away from his father Ahaz’s policies of accommodation in the areas of politics and religion. He grew up under the tutelage of the priests in the Jerusalem Temple. They exerted profound infl uence over Hezekiah’s personal development and preparation for his career as king. His father was known as an accommodationist to foreign religious infl uences, so Hezekiah’s formation was against the grain of his father’s decisions. His fi rst phase of rule is marked by a decision to centralize worship in Jerusalem and renew religious observances of his people. He called his subjects back to the biblical covenant and then invited his coreligionists in Samaria to join him. This invitation came in the form of festal letters sent out by the hands of able and learned representatives of his kingdom, reinstituting social and religious structures. The Assyrians, who had recently taken over Samaria and decimated its leadership, may have viewed this as a provocation. At any rate it was a reversal of the religious policies of his father. One very bold act of Hezekiah’s was to destroy the bronze serpent, an object of popular veneration, with a long history going back to the time of Moses. Other acts were in concert: He destroyed shrines and altars that did not have to do with traditional beliefs. Hezekiah 197 His second phase of rule was political. Although he paid tribute to Assyria, he used it to buy time for himself so that he could refortify and reconsolidate Jerusalem and other Judaean cities. Archaeologists estimate that Hezekiah’s Jerusalem was fi vefold the population of Solomon’s, and some suggest that many came from Samaria as political refugees. Another major innovation was a way of supplying water to the acropolis of Jerusalem by way of the Siloam tunnel, recently discovered by modern excavators. New research has uncovered storage jars, imprinted with the king’s name, indicating that Hezekiah had a system for supplying his people with food in times of trouble. Assyria took punitive action and rampaged across the country but miraculously did not capture Jerusalem. Records from the annals of Assyria tell a different story, saying that their general Senacherib ran a brilliant campaign, destroying 46 walled cities and taking 200,000 captives, walling up Hezekiah “like a caged bird.” In fact, the Bible says that the Assyrian general Senacherib beat a sudden retreat out of Jerusalem, though the night before he had harangued its citizens in their own language. The reason, according to the Bible, was a divine visitation of a plague against the besiegers. Further reading: Rosenbaum, Jonathan. “Hezekiah.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary 3, pp. 189–193. New York: Doubleday, 1992; Williamson, Joanne. God King. Bathgate, ND: Bethlehem Press, 2002. Mark F. Whitters hieroglyphics The system of writing known as hieroglyphics was used to write the ancient Egyptian language from before 3000 b.c.e. until the late fourth century c.e. Each symbol in this system is known as a hieroglyph. The term hieroglyphic (meaning “sacred writing”) was coined by the ancient Greeks, who knew that the Egyptians sometimes called their writing “divine script.” The 500 or so hieroglyphic signs that were in common use can be grouped into three classes: logograms, phonograms, and determinatives. Logograms (also called ideograms) are single signs that represent a complete word. These signs, remnants of the pictographic origins of the system, are relatively few in number. Far more common are the second class of signs, called phonograms. A phonogram represents not a word but a sound or group of sounds. There are three types of phonograms: those that indicate one, two, or three consonants. The signs indicating a single consonant may be called “alphabetic,” but in fact the Egyptians rarely used only these simple alphabetic signs to write a word. It should be noted that the script indicates only consonants; the vowels would have to be supplied by the reader. The third class of hieroglyphs is known as determinatives. These signs, of which there are many, have no phonetic value, but rather appear after other hieroglyphic signs (phonograms) to indicate the semantic category of the word. Determinatives are often very helpful in distinguishing homonyms, which are prevalent due to the lack of vowels in the script. A hieroglyphic text can be written horizontally from left to right or from right to left or vertically from top to bottom. The use of hieroglyphic script was generally confi ned to carved or painted inscriptions, most of which were monumental or religious in nature. Already in the Old Egyptian Period (mid-third millennium b.c.e.) the Egyptians used a simplifi ed cursive hieroglyphic script, or, more often, an even more cursive script known as hieratic (from Greek, “priestly”), for texts written with ink. The signs of cursive scripts, especially hieratic, can look quite different from their hieroglyphic counterparts. By the Late Egyptian Period, beginning in roughly 1600 b.c.e., an even more abbreviated and cursive form of hieratic developed, known as demotic (from Greek, “popular”). With the coming of Christianity to Egypt, many Egyptians adopted the Greek alphabet to write their language. This adopted script is known as the Coptic alphabet, as is the Egyptian language itself when written in this script. What separates the Coptic alphabet from the Greek is the addition of eight signs, taken over from the demotic script, which were needed to represent sounds not found in Greek. Almost immediately after the hieroglyphic system ceased to be used (the last known hieroglyphic inscription was made in 394 c.e.), the ability to read it was lost. After this happened it was commonly believed that these symbols did not represent an actual language but were instead a kind of mystical representation of ideas. It was not until after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799—on which the same text was written in hieroglyphic, hieratic, and Greek—that scholars were able to decipher the ancient script. See also Alexandria; cuneiform; Egypt, culture and religion; Kush; libraries, ancient; Meroë; Old Kingdom, Egypt; Oriental Orthodox Churches; pharaoh. Further reading: Allen, James P. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cam- 198 hieroglyphics bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Gardiner, Alan. Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957; Loprieno, Antonio. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Aaron D. Rubin Hindu philosophy Hinduism consists of a voluminous body of thought and philosophy arranged within a number of different schools and tendencies, developed over the course of centuries as scholars revisited or provided commentaries on existing literature. The particular confi gurations of thought and literature involved in Hindu thought are arranged in ways that are not always intuitively obvious to the Western mind. Instead, concepts of dietary propriety and forms of public duty are combined with epistemological and linguistic explorations. The Hindu view of the universe most commonly recognizes the presence of the divine within every aspect of the fabric of existence, and this is commingled with the sense of personal connection with individual deities. Consequently, it is impossible to separate right behavior from right forms of thinking. Hindu philosophical concepts are liberally sprinkled through the verse epics such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata, as well as the Vedas, the Upanishads, and other texts, primarily written in the Sanskrit language. Since Sanskrit was considered to be a sacred language and intimately connected with the nature of the universe, issues relating to the language are also considered to be relevant to philosophy. General philosophical concerns included epistemic, moral, and metaphysical issues. Epistemic concerns are deeply related to the study of the Sanskrit language. It is also concerned with different ways of perceiving and making sense of the universe. Possible forms of interaction included inference, sensory perception, and forms of logical deduction. They also included higher forms of yogic perception of higher spiritual states that were related to the Buddhist concept of enlightenment. Many forms of meditation are involved in the attempt to understand the spiritual nature of the universe. Moral issues largely centered on the concepts of dharma and karma. The latter relates to the interrelationship between cause and effect and dates from the times of the Upanishads. All acts committed by individuals are morally good or bad, and each will provide good or bad karma, which will attach itself to the individual soul. For the soul to achieve its goal of understanding the nature of the universe it is necessary to accumulate good karma and eliminate bad karma. Philosophers varied as to the effi cacy of meditation, good deeds, or actions to attain this understanding. Dharma refers to different methods by which duty should be performed, with respect to both temporal and spiritual obligations. Many of the injunctions on this form of moral behavior are contained in the Dharma Sutras, which are the Vedic-infl uenced texts that outline various forms of behavior. Some of the many sutras were subsequently developed into shastras, which were used to frame Hindu laws and social regulations, including the caste system. Metaphysical concerns featured the nature of the divine and how it may be approached. The atman, or the soul, was frequently taken as the unit of analysis. A central metaphysical concern was to understand the specifi c nature of the atman and how it was related to the wider universe. Some believed that the atman was an intrinsic part of the universe and represented a microscopic but inseparable part of the larger universe. A person who is able to perceive this reality through higher spiritual perception has the opportunity to be freed from the painful cycle of birth and rebirth. However, subsequent developments of thought placed more emphasis on the role of the gods and of divine grace in enabling the atman to ascend to the higher level of understanding. Sankara (c. 788–820 c.e.) was a nondualist of the Advaita Vedanta school and was infl uential in developing the concept of the atman as being equated with Brahma, which is the universal soul that permeates the entire universe. Since Brahma is not just universal but eternal and eternally unchanging, the atman and the other physical manifestations of the universe are some form of shadow representation of the eternal, and it is possible for the individual, through the cultivation of the faculty of true sight, to attain a glimpse of reality in a process that is very similar to the nirvana of Buddhism. See also Vedic age. Further reading: Banerjee, Sures Chandra. Dharma Sutras: A Study in Their Origin and Development. Calcutta, India: Punthi Pustak, 1962; Bhaskarananda, Swami. The Essentials of Hinduism. Seattle, WA: Viveka Press, 2002; Mascaró, Juan, ed. and trans. The Upanishads. New York: Penguin Classics, 1965; ———, trans. Bhagavad Gita. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003; Narayan, R. K. The Mahabharata. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000; Sharma, A. K., and Balvir Tamar. “Business Excellence Enshrined in Vedic (Hindu) Philosophy.” Singapore Management Review (v.26/1, 2004); Hindu philosophy 199 Torwesten, Hans. Vedanta: Heart of Hinduism. Trans. by John Phillips. New York: Grove Press, 1992. John Walsh Hippocrates, Galen, and the Greek physicians Hippocrates (460–377 b.c.e.) has been called the father of Greek medicine. The young Hippocrates observed his physician father and his peers practicing the healing art. He traveled throughout Greece and possibly as far as Libya and Egypt. Ptolemy Soter (323–285 b.c.e.), an Egyptian pharaoh, published a collection of treatises by Hippocrates and his followers for the library at Alexandria. Hippocrates is best known for his dictum that if the physician could not take away suffering then he must at least alleviate it. He used observation to document physical symptoms and behavior, in contrast to making offerings and appealing to supernatural forces. He took into account the interplay of three variables: the patient, the physician, and the disease. He stressed the importance of hygiene and believed that the doctor belonged at the side of the patient rather than in a temple far away. Although he did not use the term immune system, he recognized that there were individual differences that affected the severity of any affl iction. Of the Epidemics offers one of his best writings, describing a mumps epidemic. The Corpus Hippocraticum gives an excellent overview of Greek medicine in the fi fth century b.c.e. The Hippocratic oath is a traditional part of a contemporary physician’s rite of passage from student to doctor. The oath begins with a pledge to Apollo, Asclepius his son, and his daughters, Hygeia and Panacea. It stresses the mentoring relationships and the lifelong relationship of the physician to the person who taught him the healing arts. There is a promise not to help a patient commit suicide. There is also a statement about privacy and confi dentiality. Not all Greek physicians practiced by Hippocratic dictates, but all accepted the humoral theory as the basis for human physiology. In this theory air, water, earth, and fi re were the four elements that made up the universe and the human body. Water was moist, air was dry, fi re was hot, and earth was cold. The human body was a microcosm of this scheme, and its corresponding fl uids, or humors, were in combinations of two. Blood was warm and wet; black bile, cold and dry; yellow bile, warm and dry; and phlegm, cold and wet. When the fl uids were in balance, health abounded. When skewed, disease resulted. Ancient Greek physicians recognized that discharges from various organs resulted from trauma or sickness. The amount of training of Greek physicians varied because no medical schools, standards, or examinations existed. A doctor often apprenticed to a more experience practitioner before practicing on his own. In addition to sole practitioners there were public physicians, medical offi cers elected in some cities. There were also clinics for the less affl uent called jatreia. Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e.) contributed much to Greek medicine. He was interested in many areas of knowledge, but logic was one of his favorite mental exercises. He began to categorize living things into groups with similarities and wrote extensive compendiums on plants and animals. This was the basis for biology and anatomy. Unfortunately, he did not see the interior of a human body because dissection was not practiced. Although Aristotle contributed much to medicine, phi- 200 Hippocrates, Galen, and the Greek physicians A bust of Hippocrates in the Louvre in Paris. The values of Hippocrates are still in force in the medical profession today. losophy, poetry, literature, and early science, it was Claudius Galen—often referred to as simply Galen— whose writings infl uenced generations of physicians and whose infl uence continued well into the Renaissance. Galen was born in Pergamon to an architect father, who had a dream in which Asclepius appeared and told him to have his son become a healer. By the age of 21 he had written a textbook on the uterus for midwives, a book on ophthalmology, and three books on lung disease. Unfortunately, he did not know very much about the uterus because he had only seen a pig’s uterus and that was quite different from a human’s. When he was 32, he went to Rome where he established a practice despite his criticisms of his peers there. He was fortunate to be called to the imperial palace to treat Marcus Aurelius, the emperor, whom he pleased. From that time forward, the most prominent members of society sought him. After Galen accepted Christianity, the church endorsed him because Galen saw a purpose in every organ and every function, and that purpose was divinity. He taught that the body was an instrument of the soul. Religion and medicine were more closely related in early medicine, and there was often confusion over the place of the soul in the human body. One idea was that it was somewhere between the brain and the spinal cord in a structure called the rete mirable. The other imaginary structure was the lux bone, a bone that could create an entirely new individual if found. Interestingly, this concept could describe stem cells. Galen also had ideas about the sexes. He believed that since humankind was the most perfect of all animals, within humankind, man was more perfect than woman. Since a woman’s reproductive parts were formed when she was still being formed, they could not emerge from her body like a man’s because she did not have enough heat to allow them to do so. Despite his errors, his contributions were many, the greatest being a 22-volume set of summarized medical knowledge including medicinal plants. Galen’s reputation lasted longer than any other Greek physician’s. He codifi ed all previous knowledge and was so valued for this gargantuan task that his stature as a great physician grew with each successive generation. It was not until 1564 that Vesalius, a Renaissance anatomist who performed autopsies and dissections on humans, challenged his writings. The Greek and, later, Roman physicians lost prestige as the Roman Empire collapsed, the Middle Ages began, and plagues and epidemics destroyed populations in record numbers, leaving people again dependent on superstition and mysticism. Muslim physicians led the way for the next 1,000 years. Further reading: Bettmann, Otto. A Pictorial History of Medicine. Springfi eld, IL: C. C. Thomas, 1972; Edelstein, Ludwig. The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943; Hippocrates and Galen. On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body. Trans. by M. T. May. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968; Lyons, A., and R. J. Petrucelli. Medicine: An Illustrated History. New York: Abrams, 1987; Margotta, Roberto. The History of Medicine. New York: Smithmark. 1996. Lana Thompson Hittites The Hittites were Indo-Europeans who entered Anatolia in approximately 2300 b.c.e. and in the following centuries managed to become one of the dominant powers of the ancient Near East. The word Hittite derives from their term for central Anatolia, hatti, which was derived from those who lived in the area before the Hittites, the Hattians. Most of the information regarding the Hittites comes from thousands of clay tablets discovered in the Hittite capital of Hattusha. Three distinct Indo-European languages have been deciphered in these texts: Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic. The texts were written in cuneiform and hieroglyphic scripts, and many words were borrowed from the local population and from surrounding nations. Hittite history is usually divided into the Old Kingdom and the New Kingdom. The Old Kingdom covered the period from 1750 to 1600 b.c.e., while the New Kingdom lasted c. 1420–1200 b.c.e. The intervening period (c. 1600–1420 b.c.e.) is sometimes referred to as the Middle Kingdom. During the Old Kingdom the Hittites were able to achieve foreign expansion. First, during the reign of Hattushili I, the Hittite army campaigned to the west as far as Arzawa and to the southeast as far as northern Syria. Second, during the reign of Murshili I, the army made the long march through Syria and into Babylonia, where they were able to overpower Babylon and bring to an end the fi rst dynasty of Babylon (c. 1595 b.c.e.). However, during the reigns of Murshili’s successors, the kingdom seems to have lost control of lands to the east and southeast. The founder and fi rst ruler of the New Kingdom was Tudhaliya II (c. 1420–1370 b.c.e.). Although he was able to revive the kingdom, it was not until the reigns of Shuppiluliuma I (c. 1344 b.c.e.), and Hattushili III (c. 1239 b.c.e.) that the Hittites were able to achieve their Hittites 201 greatest foreign expansion. They were able to expand the kingdom throughout all of Syria, defeating Mittani, and extending almost as far south as Damascus. Battles with the Egyptians, most famously the Battle at Kadesh, led to a treaty between Hattushili III and Ramses II in which a Hittite princess was given to Ramses in marriage. Although the treaty with Egypt remained in force for the remainder of the Hittite New Kingdom, new threats arose that eventually led to the demise of the Hittites. Assyria under Shalmaneser I became aggressive toward the Hittites. In addition, various smaller nations surrounding the Hittite homeland began to pressure the Hittites militarily and economically. Unfortunately, it is still impossible to tell the exact nature of the downfall of the Hittite capital Hattusha. What is clear is that limited Hittite rule continued in other areas, particularly Carchemish. These local centers were ruled by Neo-Hittite dynasties governing individual city-states. These city-states were eventually absorbed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Hittite religion and cultic practices are becoming increasingly better known through archaeological excavations. Unfortunately, no mythological text in the old Hittite script has yet been discovered. However, one myth of west Semitic origin has been found in a Hittite translation. It tells the story of the virtuous young male Baal- Haddu refusing the advances of the married Asherah in a fashion reminiscent of the biblical account of Joseph and Potipher’s wife found in the book of Genesis. Cultic practices are illuminated in the various festival descriptions found in royal archives and in texts from provincial centers. Much is known about these festivals, special times when the statue of the deity was brought out from the temple and honored with sacrifi ces and offerings given amid music and dancing. New moon festivals were held to mark the beginning of each new month. Knowledge of ancient Near Eastern temples, including the Solomonic Temple of the Old Testament, is greatly advanced through the excavations of various Hittite temples. At least fi ve temples have been uncovered in the capital of Hattusha, and some estimate there to be as many as 20 present in the city. Every Hittite city had at least one temple staffed by both male and female personnel serving as cooks, musicians, artisans, farmers, and herders. See also Babylon: early period; Babylon, later periods; Egypt, culture and religion; Fertile Crescent. Further reading: Bryce, T. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; Hoffner, H. A., Jr. “Hittites.” In A. J. Hoerth, G. L. Mattingly, and E. M. Yamauchi. Peoples of the Old Testament World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994. Eric Smith Homeric epics The epics of the Greek writer Homer—the Iliad and the Odyssey—are the earliest and the best known of classics of Greek literature. Both are long epic poems, and several scholars have argued that different people probably wrote the two, with some academics arguing against even the existence of Homer. Certainly, all that is known about Homer is from tradition and evidence gleaned from the epics. The cities of Argos, Athens, Chios, Colophon, Rhodes, Salamis, and Izmir (Smyrna) all claim that Homer was born in their city. Homer was probably a Greek from Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), as his writings used the Ionic and the Aeolic dialects of that region, so the claims of Chios and Izmir are the most plausible. Many centuries later there was a clan at Chios known as the Homeridae who claimed to be descendants of Homer and, as wandering minstrels, kept alive some of the traditions associated with their famous ancestor. Homer was born the son of Maeon; he lived around 850 b.c.e. Many people thought the Iliad and the Odyssey had been written in the eighth century b.c.e., with a consensus that the Iliad is earlier than the Odyssey, the former possibly composed in 750 b.c.e., and the latter about 25 years later. This was the period when many Greeks were moving to Asia Minor, and there was an increasing interest in the traditions of contact with the region. Some have pointed to references in the sixth book of the Odyssey to refer clearly to the establishment of a Greek colony. The term Homeric age refers to the period about which Homer wrote, rather than the period in which he lived. Countless writers have translated the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Roman writer Lucius Livius Andronicus, from Taranto in southern Italy, translated the Odyssey into Latin verse in the third century b.c.e. The most well-known translation is that of E. V. Rieu, in the Penguin Classics edition, fi rst published in 1950. Although there have been many more translations, that by Richmond Lattimore in 1951 is regarded as the best. He set out to try to capture the atmosphere of the original text by rendering it into verse, line by line. 202 Homeric epics Many of the same translators tried their hand at the Odyssey. Rieu’s edition, the fi rst Penguin Classics book, was published in 1945; and Richmond Lattimore managed a translation of the Odyssey in 1965. However, the Odyssey also attracted two men who did not work on the Iliad. William Morris, the famous designer and poet, had a translation of the Odyssey published in 1887, and T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) also translated the Odyssey into English prose. This was published under the name “T. E. Shaw,” Lawrence’s adopted name, in 1932, three years before his death. The style of both epics was dactylic hexameter with each line ranging from 12 to 17 syllables in length. With many phrases being repeated, the style was put together in such a manner that bards could learn them easily. Aristotle, a great admirer of the Homeric epics, wrote that Homer was “unequalled in diction and thought.” ILIAD The Iliad is the longer of the two poems, about a third longer than the Odyssey. It consists of 15,693 lines of poetry in dactylic hexameters and is now divided into 24 books. The Iliad, taking its name from Ilium, another name for Troy, concerns the last year of the 10-year siege of Troy, with the central fi gure being Achilles, the son of Peleus, king of the Myrmidones in modern-day Thessaly. The story focused on Achilles as a warrior and a person, more than on the siege. The fi rst book of the Iliad covers the quarrel between Achilles, the greatest warrior of the Greek army, and Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae. The anger of Achilles, the leader of the Myrmidons, is directed against Agamemnon and Hector. Chryseis, the daughter of a priest of Apollo, is captured by the Greeks and becomes a prisoner of Achilles. She ends up in the hands of Agamemnon, and Chryseis’s father visits the Greek camp to seek her release. When this does not come about, the god Apollo sends a plague into the Greek camp, and Agamemnon is forced to return her. In the second book Odysseus has the task of motivating the Greeks, and it includes details on the Greek and the Trojan forces. Fighting begins again in the fourth book and continues in the fi fth book. The sixth book introduces Hector, prince of Troy, and adversary of Achilles. In the seventh book he fi ghts Ajax, and in the eighth book the gods, some of whom are helping the Greeks, and others supporting the Trojans, withdraw from the fi ghting. In the ninth book Agamemnon tries, and fails, to get Achilles to return to the fi ght, and the 10th book involves Diomedes and Odysseus on a mission to spy on the Trojan positions at night. The 11th book shows the Trojans scoring a small victory when Paris manages to wound Diomedes, and Achilles decides to use his favorite, Patroclus, in the campaign. The 12th book marks the Trojans driving the Greeks back to their camp, with Poseidon coming to the aid of the Greeks in the 13th book, and Hera helping Poseidon in the 14th book. At this point Zeus, the king of the gods, stops Poseidon from interfering, and in the 16th book, Patroclus, worried about a possible Greek defeat, borrows the armor of Achilles and leads the Greeks against the Trojans. The Trojans retreat, but Hector manages to kill Patroclus. The 17th book has the two armies fi ghting over the body of Patroclus, and the next book covers the grief of Achilles as he hears about the death of Patroclus. In the 19th book Achilles decides to join the fi ghting again, if only to avenge the death of his friend, and in the 20th book Achilles goes into the thick of the fi ghting, encountering Hector in the 21st book. In the next book the death of Patroclus is avenged when Achilles kills Hector and then ties the body to his chariot and drags it back to the Greek camp. The penultimate book describes the funeral games for Patroclus, and the fi nal book involves Achilles agreeing, in the end, to hand back Hector’s body to his father, King Priam of Troy. ODYSSEY The Odyssey is more of a romance than a heroic tragedy. It concerns the attempts that Odysseus (or Ulysses, in Latin) makes to return to his home on the island of Ithaca and to his wife, Penelope, and son, Telemachus. Although the term odyssey describes, in English, a long journey, less than half the text is actually concerned with the travels of Odysseus. The Odyssey runs to 12,110 lines of dactylic hexameter. The fi rst book begins with Odysseus already on his way home from Troy, anxious to get back to Ithaca and see his son. The second book describes the suitors who want to marry Penelope. They all maintain that her husband is dead and threaten Telemachus, who sets sail for Pylos. In the fourth book King Menelaus tells the boy that Odysseus was stranded in Egypt on his way back from Troy after the war. In the ninth book Odysseus visits the land of the Lotus Eaters and, in perhaps the second-most famous incident in the book, ends up on the island controlled by the Cyclops, who have only one eye. Odysseus and his men hide in the cave of one of the Cyclops, but he eats two of the Greek sailors when they try to escape. Eventually Odysseus and the rest of the sailors blind the Cyclops and escape, hanging on the underside of Homeric epics 203 his sheep. In the 11th book Odysseus tries to make his peace with Poseidon, the god of the sea, who had supported the Trojans in the war. The 12th book of the Odyssey covers the most famous incident, when Odysseus sails his ship past the land of the Sirens, women whose beautiful songs encourage sailors to sail too close to land so that their ships are dashed on the rocks. Odysseus has his men fi ll their ears with beeswax and has himself tied to the mast of the ship so that he alone can hear their singing but can do nothing about it. The next book has Odysseus trying to reach Ithaca, arriving there bedraggled and alone. In the remaining books Telemachus returns home, escaping an ambush laid by the suitors of Penelope. He manages to meet up with his father, and with the promised help of two gods, Zeus and Athena, they decide to attack the suitors at the end of the 16th book. By the 19th book Odysseus has met his wife but does not reveal his identity, although he is recognized by Eurycleia, a maid who had nursed the young Odysseus. At the start of the 21st book Penelope offers to marry any man who can string the bow of Odysseus and fi re it through 12 ax heads. The suitors try, one by one, and fail, and Odysseus, still in disguise, asks to try as well. Penelope says that if Odysseus, dressed as a poor man, does so, she will not marry him but will reward him. He eventually does try, and succeeds, and Telemachus arrives on the scene. In the 22nd book Odysseus, Telemachus, and others chase out the suitors, killing some of them. Odysseus fi nally announces to his wife who he really is, tells of his adventures, and they are reunited. The fi nal book relates what happens when King Agamemnon returns from the Trojan War. Instead of being welcomed by his wife Clytemnestra, she murders him. CRITICAL DISCUSSION Some scholars have pointed to similarities with the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh. Elements of the Odyssey were possibly adapted to form some of the Arabian stories concerning the adventures of Sinbad the Sailor and One Thousand and One Nights. The epics have been used by scholars to understand much about the life of the Greeks of the period and about methods of fi ghting. Homer’s epics have inspired many people. One of those was Alexander the Great (356–323 b.c.e.) who traced his ancestry, through his mother, to Achilles. He read the Iliad and the Odyssey when he was young, although he favored the former. He must have remembered this when he arrived in Asia Minor and made a sacrifi ce at the tomb of Protesilaus who was killed in the Trojan War and who was the fi rst Greek warrior to set foot on Asian soil. There have been a number of novels based on the stories in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Greek playwright Euripides wrote Cyclops based on the travels of Odysseus. Geoffrey Chaucer set his poem Troilus and Creside at Homer’s Troy, and William Shakespeare used it for his play Troilus and Cressida. George E. Baker’s Paris of Troy and Richard Powell’s When the Gods Would Destroy all feature most of the characters from the Iliad. Nikos Kazantzakis, in his The Odyssey, A Modern Sequel, continues the story of Odysseus after his return to Ithaca, and Odysseus (as Ulysses) has been important in the work of Dante and James Joyce. See also Greek drama; Greek mythology and pantheon; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Further reading: Brackman, Arnold C. The Dream of Troy. New York: Mason and Lipscomb, 1974; Bradford, Ernle. Ulysses Found. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964; Grosvenor, Melville Bell. “Homeward with Ulysses.” National Geographic (July 1973); Payne, Robert. The Gold of Troy. London: Robert Hale, 1959; Rouse, W. H. D. Homer. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1939; Schildt, Goran. In the Wake of Odysseus. London: Staples, 1953. Justin Corfi eld Huangdi See Yellow Emperor (Huang Di, or Huang Ti). Hundred Schools of Philosophy The late Spring and Autumn (722–481 b.c.e.) era and the Warring States (481–222 b.c.e.) era in China were marked by political chaos and social and economic change. The Zhou (Chou) dynasty was impotent and relegated to the sidelines as powerful lords vied for total control. Warfare became increasingly frequent and violent. This was also the glorious age of Chinese philosophy; all China’s classical philosophical systems were developed during this time. Thoughtful men, many of them administrators because of their education, were troubled by the chaos and sought answers. They produced a broad spectrum of ideas that ranged from the concrete to the most abstract and from the practical to the purely theoretical. The great variety of thought gave rise to the term 204 Huangdi Hundred Schools of Philosophy, also called the Hundred Schools of Thought. There is a striking parallel between this period in Chinese history and the golden age of classical Greek philosophy, which occurred at about the same time. The many states of China resembled the Greek city-states, though on a larger scale. In each case the people from the disparate states recognized their common cultural heritage and longed for unity as they fought one another. Because political unity eluded both Chinese and Greeks, educated men debated with one another to fi nd political solutions and moral answers. There were striking differences also. The Greeks had developed the concept of democracy, while no Chinese questioned the right of a monarch to govern all under heaven even as they sought to discover principles of moral authority that could unite their peoples under an ideal government. In China the schools of philosophy can be classifi ed into several broad categories. The most important one, whose name became inseparable with Chinese civilization, was Confucianism, a school of moral philosophy begun by Confucius. Its aim was to improve government and society by study of history and encourage men of superior morals to serve in government. Another was called Daoism (Taoism); it represented revolt from the strictures of a decadent society by emphasizing simplicity, detachment, and self-contentment. A school called Moism taught universal love, utilitarianism, and denounced offensive wars. The last among the major schools was Legalism. Not strictly a philosophy, it taught the ideal of an all-powerful sovereign state governed under strict and impartial laws. The Legalist goal was victory in war. There were other groups that did not deal with moral principles. A man named Sunzi (Sun Tzu) was the reputed author of a book titled Bingfa (Ping-fa), or The Art of War, that is an analysis of total war in all its aspects. Other schools emphasized rhetoric and taught the art of persuasion, an important skill for diplomats in inter-state relations. Yet others taught logic and dialectics that had no practical application. The era of the Hundred Schools came to an end in 221 b.c.e. when a state named Qin (Ch’in), applying Legalism in its government, defeated all other states, unifi ed China, and outlawed all philosophical debates. See also Confucian Classics; Mencius; Mozi (Mo Tzu); Qin (Ch’in) dynasty; Sunzi (Sun Tzu). Further reading: de Bary, Wm. T., et al., eds. Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960; Chan, Wing-tsit. A Source Book of Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963; Creel, Herrlee G. Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tsetung. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960; Fung, Yulan. A History of Chinese Philosophy. Trans. by Derk Bodde. 2 vols. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1952. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Huns The White Huns were steppe nomads who grew to power in Central Asia, China (where they were called Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu), and northern India during the fourth and fi fth centuries c.e. Different from the Huns organized under Attila, the White Huns were believed to have had white skin and elongated heads. Although it is unknown what the White Huns called themselves; they may have assumed the name Hua or Huer. Other names attributed to them include Hephthalites, Hephthal, Ephthalites, Yanda, Urar, Avars, and Huna. The most well known writing about the White Huns is by Procopius, a contemporary of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. Procopius recorded the remarks and observations from an ambassador who was traveling with the Persians who were warring with the White Huns. He wrote that the White Huns “are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies.” The Mongolian Huns’ origins are unclear. For the White Huns to have white skin indicates the possibility of a different origin than the Huns of Attila. The White Huns may not have been related to the Hunnish tribes at all. The White Huns are often considered unrelated, physically and culturally, to the Huns. The Huns belonged to a group of Central Asian and Eastern Caucasian steppe nomad warriors who also have murky origins. Chinese records, along with linguistic research and archaeological fi nds, place the early Huns in present-day Mongolia. The Huns left very little written evidence but by the fourth century c.e. a large group of Huns near the Black Sea forced Germanic Goth tribes into the Roman Empire. THE HUN EMPIRE AND ATTILA THE HUN The organization of the Huns by the fi fth century c.e. resulted in the creation of the Hun empire. Their appearance marks one of the fi rst well-documented migrations on horseback. The last leader of the Hun empire, Attila the Hun, led with military success, due in part to weapons such as the Hun bow and fi nancial gains that retained a large number of loyal Hunnish tribes and European peoples such as the Alans, Gepids, Slavs, and Gothic tribes. Huns 205 Attila the Hun was born c. 406 c.e. As part of a peace treaty with Rome, the 12-year-old Attila was fostered as a child, and in exchange the Huns fostered the Roman Flavius Aetius. This hostage exchange was enforced in hopes that each child would bring back to his home nation an appreciation of the other’s traditions and culture. Attila studied the foreign policies and internal workings of the Romans in order to favor the Huns. Secretly listening to meetings with foreign diplomats, Attila learned about court protocol and leadership tactics. In 432 the Huns were united, and by 434 Attila’s uncle Ruga left the empire to him and his brother Bleda. The Huns gathered and invaded the Persian Empire, but a defeat in Armenia caused a cessation of attacks for several years. By the mid-fi fth century the Huns began attacking the border merchants of Persia. In addition, the two brothers threatened war with Rome, citing treaty failures and claiming the Romans had desecrated royal Hunnish graves on the Danube River. Crossing the river, the Huns invaded nearby Illyrian cities and forts. In 441 they invaded present-day Belgrade and Sirnium. Within a few years the Huns invaded along the Danube River, using battering rams and siege towers. They successfully invaded cities along the Danube and then the Nišava River to sack the present-day Sofi a (Bulgaria). The Huns moved toward Constantinople. Finding and then defeating the Roman armies outside the city, the Huns found they could not topple the city’s thick walls but were in the process of gathering stronger battering rams. Theodosius I admitted defeat instead of allowing the Huns to continue to batter the city’s walls. After this victory the Huns retreated into the safety of their empire. According to classic literature, Attila killed his brother. The Hun empire was his alone. Attila, who would be called the “Scourge of God,” was an aggressive and ambitious leader. Stories emerged claiming he owned the sword of Mars or that no one could look at him directly in the eyes without fl inching. Attila and his Huns attacked eastern Europe, laying waste to cities along the way. He defeated city after city on his way though Austria and Germany. Attila attacked Gaul before turning to Italy, crushing several Lombard citie on his way to Ravenna, the Roman capital at the time. Attila did not attack Ravenna; some scholars believe that Attila stopped short of sacking the capital of the Roman Empire at the request of Pope Leo the Great. Another theory is that Attila wanted to return back to his own lands before the onset of a harsh winter. After Attila’s death in 453 the Hun empire collapsed. In legend, Attila died from a nosebleed on the night of his marriage to a seventh wife. Typically not a drinker, Attila supposedly passed out on his back and the nosebleed caused him to choke on his own blood. Upon his death, his sons acquired the throne, however, they were not as aggressive as Attila and fought among themselves in power struggles. By the late fi fth century the Hun empire had completely disintegrated. Attila’s legacy was his ability to organize the nomadic Huns and to collect wealth through attacks and extortion. In many cultures today Attila the Hun is viewed as a hero. THE ORIGIN OF THE WHITE HUNS Some scholars believe that the White Huns were of Turkish origin, while some place the White Huns’ origin near the Hindu Kush region. What little is known of White Hunnish culture favors an Iranian origin. A common custom for Iranians was also common for the White Huns—the practice of polyandry, having several husbands to one wife. In addition, a White Hunnish woman wore a hat bearing the same number of horns as she had husbands, all of whom were probably brothers. Even if a man had no biological brothers, he would adopt men to be his brothers so he could marry. All the brothers and the wife agreed on sexual privileges. The paternity of children was assigned according to the age of the husband. In this model the oldest husband claimed the fi rst child and subsequent children were assigned to husbands of decreasing age. Polyandry has not been associated with any other Hun tribe. In fact, many Hun tribes practiced the reverse model, polygamy, in which one husband had many wives. Scholars differ about the language spoken by the White Huns. Many believe that their language was similar to the language of Iranian peoples; others believe they spoke Mongolian tongues. The White Huns are thought to have worshipped fi re and sun deities. Although this is not uncommon, worshipping both deities together is similar to Iranian and Persian peoples. Such beliefs may have later produced in what would be known as Zoroastrianism in which women held important value in society, cleanliness and hard work were stressed, oppression of others is condemned, and the worship of fi re and the Sun were key elements. Some scholars believe the White Huns derive from a combination of the Tarim Basin peoples and the Yuezhi (Yueh-chih). The people of the Tarim Basin in presentday China fl ourished up until the second century c.e. The Tarim Basin people were not of Asian origin at all but may have been tribes that migrated through central Eurasia to the land that later became known as the southern portion of the Silk Road. 206 Huns Nomads who lived in northwest China, the Yuezhi were a fair-skinned people of Caucasian origin. It is thought they were part of a large migration of Indo- European peoples who then settled in northwestern China. The White Huns may have practiced a form of cranial manipulation that caused an elongated skull. Burials of White Huns contained elongated skulls. When a child’s skull is still soft, it is possible to slowly shape the skull into this shape. CONQUESTS OF THE WHITE HUNS In the fi rst half of the fi fth century the regions of Kushan and Gandhara were ruled by a local dynasty of unrelated Huns. The White Huns organized and overthrew the Kushan rulers, and the Gupta Empire was extinguished. The White Huns also attacked Buddhists and destroyed monasteries. As the century progressed, the White Huns sacked the Bactrian region. With each success the White Huns moved closer to Persia. In 484 the White Huns defeated the armies at Khorasan, in present- day Iran, and the Sassanid king was killed. With these successes the empire of the White Huns grew to the point where they were the superpower of Central Asia. They had destroyed the Iranian Sassanid Empire and founded their capital of Pendjikent. Successfully stabilizing the borders and strengthening their foothold in Asia, the White Huns sent 13 embassies to China in order to help establish their infl uence. The White Huns ruled northwestern India for 30 more years. During the sixth century the Persian king Khosrow I made an alliance with the turks against the White Huns. The new allies attacked the White Huns, killing their king and leaving them a broken tribe, who all but disappeared by the second half of the sixth century. Survivors assimilated into neighboring regions. Their loss of power left a vacuum for a new group, the Turks. The appearance of the Gurjara clan in India around the time of the White Hun invasions suggest that perhaps the White Huns were involved genetically and politically in establishing several ruling dynasties in northern India. Another theory maintains that the White Huns remained in India as a separate group. See also late barbarians. Further reading: Enoki, K. “The Liang Shih-Kung-T’u on the Origin and Migration of the Hua or Ephthalites.” Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia (v. 7.1–2/December 1970); Kennedy, Hugh N. Mongols, Huns and Vikings: Nomads at War. London: Cassell, 2002; Maenchen-Helfen, Otto. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973; McGovern, William Montgomery. The Early Empires of Central Asia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1939. Melissa Benne Hurrians The Hurrians were a non-Semitic, Indo-European people who originated in Caucasia, or beyond, northeast of Mesopotamia. In the late third millennium b.c.e. they migrated from east of the Tigris River across northern Mesopotamia, eventually making their way to the Mediterranean coast in the late second millennium b.c.e. During the time of Naram-Sin, the Hurrians controlled minor states in the vicinity of Akkad. Talpuš-atili of Nagar has the distinction of being the oldest known Hurrian ruler; he is attested on an Akkadian seal found at Tell Brak from the end of the third millennium b.c.e. Repeated campaigns were conducted against the Hurrians during the Ur III period, which brought large numbers of Hurrians to Sumer from lands north, northeast, and east of the Tigris. The religion of the Hurrians centered on the worship of the storm god Teššub. His sister and/or consort was Šawuška, the goddess of love and war. She was worshipped under numerous guises, most famously as Ishtar of Nineveh. Other gods of note were Kumarbi, the Hurrian grain god, and Hepat, a Syrian goddess who eventually replaced Šawuška as Teššub’s consort in western Hurrian traditions. Based on records from such sites as Mari, Ugarit, and Alalakh, the Hurrians are generally divided into two cultural and historical spheres. The older eastern sphere formed the Hurrian heartland and stretched from the region of Lake Van and Lake Urmia in the north to Kirkuk in the south. A second western sphere emerged later in southeastern Anatolia and north Syria. These two cultural spheres were briefl y united under the control of the Mitanni kingdom in the mid- second millennium, with its capital located at Waššukani, which may be modern Tel Fakhariya. The kingdom of Mittani reached it zenith under Sauštater, whose realm stretched from the Zagros Mountains to the Mediterranean. Thus the Hurrian culture was a bridge of sorts between the cultures of Mesopotamia, the Assyrians and Babylonians, and those further west including Hatti and Aram. The Hurrians fi nally fi ltered into Palestine by the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Na’aman argues that the Middle Bronze Age ended when northerners (the Hurrians) advanced southward through the Beqa and Jordan Valleys. Conversely, Hess questions whether the northern Hurrians 207 cultural presence found in the Late Bronze Age can be used to explain the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Regardless, Hurrian infl uence in the southern Levant is based on the confl icts that Thutmose III had with the kingdom of Mittani. The Hurrians are known in the Bible as the Horites (Gen 36:2–3); they may also be associated with the Hivites (Exod 23:23; Judges 3:3) and the Jebusites (Exod 23:23; Josh 15:63). While the theory of Hurrian origin for the Hyksos dynasty in Egypt (17th century b.c.e.) has been refuted, it is possible that Hyksos infi ltration in Egypt was a result of Hurrian expansion in Palestine. See also Fertile Crescent. Further reading: Buccellati, Giorgio, and Marilyn Kelly- Buccellati. “Urkesh: The First Hurrian Captial.” Biblical Archaeologist (v.60/2 1997); Hallo, W. W., ed. Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Vol. 2. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1997. Mark D. Janzen Hyksos The Hyksos were foreign rulers of Egypt who seized power and ruled Lower (northern) Egypt. Contradictory dates and king lists, as well as gaps in the records, render their history elusive, but the Hyksos were most likely Palestinian. The combined efforts of Egyptian kings Seqenenre, Kamose, and Ahmose and their mothers forced out the last Hyksos ruler, Apepi, around 1530 b.c.e. The Second Intermediate Period is the label given to the years of Hyksos power. At the end of the Middle Period of Egyptian history the breakdown of centralized authority and fragmentation of administrative control led to the neglect of Egypt’s borders. Areas may have fallen to the kingdom of Kush or to Nubia, and the eastern border also brought invaders. Immigrants called Aamu (usually translated as Asiatic) may have been entering for years, settling in the Nile Valley and assimilating into local villages. About 1650 b.c.e. a group of foreign chieftains with Semitic names took control of Egypt’s Delta and ruled from Memphis. Possibly, they simply took over existing posts and pushed out the local administrators. Egyptians referred to these kings as heka-kaswt (or hikkhase or hikau khausut), meaning “rulers of foreign lands.” Greek historians shortened that phrase to Hyksos. A major source of our knowledge of the Hyksos is the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote in the fi rst century c.e. Josephus quoted the Egyptian priest Manetho, whose book of Egyptian history—now lost—was composed around 270 b.c.e., 1,300 years after the Second Intermediate Period. According to Josephus, the Hyksos came from the east and seized power without striking a blow, and then destroyed temples and cities and enslaved or killed the inhabitants. Their appointed king was Salitis; Bnon and then Apachman succeeded him. Josephus listed six Hyksos kings, and their reigns averaged 43 years each. Sextus Julius Africanus, who wrote in the third century c.e., also quoted Manetho. He listed six Hyksos kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty, whose reigns totaled 284 years, followed by 518 years given to the Sixteenth Dynasty, also Hyksos. The Seventeenth Dynasty combined Hyksos and Theban kings, who ruled a total of 151 years. Other king lists are equally confusing and the dates unreliable, but most scholars accept that during these dynasties, kings ruled simultaneously in different parts of Egypt. The numbers are diffi cult to reconcile, but historians believe that the Hyksos rulers never tried to unseat the Egyptian kings in Upper Egypt. There, the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egyptian kings continued, probably paying taxes to the Hyksos. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties were Egyptian and centered in Thebes. Concurrently, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties of Hyksos kings ruled from either Memphis or Avaris in the northeast Nile Delta. The Hyksos may have brought unique weapons with them and possibly introduced horses, chariots, the vertical loom, the lyre, and other innovations to Egypt, but overall they adopted Egyptian ways and culture. The greatest Hyksos king, Apepi, employed many scribes during his long reign; their work indicated just how Egyptian the Hyksos had become. Apepi waged war with the Theban king Seqenenre Taa of the Seventeenth Dynasty. Seqenenre was killed in battle; his mummy has been identifi ed and is riddled with brutal blows. Seqenenre’s nephew, Kamose, continued the fi ght, though he did not live long. Kamose’s younger brother Ahmose is credited with fi nally removing the Hyksos and its last king Khamudi, and uniting Upper and Lower Egypt again. Stele praise the mother of Kamose and Ahmose, Ahhotpe, who guarded Egypt and expelled the rebels, and Seqenenre’s mother Tetisheri is also given credit. The fi nal confl ict between Hyksos and Theban kings lasted for 30 years. Further reading: Bourriau, Janine. “The Second Intermediate Period.” In Ian Shaw, ed. Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; Gardiner, Alan. Egypt of the Pharaohs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961. Vickey Kalambakal

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Habsburg dynasty (early) Although the Habsburg dynasty became especially prominent after the election of Rudolf of Habsburg as king of the Romans in 1273, its history goes back to the 10th century. Emperor Otto I (936–973) had a subject named Guntram the Rich (c. 930–990), who was grandfather of Radbot of Klettgau (c. 985–1035). The latter built the castle of Habichtsburg, or the Hawk’s Castle, in the Swiss canton Aargau. One son, Werner I (c. 1030–1096), was styled count of Habsburg, while his other son, Otto I, became count of Sundgau. Werner’s son Otto II (c. 1040–1111) was the fi rst to use the title Habsburg. The wealthy Habsburg dynasty acquired vast territories in German-speaking parts of modern Switzerland, southeast Germany, Alsace, and Austria. This expansion became visible especially during the days of Albrecht III the Rich (d. 1199). After his death, the House of Habsburg was inherited by Albrecht IV (c. 1239), father of Rudolf, the future King Rudolf I. RUDOLF I Rudolf was born on May 1, 1218, from the union of Albrecht IV of Habsburg and Hedwig of Kyburg. His godfather was Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen (1212–1250). When Albrecht died in 1239, Rudolf inherited his holdings in Alsace and six years later (1245) he married Gertrude, daughter of the count of Hohenberg. Gertrude brought a large dowry, which expanded the dominions of the Habsburgs. Rudolf was on excellent terms with Emperor Frederick II and his son Conrad IV (1250–1254), which allowed him to receive a series of imperial grants to augment his estates. This expansion continued during the Interregnum (1254–73), especially after the death of Rudolf’s maternal uncle Hartmann VI of Kyburg (1264). His prominence, wealth, and infl uence made him a worthy candidate for the royal crown and on September 29, 1273, the assembly of German princes, the Kurfürsten, elected him king of the Romans. Although he was never crowned emperor by the pope in Rome, Pope Gregory X recognized his election, provided that Rudolf renounced all his territorial claims in Rome, Sicily, and the Papal States in Italy. Alfonso X of Castile followed Gregory, elected king of the Romans in 1257. While Rudolf’s coronation did not seem to provoke negative emotions outside his kingdom, the fi rst challenger to his rule came from inside. It was Otokar II, king of Bohemia, who failed to win the majority of the Kurfürsten electors to be crowned the king of the Romans. He refused to acknowledge Rudolf’s election and to surrender his estates in Austria, Carniola, Styria, and Carinthia that were seized from the imperial crown during the Interregnum. The provinces were won back after Otokar’s defeat in 1276. Otokar resumed his hostilities against Rudolf, having allied himself with Polish chieftains. His attempts to challenge Rudolf were crushed in 1278, when he was killed in the Battle of Dürnkrut and Jedenspeigen. Rudolf spent much time restoring domestic peace. He invested two of his sons, Rudolf II (1271–90) and Albrecht I (1255–1308), as counts of Austria and Styria. With the death of Rudolf II in 1290, Albrecht became the sole male heir to the throne. H ADOLF OF NASSAU, ALBRECHT, AND FREDERICK I During his brief reign (1291–98) Adolf did not achieve anything significant and in the later years of his rule some German magnates rebelled against him and chose Albrecht as their new king. Albrecht marched with his army against Adolf, who did not recognize the election, and defeated him in the Battle of Göllnheim (July 2, 1298). The throne was restored to the Habsburgs—but only for a short time. The marriage of Albrecht to Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of the count of Gorizia and Tyrol, augmented the demesnes of the Habsburgs. During his reign (1298–1308), Albrecht attempted to seize territories in the Low Countries, as well as on the Burgundian frontier. These attempts to expand his control westward provoked a quarrel with Philip IV of France. After Albrecht’s murder (May 1, 1308), Henry VII of Luxembourg was elected as the new king of the Romans (1308–13), while Albrecht’s heirs were deprived of the crown. His eldest surviving son, Frederick I (1286–1330), tried to regain the royal title at the cost of war against emperors Henry VII (1308–13) and Louis IV (1314–28). In 1322 Louis crushed Frederick’s army in the Battle of Mühldorf, with the latter taken captive. He was released in 1325 and made coruler with Louis. The year after, he withdrew from the joint rule of the empire and came back to rule Austria proper, until his death in 1330. During his struggle with the emperors, Frederick was strongly supported by his younger brother, Leopold (1296–1326), ruler of Farther Austria. The latter insisted on having Frederick crowned as king of the Romans and fought by his side in Mühldorf. AUSTRIA’S CONSOLIDATION AND VIENNA Frederick I’s two sons, Albrecht II the Wise (1298– 1358) and Otto the Merry, succeeded him in 1330. Although not a monarch, Albrecht gained considerable influence on the international scale. He was asked by Pope Benedict XII and Philip VI of France to mediate in their conflict with the emperor. He never switched allegiences and remained with Louis until the latter’s death in 1346. In domestic matters, Albrecht paid much attention to the law, codifying the rules of inheritance of the Habsburg lands in Austria and issuing constitutions for Styria and Carniola. Frederick’s son Rudolf IV the Founder (1339–65) was married to Catherine of Bohemia, daughter of Emperor Charles IV (1346–78). Rudolf paid a good deal of attention to the development of his hometown, Vienna, where the bishopric and cathedral of St. Stephen were established. In 1365 the University of Vienna was founded, in a response to the establishment of the Charles University of Prague (1348). In 1363 he inherited Tyrol from the childless Countess Margaret of Tyrol and annexed the county to the Habsburg domain. He is also credited with the establishment of a stable currency, the Vienna penny, and the invention of the title archduke of Austria. Rudolf’s son, Albrecht III (1349–95) continued the expansion of the University of Vienna. In 1379, rule over the Habsburg territories was divided between Albrecht and his only surviving brother, Leopold III (1351–86). The former retained Austria, while the latter received Farther Austria, Tyrol, Carinthia, and Styria. He also acquired Freiburg (1386), Feldkirch (1375), and Trieste (1382). After the death of his son, William the Ambitious (1370–1406), the possessions of the Leopoldian line of the Habsburgs were divided between William’s younger brother Ernest the Iron (1377–1424), who inherited Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, and William’s son Frederick IV (1382–1439), who succeeded in Tyrol and Further Austria. Albrecht V (1397–1439), the future King Albrecht II (1438–39), succeeded the Habsburg dukedom after the death of Albrecht III’s son Albrecht IV (1377–1404). He spent his youth in the company of Emperor Sigismund, who was also king of Hungary and Bohemia and fought by his side against the Hussites of Bohemia. In 1422 he married Sigismund’s daughter Elizabeth, who descended from noble Hungarian and Slavic lines. After Sigismund’s death in 1437, he inherited the kingdom of Hungary and Bohemia, although he was not able to gain control over the latter. In March 1438 he was elected king of the Romans, returning the German crown to the Habsburgs. Having being crowned king, Albrecht spent the last two years of his life fighting Bohemians and Poles, as well as defending Hungary from the Ottoman Turks. VIENNA CONCORDAT Frederick V of Austria, son of Ernest the Iron, succeeded Albrecht as Frederick III (1440–93). He was unsuccessful in battle, but an outstanding diplomat. He signed the Vienna Concordat in 1446, which established and defined relations between the the empire and papacy. In 1452 he was crowned emperor by the pope in Rome. In the same year he married Eleanor of Portugal, inheriting a considerable dowry. In 1475 he arranged the marriage of Mary, daughter of Charles Bold of Burgundy, to his son Maximilian. Despite all these achievements, his rivals challenged Frederick’s power more than once. Between 1458 and 1463 Frederick was involved in a bit- 154 Habsburg dynasty ter struggle with his brother, Albrecht VI, over Austria. He also fought with his nephew, Ladislaus Posthumus, over Bohemia and Hungary. But the main threat came after Ladislaus’s death, with the ascension of Mat th ias Corvinus (1458–90) to the Hungarian throne. This powerful king seized various Habsburg possessions in Austria, Moravia, and Silesia. In 1485 Corvinus captured Vienna and resided there until his death in 1490. It was only his death that saved Frederick’s rule and perhaps the imperial rule of the Habsburgs. Frederick’s son Maximilian (r. 1493–1519) succeeded his father, controlling vast territories. He inherited the Free County of Burgundy from his father-in-law, Charles the Bald, together with some parts of the Low Countries. In 1490 he acquired Tyrol and parts of Austria from his half-uncle, Sigismund, son of Frederick IV of Austria. Maximilian’s rule over the Free County of Burgundy provoked tensions with the French Crown, which led to the Italian Wars (1494–1559). In 1499 Maximilian’s army was badly beaten by the Swiss Confederation, resulting in the imperial recognition of the Swiss independence. His grandson, Charles V of Spain, succeeded Maximilian. During his reign (1519–56), the Habsburg house rose to the premier authority and infl uence in Europe, holding dominions in the central Europe, Germany, the Low Countries, parts of Burgundy, and Spain with its vast American colonies. After his death, the Habsburg holdings were divided among his heirs. The Habsburg dynasty ruled Spain until the death of Charles II in 1700, while the Austrian lineage did not cease until 1918, when the last emperor Karl, or Charles, resigned and Austria was proclaimed a republic. See also Holy Roman Empire. Further reading: Armstrong, Edward. The Emperor Charles V. London: The Macmillan Company, 1910; Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911; Du Boulay, F. R. H. Germany in the Later Middle Ages. London: The Athlone Press, 1983; Friedrich, Karl. Rudolf von Habsburg. Darmstadt: Primus, 2003; Heer, Friedrich. The Holy Roman Empire. Trans. Janet Sondheimer. London: Phoenix Giants, 1995. Heinig, Paul-Joachim. Kaiser Friedrich III. (1440–1493): Hof, Regierung und Politik. Köln: Böhlau, 1997; Hödl, Günther. Albrecht II. : Königtum, Reichsregierung und Reichsreform 1438–1439. Wien: H. Böhlaus, 1978; Redlich, Oswald. Rudolf von Habsburg. Das Deutsche Reich nach dem Untergange des alten Kaisertums. Aalen: Scientia, 1965; Wies, Ernst Willhelm. Kaiser Maximilian I.: ein Charakterbild. München: Bechtle, 2003. Philip Slavin Hafi z (1320–1389) Persian poet Hafi z, a pen name for Khajeh Shamseddin Mohammad Shirazi, was born in Shiraz in present-day Iran. Following the death of his father, a merchant, Hafi z lived in poverty until his poetry earned him the patronage of several Persian rulers. He is perhaps the most admired poet among Persians, who, up to the present day, memorize and quote extensively from his lyric poems. He is best known for his over 500 Ghazals (sonnets) collected in his Diwan. His lyricism is captured in the following portions of the sonnet “My Bird”: My soul is a scared bird, the highest heaven his next Fretting within its body-bars, it fi nds on earth its nest Hafi z often wrote about his favored hometown of Shiraz. Other poems are highly erotic, while others are clearly infl uenced by Islamic mysticism or Sufi sm. His many references to wine and drinking from the cup are believed by many to be symbolic of Sufi belief in mystical intoxication. Others argue that the language is not symbolic. Hafi z had an enormous infl uence on Arabic and Turkish literature and his poems have also been translated into many Western languages. Authors as diverse as the American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson and the German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe admired the poetry of Hafi z. See also Islam: literature and music in the golden age. Further reading: Hafi z. Drunk on the Wine of the Beloved: Poems of Hafi z. Bucharest: Shambhala, 2001; Morrison, George, Julian Baldick, and Shafi i Kadkani. History of Persian Literature from the Beginning of the Islamic Period to the Present Day. