Part 84

"The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces, contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending agitation was inevitably bound to spring—a crop which the Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia, the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one drop of blood! {256} Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an accomplished fact. … Whilst England and Austria both accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte (although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord with the feelings of the Russian nation. … In Russia they had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of the people of Russia—henceforth they would refuse to accept the Russian yoke! … If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power, attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885, Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister, under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded, afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia, by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his being attacked, … From that date the Czar swore that he would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this—that he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together, broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August, seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M. Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."

_E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, Introduction._

ALSO IN: _A. Von Huhn, The Struggle of the Bulgarians._

_J. G. C. Minchin, Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula._

_A. Koch, Prince Alexander of Battenberg._

BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia). Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia. Abdication of the King.

"In October, 1875. … Milan, then but twenty-one years old, married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her ambition and her wealth. … At first all went well, to outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians, on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent. {257} Further, Servia was then passing through a difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing. Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in 1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom—a fact which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased, King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues. Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming a political role, for which she believed herself to have great aptitude. … As she could not influence the decisions of the Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. … Meantime Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he had almost mortgaged his territory. … While the husband and wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared against Bulgaria. … There followed the crushing defeat of Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero Nathalie had dreamed, Milan … telegraphed to the Queen, busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. … In 1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen taking with her the Crown Prince. … Florence was the goal of the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. … The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade. Milan would not hear of it. … The Queen went to Wiesbaden in consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. … And to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. … Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in Europe, Milan … petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce, on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen refused her consent. … Nor could the divorce have been obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian Metropolitan Theodore. … Quick vengeance, however, was in store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown more and more disturbed. … The King, perplexed, afraid, storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide, suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his son. … Without regret his people saw depart from among them a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit, and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a difficult political crisis. … After kneeling down before his son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889), Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe … leaving the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. … 'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy King on hearing of his elevation. … Three Regents are appointed to aid the King during his minority."

_"Politikos," The Sovereigns, pages 353-363._

BALKAN: End----------

BALKH. Destruction by Jingis Khan (A. D. 1221).

From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested the great city of Balkh,—which is thought in the east to be the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race. "Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200 large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths for the use of foreign merchants and travellers—though it has been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200 mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry the place by force of arms—an achievement of no great difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of Islam'—as the pious town was called—was razed to the ground. In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand—its spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"

_J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 4._

ALSO IN: _H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3._

BALL'S BLUFF, The Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

BALNEÆ.

SEE THERMÆ.

BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.

"The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin historians translated into Judex (Judge)."

_T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, introduction, chapter 3._

See BAUX, LORDS OF.

BALTIMORE, Lord, and the Colonization of Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, to 1688-1757.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1729-1730. Founding of the city.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1812. Rioting of the War Party. The mob and the Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

{258}

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1814. British attempt against the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860. The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April). The city controlled by the Secessionists. The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (May). Disloyalty put down.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

BALTIMORE: End----------

BALUCHISTAN.

See Supplement in volume 5.

BAN. BANAT.

"Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory [Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin, and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. … The Banat is the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian Empire."

_A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic, volume 2, page 28._

Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban, who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were seven of them, each known by the name of the province he governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if that title be preferred) is called the ban."

_L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, page 55._

BAN, The Imperial.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BANBURY, Battle of.

Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought July 26, 1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.

_Mrs. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, volume 2, chapter 5._

BANDA ORIENTAL, The.

Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

BANGALORE, Capture of (1790).

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BANK OF ST. GEORGE.

See GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

BANKS, General Nathaniel P. Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Red River Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after 1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.

_J. J. Lalor, editor. Cyclopædia of Political Science._

ALSO IN: _J. W. Gilbart, History and Principles of Banking, section 1 and 3._

BANKS, Wildcat.

See WILDCAT BANKS.

BANNACKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

BANNERETS, Knights.

See KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

BANNOCKBURN, Battle of (A. D. 1314).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; and 1314-1328.

BANT, The.

See GAU.

BANTU TRIBES, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS; and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BAPTISTS.

See article in the Supplement, volume 5.

BAR, A. D. 1659-1735. The Duchy ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661, and 1733-1735.

BAR: The Confederation of.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

BARATHRUM, The.

"The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the Lacedæmonians."

_G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 7, section 133, note._

BARBADOES: A. D. 1649-1660. Royalist attitude towards the English Commonwealth.

See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1656. Cromwell's colony of disorderly women.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

BARBARIANS.

See ARYANS.

BARBAROSSAS, Piracies and dominion of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

BARBAROSSAS: End----------

BARBARY STATES.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 647-709. Mahometan conquest of North Africa.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 908-1171. The Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1415. Siege and capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese.

See PORTUGAL: A. D.1415-1460.

{259}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510. Spanish conquests on the coast. Oran. Bugia. Algiers. Tripoli.

In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former, was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain religious wars above every other. … No less than 4,000 Moors were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to 8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January 13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin, and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as vassals of the Catholic king. … They guaranteed, moreover, the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions; for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish residents. …On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence, surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where 4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The results obtained, however, were of great importance. … Most of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently incorporated with the Spanish empire."

_W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, chapter 21 (volume 3)._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535. Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers. Establishment of Turkish sovereignty. Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.