Royal Monograms

Vittorio Emanuele II

Umberto I

Vittorio Emanuele III

Umberto II

The Italian Empire, A Legacy to Be Proud Of

The Italian colonial empire was a short-lived affair but one that had far more extensive roots than most people realize. As a united country, the Kingdom of Italy is often described as the last to obtain an empire and the first to lose it but Italians had been colonizers for a very long time. One need not go back to the Roman Empire when the whole Mediterranean basin was ruled from Italy but simply going back to the Middle Ages or the Renaissance shows that various Italian states had minor colonial holdings of their own. The Republic of Genoa held territory on the Crimean peninsula, the Kingdom of Sicily held Tunisia for some time and the Republic of Venice had extensive holdings down the coast of the Adriatic and in the Aegean Sea as well as controlling Crete and Cyprus. The Grand Duke of Tuscany sent a preliminary expedition to South America with the intention of establishing an Italian colony in the New World but he died before the project could be completed. Unlike virtually every other colonial power, Italians were most often not treading on new ground but simply returning to lands which their ancestors had held, sometimes for centuries, before them.

Eritrean colonial troops

The colonial empire of the Kingdom of Italy had humble beginnings. It started when the Rubattino Shipping Company bought land around the Bay of Assab on the coast of the horn of Africa from the Sultan of Raheita in 1869 to establish a coaling station. This holding was later bought by the Italian government and expanded to become the first overseas colony of the Kingdom of Italy with the first Italian settlers arriving in 1880. Hearkening back to the old Roman name for the Red Sea, the Italians named the territory Eritrea. In 1888 the first railroad in the country was built and another improvement of particular pride was the Asmara-Massawa Cableway which was the longest in the world at the time (the British later dismantled it after World War II). Laws against racial mixing were imposed but no one seemed to mind much as, for the first time in their history, the local Africans had access to modern medical services, improved sanitation, transportation and improvements in agriculture. Italy lost money in the enterprise on the whole but the lives of the natives certainly improved, particularly because of the Italian colonial army which prevented raids on the country from Ethiopia, particularly from the Tigray region.

As a result, many Eritreans enlisted in the Italian colonial army and many gained quite a high reputation. Marshal of Italy Rodolfo Graziani considered the Eritreans the best of the Italian colonial soldiers and the famous cavalry officer, Amedeo Guillet, referred to them as the ‘Prussians of Africa’. During the Fascist era there was also a huge increase in industrialization in Eritrea and a subsequent boom in the population, both African and Italian. Before the outbreak of World War II, Asmara was a growing, prosperous city dotted with coffee shops, ice cream parlors, pizzerias and even its own race track. The fact that it was a “planned” city meant that it had many modern conveniences that even some cities in Italy lacked and boasted scenic wide boulevards lined with trees. These many improvements as well as the threat from Ethiopia worked together to ensure that Eritrea remained a loyal colony.

Not long after the first foothold in Eritrea was established, Italy also gained new territory on the southern side of the Horn of Africa in Somalia. In 1888 Sultan Yusuf Ali Kenadid of Hobyo made his province an Italian protectorate. The following year the Sultan of Majeerteenia did the same and the colony of Italian Somaliland was established. Here, development was somewhat slower as the Italians left local affairs in the hands of the local rulers, paid them a pension and focused on foreign relations, defense and the establishment of port facilities. In 1905 the Italian government decided to establish a formal colony in the region, partly because it was discovered that the local company had been turning a blind eye to the continued operation of the slave trade in the region. By 1908 the legal formalities were finished to establish Italian Somaliland as a formal colony. The most determined problem, early on, was the trouble caused by Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, aka “the Mad Mullah” but that violent movement was duly done away with and in the Twentieth Century development began to spread from the coast further inland.

Prince Luigi Amedeo formed an Italian-Somaliland Agricultural Society that established new, model plantations in the colony for the growing of sugar, bananas and cotton. The same year, 1920, saw the first modern bank established in Somalia when the Banca d’Italia opened a branch in Mogadishu. Surveys were done, after which more development proceeded such as the establishment of model farms, schools and hospitals. Before the end of the decade, Crown Prince Umberto had come to witness the opening of a new Catholic cathedral in Mogadishu and the region’s first international airport was established. The Sultan of Hobyo was usually very loyal to the Italians, the only problem occurring when he was excepted to allow British troops to land in his territory and Somalis tended to resent the British for their colonial rule over Somali tribes in the north (British Somaliland). After this, the Sultan was replaced by the Italian authorities and the population was disarmed but there were no major problems in the future and the Italians continued to abide by their agreements and allow the original, northern protectorates to govern themselves in their own way. Somalians were also enlisted in the Italian colonial army and included such colorful units as a corps of camel-born artillery.

There were, of course, bound to be setbacks. When the Italians took control of Eritrea, one of the local chieftains who had given his approval was one Sahle Maryam of Shewa. In exchange for this, Italy gave him support such as modern weapons in defeating his rivals to take control of Ethiopia as Emperor Menelik II. A treaty was signed that was supposed to ensure peace between the two, however, there was a discrepancy in the wording as it read differently in the Italian-language and Amharic-language versions. One established, essentially, an Italian protectorate over Ethiopia and the other said that Ethiopia could have Italian protection but only if and when they wanted it. Each side, of course, accused the other of changing the text in their version, Menelik II broke off diplomatic relations with Italy, effectively declaring war. A small Italian colonial army of a little over 17,500 men was later attacked by an Ethiopian army of around 100,000 and almost totally wiped out, ending, for the time being at least, any idea of Italy establishing any sort of control or influence over Ethiopia.

