Fandom

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History O

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

Odovacar (c. 433–493 c.e.) king of Italy Odovacar was the chief of the Heruli tribe of Germans and possibly a member of the Sciri tribe who lived in the Carpathian Mountains in the early fi fth century c.e. and were defeated and integrated into the Ostrogothic tribal confederation. His name is probably made of the Germanic elements od, meaning “wealth,” and wacar, meaning “vigilant.” Odovacar was a commander of the Germanic mercenaries who were in service of Julius Nepos, the Western Roman emperor (474–475 c.e.). Upon the removal of Julius Nepos by his Romano-Germanic master of the army, Orestes, Odovacar’s troops, mainly made of the Heruli, revolted against Orestes and his son, the puppet emperor Romulus Augustulus. With Odovacar as their chief, the revolting mercenaries defeated Orestes at Piacenza and removed Romulus Augustulus from the throne and put an end to the Western Roman Empire (476). Odovacar was then confi rmed as a patrician by the Eastern Roman emperor, Zeno, and set up his administrative capital in Ravenna, which was already the capital under Julius Nepos and Romulus Augustulus. Not content with the title of patrician, Odovacar chose to call himself king of Italy (Rex Italiae) and refused to accept the restoration of Julius Nepos to a real position of power, as requested by Emperor Zeno. In the early years of his reign Odovacar minted coins in the name of Nepos, accepting his superiority in formality. However, Odovacar’s position as the master and king of Italy was established beyond doubt. In 476 he managed to gain control of Sicily via a treaty with the Vandals of North Africa. This was part of Odovacar’s plan to restore and revive the territorial integrity and the military strength of the Roman Empire, despite occasional setbacks and territorial losses to the Germanic tribes to the north of Italy. Odovacar changed very little in the administrative system of Italy and ran the government based on the imperial administration of the now defunct Western Roman Empire. He had the approval of the Roman Senate and was largely accepted as the ruler of Italy by the population. Following provocations for regaining the power by the deposed emperor, Julius Nepos, who was residing in Dalmatia, Odovacar invaded that territory in 481. Shortly after (484), he attacked the western regions of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire in accordance with a treaty drawn with Illus, commander of the Byzantine forces who was planning to depose Zeno. The quick territorial expansion of Odovacar, together with his open hostilities against Zeno prompted the latter to provoke the Rugi tribe of Austria to attack Odovacar’s kingdom from the north. Despite the fact that Odovacar managed to defeat the Rugi in their own territory, his rapid expansion and foreign campaigns had made him weak enough to fall prey to Theodoric the Great, the king of the Ostrogoths. Theodoric, appointed in 488 by Zeno as the king of Italy, repeatedly defeated Odovacar and conquered all of Italy between 488 and 490. In 493 Ravenna, in which Odovacar was taking refuge, also fell to Theodoric. The conqueror made peace with Odovacar by offering to rule Italy jointly with him. However, O 315 pletion contained approximately 2.3 million blocks of stone, ranging from 2.5 to 15 tons each, was built under the orders of Khufu, the second king of the Fourth Dynasty. The other famous pyramids of Giza were built during the Fourth Dynasty reigns of Khafra and Menkaure, with the Great Sphinx built (presumably in his own facial likeness) to guard Khafra’s pyramidal tomb. These massive building projects obviously strained the Egyptian economy and reduced the royal treasury. Probably as a result, although pyramids continued to be built in later Old and Middle Kingdom dynasties, they were never to the magnitude of those built in the Fourth Dynasty. Contrary to the once popular view that the pyramids were built using slave labor, it is now thought that they were built by paid workers who rotated between the building projects and their own private work, with the bulk of the labor occurring in the inundation season, when agricultural work ceased. This contention has been supported by archaeological fi nds of workers’ tombs, bakeries, and other elements associated with a workers’ village just south of Khufu’s pyramid complex. The downfall of the Old Kingdom was likely the result of several decades of poor inundation levels (due to global cooling, which reduced rainfall to the Nile’s sources in Ethiopia and East Africa), resulting in famine. Reliefs from the causeway of Unis (from the Fifth Dynasty), which depict scenes of starving men, and the account of the sage Ipuwer, which discusses the horrible conditions of this time, provide support for this theory. The Old Kingdom ultimately fragmented, with different factions taking control of separate nomes, the once-powerful central state becoming a collection of fi efdoms that would not be unifi ed again until the advent of the Middle Kingdom nearly 200 years later. Further reading: Brewer, Douglas J., and Emily Teeter. Egypt and the Egyptians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Hassan, Fekri. “The Fall of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.” Available online. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk (May 2006); James, T. G. H. An Introduction to Ancient Egypt. New York: Harper and Row, 1979; Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Berkeley: University of California, 1973; Malek, Jaromir. In the Shadow of the Pyramids: Egypt during the Old Kingdom. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986; Trigger, Bruce G., et al. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Jason A. Staples Olmecs The Olmec thrived in the Gulf of Mexico coastal lowlands (in the present-day Mexican states of Veracruz and Tabasco) from around 1500 to 400 b.c.e. The Olmec are one of several interrelated but largely independent cultural formations developing in Mesoamerica during roughly the same time period. Together with the highland and lowland Maya, the Zapotec and Mixtec peoples of the Oaxaca Valley, and various culture groups in the central highlands and Basin of Mexico, the Olmec were among the fi rst and most sophisticated Mesoamerican civilizations. Linguists classify their language in the Mixe-Zoquean family, remnants of which survive in various pockets in southern Mexico. Olmec is a Nahuatl word (the language of the Aztec), imposed by U.S. archaeologist Matthew W. Stirling in the 1940s, roughly translating as “people of the land of rubber.” By around 1800 b.c.e. the semisedentary peoples occupying the gulf coast region exhibited cultural traits not dissimilar from their neighbors elsewhere in Mesoamerica. During the next few centuries, a kind of cultural critical mass was reached, prompting the Olmec to create one of Mesoamerica’s fi rst and most distinctive state and cultural systems. With the Gulf of Mexico providing ample maritime resources and a fertile plateau with the Tuxtla Mountains and their raging rivers looming behind it, the region exhibited many of the environmental attributes necessary for the emergence of complex civilization. By 1500 b.c.e. the Olmec had built an elaborate ceremonial structure at San Lorenzo, within which the ruling groups resided. It is estimated that some 81 million cubic feet of rock, most probably fl oated on rafts from mountain quarries nearly 50 miles away, provided the structural foundation for the ceremonial platform, which rose 151 feet high and covered nearly 0.5 sq. mile. Surrounding the ceremonial center were hamlets and villages inhabited by farmers, artisans, and commoners, covering nearly 3 sq. miles. The magnitude of the construction indicates a high degree of control over surplus labor by members of the ruling elite. For reasons still not understood, San Lorenzo fell and was abandoned around 1200 b.c.e. Archaeologists have interpreted evidence of ritual desecration of the site’s structures and sculptures as originating in internal rebellion, as a kind of religious cleansing. Around 1150 b.c.e. and some 50 miles to the northeast, the Olmec successors to San Lorenzo began building an even larger and more imposing urban center at La Venta. For the next six centuries, from around 1150 to 500 b.c.e., the city thrived. At its ceremonial core was a Olmecs 317 cone-shaped clay mound rising some 101 feet into the air, a large pavilion, and a sunken rectangular plaza, along with lesser structures. The walls and fl oors of the pavilion and plaza were decorated with pigmented clays and sands, while elaborately stone-chiseled sculptures, including numerous colossal stone heads, were placed strategically throughout. The ceremonial center was reserved for the ruling elite, while the vast majority of La Venta’s inhabitants resided in surrounding hamlets and villages. The Olmec built similar urban complexes to the northwest of San Lorenzo, at Tres Zapotes; about midway between the two at Laguna de los Cerros; and elsewhere in the gulf coast lowlands. The economic underpinnings of Olmec civilization rested on a combination of intensive and extensive agriculture, harvesting of diverse maritime resources, and networks of local, regional, and long-distance trade and exchange. Long-distance trade and exchange relations extended throughout much of Mesoamerica, including the Maya zones to the south and east; into the central highlands; and far to the west and south, into contemporary Oaxaca and Guerrero States. The Olmec left no written record beyond petroglyphs, carvings, and paintings, leaving the core features of Olmec cultural, religious, and political systems a mystery. Olmec art was highly stylized, technically advanced, and innovatively crafted and carried a host of religious and cosmological meanings. The Olmec are perhaps best known for their massive stone heads, most carved of basalt. Some have noted that these stone heads exhibit distinctly African characteristics, with their broad, fl at noses and large lips, and suggested African infl uence in the formation of Olmec civilization. Most scholars discount the African-infl uence hypothesis, instead interpreting the Olmec as a distinctly Mesoamerican cultural tradition that emerged from wholly indigenous cultural antecedents. Other artistic objects crafted by the Olmec include huge and elaborately carved stele depicting various mythological and cosmological scenes, masks and mosaics composed of diverse precious stones and minerals, intricately crafted ceramics and vessels, and small and exquisitely carved fi gurines made of jade, serpentine, greenstone, and other rare minerals. Many of the latter exhibit what has been called “howling baby” or “were-jaguar” imagery. Olmec art also includes stylized depictions of snakes, toads, eagles, and many other natural creatures and supernatural entities. By around 350 b.c.e. La Venta and other Olmec centers were, like San Lorenzo nearly nine centuries earlier, destroyed and abandoned. What the Olmec left in their wake was of inestimable infl uence in shaping the subsequent history of Mesoamerica. See also Maya: Classic Period; Maya: Preclassic Period; Mesoamerica: Archaic and Preclassic Periods; Mesoamerica: Classic Period. Further reading: Chan, R. Pina. The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. New York: Rizzoli, 1989; Coe, Michael D. The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. Princeton, NJ: Art Museum at Princeton, 1996; Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus. “Formative Mexican Chiefdoms and the Myth of the ‘Mother Culture.’” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology (v.19, 2000); Miller, Mary Ellen. The Art of Mesoamerica: From Olmec to Aztec. London: Thames and Hudson, 1996. M. J. Schroeder Olympic Games The Olympic Games of the ancient world were one of four athletic competitions associated with four ancient Greek religious celebrations. In addition to the Olympic Games, which were held every four years in Olympia in honor of Zeus, these athletic competitions included the Nemean Games, held every two years in Nemea also in honor of Zeus; the Pythian Games, held every four years in Delphi in honor of Apollo; and the Isthmian Games, held every two years in Corinth, in honor of Poseidon. By the fi fth century b.c.e. these biannual and quadannual athletic celebrations formed an athletic circuit, in which the most outstanding athletes of the ancient world competed. The Olympic Games were the oldest and the most signifi cant of these athletic festivals. While the origins of the Olympics are unknown, the Greeks developed several legends celebrating physical strength, competition, and skill. These include Hercules founding the games in honor of his own physical prowess. Others contended that the games celebrated Zeus’s defeat of Cronus in their battle for the hills overlooking Olympia, and yet others claimed the games commemorated Pelops, who won a beautiful bride in a chariot race contested in Olympia. Legends aside, Olympia became a shrine for Zeus in c. 1000 b.c.e., and it is then that historians believe the athletic competition associated with the religious celebrations in honor of Zeus began. At the beginning of the games the athletes pledged to compete fairly in the name of Zeus, otherwise suffer signifi cant fi nes, which went to the erection of statues and shrines to the god of Olympia. 318 Olympic Games The fi rst recorded Olympic competition was in 776 b.c.e.; the footrace of approximately 200 meters (656 feet) long, the stade, was the only competition held at that time. In 724 b.c.e. the games expanded to include a double race of approximately 400 meters (1,312 feet). A long-distance race of 4,800 meters (15,748 feet) was added in 720 b.c.e., wrestling and the pentathlon in 708 b.c.e., boxing in 688 b.c.e., and a chariot race in 680 b.c.e. From 632 to 616 b.c.e. footraces, wrestling, and boxing were added for adolescent athletes. Finally a 200-meter race in armor was added in 520 b.c.e. Until 550 b.c.e. these events were held in open spaces at the foot of the hills surrounding Olympia. In that year construction began of a hippodrome, a stadium with the capacity to seat 40,000 spectators, a gymnasium, and a palaestra. Footraces were held in the stadium, the inside length of which equaled the distance of the stade. In 472 b.c.e. the format and order of the Olympic Games were standardized over fi ve days, of which only two and a half were devoted to sport. Religious ceremonies, pledges, sacrifi ces, and singing took place on the fi rst day. Athletic competition started on the second day with the chariot race and the pentathlon, an event consisting of the discus and javelin throws, standing broad jump, a 200-meter race, and wrestling. The longer footraces were held on the third day. Heavy events took place on the fourth day, which included wrestling, boxing, pancratium, and the 200-meter race in armor. Prizes—wreathes of olive branches to the winners— were distributed on the fi fth day, in addition to religious celebrations, praises to Zeus, and a banquet of meat from sacrifi ced animals. Every four years before the Olympic Games started, three heralds left Olympia, traveled throughout the Greek world, and declared a sacred truce in honor of Zeus. Athletes, coaches, trainers, and spectators embarked to Olympia, allowed free and unrestrained travel through regions ravaged by war, and arrived about a month before the start of the games. Athletes had to verify that they were Greek citizens and that they were not slaves or criminals. They then swore to Zeus that they had trained for at least 10 months before reaching Olympia. The fi nal month of training, the most rigorous of the athlete’s preparation, was conducted under strict supervision of judges. During this period elimination rounds were held in most events. For the most part the ancient Olympians were wealthy aristocrats, who could afford to spend their time training for sport, could hire coaches and trainers, and owned horses and chariots. In 450 b.c.e. athletes from the lower classes began to compete in the Olympic Games and the other periodic contests. Wealthy patrons from the Greek city-states fi nanced the training and travel of these athletes, who represented the Greek citystates. While Olympians may have been amateurs in the sense that they did not receive material reward for their athletic achievement, the Olympic movement was a great commercial enterprise. Moreover, the Olympic Games were not open to women athletes or spectators, but women had their own athletic competition at Olympia—the Heraean Games—in honor of Hera, the sister-wife of Zeus. Held in celebration of fertility, the Heraean Games predate the Olympics, refl ecting the matriarchal character of early Greek society. The Olympic Games began to decline in the third century c.e., as the Greeks lost faith in their classical deities, in whose honor the games had originated and fl ourished. Names of Olympic champions were no longer offi cially recorded after 285 c.e. By the end of the fourth century Christian reformers demanded that all pagan temples be closed, and the religious rites associated with them ceased. Although the religious rituals associated with the Olympic Games came to an end in 393–394 c.e., the athletic competition persisted into the fi fth century. In the late fi fth and early sixth centuries northern invaders ravaged Olympia, destroying the temples, athletic facilities, and statues to Zeus and other heroes; the fi nal blow to Olympia The ancient Olympic Games were held in honor of Zeus and included religious celebrations, banquets, and praises to Zeus. Olympic Games 319 came in 522 and 551, when two terrifi c earthquakes redirected the Alpheus River, turning Olympia into marshland. See also Classical Period, Greek; Greek mythology and pantheon. Further reading: Baker, William J. Sports in the Western World. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988; Finley, M. I., and H. W. Pleket. The Olympic Games: The First Thousand Years. London: Chatto and Windus, 1979; Gaff, Jackie. Ancient Olympics. Chicago: Hannemann Library, 2004; Mandell, Richard C. Sport: A Cultural History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984; Young, David C. The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics. Chicago: Ares, 1984. Adam R. Hornbuckle Oriental Orthodox Churches The cluster of ancient churches that were not in agreement with the councils of the Greek Church and the Latin Church are often referred to corporately as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These churches include the Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Malankara, Eritrean, and Syrian churches, because these do not accept the Chalcedonian formula that Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth has two natures in one person. As a result they fell out of communion with the rest of the Christian world and did not participate with the church councils after 451 c.e. These churches often were not understood and were disparaged by Greek and Latin theologians. They were wrongly labeled in ancient times as Monophysites (“‘one-nature’ believers”), but in reality they affi rm that Jesus was an inseparable union of divinity and humanity, a position not much different from the Chalcedonian formula. The word Copt is a derivation of the word for Egyptian. Copts considered themselves descendants of the pharaohs and believed that King Solomon had ties to their land. Their biblically rich legends say that they were converted and organized by the gospel writer and disciple of Jesus, Mark. Their Christianization is hinted at in the New Testament (Acts of the Apostles), and Diocletian’s severe persecution of Egyptian Christians (c. 300 c.e.) proves that Christianity had made great strides there. It was in Alexandria that a wellspring of creative thinking emerged. Two of its most notable teachers were Christian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Their predecessor, Philo, was Jewish. All three were known for their religious accommodations to the Greek conceptual world. Origen’s pupils were Heraclas (fi rst to be called “pope” in Coptic annals) and Gregory Thaumatourgos; other Egyptians infl uenced by him were the Christian authorities Anthony and Athanasius, as well as non-Egyptians such as Jerome, Ephrem, and the Cappadocians. The atmosphere of Alexandria was open and experimental, and many new ideas of the faith were tried out there. Alexandria was every bit the equal of such other early Christian centers as Rome, Antioch, and, later, Constantinople. It was with the council of 451, convened by a pro- Roman emperor, Marcion, that Alexandria and Coptic Christianity began to part company with the Greek and Latin Churches. Egypt was the main center for theology outside Constantinople and Rome, and because of its infl uence throughout the Near Eastern world, the other Oriental Orthodox Churches were gradually persuaded to take sympathetic positions. They ultimately decided to reject Chalcedon as unwarranted invention. Egyptian Christians who held to the Chalcedon position were called Melkites and found fellowship with the Greek and Latin Churches, while the majority of the Egyptian people held to the older formulation and became known simply as the Copts. The civil authorities vainly tried to force change upon the bishops and the people. To this day the Copts and their Oriental Orthodox confreres bitterly remember the cleavage caused by Chalcedon. Monasticism took the lead in the stability of the Coptic Christian Church, and through the Copts, monasticism played a key role in all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The pioneer in the movement was Anthony, who fl ed from the world’s attractions to follow Christ in the spiritual warfare of the desert. Eventually, Anthony’s story was told throughout the Christian world—especially in the next century by Athanasius— and scores of devotees headed for the deserts of Egypt, the Holy Land, and Syria. The ensuing monastic movement had a direct impact on Syriac Christianity and other Oriental churches. Eventually, the movement took hold in the Greek and Latin Churches as well. As for missionary activities, the Coptic Church is known for its efforts to reach Nubia and Libya. Although Ethiopia is an autonomous Oriental church, it was converted by the infl uence of two Syrian Christians and connected at fi rst to the Coptic Church. Egyptian monastics are known to have spread their ideas in Mesopotamia, and the oldest continuous monastery in the world, Mar Gabriel, at Turabdin has archaeological evidence for Coptic residents there. Popular stories circulate concerning the “Theban Legion” of Egyptian monks who 320 Oriental Orthodox Churches brought monasticism to Europe long before Benedict’s monastery in Italy. Europeans fl ocked to the Egyptian monasteries in the fi fth and sixth centuries, along with their pilgrimages to Syria’s Simeon the Stylite. Because of their extensive contacts with the imperial Roman and Byzantine world, Copts incorporate a fair number of Greek words in their theology and liturgy. Even their alphabet utilizes Greek characters. However, their vocabulary is from their native Coptic language. By the reign of Justinian (565) they had a completely separate ecclesial hierarchy, spirituality, and even architecture, refl ecting their native character. The Coptic faith is intensely biblical and monastic, like many of the ancient Oriental Orthodox Churches. Its early literature centered on the Bible, the interpretations of the Bible, and the writings of Coptic holy men and women. Valuable manuscripts of holy writings go back to the second and third centuries. Thousands of papyri survive in the Egyptian desert, making it easy to detail the Coptic culture from the fi fth century onward. The writings give the sense that Egypt’s upper classes were well educated and piously Christian by the early sixth century. Eventually, Coptic speech and writing gave way to Arabic as the language of the conqueror. The Copts themselves became dhimmis (“protected people” of the state) strictly restricted and monitored by the Muslims. See also Christianity, early; Desert Fathers and Mothers; Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; Nicaea, Council of; persecutions of the church; Roman Empire; Syriac culture and church. Further reading: Atiya, A. S., and M. N. Swanson. “Coptic Church.