ars antiquaand ars nova 61CUMANS. The later emperors tried to transfer the burden
of providing and supporting soldiers to local lords. This
may have been necessary, but such a diffusion of
resources into often unreliable hands ultimately produced
only slight resistance to the OTTOMANSin the 15th cen-
tury. The Ottomans had an overwhelming advantage in
their professional JANISSARIES and a naval dominance
based on Italian technology and sailors.
ISLAMICIn the first period of expansion, the new Muslim armies
were based on tribes and clans and were rewarded with
booty and the property of the defeated. The UMAYYADand
ABBASIDcaliphs built semiprofessional armies that were
personally loyal, at least in theory, to them. These armies
grew in power and when supplemented by hired Turks
became a major force in government. Armies based on
slaves became dominant after the 10th century; these sol-
diers, such as the MAMLUKS, became in a short period the
governing group or dynasty.
See alsoCASTLES AND FORTIFICATION; CAVALRY; CON-
DOTTIERI, COMPANIES, AND MERCENARIES; FIREARMS;GREEK
FIRE; HORSES; SHIPS AND SHIPBUILDINGS; WEAPONS AND
WEAPONRY.
Further reading:Mark C. Bartusis, The Late Byzan-
tine Army: Arms and Society, 1204–1453 (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992); Claude Blair,
European Armour, circa 1066 to circa 1700(London: Bats-
ford, 1958); Kelly De Vries, Medieval Military Technology
(Peterborough: Broadview, 1992); John F. Haldon, Wa r -
fare, State, and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204
(London: UCL Press, 1999); Maurice Keen, ed., Medieval
Warfare: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999); Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military
and Society in the Early Islamic State(Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2001).
Árpáds This is the modern name for the first dynasty
of 21 kings of HUNGARY, who sprang from Duke Árpád
(ca. 850–905). The first Christian king, Saint STEPHENI,
was crowned in 1000. The principle of succession within
the dynasty was determined by seniority. Age order was
supplemented in the 11th to 12th centuries by the prin-
ciple of suitability. The HOLYROMANEMPIREand BYZAN-
TIUM often supported rival suitable candidates. The
sons-in-law of Saint Stephen succeeded him since he had
died without male successors. The lineage that eventu-
ally provided all subsequent Árpád kings was descended
from Saint Stephen’s cousin, Vazul, whom Stephen had
blinded to ensure the succession of his son Saint Emeric
(d. 1031), who, however, died before Stephen. Vazul’s
exiled descendants retook power for the Árpáds in Hun-
gary in 1046.
The dynasty had a reputation for sanctity that was
founded upon the official veneration of the relics of
Saint Stephen and Saint Emeric, begun in 1083. Saint
and King Ladislas (1077–95) was canonized in 1192
under Béla III (1172–96). In the 13th century, two holy
princesses were added: Saint ELIZABETH, daughter of
Andrew II (1171–1235) and widow of Count Louis of
Thuringia, and Saint Margaret (1242–70), a Dominican
nun and daughter of Béla IV (1235–70). The Árpád
dynasty made several historically important and endur-
ing contributions to Hungarian history. Saint Stephen
promulgated Christian laws. Saint Ladislas restored
Christianity after pagan revolts. Béla III modernized the
monarchy by establishing a chancery and a court. King
Andrew II (1205–35) led a crusade and published in
1222 a Golden Bull that guaranteed the constitutional
rights of the nobility. Béla IV (1235–70) restored the
country after the destructive Tatar invasion of 1241.
After the extinction of the dynasty with the death of
Andrew III in 1301, several claimants contended to win
acceptance for their rights and descent through the
female line of the Árpáds.
Further reading: Gébor Klaniczay, “From Sacral
Kingship to Self-Representation: Hungarian and Euro-
pean Royal Saints,” in The Uses of Supernatural Power:
The Transformation of Popular Religion in Medieval and
Early-Modern Europe,trans. Susan Singerman and ed.
Karen Margolis (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1990), 79–94; Ferenc Makki, The Árpáds and the
Comneni: Political Relations between Hungary and Byzan-
tium in the Twelfth Century(Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó,
1989); Z. J. Kosztolnyik, Five Eleventh-Century Hungarian
Kings: Their Policies and Their Relations with Rome(New
York: Columbia University Press, 1981).ars antiqua and ars nova These two terms were
used in 14th-century thought to distinguish conven-
tional rhythmic principles practiced in PARISduring the
12th through 13th centuries and innovations that fol-
lowed in the early 14th century. These involved the
rules and craft of musical composition. Ars nova,the
new system, was first discussed in the treatises of
Philippe de Vitry (1290–1361) about 1320 and others
about 1321. Jacques de Liège about 1330 was a strident
critic of this new art style and defended 13th-century
traditional musical genres, note values, and rhythmic
styles of the ancient usage or ars antiqua. The current
usage of ars antiquaand ars novacovers musical styles,
repertoires, and stages of composition.
See alsoMACHAUT,GUILLAUME DE.
Further reading:Willi Apel, The Notation of Poly-
phonic Music, 900–1600, 5th ed. (Cambridge, Mass.:
Medieval Academy of America, 1961); Anselm Hughes
and Gerald Abraham, eds., Ars Nova and the Renaissance,
1300–1540 (London: Oxford University Press, 1960);
Mary E. Wolinski, “Ars Antiqua, Ars Nova,” in EMA,
1.112–3.