| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet were under the Qing dynasty domination. Qing also had tributary states including Nepal, Burma, Siam, Laos, Tonking, and Korea.
Supra-cultural relations |
||||||
|
Supra-cultural relations
|
||||||
|
This is generally unknown from the archaeological record, although the abundance of exchange among polities seems to indicate marital alliances among settlement clusters.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[1]: Clark, J.E., Blake, M., 1994. "Power of prestige: competitive generosity and the emergence of rank in lowland Mesoamerica." In: Brumfiel, E.M., Fox, J.W. (Eds.), Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17-30. [2]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42. [4]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [5]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. [6]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16. [7]: Hirth, K.G., Cyphers, A., Cobean, R., De León, J., Glascock, M.D., (2013). "Early Olmec obsidian trade and economic organization at San Lorenzo." Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2784-2798. [8]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. |
||||||
|
This is generally unknown from the archaeological record, although the abundance of exchange among polities seems to indicate marital alliances among settlement clusters.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[1]: Clark, J.E., Blake, M., 1994. "Power of prestige: competitive generosity and the emergence of rank in lowland Mesoamerica." In: Brumfiel, E.M., Fox, J.W. (Eds.), Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17-30. [2]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42. [4]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [5]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. [6]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16. [7]: Hirth, K.G., Cyphers, A., Cobean, R., De León, J., Glascock, M.D., (2013). "Early Olmec obsidian trade and economic organization at San Lorenzo." Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2784-2798. [8]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. |
||||||
|
This is generally unknown from the archaeological record, although the abundance of exchange among polities seems to indicate marital alliances among settlement clusters.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[1]: Clark, J.E., Blake, M., 1994. "Power of prestige: competitive generosity and the emergence of rank in lowland Mesoamerica." In: Brumfiel, E.M., Fox, J.W. (Eds.), Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17-30. [2]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42. [4]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [5]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. [6]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16. [7]: Hirth, K.G., Cyphers, A., Cobean, R., De León, J., Glascock, M.D., (2013). "Early Olmec obsidian trade and economic organization at San Lorenzo." Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2784-2798. [8]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. |
||||||
|
This is generally unknown from the archaeological record, although the abundance of exchange among polities seems to indicate marital alliances among settlement clusters.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[1]: Clark, J.E., Blake, M., 1994. "Power of prestige: competitive generosity and the emergence of rank in lowland Mesoamerica." In: Brumfiel, E.M., Fox, J.W. (Eds.), Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17-30. [2]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42. [4]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [5]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. [6]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16. [7]: Hirth, K.G., Cyphers, A., Cobean, R., De León, J., Glascock, M.D., (2013). "Early Olmec obsidian trade and economic organization at San Lorenzo." Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2784-2798. [8]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425. |
||||||
|
The settlement clusters of the MxFormL quasi-polity are thought to have been relatively independent and autonomous chiefdom-level polities during the Late Formative, but then gradually came under the control of neighboring Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan during the Terminal Formative c.200-1 BCE. While some have hypothesized that Cuicuilco headed some kind of Supra-polity political system during the Late Formative,
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
the characteristics of such a Supra-polity political system are unknown to archaeologists.
[1]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363. [2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [4]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. |
||||||
|
The settlement clusters of the MxFormT quasi-polity are thought to have been relatively independent and autonomous chiefdom-level polities during the Late Formative, but then gradually came under the control of neighboring Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan during the Terminal Formative c.200-1 BCE. While some have hypothesized that Cuicuilco headed some kind of Supra-polity political system during the Late Formative,
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
the characteristics of such a Supra-polity political system are unknown to archaeologists.
[1]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363. [2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105. [3]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207. [4]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
In 1663, ’New France is declared a royal colony. Eight years later [i.e. 1671], France claims title to the unexplored Illinois Country’,
[1]
although they did not enter it until 1673.
[2]
The complex French relationship to Indian societies in the American mid-continent has been discussed by Gilles Havard, who characterizes it as one of ’unequal alliance’ or ’protection’ of the Indians by the French crown, in which Indian sovereignty was generally retained.
[3]
[1]: (Warren and Walthall 1998, 5) Robert E. Warren and John A. Walthall. 1998. ’Illini Indians in the Illinois Country 1673-1832’. The Living Museum 60 (1): 4-8. [2]: (Illinois State Museum 2000) Illinois State Museum. 2000. ’The Illinois Indians: Society: Neighbors: The French’. MuseumLink Illinois. Available online at http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/soc_french.html, accessed 3 January 2017. [3]: (Havard 2013, 117) Gilles Havard. 2013. ’"Protection" and "Unequal Alliance": The French Conception of Sovereignty over Indians in New France’, in French and Indians in the Heart of North America, 1630-1815, edited by Robert Englebert and Guillaume Teasdale, 113-37. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’ANNAM. A Chinese term literally meaning “pacified south,” first ap- plied in the Six Dynasties period (third to sixth centuries CE) as part of titles given to Chinese officials in north Vietnam and to kings of Champa and Funan who declared themselves to be Chinese vassals.’
[1]
’What was tribute for the Chinese was for Southeast Asian rulers the polite exchange of gifts as a formality that went with mutually beneficial trade. The accompanying ceremonial established status hierarchy, but not vassalage in the Southeast Asian sense. It was acceptable for envoys to show proper respect to the Chinese emperor, just as Chinese envoys paid their respects to Southeast Asian kings; but with the exception of Vietnam, no ruler of a major Southeast Asian kingdom ever voyaged to Beijing to pay homage in person.’
[2]
’Both sought to maximise power through manipulation of ideologies of legitimation and world order. But what for the Chinese was the permanent order of the relation between Heaven, Earth and humankind represented by the emperor was, for Southeast Asian rulers, the temporary configuration of the ever-changing play of karma. And what for the Chinese was tribute offered in submission to the Son of Heaven was, for Southeast Asian rulers, polite recognition of superior status as a prerequisite for mutually beneficial trade.’
[3]
’The political culture of Funan and the region it dominated arose from the Indian mandala system in which concentric circles of kings who ruled a small area paid tribute to the king one step closer to the center. For much of the period of Funan’s existence the central king was the Chinese emperor, to whom most Funanese kings paid some form of tribute. After the Chinese emperor the king of Funan was second in importance in all of mainland East Asia and pre- dominant in Southeast Asia.’
[4]
[1]: (Miksic 2007, p. 26) [2]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, pp. 33-34) [3]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, p. 34) [4]: (West 2009, p. 225) |
||||||
|
’ANNAM. A Chinese term literally meaning “pacified south,” first applied in the Six Dynasties period (third to sixth centuries CE) as part of titles given to Chinese officials in north Vietnam and to kings of Champa and Funan who declared themselves to be Chinese vassals.’
[1]
’What was tribute for the Chinese was for Southeast Asian rulers the polite exchange of gifts as a formality that went with mutually beneficial trade. The accompanying ceremonial established status hierarchy, but not vassalage in the Southeast Asian sense. It was acceptable for envoys to show proper respect to the Chinese emperor, just as Chinese envoys paid their respects to Southeast Asian kings; but with the exception of Vietnam, no ruler of a major Southeast Asian kingdom ever voyaged to Beijing to pay homage in person.’
[2]
’Both sought to maximise power through manipulation of ideologies of legitimation and world order. But what for the Chinese was the permanent order of the relation between Heaven, Earth and humankind represented by the emperor was, for Southeast Asian rulers, the temporary configuration of the ever-changing play of karma. And what for the Chinese was tribute offered in submission to the Son of Heaven was, for Southeast Asian rulers, polite recognition of superior status as a prerequisite for mutually beneficial trade.’
[3]
[1]: (Miksic 2007, p. 26) [2]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, pp. 33-34) [3]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, p. 34) |
||||||
|
• Although Sūryavarman I formed alliances with Champa and China against Annam as did other leaders, these alliances were not long-standing or enshrined by inter-marriage. While tribute was at times paid to China, this too was not consistent or indicative of a subordinate relationship.
• ’George Coedes connected the Khmer request for aid to the internal politics of the Angkorian empire. In doing so, he noted the statement of the PrdsdtBen inscription, that Jayaviravarman’s"universal glory was not destroyed by the times. Although beaten, he remainedstableon the earth ..." 67). Elaborating on this statement, Coedes suggested that the gift of the "king of Kambaja"in the Puttur plates correspondedin time to a Khmer military campaign into the Chao Phrayariver valley and was SuiryavarmanI’s request for aid against his rival Jayaviravarmanand Tambralinga. Faced with a possible [...] alliance,Tambralinga turned for aid to Srivijaya. In Coedes’view, the result of this complicated diplomacy was the raid,which, as expressed in the famous Tanjore inscription of o030 was directed at Srivijaya and its ports-one of which was Tambralinga (Midimalifigam)68). Completing his argument, Coedes stated that the Ch6la expedition led to the reintroduction of Khmer influence in the isthmian region during the second quarter of the century.’ [1] [1]: (Hall 1975, p. 332) |
||||||
|
Although Sūryavarman I formed alliances with Champa and China against Annam as did other leaders, these alliances were not long-standing or enshrined by inter-marriage. While tribute was at times paid to China, this too was not consistent or indicative of a subordinate relationship.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’The differing understandings of what the tributary relationship entailed are evident in an incident in October 1592 when King Narasuan of Ayutthaya offered Siamese naval assistance to the Ming court in its struggle to contain the depredations of Japanese pirates. The offer was refused, for from the Chinese point of view it would have been demeaning, and an admission of Chinese weakness, to have accepted. In the mandala world of Southeast Asia, however, it was usual for an ally to contribute military assistance in time of war. Narasuan may have hoped for some quid pro quo in his own conflict with the Burmese, but his offer, and the Ming refusal, point to essential differences in worldview.’
[1]
[1]: (Stuart-Fox 2003, p. 34) |
||||||
|
"Vassalage" seems to be the Seshat category that most closely fits the supra-polity relations of Rattanakosin, but perhaps it is too simple a label, especially considered in comparison with the following. "Working from the outer layers inward, we encounter first a circle of semi-independent rulers who did little more than pay tribute to Bangkok on a regular basis and who often paid tribute to other states as well. [...] A second tier of states, or perhaps more properly principalities, was relatively more integrated into the Siamese system. In addition to paying tribute, they often were required to provide Siam with manpower to warfare or public works, paid relatively larger amounts in tribute, sometimes were married into the Siamese royal family, and occasionally suffered Siamese interference in their internal affairs. [...] The next layer consisted of large regional centers around Siam’s periphery, ruled by chaophraya and considered to be major, but quasi-independent, provinces. [...]" A fourth tier were small polities with hereditary rulers, who paid ’nominal’ and provided manpower when needed. "Finally, the inner core of the kingdom consisted of provinces properly speaking, ruled by officials appointed from the capital [...] and subjected to the regulation of the central government through the chief ministries of state."
[1]
[1]: (Wyatt 1984, pp. 159-160) |
||||||
|
No political/military alliance. "Ho-ling, based in central Java, was one of two fifth-century Java coastal centres with which the Chinese court interacted (Ho-lo-tan in the Tarum River basin near modern Jakarta was the other). When in the seventh century the kings of Srivijaya created their polity, they subordinated and incorporated into their realm a number of previously independent river-mouth ports on the northern and western coasts of Java, but they made no effort to include the rest of the island. In particular, they made no effort to subordinate central Java and its Kedu Plain, a unique and valuable part of the maritime realm. The relationship that developed between Srivijaya and central Java was a mutually advantageous, symbiotic linkage between a state dependent on the control of international trade and a rice-plain that remained somewhat distant from that trade."
[1]
[1]: (Tarling 1993, 203) |
||||||
|
732-800 C.E.: alliance Dharaindra (rr. 780-800) ascended to become the Maharajah of Srivijaya. The nature of the Sailendra’s close relationship with the neighbouring Srivijaya empire is complex. It seems that in earlier times, the Sailendra family was within the Srivijayan mandala (sphere of influence), and that later the Sailendra’s monarch rose to become the head of Srivijaya. It is uncertain as to whether this was due to a military campaign or close alliance.
[1]
It seems that over the course of the ninth century, however, any alliance broke down, as in 990 Medang launched a campaign against Srivijaya, leading ultimately to the downfall of Medang in 1006.
[2]
[1]: (Muljana 2006, 209) [2]: (Muljana 2006, 246) |
||||||
|
SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ’Absent’, not ’Peace group’, ’Alliances’, ’Confederation’, ’International organization’. Truk was in contact with other islands, although the specifics of these connections are not always known: ’The Trukic-speaking people of the Mortlock Islands still maintained active trading links with Puluwat, the Hall Islands, Truk, Nukuoro, and Ngatik when they were studied by Girschner (1912:181-183). They had made voyages to Ponape up to about two generations earlier, and the names of the last navigators to make them were still remembered. These atolls were the obvious conduit by which information and ideas must have come from Ponape to Truk. Ponapean influence on the Mortlocks and, by extension, on Truk is evident in the number of clan names that echo Ponapean names and titles. 24 The Mortlock Islanders also echo Ponapean practice regarding honorific titles in their use of the prefix sowu- ‘lord, master of’ for chiefly lineages, a practice that was not picked up in Truk for local chiefly lineages, but is reflected in the titles of the legendary island overlords, such as Sowuwóóniiras, Sowufa, and Sowumwáár.’
[1]
’In the light of evidence now available, then, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the cult of Kachaw was introduced into Truk via the Mortlock Islands from Ponape (see the discussion of this possibility by King and Parker [1984:254-256]). Whether its introduction was the work of Ponapeans in alliance with Mortlock Islanders or of Mortlock Islanders with Ponapean connections we cannot now say.’
[2]
We have assumed that no permanent alliances were present in what appears to be the period of regional disintegration that this sheet covers. However, oral traditions and archeological evidence indicate that the Chuuk islands experienced a higher degree of regional integration prior to the 18th century: ’I mention the foregoing in order to show that the present political and learned traditions of Truk derive from a set of older institutions, which they still echo. These institutions involved the political domination of Truk by a presumably immigrant clan whose patron god was Sowukachaw, for whom a shrine was maintained on Achaw Peak, the spiritual seat and source of supernatural power of that dominant clan. A dual system of titles, perhaps not unlike that in Ponape, may have been a feature of the organization of rank and authority, providing the basis for a subsequent division of Truk into the rival political and magico-religious leagues of immediate precolonial times. Truk and Ponape were not the only places in Micronesia to have a cult that associated kingship or high chiefship with a thunder god and basaltic stone. Mention has already been made of the sacred basaltic stones at Nan Moadol on Ponape and the association of one of them with the god of thunder. Basaltic peaks on Ponape were spirit places, and basaltic monoliths the abodes of spirits. This association of basalt with spirits appears [Page 561] even in the Marshall Islands. On Namu and Aur atolls, there were shrines with basaltic stones on them at the places of origin of the clans of paramount chiefs (Finsch 1893:396). The one on Namu, thrown into the sea by a zealous missionary, embodied a clan’s founder (Pollock 1977; Erdland 1914:345); and according to Erdland (1914:343), the totem of the high chiefly clan on Ebon was the thunder, Läköta (‘Sir Cloud’, see ļa- and kōd¸o in Abo et al. 1976). From Ngatik, near Ponape, the Bishop Museum has in its possession an old photograph of an altar. On top of it, according to a notation, is the “stone god,” from its appearance a block of basalt.’
[3]
The Spanish were present in Micronesia from the 16th century onwards, but did not govern the Chuuk islands directly: ’Micronesia has a complicated colonial history. Guam, the southernmost of the Mariana Islands, became the first inhabited Pacific island to be visited by a European when the Portuguese navigator and explorer Ferdinand Magellan landed there in 1521. The Marianas became the first European colony in Micronesia in 1668, when Spain took control of the island chain. In 1670 the indigenous Chamorro people rebelled, and a quarter century of sporadic warfare followed. That conflict, along with diseases introduced by Europeans, reduced the local population from about 100,000 to 4,000. Most of the survivors were relocated to colonial settlements, and many Chamorro women married Spanish or Filipino troops. In the process, much of Chamorro culture was destroyed, although the language continued to be widely spoken in the early 21st century. Other nations that staked colonial claims in various parts of Micronesia included Germany, Britain, the United States, Japan, and Australia.’
[4]
[1]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1986. “Sky World And This World: The Place Of Kachaw In Micronesian Cosmology”, 561 [2]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1986. “Sky World And This World: The Place Of Kachaw In Micronesian Cosmology”, 562 [3]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1986. “Sky World And This World: The Place Of Kachaw In Micronesian Cosmology”, 560p [4]: (Kahn, Fischer and Kiste 2017) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/XHZTEDKE. |
||||||
|
SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ’Absent’, not ’Peace group’, ’Alliances’, ’Confederation’, ’International organization’. The German authorities disarmed the native population and superimposed a colonial administrative structure onto the native system of chiefs and lineages: ’In 1904 the disarming of the Truk people was undertaken by the “Kondor.” There were 436 guns and 2,531 cartridges confiscated. For better control the government appointed six head-chiefs, banished some swashbucklers who did not want to submit, and turned out the Japanese. With this a peaceful development was initiated. The missions (Protestant mission since 1879, Catholic mission since 1912) were able to work undisturbed. Unfortunately, the German government took little notice of Truk, since it was too preoccupied with the other islands. Yet many things were accomplished. Under the last director of the station, A. Überhorst, the lagoon was given new impetus in every respect. The relationship between officials and the population was usually a good one, under Mr. Überhorst even a cordial one. Anyone who was on Truk in those years certainly did not see any bad treatment of the natives. Much was done also with regard to health; in particular Dr. Mayer and his wife traveled from island to island without rest in order to take care of the sick. If during the Japanese occupation a young naval officer was not ashamed to assert that the Germans had done nothing for the islands, anyone who lived on the islands during the Japanese period can only say from the heart: “God protect the poor Truk people under the Japanese.”’
[1]
The Japanese authorities introduced schooling, producing a small elite of native petty officials: ’The purpose of the schools for natives, judging from both reported policies and the Japanese school regulations was to civilize the natives and make them into loyal and economically useful citizens of the Japanese empire. While there was theoretically no limit to the higher education which the native child with sufficient ability and financial support might obtain, in actual fact only a minority of Trukese children attended the fourth and fifth grades, and only a minority of those completing fifth grade obtained further education at the vocational schools. Apparently no Trukese native obtained any academic education beyond fifth grade, except incidentally along with vocational training. The system was geared in effect to produce a supply of general laborers and domestic servants who understood the Japanese language, plus a small elite of skilled laborers and petty officials.’
[2]
[1]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 253 [2]: Fischer, John L. 1961. “Japanese Schools For The Natives Of Truk, Caroline Islands”, 84 |
||||||
|
It is very likely that the ruling Knossian elite was in contact with the powerful dynasties of mainland Greece. The relations between these political authorities is unknown.
|
||||||
|
It is very likely that the regional ruling elites were in contact with the powerful dynasties of mainland Greece during the Late Minoan IIIB period. The relation between these groups is unknown.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
e.g. Ethiopian and Arabian tribes
|
||||||
|
alliance with West Turkestan polities second half 6th century
"... Byzantine also visited West Turkestan including Sogdiana. Here too there were economic and political reasons to account for the opening of diplomatic relations with these peoples. For one thing it was imperative to safeguard the silk trade, and on the other hand there was the desire to encircle Persia in the political and military sense by means of an alliance with the Turks." [1] "... seven decades of close Byzantino-Turkic relations. The title of Caesar which survives in old Tibetan chronicles in the form of Gesar is yet another reminder in Central Asia of the days when the Byzantine Emperor bestowed on the Turkic khan the title of Caesar." [2] [1]: (Haussig 1971, 103-104) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [2]: (Haussig 1971, 104) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
alliance
with Khazars [1] with Sassanid Persia 633 CE at Firaz against Arabs. [2] Amazigh were "traditional" allies for the Byzantines. [3] [1]: (Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 2015) Institute for Medieval Research, Division of Byzantine Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Personal Communication [2]: (Uttridge and Spilling eds 2014, 180) Uttridge and Spilling eds. 2014. The Encyclopedia of Warfare. Amber Books Ltd. [3]: (Uttridge and Spilling eds 2014, 183) Uttridge and Spilling eds. 2014. The Encyclopedia of Warfare. Amber Books Ltd. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Emperors from the time of Basil II found it cheaper to call upon allies and dependents, such as Venice, to supply warships, than to pay for an expensive standing fleet at Constantinople."
[1]
From 11th CE "Byzantium had to depend more than before on its alliances with foreign peoples". [2] [1]: (Haldon 2008, 560) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2]: (Gregory 2010, 281) Gregory, Timothy E. 2010. A History of Byzantium. Wiley-Blackweel. Chichester. |
||||||
|
Alliance with Venice in 1082 CE.
[1]
Alliance: "Emperors from the time of Basil II found it cheaper to call upon allies and dependents, such as Venice, to supply warships, than to pay for an expensive standing fleet at Constantinople." [2] [1]: (Haussig 1971, Chronological Table) Haussig, H W.trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. [2]: (Haldon 2008, 560) Jeffreys E, Haldon J and Cormack R eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
"It may also be noted that there is a distinct clustering of sites in the Cachimayu area, in the northwest extreme of our survey area (Map 5.1). This cluster is made all the more notable by the fact that there are no Formative Period sites in the high watershed area between the Cachimayu area and the Cuzco Basin. These sites most likely represent a small village cluster that paid allegiance to the elites of Cuzco or a similar chiefly society developing in or near the Plain of Anta, further to the west."
[1]
Bauer also refers to the existence of "important villages near the modern towns of Yaurisque and Paruro", in the Cusichaca area, in Chit’apampa and the Cuyo Basin, and a chiefdom in the Lucre Basin.
[2]
"Since periods of chiefdom developmment are frequently marked by conflict as many roughly equal polities compete for dominance, it is possible that additional research in the Cuzco region will not only help us to better define the political divisions of the area, but will also bring forth evidence of conflict and alliance formations between the many different chiefly centers."
[2]
[1]: (Bauer 2004, 45) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 46) |
||||||
|
Bauer, when describing the 200-600 CE period: "When the Wari entered the Cuzco region they encountered thriving local societies. [...] numerous chiefdoms had developed across the region. The largest and most powerful of these were located in the areas of greatest agricultural production, including the Plain of Anta, the Cuzco Basin, the Lucre Basin and the Huaro Basin. Elsewhere, smaller chiefdoms also developed. Depending on their locations, these were most likely in a constant state of conflict or alliance formation with the large polities of the region."
[1]
[1]: (Bauer 2004, 54) |
||||||
|
"When the Wari entered the Cuzco region they encountered thriving local societies. ... numerous chiefdoms had developed across the region. The largest and most powerful of these were located in the areas of greatest agricultural production, including the Plain of Anta, the Cuzco Basin, the Lucre Basin and the Huaro Basin. Elsewhere, smaller chiefdoms also developed. Depending on their locations, these were most likely in a constant state of conflict or alliance formation with the large polities of the region."
[1]
[1]: (Bauer 2004, 54) |
||||||
|
"As the Wari entered the Cuzco region, they would have attempted to form coalitions with certain members of the local elite families, and then, over time tried to extend their direct administrative control over the region and its populace."
[1]
"In spite of Cajamarca’s great distance from the Wari capital, it seems to have been one of Wari’s strongest associates, hopping along wherever the Wari went."
[2]
[1]: (Bauer 2004, 67) [2]: (Castillo Butters in Bergh 2012, 59) |
||||||
|
"The developing Inca polity is likely to have had direct control over, or close alliances with, some groups outside the Cuzco Valley even before it was completely consolidated."
[1]
"Inca alliances with a limited number of neighboring groups depended on the personal interactions of elite individuals who acted on behalf of small groups like the people of Huaro, as well as larger ethnic confederations like the Ayarmacas."
[2]
"The Pinagua-Moyna polity seems to have been the most powerful in the region before the reign of Inca Viracocha. These two groups jointly occupied the Lucre Basin and were likely the two moieties of a combined political unit. [...] Together with the Pinagua-Moyna alliance, the important settlements of Andahuaylillas, Huaro, and Urcos probably formed a powerful confederate mini-state, which was long able to prevent the Inca extension toward the east and Collao (Titicaca) region. It is noteworthy that these sites all contain the archaeological remains of major Wari occupations. This mini-state is very likely a fragment of the old Wari imperial structure." [3] [1]: (Bauer 2004, 88) [2]: (Covey 2006, 110) [3]: (Hiltunen and McEwan 2004, 246) |
||||||
|
Some alliances maintained by the Killke.
[1]
"The developing Inca polity is likely to have had direct control over, or close alliances with, some groups outside the Cuzco Valley even before it was completely consolidated." [2] "alliance and hegemonic control were extended beyond the heartland region prior to the full implementation of direct control." [2] Alliances with following groups (often preceded by warfare and ended with a marriage exchange): [3] Anta (west) Ayarmaca (north west) Huayllacan (north) The Lucre polity also had alliances: "The Pinagua-Moyna polity seems to have been the most powerful in the region before the reign of Inca Viracocha. These two groups jointly occupied the Lucre Basin and were likely the two moieties of a combined political unit. [...] Together with the Pinagua-Moyna alliance, the important settlements of Andahuaylillas, Huaro, and Urcos probably formed a powerful confederate mini-state, which was long able to prevent the Inca extension toward the east and Collao (Titicaca) region. It is noteworthy that these sites all contain the archaeological remains of major Wari occupations. This mini-state is very likely a fragment of the old Wari imperial structure." [4] Possible alliance with other polities based at Tipón, Minaspata and Cotocotuyoc. [5] [1]: (Covey 2006a, 137) [2]: (Bauer 2004, 88) [3]: (Bauer 2004, 89) [4]: (Hiltunen and McEwan 2004, 246) [5]: (Covey 2006a, 103) |
||||||
|
"Not all groups were reduced to subordination during the initial territorial expansion. Some alliances were maintained, while hostile groups were attacked and raided periodically for decades before being conquered."
