The Great Empires of Prophecy

The Ten Kingdoms
We have now described the origin, traced the course, and marked the establishment, of the ten kingdoms that arose upon the destruction of the Western Empire of Rome. The ten are the Alemanni, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Suevi, the Vandals, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, and the Heruli.
Eight of these are designated by Gibbon in a single paragraph; in giving the history of the conversion of the barbarians, he says: "The formidable Visigoths universally adopted the religion of the Romans, with whom they maintained a perpetual intercourse of war, of friendship, or of conquest. In their long and victorious march from the Danube to the Atlantic Ocean, they converted their allies; they educated the rising generation; and the devotion which reigned in the camp of Alaric, or the court of Toulouse, might edify or disgrace the palaces of Rome and Constantinople. During the same period, Christianity was embraced by almost all the barbarians, who established their kingdoms on the ruins of the Western Empire: the Burgundians in Gaul, the Suevi in Spain, the Vandals in Africa, the Ostrogoths in Pannonia, and the various bands of mercenaries [Heruli], that raised Odoacer to the throne of Italy. The Franks and the Saxons still persevered in the errors of paganism; but the Franks obtained the monarchy of Gaul by their submission to the example of Clovis, and the Saxon conquerors of Britain were reclaimed from their savage superstition by the missionaries of Rome."
In the same chapter, he names another nation, the Lombards after their removal from the Danube to Italy. He mentions their recent conversion to Christianity, and their final adoption of the Catholic faith instead of Arianism, thus: "Gregory the spiritual conqueror of Britain encouraged the pious Theodelinda, queen of the Lombards, to propagate the Nicene faith among the victorious savages, whose recent Christianity was polluted by the Arian heresy. Her devout labors still left room for the industry and success of future missionaries, and many cities of Italy were still disputed by hostile bishops. But the cause of Arianism was gradually suppressed by the weight of truth, of interest, and of example; and the controversy which Egypt had derived from the Platonic school was terminated, after a war of three hundred years, by the final conversion of the Lombards of Italy." And we have already given his designation of the Alemanni as "a great and permanent nation."
Here are named exactly ten nations "who established their kingdoms on the ruins of the Western Empire."
Assuredly no one can suppose for a moment that Gibbon wrote with any intentional reference to an exposition of the prophecy. Nevertheless he has given an exposition of it; because he has written the one single authoritative history of the times of the fulfilment of this prophecy. That history is itself an exposition, and the very best one, of the prophecy in question. Therefore all that has been attempted in this narration is simply to produce, from the authoritative history, the history of the ten kingdoms as they were developed and established. This list, as the history develops it, will bear the test of the closest legitimate criticism; and it is the only list that will bear it.
A number of lists have been made of what are proposed as the ten kingdoms. Perhaps it would be well to notice the principal ones, and, where they disagree with the list which we have drawn from the history, show wherein they are defective. It would not be at all difficult to make up any moderate number of lists of ten names each, each different from the others, composed of the names of tribes or nations that played some part in the destruction of the Western Empire. It is not enough, however, to find ten nations who Participated in the overthrow of the empire; but did such nations establish kingdoms? Nor is it enough to say that they did establish kingdoms; but did they establish kingdoms within the bounds of the Western Empire? Nor yet is it enough to say that they established kingdoms within the bounds of the Western Empire; but can these ten nations be found within the period market by the prophecy? and do all remain that the prophecy demands shall remain?
The fulfilment of prophecy is not haphazard. "For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." By the word of the prophets God has declared what would be in the "course of empire;" and the history of the course of empire declares, according to the prophecy, what has been. God has spoken, and accordingly it is so. The prophecy said that four kingdoms would arise out of the dominion of Alexander; and exactly four did arise. The prophecy said that out of Rome would arise ten kingdoms, and exactly ten did arise.