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones. Detroit, MI: MacMillan Reference, 2005; Marsh, Richard, ed. Prayers from the East: Traditions of Eastern Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2004. Mark F. Whitters Origen (c. 185–c. 253 c.e.) theologian and church leader Origen of Alexandria represents one of the most fascinating yet controversial fi gures of the early church. Specifi c details of Origen’s life are somewhat ambiguous, and we must rely largely on the efforts of the fourthcentury historian Eusebius. Origen was born around 185 c.e. in Alexandria and lived during one of the most intense periods of Christian persecution under the Roman emperor Decius. His parents raised him in a Christian home so devout that his father died willingly as a martyr around 201, and he received a strong Hellenistic education. From a young age Origen taught at the catechetical school in Alexandria, reportedly succeeding Clement as its head at just 18 years of age. Origen led a lifestyle of strict ascetic discipline, earning him the nickname Adamantios, or Man of Steel. He gained a wide reputation for his extensive teaching and scholarship on biblical exegesis, doctrine, exhortation, and apologetics. Origen encountered some diffi culties, however, when Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, convened a synod that excommunicated Origen for preaching as a layman before bishops and for being ordained a priest despite his reputed self-castration. Shortly thereafter, Origen left Alexandria for Caesarea to head a school of theology. He died there around 253 as the result of imprisonment and torture infl icted upon him by Roman persecutors, leaving behind a body of work so vast that it was not all preserved. One of Origen’s greatest contributions to patristic theology consists of his biblical exegesis. Writing in both commentary and homily form, Origen interpreted almost every book of the Old and New Testaments. With his characteristic style Origen usually interpreted scripture in a line-by-line, even word-by-word manner in great detail, sometimes producing multivolume commentaries on a single biblical book, such as Genesis and the Gospel of John. Those commentaries that have survived offer a wealth of insight and testimony to Origen’s exegetical method, which infl uenced such great patristic fi gures as Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, and Basil the Great. Origen is particularly known for his use of allegory. As Origen explains in book 4 of On First Principles, scripture, with its divine authorship, is capable of yielding meaning on many different levels, including the literal, moral, and spiritual plains. With the guidance of church teaching and the Holy Spirit, one can determine these levels of meaning as one grows in faith. Origen’s reputation unfortunately suffered posthumously with the Origenist controversies in the fourth through the sixth centuries. Following the Council of Nicaea in 325, some of Origen’s theological views were questioned, including the tendencies to claim that in essence the Son and the Holy Spirit are less than the Father (subordinationism) and to view resurrection in terms of soul rather than body. While these views were undeniably unorthodox, Origen lived before the ecumenical councils that Origen 321 established offi cial church doctrine, and these controversies occurred long after his death. While Emperor Justinian anathematized Origen in 553, he continues to be commended for his positive contributions, especially biblical exegesis, which was praised by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus. See also Christianity, early; Ephesus and Chalcedon, Councils of; Hellenization; persecutions of the church. Further reading: Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Edinburgh, Scotland: T. and T. Clark, 1989; Danielou, Jean. Origen. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955; Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event. Rev. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Jody Vaccaro Lewis ostracism Ostracism was a well-established practice used in classical Greece during the fi fth century b.c.e. to banish public fi gures from the city. Created by Cleisthenes, it was used in Athens for the expulsion of Hipparchos in 488–487 b.c.e. Ostracism represented a ritual and symbolic course of action. Far from being a judicial mechanism (no debate or speeches were allowed), ostracism was an effective weapon to attack public individuals who may have gained too much power. The threat of ostracism was also effective at dissolving open confrontations between enemy parties. However, only a few instances of successful ostracisms have been attested, in most cases against prominent citizens from propertied families, and its actual uses were infrequent. Each year, during the sixth prytany of the assembly, the people decided through a preliminary vote whether an ostrakophoria should be organized that year. If they agreed on that, during the eight prytany—that is, two months after the decision—the polling itself took place in the marketplace (agora). During that meeting, each citizen marked a potshard (ostrakon) with the name of a person he wished to see expelled from the polis and put it into an urn. No list of candidates was drafted before the election. The man whose name was scratched on the most ostraka was exiled from Athens for 10 years, but there is controversy on the number of votes needed for this result: For some specialists a quorum of 6,000 votes was required for the procedure to have effect, while others believe that a person had to be identifi ed in at least 6,000 votes in order to be ostracized. Thousands of ostraka have been found in different excavations, especially in the Kerameikos and the Athenian agora. Many of them were found bearing the same name (for example, Themistokles) and were apparently written by the same hand and were carefully painted. It is possible that during the two months separating the fi rst decision and the voting, a number of public campaigns were held in order to convince people on the need of ousting a certain person and that prepared ostraka were distributed among voters. Contrary to legal punishments ostracism had rather mild consequences. It did not imply confi scation or loss of civic status, and in many cases evidence shows that ostracized individuals, like Kimon or Aristeides, were recalled to the city before the 10-year period had expired. The last ostracism in Athens was probably held in 416–415 b.c.e., when the demagogue Hyperbolos wanted to banish Alkibiades or Nikias from the city. Threatened by the possibility of being expelled, the two politicians managed to get rid of their common enemy, and Hyperbolos himself was ostracized. Sources indicate that the Athenian people were disgusted by the situation and that the procedure of ostracism was not implemented again. The truth is that new legal mechanisms capable of dealing with the possibility of removing undesirable politicians through lawsuits, such as the graphe paranomon, were put into place by this time and helped to address these issues in less unpredictable manners. Other Greek cities such as Argos, Megara, and Miletos implemented the process of ostracism as well. In Syracuse, it was called petalismos, because names were written in olive trees. See also Athenian predemocracy; Greek city-states. Further reading: Carcopino, J. L’ostracisme athénien. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1935; Mossé, C., and A. Schnapp Gourbellion. “Quelques réfl exions sur l’ostracism athénien.” In Veinticinque secoli dopo l’invenzione della democrazia. Paestum, Italy: Fondazione Paestum, 1998; Rhodes, P. J. “The Ostracism of Hyperbolus.” In R. Osborne and S. Hornblower, eds. Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994; Thomsen, R. The Origin of Ostracism: A Synthesis. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1972; Vanderpool, E. Ostracism at Athens. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati Classical Studies, 1973. Emiliano J. Buis 322 ostracism Ostrogoths and Lombards The Ostrogoths and Lombards were Germanic barbarians who successively became rulers of post-Roman Italy. The Ostrogoths were the eastern branch of the Gothic peoples, the western being the Visigoths. They fi rst settled in the area of the Ukraine. An early Ostrogothic king, Ermanric, was defeated and conquered by the Huns around 375 c.e. Like other German peoples, the Ostrogoths regained their independence and entered the Roman Empire as Roman allies following the death of the Hunnish king Attila in 453. The Ostrogoths’ most important king was Theodoric, who became king in 474. After ravaging Thrace the young king was diverted westward by the Roman emperor Zeno in Constantinople. Zeno hoped that Theodoric would overcome Odovacar, a former barbarian mercenary leader who had overthrown the last Roman emperor in the West, Romulus Augustulus, in 476. Theodoric quickly overcame Odovacar and treacherously murdered him. The Ostrogothic kingdom under Theodoric was the most “civilized” of the post-Roman barbarian kingdoms in the western Mediterranean, marked by the persistence of Roman civilization and the continued acknowledgment of the rule of the Roman emperor at Constantinople. The Roman Senate continued to meet, and many senators served Theodoric’s government. Like late Western Roman emperors, Theodoric’s capital was at Ravenna, not Rome. Unlike other barbarian states, the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy did not have different sets of laws for the Romans and the barbarians, although Goths tried Goths in military courts and Romans tried Romans in civilian courts. Like other barbarian states, however, Ostrogothic Italy faced the problem of religious differences. The Ostrogoths were Arian Christians, denying the equality of Christ with God the Father, while their Roman subjects were Orthodox, accepting the doctrine of the Trinity. Toward the end of his reign Theodoric adopted a harsher policy toward the Senate and leading Romans for fear that they were conspiring with the Orthodox emperor. His grandson Athalaric succeeded Theodoric, but the real power lay with his mother, Theodoric’s daughter Amalasuntha. Traditional Ostrogoths believed that Amalasuntha leaned too far to the Roman side, and she lacked Theodoric’s fame as a war leader. In 534 she was imprisoned and strangled by her husband, Theodahad, who took the Ostrogothic crown for himself. The Ostrogothic kingdom, however, was in the path of the Roman emperor Justinian I, who aimed at destroying the Arian barbarian powers of the Mediterranean. Proclaim- Ostrogoths and Lombards 323 ing themselves avengers of Amalasuntha, a Roman army under the famed general Belisarius landed in Italy in 535. Theodahad, a poor leader, was deposed in favor of General Witiges, who was captured and taken to Constantinople in 540. (The Ostrogoths offered to make Belisarius their king, but he refused.) The next Ostrogothic king to emerge, Totila, had some success and even retook Rome but was eventually defeated and killed in the Battle of Busta Gallorum in 552 by the Roman general Narses at the head of a mostly barbarian army. Soon afterward the Ostrogoths disappeared as a people. The Roman destruction of the Ostrogoths and its accompanying devastation paved the way for the conquest of much of Italy by the much more barbaric Lombards. The Lombards had been established north of the Danube, where they came under increasing pressure from the Avars, a people originating in Central Asia. Under the leadership of their king, Alboin, the Lombards invaded northern Italy and established a kingdom with its capital at Pavia. In subsequent decades they expanded their control over the peninsula. Unlike the Ostrogoths, however, the Lombards never captured Rome or became masters of all Italy. Their kingdom was also never as centralized as that of their predecessors. The Lombards competed with dukes and the popes for Rome, and with the Eastern Roman or Byzantine emperors for the peninsula. Outside the northern Lombard kingdom, semi-independent Lombard duchies were also established in the south, at Spoleto and Benevento. The Lombards, unlike the Ostrogoths, maintained the dual system of law for Romans and barbarians. Over the course of time, however, they converted from their original pagan and Arian religions to the Catholicism of their subjects, which ended the religious issue with the papacy but left the territorial one. The Byzantine emperors had relinquished their protection of the papacy after the fall of Ravenna to the Lombard king Aistulf in 751. However, the Lombard kingdom was ultimately destroyed by the Frankish kingdom. The Frankish ruler Pepin the Short invaded Italy in 754, restoring to the papacy lands that the Lombards had taken but not subjugating the Lombard kingdom. He returned in 756, forcing Aistulf to acknowledge the Frank as his overlord. The fi nal destruction of the Lombard kingdom was the work of Pepin’s son and successor, Charlemagne, who in 774 made a prisoner of the last Lombard king, Desiderius, and had himself crowned with the iron crown of the Lombards. Bereft of their privileges as a ruling elite, the Lombards of the north assimilated with their one-time Italian subjects, leaving the name of Lombardy to denote a region of northern Italy. The Normans conquered the last independent Lombard power, the duchy of Benevento, in the 11th century. See also Arianism; late barbarians. Further reading: Burns, Thomas S. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984; Hal- 324 Ostrogoths and Lombards lenbeck, J. T. Pavia and Rome: The Lombard Monarchy and the Papacy in the Eighth Century. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1982; Paul the Deacon. History of the Lombards. Trans. by William Dudley Foulke. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974. William E. Burns

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Ogotai Khan (1185–1241) Mongol leader Ogotai Khan was the third son of Genghis Khan and spent most of his early life campaigning. Realizing the implacable enmity between his fi rst and second sons, Juji and Chagatai Khan, Genghis decided in 1219 to bypass both for supreme leadership of the Mongols after his own death in favor of Ogotai. He reconfi rmed this decision before his death in 1227. Ogotai was confi rmed as the Mongols’ second khaghan (grand khan) by the khuriltai of Mongol leaders in 1229 and established Karakorum on the upper reaches of the Orkhon River as his capital, surrounding it with a defensive wall. True to his martial heritage Ogotai began his reign with massive campaigns to expand the Mongol empire, amassing four armies. One marched westward to conquer the steppelands of central Eurasia and the Russian principalities, across the Ural Mountains, and the Volga River. Led by the old warrior Subotai and Batu (Juji’s son), its goal was to secure and enlarge the inheritance of the sons of Juji (who had predeceased Genghis Khan). A second army’s goal was to complete the conquest of Khwarazm, which includes modern Iran, then onto the Middle East and Asia Minor. A third army took on Korea, which had been conquered earlier but had revolted against the unbearable conditions of Mongol rule. Finally Ogotai and his younger brother Tului Khan led a force to fi nish the conquest of the Jin (Chin) dynasty in northern China. They took the Jin capital Kaifeng (K’ai-feng) in 1233; the last Jin emperor committed suicide in 1234 and all northern China came under Mongol rule. Subotai’s army had the most spectacular success, conquering the Turkish tribes of the Russian steppes, all the Russian principalities except Novgorod, the Ukraine, Poland, Moravia, and Hungary. They were at the gates of Vienna before withdrawing in 1241 on the news of Ogotai’s death. The army sent to conquer the Middle East added western Persia and the Caucasus to Mongol control. Korea submitted in 1259. Ogotai also made administrative reforms to centralize the administration to ensure his control over the Mongol lords and the effi - cient gathering of taxes and tribute from his sedentary subjects. Thanks to a remarkable non-Mongol adviser Yelu Chucai (Yeh-lu Ch’u-ts’ai) reforms were begun in northern China that ended the brutal looting and massacre of the population on the premise that working people paid more taxes than expeditions could gather. After the campaign against Jin, Ogotai returned to Karakorum and abandoned himself to a life of pleasure, hunting and drinking so heavily that an offi cial was appointed to count the amount of wine he drank daily. His second wife, Toregene, moved quickly to consolidate her authority even before he died while on a hunting trip; he was buried in Jungaria in his personal appanage (fi ef). According to Mongol custom his widow, Toregene, became regent until the khuriltai elected a new ruler. Her goal was to ensure the election of her son Guyug as the next khaghan, despite much opposition by other branches of the Mongol royal house. After four and half years she succeeded. See also Mongke Khan. Further reading: Grousset, Rene. The Empire of the Steppes, A History of Central Asia. Trans. by Naomi Walford. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970; Boyle, John A. trans., The Successors of Genghis Khan: Translated from the Persian of Rashid al-Din. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971; 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; Prawdin, Michael. The Mongol Empire, Its Rise and Legacy. Trans. by Paul, Eden and Cedar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1940. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Olaf I (969–1000) Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvason ruled the kingdom of Norway as Olaf I. He was the son of King Tryggve Olafsson but was forced to fl ee when Eric Bloodaxe killed his father and purged the royal family. Olaf fi nally found refuge in Novgorod, where the Vikings had opened up settlements. Their renown as warriors made them prized mercenary soldiers throughout eastern Europe; as many Vikings went east as those who made the more familiar inroads into western Europe. Their fi ghting prowess was so well regarded that the emperors of the eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire made them among their prize troops as the Varangian Bodyguard. The huge axes they carried as their main weapons earned them fear and respect from their enemies. Olaf served in Novgorod under Vladimir I (Vladimir the Great) (c. 958–1015), who converted the Rus, the ancestors of today’s Russians, to Christianity in his principality of Kievan Rus. Olaf also saw service as a mercenary under the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III (960–1002). After his sojourn in eastern Europe where he married a Polish princess, he became involved in the Viking raids on England and France. After the death of his Polish wife, he wed Gyda, who was the sister of Olaf Kvaran, the Viking king of Dublin. Ireland, as England, suffered greatly from Viking incursions from Scandinavia. But as in France and England the Vikings created permanent settlements and Dublin traces its origin to the Viking settlement. Dublin on the river Liffey would have proved an excellent and protected anchorage for the Viking long ships. It would not be until 1014 that the Irish High King Brian Boru would defeat the Vikings at Clontarf, effectively restoring much of Ireland to native Irish rule. However, Brian was killed toward the end of the battle. Olaf learned of the dissatisfaction of the Norwegians with the rule of the earl Haakon. He decided to make a dramatic bid for his father’s throne. The people welcomed him as the rightful king and he swiftly became established as ruler of the kingdom. Johannes Brondsted writes in The Vikings that Haakon “was murdered by one of his own servants.” However, in c. 995 Olaf converted to Christianity and, as was the custom of the times, caused his people to convert with him. During the conversion of Norway, he had the shamans who opposed him drowned at high tide. Once he had made his conversion, Olaf ceased raiding Christian countries and turned his considerable energies to raiding pagan countries. The date of Olaf’s conversion to Christianity is disputed. Johannes Brondsted in The Vikings remarks how Olaf raided England in 991. In 994 he participated in a massive raid on London with the Danish king Sweyn (Swen) Forkbeard. Brondsted notes that Olaf had already been converted to Christianity. The raid was a large undertaking, according to Brondsted, “with a joint fl eet of about a hundred longships, and presumably at least two thousand men, they attacked London; but the city beat off the assault, and the Vikings had to be content with plundering southeast England and fi nally accepting 16,000 pounds of silver to leave. Olaf Tryggvason left for good to take up the task of conquering Norway.” At the time, Ethelred was the king of England. Olaf made his capital at Nidaros, now known as Trondheim, when he took the Norwegian throne. Upon taking the throne in 995 Olaf enforced Christianity among the general population, but his rule was only certain in the north around Trondelag. His former ally Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark claimed the southern part of Norway. While Olaf tried to consolidate his rule in Norway, he also controlled Iceland. He made a strong effort to convert the inhabitants of Iceland from their pagan ways. While the fi rst missionaries, Brondsted notes, were sent in 987, their journey ended in failure. Around 997, however, Olaf’s efforts met with success and Christianity was proclaimed at the Icelandic Thing, perhaps the closest to a true democratic assembly then in existence in northern Europe. Meanwhile Olaf’s attempt at consolidation was bringing him nearer to a confrontation with Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark. Sweyn, seeing a confl ict ahead, carefully wove a web of alliances around Olaf. Sweyn married the 314 Olaf I mother of the king of Sweden, Olaf Skotkönung. He was careful to include the sons of Earl Haakon in his marital alliances as well. One son, Swen, was married to Skotkonung’s sister, while the other, as Brondsted notes, was wed to Sweyn Forkbeard’s own daughter. In 1000 Olaf met his enemies at a naval battle off the island of Svold, near Rugen. Olaf was greatly outnumbered by the fl eets of Denmark and Sweden, in addition to those Norwegians who followed the two sons of Earl Haakon. Moreover, as Brondsted writes, the Viking fi ghters known as the Joms-vikings also betrayed him. Olaf fought bravely from the deck of his ship Long Dragon, which was reputedly the largest warship yet seen in Scandinavian waters. The rowers of Viking longships, it should be noted, were warriors as well and not slaves as they were on the galleys of the ancient Greeks and Romans. When the ships came in close contact, sometimes efforts were made to ram an enemy’s ship. But, as with the Romans, battle was decided by an armed confl ict among the warriors, who would attack an enemy vessel and seek to overpower the crew. Destroying a longship was never a real tactical goal, since the attackers usually sought to take it intact and add to their fl eet. This certainly would have been the case with Olaf’s Long Dragon. After his death, Olaf remained the hero of his people, who whispered that he was still alive and waited for his return in vain. See also Vikings: Iceland, Icelandic sagas; Vikings: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Further reading: Brondsted, Johannes. The Vikings. Trans. by Kalle Skov. New York: Penguin Books, 1973; Snorrason, Oddr. The Saga of Olaf Tryggvason (The Islandica Series). Trans. by T. M. Andersson. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. John F. Murphy, Jr. Omar Khayyam (1048–1131) Persian poet and astronomer Omar Khayyam was born in Nishapur, Persia (present-day Iran); his name means “tent maker,” the likely profession of his father. During his lifetime he was known, not as a poet, but as a mathematician and astronomer. He studied philosophy as well as science. As all artists and scientists of the age Omar Khayyam was dependent upon the patronage of the local rulers or persons of wealth for his livelihood. As a young man he worked in Samarkand under the patronage of the Seljuk ruler, Malik Shah, during which time he wrote the Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra. The treatise was a groundbreaking mathematical work; he also listed astronomical tables and, with other scientists, worked to reform the calendar. After the death of Malik Shah and a change in political fortunes, Omar Khayyam moved to the great center of Islamic scientifi c study at Merv (in present-day Turkmenistan), where he wrote critical analyses of Greek astronomical and mathematical thought. He also traveled to Mecca and Baghdad, other centers for scientifi c thought. In his old age he moved back to Nishapur, where he died in 1131. In the west Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat, a series of almost 600 rhymed four-line quatrains, was popularized by Edward Fitzgerald’s 1859 translation. Fitzgerald took extensive liberties with the text and it is thought the Omar Khayyam probably wrote only about 200 of the quatrains. The Rubaiyat refl ects Omar Khayyam’s romantic as well as pragmatic nature and covers a wide range of topics including love and death. The poem takes an open view to sensuality, wine, women, and song with verses like Whether at Naishapur or Babylon, Whether the Cup with sweet or bitter run, The Wine of Life keeps oozing drop by drop, The Leaves of Life keep falling one by one. Omar Khayyam’s liberal views were attacked by more puritanical Muslims, as well as by mystical Persian poets who objected to his pessimism and outlook on life. See also Seljuk dynasty; Sufi sm. Further reading: Aminrazavi, Mehdi. The Wine of Wisdom: The Life, Poetry and Philosophy of Omar Khayyam. Oxford: Oneworld, 2003; Arberry, A. J. The Romance of the Rubaiyat. London: Allen & Unwin, 1959. Janice J. Terry Onin War in Japan The Onin War came about directly as a result of the declining power of the Ashikaga Shogunate. The Ashikaga Shogunate, or military government, had been founded in 1336–37, by the astute Ashikaga Takauji. Takauji had been sent by the Hojo shoguns to put down the rebellion of the emperor Go-Daigo. Go-Daigo was determined to throw off the rule of the military shoguns that had existed since the fi rst true Onin War in Japan 315 shogun, Minamoto Yoritimo, in 1192. Go-Daigo’s fi rst rebellion was in 1331 but was suppressed by the Hojo shogun Hojo Moritoki. When Go-Daigo rebelled a second time, Ashikaga Takauji was sent to lead the Hojo army against him. But Takauji switched sides and ensured Go-Daigo’s victory. He accompanied Go-Daigo into the imperial capital of Kyoto. However, it was clear that he had only used Go-Daigo as a Trojan horse for his own ambitions and in 1337, Go-Daigo was forced to fl ee the capital as Ashikaga Takauji became shogun in his own right. Although at fi rst perceived as another military rule, the Ashikaga shoguns considered themselves true aristocrats of the Northern Court in Kyoto. Rather than the countrifi ed shoguns at Kamakura, the Ashikagas considered themselves to be patrons of the arts. The Ashikaga shoguns were such patrons of the arts that the style of the period derives its name from the Muromachi District in Kyoto where they established their mansion. They also patronized the o-chanoyu, the ceremony performed with Japanese green tea, which became a centerpiece in the life of any cultivated daimyo, or noble, family of the era. With each generation the Ashikagas became more imperial courtiers and less military shoguns. The now courtly Ashikaga shoguns began to face challenges from another generation of countrifi ed daimyo in the more remote provinces. Increasingly the shogunate was unable to control these militaristic daimyo, and their failure to do so brought their demise. The climax came during the reign of the eighth Ashikaga shogun Yoshimasa, who began his rule in 1449. For all of his architectural and cultural accomplishments, Yoshimasa did little to strengthen the military of the shogunate. The Onin War itself began as a struggle over who would lead two Echizen province daimyo families, the Hatekeyama and the Shiba clans. The Hatekeyama called on the mightier Yamana and Hosokawa clans. The confl ict ultimately drew in Yamana Sozen and Hosokawa Katsumoto, two far more powerful warrior daimyo. Yamana Sozen was known as the Red Monk, because he had taken a monk’s vows but still functioned as a warlord, as did Uesugi Kenshi, the great rival of Takeda Shingen. ABDICATION Faced with what would prove to be a very bloody provincial struggle and unwilling to enter it, Ashikaga Yoshimasa announced in 1464 his intention to abdicate as shogun. Before he resigned he had to choose a successor in the Ashikaga Shogunate. In one of the great ironies of Japanese history, his choice deprived him of the very life of peace he sought. He chose his brother, but his wife, Tomi-ko, wanted the next shogun to be their son. Tomi-ko secured the support of Yamana Sozen for her son’s candidacy, which inevitably brought Hosokawa Katsumoto to champion the cause of the emperor. The Onin War, unlike other struggles, was to be fought out in the streets of the imperial capital of Kyoto. The main theater would be the stylish Muromachi District, which, since it served as the headquarters for Ashikaga rule, was where the families of the powerful daimyo had built their mansions to house them when business brought them to Kyoto. By 1467 the Yamana and Hosokawa factions were waiting for the hostilities that both sides realized would soon begin. To his credit Yoshimasa remained shogun and tried to avert the breakout of war. He declared that whoever began the fi ghting would be branded a rebel, which meant execution and confi scation of all property. In April 1467 fi ghting began when the fi rst decisive move was struck by the Red Monk. To show his contempt for the emperor, he captured the imperial palace in Kyoto in one of his fi rst attacks. But Yamana’s impetuous action backfi red as he found it increasingly diffi cult to keep supporters. In 1471 Yamana was so desperate that he attempted to revive the old Southern Court, but he could fi nd no claimants to the throne, since the Ashikagas had infl uenced the members of the Southern Court to return to Kyoto in 1392 after the emperor abdicated. Meanwhile the Hosokawas and the Yamanas attempted to gain strength from the countryside. Both sides received help from their retainers outside the capital, but none were able to gain military superiority in the battles that now raged in the capital city of Kyoto. As a result a bloody stalemate settled down in Kyoto, as the entire city was slowly devastated by the continual fi ghting. The warring in Kyoto acquired a lethal momentum of its own. Even the deaths of both Yamana Sozen and Hosokawa Katsumoto in 1473 did not slow the bloodshed. Fighting spread to the provinces, where peasants staged ikko uprisings and provincial daimyo fought over land claims, knowing that the Ashikaga Shogunate was powerless to intervene in the growing anarchy. The shogunate was still embroiled in the very succession crisis that had precipitated the Onin War. Yoshimasa fi nally gave in to his wife, Tomi-ko, in 1474, and appointed his son Yoshihisa to be his successor. 316 Onin War in Japan Ten years later, Yoshimasa fi nally achieved his dream of leaving the shogunate. Yoshihisa would rule until 1489. Nevertheless, the Onin War continued to devastate Kyoto. In December 1477 Ouchi Masahiro, who had spent a decade fi ghting for the Yamanas, fi nally grew disgusted with the fi ghting and left the city, leaving the empty victory to the Hosokawas. The power of the Ashikaga Shogunate was effectively broken by the long confl ict. Although the family would continue to govern, the center of gravity decisively shifted to the daimyo in the provinces. In 1573 almost exactly a century after Yoshimasa abdicated, the daimyo Oda Nobunaga would depose the 15th Ashikaga shogun Yoshiaki, bringing the Ashikaga Shogunate to an end. Further reading: Newman, John. Bushido: The Way of the Warrior. London: Bison Books, 1989; Turnbull, Stephen R. Battles of the Samurai. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1987; Turnbull, Stephen R. The Book of the Samurai: The Warrior Class of Japan. New York: Bison Books, 1982; Turnbull, Stephen R. The Samurai Sourcebook. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1992; Turnbull, Stephen R. Samurai: The Story of Japan’s Great Warriors. London: PRC Publishing, 2004; Turnbull, Stephen R. Samurai: The World of the Warrior. Oxford: Osprey, 2003; Turnbull, Stephen R. Warriors of Feudal Japan. Oxford: Osprey, 2005. John Murphy Ottoman Empire: 1299–1453 In the 13th century a nomadic Turkish tribesman named Ertogrul established control over large parts of northwest Anatolia. The Ottoman Empire took its name from his son Osman (r. 1280–1324); Ottoman was an Italian corruption of Osmanli. As the Seljuk dynasty and other Turkish dynasties, the Ottoman Empire relied on ghazi warriors as the foundation of its military power. The Ghazi warriors were an egalitarian society in which leadership was earned through bravery and feats in battle. They practiced a code of conduct (futuwwa) analogous to the code of chivalry among western medieval knights. Converts to Sunni Islam, the Ottomans viewed themselves as protectors of Islam. Osman married the daughter of a Sufi shaykh who was the master of one of the numerous Sufi orders that had been established in Asia Minor. Sufi shaykhs often became the spiritual leaders in Ottoman society. Like all early Ottoman leaders Osman and his son Orhan (r. 1324–c. 1359) were able military leaders who personally led their troops into battle. Both expanded Ottoman territories and, with the conquest of Gallipoli, Orhan extended Ottoman lands into Europe. Murad I (r. 1360–89) took the title of sultan and continued Ottoman expansion into the Balkans and Anatolia, taking Adrianople and Ankara. Ottoman victories further diminished the territories under the Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman victory at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 was a major defeat for the Serbians and began a long period of Ottoman domination over most of the Balkans. The fi rst 10 Ottoman sultans were men of strong personalities with remarkable abilities. The position of sultan was the only role reserved for the heirs of the house of Osman; otherwise, the Ottoman Empire fostered remarkable upward mobility for its conquered peoples, who could, and often did, rise to the highest military, political, and economic positions within the empire. Following Muslim precepts the Ottomans were also tolerant of religious minorities and often intermarried with the different religious and ethnic groups within the empire. However a Turkish-speaking elite dominated the ruling class. In Europe the early Ottomans ruled from Edirne (Adrianople), while Bursa served as the capital of the empire. The relative stability of Ottoman rule attracted scholars and merchants to Bursa. Merchants and skilled craftsmen formed guilds of ahki or cooperatives that contributed to the economic prosperity of the empire. The control of major trade routes also fi nancially Ottoman Empire: 1299–1453 317 The tombs of Sultans Orhan and Osman are located in Bursa, Turkey. Osman and his son Orhan were able military leaders. benefi ted the Ottomans. Charitable foundations (awqaf) provided extensive social services. An Islamic legal system with trained qadis (judges) provided an overall judicial framework for the empire. Under Murad I landownership was registered and a more centralized government emerged. The grand vizier served as the chief minister and key administrator after the sultan. Although the Turkish tribal families resented the loss of their traditional autonomy, the Ottoman army and administration were strong enough to prevent major rebellions. Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402) became sultan after the death of his father, Murad I, at the Battle of Kosovo. To ensure his succession Bayezid had his brother killed; subsequent Ottoman sultans often sanctioned fratricide or the imprisonment of family members to prevent rebellions or divisions over succession. Although Bayezid won a number of battles in the Balkans and Anatolia, he also adopted a number of Byzantine or Balkan social customs. Under his sultanate a lavish royal court emerged. Ottoman sultans frequently married non-Turkish women. The harem, composed of the sultan’s mother, wives, former wives, and concubines, grew in size and importance. The mothers and wives of the sultans became powers in their own right and frequently intrigued to secure the succession of their favorite sons to the sultanate. Timurlane (Tamerlane) stopped Ottoman territorial expansion. At the Battle of Ankara in 1402 he captured Bayezid and subsequently had him killed. Timurlane dismembered Ottoman territory, dividing it among separate rulers. However, following a struggle with his brothers, Mehmed I (r. 1413–21) presided over a remarkable revival of the empire, which emerged stronger and more powerful than previously. Murad II (r. 1421–44; 1446–51) resumed the expansion and control over the Balkans and moved into Hungary. Although he besieged Constantinople he failed to take the city. The victory in 1444 at the Battle of Varna marked the consolidation of Ottoman rule over the Balkans. Within a decade the Ottomans would achieve a fi nal victory over the failing Byzantine Empire. See also Byzantine Empire: political history; Sufi sm. Further reading: Creasy, Edward S. History of the Ottoman Turks. Beirut: Khayats, 1961; Itzkowitz, Norman. Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition. New York: Knopf, 1972; Shaw, Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Janice J. Terry

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