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Janice J. Terry Hangzhou (Hangchou) Hangzhou is situated near the West Lake and the coast in southern China. In 605 Emperor Yangdi (Yang-ti) of the Sui dynasty had the Grand Canal extended from Yangzhou (Yangchou) on the Yangzi (Yangtze) River to Hangzhou. As a result an already fast-developing area of the lower Yangzi and the southeastern coast grew by leaps and bounds. Hangzhou became the capital of a prefecture of the same name. Hangzhou 155 In 1126 Kaifeng (K’ai-feng), the capital of the Song (Sung) dynasty, fell to the Jurchen nomads who had been ruling northeastern China through the Jin (Chin) dynasty. The Jurchen captured the Song emperor and more than 3,000 members of his court, deporting them to the wastes of northern Manchuria. A Song prince escaped capture and rallied resistance from several temporary capitals, then settled on Hangzhou because of its location south of the Yangzi, and in the midst of numerous lakes, where the nomadic cavalry could not be effectively deployed. Peace was made around 1136 with northern China under the Jin and land south of the Huai and the Yangzi valley under the Song, now called the Southern Song (1126–1379). Hangzhou was capital city for a century and half; it also became a great commercial center and the most populous metropolis in the world. The existing city wall was expanded, new palaces and public buildings were built, and with the population increase (to over a million by 1275 from under 200,000 before 1126), large suburbs extended beyond the city limits. As a contemporary writer noted: “The city of Hangzhou is large, extensive and overpopulated. The houses are high and built close to each other. Their beams touch and their porches are continuous. There is not an inch of unoccupied ground anywhere.” Marco Polo wrote about Hangzhou (which he called Quinsai) after the fall of the Southern Song, when the city was past its prime, thus: “This city is greater than any in the world. . . . [It] has twelve principal gates; and at each of these gates at about eight miles are cities larger than Venice or Padua might be, so that one will go about one of those suburbs for six or eight days and yet will seem to have traveled but a little way.” Other descriptions paint a gay life with lamps lighting up places of entertainment such as restaurants, shops, taverns, and teahouses until late in the night. Pleasure boats, some 180 feet long, plied the West Lake. Numerous canals intersected the city and environs, making transportation of people, merchandise, and provisions easy. Fleets of barges also carried away the waste of the city. Major roads also linked the city and beyond to many scenic spots, where rich men rode on horseback and ladies were carried in sedan chairs. Hangzhou was also noted as a center of the silk industry, of fine ceramic kilns whose output supplied the court, and of the best teas grown and processed in its environs. The growing economy of the region also began to support the best academies. Many of the activities of this multiple-function city survived the demise of the Southern Song; however Hangzhou never became a national capital again. Further reading: Gernet, Jacques. Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion 1250–1276. Trans. H.M. Wright. New York: Macmillan, 1962; Steinhardt, Nancy C. Chinese Imperial City Planning. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hanseatic League The Hanseatic League, or Hanse, was an association of German merchants, and later of towns, that dominated trade in northern Europe from the 13th through the 15th century. During this time the Hanse comprised around 75 member towns plus around 100 associate towns. The word hanse means an association, but the entity called the Hanse was far more. Its members were middlemen, both geographically and economically. They controlled trade between the Baltic and North Seas, in part because their ships, called cogs (depicted on the seals of many Hanseatic towns), were much superior to earlier ships. Using this technological advantage German merchants The Liuhe Pagoda in Hangzhou was built in 970 but was destroyed by war. The current structure dates to 1152. 156 Hanseatic League were able to exact economic privileges from rulers along the Baltic and North Seas who came to depend on their trade. But as their economic power grew, they also took a more active military and diplomatic role in shaping the politics of northern Europe. Eventually the structural weakness of this loosely organized transnational community became apparent, as witnessed by the growing divergence in the interests of the member towns. The Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese merchants, who traded not only throughout Europe, but also throughout the world, had already long eclipsed the Hanse when it fi nally dissolved in the mid-17th century. Frisians, Flemings, Scandinavians (Vikings were traders as well as raiders), and the Slavic and Baltic peoples living along the south and east Baltic littoral dominated long-distance trade on the Baltic and North Seas before the arrival of German merchants. The main centers of trade were Haddeby in Schleswig-Holstein, Birka in Sweden, Truso on the Vistula River, and Stettin and Jumne on the Oder River. These trading centers provided the groundwork for the later Hanse. By the 12th century Visby, on the island of Gotland, had emerged as the main emporium in the Baltic Sea. Its merchants established a trading outpost in the important Rus town of Novgorod, and they were granted extensive privileges by Emperor Lothair II (1125–37) to trade throughout his realm. This emperor’s grandson, Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony (1142–80), was also interested both in developing trade and in pushing the bounds of his lordship farther east. Along with Albert the Bear, margrave of Brandenburg (1134–70), Henry played an important role in what has come to be known as the Drang nach Osten, or “push to the east.” This involved not only the military conquest and conversion of the Slavic pagans to the east of the Elbe River, but also the colonization of the conquered lands with peasants and burghers from overpopulated western lands. They were aided in this project by other nobles, including Count Adolf II of Holstein, who in 1143 founded a town, Lübeck, at the confl uence of the Trave and Wakenitz Rivers, at almost the narrowest point of the isthmus dividing the Baltic and North Seas. The native Slavs had long recognized the strategic and economic importance of this site, whose town a few miles downstream (from which Adolf took the name for his own town) had been destroyed in 1138. Henry the Lion complained that the town’s success was causing his own economic projects to fail, as the chronicler Helmold relates. In 1157 Henry forced Adolf to give him the town, and Henry endowed it with expansive privileges and encouraged foreign merchants to trade there. In 1180 Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152–90) stripped Henry of his possessions for failing to submit to his judgment. Frederick I confi rmed the town’s privileges in 1188, and in 1226 Emperor Frederick II made Lübeck an imperial city, free from the jurisdiction of local lords. This status as the only imperial city east of the Elbe, along with Lübeck’s geographical position, heralded the future greatness of the city that would become the capital of the Hanse, displacing Visby as the center of Baltic trade. Because of the privileges granted to the Gotlanders, German merchants, especially those from Lübeck, were permitted to trade in Visby. These merchants formed an association and were recognized by authorities as “the merchants of the Roman Empire frequenting Gotland.” They elected leaders to speak on their behalf and in time established trading posts, or Kontore, in Novgorod, Bergen, Bruges, and London, four of the most important markets in northern Europe. During the 13th century dozens of towns were founded beyond the Elbe River according to “German law.” Many of these towns were new settlements, but there were also a large number of preexisting towns, like Gdansk and Kraków in Poland, that were reorganized according to the new social (“Stadtluft macht frei,” or “town air makes you free”) and spatial (a checkerboard pattern of streets around a market square) ideals of their mother cities. As more merchants from these new towns became involved in trade, they became wary of the other merchants’ leadership of the Kontore, and they wanted towns to take over the leadership of the Hanse. During the late 13th century a transformation took place—this association of merchants became an urban league. The Hanse was not the fi rst urban league. Others emerged in the empire during the 13th century, as imperial power declined and towns looked to each other for protection from predatory lords, pirates, and other threats. But these other leagues proved ephemeral, dissolving after the immediate threat had passed. With Lübeck at its head, the Hanse continued to display its economic and military might throughout the 13th and 14th centuries. It forced the surrounding rulers, including the kings of Norway, Denmark, England, and France, to grant the Hanse ever more extensive privileges, allowing them to monopolize trade between the Baltic and North Seas. In 1356 the fi rst Hansetag, or general assembly of all the Hanseatic towns, was held in Lübeck. The Danish king Valdemar IV had been jeopardizing their trade routes by conquering lands throughout the Baltic, including Visby. The Hanse resolved to put an end to this. In 1362 they fi nanced a fl eet to oppose the king through the imposition of a toll on merchandise, Hanseatic League 157 called the Pfundzoll. This venture, however, ended in defeat for the Hanse, and its leader was executed in the Lübeck town square for his failure. In 1367 a new Hansetag convened, this time in Cologne, because the Hanse needed the help of the Dutch in defeating the Danes. This “Cologne Confederation” of the Hanse, the Dutch, and Sweden sacked Copenhagen and forced Denmark to accept the Peace of Stralsund in 1370. The confederation won the right to occupy all Danish fortresses guarding access between the Baltic and North Seas for 15 years as well as the right to choose the next king. In 1388 the Hanse authorized an embargo of En - gland, Flanders, and Rus and won privileges in all three lands, taking control of the Kontore in these lands. These however would prove to be pyrrhic victories. The late 14th century marked the apogee of the Hanse’s power. It monopolized trade between the Baltic and North Seas and had imposed its will on lands in which it traded through a combination of military and economic measures. Yet even at the height of its power, it was the beginning of the decline of the Hanse. Many inland towns and some coastal towns did not take part in the “Cologne Confederation.” It was expensive to send representatives there, and the goals of individual towns were not always in line with those of the general assembly. The interests of the eastern towns and the western towns as well as those of the coastal towns and the inland towns continued to diverge. Next because the Hansetag met so infrequently, the Lübeck town council functioned as the de facto head of the Hanse. When a revolt broke out in 1408 against its rule by the Lübeck burghers, it demonstrated not only the institutional weaknesses of the Hanse, but also the fact that frictions existed between the town councils and the burghers they were representing. In an organization as amorphous as the Hanse, there existed the problem of “freeriding,” that is, merchants from towns who did not belong to the Hanse trying to claim its privileges. In addition to this internal fragmentation, the Hanse also faced external challenges. The rulers of Hanse lands sought to develop their sovereignty by limiting the Hanse’s privileges or forcing towns to withdraw from the league. In 1442 the margrave of Brandenburg forced Berlin-Cölln’s withdrawal. Also English, Dutch, and south German merchants began to take a larger share of the northern European trade. The Hanse continued to decline throughout the 16th century, and in the fi rst half of the 17th century the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) decimated central Europe to an extent not seen since the Black Death. Two decades after the Peace of Westphalia (1648), argued by many political theorists to be the origin of the modern state system, the association convened its last Hansetag. The extent of the Hanse’s economic and political power has led some historians and political theorists to draw comparisons to the European Community, forerunner of the European Union. These scholars suggest that because a transnational polity like the Hanse presented serious challenges to the emerging territorially sovereign states of the late Middle Ages, useful examples might be found for the future of the sovereign state in a world in which transnational organizations are once again challenging its supremacy. For nearly four centuries the Hanse was a major economic, political, and social factor in the formation of Europe—it facilitated the exchange not just of commodities, but also of people and ideas. Dozens of preserved medieval marketplaces in towns around the Baltic littoral, from Tallinn, Estonia, to Gdansk, Poland, to Lübeck, Germany, bear witness to the greatness of the Hanse during its heyday. Further reading: Dollinger, Philippe. The German Hansa. Trans. and ed. D. S. Ault and S. H. Steinberg. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1970; Gade, John A. The Hanseatic Control of Norwegian Commerce during the Late Middle Ages. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1951; Jenks, Stuart. “A Capital without a State: Lübeck caput tocius hanze.” Historical Research (v.65, 1992); Lloyd, T. H. England and the German Hanse, 1157–1611. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Lopez, Robert S. The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 950–1350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976; Rotz, Rhiman A. “The Lubeck Uprising of 1408 and the Decline of the Hanseatic League.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (v.121, 1977); Schildhauer, Johannes. The Hansa: History and Culture. Trans. Katherine Vanovitch. Leipzig: Edition, 1985; Spruyt, Hendrik. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Paul Milliman Harsha Vardhana (590–647) Indian king Harsha Vardhana was a king of northern India who reunited some of the small city-states that had become independent after the fall of the Gupta dynasty and who used his position to reinvigorate the practice of Buddhism throughout his territory. Harsha Vardhana was a son of Prabhakaravardhana, the king of Thanesar in the eastern Punjab, and 158 Harsha Vardhana was not fi rst in the line of succession. At the age of 16 his elder brother Rajyavardhana was assassinated on the orders of the king of Gauda, Sasanka, and, inspired by the bodhisattva of Avalokitesvara, he assumed the position of regent and eventually of king. He spent a number of years fi ghting against Sasanka and although he was not fully successful in defeating Gauda he was able to expand his territories across fi ve countries bordering his base in what is now Uttar Pradesh. The identity of the fi ve countries may have equated to Sind, Magadha, Kashmir, Valabhi, and Gujarat. This would represent a considerable expanse of territory, and the labor and potential for taxation that it yielded had enormous potential for development. Harsha Vardhana’s rule is often identifi ed as the time at which the ancient Indian world gave way to the medieval world, in which a system of centralized comparatively small kingdoms gave way to larger, decentralized empires composed of multiple centers with diverse ethnicities and religious and cultural practices. Harsha Vardhana’s attempts to improve his state included the establishment of diplomatic relations with China and the creation of numerous Buddhist institutions. Notable among these were the monastic center or university at Nalanda, to which Harsha Vardhana made some sort of contribution. The Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-Tsang visited and studied at Nalanda during his journey to India. Establishments aimed at helping the sick, the poor, and those traveling across his territory were created. Harsha also convened national meetings at the confl uence of the rivers Yamuna and Ganges at which the fruits of his rule could be distributed among the people. After his death, Harsha Vardhana’s territory was fragmented and parts of it came under control of the Guptas. The golden age that is considered to be his rule soon came to an end. Harsha Vardhana is one of the best known early Indian kings, largely because accounts of his life and times have been preserved. These include the chronicler Bana and the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-Tsang. The king acted as a patron of the arts and fostered an environment in which literature could fl ourish. He himself is believed to have written three plays in Sanskrit that expound Buddhist beliefs. Despite all that is known about him, interpretation of Harsha Vardhana’s life and times remains controversial. Bana’s description contains convincing personal details of his character and life but is also composed in a very fl owery style suitable for the depiction of the kings and great people of the time, with numerous encomia and exaggerations. Further reading: Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharana. The Deeds of Harsha: Being a Cultural Study of Bana’s Harshacharita. Varanasi: Prithivi Prakashan, 1969; Goyal, Shankar. History and Historiography of the Age of Harsha. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Book World, 1992; Keay, John. India: A History. New York: Grove Press, 2001; Wriggins, Sally Hovey. The Silk Road Journey with Xuanzang. Jackson, TN: Westview Press, 2003. John Walsh Harun al-Rashid (c. 763–809) Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809) came to power as the fi fth Abbasid caliph after his brother Musa al-Hadi died under mysterious circumstances, perhaps on the order of al-Khaizuran, al-Rashid’s mother. While still in his teens al-Rashid had led successful military advances against the Greek Byzantine empire in Anatolia. He ruled at the zenith of Abbasid power and wealth. The Abbasid capital, Baghdad, with 1 million inhabitants, was a center for learning, the arts, and conspicuous consumption. A keen patron of the arts, especially poetry, al-Rashid maintained a lavish court with vast palaces and gardens adorned with jewel-encrusted tapestries and fountains. The lavish lifestyle of the royal court was popularized in the long series of fanciful tales in The Thousand and One Nights, known in the West as the Arabian Nights. Although his court enjoyed poetry, music, and sumptuous feasts, Harun al-Rashid was a practicing Muslim who made the pilgrimage to Mecca accompanied with a large entourage. According to legend, he also went out on the streets of Baghdad in various disguises to talk with his subjects and learn their opinions and reactions to the government. His mother, Khaizuran, who had been a Yemeni slave, exerted considerable infl uence in the political life of the court and was a rich landowner in her own right. His favorite wife, Zubaidah, dominated palace life, holding enormous parties and celebrations. Harun al-Rashid also received ambassadors from the Holy Roman Empire and China and showered them with exotic and expensive gifts. But amid the luxury there were signs of economic decline, as agricultural productivity in Iraq slowed and the farming out of tax collecting to private individuals led to corruption and ineffi ciency. As caliph, Harun al-Rashid put down rebellions in northern Iran and Syria and led his forces deep into Anatolia in 791 c.e. where he demanded and received huge monetary tributes from the Byzantine Empire. When these payments ceased in 802 c.e. Harun al-Rashid quickly moved against the Byzantine emperor, defeating Harun al-Rashid 159 him on several occasions. These conflicts increased the religious enmity between these two great empires. In 789 c.e. after a palace scandal, Harun al-Rashid imprisoned and killed key members of the important Barmakid family. Of Persian origin, the Barmakids had often acted as extremely able viziers (ministers) for the Abbasid rulers. Over his North African territories (present- day Tunisia and Algeria) al-Rashid appointed Ibrahim ibn al-Aghlab as governor in 800 c.e. He went on to establish the Aghlabid dynasty, ruling until 909 c.e. when the Fatimid dynasty based in Egypt replaced it. Harun al-Rashid died on military maneuvers to quell a rebellion in northern Iran in 809 c.e. After his death his sons immediately began to fight over power and territory, thereby marking the beginning of the decline and disintegration of the Abbasid empire. See also Abbasid dynasty; Caliphs, first four. Further reading: Clot, André. Harun al-Rashid and the World of the Thousand and One Nights. Trans. by John Howe. New York: New Amsterdam Books, 1990; Abbott, Nadia. Two Queens of Baghdad: Mother and Wife of Harun al-Rashid. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946; Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. Religion and Politics under the Early Abbasids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunni Elite. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Janice J. Terry Hausa city-states The early origin of the Hausa people is shrouded in mystery. Some scholars believe they originally came from the Sahara, as did the Bantu, while others feel that they migrated from the region of Lake Chad. Still another school believes they were the region’s original inhabitants. The rise of the Hausa city-states dates from approximately 500 to 700 c.e. In a unique arrangement, the city-states were centered on their place in the general Hausa society and did not owe their prominence to specific political power as in the Bantu (Bantu) Mutapa kingdom. Cotton grew readily in the great plains of these states, and they became the primary producers of cloth, weaving and dying it before sending it off in caravans to other states within Hausaland and to extensive regions beyond. Biram was the original seat of government, while Zaria supplied labor. The region was largely united between Lake Chad and the Niger River to the west, opening up to Hausa traders a vast part of Africa. Daura is the first known truly unified kingdom. It was around the 12th century that the Hausas became the dominant nation in this region, although they were threatened by Kanem Bornu, which had replaced the earlier realms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai. Dominant in Kanem, the Kanuri people embraced Islam and began a series of jihads, or Islamic holy wars, to widen their kingdom. Among the Hausas, Islam appeared at the same time but was spread peacefully by traders and missionaries, unlike the jihads of the Kanem empire. At the same time, native Hausa beliefs continued to be held by the majority of the population. Because of their wide trading influence, Hausa became the common language of West Africa as Swahili did on the east coast. Hausa trade caravans would stop at places called zongos, which eventually developed into centers of Hausa habitation throughout West Africa. Zongos also became the Islamic centers of each town, associated with mosques, madrassas (schools), and waqfs (charities). However strong an influence culturally, the Hausas in modern Nigeria came under increasing pressure from the Fulanis, a militarized Islamic society determined to conquer by jihad. The Fulanis appeared in the region by the fifth century, apparently also after a long migration from the Sahara, as it became a desert. They reached Mauretania by the beginning of the first century, and from the fifth to the 11th centuries in what was then the Senegambia region. The Fulanis, also known as the Fulbes, were one of the first African cultures to convert to Islam, formed their own class of Muslim imams or and clerics, the Torodbe. This occurred between the eighth and 14th centuries in the Takrur region. The Fulanis set their imperial goals on conquering the Hausas. By the early 1800s, the Hausas had become absorbed politically— but not culturally or socially—into the Fulani Kingdom in Nigeria. The Fulanis went on to found the Islamic caliphate of Sokoto. Under the rule of Usman Dan Fodio, Sokoto would become perhaps the most powerful Islamic state in the region. Further reading: Berger, Morroe. The Arab World Today. New York: Anchor, 1962; Oliver, Roland, and Brian M. Fagan. Africa in the Iron Age c. 500 b.c. to a.d. 1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975; Packenham, Thomas. The Scramble for Africa. New York: Random House, 1991. John F. Murphy, Jr. Heian The term Heian is derived from modern-day Kyoto’s previous name of Heian-kyo, a city founded in 794. The 160 Hausa city-states literal translation of Heian-kyo is “Capital of Peace and Tranquility” and was meant to refl ect its peaceful and protected surroundings. The literal translation of Heian is “peace” in Japanese. Located near the village of Uda, between the Katsura and Kamo Rivers, and with Mount Hiei providing spectacular natural geographical protection, the new capital was similar in design to the Chinese city Chang’an and was built according to Chinese feng shui principles. Heian-kyo was the center of political power and the capital of Japan until 1868, when the Meiji Restoration saw Emperor Kammu move to the city of Edo. Edo was then renamed as Tokyo (Eastern Capital) to illustrate the shift in power. The Imperial Court remained at Heian-kyo. The Heian period witnessed the emergence of a Japanese identity that was distinct from Chinese infl uences and is often regarded as a golden age of Japanese culture. The Heian period can be broken into three distinct eras. The fi rst period, referred to as the Early Heian era, witnessed the foundation of Heian-Kyo in 794 b.c.e. and extended to around the late 960s b.c.e. The Middle Heian period extended to 1067 c.e. and was characterized by the rule of the Fujiwara clan and their courtly behavior. The Late Heian period extended to 1192 and is known for the insei (cloistered government) and for providing the framework for the establishment of the feudal system in Japan. The move to Heian-kyo from the capital Nagaoka was necessary to curb the increasing struggles over the throne. The ongoing clan struggles resulted in Emperor Kammu taking drastic political and social reforms to try to stabilize the situation. As a result the Heian period experienced one of the longest periods of sustained peace in classical Japanese history. Four noble families attempted to control the political scene during the Early Heian period. The Minamoto, Tachibana, Taira, and Fujiwara families all tried to infl uence the political atmosphere for the benefi t of their own interests and pursuits. During the Middle period the Fujiwara family clearly dominated the government and because of familial ties infl uenced the imperial family. The families required the services of the warrior classes to provide protection (much like security guards) thus creating the initial surge in the samurai and bushi numbers. Another important family that emerged during the Late Heian period, the Taira, eventually overthrew the Fujiwara family. The Minamoto clan then overthrew the Taira. The Early period was also defi ned by the start of a clear religious doctrinal change. There was movement away from the Chinese infl uenced Neo-Confucianism toward a Buddhist religious perspective that echoed aspects of Japan’s indigenous religion Shinto. The imperial court adopted Mahayana Buddhism relatively quickly and it in turn merged with aspects of Shinto to create an essentially Japanese religion (called Shinbutso Shugo) that fl ourished. It was during this period that Shinto architecture and art started to transform and mass temple building began. Buddhist artisans were abundant and produced sculptures as religious objects, but also as art objects for wealthy families. Stoneware and bronze were used by both the imperial households and the lay people, while the emperor preferred silver for monastic and royal events. Metal craft reached its pinnacle during the Heian era, particularly during the Middle to Late periods, where samurai armor incorporated various motifs (according to the house that they served) and swordsmiths began to engrave their swords with their names. Armor was held in such high regard that the most powerful families and warlords offered them to Shinto shrines as holy relics. The Early period also witnessed the introduction of new Buddhist sects called the Tendai (Heavenly Terrace) in 805 b.c.e. by Saicho and the Shingon (True Word), and in 806 b.c.e. by Kukai. The introduction of these sects contributed to stylistic changes in architecture—for example, Shingon temples adopted the use of the pagoda. Pure Land Buddhism also began to take root within Heian society and around the same time Korean monks started introducing the now well-known Zen (or Ch’an) Buddhism. Gardens were used as contemplative areas and there was a movement toward meditative practice. Cultural festivals (Buddhist, Shinto, and Confucian) shaped the whole Heian period, and more festivals were introduced and conceived, including the Cherry-Blossom Feast and the Feast of Red Autumn Foliage. The concept of art underwent a transformation during the Heian periods—it was used for aesthetic as well as religious purposes, and new art practices were created. Art for art’s sake was encouraged and artists, poets, and writers began to create and recognize a distinct Japanese identity. Secular paintings and art have been referred to in literature of the day; however very little survived to the present. Japanese artists would paint sutras (Buddhist writings) or intricate landscapes onto folding fans, which became highly desirable and exported items during this period. Literature also started to become fashionable, especially diaries of court providing details of life inside the palace. The most popular book of the early era was Makura no soshi (The Pillow Book) written by Sei Shonagon. Sei came from a literary family, her father Kiyohara Motosuke (a poet) and her great-grandfather Heian 161 the well-known Fukayabu. It in turn infl uenced many other writers to pen their experiences in the imperial household, thus creating a distinct phase of early Japanese literature. Monogatari-e (illustrations for novels) emerged during the late 10th century and was viewed as the perfect coupling of prose and painting. It became the preferred pastime of those in the imperial household and during the Late Heian period, art competitions and shows were commonplace. The Heian Middle to Late period is generally viewed as the most productive sociocultural period in Japanese history, as it marked a move away from Chinese infl uence on culture, society, and religion toward the creation of an essentially Japanese identity. The Middle Heian period witnessed a fl ourishing of literary and artistic pursuits and is often described as the “early” history of Japan. During the late stages of the Early Heian period and blossoming during the Middle period, a new writing system was developed. Based upon syllables (hiragana and katakana), the new kana writing system allowed for the creation of Japanese literature and texts without depending upon kanji. It initiated a new sociocultural identity, a unique Japanese perspective that would profoundly infl uence Japanese life. Calligraphy and calligraphers were attached to imperial offi ces and were required to provide calligraphy for things as diverse as imperial temple walls and hanging scrolls. New calligraphy styles such as “Women’s Hand” became widely recognized because of their use in calligraphic poems. It was also popular to determine one’s character by the style of writing, and use of medium. A favorite pastime of imperial ladies was to swap poetry in elaborate folded pieces of paper, using different fasteners to convey hidden meanings. Decorative paper was highly prized and paper collages became an art form that has continued to the present time. The majority of lay people (other than the warrior classes) were not exposed to such hobbies as most were illiterate. Literary forms experienced change with the advent of court diaries and their tendency toward long sections of prose and observation. The Middle to Late Heian period witnessed a further fl ourishing of literature. The establishment of an offi ce of poetry by the imperial court in 951 accounted for the initial explosion of interest in waka (tradtional Japanese poetry). Diplomatic ties were increasingly cut with the Chinese T’ang (T’ang) dynasty during the Middle Heian period and thus there was a movement away from the Chinese style of poetry (kanshi). There were frequent poetry contests between noble contestants—the imperial palace often acting as a backdrop to the proceedings. Although the Heian court demanded its subjects write in Chinese, they compromised by writing sections of their poems with Japanese script toward the end of the prose. A popular literary writer of the Middle to Late Heian period was Murasaki Shikibu, who created a sensation with her novel Genji Monogatari (Tale of Genji). Written around 1000 to 1008, it is often credited as the world’s fi rst novel. The novel relates the customs and practices common to the Heian era. Men and women of high status powdered their faces white. The imperial households wore stately robes, which were modeled on Chinese state robes. Several types of hats were worn, depending upon rank and the formality of the events. Women in the court would wear white silk with heavy brocade jackets and wore their hair long, often with the aid of wig attachments. It was fashionable to leave it unfastened so it fl owed freely. The Late Heian period witnessed what could be described as an elitist form of social hierarchy; it was highly formalized and exclusive. Although the Heian period underwent enormous social and cultural change it was economically stagnant; thus the majority of people were poor and uneducated. Little social or cultural change occurred within this class with the exception of the rise of the warrior class, which was able to exist on the fringes of both classes with relative ease. Despite this, the Heian period left a great cultural heritage and contributed toward the social and cultural psyche of modern Japan. See also kanji and kana. Further reading: Hall, John W. The Cambridge History of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Hempel, Rose. The Heian Civilization of Japan. Trans. by Katherine Watson. Oxford: Phaidon Press Ltd., 1983; Ivan, Morris, The World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan. New York: Kodansha Globe, 1994; Lamarre, Thomas. Uncovering Heian Japan: An Archaeology of Sensation and Inscription. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000; Shikibu, Murasaki. The Tale of Genji. New York: Penguin Classics, 2002; Shonagon, Sei. The Pillow Book. Trans. by Ivan Morris. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. Samaya L. Sukha Henry II (1133–1189) king of England Henry II was the fi rst of the Plantagenet kings of England, reigning from 1154 to 1189. He was born in 1133 in 162 Henry II LeMans, France. From his mother, Matilda, he inherited a claim to the English throne, as she was the daughter of Henry I of England (r. 1100–35). From his father, Geoffrey, he gained the titles of count of Anjou and duke of Normandy, in France. His power and infl uence in France were considerably enhanced in May 1152 when he married Eleanor, duchess of Aquitaine, who two months earlier had divorced King Louis VII of France. Eleanor’s lands included Aquitaine, Tourraine, and Gascony. Together, Henry and Eleanor controlled more land in France than did the French king, from whom Henry nominally held the duchy of Normandy as his vassal. Henry’s ascension to the English throne was not easy because the Crown had been usurped by Stephen of Blois (1135–54) upon the death of Henry I. King Stephen I fought Matilda and Henry vigorously, but when his son and heir died, Stephen agreed to terms that allowed Henry to ascend to the throne after his reign ended. Henry did so in October 1154 at age 21, and then quickly moved to establish his authority over the feudal lords of the realm, demanding that they tear down their illicit castles and fortifi cation built under Stephen. Henry’s goal was to restore royal power and prerogatives to what they had been under his grandfather, Henry I. He succeeded in reviving several royal institutions that Henry I had established, most notably the system of royal justice and the exchequer. In the case of the former, he pushed the system of royal justices riding circuit throughout England into a powerful tool through which he earned the loyalty of the freemen and burghers of the realm. His courts used a standardized or “common” law throughout the realm, providing a welcomed alternative to the courts presided over by the local feudal lords, who were notorious for protecting their own interests. Henry’s judicial system utilized a jury of 12 sworn men who testifi ed concerning criminal activity or contentious issues in their locale. These elements of royal justice were codifi ed by the Assize of Clarendon in 1166. Another major innovation under Henry was the paying of “scutage” or a monetary fee in lieu of military service by a vassal of the king. Not only did this system enhance royal revenues, it made the king less reliant upon the feudal levy when going to war. While Henry was still very much a feudal king and the government dependent upon his forceful and energetic personality, his reforms put into place a solid royal bureaucracy, which, under his Plantagenet successors, would give a tremendous degree of stability to the English monarchy. Henry’s efforts to extend royal justice to include the English clergy met with considerable resistance by Thomas Becket, his onetime friend and chancellor. Appointed archbishop of Canterbury in 1162 by Henry, Becket surprised the king by defending the independence of ecclesiastical courts and the immunity of the clergy from royal justice. Henry issued the Constitutions of Clarendon in 1164, which reaffi rmed the right of the king to punish “criminous clerks,” and forced Becket to sign the document. Shortly thereafter, Becket fl ed the realm (1164) only to return in 1170. When he again began to oppose the king over the issue of royal versus ecclesiastical authority, he was murdered by four of Henry’s vassals. Public sentiment swung against Henry at this point, and he was forced to back down, agreeing to allow clergy to be both tried and sentenced in ecclesiastical courts. In his later life Henry faced numerous rebellions by Eleanor and his sons, mostly of his own making. His long-running extramarital affairs enraged Eleanor, and his attempts to strip Eleanor and his son Richard of Aquitaine led to open confl ict in 1173–74. War again broke out between the king and his sons Richard and John in 1189, which concluded with the defeat of the king. He died shortly thereafter on July 4, 1189. See also Eleanor of Aquitaine; Norman and Plantagenet kings of England; Richard I. Further reading: Barber, Richard. Henry Plantagenet. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2001; Warren, W. L. Henry II. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Ronald K. Delph Henry IV (1050–1106) king of Germany Henry IV was the eldest son of Henry III of Germany, from the Salian (Frankish) dynasty, and Agnes de Poitou, the daughter of William V of Aquitaine. He was born in 1050 and at the age of three was elected by the German assembly of nobles as his father’s heir to the throne—a succession not guaranteed in the German kingdom by birth. In 1054 the archbishop of Cologne crowned the four-year-old Henry, and in 1056 his father died suddenly. Henry’s mother was appointed regent, a short-lived position thanks to Archbishop Anno of Cologne, who took the regency away from her and assumed power. Anno and his cohorts spent the next decade plundering the royal coffers for their own benefi t, a situation that ended in 1066 when Henry, having reached maturity and assuming his position as king, dismissed them. Also in 1066 Henry married Bertha of Henry IV 163 Maurienne, the daughter of Count Otto of Savoy, with whom he fathered five children. Since 962 when Otto I of Germany had assisted Pope John XII in defending the Papal States against King Berengar II of Italy and had been rewarded by being crowned Holy Roman Emperor, the German kings had become the claimants to the Roman imperial throne. Under Otto I and his successors, the Holy Roman Empire was expected to function as the secular counterpart to the papacy and ensure the unity and protection of Western Christendom. The partnership, however, often resulted in major power struggles between the two entities. In 1075 Pope Gregory VII sought to diminish imperial power by removing the right of secular rulers to appoint clerics. Lay investiture, as the practice is called, benefited rulers financially as individuals would pay to obtain these appointments. This is referred to as simony and considered sinful by the church. The fact that rulers could appoint loyal individuals who would act in their favor was also a major benefit. In his Dictatum Papae (Papal Dictum), Gregory declared that the sanctity of the pope was inherited from St. Peter, whom Christ had charged with establishing the papacy in Rome. Therefore, all Christians were subject to the pope, and only he could appoint or depose clerics and exercise supreme legislative and could judicial power. With this began what is known as the Investiture Controversy. To retaliate against the pope for having tried to undermine his authority over the German Church, Henry IV nominated his own clerics in Germany and also in Milan, Fermo, and Spoleto on Italian soil. In 1076 he convened an assembly of church officials at Worms in which the pope was deposed and where Henry called for his abdication. Gregory responded by excommunicating Henry, declaring him deposed, and releasing his subjects from allegiance to him. The German nobles embraced Gregory’s actions. They were interested in limiting absolutist imperial power and needed an excuse to continue a rebellion that had begun at the First Battle of Langensalza in 1075, where Henry had defeated the Saxons. In 1077 they elected Rudolf of Swabia as antiking, initiating a civil war that was to last until 1122. Henry had no choice but to beg for Gregory’s forgiveness. He traveled to Canossa in northern Italy to meet with the pope and there he stood in the snow for three days until the pope finally took pity on him and lifted his excommunication. In 1080 however Gregory renewed Henry’s excommunication and recognized Rudolf of Swabia as the rightful king of Germany. Henry responded by convoking a council of imperial bishops at Brixen in which Gregory once again was deposed and Guibert, whom Henry had appointed archbishop of Ravenna, was elected antipope Clement III. In the meantime, Rudolf of Swabia died and his supporters elected Count Herman of Salm as his successor. After several failed attempts to enter Rome, Henry was finally able to do so in 1084. He ran Gregory out of the city and installed Clement III on the papal throne. As a reward, Clement crowned Henry Holy Roman Emperor. Four years later, Henry deposed Herman of Salm, but his support of the antipope turned his family against him, because they believed that he was jeopardizing the monarchy. In 1104 Henry’s son Henry V rebelled, had his father imprisoned, and forced him to abdicate in the following year. Henry escaped, only to die in Liège in 1106. The Investiture Controversy continued under the reign of Henry V. In 1110 Henry V invaded Rome; arrested Pope Paschal II, who had been elected in 1099; and forced him to reinstate the secular right to appoint church officials. Paschal agreed and was given no choice but to crown Henry V Holy Roman Emperor. In 1116 however he renewed the prohibition of lay investiture, leaving the dispute unresolved until 1122 when, after heavy negotiations, Pope Calixtus II and Henry signed the Concordat of Worms, which declared that the election of bishops and other members of the clergy in Germany would take place in Henry’s presence, without simony or violence. Henry would only grant secular authority and act as a judge between disputing parties, while the pope would confer the sacred authority. In 1123 Calixtus convoked the First Council of the Lateran. In front of 300 bishops and more than 600 abbots, he ratified the Concordat of Worms and abolished the Holy Roman Emperor’s ability to interfere in papal elections. With this, Calixtus secured the freedom of the church from imperial intervention. Further reading: Blumenthal, Uta-Renate. The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press, 1988; Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire. New York: Schocken Books, 1970; Kelly, J. N. D. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; Robinson, I. S. Henry IV of Germany, 1056– 1106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Lilian H. Zirpolo 164 Henry IV Henry V (c. 1387–1422) king of England Henry V of England and Agincourt was the son of Henry IV Bolingbroke, from the House of Lancaster, and Mary de Bohun, the daughter of the seventh earl of Hereford. At the age of 12, King Richard II knighted him as duke of Lancaster. In that same year he became heir to the throne of England when his father imprisoned Richard and had himself crowned as his successor. By 16 years of age Henry was engaged in crushing revolts alongside his father. Provoked by economic discontent and unjust laws, the welsh, led by Owen Glendower, self-proclaimed prince of Wales, revolted against the English Crown. So did the Percys of Northumberland, who had helped Bolingbroke to remove Richard from power, and who were now displeased by the fact that the Cumbrian lands Bolingbroke had promised them were instead given to their rivals. Though Henry was seriously wounded in the face by an arrow in 1403 at the Battle of Shrewsbury, the confrontation resulted in the death of Harry Hotspur, the leader of the Percy revolt. Much of the success in ending these rebellions had to do with Henry’s military abilities. By 1410 Henry had gained almost complete control of the English government, as his father, who would live for another three years, suffered from a severe skin condition believed to have been either syphilis or leprosy, and possibly also epilepsy, which prevented him from fulfi lling his royal obligations. Bolingbroke died in March 20, 1413, and Henry offi - cially succeeded him as king of England. Henry immediately took actions to gain the support of his people. He pardoned his father’s enemies and restored their lands, including Edmund Mortimer, fi fth earl of March, whom the childless Richard II had named heir apparent to the English throne and whom Bolingbroke had imprisoned when he took the crown. Henry also had Richard II’s body exhumed and reinterred at Westminster cathedral. His second funeral included all the royal honors he had been denied earlier. With this Henry appeased Richard’s supporters. He was also responsible for introducing English as the language of government instead of Latin and French, which had been used in offi cial documents for centuries. With this, he encouraged the notion of England as an individual nation, with traits distinct from others, including its language. Upon taking the throne Henry was faced with both domestic and foreign issues. On the domestic front, the Lollards, a heretic religious sect that considered the Catholic Church to be corrupt and who denied the authority of priests, revolted (1413) when Sir John Oldcastle, Henry’s close friend, was brought to trial for professing Lollard beliefs. Oldcastle escaped and led an uprising against Henry. The rebellion failed, and Oldcastle was recaptured and executed. In retaliation, Henry stepped up the persecution of the Lollards, which had begun in the early years of the 15th century. In 1415 Henry again had to deal with a plot devised against him—the Southampton Plot, meant to murder Henry and replace him with Edmund Mortimer. The plot was discovered, and its leaders—Edmund’s brother-in-law Richard Conisburgh, third earl of Cambridge; Sir Thomas Grey of Heaton; and Henry Scrope, baron of Masham—were executed. On the foreign front Henry had his eye on the conquest of France. The French king Charles VI suffered from bouts of mental illness, and his kingdom was dealing with strife between the nobles of Armagnac Henry V 165 King Henry V died in 1422 while on campaign pursuing his claims to the French throne. Wood engraving c. 1900. 166 Henry “the Navigator,” Prince and Burgundy, weaknesses that Henry rightly believed would work to his advantage. Henry played the two factions against each other to achieve his goal. In 1415 he engaged in war against the French, winning the decisive victory at Agincourt. In 1417–1419 he conquered Normandy and Rouen and in 1420 he forced the French to sign the Treaty of Troyes, which recognized him as heir to the French throne and regent of France and gave him the hand of Catherine of Valois, Charles VI’s daughter. With this union Henry legitimized his claim to the French crown. The Armagnacs however rejected the treaty and Henry continued his campaign against France. In 1422 during the Siege of Meaux, Henry became seriously ill with dysentery. He died at Bois de Vincennes in August of that year without attaining the French crown. His infant son, Henry VI, eventually succeeded him as king of England, while the French crown went to Charles VII of France, Charles VI’s son. The twists and turns of Henry V’s life inspired William Shakespeare to write his play Henry V two centuries later. The opinion of historians regarding Henry’s submission of France into signing the Treaty of Troyes is anything but fl attering, as is their view of Henry as a cruel and fanatical ruler. However Henry demonstrated great valor in battle and had strong political skills, the ability to forge alliances to appease his opponents, and the intelligence to strategize against his enemies to attain his goals. Further reading: Allmand, Christopher. Henry V. London: Methuen, 1992; Hodge, Geoffrey. Owain Glyn Dwr: The War of Independence in the Welsh Borders. Almeley: Logaston Press, 1995; Keen, Maurice Hugh. England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History. New York: Routledge, 2003; Somerset, Fiona, Jill C. Havens, and Derrick G. Pitard, eds. Lollards and Their Infl uence in Late Medieval England. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2003. Lilian H. Zirpolo Henry “the Navigator,” Prince (1394–c.1460) Portuguese explorer Prince Henry the Navigator, the duke of Viseu, was the third son of Jo˜ao I, who began the famous Aviz dynasty in Portugal (1385). Henry’s mother, Philippa of Lancaster, was the daughter of John of Gaunt, a prominent English nobleman. The marriage of Philippa and Jo˜ao I started a centuries-long commercial and political relationship between Portugal and England. Henry’s fame, embodied in his moniker, the Navigator, resulted from his fascination with the sea and with robbing the Muslims of their rich trade routes in Africa. It is said that he convinced his father to attempt the famous raid on the North African city of Ceuta in 1415 and that it was here Henry fi rst saw the wealth worth conquering the lands of the Muslims. Ceuta is thought by most historians to have served as the jumping off point for a century of exploration that would result in the discovery of a route from Europe to Asia, and the discovery of the New World. In 1419 the Portuguese, under the direction of Henry, sailed down the West African coast in search of gold, slaves, and a Christian ally against the Muslims. The legend was that a Christian king, known as Prester John, resided in Africa and was surrounded by great wealth. It was believed that an alliance with this ruler would enable the Europeans to outfl ank the Muslims from the south, realizing a goal nearly three centuries old—the conquest of the Muslim world. On May 25, 1420, Henry was given the governorship of the Order of Christ, a successor to the Knights Templar and a source of great wealth. The Order of Christ had set up its headquarters in 1413 near the southwestern tip of Portugal at a town called Sagres. It was here, near the Cape of St. Vincent, that Henry gathered the material and men who would realize his dream of exploration and conquest. In 1420 João Gonçalves Zarco and Tristão Vaz Teixeira rediscovered the Madeira Islands. Henry encouraged settlers to colonize the islands, which they did. This greatly enhanced Henry’s revenue once the colony was up and running, and trading regularly with Portugal. In 1433 Henry’s father died and Duarte, Henry’s older brother, granted Henry a “royal fi fth” from all the trade occurring in the lands that had been and would be discovered. In addition, Henry was given the sole prerogative to sail south of Cape Bojador, which was the southernmost point that the Portuguese had reached up to that time. Duarte died fi ve years into his reign and as a reward for supporting the regency of Pedro while Afonso V came of age, Henry’s claim to the “royal fi fth” was reaffi rmed. It was also during Pedro’s regency (1439–48) that Henry colonized the Azores, which had been discovered, possibly by Gonçalo Velho, in 1427. At Sagres Henry continued to gather around him the best map makers and seafaring men of the age. In time Sagres became noted as a place for the study of geography and navigation; it had an excellent observatory and a naval arsenal, and it served as a base for the development of new seafaring technology. heresies, pre-Reformation 167 The port of Lagos, which lay close by, served as an excellent jumping off point for Portuguese exploration, and it became a popular location for shipbuilding. This collection of seasoned sailors and navigators made it possible for the Portuguese to succeed in a feat that had not been done for 2,000 years—they sailed south of Cape Bojador, just south of the Western Sahara region. By the time of Henry’s death the Portuguese had sailed as far as present-day Sierra Leone and had successfully circumvented the desert caravan trade of the Muslims. The gold that poured into Portugal as a result of the trading activity of the Portuguese along the West African coast made possible the coining of the fi rst cruzados in 1452, a gold coin celebrating the Portuguese victory of the Muslims. The Portuguese also founded the Cape Verde Islands in 1455. What made most of the Portuguese discoveries possible was the incorporation of the Arab lateen sail to the small Portuguese caravel. The caravel was a light and very maneuverable craft that could even sail up shallow rivers if need be. The lateen sail made it possible to tack against the wind, making the voyage back to Europe less diffi cult. Although much of Henry’s time was spent contemplating the riches and glory that lay beyond the sea, he was not unconcerned with what was going on in Europe. The continued campaign against the Muslims of North Africa intrigued Henry. In an ill-fated attempt to take Tangier in 1437, Henry’s brother Fernando was captured by the Moroccans. Fernando would spend the rest of his life as a prisoner since the payment for his release was the return of Ceuta to the Muslims, a prize the Portuguese were unwilling to give up. Prince Henry was instrumental in setting the stage for even greater discoveries, both by the Portuguese and the Spanish. In 1488 Bartolemeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa, making it possible for Europeans to reach Asia, where they would have direct access to the spice trade. Vasco da Gama built on the work of Dias by sailing all the way to India from 1497 to 1499. This journey laid the foundation stone for the future Estado da India, or State of India, which would bring signifi cant wealth to the Portuguese Crown during the 16th century. The intrepid Portuguese would also discover Brazil (1500), a great source of mineral wealth for them in the late 17th century. See also Muslim Spain. Further reading: Beazley, C. Raymond. “Prince Henry of Portugal and his Political, Commercial and Colonizing Work.” The American Historical Review (v.17/2, 1912); Diffi e, Bailey W., and George D. Winius. Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977; Newitt, M. D. D., ed. The First Portuguese Colonial Empire. Exeter: University of Exeter, 1986; Parry, J. H. The Age of Reconnaissance: Discovery, Exploration and Settlement, 1450 to 1650. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981; Russell-Wood, A. J. R. The Portuguese Empire, 1415–1808: A World on the Move. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992; Scammel, G. V. The First Imperial Age: European Overseas Expansion, c. 1400–1715. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1989; Solow, Barbara L. “Capitalism and Slavery in the Exceedingly Long Run.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History (v.17/4, 1987); Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500–1700: A Political and Economic History. New York: Longman, 1993; Thornton, John. Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Jeffery L. Irvin, Jr. heresies, pre-Reformation In the centuries before Martin Luther led Christian dissent into an alternative faith of the 16th century, there were other progenitors for reform. In southern France and northern Italy there was a movement associated with the Albigensians that took deep root and provoked a crusade against them in the early 13th century. This group included some who were no longer Christians, the Cathari and Bogomils, and others who were misunderstood as heretics, the Waldensians. Yet another group arose later in England, the Lollards, associated with John Wycliffe. The seed of the Lollards took root in central Europe under the Bohemian John Huss. What unites these peoples is that they existed before the Protestant Reformation and were severely persecuted by the offi cial church. The Cathar sect claimed its roots among “pure” devotees of the distant past. Perhaps they originated from the Manicheans and or the Christian dualists (Gnostics), who used the Greek word catharos (pure) to describe themselves in their teachings. Their territory and tribal background were in contact with Arianism as championed by fourth-century missionary Ulfi las. More directly the Cathari benefi ted when crusading armies returned from the East and brought new ideas and contacts with them. In 1167 a religious leader from Constantinople named Nicetas visited Italy and France. Nicetas represented several non- Orthodox communities who affi rmed Manichean or 168 heresies, pre-Reformation Gnostic beliefs. He gave lectures throughout the region around Toulouse, France, and anointed several more bishops for like-minded devotees before going back to the East. Other itinerant preachers from the East soon followed Nicetas. The doctrines of the Cathari are dualistic: God rules the spiritual world, and Satan rules the material one. The Catharist goal is to escape from the body of death in order to unite with God in the spirit. Christ appeared in the world to show the way to escape the physical world, and many Cathari myths tell this tale. The Cathari attracted followers who were disenchanted by the worldliness and corruption of the Catholic clergy. Many were nobles who wanted freedom from the controls of the remote centralized state and church, but peasants were impressed at the rigorous lifestyles of the Cathari. At the heart of the sect were the “perfected,” who were inducted through a ceremony called the “consolamentum.” They would renounce the church of Rome and agree to follow rules involving chastity, diet, and companionship. Other Albigensian groups often lumped in with the Cathari—and massacred along with them in the Albigensian Crusade (1208–29)—did not accept heretical doctrines. Among them were the Waldensians, also called “Poor Men of Lyons,” followers of a pious merchant of Lyons named Peter Valdes (Latin, Waldo). Valdes renounced possessions and took up a lifestyle of itinerant preaching. He made such an impact that he received an audience with the pope at the Third Lateran Council (1179). The pope commended the Waldensians for their faith and simplicity but restricted them in their preaching. This limitation was unacceptable to Valdes and his followers, and eventually the Waldensians came to reject Catholic sacraments and male priesthood, purgatory, and conventional church ideas on just war, oath taking, and even the need for churches. The group however did not stay unifi ed. Some turned against the hierarchy of the church and were condemned at the Council of Verona in 1184. Others stayed loyal and actually were active in their opposition to the Cathari. Still others went into hiding and formed a shadowy church with its own rituals and dogmas. Unfortunately the differences among the Waldensians did not exempt them from severe repression in the Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisition that followed. In 1487–88 war broke out against them, and a settlement was not reached until 1509. Even so, hostilities continued throughout the 1500s and drove most of them into the arms of the Reformed Church. One Italian faction, the Lombard Waldensians, organized themselves into a separate denomination. Another tiny and pilloried faction among the Albigensians were the Bogomils. They are named after an Orthodox priest named Bogomil who lived in the Balkans, the same area where the Cathari were settled in the 800s. Bogomil had contempt for the offi cial Orthodox Church, rejected the Old Testament and the sacraments, and retained only the Lord’s Prayer as valid. His critique was lashed to the Cathari dualistic views that the world was evil and demonic, but the spirit was good and divine. Bogomils found their way to Constantinople and became more heretical in their views. Many Albigensian Bogomils migrated out of southern France and northern Italy. They went to the land of their spiritual forebears. In Bosnia, they held their own and forced the Franciscans to leave. As late as 1875 there was evidence of them there. After the Albigensian Crusade the leadership of the Cathari shriveled and moved out of France into Italy. Some hid in the Pyrenees or migrated elsewhere. Even there they disappeared as the Catholic hierarchy found better ways of competing for the hearts of the common folk through the popular preaching of the Jesuits, the Cistercians, and the Dominicans. Mockers gave the Lollards their name. It comes from Middle Dutch and means “mumbler” perhaps “idler” in Middle English. John Wycliffe (c. 1330–84), a professor at Oxford, inspired this group with his teachings against the elitism of the church. At fi rst the Lollards consisted of educated priests who had known Wycliffe as a theologian. When the archbishop suppressed the priests, leadership passed on to humbler members of the English Catholic Church, who were fed up with hypocrisy among the hierarchy. Few nobles identifi ed with the movement. When its champion, Sir John Oldcastle, was hung as a traitor and heretic in 1417, the demoralized commoners were now without a leader, and they disintegrated by 1431. John Huss adopted Wycliffe’s ideas and was burned as a heretic in 1415. His disciples, the “Hussites,” grew popular among Slavic commoners. The Council of Constance condemned Wycliffe formally, and his bones were exhumed and burned as a sign of his soul’s irredeemable condition. Against Huss and his ilk on the Continent, a long and bloody crusade (1418–37) was approved. Both Wycliffe and Huss laid the foundation for the emergence of the Protestant Reformation in the next century. See also Lateran Councils, Third and Fourth. Further reading: Lambert, Malcolm. Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the ReformaHindu epic literature 169 tion. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002. Clifton, Chas S. Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1998. Mark F. Whitters Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) theologian and visionary Hildegard of Bingen was an abbess, theologian, scientist, musician, preacher, and visionary who wrote major theological works. She was also called Sybil of the Rhine. She was the last and 10th child of Hildebert of Bermersheim and Mechthild of Merxheim. The wealthy couple had promised her as a tithe to the church, which was a traditional practice at the time. Some sources indicate that Hildegard received a religious, but very basic education from a kindly anchoress, Jutta, daughter of Count Stephen of Sponheim. She learned some Latin but always felt inadequate in the language. Her exposure to religious music enabled her to compose songs later in life. Some sources state that Hildegard stayed at Count Stephen’s estate until she took the veil at 14. When Jutta died in 1136 Hildegard became the abbess of what had become a Benedictine convent at Disidodensberg. Years later in her book Scivias, Hildegard disparaged the practice of making young children oblates to the church. Hildegard had visions as early as age three but told no one. She eventually told Jutta, who was accepting of the visions. She also confi ded in Volmar, a monk who shared her trials and tribulations. Modern medical knowledge has ascertained that Hildegard suffered from severe migraine headaches. At the age of 42, when Hildegard had a particularly brilliant vision, she accepted her gift and was instructed by Pope Eugenius (1145–53) to publish what she saw; the result was Scivias. Hildegard’s convent grew in size, compelling her move to nearby Bingen. She also founded a convent at adjacent Eibingen. Hildegard occupied herself by writing music and plays. She also wrote more visionary books: Liber vitae meritorum from 1150 to 1152 and Liber divinorum operum in 1163, which contained her ideas of microcosm and macrocosm. She argued that man was God’s most perfect creation, thus a refl ection from which the macrocosm was replicated. Hildegard also wrote nonvisionary works. Physica discussed natural history and Causae et Curae (1150) discussed medical history and elaborated how natural elements could cure illness. Together they are known as Liber subtilatum. She was ahead of her time in discussing female sexual pleasure during intercourse and deemed the male responsible for producing strong offspring with healthy semen. Hildegard believed that music was a divine instrument given to Adam after the Fall so that God would be appropriately worshiped. She wrote numerous hymns that honored virgins, saints, and Mary. Much of her music has been recorded, especially in honor of her 900th anniversary. Hildegard also maintained a wide-ranging correspondence with many political leaders and bishops. At one time fi ve emperors heeded Hildegard’s advice. Further reading: Baird, Joseph L., and Radd K. Ehrman, trans. The Letters of Hildegard of Bingen. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Bobko, Jane. Visions: The Life and Music of Hildegard von Bingen. New York: Penguin Books, 1995; Hildegard of Bingen. Illuminations of Hildegard of Bingen. Matthew Fox, commentator. Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co., 1985; Maddocks, Fiona. Hildegard of Bingen: The Woman of Her Age. London: Headline Book Publishing, 2001. Annette Richardson Hindu epic literature The most famous Hindu epic literature arose in India during the Vedic period (c. 1000–c. 500 b.c.e), which helped defi ne the essentials of Indian belief and culture. While Hinduism is not the sole religion in the region, these texts set forth many of the ideas and practices held sacred by many people throughout the world. Hindu epic literature is still very much treasured in modern times. It was during the Vedic period that four of the most treasured sources of Hindu spiritualism arose. In the ancient language of Sanskrit, veda means truth or knowledge. The Vedic library, which lends its name to this era, contains hundreds of texts. Four of the main texts of Hindu epic literature are the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and Puranas. While the Upanishads are in fact religious texts, when combined with the other two, the foundations of Hindu beliefs are fi rmly expressed. The Upanishads was written between approximately 600 to 300 b.c.e. The word Upanishads means sitting down near, or sitting reverently at the feet of, and contain over 300 pieces. These texts defi ned the core of Hindu beliefs, while not being philosophical texts themselves. 170 Hindu epic literature The Upanishads are the cornerstone of Hindu spirituality, exploring the interaction of humanity with the universe. The overall concepts involved in the Upanishads consider how people can discern what is truth, knowledge, and inner peace. The many sections of the texts address the attainment of wisdom, consciousness, and the operation of the universe. In ideas that would especially being addressed in future texts, attaining a true, perfect self was paramount. In the idea of reincarnation, what actions a person performs in his current life will determine what happens in his future existence. The idea of the self, and attaining sense of the self, is especially important in these scriptures. Performing selfless acts for the benefits of others is what helps one to achieve knowledge of the self. Good and evil acts are addressed, as are examples of proper and improper behavior. The Mahabharata and the Ramayana are considered to be the two greatest epics in Hindu literature, carrying on the ideas first expressed in the Upanishads. The Mahabharata is an epic poem with over 90,000 verses, close to 2 million words. It is more than 10 times the length of the Christian Bible. Considering the length of the epic, the amount of time spent in composing it is under scrutiny. The composition has often been subscribed to Maha Rishi Veda Vyasa, but the time span that many believed was used in creating this piece ranges from 6 b.c.e. to the first century c.e. The Mahabharata, which can be translated into the Great Book of the Bharatas, is a tale of two warring families, both of whom claimed to be descendants of Bharat, believed the founder of the Indo-Aryans. The events described in the Mahabharata most likely took place somewhere around the time of the 12th century b.c.e. The story both begins and ends on the battlefield, although along the way there are numerous digressions. Many of the ideas and the spirituality in texts such as the Upanishads are related again in the Mahabharata. One of the important aspects of the Mahabharata is often separated as its own text called the Bhagavad Gita, which translates into the Song of the Lord. The much revered Hindu God Krishna is mentioned prominently in the Mahabharata, while previously left out of other Hindu texts. Krishna is one of the 10 avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu, who often assumes a new form in order to descend to earth in times of troubles. In the Gita, Krishna is a charioteer to Arjuna, a central character. Krishna previously kept his divinity a secret from Arjuna. The Gita begins on the field of battle when Arjuna is preparing for what will be an incredibly violent and devastating conflict. There, on the field of battle, Arjuna reflects upon his sadness upon having to fight, and kill, members of his own family, as well as friends in his attempt to defend the claim his elder brother had to the throne of the Kurus. Krishna serves Arjuna as both a charioteer and adviser. As the battle is about to begin, the blind king Dhritarashtra learns of the entire exchange through Sanjaya, who is able to relate what is going on. In revealing his true self to Arjuna, Krishna enlightens Arjuna about the nature of the self, life and death, and the importance of proper behavior. First and foremost, Krishna describes how the body may die but the self does not. The soul is eternal and will assume a new form in the next lifetime. While people may face bodily death, the soul will never die. Again the concept of how what one does in his current life will affect what happens in the next is related. Krishna also describes to Arjuna the concept of duty. One has a responsibility to action, but not to enjoy the fruits of those actions, similar to the idea that Jesus later related in Christianity, that is, one does good not for reward but because of how it benefits others. Krishna also relates to Arjuna the importance of choosing the right path, being self-controlled, and having the desire to serve others. Those who can detach themselves from the desires of the world will attain the perfection of the self. When Krishna reveals his divinity to Arjuna, he also instills the concept of devotion and love. Those who devote themselves to him, and seek true reality, will achieve the best state possible. Krishna especially tells Arjuna the power and importance of meditation, which will help one both renounce the results of actions as well as attain immediate peace. One should never waver in the desire to achieve spiritual perfection. Krishna is still, to this day, one of the most popular of the Hindu gods. One of the misunderstandings of Hinduism is that of the number of gods. Quite often, it is simply one god merely manifested in different forms. There are some who argue that Krishna and Jesus Christ are one and the same. Many of the messages presented in the Gita are identical to those in the New Testament, such as devotion, and doing good for its own sake and not for any reward. Alongside the Gita, Mahabharata, and Upanishads is the epic tale the Ramayana which translates often into, The Travels of Rama, or The Story of Rama. Written in Sanskrit, the Ramayana is believed to be work by the poet Valmiki, who produced the tale Hojo clan 171 around 300 b.c.e. Over the following centuries, even into contemporary times, the story of Rama has been told and retold in various forms and languages. As in the Gita, and like Krishna, Rama is an avatar of the god Vishnu. The principal characters in the Ramayana are Rama; his wife, Sita; his brother, Lasksmana; Hunaman the monkey king; and the demon Ravana. Ravana had received a boon from Brahma, the principal Hindu god, that he could not be killed by any other divinity or demon, in return for his penance of 10,000 years. Immortality could not be granted to Ravana, and since he did not believe a man could kill him, this was left off of his requested boon. Ravana, with 10 heads and 20 arms, becomes a feared demon, the king of Lanka, and begins to lay waste to the earth. Vishnu again returns to earth in the form of a man, Rama, in order to kill the demon. When Rama is born and grows into a man he is immensely popular both within his household and within the kingdom of his father, Dasaratha. Rama is to be the next king. Rama is wed to the beautiful Sita, who herself is a reincarnation of Laxmi, the wife of Vishnu. Dasaratha is tricked by one of his wives to exile Rama to the forest for 14 years. As is revealed, Dasaratha once accidentally killed a man and was told that he himself would be separated from his own son. Rama accepts the exile and leaves along with Sita and Laksmana, who refuses to abandon his brother. Ravana sees Sita and immediately falls in love. Sita, however, is faithful. In using trickery of his own, Ravana kidnaps Sita and takes her to Lanka. Despite being held captive, Sita never wavers in her love and devotion for Rama. The rest of the story is how Rama, Laksmana, and eventually Hunaman track down Sita and rescue her. There are numerous epic battles along the way, and eventually Rama slays the demon Ravana. Although they are reunited, Rama banishes Sita to the very forest where they were once exiled together, where she maintains her innocence and devotion to Rama and gives birth to twins. At the end of the tale the two are reunited as they shed their mortal bodies and return to their celestial world. The Ramayana still plays an important part in contemporary religious beliefs. This is a tale of love, devotion, and the battle between evil and good, as well as accepting the consequences of one’s actions. Devotion to Rama remains as strong as ever for many, as are the moral lessons embodied in the tale. In some places the Ramlila, The Play of Rama, is an important annual event. In terms of devotion to specifi c gods, Puranas takes the concepts and characters explored in previous texts and expands upon them. Puranas is believed to have been composed between 300 and 1200 c.e. When compared to the other texts, the historical content in these writings may not be as accurate or factual historically, but many of the concepts remain the same, especially the epic battles between good and evil. Not just gods are described, but also kings and sages. Some gods may have from one to 12 different pieces dedicated to them. Many parts of Hindu epic literature continue to be performed throughout the world. The Mahabharata and Ramayana remain as popular as ever. New translations of these works continue to be produced, although in the case of pieces such as the Ramayana, fi nding a defi nitive text from which to work is often a diffi cult chore. These works continued to be enjoyed, and revered, by people everywhere. These writings help spread, and preserve, Hindu beliefs throughout the centuries. In fact many believe that it was not so much the Upanishads as it was the Mahabharata and Ramayana that promoted Hindu spiritual beliefs and kept them alive for so long, even though the historical accuracy or factuality is often in question, something that is part of any religion’s background. Regardless of these issues, Hinduism continues to be a major religious presence with millions of followers worldwide. Further reading. Embree, Ainslie Thomas, ed. The Hindu Tradition. New York: Modern Library, 1966; Klostermaier, Klaus K. Hindu Writings: A Short Introduction to the Major Sources. Oxford: Oneworld, 2000; O’Flaherty, Wendy, trans. Textual Sources for the Study of Hinduism. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble, 1988; Powell, Barbara. Windows Into the Infi nite: A Guide to the Hindu Scriptures. Fremont, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1996. Mitchell Newton-Matza Hojo clan Members of this Japanese family were warriors or warlords during the Kamakura Shogunate and rose to the rank of shikken (hereditary regents) from 1203 until 1333. They traced their descent from Taira Sadamori, with the founder of the family, Tokiie, taking the surname Hojo while he was living in Hojo, in Izu Province (modern-day Shizuoka prefecture). As the Hojo are therefore descended from the Taira, it makes them 172 Hojo clan distantly related to the Japanese imperial family. However, with their base in the province of Izu, in the east, they were far from the center of power in Kyoto. Hojo Tokiie had a son Tokikata, and Tokikata’s son, Tokimasa, helped the Minamoto family after they were defeated in 1160. The head of the clan, Minamoto Yoshitomo, was executed, but his three sons were spared. Two were sent as monks to monasteries, while the eldest, Yoritomo, was exiled to Izu where he was looked after by the Hojo. The boy was only 13 years old at the time. In 1180 Yoritomo married Tokimasa’s daughter Hojo Masako, tying the two families together. As a result when the Gempei War broke out in 1180, Tokimasa supported his son-in-law in what became a rebellion against the rule by Taira Kiyomori, in spite of a distant familial connection with the Taira. At the end of the Gempei War in 1185, Yoritomo was clearly worried about his own safety and decided not to go to Kyoto straight away. Instead he sent Tokimasa to Kyoto with the intention of capturing Minamoto Yoshitsune, brother and rival of Yoritomo. However he managed to persuade the court to allow Yoritomo to be given the power to appoint military governors. This and various other moves allowed Yoritomo to establish the Kamakura Shogunate, which was officially formed in 1192. When Yoritomo died in 1199, Tokimasa and his daughter Masako conspired against the next shogun, Minatomo Yoriie. Yoriie despised the Hojo family, who he felt were too powerful. Yoshiie’s first move was against Kajiwara Kagetoki, governor of Sagami, who was executed in 1200. Although most scholars believe that Yoshiie was behind the death, Tokimasa benefited by being able to seize the territory of Sagami. Tokimasa then decided to move first and forced the new shogun to give him (Tokimasa) the office of regent in 1203. His plan was to form an alliance with Minamoto Sanetomo, who would become shogun when Yoshiie died, and divide the country between Yoshiie’s son and Sanetomo. A plan was drawn up by the shogun to assassinate Tokimasa, but the shikken acted first. He had Yoshiie’s son, Ichiman (who was also Tokimasa’s grandson), and then went to Kamakura, where Yoshiie, gravely ill and in bed, abdicated and was then murdered in the following year. This left Minamoto Sanetomo as the new shogun. Tokimasa embarked on another conspiracy at the urging of his second wife, Maki Kata, who wanted to get rid of Sanetomo and replace him with her son-in-law Hiraga Tomomasa. This time Masako and her brother Hojo Yoshitoki decided this was one step too far and eased Tokimasa from office with Yoshitoki taking on the office of shikken in 1205. Tokimasa retired to a Buddhist monastery in Kamakura and died 10 years later, aged 78. Yoshitoki (1163–1224) had fought alongside his father in the Gempei War and in various political machinations until 1205 when he and his older sister managed to oust their father. After several years of consolidating his power base, Yoshitoki decided to attack the Wada family in 1213, becoming head of the Board of Retainers, a position that had previously been held by Wada Yoshimori. Masako and Yoshitoki then decided to seize power, their position made easier by the assassination of Minamoto Sanetomo, the shogun, in 1219. In the Jokyu disturbance of 1221 the retired emperor Go-Toba tried to overthrow the Kamakura Shogunate and the Hojo family, who at that stage were in real control, but failed, leaving most believing that the real power in the land now rested not with the emperors but with the shogun and the shikken. Yoshitoki quickly extended the power of the shogun over the entire country. In 1224 Yoshitoki died suddenly of an illness, aged 61. Yoshitoki’s his first child, Hojo Yasutoki, succeeded him as shikken. His sister Masako died in 1225 aged 69. Hojo Yasutoki (1183–1242), the third shikken, immediately set out to strengthen the political position of the Hojo clan. In 1218 he had become chief of the samurai dokoro (military office) and three years later led the shogun’s forces against the imperial palace in Kyoto. Remaining in Kyoto, he oversaw the capital until the death of his father, when he took over the running of the regency. He appointed his uncle Hojo Tokifusa as the first rensho (cosigner) and in 1226 established the Hyojoshu (Council of State). In 1232 he promulgated the Goseibai Shikimoku, which codified the shogunate for the first time, ensuring that the system of shogun would not be challenged until the Meiji Restoration in 1868. When he died in 1242, his son Tokiuji had predeceased him, and his grandson Tsunetoki succeeded him. Tsunetoki (1224–46) was the fourth shikken but died after four years in office, to be replaced by his younger brother Tokiyori (1227–63), who became the fifth shikken. As soon as Tokiyori came to power he was faced with a coup planned by a former shogun, Kujo Yoritsine, and a relative, Nagoe Mitsutoki. Tokiyori was married to a daughter of the commander, Adachi Kagemori, and he sent his grandfather against his opponents, who were defeated at the Battle of Hochi. His uncle, Hojo Shigetoki, was then recalled from Kyoto and appointed rensho. In 1252 Tokiyori had sufficient power to depose the shogun and replace him with Prince Munetaka. Tokiyori wanted administrative reforms and in 1249 established the Hikitsuke, which served as a high court Hojo clan 173 for the country. However three years later he stopped offi cial discussions in the council of the shogunate and instead held meetings at his house. In 1256 he decided to step down as shikken and become a monk. It is said that in the years before his death in 1263, he traveled around Japan in disguise to see for himself the actual conditions of the people in the countryside. The next shikken, Nagatoki (1230–64), was a cousin, being the grandson of Yoshitoki, the second shikken. He was regent until his death in 1264 and was replaced by his uncle Masamura (1205–73), who was the seventh shikken from 1264 until his resignation on April 12, 1268. He was succeeded by Tokimune (1251–84), the eldest son of Tokiyori. He had been rensho before becoming shikken in 1268. His term as regent was extremely diffi cult as Japan was faced with the constant threat of a Mongol invasion. Kubilai Khan had sent an embassy in 1268, but the Japanese treated his men with some disdain. Preparations were made for the invasion of Japan and Tokimune had to strengthen defenses around the southwestern coast of Japan, repairing forts and building new ones. In November 1274 the Mongols attacked Japan with 30,000 soldiers in 800 ships. The initial Japanese response was weak and they were surprised by the Mongol and Korean methods of fi ghting. The Mongols took over several Japanese islands on their way to Kyushu. Some of the samurai facing the Mongols advanced forward, and the Mongols, who charged as a large mass, overwhelmed them. Those who survived sent frantic messages to Kyoto that a mighty invasion force was on its way. By the time the Mongols reached Kyushu, the locals had prepared defenses and the invaders were short of supplies. Their fl eet, in Hakata harbor, was vulnerable, so to prevent a night attack, the Mongols pulled out their fl eet. A typhoon smashed the Mongol fl eet, destroying many ships. The Mongols left on land were quickly surrounded and cut to pieces by the Japanese. The Mongol fl eet limped back to Korea having lost 13,000 men, and Tokimune received much credit from the Japanese people for having saved the country from its fi rst attempted invasion. Tokimune, worried about another attack, quickly built a long stone defensive wall along Hakata Bay. In 1581 the Mongols attacked again, this time with 200,000 men and more than 4,000 ships. The southern fl eet, from southern China, left a month earlier than the northern (or eastern) fl eet, which sailed from Korea. This time the Japanese were waiting for them. Once again weather intervened and the invaders again lost a large part of their fl eet in a storm. It was said that nearly two-thirds of the attackers were killed. The Hojo government faced a new problem of rewarding the samurai who had fought the Mongols, and also building shrines to pay tribute to the supernatural forces that had defeated the invaders. Although best remembered for his role in preventing two invasions, Tokimune was also involved in the building of the Engakuji temple in Kamakura in 1282. Tokimune died in 1284 and was succeeded by his son Sadatoki (1271–1311). Tokimune was the last strong shikken and after his death the Hojo clan was on the decline. Sadatoki was only 14 when he became shikken and was placed under the guardianship of Taira Yoritsuna. At this point the Adachi family decided to challenge the Hojos, but some scholars suspect that the plot might have been concocted by Taira Yoritsuna to get rid of Adachi Yasumori (who was Sadatoki’s grandfather-in-law), who had become a serious rival. In 1285 an attack on the Adachi family, known as the Shimotsuki Incident, resulted in the death of some 500 members of the family and its retainers. Eight years later, men loyal to Sadatoki killed Taira Yoritsuna and some 90 of his followers in what became known as the Heizen Gate Incident. In 1301 Sadatoki handed power over to his fi rst cousin Morotaki (1275–1311), who became the 10th shikken from 1301 until his death in 1311. For many years, Sadatoki continued to run the country until his own death at Engakuji. The 11th shikken was Munenobu (1259–1312), a distant cousin, who was only shikken for less than two years. Another distant cousin, Hirotaki (1279–1315), succeeded him as shikken for three years. Then another cousin, Mototaki (d. 1333), became shikken for two more years. Sadatoki’s son Takatoki (1303–33) then became shikken from 1316 until 1326. He was the last effective shikken, dominating the shogunate even after he retired, and was succeeded by a distant cousin, Sadaaki (1278–1333), who became the 15th shikken in 1326. The 16th, and last shikken, was Moritoki (d. 1333), who a great-grandson of Nagatoki, the sixth shikken, r. 1326–33. In 1333 the two lead army commanders, Ashikaga Takauji and Nitta Yoshisada, turned against the Hojo family and supported Emperor Go-Daigo and the imperial restoration movement, which became known as the Kemmu Restoration. Faced with inevitable defeat, the, 14th, 15th and 16th shikken all committed suicide, in addition to many relatives. See also Mongol invasions of Japan; Taira-Minimoto wars. 174 Holy Roman Empire Further reading: Mozai, Torao. “Kublai Khan’s Lost Fleet,” National Geographic Magazine (November 1982); 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, S. R. Samurai: A Military History. London: Osprey Publishing, 1977. Justin Corfi eld Holy Roman Empire (early) Following the death of Emperor Louis the Pious (814– 840) and the Frankish civil war (840–843), the Carolingian Empire was divided among three sons of Louis. On the eastern ruins of the empire a new kingdom, that of Germany, had emerged, stretching from Holstein in the north down to the Alps in the south, from Lorraine in the west up to the Elbe in the east. The fi rst Carolingian kings of Germany struggled for the survival of their fragile kingdom. Their power was challenged not only by foreign invaders, the Slavs, Magyars, and Vikings, but also by rival rulers of France, as well as by some domestic opponents. In 911 the last Carolingian offspring, Louis the Child (900–911), died and the German nobility elected Conrad, duke of Franconia, as their new king (911–918). Conrad’s son, Henry I (918–936), and later his grandson, Otto I the Great (936–973), succeeded to restore law and order in their kingdom, by bringing different tribes under their control and beating off the invasions. OTTONIAN DYNASTY After the victory over the Magyars in the Battle of Lechfeld (955) and successful intervention in Italy (951– 961), Otto had established himself as undisputed ruler over vast territories in western and central Europe. On February 2, 962, Pope John XII crowned him emperor in Rome. The new Roman Empire, ruled by the German emperor, had been founded. Its very title Holy Roman Empire derives from the fact that the act of the imperial coronation, performed by the supreme head of the Christian believers, the pope, was sacral in its character and hence also a sacral character of the imperial dignity and power. The coronation of Otto was by no means an outstanding achievement: The papacy lacked both infl uence and power in those days and was largely subjugated to the goodwill of the German rulers. Otto II (973–983) succeeded Otto and was married to the Byzantine princess Theophano. The latter introduced a series of Byzantine imperial ceremonies, which were adopted in the Ottonian court. Just as his father before him, Otto II attempted to increase the imperial control over Italy. His invasion of Calabria ended with the defeat of his army by the Arabs in 982. Otto III (983–1002) spent much energy on consolidating the imperial infl uence in the east. He created the archbishopric of Gniezno and made Boleslas the Brave, duke of Poland, patrician. During Henry II’s reign (1002–24) , he had undertaken three military campaigns into Italy, the fi rst of which (1004) intended to punish his unfaithful subject Arduin of Ivrea, who proclaimed himself king of Italy. The second campaign (1013–14) resulted in his imperial coronation by the pope. Following the third invasion (1020), the imperial power over Italy was fi rmly established and new German offi cials were installed for ensuring the imperial control in the region. The warfare with Boleslas I, in which Henry was allied with the pagan Ljutizi, ended in the peace of 1018, by which Henry gave up Bohemia. SALIAN DYNASTY The death of Henry II marked the end of the Ottonian dynasty, which gave way to a new dynasty, the Salians. Its fi rst ruler was Conrad II (1024–39), elected by the German magnates after the death of Henry, despite some opposition that wished to have William III, duke of Aquitaine, crowned as a new king. After his imperial coronation on Easter 1027 his power was reasserted. He now turned his attention to legal matters, codifying ancient Saxon customs. In 1028 he was victorious in his war against the rebellious Mieszko II, duke of Poland. With peace achieved, Mieszko surrendered all territories conquered by him and his predecessor from the empire. In 1032 Rudolf III, the last king of Burgundy, died, commanding his kingdom to Conrad. Burgundy was annexed to the empire, assuming the name kingdom of Arles. Conrad and his heirs, Henry III (r. 1039–56) and Henry IV (r. 1056–1106), attempted to centralize the imperial power, as well as to diminish the infl uence of regional nobility, lay and religious alike. This led to frequent confl icts and an occasional revolt. The imperial interference with spiritual matters was clearly demonstrated in Henry III’s attempt to reform the papacy. Between 1046 and 1049 he appointed, one after another, four German bishops as popes, to make German control ubiquitous and to have the emperor as a dominant fi gure in church matters. Although praised by some churchmen for his efforts to reform the papacy, Henry attracted fi erce criticism from among more radical circles in Rome. Holy Roman Empire 175 During the minority of Henry IV, the Roman movement was led by an energetic cardinal, Hildebrand, the future Pope Gregory VII (1073–85). In 1059 Hildebrand had decreed that no temporal ruler is authorized to install or depose the pope, who is to be chosen by a college of cardinals. This may have marked the beginning of the Gregorian Reform, which indulged in a bitter struggle with the Crown known as the Investiture Controversy. The fi rst blow delivered upon the emperor was his humiliation at Canossa (January 1077), with him excommunicated and his empire placed under the interdict. The fi rst stage of the controversy ended with the Concordat of Worms (1122) between Henry’s son Henry V (1106–25) and Pope Calixtus II. By the concordat, Henry gave up his authority to invest bishops but kept his right to oversee and take part in the Episcopal elections. The weakness of the emperor was utilized by the German nobility, which elected Lothar of Supplinburg as their new king Lothar II (1125–37), putting an end to the Salian dynasty. Lothar’s and subsequently Conrad III’s reign (1138–52) is marked by social and dynastic struggle. FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA AND FREDERICK II With the election of Frederick I Barbarossa (1152– 90), a new chapter in the history of the German Empire began. Frederick’s primary objective was to restore the imperial control in Italy, over both the rebellious Italian communes and the pope, who had allied himself with King William I of Sicily. The fi rst Italian expedition of 1155 did not produce any signifi cant fruits, while the second campaign (1158) resulted in the reduction of Lombardy into a royal province and rebellion of the Milanese commune. The fervent Pope Alexander III (1159–81) and the king of Sicily backed the Italian citystates, while Frederick was supported by most of the German magnates and the antipopes. During his fourth Italian march (1166–67) he seized Rome and only an outbreak of malaria, perceived as a divine punishment, forced him to retreat. In 1174 Frederick led his fi fth expedition and despite some agreement reached with the Lombard League, the war resumed, resulting in the imperial defeat in the Battle of Legnano (May 29, 1176). After this, Frederick turned to diplomacy and the confl ict ended with the Peace of Constance (1183). Along with Italian policy, Frederick paid attention to domestic matters. He expanded the imperial domains by annexing lands of extinct German dynasties and seizing the properties of Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, in 1180. It was during his reign that the imperial chancery started using the adjective holy to denote the Roman Empire. Frederick died on his way to the Holy Land leading the Third Crusade. His son Henry VI (1190–97) was married to Constance, the aunt of childless William II, king of Sicily, and upon his ascension he invaded Italy to be crowned in Rome and to claim his Sicilian kingdom. The Sicilian campaign ended in a failure because of the high summer heat and Henry retreated, leaving Sicily ruled by antiking Tancred, William II’s cousin. After Tancred’s death in 1194 Henry launched another campaign into Sicily, which resulted in the conquest of the Norman kingdom and Henry’s coronation as king of Sicily on Christmas 1194. Once home, Henry attempted to transform the empire into a hereditary monarchy ruled by the House of the Hohenstaufen. Upon his death (September 28, 1197), Henry VI left a two-year-old son, the future Frederick II (1212–50). He was raised in Sicily with Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) serving as his guardian. The latter brilliantly exploited the social and political chaos following Henry VI’s death and annexed vast territories in Italy to the papal demesnes. Philip of Swabia, Henry VI’s brother, was elected as a new king (1198–1208) and his reign is characterized by a continual struggle with his archenemy, Otto of Brunswick. The German and Sicilian nobility, as well as the church with its leader Innocent III, changed sides frequently during the war between the two rivals. After Philip’s murder, Otto was styled as Otto IV (1208–18). He won Innocent’s support, thanks to his promise to recognize the papal territories in Italy and to allow free episcopal elections, but his failure to carry out these promises led to his excommunication by the pope (November 18, 1210), which ironically coincided with the excommunication of King John of England in 1209. In the meantime, Frederick II was elected as a new king (September 1211). Frederick had easily won Innocent’s support by confi rming Otto’s concessions of 1209. Otto’s declining power was fi nally crushed after the Battle of Bouvines (July 27, 1214), where the armies of two excommunicated rulers, John of England and Otto of Brunswick, were defeated. Otto died excommunicated in 1218. The good relationships between pope and emperor were doomed after Innocent’s III death. Frederick failed to keep his promise regarding the separation of Sicily from the German Empire. He instead had his young son Henry crowned King Henry VII of Germany in 1220 and retreated to his native Sicily. In 1227 Gregory IX excommunicated Frederick for his failure to take the cross. This resulted in the expedition to the Holy Land known as the Sixth Crusade, where Frederick brilliantly restored Jerusalem to Christian control through his masterful diplomacy. Frederick’s success and the support of many German princes contributed to the Peace of San Germano, achieved between pope and emperor in 1230. By this peace Frederick recognized papal territories in Italy and Sicily; however the peace did not last long. In 1237 Frederick renewed imperial hostilities toward the Lombard League, crushing the communal armies in November that year. Gregory excommunicated Frederick in 1239 and called for a church council to depose the emperor, who was seen as the Antichrist. Frederick invaded Rome in 1241 only to fi nd Gregory dead. Gregory’s successor Innocent IV followed the policy of his predecessor and in 1245 the First Council of Lyon, deposed the emperor. However Frederick’s rule was strong enough to survive this symbolic deposition. While Frederick was perceived as the Antichrist by the papal circles, his Sicilian companions saw him as a keen promoter of arts and sciences, the founder of the University of Naples (1224); as an open-minded personality, who was equally tolerant to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, Germans, Normans, and Greeks; and as a man of an extraordinary learning, speaking as many as seven languages and possessing progressive views on economics and government. His extraordinary personality earned him the nickname Stupor Mundi, the Wonder of the World. Frederick died on December 13, 1250, and his mighty empire collapsed. After the brief reign of his son Conrad IV (1250–54), the German Empire submerged into two decades of political and social chaos, with no recognized king or emperor. During the interregnum period of 1254–73, the Swiss cantons attempted to break free from the imperial control, Charles of Anjou conquered the imperial possessions in Sicily and southern Italy, while France threatened the German territories. HABSBURG DYNASTY In autumn of 1273, an assembly of German princes, the Kurfürsten, elected a new king, Rudolf of Habsburg, son of Albrecht IV, count of Habsburg, and Hedwig, daughter of Ulrich of Kyburg. Rudolf is thought to have been a prominent fi gure well before his crowning, possessing lands and estates in Switzerland and Alsace. Pope Gregory X recognized his election, provided that Rudolf renounce his claims to the imperial title and rule in Rome, Sicily, and the papal lands. Alfonso X of Castile also acknowledged Rudolf’s election. Challenge to his authority came from within, in the face of Otokar II, king of Bohemia, who refused to surrender Crowned emperor in 1355, Charles IV did not strive for the revival of the Christian Roman Empire, unlike his predecessors. 176 Holy Roman Empire his territories in Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola to Rudolf. After a war that lasted fi ve months, Rudolf seized the aforementioned provinces in November 1276. Otokar retained Bohemia and the peace was consolidated by the betrothal of Otokar’s son Wenceslaus to Rudolf’s daughter. The peace, however, did not remain long, with Otokar allying himself with some German and Polish princes against Rudolf. The latter, having made an alliance with Ladislas IV of Hungary, met his enemy on the river March on August 26, 1278. The outcome of the battle was the defeat and death of Otokar and subjugation of Moravia. Having overcome the Bohemian challenge, Rudolf turned his attention to consolidating his authority in the Austrian provinces, where he invested his two sons, Albrecht and Rudolf, as dukes of Austria and Styria. In doing so, Rudolf expected to establish dynastic rule in his kingdom. At the same time, he attempted to restore peace and order in Germany and Switzerland. In 1289 he marched into Thuringia, where he subdued some rebels. His wish of having his son Albert crowned as German king did not come true, with the electing princes refusing to do so. Rudolf died on July 15, 1291. The assembly elected Adolf, count of Nassau, as the new king. Unlike his predecessor, Adolf lacked power and infl uence, being from minor nobility. This choice may have been made because the princes, having tasted power in the House of Habsburg, preferred to install a Holy Roman Empire 177 weak ruler. Crowned as king of the Romans in Aachen on June 2, 1292, and never anointed Holy Roman Emperor by the pope, Adolf did not achieve any signifi cant accomplishment throughout his brief reign (1292–98). His attempts to subdue Thuringia to his rule failed, and his former supporters deposed him, electing Albrecht of Habsburg, Rudolf I’s son, as their king. Adolf refused to recognize Albert’s election and led his army against him, only to be defeated and killed in the Battle of Göllnheim (July 2, 1298). Albert I’s reign (1298–1308) is characterized by the growing international importance of the House of Habsburg. His attempt to annex territories over the Burgundian frontier led to a confl ict with Philip IV the Fair of France (1285–1314). However, a lack of papal support urged him to abandon his claims in this region. A treaty between the two kings was signed in 1299, by which Albrecht’s son Rudolf was to marry Philip’s daughter Blanche. In 1303, Pope Boniface VIII had fi nally acknowledged Albert as the German king and Holy Roman Emperor, regarding him as his ally in the confl ict with the French Crown. In 1306 he made his son Rudolf king of Bohemia. He failed to subdue Thuringia, and his army suffered a heavy loss in 1307. Albert was killed on May 1, 1308, on his way to Swabia, where a revolt had broken out. Most contemporary sources depict Albert as a harsh though just ruler as well as a protector of Jewish communities, persecuted in those days. LUXEMBOURG DYNASTY Henry VII of Luxembourg succeeded Albert, was acknowledged by the pope, and was crowned by him as emperor on June 29, 1312. At this time the princes’ assembly was torn between the Habsburg and Luxembourg parties. While in Italy, Henry imposed imperial power on rebellious Florence and interfered in the ongoing war of the Guelphs and Ghebellines, supporters of the pope and emperor, respectively, in Tuscany. He also attempted to subdue his vassal Robert, king of Naples, only to die on August 24, 1313, near Siena. Upon his death, the Luxembourg party of electors’ assembly elected Louis, or Ludwig, IV Wittelsbach of Bavaria, against the wishes of the Habsburg party, which attempted to install Frederick the Fair Habsburg. Louis’s coronation in 1314 led to a violent confl ict between the latter and the Habsburg heir. Frederick’s army was defeated in 1322 in the Battle of Mühldorf. Having eliminated his rival, Louis set out to consolidate his authority. He went to Rome in January 1328, and was crowned by an old senator, because of the absence of the pope in the Eternal City. While there he deposed Pope John XXII on the grounds of heresy and appointed a Spiritual Franciscan as antipope Nicholas V, who was deposed as soon as the emperor left Rome in early 1329. While at home Louis acted as the patron of antipapal intellectuals, such as Marsilius of Padua and William Ockham. In 1338 the princes’ assembly had decreed that the king, chosen by the assembly, did not need papal authorization or coronation. This antipapal policy provoked a harsh reaction of the pope, who was then allied with the French king. In order to withstand the papal- French coalition, Louis made an alliance with Edward III of England. In his domestic policies, he relied much on his power and lands in Bavaria. In 1340 he united Lower and Upper Bavaria, while two years later he annexed neighboring Tyrol. His increasing authority over smaller territorial rulers led to an inevitable confl ict with the latter. In 1346, a year before his death, the electors’ assembly, with the support of Pope Clement VI, chose Charles IV of Luxembourg and Bohemia as an antiking. Louis IV died on October 11, 1346, and the Crown passed to Charles IV. Although crowned emperor in 1355, Charles, unlike his predecessors, did not strive to revive the idea of the universal Christian Roman Empire, ruled by the German emperor. Instead, he invested his powers and resources in the cultural development of Bohemia, his native land, and Prague, where he resided, in particular. In 1348 he founded and patronized the Charles University of Prague, which attracted scholars and students with its humanist studies. The emperor corresponded with Petrarch and even invited him to settle in Prague, while the Italian humanist called on Charles to return the imperial throne to Rome. Under Charles’s patronage, some of the fi nest monuments of Old Prague were built. While most of the emperor’s attention was concentrated on Bohemia, other parts of the empire, especially Germany, suffered from a social crisis following the epidemics of the Black Death (1348–51). Charles issued his famous Golden Bull of 1356, which attempted to defi ne the procedure of imperial election and the annual diet held by the electoral princes. Raised and educated at the French royal court, Charles was related to John II (1350–64) and Charles V (1364–80) of France and supported them in the French struggle against England. Charles IV died on November 29, 1378, and the titles of the king of Bohemia and king of the Romans passed to his son, Wenceslaus (known as Wenceslaus, or Vaclav IV the Drunkard). Just as his father, Wenceslaus devoted much of his attention to his native Bohemia. His Bohemo-central policy provoked a rebellion of the 178 Holy Roman Empire German princes, who deposed him as king in August 1400, electing the German Rupert, count of Palatine. Wenceslaus did not give up the title of the king of the Germans and continued reigning in Bohemia until his death in 1419, without acknowledging his deposition and the crowning of Rupert. This also marks the beginning of animosity between Bohemia and Germany, on political, national, and cultural levels. It was under Wenceslaus that the Hussite movement started by John Huss started gaining ground in Bohemia. After Rupert’s death in 1410 the princes’ assembly elected Sigismund of Luxembourg, margrave of Brandenburg and king of Hungary. Soon after his election, Wenceslaus of Bohemia, his half brother, renounced his claim to the title of king of the Romans and Sigismund was universally recognized as such. During his reign, the history of Hungary became interwoven with that of the Holy Roman Empire. The two main objectives of his early reign were to put an end to the Papal Schism (1378–1417) and to crush the Hussite movement in Bohemia. Both problems were solved at the Council of Constance (1414–17), where Sigismund was a key fi gure. The two leaders of the Hussite movement, John Huss and Jerome of Prague, were burned at the stake on July 6, 1415, and May 30, 1416, respectively. The Papal Schism was ended by the deposition of three rival popes and election of a new one, Martin V. The martyrdom of Huss and Jerome resulted in street riots in Prague, which swiftly transformed into a civil war. In the meantime Wenceslaus died and Sigismund inherited the title of king of Bohemia. In 1420 he attempted to restore peace and order, only to be rejected by the Bohemian nobility and repulsed by the Hussite army, led by some remaning commanders. The Hussite wars continued until 1436, devastating various eastern regions of the empire. Only a later schism within the movement itself allowed Sigismund to take over. In 1437 a short time before his death, the local nobility accepted him as the king of Bohemia. Albrecht II Habsburg of Austria succeeded Sigismund, ruling briefl y for two years (1437–1439). He also inherited the reigns of Hungary and Bohemia. The Bohemian nobility rejected Albrecht as their king, allied itself with the Poles, and rebelled against him. As king of Hungary, he spent his energy defending the realm against the Ottoman Empire. FREDERICK III AND MAXIMILIAN After Albert’s death, Frederick III was elected as king of the Germans in 1440. To consolidate his power, he signed the Vienna Concordat with the papacy in 1446, which codifi ed the relationships between the emperor and the pope. Frederick was crowned emperor in 1452, the last imperial crowning in Rome. While unsuccessful in battle, Frederick achieved brilliant results through diplomacy. In 1452 Frederick married Eleanor of Portugal, receiving a considerable dowry. In 1475 he forced Charles the Bald, duke of Burgundy, to marry his daughter to Frederick’s son, Maximilian. Despite this, his rivals frequently challenged Frederick’s power. The fi rst challenge came from Albrecht VI, his brother. Between 1458 and 1463 the two fought each other over the control of Austria. The struggle with his nephew, Ladislaus Posthumus, over Hungary and Bohemia, resulted in the capture and imprisonment of the latter. His main rival, however, was a powerful Hungarian king, Matthias Corvinus (1458–90), who seized some of Frederick’s possessions in Austria, Moravia, and Silesia and then took Vienna in 1485. The collapse of Frederick’s power was prevented only by Corvinus’s death in 1490. The last 10 years of his life, Frederick ruled jointly with his son, Maximilian, who had been crowned the king of the Romans in 1486 and inherited his father’s imperial title after the latter’s death in 1493. Maximilian held vast territorial possessions well before his ascension to the throne. In 1477 after the death of Charles the Bald of Burgundy, he had inherited the Free County of Burgundy, along with the Netherlands. In 1490 he acquired Tyrol and some parts of Austria from his half-uncle Sigismund. In 1494 the emperor entered into a confl ict with France over the intervention in Italy, which led to the Italian Wars of 1494–1559. He did not live to see his armies beat the French enemy. In 1499 the empire suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Dornach at the hands of the Swiss Confederation, which forced the emperor to acknowledge the independence of the Swiss cantons. While at home Maximilian tried to reform the imperial constitution. In 1495 the Reichstag of Worms had issued four documents, known as the Reichsreform, which created and legalized two legal establishments: the Reichskreise (Imperial Circle), whose main function was to collect taxes and organize a common defense, and the Reichskammergericht (Imperial Chamber Court), the highest judicial institution of the empire. Under Maximilian, and perhaps even under his father, Frederick III, the Holy Roman Empire began to rise to be the premier power in Europe. With Honen Shonin 179 the election of Maximilian’s grandson, Charles V of Spain, the empire became the largest territorial unit in Europe, encompassing central Europe, Germany, the Low Countries, parts of Burgundy, and Spain with its vast American colonies. See also Carolingian dynasty; Carolingian Renaissance; Crusades; Frankish tribe; Habsburg dynasty (early); Magyar invasions; Papal States. Further reading: Abulafi a, David. Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor. London: The Penguin Press, 1988; Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Origins of Modern Germany. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1946; Barraclough, Geoffrey, trans. and ed. Mediaeval Germany 911–1250: Essays by German Historians. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1938; Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911; Du Boulay, F. R. H. Germany in the Later Middle Ages. London: The Athlone Press, 1983; Heer, Friedrich. The Holy Roman Empire. Trans. Janet Sondheimer. London: Phoenix Giants, 1995; Hill, Boyd H., Jr. Medieval Monarchy in Action: The German Empire from Henry I to Henry IV. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1972; Hiller, Helmut. Friedrich Barbarossa und seine Zeit. München: List Verlag, 1977; ———. Otto der Große und seine Zeit. München: List Verlag, 1980; Munz, Peter. Frederick Barbarossa: A Study in Medieval Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969; Schramm, Percy Ernst. Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio. Leipzig: B.G.Teubner, 1929; Seibt, Ferdinand. Karl IV. Ein Kaiser in Europa, 1346–1378. München: Suddeutscher Verlag, 1978; Thompson, James Westfall. Feudal Germany. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1928. Philip Slavin Honen Shonin (Honen Bo Genku) (1133–1212) Buddhist philosopher A Japanese Buddhist philosopher and the founder of the Jodo Shu (Pure Land Buddhism), Honen Shonin was born in the Mimasaka province on the southern part of Honshu Island, Japan. His father, Uruma Tokikumi, was a provincial offi cial, and his mother was from the Hada clan, her family being descended from Chinese silk merchants. Honen was their only child. Uruma was appointed to police Mimasaka and in 1141 was assassinated by Sada-akira, an offi cial sent by the emperor Toba. On his deathbed Uruma told his eightyear- old son not to avenge his death but to become a monk and honor his father’s life with good deeds. Honen became a monk in the following year at a monastery run by an uncle and at the age of 15 began studying for the priesthood at Enryakuji, near Kyoto. Honen became convinced to dedicate the rest of his life to Buddhism. Honen Shonin spent 12 years there and was recognized as one of the brightest students. Early on during his time at Mount Hiei, Honen Shonin became infl uenced by the “Pure Land” doctrine and left Mount Hiei in 1175, going on to study at the Kurodani temple, where he was taught by Ajari Eiku. He gradually moved away from the Tendai sect. After his training, Honen worked for the monk Genshin, author of Ojoyosho (Essentials of salvation), and learned more about the Pure Land doctrine. He rapidly became one of the leading propagators of the doctrine, abandoning the Tendai sect. This Pure Land doctrine, which Honen fi rst postulated in 1175, effectively setting up his Pure Land sect, saw Jodo as the Pure Land, which humans could enter only after long periods of prayer. On a spiritual level Honen felt that man was unable to attain salvation through his own efforts but could only be saved by relying on forces outside himself. One had to accept that faith could come only through the original vow of Buddha. Some of these teachings were not new and came from the works of Genshin, under whom he had studied, and also the Chinese Pure Land philosopher Shan-tao (known in Japan as Zendo), who wrote the Kuan-ching-su (Commentary on the Meditation Sutra) in the seventh century. In 1198 Honen wrote his major work, the Senchaku hongan nembutsu-shu (Collection on the choice of the nembutsu of the original vow), sometimes known as Senchaku-shu. It involved the classifi cation of all Buddhist teachings in two sections: Shodo (Sacred way) and Jodo (Pure land). The former involved the inner character of people with Buddha, demonstrating that enlightenment could be achieved by good behavior, meditation and knowledge, as well as by abandoning, the evils of the world. Honen was convinced that sin, avarice, and lust would remain in many people, making it impossible for him or many others to achieve salvation this way. Therefore people like him would have to follow the Pure Land path in which salvation would be achieved by a vow to Amida Buddha, the lord of the Sukhavati. This involved faith expressed by repeating the name of Amida with the utmost sincerity—on one occasion Honen is known to have repeated the name of Amida as many as 60,000 times a day. One of Honen’s most famous pupils was Shinran (1173–1262), who adapted the teachings and later claimed that a single 180 Horns of Hattin, Battle of the sincere call of the name of Amida was suffi cient for a person to receive salvation. His departure from the Tendai sect and his attack on the Buddhist hierarchy were not without controversy. By the late 1190s Nonen, who had moved to Otani, in Kyoto, attracted many listeners. By 1204 he had some 190 disciples, some being samurai, and also had support at court from powerful people such as the imperial regent, Kujo Kanezane (1149–1207). This led to complaints being made against Honen, especially by the temple of Kofukuji in Nara. They petitioned that Honen should be exiled as some of his supporters, undoubtedly, it was claimed, had attacked rival Buddhist temples that did not support Amitabha. Honen was exiled for a year to the island of Shikoku in 1206, along with eight of his closest adherents, by the monks from Mount Hiei, and Shinran was also exiled; some of their supporters were not so fortunate and were beheaded. He was forced to use the nonclerical name Fujii Motohiko and was forbidden to return to Kyoto. Honen traveled around distant provinces to refi ne and spread his teachings but was unable to meet again with Shinran. In 1210 Honen fi nally returned to Kyoto, where he built the temple of Chionin, and he died in 1212. He was given the posthumous title Enko Daishi. In 1680 the Honen-in Temple was built in Kyoto to preserve his memory. The Pure Land sect is now the second largest in Japan, in terms of the number of adherents, while those who follow the teachings of Shinran are the largest sect. Further Reading: Dobbins, James C. Jodo Shinshu: Shin Buddhism in Medieval Japan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989; Hattori, Sho-on. A Raft from the Other Shore: Honen and the Way of Pure Land Buddhism. Tokyo: Jodo Shu Press, 2000. Justin Corfi eld Horns of Hattin, Battle of the The Battle of the Horns of Hattin occurred on July 4, 1187, and resulted in the almost complete annihilation of the forces of the crusader army of Guy de Lusignan, king of Jerusalem (r. 1186–92), by the Muslim forces led by Saladin (Salah ad din, Yusuf). The destruction of Guy’s army opened the way for the reconquest of not only Jerusalem, but also the other cities that had been captured during the First Crusade (1096–99), including Tiberias and Acre. The response to these defeats in the west led to the calling for and undertaking of the Third Crusade (1189–92). The position of the crusader states had become precarious. The defeat of the Byzantine army at Myriocephalon in 1176 resulted in the end of effective Byzantine- crusader cooperation and, in subsequent years, Saladin managed to isolate the states further by retaking surrounding towns. Possession of towns and cities was crucial as they had supplies of fresh water and food that were almost completely absent from the arid, desertlike intervening territory. Crusader armies, which traveled wearing heavy armor and supporting large warhorses, were very diffi cult to maintain in this territory and were always vulnerable to disruption of supplies. An additional destabilizing factor was the importance of a number of signifi cant, often divisive factions within the crusader court. These included the Templar and Hospitaler knights, which had individual aims and intentions, as well as different aristocratic families jostling for power. These divisions brought the crusader states into a state of considerable tension and it may have been to defl ect the possibility of civil war that Reginald of Châtillon attacked a caravan in an act seemingly set on ending the truce that had been established with Saladin (Salah ad Din). Declaring jihad, Saladin brought troops up from Egypt to threaten Tiberias. His intention was to lure the crusaders into the open, where their supplies would soon be depleted and his own lightly armored horse archers could harass the enemy from a distance, infl icting a constant trickle of injuries. Initially Guy resisted the temptation to attack but probably as the result of internal struggles, decided to lead his troops on a night-long march toward Saladin’s forces. The night march was disastrous as the troops were without water and suffered greatly in the hot, dry atmosphere. Saladin’s forces set fi re to the vegetation to intensify this suffering. The so-called Horns of Hattin were the two rocky hills that were part of an extinct volcano, on which Guy camped his troops, who by then were, it is said, almost maddened with thirst. There followed a day of fi ghting between the approximately 20,000 men on either side. The bulk of the crusader forces were armored infantry, conditioned to fi ghting in dense formations against similarly equipped foes. They were unable to get to grips with the mobile enemy and eventually they broke, fl ed, and were cut down on the battlefi eld. Only Guy and some of his aristocrat companions were spared by Saladin, who ultimately ransomed them in exchange for the port of Ascalon. The Battle of the Horns of Hattin revealed the military inferiority Huaxteca 181 of crusader technology and organization in a hostile environment and established a pattern of warfare for the rest of crusader history. See also Crusades. Further reading: Maalouf, Amin. Crusades through Arab Eyes. New York: Schocken, 1989; Madden, Thomas. The New Concise History of the Crusades. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefi eld Publishers Inc., 2005. Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. John Walsh Huaxteca Much of what is known about the Huaxteca, or Huasteca, before the Spanish conquest of Hernán Cortés is because of the work of Dr. Gordon F. Eckholm, who was curator of Mesoamerican (Middle American) archaeology at the American Museum of Natural History from 1937 to 1974. Eckholm began his work on the eastern coast of Mexico in 1941, with the original intention of tracing possible Mesoamerican cultural infl uences on the southeastern United States. Although Eckholm later modifi ed his point of view, his fi eldwork established that the Huastecans had “developed in a wide area that extends without precise boundaries through the actual states of Tamaulipas, northern Veracruz, San Luis Potosí, Hidalgo, and some parts of Queretaro and Puebla. Realizing that there were abundant archaeological sites and materials in the region that had been neglected,” Eckholm developed a timeline that showed that the Huastecans had developed a fl ourishing culture, which began sometime in the early Christian era. The Huastecans appear to be descended from the Mayans and became isolated in their region around the year 100 by stronger peoples, the Nahuas and the Totonacs. Ake Hultkrantz advanced the thesis in his The Religion of The American Indians that all Mayans, including the Huastecans, “spread from Huehuetenango in northwestern Guatemala, where a corn-farming community was in existence as early as 2600 b.c.e.” In this enforced exile from their Mayan homeland (possibly among the Mayans of the Yucatán peninsula in Mexico), their language developed its own character. The Mexican archaeologist Lorenzo Ochoa felt that the Huastecans eventually broke out of their insularity and established contacts with the dominant cultures of Mexico. The Preclassical period of Mexican history is considered to have existed from 2000 b.c.e. to 300 c.e., the Classical period from 300 c.e. to 900 c.e., and the Postclassic from 900 c.e. to 1520 c.e., the year before Cortés crushed the last major indigenous kingdom, the Aztec Empire, thus ending the independent rule of Mexicans. Some of the Huastecan centers identifi ed by Eckholm were at Las Flores, Tampico, Pánuco, Tuxpan, Tajin, and Tabuco. Unique among cultures like the Toltec, Mayan, and Aztec famed for their use of rectangles and squares, the Huastecans built oval structures, like their temple at Las Flores. Eckholm advanced the thesis that the cult of Quetzalcoatl actually began among the ancient Huastecans. The Huastecans, as with other Mesoamerican peoples, used the bow and perhaps the sharp obsidian-edged sword used by Aztecs in warfare. Mesoamerican warriors also used the atlatl, or spear-thrower, which was used to add great range to darts that they fi red with its aid. Shields, often brightly covered with bird feathers, were also a common feature among Mesoamerican armies. Hassig observes, “The use of body paint in warfare extended throughout Mesoamerica and was practiced inter alia by Mayans, Tlaxcaltecs, Huaxtec, and Aztecs.” Among the Aztecs at least, wrote Hassig, “the use of special face paint was a sign of martial accomplishment.” The Aztecs had emerged by the 15th century as not only the dominant warriors of Mexico, but were also renowned for their trading ability. This, of course, evoked jealousy among the other kingdoms of Mexico. The Gulf Coast of Mexico where the Huastecans lived, known to the Aztecs as the “hot lands,” was a natural target for Aztec merchants. In 1458 Huastecans murdered Aztec merchants in Tziccoac and Tuxpan. In revenge, the Aztec emperor Moctezuma I launched a campaign to punish the Huastecans. It also gave the Aztecs a cause to conquer some of the richest lands in Mexico. As Peter G. Tsouras writes in Warlords of the Ancient Americas, the region produced “cotton, brilliant feathers, and jewels, and ocean products such as various prized shells, and exotic foods like chocolate and vanilla.” The Huastecans, like the Aztecs, were a warrior people, and the Aztecs were wary of the encounter. For one thing, their military strategists were not familiar with the geography of the Gulf Coast area. To bolster the spirits of the Aztec army, Tsouras notes, on the eve of the battle with the Huastecans, an Aztec captain declared to the soldiers, “Contemplate your death and think of nothing else. You have come here to conquer 182 Hugh Capet or die since this is your mission in life.” Moctezuma I decided to leave nothing to chance. The night before battle some 2,000 of his knights covered themselves up with grass, ready for a massive ambush of the Huastecan army. On the next day, when the Huastecans attacked, Moctezuma’s men bolted and pretended to run away in panic. When the Huastecans followed, shouting for victory, the waiting warriors sprang up and attacked them, defeating them completely. The Aztecs fought largely to gain prisoners for human sacrifice, not to kill, as did the Spanish. After the victory of Moctezuma, many—if not all—of the Huastecan captives had their hearts cut out by obsidian knives to feed the thirsty gods of the Aztecs. When Hernán Cortés landed on the gulf coast at what is now Veracruz, it seemed impossible that he would ever achieve his goal of conquering the Aztec Empire. Yet, many of the subjugated peoples, hating the Aztecs for their exorbitant taxation and human sacrifices, joined him in his war. In 1521 the Aztec Empire fell, its last emperor Moctezuma II either stoned to death by his people for appearing to collaborate with the Spanish or garroted by the orders of Cortés. See also Mesoamerica: Postclassic period; Mesoamerica: southeastern periphery. Further reading: Hassig, Ross. Aztec Warfare. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995; Hultkrantz, Ake. The Religions of the American Indians. Trans. Monica Setterwall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. John F. Murphy, Jr. Hugh Capet See Capet, Hugh. Huizong (Hui-tsung) (1082–1135) Chinese emperor Huizong was the reign name of the eighth emperor (r. 1101–1125) of the Song dynasty. His misrule led to the nomadic Jin (Chin) dynasty’s conquest of northern China, ending the Northern Song dynasty (906–1126). Chance brought him to the throne when his elder brother Zhezong (Che-tsung) died without heir in 1100 at age 24. Huizong was a talented painter and noted calligrapher. He brought many artists and musicians to his court at Kaifeng (K’ai-feng) to work in an imperial academy that he established. His official kilns made the finest porcelains in the world. He was also a voracious collector of paintings, 6,000 of which perished when the Jin sacked Kaifeng. Not only did he neglect his duties in favor of his aesthetic pursuits, he appointed some of the most corrupt ministers to misrule the country until major popular rebellions broke out. His extravagance in pursuit of his elegant life bankrupted the treasury. For example hundreds of boats were engaged just to transport exotic rocks and rare plants from southern China via the Grand Canal to Kaifeng to decorate his luxurious palaces and gardens. His answer to an empty treasury was to issue more paper money, resulting in high inflation. He showed no concern about the rise of a new power to the northeast led by fierce nomads called the Jurchen. Then he pursued short-sighted and disastrous diplomacy by offering an alliance with the Jurchen, now called the Jin dynasty, to wage a two-pronged campaign against their mutual enemy, another nomadic state called Liao, which was situated immediately to the northeast of the Song and to the south of Jin. The terms of the treaty were to destroy the Liao, after which the Song would recover the 16 counties that it had lost to Liao over a century ago. When war began the Jin forces did most of the fighting; the poorly led Song were ineffective. After Liao was destroyed Song and Jin began to bicker over the spoils. Feeling that they had been treated in a high-handed manner, Jin forces turned on Song and marched on Kaifeng. Huizong hurriedly abdicated in favor of his son Qinzong (Ch’in-tsung) and fled south. Kaifeng was besieged twice in 1126. In January 1127 Qinzong surrendered unconditionally. After looting the city Jin forces loaded their booty and marched the two emperors (Huizong was captured en route south), most of the Song imperial family, and courtiers, totaling 3,000 people, to their homeland in Manchuria. A younger son of Huizong escaped and eventually rallied Song forces in southern China; he became known as Gaozong (Kaotsung), founder of the Southern Song dynasty. The march to the Jin capital in Manchuria took one year. Huizong and Qinzong suffered numerous humiliations, including being awarded titles as Duke of Stupid Virtue and Marquis of Double Stupidity, respectively. Huizong’s six daughters were given as wives to men of the Jin imperial household. The prisoner emperors were kept alive as possible bargaining chips in negotiations with the Southern Song government but were not ransomed. Huizong died in 1135 and Qinzong died in 1156. The Northern Song collapsed quickly despite a large army, mainly because of the degeneration of the government under a quarter century of Huizong’s rule. See also Liao dynasty. Hulagu Khan 183 Further reading: Blofeld, John. The Chinese Art of Tea. Boston: Shambhala Pubs., 1985; Franke, Herbert, and Denis Twitchett, eds, The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Paludan, Ann. Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors. London: Thames and Hudson, 1998. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hulagu Khan (d. 1265 c.e.) Mongol leader In 1251 Mongke Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, became the grand khan of the Mongols and convened his three brothers and close relatives in a meeting to divide the vast territories that had been conquered. To his brother Kubilai Khan, who would eventually play host to Marco Polo, he gave southern China. Mongke gave northern Persia to his brother Hulagu, with instructions that the area from Persia to Egypt should be subjugated to Mongol rule. Although Mongke was the supreme leader of the Mongols, he parceled out regional control to others, who would rule as lesser khans or il-khans with their states being known as il-khanates or lesser khanates. Hulagu set off with an army of at least 100,000 troops in early January 1256, heading fi rst for the mountain fortresses of the Assassins, a feared and radical Ismaili Shi’i Muslim sect that had terrorized other Muslim rulers for over a century. After besieging the Assassins’ fortresses of Mazanderan, Meimundiz, and Alamut, the Mongols captured the sect’s leader, Rukn ad-Din Kurshah, who was later murdered. By late December the last Assassin fortress of Alamut surrendered to Hulagu. Hulagu then turned his attention to Iraq. He sent a message to the Abbasid caliph al-Mustasim that demanded his acceptance of Mongol supremacy. Hulagu was enraged when the caliph, the symbolic head of Sunni Islam, refused. Mongol forces headed toward Iraq, receiving support from some of the Abbasid Caliphate’s Shi’i Muslim subjects, who had been angered by disrespect shown toward their community by al-Mustasim. Cities with substantial Shi’i populations, such as Mosul, Najaf, and Karbala, surrendered without a fi ght and were spared by the Mongols as a result. By November, segments of Hulagu’s army had begun arriving outside the Abbasid capital city of Baghdad and on January 17, 1258, his entire army had arrived. That same day the small Abbasid army was destroyed in battle outside of the city and the siege of Baghdad commenced. Within two weeks the Mongols had overrun sections of the city’s defenses after battering down the walls with massive siege engines. On February 10 after Hulagu had refused to negotiate a peaceful handover of the city al-Mustasim came out of Baghdad and surrendered. Ten days later, the caliph was executed by being rolled up in a carpet and trampled to death. The Mongols were superstitious and wary of shedding the blood of a monarch. Baghdad, which had stood for six centuries, was sacked, with many of its architectural marvels, including the caliph’s palace and the grand congregational mosque, burned to the ground. The city’s libraries, which were fi lled with thousands of scholarly manuscripts on subjects ranging from the sciences to literature and philosophy, were also destroyed and their holdings were either burned or tossed into the Tigris River. The majority of Baghdad’s citizens were massacred, with most sources placing the number of deaths between 90,000 and 250,000. Hulagu spared the city’s Christians and Shi’i Muslims. He reportedly was sympathetic to the former group, possibly because both his mother and his favorite wife were Nestorians, members of an eastern Christian sect considered heretical by the Roman and Byzantine churches. As news of the fall of Baghdad and the slaughter that followed spread throughout the Middle East, many neighboring Muslim states surrendered without resistance to Hulagu, hoping to avoid the fate of al-Mustasim. The Mongols’ next target was Syria, which was ruled by the waning Ayyubid dynasty, which had been founded in the late 12th century by the Kurdish Iraqi Sultan Saladin (Salah ad Din, Yusuf). Although the Ayyubid sultan An-Nasir Yusuf had submitted to Mongol authority, Hulagu still entered Syria with his army. He fi rst defeated al-Kamil Muhammad, a young Ayyubid commander, whose city was captured and who was then tortured to death. On August 11, 1259, Mongke died while campaigning against the Southern Song (Sung) in China. A succession crisis in the Mongol east pitted Kubilai against his brother Arik Boke, the ruler of Mongolia. Although Hulagu did not claim the position of grand khan for himself, he supported Kubilai. Thereupon he set out for China with the bulk of his troops, leaving a small garrison in the Middle East. In return Kubilai confi rmed Hulagu as the il-khan, ruling over Persia and the Middle East. A greater threat to Hulagu was his cousin Berke, the Khan Kipchak, who some sources claim converted to Islam or, at the very least, was heavily sympathetic to the religion and was angered at Hulagu’s destruction of 184 Hundred Years’ War Baghdad. Fearing an invasion by Berke, Hulagu withdrew back into Persia with the bulk of his army. In Syria, he left behind between 10,000 and 20,000 troops under the command of Naiman Kitbuqa, his best general and a Nestorian Christian. After negotiating an alliance with the remaining European crusader states along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, Kitbuqa then proceeded to besiege or capture other Syrian cities, including Aleppo, which fell on February 25, 1260. The northern Syrian cities of Hama and Homs surrendered to Hulagu soon thereafter, as did Damascus after Sultan an-Nasir had fl ed toward Egypt. By early April the last vestiges of Ayyubid resistance in Syria had been crushed and the Mongols proceeded to conquer much of Ayyubid Palestine in the following months. The inexorable wave of Mongol expansion, however, began to wane soon after Kitbuqa’s conquests in Palestine. Later in 1260 his alliance with the crusader states ended after European nobles from the city of Sidon attacked a Mongol scouting party. Kitbuqa responded by besieging and then sacking that city. When news of this rift reached Cairo, the capital city of the Mamluk Turks, their sultan, Qutuz, sent one of his generals, Baybars, to Palestine with a large army. On September 3, the Mamluk army, which was made up of professional and highly trained troops, unlike that of their adversaries, defeated Kitbuqa’s smaller force. The Mongol general was captured and executed. The Mamluks recaptured Palestine and Syria and repulsed a Mongol invasion force in December. Hulagu’s dreams of a Middle Eastern empire that reached Egypt were dashed, though he was able to solidify his control over Persia before his death in February 1265. The dynastic line he founded, the Il-Khanids, would remain in power over Persia and parts of Central Asia until 1335. Within a few generations after Hulagu’s death, his successors converted to Islam and became some of history’s greatest patrons of Islamic art, architecture, and literature. See also Abbasid dynasty; Crusades; Isma’ilis. Further reading: Amitai-Preiss, Reuven. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260–1281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Frazier, Ian. “Invaders: Destroying Baghdad.” The New Yorker (April 25, 2005); Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970; Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974; Lewis, Bernard. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. New York: Touchstone, 1997; Lewis, Bernard. Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974; Morgan, David. The Mongols. New York: Blackwell Publishers, 1990; Smith, John Masson, Jr. “Ayn Jalut: Mamluk Success or Mongol Failure?” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (December 1984). Christopher Anzalone Hundred Years’ War In battles fought from 1337 to 1453 primarily by England and France for control of France and the French Crown, England initially had the upper hand, but in 1429 the French, inspired by Joan of Arc, regained all areas of France that they had lost except for Calais. England and France had been at war several times before the Hundred Years’ War because of the landholdings of the English Crown in France. Through several wars, the French had slowly been regaining control of these lands. With the beginning of the Hundred Years’ War the French found themselves losing ground against the English. Militarily the English longbow proved especially devastating to the French and led to the English victories at Crécy and Agincourt. The English believed that they were secure in their victory but found the tables turned on them in 1429 by Joan of Arc. The French were able to retake much of the land the English had captured up to that point in the war. The Burgundians switched sides, joining the French, and the English found themselves pushed back even more. The English would continue to send armies to France and were, at times, able to retake lost territory; the war had defi nitely turned against them. The fi nal years of the war saw the English lose all their territory in France except Calais. With France’s control over all the previously controlled English lands in France, the war ended in 1453. EARLY ENGLISH LANDS IN FRANCE The English and the French had been at odds over the relationship of their kings to each other because of the English Crown’s control over lands in France. In England the English king was sovereign, yet in France he was a vassal of the French king and accountable to the French king. This accountability was used, usually on trumped up charges, by the French kings to try to take land away from the English. The French did this in 1202 and when the English king did not show up at the French court to answer charges brought against him, the French king declared his lands to be confi scated and war followed. During the war (which lasted Hundred Years’ War 185 until 1204), the French conquered Normandy, Maine, and Anjou from the English. With the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1259 the English had been reduced to control of just Aquitaine. The English king also reconfi rmed his status as a vassal of the French king with respect to his lands in France. The French trumped up charges again in 1294 against Edward I and again declared his lands confi scated and launched an invasion of those lands. The war lasted until 1298. This war also saw the Scots allied with the French against the English in 1295. A new peace treaty, the Treaty of Paris, was signed, returning the lands lost by the English during the war to them. Isabella, the daughter of the French king Philip IV, was married to the English heir, Edward II. At the time this seemed to be a way to create lasting peace between the two kingdoms but ended up causing more problems by later giving the English king a claim to the French throne during the Hundred Years’ War. In 1324 the French again provoked the English and summoned the English king to the French court. When the king did not show up, the French again declared the province of Aquitaine confi scated from the English and the two countries went to war again. The war did not last long and in 1325 Edward II’s son, Edward III, and his mother went to France so Edward III could pay homage to the French king, Charles IV. Returning to England in 1327, Queen Isabella had Edward II deposed and Edward III, only 14 years old, crowned king. With such a young king, the English ended up agreeing to a peace treaty that favored the French, allowing them to keep the land they had conquered. In 1328 the English were forced to make peace with the Scots and Charles IV, third son of Philip IV, died. None of Philip’s three sons had a male heir. Succession ended up going to the cousin of Charles IV, Philip of Valois. While neither Edward nor his mother made any claim to the French throne at this time, Edward had himself crowned king of France in 1340. In French law, Edward had no claim to the Crown since French law did not recognize any claim by a female, or her offspring, to the throne of France. The early years of Edward’s reign saw him pay homage to the French king, since he could not afford a war with France. Focusing on Scotland with the death of the Scottish king, Robert I, Edward was able to gain the upper hand there and bring Scotland back under England’s control. However, being an ally of the Scots, Philip had an interest in what was happening there and tried to link negotiations for continued peace between France and England with the war in Scotland. In 1336 France had put together a fl eet that was to take a French crusade to the Holy Land. However, Pope Benedict XII canceled the crusade because of the problems of the French, English, and Scots. Instead it seemed to the English that the fl eet would be used to invade England. While there was no invasion of England, the fl eet did conduct raids on parts of the English coast and convinced the English that war with the French was coming. Using the same ploy they had before, the French king summoned the English king, as the duke of Aquitaine, to turn over the French king’s brother, who had taken refuge in England. In 1337 when Edward did not comply with Philip’s order, Philip declared Edward’s land confi scated again and the Hundred Years’ War began. BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR The war began with the French invading Aquitaine in 1337. The French fl eet continued raiding the English coast. The English were fi nally able to defeat the French fl eet at Sluys in 1340, which gave the English control of the English Channel, making it easier for them to move troops to France. During this time Edward made alliances with the Low Countries and the German emperor and arranged to have his soldiers join theirs for a campaign against the French. However the date for the campaign kept being delayed until 1340. The Flemish joined with Edward, who had himself crowned king of France on January 26, 1340. While the English laid siege to the town of Tournai, the French moved against the allied army but did not engage it. The war shifted to Brittany in 1341 with the death of the French duke. Succession to the title was disputed and the English took the chance to support the side the French king opposed. Neither side was able to gain the upper hand and control of the entire province. The fi ghting continued for several years to come. In 1343 a truce was called, lasting until 1346. Edward decided to conduct the campaign in 1346 with an English army and not rely on his allies for soldiers. Edward’s army landed in Normandy hoping to draw the French army away from Aquitaine, which it did. Marching fi rst to the Seine River and then along it toward Paris, the English army raided the countryside and towns as it marched. The French had destroyed most of the bridges across the Seine River and had a chance to trap the English army but instead allowed the English to cross the river and march away. The French would have the same chance again when the English army reached the Somme River and again the French allowed the English to cross the river and escape. Edward fi nally stopped retreating and chose the area around Crécy to give battle to the French on August 26, 1346. 186 Hundred Years’ War Edward picked an easily defended spot that forced the French to attack him uphill. He also deployed his archers to have a clear fi eld of fi re against the advancing French. The French arrived on the battlefi eld late in the day, yet chose to attack instead of waiting until the next day. The French also did not attempt to organize a massed attack against the English; instead, they attacked as they arrived on the battlefi eld, thus leading to approximately 15 independent assaults on the English position. The English archers cut down each assault with few of the French knights actually reaching the English men at arms. French casualties were estimated at over 1,500 knights and nobles and up to 20,000 infantry and crossbowmen. English casualties were about 200 men. With his victory, Edward moved against Calais, which he laid siege to in September 1346 and captured in August 1347. The next several years would see only minor fi ghting, and even a truce for a short time. Philip VI died in August 1350 and John II became the new French king. Under the new king, the French and English engaged in peace negotiations, but these were broken off in 1355 by the French. TREATIES AND RAIDS The English responded to the break in negotiations by launching raids into France. The most successful raid was in 1356, led by Edward’s son, Edward the Black Prince (so named because he wore black armor). Launching from Bordeaux, he marched his army toward the Loire River but turned back before crossing the river. As he moved back to Bordeaux, he was blocked by a French army led by King John at Poitiers. On September 19, using the terrain to his advantage, the Black Prince was able to defeat the French using the terrain and his archers to cut down the attacking French. More important was the capture of the French king by the English. With his capture, the French found themselves in a civil war between the dauphin and Charles of Navarre over who should control France. In 1359 Edward brought an army to France in an attempt to capture Reims. When he was unable to capture the city, he considered marching on several other cities, including Paris, but in the end decided to return to England. The English and French signed a treaty on May 8, 1360, that released King John from English captivity and recognized English sovereignty over Calais, Ponthieu, Poitoum, and Aquitaine. Also part of the treaty was a clause where Edward agreed to stop calling himself the king of France. It looked as if the English had won the war. Even with the peace treaty in place, the French and English continued fi ghting on a low level. This included the French civil war, which did not end until May 1364 with the defeat of Charles of Navarre. The French and English also found themselves on opposite sides of the fi ghting in Castile where the English, under the command of the Black Prince, prevailed. Unfortunately the fi ghting forced the Black Prince to raise taxes in Aquitaine. The people of Aquitaine then appealed to the French king, Charles V (who had become king in 1364 when his father, John, had died). Therefore in November 1368 Charles V declared the English land confi scated again. Edward tried to negotiate a settlement with Charles, but when that failed Edward again declared himself king of France and the two countries were at war with each other again. The French made signifi cant gains in recovering territory they had given up in 1360. They were even able to launch raids on the English coast, whose defenses had been neglected after the peace treaty in 1360. This raised concerns that the French might actually invade England. In response, the English launched raids on cities they thought the French might use to stage their invasion. By the end of 1369 English actions had eliminated the possibility of a French invasion. Over the next several years the English would continue to launch raids into the French-controlled territory, but they also lost territory to the French. Both sides continued to raid each other’s territory and avoid a set piece battle. In 1376 Edward the Black Prince died; in the following year, 1377, Edward III also died. This left the Black Prince’s son, 10-year-old Richard II, as king of En gland. Small scale fi ghting continued through the 1380s until both sides agreed upon a truce in June 1389. The truce would last, with the usual intermittent raiding, until 1415. HENRY V AND CHARLES VI Starting in the early 1400s the French gave support to Scotland and Wales in their struggle against the En glish. They also launched several raids against En glish ports. However the French king, Charles VI, who came to power in 1380, suffered from insanity. Because of this, he was unable to keep his nobles controlled and in 1407, a civil war broke out between the Orléanists and Burgundians. Both sides asked the English for aid. In 1413 Henry V was crowned king of England. While his father, Henry IV, had provided some support to the Burgundians, Henry V determined to take full advantage of the chaos in France. Thus in 1415 an English army of 12,000 men invaded France. JOAN OF ARC The war took a sudden change for the better for the French with the appearance of Joan of Arc in 1429. She led an army to victory against the English, laying siege to the town of Orléans in May 1429. This was the first of many victories that led to the coronation of the dauphin as Charles VII. Joan was captured and turned over to the English in May 1430. The English had her put on trial for witchcraft, convicted, and burned at the stake. The English had hoped to strike a blow against the French morale but only succeeded in inspiring them. In September 1435 the French civil war was ended and with it the alliance between the Burgundians and the English. The French continued to retake territory from the English, including Paris, which fell in April 1436. Both sides agreed to a truce in 1444, which lasted for five years. The French used the truce to reorganize their army, so that when the truce ended in 1449 they were ready to end the war. Starting with an invasion for Normandy in 1449 that was completed by 1450, they pushed the English out of France over the next several years. The conquest of Aquitaine would take longer. The initial invasion began in 1451 but was slowed in 1452 when the English sent troops there in an effort to stop the French. While the English were successful in slowing the French, the French were able to defeat the English army in July 1453 and by October 1453, with the fall of Bordeaux, they completed their conquest of Aquitaine and ended the Hundred Years’ War. The only French soil still controlled by the English was Calais, which they controlled until 1558. See also Frankish tribe; Wales, English conquest of. Further reading: Curry, Anne. The Hundred Years’ War. New York: Routledge, 2003. Curry, Anne. The Hundred Years’ War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993; Dupuy, R. Ernest, and Trevor N. Dupuy. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, From 3500 b.c. to the Present. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993; Fraioli, Deborah A. Joan of Arc and the Hundred Years’ War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005; Harvey, John. The Black Prince and His Age. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1976; Neillands, Robin. The Hundred Years’ War. London: Routledge, 2002; Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years’ War. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999; Vale, Malcolm. The Origins of the Hundred Years’ War, The Angevin Legacy 1250–1340. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Hundred Years’ War 187 Landing in Normandy, Henry first laid siege to the town of Harfleur, which took over a month to capture. Henry lost about half his men during the siege. Henry then decided to march over land to Calais. Henry left his siege equipment behind so he could move fast. The French set out in pursuit of Henry with an army of 30,000 men. Although Henry was moving fast, even in the rain, he had trouble finding a crossing to get across the Somme River, which allowed the French to get ahead of him. They chose the area near the castle of Agincourt to try to stop Henry. While the sides tried to negotiate a settlement, neither side was interested in budging from its position. On October 25, 1415, the two sides fought the Battle of Agincourt. The French commander had originally wanted to fight a defensive battle since the English were short on supplies, but the French nobles convinced him to attack since they had a numerical superiority. The English took up a position with forests on either side of them. They had about 5,000 archers and only 800 men at arms. The archers placed sharpened stakes in the ground in front of them as protection from the mounted French knights. The ground between the two armies was wet and freshly plowed, which made it hard to move across. The French nobles were unwilling to wait for the English to attack and eventually convinced the French commander to order an attack. With the wet, plowed ground slowing them down, the French took terrible losses from the English archers. Approximately a third of the French troops were in the initial attack and most were either killed or captured. The next two attacks by the French were also thrown back by the English, although they did not meet the same fate as the first attack since they withdrew before being destroyed. Exact French losses are not known for sure, but estimates put their losses at 6,000–8,000 men. There is also no exact record of English losses, but they were few compared to the French. Henry’s next campaign started in 1417 and went until 1419. This time he completed the conquest of the Normandy region. The Burgundians, still English allies, were able to gain the upper hand in their civil war and capture Paris. In May 1420 the Treaty of Troyes was signed; it declared Henry to be Charles VI’s heir and required him to continue to support the Burgundians in their civil war against the Orléanists, who were now supporting the dauphin. Henry died in 1422 and his nine-month-old son became the new king of England. Even with Henry’s death, the English continued their war against the Orléanists. Charles VI died two months after Henry V. With Charles’s death, Henry VI was crowned king of France. Huss, John (Jan Huss [Hus]) (c. 1369–1415) religious leader John Huss was a forerunner of the Reformation. He was born into a prosperous peasant family in the small southwestern Bohemian town of Husenic (Goosetown), close to the Bohmerwald and not far from the Bavarian frontier. Little is known of Huss’s early life except that his parents died while he was young. He was fi rst educated at Husenic and then later in the neighboring town of Prachaticz. Huss entered the University of Prague around 1388. In 1392 he received his bachelor of arts degree and, in 1394 a degree for a bachelor of theology. He was granted his master’s degree in 1396. In 1398 Huss was chosen by the Bohemian “nation” of the university to hold the post of examenership for the bachelor’s degree. In that same year he began to lecture on philosophy. Huss was ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church in 1400 and in 1401 he was appointed dean of the philosophical faculty. From October 1402 to April 1403 he held the offi ce of rector of the university. In 1402 he was appointed rector or curate (capellarius) of the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. The chapel had been erected and endowed in 1391 by citizens in Prague in order to provide preaching in Czech. It was also a place of congregational singing with the music of several tunes painted on the walls for all to see and to use for singing. Preaching at the Bethlehem Chapel deeply infl uenced the religious life of Huss, leading him to a study of the Bible. From it he developed the deep conviction of its value for the life of the church. It also taught him a deeper respect for the philosophical and theological writings of John Wycliffe. The study of scripture and its proclamation in a vernacular tongue had been condemned in England by opponents to Wycliffe’s teaching and to their spread by his Lollard supporters. Huss’s sympathy with Wycliffe did not immediately involve him in any conscious opposition to the established doctrines of Catholicism or with church authorities. He translated Wycliffe’s Trialogus into Czech and promoted its reading. Huss probably became aware of Wycliffe’s teachings when Czech students who had studied at Oxford University under Wycliffe returned to Prague. Anne of Bohemia was at the time the wife of King Richard II. She had scholarly interests of her own, which may have encouraged Czech students to study in England. Eventually Czech students copied all of Wycliffe’s works and took them to Bohemia. Persecution against Wycliffe would eventually leave the only surviving copies of some of his works in Bohemia. Wycliffe was very controversial in England because his teaching called for the translation of the Bible, then only available in versions of the Latin Vulgate, into the vernacular. In addition Wycliffe was a severe critic of the corruption of the clergy. Wycliffe died at home; however after his death his body was exhumed and burned along with his books. In addition, his lay supporters, the Lollards, were persecuted. The same thing was to happen in Bohemia and Moravia despite the preaching of Huss for reforms. In 1409 the king of Bohemia reorganized the voting control of the University of Prague. The university was governed by the nations. The Germans had the most votes, but the Czechs were more numerous. The king’s reform gave the Czechs representation in proportion to their numbers, and also effective control. However, the move so angered the Germans that most of them quit the university at Prague and moved to other German universities in other cities with one group founding the University of Leipzig. They also engaged in a slander campaign against Huss because of the change. Among the slanders was the charge that Huss was a heretic. Huss wrote a number of philosophical and theological works, including De ecclesia. The book was critical of many medieval church practices. He charged that the lucrative but unbiblical practice of granting forgiveness through the issuing of indulgences was harmful to the souls of innocent Christians. Because of his attack on indulgences Huss was excommunicated in 1412. In 1414 Huss went to the Council of Constance that met in Constance, Germany, under the safe conduct protection of the Holy Roman Emperor. After an unfair trial in which Huss was not allowed to present a proper defense, he was condemned to death for heresy despite the pledge of safe conduct. The most damning charge against Huss in the eyes of his judges was his claim that Christ is the head of the church and not Saint Peter. Before Huss was taken to the place of execution, he was subjected to ceremonial degradation. He was stripped of his clerical vestments and his tonsure was erased. He was then defrocked to revoke his ordination as a minister of the Gospel. Then his books were burned in front of the cathedral. Finally he was led to a place outside of Constance where he was martyred by being burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. When the news of the martyrdom of Huss reached Prague the people of Prague rose up against the religious rule of the Roman Catholic Church. Soon all of Bohemia and Moravia were united in support of the teachings of Huss as the true Gospel. In a movement of nationalistic 188 Huss, John and religious fervor the Hussites reformed the church on the basis of Huss’s teachings. Among the many changes in liturgical and ecclesiastical practices was the giving to the people in Eucharist the elements of both the bread and wine as sub utraque specie. The medieval practice of the Latin Church was to give only bread to the people. The desire among the Bohemians and Moravians for this change has been traced to Saints Cyril and Methodios, who had been the first missionaries to convert the Bohemians and Moravians during the 800s at the time of the Great Moravian Empire. They were missionaries of the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the elements were served in both kinds. The Hussites quickly developed into three groups: the Ultraquists, the Bohemian Brotherhood, and the Taborites. All were in favor of taking communion in both kinds, that is, both the bread and wine as sub utraque specie. The Ultraquists or Calixtines (calix, the communion cup) leaned toward the Roman Catholic communion. The Bohemian Brotherhood, influenced by Peter (Petr) Chelcˇický, was scattered and pacifist. The Taborites were the most reformist and did much of the fighting. The Hussites defeated all the Roman Catholic armies sent to suppress their Christian beliefs. On July 14, 1420, the Hussites led by John Ziska of Trocnov, then aged 61 and blind in one eye, defeated the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund’s army numbering more than 100,000 at Vysehrad (now Ziska Hill). A second crusade was sent against the Hussites in 1421 and a third in 1422. Both were defeated. However, on October 11, 1424, Ziska was killed in battle. Andreas Propok replaced him (Procopius the Great, and in Czech, Prokop Veliky [Holý]). He soon defeated an army of 130,000 sent against the Hussites. Hussite religious zeal disciplined the Czechs. The whole country was organized into two lists of parishes. Men from one list were called to battle while those from the other would remain at home to protect, farm, and aid the lands of their warring brethren. The Hussites, led by John Ziska of Trocnov, were able to defeat the German and Hungarian knights and infantry sent against them. Ziska had fought against the Teutonic Knights in the ranks of the Polish army. There he had learned of Russian noblemen who often circled the wagons of the baggage trains into defensive forts called a moving fortress (goliaigorod). At first the Hussites put men with muskets into farm carts and wagons. Eventually they developed specially constructed war wagons that could be chained together. These war wagons had thick wooden sides to provide some protection to the men inside. The Hussite war wagons were placed in circles on hillsides in a defensive position. In order to attack them, the imperial knights had to attack uphill, charging on horses that soon wearied of the uphill exertion of carrying a heavily armored knight. Hussite musket blasts cut down the knights as they drew near. Dead and wounded knights and horses hampered renewed attacks. The Hussite soldiers’ use of musket and cannon fire to defend themselves against heavily armored knights on horseback was similar to the English longbow men and the Swiss pike men of the time. The Hussites also prepared the way for new forms of military tactics and arms of the age of gunpowder. Using pikes or muskets in combination with cannons the Hussites were able to develop offensive tactics that could defeat the old armies of knights. Eventually Hussite forces raided the German areas of Bavaria, Meissen, Thuringia, and Silesia. They then Huss, John 189 After an unfair trial, Huss was condemned to death for heresy despite a pledge of safe conduct from the Holy Roman Emperor. returned to their mountain fortresses in Bohemia and Moravia. The more radical Hussites gathered into strongly fortifi ed towns like Tabor. However strife between the Ultraquists and the Taborites led to war between them. The strife arose from the diplomatic success of the Roman Catholics in dividing the Ultraquists and the Taborites. The Hussites agreed to attend the Council of Basel with the Roman Catholic Church. The outcome was the Compacta of Basel. It pulled the Ultraquists away from Hussite reforms. The Taborites however refused to accept the Compacta. They were defeated in the Battle of Lipany (Battle of Cesky Brod) on May 30, 1434, by a combined Ultraquist-Catholic army. Procopius was killed and the Taborite army was destroyed on the fi eld. The defeat was due to a tactical error that occurred when the Ultraquists retreated and the Taborites left the safety of their war wagons to pursue. The Battle of Lipany ended the Hussite Wars; however, in 1618 the Thirty Years’ War began in Prague when fi ghting broke out between Hussites and their opponents. At the end of the Thirty Years’ War most of the Hussites had fl ed or were dead. Scattered Hussite elements or Unity of the Brethren (Unitas Fratrum) continued to exist in both Bohemia and Moravia after the Thirty Years’ War. Living in remote locations they secretly practiced their faith despite persecution. Early in the Thirty Years’ War, Johannes Amos Comenius, a famous educator and Hussite bishop, was forced to fl ee Moravia. As he departed he called the Hussite remnant the “hidden seed.” Beginning in the early 1720s many of the “hidden seed” fl ed to Saxony, where they found refuge on lands of Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf. Founding the village of Herrnhut near Zittau they became the revived Moravian Church in 1722. See also heresies, pre-Reformation; medieval Europe: educational system; universities, European. Further reading: Denis, Ernest. Huss et la guerre des Hussites. Paris: E. Leroux, 1930; Huss, John. De Ecclesia: The Church. Trans. by David S. Schaff, 1915. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976; Oman, C. W. C. The Art of War in the Middle Ages: a.d. 378–1515, 1885. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1953; Parker, G. H. W. The Morning Star: Wycliffe and the Dawn of the Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1965; Rican, Rudolf. The History of the Unity of Brethren: A Protestant Hussite Church in Bohemia and Moravia. Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Church in America, 1992; Schattschneider, Allen W. Through Five Hundred Years: A Popular History of the Moravian Church. Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Church in America, 1990; Spinka, Matthew. John Hus: A Biography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968; Wagner, Murray L. Petr Chelcicky: A Radical Separatist in Hussite Bohemia. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983. Andrew J. Waskey

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

Habsburg dynasty The Habsburgs were a European dynasty that ruled much of central Europe for six centuries (1273–1918). During this period, they ruled over Hungary, the Czech lands, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Austria. Consequently, they were known as the House of Austria. Through a series of fortuitous marriages, they ascended to the monarchy in Spain after 1516 (including Spanish possessions overseas and in Italy) and in Hungary and Bohemia after 1526. The Habsburgs attained preeminent European status with Maximilian I (1459–1519). His fortune was made when he married the heiress of Burgundy in 1477, thus securing the rich inheritance of the Netherlands and the county of Burgundy for the family. As he now held all of the Austrian possessions as well as Alsace, the family was now a dynasty on a par with the Valois dynasty of France. More energetic than his father, Maximiliam tried to make the Holy Roman Empire a functioning entity rather than a collection of 300 independent principalities. For a time, he succeeded, but, overall, the Empire remained divided, due in part to the jealousy of other dynasties, such as the Houses of Bavaria and Saxony, which felt eclipsed by the Habsburgs. Maximilian secured the fortune of his house when he married his son and his daughter, Philip and Margaret, to the son and the daughter of Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain. Although the Spanish heir, Juan, soon died, the progeny of Philip and Juana—the eldest son Charles—inherited the whole of the Spanish possessions including the overseas possessions in the Americas as well as in Italy. Charles V Charles V strode the globe as a colossus and was the most dominant figure in European history since Charlemagne. Inheriting all Habsburg and Spanish possessions, he had as his main concern during his reign to preserve the integrity of the Empire. He was able to do so although beset by the Turks, France, and the Protest Reformation. On his abdication in 1555, the Habsburgs split into a Spanish line (1555–1700) and an Austrian line (1555–1740). After 1740, the Habsburgs ruled through a female line, the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. The period between 1525, when Spanish troops defeated the French at Pavia, and 1643, when the French returned the favor at Rocroi, is known as the golden age of Spain. Enriched by the precious metals from the Americas and with an impressive military, Spain dominated Europe especially during the reign of Philip II (1556–98). Attempting to add England through marriage with Mary I, he saw his dream die with her in 1558. Her successor, Elizabeth I, ultimately became hostile, leading to the Spanish Armada’s defeat by the Dutch and English in 1588. His attempt to put down the Reformation led to a revolt of the Dutch that ultimately succeeded. His annexation of Portugal in 1580 led to tensions that led to revolt in 1640. His intervention in France was an attempt to aid Catholics; the attempt to put his daughter on the throne as a daughter of a French princess was in vain. Ultimately, Habsburg Spain under Philip II tried to do too much. In terms of family solidarity, Spain was the leader under Philip II, the money source under his next two successors, and the duke under the last ruler of the line. Philip embarked on a series of marriages between the two branches of the Habsburgs. The resulting lineage was weakened by inbreeding. Philip III (1598–1621), the product of the marriage of Philip and his niece, was a rather feeble ruler. Phillip IV (1621–65) was more capable but also somewhat lazy. He was a patron of the arts however and his age was the age of El Greco and Velázquez. His son, Charles II (1665–1700), another product of an uncle-niece marriage, was somewhat feeble-minded and physically weak. On his death, the subsequent War of the Spanish Succession (1702–13) led to the loss of Spain to the Habsburgs. Austrian Habsburgs The Austrian Habsburgs made peace by acquiring the Habsburg possessions in the Netherlands and in northern Italy. They had survived by having successive missions in Europe. In the 16th century, Austria was a bulwark against the Turks. In the 17th century, it supported the Counter-Reformation and tried to make a real state out of the Holy Roman Empire. When the latter failed, Austria found a new mission in expanding along the Danube and into the Carpathians, which included Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia, and Galicia in Poland. For a brief time, the Empire also included northern Serbia. Ferdinand I (r. 1556–64) and Maximilian II (r. 1564– 76) were rulers who governed moderately and wisely the Holy Roman Empire. Ferdinand, through his marriage to the heiress of Hungary and Bohemia, added these lands to the family. Rudolf I (r. 1575–1612) was less capable and was deposed, and his successor, Mathias I (r. 1612–19), was not effective. A member of a cognate line, Ferdinand II (r. 1619– 37), faced with rebellion by Protestants in both Bohemia and Austria, put these revolts down and came close to enforcing a revocation of the Treaty of Augsburg. For a while, it seemed that he would reach his goal in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48). Nonetheless, Ferdinand II and Ferdinand III (r. 1637–57) devoted their energies to Austrian expansion. Leopold I (r. 1657– 1705) was the most dogged opponent of Louis XIV and the Turks. He was succeeded by Joseph I (r. 1705– 11), who in turn was succeeded by his brother, Charles VI, who was the Austrian candidate in the War of the Spanish Succession. The death of Charles VI in 1740 led to the War of the Austrian Succession, as he left no male descendants. However, his capable daughter, Maria Theresa (1740– 80), held the dominions together with the exception of Silesia. She was considered an enlightened despot, as she instituted civil reforms. Her son, Joseph II, tried to institute reforms too soon. His successors Leopold II (r. 1790–92) and Francis II (r. 1792–1835) were more conservative. The 19th and early 20th centuries saw new challenges as rising nationalism threatened to break up the multinational empire of the Habsburgs. The last ruler of the dynasty was Franz Josef, who ruled from 1848 to 1916. However, Austria lost territories to Italy and Germany despite gaining land in the Balkans. The end came in World War I when the Emperor Charles was forced to abdicate in 1918–19. Today, of the Habsburg descendants, the only monarchs are the ruling family of the tiny municipality of Liechtenstein sandwiched between Austria and Switzerland. Further reading: Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Sian, Reynolds, trans. London: Collier, 1973; Bridge, F. R. The Habsburg Monarchy among the Great Powers, 1815–1918. Oxford: Berg Press, 1991; Brook-Shepherd, Gordon. The Last Habsburg. London: Weybright and Talley, 1965; Denham, James. The Cradle of the Habsburgs. London: Chatto & Windus, 1907; Lowett, A. W. Early Habsburg Spain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; Macartney, C. A. The Habsburg Empire. London: Macmillan, 1969; Wheatcroff, Andrew. The Habsburgs: Embodying Empire. London/New York: Viking Press, 1995. Norman C. Rothman hacienda in Spanish America Hacienda (ah-see-END-ah) in Spanish America refers to the institution of private landownership, or a landed estate, owned by a hacendado (ah-sen-DA-doh). Hacienda emerged as the principal form of landownership, and one of the principal social institutions in the core areas of the Spanish empire (especially New Spain and New Castile, or Mexico and Peru) in the late 16th century. The transition from encomienda to hacienda has been the subject of considerable research and 158 hacienda in Spanish America debate among scholars. Since the pioneering work of François Chevalier (1952), a large body of scholarship has shown that this transition was neither linear nor direct, and that attention to local and regional history is essential for understanding this transition in specific contexts. It is useful to distinguish between two main types of hacienda, although the two were often combined: agricultural and pastoral. Agricultural haciendas were typically established in areas of densest Indian settlement, where a servile labor force made possible its day-to-day operation. The rich agricultural lands surrounding Mexico City, for instance, were peppered with hundreds of such haciendas. At the core of a typical agricultural hacienda was the “great house,” the residence of its Spanish or Creole hacendado. Pastoral haciendas, devoted principally to grazing of cattle and sheep, emerged mainly on the periphery of Spain’s American holdings, such as in northern Mexico and the pampas (plains) of the Río de la Plata region. Haciendas could also include mines, obrajes (workshops), and other enterprises. A typical hacienda included numerous tracts of noncontiguous lands devoted to a variety of productive operations, especially farming, ranching, and mining. Hacendados accumulated their lands in numerous ways, mainly through direct and legal usurpation of collectively held Indian lands. Hacienda lands were also often acquired through purchase and legal appropriation of tracts left vacant in consequence of Indian depopulation. The distinction between haciendas and plantations is not always clear, although the latter term is generally applied to large-scale, well-capitalized, market oriented economic enterprises devoted to one or two tropical export products (sugar, tobacco, indigo), often worked by African slaves. This is in contrast to the typically less capitalized, more locally and subsistence oriented production of haciendas, though the distinctions are often difficult to draw. Other forms of landownership that blend into hacienda include estancias (a-STAHN-seeahs) and latifundia (lah-te-FOON-dee-ah). The former refers principally to large cattle and sheep ranches on the periphery of the Spanish American empire, and the latter to massive private landholdings and monopolization of land resources in a particular area. The question of labor relations inevitably accompanies discussions of the nature of the Spanish American hacienda. The typical colonial labor relationship on haciendas was the institution of debt peonage, in which laborers were bound to the hacienda principally in consequence of their accumulated debt to the hacendado. Yet here, too, there remains considerable controversy. In some contexts, debt effectively bound laborers to haciendas. In other cases, mainly those in which population densities were lower and labor thus scarcer, debt was sometimes used as a kind of lever by peons in order to secure pay advances and more favorable working conditions, and to play one hacendado off against another. In light of the great variety and complexity of Spanish American colonial society, questions regarding the nature of land and labor relations in specific contexts remain the topic of ongoing scholarly research and debate. See also sugarcane plantations in the Americas. Further reading: Chevalier, François. Land and Society in Colonial Mexico: The Great Hacienda. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970; Gibson, Charles. Spain in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1966; Mörner, Magnus. “The Spanish American Hacienda: A Survey of Recent Research and Debate.” Hispanic American Historical Review 53 (1973). Michael J. Schroeder Harvard College Founded in 1636 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard was the first institution of higher learning in England’s American colonies and has remained a preeminent center of education in the United States for almost four centuries. From the beginning, Harvard was an intrinsically Puritan institution. It reflected the Calvinists’ commitment to biblical literacy and was founded so that New England could train its own ministry. The General Court of Massachusetts chartered the college on October 28, 1636. It was in Newtown, which was subsequently renamed Cambridge as tribute to the English university where many Puritans had been educated. Harvard’s first master was Nathaniel Eaton, who began teaching classes in 1638, although his tenure lasted only a year. As Governor John Winthrop noted, Eaton was guilty of providing his boarders with “ill and scant diet” and of beating one student with “a walnut tree plant big enough to have killed a horse.” Nevertheless, many early New Englanders placed their faith in the college, including a young man named John Harvard. When Harvard died in 1638, he left his library and half of his property to the college, leading the General Court to rename the school in his honor. In 1640, Henry Dunster was named the college’s first president and he placed Harvard on firm footing. Within two years, the college constructed “Old College,” Harvard College 159 Harvard’s first college building. At this site, on September 23, 1642, the college hosted its first graduation. Nine “young men of good hope” received their bachelor degrees according to Winthrop, seven of whom left to fight for the Puritan cause in the English Civil War. In 1655, Harvard built an “Indian College” to educate and evangelize Native Americans, although this experiment was largely abandoned after King Philip’s War. The building subsequently became the site of the first American university press. Although founded to train ministers, Harvard provided a far broader education from the start. The charter of 1650 (under which Harvard still operates) stated that the college’s purpose was “the advancement of all good literature artes and Sciences.” Accordingly, Harvard provided a liberal arts education, heavily emphasizing the Greek and Latin classics, rather than vocational training. Yet religion remained central to Harvard’s mission in the 17th century. Most of its presidents were ministers, including Increase Mather, while more than half of its graduates became clergymen. By 1700, more than four hundred men had attended Harvard, including many of Massachusetts’s secular and religious leaders. In the 18th century, Harvard liberalized its curriculum and theology, reflecting the emergent ideas of the European Enlightenment. Student life likewise became more vibrant in the 1720s with the establishment of the first college periodical (“The Telltale”) and groups like the Philomusarian Club. Enrollment surged and graduates’ vocations shifted focus, with only a quarter entering the ministry. The Great Awakening and the American Revolution divided the college, although Harvard graduates John Adams and John Hancock were instrumental in the creation of the United States. Harvard was first called a “university” in 1780 and quickly grew into its name, adding a medical school in 1782. Further reading: Axtell, James, The School upon the Hill: Education and Society in Colonial New England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974; Morison, Samuel Eliot, Three Centuries of Harvard, 1636–1936. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936. John G. McCurdy Henry IV (1552–1610) first Bourbon king of France Henry was born in Pau, Béarn, Navarre, on December 13, 1552, to Antoine de Bourbon, duke of Vendôme (1518–62). Antoine was descended from the Capetian royal line, became Huguenot (Protestant), but then returned to Roman Catholicism. Henry’s mother, Jeanne d’Albret, the Huguenot queen of Navarre (1528–72), raised Henry as a Huguenot in Béarn. Henry received a military education from French general Gaspard de Coligny (1519–72) and became the Huguenot leader in 1569. Henry succeeded to the throne of Navarre upon his mother’s death on June 9, 1572. On August 18, 1572, he married Marguerite de Valois (1555–1615), his second cousin and childhood playmate. The marriage was arranged to alleviate the divisions wrought by the French Wars of Religion and reconcile the Roman Catholics with the Huguenots. Queen Mother Catherine de Médicis (1519–89) forced King Charles IX (1550–74) and the future Henry III (1551–89) to order the Huguenot guests at the wedding to be killed. Some 3,000 Huguenots were killed in Paris, including de Coligny. Despite a royal order to stop the killing, the slaughter spread throughout France, and 70,000 more Huguenots were killed. To save his life, Henry was forced to become Roman Catholic and stay confined to the court. He escaped and returned to Navarre and the Huguenot faith. The Catholic League was formed in 1576 to oppose the Huguenots. It operated under the guidance of Henry, duke of Guise (1550–88), who controlled Henry III. Henry III and Guise fought Henry of Navarre unsuccessfully at the Battle of Coutras on October 20, 1587. Henry III was afraid of Guise’s popularity and his secret longing for the throne and ordered his assassination; he promptly left Paris under threat by Guise supporters. Henry III reconciled with Henry in Navarre to gain his military support against the league and to win control over Paris. Together, they besieged Paris on July 30. Henry III was assassinated on August 2, 1589, and Henry of Navarre became king. The Catholic League, which was financially supported by Roman Catholic Spain, would not accept him as monarch and forced him to fight for the throne. On July 25, 1592, Henry was encouraged by his mistress and mother of three of his illegitimate children, Gabrielle d’Estrée (1571–99), to repudiate his Protestant faith and permanently become Roman Catholic. He did so in July 1593. He was immensely popular not only because he ended decades of war, but also because he was conciliatory and practical. Henry declared the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which established Roman Catholicism as the state religion and offered religious toleration to the Huguenots, who were heavily engaged in trade. 160 Henry IV The Wars of Religion had taken an enormous toll on France, so Henry’s immediate goal was reconstruction. Rather than exhaust the treasury with more wars, Henry paid off the nobles who disagreed with him. He systemized finances and soon created a reserve of 18 million livres. Henry’s marriage to Marguerite of Valois was annulled by Pope Clement VIII (1536–1605) in 1599. Henry married Marie de Médicis (1573–1642) on December 17, 1600. They had six children, the first of whom would become Louis XIII. The couple welcomed Marguerite of Valois into their family; she helped rear the children and was very popular with the French people. Henry also had eight more illegitimate children with various other mistresses. Henry sent Samuel de Champlain, Pierre Dugua, sieur de Monts to the New World to claim it for France. Henry’s foreign policy was meant to bring France to the forefront of power. He made alliances with Italy, the Swiss, and some Protestant German princes. He was assassinated on May 14, 1610, by a religious fanatic. He was buried at the Saint Denis Basilica, the burial place of French monarchs. His legal son and heir, the future Louis XIII, was only nine years old, so Marie de Médicis served as regent until 1617. See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Medici family; Reformation, the; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Chamberlin, E. R. Marguerite of Navarre. New York: The Dial Press, 1974; De Vaissière, Pierre. Henry IV. Paris: A. Fayard, 1928; Love, Ronald. S. Blood and Religion: The Conscience of Henry IV, 1553–1593. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 2001; Mousnier, R. The Assassination of Henry IV. New York: Scribner, 1973; Rothrock, George A. The Huguenots: A Biography of a Minority. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1979; Wolfe, Michael. The Conversion of Henri IV: Politics, Power, and Religious Belief in Early Modern France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Annette Richardson Henry VII (1457–1509) Tudor king of England Henry Tudor was born to Margaret Beaufort of the House of Lancaster—the “red roses” in 15th century England’s War of the Roses—and Edmund Tudor, the earl of Richmond, who died in Henry’s infancy. The War of the Roses came to a lull in 1471 when Edward IV (of the House of York, the opposing “white roses”) was restored to the throne—but his death 12 years later returned turmoil to England. Encouraged by his Lancastrian maternal family, Henry contested the claim to the throne made by Richard III, the duke of Gloucester and Edward’s brother and most powerful general. It took two years, but Henry’s eventual victory ended the War of the Roses decisively and established the House of Tudor in the monarchy of England. Peace and prosperity were Henry’s watchwords as king of England. Though his taxes were often high, they aimed not to line pockets but to restore the coffers depleted by civil war, and a treaty with the French that granted to them much of the territory they had gained during previous reigns brought substantial money to the royal treasury and spared the kingdom further fighting over matters now generations in the past. Economic reforms presaged the weakening of the nobility’s financial power compared to that of the merchant class, which under Tudor rule would become more and more significant up through the English Renaissance (both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were Tudor monarchs). Henry also turned the Star Chamber—a court that had developed from the royal council—into a special tribunal whose sessions were closed to the public, which made them available to commoners who sought to make complaints against the nobility. Although the Star Chamber could examine and overturn the decisions of lower courts, it was explicitly used by Henry to ensure the power to prosecute individuals considered untouchable by ordinary courts. It was not a new concept—similar courts had been used across Europe for centuries—but Henry’s application of it at the end of the War of Roses helped to turn the chaos of that period into the opportunity for a new order. Though it was his son and successor, Henry VIII, who would split the Church of England off from the diocese of Rome, Henry VII in a sense got the ball rolling: When his oldest son died, he sought to marry his daughter-in-law, Catherine of Aragon, to Henry VIII, his younger son. A papal dispensation was necessary, and although it was granted, the necessity lent a tense tenor to European affairs for most of a year. Eventually, Henry decided against the marriage, and the dispensation was not required—but this betrothal was instrumental in influencing young Henry VIII’s opinion of the pope’s influence in royal matters. Further reading: Bevan, Bryan. Henry VII: The First Tudor King. London: Rubicon Press, 2000; Weir, Alison. The War of the Roses. New York: Ballantine, 1996; Williams, Henry VII 161 Neville. The Life and Times of Henry VII. London: Orion Publishing, 1994. Bill Kte’pi Henry VIII (1491–1547) English monarch Henry VIII was king of England from 1509 to 1547. He is perhaps best known for his succession of wives, some of whom were put to death, and was a key figure in both English and religious history. Early Life Henry was born June 28, 1491, the second son of King Henry VII. Raised as a prince and second in succession to the throne, Henry was an intelligent and athletic youth. He was schooled in Latin, Greek, and French, his upbringing in a large degree under the control of his paternal grandmother, Margaret Beaufort, an intelligent and shrewd woman. By age 10, Henry was expected to attend and even preside at royal functions, officially receiving his brother’s betrothed bride and his own future first wife, Princess Catherine of Aragon, in 1501. Henry’s life changed dramatically in 1502 when his older brother Prince Arthur died unexpectedly at age 16. Arthur had been married less than five months to Catherine of Aragon. A year later, Henry’s father began negotiations to allow Henry to marry his brother’s widow, which required special permission from the pope in Rome. That year, at age 11, Henry became officially engaged to Catherine, though they were not married till after Henry became king. During those years, Catherine became a political pawn in the diplomatic negotiations between Spain and England, as Henry’s father threatened several times to cancel the engagement. The Young King When his father died in April 1509, Henry was officially crowned king of England, lord of Ireland, and king of France (a nominal title, since he only ruled a portion of France). Two months later, Henry married Catherine of Aragon. The 18-year-old king made an impressive appearance at court, being extremely physically fit and robust and thrilled with jousting, hunting, and dancing. He was attentive to the responsibilities of governing, but avoided routine meetings, expecting his counselors to go to him at his convenience to report and present issues requiring Henry’s decision. Chief among his counselors was Thomas Wolsey, who became Henry’s chief minister in 1512. His early years of marriage to Catherine were generally happy ones, but marred by the fact that his first child was stillborn, and his second child, a son, died within six weeks of his birth. In 1515, a daughter, Mary I (crowned Queen Mary in 1553), was born. During this time, there were substantial changes in neighboring France and the rest of Europe. In 1515, King Louis XII of France died, and his son Francis I took the throne. In 1519, Emperor Maximilian died and his son Charles (nephew of Queen Catherine) became Emperor Charles V. The three young rulers were at times allies, and other times enemies (often two against the other) over the next 30 years. After Charles’s accession, Henry made an official visit to both King Francis and Charles at elaborately planned events marked with enormous pomp and ceremony. Wolsey, increasing in personal power during these years, represented Henry ably in orchestrating the events, ensuring that Henry had the upper hand wherever possible. 162 Henry VIII Most famous for having six wives, Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and created the Church of England. These years also marked the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation in Germany, when the young priest Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg on October 31, 1517. Henry was fascinated by theology and sought to bring to his court men of great learning, including the esteemed scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam. At this time, Henry was completely opposed to the reformers, writing his own refutation of Protestant doctrine titled The Assertion of the Seven Sacraments, published in May 1521. Henry ’s Divorce from Catherine By 1525, Henry could see that Catherine would never bear him a son. Catherine was already 40 years old, and only their daughter Mary had lived past early childhood. Henry was greatly concerned to ensure a male heir to the throne for he knew that others would claim the throne, especially under a queen. Henry had an illegitimate son and considered the possibility of raising him to an official status but worried that this would simply aggravate the problem. Complicating matters was the fact that Henry had become enamored of a woman at his court named Anne Boleyn and was seeking to make her his mistress. Finally in 1527, Henry decided to seek divorce from Queen Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn. This required papal dispensation, a matter complicated greatly by the fact that Charles V had recently invaded Rome, the home of the pope, and was understandably hostile to Henry’s desire to divorce Charles’s aunt. The key figure in the negotiations with Pope Clement VII was Wolsey, now England’s cardinal and the second most powerful man in England after Henry. The argument crafted by Henry, Wolsey, and other councilors was that the marriage of Henry and Catherine was illegal, since she was previously married to Henry’s brother Arthur (even though a papal dispensation had been received for the marriage). Clement was pressed by both Henry and Charles to decide one way or the other but succeeded in delaying a decision for nearly five years. Wolsey’s unsuccessful efforts to get a decision from Clement eventually led to his downfall and removal from office. Breach with The Catholic Church When informed by Anne Boleyn in 1533 that she was pregnant, a frustrated Henry decided to take matters into his own hands and declared that England had the authority to decide this matter, not a foreign pope. The legal and political maneuvering to accomplish this was complex, as Henry was both trying to avoid open war with Charles and Francis and to ensure that the necessary acts of Parliament were done correctly. By May of 1533, the new archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, with the support of nearly all the English bishops, had declared Henry divorced from Catherine and recognized his marriage to Anne. The breach with the Roman Catholic Church became complete in March 1534, with the passing of the Act of Supremacy, declaring that the king was, next to Christ, the “only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England.” In order to ensure support for the act, an oath was administered to both church and civic officials. Most took the oath, but a few notable men refused to take the oath, including the king’s own chancellor, Thomas More. More, Bishop Fisher, and several others were put to death for their refusal to take the oath. This marked the beginning of the present-day Anglican Church as well as the suppression of the Catholic Church in England. Henry ’s Subsequent Wives and Children The hoped-for male heir did not come from Anne Boleyn. In September 1533, Anne bore Henry a daughter named Elizabeth, eventually crowned Queen Elizabeth I. Anne and Henry’s relationship slowly worsened after their marriage, but it was in April 1536 after Anne miscarried a baby boy that rumors of Anne’s infidelity surfaced. Charges of infidelity and treason were brought against Anne and her supposed lovers (though it is not clear how truthful the charges were). Anne and several men were put to death in May 1536. Two weeks after Anne’s death, Henry married Jane Seymour, a woman he had been courting for several months. Jane bore a son, Edward VI, in September 1537 and died soon after from the effects of childbirth. Henry was not to have any more children. Henry did have three more wives in succession. After a series of negotiations in 1540, Henry agreed to marry Anne of Cleves, the sister of an influential German duke. Assured that Anne was a great beauty, Henry was greatly disappointed upon meeting her, nearly putting off the marriage. Henry divorced her six months later in order to marry his new lover, Catherine Howard, in July 1540. His choice of Catherine was an unwise one. Unbeknown to Henry, Catherine had several previous lovers and perhaps had continued a relationship with one of them after her marriage. This eventually came to the notice of Henry’s councillors, and with Henry’s consent, Catherine was tried and convicted of treason and executed in February 1542. In July 1543, Henry married Catherine Parr. Only Catherine Parr and Anne of Cleves outlived Henry. By 1544 at age 53, Henry was an old man. He was substantially overweight, and his legs gave him great Henry VIII 163 trouble with infections nearly killing him. He rallied at the prospect of invading France, which he did in July 1544, capturing the city of Boulogne at a high cost of men and supplies. War with France continued till 1546, when a treaty was signed between Henry and Francis I. By this time, Henry could no longer walk or stand without assistance (though he could still be lifted onto a horse and enjoy a hunt). Later in 1546, Henry realized he had not long to live and set about eliminating opponents to the succession of his heirs, most notably the duke of Norfolk and his son, the earl of Surrey, who were convicted on charges of treason just before Henry’s own death. Henry died on January 28, 1547. He was succeeded by his nine-year-old son, Edward VI. See also Tudor dynasty. Further reading: Bowle, John. Henry VIII: A Study of Power in Action. New York: Dorset, 1990; Erickson, Carolly. Great Harry. New York: Summit Books, 1980; Ridley, Jasper. Henry VIII. New York: Viking, 1985; Weir, Alison. Henry VIII: The King and His Court. Westminster, MD: Ballantine Books, 2001; ———. The Six Wives of Henry VIII. Westminster, MD: Ballantine Books, 1993; Williams, Neville. Henry VIII and His Court. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Bruce Franson Hobbes, Thomas (1588–1679) political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, natural philosopher, was born to a local vicar and his wife on April 5, 1588, near Malmesbury in Wiltshire, England. Aspects of his early family history remain obscure, but his uncle, Francis Hobbes, a successful merchant, took over his upbringing and early education. Hobbes, a talented and serious student, entered Magdalen College, Oxford, at age 14 and graduated with his B.A. in 1608. Following his graduation, Hobbes became tutor and then secretary to William Cavendish, who would become the second earl of Devonshire. This connection would mark a lifelong association with the Cavendish family. The position also allowed Hobbes a return to study. Following William’s death, Hobbes took employment as a tutor to the son of Sir Gervase Clinton of Nottinghamshire from 1628 to 1631. In the midst of this period, he published his translation of Thucydides and began at age 40 a vigorous study of mathematics. He returned to the Cavendish family as tutor to the third earl of Devonshire in 1631 and spent time on the Continent meeting important scholars such as Galileo Galilei in 1636 as well as other intellectuals during his travels with Cavendish. political and religious strife Hobbes’s life intersected with an era of turbulent political and religious divides, and as a committed Royalist, Hobbes left for Paris in fear for his life when the Civil War erupted in 1640. Here he challenged René Descartes’s Meditations, studied optics, and published De cive in 1642, which examined the roles of the church and state. Hobbes also in these exile years tutored the prince of Wales from 1646 to 1648. In 1651, he completed his most famous work, the Leviathan, and returned to England. Hobbes tempered his Royalist views, angering some Royalists along the way, and seemingly accepted the Puritan government, which had triumphed in the Civil War. The Leviathan established Hobbes’s lasting reputation and marked him as an important transitional thinker from medieval to modern thought. As the age seemed to confirm, Hobbes had an essentially dark view of human nature and mankind’s selfish appetites. Humans left to their own devices allowed evil impulses to flourish. Because of these traits and conditions, mankind must create a state, or Leviathan, for protection. For Hobbes, the best ruler the state could produce was a monarch. Other issues such as freedom, property rights, justice, law, and morality were social creations without natural meaning. It was the existence of the power of the state alone that prevented war and chaos. The natural state of nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape from his base and animal nature, mankind enters into a contract, giving up individual interests for a covenant of security and peace, which the state provides. The sovereign, through its arbitrary power, guarantees these freedoms by the exercise of absolute authority. In this way, citizens are given their liberty. Mankind can follow his/her will without interference, yet this falls far short of the concept of free will in a religious sense. Hobbes’s examination of human society and human nature introduced a mechanistic and materialistworldview and stressed the importance of rationalist thought in understanding man and society. He also wrote in English, which allowed philosophical thought to be expressed in a common voice not dependent upon classical thinkers. 164 Hobbes, Thomas The Leviathan was followed by De corpore (On the Body, 1655) containing large mathematical sections, and De homine (On Man, 1657). These works completed his philosophical trilogy. Following the restoration in 1660, Hobbes gained the protection of Charles II as well as a state pension. However, Hobbes agreed to allow the king to vet his future publications for possible controversy. Hobbes mathematical works and his attacks on methods of mathematical analysis led to further debate. Hobbes defended his mathematical arguments until the end of his days against a variety of scholarly attacks, some of which dismissed him as a serious mathematical thinker. Other works followed such as his Dialogue (1681), an attack on common law, and Behemoth (1682), a history of the Long Parliament and the Civil War. Both had to await publication until after his death. He completed his autobiography in 1672, and in 1675 at age 86, he published translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Hobbes returned from London to spend his final years with the Cavendish family and died at the age of 91, on December 4, 1679, at Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire. He never retired and was working on a book on squaring the circle at the time of his death. See also Locke, John. Further reading: Harrison, Ross. Hobbes, Locke and Confusion’s Masterpiece: An Examination of Seventeenth Century Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Malcolm, Noel. Aspects of Hobbes. Gloucestershire: Clarendon Press, 2002; Martinich, A. P. Hobbes: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Tuck, Richard. Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Theodore W. Eversole Hohenzollern dynasty in Brandenburg and Prussia The Hohenzollern family established a dynasty ruling the German kingdoms of Brandenburg (1415–1918) and Prussia (1525–1918) until the end of World War I (1914–18). The Hohenzollerns were one of the most influential among the German royal families within the Holy Roman Empire and, during the period following its dismantling by Napoleon I of France (1769–1821) in 1806, joined the German kingdoms into a unified nation-state in 1871, thereby becoming emperors of Germany (1871–1918). The Hohenzollerns originated from the eastern portions of the Frankish empire of Charlemagne (742–814). In 962, Otto I (912–73) was made Holy Roman Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire was a conglomeration of a multitude of distinct entities differing greatly in size, rank, and influence (kingdoms, duchies, principalities, etc.). The most powerful rulers within the Empire served as electors, who selected a member from among their ranks to serve as emperor. Originally from southwestern Germany, the Hohenzollern family increased its land possessions and political influence through marriages, negotiations, and wars. The first recorded reference to a count of Zollern dates from 1061. The origin of the family’s name is uncertain and may have been from the castle of Zollern near Stuttgart, Germany. Eventually, two distinct lines of the family emerged: the Zollern-Hohenberg branch, which became extinct in 1486, and the burgraves, or imperial representatives, of Nuremberg, which continued into the modern era. Frederick of Zollern (?–c. 1200) succeeded as burgrave of Nuremberg in 1192. After achieving power Hohenzollern dynasty in Brandenburg and Prussia 165 Today’s view of the castle in Hohenzollern, Germany. The Hohenzollerns set the course for the future of the country. in Nuremberg, the Hohenzollerns continued expanding their control in the regions of Swabia and Franconia, both now part of Bavaria. Frederick’s sons founded two significant branches of the family known as the Franconian and Swabian lines, both controlling multiple territories. From the Franconian line derived the burgraves of Nuremberg, and later the electors of Brandenburg, the kings of Prussia, and the Emperors of Germany. In 1363, the Hohenzollerns attained the rank of princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Frederick VI (1371–1440), who controlled Nuremberg and other estates in Ansbach and Bayreuth in Franconia, became margrave of Brandenburg in 1411. In 1415, Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund (1368–1437) made Frederick elector of Brandenburg. As elector, he became known as Frederick I. From then on, Brandenburg emerged as the center of Hohenzollern power and the family continued to rise in influence among the German royal families. Frederick II (1413–70) increased his patrimony by purchasing territory from the Teutonic Knights and lower Lusatia from the Holy Roman Emperor. Albert Achilles (1414–86) initiated an attempt to consolidate the Hohenzollern family’s landholdings by passing a family law preventing the divisibility of Brandenburg. Converting to Protestantism In 1525, Albert of Brandenburg (1490–1568), the last grand master of the Teutonic Order, converted Prussia into a secular duchy and then, on advice from Martin Luther, converted to Protestantism at the time of the Reformation. The territories previously belonging to the order shifted to Prussian control. Though the Hohenzollerns converted to the Lutheran religion, they later converted to Calvinism. However, the Hohenzollerns’ subjects were allowed to remain Lutheran. The Hohenzollern holdings of Brandenburg and Prussia united under a single ruler when John Sigismund (1572–1619), who acquired Cleves, Mark, and Ravensburg in 1614, inherited the duchy of Prussia in 1618. Frederick William, the Great Elector (1620–88), was elector of Brandenburg and duke of Prussia. He expanded his landholdings by obtaining East Pomerania and secularized territories. During his reign, Frederick William worked to consolidate Hohenzollern authority throughout its landholdings to establish the centralization necessary to implement an absolute monarchy. His son was crowned Frederick I (1657–1713), “king of Prussia,” in 1701. However, this title was not recognized fully until the Peace of Utrecht in 1713. The new title symbolized the unity of the Hohenzollern lands under one ruler and marked the emergence of the family as one of the most influential royal families in central Europe. Frederick William I (1688–1740), known as the “soldier-king,” implemented several reforms that set the path for the future success of the Hohenzollern dynasty and obtained part of West Pomerania in 1721. A firm autocrat, Frederick William reformed Prussia’s finances and made the Prussian military one of the most powerful in Europe. Frederick the Great Frederick II (1712–86), known as Frederick the Great of Prussia, was an enlightened despot who turned Brandenburg- Prussia into one of the top five European powers. An accomplished musician and aspiring philosopher, he codified Prussian law and established a modern bureaucracy in Prussia. He also abolished torture and granted wide religious freedom. Using the military resources left to him by his father, Frederick II warred against the Habsburgs of Austria, who were also Holy Roman Emperors almost continuously from the 15th century onward and the chief rivals to Hohenzollern ambitions in central Europe. The ensuing rivalry between Austria and Prussia prevented German unification until the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 conferred Prussian dominance. Frederick II was regarded as a great military tactician and commanded Prussian forces in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48), the Seven Years’ War (1756–63), and the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778). He seized Silesia from Maria Theresa (1717– 80), Holy Roman Empress and queen of Austria, which provided Prussia with a wealth of raw materials. He also acquired West Prussia and Ermeland in 1772 as part of the first partition of Poland. Frederick II was succeeded by Frederick William II (1744–97), Frederick William III (1770–1840), and Frederick William IV (1795–1861). All were rulers of unexceptional ability. The kings of Prussia retained their title of electors of Brandenburg until 1806, when Napoleon I of France defeated the Holy Roman Empire and ordered its dissolution. In 1871, William I of Prussia (1797–1888), with the aid of his prime minister Otto von Bismarck (1815–98), became emperor of a united nation-state of Germany. Another branch of the Hohenzollern family, the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens, held vast landholdings during the era before German unification and became princes (1866–81) and later kings (1881–1947) of Romania. They also made an unsuccessful bid for the 166 Hohenzollern dynasty in Brandenburg and Prussia throne of Spain, which led to the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71). See also Habsburg dynasty. Further reading: Dwyer, Philip G. The Rise of Prussia, 1700– 1830. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 2002; Macartney, C. A. The Habsburg and Hohenzollern Dynasties in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. New York: Harper and Row, 1970; Nelson, Walter Henry. The Soldier Kings: The House of Hohenzollern. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1970. Eric Martone Holy Roman Empire During the period of 1500 to 1750, the Holy Roman Empire grew to be a large political entity but faced serious problems that brought it close to the point of disintegration. The immense territory of the empire—over 300 states of varying size—was to be its ultimate undoing. Though several emperors—most notably Charles V—tried to unite the Empire into a modern state like France and England, they were frustrated by the diversity, size, and vested interests of its many rulers. When Charles V (Charles I of Spain) was elected the Holy Roman Emperor in 1519, he raised the profile of the Empire by uniting Habsburg Spain, Austria, and the Austrian Netherlands, with the Holy Roman Empire. Combined with the Kingdom of Naples, and also the Spanish colonies in the Americas, the Holy Roman Empire was becoming an important political entity. When Charles V opened the Diet of Worms in 1521, he proclaimed that “the empire from of old had not many masters, but one, and it is our intention to be that one.” Charles’s power was accentuated when he was crowned as the Holy Roman Emperor in February 1530, by Pope Clement VII at Bologna, the first emperor to have been crowned since Frederick III, and the last person to be crowned as the Holy Roman Emperor by the papacy. But Charles V faced many challenges in his quest to unite and extend the Holy Roman Empire. The increasing power of the French kings and Ottoman Turkey threatened the Empire. In 1529, the Ottoman army— after having overrun Hungary—besieged the gates of Vienna, but the city held fast and the Turks were forced to retreat. However, within Europe itself the religious debates following the increasing popularity of Martin Luther and John Calvin led to factionalism and fighting between Protestants and Catholics, the former being supported by the Habsburg dynasty. These conflicts merged with wider dynastic struggles within the House of Austria for power in Europe that became known as the Thirty Years’ War, which lasted from 1618 to 1648. Germany was devastated in the war, with more than 5 million German lives lost, while Austria was forced to sign the Peace of Westphalia, which allowed the princes of the Empire to negotiate their own foreign alliances without the Emperor. After this defeat, the Holy Roman Empire ceased to play a dominant role in the European balance of power. Although the political power of the Holy Roman Empire was sapped, the role of the electors became important. Initially there were three archbishops, those of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier; the king of Bohemia; the count Palatine of the Rhine; and the elector of Saxony; and the elector of Brandenberg. To these seven, the rulers of Bavaria, Hanover, and Hesse-Cassel later were appointed electors. These electors were granted considerable autonomy and acted as a counterweight to Imperial power. Though the Habsburg Holy Roman Empire 167 Engraving after a Niccola Bettoni portrait of Charles V (Charles I of Spain), elected the Holy Roman Emperor in 1519 Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were two distinct political entities, the Habsburg dynasty continued to assume the title of Emperor. Only now the Habsburgs had to share power with the electors, and their control over the Imperial diet was reduced. In 1806, Francis I, Emperor of Austria, relinquished the title of Holy Roman Emperor. After the Napoleonic wars, the political map of Europe was redrawn at the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), at which time the Holy Roman Empire was officially dissolved. Further Reading: Ingrao, Charles W. The Habsburg Monarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Wilson, Peter H. The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. Justin Corfield honor ideology in Latin America The cultural concepts of honor and shame played an extremely important role in the history of Latin America, influencing everything from national politics to domestic divisions of labor. Most scholars agree that the roots of these cultural notions reach back to the Mediterranean world in the centuries before the European encounter with the Americas. Scholarly investigations into what has been termed the honor-shame complex in Iberia, North Africa, and elsewhere in the Mediterranean all point to a diverse but widely shared set of beliefs and practices regarding the appropriate social roles of males and females that often transcended the differences between Christianity and Islam. Institutionalized in various ecclesiastical, political, and legal frameworks, these cultural notions were transported to the New World in the decades and centuries after the European conquests. There they entwined with indigenous and African notions regarding honor, shame, and proper gender roles, leading to a shifting kaleidoscope of beliefs and practices among all social groups and classes. The most effective scholarly efforts to probe the honor-shame complex in Latin America have remained attentive both to broader shared patterns in diverse historical contexts and to temporal and spatial specificity marked by changes over time. In the most general terms, honor among Latin American men was considered both a prized personal possession and a crucially important expression of one’s public self. Honor derived from both social status and virtuous behavior. This distinction in the sources of honor found expression in the Spanish language: the term honor generally referred to status-derived honor, while honra generally referred to virtue- or behaviorbased honor. Higher social status necessarily conferred more honor: wealthy men inherently possessed more honor than poor men; noble lineage inherently conferred more honor than plebian lineage. The second component, virtue-based honor, was based especially on a man’s capacity to act “with manliness” (con hombría). Such manliness derived from many sources, but among the most important was a man’s capacity to control and monopolize the sexuality of the girls and women he considered his. For a man’s daughter or wife to be sexually active outside his control, or sexually assaulted or raped, caused dishonor and shame to both the victim and to the man claiming sexual dominion over her. Women’s honor, in contrast, was based on their capacity to act with shame (vergüenza), defined especially by their sexual propriety and their deference and submission to men. Among the most humiliating insults that could be launched at members of either gender was to be called “shameless” (sin vergüenza). The notion of humiliation was crucial to all aspects of honor. According to historian William Ian Miller, “Honor [ideology in Latin America] is above all else the keen sensitivity to the experience of humiliation and shame . . . to simplify greatly, honor is that disposition which makes one act to shame others who have shamed oneself, and to humiliate someone who has humiliated oneself.” Recent research demonstrates the various ways in which patriarchy, masculinity, honor, shame, violence, and sexuality were tightly bound up together in a dynamic cultural complex that shared certain key attributes and that varied widely over time and space, but characteristically in ways that asserted males’ dominion over females. Inquiries into this cultural complex in specific contexts comprises an exceptionally fertile field among contemporary scholars of Latin American history. Further reading. Johnson, Lyman L., and Sonya Lipsett- Rivera, eds. The Faces of Honor: Sex, Shame, and Violence in Colonial Latin America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1998; Miller, William Ian. Humiliation and Other Essays on Honor, Social Discomfort, and Violence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993. Michael J. Schroeder 168 honor ideology in Latin America Hudson’s Bay Company It is one of the ironies of history that the British owe the beginnings of the famous Hudson’s Bay Company to their traditional enemies in North America: the French. Pierre-Esprit Radisson (who posthumously gave his name to the famed modern hotel chain) and his older brother-in-law, Médard Chouart, sieur des Groseilliers, were two of the famed French coureurs de bois, or “runners of the woods,” who began the trade in beaver skins. In 1659, the hoard of pelts that Radisson and des Groseilliers brought to Quebec was so great it aroused the greed of the governorgeneral of New France, Pierre de Voyer, the vicomte d’Argenson. He had arrived in Quebec on July 11, 1658, to serve as the fifth governor-general of the colony. Charles II, enjoying a fortunate beginning to his reign, was never one to miss the opportunity of seeking riches, in part because the British parliament sought to limit his power by the amount of money it voted him each year. According to Empire of the Bay, Radisson wrote, “The King gave good hope that we should have a ship ready for an expedition for the next spring. And he granted us 40 shillings a week for our maintenance.” Queen Elizabeth I had made her mark by chartering the Honorable East India Company in 1600, and King Charles II had decided to do the same by chartering a company to trade with New France. However, before committing his limited royal funds to outright backing for what would become known as the “Empire of the Bay,” Charles II first commissioned an exploratory voyage. On June 3, 1668, des Groseilliers and Radisson headed back to New France, this time on two English vessels, the Eaglet and the Nonsuch. The mission was so urgent that Charles sent the ships in 1668, barely a year after the end of the Second Dutch War, a naval conflict with the Netherlands. Fierce Atlantic storms off the west coast of Ireland buffeted the ships, and the Eaglet was forced to return to England. However, the Nonsuch continued its voyage successfully to New France. To Charles II, the voyage had proved the worth of the dreams of des Groseilliers and Radisson. The king formally chartered the Governors and Company of Adventurers Trading into Hudson’s Bay, forever known as the Hudson’s Bay Company. To oversee the company, he appointed his relative, Prince Rupert of the Rhine, who had served his father, Charles I, as a commander of cavalry in the English Civil War. However, it would not be long before the French in New France took action against this new British threat along the remote shores of Hudson’s Bay. In 1686 and 1697, the French mounted combined land and sea assaults that effectively broke the back of the Hudson’s Bay Company. With the British main effort in the New World fixed on protecting the colonies on the East Coast of the Americas, little could be spared for the outposts in the frozen north. Besides, the French attacking from New France had far less distance to travel to attack the forts of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The main Hudson’s Bay posts, York Factory, Rupert House, and Albany Fort, fell into the hands of the French. Throughout the 18th century, a series of wars was fought between England and France for the control of New France and the vast wealth in fur in the interior. Called the French and Indian Wars in the United States, the conflicts saw French and English pitted in savage battles along the eastern coast of North America; both sides generally ignored the frozen north of Hudson’s Bay. On September 13, 1759, a French army under Louis-Joseph, marquis de Montcalm, was soundly defeated outside Quebec by a British force under General James Wolfe. Both men were killed from battle wounds, but the battle marked the decisive defeat of the French in North America. Although the British later lost a battle outside Quebec, the French were finally forced to surrender at Montreal in 1760. By the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, all of New France became part of the British Empire. The leaders of the Hudson’s Bay Company felt they could exploit the great wealth of the fur trade, free from the raids of the French and their Indian allies. The French alliance against England in the American Revolution, however, brought war again to Hudson’s Bay. The company’s first great explorer, Samuel Hearne, was forced to surrender Fort Prince of Wales to a French squadron under Jean-François de Galoup, comte de La Pérouse. After the Treaty of Paris ended the war, however, Hearne was able to return to open a new post at Churchill. But a new threat came from an unexpected corner: from within the British Empire in North America. By the 1770s, rival fur traders began to appear to contest the monopoly of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Formally chartered in 1779 as the North West Fur Company in Montreal, the newcomers determined to wrest control of the fur trade from the Hudson’s Bay Company trappers by any means necessary. The North West Fur Company proved much more aggressive than the Hudson’s Bay Company, whose long monopoly had bred in it a spirit of complacency Hudson’s Bay Company 169 that the “Nor’westers” were quick to exploit. As a result of this competition, exploration and the expansion of trade moved into the interior of the continent. The North West Company was much more flexible than the London-based Hudson’s Bay Company; while Hudson’s Bay’s men had to defer to their distant management, the partners in the North West Company were in the field and met every summer on the Lake Superior shore to determine trapping and harvesting strategies for the coming season. Spurred on by the enterprising spirit of the Nor’westers, the company produced two of the greatest explorers in all of North American history: David Thompson and Alexander Mackenzie. Significantly, Thompson had first signed on the roster of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1784, moving to the North West Fur Company in 1797. During his tenure, he charted the course of the Columbia River, located the source of the Mississippi River, and explored throughout the Missouri River area. He retired in 1812, having logged nearly 55,000 miles in the wilderness by canoe and on foot. Alexander Mackenzie would equal Thompson in the annals of North American exploration. In June 1789, Mackenzie began with a party of Indians to explore for the Arctic Sea, seeking the Northwest Passage to the Orient, which had lured English mariners since the time of Queen Elizabeth I. On July 14, 1789, Mackenzie found the Arctic Sea. The Scotsman would crown his exploring career with a search for an overland route to the Pacific. He began this trek in May 1793 and with the aid of the Bella Coola tribe reached the Pacific on July 22. The great explorations of Thompson and Mackenzie opened more territory to the Canadian West for the North West Company at a time when the original territory worked by the trappers of the Hudson’s Bay Company was now suffering from diminishing animal population; the hunters were trapping to the brink of extinction. The Hudson’s Bay Company was being encircled by the new fur trading posts, and the Nor’westers were moving into the United States as well. In his 1806 expedition to claim the northern regions of the Louisiana Purchase for the United States, the U.S. army explorer Zebulon Pike staked his claim on a North West Company post by having his soldiers shoot down the British flag and raise the American one. The climax came when Thomas Douglas, the fifth earl of Selkirk, bought a controlling interest in Hudson’s Bay Company. The company awarded the earl a massive tract of land—which was right in the middle of the western territory now being exploited by the North West Company. In 1812 Scottish immigrants arrived in what became known as the Selkirk Settlement. Many of these were Scots dispersed during the Highland Clearances, when their own lords expelled them from their ancestral “crofter” farms to make room for the raising of sheep. Immediately, the Nor’west Company began a guerrilla war against the newcomers, its ranks filled with métis, the offspring of French Canadians and Native Americans. The climax came at Seven Oaks, in modernday Winnipeg, on June 19, 1816. Robert Semple, with a force of Hudson’s Bay men, met a force of Nor’wester Métis under Cuthbert Grant. In the skirmish that followed, Grant and his Nor’westers massacred Semple and the Hudson’s Bay men. Despite this, the odds were in favor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The buccaneering tactics of the North West Company frightened off staid City of London investors, and the Hudson’s Bay Company still held the Royal Charter of 1670. Finally, London stepped in to end the hostilities, essentially giving title of the North West Fur Company to the Hudson’s Bay Company. This gave the Hudson’s Bay Company a tract of nearly 3 million square miles—most of North America. Today, the company still operates, supplying goods and services for remote settlements in western Canada. Further reading: Davies, J. D. “A Permanent National Maritime Fighting Force, 1642–1689.” The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy. R. Hill and Bryan Ranft, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Hamilton, Edward P. The French and Indian War. New York: Doubleday, 1962; Newman, Peter C. Company of Adventurers: Caesars of the Wilderness. New York: Viking, 1987; ———. Empire of the Bay: An Illustrated History of the Hudson’s Bay Company. New York: Viking, 1989; ———. Company of Adventurers: Merchant Princes. New York: Viking, 1992; ———. Empire of the Bay: The Company of Adventurers That Seized a Continent. New York: Penguin, 2000; Stacey, C. P. Quebec, 1759: The Siege and the Battle. London: Macmillan, 1967. John Murphy Huguenots Huguenots is the name given to Protestants in France who were severely persecuted for their faith. The origin of their name is unclear, but its roots probably go back 170 Huguenots to a German word meaning “confederates” or “conspirators,” reflecting public suspicions about the foreign and subversive intentions of the group. The Reformation spread into France almost as early as it shook and divided Germany. In 1523, two years after Martin Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church, Jean Vallière was burned at the stake in Paris for his Protestant beliefs. John Calvin, an exile from France, began the reformed movement in Switzerland, but his dream was to convert his native land. It was inevitable that his Francophile followers would return on a mission in spite of opposition. Government measures taken against the Protestants backfired, and by 1555 there was a Calvinist congregation in Paris. In 1559, Protestant deputies from all provinces assembled in Paris and formed the National Evangelical Church. Within two years, the number of churches went from 15 to 2,150. Their strategy for survival was to find allies among the nobles and obtain their patronage. They organized themselves into military and political units, unified with the church structure. Close-knit, clannish, and theocratic, they were identified by the name Huguenots. Although the Huguenots won the right to organize, matters took a dark turn in the late 1550s when the French Crown and the noble family of the Guises forcefully countered the Huguenots. The last straw was the Vassy massacre in 1561, and the Huguenot nobles took up arms. Seven wars were fought over the next period, summed up in the Thirty Years’ War. Many slaughters of Protestants in French cities occurred, most infamously in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day (1572). The next year, the Huguenot Party was formed, insisting on full liberties for their religion. In the next decade, they formed themselves as a state within a state, and their internal governance was tight and severe. They were so effective at discipline that rival Catholic groups in the Counter-Reformation imitated their organization. Peace came with the Edict of Nantes in 1598, imposed on the French people by Henry IV, a Huguenot- turned-Catholic. The regime and the public had spent themselves on violence and now foreign interference threatened state sovereignty. In the streets, however, tensions continued to fester, making the edict hold precariously. The Huguenots meanwhile pushed through their agenda so that by 1611 they were recognized as a provisional republic within France. This arrangement began to unravel in 1615 when three Protestant provinces temporarily took up arms against the central government, and other signs of dissatisfaction arose over the next 10 years. Cardinal Richelieu, the master tactician of French federal government, concluded that the edict would only destroy the unity of France. In 1626, he mounted a full-scaled attack on Huguenot strongholds. Within three years, all that the Protestants had left was a guarantee of freedom of conscience. Under Louis XIV (1661–1715) all Protestant rights were gradually withdrawn. Nantes was officially revoked in 1685, and massive emigration of Huguenots ensued. The loss of the Huguenots dealt a severe blow to France’s efforts to keep up with their rivals during the Industrial Revolution: a generation of entrepreneurs had emigrated. Just before he died, Louis announced that Protestant exercises in France had ceased. See also Anabaptism; Geneva; justification by faith. Further reading: Belloc, Hilaire. Richelieu. Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing, 1929; Kingdon, Robert M. Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France, 1555– 1563. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 22. Geneva: Librairie E. Droz, 1956. Mark F. Whitters humanism in Europe Humanism originated in 14th-century Europe as a movement to recover the culture of the ancient Greek and Roman pagans. The term derived from the identification of ancient pagan texts as “human” rather than divine like the Bible or the writings of the fathers of the Christian Church. With a few exceptions, humanists were not anti-Christian, but attempted to get behind centuries of church interpretation to understand ancient pagan texts on their own terms. Humanists preferred studying original texts rather than commentaries, and reading whole texts rather than isolating particular sentences or passages, as had frequently been the practice during the Middle Ages. Many violently rejected much of medieval Latin culture and scorned Arab writers such as Avicenna who were greatly respected in the university world. Humanists searched out surviving manuscripts of the classics from monastery, cathedral, and other libraries, sometimes discovering works that had been lost for centuries. They sought to restore the classical texts to what their authors had originally written, and pioneered scholarly methods of textual analysis and manuscript humanism in Europe 171 comparison. They also made the classics public, eventually through print. The birthplace of the humanist movement was Italy, and the earliest prominent humanist was an Italian, Francesco Petrarch. Italy possessed the strongest connections to pre-Christian culture in its buildings, art, and manuscripts, and the most developed civic life. Humanism was not initially connected with the universities and often flourished in towns without universities such as Florence. The first few generations of humanists were definitely not university scholars and attacked the Scholastic Latin inherited from the Middle Ages and used in the universities as nonclassical and barbaric. Humanists supported writing a Latin based on ancient authors, particularly Cicero. Some university professors denounced humanists as neopagan or heretical, although some university scholars and humanists got along well. Rather than being university scholars connected to an institution, early humanists formed an international body, or “republic of letters,” linked by a common Latinity and later by Greek. TransFormation of Humanism Humanism was transformed by two 15th century events, the decline of the Byzantine Empire and the European invention of printing. The decline of Byzantium, which had been apparent for decades before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, led Greek scholars to make their way west to enjoy greater security. These scholars took Greek manuscripts with them, as well as knowledge of the classical Greek language. Humanists now had direct access to ancient Greek writings, rather than medieval Latin translations and adaptations (and even these were often adapted from Arabic versions, rather than the original Greek). Greek and Greek authors began to supplement and to some degree even displace Latin ones in humanist study. The revival of Greek studies led to new interest in the works of Plato, which had been largely lost in the Latin Middle Ages. Humanists influenced by Plato sometimes broke with the political involvement of early humanists to exalt the contemplative life removed from civic affairs. The revival of Plato, usually seen through the lens of mystical Neoplatonism, was often accompanied by an interest in ancient magic, such as the writings of “Hermes Trismegistus.” Magic was seen as a secret discipline known only to the elite. Although only a small proportion of early printed texts were humanist, printing had a great impact on the movement and enabled it to institutionalize itself in a way that previous classical revivals during the Middle Ages had not. Printing standardized the classical Greek and Latin texts, and for the first time it was possible for humanists to be sure that they were all working with the same text and the same pagination, as opposed to manuscripts, all of which are different. Early printing was not error-free by any means, but to some extent it was possible to correct for this by issuing lists of errata. Manuscripts also physically decayed. Printed books did, too, but fact that printing produces thousands of copies for the same outlay as a scribe producing one or two meant that much less information was lost. Print enabled learning to survive a series of disasters, ranging from the sack of Constantinople to the destruction of the library of King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, the sack of Rome in 1527, and the ravaging of the English monastery libraries during the Reformation. Members of Humanism Many humanists were members of the clergy (including some popes), but humanism also provided a way for European men to be professional intellectuals without having to be in the church. Humanists could support themselves by founding schools to teach ancient languages and writing. Humanists developed the idea that learning was necessary to the fullest development of the person. Particularly in its earlier phases humanism emphasized rhetoric, the study of persuasive speech, a discipline with a large classical literature but one that had been largely overlooked in the medieval university in favor of logic. As did teaching, rhetoric opened career possibilities to humanists, who found employment in courts writing and giving formal Latin orations praising the prince or writing formal Latin letters as diplomatic communications. The early humanists had often presented their skills as useful in the urban republics of northern Italy, but by 1450 humanists mainly adapted to the Italian princely order. (Niccolò Machiavelli, one of the most radical humanists, wrote both The Prince, a manual for autocrats, and Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, an analysis of republics.) Humanists also rediscovered history as a subject worthy of study, which it had not been during the Middle Ages, when it was not a part of the school or university curriculum. Humanists revived the idea that the “great men” of history could serve as models for emulation, and also that history was a useful stockpile of examples for making rhetorical arguments. There were a few women humanists, who often faced great difficulties entering humanist professions. However, 172 humanism in Europe a woman who overcame these difficulties could acquire renown. Humanistic attainments were often considered incompatible with marriage for a woman, and most successful early women humanists were known either as virgins or as prostitutes. In their writings on the family, male humanists upheld a patriarchal and domestic ideal. A particularly influential male writer on the family was Leon Battista Alberti, whose second book on the subject, entitled On the Ruler of the Family, was devoted to the dominant role of the father in the household. In the late 15th and 16th centuries, humanism moved from its Italian base to other countries in Europe, a movement often called northern humanism. Italy remained the center of the movement, and nearly all prominent northern humanists visited Italy, but the northern movement was also distinctive. Northern humanists, led by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, were as a group much more oriented to employing humanism to lead a Christian life and reform Church institutions than were Italian humanists. Erasmus, followed by other northern humanists, pioneered the application of humanist methods of textual scholarship to the Bible and other ancient Christian texts. Interest in Religious Texts The interest in religious texts meant that northern humanists were more interested in Hebrew than were most Italian humanists. Humanists even entered the Jewish ghetto to learn Hebrew from rabbis. This led to a controversy involving Johannes Reuchlin, one of Germany’s leading humanists and Christian Hebraists. The substance of the dispute was whether it was permissible or desirable for a Christian to study Jewish books. A fanatically anti-Jewish Jewish convert to Christianity named Pfefferkorn set forth an anti- Jewish program including an attempt to enforce a mandate from the Holy Roman Empire for the seizure of Jewish books. Some lesser rulers in the Empire were concerned about this and consulted Reuchlin. Reuchlin advised them that the seizure of Jewish books was a bad idea for several reasons: Jewish books contained much valuable knowledge, by studying their own books Jews might be converted to Christianity, and seizing the Jews’ books would be a violation of their rights as human beings and Imperial subjects. He also argued that chairs of Hebrew should be established in the universities. This led to attacks from the theological faculties of various German universities, who supported the confiscation measure and accused Reuchlin of being bribed by rich Jews. Although humanism was not originally the issue, Reuchlin’s eminence in the humanistic community made it so. Younger humanists who admired him claimed that university professors were attacking Reuchlin as a way of attacking humanism in general and issued vicious works of satire, attacking Pfefferkorn and the university professors for their ignorance and bad Latin. Interest in Hebrew did not mean that all northern humanists were sympathetic to the Jews. Some such as Reuchlin were relatively pro-Jewish in the context of their times, while others like Erasmus were vehemently anti-Jewish. German humanists in particular often took a nationalist position, encouraged by the rediscovery of a classical Latin text, the Germania of Tacitus, in the 15th century. Tacitus’s portrait of simple, brave Germans became very popular and was presented in opposition to the alleged corruption of Mediterranean lands. German humanists argued that the pious Germans were being exploited by the Italian-dominated international church. Like other European humanists, German humanists attempted to connect their people’s past with that of the ancients as descendants of the ancient Trojans or other classical groups. Northern humanism was greatly affected by the Protestant Reformation. Many humanists initially supported Martin Luther as a reformer but began to distance themselves from him as his message grew more radical. It was common for older humanists to remain in the Catholic Church, while younger humanists were more likely to become Protestants. Erasmus and Sir Thomas More, a martyr for his faith, were among the humanist leaders who remained in the Catholic Church, while Philip Melancthon and John Calvin were prominent among the many Protestant leaders with a humanistic background. By the late 16th century, humanism in both Italy and elsewhere in Europe had grown more technical and scholarly. There was less emphasis on the ancients as providers of moral examples and more on recovering the details of ancient life. For example, there were enormous efforts to recover ancient calendars and to catalog ancient coins. Recovery and reading of a broader range of ancient texts meant that humanism affected more fields of learning. For example, recovery and study of the ancient mathematical texts of Archimedes and Apollonius influenced the development of European mathematics and science. Humanism influenced medicine both positively, through the study of the texts of ancient physicians, most notably Galen and Hippocrates, and negatively, through the rejection of Arab physicians such as Avicenna. Humanists also influenced the development of law through the study humanism in Europe 173 and promotion of Roman law. As it grew more intellectually diverse, humanism also became more closely connected to university life, at first through humanists’ offering popular lectures outside the formal system of instruction and then through the work of younger university masters with an interest in humanism. See also Bible traditions: justification by faith; scientific revolution. Further reading: Baron, Hans. In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism: Essays on the Transition from Medieval to Modern Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988; Gaukroger, Stephen, ed. The Uses of Antiquity: The Scientific Revolution and the Classical Tradition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, 1991; Grafton, Anthony. Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450–1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991; King, Margaret L., and Albert Rabil, Jr., trans. and eds. Her Immaculate Hand: Selected Works by and about the Women Humanists of Quattrocento Italy. Asheville, NC: Pegasus Press, 2000; Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Renaissance Concepts of Man and Other Essays. New York: Harper and Row, 1972; Mandrou, Robert. From Humanism to Science, 1480–1700. Pearce, Brian, trans. New York: Penguin Books, 1978; Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975; Spitz, Lewis W. The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. William E. Burns Humayun (1508–1556) emperor of India At the age of 23, Humayun succeeded his father, Babur, as the second Mughal ruler of India. He ruled successfully for the first few years, then abandoned himself to pleasures, including use of opium, resulting in the loss of his patrimony to Sher (Shir) Shah and years of wandering and exile in Persia. He was finally restored to power in India with Persian help in 1555 but died from a fall in 1556. Humayun inherited a shaky empire that had just been conquered by his father, and he had to deal with three ambitious brothers eager to oust him. Although capable of courage, he was self-indulgent and addicted to pleasures. Two enemies confronted him after his accession, Sultan Bahadur in the southwest and Sher Khan (later titled Sher Shah), leader of Afghans who had settled along the Ganges River in Bihar. Sultan Bahadur was eliminated by the Portuguese but the more able Sher Khan decisively defeated him in 1539. He was forced to flee with few followers across India, to Afghanistan, finally finding refuge in Persia, whose ruler Sha Tahmasp gave him refuge on condition that he converted to the Shi’i (from Sunni) Islam. He did so, at least outwardly. The victorious Sher Khan assumed the title of shah and very ably ruled India from 1540 to 1545. He built up an excellent administrative system, which became the foundation of the later resurrected Mughal Empire. He relied on centrally appointed local officials who administered under a hierarchical system of responsibility. Local officials assessed and collected taxes, at one-third of the total production. He set up courts and weeded out corrupt and oppressive officials. He also established charitable organizations to help the poor and built roads shaded with trees and with rest houses and wells for drinking water interspersed along the way. He died in 1545, when a gunpowder magazine accidentally exploded. Sher Shah’s sons lacked his ability and made matters worse by fighting with one another for their inheritance. Thereupon Sha Tahmasp helped Humayun return to power, first conquering Kandahar and Kabul in Afghanistan, and then winning back his throne in India in 1555. He died the following year, however, after a fall in his palace, leaving the throne to his 13-year-oldson, Akbar, born on the northwestern frontier of India during his father’s desperate flight. Babur founded the Mughal Empire, Sher Shah laid its administrative foundations, and Akbar later consolidated it. Further reading: Gascoigne, Bamber. The Great Moghuls. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1991; Richards, John F. New Cambridge History of India, Vol. 5, Part 1, The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hutchinson, Anne (1591–1643) Puritan dissenter Born Anne Marbury in 1591, Anne Hutchinson was the daughter of an Anglican priest who was an advocate of church reform. During her childhood, the family moved to London, where she received an excellent education and became well grounded in the tenets of Puritanism. At 21, she married William Hutchinson, a prosperous London cloth merchant, and they settled in Alford, Lincolnshire, Anne’s birthplace. She 174 Humayun attended the church of John Cotton in nearby Boston, and when Cotton migrated to New England, Mrs. Hutchinson convinced her husband that the family should follow. They arrived in Boston sometime in the summer of 1634 and quickly became church members and her husband a community leader. She was skilled in the use of herbal medicine and soon developed a reputation for her medical advice. She soon moved into religion. An extremely intelligent and thoughtful woman, well versed in theology, she took to expanding on Cotton’s sermons to an ever-increasing group of followers. Taking what she believed to be Cotton’s lead, she stressed a covenant of grace; in her view individuals gained salvation solely through God’s love, and unrelated to their actions, a covenant of works. Her opponents labeled her an antinomian (against the law), for her doctrine implied the negation of clerical power and church discipline and had unacceptable implications for social order and the authority of the established government. This was of special concern in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; a new colony, isolated in the wilderness, and dedicated to defending its mission to establish a godly community. Although Hutchinson originally had a large following, including some prominent merchants and even the colony’s governor, she came to be viewed as a threat to Massachusetts’s mission and was eventually banished from the colony and later excommunicated from her congregation. Because her accusers were also her judges, her trial was unjust by modern standards, but typical of sedition trials at the time; a formal defense was not permitted. Perhaps most importantly, she guaranteed a guilty verdict when she asserted a direct communication with God, a position unacceptable to a society that believed God spoke through the Bible as interpreted by clergymen. That she was a woman in a society in which women had no public power only made her ideas all the more threatening. Coupled with the challenges of Roger Williams and others, the Hutchinson affair prompted Massachusetts to ensure religious orthodoxy, at least among its clergy, by establishing Harvard College in 1636. In the spring of 1638, Mrs. Hutchinson, her family, and a small number of followers moved to Rhode Island and settled at Aquidneck. After the death of her husband in 1642, she moved to Long Island and then to the New York mainland. In the late summer of 1643, Indians attacked her home, killing all but one member of her household. Long viewed as a victim of Puritan intolerance and a champion of religious freedom, Anne Hutchinson is also recognized for her contribution to the struggle for women’s rights. Further reading: Battis, Emery. Saints and Sectaries: Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1962; LaPlante, Eve. American Jezebel: The Uncommon Life of Anne Hutchinson, the Woman Who Defied the Puritans. San Francisco: Harper, 2004; Winship, Michael P. The Times and Trials of Anne Hutchinson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005. H. Roger King

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

Haitian Revolution The Haitian Revolution represents one of the signal events of the age of revolution, reverberating across the Atlantic world and profoundly shaping social and political relations across the Western Hemisphere in the decades after its eruption in 1791. The only successful large-scale slave revolt in the history of the Americas, the revolution in Haiti served as a cautionary tale for slave owners across the Americas, prompting a tightening of slave regimes and of slave surveillance and control measures from Canada and the United States to Brazil and Peru. Despite the profundity of its impact, however, the Haitian Revolution also has tended not to receive the attention it merits—partly because the French-controlled western portion of the island of Hispaniola, as a colony of neither the Spanish, Portuguese, nor British, fell outside the purview of accounts of these empires’ histories (and has been conventionally excluded, for instance, from treatments of both the U.S. and Latin American independence periods), partly, in the view of some, because of the racism inherent in conventional historical accounts of this era. The events of the revolution itself are dizzyingly complex and diffi cult to summarize. On the eve of the revolution, the French colony of Saint-Domingue, vaunted as the Pearl of the Antilles, was the largest sugar-producing region in the world, outpacing even Brazil, the world’s second-largest, its 800 sugar plantations producing more sugar than all of the British West Indies combined. In the decade before 1789 Saint- Domingue’s slave imports averaged 30,000 per year. Its population was divided into three caste-like strata. At the bottom roughly half a million black slaves, comprising 85–90 percent of the population. At the top were 40,000 whites, divided between a tiny number of large plantation owners and wealthy merchants, or grands blancs, and the vast majority of poor and middling whites, the petits blancs, who deeply resented the former. In between were some 28,000 free people of color (gens de couleur, or affranchis, principally mulatto and some black). Despite Louis XIV’s Code Noir of 1685, making mulattos and free blacks subjects of the French empire, the rights of the gens de couleur were restricted by a series of laws meant to protect the superior social position of whites. With the onset of the French Revolution in 1789, the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity essentially percolated down the social hierarchy, from whites to free coloreds to black slaves. As the grand blancs sought autonomy from the French government, Saint-Domingue’s free coloreds, via the infl uential Paris-based, mulatto-dominated Société des Amis des Noirs (Society of Friends of the Blacks) sought equal representation in the Estates General in Paris. Rebuffed, in October 1790 several free colored leaders led an abortive uprising. By this time, the colony had entered a period of revolutionary turmoil, with debates about liberty and rights resounding throughout its towns and streets. Neither whites nor free coloreds contemplated liberty for slaves, though neither could prevent their slaves from hearing or acting on these debates. H In August 1791 after a period of secretive organizing, the slaves launched their uprising, burning cane fi elds across the western part of the island—an uprising that lasted more than a decade, and that ultimately led to the independence of Haiti on January 1, 1804. After August 1791, confronted with the specter of a slave revolt, whites and free coloreds temporarily closed ranks, though the animosities between the two groups proved too great to bridge. The slave rising spread into the eastern part of the island, nominally controlled by the Spanish. On March 4, 1792, the French revolutionary government granted equality between whites and free coloreds, a decree that did not stop the island’s slide into civil war. The British, courted by the grand blancs and hoping to exploit the opportunity to weaken their French rival, invaded parts of the west, while the Spanish, hoping to regain control of the west, marched from the east. The confl ict thus combined a civil war among and between the island’s fractious whites and free coloreds, an international war pitting France, Britain, and Spain, and a slave uprising against them all. In the end, a small group of the most prominent ex-slave leaders emerged victorious. A pivotal event in this process occurred on April 29, 1793, when Leger-Félicité Sonthonax, a Jacobin high commissioner sent by the French government to restore order, exceeded his authority by abolishing slavery throughout the island. The decision permitted a temporary alliance between the French and slave rebels against the British and Spanish, while also catapulting into prominence former house slave Toussaint Louverture, who became commander of the French forces and the undisputed leader of the ex-slave rebels. After fi ve years and the loss of more than 25,000 troops, the British were defeated, departing the island in April 1798. Soon after, in February 1799, mulattos under André Rigaud rebelled against Toussaint, sparking another civil war. Toussaint’s forces crushed the rebellion by August 1800. Meanwhile Toussaint, Saint- Domingue’s governor-general and commander in chief, established relations with the United States and promulgated a series of laws intended to maintain sugar production and a semblance of social order. Back in France, Napoleon determined to regain the island. Invading in January and February 1802, French forces captured Toussaint in June. He was transported in chains back to France, where he died the next year. Leadership of the black-mulatto forces fell to Toussaint’s lieutenant Jean-Jacques Dessalines. For the next 21 months some 58,000 French forces fought against Dessalines’s army. They were defeated at the cost of some 50,000 French lives, most dying of yellow fever, and in January 1804, the independent nation-state of Haiti (an indigenous name for the island) came into being. See also slave revolts in the Americas. Further reading: Dubois, Laurent. Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004; ———. A Colony of Citizens: Revolution and Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787–1804. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004; James, C. L. R. The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution. New York: Viking, 1963. Reprint, New York: Vintage, 1989. Michael J. Schroeder Hamid, Abdul II (Abdulhamid II) (1842–1918) Ottoman sultan Abdul Hamid II, who reigned 1876–1909, became sultan after his brother, Sultan Murad V, was deposed because of mental illness. He came to power by promising reforms and support for a constitution, but he soon reasserted the sultan’s traditional authoritarian powers. At the time, the Ottoman Empire was beset with problems. The empire was deeply in debt, nationalist rebellions had broken out in Bosnia and Bulgaria, war raged in Serbia and Montenegro, and Russia threatened to further its expansion into Ottoman territories. However, the promulgation of a constitution and establishment of a parliament in 1877 seemed to promise new reforms that would perhaps revive the empire’s former strength. The constitution, drawn up by the able administrator and reformer Midhat Pasha, was shortlived, as Abdul Hamid II used the 1877 war with Russia as the excuse to disband parliament and suspend the constitution. He then removed Midhat from power and sent him into exile. Abdul Hamid II hired German advisers to rebuild the army and administer the fi nances. To the dismay of the British, German infl uence within the empire increased steadily until World War I. Abdul Hamid II turned a blind eye to the British occupation of Egypt, although ostensibly Egypt remained part of the Ottoman Empire, it became a de facto part of the British Empire ruled by British “advisers.” Abdul Hamid II limited the power of government bureaucrats and concentrated power within the sultanate. 174 Hamid, Abdul II He also established strict censorship over publications and monitored political activities through a network of secret agents. Although most of his predecessors had paid scant attention to their title as caliph, Abdul Hamid II reemphasized his role as caliph and protector of the Muslim world. Abdul Hamid II vainly attempted to use the appeal of the pan-Islamic movement, popularized by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, to counter the growing nationalism within the diverse Ottoman Empire. The construction of the Hijaz railway to facilitate the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina was part of his campaign to foster Islamic support. Abdul Hamid II also rejected the Zionist offer made by Theodor Herzl to pay a portion of the huge Ottoman debt in exchange for an Ottoman charter allowing Zionist colonization of Palestine. Herzl was told that the sultan was not in the business of “cutting off his arm,” meaning that Palestine was considered an integral part of the empire, but that Jews were welcome to live there. Fearing assassination, he made himself a virtual prisoner in the palace of Yildiz. Abdul Hamid’s authoritarian rule increased discontent within the military. As a result, the Young Turks, dominated by army offi cers, took over the government in 1908. Abdul Hamid II was forced to accept the reinstitution of the 1876 constitution. In 1909 he abdicated in favor of his brother, who became Sultan Muhammad V. Abdul Hamid II spent his last years under house arrest at the Beylerbeyi Palace in Istanbul, where he died in 1918. See also Young Ottomans and constitutionalism; Zionism and Theodor Herzl. Further reading: Davison, Roderic H. Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963; Haslip, Joan. The Sultan: The Life of Abdul Hamid II. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958; reprinted, New York: Arno Press, 1973. Janice J. Terry Hamilton, Alexander (1755?