In Daniel, of the fourth kingdom it is said: "Whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided." The prophecy says that the fourth beast had ten horns; that the fourth beast is "the fourth kingdom;" and that the ten horns "are ten kings that shall arise." Further, when the ten horns had appeared, Daniel says: "I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots." Then after the angel had said that these "ten horns" "are ten kings," he continued: "And another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." (Dan. 2:41; 7:8,24)
From these texts it is clear, (1) that the ten kingdoms first appear; (2) that after that, three of these are "plucked up by the roots;" and (3) that only three are so plucked up. It is evident, therefore, that the ten are all in sight before any of the three are "plucked up." Also, the one that subdues these three comes up "among" the ten. Therefore the ten must all be there at one time, before this other "little horn" comes up, and must all be there when it comes up. Now the three that were plucked up by the roots were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths; and the date of the plucking up of the first of the three, is March 5, A. D. 493, and of the last, March, A. D. 538.
Therefore: —
(1) Any list purporting to be that of the ten kingdoms, that contains the names of any that never were established within the bounds of the Western Empire, can not be a correct list.
(2) Any such list containing the names of any that arose later than A. D. 493, can not be a correct list.
(3) Any such list that contains the names of more than three nations that perished — "were plucked up by the roots" — can not be a correct list.
To state it in the affirmative form: The ten kingdoms must all be in sight in A. D. 493; they must establish themselves within the bounds of the Western Empire; three, and only three, of them can be plucked up by the roots. The other seven must remain, through their lineal descendants, to the time when all kingdoms shall give place to the kingdom of God. The list of the ten kingdoms that meets these specifications must be the correct list.
Not that the remaining seven must all, always, remain equally powerful kingdoms; not that no one of them shall ever extend its boundaries, or even change its locality; not that no one of them shall ever be brought low; not that no one shall ever be made tributary to another; not that no one shall ever have to acknowledge the overlordship of another; because in this same prophecy we read that, "As the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken" (brittle, margin). Part of them retain the strength of iron, while others show more of the weakness of clay. But though part of them may be weak, though they may even "be broken," yet they are never plucked up by the roots; for "in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." (Dan. 2:44)
Bishop Newton, in his "Dissertations on the Prophecies," pp. 209, 210, has given three distinct lists, all proposed as the ten kingdoms, besides his own; viz, one by Mede, one by Sir Isaac Newton, and one by Bishop Chandler, endorsed by Bishop Lloyd. Mede's list he gives as follows:-
"Mr. Mede, whom a certain writer esteemed as a man divinely inspired for the interpretation of the prophecies, reckons up the ten kingdoms thus in the year A. D. 456, the year after Rome was sacked by Genseric, king of the Vandals: (1) The Britons; (2) the Saxons in Britain; (3) the Franks; (4) the Burgundians in France; (5) the Visigoths in the south of France and part of Spain; (6) the Sueves and Alans in Galicia and Portugal; (7) the Vandals in Africa; (8) the Alemanes in Germany; (9) the Ostrogoths, whom the Longobards succeeded, in Pannonia, and afterward in Italy; (10) the Greeks in the residue of the empire."
There are two points in this list that are manifestly wrong: First, in naming the Britons. These could perhaps properly be named in A. D. 456, the date at which Mede makes his list, because then the Saxons had only been seven years on British soil. But in the end, the Saxons utterly swept away not only the power of the Britons, but the Britons themselves.
"With the victory of Deorum [A. D. 577] the conquest of the bulk of Britain was complete. . . . Britain had in the main become England. And within this new England a Teutonic society was settled on the wreck of Rome. So far as the conquest had yet gone, it was complete. Not a Briton remained as subject or slave on English ground. . . . It is this that distinguishes the conquest of Britain from that of the other provinces of Rome. The conquest of Gaul by the Franks, or that of Italy by the Lombards, proved little more than a forcible settlement of the one or other among tributary subjects who were destined in the long course of ages to absorb their conquerors. . . . But the English conquest of Britain up to the point which we have reached was a sheer dispossession of the people whom the English conquered.