obrajes in colonial Latin America Obrajes (roughly, workshops) were key enterprises in the developing economies of Spain’s American colonies, principally as sites where wool, cotton, and other fibers were carded, spun, and woven into textiles. While indigenous peoples had woven cloth for millennia, the obraje was an exclusively Spanish imposition. From modest beginnings in the 1530s, obrajes developed over time into quasi-industrial enterprises, some with several hundred laborers, mostly Indian, under their roofs. Working conditions were typically harsh, with long hours, poor ventilation, frequent physical abuse, and low or nonexistent pay (Indian labor and tribute were required under encomienda and related institutions). Most obrajes were thus more akin to penal sweatshops than to workshops, as conventionally understood. The earliest known descriptions of obrajes date to the late 1530s in New Spain (Mexico). By the early 1600s, from 98 to 130 obrajes were scattered across central New Spain, clustering around the urban centers of Puebla, Mexico City, Texcoco, and Tlaxcala. By 1600, most obrajes averaged around 50 laborers, making the total number of workers engaged in obraje production in New Spain around 6,000, though there was a spectrum from large to small; the latter were often called trapiches. Scholars have traced the origins of private or non-state-mediated Spanish-Indian labor relations (i.e., non-encomienda, non-repartimiento) to such early colonial period obrajes—labor frequently supplemented by prisoners and convicted criminals. Captured English sailor Miles Philips was sentenced to work in an obraje in Texcoco around 1570. “We were appointed by the Vice Roy to be carried unto the town of Texcuco . . . in which towne there are certaine houses of correction and punishment for ill people called Obraches . . . into which place divers Indians are sold for slaves, some for ten years, and some for twelve.” Philips’s companion, Job Hortop, described his experiences carding wool in Texcoco’s obrajes “among the Indian slaves.” Their descriptions of “Indian slaves” corresponded with Spanish custom and law, in which obraje laborers were frequently called slaves. The development of obrajes was encouraged by both the Crown and the highest levels of colonial government, with authorities such as New Spain’s first viceroy, Antonio de Mendoza, actively promoting sheep herding, wool production, and manufacture of cheap cloth within the colonies. By the late 1600s, obrajes had become an important pillar of the colonial economy in New Spain and elsewhere, generating textiles and other goods mainly for internal consumption. In the 17th and 18th centuries, opposition to royal support for obrajes by Spain’s textile manufacturers mounted, though it remained insufficient to retard the growth of colonial production and exchange. Similar developments unfolded in colonial Peru. As in New Spain, obrajes emerged in the decades after the conquest with official encouragement and support, especially around Quito, which by the early 17th century had become South America’s leading textile manufacturer. Quiteño cloth, prized for its high quality, was produced by both indigenous “community obrajes” that employed ancient techniques for carding, spinning, and weaving wool (some housing upward of 200 full-time workers) and smaller, privately owned obrajes similar to those in New Spain. Overall, obrajes illuminate key aspects of colonial Latin American history, including land and labor relations, the intersections of Spanish and Indian worlds, and the role of the state in promoting specific types of production and exchange within the colonies. See also mita labor in the Andean highlands; New Spain, Viceroyalty of (Mexico); Peru, Viceroyalty of. Further reading: Bakewell, Peter. A History of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987; Gibson, Charles. The Aztecs under Spanish Rule. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964; Salvucci, Richard J. Textiles and Capitalism in Mexico: An Economic History of the Obrajes, 1539–1840. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Michael J. Schroeder Oda Nobunaga (1534–1582) Japanese general Oda Nobunaga overthrew the Ashikaga Shogunate and took control of half of Japan, becoming the virtual dictator in the 1570s. He ended a number of civil wars that had been waged throughout Japan, but his early death ensured renewed fighting. Oda Nobunaga was born in 1534 in Owari Province in Honshu. His father was a government official who served under the Ashikaga Shogunate and became wealthy. After his father’s death when he was 17, he grew the family landholdings and made himself lord of Nagoya Castle, which became his first headquarters, where he raised and trained a loyal band of military retainers. Oda began his conquests in 1555. Meeting with success, he decided to lead his men to reunify Japan. Nobunaga’s first aim was to secure his flanks from attack, and he formed an alliance in 1562 with Matsudaira Motoyasu, who later became Tokugawa Ieyasu, that secured his heartland of Owari, a fertile region of Japan, with Nagoya as an important trading city. Next he moved his army toward Kyoto, the imperial and shogunal capital. Nobunaga used new military technology, including the arquebus and muskets, to great advantage. In 1568, Nobunaga started to involve himself in Kyoto politics, first by supporting the new shogun Ashikaga Yoshiaki. He would later oust him in 1573, thus ending the Ashikaga Shogunate. To protect his position, Nobunaga then built the mighty Azuchi Castle on Lake Biwa. With the reins of government in his hands, Nobunaga was determined to make important changes. One of his first acts was to remove road tolls, to help increase domestic trade and diminish the wealth and control of the local daimyo (nobles) who collected them. Another of his targets was the powerful Buddhist Tendai sect, headquartered at Enryakuji. Nobunaga was successful and destroyed most of the Enraykuji monastery. Another Buddhist sect, the Ikko sect, however, proved to be more of a problem. Nobunaga began to battle them from 1570. After bitterly fought campaigns, he finally prevailed in 1580, capturing their headquarters near Osaka and massacring the rest of the remaining defenders. Nobunaga was a harsh and vengeful ruler who forced many of his opponents to commit suicide. But he was generous to his supporters and rewarded them with confiscated farms and land previously owned by the temples. Nobunaga was friendly toward Christian missionaries and allowed Jesuits to build a church in Kyoto. His motives included the belief that Christianity would erode the influence of the Buddhist sects. By 1582, Nobunaga had defeated many of his opponents, had unified much of the country, and had nearly half the provinces of Japan under his rule. On June 21, 1582, Nobunaga was ambushed while at Honnoji, a temple of the Nichiren sect located near Kyoto, by Akechi Mitsuhide, an aggrieved vassal. Oda Nobunaga began the work of establishing a unified government in Japan after power had slipped away from the declining Ashikaga Shogunate. His career was cut short, but his goals were continued by his greatest general, Toyotomi Hideyoshi. See also Jesuits in Asia; Mughal Empire; Tokugawa bakuhan system, Japan. Further reading: Sansom, George. A History of Japan 1334– 1615. London: The Cresset Press, 1961; Turnbull, Stephen R. Samurai Armies 1550–1615. London: Osprey, 1979; ———. “Japanese Castles and the Lessons of Nagashino.” Osprey Military Journal, Vol. 2. London: Osprey, 2000; ———. Nagashino 1575: Slaughter at the Barricades, Praeger Illustrated Military History Series. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005; Hall, John Whitney, Kozo Yamamura, and Nagaharo Keiji, eds. Japan before Tokugawa: Political Consoli- 28 4 Oda Nobunaga dation in Economic Growth, 1500 to 1650. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. Justin Corfield Omani empire in East Africa The Omani empire in East Africa was based on the Swahili coast, which extended from present-day central Somalia to Cape Delgado in southern Mozambique. It included a number of islands and archipelagos in the Indian Ocean. There were more than 400 urban settlements of varying sizes. The trading networks within the interior extended from 20 to 200 miles. The trade provided a valuable intermediary between the African interior and the vast Indian Ocean trade. This lucrative trade had been disrupted by the arrival of the Portuguese after 1498. The non-Muslim Portuguese had interfered with the Muslim Swahili trading connections without offering security. Consequently they were attacked by the Turks by the coast and the Jagga and Zimba from the interior. Treasure hunts for gold and silver and slave-hunting expeditions disrupted the interior trade just as Portuguese opposition to Islam disrupted the Indian Ocean aspect of the trade. In the early 17th century, the cities sought liberation from Portugal and called in the Omanis from southeastern Arabia. The Omanis were a good fit as they had been trading partners with the Swahili city-states for centuries, were fellow Muslims, and used the Arabic alphabet, as did the Swahili. They had also been threatened by the Portuguese, who sought to control their strategic position of the Straits of Hormuz at the entrance of the Persian Gulf. Thus they were glad to arrive in the 1640s to attack the Portuguese. Between 1640 and 1730, they conquered all of the Swahili cities from Somalia to the border between Tanganyika and Mozambique. By 1730, Zanzibar had emerged as the most important Swahili city and the Omanis and an Omani governor were established there. But though the Omanis came as allies and liberators, they remained as conquerors through appointing representatives in each city. Over the next half-century, the Swahili cities grew tired of Omani taxes and there were periodic revolts. There were temporary overthrows of Omani representatives, but these would be put down. The only city to regain authority was Mombassa under the Mazrui family. They were partially protected in their harbor by Fort St. Jesus, the fortress built by the Portuguese for their military headquarters. During the 18th century, old trade patterns reemerged under Omani rule due to increased demand for slaves, the availability of capital from places such as India to finance trade, and the willingness of Africans in the interior to take slaves and ivory to the coast. There were effects of the new emphasis on slaves, which replaced the earlier trade in gold (with Zimbabwe) and copper (from Katanga). The international trade for slaves made Omani sultans rich; it also turned communities against each other. Former African trading partners of the Swahili raided each other (encouraged by Omanis to take persons to sell as slaves). Some of the smaller Swahili settlements disappeared as they were not defensible against voracious slave traders. Overall, the Swahili city-states did not regain the wealth that they had experienced during the golden era of 1300–1500. Internally the people began to identify with Omani conquerors. Inside Swahili cities Omani soldiers of fortune expropriated large tracts of land although many were actually ethnic Baluchis. Many upper-class Swahili found it advantageous to intermarry with Omanis and even claim Arab ancestry. These internal changes plus the participation of wealthy coastal people in the interior slave trade and the owning of slaves from the interior created a chasm between the coast and the interior that persists to this day. By 1800, the Omani empire in East Africa faced new challenges as the English and French established themselves off East Africa in the Comoros and Madagascar (French), as well as Mauritius and Seychelles (English). See also slave trade, Africa and the. Further reading: Bennett, Norman R. The Arab State of Zanzibar. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1984; Fuso, Abdullah S. Sejjid Said Bin Sultain Joint Ruler of Omani and Zanzibar. New York: Lancers, 1986; Gray, John. History of Zanzibar from the Middle Ages to 1856. London: Oxford University Press, 1962; Holden, William H. Dhows of the Monsoon: From Zanzibar to Oman in the Wake of Sindbad. New York: Publish America, 2004; Nicolini, Beatrice, and Penelope-Jane Watson. Makan, Oman and Zanzibar, three-Terminal Culture Corridor in the Western Indian Ocean 1799–1856. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Norman C. Rothman Oñate, Juan de (c. 1550–c. 1624) Spanish explorer On April 20, 1598, Spanish captain-general Don Juan de Oñate approached the Rio Grande, then known as Oñate, Juan de 28 5 the Río del Norte, the River of the North. Oñate led an expedition that represented the first determined attempt by Spain to colonize the region explored by Francisco Vásquez de Coronado more than 50 years before, in 1540–42. Oñate led a large expedition consisting of more than 100 families, almost 300 single men, numerous wagons, and 7,000 cattle. An advance detachment was led by Oñate’s nephew, Captain Vicente de Zaldívar. Unlike many other explorers who were peninsulares, those who were born in Spain, Oñate himself was a criollo, a Spaniard born in the New World. Oñate was born to Cristóbal de Oñate and Catalina de Salazar in about 1550. He made an important marriage, which certainly aided his rise to power and influence. His wife was a descendant of both the conquistador Hernán Cortés and the Aztec emperor Moctezuma II. Oñate and his wife had a son and a daughter together. On September 21, 1595, Oñate was awarded a contract by King Philip II of Spain to explore the region north to the Rio Grande and settle what became New Mexico, but numerous delays forced his departure to be held back until 1598. The cost of the expedition was entirely Oñate’s, with the king’s receiving a percentage of the wealth expected to be generated by the new colony. So on April 30, 1598, Oñate in a formal ceremony took possession of the region in the name of King Philip II. The most important part of Oñate’s expedition was the military contingent, probably led by Capitan Zaldívar, since he held the position of sergeant-major of the Oñate forces. The main weapon of the Spanish soldiers was the matchlock musket. Crossbows like the ones used by the Spanish in Cortés’s conquest of Mexico in 1519–21 286 Oñate, Juan de Inscription Rock: A message written in Spanish by Juan de Oñate as he was passing through what is now New Mexico in April 1606 during the first determined attempt by Spain to colonize the region explored by Francisco Vásquez de Coronado more than 50 years before, in 1540–42 were still in use by the Spanish but were apparently left behind in Mexico City when Oñate embarked on his march north. However, in the heat of Mexico and the Southwest United States, many Spaniards wore cotton padded armor adopted from the Aztecs (Mexica), which gave good protection against the arrows the hostile Indians used against them. Curiously enough, Spanish troops carried heart-shaped shields called adargas well into the 18th century. Sidearms were long Spanish rapiers and for the cavalry, a pair of matchlock pistols. Coronado had experienced some fierce fighting with the Pueblo Indian tribes of the Rio Grande valley, and Oñate was fully conscious that his entrance could be marked by combat with the native inhabitants. Therefore, he followed strict military discipline throughout his expedition. After they reached the North Pass on the River (El Paso del Norte), they faced a trip of some 60 miles through a region so arid and hot that ever after the Spanish would call it El Jornado del Muerte (Route of Death). Once among the Pueblo Indians Oñate used the feast of Saint John the Baptist on June 24 to stage a sham battle with the intention of intimidating them with his Spanish cavalry and infantry. New Mexico Established Apparently, Oñate’s show of force worked, because on July 28, without interference, he established New Mexico’s first capital at the pueblo of San Juan de los Caballeros of the Tewa tribe, which he named in honor of the men who had ridden north with Coronado years before. Ultimately Oñate began the construction of San Gabriel as a more permanent capital, perhaps feeling uneasy about the dangers of a surprise attack at night if he remained in the Tewa village. Although Christianization of the Indians was always noted as a reason for Spanish expeditions, the vast treasures that Cortés had found in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru guaranteed that the search for gold and silver would always be a paramount reason for any expedition, and Oñate’s was no different. He was determined, however, to keep all exploration and mineral discovery under his own personal control and carried out severe punishments against those who disregarded his orders. With the nearest Spanish forces hundreds of miles to the south, such strict discipline would be the only thing that would keep such an expedition together and safe while surrounded by potentially hostile Indians. Oñate’s grim emphasis on discipline soon proved to have been justified. In December, Juan de Zaldívar, Vicente’s brother, and some soldiers accepted the hospitality of Chief Zutucapan at the pueblo of Acoma. Once they were settled in their quarters, Zutucapan sprang a trap, and Zaldivar and some 10 Spanish were slaughtered. In January 1599, Oñate sent Vicente on a punitive expedition against Acoma, his infantry and cavalry supported now by two pieces of Spanish artillery known as culverins. When the Acomans refused to submit, Zaldivar attacked. Although he was heavily outnumbered, his artillery slaughtered the Acomans. Captives were taken before Oñate, whose punishment was severe. With the danger from hostile Indians behind him, Oñate spent more time in an illusory search for gold and silver mines. In December 1600, he embarked on a long expedition. His search for riches took his attention from the settlement of the colony and many people who were disillusioned with his rule returned to Mexico, then called New Spain. Although his search for gold and silver proved fruitless, he became the first Spaniard since Coronado to explore as far north as Kansas to the settlement that Coronado knew as Quivera. At some point, his love of exploration eclipsed his lust for gold. Even as disgruntled former colonists were spreading rumors of vice and brutality against him, Oñate undertook a final journey of exploration as far as the Gulf of California. Although ordered back by the new king, Philip III, in 1607 to face charges, Oñate remained until Sante Fe was built. When in 1608 a new governor was sent to replace Oñate, he finally returned to Mexico City. See also natives of North America; New Spain, Viceroyalty of (Mexico). Further reading: Horgan, Paul. Great River: The Rio Grande in North American History, Vol. 1, Indians and Spain. New York: Rinehart, 1954; Horgan, Paul. The Centuries of Santa Fe. New York: Dutton, 1956; Peterson, Harold L. Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526–1783. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole, 1956; Simmons, Marc. The Last Conquistador: Juan de Oñate and the Settling of the Far Southwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991; Wellman, Paul I. Glory, God, and Gold: A Narrative History of the Southwest. New York: Doubleday, 1954; White, Jon Manchip. A World Elsewhere: One Man’s Fascination with the American Southwest. New York: Crowell, 1975. John Murphy Osaka Osaka is situated on both banks of the Yodo River and along the eastern shoreline of Osaka bay. Osaka’s old Osaka 28 7 name was Naniwa. According to legend it was founded by Jimu, the first legendary emperor of Japan, who landed in Osaka bay in 660 b.c.e. In 313 c.e., Emperor Nintoku made Osaka his capital. Various other emperors in subsequent times, such as Kotoku in 645 and Shomu in 724, also resided in Osaka. However, the city of Osaka gained prominence in the 16th century when it became a popular Buddhist religious center. Toyotomi Hideyoshi built the castle of Osaka on the site of the great Buddhist monastery and made it his headquarters as he dominated Japan in the late 16th century. Osaka also rose to economic prominence as the city, along with Kobe and Yokohama, became the main trading links with Korea and China. Osaka became even more important under the Tokugawa Shogunate and was established as the commercial capital of Japan. Christianity was first preached in Osaka by Father Gaspar Vilela in 1559. By 1564, five churches were erected in Osaka City and its periphery. Between 1577 and 1579, the number of Christians in Osaka were estimated at between 9,000 and 10,000, which grew to an estimated 25,000 by 1582. See also Nagasaki. Further reading: Hanes, Jeffrey E., and Hajime Seki. City as Subject: Seki Hajime and the Reinvention of Modern Osaka. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002; McClain, James L., and Osamu Wakita. Osaka: The Merchants’ Capital of Early Modern Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999; Ropke, Ian Martin, and Woronoff, Jon. Historical Dictionary of Osaka and Kyoto. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1999. Mohammed Badrul Alam Ottoman Empire (1450–1750) The Ottoman Empire was a centralized absolute regime ruled from the top by the sultan. As in other nomadic and Islamic empires, the Ottomans never developed a legal procedure for accession and this was to be a source of instability and weakness. The first sultans were among the most able sons of the sultans, and rival brothers were sometimes executed. By the 1600s, the oldest male members of the family were selected as sultans. Thus the sultanate passed among brothers or nephews and other possible heirs were kept under “house arrest” in various palaces. The Ottoman Empire was a Sunni Islamic state, and although the sultans ultimately took the title of caliph, the Sheikh al Islam was the major religious authority of the state. In keeping with Islamic practice, 288 Ottoman Empire (1450–1750) A Japanese print titled Steel Bridge at Higashibori, Osaka shows the city that developed along both banks of the Yodo River. The city of Osaka gained prominence in the 16th century when it became a popular Buddhist religious center. there was no separation of religious and secular law in the early Ottoman Empire and the Shari’a was recognized as the law of the empire. The Sheikh al Islam issued fatwas, legal opinions based on Islamic law, on matters ranging from the theological to the practical. Qadis, or Muslim judges, served in the provinces and local towns and muftis were appointed to give legal pronouncements if asked by the qadi. Religious education was conducted in madrassas throughout the empire and the office of the waqf (pl. awqaf) oversaw religious endowments, many of which had been given by devout Muslims as zakat, or alms. Waqf endowments included hospitals, schools, retirement homes, public fountains, and soup kitchens. POWER HIERARCHY Politically, the vizier was the second-most powerful figure after the sultan. During the 18th century, when the sultans were weak or inept, the viziers, particularly the able and honest Koprülü family, managed the vast bureaucracy and government. Early sultans governed through the imperial divan, or council, but ultimately the vizier oversaw the divan. A huge number of bureaucrats including scribes, translators, and clerks administered the day-to-day operation of the far-flung empire. The sultans appointed valis, or governors, to rule over each province. To prevent governors from becoming too powerful, their terms in office were usually short; two years was the average. The constant administrative changes often led to inefficiency and corruption. As a rule of thumb, the Ottomans exercised more direct authority in the provinces closest to the center of power in Istanbul; remote provinces, far from the center of power, enjoyed considerable autonomy and local families or officials often were the real sources of power. Because remote regions such as Kuwait and Yemen often only gave an annual tribute to the Ottomans, it was sometimes unclear whether they were actually part of the empire. Unless protracted revolts broke out or people refused to pay taxes, the Ottomans generally interfered little in the daily lives of their subjects. Militarily, the Janissaries composed the elite forces. They were conscripted through the devshirme system whereby young Christian boys from the Balkans were taken as slaves, converted to Islam, and trained as professional soldiers or administrators whose sole loyalty was to the state. As the sultans became weaker, the Janissary corps became politically powerful and on occasion overthrew sultans to replace them with individuals of their own choice. The cavalry or sipahis, free-born Muslims, were given land as payment. Ownership of such land grants was sometimes hereditary. There were also a large number of conscripted footsoldiers. TAXATION The collection of taxes was a perennial problem and the Ottomans developed a system of tax farming, or iltizam, in which multazim, tax collectors, were hired to collect taxes throughout the empire. This system led to considerable abuses, and often unfair tax burdens were placed on the poorest peasants, who lacked the resources or power to avoid payment or to buy off the tax collector. Peasant farmers were often informally tied to the land, much of which was owned by old feudal families who retained their wealth under the Ottomans. Religious minorities, Christians, Jews, and Armenians, lived under the millet system. They paid an additional tax but maintained their own schools, controlled their local communities, and settled legal disputes among their members. The Ottoman Empire was remarkably tolerant of minorities, who enjoyed considerable upward mobility and economic freedom. Members of ethnic and religious minorities could and did rise to high positions, including that of vizier or physician to the sultan. Only the position of sultan was reserved for members of the House of Osman. Agreements of capitulation were signed with foreign powers such as the French. Under the capitulations foreign merchants and others were granted rights to conduct business within the empire and were exempt from Ottoman taxation and laws. When the empire was strong, the capitulations were not a problem, but as the empire declined, the millet system and capitulations became sources of foreign economic and political interference. LIFE AS A SULTAN The sultan and his household ruled from the Topkapi in Istanbul. Topkapi was a sprawling complex of vast audience halls, throne rooms, living quarters for the harem, pleasure gardens and fountains, and a kitchen large enough to provide daily meals for 2,000 people. The harem included the sultan’s wives, concubines, eunuchs, and the queen mother or Valide Sultan. Early sultans, like their counterparts in Europe and Asia, often married the daughters or sisters of defeated foes or wed to cement political and military alliances. By the 16th century, sultans generally did not marry and Suleiman I the Magnificent’s marriage to his beloved Hurrem (Roxelana) was highly unusual. Women of the harem, particularly the Valide Ottoman Empire (1450–1750) 289 Sultan, exerted considerable political power during the 18th century. They often conspired for their favorite sons to become the sultan. Although early sultans received firsthand training leading military forces and administering Ottoman provinces, by the 17th century royal princes were educated totally within the palace. Their lack of outside experience and isolation within the harem made them poorly equipped to rule. Seventeenth- century sultans were often spoiled and selfindulgent with little or no awareness of the problems or corruption within ruling circles. Ottoman Turkish was the language of the ruling elite and government. But as the language of the Qur’an, Arabic enjoyed a special place and was spoken as the first language by the Arabs who composed the majority of the population. The Ottomans eagerly assimilated the artistic forms and cultures of those they ruled and often synthesized a wide variety of artistic forms into new, vibrant ones. A lavish court life with patronage of the arts evolved. As with most nomadic societies the Ottomans had a rich tradition of textiles and Ottoman artisans were known for their luxurious textiles, carpets, enameled tile work, and armor. OTTOMAN EXPANSION Following the collapse of Timurlane’s empire, Sultans Mehmed I (r. 1413–21) and Murad II (r. 1421–51) began the process of the reconquest and consolidation of the Ottoman Empire. Mehmed enjoyed the support of the old Ottoman ghazi fighters and used that military support as the foundation for reestablishing Ottoman control over much of Anatolia and parts of the Balkans. He was contemplating an attack on Constantinople, the famed Byzantine capital, when he died. His young son Murad failed in his attempts 29 0 Ottoman Empire (1450–1750) The concubines’ (secondary wives’) rooms at Topkapi, built by Mehmed II the Conqueror. The distinctive architectural style is reflected throughout the ancient buildings of the Ottoman Empire. to take Constantinople but through force and clever diplomacy succeeded in establishing Ottoman control over western Anatolia; he also established an Ottoman navy based at Gallipoli while securing an uneasy peace with King Ladislaus of Lithuania and Poland in 1444. He then abdicated to lead a life of spiritual contemplation. His son, Mehmed II, had been well trained for the sultanate and promptly began careful preparations to take Constantinople. In 1453, after a protracted siege, the city fell to the Ottoman forces and Mehmed entered the city as the new ruler. Known as Istanbul to the Turks, the city became the new Ottoman capital and a vibrant center for trade and culture. Mehmed II the Conqueror expanded Ottoman control into the Balkans and launched attacks against the Venetians as well as into the Crimea and Iran. By 1468, he had broken the obdurate Karaman opposition around Bursa and moved into the Black Sea region as well. In 1475, the Tartar khans in the Crimea bowed to Ottoman control. The Ottomans now controlled territory from the Balkans to the vital Dardanelles Straits to the Crimea and the Black Sea and the Anatolian coast along the Mediterranean. At the time of Mehmed’s death, Ottoman forces were poised to attack Otranto in southern Italy, but with the succession of a new sultan they were called home in 1481, and the attack was never resumed. Mehmed’s two sons, Jem and Bayezid, struggled over succession to the throne but key military forces supported Bayezid, who outmaneuvered his brother for the sultanate. Bayezid II (r. 1481–1512) continued raids into Hungary and along the Black Sea while attacking Venice in 1499. Following a peace in 1503, the Ottoman navy emerged as the dominant force in the eastern Mediterranean. Bayezid also entered into a protracted and ultimately futile series of conflicts with the rival Safavid dynasty in Iran. In 1512, as the Safavids threatened Ottoman territories, the ailing Bayezid turned over the throne to his able son Selim. Known as “the Grim,” Selim I (r. 1566–74) had extensive military experience and moved quickly against the Safavids under Shah Ismail, who scorched the earth as he retreated from eastern Anatolia around Lake Van. Selim then turned his army against the Mamluks in Syria and Egypt. Previous Ottoman attacks on the Mamluks had failed, but by the early 16th century, the Mamluks had been seriously weakened by the perpetual rivalries among their leaders and the loss of lucrative trade to the Portuguese navy and merchants, who had established maritime trading posts in key African and Asian ports. EGYPT In 1516, Selim defeated the Mamluks in northern Syria near the city of Aleppo; he appointed Ottoman governors to administer the northern regions close to Anatolia but local leaders remained powerful in southern Syria. The cities of Aleppo and Damascus were the main power bases in Syria. The last Abbasid caliph, al-Mutawakkil, who had been living under Mamluk protection, was captured and taken to Istanbul. He died in 1543, thereby formally ending the Abbasid line of the caliphate. Selim also confronted the Mamluks outside Cairo. After a short struggle, Cairo fell and in 1517 all of Egypt came under Ottoman control. However the Ottomans retained the Mamluks as titular rules of Egypt under Ottoman suzerainty. The Ottoman sultan now controlled territory from the Balkans to the Nile including the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The sultans adopted the title caliph but it held little real meaning. However, the Ottomans believed themselves to be the protectors of the Islamic world and of the annual pilgrimage (Hajj) to the Hijaz in Arabia. When Selim died, his only son, Suleiman, inherited an empire at the peak of its power and wealth. Suleiman ruled for 46 years and continued his forebears’ traditions of military conquest. After taking the island of Rhodes from the Knights of St. John, who escaped to the island of Malta, and the city of Belgrade, Suleiman moved to confront his major enemy, the Habsburg dynasty of Austria and the Holy Roman Empire. To counter Habsburg power, Suleiman entered into alliances with the French rulers, who viewed the Habsburgs as impediments to their territorial ambitions. Similarly, the Venetians wavered back and forth between alliances with the Habsburgs to counter Ottoman expansion and with the Ottomans to counter Austrian power. At the Battle of Mohács in 1526, Suleiman won a major victory that was followed by Ottoman forces’ occupying the cities of Buda and Pest in Hungary. The Ottomans also fought Russia over territories in the Balkans and Black Sea. In 1529, Suleiman led the Ottoman army deep into Austrian territory and laid siege to Vienna. However, he failed to take the city before winter and as Ottoman troops refused to fight during winter months, he was forced to retreat without taking the city. The Ottomans took Baghdad in 1554 and again in 1639 from their Safavid rivals. Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) was largely controlled from Mosul in the north and by various Ottoman Empire (1450–1750) 29 1 Mazelike in the south. Suleiman died in 1655 while on yet another campaign into Hungary. Although the Ottoman Empire was the major land power of the age, it was also a major naval power. In 1533 Khair ad Din (c. 1475–1546) became admiral in chief of the Ottoman navy. Khair ad Din and his brothers had been notorious privateers in the Mediterranean and entered into the Ottoman service in the early 16th century. Known as Barbarossa, “Red Beard,” Khair ad Din defeated the Austria fleet of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, at the Battle of Preveza in 1538, thereby establishing Ottoman ascendancy throughout the eastern Mediterranean. north africa Algiers and Tunis in North Africa were incorporated into the Ottoman Empire and thousands of loyal Ottomans were settled in Algiers as further protection against Spanish incursions. Although the Spanish were able to establish outposts along the northern Moroccan coast, the Moroccan Sa’did dynasty used gunpowder armaments to repel both Ottoman and Spanish attacks; thus Morocco never became part of the Ottoman Empire. When Khair ad Din died, his son Hasan Pasha was made bey, or ruler, of Algiers. In North Africa, the Ottomans exercised loose control over the territories through appointed pashas, Janissary forces, and local beys and deys, who frequently competed with one another for actual political power. In Tunis during the early 18th century, an Ottoman cavalryman established the Husaynid dynasty, which, although it paid lip service to Ottoman suzerainty, was largely independent. It lasted into the mid-20th century, when Tunisia became an independent nation. Although the Ottoman navy failed to take Malta, it was ascendant throughout most of the Mediterranean in the 16th century. However, in 1571 unified Christian European forces were victorious over the Ottoman navy at the Battle of Lepanto. Based in Egypt and in Basra in present-day Iraq, Ottoman ships extended their reach to Yemen and Aden in the southern Arabian Peninsula and even raided along the Indian coast. Suleiman’s son Selim II (reigned 1566–74) conquered Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean and his successor Murad III (reigned 1574–95) continued Ottoman territorial gains until 1683. At its fullest extent in 1683, Ottoman territory included all of the Balkans and much of Hungary in Europe, the entire Black Sea coast and Crimea in the north; the western shores of the Caspian Sea in the east; the eastern Mediterranean coast and islands, the Arab provinces of greater Syria (present-day nations and territory of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan), Iraq, and most of Arabia including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina; and in the west Egypt and North Africa (present-day Libya, Tunisia, Algeria) to the borders of Morocco. During the 18th century, a series of weak sultans contributed to a decline of Ottoman strength and to the gradual end to their military victories. OTTOMAN DECLINE The long decline of the Ottoman Empire was caused by a variety of internal and external factors. During the 17th century, a series of inept sultans failed to provide dynamic military and political leadership of their able predecessors. Corruption and inefficiency grew with few if any attempts at necessary reforms. The cultural and political life of the empire began to ossify. Externally, European rivals grew in political, military, and economic power. New Portuguese-controlled sea routes to India were formidable competition to the overland trade routes controlled by Muslim states, especially the Ottoman Empire. The increase of trade over sea routes developed during the age of exploration by European powers, thereby contributed to the emergence of Europe as the dominant world force by the 19th century. The discovery of vast amounts of gold and silver in the Western Hemisphere also increased the revenues flowing into European treasuries. This new wealth enabled European rulers to mount increasingly well-armed military forces. Silver flooded into Ottoman territories and caused a drop in the value of Ottoman exchange as well as major inflation. As Ottoman conquests ceased, the treasury was no longer replenished with booty and goods from defeated foes. The Ottomans also gradually lost the military technological edge they had previously held. In addition, protracted wars with the rival Safavid Empire in the east sapped vital economic and military reserves. A series of weak, inept sultans increased the political weakness of the empire and made it difficult for it to respond with dynamic reforms or responses to the internal and external challenges. Sultan Ibrahim (reigned 1640–48) was so quixotic and self-indulgent that the Janissaries and Sheikh al Islam deposed him in favor of his young son, Mehmed IV (reigned 1648–87). To preserve the throne for her son, Mehmed’s mother interfered and secured the appointment of the able and efficient Mehmed Koprülü as vizier. During this era, the Koprülüs were largely responsible for running the government and for initiating some reforms that helped to preserve the empire. 292 Ottoman Empire (1450–1750) The so-called long war between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans from 1593 to 1606 was an early indication of Ottoman military decline. The Ottomans retained most of their holdings in the Balkans, in spite of local revolts, but the Ottoman sultan was forced to recognize the Habsburg ruler as a fellow emperor. The Ottoman military decline was marked by the loss to the so-called Holy League of Austria, Poland, and Venice during the Balkan Wars of 1683–97. The Ottomans again laid siege to Vienna in 1683 and for a short time it appeared the city might surrender. Then Polish forces came to the rescue and defeated the attacking Ottoman army. This marked the last attempt by the Ottomans to take the city. Subsequently, the Habsburgs pushed the Ottomans south of the Danube and Venice took portions of Greece and the Adriatic coast, while the Russians attacked in the Crimea. The defeated Ottomans were forced to sign the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 whereby all of Hungary, including Transylvania in present-day Romania and the northern Balkan territories of Croatia and Slovenia, were ceded to Austria. Large portions of the Dalmatian coast were taken by Venice but regained by the Ottomans in 1718. Although the Ottoman Empire was severely weakened by the mid-18th century, its decline lasted longer than the entire histories of most world empires and the empire would not finally collapse until the 20th century. See also absolutism, European; Ottoman-Safavid wars; Sinan, Abdul-Menan. Further reading: Faroqhi, Suraiya. Subjects of the Sultan: Culture and Daily Life in the Ottoman Empire. London: I. B. Tauris, 2005; Findley, Carter Vaughn. The Turks in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; Gibb, H. A. R., and Harold Bowen. Islamic Society and the West, Vols. I and II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950; Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, Vol. 3, The Gunpowder Empires and Modern Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974; Hourani, Albert. A History of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991; Imber, Colin, Keiko Kiyotaki, and Rhoads Murphey, eds. Frontiers of Ottoman Studies, Vol. II. London: I. B. Tauris, 2005; Islamoglu-Inan, Huri, ed. The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987; Lewis, Bernard. Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. Janice J. Terry Ottoman-Safavid wars The protracted conflict between the Ottomans and the Safavids was based on territorial and religious differences. Both great empires sought to control vast territories in present-day Iraq, along the Caspian and their mutual borders. As Sunni Muslims, the Ottoman Empire also disagreed with the Shi’i Safavids over basic religious tenets and practices, similar to the disputes between various Catholic and Protestant powers in Europe. In 1514, the Ottoman sultan Selim I, father of Suleiman I the Magnificent, declared a holy war against the Safavids, whom he considered heretics. Armed with cannons, the Ottoman army defeated Shah Isma’il, the founder of the Safavid dynasty, and occupied much of northern Persia (present-day Iran). Suleiman continued the fight against Shah Tahmasp I (reigned 1524–76), but Tahmasp retaliated with a policy of “scorched earth,” making it impossible for the Ottoman forces to live off the land, as was usual for invading armies at the time. Tahmasp also struck an alliance of convenience with the Habsburgs, a major enemy of the Ottomans. The Ottomans succeeded in taking Tabriz in northern Persia, but, stretched beyond his limits, Suleiman reluctantly signed a treaty with the Safavids in 1555. The Safavids managed to retain control over northern Persia and territory along the Caspian Sea but lost Iraq to the Ottomans. Following Suleiman’s death, Shah Abbas I managed to regain temporary control over Baghdad and Basra in Iraq, but after Abbas died, the Ottomans retook the territories. The subsequent 1639 peace treaty between the two rival empires established borders that are almost identical to those shared by present-day Iraq and Iran. The two great powers remained enemies but no further warfare broke out. Over the course of their rivalry, both empires achieved major military victories and suffered military defeats, but neither was able to defeat decisively the other. Their futile warfare undermined the economic and military power of both and was a major factor in their long declines. Further reading: Floor, William. Safavid Government Institutions. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2001; Foran, John. Fragile Resistance: Social Transformation in Iran from 1500 to the Revolution. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993. Janice J. Terry

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

