¹ The Italians, exploiting the absence of Alula, advanced from. Massawa into Ethiopian territory and on 23 November 1886 they occupied Wi'a. It was thus proved to Yohannes that Alula's accusations of the Italians were not exaggerated. So, instead of having to explain his failure in Kassala, Alula was put in charge of the future anti-Italian campaign.

² For quite a similar description of Alula's and Yohannes's meeting see the Aksum Ge'ez chronicle of Yohannes written by Abba Haylä Maryam. (English translation kept by Dr. R. Caulk, National University, Addis Ababa.)

³ Early January 1887 on his way from Mäqälē to Asmara.

⁴ The anti-Italian campaign was undoubtedly discussed by Yohannes and Alula in their meeting in Mäqälē. Yet the author of our MS suggested that it was only later, in Aksum, that Alula decided to attack. This may support the assumption that in authorizing Alula to go and face the Italians, Yohannes did not expect that his general would initiate such a massacre of European troops (see Erlich, , Ras Alula, 188–90).Google Scholar

⁵ On 26 January 1887 at Dogali (Täd'ali), after two weeks of futile diplomatic effort to persuade the Italians to return to Massawa, Alula ambushed and massacred an Italian battalion consisting of 500 troops. (For sources see a bibliographical list in the entry ‘Dogali’ in the Enciclopedia italiana.) The battle of Dogali was undoubtedly one of the most important events in the history of Ethiopia in the late nineteenth century. It created open enmity between the Tigrean Emperor Yohannes and the Italians, and this contributed significantly to the rise of the Shoan hegemony over the empire. The personality of Ras Alula, whose activities were a main factor in the history of Ethiopia during the forthcoming years, became identified with that event.

⁶ Šaläqa Ar'aya was, like Alula, a native of Zuqli, Tämbēn, and as a follower of the Ras he was appointed governor of Ginda'. In November 1886, before leaving for Kassala, Alula found out that Šaläqa Ar'aya had contacted the outlaw Däbbäb, Alula's personal enemy. Däbbäb, a son of Ras Ar'aya Demṣu and a brother of Amläsu, was living as a robber among the Assawurtā tribes, and frequently co-operated with the Italians. Alula arrested Šaläqa Ar'aya and sent him in chains to Kärän (ASMAI 2/2–13, Genè to MAE, 25 11 1886).Google Scholar

⁷ Leaves 20a, 20b, and 28a are undoubtedly dealing with the period of the battle of Kufit, i.e. 16 months before Dogali. It looks as if the author of the MS preferred to assemble Alula's correspondence, so he combined these letters with those heralding the victory of Dogali.

⁸ Menelik and Täklä Haymanot.

⁹ A clear reference to the siege of Kaesala.

¹⁰ Presumably Yohannes's letter to Alula, of 14 10 1885Google Scholar. See BSOAS, xxxix, 1, 1976, p. 43, n. 81.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a report on Alula's letter to Menelik and the latter's ambivalent reaction see Antonelli, to MAE, 2 04 1887Google Scholar, Libro Verde, xvGoogle Scholar; also Zaghi, C., Le origini della colonia Eritrea, Bologna, 1934, 145Google Scholar; also Antonelli, to MAE, 20 03 1887Google Scholar, in Giglio, , Eliopia-Mar Rosso, VI, no. 50, p. 76.Google Scholar

¹² This is still Alula's letter to Yohannes.

¹³ The following passage undoubtedly deals with the post-Kufit and pre-Dogali period. This is clearly revealed by the last sentence of the passage which refers to the alleged relief of the garrison of Kassala (see below, p. 316, n. 17). Furthermore, after Dogali Alula was in disgrace with Yohannes (Erlich, , Ras Alula, 191–3)Google Scholar. After the battle of Kufit in late 1885 Yohannes had to hurry to the Galla country where his son Ras Ar'aya Sellasē faced an overwhelming rebellion (FO 403/87, Smith, to Baring, , 12 03 1886)Google Scholar. ‘Yohannes’, said the French Vice-Consul to Massawa on 26 February 1886, ‘has made him (Alula) “generalissimo” with the government of all Tigre and superintendence of the frontiers of the north and west’ (MAE, Mas. 5, Soumagne to MAE, 26 02 1886).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Tigrean nobles were naturally reluctant to agree to Yohannes's decision to appoint Alula, a son of a peasant, over the northern marches of the empire. But Yohannes was determined: ‘At Yohannes's orders’, Soumagne went on in his report of 26 February 1886, ‘all the other commanders remaining in Tigre have joined forces with Alula at Asmara under his command. At the time when I arrived (February 1886) Dadjazmach Tedla (Ayba), governor of Makalle, Dadjazmach Hagos, governor of Adwa, and Balambaras Debab, in charge of Tamben, were in Alula's camp’.

¹⁵ According to a British envoy to Yohannes who saw Alula in late 1887, the Ras could not read or write: Portal, G. H., My mission to Abyssinia, London, 1892, 221.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Aksum.

¹⁷ The Egyptian garrison of Kassala. Some few of its troops managed to escape to Ethiopia after the town had fallen (see various evidence in SOAS microfilm M.518, reel 8). Dägläl is a village near Aylet whose people were probably attacked by the pro-Mahdist Ḥabbāb tribes in the period of the battle of Kufit. See Alula's letter to Saletta, , Asmara, , 15 10 1885Google Scholar, in Giglio, , Etiopia-Mar Rosso, v, no. 86, pp. 103–4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Expecting an Italian punitive mission, Alula intensified his activities against Catholic missions in his provinces (and also against Muslims—see Erlich, , Ras Alula, 195–8)Google Scholar. For examples see: Puglisi, , Chi è ?, 14Google Scholar; Da Nembro, M., La missions dei minori Cappuccini in Eritrea 1894–1952, Rome, 1953, 18.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The people under attack here are evidently ‘dyophysites’, who believe that the incarnate Christ (i.e. the Word) was ‘in two natures’. From the Ethiopian Orthodox point of view this is criticized as ‘adding a fourth member to the Trinity ‘—i.e. the human nature of Christ—and thereby improperly separating the Word from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

²⁰ An Italian punitive mission of 20,000 troops headed by General San Marzano concentrated at Massawa in late 1887. By January 1888 this Italian army was well entrenched in Säḥaṭi and neighbouring positions.

²¹ The Italian method of entrenchment embarrassed the Ethiopians, who were accustomed to do battle in the open. It was regarded with contempt by the Ethiopian warriors: ‘In order to avoid war’, Alula addressed General Genè, ‘you stayed in the middle of the sea like fishes. Later you came out and like rats you have dug trenches …’ (Alula, to Genè, , 20 01 1887Google Scholar, Giglio, , Etiopia-Mar Rosso, VI, no. 6, p. 11).Google Scholar

²² Yohannes was then (December 1887) at Lake Ashange receiving the British mediator Portal. Portal attributed to Alula's message the emperor's refusal to come to terms, i.e. to cede territory to the Italians, and also to remove Alula from the political scene (FO 403/90, Portal, to Baring, , 25 12 1887Google Scholar; Portal, , My mission, 161–2).Google Scholar

²³ The Galla leader, formerly Muḥammad ‘Alī, the future Negus Mika’ēl.

²⁴ For details of this Italian-Ethiopian confrontation see Ministero del la Guerra, Storia militare della colonia Eritrea, Roma, 1935Google Scholar; WO [War Office in PEG] 33/55 A322, ‘Eritrea, a history of the Italian possessions in the Bed Sea’; also Erlich, , Ras Alula, 205–12.Google Scholar

²⁵ On 25 March 1888 Alula failed to entice the Italians to fight in the open (see description in FO 403/91, Slade to Savile, 4 April 1888). Later, however, the Italian expedition had to leave without taking revenge for Dogali.