"So far as the English sword in these earlier days had reached, Britain had become England, a land, that is, not of Britons, but of Englishmen. Even if a few of the vanquished people lingered as slaves round the homesteads of their English conquerors, or a few of their household words mingled with the English tongue, doubtful exceptions, such as these, leave the main facts untouched. The keynote of the conquest was firmly struck. When the English invasion was stayed for a while by the civil wars of the invaders, the Briton had disappeared from the greater part of the land which had been his own; and the tongue, the religion, the laws of his English conquerors reigned without a break from Essex to Staffordshire,and from the British Channel to the Frith of Forth."
"Their conquest was not the settlement of armed conquerors amidst a subject people, but the gradual expulsion — it might almost seem the total extirpation — of the British and the Roman-British inhabitants. Christianity receded with the conquered Britons into the mountains of Wales, or toward the borders of Scotland, or took refuge among the peaceful and flourishing monasteries of Ireland. On the one hand, the ejection, more or less complete, of the native race, shows that the contest was fierce and long; the reoccupation of the island by paganism is a strong confirmation of the complete expulsion of the Britons."
It is evident, therefore, that for this reason,if for no other, the Britons can not be counted as one of the ten kingdoms. But there is another important consideration that forbids it. The Britons were themselves a part of the body of the Roman Empire, which was conquered and broken up by the new peoples who came in. And if in Britain it were proper to count as a kingdom the conquered equally with the conquerors, then why not also in all the other parts of the empire, and, as Mr. Green shows, with more propriety. If we count the Britons and the Saxons in Britain, we may with equal propriety count the Gauls and the Franks in France, the Spanish and the Suevi in Spain, the Africans and the Vandals in Africa, and so on through the list, which would give twenty kingdom instead of ten!
Plainly, Mr. Mede's insertion of the Britons is erroneous. The latter consideration, too, demonstrates the impropriety of counting any part of the old empire of Rome as one among the ten which were to arise. The prophetic word is marking the rise and fall of distinct nations; and when Rome has risen, run her course, and is brought to ruin by the rise of ten other kingdoms, it were unreasonable to count a part of that which is fallen, as one of those which were to arise. No, Rome had run her course, as had the empires before her; she had twice exhausted the catalogue of iniquities, and had even covered her iniquities with the profession of the gospel of righteousness; and in the ten kingdoms God raised up new peoples by whom He would fulfil his purposes.
Secondly, Mr. Mede's list is defective in another place. He counts as his tenth kingdom, "the Greeks in the residue of the empire." He fills the Western Empire with nine nations, and lumps all the rest of the empire in one! But in A. D. 456 there were divisions in the Eastern, or Greek, Empire, as well as in the Western. By what right can they be summed up in one, any more than could those in the Western Empire? for the empire at that time still existed in the West as it did in the East. In short, two things are certain, either of which excludes Mede's tenth kingdom: (1) we can not rightly go outside of the limits of the Western Empire to count the ten kingdoms; and, (2) if we do go beyond those limits, we can not rightly lump together as one kingdom all that were in the bounds of the Eastern Empire.
The others that are named in this list are in the main correct: one minor point may be mentioned, i. e., "the Alemanes in Germany." Simply to prevent misapprehension it may be remarked that if Mede meant, as he probably did, the Alemanni in what is now Germany, he is correct, for the Alemanni were the root of the present nation of Germany. That part of the present Germany which lies south of the river Main and the Moselle, including about half of Bavaria, is the country taken from the Roman Empire by the Alemanni. Of the Roman Empire it formed the provinces of Rhaetia. Vindelicia, Agri Decumates, and a part of Gaul. Of what was then Germany, none lay south of the Main or of the Danube.
The next is Sir Isaac Newton's list, thus: —
"(1) The kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa;

(2) the kingdom of the Suevans in Spain;

(3) the kingdom of the Visigoths;

(4) the kingdom of the Alans in Gallia;

(5) the kingdom of the Burgundians;

(6) the kingdom of the Franks;

(7) the kingdom of the Britons;

(8) the kingdom of the Huns;

(9) the kingdom of the Lombards;

(10) the kingdom of Ravenna."

We know not at what date Sir Isaac found these, only that, as he names "the kingdom [exarchate] of Ravenna," it must have been somewhere between A. D. 554 and 752, for that is the time of the existence of the exarchate of Ravenna. But that comes into history too late to be counted as one of the ten. They must all be seen before A. D. 493. He, too, names the Britons, but it is most likely that he uses that name for that of the Saxons, as England is even now called Britain, and the English sometimes Britons.
His mention of the "Alans in Gallia [Gaul]" as one of the ten kingdoms, is more than their history will justify. It is true that of the Alani that crossed the Rhine in A. D. 406, with the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, a portion settled near Valence and Orleans in Gaul, while the body of the nation went on into Spain; but soon after the battle of Chalons "their separate national existence in Gaul was merged in that of the Visigoths;" and when, in A. D. 508, the Visigoths were, by the Franks, driven from their Gallic possessions into Spain, this body of the Alani were lost to history, if not to the world. The Huns likewise can not properly be numbered as one of the ten kingdoms; but as they are named in other lists, notice of them is deferred for the present.
Bishop Newton makes up his list in the eighth century, which is more than two hundred years too late, and that of itself destroys its value as a correct list. Nevertheless, we insert it. Of course it is not altogether wrong, as it would be scarcely possible to name ten kingdoms at any time after the middle of the fifth century without including some of the right ones. He names them thus:-
"(1) Of the Senate of Rome, who revolted from the Greek emperors, and claimed and exerted the privilege of choosing a new Western emperor;

(2) of the Greeks in Ravenna;

(3) of the Lombards in Lombardy;

(4) of the Huns in Hungary;

(5) of the Alemanes in Germany;

(6) of the Franks in France;

(7) of the Burgundians in Burgundy;

(8) of the Goths in Spain;

(9) of the Britons;

(10) of the Saxons in Britain."

This list, being drawn in the eighth century, is after the establishment of the papacy, and, consequently, is after the rooting up of the three that were displaced that it might be set up. And as the prophecy plainly says that "three of the first horns" — three of the ten — should be "plucked up by the roots," it is certainly a vain effort to try to find ten after three of them have been taken entirely away. Therefore, so far is the bishop's list from being of any real value as that of ten kingdoms, that it is worthless as such; because it is made at a time when the prophecy allows but seven besides the papacy. As for these seven, however, his list contains them all but one — the Suevi. Of the seven, he gives us the Lombards, the Alemanni, the Franks, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Saxons.
Bishop Chandler's list, professedly made up from Machiavelli's "History of Florence," is as follows: —
"(1) The Ostrogoths in Moesia;

(2) the Visigoths in Pannonia;

(3) the Sueves and Alans in Gascoigne and Spain;

(4) the Vandals in Africa;

(5) the Franks in France;

(6) the Burgundians in Burgundy;

(7) the Heruli and Turingi in Italy;

(8) the Saxons and Angles in Britain;

(9) the Huns in Hungary;

(10) the Lombards, at first upon the Danube, afterward in Italy."

So far as the names are concerned this list is correct, with the exception of the Huns. As this list is the one which has been most generally accepted, it may be well fully to give the facts which exclude the Huns from the enumeration: —
(1) It is a fact that the only part of what is now Hungary that was ever within the Western Empire, is that portion that lies west of the Danube, and which formed part of the province of Pannonia.
(2) It is a fact that the people who formed what is now the kingdom of Hungary, and from whom that country took its name of Hungary, did not appear in Europe till A. D. 884, and in 889 overran the country which bears their name.
(3) It is a fact that they were not Huns but Magyars (Ovyypoi, Ugri, Wengri, Ungri, Ungari, Hungari). Therefore, to name the "Huns in Hungary," as though Hungary received its name from the Huns, and as though it were a continuation of the kingdom of the Huns, is decidedly an error.
This is confirmed by additional facts: —
(1) It is a fact that the true Huns — the Huns of Attila — first entered the province of Pannonia about A. D. 380; that Pannonia was abandoned to them by the patrician AEtius about A. D. 424, and was confirmed to them by a treaty with Theodosius II about A. D. 430; that Attila, with his brother Bleda, succeeded his uncle Rugilas in the rule of the Huns in A. D. 433, and died in A. D. 453.
(2) It is a fact that shortly after the death of Attila the power of the Huns was broken to pieces.
(3) It is a fact that from the battle of Netad onward, the Huns never possessed any portion of territory within the Western Empire.
(4) And it is a fact that the empire, the kingdom, and the nation of the Huns of Attila were "extinguished."
Gibbon states these last three facts in a single paragraph. He says: "The revolution which subverted the empire of the Huns established the fame of Attila, whose genius alone had sustained the huge and disjointed fabric. . . . Ellac, the eldest son of Attila, lost his life and crown in the memorable battle of Netad; his early valor had raised him to the throne of the Acatzires, a Scythian people, whom he subdued; and his father, who loved the superior merit, would have envied the death, of Ellac. His brother, Dengisich, with an army of Huns, still formidable in their flight and ruin, maintained his ground above fifteen years on the banks of the Danube. The palace of Attila, with the old country of Dacia, from the Carpathian Hills to the Euxine, became the seat of a new power which was erected by Ardaric, king of the Gepidae. The Pannonian conquests, from Vienna to Sirmium were occupied by the Ostrogoths; and the settlements of the tribes, who had so bravely asserted their native freedom, were irregularly distributed according to the measure of their respective strength. Surrounded and oppressed by the multitude of his father's slaves, the kingdom of Dengisich was confined to the circle of his wagons; his desperate courage urged him to invade the Eastern Empire, he fell in battle, and his head, ignominiously exposed in the hippodrome, exhibited a grateful spectacle to the people of Constantinople.
"Attila had fondly or superstitiously believed that Irnac, the youngest of his sons, was destined to perpetuate the glories of his race. The character of that prince, who attempted to moderate the rashness of his brother Dengisich, was more suitable to the declining condition of the Huns; and Irnac with his subject hordes retired into the heart of the Lesser Scythia. [The Lesser Scythia — now the Dobrudscha — was that little piece of country lying between the Black Sea and the Danube, along the course of that river where it flows northward, near its mouth. It contains about 2,900 square miles.] They were soon overwhelmed by a torrent of new barbarians, who followed the same road which their own ancestors had formerly discovered. The Geougen, or Avares, whose residence is assigned by the Greek writers to the shores of the ocean, impelled the adjacent tribes, till at length the Igours of the North, issuing from the cold Siberian regions which produce the most valuable furs, spread themselves over the desert as far as the Borysthenes [Dnieper] and the Caspian gates; and finally extinguished the empire of the Huns."
The Encyclopedia Britannica tells of the death of Attila in A. D. 453, and then says: "Almost immediately afterward, the empire he had amassed, rather than consolidated, fell to pieces. His too numerous sons began to quarrel about their inheritance, while Ardaric, the king of the Gepidae, was placing himself at the head of a general revolt of the dependent nations. The inevitable struggle came to a crisis near the river Netad in Pannonia, in a battle in which thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates, including Ellak, Attila's eldest son, were slain. The nation, thus broken, rapidly dispersed; one horde settled under Roman protection in Little Scythia (the Dobrudscha), others in Dacia Ripensis (on the confines of Servia and Bulgaria) or on the southern borders of Pannonia. The main body, however, appear to have resumed the position on the steppes of the river Ural, which they had left less than a century before."
Chambers's Cyclopedia says: "With the death of Attila the power of the Huns was broken in pieces. A few feeble sovereigns succeeded to him; but there was strife everywhere among the several nations that had owned the firm sway of Attila, and the Huns especially never regained their power."
Adams's Historical Chart says: "The fall of the empire of the Huns begins with the death of Attila, A. D. 453. Their power was broken, and the nation was soon extinguished."
Pritchard says: "It may be considered, as Mr. Zeuss has shown, as a historical fact, that the Bulgarians were the remains of the Huns, who, after the death of Attila, retreated to the banks of the Volga, and the plains extending from Bulgari [Wolga or Volga, Wolgari, Bolgari, Bulgari, Bulgarians] to the Euxine. From that country, called, as we have seen, Great Bulgari, issued the hordes of Bulgarians who, at a later period [about 660] crossed the Danube and established the Bulgarian kingdom." 36. Arminius Vambery, himself a Hungarian, says: "While the Magyars continued to dwell quietly along the Don, the Huns proceeded with an immense army,each tribe contributing ten thousand men, against western Europe, conquering and rendering tributary, in the course of their wanderings, numerous nations, and finally settled on the banks of the Theiss and Danube. Later on, however, in the middle of the fifth century, when the world-renowned Attila, `the scourge of God,' came into power, the Huns carried their victorious arms over a great part of the western world. The immense empire, however, which had been founded by King Attila, was destined to be but of short duration after the death of its founder. His sons Aladar and Csaba, in their contention for the inheritance, resorted to arms. The war ended with the utter destruction of the nation. While the sons of Attila were contending with each other for the possession of the empire, the Germanic populations fell upon the divided Huns, and drove them back to the Black Sea.
"All of the followers of Aladar perished; Csaba, however, succeeded in escaping from the destroying arms of the neighboring nations, who had fallen on the quarreling brothers, with about fifteen thousand men, to the territories of the Greek Empire. . . . He returned afterward with the remainder of his people to the home of his ancestors, on the banks of the Don, where, up to the time of his death, he never tired of inciting the Magyars to emigrate to Pannonia and to revenge themselves on their enemies by reconquering the empire of Attila.
"The Gepidae remained now the masters of the country east of the Danube, whilst the Ostrogoths occupied the ancient Roman province. The latter, however, under the lead of their king, Theodoric, migrated in a body to Italy, crossing the Alps, and founded there, on the ruins of the Roman Empire, a Gothic kingdom. The Gepidae remained, in consequence, the sole ruling people in Hungary."
The Gepidae continued to be the sole ruling people in Hungary for about one hundred years, until A. D. 566, when that nation was obliterated by the united powers of the Lombards and the Avars. The Avars, who are sometimes called Huns, first heard of the Roman Empire in A. D. 558, and were first seen by Europeans when an embassy came from them to Constantinople, in the reign of Justinian, that same year. After the destruction of the Gepidae, the Lombards gave up all their Pannonian possessions to the Avars, A. D. 567, and went to Italy. The Avars inhabited and ruled the country until the invasion of the Magyars, A. D. 889, who still inhabit the country which from them bears the name of Hungary.
Hodgkin, the very latest authority on the subject (1892), says: "With dramatic suddenness, the stage after the death of Attila is cleared of all the chief actors, and fresh performers come upon the scene. . . . The death of Attila was followed by the dissolution of his empire, as complete and more ruinous than that which befell the Macedonian monarchy on the death of Alexander. . . . Ernak, Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in the district between the Lower Danube and the Black Sea, which we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then `the Lesser Scythia.' Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up the stream, in Dacia, Ripensis on the confines of Servia and Bulgaria. Others made a virtue of necessity, and entering Romania, frankly avowed themselves subjects and servants of the Eastern Caesar, toward whom they had lately shown themselves such contumelious foes. There is nothing in the after-history of these fragments of the nation with which any one need concern himself. The Hunnish Empire is from this time forward mere driftwood on its way to incvitable oblivion."
Nor is yet this all: the very authority upon which was professedly based this first citation of the Huns as one of the ten kingdoms — this authority itself is against it. Bishop Chandler is said to have made up his list from Machiavelli. 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: "Machiavelli, 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 between the years 1469 and 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, Is 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 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 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 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."
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 Gepidae 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 Gepidae, 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 returned 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 into Italy."
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 nearly two hundred years. 49. By these evidences it is certain that after the battle of the Netad (A. D. 453) there never was within the Western Empire a vestige of the power known to history as that of the Huns. Therefore they certainly can not rightly be counted among the ten kingdoms. And as the Magyars who formed the kingdom of Hungary never appeared in history till they entered Europe in A. D. 884, nor did they ever enter the country that bears their name till A. D. 889, it is literally impossible that they could be counted one of the ten kingdoms which the prophecy demands should be in existence at least 396 years before; that is, in A. D. 493.
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) Visigoths, 378;

