Hereford. He remained loyal to the empress after her defeat at Winchester. John of Salisbury classes him with Geoffrey de Mandeville and others who were non tam comites regni quam hostes publici. The charge is justified by his public policy; but the materials for appraising his personal character do not exist.
See the Continuation of Florence of Worcester (ed. B. Thorpe, 1848–1849); the Cartulary of Gloucester Abbey (Rolls series); and J. H. Round’s Geoffrey de Mandeville (1892).
MILORADOVICH, MICHAEL ANDRIJEVICH, Count (1770–1825), Russian general, saw service under Suvarov in the wars
against Turkey and Poland, and in the campaign of Italy and
Switzerland (1799) earned much distinction as a commander
of advanced troops. In 1805, having attained the rank of
lieutenant-general, he served under Kutusov in the campaign
of Austerlitz, taking part in the actions of Enns and Krems
and in the decisive battle of the 2nd of December, in which his
column held the Pratzen heights. In the Turkish War he
distinguished himself at Giurgevo (1807). Promoted general
of infantry in 1810, he commanded a corps at Borodino, and
subsequently inflicted the defeat of Tarutino (or Winkovo) on
Murat, king of Naples (October 18, 1812). His corps was
one of those most active in the pursuit of Napoleon’s Grande
Armée, and in 1813 he led the rear-guard of the Allies after
their earlier defeats. At the victory of Kulm he was present
in command of a Russian-Prussian corps, which he led at
Leipzig and in the campaign of 1814. From 1818 to the time
of his death he was military governor of St Petersburg. He
perished in the popular outbreak in the capital, on the 26th
(14th o.s.) of December 1825.
MILOSH OBRENOVICH I. (1780–1860), prince of Servia, founder of the Obrenovich dynasty, was born in 1780 of poor Servian peasants. When he later became prince of Servia he used to tell how for a penny a day he drove cattle from Servia to Dalmatia. His half-brother, Milan Obrenovich, who had developed into a successful exporter of cattle and pigs into Austria, associated him in his own export trade and otherwise
supported him. Partly from gratitude and partly because
the family name of his half-brother was already honourably known in the country, Milosh adopted that name as his own, and called himself Obrenovich, instead of Theodorovich. Karageorge, the leader of the first Servian revolution against the Turks, appointed Milosh Obrenovich in 1807 a voyvode, i.e. district commander of the national army and civil administrator. As such he distinguished himself in many battles, and was reputed a wise and energetic' administrator and a just judge. When in 1813 the Turks under the Grand Vizier Khurshid occupied Servia, and Karageorge and almost all his voyvodes left the country for Austria, Milosh, although strongly advised to follow their example, refused to do so. He remained in the country, surrendered to the Turks, and was recognized by them as the voyvode of Rudnik (Central Servia). As he was then practically the only chief of the nation, the Turks called him to Belgrade, where he was kept through the year 1814 as a hostage. But he found means to prepare a new rising of the Servians against the Turks, and on Palm Sunday 1815 he appeared with his voyvode’s standard before the people round the small church of Takovo, and started the second and successful insurrection.
Not so much by his victories on the battlefields
as by his clever exploitation of the international difficulties
of Turkey, and of the known weakness of the Turkish pashas
for “baksheesh”—no doubt also by his statesmanlike moderation—he
succeeded in less than two years in obtaining from
the Porte the practical recognition of the Servian people’s right
to self-government. The National Assembly in 1817 elected
him prince of Servia.
From that year began the organization of Servia by the Servians as an autonomous province of the Ottoman Empire. But its existence as such rested on no safe and legal basis, except on the readiness of the Servians to defend it with all their might and on the goodwill of the sultan and his“ Sublime Porte.” Milosh therefore worked hard to obtain some sort of international recognition of the semi-independent status of Servia. Russia came to his assistance, and by the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829 the Porte engaged formally to grant Servia full autonomy. This engagement was somewhat developed in the Hatti-sherif of 1830, which added to Servia 'three districts (Krushevats, Alexinats, Zaechar), acknowledged her full autonomy, recognized Milosh as hereditary prince of Servia, and declared that the Turks in Servia could have properties and live only in fortified places where there were Turkish garrisons, and not in other towns and villages. Milosh won for his family the hereditary right to the throne of Servia without the co-operation of Russia. The creation of a hereditary dynasty in Servia was outside the Russian Balkan policy of that time, and this great and independent success of Milosh was the first cause of Russia’s dissatisfaction with him. The second cause was that, yielding to the pressure exercised on him by his own people, he gave the country a constitution without asking “the protector of Servia,” the tsar, for his approval of the step. The third cause was that Milosh consistently resented the interference of Russia in the internal affairs of the principality. The climax of his misdeeds, from the Russian point of view, was that on the occasion of his visit to the Sultan Mahmud II. in 1836 he persuaded the British ambassador, Lord Ponsonby, that it would be useful to establish a British consulate in Belgrade. The first British consul in Servia, Colonel Hodges, became speedily an intimate friend of Prince Milosh, who—probably under his new friend’s influence—began to agitate to replace the exclusive protectorate of Russia by the joint protectorate of all the great Powers of Europe. The cabinet of St Petersburg now decided to remove Milosh from the throne of Servia, and, supported by the Russian consul-general, the leaders of the Servian opposition, who posed as champions of a constitutional system, succeeded in forcing him to abdicate in 1839. After his abdication Milosh lived mostly on his estates in Rumania, or in Vienna. In December 1858 the National Assembly of Servia, having dethroned Prince Alexander Karageorgevich, recalled Milosh to the throne of Servia. Milosh came, accompanied by his son Michael, and began to reign in his own old fashion; but death closed his activity on the 14th (27th n.s.) of September 1860. He was buried in the cathedral of Belgrade. (C. Mi.)
MILTIADES, the name of two Athenian statesmen and
generals of a family (the Philaidae) of Aeginetan origin, which claimed descent from Aeacus.
1. Miltiades (6th century B.C.), the son of Cypselus, a prominent opponent of Peisistratus. According to Herodotus (vi. 36, 37) he led a colony to the Thracian Chersonese at the request of the Doloncians, who, hard pressed by the Absinthians (or Apsinthians), were advised by the Delphian oracle to invite to their country the man who should first show them hospitality after leaving the temple. Since, however, the Athenians had from c. 600–590 B.C. held Sigeum in the Troad, whence they had fought against Mitylene, it, is probable that the Doloncians appealed for help to Athens, and that Peisistratus took the opportunity of getting rid of one of his chief opponents by sending Miltiades. He became “tyrant” of the Chersonesus, which he fortified by a wall across the isthmus from Cardia to Pactya. He was captured by the people of Lampsacus, but released on the intercession of Croesus of Lydia. He was succeeded by Stesagoras, son of his half-brother, Cimon.
2. Miltiades (died c. 488 B.C.), the victor of Marathon, was another son of Cimon. On the death of Stesagoras, he was sent to the Chersonese (? about 518–516) by Hippias—no doubt to support Hegesistratus at Sigeum (see Peisistratus). He entrapped and imprisoned the chief men of Chersonesus, which was then in a turbulent condition, and strengthened himself by an alliance with Hegesipyle, daughter of the Thracian prince Olorus (Herod. vi. 39). He led a contingent in the Scythian expedition of Darius Hystaspis and, according to Herodotus, advised the leaders who were left at the Danube bridge to destroy it and leave Darius to his fate. This story is improbable, as Darius left Miltiades in possession of the Chersonese for some