[1]
"During the 14th century, the Inka state annexed new territory through increasingly protracted military campaigns. Local resistance or rebellions led to the territorial consolidation of the increasingly large parts of the Inka heartland, while long distance diplomatic contacts became more sustained and formalized." [1] [1]: (Covey 2003, 353) |
||||||
|
"Not all groups were reduced to subordination during the initial territorial expansion. Some alliances were maintained, while hostile groups were attacked and raided periodically for decades before being conquered."
[1]
"During the 14th century, the Inka state annexed new territory through increasingly protracted military campaigns. Local resistance or rebellions led to the territorial consolidation of the increasingly large parts of the Inka heartland, while long distance diplomatic contacts became more sustained and formalized." [1] [1]: (Covey 2003, 353) |
||||||
|
Charles I (Charles V) held the Archduchy of Austria from 1519 to 1521 before he abdicated as Duke of Austria in favour of his brother, Ferdinand I, who had also been made King of the Romans in 1531. Ferdinand continued to rule in his name as Imperial Lieutenant until Charles I’s abdication in 1556.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[1]: Martyn C. Rady, The Emperor Charles V, Seminar studies in history (London ; New York: Longman, 1988). Zotero link: Y6MXWNC7 [2]: Fichtner, Paula. 2017. The Habsburg Monarchy, 1490-1848: Attributes of Empire. Macmillan International Higher Education. 116, 123, 124–5, 130. [3]: Whaley, Joachim. 2018. "The early modern empire (1): from Maximilian I to the Thirty Years Wars" in The Holy Roman Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Independent polity.
|
||||||
|
Alliance
"The Vakatakas and Guptas were closely related, with the Vakatakas being arguably the most important partner kingdom of the Gupta dynasty." [1] "Vakataka dynasty which flourished at the same time as its mightier neighbour, the Empire of the Guptas - first precariously in their shadow, but later in an alliance with them which was sealed by the marriage of the Vakataka king Rudrasena II to a daughter of Chandra Gupta II Vikramaditya (cc 380-415)." [2] "It is stated by H. Kulke (quoted in Kapur 2006: 35) that ‘the matrimonial alliance with Guptas raised the status of eastern Vakatakas and initiated three important innovations: land donations to Brahmanas (individual or community); foundation of state sanctuary (Ramgiri); and copper-plate donations to legitimate and strengthen their rule.’" [3] [1]: Lacey, Harriet. Department of Archaeology. Durham University. https://www.dur.ac.uk/research/directory/staff/?mode=staff&id=10069 [2]: Karel, Werner. 1998. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. 8. pp 459-461. The Vakaṭakas. An Essay in Hindu Iconology. By Hans T. Bakker. (Gonda Indological Studies, Vol V). 1997. pp. xiv, 211. Pl. xlvii. [3]: (Sawant 2009) Reshma Sawant. 2008. ‘State Formation Process In The Vidarbha During The Vakataka Period’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 68-69: 137-162.< |
||||||
|
Independent polity.
|
||||||
|
Independent polity.
|
||||||
|
Independent polity.
|
||||||
|
Independent polity.
|
||||||
|
nominal allegiance: 1078-1191CE; none: 1191-1310CE; allegiance: 1310-1346CE As Derrett notes, Vinayadithya was obliged to acknowledge Chalukya supremacy by 1078 and became a feudatory
[1]
. While Vishnuvardhana’s (r. 1108-1152) incessant attempts to overthrow the yoke of Chalukya suzerainty proved a failure, he raised his territory to the dignity of a kingdom
[2]
. Ballala’s time (r.1173-1120) saw the achievement of independence from Chalukyas
[3]
as their rule fell in 1191
[4]
. In 1310, the Hoysala ruler submitted to the Delhi Sultan’s army, and the following decades were a struggle of resistance against the Delhi Sultans and the allegiance they had forced on Hoysala
[5]
[6]
.
[1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 32 [2]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 130-2 [3]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 132-4 [4]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 96 [5]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 136 [6]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 122-3 |
||||||
|
nominal allegiance: 1078-1191CE; none: 1191-1310CE; allegiance: 1310-1346CE As Derrett notes, Vinayadithya was obliged to acknowledge Chalukya supremacy by 1078 and became a feudatory
[1]
. While Vishnuvardhana’s (r. 1108-1152) incessant attempts to overthrow the yoke of Chalukya suzerainty proved a failure, he raised his territory to the dignity of a kingdom
[2]
. Ballala’s time (r.1173-1120) saw the achievement of independence from Chalukyas
[3]
as their rule fell in 1191
[4]
. In 1310, the Hoysala ruler submitted to the Delhi Sultan’s army, and the following decades were a struggle of resistance against the Delhi Sultans and the allegiance they had forced on Hoysala
[5]
[6]
.
[1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 32 [2]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 130-2 [3]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 132-4 [4]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 96 [5]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 136 [6]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 122-3 |
||||||
|
Probably alliance with Yadavas/Hoysalas at times and with other Hindu kingdoms versus Sultanate of Delhi.
|
||||||
|
Independent polity.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Iroquois sought to expand their sphere of influence and to gain tributary nations rather than being themselves part of a larger entity: ’Between the Hudson and lake Erie, our broad territory was occupied by the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee, or Iroquois, scattered far and wide, in small encampments, or in disconnected villages. Their council-fires, emblematical of civil jurisdiction, burned continuously from the Hudson to Niagara. At the era of Dutch discovery (1609), they had pushed their permanent possession as far west as the Genesee; and shortly after, about 1650, they extended it to the Niagara. They then occupied the entire territory of our State west of the Hudson, with the exception of certain tracts upon that river below the junction of the Mohawk, in the possession of the River Indians, and the country of the Delawares, upon the Delaware river. But both these had been subdued by the conquering Iroquois, and had become tributary nations.’
[1]
The Iroquois supported the British against the French during Queen Anne’s war: ’During Queen Anne’s War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War’s end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.’
[2]
The Iroquois regularly interacted with European colonists and other native polities through the fur trade, but were not made British subjects until the end of Queen Anne’s war: ’The Iroquoian confederacy was organized sometime between 1400 and A.D. 1600 for the purpose of maintaining peaceful relations between the 5 constituent tribes. Subsequent to European contact relations within the confederacy were sometimes strained as each of the 5 tribes sought to expand and maintain its own interests in the developing fur trade. For the most part, however, the fur trade served to strengthen the confederacy because tribal interests often complemented one another and all gained from acting in concert. The League was skillful at playing French and English interests off against one another to its advantage and thereby was able to play a major role in the economic and political events of northeastern North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Iroquois aggressively maintained and expanded their role in the fur trade and as a result periodically found themselves at war with their neighbors, such as the Huron, Petun, and the Neutral to the West and the Susquehannock to the south. Much of the fighting was done by the Seneca, the most powerful of the Iroquoian tribes. From 1667 to the 1680s the Iroquois maintained friendly relations with the French and during this time Jesuit missions were established among each of the 5 tribes. However, Iroquois aggression and expansion eventually brought them into conflict with the French and, at the same time, into closer alliance with the English. In 1687, 1693 and 1696 French military expeditions raided and burned Iroquois villages and fields. During Queen Anne’s War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War’s end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.’
[2]
[1]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 36 [2]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois |
||||||
|
The Iroquois sought to expand their sphere of influence and to gain tributary nations rather than being themselves part of a larger entity: ’Between the Hudson and lake Erie, our broad territory was occupied by the Ho-de[unknown] -no-sau-nee, or Iroquois, scattered far and wide, in small encampments, or in disconnected villages. Their council-fires, emblematical of civil jurisdiction, burned continuously from the Hudson to Niagara. At the era of Dutch discovery (1609), they had pushed their permanent possession as far west as the Genesee; and shortly after, about 1650, they extended it to the Niagara. They then occupied the entire territory of our State west of the Hudson, with the exception of certain tracts upon that river below the junction of the Mohawk, in the possession of the River Indians, and the country of the Delawares, upon the Delaware river. But both these had been subdued by the conquering Iroquois, and had become tributary nations.’
[1]
The Iroquois supported the British against the French during Queen Anne’s war: ’During Queen Anne’s War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War’s end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.’
[2]
The Iroquois regularly interacted with European colonists and other native polities through the fur trade, but were not made British subjects until the end of Queen Anne’s war: ’The Iroquoian confederacy was organized sometime between 1400 and A.D. 1600 for the purpose of maintaining peaceful relations between the 5 constituent tribes. Subsequent to European contact relations within the confederacy were sometimes strained as each of the 5 tribes sought to expand and maintain its own interests in the developing fur trade. For the most part, however, the fur trade served to strengthen the confederacy because tribal interests often complemented one another and all gained from acting in concert. The League was skillful at playing French and English interests off against one another to its advantage and thereby was able to play a major role in the economic and political events of northeastern North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Iroquois aggressively maintained and expanded their role in the fur trade and as a result periodically found themselves at war with their neighbors, such as the Huron, Petun, and the Neutral to the West and the Susquehannock to the south. Much of the fighting was done by the Seneca, the most powerful of the Iroquoian tribes. From 1667 to the 1680s the Iroquois maintained friendly relations with the French and during this time Jesuit missions were established among each of the 5 tribes. However, Iroquois aggression and expansion eventually brought them into conflict with the French and, at the same time, into closer alliance with the English. In 1687, 1693 and 1696 French military expeditions raided and burned Iroquois villages and fields. During Queen Anne’s War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War’s end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.’
[2]
[1]: Morgan, Lewis Henry, and Herbert M. Lloyd 1901. “League Of The Ho-De’-No-Sau-Nee Or Iroquois. Vol. I”, 36 [2]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois |
||||||
|
The Iroquois were initially allies of the British: ’During Queen Anne’s War (1702-1713) the Iroquois allied with the English and at the War’s end were acknowledged to be British subjects, though they continued to aggressively maintain and extend their middleman role between English traders at Fort Orange (Albany) and native groups farther west.’
[1]
This nominal allegiance faltered during the American revolution: ’For a century and a quarter before the American Revolution, the Iroquois stood athwart the path from Albany to the Great Lakes, keeping the route from permanent settlement by the French and containing the Dutch and the English. In the 18th century the Six Nations remained consistent and bitter enemies of the French, who were allied with their traditional foes. The Iroquois became dependent on the British in Albany for European goods (which were cheaper there than in Montreal), and thus Albany was never attacked. The Iroquois’ success in maintaining their autonomy vis-à-vis both the French and English was a remarkable achievement for an aboriginal people that could field only 2,200 men from a total population of scarcely 12,000. During the American Revolution, a schism developed among the Iroquois. The Oneida and Tuscarora espoused the American cause, while the rest of the league, led by Chief Joseph Brant’s Mohawk loyalists, fought for the British out of Niagara, decimating several isolated American settlements. The fields, orchards, and granaries, as well as the morale of the Iroquois, were destroyed in 1779 when U.S. Major General John Sullivan led a retaliatory expedition of 4,000 Americans against them, defeating them near present-day Elmira, New York. Having acknowledged defeat in the Second Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784), the Iroquois Confederacy effectively came to an end. In a treaty that was made at Canandaigua, New York, 10 years later, the Iroquois and the United States each pledged not to disturb the other in lands that had been relinquished or reserved. Of the Six Nations, the Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora remained in New York, eventually settling on reservations; the Mohawk and Cayuga withdrew to Canada; and, a generation later, a large group of the Oneida departed for Wisconsin.’
[2]
Once settled on reservations, the Iroquois were increasingly subject to paternalistic legislation by federal American authorities and experienced significant political transformations: ’In 1848 Senecas living on the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations petitioned the federal government to change the method of distributing their annuities. In the pastthey had been distributed through the chiefs who took aportion for government purposes; by the new method they were to be distributed directly to heads of families.The chiefs opposed this move, and the dispute opened old wounds.’
[3]
’On December 4, 1848, a convention held on Cattaraugus abolished government by chiefs on Allegany and Cattaraugus. The convention adopted a written constitution that instituted an annually elected council of 18 members and an executive consisting of president, clerk,and treasurer. It retained the judicial offices of peacemakers, which had been established under the chief’s government(Society of Friends 1857).’
[3]
’The Tonawanda Senecas had refused to participate inthe Revolution of 1848 that changed the form of government on the Cattaraugus and Allegany reservations from governance by hereditary chiefs to an elected council as that would have weakened their argument that the 1842 compromise treaty was not binding on them becausetheir chiefs had not signed it. Thus they retained their council of hereditary chiefs. After their fight to retain their reservation had been won, they changed their formof governance to provide for the election of three peacemakers (from the chiefs), a clerk, a treasurer, and a marshall by the adult men at an annual election. But they retained the council of chiefs as their governing body.’
[4]
[1]: Reid, Gerald: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iroquois [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Iroquois-Confederacy [3]: Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 511 [4]: Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978. “Seneca”, 512 |
||||||
|
1550 BCE is the approximate point at which Thutmose I expelled the Hyksos from the Nile Delta, following which the Egyptians invaded Canaan and imposed tribute. For the next several decades, Egyptian control was relatively light, and sometime around 1470 BCE (plus or minus a decade) several Canaanite cities joined a confederation led by Durusha, king of Kadesh, in rebellion against Egypt. Thutmose III then invaded Canaan, leading to the Battle of Megiddo in which the Egyptians won decisively. Following their victory, Egyptian rule become much more involved and oppressive; military garrisons and administrative centers were built across Canaan, and heavy tribute was exacted. (However, Egyptian control was not uniform across Canaan, for example: "At the start of the Late Bronze Age (LB IA), Jaffa remained beyond the reach of the ad hoc campaigns of early 18th-Dynasty pharaohs, which appear to have been concentrated in the coastal plain to the south of Jaffa, with occasional raids made into the northern Levant from the Syrian coast. Jaffa’s first historical mention, as Yapu, occurs among a list of towns that were conquered in connection with the first campaign of Thutmose III…"
[1]
) Egyptian control periodically stimulated violent Canaanite resistance, sometimes to the extent of destroying whole Egyptian settlements (as with the 12th-century destruction of Jaffa).
[2]
This continued until the fall of Bronze Age Canaan.
[1]: Burke et al. (2017:90). [2]: Burke et al. (2017). |
||||||
|
1550 BCE is the approximate point at which Thutmose I expelled the Hyksos from the Nile Delta, following which the Egyptians invaded Canaan and imposed tribute. For the next several decades, Egyptian control was relatively light, and sometime around 1470 BCE (plus or minus a decade) several Canaanite cities joined a confederation led by Durusha, king of Kadesh, in rebellion against Egypt. Thutmose III then invaded Canaan, leading to the Battle of Megiddo in which the Egyptians won decisively. Following their victory, Egyptian rule become much more involved and oppressive; military garrisons and administrative centers were built across Canaan, and heavy tribute was exacted. (However, Egyptian control was not uniform across Canaan, for example: "At the start of the Late Bronze Age (LB IA), Jaffa remained beyond the reach of the ad hoc campaigns of early 18th-Dynasty pharaohs, which appear to have been concentrated in the coastal plain to the south of Jaffa, with occasional raids made into the northern Levant from the Syrian coast. Jaffa’s first historical mention, as Yapu, occurs among a list of towns that were conquered in connection with the first campaign of Thutmose III…"
[1]
) Egyptian control periodically stimulated violent Canaanite resistance, sometimes to the extent of destroying whole Egyptian settlements (as with the 12th-century destruction of Jaffa).
[2]
This continued until the fall of Bronze Age Canaan.
[1]: Burke et al. (2017:90). [2]: Burke et al. (2017). |
||||||
|
1550 BCE is the approximate point at which Thutmose I expelled the Hyksos from the Nile Delta, following which the Egyptians invaded Canaan and imposed tribute. For the next several decades, Egyptian control was relatively light, and sometime around 1470 BCE (plus or minus a decade) several Canaanite cities joined a confederation led by Durusha, king of Kadesh, in rebellion against Egypt. Thutmose III then invaded Canaan, leading to the Battle of Megiddo in which the Egyptians won decisively. Following their victory, Egyptian rule become much more involved and oppressive; military garrisons and administrative centers were built across Canaan, and heavy tribute was exacted. (However, Egyptian control was not uniform across Canaan, for example: "At the start of the Late Bronze Age (LB IA), Jaffa remained beyond the reach of the ad hoc campaigns of early 18th-Dynasty pharaohs, which appear to have been concentrated in the coastal plain to the south of Jaffa, with occasional raids made into the northern Levant from the Syrian coast. Jaffa’s first historical mention, as Yapu, occurs among a list of towns that were conquered in connection with the first campaign of Thutmose III…"
[1]
) Egyptian control periodically stimulated violent Canaanite resistance, sometimes to the extent of destroying whole Egyptian settlements (as with the 12th-century destruction of Jaffa).
[2]
This continued until the fall of Bronze Age Canaan.
[1]: Burke et al. (2017:90). [2]: Burke et al. (2017). |
||||||
|
1550 BCE is the approximate point at which Thutmose I expelled the Hyksos from the Nile Delta, following which the Egyptians invaded Canaan and imposed tribute. For the next several decades, Egyptian control was relatively light, and sometime around 1470 BCE (plus or minus a decade) several Canaanite cities joined a confederation led by Durusha, king of Kadesh, in rebellion against Egypt. Thutmose III then invaded Canaan, leading to the Battle of Megiddo in which the Egyptians won decisively. Following their victory, Egyptian rule become much more involved and oppressive; military garrisons and administrative centers were built across Canaan, and heavy tribute was exacted. (However, Egyptian control was not uniform across Canaan, for example: "At the start of the Late Bronze Age (LB IA), Jaffa remained beyond the reach of the ad hoc campaigns of early 18th-Dynasty pharaohs, which appear to have been concentrated in the coastal plain to the south of Jaffa, with occasional raids made into the northern Levant from the Syrian coast. Jaffa’s first historical mention, as Yapu, occurs among a list of towns that were conquered in connection with the first campaign of Thutmose III…"
[1]
) Egyptian control periodically stimulated violent Canaanite resistance, sometimes to the extent of destroying whole Egyptian settlements (as with the 12th-century destruction of Jaffa).
[2]
This continued until the fall of Bronze Age Canaan.
[1]: Burke et al. (2017:90). [2]: Burke et al. (2017). |
||||||
|
The timeline here largely follows Kelle (2007:21-23). During the initial period, Israel is presumed to have been joined to the Davidic monarchy (or a regime with the same practical effect), which is taken to be a personal union between Israel and Judah.
[1]
Circa 930 BCE, the Northern Kingdom splits off and develops into a separate regime; during the time of Omri and Ahab, Israel dominates its immediate neighbors and participates in an anti-Assyria regional coalition. Circa 841 BCE, Jehu seizes the throne and pays tribute to Assyria. For the next century, Israel is in a constant state of vassalage to either Assyria or Aram, as their respective political fortunes wax and wane. Finally, in 727 BCE, Israel joins in a regional rebellion against Assyria that ends with its dissolution as a polity.
[1]: Flanagan (1981) |
||||||
|
The timeline here largely follows Kelle (2007:21-23). During the initial period, Israel is presumed to have been joined to the Davidic monarchy (or a regime with the same practical effect), which is taken to be a personal union between Israel and Judah.
[1]
Circa 930 BCE, the Northern Kingdom splits off and develops into a separate regime; during the time of Omri and Ahab, Israel dominates its immediate neighbors and participates in an anti-Assyria regional coalition. Circa 841 BCE, Jehu seizes the throne and pays tribute to Assyria. For the next century, Israel is in a constant state of vassalage to either Assyria or Aram, as their respective political fortunes wax and wane. Finally, in 727 BCE, Israel joins in a regional rebellion against Assyria that ends with its dissolution as a polity.
[1]: Flanagan (1981) |
||||||
|
The timeline here largely follows Kelle (2007:21-23). During the initial period, Israel is presumed to have been joined to the Davidic monarchy (or a regime with the same practical effect), which is taken to be a personal union between Israel and Judah.
[1]
Circa 930 BCE, the Northern Kingdom splits off and develops into a separate regime; during the time of Omri and Ahab, Israel dominates its immediate neighbors and participates in an anti-Assyria regional coalition. Circa 841 BCE, Jehu seizes the throne and pays tribute to Assyria. For the next century, Israel is in a constant state of vassalage to either Assyria or Aram, as their respective political fortunes wax and wane. Finally, in 727 BCE, Israel joins in a regional rebellion against Assyria that ends with its dissolution as a polity.
[1]: Flanagan (1981) |
||||||
|
The timeline here largely follows Kelle (2007:21-23). During the initial period, Israel is presumed to have been joined to the Davidic monarchy (or a regime with the same practical effect), which is taken to be a personal union between Israel and Judah.
[1]
Circa 930 BCE, the Northern Kingdom splits off and develops into a separate regime; during the time of Omri and Ahab, Israel dominates its immediate neighbors and participates in an anti-Assyria regional coalition. Circa 841 BCE, Jehu seizes the throne and pays tribute to Assyria. For the next century, Israel is in a constant state of vassalage to either Assyria or Aram, as their respective political fortunes wax and wane. Finally, in 727 BCE, Israel joins in a regional rebellion against Assyria that ends with its dissolution as a polity.
[1]: Flanagan (1981) |
||||||
|
The timeline here largely follows Kelle (2007:21-23). During the initial period, Israel is presumed to have been joined to the Davidic monarchy (or a regime with the same practical effect), which is taken to be a personal union between Israel and Judah.
[1]
Circa 930 BCE, the Northern Kingdom splits off and develops into a separate regime; during the time of Omri and Ahab, Israel dominates its immediate neighbors and participates in an anti-Assyria regional coalition. Circa 841 BCE, Jehu seizes the throne and pays tribute to Assyria. For the next century, Israel is in a constant state of vassalage to either Assyria or Aram, as their respective political fortunes wax and wane. Finally, in 727 BCE, Israel joins in a regional rebellion against Assyria that ends with its dissolution as a polity.
[1]: Flanagan (1981) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
While Judea was technically a vassalage of the Seleucids in the earlier period, Jonathan and Simon assiduously played both sides of the Seleucid succession struggles against the middle, at times winning considerable practical autonomy. Circa 116 or 115 BCE, John Hyrcanus I broke away from the crippled Seleucid Empire and followed an independent policy, which lasted until his feuding descendants invited Pompey in.
|
||||||
|
While Judea was technically a vassalage of the Seleucids in the earlier period, Jonathan and Simon assiduously played both sides of the Seleucid succession struggles against the middle, at times winning considerable practical autonomy. Circa 116 or 115 BCE, John Hyrcanus I broke away from the crippled Seleucid Empire and followed an independent policy, which lasted until his feuding descendants invited Pompey in.
|
||||||
|
While Judea was technically a vassalage of the Seleucids in the earlier period, Jonathan and Simon assiduously played both sides of the Seleucid succession struggles against the middle, at times winning considerable practical autonomy. Circa 116 or 115 BCE, John Hyrcanus I broke away from the crippled Seleucid Empire and followed an independent policy, which lasted until his feuding descendants invited Pompey in.
|
||||||
|
The potential role of Zamindars remains to be confirmed. ’Zamindar, in India, a holder or occupier (dār) of land (zamīn). The root words are Persian, and the resulting name was widely used wherever Persian influence was spread by the Mughals or other Indian Muslim dynasties. The meanings attached to it were various. In Bengal the word denoted a hereditary tax collector who could retain 10 percent of the revenue he collected. In the late 18th century the British government made these zamindars landowners, thus creating a landed aristocracy in Bengal and Bihar that lasted until Indian independence (1947). In parts of north India (e.g., Uttar Pradesh), a zamindar denoted a large landowner with full proprietary rights. More generally in north India, zamindar denoted the cultivator of the soil or joint proprietors holding village lands in common as joint heirs. In Maratha territories the name was generally applied to all local hereditary revenue officers.’
[1]
Zamindars located in Assam led expeditions into the Garo Hills and subjugated parts of them: ‘There remains no record of when the Garos migrated and settled in their present habitat. Their traditional lore as recorded by Major Playfair points out that they migrated to the area from Tibet. There is evidence that the area was inhabited by the stone-using peoples-Palaeolithic and Neolithic groups-in the past. After settling in the hills, Garos initially had no close and constant contact with the inhabitants of the adjoining plains. In 1775-76 the Zamindars of Mechpara and Karaibari (at present in the Goalpara and Dhubri districts of Assam) led expeditions onto the Garo hills.’
[2]
‘In pre-British days the areas adjacent to the present habitat of the Garo were under the Zeminders of Karaibari, Kalumalupara, Habraghat, Mechpara and Sherpore. Garos of the adjoining areas had to struggle constantly with these Zeminders. Whenever the employees of the Zeminders tried to collect taxes or to oppress the Garo in some way or other, they retaliated by coming down to the plains and murdering ryots of the Zeminders. In 1775-76 the Zeminders of Mechpara and Karaibari led expeditions to the hills near about their Zeminderies and subjugated a portion of what is at present the Garo Hills district. The Zeminder of Karaibari appointed Rengtha or Pagla, a Garo as his subordinate.’
[3]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/zamindar [2]: Roy, Sankar Kumar: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Garo [3]: Majumdar, Dhirendra Narayan 1978. “Culture Change In Two Garo Villages”, 29 |
||||||
|
SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ’International organization’, not ’Absent’, ’Peace group’, ’Alliances’, or ’Confederation’. During the 19th century, the Indian subcontinent was subject to increasing colonial influence, ‘a process that culminated in the decline of the ruling Muslim elite and absorption of the subcontinent within the British Empire. Direct administration by the British, which began in 1858, effected a political and economic unification of the subcontinent. When British rule came to an end in 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned along religious lines into two separate countries-India, with a majority of Hindus, and Pakistan, with a majority of Muslims; the eastern portion of Pakistan later split off to form Bangladesh. Many British institutions stayed in place (such as the parliamentary system of government)’
[1]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/India |
||||||
|
During the colonial period, multiple Akan states established commercial relations with Portuguese, Dutch, and later British traders: ’A revolution in Ghanaian history was initiated by the establishment of direct sea trade with Europe following the arrival on the coast of Portuguese mariners in 1471. Initially Europe’s main interest in the country was as a source of gold, a commodity that was readily available on the coast in exchange for such European exports as cloth, hardware, beads, metals, spirits, arms, and ammunition. This gave rise to the name Gold Coast, by which the country was known until 1957. In an attempt to preserve a monopoly of the trade, the Portuguese initiated the practice of erecting stone fortresses (Elmina Castle, dating from 1482, was the first) on the coast on sites leased from the native states. In the 17th century the Portuguese monopoly, already considerably eroded, gave way completely when traders from the Netherlands, England, Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia-Protestant sea powers antagonistic to Iberian imperial pretensions-discovered that the commercial relations developed with the Gold Coast states could be adapted to the export of slaves, then in rapidly increasing demand for the American plantations, as well as to gold trading. By the mid-18th century the coastal scene was dominated by the presence of about 40 forts controlled by Dutch, British, or Danish merchants. The presence of these permanent European bases on the coast had far-reaching consequences. The new centres of trade thus established were much more accessible than were the Sudanese emporia, and this, coupled with the greater capacity and efficiency of the sea-borne trade compared with the ancient overland routes, gradually brought about the reversal of the direction of the trade flow. The new wealth, tools and arms, and techniques and ideas introduced through close contact with Europeans initiated political and social as well as economic changes. The states north of the forest, hitherto the wealthiest and most powerful, declined in the face of new combinations farther south. At the end of the 17th century, the Akan state of Akwamu created an empire that, stretching from the central Gold Coast eastward to Dahomey, sought to control the trade roads to the coast of the whole eastern Gold Coast. The Akwamu empire was short-lived, but its example soon stimulated a union of the Asante (Ashanti) states of the central forest (see Asante empire), under the leadership of the founding Asantehene (king) Osei Tutu. The Asante union, after establishing its dominance over other neighbouring Akan states, expanded north of the forest to conquer Bono, Banda, Gonja, and Dagomba.’
[1]
’The Portuguese first arrived in 1471 and later built a trading post at Elmina in 1486. Drawn by the trading activity on the coast, descendants of the defunct Bonda and Kumbu kingdoms settled along the north-south trade routes connecting the coast to the Niger bend region. The Queen mother of the Bonda founded the Akyerekyere kingdom along one trade route, which became a clearinghouse for goods from the coast. A prince of the former Kumbu royal house founded the Akumu-Akoto kingdom on another trade route. The Portuguese referred to this latter kingdom as the ’Acanes,’ hence the name Akan. Emigrants from Akumu-Akoto founded a second city-state to the east, called Akwamu. Emigrants from Akwamu in turn founded the Asantemanso kingdom in the Kumasi region. Mande-speaking immigrants conquered the Akyerekyere kingdom and later the Asantemanso kingdom to become the dominant power in the region, the Denkyira. In 1701, the Asantemanso under the leadership of Osei Tutu (d. 1717) rebelled and defeated the Denkyira.’
[2]
The European presence was economic in orientation: ’The sole reason for the presence of Europeans in West Africa was, and is even now, principally trade, and for the purposes of trade only were forts built and settlements founded, and the power and jurisdiction of the local rulers subsequently undermined. The trade consisted mostly in barter and or exchange, nor was the sale of slaves inconsiderable.’
[3]
European traders established agreements with local rulers, but these should not be characterized as political-military alliances: ’Pursuing the same object, they claimed tribute on the takings of the fishermen at Axim, Elmina, and Mowre, who were forbidden under severe penalties from holding any communication whatever and from trading with any other Europeans. Moreover, they attempted to exercise in these coast towns jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters, and assumed the power of life and death. In spite, however, of these oppressive measures, they were compelled to, and did pay, every year to the local rulers and their people, the rents for their forts and other establishments; nor could they wholly deter the people from trading or otherwise dealing with other European traders, against whom the Dutch now took extreme measures as enemies and interlopers.’
[4]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ghana/Daily-life-and-social-customs#toc76828 [2]: HRAF Cultural Summary for ’Akan’ Michelle Gilbert, Robert O. Lagacé, and Ian Skoggard [3]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. "Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Stody Of The Rise of British Gold Coast Juristiction, Etc., Etc., 74 [4]: Sarbah, John Mensah 1968. “Fanti National Constitution: A Short Treatise On The Constitution And Government Of The Fanti, Asanti, And Other Akan Tribes Of West Africa Together With A Brief Account Of The Discovery Of The Gold Coast By Portuguese Navigators, A Short Narration Of Early English Voyages, And A Study Of The Rise Of British Gold Coast Jurisdiction, Etc., Etc.”, 72 |
||||||
|
’Although ethnically and culturally closely related, the Akan have never had a common polity, and they may be roughly divided into the Brong, Akyem, Akuapim, Kwawu, Assen-Twifo, Wasa, Fante-Agona, Nzima-Evalue, Ahanta and Ashanti, each group speaking a distinct dialect.’
[1]
’Greater Asante’ was a conglomerate made up of sub-polities paying allegiance to Kumasi and tributary states: ’First, there was the Kumasi state, administered like any other Asante state by the Asantehene and his council members. Second, Kumasi, together with the neighbouring Asante-Twi-speaking states, formed the Asante Union, with a council consisting of the Asantehene, some members of the Kumasi state council, and the heads of the other Asante states. Third, there were the “provinces,” consisting of the other Twi-speaking peoples north and south of Asante. Fourth, there were the non-Twi-speaking protectorate and tributary states southeast and north of the Twi-speaking peoples.’
[2]
This structure did not depend on alliances with external forces. SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ’Absent’, not ’Peace group’, ’Alliances’, ’Confederation’, or ’International organization’.
[1]: Sarpong, Peter 1977. “Girls’ Nubility Rites In Ashanti”, 1 [2]: Arhin, Kwame 1983. “Peasants In 19Th-Century Asante”, 474 |
||||||
|
unknown/ none/ alliance/ nominal allegiance/ personal union/ vassalage Icelanders maintained vital commercial connections with Europeans and Scandinavians: ’The early Icelanders maintained commercial contacts with Europe and obtained goods from Scandinavia, England, the Norse Orkneys, and the Netherlands. The majority of trade, however, was with Norway, both for Norwegian goods and for foreign goods obtained by Norwegian merchants. The limited resources, especially in terms of raw materials for manufactured goods, made Iceland highly dependent on imported goods. Even before the decline and cessation of grain production in Iceland it is unlikely that Iceland ever produced enough cereals to meet its own needs. Of special significance in a feasting economy, grain and malt were essential to ale production. After Christianization imported wine also become essential for the celebration of communion. Many higher quality iron products, for example weapons and armor, could not be produced from local sources and were imported, mostly in finished forms. Other metals - brass, tin, lead, gold, silver, and bronze - were unavailable locally as well as steatite for utensils and stone suitable for making whetstones. Iceland had a limited number of exportable resources and goods. Homespun woolen cloth was the principal export and was a common standard of value in local exchanges. Sulfur, unavailable from any continental source, was a valuable commodity. Falcons and various animal skins - sheep, fox, and cat - were marketable as were cheese and possibly butter. Fish, the current mainstay of the Icelandic economy was not a significant export item in early Iceland.’
[1]
The Commonwealth as such maintained no permanent external alliances, although the Norwegian crown had its allies among the chieftains: ’Isolated in the North Atlantic, Iceland had few external conflicts. Individual Icelanders were occasionally involved in conflict when outside the country and also sometimes served in foreign militaries. During the late tenth century, the Norwegian king was a champion of the Christian movement in Iceland and often attempted to assert his influence, although this was largely limited to Icelanders in Norway. Likewise, the ultimately successful attempts to incorporate Iceland under the Norwegian monarchy were mostly played out through alliances with individual Icelanders.’
[1]
[1]: Bolender, Douglas James and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for Early Icelanders |
||||||
|
’Vassalage is the best fit out of the available options in the codebook, but this was not the typical feudal vassalage with an earl (except at the very beginning of the period), count or a similar vassal under a king. Iceland as a whole did not have a single figurehead except sometimes in the office of hirðstjóri, usually appointed by the king for three years at a time. But often there was not a single man in charge but many.’
[1]
The first Icelandic communities pledged allegiance to the Norwegian crown in 1262ce: ’The agreement by which Iceland was formally brought under Norwegian rule created only a confederate union, adn did not materially change the status of the Icelandic chieftains. They were now to hold their rights from the king, and were forbidden to wage war on each other; but since the Icelandic laws were still in force, the union agreement really involved only an acknowledgment of the king’s sovereignty, and the payment of a small tribute to the crown. It appear from the Icelandic code, the "Jónsbók", adopted in 1280, that the taxes to be paid were very moderate, as the twenty alnar vaomál payable by each freeholder for himself and his household, and by unmarried persons who owned property to the value of ten hundred unincumbered by debts, included also the old tax of thingfararkaup. Only one-half of the whole sum was to be paid to the king. The other half was to be kept in Iceland for the payment of the usual taxes. To the common people the union with Norway brought the distinct advantage of the termination of the bloody conflicts in which they had been forced to take part. Peace was established, and the conviction that henceforth the government would safeguard life and property must have created a new sense of security and well-being. Freedom from lawless terror, established by the altered relation to the mother country, must have been welcomed by the people in general as a new freedom rather than as foreign oppression.’
[2]
Although a degree of internal autonomy was maintained, the nature and practice of law changed considerably: ’These new codes wrought a fundamental change in the conception of positive law as well as in legal practice in Iceland. The old court procedures with its intricacies and formalities was replaced by the simpler Norwegian system. The king was ruler and lawgiver was regarded as the source of justice, and behind the laws now stood the royal authority, ready to execute the decrees of the courts even against the most powerful offenders. Violation of the law was no longer viewed as a private affair to be settled by the offender and the party injured, but as a crime for which the wrong-doer had to answer to the government. The fines to be paid and other punishments to be inflicted were still to be determined by twelve men according to ancient usage. The old punishment of banishment for serious offenses was retained, but fines payable to the king were instituted in numerous cases, and capital punishment was to be inflicted for grave crimes, like murder, robbery, rape, counterfeiting, forgery, and seduction. Other severe punishments were also established. [...] But care had been taken by the lawgiver to guard against hasty action and undue harshness in the treatment of wrong-doers. In a chapter about legal decisions he advises the judges to consider carefully truth, justice, patience and mercy, in order that their decisions not bear the marks of cruelty and hatred. [...] The first lawmen appointed under the new law were Stural Thordsson and Jon Einarsson. The first royal magistrates who received the title of sýslumadr were Hrafn Oddsson in western Iceland, and Thorvard Thorarinsson for the southern and eastern districts, and Asgrim Thorsteinsson in the south-western districts. Others may have been appointed, but their names are not known. In 1279 Hrafn Oddsson became royal merkismadr with authority over all Iceland, as already noted.’
[3]
There were fundamental disagreements about the nature of the relationship between Iceland and Norway: ’The royal executive authority and the new efficiency of the courts of law created through the union with Norway terminated the bloody feuds which had hitherto raged between the Icelandic chieftains. An uneventful era of peace followed the turmoils of the Sturlung period. Even the struggle between church and state was now adjusted so that economic life and the pursuits of peace could receive the undivided attention of the people. But the few sources which deal with the political conditions in Iceland during the years following the death of Bishop Arni show that conditions created by the union were causing dissatisfaction and unrest. The chief cause of public discontent was the unsatisfactory arrangement with regard to commerce, the insufficient Norwegian exports to Iceland, together with the policy pursued by the Norwegian government of bringing Icelanders to Norway for trial, and of appointing Norwegians for sýslumenn and lawmen, contrary to the spirit of the union agreement. The chieftains undoubtedly had thought that their political and social organization would be left undisturbed under the union; that they would only be required to pledge their allegiance to the king, pay him taxes, and receive a jarl as his personal representative, as the union agreement expressly stated. But the most far-reaching changes had been wrought. The godors had been abolished, the Althing had been reorganized, Norwegian jurisprudence had been introduced, Norwegians had been appointed to the leading public offices, and Icelanders had been summoned abroad for trial. The Norwegian government had shown an unmistakable disposition to treat Iceland as a dependency.’
[4]
The Norwegian crown sought to treat Iceland as a dependency, sometimes unsuccessfully so: ’This reminder had the result that in 1315 a full representation again met at the Althing from all parts of Iceland. In 1314 he issues a new supplement to the Icelandic code, in which he sought to right some of the wrongs complained of in the remonstrance submitted by the Althing. Regarding the bringing of Icelanders to Norway for trial, the law was made to conform to the remonstrance. A provision was inserted stating that such a step should be taken only if the sýslumenn and lawmen were unable to try the case. The demand for new taxes was definitely dropped. But nothing was said regarding the appointment of native Icelanders for office; nor was any assurance given that six ships would be sent to Iceland every year, though this matter was now of greater importance than ever, since the trade with Iceland had become a Norwegian monopoly. No guarantee existed that the king would respect the provisions in the union agreement. Hitherto he had shown a disposition to place Iceland on the level with the Norwegian dependencies. What the future relation between the two countries was to be seemed as much as ever an unsettled question.’
[5]
But formally speaking, Iceland formed now part of the greater Norwegian polity and was accordingly affected by the discontinuation of the Norwegian dynasty’s male line and the personal union with Denmark: ’The realm of the king of Norway, when Iceland became a part of it, was centred on the North Atlantic. It stretched from the west coast of Greenland to the Barents Sea in the north, and south to Göteborg and the Orkneys [...]. Purely in terms of distance, Iceland was not far from the middle of this domain; it was within a week’s travel of the main centres, the royal court at Bergen and the archiepiscoal sea at Trondheim. Just over two centuries later, the capital of the state was the city of Copenhagen on the Sound, and Iceland was at the westernmost point of the kingdom. It was King Haakon (1299-1319), son of Magnus, who turned the thrust of the state to the south and east. He moved his court from Bergen to Oslo, and arranged a marriage between his daughter Ingeborg and the brother of the Swedish king, when she was one year old. Their son, Magnus, inherited the thrones of Sweden and Norway in 1319, at the age of three. Norway as an autonomous kingdom had thus practically ceased to exist. The mid-14th century also saw the Balck Death sweep through Scandinavia. The disease was especially virulent in Norway, where as many as two-third of the population may have died in successive epidemics. In the period 1376-80 the boy king Olaf, son of Hakon, inherited the crowns of Denmark and Norway. Thus Iceland became subject to the Danish throne, a relationship that was not finally broken off until 1944. Olaf was also of the Swedish royal house (which ruled Finland too). It is easy to imagne the idea of a unified Nordic realm forming in the mind of Queen Margarethe, mother of the child king. But in 1387 Olaf suddenly died, aged 17. But Margarethe did not give up her plans. She contrived to have herself elected regent in all the Nordic kingdoms, and to have her six-year-old foster-son nominaated heir to all the thrones. In 1397 an attempt was made in the Swesih city of Karlmar to establish a permanent union of the states.’
[6]
[1]: Árni Daniel Júlíusson and Axel Kristissen 2017, pers. comm. to E. Brandl and D. Mullins [2]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 208 [3]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 215pp [4]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 227 [5]: Gjerset, Knut [1924]. "History of Iceland", 233 [6]: Karlsson, Gunnar 2000. "A Brief History of Iceland", 22p |
||||||
|
Haakon VI King of Norway ruled the Kingdom of Sweden in personal union from 1362–1364.
[1]
[1]: Haakon VI Magnusson | Norwegian Royalty, Scandinavian Union, Kalmar Union | Britannica. Zotero link: PHXQI334 |
||||||
|
With limited archaeological (and no literary) evidence, it is not clear what sort of polity (or polities) were present at this time.
[1]
However, it is much more likely that we are dealing with a quasi-polity rather than a polity, and that there was nothing resembling a state at this time
[2]
.
[1]: Rita Wright: The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy and Society; Cambridge: CUP, 2010, pp. 79-105 [2]: A. Ceccarelli, pers. comm. to E. Cioni, Feb 2017 |
||||||
|
The settlements and artefacts from this period suggest increasing complexity, although it is not clear what sort of polity (or polities) were present. It is likely that there was a form of centralised authority, based on the complexity of urban planning, but whether this was a chiefdom or incipient state is debated.
[1]
[1]: Rita Wright: The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy and Society; Cambridge: CUP, 2010, pp. 79-105 |
||||||
|
The extent that people in the Mature Harappan period were unified in a single polity is debated. Evidence suggests that there was a certain degree centralised authority to ensure the standardisation of weights, craft specialisation and the uniform urban planning at sites including Nausharo, Mohenjo Daro (Sindh) and Kalibangan (Rajasthan)
[1]
; but distinct material culture suggest several distinct areas in the Indus Valley.
[2]
[1]: Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. p44 [2]: Schug, G. R., Gray, K., Mushrif-Tripathy, V., and Sankhyan, A. R. (2012) A peaceful realm? Trauma and social differentiation at Harappa. International Journal of Paleopathology 2, pp136-147. p136 |
||||||
|
The extent that people in the Mature Harappan period were unified in a single polity is debated. Evidence suggests that there was a certain degree centralised authority to ensure the standardisation of weights, craft specialisation and the uniform urban planning at sites including Nausharo, Mohenjo Daro (Sindh) and Kalibangan (Rajasthan)
[1]
; but distinct material culture suggest several distinct areas in the Indus Valley.
[2]
[1]: Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. p44 [2]: Schug, G. R., Gray, K., Mushrif-Tripathy, V., and Sankhyan, A. R. (2012) A peaceful realm? Trauma and social differentiation at Harappa. International Journal of Paleopathology 2, pp136-147. p136 |
||||||
|
It is impossible to say what sort of polity or what size might be connected with Pirak, however it seems to have been part of a larger network of exchange from I onwards, and the buildings discovered are larger than one would expect in a small village.
[1]
[2]
"...it has proved impossible for the moment to define in a less summary fashion its probable area of geographical distribution. As far as the region is concerned, the mound of Pirak is the only one of its kind."
[3]
[1]: Jarrige, J-F. (1997) From Nausharo to Pirak: Continuity and Change in the Kachi/Bolan Region from the 3rd to the 2nd Millennium BC. In, Allchin, R. and Allchin, B. (eds) South Asian Archaeology, 1995, volume I. The Ancient India and Iran Trust, Cambridge., pp 11-32. [2]: Jarrige, J-F. (2000) Continuity and Change in the North Kachi Plain (Baluchistan, Pakistan) at the beginning of the Second Millennium BC. In, Lahiri, N. The Decline and Fall of the Indus Civilization. Permanent Black, Delhi., pp345-362. [3]: Jarrige, J-F. (1979) Fouilles de Pirak. Paris : Diffusion de Boccard.p388 |
||||||
|
Unclear. It is seems very likely that Pirak was once part of a larger assemblage of culturally similar settlements, but, perhaps due to the erosive effects of nearby rivers, only Pirak remains
[1]
[1]: (Jarrige & Enault 1976, 45-46) Jean-Francois Jarrige and Jean-Francois Enault. 1976. Fouilles de Pirak. Arts Asiatiques 32: 29-70. |
||||||
|
"There was, indeed, a separate Parthian kingdom beyond the Indus, independent of the Arsacid kingdom, but in friendly alliance with it."
[1]
Alliance with China against the Kushans during the reign of Vologases. [2] There was diplomatic contact with the Chinese. A Parthian general met a Chinese envoy in c.199 BCE. [3] [1]: (Bivar 2007) Bivar, A D H in Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. [2]: (Dabrowa 2012, 176) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. [3]: Bratindra Nath MUKHERJEE, An Agrippan Source: A Study in Indo-Parthian History (Calcutta: Pilgrim Publishers, 1969). p.73. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
none: 30-375 CE; vassalage: 230-375 CE
[1]
Alliance with Roman Empire? Vima Kadphises (101-127 CE) was "keen to establish diplomatic relations with the Romans and with this intention sent his ambassador to the court of the Roman emperor sometime around 120 CE." [2] Huvishka (155-190 CE) "sent his ambassador to the court of the Roman emperor Antonio Pius, who succeeded Hadrian to the throne in 138 CE." [3] [1]: Fisher, W. William Bayne, Peter Avery, G. R. G. Hambly, and Charles Melville, eds. The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, 1991. [2]: (Samad 2011, 82) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [3]: (Samad 2011, 84) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. |
||||||
|
none: 30-375 CE; vassalage: 230-375 CE
[1]
Alliance with Roman Empire? Vima Kadphises (101-127 CE) was "keen to establish diplomatic relations with the Romans and with this intention sent his ambassador to the court of the Roman emperor sometime around 120 CE." [2] Huvishka (155-190 CE) "sent his ambassador to the court of the Roman emperor Antonio Pius, who succeeded Hadrian to the throne in 138 CE." [3] [1]: Fisher, W. William Bayne, Peter Avery, G. R. G. Hambly, and Charles Melville, eds. The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, 1991. [2]: (Samad 2011, 82) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. [3]: (Samad 2011, 84) Samad, R. U. 2011. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Angora Publishing. |
||||||
|
Alliance with Hephthalites to defeat Kidarites.
[1]
Marriage alliance between Hormizd II (303-309 CE) and the king of Kabul. [2] [1]: (Grenet 2005) Grenet, Frantz. 2005. KIDARITES. Iranicaonline. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kidarites [2]: (Dani and Litvinsky 1996, 108) Dani, A. H. The Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.107-122. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
Sassanid tribute
"459 Hephthalites assist Firuz (Peroz) to regain his Sassanid throne; he must pay significant tribute in return." [1] none: 408-562 CE; vassalage: 563-670 CE [2] The Hepthalite were vassals to Kusrau I, the Sasasian King. Independent elements in the south maintained a degree of independence in the Zerafshan valley as tribute payers to the Turks, and further south to the Sasasians. By the 570s the only truly independent fragments of the former power of the Hepthalites were located in modern day Tajikistan and Afghanistan, the longest enduring in Kabul. [2] [1]: (West 2009, 276) West, B A. 2009. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. [2]: Litvinsky B.A.,Guang-da Zhang , and Shabani Samghabadi R. (eds)History of Civilizations of Central Asia, p. 147 |
||||||
|
Sassanid tribute
"459 Hephthalites assist Firuz (Peroz) to regain his Sassanid throne; he must pay significant tribute in return." [1] none: 408-562 CE; vassalage: 563-670 CE [2] The Hepthalite were vassals to Kusrau I, the Sasasian King. Independent elements in the south maintained a degree of independence in the Zerafshan valley as tribute payers to the Turks, and further south to the Sasasians. By the 570s the only truly independent fragments of the former power of the Hepthalites were located in modern day Tajikistan and Afghanistan, the longest enduring in Kabul. [2] [1]: (West 2009, 276) West, B A. 2009. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. [2]: Litvinsky B.A.,Guang-da Zhang , and Shabani Samghabadi R. (eds)History of Civilizations of Central Asia, p. 147 |
||||||
|
Alliance
Ruler of South Arabia 527 CE: "This Arab king of Jewish faith, who ruled a territory corresponding approximately with the modern state of the Yemen, closed the caravan route which led to Gaza in Palestine. This affected the great trade route from the ports on the Indian Ocean via Mecca and Medina to the Mediterranean port of Gaza. It was used by much of the trade in incense and spices. And as if that were not sufficient this South Arabian ruler, who had close political alignments with Persia, had the narrow navigable channel leading through the route from Bab al-Mandab closed with the aid of a chain. Obviously he was helped in this by Persian technicians." [1] [1]: (Haussig 1971, 105) Haussig, H W. trans Hussey, J M. 1971. History of Byzantine Civilization. Thames and Hudson. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
nominal allegiance: 854-1010 CE; none: 1010-1025 CE; nominal allegiance: 1025-1030 CE; none: 1030-1218 CE; vassalage: 1218-1237 CE; none: 1237-1243 CE; vassal: 1297-1317 CE; none: 1317-1352 CE
Until 985 CE the Sind were nominally under the control of the Abbasid Caliphate, from 985 - 1010 CE there were increasing ties to the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt. After the replacement of the Habarri by the Soomras the Sind was largely independent, although they saw the Fatimids as the ultimate religious authority. An exception to this is the period of five years during which the Sind paid tribute to Mahmud of Ghazni. After a long period of independence until 1228 CE portions of the territory were annexed by the Delhi sultanate, leading to the Sind being made a vassal of Delhi from 1297 CE to 1317 CE. A chaotic period of civil war and three claims to kingship occurred from 1317 - 1352 CE. This period coincided with the rise of the Samma Jams. [1] [2] [1]: Panhwar, M. H. "Chronological Dictionary of Sindh, (Karachi, 1983) pp. 184-206 [2]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh, Karachi, 2003, pp.19-71 |
||||||
|
nominal allegiance: 854-1010 CE; none: 1010-1025 CE; nominal allegiance: 1025-1030 CE; none: 1030-1218 CE; vassalage: 1218-1237 CE; none: 1237-1243 CE; vassal: 1297-1317 CE; none: 1317-1352 CE
Until 985 CE the Sind were nominally under the control of the Abbasid Caliphate, from 985 - 1010 CE there were increasing ties to the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt. After the replacement of the Habarri by the Soomras the Sind was largely independent, although they saw the Fatimids as the ultimate religious authority. An exception to this is the period of five years during which the Sind paid tribute to Mahmud of Ghazni. After a long period of independence until 1228 CE portions of the territory were annexed by the Delhi sultanate, leading to the Sind being made a vassal of Delhi from 1297 CE to 1317 CE. A chaotic period of civil war and three claims to kingship occurred from 1317 - 1352 CE. This period coincided with the rise of the Samma Jams. [1] [2] [1]: Panhwar, M. H. "Chronological Dictionary of Sindh, (Karachi, 1983) pp. 184-206 [2]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh, Karachi, 2003, pp.19-71 |
||||||
|
nominal allegiance: 854-1010 CE; none: 1010-1025 CE; nominal allegiance: 1025-1030 CE; none: 1030-1218 CE; vassalage: 1218-1237 CE; none: 1237-1243 CE; vassal: 1297-1317 CE; none: 1317-1352 CE
Until 985 CE the Sind were nominally under the control of the Abbasid Caliphate, from 985 - 1010 CE there were increasing ties to the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt. After the replacement of the Habarri by the Soomras the Sind was largely independent, although they saw the Fatimids as the ultimate religious authority. An exception to this is the period of five years during which the Sind paid tribute to Mahmud of Ghazni. After a long period of independence until 1228 CE portions of the territory were annexed by the Delhi sultanate, leading to the Sind being made a vassal of Delhi from 1297 CE to 1317 CE. A chaotic period of civil war and three claims to kingship occurred from 1317 - 1352 CE. This period coincided with the rise of the Samma Jams. [1] [2] [1]: Panhwar, M. H. "Chronological Dictionary of Sindh, (Karachi, 1983) pp. 184-206 [2]: Panhwar, M.H, An illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of the Sindh, Karachi, 2003, pp.19-71 |
||||||
|
"In the early 11th CE Ghaznavids introduced Islam and brought Gur into a state of loose vassalage to the sultans."
[1]
Then in 1118 CE Seljuks chose their own ruler for Gazna. [1] [1]: (Bosworth 2012) Bosworth, Edmund C. 2012. GHURIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ghurids |
||||||
|
"In the early 11th CE Ghaznavids introduced Islam and brought Gur into a state of loose vassalage to the sultans."
[1]
Then in 1118 CE Seljuks chose their own ruler for Gazna. [1] [1]: (Bosworth 2012) Bosworth, Edmund C. 2012. GHURIDS. Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ghurids |
||||||
|
Independent polity.
[1]
"owed only nominal allegiance to the Abbasid Caliphs"."
[2]
[1]: Habib, I. (2005). The Delhi Sultanate in The state and society in medieval India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.37-44. [2]: (Ahmed 2011, 97) Ahmed, Farooqui Salma. 2011. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. |
||||||
|
The Durrani Empire was independent of other kingdoms and empires, although there were attempts to bring Afghanistan under control of external power e.g. the British.
[1]
[1]: Dani, Ahmad Hasan, V. M Masson, J Harmatta, Baij Nath Puri, G. F Etemadi, Boris Anatolʹevich Litvinskiĭ, Guangda Zhang, et al. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. V The Sixteenth to the Mid-Nineteenth Centuries. Paris: Unesco, 1992., pp.288-301. |
||||||
|
Possible nominal allegiance to China? From the chinese dynastic histories Houhanshu and Weizhi it is known that people from western Japan sent envoys to the Han Dynasty court probably through the Lelang commandery in Korea in 57 and 107 CE. Also, between 238 and 247 BC four envoys were sent from western Japan to Taifang for submitting tribute, which consisted of cloths, jade, pearls, bows and arrows, cinnabar, and slaves. They returned with several gifts from the court: silk, gold, swords, bronze mirrors, read beads.
[1]
.
[1]: Barnes, G. L., 1993. China, Korea and Japan. The Rise of Civilization in East Asia. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 218. |
||||||
|
Possible nominal allegiance to China? From the chinese dynastic histories Houhanshu and Weizhi it is known that people from western Japan sent envoys to the Han Dynasty court probably through the Lelang commandery in Korea in 57 and 107 CE. Also, between 238 and 247 BC four envoys were sent from western Japan to Taifang for submitting tribute, which consisted of cloths, jade, pearls, bows and arrows, cinnabar, and slaves. They returned with several gifts from the court: silk, gold, swords, bronze mirrors, read beads.
[1]
.
[1]: Barnes, G. L., 1993. China, Korea and Japan. The Rise of Civilization in East Asia. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 218. |
||||||
|
Japan had diplomatic relationships with China and Korean Peninsula’s kingdoms. In 663 CE Yamato deployed its navy to the korean kingdom of Peackhe as a military support against its invasion by the kingdom of Silla and the Chinese empire
[1]
.
[1]: Brown, D., 1993.The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 2.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-213. |
||||||
|
’Emperor Kammu sent his first and only embassy to the T’ang court in 804, twenty-seven years after the dispatch of the previous embassy in 777; and another thirty-four years passed before the next and final Japanese embassy to China for many centuries departed in 838. Nearly sixty years later, in 894, Sugawara no Michizane was chosen to head another embassy to China, perhaps in response to a request relayed from Chinese officials (or so it was made to seem), but before the embassy could be dispatched Emperor Uda and the Council of State accepted Michizane’s recommendation that official relations with China be terminated. Japanese intercourse with China thereafter was abandoned entirely to private hands, except for a few exchanges of messages with the king of the southern Chinese coastal state of Wu-yiieh around the middle of the tenth century and another exchange with the Sung court in the 1070s.’
[1]
[1]: Shively, Donald H. and McCullough, William H. 2008. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 2: Heian Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.84 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’The Muromachi shogunate’s trade with China had taken the standard form of sending tribute to the Ming emperor. But this ended in the 1540s, and with the decline of the Ming empire and its antimaritime policies’
[1]
’Yoshimitsu expressed fealty to the Chinese Emperor. In a letter to the Ming court in 1403 he termed himself ‘Your subject, the King of Japan’.51 This self-designation may well have compromised Japanese sovereignty, but it also established a basis for the sho¯gunate to deal with foreign powers independently of the imperial court.’
[2]
[1]: Hall, John Whitney (ed.). 1991.The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.p.61 [2]: Henshall, Kenneth .2012. A History of Japan: From Stone Age to Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan. New York. [Third Edition].p.43. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The Iban claim to originate in the Kapuas Basin, but migration was common: ’The Iban trace their origins to the Kapuas Lake region of Kalimantan. With a growing population creating pressures on limited amounts of productive land, the Iban fought members of other tribes aggressively, practicing headhunting and slavery. Enslavement of captives contributed to the necessity to move into new areas. By the middle of the 19th century, they were well established in the First and Second Divisions, and a few had pioneered the vast Rejang River valley. Reacting to the establishment of the Brooke Raj in Sarawak in 1841, thousands of Iban migrated to the middle and upper regions of the Rejang, and by the last quarter of the century had entered all remaining Divisions.’
[1]
European and Chinese traders and pirates were present on Borneo even before the 17th century, but Iban territory was not part of the formal colonial system at the time: ’Modern European knowledge of Borneo dates from travelers who passed through Southeast Asia in the 14th century. The first recorded European visitor was the Franciscan friar Odoric of Pordenone, who visited Talamasim on his way from India to China in 1330. The Portuguese, followed by the Spanish, established trading relations on the island early in the 16th century. At the beginning of the 17th century the Portuguese and Spanish trade monopoly was broken by the Dutch, who, intervening in the affairs of the Muslim kingdoms, succeeded in replacing Mataram influence with their own. The coastal strip along the South China and Sulu seas was long oriented toward the Philippines to the northeast and was often raided by Sulu pirates. British interests, particularly in the north and west, diminished that of the Dutch. The Brunei sultanate was an Islamic kingdom that at one time had controlled the whole island but by the 19th century ruled only in the north and northwest. In 1841 Sarawak was split away on the southwest, becoming an independent kingdom ruled by the Brooke Raj. North Borneo (later Sabah) to the northeast was obtained by a British company to promote trade and suppress piracy, but it was not demarcated until 1912. Those losses left a much-reduced Brunei, which became a British protectorate in 1888.’
[2]
Iban communities were de facto self-governing before the Brooke Raj period: ’Each longhouse, as each BILEK, is an autonomous unit. Traditionally the core of each house was a group of descendants of the founders. Houses near one another on the same river or in the same region were commonly allied, marrying among themselves, raiding together beyond their territories, and resolving disputes by peaceful means. Regionalism, deriving from these alliances, in which Iban distinguished themselves from other allied groups, persist in modern state politics. Essentially egalitarian, Iban are aware of long-standing status distinctions among themselves of RAJA BERANI (wealthy and brave), MENSI SARIBU (commoners), and ULUN (slaves). Prestige still accrues to descendants of the first status, disdain to descendants of the third.’
[1]
’Prior to the arrival of the British adventurer, James Brooke, there were no permanent leaders, but the affairs of each house were directed by consultations of family leaders. Men of influence included renowned warriors, bards, augurs and other specialists. Brooke, who became Rajah of Sarawak, and his nephew, Charles Johnson, created political positions -- headman (TUAI RUMAH), regional chief (PENGHULU), paramount chief (TEMENGGONG) -- to restructure Iban society for administrative control, especially for purposes of taxation and the suppression of head-hunting. The creation of permanent political positions and the establishment of political parties in the early 1960s have profoundly changed the Iban.’
[1]
It is assumed here that this was true prior to the 17th century as well.
[1]: Sutlive, Vinson H. Jr. and Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Iban [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean |
||||||
|
SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ’Absent’, not ’Peace group’, ’Alliances’, ’Confederation’, or ’International organization’. During White Rajah rule, the Iban population and territory were not part of the formal British colonial system. This changed in 1946 when Sarawak was ceded to the crown. ’The 19th century marked the full flower of the British Empire. Administration and policy changed during the century from the haphazard arrangements of the 17th and 18th centuries to the sophisticated system characteristic of Joseph Chamberlain’s tenure (1895-1900) in the Colonial Office. That office, which began in 1801, was first an appendage of the Home Office and the Board of Trade, but by the 1850s it had become a separate department with a growing staff and a continuing policy; it was the means by which discipline and pressure were exerted on the colonial governments when such action was considered necessary. [...] In the wake of the Indian Mutiny (1857), the British crown assumed the East India Company’s governmental authority in India. Britain’s acquisition of Burma (Myanmar) was completed in 1886, while its conquest of the Punjab (1849) and of Balochistān (1854-76) provided substantial new territory in the Indian subcontinent itself. The French completion of the Suez Canal (1869) provided Britain with a much shorter sea route to India. Britain responded to this opportunity by expanding its port at Aden, establishing a protectorate in Somaliland (now Somalia), and extending its influence in the sheikhdoms of southern Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Cyprus, which was, like Gibraltar and Malta, a link in the chain of communication with India through the Mediterranean, was occupied in 1878. Elsewhere, British influence in the Far East expanded with the development of the Straits Settlements and the federated Malay states, and in the 1880s protectorates were formed over Brunei and Sarawak.’
[1]
Under White Rajah rule, these protectorates were largely autonomous, and only in 1946 were they ceded to the Crown: ’In September 1941, on the centenary of Brooke rule, the third raja proclaimed a constitution designed to establish self-government for Sarawak, but shortly afterward the state fell to the Japanese. When World War II was over, Vyner Brooke decided that Sarawak should be ceded to Great Britain, and, after a bitter family feud, he formally terminated Brooke rule on July 1, 1946.’
[2]
’In July 1946 both Sarawak and North Borneo were made British crown colonies. In Dutch Borneo a strong nationalist sentiment developed and led to fighting between Indonesian and Dutch forces as the latter attempted to reimpose Netherlands control. Sovereignty passed to the Indonesians in 1949, and in 1950 a new constitution proclaimed Dutch Borneo part of the Republic of Indonesia. The British government relinquished its sovereignty over Sabah and Sarawak in 1963, when these territories joined the Malaysian federation. This marked the commencement of Indonesian hostilities in the form of guerrilla raids across the border. These raids ceased by agreement in 1966. Except for the period of Japanese occupation, Brunei was under British protection from 1888 to 1983. It became fully independent on Jan. 1, 1984.’
[3]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/British-Empire [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Brooke-Raj [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean |
||||||
|
SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ’Absent’, not ’Peace group’, ’Alliances’, ’Confederation’, or ’International organization’. During White Rajah rule, the Iban population and territory were not part of the formal British colonial system. This changed in 1946 when Sarawak was ceded to the crown. ’The 19th century marked the full flower of the British Empire. Administration and policy changed during the century from the haphazard arrangements of the 17th and 18th centuries to the sophisticated system characteristic of Joseph Chamberlain’s tenure (1895-1900) in the Colonial Office. That office, which began in 1801, was first an appendage of the Home Office and the Board of Trade, but by the 1850s it had become a separate department with a growing staff and a continuing policy; it was the means by which discipline and pressure were exerted on the colonial governments when such action was considered necessary. [...] In the wake of the Indian Mutiny (1857), the British crown assumed the East India Company’s governmental authority in India. Britain’s acquisition of Burma (Myanmar) was completed in 1886, while its conquest of the Punjab (1849) and of Balochistān (1854-76) provided substantial new territory in the Indian subcontinent itself. The French completion of the Suez Canal (1869) provided Britain with a much shorter sea route to India. Britain responded to this opportunity by expanding its port at Aden, establishing a protectorate in Somaliland (now Somalia), and extending its influence in the sheikhdoms of southern Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Cyprus, which was, like Gibraltar and Malta, a link in the chain of communication with India through the Mediterranean, was occupied in 1878. Elsewhere, British influence in the Far East expanded with the development of the Straits Settlements and the federated Malay states, and in the 1880s protectorates were formed over Brunei and Sarawak.’
[1]
Under White Rajah rule, these protectorates were largely autonomous, and only in 1946 were they ceded to the Crown: ’In September 1941, on the centenary of Brooke rule, the third raja proclaimed a constitution designed to establish self-government for Sarawak, but shortly afterward the state fell to the Japanese. When World War II was over, Vyner Brooke decided that Sarawak should be ceded to Great Britain, and, after a bitter family feud, he formally terminated Brooke rule on July 1, 1946.’
[2]
’In July 1946 both Sarawak and North Borneo were made British crown colonies. In Dutch Borneo a strong nationalist sentiment developed and led to fighting between Indonesian and Dutch forces as the latter attempted to reimpose Netherlands control. Sovereignty passed to the Indonesians in 1949, and in 1950 a new constitution proclaimed Dutch Borneo part of the Republic of Indonesia. The British government relinquished its sovereignty over Sabah and Sarawak in 1963, when these territories joined the Malaysian federation. This marked the commencement of Indonesian hostilities in the form of guerrilla raids across the border. These raids ceased by agreement in 1966. Except for the period of Japanese occupation, Brunei was under British protection from 1888 to 1983. It became fully independent on Jan. 1, 1984.’
[3]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/British-Empire [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Brooke-Raj [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean |
||||||
|
SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ’Absent’, not ’Peace group’, ’Alliances’, ’Confederation’, or ’International organization’. During White Rajah rule, the Iban population and territory were not part of the formal British colonial system. This changed in 1946 when Sarawak was ceded to the crown. ’The 19th century marked the full flower of the British Empire. Administration and policy changed during the century from the haphazard arrangements of the 17th and 18th centuries to the sophisticated system characteristic of Joseph Chamberlain’s tenure (1895-1900) in the Colonial Office. That office, which began in 1801, was first an appendage of the Home Office and the Board of Trade, but by the 1850s it had become a separate department with a growing staff and a continuing policy; it was the means by which discipline and pressure were exerted on the colonial governments when such action was considered necessary. [...] In the wake of the Indian Mutiny (1857), the British crown assumed the East India Company’s governmental authority in India. Britain’s acquisition of Burma (Myanmar) was completed in 1886, while its conquest of the Punjab (1849) and of Balochistān (1854-76) provided substantial new territory in the Indian subcontinent itself. The French completion of the Suez Canal (1869) provided Britain with a much shorter sea route to India. Britain responded to this opportunity by expanding its port at Aden, establishing a protectorate in Somaliland (now Somalia), and extending its influence in the sheikhdoms of southern Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Cyprus, which was, like Gibraltar and Malta, a link in the chain of communication with India through the Mediterranean, was occupied in 1878. Elsewhere, British influence in the Far East expanded with the development of the Straits Settlements and the federated Malay states, and in the 1880s protectorates were formed over Brunei and Sarawak.’
[1]
Under White Rajah rule, these protectorates were largely autonomous, and only in 1946 were they ceded to the Crown: ’In September 1941, on the centenary of Brooke rule, the third raja proclaimed a constitution designed to establish self-government for Sarawak, but shortly afterward the state fell to the Japanese. When World War II was over, Vyner Brooke decided that Sarawak should be ceded to Great Britain, and, after a bitter family feud, he formally terminated Brooke rule on July 1, 1946.’
[2]
’In July 1946 both Sarawak and North Borneo were made British crown colonies. In Dutch Borneo a strong nationalist sentiment developed and led to fighting between Indonesian and Dutch forces as the latter attempted to reimpose Netherlands control. Sovereignty passed to the Indonesians in 1949, and in 1950 a new constitution proclaimed Dutch Borneo part of the Republic of Indonesia. The British government relinquished its sovereignty over Sabah and Sarawak in 1963, when these territories joined the Malaysian federation. This marked the commencement of Indonesian hostilities in the form of guerrilla raids across the border. These raids ceased by agreement in 1966. Except for the period of Japanese occupation, Brunei was under British protection from 1888 to 1983. It became fully independent on Jan. 1, 1984.’
[3]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/British-Empire [2]: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Brooke-Raj [3]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Borneo-island-Pacific-Ocean |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The area of Central Anatolia is distinct for the fact that each site corresponds to a separate culture. However, it is possible to posit contacts between them, through similarities in pottery decorations (motifs)or architectural systems.
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
[1]
[2]
States, which actually correspond to such polity relations are bigger settlements, around which smaller villages are set and taken into bigger centers jurisdiction, e.g. Kaneš, Purušhattum, Zalpa, Hattuš Wahšaniya or Mamma
[1]
[2]
[1]: Yakar J. 2011. Anatolian Chronology and Terminology. [in:] S. McMahon (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. New York: Oxford University Press, pg. 75 [2]: Barjamovic G. 2005. The Geograhy of Trade. Assyrian Colonies in Anatolia c. 1975-1725 BC and the Study of Early Interregional networks of Exchange [in:] J.G. Dercksen (ed.) (PIHANS 111), Leiden: Nederlands Instituutvoor het NabijeOsten. pg 88 |
||||||
|
Alliance
"union between the Phrygians and an eastern Anatolian people called the Mushki. ... a fierce, aggressive, tribal people..." Not all scholars agree there was a union "But the balance of scholarly opinion favours the assumption of a united Mushki-Phrygian kingdom, formed some time in the 8th century." [1] [1]: (Bryce 2002, 40) |
||||||
|
mid-9th century BCE Assyrian records suggest Tabal "consisted of a number of small independent states (which may have evolved several centuries earlier) whose rulers became tributaries of Assyria. Shalmaneser claims to have received gifts from twenty-four kings of Tabal during a campaign which he conducted in the region in 837 ... However, by the middle of the following century, many of the states were apparently consolidated into a small number of larger kingdoms."
[1]
Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III lists five kingdoms of Tabal "among his tributaries": Tabal (’Proper’) ... Atuna, Tuhana (Luwian Tuwana), Ishtu(a)nda, and Hupishna ..." [2] "To this list of kingdoms in the Tabal region we can add a sixth, Shinuhtu, attested both in Luwian and Assyrian inscriptions dating to the reign of Sargon II. Shinuhtu’s ruler at that time was a man called Kiyakiya (Assyrian Kiakki)." [2] "...generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers." [3] alliances negotiated between Neo-Hittite kingdoms against one another and against the Assyrians [4] "What precisely was the nature of Assyrian authority in the west as a consequence of Shalmaneser’s many campaigns there? At this stage, direct Assyrian rule over the local kingdoms had not yet been established. It would be another century or so before these kingdoms were absorbed into the Assyrian provincial system. By and large, the imposition of Assyrian authority over the local states meant that their kings accepted tributary status and made regular payments, in one form or another, into the Assyrian royal coffers, and (or else) conceded the Assyrians access to resource-rich regions, particularly the forested areas of the Levantine and northern Syrian coast. We do not know whether the relationship between a local ruler and the Assyrian king was formalized by a written pact - though in at least some instances there may well have been some form of agreement drawn up. But generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers." [3] [1]: (Bryce 2002, 43) [2]: (Bryce 2012, 141) [3]: (Bryce 2012, 243) [4]: (Thuesen 2002, 46) |
||||||
|
mid-9th century BCE Assyrian records suggest Tabal "consisted of a number of small independent states (which may have evolved several centuries earlier) whose rulers became tributaries of Assyria. Shalmaneser claims to have received gifts from twenty-four kings of Tabal during a campaign which he conducted in the region in 837 ... However, by the middle of the following century, many of the states were apparently consolidated into a small number of larger kingdoms."
[1]
Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III lists five kingdoms of Tabal "among his tributaries": Tabal (’Proper’) ... Atuna, Tuhana (Luwian Tuwana), Ishtu(a)nda, and Hupishna ..." [2] "To this list of kingdoms in the Tabal region we can add a sixth, Shinuhtu, attested both in Luwian and Assyrian inscriptions dating to the reign of Sargon II. Shinuhtu’s ruler at that time was a man called Kiyakiya (Assyrian Kiakki)." [2] "...generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers." [3] alliances negotiated between Neo-Hittite kingdoms against one another and against the Assyrians [4] "What precisely was the nature of Assyrian authority in the west as a consequence of Shalmaneser’s many campaigns there? At this stage, direct Assyrian rule over the local kingdoms had not yet been established. It would be another century or so before these kingdoms were absorbed into the Assyrian provincial system. By and large, the imposition of Assyrian authority over the local states meant that their kings accepted tributary status and made regular payments, in one form or another, into the Assyrian royal coffers, and (or else) conceded the Assyrians access to resource-rich regions, particularly the forested areas of the Levantine and northern Syrian coast. We do not know whether the relationship between a local ruler and the Assyrian king was formalized by a written pact - though in at least some instances there may well have been some form of agreement drawn up. But generally speaking, local rulers were free to rule their states in whatever manner they wished, without interference from the Assyrian king, unless they took actions which were prejudicial to Assyrian interests, such as participation in an anti-Assyrian alliance with other rulers." [3] [1]: (Bryce 2002, 43) [2]: (Bryce 2012, 141) [3]: (Bryce 2012, 243) [4]: (Thuesen 2002, 46) |
||||||
|
Lydia frequently utilised marriage as a form of peace treaty. When Alyattes expanded Lydia to the East, he met a Median army expanding their territory from Susiana. An indicisive battle was fought and a truce was declared with the Halys river as the border between the two empires. To seal the deal Alyattes’ daughter was married to the son of Cyaxeres, the Median king. Alyattes himself married Ionian and Carian women and married another daught to the tyrant of Ephesus.
[1]
Sought alliance with Assyrians against the Cimmerians. [2] Alliance with Egypt against the Assyrians. [3] [1]: Roosevelt, C.H. 2012. Iron Age Western Anatolia. In Potts, D.T. (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Near East. London: Blackwell. p. 897-913 [2]: (Leverani 2014, 495) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 544) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
Lydia frequently utilised marriage as a form of peace treaty. When Alyattes expanded Lydia to the East, he met a Median army expanding their territory from Susiana. An indicisive battle was fought and a truce was declared with the Halys river as the border between the two empires. To seal the deal Alyattes’ daughter was married to the son of Cyaxeres, the Median king. Alyattes himself married Ionian and Carian women and married another daught to the tyrant of Ephesus.
