Siege of Vellaunodunum, early 52 B.C.

Siege of Vellaunodunum, early 52 B.C.

Siege of Vellaunodunum, early 52 B.C.

The siege of Vellaunodunum (early 52 B.C.) was the first of three Roman attacks on Gallic towns that forced Vercingetorix to abandon his siege of Gorgobina early in the Great Gallic Revolt of 52 B.C.

Having failed to prevent Caesar from reaching his legions in their winter quarters Vercingetorix moved to attack the Boii town of Gorgobina, somewhere in the tribal lands of the Aedui. Caesar had allowed the Boii to settle in Gaul in 58 B.C., and this attack forced him to move his legions out of their winter quarters and move south in an attempt to force Vercingetorix to lift the siege.

Leaving two legions and his baggage at Agendicum (Sens), Caesar advanced south, reaching Vellaunodunum, a town of the Senones tribe after two days (variously identified at Beauns, Montargis or Château-Landon). According to his commentaries he decided to attack the town to avoid leaving an enemy in his rear, although he probably also hoped that a series of attacks on Gallic towns would force Vercingetorix to abandon his own siege of Gorgobina.

The siege of Vellaunodunum only lasted three days. By the end of the second day the Romans had built their line of circumvallation around the town, and on the third day ambassadors from the town asked for surrender terms. Caesar demanded that they surrender all of their arms, provide him with all of their cattle and surrender 600 hostages. The town's leaders agreed to these terms, and leaving Caius Trebonius to conduct the actual surrender Caesar moved on to attack Cenabum.


Siege of Vellaunodunum, early 52 B.C. - History

The battle for Meghna was a heli-borne operation east of Dacca that arguably shortened the 1971 conflict by a matter of days, and hundreds of lives. Major Chandrakant Singh writes about the battle.

A tribute to Zoru Bakshi by Brigadier Rattan Kaul. Indian Army Lost a Gallant Solider On 24th May 2018. Zoru as he was called by his seniors and colleagues, we younger generation of the Regiment 5th Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) used to quietly also refer to him as Zoru, but otherwise also as General Zoru Bakshi, completed a page of Braves of Indian Army. If you asked him to what Regiment he belonged, before 1980, he would say SECOND FIVE a diehard Second Fiver (Second Battalion the Fifth Gurkha Rifles (Frontier Force) till he was elected as Colonel of the Regiment in 1980.

A Sailor's Story, by Vice Admiral N.Krishnan. Edited by: Arjun Krishnan - Book Review by K. Chandni

INAS 311 was commissioned by the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command Vice Admiral Nirmal Verma on 12th May 2009 at INS Dega in Vishakapatnam.

INAS 311, commanded by Commander Sanjay Nandan, operates the Dornier 228 aircraft.

The Talwar class has its origins in the Severnoye (Northern) Design Bureau that developed intothe Project 1135.6 vessel using an earlier Project 1135.1 design. This back to the early 1980s. The extensive scope of redesign and re-engineering for these vessels has realised a multipurpose surface combatant of about 4,000 ton displacement (this increase being attributed to additional weapon systems and the replacement of light alloys with steel), tailored to meet the Indian Navy's specific mission and performance requirements.

28 years after it was initially aired on National TV, we revisit the ground breaking film on the Indian Air Force "Salt of the Earth", which set the tone for historical accuracy and air to air filmography for the decades that followed. Part Three - Now Up!

Gp Capt Conrad Dalton 12430 GD(N) , Indian Air Force, is a decorated veteran navigator who flew on the English Electric Canberra. He was commissioned in the IAF in 1970 and had a 31 year career until his retirement in 2001. In this series of short clips, he talks about the life of a Navigator in the IAF - in both transport and bomber squadrons, as well as life out of the IAF with the Canberra Bomber Association.

The C-47 is a reliable work-horse that served for nearly four decades in the Indian Air Force's service. Over 200 examples served in the IAF across the length and breadth of the country. It saw its fair share of accidents and contributed to quite a few anxious moments - in this case, when an engine failed right after take off - as narrated by then Flt Lt (later Air Cmde) Arun Karandikar, serving with 43 Squadron at Jorhat.


What is the significance of the Babylonian Empire in biblical history?

Babylon rose from a Mesopotamian city on the Euphrates River to become a powerful city-state and later the capital city and namesake of one of the greatest empires in history. The city was located on the eastern side of the Fertile Crescent about 55 miles south of modern Baghdad. Babylon’s history intersected the biblical timeline early and often. The influence of Babylonia on Israel and on world history is profound.

The Founding of Babylon
The Bible’s first mention of Babylon comes in Genesis 10. This chapter is referred to as the table of nations as it traces the descendants of Noah’s three sons. In the genealogy of Ham, “Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth” (Genesis 10:8). Nimrod founded a kingdom that included a place called “Babylon” in Shinar (Genesis 10:10).

The Tower of Babel
The Tower of Babel is found in Genesis 11. In English it is easy enough to make the connection between “Babel” and “Babylon,” but in Hebrew it is the same word. This chapter cements Babylon’s reputation as a city of rebellion against God. From then on, the biblical writers consistently use Babylon as a symbol of evil and defiance (see 1 Peter 5:13 and Revelation 17:5).

Babylon’s Early Growth
Near the time of Abraham, Babylon became an independent city-state ruled by the Amorites. The first Babylonian dynasty included Hammurabi, the sixth king, known for his code of laws. Hammurabi expanded the kingdom, and the area around Babylon became known as Babylonia. During the second dynasty, Babylon was in communication with Egypt and entered a 600-year struggle with Assyria. After a time of subjugation to the Elamite Empire, a fourth dynasty of Babylonian kings thrived under Nebuchadnezzar I. Then Babylon fell under the shadow of Assyria.

Babylon’s Ascendency
By 851 B.C., Babylon was only nominally independent, requiring Assyrian “protection” and facing many internal upheavals. Finally, the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser III took the throne. The Assyrians and Merodach-baladan, a Chaldean, traded power more than once. During one of his times of advantage, Merodach-baladan sent emissaries to threaten Hezekiah, king of Judah (2 Kings 20:12-19 Isaiah 39). When the Chaldean chief Nabopolassar took control of Babylon in 626 B.C., he proceeded to sack Nineveh, the capital of Assyria.

Nebuchadnezzar II’s Conquest of Judah
Under the Chaldean dynasty, and, arguably, throughout the rest of history, no king surpassed the glory and absolute power of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign. As the crown prince (son of Nabopolassar), he defeated Pharaoh Necho II, who had come to the aid of the Assyrian army, winning for Babylonia the former Assyrian lands, including Israel. After being crowned king, Nebuchadnezzar forced King Jehoiakim of Judah to “become his vassal for three years. But then [Jehoiakim] changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar” (2 Kings 24:1). The king of Babylon, who did not take kindly to being rebelled against, captured Jerusalem and took the king and other leaders, military men and artisans as prisoners to Babylon (2 Kings 24:12-16). This deportation marked the beginning of the Babylonian exile of the Jews.

Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah to rule Judah. However, Zedekiah, against the prophet Jeremiah’s counsel, joined the Egyptians in a revolt in 589 B.C. This resulted in Nebuchadnezzar’s return. The remaining Jews were deported, Jerusalem was burned, and the temple was destroyed in August of 587 or 586 BC (Jeremiah 52:1-30).

The Prophet Daniel and the Fall of Babylon
Babylon is the setting for the ministry of the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel, who were both deportees from Judah. Daniel became a leader and royal adviser to the Babylonian and Persian Empires. He had been captured after the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. (Jeremiah 46:2-12). The book of Daniel records Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2) and foretells the fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians (Daniel 5). Earlier, the prophet Isaiah had also foretold the fall of Babylon (Isaiah 46:1-2).

Conclusion
In the Bible, Babylon is mentioned from Genesis to Revelation, as it rises from its rebellious beginnings to become a symbol of the Antichrist’s evil world system. When God’s people required discipline, God used the Babylonian Empire to accomplish it, but He limited Judah’s captivity to 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11). Then, God promised to “punish the king of Babylon and his nation” (Jeremiah 25:12) “for all the wrong they have done in Zion” (Jeremiah 51:24). Ultimately, all evil will be judged, as symbolized by Babylon’s demise in Revelation 18:21: “The great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again.”


6e. Free African Americans in the Colonial Era

When Crispus Attucks earned his unfortunate claim to fame as a victim in the Boston Massacre, he was not a slave. He was one of the relatively few African Americans to achieve freedom in colonial America. Although freedom is clearly desirable in comparison to a life in chains, free African Americans were unfortunately rarely treated with the same respect of their white counterparts.

There were several ways African Americans could achieve their freedom. Indentured servants could fulfill the terms of their contracts like those brought to Jamestown in 1619. In the early days, when property ownership was permitted, skilled slaves could earn enough money to purchase their freedom. Crispus Attucks and many others achieved liberty the hard way &mdash through a daring escape. It only stands to reason that when faced with a perpetual sentence of bondage many slaves would take the opportunity to free themselves, despite the great risks involved.

Another way of becoming free was called manumission &mdash the voluntary freeing of a slave by the master. Masters did occasionally free their own slaves. Perhaps it was a reward for good deeds or hard work. At times it was the work of a guilty conscience as masters sometimes freed their slaves in their wills. Children spawned by slaves and masters were more likely to receive this treatment. These acts of kindness were not completely unseen in colonial America, but they were rare. In the spirit of the Revolution, manumission did increase, but its application was not epidemic.

Free African Americans were likely to live in urban centers. The chance for developing ties to others that were free plus greater economic opportunities made town living sensible. Unfortunately, this "freedom" was rather limited. Free African Americans were rarely accepted into white society. Some states applied their slave codes to free African Americans as well. Perhaps the most horrifying prospect was kidnapping . Slave catchers would sometimes abduct free African Americans and force them back into slavery. In a society that does not permit black testimony against whites, there was very little that could be done to stop this wretched practice.


Cortés and Montezuma: the conquering of Tenochtitlan

Adorned with feathers and paint, the Aztec warriors whirled, dancing and stamping, their song rising in an intoxicating crescendo to honour the gods. As the long lines of celebrants wound into the temple precinct, the great drum played constantly, uniting their steps and their voices. Suddenly, among the sounds of worship, the screams of battle were heard and the drummer was abruptly silenced as a Spanish soldier sliced off his arms. Trapping the unarmed Aztecs, the conquistadors slaughtered them mercilessly until, according to the Nahuatl (Aztec language) chronicles, “the blood of the warriors flowed like water”.

This was the beginning of the battle for the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan, an open declaration of hostility which turned careful strategy into outright warfare. About a month later, on 24 June 1520 the Spanish captain Hernán Cortés returned from the coast and was furious to find the Aztecs prepared for war and his comrades besieged and starving. Months of tactical manoeuvring were ended by this confrontation, and his careful plans for a peaceful victory had been ruined. A week later, more than half of the Spanish had been killed during their flight from the city on a single “Night of Tears” and Cortés stood surrounded by the remnants of his great expedition. Yet, only a year later, Cortés would secure his place in history as the commander of the conquest of Mexico.

This remarkable reversal of fortune is perhaps partly responsible for the “myth” of the conquest, in which the gallant adventurer Cortés and a few hundred plucky conquistadors overcame overwhelming odds to defeat the tremendous might of the Aztec empire. The reality is far more complex, but at the same time far more impressive. In only two years, Hernán Cortés brought about the downfall of an efficient military civilisation through a combination of diplomacy, warfare, tactics, luck and sheer force of personality. The conquest of the Aztecs is more complicated than the simple myth of European superiority, but it remains an incredible achievement in military history.

In the early 16th century, Spanish colonies were already well established in the Caribbean islands and they were turning their eyes westward. In 1519, Cortés was appointed to lead an expedition to the American mainland but, apparently realising the potential of the gathered force of “conquistadors”, as they came to be called, the governor of Cuba became suspicious and withdrew his permission for the expedition. Showing the relentless ambition which would lead him to success, Cortés defied the governor and sailed anyway, later justifying his actions by appeal to the Spanish Crown.

Having arrived in the Gulf of Mexico with the largest force yet seen in the New World, Cortés ordered that most of the 10 ships of his fleet be disabled, depriving the conquistadors and sailors of any choice but to follow him into the jungle.

This grand gesture confirmed his intention, as he later declared, “that they would conquer and win the land, or die in the attempt”. Although his original instructions had been only to explore the region, Cortés hoped to achieve far greater gains. Rumours of a powerful kingdom in the interior had been confirmed by emissaries from the city of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztecs. Bringing gifts of gold which roused the Spaniards’ greed, the messengers brought word from the Aztec tlatoani (speaker) Moctecuhzoma Xocoyotzin, the powerful ruler who became known to history as Montezuma.

When he heard of Cortés’s arrival Montezuma refused to meet with the Spaniards, instead sending gifts, offering the tribute that frequently resolved disputes in Mesoamerican society. Much has been made of the Aztecs’ “superstitious” belief that Cortés was a god, and that Montezuma was paralysed with fear by a series of omens predicting the downfall of the city. Cortés’s deification appears to be a combination of mistranslation and later invention, however, and although it is very likely that some of the portents occurred – a comet, an eclipse, a deformed birth – it seems likely that, looking to explain their devastating defeat, the Aztecs retrospectively identified these omens as markers of their downfall. There is no real evidence that they were regarded as ominous premonitions before the conquest.

Exploiting internal hostilities

As the conquistadors marched toward Tenochtitlan they encountered the subjects and enemies of the Aztecs, and Cortés increasingly observed internal hostilities that he could exploit to his advantage. Through a combination of brutal force and diplomacy, he gradually convinced many groups to support him and openly defy the Aztecs. The people of Tlaxcala in particular had long been enemies of Tenochtitlan and, after first resisting the Spanish incursion ferociously, they accepted the military superiority of the Europeans and agreed to support them against Montezuma’s rule. With their red and white insignia, thousands of Tlaxcalans accompanied the Spanish when, in November 1519, the conquistadors caught their first sight of the island city of Tenochtitlan, which seemed to one like an “enchanted vision” rising out of the lake. Cortés immediately recognised the city’s value and hoped to present it intact to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.

Wanting to secure the city peacefully, Cortés negotiated his way into Tenochtitlan as an ambassador of Charles V and was magnificently received by Montezuma, who entertained the Spaniards and their allies lavishly. During their first few days in the city, the conquistadors were shown both the wonders and horrors of this new world. They marvelled at the towering temples, grand palaces, beautiful gardens and great markets, but were revolted by the terrible spectacle of human sacrifice. The conquistador Bernal Díaz, who wrote a famous history of the conquest, described it graphically: “The walls of that shrine were so splashed and caked with blood that they and the floor too were black… the stench was worse than that of any slaughterhouse in Spain”.

The Spanish revulsion at human sacrifice has often been described as nothing but a justification for their invasion, but the religious impetus to conquest should not be underestimated. Cortés was a devout Christian. His letters to Charles V show the profound belief that if the “evil practices” of the Aztecs could be stopped then they would “worship the true God with… fervour, faith and diligence” and his attitude is typical of many Catholics in this period. From his earliest days in the city, Cortés urged the Aztecs to renounce human sacrifice and replace their idols with images of the Virgin Mary.

Surrounded by thousands of warriors in the Aztec capital, the conquistadors became increasingly aware of their precarious position and began to fear a trap. Withdrawal would have alienated their allies, who were receiving word of aggressive Aztec behaviour in the provinces, and so Cortés resolved on a bold course of action. He seized Montezuma, and for the next eight months ruled the city through him. Why and to what extent Montezuma cooperated remains unclear, but his cooperation certainly secured the temporary obedience of the people, albeit in an atmosphere of increasing resentment.

When Cortés was forced to leave the city to deal with a force sent by the governor of Cuba, the mounting antipathy between the Spanish and Aztecs finally exploded, and the Spanish were driven from the city. In the wake of this Night of Tears, Cortés showed remarkable fortitude, leadership and resourcefulness. Retreating to Tlaxcala, he marshalled his remaining forces and allies, not without difficulty, and determined to reverse their fortunes. The key to Cortés’s plan was the building of 12 brigantines that would allow him to command the lake and besiege Tenochtitlan. Constructed in Tlaxcala, the boats were carried in pieces to the lake by thousands of indigenous bearers in an incredible feat of dedication and skill.

After Christmas 1520, the conquistadors set out to return to Tenochtitlan. They had to face attacks in outlying regions, but the brigantines were finally launched late in April 1521 and, with forces besieging the city from every direction, the battle began in earnest. The siege was devastating for both sides. The skill and sheer number of the Aztec warriors caused massive casualties among the attackers, even while they themselves died in huge numbers from starvation and disease.

Cortés repeatedly sought the Aztecs’ surrender, hoping to avoid the total destruction of the city, but it became clear that the Aztecs would fight to the death and the attackers were forced to close the lines of escape, no longer drawing back to their camps at night, but advancing all the time and destroying buildings to prevent their recapture. During the turbulent days before the Night of Tears, Montezuma was killed – a crime of which each side accused the other. Cuauhtemoc, a young and determined warrior, succeeded to the throne after Montezuma’s unfortunate successor died of the smallpox epidemic that was ravaging the city.

Combined with Spanish military technology, European diseases have often been accorded a major role in the conquest of the Aztecs the “guns, germs and steel” theory made popular by Jared Diamond. The weapons and armour of the Spaniards were certainly formidable against the easily-shattered obsidian blades and arrows of the indigenous people, but the thousands of allies supporting the conquistadors should not be forgotten. Smallpox certainly added to the rigours of the siege and disrupted the Aztec chain of command, but it also affected other indigenous peoples, including Cortés’s allies.

This “germ warfare” profoundly impacted on the New World as a whole, as indigenous populations, lacking any natural resistance, were devastated by European diseases. On 13 August 1521, Cuauhtemoc was captured and the Aztecs admitted defeat. Tenochtitlan, Cortés’s great prize, and its inhabitants were decimated. Cortés had conquered the Aztecs, but at the expense of the beautiful city he hoped to secure.

There is one final piece, or rather person, to this puzzle. Doña Marina, the indigenous translator who appears constantly at Cortés’s side in images of the conquest, and who eventually bore him a son, was critical to his ability to negotiate with indigenous people, which was central to the conquest. The figure of Marina epitomises the controversy of the conquest’s legacy. She has been seen alternately as the mother of the mestizo (people of mixed blood) nation or the ultimate traitor to her people, and this ambiguity underlies modern Mexican attitudes to their history.

In recent years, the Aztec past has been increasingly rediscovered and valued as a vital part of Mexican heritage, but Spanish, particularly Catholic, culture also underlies their way of life. Colonialism cannot be justified by the doubtful measure of progress but, for better or worse, conquistadors helped to create the global world in which we live. Transatlantic links drove forward the exchange of goods, information and people, beginning the process of conquest and colonisation which created our modern multicultural world.

Caroline Dodds is a lecturer at the University of Leicester specialising in Aztec and early modern Atlantic history. Her book Bonds of Blood: Gender, Lifecycle, and Sacrifice in Aztec Culture was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2008

Hernán Cortés: a short biography

Hernán Cortés was born in Extremadura, Spain, in the mid-1480s of respectable but undistinguished hidalgo (minor noble) birth. In 1506, he sailed to the Indies where he helped in the conquest of Cuba and married a relative of its first governor. In 1518, dissatisfied with life as a landowner, administrator and politician, he set out on his expedition to the American mainland.

In 1522, after conquering the Aztecs, Cortés was appointed captain-general and governor of “New Spain” (Mexico), granting him great property and influence. In 1528, he sailed to Spain, where he was received and rewarded

by Charles V, who also blessed his second marriage. After returning to Mexico in 1530, Cortés spent much of his life struggling to assert his rights and preserve his reputation, having met with considerable political opposition and been accused of murdering his first wife (who died in 1522). After returning to Spain in 1540 to plead his cause, he died disillusioned in Seville in 1547. Despite his bitterness, he was a rich man, and left both wealth and status to his many children.

The Aztec empire: culture and sacrifice

Between about 1350 and the 1520s, the Aztecs flourished on the site of modern-day Mexico City. They rose from humble beginnings as migrants from the north through a combination of military and diplomatic tactics to become the dominant force in the region.

Originally founded on inhospitable marsh and small islands in Lake Texcoco, by the 16th century their great island capital of Tenochtitlan had grown into a spectacular metropolis, linked to the mainland by three tremendous causeways and the heart of a network of nearly 400 subject and allied cities. A huge marketplace drew thousands of people every day from all over this “empire” (as some historians have called it) and a ceremonial precinct lay at the centre of the city, from which the pyramid of the Great Temple towered over the grid of canals and streets.

The city was clean and well-ordered, with strong laws and political administration, but the Aztecs have often been regarded as a brutal and even evil people because they practised human sacrifice. The Aztec gods required human blood (let from living bodies, as well as through the death of sacrificial victims) to nourish them and sustain the world. It was believed that sacrifice led to a privileged afterlife and some Aztecs themselves became victims, but captives were most commonly used for this purpose.

It was believed that the gods had destined the Aztecs to be a warrior people, and they became increasingly focused on warfare and military achievement, even practising “flowery wars” specifically for the purpose of securing victims. The Aztecs were not dehumanised by this bloodshed, however. They were an expressive and sophisticated civilisation that valued poetry, art and family highly. They believed sacrifice was a privilege, and were able to accept that violent death was a necessary part of life.

Cortés’s route from Vera Cruz to Tenochtitlan

During his march to the Aztec capital, Cortés gathers valuable allies among enemies of Montezuma

8 August 1519: Beginning of the march to Tenochtitlan

Having skirmished their way along the coast, and met with Montezuma’s emissaries, Cortés and the conquistadors set out for Tenochtitlan from their settlement of Vera Cruz.

23 September 1519: Alliance is forged

After several weeks of outright confrontation, the conquistadors make peace with the Aztecs’ Tlaxcalan enemies and they enter the city of Tlaxcala, marking the beginning of the alliance between them.

8 November 1519, Cortés faces Montezuma

Cortés faces Montezuma on the great causeway leading to Tenochtitlan. Less than a week later, he seizes the Aztec ruler and takes control of the city.

30 June 1520: Spaniards flee Tenochtitlan

The Spaniards and their allies flee Tenochtitlan on the Night of Tears. Having lost more than half their company, they rally at Tlacopan before retreating to Tlaxcala.

28 April 1521: Start of the battle for Tenochtitlan

Having fought their way back to the lake, the conquistadors launch their brigantines, besiege the city, and the great battle for Tenochtitlan begins.

13 August 1521: Aztecs surrender

After months of fierce fighting, which leaves Tenochtitlan in ruins, the last tlatoani Cuauhtemoc is captured in a canoe on the lake and the Aztecs finally surrender.

Five key factors in the conquest

A combination of luck, allies and might have enabled Cortés to succeed

Hernán Cortés

The importance of his leadership has at times been overstated, but Cortés undoubtedly made critical and creative decisions at key moments in the conquest and provided effective and often inspirational leadership. A clear and ambitious tactician, he was devout, brave and single-minded in pursuit of his goals.

European weaponry

Guns, armour and steel weaponry would not alone have been sufficient to overcome the Aztecs’ numerical advantage, but they were certainly effective, particularly in skirmishing. Horses and war dogs were also new to the Aztecs, who quickly realised their tactical importance and began to target them in battle.

Indigenous allies

Alliances with the Aztecs’ enemies and disgruntled subjects ensured the conquistadors an almost unending supply of warriors, auxiliary support, food and other supplies. Links with individuals, particularly the interpreter Malinztin, also gave Cortés considerable tactical and diplomatic advantages and allowed him to negotiate directly with indigenous peoples.

European diseases

Lacking any natural immunity, the indigenous peoples were decimated by diseases brought by the conquistadors. Smallpox was particularly devastating during the conquest of Mexico and, in the following years, other illnesses such as measles, mumps, typhus, influenza and the plague brought many indigenous American populations to near extinction.

Aztec attitudes

The Aztecs’ practice of warfare disadvantaged them in some encounters as they fought to capture victims for human sacrifice rather than to kill. An earlier realisation of the extent of the conquistadors’ intentions might also have allowed the Aztecs to marshal resistance and move against them more effectively.


Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 1 Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., Ed.

Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:

This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
Table of Contents:

[ 6 ] And first of all he divided the year into twelve months, according to the revolutions of the moon. But since the moon does not give months of quite thirty days each, and eleven days are wanting to the full complement of a year as marked by the sun's revolution, he inserted intercalary months in such a way that in the twentieth year the days should fall in with the same position of the sun from which they had started, and the period of twenty years be rounded out. [ 7 ] He also appointed days when public business might not be carried on, and others when it might, since it would sometimes be desirable that nothing should be brought before the people.

2 This was evidently written before 25 B.C., when the temple was again closed by Augustus. But it was not written before 27, for it was not until that year that the title of Augustus was conferred upon the emperor. We thus arrive at an approximate date for the beginning of Livy's history.

The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.

/>
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.


A Twisted History of Neckties

Boys hate to put them on. Men love to unknot them after a day of wear. Postal workers, firefighters, police and those in many other uniformed occupations don't wear them anymore. But women still insist on buying them for men, especially at this time of year.

Neckties: textured, solid, striped, botanical, jacquard, geometric, 52 to 58 inches long, alternately withering or widening from 3112 to 5 inches, costing anywhere from three for $10 to $100 or more.

Why has this apparently useless piece of silk, or wool, or rayon, or polyester or even rubber (yes, there are Rubber-Necker Ties, "a recycled fashion statement for the eco-executive") survived the swings of fashion for more than three centuries? Why is it still fit to be tied?

Fashion observers say the necktie survives because it is the one formal accessory in the male wardrobe that expresses personality, mood or inner character. The tie is that splash of color, that distinctive pattern, that statement of individuality that a man can make in the world of uniform pinstripes and plaids.

On another level, the necktie can be seen as message-driven. "It's specific to the time, place and person," says Claudia Kidwell, curator of the Smithsonian Institution's costume division. For example, there's the proverbial power tie -- bold pinstripe, old school tie, club tie -- that shows a man's presumed position in society.

"Show me a man's ties, and I'll tell you who he is or who he is trying to be," writes John T. Molloy in his book Dress for Success. Molloy conducted experiments showing that men wearing expensive ties make stronger impressions in job interviews, are given better tables at restaurants and even make more money panhandling.

The tie has been seen as a form of male chest display, recalling the chest-pounding and puffing of our prehistoric ancestors. Or it can be viewed as the noose around the neck of the conformist white-collar worker, or the symbolic leash held by women who purchased more than 50 percent of the 105 million ties sold in the United States last year. Although most American men do not wear ties daily, U.S. neckware sales totaled $1.6 billion last year, with 70 percent made by American companies.

For 20 years, dressy turtleneck sweaters and buttoned shirts without collars have presented a continuing threat to neckwear. Nonetheless, in most of the developed world, neckties remain the necessary attribute of the white-collar occupations of business and commerce and the requirement for occasions of formality -- their principal function for more than three centuries.

From their origins in the mid-17th century, the strips of cloth that became known as cravats have multiplied in amazing variety. To modern eyes, the early ties look like bibs or scarves, strings or bows.

But beginning in the 1870s, the modern "four-in-hand" emerged, and it still dominates more than a century later. The modern variant of the bow tie accounts for less than 5 percent of sales.

"Ties are very related to their times, reflective of trends in society," says Mark-Evan Blackman, chairman of the menswear department at New York's Fashion Institute of Technology.

In the 2nd century A.D., Roman legionnaires probably didn't think of themselves as reflecting a trend when they tied bands of cloth around their necks. Most likely, they were just looking for protection from the weather.

Some historians have called the legionnaires' adornments the first neckwear. But others cite the excavation near the Chinese city of Xi'an of 3rd century B.C. terra-cotta statues of warriors who wore neck scarves in the belief that they were protecting the source of their strength, their Adam's apples.

Most experts, however, date the initial appearance of the modern precursor of the tie to 1636. Croatian mercenaries, hired in Paris by King Louis XIV, wore cloth bands around their necks to ward off natural elements, which in their line of work included sword slashes.

Parisians quickly translated the Croats' scarf into a new clothing accessory, and, voila!, the cravate was born. The French term cravate is derived from Croates, French for Croatian. Not to be outdone, the English adapted the cravat, dropping the final "e", and the American colonies soon stepped in line.

Once launched, the cravat and its styles and knots proliferated. Early cravats looked like lace bibs with bows backing them up, some reaching two yards in length.

Among emerging varieties in the late 17th century was the Steinkirk, a corkscrew-like wrap, originating from the Battle of Steinkirk where startled French officers hastily twisted their ties as they fled their tents to turn back the British onslaught.

During the early 18th century and into the 19th century, cravats had major competition: the stock. While a cravat generally was a long piece of cloth that wound around the neck and tied in front, the stock resembled collars worn today for whiplash or other neck injuries.

Made of muslin, sometimes with cardboard stiffeners inside, stocks were fastened in back by a hook or knot. In front, they had what looked like a pretied bowtie or sometimes a wide cravat covering the stock and swathing the neck like a poultice. Stocks forced men to stand upright in a stiff posture.

American revolutionaries George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the Adamses (John and John Quincy) can be seen in contemporary portraits by Gilbert Stuart and Charles Willson Peale, wearing swath-like cravats, although the American versions were less radical than those of their counterparts in France.

In the mid-1800s, the "solitaire" appeared -- attached to the wig in the back, wrapped around the neck and brought to a bow in the front over a cravat.

Some other bizarre dress and tie styles emerged in the mid-18th century. In England, the so-called "Macaronis" were dandies affecting an Italian style, coloring their cheeks with rouge and wearing diamond-studded pumps and cravats with huge bows. The fashion may be alluded to in the lyrics to "Yankee Doodle Dandy."

Over in France, the incroyables -- literally, "incredibles" -- wore such large cravats that their chins were hidden.

At the turn of the 19th century, collars were heightened with pointed edges around the chin and cheeks, while cravats wrapped tightly around the neck ended in bows of varying lengths. English novelist Charles Dickens described one of his characters, Mr. Dombey, as "slightly turning his head in his cravat as if it were a socket."

George "Beau" Brummel, British fashion guru of the early 1800s, was a cravat innovator who starched his neckwear, developed intricate, innovative knots and could take as long as an hour to tie a proper knot. You had to get the knot right the first time or the starched tie would have to be discarded. Beau Brummel was said to pile the floor with ties not perfectly knotted.

Neckwear took on an inflated importance, as even novelist Honore de Balzac wrote in 1818 that a cravat was protection against "colds, stiff necks, inflammations, toothache," which also "enables us to know more about the person who is wearing it."

By contrast, poet Lord Byron, who usually didn't wear cravats, inadvertently inspired a less formal, disdainful style -- a loose knot four inches wide starting at the neck and ending in two long points.

To one German fashion observer, this casual style, which became known as "Cravate a la Byron," demonstrated the poet's genius for freeing his imagination and his blood vessels at the same time: "Who can say to what degree a more or less stiffly starched and tightly bound neckcloth can restrain the springs of fantasy or throttle thought?"

During the 17th and 18th centuries, neckwear usually was black for daytime wear and white for formal occasions. By the mid-19th century, white was considered traditional and black revolutionary. Then black won out again until the end of the century when colors began to proliferate.

Pale blues, lavenders and grays came into use as did varieties of fabrics: silks, satins and other textures.

Specialty cravats abounded in the mid-19th century, including the "Cravate a l'Americaine," which used a whalebone to give it a stiffened look, and the "Cravate a la Gastronome," which could be loosened in case of indigestion, apoplexy or fainting.

As the century progressed, cravats shrank into smaller bows. Worn initially with upturned collars and then with turned-down styles, they are familiar in portraits of President Abraham Lincoln and other Civil War figures.

When Dickens toured the United States in 1867, he created a fashion sensation at his lectures when he wore a turned-down collar with a loose, unknotted cravat held by a seal ring. Dickens' style was an ancestor of the "four-in-hand," progenitor of the modern tie.

Appearing in the 1860s, the four-in-hand was named after coachmen who singlehandedly drove teams of four horses and slip-knotted their cravats to prevent them from blowing in the wind. Ready-made cravats and hooked-on bow ties, with varied fabrics and patterns, were popular for a time. But eventually, all gave way to the four-in-hand.

The growth of a large clerical work force toward the end of the century played a decisive part in dominance of the four-in-hand. Those counterparts of today's office workers needed a tie simple to knot, comfortable and long-lasting.

With the coming of the new business office culture, women, too, began wearing ties, as often depicted in the "Gibson Girl" look made hugely popular by artist Charles Dana Gibson in the early 1900s. In fact, women who did not want to be tied down by traditional views of femininity, had worn ties and even men's clothing for years.

Perhaps the most notorious was Amandine Dupin, the 19th-century French novelist who took the pen name George Sand. In the early 20th century, feminists, suffragettes and other "liberated" women wore ties, a fashion that has reappeared sporadically since.

By mid-century, America was setting international neckwear fashion, which has varied drastically over the last 50 years [see box].

After a run of more than three centuries, will neckties as we know them last through the 21st century? Some fashion experts have doubts.

Blackman of the Fashion Institute sees the broad range of acceptable tie styles today as characteristic of an age in which dress codes no longer are clearly defined. In the past, ties were virtually the only accessory available for men to make a personal statement in their appearance.

Today, young men have countless outlets for individual expression -- varieties of haircuts, different facial hairstyles, earrings, tattoos and dress, ranging from three-button suits in traditional businesses to jeans and T-shirts in the high-tech world. So ties are less necessary for a male to assert himself.

Although ties may not survive the new century, they may have "an incarnation into something else," Blackman says.

Meanwhile, whether males like it or not, a tie is still likely to be under the tree for the last Christmas of the 1900s.

After World War II, the olive drab of the military years gave way in the late 1940s and 1950s to the euphoria of peacetime prosperity reflected in an explosion of tie colors, ranging from Hawaiian prints to garish hand-painted scenes of bathing beauties on desert islands.

By the late 1950s and early 1960s, however, mainstream culture favored quiet conformity. The conservative gray flannel suit predominated, with its narrow shoulders, thin lapel and skinny dark ties like those worn by President John F. Kennedy. Or by the Beatles when they first came to the United States just 10 weeks after Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963.

In the late 1960s, again reflecting a cultural shift, ties widened and brightened into flower patterns, exotic motifs, peace symbols and messages of love -- the commercialization of the youth culture. Many men in that turbulent time of student protests and urban riots permanently discarded ties, rejecting them as symbols of uptightness and conformity.

Sales slumped for a time in the 1970s with the advent of more casual dress styles, notably including the "leisure suit," a snug-fitting jacket and pants combination worn with an open-neck shirt.

Narrower neckties made a comeback in the 1980s with traditional patterns and Windsor knots, inspired in part by the conservative political era and style of President Ronald Reagan. The 1990s saw a widening resurgence to 4.5 inches with new variations -- cartoon ties, ties with advertising, ties with messages, ties with complicated computer-age designs.

As the century creeps to a close, store counters are stocked with a mix of styles for Christmas buying, which accounts for 20 percent of annual tie sales. This year, darker, deeper colors predominate, and solid-color ties and subdued patterns to match and blend with dark shirts are designed to produce the "minimalist" look.

The current trend toward somber colors represents to Gerald Andersen, executive director of the Neckwear Association of America, the industry trade group, "a reaction to the exuberance of the Nineties and the search for a different look."

John Mathews, a former NBC News producer and editor/reporter for the Washington Star newspaper, lives in Cabin John.

CAPTION: Evolving Tie Styles

(This graphic was not available)

CAPTION: Ties through the ages, from far left: Marquis de la Tour (c. 1750), George Washington (1795), King Edward VII of England (in 1876 while Prince of Wales), Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1891), the Beatles (c. 1960s).

CAPTION: Ties from the turn of the century to present day, at the Smithsonian's collection.


The first triumvirate and the conquest of Gaul

The value of the consulship lay in the lucrative provincial governorship to which it would normally lead. On the eve of the consular elections for 59 bce , the Senate sought to allot to the two future consuls for 59 bce , as their proconsular provinces, the unprofitable supervision of forests and cattle trails in Italy. The Senate also secured by massive bribery the election of an anti-Caesarean, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus. But they failed to prevent Caesar’s election as the other consul.

Caesar now succeeded in organizing an irresistible coalition of political bosses. Pompey had carried out his mission to put the East in order with notable success, but after his return to Italy and his disbandment of his army in 62 bce , the Senate had thwarted him—particularly by preventing him from securing land allotments for his veterans. Caesar, who had assiduously cultivated Pompey’s friendship, now entered into a secret pact with him. Caesar’s master stroke was to persuade Crassus to join the partnership, the so-called first triumvirate. Crassus—like Pompey, a former lieutenant of Sulla—had been one of the most active of Pompey’s obstructors so far. Only Caesar, on good terms with both, was in a position to reconcile them. Early in 59 bce , Pompey sealed his alliance with Caesar by marrying Caesar’s only child, Julia. Caesar married Calpurnia, daughter of Lucius Piso, who became consul in 58 bce .

As consul, Caesar introduced a bill for the allotment of Roman public lands in Italy, on which the first charge was to be a provision for Pompey’s soldiers. The bill was vetoed by three tribunes of the plebs, and Caesar’s colleague Bibulus announced his intention of preventing the transaction of public business by watching the skies for portents whenever the public assembly was convened. Caesar then cowed the opposition by employing some of Pompey’s veterans to make a riot, and the distribution was carried out. Pompey’s settlement of the East was ratified en bloc by an act negotiated by an agent of Caesar, the tribune of the plebs Publius Vatinius. Caesar himself initiated a noncontroversial and much-needed act for punishing misconduct by governors of provinces.

Another act negotiated by Vatinius gave Caesar Cisalpine Gaul (between the Alps, the Apennines, and the Adriatic) and Illyricum. His tenure was to last until February 28, 54 bce . When the governor-designate of Transalpine Gaul suddenly died, this province, also, was assigned to Caesar at Pompey’s instance. Cisalpine Gaul gave Caesar a military recruiting ground Transalpine Gaul gave him a springboard for conquests beyond Rome’s northwest frontier.

Between 58 and 50 bce , Caesar conquered the rest of Gaul up to the left bank of the Rhine and subjugated it so effectively that it remained passive under Roman rule throughout the Roman civil wars between 49 and 31 bce . This achievement was all the more amazing in light of the fact that the Romans did not possess any great superiority in military equipment over the north European barbarians. Indeed, the Gallic cavalry was probably superior to the Roman, horseman for horseman. Rome’s military superiority lay in its mastery of strategy, tactics, discipline, and military engineering. In Gaul, Rome also had the advantage of being able to deal separately with dozens of relatively small, independent, and uncooperative states. Caesar conquered these piecemeal, and the concerted attempt made by a number of them in 52 bce to shake off the Roman yoke came too late.

Great though this achievement was, its relative importance in Caesar’s career and in Roman history has been overestimated in Western tradition (as have his brief raids on Britain). In Caesar’s mind his conquest of Gaul was probably carried out only as a means to his ultimate end. He was acquiring the military manpower, the plunder, and the prestige that he needed to secure a free hand for the prosecution of the task of reorganizing the Roman state and the rest of the Greco-Roman world. This final achievement of Caesar’s looms much larger than his conquest of Gaul, when it is viewed in the wider setting of world history and not just in the narrower setting of the Greco-Roman civilization’s present daughter civilization in the West.

In 58 bce Rome’s northwestern frontier, established in 125 bce , ran from the Alps down the left bank of the upper Rhône River to the Pyrenees, skirting the southeastern foot of the Cévennes and including the upper basin of the Garonne River without reaching the Gallic shore of the Atlantic. In 58 bce Caesar intervened beyond this line, first to drive back the Helvetii, who had been migrating westward from their home in what is now central Switzerland. He then crushed Ariovistus, a German soldier of fortune from beyond the Rhine. In 57 bce Caesar subdued the distant and warlike Belgic group of Gallic peoples in the north, while his lieutenant Publius Licinius Crassus subdued what are now the regions of Normandy and Brittany.