²⁶ While the emperor was facing the Italians, Gondar was destroyed by a Mahdist invasion (23 January 1888) (see Holt, , Mahdisk state, 172)Google Scholar. Yohannes then decided, following Alula's failure to fight the Italians, to spend Easter in Aksum and to decide there about his next move.

²⁷ These are the Mahdists. Yohannes was deeply moved by the destruction of Gondar by Abu ‘Anja and insulted by an aggressive letter from the Khalīfa (see Shuqayr, , Tārīkh al-Sūdān, 474).Google Scholar

²⁸ With the Italians still in a threatening position and the loyalty of his great vassals quite doubtful (see below, n. 31), Yohannes must have been reluctant to fight the Mahdiyya at that stage.

²⁹ According to Italian employed spies the following leaders were assembled in the emperor's camp in late April and early May 1888: Mika'ēl, Ras, Hagos, Ras, Tädla, Däjjazmač of Ayba, Bäjerond Läwṭē, Dābbāb Ar'aya (he deserted the Italians and returned to Yohannes's camp in 02 1888)Google Scholar, and Ras Alula (ASMAI, DI (Diarii Informazioni), Inf. Sa'īd Muḥammad, 8 05 1888).Google Scholar

³⁰ Thus, after his anti-Italian policy proved a partial failure and Alula was in disgrace with the emperor (see Erlich, , Ras Alula, 212–18)Google Scholar, the Ras managed to re-establish himself by urging a war against the Mahdiyya.

³¹ In late May Yohannes left Aksum for Mäqälē, where he planned to spend the rainy season (ASMAI, DI, 16 06 1888)Google Scholar. But when he heard that Negus Menelik and Negus Täklä Haymanot had joined hands in rebellion against him (Lämläm, 36; Antonelli, to MAE, 11 06 1888Google Scholar, LV, xv)Google Scholar, he hastily left on 7 July 1888 for Däbrä Tabor.

³² In late Hay Alula returned to Asmara but was immediately summoned to Mäqälē by Yohannes. He left on 14 June 1888 to meet his master en route to Däbrä Tabor (ASMAI, DI, 16 07 1888, Inf. Keflu Drar).Google Scholar

³³ Late July 1888.

³⁴ The Blue Nile.

³⁵ Yohannes crossed the Abbay on 6 August 1888. Alula followed him a month later to help besiege Täklä Haymanot on Amba Gibella. Again the author has preferred to avoid discussing most important domestic affairs, this time Yohannes's relations with Täklä Haymanot and with Menelik in late 1888 and early 1889.

³⁶ Ras Alula was not the commander of the Imperial Army. The command was given to the emperor's nephews Ras Häylä Maryam and Bas Mängäša.

³⁷ See description of the battle by Eägē Tēwofelos in Rossini, C. Conti, Italia ed Etiopia, Roma, 1935, 461–2.Google Scholar

³⁸ This is confirmed by ASMAI, DI, 2 04 1889Google Scholar, Inf. ‘Uthmān ‘Umān.

³⁹ Between 9 and 10 March 1889.

⁴⁰ See Tēwofelos's description in Rossini, Conti, op. cit., 461–2Google Scholar. Concerning Mängäša, see Ṣadeq Mäkuriya, Täklä, Yä-Ityoṗya tarik, 63.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Tēwofelos'a description.

⁴² According to a Mahdist historian this second clash took place on 12 March 1889 near the Atbara river, and ‘Ras Alula, although he was the fire of the Abyssinians' fire, ran away’ (Ismā'īl b. ‘Abd al-Qādir, al-Tirāz al-manqūsh bibushrä qatl Yūḥannā malik al-ḥubūsh, MS, School of Oriental Studies, University of Durham, fols. 125–30). See also Sellasē, Henry Wälä, Ityoṗyanna mätämma, Addis Ababa, 1901/1908–1909, 14Google Scholar; Rossini, Conti, op. cit., p. 26Google Scholar, n. 2; Shuqayr, , Tārīkh al-Sūdān, 485.Google Scholar

⁴³ Yohannes's head was said to have been captured by the Mahdists and sent to Omdurman for exhibition (Holt, , Mahdist state, 174).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Alula and Mängäša (who according to Tēwofelos was crowned in Mätämma) returned to Tigre after the death of Yohannes, and refused to recognize Menelik as emperor. They had to spend the following year fighting for their lives against local rivals who were sent or supported by Menelik or the Italians.

⁴⁵ Districts between Lake Ṭana and the river Täkkäzē.

⁴⁶ Early April 1889.

⁴⁷ 20 April 1889 (ASMAI, DI, 24 04 1889Google Scholar, Inf. Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥāfiz).

⁴⁸ Probably the Italians and Menelik, who were soon to be parties to the Treaty of Ucciali, 2 05 1889.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Däjjazmač Seyum ‘Abba Gobaz’ the son of Ras Gäbrä Kidanē of Zäbul and Yohannes's sister. Seyum was appointed by Menelik over Tigre and in early 1899 entered Endärta (ASMAI, DI, 22 06 1889Google Scholar, ‘Informants who left Adwa on 16 June 1889’).

⁵⁰ From Tämbēn to Mäqälē. Seyum did not capture Mäqälē, which was held by one of Mängäša's devotees. Following the arrival of the two Rases in Mäqälē he avoided fighting and retreated to Ashange (ASMAI, DI, 21 06 1889Google Scholar, Inf. Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥāfiz).

⁵¹ A son of Ras Ar'aya Demṣu, a brother of Amläsu, and Alula's greatest personal rival. Däbbäb had co-operated with the Egyptians in Massawa and later with the Italians. In February 1889 when Alula was with Yohannes near Mätämma he killed Alula's man in Asmara, and took the town in the name of the Italians. In early July 1889, Däbbäb penetrated Tämbēn (ASMAI, DI, 17 July 1889, Inf. Muḥammad Idrīs). Däbbäb was then promised by the two Rases the kingdom of Tigre and thus was tempted to enter Mäqälē where, probably on 17 July 1889, he was imprisoned by Alula and put on Amba Sälama (ASMAI, DI, Bahta Hagos to Baldissera, 25 07 1889)Google Scholar. Däbbäb, escaped in 05 1891Google Scholar, and was killed by Alula in September.

⁵² On his march to Ḥamasēn, Alula learnt that the Italians had taken Asmara (2 August 1889). So he spent the period of August-November 1889 in Qohayn (ASMAI, DI, Tenente Zuiraghi, 30 08 1889).Google Scholar

⁵³ In late October 1889 Seyum took Mäqälē and led his 1,500 troops towards Adwa (ASMAI, DI, 9 11 1889Google Scholar, unlike Rossini, Conti, op. cit., 20).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Däjjazmač Tädla Ayba and Wagshum Berru ‘stayed away from fear’, while Däjjazmač Sebhat Arägawi of Agamē ‘stayed away from deceit’. Sebhat, a descendant of Sebagadis and hereditary ruler of his province, swore allegiance to Mängäša in early September 1889. Later in that month he sent to the Italians declaring himself an obedient servant of Menelik (ASMAI, DI, 30 09 1889Google Scholar, Sebhat to Baldissera).

⁵⁵ Between Adwa and the Märäb.

⁵⁶ Seyum and Mängäša fought in Adwa on 2 and 3 November 1889. Mängäša was defeated, but managed to flee on the next day and to send for Alula from Qohayn. The two Rases were probably reunited in Da'ero Täkli (De Vito, L., Esercizi di lettura in lingua tigrigna, Roma, 1893, 19Google Scholar; ASMAI, DI, 10 11 1889Google Scholar, Inf. ‘Alī Hamad Nūr, Seyum, to Baldissera, , 8 11 1889Google Scholar; Rossini, Conti, op. cit., 19).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ 6 November 1889 at Enda Abunä Pänṭälēwon (Rossini, Conti, op. cit., 19Google Scholar; ASMAI 3/5–33, Baldissera's report of 15 11 1889)Google Scholar. Seyum fled to Asmara.

⁵⁸ For the popular song praising Alula's quick march to help Mängäša against Seyum and his ‘restoring the throne to the owner of the throne’, see Kossini, Conti, Proverbi tradizioni e canzoni tigrine, Roma, 1912, 297Google Scholar; and Gasparini, Abba, Yä-Ityopya tarik, Asmara, 1955/1962–1963, 187.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The Italians rearmed Seyum and united him with Sebhat of Agamē who had claimed to be also a supporter of Menelik (see p. 324, n. 54).

⁶⁰ East of Amba Seyon in Haramat on 2 12 1889Google Scholar (ASMAI, DI, Albertone, 9 12 1889, 16 December 1889Google Scholar; ASMAI 3/5–33, Orero to MAE, 11 12, 1889).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Seyum probably tried to return to Mäqälē and expect there Menelik's help. Alula and Mängäša followed him, andthey joined battle near Amba Alajē probably in late December 1889.

⁶² Districts around Lake Ashange. ‘The men of Azäbo, the men of Wajerat’ are the Azabo Galla, who are notoriously known as ferocious lawless people. The Azabo Gallas were one of the few Galla tribes which had not intermarried with the Amharas. For an Ethiopian attempt to pacify this area as late as 1929, see Zoli, C., Etiopia d'oggi, Roma, 1935, 139–52Google Scholar. For the Azabo Gallas' treacherous behaviour in the battles against the Italians in the second World War, see Mosley, L., Haile Selassie, London, 1964, 222, 224, 226, 261.Google Scholar

⁶³ Endärta, unlike Tämbēn and Adwa, was not a centre of resistance to Shoan hegemony in Ethiopia. (For reasons, see Erlich, , Ras Alula, 251, 256.)Google Scholar

⁶⁴ It was in the church of Mänäwē that this MS was found.

⁶⁵ i.e. Yohannes's palace. Menelik, upon hearing about the failure of Seyum, marched northwards and entered Mäqälē, on 23 02 1890Google Scholar (Eossini, Conti, Italia, 27Google Scholar; WO 35/55,' Eritrea Report').

⁶⁶ In Tämbēn in early 1890 Mängäša and Alula were facing possible immediate destruction. On 26 January 1890, Adwa was occupied by an Italian force of which the aim was ‘the sending to Italy of Ras Alula’ (General Orero's letter of 22 02 1890Google Scholar in Truffi, R., Preeursoni dell'impero africano, Milano, 1936, 176)Google Scholar. (This invasion was disapproved of by Menelik, and the Italians had to retreat.) Agamē under Sebhat was hostile and Endärta was occupied by the emperor's army. The few followers of Alula and Mängäša suffered heavily from the famine. (For the famine see Fankhurst, R., ‘The great Ethiopian famine of 1889–1892’, University College Review (Addis Ababa), Spring 1961, 90–103Google Scholar, and Mercatelli, L.,' Nel paese di Ras Alula', Corriere di Napoli, 13–14 05 1891.)Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Those were probably headed by Ras Hagos, Däjjazmač Embayē, and Bäjerond Läwṭē, the only other prominent leaders known to be then in Mängäša's camp (Erlich, , Ras Alula, 269).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ On 16 March 1890 Mängäša submitted ceremonially to Menelik. Tigre had to be divided between Mängäša, Seyum, and Mäšäša Wärqē, one of Menelik's most loyal officers. Ras Alula had to be removed from the political scene.