[1]
Sought alliance with Assyrians against the Cimmerians. [2] Alliance with Egypt against the Assyrians. [3] [1]: Roosevelt, C.H. 2012. Iron Age Western Anatolia. In Potts, D.T. (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Near East. London: Blackwell. p. 897-913 [2]: (Leverani 2014, 495) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [3]: (Leverani 2014, 544) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
323 BCE: vassalage; 323-281 BCE: personal union; alliance; 281 BCE: vassalage The Thracian territory was part of Alexander’s empire until his death in 323 BCE. Thrace was then ruled by Lysimachus (and Seuthes?). The two rulers seem to have come to an arrangement with each other, but the exact nature of this relationship is unclear. Lysimachus created personal unions with other ruling families through marriage, and allied Thrace with other Diadoch polities at various times. The Thracian territory was once again taken over by an expanding empire in 281 BCE when Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus of the Seleucid Empire.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24. [2]: Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York. |
||||||
|
323 BCE: vassalage; 323-281 BCE: personal union; alliance; 281 BCE: vassalage The Thracian territory was part of Alexander’s empire until his death in 323 BCE. Thrace was then ruled by Lysimachus (and Seuthes?). The two rulers seem to have come to an arrangement with each other, but the exact nature of this relationship is unclear. Lysimachus created personal unions with other ruling families through marriage, and allied Thrace with other Diadoch polities at various times. The Thracian territory was once again taken over by an expanding empire in 281 BCE when Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus of the Seleucid Empire.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24. [2]: Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York. |
||||||
|
323 BCE: vassalage; 323-281 BCE: personal union; alliance; 281 BCE: vassalage The Thracian territory was part of Alexander’s empire until his death in 323 BCE. Thrace was then ruled by Lysimachus (and Seuthes?). The two rulers seem to have come to an arrangement with each other, but the exact nature of this relationship is unclear. Lysimachus created personal unions with other ruling families through marriage, and allied Thrace with other Diadoch polities at various times. The Thracian territory was once again taken over by an expanding empire in 281 BCE when Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus of the Seleucid Empire.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Dimitrov, K. (2011) Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th - first half of the 3rd century BC). ORPHEUS. Journal of IndoEuropean and Thracian Studies. 18, p. 4-24. [2]: Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York. |
||||||
|
{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6] It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] . [1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41 [2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54 [3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85 [4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164 [5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472 [6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90 [7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77 [8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63 [9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2 |
||||||
|
{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6] It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] . [1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41 [2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54 [3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85 [4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164 [5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472 [6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90 [7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77 [8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63 [9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2 |
||||||
|
{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6] It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] . [1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41 [2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54 [3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85 [4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164 [5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472 [6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90 [7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77 [8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63 [9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2 |
||||||
|
{380-331 BCE: nominal allegiance}; 331-95 BCE: alliance, personal union; {95 BCE - 17 CE}: vassalage
The kings of Cappadocia maintained their position in through alliances with the neighbouring powers, including Rome, Bithynia, Pergamon, Pontus and the Seleucid Empire [1] [2] . Marriage arrangements were made between the royal dynasties of some of these polities (most importantly the Seleucid empire and the Pontic kingdom) [3] [4] . The alliances were however, often short-lived and either followed or were followed by aggressive relations between the two polities. Before 322 BCE, Ariarathes I (the ruler of Cappadocia) may have nominally been under the authority of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; and after the brief rule of Ariarathes IX Cappadocia effectively became a Roman province and was ruled by Ariobarzanes (I, II and III) in ‘friendly’ relations with Rome. [5] [6] It should also be noted that even when the kingdom of Cappadocia was ruled by independent kings as a unitary state, Rome still exerted influence on Cappadocian politics. Twice, when there was internal feuding between claimants to the Cappadocian throne, Rome intervened and either declared the kingdom split between the monarchs or freed from the monarchy altogether. This happened after the dispute between the brothers Ariarathes V and Orophernes in 159/8 BCE [7] [8] ; and between Ariarathes IX (Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus’ son) and the claimant put forward by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia around 97 BCE [9] . [1]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman Foreign Policy in the Near East, 168 BC to AD 1. London: Duckworth, p41 [2]: Bowder, D. (ed.) (1982) Who was Who in the Greek World, 776 BC - 30 BC. Phaidon: Oxford, p54 [3]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p85 [4]: Kosmetatou, E. (2003) The Attalids of Pergamon. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp159-174, p164 [5]: Ansen, E. M. (1988) Antigonus, the Satrap of Phrygia. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 4 (4th Qtr.), pp. 471-477, p472 [6]: Eilers, C. (2003) A Roman East: Pompey’s Settlement to the Death of Augustus. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Blackwell: Malden, Oxford, pp90-102, p90 [7]: McGing, B. (2003) Subjection and Resistance: to the death of Mithradates. In, Erskine, A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp71-89, p77 [8]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p63 [9]: Sherwin-White, A. N. (1977) Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B. C. The Journal of Roman Studies. 67, pp. 62-75, p71-2 |
||||||
|
’nominal allegiance’ to the Caliphate - and the Mongols from 1240s CE? or vassal state?
|
||||||
|
’nominal allegiance’ to the Caliphate - and the Mongols from 1240s CE? or vassal state?
|
||||||
|
Nominal allegiance
The Il-khans "never gave up their de jure recognition of the Great Khan’s preeminence." [1] Hülegü’s succesors were officially invested by the Great Khan Qubilai; the Great Khan had a high commissioner at the court of the Il-khanid. [1] Alliance - did this attempt result in any joint activity at all? attempt was made to form alliance by crusaders and Mongols against Mamluks in Syria. However, "The problems of distance and the difficulties of synchronization proved, in thirteenth century conditions, to be insurmountable." [2] Hulegu in Syria had the assistance of "16,000 Christian crusaders sent by King Hayton of Armenia." [3] [1]: REUVEN AMITAI, ’IL-KHANIDS i. DYNASTIC HISTORY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/il-khanids-i-dynastic-history [2]: (Morgan 2015, 65) Morgan, David. 2015. Medieval Persia 1040-1797. Routledge. [3]: (Carey 2006) Carey, Brian Todd. 2006. Warfare in the Medieval World. Pen and Sword. |
||||||
|
Nominal allegiance
The Il-khans "never gave up their de jure recognition of the Great Khan’s preeminence." [1] Hülegü’s succesors were officially invested by the Great Khan Qubilai; the Great Khan had a high commissioner at the court of the Il-khanid. [1] Alliance - did this attempt result in any joint activity at all? attempt was made to form alliance by crusaders and Mongols against Mamluks in Syria. However, "The problems of distance and the difficulties of synchronization proved, in thirteenth century conditions, to be insurmountable." [2] Hulegu in Syria had the assistance of "16,000 Christian crusaders sent by King Hayton of Armenia." [3] [1]: REUVEN AMITAI, ’IL-KHANIDS i. DYNASTIC HISTORY’ http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/il-khanids-i-dynastic-history [2]: (Morgan 2015, 65) Morgan, David. 2015. Medieval Persia 1040-1797. Routledge. [3]: (Carey 2006) Carey, Brian Todd. 2006. Warfare in the Medieval World. Pen and Sword. |
||||||
|
Until 1335/1350 CE the Ottomans as other Turkish Emirates in Anatolia were (first actually, later nominally) subordinated to Mongol Ilkhan-Rulers of Persia, Iraq and Anatolia as their overlords and had to pay tribute.
[1]
[1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
Until 1335/1350 CE the Ottomans as other Turkish Emirates in Anatolia were (first actually, later nominally) subordinated to Mongol Ilkhan-Rulers of Persia, Iraq and Anatolia as their overlords and had to pay tribute.
[1]
[1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
Until 1335/1350 CE the Ottomans as other Turkish Emirates in Anatolia were (first actually, later nominally) subordinated to Mongol Ilkhan-Rulers of Persia, Iraq and Anatolia as their overlords and had to pay tribute.
[1]
[1]: Personal communication. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 2016. Institute for Medieval Research. Division of Byzantine Research. Austrian Academy of Sciences. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
In 96 BCE the Romans met with the Parthian Empire, located east of the Euphrates, and informally agreed to recognize the Euphrates River as the boundary between their two realms. Beyond the other frontiers, such as in Britain, vassals were maintained.
|
||||||
|
In 96 BCE the Romans met with the Parthian Empire, located east of the Euphrates, and informally agreed to recognize the Euphrates River as the boundary between their two realms. Beyond the other frontiers, such as in Britain, vassals were maintained.
|
||||||
|
"for all the real, and very significant, commitment to the unity of the Roman Empire, the reality was that, not of two separate Empires, but of twin Empires, in one of which, that which Theodosius ruled from Constantinople, the normal language of the vast majority of the population was Greek."
[1]
"In principle, all legislation, whether generated in East or West, should be communicated to the other half of the Empire, and promulgated there." [2] "The Roman alliance with the Visigoths forced the Huns to lift the siege of Aureliani (Orleans) which they had begun, and to withdraw northeastward to the province of Belgica. There a great battle was fought and at the locus Mauriacus, in which the Romans with their federates and their Visigothic allies were victorious." [3] Son of Vandal king Gaiseric "betrothed to the emperor’s oldest daughter." [4] [1]: (Millar 2006, 2) Millar, Fergus. 2006. A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief Under Theodosius II 408-450. University of California Press. Berkeley. [2]: (Millar 2006, 1) Millar, Fergus. 2006. A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief Under Theodosius II 408-450. University of California Press. Berkeley. [3]: (Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 481) Maenchen-Helfen, Otto. 1973. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press. [4]: (Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 482) Maenchen-Helfen, Otto. 1973. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press. |
||||||
|
Nominal allegiance to the Emperor in Constantinople
"Thus then it came to pass that a formal interview was arranged between Emperor and King (perhaps at Constantinople, though it seems doubtful whether Theodoric could have safely trusted himself within its walls), and at this interview the terms of the joint enterprise were arranged, an enterprise to which Theodoric was to contribute all the effective strength and Zeno the glamour of Imperial legitimacy... If the Emperor would send Theodoric thither with his people, he would be at once relieved from the heavy charges of their stipendia which he was now bound to furnish, while Theodoric would hold the land as of the free gift of the Emperor, and would reign there as king, only till Zeno himself should arrive to claim the supremacy." [1] Alliances with the Visigoths and others: "In the year 490 Gundobad, king of the Burgundians, crossed the Alps and descended into Italy to mingle in the fray as an antagonist of Theodoric. In the same year, probably at the same time, Alaric II., king of the Visigoths, entered Italy as his ally. A great battle was fought on the river Adda, ten miles east of Milan, in which Odovacar, who had emerged from the shelter of Ravenna, was again completely defeated. He fled once more to Ravenna, which he never again quitted." [1] According to the Bishop of Ravenna, Theodoric: "He gave one of his daughters in marriage to the King of the Visigoths in Gaul, another to the son of the Burgundian King; his sister to the King of the Vandals, and his niece to the King of the Thuringians. Thus he pleased all the nations round him..." [1] [1]: (Hodgkin 1897) |
||||||
|
Nominal allegiance to the Emperor in Constantinople
"Thus then it came to pass that a formal interview was arranged between Emperor and King (perhaps at Constantinople, though it seems doubtful whether Theodoric could have safely trusted himself within its walls), and at this interview the terms of the joint enterprise were arranged, an enterprise to which Theodoric was to contribute all the effective strength and Zeno the glamour of Imperial legitimacy... If the Emperor would send Theodoric thither with his people, he would be at once relieved from the heavy charges of their stipendia which he was now bound to furnish, while Theodoric would hold the land as of the free gift of the Emperor, and would reign there as king, only till Zeno himself should arrive to claim the supremacy." [1] Alliances with the Visigoths and others: "In the year 490 Gundobad, king of the Burgundians, crossed the Alps and descended into Italy to mingle in the fray as an antagonist of Theodoric. In the same year, probably at the same time, Alaric II., king of the Visigoths, entered Italy as his ally. A great battle was fought on the river Adda, ten miles east of Milan, in which Odovacar, who had emerged from the shelter of Ravenna, was again completely defeated. He fled once more to Ravenna, which he never again quitted." [1] According to the Bishop of Ravenna, Theodoric: "He gave one of his daughters in marriage to the King of the Visigoths in Gaul, another to the son of the Burgundian King; his sister to the King of the Vandals, and his niece to the King of the Thuringians. Thus he pleased all the nations round him..." [1] [1]: (Hodgkin 1897) |
||||||
|
Nominal allegiance to the East Roman Emperor in Constantinople.
"By the year 600, the leader of Byzantine administration was a figure called the exarch." [1] "The exarchs were always sent from Constantinople, but we do not know the criteria by which such officials were chosen, or how long they might have expected their official tenure to last." [1] "The exarch was the emperor’s direct representative in Italy, and in theory he had a very narrow scope for personal inititive. Only on rare occasions did his term of office exceed six or seven years. His duty was to lead the exercitus Italicus, administer the province during the pleasure of his imperial master, publish laws and canons of church councils, and appoint most subordinate officials." [2] Under the Byzantines, Ravenna had status of provincial capital. [3] [1]: (Deliyannis 2010, 208) Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf. 2010. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Noble 1984, 4) Noble, Thomas F. X. 1984. The Republic of St. Peter. The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia. [3]: (Deliyannis 2010, 210) Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf. 2010. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
Nominal allegiance to the East Roman Emperor in Constantinople.
"By the year 600, the leader of Byzantine administration was a figure called the exarch." [1] "The exarchs were always sent from Constantinople, but we do not know the criteria by which such officials were chosen, or how long they might have expected their official tenure to last." [1] "The exarch was the emperor’s direct representative in Italy, and in theory he had a very narrow scope for personal inititive. Only on rare occasions did his term of office exceed six or seven years. His duty was to lead the exercitus Italicus, administer the province during the pleasure of his imperial master, publish laws and canons of church councils, and appoint most subordinate officials." [2] Under the Byzantines, Ravenna had status of provincial capital. [3] [1]: (Deliyannis 2010, 208) Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf. 2010. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Noble 1984, 4) Noble, Thomas F. X. 1984. The Republic of St. Peter. The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia. [3]: (Deliyannis 2010, 210) Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf. 2010. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
During the first half of the eighth century, Rome was technically a Byzantine Exarchate, but in practice the area was autonomous, and increasingly left to its own devices for defence.
[1]
The Byzantines appeared to abandon Liguria, the Lazial and Tuscan Maremma in the 640s CE which left Rome on the extreme periphery of Byzantine Italy.
[2]
Formal recognition of nominal Byzantine authority persisted until 781 CE, when Charlemagne asserted Frankish suzerainty over the region. After this time, the years of the Byzantine Emperor’s reign were no longer used for dating Papal documents or on the minting of imperial coins in the mint of Rome.
[3]
[1]: (Noble et al. 2008, 229) [2]: Marazzi, 386 [3]: (Grierson and Blackburn 2007, 259) |
||||||
|
Papal relations with other polities fluctuated dramatically during this period; I coded it as "vassalage" to reflect the fact that the papacy during this period was often dominated by the German emperors.
|
||||||
|
Armies of the Papal States were a conglomeration of international allies, friendly towns and nobles, volunteer crusaders, and the forces directly raised by the pope.
[1]
JFR: The papal alliance with the French began well before the fourteenth century, with the onset of Angevin hegemony in the peninsula following the 1266 victory of Benevento. [2] RC: The papal state made many alliances with polities during this period, held the nominal allegiance of some polities (the Norman duchies to the south are just one good example of both of these), and held vassals of its own (who were notoriously difficult to control by this period). War with the HRE was simply one of many parts of the Papal State’s supra-polity relations. JFR: I coded this as "alliance" to reflect the enduring French-papal alliance, which characterized much of the mid-13th and fourteenth centuries; the brackets reflect the uneasy nature of this alliance, culminating in the papacy of Boniface VIII and the ensuing Babylonian Captivity [1]: (Waley 1957) [2]: Waley [1961], 176 |
||||||
|
The period up to 1494 was marked by a lack of foreign interference in Italian affairs.
[1]
As distinct from the 13th and most of the 14th centuries, the papacy was often free from domination by German emperors or Spanish kings, following the return to Rome.
[2]
Brackets should be added to indicate the drastically changed situation between 1494-1527, following the French king Charles VIII’s invasion of Italy.
[3]
[1]: Najemy, 1 [2]: Najemy, 2 [3]: On the invasion and the subsequent Italian wars, see Ady in Hay , 343-67 |
||||||
|
The Papacy was a key member of the Holy League, a coalition of Christian powers funded in part by the Spanish monarchy and directed against the Ottoman Turks, during this period (the active life of the League was roughly 1570-73
[1]
. The code should be bracketed reflect that at the beginning of the period through 1559, the papacy was at times at war with the Spanish, and because the Holy League had largely ceased functioning by around 1580. Generally speaking, the period after 1559 was marked by Spanish hegemony throughout Italy, the pax hispanica.
[2]
Dandelet and Symcox characterized the papacy during this period as, generally, beholden to the Spanish, along with the other principalities of the Peninsula, such as Tuscany and Ferrara; this arrangement was only challenged beginning in the 1610s, by the Kingdom of Savoy.
[3]
Furthermore, the papacy and the city of Rome in particular benefited tremendously from Spanish financial assistance and cultural patronage.
[4]
[1]: See Braudel, 1125-42, for the end of the League) [2]: Dandelet in Marino [3]: See Symcox in Marino, 165, for the Savoyard challenge to the pax hispanica [4]: Dandelet in Findlen, et. al., 221 |
||||||
|
It is hard to firmly characterize the supra-polity relations of the Papacy during this period; hegemony on the Italian peninsula shifted from the pax hispanica of the early 17th century to French and then Austrian domination, before the onset of the French revolutionary armies in 1796. I use "alliance" to denote the fact that the papacy was usually dependent on a stronger external power for protection, although the papacy was no longer engaged in wars after the end of the "War of Castro" of the 1640s.
[1]
[1]: Symcox, 104 |
||||||
|
During the Russian period, Sakha came under Czarist political and administrative control: ’By 1642 the Lena valley was under tribute to the czar; peace was won only after a long siege of a formidable Yakut fortress. By 1700 the fort settlement of Yakutsk (founded 1632) was a bustling Russian administrative, commercial, and religious center and a launching point for further exploration into Kamchatka and Chukotka. Some Yakut moved northeast into territories they had previously not dominated, further assimilating the Evenk and Yukagir. Most Yakut, however, remained in the central meadowlands, sometimes assimilating Russians. Yakut leaders cooperated with Russian commanders and governors, becoming active in trade, fur-tax collection, transport, and the postal system. ’
[1]
Before that, the Lena river valley was inhabited by independent tribes (see above).
[1]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut |
||||||
|
In the 17th century, the Czar regime started to exact tribute from the Sakha population while gradually integrating Siberia into the general administration: ’By 1620 a report had reached Tobolsk from the Mangaseya Cossacks of the Great (Lena) River and the Lena Yakut. In 1631 they descended by the Viliui River, a tributary of the Lena, to the Lena River and imposed tribute on the adjacent Yakut. In 1632 a party of Cossacks under the command of the Boyar’s son, Shakov, took tribute in sables from a clan of Viliui horse-breeding Yakut. The Viliui River farther up from its mouth was occupied by Tungus only. The northern boundary of the distribution of the Yakut at that time was the mouth of the Viliui. The whole Lena Valley from the mouth of the Viliui River to the south, at a distance of about 500 kilometers (or 710 miles) was occupied by Yakut. In their possession were also all the Lena islands of that region, rich in pasture lands. There is no definite information as to how far inland they penetrated at that period. We may admit, however, that the Yakut, being horse and cattle breeders, were hardly inclined to move into the dense forests far from the majority of their tribesmen, i.e., far from the Lena Valley. In the beginning of the seventeenth century the Yakut abode on the western banks of the Lena must have been the territory of the two present uluses of Yakutsk District, Namskij and Western Kangalassky. There, according to Yakut traditions, was the first place of refuge of their mythical forefather, the “Tatar” Elliei. From there a part of his nearest descendants could also have emigrated over the Lena islands to the eastern banks of the Lena River, where excellent pastures are as abundant as on the western banks.’
[1]
During the Russian period, Yakutia came under Czarist political and administrative control: ’By 1642 the Lena valley was under tribute to the czar; peace was won only after a long siege of a formidable Yakut fortress. By 1700 the fort settlement of Yakutsk (founded 1632) was a bustling Russian administrative, commercial, and religious center and a launching point for further exploration into Kamchatka and Chukotka. Some Yakut moved northeast into territories they had previously not dominated, further assimilating the Evenk and Yukagir. Most Yakut, however, remained in the central meadowlands, sometimes assimilating Russians. Yakut leaders cooperated with Russian commanders and governors, becoming active in trade, fur-tax collection, transport, and the postal system. Fighting among Yakut communities decreased, although horse rustling and occasional anti-Russian violence continued. For example, a Yakut Robin Hood named Manchari led a band that stole from the rich (usually Russians) to give to the poor (usually Yakut) in the nineteenth century. Russian Orthodox priests spread through Yakutia, but their followers were mainly in the major towns. By 1900 a literate Yakut intelligentsia, influenced both by Russian merchants and political exiles, formed a party called the Yakut Union. Yakut revolutionaries such as Oiunskii and Ammosov led the Revolution and civil war in Yakutia, along with Bolsheviks such as the Georgian Ordzhonikidze.’
[2]
[1]: Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. “Yakut", 220 [2]: Balzer, Marjorie Mandelstam and Skoggard, Ian: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Yakut |
||||||
|
The Spanish colonial administration resided in Quito: ’During much of the colonial period, what is now Ecuador was under the direct jurisdiction of the law court (audiencia) of Quito and ultimately under the rule of the Spanish crown. Spanish culture was spread primarily by religious orders and male Spanish colonists. In the Sierra, the Spaniards established a colony of large estates worked by Indian peons. Settlements included semiautonomous Indian villages and Spanish and mestizo administrative and religious centres such as Quito, Ambato, and Cuenca. The making of rough textiles in primitive sweatshops was the only industry. The development of Roman Catholic religious establishments provided for the flowering of Baroque architecture, sculpture in wood and stone, painting, music, and other arts and crafts. In the tropical Costa, much of the population died as a result of introduced diseases, and the area remained unhealthy until the advent of modern medicine. As a result, the coast was somewhat neglected during the colonial period, although there was some shipbuilding and exporting of cacao (as cocoa beans) from the port of Guayaquil. The small coastal population of slaves, free blacks, and mixed ethnicities, with plenty of vacant land and less coercion of labour, developed a culture very different from that of the Sierra. In the Oriente, the region on the eastern slopes between the Andes and the headwaters of the Amazon, large populations of Shuar and other indigenous people successfully repelled European invaders; however, Jesuits and other missionaries were able to spread both Christianity and the Quichua language. The Spaniards used Quichua as a language of evangelization-at one period missionaries were required to know the language-and continued to spread it orally by means of Quichua speakers who travelled with them in further conquests. The country’s fourth major subdivision, the Galapagos Islands, were little more than pirate nests during the colonial period. They were to achieve world fame in the 19th century, because it was there that Charles Darwin made a major portion of the observations that led to his theories on evolution and his On the Origin of Species. The people of Quito, the Ecuadoran capital, claim that it was the scene of the first Ecuadoran patriot uprising against Spanish rule (1809). Invading from Colombia in 1822, the armies of Simón Bolívar and Antonio José de Sucre came to the aid of Ecuadoran rebels, and on May 24 Sucre won the decisive Battle of Pichincha on a mountain slope near Quito, thus assuring Ecuadoran independence.’
[1]
While initially subject to Spanish colonial incursions, the Shuar tribes later resisted successfully: ’The first reported white penetration of Jivaro territory was made in 1549 by a Spanish expedition under Hernando de Benavente. Later expeditions of colonists and soldiers soon followed. These newcomers traded with the Jivaro, made peace pacts with them, and soon began to exploit the gold found in alluvial or glacial deposits in the region. Eventually the Spaniards were able to obtain the co-operation of some of the Indians in working the gold deposits, but others remained hostile, killing many of the colonists and soldiers at every opportunity. Under the subjection of the Spaniards, the Jivaro were required to pay tribute in gold dust; a demand that increased yearly. Finally, in 1599, the Jivaro rebelled en masse, killing many thousands of Spaniards in the process and driving them from the region. After 1599, until nearly the middle of the nineteenth century, Jivaro-European relations remained intermittent and mostly hostile. A few missionary and military expeditions entered the region from the Andean highlands, but these frequently ended in disaster and no permanent colonization ever resulted. One of the few "friendly" gestures reported for the tribe during this time occurred in 1767, when they gave a Spanish missionizing expedition "gifts", which included the skulls of Spaniards who had apparently been killed earlier by the Jivaro (Harner, 1953: 26). Thus it seems that the Jivaros are the only tribe known to have successfully revolted against the Spanish Empire and to have been able to thwart all subsequent attempts by the Spaniards to conquer them. They have withstood armies of gold seeking Inkas as well as Spaniards, and defied the bravado of the early conquistadors.’
[2]
The code reflects the relationship between the colonial administration and the motherland. As stated above, the code cannot fully reflect the complexities of the colonial situation.
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ecuador/Cultural-life#toc25823 [2]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro |
||||||
|
The Spanish colonial administration resided in Quito: ’During much of the colonial period, what is now Ecuador was under the direct jurisdiction of the law court (audiencia) of Quito and ultimately under the rule of the Spanish crown. Spanish culture was spread primarily by religious orders and male Spanish colonists. In the Sierra, the Spaniards established a colony of large estates worked by Indian peons. Settlements included semiautonomous Indian villages and Spanish and mestizo administrative and religious centres such as Quito, Ambato, and Cuenca. The making of rough textiles in primitive sweatshops was the only industry. The development of Roman Catholic religious establishments provided for the flowering of Baroque architecture, sculpture in wood and stone, painting, music, and other arts and crafts. In the tropical Costa, much of the population died as a result of introduced diseases, and the area remained unhealthy until the advent of modern medicine. As a result, the coast was somewhat neglected during the colonial period, although there was some shipbuilding and exporting of cacao (as cocoa beans) from the port of Guayaquil. The small coastal population of slaves, free blacks, and mixed ethnicities, with plenty of vacant land and less coercion of labour, developed a culture very different from that of the Sierra. In the Oriente, the region on the eastern slopes between the Andes and the headwaters of the Amazon, large populations of Shuar and other indigenous people successfully repelled European invaders; however, Jesuits and other missionaries were able to spread both Christianity and the Quichua language. The Spaniards used Quichua as a language of evangelization-at one period missionaries were required to know the language-and continued to spread it orally by means of Quichua speakers who travelled with them in further conquests. The country’s fourth major subdivision, the Galapagos Islands, were little more than pirate nests during the colonial period. They were to achieve world fame in the 19th century, because it was there that Charles Darwin made a major portion of the observations that led to his theories on evolution and his On the Origin of Species. The people of Quito, the Ecuadoran capital, claim that it was the scene of the first Ecuadoran patriot uprising against Spanish rule (1809). Invading from Colombia in 1822, the armies of Simón Bolívar and Antonio José de Sucre came to the aid of Ecuadoran rebels, and on May 24 Sucre won the decisive Battle of Pichincha on a mountain slope near Quito, thus assuring Ecuadoran independence.’
[1]
While initially subject to Spanish colonial incursions, the Shuar tribes later resisted successfully: ’The first reported white penetration of Jivaro territory was made in 1549 by a Spanish expedition under Hernando de Benavente. Later expeditions of colonists and soldiers soon followed. These newcomers traded with the Jivaro, made peace pacts with them, and soon began to exploit the gold found in alluvial or glacial deposits in the region. Eventually the Spaniards were able to obtain the co-operation of some of the Indians in working the gold deposits, but others remained hostile, killing many of the colonists and soldiers at every opportunity. Under the subjection of the Spaniards, the Jivaro were required to pay tribute in gold dust; a demand that increased yearly. Finally, in 1599, the Jivaro rebelled en masse, killing many thousands of Spaniards in the process and driving them from the region. After 1599, until nearly the middle of the nineteenth century, Jivaro-European relations remained intermittent and mostly hostile. A few missionary and military expeditions entered the region from the Andean highlands, but these frequently ended in disaster and no permanent colonization ever resulted. One of the few "friendly" gestures reported for the tribe during this time occurred in 1767, when they gave a Spanish missionizing expedition "gifts", which included the skulls of Spaniards who had apparently been killed earlier by the Jivaro (Harner, 1953: 26). Thus it seems that the Jivaros are the only tribe known to have successfully revolted against the Spanish Empire and to have been able to thwart all subsequent attempts by the Spaniards to conquer them. They have withstood armies of gold seeking Inkas as well as Spaniards, and defied the bravado of the early conquistadors.’
[2]
The code reflects the relationship between the colonial administration and the motherland. As stated above, the code cannot fully reflect the complexities of the colonial situation.
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ecuador/Cultural-life#toc25823 [2]: Beierle, John: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Jivaro |
||||||
|
SCCS variable 84 ’Higher Political Organization’ is coded ‘1’ ‘Absent’, not ’Peace group’, ’Absent’, ’Alliances’, ’Confederation’, or ’International organization’. After the secession from Spain and Gran Colombia, Ecuador became an independent republic: ’The people of Quito, the Ecuadoran capital, claim that it was the scene of the first Ecuadoran patriot uprising against Spanish rule (1809). Invading from Colombia in 1822, the armies of Simón Bolívar and Antonio José de Sucre came to the aid of Ecuadoran rebels, and on May 24 Sucre won the decisive Battle of Pichincha on a mountain slope near Quito, thus assuring Ecuadoran independence.’
[1]
’Ecuador’s early history as a country was a tormented one. For some eight years it formed, together with what are now the countries of Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela, the confederation of Gran Colombia. But on May 13, 1830, after a period of protracted regional rivalries, Ecuador seceded and became a separate independent republic.’
[1]
’The period between 1925 and 1948 was one of greater turbulence than Ecuador had ever known. Increasing involvement in the world market and in international politics meant that the country could no longer escape entanglements and the consequences of world ideological conflicts. Yet during this crucial period, Ecuador’s internal disunity prevented the modernization of its social structure, land tenure system, education, and communications. Thus, the country was badly equipped to face the demands of the age.’
[1]
The Jivaro did not form any permanent alliances with external forces, military cooperation being of an ad hoc nature: ’“At the present time the political organization of the Jivaros is at best a very flexible thing and is simple both in theory and in practice. The Jivaro-speaking peoples are divided into scores of so-called tribes. These tribal divisions, however, are merely artificial denominations given by the whites to groups more or less isolated in certain geographical units such as rivers or divides. Tribes in this sense have no existence in the minds of the Indians themselves.’
[2]
’The simplest unit of organization is the patrilineal family group living under a single roof. Such a household is quite independent and self-sufficient, being subservient to no one. The head of the [39] household is usually the oldest man in it, known by the Spanish term ‘capito.’ Where there are a number of houses in the same general vicinity these may recognize a common war leader known by the Quechua term ‘curaka.’ It is significant that there is apparently no word in the Jivaro language indicating the equivalent of our idea of a chief.”’
[2]
’The chieftain is called kuháku. In the case of disputes within the group he has no executive, but only advisory powers. He has no greater number of wives than any other respected member of the community.’
[3]
’“A typical unit or group under a curaka [KS: head of the household]consists of six or seven houses, each with its capito [KS: common war leader], situated over an area of 5 or 6 miles on some small river. Such a group has no name to designate it other than that of the stream on which it is located. The blood ties in such a group are likely to be rather close. All groupings of the Jivaros other than the household group proper, which is a natural family unit, are traceable directly to the custom of blood revenge. Such groups are in the nature of loose alliances for defensive or offensive warfare. Insomuch as war raids are purely in the nature of feuds, these alliances are never very extensive or very permanent.”’
[4]
’“The power of the curaka [KS: head of the household] is purely advisory and is confined to warfare. He had no authority to order men against their will for any purpose, even that of fighting. The curaka has no special insignia denoting rank and has no special privileges, other than the prestige which his position gives him. He holds his position only as long as he retains his personal influence with the group. Realinements of household groups are frequent as leaders lose prestige or die.”’
[5]
’“The number of households under the influence of a given curaka is subject to a great deal of fluctuation. It frequently happens that a strong curaka will build up a fairly powerful group of warriors about him. A weak curaka or capito may have a blood-revenge killing to attend to but will find himself outnumbered by the enemy to such an extent that he is afraid to attempt a killing with his own group. In this event he is likely to call upon the strong curaka to arrange the killing for him, paying him with a gun or a woman. Often, too, a weak curaka, fearing that his group would not be able successfully to defend themselves against an attack from enemies, will voluntarily place himself and his group under the influence of the strong curaka in a loose sort of alliance. In this way the strong group tends to grow and to become even stronger until one curaka may have 8 or 10 lesser curakas more or less under his control. This state of affairs is usually not very permanent. Owing to the loose organization and lack of any real power on the part of the head curaka, the large group becomes unwieldy or develops diverse interests and it tends to split up again into independent units. Consequently, in as little as 2 or 3 years’ time, the original head curaka may find that one or more of his former lieutenants are now stronger than he.”’
[6]
’Although on some occasions considerable numbers of Jivaros unite for the purpose of war raids, or in defense against attack from invaders, their decentralized manner of living makes this rather difficult. Living as they do in individual houses, each containing a few families at most, and separated one from the other by considerable distances, there is no concentration of population at any one place such as would tend to produce large engagements.”’
[7]
’Four or five years ago there was a strong chief on the Upano River named Tuki, known to the Ecuadoreans as José Grande. In the manner previously described, all of the curakas from Macas on the Upano River to Mendez on the Paute River became subchiefs under him until he was generally recognized as the strongest of all of the Jivaro curakas. However, he was beginning to grow old by this time and some of his subcurakas were strong men in their own right. About 2 years ago, Ambusha, who had been gradually gaining in power and becoming famous for his head-hunting activities, split off with his own group, taking several curakas and their men with him. A little later Utita did the same thing. At the time of the writer’s visit (1931), although Tuki was recognized by the Government of Ecuador as being head chief of the Macas-Mendez region, actually he had lost all power excepting that over his own family group and was in reality no more than a capito. These divisions of the organization, if it may be termed such, took place apparently without any ill-feeling or formal announcements.’
[8]
[1]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ecuador/Cultural-life#toc25824 [2]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 38p [3]: Tessmann, Günter, b. 1884. 1930. “Indians Of Northeastern Peru”, 360 [4]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 39p [5]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians", 39p [6]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 39 [7]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 42 [8]: Stirling, Matthew Williams 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians”, 40 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"native Egyptian kings repulsed Persian attacks decade after decade through the 340s and constantly instigated or supported challenges to Persian authority elsewhere in the eastern and Mediterranean and Aegean worlds."
[1]
Presumably, in addition to using their mercenaries, were allied with Greeks in wars against the Persians? [1]: (Ruzicka 2012) Ruzicka, Stephen. 2012. Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525-332 BCE. Oxford University Press. Oxford. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
At least initially, the ruler of Aksum likely made alliances with other principalities both within the Horn of Africa and South Arabia (e.g. at some point, probably in this period?, the Aksumite kings claimed to be sovereign over the Himarites
[1]
). At this time Aksum was not powerful enough to directly control the regions by appointing provincial officials.
The city of Aksum was perhaps initially a principality then became the capital province of a fuedal kingdom. [2] Early monarchs had to contend with hereditary, and rebellious, vassals. [3] [1]: (Kobishanov 1981, 381) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [2]: (Kobishanov 1981, 383) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [3]: (Kobishanov 1981, 386) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. |
||||||
|
At least initially, the ruler of Aksum likely made alliances with other principalities both within the Horn of Africa and South Arabia (e.g. at some point, probably in this period?, the Aksumite kings claimed to be sovereign over the Himarites
[1]
). At this time Aksum was not powerful enough to directly control the regions by appointing provincial officials.
The city of Aksum was perhaps initially a principality then became the capital province of a fuedal kingdom. [2] Early monarchs had to contend with hereditary, and rebellious, vassals. [3] [1]: (Kobishanov 1981, 381) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [2]: (Kobishanov 1981, 383) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. [3]: (Kobishanov 1981, 386) Y M. Kobishanov. Aksum: political system, economics and culture, first to fourth century. Muḥammad Jamal al-Din Mokhtar. ed. 1981. UNESCO General History of Africa. Volume II. Heinemann. UNESCO. California. |
||||||
|
Berbers
Sanhaja culture also in Ghana Empire. "The Sanhaja were a desert people and spoke a regional variation of the Berber language. Like their North African relatives, they subdivided themselves into large clans ... In the Western Sahara in the 11th century, the Sanhaja founded the Almoravid dynasty of the Islamic Empire." [1] The Sanhaja Berbers lived in tents rather than permanent settlements. They guided and protected caravans, and raided. [2] Zanata Berbers were the dominant traders in Awdaghust. They lived in the city. [2] [1]: (Conrad 2010, 19) [2]: (Conrad 2010, 33) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
alliance relationships with trading berber nomadic groups?
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Alliance: Ba system - Ba was title assumed at different times by different lineage heads of different states to signify their leadership over the other splinter Zhou kingdoms; for instance, Zheng Zhuang Gong of Zheng is said to have first taken the status (although the term Ba was not yet in use) in 707 bce after defeating armies of Chen, Wey, and Cai. Qi under Huan Gong then supplanted Zheng as the Ba hegemon in the early 7th c bce
[1]
. “at these conferences the attending delegates usually swore their support for the Zhou feudal structure as spelled out in formal agreements.”
[2]
vassalage: numerous ‘barbarian’ tribes (Man, Yi, Rang, Di); namely, groups not directly associated with the Zhou ruling families which served as subservient garrison states as “part of the Zhou feudal network.” [3] [1]: (Hsu 1999, 552) [2]: (Hsu 1999, 556) [3]: (Hsu 1999, 549) |
||||||
|
Alliance: Ba system - Ba was title assumed at different times by different lineage heads of different states to signify their leadership over the other splinter Zhou kingdoms; for instance, Zheng Zhuang Gong of Zheng is said to have first taken the status (although the term Ba was not yet in use) in 707 bce after defeating armies of Chen, Wey, and Cai. Qi under Huan Gong then supplanted Zheng as the Ba hegemon in the early 7th c bce
[1]
. “at these conferences the attending delegates usually swore their support for the Zhou feudal structure as spelled out in formal agreements.”
[2]
vassalage: numerous ‘barbarian’ tribes (Man, Yi, Rang, Di); namely, groups not directly associated with the Zhou ruling families which served as subservient garrison states as “part of the Zhou feudal network.” [3] [1]: (Hsu 1999, 552) [2]: (Hsu 1999, 556) [3]: (Hsu 1999, 549) |
||||||
|
Gaozu recognized authority of hereditary Kings ruling 10 territories in eastern and southern China as semi-independent chiefs, providing mainly military support and a portion of the tax revenue they collected to the Han Emperor. Many of these Kings seem to have been relatives of Gaozu and placed in their position by the Emperor to ensure loyalty.
[1]
Long-standing alliance, featuring cross-cultural marriage and the exchange of hostages and gifts, created between the Xiongnu and Han China for most of the 2nd century CE; the ’treaty’ was frequently broken and renewed during the later Western Han period. [2] [1]: (Loewe 1986a,124) [2]: (Ying-Shih 1986) |
||||||
|
Gaozu recognized authority of hereditary Kings ruling 10 territories in eastern and southern China as semi-independent chiefs, providing mainly military support and a portion of the tax revenue they collected to the Han Emperor. Many of these Kings seem to have been relatives of Gaozu and placed in their position by the Emperor to ensure loyalty.
[1]
Long-standing alliance, featuring cross-cultural marriage and the exchange of hostages and gifts, created between the Xiongnu and Han China for most of the 2nd century CE; the ’treaty’ was frequently broken and renewed during the later Western Han period. [2] [1]: (Loewe 1986a,124) [2]: (Ying-Shih 1986) |
||||||
|
Gaozu recognized authority of hereditary Kings ruling 10 territories in eastern and southern China as semi-independent chiefs, providing mainly military support and a portion of the tax revenue they collected to the Han Emperor. Many of these Kings seem to have been relatives of Gaozu and placed in their position by the Emperor to ensure loyalty.
[1]
Long-standing alliance, featuring cross-cultural marriage and the exchange of hostages and gifts, created between the Xiongnu and Han China for most of the 2nd century CE; the ’treaty’ was frequently broken and renewed during the later Western Han period. [2] [1]: (Loewe 1986a,124) [2]: (Ying-Shih 1986) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
434 CE marriage alliance with Rouran.
[1]
Erzhu clan allied with government to suppress 526-527 CE rebellions. Previously part of the Xiongnu tribal confederacy. They were living under "their own tribal organization" a pastoral lifestyle. Early 6th century estimated at 8,000 families. Possessed cattle, sheep, camels and horses, "counted by the valley" due to the vastness of their stocks. [2] Alliance between Tuoba of Wei and Murong of Yan ended 391 CE. [3] [1]: (Xiong 2009, xcix) [2]: (Graff 2002, 100-101) [3]: (Graff 2002, 70) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
An independent empire.
|
||||||
|
Yuan had vassals including Goryeo, Burma, Vietnam, Champa, Java, Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate, Ilkhanate
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Displeased, the Chinese had him interned; he died in Lo-yang in 524, and A-na-kui remained the sole ruler of the Juan-juan. It is difficult to know how much real power he wielded, but he skilfully exploited the internal difficulties of the rapidly disintegrating W ei state. He established matrimonial relations with both the Eastern and Western Wei, and at times was an effective power broker between contending Chinese factions."
[1]
The Rouran tended to raid the Wei, with periods of alliance. There were several strategic marriage alliances between the two polities. However, this might be too unstable (because of the raiding) to code as ’alliance’?
[1]: (Sinor 1990, 295) |
||||||
|
Sassanian-type Kidarite coins suggest an early relationship with the Sassanids - perhaps official recognition for Sassanian suzerainty. This could be as early as c350 CE and as late as 388 CE.
[1]
unknown source sent an embassy to China 477 CE [1]: (Zeimal 1996, 125) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
Sassanian-type Kidarite coins suggest an early relationship with the Sassanids - perhaps official recognition for Sassanian suzerainty. This could be as early as c350 CE and as late as 388 CE.
[1]
unknown source sent an embassy to China 477 CE [1]: (Zeimal 1996, 125) Zeimal, E. V. The Kidarite Kingdom In Central Asia. in Litvinsky, B. A. ed. and Iskender-Mochiri, I. ed. 1996. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume III. The crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750. pp.123-137. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001046/104612e.pdf |
||||||
|
"The Uighurs were frequently Chinese allies, which involved several marriage alliances between the royal courts."
[1]
"Like the Türks before them, the Uighurs ruled in a virtual symbiosis with the Sogdian merchants of Bukhara and Samarqand. Their attitude toward the Chinese, how- ever, was very different from the Türk rulers’ usually hostile stance. Facing a much weaker China, the Uighur rulers treated the Tang as a protectorate. In return for fighting rebels and Tibetans, the Uighurs expected vast sums of silk, as much as 230,000 bolts in a single year, and imperial princesses. Although the Uighurs also traded horses and presented “tribute goods” at the same time, the Tang found Uighur assistance very expensive, while Uighur troops were often as destructive as the rebels they were fighting."
[2]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 227) [2]: (Atwood 2004, 560-561) |
||||||
|
"The Uighurs were frequently Chinese allies, which involved several marriage alliances between the royal courts."
[1]
"Like the Türks before them, the Uighurs ruled in a virtual symbiosis with the Sogdian merchants of Bukhara and Samarqand. Their attitude toward the Chinese, how- ever, was very different from the Türk rulers’ usually hostile stance. Facing a much weaker China, the Uighur rulers treated the Tang as a protectorate. In return for fighting rebels and Tibetans, the Uighurs expected vast sums of silk, as much as 230,000 bolts in a single year, and imperial princesses. Although the Uighurs also traded horses and presented “tribute goods” at the same time, the Tang found Uighur assistance very expensive, while Uighur troops were often as destructive as the rebels they were fighting."
[2]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 227) [2]: (Atwood 2004, 560-561) |
||||||
|
Nominal
"The Samanid brothers, while initially subject to the Tahirids, were largely autonomous rulers in their own territories, minted bronze coins in their own names, and mustered mili-tias and mounted campaigns against surrounding provinces." [1] Nominal "As was almost universal in the Islamic world at this time, society was hierarchical, with the caliph-imams being, in theory at least, the delegators of all authority, so that the Samanid amirs were their lieutenants. In practice, the amirs enjoyed virtual independence, but were careful to pay lip-service to the caliphal ideal." [2] Alliance Allied with Ziyarids of Tabaristan. [3] [1]: (Negmatov 1997, 84) Negmatov, N N. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [2]: (Negmatov 1997, 87) Negmatov, N N. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [3]: (Frye 1975, 151) Frye, Richard Nelson. 1975. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
Nominal
"The Samanid brothers, while initially subject to the Tahirids, were largely autonomous rulers in their own territories, minted bronze coins in their own names, and mustered mili-tias and mounted campaigns against surrounding provinces." [1] Nominal "As was almost universal in the Islamic world at this time, society was hierarchical, with the caliph-imams being, in theory at least, the delegators of all authority, so that the Samanid amirs were their lieutenants. In practice, the amirs enjoyed virtual independence, but were careful to pay lip-service to the caliphal ideal." [2] Alliance Allied with Ziyarids of Tabaristan. [3] [1]: (Negmatov 1997, 84) Negmatov, N N. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [2]: (Negmatov 1997, 87) Negmatov, N N. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [3]: (Frye 1975, 151) Frye, Richard Nelson. 1975. The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. |
||||||
|
Vassalage/Nominal allegiance
Nasr b. Ali, who held the Transoxania appanage "was in practice an independent ruler but formally recognized his brother, Ahmad b. Ali, as head of the dynasty. They both appear on most of the coins from Nasr’s appanage as suzerain and vassal (with the emphasis on Nasr’s independence, however)." [1] Nominal allegiance to Abbasid caliphs "The new rulers accepted the nominal authority of the Abbasid caliphs and directly or indirectly promoted the spread of Islam among the populace of Transoxania, Kashgar, and the Tarim basin." [2] Vassalage to Seljuks "The Western Karakhanids were more dependent on the Seljuqs, although nothing is known of the financial aspect of their dependence. (Did they pay tribute?) Their political dependence was considerable, however: the Seljuqs placed on the Karakhanid throne in Samarkand whichever members of the dynasty they required. The vassal status of the Western Karakhanids is also reflected in the coinage, some of which bears the names of Seljuq sultans." [3] Alliance Alliance with Kara-Khitai against Khwarazmians lead to end of Kara-Khanid rule in Samarkand. [4] [1]: (Davidovich 1997, 130-131) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 230) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: (Davidovich 1997, 138) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [4]: (Davidovich 1997, 142) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
Vassalage/Nominal allegiance
Nasr b. Ali, who held the Transoxania appanage "was in practice an independent ruler but formally recognized his brother, Ahmad b. Ali, as head of the dynasty. They both appear on most of the coins from Nasr’s appanage as suzerain and vassal (with the emphasis on Nasr’s independence, however)." [1] Nominal allegiance to Abbasid caliphs "The new rulers accepted the nominal authority of the Abbasid caliphs and directly or indirectly promoted the spread of Islam among the populace of Transoxania, Kashgar, and the Tarim basin." [2] Vassalage to Seljuks "The Western Karakhanids were more dependent on the Seljuqs, although nothing is known of the financial aspect of their dependence. (Did they pay tribute?) Their political dependence was considerable, however: the Seljuqs placed on the Karakhanid throne in Samarkand whichever members of the dynasty they required. The vassal status of the Western Karakhanids is also reflected in the coinage, some of which bears the names of Seljuq sultans." [3] Alliance Alliance with Kara-Khitai against Khwarazmians lead to end of Kara-Khanid rule in Samarkand. [4] [1]: (Davidovich 1997, 130-131) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 230) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: (Davidovich 1997, 138) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [4]: (Davidovich 1997, 142) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
Vassalage/Nominal allegiance
Nasr b. Ali, who held the Transoxania appanage "was in practice an independent ruler but formally recognized his brother, Ahmad b. Ali, as head of the dynasty. They both appear on most of the coins from Nasr’s appanage as suzerain and vassal (with the emphasis on Nasr’s independence, however)." [1] Nominal allegiance to Abbasid caliphs "The new rulers accepted the nominal authority of the Abbasid caliphs and directly or indirectly promoted the spread of Islam among the populace of Transoxania, Kashgar, and the Tarim basin." [2] Vassalage to Seljuks "The Western Karakhanids were more dependent on the Seljuqs, although nothing is known of the financial aspect of their dependence. (Did they pay tribute?) Their political dependence was considerable, however: the Seljuqs placed on the Karakhanid throne in Samarkand whichever members of the dynasty they required. The vassal status of the Western Karakhanids is also reflected in the coinage, some of which bears the names of Seljuq sultans." [3] Alliance Alliance with Kara-Khitai against Khwarazmians lead to end of Kara-Khanid rule in Samarkand. [4] [1]: (Davidovich 1997, 130-131) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [2]: (Lapidus 2012, 230) Lapidus, Ira M. 2012. Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [3]: (Davidovich 1997, 138) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. [4]: (Davidovich 1997, 142) Davidovich, E A. in Asimov, M S and Bosworth, C E eds. 1997. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part I. UNESCO. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
| 236 | Kingdom of Sicily - Hohenstaufen and Angevin dynasties | personal union with de_empire_2 | Confident | 1194 CE 1197 CE | ||
|
Henry VI ascended to the throne of Sicily following the death of William II, the last Norman king without a direct heir, and after defeating the rival claimants who were supported by the local nobility and external forces including the Byzantine Empire.
Henry VI was crowned King of Sicily at Palermo in 1194, adding the kingdom to his territories which already included the German and Italian lands under the Holy Roman Empire. [1] [1]: Deutsche Biographie, “Heinrich VI. - Deutsche Biographie,” Zotero link: N3KBRKCS |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Vladislaus I (Władysław III of Poland / Vladislaus I of Hungary) held the Kingdom of Hungary in personal union from 1440 to 1444.
[1]
[1]: Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (London ; New York, NY: I.B. Tauris, 2005). Zotero link: 9BBKM3AR |
||||||
|
none; vassalage (1243-1207 BCE)
During the Kassite period, Babylon was controlled for a period of time by the Assyrians. In the Amarna letters the Kassite king Burnaburiash II (1359-1333 BCE) described Assyria as his vassal. By the reign of the Assyrian king Tulki-Ninurta I (1243-1207 BCE), Assyria had grown powerful enough, in the vacuum created by the decline of the Mitanni, to invade Babylon. When Tulki-Ninurta I’s son overthrew him, the Kassites returned to claim the Babylonian throne again. [1] [1]: Gill, A. 2008. Gateway of the Gods: The Rise and Fall of Babylon. London: Quercus. p.68-69 |
||||||
|
none; vassalage (1243-1207 BCE)
During the Kassite period, Babylon was controlled for a period of time by the Assyrians. In the Amarna letters the Kassite king Burnaburiash II (1359-1333 BCE) described Assyria as his vassal. By the reign of the Assyrian king Tulki-Ninurta I (1243-1207 BCE), Assyria had grown powerful enough, in the vacuum created by the decline of the Mitanni, to invade Babylon. When Tulki-Ninurta I’s son overthrew him, the Kassites returned to claim the Babylonian throne again. [1] [1]: Gill, A. 2008. Gateway of the Gods: The Rise and Fall of Babylon. London: Quercus. p.68-69 |
||||||
|
Under the leadership of Diodotus the kingdom asserted its independence from Seleucid ruled. and was independent from 256 BCE until its fall to nomdic invaders in 125 BCE.
[1]
"Diodotus renounced the Seleucid emperor Antiochus II in 256 BC and declared himself king after hearing that his ally Andragoras, the Seleucid satrap of the province of Partahia (Parthia) had just done the same." [2] [1]: Holt, Frank L. Lost World of the Golden King, p. xv [2]: (www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-06enl.html) |
||||||
|
Abyssinians, from Ethiopia, who had occupied the Tihama (Red Sea coast) region since the 2nd century CE, "marched on the Himyarite capital, Zafar, and conquered it around 240 CE, compelling the Himyarites to enter into an alliance with them."
[1]
"At least from about 270 onwards to about 328 the Aksumites were enemies of Rome. The Himyarites appear to have been clients of the Aksumites at least until about 298 and therefore enemies of Rome but they appear to have thrown off the Aksumite yoke at least temporarily after that, or at least their independent embassy to Persia, in about AD 300 would seem to suggest this, but ... the alliances were unstable". [2] "the Himyarites seem to have recognized the Aksumites as their overlords by at least about 296-298, which suggests a defeat, but the situation fluctuated." [3] [1]: (Caton 2013, 45-46) Steven C Caton ed. 2013. Yemen. ABC-Clio. Santa Barbara [2]: (Syvanne 2015, 134) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [3]: (Syvanne 2015, 133) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
Abyssinians, from Ethiopia, who had occupied the Tihama (Red Sea coast) region since the 2nd century CE, "marched on the Himyarite capital, Zafar, and conquered it around 240 CE, compelling the Himyarites to enter into an alliance with them."
[1]
"At least from about 270 onwards to about 328 the Aksumites were enemies of Rome. The Himyarites appear to have been clients of the Aksumites at least until about 298 and therefore enemies of Rome but they appear to have thrown off the Aksumite yoke at least temporarily after that, or at least their independent embassy to Persia, in about AD 300 would seem to suggest this, but ... the alliances were unstable". [2] "the Himyarites seem to have recognized the Aksumites as their overlords by at least about 296-298, which suggests a defeat, but the situation fluctuated." [3] [1]: (Caton 2013, 45-46) Steven C Caton ed. 2013. Yemen. ABC-Clio. Santa Barbara [2]: (Syvanne 2015, 134) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [3]: (Syvanne 2015, 133) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
Abyssinians, from Ethiopia, who had occupied the Tihama (Red Sea coast) region since the 2nd century CE, "marched on the Himyarite capital, Zafar, and conquered it around 240 CE, compelling the Himyarites to enter into an alliance with them."
[1]
"At least from about 270 onwards to about 328 the Aksumites were enemies of Rome. The Himyarites appear to have been clients of the Aksumites at least until about 298 and therefore enemies of Rome but they appear to have thrown off the Aksumite yoke at least temporarily after that, or at least their independent embassy to Persia, in about AD 300 would seem to suggest this, but ... the alliances were unstable". [2] "the Himyarites seem to have recognized the Aksumites as their overlords by at least about 296-298, which suggests a defeat, but the situation fluctuated." [3] [1]: (Caton 2013, 45-46) Steven C Caton ed. 2013. Yemen. ABC-Clio. Santa Barbara [2]: (Syvanne 2015, 134) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. [3]: (Syvanne 2015, 133) Ilkka Syvanne. 2015. Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen and Sword. Barnsley. |
||||||
|
"The Abbasid court continued to send governors to Sanaa. By 845 the Abbasid’s authority was effectively disputed by Yu’fir bin ’Abd al-Rahman al-Huwali, a descendant of the pre-Islamic Himyarite kings. He expelled the Abbasid governor, Himyar ibn al-Harith, in 861, and ruled an area from Sanaa south to Janad, while acknowledging Abbasid symbolic sovereighty and paying tribute to the Ziyadi state. Yu’fir’s son Mhuammad, whose influence extended over Hadramaut, was formally invested with the rule of Sanaa by the Abbasid caliph al Mu’tamid about 872."
[1]
"In 1007 a Yu’firid prince of the Ismaili persuasion, ’Abdullah ibn Qahtan, suceeded to the rule of Sanaa, and even made a successful foray against that stronghold of Sunnism, the Ziyad state in the Tihama, now in its decline." [2] "For a century and a half no central power of consequence existed in the Yemen inland from the Tihama. Most of the local rulers invoked the Abbasid caliph in the Friday prayers; they repressed overt manifestations of Ismaili sentiment, but offered no persuaive ideological alternative." [2] [1]: (Stookey 1978, 54) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. [2]: (Stookey 1978, 57) Robert W Stookey. 1978. Yemen: The Politics of the Yemen Arab Republic. Westview Press. Boulder. |
||||||
|
"Ibn Tulun never formally repudiated Abbasid authority, but with his new army and a distracted caliphate he was able to establish himself as virtually autonomous."
[1]
Treaty of 886 CE Abbasids "granted the governorship of Egypt to Khumarawayh and his descendants for a period of thirty years." [1] Raymond describes the following as rulers of "an autonomous state, albeit under Abbasid suzerainty." [2] Ibn Tulun (868-884 CE) Khumarawayh (884-896 CE) Their successors (896-905) Under Abbasid control again from 905-935 CE [3] Treaty of 939 CE Abbasids "granted to the Ikshid and his heirs governorship over Egypt and Syria for thirty years, virtually the same arrangement the Tulunids had." [1] De facto autonomy under Ikhshid rule (935-969 CE) [3] Muhammad ibn Tughj (935-946 CE) was the first Ikshid ruler [1] [3] Two sons "raised under the tutelage of the regent Kafur, a black eunuch from Nubia." (946-966 CE) [3] Kafur died 968 CE [4] [1]: (Sundelin 2013, 430-431) Shillington, K. 2013. Encyclopedia of African History: Volume 3. Routledge. [2]: (Raymond 2000, 26) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 34) [4]: (Raymond 2000, 35) |
||||||
|
"Ibn Tulun never formally repudiated Abbasid authority, but with his new army and a distracted caliphate he was able to establish himself as virtually autonomous."
[1]
Treaty of 886 CE Abbasids "granted the governorship of Egypt to Khumarawayh and his descendants for a period of thirty years." [1] Raymond describes the following as rulers of "an autonomous state, albeit under Abbasid suzerainty." [2] Ibn Tulun (868-884 CE) Khumarawayh (884-896 CE) Their successors (896-905) Under Abbasid control again from 905-935 CE [3] Treaty of 939 CE Abbasids "granted to the Ikshid and his heirs governorship over Egypt and Syria for thirty years, virtually the same arrangement the Tulunids had." [1] De facto autonomy under Ikhshid rule (935-969 CE) [3] Muhammad ibn Tughj (935-946 CE) was the first Ikshid ruler [1] [3] Two sons "raised under the tutelage of the regent Kafur, a black eunuch from Nubia." (946-966 CE) [3] Kafur died 968 CE [4] [1]: (Sundelin 2013, 430-431) Shillington, K. 2013. Encyclopedia of African History: Volume 3. Routledge. [2]: (Raymond 2000, 26) [3]: (Raymond 2000, 34) [4]: (Raymond 2000, 35) |
||||||
|
Daylamites were foot soldiers but "a purely Daylamite army was not really effective since they had to find allies, usually Turks, sometimes Kurds, who could provide the cavalry to make a balanced fighting unit."
[1]
"Marriage links were an important way of consolidating alliances and links through the female line were more important than in much of Islamic society. This was especially true in the Buyid kingdom of Rayy, where traditional Daylamite customs seem to have been less affected by Islamic norms than in Fars or Iraq." [1] "the alliance of Buyid princes and Farsi landowners ... was to be the foundation of the Buyid state" [2] "Buyid and Kakuyid contenders had often actually welcomed the Seljuks as a means of defeating internal enemies." [3] [1]: (Kennedy 2004, 211) Kennedy, Hugh N. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Second edition. Pearson Longman. Harlow. [2]: (Kennedy 2004, 213) Kennedy, Hugh N. 2004. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Second edition. Pearson Longman. Harlow. [3]: (Peacock 2015, 123) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press. |
||||||
|
The Sultans owed allegiance to the caliph, "“a new stratification of power emerged, in which legitimacy and prestige belonged to the Abbasid caliph, but political power belonged to sultans or other synonymously titled rulers who acquired power by conquest and claimed legitimacy from him.”
[1]
[1]: Findley, Carter V., The Turks in World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.69. |
||||||
|
Sulayhids: In 1110 CE the Fatimids in Egypt "sent an Armenian commander, Ibn Najib al-Dawla, as a da’i to reign in the chaotic situation in Yemen. Soon the local tribes revolted against him and the authority of the queen was much constrained by him."
[1]
"The Sulayhids ruled in Yemen as adherents of Ismailism and as nominal vassals of the Fatimids." [2] [1]: (Hamdani 2006, 777) Hamdani, Abbas. Sulayhids. Josef W Meri ed. 2006. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Volume 1, A - K, Index. Routledge. Abingdon. [2]: (Bosworth 2014) Clifford Edmund Bosworth. 2014. The New Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"In the case of distant rulers a nominal submission looks to have been sufficient, while of those nearer at hand regular attendance on the cakravartin was also required."
[1]
"[...] the Guptas became involved with the Vakatakas, the dynasty which had succeded the Shatavahanas as the dominant power in the Deccan.//"For once, war was not the outcome; perhaps the campaign against the Satraps were taking their toll. Instead, the Guptas opted for a dynastic alliance whereby Chandra-Gupta II’s daughter was married to Rudrasena II, the Vakataka king. The latter soon died and during the ensuing regency (c. 390-410) it was Prabhavati, this Gupta queen, who as regent controlled the Vakataka state in accordance with Gupta policy. Thereafter the Vakatakas continued as allies and associates of the imperial Guptas."
[2]
[1]: (Keay 2010, 139-140) Keay, John. 2010. India: A History. New Updated Edition. London: HarperPress. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/HSHAKZ3X. [2]: (Keay 2010, 142) Keay, John. 2010. India: A History. New Updated Edition. London: HarperPress. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/HSHAKZ3X. |
||||||
|
"In the case of distant rulers a nominal submission looks to have been sufficient, while of those nearer at hand regular attendance on the cakravartin was also required."
[1]
"[...] the Guptas became involved with the Vakatakas, the dynasty which had succeded the Shatavahanas as the dominant power in the Deccan.//"For once, war was not the outcome; perhaps the campaign against the Satraps were taking their toll. Instead, the Guptas opted for a dynastic alliance whereby Chandra-Gupta II’s daughter was married to Rudrasena II, the Vakataka king. The latter soon died and during the ensuing regency (c. 390-410) it was Prabhavati, this Gupta queen, who as regent controlled the Vakataka state in accordance with Gupta policy. Thereafter the Vakatakas continued as allies and associates of the imperial Guptas."
[2]
[1]: (Keay 2010, 139-140) Keay, John. 2010. India: A History. New Updated Edition. London: HarperPress. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/HSHAKZ3X. [2]: (Keay 2010, 142) Keay, John. 2010. India: A History. New Updated Edition. London: HarperPress. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/HSHAKZ3X. |
||||||
|
"It would seem that during the height of the Erlitou site’s power (and by extension the Erlitou or “Xia” polity), fortified centers associated with the Erligang (or early Shang) polity were already appearing in the same region. Currently available C14 samples date phase III of the Erlitou site—the period associated with the most notable evidence of the site’s prosperity—to c. 1610-1550 (or even 1530) calibrated years BC, while Erligang sites such as Zhengzhou (郑州) and Yanshi (偃师) date from c. 1600 BC (Zhang et al. 2007; Zhongguo 2003, pp. 659-663). In particular, the location of Yanshi, only 6 km northeast of Erlitou, raises questions about the relationships between the two cultures and the polities they represent."
[1]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 347) |
||||||
|
"If the analogy to the Anyang period can be made, lacking the infrastructure of later Qin-Han-type imperial control, political relationships even within the Central Plains cultural sphere were likely indirect, mutable, and based on ritually reinforced kinship hierarchy, alliance, and sporadic, rather than routine, mechanisms of coercion. It is also likely that—as with the Zhou dynasts, who set up statelets in strategic areas after the conquest of the Shang—the political, economic, and cultural relationships between sites changed over the course of their occupation, each site and each region having its own local historical trajectory related to, but not necessarily determined by, the fate of the cultural and political core."
[1]
[1]: (Campbell 2014, 100) |
||||||
|
many alliances were formed between Warring States kingdoms, usually military alliances against another kingdom, but were fleeting and quickly abandoned in favor of other alliances throughout this period (cf. Tin-bor Hui 2005)
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
unknown
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Bray (1984: 337) suggests that the complexity of the Neguanje burial found by Mason implies a certain political complexity. Some speak of a tribal society, characterized by great variation, due to "diverse degrees of influence, contact, or both at the same time, with neighboring cultural groups of the Rancheria (Guajira), Bajo Magdalena and southwestern Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta" (Oyuela 1986:34). Nevertheless, knowledge about social organization during the Neguanje period is based almost exclusively on site excavations, which make any proposal about social organization difficult. "Tribes" are mentioned for the ancient phase because it is assumed that the societies that the Spanish found were organized as "chiefdoms". And, as anyone knows, tribes precede chiefdoms."
[1]
[1]: (Langebaek 2005, 13) |
||||||
|
"Major towns, such as Bonda and Pocigueica, were governed by chiefs (caciques) and seem to have formed the nuclei of incipient states. There is an unresolved debate about whether a higher level of organization ever existed. Reichel-Dolmatoff (1951: 88-90) argues that a number of confederations had emerged by the sixteenth century; Henning Bischof (1971; 1982-83) maintains that these were ephemeral alliances and that no permanent supralocal structure can be recognized."
[1]
"The 16th century accounts also suggest that constantly shifting alliances and trading partnerships, as well as occasional warfare leading to control over large areas and neighboring towns were quite common for this time."
[2]
[1]: (Bray 2003, 302) [2]: (Giraldo 2010, 61) |
||||||
|
During this period Mongolia was a quasi-polity inhabited by simple and complex chiefdoms that alternatively warred against each other and formed alliances (Togan 199?).
|
||||||
|
During this period Mongolia was a quasi-polity inhabited by simple and complex chiefdoms that alternatively warred against each other and formed alliances (Togan 199?).
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Prior to colonial annexation, the Orokaiva were a group of autonomous tribes without central political organization: ’Political organization incorporates no central authority or hereditary leadership. Instead, it is characterized by big-men(EMBO DAMBO) and an ascendancy of elders who have proved themselves equal to the task. Such men command the respect of the village, based upon observed qualities of generosity, diligence, wealth, ability to make wise decisions, and skill in arranging ceremonial activities. This status confers no sanctioning authority, however. The Orokaiva tribes, around twelve in number, are very loose units politically and recognize no single leader. The largest unit is the tribe, which has a common territory usually demarcated from neighboring tribal territories by a belt of uninhabited land.’
[1]
’The social system is characterized by flexibility in arrangements for group membership and for transmission of rights to land. A village normally contains more than one clan branch and consequently is not necessarily a landholding unit. Residents may have closer kinship ties to residents of other villages than with some of their coresidents. Nevertheless, common residence implies some community of interest and a degree of group solidarity that is reinforced by government policy, which recognizes villages rather than descent groups as functional entities. Marriages between members of different clan branches within the village also reinforce this solidarity, which is expressed in ways such as daily food gifts, cooperation in certain tasks, and joint ceremonial activities. On the average, a lineage comprises three households. Usually, several clans are represented in a village, with members of a single clan (clan branches) being scattered among a number of neighboring villages. Lineages are more localized in cha racter, frequently being confined to a single village and tending to occupy one section of it.’
[1]
Some attempts at colonization were made before the 1880s, but those largely remained superficial: ’Malay and possibly Chinese traders took spoils and some slaves from western New Guinea for hundreds of years. The first European visitor may have been Jorge de Meneses, who possibly landed on the island in 1526-27 while en route to the Moluccas. The first European attempt at colonization was made in 1793 by Lieut. John Hayes, a British naval officer, near Manokwari, now in Papua province, Indonesia. It was the Dutch, however, who claimed the western half of the island as part of the Dutch East Indies in 1828; their control remained nominal until 1898, when their first permanent administrative posts were set up at Fakfak and Manokwari. Capt. John Moresby of Great Britain surveyed the southeastern coast in the 1870s, and by the 1880s European planters had moved onto New Britain and New Ireland. By 1884 the German New Guinea Company was administering the northeastern quadrant, and a British protectorate was declared over the southeastern quadrant. Despite early gold finds in British New Guinea (which from 1906 was administered by Australia as the colony of Papua), it was in German New Guinea, administered by the German imperial government after 1899, that most early economic activity took place. Plantations were widely established in the New Guinea islands and around Madang, and labourers were transported from the Sepik River region, the Markham valley, and Buka Island.’
[2]
[1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva [2]: http://www.britannica.com/place/Papua-New-Guinea/History |
||||||
|
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, New Guinea was incorporated into the British and Australian colonial systems: ’In response to Australian pressure, the British government annexed Papua in 1888. Gold was discovered shortly thereafter, resulting in a major movement of prospectors and miners to what was then the Northern District. Relations with the Papuans were bad from the start, and there were numerous killings on both sides. The Protectorate of British New Guinea became Australian territory by the passing of the Papua Act of 1905 by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. The new administration adopted a policy of peaceful penetration, and many measures of social and economic national development were introduced. Local control was in the hands of village constables, paid servants of the Crown. Chosen by European officers, they were intermediaries between the government and the people. In 1951 an eruption occurred on Mount Lamington, completely devastating a large part of the area occupied by the Orokaiva. Survivors were provided with food, medicine, and other relief by the government and were maintained in evacuatio n camps. Large-scale, expertly planned social, economic, and political development began in Papua around 1960 with the introduction of cash crops, agricultural extension work, land-title improvement, road improvement, and educational development.’
[1]
[1]: Latham, Christopher S.: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Orokaiva |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Point against: the Paris Basin region was very much on the periphery of the Hallstatt zone and their local chiefs might not have been close enough to the important trade center (Austria) to have been vassals at any time.
Hallstatt B2/3-C(900-600 BC) "The Mediterranean world-economy integrated the North-Alpine complex during Hallstatt B2-3/C. The Greek and Etruscan towns experienced an increasing demand for raw materials which led them to enlarge their supply areas until they embraced a large part of the continent. In this vast exchange system, certain well-positioned local chiefs played the role of privileged intermediaries. They were able to monopolize trade and exchange, and controlled the supply of Mediterranean prestigue goods, ultimately extending their influence into neighbouring territories. They reduced local rulers to vassal status. " [1] [1]: (Brun 1995, 22-23) |
||||||
|
Point against: the Paris Basin region was very much on the periphery of the Hallstatt zone and their local chiefs might not have been close enough to the important trade center (Austria) to have been vassals at any time.
Hallstatt B2/3-C(900-600 BC) "The Mediterranean world-economy integrated the North-Alpine complex during Hallstatt B2-3/C. The Greek and Etruscan towns experienced an increasing demand for raw materials which led them to enlarge their supply areas until they embraced a large part of the continent. In this vast exchange system, certain well-positioned local chiefs played the role of privileged intermediaries. They were able to monopolize trade and exchange, and controlled the supply of Mediterranean prestigue goods, ultimately extending their influence into neighbouring territories. They reduced local rulers to vassal status. " [1] [1]: (Brun 1995, 22-23) |
||||||
|
Consequence of the "intensification of Greek-led trade" in the 6th century passing through Massalia: "hillforts became fewer in number but more massive in size. The number of elite burials also fell, but those which have survived intact display extraordinary riches. The term ’Halstatt Princedoms’ has been coined to describe these communities whose elites were able to control the flow of the exotic Mediterranean products..."
[1]
[1]: (Allen 2007, 26-27) |
||||||
|
Tribes formed alliances with other tribes.
450-250 BCE Migration Period: "The migrations that these warrior societies undertook over the next 200 years effectively broke the bond between tribe and its ancestral territory. The institution of kingship declined among the continental Celts throughout the Migration Period as tribes split up and coalesced into new communities." [1] [1]: (Allen 2007, 61) |
||||||
|
Tribes formed alliances with other tribes.
450-250 BCE Migration Period: "The migrations that these warrior societies undertook over the next 200 years effectively broke the bond between tribe and its ancestral territory. The institution of kingship declined among the continental Celts throughout the Migration Period as tribes split up and coalesced into new communities." [1] [1]: (Allen 2007, 61) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
In response to the Islamic threat Samarkand "managed to form an alliance with some principalities in the Fergana valley".
[1]
“These city-states, often at odds with one another, had been under Hephthalite, Türk and Arab rule at varions times." [2] "In the middle of the seventh century, after the fall of the Western Kaghanate, the Sogdian states gained de facto independence, although formally recognizing the sovereignty of the T’ang dynasty. In the eighth century, this sovereignty proved to be purely nominal, because China gave no real support against the Arab invaders." [3] [1]: (Hanks 2010, 3) Hanks, R R. 2010. Global Security Watch-Central Asia. ABC-CLIO. [2]: (Golden 1992, 190) [3]: (Marshak 1996, 242) |
||||||
|
In response to the Islamic threat Samarkand "managed to form an alliance with some principalities in the Fergana valley".
[1]
“These city-states, often at odds with one another, had been under Hephthalite, Türk and Arab rule at varions times." [2] "In the middle of the seventh century, after the fall of the Western Kaghanate, the Sogdian states gained de facto independence, although formally recognizing the sovereignty of the T’ang dynasty. In the eighth century, this sovereignty proved to be purely nominal, because China gave no real support against the Arab invaders." [3] [1]: (Hanks 2010, 3) Hanks, R R. 2010. Global Security Watch-Central Asia. ABC-CLIO. [2]: (Golden 1992, 190) [3]: (Marshak 1996, 242) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The transition from the Qing dynastic to the Chinese republican period was characterized by significant political and economic transformations: ’From Song on, in periods of relative peace, government control was exercised through the tusi system of indirect rule by appointed native headmen who collected taxes, organized corvée, and kept the peace. Miao filled this role in Hunan and eastern Guizhou, but farther west the rulers were often drawn from a hereditary Yi nobility, a system that lasted into the twentieth century. In Guizhou, some tusi claimed Han ancestry, but were probably drawn from the ranks of assimilated Bouyei, Dong, and Miao. Government documents refer to the "Sheng Miao" (raw Miao), meaning those living in areas beyond government control and not paying taxes or labor service to the state. In the sixteenth century, in the more pacified areas, the implementation of the policy of gaitu guiliu began the replacement of native rulers with regular civilian and military officials, a few of whom were drawn from assimilated minority families. Land became a commodity, creating both landlords and some freeholding peasants in the areas affected. In the Yunnan-Guizhou border area, the tusi system continued and Miao purchase of land and participation in local markets was restricted by law until the Republican period (1911-1949).’
[1]
Miao popular uprisings against the deleterious effects of economic and ethnic stratification continued well into the republican period: ’During the Qing, uprisings and military encounters escalated. There were major disturbances in western Hunan (1795-1806) and a continuous series of rebellions in Guizhou (1854-1872). Chinese policies toward the Miao shifted among assimilation, containment in "stockaded villages," dispersal, removal, and extermination. The frequent threat of "Miao rebellion" caused considerable anxiety to the state; in actuality, many of these uprisings included Bouyei, Dong, Hui, and other ethnic groups, including Han settlers and demobilized soldiers. At issue were heavy taxation, rising landlordism, rivalries over local resources, and official corruption. One of the last Miao uprisings occurred in 1905 in western Hunan in opposition to Guomindang (Republican) continuation of the tuntian system, which forced the peasants to open up new lands and grow crops for the state.’
[1]: Diamond, Norma: eHRAF Cultural Summary for the Miao |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
[1]
"The kings of Ur interacted with the regions of Anshan (Fars), Shimashki and Zabshali (north of Susiana) through a series of peace treaties, containment policies and threats. At times this interaction was expressed through marriages between the daughters of the kings of Ur and the Elamite kings, or military expeditions." [2] [1]: Stępień 2009, 16 [2]: (Leverani 2014, 168-169) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
[1]
"The kings of Ur interacted with the regions of Anshan (Fars), Shimashki and Zabshali (north of Susiana) through a series of peace treaties, containment policies and threats. At times this interaction was expressed through marriages between the daughters of the kings of Ur and the Elamite kings, or military expeditions." [2] [1]: Stępień 2009, 16 [2]: (Leverani 2014, 168-169) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"During Ibbi-Sin’s reign, imperial control over the surrounding regions broke down. As a result, an increasing number of autonomous centres began to appear. This facilitated the rise of about a dozen of independent States competing with each other. While Isin took over a large portion of the inheritance of the Third Dynasty of Ur, further south Larsa and Uruk remained independent."
[1]
[1]: (Liverani 2014, 187) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. London: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/7DRZQS5Q/q/liverani. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"There was, indeed, a separate Parthian kingdom beyond the Indus, independent of the Arsacid kingdom, but in friendly alliance with it."
[1]
Alliance with China against the Kushans during the reign of Vologases. [2] [1]: (Bivar 2007) Bivar, A D H in Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh and Stewart, Sarah eds. 2007. The Age of the Parthians. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. London. [2]: (Dabrowa 2012, 176) Dabrowa, Edward. The Arcasid Empire. in Daryaee, Touraj ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
alliance: revolts against Akkadians in Sumerian cities "possibly initiated and supported by Elam."
[1]
Elam-Barahshi-Zahara alliance. [1] "Sargon fought Elam and Barahshi, but they still managed to remain independent." [1] Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin "controlled the region of Elam, and not its broad confederation." [1] "The kings of Awan continued to rule, and relations between Akkad and Awan (described in the inscriptions as subjugated by Akkad) are recorded on an Elamite treaty found at Susa. The agreement was between Naram-Sin and the king of Elam, who is recognised as a political and legal representative of Elam. However, it is true that, after these last attestations, the dynasty of Awan seems to have disappeared. Susa had an Akkadian official in power and Susiana began to be significantly influenced by Akkadian culture." [1] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 135) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
alliance: revolts against Akkadians in Sumerian cities "possibly initiated and supported by Elam."
[1]
Elam-Barahshi-Zahara alliance. [1] "Sargon fought Elam and Barahshi, but they still managed to remain independent." [1] Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin "controlled the region of Elam, and not its broad confederation." [1] "The kings of Awan continued to rule, and relations between Akkad and Awan (described in the inscriptions as subjugated by Akkad) are recorded on an Elamite treaty found at Susa. The agreement was between Naram-Sin and the king of Elam, who is recognised as a political and legal representative of Elam. However, it is true that, after these last attestations, the dynasty of Awan seems to have disappeared. Susa had an Akkadian official in power and Susiana began to be significantly influenced by Akkadian culture." [1] [1]: (Leverani 2014, 135) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Period characterised by inter-marriage with Kassite Dynaste of Babylonia.
[1]
alliance "Babylonia and Elam against Assyria" [2] -- which period? [1]: (Potts 2016, 176) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 389) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"On a political level, the crisis of the twelfth century bc led to a marked bipartition of the Near East. East of the Euphrates, despite the constant raids of nomadic groups, the three regional powers of Assyria, Babylonia and Elam continued to rule. These three powers also maintained their tri-polar relations. The latter were characterised by an alternation of phases of peace with phases of war and equally interchanging alliances, such as the one of Babylonia and Elam against Assyria, or the one of Babylonia and Assyria
against Elam". [1] -- it’s difficult to pinpoint precise periods during which Elam was allied with Babylonia, and these were apparently short-lived alliances in any case. [1]: (Liverani 2014, 389) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
alliance: 820-653 BCE; vassalage: 653-640 BCE Neo Elamites were widely referred to as allies of Babylonia against the Assyria Empire.
[1]
In 653 BCE the Assyrian army defeated the Elamite army and beheaded the king; thereafter, Elamite became a vassal state to Assyria, with an appointed Assyrian on the Elamite throne.
[2]
[1]: Hinz, W. 1972. The Lost World of Elam: Re-creation of a Vanished Civilization. London: Sidgwick & Jackson. p.138 [2]: Potts, D.T. 2012. ’The Elamites’, in Daryaee, T. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 46 |
||||||
|
alliance: 820-653 BCE; vassalage: 653-640 BCE Neo Elamites were widely referred to as allies of Babylonia against the Assyria Empire.
[1]
In 653 BCE the Assyrian army defeated the Elamite army and beheaded the king; thereafter, Elamite became a vassal state to Assyria, with an appointed Assyrian on the Elamite throne.
[2]
[1]: Hinz, W. 1972. The Lost World of Elam: Re-creation of a Vanished Civilization. London: Sidgwick & Jackson. p.138 [2]: Potts, D.T. 2012. ’The Elamites’, in Daryaee, T. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 46 |
||||||
|
Allied with Timur
[1]
and the Venetians.
[1]
[1]: (Quiring-Zoche 2011) Quiring-Zoche, R. 2011. Aq Qoyunlu. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aq-qoyunlu-confederation |
||||||
|
There is no evidence for supra-polity relations in the Badari culture.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Residents at San José Mogote were the most numerous and hierarchically complex in the valley at this time, but relations with other settlements may only have extended as far as some smaller neighbouring ones for the purposes of importing limestone and travertine for construction at San José Mogote.
[1]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2005). Excavations at San José Mogote 1: The Household Archaeology, University of Michigan Museum, p11 |
||||||
|
probably unknown. It has been suggested that Monte Alban became the new centre of a confederation of people from different settlements of the valley, but the exact relationship between Monte Alban and the remaining settlements of the valley is not known.
[1]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
It has been argued that the Zapotecs at Monte Alban and the Teotihuacan state built mutually peaceful relationships, while both states were more powerful than other neighbouring polities. Neither conquered the other (based on distinct material culture and architectural styles) but did trade with one another.
[1]
Monte Alban Late I: “The expansionist tactics adopted by the rulers of Monte Albán apparently took many forms—including not just conquest, but also colonization, episodic raiding, the establishment of marriage alliances and/or trading relationships (perhaps backed by threats or occasional military force), and co-option of existing political structures.”
[2]
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p161-166 [2]: Sherman, R. J., et al. (2010). "Expansionary dynamics of the nascent Monte Alban state." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29(3): 278-301, p282 |
||||||
|
It has been argued that the Zapotecs at Monte Alban and the Teotihuacan state built mutually peaceful relationships, while both states were more powerful than other neighbouring polities. Neither conquered the other (based on distinct material culture and architectural styles) but did trade with one another.
[1]
In addition, there is evidence for a "Oaxaca barrio" at Teotihuacan, with pottery styles dating to the MA II-III phases.
[2]
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p161-166 [2]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p170 |
||||||
|
It has been argued that the Zapotecs at Monte Alban and the Teotihuacan state built mutually peaceful relationships, while both states were more powerful than other neighbouring polities. Neither conquered the other (based on distinct material culture and architectural styles) but did trade with one another.
[1]
Evidence for this includes the Lapida de Bazan (a carved stone slab at Monte Alban) which depicts a peaceful meeting between a Teotihuacan ambassador and Zapotec lord.
[2]
In addition, there is evidence for a "Oaxaca barrio" at Teotihuacan, with pottery styles dating to the MA II-III phases.
[3]
Political and ritual (as well as commercial) relationships were also probably maintained between the Zapotec state and former territories, such as the Sola Valley.
[4]
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p161-166 [2]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p233 [3]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p170 [4]: Balkansky, A. K. (2002) The Sola Valley and the Monte Albán State: A study of Zapotec imperial expansion. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Valley of Oaxaca, Volume 12. Ann Arbor. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Memoirs, Number 36. p67 |
||||||
|
The Zapotec state began to fragment at the end of the IIIA period, and eventually formed numerous smaller competing "kingdoms", each politically independent of the others
[1]
[2]
although there were marriage alliances between elites, as recorded in genealogical registers. Marriage alliances became increasingly important as a political tool through the IIIB to IV periods.
[3]
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p183 [2]: Caso, et al, 1967 and Acosta, 1965, cited in Balkansky, A. K. (1998). "Origin and collapse of complex societies in Oaxaca, Mexico: Evaluating the era from 1965 to the present." Journal of World Prehistory 12(4): 451-493. [3]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p184 |
||||||
|
Marriage alliances between the elite of the Zapotec and Mixtec societies during this period were recorded by the relaciones (16th century Spanish writers). Alliances were created for many possible reasons, including political gain, status and increased access to farmland and resources.
[1]
No permanent unions between polities; these alliances seem between individuals.
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p220-221 |
||||||
|
Marriage alliances between the elite of the Zapotec and Mixtec societies during this period were recorded by the relaciones (16th century Spanish writers). Alliances were created for many possible reasons, including political gain, status and increased access to farmland and resources.
[1]
No permanent unions between polities; these alliances seem between individuals.
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. p220-221 |
||||||
|
Zaydi imams expelled Ottoman forces with tribal support: ’In response to growing Portuguese strength in the Indian <?cean, a Circassian Mameluke army was sent to Yemen from Egypt In 15I 5· The Mamelukes destroyed the Tahirid state that ruled Lower Yemen at the time but were prevented from tackling the Zaydi Imam in his turn by the Ottoman invasion of Egypt (1517), and, when they withdrew, the Imam Sharaf al-Din extended his own influence down to Aden; but in 1538 the Ottomans themselves dispatched an army and within ten years conquered ~pper Ye~~n, beginning a century of often fiercely resisted occupation.’
[1]
[1]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 198 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
| 348 | Kingdom of Bohemia - Luxembourgian and Jagiellonian Dynasty | vassalage to de_empire_3 | Suspected | - | ||
|
-
|
||||||
| 349 | Kingdom of Bohemia - Luxembourgian and Jagiellonian Dynasty | personal union with hu_later_dyn | Confident | 1490 CE 1516 CE | ||
|
Vladislaus II controlled the Kingdom of Hungary in personal union from 1490–1516.
[1]
[1]: Jaroslav Pánek and Oldřich Tůma, A History of the Czech Lands (Prague: Karolinum Press, 2009). Zotero link: 5MFK58ZP |
||||||
|
Bohemia acknowledged the Emperor’s suzerainty and participated actively in the affairs of the Empire, fulfilling duties that are typical of a vassal state, while also maintaining a significant degree of autonomy in internal governance.
[1]
[1]: Jörg K. Hoensch, Geschichte Böhmens: von der slavischen Landnahme bis zur Gegenwart. Zotero link: APL977ZI |
||||||
| 351 | Kingdom of Bohemia - Přemyslid Dynasty | personal union with pl_piast_dyn_2 | Confident | 1296 CE 1306 CE | ||
|
Wenceslaus II and his son Wenceslaus III ruled Poland in personal union.
[1]
[1]: Rosamond McKitterick, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History (Cambridge [England] ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Zotero link: SQR4J7RI |
||||||
|
Quasipolity.”For the first 400 years of the settlement’s history, Kirikongo was a single economically generalized social group (Figure 6). The occupants were self-sufficient farmers who cultivated grains and herded livestock, smelted and forged iron, opportunistically hunted, lived in puddled earthen structures with pounded clay floors, and fished in the seasonal drainages. [...] Since Kirikongo did not grow (at least not significantly) for over 400 years, it is likely that extra-community fissioning continually occurred to contribute to regional population growth, and it is also likely that Kirikongo itself was the result of budding from a previous homestead. However, with the small scale of settlement, the inhabitants of individual homesteads must have interacted with a wider community for social and demographic reasons. [...] It may be that generalized single-kin homesteads like Kirikongo were the societal model for a post-LSA expansion of farming peoples along the Nakambe (White Volta) and Mouhoun (Black Volta) River basins. A homestead settlement pattern would fit well with the transitional nature of early sedentary life, where societies are shifting from generalized reciprocity to more restricted and formalized group membership, and single-kin communities like Kirikongo’s house (Mound 4) would be roughly the size of a band.”
[1]
[1]: (Dueppen 2012: 27, 32) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"[T]he founding of the Hindu kingdom in Vijayanagara in India in 1336 launched a new era for south India and Sri Lanka, By 1385 they claimed sovereignty over the Aryachakravartis [of Jaffna] and may have assisted them to invade the Sinhalese kingdom while Bhuvanekabāhu V was still at Gampola. [...] The Jaffna Kingdom under Pararājasēkaran (1478-1519) was independent after the decline of Vijayanagar, but was much reduced in size and strength."
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“Around the seventeenth century one major change did occur, and that was the contracting of a peace pact between Kwararafa and the Mais of Borno. It followed the most massive incursion to date of Kwararafa into Hausaland and an equally resounding defeat of the insurgent invaders by Mai Ali of Borno with Tuareg assistance in 1668. There were probably a peace agreement immediately after this. Mr. John Lavers, quoting Vatican documents, identifies a peace agreement (renewed or re-establishment?) in 1701. The pact made with Borno was confirmed by an exchange of ambassadors and the Borno ambassador, the Zanna, remained in Wukari until the twentieth century.”
[1]
[1]: Gavin, R. J. (1979). Some Perspectives on Nigerian History. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 9(4), 15–38: 34. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BPED9ADF/collection |
||||||
|
Depends on how we define the relationship between Allada and Oyo. Seems that Allada was a largely independent vassal state of Oyo, and certainly a separate polity. “Dahomey attempted on more than one occasion in the eighteenth century to avert the hostility of Oyo by sending ’great presents’, and Allada, threatened by Dahomey, retained the support of Oyo by directing a stream of presents to the Alafin.”
[1]
“Moreover, because Allada was a tributary state to Oyo, the latter’s interests were directly involved.”
[2]
“It does not appear that these attacks on Weme, Dahomey, and Allada succeeded in bringing any of these western kingdoms under Oyo rule. It has sometimes been suggested that Allada became tributary to Oyo, either before or as a result of the invasion of 1698. On this view, the tribute later paid to Oyo by Dahomey is seen as a continuation of the tribute paid earlier by Allada. The basis for this suggestion appears to be, first, the Alafin’s claim in 1698 to be the protector of the king of Allada’s subjects against his misgovernment, and second, the fact that later, in the 1720s, the king of Allada appealed to Oyo for assistance when attacked by Dahomey. But these incidents hardly constitute decisive, or even strong, -evidence for an Oyo overlordship over Allada. The Alafin’s right to interfere in Allada was clearly not accepted by its king in 1698, and the Alafin’s intervention should be seen merely as an attempt to exploit disaffection within the declining Allada kingdom. Bosman’s account can reasonably be interpreted as recording the beginning of an Oyo attempt to establish control over Allada, but even the invasion of 1698 did not represent an Oyo conquest of Allada: on Bosman’s account, it was no more than a punitive raid, which the Alafin himself judged to be a failure. As for the appeal of Allada (and similar appeals from Weme and Hueda) for Oyo aid in the 1720s, there is no need to invoke an Oyo overlordship to explain these, since the victims of Dahomian aggression would naturally turn to Oyo, as a major power capable, as the invasion of 1698 had demonstrated, of effective intervention in the area. There is, in fact, no compelling evidence that Oyo rule was established on any formal basis over any part of the ’Popo’ country before the eighteenthcentury.”
[3]
[1]: Smith, Robert. “Peace and Palaver: International Relations in Pre-Colonial West Africa.” The Journal of African History, vol. 14, no. 4, 1973, pp. 599–621: 610. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WIFJS3HN/collection [2]: Akinjogbin, I. A. (1963). Agaja and the Conquest of the Coastal Aja States 1724–30. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 2(4), 545–566: 555. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/88W62WF3/collection [3]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 156–157. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection |
||||||
|
Depends on whether we think of eg Dahomey as a separate polity. “The extent of the Old Oyo Kingdom had been a subject of debate among the professional and non-professional historians. […] Among the states incorporated into the Kingdom was Benin on the east, and Dahomey on the west. […] It was able to incorporate into the imperial power such sub-Yoruba states like Ajase-Ipo, Igbomina, Ekiti, Egba and Egbado (Atanda, 1973:5); and non-Yoruba groups like Dahomey.”
[1]
Law suggests that the Kingdom of Dahomey and others were separate polities with a large degree of independence, but which still paid tribute to Oyo. Law outlines three categories of Oyo subjects, counting Dahomey and others as part of the third category, so it’s up for debate whether this counts as supra-polity relations or not. Categories are: “1. The area that, to use Araji’s phrase, ‘owed direct allegiance to the Alafin’, and was subject to a relatively centralized administration from the capital. […] 2. Those kingdoms whose dynasties were traditionally supposed to be descended from Oduduwa, the legendary king of Ile Ife, and over whom the Alafin claimed authority as the legitimate successor to Oduduwa’s kingship. Of these perhaps only the Egba were in any real sense subject to Oyo, but others (such as the Ijesa) were prepared to acknowledge loosely the suzerainty (or at least the senior status) of the Alafin. 3. States outside the Ife dynastic system which paid tribute to Oyo, such as Dahomey.”
[2]
[1]: Akinwumi, O. D. (1992). The Oyo-Borgu Military Alliance of 1835: A Case Study in the Pre-Colonial Military History. Transafrican Journal of History, 21, 159–170: 160. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/J42GPW63/collection [2]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 84–85. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection |
||||||
|
“Originally tributary to Allada, it expanded dramatically under Wegbaja (c. 1680-1716), whom tradition remembers as the first king, and still more so under his successor Agaja (c. 1716-40), who conquered Allada and Whydah, in 1724 and 1727 respectively.”
[1]
“Huffon’s authority was compromised not only by his age, but also by the fact that he did not, at least for the greater part of his reign, complete the traditional ceremonies of installation, so that he was never acknowledged as possessing fully legitimate authority; in particular, his accession did not receive the sanction of Whydah’s traditional overlord, the king of Allada.”
[2]
“Whydah was probably already in rebellion against Allada by the mid- seventeenth century, when a contemporary source reports that the coastal village of "Foulaen" (as noted earlier, probably Glehue, the port of Whydah), although subject to the king of Allada, defied his authority, and even sent brigands by night to raid the coastal villages of his kingdom. Whydah was certainly understood by European observers to be independent of Allada by the 1680s. // “Although effectively independent, however, Whydah continued in some sense to acknowledge the sovereignty or suzerainty of Allada. Even after its rebellion the kings of Whydah continued to make occasional payments to those of Allada, which it is said the latter regarded as tribute but the former merely as gifts.”
[3]
[1]: Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge University Press, 1997: 349. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/Z4GK27CI/collection [2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 202. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection [3]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 213. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection |
||||||
|
“The Kingdom of Nri (1043–1911) was the West African medieval state of the NriIgbo, a subgroup of the Igbo people, and is the oldest kingdom in Nigeria. The Kingdom of Nri was unusual in the history of world government in that its leader exercised no military power over his subjects. The kingdom existed as a sphere of religious and political influence over much of Igboland, and was administered by a priest-king called the eze Nri. The eze Nri managed trade and diplomacy on behalf of the Igbo people, and was the possessor of divine authority in religious matters.”
[1]
“It has been argued that the "pervasive ritual" icons in the Igbo-Ukwu material served "to project aspects of the pivotal role of the priest-king within Nri Igbo life and thought" (Ray, 1987, p. 77). The "combination of fear, belief, supernatural sanctions, and fines that typically accompany ritual" seem to have been an integral part of "securing compliant behavior and resolving disputes" in the foundations of sociopolitical development in Igboland (Mclntosh, 1999, p. 12).”
[2]
[1]: Ngara, C. A. (n.d.). An Ethnohistorical Account Of Pre-Colonial Africa, African Kingdoms And African Historical States. 25:11. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/UJG3ED8W/collection [2]: Ogundiran, A. (2005). Four Millennia of Cultural History in Nigeria (ca. 2000 B.C.—A.D. 1900): Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of World Prehistory, 19(2), 133–168: 148. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/PK7F26DP/collection |
||||||
|
Certainly early in the history of the Dahomey, it appears they were subordinate to the Oyos, a tributary state. Tributary status ended under Dahomean king Gezo (or Gezu), who reigned 1823–1858. “It is, first of all, well established that from 1708 (Dalzel 1793:14) to 1827, Dahomey was under continuous pressure from the Oyos, the Yoruba-speakers who lay to the northeast. Through the use of cavalry and firearms, the Oyos were able to defeat the Dahomean footsoldiers, and for almost a century held Dahomey in tribute, without occupying the area in force. It is even likely that the Oyos considered Dahomey just another conquered province (Burton 1864:11:197ff). Dalzel claims that the Oyos had besieged Allada as early as 1698 (Dalzel 1793:14). It is quite probable, therefore, that they had made frequent incursions into the Allada-Kano-Abomey area prior to Tacoodonou’s assault on Abomey. If their purpose had been tribute, as it was in later years, then the sudden expansion of the Foys under Tacoodonou may have been inspired by the need to set up a territorial buffer against the horsemen from the northeast. Such a buffer would also have served as a centralized tribute-collecting agency. Once the game of tribute had been learned, Tacoodonou and his followers would certainly have attempted to appropriate as much as possible for themselves. And the long struggle between Dahomey and the Oyos, not terminated until the reign of Gezu, eighth in the line of ten Dahomean "kings," would have resulted. It should be noted that even Gezu, at the height of Dahomean power, was not capable of defeating the traditional enemy directly. By 1827, certain Hausa-speaking groups fleeing before the Fulani, had overrun portions of Yoruba territory and so weakened the Oyo Yorubas in a protracted war that Gezu’s victory was merely a coup-de-grace (Ellis 1890:309-310).”
[1]
“The extent of the Old Oyo Kingdom had been a subject of debate among the professional and non-professional historians. […] Among the states incorporated into the Kingdom was Benin on the east, and Dahomey on the west. […] It was able to incorporate into the imperial power such sub-Yoruba states like Ajase-Ipo, Igbomina, Ekiti, Egba and Egbado (Atanda, 1973:5); and non-Yoruba groups like Dahomey.”
[2]
Law suggests that the Kingdom of Dahomey and others were separate polities with a large degree of independence, but which still paid tribute to Oyo. Law outlines three categories of Oyo subjects, counting Dahomey and others as part of the third category, so it’s up for debate whether this counts as supra-polity relations or not. Categories are: “1. The area that, to use Araji’s phrase, ‘owed direct allegiance to the Alafin’, and was subject to a relatively centralized administration from the capital. […] 2. Those kingdoms whose dynasties were traditionally supposed to be descended from Oduduwa, the legendary king of Ile Ife, and over whom the Alafin claimed authority as the legitimate successor to Oduduwa’s kingship. Of these perhaps only the Egba were in any real sense subject to Oyo, but others (such as the Ijesa) were prepared to acknowledge loosely the suzerainty (or at least the senior status) of the Alafin. 3. States outside the Ife dynastic system which paid tribute to Oyo, such as Dahomey.”
[3]
“In 1818 Gezo, the king who was to become the most revered in Dahomean history, came to the throne. He early proved himself a consummate politician and a skilful warrior and also established a close control over the whole kingdom by organizing a highly specialized administration. He managed to wrest independence from his Oyo suzerains, who were by now weakened by the Fulani invasions.”
[4]
[1]: Diamond, S. (1996). DAHOMEY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTO-STATE: An Essay in Historical Reconstruction. Dialectical Anthropology, 21(2), 121–216: 131. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/MW2G58RP/collection [2]: Akinwumi, O. D. (1992). The Oyo-Borgu Military Alliance of 1835: A Case Study in the Pre-Colonial Military History. Transafrican Journal of History, 21, 159–170: 160. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/J42GPW63/collection [3]: Law, R. (1977). The Oyo Empire c. 1600 – c. 1836: A West African Imperialism in the Era of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Oxford University Press: 84–85. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SB32ZPCF/collection [4]: Lombard, J. (1976). The Kingdom of Dahomey. In West African Kingdoms in the Nineteenth Century (Repr, pp. 70–92). Published for the International African Institute by Oxford University Press: 73. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/T6WTVSHZ/collection |
||||||
|
Seems that while others paid tribute to Wukari/Aku, Wukari also paid some form of tribute to other states. “Around the seventeenth century one major change did occur, and that was the contracting of a peace pact between Kwararafa and the Mais of Borno. It followed the most massive incursion to date of Kwararafa into Hausaland and an equally resounding defeat of the insurgent invaders by Mai Ali of Borno with Tuareg assistance in 1668. There were probably a peace agreement immediately after this. Mr. John Lavers, quoting Vatican documents, identifies a peace agreement (renewed or re-establishment?) in 1701. The pact made with Borno was confirmed by an exchange of ambassadors and the Borno ambassador, the Zanna, remained in Wukari until the twentieth century.”
[1]
“About 1840, Haman Sali of Missau, Burba of Bakundi, and Madaiki Hassan of Wase, laid siege to Wukari. Large numbers of Munshis who were "amana kasua" (tributaries) are said to have helped in the defence. Both sides being tired out, Wukari gave in and supplied the starving Fulani army with food. It is very uncertain whether they ever paid tribute, though Bishop Crowther, who accompanied the Pleiad expedition of 1854, mentions Wukari as independent, but paying tribute to Bauchi. Doubtless, recognising that the Fulani were paramount, they were wont to send occasional presents of slaves to the Emirs of Bauchi, Zaria, and Muri.”
[2]
[1]: Gavin, R. J. (1979). Some Perspectives on Nigerian History. Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 9(4), 15–38: 34. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/BPED9ADF/collection [2]: Ruxton, F. H. (1908). Notes on the Tribes of the Muri Province. Journal of the Royal African Society, 7(28), 374–386: 379. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/2AXUQGFB/collection |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"At the dawn of the eighteenth century the kingdoms surrounding central Rwanda in a half-circle from the northeast to the southwest that maintained direct contact with the Nyiginya state were Ndorwa or Mpororo, Mubari, Karagwe, Gisaka, Bugesera, and, a little later, Burundi. [...] Most of the time hostile relations prevailed among all these kingdoms. They usually fought each other in order to rustle cattle, but sometimes also to increase their territory. They welcomed fugitives from the neighboring kingdoms and sometimes gave shelter to foreign princes or kings from these kingdoms, especially during succession struggles. Sometimes two kingdoms allied themselves against a third one. But one does not find any systematic pattern of alliance among the kingdoms, not even on the order of my neighbor is my enemy and my neighbor’s-neighbor is my friend."
[1]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 110-111) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
"At the dawn of the eighteenth century the kingdoms surrounding central Rwanda in a half-circle from the northeast to the southwest that maintained direct contact with the Nyiginya state were Ndorwa or Mpororo, Mubari, Karagwe, Gisaka, Bugesera, and, a little later, Burundi. [...] Most of the time hostile relations prevailed among all these kingdoms. They usually fought each other in order to rustle cattle, but sometimes also to increase their territory. They welcomed fugitives from the neighboring kingdoms and sometimes gave shelter to foreign princes or kings from these kingdoms, especially during succession struggles. Sometimes two kingdoms allied themselves against a third one. But one does not find any systematic pattern of alliance among the kingdoms, not even on the order of my neighbor is my enemy and my neighbor’s-neighbor is my friend."
[1]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 110-111) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
"At the dawn of the eighteenth century the kingdoms surrounding central Rwanda in a half-circle from the northeast to the southwest that maintained direct contact with the Nyiginya state were Ndorwa or Mpororo, Mubari, Karagwe, Gisaka, Bugesera, and, a little later, Burundi. [...] Most of the time hostile relations prevailed among all these kingdoms. They usually fought each other in order to rustle cattle, but sometimes also to increase their territory. They welcomed fugitives from the neighboring kingdoms and sometimes gave shelter to foreign princes or kings from these kingdoms, especially during succession struggles. Sometimes two kingdoms allied themselves against a third one. But one does not find any systematic pattern of alliance among the kingdoms, not even on the order of my neighbor is my enemy and my neighbor’s-neighbor is my friend."
[1]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 110-111) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
"At the dawn of the eighteenth century the kingdoms surrounding central Rwanda in a half-circle from the northeast to the southwest that maintained direct contact with the Nyiginya state were Ndorwa or Mpororo, Mubari, Karagwe, Gisaka, Bugesera, and, a little later, Burundi. [...] Most of the time hostile relations prevailed among all these kingdoms. They usually fought each other in order to rustle cattle, but sometimes also to increase their territory. They welcomed fugitives from the neighboring kingdoms and sometimes gave shelter to foreign princes or kings from these kingdoms, especially during succession struggles. Sometimes two kingdoms allied themselves against a third one. But one does not find any systematic pattern of alliance among the kingdoms, not even on the order of my neighbor is my enemy and my neighbor’s-neighbor is my friend."
[1]
[1]: (Vansina 2004: 110-111) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5J4MRHUB/collection. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
| 375 | Holy Roman Empire - Hohenstaufen and Welf Dynasties | personal union with it_sicily_k_2 | Confident | 1215 CE 1250 CE | ||
|
Frederick II was crowned as King of the Romans on 25 July 1215, in Aachen, marking the end of the German throne dispute. Frederick II ascended to the throne of Sicily as a child following his mother’s death in 1198. His early years were marked by regencies until he came of age.
[1]
[1]: Olaf B. Rader, Friedrich II: Der Sizilianer Auf Dem Kaiserthron: Eine Biographie (München: Beck, 2010). Zotero link: 9YCFRHDU |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
| 377 | Polish Kingdom - Piast Dynasty Fragmented Period | personal union with hu_later_dyn | Confident | 1370 CE 1382 CE | ||
|
Louis I of Hungary, also known as Louis the Great was also crowned king of Poland in 1370 and ruled the kingdom in personal union until his death in 1382.
[1]
[1]: Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (London ; New York, NY: I.B. Tauris, 2005). Zotero link: 9BBKM3AR |
||||||
| 378 | Hungary Kingdom - Anjou and Later Dynasties | personal union with cz_bohemian_k_2 | Confident | 1516 CE 1526 CE | ||
|
Louis II of Hungary (Louis the Jagiellonian) ruled both Bohemia and Hungary from 1516–1526.
[1]
[1]: Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (London ; New York, NY: I.B. Tauris, 2005). Zotero link: 9BBKM3AR |
||||||
| 379 | Hungary Kingdom - Anjou and Later Dynasties | personal union with cz_bohemian_k_2 | Confident | 1419 CE 1437 CE | ||
|
Sigismund of Luxembourg held the Kingdom of Bohemia in personal union from 1419 to 1437.
[1]
[1]: Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (London ; New York, NY: I.B. Tauris, 2005). Zotero link: 9BBKM3AR |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Magnus IV of Sweden ruled the Kingdom of Norway in personal union from 1319 – 1355.
[1]
[1]: “Magnus II Eriksson | Facts, Biography, & King of Sweden | Britannica.” Zotero link: 7HUNVFB4 |
||||||
|
Margaret I of Denmark ruled the Kingdom of Norway with Eric of Pomerania as co ruler in personal union from 1388 –1412.
[1]
[1]: “Margareta - Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon.” Zotero link: VWK9C5EG |
||||||
|
In 1380, Olaf II inherited the Norwegian throne from his father, King Haakon VI, while already being King of Denmark, thus creating a personal union between Denmark and Norway. After Olaf’s death in 1387, Margaret I ruled both kingdoms, continuing the union.
[1]
[1]: Esben Albrectsen, ed., Danmark-Norge. 1: Fællesskabet bliver til / af Esben Albrectsen (Oslo: Univ.Forl, 1997). Zotero link: M2X6XWB5 |
||||||
|
Margaret I of Denmark ruled the Kingdom of Sweden with Eric of Pomerania as co ruler in personal union from 1389 –1412.
[1]
[1]: “Margareta - Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon.” Zotero link: VWK9C5EG |
||||||