In 56 bce the Veneti, in what is now southern Brittany, started a revolt in the northwest that was supported by the still unconquered Morini on the Gallic coast of the Strait of Dover and the Menapii along the south bank of the lower Rhine. Caesar reconquered the Veneti with some difficulty and treated them barbarously. He could not finish off the conquest of the Morini and Menapii before the end of the campaigning season of 56 bce and in the winter of 56–55 bce the Menapii were temporarily expelled from their home by two immigrant German peoples, the Usipetes and Tencteri. These peoples were exterminated by Caesar in 55 bce . In the same year he bridged the Rhine just below Koblenz to raid Germany on the other side of the river, and then crossed the Channel to raid Britain. In 54 bce he raided Britain again and subdued a serious revolt in northeastern Gaul. In 53 bce he subdued further revolts in Gaul and bridged the Rhine again for a second raid.

The crisis of Caesar’s Gallic war came in 52 bce . The peoples of central Gaul found a national leader in the Arvernian Vercingetorix. They planned to cut off the Roman forces from Caesar, who had been wintering on the other side of the Alps. They even attempted to invade the western end of the old Roman province of Gallia Transalpina. Vercingetorix wanted to avoid pitched battles and sieges and to defeat the Romans by cutting off their supplies—partly by cavalry operations and partly by “scorched earth”—but he could not persuade his countrymen to adopt this painful policy wholeheartedly.

The Bituriges insisted on standing siege in their town Avaricum (Bourges), and Vercingetorix was unable to save it from being taken by storm within one month. Caesar then besieged Vercingetorix in Gergovia near modern Clermont-Ferrand. A Roman attempt to storm Gergovia was repulsed and resulted in heavy Roman losses—the first outright defeat that Caesar had suffered in Gaul. Caesar then defeated an attack on the Roman army on the march and was thus able to besiege Vercingetorix in Alesia, to the northwest of Dijon. Alesia, like Gergovia, was a position of great natural strength, and a large Gallic army came to relieve it but this army was repulsed and dispersed by Caesar, and Vercingetorix then capitulated.

During the winter of 52–51 bce and the campaigning season of 51 bce , Caesar crushed a number of sporadic further revolts. The most determined of these rebels were the Bellovaci, between the Rivers Seine and Somme, around Beauvais. Another rebel force stood siege in the south in the natural fortress of Uxellodunum (perhaps the Puy d’Issolu on the Dordogne) until its water supply gave out. Caesar had the survivors’ hands cut off. He spent the year 50 bce in organizing the newly conquered territory. After that, he was ready to settle his accounts with his opponents at home.


Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd

  • Physical Map of Europe, Western Asia and Northern Africa (641K) [p.2-3] [1926 ed.]
  • Mycenean Greece and the Orient about 1450 B.C. (344K) [p.4] [1926 ed.] Inset: Reference Map of the Nile Delta.
  • The Assyrian Empire and the Region about the Eastern Mediterranean, 750-625 B.C. (294K) [p.5] [1926 ed.]
  • Reference Map of Ancient Palestine (785K) [p.6-7] [1926 ed.] Insets: Plan of Jerusalem. Dominions of David and Solomon (1025-953 B.C.). Palestine under the later Kings (953-722 B.C.). Palestine under Joshua and the Judges (1250-1125 B.C.).
  • The Oriental Empires about 600 B.C. (146K) [p.8] [1923 ed.]
  • The Persian Empire about 500 B.C. (134K) [p.8] [1923 ed.]
  • The Beginnings of Historic Greece 700 B.C.-600 B.C. (177K) [p.8] [1923 ed.]
  • Vicinity of Troy. The Shores of the Propontis. Plan of Olympia. (214K) [p.9] [1926 ed.]
  • Reference Map of Ancient Greece. Northern Part. (980K) [p.10-11] [1926 ed.]
  • Greek and Phoenician Settlements in the Mediterranean Basin, about 550 B.C. (350K) [p.12] [1926 ed.]
  • Greece at the Time of the War with Persia, 500-479 B.C. (267K) [p.13] [1926 ed.]
  • The Athenian Empire at its Height (about 450 B.C.). (268K) [p.13] [1926 ed.]
  • Reference Map of Ancient Greece. Southern Part. (709K) [p.14-15] [1926 ed.] Inset: Crete.
  • Reference Map of Attica. Plan of Thermopylae, 480 B.C. (500K) [p.16] [1923 ed.] Inset: Harbors of Athens
  • Greece at the Beginning of the Peloponnesian War (431 B.C.). (307K) [p.17] [1926 ed.]
  • Greece under Theban Headship (362 B.C.). (175K) [p.17] [1926 ed.]
  • The Macedonian Empire, 336-323 B.C. (560K) [p.18-19] [1926 ed.] Insets: The Aetolian and Achaian Leagues. Plan of Tyre.
  • Kingdoms of the Diadochi (300K) [p.18-19] [1926 ed.] After the Battle of Ipsus (301 B.C.). At the Beginning of the Struggle with Rome (about 200 B.C.).
  • Reference Map of Asia Minor under the Greeks and Romans (360K) [p.20] [1923 ed.]
  • Plan of Imperial Rome (991K) [p.22-23] [1926 ed.]
  • Plan of Athens (991K) [p.23] [1926 ed.] Inset: Plan of the Acropolis of Athens.
  • Plan of Republican Rome (991K) [p.23] [1926 ed.]
  • Plan of the Roman Forum and its Vicinity at the Time of the Republic (208K) [p.24] [1923 ed.]
  • Plan of the Imperial Forums and their Vicinity (240K) [p.24] [1923 ed.]
  • Reference Map of Ancient Italy. Northern Part. (850K) [p.26-27] [1926 ed.]
  • The Growth of Roman Power in Italy (243K) [p.29] [1926 ed.]
  • Reference Map of Ancient Italy. Southern Part (617K) [p.30-31] [1926 ed.] Insets: Vicinity of Naples. Plan of Syracuse.
  • Rome and Carthage at the Beginning of the Second Punic War, 218 B.C. (199K) [p.32] [1926 ed.]
  • The Growth of Roman Power in Asia Minor (337K) [p.33] [1926 ed.] I, after the Treaty of Apamea, 188 B.C. II, before the outbreak of the Mithradatic Wars, 90 B.C. III, as organized by Pompey, 63 B.C.
  • Territorial Expansion of Rome (768K) [p.34-35] [1926 ed.] Insets: Plan of Carthage. Vicinity of Rome. Plan of Alexandria.
  • Reference Map of the European Provinces of the Roman Empire (850K) [p.38-39] [1926 ed.] Insets: Gaul in the Time of Caesar. The Rhine Country in Roman Times. Country about the Lower Danube in Roman Times.
  • Germanic Migrations and Conquests, 150-1066 (411K) [p.45] [1926 ed.]
  • Development of Christianity to 1300 (676K) [p.46-47] [1926 ed.]
  • The Roman and Hunnic Empires about 450 (312K) [p.48] [1926 ed.]
  • Physical Map of the British Isles (296K) [p.49] [1926 ed.]
  • The Germanic Kingdoms and the East Roman Empire in 486 (859K) [p.50] [1923 ed.]
  • Roman Britain About 410. (452K) [p.51] [1923 ed.]
  • Settlements of Angles, Saxons and Jutes in Britain about 600 (323K) [p.51] [1923 ed.]
  • The Germanic Kingdoms and the East Roman Empire in 526 (221K) [p.52] [1926 ed.]
  • Europe and the East Roman Empire, 533-600 (243K) [p.52] [1926 ed.]
  • The Califate in 750 (293K) [p.53] [1926 ed.]
  • Growth of Frankish Power, 481-814 (196K) [p.53] [1926 ed.]
  • The Carolingian and Byzantine Empires and the Califate about 814 (673K) [p.54-55] [1926 ed.] Inset: Northern Austrasia about 814.
  • Disruption of the Carolingian Empire, 843-888 (340K) [p.56] [1926 ed.]
  • The Peoples of Europe about 900 (333K) [p.57] [1926 ed.]
  • Europe and the Byzantine Empire about 1000 (641K) [p.58-59] [1926 ed.]
  • The British Isles about 802 (363K) [p.60] [1926 ed.]
  • England after 886 (99K) [p.60] [1926 ed.]
  • The Shires of England in the Tenth Century (99K) [p.60] [1926 ed.]
  • France about 1035 (304K) [p.61] [1926 ed.]
  • Central Europe, 919-1125 (740K) [p.62-63] [1926 ed.]
  • Italy about 1050 (247K) [p.64] [1926 ed.] Inset: The Patrimony of St. Peter.
  • Dominions of Cnut, 1014-1035 (129K) [p.64] [1926 ed.]
  • Dominions of William the Conqueror about 1087 (249K) [p.65] [1926 ed.]
  • Europe and the Mediterranean Lands about 1097 (725K) [p.66-67] [1926 ed.] Inset: Europe and the Mediterranean Lands by Religions about 1097.
  • Asia Minor and the States of the Crusaders in Syria, about 1140 (329K) [p.68] [1926 ed.] Insets: Palestine. Plan of Jerusalem about 1187.
  • France, 1154-1184 (433K) [p.69] [1926 ed.] Inset: Domain, Fiefs and Suzerains of the Count of Champagne in the Twelfth Century.
  • Europe and the Mediterranean Lands about 1190 (667K) [p.70-71] [1926 ed.] Inset: Guelf, Hohenstaufen and Ascanian Domains in Germany about 1176.
  • The Holy Roman Empire under the Hohenstaufen, 1138-1254 (458K) [p.72] [1926 ed.]
  • The Mediterranean Lands after 1204 (340K) [p.73] [1926 ed.]
  • The British Isles about 1300 (363K) [p.74] [1926 ed.]
  • Plan of London about 1300 (237K) [p.75] [1926 ed.]
  • Vicinity of London, 1200-1600 (248K) [p.75] [1926 ed.]
  • France in 1328 (414K) [p.76] [1926 ed.] Inset: The Chief Wool-raising Districts of England and Wool-manufacturing Towns of Flanders, Artois and Brabant.
  • Europe in 1360 (316K) [p.77] [1926 ed.]
  • Central Europe in 1378 (884K) [p.78-79] [1926 ed.] Inset: Dominions of Ottocar of Bohemia.
  • Spread of German Settlements to the Eastward, 800-1400 (269K) [p.80] [1926 ed.] Inset: The March of Lusatia.
  • The Great Schism, 1378-1417 (351K) [p.81] [1926 ed.]
  • France in 1453 (516K) [p.81] [1923 ed.]
  • Spain, 910-1492 (819K) [p.82-83] [1926 ed.] Spain in 910. Spain in 1037. Spain in 1150. Spain 1212-1492.
  • England and France, 1455-1494 (373K) [p.84] [1926 ed.]
  • Decline of the March of Brandenburg under the Houses of Wittelsbach and Luxemburg, 1320-1415 (181K) [p.85] [1926 ed.]
  • The Wettin Lands, 1221-1485 (208K) [p.85] [1926 ed.] Inset: Temporary break-up of the Wettin Lands about 1300.
  • Central Europe about 1477 (827K) [p.86-87] [1926 ed.]
  • Decline of German Power in the Baltic Region, 1380-1560 (285K) [p.88] [1926 ed.]
  • The Byzantine Empire in 1265 (205K) [p.89] [1926 ed.] The Byzantine Empire, 1265-1355. The Byzantine Empire in 1265.
  • The Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Turks in 1355 (233K) [p.89] [1926 ed.] The Byzantine Empire, 1265-1355. The Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Turks in 1355.
  • Italy about 1494 (774K) [p.90] [1923 ed.] Insets: The Milanese under the Visconti, 1339-1402. The Republic of Florence, 1300-1494.
  • The Swiss Confederation, 1291-1513 (710K) [p.91] [1923 ed.]
  • The Mongol Dominions, 1300-1405 (410K) [p.92] [1923 ed.]
  • The Ottoman Empire, 1451-1481. Constantinople (671K) [p.93] [1923 ed.]
  • Ecclesiastical Map of Western Europe in the Middle Ages (950K) [p.94-95] [1926 ed.] Inset: Vicinity of Naples.
  • Plan of Rome in the Middle Ages (452K) [p.96] [1923 ed.]
  • The Roman Suburbicarian (Cardinal) Bishoprics about the 12th Century (323K) [p.96] [1923 ed.]
  • Ecclesiastical Map of the British Isles in the Middle Ages (645K) [p.97] [1923 ed.]
  • Mediaeval Commerce (Europe) (846K) [p.98-99] [1926 ed.] Insets: England. Hanseatic League in Northern Germany.
  • Mediaeval Universities (452K) [p.100] [1923 ed.]
  • Rural Deaneries (387K) [p.100] [1923 ed.] Part of the bishopric of Winchester showing rural deaneries and religious houses during the Middle Ages.
  • Ground Plan of a Monastery (St.Gall, Switzerland) (516K) [p.101] [1923 ed.]
  • Mediaeval Commerce (Asia) (769K) [p.102-103] [1926 ed.] Inset: India.
  • Plan of a Mediaeval Manor (710K) [p.104] [1923 ed.]
  • The West Indies and Central America, 1492-1525 (316K) [p.105] [1926 ed.] Inset: Watling's Island.
  • The Conquest of Mexico, 1519 - 1521 (350K) [p.106] [1923 ed.]
  • The Age of discovery 1340-1600 (903K) [p.107-108] [1923 ed.]
  • The Conquest of Peru, 1531 - 1533 (431K) [p.111] [1923 ed.]
  • The Portuguese Colonial Dominions in India and the Malay Archipelago, 1498-1580 (295K) [p.112] [1926 ed.]
  • The Imperial Circles about 1512 (245K) [p.113] [1926 ed.]
  • Central Europe about 1547 (845K) [p.114-115] [1926 ed.] Insets: Principality of Orange. Wettin Lands, 1485-1554.
  • The Religious Situation in Europe about 1560 (438K) [p.116] [1926 ed.] The Religious Situation in Central Europe about 1560. The Religious Situation in Europe about 1560.
  • The Netherlands 1559-1609 (645K) [p.117] [1923 ed.]
  • Europe about 1560 (854K) [p.118-119] [1926 ed.]
  • The Religious Situation in Central Europe about 1618 (581K) [p.120] [1923 ed.]
  • Sweden about 1658 (387K) [p.120] [1923 ed.]
  • Principal Seats of War in Europe, I. 1618-1660 (581K) [p.121] [1923 ed.]
  • Treaty of the Pyrenees 1659 (194K) [p.121] [1923 ed.] Treaty Adjustments, 1648-1660. Treaty of Pyrenees, 1659 Peace of Roeskilde-Oliva, 1658, 1660
  • Treaty of Westphalia 1648 (258K) [p.121] [1923 ed.] Treaty Adjustments, 1648-1660. Treaty of Westphalia 1648.
  • Central Europe about 1648 (926K) [p.122-123] [1926 ed.]
  • The Ottoman Empire, 1481-1683 (581K) [p.124] [1923 ed.]
  • Principal Seats of War in Europe, II. 1672-1699 (276K) [p.125] [1926 ed.]
  • Treaty Adjustments, 1668-1699 (122K) [p.125] [1926 ed.] Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle, Nimwegen, St. Germain, Ryswick, Carlowitz.
  • Extension of the French Frontiers, 1601-1766 (477K) [p.126] [1926 ed.]
  • The British Isles, 1603-1688 (481K) [p.127] [1926 ed.]
  • The Spread of Colonization, 1600-1700 (516K) [p.128] [1923 ed.] Insets:Partition of Guiana and the West Indies. India. The Establishment of Dutch Power in the Malay Archipelago, 1602-1641. Guinea Coast.
  • Principal Seats of War in Europe, III. 1700-1721 (333K) [p.129] [1926 ed.]
  • Europe about 1740 (786K) [p.130-131] [1926 ed.] Inset: The Growth of Savoy, 1418-1748.
  • Principal Seats of War, IV. 1740-1763 (329K) [p.132] [1926 ed.] Insets: Spain. West Africa. West Indies. Canada. India.
  • Treaty Adjustments, 1713-1763 (321K) [p.133] [1926 ed.] Treaties of Utrecht, Rastatt, Baden, Stockholm, Frederiksborg, Nystad, Passarowitz, Vienna, Belgrade, Breslau, Dresden, Aix-la-Chapelle, Paris, Hubertusburg. Insets: Acadia and Newfoundland. Eastern North America.
  • Central Europe about 1786 (829K) [p.134-135] [1926 ed.]
  • The Struggle for Colonial Dominion, 1700-1763 (431K) [p.136] [1926 ed.] Insets: The West Indies, 1700-1763. Cook's Voyages in the Southern Pacific.
  • India, 1700-1792 (645K) [p.137] [1923 ed.]
  • The Growth of Russia in Europe, 1300-1796 (872K) [p.138-139] [1926 ed.]
  • Typical German States Before and since the French Revolution: I. Baden (598K) [p.142] [1923 ed.] Insets: The County of Sponheim. Lordship of Gravenstein. Baden since 1801.
  • Typical German States Before and since the French Revolution: II. Wurtemberg (698K) [p.143] [1923 ed.] Insets: County of Horburg and Lordship of Reichenweier. Principality-County of Montbeliard. Wurtemberg since 1495.
  • France in 1789: The "Gouvernements"(275K) The Generalities or Intendancies (269K) The Salt Tax(299K) Laws and Courts(291K) [p.146-147] [1926 ed.]
  • Ecclesiastical Map of France, 1789 and 1802 (292K) [p.148] [1926 ed.]
  • France in 1791 (301K) [p.148] [1926 ed.]
  • Plans of Paris (251K) and Versailles (262K) [p.149] [1926 ed.]
  • Napoleon's Campaign in Egypt, 1798 (241K) [p.150] [1926 ed.]
  • Northern Italy, 1796 (for the campaigns of 1796-1805) (389K) [p.150] [1926 ed.]
  • Germany and Italy in 1803 (423K) [p.151] [1926 ed.]
  • Germany and Italy in 1806 (424K) [p.151] [1926 ed.]
  • Treaty Adjustments, 1801-1812 (314K) [p.152] [1926 ed.] Insets: India. Cape Colony.
  • Principal Seats of War, V. 1788-1815 (405K) [p.153] [1926 ed.] Insets: India. Egypt. Napoleon's Campaign in Russia, 1812.
  • Central Europe in 1812 (728K) [p.154-155] [1926 ed.] Inset: Europe in 1812.
  • Plan of the Battle of Waterloo (581K) [p.156] [1923 ed.]
  • Plan of the Waterloo Campaign, June 16-18, 1815 (516K) [p.156] [1923 ed.]
  • Treaty adjustments, 1814,1815 (516K) [p.157] [1923 ed.] Inset: Fortresses along the French Frontier.
  • Central Europe, 1815-1866 (798K) [p.158-159] [1926 ed.]
  • The Unification of Germany, 1815-1871 (285K) [p.160] [1926 ed.] I. Rise of the German "Zollverein" (Customs-Union) up to 1834. II. The German "Zollverein" (Customs-Union) after 1834.
  • The Unification of Germany, 1815-1871 (178K) [p.161] [1926 ed.] III. The North German Federation and the German Empire 1866-1871.
  • The Unification of Italy, 1815-1870 (266K) [p.161] [1926 ed.]
  • Industrial England since 1750 (359K) [p.162] [1926 ed.]
  • England and Wales in 1832 (422K) [p.163] [1926 ed.]
  • Dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire since 1683 (387K) [p.164] [1923 ed.] Insets: Southwestern Crimea, 1854. Plan of Sevastopol, 1854-1855.
  • Distibution of Races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor (387K) [p.165] [1923 ed.]
  • Europe, 1871-1914 (605K) [p.166-167] [1926 ed.]
  • Distribution of Races in Former Austria-Hungary (390K) [p.168] [1926 ed.]
  • Europe in 1924 (640K) [p.168B-168C] [1926 ed.]
  • The Growth of European and Japanese Dominions in Asia since 1801 (839K) [p.170-171] [1923 ed.] Inset: Vicinity of Peking.
  • Australia and New Zealand, 1788-1911 (645K) [p.172] [1923 ed.]
  • The Partition of Africa (725K) [p.174-175] [1926 ed.] Insets: The Suez Canal and Lower Egypt. The Boer Republics till 1902.
  • Distribution of the Principal European Languages in 1914 (452K) [p.176] [1923 ed.]
  • Distribution of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese and Negroes (249K) [p.177] [1926 ed.]
  • Colonies, Dependencies and Trade Routes (892K) [p.179-182] [1926 ed.]
  • Localities in Western Europe connected with American History (519K) [p.184] [1923 ed.]
  • Localities in England connected with American History (273K) [p.185] [1926 ed.]
  • Physical Map of North America (561K) [p.186-187] [1926 ed.]
  • The Indians in the United States (645K) [p.188] [1923 ed.]
  • Reference Map of the New England Colonies, 1607-1760 (399K) [p.189] [1926 ed.] Insets: Rhode Island. Vicinity of Boston. Vicinity of New York.
  • European Exploration and Settlement in the United States, 1513-1776 (704K) [p.190-191] [1926 ed.] Inset: Principal English Grants, 1606-1665.
  • Reference Map of the Middle Colonies, 1607-1760 (301K) [p.192] [1926 ed.] Inset: Settlements on the Delaware River.
  • Reference Map of the Southern Colonies, 1607-1760 (358K) [p.193] [1926 ed.] Insets: Settlements on the James River. The Georgian Coast.
  • The British Colonies in North America, 1763-1775 (581K) [p.194] [1923 ed.] Inset: Middle Colonies.
  • Campaigns of the American Revolution, 1775-1781 (645K) [p.195] [1923 ed.] Inset:The West and South, 1778-1781.
  • The United States, 1783-1803 (581K) [p.196] [1923 ed.] Insets: The State of Franklin, 1784-1788. Early distribution of the Public Lands (Ohio).
  • Territorial Expansion of the United States since 1803 (616K) [p.198-199] [1926 ed.] Insets: Alaska. Hawaii. Guam. Samoa Islands. Wake Island. Midway Island. Porto Rico. The Philippine Islands.
  • Campaigns of the War of 1812 (331K) [p.200] [1926 ed.] Campaigns of the War of 1812. The Southwest. Vicinity of Washington in 1814.
  • Campaigns of the Mexican War, 1846-1847 (262K) [p.201] [1926 ed.] Inset: Route from Vera Cruz to Mexico.
  • The Organization of Territories in the United States since 1803 (1MB) [p.202-203] [1923 ed.] I.1803-1810, II.1810-1835, III.1835-1855, IV.Since 1855.
  • Slavery and the Staple Agricultural Products in the Southern States, 1790-1860 (266K) [p.204] [1926 ed.]
  • Slavery and Emancipation in the United States, 1777-1865 (701K) [p.206-207] [1926 ed.] Inset: The Region South of the Great Lakes.
  • Seat of the Civil War, 1861-1865 (645K) [p.208] [1923 ed.] Inset: Vicinity of Gettysburg.
  • Westward Development of the United States (791K) [p.210-211] [1926 ed.]
  • Canada and Newfoundland (426K) [p.212] [1926 ed.] Inset: The Arbitration Boundary between Canada and Alaska.
  • Mexico, Central America and the West Indies (350K) [p.213] [1926 ed.] Inset: Central Mexico.
  • South America (691K) [p.214-215] [1926 ed.] Inset: South America about 1790.
  • The Panama Canal (757K) [p.216] [1923 ed.] The Canal Zone. Profile of the Canal.

Index

MAIN LIBRARY

Perry-Castañeda Library
101 East 21st St.
Austin, TX. 78713


The Southern Colonies

The first "official" American colony was formed in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. In 1587, a group of 115 English settlers arrived in Virginia. They arrived safely on Roanoke Island, off the coast of North Carolina. By the middle of the year, the group realized they needed more supplies, and so they sent John White, governor of the colony, back to England. White arrived in the midst of a war between Spain and England, and his return was delayed.

When he finally made it back to Roanoke, there was no trace of the colony, his wife, his daughter, or his granddaughter. Instead, all he found was the word "Croatoan" carved into a post, which was the name of a small group of Indigenous people in the area. No one knew what had happened to the colony until 2015, when archaeologists discovered clues such as British-style pottery among Croatoan remains. This suggests that the people of the Roanoke colony may have become part of the Croatoan community.

By 1752, the colonies included North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. The Southern Colonies focused most of their efforts on cash crops including tobacco and cotton. In order to make their plantations profitable, they used the unpaid labor and skills of enslaved Africans.


Watch the video: Rome Total War Online Battle #2055: Siege of Gergovia Historical