O’Higgins, Bernardo (1778–1842) Chilean military and political leader A military leader who led Chilean forces against the Spanish, Bernardo O’Higgins won independence from Spain and became the supreme dictator of Chile from 1817 until 1823. Bernardo O’Higgins was born on August 20, 1778, in Chillán, Chile, the son of Ambrosio (Ambrose) O’Higgins and Isabel Riquelme. Ambrose was originally from County Sligo, Ireland, and moved to Spain to join the Spanish army, later settling in Paraguay, where his brother William (or Guillermo) O’Higgins had bought some land. Ambrose then became marquis of Osorno, governor of Chile. As a Spanish offi cial, he was not allowed to marry locally and as a result started living with a well-connected lady from Chillán. Some time after Bernardo was born, his father moved to Peru, where he was appointed viceroy, and the boy stayed with his mother, using her surname until his father’s death. To complete his education, Bernardo O’Higgins was sent to school in Lima, Peru, and at 16 went to Spain. The following year he went to England, living in Richmond-upon-Thames, just outside London. In England, O’Higgins became interested in nationalist politics. There he met the Venezuelan independence activist Francisco de Miranda, who was agitating against Spanish rule, and became hugely infl uenced by liberal ideas. He joined a secret Masonic lodge that Miranda had established in London—the members dedicated their lives to the independence of Latin America. With his father being viceroy of Peru, O’Higgins could get introductions to important people easily, and for Miranda he was a very important recruit for the cause. O’Higgins left England in 1799 and went to Spain where he met some Spanish who were also against Spanish rule. In 1801 Ambrosio died, and Bernardo O’Higgins was left a large estate near Chillán. He retired there and took up the life of a gentleman farmer. He bought a house in Chillán and in 1806 was elected to the local town council. However, there were sudden huge changes to sweep through Latin America. In 1808 Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Spain and appointed his brother Joseph as king. This left the Spanish colonies without a central authority, and the administration in each city formed juntas—military leaders—who they could constitutionally appoint in times of emergency. Chile started to make its fi rst moves toward independence, and on September 18, 1810, a junta announced that it had replaced the Spanish-appointed governor-general. In 1811 Chile’s fi rst Congress met with O’Higgins as a member. Two years later Chile had a constitution and seemed to be on the road to independence. However, the Spanish decided to try to reestablish royal control over Chile. In 1814 the viceroy of Peru sent soldiers into Chile and within several months O’Higgins rose from being a colonel in the militia to general- in-chief of the defense forces. He was then appointed governor of the province of Concepción. However, O when the Chilean forces were defeated at the hands of the royalists, O’Higgins was replaced as commander. In October 1814 the Chileans were badly mauled at the Battle of Rancagua and the royalists occupied most of Chile. Several thousand Chilean nationalists, or patriots, as they became known, including O’Higgins, were forced to fl ee across the Andes into western Argentina, where they drew up plans for a subsequent invasion of Chile. Over the next three years, the Chileans and Argentines were drilled and trained at Mendoza, and José de San Martín prepared them to cross the Andes. With Argentina independent from July 9, 1816, the soldiers of San Martín and O’Higgins were reinvigorated, and on January 24, 1817, the two took the 3,000 infantry, 700 cavalry, and 21 cannons through the passes at Gran Cordillera. They were met on February 12–13 at the Battle of Chacabuco. On the fi rst day of the battle, O’Higgins led his men in an early morning move where they prevented the Spanish from withdrawing. San Martín then attacked and routed them. On February 15 O’Higgins took the Chilean patriots back into Santiago, and O’Higgins was elected as interim supreme dictator. Chile’s independence was proclaimed on February 12, 1818. During his six years as supreme dictator, O’Higgins overhauled the administration. With Chile at peace, he set about establishing a navy with the fl agship called O’Higgins and founding the Chilean Military Academy, as well as instituting the new Chilean fl ag. He also mounted a major military expedition into Peru, where royalists were still threatening Chilean independence. However, although he was a good military commander, O’Higgins was not a good politician. An admirer of democracy, he wanted to abolish the titles of the nobles and introduce liberal reforms. O’Higgins alienated the Roman Catholic Church and the aristocracy, followed by the business community. A constitutionalist, he had no political base, and once there was no threat of attack from the Royalists, it was not long before O’Higgins was eased from offi ce. His government was implicated in the assassination of four political fi gures, José Miguel Carrera, his two brothers in Argentina, and a friend Manuel Rodriguez. O’Higgins resigned under pressure on January 28, 1823, unable to fulfi ll his ambitions for independence for all of Latin America. O’Higgins went into exile in Peru in 1823, spending half of his time at a farm he bought and the other half of his time in Lima. He never married but did have a son, Pedro Demetrio O’Higgins, who remained with him for all of his life. He died on October 23, 1842, in Peru. In his will he left money for the establishment of an agricultural college in Concepción, a lighthouse in Valparaíso, and the Santiago Observatory. In 1869 his remains were brought back to Chile and put in a mausoleum facing the Palacio de la Moneda, the government palace. The main street in Chile’s capital, Santiago, is Avenida Bernardo O’Higgins, in which there is a large statue of him. See also Bolívar, Simón; Freemasonry in North and Spanish America; Sucre, Antonio José de. Further reading: Clissold, Stephen. Bernardo O’Higgins and the Independence of Chile. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1968; El Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins. Santiago: Editorial Lord Cochrane, 1978. Justin Corfi eld Olmsted, Frederick Law (1822–1903) U.S. architect and urban planner Gentleman farmer, antislavery journalist, gold mine supervisor, and U.S. Civil War offi cial, Frederick Law Olmsted is today best known for his design and implementation of New York City’s Central Park. He and the partners and sons who carried on his work were ultimately responsible for thousands of important urban and suburban projects that reshaped and beautifi ed North America, from the U.S. Capitol grounds to Niagara Falls to Montreal’s Mount Royal. His multifaceted career epitomizes what a man of means, intellect, and enthusiasm could achieve in 19th-century America. Olmsted was, as one biographer put it, the “eager and undisciplined” son of a successful Hartford, Connecticut, merchant. He entered Yale University, but never graduated. Fond of the outdoors, he apprenticed as a surveyor and endured a year aboard a square-rigger involved in the China tea trade, before taking up scientifi c farming in then-rural Staten Island, New York. As the slavery issue began to boil over in the late 1840s, Olmsted, although no abolitionist, raised money for Free-Soil causes and became an early supporter of the new Republican Party. Hired by the New-York Daily Times (now the New York Times), the young correspondent undertook a series of trips through the slave-owning South to write infl uential articles revealing slavery’s economic and social impact. Olmsted’s involvement with Central Park was almost accidental. On the recommendation of a well- 314 Olmsted, Frederick Law placed friend, Olmsted was named superintendent of the proposed 800-acre park in 1857. Months later, Olmsted teamed up with Calvert Vaux, a protégé of Andrew Jackson Dowling, America’s fi rst professional landscape designer, to win the park design competition with a proposal titled “Greensward.” Central Park was the fi rst of many Olmsted projects that would meld natural features and human artifi ce to create a peaceful yet energizing “balanced irregularity” that seemed to appeal to people of every class and condition. It was an immediate success, despite serious cost overruns. In 1859 Olmsted married Mary Perkins, widow of his beloved brother John, adopting his two nephews and a niece. (They would have four children together.) As the Civil War erupted, Olmsted, as fi rst general secretary of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, used his considerable organizational talents to save lives by improving medical care for Union soldiers and others endangered by the war. Eager to repay his father’s many loans and captivated by northern California’s natural beauty, Olmsted in 1864 accepted the post of manager at Mariposa Estate, a productive but troubled gold mining operation. While in California, Olmsted helped to promote “Yo Semite” and its huge sequoias as a future national park. By 1868 Olmsted had resumed his landscape and planning career with Vaux and others. Major projects of these post-war years would include a park system for Buffalo, park designs for Chicago before and after the 1871 Chicago Fire, and the site plan for Chicago’s 1893 World Columbian Exposition. Olmsted designed a campus for Stanford University in California and pursued projects at other major universities including Cornell and Yale. Olmsted suffered from bouts of depression and endured dementia in his fi nal years. His central role in shaping and improving so many cities faded from public recollection. Not until the 1980s, as New York City began to refurbish its dangerously neglected Central Park, would Olmsted’s “People’s Park” and the genius of its creator reemerge to astonish a grateful public. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; newspapers, North American; political parties in the United States. Further Reading: Rosenzweig, Roy, and Elizabeth Blackmar. The Park and the People: A History of Central Park. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992; Rybczynski, Witold. A Clearing in the Distance: Frederick Law Olmsted and America in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Scribner, 1999. Marsha E. Ackermann Omani empire The Omani empire in East Africa, which dominated the East African coast between Somalia and northern Mozambique, entered a new phase after 1800. It faced new challenges as Britain, the United States, France, and Germany abolished the slave trade in the 1800s. Yet, in the 19th century, the Omani empire was centered at Zanzibar, and was known as Zanzibar because it was the center of a vast rich empire, based on trade in spices and slaves. The suzerains of the empire had been traders for many centuries and used Zanzibar as their main port, originally for slaves and ivory. However, in 1812 it was discovered that cloves grew very well in the south of Zanzibar and the neighboring island of Pemba. The demand for cloves and other spices was high. Sultan Seyyid Said of Oman saw the possibilities in this trade and began to invest in clove plantations starting in 1820. In order to maximize production of cloves, he used slaves from much of east and central Africa. Ultimately most of Africa between the East African coast and the Congo River basin, or an area of over 1 million square miles, was affected by the slave trade which persisted to the 1890s. In order to gain cheap labor, the Omani Arabs, beginning with Seyyid Said, encouraged African tribes to turn on each other so as to provide slaves through prisoners of war. By the 1820s 8,000 slaves a year were brought to Zanzibar and Pemba. This was opportune as the market for slaves was drying up because of pressure from Europe. (By 1873 before the British forced the end of the slave trade by sending a naval squadron, the number of slaves brought to Zanzibar/ Pemba to work the plantations had reached 30,000 per annum.) Slavery was not abolished until the British made Zanzibar a protectorate in 1890. The sultan repeatedly promised to end slavery and the slave trade, but never kept his promise. He also used slave labor to transport ivory. He buttressed his position by getting rid of his only rivals, the Mazrui family of Mombassa, Kenya, in 1837. Moreover, he signed huge commercial treaties with America, Britain, and France. He maintained his position by playing America, Britain, and France against each other. He enforced his authority through wholesale purchases of European and American arms, a navy of 15 ships, and a force of 6,500 soldiers. Sultan Seyyid Said moved his headquarters from Muscat, Oman, to Zanzibar between 1832 and 1841. In the latter year Zanzibar became the capital of the Omani empire both in Africa and Arabia. The profi ts Omani empire 315 from investments in cloves made the sultan and his entourage very rich. Cloves had become so dominant that many other crops in Zanzibar were cleared away to grow them. The sultan decreed in the 1840s that three clove trees should be planted for every coconut palm. Any landowner failing to do so would have his property confi scated. By 1841 the sultan appointed his elder son to rule in Oman while he concentrated on Zanzibar. By 1850 Zanzibar/Pemba accounted for 80 percent of world’s clove production. In 1856 the sultan died of dysentery. On his death, his younger son was proclaimed sultan as the new ruler of Zanzibar and the East African coast while the older brother ruled Oman. The Omani empire had ended, but the Omani dynasty continued until 1890, when Britain took over Zanzibar as a protectorate. The heritage of the Omani empire of East Africa in the fi rst half of the 19th century was a depopulated East and East-Central Africa. The advent of independence in 1964 saw the overthrow of the oligarchy that had grown rich during the heyday of the clove trade. See also slave trade in Africa. Further reading: Bhacker, M. R. Trade and Empire in Muscat and Zanzibar. London: Macmillan, 1992; Davidson, Basil. A History of East and Central Africa to the Late Nineteenth Century. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books, 1969; Nicholls, C. S. The Swahili Coast. Politics, Diplomacy, and Trade on the East African Coast 1798–1856. London: Allen & Unwin, 1971; Said-Ruete, Rudolph. Said bin Sultan (1791–1856) Ruler of Oman and Zanzibar; His Place in the History of Arabia and East Africa. London: Alexander Ousely, 1929. Norman C. Rothman Omdurman, Battle of At the Battle of Omdurman the British, led by Horatio Herbert Kitchener, the sirdar or commander in chief of the Egyptian army, decisively defeated the Mahdist forces led by the Khalifa ‘Abdullahi. Kitchener’s force of about 25,000 mostly Egyptian soldiers with British offi cers met the Mahdist forces, also known as dervishes in Europe, of some 50,000 men, on the battlefi eld of Karari outside the Mahdist capital of Omdurman. To facilitate the movement of troops and supplies Kitchener had had the railway from Cairo to southern Egypt extended to the northern Sudan. He also had armored gunboats. Armed with machine guns, Kitchener’s forces easily killed over 10,000 attacking Mahdist forces, many of whom were armed with spears. At least another 20,000 Mahdist soldiers were wounded and many of those subsequently died from lack of medical care. Kitchener’s gunboats also fi red on Omdurman, destroying the imposing tomb of the Mahdi whose remains were scattered by the victors. The Khalifa managed to escape but was ultimately killed in battle some months later by British forces led by F. (Francis) Reginald Wingate who had been director of military intelligence and Kitchener’s subordinate. Kitchener was appointed governor general over the Sudan, and Khartoum, a city on the other bank of the Nile River from Omdurman, became the new Sudanese capital. However, Kitchener only held the position for a short time before he was dispatched to assist in the British military efforts during the Boer War in South Africa. Wingate succeeded him as the new governor-general in 1899 and went on to consolidate British control over the Sudan under the Anglo- Egyptian Condominium, the rather cumbersome arrangement the British devised to legitimize their rule over the country. See also Sudan, condominium in. Further reading: Asher, Michael. Khartoum: The Ultimate Imperial Adventure. New York: Viking, 2005; Featherstone, Donald. Omdurman, 1898: Kitchener’s Victory in the Sudan. New York: Praeger, 2005; Stevens, G. W. With Kitchener to Khartoum. London: Blackwood & Sons, 1898; Zulfu, Ismet Hasan. Karari, the Sudanese Account of the Battle of Omdurman. London: F. Warne, 1980. Janice J. Terry

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

Obregón, Álvaro (1880–1928) Mexican president The president of Mexico from 1920 until 1924, General Álvaro Obregón Salido was born on February 19, 1880, at the Hacienda de Siquisiva in southern Sonora, in the far northwest of Mexico. The 17th son of Francisco Obregón, who died when Álvaro was young, and Cenobia Salido, it is often claimed that his name was derived from the Irish surname O’Brian. In later life Obregón used to joke that he had so many older brothers and sisters that when the family ate Gruyère cheese only the holes were left for him. Obregón did not take part in politics when he was young and stayed away from the clashes during the Mexican Revolution. He spent this time working on the family farm and was said to have learned the Mayan language during this period, although some biographers claim that he could only speak a few words. He developed skills including carpentry and photography. In 1911 Álvaro Obregón entered politics, being elected mayor of Huatabampo. He was a supporter of the then president, Francisco Madero, who was facing four separate revolts. Madero was captured and executed by two of the rebel leaders, Félix Díaz, nephew of a former longtime president, and General Victoriano Huerta. Huerta was an unpopular president, and Obregón joined a revolt led by Venustiano Carranza, which overthrew him. With Carranza in power, there were also clashes between the new government’s forces and those of Pancho Villa. Obregón, aided by General Benjamin Hill, led the federal troops on April 6–7, 1915, when they defeated Villa’s men. In a battle that lasted from April 29 to June 5, Obregón again defeated Villa but lost his right arm to a grenade. On July 10 in the next engagement of what became collectively known as the Battle of Celaya, Obregón’s men prevailed again. Obregón had hoped to succeed Carranza when the presidency became vacant in 1920 and was angered when Carranza named Ignacio Bonillas as his successor. This caused Obregón to plan a military revolt to put himself into power. Carranza was deposed and killed in May 1920 and was replaced by Adolfo de la Huerta, who was provisional president until elections could be held. After the elections, which Obregón won, de la Huerta stepped down, and Obregón became president of Mexico. De la Huerta had done much to reduce the fighting in the country, and most of the country was, for the first time in many years, at peace. This situation allowed for more money to be spent on education than on defense. When rebellions did break out, they were quickly crushed, and their leaders were killed. Although the four years of Obregón’s presidency saw further land and agrarian reforms and moves to reduce the power of the Roman Catholic Church, Obregón changed Carranza’s hostile approach to the United States to one of establishing better trade and diplomatic relations. When he became president, the U.S. government did not extend recognition to his regime. This initial problem was made worse by the death of a U.S. citizen, Rosalie Evans, who was killed defending her farm from the governor of Puebla, José O María Sánchez. In summer 1923, talks began between Mexican and U.S. representatives and led to the Bucareli Accords, by which the Mexican government rolled back some of the measures that had been introduced by the revolutionaries. Some senators denounced it as going back on fundamental promises made by current and previous administrations. In heated debate the accords were denounced in both the Mexican senate and the chamber of deputies. However, in September 1923 the U.S. government formally recognized Obregón as president of Mexico. Trade increased quickly, especially with the improved sale of Mexican petroleum to the United States. Obregón’s main reason for overthrowing Carranza had been the latter’s choice of an heir apparent. This was also going to cause Obregón trouble. He chose Plutarco Calles as his successor, but Adolfo de la Huerta contested this, leading a revolt in December 1923. With U.S. support for his government, Obregón prevented guns from being sold to the rebels, and the rebellion fi zzled out, but not before they had killed one of Obregón’s allies, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, the governor of Yucatán. Obregón was able to step down as president on November 20, 1924, and then returned to Sonora. Calles became the next president, and in 1926 there was a change in the constitution to allow presidents to serve nonconsecutive terms. Obregón decided that he would like to contest the next election. In November 1927 Segura Vilchis, a Roman Catholic engineer, threw a bomb at Obregón’s car at Chapultepec Park in Mexico City. Obregón survived, but Vilchis and some accomplices were executed a few days later. In 1928 Obregón contested the presidential elections again— he was the only candidate—and won, although he was in bad health. Returning to Mexico City to celebrate his victory, he survived an assassination attempt, but on July 17, 1928, at the La Bombilla restaurant in the capital, he was assassinated by José de León Toral, a Catholic seminary student who opposed the anticlerical policies of Obregón. He was arrested, tried, and subsequently executed. Further reading: Cumberland, Charles. The Meaning of the Mexican Revolution. Lexington, MA: D. Heath and Co., 1967; Hall, Linda B. Álvaro Obregón: Power and Revolution in Mexico 1911–1920. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1981; Krauze, Enrique. Mexico: Biography of Power. New York: HarperCollins, 1997. Justin Corfi eld oil industry in the Middle East During the 20th century oil became a major revenue source for a number of Middle Eastern nations. The fi rst petroleum concession was signed between the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and the Qajar shah of Iran in 1901. An Australian, William Knox D’Arcy, negotiated the contract, whereby the shah and the grand vizier received 50,000 shares as a gift. The government was to receive 16 percent of the profi ts after costs were subtracted. The contract was to last for 60 years, the company was to pay no taxes, and the prospecting covered 500,000 square miles, or fi ve-sixths, of Iran. The British government owned half of Anglo-Iranian Oil, Burmah Oil owned 22 percent, and the rest was owned by a combination of investors. The company justifi ed the extremely favorable terms on the grounds that at the time, prospecting for oil was extremely risky and capital intensive. Dozens of wells might be drilled at great expense before oil was found. Reza Shah managed to obtain better terms after he revoked the fi rst concession in 1932. The fi rst contract set the pattern for future ones in the region for the next half century. The petroleum industry was a vertical and horizontal monopoly. Western companies controlled the prospecting, sources, transport, refi ning, and sale of oil. Seven major corporations, or the so-called “seven sisters,” eventually dominated the industry. These were Standard Oil of New Jersey (founded by John Rockefeller), Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Gulf, Socony-Mobil, Texaco, and Standard Oil of California. Compagnie Française des Petroles (CFP) and an Italian company were smaller fi rms. Many of these companies had overlapping ownerships and directors. Middle East governments were too weak, lacked the technology to develop the industry themselves, and willingly granted concessions giving Western companies control over their vital natural resource. With no private ownership of oil fi elds in the Middle East, revenues from oil went directly to the governments to be spent as each deemed appropriate. Because the oil was purchased primarily in Western nations for industrial, military, and transport use, the resource did not generate many jobs or secondary industries in the Middle East, unlike, for example, the automotive industry in the West, which created numerous secondary industries. The second major concession in the Middle East was signed between Iraq and a consortium of Western companies. Calouste Gulbenkian negotiated the contract in exchange for 5 percent of the shares. As a result of this deal, Gulbenkian was dubbed “Mr. Five Percent” 280 oil industry in the Middle East and became one of the richest men in the world at the time. Ownership of the company was apportioned as follows: 25 percent D’Arcy, comprising Burmah and the British government and that became known as British Petroleum (BP); 25 percent CFP, of which the French government owned 40 percent; 25 percent Royal Dutch Shell, comprising British and Dutch interests; and 25 percent U.S. gas, including Standard Oil of New Jersey and Socony Mobil. These fi rms divided payment of the 5 percent for Gulbenkian evenly among themselves. The contract covered all of Iraq for 75 years, allowed for no taxation of the companies, and established a set payment amount per ton. Revenues to oil-producing nations did not increase with prices that were set by the oil companies. A New Zealander, Frank Holmes, obtained the concession in Bahrain in 1925, and U.S. companies bought into that concession. Holmes also negotiated with Kuwait for a concession there, but production in Kuwait did not begin until 1945. Standard Oil of California initiated negotiations with King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud in Saudi Arabia and obtained a concession there in 1933 under the California Arabian Standard Oil Company that was to pay the Saudi Arabian government a set amount in gold sovereigns. During the Great Depression the payment was renegotiated for dollars or sterling. During the 1940s additional investments by U.S. oil fi rms were made, and the company became the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO). Ownership of ARAMCO was divided among Standard Oil of California (30 percent), Texaco (30 percent), Standard Oil of New York (30 percent), and Socony Mobil (10 percent). With assistance from the U.S. government, ARAMCO built a refi nery and extensive facilities for the company and its employees in Ras Tanura. ARAMCO agreed to a 50-50 split with Saudi Arabia rather than paying the 50 percent corporate taxes in the United States in 1950. Other companies, which did not enjoy the same tax benefi ts from their nations, were reluctantly forced to follow suit. By 1950 Middle East oil holdings were apportioned along the following lines: AIOC in Iran, Iraq, Mosul, Basra Petroleum companies (IPC) in Iraq, ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait Oil Company in Kuwait, Bahrain Petroleum Company in Bahrain, and Petroleum Development Ltd. (IPC) in Qatar. However, oil production and revenues in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states did not begin to soar until the 1960s and 1970s as demand from industrialized Western nations and Japan steadily escalated. Further reading: Hewins, Ralph. Mr. Five Per Cent: The Biography of Calouste Gulbenkian. London: Hutchinson, oil industry in the Middle East 281 In the 20th century, oil became a major source of revenue for many Middle Eastern nations. As oil increased in value, these Middle Eastern nations were able to become more powerful economically and thus more important to world trade. 1957; Longhurst, Henry. Adventure in Oil: The Story of British Petroleum. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1959; Stocking, George W. Middle East Oil. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970. Janice J. Terry Olympic Games The original Olympic Games were played in Olympia, Greece, from the eighth or ninth century b.c.e. to 393 c.e. The Renaissance’s renewed interest in things classical inspired occasional small-scale multievent sporting festivals in various European cities throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, but the real revival of the Olympic Games themselves began when the site of Olympia was excavated in 1829. When the French lost the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, historian Baron Pierre de Coubertin proposed that a revival of the games, a truly international competition would not only encourage international camaraderie, it would renew interest in athleticism among French youths, restoring physical competence to a generation. Coubertin and Demetrius Vikelas, a Greek businessman, founded the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to organize a modern Olympics Games. Unlike the ancient games, the modern Olympics were held at a different site every four years, beginning in Athens in 1896. Athens had been the site of a number of local games held in honor of the ancient Olympics, and there is some dispute today over whether the founder of those games, Evangelis Zappas, should be considered the founder of the modern Olympics. But it was not until the IOC’s games that participation became international and widespread; 14 countries competed in 43 events in 10 days, the greatest variety of participating athletes of any sporting event to that date. Greece and the United States won the majority of events. The games struggled to catch on, hampered by the competing popularity of the World’s Fair and the diffi culty transatlantic journeys posed. In the 1908 games in London, the modern length of the marathon was established as 26 miles and 385 yards; the highlight of the 1912 Stockholm games was the participation of Jim Thorpe, a famous all-around athlete. In 1924, the fi rst winter Olympics were held as an event separate from the summer games, though the 1924 event was not designated as such until after the fact. The fi rst winter games announced as such were the 1928 games in St. Moritz, where 25 countries competed in 14 events. The 1936 summer games are perhaps the single most famous Olympics Games; they were held in Berlin at the peak of Nazism’s popularity before the invasion of Poland and World War II. Filmmaker and Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl used technically advanced techniques to fi lm Olympia, her chronicle of the games as commissioned by Adolf Hitler. Intended to demonstrate the athletic superiority of Aryans over non-Aryans, the movie instead recorded a signifi cant number of non-Aryan victories, including those of African-American Jesse Owens, who won the gold medal in the 100-meter run, 200-meter run, and long jump and as part of the 4 x 100 meter relay team. Despite the Nazi position on his race, Owens was treated as a hero and celebrity in Berlin as much as in any other city, perhaps demonstrating a disconnect between the ruling ideology and the feelings of the people. 282 Olympic Games American athlete Jesse Owens at the start of his record-breaking 200-meter race at the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin Further reading: Lovett, Charlie. Olympic Marathon: A Centennial History of the Game’s Most Storied Race. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997; Raschke, Wendy, ed. The Archaeology of the Olympics. Madison: Wisconsin University Press, 1987; Wallechinsky, David. The Complete Book of the Winter Olympics and The Complete Book of the Summer Olympics. Toronto: SportClassic Books, 2005. Bill Kte’pi Open Door policy China’s catastrophic defeat in the Sino-Japanese War (1894–95) and its growing political and military weakness led to a scramble for concessions by Western powers that seemed to presage its eventual partition. The movement began in 1898 with Germany’s successful demand to the Qing (Ch’ing) government for a 99- year lease of Jiaozhou (Kiaochow) as a naval base in Shandong (Shantung) Province, the right to build a railway between that port and Jinan (Chinan), the provincial capital, and numerous mining and other rights. Shandong became a German sphere of infl uence as a result. Russia followed by obtaining similar privileges and concessions in the northeastern provinces (Manchuria) and Mongolia, and France in the south and southwestern provinces (Guangdong, Guangxi, and Yunnan) that adjoined French Indochina. Great Britain dominated China’s foreign trade, amounting to 60 percent of its total imports and exports. While it feared the division of China into spheres of infl uence would damage British trade, it nevertheless moved to establish a sphere in the Yangzi (Yangtze) River valley and in areas near Hong Kong. The United States had not demanded a sphere of infl uence in China, did not have major trading interests in China, but feared that Western powers might impose discriminatory tariffs in areas under their infl uence. These concerns prompted W. W. Rockhill, private adviser on Far Eastern affairs to Secretary of State John Hay (1838–1905), to draft a memorandum, with the assistance of British diplomat Alfred E. Hippisley, that Hay sent in September 1899 to the governments of Great Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan. This, the First Open Door Note, had three points: First, no country would interfere with the interests of others in its sphere of infl uence; second, no country would discriminate against the nationals of other countries by charging them different railway and harbor dues; and third, tariffs stipulated by treaties would be collected by the Chinese government within Western spheres of infl uence. Despite receiving evasive and equivocal replies and no unqualifi ed support from any country, Hay nevertheless announced on March 20, 1900, that all had given their “fi nal and defi nitive” assent. The Boxer Rebellion in China precipitated an international intervention in 1900 that threatened to carve up the country. Thereupon, Hay issued the Second Open Door Note on July 3, 1900, in which the United States stated its goal as: to “preserve Chinese territorial and administrative integrity, protect all rights guaranteed to friendly powers by treaty and international law, and safe guard for the world the principle of equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese Empire.” Hay did not solicit responses from the other powers on this declaration of principle. The Open Door policy became one of the cornerstones of U.S. policy regarding China. It was embodied in the Washington Nine Power Treaty in 1922 and the Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition of Japan’s conquest and installation of a puppet government in Manchuria after 1931. Further reading: Hunt, Michael H. The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States and China to 1914. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985; Varg, Paul A. The Making of a Myth: The U.S. and China, 1897–1912. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1968. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Orlando, Vittorio Emanuele (1860–1952) Italian politician Vittorio Emanuele Orlando was prime minister of Italy from 1917 to 1919 following the Italian army’s defeat at Caporetto. Orlando was also head of his country’s delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Aside from his prominent political role, Orlando, who was himself a professor of law, is also renowned for his writings on judicial issues. Orlando was born on May 19, 1860, in Palermo, Sicily, where he was also raised and educated. He made a name for himself through his writings on government administration and electoral reform. In 1897, he was elected to the chamber of deputies, the Italian federal parliament. From 1903 to 1905, Orlando served as minister of education under King Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, Vittorio Emanuele 283 (Victor Emanuel) III. In 1907, Orlando was appointed minister of justice, a portfolio he retained until 1909. He was subsequently reappointed to the same ministry in November 1914, and he became minister of the interior in June 1916. Italy remained neutral during the initial phase of World War I. The country was formally aligned with Germany and Austria-Hungary; a discussion started over whether Italy should enter the war on the Entente’s side. Orlando was a strong proponent of Italy’s entrance into the war, which took place when the kingdom declared war on Austria-Hungary in late May 1915. Always a strong supporter of Italy’s participation in the war even after initial setbacks on the battlefi eld, Orlando was encouraged in his support of the Allies on the basis of secret promises made by the latter granting vast Italian territorial gains in the Mediterranean. On October 30, 1917, Orlando became prime minister. It was a time of severe crisis following the disastrous defeat of the Italian troops at the Battle of Caporetto by the Austrians. With his appointment as prime minister having boosted national morale and having successfully rallied Italy to a renewed war effort, Orlando replaced the stubborn general Luigi Cadorna as chief of general staff with Armando Diaz. The following year saw Italian successes on the battlefi eld and the war’s victorious conclusion in November. Orlando served as prime minister until the end of the war and headed the Italian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. However, he proved unable to obtain the expected and promised territorial concessions. Orlando had a serious clash with his allies, especially President Woodrow Wilson of the United States. Orlando’s claims to formerly Austrian territory collided with Wilson’s policy of national self-determination. Wilson even appealed over Orlando’s head to the Italian people on the question of the Mediterranean port of Fiume/ Rijeka, which was requested by both Italy and Yugoslavia. Although that maneuver failed, Orlando dramatically left the conference in April 1919, returning only to sign the resultant treaty the following month. His position rapidly undermined by his apparent inability to get concessions from the Allies and to secure Italian interests at the peace conference, Orlando resigned from offi ce on June 19, 1919. He was succeeded by Francesco Nitti. On December 2 of the same year, Orlando was elected president of the chamber of deputies. In the rising confl ict between the new Fascist Party of Benito Mussolini and the workers’ organizations, Orlando at fi rst supported the Fascists. He remained a supporter of Mussolini’s government upon its inception at the end of 1922, although he changed his position two years later when the prominent Socialist leader Giacomo Matteotti fell victim to assassination. In 1925, Orlando resigned from parliament in protest against Fascist electoral fraud, serving thereafter in the constituent assembly. Orlando remained in retirement until Mussolini’s fall in July 1943. After the liberation of Rome in early June 1944, Orlando became a leading fi gure of the newly established Conservative Democratic Union. He was elected president of the constituent assembly in June 1946. Orlando’s objections to the peace treaty brought about his resignation in 1947. The following year saw his election to the new Italian senate. The same year he was also a candidate for the presidency of the republic, but he was defeated by Luigi Einaudi. He died on December 1, 1952. Further reading: Bosworth, Richard J. B. Italy and the Approach of the First World War. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983; Burgwyn, H. James. The Legend of the Mutilated Victory. Italy, the Great War, and the Paris Peace Conference, 1915–1919. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993; Jones, Simon Mark. Domestic Factors in Italian Intervention in the First World War. New York: Garland, 1986. Martin Moll Orozco, Pascual (1882–1915) Mexican revolutionary Pascual Orozco served as an important military and political leader in Mexico from 1910 to 1915, ultimately becoming a leading fi gure of the Mexican Revolution. Born in the northern state of Chihuahua in 1882 to a politically active family, Orozco received a few years of primary education and worked in his father’s store until becoming a muleteer, transporting ore from local mines. His transportation business prospered, and by 1910 he owned his own team of mules and a retail store and was known as a successful businessman with a good reputation as an honest man. Orozco’s political consciousness awoke with his father’s opposition to the regime of Porfi rio Díaz. Pascual Orozco, Sr., supported the activities of the Mexican Revolutionary Party, one of the earliest groups to oppose Díaz. In 1910 Abraham González, the revolutionary leader of Chihuahua and a supporter of Francisco Madero, picked Orozco to be the military leader of his home region of Guerrero. Orozco’s reputation as an honest and effi cient businessman facilitated 284 Orozco, Pascual recruitment to the revolutionary cause. On November 10, 1910, Orozco initiated his military offensive, beginning operations the day before the offi cial date set by Madero for the revolution to begin. On November 29 Orozco’s forces took Pedernales, Chihuahua, the fi rst signifi cant rebel victory over the federal army. Orozco rose in the ranks to a leadership position, commanding revolutionary activities in the state of Chihuahua, which were marked by several triumphant engagements with Díaz’s forces. Francisco Madero returned to Mexico and joined Orozco in February 1911, assuming command of military operations. After a devastating defeat at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, undertaken without Orozco’s knowledge, Madero recognized the talent of his Chihuahuan military leader and promoted Orozco to the position of colonel in the revolutionary army. In May 1911 Orozco and Francisco “Pancho” Villa prepared to attack Ciudad Juárez, a metropolitan center located on the U.S.-Mexico border directly opposite El Paso, Texas. Madero feared the attack could spill over into El Paso, leading to U.S. intervention. He subsequently ordered Orozco and Villa to call off the attack; they ignored orders and forced the city into surrender. Orozco captured the federal commander at Juárez, General F. Navarro, with hopes that the general would be court-martialed for executing some of Orozco’s troops. Madero disagreed and aided Navarro in escaping to the United States. The attack on Ciudad Juárez created tension between Madero and Orozco, tension that reached an apex when Madero failed to reward Orozco for his vital services to the revolutionary cause with the position of governor of Chihuahua or minister of war. Orozco was appointed to the position of commander of the rural guard of Chihuahua, a modest position, and later became the head of the garrison stationed at Juárez. He resigned this position in February 1912 after Madero ordered him to quell the Zapatista rebellion in the south, but Madero refused his resignation. Orozco suppressed one more uprising in the north and resigned again. Feeling that his talents and contributions to the revolution and Madero’s presidency went unrecognized and with the fi nancial backing of oppositional political factions in Chihuahua, Orozco openly denounced the Pascual Orozco (center) served as an important military and political leader in Mexico from 1910 to 1915, ultimately becoming a leading fi gure of the Mexican Revolution. A member of a politically active family, Orozco had a reputation for success and honesty. Orozco, Pascual 285 Madero government. Madero’s oversight of Orozco’s contributions to his rise to power now put the new president into open rebellion with his most successful rebel leader. Chihuahua raged with violent revolt, and the governor of the state fl ed for his life. Madero’s new government struggled to put down the rebellion and found its coffers drained and its attention taken away from reform projects by the focus on stabilizing the country, especially the north. Madero dispatched General Victoriano Huerta to put down Orozco’s rebellion in April 1912. Huerta succeeded in taking back Ciudad Juárez but did not capture Orozco. A turn of events in February 1913 left Huerta president of Mexico by way of a military coup and Madero’s assassination. Huerta needed military support to overcome resistance to his seizure of power and looked toward Orozco as an important ally. In exchange for fi nancial demands and a program of agrarian reform, Orozco became a brigadier general in Huerta’s army. In May 1913 Orozco began his northern campaign against Huerta’s enemies, experiencing a series of victories, which led to his promotion to general of brigade. He battled Pancho Villa for control of Chihuahua, but disagreements with fellow general Salvador Mercado over political and military affairs ultimately contributed to the defeat of the federal forces. Huerta dispatched Orozco again in April 1914 to Chihuahua to create a base for guerrilla operations, but Huerta’s resignation and exile in July 1914 dissolved that operation. With this change in government, Orozco did not wait for a new administration to revolt. This time, however, he lacked popular support, and within two months he no longer represented a military threat. Now in the United States, Huerta courted Orozco in his scheme to take back the Mexican presidency. Orozco agreed to meet Huerta at Newman, New Mexico, to discuss the conspiracy. Federal agents had been monitoring Huerta, and the two men were arrested and charged with conspiracy to violate U.S. neutrality laws on January 13, 1916. Orozco escaped federal custody on July 3 but was killed on August 30 by a posse made up of U.S. federal marshals, Texas Rangers, and U.S. Army troops. Some characterized Orozco’s death as an execution, fi nding it odd that Orozco and his four companions were all shot, while the posse suffered no losses or injuries. Further reading: 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; Coerver, Don M., Suzanne B. Pasztor, and Robert M. Buffi ngton. Mexico: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Culture and History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004. Kathleen Legg

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Olympics (1950–present) One of the goals of Baron Pierre de Coubertin—founder of the modern Olympic Games and organizer of the first modern games in 1896—was to encourage international understanding through sports, and help to create a more peaceful world. But after 50 years and two world wars—the bloodiest and most violent wars the world had yet seen—the Olympic dream of de Coubertin seemed very distant indeed. Too often the competition between nations would overshadow the competition of the athletes, and occasionally even the athletes themselves would be the center of controversy. In fact the Olympic Games found themselves, in 1948, in the middle of the geopolitics of the cold war. The world found itself poised on the brink of nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, and it seemed the world needed the Olympic Games and de Coubertin’s vision of peace now more than ever. Often, however, the Games would be just another proxy in the ideological battle between liberal democracy and communism. One of the most famous incidents of the 1956 Melbourne Games was the water polo match between the Soviet Union and Hungary. This match followed the Soviet quashing of the Hungarian uprising; because of political tension between the countries, the match was contested with such intensity that blood was seen in the swimming pool. But in addition to political theater, the games also provided many moments of genuine human drama, O Towering over the city, the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, Canada, was built for the 1976 Summer Olympics. where athletes strove to best one another under daunting pressure, after years of sacrifice and training. For the 1960 Summer Games, held at Rome, the games were broadcast live on television throughout Europe. Highlights of the games were Cassius Clay’s (Muhammad Ali) gold medal in boxing, and Abebe Bikila’s barefoot gold medal–winning performance in the marathon. The 1968 Winter Olympics were held at Grenoble, France, with many events spread around the region. The French skier Jean-Claude Killy, aged 24, won all three Alpine skiing gold medals. The 1968 Summer Games were held at Mexico City; the high altitude brought athletes in as much as a month early to acclimitize. Bob Beamon broke the world long jump record at the games; his record stood until 1991. The 1972 Summer Olympics were held at Munich, Germany, where U.S. swimmer Mark Spitz won seven gold medals and the Soviet Union’s gymnast Olga Korbut won three gold medals. These games also featured the controversial results of men’s basketball in which the American team believed that it had been cheated out of the gold medal. The games are best remembered, however, for the attack by Palestinian terrorists on the Israeli team, which resulted in the death of 17 people. At the 1976 Olympics held at Montreal, Canada, extra security was introduced. These games featured a boycott by African nations that protested the presence of New Zealand. The cause was a match between a New Zealand rugby team and a team from South Africa. This was in violation of a Commonwealth boycott of South Africa. The major stories of the games were Lase Viren winning both the 5,000 m and the 10,000 m again, and the Romanian gymnast Nadia Comaneci, aged 14, winning gold medals with the first-ever perfect score in Olympic gymnastic competition. At the 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics, artificial snow was used, and the U.S. speed skater Eric Heiden won five gold medals. This also marked the presence of the first Chinese Olympic team since 1948 (prior to the Communists taking over). For the United States, these games will always be remembered for the “Miracle on Ice,” the victory of the American ice hockey team over the superior Soviet squad; for many, the American victory was seen as a win over communism. The 1980 Summer Games were held at Moscow, USSR, with 100,000 people at the opening ceremony. However, the United States led a boycott over the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in the previous year. The games were best remembered for the rivalry between British runners Sebastian Coe and Steve Ovett; each won one gold medal. The 1984 Summer Games were held at Los Angeles. The Soviet Union and its close allies organized a boycott in retaliation for the U.S.-led one four years earlier. The best-remembered events of these games included the 200 m record set by U.S. runner Carl Lewis, who also won the 100 m, the long jump and the sprint relay, matching the feats of Jesse Owens in 1936; and also another U.S. runner Mary Decker falling over in the women’s 3,000 m race and blaming the British/South African runner Zola Budd. The Los Angeles Olympics was also the first summer games to which China sent a team since 1948. There was also some international concern over the high level of advertising and commercial endorsements during the games. At the 1988 Summer Games held at Seoul, South Korea, there were no major boycotts or security problems in spite of worries about North Korea’s hostility to the games. In the track events, Florence Griffith-Joyner won three gold medals for sprinting, and Kristin Otto of East German won six gold medals. The Seoul Olympic Games also saw Ben Johnson, a Canadian sprinter, winning the 100 m race in world record time only to be stripped of his gold medal three days later after he failed a drug test. The 1992 Summer Olympic Games, held in Barcelona, Spain, saw the athletes of the former Soviet Union contesting as a single team for the last time, the return of South Africa, and also a team sent by the reunited Germany. In 1994 the Olympic Winter Games were held, this time at Lillehammer, Norway, beginning a different timetable for the Winter Olympics. At the Atlanta Summer Olympics in 1996, the centenary games, a bomb killed two people in the Centennial Olympic Park, but fears of international terrorists proved unfounded with a local man arrested for the bombing. At the Nagano Winter Olympics held in 1998, curling, women’s ice hockey, and snow boarding were all introduced as new Olympic sports. The Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 saw the summer games return to the Southern Hemisphere for the first time since 1956. The new events introduced included the triathlon and tae kwon do. The public cheered the presence of the team from East Timor at the Opening Ceremony, and also the North Korean and South Korean athletes who marched together. The highlight was Australian Aboriginal runner Cathy Freeman winning the women’s 100 m race in front of a home crowd. It saw the U.S. team win 40 gold medals, 24 silver medals, and 33 bronze medals; Australia’s team won 16 gold medals, 25 silver medals, and 17 bronze medals. 326 Olympics (1950–present) The 2002 Winter Olympic Games were held at Salt Lake City, Utah. The choice of Salt Lake City saw accusations of corruption and bribery that had first occurred following Atlanta being awarded the Olympics in 1989. A number of members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were found to have received bribes in exchange for their votes, with files held in Salt Lake City revealing demands for and expectations of bribes by IOC delegates being made public. In a similar story, during the pairs figure skating competition, a judge was accused of collusion in awarding the gold medal to the Russian pair over the Canadian skaters; the situation was resolved when both figure skating pairs were awarded the gold. In 2004 the Summer Olympic Games were held at Athens, Greece, the site of the first of the modern Olympic Games held in 1896. These games witnessed several scandals, the majority of them involving performanceenhancing drugs. At least 20 violations were noted, the most of any Olympic Games. The issue of athletes taking drugs to gain an edge over rivals has become one of the dominant concerns of the games in the 21st century. In addition, the International Olympic Committee must also deal with the issue of letting professional athletes into a competition that was originally designed just for amateurs. Some critics contend that allowing professional athletes will give developed nations an unfair advantage over underdeveloped nations, while others contend that the records set at the Olympics will mean little unless the best athletes are allowed to compete. Despite these challenges—and the ever-present fear of terrorist attacks—the Athens Games saw a record 202 nations participate with over 11,000 athletes. The Olympic Games have proved to be a tempting avenue for nations to express a political point of view, or in more drastic fashion, commit violence in the name of one cause or another. Despite the intrusion of politics, it is perhaps a testament to de Coubertin’s dream that athletes the world over still strive together in peaceful competition along the ideals expressed in the Olympic motto: Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger). Further reading: Findling, John E., and Kimberley D. Pelle. Historical Dictionary of the Modern Olympic Movement. Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press, 1996; Gordon, Harry. Australia and the Olympic Games: The Official History. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1994; The Olympic Games, Athens 1896—Athens 2004 : All the Athletes, Events and Results Since 1896. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2004; Wallechinsky, David. The Complete Book of the Olympics. London: Penguin Books, 1984; Young, David C. The Modern Olympics: A Struggle for Revival. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Justin Corfield Organization of American States (OAS) The Organization of American States (OAS) was founded on April 30, 1948, in Bogotá, Colombia, by 21 member states. Successor organization to the Pan- American Union (1889–1947) and retooled to correspond to the changed security environment of the post–World War II era, the OAS was founded as a regional agency of the United Nations. Its purposes, according to its official charter, are “to strengthen the peace and security of the continent; to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of non-intervention; to seek the solution of political, juridical, and economic problems . . . ; [and] to eradicate extreme poverty,” among others. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., since its founding, in 2007 the OAS counted 35 member states, with Cuba suspended from participation since 1962, making 34 active member states. Mirroring the organizational structures of the United Nations, the OAS is governed by a General Assembly and Permanent Council and led by a secretary-general elected every five years. It has numerous affiliated organizations, organs, and entities, including the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR, f. 1959); the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD, f. 1968); Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE, f. 1999); and many others. Four “Protocols” introduced major revisions to the original OAS Bogotá Charter: the Protocols of Buenos Aires (1967), Cartagena de Indias (1985), Washington (1992), and Managua (1993). In 1994 the OAS organized the first Summit of the Americas, an event henceforth held every few years. Since its founding, the OAS has been dominated by the United States. During the the cold war era, its overriding concern was limiting Soviet and communist influence in the Western Hemisphere. Because Marxist, communist, and socialist doctrines proved popular in many parts of Latin America in the postwar era, OAS member states could pursue one of three options: openly defy the United States and adopt a socialist or Organization of American States 327 Marxist-oriented government; ally with the United States in its anticommunist policies; or pursue a “third way” by aligning with neither the Soviet nor the U.S. bloc. In a handful of instances, OAS member states openly defied the United States, such as in Guatemala (1944–54), Bolivia (1952–64), Cuba (1961– ), Chile (1970–73), Nicaragua (1979–90), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), and Venezuela (1999– ). In these and other cases, the United States violated the OAS charter regarding nonintervention, which stipulated that “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State” (Chapter IV, Article 19). More often, OAS member states cooperated with U.S. anticommunist efforts or sought to pursue a nonaligned stance in international affairs. The United States most commonly interpreted the latter as alignment with international communism and therefore a direct threat to its national security. In the post–cold war era, the OAS has exerted a greater degree of autonomy from U.S. domination. See also North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato ); Warsaw Pact. Further reading: Shaw, Carolyn M. Cooperation, Conflict, and Consensus in the Organization of American States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004; Sheinin, David. The Organization of American States. Oxford: ABC-CLIO, 1995. Michael J. Schroeder Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was established in 1960. Its first meeting was held in 1961, and, beginning in 1965, it was headquartered in Vienna. The charter members included Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Abd Allah al-Tariki, the Saudi director of petroleum affairs, played a leading role in the organization’s inception. OPEC membership was later expanded to include Libya, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar, Nigeria, UAR, Gabon, and Ecuador. In 1968 the major Arab oil-producing nations formed OAPEC (Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries). OPEC members met on a regular basis to set quotas for production; however, the organization lacked the mechanism to enforce the quotas, which were frequently ignored or openly flouted by individual producing nations. Nations with large populations such as Iran, Algeria, and Nigeria tended to push for price increases. Nations with small populations and lesser economic domestic demands preferred stable prices. Because of their production capacity and huge reserves, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were able to increase production to prevent price increases or to keep prices low. In the 1980s Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves contained over 168 billion barrels, Kuwait had over 66 billion barrels, and Iraq had 43 billion barrels, as compared to 27.3 billion barrels in the United States. By the 1980s the United States was also importing over half its oil, as compared to only 25 percent in the early 1970s. In 1970 the new revolutionary government in Libya under Muammar Qaddafi forced production cuts to secure higher royalties. The petroleum companies— dominated by the so-called seven sisters, Western- owned corporations—bitterly opposed such pressure tactics, but because of ever-increasing demands they ultimately agreed to Libyan terms. The rest of the oil-producing nations soon followed suit and secured similar concessions. The price of oil then rose from $2 to $3 per barrel and then to $5 per barrel. During the peak of the oil boom in the 1970s Sheik Ahmad Zaki Yamani, secretary-general of OPEC from 1968 to 1969, served as the Saudi Arabian minister of petroleum. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War King Faysal in Saudi Arabia was persuaded to use oil as a weapon, and cuts in supplies to those nations supporting Israel were announced. However, Faysal was a staunch anticommunist, and, when the United States and Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat argued that the oil boycott could increase the threat of communism in the Arab and Muslim world, King Faysal effectively ended the boycott by withdrawing Saudi support in 1974. In 1986, when Yamani supported raising oil prices, King Fahd removed him from office. With its huge reserves Saudi Arabia, and, to a lesser extent, Kuwait, could force price modifications by simply increasing production. By 1996 Saudi Arabia had become the world’s largest petroleum exporter. After the Iran-Iraq War Kuwait began to flood the market, exceeding its quota and driving down prices. The lower prices hurt Iraq at the very time that it was desperately trying to increase revenues to rebuild its economy; this was a contributing factor in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the resulting First 328 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Gulf War. Depressed prices, largely caused by high production by the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, also contributed to Ecuador’s withdrawal from OPEC in 1992. Owing to increased demand by burgeoning Indian and Chinese economies and ongoing wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the price of oil reached $60 per barrel in 2006 and prices continued to rise. High prices resulted in huge profits for Western oil companies as well as for the oil-producing nations. In one quarter of 2006 Exxon-Mobil, the world’s largest petroleum corporation, posted profits of over $7 billion. Although governments talked about cost control measures, alternative fuel sources, and conservation, few practical programs were adopted either in the West or in Asia. Thus it remained certain that petroleum would continue to be the world’s primary energy source for the foreseeable future. See also Gulf War, Second (Iraq War). Further reading: Alnasrawi, Abbas. Arab Nationalism, Oil and the Political Economy of Dependency. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991; Amuzegar, Jahangir. Managing the Oil Wealth: OPEC’s Windfalls and Pitfalls. London: Tauris, 2001; Blair, John M. The Control of Oil. New York: Vintage Books, 1978; Yergin, Daniel. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991. Janice J. Terry

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki