Fandom

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History R

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

Ramayana The Ramayana (Romance of Rama) is the shorter of two great epic poems from ancient India. It was originally written in Sanskrit in the tradition of the Vedas as an account of the lives of the gods. The poem tells a story of court intrigue, romance, and the struggle for good over evil. It is shorter than the Mahabharata (Great Bharata dynasty), the other great epic poem of India. Some of the followers of the Ramayana date its origin to 880,000 b.c.e. While its exact origins are lost in Indian antiquity, the Ramayana is today attributed to the poet Valmiki. Most scholars believe that it was written in the third century b.c.e. The Ramayana has been redacted several times, leading to several versions. These are divided into fi ve, six, or seven books. The Ramayana contains 24,000 couplets. The verses are called sloka (two-line verses, each of 16 syllables), in Sanskrit. They have a complex meter called anustup. The verses are grouped into individual chapters called sargas, which are grouped into books called kandas. The name kanda is taken from the internode stem of sugarcane. It suggests that each phase of the story is connected to the next phase. The Srimad Valmiki Ramayana version is arranged into six books. The fi rst book is the Bala Kanda (Book of youth, 77 chapters). The second book is the Ayodhya Kanda (Book of Ayodhya, 119 chapters). The third book is the Aranya Kanda (Book of the forest, 75 chapters). The fourth book is the Kishkindha Kanda (Book of the empire of holy monkeys, 67 chapters). The fi fth book is the Sundara Kanda (Book of beauty, 68 chapters). The sixth book is the Yuddha Kanda (Book of war, 131 chapters). The Ramayana is included in the great collection of Hindu books that were remembered, or smriti. These are different from the shurti, which are books that were heard. Books in the shurti category include the Vedas. The Ramayana is known also as the Adi Kavya, which means the “original poem,” and is certainly one of the oldest, if not the fi rst, epic poem produced in India. The Ramayana tells the story of the history of Rama, who was a king from a line descending from the sun god Surya. With his wife, Sita, he ruled an earthly kingdom. In some versions the beginning is the birth of Rama in the kingdom of Ayodhya; in others the beginning is Rama’s wooing of Sita, daughter of King Janaka. He wins her hand by being the only suitor able to bend the mighty bow of Siva (Shiva) at a bridegroom tournament. In yet other versions the Ramayana begins when Prince Rama is chosen as the heir of his father, King Dasartha of Ayodha. However, King Dasartha’s wife, Kaikeyi, pleads for the appointing of another son, Bharata, to be made king instead. King Dasaratha reluctantly agrees, and Rama is exiled from his kingdom. He goes into the forest for 14 years with his beautiful wife, Sita, and his half brother Laksmana. In the forest Rama meets the demoness Surpanakha, who falls in love with him. He refuses her advances while Laksmana wounds her. She fl ees to the island kingdom of Lanka, where her brother, also a demon (raksasa), Ravana rules. Surpanakha tells Ravana of the beauty of Sita. Desiring Sita for himself, Ravana decides to take R 381 her. He disguises himself as a holy man and fi nds her in the forest. He kidnaps Sita and carries her off to his palace at Lanka. He tries to have his way with her, but she refuses and remains loyal to Rama. Grief stricken, Sita mourns in Ravana’s garden, as Rama and Laksmana search for her. Eventually, they meet Surgriva, the monkey king, who agrees to help. The monkey general Hanuman searches for Sita. He fi nds Sita and shows her Rama’s ring to prove that he is Rama’s messenger. However, Ravana catches Hanuman and sets his tail on fi re. In the excitement the monkey escapes and sets fi re to the island of Lanka. Rama and Laksmana attack Lanka, aided by the monkey army led by Hanuman. After a long siege Rama kills Ravana and regains Sita. However, Rama makes Sita prove her virtue by putting her to a test of fi re. She undergoes the test successfully, proving her chastity. Rama, however, later abandons her after public opinion will not accept her. She goes to the ashram of the sage Valmiki, to whom she tells her story. There she bears twin sons—Lava and Kusa. When they are grown they are united with their father, Rama. Rama and Sita are often pictured as the ideal couple for their devotion to charma in the quest for victory over evil. The Ramayana greatly infl uenced Indian poetry, establishing the sloka meter that developed in later Sanskrit poetry. See also Hindu philosophy. Further reading: Blank, Jonah. Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God: Retracing the Ramayana through India. Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 1992; Dharma, Krishna (Kenneth Anderson). Ramayana: India’s Immortal Tale of Adventure, Love and Wisdom. Badger, CA: Torchlight Publishing, 2000; Smith, H. Daniel. Reading the Ramayana: A Bibliographic Guide for Students and College Teachers—Indian Variants on the Rama-theme in English Translations. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, 1983. Andrew J. Waskey Ramses I (d. c. 1290 b.c.e.) Egyptian pharaoh Though often overshadowed by his successors, Ramses (Rameses, Ramesses) I is a signifi cant pharaoh from Egypt’s New Kingdom period and the founder of the Nineteenth Dynasty. The son of a noble family, the future pharaoh (then called Paramessu) served with Horemheb when both were soldiers, and when Horemheb became pharaoh he made Paramessu his vizier and the high priest of Amun. In this latter role Paramessu was responsible for fi nalizing the restoration of the old religion in the wake of the Amarna heresy propagated by Akhenaten a generation earlier. As vizier, his titles also included— refl ecting his military background—Controller of the Nile Mouth, Charioteer of His Majesty, the Pharaoh’s Envoy to Every Foreign Land, Royal Scribe, Master of Horse, Commander of the Fortress, and General of the Lord of the Two Lands. When the heirless Horemheb made Ramses fi rst his co-regent and then his successor as pharaoh (1295 b.c.e.), Paramessu adopted the praenomen (royal name) of Menpehtyre (established by the strength of Ra) and the nomen (personal name) Ramses (Ra bore him). Ramses’s pharaonic names, his position as high priest, and his devotion to the sun gods displaced by Akhenaten’s Atenism, all point to his commitment to traditional Egyptian religion, which had formed a key part of domestic policy in the last years of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In a sense Ramses’s religious restoration cleared away the vestiges of the Amarna period in order to prepare Egypt for the clean slate of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Ramses’s reign was brief—only two years, with his son Seti I as co-regent—and important largely because it ushered in the Nineteenth Dynasty, one marked by prosperity and reconquest under the rule of Ramses’s successors. Ramses’s mummy enjoys at least as much fame as the pharaoh. Sometime in the mid-19th century Ramses’s tomb was looted, his mummy stolen, and—though it may have passed through several hands in the interim—sold in 1860 to a “freaks of nature” museum in Niagara Falls, New York, where it was displayed with other mummies and Egyptiana alongside preserved animals and frontier memorabilia. Neither the thieves nor the museum’s curator were aware of the mummy’s identity. Eventually, the museum’s Egyptian collection was purchased in 1999 by the Carlos Museum in Atlanta, Gerogia, and the mummy was radiocarbon-dated by researchers at Emory University. Further scans and other computer-assisted techniques, along with a physical resemblance to the mummies of Seti I and Ramses II (Ramses I’s grandson), made the identifi - cation of the mummy as that of Ramses I almost certain. The mummy was returned to Egypt in 2003. Further reading: Ray, J. D. Refl ections of Osiris: Lives from Ancient Egypt. Oxford, 2002; Taylor, John H. Mummy: The Inside Story. London: British Museum Press, 2004; Winlock, Herbert. The Temple of Ramesses I at Abydos. New York: Arno Press, 1973. Bill Kte’pi 382 Ramses I Ramses II (c. 1303–1213 b.c.e.) Egyptian pharaoh Also known as Ramses the Great, Ramses (Rameses, Ramesses) II was the most signifi cant Egyptian pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty, the son of Seti I and grandson of dynastic founder Ramses I. Ramses II is believed to have reigned for 66 years and two months, assuming the throne on May 31, 1279 b.c.e. He is thought to have died in the summer of 1213 b.c.e.; giving him a probable birthdate of 1303 b.c.e. It is likely that Ramses II was born during or before his grandfather’s reign as pharaoh. Although many Egyptologists have proposed co-regency between Ramses II and his father, the evidence is scant at best. The importance of Ramses II’s reign to the Nineteenth Dynasty cannot be understated: He ruled as pharaoh longer than the seven other Nineteenth-Dynasty pharaohs combined and his reign was marked by the dynasty’s most important military campaigns. His lengthy reign made him a formidable fi gure, as he saw foreign monarchs come and go. He engaged commanders in battle who had grown up hearing of his exploits. This was a factor in his dealings with the Hittites—his opponents in the second Battle of Kadesh, fought at the Orontes River in modern Syria. Egypt had been gradually pushed away from this region during the Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Dynasties and particularly during the Amarna period when Akhenaten was more concerned with internal and religious matters than the expansion or restoration of Egyptian occupation. Ramses’s father and grandfather had both resumed the campaign to regain the lands around Kadesh, with Ramses II accompanying his father to at least one such battle. In 1274 b.c.e., the fourth year of Ramses’s reign, he engaged King Muwatalli’s Hittite forces in the second Battle of Kadesh. The largest chariot battle in history, the battle involved some 5,000 chariots and nearly twice as many foot soldiers. The battle ended in a stalemate, as neither force was able to overpower the other. Ramses was almost captured but was rescued by the sudden arrival of troops from Amurru, the land of the Amorites, former Hittite subjects who had defected to Egypt. Rather than acknowledge the stalemate, each side declared they had been victorious, as they had avoided defeat. Various Egyptian-Hittite confl icts continued over the next two decades, mostly over contested territory. Murshili III, who fl ed to Egypt when his uncle ousted him from power and assumed the throne as Hattushili II, succeeded Muwatalli. Hattushili demanded the extradition of Murshili, who remained in Egypt planning a coup; Ramses, though caring little over Hittite internal affairs, refused. But rather than allow the situation to escalate into full-blown war—and remembering the stalemate of Kadesh—the two parties settled their disagreements with a treaty in 1258 b.c.e. Though Murshili has disappeared from history, the treaty established rules of extradition and borders that both rulers acknowledged, gave Amurru and Kadesh to the Hittites along with access to Egypt’s Phoenician harbors, and allowed the Egyptians northern passage as far as Ugarit, a privilege lost for more than 100 years. This was not only the fi rst extradition agreement between nations but also the earliest known international peace treaty. Both Hittite and Egyptian copies survive; an enlargement of the Hittite version hangs in the United Nations. Like many pharaohs, Ramses was fond of selfaggrandizment. He claimed to be the son both of Seti I and the god Amun, the sort of claim common in the Old Kingdom but rare for New Kingdom pharaohs. Thanks in part to the length of his reign, no pharaoh built more temples or erected more obelisks. No pharaoh had so many statues sculpted of him, both before and after his death. No other pharaoh save Amenhotep III had a wife who was worshipped during her lifetime: Nefertari had temples erected to her and was an important member of the pharaoh’s retinue. Legend claims that Ramses had dozens of wives and 100 children, but it is likely that his family was more reasonably numbered. Ramses the Great presided over an expanding Egypt that prospered without radical changes. Modern scientifi c examination has shown that the pharaoh was physically unusual as well: He was a redhead, an uncommon trait among Egyptians, and though his hair grayed in old age, the hair on his mummy remains red, Due in part to the length of his reign, Ramses II had more statues sculpted of him than did any other pharaoh. Ramses II 383 dyed either before death or by the priests who prepared him for the afterlife. Merneptah, his 14th son, succeeded him: His older sons had predeceased him, and even Merneptah was 60 years old when he took the throne. Unlike many pharaohs whose names were forgotten until the advent of Egyptology, Ramses was remembered as Ozymandias (a corrupted Hellenization of Usermaatre, his praenomen), a fi gure who fascinated scholars for centuries. Further reading: Freed, Rita E. Ramses II: The Great Pharaoh and His Time. Denver, CO: Denver Museum of Natural History, 1987; Gardiner, Alan Henderson. The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford: Griffi th Institute, 1960; Kitchen, Kenneth A. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt. Warminster, UK: Aris and Philips, 1982; Menu, Bernadette. Ramesses II: Greatest of the Pharaohs. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1999; Schmidt, John D. Ramesses II: A Chronological Structure for his Reign. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1973; Tyldesley, Joyce. Ramesses: Egypt’s Greatest Pharaoh. New York: Penguin, 2000. Bill Kte’pi Ravenna The settlement of Ravenna may date from the Villanovan period of Italy, the earliest Iron Age culture of central and northern Italy. The fact that Ravenna began as a settlement on a lagoon, like Venice, may indicate even earlier habitation than the Villanovan era. Many European prehistoric settlements were groups of houses built on stilts in the middle of lagoons for purposes of defense against marauding tribes. Such lagoon or lake settlements date from the Bronze Age, some 4,500 years ago. Simon Adams writes, in Castles and Forts, “most of these villages were built on the shores of lakes or by rivers—often located on small islands that could easily be fortifi ed. A group of around 20 rectangular houses stood on stilts to cope with seasonal fl ooding.” Not much attention was paid to Ravenna, as the city did not threaten Rome, and the legions were needed to consolidate Roman power in Italy and elsewhere. In the fi rst century b.c.e. Rome became involved in the civil wars that would end with the fall of the Republic to Julius Caesar. Ravenna became accepted as part of the Republic in 89 b.c.e., and in 49 b.c.e. gained historical importance as the city from which Caesar marched to “cross the Rubicon” in the drive for power that would ultimately make him dictator for life. He did not live long to enjoy it —in March 45 b.c.e. he was killed in the Roman Senate, at the foot of the statue of his great rival, Pompey. Caesar’s great-nephew Octavian, who would rule as Emperor Augustus Caesar (27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), realized the importance of Ravenna to Roman control of the Adriatic Sea. He established a military harbor for the Roman fl eet at nearby Classe, in part to patrol against pirates. Pirates in the second and fi rst centuries b.c.e. had become a major threat to Roman commerce in the Adriatic and the eastern Mediterranean Seas. With the onset of confl ict with Persia in the East, Ravenna became the Roman gateway to Asia. Emperor Trajan (98–117 c.e.) built an aqueduct to ensure a supply of freshwater for this strategic city. During the fourth century c.e., the Roman Empire came constantly under the assault of barbarian tribes. The imperial capital was moved from Rome to Milan and fi nally to Ravenna by Emperor Honorius—the ruler of the western half of the empire—in 402 c.e. Honorius did so because it was easily defended from its location on the lagoon. In 409 Honorius’s wisdom soon proved correct. When Alaric, king of the Visigoths, marched to sack Rome, he bypassed Ravenna. In 476 the German warlord Odovacar of the Heruli tribe fi nally brought an end to the Roman Empire in the West by deposing the emperor Romulus Augustulus. The Eastern Roman emperor, Zeno, recognized the rule of Odovacar but later sent Theodoric to reconquer Italy for the empire. After the death of Odovacar in 493 Thedoric effectively carved out his own kingdom, with Ravenna at its center. Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I, aided greatly by his consort, Theodosia, aimed at nothing less than the total reconquest of Italy for the empire. His invasion began in 535, and he largely achieved his goal. Ravenna became the center of the restored Roman Empire in northern Italy in 539. The area was considered of prime military importance because it provided the Eastern empire not only with a strategic center in Italy but also with a major base on the Adriatic for the navy. And, as in the days of Trajan, the Danube remained of great importance as a frontier against the barbarians. For this strategic reason Ravenna became the administrative focus for an imperial exarchate, or military colony, in much of northern Italy. The exarchate was formed under Emperor Maurice (582–602), largely to combat the incursions of the Lombards, who had invaded Italy in 568 from what is today’s Austria. The military force commanded by the exarch at Ravenna became known as the Exercitus Ravennae and came to 384 Ravenna include many Italians, in addition to soldiers from the Byzantine army. However, during a period of fi ghting the Lombards, the Muslim conquest erupted from what is now Saudi Arabia. Inspired by the teachings of the prophet Muhammad, the Muslims overran the Holy Land. Between 674 and 678 the Muslims even besieged Byzantium, before fi nally being driven away. The result in Italy was a drastic loss of Byzantine power. In 726 the citizens of Ravenna defeated an expeditionary force sent by Emperor Leo III to reimpose strong Byzantine rule. The area was gradually diminished under almost constant pressure from the Lombards. In about 750 the Lombards fi nally conquered Ravenna. The Byzantines, faced with Persian and barbarian invasions, could not keep their hold on Italy, even when supported by their powerful navy, whose oared warships, or dromonds, were the most powerful battle ships of their day. See also late barbarians; Ostrogoths and Lombards. Further reading: Adams, Simon. Castles and Forts. Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 2003; Dudley, Donald R. The Romans, 850 BC–AD 337. New York: Knopf, 1970; Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Everyman’s Library, 1993; Hildinger, Erik. Swords against the Senate: The Rise of the Roman Army and the Fall of the Republic. New York: Da Capo Press, 2003; Holland, Tom. Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic. New York: Anchor, 2003; Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2000. John F. Murphy, Jr. Red Eyebrow Rebellion The Red Eyebrows were a rebel group formed in China in 18 c.e. against the regime of the usurper Wang Mang that helped defeat him, resulting in the restoration of the Han dynasty. The year 9 c.e. saw the Wang family reach the zenith of power. The family had climbed to power due to the marriage of one of its daughters to the future emperor Yuan of the Han dynasty. She bore him a son, who became emperor. As mother and then grandmother of emperors, she wielded enormous power, appointing her brothers to key government positions and after the death of her brothers appointing her nephew Wang Mang regent for a young emperor. In 9 c.e. Wang Mang deposed the child emperor and ascended the throne, founding the Xin (Hsin) dynasty. Xin means “new.” Wang embarked on an ambitious program of reforms that included the nationalization of land, price fi xing, and changes to the taxation system. Some of the reforms could not be carried out; all were widely unpopular. Natural disasters exacerbated Wang’s problems; they included a shift in the course of the Yellow River in the Great Plain, which trapped large numbers of people in the Shandong (Shantung) Peninsula between the two branches of the river. Famine followed, creating numerous peasant revolts. One was called the Red Eyebrow Rebellion, from the rebel practice of staining their foreheads red as a distinguishing mark. Since red was also the color of the deposed Han dynasty, perhaps the illiterate rebels were identifying themselves with the imperial house. However, the Red Eyebrow movement was without religious identity or political ideology; its members were desperately poor people seeking food. No signifi cant leader emerged among them, and they remained a poorly organized motley army. The inability of Wang Mang’s army to defeat the Red Eyebrows gave hope to surviving members of the Liu family of the deposed Han dynasty, who also rose against Wang. In 23 c.e. a descendant of the founding emperor of the Han was proclaimed emperor. Troops of the new Han emperor and the Red Eyebrows then marched on the capital city Chang’an (Ch’ang-an), where Wang Mang was captured and executed. Civil war continued between different claimants of the Han throne, while the Red Eyebrows also proclaimed a descendant of the Liu clan, whom they had kidnapped, as emperor. The Red Eyebrows were incapable of setting up a government, appointing mostly illiterate men as ministers, and merely sacked and looted Chang’an when they captured it for the second time in 25 c.e. and then abandoned it the next year when they had consumed all its food. They were fi nally defeated in 27 c.e. by the army of the newly proclaimed Guangwu (Kuang-wu) emperor, founder of the newly established Eastern, or Later, Han dynasty, surrendered to him, and disappeared from history. The Red Eyebrow rebels, though incapable of forming a government and governing, nevertheless played a key role in bringing down the rule of Wang Mang and the restoration of the Han dynasty. Further reading: Beilenstein, Hans. The Restoration of the Han Dynasty, Vol. 1. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, 1954; Twitchett, Denis, and Michael Loewe, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 1, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Red Eyebrow Rebellion 385 religious inclinations, prehistory Deductions about the religious beliefs and practices of prehistoric people rest largely on archaeological evidence. Grave goods and burial practices, carved fi gures, cave paintings, and designs on potshards may be the only scraps left of a rich and intricate cosmogony. Graves dating back more than 50,000 years indicate that burials were deliberate, which by itself may imply belief in an afterlife. Whether bodies were interred to trap ghosts, show respect, or facilitate travel to another world is not known. The bodies of several Neanderthals buried in the Zagros Mountains of Iraq between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago were positioned and possibly buried with herbs and fl owers. Other Neanderthal sites in Europe feature stacked bones of cave bears. In France, Neanderthal bodies were sprinkled with red ocher and buried with tools. A lump of red ocher showing intentional scraping was found near burials in the Qafzeh Cave in Israel and is believed to be 90,000 years old. Alignment of the body with the Sun might have had ritual importance. Red ocher may have represented blood or rebirth; grave goods including food, tools, and shell ornaments may have been stored for use in the afterlife or as status symbols. Modern interpretations of cave paintings, such as paintings some 17,000 years old at Lascaux, France, may have had great ritual and religious meaning but cannot be accurately interpreted today. Ethnographic studies of tribal people in the recent past may shed light on the beliefs of ancient humans, but comparisons can also be misleading. Mircea Eliade saw parallels between the shamanism and trances of 20th-century hunters and pastoralists and those of the Paleolithic age implied in their art and artifacts. Eliade, a historian of religion, posited that the difference between tribal and modern people is the perception of the entire world and time itself as a refl ection of a sacred cosmos. Within this view he linked early hunters, animism, and blood sacrifi ces to later aggressive military conquests. The growth of agriculture gave rise to new creation myths and a strong link between women, food, and ritual. Women controlled reproduction; lunar phases, seasonal renewals, and harvests all refl ected feminine power. By the time cities emerged in the Neolithic age religious statuary emphasized femininity and linked it with death and rebirth. Crones are often paired with birds of prey, and men with bulls or horned animals. Dancing and feasting have ritualized meanings, and masks are used in ceremonies. The evidence of early beliefs are also fragmentary in that only a miniscule part of people’s art and iconography survived at all and only through fortuitous accidents. By 3000 b.c.e. the writings of Sumer, Egypt, and other lands describe a hierarchy of deities and formulas for their worship. Some of these formulas may have been handed down orally for centuries or millennia; others may have been new and innovative. See also Andes, Neolithic; food gatherers and producers, prehistory; Mesoamerica: Archaic and Preclassic Periods; paleoanthropology. Further reading: Collins, John J. Primitive Religion. Totowa, NJ: Littlefi eld, Adams and Co., 1978; Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1987; Eliade, Mircea. A History of Religious Ideas. Trans. by Willard Trask. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Vickey Kalambakal Roman Empire The Roman Empire was the largest in the ancient world and at its height controlled the land around the Mediterranean and most of continental Europe, with the exception of modern-day Germany, Denmark, and Russia. The incipient Roman Empire led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the accession of Octavian (better known by his posthumous title Augustus Caesar). THE PUNIC WARS The fi rst lands occupied by the Romans were in the Italian peninsula. From the days of the creation of the Roman Republic with the expulsion of the Tarquin dynasty in 510 b.c.e., the Romans had started attacking and ruling lands held by rival cities in central Italy. Rome’s being sacked by the Gauls in 390 b.c.e. signifi - cantly weakened it in the eyes of many. It rebuilt its military strength, and its defeat of Carthage in the First Punic War (264–241 b.c.e.) led to Rome gaining a foothold in Sicily. From 241 until 218 b.c.e. the Romans conquered Sardinia, Corcyra (modern-day Corfu), and Lombardy (northeastern Italy). During the Second Punic War, when Hannibal invaded the Italian peninsula in 218 b.c.e., the Romans were able to stop his attack on Rome, but their hold over the Italian peninsula was tenuous. Hannibal exploited this by forming alliances with the Gauls in northern Italy (Cisalpine Gaul) and also with predominantly Greek cities in the south, such as Capua and Tarentum. When Hannibal was recalled to North Africa to defend Carthage and defeated at the Battle of Zama in 202 386 religious inclinations, prehistory b.c.e., the Romans expanded their landholdings, taking many areas that had sheltered Hannibal during his 15 years in the Italian peninsula. The defeat of Hannibal also gave them the confi dence to attack and conquer other lands, initially parts of Spain, and then attack Syria in 191 b.c.e. This came about over tensions between Rome and the Seleucid Empire, with Rome declaring war in 192 b.c.e. and attacking in the following year. Ptolemy V of Egypt allied himself with Rome against his neighbor. A Roman fl eet commanded by Gaius Livius destroyed the Seleucid navy off the coast of Greece in 191 b.c.e. and again in the following year at Eurymedon where Hannibal was helping the Seleucids in his fi rst (and last) naval battle. At the same time a large Roman army advanced into Asia Minor and in December 190 b.c.e., at the Battle of Magnesia, destroyed the Syrians. In an agreement signed at Apameax, the Romans returned most of the land they had taken, only retaining the islands of Cephalonia and Zacynthus (modern-day Zante). During the confl ict of the Third Macedonian War (172–167 b.c.e.), the Romans defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydne on June 22, 168 b.c.e. The following year the Romans took over Macedonian lands and divided them into four republics under Roman protection, establishing a protectorate over most of the Greek peninsula. Over the next 40 years the Seleucid Empire fell apart, and the power vacuum was exploited by Rome. However, before the Romans were able to conquer the eastern Mediterranean, they had to deal with Carthage in the Third Punic War (149–146 b.c.e.). With the Romans preoccupied in North Africa, rebellions broke out on the Iberian Peninsula. Sparta, a city allied to Rome, was also attacked. The Romans responded by sending soldiers to Spain and defeating the Lusitanians. They sent an army to help Sparta, which resulted in the annexation of Greece. By 146 b.c.e., Rome was in control of all of the Italian peninsula, modern-day Tunisia, modern-day Spain and Portugal, and the Greek peninsula. JUGURTHINE AND MITHRIDATIC WARS From 112 to 106 b.c.e. the Romans fought the Jugurthine War, sending soldiers back to North Africa and eventually capturing the Numidian king Jugurtha. The Cimbri and other Germanic tribes from modern-day Switzerland then moved into southern Gaul, destroyed a Roman army of 80,000 at the Battle of Arausio, and slaughtered 40,000 Roman noncombatants. This led to war in Gaul, culminating with the Battle of Vercellae. The Roman commander Marius destroyed the Cimbri at the Battle of Vercellae, killing an estimated 140,000 tribesmen and their families and capturing another 60,000. Although the Roman Empire had control over much of the Mediterranean and Rome became the wealthiest city in the region, problems were brewing in the Italian peninsula with the Social War (91–88 b.c.e.). Some cities on the peninsula were angered that their people were discriminated against for not being Roman citizens. The Romans, with diffi culty, overcame their opponents; the Roman soldiers had not shown the same brutality as they had in Gaul and other places. As the Seleucid Empire faltered, the Romans sought to expand into Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). This coincided with the emergence of Mithridates VI of Pontus, who was intent on capturing Bithynia and Cappadocia. The Roman commander and politician Sulla defeated the army of Pontus at the Battle of Chaeronea in 86 b.c.e. and the Battle of Orchomenus in the following year. He then returned to the Italian peninsula for the Roman civil war in which Sulla had himself proclaimed dictator, later returning to Asia Minor in the Second Mithridatic War (83–81 b.c.e.). The Third Mithridatic War (75–65 b.c.e.) saw the Romans under Lucullus defeat the army of Pontus at the Battle of Cabira in 72 b.c.e., essentially removing them as a threat to the Roman Empire in the East. THE GALLIC WARS With no further threat from the eastern Mediterranean, the Romans turned their attention to Spain. Julius Caesar fought there 61–60 b.c.e., taking the Iberian Peninsula fi rmly under Roman control. From 58 to 51 b.c.e. Caesar waged the gallic wars, and the Gauls were defeated in a number of large battles culminating in the Battle of Alesia in 52 b.c.e. At this battle a massive Gallic force was annihilated while trying to relieve the Gallic chief Vercingetorix in Alesia, and Gaul was brought under Roman rule. For the next 20 years there were large numbers of Roman civil wars with, initially, Caesar fi ghting and defeating Pompey; Mark Antony and Octavian defeating Brutus; and then Octavian defeating Mark Antony. Control of the empire was split into three sections, with Octavian controlling the Italian peninsula, Gaul, the Iberian Peninsula, Dalmatia, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily. Mark Antony was in control of Greece and Macedonia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Cyrenaica, and Cyprus. The third member of the triumvirate, Lepidus, was in control of North Africa west of Cyrenaica. The fi nal defeat of Mark Antony saw Octavian invade and capture Egypt and establish Roman rule there. Roman Empire 387 AUGUSTUS CAESAR Octavian never used the title emperor or the name Augustus—both were added to him posthumously. However, he is recognized by historians as being the fi rst Roman emperor, Augustus Caesar, and hence the Roman Empire offi cially dates from his rule, which began in 31 b.c.e. and ended with his death in 14 c.e. Initially, Roman governors were politicians, eager to advance their political career by proving administrative ability. Octavian reformed the system by raising gubernatorial salaries and making appointments longer to encourage governors to become more familiar with the areas they controlled. It also allowed some governors to mount challenges to central authority. Under a governor procurators were made responsible for raising revenue and for day-to-day administrative matters. The most famous procurator was Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumea from 26 to 36 c.e. At the accession of Augustus the Roman Empire covered the entire Italian peninsula, Istria (in modernday Slovenia and Croatia), the Greek peninsula, western Asia Minor, Syria, Cyrenaica (in modern-day Libya), the area around Carthage (modern-day Tunisia), the Iberian Peninsula (modern-day Spain and Portugal), Transalpine Gaul (modern-day France, Belgium, parts of western Germany, and southern Holland), and the islands of the Mediterranean (the Balearic Islands, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, Malta, Crete, the Ionian and Dodecanese Islands, and Cyprus). It also had protectorates over the rest of Asia Minor, Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula and southern Palestine, the eastern part of modern-day Libya, and Numidia (modern-day eastern Algeria). Because of its immense size Octavian devoted much of his time and energies to maintaining, rather than enlarging, the territory under the control of Rome. There was confl ict along the frontier with Germany, with a massive Roman loss at the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest in September or October 9 c.e. Although the Romans sent in forces to avenge the loss, they held back from a fullscale invasion of Germany, which Octavian judged would be a disaster. He was a cautious ruler, as was his adopted son and successor Tiberius (r. 14–37 c.e.). CALIGULA, NERO, VESPASIAN, TITUS, AND DOMITIAN After Tiberius the emperor Caligula (r. 37–41 c.e.) saw no advances in the empire, but Caligula’s uncle and successor, Claudius (r. 41–54), invaded Britain under Aulus Plautius. Some British tribes chose to oppose the Romans, while others supported them. Under the next emperor, Nero (r. 54–68), there was trouble with the Parthians, and a revolt broke out in 61 in Britain, led by Boudicca of the Iceni tribe. She was eventually defeated, but her rebellion put an end to Roman plans to send an expeditionary force to Ireland. Nero was overthrown in 68, and his three successors had brief rules before being overthrown. The Roman army in Judaea, fl ushed with its victory—including sacking Jerusalem and the burning of the Jewish Temple—returned to Rome with their commander, Vespasian, at their head. He became emperor, to be following by his sons Titus and Domitian. The rule of Vespasian (r. 68–79), Titus (r. 79–81), and Domitian (r. 81–96) saw a period of some internal peace in the Italian peninsula and a gradual expansion of some parts of the Roman Empire. The Romans eventually controlled all of England, Wales, and southern Scotland. In central Europe parts of southern Germany were added to the Roman Empire, which had come to include the whole of the coast of northern Africa. Domitian’s assassination caused many to expect another Roman civil war, but the accession of Marcus Cocceius Nerva ensured that this did not occur. He nominated his son Marcus Ulpis Trajanus to succeed him. TRAJAN AND HADRIAN The emperor Trajan (r. 98–117) extended the empire further, in large part due to the Dacian Wars (101– 107) in which Roman armies attacked the Dacian king Decebalus, a powerful force in east-central Europe (modern-day Romania). With cruelty unparalleled since Caesar’s invasion of Gaul, the Romans pushed their frontier to the Carpathian Mountains and the river Dniester. After that Trajan added Arabia Petrea (modern-day Sinai and nearby regions) to the Roman Empire. Next Trajan waged war against the Parthians, with Osroes, king of Parthia, having placed a “puppet” ruler on the throne of Armenia. The Romans felt this violated a long-standing treaty with the Parthians, and Trajan, aged 60, attacked and captured Armenia and Mesopotamia, taking over the remainder of the former Seleucid Empire, which the Romans had attacked 200 years earlier. This gave the Romans access to the Persian Gulf. Trajan’s successor, Publius Aelius Hadrianus (r. 117–138), or Hadrian, decided to consolidate Roman rule over recently conquered areas and is best known for building a wall along the English-Scottish border, known as Hadrian’s Wall. Making peace with the Parthians, he gave up land east of the Euphrates and crushed a revolt in Mauretania and the Bar Kokhba Revolt in Judaea. This was the last large-scale Jewish revolt against the Romans and was destroyed with massive repercussions in Judaea. 388 Roman Empire Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. Jews were subsequently banned from entering Jerusalem. PIUS, MARCUS AURELIUS, AND COMMODUS Antoninus Pius (r. 138–161) succeeded Trajan, initiating a “forward movement,” pushing Roman rule back into southern Scotland and building the Antonine Wall, which stretched from the Firth of Clyde to the Firth of Forth. This meant that Hadrian’s Wall was no longer a barrier, and it briefl y fell into disuse until the Romans discovered that they were unable to control southern Scotland. The Antonine Wall was abandoned in favor of Hadrian’s Wall. The empire was approaching its greatest extent. At this point, the only places added to the empire were parts of Mesopotamia, which had been given to Parthia by Hadrian, and parts of Media (modernday Iran). Of the next Roman emperors some are well known, but most had only a minor role in the history of the Roman Empire. Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180) was known for his philosophical teachings encapsulating what many saw as the “golden age” of the Roman Empire; and Commodus (r. 180–193), for his brutality, decadence, misrule, and vanity. The reign of Commodus led to infi ghting in the imperial court, with subsequent emperors becoming worried that regional commanders were becoming too powerful. In response they only gave them as many troops as were necessary. This in turn led to troop shortages in some areas and worry of invasion. TRADE AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE The Roman Empire was a trading empire as well as a military empire, and Roman money was widely recognized throughout the region, and beyond. Latin became the language of the educated elite of the entire empire and of government offi cials and soldiers who settled in various parts of the empire. Gradually, Greek began to supplant Latin in the eastern Mediterranean, and it became the language of business and commerce in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. Surviving tombstones show that many Romans came from distant lands. Goods were traded extensively— Rome had to import large amounts of corn and wheat to feed its growing population. Ideas also traveled throughout the Roman Empire. Initially these were connected with the Pax Romana—the Roman legal system. Under Antoninus Pius, Roman citizenship was extended in much of the eastern Mediterranean, and Roman citizens had to be tried in a Roman court, leading to Roman law becoming the standard in the eastern part of the empire. The Romans encouraged the spread of learning, philosophy, and religion. Christianity and the belief in Mithras rapidly spread to all corners of the empire, with archaeological evidence for both religions stretching from Spain to northern England and to the Middle East. Since the founding of Rome, the citizenry had traded with other empires. Roman goods found their way to the Kushan Empire in southern Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Sogdians, in Central Asia (modern-day Uzbekistan), traded with both the Romans and the Chinese, and Roman coins have been found in archaeological sites in some parts of the Far East. DIOCLETIAN, CONSTANTINE, AND THEODOSIUS Diocletian (r. 284–305) was an administrator rather than a soldier, even though he came from an army background, and sought to erode the infl uence of the army on politics. When news was received in Rome that there was an uprising or an attack on the Romans, Diocletian complained that he needed a deputy who could dispatch armies effi ciently but not want to claim the throne. In 286 he appointed an Illyrian called Maximian, the son of a peasant farmer. Maximian was posted to Milan, where he could respond to attacks in the West, especially along the frontier with Germany. Diocletian then moved to Nicomedia, in modern-day Turkey, where he would supervise the empire and respond to attacks from Parthia or Persia. Although the empire remained undivided, there were defi nite lines of demarcation. These would manifest themselves years later in the division of the Roman Empire. Diocletian, however, is probably best known for his persecution of the Christians. Soon after he abdicated, Christianity would become an important part of the Roman administration. The emperor Constantine the Great (r. 306–337) provided a unity to the empire, and his mother, Helena, greatly infl uenced her son in Christian ideas. However, under Theodosius I (r. 379–395) many felt that the western part of the empire was becoming a liability, with the eastern part being far more prosperous. As a result, in 395 the Roman Empire split to form the Western Roman Empire, with Rome as its capital, and the Eastern Roman Empire, with its capital at Byzantium (modernday Istanbul). Only 15 years after this split the Western Roman Empire suffered a major shock when Visigoths invaded the Italian peninsula and sacked Rome. The capital had been briefl y moved to Ravenna, but the psychological damage was done. Rome was retaken from the Visigoths, and authorities called back Roman legions guarding other parts of the western empire, withdrawing soldiers from Britain and the German frontier, to try to defend the Italian peninsula. In 476 the last Roman emperor of the West, Odovacar, the leader of the Roman Empire 389 Ostrogoths, deposed Romulus Augustulus. The eastern empire continued as the Byzantine Empire, although gradually lost much territory. The Roman Empire was founded on military glory, but its legacy was much more broad. Roman roads connected many cities and towns, most of which are still inhabited, and archaeological digs uncovered the remains of Roman walls, buildings, and lifestyle. Roman aqueducts can be seen in many parts of the former empire, with Roman plumbing and sewage disposal being unmatched in western Europe until the Italian Renaissance. The Roman system of law is still followed by many parts of the former Roman Empire, and many other Roman customs survive. Further reading: Burn, A. R. The Government of the Roman Empire: From Augustus to the Antonines. London: Historical Association, 1952; Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1996; Shotter, David. Rome and Her Empire. London: Longman, 2003; Wells, J., and R. H. Barrow. A Short History of the Roman Empire to the Death of Marcus Aurelius. London: Methuen, 1950. Justin Corfi eld Roman golden and silver ages The Roman golden and silver ages represent the periods of Latin literature from the career of Cicero (106–43 b.c.e.) to the death of Augustus Caesar (14 c.e.) and from the beginning of Tiberius’s reign as Roman emperor (14 c.e.) to the close of Hadrian’s reign (138 c.e.), respectively. The golden age has been so named by classical scholars because the greatest authors of the Roman Empire, including Lucretius (99–55 b.c.e.), Catullus (84– 54 b.c.e.), Julius Caesar (100–44 b.c.e.), Cicero, Virgil (70–19 b.c.e.), Horace (65– 8 b.c.e.), Livy (59 b.c.e.–17 c.e.), and Ovid (43 b.c.e.–18 c.e.), fl ourished during this time. Politically, the golden age saw the fi nal overthrow of the senatorial Republic (Latin: res publica) and the inauguration of a single monarch over the Roman state. Depending on the date of composition, therefore, its literature refl ects one of three distinct themes: public oratory, characteristic of the speeches of Roman senators; an uncontrollable anxiety stemming from the political unrest and civil wars between the assassination of Julius Caesar (44 b.c.e.) and the Battle of Actium (31 b.c.e); or the peace indicative of the reign of Augustus, which was undergirded by Epicureanism. While the silver age was surpassed by the magnifi - cence of the preceding century, a considerable corpus of masterpieces were generated during this era by such authors as Seneca (4 b.c.e.–65 c.e.), Lucan (39–65 c.e.), Pliny the Elder (23–79 c.e.), Quintilian (35–95 c.e.), Statius (45–96 c.e.), Martial (40–104 c.e.), Tacitus (55–120 c.e.), Juvenal (60–130 c.e.), and Suetonius (69–140 c.e.). Exerting a powerful infl uence on this age was the contemporary educational system based on letters and rhetoric, which inspired prospective writers with the treasures of Greek and Latin literature and systematically trained them in the art of declamation, infl uencing their profi ciency in fi gures of speech, exclamations, apostrophes, interrogations, and an assortment of other literary devices. GOLDEN AGE AUTHORS Little is known about Lucretius besides the years when he lived. His purpose of his didactic poem De Rerum Natura (On the nature of things) was to convert the Roman aristocrat Memmius to Epicureanism. According to Lucretius’s interpretation, the aim of this philosophy was to reveal how to obtain peace of mind (Greek: ajtaraxiva) in diffi cult times. Based on his conviction that the world is made up of random combinations of atoms moving in a void, which yield all physical objects and (via the motions of the fi ner atoms of the soul) all mental processes and emotions, Lucretius argued that such combinations eventually separate, spelling the mortality of the material world and the soul. Consequently, De Rerum maintains that only the atoms and the void in which they move are eternal. This worldview led Lucretius to the anti-supernatural results that the gods either do not exist or take no interest in human affairs and that religion is a malicious facade. The poem concludes with two practical applications—“live in secret” and “keep out of politics”—which purportedly point the way to true pleasure and the coveted “peace of mind.” In contrast to Lucretius, a great deal is known about Catullus from the many autobiographical passages in his poetry. Spending much of his life in Rome, Catullus thrived in a sophisticated literary circle that admired and imitated the Greek poetry of Alexandria . He then fell in love with a woman he styled as “Lesbia,” who was almost certainly Clodia, the wife of a Roman aristocrat and sister of Julius Caesar’s supporter and agent. She became the protagonist in Catullus’s personal lyric poetry of the heart, which borrowed and modifi ed Greek meters. Catullus took the epigram, typically used for tombstone and monument inscription and trivial brief poetry, and transformed it into a vehicle for the expression 390 Roman golden and silver ages of deep personal meaning. Upon being spurned by Lesbia, Catullus left Rome and took a junior staff position under the governor of Bithynia, where he abandoned love poetry in favor of poems that clandestinely slung invective at his political adversaries. Classical scholars regard these complex and learned works as treasures of taste and scholarship. Corresponding to the brilliance of Roman poetry during the golden age was comparable achievement in prose. Julius Caesar’s lucid and powerful commentaries on the Gallic and civil wars, De Bello Gallico and De Bello Civili, serve as benchmarks for their genre. The era’s leading prose writer was Cicero, a prolifi c orator, who, after amassing a reputation as a bold and highly competent lawyer by successfully defending Sextus Roscius from murder charges, embarked on a political career in Rome. Beginning with his election to the quaestorship in 75 b.c.e., Cicero rose through the ranks to the offi ce of praetor in 66 b.c.e. and, despite his status as a novus homo (a “new man,” or a candidate whose family had no precedent in holding offi ce), to the highest position of consul in 63 b.c.e. In the decade following his consulship Cicero played a less active role in politics and fashioned prose writings of a peaceful style, including treatises on rhetoric and philosophical discourses on friendship and old age. However, Cicero returned briefl y to the political scene after Caesar’s assassination in 44 b.c.e., vehemently attacking Caesar’s would-be successor, Mark Antony, in a series of speeches known as the “Philippics.” This would ultimately lead to Cicero’s demise, as Antony quickly joined ranks in the Second Triumvirate with Lepidus and Octavian and decreed the statesman’s beheading, carried out on December 7, 43 b.c.e. Virgil, recognized as the foremost of all Latin poets both during his lifetime and by modern scholarly assessment, split most of his time between Rome and Naples, in the latter of which he served as charter member of a literary circle under the patronage of Maecenas, the adviser of Augustus. Virgil’s fi rst work, the Bucolics, or Eclogues, consists of 10 short poems in a pastoral style, emulating the third-century b.c.e. Greek poet Theocritus, which depict both imaginary country scenes and contemporary events such as the loss and restoration of his own farm at Andes. Their charm and elegance immediately established Virgil as a poetic genius, and Maecenas encouraged Virgil to compose something more worthy of his talent. In response he wrote his most artistic work, the Georgics, a poem in four books pertaining to the growing and nurturing of trees, vines, and olives, the breeding of cattle and horses, and bee-keeping. Classical scholars regard its grammar and style as the optimal use of the Latin language and its meter as the perfection of Latin hexameter. Augustus then suggested that Virgil create a national epic linking Troy and the heroic age with the foundation of Rome and the family to which Julius Caesar and Augustus belonged. This 12-volume work, the Aeneid, stands as Virgil’s most enduring masterpiece and recounts the exploits of a Trojan prince named Aeneas, the son of Venus and Anchises, who was destined to be the ancestor of Romulus, the legendary ancestor of Caesar and fi rst founder of the Roman race. A paradigm of balance, this epic harmonized the desire for peace with traditional respect for military honor. Virgil’s compatriot Horace continued in this lyric tradition through his mastery of the ode, ingeniously converting Greek meters into Latin and choosing his words with great precision and care. Mirroring Virgil’s grand poetic success in prose was Livy, reputed as one of Rome’s most eminent historians. Raised in the north Italian region of Patavium, known for its strict ethical conservatism, Livy shared Augustus’s concern over the moral decline that plagued Roman society. Aiming to remedy this problem, Livy composed his monumental 142-volume history of Rome, Ab Urbe Condita (From the founding of the city, or History of Rome), the narratives of which were intended to depict the glory days of a virtuous past as a model for present and future generations. Livy’s work furnished an accurate account of what his fellow Romans believed about the moral standards, faith, and virtue of their predecessors. Through a dynamic blend of myth and fact, Ab Urbe Condita displays Livy’s consummate narrative ability and his staunchly patriotic goal of authenticating the courage and high ethical character of the Roman people and their heroes even in the midst of catastrophe. A seemingly confl icting purpose was pursued by Ovid, whose elegies on love were thought to be so counterproductive to Augustus’s reform of Roman morals that the emperor exiled him to Tomis on the Black Sea, where he remained until his death. Among his most renowned poems are the Ars Amatoria (The Art of Love), a handbook on seduction and sexual pleasure, and the Heroides (Heroines), imaginary letters from heroines of Greek legend to lovers or husbands who had abandoned them. His greatest work, the 15-volume Metamorphoses, lay in the domain of religion and depicted the miraculous transformations in Greek mythology. Ovid is remembered not only as a graceful poetical craftsman but also as the master of the elegiac couplet, a form that he perfected beyond the scope of any other Roman poet. Roman golden and silver ages 391 SILVER AGE AUTHORS An eminent neo-Stoic philosopher, Seneca earned fame as an author of philosophical treatises and as tutor to the infamous Roman emperor Nero (r. 54–68 c.e.). Seneca attempted to impart his conviction that the neo-Stoic worldview provided the best practical guide to conduct and fi lled the void of the soul. He contended that spiritual satisfaction came through turning away from the world, through contempt for worldly goods, the duty of self-examination, the joys of conversion (which he defi ned as the sign of grace to see one’s faults), and the call to enlighten others. Seneca’s corpus includes at least 152 treatises on subjects as varied as geography, physics, natural history, biography, and ethics. His nephew Lucan was a celebrated poet in Nero’s court who, in his Pharsalia, drew upon the epic tradition in his vivid depiction of major battles in the Roman civil war. Lucan’s animated style featured drama and rhetoric often at the expense of historical accuracy. In 62 c.e. Nero began to be infl uenced by younger, power-hungry advisers, who exhorted him to shake off his mentor, Seneca. Cognizant that he might be slain, Seneca made an impassioned speech before Nero, where he defended his loyalty and contribution to the emperor’s education and submitted his request to retire. Nero denied the request and, three years later, discovered that Lucan was part of Piso’s conspiracy to overthrow him, which provided him a convenient excuse to eliminate his teacher. Nero charged Seneca with complicity in the plot and ordered the suicide of both Seneca and Lucan. The prose of the fi rst century c.e. encompasses a number of signifi cant didactic authors. Pliny the Elder was an indefatigable scholar who composed the monumental 37-volume encyclopedia on the physical and social sciences, the Naturalis Historia (Natural history). Sponsored by the emperor Titus, its subjects ranged from ancient physics, Pliny’s cosmography in relation to God, geography, human physiology, zoology, and botany to mineralogy and metallurgy in the fi ne arts. An invaluable source, the Naturalis Historia stands as the fullest application of Aristotelian categories to the sphere of scientifi c knowledge. Equally prominent in the literary domain was the educator Quintilian; his Institutio Oratoria (Institute of oratory) constitutes an authoritative manual to the theory and practice of rhetoric. Believing that to educate a speaker was to mold a Roman lady or gentleman, Quintilian emphasized the importance of character building in the pedagogical process, centered on plato’s four cardinal virtues of justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation. Following in the tradition of Virgil, Statius is famous for his Thebiad, an epic that pushes each feature of his forerunner’s style to the extreme. This tribute to Thebian mythology, recounting the story of Oedipus and the legends of Amphion, Cadmus, and Dirce, relies upon the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Antimachus as primary sources. Perhaps Statius’s paramount contribution to the silver age was his approach to literature as performance, or exhibition of talent, where each work would comprise a series of virtuoso pieces intended to evoke admiration from its audience. Such a tendency moves toward the independence of the parts of a work and away from the concord of the whole. Harkening back to the golden age in the manner of Statius, Martial enhanced the epigram style from its previous development under Catullus by overlaying it with a polished and multifaceted verse in which he conveyed sharp wit toward current events. He crafted poems of genuine feeling, in which he discusses his poverty, social endeavors, the true enjoyment of life, and the positive relations that could exist between humane masters and their slaves. With his brief tales in verse Martial paints a stirring portrait of ancient Rome in dazzling tones that make the ancient city seem near the modern world. Writers of the silver age, notwithstanding their biases, penned largely accurate reports of their time and followed standards of verifi cation that would not be bettered until the critical biographies of seventh-century c.e. Irish monastic scholars. The leader of this movement was Tacitus, acknowledged by classical scholars as the greatest historian of ancient Rome, who lived through the reigns of more than a half-dozen Roman emperors and preserved many of their memoirs. He is best known for two works, the Annals and the Histories, the former covering the period from Augustus’s death to that of Nero (14–68 c.e.), and the latter beginning after Nero’s death and proceeding to that of Domitian in 96 c.e. The Annals are best remembered for accounts of Tiberius’s closed and suspicious character in the capital, and the control of the weak emperor Claudius by the powerful freedman Narcissus, causing Nero to be placed on the throne and the fi re of Rome. This work also contains a reference to the crucifi xion of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth in Judaea under Pontius Pilate and the origin and imperial persecution of the early Christian movement. The most memorable scenes in the Histories revolve around the years 69–70 c.e., from the reign of Galba to the close of the Jewish War. Tacitus provides striking insight on the struggle between Otho, who murdered Galba, and Vitellius for the title of emperor and on the military campaigns waged by Vespasian against Vitel- 392 Roman golden and silver ages lius in Rome and Titus against the Pharisaic, Essene, and Zealot forces in Jerusalem. Tacitus’s mastery of the Latin language can be summarized in terms of brevity, variety, and poetic color. His repertoire contains modifi ed meanings to terms, neologisms (new words which he invented from previously existing ones), innovative extensions of idiom, and asymmetry of expression. Less prominent but also distinguished among Roman historians is Suetonius, who oversaw the imperial archives and public libraries as secretary under Trajan. He carefully integrated the sources under his disposal in his De Vita Caesarum (On the life of the Caesars), a collection of 12 biographies on the emperors from Julius Caesar to Domitian. This work is remarkable for its rejection of a strict chronological ordering in favor of a loose one, only concerned that each successive Caesar follows one another. Juvenal was one of the world’s greatest satirists. His disillusionment stemmed largely from his failure to procure a political appointment after completing the requisite military training. When he saw foreigners succeeding through corruption where he was ignored, he published a lampoon attacking the infl uence of court favorites in making promotions. Outraged at being convicted by the truth, in 96 c.e. Domitian confi scated his property and banished him to a remote frontier in Egypt. After living for a brief spell in poverty, he launched himself in writing the Satires, his most popular poems, out of infuriation from his maltreatment and the injustices prevalent to Roman politics. His satirical pieces are matchless for his synthesis of journalistic precision, descriptive clarity, oratorical persuasion, dramatic characterization, and linguistic command into a multifaceted poetic unity. Parallel with the administrative triumphs of imperial Rome and its services to Western civilization, the Roman golden and silver ages fostered artistic production of enduring quality, thought commensurate to the achievement of the times, and a captivating depiction of life. Their authors’ practical interest in learning of an encyclopedic sort showed the academic discontent with social amenities and empty rhetoric and consequent quest for an all-encompassing and systematic worldview. Displaying mastery of virtually every literary genre, the classics created during these periods disclose a full spectrum of emotion and an engaging refl ection with political, legal, and academic institutions. These works bear a universal relevance to all times and places and have offered renewed pleasure and fascination throughout the ages. See also Roman historians; Roman poetry. Further reading: Braund, Susanna Morton. Latin Literature. London: Routledge, 2002; Conte, Gian Biagio. Latin Literature: A History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994; Copley, Frank Olin. Latin Literature: From the Beginnings to the Close of the Second Century a.d. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969; Duff, J. Wight. A Literary History of Rome from the Origins to the Close of the Golden Age. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960; ———. A Literary History of Rome in the Silver Age. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960; Grant, Michael. Roman Literature. Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1967; Hadas, Moses. A History of Latin Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952; Kennedy, E. C., and A.R. Davis. Two Centuries of Roman Poetry. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1996; Ogilvie, Robert Maxwell. Roman Literature and Society. New York: Penguin, 1980. Kirk R. MacGregor Roman historians In the mid-fi fth century b.c.e., when the great Greek historian Herodotus settled in the Athenian colony of Thurii in southern Italy, Rome had not yet consolidated its control over the peninsula. The struggle with the declining but still powerful Etruscans was ongoing. The Gauls, a Celtic people of the north, sacked Rome in 390 b.c.e. The Punic Wars concluded in the second century b.c.e., after which Rome would assert its dominance across the Mediterranean basin. Early Roman historians did not look to Herodotus as a guide, at least not directly. They were largely uninterested in geography and ethnology, unlike Herodotus, considered the Father of History. Their emphasis was on politics, and the cultural infl uence of Greece remained profound. The fi rst great historian of Rome was not Roman, nor did he write in Latin; he was Greek and employed that language. Polybius (202–120 b.c.e.) believed that Rome’s power derived from its institutions, most notably its constitution. Aristotelian political theories and Thucydides’ histories infl uenced Polybius greatly. Polybius lacked his forerunner’s political acumen, but his call for archival research shaped future historiography. Polybius would serve as a touchstone of later Roman historians, including Livy. Prior to Livy, Roman historiography followed a pattern seen in early Greece. The earliest “documentarians” of Rome were epic poets. These poet-historians tapped directly into Greek mythology. Gnaeus Naevius (270– 201 b.c.e.) traced Rome’s origins back to Aeneas, the Trojan prince, as did Quintus Ennius (239–169 b.c.e.). Naevius and Ennius wrote in Greek, despite their Roman citizenship. The oldest extant fragment of Latin Roman historians 393 There are many references to the supernatural in Livy’s work, though he was dismissive of the phenomena on occasion. He attributed these references to popular superstitions and rumor exaggerated in times of crisis. To omit them from his work, however, would have erased a vital aspect of Roman history. The fl ight patterns of birds, the alignment of animal entrails, these required and dictated specifi c actions on the part of the political, military, and priestly elites. Heated debates have taken place over whether Livy was a full-fl edged Stoic. His alleged Stoicism might well explain the systematic inclusion of auguries in his work. As represented by Cicero, Roman Stoicism accepted the supernatural as a near commonplace, woven into the fabric of everyday life. Not all of antiquity accepted such matters outright; the Epicureans and the Sceptics fi rmly rejected auguries. Some have dismissed Livy as a mythographer, a dramatically gifted craftsmen of literary prose. But epigraphy and archaeological discoveries have proven him to be more accurate than was once imagined. His range was certainly wider in scope than Sallust’s, or even that of Tacitus. Publius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55–c. 117 c.e.) originated in either Cisalpine Gaul or Narbonese Gaul (southern France). His father was a procurator of Lower Germany and affi liated with the army along the Rhine river basin. In 77 c.e. he married into the family of a consul. From there his path to the Senate was paved. As a historian, his best-known work is Germania, or On the Origin and Land of the Germans. It provides a window into the early history of the tribes along the frontier. As these groups would later play a key role in both the collapse of Rome and the dawn of a European civilization, the contribution of Tacitus is invaluable. Tacitus also studied rhetoric in Rome and enjoyed success as a public speaker. His work Historiae (c. 109 c.e.) examines Rome from 68 to 96 c.e. Though only portions remain extant, his account of the civil wars of this period is a masterful exploration of both the chaos and irrationality of the era. Composed later, the Annals cover the era beginning in 14 c.e. Tacitus is praised for his qualities as a writer and a historian and set new standards for the extent and scope of archival investigations. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was born around the year 70 c.e. to a knightly family of North Africa. Moving to Rome, Suetonius was a teacher of literature, as well as a lawyer. Between 110 and 112 c.e. he began to hold a variety of imperial posts. He was responsible for the epistolary of Hadrian but was dismissed for impoliteness directed at the empress Sabina. His books the Lives of Illustrious Men, which survives only in fragments, and 394 Roman historians poetry is a translation of Homer’s Odyssey. The fi rst Roman prose historian was Q. Fabius Pictor, but his task was accomplished in Greek. Marcus Porcius Cato (234–149 b.c.e.), known as Cato the Elder, was the fi rst Roman who wrote Roman history in Latin prose. Like Fabius before him, Cato was a politician. He was, however, of plebeian origin, a fact that would produce his excoriations of aristocratic families. Fabius and Cato were typical of what became the model of Roman historians. They were politicians possessing access to offi cial archives and also gave thematic importance to moralistic patriotism. That tone became typical of Roman history writing. The annalists merit mention, especially as they later served as resources for Livy. Annalists recorded the events that took place in a given year, as well as the names of the ruling magistrates. They made no attempt to provide a true narrative of historical events, much less an interpretative one. L. Coelius Antipater, Valerius Antias, and Q. Claudius Quadrigarius were active in the second and fi rst centuries b.c.e. and were the most noteworthy of the era. One exception to the dry chronicle generally offered was M. Terentius Varro (116–27 b.c.e.). Comparisons have been made between his work and that of modern-day cultural historians. As a contemporary of Varro, Sallust, a retired army general, was more typical. His vision would encourage the notion that moral laxity had led to Roman decline. Sallust’s particular emphasis created a myth of Rome’s fall well before the occurrence of the actual event. Livy (Titus Livius) was born in Patavium (modern Padua) in Cisalpine Gaul, in either 64 or 59 b.c.e. He would ultimately die there, in either 7 or 12 c.e. He moved to Rome at the age of 30. There, he wrote his voluminous Ab Urbe Condita (History of Rome). The original work covered some 744 years of history in 142 books. Only 35 of these actually survive, covering the periods from 753 to 243 and from 210 to 167 b.c.e. Livy was the fi rst professional historian, devoting himself full time to his endeavors. He diverged from the Roman model in that he was not a politician; however, he fi rmly believed in the idea and symbol of Rome. Livy admits to basing his account on the myths that circulated. He wrote of events that took place more than 500 years prior to his writing about them. To accomplish this he synthesized all six versions of the annalists, as well as assorted poems and legends. He was particularly indebted to Asinius Pollio and Valerius of Antium. Some have argued that Livy should be regarded more as a novelist and less as a historian. the Lives of the Caesars, from Julius Caesar to Nero, entirely extant, are his most important works. Some of the more salacious scenes have earned Suetonius a reputation as a shallow tabloid reporter of antiquity, but his capacities for research and observation were formidable. His habit of including, within the body of his text, source materials in their original Greek or Latin has furnished a treasure trove to posterity. It is from Suetonius that Julius Caesar’s famous declaration upon crossing the Rubicon, “The die is cast,” derives. Contemporary scholarship has tended to downplay the role any one person can have as an agent of historical change. Yet the importance of biographers, such as Suetonius, to provide a coherent snapshot of a given historical period by emphasizing the life and importance of the individual, has endured. See also Aristotle; Epicureanism; Greek mythology and pantheon; Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon; Homeric epics; Roman poetry; Rome: decline and fall. Further reading: Fornara, C. W. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983; Grant, Michael. Greek and Roman Historian: Information and Misinformation. London: Routledge, 1995; Laistner, M. L. W. The Greater Roman Historians. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1947; Luce, T. J. Livy: The Composition of His History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977; Marincola, John. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Mellor, Ronald. The Roman Historians. London: Routledge, 1999. R. O’Brian Carter Roman pantheon and myth Roman religious belief evolved over time. Many of the well-known gods, goddesses, and heroes of Rome were adopted from other cultures and civilizations. Greek mythology, with its focus on gods with humanlike characteristics, greatly infl uenced later Roman mythology. What we know about early Roman mythology comes from archaeological fi ndings, artwork, and writers such as Marcus Terentius Varro, Virgil, and Ovid. Roman myth borrowed greatly from the Greeks, replacing Greek deities with Roman names, creating a hybrid Greco-Roman mythology. Only after Rome came into contact with Greece during the sixth century b.c.e. did Roman gods and goddesses assume human qualities. Early Romans envisioned their deities as powers that demanded appeasement. Pax deorum, or “peace of the gods,” was the ultimate goal of early Roman religious practices. Romans believed that through ritual, worship, and public festivals their gods would ensure continued prosperity for the community. Early Roman deities controlled aspects of everyday life. Romans worshipped two classes of gods. The major deities, or di indigetes, were the original gods of the Roman state. Lesser gods, the di novensides, were adopted later when the need for a specifi c power was warranted. While the personalities of the deities were unimportant to early Romans, the attributes of the gods and goddesses were important. The heads of the earliest Roman pantheon were Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, Janus, and Vesta. Jupiter, the head of the gods, brought life-giving rain for the crops and provided protection to Romans engaged in military activities outside their own borders. Mars was originally the god of fertility and vegetation but later became associated with activities of young men and especially war. The month March was named for the Roman god Mars because of his association with spring and fertility. Quirinus, the patron god of the military in times of peace, was often worshipped in conjunction with Mars. Janus, associated with new beginnings, was depicted as a two-faced god who presided over all that was double-edged. January takes its name from this god because the month represents a time for looking backward and also forward to the future. His double-gated temple in the Forum was said to have kept its doors closed only in times of peace. Consequently, the doors of the temple rarely closed. Vesta, goddess of the hearth fi re, held a special status in the Roman pantheon. Vestal virgins, or virgins who took a 30-year vow of chastity, served as Vesta’s priestesses. Vesta’s priestesses attained a larger role in Roman society than other women. They were often consulted in matters of state and were entrusted with sensitive documents, such as wills and treaties. After 30 years of chastity, vestal virgins could marry if they so wished. Other deities represented the agrarian and warlike culture of the Romans. The Lares, a purely Roman invention of house guardians, protected the fi elds and the home. Saturn governed the sowing of seed. He was celebrated in the Saturnalia Festival (December 17–23), during which masters and slaves exchanged roles. Ceres protected the growth of grain, Pomona governed fruit, and Consus presided over the harvest. As Rome conquered its neighbors, foreign gods and goddesses were added to the Roman pantheon. Conquered peoples were encouraged to continue the worship of native gods. Combined with an ever-increasing Roman pantheon and myth 395 infl ux of new territories and foreigners visiting the city, Rome experienced the largest cultural diffusion of the time. Consequently, Rome became religiously diverse. Divinities such as Minerva, Venus, Diana, Hercules, and Mithras, along with other lesser deities, were added to the Roman pantheon. Cults appeared in Rome that worshipped deities from as far away as Egypt. The worship of Isis, for example, became popular in Rome. The Roman practice of accepting the gods of its conquered peoples allowed for greater control in the territories. It also gave Rome a comprehensive mythology, most of which was borrowed or adapted to fi t earlier deities. Though the Romans did not provide a well- defi ned mythology for their gods or for the creation of the world, they did create an elaborate mythology for the founding of Rome. Early myths concerning Rome’s founding were created with bits of historical fact mixed with mythical retellings. Tales of Rome’s fi rst kings were almost completely mythical in nature. Most of Roman myth concerns the fi rst seven kings to rule Rome. The earliest myth about the founding of Rome was based on Rome’s fi rst king, Romulus. According to the myth, Rhea Silvia the only daughter of Numitor, the king of Alba Longa, was destined to become a vestal virgin. Instead, she was raped by the god Mars. She bore twins, Romulus and Remus, who were cast into the Tiber River. To ensure that his sons would survive, Mars sent a she-wolf to care for the twins. Eventually, a shepherd named Faustulus discovered Romulus and Remus, and he raised them as shepherds. The twins eventually set out to found their own city. A dispute arose between them, and Romulus murdered Remus. Romulus ruled Rome, and the city fl ourished. However, the city lacked enough women. Romulus solved the problem by kidnapping some Sabine women. The kidnapped women saved the city from war by claiming they were happier with their newfound husbands. After a reign of 40 years Romulus ascended to the heavens to become the war god Quirinus. Borrowing from the Greeks, later renditions of the Romulus and Remus myth trace the lineage of Romulus and Remus back to the surviving prince of Troy, Aeneas. The original Roman pantheon and myth is often obscured by the later Greco-Roman mythology. Romans were deeply religious but being a practical people lacked the imagination to create a myriad of personalities to compliment their deities. As Rome came into contact with other cultures, their mythology was enhanced. The Romans adopted the heroes and deities of others, borrowing the elaborate myths and humanlike personalities that accompanied them. MAJOR ROMAN DEITIES Apollo God of the sun and music Bacchus God of wine and intoxication Ceres Mother Goddess, earth Cupid (Amor) God of love Diana Moon goddess, protector of animals and virginity Fortuna Goddess of luck and good fortune Janus God of gates, doorways, and new beginnings Juno Queen of gods, protector of women and childbirth Jupiter King of gods, lightning, storms, protector of military pursuits and oaths Maia Goddess of earth, plains, and growth Mars God of war, fertility, spring, and farming Mercury God of wind, messenger of the gods Minerva Goddess of wisdom, arts and crafts, and war Neptune God of watering and the sea Pluto King of the underworld Proserpine Queen of the underworld Quirinus God of defense, war, and the state Saturn God of agriculture, sowing of the seed Uranus God of the heavens Venus Goddess of sexual love and beauty Vesta Goddess of hearth and ceremonial fi re Vulcan God of fi re and forges See also Greek mythology and pantheon; Roman historians; Roman poetry; Rome: founding. Further reading: Cotterell, Arthur, and Rachel Storm. The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology. London: Lorenz Books, 1999; Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1998; Jordan, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods. New York: Facts On File, 1993. Mark Aaron Bond Roman poetry The Greeks had a strong belief in the importance of poetry, and the Romans continued this with a large number of poets, some of whom wrote short poems and others, like Virgil, composed massive epics such as the Aeneid. Other famous Roman poets include Lucretius, Catullus, Horace, Ovid, Martial, and Juvenal. 396 Roman poetry Roman poetry borrowed the style of the Greeks; however, it surpassed that style. A signifi cant number of the poets were actually Greek, and many were infl uenced by visits to Greece. In addition to Greek mythological themes, Roman poets used poetry to express their love and anxieties, philosophical positions, and the telling or retelling of historical epics, especially the early years of Rome, with the story of Aeneas a recurring theme. There were some very early Roman poets, but few details survive except that they recorded the early history of Rome, later used by historians and poets. After the victory of Rome in the First Punic War in 241 b.c.e., there was considerable interest in Roman history, encouraging many to write about the early triumphs and disasters that Rome had faced. The fi rst to make use of this enthusiasm was Lucius Livius Andronicus from Taranto, in southern Italy. Taranto was a largely Greek city, and it sided with Hannibal for four years during the Second Punic War. One of the tasks Andronicus undertook was the translation of the Odyssey into Latin. From the fragments that have survived, scholars believe that the translation was not accurate with some parts of the text expanded. The next poet was Cornelius Naevius (c. 270–c. 199 b.c.e.), who wrote epic poems and plays, although only fragments have survived. He started the trend of linking Rome with Troy through Aeneas, and therefore contrasting it with Carthage, established by Queen Dido, who met Aeneas on his way from Troy to Italy. This interest was to reach a peak with Virgil. The next well-known Roman poets were Ennius and Lucilius. The former was born in Calabria in 239 b.c.e. and although Greek by birth became a Roman subject, serving in the Roman army. In 204 b.c.e. he came to the attention of the quaestor Cato who invited him to Rome. There he started writing poetry, continuing his military career. In 189 b.c.e. he accompanied Marcus Fulvius Nobilior in his campaign in Greece. When Nobilior returned to Rome in triumph, Ennius took part in the parade through the city. Nobilor’s son then ensured that Ennius became a Roman citizen. Before his death in 169 b.c.e. Ennius composed an epic poem called the Annales which told the history of Rome from its founding by Aeneas through its creation until the second century b.c.e. It was well known during the “golden age” of Roman literature, ensuring that Ennius would become known as the Father of Roman poetry. Only a few fragments of the poems by Ennius have survived to the present day. Lucilius, the second early Roman poet, was a satirist who lived from 180 b.c.e. until 102 when he died at Naples. As with Ennius, he was a great infl uence on later poets such as Horace, Persius, and Juvenal, and as with Ennius, only a few of his poems survive. In the age of Cicero, in the mid-fi rst century b.c.e., Titus Lucretius Carus (94-55 b.c.e.) was a major poet who wrote De Rerum Natura, a philosophical poem in hexameters. The poem, written to Gaius Memmius, a politician, who was subsequently persecuted for corruption and forced to fl ee to Athens, consisted of about 7,400 lines. Unlike his predecessors, Lucretius, in his poem, deals with the metaphysical premise of being an Epicurean and that nothing comes out of nothing. Gradually his other poems defi ne the nature of motion, atoms, the human soul, and the system of belief in gods. His own life was subject to some accounts by fellow Epicureans who allege that Lucretius was driven mad by a love potion resulting in his suicide. Living at the same time as Lucretius, although about 10 years younger, Gaius Valerius Catullus was from Verona and spent most of his life in Rome. He served under Gaius Memmius, the man who inspired Lucretius, but for most of his life with no direct involvement in politics. Catullus died at about the age of 30, and some 114 of his poems survive. Some are general but others describe Catullus and his falling in love with a married woman he called Lesbia. As many of his poems are autobiographical, it has been possible to deduce much about his life, and the Greek Hellenistic infl uences on it and his literature. The theme of love is explored in a later Roman poet, Sextus Aurelius Propertius, who was born in Assisi in about 51 b.c.e. He gave up a promising legal career to become an important elegiac poet, becoming a friend of both Virgil and Ovid. Probably the most famous Roman poet was Publius Vergilius Maro, better known as Virgil. Born in 70 b.c.e., he lived until 19 b.c.e., during which time he wrote a number of poems, the best known being the Aeneid. Virgil was immensely infl uenced by the political events of his teenage years, which saw the rise of Caesar, the war with Mark Antony, and the emergence of Octavian. It was the dispute between Mark Antony and Octavian that infl uenced Virgil’s Eclogues, which were written c. 39–38 b.c.e. Virgil followed with his Georgics, which are dated at 29 b.c.e., partly as they mention the Battle of Actium that had taken place two years earlier. Virgil’s Aeneid, in the tradition of Ennius, gave a historical account, in verse form, of Aeneas and the founding of what became the Roman Empire. The Aeneid is of epic length and, as with his other poems, written in hexameters. Virgil fi nished the poem in 19 b.c.e., planning to travel for three years in Greece and Turkey, during which time he would revise it. When in Athens, at the start of his trip, Roman poetry 397 obvious connection between the burials and the remains of the huts. Nearby, in ancient Rome, the Lapis Niger, made from black marble, is said to have been the sanctuary marking the place where the Romulus was buried, although some scholars express doubts. If the “house of Romulus” was possibly the oldest building, some of the decorations in the temple of Vesta are said to trace their origins back even further, to Aeneas. It has been claimed that some of the “pledges” displayed at the temple had been brought by Aeneas from Troy. The “cradle of Rome” is also said to have dated from before the time of Aeneas, with the Roman poet Virgil writing that the Arcadians met both Hercules and Aeneas at the site that was to become the main residential area during the Roman Republic. The second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius (r. 717–673 b.c.e), constructed the Regia during his reign. This “royal house” was his residence, which included the House of the Vestal Virgins, later becoming the residence of the pontifex maximus but was twice damaged by fi re during the Roman Republic. During the reign of the third king, Tullus Hostilius (r. 673–641 b.c.e.), there is a reference to a temple of Jupiter on the summit of Mount Alba. It was probably during his reign or that of the next king, Ancus Marcius (r. 641–616 b.c.e), that the Temple of Vesta was built, with the vestal virgins moving from the Regia to this purpose-built temple that incorporated pieces brought from Troy by Aeneas. He was also involved in fortifying the Janiculum, the bridge over the river Tiber. Tarquinius Priscus (r. 616–579 b.c.e.), the fi fth king, was the fi rst to hold the Roman Games. To this end he had cleared a patch of ground that became the venue for sporting events. Many years later it was expanded but had to move to make way for the construction of the famous Circus Maximus. The new fi elds were more formally laid out in the second century b.c.e., showing the infl uence of the Greeks, and they were subsequently enlarged by Julius Caesar. Tarquinius Priscus also drained some ground that was to become the location of the Roman Forum, which rapidly developed into the focal point in Rome for politics and business. It stretched from the Capitoline Hill to the Palatine Hill and became known as the Forum Romanum. Within it were many temples, and several basilicas were later added. The sixth king, Tullus Servius (r. 579–534 b.c.e.), was responsible for expanding the size of the city to include the Quirinal, Viminal and Esquiline Hills. This saw an enlargement of the city walls and further building work. During this period it has been estimated that the population of Rome was about 80,000. The overthrow of the last king of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus (534–510 b.c.e.), involved the battle at a bridge over the river Tiber with Horatius and two companions holding off the Etruscans, while Romans were able to destroy the bridge. In 509 b.c.e. the Roman Republic came into being, and a number of early buildings date from soon after the establishment of the Republic. The population at that time is estimated at 120,000–130,000. The most important of these was the Capitol, or Capitolium. It was the main temple to the God Jupiter, gaining its name from its location at the summit of the Mons Capitolinus. Over time the building was richly decorated and served as a central location in Rome that could be defended in time of invasion. Indeed in 390 b.c.e. when the Gauls sacked the rest of the city of Rome, Romans managed to hold out in the Capitol. The other important project from the early years of the Republic was the Temple of the Dioscuri. At the Battle of the Lake Regillus in 499 b.c.e., during which the Romans defeated the Latins, two mysterious horsemen appeared and were said to have been responsible for the Roman victory. These became associated, in the public imagination, with the legendary Pollux and Castor, known as the Dioscuri, and a temple to them was built soon afterward. It was restored during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, and three Corinthian pillars of the temple still survive. In about 497 b.c.e. the temple of Saturn was built to serve as the state treasury and records offi ce for the Roman Republic. Rome had always had problems with water, and there were a number of wells throughout the city and, later, fountains, such as the Fountain of Juturna. The Rome: buildings, engineers 399 The Romans were famous for their road-building skills; most roads were made from cobblestones. water in the Fountain of Juturna was said to have medicinal properties. It was named after Juturna, the sister of the Dioscuri. Many Romans received their water from this fountain before the construction of Aqua Appia, the fi rst aqueduct into Rome, built in 312 b.c.e. After the Roman victory at Antium in 338 b.c.e., the Comitium, a circular area with stepped-seats for people to sit and listen, was built and served as a center for political discussions during much of the Roman Republic. Bronze fi gureheads from ships captured at the battle were used to decorate some of the structure. With Rome’s growing population, a second aqueduct, Aqua Anio Vetus, was built in 272–269 b. c. e. At this time the population of Rome was said to be between 290,000 and 380,000. In 204 b.c.e., the Temple of Magna Mater was built in part in celebration for the victory of Rome over Carthage in the Second Punic War. The temple was fi nally completed in 191 b.c.e. and provided a place to worship Cybele, the “Great Mother.” Soon afterward, in 170 b.c.e., work began on the Basilica Julia, which was organized by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, the father of the Gracchi brothers. It was restored by the emperor Diocletian but was destroyed in subsequent sackings of Rome. In 144–140 b. c. e. the praetor Quintus Marcius Rex built a third aqueduct, Aqua Marcia, bringing more water into Rome. Soon afterward, in 125 b. c. e., the Aqua Tepula was built. By this time the population of Rome was estimated at 400,000 people. Although the period of the Roman revolution saw big changes in the use of buildings in Rome, there were not many new building projects within the city, although the Gracchi did attempt major civil engineering projects, including roads and the provision of freshwater into Rome. When the Comitium in central Rome was demolished, the Imperial Rostra was built on the site and was inaugurated by Mark Antony in either 45 or early 44 b.c.e., just prior to the assassination of Julius Caesar. It was later modifi ed by Augustus Caesar, possibly to remove parts of the design credited to Mark Antony. Julius Caesar felt the existing forum was too small and had the Forum Julium (also known as the Forum Caesaris) built, providing more room for the conduct of public business. However, it was in the old forum that the body of Julius Caesar himself was cremated, prior to being interred in what became the Temple of the Divine Julius. Augustus was also involved in the construction of the Temple of Apollo and the paving of the Forum in about 9 b.c.e. The population of Rome during the reign of Augustus has been estimated as being more than 4 million persons. Of these, a relatively high proportion would have been slaves. However, the fi gure shows the dramatic increase in the population during the Roman revolution and the period that immediately followed it. The Romans were well known for their roadbuilding skills, and the roads into and from Rome were heavily used, with many having roadside graves alongside them. Most roads were made from cobblestones, but there were often stones cut to allow the easy use of carts and wagons. There were fi ve more aqueducts built to bring freshwater to Rome: the Aqua Julia (built in 33 b.c.e), the Aqua Virgo (19 b.c.e), the Aqua Alsietina (2 b.c.e), the Aqua Claudia (52 c.e.), and the Aqua Anio Novus (52 c.e.). The great fi re of Rome, which broke out on July 18, 64 c.e., during the reign of the emperor Nero destroyed many buildings in Rome, and Christians became the scapegoats for the disaster. However, Nero was able to rebuild, making the new structures better able to withstand fi res. He also had a massive Domus Aurea (Golden House) built in an extravagant fashion, which caused much consternation. A massive bronze statue of Nero, 120 feet high, was placed in the atrium of the Domus Aurea, which dominated the site of what became the Temple of Venus. The next major works constructed were the Temple of Vespasian and, subsequently, the Arch of Titus, dedicated to the emperor, Vespasian and his son Titus. The major civil-engineering project during this period was undoubtedly the Colosseum, built in the 70s c.e., with work starting in 72 c.e. when Vespasian initiated the project. It occupied some of the site of Nero’s Domus Aurea and was completed in 80 c.e. during the reign of Titus and then enlarged during the reign of the next emperor, Domitian. It remains one of the marvels of civil engineering and one of the most recognizable images of ancient Rome. The Colosseum was 510 feet in diameter, and 157 feet high, with 80 arches on three levels. The arena was 280 feet by 175 feet and covered in sand to allow for naval combat reenactments. The emperor Domitian started work on yet another forum, but it was not completed and dedicated until the reign of the emperor Nerva and as a result is known as the Forum Nervae. The fi fth and last of the forums in Rome was the Forum Trajani, built by the emperor Trajan. Within it Trajan’s Column (98 feet high), fi nished in 113 c.e. and topped by a statue of a bird, later replaced by a statue of Trajan and many years later by a statue of St. Peter. On the column there are friezes showing Trajan’s victories against the Dacians. The next large temple construction was that of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina, erected in 141 c.e. by the Senate of Emperor Antoninus Pius in memory of his late wife, Faustina. Twenty years later when the em- 400 Rome: buildings, engineers peror died, his name was added to the dedication. In the eighth century it was transformed into the Church of San Lorenzo in Miranda. After a long period of steady construction work in Rome Septimus Severus became emperor in 193 c.e. In 203 c.e. he began work on a massive stone structure that became known as the Arch of Septimus Severus, dedicated to his memory after his death in 211 c.e. It was completed by Caracalla who is best remembered for the massive baths structures he built for Roman citizens. These baths cover 33 acres, with the main building being 750 feet long and 380 feet wide and could accommodate approximately 1,600 bathers at a time. In 308 c.e. the Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine was built, and work began on the Temple of Romulus in the following year. Mention should also be made of the Church of St. Croce built by Helena, the mother of the emperor Constantine the Great. It was to house many holy relics that Helena brought back from the Holy Land including the True Cross, a piece of wood that was believed to have been part of the cross used to crucify Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth. As more Romans embraced Christianity, a number of temples were converted into churches, and others were destroyed. Further Reading: Morton, H. V. The Waters of Rome. London: The Connoisseur and Michael Joseph, 1966; Shotter, David. Rome and Her Empire. London: Longman, Pearson Education, 2003; Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1977; Woodward, Christopher. Rome. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1995. Justin Corfi eld Rome: decline and fall The deposition of the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, in 476 c.e. by the Gothic chief Odovacar marks the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the subsequent transition from classic antiquity to the Middle Ages. The deposition of Romulus Augustulus was a chronological benchmark that was conventionally established by later commentators to schematize complex historical events. Contemporary chroniclers took little notice of the fate of Romulus Augustulus. In a seminal article Arnaldo Momigliano referred to it as “the noiseless fall of an empire.” Chroniclers and laypeople alike had been far more traumatized by the Roman defeat at Adrianople (near Istanbul) in 378 c.e. in the East, the worst since Cannae, when Hannibal seriously threatened to overrun Rome, or by the Sack of Rome in 410 c.e. in the West. By the late fi fth century c.e. barbarians had built their kingdoms within the imperial borders, most emperors were fi gureheads, and the imperial institutions had already crumbled. Instead of a “fall,” it would thus be more appropriate to speak of a steady decline, with episodic recoveries, beginning with the successor of Hadrian (117–138 c.e.). The next emperor, the celebrated Marcus Aurelius (163–180), had to confront the fi rst wave of invasions from the north, which were barely contained in northern Italy, while a catastrophic epidemic of plague visited the empire, and the traditional Eastern enemy, the Parthians, took advantage of the Roman weakness to launch a large-scale offensive campaign in the Middle East. The killing of his despotic and capricious son, emperor Commodus, in 193, marked the beginning of a long period of instability for the empire, which was ruled by very few capable men, who were mainly usurpers. Most of the emperors died a violent death, and the legions of Gaul time and again rebelled against Rome, while various remote provinces gained increased autonomy and sought to become independent. It was only in 284 that Diocletian, a former slave from Illyria, restored order by enacting a series of important administrative, economic, and military reforms. When he died in 305, several aspirants to the throne set off a civil war that lasted for almost two decades, until Constantine the Great, in 323, managed to defeat all opponents. He moved the capital to Byzantium (now Istanbul, in Turkey), which was rechristened Constantinople so that the empire’s center shifted from West to East. Constantine took on the functions and prerogatives of an Oriental despot, reformed the army, and authorized the Christian cult, personally attending the Council of Nicaea in 325, which established the principles and dogmas of Christian orthodoxy. He died in 337, and his son Constantine II in 353 defeated another civil war for his succession. Meanwhile, pressure on the eastern and northern frontiers was mounting, as the cohesion of the empire weakened. In 378 the Goths destroyed the entire eastern Roman army at Adrianople, and emperor Valens fell on the battlefi eld. His successor, Theodosius I, was the last great emperor to rule over the whole of the empire. Upon his death in 395 the empire was defi nitively split into the Western and the Eastern Roman Empires, governed by Theodosius’s heirs Honorius and Arcadius. While the eastern part withstood the Germanic and Hunnish invasions, the western part, which was the most coveted, rapidly collapsed. In 476 Odovacar sent the imperial insignia Rome: decline and fall 401 to Constantinople and ruled Italy on behalf of the Eastern Roman emperor. In Gaul, Spain, Britannia, and Africa, various Roman/Germanic kingdoms were founded; some, like the kingdom of the Franks, would play a central role throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. MIGRATIONS OF SLAVIC AND GERMANIC PEOPLES The fall of the Roman Empire calls for a multicausal explanation. Augustus Caesar’s major accomplishment had been the creation of a sociopolitical entity that functioned smoothly for a couple of centuries. This prolonged period of peace and relative affl uence generated a widespread sentiment of self-righteousness and invincibility. Many Romans believed that they lived in the best of all possible worlds, one that was immutable and unchallengeable (the so-called Roma aeterna). This presumption was seriously undermined toward the middle of the second century c.e., when Slavic and Germanic populations, moving from present Hungary, crossed the Roman fortifi ed frontier (the limes), reaching northwestern Italy. This dramatic event had huge psychological repercussions. It not only shattered the feeling of safety and security of the Roman population; it also infl icted a terrible wound to the Roman model of civilization, a wound that, it turned out, could not be completely healed. This moral crisis was aggravated by a pestilence that brought about a demographic collapse and the breakdown of the economy, which was heavily committed to crop production. The ensuing decrease of tax revenues forced the administration to levy new taxes to maintain the taxation yield. Unfortunately, such measures depressed the economy, while the infl ation rate reached intolerable levels. The outcome was a disastrous economic crisis, the bankruptcy of small and middle-size rural businesses, and the pauperization of thousands of farmers, who in many cases turned into the serfs of rich landowners. Central governments increased public spending, instituted primitive forms of welfare assistance, pegged prices, and fought infl ation, but the concentration of wealth and political infl uence in the hands of local landowning dynasties called potentes (5 percent of the population controlled all the wealth of the empire) caused the evaporation of trust in the public institutions—no longer seen as protective and motivating—the erosion of civic spirit, and the progressive decline of Roman towns and cities, which were the backbone of the empire. The lack of signifi cant technological innovation, especially in agriculture, sapped the strength of Roman society and forced thousands of farmers to live barely above subsistence. Simultaneously, Diocletian’s imperial reforms reduced the prospects of upward mobility, crystallized power relations, and prevented the formation of a new class of enterprising modernizers who could have imposed radical changes in Roman society. Finally, the sustained rise of infl ation triggered the transition from a monetary economy, based on coins (the denarius)— which had greatly contributed to preserving the unity of the empire —to barter and to a natural economy. The late empire was a winter of discontent and instability, generally provoked by unscrupulous military leaders, who proclaimed themselves to be the saviors of the glory of Rome, even though their plans involved insubordination, civil war, and the carnage of Romans and Germanic allies. The decline of the late empire should be credited, to a large extent, to the internecine fi ghting of the military, as civil institutions (like the Senate and the consul) lost their functions and infl uence. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY Meanwhile, a struggle ensued between Christian loyalists, those who sought a compromise with the heathen rulers, and Christian fundamentalists, those who were not prepared to sacrifi ce their autonomy and orthodoxy in exchange for social integration and a greater infl uence on the administration of public affairs. In the third century c.e., Christian loyalists gained a substantial victory. Christians remained the only powerful, effi cient, and cohesive organization of the empire and a constant challenge to the heathen leadership. The authorities soon realized that the fabric of Roman society could not be purged from Christianity without causing the fi nal collapse of Roman institutions. This is the reason why Roman emperors, starting with Constantine, reached a series of agreements with Christian loyalists, which ultimately led to the amalgamation of “Romanity” and Christianity in 391, when Christianity was proclaimed the offi cial religion of the state in return for its unstinting support of the Roman system. As a consequence of the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, the church would take over most of the secular functions of the state. By the end of the fourth century, for all its weaknesses, the empire was still immense, stretching from the Middle East to Caledonia (today’s Scotland) and from North Africa to the Black Sea. While the center of the European Union is the Atlantic Ocean, which features some of the world’s most heavily traffi cked sea routes, Roman economy revolved around the Mediterranean basin. Romans never attempted to conquer regions 402 Rome: decline and fall that lay too far from the Mediterranean Sea (Mare Nostrum) and the Black Sea, the only exception being Britain, which was rich in mineral deposits. Conversely, the large central European rivers (Rhine, Danube) that traverse the core of the European Union marked the Roman frontier, the outpost of civilization. The Romans had created a huge commercial network across the Mediterranean, planting vineyards and olive groves, building villas, harbors, and market towns. Merchant ships crossed the sea to supply Rome, a megalopolis of more than a million inhabitants. We now call that period “Lower Empire,” evoking the idea of the unstoppable decadence of Rome, plagued by corruption, moral decay, and theological disquisitions. But the two most serious plights were the disloyalty of generals and the poverty of barbarians. Troops were more faithful to their generals than to the emperors, and they often acclaimed their leaders as the only emperors worthy of their recognition. Such usurpations generally led to civil wars and widespread political instability. Barbarians looted frontier provinces and requested the payment of tributes in exchange for peace. The empire had survived thanks to capable and tyrannical emperors-generals like Aurelianus, Diocletian, and Constantine. They had introduced conscription, doubled taxation, strengthened the bureaucracy and the secret police, and to stifl e social protest promulgated extremely severe laws against desertion, tax evasion, and political dissent (even an unfavorable premonition about the emperor’s life could cost a fortune-teller his life). They incarnated the notion of the “Oriental despot” and militarized Roman society, but their recipe, a combination of pragmatism, far-sightedness, and callousness, momentarily saved the unity of the empire and helped the economy to recover. The cost they paid was enormous: the alienation of the population from the political establishment. The Roman Empire, a multicultural and multiethnic society, was undergoing a thorough transformation from a pagan to an essentially Christian community. Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which granted religious freedom to all his subjects and empowered the Christian Church. Like his successors, he hoped that Christianity, with its vitality and fervor, would generate a unity of purpose that Roman secular institutions could no longer guarantee. THE BARBARIAN HORDES Various Germanic tribes and populations had been converted and were gradually changing their customs and mores. They were “Romanizing” themselves. Paradoxically, the beginning of the end for the Roman Empire was in part the result of the peaceful Gothic resettlement in the Balkans. At the time Flavius Valentinianus, a brilliant general, had become emperor (364), and one month after his accession to power he had appointed his brother Flavius Valens as the eastern emperor, keeping the western portion for himself. Valens was not a military man, but he did his best to gain the favor of his subjects by fi ghting corruption, reducing taxation, and building a new aqueduct. However, people never took a liking to him, in part because he was a religious fundamentalist when conciliatory tones would have been far more advisable. Valens had to confront a usurper, Procopius, who had seized control of Constantinople while Valens’s army was marching toward the eastern front. Traditionally accustomed to attach far more importance to bloodlines than to state legislation, the Goths backed Procopius because he was a relative of Constantine, an emperor with whom they had signed important agreements. However, when the Gothic reinforcements arrived, the insurrection was nipped in the bud, and all were enslaved. Valens then ordered savage retaliatory attacks that brought the Goths to their knees in 369 but did not exterminate them. Roman emperors were expected to display benevolence and generosity toward a defeated enemy. A signifi cant testimony of this tradition is provided by the orations dedicated to Valens by two heathen rhetoricians during the campaigns against the Goths that would result in the military and political disaster of Adrianople, in 378. The contrast between the merciless conduct of warfare and the political pragmatism of Roman bureaucrats and legislators, who pressed for economic sanctions and compulsory recruitment of young Goths to be used as cannon fodder in the Middle East, and the humanitarian and progressive slogans of the elite, intent on incorporating their northern neighbors into Roman society, was truly noteworthy. Themistius, a senator and a philosopher, stated that just as the Romans strove to protect endangered species of animals in Africa and Asia, so the emperor should be praised for not annihilating the Goths in 369, who are human beings, like the Romans. This oration, like several others, as for instance those delivered by Libanius, encapsulates the universalistic and civilizing thrust of late Roman imperialism. Roman generals probably envisioned genocidal schemes, but they were unpalatable for a political leadership that offered security and literacy in return for loyalty, recruits, and tax money. Rome was to set an example for all other peoples. Rome: decline and fall 403 When the Huns, a fi erce nomadic population whose existence had never been recorded in Roman history, pushed the frightened Goths southward, the gap existing between humanitarian rhetoric and Realpolitik became obvious. Thousands of starving Gothic refugees, fl eeing from a cruel enemy, reached the riverbanks of the Danube and pleaded for acceptance within the Roman borders. The emperor’s counselors saw a huge opportunity: The Goths would be allotted less fertile lands, and many of them would join the army and exempt an equal number of Roman citizens from military service. They were transported across the river and immigration offi cers attempted to record their names in order to plan their resettlement. But the sheer number of refugees and the confusion were so huge that they realized the futility of such an operation. They opted to take advantage of the situation by accepting bribes and selecting slaves for their own villas. Meanwhile, other tribes had been informed that the border was open and the mass of refugees kept growing until the alarmed Roman functionaries decided that the maximum quota had been reached and left thousands of furious Goths on the other side of the Danube. Worse still, refugee camps were fl ooded with people who did not receive enough supplies because the commanding offi cers sold the provisions that had been destined to the refugees on the black market. When they were fi nally escorted to relocation areas by the frontier garrisons, thousands of Goths who had been overlooked crossed the river clandestinely. THE BATTLE OF ADRIANOPLE Panic ensued amid the Roman population, and the proud and desperate Gothic immigrants could no longer tolerate their debasement and destitution. A seemingly unstoppable process led to war and to the Battle of Adrianople (378), where up to 40,000 Romans were killed, together with emperor Valens, who chose not to wait for reinforcements sent by the western emperor because he desperately needed a decisive victory to shore up his position. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and one of the fathers of the Catholic Church, called this battle “the end of all humanity, the end of the world,” while the most famous contemporary Roman chronicler, Ammianus Marcellinus, commented as follows: “Never, except in the battle of Cannae, had there been so destructive a slaughter recorded in our annals.” After Adrianople, Rome lost its superpower status and was no longer able to keep the barbarians in check by purely military means. More and more Goths and Huns were absorbed by the Roman legions or engaged as mercenaries, and the Roman population felt increasingly insecure and threatened by their presence. Commentators lamented that Emperor Theodosius I had allowed too many barbarians, parvenus with their hands still covered with Roman blood, to reach the highest ranks of the army. How could Romans tolerate the arrogance of those barbarians who dressed like Romans and spoke Latin only when they met Romans, and spent the rest of the time speaking their own language and deriding Roman customs? It is undeniable that someone like Alaric—a nobleman who served for various years as a commander of Gothic mercenaries in the Roman army and, after Theodosius’s death, was elected king of the Visigoths, only to sack Rome in 410—confi rmed this impression. But there were also loyal and brilliant generals like Flavius Stilicho, the son of a Vandal, who repeatedly defeated Alaric before 410 and could have deferred Rome’s ultimate humiliation if the antibarbarian party in Rome had not resolved to have him executed for treason, together with the families of those tribesmen serving in the Roman army who subsequently could only defect to Alaric. Some of the most successful and loyal champions of Romanity were barbarian generals, who thought, spoke, and acted like Romans, or mixed-blood generals like Stilicho and Aetius, “the last Roman,” who was the son of a Schythian and became the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire. Emperor Valentinian III assassinated him in 454. This prompted Sidonius Apollinaris (430–489) to declare: “I am ignorant, sir, of your motives or provocations; I only know that you have acted like a man who has cut off his right hand with his left.” Aetius’s well-deserved fame arose from his untiring effort to keep the empire together, with the help of various barbarian tribes and, above all else, from the strategic victory he secured for the Roman-Gothic- Frankish- Christian alliance against Attila’s Huns and their allies at the Catalaunian Fields (451) near Chalons- en- Champagne, the last major victory of the western empire. This was the last, short-lived attempt to reunify the Roman Empire. After Justinian’s death the eastern Byzantine Empire, which for a century continued to claim sovereignty over the West, although to no avail, became increasingly Hellenized and greatly infl uenced the development of eastern European cultures, while barbarian and western Romans lay the foundations of western European civilization. See also late barbarians; Roman historians; Rome: government. Further reading: Banaji, Jairus. Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour, and Aristocratic Dominance. Oxford: 404 Rome: decline and fall Oxford University Press, 2001; Clarck, Gilian. Christianity and Roman Society. cambridge: Cambridge University Press, n.d.; Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Macmillan, 2005; Hingley, Richard. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire. New York: Routledge, 2005; Kagan, Donald. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Why Did It Collapse? Boston: Heath, 1962; Ward-Perkins, Bryan. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Stefano Fait Rome: founding Numerous stories have been drafted of the origins of Rome, mostly crossed with mythological and literary elements. Historical sources include epigraphic evidence, narrations from Greek or Roman historians, and various archaeological fi ndings. According to legend, Aeneas disembarked in Italic shores, his son Ascanius founded Alba Longa, and their successors ruled the city for centuries (a different version omits the succession of Alban kings and considers Romulus to be Aeneas’s grandson). Not willing to share his power, it is said that one of Aeneas’s descendants, Amulius, dethroned and expelled his brother Numitor. He killed his lineage as well, with the exception of his daughter Rhea Silvia, who was introduced into the cult of the goddess Vesta to ensure her eternal virginity. Haunted by her beauty, the god Mars possessed her while she was asleep, and the vestal priestess gave birth to twins, Romulus and Remus. Instead of killing them, an enraged king Amulius decided to put both children in a cradle on the banks of the Tiber River for them to die. The god Tiberinus protected the cradle as it was carried downstream, and Romulus and Remus were safely placed on the river’s shore. A she-wolf nursed them with her milk. After discovering their true origin, the brothers went back to Alba Longa to take revenge on Amulius and to reinstall their grandfather Numitor in power. They did not stay there for a long time; accompanied by a group of men, they walked to found a new city in the hills of the Tiber. It was necessary to decide who would be considered the founder and where the city would be placed, so they agreed that he who would see a greater number of birds would be the winner of the dispute: Remus saw six vultures on the Aventine, and Romulus spotted 12 over the Palatine. The ritual ceremony was then organized: Two white oxen began digging a ditch, which symbolized the walls. Anyone who crossed the limits of the city had to be put to death, so when Remus leaped across the trench, implying that the new city would be easily breached, Romulus had to kill him in sacrifi ce, in an event dated in 753 b.c.e. If archaeological evidence is considered, some aspects of the legend may be true. From a scientifi c point of view, it is possible to affi rm that 2,000 years before Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth several tribes arrived in Italy from central Europe. They headed southward and founded the city of Villanova, perhaps near Bologna. The city gave name to the civilization that is believed nowadays to be in the origin of Umbrians, Sabines, and Latins. They founded various villages in the regions extending from the Tiber to Naples, and Alba Longa seems to have been the biggest one. The explorers who several years later founded the city of Rome, some miles to the south, apparently came from that primitive urban center. Some strategic advantages of the chosen spot included the closeness to the sea—but at the same time a relative distance that prevented pirate attacks—an easily navigable river, and hills that could serve as natural protection. It was precisely on one of those hills, the Palatine, that the fi rst inhabitants of the village settled, according to the evidence discovered. See also Roman pantheon and myth; Roman Empire. Further reading: Alföldy, G. Römische Sozialgeschichte. Wiesbaden, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, 1984; Aymard, A. Rome et son Empire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954; Cornell, T. J. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC). New York: Routledge, 1995; Piganiol, A. Histoire de Rome. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1949. Silvana A. Gaeta Rome: government As Rome developed into a veritable power on the Italian peninsula and later throughout Europe, so too did the famous Roman Republic, based around the Roman Senate. But Rome’s fi rst governmental system was monarchial. The Roman king had absolute power, referred to by ancient Romans as imperium. He served as the creator and enforcer of laws, the leader of the military, the head of the judiciary, and as the chief priest among his people. Even in the beginning, however, the Roman monarch was limited by a constitution. The Roman Rome: government 405 monarchy was patriarchal, like the Roman society. The king had supreme power over his “family” but was also responsible for their welfare. A weak senate and assembly advised the king and had the power to approve the appointment of a king. In many ways the Senate, made up of wealthy and respected Roman leaders and elders, known as patricians, acted in a fashion similar to the U.S. Supreme Court; they judged the constitutionality and correctness of the king’s actions but rarely acted against his wishes. The Assembly, on the other hand, was made up of male citizens of Rome whose parents were native Romans. It was the institution that represented the majority of the population, known as plebeians, and granted absolute authority to the king. In the sixth century b.c.e. the Roman monarchs were Etruscans from a powerful empire based in northern Italy who briefl y controlled Rome. When an Etruscan prince from the ruling family, known as the Tarquins, raped the wife of a prominent patrician, Rome rebelled and expelled the Etruscans. The reign of the Roman Republic began following the expulsion. Two consuls inherited monarchial power, patricians elected to serve as head of state for one year. Although the consuls held imperium, they were severely limited by annual reelection, by the ability to veto the actions of the other consul, and by an empowered Roman Senate. These constraints caused conservative governance, which proved harmful during extended military confl icts, leading to the creation of proconsuls who were consuls permitted by the Senate to extend their term of offi ce. Below the consuls were fi nancial offi cers known as quaestors, military offi cers known as praetors, and accounting offi cers, known as censors. Even though imperium was separated by different branches of Roman government, it was concentrated in the hands of patricians. In response to this reality, the plebeians struggled to gain political power and equality. In 450 b.c.e., the Law of Twelve Tables resulted from the class struggle, codifying Roman law. By 445 b.c.e. plebeians gained the right to marry a patrician and in 367 b.c.e. gained the right to run for the consulship and other positions, leading to the Licinian- Sextian Laws, which required one consul to be plebeian. Julius Caesar’s assumption of power led to the establishment of the Roman emperorship, known as the princeps, in 44 b.c.e. For the following half-millennium, Roman emperors controlled a vast European and Mediterranean empire, which slowly eroded. In an attempt to prevent the collapse, Emperor Diocletian split the empire in two and based it in Rome and Constantinople in 285 b.c.e., ultimately leading to a full split in 395 b.c.e. and Rome’s fall in 476 b.c.e. See also polis; Roman Empire; Rome: decline and fall. Further reading: Cary, M., and H. H. Scullard. A History of Rome: Down to the Reign of Constantine. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975; Hooker, Richard. “Rome.” Washington State University. Available online. URL: http://www.wsu.edu (September 2005). Arthur Holst Rosetta Stone The Rosetta Stone was discovered by French soldiers during the Napoleonic conquest and occupation of Egypt (1798–1801). With the same inscription in hieroglyphics, demotic (a later form of ancient Egyptian), and Greek, the text is a 196 b.c.e. commemoration to Ptolemy V Epiphanes. The French savants (intellectuals) that Napoleon had brought with him to study all aspects of Egypt and its society, recognized the stone’s importance as possibly providing vital keys to decoding and translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, but they were forced to give it, along with a large number of other ancient Egyptian artifacts, to the British after the French were militarily defeated by British forces. The British ultimately placed the Rosetta Stone in the British Museum in London, where it is still displayed along with a vast number of other ancient Egyptian artifacts. The French scholar Jean-François Champollion used the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone to decipher names and other hieroglyphic pictographs and letters. Beating out a number of rivals to be the fi rst to decipher hieroglyphic texts, Champollion’s work led to subsequent translations of hieroglyphic texts and to a fuller understanding of ancient Egyptian history and society and was a major contribution in the fi eld of Egyptology. See also Egypt, culture and religion; Ptolemies. Further reading: Adkins, Leslie, and Roy Adkins. The Keys of Egypt: The Race to Read the Hieroglyphs. London: HarperCollins, 2000. Ray, John. The Rosetta Stone and the Rebirth of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Janice J. Terry

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Rajput confederacies Rajputs were members of the approximately 12 million landowners of northern India who claimed to be descended from the Kshatriya warrior caste. The name derives from the Sanskrit term Raja-putra, or “son of the king.” Rajputs were particularly strong in Rajputana. However any ruler who could attain temporal status in central or northern India might be liable to claim Rajput status, since there were no defi ning tests of ethnicity and status. Rajput confederacies were any of a variety of more or less loosely joined alliances aimed at offensive or defensive military actions under the command of Rajput leaders. Rajput leaders became more prominent during periods of political upheaval, when central states were unable to maintain control over geographically remote areas and local warlords could enforce autonomy for some period. The ruggedness of the terrain was a considerable advantage in warfare and enabled, for example, the Gurjara-Pratiharas Confederacy to maintain independence from the Arab conquest of Sind. Bhoja I (836–885) extended Rajput territory until it reached the Himalayas, Sind, and the Ganges Valley. This empire dissolved within two centuries, at which time princes rose in what is now Rajasthan to seize their chance for power. A number of independent states fl ourished across northern India, including the Guhilas, whose territory was centered on Mewar; the Cauhans at Ajmer; and the Bhattis and Rachors. This period of independence was brought to an effective end by the victory of Muhammad of Ghur over Prthviraj III at the second Battle of Tarain in 1192, after which northern India was gradually brought into the Muslim sphere of infl uence. The fi ercely independent Rajputs were able to use their terrain to resist absolute control, although their infl uence was greatly reduced as they became surrounded. This period gave rise to the romantic conception of the noble and valiant Rajput warrior defending home and heartland against the foreign Muslim invaders. The Mughal prince Babur conquered the Rajputs in the 15th century; consequently Rajput power waned. The Rajput romances feature such elements as wives jumping into the burning funeral pyres of their husbands and desperate attempts to obtain access to beautiful princesses cloistered in remote mountainous fortresses. These romances reveal something of the nature of life for women and the less privileged in this northern Indian society. Artistic expression in various forms reached a high point during the Rajput confederacies. See also Delhi Sultanate. Further reading: Ahluwalia, M. S. Muslim Expansion in Rajasthan: The Relations of Delhi Sultanate with Rajasthan, 1206–1526. Delhi: Yugantar, 1978; Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to a.d. 1300. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. John Walsh Reconquest of Spain In the decades after the prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 c.e., Islam spread rapidly across North Africa, and within a century was knocking on the doors of Europe. In 711 an invading Muslim army crossed the Straits of Gibraltar into Iberia, and by 718 had conquered most of the peninsula. For the next eight centuries, a complex struggle developed between Iberia’s Islamic caliphate and the surviving Christian kingdoms: tiny Navarre in the Pyrenees, Portugal on the Atlantic seaboard, Castile in the broad central plateau, and Aragon in the northeast. In the West and among Christians, this 774-year-long process of struggle and accommodation came to be known simply as the Reconquista, or Reconquest (718–1492)—a term that obscures as much as it reveals about this fascinating period. The Spanish Christian narrative tends to portray the Reconquest as a period of more or less constant warfare, resulting in a gradual rollback over the course of nearly eight centuries. The realities were far more complex. Christians and Jews living under Islamic (or Moorish) rule were generally allowed to retain their religion, language, and customs, while a great deal of cultural borrowing and intermingling, as well as violence and confl ict, marked the centuries of Muslim- Christian-Jewish coexistence. Around the year 1100 the four Christian kingdoms intensifi ed their efforts to defeat the Moorish polity and expel its inhabitants from Iberia. Portugal gained its independence in 1139, while by the mid-1100s Castile and Aragon had regained many of the lands lost in the initial Islamic invasions. In the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in Andalusia in the year 1212, a combined Castilian- Aragonese army infl icted a decisive defeat of the Muslim forces. By the late 1200s the Moorish domains had been substantially reduced, limited mainly to Granada in the far south, which remained a tribute-paying caliphate from 1275 until its fi nal defeat in 1492. On October 19, 1469, the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon marked the dynastic union of the two largest and most powerful Christian kingdoms, setting the stage for the consolidation and centralization of state power; the end of the civil wars that wracked Iberia’s Christian kingdoms in the late 15th century; the creation of the Spanish Inquisition (1478) to forge religious uniformity across the realm; the expulsion of the Jews; and the fi nal Moorish defeat. Castile was by far the larger and more populous of the two kingdoms, with three times more territory than Aragon (which also included Catalonia and Valencia in the east), and around 6 million of the two kingdoms’ combined 7 million inhabitants. It was thus poised to play the leading role in the conquest and colonization of the Americas after 1492. The year 1492 also saw the forced expulsion of some 150,000 Jews from Castile and Aragon for their refusal to convert to Christianity, and the fi nal defeat of Granada, the last remaining Moorish territory in Iberia, thus marking the end of nearly eight centuries of Reconquest. Overall these eight centuries produced among Iberia’s Christians a highly militarized, zealous, and intolerant form of Christianity; a dense intermingling of church and state; a highly hierarchical and rigid class structure; an ethos of territorial expansionism; and a series of practical templates for the conquest and subjugation of foreign lands and peoples. All of these broad themes would prove crucial in Spain’s conquest and colonization of the Americas in the years after 1492. See also Muslim spain. Further reading: Fernández-Armesto, Felipe. Ferdinand and Isabella. New York: Dorset Press, 1991; O’Callaghan, Joseph F. A History of Medieval Spain. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975. Michael J. Schroeder Richard I (1157–1199) king of England Richard I (r. 1189–1199) was the third son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Known as “the Lionhearted” because of his numerous military exploits, Richard became king of England and Normandy when Henry II died in 1183. Within a year he was leading forces on the Third Crusade. His goal was to return Jerusalem to Christian rule. Richard’s quest almost bankrupted the English treasury and led to increased taxes to pay for the expedition. Arriving in Sicily Richard attacked Messini and after capturing the city, looted and burned it to the ground. He sailed to Rhodes, part of the Byzantine Empire, and traveled to the island of Cyprus. Richard’s larger and betterequipped army soon defeated the rulers of Cyprus. The crusaders then looted the island and massacred their opponents. While in Cyprus, Richard married his fi ancée, Berengaria of Navarre. By his own choice Richard was frequently estranged from Berengaria and the marriage produced no children. Richard left no legitimate heir to the throne. 342 Reconquest of Spain In the summer of 1191 Richard arrived at Acre to assist French and Austrian crusaders in their two-year siege of the city. He soon quarreled with the French King Philip II Augustus and after the city fell Philip returned to France. Following their earlier pattern of conquest, Richard’s forces looted the city and killed many prisoners. However Richard was badly isolated and the strategy of “scorched earth” of Saladin (Salah ad din, Yusuf) left his army short of supplies. Richard and Saladin, both keen military strategists, maneuvered over territories around Jerusalem and developed mutual respect for the other’s abilities. Recognizing that he would be unable to hold Jerusalem militarily, Richard agreed to a negotiated settlement in 1192 whereby the crusaders kept Acre and the Muslims kept Jerusalem. Christian pilgrims were allowed access to the holy sites in the city. Eager to return to England, where rivals threatened his throne, Richard set sail for Europe but was shipwrecked off the coast of Venice. He was captured and held hostage by Leopold of Austria and was only released in 1194 after the payment of an enormous ransom. He died from an arrow wound to the shoulder while fi ghting in Normandy in 1199. See also Crusades. Further reading: Gillingham, John. Richard I. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002; Reston, James, Jr.. Warriors of God: Richard the Lionhearted and Saladin. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Janice J. Terry Roland, Song of The anonymous Song of Roland is the most famous Old French epic, or chanson de geste. It was composed c. 1090 but was not committed to writing until nearly 100 years later. The oldest written copy, discovered by Francisque Michel in 1835, survives in Oxford Bodleian MS Digby 23. As all chansons de geste, the Song of Roland was performed aloud in front of an audience by a minstrel (or jongleur). It is unlikely the whole poem was recited in one sitting: It consists in some 4,000 decasyllabic lines, assembled into 291 laisses or verses. The Song of Roland is loosely based on historical events narrated by Einhard in his ninth century Vita Karoli. Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperor, invaded Spain in 778 to free the country from the impending Muslim threat. A stained-glass window in Chartres cathedral suggests the emperor had a vision of St. James, whose body is buried at Compostela in western Spain. James asked Charlemagne to liberate his home from the pagans. Returning from battle, the Frankish army marched through the Pyrenees. Without warning, the Basques attacked the rear guard at Roncevaux and brutally killed everyone. The author of the Song of Roland substitutes the Saracens for the Basques, making the epic about the religious war between the Christians and the infi dels. The Song of Roland is divided into two distinct parts. The fi rst recounts the death of Roland and his men. The second describes the revenge of Charlemagne. When the poem begins, the emperor has been fi ghting in Spain for seven years. The Frankish army has conquered the whole country with the exception of one city: Saragossa, ruled by King Marsile and Queen Bramimonde. Following the advice of the Saracen lord Blancadrin, Marsile sends a message to Charlemagne announcing his intent to become the emperor’s vassal and to convert to Christianity. Charlemagne accepts the offer and must choose an envoy to send to Marsile’s court. Roland— Charlemagne’s best knight—nominates his stepfather, Ganelon. Erroneously believing Roland has selected him for this dangerous mission out of spite, Ganelon conspires against Charlemagne with the pagans. He tells Marsile that Charlemagne will not continue fi ghting if the Saracens kill Roland, who will probably lead the rear guard as the Franks march over the Pyrenees. He and his men will be the most vulnerable in the narrow and treacherous pass at Roncevaux. Ganelon returns to Charlemagne and falsely attests to Marsile’s good intentions. As predicted Roland volunteers to lead the rear guard, and Charlemagne’s strongest vassals, the “twelve peers,” go with him, including Olivier (Roland’s best friend) and the archbishop Turpin. At Roncevaux, they are attacked by the Saracens, who vastly outnumber them. Olivier (characterized as wise) advises Roland to sound his horn and call Charlemagne back to fi ght. But Roland (characterized as proud, brave, and dutiful) refuses; to do so would demonstrate weakness and might place the life of the emperor in jeopardy. The rear guard fi ghts bravely and kills a great number of the enemy. Eventually Olivier, Turpin, and all of the Frankish soldiers lie dead. Roland blows his horn (or oliphant) until his temples burst, signaling to Charlemagne his defeat. Before dying he attempts to break his sword, Durendal, on the surrounding black rock so that it does not fall into the hands of the pagans (a gap in the rock along the border between France and Spain is known as the Brèche de Roland). Roland dies a hero’s death: He lies down facing the enemy’s land and angels and saints escort his soul into heaven. Roland, Song of 343 Charlemagne arrives with the rest of the Frankish army. Overwhelmed with grief, he resolves to avenge the death of his men. God miraculously ensures the sun remains high in the sky so that the enemy cannot fl ee under the cover of night. The Franks kill the remaining Saracens by forcing them into the river Ebro; thousands drown. King Marsile escapes to discover that Baligant, the emir of Babylon, has arrived to help the Saracens in the war. Baligant rides with his men to Roncevaux, where the Franks are burying the dead. A great battle ensues. When Charlemagne slays Baligant, the remaining Saracens fl ee; the Franks march on Saragossa and fi nally take the city. Angry with the Saracen god for abandoning her people, Queen Bramimonde accompanies Charlemagne back to France. By the end of the poem she converts to Christianity of her own free will. When the Frankish army arrives in Aix (Charlemagne’s capital), the emperor informs Roland’s fi ancée, Aude, of the deaths of Olivier and Roland. Charlemagne offers to her his son as a substitute. Out of grief for Roland, Aude swoons and falls dead and is buried in great honor. Meanwhile Ganelon awaits trial for treason. His kinsman, Pinabel, defends his honor during a duel with Roland’s friend, Thierry. Thierry, who is by far the weaker knight, overcomes his formidable adversary. The Franks interpret this as a sign that God has revealed the guilt of Ganelon. They sentence Ganelon to death by dismemberment. For good measure, they also condemn 30 of his relatives to be hanged. The war is fi nally over and the Franks prepare to rest. But that night as he sleeps, Charlemagne has a vision of the angel Gabriel, revealing that the Franks must depart on a new crusade. Weary from battle Charlemagne nonetheless obediently vows to do God’s will. The Song of Roland was composed around the same time as the Council of Clermont (1095), at which Pope Urban II exhorted all Christians to fi ght in the Crusades in order to recapture the Holy Land. The poem became a testimony to the virtuous courage of Western Christendom in the fi ght against the pagans. It is also an intensely nationalistic work. In the De gestis Anglorum (1125), William of Malmesbury writes that Roland’s tale is sung before the Battle of Hastings to give strength to the French soldiers who are about to fi ght. See also Holy Roman Empire; Muslim Spain. Further reading: Burgess, Glynn S., trans. The Song of Roland. New York: Penguin, 1990; Taylor, Andrew. “Was There a Song of Roland?” Speculum (v.76, 2001); Uitti, Karl D. “The Song of Roland.” In Story, Myth and Celebration in Old French Narrative Poetry, 1050–1200. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973; Uitti, Karl D. “Alexis, Roland and French Poésie Nationale.” Comparative Literature Studies (v.32/2, 1995); Vance, Eugene. “Roland and the Poetics of Memory.” In Josué V. Harari, ed. Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell U. Press, 1979. K. Sarah-Jane Murray Rome, medieval Medieval Rome lacked the structured government that was the norm in other Italian cities. The presence of the pope and the attending church bureaucracy meant a sometimes-uneasy relationship between the church and the state. What organized government that existed was centered on the senate. The number of senators fl uctuated from as few as one to as many as 56. The length of a senatorial term was equally fl exible. An 1188 treaty signed by Pope Clement III between the city of Rome and the papacy provided offi cial papal recognition of the senate in exchange for senatorial allegiance to the pope. The pope also promised some fi nancial support to the senate and aid in the maintenance of the city’s defensive walls. The papal signor appointed by the pope, who usually represented the interests of one or more Roman families, ruled Rome. Rome was divided into a series of neighborhoods that were associated with a particular craft. These neighborhoods were also associated with noble families who dominated the area with their family-controlled towers. The towers were defensive structures where families would retreat during times of confl ict. The 13th century in Rome was a period especially noted for the tower wars between prominent noble families as they fought for control of the city. Often these wars were an outcome of the rivalry between the Guelf, or papal party, and those who supported the Ghibelline, or Imperial party. Two of the most prominent families of this era were the Orsini (Guelf) and Colonna (Ghibelline) families. Orsini family legend dates their arrival in Rome to 425. They claimed to be descended from a lost boy who was nursed by a bear; orso is the Italian word for “bear,” the symbol of the Orsini family. The Orsini’s claimed Pope Stephen II, Pope Paul I, St. Benedict, St. Scholastica, and the brothers S.S. John and Paul as part of their family lineage. In contrast the Colonna family did not subscribe to as ancient or colorful family legend regarding their origins. Records indicate the fi rst individual to use the name of Colonna was Pietro de Colonna (1064– 344 Rome, medieval c. 1118), yet the origin of the name remains a mystery. Family lore draws some connection to the Italian word for column with the story that early in the 13th century, Cardinal Giovanni Colonna returned from the east with the very column used during the scourging of Christ and placed the column in the Santa Prassede. Orsini dominance of Rome lasted from the middle of the 12th century until late in the 13th century. Family dominance of Rome, whether by the Orsini or Colonna, was typically won through membership in the college of cardinals or the papacy, which led to the granting of prosperous fi efs to other family members. The rise of the Colonna family to predominance and the beginning of a back-and-forth battle between the two families can be dated to the election of Nicholas IV (1288–92), a Colonna supporter, to the papacy. The rise and fall of family fortunes were largely tied to control of the papacy and papal curia. The battle between the Orsini and Colonna families took a particularly vicious turn when the Colonna family supported the attack on Boniface VIII in September 1303 at Anagni, while the Orsini family continued their pro-Guelf tendencies and supported him. Boniface responded by destroying Colonna holdings in and around Rome. Fortunes were often in the balance even when the occupant of the papal throne was from neither family. The Orsini would attempt to enlist the support of the pope against their Colonna rivals, such as being granted the use of papal troops against the Colonna by Sixtus IV. The result of this aggressive pursuit of the papacy was 22 cardinals and three popes for the Orsini family between 1144 and 1562 versus 11 cardinals and one pope for the Colonna family. In the end both families were named as princes entitled to attend to the papal throne. Yet the rivalry among noble families was not so intense that rivals removed one key tool for advancement from consideration—marriage. Saint Margherita Colonna (d. 1280) was the product of a Colonna-Orsini marriage. Lorenzo de’ Medici (Florence) and his son Piero both took Orsini wives. Family ties and rivalries dominated medieval Rome, her government, and her daily life. See also Italian Renaissance; Papal States. Further reading: Brentano, Robert. Rome Before Avignon. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990; Cantor, Norman F. The Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: Harper Collins, 1994; Carson, T. and J. Cerrito. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Detroit, MI: Thomson/Gale, 2003. Abbe Allen DeBolt Rome, papacy in Renaissance The Renaissance popes comprise the series of Roman bishops between 1447 and 1484, best exemplifi ed by Nicholas V (r. 1447–55), Pius II (r. 1459–64), and Sixtus IV (r. 1471–84), who ruled the Western Church according to the spirit of Renaissance literary culture. They have often faced criticism by biographers, both contemporaneous and modern, for subordinating their ecclesiastical responsibilities to personal ambition. NICHOLAS V Nicholas, born Thomas Parentucelli in 1397, was a humanist who rose through the ecclesiastical ranks until he became pope. A man of tremendous intellectual endowments, tact, and courtesies of manner, Thomas was educated at Bologna, where he became archbishop in 1444, and on his return from Germany as papal legate, he was appointed cardinal in 1446. Four months later he was elected unanimously to the papal throne, and his interest in the classical world led him to repair the buildings, bridges, aqueducts, and great churches of Rome. Nicholas proclaimed 1450 a Jubilee Year to rebind the European nations closely to Rome and to reignite the fi res of devotion that languished during the Babylonian Captivity (1309–77) and Great Western Schism (1378–1415). Forty thousand pilgrims traveled to Rome, where relics were displayed throughout the city, featuring the supposed heads of Peter and Paul every Saturday and the handkerchief of St. Veronica—which allegedly bore the outline of Christ’s face—each Sunday. Nicholas was both diplomatic and successful in his administration of the properties of the Holy See. He expanded the borders of the Papal States farther than their perimeter before the Babylonian Captivity by regaining Bolsena and the castle of Spoleto and procuring the submission of Bologna, to which he dispatched Bessarion as papal legate. To underscore the supremacy of his spiritual power to even the highest temporal authority, Nicholas crowned the German Frederick III as Holy Roman Emperor in 1452, the last emperor to be so installed in the history of the empire. When Stephen Porcaro attempted to seize the papal throne in 1453, Nicholas quickly suppressed the conspiracy. He proved judicious in his selection of cardinals, including the prominent dialectical theologian Nicholas of Cusa. Despite his successes in the west Nicholas suffered the most notable failure of his reign when he unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the fall of Constantinople into the hands of the Ottoman Turks, which transpired on Rome, papacy in Renaissance 345 May 29, 1453. His impotence was due in large part to his insisting that the Eastern Orthodox Church fi rst come to terms with the Roman Church, from which it had been separated for four centuries, before he would furnish military support. The Greek people violently resisted union with Rome, even to the point that Lucas Notaras, the most powerful man in the Byzantine Empire, announced his preference for Islam over Catholicism. More than a year elapsed before the Greeks, faced with too imminent danger to reject the papal condition, acquiesced by ratifying the Ferrara Articles of Union between the Greek and Latin confessions. Although Nicholas responded in April 1453 by sending ships from Naples, Venice, and Genoa along with a guard of 200 troops, by this time it was too late to stop the Turkish conquest. Rightly perceiving that this catastrophe would be regarded by future generations as a blot upon his pontifi cate, Nicholas summoned the Christian nations to a crusade for the recovery of Constantinople, identifi ed the Ottoman leader Mohammed II as the dragon depicted in the book of Revelation, and offered absolution to anyone who would spend six months in the enterprise or maintain a representative for that length of time. However Europe repudiated the papal order at the 1454 Councils of Regensburg and Frankfurt, as the time of crusading enthusiasm had passed and the Turks were universally feared. While Nicholas died a year later, his fame abides as the erudite and genial patron of the arts and letters. PIUS II Pius II ranks as one of the most conspicuous fi gures of the 15th century by virtue of his diplomatic shrewdness and his constant yet successful seeking of personal interests. Born Aeneas Sylvius de’ Piccolomini in 1405 as one of 18 children, he enrolled in the University of Siena at the age of 18, when he was captivated by the spellbinding preacher Bernardino and proceeded to study Greek in Florence. After completing his studies Aeneas successively served as secretary to Cardinal Capricana, the bishop of Navaro, and Cardinal Albergati, which enabled him to embark on a tour of the major cities of the Continent, England, and Scotland. Aeneas then settled in Basel, where he became the leading fi gure in the city council and was repeatedly dispatched as ambassador to Frankfurt, Trent, and Rome. His political ambition led him to ingratiate himself to Emperor Frederick III, and his creative brilliance, displayed in his Latin epigrams and verses, soon won him the appointment of poet laureate. Upon proving his usefulness to the pope he was appointed papal secretary in 1447 by Nicholas V, who awarded him the bishoprics of Trieste and Siena and promoted him to the college of cardinals. Rising by tact and an accurate knowledge of European affairs, Aeneas was elected as pope at the age of 53. Contemporary biographers described him as a thorough man of the world capable of grasping any situation at a glance. Moreover Pius lived in moral profl igacy, engaged in many love affairs, and fathered at least two illegitimate children, thus bringing disgrace upon the papacy and fanning the fl ames of anticlericalism among the European populace. Pius also wrote tales of erotic adventures, and his History of Frederick III contains graphic details that even many modern authors would deem inappropriate. Pius’s most enduring theological contribution to the church lay in his denunciation of conciliarism, or the position that fi nal ecclesiastical authority resides in general councils, in favor of papal supremacy over councils. In his famous 1460 bull Execrabilis, Pius declared it an unthinkable abuse to make appeal for a council to overturn a decision of the pope. To safeguard the church from any such future attempts, Pius anathematized anyone who would make such an appeal, which condemnation could not be absolved except by the pope himself and in the article of death. He proclaimed the divine origin of the monarchical form of church government (Latin monarchicum regimen), in which the militant church has in the Vicar of Christ one who is moderator and arbiter of all. For Pius the pope receives his authority directly from Christ without mediation and constitutes the prince (Latin praesul) of all the bishops, the heir of the apostles, and stems from the priestly line of Abel and Melchizedek. Concerning the recent Council of Constance (1414–18), which ended the Great Western Schism, Pius expressed his regard for its decrees only insofar as they were approved by his predecessors, contending that the decisions of general councils are subject to the sanction of the supreme pontiff, Peter’s successor. Pius foreshadowed the later doctrine of papal infallibility in his claim that while his theological refl ections prior to his elevation lacked binding power, his decisions from Peter’s chair on matters of faith must be obeyed (Latin Aeneam rejicite, Pium recipite—“Reject Aeneas and follow Pius”). Pius’s treatises contributed greatly to the fi nal triumph of papal authority over conciliarism at the Council of Trent (1545–63). Pius died in 1464. SIXTUS IV Although he was a leader of great decision and ability, a renowned scholar, and a benefactor of the fi ne arts, 346 Rome, papacy in Renaissance the reign of Sixtus IV, the last of the Renaissance popes, is best characterized by the insolent rule of his numerous nephews and their wars with the Italian states in which their intrigues and ambitions involved their uncle. Notorious for his nepotism Sixtus unblushingly promoted the interests of his relatives, many of whom displayed incompetence, such that the avenues of the Vatican were fi lled with upstarts whose lineage served as their only claim to recognition. At the time of his election to the papacy Francesco Rovere, born 1414, was general of the order of the Franciscans. Rising to academic stardom from humble stock, Francesco, whose father was a fi sherman near Savona, earned the doctor of theology degree at the University of Padua and served as professor successively at the universities of Bologna, Pavia, Siena, Florence, and Perugia. His predecessor Paul II (r. 1464–71) appointed him cardinal, and strong support came to him in the conclave because of the infl uence of his nephew, Peter Riario, who made substantial promises in exchange for votes. Sixtus’s relatives soon became the leading fi gures in Rome, and in wealth and pomp they soon rivaled or eclipsed the old Roman noble families and the leading members of the college of cardinals. Sixtus appointed eight of his nephews to the college of cardinals, and two nephews in sequence as prefects of Rome. In addition, Sixtus heaped benefi ce after benefi ce upon Peter Riario and Julian Rovere, the latter of whom was elected to the papacy as Julius II (r. 1503–13). When Peter died in 1474, his brother Jerome, who came into great favor with Sixtus, became engrossed in feuds against Florence and Ferrara and organized a conspiracy to seize the former from the outstanding Medici banking family by assassinating its ruler, Lorenzo the Magnifi cent. While he may not have consented to murder, Sixtus fully approved of the plot to seize Lorenzo and overthrow the republic. After the bloody deed was enacted by two mercenary priests during mass in the cathedral of Florence on April 26, 1478, the citizens of Florence demonstrated their fi delity to the Medicis by executing the two priests and hanging the president, Archbishop Salviati, from the signoria window. Furious over the death of his archbishop, Sixtus placed Florence under interdict, deemed Lorenzo as the son of iniquity and the ward of perdition (Latin iniquitatis fi lius et perditionis alumnus), and entered into an alliance with Naples against Florence. Only after King Louis XI of France, along with the rulers of Venice and several other Italian states, took up the cause of Florence did Sixtus lift the interdict and dissolve the alliance. Again in the interest of Jerome, Sixtus seized Ferrara and its ally Forli, sparking a war in which all Italy became engrossed. Although surpassed by his readiness to enjoin violence in support of his kin, Sixtus’s place as both patron of ancient Roman culture and theologian should not be overlooked. He was responsible for cataloging the archives of the Vatican in four volumes, and he offi cially extended the effi cacy of indulgences to souls in purgatory. Sixtus died in 1484. See also Avignonese papacy; Constantinople, massacre of; Holy Roman Empire; Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Cairns, Earle E. Christianity through the Centuries. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996; González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985; Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Touchstone, 1986; Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity: Beginnings to 1500. Peabody: Prince, 1975; Pelikan, Jaroslav. Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984; Schaff, David S. The Middle Ages from Boniface VIII to the Protestant Reformation, 1294–1517. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Kirk R. MacGregor Rus (also Rus’) Kievan Rus (860s–1238), the fi rst state of the Eastern Slavs, received its name from its capital city Kiev, located along the middle Dniepr River (modern Ukraine). Founded and ruled by the Riurikid princes, during its height in the 11th and 12th centuries Kievan Rus spanned most of modern Belarus and Ukraine, extending northward to the Republic of Novgorod, which controlled lands extending from the Baltic to the White Seas and the northern Ural Mountains. The medieval state stretched across four latitudinal landscape zones, each favorable for different forms of economic exploitation: tundra (hunting-gathering), boreal forest and intermediate forest-steppe (hunting-gathering and agriculture), and the steppe (pastoral nomadism). The Western Dvina, Volkhov-Lovat, Dniepr, and Volga river systems linked these diverse resource zones. It was the economic and political unifi cation of these territories that made Kievan Rus one of the wealthiest and most cosmopolitan kingdoms in medieval Europe during the 11th and 12th centuries. The history of Kievan Rus is best divided into three developmental periods: foundation period (750s–988), the golden age (988–1050s), and fragmentation into Rus 347 principalities (1050s–1238). Mongol armies under Batu Khan brought the period to its end with the destruction of Kiev, Riazan, Vladimir, and many other towns from 1237 to1239. FOUNDATION PERIOD The main written account for the foundation period is the Russian Primary Chronicle, compiled by monks at the Kievan Caves Monastery in the early 12th century. Archaeological and numismatic evidence serves as a supplement and corrective to this problematic account. These sources trace the early formation of the Rus lands to the Volkhov-Il’men river basin of northwestern Russia. Finno-Baltic hunter-gatherers inhabited this densely forested marshy region. In the mid-eighth century Slavic agriculturalists began migrating to the area from the south. At the same time Scandinavians began small-scale raiding/trading expeditions to the region. The convergence of these groups served as the initial catalyst for the development of a new politicalcommercial community. Forces at play in both northwestern Europe and the Middle East explain Scandinavian movement into Russia. Lacking locally exploitable sources of silver, which was needed for northwestern European political and commercial expansion, the early medieval kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons and Franks looked to the Near and Middle East, where, from the mid-eighth century, the Abbasid Caliphate centered in Baghdad minted millions of silver coins (dirhams) annually. The Vikings acted as the middlemen for this trade. Beginning sometime in the mid- to late-eighth century, small groups of Vikings set up way stations in the Volkhov-Il’men and Upper Volga basins. They collected furs from the Finno- Balts and Slavs in northwestern Russia and sailed south to trading ports on the Volga River and Caspian Sea, where they would exchange furs, Frankish swords, and walrus ivory for eastern luxury items, especially silver. Yaroslav the Wise sponsored major building campaigns in Kiev, which imitated the architecture of Constantinople. He imported Byzantine master builders to construct the Church of St. Sophia (which was also decorated by Byzantine mosaicists). 348 Rus According to the Chronicle, in 859 the Vikings were expelled from Russia by the local tribes, probably for taking excessive tribute, but three years later in 862 a confederation of Slavs and Finns invited the Viking Riurik and his clan “to come and rule over them.” Establishing a base fi rst at Staraia Ladoga and then Riurikovo Gorodishche, Riurik proceeded to create tributaries of the Slavic tribes to the west, in Pskov, and to the northeast in Beloozero. After his death in 879 his kinsman Oleg seized Kiev, thereby assuming control over the tributary relationships with nearby tribes previously exploited by the Khazar empire. By the late 10th century the Riurikid clan, which had become increasingly Slavicized through marriage, had subjected all of the Slavic and Finnic tribes to their rule. The foreign policy of the Riurikids was directed toward creating stable commercial relations with one of the largest markets in the known world, the Byzantine Empire. From 860 to 1043 the Vikings (and later Slavicized Riurikids) attacked the Byzantine Empire six times (860, 907, 941, 944, 971, and 1043). Most of the campaigns resulted in commercial treaties regularizing trade between Kievan Rus and Constantinople. Each year the Riurikids spent the winter collecting tribute from subject tribes, and in the spring the commercial delegation sailed to Constantinople, where it spent the summer trading their furs, honey, wax, and slaves for Byzantine fi nery (glass, jewelry, hazelnuts, spices). Commercial contact with the Greek empire via the so-called road from the Varangians to the Greeks helped introduce the Eastern Slavs to Greek culture, diplomacy, and religion. In 955 Grand Princess Olga converted to Byzantine Christianity. Her son, Sviatoslav (d. 972), a committed pagan who was more interested in war than diplomacy, waged an unsuccessful campaign to capture Byzantine Bulgaria and was killed by nomadic Pechenegs in the Byzantine hire. His son, Vladimir I (Vladimir the Great) (d. 1015), was a champion of Slavic paganism as well, but he recognized the problems inherent in Kiev’s increasing religious isolation from its neighbors. While the Rus considered converting to Islam, they chose instead Byzantine Christianity. Vladimir was baptized in 988 and married the sister to the Byzantine emperor, Anna, an incredible honor for a “barbarian” from the north. This move forged an enduring relationship between the Eastern Slavs and Byzantines, with Rus princes providing goods of the north and military assistance to Constantinople in exchange for Greek cultural and religious knowledge, including a written script (Cyrillic), church architects, clergy, and craftsmen (mosaicists, glassmakers, icon painters, manuscript copyists). GOLDEN AGE Vladimir’s son, Yaroslav the Wise (c. 980–1054), is credited with the golden age of Kievan Rus. He created foreign alliances by marrying Ingegerd, the daughter of the Swedish king, and marrying his daughters to German and French kings. Under his reign Kiev’s buffer zone separating it from the Pechenegs expanded from a one- to a two-day march. Yaroslav sponsored major building campaigns in Kiev, which imitated the architecture of Constantinople. He imported Byzantine master builders who constructed the Church of St. Sophia of Kiev (which was decorated by Byzantine mosaicists), the Golden Gates, a palace, and a massive defense works surrounding the capital. In order to support Kiev’s new religion, Yaroslav founded monasteries and invited Greek clergy to Kiev, who taught Byzantine religious practices to the native and often illiterate clergy. In 1051 Yaroslav appointed the fi rst native metropolitan, which helped establish the Russian church’s autonomy from Constantinople. He also commissioned the fi rst Church Statute and the fi rst Russian law code, the Russkaia Pravda. In a testament left to his sons, Yaroslav tried to establish an order of succession, with the oldest son, Iziaslav, ruling Kiev, and the younger sons appointed to cities of importance commensurate to their place in the line of succession. When an older prince died, the younger moved up the line of succession and to larger and more lucrative towns. The inheritance tradition of Kievan Rus was one of lateral succession, with brother succeeding brother. The system, however, promoted acrimony during the lifetimes of Yaroslav’s sons, and the problem increased as family lines multiplied. Vladimir Monomakh (1053–1125), the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, was the last Kievan monarch to exercise any real authority over much of Kievan Rus. Vladimir derived much of his authority from his ability to lead his cousins in several successful campaigns against the Polovtsian nomads, who had terrorized the kingdom’s southern frontier, including Kiev itself, from the second quarter of the 11th century. FRAGMENTATION INTO PRINCIPALITIES Evidence suggests that during the 12th century, Kiev entered a period of decline, a theory that is contradicted by archaeological evidence of burgeoning industrial production and continued commercial relations with Constantinople. However Kiev’s political sway over the kingdom dissipated with the growth of other Rus towns. The towns of Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk, Pskov, Smolensk, Pereiaslavl, Turov, and Chernigov were ruled by branches of the Riurikid family who had come to Rus 349 view these towns and their hinterlands as their patrimonies absolutely independent from Kiev. To promote their legitimacy, the rulers of these towns built stone churches and palaces modeled after those in Kiev. They sponsored the foundation of monasteries and commissioned the monks to write detailed chronicles of their family’s branch of the Riurikid dynasty and the history of their town. In addition to master builders they imported master craftsmen from Kiev, who established workshops in their new towns specializing in the manufacture of glass bracelets, jewelry, textiles, and other Kievan-Byzantine luxuries. In this way Kievan-Byzantine culture came to dominate throughout much of the Rus principalities, homogenizing the Eastern Slavic lands by spreading an elite culture through its cities. Local cultural forms developed as well during this period, with icon painting schools emerging in Pskov, Novgorod, and Vladimir-Suzdal. An alternative to the pattern of centralized princely rule established in Kiev and followed by the independent principalities was the city-state of Novgorod. Founded in the mid-10th century, Novgorod was the second largest city of Kievan Rus, and possibly wealthier, because of its importance as medieval Europe’s key source of furs. Because of its wealth and status, the Kievan princes treated Novgorod in a special manner, appointing their eldest sons or close associates to rule the town. In 1136 Novgorod’s population expelled their prince and claimed the right to choose from any branch of the Riurikid clan. The prince protected the town and received revenues from its trade but had to reside beyond the town walls. The town assembly (veche), governor (posadnik), and archbishop became major determinants in Novgorod’s administration. These principal actors in Novgorodian politics had the power to remove the prince. Because it was located so far to the northwest, Novgorod was one of the few towns not touched by the Mongol invasion. In the 14th and 15th centuries Novgorod became one of the most powerful states in Europe, serving as one of the Hanseatic kontor. In 1478 the grand prince of Moscow annexed Novgorod and cut one of the main sources of its revenue when, in 1494, he closed Peterhof. Although Kievan Rus comes to its offi cial close in 1237–39 with the Mongol invasion, there were signs of weakening beforehand. Already in the early 12th century, the Swedish kingdom began militarily driven efforts to convert the Eastern Slavs in the Novgorod lands to Latin Christianity. Crusading campaigns fought by German knights gained momentum during the 13th century under the organization of the Teutonic Order in Livonia. Although not in danger from the northern crusades, Kiev became the victim of the southern crusades when, in 1204, an army of crusaders seized and sacked Constantinople, holding the Byzantine capital until 1261. Heavily dependent on trade with Constantinople, Kiev entered upon a long period of economic depression, which contributed to its weakened defenses, which were ill equipped to organize a resistance the Mongol army in 1238. In 1223 several Rus princes fought a small Mongol army, which turned out to be a scouting party, on the river Kalka. While the Russian sources attribute the Rus princes’ inability to defend Rus in the late 1230s to political infi ghting and lack of Christian brotherhood, it is doubtful that even an army united under all of the surviving Riurikids could have defeated Batu Khan’s army of more than 150,000 horsemen. See also Byzantine Empire: political history; Mongol rule of Russia; Vikings: Russia. Further reading: Cross, Samuel Hazzard, and Olgerd P. Herbowitz- Wetzor, trans. and eds. The Russian Primary Chronicle. Cambridge: MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1953; Franklin, Simon, and Jonathan Shepard. The Emergence of Rus 750–1200. London: Longman, 1996; Kliuchevsky, V. O. A History of Russia. Trans. C. J. Hogarth. New York: Russell & Russell, 1960; Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia 980–1584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Noonan, Thomas S. “The Flourishing of Kiev’s International and Domestic Trade, ca. 1000–ca. 1240.” In Ukrainian Economic History: Interpretive Essays. Ed. I. S. Koropeckyj. Cambridge: MA: Ukrainian Research Institute, 1991; Vernadsky, George. Kievan Russia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1948. Heidi M. Sherman

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

race and racism in the Americas Beginning in the years after conquest, Latin America and the Caribbean experienced a societywide, centuries-long coming together of European, African, and indigenous American populations. The precise nature of that coming together varied according to time, place, and circumstance, generating a complex and shifting mosaic of racial categories, boundaries, and identities. In British North America, in contrast, Native American were on the whole excluded from the dominant Anglo society, while Africans were included in that society while relegated to its lowest rung. This latter trajectory led, over time, to a largely dichotomous conception of race—a racial universe consisting of blacks (or Negroes) and whites, along with other categories (Indians, Asians, and others) but no substantial intermediate categories (save “half-breeds” and similar epithets designating white-Indian mixes). By the 1800s, this dichotomous conception of race coalesced in the United States into the “one drop rule,” in which a single drop of “Negro blood” made a person Negro. French North America followed a different trajectory, with French traders along the St. Lawrence River, in the Great Lakes region, and in the Mississippi River valley mixing and intermarrying with native peoples to a much greater extent than in British North America. The resulting “mixed” racial categories, generically termed the Métis (equivalent to the Spanish term mestizo), can be taken as emblematic of the different ideas and practices of race and racism in French and British colonial North America. In Latin America and the Caribbean, in contrast, there evolved very different cultural understandings and social practices of race that there, too, varied widely across time and space. In general, racial categories here ranged across a spectrum from dark skinned to light skinned and were defined by more than skin color. Hair texture, nose shape, facial architecture, upbringing, social class—the latter exemplified in the popular locution “money whitens”—and many other factors combined to determine a person’s precise location in the complex and fluid grid of racial categories. Spaniards in particular were especially concerned with maintaining their limpieza de sangre (purity of blood), a concern routinely expressed in law and custom. The irony was that such “purity of blood” never existed. In fact Spaniards and Iberians in general around the year 1500—sometimes called the “mestizos of Europe”—could trace their genetic heritage to centuries of biogenetic mixing in consequence of Iberia’s geographic location as a land bridge between western Europe and North Africa—a population that combined northern and western European, North African, trans-Mediterranean, and sub-Saharan African “racial strains.” Race, virtually all modern scholars agree, is a social construct, a cultural imposition that exhibits only the most tenuous connection to biology or genetics. Biogenetic diversity is a fundamental feature of the species Homo sapiens. Yet as biologists, anthropologists, and the scientific community in general universally agree, there does not exist, “out there in the world,” an objective biogenetic reality that corresponds to historically developed, “commonsensical” conceptions of “race.” Among the most common facts cited in support of this argument is that there exists far more biogenetic diversity within a given “race” (say, Africans or Caucasians) than between “races.” A frequently invoked distinction in this regard is between “genotype” and “phenotype.” The latter, comprising various visible markers such as skin color, hair texture, and so on, bears no substantial relation to the former, which consists of an individual’s (or, more broadly, an organism’s) genetic makeup and heredity. These and related contemporary understandings of “race” did not exist in the period covered in this volume. Instead there emerged across Latin America and the Caribbean highly elaborate and varied racial categories meant to pigeonhole any given individual’s racial background and characteristics. In addition to mestizos (Indian-Spanish), mulattos and pardos (African-Spanish), and zambos (African-Indian), there emerged in Spanish America, in different times and places, hundreds of more precise categories: castizo or quadroon (mestizo-Spanish), octoroon (quadroon-Spanish), quintroon or sextroon (octoroon-Spanish), Morisco (mulatto-Spanish), cholo (mestizo-Indian), quinterona (Spanish-mulatto), and many more. Toward the end of the colonial period, such efforts to pinpoint racial categories faltered, leading to increasing use of the generic term castas to refer to mixed-race peoples generally. In Portuguese Brazil the most salient categories were mamelucos, mestiços, and caboclos. The greater propensity for Portuguese men (and to a lesser extent, women) to mix freely and intermarry with indigenous and African populations, and with their “mixed-race” offspring, eventually led, after independence, to a Brazilian national myth of “racial democracy”—the notion that racism did not exist in Brazil. The fallacious nature of this myth is the subject of an expansive literature. In fact, in Brazil as elsewhere in the Americas, there existed a very strong correlation between social class and social race. Darker skin and more Indian or African phenotypes were most commonly associated with lower social class and lesser social privilege, lighter skin and more European physiognomy with higher social class and greater social privilege. Intricate gradations of racial categories did not mean an absence of racism, but rather different forms of race and racism in different parts of the Americas—not only in Spanish, Portuguese, and British colonies, but in French and Dutch colonies as well. In virtually every sphere, from major social indices such as employment and life expectancy, to popular media such as television and film, the legacies of those distinctive heritages of racism remain profoundly apparent to the present day. Further reading: Alleyne, Mervyn C. Construction and Representation of Race and Ethnicity in the Caribbean and the World. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press, 2001; Harris, Marvin. Patterns of Race in the Americas. New York: Walker & Company, 1964; Morner, Magnus. Race Mixture in the History of Latin America. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1967; Toplin, Robert B., ed. Slavery and Race Relations in Latin America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974. Michael J. Schroeder Rajputs Rajputs (literally, “children of kings”) are members of a Hindu aristocratic caste (kshatriya, or warrior) settled mainly in northwestern India, who may have Central Asian origins. The Rajputs have been influential in the political history of India since the eighth century. By late 15th century, they were engaged in battles against the Turko-Afghans of the Delhi Sultanate, and by the mid- 16th century they came under control of the Mughals (Moguls, Moghuls). In 1527, Babur won the Battle of Kanua over a confederacy of Rajputs led by Rana Sanga, ruler of Mewar in Rajastan, despite having a much smaller army. With the death of Rana Sanga and many other leaders in this battle, there was little hope for Rajput resurgence. The Battle of Kanua inaugurated a long relationship between Rajputs and Mughals. Babur ruled for four years and died in 1530. His son Humayun was not as powerful a leader and was forced into exile in Persia. However, Humayun’s son Akbar extended power and geographical dominance of the Mughal Empire. Akbar began the custom of taking Rajput Hindu wives, without expecting them to convert to Islam. The diverse Mughal dynasty would employ Persians, Arabs, locally born Muslims, Rajputs, Brahmans, and later Marathas in its administration. Akbar and subsequent leaders’ marriages to Rajput women positioned some Rajputs as members of the ruling Mughal elite and they were integrated into the Mughal Empire in northern India. Many regional Rajput leaders maintained their autonomy but had to pay taxes to the Mughal government. 328 Rajputs The reciprocal relationship between the Mughal emperors and the Rajputs was threatened in the mid-17th century, as a result of Shah Jahan’s four sons’ wars of succession of their father. The Rajputs remained loyal to Shah Jahan and fought against his rebel sons. When Aurangzeb won, they would suffer the consequences. Aurangzeb was an ardent Muslim and he recast the previously diverse administration to favor Muslims exclusively. As a result, the Hindu Rajputs were ostracized politically, economically, and socially. A later ruler, Jahandar Shah, attempted to repair relations with the Rajputs after 1715. The once strong relationship between the Rajputs and Mughals was never revived to the same level as during the early years of the Mughal dynasty. See also Delhi and Agra; Mughal Empire. Further reading: Hallissey, Robert. The Rajput Rebellion against Aurangzeb, a Study of the Mughal Empire in Seventeenth Century India. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1977; Metcalf, Barbara D., and Thomas R. Metcalf. A Concise History of India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Richards, John. The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Spear, Percival. The Oxford History of India. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. Stefany Anne Boyle Raleigh, Sir Walter (1554–1618) English mariner, courtier, and writer Sir Walter Raleigh was an English adventurer and early promoter of colonization. He organized the Roanoke colony in 1585, England’s first settlement in America. Raleigh was born in Devon in the west of England, a younger son of a poor but distinguished family. He was registered at Oriel College, Oxford, from 1568 to 1572 but spent most of this time in France fighting for the Huguenots. Returning to London, he studied law at the Inns of Court and published poetry. In 1578, his half brother Sir Humphrey Gilbert obtained a patent to colonize North America and Raleigh accompanied Gilbert in search of Spanish treasure. While this voyage was a disaster, it whetted Raleigh’s appetite for colonization. In 1580, he led an army to England’s first colony, Ireland, and put down a rebellion with brutal force. Such actions attracted the attention of Queen Elizabeth I and Raleigh quickly became a royal favorite. The queen bestowed on Raleigh vast estates in Ireland, lucrative patents and licenses, and various government offices. She knighted him in 1585. In 1583, Gilbert died while trying to establish a colony in Newfoundland, and the following year, Queen Elizabeth granted Raleigh exclusive license to colonize America. Immediately, Raleigh dispatched an exploratory expedition to the Outer Banks of North Carolina, an ideal location for looting Spanish fleets. Receiving favorable reports of America, Raleigh dispatched his cousin Sir Richard Grenville to the Roanoke islands to erect a colony named Virginia after the virgin Queen Elizabeth. However, the colonists angered local Native Americans and decided to abandon Roanoke less than a year after their arrival. In April 1587, Raleigh dispatched a second group to America, but shortly after they arrived England engaged the Spanish Armada and all contact with the colony was cut off until 1590. When a relief vessel finally got through, there was no trace of the colonists. Although Raleigh failed to erect a permanent settlement, he continued to advocate American colonization, Raleigh, Sir Walter 329 Sir Walter Raleigh escaped execution for 15 years until King James I finally had him put to death. writing in 1602, “I shall yet live to see it an Inglishe nation.” After Roanoke, Raleigh turned his attention elsewhere. In 1592 he married one of the queen’s ladiesin- waiting, Elizabeth Throckmorton, who bore him a son, Wat. He led an expedition of Guiana in 1595 and launched an attack on Cádiz a year later. Raleigh’s dedication to Queen Elizabeth sat poorly with the monarch’s successor, King James I, who remarked upon meeting the adventurer, “I have heard but rawly of thee.” In 1603, the king charged Raleigh with conspiring with the Spanish. Convicted, Raleigh was sentenced to death but lived in the Tower of London for the next 12 years and wrote the antimonarchical treatise History of the World. Still frustrated with Raleigh, the king allowed him to make a second attempt at claiming Guiana for England. When the expedition failed and Raleigh’s men mutinied, the king enforced Raleigh’s conviction from 15 years earlier. A hero at his death, Raleigh told his reluctant executioner, “This is a sharp medicine, but it is a sure cure for all diseases.” Further reading: Kupperman, Karen Ordahl. Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1984; Trevelyan, Raleigh. Sir Walter Raleigh. New York: Henry Holt, 2002. John G. McCurdy reducciones (congregaciones) in colonial Spanish America In response to steep demographic declines and a shared desire to exercise greater control over dwindling Indian populations, from the 1550s, Spanish colonial administrators and ecclesiastical authorities devised and implemented the institution of the reducción, or congregación (similar settlements, usually founded by religious orders, were called aldeas in Portuguese America). In essence a reducción/congregación was an Indian village or settlement, either newly established or expanded from an existing population center, into which Indians from specified outlying districts were compelled to move. The inhabitants of such settlements were typically called congregados. Taking various forms in different parts of Spain’s American empire, reducciones originated from a number of related impulses: to forestall rebellion by ensuring that no substantial Indian populations remained outside the sphere of Spanish surveillance and control, to facilitate conversion to Christianity, to furnish a readily available labor force, and to empty Indianoccupied lands for private ownership. Typically laid out in the grid pattern characteristic of the Spanish colonial town, over time most reducciones failed to adhere to Spaniards’ idealized conceptions of hierarchically ordered urban space. Instead Indian dwellings and barrios (neighborhoods), in reducciones as elsewhere, tended to emerge disordered, with the “central square” in many postconquest Indian settlements often becoming little more than an empty lot adjacent to the church, and with social status bearing little relation to the location of individuals’ dwelling places. This was generally less true in congregaciones founded as religious missions by “regular” (missionary) orders, most prominently the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and later, the Jesuits. Most commonly established in peripheral regions such as New Spain’s northern frontier, Yucatán, the Peruvian hinterlands, Paraguay, and the Brazilian sertão (backlands), such missionary congregaciones (aldeas) typically comprised an outer wall, affording protection against external attacks, and an inner compound. Within the compound, the largest and most imposing structure was invariably the church, surrounded by workshops, granaries, stables, and similar structures, with dwelling places ringing the periphery. Bent on civilizing and Christianizing the Indians, the friars in such settlements typically endeavored to instruct their charges in a variety of crafts and industries, such as agriculture, stock raising, beekeeping, hide tanning, viticulture, and others. The many variations on these general themes, however, along with the tremendous diversity of Spanish and Portuguese resettlement schemes, and the even greater diversity of Indian communities and lifestyles in different parts of the Spanish and Portuguese empires, meant there was no ideal type to which all reducciones conformed. Yet the same set of overarching impulses that led to their formation—especially the desire more effectively to control Indian labor, which in turn entailed Indians’ conversion to Christianity— and the concomitant desire of Indian individuals and communities to exercise as much autonomy as possible without directly challenging colonial rule tended to generate broadly similar sets of outcomes in the diverse regions of the Americas where reducciones were imposed. See also Dominicans in the Americas; Franciscans in the Americas; New Spain, colonial administration of. 33 0 reducciones (congregaciones) in colonial Spanish America Further reading: Bakewell, Peter. A History of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997; Gaffney, Jeannette. Dividing the Spoils: Portugal and Spain in South America. Yale, CT: New Haven Teachers Institute, 1992; Ganson, Barbara. The Guarani under Spanish Rule in the Rio de la Plata. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003; Gibson, Charles. Spain in America. New York: Harper, 1966; Russell-Wood, A. J. Slavery and Freedom in Colonial Brazil. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 2002. Michael J. Schroeder Reformation, the In the 16th-century Reformation, spiritual traditions gave way to scientific views on religion, society, and philosophy. Europe witnessed a fermenting of great ideas stimulated by the Renaissance. A new urban middle class ascended, with its Protestant ethics of capital accumulation, and the old order of Europe changed. The Reformation had far-reaching consequences for the church, society, and the economy. Humanism in Europe changed intellectual inquiry beginning in 1400 by encouraging people to think in terms of reason instead of faith. Medieval Christianity was becoming outdated and human interests began to predominate. The concept of chance rather than Providence became the hallmark of the age of Renaissance humanism. The affairs of the secular world rather than of the divine world became primary. Among the thinkers of this era were Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540), Rudolphus Agricola (1443–85), and John Colet (ca. 1467–1519). The printing industry played an important role in educating people. Knowledge was disseminated at a faster rate after the invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg (1397–1468). Commerce Clashes with Church In the political arena, the decay of the Holy Roman Empire and the development of central governments had a profound effect on the feudal order, which changed with the rise of a new middle class. The geographical discoveries made by explorers altered European understanding of the world and led to a vast extension of commerce. The traditional wealth of landholdings found a rival in commercial wealth. The time was ripe for a careful reexamination and reconstruction of old institutions and the greatest one, the Roman Catholic Church, was no exception. The Roman Catholic Church was marked by abuses and widespread corruption. The papacy had been discredited by immoral Alexander VI and the warlike Julius II. Desire for worldly possessions and political power became the norm for clergy. The sinecures, selling of indulgences, and pluralism further discredited the church. Independent nations did not like the interference from an external sovereign like the pope and sought ecclesiastical independence. The pioneering reform movements against the church began with John Wycliffe (1320–84), who was declared a heretic. He advocated freedom of individual conscience. Another reformer, John Huss (1317–1415) from the University of Prague, translated Wyclif’s works into Czech, was condemned by the Council of Constance (1414–18), and was executed. Girolamo Savonarola (1452–98) endeavored to effect moral reformation in Florence and was also slain. Erasmus of the Netherlands, professor of divinity at Cambridge in 1511–13, lampooned the papacy and the monasteries. Debate over Religious Reform The onset of the 16th century witnessed debate over religious reforms, and from the second decade, the undisputed leader of the Reformation was Martin Luther (1483–1546), whose posting of the 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg castle church on October 31, 1517, challenged papal abuses and sale of Reformation, the 33 1 A lithograph from 1830 shows Martin Luther directing the posting of his Ninety-five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church in 1517. indulgences. The princes supporting Luther hoped that his actions would undermine Rome’s authority over Germany. Luther did not believe that purchasing indulgences would spare a soul from purgatory, and he did not believe that a person could be saved by his own deeds. He protested the rituals of the church, emphasizing that sacraments were essential for salvation. For him, it was God’s mercy that allowed for salvation, not institutions and sacraments. The printing press spread the message of Luther quickly, and his ideas created havoc in Europe. The placid Pope Leo X (1513–21) sought a solution to the problem of the Reformation and called Luther to present his case after excommunicating him in 1520. Luther began his journey to Worms on April 2, 1521, and was welcomed in towns that he passed through. The church and the powerful Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V (r. 1519–56), a supporter of the Roman Catholic Church, wanted Luther to retract his statements. At the Imperial Diet of Worms, Luther stood firm in his belief and proclaimed that he could not submit his faith either to the pope or to the council, and his conscience was submissive to God’s will alone. He was allowed to go home and lead a life of seclusion, writing against the papacy. Luther had been declared an outlaw but was comparatively safe because the Emperor was busy at war with France. The Diet did not remedy the ecclesiastical grievances, and Luther’s spiritual rebellion gave rise to political rebellion in the form of the Peasants’ War of 1524 and 1525. Thomas Müntzer, a former Lutheran cleric, led the revolt, in which peasants demanded reforms of feudal excesses. Luther’s call for peace went unheeded and he sided with the princes. The ruling prince of each principality decided the type of Christianity that would be followed; the southern princes generally sided with Rome, whereas the northerners were loyal to Lutheran teachings. At the Diet of Speyer in 1526, each German state was allowed to choose between the two religions. But after three years, in the second Diet, there was reenactment of the Edict of Worms and the Lutherans protested, thus gaining the name of Protestants. Two sides of the reformation Europe was soon divided into two blocs with the spread of the Reformation. The victory of the new faith in German Switzerland was feasible because of the efforts of Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531). Another notable figure in Protestant Reformation, Frenchman John Calvin (1509–64), emphasized faith and called for a return to the Bible. He was of the belief that the church and state were essential for society and authority, for both were given by God. Calvinism did not make state supreme over the church, a point propounded by Luther. He encouraged the civil and ecclesiastical officers to work together against wickedness. Calvin’s theological system was indirectly responsible for the cause of democracy and was embraced in England, Scotland, and the Netherlands, where democratic tradition was gaining ground. The Puritan tradition also became effective as far away as the New England colonies. Protestant scholars went to Geneva, a center of Calvinist teaching, and took back Protestantism to their home countries in Europe. Calvin gave much importance to education and set up a training school for Protestant theologians, which eventually became the University of Geneva. The Huguenots, or French Protestants, did not succeed in making reformation a national movement. Francis I (r. 1515–47) had already made arrangements with the papacy by the Concordat of Bologna in 1516. The persecution of the Huguenots reached its height in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572. The religious wars were brought to an end by the Edict of Nantes in 1598, and the question of the Reformation was settled in France for the time being. The Reformation also did not make much headway in the Netherlands, which was under control of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Calvinism spread after 1555, when Charles V bequeathed the Netherlands to his son Philip II. Dissatisfaction arose in the country because of the king’s administration, excessive use of Spanish troops, and heavy taxation. In 1568, the Inquisition condemned the people of the Netherlands as heretics. There arose an uprising in northern provinces under William of Orange-Nassau, prince of Orange. The northern region proclaimed independence and the “United Provinces” became the Protestant kingdom of Holland. John Knox took Scotland toward Protestantism and left a legacy known as Presbyterianism. From 1559, Knox became the leader of Protestant rebellion against the Catholic regent of Scotland, Mary of Guise. England’s break with Rome came when King Henry viii (r. 1509–47) attacked the papal authority in England over the divorce question. The Acts of Appeals of 1533 forbade any appeal to Rome. Henry VIII proclaimed himself the head of the Church of England by the Act of Supremacy of 1534. The Reformation parliament (1529–36) attacked the property of the church and dissolved the smaller monasteries. In 1539, greater monasteries were dissolved. In the subsequent reign of Edward VI, the Protestant Reformation made great strides. The 332 Reformation, the efforts of King Christian II of Denmark made the Reformation easier in Denmark and Norway. Gustavus Vasa (r. 1523–60) introduced the Reformation in Sweden for political reasons; the king became supreme authority pertaining to religious affairs. Although the Reformation did not succeed in Italy and Spain, it effected change in Hungary and Transylvania. counter-reformation The Reformation produced the Catholic Reformation or Counter-Reformation, which endeavored to remove abuses. Reform-minded Pope Paul III entrusted the task of addressing abuses to cardinals. The Council of Trent (1545–63) removed some of the abuses and there was improvement through the efforts of popes such as Julius III (pope 1550–55), Paul IV (pope 1555–59), and Pius IV (1559–65), all of whom enforced discipline. The order of Jesuits acted as missionaries to purify the church. The Roman Catholic Church regained some of the ground that it had lost. The Protestant Reformation was a watershed in the history of Christianity and its consequences were far-reaching. National language and education developed, and religion became accessible with the use of a common vernacular. The rising bourgeoisie saw in Protestantism reiteration of qualities like hard labor and thrift, which strengthened the economy. The glorification of national states became the precursor to nationalism. The call of Calvinism and Puritan revolution had its echo in the American colonies, leading to the Declaration of Independence. See also Glorious Revolution; Justification by faith; Loyola, Ignatius of, and the Society of Jesus; Melancthon, Philip; Puritans and Puritanism; scientific revolution; Vasa dynasty. Further reading: Bouyer, I. The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. San Francisco: Sceptre, 2001; Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1964; Green, Vivian. The European Reformation. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1998; MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700. New York: Allen Lane, 2003; Man, John. Gutenberg: How One Man Remade the World with Words. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002; Mullett, Michael A. The Catholic Reformation. London: Routledge, 1999; Pettegree, Andrew. Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Rublack, Ulinka. Reformation Europe. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Tittler, Robert. The Reformation and the Towns in England: Politics and Political Culture, c. 1540–1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998; Tyacke, Nicholas, ed. England’s Long Reformation, 1500–1800. London: UCL Press, 1998. Patit Paban Mishra repartimiento in Spanish America Rooted in the verb repartir (to distribute, to allot), repartimiento in Spanish America refers to two distinct institutional practices. One relates to encomienda during the first century of colonization, the second to the forced sale of Spanish goods to Indian communities, which occurred primarily during the late colonial period. With respect to the first, repartimiento and encomienda were legally distinct but functionally identical. In both cases the term referred to the official allotment or distribution of Indians to specific Spaniards under conditions of forced or coerced labor. The practice was also known locally by different names, including coatequitl in New Spain and mita in Peru. The forced-sale meaning of the term, also called reparto de comercio, or simply reparto, referred to an increasingly common practice during the mature colonial period, particularly as the royal treasury grew strapped for cash and local officials came to depend on revenues from forced sales to maintain their standards of living. Local officials such as alcaldes, corregidores, and others, in effect foisted excess goods on Indian communities— goods either imported from Spain or locally produced— by requiring their purchase, making repartimiento, in effect, one more form of taxation that drained surplus labor and production from Indians. Vigorous denunciations of the abuses of repartimiento from visiting inspectors and officials repeatedly crossed the royal desk, to little practical effect. One, penned in the 1730s and referring to repartimiento in the province of Quito, described the system as “so cruelly wicked that it appears as if it were imposed on those people as a punishment . . . a more tyrannical abuse could not be imagined.” Fiscal constraints meant that leading officials largely ignored this and many similar condemnations. In the 1750s, the Crown legalized the practice, and in many areas it continued for the rest of the colonial period. Some scholars hypothesize that excessive impositions of repartimiento constituted an important contributory factor in sparking the major uprisings and revolts that rocked the Andes from the 1730s to the 1780s. Others have traced more localized revolts, in New Spain and elsewhere, to the practice. In essence, repartimiento was one more repartimiento in Spanish America 333 mechanism by which local officials and the colonial state extracted surplus labor from Indians. See also Aztecs (Mexica); Brazil, conquest and colonization of; Caribbean, conquest of the; Central America, conquest of; Mexico, conquest of; Peru, conquest of. Further reading: Bakewell, Peter. A History of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997; Gibson, Charles. Spain in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1966; Spodek, Howard. World’s History, the, Combined Volume (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. Michael J. Schroeder Ricci, Matteo (1552–1610) Jesuit missionary, humanist, scholar Matteo Ricci was the first Jesuit missionary in China, arriving in Macao in 1582. He died in Beijing (Peking) in 1610, having won the respect of Chinese scholars and officials as a great scholar, teacher, translator, and writer. He was the pioneer and model among Jesuit missionaries, who became the point of convergence between East and West. Born in Macerata in Italy, Matteo Ricci studied in Jesuit colleges in Florence and Rome before setting out for Goa in India in 1578, where he was ordained as a priest. Together with another priest, Michele Ruggieri, he arrived in 1582 in Macao on China’s southern coast, where the Chinese government had allowed the Portuguese to establish a trading center. Five years earlier, Father Alessandro Valignano, superior of all Jesuit mission in the East Indies (which included China), had set down rules that Jesuit missionaries in China should adapt to Chinese culture, learning to speak, read, and write Chinese, and seek to transform China from within for the long-term goal of conversion. There could not have been a better choice than Ricci to perform this task. Ricci wore Chinese clothes, moved among educated Chinese, and impressed them with his knowledge in astronomy, mathematics, geography, and other academic disciplines. After 15 years in Zhaoqing (Shaoching) and Nanjing (Nanking), he was finally allowed to go to Beijing (Peking) in 1601, where he was initially housed in the Residence for Tributary Envoys. Ricci was granted an imperial audience, but the reclusive Wanli (Wan-li), emperor of China, did not appear in person. He kowtowed to an empty throne but his many gifts, which included holy pictures, a reliquary, other religious objects, plus two clocks, a spinet, and other items made in Europe, were accepted. He was granted permission to build a church and establish a mission in the capital city. He greatly impressed the court when he calculated the time of an eclipse more accurately than had the Chinese and Arab court astronomers. Since exact calendar making and astronomical predictions were highly important to the Chinese government, Ricci wrote home begging for experts in those fields to be sent to China. As a result, Jesuit astronomers built an observatory in Beijing and a Jesuit headed the Board of Astronomy, a department of the Ministry of Rites, until the mid-18th century. Ricci was a prodigious writer and translator. He authored Treatises on Mnemonic Arts, Treatise on Friendship, True Meaning of the and Lord of Heaven, and Ten Discourses by a Paradoxical Man, translated Euclid’s Elements of Geometry into Chinese and began to translate the Chinese classical Four Books into Latin. He also made a map of the world and composed songs. His fame as scholar and scientist won many prominent admirers and friends. He also made converts, the most famous being Grand Secretary Hu Guangqi (Hsu Kuang-ch’i) and President of the Board of Public Works Li Zhizao (Li Chih-tsao). Ricci died in 1610. His work was carried on by generations of talented Jesuit scholars and missionaries who were dedicated to their faith and were also important cultural ambassadors. See also Jesuits in Asia; Ming dynasty, late; rites controversy in China. Further readings: Cronin, Vincent. Wise Men from the West. London: Dutton, 1955; Dunne, George H. Generation of Giants: The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decades of the Ming Dynasty. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962; Spence, Jonathan D. The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1983. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Richelieu, Armand-Jean du Plessis, duc and cardinal de (1585–1642) French statesman Armand-Jean du Plessis, duc de Richelieu, was a French noble, clergyman, and statesman instrumental in laying the foundations of an absolutist state in France. Richelieu left a legacy of the use of authoritarian measures, such as censorship and the banning of political 33 4 Ricci, Matteo assemblies, to maintain power. Historians have viewed Richelieu as either a patriot or a tyrant, and he was later vilified in Alexandre Dumas’s classic novel The Three Musketeers (1844). Richelieu also pioneered such ideas of modern international politics as national sovereignty and international law. Richelieu was born in Paris in September 1585. His father, former grand provost of France, died fighting in the French Wars of Religion (1562–98). The family avoided debt through royal assistance and received the bishopric of Luçon as a reward. Initially destined for a military career, Richelieu joined the Catholic clergy following his brother’s resignation of the bishopric of Luçon and became a bishop in 1607. He became the first French bishop to implement the institutional reforms issued by the Council of Trent between 1545 and 1563. He began his political career representing the clergy of Poitou in the States General of 1614. Richelieu demanded church exemption from taxation, the clergy’s retention of its privileges, summoning of bishops and prelates to the royal councils, and the condemnation of Protestantism. After the dissolution of the States General, Richelieu became the queen’s almoner. His ambition drove his rapid political promotion. Richelieu became secretary of state in 1616 but left the position amid political intrigue. The advisers of Louis XIII (1601–43) continued to present Richelieu as a threat to royal authority. Consequently, Richelieu went into exile in 1618. In 1619 Marie de Medici (1573–1642), the king’s mother, rebelled to regain the authority she held previously as regent. Richelieu was recalled to negotiate peace terms. He became a cardinal in 1622 and in 1624 reentered the king’s Council of Ministers, quickly becoming chief minister by conspiring against those who stood in his way. As chief minister of France, Richelieu sought to consolidate royal authority while weakening that of the nobility. In 1626, he eliminated the prestigious military position of constable of France and ordered the feudal nobility to tear down most fortified castles, leaving only those necessary for defense against invaders. These actions minimized the military threat of the nobility to the throne, thereby increasing and securing the king’s authority. While attempting to consolidate royal power, Richelieu also had to contend with the rising political ambitions of French Protestants, known as Huguenots, who countered national unity by threatening a religious schism. The Huguenots controlled a large military and, aided by Charles I of England (1600–49), rebelled against the king. In 1627, Richelieu led a siege of the Huguenot fortress of La Rochelle and fended off an English expedition under command of the duke of Buckingham (1592–1628). The fall of La Rochelle in 1628, and the peace of Alais in 1629, eliminated the political influence of Protestantism in France. Religious toleration, granted previously under the Edict of Nantes (1598), continued. Such a centralization of power within the person of the French king created an absolute monarchy. ForEign Policy Richelieu’s foreign policy focused on neutralizing the growing influence of the royal Habsburg family, which ruled both Austria and Spain. Despite being a member of the Catholic clergy, he brokered controversial alliances with foreign Protestant nations to counter the influence of Catholic Austria and Spain. Many within the Catholic clergy were opposed to Richelieu’s policies. Richelieu also supported the development of New France in North America. While France was warring with its Huguenots, Spain attempted to spread its influence in northern Italy. Richelieu, Armand-Jean du Plessis, duc and cardinal de 33 5 A reproduction of a painting of Cardinal Richelieu relaxing with his cats, by the artist T. Robert Henry Following La Rochelle’s capitulation, Richelieu led an army into northern Italy to counter Spanish ambitions. Marie de Medici sought revenge against Richelieu and conspired with the king’s brother, Gaston, duc d’Orléans (1608–60), for his dismissal. On November 11, 1630, known as Day of the Dupes, the king agreed to the request of his mother and brother, only to be persuaded by Richelieu to alter this decision. While Louis XIII was never fond of Richelieu, this was his only attempt to remove him. The king later created his chief minister duc de Richelieu and a peer of France. Richelieu continued to consolidate his position through a large network of spies in France and abroad. During the 1630s, Richelieu aligned France with Protestant German princes during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) to counter the threat to France posed by Habsburg control of the Holy Roman Empire to the east and of Spain to the west. France suffered initial defeats and Richelieu was declared a traitor to the Catholic Church. Financial costs of the war caused a strain on the king’s finances and Richelieu imposed taxes on salt and land. The clergy and nobility were exempt from such taxes, thereby placing the burden on the peasants and bourgeoisie. For more efficient tax collecting, tax officials were replaced with intendants who worked directly for the king. There were several peasant uprisings between 1636 and 1639, all of which were crushed. Richelieu and the Arts Richelieu was a patron of the arts and in 1636 founded the Académie française to promote French literature. Richelieu authored numerous religious and political works while funding the careers of notable literary figures, including Pierre Corneille (1606–84). In 1622, Richelieu became principal of the Sorbonne, sponsoring the college’s renovation and the construction of a chapel. He also amassed one of the largest art collections in Europe. Richelieu continued to have uneasy relations with Pope Urban VIII (1568–1644) and the Catholic Church. The pope, to amend the situation, made Jules Mazarin (1602–61), one of Richelieu’s closest political allies, a cardinal in 1641. With his health increasingly failing, Richelieu named Mazarin his successor. Richelieu died in 1642 and was interred at the Sorbonne. Louis XIV (1638–1715) inherited the throne in 1643 and continued Richelieu’s work of creating an absolute monarchy by further reducing the nobility’s power and the remnants of political power held by Huguenots. Following success in the Thirty Years’ War, Louis XIV positioned France as the dominant European continental power. See also absolutism, European; Habsburg dynasty. Further reading: Bergin, Joseph. Cardinal Richelieu: Power and the Pursuit of Wealth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990; Bergin, Joseph, and Lawrence Brockliss, eds. Richelieu and His Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992; Knecht, R. J. Richelieu. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman, 1991; Levi, Anthony. Cardinal Richelieu and the Making of France. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2001; Parrott, David. Richelieu’s Army: War, Government, and Society in France, 1624–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Eric Martone rites controversy in China From the beginning of their work in China in 1583, many Catholic Jesuit missionaries presented themselves as scholars and scientists. Their goal was to impress the elite scholar-officials with their culture and erudition and then gradually to present the essential teachings of Christianity. Thus they adapted to many Chinese ways and avoided conflict with the Chinese over unessential matters. This tactic won prominent converts among the court and high government officials during the last years of the Ming dynasty. The fall of the Ming and the establishment of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in 1644 did not damage the prestige of the Jesuits. Discord came with the arrival of Franciscan and Dominican missionaries in China in 1634. With no knowledge of Chinese culture, they were horrified with Jesuit accommodations with Chinese mores. They also attacked the Jesuits for choosing Chinese words to express Christian terminology, for tolerating Chinese rites such as those honoring ancestors and Confucius, and for refusing to teach that Confucius, China’s most revered philosopher, had gone to hell for not being a Christian. Franciscans and Dominicans, who preferred converting ordinary people, were moreover jealous of the Jesuits for their connections with leaders of society. The most bitter fight between the Jesuits and the other orders was over Chinese rites. Jesuits maintained that ancestor worship expressed respect and filial piety, and rituals that honored Confucius were civil rites of good citizenship that did not negate worship of God. Moreover they believed that their prohibition would make it impossible for many Chinese to become Christians. A papal decree of 1656 had allowed the Jesuits 336 rites controversy in China to permit Chinese converts to continue the practice of their family and civic rituals under stipulated conditions. Franciscans and Dominicans however thought these acts idolatrous and blasphemous and campaigned to have them banned. The debate generated 262 published works on the subject. Emperor Kangxi (K’ang-hsi, ruled 1662–1722) was personally not interested in Christianity but was sympathetic to the Jesuits for their learning and because of their services to his government. He issued an Edict of Toleration in 1692 that allowed Christians to build churches and worship freely in China. However Kangxi was offended when the pope sided with Franciscans in 1704, banned the Chinese rites for Chinese converts to Christianity, and insisted that the words Jesuits had used for God in Chinese be changed. In 1705, the pope sent an emissary to China to inform Kangxi that he wished to exert authority over all Chinese Catholics. This demand confirmed the suspicion of many Chinese leaders that there was a secret dark purpose for sending missionaries to China. Kangxi rejected the pope’s demand categorically. A second papal legate, sent in 1720, was no more successful. Meanwhile in 1707, 1715, and 1742, successive popes decreed that ancestor worship and veneration of Confucius were idolatrous and incompatible with Christian practice and banned them for Chinese converts to Catholicism. After reading the papal bull of 1715, Emperor Kangxi commented in writing, “I ask myself how these uncultivated Westerners dare to speak of the great [philosophical and moral] precepts of China . . . As from now I forbid the Westerners to spread their doctrine in China; that will spare us a lot of trouble.” He further decreed that all missionaries should be repatriated except for those who served as scientists and specialists in the Chinese government. However the decision was not strictly applied. Kangxi died in 1722 and was followed by his son Yongzheng (Yung-Cheng, ruled 1723–35), who was much less sympathetic to Christian missionaries. He said, “China has its religions and the Western world has its religions. Western religions need not propagate in China, just as Chinese religions cannot prevail in the Western world.” This view was shared by his son Emperor Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung, ruled 1736–95), although both rulers continued to employ Jesuits in the government. When the papacy dissolved the Society of Jesus in 1773, the moving spirit of Christianity in China was gone and Chinese-Western religious and cultural contacts became minimal. The Jesuits’ understanding of the differences between Chinese and Christian cultures was key to their success. That success bred jealousy among other missionary groups, resulting in the rites controversy, which severed the bridge between China and the West. See also Jesuits in Asia; Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty, rise and zenith. Further reading: Cummins, J. S. Question of Rites: Friar Domingo Navarrete and the Jesuits in China. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Limited, 1993; Spence, Jonathan D. Emperor of China, Self-Portrait of K’ang-hsi. New York: Vintage Books, 1975; Waley-Cohen, Joanna. The Sextants of Beijing, Global Currents in Chinese History. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1999. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Ronin, 47 A ronin was a masterless samurai who had lost his privileged status in society. The tale of the 47 Ronin has become one of the central myths in Japanese history. It concerns a supposedly real-life story from the beginning of the 18th century when 47 samurai were left without a master and therefore became ronin when their leader, feeling unjustly treated, drew his sword against his lord and was, as a result, forced to commit seppuku, or ritual suicide. His domain was confiscated. The ronin plotted to take revenge on the lord who had wronged their master. Knowing that they would be watched by the authorities, they bided their time for two years, pretending to live a life of dissipation. Then on a snowy winter night they assembled in Edo, broke into the castle of the offending lord, and took his head. The Tokugawa Bakuhan allowed the 47 Ronin to commit seppuku, thus ending their lives with honor. The story has been retold in print, theater, puppetry, and film many times in subsequent years. The notions of honorable sacrifice and justified vengeance-taking have become deeply embedded in the Japanese psyche. This event is important in reinforcing the class-based structure of Japanese society at the time: Samurai were bound by the Bushido, the Way of the Warrior, to which lesser people could only aspire. Even though the 47 spent the time between the original offense and the time of vengeance hiding, disguising themselves, and spying on their enemy in a variety of ways that may be considered underhanded, this is not considered to be in any way Ronin, 47 33 7 dishonorable, and the final result negates the means by which it is completed. See also Bushido, Tokugawa period in Japan; Tokugawa bakuhan system, Japan. Further reading: Allyn, John. The 47 Ronin Story. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing, 2006; Ikegami, Eiko. The Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and the Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. John Walsh Roses, Wars of the The series of civil battles fought between the House of Lancaster and the House of York from 1455 to 1471 have been named the Wars of the Roses because the House of York was emblematized by a white rose and the House of Lancaster by a red rose. When the Tudor dynasty came to power it merged the two roses, symbolizing the union of the two factions. Since Henry VII from the House of Tudor came out of those battles the ultimate winner, the end of the Wars of the Roses has often been dated to 1485. During the long reign of the Lancastrian king Henry VI (1422–61), the power and dignity of the English monarchy sank rapidly as a result of the king’s questionable mental capacity and lack of political and military skills. The decline of royal authority encouraged factious contentions among great noblemen of the court and broke down social order all over the countryside, where uniformed retainers of noblemen inflicted intimidation, injustice, and even regional warfare upon the people. Contemporaries referred to such disorderly conduct and senseless violence as “livery and maintenance.” The first war broke out in May 22, 1455, when Richard, duke of York, supported by Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury and of Warwick, intercepted the Lancastrian court of Henry VI in St. Albans and fought a half-hour battle there, defeating the Lancastrian army and killing their commander, Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset. The Yorkist victory intensified the battle between the House of York and Queen Margaret, who was forced to lead the Lancastrians during the periodic insanity of her husband. Whenever Richard made attempts to assume the protectorate during the king’s temporary sickness, the queen fought back. She subsequently succeeded in winning the court battles, forcing leading Yorkists into exile in 1459. The crisis renewed in 1460, when the Yorkists returned and defeated the Lancastrians at the Battle of Northampton in July, capturing the king and forcing him to accept a humiliating compromise, which allowed the king to remain in power for life and made the duke of York and his heirs the successors to the throne. In December, Queen Margaret organized a successful counterattack at the Battle of Wakefield to rescue the hereditary right to the throne for her son, Prince Edward. Richard, duke of York, died in the battle, and his son Edward assumed the Yorkist leadership. The power struggle at the court became an open war for the Crown between the two houses. Both could trace their ancestry to Edward III (1327–77), but neither had a flawless claim. In 1461, two battles were fought, first at Mortimer’s Cross, and then at Towton, which resulted in the end of the 62 years of Lancastrian rule. Henry VI was exiled to Scotland with his wife and son. Edward IV became the first Yorkist king. 338 Roses, Wars of the An actor portrays Richard III in William Shakespeare’s play Henry VI—the story of the Wars of the Roses. The war continued, however, because of the weak hereditary claim of the House of York, and the nobility became even more divided when private interests and mutual hatred drove them constantly to change allegiances. In 1464 Edward IV alienated the earl of Warwick, who had helped the king win his throne and supported the king in his early years, and thus became known as the kingmaker. In 1469, the earl formed an alliance with the exiled Lancastrian queen Margaret. Together, they helped Henry VI take back London and regain the Crown in 1470. The recovery of the Lancastrian power, however, lasted only about six months. In 1471, Edward IV defeated the Lancastrians and killed the earl at the Battle of Barnet in April and won the Battle of Tewkesbury in early May, capturing Henry VI and his queen and killing Prince Edward on the battlefield. However, after the crushing of the House of Lancaster, the Yorkists did not hold onto the Crown long. Between 1483 and 1485, the sudden death of Edward IV was followed by the usurpation of the Crown by Richard III over his uncrowned nephew Edward V. These events opened a new phase of dynastic contention. Henry Tudor, with a very weak hereditary claim to the English throne, took the opportunity and fought on behalf of the Lancastrians against the unpopular usurper, Richard III. In 1485, the right to the English Crown was finally decided at the Battle of Bosworth, in which Henry killed Richard, dispersed the Yorkist army, and made himself Henry vii, the first Tudor king. The Wars of the Roses left a ravaged nation to Henry VII, who was facing troubles similar to what his Lancastrian and Yorkist predecessors had suffered for the past three decades. The legitimacy of the Crown was challengeable. The great noble houses remained divided among themselves and defiant of the central authority. The old administrative mechanism no longer functioned and parliamentary institutions, the king, and the two houses did not know how to work together. The transformation of an agrarian economy to a mixed one with trade and commerce was well under way, social and religious crises were on the horizon, and the royal treasury was empty. Further reading: Carpenter, Christine. The Wars of Roses: Politics and Constitution in England, c. 1347–1509. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Edwards, Philip. The Making of the Modern English State, 1460–1660. New York: Palgrave, 2001; Goodman, Anthony. The Wars of Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452–97. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981; Lander, Jack R. Crown and Nobility, 1450–1509. London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1976. Wenxi Liu

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

Raffl es, Thomas (1781–1826) British colonial administrator Sir Thomas Stamford Raffl es, the son of an English sea captain, joined the British East India Company as a clerk in 1795 and was sent to Asia in 1805. When the Netherlands became part of Napoleon I’s empire, Dutch overseas possessions became a prize in the Anglo- French struggle. In 1811 a British naval expedition of over 100 ships set sail to conquer Java and other Dutch possessions in the East Indies. Upon its conquest, Commander Lord Minto appointed his secretary, the 30- year-old Raffl es, as lieutenant-governor of Java. Raffl es immediately began thorough reforms based on liberal principles, overturning the oppressive Dutch plantation system that forced the people to cultivate and deliver export crops—primarily sugar, coffee, tea, indigo, and cotton—that greatly profi ted the Dutch East India Company. Raffl es implemented a free market system and completely reformed the internal administration of the islands. He was also interested in the local culture and history, wrote a history of Java that became a classic, and ordered the fi rst survey of the magnifi cent Buddhist monument at Borobodur. Raffles had hoped that Java would become a permanent British colony. However, at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Netherlands was awarded its former possessions in the East Indies, and most of Raffles’s reforms were rescinded by the returning Dutch administration. Raffles returned to Britain in 1816 due to ill-health, was knighted, and came back to Asia as lieutenant-governor of Bencoolen in western Sumatra in 1818. To offset the loss of Java, Raffles negotiated the purchase of Singapore, a sparsely inhabited island at the tip of the Malay Peninsula from the Sultan of Johore in 1819, assuring the British government that its location made it “the most important station in the East,” adding that as a result of this acquisition, the Dutch “are no longer the exclusive sovereigns of the eastern seas.” It had a population of 1,000 inhabitants. Singapore was strategically located at the tip of mainland Southeast Asia and had a superb deepsea harbor. Modern cosmopolitan Singapore is the result of policies begun by Raffl es: city planning, free trade, orderly government, and imposition of law and order. The city became a magnet for Asian and European shipping and immigrants of many nationalities, mainly Chinese, but also Indians and Malays. Raffl es granted the right of Muslim legal practices to the Malays but instituted English laws modifi ed to suit local circumstances for other peoples. He also abolished slave trade and slave status for anyone who had come to Singapore after the establishment of British rule in 1819, much before the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and other nations. The Netherlands had opposed the establishment of British Singapore but was forced to accede in the Anglo- Dutch Treaty of London in 1824, in return for Britain’s total retreat from Sumatra. In 1867 Singapore, Penang, and Malacca (also British possessions) were joined to form a crown colony called the Strait Settlements. British R involvement in the petty and unstable Malay states to the north resulted in the formation of the Federated Malay States in 1895 when four states came under the supervision of a British resident general. In 1914 the remaining fi ve Malay states also came under indirect British rule when they formed into a union called the Unfederated Malay States. These steps established British rule throughout Malaya. Raffl es returned to Britain in 1824 due to ill health, founded the Royal Zoological Society, and died in 1826. Modern Singapore would not have come into being save for Raffl es’s vision. See also Malay States, Treaty of Federation and the (1896); Smith, Adam. Further reading: Moore, Donald, and Joanna Moore. The First 150 Years of Singapore. Singapore: Donald Moore Press Ltd., 1969; Tarling, N. Anglo-Dutch Rivalry in the Malay World, 1780–1824. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962; Turnbull, C. M. A History of Singapore, 1819–1988. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989; Wurtzburg, C. E. Raffl es of the Eastern Isles. London: Hodder and Stoughton 1954, 1984. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur railroads in North America The impact of railroads on the economic, political, social, and cultural history of North America was immense. These iron horses propelled by steam locomotives along ribbons of steel were integral to the 19th-century transportation revolution and the Industrial Revolution, binding together geographically disparate regions of the United States, Canada, and northern Mexico. Railroads provided fast, cheap transportation for people and goods; facilitated the growth of markets, industries, migration, and organized labor; promoted westward expansion in the United States and Canada; integrated the regional mining and ranching economies of northern Mexico with U.S. markets; and, by the late 19th century, provided an important organizational model for emergent corporations. They were also key to the emergence of the populist movement and the era of progressive reforms and were not displaced as the principal means of mechanical conveyance until the automobile became an object of mass consumption in the 1920s. In the United States, the transportation revolution began in the 1790s–1820s with a frenzy of road and turnpike construction, continued in the 1820s–1840s with a frenzy of canal building, and reached a culmination in the 1840s–1890s with a rush of railroad building. Railroads engendered a revolution in transport arguably not supplanted until the construction of the interstate highway system in the mid-1950s. Like the interstate highways, the railroads were built only through the active intervention of state and federal governments via massive public subsidies, tax breaks, land grants, and other major incentives to ensure their timely construction. The fi rst working railroad in the United States was a 13-mile stretch completed in 1830 by the Baltimore & Ohio Company. In 1836 total railroad mileage in the United States stood at around 1,000; in 1840 3,000; in 1860 30,000. In 1864 Congress mandated a standard track gauge (width) for the projected transcontinental railroad, though the standard gauge of 4 feet, 8½ inches did not become the U.S. standard until 1886. By 1900 nearly 200,000 miles of railroad track crisscrossed the length and breadth of the country. Densest in the industrial and agricultural heartland of the Northeast and Midwest, sparsest in the West, railroads linked all the country’s major cities and tens of thousands of towns An illustration published in 1875 of crews laying track on the Great Plains. Soldiers and Native Americans rest in the foreground. 346 railroads in North America and communities. Emblematic here was the emergence of Chicago as a major rail hub in the nation’s midsection integrating rail and water transport. Towns along railways prospered; those bypassed fl oundered. The transcontinental railroad, linking the east and west coasts and built mainly by immigrant Irish and Chinese laborers under exceedingly hazardous conditions, was completed in 1869. Two decades later, another six major lines crossed the continent east to west, with termini in Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. A parallel development unfolded in Canada, where a canal boom from the 1820s and 1830s was followed by a railroad boom from the 1850s. Here, too, public subsidies, activist government, and abundant immigrant labor made railroad construction possible. The transcontinental Canadian Pacifi c Railway, linking the eastern provinces to the Pacifi c port city of Vancouver, British Columbia, was completed in November 1885, with dozens of spur lines linking major cities and towns and crisscrossing the southern border with the United States in both the urban and agricultural East and prairie West. The same happened in northern Mexico, where from the 1880s the burgeoning ranching and mining economies prompted a spate of railroad construction during the period of the Porfi riato. By the early 1900s a dense network of railroads linked northern Mexico’s ranching and mining districts with the U.S. Southwest and industrial centers of the East, South, and Midwest. Like railroads elsewhere in Latin America, funneling into port cities from Peru to Argentina, northern Mexico’s were geared mainly to export production. This was in contrast to the United States and Canada, where railways, in addition to funneling goods to seaports for export, played a key role in integrating internal markets and facilitating migration to the interior. From the mid-1840s telegraph lines followed the rail lines, generating a revolution not only in transport, but in communications. Another revolution occurred in timekeeping: today’s standard time zones, fi rst implemented on November 18, 1883, by rail companies in the United States and Canada, resulted directly from the need to synchronize rail schedules. Among the largest concentrations of private capital in the world in the late 19th century, U.S. railroad companies also pioneered important new forms of business organization. Most notable here was their pursuit of horizontal and vertical integration, in which a single company integrated “horizontally” by controlling fi rms engaged in the same industry (in this case, other railroad companies), and “vertically” by controlling the subsidiary industries involved in the primary industry (in this case, coalfi elds, iron and steel factories, and even cotton fi elds and textile mills for passenger car seats and draperies). By the 1870s railroad monopolies and corruption had become the object of much popular wrath, most tangibly expressed in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, and later, in the Populist Movement of the 1890s. Many Progressive Era reforms from the 1890s, especially anti-monopoly and antitrust legislation, found a primary target in the nation’s giant railroad monopolies. For these and many other reasons, one would be hardpressed to exaggerate the centrality of railroads in the economic, political, social, and cultural history of North America. See also Manifest Destiny. Further reading: Grant, H. Roger. The Railroad: The Life Story of a Technology. Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 2005; Seavoy, Ronald E. An Economic History of the United States: From 1607 to the Present. New York: Routledge, 2006. Michael J. Schroeder Rama V (1853–1910) Thai king Rama V, commonly known as Chulalongkorn, was one of the greatest Thai monarchs, noted for his foreign policy and modernization. The fi fth king of the Chakri dynasty was born to King Mongkut and Queen Debsirinda in 1853. Mongkut was an enlightened ruler who employed Anna Leonowens to be an English governess for his children; the story is told in the book Anna and the King of Siam, later adapted to the musical The King and I. Chulalongkorn also studied in a Buddhist monastery for two years and succeeded to the throne on October 1, 1868. His reign began under the regency of Prime Minister Chao Praya Srisuriyawongse, as he was too young to rule. He visited Penang, Singapore, Java, Burma, Calcutta, and India during this period and got fi rsthand knowledge of Western colonial administrations. He also visited Europe twice, in 1897 and 1907. Mongkut and Chulalongkorn kept up with the times. It was because of the endeavors of the fatherand- son duo that Thailand preserved its independence Rama V 347 and became a modern state. His 42 years of liberal rule saw reforms with far-reaching consequences for Thailand. The administrative structure of Thailand was changed in 1882 with the introduction of a cabinet system with ministers responsible to the king. The archaic feudal administration was changed with the division of the kingdom into provinces and districts. The king’s administrative reforms touched almost every aspect of the state. In 1884 state schools were established and were open to girls and boys. The newly established government printing press published the textbooks. State scholars were sent abroad and later modern universities were established in Thailand. The traditional lunar calendar was replaced by a Western one with Sunday as a holiday in 1899. Chulalongkorn was instrumental in developing a modern army. The fi rst railroad opened in 1896 from Bangkok to Ayudhya and, in 1905, the fi rst foreign loan from Britain to meet expenses for its building was received. A benevolent monarch, he traveled throughout the kingdom to see the condition of his subjects. Thailand became a viable, stable, and modern state because of the reforms of Chulalongkorn. PRUDENT POLICIES Thailand survived without becoming a colony of either Britain or France, unlike its neighbors, thanks to prudent policies of the king, although Mongkut and Chulalongkorn both signed unequal treaties of friendship and commerce with the Western powers that allowed them extraterritoriality rights. Aware of the limitations of his military, Chulalongkorn made land concessions to France and Britain that kept Thailand as a buffer state between the two. In 1893 Thailand gave up its claim on the territories of the left bank of the Mekong River, covering most of the area of modern Laos to France. In 1904 the Anglo-French treaty designated the respective spheres of infl uence of Britain and France. In exchange for 25 kilometers of neutral zone along the Mekong’s west bank, Thailand gave Champassak and Sayaboury provinces to France in 1904 and 1907. By the Anglo-Thai Convention of 1909 Thailand gave up its rights over the four southern states of the Malay Peninsula: Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, and Trengganu, while Britain recognized Thai control over the Muslim-dominated Pattani Province. The convention thus fi xed the present existing boundary between Malaysia and Thailand, which has become one of the factors for the rise of Islamic terrorism in Thailand. When Chulalongkorn died on October 23, 1910, in Bangkok, he left a modern Thai state to his successor, Rama VI. To commemorate the reign of Chulalongkorn, October 23 is observed as a national holiday. See also Anglo-French Agreement on Siam (1897); Chakri dynasty and King Rama I; Siam-Burmese War. Further reading: Cady, John F. Southeast Asia: Its Historical Development. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1976; Leonowens, Anna. An English Governess at the Court of Siam. New York: Roy Publishers, 1954; Moffat, Abbot Low. Mongkut, the King of Siam. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1961; Sardesai, D. R. Southeast Asia: Past and Present. New Delhi: Vikas, 1981; Tarling, Nicholas, ed. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Patit Paban Mishra Reconstruction in the United States The era of Reconstruction was from 1865 to 1877 when Americans tried to reunite a nation shattered by Civil War. It generated bitterness and controversy. The people who lived through Reconstruction viewed it from sharply different perspectives. Many white southerners saw it as a devastating experience, a time when vindictive northerners humiliated the South and delayed reunifi cation. Northerners argued that forcible federal intervention was the only way to stop the old southern aristocracy from returning and subjugating their former slaves and to keep die-hard Confederates from restoring southern society to the way it had been before the war. Many considered Reconstruction signifi cant for other reasons. They saw it as a small but important fi rst step to putting former slaves on the path to claiming their civil rights and accumulating economic power. Reconstruction did not bring African Americans enough legal protection or material resources to assure them anything resembling equality, and when it ended in 1877 the federal government abandoned the freed slaves to a system of economic serfdom and legal subordination. The African Americans who continued to live in what came to be called the New South could only produce token resistance to the new southern system for the remainder of the 19th century. THE PROBLEMS OF PEACE Emancipation had stripped many white southerners of their slaves, and they had no capital and almost no 348 Reconstruction in the United States personal property for rebuilding their lives and fortunes. Towns were gutted, plantations burned, fi elds grown to weeds, and bridges and railroads destroyed. Many white southerners faced starvation and homelessness. More than 258,000 Confederate soldiers died in the war and thousands more came home wounded or sick. The Legend of the Lost Cause, romanticizing the South as its citizens remembered it in the days before the War, became a unifying point of hope for southerners. Southern blacks faced the same stringent conditions as their white neighbors. Nearly 200,000 of them had fought for the Union, and 38,000 had died. These African Americans envisioned a life free from the injustices and humiliations of slavery with the same rights and protections as white people enjoyed. African Americans disagreed among themselves on how to achieve freedom. Some demanded that economic resources like land be redistributed, and others just wanted legal equality, confi dent that if they had the same opportunities that white people had they would earn places in American society. White southerners had a different view of freedom. To them, freedom meant the ability to control their own destinies without the North or the federal government interfering. In the aftermath of the Civil War, they tried to restore southern society to the way it had been in the antebellum period. Leaders of both parties believed that readmitting the South to the Union would reunite the Democrats and weaken the Republicans. Republicans disagreed among themselves about the proper approach to Reconstruction. Conservative Republicans insisted that the South accept the abolition of slavery but did not suggest any other conditions for readmission of the states that had seceded. Radical Republicans, following the lead of Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, demanded that Confederate civil and military leaders be punished, that many southern whites be disenfranchised, that black legal rights be protected, and that the property of wealthy white southerners be confi scated and distributed among the freedmen. Moderate Republicans rejected the vengeance of the Radicals, but desired some concessions from the South, including African- American rights. TEN PERCENT PLAN Sympathizing with the moderate and conservative Republicans, President Abraham Lincoln pursued a lenient plan for Reconstruction that he announced in December 1863. He wanted to quickly readmit southern states into the Union in good standing and with a minimum of retaliation. He proposed what he called a 10 percent plan: whenever 10 percent of the number of voters in 1860 took the oath in any state, those loyal voters could set up a state government. Using this formula, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee reestablished loyal governments in 1864. President Lincoln also wanted to extend suffrage to African Americans who were educated, owned property, and had served in the Union army. He created the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands and insisted that the new freedmen would have equal rights. African Americans in the Freedmen’s Bureau were sent to farming plantations in the Sea Islands of South Carolina that the army had seized, but they never became owners of the land that they worked. History and Reconstruction would undoubtedly have taken a more positive turn if southerner John Wilkes Booth had not assassinated President Lincoln on April 14, 1865. The assassination extended and deepened the bitterness of the Civil War on both sides. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, did not fi t the compromising or conciliatory pattern. A tactless and intemperate man, Johnson, a Democrat from Tennessee, resented the freed slaves and refused to support any plans that gave them civil or voting rights. Soon after he took offi ce, he revealed his Reconstruction plan, or as he called it, his Restoration plan, which he implemented in 1865 during the congressional recess. As Lincoln had done, he offered amnesty to southerners who would take the oath of allegiance. He appointed a provisional governor for each state and instructed the governor to invite qualifi ed voters to elect delegates to a constitutional convention. To be readmitted to Congress, a state had to revoke its ordinance of secession, abolish slavery, ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, and repudiate the Confederate and state war debts. As a fi nal restoration step, each state had to elect a state government and send representatives to Congress. By the end of 1865, all of the seceded states had formed new governments and were prepared to rejoin the Union when Congress recognized them. Many northerners were disturbed at these Reconstruction results. They were dismayed that southerners were reluctant to free the slaves and astonished that states claiming to be loyal to the United States would elect leaders of the recent Confederacy. The Democratic Party, proclaiming itself the party of white men, supported Johnson. In response to recalcitrance, the Radical Republicans blocked the readmission of the Reconstruction in the United States 349 rebellious states to the Congress in fall 1865. Congress also renewed the Freedman’s Bureau, but Johnson vetoed it. Reconstruction under President Andrew Johnson’s plan, sometimes called presidential Reconstruction, progressed only until Congress reconvened in December 1865. After it reconvened, Congress refused to seat representatives of the “restored” states and created a new Joint Committee on Reconstruction to work out a new Reconstruction policy. This began the era of congressional, or Radical, Reconstruction. RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION Constitutional amendments, far-reaching legislation, and restrictive Black Codes were enacted during the next years of Reconstruction. In 1865 and 1866 the governments of white ex-Confederates quickly instituted Black Codes that limited freedmen to second-class civil rights and no voting rights. Southern plantation owners wanted to dominate their African-American labor force and prevent them from attaining equal rights. The Mississippi and South Carolina Black Codes said in part that if African-American workers ran away from their tasks they forfeited their wages for the year and fugitives were to be arrested and carried back to their employers. Codes in other southern states prohibited African Americans from owning or leasing farms or taking any jobs other than plantation or domestic workers. Three new constitutional amendments were adopted as a result of the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified in 1865. Proposed by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in April 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment granted federal civil rights to every person born in the United States as well as to naturalized citizens, providing the first constitutional definition of American citizenship. It guaranteed repayment of the American war debts and repudiation of the Confederate debts. The Fifteenth Amendment stipulated that the right to be vote could not be based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to create and protect black civil rights in the South. This led to a decisive break with President Andrew Johnson, who vetoed the bill. Congress overrode it. The 1866 congressional elections were fought over the Reconstruction question. The southern states had not yet been readmitted to the Union and were not allowed to vote, so the Republicans gained solidly in Congress. President Johnson actively campaigned for conservative candidates, but the voters overwhelming returned a Republican majority to Congress. Radical Republicans under Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner gained full control of Congress and formed a plan of their own and implemented it, even over President Johnson’s veto. Early in 1867 the radical Republicans passed three Reconstruction bills, overriding President Johnson’s vetoes. Under the radical Reconstruction plan, after ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, Tennessee was readmitted to the Union, but Radical Republicans rejected the Lincoln-Johnson governments of ten other Confederate states and combined them into five military districts: Virginia; the Carolinas; Georgia, Alabama, and Florida; Arkansas and Mississippi; and Texas and Louisiana. martial law Under direct control of the U.S. Army, these military men and their soldiers reconstituted southern state governments with little or no fighting. A state of martial law existed where the military closely supervised local government, supervised the elections, and protected the officeholders from violence. Blacks were enrolled as voters as well as white males who had not participated in the rebellion. These Republican governments met the congressional conditions for readmission to the Union, including ratifying constitutional amendments. Republicans won every state except Virginia in the 1867 elections. They were organized into clubs called Union Leagues, and the Republican coalition in each state was made up of freedmen, African Americans who came from the North, recently arrived white Northerners, and local white Republican sympathizers called scalawags. In most elections, the Republicans won the state government, the state was readmitted, the congressional delegation seated, and most soldiers were removed. The old political elite of the Democratic Party, mostly former Confederates, were left out of power. Republicans took control of all southern state governorships and state legislatures, leading to the election of numerous African Americans to state and national office, as well as to the installation of African Americans into other positions of power. By 1868 seven of the 10 former Confederate states had fulfilled the requirements and had been readmitted to the Union. Conservative whites delayed the return of Virginia and Texas until 1869 and Mississippi until 1870. To check President Johnson, the Radical Republicans passed two laws in 1867, the Tenure of Office Act 350 Reconstruction in the United States forbidding the president to remove civil officials, including his own cabinet, without Senate consent, and the Command of the Army Act, which stopped the president from issuing military orders except through the commanding General of the Army. IMPEACHING PRESIDENT JOHNSON The Radical Republicans wanted to impeach President Johnson, and in 1868 they found a reason to do so when President Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton over congressional objections. On March 5, 1868, senators formed a court of impeachment to hear the charges against the president, and they introduced a resolution containing 11 articles of impeachment. The Senate tried the case through April and May of 1868. William M. Evarts served as President Johnson’s counsel, basing his defense on a clause in the Tenure of Office Act that stated that the current secretaries would hold their posts throughout the term of the president who appointed them. President Lincoln had appointed Stanton so the president’s counsel claimed that the applicability of the act had already run its course. The Senate held three votes. On all three occasions, 35 of the senators voted “guilty” and 19 “not guilty.” Seven Republicans joined the Democrats and Independents to vote for acquittal. The vote was one short of the constitutional two-thirds majority to convict the president. In 1868 voters were tired of the political turmoil of the Johnson administration and they turned to popular Civil War hero general Ulysses S. Grant. Grant had his choice of either the Democratic or Republican nomination. He accepted the Republican nomination because he believed that Republican Reconstruction policies were more popular in the North. Grant’s victory over Democratic candidate Horatio Seymour of New York proved to be a narrow one. Without the 500,000 new African- American voters in the South, Grant would have lost the popular vote. By 1870 all southern states had been readmitted to the United States, with Georgia the last on July 15, 1870. When President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Amnesty Act of 1872, all but 500 sympathizers were pardoned. The white southerners who lost power re-formed themselves into conservative parties that battled the Republicans throughout the South. The party names varied somewhat, and by the late 1870s they called themselves simply Democrats. Despite his lack of political experience and scandals in his administration, President Grant won a substantial victory in 1872. One scandal after another marked his second administration. END OF RECONSTRUCTION In some states, where African Americans were the majority or the populations of the two races were almost equal, whites used intimidation and violence to keep African Americans from voting. Started in 1866 and led by former Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Ku Klux Klan gradually absorbed some of the smaller organizations and expanded to create terror in black communities across the South. In 1870 and 1871 the Republican Congress passed two Enforcement Acts, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Acts. These acts empowered the federal government to supersede the state courts and prosecute violations of the law, the first time the federal government had ever claimed the power to prosecute crimes by individuals under federal law. By 1870 the Democratic-Conservative leadership ended its opposition to Reconstruction as well as to black suffrage. The Democrats in the North concurred. They wanted to fight the Republicans on economic grounds rather than race. But not all Democrats agreed. A group of hard-core Democrats wanted to resist Reconstruction to the bitter end. Finally a group of Democrats called Redeemers wrested control of the party in state after state by forming coalitions with conservative Republicans, emphasizing the need for economic modernization. President Grant accepted responsibility for the panic of 1873, and state after state fell to the Redeemers. In the 1874 elections, the Republican Party lost 96 seats around the country, and President Grant decided not to run for reelection. Most Democrats and Northern Republicans agreed that the Civil War goals had been achieved and further federal military interference would be an undemocratic violation of historic republican values. In 1875 Rutherford B. Hayes won a hotly contested Ohio gubernatorial election, indicating that his policy toward the South would become Republican policy. It became Republican policy the next year when he won the 1876 Republican nomination for president. After Rutherford B. Hayes won the disputed presidential election of 1876, the South agreed to accept his victory if he withdrew the last federal troops from its territory. He did so in a political move called the Compromise of 1877, and the South was redeemed. The end of Reconstruction marked the reduction of many civil, political, and economic rights and opportunities for African Americans. African Americans would legally and Reconstruction in the United States 351 socially remain second-class citizens until change began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the end of Reconstruction, the South reestablished a segregated society, and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned much of the civil rights legislation. The Court suggested in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, then held in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, that the Fourteenth Amendment only gave Congress the power to outlaw public, rather than private, discrimination. In 1896 the Court announced in Plessy v. Ferguson that state-mandated segregation was legal as long as the law provided “separate but equal” facilities. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; political parties and the United States. Further reading: Ayers, Edward. The Promise of the New South. New York: Oxford University Press,1992; Cell, John W. The Highest Stage of White Supremacy: The Origins of Segregation in South Africa and the American South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfi nished Revolution, 1863– 1877. New York: Harper, 1988; Rabinowitz, Howard. Race Relations in the Urban South,1865–1890. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1978; Woodward, C. Vann. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974. Delia Gillis revolutions of 1848 The revolutions of 1848 were transitory events that erupted throughout Europe and collapsed as quickly as they arose. For a brief moment they promised much in the way of democratic and social reform, but without direction and steady leadership delivered little. The forces opposing revolutionary change and radical reform were far more formidable and better organized, so that repression was easy to achieve. The backdrop for these revolts revealed a range of causes tied to industrialization and changing economic conditions. Rising prices tied to poor harvests, depressed industrial conditions, increased unemployment, radical and moderate political ideas, and nationalism all combined to create a climate that challenged the old regimes that were characterised by aristocratic and monarchical dominance. Society was changing, and the hotbeds for these revolutions were Europe’s cities, which had witnessed sweeping changes. The still most populous section of Europe’s population, the peasantry, was largely witness to, but not participant in, the revolutions of 1848. It was in the cities that the bourgeoisie and the emerging working classes most wanted liberal political and economic reform such as an expanded franchise and workers’ rights. As with many such events, the “Spring Time of the Peoples” began in France and spread to the German Confederation, Prussia, the Habsburg Empire, Italy, and Poland. In the initial February French revolt the middle class and working class combined interests and demanded constitutional change. However, disagreements soon emerged, and the ending of a system of national workshops for the unemployed led the Parisian workers to raise a more radical agenda of class confl ict and resistance. By June the provisional government, supported by the military, had brutally suppressed the workers. There soon followed a presidential election in December, which saw Napoleon III take charge of this Second Republic. In 1852 Napoleon, by exploiting French nationalism, seized total power and replaced the Second Republic with the Second Empire. In Prussia a constitutional monarchy was proposed for Frederick William III, and in the rest of the German Confederation the revolutionaries drew up the liberal Frankfurt constitution proposing a greater Germany and a liberal constitutional monarchy. Through Prussian resistance, the Frankfurt assembly broke down into factionalism, and by 1851 the old order was reestablished throughout the German areas. In the Habsburg Empire revolts broke out in Vienna, Budapest, Venice, and Milan. Emperor Ferdinand dismissed the unpopular prince Clemens von Metternich who had overseen Austrian affairs since 1815. Metternich then sought exile in London. With its many nationalities, revolution could mean the end of the empire. Hungary, led by Louis Kossuth, proved initially more successful in gaining independence from Vienna; however, the central government eventually crushed all ethnic revolts, including revolts in northern Italy, and put in place martial law, although some economic reforms did last. In Italy the revolutionary fl ames spread throughout the politically fragmented Italian Peninsula. The Piedmontese unsuccessfully arose against the Austrians, and additional revolts challenged the established regimes throughout Italy. These included revolts against King Ferdinand II of Sicily and insurrections in Bologna and Rome, where the prime minister of the Papal States was assassinated. Rebel leaders like Giuseppe Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi proclaimed a Rome of the People. French 352 revolutions of 1848 intervention ended the Rome uprising, and in April 1849 the pope returned to power. Mazzini fl ed to En - gland and Garibaldi to the United States. The revolutionary spirit spread to Poland, where the people of the Grand Duchy of Poznan rose against an occupying Prussian army. However, internal divisions split the leadership, and the revolt failed by May 1848. Russia and Britain remained free of the 1848 unrest. The oppressive Russian state, with its nonindustrial feudal base, was far removed from the conditions of the rest of Europe, and Britain, a more advanced industrial state, had secured a degree of reform in 1832, and with a freer political atmosphere there was less support for more radical change. The revolutions of 1848 dramatically failed, and Europe remained autocratic, with national elites in power, although the monarchies after 1848 were sometimes described as constitutional. The pressing economic, political, and social problems remained: rapid industrialization, a rising urban population, a dissatisfi ed bourgeoisie denied political infl uence, and idealistic university students desiring change. In Germany and Italy, a drive for national unifi cation, built upon the romantic nationalist forces unleashed by the 1848 revolts, emerged. Within 20 years of the 1848 revolt, national unifi cation occurred in Italy in the form of the Risorgimento, and in Prussia, Otto von Bismarck created a German empire by 1871. The European working classes, inspired by many socialist voices, most important Karl Marx, moved toward a classbased politics. See also German unifi cation, wars of; Polish revolutions; Second and Third Republics of France. Further reading: Korner, Alex. 1848: A European Revolution? New York: Macmillan, 2003; Price, Roger. The Revolutions of 1848. New York: Macmillan, 1988; Sperber, Jonathan. The European Revolutions, 1848–1851. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Stearns, Peter N. The Revolutions of 1848: The Revolutionary Tide in Europe. New York: Norton, 1974. Theodore W. Eversole Rhodes, Cecil (1853–1902) British businessman and imperialist Cecil John Rhodes was born the son of a vicar of the Church of England (Anglican) in Bishop’s Stortford in Hertfordshire in 1853. Rhodes coincidentally was born in the year that the eighth Kaffi r War, between the British and Africans of the Xhosa tribe, came to a conclusion. These wars were a prolonged battle by the African people against the intrusion of Europeans, fi nally ending with the annexation of the Xhosa territories by the Cape Colony, as well as the incorporation of the Xhosa people. After the deposition of the Xhosa paramount, Sandile, in 1851, this territory was reserved, apart from the British military outposts, for occupation by Africans. Resentments in British Kaffraria, however, resulted in the eighth and most costly of the wars. Once again the Xhosa resistance was immensely strengthened by the participation of Khoisan tribesmen, who rebelled at their settlement of Kat River. By 1853 the Xhosa had been defeated, and the territory to the north of British Kaffraria was annexed to the Cape Colony and opened to white settlement. Rhodes was affl icted with poor health most of his life but seemed to compensate with a mighty will. The army or navy were obviously out of the question because of his diminished physical capabilities. Like many young Victorian men, he went out to the colonies to seek his fortune, as many Americans of his generation went to the Wild West. Rhodes went to join his oldest brother, Herbert, in Natal, in eastern South Africa. Natal Province had been settled centuries earlier by the Zulu people, as part of the great Bantu migrations, which had been caused by the growing desertifi cation of the sub-Saharan region of Africa. Cattle herders, the Bantu sought the grasslands of southern Africa for their home. They fought bitter wars with the Boers, descendants of Dutch settlers who arrived in what became Cape Town in the 17th century. In Natal, Herbert and Cecil Rhodes attempted cotton farming, but like the British who settled in the high country of Kenya in East Africa some 50 years later with the expectation of establishing vast coffee plantations, met with mixed success. With their plans for cotton farming proving a failure, the two Rhodes brothers decided to seek out the diamond fi elds. The next 15 years saw a tremendous increase in South African diamonds. More stones were recovered in this period than had been mined in the previous 2,000 years in India. Coincidentally, this outpouring of wealth came at a time when Brazilian deposits were starting to be depleted. The rise in wealth around the world, particularly in the United States, ensured that diamond prices stayed steady, something they had not done when Brazil overproduced diamonds for the demand in the 1730s. Rhodes, Cecil 353 By 1869 diamonds were found far from any stream or river, fi rst in yellow earth and below in hard rock called blueground, later called kimberlite after the mining town of Kimberley. In the 1870s and 1880s Kimberley, encompassing the mines that produced 95 percent of the world’s diamonds, was home to great wealth and fi erce rivalries, most notably that between Rhodes and Barney Barnato, English immigrants who consolidated early 31-foot-square prospects into ever larger holdings and mining companies While Cecil and Herbert Rhodes became involved in the growing diamond industry around Kimberley, Cecil made continual trips back and forth to England. He managed to be awarded a degree from Oxford in his younger years and went on to become perhaps the best-known spokesman for imperialism in his time. Although very much a believer in free enterprise, he realized the need for the imperial factor. Essentially, he needed the imperial government to protect his holdings and interests in the diamond fi elds. Although intent on building his private empire within the British Empire, Rhodes also became convinced that Ireland, England’s oldest colony, ought to have home rule, a degree of autonomy from the home government of London. In this he followed the policies of William Gladstone, the head of the Liberal Party. Rhodes’s views on the native Africans were equally complex. His treatment of the indigenous people was often contradictory. On one hand, in his speech he was often derogatory of Africans and essentially created the apartheid system that separated his African workers from white society and the rest of the world. On the other hand, Rhodes appears to have had signifi cant interest in both the languages and cultures of the native people, an interest and respect that was surprisingly liberal for the time. Back in South Africa, Rhodes singlemindedly pursued his consolidation of his hold on the Kimberley diamond bonanza. Upon his return, Rhodes formed DeBeers Consolidated Mines Limited in March 1888. Rhodes controlled the company with some of the diamond barons he had formerly considered rivals. These served as life governors of the company. By March 1890 DeBeers made a substantial profi t on diamond sales, with estimates reaching as high as £50 of profi t on every £100 pounds sold. By 1891 DeBeers had created a monopoly on the production of diamonds in Kimberley and, because of this, controlled virtually every other commercial venture and activity in the entire South African region. Not content with his effective monopoly on South African diamond production, Cecil Rhodes continued to look for new opportunities for wealth and power. In 1890, mainly due to his economic position in the Cape Colony, Rhodes became the colony’s premier. Of the many projects he envisioned, the one that was his most publicized was the creation of a railway to run from Cape Colony through the entire African continent, ending in Cairo. His premiership of Cape Colony allowed him to pursue goals such as this on a much grander scale. As premier, he lobbied for the annexation of Bechuanaland, a goal that was rebuffed due to a general lack of will in the Colonial Offi ce. Prevented from this goal by political means, Rhodes instead created a new company in an effort to claim lands in the African interior. The British South Africa Company gained a royal charter in 1889. Following this, the company managed to gain access to the lands of the Matabele and the Mashona, as well as other indigenous people. In his drive for empire, 354 Rhodes, Cecil A cartoon of Cecil Rhodes, who was instrumental in the British 19th-century colonization of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) Rhodes created what is today Zimbabwe when the British South Africa troops under Major Patrick Forbes raised the fl ag of the company over Bulawayo in November 1893, having defeated the Ndebele people. The region was fi rst called Rhodesia in 1891. With Rhodes’s backing, Jameson, the administrator of the conquered Mashonaland, invaded the Transvaal. Rhodes cautioned Jameson to delay, but Jameson, disregarding the request, sent as many as 600 men on horseback into the Transvaal. This force was defeated at Krugersdorp on January 1, 1896, and the next day, surrendered. Jameson was handed over to the British by the Boers; he was tried in London, convicted, and served several months in prison. The others in the raiding party were held for a time by the Boers, and were eventually released, thanks to a large payment. The diplomatic repercussions from the raid were signifi cant. Rhodes was forced to resign his premiership of the Cape Colony. Undaunted, in 1896, Rhodes rode alone and unarmed into the Matopo Hills. There he spoke with the Matabele chiefs who had rebelled. This effort forestalled another war, at least for a few years. Within three years, the Second Boer, or Second South African, War began in 1899, as a direct result of the tensions that had been growing from Jameson’s ill-fated expedition. Rhodes helped to coordinate the defense of Kimberley when it was besieged by Boer forces. However, Rhodes would not live to see the end of the war, for he died of heart disease and was buried in April 1902 in the Matopo Hills. His estate initiated the Rhodes scholarships that educate aspiring scholars from all over the English-speaking world at Oxford University. See also South Africa, Boers and Bantu in. Further reading: Kanfer, Stefan. The Last Empire: DeBeers, Diamonds, and the World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995; Millin, Sarah Gertrude. Cecil Rhodes. Phoenix, AZ: Simon Publications, 2001; Rotberg, Robert I. The Founder: Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; Thomas, Antony. Rhodes: Race for Africa. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Norman C. Rothman Riel, Louis (1844–1885) fi ghter for Métis rights in Canada Louis Riel, a man of mixed Native American (Ojibway) and French descent (Métis), sought to preserve Native land rights against an expanding Canadian government. The Canadian government wanted to assert its authority over the territory acquired from the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1869. This agenda confl icted with the aspirations of the Métis, as they attempted to assert their right to self-government through the Council of Assiniboia, established in 1835 by the Hudson’s Bay Company and a Métis provincial government that assumed power in 1869. The legacy of Riel is a diffi cult one to ascertain as he has been depicted by historians as both a traitor of and a martyr for Native rights. Riel was born in 1844 into a family that was well respected and possessed a history of protesting injustices committed against Natives. Jean-Louis Riel, Louis Riel’s father, led a protest against charges imposed on Pierre- Guillaume Sawyer, a man of mixed descent, for the illegal trading of furs. Even though Sawyer was found guilty by a jury, he escaped punishment for this crime, partially due to Riel’s protests. Louis Riel studied at the Collège de Montréal a curriculum similar to that used in 17th-century France. He ended his pursuit of the priesthood in 1864, in part because he fell in love with Marie Guernon, whom he married on June 12, 1866. Riel continued his father’s policies in fi ghting against infringements on Métis rights by protesting against surveys conducted on local land. In 1869 Riel followed up his protests against the Canadian government by confronting surveyors sent to André Nault’s farmland. The Council of Assiniboia questioned the wisdom of Riel and the Métis, but Riel professed his loyalty to the council. Riel and the Métis followed up with armed force, taking Upper Fort Garry, a fort controlled by the Hudson’s Bay Company. Riel and others created a list of rights that demanded that an elected body of Métis people be able to formulate and enact local laws, possess the right to veto, and the right to approve all laws passed by the Canadian government. This list proposed that the Métis be entitled to elect representatives to the Canadian parliament. On December 7, 1869, Riel and a band of Métis took possession of a store owned by Dr. John Christian Schultz and imprisoned Schultz and 48 other individuals in Fort Garry. Riel dissolved the Council of Assiniboia and formed a provisional government, assumed the presidency, and attempted to open talks with the Canadian government regarding the entrance of the Red River settlement. Riel was able to use the authority of the provisional government to keep the English and the French mixed bloods together in order to maintain unity and order in the Red River region. Riel, Louis 355 Riel continued to follow a policy of aggression as he executed Thomas Scott, a prisoner involved in the Orange Order, on March 4, 1870. It is diffi cult to assess the impact that Scott’s execution had on the Canadian government, but it acceded to many of the Métis’s demands. The talks between the Métis representative and the Canadian government resulted in 1870 in the passage of the Manitoba Act, which provided 1,400,000 acres for the Métis and guaranteed bilingualism in the province. The government refused to give amnesty to Riel and the others involved in the execution of Scott. Riel left for the United States when Colonel Garnet Wolseley approached Fort Garry to take possession of the fort. John A. Macdonald, the prime minister of Canada, intended to keep the Métis calm until he could send enough settlers out to the Red River area to assimilate them. The Métis only received 500,000 acres of the land they were promised. More settlers from eastern Canada started to settle in these regions, leading to further land surveys. The Métis in the Qu’Appelle settlement attempted to seek redress from the government by issuing demands for representation in the Canadian parliament and reforming the land laws. These demands were followed by a bill of rights, but the Métis requests were turned down by the Canadian government. Concerned for the future of Métis settlements, the Métis asked Riel to return to Canada to represent their interests, which he did in 1884. Riel acted on his decision to use armed confl ict and demanded the surrender of Fort Carleton in March 1885, but Superintendent L. N. F. Crozier refused. This led Gabriel Dumont, an ally of Riel, to confront a small detachment of mounted police moving toward Fort Carleton. This action forced Crozier to confront the Métis at Duck Lake. A short battle ensued in which the numerically superior Métis forced the mounted police to withdraw from the area. MacDonald was eager to put down this resistance, which led to further armed confl ict in the area. A brief battle ensued at Batoche, as 800 Canadian soldiers overwhelmed 200 Métis, leading to the capture of Riel. Riel was formally charged with treason on July 6, 1885, despite the fact that he possessed American citizenship. His execution on November 16, 1885, had a tremendous impact on the unity of Canada and the Quebecois’s perception of him. The French-Canadian and the Métis depicted Riel as a martyr who fought against the attempts of Anglo-Saxons to control the country. See also Native American policies in the United States and Canada. Further reading: Bumsted, J. M. The Peoples of Canada: A Post-Confederation History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; Finkel, Alvin, and Margaret Conrad. History of the Canadian Peoples, Vol. 2, 1867 to the Present. Toronto: Copp Clark Ltd., 1998; Flanagan, Thomas. Louis ‘David’ Riel: ‘Prophet of the New World.’ Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979; Laliberte, Ron, et al., ed. Expressions in Canadian Native Studies. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Extension Press, 2000; Siggins, Maggie. Riel: a Life of Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994; Stanley, George. The Birth of Western Canada: A History of the Riel Rebellions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963. Brian de Ruiter Rivadavia, Bernardino (1780–1845) Argentinian president One of the major fi gures who led Argentina to independence, Bernardino Rivadavia became the country’s fi rst president with his belief in a nation focused on the capital, Buenos Aires. He was also the creator of many of the major institutions of the country. Born in Buenos Aires, Rivadavia grew up under the last years of Spanish rule. Napoleon I’s occupation of Spain in 1808 led to many of Spain’s colonies establishing their own governments as the ties between them and Madrid were severed. This essentially resulted in the start of the breakup of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, an area encompassing what is now Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Taking advantage of this and eager for a new market for British goods that could not be sold in Europe owing to Napoleon’s control of the continent, in 1806 some British soldiers attacked and captured Buenos Aires. Rivadavia was among the inhabitants of the city who fought the British, eventually driving them out. He also became active in the political debates that started to raise the question of Argentine independence for the fi rst time on May 25, 1810. Rivadavia became secretary of the triumvirate that ruled the new country, and he had the task of organizing the militia and overhauling the Spanish legal system. He also used his position to end the slave trade and press censorship. Although many people in Argentina did want independence— it was formally proclaimed in 1816—it was the nature of this new country that was to cause recurring problems throughout Rivadavia’s political career. 356 Rivadavia, Bernardino Some political fi gures saw it as a loose confederation of states, with Buenos Aires as the capital, but with each state having the right to raise its own taxes and maintain its own militia. Others such as Rivadavia envisioned a unifi ed country centered on Buenos Aires, with a central government that would erode the power of regional juntas and caudillos. Rivadavia had fi rst risen to prominence opposing the British, but as secretary of the triumvirate he was eager to agree to allow British goods to be imported to Buenos Aires. He felt this would encourage British acceptance of Argentine independence and bring greater wealth to Buenos Aires. In 1812 the triumvirate was overthrown, and Rivadavia went into exile in Europe, where he entertained the idea of some unitarists to establish a constitutional monarchy based in Buenos Aires. He also met many intellectuals and became greatly infl uenced by Jeremy Bentham. Unable to fi nd a member of the Spanish royal family eager to rule as a constitutional monarch, Rivadavia returned to Buenos Aires and became a member of the government of Martín Rodríguez in 1821. Just before this several caudillos had been successful in wresting much power from Buenos Aires, but they soon became involved in territorial disputes. This allowed the Buenos Aires government to exert its power. It was not strong enough, militarily, to bring renegade provinces into line, but it did control the River Plate and the Paraná River and thus could institute an economic blockade should the need arise. This took place, and Rivadavia, who dominated the political scene throughout the 1820s, in 1826 was elected president of the United Provinces, the offi cial title of what was to become Argentina. The reforms introduced by Rivadavia drew much from his experiences during his six years spent in Europe. He extended the franchise to all males from the age of 20 and reorganized the court system to guarantee individual and property rights, as well as freedom of the press. On the cultural scene, in 1821 he founded the University of Buenos Aires, provided generous funding for the national library, and established several museums. He also abolished religious courts, clerical immunity from taxation, and the compulsory tithe, massively weakening the power of the church and thus earning himself the enmity of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The 1820s also coincided with an “opening up” of the hinterland around Buenos Aires. Rivadavia had sought to encourage migration to Argentina from Europe, but this was not successful, and a few wealthy families from Buenos Aires were able to establish considerable ranches destroying Rivadavia’s plan for the formation of thousands of family farms. With the central government unable to keep up with the expansion of landholding, Rivadavia introduced the Roman system of emphyteusis, by which land taken over by farmers would be held by the government, with the farmers paying annual taxes for its exclusive use. With rent put at 8 percent for pastureland and 4 percent for cropland, the hope of the Rivadavia government was that this would move the tax base from Buenos Aires to the countryside. This scheme was incredibly successful at changing the control of the land, but, as it did not place a cap on the land that could be alienated, and as people could take over land without paying any money, and only a small rent, speculators started registering massive claims. This focused land in the hands of a small number of the elite. Some 122 people and partnerships took control of 5.5 million acres, with 10 of them having more than 130,000 acres each. With a weak administration unable effectively to monitor the land, few paid much in the way of taxes, which was never to exceed 3 percent of total government revenue. In Buenos Aires, the economic life of the city was also dominated by a small number of merchant groupings. Many Britons took control of the import-export businesses as Rivadavia, eager for British investment, opened up the economy to foreign capital. This was to lead to Rivadavia’s most controversial move: He negotiated a massive loan from Britain’s Barings Bank. Although this was used to establish the Banco Nacional (national bank) in Buenos Aires, speculators made fortunes from the heavy discounting of the loan. In return for going into debt to the tune of 1 million pounds, Baring Brothers furnished less than half of it in cash, the rest going to middlemen and speculators who underwrote the loan. It was a massive political scandal in Argentina, and payments continued until 1904. However, Rivadavia’s concerns were not only fi nancial. In 1822 Brazil had declared its independence and was eager to exert its control over the eastern bank of the River Plate. This area was largely controlled by Argentine ranchers, and the two countries headed to war, with Brazil blockading Buenos Aires and forcing the government to default on the Barings loan. At this juncture, several provinces decided to form an alliance to oppose Rivadavia’s newly enacted centralist constitution. In 1827, after being president for only 17 months, Rivadavia was forced to resign and left for exile in Europe. The constitution was nullifi ed by his successor, but the war with Brazil did lead to a compromise: Rivadavia, Bernardino 357 the formation of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay as an independent country. In 1834 Rivadavia returned to Buenos Aires to face charges brought against him and was sentenced to be exiled. He went to Brazil and then to Spain, where he died on September 2, 1845, in the port of Cádiz. In 1857 his body was brought back to Buenos Aires. In 1880 his birthday, May 20, was declared a national holiday, although it is no longer observed. Rivadavia has long been honored by the Argentine government as one of the founders of the country, and in 1864 he was the fi rst person to be featured on an Argentine postage stamp, and stamps commemorating him were produced regularly until 1951. Further reading: Burgin, Miron. The Economic Aspects of Argentine Federalism 1820–1852. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1946; Cochrane, W. J. The Rivadavia Stamps of the Argentine Republic. London: Plumridge, 1923; Piccirilli, Ricardo. Rivadavia. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Piccirilli, 1952; Rock, David. Argentina 1516–1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987. Justin Corfi eld Romanov dynasty Probably the most famous Romanovs besides Peter and Catherine the Great were Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, and their fi ve children, whom the Bolsheviks murdered in 1917. The legend of the survival of Anastasia, the youngest daughter of Nicholas and Alexandra, lingered into the 21st century, strengthened by the fact that her remains and those of her brother Alexei were still missing from the mass grave that covered her sisters, parents, servants, and pet spaniel, Jimmy. The Romanov dynasty began in turmoil, which matched its end. Evil days followed each other in dreary succession in the Grand Duchy of Moscow after the death of Ivan the Terrible in 1584. Many arguments raged over the succession and ushered in a Time of Troubles and ultimately the accession of the Romanovs, who would rule Russia from 1613 to 1917. The House of Romanov ruled Muscovy and the Russian Empire for fi ve generations from 1613 to 1762, then combined with the House of Oldenburg, known as Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, to rule Russia from 1762 to 1917. The Romanovs descended from two dozen Russian noble (boyar) families, with Andrei Kobyla, attested as a boyar in the service of Semyon I of Moscow, as a common ancestor. A giant increase in the family fortunes occurred when a Romanov daughter, Anastasia Zakharyina, married Ivan IV of Muscovy in February 1547. When her husband became czar, she became the very fi rst czarina. Her untimely and mysterious death prompted her husband to start a reign of terror against the boyars, whom he suspected of poisoning her. He became known as Ivan the Terrible. The fortunes of the Romanov family rose and fell during the years of the Godunov dynasty, a branch of the Romanov line, until fi nally the Godunov dynasty collapsed in 1606 and the Russian Assembly of the Land offered 17-year-old Mikhail Romanov the crown of Russia. After receiving the offer, Mikhail burst into tears of fear and despair, but his mother fi nally persuaded him to accept the throne and blessed him with the holy image of Our Lady of Saint Fyodor. Never feeling secure on his throne, Mikhail asked the advice of the Assembly of the Land on important issues. This strategy proved successful, and the Russian population accepted the early Romanovs as relatives of Ivan the Terrible. At fi rst, the Romanovs did little to strengthen the Russian state. In the 1650s a reforming patriarch of the Orthodox Church nearly started a revolution when he ordered that the ritual and liturgy be revised to bring them closer to the original Greek text of the Bible. This order exasperated hundreds of uneducated people who believed the Slavonic texts were sacred. For many years after that, Old Believers (Russian Orthodox) resisted the government religious policy despite executions and exile. Besides Old Believers, the Cossacks also revolted against the czar. Cossack comes from a Turkish word meaning “free men” and is used to designate a group of people who lived in wheat-growing communities around the Danube River. The Don Cossacks were the largest group and led colonizing expeditions to Siberia. As the czars extended their rule over Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries, they tried to integrate the Cossacks into Russia. Cossack men became eligible for military service, and the czars used them in wars against the Tartars in Crimea and the Caucasus. The Cossacks jealously guarded their freedom and often rebelled against the czars. Revolts occurred in 1648 and 1662, but the 1670 to 1671 revolt gained the most notoriety. A Don Cossack named Stenka Razin, who became a hero of the common people, led this revolt. Eventually he was executed, but the Cossack rebellions helped Russia by leading the expansion into Siberia. 358 Romanov dynasty Throughout most of the 17th century, Russia often could not defend its frontiers against invading Swedes, Poles, and Turks. It did not have access to either the Baltic or Black Seas, although English merchants had contacted Moscow in the 1550s through the White Sea, and German merchants were active in Moscow. Russia absorbed some Western technology, especially military technology, but cultural changes in the rest of Europe left it relatively untouched. The Renaissance, reformation, and scientific revolution brought ferment to the West but scarcely touched the peoples east of Poland. PETER THE GREAT In 1689 Peter the Great, one of the most remarkable Romanov rulers, assumed the throne at the age of 17. For the next 36 years, until 1725, he transformed Russia from a feudal country into a power in Europe. He strengthened the Russian throne, expanded Russia’s borders, and Westernized Russia. He reformed the military, political, and social institutions of his country, borrowing ideas and techniques from France, England, the Dutch Republic, Brandenburg, and Sweden. His methods were often more casual, informal, brutal, and ruthless than those of his Western counterparts, but they worked in Russia. During his reign Russia became an empire, with Peter as its first emperor. The Russian Church became strictly subordinated to the state under a civilian official. Peter compelled the ancient hereditary nobility to serve the state, creating a “service nobility,” and he tightened the bondage of the serfs so that more than a century would pass before they would gain their freedom. In 1707 Peter moved his government to a new city that he had built on conquered territory at the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland. He named his new city in honor of his patron saint, Saint Peter, and Saint Petersburg symbolized his work in Russia. Unlike Moscow, it did not have roots in Russia’s past, since it had been built by forced labor on Neva River marshlands. Peter the Great’s influence proved paradoxical for Russia. On one hand he linked Russia with Europe and the rest of the world, and from his time forward Russia was crucial in the European balance of power. On the other hand Peter’s Westernizing policy stimulated a strong nationalistic and orthodox reaction in people, leaving the Russian psyche teetering between deep suspicions of everything foreign and ardent admiration of Western technology and power. Peter’s methods are as important as his accomplishments because they created a tradition of dynamic autocracy. His reign exemplified what a ruthless and determined czar could accomplish. CATHERINE THE GREAT Catherine the Great ruled Russia from 1762 to 1796 and came to the throne with specific goals in mind. She sought to minimize Russian connections to Europe, but she also wanted to continue Westernizing Russia in the manner of Peter the Great. She wanted to bring the Enlightenment to Russia and read authors like Voltaire, Diderot, and Montesquieu, incorporating their theories into her ruling methods. She encouraged the publication of numerous books and periodicals and embraced the arts. During her reign Catherine the Great worked to increase education in Russia by creating elementary and secondary schools and universities. In 1763 she established a medical commission to improve medical conditions in Russia and led the way by being the first person in Russia to be vaccinated. She helped Russian expansion through two Russo-Turkish wars, one from 1768 to 1774, and the other from 1787 to 1792. She added Ukraine to Russia after a 1781 to 1786 war and gained portions of Poland through partition. She also gained the Crimea and most of the northern shore of the Black Sea for Russia. Catherine improved the lives of the nobility while decreasing the status and rights of the peasants and serfs. The centuries after Catherine the Great saw several Romanov czars named Nicholas and Alexander ruling Russia. During the reign of Alexander I, Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. The Russian winter and supply line problems forced Napoleon’s armies to depart along the same route they had used to enter Russia. Nicholas I came to the throne in November 1825, with an agenda of Russian Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationalism. He and others working with him published a Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, meant to make rulings more uniform throughout Russia. One of the departments he created he put in charge of monitoring subversive groups. This was a precursor to the modern FSB (Federal Security Service). During the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II some of the most important Russian writers, artists, and composers enhanced the arts. Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment and other works. Alexander Pushkin produced his great novels; Tolstoi wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina. The composer Tchaikovsky wrote his scores for ballets and the 1812 Overture. The Crimean War, a military conflict between Russia and a coalition of Great Britain, France, the Kingdom of Romanov dynasty 359 Sardinia, and the Ottoman Empire, fought from 1853 to 1856 at the end of the reign of Nicholas I, made it obvious that Russia needed reform. ALEXANDER II The next czar, Alexander II, the son of Nicholas I, helped Russia reform. Alexander ruled from 1855 to 1881 and became known as the czar liberator because he freed the serfs. Alexander II realized that forcing labor from the serfs was not an economical way for Russia to operate, and many nobles were also beginning to think that serfdom should be ended. Just before the American Civil War began, Alexander II freed the serfs with the Emancipation Act of February 18, 1861. The Emancipation Act freed 52 million serfs, or about 45 percent of Russia’s population, but it did not solve Russia’s problem of peasant unrest. Only serfs who had been farmers were given land, excluding house serfs. Serfs had to continue working for estate owners for two years after being freed and had to pay over a 49-year period for the land that they had been given. Alexander II also instituted other reforms. He changed the military and shortened the required time of service for peasants from 25 to six years. He created the legal profession, opening trials and instituting equal treatment under the law. Beginning in 1864 he instructed the Ministry of Education to create a national system of primary schools. As people, especially university students, became better educated they became more critical of the government. University students and the populace at large began to demand changes. On March 13, 1881, an agitator threw a hand-made bomb at Alexander’s carriage. He got out of the carriage to see what had happened, and a second bomb exploded. The czar and his assassin, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, were killed. Alexander III succeeded his father, and, fearful of his father’s murderers, he tightened the autocratic rule in Russia, reversing many of the reforms that the more liberal Alexander II had pushed through. He renewed the policy of Russian Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationalism. Marxism began to grow during his reign, with Bolshevik and Menshevik groups forming, and leaders like Lenin, Plekhanov, and Pavel Martov emerging as revolutionaries. Alexander’s son Nicholas II began ruling Russia in 1894, after Alexander unexpectedly died of kidney disease at age 49. Industrialism had fi nally reached Russia, and a working middle class was emerging. Nicholas II did not want to allow workers to unite and form unions, as they were doing all over the world. After the czar created state-approved unions, he refused to meet a striking group from one of these and ordered his soldiers to fi re upon it. The resulting massacre of hundreds of people, which came to be known as Bloody Sunday, set off a revolt in 1905 that motivated Nicholas II to endorse the October Manifest, which gave people civil liberties and created the Duma. Russia went to war in 1914 to defend the Serbs when Austria declared war on Serbia, but the Russian armies had inadequate weapons and suffered from poor leadership. Nicholas II himself went to the lines to lead his armies, but the problems increased and many soldiers deserted. These soldiers were instrumental in the February Revolution in 1917, which ended the Romanov dynasty. Nicholas II and his family were put under house arrest and taken to Yekaterinburg. Bolsheviks killed the last Romanov czar, Nicholas II, and his family 360 Romanov dynasty Russia’s czar Alexander II was killed by an assassin’s bomb on March 13, 1881. in the cellar of Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on July 17, 1918. In a historical irony, the Ipatiev House had the same name as the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma where the Russian Assembly of the Land had offered Mikhail Romanov the Russian crown in 1613. In June 1991 the bodies of Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, and three of their fi ve children were exhumed from their 70-year-old graves, and the exhumers discovered that two of the family were missing. The other two graves were found in 2007. After the bodies were exhumed, they languished for years in laboratories while Russians fought over whether they should be buried in Yekaterinburg or Saint Petersburg. Finally, a Russian commission chose Saint Petersburg, and the last Romanovs were buried with their ancestors. The Romanov family still exists in the 21st century, with Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia having the strongest claim to the Russian throne. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and zealous campaigns by her supporters to recognize her as the constitutional monarch, it is not likely that she will gain the throne because there is little popular support for the resurrection of a Russian monarchy See also Crimean War; Russo-Ottoman Wars; Russo- Turkish War and Near Eastern Crisis. Further reading: Bain, Robert. The First Romanovs. Whitefi sh, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2005; Cockfi eld, Jamie. White Crow: The Life and Times of Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich Romanov, 1859–1919. Portsmouth, NH: Praeger Publishers, 2002; Meier, Andrew. Black Earth: A Journey Through Russia After the Fall. New York: Norton, 2005; Van der Kiste, John. The Romanovs, 1818–1959: Alexander II of Russia and His Family. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998. Brian de Ruiter Rosas, Juan Manuel Ortiz de (1793–1877) Argentinian dictator Juan Manuel Ortiz de Rosas dominated the Argentine political scene from 1829 until 1852 as governor of Buenos Aires and then supreme chief of the confederation. Although professing federalism, Rosas was a centrist and a dictator, and his model of rule was to be followed by many of the Latin American dictators of the 20th century. Born in Buenos Aires, Rosas’s paternal grandfather, a career soldier, had emigrated from Burgos, Spain, in 1742. His mother’s family was extremely wealthy, and Rosas’s parents controlled one of the largest cattle ranches in Argentina. Rosas only spent a year in school— apparently his teacher told him that he would spend his life in farm management and need not be troubled by books. As a teenager, Rosas was an ammunition boy during the British invasion of 1806, and when his father died, instead of taking over the family property (he was the eldest son), he gave it to his mother to divide among the rest of the family. Rosas was determined to make his own fortune, which he did in a meat-salting plant in Quilmes, now a suburb of Buenos Aires. In 1820 his business partner Colonel Maunel Dorrego, governor of Buenos Aires, put Rosas in charge of the provincial militia. By this time he had a loyal band of supporters gathering around him, and soon after the resignation of Bernardino Rivadavia, Dorrego became president. He was overthrown in 1828, and Rosas worked to bring down the new governor of Buenos Aires, Juan Lavalle. At this time, Rosas was head of the Federalist Party, which sought to build up the power of the provinces against that of Buenos Aires. He managed to get the former legislature to reconvene, and on December 5, 1829, Rosas was elected governor, deposing Lavalle. In 1832 Rosas stepped down when his three-year term ended, but returned in 1835 with the promise that he would have dictatorial powers. At that time Argentina was in a perilous state, with strong regional warlords, or caudillos, seeking to wrest power from the government in Buenos Aires. Although he still professed federalist beliefs, Rosas gradually centralized power in Buenos Aires. During the 17 years that Rosas was dictator of Argentina, he used police and spies to destroy his political opponents. His mazorca, the political police, arrested and tortured with impunity. His wife, Encarnación, also used the mazorca against her enemies, and a century later journalist Fleur Cowles, in her dual biography, Bloody Precedent, was to draw startling parallels between the ruthlessness of Juan and Encarnación Rosas and that of Juan and Evita Perón. Much is made of Rosas ordering his portrait to be displayed in public places and in churches. Putting aside his treatment of political opponents, Rosas managed initially to achieve economic stability and massively increase the prosperity of Buenos Aires. The period coincided with an increase in the cattle industry, with tanning and salting works, and also a rise in migration from Europe to Argentina. Although Rosas, Juan Manuel Ortiz de 361 many French migrated to the city, their government was unable to gain for them the privileges afforded to the British, and they became liable for national service and high local taxes. This resulted in many French businesses moving their headquarters to Montevideo in neighboring Uruguay, and in 1838, a French fl eet blockaded Buenos Aires. As trade in Buenos Aires dried up, Rosas responded by tripling the amount of paper money in circulation; massive infl ation resulted. It also led to regional caudillos to try to achieve regional autonomy. The British eventually persuaded the French to stop the blockade, and Rosas paid a token indemnity. Rosas was also forced to end the blockade he had been imposing on Paraguay, allowing that nation to start trading with Britain and other countries. In 1841 Rosas was able to destroy and then kill his main political opponent (and predecessor), Lavalle, who had been leading a small rebellion in the north. In 1845 Rosas started his own blockade of the River Paraná in order to bring some of the provinces into line. The British and French sent in their navies to reopen trade but soon had to balance the small amount of commerce with these provinces, with far greater money to be made from Buenos Aires. After two years the blockade was abandoned, leaving Rosas triumphant. However, he had made many enemies. Paraguay was much angered by the seemingly cavalier fashion in which Rosas had been able to close the river, and it started to industrialize and then build its own arms industry. Brazil had been unable to send goods by ship to the Mato Grosso region of the country, and Uruguay became the place for many exiles from Buenos Aires. When the blockade of the Paraná River started again in 1848, the governor of Entre Ríos, Justo José de Urquiza, who was actually placed in charge of a large part of the army by Rosas, launched a rebellion against Rosas. In May 1851 Urquiza opposed the reelection of Rosas as governor of Buenos Aires, forcing him to adopt the title supreme chief of the confederation. Urquiza then led his forces against those of Rosas and defeated them at the battle of Caseros on February 3, 1852. As Urquiza was about to enter Buenos Aires, Rosas fl ed onto a British naval vessel, leaving hundreds of his supporters to be massacred by Urquiza’s men. Rosas settled in England and took up farming near Southampton, Hampshire. He died on March 14, 1877, and was buried in Southampton. Despite his long dominance of Argentine politics, or possibly because of it, it was not until 1935 that he was featured on an Argentine postage stamp in a series that included all the famous fi gures of 19th-century Argentina; the series also included Urquiza. A grandson, who shared the same name as the dictator, became governor of Buenos Aires province in 1910. In 1990 the family moved the body of Rosas from England back to Buenos Aires, and it was interred in the family mausoleum at Recoleta. Further reading: Cowles, Fleur. Bloody Precedent: The Peron Story. London: Frederick Muller, 1952; Lynch, John. Argentine Dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas 1829–1852. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981; ———. Caudillos in Spanish America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992; Ziegler, Philip. The Sixth Great Power: Barings 1762–1929. London: Collins, 1988. Justin Corfi eld Roy, Ram Mohan (1774–1833) Indian reformer and scholar Raja Ram Mohan Roy exemplifi ed the new Englisheducated class of Indians who emerged in the late 18th century. He came from a distinguished Brahman family in Bengal—the headquarters of the British East India Company. Feeling somewhat alienated from his orthodox family, he eventually became an employee of the British East India Company. After a few years, Roy left the company to pursue humanism and religious reform. Infl uenced by contemporary European liberalism, he challenged traditional Hindu beliefs. In 1803 he produced a tract that denounced religious superstition and segregation. By 1815 he had begun translation of ancient Sanskrit texts such as the Sutras and various Upanishads (philosophic writings) into modern Hindi and Bengali. He was also the progenitor of many modern secular movements in India. He actively campaigned against suttee (the burning of widows). He also argued for reform of Hindu law, upholding the rights of women, freedom of the press, more just land laws, Indian participation in the government of India, and establishment of an English-style education system in India. He opposed the founding of Sanskrit College, which he viewed as too traditional. Roy backed his writings and views with action. In 1815 he founded a publishing house that translated the New Testament into Bengali. In 1820 he published a work on the “Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and Happiness,” the beginning of a pantheistic approach that would combine Christianity and Hin- 362 Roy, Ram Mohan duism, eventually adopting a Unitarian antitraditional position. In 1823 Roy founded two newspapers. In 1827 he founded the Anglo-Hindu School and a college in 1826. However, the act for which he is best remembered is establishing the Brahmo Samaj in Calcutta in 1829. This society rejected idol worship and the multiple deities of traditional Hinduism. The emphasis was on a more nationalist monotheist interpretation of Hinduism. Roy was famous for his learning and general erudition. He spoke several languages and was a scholar in both Sanskrit and Arabic. He was much admired by Western intellectuals for his breadth of knowledge and intellectual curiosity. He became one of the fi rst Hindus to visit Europe in an offi cial capacity. He came to England in 1831 as the ambassador of the Mughal emperor. In 1832 he visited Paris and then returned to England, where he died the following year. His most enduring legacy, apart from the educational institutions he founded and his writings, were satellites of the Brahmo Samaj, which spread throughout India and then via Indian communities throughout the world. A believer in the Western method of living for India as the path for the future, Roy is considered by many Indian scholars as the founder of modern India. See also Aligarh College and movement; Mughal dynasty (decline and fall). Further reading: Basham, A. L. The Wonder That Was India. New York: Grove Press, 1954; Crawford, S. Cromwell. Ram Mohan Roy. New York: Paragon, 1987; Kopf, David. The Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979; Spear, Percival, ed. The Oxford History of India. London: Oxford University Press, 1967; Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. Norman C. Rothman Russian conquest of Central Asia During the 19th century as European colonization continued to expand, czarist Russia launched a concentrated campaign to extend its own empire by annexing lands in central western Asia. In Central Asia, the Russians were particularly interested in the Uzbek oasis states of Kokand, Bukhara, and Khiva, all part of present-day Uzbekistan. Although Bukhara and Khiva suffered devastating losses to their independence and cultures during the Russian conquest, Kokand ultimately paid the heaviest price when the Russians attempted to eradicate its existence. While Russia was most interested in expanding its empire in order to compete with Western powers, the czar viewed Central Asia as a land of untapped resources with undeveloped potential as a major trading center. The invasion of the Muslim states of Central Asia also allowed the czar to add millions of new subjects to his already large citizenry. Until the mid- 19th century, Central Asia had succeeded in repelling Russian advances. However, as Russia’s military grew stronger and more sophisticated, Central Asia was powerless to defend itself from encroachment. For some 50 years after the annexation, the invaders unsuccessfully attempted to Russify the Muslims of Central Asia. Despite this failure, the Russians succeeded in transforming Central Asian culture in a number of ways that included new economic and education systems and major overhauls of the communication and transportation sectors. Czar Peter I launched an unsuccessful campaign to annex Bukhara and Khiva in the early 18th century in an effort to establish a trading route between Russia and India. When he sent armed troops to Khiva in 1717, the Khivans annihilated the entire expedition. Succeeding czars determined that they were more likely to make inroads in Central Asia by practicing diplomacy and promoting trade relations. However, little progress was made. As a result, another unsuccessful military attack on Khiva was launched in 1839–40. At the same time that Khiva was attempting to stave off Russian attack, Bukhara established a relatively amiable relationship with the monarch. In 1847 the Russians erected a fort at the mouth of the Sir Darya, paving the way for eventual annexation of the surrounding area. The Russians spent the years between 1853 and 1864 plotting their strategy for annexing Central Asia, where the raw cotton that Russian textile factories so badly needed was readily available. The need for Asian cotton grew even more urgent when the American supply of cotton was halted by the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861. By the time the Russians became a real presence in Central Asia, Bukhara and Khiva already had well-established cultures that dated back to the eighth century, and both were actively involved in trade. Both Muslim states were home to diverse ethnic groups and were relatively politically and socially stable. Neither Bukhara nor Russian conquest of Central Asia 363 Khiva had been exposed to Western thought and culture; therefore, neither khanate had developed the sense of nationalism that might have been used to unite the people against Russian invasion. After the annexation, the Russians allowed both Bukhara and Khiva a good deal of political autonomy. As a result, less modernizing and Russifi cation occurred in these khanates than in other areas of Central Asia. Bukhara was wealthier and more industrialized than Khiva, with a population that was predominately Muslim. The khanate was ruled by the emir, a hereditary monarch, although day-to-day affairs came under the province of a chief minister, a treasurer, and a tax collector. Each province of Bukhara was ruled by its own emir. Outside of Bukhara, the emir was viewed as the most powerful ruler in the area, and he was notorious for furthering his own interests at the expense of others. When Czar Alexander II ordered his forces to attack Bukhara in 1868, the khanate was in the midst of of internal strife. Tribal confl icts had accelerated, and the peasant class was ready to revolt in response to the levying of excessive taxes. The Muslim clergy, who strongly resented the Russian presence in Bukhara called for a jihad (holy war). Although Emir Muzaffar al-Din repeatedly attempted to negotiate terms with the Russians that were favorable to Bukhara, he was unsuccessful. The emir ultimately negotiated a treaty that essentially established Bukhara as a Russian protectorate while allowing him to continue ruling the khanate. The merchant class reaped the greatest benefi ts from the Russian presence in Bukhara because trade with the outside world opened up new avenues for amassing wealth. As this new cultural elite rose to power, the gulf between the peasants and the rest of the population expanded. Today, as one of the main cities of Uzbekistan, Bukhara is a major trading center and a popular tourist destination. The population of Khiva was more ethnically diverse than Bukhara, with the Uzbeks making up 65 percent and the Turkomans 27 percent. Other minorities included the seminomadic Karakalpaks and the Kazakhs. The Khan of Khiva possessed powers similar to those of the emir of Bukhara, but in Khiva the government was highly centralized. Early in 1839 Czar Nicholas I announced his decision to attack Khiva, although his forces were disguised as a scientifi c expedition to the Aral Sea. By the end of the year, the expedition could no longer be disguised, and the attack took place. It was not until 1869, however, that the Russians managed to surround Khiva on three sides and begin the invasion. Russian forces encountered almost no resistance as they invaded Khiva on May 29, 1873. Three months later, the Khan signed a peace treaty. Because Khiva, unlike Bukhara, had been conquered by invasion, the Kahn’s power to rule was much more restricted that that of the emir of Bukhara. The rich history of Khiva and the preservation of much of the original khanate have made the modern-day city a magnet for tourists from around the world. The invasion of Kokand was accomplished in 1866, and the government acted as a Russian ally against neighboring Bukhara. At this point, Kokand was allowed to run its own affairs in much the same way that Bukhara was operating. However, in 1875, civil unrest within Kokand surfaced in response to increased taxes, political repression, and a rising sense of nationalism. When tensions exploded into outright revolt in Ozgan in July 1875, all avenues of authority disintegrated. Khudayar Khan escaped to neighboring Tashkent and demanded Russian protection. His son, Nasrid-din Bek, ascended to the seat of power and quickly established relations with Russia. Nevertheless, on August 29, the Russians military arrived, putting an end to the possibility of Kokand’s independence. On February 19, 1876, the Russians abolished the khanate of Kokand, replacing it with the region of Ferghana, which was placed under the authority of a military governor. Before the Russians arrived in Kokand, the khanate had been a signifi cant trade and administrative center for the Ferghana Valley region. After the annexation, Ferghana was established as the center of Russian Turkestan and became the major cotton-producing area of the Russian Empire. In the 21st century, Kokand has regained its status as a trading center, specializing in the manufacture of fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, and cotton and food products. See also Romanov dynasty; Russo-Ottoman Wars; Russo-Turkish War and Near Eastern Crisis. Further reading: Allworth, Edward, ed. Central Asia: One Hundred and Thirty Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994; Becker, Seymour. Russia’s Protectorates in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865–1924. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968; Brower, Daniel R., and Edward J. Lazzerini, eds. Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997; Geraci, Robert P. Window on the East: National and Imperial Identities in Late Tsarist Russia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001; Hunczak, Taras. Russian 364 Russian conquest of Central Asia Imperialism from Iran to the Great Revolution. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1974. Elizabeth Purdy Russo-Ottoman Wars During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ottomans and Russians fought a series of wars over territory around the Black Sea and the Balkans. As the Ottoman Empire slowly declined, the Russians extended their control over former Ottoman territories around the Black Sea. Russia sought access to warm water ports and entry into the Mediterranean through the Ottoman controlled Dardanelles. Russian imperial ambitions in the Balkans also brought them into confl ict with the Ottomans and Austria. In 1696, while much of the Ottoman army was fi ghting against the Holy League led by Austria in the Balkans, Russia under Peter the Great took the port of Azov on the Azov Sea. Russia and the Ottomans signed a separate treaty in 1700 that reaffi rmed the terms of the earlier Treaty of Karlowitz of 1699, whereby the Ottomans lost territory in the Balkans and Poland moved into the Ukraine. Russia and Austria joined together to attack the Ottomans in the mid-18th century, but under the Treaty of Belgrade in 1739 the Ottomans regained Belgrade, which they had lost in 1718. However, the Russians slowly realized their ambitions for access to Azov and then the Black Sea. Under the Treaty of Belgrade, Russia gained some land along the Azov, but they were forbidden to fortify the area. Following their defeat in the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774, the Ottomans under Sultan Mustafa III signed the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji (in present-day Bulgaria), with Russia led by Catherine II. Under this treaty the Russians gained ports along the Crimean and territory in the Caucasus. The Ottomans were also forced to grant independence to the Crimean Khanate that Russia formally annexed in 1783. Russia also gained the right to serve as the so-called protector of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman empire, thereby increasing its involvement in the domestic affairs of the Ottoman state. See also Crimean War. Further reading: Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire. New York: William Morrow, 1979; Moss, Walter. A History of Russia, Vol. I To 1917. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997; Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire, 1280–1808. London, New York, and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Janice J. Terry Russo-Turkish War and Near Eastern Crisis The Balkans had been effectively under the rule of the Ottoman Turks since 1389, when the medieval Serbian kingdom was crushed at the Battle of Kosovo. However, beginning in the 17th century with the Turkish defeat at Vienna in 1683, the Turks were in almost a constant retreat. Wars with Russia that had ended in 1774 with the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainardji and in 1792 at Jassy had established Russia as a diplomatic presence in the Balkans and determined to make its presence felt. Moreover, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had inaugurated the League of Three Emperors with Russia and Austria in 1872–73, as a way of making palatable the sudden rise to prominence in Central Europe of a united Germany after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. The League of Three Emperors was a de facto diplomatic understanding, or demarche, that the future of the Balkans could be settled by Austria and Russia. Bismarck felt that Germany had no real interests in the Balkans, which, in his famous phrase, were “not worth the bones of a Pomeranian [part of Germany] grenadier.” It turned out that the League of Three Emperors could not have come at a better time for Czar Alexander II of Russia. Freed from a concern over Austria and Germany as a source of danger, Alexander was able to modernize both his army and navy. Coincidentally, Alexander’s modernization of the Russian juggernaut came at the perfect time. In its years of decline since 1683, Turkish rule had veered from incompetent to brutal and back again, with a few efforts at enlightened reform that never lasted. In June 1875 the Slavic Christians in Bosnia and Herzegovina revolted against Turkey, and the Ottoman Turks retaliated in force. In spite of these reprisals, the rebellion against Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid ii spread in April 1876 to Bulgaria. Soon the entire Balkans had risen up against Abdul Hamid II, whom many of Ottoman subjects called Abdul the Damned. In 1876 Prince Milosh Obrenovich, although a vassal of Turkey, also declared war on the Ottomans. Like Russo-Turkish War and Near Eastern Crisis 365 Alexander II of Russia, he had recently modernized his armed forces. With the Serbs, the Montenegrians rose up against the Turks, turning the original Bosnia-Herzegovina revolt into an all out Balkan rebellion against Abdul Hamid II. At the same time, the doctrine of Pan-Slavism animated the Russian people to come to the aid of the South Slavs in the Balkans. Pan-Slavism had its origin in the outburst of nationalism against Napoleon I of France and held that mystical, ancient bonds united all Slavs. Because Russia was the most powerful Slavic state, it meant that it had an obligation to help the “little Slavic brothers” in the Balkans. Since this philosophy also provided a rationale for Russian expansion into the Balkans, it received the encouragement of the czarist government. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, author of Crime and Punishment, was also a great propagandist for Pan- Slavism. On April 12, 1877, Alexander II declared war on the Ottoman Empire. In one of the great defensive battles of the 19th century, the Turkish general Osman Pasha managed to hold the Russians and their new Romanian allies for fi ve months at Plevna (Pleven), but eventually the superior Russian force compelled him to surrender. As a mark of his heroism, he was treated with great courtesy by the Russian commanders. Once the siege of Plevna was won, the Russians and their allies kept up the impetus of their drive to the south. It appeared that they were determined to go all the way to Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, and end the Ottoman power once and for all. However, although the British public had been aroused by the Turkish atrocities in the Balkans, the British prime minister did not want to see the Russian Bear swimming in the Dardanelles, the gateway to the Mediterranean, which had been a British lake since the victory of Lord Horatio Nelson at Trafalgar in 1805. For the same reason, the British had intervened in the Crimean War from 1854–56 on the side of the Ottoman Empire, to keep the Russians from conquering the empire and gaining access to the Mediterranean. In February 1878 the British Mediterranean fl eet was put on a war footing and sailed to a position off Constantinople, a potent reminder that the Russians had advanced as far as the British were going to allow them to. Queen victoria herself announced that “she would rather abdicate than allow the Russians to enter Istanbul [Constantinople].” Alexander II was conscious that if a peace were not made with the Turks, the British, and also Austria, might intervene on the side of his enemy. Therefore, in March 1878, Turkey and Russia concluded the Treaty of San Stefano. The Russians sought to take full advantage of the Turks in their defeated state. The treaty immediately aroused the envy and concern of Austria, which had its own plans for expansion into the Balkans, ultimately to the disadvantage of the Serbians. Bismarck began to realize that his League of Three Emperors was in a deep crisis as a result of the San Stefano treaty. Consequently, he invited the great powers of Europe to the Congress of Berlin from June to July in 1878. Great Britain was reassured by the fact that the territorial integrity of the Ottomans in Europe was maintained, and the great harbor at Constantinople would not become a Russian naval base. Austria was allowed to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it would later annex to its empire in 1908, causing great hatred among the Serbs, who also desired the territory. Russia lost most of its conquests won in the war, although the Congress of Berlin did regain for Russia much of the territory given up at the Peace of Paris, which had brought the Crimean War to an end in 1856. However, because much of Bulgaria had had to be relinquished to the Ottomans, and Great Britain and Austria had coerced Russian into doing so, the Pan-Slavs considered the Treaty of Berlin as having robbed Russia of what it justly gained by right of conquest in the war. The Treaty of Berlin, although it attempted to avert a European war, only tragically succeeded in sewing the seeds for World War I 26 years later. In June 1914, precisely 26 years after the opening of the Congress of Berlin, the Serb terrorist Gavrilo Princip would kill the heir to the Austrian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in the streets of Sarajevo in Bosnia. See also Balkan and East European insurrections; Gladstone, William. Further reading: Laqueur, Walter. Guerrilla: A Historical and Critical Study. Boston: Little, Brown, 1976; Lederer, Ivo J., ed. Russian Foreign Policy: Essays in Historical Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962; Magnus, Philip. Gladstone. New York: Dutton, 1964; Palmer, Alan. Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1992; Radzinsky, Edvard. Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar. New York: Free Press, 2005. John F. Murphy, Jr.

Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

racial segregation and race riots, U.S. Segregation is physical separation based on race, gender, class, or religion. It can occur by law (de jure) or by actual practice (de facto). It may be voluntary, involuntary, or somewhere between the two. In the U.S. context, segregation historically has meant the separation of blacks involuntarily from white society. In the antebellum United States, the North and cities in the South were more segregated than was the rural South, where an agricultural economy based on plantations and farms reduced opportunities or incentives for segregation. Northern segregation became more pronounced in the 1820s through the 1840s due to the large European immigration and the increase in white male voting. Northern urban segregation was occasionally de jure, but usually it was due to white preference. Blacks were removed from jobs, schools, public accommodations, churches, neighborhoods, and voting booths. Blacks responded by creating their own churches, lodges, and communities. In the South the plantation economy required a large labor force—mostly slave. Slaves, it was thought, were better kept behind the big house where they could be observed than in towns or elsewhere where they might plot against the white near-minority. Free and slave blacks had access to churches, theaters, and other facilities, but only in their own sections. Blacks and whites did not ordinarily mingle. Schools and social welfare were forbidden to blacks. After the Civil War, the South developed de facto segregation similar to that of the antebellum North. The key concept was separate but equal. Prisons were segregated, as were militia units, cemeteries, trains and boats, streetcars, and general public accommodations. Blacks initially accepted separate but equal, however unequal, as superior to having no access at all. Where segregated institutions were totally inadequate, as they had in the North, southern blacks developed their own segregated facilities. Residential segregation developed as freedmen left the plantations for freedmen’s camps, the outskirts of cities, and rural black communities. After Reconstruction, Redeemer governments abandoned all pretense of equality. The approach was validated by Plessey v. Ferguson (1896), and for decades the courts ruled against black efforts to mitigate if not overturn segregation. Only in Buchanan v. Warley (1917), a residential segregation case, did blacks win a victory against segregation. Even that ruling was overwhelmed by white prejudice and a limited amount of black preference that combined to segregate most U.S. neighborhoods. Where blacks and whites integrated, usually both were poor. In the North, Reconstruction meant that black voters had a voice. Most jurisdictions abandoned de jure segregation, but de facto segregation was similar to that in southern cities. Residential areas were segregated, and so were job sites. Some accommodations were off limits not by law but by custom. The great migration of blacks northward after the turn of the century and particularly during and after World War I led to R competition and confl ict between black migrants and old-time and immigrant whites for jobs, housing, and other basics of life. Blacks became restricted to urban ghettos with their own schools, facilities, and business districts. By the 1920s segregation in the North and South was comparable. When the federal government instituted a laissez faire policy regarding states’ treatment of their black populations after Reconstruction, the states implemented disenfranchisement, discrimination, and peonage. Blacks without rights were second-class citizens. White supremacy generated race hatred and lawlessness, and the result was a massive outbreak of lynching. Although lynching occurred throughout the United States and involved whites as well as blacks, it was predominantly a southern act against blacks. Between 1882 and 1951, of the 4,730 persons lynched, 3,437 were black. The shift began in the decade prior to World War I. Rather than attacking an individual, white mobs began attacking entire communities. Wanting to preserve white power and vent frustrations against the helpless, white mobs went into black neighborhoods, beat and killed large numbers of blacks, and damaged a great deal of black property. Blacks commonly fought back, but the preponderance of casualties were black. Because the North was more urbanized than the South, most riots occurred in the North. Blacks began migrating to northern cities as the South’s segregation became tighter and urban industrialization offered alternative employment to debt peonage on southern farms. Blacks seemed a threat to northern white jobs and neighborhoods. World War I exacerbated the situation, and it also raised the specter of black soldiers returning and refusing to accept second- class citizenship. The summer of 1919 saw 26 race 314 racial segregation and race riots, U.S. State troopers, some posing with riot guns, stand ready for rioters in 1919. Racial confl ict occurred because of a loss of employment, rumors of violent crime, and questionable election results—all causes of mass riots that left hundreds dead across the country. riots, not only in Chicago and Washington, D.C., but in such cities as Charleston, South Carolina; Longview, Texas; Omaha, Nebraska; and Elaine, Arkansas. Black deaths exceeded 100, injuries were in the thousands, and thousands more were left homeless. The most serious riots were in Wilmington, North Carolina (1898); Atlanta, Georgia (1906); Springfi eld, Illinois (1908); East St. Louis, Illinois (1917); Chicago, Illinois (1919); Tulsa, Oklahoma (1921); and Detroit, Michigan (1943). Wilmington’s riot was the fi rst major outbreak since Reconstruction. An election rife with fraud and intimidation of black voters produced a white racist city administration resolved to control the city’s black population. Whites began rampaging two days after the election, killing about 30 blacks and forcing many others to leave. The Atlanta riot of 1906 occurred after months of infl ammatory press treatment of black crime in an effort to disenfranchise blacks. Reports that 12 white women were raped in a week provoked a white riot. White mobs murdered blacks, destroyed homes and businesses, and overwhelmed police and black resistance. After four days, 10 blacks and two whites were dead, and hundreds were injured. Over 1,000 left Atlanta. The rioters in Springfi eld, Illinois, reacted to a white woman’s claim that she had been molested by a black man. After lynching the alleged attacker, the crowd began dragging blacks from homes and streetcars. The National Guard restored order only after four whites and two blacks had been killed. White liberals, shocked by the violence in the hometown of Abraham Lincoln, met the next year with blacks and formed the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Illinois was the scene of another riot in 1917 in East St. Louis. White workers feared black competition for jobs and attendant status. An aluminum plant brought in black and white strike breakers and, with militia and court injunctions, broke a white strike. The union blamed the blacks. The result was a riot, including beatings and destruction of property. After the riot, harassment and beatings continued for several months. In June a new riot began, and this time, along with the beatings, burnings, and the destruction of over 300 buildings, the offi cial death toll was nine whites and 39 blacks. Chicago’s riot was the worst in the postwar years. A black swimmer entered the whites-only section of the water, leading white swimmers to stone him until he drowned; 13 days of rioting by thousands of blacks and whites produced 15 white and 23 black deaths and 178 white and 342 black injuries. Property destruction left over 1,000 families homeless. The Tulsa riot was in response to a white girl’s allegation that a black man had attempted to rape her in a public elevator. Rumors that the suspect was to be lynched led an armed black mob to the jail. Whites and blacks fought, and the riot was under way. A mob of over 10,000 rampaged through the black neighborhood. Machine guns and airplanes were used to help the white mob, and by the time four companies of the National Guard had restored order, 150 to 200 blacks were dead. Rioting eased after that, but World War II brought a massive black migration to the war jobs of the nation’s cities. Detroit’s blacks and whites competed for the same jobs and the same houses. On June 20, 1943, fi ghting began in an integrated recreational area, Belle Isle. Fighting became rioting, with the customary looting and burning of the black neighborhoods. The white mobs spread through the city seeking blacks downtown as well as in the ghettos. Cars full of whites were shot at by black snipers. Federal troops quelled the riots, but 25 blacks and nine whites were dead. The riots inevitably started when whites attacked blacks. This occurred at times of social dislocation. Riots grew due to the spread of rumors. The police consistently either were a precipitating factor or assisted in the growth of the riots. The location of the riots was always in the black community. Blacks reacted to white violence either by retaliating violently, leaving the cities, or engaging in peaceful protest. The NAACP publicized the riots and continued to work for legislative reform. World War II altered the civil rights landscape. The NAACP had won a series of victories from the 1920s, slowly tearing down the legal structure supporting unequal facilities. The Supreme Court overturned the white primary in 1944, making black access to the political process theoretically possible. Between 1940 and 1952 southern black voter registration rose from 150,000 to over 1 million. Further reading: Gilje, Paul A. Rioting in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996; Guterl, Matthew Pratt. The Color of Race in America, 1900–1940. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001; Klarman, Michael J. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; Packard, Jerrold M. American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow. New York: St. Martin’s Press 2002; John H. Barnhill racial segregation and race riots, U.S. 315 Ralaimongo, Jean (1884–1942) Malagasy activist In 1898, the French decided to interpret the “friendship treaty” signed with the last Malagasy queen as an invitation to transform Madagascar into a protectorate. Not everyone on the island objected to the changes, especially if, as in the case of future nationalist and socialist Jean Ralaimongo, they had been sold into slavery and released only upon the abolition of slavery effected by the French. Many longed for revolutionary changes to the traditionally rigid hierarchy that structured Malagasy society. Ralaimongo absorbed French republican ideals enthusiastically and wanted to see them become practice in Madagascar. In the era before World War I, the majority of intellectuals optimistically expected that they would have the opportunity to advance toward independence and civilization under France’s aegis. The Sadiavahe resistance movement (1915–17) drew its adherents almost exclusively from the ranks of the peasantry in the southwest of the island, and their economic grievances were caused as much by the weather as by the Frenchimposed cattle tax. Many Malagasy men chose to join the French army in World War I. In return for their service, they received educational opportunities in the metropole and French citizenship. Ralaimongo remained in France until 1922, during which time he encountered various European radicals and future nationalist leaders from French colonies in Asia and Africa. With his roommate, the man later known as Ho Chi Minh, Ralaimongo attended the seminal meetings for the formation of the French Communist Party. They also collaborated on the production of a newspaper meant to raise political consciousness among colonial peoples. Those who remained in Madagascar during World War I lived through an incident that displayed the French will to remain in control of the island. After having repeatedly heard rumors of a revolt planned for late in 1915, the administration ordered a series of arrests on December 12. The ensuing judicial processes concluded quickly. Those arrested belonged to the VVS (Vy Vato Sakelika, roughly Iron Stone Network), a group that had started to articulate an intellectual nationalism and that sought to prepare their compatriots for the distant day when they might take control of their own affairs. The majority of those convicted for their associations with the VVS were lower-middle-class youths from varying ethnic groups, though the leaders of the group were generally students at the medical school, white-collar workers, and teachers. Soon after the VVS affair and the end of World War I, France granted a degree of representative government to Madagascar. Those war veterans who returned to the island brought with them radical ideas and an intensifi ed sense of nationalism. In the 1920s, leaders adhered to the strategy employed by other African nationalists of the interwar period: Demand increased self-rule and the extension of European civil rights but not complete autonomy. Ralaimongo initiated his agitation from a base in Diego Suarez. They demanded the creation of a council-general with real powers and a signifi cant portion of Malagasy members, along with the abolition of the government-general and representation in the French parliament. Financially backed by members of the business community, Ralaimongo allied former members of the VVS, French socialists, and Malagasy labor leaders in a single movement. From 1927, the group published two newspapers: L’Opinion (in Diego Suárez [now Antsiranana]) and L’Aurore Malagache (in Tananarivo). The fi rst mass demonstration occurred on May 19, 1929, after the French governor-general refused to receive any Malagasy to discuss the recent Pétition des Indigènes, which had presented the nationalists’ requests. The unrest signifi ed the existence of an embryonic sense of nationality. Little changed, however, and the administration did not listen to recommendations. As a response to this inaction, nationalists became more radical in their demands. Ralaimongo, exiled to Port Beigé, started to advocate peasant resistance following the model popularized by Mohandas K. Gandhi. In 1931 he fi rst suggested that Madagascar should break with France entirely. New groups and a more explicitly nationalistic, proindependence periodical press appeared after 1935. However, the nationalist movement had lost much of its momentum by the later 1930s as the effects of the global Great Depression caused traders to withdraw fi nancial support. Many middle-class Malagasy simply preferred the benefi ts they would accrue as French citizens to the uncertainty of independence. The mutations in French politics and foreign policy triggered by World War II yielded a new situation for colonies such as Madagascar. The administration decided to acknowledge calls for self-government. To start, the Malagasy elected two representatives to the constituent assembly in Paris. French settlers and Malagasy each had their own electoral colleges, a situation that the Malagasy representatives actively criticized. Once in Paris, these two men, Joseph Raseta and Joseph Ravoahangy, along with Paris-based writer Jacques Rabemananjara, started the Democratic Movement for Malagasy Restoration (known by its French acronym MDRM). This political 316 Ralaimongo, Jean party attracted some 300,000 members from various ethnic and social groups. Raseta and Ravoahangy rejected any identity for Madagascar other than that of a sovereign nation-state, so they did not support the territory’s inclusion in the French union. Provincial elections in 1946 returned a large MDRM majority in the provincial and the national representative assemblies. These political reforms did little to mitigate the various causes of tension that sparked the revolt of 1947. Together, the return of soldiers who had fought for France in World War II, food shortages, economic scandals, and ethnic disputes contributed to the deterioration of relations with the French administration. The nationalists who challenged French rule on March 20, 1947, managed to gain support across about onethird of the island before reinforcements could arrive from France. The French outlawed the MDRM, despite its protestations of innocence, and military courts ordered the execution of 20 military leaders of the revolt. Trials of others involved in the uprising resulted in 5,000 to 6,000 convictions and sentences of either imprisonment or death. Malagasy independence remained to be won. Further reading: Covell, Maureen. Historical Dictionary of Madagascar. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1995; Heseltine, Nigel. Madagascar. New York: Praeger Press, 1971; Praeger, Raymond K. From Madagascar to the Malagasy Republic. New York: Praeger Press, 1962; Spacensky, Alain, and Hubert Deschamps. Madagascar: Cinquante ans de vie politique (de Ralaimongo à Tsiranana) [1919–1969]. Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1970. Melanie A. Bailey rape of Nanjing (Nanking), the On July 7, 1937, Japanese forces attacked a town called Wanping in northern China near Beijing (Peking) in what came to be called the Marco Polo Bridge incident. On August 13 they attacked Shanghai, China’s major port and fi nancial center. This was the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War, which became part of World War II in Asia. Japan boasted that China would surrender within three months. However, Chinese troops defended Shanghai heroically for three months before falling back, opening the road to Nanjing, China’s capital. Meanwhile, the Chinese had moved their capital to Chongqing (Chungking) in Sichuan (Szechwan) province up the Yangzi (Yangtze) River. Nanjing fell to Japanese troops on December 13, 1937. For the next eight weeks the civilians and surrendered Chinese troops in the city were subjected to monstrous barbarity perpetrated by over 50,000 Japanese offi cers and soldiers. The world knows it as the rape of Nanjing and the Chinese call it the great Nanjing massacre. The massacre was condoned by the high command and the commander of Japanese forces in Nanjing, Prince Asaka Yasuhito, uncle of Emperor Hirohito. Soldiers were encouraged to commit the most horrendous atrocities and competed to kill the most people in the least time. Babies were bayoneted, and no female escaped gang rape, sexual torture, and death. All Chinese prisoners of war were massacred. The city was thoroughly looted, and large sections were burned down. The only help for the desperate victims came from several Americans and Europeans who selfl essly chose to remain in the city. They formed the International Committee for the Nanjing Safety Zone and established an area called the International Safety Zone around the campus of Nanjing University, the Ginling Women’s Arts and Science College, the U.S. embassy, and some Chinese government buildings. These Western men and women stood up to the crazed Japanese soldiers, often risking their own lives. One of the bravest was a German businessman and member of the Nazi Party, John Rabe, who opened up his home as a refuge and put on his Nazi swastika armband to bolster his authority in stopping Japanese soldiers from violating the safety zone. He was so admired by the Chinese that they called him the “Buddha of Nanjing.” Others later called him the Oskar Schindler of Nanjing. Another was Wilhemina Vautrin, head of the education dsepartment of the Ginling Women’s College. She protected thousands of women from Japanese soldiers, which won her accolades as the “Living Goddess of Nanjing.” There were many others who worked valiantly and at enormous personal risk to protect the Chinese and who kept diaries of the horrifi c events. The worst was over by the spring of 1938, and Japanese authorities began damage control in an attempt to prevent international outrage. One outcome of the rape of Nanjing was the creation of a vast network of military brothels staffed by several hundred thousand young women from Korea, China, Taiwan, and later the Philippines and Indonesia, who were kidnapped and forced to serve as sex slaves to the Japanese soldiers so that they would be less likely to rape women in conquered territories. These victims were called “comfort women.” The fi rst offi cial “comfort house” was opened near Nanjing rape of Nanjing (Nanking), the 317 in 1938. These crimes were revealed in the International War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo after the war. See also Holocaust, the. Further reading: Chang, Iris. The Rape of Nanking, The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1997; Fairbank, John K., and Albert Feuerwerker, eds. Cambridge History of China, Part 2, Vol. 13, Republican China 1912–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; Rabe, John. The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1998. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Red Scare (1920) Red Scare was a term applied during the 1920s to a period of extreme anticommunism in the United States from 1917 until 1920. It started with the Russian Revolution in October 1917 which saw the Bolshevik Party taking power in Russia. The result was that there was a fear in the United States that Communists might try to take power—initially through the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, who led strikes in 1916 and 1917, and then through the Communist Party of the United States of America, which was established in 1919. There was also a fear of the rise in anarchist groups. In April 1919 a series of letter bombs were posted to a number of prominent Americans including Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Supreme Court justice. The man who tried to bomb the home of the attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, Carlo Valdinoci, was killed as he placed the device on the porch of Palmer’s house. It was a period of intense xenophobia, and the police started arresting people they thought were involved. During the arrests, there were strikes throughout the United States that led to some people fearing that there was a nationwide conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government. The terms of the Espionage Act of 1917 had been strengthened through the Sedition Act of 1918, as arrests continued, with some 10,000 people being arrested over the two-year period. The man appointed by Palmer to be in charge of organizing the arrests was J. Edgar Hoover, aged 24. Many people alleged that they were beaten by the police during and after their arrests and also denied access to their attorneys, although the tough attitude had the support of many people and some newspapers. U.S. senator Kenneth D. McKellar raised the idea of establishing a penal colony in Guam for subversives. However, a number of jurists, including Felix Frankfurter, later a judge in the Supreme Court, published their criticisms of the arrests. In early 1920 Attorney General Palmer announced that he had received evidence that the Communists were planning to take over the United States on May 1, but Palmer’s attempt to win the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency failed soon afterward. In spite of the arrests, which also saw several hundred people being deported, bombings continued, with one device, which had 100 pounds (45 kilograms) of dynamite and 500 pounds (230 kilograms) of steel fragments, exploded in front of J. P. Morgan Company’s offi ce on Wall Street, killing 38 and injuring 400 others. In the 1920 U.S. presidential election, Eugene V. Debs of the Socialist Party of America, who had stood in the U.S. presidential elections on four occasions, was arrested and fought his fi fth election campaign from prison. The hysteria reached its peak when two Italian anarchists, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, were arrested for their role in the death of a paymaster and security guard on April 15, 1920, and were sentenced to death, being executed in 1927. The Red Scare of 1919–20 served to have a negative effect on progressive political parties and union membership in 318 Red Scare (1920) A group is photographed in front of the home of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer after the attempted bombing in 1919. America, as both experienced severe declines in membership in the next decade. See also Sacco-Vanzetti trial. Further reading: Murray, Robert K. Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria 1919–1920. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980; Pfannestiel, Todd J. Rethinking the Red Scare: The Lusk Committee and New York’s Crusade against Radicalism 1919–1923. New York: Routledge, 2003. Justin Corfi eld reparations, World War I Since Woodrow Wilson rejected indemnities, World War I’s victors required reparation for civilian damage done from the losers, ostensibly to ease reconstruction costs. All of the 1920 treaties written at Paris contained reparations clauses, although only Germany could pay appreciably. Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty with Germany, as limited by article 232 and similar clauses in the Austrian and Hungarian treaties, laid the legal basis. Only Germany saw this as a war guilt clause. At Paris, reparations were stretched to cover war pensions to enable Britain and its empire to gain a share. As the total set in 1921 was based on estimates of German capacity to pay, the British share, not the total, was thereby increased. Germany was to pay 20 milliard (U.S. billion) gold marks ($5 billion) by May 1921. Meanwhile, the victors would assess damage claims and arrive at a total sum. Actual German payments to May 1921, chiefl y in credits for state properties in transferred territories and battlefi eld salvage, were deliberately overestimated by the Allies at 8 milliard, which did not cover prior charges, including provisioning Germany. The total fi gure set in April and May 1921 was ostensibly 132 milliard gold marks, but actually 50 milliard, including the unpaid balance on the interim payment. Figures were always misleadingly infl ated so victor politicians could claim great accomplishments and German politicians could orchestrate outrage. A schedule of continuing payments in cash and kind (chiefl y coal and timber) was established but soon were in virtual abeyance as Germany claimed inability to pay. Battles over reparations dominated the postwar decade. If the victors had to pay vast reconstruction costs as well as domestic and foreign war debts while Germany, which had no foreign war debt and eradicated its domestic debt through infl ation, paid nothing, Germany would be the victor. Berlin sought to reverse the military verdict by paying little and infl ating its currency, blaming reparations for the infl ation. Repeated German defaults on coal deliveries led to the 1923 Ruhr encirclement to force Germany to honor the treaty. France won that battle but lost the war, since in 1924 at British insistence, reparations payments and the total were reduced in the Dawes Plan, which provided a large loan to Germany and slowly rising payments. When these became onerous, Germany gained another reduction and loan in the 1929 Young Plan. After Adolf Hitler’s September 1930 electoral triumph, foreign, liberal, and Jewish capital fl ed Germany, creating a spreading economic crisis that led to the July 1931 one-year Hoover Moratorium on all intergovernmental debts. When it expired, the July 1932 Lausanne Agreement effectively ended reparations without saying so. In all, Germany paid about 21.5 milliard gold marks, chiefl y in kind. Cash was mostly borrowed, and the Dawes and Young loans were defaulted and not settled until 1995. Reparations could not be collected without German cooperation, which was not forthcoming. Of all Germany’s battles to escape the Versailles Treaty, that over reparations was the most prolonged, bitter, and devisive. See also Weimar Republic. Further reading: Boemeke, Manfred F., Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, eds., The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Sharp, Alan. The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking in Paris, 1919. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 1991. Sally Marks Rhodesia, Northern and Southern (pre-1950) In 1911, Northern Rhodesia, a wealthy protectorate of the United Kingdom with borders that corresponded roughly to modern Zambia, was created from a combination of North West Rhodesia and North East Rhodesia. Both of these areas were under the control of the British South Africa Company, which had acquired the area in 1899 by dint of a royal charter. This empowered the company with complete administrative control over what became known as Southern Rhodesia and Northern Bechuanaland. While the charter gave the company power in the south, it soon expanded northward, extending its activities across the Zambezi River into what eventually became Northern Rhodesia. The name of the area was derived from the name of Cecil John Rhodes, renowned British empire builder and Rhodesia, Northern and Southern (pre-1950) 319 the most infl uential fi gure in the European expansion into southern Africa. Rhodes gained infl uence for the British in the area through negotiations with local chiefs for mineral rights in 1888. These negotiations, while questionable in terms of fairness to the indigenous population, were so successful that later the same year both Northern and Southern Rhodesia were proclaimed a part of the British sphere of infl uence. Southern Rhodesia was formally annexed and was granted selfgovernment in 1923. Northern Rhodesia remained under the complete administrative and legislative control of the British South Africa Company until the same year, at which time the company surrendered all of its buildings, assets, land, and other monopolistic rights aside from mineral rights in return for a cash payment from the British government. Thus, Northern Rhodesia became a British protectorate, and in 1924 executive and legislative councils were established along with the offi ce of the governor of Northern Rhodesia. Seeing the situation of the white population in nearby South Africa, the Colonial Offi ce promoted the immigration of white settlers to the area, reserving huge stretches of prime farmland taken from important tribal areas. This appropriation of land clashed with the land rights of the local population, who had little recourse for complaining about the situation. The outbreak of World War II saw Northern Rhodesia playing an important role for the British. As soon as the war began, citizens of Northern Rhodesia signed up to fi ght for the British army in both the European and African theaters. Arguably as important, the vast copper resources of Rhodesia were used to create vital munitions for the British war effort. This desperate need for copper caused an upswing in the price of the material, which saved the failing Rhodesian economy. Northern Rhodesia was considered as a possible location for the settlement of European Jews fl eeing the political repression of the Nazi regime in Germany, particularly following the Kristallnacht, a massive anti-Semitic pogram launched by facist organizations on November 9, 1938. Following the war, Northern Rhodesia took steps toward democratization with the establishment of an African Representative Council in 1946. Again following the lead of South Africa, white Rhodesia settlers opposed any policy that would allow the larger African population to gain greater representation in the political process or better access to education. Most of the white population pushed for an amalgamation with the more prosperous Southern Rhodesia. In spite of the strong opposition of the white population, two African members were appointed to the Northern Rhodesian legislative council in 1948, the fi rst step toward enfranchising the indigenous peoples. Northern Rhodesia became the independent nation of Zambia on October 24, 1964. The area known as Southern Rhodesia corresponds roughly to modern Zimbabwe. After the split in 1923, Southern Rhodesia became known simply as Rhodesia. Previously, in 1922, nearly 30,000 white settlers in Southern Rhodesia voted for the area to become self-governing rather than integrated into the Union of South Africa. Very soon after the annexation by the British government in 1923, Southern Rhodesia became a self-governing colony. As with Northern Rhodesia, the right to vote was tied primarliy to property qualifi cations. While a few black Africans were elected to the assembly, the legislature was predominantly white. In 1930, the Southern Rhodesian Land Act was passed, excluding black Africans from owning the best farmland and creating a situation similar to the one experienced by the native people in South Africa at the same time. Four years later, a labor law excluding black Africans from entering the skilled trades and professions was passed. Additional legislation of the time continued to discriminate against the native population. The indigenous peoples suffered repeated shrinking of areas set aside for them, the constant confi scation of the best, most arable lands, and continued exclusion from any professions that required specifi c skills. Education tended to be private schools that catered to the white minority, with the education of the native Africans relegated to missionaries. However, with the onset of World War II, the social conditions of Southern Rhodesia were forced to change. During the war, many young white men enlisted to serve in the British army; this meant that black African natives had to fi ll the vacated jobs to prevent the complete collapse of the economy. This, more than anything, started to empower the natives. The black population of Southern Rhodesia was not unrepresented in the legislature but was signifi cantly under-represented. Dissatisfaction with the local political situation began to grow in the native community, and many social and politcal organizations advocating the demands of the local black population sprang up. Following the war, the British Colonial Offi ce attempted to assuage the situation with constitutional changes, increasing the size of the electorate and granting political representation to the African majority. Naturally, the powerful white minority opposed these 320 Rhodesia, Northern and Southern (pre-1950) measures, believing that the Colonial Offi ce had no authority; Southern Rhodesia had been self-governing since 1924. This position was enhanced by the return of white Rhodesian servicemen following the end of the war; veterans wanted their jobs back, a situation that permitted the environment of pushing aside the grievances of the black African population and increasing racial policies that closely resembled those of neighboring South Africa. Southern Rhodesia would remain relatively peaceful by African standards until the 1960s. Further reading: Keppel-Jones, Arthur. Rhodes and Rhodesia: The White Conquest of Zimbabwe, 1884–1902. Kingston: Queens-McGill Press, 1983; Moyo, Sam. Land and Democracy in Zimbabwe. Harare: SAPES Books, 1999; Wood, J. R. T. The Welensky Papers: A History of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Durban: Graham Publishing, 1983. Rian Wall Rif rebellion For centuries Spain controlled the mountainous areas from Ceuta to Melilla in northern Morocco. In March 1912 Sultan Mulai Hafi d signed a treaty in which he recognized a French protectorate over Morocco. The French and Spanish then negotiated the Treaty of Fez; Spain would continue to control the mountainous areas of the Rif in the east and the Jibala in the west. France would control the rest of Morocco, and the Rif Mountains would serve as the border between the two protectorates. When Spain began moving troops into the region, it caused unrest among the peoples of the Rif, who were used to living independently under the rule of the sultan. Two Berbers from the largest tribe in northern Morocco united all the tribes against the Spanish into what became the Rif rebellion of 1921–26. Muhammad Ibn Abd el-Krim el-Khatabi, also known as Abd el-Krim, became the leader of the revolt. Abd el-Krim was the eldest son of a qadi who received an education superior to that available to most in the Rif. His younger brother M’hommad became his chief adviser and commander of the Rif army. Abd el-Krim was appointed chief qadi in the Melilla region and quickly became an important fi gure in the administration of the Spanish zone. He also was an editor for El Telegrama del Rif, where he took anti-French stances during World War I, for which he was imprisoned in 1917. After being released from prison in 1919, he was reinstated in the Offi ce of Indigenous Troops and Affairs. Shortly afterward, Abd el- Krim left the Spanish administration, and his brother came home from Madrid, where he had been studying to become a mining engineer. They then began to form an intertribal military force with the intention of creating an independent state in the Rif. Abd el-Krim and the Rif army won several decisive battles against the Spanish. They used brief military engagements to ambush the Spanish and then retreat. Because of this, the Spanish soldiers were at a large disadvantage. They were trained to engage another European army and not to fi ght a guerrilla-style war. Abd el-Krim also took advantage of the region’s steep mountainous terrain and the inaccessibility of the Rifi an coastline. General Manuel Sylvestre, the commander of the Spanish forces in the region, was defeated and killed in battle at Annual. The fi ghting continued after the Spanish retreat, as the Rifi ans cut off Spanish escape routes. It was estimated that the Spanish suffered between 9,000 and 15,000 casualties, including General Sylvestre, in this battle. Shortly after the battle, Abd el-Krim established a government and began making changes in the Rif in an attempt to better the lives of his people. The Rifi an army continued to win battle after battle until the majority of northern Morocco was under the control of Abd el-Krim. In an attempt to stop him, the Spanish resorted to massive bombing campaigns with TNT and incendiary and chemical bombs, but to no avail. Abd el-Krim and the Rifi an army continued to advance. Marshal Louis-Hubert Lyautey, the top administrator of the French zone of Morocco, kept a close eye on the events in the north. The French authorities had pursued a successful policy of divide-and-rule against the local tribes to keep control, but Abd el-Krim’s infl uence began to penetrate into the French zone. By April 1925 he launched an offensive into French territory. For a short time his attacks forced a French retreat until a joint Spanish- French operation caught Abd el-Krim, now fi ghting a two-front war, in a pincer attack. By late October 1925 the Spanish were advancing, and Abd el-Krim was forced to retreat toward the French. In May 1926 Abd el-Krim negotiated a surrender with the French. France pardoned Abd el-Krim and then exiled him to the island of Reunion in the Indian Ocean. In 1947 he was granted asylum in Egypt, where he lived in Cairo until his death in February 1963. See also Franco, Francisco. Rif rebellion 321 Further reading: Furneaux, Rupert. Abdel Krim: Emir of the Rif. London: Secker and Warburg, 1967; Woolman, David S. Rebels in the Rif: Abd el-Krim and the Rif Rebellion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968. Brian M. Eichstadt Rommel, Erwin (1891–1944) German general Born into a middle-class family with no military background in 1891, Erwin Rommel went on to become one of the most decorated and senior generals in the German army during World War II. He is most famous for commanding the German Afrika Korps from 1941 to 1943. He proved such a competent commander during this period that the British nicknamed him the “Desert Fox.” Rommel fi rst distinguished himself as a leader in a number of combat missions during World War I in France, Italy, and Romania. For his exceptional military prowess he was awarded two Iron Crosses and became the youngest recipient of a Pour le Merite, Germany’s highest military honor. Following the war he served as an instructor at the Dresden Infantry School from 1929 to 1933 and the Potsdam War Academy from 1935 to 1938. He also wrote a well-received textbook on military theory, Infantry Tactics, in 1937. Infantry Tactics caught the attention of Adolf Hitler. Rommel was subsequently promoted to colonel and given command of the Hitler Youth paramilitary force and later Hitler’s bodyguard battalion in 1939–40. By now a major general, Rommel took command in February 1940 of Germany’s 7th Panzer Division and led his new unit to war against France on May 10. Despite having no previous experience in tank warfare, Rommel displayed an uncanny instinct for coordinating large and fast-moving armored formations. He outperformed his more experienced colleagues in the blitzkrieg assaults. In a six-week campaign, Rommel’s unit captured over 450 tanks and over 100,000 Allied prisoners. In an effort to relieve the beleaguered Italian units fi ghting in North Africa, Hitler promoted Rommel once again and awarded him a new command in January 1941. Rommel landed in Libya with the two divisions that would form the foundation of the Afrika Corps (Korps). Violating his orders from Wehrmacht high command to consolidate his new units, he attacked the British forces in North Africa in March and caught them off balance, which allowed him to retake all of Cyrenaica except Tobruk. Promoted to full general in the summer of 1941, Rommel and his Panzer Group Africa held off British counterattacks until he was eventually forced to withdraw in November. After receiving new supplies and reinforcements, he launched a series of offensives against the British, concluding in the Gazala battles through which he regained all of the lost ground and captured Tobruk. He was promoted once more to fi eld marshal on June 22, 1942, in recognition of his success. Rommel’s panzer group was defeated by the British at the fi rst Battle of El Alamein in July, defeated again by British general Bernard Montgomery at Alam Halfa in September, and crushed at the second Battle of El Alamein in October. Facing competent and far better supplied Allied troops, Rommel’s forces were hampered by fuel shortages and his own debilitating medical problems. Despite his achieving a notable victory over the U.S. 2nd Army Corps at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass in February 1943, Rommel’s campaign in Africa was ultimately a failure. Against Hitler’s orders he organized an orderly withdrawal from North Africa. He fl ew to Germany on extended sick leave, leaving many of his subordinates to be captured by the Allies. Following the Allied victory in North Africa, Rommel was appointed commander in chief of German Army Group B in August 1943 and tasked with planning operations in northern Italy. When Rommel failed to defend Sicily or the Italian mainland from Allied invasion, Hitler ordered him to France in November 1943 to organize the defense of that country against further Allied invasion. There he launched a massive construction effort to strengthen the Atlantic wall, particularly with his own innovative design of beach obstacles nicknamed “Rommel’s asparagus.” In addition, he ordered that thousands of tank traps and other obstacles be set up on beaches and throughout the countryside and that millions of mines be laid. Rommel disagreed with the strategy of his superior, General Rundstedt, for defending France. Rundstedt believed that a large proportion of the German army should be held in reserve to provide a fl exible means of reinforcing front line units and plugging gaps opened by the Allies, while Rommel argued that the German tank units should be deployed right at the beaches to repel the Allied invasion forces immediately. The former won out, but following the Allied invasion of Normandy on D-day, both struggled in vain to stop the Allied advance across France toward Germany. 322 Rommel, Erwin Rommel was severely wounded on July 17, 1944, when his staff car was strafed by an RAF fi ghter. He was also implicated in a failed assassination attempt against Hitler on July 20. The investigators discovered numerous connections between Rommel and the conspiracy, including the deep involvement of many of his closest aides. He was offered a choice of poison or a lengthy show trial and a promise of reprisals against his family. Predictably, he took the former course of action on October 14, 1944. Further reading: Hoffmann, Karl. Erwin Rommel. London: Brassey’s, 2004; Kelly, Orr. Meeting the Fox: The Allied Invasion of Africa from Operation Torch to Kasserine Pass to Victory in Tunisia. New York: J. Wiley, 2002; Lewin, Ronald. Rommel as Military Commander. London: Batsford, 1968; Mitcham, Samuel W. The Desert Fox in Normandy: Rommel’s Defense of Fortress Europe. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. Scott Fitzsimmons Roosevelt, Eleanor (1884–1962) American fi rst lady Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was the wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt and fi rst lady of the United States from 1933 until 1945, becoming a United Nations diplomat and a major political fi gure in her own right. She was born on October 11, 1884, in New York, the daughter of Elliott and Anna Hall Roosevelt and niece of Theodore Roosevelt, who became the 26th president of the United States. Both her parents died when she was young—her mother when she was eight and her father when she was nine, and as a result she was raised by relatives, rapidly becoming Theodore Roosevelt’s favorite niece. It was the childhood of a wealthy girl, and she quickly developed a social conscience and keenness to help with charitable works. She was educated at Allenswood, near London, England, and later described the three years she spent there as the happiest in her life. In 1902 she returned Roosevelt, Eleanor 323 Plane wreckage is all that remains after Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Corps retreated through Libya to the Tunisian coast. Despite his inexperience with tanks at the beginning of World War II, Rommel soon gained the respect of the Allies for his tactical leadership. to New York, and three years later, on March 17, 1905, she married a distant cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They were to have six children: Anna Eleanor, born in 1906; James, born in 1907; Franklin Delano, Jr., born in 1909 (died aged seven and a half months); Elliot, born in 1910; Franklin Delano, Jr., born in 1914; and John Aspinwall, born in 1916. Even before her marriage, Eleanor Roosevelt had been active in charity and volunteer work, and she adapted easily to the task of accompanying her husband as he entered politics. The family moved to Albany after Franklin won a seat in the New York senate in 1911, and two years later they moved to Washington, D.C., when he was appointed assistant secretary of the navy. During World War I, Eleanor worked in a Red Cross canteen for the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society. A particularly traumatic time came about in 1918 when Eleanor discovered that her husband was having an affair with her social secretary, Lucy Mercer. She offered a divorce, which he rejected, promising to end the affair. The two would remain married, but their relationship was badly strained. In 1921 Franklin Roosevelt was struck with poliomyelitis, and it looked as though his political career was over. However, Eleanor stood by him, and gradually both of them became active in grass-roots politics, with Eleanor playing a major role in the Democratic Party in New York State. When Franklin was elected governor of New York in 1929, Eleanor remained an adept political hostess but also continued to run a Manhattan girls’ school, Todhunter, which she and two friends had recently bought. Eleanor taught at the school and enjoyed her independence from political life. When Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, Eleanor became a leading advocate for liberal causes, especially women’s rights and equal rights for African Americans. She held a regular White House press conference restricted to women journalists. This ensured that many major newspapers had to hire women correspondents, if only, some would later admit, to get the news from her. With Franklin crippled, Eleanor toured the United States many times in his absence and was able to tell him about the success or otherwise of social programs. Eleanor Roosevelt’s championing of the rights of African Americans quickly became famous throughout the United States and overseas. In 1939 the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to allow Marian Anderson, an African American operatic singer, to perform in Constitution Hall, so Eleanor resigned her membership of the organization and held the concert at the Lincoln Memorial, with 75,000 people attending. Once, when attending a public meeting in Alabama with the public segregated by race, Eleanor sat in a folding chair in the central aisle. In 1945 Franklin Roosevelt died, and his successor, Harry S. Truman, who called Eleanor the “First Lady of the World,” appointed her to be a delegate to the United Nations, where she was chair of the Commission on Human Rights from 1946 until 1952, playing a major role in the drafting and then the adopting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. She was appointed in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy to chair the Commission on the Status of Women, and she came to support the Equal Rights Amendment. From 1945 Eleanor Roosevelt traveled around the world many times, unveiling a statue of Franklin Roosevelt at Grosvenor Square, London, in April 1948 and going to Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, as well as most Western countries. Eleanor Roosevelt died on November 7, 1962, from tuberculosis, and was buried at Hyde Park, New York, where her husband had been buried 17 years earlier. Further reading: Cook, Blanche Wiesen. Eleanor Roosevelt. New York: Viking, 1992–1999; Lash, Joseph P. Eleanor and Franklin. New York: Norton, 1971; ———. Eleanor: The Years Alone. New York: Norton, 1974; Roosevelt, Eleanor. The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt. London: Hutchinson, 1962; Roosevelt, David B. Grandmère: A Personal History of Eleanor Roosevelt. New York: Warner Books, 2002. Justin Corfi eld Roosevelt, Franklin Delano (1882–1945) U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt, known as “FDR,” was the 32nd president of the United States (1933–45) and was the only president elected to that offi ce four times. He led the United States through two major crises: the Great Depression of the 1930s and then World War II, which saw the emergence of the United States as a world power. His New Deal programs were extremely controversial at the time, and Roosevelt’s moves, although nowadays seen as progressive and necessary, were subject to bitter criticisms when enacted. Franklin Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882, at Hyde Park, New York, the only child of James and 324 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Sara Delano Roosevelt. The family was wealthy but discreet, spending much of their time at their estate in the Hudson River valley, New York State, or traveling in Europe. As a boy, Franklin Roosevelt attended Groton Preparatory School in Massachusetts and in 1900 went to Harvard University, where his academic results were mediocre, but he made a major impression on the social scene. He also came to know his fi fth cousin Theodore Roosevelt, marrying Theodore’s niece, Eleanor Roosevelt, on March 17, 1905. It was through his wife’s work that Franklin came to see the condition of the poor in New York. PROGRESSIVE REFORM After graduating from Columbia University Law School and passing the New York bar exam, Roosevelt worked as a clerk for Carter, Ledyard, and Milburn of Wall Street, but by this time he had decided to enter politics. In 1910 Franklin Roosevelt was elected for the state senate seat for Dutchess County, New York. It was not long before he achieved national attention in opposing the choice of a candidate for the U.S. Senate by Tammany Hall, the New York City Democratic Party organization. Soon Roosevelt started to urge for progressive reform and supported the 1912 presidential bid of New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson. When Wilson became president, he appointed Roosevelt assistant secretary of the navy in March 1913. With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Roosevelt supported the rearmament of the United States, which entered the war in 1917. In 1918 he toured naval bases and battlefi elds. It was on his return from his major tour in summer 1918 that Eleanor realized that Franklin had been having an affair with Lucy Mercer, her social secretary. Franklin rejected the divorce that Eleanor offered and agreed to end the affair and not see Mercer again, but he was to break this promise 20 years later. Although the marriage held, Franklin and Eleanor were never close again. Franklin Roosevelt had supported U.S. membership in the League of Nations and in 1920 was nominated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, running on a ticket with James M. Cox. However, the Republicans won convincingly, and Roosevelt became disenchanted and went into business as vice president of Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Soon after this, while on holiday at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, Franklin Roosevelt discovered that he had poliomyelitis. Paralysis set in, but Roosevelt believed that he would be able to walk again, although he had to withdraw from active politics. In 1924 he appeared at the Democratic Convention, amid cheers, to support the nomination of Alfred E. Smith as the Democratic presidential candidate. Roosevelt supported Smith’s second bid in 1928, and Smith urged Roosevelt to run for the governorship of New York, which Roosevelt did, winning even though New York voted Republican in the presidential election on the same day. Roosevelt learned to campaign from his car and soon was making many appearances in public, often holding on to one of his sons as he literally dragged himself from engagement to engagement. As governor of New York, Roosevelt gained much support from farmers for whom he gave tax relief. In 1930 he turned his original majority of 25,000 votes into one of 725,000 votes. His public works programs were becoming increasingly popular as the Great Depression forced more and more people out of work. In 1931 he established the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, giving unemployment assistance to up to 10 percent of all the families in New York. The popularity of this quickly made Roosevelt a likely contender for the 1932 presidential elections. He won the election comfortably, with 472 of the Electoral College seats, to Hoover’s 59, and with 22,829,277 votes, as against 15,761,254 for Hoover. He also had good Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The economy declined considerably between the election and the inauguration, with industrial production at 56 percent of its 1929 level and unemployment running at 13 million. In his fi rst “Hundred Days” he sought to massively boost the economy by public spending through poor relief and other reforms in the economy. He declared a bank holiday, closing all banks until Congress could pass legislation to support the banking system, which was facing the possibility of widespread destruction, with “runs” on many banks. This restored public confi dence in the banking system, and Roosevelt explained his actions in regular radio broadcasts that became known as the “fi reside chats.” Roosevelt guided into law the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The former resulted in the establishment of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which helped provide subsidies for wheat, corn, cotton, and some other goods in exchange for reduced production levels. This raised the prices of these commodities and hence the income of small farmers. Although there were some immediate successes, many critics saw it as immoral to destroy fi elds of crops at the same time that some people were going hungry and while there Roosevelt, Franklin Delano 325 were famines overseas. However, it was not until 1941 that farm income reached the level of 1929. The NIRA started public works programs, but many of these began slowly, with Roosevelt anxious that none of the $3.3 billion allocated to them should be wasted. A major part of this was the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), with a massive hydroelectric scheme established to improve fl ood control and generate power in the Tennessee River basin. There was also the establishment of the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which set minimum wage levels and guaranteed workers could bargain collectively. However, in May 1932 it was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, resulting in a bruising battle between the administration and the Court. Roosevelt’s initial programs were very successful, but because of his wanting to moderate them and cautious of critics seeing the country’s debt expanding rapidly, they only mitigated the effects of the depression rather than ending it. However, in November 1936 Roosevelt was reelected, winning every state except Maine and Vermont with 27,752,648 votes as against 16,681,862 for his opponent, Kansas governor Alfred Landon. SUPREME COURT Seeing that the main opposition to the New Deal programs was from the Supreme Court, Roosevelt came up with a very controversial program to nominate another new justice for each existing one aged 70 years or more. This bill was voted down, but the Supreme Court was nervous and upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act (known as the “Wagner” Act). In 1937 the economy recovered, and Roosevelt was able cut back government spending to create a balanced budget. However, this produced a recession, and Roosevelt immediately increased spending. The outbreak of World War II started to overshadow the last year of Roosevelt’s second term as president. He had recognized the Soviet Union, improved relations with Latin America, but did nothing to oppose the rising power of Germany, Italy, and Japan. The latter’s sinking of a U.S. gunboat in December 1937 led to a Japanese apology to avoid war. In June 1940, with the German capture of France, Roosevelt was keen to aid the British with “all aid short of war.” He managed to send 50 old ships to Britain in exchange for naval bases. Most people in the United States remained isolationist, with the 1940 presidential election being fought largely on home issues. Roosevelt decided to break with the tradition set by George Washington, and he was nominated for a third term— his Republican opponent, Wendell L. Willkie, also supporting Roosevelt’s policy of supporting Britain. Although Roosevelt won comfortably with 449 to 82 Electoral College seats and 27,313,945 to 22,347,744 in the popular vote, there was a great fear of Roosevelt drawing the United States into war. Tensions rose when in March 1941 Roosevelt ordered the navy to fi re at German submarines, and in August 1941 he met with the British prime minister Winston Churchill on a battleship off Newfoundland, Canada. The result was the Atlantic Charter. The close personal trust between the two men was to be the keystone of the Allied war effort. However, it was the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, that would result in the United States going to war with Japan and Germany. By restricting the export to Japan of certain war supplies, essentially the Japanese felt that their only way out of the impasse was to attack. It now seems accepted that Roosevelt saw that the Japanese would attack—U.S. intelligence having broken the Japanese ciphers—but was uncertain about the place and the time of the attack. The bombing of Pearl Harbor “on December 7, a day that will live on in infamy,” took the U.S. government by surprise, and on December 8 Congress, at the request of Roosevelt, declared war on Japan. Three days later Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, which was now committed to war in Europe. Massive war production programs began immediately, ending the depression and seeing the industrial might of the United States dedicated to the war effort. Roosevelt met with Winston Churchill and the other Allied leaders at various conferences, the most famous being Casablanca (January 1943), Teheran (November 1943), Cairo (November-December 1943), and Yalta (February 1945). Roosevelt saw that peace in the postwar world would depend on friendly relations with the Soviet Union, and a strong but brief alliance resulted. By this time, however, Roosevelt was becoming increasingly ill. He defeated New York’s governor, Thomas Dewey, in the 1944 presidential election, with Roosevelt standing for a fourth time. He won the Electoral College comfortably, with 432 against Dewey’s 99 and 25,612,916 votes to 22,017,929 for the Republicans. After returning from Yalta, Roosevelt was forced to give his address to Congress while sitting down. In early April he went to Warm Springs, Georgia, to rest and had a massive cerebral hemor- 326 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano rhage while sitting for a portrait on April 12, 1945; he died soon afterward. Further reading: Alsop, Joseph, and Roland Gelatt. FDR, 1882–1945: A Centenary Remembrance. London: Thames & Hudson, 1982; Gunther, John. Roosevelt in Retrospect. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950; Lash, Joseph P. Eleanor and Franklin. New York: Norton, 1971; Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940. New York: Harper & Row, 1963; Schlesinger, Jr, Arthur M., The Age of Roosevelt. 3 vols. New York: Houghton Miffl in, 1957–60. Justin Corfi eld Roosevelt, Theodore (1858–1919) U.S. president The only 20th-century president carved into Mount Rushmore, Teddy Roosevelt turned the presidency into his “bully pulpit,” signifi cantly expanding federal executive power. A progressive Republican, he used his popularity to launch the modern conservation movement, build the Panama Canal, and broker a treaty in the 1904–05 Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. The second child in an old New York Dutch family, Teddy suffered from asthma and was extremely near-sighted. He responded with a strenuous exercise regime that included hunting and ranching in the Dakotas. His legendary triumph over ill health shaped his lifelong energetic masculinity. A stand-out at Harvard University, Roosevelt studied law but soon turned to politics. A year after marrying Alice Lee, the brash young Republican was elected to New York’s assembly and joined the National Guard. Plunged into depression by the deaths of his mother and wife on the same day in 1884, Roosevelt took time to write a well-received history of the War of 1812 and then, as commissioner of the new U.S. Civil Service, won appointments from presidents of both parties. Soon happily remarried to childhood friend Edith Carrow, Roosevelt reconnected with his political base as New York City’s police commissioner but quickly returned to Washington as assistant secretary of the navy in William McKinley’s fi rst administration. When the Spanish-American War erupted in 1898, Roosevelt, already an outspoken imperialist, quit his navy post to muster 1,000 fi ghters for his 1st Volunteer Cavalry. These “Rough Riders” won a crucial battle at Cuba’s San Juan Hill in which Lt. Col. Roosevelt suffered minor wounds but became this “splendid little war’s” national celebrity. Months later Roosevelt narrowly won New York’s governorship. As McKinley’s reelection campaign approached, state political enemies were happy to propose Roosevelt’s promotion to the harmless job of vice president. McKinley strategist Mark Hanna considered Roosevelt a “madman” but reluctantly agreed. In September 1901 McKinley was shot by anarchist Leon Czolgosz at Buffalo’s Pan American Exposition. When he succumbed on September 14, Roosevelt became the 26th president and youngest ever at 42. “TR” soon put his own stamp on the presidency. That October he invited African-American leader Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House, drawing a storm of protest. Facing a 1902 coal strike, Roosevelt made labor history by insisting that owners and mine workers negotiate. He followed his secret acquisition of Panama Canal territory with his Roosevelt Corollary, restating the 1823 Monroe Doctrine to justify military intervention in the hemisphere. Promoting a “Square Deal” for all Americans, Roosevelt easily won his own term in 1904. Even Democratic cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt, husband of Teddy’s niece Eleanor, voted for him. Roosevelt created the National Forest Service and placed 230 million acres, including the Grand Canyon, under federal protection. In 1906 he signed the landmark Pure Food and Drug Act. Acclaimed as a trustbuster, Roosevelt used Roosevelt, Theodore 327 Theodore Roosevelt was the fi rst American president to consider the environment to be a valuable topic of political discussion. the long-ignored Sherman Anti-Trust Act to rein in dishonest business practices, but historians still argue over whether he effectively brought big business to heel. Disappointed in his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, Roosevelt sought the Republican nomination in 1912, creating his own Progressive (Bull Moose) Party when rebuffed. Roosevelt placed ahead of Taft by winning a third-party record of 88 electoral votes but thereby assured Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s election. In failing health but still rambunctious, the former president advocated U.S. entry into World War I on the Allied side and offered Wilson his military services. Denied, he considered leading a Canadian unit but settled for promoting War Bonds. Three of Roosevelt’s four sons served in the war; his youngest, Quentin, a fi ghter pilot, died in battle in July 1918. Generally considered America’s fi rst truly modern political fi gure, Roosevelt died at 60 of a coronary embolism in January 1919. He is buried in an Oyster Bay cemetery near his beloved Sagamore Hill family compound. Further reading: Brands, H. W. T.R.: The Last Romantic. New York: Basic Books, 1997; Morris, Edmund. Theodore Rex. New York: Random House, 2001. Marsha E. Ackermann Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine Under President James Monroe, the United States expressed its belief that the Western Hemisphere was, essentially, off limits to European powers, a policy expressed in the Monroe Doctrine. Under Theodore Roosevelt, the doctrine was expanded to state that the United States would act as a police power in the event that a nation in the Western Hemisphere conducted its affairs irresponsibly. This corollary came when Germany and England attempted to force the repayment of loans made to Venezuela. When Venezuela refused repayment, England and Germany sent their navies to force repayment. Before sending ships, both governments consulted with Roosevelt, who initially consented to the action. However, American public opinion disagreed with European powers taking military action in the West; many felt this was a direct violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Roosevelt addressed Congress on December 6, 1904, laying out his corollary, stating that it was the job of the United States to act as a policing force for the Western Hemisphere, and, when necessary, to intervene on behalf of other nations. On December 3, 1901, Roosevelt had stated the U.S. position as protector of the Western Hemisphere but had also said that the United States would not protect countries that did not conduct themselves in a proper manner. Specifi cally, he was referring to countries, in this case Venezuela, that did not make payments on their debts. Roosevelt felt that as long as the punishment did not involve occupation of any land, enforcement should be done by the country that had been wronged. In the case of Venezuela, this meant letting Germany and England deal with Venezuela’s nonpayment on its debt. What Roosevelt did not count on was the strong reaction of the U.S. people and media against this policy. Roosevelt pressured Germany and England to submit their claims to the International Tribunal at The Hague for resolution. The court ruled on February 22, 1904, in favor of Germany and England. When Roosevelt issued his corollary, it allowed the United States to step in and try to take control of the situation. Roosevelt was concerned with more than just Venezuela. The Dominican Republic was in fi nancial trouble and could not make payments on its loans. Having suffered through several revolutions, the country was in chaos, and collection of tariffs was not happening, so the republic could not make its loan payments. After talks between the republic and the U.S. State Department, it was decided that the United States should take control of collecting the tariffs to ensure that the holders of the loans received their payments. The agreement was signed on February 7, 1905, but immediately ran into opposition in the Senate from Democrats. Refusing to act on the treaty, Roosevelt, who was concerned about European intervention, went around Congress and implemented control of the customs houses without Senate approval. Roosevelt and the Senate Democrats spent most of 1906 arguing whether Roosevelt was subverting the Constitution or not. Finally, in 1907, a new treaty was negotiated that the Senate approved and passed. Roosevelt’s corollary was later replaced by dollar diplomacy under President William Howard Taft. Further reading: Holden, Robert H., and Eric Zolov. Latin America and the United States, A Documentary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; Paterson, Thomas G., J. Garry Clifford, and Kenneth J. Hagan. American Foreign Policy: A History/1900 to Present. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1991; Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States, A History of U.S. Policy Towards Latin 328 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998; Schulzinger, Robert D. American Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. 3d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994; Veeser, Cyrus. A World Safe for Capitalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Round Table Conferences The Round Table Conferences were a series of three conferences held in London from 1930 to 1932 between British and Indian leaders to form a new constitution for India, which was formalized in the 1935 Government of India Act. The Indian National Congress and Mohandas K. Gandhi wanted immediate and complete self-rule for India, while the British wanted to grant India dominion status eventually and keep India as part of the British Empire. The conference was held in London from November 12, 1930, to January 19, 1931. Gandhi and the congress boycotted the conference. Moderate Indian leaders, Muslims, and representatives of the princely states attended the conference. Prime Minister Ramsay Mac- Donald represented Great Britain. By the end of the conference, the idea of a federation was under consideration as the form of government suitable for India. Because the congress had boycotted this conference, Great Britain was anxious to get it involved in the next round. In order to get the congress to participate in the next conference, Lord Irwin, the viceroy of India, met with Gandhi and concluded the Delhi Pact on March 5, 1931. Gandhi agreed to end the ongoing civil disobedience, and Irwin agreed to release most of the political prisoners. Most importantly, Gandhi agreed that the congress would participate in the second Round Table Conference. The second Round Table Conference began on September 7, 1931. Gandhi attended the conference as the only representative of the congress. The congress and Gandhi believed that they represented all of India and that only they should deal with the British. The British, on the other hand, wanted other Indians to be represented in part perhaps in order to infl uence and control the events. Little was accomplished during the conference, and when no plan could be agreed upon on how different groups would be represented, the British government issued its own Communal Award on August 16, 1932, that outlined how minority groups, especially the Muslims and the untouchables, would be represented. The award did have the provision that it could be overruled if the congress and the minority groups could come to an agreement on their own. A separate agreement, the Poona Pact, was eventually reached between the untouchables and the congress about the representation of the untouchables. However, no agreement was reached with the All-India Muslim League. The fi nal conference, held from November 17, 1932, to December 25, 1932, also achieved little. The British parliament passed the Government of India Act in August 1935. The act set up an India Federation, which was to be given control of parts of the Indian government while other parts remained under the control of the British. Further reading: Brown, Judith M. Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985; Kulke, Hermann, and Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. 3d ed. London: Routledge, 1998; Markovitz, Claude. A History of Modern India: 1480–1950. Nisha George and Maggy Hendry, trans. London: Anthem Press, 2002. Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Russian Revolution (1905) On January 9, 1905, a vast but orderly crowd of Russian workers approached the Winter Palace to present Czar Nicholas II with a list of both economic and political grievances. The petition included among its demands an eight-hour workday, increased wages, improved working conditions, and an immediate end to the Russo-Japanese War. In addition, at the suggestion of liberal intellectuals, the petition urged the czar to convene a constituent assembly. The demonstrators, most of whom regarded Nicholas II as a father fi gure who would redress their grievances, carried with them portraits of the czar and of Orthodox saints. Father Georgii Gapon—a Russian Orthodox priest and the head of a police-sponsored trade union—led the procession, which included approximately 150,000 unarmed workers. As the procession approached the Winter Palace, it found its way blocked by armed troops. When the crowd failed to disperse as ordered, the troops opened fi re, killing nearly 200 and wounding several hundred more. The events of that day, which came to be known as Bloody Sunday, sparked riots and demonstrations across Russia and marked the onset of the 1905 Russian Revolution. Russian Revolution (1905) 329 Until that point, the Russian masses had played little if any role in the political turmoil that beset late-czarist Russia. In the months that followed, however, the working classes would play a key role in the revolutionary movement. To protest the massacre of unarmed demonstrators, thousands of workers across Russia went on strike. Liberals used the occasion of worker unrest to press for constitutional reform, urging the czar to abandon autocracy in favor of a constitutional monarchy. For the next several months the czar’s regime was variously confronted with student demonstrations, workers’ strikes, peasant disorders, unrest among ethnic minorities, and even mutinies in the armed forces. Efforts to restore order were not helped by the fact that Russian troops remained in the Far East fi ghting the Japanese. Hoping to appease popular opinion, Nicholas II decided in late August to grant freedom of assembly to university students for the fi rst time since 1884. As part of the concession, the czar forbade police even to enter university grounds. The efforts at conciliation backfi red; the universities became more of a radical hotbed than ever as students recruited workers from nearby factories to participate in political rallies without fear of police intervention. By the second week of October, a general strike encompassing workers in several key industries forced the czar to make further concessions. Russia had negotiated a peace treaty with Japan (the Treaty of Portsmouth) in late August, but with the railway workers on strike the troops could not be brought home. Meanwhile, with the autocracy apparently unable to restore order, the Russian economy was grinding to a halt. The minister of fi nance, Sergei Witte, convinced Nicholas II to grant concessions in the hopes of dividing the liberals from their more radical counterparts. According to Witte, there was no other way to save the monarchy. In the October Manifesto, dated October 17, Nicholas pledged to grant civil liberties and to create a parliament (the duma) based in part on popular elections. Laws passed over the next several months abolished censorship and guaranteed freedom of assembly and association. As a result of the October Manifesto, the liberals were divided into two factions: the Octoberists, who accepted the terms set forth in the proclamation, and the Constitutional Democrats (Cadets), who held out for further reform. Both groups, however, withdrew from revolutionary activity, at least in the short term, to prepare for the upcoming duma elections. Witte’s objective of separating the liberals from the radicals was therefore accomplished, but order was by no means restored. Workers became increasingly militant throughout the remainder of the year, and the socialist intelligentsia was further radicalized. In addition, bloody pogroms against Jews and intellectuals followed the proclamation of the manifesto. In the countryside peasants continued to riot, sacking and burning manor houses and attacking landowners and offi cials. By the following winter much of rural Russia was under martial law, and over 1,000 peasants were executed in a campaign of village-by-village pacifi cation. The constitution promised in the October Manifesto was published in April 1906. The so-called Fundamental Laws (which continued to refer to the czar as an autocrat) established a two-chamber parliament, the lower house of which was made up of elected offi cials. While this represented progress to many who favored liberal reform, the effects of the constitution were limited in practice. The franchise system for duma elections favored the propertied classes over ethnic minorities, peasants, and workers. In addition, the Crown reserved the right to dissolve the duma at any time, and article 87 of the Fundamental Laws enabled the Crown to rule by decree when the duma was not in session. After the fi rst two dumas were arbitrarily dissolved, the government took advantage of article 87 to enact a new electoral law that further skewed electoral representation in favor of the propertied classes. Meanwhile, the continued activity of the secret police at least partially undermined any concessions that had resulted from the 1905 revolution. Further reading: Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Lieven, Dominic. Nicholas II: Twilight of the Empire. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994; Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995. Kathleen Ruppert Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1924) Like most revolutions, the Russian Revolution of 1917 had a combination of political and social causes. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was the last of the great powers to retain an autocratic system of 330 Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1924) government. Educated Russians, many of them infl uenced by liberal ideas from the West, resented the lack of civil and political rights under the Russian system and pressed for political change. Progress was made following the 1905 revolution; an elected parliament (the duma) was established, censorship was abolished, and political parties were fi nally legalized. Nevertheless, Czar Nicholas II continued to rule as an autocrat, dissolving the duma at will, and political and civil liberties remained circumscribed by the pervasive presence of the secret police. The absence of an effective forum for political participation, even after 1905, furthered the development of a radical intelligentsia determined to overthrow the autocratic regime. The intelligentsia became more, rather than less, radical after 1905, viewing the events of that year as an episode on the road to full-scale revolution. In addition to political grievances, social and economic discontent helped pave the way for revolution. Russia was comparatively late to emerge from feudalism, serfdom having been abolished only in 1861. Peasants, who made up 80 percent of Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century, pressed for the redistribution of land from private landowners to the peasant communes. Rural overpopulation exacerbated peasant discontent, and the czarist regime was confronted with ongoing agrarian disturbances in the years leading up to 1917. Compared to the other great powers, Russia was also late to industrialize. Rapid industrialization beginning in the 1890s put tremendous strains on Russian society and produced a nascent working class with great revolutionary potential. Through political rallies and educational circles, the radical intelligentsia turned to the workers for support in fostering a socialist revolutionary program. The Social Democrats in particular preached that the industrial workers were the only truly revolutionary class. In reality, most workers were probably more interested in seeing their economic grievances (low wages, poor working conditions, etc.) redressed than in seeing the autocratic regime toppled. Nevertheless, since the authorities typically responded to strikes and demonstrations by sending in police and Cossack troops, economic issues were easily politicized. The long-term social, economic, and political discontents that confronted Russian society in the early 20th century were exacerbated by Russia’s involvement in World War I. Crushing defeats at the hands of the German armies, together with the glaring ineffi ciency of a bureaucracy confronted with the demands of total war, discredited the czarist regime in the eyes of the Russian people. The czar’s wife, Empress Alexandra, was extremely unpopular due to her German origin and her association with Rasputin, a peasant healer from Siberia who treated the heir to the throne for hemophilia. When Nicholas II left for the front to take control of the Russian armed forces, Rasputin gained considerable infl uence at court. False rumors about a romantic affair between the czarina and Rasputin contributed to the desacralization of the monarchy and the further erosion of czarist authority. Meanwhile, growing infl ation and lengthening bread lines revitalized the workers’ strike movement during the war and provided the spark that would ignite the February revolution. The fi rst phase of the 1917 revolution began on February 23 (International Women’s Day), when women workers from Petrograd textile mills took to the streets demanding an end to the bread shortage. The strike quickly spread to nearby factories; by the following day more than 200,000 workers had gone on strike. On February 25 students and members of the middle classes joined the demonstrators, demanding an end both to the war and to the czarist government. By that point the workers’ movement had developed into a general strike, paralyzing the normal functioning of the Russian capital. On February 26 armed troops, acting on orders from the government, fi red on the demonstrators, killing hundreds. The massacre sparked a mutiny within the Petrograd garrison. Early on the morning of February 27, soldiers of the Volynskii regiment shot their commanding offi cer, then rushed to nearby regiments and persuaded soldiers there to revolt as well. Many soldiers joined the insurgents on the streets, while others simply disobeyed any further commands to fi re on civilians. What began as two physically separate revolts—the soldiers’ mutiny in the city center and the workers’ demonstrations in the outlying districts—became joined by the afternoon of February 27 as insurrection spread to all parts of the city. Members of the Duma (the Russian parliament) anxiously watched the street violence of late February from their meeting place at the Tauride Palace and debated how best to restore order. When Nicholas ordered the duma dissolved, Duma leaders decided to form a “Temporary Committee of the State Duma” to take over the reins of government in Petrograd. On the same evening in a different room of the Tauride Palace, workers, soldiers, and socialist intellectuals met to form the Petrograd Soviet. Over the course of the next several days, the two bodies worked together to consolidate the revolution and establish a new government. The provisional Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1924) 331 government was formed on March 2; it was to govern until a constituent assembly based on universal elections could be convened. With the exception of Alexander Kerensky, a moderate socialist who sat on both the provisional government and the Soviet Executive Committee, the socialists initially declined to join the provisional government. The leaders of the Petrograd Soviet pledged to support the new government, however, as long as the government pursued policies of which the Soviet approved. This decision ushered in an era of “dual authority” characterized by tense and often uneasy cooperation between the Soviet and the provisional government. SPREAD OF REVOLUTION Meanwhile, the revolution spread quickly and with relatively little bloodshed (there were exceptions such as Tver, where considerable violence occurred) to the provincial cities and then to the countryside. On March 2 the military high command convinced Nicholas II to abdicate in favor of his brother Michael. (The czar initially decided to abdicate in favor of his son Alexis but changed his mind due in part to his son’s poor health.) When Grand Prince Michael refused the crown on March 3, the threecenturies- old Romanov dynasty, and with it Russia’s monarchical system of government, came to an end. The extreme optimism that accompanied the February revolution began to fade after several weeks as the provisional government dragged its feet on the urgent issues of land reform, peace, and elections to the constituent assembly. Returning to Russia on April 3 after almost 16 years of exile, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin issued the April Theses, in which he outlined his plan for the course of the revolution. Among other things, Lenin called for the overthrow of the provisional government and its replacement by a socialist government based on that of the Soviets. He also rejected cooperation with nonsocialist political groups, demanded an immediate end to the war, and called for radical social and economic reforms. In mid-April the provisional government faced a political crisis when Foreign Minister Paul Miliokov’s controversial policy of continuing the war to victory, rather than seeking a negotiated peace, led to massive street demonstrations and violence. In the wake of the April Crisis, the government was reorganized; several leaders from the Petrograd Soviet were brought in to form the fi rst coalition government of moderate socialists and nonsocialists. The Bolsheviks, under Lenin’s leadership, continued to remain aloof from the provisional government. Throughout the summer of 1917, food shortages and continued economic hardship contributed to growing disillusionment with the provisional government. Discontent over Russia’s involvement in the war continued to increase, particularly after the government launched an unsuccessful military offensive in June. The summer months were characterized by almost continuous government instability. Workers and garrison soldiers once again took to the streets during the July Days (July 3–5), demanding that all governmental power be passed to the Soviets. The demonstrations were suppressed on July 5, and Bolshevik leaders were forced into hiding. In the aftermath of the July Days, a second coalition was formed, with Kerensky as prime minister. That government collapsed as well after suspicions of an attempted coup in late August (the Kornilov Affair) seemed to confi rm fears of a counterrevolutionary movement. The threat of counterrevolution, coupled with popular disillusionment over the provisional government’s failure to end the war and enact promised reforms, increased the popularity of the radical left and paved the way for the October Revolution. In the fall of 1917, with a political climate favorable to the radical left, Bolshevik leaders debated how and when to take over the government. Lenin favored an immediate insurrection, while more moderate Bolsheviks preferred to wait for the second Congress of the Soviets when, they believed, power would pass to the Soviets by democratic means. The question resolved itself on the morning of October 24, when Kerensky shut down the leading Bolshevik newspapers in an effort to suppress the radical left. The Bolsheviks could then move forward with plans to overthrow the government, justifying their seizure of power as a necessary step to defend the revolution. Unlike the February revolution, the October Revolution was not characterized by massive street demonstrations. Instead, small groups of soldiers and Red Guards took control of bridges, railway stations, and other strategic points throughout Petrograd. Unable to summon troops to resist the insurgents, Kerensky fl ed. On the afternoon of October 25, Lenin announced that the provisional government had been overthrown. Signifi cantly, the insurrection was carried out in the name of the Petrograd Soviet and not the Bolshevik Party. However, Menshevik and Social Revolutionary delegates walked out of the Congress of Soviets on the night of October 25 to protest the insurrection, leaving the Bolsheviks with a majority in the congress. The following day Lenin announced decrees on peace and land and the formation of an all-Bolshevik government, the Council of People’s Commissars (or Sovnarkom). 332 Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1924) Once in power, the Bolsheviks decided to go forward with elections to the constituent assembly in mid-November. The Socialist Revolutionaries were the clear winners in the election, gaining 40 percent of the popular vote against the Bolsheviks’ 25 percent (the remainder of the votes were divided among the Constitutional Democrats [Kadets], the Mensheviks, and non–Russian nationality candidates). Recognizing that its hold on power was precarious, the Bolshevik government took steps to consolidate its authority and quash any resistance. After ordering the arrest of leading Kadets in late November, the government established the All-Russia Extraordinary Commission for the Struggle with Counterrevolution and Sabotage (or Cheka) on December 7. The Cheka, which could arrest and execute without trial anyone suspected of counterrevolutionary activities, quickly became one of the most powerful organs of the state. The constituent assembly opened as planned on January 5, 1918, but the Bolshevik government forcibly dispersed the assembly after only one day. By circumventing the democratic process and choosing instead to rule by force, the Bolsheviks laid the foundation for the authoritarian dictatorship that would follow. The decision to suppress the constituent assembly also opened the door to civil war. The Russian Civil War was a complex affair that is perhaps best seen as two or even three distinct civil wars occurring between 1918 and 1922. The fi rst serious challenge the Bolsheviks faced came from the Komuch, a group of Right Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) who opposed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and sought to restore the constituent assembly. In June 1918 with the aid of insurgent Czechoslovak legions, the Right SRs set up a regional government for the Volga based on the platform of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. The confl ict between the Bolsheviks and the socalled “patriotic socialists” was upstaged by the decision of the “Whites” (Russian nationalist offi cers, supported by industrialists and former landowners) to stage a coup in Omsk in November 1918. Despite Allied intervention on behalf of the White forces, the Bolsheviks’ Red Army was able to suppress the attempted counterrevolution, but only after two years of bloody confl ict. After the fi nal defeat of the Whites in the autumn of 1920, the focus of fi ghting shifted to widespread peasant insurrections, collectively referred to as the Green movement. Many of the peasant guerrilla leaders had been allied with the Red Army in defeating the White forces; An offi cial celebration of the Russian Revolution in Vladivostock. The Russian Revolution of 1917 saw the end of the czarist era in Russia and heralded the fi rst Communist regime in the world. Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917–1924) 333 once the threat of a White victory (which would have meant the return of the landlords) disappeared, however, peasant revolts against Bolshevik policies—most notably the forced requisitioning of grain—erupted across Russia on a massive scale. It took a combination of concessions and brutal repression to quell the peasant revolts and fi nally end the civil war. Throughout the civil war years Lenin and the Bolsheviks employed ruthless measures to eradicate any political opposition, thus creating the fi rst oneparty state and providing a model for later totalitarian regimes. Upon Lenin’s death in January 1924, Joseph Stalin succeeded him (after considerable party infi ghting) as leader of the Communist Party. See also Russian Revolution (1905). Further reading: Acton, Edward, et al., eds. Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914–1921. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997; Kowalski, Ronald. The Russian Revolution, 1917–1921. London and New York: Routledge, 1997; Marples, David R. Lenin’s Revolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Limited, 2000; Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995; Swain, Geoffrey. The Origins of the Russian Civil War. London and New York: Longman, 1996; Wade, Rex A. The Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Civil War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001; ———. The Russian Revolution, 1917. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Kathleen Ruppert

The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

Rabin, Yitzhak (1922–1995) Israeli general and prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was a key Israeli military and political leader. Born in Jerusalem in 1922, Rabin earned a degree from an agricultural college and joined the elite Palmach forces that fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He became chief of staff and led the army during the stunning Israeli victory in the 1967 war. Rabin was the Israeli ambassador to the United States from 1968 to 1973. After returning to Israel, he ran for the Knesset on the Labor Party ticket. He vied with his rival Shimon Peres for the position of prime minister after Golda Meir’s government fell and defeated Peres for the leadership position. Rabin served as prime minister from 1974 to 1977 and was instrumental in rebuilding the army after the 1973 war (Yom Kippur War). He also signed the initial disengagement agreement with Egypt over the Sinai Peninsula. Following reports of his wife having had, under Israeli law, an illegal bank account in the United States, Rabin stepped down as prime minister. For much of his military career, Rabin was a hardliner with regard to the Palestinians and Arab nations. He advocated the use of strong force to crush the Palestinian Intifada when it erupted in the Occupied Territories (the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) in 1987. Rabin was again elected prime minister in 1992. Following protracted secret negotiations, he agreed to the 1993 Oslo accords and signed a much-publicized agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), represented by Yasir Arafat, in a ceremony hosted by then president Bill Clinton on the White House lawn. Under the agreement the Israelis agreed to a gradual pullout from selected portions of the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for full recognition by the PLO. The agreement was opposed by both Israeli and Palestinian extremists and hard-liners. In 1994 Rabin signed a peace treaty with King Hussein of Jordan, with whom—in contrast to Arafat—he had cordial relations. Rabin was awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize along with Peres and Arafat. Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli fanatic who opposed the settlement with the Palestinians, in 1995. The assassination shocked Israeli society but it also reflected the deep divisions within Israel over the exchange of peace for land. See also Arab-Israeli War (1967); Arab-Israeli- Palestinian peace negotiations. Further reading: Rabin, Yitzhak. The Rabin Memoirs, Expanded Edition with Recent Speeches, New Photographs and an Afterword. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996; Slater, Robert. Rabin of Israel. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977, 1993. Janice J. Terry Rahman, Sheikh Mujibur (1920–1975) Bangladeshi leader The founding father of Bangladesh, Banga Bandhu (Friend of Banga) Sheikh Mujibur Rahaman, was born R on March 17, 1920, in Tungipara village in the Faridpur district in erstwhile East Pakistan. He was the third child of Sheikh Luthfur Rahman and Sheikh Sahara Khatun. After the partition of India in 1947, Mujibur built his career in East Pakistan as an active politician championing the cause of Bengalis. Although religion was the common factor in East and West Pakistan, there were economic, social, and linguistic differences. East Pakistan (East Bengal until 1956) was less developed than the west, and the discriminatory policies of West Pakistan increased the marginalization of the eastern part of the country. Mujibur was emerging as a prominent leader in the wake of the imposition of Urdu as the official language. His Muslim Students League formed an All-Party State League Action Council in March 1948. Mujibur, also called Mujib, became the joint secretary of the East Pakistan Awami Muslim League (called the Awami League from 1954) when it was formed in June 1949. In 1952 the police brutally crushed the movement to make Bengali one of the official languages of Pakistan. Cracks had already opened in united Pakistan, and it was Mujib who spearheaded the cause of separation from the west. Mujib contested as a candidate of the United Front, which had been formed by the Awami League for the 1954 general elections. The following year the Awami League demanded autonomy for the eastern wing of Pakistan. Under the presidency of General Mohammad Ayub Khan the Bengalis were further alienated. Mujib and the people of East Pakistan witnessed a harsh military regime exploiting and dominating the eastern wing. The Ayub government was dismayed at Mujib’s popularity and imprisoned him many times. Mujib spelled out a six-point program in February 1966 demanding autonomy for all provinces of Pakistan. He was accused of engineering the secession of East Pakistan, and proceedings were initiated against him in the Agartala Conspiracy Case of 1968. In the 1970 elections to the National Assembly of Pakistan, Mujib’s Awami League secured an absolute majority, winning 162 seats out of 313. The new president of Pakistan, Muhammad Yahya Khan, was in no mood to give power to Mujib. The convening of the National Assembly was postponed. On March 25 Mujib declared the independence of East Pakistan, which was renamed Bangladesh. He was taken to West Pakistan in March 1971 to be tried for treason. With Indian military assistance Bangladesh was liberated on December 16, 1971. Meanwhile, the government of Pakistan had sentenced Mujib to death. But because of international pressure, he was finally released and became the first prime minister of Bangladesh on January 12, 1972. Mujib faced the difficult task of governing the nation, which faced the challenges of rehabilitation and reconstruction. Disagreements with Pakistan remained. Mujib signed a 25-year friendship treaty with India. Most countries recognized Bangladesh, which also became a member of the United Nations. Mujib followed a nonaligned foreign policy. He promulgated a constitution in 1971 containing the principles of secularism, socialism, and democracy. Mujib also launched welfare programs. The Awami Party won the elections of 1973 with a massive majority. But poor governance, corruption, opposition from disgruntled elements, and natural disasters created problems. Mujib declared a state of emergency in 1975. A presidential form of government was initiated with Mujib as president for life. In June the Awami League became the only legal party. On August 15, 1975, Mujib and 15 of his family members were assassinated by young army officers. The military government that followed passed the infamous Indemnity Ordinance giving indemnity to the assassins. It was not until 1998 that the culprits were sentenced to death, when the Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Mujib, came to power. Further reading: Baxter, Craig. Bangladesh: From a Nation to a State. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997; Choudhury, G. W. The Last Days of United Pakistan. Dhaka: Oxford University Press, 1998; Huq, Obaidul. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib: A Leader with a Difference. London: Radical Asia Publications, 1996; Khan, Zillur R. The Third World Charismat: Sheikh Mujib and the Struggle for Freedom. Dacca: The University Press, 1996. Patit Paban Mishra Reagan, Ronald (1911–2004) U.S. president Ronald Wilson Reagan was an actor who served two terms as the 33rd governor of California and later served two terms as the 40th president of the United States. Reagan’s presidency contributed to the end of the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union and witnessed the collapse of communism in eastern europe. At the end of Reagan’s admin- 36 0 Reagan, Ronald istration, the United States was enjoying its longest period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. His administration cut taxes, reformed the tax code, offered a temporary solution to the Social Security issue, reduced inflation, continued deregulation of business, and increased military spending. Critics have commented that Reagan was unconcerned with income inequality, and his dedication to military spending increased the federal deficit as well as trade deficits internationally and may have been instrumental in causing the stock market crash of 1987. Overall, Reagan was one of the most popular U.S. presidents of the 20th century, exiting office more popular than when he began. Nicknamed the Great Communicator by the media, Reagan dominated the decade of the 1980s in the United States to such an extent that the two are linked inextricably together. Reagan was born on February 6, 1911, in Tampico, Illinois, and was raised with strong Christian values. He attended high school in the nearby town of Dixon. In 1928 Reagan entered Eureka College, where he studied economics and sociology. Reagan graduated in 1932. After graduation, he worked as a radio sports announcer. Following a 1937 screen test, Reagan won a Hollywood contract and began a lengthy acting career, appearing in 53 films over the next two decades. In 1940 he played the role of George Gipp in the film Knute Rockne, All American. In the film, Reagan delivers the memorable line “Win one for the Gipper!” From this role, Reagan acquired the nickname “the Gipper,” which he retained throughout his life. In 1935 Reagan was commissioned as a reserve cavalry officer in the U.S. Army. After the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States became involved in World War II, and Reagan was activated and assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in the U.S. Army Air Forces, which made training and propaganda films. Reagan’s efforts to go overseas for combat were rejected due to his astigmatism. While in Hollywood, Reagan married actress Jane Wyman in 1940 and had a daughter, Maureen, and later adopted a son, Michael. Following his divorce, Reagan married Nancy Davis, also an actress, in 1952, and had two children, Patricia Ann and Ronald Prescott. Reagan became president of the Screen Actors Guild from 1947 to 1952 and again from 1959 to 1960. Although raised in a strong Democratic household, Reagan shifted his political views, primarily because of the Republican Party’s strong condemnation of communism. He became involved in disputes over the issue of communism in the film industry. During the 1950s Senator Joseph McCarthy initiated a series of hearings to root out communism in the United States. Particular scrutiny was placed on Hollywood, and actors marked as communists faced exile from the film industry. Reagan claimed that Hollywood was being infiltrated by communists and kept watch on suspected actors for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As Reagan’s film career waned, he moved to television, hosting and performing for, General Electric Theater and starring in television movies. His employment for General Electric required extensive travel as a GE spokesman. Reagan delivered numerous anticommunist speeches, which brought him to the attention of the Republicans. In 1966 Reagan was elected governor of California by a margin of 1 million votes, and he was reelected in 1970. During his first term Reagan froze government hiring but approved tax increases to balance the budget. In 1969 Reagan sent 2,200 National Guard troops to disband a student protest on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. He worked to reform Reagan, Ronald 36 1 One of the most popular American presidents in recent history, Ronald Reagan and his policies dominated the 1980s. welfare and opposed construction projects that hindered conservation or transgressed onto American Indian ranches. Although Reagan supported capital punishment, his efforts to enforce this position were hindered by the Supreme Court of California’s decision to invalidate all death sentences passed prior to 1972. A constitutional amendment quickly overturned this decision. Reagan’s first attempt to secure the Republican nomination for president in 1968 was unsuccessful. He tried again in 1976 against incumbent Gerald Ford, but was narrowly defeated at the Republican National Convention. In 1980 Reagan won the Republican nomination and selected as his running mate former Texas congressman George H. W. Bush. The United States was suffering from a period of high inflation and unemployment, fuel shortages resulting from instability in the petroleum market, and the international humiliation of the yearlong confinement of U.S. hostages in Iran. Reagan became popular, consequently winning in a landslide over incumbent Jimmy Carter. The Republican presidential victory accompanied a 12-seat change in the Senate, the first Republican Senate majority in over 25 years. first days Reagan assumed the office of president on January 20, 1981. The Iran hostage crisis ended with the release of the U.S. captives the same day, which led to allegations that a covert agreement delaying their release had been negotiated between the Iranian government and Reagan’s future cabinet. On March 30 Reagan was nearly killed in an assassination attempt but quickly recovered and returned to office. Reagan’s first official act was to end oil price controls. In 1981 Reagan fired the majority of federal air traffic controllers when they embarked on an illegal strike, setting limits for public employees unions and signaling the acceptability of businesses’ taking stronger bargaining positions with unions. Reagan steered his desired domestic legislation through Congress in an effort to stimulate economic growth and reduce inflation and unemployment. He followed a plan calling for cutbacks on taxes and government expenditures, refusing to deviate from this course when the strengthening of national defenses increased the national deficit. To curb inflation, Reagan supported Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker’s plan to tighten the monetary supply by dramatically increasing interest rates. Reagan also sponsored wide-ranging tax cuts to boost business investment. Reagan simultaneously limited the growth of welfare and other social programs. Beginning in 1983 the economy began to recover. However, increased military spending as part of Reagan’s cold war policy caused the national deficit to soar. A renewal of U.S. self-confidence due to a recovering economy and heightened international prestige propelled Reagan and Bush to win their second term in an unprecedented landslide against Democratic challengers Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro, winning the electoral votes in 49 out of 50 states. During his second term, Reagan overhauled the income tax code, eliminating many deductions and exempting millions of people with low incomes. Although Reagan’s opponents claimed his economic policies increased the gap between the rich and the poor, the income of all economic groups rose in real terms. He also passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, granting compensation to Japanese Americans who had been interned during World War II. Reagan signed legislation authorizing capital punishment for offenses involving murder in the context of illegal drug trafficking and launched a “war on drugs,” which was led by Nancy Reagan. Reagan was staunchly against abortion. Although his appointees to the Supreme Court—including Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman Supreme Court justice—shifted the balance in favor of conservatism, the Supreme Court voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. The gay rights movement criticized Reagan for not responding adequately to the arrival of HIV-AIDS in the mid-1980s. However, the Reagan administration spent almost $6 billion on HIV and AIDS research. By 1986, Reagan had endorsed large-scale prevention and research efforts. In 1984, Reagan was the first U.S. president to invite an openly homosexual couple to spend an evening at the White House. foreign policy Reagan’s foreign policy during his presidency called for “peace through strength” and a close alliance with Britain. Reagan confronted the Soviet Union head-on, arguing that only from a position of military superiority could the United States negotiate an end to the cold war and secure U.S. interests abroad. Reagan reasoned that the Soviet Union could not keep up with the United States in a full-scale arms race. He increased defense spending 35 percent while seeking improved diplomatic relations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. In keeping with this Reagan Doctrine, he actively supported anticommunist efforts in Latin America, 362 Reagan, Ronald Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Reagan administration supported Afghani insurgents, including Osama bin Laden; Poland’s Solidarity movement; the contras in Nicaragua; and rebel forces in Angola. The United States increased military funding for anticommunist dictatorships in Latin America and was accused of assassinating several Latin American heads of state. A communist attempt to seize power in Grenada in 1983 prompted a U.S. invasion. Reagan and Gorbachev negotiated a treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles and to continue disarmament. However, Reagan supported the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which proposed the launching of a space-based defense system to render the United States invulnerable to a nuclear attack. Opponents of the plan labeled it Star Wars and argued that the plan was unrealistic and violated international treaties. In 1985 Reagan conducted a goodwill visit to Germany. He visited Kolmeshohe Cemetery to pay respects to the soldiers there, unaware that many had been members of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler’s Waffen-SS. Reagan also visited the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, where he condemned the Holocaust. Reagan declared war against international terrorism, taking a strong stand against the Lebanese Hizbollah terrorist organization, which was holding Americans as hostages and attacking civilian targets following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Reagan’s administration also took a strong stance against Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. U.S. involvement in Lebanon led to a limited United Nations mandate for an international force. The September 16, 1982, massacre of Palestinians in Beirut prompted Reagan to form a new international force. Diplomatic pressure forced a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon and U.S. forces withdrew following an October 1983 bombing that killed over 200 marines. Reagan sent U.S. bombers to Libya after evidence revealed government involvement in an attack on U.S. soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub. Reagan’s administration maintained the controversial position that the Salvadoran FMLN and Honduran guerrilla fighters, as well as a wing of the anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC), constituted terrorist organizations. During the Iran-Iraq War, Reagan sent naval escorts to the Persian Gulf to maintain the free flow of oil for U.S. use. The Reagan administration came to increasingly side with Iraq under the assumption that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was less a threat than Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. While supporting Iraq, the United States covertly supplied Iran with military weapons in order to fund contra rebels in Nicaragua. This arrangement, known as the Iran-contra affair, became a huge scandal. Reagan declared his ignorance of the arrangement. As a result, 10 members of Reagan’s administration were convicted and many others were forced to resign. Reagan addressed the nation from the White House one last time in January 1989, prior to the inauguration of George H. W. Bush as the 41st president. Reagan returned to his estate, Rancho del Cielo, in california, eventually moving to Bel Air, Los Angeles. In 1989 Reagan received an honorary British knighthood and was made Grand Cordon of the Japanese Order of the Chrysanthemum. In the early 1990s he made occasional appearances for the Republican Party and in 1993 was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1994 Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. His health worsened following a fall in January 2001 that shattered his hip and rendered him immobile. By late 2003 Reagan had entered the final stages of Alzheimer’s disease, and he died of pneumonia on June 5, 2004. He was buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. See also drug wars, international; McCarthyism; Nicaraguan revolution (1979–1990). Further reading: Ehrman, John. The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005; Noonan, Peggy. When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan. New York: Viking Penguin, 2001; Reagan, Ronald. An American Life: The Autobiography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990; ———. The Greatest Speeches of Ronald Reagan, 2nd ed. West Palm Beach, FL: Newsmax. com, 2003; Troy, Gil. Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Eric Martone Rhee, Syngman (1875–1965) South Korean president Syngman Rhee was the controversial, strongly anticommunist, and increasingly authoritarian first president of South Korea, serving from April 1948 until April 1960. He gained office through a popular election in 1948, led South Korea through the Korean War, and was reelected twice, although not without controversy, before being forced from office in the wake of the fraudulent 1960 election. Rhee, Syngman 363 Born in Hwanghae Province on March 26, 1875, Rhee—also known as Yi Sung-man—labored passionately to create a modern, independent Korea. Having studied the Chinese classics and repeatedly failed the civil service examinations, Rhee enrolled in and eventually taught at a Western-style school run by U.S. Methodists. In 1896 he helped found the Independence Club, a Western-leaning nationalist organization hoping to fend off the growing interventions by Japan, Russia, and China in Korean affairs. Weary of his proposed reforms, the conservative Korean government imprisoned Rhee for seven years, during which time he was tortured and also converted to Christianity, which he considered “the religion of liberty.” Freed in 1904, Rhee traveled to the United States to petition U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt to help Koreans oppose expanded Japanese influence. This effort failed, and Japan increased its control and formally annexed Korea in 1910. Rhee stayed on in the United States, where he earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1907, an M.A. from Harvard in 1908, and a Ph.D. in theology from Princeton in 1910. He returned to Korea in 1910 as chief Korean secretary of the Young Men’s Christian Association in Seoul. A year later he was forced into exile because of his organizing against Japanese rule. He would spend the next 33 years in Hawaii and Washington, D.C., where he would continue working on behalf of a modern, independent Korea. In 1920 he became the first president of the exiled Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. His main strategy was to build support for Korea in the international community, particularly the United States. After defeating the Japanese in World War II, the United States occupied the southern half of Korea. Rhee, by now back in the country, helped found the National Society for the Rapid Realization of Korean Independence. In 1948 he handily won United Nations (UN)– sponsored elections for president of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). He was known for his desire to reunite the Korean Peninsula, his commitment to democracy, and his strong opposition to communism. In the two years after his election, Rhee intensified cold war tensions in East Asia by calling for a “march north” to destroy Kim Il Sung’s communist regime. But it was Kim’s Communist forces that invaded South Korea in June 1950. After the Korean War broke out in June 1950, Rhee proved a steady, but difficult, ally of the United States. In 1951 he reorganized the military in order to root out corruption and inefficiency. But he also routinely undermined U.S. efforts by rejecting any peace deal that stopped short of reunifying Korea. He also called on the United States to counter Chinese intervention more aggressively, including bombing China. By August 1953, however, the prospect of intensified hostilities with the north and worsening relations with the United States forced Rhee to accept a divided Korea. The United States deployed troops along the demilitarization zone both to protect the south from invasion from the north and to thwart Rhee’s aggressive tendencies. For most of the 1950s, Rhee repeatedly worked to consolidate his hold on power. In 1951 he founded the Liberal Party. In 1952 he engineered changes in the constitution to guarantee his victory in the election. When these changes were rejected in favor of a parliamentary system, he declared martial law. In the ensuing general election, Rhee won 72 percent of the vote. As the 1956 election approached, Rhee once again forced changes into the constitution to eliminate the provisions limiting presidents to two terms. He then won the election with 55 percent of the vote, a low number considering that his rival, Sin Ik-hui, had suffered a heart attack and died 10 days earlier. South Korea made significant economic and social progress under Rhee. The expansion of the school system after independence and the modernization of the military contributed greatly to the changes that transformed Korea. Massive U.S. aid combined with the government’s import-substitution policies yielded strong growth. In 1960 Rhee and the Liberal Party once again rigged the presidential election. This time, however, a protest movement led by students became widespread, and governmental security forces killed 142 protesters. These events forced Rhee’s resignation. He fled to the United States and died five years later in 1965 in Hawaii. Further reading: Kim, Quee-young. The Fall of Syngman Rhee. Berkeley, CA: UC Institute of East Asian Studies, 1983; Lee, Chong-Sik. Syngman Rhee: The Prison Years of a Young Radical. Seoul: Yonsoi University Press, 2001; MacDonald, Donald Stone. U.S.-Korean Relations from Liberation to Self-Reliance: The Twenty-Year Record. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992; Rhee, Syngman. The Spirit of Independence: A Primer of Korean Modernization and Reform. Han- Kyo Kim, trans. and annot. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001; Stueck, William. “Syngman Rhee, the Truman Doctrine, and American Policy Toward Korea, 1947–1948.” 364 Rhee, Syngman In Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. Thomas Robertson Rhodesia/Zimbabwe independence movements Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia, as it was known until 1980, is a landlocked nation of 13 million people occupying the plateau between the Limpopo and Zambezi Rivers, bordered by Zambia to the north, Botswana to the west, Mozambique to the east, and South Africa to the south. While the rest of Britain’s African colonies, including two of Rhodesia’s neighbors—Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi)—gained independence as part of a wave of decolonization, Rhodesia remained a bastion of minority white rule because of its influential European population. Even after the country gained majority rule in 1980, white control of land continued to be a crucial issue in Zimbabwe. At midcentury, mostly because of the country’s substantial mineral wealth and fertile soil for tobacco cultivation, Rhodesia’s white population enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. The country’s black residents, however, who made up over 95 percent of the population, possessed little political power and received just 5 percent of the nation’s income. Having gained control by force roughly a half-century earlier, whites made up one-twentieth of the population but held one-third of the land. At the end of World War II the political winds began to change. Britain moved to grant independence to many of its colonies in Asia and Africa. Rhodesia, which had been a British-chartered corporate colony at the turn of the century and a self-governing British colony since 1923, took on a new political form in 1953 with the establishment of the Central African Federation. Southern Rhodesia dominated this confederation; it exploited the copper of Northern Rhodesia and the labor of Nyasaland. The arrival of independent rule in Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi) in 1964 brought considerable anxiety to the white population of Southern Rhodesia, who believed that Britain favored majority rule. In response, in November of 1965, Ian Douglas Smith, an unabashed champion of white rule, announced the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, which cut the country’s ties with Britain and established the independent nation of Rhodesia. In a referendum, overwhelming numbers of the white population supported Smith. Britain responded by imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions. The cold war struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union for influence around the world, including in the nations of Africa, complicated these developments. U.S. relations with Ian Smith’s whiteruled Rhodesia at the time shows the ambivalent position of the United States. On the one hand the United States valued the support of Rhodesia, which contained vast reserves of strategic minerals, especially chromium, and adopted a strongly anticommunist stance. Yet, at the same time, the United States worried that support for Smith’s white supremacist government would cost it needed friends in rapidly decolonizing Africa. In 1965 U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson condemned Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence and, following Britain’s lead, imposed economic sanctions. Although these sanctions could have been even stronger, U.S. trade there declined from $29 million in 1965 to $3.7 million in 1968, a real blow to the Rhodesian economy. At the same time, though, Rhodesia received substantial support from some within the United States. The Byrd Amendment of 1971, which was enacted with the support of the Richard Nixon administration, punched a significant hole in the sanctions against Rhodesia. According to this law, the United States could not ban the importation from a noncommunist nation any material needed for national defense if that same material would otherwise be purchased from a communist nation. Since chromium, a key resource for many modern weapon systems, was also imported from the Soviet Union, the United States was forced to allow trade with Rhodesia. Imports of chromium grew from $500,000 in 1965, to $13 million in 1972, to $45 million in 1975. Organized black resistance to white rule in Rhodesia took shape in the late 1950s, and the two main oppositional parties, parties that would dominate Zimbabwean politics well beyond independence, were established in the early 1960s. In 1957 the African National Congress, based in Bulawayo, and the African National Youth League, based in Salisbury (present-day Harare), combined to form the Southern Rhodesian African National Congress under Joshua Nkomo. Banned in 1959, this group was succeeded by the National Democratic Party, which was itself banned in December 1961. Shortly thereafter, the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) was established. A major split occurred in 1963, resulting in the formation of the Zimbabwe Rhodesia/Zimbabwe independence movements 36 5 African National Union (ZANU). ZAPU was mostly Ndebele and Chinese-leaning; ZANU was mostly Shona and Soviet-leaning. ZAPU and ZANU adopted different strategies at different times. During the 1960s, as white Rhodesians like Ian Smith grew more extreme, African nationalist methods became more militant and confrontational. Both ZANU and ZAPU began attacking white farms in 1964, but they quickly realized they were outmatched by the Rhodesian military. A more moderate group, the African National Council—organized by Bishop Abel Muzorewa—sprang up during the early 1970s. None of these groups had much success. The situation began to shift during the late 1970s. In 1975, after long wars, two Portuguese colonies in southern Africa, Mozambique and Angola, gained their independence. Black-ruled Mozambique became a safe haven for many of the guerrilla groups opposing the white regime in Rhodesia. In 1975 the two most important of these groups—ZANU, under Robert Mugabe, and ZAPU, under Joshua Nkomo—joined forces to become the Patriotic Front. Jimmy Carter’s victory in the U.S. presidential election of 1976 also played a role in shifting the context of Rhodesian politics. Concerned about the U.S. reputation in other parts of black Africa, the Carter administration began to push for a settlement to the conflict. In general, the United States supported majority rule with protection of white interests. The British called the Lancaster House Conference in an attempt to broker a lasting solution. The resulting settlement guaranteed majority rule for Zimbabwe, a transitional period for whites, and a multiparty system. At the center of the settlement was a new constitution, which gave the vote to all Africans 18 years and older, reserved 28 seats in the parliament for whites for 10 years, and guaranteed private property rights. In the election of February 1980, voting mostly followed ethnic lines. ZANU–Popular Front won a clear majority, making its leader, Robert Mugabe, the prime minister. ZAPU–Popular Front, which had recently split from ZANU-PF, joined the white members of parliament in opposition. Taking its name from the 14th- and 15th-century stone city of Great Zimbabwe, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980. The war for majority rule, which had cost over 25,000 lives, most of them black, was over. Under Robert Mugabe’s rule, Zimbabwe in the 1980s pursued socialist-leaning policies not unlike those of many other countries in Africa. It expanded social programs that had been denied under white rule. And, although it claimed to want to redistribute land, in reality it moved slowly to break up successful white farms. This cost the regime politically but it enabled Zimbabwe to continue to feed itself. Overall, during the early 1980s many Zimbabweans saw real improvements in the quality of their lives. As the 1980s unfolded, Mugabe began to show authoritarian tendencies. Even early on he rounded up opponents, censored the press, and gave broad authority to security forces. At first he was able to get away with this because of his wide support, especially in rural areas. Mugabe won the March 1996 election with 92.7 percent of the vote, but only a very small number of Zimbabweans bothered to vote. The decrease in voter participation revealed the growing discontent of Zimbabweans with Mugabe. On top of this, in the early 1980s a civil war that would last until 1987 broke out in Matabeleland, a stronghold of the ZAPU-PF. In the late 1990s Mugabe initiated two very controversial programs. In 1997, he began seizing whiteowned land without compensation and quietly encouraging landless blacks to move onto white farms. These farms had previously fed the nation and provided work for large numbers of people, mostly black. In 2002 Mugabe appropriated the remaining white land and ordered white farmers to offer payments to former workers. Because many of the blacks who moved onto the white land had few farming skills, the nation soon faced a food crisis. Critics, moreover, claimed that Mugabe handed out the best land to his family, friends, and close supporters. In another controversial move, in 1998 Mugabe deployed the military in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help its government fend off an armed rebellion The situation in Zimbabwe seems precarious. During the 2002 elections Mugabe rigged the voting and jailed opponents, especially the supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Neighboring nations supported Mugabe but other African nations, such as Kenya and Ghana, condemned his move. Famine conditions persist in Zimbabwe, and the people struggle with skyrocketing prices and extremely high unemployment. That no system is in place to determine a successor to the aging Mugabe portends a divisive struggle to come. Further reading: Banana, Canaan S., ed. Turmoil and Tenacity: Zimbabwe 1890–1990. Harare: College Press, 1989; Herbst, Jeffrey. State Politics in Zimbabwe. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990; Horne, Gerald. From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and the War Against 366 Rhodesia/Zimbabwe independence movements Zimbabwe, 1965–1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001; Jenkins, Carolyn. “The Politics of Economic Policy-Making in Zimbabwe.” Journal of Modern African Studies 35, no. 4 (1997); Special issue on Zimbabwe. Africa Insight (Pretoria, May 2000). Tom Robertson Roe v. Wade The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade struck down state abortion laws as illegal because of their infringement on the privacy rights inherent in the U.S. Constitution. This case was the climax of a series of actions by doctors’ organizations, state legislatures, and women’s groups to legalize abortion in order to regulate surgical procedures. However, the case was widely seen by Christian groups and political conservatives as opening the floodgates for unfettered aborting of viable human beings. The aftermath of Roe included the formation of coherent pro-choice and pro-life organizations, a struggle with definitions of when life is created, and the magnification of the state management of abortions to a topic handled by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the president. Debates over the legality of abortion were ignited by a physicians’ movement to allow abortions during the 1940s and 1950s. Led by Drs. Alan and Manfred Guttmacher, a group of doctors lobbied state legislatures to allow abortions. Their activism in favor of abortion was a reaction to the unsanitary and dangerous illegal abortions that were being performed throughout the United States. Indeed, their lobbying was effective in getting states like New York and Hawaii to liberalize their abortion policies. Another factor in the abortion debate was the growth of a well-organized feminist movement in the 1960s. The commercial viability of a contraceptive pill, funded by Sarah McCormick in 1960, and the subsequent focus of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations on family planning encouraged more assertive control by women over their own bodies. The creation of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966 and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in 1969 gave avenues of political strength to women throughout the United States. A significant pre-Roe ruling by the Supreme Court was Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court ruled against Connecticut state law regulating birth control. Justice William Douglas used the right to privacy interpretation of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to justify ruling against state law. Justice Byron White opined that the state laws did not ensure the welfare of the public as part of a strict interpretation of the law. Griswold proved to be a strong legal predecessor to Roe v. Wade, as many of the same justifications were applied to the majority opinion. The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey, a pregnant woman who wanted to have an abortion in Dallas County, Texas, but was unable to due to Texas legislation banning the act. McCorvey was not pregnant by the time the Supreme Court heard and deliberated the case, which became a factor in the dissents of Byron White and William Rehnquist. The defending party in the case was Henry Wade, the Dallas County district attorney, joined by defense attorney John Tolle. Tolle’s defense for the Texas legislation was that the fetus was alive at conception and the state’s duty is to protect all people, especially those in utero. Writing an amicus brief on the plaintiff’s behalf were Planned Parenthood of America and NOW, representing the more liberal interpretation of the issue. In contrast, groups like Americans United for Life wrote amicus briefs on behalf of the state of Texas. plaintiff’s favor The decision in Roe v. Wade came on January 22, 1973. The Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of the plaintiff and, in an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, provided a vague caveat to abortion laws, a prescription for how state legislatures could deal with the issue of abortion, and no ruling on the viability of life. Blackmun stated that abortion was not clearly a right beyond reproach but felt that the greater harm to due process rights inherent in the Fourteenth Amendment did not justify keeping abortion illegal. The opinion also provided states with limits as to how they could legislate abortion. In the first trimester, states could not prevent abortions. States would be allowed to regulate or limit abortions in the second trimester and could prohibit abortions in the third trimester. Several justices, while agreeing with Blackmun’s general assessment, wrote concurring opinions. Justice William Douglas, a proponent of privacy in Griswold, used the same reasoning for his decision in Roe. Justice Potter Stewart felt that the time was right for the freedom of choice. Justice Warren Burger concurred with Blackmun’s interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and leaned toward Douglas’s interpretation in Griswold of a multifaceted constitutional basis for privacy rights. Roe v. Wade 367 In dissent were Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist. Justice White dissented for purely constitutional reasons, stating that overturning Texas laws against abortion was out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Rehnquist held a firm, conservative line on abortion. In the first place, he wrote, the plaintiff was not pregnant during the case and therefore her case was inappropriate. Rehnquist felt that even if McCorvey were pregnant during the case, her right to privacy was not violated by rejection of an abortion. Finally, Rehnquist felt that the Court ruling in favor of legal abortion was too sweeping of an act for a judicial body. While Roe legalized abortion throughout the United States, the pro-life movement that protested this decision became a prevalent cultural force in America in the decades that followed. As women’s groups and prochoice groups grew around the beginning of the 1970s, pro-life groups organized to lobby for maximum legal restrictions and to restrict access to clinics performing abortions. In the immediate aftermath of Roe, the American Right to Life Committee was established as an organizing body against abortion. The Friends of Life, established by Joseph Scheidler, established branches around the country to protest abortion clinics. The more extreme pro-life groups turned to violence to prove their point, with the first abortion clinic bombing taking place in 1982. See also feminism, worldwide. Further reading: Garrow, David J. Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1994; Rubin, Eva. Abortion, Politics, and the Courts: Roe v. Wade and Its Aftermath. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987; Solinger, Rickie. Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle, 1950–2000. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Nicholas Katers Rosenberg, Julius and Ethel (1918–1953 and 1915–1953) accused American spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were accused of illegally giving information about U.S. atomic research to the Soviet Union. They were convicted of espionage on March 29, 1951, and executed on June 19, 1953. Their codefendant in the trial, Morton Sobell, received a 30- year sentence. The trial was highly publicized and took place during the so-called Red Scare, when many in the United States felt their way of life was threatened by the Soviet Union and by the expansion of communism in general. For this and other reasons, including anti- Semitism, many believe that the Rosenbergs did not get a fair trial and that Ethel Rosenberg in particular was not guilty of the charges. Julius Rosenberg was born in New York City and attended religious and public schools and City College, from which he graduated with a degree in electrical engineering. He was active in the Steinmetz Club, a branch of the Young Communists League, and later joined the American Communist Party. Rosenberg was a civilian employee of the U.S. Army Signal Corps from 1940 to 1945. Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg also attended public and religious schools in New York City and went to work for a shipping firm after graduation from high school. She was active as a union organizer and joined the Young Communist League and later the American Communist Party. The Rosenbergs were married in 1939 and had two sons, Michael and Robert. The Rosenberg trial can only be understood in the context of the development of atomic weaponry and the cold war. The United States is the only nation ever to have used atomic weapons: Atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the closing days of World War II. Information regarding the production of such weapons was closely guarded, and the United States believed it was the only country with the scientific knowledge to produce an atomic bomb. When the USSR tested its first atomic weapon in 1949, people were shocked at how rapidly they had developed atomic weapons capability. The explanation was simple: The Soviets had access to some of the information the United States believed had been kept secret. In 1950 the German/British scientist Klaus Fuchs, who had worked in the United States on the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb, confessed to having passed essential information to the Soviet Union. The investigation resulting from this confession led FBI agents to David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg’s brother, who confessed his own involvement in a spy ring that he said also included his wife, Ruth, and his brother-in-law, Julius Rosenberg. The “Venona Cables” were a key source of evidence in the investigation of Soviet spy operations in the United States in the 1940s. These cables carried encrypted messages to and from the Soviet Union and revealed the extent of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during that time. The Venona Cables presented clear evidence that Julius Rosenberg was guilty of espionage and implicated David and Ruth Greenglass as well. They did not provide similar evidence against Ethel 368 Rosenberg, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who was convicted largely on the testimony of her brother, David Greenglass. He later admitted that at least some of his testimony against the Rosenbergs was false and that he lied in order to protect his wife, who was granted immunity from prosecution. Many people around the world were shocked by the Rosenbergs’ execution, particularly when more important spies received lighter sentences. For instance, Klaus Fuchs, who provided the Soviet Union with information essential to building an atomic weapon, was sentenced to 14 years in prison and served nine. The execution of Ethel Rosenberg in particular shocked many people, since there was little evidence against her and it was presumed that the threat of execution was meant to coerce her to testify against her husband or him to testify against others. Both Rosenbergs refused to confess or to name others, a decision that may have led to their deaths. There were many protests worldwide against their convictions and appeals stop the execution, including one from Pope Pius XII. Public interest in the Rosenberg trial remained strong, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg assumed a place as characters and symbols in popular culture. Further reading: Benson, Robert L. The Venona Story, http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00039.cfm (cited June 2006); Garber, Marjorie and Rebecca L. Walkowitz, eds. Secret Agents: The Rosenberg Case, McCarthyism, and Fifties America. New York: Routledge, 1995; Neville, John F. The Press, the Rosenbergs, and the Cold War. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995; Radosh, Ronald and Joyce Milton. The Rosenberg File. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997; Roberts, Sam. The Brother: The Untold Story of Atomic Spy David Greenglass and How He Sent His Sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the Electric Chair. New York: Random House, 2001. Sarah Boslaugh Russian Federation In the years after 1991 Russia experienced a revolution in the name of reform. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been a one-party dictatorship that strove to control all aspects of life. Its collapse unleashed a host of social forces and triggered an array of experiments as people sought simultaneously to create a democratic government, a market economy, and a civil society. Other countries, including other remnants of the Soviet Union, were attempting similar experiments on different scales at the same time. No one, however, had ever attempted this before, and there was no blueprint to follow. During this period, the administration of Boris Yeltsin would be identified with the destruction of the old structures, a struggle among alternative visions, and chaotic and sometimes contradictory efforts to build something new. The administration of Vladimir Putin would represent a longing to reestablish order, stability, and security. The Soviet collapse in 1991 came with remarkable rapidity. Unlike the collapse of czarist Russia in 1917, which was also sudden, this one was neither preceded by a world war nor followed by a civil war. There were relatively few violent conflicts, and those tended to be clashes between rival nationalisms. The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had underestimated the attraction of nationalism to his country’s various constituent peoples and had overestimated people’s loyalty to the communist system. In forcing people, officials and citizens alike, to conceal their personal beliefs as well as inconvenient political and economic facts, the Soviet system had denied its own leaders the ability to gauge the true situation and had denied people in general the possibility of fully developing their own ideas. Gorbachev’s efforts to reform the system, in part by releasing the energies of the citizenry in the hope of using them against a sclerotic bureaucracy, resulted in the system’s demise. Free multicandidate elections to a new national legislature in 1989 and elections to republic-level legislatures in 1990 unleashed a mass of rebellious and conflicting demands. In the course of the year, most of the republics declared “sovereignty” within the Soviet Union, that is, they asserted that republic law would henceforth be above federal law. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, as the Russian portion of the Soviet Union was officially known, did so on June 12, 1990. At about the same time, the media began to free itself of government control. On the anniversary of the sovereignty declaration, June 12, 1991, while the republic was still part of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin, a former Communist Party official who had fallen out with the leadership, became Russia’s first elected president. A failed reactionary coup launched by party, military, and police officials in August 1991 was the final blow in the centrifugal process that was tearing the Soviet Union apart. In the aftermath, the Communist Party was dissolved and no comparable integrative institution was created to replace it. Yeltsin began appearing alongside Gorbachev, the Soviet president, as a coequal. Key republics, especially Ukraine, began to Russian Federation 36 9 believe they would be better off without the “burden” of the other republics and moved toward independence. At the very least, they ceased forwarding tax receipts to the capital, compelling Russia to take over responsibility for financing central state functions. On December 8, 1991, confronted with Ukraine’s precipitous unilateral independence, Yeltsin and the leaders of Ukraine and Belarus declared their republics a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), even though Russia had never formally withdrawn from the Soviet Union. Leaders of other republics, petrified at the prospect of their sudden isolation, immediately demanded membership in the CIS as well. On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned from the presidency in frustration. No one attempted to replace him, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics legally ceased to exist. In many ways it had already evaporated, although just when this occurred is difficult to determine. After a brief attempt to maintain unified CIS armed forces, the republics took control of the military assets of their respective territories and created their own armies. Republics with nuclear arms stationed on their territories agreed to send them to Russia. Each republic also acquired its portion of the assets of the Committee for State Security, which continued to exist in some form. In Russia the KGB underwent a series of renamings and reorganizations that ultimately left it as five separate entities: one each for internal security, foreign intelligence, border defense, communications security, and the personal protection of state leaders. Redefinition With the Soviet Union gone, the next question was what would replace it. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic eventually renamed itself the Russian Federation. The re-creation of a Russian national identity was somewhat complicated, not only by the presence of more than 120 ethnic minorities within the federation’s borders and by the fact that some 25 million ethnic Russians were now living as minorities in the 14 other successor states of the Soviet Union, but also by the fact that the pre-Soviet Russian state had included the entire Soviet territory. In the other former Soviet republics, as in Eastern Europe, the communist system could be viewed as something imposed by the Russians. There, nationalists, anticommunists, democrats, and economic reformers could form coalitions, at least in the beginning. In the Russian Federation, although some Russian nationalists had seen the other republics as a burden, others had identified with the Soviet Union as a great power and saw its collapse as a tragedy. Some adherents of the Soviet system and some Russian nationalists nostalgic for the old empire saw in the CIS a potential replacement that would ultimately amount to a rebirth of the Soviet Union. This never came about. The leaders of the various republics focused on their own entities, and the CIS itself failed to develop into an alternative power center. Rather, the CIS functioned as a loose association that oversaw the peaceful severing of the numerous ties that linked the republics to one another. Russia, not the CIS, inherited the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons, United Nations seat, overseas embassies, and foreign debt. This, however, did not prevent Russia from pressuring the more reluctant successor states into joining the CIS during the 1990s. Only the three Baltic States remained outside. In the early days, Russians were concerned that the unraveling might not stop with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within the Russian Federation were former “autonomous soviet socialist republics,” now simply termed “republics,” regions with a substantial non-Russian ethnic population. Several of these declared sovereignty over their natural resources and asserted the primacy of their laws over federation law. Some appeared to be contemplating independence. In March 1992 all but Tatarstan and Chechnya signed the new Federation Treaty; Yeltsin was compelled to renegotiate center-periphery relations on an ad hoc basis with several individual republics and even ethnic Russian regions. Tatarstan signed such an agreement in February 1994. In the end only Chechnya carried out the secessionist threat, triggering two wars with the Russian army. Politically, two tendencies were prominent in the early years of Russian independence. For members of the first group, the highest-priority goals were the establishment of democratic norms and the rule of law, the creation of a viable market economy, and integration into the Western world. For the second group, the highest priorities were building a state strong enough to defend itself, both internally and externally; assuring that national industries survived; and preserving Russian uniqueness. Constitutionally, the form that the Russian government was to take was also under dispute. The muchamended constitution of 1978 remained in force while negotiations continued over a new Russian constitution. In this, as in economic policy, Yeltsin and the legislature took strongly opposed positions. The legislature at the time continued the cumbersome form innovated in the Gorbachev era: a Congress of People’s Deputies, with 1,068 members, that was supposed to meet twice a year, vote on the most important issues, and elect 37 0 Russian Federation from among its own members a smaller legislature— the Supreme Soviet—to meet between its own sessions. The constitution’s provision that the legislature was the supreme state body was not modified after the creation of the elected Russian presidency in 1991. Crisis and Confrontation The period from the end of 1991 to late 1993 was marked by economic crisis and political confrontation that ended in bloodshed. The two poles of confrontation centered on the reformist presidency and the holdover parliament, the Congress of People’s Deputies, which fought a protracted battle over who held ultimate authority. For the post of prime minister, Yeltsin named Yegor Gaidar, a young academic who had taught himself market economics during the late Soviet period, but the legislature refused to confirm him. Gaidar, nonetheless, continued in office as acting prime minister for one year. The economy was in dire shape, quite apart from the normal inefficiencies of the centrally planned Soviet system. In the name of economic reform the Gorbachev government had ceased issuing orders to state-owned economic enterprises, but he had failed to establish the institutions of a market economy, resulting in a staterun system that did not work properly. The breakup of the Soviet state exacerbated the situation by disrupting economic ties between regions. Gaidar’s response was a rapid shift, often termed “shock therapy,” to free prices, balanced budgets, and monetary restraint. This went into effect on January 1, 1992, and resulted in an enormous leap in prices in addition to the already existing shortages of supply. Normally, the shortages and rising prices should have worked as an incentive for enterprises to increase production. State enterprises, however, had not been privatized, and adequate market-based incentives had not been established. Wholesale trade, at the time, was still widely regarded as a form of illegal “speculation.” Russian Federation 37 1 Saint Basil’s Cathedral in the Kremlin in Moscow during the Soviet era. The Soviet Union was a significant example of communism in the world. With the splintering of the Soviet Union, the different republics that had formed the union sought to redefine themselves. The implicit assumption that an economy dominated by gigantic plants producing military equipment could instantaneously convert to the production of consumer goods was probably naive in any event. Managers commonly viewed the inflation as an opportunity to increase revenues while working less. When monetary restraint restricted cash flows, enterprise managers informally extended credit to each other and expended their political influence trying to get subsidies reinstated. The Congress of People’s Deputies was the main focus of their attention. Elected in March 1990, the Congress was permeated with state-enterprise managers and former communists, most of whom now called themselves “independents.” It repeatedly doled out payments to bankrupt enterprises, undermining the intended impact of Gaidar’s policies; issued resolutions that contradicted government policies; and threatened the president with impeachment. For his part, Yeltsin responded with the threat to establish a “presidential republic.” Each side ignored the acts of the other, contributing to a growing general disregard for the law. The personification of resistance to the president was the speaker of the Congress, Ruslan Khasbulatov; he and vice president Aleksandr Rutskoi moved steadily closer to the opposition. Both had been Yeltsin allies at the beginning of the transition. In late 1992 Gaidar left the office of prime minister. His replacement, Viktor Chernomyrdin, was initially more acceptable to the Congress. Chernomyrdin was a hybrid bureaucrat-entrepreneur. As minister of the gas industry, he had participated in a “spontaneous privatization” that converted the ministry into one of Russia’s largest and most profitable companies, Gazprom. Nonetheless Chernomyrdin and his finance minister, Boris Fedorov, maintained the austerity policies and even closed some inefficient state enterprises. A referendum on economic reform and the division of power between the executive and legislative branches in April 1993 gave Yeltsin enough support to press ahead with his programs. Yeltsin and the legislature each began drawing up a new draft constitution. The crisis came to a head in September 1993. To break the impasse, Yeltsin dissolved the Congress of People’s Deputies and called for a referendum on a new constitution and elections for a new legislature in December. Meeting in emergency session, the Congress impeached Yeltsin and declared Rutskoi president. On Yeltsin’s order, army units surrounded the legislative headquarters on September 27, but 180 members refused to leave. After a standoff of several days, Rutskoi called for a popular uprising, which led to some street disorders but not the outpouring of support that he had anticipated. Armed men seized the mayor’s office on October 3 and attempted to take the Ostankino television facility, where a firefight with Interior Ministry troops lasted for several hours. At this point, the army dropped the neutral position it had sought to maintain. On October 4 tanks opened fire, and by that afternoon the rebel leaders—including Khasbulatov and Rutskoi—had emerged and surrendered. After the “October events,” no parliament would defy the president so openly again. Disputes, however, were far from over. Constitution and Elections Yeltsin’s draft constitution was approved by referendum in December 1993, in the shadow of the October events. It created a bicameral legislature, called the Federal Assembly (Federal’noe Sobranie). The upper house, the Federation Council (Soviet Federatsii), had two members representing each of the country’s constituent regions, territories, and republics. The lower house, the State Duma (Gosudarstvennaia Duma), had 450 members, half of them elected from single-member districts and half from party lists. The legislature was real, not a rubber stamp, but the constitution clearly gave the preponderance of power to the president. The president named the prime minister and cabinet, who were responsible to him. The cabinet, therefore, did not have to reflect the distribution of parties in the State Duma, so there was no incentive to form coalitions to build a parliamentary majority. Initially, committee chairmanships were doled out among parties and factions in proportion to the number of seats they held. Technically, the State Duma had the right to approve or disapprove the president’s choice for prime minister, but if it rejected three candidates it was the legislature, not the government, that was subject to dissolution. Moreover, the president had the power to issue decrees on his own. The first post-Soviet parliamentary elections were held simultaneously with the referendum approving the constitution, two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A number of political organizations had essentially evaporated in the interim. The parties that did exist were often small, fractious, personalistic, and only loosely connected to the electorate. Parties arose, combined, split, recombined, and vanished with great ease. The most substantial and organized party was the newly constituted Communist Party of the Russian Federation, although it lacked anything resembling the 372 Russian Federation status and power of the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The results of the elections were far from what Yeltsin and the reformers would have hoped for. The largest percentage of votes in the party-list portion of the ballot went to the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, a misnamed authoritarian, ultranationalistic grouping with a leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who was once described as a “dangerous buffoon.” The communists came in second. The reformists had split the vote by dividing into four separate parties that constantly squabbled among themselves, the two most important being Gaidar’s neoliberal Russia’s Choice and the more social-democratic Yabloko. Despite the evident potential for renewed polarization, Russian politics did not return to the chaos of the pre-October days but settled down into a relatively normal pattern. Politicians of various stripes gradually became accustomed to open politics and even adept at it. Despite their extremist rhetoric, the ultranationalists proved relatively supportive of the government, and the communists could be counted on for a backroom deal when the need arose. The fractious reform parties, never satisfied with compromise, often created the greatest difficulty for the reform process. Gaidar’s original reform plan came to be implemented more consistently, without Gaidar. Prime Minister Chernomyrdin became increasingly prominent, while Yeltsin occasionally receded into the background amid rumors of drinking and the state of his health. Economic policy was no longer undermined by subsidies granted to bankrupt factories by the legislature. Also, the privatization program made progress, although this required a presidential decree. The economic situation began to stabilize, but it did not fully recover and grow. With new legislative elections planned in December 1995, Yeltsin eliminated elections for the upper house and determined that each jurisdiction would be represented by its governor and its legislative speaker. He also attempted to create two new parties as the basis for a two-party system: One, a center-right organization intended to become the government party, was led by Prime Minister Chernomyrdin; the other, envisioned as a center-left loyal opposition, was led by Ivan Rybkin. Chernomyrdin’s party, called Our Home Is Russia, managed to draw about 10 percent of the vote as long as he was prime minister. The second party, which was actually listed on the ballot as “Ivan Rybkin’s bloc,” never got off the ground. The relatively poor showing, if nothing else, indicated the limits on Yeltsin’s ability to manipulate the electorate. Forty-three parties participated in the 1995 elections, but only four of them surpassed the 5 percent threshold necessary to obtain seats under the proportional- representation system. The four that did succeed were the Communists, the ultranationalist Liberal Democrats, Our Home Is Russia, and the socialdemocratic Yabloko. The Communists received the largest share this time, setting the stage for Russia’s first post-Soviet presidential election, to be held in two rounds in June and July 1996. The Communists’ hard core of support constituted about 20–30 percent of the electorate at this time. Support was especially strong among pensioners and others who had suffered extreme hardships during the inflation and chaos of the early reform period. They had trouble, however, breaking beyond that core. Yeltsin, who had been doing very poorly in opinion polls, ran an anti-Communist campaign and eked out a plurality of 35 percent in the first round. Communist candidate Gennadii Zyuganov finished just behind him with 32 percent. Eight other candidates were eliminated from the second round. After hiring the third-place candidate as his national security adviser, Yeltsin then managed to consolidate the anti-Communist vote and was reelected in the second round, 54 percent to 40 percent. Significantly, all sides accepted the results of the election without protests or claims of fraud. Privatization and Oligarchs The establishment of new start-up businesses and the privatization of state enterprises proved difficult in Russia. Gigantic state enterprises had been designed as monopolies from the beginning, and adapting them to a competitive economy would be a true challenge. Moreover, private business was widely considered unseemly if not criminal; even small-scale street vendors were deemed an unsightly embarrassment. Russians found private ownership of land and natural resources objectionable. Few people, of course, had the money to start a business. Nor were inflation and rising crime good incentives to invest. Five years into the reform period, Russia had only half as many start-up businesses as Poland, a country with a fourth as many people. A small number of people, however, discovered a way of manipulating the half-reformed economy of the late 1980s and early 1990s to accumulate vast amounts of capital. Officials in economic ministries would declare portions of the ministry to be private companies. Factory managers would establish private businesses on the side and then lease the factory’s facilities to themselves. Russian Federation 373 Oil proved an especially useful asset for wealth generation. Fearing the political consequences of allowing domestic oil prices to rise to world levels, Russian leaders had made it possible to export oil at world prices, but maintained controlled domestic prices at less than 1 percent of the world price. Using connections and borrowed money, some people were able to buy large quantities of oil at domestic prices and sell it abroad for 100 times what they had paid. When large-scale privatization of state enterprises became a government priority, these were the people who had the resources and the connections to take advantage of it. In the first phase of official privatization, starting in December 1991, small enterprises were sold off and larger ones were reorganized as joint-stock corporations. Arrangements were made for the workers and managers of smaller enterprises to acquire controlling interests for little or no money. This meant that the same managers continued to control an enterprise, but reformers hoped the fact of ownership would give them a stake in the factory’s success and sever their dependence on the state budget. If nothing else, this would undermine the political strength of the state economic bureaucracy, a center of resistance to reform. In June 1992 a new element was added: a voucher program for the privatization of the now-corporatized medium and larger enterprises. Each citizen was issued a voucher worth 10,000 rubles, a total of some 144 million vouchers, to be invested in corporations or investment funds or simply traded or sold. This program was intended to accelerate privatization and to give common citizens a stake in the economy and the reform process, but since the vouchers were distributed for free it did not generate revenues for the state. The voucher phase was largely completed by mid-1994. Some 100,000 enterprises had been privatized, and they employed 80 percent of the workforce. Many people had simply sold their vouchers for cash or later sold their shares, allowing well-placed people— such as factory managers and former government functionaries—to gain control of plants. This eroded the objective of encouraging widespread ownership, although it did not completely nullify it. The advantages that accrued to insiders generated resentment in the population. The next phase of privatization called for the direct sale of shares in large enterprises, especially those in the energy and raw materials sectors, for cash. Because of resistance to this in the State Duma, the procedure was implemented by presidential decree in July 1994. It generated even more public skepticism and resentment. In 1995 the cash-strapped state offered shares in enterprises as collateral for bank loans, under rules established by the banks themselves. As expected, the state did not have the funds to repay a loan. The bank then auctioned off the shares, and generally the bank proved to be the only bidder. In this way the banks, and the oligarchs behind them, came to acquire control over large industrial empires at a fraction of their assessed value. The Communists sought to make a campaign issue of the privatization scandal in the presidential election. Several oligarchs eagerly financed Yeltsin’s 1996 reelection campaign and put their media resources at his service. To neutralize the privatization issue at the national level, Yeltsin transferred ownership of 6,000 state enterprises to the regional governments to be auctioned, with the regions keeping the proceeds. The “loans for shares” program was reinstituted after the election. The oligarchs became increasingly prominent, through their own media outlets and through their growing role as government advisers and officials, during Yeltsin’s second term. Crisis and Turnaround Six years after the beginning of economic reform, the Russian economy was still shrinking, although it was no longer in the free fall of 1992. The government was still unable to collect taxes, and many enterprises failed to pay their debts to each other. Barter had become the basis of much of economic life, with workers being paid in kind or in IOUs. Yeltsin dismissed Chernomyrdin as prime minister in the spring of 1998 and appointed a young banker, Sergei Kirienko. A new team of reformers set out to establish a long-overdue legal framework for economic activity, to impose more predictability into the system in the place of what they called the existing “unlimited semi-bandit capitalism.” They were too late. A severe financial crisis struck the Russian economy in the summer of 1998. In part, this was a reflection of the 1997 crisis in East Asia. Even more, it reflected the sudden decline in international oil prices. Oil exports had been the economy’s, and the government’s, principal revenue generator, paying for imports to cover the failure of domestic production to recover and compensating for the government’s lack of domestic tax revenues. With export revenues falling, the highly indebted government found it difficult to issue new bonds. Investors began moving their money out of Russia. The International Monetary Fund provided a loan of $17.1 billion in return for a package of reforms 374 Russian Federation to rationalize the tax code and reduce government expenditures, but this failed to stem the outflow of capital. After desperately trying to avoid either default on Russia’s foreign and domestic debt or devaluation of its currency, Kirienko, on August 17, 1998, did both. Prices skyrocketed and most oligarch banks failed, although the oligarchs themselves generally survived by shuffling their assets. Kirienko’s term in office proved brief, and he was just the first of four prime ministers during Yeltsin’s last three years as president. Unexpectedly, the crisis also proved the turning point in the country’s economic recovery. Unable to afford imports, Russia began to produce things for itself again, and production continued as international oil prices recovered. In the following year, 1999, the economy grew for the first time in the post-Soviet era; in 2000 it grew 10 percent. Chechnya I In the early years, the leaders of the new Russian Federation were worried that Russia could unravel along ethnic lines as the Soviet Union had done. They responded strongly to the one ethnic republic that did attempt to secede, Chechnya, even though that response was delayed by the general chaos prevailing in Russia in the early 1990s. The Chechens were a Muslim people of the Causcasus Mountains who, in the 19th century, had fought a prolonged war against the Russian occupation of their region. Like several other Soviet minorities they had been accused by Stalin of collaborating with the Nazis, and they were all deported to Soviet Central Asia afterward. Nikita Khrushchev allowed their return, but when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Chechens sought secession. Under Dzhokhar Dudayev, a former Soviet air force general, Chechnya declared independence in 1991. Yeltsin declared a state of emergency in Chechnya, issued a warrant for the arrest of Dudayev, and sent a detachment of Interior Ministry troops. The Chechens easily repulsed the half-hearted intervention, by ruse more than by force, and seized strategic facilities within their republic. Yeltsin ordered an economic blockade and then, given the chaotic state of Russia at the time, basically ignored the situation for the next three years. The lack of any police force facilitated smuggling and other criminal operations. In a search for outside resources and allies, the Chechens made contacts with mafias from Russia and Islamist extremists from the Middle East. Corruption spread, the economic situation grew dire, and Dudayev became more dictatorial. After supporting a failed attempt by a rival Chechen faction to seize power, Russia sent three armored columns into Chechnya on December 11, 1994. The Russian legislature, which had not been informed, protested vociferously. The invasion did not go smoothly. The Russians made a hasty and ill-prepared assault on Grozny, the republic’s capital, which they seized only after a month-long bombardment that killed an estimated 25,000 people and left the city a ruin. Dudayev and his fighters receded into the mountains, from where they conducted an extended guerrilla campaign. Civilian casualties continued to run high. The struggle attracted Islamist volunteers from North Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. In March 1996, with presidential elections looming in Russia, Yeltsin offered to negotiate with Dudayev through an intermediary. A Russian missile killed Dudayev in April. Fighting flared again in June, and the Chechens reoccupied parts of three cities, including Grozny. A cease-fire was finally signed in August. Russian troops began to withdraw. Although the agreement left Chechnya’s permanent status to be decided, the republic proceeded to act as if it were independent. Aslan Maskhadov, the chief of staff of the Chechen armed forces and a former Soviet army colonel, was elected president of the republic in January 1997. Little rebuilding was accomplished, however, and Maskhadov was unable to establish order. In the prevailing lawlessness, kidnapping for profit became a widespread practice. In an effort to outflank the Islamists in factional infighting, he imposed Islamic law and courts. Chechnya II, Putin, and Consolidation Chechnya became the focus of attention again in 1999. Shamyl Basayev, formerly a field commander and briefly a prime minister under Maskhadov, had broken with the Chechen regime. In April 1998 he and a Jordanianborn Islamist founded the Congress of the Peoples of Chechnya and Dagestan, which proposed to unite these two adjacent ethnic republics. In August 1999 they launched a raid into Dagestan and then declared that the republic had seceded from Russia. The following month, a series of bombs exploded in apartment buildings in Moscow and other Russian cities. The act was widely attributed to the Chechens. On August 9, 1999, Yeltsin dismissed Sergei Stepashin, who had been prime minister for three months, and appointed Vladimir Putin to replace him. Putin had catapulted through a number of Kremlin staff positions to become head of internal security in July 1998. He was still generally unknown to the public when he was Russian Federation 37 5 named prime minister, but he quickly became associated with the new Chechen war, which was known as Putin’s “antiterrorist operation.” Opinion polls gave Putin an approval rating of 33 percent in August, 52 percent in September, and 65 percent in October, in a land where few politicians rose above single digits. In October Russian armor was once again moving into Chechnya, without any distinction being made between the Chechen government and renegade commanders. The army performed more effectively this time. The cities were taken quickly, and a pro-Russian Chechen administration was put in place. Resistance, however, would drag on year after year in the countryside, and there would be terrorist attacks in other parts of Russia. Russian forces would respond at times with extreme brutality. With the bomb blasts fresh in people’s minds, however, this Chechen war was far more popular with the Russian public than the previous one. Four months before the legislative elections of December 1999, Yeltsin once again created a new party from scratch, Unity, a party completely dependent on the Kremlin for funding, expertise, and personnel. Putin gave it his public endorsement, and the party, too, became identified with the Chechen war effort. Unity won 23 percent of the party-list vote and 64 singlemember districts, leaving it second only to the Communist Party. In third place was Fatherland–All Russia, a coalition of personalistic parties built around prominent governors. For the first time, the State Duma had a dominant bloc of parties that were not ideological adversaries of the Kremlin. Yeltsin, within seven months of the end of his second term in office, surveyed a political landscape that suddenly appeared quite favorable. He then shocked the world by promptly resigning on December 31, 1999, and naming Putin as acting president. An early presidential election was called for March 26, 2000, which Yeltsin’s chosen successor would now approach with all the advantages of incumbency while other candidates were caught off guard. Indeed, Putin won in the first round with 52.9 percent of the vote against 10 other candidates, despite having been a virtual unknown the previous August. He promptly obliged his predecessor by issuing a blanket pardon for anything Yeltsin might have done during his years in office. As president, Putin no longer devoted himself solely to the prosecution of the war. Economic reform continued but Putin’s primary focus appeared to be order, stability, security, and consolidation of the Russian state. Russia was very much in need of order by that time, but Putin’s notion of consolidating the state reflected his upbringing within the Soviet Union. Rather than make state institutions more effective, he set out to make all institutions dependent on the president. Putin remained a largely unknown quantity, allowing others to see in him what they wanted. Moreover he surrounded himself with two distinct sets of officials: a group of economic reformers known as the “technocrats” and a group of people tied, as he himself was, to the military, police, and internal security services. For all his talk of order and predictability, Putin allowed these officials free rein to discredit and undermine each other’s initiatives. Some measures did improve the effectiveness of the Russian state. Reforms were introduced and carried out in a more orderly fashion. The Duma no longer spent its time debating impeachment and censure bills. New requirements for the registration of a political party, including a minimum membership of 10,000, introduced some order into the chaotic party system. The tax code was reformed, instituting a 13 percent flat tax on both individuals and corporations, and it was actually enforced. This reduced nominal tax rates, but, because of previous evasion, it increased revenues. Annual budget surpluses suddenly became routine. Power was being centralized in stages. The outcome of the December 1999 election had already strengthened Putin’s position. Relations between president and legislature became more productive. In 2001 Unity and the Fatherland–All Russia bloc were merged into a new pro-Putin party, eventually named United Russia, which was clearly the largest in the State Duma. In the Federation Council, Putin replaced the elected governors and regional legislative heads with appointed representatives. Next, Putin interposed a new layer of government, grouping Russia’s 89 constituent jurisdictions into seven supraregional federal districts and placing an appointed presidential representative in charge of each. All federal employees in the regions, who had become increasingly dependent on the governors under Yeltsin, were now to answer to these representatives. Another new law then gave the president the right to remove elected governors accused of wrongdoing. Another round of centralization began in 2004. Putin declared that the threat of separatist violence required a strengthening of the state. Thus in December 2004 he signed a law abolishing the election of governors, who would now be presidential appointees. At the same time, the minimum membership of a political party was raised from 10,000 to 50,000. Another law followed in May 2005 that eliminated single-member 376 Russian Federation districts from the Duma, leaving all seats to be elected by proportional representation from party lists and raising the minimum threshold for representation from five percent of the vote to seven percent. How these measures would have helped Beslan remained unclear, but the latter was likely to end the independent existence of Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces (the successor party to Russia’s Choice), which by 2003 no longer mustered even five percent of the vote and entered the Duma only through single-member districts. Far from alienating the electorate, Putin was rewarded at the polls for his perceived efforts to impose order and the improving economic situation. In the legislative elections of December 2003, his new party, United Russia, became the first ever to win an absolute majority in the State Duma. In the presidential elections of March 2004, Putin was reelected in the first round, over five other candidates, with 71.3 percent of the vote. International election observers, however, criticized the skewed electoral coverage in the media. Putin and the Oligarchs Putin sought to distance himself from the oligarchs, who had become closely identified with the Yeltsin administration in the public mind. In some cases he went so far as to intimidate and harass them. Rumors told of a tacit deal: If the oligarchs stayed out of politics, Putin would not order the police to investigate how they had become oligarchs. Not all oligarchs abided by the deal. Putin’s first targets were Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky, both of whom had accumulated many enemies and both of whom controlled large media empires that had criticized the handling of the Chechen war. Berezovsky was well known and particularly disliked. Although he had actively supported Putin’s election, he spoke soon afterward of the need to form a new opposition party. Gusinsky had gone so far as to endorse the wrong presidential candidate in 2000. Whatever the specific reason, both ended up living in self-imposed exile and being stripped of many of their assets. In 2001 Gusinsky’s NTV, the country’s largest independent television network, was taken over by Gazprom, the gas giant. Thus, not only oligarchs but also journalists were put on warning. This was particularly true of journalists in the electronic media, and they soon learned especially not to criticize the Russian war effort in Chechnya. The unsolved murders of several investigative reporters further reinforced caution. The next assault on the oligarchs was directed against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yukos, Russia’s largest private oil conglomerate. Khodorkovsky was also known for making large contributions to opposition political parties. In 2003 he found himself under arrest on charges of tax evasion, and he was later sentenced to nine years in prison. Yukos was assessed back taxes and fees that amounted to some $27 billion. When it was unable to pay, its main production unit, Yuganskneftegaz, was taken over by Rosneft, a state-owned entity. Sibneft, an oil company that had been on the verge of merging with Yukos, instead became a part of Gazprom. Although presented as a rectification of the unethical privatization schemes of the 1990s, the Yukos affair symbolized for many observers just how random and arbitrary the use of state power had become. Putin’s technocratic advisers, with open disdain, referred to the government’s approach as “tax terrorism.” Unlike many other oligarchs, Khodorkovsky had become the model of good corporate governance in the Russian business world, recruiting experienced foreign executives to introduce Western standards of accounting and management. Even if Putin’s intention was not to renationalize large sectors of the economy, as many outsiders assumed it was, his actions ran the risk of discouraging foreign and domestic investment and of spurring new rounds of capital flight. The hypothesis that the oligarch cases really represented the criminalization of political opposition activity received reinforcement in 2005 with the Mikhail Kasyanov affair. Kasyanov was not an oligarch but rather a technocrat and former finance minister with a shady reputation. He served as prime minister throughout Putin’s first term but was dismissed in 2004 without any public explanation. The following year, Kasyanov began to issue public criticisms of the administration’s political direction. He openly hinted that he might run for president in 2008. Within weeks, the police opened an investigation into how he had acquired his country house outside Moscow, which according to television reports was worth $30 million. Question of Subversion Russia maintained generally cooperative relations with the outside world after 1991, even with such former adversaries as the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This was true despite the fact that by the early 2000s several former East European allies and the three Baltic republics had joined NATO and the United States had established air bases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Below the surface, however, resentments simmered over what some Russians considered unequal treatment and Western gloating over the outcome of Russian Federation 377 the cold war. On occasion, resentment and suspicion rose to the surface, as was the case with what Russians called the “colored revolutions.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western governments and foundations had given financial support, advice, and encouragement to a variety of independent civic groups in former Soviet republics that advocated the protection of human rights, democratic reform, and similar causes. Western leaders saw the development of “civil society” as a prerequisite for the further development of democracy. Indeed, civil society in Russia had progressed tremendously since Soviet times, when all independent entities were proscribed by law. Outside Russia, such civic groups were central to the organization of massive demonstrations that protested fraudulent elections and eventually toppled authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and Kyrgyzstan in 2005. In each case, the successor regime was less favorably inclined toward Russia than its predecessor. In the Ukrainian case, in particular, Putin had taken an open stance in support of the side that was toppled. Russian officials began to speak of the civic groups as instruments of subversion directed by Western intelligence agencies. Internal security officers described a conspiracy of loosely associated entities engaging in “network warfare.” In response, a law was passed in December 2005 requiring all nongovernmental organizations to register with the state and to submit regular reports on their activities and spending. The state was empowered to review compliance and to shut down any entity that violated the rules, but exactly which activities were prohibited was left vague. Perhaps more ominous was the sudden rise of a new organization, a pro-Putin youth movement called Nashi (“Ours”). Founded in March 2005, Nashi was capable of mobilizing 60,000 people for a rally in May of that year. Its leaders described the group’s purpose as preventing a coup against the Russian government. The Kremlin denied any links to the organization, but Nashi was permitted to hold its founding congress in a facility of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and its leaders were granted a personal interview with Putin. The rhetoric suggested to some observers that Nashi was being readied to replace an insufficiently reliable United Russia party as the country’s main political organization. Trends of the Future? Boris Yeltsin, in his revolution, unleashed a host of competing regional, bureaucratic, political, and economic forces. Then he attempted to rule by playing them off against one another. The informal interplay, backroom power struggles, deals, and personal connections often proved more important than the formal institutions of government, which he had also created in an arbitrary and self-serving manner. Increasingly, however, ill health, depression, and bouts of drinking kept him from engaging the game. The system became increasingly chaotic. Putin then set out to impose order and hierarchy by subordinating institutions and privatesector groups to the presidency. On the positive side, few people believe anymore that Russia faces the threat of economic, social, or political collapse. The country under Putin is still much freer than it was as part of the Soviet Union. It is more open, and it has more human contact and a freer flow of ideas with the outside world. It is more responsive to the wishes of its citizens. There still are regular elections, and civil society survives, although it faces new threats. Real debate continues in the print media. Although it depends too heavily on favorable international oil prices, the economy continues to show signs of recovery. Putin’s efforts to impose hierarchy could simply fail. There is, in a word, hope. Nonetheless, there have been undeniable negative trends. The turmoil of the 1990s discredited the words “reform” and “democrat” in the eyes of many honest citizens. Corruption reached intolerable levels. The Soviet Union’s collapse, the loss of superpower status, the subsequent rise of poverty, and the perceived mistreatment at the hands of other powers left a reservoir of resentment and latent hostility that may be looking for an outlet. The brutal war in Chechnya gives little cause for satisfaction with either side, even when the Russians say it is part of the common fight against terrorism. Even the nature of Russia’s more competitive manufactured exports may give some cause for concern. The stifling of the electronic media, the virtual renationalization of certain large enterprises, the abolishing of gubernatorial elections, and the concentration of power in the hands of the president all give an insight into the fragility of some of the country’s most important achievements. The government, moreover, has shown a disturbing willingness to criminalize political opposition. Even if these actions are supposed to be temporary, or are simply intended to rein in the excesses of a chaotic time and reestablish order, there is still a risk that they could go too far. Putin’s administration was initially associated with economic recovery, but the perceived assault on private property, the partial reinsertion of the state into the economy, and the simultaneous rigidification of the state could easily stifle investment, 378 Russian Federation encourage capital flight, generate bottlenecks, and otherwise induce economic erosion in the longer run. It is, of course, too soon to draw any serious conclusions about the history of the Russian Federation since 1991. Which trends finally emerge as dominant will have long-lasting consequences for the future of Russia and perhaps the rest of the world as well. See also Soviet Union, dissolution of the. Further reading: Billington, James H. Russia in Search of Itself. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004; Herspring, Dale R., ed. Putin’s Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain. 2d ed. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005; Jack, Andrew. Inside Putin’s Russia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; Ross, Cameron, ed. Russian Politics Under Putin. New York: Manchester University Press, 2004; Shevtsova, Lilia. Putin’s Russia. 2d ed. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005. Scott C. Monje Rwanda/Burundi conflict Rwanda and Burundi were, until World War I, occupied by the Germans, being a part of German East Africa. Captured by the Allied armed forces, they were administered as Ruanda-Urundi by Belgium under League of Nations trusteeship and, from 1945, under United Nations (UN) trusteeship. The entity was split in 1959 into Burundi and Rwanda, and on July 1, 1962, the two countries became independent with the formation of the Kingdom of Burundi and the Republic of Rwanda. Both faced regular ethnic problems centering on the Tutsi-Hutu rivalry, with the Hutu forming 85 percent of the population of each country and the Tutsi being a much better educated minority. In the year before Burundi became independent, there was political trouble that followed the UNsupervised elections of September 1961 that saw the Parti de l’Unité et Progrès National winning but their leader, Prince Louis Rwagsore, being assassinated several weeks later. There was more instability when two prime ministers, Pierre Ngendandumwe and Joseph Bamina, were assassinated before an attempted coup d’état took place in October 1965. Thousands were killed as the government sought to maintain its power. However, it gave too much power to the army, which, in November 1966, overthrew the monarchy and established a republic under President Michel Micombero. The last former king, Ntare V. Ndizeye, staged a coup attempt in 1972 but was killed in the attempt, which was immediately blamed on the Hutu—the government being drawn from the Tutsi minority. As the Tutsi government sought revenge on its opponents, some 100,000 Hutu were massacred. In 1976 Micombero was overthrown in a military coup, and the new president, Jean-Baptiste Bagaza, tried to moderate the government and introduce reforms that stopped the oppression of the Hutu. However, Bagaza was overthrown in 1987 in a coup d’état organized by Major Pierre Buyoya, who suspended the 1981 constitution and dissolved opposition parties. In August 1988 some 20,000 Hutu were massacred by the government, and many Hutu refugees fled to Rwanda. In Rwanda, the monarchy was removed in 1959, before independence, and at independence, in 1962, the Hutu-led Parti du Mouvement de l’Emancipation Hutu—led by Grégoire Kayibanda—came to power. There were massacres of some 20,000 Tutsi, and in 1973 Kayibanda was overthrown by General Juvénal Habyarimana, a former defense minister, who became president. He formed the Mouvement Révolutionnaire National pour le Développement. It was not until 1978 that the constitution was restored; Habyarimana was relected in 1983 and again in January 1989. It was the 1988 ethnic tensions in Burundi that sent large numbers of Hutu refugees from Burundi across the Rwanda- Burundi border. Many Tutsis also settled in Uganda, where they became Anglophiles, in contrast with the Rwandan and Burundi governments, which maintained connections with France. Fighting in both countries came to a brief halt, and in April 1994, when negotiations to end the fighting were starting to make progress, the plane carrying Habyarimana back to Kigali, the Rwandan capital, was shot down with a French missile. All on board, including President Ntaryamira of Burundi, were killed. This was the opportunity that the extreme Rwandan Hutus were eagerly awaiting to try to take over control of Rwanda. It is not known for certain who shot down the plane, but the Hutu government of Rwanda blamed the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF)—Tutsi rebels who were based in Uganda—while the RPF blamed the hard-liners in the government who did not want to share power. The killing of the president gave the extreme Hutus an excuse to unleash their Interahamwe militia on the Tutsis and moderate Hutus, killing up to 900,000 of them in horrific massacres. Several UN solders were killed while protecting moderate politicians in Kigali, and the remainder of the UN forces was evacuated from Rwanda/Burundi confict 37 9 the country. The UN Security Council—Rwanda was a member at the time—did nothing to try to stop the genocide, which only ended as the RPF forces won the civil war, capturing Kigali soon afterward. The RPF inherited a devastated country and did their best to arrest the perpetrators of the genocide but hundreds of thousands of Hutus—extremists and their supporters— fled into the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since the coming to power of the government of President Paul Kagame in Rwanda, there has been a concerted effort to rebuild the country shattered by ethnic tensions, war, and genocide. With a large number of the intelligentsia of the country murdered or in exile overseas, Kagame has managed gradually to rebuild the infrastructure of the country and at the same time prosecute those guilty of horrendous atrocities. The United Nations Security Council did adopt Resolution 977 in February 1995, setting up the International Criminal Tribunal based in Tanzania. The Kagame government has objected to it because it has refused to sanction the death penalty even for the most heinous of crimes. Some of those caught in Rwanda, in some cases having been found guilty of murdering hundreds of people with machetes, have been tried and executed, with others jailed. In spite of the tensions and hatreds engendered by the war, the civil society is gradually being improved in Rwanda, with conditions also improving in Burundi. Prior to the recent civil war, many tourists had visited Rwanda to see the mountain gorillas. These numbers had increased following the film Gorillas in the Mist (1988) about Dian Fossey who lived with the gorillas and nurtured many of them, especially one known as “Digit.” After the war it was revealed that most of the gorillas survived, and some tourist groups are, once again, visiting Rwanda. Further reading: Mamdani, Mahmood. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide In Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001; Omaar, Rakiya, and Alex de Waal. Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance. London: African Rights, 1995; Twagilimana, Aimable. The Debris of Ham: Ethnicity, Regionalism, and the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003. Justin Corfield

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki