Your ShelfYour Projects

The Ten Kingdoms

3%

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 28, 1886

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 41.

Read the full edition

The Ten Kingdoms.

(Concluded.)

But some may ask, Does not Gibbon name Attila, as of equal importance with Alaric and Genseric in the ruin of the Roman Empire? We answer, Yes, and Gibbon therein states the exact truth. Then it may be asked, Why not allow the Huns a place among the ten kingdoms equally with the Visigoths and the Vandals? We reply that the place of the Visigoths and the Vandals among the ten kingdoms does not depend upon Alaric and Genseric alone. Suppose that at the death of Alaric the nation of the Visigoths had left the Western Empire, and had never entered its territories again, and in a few years had ceased to have any distinct existence as a nation, who would think for an instant of counting them as one of the ten kingdoms of the Western Empire. No one, assuredly. But this is precisely the case of the Huns, then by what right ought they to be counted as one? Plainly by no right. Attila, Alaric, and Genseric were of equal note in hastening the ruin of the Roman Empire, and they have an important place in prophecy, but that place is not in the prophecy of Daniel, it is in Rev. 8:7–11. Again it might be asked, Did not the Huns do as much as any other people in weakening the empire and hastening its downfall? We answer, Yes. Then why may they not be counted for that reason? Because that is not reason enough. The prophecy says, “The kingdom [Rome] shall be divided,” and that into ten distinct kingdoms. Therefore the question is not, Did the Huns, or any others, weaken the empire? but, Did they divide it? Did they divide from the Western Empire any portion of its territory and establish there a kingdom that remained? The only answer that history gives is a decided, No. Then it is certain that the Huns cannot of right have any place among the ten kingdoms.
The evidence and the authorities which we have now given would, doubtless, be considered by all as sufficient to justify us in refusing to the Huns a place in the list of the ten kingdoms. But these are not all that we have to offer. In addition to these we have the positive evidence of Machiavelli himself, from whom Bishop Chandler is said to have made his list. From a casual reading some have supposed that Machiavelli himself named the ten kingdoms as such. This, however, is not the case, as appears from Bishop Newton’s words. He says: “Machiavel, little thinking what he was doing (as Bishop Chandler observes), hath given us their names.” It is plain, therefore, that the responsibility for Bishop Chandler’s list lies not with Machiavelli, but with Bishop Chandler himself. Machiavelli was a Florentine, who lived A. D. 1469–1527. He wrote a history of Florence, and in the first two chapters he very briefly sketched the barbarian invasions, and the fall of the Western Empire, in which he, simply as a matter of history, gave the names of the nations which invaded the empire.
Now the question is, Was there in Machiavelli’s history sufficient evidence to justify Bishop Chandler in setting down the Huns as one of the ten kingdoms that arose on the fall of Western Rome? We shall here insert all that Machiavelli says directly about the Huns, and it will be seen that it answers this question in the negative. After mentioning the inroads of the Visigoths, Burgundians, Alani, Suevi, Vandals, and Franks, he says:—
“Thus the Vandals ruled Africa; the Alans and Visigoths, Spain; while the Franks and Burgundians not only took Gaul, but each gave their name to the part they occupied; hence one is called France, the other, Burgundy. The good fortune of these brought fresh peoples to the destruction of the empire, one of which, the Huns, occupied the province of Pannonia, situated upon the nearer [western] shore of the Danube, and which, from their name, is still called Hungary.”
“The Huns, who were said above to have occupied Pannonia, joining with other nations, as the Zepidi, Eruli, Turingi, and Ostro or Eastern Goths, moved in search of new countries, and, not being able to enter France, which was defended by the forces of the barbarians, came into Italy under Attila their king. . . . Attila, having entered Italy, laid siege to Aquileia, where he remained without any obstacle for two years, wasting the country and dispersing the inhabitants. . . . After the taking and ruin of Aquileia, he directed his course toward Rome, from the destruction of which he abstained at the entreaty of the pontiff, his respect for whom was so great that he left Italy and retired into Austria, where he died. After the death of Attila, Velamir, king of the Ostrogoths, and the heads of the other nations took arms against his sons, Henry and Uric, slew the one and compelled the other with his Huns to repass the Danube and return to their country; whilst the Ostrogoths and the Zepidi established themselves in Pannonia, and the Eruli and the Turingi upon the farther [eastern] banks of the Danube.
“After the deaths of many emperors, the Empire of Constantinople devolved upon Zeno, and that of Rome, upon Orestes and Augustulus his son. . . . Whilst they were designing to hold by force what they had gained by treachery, the Eruli and Turingi, who after the death of Attila, as before remarked, had established themselves upon the farther bank of the Danube, united in a league under Odoacer, their general. In the districts which they left unoccupied, the Longobards or Lombards, also a northern people, entered, led by Gondogo their king. Odoacer conquered and slew Orestes near Pavia, but Augustulus escaped. After this victory, that Rome might with her change of power also change her title, Odoacer, instead of using the imperial name, caused himself to be declared King of Rome.”—Chap. 2, par. 6, 7.
The bare facts here stated by Machiavelli are clearly against the propriety of counting the Huns among the ten kingdoms. He says, (1) that the Huns occupied Pannonia, on the western bank of the Danube; (2) that after the death of Attila, the Ostrogoths and other nations “compelled Uric with his Huns to repass the Danube and return to their country;” (3) that the Ostrogoths and Gepidæ established themselves in Pannonia; (4) that the Heruli and Turingi occupied the eastern bank of the Danube; (5) that when these latter went to Italy they left their country unoccupied; (6) and then it was occupied by the Lombards. So by this word, we have the Ostrogoths, the Gepidæ, the Heruli, the Turingi, and the Lombards occupying all of Pannonia and both banks of the Danube,—that is, all the country that had been occupied by the Huns, and that is now Hungary,—and the Huns gone back to their own country on the shores of the Black Sea and in the country of the Volga and the Don. It is true, that he says the country on the western shore of the Danube “from their name is still called Hungary;” but, even granting the correctness of this statement, his whole narrative shows that it is so called only from their name and not from their continued occupation, for in another place, when telling of the entrance of the Avars, A. D. 566, whom he calls Huns, he repeats the statement that the Huns after the death of Attila “returned to their country.” It appears, however, from all the other authorities which we have cited, that in the matter of the name of Hungary, Machiavelli is mistaken, that name coming from the Magyars and not from the Huns.
Then where, in Machiavelli’s history, or within the bounds of the Roman Empire, did Bishop Chandler find a kingdom of the Huns?—He did not find them there at all, for Machiavelli himself, in harmony with every other authority on the subject, did not place them there. This also is confirmed by Machiavelli:—
“At this time [the reign of Odoacer, A. D. 476] the ancient Roman Empire was governed by the following princes: Zeno, reigning in Constantinople, commanded the whole of the Eastern Empire; the Ostrogoths ruled Moesia and Pannonia; the Visigoths, Suevi, and Alans held Gascony and Spain; the Vandals, Africa; the Franks and Burgundians, France; and the Eruli and Turingi, Italy. The kingdom of the Ostrogoths had descended to Theodoric, nephew of Velamir. . . . Leaving his friends the Zepidi in Pannonia, Theodoric marched into Italy, slew Odoacer and his son, and . . . established his court at Ravenna, and, like Odoacer, took the title of King of Italy. . . . The Lombards, as was said before, occupied those places upon the Danube which had been vacated by the Eruli, and Turingi when Odoacer their king led them unto Italy.”—Chap. 2, par. 1, 10.
Here, then, is Machiavelli’s own list of the princes and peoples who ruled in both the Eastern and the Western Empire between A. D. 476 and 493, and the Huns are not named at all. By what right, then, did Bishop Chandler number the Huns as one of the ten kingdoms, and cite Machiavelli as authority for it?—By no right whatever. The good Bishop made a mistake, that is all. And solely on the authority of his name, the mistake has been perpetuated now these one hundred and fifty-eight years.
To these kingdoms as named by Bishop Chandler, Bishop Lloyd affixed certain figures as marking the date of their rise. We quote Bishop Newton’s account of it. He says:—
“That excellent chronologer, Bishop Lloyd, exhibits the following list of the ten kingdoms with the time of their rise: (1) Huns, about A. D. 356; (2) Ostrogoths, 377; (3) Wisigoths, 378; (4) Franks, 407; (5) Vandals, 407; (6) Sueves and Alans, 407; (7) Burgundians, 407; (8) Herules and Rugians, 476; (9) Saxons, 476; (10) Longobards began to reign in Hungary A. D. 526, and were seated in the northern parts of Germany about the year 483.”
Why Bishop Lloyd should be given the title of “that excellent chronologer,” we cannot imagine; for not more than half his dates are correct. He dates the Huns “about A. D. 356,” whereas about A. D. 356 they were away in the depths of Scythia above the Caspian Sea; they never crossed the Volga till about A. D. 374–75; and their first appearance to the eyes of the Romans was in A. D. 376. (Gibbon, chap. 26, par. 12, 13.)
He dates the Ostrogoths A. D. 377. If that was intended to be the date when Alatheus and Saphrax, with their army, crossed the Danube, it is well enough, but in that case, his dating the Visigoths in A. D. 378 is wrong, because they crossed the Danube a year before, instead of a year after, the Ostrogoths. Besides this, of the Ostrogoths who crossed the Danube in A. D. 377, the last remains were slain January 3, A. D. 401, while trying, under the leadership of Gainas, to make their way back into the countries beyond the Danube (Gibbon, chap. 26, par. 31, 32 compared with 32:5–7), and therefore are not the Ostrogoths at all who formed one of the ten kingdoms, those being the main body of the nation, who submitted to the Huns in A. D. 376, and regained their independence at the battle of the Netad, A. D. 453. (Id., chap. 26, par. 13, with 34:5 and 35:16.)
He dates the Franks A. D. 407, whereas their “uninterrupted possession” of territory, and monarchy, in Gaul, dates from A. D. 351. (Id., chap. 19, par. 20, with Note, and 38:3.)
He dates the rise of the Saxons A. D. 476, when the fact is that they entered Britain, England, in A. D. 449, and never left it. (Id., chap. 31, par. 41, 42; 38:33; Green’s England, chap. 1, par. 17; Knight’s England, chap. 5, par. 6; Mosheim’s Church History, Fifth Cent., part 1,chap. 2, sec. 3, par. 3; Encyc. Brit., England, History, par. 15).
He names the Lombards as “in the northern parts of Germany about” A. D. 483, and began to reign in Hungary A. D. 526. Whereas they were in the northern parts of Germany “about the time of Augustus and Trajan” (Gibbon, chap. 42, par. 2), and were in Pannonia A. D. 453, and settled on the banks of the Danube after the battle of the Netad the same year. In the date A. D. 526, he is not so far wrong, as, soon after that they had gained possession of all Noricum and Pannonia.
“Lyman’s Historical Chart” gives the ten kingdoms as follows:—
“Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks, Saxons, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Lombards.”
With the exception of the Alani, this is correct. But this same chart says of them in A. D. 418, “The Goths nearly exterminate them,” and of those who escaped after the death of their king, Gibbon says:—
“The remains of those Scythian wanderers, who escaped from the field, instead of choosing a new leader, humbly sought a refuge under the standard of the Vandals, with whom they were ever afterwards confounded.”—Chap. 31, par. 38.
As this was only twelve years after they crossed the Rhine, it is certain that the Alani are not entitled to a place among the ten kingdoms.
After viewing thus the lists of the ten kingdoms as named by other men, we repeat, and we believe we may do it with a stronger assurance, that the ten nations named by Gibbon as the ones “who established their kingdoms on the ruins of the Western Empire,” are the ones, and the only ones, that form the ten kingdoms of the prophecy of Daniel 2:41–43, and 7:7, 8, 19, 24.
For the convenience of the reader we shall draw out here in tabulated form, the ten kingdoms as named by Gibbon, with the dates of their entering the Western Empire, the places of settlement, and the historical references by which names, dates, and places can be verified.
ALEMANNI, A. D. 351, Swabia, Alsace, and Lorraine. (Gibbon, chap. 10, par. 26; 12:20; 19:20; 36:5; 49:22.)
FRANKS, A. D. 351, N. E. Gaul. (Id., chap. 19, par. 20; 36:5.)
BURGUNDIANS, December 31, A. D. 406 (Id., chap. 30, par. 17); in Burgundy A. D. 420 (Id., chap. 31, par. 39).
VANDALS, December 31, A. D. 406 (Id., chap. 30, par. 17); in Spain A. D. 409 (chap. 31, par. 36); in Africa A. D. 429 (chap. 33, par. 35).
SUEVI, December 31, A. D. 406 (Id., chap. 30, par. 17); in Spain, A. D. 409 (chap. 31, par. 36).
VISIGOTHS, A. D. 408 (Id., chap. 31, par. 2, 14); in S. W. Gaul, A. D. 419 (chap. 31, par. 39); in Spain A. D. 467 (chap. 36, par. 22; 38:2, 29).
SAXONS, A. D. 449, Britain. (Id., chap. 31, par. 41, 42; 38:33; Green’s England, chap. 1, par. 17; Knight’s England, chap. 5, par. 6.)
OSTROGOTHS, A. D. 453, in Pannonia (Gibbon, chap. 35, par. 16); in Italy A. D. 489, final conquest A. D. 493 (chap. 39, par. 7, 8).
LOMBARDS, A. D. 453 in Pannonia and Noricum, banks of Danube (Weber’s Universal History, sec. 180; Gibbon, chap. 42, par. 2; Encyc. Brit., art. “Lombards”); in Lombardy, A. D. 567–8 (Gibbon, chap. 45, par. 5–7; Machiavelli, History of Florence, chap. 1, 2).
HERULI, A. D. 475–6, in Italy (Gibbon, chap. 36, par. 28–33).