Italian troops landing in Libia

However, of all overseas territories, none seemed more near at hand to Italy than Tunisia. Not only was it extremely close, but it had a sizable Italian population that had been present for a very long time. In the “Scramble for Africa” the Italian government sat back, taking the moral high road as it were, only to see Tunisia snatched up by the French. This caused quite a backlash in Italy and a renewed effort to make sure that such a thing did not happen again with the other north African lands south of Italy, three provinces still held by the Ottoman Sultan of Turkey, known to Italians as “the fourth shore”. Determined not to let another power snatch this region away from them, the Italian government began investing in the area and when the Turkish government started to clamp down on the increased Italian interest, Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire in September of 1911. Italian military forces landed on the coast and quickly seized control of the major ports while the Ottoman forces, largely Arab raiders with Turkish officers, fell back into the interior to strike at any Italian attempt to move south. The situation produced a stalemate as Italy had been counting on the support of the local Arab population and resources had not been allocated for a major campaign in the desert interior of the country. The Turks, likewise, could rule the desert but proved incapable of dislodging the Italians from the coast or of challenging Italian naval supremacy.

In 1912 the Turks finally agreed to come to terms with Italy, prompted by the Italian seizure of Rhodes and other nearby islands and the threat of an attack on the Dardanelles, which all powers were anxious to avoid. The former Ottoman provinces of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan were ceded to Italy which, in due time, merged them into one colonial administration, resurrecting the old Roman name for the region, “Libia”. Actual Italian control, however, continued to remain mostly on the coastal region and during the First World War, attacks by Islamic insurgents, backed up by Turkey and Germany in an effort to restore Ottoman Turkish control over the whole of north Africa, forced the Italians back into the major port cities as the overwhelming bulk of Italian military strength was concentrated on the critical border region with Austria. However, all of that changed after the acquisition of power by Benito Mussolini and his Fascist party. From 1923 until 1932 a fierce irregular war raged in the region, known as the Pacification of Libya. Stopping the terrorist attacks on Italian settlers and ending the insurgency took time but finally Italian forces resorted to repressive measures and the rebellion was ended, with the primary insurgent leader actually being captured by a troop of Libyan cavalry fighting on the Italian side. The first modern roads were built, port facilities were modernized and new model farming communities were established. Much progress was made under the governorship of Air Marshal Italo Balbo and when he was killed at the start of World War II, witnesses remarked that the Libyans showed more grief than the Italians at his loss because he had made things so much better.

Italian troops in Ethiopia

The next colonial acquisition for Italy was Ethiopia, which, of course, was the cause of much controversy. It was sparked by an attack on an Italian outpost which was on land that the Ethiopians claimed as their own. The fact that this was not something instigated by Italy is evident enough by the amount of time it took to transfer military forces to Eritrea and Somalia to fight the actual war. The League of Nations opposed this and the issue became larger than Ethiopia but was, rather, seen by Mussolini as a struggle against the leaders of the existing international world order, embodied by the League. The fighting was harsh but, in the end, Italian forces conquered Ethiopia in seven months and merged it, administratively, with Eritrea and Somalia into “Italian East Africa”. Tensions were high at first and when the Viceroy, Marshal of Italy Rodolfo Graziani, was badly wounded in an assassination attempt, there were bloody reprisals. However, he was replaced by the Duke of Aosta under whose administration the country was at peace and began to see considerable improvements, including the abolition of slavery in the country. Plans for the modernization of the capital and other projects were ultimately canceled by the outbreak of World War II.

The Kingdom of Albania was occupied by Italian forces with practically no opposition by the native population shortly before the outbreak of World War II, however, again, the fact that Italy joined World War II so shortly thereafter, and the Italian presence was removed after 1943, meant that the Italians were able to have very little impact on Albania. Although, it is worth pointing out, that the period of union with Italy, following the conquest of Greece and Yugoslavia, was the only time that the nationalist goal of “Greater Albania” was actually achieved, albeit for a short time. Before World War II had ended, all Italian colonial possessions were, of course, taken away and given independence or, short of that, given nominal independence under the temporary stewardship of a parent country. It is worth pointing out though that, at the time of Italian entry into World War II, there was no widespread opposition to Italian rule in any of the colonies.

Albanian militia unit

The Italian presence in Albania was not entirely welcomed but not entirely opposed either and most of those in the Albanian government had previously been in the government of Ahmed Zog, the previous potentate of the country. Libya, Eritrea and Somalia were all quite calm and peaceful under Italian rule, the only place where any opposition at all existed was in Ethiopia. That is understandable given that, unlike all the others, the Ethiopians had a history as a previously independent country with their own sense of nationhood. However, even there, serious opposition had been dealt with and most accepted the change and got on with things. In fact, of all the colonial troops who served in the Italian royal army in World War II, the only native soldier to earn the highest Italian decoration for bravery was an Ethiopian. So, even there, considerable levels of support and devotion did exist. What is illustrative of the Italian colonial enterprise overall, and why Italians should not be ashamed of their short-lived period of imperialism, is the fate of the former Italian colonies after Italian rule was removed and these places became independent.

Marshal Graziani in Mogadishu

The Kingdom of Albania was occupied by the Germans and then, after the Allied victory in World War II, fell to the communists of Enver Hoxha who established a Marxist tyranny, so fanatical and so murderous that it alienated Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and Tito’s Yugoslavia in turn. Albania fell into oppressive poverty and had the lowest standard of living of any European country. To this day, it has not fully recovered. Italian East Africa was occupied by the Allies (mostly British imperial troops) and broken up into the countries that exist today. Somalia was under the military administration of Britain and became nominally independent though in 1949 stewardship over the country was given to the Italian Republic until 1960 when it was joined with the former British colony of British Somaliland to create the country as we know it today. And, as we know, Somalia has become the go-to example in the world for a “failed state”, being reduced by poverty, crime and internal warfare to a state of total chaos. When one thinks of Somalia today it is only as a place of anarchy, warlords and a nest of pirates. Somalis have fled their failed independent homeland in huge numbers, going as far abroad as Minnesota and Sweden to get as far away from their nightmarish native land as possible.

Asmara station, Eritrea

In Eritrea, the first Italian colony, the British military ruled the place until 1950 because no one could decide what to do with it. One person who knew exactly what he wanted to do with it was the de-throned Emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie who was pushing for Allied support for the Ethiopian annexation of Eritrea even before British imperial forces had set him back on his own throne. The United Nations, in the 1950’s, finally agreed that Eritrea would be joined with Ethiopia in a “federation” with Eritrea officially remaining independent. That charade ended in 1962 when Haile Selassie dissolved the Eritrean parliament and unilaterally declared the country to be part of Ethiopia. Not surprisingly, war broke out immediately as the Eritreans fought the Ethiopians in a brutal conflict that spanned the next thirty years, only ending when the Eritreans made an alliance with a faction of Ethiopian rebels after which the UN stepped in to hold a referendum. This, of course, resulted in the Eritreans voting for their independence in 1993. Eritrea got it, established a dictatorship and haven’t had another exercise in democracy since. Needless to say, thirty years of war, terrorism and finally Marxist dictatorship have left the country an impoverished wreck.

Haile Selassie and one of his lions

Ethiopia, again, is really in a class by itself and cannot entirely be compared to the others. Still, the post-Italian period has not been pleasant for the country, though it would also be worse than the pre-Italian period as well. Haile Selassie was put back in control of the country and money poured in from the victorious Allies through various aid funds. Still, this did not benefit the country overall as serious divisions and problems remained which Haile Selassie struggled to deal with. He championed the cause of pan-African unity and opposition to European colonialism in Africa (even while imposing his own sort of colonial rule over the unwilling population of Eritrea) but this ultimately proved to be not so beneficial to the “Conquering Lion of Judah” as he styled himself. Most of the anti-colonial movements in Africa were communist and after some particularly hard times the communists managed to overthrow Haile Selassie in 1974. This time there was no British Empire to put him back on his throne again and he was murdered the following year. His replacement was a communist dictatorship so vicious and so oppressive that it must rank among the very worst in the entire world. Oppression, murder and misery prevailed to the point that the very name of Ethiopia became synonymous with “starvation” in the rest of the world. Again, even after the communist regime officially fell, the country has still not recovered from the decades of murderous misery the communists inflicted on it.

King Idris

Finally, we have the case of Libya. British military rule gave way to the creation of a new monarchy under the former Emir of Cyrenaica who became King Idris I of Libya in 1951. The British and Americans established close ties with the new regime, built military bases there and in 1959 Exxon discovered vast deposits of oil in the country which changed things considerably. New wealth brought greater resentment and efforts to promote unity failed, mostly because neither the King himself nor any of his people recognized him as a “Libyan” but rather as the Emir of Cyrenaica who had been imposed by western powers over the whole country. He was accused of favoring his own circle when it came to dishing out the oil revenues and of being too friendly with foreign powers and foreign oil companies. This culminated in King Idris being overthrown while on holiday by a military coup led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 1969.

Gaddafi with African chiefs

Gaddafi, as we know, established a brutal and farcical dictatorship over the country, marked by tyranny at home, support for terrorism abroad and for the increasingly bizarre behavior of Gaddafi himself. Whether it was his painfully long orations at the UN, his threats of war against Switzerland or his bevy of buxom female bodyguards, no one could accuse Gaddafi of being boring. He also used the threat of floods of illegal immigrants to extort huge financial benefits as well as groveling apologies from the Italian government. In 2011 the hated dictator was overthrown, with air support from NATO, and given mob justice on the streets of Sirte. Since that time, Libya has fallen into chaos and is increasingly becoming a hotbed of terrorism, economically stagnant, politically unstable and extremely dangerous. Certainly, a far cry from what it had been during the tenure of Air Marshal Italo Balbo to be sure. And this in a country, it is worth remembering, where Italian-born Roman legions marched long before the first Arab ever cross the Sinai or the name of Mohammed was known to the world.

No, the historical record clearly shows that Italians have no reason to feel ashamed of their colonial past overall. Certainly there were unpleasant episodes in a couple of places but, on the whole, these parts of the world often saw their only periods of sustained stability and progress while under the Italian flag and the Crown of Savoy. Without exception, none of them have fared better after Italian rule was withdrawn. On the contrary, their record as independent states has been a record of failure. That does not mean, of course, that anyone in any of these places is nostalgic for the colonial past. National and racial awareness exists today in a way that did not exist in those days, though it is interesting to note that the Albanian government recently requested the return of the Italian military to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants (aka “refugees”) into their country, many of them fleeing former Italian colonies that have since become failed states. That, in itself, rather tells the story doesn’t it? European rule once came to Africa and, now that it is gone, Africans (and others) are now coming to Europe to live once more under their former imperial rulers.

A Look Back at Adorable Propaganda

If you're going to make war propaganda, why not make it cute? Evidently that was the sentiment of someone with artistic talent in Fascist Italy during the Second Abyssinian and World Wars. Here is a look back at some previously posted colorful artwork of an adorable little Italy going out to subdue the enemies of the Patria Italia:

Set One

Set Two

Set Three

A Classical View of Modern Problems

It will have escaped no one's attention that Europe, and the wider western world, is in a state of crisis. Demographic changes have placed the peoples of Western Europe on a path to extinction, European nations are under threat of being replaced by international organizations run by a globalist elite and there are problems ranging from terrorism to simple cultural stress brought about by the importation of peoples totally alien to Europe and western values, customs and traditions. Italy has been at the forefront of this crisis, particularly in terms of the influx of massive numbers of migrants from Africa and the Middle East who cross the Mediterranean and make their first landfall on Italian soil. Most, as we know, do not choose to remain in Italy but move north toward countries such as Sweden, Norway or, most especially, Germany. The usual explanation for this is that these are wealthier countries with more to offer than the heavily indebted countries in the south such as Greece or Spain or the Italian Republic. That is certainly true and it makes sense. However, it also matters that these countries, particularly Germany, have welcomed such migrants and are willing to accept them. No one is forcing the German government to do this and, given the immense problems it is causing, one must ask why they would.

There are, undoubtedly, a number of reasons that could be put forward but we might also consider a possible explanation that a mentality is at work here that was around in the days of ancient Rome. In his book Germania, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote down his observations about the Germans and how different they were, in so many ways, from the people, society and customs of Rome. He describes how very meritocratic the Germans were, how egalitarian their society was in contrast to Rome, making it less orderly but in other ways more admirable to modern sensibilities. Tacitus also described in great deal, as an example, the very different attitude towards women that the Germans had. In Rome, it was the matron that was upheld as the ideal, the supportive wife and mother, devoted to her home and family, to domestic pursuits. German women, on the other hand, had a much higher profile, were more outspoken and even followed their men into battle, cheering them on amidst the carnage. Like the Romans, most Germans had only one wife but adultery seems to have been very rare among the Germans. Tacitus also spoke of how decisions were taken collectively by the senior men of every German tribe, totally unlike the Romans with the prominent leadership of great generals, consuls or, in times of crisis, a dictator. Ultimately, as we know, there would be an emperor.

Could some trace of these attitudes still remain in the German mind of today? If these were spread beyond the "tribe" to all other peoples in the world, it might explain, to some extent, the current German position regarding issues from feminism to the migrant crisis. That would be the key point though, as the ancient Germans would certainly be aghast at the actions of their descendants today because they certainly drew a sharp distinction between those who were Germans and those who were not. However, the mentality that everyone, regardless of who they are, must be given consideration, if applied beyond the "tribe" might, to some extent, explain the attitude of Germany today and why opposition seems to be so much stronger in countries such as France, Italy, England, Poland or Hungary. One also cannot help but notice, in the United States, where the current presidential race is portrayed as a contest between a nationalist, Trump, and a globalist, Clinton, that Anglo Americans, Scots-Irish, Polish-Americans and Italian-Americans have tended to support Donald Trump, Americans of German, Dutch and Scandinavian ancestry have tended to oppose him. It does make one wonder just how much our ancestry influences our views and opinions.

Italy and the American Revolution

There was, as most know, no united country called Italy at the time of the American Revolution. The Italian peninsula was still divided among a collection of minor states and the dominions of the Pope, most of them under the direct or indirect rule of some major European power, usually Austria. However, Italians played a considerable part in the American war and events in Italy, both historic and contemporary, inspired America's Founding Fathers. The independence movement in Corsica, first against Genoa and later against France, was something many Americans looked to and, of course, the historic legacy of the Roman Republic had a major influence on the establishment of the United States government.

On July 1, 1777 the U.S. government assigned Ralph Izard as Commissioner to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando III, but he was never received and formal diplomatic recognition was never extended to the United States by Florence. That was most likely due to the opposition to the American war by the Austrian Emperor Joseph II who was concerned that his own subjects might follow their example. However, there was still a desire for commercial ties. Ragusa, in what is now Croatia, which had a large Italian presence, established trade links with the United States through Italian agents in France such as Francesco Favi and Giovanni Fabronni. The Grand Duchy of Tuscany never recognized the United States prior to the formation of the Kingdom of Italy. However, there were those who did, though some were quite late such as the Duchy of Parma which recognized the American government in 1850.

In 1796 the King of Naples officially recognized the United States of America, though full diplomatic relations were not established until 1832 due to the tumult caused by the French Revolutionary Wars. The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia established diplomatic relations with the United States in 1802. The Papal States, while waiting a long time to extend official diplomatic recognition to the United States, did open its ports to American trade in 1784 and this was at the instigation of the Papal Nuncio in Paris, not by the Americans. The United States was also allowed to have a consulate in Rome from 1797. The Republic of Genoa recognized the United States in 1791 though that relationship did not last long since the republic was annexed by France in 1805. Oddly enough, one Italian state that was quite unfriendly to the new republic in America was the older Republic of Venice. The Venetian ambassadors in France and Spain were approached by the American envoys but Venice refused to recognize the American government and ignored an effort at correspondence with the Venetian ambassador in Paris. The only reason for this seems to have been a reluctance on the part of Venice to risk endangering their trade with Britain or upsetting the Austrians. As it turns out, the American republic received more support from the monarchies of Europe than from the republics, as surprising as most would probably find that today.

King Vittorio Amadeo III of Piedmont-Sardinia

Prince Vittorio Amadeo Maria, Duke of Savoy, was born in Turin on June 26, 1726 the son and heir of King Carlo Emanuele III by his second wife Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg. A son from the King’s previous marriage had died the year before so the birth of Vittorio Amadeo, a new heir to the throne, was widely celebrated in the Savoy lands of Piedmont-Sardinia. His childhood and upbringing were very typical for the house of Savoy and the same descriptions would be used for Italian royal sons right to the last king to ever reign. His private tutor was quite strict and his education stressed military subjects, Catholicism and history, particularly the history of the House of Savoy. The emphasis on the army was doubtless even more so given that, even in the ranks of a family with an extremely long martial history, King Carlo Emanuele III was most known as a “warrior-king”, earning laurels in the wars over the Polish and Austrian successions. Prince Vittorio Amadeo had an upbringing that greatly stressed the importance of the army and, like other Savoy royal heirs, he was kept away from politics until the day he actually came to the throne.

However, Prince Vittorio Amadeo did not waste his time with frivolity but, as a young man, surrounded himself with scholars, statesmen and various, highly esteemed ‘wise men’ whose company he could benefit from. Many of this men would go on to serve him when he became king. A man of very conservative politics and with religious views that were very traditionally Catholic, Vittorio Amadeo nonetheless fostered an atmosphere of openness around him and was gentleman enough to get along well with people who did not share his views. He was confident in his own positions that he had nothing to fear from hearing all sides of an issue. He was also, of course, expected to marry and secure the future of the royal succession. King Fernando VI of Spain reached out to him to arrange a marriage between the Savoy heir and his sister Infanta Maria Antoinetta, the youngest daughter of King Felipe V, the first Bourbon Spanish monarch. The couple were married in 1750 and they had a very happy marriage with the pair growing quite attached to each other. So attached in fact that they had twelve children, so the future of the Savoy dynasty was safe and sound.

In 1773, with the passing of his father, the Duke of Savoy became King Vittorio Amadeo III of Piedmont-Sardinia on February 20. From day one the administration of his country and the military were his top priorities but that does not mean that he neglected other areas. Because of his conservative and religious nature he has often been accused of being reactionary to the point of being averse to change of any kind, but this is not so. In fact, he was very keen on improving a number of things that needed it. Beneficial change was never a problem for him but change for the sake of change alone, naturally would not be tolerated. For all of the emphasis he placed on the army, he was also certainly not a warmonger and aimed at ensuring the security of his country by peaceful, diplomatic means first and foremost. His marriage to a member of the Spanish Royal Family was part of this, to secure a marriage alliance with Spain after the two powers had been enemies in the War of Austrian Succession (the Savoy having backed the Hapsburg side).

Similarly, he arranged a marriage for his own son and heir with the sister of King Louis XVI of France and several daughters were also married into the French Royal Family. His second son was married into the Hapsburg family (Austria-Este), another daughter to the Electoral Prince of Saxony and his youngest son married a daughter of the Naples branch of the Spanish Bourbons. As such, Piedmont-Sardinia had strong to ties to all its neighbors and several other lands farther a field and his offspring included three future Kings of Sardinia and one, at least nominal, Queen of France (another would have also been a Queen of France but she died before Charles X came to the throne). Because of this, the army that so many claim was his sole focus, had little to do until the very end of his reign. In other, peaceful pursuits, he improved the bureaucracy of his country, improved the infrastructure with new roads, new dams and upgrades to the port of Nice. He established botanical and agricultural institutions with the aim of making the country more self-sufficient and undertook a number of public works projects.

Overall, he carried on with the changes first set in motion by his grandfather which were aimed at making the aristocracy less corrupt and more socially-minded (a common problem of the time) and encouraging greater social mobility for the common people so that they could lift themselves out of poverty by their own talents. In terms of the army though, he did spend a great deal, carrying on the effort to renovate the Piedmontese military along the lines of that of the Kingdom of Prussia which was the example that all small, resource-poor states naturally wished to follow. Given the events of his reign, some have dismissed this as a failure but that requires taking a very narrow view. In fact, the military “culture” of the country was changed and even as late as World War II, a German general serving in Italy remarked on how similar Piedmont was to Prussia in the emphasis placed on the army and in the many years in between not a few foreign observers would refer to Piedmont as ‘the Prussia of Italy’. The King is also remembered as the founder of the Gold Medal of Military Valor, the highest Italian combat decoration which is still awarded to this day. He also followed this example himself at home by adopted a more Spartan lifestyle so that the British historian Gibbon, on traveling through the area, wrote about how the Savoy royals lived “with decent and splendid economy”.

King Vittorio Amadeo III would take daily walks, set time aside every Saturday to receive visitors from his humblest subjects and showed his piety when, on every Holy Thursday, he would wash the feet of twelve poor men and then see them off with a gift of money for a fine supper. All in all, life under his rule was good and steadily improving. However, all of it was thrown into the gravest peril by the outbreak of the French Revolution. Being a very traditional, conservative and religious man with several of his children married to French royals, he could not but be appalled by what was happening in neighboring France. Without hesitation he gave safe haven to his sons-in-law the Count of Artois and Count of Provence, fleeing the worsening chaos and repression in their homeland, though this immediately caused cries from the revolutionaries in Paris for retribution against the House of Savoy. Even though the odds against them would be impossibly long, he also did not hesitate to pledge his small, prized army to the royalist cause in 1793, working in cooperation with the Austrians as part of the First Coalition.

The French republicans were quick to attack Piedmont, vowing to make northern Italy a satellite republic, but the Savoyard troops, along with a contingent of Austrians, fought fiercely and succeeded in repelling the initial invasion. The French met a similar fate on other fronts and when they tried to enlist the United States to come in on their side, the American government flatly refused and considered the alliance made with the late King Louis XVI to have died with him. Royalist counter-revolutionaries were also rising up and achieving successes. However, the French responded by ordering the conscription of every adult male in the country and soon they had turned the war situation around, swamping their enemies with what was often simply a huge, armed and radicalized mob.

After four years of fighting off superior forces, in 1796 the Savoyard troops of King Vittorio Amadeo III finally met a foe they could not defeat in the person of a young, up-and-coming French commander named Napoleon Bonaparte. In the Montenotte campaign the “Little Corporal” was able to outmaneuver his foes, separate the Austrian and Piedmontese armies and eventually defeat them both. The Austrians had positioned themselves at too great a distance from the Piedmontese, despite the urgings of the Italian general Michelangelo Alessandro Colli-Marchi and the result would lead to the domination of northern Italy by republican France. After the Battle of Mondovi on April 21, there was no choice left but capitulation and King Vittorio Amadeo III, in the most painful moment of his life, was forced to sign the Armistice of Cherasco on April 28, 1796, removing the Savoy domains from the First Coalition. The following month he signed the Treaty of Paris, handing over the key fortresses of the country to France, allowing French troops passage through the country to carry on the Italian campaign and ceding Nice and Savoy to France.

In the wake of this fiasco, King Vittorio Amadeo III was a broken man and his health and spirits only worsened from that point on. Within a year he had an apoplexy and finally died on October 16, 1796 at Moncalieri. A reign that had began with such promise and which had seen many beneficial reforms, had been reduced to ruin in the final years by the horror and bloodshed that were the fruits of the French Revolution. However, the House of Savoy was down but not out and the next three kings to succeed him would all be sons of Vittorio Amadeo III and they would ultimately see the French defeated, the Savoy flag raised again over Turin and the monarchy restored completely along with some additional lands. The French revolutionaries had won the first round but the sons of Vittorio Amadeo III would be the ones returning home in triumph while Allied armies marched down the boulevards of Paris. Whereas his enemies would be remembered for "the Terror" and wars of conquest, Vittorio Amadeo III would be remembered as a beloved figure, perhaps a little too trusting at times, but a kind man of good character who was generous to a fault.

Graziani and Rommel, Two Commanders in North Africa

German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and for good reason. He is most famous for his aggressive battles in North Africa against superior British forces which earned him the nickname, “the Desert Fox”. The usual, although not entirely accurate, portrayal is that Rommel arrived, just in time, to save the Italian forces in Libya from disaster following the failed invasion of Egypt by a more infamous World War II military leader, Marshal of Italy Rodolfo Graziani. The two generals have, from time to time, been compared and such comparisons have never been favorable to Graziani. That is something that is not going to change. Rommel has achieved near-mythic status among military historians whereas Graziani is usually written-off as an example of incompetent Italian military leadership. However, accepting that, looking at the facts, does Graziani really compare so unfavorably to his more famous German successor? If one sticks to the truth and disregards stereotypes, one might see that the two were not as different as one might think. Looking at their careers in total, Graziani doesn’t compare all that badly.

Rommel and Graziani in World War I

First of all, in terms of actual military experience, Graziani was very much in advance of Rommel. The young German officer from Wurttemberg had never seen combat until the outbreak of World War I, whereas the young Rodolfo Graziani was, by that time, a veteran of the Italo-Turkish War with an extensive record of colonial service in East Africa where he had learned to speak Arabic and the language of the local Tigreans. During the First World War, both men had exceptional records though Rommel would probably have taken more headlines. Rommel served in the elite Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion and had his greatest triumph when his audacity led to the capture of an Italian mountain position and the taking of 9,000 prisoners. For this stunning achievement, Rommel was awarded the “Blue Max”, Imperial Germany’s highest combat decoration. Graziani, on the other hand, had no such singular victory as that, however, he did advance farther and faster in the war than Rommel did. His own record was very impressive, he earned rapid promotion and before the war was over held the rank of colonel, the youngest in the Royal Italian Army. Coincidentally, after his capture of Tobruk, Rommel would become the youngest field marshal in the German army in World War II.

Graziani, the "Pacifyer of Libia"

After the end of World War I, the military careers of Rommel and Graziani were vastly different. Rommel remained in the army but was of course limited to desk jobs, giving him time to write a book on armored warfare that would be read by many, including his future enemies. Graziani, on the other hand, left the military and tried his hand at civilian life but found little success as a businessman. He was recalled to service after attacks by Islamic terrorists in Libya against Italians became a major cause for concern. With his record of colonial service in Africa before and during World War I, Graziani was a natural choice for such an assignment. It also helped that he understood the local culture and could speak to the Arabs in their own language. In 1930 he was appointed Governor of Cyrenaica by Mussolini and charged with putting an end to the terrorist attacks there. In this campaign, Graziani proved very successful. He isolated the rebel groups from their sources of support, forced them out of their favored area of operations and finally wiped them out. Libya was pacified, terrorist attacks stopped and the rebel leader, Omar Mukhtar, was captured, tried and executed.

Rommel as a young officer

However, whereas Rommel has a reputation for being a generally humane and chivalrous commander, the Pacification of Libya saw General Graziani nicknamed the “Butcher of Fezzan” for his harsh treatment of the Islamic radicals and those suspected of supporting them. Retribution killings were not unknown and large numbers of Arabs were put into vast concentration camps to prevent them giving aid to the terrorist groups. Graziani believed in fighting fire with fire and that such methods were necessary in the context of the local culture where strength and brutality were respected while generosity and tolerance were taken as signs of contemptuous weakness. Nonetheless, it would not be the last incident that would give Graziani demerits in the eyes of many for his character when compared to Rommel, a man widely respected by his foes as well as his friends. As far as military achievement goes though, undoubtedly Graziani surged ahead of Rommel in the period between the two world wars. While Graziani was being hailed in Rome as the “Pacifier of Libya”, Rommel was still a relatively low ranking officer working in obscurity behind a desk.

Graziani in the Ethiopian capital

That situation only continued as General Graziani was given a command in Somalia at the outbreak of war between Italy and Ethiopia in 1935. He was charged with leading the attack from the south, out of Somalia, while the main attack came from the north out of Eritrea. Once again, Graziani won hard fought victories. His Ethiopian foes, while ill-equipped compared to the Italians, were not the ignorant primitives that they are usually portrayed as. They had many trained military commanders, foreign military advisers, modern weapons, a huge advantage in numbers and incredible fighting spirit. While Rommel was in the Versailles-restricted German army, Graziani was winning further laurels on the battlefield. He wiped out an entire Ethiopian army at the Battle of Genale Doria and later won the Battle of the Ogaden, vanquishing the defensive line developed by the veteran Turkish general Wehib Pasha, a highly experienced foreigner employed by Ethiopia who was happy for any chance to fight Europeans. Graziani was so successful that after the war was won and Ethiopia conquered, he was appointed Viceroy of Italian East Africa. Still, attacks on his character returned when a group of Ethiopian rebels tried to assassinate him. He was badly wounded but survived and in the aftermath ordered ruthless reprisals that caused the newspapers to rename him the “Butcher of Ethiopia”.

Rommel in the invasion of France

Even in Italy this bad press caused Graziani trouble and he was replaced by the gallant and chivalrous Prince Amadeo, Duke of Aosta and was somewhat sidelined in the aftermath. He played no more major part in Italian military affairs until after the country joined in the Second World War. It was during this period that the career of Rommel comes from behind to start overtaking Graziani. After years as a military instructor, being a colonel in 1938 (a rank Graziani achieved decades earlier), Rommel’s career began to take off after Hitler assumed power, being a fan of the military theories Rommel had written about in his book. Hitler put Rommel in command of his own military escort during the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland. Hitler liked Rommel’s ideas about fast, mechanized warfare and liked the fact that unlike many of the German officers, Rommel was not an aristocrat. In 1940 Hitler told Rommel he could have whatever command he wanted and Rommel asked for a tank division. Hitler promptly promoted Rommel to major general and gave his command of the Seventh Panzer Division.

Graziani poster art

In the invasion of France and the Low Countries, Rommel and his tanks raced from victory to victory. His unit earned the nickname, the “Ghost Division” because it seemed to appear out of nowhere. His star was clearly on the rise. Graziani, meanwhile, was facing what would be the one major failure of his military career. When Air Marshal Italo Balbo was killed in a “friendly fire” accident, Marshal Graziani was rushed in to take command of Italian forces in Libya with orders from Mussolini to invade and conquer British-held Egypt as quickly as possible. The ultimate result of this was a disaster. Graziani was against the plan from the start and participated very grudgingly, moving only when Mussolini sent him the ultimatum to invade Egypt or be relieved of command. At this stage, he had the British outnumbered (though he was not confident of that) but he knew from his experience in Ethiopia that having superior numbers does not guarantee success. In that war he had defeated an enemy that had him heavily outnumbered due to his own ingenuity and his superior weapons and equipment. In Egypt, he had the numbers but it was the British who had the better weapons and equipment.

Rommel postcard

The Italian invasion of Egypt started off well but after advancing a relatively short distance, Graziani halted and began building a line of fortified camps to guard against a British counter-attack while he waited for more supplies, more guns and more tanks from Italy. Many since have accused Graziani of simply losing his nerve and that will be an important point to remember. When the British counter-attack came, it was swift and devastating. In “Operation Compass” the British reduced the Italian fortified camps one by one, drove them out of Egypt and advanced deep into Libya, taking large numbers of Italian prisoners. Undoubtedly raddled by the disaster, Graziani was relieved of command at his own request. Within a short time, Mussolini accepted Hitler’s offer of assistance and Rommel was given command of the German ‘Afrika Korps’ that very quickly turned things around in Libya. Rommel rose to international fame as commander of the Italo-German forces in North Africa (he was nominally subordinate to the local Italian commander but, having the support of Hitler, Rommel basically did as he pleased and called the shots). The war in North Africa essentially stalemated, Rommel rushing ahead, the British forcing him back and then Rommel pushing ahead again and so on.

Graziani and Rommel in Africa at happier times

This is the time period that most point to as proving the point that Rommel was the clear winner in any comparison with Graziani. True enough, Rommel won victories that Graziani never did. Yet, a variety of factors can account for this. For one, it was the defeat of Graziani that made Rome and Berlin take the North African front seriously and Rommel went into battle with a far better supplied and better equipped force than Graziani had had at his disposal. Rommel had raised the morale of his men whereas Graziani had an Italian army that had already felt rather gloomy since the death of Marshal Balbo and who were worn out from fighting a succession of campaigns before World War II even began. Rommel was fighting an enemy he knew, just as Graziani had been in Ethiopia and Libya. The Italian marshal, on the other hand, had no experience fighting the British and seemed to be fighting a more colonial-warfare style campaign. The command style of the two men was also totally different. Rommel was a gambler, known for his audacity, aggressiveness and taking chances. Graziani also had a reputation for aggressiveness but also for being a more methodical commander who would devise a plan and enact it step by step.

Marshal Graziani

If Graziani had commanded a force as well supplied and equipped, with an additional corps of German troops at his disposal, he might have done much better but, for him, that was never an option. His campaign had been an all-Italian affair and much of the supplies that could have been sent to him were siphoned off for Mussolini’s invasion of Greece. However, it is also worth noting that Rommel, just like Graziani, came to ruin through a failed invasion of Egypt. Unlike Graziani though, Rommel was the one pushing for an invasion of Egypt while other commanders, such as his nominal Italian superior Marshal Ettore Bastico, thought it doomed to failure. German Air Marshal Albert Kesselring, overall commander of the southern front, also thought invading Egypt a mistake, preferring to first capture the British island-fortress of Malta to ensure the safety of their logistical support. Hitler, however, backed Rommel and the invasion of Egypt went ahead, ending in defeat at the Battle of El Alamein, after which the war in North Africa turned irrevocably against the Axis powers.

Rommel decorated by Bastico with the Colonial Star

Another interesting point, often ignored, is that Rommel’s invasion of Egypt, though certainly pushed more energetically than that of Graziani, also ended in failure and also was followed by a sequence of events that has caused some historians to likewise accuse Rommel of losing his nerve. The Germans retreated from El Alamein and almost never stopped until the Italo-German forces were trapped and forced to surrender in Tunisia. At every step of the way the Italians, on whose ground they were fighting, urged Rommel to stand and fight. He refused, saying it was impossible. Likewise, Hitler was constantly urging Rommel to stand his ground, to retreat no further and launch counter-attacks as he had done previously with so much success. Again, after one failed attempt that saw massive numbers of Axis troops taken prisoner (sound familiar?), Rommel persisted in his belief that it was hopeless, constantly asked for more supplies (as Graziani had done in Egypt) until he was finally removed from command so as not to preside over the inevitable collapse of Axis power in Africa.

Graziani having some pasta in Libia

Rommel, of course, gave perfectly legitimate reasons for retreating from Egypt, all the way across Libya to Tunisia and even Mussolini praised the operation as “brilliant” in its conduct, though it meant surrendering Italy’s “fourth shore” to the British. Yet, it is interesting to note how the Germans are praised for the retreat from Egypt while Italian forces are often ridiculed for losing battle after battle in which they fought against hopeless odds (with antiquated artillery and totally outmatched tanks), losing, yes, but at least putting up a fight. As the (controversial) author David Irving wrote in his biography of Rommel, many in the German High Command thought Rommel had lost his nerve, had fallen prey to defeatism and many Italian officers grumbled that he was willingly sacrificing their country and had no intention of even trying to hold on to north Africa. However, just like Graziani before him, Rommel was not simply making excuses but informing them of very real supply problems (though the fact that these problems existed rather proves the point that Kesselring argued about the importance of taking Malta and were exactly why Marshal Bastico had no faith in a victory in Egypt).

Rommel & General Ramcke

Moreover, Rommel also had one major problem that Graziani had not had to deal with which was that the Allies, by this time, had broken the Enigma code and were reading all of Rommel’s messages. Every time he asked about the whereabouts of supply convoys, and was told where they were and when they were expected to arrive, Allied forces could move to intercept these convoys and prevent them reaching Africa. Just as Mussolini had done with Graziani, Hitler promised Rommel ample supplies, new guns and new tanks but, even those that were actually sent, often ended up on the bottom of the Mediterranean thanks to British planes and submarines. When Rommel finally advised total evacuation and abandoning Africa, he finally lost the confidence of Hitler who worried that the Fascist regime in Italy might be brought down by such a disaster and Germany would lose her primary ally. From that time on, Hitler never had quite the same degree of trust in Rommel that he had always shown previously.

Rommel in France

Another interesting difference, again often overlooked, is that Rommel never presided over another significant victory again. His assignments included a brief, uneventful stint in Greece and disarming Italian forces in northern Italy after the King dismissed Mussolini and the Badoglio government sought an armistice with the Allies. He was then posted to defend the coast of France from the expected Allied invasion but, as fate would have it, like the Battle of El Alamein, Rommel was away when the day of battle came and the Allied armies landed in France and advanced steadily, long after Rommel was wounded in an air attack and put out of action permanently. In contrast, Graziani, who had seemed to be disgraced for his failed invasion of Egypt, ultimately came back to win further laurels. As the senior military officer in Mussolini’s German-backed republic in northern Italy, Graziani commanded Italian and German forces in a final victory for his career at the Battle of Garfagnana in December of 1944.

Mussolini and Graziani

It would be tempting to also draw another contrast between the character of these two men regarding their relationships with their respective dictators. Rommel, as most know, was implicated in the failed plot to assassinate Hitler and was forced to commit suicide. As such, he is regarded as one of the few military figures of the Nazi period in Germany that it is acceptable to like in polite society. Graziani, on the other hand, remained loyal to Mussolini to the bitter end. In fact, he was the only Marshal of Italy to side with Mussolini rather than the King (possibly because of long-standing dislike of Marshal Badoglio). He served some time in prison but spent the rest of his life writing books defending his own actions and the Fascist regime in Italy. As such, he remains a very controversial figure and, unlike Rommel, someone it is not okay to like or defend in polite society. On the other hand, the two might not have been so dissimilar as they seem in this regard either. Mussolini had threatened to dismiss Graziani and after the Egypt fiasco said that he despised him, so the two were not always on good terms and Rommel, if one looks beyond his end, never actually took any action against Hitler or helped the rebels in any way. He was only implicated when one of the captured plotters called out his name while under torture. He had commanded Hitler’s personal guard and had been known to defend the German dictator, assuring frustrated officers that it was only the incompetent advisors around Hitler who were to blame for all mistakes.

Graziani and Rommel at the front

Obviously, the two men who commanded the Axis forces in the fight against the British in North Africa, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Marshal of Italy Rodolfo Graziani, had very different careers and have extremely different popular perceptions. Rommel is remembered as “the Desert Fox”, a brilliant, daring and gallant commander who ultimately fell to a superior foe. Graziani is remembered as “the Butcher of Fezzan” or “the Butcher of Ethiopia” if you prefer, a ruthless commander who was out of his depth, lost his nerve and was defeated by an enemy that his own forces outnumbered. However, looking at the careers of these two men together, while nothing will change their current reputations, I think it is safe to say that these perceptions are rather inaccurate. Rommel certainly did better in north Africa than Graziani had done, though he had a much better force at his command to do it with. However, Graziani had a more extensive military career than Rommel and his failed invasion of Egypt was the only military operation that he ever commanded that was not successful. Clearly, the contrast between the two is not so simplistic as most people think.