(4) Franks, 407;

(5) Vandals, 407;

(6) Sueves and Alans, 497;

(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 can not 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 did not cross the Volga till about A. D. 375-375; and their first appearance to the eyes of the Romans was in A. D. 376.
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 Jan. 3, A. D. 401, while trying, under the leadership of Gainas, to make their way back into the countries beyond the Danube. These, 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.
He dates the Franks A. D. 407, whereas their "uninterrupted possession" of territory and monarchy in Gaul dates from A. D. 351.
He dates the rise of the Saxons A. D. 476, when the fact is that they entered Britain, in A. D. 449, and never left it.
He names the Lombards as "in the northern parts of Germany about" A. D. 483, and says that they began to reign in Hungary A. D. 526. Whereas they were in the northern parts of Germany "about the time of Augustus and Trajan," 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 exterminated 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 afterward confounded." 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 others, we repeat, and we do it with the 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.
If any one would inquire why on this subject so large use has been made of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and why his account is so fully trusted, the answer is: Because "the great work of Gibbon is indispensable to the student of history;" because "the literature of Europe offers no substitute for the `Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;'" because "it has obtained undisputed possession, as rightful occupant, of the vast period which it comprehends;" because "this history is the sole undisputed authority to which all defer, and from which few appeal to original writers, or to more modern compilers;" because that "in France and Germany, as well as in England, — in the most enlightened countries of Europe, Gibbon is constantly cited as an authority;" in short, because there is no other; and because "the vast design of Gibbon" and "the laborious execution of his immense plan" have rendered "the decline and fall of the Roman Empire an unapproachable subject to the future historian."
For convenience, there is set down here in order, the names of the ten kingdoms which the undisputed history gives, with the dates at which they respectively or successively entered the Western Empire never to leave it (except the three that were plucked up by the roots), with the places and dates of their settlement: —
Alemanni, about A. D. 300, in Agri Decumates from the river Main to Basel and the Lake of Constance; A. D. 351, take Alsace Lorraine in addition; A. D. 455, extend to the Seine.
Franks, A. D. 351, northeast Gaul; early in the fifth century spread to the Somme; middle of the fifth century, A. D. 455, to the Seine; and gradually progress till in the sixth century they take all Gaul north and west of the Moselle and the mountains of the Vosges and the Cevennes.
Burgundians, Dec. 31, A. D. 406; in Burgundy, A. D. 420; spread over West Switzerland and the whole valley of the Rhone, A. D. 443-476.
Suevi, Oct. 13, A. D. 409 in Spain; A. D. 428 in Galicia in Spain; A. D. 466 held the kingdom of Galicia, and shortly afterward spread to what is now Portugal.
Vandals, Dec. 31. 406; in Spain, A. D. 409; in Africa, May, A. D. 429.
Visigoths, A. D. 408, Italy; in southwest Gaul (Aquitaine), A. D. 419; spread into Spain, A. D. 466.
Saxons, A. D. 449, Britain.
Ostrogoths, A. D. 451, under Attila; A. D. 453, in Pannonia; A. D. 489, in Italy.
Lombards, A. D. 451, under Attila; A. D. 453, in Noricum.
Heruli, A. D. 451, under Attila; A. D. 475, in Italy.