–1804) fi rst U.S. treasury secretary Born in the British West Indies to parents who were not legally married, Alexander Hamilton surmounted his origins, becoming a wartime aide to General George Washington, a key theorist and promoter of the U.S. Constitution, and the creator of a bold fi nancial system for the new republic. Prideful and outspoken, Hamilton died at the hands of Vice President Aaron Burr in a politically motivated illegal duel in July 1804. Motherless by age 12 and estranged from his father, Hamilton trained as a clerk on the sugar island of St. Croix. There, the self-taught young man dabbled in poetry, penned an eyewitness account of a devastating 1772 hurricane, and so impressed Presbyterian minister Hugh Knox that the older man took up a collection to send his protégé to college in New York. Mentorship by important older men would become a pattern in Hamilton’s career. Caught up in the growing revolutionary fervor, Hamilton soon became a pamphleteer and, by 1776, captained an artillery company. Noticed by Washington, Hamilton became the general’s trusted aide-de-camp. Marriage in 1780 to Elizabeth Schuyler, daughter of a wealthy and politically infl uential Albany landowner, and a temporary falling out with Washington resulted As the fi rst U.S. secretary of the treasury, many of Alexander Hamilton’s ideas contradicted conventional wisdom of the era. Hamilton, Alexander 175 in Hamilton’s returning to Albany, where he studied law alongside Aaron Burr, another young and ambitious New Yorker. Hamilton resumed pamphleteering on urgent issues of governance, taxation, and fi nance. He found time to cofound the Bank of New York and an antislavery society, although his father-in-law owned slaves. In 1782 as a delegate to the congress crafting the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton began an intellectual partnership with a promising young Virginian, James Madison. An early proponent of a stronger and more centralized government to replace the faltering Articles, Hamilton was New York’s sole delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As “Publius,” he, along with Madison and John Jay, wrote a series of arguments for ratifi - cation, later collected as the Federalist Papers. CONTROVERSIAL ECONOMICS In September 1789 Hamilton became George Washington’s and the nation’s fi rst secretary of the treasury. Audaciously, Hamilton proposed a controversial economic plan based in part on the ideas of pioneering British economist Adam Smith. Many of Hamilton’s ideas contradicted much of his era’s traditional fi nancial wisdom and religious teachings. His proposals included consolidation of state liabilities into a permanent federal debt, a national bank controlled by a public/private partnership that could manipulate the nation’s money supply, and luxury taxes on such goods as tea and whiskey. Hamilton also urged Congress to use federal funds and impose tariffs to promote manufacturing and America’s role in the emerging Industrial Revolution. Hamilton soon found himself at odds with former ally Madison and secretary of state Thomas Jefferson, both slave-owning Virginians who had a very different vision of the new nation, based primarily on the expansion of agriculture. Nevertheless, major portions of Hamilton’s economic plan were adopted after Jefferson brokered an agreement creating a federal capital district on the Potomac between Maryland and Virginia, rather than New York, Hamilton’s preference. Hamilton’s F1rst Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791, and the U.S. Mint approved in 1792. Although Hamilton was personally involved in the creation of one of America’s fi rst water- powered industrial cities, Paterson, New Jersey, most of his “Report on Manufactures” failed to win congressional approval. At the height of his power and infl uence, Hamilton became entangled in a web of personal and fi nancial misadventures that would cast a shadow over his career. Although generally regarded as personally honest, he did not always use good judgment in picking close friends and assistants. Some used insider information to speculate on currency fl uctuations and otherwise enrich themselves. One key aide, William Duer, not only took fi nancial advantage of his connection with the treasury secretary but also introduced Hamilton to Maria Reynolds, a married woman. Their ensuing affair, apparently abetted by Mrs. Reynolds’s husband for purposes of blackmail, continued for more than a year and ended with Hamilton’s embarrassing confession, publicly revealed in 1797. As the French Revolution took a turn into violence, political differences between cabinet colleagues Hamilton and Jefferson intensifi ed as Jefferson hailed the end of French monarchy while Hamilton abhorred turmoil in the United States’s old ally. In 1794, when Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against Hamilton’s whiskey tax, the treasury secretary persuaded President Washington to use troops to quell the uprising by raising the specter of anarchy akin to recent events in France. Hamilton rode into battle alongside his general. The next year, Hamilton resigned his cabinet post to resume a lucrative law practice. He would in 1796 help Washington write his farewell address. John Adams of Massachusetts and Hamilton were part of the new Federalist Party by the time of America’s fi rst contested presidential election in 1796, but they were not friends. Unable to derail Adams’s presidential candidacy, Hamilton played a supportive role by questioning the character of Jefferson, a leader of the new Democratic-Republican Party. Hamilton also founded a newspaper, the New-York Evening Post, as a mouthpiece for Federalist politics and his own New York ambitions. THE DUEL The election of 1800 deadlocked, with Jefferson and Burr, both Republicans, each receiving 73 electoral votes. Into this procedural mess (later corrected by the Constitution’s 12th Amendment) waded Hamilton. Despite their political differences, Jefferson and Hamilton were major fi gures, founders of the republic. By contrast, Hamilton argued as he urged the electors to pick Jefferson, Burr was an opportunist of questionable character. Burr became Jefferson’s vice president; the uneasily competitive Burr-Hamilton relationship became loathing on both sides. Against a backdrop of vicious New York political maneuvering, Burr and Hamilton squared off at dawn 176 Hamilton, Alexander on a Weehawken, New Jersey, bluff overlooking Manhattan. Both fi red; Burr’s bullet tore through Hamilton’s liver. A day later, Hamilton was dead. Burr, never even tried for illegal dueling, resumed his seat as president of the Senate in the next congressional session. Elizabeth Hamilton would outlive her husband by 50 years. She was buried alongside him in Trinity Churchyard near Wall Street, America’s fi nancial heart. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Banks of the United States, First and Second; newspapers, North American; Paine, Thomas; political parties in the United States. Further reading: Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin Press, 2004; McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton, 1979. Marsha E. Ackermann Harris, Townsend, and Japan Townsend Harris was born in Sandy Hill, New York, in 1804. At 14, he went to New York City, where he worked his way up from shop clerk to partner in a large company. He took a special interest in cultural and educational opportunities. He became president of the Board of Education in New York City and, in the face of entrenched political power, pursued his dream of education for all classes of society. Harris was responsible for the foundation of the Free Academy, now the City College of New York City. In 1848 he planned and carried out a tour of the South Pacifi c to study the islands and their indigenous native populations. Harris’s expertise in Asia and the Pacifi c did not go unnoticed in Washington, D.C. In 1854, the administration of President Franklin Pierce appointed him American consul in Ningbo (Ningpo), China. He followed this tour of duty with successful negotiations with Siam in 1856. Meanwhile, on February 15, 1855, Commodore Matthew Perry returned to Edo (Tokyo) Bay in Japan. During his fi rst voyage to Japan in July 1854, he had opened diplomatic negotiations with the Japanese government, promising to return the next year. A treaty was signed as a result that opened Japan. With his diplomatic experience in the Far East, Harris was chosen as the fi rst U.S. consul in Japan, arriving in August 1856, in Shimoda. Despite his best efforts, it was more than a year before he set foot in Edo, the capital of the shogunate (military regime). (The Japanese had two capital cities, the shogun’s and the imperial capital at Kyoto.) Although Shogun Tokugawa Iesada had practiced delaying tactics in receiving Harris, he realized that Japan was too weak to risk a war with the United States. Preliminary discussions had already taken place at Shimoda, and negotiations continued in Edo. A treaty was fi nally signed in July 1858 and took effect in 1860. The commercial treaty opened six Japanese ports to U.S. trade and allowed Americans to reside in Edo and Osaka. Later, added provisions fi xed import tariffs at 5 percent and exempted Americans from Japanese laws. The forcing of the weak shogunate to sign unequal treaties with the United States and other Western nations undermined the Tokugawa Shogunate and paved the way for the Meiji Restoration. Harris died in New York City in 1878. With his lifelong interest in Asia and the Pacifi c, Townsend Harris was a natural choice as diplomat to Japan. Harris, Townsend, and Japan 177 Further reading: Gordon, Andrew. A Modern History of Japan from Tokugawa Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Henshall, Kenneth. A History of Japan from Stone Age to Superpower. New York: Palgrave, 2004; Hillsborough, Romulus. Shinsengumi: The Shogun’s Last Samurai Corps. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle, 2005; Love, Jr., Richard W. History of the US Navy, Volume I, 1775–1941. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1992; Morton, W. Scott. Japan: Its History and Culture. New York: McGraw Hill, 1984. John F. Murphy, Jr. Hart, Robert (1835–1911) British diplomat, Chinese offi cial Sir Robert Hart was a remarkable Englishman who served both Great Britain and China. He began working in China in the British consulates at Ningbo (Ningpo) and Canton and rose to become the Inspector- General of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs between 1863 and 1906. As a result of China’s defeat by Great Britain and the Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking), China opened fi ve ports for Western trade in 1842 and established customs offi ces in the treaty ports to collect duty on imported goods. Shanghai emerged as the premier port, but it was captured in 1853 by rebels of the Small Sword Society, who put the Chinese offi cials to fl ight. In the ensuing anarchy, British and American consuls and customs offi cials devised an ad hoc system of collecting customs dues for the Chinese government. Together with the French and with the approval of the Chinese governor-general of the provinces where Shanghai and Ningbo were located, they established a board of inspectors to perform the task. Since Great Britain was the principal trader with China, the inspector-general was always a Briton, beginning with Thomas Wade, a Sinologist who soon resigned to pursue his academic work. The second was Horatio Lay, who proved unsuitable and was replaced by Hart in 1863. Under his leadership an international customs service was developed that by 1873 had 252 Britons and 156 other Western nationals. The service expanded as more Chinese ports were opened to Western trade. In 1896 China established a modern postal system and put it under the charge of Hart. The Maritime Customs only become an independent arm of the Chinese government in 1911 under the Ministry of Posts and Communications. Hart developed a code of conduct for the Westerners who served under him—to learn Chinese, be collegial with their Chinese coworkers, and respectful of Chinese customs, reminding them that they served China. The customs receipts remitted to the Chinese government were important in funding modernizing projects such as the fi rst modern school established under the Zongli (Tsungli) Yamen, China’s equivalent of a Foreign Offi ce that trained interpreters and students in modern subjects. Its offi cers also accumulated accurate statistics on trade and local conditions in China. Hart also gave advice to Prince Gong (Kung), China’s leader in handling foreign affairs, and worked with powerful provincial governors such as Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang) who were interested in modernizing China. He submitted position papers to the Zongli Yamen on modern education, budgetary planning, and even accompanied a group of Chinese offi cials to Europe in 1866 to observe Western government systems. He also strongly advised the Chinese government to break precedent and establish diplomatic missions in Western capitals. Hart also exerted his good offi ces in helping China reach peace terms with France during the Sino-French War of 1884–85, which resulted in France gaining Annam, but evacuating its troops from Taiwan and the Pescadore Islands. A grateful Chinese government awarded him with numerous honors. He also received recognition from Great Britain and most Western nations that traded with China for his role in developing a capable, modern customs service that served all parties with integrity. See also Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars. Further reading: Bruner, Katherine F., John K. Fairbank, and Richard J. Smith, eds. Robert Hart and China’s Early Modernization: His Journals, 1863–1866. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991; Wright, Stanley F. Hart and the Chinese Customs. Belfast: William Mullen and Son Ltd., 1950. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hawaii The Hawaiian Archipelago consists of a group of 19 islands and atolls that extend across 1,500 miles of the Pacifi c Ocean, 2,300 miles from the United States mainland. Eight high islands, located at the southeastern end of the archipelago are considered to be the main 178 Hart, Robert islands. In order from the northwest to southeast they are Nihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii. Scattered across the Pacifi c Ocean, the Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated from any other body of land in the world. Their isolation and a wide range of environments produced a unique array of plants and animals. Volcanoes rising from the seafl oor formed all of the Hawaiian Islands, with the last volcanic eruption outside of the island of Hawaii occurring at Haleakala on Maui in the late 18th century. Loihi, deep in the waters off the southern coast of the island of Hawaii is the newest volcano. Volcanic activity and erosion carved out unique geological features in the Hawaiian Islands, and if the height of the island of Hawaii is measured from its deep ocean base to the snowclad peak of Mauna Kea, it is the world’s fi fth highest island. Anthropologists and historians believe that Polynesians from the Marquesas and Society Islands fi rst settled the Hawaiian Islands around a.d. 300–500 or as late as a.d. 800–1000. Overseas trading and voyaging across Polynesia ebbed and fell, and local chiefs ruled and defended their settlements. Early politics tended toward growing chiefdoms that encompassed entire islands. The historical record indicates that foreigners visited Hawaii before the 1778 arrival of Captain James Cook, but historians give him the credit for discovering Hawaii because he fi rst plotted and published the geographical confi guration of the Hawaiian Islands. Captain Cook named the Islands the Sandwich Islands to honor his sponsor, John Montagu, fourth earl of Sandwich. After the Europeans, the Chinese were the second group of foreigners to arrive in Hawaii. Beginning in 1789, Chinese employees serving on Western trading ships disembarked and settled in Hawaii. In 1820 the fi rst American missionaries arrived to preach Christianity and teach the Hawaiians “civilized” ways. Over half of the population of Hawaii is of Asian ancestry, especially Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino, many of them descendants of early immigrants who came to the islands in the 19th century to work on the sugar plantations. These immigrants began arriving in the 1850s, and on June 19, 1868, the fi rst 153 Japanese immigrants arrived in Hawaii. Throughout waves of immigration and economic development, Hawaiians fought to retain their government and culture. In 1810 King Kamehameha the Great united the Hawaiian Islands for the fi rst time under a single ruler and established a dynasty that governed the kingdom until 1872. In 1887, claiming misgovernment, a group of American and European businessmen involved in Hawaiian government forced King Kalakaua to sign the Bayonet Constitution, which stripped the king of administrative authority, eliminated voting rights for Asians, and set minimum income and property requirements for American, European, and native Hawaiian voters. These actions restricted the electorate to wealthy elite Americans, Europeans, and native Hawaiians. King Kalakaua reigned until he died in 1891. Anthony D. Allen of Schenectady, New York, was one of the many African Americans who found their way to Hawaii after Western contact and were warmly welcomed by the Hawaiians. Born in 1774 to a slave mother and a father who was a freeman and a mariner, Anthony was freed at age 24. Like his father before him, he shipped out to China and other ports and fi nally to Hawaii, where he settled around 1811. The native Hawaiians called him Alani, and he served as steward to Kamehameha the Great and acquired about six acres of land in Waikiki from the high priest Hewa Hewa. He married a Hawaiian woman, and they had children and grandchildren who were Hawaiian citizens. Allen farmed successfully, keeping his own cattle and horses. He ran a boarding house, a bowling alley, and a hospital, having picked up medical skills in Schenectady, where ill or injured seamen and sea captains could recuperate ashore. Missionaries, neighbors, visitors, and native Hawaiians admired him. After a long and prosperous life, Allen suffered a stroke in December 1835, and was buried near his Waikiki house. After King Kalakaua died, his sister, Liliuokalani, succeeded him and ruled until 1893, when a group of American and European businessmen overthrew her. She had threatened to nullify the Hawaiian constitution and even though she backed down, the businessmen staged a bloodless coup and established a provisional government. They drafted a constitution and declared a republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894. When William McKinley won the presidential election of November 1896, he reopened the question of annexing Hawaii to the United States. In June 1897 President McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution annexing Hawaii to the United States and submitted it to the Senate for approval. American historians have usually portrayed the Hawaiians as passively accepting the annexation of their territory and the assimilation of their culture. Current research has revealed that native Hawaiians organized Hawaii 179 a massive petition drive to protest the Newlands Resolution. Ninety-fi ve percent of the native population signed the petition, causing the annexation treaty to fail in the Senate. Although the legality of the Newlands Resolution was questioned because it was a resolution and not a treaty, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed it, and Hawaii became a territory of the United States. Although several attempts were made to make Hawaii a state, it remained a territory for 60 years. Plantation owners found territorial status more convenient because they could continue importing cheap foreign labor, but activist descendants of original laborers fi nally broke their power by actively campaigning for statehood. Admitted on August 21, 1959, Hawaii is the 50th state and the only state surrounded by water. It is the southernmost part of the United States and the only state that is located completely in the Tropics. Hawaii is also the only state continuing to grow in territory because volcanoes like Kilauea continue to produce lava fl ows. The offi cial languages of Hawaii are English and Hawaiian, and Honolulu is its capital and largest city. With a total area of 10,941 square miles and a length of 1,522 square miles, it is ranked 43rd in area of the states. Hawaii quickly became a modern state with booming construction and an expanding economy. The plantation owners endorsed the Republican Party, which was voted out of offi ce, and the Democratic Party of Hawaii dominated state politics for 40 years. In recent years, Hawaii has implemented programs to promote Hawaiian culture. The Hawaii State Constitutional Convention of 1978 incorporated specifi c programs like the creation of the Offi ce of Hawaiian Affairs to promote the indigenous Hawaiian language and culture. See also Alaska purchase. Further reading: Davis, Gavan. Shoal of Time, History of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974; Dougherty, Michael. To Steal a Kingdom. Waimanalo, HI: Island Style Press, 2000; The Hawaiian Historical Society. URL: www.hawaiianhistory.org. Accessed June 2006; Kane, Herb Kawainui. Ancient Hawaii. Captain Cook, HI: Kawainui Press, 1998; Silva, Noenoe K. Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004. Michael J. Schroeder Herzl, Theodor See Zionism and Theodor Herzl. Hidalgo y Costilla, Miguel (1753–1811) Mexican rebel priest Lionized as the Father of Mexican Independence and champion of the downtrodden and oppressed, in 1810 the renegade parish priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla launched a failed rebellion against the Spanish authorities that ended in his capture and execution. Despite its failure, the rebellion inaugurated an 11-year-long struggle for independence and exposed the deep fault lines of race and class that divided New Spain in the waning days of the colonial period. Akin to the Haitian Revolution in terms of the horror it struck into the hearts of the privileged and propertied, the Hidalgo rebellion made glaringly obvious to Mexico’s elite the potential dangers of sparking social revolution from below in the fi ght for political independence. Thus, when independence did come in 1821, it came as a fundamentally conservative transfer of power that preserved the former colony’s rigid race and class hierarchies. The son of a hacienda manager, Hidalgo studied at the Jesuit college in San Nicolás in Valladolid and the Royal and Pontifi cal University in Mexico City, earning his bachelor’s degree in 1774. Steeped in the classics, he also delved into Enlightenment thinkers and learned several Indian languages. After entering the priesthood, from 1778 to 1802 he taught and served 180 Herzl, Theodor King Kamehameha the Great united the Hawaiian Islands for the fi rst time and established a dynasty that ruled until 1872. as rector at his alma mater of San Nicolás, earning a reputation as something of a maverick and freethinker. Assigned to the backwater village of Dolores in 1803 as punishment for various offenses, he proved as much concerned with his parishioners’ material wellbeing as their spiritual salvation, instructing them in a host of practical enterprises (such as apiculture, viticulture, silk growing, and tile manufacture). The parish of Dolores lay in the Bajío, the “breadbasket” of the colony just north and west of Mexico City. Over the previous decades, the Bajío had seen the progressive impoverishment of its mostly mestizo and Hispanized Indian population, along with an accumulation of social grievances that would prove crucial in the events to follow. After the crisis of authority sparked by the Napoleonic invasion of Iberia in 1807–08, plots and conspiracies against the Spanish colonial government multiplied. One such plot, set to be launched on December 8, 1810, counted Hidalgo among its participants. Upon learning that the authorities had been informed of the scheme, Hidalgo leapt into action. At around 2:00 in the morning of September 16, 1810, the slumbering residents of Dolores were awakened by the ringing of the church bell. Addressing the assembled crowd in words that will never be known with certainty, Hidalgo, in his famous Grito de Dolores (Cry of Dolores) urged his parishioners to defend their religion and rise up against the bad government of the hated gachupines (Spanish). Grabbing their hoes and digging sticks, the infl amed crowd made its way to nearby San Miguel, gathering recruits as it went. Around noon the next day, in the village of Atotonilco, Hidalgo appropriated from the local church a banner of the dark-skinned Virgin of Guadalupe, the patron saint of Mexico, which henceforth would serve as his movement’s emblem and standard. The rebellion snowballed with astonishing rapidity. Looting and pillaging Spanish residences and public buildings, armed with machetes, slings, and farming implements, the crowd had become an impassioned mob of thousands. Around noon on September 28, the ragtag army reached the provincial capital of Guanajuato, where they had their fi rst sustained encounter with the Spanish military. Overrunning the town by sheer force of numbers, the crowd slaughtered some 500 Spaniards, burning, pillaging, looting the granary, and wreaking widespread havoc. Over the next month, the army continued on its rampage, taking the provincial capitals of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosí, and Valladolid before heading toward Mexico City, the heart of Spanish power in the Americas. On October 30, 1810, at Monte de las Cruces on the outskirts of Mexico City, Hidalgo’s 80,000 to 100,000-strong army defeated a much smaller but formidable Spanish force sent to stop them. At this point, Hidalgo made what many consider his most momentous and enigmatic decision. Instead of following the advice of his lieutenants and sentiments of the crowd and descending into the colony’s capital city, he opted to retreat. Scholars continue to debate his reasons, though most consider that he found intolerable the prospect of the mass slaughter that would surely follow. From this point the movement rapidly lost momentum, as his makeshift army divided and desertions mounted. In March 1811 Hidalgo was captured far to the north in the deserts of Coahuila. Tried and found guilty of heresy and treason, he was executed at dawn on July 31, 1811, his head displayed on a pole atop the ashen walls of the Guanajuato granary. Mexicans celebrate national independence on September 15–16, in commemoration of Hidalgo’s Grito de Dolores, even though actual independence did not come until 11 years after the revered priest’s fateful cry. More recent scholarship has focused on the social bases of Hidalgo’s rebellion and the confl uence of social and cultural dynamics that created the most massive popular uprising in New Spain’s history. Further reading. Archer, Christon I., ed. The Birth of Modern Mexico, 1780–1824. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2003; Hamill, Hugh M. The Hidalgo Revolt: Prelude to Mexican Independence. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1966; Van Young, Eric. The Other Rebellion: Popular Violence, Ideology, and the Mexican Struggle for Independence, 1810–1821. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. Michael J. Schroeder Hohenzollern dynasty (late) The Hohenzollern dynasty was the ruling house of Brandenburg- Prussia and of imperial Germany. The family took its name from the German word Zöller, meaning “watchtower” or “castle,” and in particular from the Castle of Hohenzollern, the ancestral seat, today in Baden-Württemberg. In 1415 Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund made Frederick VI of Hohenzollern elector of Brandenburg. He and his successors had the right to participate in the elections of the German kings, who Hohenzollern dynasty (late) 181 were heirs to the Imperial throne. In 1525 Albert of Brandenburg, grand master of the Teutonic Knights, secularized the order’s domains as the Duchy of Prussia. In 1614 the acquisition of Cleve, Mark, Ravensburg, and the Duchy of Prussia marked the Hohenzollern rise as a leading German power. Frederick William, the Great Elector, defeated the Swedes and obtained Pomerania, the secularized bishoprics of Cammin, Minden, and Halberstadt. His reign brought centralization and absolutism to the still-scattered Hohenzollern possessions. In 1701 Frederick III of Brandenburg secured from the Holy Roman Emperor the title “King in Prussia.” The change to King of Prussia was not formally recognized until 1772. The Prussian kings retained their title of elector until the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. The Prussian royal title was a new symbol of the unity of the family holdings. Frederick William I, through his administrative, fi scal, and military reforms, was the real architect of Hohenzollern greatness. His son Frederick II, called Frederick the Great of Prussia, seized Silesia from Austria, defended his acquisitions during the Seven Years’ War, and acquired West Prussia in 1772 as a result of the fi rst partition of Poland. Frederick William II, Frederick William III, and Frederick William IV were, however, mediocre rulers. The Congress of Vienna settlement in 1814–15 resulted in a substantial extension of Hohenzollern territory, and the period 1815–66 was marked by the confl ict for domination of Germany. Frederick William IV, who reigned from 1840, was a draftsman interested in both architecture and landscape gardening. He married Elizabeth of Bavaria in 1823, but the couple had no children. In March 1848 Prussia faced a revolution, which overwhelmed Frederick William. The monarch ultimately succumbed to the movement. He offered concessions, promising to promulgate a constitution. The victory of the liberals, however, was short-lived; it perished by the end of the year 1848. The conservatives regrouped and retook control of Berlin. The king did remain dedicated to German unifi cation, leading the Frankfurt parliament to offer him the crown of Germany on April 3, 1849, which he refused, saying that he would not accept a crown from the gutter. In 1857 Frederick William suffered a stroke that left him mentally disabled. His brother William took over as regent, becoming King William I upon his brother’s death on January 2, 1861. A crisis arose in 1862, when the Diet refused to authorize funding for a reorganization of the army. William resolved that Otto von Bismarck was the only politician capable of handling the crisis and appointed him ministerpresident. Bismarck saw his relationship with William as that of a vassal to his feudal superior. Nonetheless, it was Bismarck who effectively directed politics, internal as well as foreign. Under Bismarck’s direction, Prussia’s army triumphed over its rivals Austria and France in 1866 and 1870, respectively. In the Palace of Versailles, near Paris, on January 18, 1871, William was proclaimed the emperor of a unifi ed Germany. In 1829 William married Augusta of Saxony-Weimar and had two children, Frederick and Princess Louise of Prussia. Upon his death on March 9, 1888, William I was succeeded by Frederick III. In 1858 Frederick married Princess Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland, the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The couple had eight children. By the time he became emperor in 1888, he had incurable cancer of the larynx. Frederick ruled for only 99 days before his death on June 15, 1888, being succeeded by his eldest son, Wilhelm (William) II. A traumatic breech birth left Wilhelm with a withered left arm, which he tried with some success to conceal. Additionally, he may have experienced some brain trauma. Historians are divided on whether such a mental incapacity may have contributed to his frequently aggressive, tactless, and bullying approach to problems and people, which was evident in both his personal and political life. Such an approach certainly marred German policy under his leadership. In 1881 Wilhelm married Augusta Victoria, duchess of Schleswig-Holstein. They had seven children. Wilhelm’s reign was noted for his militaristic push to assert German power. He sought to expand German colonial holdings. Under the Tirpitz Plan, the German navy was built up to contend with that of the United Kingdom. Despite Wilhelm’s attitude it is diffi cult to say that he was eager to unleash World War I. During the war, he was commander in chief, but he soon lost all control of German policy, and his popularity plunged. After the explosion of the German Revolution, Wilhelm could not make up his mind about abdicating. The unreality of this refusal showed up when William’s abdication both as emperor and king of Prussia was announced by Chancellor Prince Max von Baden on November 9, 1918. The very next day, Wilhelm fl ed into exile in the Netherlands, where he died on June 4, 1941. 182 Hohenzollern dynasty (late) The Hohenzollern Swabian line remained Catholic at the Reformation. Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen became prince of Romania in 1866 and king, as Carol I, in 1881. In 1914 Ferdinand succeeded his uncle in Romania, where his descendants ruled until 1947. See also revolutions of 1848. Further reading: Eulenberg, Herbert. The Hohenzollerns. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1929; Koch, Hannsjoachim Wolfgang. A History of Prussia. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 1978; Röhl, John C. G. Young Wilhelm: The Kaiser’s Early Life, 1859–1888. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; ———. Wilhelm II: The Kaiser’s Personal Monarchy, 1888–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Tipton, Frank B. A History of Modern Germany Since 1815. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Martin Moll Hong Xiuquan (Hung Hsui-ch’uan) (1814–1864) Chinese religious rebellion leader Hong Xiuquan was the leader of the most devastating rebellion that swept southern China between 1850 and 1864. An estimated 20 million people died as a result. The Hong family lived 30 miles from Guangzhou (Canton), where Western infl uence on China was strongest. Ambitious to bring honor to his family through academic success, he sat for the lowest level civil service exams in Canton in 1828, 1836, 1837, and 1843 and failed each time. He suffered a serious illness and delirium after his third failure, when he claimed being taken to heaven. There, according to his account, he met his Heavenly Mother (Mary), Elder Brother (Jesus), and Heavenly Father (God). God instructed him to return to Earth to defeat the demons and establish the heavenly kingdom. He equated his vision with writings in the tract that he was given by a Protestant Christian missionary in 1836, titled “Good Words Exhorting the Age.” He obtained more translations of Christian teachings, then went to Hong Kong in 1847 and studied under an American Baptist missionary, Issachar Roberts, but was not baptized. With this background of personal failure and limited understanding of Christianity, Hong formed a new trinity of God, Elder Brother Jesus, and himself (God’s second son); converted friends and relatives; and founded the Society of God Worshippers. His converts were mostly poor people in the southern province of Guanxi (Kwangsi); they destroyed local Buddhist temples and provoked the government to send in an army. A clash in 1850 ignited the revolt, and success led to the establishment of the Taiping Tianguo (T’aip’ing T’ien-kuo), or Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace. Hong became the Heavenly King, and his top lieutenant, Yang Xiuqing (Yang Hsiu-ch’ing), the Eastern King (Yang claimed to be God’s third son, the Holy Ghost). Other followers also received titles as kings and marquises. Early Taiping followers were fanatical believers in Hong’s version of Christianity; they hated the failing Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty and were highly disciplined. By 1853 the Taiping army had swept over southern China and captured Nanjing (Nanking), which became the Heavenly Capital. There, Hong and his associates issued regulations and laws according to their interpretation of Christianity. But they had no skill in administration and implemented few reforms. Western governments were initially interested in Hong’s Christianity and government and sent representatives to Nanjing to investigate. But they were disillusioned by Hong’s pretensions as universal king and other bizarre pseudo-Christian teachings and practices. Rivalry between Yang and Hong erupted into civil war in 1856 and the defeat of Yang. Thereafter, Hong trusted no one except his family members, abandoned himself to pleasures, and became increasingly delusional. The Taiping movement collapsed as Qing supporters led by Zeng Guofan (Tseng Kuo-fan) offered reforms and won military victories with Western arms, aided by Western offi cers. Hong committed suicide as his capital fell. See also Gordon, Charles; Li Hongzhang; Qing (chi’ing) dynasty in decline; Taiping Rebellion; Tongzhi Restoration/Self-Strengthening Movement; Zho Zongtang. Further reading: Boardman, Eugene P. Christian Infl uence upon the Ideology of the Taiping Rebellion. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1950; Fairbank, John K. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 10, Part 1, Late Ch’ing: 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978; Jen, Wuren. The Taiping Revolutionary Movement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973; Spence, Jonathan D. God’s Chinese Son. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1996. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hong Xiuquan (Hung Hsui-ch’uan) 183 Humboldt, Alexander von (1769–1859) scientist, author, and artist His contemporaries once described Baron Alexander von Humboldt as the “last universal scholar in the fi eld of the natural sciences.” Naturalist, botanist, zoologist, author, cartographer, artist, and sociologist are just a few of the titles that Humboldt earned. His infl uence resonates throughout the world, but, paradoxically, it is stronger throughout the Americas than in Germany, the country of his birth. When Baron Alexander von Humboldt visited the United States for three weeks in 1804, just after the Lewis and Clark Expedition had departed to explore the American West, he was the guest of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had a scholarly reputation in Europe, and von Humboldt had achieved a reputation as an explorer, scientist, and cartographer. The two men became close friends. Margaret Bayard Smith, wife of the founder of the Washington Intelligencer newspaper, described one of these visits in her diary. Mrs. Smith recorded one of Humboldt’s twilight encounters with President Jefferson in 1804 when the President’s aide ushered him into the drawing room without announcing him. Von Humboldt found Jefferson sitting on the fl oor in the middle of half a dozen of his grandchildren. All were so busy playing that for some minutes they did not realize that another person had entered the room. Finally Jefferson stood up, shook hands with his visitor, and said, “You have found me playing the fool, Baron, but I am sure to you I need make no apology.” Jefferson felt unapologetic enough to romp with his grandchildren in the presence of Humboldt, who like himself, had achieved self-taught profi ciency in many scientifi c fi elds. Charles Darwin respected him enough to use his journals as a reference during his year-long voyage on the Beagle and described him as “the greatest scientifi c traveler who ever lived.” Humboldt’s journey began in Berlin, Prussia, where he was born on September 14, 1769. His father, an army offi cer, died nine years after his birth, and his mother raised Alexander and his older brother, Wilhelm. She hired tutors to provide early education grounded in languages and mathematics for the two boys. When he grew older, Alexander studied at the Freiberg Academy of Mines under the noted geologist A. G. Werner, and he also met George Forester, Captain James Cook’s scientifi c illustrator on his second voyage, and they hiked around Europe. In 1792, when he turned 22, Humboldt took a job as a government mines inspector in Franconia, Prussia. Five years later Alexander’s mother died, and he inherited a substantial estate. In 1798 Alexander left government service and began to plan a travel itinerary with his friend Aimé-Jacques- Alexandre Goujoud Bonpland, a French medical doctor and botanist. They went to Madrid, where King Charles II granted them special permission and passports to explore South America. Between 1799 and 1805 Humboldt and Bonpland explored the coasts of Venezuela, the Amazon and Orinoco Rivers, much of Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Mexico. Much like their American counterparts Lewis and Clark, they collected plant, animal, and mineral samples, studied electricity and discovered the electric eel, extensively mapped northern South America, climbed mountains, observed astronomical events, and performed many scientifi c observations. While he investigated the reasons for the dry interior of Peru, Humboldt discovered a cold ocean current that runs along much of the western coast of South America. It is now known as the Humboldt Current Alexander von Humboldt’s legacy resonates today as one of the most important achievements in naturalism and science. 184 Humboldt, Alexander von or the Peru Current. Carlos Montufar, a scientist who later became a revolutionary in Ecuador, accompanied the pair on part of their trip. Humboldt enjoyed many distinctions. He was the fi rst European to witness native South Americans preparing curare arrow poison from a vine and the fi rst person to recognize the need to preserve the cinchona plant, the bark of which contains quinine used to cure malaria. He was the fi rst person to accurately draw Inca ruins in South America at Canar, Peru, and he also was the fi rst person to discover the importance of guano, dried droppings from fi sh-eating birds, as an excellent fertilizer. In 1804 Humboldt went to Paris and chronicled his fi eld studies in 30 volumes. He stayed in France for 23 years and regularly met with other intellectuals. Eventually he depleted his fortunes because of his travels and self-publishing his reports. In 1827 he returned to Berlin and secured a steady income by becoming adviser to the king of Prussia. From 1827 to 1828 he gave public lectures in Berlin, and his lectures were so popular that he had to fi nd huge halls to hold all of the people. In the 1830s the czar of Russia invited Humboldt to Russia, and after he explored the country and described some of his discoveries, including permafrost, he recommended that Russia build weather observatories across the country. Russia built these weather stations in 1835, and Humboldt used the data from them to develop the principle of continentality, the concept that the interiors of continents have more extreme climates because of the lack of the moderating infl uence from the ocean. At the age of 60, Humboldt traveled to the Ural Mountains in Siberia and to Central Asia to study the weather. He wrote extensively about his travels and discoveries. One of his books, A Personal Narrative, inspired Darwin. As Humboldt made more scientifi c discoveries, he decided to write everything known about the Earth. He titled his work Kosmos and published the fi rst volume in 1845, when he was 76 years old. His work was well written and well received, and the fi rst volume, a general overview of the universe, sold out in two months. His other volumes explored topics including astronomy, Earth, and human interaction. Humboldt died at age 90 in 1859, and the fi fth and fi nal volume of Kosmos was published in 1862, based on his notes. He is buried in Tegel, Germany, and his name is commemorated in a few places in his native country, including in front of the Humboldt University in Berlin and on his grave in Tegel. Many landmarks in the Americas, including a current, a river, a mountain range, a reservoir, a salt marsh, parks, and many counties and towns are named for Humboldt. On the Moon, Humboldt’s Sea is named in his honor. Further reading: Gendron, Val. The Dragon Tree: A Life of Alexander Baron von Humboldt. New York: Longmans, Green, 1961; Helferich, Gerard. Humboldt’s Cosmos: Alexander von Humboldt and the Latin American Journey That Changed the Way We See the World. New York: Gotham, 2004; Humboldt, Alexander von, and Nicolass A. Rupke. Cosmos: A Sketch of the Physical Description of the Universe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997; Rupke, Nicholass A. Alexander von Humboldt: A Metabiography. Frankfurt: Frankfurt am Main, 2005. Caryn E. Neumann Hundred Days of Reform The inadequacies of the Self-Strengthening Movement adopted by the Qing (Ch’ing) government of China convinced many educated Chinese that only thorough institutional reforms could save the nation from the expansionist ambitions of the Western powers and Japan. In 1895 defeat by Japan and the humiliating Treaty of Shimonoseki provided the catalyst that stirred into action a group of candidates who had gathered in the capital, Beijing, for the triennial metropolitan examinations. One of the candidates, named Kang Youwei (K’ang Yu-wei), penned a long memorial to the throne protesting against the treaty and urging immediate reforms; it was cosigned by 603 of the candidates and gained widespread attention. Eliciting no response, Kang and his student Liang Qichao (Liang Ch’i-ch’iao) began to organize study societies in Beijing and other major cities, sponsoring lectures and founding newspapers and magazines with the goal of promoting modernization and political change. By 1898 their study societies had galvanized a sizable number of reform-minded intellectuals into a political force. Meanwhile, the young emperor Guangxu (Kuanghsu), who had nominally assumed the reins of government, began to show sympathy for the new reform ideas and read many of Kang’s memorials and other works. He was particularly impressed by Kang’s accounts of reforms under Peter the Great of Russia and in Meiji Japan. As a result, he appointed him and his supporters to important government positions. Between June 11 and September 16, 1898, over 40 reform decrees were Hundred Days of Reform 185 issued by the emperor that encompassed such areas as education, government administration, military reorganization, economic development, and the budget. Although there had not been time to implement most of the reforms, they nevertheless alarmed the Confucian conservatives and offi cials loyal to the ostensibly retired but still powerful dowager empress Cixi (Tz’u-hsi). On September 21 Cixi and her supporters mounted a successful coup d’état that stripped Guangxu of all his powers and put him under arrest. Six reform leaders were executed while Kang, Liang, and a number of others escaped and went into exile. The 103 days of euphoric reforms came to an end. All the reforms were rescinded. In the fi nal analysis the idealistic reformers had no political experience or support from the real power holders in the government. They overestimated the ability of Guangxu to override the authority of Cixi while underestimating the opposition of the die-hard conservatives. Their ambitious program, lacking a well-thought-out strategy, was too radical for the time. Although some feeble attempts at reforms were made during the next decade China continued its downhill slide toward diplomatic disaster and domestic instability. As a result of the failure of the Hundred-Day Reform, disillusionment with evolutionary transition to a constitutional monarchy led to widespread support of Sun Yat-sen’s call for the overthrow of the Qing, or Manchu, dynasty. The fi nal outcome was the successful revolution of 1911 and the establishment of the fi rst republic in Chinese history. See also Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline. Further reading: Cameron, Meribeth E. The Reform Movement in China, 1898–1912. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1931; Cohen, Paul A., and John Schrecker eds. Reform in Nineteenth Century China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976; Fairbank, John K. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 11, Part 2, Late Ch’ing: 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Jiu-fong L. Chang

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

Haganah The Haganah (Hebrew for “defense”) was an underground Jewish paramilitary organization created during the British mandate in Palestine in 1920. The Haganah began as a small voluntary body of men called Ha Shomer, formed to guard Jewish settlements, or kibbutzim. The Haganah consisted of soldiers who had fought for the British in World War I as well as local farmers who were determined to defend their property from Arab attacks. After the Arab riots of 1920 and 1921, when Jews and their property fell under attack, the Jewish population realized that the British administrators would do nothing to guarantee their safety and that they had to learn to defend themselves. At this time, the Haganah was poorly armed and not well coordinated. Its duties mainly consisted of guarding the borders between Arab and Jewish populations. In the Arab-Jewish clashes of 1929, the Haganah improved as a defense organization by securing their three main sectors in Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, and Haifa as well as in other settlements of Palestine. The Haganah became a countrywide organization including men and women of all ages from both kibbutzim and the cities. Training programs as well as officers’ training began, while a steady stream of weapons started to arrive from Europe. The underground production of weapons also began. During the Arab revolt in 1936–39, the Haganah matured and developed from a militia into a military body to successfully defend Jewish quarters and settlements from Arab attack. The British did not officially recognize the Haganah, but in the midst of the uprising they did help to organize several special forces groups trained in different tactics to help defend British interests. In April 1937, a revisionist splinter group of the Haganah known as Irgun Zvai Leumi, or simply Irgun, began its own operations. Irgun’s policies differed from those of the Haganah in that Irgun targeted the British as well as Arab Palestinians. The British 1939 White Paper, restricting Jewish immigration into Palestine, added to Jewish anger toward the British. The White Paper was viewed by Zionist leaders as a betrayal of British intentions stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. As a result, the Haganah began helping to guard illegal immigrant ships as they arrived along the Palestinian coast. In the process, many illegal Jewish immigrants died due to drowning and overcrowding on the tiny ships and also ended up in Nazi camps after being turned away by the British upon arrival. In June 1940, a splinter group of the Irgun left the organization after a disagreement on the decision to suspend its armed campaign against the British during World War II. These members established a more radical group called Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, named after its new leader. The Haganah itself was evolving into a national and relatively nonpartisan clandestine Jewish army. At this time it wished to distance itself from the Irgun’s and Lehi’s methods. The Haganah was officially an illegal organization, too, and yet at the same time the British H cooperated with it during the Arab revolt (1936–39) and yet again during World War II. In 1941, select members of the Haganah under British training became an elite command force, the Palmah, which was created to counter an anticipated Nazi takeover of Vichy-held Lebanon and Syria. At the conclusion of World War II, it became apparent that Britain would not change its policies in Palestine, nor would it allow a mass Jewish migration into the region. The Haganah then decided to join in on the actions of the Irgun and Lehi by attacking the British in commando raids and sabotage attacks. The Haganah membership consisted of illegal immigrants as well as over 26,000 Palestinian Jews who had served with the British in World War II. Some of the strengths of the Haganah included its bravery, its initiative, and its ability to improvise during battle. It developed an impressive military intelligence system that allowed it to spy on the British and the Palestinian Arabs. It also became very skilled in covert operation tactics such as stealing weapons from the British and hiding the many immigrants it helped smuggle into the region. Training activities and the purchase of weapons abroad were stepped up after the 1947 UN partition plan, which called for the partition of Palestine between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews. Shortly after this, the Haganah, along with Irgun and Lehi, began concerted attacks on Palestinian Arabs in an attempt to force them out of the Jewish areas that were outlined in the UN plan. Some 300,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced from their homes in fi ve weeks, including an all-day attack on Deir Yasin village resulting in the deaths of over 250 men, women, and children. Days after the British mandate ended, Israel was declared an independent state, and in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the War of Independence, Israel held on to the territory that had been allotted to it in the partition plan and also extended its territory by approximately one-third. At the time of the Israeli declaration of independence, the new government, led by David Ben-Gurion, decided that the new state would not have any armed militias or partisan groups, and the Haganah dissolved into the Israeli Defense Force, or IDF. See also Zionism. Further reading: Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Confl ict, 1881–1998. New York: Vintage Publishers, New York, 2001. Brian M. Eichstadt Haitian massacre (1937) For seven bloody days during October 1937, the Dominican army massacred thousands of Haitian men, women, and children living in the northwestern frontier region of the Dominican Republic. Thousands more fl ed for their lives across the border into Haiti. Many of the victims were Dominican-born and thus were accorded Dominican citizenship, as guaranteed by the country’s constitution. Some came from families that had lived in the Dominican Republic for generations. The country’s president-dictator, Rafael Trujillo, ordered this wave of genocidal violence and justifi ed his actions as an act of national self-preservation, declaring that an invasion of Haitians threatened the Dominican Republic. Trujillo, refl ecting the view of many other Dominicans, defi ned Dominican national identity according to its difference from Haitians. Dominicans, especially the elite, identifi ed themselves as a white and Hispanic nation, in stark opposition to the black and African Haiti. The borderlands region dividing Haiti and the Dominican Republic represented a porous boundary marked by a transnational, bilingual, and bicultural community of Haitians and Dominicans, some of whom intermarried. Unlike Haitians living in the eastern regions of the Dominican Republic, the Haitians in the borderlands were mostly independent small farmers. Many Haitians had immigrated to the Dominican Republic in the second half of the 19th century in search of land in the sparsely populated western region of the country. Their descendants, although ethnically and culturally Haitian, were born on Dominican soil and considered it their home. The residents of this region did not regard the border between the two countries as a concrete boundary and frequently traveled back and forth several times a day. The porous and transnational Haiti-Dominican border troubled Trujillo and the Dominican elite, and soon after his rise to power he worked to formalize the border. He feared that the open border provided an easy passageway for exiled revolutionaries to launch an attack on his regime. Trujillo signed a boundary treaty with Haitian president Sténio Vincent in March 1936. Trujillo and his elite Dominican offi - cials actively engaged in a program of nation building and national identity dedicated to a strict geographic and cultural national boundary between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. When the massacre began on October 2, both Haitians and Dominicans living in the borderland region 138 Haitian massacre (1937) feared for their lives, having been caught completely unaware by the killing spree. No policies or actions by the Trujillo regime prior to the massacre had foreshadowed such an event. Some Dominicans risked their own lives to help their Haitian neighbors, while others aided the army in identifying Haitians. The fl uidity of culture and language in this borderlands region made it diffi cult to distinguish Haitian from Dominican. Soldiers employed crude methods based on racially constructed stereotypes about Haitians to determine who lived and died, such as determining a person’s ethnicity based on their pronunciation of the Spanish “r.” The soldiers avoided the use of fi rearms, preferring machetes, clubs, and bayonets, suggesting to many scholars that Trujillo hoped to characterize the killings as a popular uprising, not government-sponsored genocide. The massacre forever changed the borderlands region by imposing a strict dichotomy between Haitian and Dominican. Word of the government-sponsored massacre spread quickly as journalists and foreigners reported the atrocities. Trujillo set about creating an atmosphere of anti-Haitian sentiment to justify his military actions. President Sténio Vincent of Haiti feared a Dominican military invasion and called on the United States, Mexico, and Cuba to act as mediators between the two countries. Trujillo refused to submit to an inquiry, claiming that the incident was not a matter of international concern. The dictator subsequently offered Haiti $750,000 to settle the matter, and President Vincent readily accepted the money. Further reading: Roorda, Eric Paul. The Dictator Next Door: The Good Neighbor Policy and the Trujillo Regime in the Dominican Republic, 1930–1945. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998; Turits, Richard Lee. “A World Destroyed, A Nation Imposed: The 1937 Haitian Massacre in the Dominican Republic.” Hispanic American Historical Review (v.82, 2002). Kathleen Legg Hara Kei (1856–1921) Japanese politician Hara Kei (Hara Takashi) was a leading member of the Seiyukai political party in Japan in the early 20th century and the prime minister of Japan from 1918 to 1921. Hara was born into a family of samurai background in northern Japan in 1856. After working in fi elds as diverse as diplomacy and journalism, Hara joined the Seiyukai, a political party founded by Ito Hirobumi in 1900, and quickly became one of its leading members. Although political parties were the leading force in the lower house of Japan’s parliamentary body, the Diet, the key posts in the Japanese cabinet, including the position of prime minister, remained dominated at the turn of the century not by party offi cials but rather by elder statesmen. Hara became one of the foremost champions of allying the Seiyukai with the cabinet. In 1904, Prime Minister Katsura Taro needed Seiyukai support in the Diet for budget increases in order to fi ght the Russo-Japanese War. Hara and Katsura made a bargain whereby Hara delivered the necessary assistance in exchange for the future appointment of Seiyukai’s president, Saionji Kinmochi, as prime minister. Saionji eventually served twice as prime minister, from 1906 to 1908 and then from 1911 to 1912. As home minister in Saionji’s fi rst cabinet, Hara worked to strengthen the party by recruiting members of the civil bureaucracy into the organization. In addition, he built support for the party beyond the ranks of offi cialdom by providing funds for local economic development. By increasing spending on local schools, roads, harbors, and transportation, he gained a following for the Seiyukai among the electorate. Hara became president of the Seiyukai in 1914 and was selected to serve as prime minister of Japan in the aftermath of the well-known 1918 rice riots, marking the fi rst time that a career party politician held that leading offi ce in the Japanese government. Although Japan had undergone an economic boom as a result of World War I, those on the lower rungs of the social hierarchy struggled with infl ation and falling wages. Hara was in many ways the only leader with signifi cant support in both the Diet’s party-dominated lower house and its upper house, the House of Peers, still largely the preserve of nonparty elites, despite the fact that some upper-house delegates had joined political parties. His connections with nonparty elites proved vital to his accession to prime minister. Upon becoming prime minister, Hara did not embark on a program of sweeping, wholesale changes. The tax qualifi cation for voting was lowered in a move that doubled the size of the electorate, but most of the newly enfranchised were small landholders largely favorable to the Seiyukai. In a more overtly partisan manner, Hara’s government remapped electoral boundaries to benefi t the Seiyukai, and his appointments within the bureaucracy were often made with blatantly partisan motives. His government likewise supported defense spending, and Hara made signifi cant efforts to improve relations with the military leadership. Hara Kei 139 Responding to protests against Japanese imperial rule, Hara attempted to replace the military administrations of Japan’s colonial holdings with civilian offi cials, though the military successfully resisted those efforts in Korea. He also called for assimilation of colonial populations, representation for colonies in the Diet, and the granting of greater civil liberties to colonials. Hara’s career came to a violent conclusion when he was assassinated by a right-wing fanatic in Tokyo Station in 1921, but Hara Kei had played an immensely important role in transforming the Seiyukai into a leading force in Japanese politics in the early 20th century. Further reading: Duus, Peter. Party Rivalry and Political Change in Taisho Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968; ———. Modern Japan. 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 1998; Najita, Tetsuo. Hara Kei and the Politics of Compromise, 1905–1915. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Adam C. Stanley Harlem Renaissance The Harlem Renaissance is the name that was attached to the African-American literary, artistic, and intellectual movement that was centered in Harlem, a neighborhood in Upper Manhattan, New York. Many African Americans had migrated from the South to northern cities in the years after 1916 in what is known as the Great Migration, and Harlem, which had been developed as a residential area for whites, became the cultural capital of the African-American United States during the 1920s. The movement’s participants knew it as “The New Negro Movement,” after the title of art historian Alain Locke’s book The New Negro (1925), in which Locke expressed the hope that the black artist would become “a collaborator and participant in American civilization.” Like any cultural movement, the Harlem Renaissance had antecedents, as the cultural life of African Americans in New York City was already well developed. Harlem, acknowledged as the black capital of the United States, was home to advocacy groups such as Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and the National Urban League, and most nationally known African Americans, including Garvey, W. E. B. DuBois, and A. Philip Randolph, lived there. The intellectual center of Harlem was the local branch of the New York Public Library, which had the most extensive collection of material concerning African Americans in existence. Scholars of the movement have placed its onset in 1910, when the NAACP began to publish Crisis, edited by W. E. B. DuBois. Others argue that it began in 1919, when black soldiers returned from World War I and U.S. cities experienced an unprecedented amount of racial violence, or in the early 1920s, which saw the publication of James Weldon Johnson’s Book of American Negro Poetry (1922), Jean Toomer’s Cane (1923), and the launching of the newspaper Opportunity (1923), edited by sociologist Charles S. Johnson for the National Urban League. Both Crisis and Opportunity published fi ction and poetry and sponsored contests to encourage African-American writers. The Harlem Renaissance is remembered as a chiefl y literary movement. Poetry constituted its fi rst literary output, but prose forms, notably fi ction, replaced poetry as the dominant literary form after 1924. Although the movement included visual arts, it excluded jazz, which, although it was performed in Harlem, had other antecedents (it should be noted that the 1920s dance craze the Charleston was fi rst performed in Harlem). As artists and writers began to speak in terms of a “New Negro,” they developed a defi nition of African Americans as a militant, self-assertive, and urbane group of people capable of speaking for themselves. Some writers, like Langston Hughes, were at the beginning of long and distinguished careers, and some, like Jean Toomer, never wrote anything else of signifi cance. The literary movement did not have a consistent recognizable style, as it encompassed a debate over tradition and the nature of African-American culture. Wallace Thurman, Claude McKay, Arthur Huff Fauset, and Zora Neale Hurston, among others, stressed the distinctiveness and vitality of black ethnicity, particularly among working-class African Americans, while James Weldon Johnson, Jessie Fauset, Nella Larsen, and Alain Locke were more likely to write about middleclass African-American life as a means of ensuring that it would be seen as an integral part of U.S. culture as a whole. Langston Hughes and Countee Cullen found themselves agreeing with both sides of this debate. Hughes (1902–67) and Hurston (1891[?]–1960) are the best-known writers of the movement. Hughes, born James Langston Hughes in Joplin, Missouri, worked at a variety of jobs, traveled in the Americas and Europe, and published his fi rst volume of poetry, The Weary Blues, in 1926. Seen as the prototypical 140 Harlem Renaissance New Negro, Hughes used the rhythms and language of jazz and blues in his poems, and his essay “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain” (1926) stands with The New Negro as a principal statement of the movement’s ideology. Hurston, who grew up in the all-black hamlet of Eatonville, Florida, graduated from Barnard College, where she studied with the anthropologist Franz Boas. Hurston’s literary output interpreted African-American folktales she had gathered in the rural South in collections and novels published during the 1930s. Visual artists connected with the Harlem Renaissance are less renowned. Aaron Douglas is best known for his illustrations in The New Negro and in James Weldon Johnson’s God’s Trombones: Seven Negro Sermons in Verse. Palmer Hayden, who was trained in both New York and Paris, is best known for his paintings of African subjects. Other artists associated with the movement were Malvin G. Johnson and William H. Johnson. The best known sculptor is Augusta Savage, and photographers James Van Der Zee and Roy DeCarava are also associated with the movement. The Harlem Renaissance contributed to placing black art and literature at the center of American life, but the incorporation was not entirely the work of African Americans. For African Americans, the movement was a response to calls from critics like Randolph Bourne and Van Wyck Brooks for a U.S. culture independent of European tradition. For white literary America, Harlem was exotic. When Harlem was embraced by white critics like H. L. Mencken and Carl Van Vechten, it was in part as a result of their own iconoclasm. Van Vechten’s book Nigger Heaven (1926) “promoted” Harlem to white Americans (and caused anger and resentment among many African Americans), but Van Vechten also served as a patron to Langston Hughes and introduced other black writers to patrons such as Mrs. R. Osgood (Charlotte) Mason, Albert Barnes, Louise Bryant, the William E. Harmon Foundation, the Julius Rosenwald Fund, and the General Education Fund. Mencken published the work of African-American artists in the American Mercury. As the Great Depression set in, resources available to African Americans in Harlem dwindled, making cultural activities even harder to maintain. The end of the Harlem Renaissance came in 1935, when a racially based riot convulsed Harlem. There has been a good deal of debate concerning what was seen as the failure of African American artists and writers to create and maintain independent cultural institutions, but it is generally agreed that the movement provided subsequent African-American writers and artists with a cultural base upon which later generations could build. Further reading: Baker, Houston A. Modernism and the Harlem Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987; Douglas, Ann. Terrible Honesty: Mongrel Manhattan in the 1920s. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995; Huggins, Nathan. Harlem Renaissance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971; Lewis, David Levering. When Harlem Was in Vogue. New York: Penguin Books, 1997. David Miller Parker Hashemite dynasty in Iraq The San Remo Treaty (1920) following World War I granted Britain control over Iraq as a mandate. Following the bloody Iraqi rebellion against the mandate, the British decided at the 1921 Cairo Conference, attended by Sir Percy Cox as Iraqi high commissioner among others, to provide a semblance of independence by establishing an Iraqi monarchy that would be closely tied to Britain. A member of the respected Hashemite family, Faysal (also Feisal), Sherif Husayn’s son, was approached about becoming king of Iraq. Faysal was a favorite of the British from their relationship with him during the Arab revolt, and the French had recently militarily ousted him as king of Syria. Faysal reluctantly agreed to accept the position after a plebiscite had been held to confi rm his support within Iraq. The plebiscite was held under British supervision, and Faysal was elected king. Faysal was crowned in the summer of 1921 with Cox remaining as the British high commissioner. The 1922 treaty between Iraq and Britain allowed for direct British administration over defense and domestic security; British advisers also retained veto power in other ministries. Legally, Faysal ruled under the 1925 constitution, which was written by the British. The constitution provided for a two-house parliament and a cabinet with wide executive powers. Elections were effectively stage-managed by the cabinet, and martial law was periodically implemented to prevent disorder. The new government faced major domestic and regional problems. Iraq was a complex society of ethnic and religious groups. Kurds, who were Sunni Muslims, dominated the north and had nationalist ambitions for an independent state of their own. Sunni Muslim Arabs lived mostly in the center around Baghdad, and the Hashemite dynasty in Iraq 141 population in the south and the main city of Basra was mostly Shi’i Arab. There were also small populations of Assyrian Christians (who were persecuted in the 1930s), other Christians scattered around the nation, and Jews, who resided mostly in Baghdad. The borders of the new nation were unclear, and it had diffi cult relations with neighboring Iran. The borders with Iran were not settled until 1937, when Iraq was given sovereignty over the Shatt al-‘Arab in the south and Iran gained the port of Abadan on the Persian Gulf. Along its southern border Iraq claimed Kuwait, an impoverished territory but one that had a long coastline along the Persian Gulf, but the claims were rejected by Cox at the ‘Uqayr conference of 1922, leaving Iraq practically landlocked. There were also disputes with Turkey over the northern region of Mosul, but the British intervened in Iraq’s favor. The territory, with its oil reserves, remained under Iraqi—and by extension British— control. In the north the British also periodically put down secessionist movements among the Kurds and again used poison gas as they had done during the 1920 rebellion. The preponderance of Sunnis in key government and economic positions and the underrepresentation of the large Shi’i population also posed problems. Throughout the interwar years Nuri Said, who was notably pro-British, served repeatedly as prime minister. Economically, the revenues from petroleum helped create an urban middle class and fi nance some irrigation projects. A pipeline from Iraq to the port of Haifa on the Mediterranean was completed in the 1930s. But the concessions between the petroleum companies and the government favored the companies, and most Iraqis felt that the country did not receive appropriate compensation for its major resource. Mounting nationalist and anti-British sentiments in the army posed problems for both the monarchy and the British. The nationwide curriculum instituted by Sati al-Husri, a pan-Arabist, stressed Arab history and culture and encouraged the development of national loyalties. This further alienated many Kurds and Shi’i, who felt, correctly, that they were underrepresented. The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1930 provided for the future full independence of Iraq but also enforced a close alliance with Britain. Under the treaty, which was the model for the 1936 treaty between Britain and Egypt, Britain retained the veto over Iraqi foreign policy and the right to station troops on Iraqi territory. With independence in 1932, Iraq was admitted into the League of Nations. Faysal died in 1933 and was succeeded by his son Ghazi, who was far more nationalistic and anti-British than his father had been. He increased the size of the army, which played an increasingly important role in Iraqi politics. A number of nationalist clubs and political parties were formed in the 1930s and 1940s, particularly the People’s Party and the National Party, formed in the 1920s, and the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP), established in 1934. Like many other Arab nationalists, Ghazi viewed relations with Nazi Germany as a possible way to decrease British control over the region. As war loomed, Britain and Nuri Said became increasingly worried about the monarch’s loyalty. Consequently, when Ghazi died in an automobile crash in 1939, many Iraqis suspected foul play by the British. Because Ghazi’s son was too young to rule, his openly pro-British uncle Abdul-Ilah was made regent. Rashid Ali al-Qaylani, a judge and former cabinet member, became prime minister in the early 1940s. Al- Qaylani and key army offi cers, known as the Golden Square, looked to the Axis powers to counter the British in Iraq. After al-Qaylani was removed from offi ce in a vote of no confi dence, he was returned to power in a military coup d’état in the spring of 1941. The regent fl ed 142 Hashemite dynasty in Iraq Opening of the Iraq parliament in 1942: The regent salutes with the prime minister, General Nuri as-Said, on his left. to Jordan, which was ruled by Hashemite amir Abdullah, a close relative. To protect their interests the British promptly landed troops from India at Basra. The Iraqis surrounded the key Habbaniyya military base near Baghdad, and the British retaliated by bombing the Iraqi troops. The Iraqis held out, but with reinforcements from the Arab Legion (Jordanian forces commanded by the British), the British retook the base and ousted al-Qaylani and the Iraqi generals who had supported the coup. They were subsequently imprisoned, executed, or sent into exile. The British held Iraq, with Nuri Said often acting as prime minister, for the duration of World War II. After the war Iraq joined the Arab League and participated along with other Arab armies in the 1948 Arab- Israeli War. Their loss in that war shocked Iraqis and resulted in mass uprisings, and Jews and Jewish-owned businesses were also attacked. As pan-Arab nationalism grew in the postwar era, the power and infl uence of the pro-British monarchy and its supporters eroded. Nuri ignored or underestimated demands for reforms and mounting opposition, and the monarchy was overthrown in a bloody revolution led by the Iraqi army in 1958. See also Hashemite monarchy in Jordan (1914– 1953); oil industry in the Middle East. Further reading: Haj, Samira. The Making of Iraq, 1900– 1963. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997; Longrigg, Stephen Hemsley. Iraq, 1900–1950. London: Oxford University Press, 1953; Wien, Peter. Iraqi Arab Nationalism. London: Routledge, 2005. Janice J. Terry Hashemite monarchy in Jordan (1914–1953) Like many other postcolonial states in the Middle East, the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan has largely artifi cial boundaries drawn by European imperial powers. The European powers, particularly Britain and France, divided the territories of much of the Middle East between themselves as the previous empire of the Ottoman Turks collapsed in the wake of World War I. As part of the Sykes-Picot wartime agreement between Britain and France, the territory that is now Jordan came under British tutelage. In 1921, having secured the League of Nations’ offi cial mandate for the territories of Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq, the British government created the Emirate of Transjordan through an agreement with its new ruler, Emir Abdullah (later King Abdullah I) of the Hashemite family. The Hashemites had fought with the British in the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Turkish Empire during World War I. But shortly after the war ended, the Hashemites were defeated and expelled from Arabia by their rival Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud, who ultimately carved out the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the postwar mandate period, the British government decided to install two brothers of the House of Hashem, Abdullah and Faysal, in their mandates of Jordan and Iraq, respectively. This move was in large part intended as a reward for Hashemite support in the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Since its beginnings, Jordan has developed into a modern state that has long defi ed predictions of its imminent demise. What began as the British mandate of Transjordan in 1921 evolved into the Emirate of Transjordan at the time of independence from Britain in 1946, and fi nally into its current form as the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan beginning in 1949. The Hashemite monarchy pointedly emphasized its Islamic lineage, especially the direct Hashemite family line descending from the prophet Muhammad. Beyond this emphasis on a religious and cultural source of legitimacy, the monarchy also established itself immediately as the premier and centralized political power in the emerging Jordanian state. It would come to dominate the economy through reliance on a large public sector and also predicate its rule on co-option of key constituencies, including ethnic and religious minorities, while also relying on the armed forces that benefi ted from extensive royal patronage. Given its location, Jordan was from the outset deeply involved in the various dimensions of the Arab-Israeli confl icts. By the time of Jordanian independence in 1946, tensions were peaking in neighboring Palestine between Jews and Arabs over the issue of Zionist versus Palestinian aspirations to full statehood. When the United Nations voted to partition Palestine between the two peoples in 1947 and Israel declared its independence the following year, Jordan’s Arab Legion was one of the Arab armies that attacked the new state, joining fi ghting that had already begun between the two communities. In what remains one of the most controversial moves in the history of modern Middle Eastern politics, King Abdullah formally annexed the West Bank to his Jordanian kingdom in 1950. The debate ever since has turned on whether Abdullah’s move preserved Arab Hashemite monarchy in Jordan (1914-1953) 143 territory from complete Israeli control or whether he foreclosed the possibility of a smaller Palestinian state by annexing the territory. Abdullah paid for that decision with his life, when he was gunned down in East Jerusalem by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951. After a brief transitional period during which his son, Talal, was judged mentally unfi t to rule, Abdullah’s grandson Hussein became king in 1953. See also Arab-Israeli War (1948). Further reading: Aruri, Naseer H. Jordan: A Study in Political Development (1921–1965). The Hague: Nijhoff, 1972; Graves, Philip P., ed. Memoirs of King Abdullah of Transjordan. New York: Philosophical Library, 1950; Salibi, Kamal. The Modern History of Jordan. 2d. ed. New York: Tauris, 1998. Curtis R. Ryan Hatta, Muhammad (1902–1980) Indonesian vice president The fi rst vice president of Indonesia, Muhammad Hatta was born on born August 12, 1902, in Bukittinggi, West Sumatra. He had his early education in the Dutch schools of Padang and Batavia. He was in the Netherlands from 1922 to 1932, where he studied in Rotterdam and involved himself in political activities. He along with Minangkabau Sultan Sjahrir (1909–66) joined the Indische Vereeniging (Indies’ Student Society) and became instrumental in changing the social club into a politically important association, the Perhimpunan Indonesia (Indonesian Union), in 1922. Hatta established Perhimpunan Mahasiswa Indonesia (Indonesian Students Association), becoming its chairperson in 1926. He joined the League against Imperialism and attended the Brussels meeting in February 1927. After returning to the Netherlands, he was imprisoned by the Dutch government but was released in 1928. Hatta came back to Indonesia in 1932 and found the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI, Nationalist Party of Indonesia) faction-ridden after the arrest of its leader, Sukarno. Hatta believed in building up cadres who would be active in nationalist agendas. The Pendidikan Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Education Club) was formed from a splinter group of the PNI. Sukarno tried to bring different nationalist groups together after his release into a mass organization called Partai Indonesia (Partindo, Indonesian Party). It was short lived, as the leaders of the Indonesian nationalist movement were put behind bars by the reactionary governor-general of the Dutch government, De Jonge (1931–36). Sukarno was exiled in 1933, and the following year Hatta and Sjahrir were assigned to penal camps. The nationalist struggle was effectively suppressed by the policy of repression. The banishment of the leaders was over after the Japanese entered the country in March 1942. The Japanese desire to use the leaders in their war effort opened new avenues for the leaders. On August 17, 1945, two days after Japan surrendered to the Allies, Sukarno and Hatta proclaimed independence and established the Republic of Indonesia. Sukarno was elected president, and Hatta became the vice president. The Dutch returned, and the republic was attacked in 1947 and 1948. The archipelago was divided between republican-held territory and that being reoccupied by the Dutch. The republic’s capital was captured, and most of its top leaders, including Sukarno and Hatta, were arrested and exiled. The world reaction was sharp, and the UN Security Council ordered an immediate cease-fi re. Hatta presided over the delegation sent to The Hague for negotiating with the Dutch. The Hague Agreement of December 27, 1949, transferred sovereignty to the Indonesian federal government. On August 17, 1950, the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia was restored. Hatta was again premier in 1949 and 1950. He was vice president until 1956. He devoted the rest of his life to the development of cooperatives. The humble and much respected leader died on March 14, 1980, in Jakarta. Further reading: Hatta, Muhammad. Portrait of a Patriot: Selected Writings. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1972; Neill, Wilfred T. Twentieth-Century Indonesia. New York: Columbia University Press, 1973; Ricklefs, Merle C. A History of Modern Indonesia ca. 1300 to the Present Day. London: MacMillan, 1981; Rose, Mavis. Indonesia Free: A Political Biography of Mohammad Hatta. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987. Patit Paban Mishra Haya de la Torre, Víctor Raúl (1895–1979) Peruvian president A prominent Peruvian political activist and the man who won the 1931 and 1962 Peruvian presidential elections, Haya de la Torre was the founder of the Aprista Party, which has been in the forefront of radical dissent in Peru since 1924. He wanted greater rights— political and economic—for the indigenous Indians of 144 Hatta, Muhammad Latin America and an end to the power of the Spanish oligarchies that controlled many of the countries, as well as an end to the domination of the economies of Latin American countries by foreign businesses. Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre was born on February 22, 1895, at Trujillo, in the north of Peru, the son of wealthy parents descended from conquistadores. As a teenager, Haya de la Torre learned to read and speak French and German and became interested in Nietzsche. He then proceeded to the University of Trujillo, where he studied literature and became a close friend of the Peruvian poet César Vallejo. He studied at the National University of San Marcos in Lima. While at San Marcos he was involved in the University Reform Movement, which had spread from Argentina, where he had spent some time studying. This was aimed at expanding the university to allow poorer people to attend. Haya de la Torre was instrumental in the founding of the Universidades Populares Gonzalez Prada, which were night schools for workers. Haya de la Torre was heavily infl uenced by three things: a visit to Cuzco, where he saw many Indians being badly treated; his student days at the University of Córdoba in Argentina; and the Mexican Revolution. He was a student leader and in 1923 led a protest against the dedication of Peru to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The idea had been suggested by the president, Augusto B. Leguía, and was unpopular with many people. The protests rocked Peru for three days, after which the archbishop of Lima suggested that Leguía withdraw his idea, which he did. However, Haya de la Torre had become nationally famous overnight, and he was arrested and then deported. Haya de la Torre went into exile in Mexico City, where on May 7, 1924, he founded the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (APRA Popular Revolutionary American Party). It advocated Latin American unity, support for the indigenous Indian population, and the nationalization of foreign-owned businesses, especially those owned by U.S., British, and European interests, a doctrine now widely known as Aprismo. When Leguía was overthrown in 1930, Haya de la Torre was in Berlin. His supporters nominated him as a candidate for the forthcoming presidential elections, and when he returned to Lima he was greeted by the biggest crowd that had gathered in Peru up to that point. He won the elections, defeating Colonel Luis M. Sánchez Cerro, who had the support of the oligarchy, the church, and the army. Fraud saw Sánchez Cerro declared the winner, and in February 1932 Haya de la Torre was arrested and thrown into jail without trial. He was held in prison for a total of 14 months. Sánchez Cerro was assassinated on April 30, 1933, and Haya de la Torre was released from prison. From 1936 until 1945 Haya de la Torre was essentially a semifugitive, being sought by the police for various reasons. However, he was available to meet foreign journalists, and U.S. writer John Gunther had no trouble organizing three interviews with him. In 1945 APRA changed its name to the Partido del Pueblo (“People’s Party”) and declared its support for José Luis Bustamante y Rivero in the presidential elections. Bustamante won the elections with Haya de la Torre as the real power broker. It was, however, not an alliance that lasted for long. In 1947 Bustamante banned the Partido del Pueblo, which had been riven by disputes from members in Callao, and in October 1948 he imposed martial law to rule by decree. On October 28, 1948, Bustamante was overthrown in a political coup d’état, and Haya de la Torre was forced to take refuge in the Colombian embassy, where he remained until 1954. In June 1962 another presidential election was held, and Haya de la Torre narrowly defeated Fernando Belaúnde Terry. Belaúnde claimed that the election victory had been achieved by fraud, and the military under President Pérez Godoy seized power and annulled the entire election. New elections were held in June 1963, and Belaúnde won. However, in October 1968 Belaúnde was himself overthrown. All political parties were banned until 1978, when a new constituent assembly was elected to write a new constitution. Haya de la Torre was the president of that assembly and signed the new constitution from his bed, unable to leave it owing to illness. He was then adopted as the APRA’s candidate for the 1980 presidential elections but died on August 2, 1979, in Lima. Further reading: Gunther, John. Inside Latin America. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1942; Pike, Fredrick B. The Politics of the Miraculous in Peru: Haya de la Torre and the Spiritualist Tradition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1986. Justin Corfi eld Hirohito (1901–1989) emperor of Japan Emperor Hirohito of Japan lived in an age of contradictions, caught between ancient traditions and modern Hirohito 145 realities. The 124th in the line of the longest dynasty the world has known, Hirohito saw the Japanese monarchy become purely ceremonial. Japan was modernized during his reign when he died after 63 years on the throne, the longest reign of modern monarchs. The Japanese emperors were said to be direct descendants of the sun goddess who founded Japan more than 2,500 years ago. After World War II at U.S. demand, he issued a renunciation of any claims to his divinity after ruling over his country during one of its most militaristic periods. Born on April 29, 1901, Hirohito was the first son of Crown Prince Yoshito, son of Emperor Mutsuhito (better known as the Meiji emperor). As was the custom with the royal household, while still a tiny infant Hirohito was taken from his mother to be reared by foster parents. Count Kawamura, the foster father, was already 70 years old when he took the responsibility of rearing the royal infant, and he died when the child was three years old. At that time, Hirohito was returned to the residence of his parents, Akasara Palace. Even here, however, Hirohito was isolated from other children and from his parents. He rarely saw his unemotional father and visited his mother once a week. In 1908 the young Hirohito was sent to Peers School, founded especially for males of noble birth, where he became interested in natural history and science. This interest developed into a passion for marine biology, a field in which Hirohito became a worldwide authority and on which he published eight books. Meiji died in 1912 and was succeeded by Hirohito’s father, the Taisho emperor; Hirohito, the heir apparent, became engaged to the daughter of a nobleman, Princess Nagako, in 1918, who became his only wife, bearing him five daughters and two sons. In 1921 Hirohito, along with an enormous retinue, made an unprecedented visit to Europe. No other Japanese crown prince had ever visited another country. He was greatly impressed with what seemed to him the informality and freedom of the rulers, especially the British royal family. Later that year Hirohito was named regent for his father, who was declining mentally. In 1923 he survived an attempted assassination by a young radical. At the age of 25 Hirohito became emperor of Japan. He chose the name Showa (Enlightened Peace) for his reign. Hirohito’s grandfather had helped bring Japan into the modern world when he had dismantled the powers of the feudal shogun. When he came to the throne, Japan, like much of the world in the 1920s, was in the midst of growth and optimism. However, in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s, Japan became more fascist and militaristic, with many assassinations and domestic unrest, culminating in an uprising in January 1936 during which Tokyo was under the direct command of military divisions. Hirohito acted swiftly to control the insurrection and punish the leaders, but Japan’s military continued to gain strength. Japan invaded China in 1937 without Hirohito’s direct approval but also without his intervention. The emperor did not like the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but he did not openly oppose Japan’s alliance with them; he signed the declaration of war against the United States and the Allies in 1941. Hirohito’s participation in events that led to and during World War II remain controversial due to the destruction of many documents immediately after Japan’s surrender. Evidence shows that while he was not instrumental in Japan’s aggressions beginning in the 1930s, he was fully aware of Japan’s wartime goals and methods and participated in key meetings and decision making. In 1945 Hirohito made his famous radio address asking his people to surrender. It was the first time that the public had ever heard his voice. When the United States began its occupation of Japan, Hirohito accepted full responsibility for the war and offered to abdicate his throne. However, the Allies felt Japan’s stability would be better preserved if the emperor remained. As the figurehead ruler under the constitution promulgated in 1947, Hirohito had the luxury of devoting the remainder of his life to his scientific pursuits. He tried to establish a more open relationship with the people, and although he was a popular figure, he was awkward when meeting them. Emperor Hirohito made two more foreign visits in his later years. In 1972 he traveled to Europe, and in 1975 he visited the United States. He died on January 7, 1989, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Crown Prince Akihito. See also Sino-Japanese War. Further reading: Bix, Herbert C. Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. New York: HarperPerennial, 2001; Gluck, Carol, and Steven Graubard. Showa: The Japan of Hirohito. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1993; Large, Steven. Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan: A Political Biography. Nissan Institute Routledge Japanese Studies H Series. London: Routledge, 1992. Jean Shepherd Hamm 146 Hirohito Hiroshima and Nagasaki By the summer of 1945, World War II in the Pacifi c was virtually over. Since December 1941, the United States had pushed Japanese forces back until only the homeland itself remained in Japanese control. The United States prepared to launch an invasion of Japan. While preparing for the invasion, on July 26 U.S. president Harry S. Truman and British prime minister Clement Attlee, with Nationalist Chinese president Chiang Kai-shek concurring, issued the Potsdam Declaration calling for the unconditional surrender of Japan and listing additional peace terms. At this point Truman knew that the fi rst atomic bomb test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, had been successful 10 days earlier. The test was the culmination of a three-year highly secret project. The fi rst man-made atomic reactor was built in a squash court at the University of Chicago in 1942. More sophisticated reactors were built at Hanford, where the plutonium was produced. The fi rst test of the plutonium bomb was at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945. Although the Potsdam Declaration made it clear to the Japanese that they could anticipate severe consequences if they chose to continue the war, Japan rejected the ultimatum. Truman ordered the use of the bomb. His secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson, regarded the use of the bomb as less abhorrent than sacrifi cing U.S. lives. Truman’s military advisers had indicated that the invasion of Japan could result in the loss of half a million U.S. soldiers plus millions of Japanese military and civilian lives. Truman wanted the war over, and he wanted the maximum possible blow in order to end the war without the invasion. The U.S. military selected Hiroshima and Kokura because the two were among the Japanese cities that had thus far escaped the destruction caused by U.S. and Allied bombs. On August 6, 1945, at 9:15 a.m. Tokyo time, the B-29 bomber Enola Gay, piloted by Paul W. Tibbets, dropped a uranium atomic bomb, “Little Boy,” on Hiroshima. In minutes half of Japan’s seventh-largest city was gone, and thousands of people were dead. Between 60,000 and 70,000 people were dead or missing, and 140,000 were injured. On August 6 another bomb was prepared on Tinian Island. On August 9 the B-29 Bock’s Car prepared to bomb Kokura. Smoke over the target caused pilot Sweeney to seek his alternate target, Nagasaki. The industrial city of Nagasaki fell to the bomb “Fat Man” at 11:02 a.m. Exploded at 1,800 feet to maximize the impact of the blast, Fat Man leveled buildings, destroyed electrical systems, and generated fi res. The bomb destroyed 39 percent of the city, killed 42,000, and injured 40,000. The two bombings killed 210,000 Japanese— 140,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki, twothirds of them women, children, and elderly. Deaths to military and foreign workers are unknown. What is known is that the explosion rather than the radiation was the primary cause of death. Some 24 Australian prisoners of war about 1.5 kilometers from Nagasaki ground zero survived, many to old age. The bombs produced fi res, blast pressure, and extremely high radiation levels. Both were detonated about 600 meters aboveground, so the belowground contamination was minimal from the bombs. Subsequent rainfall deposited radioactive material east of Nagasaki and west and northwest of Hiroshima, but The devastation caused by the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki quickly led to the end of World War II in the Pacifi c. Hiroshima and Nagasaiki 147 the great majority of the radioactive material was taken high into the atmosphere by the blasts themselves. The blasts also irradiated some stable metals—such as those found in metal roofs—for a day or two after the blast, but the damage was minimal. In the cities victims died due to fl ash burns from the heat generated by the blast. People died when their homes burst into fl ames. Others were injured by fl ying debris. In Hiroshima a fi restorm arose in the center of the devastation. People within 300 yards of ground zero were vaporized, leaving their shadows on the streets. Blast and heat also stripped skin off bodies, sucked out eyeballs, and burst stomachs. Radiation deaths in subsequent years totaled about 120,000. Severe radiation produced death within days. Severe radiation injuries were suffered by all persons within a one-kilometer radius. At between one and two kilometers distance injuries were serious to moderate, and slight injury affected those within two to four kilometers. In addition to the 103,000 killed by the bombs in the fi rst four months, another 400 died from cancer and leukemia over the subsequent 30 years. The bombs also produced birth defects and stillbirths. The children of survivors seem to have suffered no genetic damage. As of 2004, 93,000 exposed survivors were being monitored. On September 2, 1945, the Japanese government surrendered unconditionally. Winston Churchill calculated that the bomb had saved the lives of 250,000 British and 1 million Americans. Harry Truman’s argument that the bomb would save half a million soldiers was unconvincing to critics, who in the years since have noted that the Japanese were prepared to ask for peace before the bombs were dropped and had already sought peace in previous months. To these critics, the real reason for the use of the bombs was Truman’s desire to frighten and impress the Soviet Union, which was already moving from ally to rival. Truman wanted to end the war before the Soviets could enter the Pacific War and stake a claim to a piece of the postwar settlement. The Hiroshima bomb used 60 kilograms of highly enriched uranium-235 to destroy about 90 percent of the city. The Nagasaki bomb used 8 kilograms of plutonium-239. The bombs were a thousand times more powerful than any exploded previously. Four years later the United States exploded the first hydrogen bomb, and it was not long before there were bombs a thousand times more powerful than the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. By the 1980s the world’s arsenals included a million Hiroshima bombs. The Soviet Union tested its atomic bomb in 1949, and quickly Great Britain, France, and China joined the atomic community. Beginning in the 1950s the emphasis was on the use of atomic energy for electricity and medical purposes. In the early 21st century 16 percent of the world’s electricity, including that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, came from atomic power. See also Einstein, Albert. Further reading: Boyer, Paul. By the Bomb’s Early Light. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994; Holdstock, Douglas, and Frank Barnaby, eds. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Retrospect and Prospect. London: Frank Cass, 1995; Uranium Information Centre Ltd. “Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Subsequent Weapons Testing: Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 29 May 2004.” Available online. URL: http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm. Accessed November 2006. John H. Barnhill Hitler, Adolf (1889–1945) German dictator Adolf Hitler, the dictator of Germany, proponent of Nazism, and perpetrator of the Holocaust, was born on April 20, 1889, in the Austrian town of Braunau near the German border. His father, Alois, was a customs offi cial, and his mother, Klara, was a gentlewoman. Hitler did not fi nish his secondary education and moved to Vienna at the age of 18 to study art and architecture. He was unsuccessful in getting admission and stayed in Vienna until 1913, doing menial jobs. Hitler developed a rabid nationalism and simultaneously showed deep anti-Semitism. He was infl uenced by anti-Jew writer Lanz von Liebenfels (1874–1954). The right-wing Austrian politician and mayor of Vienna Karl Lueger (1844–1910), along with Georg Ritter von Schönerer (1842–1921), an advocate of pan-Germanism, also shaped Hitler’s violent hatred of the Jews. He enlisted in the German army during World War I. Hitler returned to Munich in 1919 with fi ve medals and the prestigious German Iron Cross (twice) for his bold service as dispatch runner. The war had rescued him from the frustration of civilian life and inculcated in his mind a strong like of discipline and 148 Hitler, Adolf authoritarianism. He had also developed a deep hatred of left-wing politics, and it was no coincidence that his anti-Semitism developed along with his political beliefs, as many of the advocates of socialism and communism were Jews. The army employed Hitler as a political offi cer, and he freely gave vent to his feelings in the charged atmosphere following the humiliating Versailles Treaty of June 28, 1919. The treaty signed by the German politicians was a peace dictated by others, and German humiliation was complete. Hitler was to report the activities of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP, German Workers’ Party), and he soon found that the party ideals of extreme nationalism and anti-Semitism were in line with his own beliefs. With his excellent skill of delivery, Hitler impressed the members and joined the DAP. Thus, the political career of Hitler began in September 1919. He was soon placed in charge of propaganda and recruited fellow soldiers from the army who had also been disillusioned with the Treaty of Versailles. NAZI PARTY All the blame for Germany’s woes was put on the Jews, communists, and ineffi cient political leadership of the Weimar Republic. Hitler made the symbol of the party the swastika (symbolizing victory for the Aryan race) with a red background (symbolizing the social idea) and enclosed in a white circle (symbolizing the national idea). Hitler changed the name of the DAP to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), Nazi for short. As chairperson of the party, Hitler was addressed as the führer (leader). The Weimar Republic received a severe blow in January 1923, when France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr industrial area and brought the German economy to a standstill. Hitler tried to exploit the situation with the Beer Hall Putsch of November in Bavaria, but the coup failed and the führer was imprisoned. During his period of incarceration, he wrote Mein Kampf (My struggle). The memoir-cum-doctrinal Nazi guide book spelled out an agenda for an expanded Germany inhabited by a pure Aryan race and excluding Jews and other unwanted people. Hitler was biding his time and realized that he could attain power through the ballot box. The collapse of the New York Stock Market on October 23, 1929, and the consequent worldwide Great Depression affected the German economy. The unemployment fi gure rose from 1.30 million to nearly 4 million by the end of 1930. Hitler exploited the deteriorating economic situation. He had assured the top industrialists, by issuing a pamphlet entitled The Road to Resurgence, that the Nazi Party was not against the wealthy. His promise of suppression of trade unionism and building up of the army was music to the ears of big industrialists. His technique of propaganda and rabble-rousing speeches appealed to the workers. The political elite began to accept him because of his emphasis on legality. In the 1932 elections Hitler’s party was the strongest in Germany, with 40 percent of the votes. The Reich president, Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934), was persuaded by conservative leaders and Nazi supporters to appoint Hitler chancellor in January 1933. Nazi political opponents were subdued by mass demonstrations in favor of Hitler and terrorized by the brown-shirted SA, the Sturmabteilung (storm troopers), and the black-uniformed ss, the Schutzstaffel (security echelon). In March an act that granted dictatorial power to Hitler was passed. After four months all political parties were banned save the Nazi Party, and the common form of greeting became “Heil Hitler” with an outstretched right arm. A ministry of propaganda was instituted under Joseph Goebbels (1897–1945). On June 30, 1934, Hitler carried out a purge in the Nazi Party by murdering his opponents in the “night of the long knives.” With the death of Hindenburg in August, Hitler, with the title of führer, was the supreme leader of Germany. The legal system was virtually nonexistent, and the Geheime Staatspolizei (the Gestapo, the secret state police), formed by Hermann Göring (1893–1946), threw the anti-Nazis into concentration camps. A rearmament and public housing program were initiated. The economy revived, and the unemployment fi gures went down. Germany became 83 percent self-suffi cient in agriculture by fi xing farm prices and wages, banning the sale of farms of less than 312 acres, and reclaiming uncultivated lands. Industrial recovery was achieved by the Four-Year Plans of 1933 and 1936. The ministry of economics distributed raw materials and regulated prices, imports, and exports. Hitler’s popularity soared, while Germany had been transformed into an authoritarian state. Hitler struck against the Jews, which culminated in the Nazis’ sending them into gas chambers and concentration camps during World War II. The Nuremberg laws of September 1935 denied the Jews citizenship and the right to marry non-Jews. Hitler’s policies led to large-scale Jewish migration to different parts of the world. The November 1938 pogrom against the Jews resulted in massacre, looting of property, the forcing of Hitler, Adolf 149 Jews to wear yellow stars of David so that they could be identifi ed, and resettlement in ghettos. Hitler posed as a defender of peace and a crusader against Bolshevism. The leadership of Britain and France appeased Hitler because to them Joseph Stalin (1879–1953) was a greater menace. With consummate skill Hitler began to scrap the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and to follow the policy of Lebensraum in an eastward direction. Hitler withdrew from the Geneva Disarmament Conference as well as from the League of Nations in October 1933. He denounced the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and introduced conscription in March 1934. The next year Germany began expanding its armed forces and its navy in fl agrant violation of the military clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. In March 1936, Hitler occupied the demilitarized Rhineland. Italy and Japan, with the same agenda of ultranationalism, militarism, and aggressive foreign policy, became close allies of Germany. The three countries signed pacts for furthering their aims. The Rome-Berlin Axis was established between Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) and Hitler in October 1936, and the following month Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan, which Italy joined in 1937. Both Hitler and Mussolini supported General Francisco Franco (1892–1975) in the Spanish civil war against the republicans. Continuing his policy of lebensraum, Hitler turned his attention toward Austria, which was German in tradition and language. There had already been a putsch in 1934 for Anschluss (annexation). In March 1938 the Nazi army marched in and annexed Austria. The republic of Czechoslovakia, with its minority population of 3.25 million Sudeten Germans, was next on the agenda. Great Britain and France followed a policy of appeasement toward Hitler. They thought wrongly that Hitler would remain satisfi ed, but it was not so. At the Munich Conference of September 29, 1938, Czechoslovakia was dismembered, and the Sudeten area was handed over to Germany. In March 1939, the country was occupied by Hitler. Feverish diplomatic activity, signing of alliances, and mobilization of armed forces were undertaken by the European powers. Hitler in his ingenuity and deviousness began to realize his aim. He signed a military alliance, the “Pact of Steel,” with Mussolini in May 1939. Hitler’s diplomacy reached its apogee when he signed the nonaggression pact with Russia on August 23, 1939. He could then turn his attention toward Poland, notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain and Poland had signed a treaty of mutual assistance on August 25, 1939. The free city of Danzig and the Polish Corridor, dividing eastern Prussia from Germany, were seen as an affront to the Germans. World War II began on April 1, 1939, after Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland. Two days afterward Great Britain and France declared war against Germany. Appeasement had been a failure. For about two years, the juggernaut of Hitler’s Wehrmacht (armed forces) incorporated Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The fall of France on June 22, 1940, was another triumph for Hitler. Flushed with success, Hitler began to commit the blunder of attacking the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 150 Hitler, Adolf Adolf Hitler reinvigorated Germany in the 1930s and led the world into its most devastating confl ict: World War II. on December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan), Hitler declared war on the United States. The balance tilted in favor of the Allied powers, and the Axis of Germany, Italy, and Japan faced defeats. Hitler had lost battles in Russia and North Africa. He helped Mussolini set up a government after the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943, but the Allied army reached Rome in June 1944. The Normandy invasion was launched on June 6. The Red Army of Russia was advancing from the east, and Hitler was ensconced in Berlin. Surrounded by the Soviet troops, Hitler committed suicide in the Führerbunker on April 30, 1945. On May 8 the German forces surrendered unconditionally at Rheims in France. The “thousand years Reich” had lasted for 12 years. Further reading: Bullock, Alan. Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991; Burleigh, M. The Third Reich: A New History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2000; Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. London: Allen Lane, 2003; ———. The Third Reich in Power, 1933–1939. New York: Penguin, 2005; Fuchs, Thomas. A Concise Biography of Adolf Hitler. New York: The Berkley Group, 1990; Giblin, James Cross. The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. New York: Clarion Books, 2003; Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1940; Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: Nemesis, 1936–1945. New York: Norton, 2000; Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism. London: Penguin, 2005; Roberts, Jeremy. Adolf Hitler: A Study in Hate. New York: Rosen, 2001; Stalcup, Brenda, ed. Adolf Hitler. Farmington Hills MI: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Patit Paban Mishra Holocaust, the The term holocaust, derived from the Greek and literally meaning “a sacrifice totally consumed by fire,” refers to the Nazi incarceration and extermination of approximately 6 million European Jews and a million others, including half a million Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, resistants from occupied countries, and Russian prisoners of war plus miscellaneous others such as a few U.S. soldiers. The Nazi term was the “Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.” In modern German history anti- Semitism has waxed and waned, but in the 20th century before 1933 it was less acute than elsewhere in eastern Europe. However, for Adolf Hitler anti- Semitism was a core belief. From 1933 to 1939, Hitler imposed mounting persecution on Germany’s Jews (defined both religiously and racially), who made up less than 1 percent of its population. They were forced to wear a yellow star and progressively lost jobs, rights, and citizenship. The first concentration camp, at Dachau near Munich, opened in March 1933. Initially, inmates were political opponents: communists, socialists, liberals, and some clergy as well as prominent Jews. From 1938 on, the percentage of Jewish inmates grew. In these years, too, those deemed physically, mentally, or emotionally unfit for the “Master Race,” especially children, were registered, sterilized, and from 1938 on killed. The “euthanasia program” developed murder techniques, such as mobile killing vans and mass gas “showers,” that were later used on a large scale. Many German Jews assumed this was simply another periodic spate of anti-Semitism. Others tried to flee. Some succeeded, but moving to western Europe proved futile in the end. Emigration to Palestine was restricted because of Jewish-Arab tension there and British need for Arab support if war came. Emigration elsewhere was limited by anti-Semitic officials and high unemployment owing to global depression. When Hitler conquered Poland in 1939, Jews in western areas were forced into a central area not annexed by Germany. They faced random, unpredictable shooting sprees by Nazi paramilitaries. During the next year they were forced into ghettos, often the old Jewish ghettos liberated in the 19th century but now greatly overcrowded by a much-increased population. They were locked in at all times, guarded, and given starvation rations. These were supplemented by smuggling, chiefly by children, who could slither through cracks and pipes. Ghetto inmates hoped in vain that their slave labor would spare their lives. The Nazis created a Jewish council (Judenrat) to administer each ghetto. To avoid riots, the Nazis assured deportees they were to be “resettled” in the east. Jewish ghetto leaders varied in quality and in approaches to their jobs, but all aimed to save or prolong lives. The ghetto system created in Poland was gradually extended through other eastern European areas Germany conquered. After Germany conquered Norway, Denmark, the Low Countries, and France in the spring of 1940, Jewish inhabitants were registered, assigned yellow stars, and subjected to harsh measures. Many Norwegian and most Danish Jews escaped to neutral Sweden. In France and the Low Countries, however, roundups in 1942 sent most Jews to transit camps to await deportation eastward. Meanwhile, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union Holocaust, the 151 in June 1941 led to the use of mobile killing vans or, more commonly, troops in mobile killing squads who ordered Jews to line up, dig a trench, and strip; the troops then shot them so they fell into the graves they had dug. extermination Plans for more systematic extermination of Europe’s Jews proceeded in late 1941 and early 1942. The first death camp opened at Chełmno in December 1941. The first gassing experiments occurred in September 1941 at Auschwitz, where there were old Austrian army buildings as well as new construction. As the system developed into more than 9,000 installations, three types of camps emerged: transit camps (temporary holding pens); concentration and/or labor camps, where German firms used slave labor; and extermination camps, the last all in Poland. Though inmates died in ghettos and other camps of disease, starvation, execution, and despair, the six extermination camps were death factories whose administrators dealt with such problems as how to kill more people faster and how to dispose of bodies. Gassing with Zyklon B in mass gas chambers and burning bodies night and day in crematoria or in outdoor pits were the usual solutions. Some camps served more than one purpose. The vast Auschwitz-Birkenau-Buna complex encompassed both a death factory and a labor camp for industrial purposes. Theresienstadt (Terezin) in Czechoslovakia was a ghetto, a supposedly “model” concentration camp twice visited by the German Red Cross and a transit station en route to Auschwitz. From 1942 into 1944 Jews were shipped across Europe to camps in the east. They were crammed standing up in freight cars without food, water, or lavatories for a trip of several days. Some died or went mad en route. Upon arrival at a camp, if not immediately sent to die in the “showers,” dazed Jews were deprived of their possessions, clothes, hair, and identity. They were issued a striped uniform with a number and a badge—yellow stars for Jews and otherwise triangles: homosexuals pink, political prisoners red, criminals green, and Gypsies brown. Existing in rough barracks on starvation rations, prisoners worked in manufacture for leading German firms or in pointless projects such as hauling boulders up steep hills to roll them down. Some were subjected to unethical medical experiments, often senseless. In time most died or were killed. The Nazis wasted nothing from those who died or were gassed. Hair was woven into cloth, gold teeth were extracted from corpses, bones and ashes became fertilizer, and fat was used for soap or to fuel outdoor fires. Tattooed skin was favored for lampshades; other skin became bookbindings and purses. Resistance was almost impossible but occurred, nonetheless, usually when hope and dependent relatives were gone. Inmates worked slowly and badly with some sabotage. Some tried to escape, and a few succeeded. Some chose their own death on the electrified fences surrounding the camps. Most camps had an underground organization. Plans for rebellion were made in many camps and were realized in six; the prisoners succeeded in closing Sobibór and Treblinka. In eastern Europe, Jews who had evaded initial registration and roundups fled to the forests and formed partisan bands. Usually strained relations with national underground movements meant scanty armaments, but they fought the Germans, engaged in sabotage, and provided potential havens for escapees from ghettos and camps. In the ghettos, smuggling, illegal education of children, and carefully hidden documentation of Nazi outrages were common. Though local undergrounds were reluctant to give weapons to those they considered doomed, ghetto revolts were numerous, especially in the smaller ghettos. Of the larger ghettos, Białystok fought for four days, Vilna achieved an armed breakout through the sewers into the forests, and Warsaw battled German forces from April 19 to May 10, 1942, when about 75 survivors slid forth from sewers. final solution From mid-1942 on, Jewish leaders in Switzerland and Poland sought to inform the Allies of major aspects of the Final Solution. They succeeded, but much skepticism greeted such startling news on both sides of the Atlantic. President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden were sympathetic, but they were preoccupied with the global struggle. Inaction prevented substantive aid. In mid-1943 an emissary of the Polish resistance saw four British cabinet members, including Eden and several top U.S. officials, and gave his own eyewitness account of conditions in the Warsaw ghetto and killing operations at Belzec. As a result, after bureaucratic delays Roosevelt established the War Refugee Board in January 1944. The British government and the State Department were hostile, but the board, with the aid of neutral states, distributed valuable neutral passports to Jews and sponsored the important rescue efforts of Swedish banker Raoul Wallenberg, among other activities. It saved perhaps 200,000 Jews. Ordinary individuals played a role as well. In both Germany and occupied Europe, some abetted the Nazis, 152 Holocaust, the most avoided the issue, and a few helped Jews. In Germany, devout Christians, lay and clerical, Catholic and Protestant, engaged in acts of protest and resistance. There and in occupied nations, individuals hid Jews, provided false papers, and proffered food. Many a Jew with false papers in occupied Europe was vouched for to Nazi police and paramilitaries as a long-time neighbor by total strangers. Others escaped in priests’ robes, although the Vatican made no overt statement. At war’s end, a startling number of Jews emerged from hiding in Berlin’s workingclass districts. Jewish leaders outside occupied Europe sought the bombing of Auschwitz’s gas chambers. By mid-1944 this was possible, if difficult, from Italy. Churchill and Eden ordered it, but Foreign Office and Air Ministry officials delayed and obstructed. Equally, in the United States, the War Department (then home of the air force) opposed diversion of resources, though the United States bombed Auschwitz’s factories repeatedly. Thus, nothing was done to prevent extermination, and Jewish representatives were told that a speedy military victory was their best hope of deliverance. Holocaust, the 153 Cremation ovens at Buchenwald, 1945. Despite efforts to destroy or conceal evidence of the mass murder of millions of European Jews, crematoria such as the above were discovered by Allied troops as they marched toward Berlin. Though many lives could have been saved, the Holocaust was by then winding down. Its peak years were 1942–44, though many died later as well as earlier. By late 1944 many countries seemed largely Judenrein (cleansed of Jews); in late November killing at Auschwitz was ordered stopped, and the gas chambers and crematoria were destroyed to hide evidence of mass murder. The easternmost camps were emptied out, followed by others as the Soviet army approached, and those still alive were sent on diffi - cult, wintry forced marches westward. The Red Army liberated Auschwitz in late January 1945 before its destruction was complete. In the west, Anglo-American troops similarly liberated concentration camps in the spring of 1945. Once healthy, most survivors headed to Palestine, North America, or western Europe. The Holocaust provided the primary impetus for and the parameters of the United Nations’ Genocide Convention passed in 1946. It also contributed an emotional and political pressure toward the creation of Israel in 1948. In Germany and Austria, Poland, and the Baltic states, 90 percent of the Jews had died; the percentages were somewhat lower elsewhere. In all, the Holocaust destroyed two-thirds of Europe’s Jews, who amounted to one-third of the world’s Jews, and wiped out a distinctive eastern European culture dating from ancient times. See also Arab-Israeli War (1948); World War II. Further reading: Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1993; Marrus, Michael. The Holocaust in History. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1987; Yahil, Leni. The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932–1945. Ina Friedman and Haya Galai, trans. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Sally Marks Hoover, Herbert (1874–1964) U.S. president The American president in the crucial years between 1929 and 1933, Republican Herbert Clark Hoover was born on August 10, 1874, in West Branch, Iowa, to Jesse and Hulda Hoover. He received his secondary education in Newberg, Oregon, and graduated with a degree in geology from Stanford University in 1895. In 1899 he became the chief engineer for the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company. For more than a decade he worked on engineering projects in Europe and Asia, eventually becoming a consultant for mining companies throughout the world. When World War I broke out, Hoover was in a unique position. His career had made him wealthy, and his position as head of the American Repatriation Committee in London had him assisting U.S. citizens in their return home to avoid the war. Hoover became dedicated to charity and helped the Commission for Relief in Belgium, which sent food to about 10 million people in war zones. Back in the U.S., he became food administrator under President Woodrow Wilson (1913–21) after the U.S. entry into the war in April 1917. The Food Administration, set up under the Lever Act in August 1917, supervised the distribution of U.S. agricultural products both inside the United States and to the Allies. He encouraged voluntary conservation with slogans like “meatless Mondays” and “wheatless Wednesdays” and encouraged the production of basic foodstuffs like wheat, the acreage of which nearly doubled between 1917 and 1919. Under the direction of Hoover, the United States tripled its exports of meat, bread, and sugar in 1918. The end of the war brought famine to Europe, and Hoover provided relief, surplus food, and clothing to about 200 million people. These relief efforts gave Hoover increased personal political power; his humanitarianism made him greatly admired. Hoover was secretary of commerce under both Warren G. Harding (1921–23) and Calvin Coolidge (1923–29) and also served as a member of the Advisory Committee and World War Foreign Debt Commission. His dedication to charity and relief works put him in a position to aid the victims of the great Mississippi fl ood of 1927. Because of his popularity and reputation, he was the most suitable choice for the Republicans as the presidential candidate in the election of 1928 and was nominated by the party on the fi rst ballot. Hoover won the election easiliy with the promise of increased effi - ciency and prosperity. At his inauguration on March 4, 1929, he spoke about building a new economic, social, and political system based on equality of opportunity for the American people. Once in offi ce, Hoover attempted to live up to his campaign pledge starting with the Agricultural Marketing Act in mid-1929, which set up the Federal Farm Board. The function of the board was to stabilize the prices of agricultural products, but following the stock market crash, it became a fund for emergency agricultural relief. Other legislative acts of Hoover included the establishment of a $50.00 monthly pension for Americans over 65, the building of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, and the cancellation of private oil leases 154 Hoover, Herbert on government lands. Hoover also approved the act that made the “Star-Spangled Banner” the American national anthem. Militarily, under Hoover the United States participated in the London Naval Conference of 1930, which limited the size and number of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines allowed to the major powers. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, the response of Hoover and the United States was isolationist, a philosophy much in keeping with the times of the Great Depression. Hoover’s secretary of state, Henry L. Stimson (1867–1950), opposed the isolationist stance and developed the Stimson Doctrine, which stated that the United States would not recognize changes (such as Japan’s conquering of Manchuria) that had been made in violation of treaties. Maintaining his isolationist stance, Hoover believed that the doctrine would cause an economic boycott against Japan and did not endorse the policy. Early in Hoover’s tenure as president, the October 1929 crash of Wall Street caused the most widespread and prolonged depression in world history. The depression, triggered by the October 29 crash, encompassed the prices of goods, employment, and the production of new goods. By mid-November, the average stock price had fallen to 40 percent of its previous value, while money supplies and prices of goods fell by a third. This problem was intensifi ed as across the country bank depositors withdrew their funds, causing widespread failure of the banking system. Across the country and the world, people lost their jobs and their savings. Businesses lost nearly 50 percent of their income. In the face of such hardship, the optimism embodied by Hoover’s presidential campaign withered. His own dedication to voluntarism and personal cooperation instead of government programs and intervention proved to be no help in the face of economic catastrophe. In an effort to safeguard American businesses, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill in 1930, increasing the import duties on 20,000 items. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, set up by Congress in 1932, provided loans for troubled banks and businesses as well as funds for states to provide relief at the local level. Hoover also increased spending on public works, asking Congress for an additional $400 million in the Federal Building Program. Hoover also attempted to aid relief of the depression in Europe by placing a moratorium on war debt payments, but the measure was ineffective in halting the collapse of the world economy. On the home front, nothing Hoover tried proved effective. The Revenue Act of 1932 was passed, increasing taxes to meet the government’s expenditures. In Herbert Hoover (center) became president of the United States mere months before the onset of the Great Depression. Despite being a capable leader and organizer noted for massive relief efforts, Hoover failed to adequately deal with the crisis. Hoover, Herbert 155 mid-1932, Hoover was further embarassed by the Bonus Army; nearly 20,000 war veterans marched on the White House in June, demanding a bonus due in 1945. The veterans were dispersed by military action led by Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur. Thanks to the troubles of the country, Hoover’s early popularity had been destroyed, and he became a symbol of U.S. failure to deal with the economic troubles. Despite this, he was nominated for a second term in the 1932 election. It surprised no one when Hoover lost in a landslide to Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945). Roosevelt was elected on a platform of vehement criticism of Hoover and his policies that had resulted in runaway national debt and ineffective spending. Roosevelt squarely laid the blame for the Depression on Republican policy. He did not believe, like Hoover, that it had international origin. In retrospect, Hoover’s downfall as president seems more bad luck than anything else; he became the scapegoat for economic depression that occurred eight months after the beginning of his term as president and that he almost certainly didn’t cause. However, his attempted relief policies failed, for which he was rightly blamed. A great humanitarian and relief worker, Hoover’s failure to provide any relief to the Amerian people ultimately forced the end of his tenure as president. After leaving the White House, Hoover worked as a trustee of Stanford University. He was also involved in famine relief in Europe at the time of World War II. Hoover was the chairperson of the commission dealing with the reorganization of executive departments. He died in New York on October 20, 1964. Further reading: Doenecke, Justus D. From Isolation to War, 1931–1941. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1991; Hoover, Herbert C. Memoirs. 3 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1951– 52; Robinson, Edgar Eugene, and Vaughn Davis Bornet. Herbert Hoover, President of the United States. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 1975; Smith, Gene. The Shattered Dream: Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. New York: Morrow, 1970. Patit Paban Mishra House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) During the 1930s, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, alarmed by reports of domestic groups that were sympathetic to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, sought to investigate subversive and “un- American” propaganda activities within the United States. In 1938 the House voted to create the Special Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities (often called the Dies Committee), under the chairmanship of Martin Dies, a Democrat from Texas. In 1945 this special committee became a permanent standing committee, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). When Republicans gained control of Congress the following year, New Jersey representative J. Parnell Thomas became the chairman. As originally conceived, the committee was intended to be nonpartisan and dedicated to gathering information about homegrown political radicalism of all stripes. But under both Dies and Thomas the committee focused primarily on leftist groups and individuals associated with President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, becoming a powerful conservative foe of the New Deal. Among the committee’s early hearings was an investigation of communist infl uence in the Federal Theatre and Writers Project, part of the Works Progress Administration; the resulting political pressure led Congress to defund the project in 1939. Additional investigations dealt with labor unions that were part of the CIO—a major Roosevelt political ally—and with the American Youth Congress, a group with ties to Eleanor Roosevelt. Another target was Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, whom Dies attempted to have impeached after she refused to deport longshoreman’s union leader Harry Bridges, a known communist. Dies did not believe that the New Deal was simply reform legislation intended to ameliorate the social and economic effects of the Great Depression; he thought that the New Deal was paving the way for communists to undermine America’s capitalist system. In addition, he was concerned that the federal government, and particularly the executive branch, was accruing “autocratic” power. The Dies Committee eventually accused 640 organizations, more than 430 newspapers, and almost 300 labor groups of being likely communist fronts. Their investigations were often “fi shing expeditions”: If an initiative did not turn up information quickly, the committee would lose interest, and another initiative would be launched. Because the investigations made newspaper headlines, however, even an abortive effort could leave a group or individual publicly stigmatized. Dies was cavalier in how he handled his information, which was often based on inadequate research. The committee released alarmist reports that Dies claimed documented 156 House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) the existence of plots to sabotage industry in the United States, but such reports were often haphazard compendiums of the theoretical writings of communist thinkers such as Karl Marx, without specifi cs. Over the years many of the people investigated and accused by the committee never appeared at a hearing where they could defend themselves. If they did appear, they were not able to call supporting witnesses and could not cross-examine their accusers. When accused, individuals appealed to the U.S. courts that their civil liberties were being abused, but the courts found that the judiciary could not usurp Congress’s investigatory powers. A few of the individuals exposed by the Dies Committee were committed members of the American Communist Party, which took its orders from Moscow. Others were liberals affi liated with the party through “popular front” organizations, joining because they were concerned about the Great Depression or because they viewed communism as a vital bulwark against fascism in Europe. After the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1939, many liberal sympathizers and some communists broke with the party. But the Dies Committee never considered these distinctions among suspects; all of them, in the committee’s view, were “soft on communism” and therefore a threat. The committee’s own anticommunist efforts were considerably complicated in 1941, when the Soviet Union became an American ally in World War II. During the war the committee became less infl uential. As the cold war heated up, HUAC undertook a series of high-profi le hearings. In 1947 the committee investigated reports of communist subversion in the movie industry. Perhaps 300 Hollywood studio employees had joined the Communist Party during the 1930s and 1940s; the majority of them were screenwriters, and many had been sympathetic to a violent strike that wracked the industry in 1945. Several famous “friendly” witnesses testifi ed about Hollywood communist activities, including studio head Jack Warner and actors Robert Taylor and Ronald Reagan, the president of the Screen Actors Guild. HUAC suspected that the screenwriters were attempting to inject procommunist messages into fi lms, although they found little evidence to support this. A total of 10 screenwriters, including Academy Award nominee Dalton Trumbo, were subpoenaed to testify before the committee. These “unfriendly” witnesses— known as the Hollywood Ten—used the opportunity to angrily denounce HUAC, refused to answer questions about their political affi liations, and were eventually cited for contempt and sentenced to prison terms. Worried about the negative publicity generated by the hearings, Hollywood studio executives thereafter “blacklisted” (refused to provide work for) suspected communists in the industry, a practice that continued throughout the 1950s. In 1948 HUAC investigated prominent nuclear physicist Edward U. Condon, who had served on the Manhattan Project and was the director of the National Bureau of Standards. Chairman Thomas stridently disagreed with Condon’s view that civilians, instead of the military, should control the Atomic Energy Commission; in return Thomas labeled Condon “the weakest link” in the nation’s security. The committee never found evidence of Condon’s disloyalty and was publicly rebuked by President Harry S. Truman. In 1948 the committee also undertook what proved to be its most famous and successful investigation—the only one to demonstrate actual communist espionage within the government. Whittaker Chambers, an editor for Time magazine and a former operative in the communist underground, appeared before HUAC and named Alger Hiss as a New Deal offi cial who had passed classifi ed documents to him during the 1930s. The highly accomplished Hiss, who had become president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, fl atly denied that he knew Chambers in a face-to-face confrontation before the committee. A subsequent methodical investigation by committee member Richard M. Nixon uncovered evidence that Hiss and Chambers had known each other, and Hiss was sentenced to prison in 1950 for committing perjury. The Hiss-Chambers case added fuel to national fears about communist subversion and seemed to legitimize HUAC’s conspiracy theories, confrontational tactics, and disdain for individual rights. These would serve as the template for Senator Joseph McCarthy’s own investigations into communism during the 1950s. Further reading: Caute, David. The Great Fear: The Anti- Communist Purge Under Truman and Eisenhower. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978; Navasky, Victor S. Naming Names. New York: Viking Press, 1980; O’Neill, William L. A Better World: The Great Schism: Stalinism and the American Intellectuals. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982; Tanenhaus, Sam. Whittaker Chambers: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1997. Tom Collins House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) 157 Hu Hanmin (Hu Han-Min) (1879–1936) Chinese political leader Hu Hanmin was a close political associate of Sun Yatsen, founder of the Chinese Republic. The Hu family were minor civil servants who settled in Guangdong (Kwangtung) province. A brilliant scholar, Hu supported himself and a younger sister by working as a tutor after his parents’ death. China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95) turned him into a revolutionary and took him to Japan, where he studied law and joined Sun’s newly formed Tongmeng hui (T’ung-meng hui), or United Alliance, dedicated to overthrowing the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty. He served as the organization’s secretary and wrote for its offi - cial publication, the Min Bao (Min Pao), or People’s Journal. One article, “The Six Principles,” elaborated on Sun’s ideals: nationalism, republicanism, and land nationalization, plus three items concerning immediate issues that faced the revolutionists in Japan. An eloquent writer, Hu played a major role in the pen war between advocates of Sun’s ideals and those of Kang Youwei (K’ang Yu-wei), who favored a constitutional monarchy. He also traveled widely throughout South and Southeast Asia to organize support and raise funds for the Tongmeng hui. Hu was elected military governor of Guangdong province after the outbreak of the October 10, 1911, revolution. He and other followers of Sun were ousted from their positions in 1913 by President Yuan Shikai (Yuan Shih-k’ai), who quashed democracy in an attempt to make himself emperor. When Sun established a government in Canton in 1923 with the help of a local warlord and began reorganizing the Kuomintang (KMT, Nationalist Party) with the assistance of the Soviet Union, Hu was again by his side, together with Wang Jingwei (Wang Ching-wei) and a rising star, Chiang Kai-shek. Sun’s death in 1925 led to a succession crisis in the Kuomintang. Wang Jingwei led the left wing, who were supported by Soviet advisers and were the immediate winners. Hu led the anticommunist wing of the party; they lost power and were forced out of Canton. Chiang Kai-shek led the center and remained in Canton, focusing on training a new army. In 1926 Chiang set out as commander in chief of the Northern Expedition to unify China. Military success led him to break with the left and the Soviet-dominated government under Wang Jingwei in 1927 and also led to the return to power of the anticommunist wing of the Kuomintang, including Hu. After completing the Northern Expedition in 1928, the Nationalists established a government in Nanjing (Nanking). Wang and his supporters lost power, while Hu was appointed president of the legislative Yuan (the legislature), which was charged with drafting legislation, passing the budget, and formulating new legal codes. Chiang dominated the Nationalist government during the Nanjing era (1928–37) and faced several domestic problems. One was how to deal with the ambitions of his two senior colleagues, Wang Jingwei and Hu Hanmin. Chiang initially allied with Hu, but they broke in 1931 partly over interpretation of Sun’s wishes on how to implement his programs. Chiang became so angry with Hu that he briefl y put him under house arrest. Hu was so infuriated that he rejected all offers to rejoin the government, which forced Chiang to ally with Wang Jingwei. The power struggle between Chiang, Hu, and Wang showed the ideological and personality struggles in the Kuomintang after the death of its founder, Sun Yat-sen. Further reading: Boorman, Howard L., ed. Biographical Dictionary of Republican China. Vol. 2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968; Fairbank, John K., and Albert Feuerworker, eds. Cambridge History of China. Part 2, Vol. 13, Republican China, 1912–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hu Shi (Hu Shih) (1891–1962) Chinese liberal intellectual Hu Shi was the son of an offi cial of modest means. At 13 he switched from a traditional Chinese school to a modern school in Shanghai, where he was introduced to Western learning. In 1910 he won a scholarship to study in the United States, where he was infl uenced by John Dewey’s pragmatism and earned a doctorate in philosophy at Columbia University. While a student he became interested in Chinese language reform, writing an article titled “Some Tentative Suggestions for the Reform of Chinese Literature,” that argued in favor of a new literature that used the vernacular instead of classical Chinese. The enthusiastic response from students and intellectuals led to a wide-ranging reevaluation of Chinese literary and ethical traditions that became known as the New Culture Movement. A leading academic amid these cultural and political crosscurrents, Hu Shi spoke out on a wide range 158 Hu Hanmin (Hu Han-Min) of topics as editor and cofounder of several magazines during the 1920s and 1930s. He opposed the obsession with political ideology during the warlord era and advocated the concept of “good government.” After 1928 he criticized the newly established Nationalist (Kuomintang) government for its authoritarianism and called for the protection of human rights and free speech. He served as ambassador to the United States between 1938 and 1942, lobbying the Roosevelt administration and the American public to eschew their isolationist policies and to aid China’s war of resistance. He was president of National Beijing (Peking) University for two years after the end of World War II but went to the United States in 1949 when the Nationalist government lost the civil war to the Chinese Communist Party. He lived in semiretirement in New York until 1958, writing and speaking out as a loyal but critical friend of the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC) and an adamant foe of communism. He returned to Taiwan in 1958 to preside over the Academic Sinica, the ROC’s leading research institution, until his death in 1962. Hu Shi was unquestionably the best-known Western- oriented Chinese liberal intellectual in the 20th century. During the long years of political strife in China, his optimistic faith in nationalism, moderation, and democracy was a beacon for a brighter future. Singled out for harsh criticism by the Chinese Communist government in the 1950s, his reputation has had an unparalleled rehabilitation in China since the 1980s. Further reading: Chou Min-chih. Hu Shih and Intellectual Choice in Modern China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984; Greider, Jerome B. Hu Shih and the Chinese Renaissance: Liberalism in the Chinese Revolution, 1917- 1937. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1970; Hu Shih. The Chinese Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Jiu-fong L. Chang Huerta, Victoriano (1845–1916) Mexican president Victoriano Huerta seized power to become the second president of postrevolutionary Mexico, serving from 1913 to 1914. These two years witnessed the most violent stage of the revolution and its downward spiral into full civil war. Huerta was born in Colotlán, Jalisco, in 1845. With a limited education, he had few prospects in life until he became the personal secretary of General Donato Guerra. Guerra used his position to smooth Huerta’s admission into the National Military College, where he excelled at astronomy and mathematics. In 1877 he received his military commission and went on to lead a distinguished career putting down rebellions under the Porfirian regime. In 1901 he was promoted to brigadier general. During the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the besieged president Porfirio Díaz dispatched Huerta to the south to quell Emiliano Zapata’s revolt, but the general was called back to Mexico City before engaging the rebels in combat when Díaz fell from power. Huerta then served as the military escort for the ousted Díaz from Mexico City to Veracruz. Francisco Léon de la Barra, the interim president, sent Huerta south again to disarm and defeat Zapata’s forces, a mission in which he failed. When Francisco Madero took office he expressed disappointment in Huerta’s inability to defeat Zapata and in his connections with Bernardo Reyes, Madero’s only serious political opponent in the 1911 election. In 1912 Madero grudgingly sent Huerta to suppress a revolt initiated by Pascual Orozco in the north. Huerta defeated Orozco and almost put Pancho Villa, then serving under Huerta, before the firing squad for theft. Only Madero’s intervention saved Villa, and the incident strained relations between the two men. Stationed in Mexico City, Huerta knew of the growing conspiracy to oust Madero headed by Generals Bernardo Reyes and Félix Días, the nephew of the former dictator. Huerta declined to join the rebels, but as they attacked the National Palace in February 1913 and the tide of the battle increasingly pointed toward a successful rebellion, Huerta saw an opportunity for personal political gain. He made a secret deal with Félix Días and switched sides in exchange for the position of provisional president. On February 19, 1913, he arrested Madero and his vice president and demanded their resignations. Three days later, as the men were being transferred from the palace to a military prison, they were shot and killed, an assassination that many scholars believe Huerta ordered. Almost immediately, domestic and foreign opponents to Huerta’s presidency sprung up. Rebellions throughout Mexico erupted, and in the face of congressional criticism, Huerta disbanded the congress and arrested many of its members. He resorted to a system of mandatory military service that forced the poor, with little or no training, to fight his opponents. This forced conscription failed, as many deserted or joined the rebellions. Huerta, Victoriano 159 The United States, under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, took offense to Huerta’s violent seizure of power and attempted to convince him to hold elections and declare peace with the his internal adversaries, the Constitutionalists.s Huerta ignored these requests, and the United States actively assisted his opponents by supplying them with arms. The northern states of Coahuila, Chihuahua, and Sonora refused to recognize Huerta’s presidency, and their leader, Venustiano Carranza, declared himself president of Mexico. At the same time Alvaro Obregón, also from the north, led forces south toward Mexico City to force Huerta’s surrender. Obregón’s forces engaged Huerta’s troops during the summer of 1914, taking several key areas, including the city of Guadalajara. Huerta, perhaps sensing impending defeat, resigned the presidency on July 15, 1914, and fl ed to Europe. With the help of the German government, Huerta conspired to regain his presidency through a revolution based out of El Paso, Texas. He joined forces with his former adversary, Pascual Or ozco. The two men met in Newman, New Mexico, on June 28, 1915, and federal authorities who had been monitoring Huerta were waiting for them. Huerta and Orozco were arrested, and Huerta died on January 13, 1916, while in the custody of U.S. federal authorities. Further reading: Bakewell, Peter. A History of Latin America, c. 1450 to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004; Beezley, William H., and Colin M. MacLachlan. El Gran Pueblo: A History of Greater Mexico. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999; Camín, Héctor Aguilar and Lorenzo Meyer. In the Shadow of the Mexican Revolution: Contemporary Mexican History, 1910–1989. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993. Kathleen Legg

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Hamas Hamas—an acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al- Islamiyaa in Arabic, literally “Islamic Resistance Movement”— was both a part of a regionwide radical Islamic movement that developed in 1980s and an expression of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli domination and occupation. Hamas was established shortly after the outbreak of the first Intifada in the Gaza Strip in 1987. Its political program and ideology were drafted in lofty Arabic rhetoric and religious symbolism. Hamas believed that “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.” Hamas regarded nationalism (wataniya) as an implication of religious faith and struggle against the enemy as a religious duty. Hamas declared itself to be a “humanistic movement, which cares for human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions.” According to its charter, “Under the wing of Islam it is possible for the followers of the three religions—Islam, Christianity and Judaism—to co-exist in peace and quiet.” Both its charter and many of its official statements are harsh and uncompromising. Hamas is divided into two main spheres of operation: social programs such as building schools, hospitals, clinics, and religious institutions; and militant operations. The Hamas underground militant operations included a number of suicide bombings that killed a few hundred Israeli soldiers and civilians, especially in February and March 1996, and after the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000. During this second intifada, when Palestinian towns and refugee camps were besieged by the Israeli army, Hamas organized clinics and schools that served Palestinians; it also summarily executed Palestinian collaborators with Israel. Many Hamas leaders and activists, including its founder, Sheikh Yassin, and his successor, Dr. Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, were assassinated by Israel during the so-called targeted killing operations. Its leader, Khaled Meshaal, lives in exile in Syria. The social programs and political and religious stance of Hamas contributed to its considerable popularity among the Palestinians. Hamas participated in the January/May 2005 Palestinian municipal elections and achieved control of some places such as Beit Lahya in northern Gaza, Qalqiliya in the West Bank, and Rafah. On January 25, 2006, Hamas won the parliamentary elections, taking 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament. After the elections Hamas faced considerable diplomatic and financial pressure to adjust its ideology to Western and Israeli demands. In June 2007 Hamas attacked their Fatah rivals, resulting in Hamas taking control of the Gaza Strip, while the West Bank remained under control of the Palestinanian National Authority. Further reading: Hroub, Khaled. Hamas: Political Thought and Practice. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2000; Mishal, Shaul, and Avraham Sela. Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence, and Coexistence. New York: Columbia H University Press, 2000; Nusse, Andrea. Muslim Palestine: The Ideology of Hamas. London: Routledge, 1998. Andrej Kreutz Havel, Václav (1936– ) Czech writer and president Václav Havel is a Czech dramatist, journalist, essayist, and former president of Czechoslovakia (1989–92) and of the Czech Republic (1993–2003). Havel was born in Prague in 1936 to a prosperous family. As a member of a former bourgeois family in a communist regime, Havel was denied privileges, including education. In order to finish high school he had to enroll in night school while supporting himself as a lab assistant. Afterward he was not permitted to enroll in a university. He trained for a short time at a technical institution and later completed his theater degree as a part-time student at the Academy of Arts. After his mandatory military service Havel worked first at the ABC Theater and then at the Theater on the Ballustrade, well known for experimental theater. Here, in the 1960s, Havel gained acclaim as a leader in the theater of the absurd in Czechoslovakia. Many of Havel’s plays were highly critical of the totalitarian state’s oppression of individual liberties. During the Prague Spring, a 1968 reform movement led by Alexander Dubˇcek, Havel played an important role. His outspoken support for human rights during the period earned him the antagonism of the communist government. When Warsaw Pact forces invaded Czechoslovakia in August 1968, Havel was prohibited from involvement in public affairs, and his plays were banned from performance or publication. In spite of this Havel continued to write, and his plays and books were published to acclaim in other countries. Continuing his work for human rights, Havel was arrested and imprisoned a number of times. He was placed under house arrest from 1977 to 1979. Havel tirelessly took up his protest work again. In 1989 he participated in a commemoration of the 1969 death of Czech student Jan Palach and was again imprisoned for several months. In the same year the Civic Forum, which Havel had helped establish, began a series of protests that overthrew the communist government in what has become known as the Velvet Revolution. In December a heavily Communist parliament chose Havel as the new interim president of Czechoslovakia. After national elections the new Federal Assembly reelected him in June 1990. In 1993–98 Havel was elected president of the Czech Republic. During his 13 years as leader of postcommunist Czechoslovakia, Havel brought his country back into the mainstream of European politics. Havel negotiated the withdrawal of Soviet troops and forged friendships with the United States and European nations. The Czech Republic became a member of the Council of Europe, NATO, and the European Union. Further reading: Kriseova, Eda. Vaclav Havel: The Authorized Biography. Translated by Caleb Crain. Collingdale, PA: Diane Publishing Co., 1993; Pontuso, James F. Vaclav Havel: Civic Responsibility in the Postmodern Age (Twentieth- Century Political Thinkers). St. Charles, IL: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004. Jean Shepherd Hamm Hizbollah Hizbollah (Party of God) is a political, military, and social Islamic Shi’i organization established in Lebanon in 1982. After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that year, Shi’i Muslims—with the assistance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard—formed Hizbollah to combat the Israeli occupation. In the mid-1980s the Hizbollah guerrillas, known as the Islamic Resistance, executed a series of operations against Israeli and U.S. targets to force the United States and Israel to withdraw all military presence from Lebanon. After the end of the Lebanese civil war (1975–90), the group focused its attacks on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the South Lebanon Army (SLA). The IDF and the SLA occupied an 850-square-kilometer stretch in south Lebanon known as the “security zone.” Hizbollah’s main aim was to liberate this area. In 1996, the United Nations (UN) sponsored the “April Accord,” legitimizing Hizbollah as a resistance movement. After the withdrawal of the IDF from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbollah continued fighting the IDF around the disputed, Israeli-occupied Shaaba Farms area. Although the UN regarded Shaaba Farms as Syrian territory, Hizbollah considered the area part of Lebanon. Hizbollah also sought the release of Lebanese and Arab prisoners in Israel and followed a strategy of snatching IDF soldiers in Shaba Farms to exchange for prisoners. In addition to its military wing, Hizbollah maintains a civilian arm, which runs hospitals, schools, orphanages, and one television station—Al-Manar. Hizbollah 190 Havel, Václav held 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament in 2005. Hizbollah remains active in Shi’i-dominated areas in Lebanon—mainly the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon—and fought tenaciously against the Israeli attack on it and the invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. See also Arab-Israeli War (1982). Further reading: Jaber, Hala. Hezbollah. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997; Saad-ghorayeb, Amal. Hizbu’llah, Politics and Religion. London: Pluto Press, 2002. Ramzi Abou Zeineddine Ho Chi Minh (1890–1969) Vietnamese communist leader Ho Chi Minh’s original name was Nguyen Ai Quoc. He fought against French rule over his country and afterward struggled against the United States in the Vietnam War. Combining his ideology of communism with love of his country, Ho left an indelible mark in history. He was born in the village of Kim Lien in Annam on May 19, 1890, and received education from his father, Nguyen Sinh Huy, as well as in the local school. He attended the National Academy school in Hue and then worked as a teacher in south Annam. After taking a course in navigation, Ho traveled to the West to find means for liberating Vietnam from French rule. He was appalled at the oppressive rule of the colonial masters and had a burning desire to free his country. Ho went to Marseilles in 1911 and after three years traveled to London, where he worked in the kitchen of the Carlton Hotel. He was a member of the Overseas Workers Association. Ho was in the United States for some time and then went to Paris and drifted toward socialism and Marxism and became one of the founding members of the French Communist Party after its split with the Socialist Party in 1920. He called for Vietnamese independence, convinced that the road to it was through the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism. Ho edited a journal, Le Pariah (The outcast), where he published articles on anticolonialism under the alias Nguyen Ai Quoc. He used many names before he took up the name of Ho Chi Minh in 1940. In 1922 he attended the fourth congress of the Comintern in Moscow, joined its Southeast Asia bureau, and took a leading part in the work of Krestintern (Peasant International). Playing a prominent role in the fifth congress as well, Ho advocated anticolonial revolution in Asia. He was not happy with the French Communist Party, which only made halfhearted attempts to oppose colonialism. Ho began to contact the Vietnamese exiles in Guangzhou (Canton) in southern China. After traveling to Brussels, Paris, and Bangkok, Ho went to Hong Kong and set up the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP) on February 3, 1930. Its agenda was to end French rule in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam; nationalize the economy; and institute land reforms. In neighboring Laos and Cambodia, communist parties such as the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge were set up. Until its formal disbanding in February 1951, the ICP under Ho took the lead in Vietnam’s struggle against French rule, where it organized party cells, trade unions, and peasants. Ho was in Moscow when World War II in Europe broke out on September 1, 1939. The war provided an opportunity to free Vietnam after the German victory over France that allowed Japan, Germany’s ally, to occupy Vietnam. In January 1941 Ho returned to Vietnam after 30 years in exile. He established the Vietnam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi (League for the Independence of Vietnam), or Vietminh. In the northern portion of Vietnam, liberated zones were set up near the Chinese border. Ho was arrested by the Chinese government and returned in 1944 to Vietnam after spending two years in jail. In August 1945 Ho called for a revolution, and the Vietminh took control of Hanoi on August 17. When Japan surrendered on September 2, 1945, Ho immediately declared independence and formed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV, or North Vietnam). He remained president of North Vietnam until his death in 1969. A communist state, North Vietnam would be embroiled in cold war politics, war with France, and the struggle for unification of both the Vietnams after the French defeat. Ho relentlessly followed his objective to establish a unified communist Vietnam. After the breakdown of an agreement Ho had signed in Paris, the First Indochina War began. The Vietminh resorted to guerrilla warfare and by 1950 were in complete control of the northern portion of Vietnam. The United States, following a containment strategy in the cold war, gave military help to the French. The French-sponsored South Vietnam had been established in July 1949, which the United States recognized in 1950. The Soviet Union and China recognized the DRV. The collapse of French forces at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu on May 7, 1954, ended French colonial rule Ho Chi Minh 191 in Indochina, and Vietnam was divided in two at the 17th parallel. Ho’s dream of a unified Vietnam had not been realized, and he would fight against the United States in the Vietnam War. Although much of his country was devastated, Ho never wavered from the path toward his goal. Both Vietnams were unified in 1975, six years after Ho Chi Minh’s death. Further reading: Decaro, Peter Anthony. Rhetoric of Revolt: Ho Chi Minh’s Discourse for Revolution. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003; Duiker, William J. Ho Chi Minh: A Life. Boston: Hyperion Books, 2000; Ho Chi Minh. Prison Diary. Hanoi: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1972; Ho Chi Minh. Selected Writings. Hanoi: Gioi Publishers, 1994. Patit Paban Mishra Hong Kong The First Anglo-Chinese, or Opium, War ended in 1842 in total British victory and the cession by China of Hong Kong (several islands totaling 32 square miles on the tip of the Pearl River estuary) to Great Britain in the Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking). Hong Kong prospered and soon needed more room. Britain acquired the adjoining Kowloon Peninsula (opposite Victoria, the principal island of the colony) from China under the Treaty of Beijing (Peking) in 1860, and in 1898 it leased for 99 years additional land beyond Kowloon, called the New Territory. Britain would rule these 442 square miles of land (except for four years when it was under Japanese occupation between 1941and 1945) until 1997. Hong Kong was a free port and a hub of international trade in eastern Asia, and it provided refuge for Chinese revolutionaries led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, father of the Chinese Republic, and those fleeing the civil wars of the early republic. After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 and during the chaos of the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), millions of refugees found opportunities there and a haven from Communist-ruled China. Because the continuation of a British colony on the China coast offended Chinese nationalism, China demanded Hong Kong’s return. Negotiations between British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiaop’ing) culminated in an agreement in 1984 that would restore all the ceded and leased territories to China on June 30, 1997. The agreement stipulated that Hong Kong would be ruled for 50 years as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) under a Basic Law that allowed it to maintain its own legislature, executive, and judiciary, currency, customs and police forces, flag, and passport. China would be responsible for its defense and foreign policy. Two other significant features of this agreement were: (1) Hong Kong would retain its capitalist and free-enterprise system and economic and financial structures; (2) The “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement would calm Hong Kong citizens’ fears of communism and perhaps lure the Republic of China on Taiwan to become part of the PRC. Britain made many reforms before 1997 that furthered the legal protection and self-governing rights of Hong Kong’s citizens. Nevertheless, several hundreds of thousands of them emigrated to Western countries before 1997. China appointed a prominent local businessman, Tung Chee-hwa, first chief executive of Hong Kong. Tung navigated a difficult path between the aspirations of Hong Kong’s residents for self-government and China’s demand for a final say in all major decisions affecting the SAR. China always prevailed. For example, in 1999 the Chinese National People’s Congress overruled the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeals on the right of abode for children with one Hong Kong parent. Tung resigned in 2005, two years before his second term ended, and was replaced by Donald Tsang, a respected high-ranking civil servant who had risen to prominence under British rule. The PRC remained leery of demands for human rights and democracy by Hong Kong’s citizens. After the opening of China in 1979, a strong economic bond developed between Hong Kong and China. They became each other’s foremost partners in investment and trade, initially limited to adjoining Guangdong (Kwangtung) province, and after 1992 spreading to other centers in China. While China needed Hong Kong’s managerial skills and capital, Hong Kong benefited from China’s deep, cheap labor pool. The SAR arrangement also applied to the former small Portuguese colony of Macao, but found no acceptance from the people or government of Taiwan. In 2005 Hong Kong had an estimated population of 6.8 million people who enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in Asia. See also Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976). 192 Hong Kong Further reading: He, R., ed. Hong Kong and the Handover. Boston: University Press of America, 1998; Patten, Christopher. East and West: China, Power and the Future of Asia. New York: Random House, 1998; Roberti, Mark. The Fall of Hong Kong: China’s Triumph and Britain’s Betrayal. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994; Wang Gungwu and John Wong, eds. Hong Kong in China: The Challenge of Transition. Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1999. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Horn of Africa Because of its strategic location near the Red Sea and the Arabian Peninsula, the Horn of Africa—currently composed of Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Djibouti— witnessed some of the most intense and violent geopolitical maneuvering during the cold war. Both the United States and the Soviet Union poured vast sums of money and weapons toward their allies in the region. The effects of the cold war in the region were often grave: The meddling of the superpowers disrupted the decolonization and modernization processes, intensified local rivalries, heightened resulting violence, and contributed to the deaths of many Africans. Although the Horn of Africa had long had global strategic value because of its location near the Strait of Bab al-Mandab, where the Red Sea narrows before opening into the Indian Ocean, its significance grew tremendously after World War II. This was because of two factors: The growing importance of the Middle East and its vast petroleum resources, and the increasing intensity of the zero-sum competition between the United States and the Soviet Union for influence around the world. The United States first established a presence in the Horn during World War II. In 1943 the United States constructed a radio communications station—called Radio Marina—near the town of Asmara in Eritrea, then under British control. The Horn and Radio Marina took on increasing importance as the contours of the oil-based postwar world and cold war rivalries took shape. The United States worried that losing influence in the Horn would destabilize the governments of allies in the region, interrupt shipping lanes, and possibly staunch the supply of Middle East oil to the West. The strategic significance of Radio Marina changed the course of both Eritrean and Ethiopian history. During the middle decades of the 20th century, Ethiopia was ruled by Emperor Haile Selassie, an autocrat who had first gained power in 1917. In the name of modernizing Ethiopia, Selassie had dismantled the aristocracy and used the revenues gained from taxing coffee exports to centralize power. With aid from the United States Selassie continued to modernize Ethiopia and tighten his grip on power, which he would not yield until he was deposed in a coup in 1973. During the early postwar years the United States viewed the mostly Christian Ethiopia as the most stable and influential state in the entire Horn. Before World War II, however, the small, mostly Muslim sliver of land along the Red Sea known as Eritrea had not been part of the Ethiopian state. Unlike Ethiopia it had been colonized by Italy in the early 20th century and was controlled by the British during World War II. Despite this, after the war Eritrea found an unfavorable environment for independence. Two studies by the U.S.- dominated United Nations (UN) found that Eritrea lacked national consciousness as well as the basis for a stable economy. In 1953 the UN established a federation in which Eritrea and Ethiopia were conjoined. In May 1953, five months after the Ethiopia-Eritrea federation was established, Ethiopia and the United States signed a 25-year arms-for-bases accord. In 1962 Selassie dissolved the federal system and absorbed Eritrea into Ethiopia. The result was a 30-year war between Eritrean nationalists and Addis Ababa, which ended with an Eritrean victory in 1991 and the establishment of an independent Eritrea in 1993. The 1953 deal became the foundation of a 25-year relationship between Washington and Selassie. Between 1953 and 1974 the United States gave more aid to Ethiopia than to any other country in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1958 the United States helped fund a modern air force; in 1960 it agreed to train and equip an army of 40,000; in 1966 it provided Ethiopia with a squadron of F-5 fighters. U.S. support strengthened Selassie’s hand against the numerous opposition groups that criticized his increasingly autocratic and corrupt administration. It also helped Salassie meet his nation’s top geopolitical interest, maintaining access to the Red Sea. In the 1970s the cold war landscape in the Horn changed dramatically. Several factors came together to end Selassie’s rule: a devastating famine mostly mishandled by the government, severe economic problems caused by the oil crisis, and Selassie’s own senility. The United States was trying to improve relations with Arab nations in the Middle East, many of whom opposed Christian-led Ethiopia. In 1973 a group of junior and noncommissioned army officers overthrew Selassie. Swayed by the radical thinking of the intelligentsia, this group, known as the Dergue (which Horn of Africa 193 means “committee”), pursued a Marxist agenda. After a transitory phase, in 1977 Mengistu Haile-Mariam, a hard-line radical, emerged as the leader of the new Ethiopia. Haile-Mariam nationalized many businesses and implemented a sweeping land reform program to undermine the power of the old ruling class, mercilessly repressed his political opponents, and cultivated closer ties with the Soviet Union. In 1975, taking advantage of the instability and immaturity of the regime in Addis Ababa, the Somalian government launched a military offensive against Ethiopia. A mostly pastoral society, Somalia had not fared well in a modern world organized by agricultural and industrial nation-states. In 1960, after the newly independent British Somaliland merged with Italian Somaliland to become the Somali Republic, many within the new nation hoped to reunite with Somalis across the border in Ethiopia. In 1969 a coup organized by Major General Mohamed Siad Barre replaced the parliamentary system with a Soviet-style democratic republic run by a Supreme Revolutionary Council. Fueled by a massive arms buildup funded by the Soviet Union, Siad Barre maintained the long-standing hope of bringing together all Somalis under one government. Siad Barre’s government spearheaded the mid-1970s war with Ethiopia, which ended when Somalia withdrew in 1978. A reshuffling of cold war alliances accompanied internal political changes during the 1970s. In response to the radicalism of Mengistu Haile-Mariam, newly elected U.S. president Jimmy Carter suspended U.S. aid to Ethiopia, hoping that the situation would soon change, but, offered Somalia “defensive” weapons and incorporated the country into the U.S. security network. U.S. assistance to Somalia in the 1980s totaled $37 million. Similar political gymnastics occurred in Moscow. Although an ally of the Siad Barre government in Somalia, Moscow labeled its attack on Ethiopia aggression and began to support the new regime in Addis Ababa. During the early 1990s, as the cold war ended, the Horn of Africa underwent yet another round of sweeping political changes. In Ethiopia severe economic problems and sustained rebellions in various parts of the country brought about the collapse of the Dergue. In May 1991, after a final push by the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF), Ethiopia came into the hands of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front. Meanwhile, in Eritrea, the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front (EPLF) seized control. Two years later they formalized independence with a referendum. The late 1980s found Somalia in a state of instability as numerous factions competed for state control without any clear victor. After Siad Barre was toppled in 1991, Mogadishu fell into a state of civil war. During the second half of the 20th century the people living in the Horn of Africa witnessed repeated changes in the political configuration ruling Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. The intense rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union shaped these changes in profound ways. Such external influence sharpened divisions within the Horn and intensified the conflicts. International rivalries also combined with local dynamics— such as the long-standing imperial relationship of Ethiopia with its neighbors, the legacy of previous European colonialism in the area, and the personal and ideological agendas of local leaders such as Haile Salassie, Haile-Mariam, and Siad Barre—to shape the fate of this important region. Further reading: Korn, David. Ethiopia, The United States, and the Soviet Union. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986; Lefebvre, Jeffrey. Arms for the Horn: U.S. Security Policy in Ethiopia and Somalia, 1953–1991. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991; Westad, Odd Arne. The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Thomas Robertson Hu Jintao (Hu Chin-t’ao) (1942– ) Chinese politician Elected president of the People’s Republic of China on March 15, 2003, Hu Jintao was born in December 1942 in Shanghai. He is the first Chinese leader whose career began after the communist victory of 1949. Hu became active in the Communist Youth League while in high school and graduated with a degree in hydraulic engineering. He worked for a hydropower station in Gansu and then, from 1969 to 1974, worked as an engineer for Sinohydro Engineering Bureau. In 1974 Hu transferred to the construction department at Gansu. Within a year he earned a promotion to vice senior chief and met up with Song Ping, who would become his mentor. With Song’s help he took over as deputy director of Gansu’s Ministry of Construction in 1980. In 1981 Hu embarked on training at the Central Party School in Beijing. His political career advanced rapidly when Deng Xiaoping named him to the Politburo Standing Committee in 1992. 194 Hu Jintao Hu’s meteoric career rise continued with his appointment as governor of Guizhou (Kweichow) province in 1985. In 1988 he took over as party chief of the Tibet Autonomous Region at a time of great political turmoil. Hu ordered and led a political crackdown in Tibet in early 1989. During the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), his name emerged as a potential future leader. In his 50s, he became the youngest member of the seven-person Politburo Standing Committee. In 1993 he became secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, and vice president of China in 1998. Hu ascended to the office of party general secretary at the 16th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in 2002, at a time of immense change for China. Economically, politically, and socially, China faced difficult issues, including the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing and the uncertainty of a rapidly globalizing economy. Further reading: Cheng, Tun-Jen, Jacques Delisle, and Deborah Brown. China Under Hu Jintao: Opportunities, Dangers, and Dilemmas. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2005; Kien-Hong, Peter Yu. Hu Jintao and the Ascendency of China: A Dialectical. Singapore: Eastern University Press, 2005; Zhang, Andy. Hu Jintao: Facing China. New York: Writers Club Press, 2002. Matthew H. Wahlert Hu Yaobang (Hu Yao-pang) (1915–1989) Chinese politician Hu Yaobang was born to a peasant family in Hunan Province and joined the Chinese Communist forces at age 14. He became a party member in 1933. He became a protégé of Deng Xiaoping after serving under him in the Chinese Red Army, although they had many differences of opinion on political and philosophical issues. After the formation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Hu held many positions within the national government. Hu became head of the Communist Party’s Propaganda Department, then became general secretary in 1980 and chair in 1981. Hu attempted to create a more flexible, less dogmatic government that would seek practical and flexible solutions to particular problems rather than relying on rigid applications of Maoist ideology. He was also a strong champion of reform and democratization within the party and oversaw the rehabilitation of thousands of people, from party leaders to ordinary Chinese citizens, who had been unjustly exiled or imprisoned. Hu was forced to resign in 1987 and compelled to sign a statement of “self-criticism,” accepting responsibility for his failure to crack down on a series of student protests the previous year. He retained his seat on the Politburo, however, until he died of a heart attack two years later. His death on April 15, 1989, sparked the Tiananmen Square Democracy Movement, which began with public protests and a hunger strike by thousands of students in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing. The protesters were brutally suppressed by the Chinese government, culminating in what is now termed the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989. Further reading: Hutchings, Gordon. Modern China: A Century of Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001; Meisner, Maurice J. The Deng Xiaoping Era: An Inquiry into the Fate of Chinese Socialism, 1978–1994. New Hu Yaobang 195 Hu Jintao pictured during a defense meeting held in Washington, D.C., when he was vice president of the People’s Republic of China. York: Hill and Wang, 1996; Yang, Zhong Mei. Hu Yao Bang: A Chinese Biography. Timothy Cheek, ed., with a foreword by Rudolf G. Wagner. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1988. Sarah Boslaugh Huk Rebellion The Huk Rebellion was a leftist, rurally based armed rebellion in the Philippines, first against Japan and later against the newly independent, U.S.-supported Filipino government. Its main objective was independence and a more equitable society. The movement blossomed during World War II, dissipated in the mid- 1950s, then returned during the late 1960s. The Hukbalahap, or Huks, originated during World War II to liberate the Philippines from Japanese control. Hukbalahap is a contraction of the Tagalog phrase “Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon,” which means “People’s Anti-Japanese Army.” (Japan had taken control of the archipelago nation by defeating U.S.-Filipino forces in 1941.) The Huks found a base of support among the peasants of central Luzon, where approximately 80 percent of local farmers lived under oppressive debt. Led by the socialist Luis Taruc, they advanced an agenda of nationalism and agrarian reform. Taruc had worked as a peasant organizer in the Pampanga region during the 1930s. Throughout the war the Huks trained local farmers in political theory and fighting strategy. By the end of the conflict the Huks could claim roughly 15,000 armed soldiers and many supporters. Obtaining their weapons mostly from retreating Filipino soldiers, old battlefields, and downed planes, they used their power to block Japanese food and military supplies and to interrupt the collection of taxes. Besides earning widespread popular support, the Huks developed communication networks and fighting tools that would serve them well in later years. After U.S.-led forces recaptured Luzon from the Japanese in February 1945, the Huks looked forward to independence as promised by the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934. They formed a political party and won a number of elections in 1947, but were denied their rightful seats in parliament. In response they once again returned to the mountains and took up arms. In November 1948 the Huks renamed themselves “Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan,” or People’s Liberation Army. The Huks came close to toppling the government in 1950. However, under the leadership of Ramon Magsaysay, the Filipino government was able to turn the tide on the Huks. Magsaysay pursued a two-pronged approach, combining vigorous military action with successful efforts to reform the army. When Taruc surrendered in 1954, the movement ended. Magsaysay’s campaign became the model for U.S. efforts in Vietnam. Rural discontent once again pushed the Huks to take up arms against the government in the late 1960s. In August 1969 however, President Ferdinand Marcos, with the aid of the U.S. government, launched a military campaign that crushed them. Further reading: Brands, H. W. Bound to Empire: The United States and the Philippines. New York: Oxford, 1992; Kerkvliet, Benedict. The Huk Rebellion: A Study of a Peasant Revolt in the Philippines. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977; Taruc, Luis. Born of the People. Bombay: People’s Publishing House, LTD, 1953; Zaide, Sonia M. The Philippines: A Unique Nation. Manila: All Nations Publishing, 1999. Thomas Robertson Hundred Flowers Campaign in China (1956–1957) Between 1949, when it came to power, and 1957, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) completed land reform and eliminated domestic opposition. As a result of the First Five-Year Plan, it had collectivized agriculture and advanced industries. Chairman Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) believed that most intellectuals supported his goals, but feared that there was resistance among the 100,000 or so “higher intellectuals” who had been Western trained. To arouse their enthusiasm Mao and Premier Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai) decided in 1956 to embark on a campaign to “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools contend.” This term was borrowed from the Hundred Schools of Thought era of the late Zhou (Chou) dynasty, circa 500 b.c.e., when many philosophies developed. Its goal was to gain the intellectuals’ cooperation by permitting some debate and to allow them to question the competence of party cadres to direct science and technology. Cadres, too, were encouraged to criticize the system under which they worked. The critics were encouraged by some liberalization in the Soviet Union after Nikita Khrushchev began de-Stalinization in 1956. Some were inspired by the May Fourth Movement and Intellectual Revolution in 196 Huk Rebellion China in 1919. Many, however, were inspired by Marxist- Leninist ideals and thought it their duty to point out where the party had deviated. Most sought to express their criticism within the limits of the system, such as the writer-journalist and CCP member Liu Binyan (Liu Pinyen), whose newspaper articles described the divergence between bureaucratic mismanagement and communist ideals. By 1957 university students, too, had become involved, led by those in National Beijing (Peking) University, whose predecessors had led the May Fourth Movement. They put up posters protesting the politicization of academic life on a Democracy Wall. The leaders of the CCP were, however, unprepared for the extent and bitterness of the criticism by writers, scientists, and social scientists. In July 1957 Mao reversed himself, stating that intellectual freedom was only permissible if it strengthened socialism. He denounced those who had spoken out in the Hundred Flowers campaign as “rightists,” “counter-revolutionaries,” and “poisonous weeds.” Many senior CCP leaders had never endorsed the campaign and supported the crackdown. By the end of the year the anti-rightist campaign was in full swing, and more than 300,000 intellectuals had been condemned and sent to jail or labor camps, humiliated by public denunciations, and forced to make confessions. Their careers were ended. Countless bright students and young cadres never got a chance for a career as a result of their participation. Some were executed. The swing of the pendulum to severe repression was sharp and unrelenting. It reflected the insecurity of the CCP leaders and their fear of freedom. See also Great Leap Forward in China (1958–1961). Further reading: MacFarquhar, Roderick. The Hundred Flowers Campaign and the Chinese Intellectuals. New York: Praeger, 1960; MacFarquhar, Roderick, and John K. Fairbank, eds. Cambridge History of China. Vol. 14, The People’s Republic of China, Part 1: The Emergence of Revolutionary China, 1949–1965. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987; Mu Fu-sheng. The Wilting of the Hundred Flowers: The Chinese Intelligentsia Under Mao. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1962. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Hungarian revolt (1956) In 1956, Hungary was a nation of 9 million. Allied to Germany during World War II, it was occupied by Soviet troops in 1944–45. Hungarian Communists began the process that by the late 1940s would give them control over the government. By that time, Hungary’s government had undergone changes that ensured that the leadership strictly followed directives from the Soviet Union. The first Communist leader, from 1949 to the early 1950s, was the hard-liner Laszlo Rajk. He, in turn, was replaced on Moscow’s orders by an equally harsh leader, Mátyás Rákosi. While the imposition of Communist rule in Hungary was particularly repressive, it was applied with force throughout Eastern Europe into the early 1950s. At that time, a series of events took place that indicated restrictions from the Soviet Union and internal restrictions might be loosening. The first event was the death of Stalin in 1953. A slight thaw and liberalization followed in both the Soviet Union and the satellite states. There were changes in the internal policies in the East European states. Hard-liners died mysteriously, and in countries where rebellions against the Soviets had been put down, there seemed to be a certain degree of liberalization. Closer to home, there seemed to be a change in Hungary’s direction. Rákosi was pushed aside and a moderate, Imre Nagy, was brought in to take his place. Nagy left this position in 1955 and his predecessor, Rákosi, returned. In July 1956 Nikita Khrushchev suggested to Rákosi that he should visit Moscow. Nagy was back in, but left the government after a very short while. This is when the troubles began. On October 23, 1956, students demanded that Nagy return to the government. The students were fired on by the police, and on the following day martial law was declared. Soviet troops in Hungary put down the increasing number of riots and demonstrations. The violence escalated until October 28, when Nagy returned to the government, a cease-fire was signed, and the Soviet troops withdrew from Budapest. In the next week Nagy and the newly formed government began making changes that alarmed not only hard-line Hungarian Communists but the leadership in Moscow as well. Political prisoners were released and the one-party system was ended. Most serious, however, was the statement made that Hungary would begin withdrawing from the War- Saw Pact. Khrushchev ordered the Soviet army to commence Operation Whirlwind, a strong military response to the rebellion. Whirlwind commenced on November 4 and lasted until November 12. It was a Soviet-only operation, as the 120,000-man Hungarian army was not trusted politically. Most of the fighting took place in the streets of Budapest. Hungarian revolt (1956) 197 There was a political movement as well. János Kádár arrived in Budapest on November 7. He was a long-time Communist operative with a history of being in and out of power. When the revolt began, Kádár left Budapest and went to the Soviets, formally asking them to intervene in ending the disorder. Coming from a member of the Hungarian government, this request reinforced the impression of the legitimacy of the Soviet intervention. In the end, the Soviet army saw 700 men killed and approximately 1,500 wounded. Three thousand Hungarians died, most in Budapest. Many thousands of Hungarians left the country, first to Austria, where refugee camps were set up, and then later to the United States, Canada, France, and Britain. political order As the Soviet Army put an end to the rebellion, Kádár, assisted by the Soviet ambassador Yuri Andropov, restored political order. Nagy was taken by the Soviets and executed in 1958. Kádár’s rule was, at first, characterized by harshness and reprisals against anyone who participated. In the following years, however, Kádár liberalized the regime, instituting what Khrushchev and others contemptuously referred to as “Goulash Communism.” Kádár did not look for loyalty so much as conformity. Hungary, in relation with other members of the Warsaw Pact in the 1960s–1980s, was very liberal. By 1989 it had the most advanced economy in eastern Europe. Authors did not have to submit their works to a censor prior to publication, but those who crossed the unstated line could still find themselves in trouble. The United States government, which many considered to have instigated the rebellion through Radio Free Europe broadcasts, had decided that the potential for a nuclear war outweighed the benefits of assisting the Hungarians. From 1956 on, American diplomatic talk of rolling back communism was replaced with the phrase “containment.” Although Khrushchev succeeded in reestablishing the Communist government, his indecisiveness and actions prior to the rebellion damaged his credibility. It took the prodding of many within the Soviet government to make him act, and the fact that he had had to fly to Yugoslavia to get Tito’s approval before intervening led many to question his leadership. In 1957 an attempt was made to replace him, which failed. His continued problems in foreign policy, however, finally led to his ouster in 1964. By 1989 there were significant changes. In April the Hungarian government tore down the barbed wire fences on its frontier with Austria. In June that same year, 200,000 Hungarians attended the reburial of Imre Nagy from a common grave to a place of honor. See also Prague Spring. Further reading: Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Press, 2005; Granville, Johanna C. The First Domino: International Decision Making during the Hungarian Crisis of 1956. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004; James, Beverly A. Imagining Postcommunism: Visual Narratives of Hungary’s 1956 Revolution. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2005. Robert Stacy Hussein, Saddam (1937–2006) Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was born in Al Awja near Tikrit, Iraq, to a poor family. He was raised mostly by an uncle and attended school in Baghdad. As a young man he joined the Ba’ath Party. After Hussein was involved in an abortive attempted to assassinate Abdul Karim Qassem, the leader of the 1958 Iraq revolution, he fled to Egypt, where he studied law. When the Ba’ath seized power in 1963, he returned to Iraq but was soon imprisoned for another attempt to overthrow the regime. He escaped from prison in 1966 and was elected assistant general secretary of the Ba’ath. Under the patronage of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, to whom he was related by blood, Hussein rose in power following the 1968 Ba’athist-led coup. In 1975 Hussein and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi signed the Algiers Accord, which led to the Iran-Iraq Treaty of International Boundaries and Good Neighborliness, whereby the eastern portion of the Shatt al Arab was ceded to Iran. The agreements were a victory for Iran, and Hussein subsequently argued that Iraq had only signed under duress. In 1979 Hussein ousted the ailing al-Bakr and assumed leadership of the Ba’ath Party and the nation. He emulated the Stalinist approach to government, establishing a totalitarian state based on a cult of personality. He ruthlessly purged possible dissidents within the Ba’ath Party, closely controlled the media and communications systems, and had the populace—especially the youth—indoctrinated in loyalty to himself. Although not a professional soldier, Hussein often appeared in military uniform, and he curried favor with the army. His regime was a secular one, and he closely monitored 198 Hussein, Saddam Shi’i clerics and Islamist movements. He appointed relatives and close associates from Tikrit to key government positions and demanded absolute loyalty. However, his regime also improved education, healthcare services, and the status of women. Hussein initiated the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88) ostensibly to recover the Shatt al Arab but also to contain the Shi’i-led Iranian revolution. The resulting war of attrition led to massive human, military, and economic losses for both sides. Neighboring Arab nations in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, fearing the export of the Iranian revolution, assisted Iraq with loans and aid. From the Iraqi perspective the Arab regimes were paying for the war with money, and Iraq was paying with the blood of its soldiers. After the war Hussein downplayed his former secularism and adopted a more Islamic approach. He also launched major offensives, including the use of poison gas, against Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a major ally, Iraq became more isolated and found it increasingly difficult to obtain loans or assistance to rebuild its war-torn economy. Hussein also recognized the mounting hostility of his former Arab allies and resented the refusal of Kuwait to forgive wartime loans. He also accused Kuwait of illegally slant-drilling for petroleum into Iraq. In August 1990, he ordered the invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait quickly fell to the Iraqi forces and was incorporated into Iraq. The international community, including the Arab world, condemned the invasion and after a month of massive aerial bombardment in the so-called First Gulf War, coalition forces, led by the United States, moved into Kuwait. The Iraqi army crumbled and hastily retreated. The coalition established no-fly zones that essentially created an autonomous Kurdish region in the north. However, Hussein crushed uprisings, especially among the large and disaffected Shi’i population in southern Iraq. Iraq managed to rebuild much of its infrastructure, and water and electricity services were restored to major cities. In spite of a decade of international sanctions that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of mostly civilian Iraqis, Hussein clung to power. International diplomacy and arms inspections resulted in the demilitarization and destruction of most of the Iraqi military arsenal, but although severely weakened, the military remained intact. Hussein’s sons Uday and Qusay became increasingly powerful during the 1990s, and their erratic behavior and violence terrorized those around them. Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (the Second Gulf War). As U.S. forces entered Baghdad many leaders of the regime, including Hussein and his sons, went into hiding. His sons were found and killed, and U.S. forces ultimately captured Hussein, who was then put on trial for crimes committed during his rule. During the protracted trial, Hussein adopted a belligerent tone, maintaining that he was still the legitimate ruler of Iraq, but he was found guilty and executed. A new Iraqi regime was established, and the Ba’ath Party was banned from holding positions in government or schools. The Iraqi army was also disbanded, but the nation continued to face tremendous economic and social problems as sectarian fighting broke out and massive opposition to foreign occupying forces erupted throughout much of the country. Further reading: Aburish, Said K. Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge. London: Bloomsbury, 2000; Karsh, Efraim, and Inari Rautsi. Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography. New York: Free Press, 1991; Sluglett, Marion-Farouk, and Peter Sluglett. Iraq Since 1958. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001. Janice J. Terry

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki