Emperor Caracalla

The death of Emperor Septimius Severus in 211 saw the Roman imperial throne pass to two brothers, his feuding sons; Caracalla and Geta. Popular history has usually condemned Caracalla to the ranks of the “bad” emperors of Rome, a listing which has not always been entirely accurate. To some extent the same may be said of Emperor Caracalla whose reputation has often suffered at the expense of the glorification of his short-lived brother Geta even though there is no real evidence of him being any more worthy of praise than his brother Caracalla was of condemnation. The death of Geta has allowed contemporaries and successive generations to paint him in whatever idealistic fashion they desire while Caracalla lived on to make hard decisions, stirring opposition as well as support and earning enemies along the way.

He was born in Lyons on April 4, 188 AD as Lucius Septimius Bassianus. After his family adopted itself into that of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius his named changed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caesar. The nickname “Caracalla” came from a long hooded cloak of the prince’s design, modified from a style worn by the Celts or Germans, known as a “caracallus”. He had been on campaign with his father when Severus died and he was always a warrior monarch. Septimius Severus had told his sons, “Agree with each other, give money to the soldiers, and scorn all other men”. This was fairly practical advice given how vital the military had become to the Roman Empire though it was fairly naïve of him to think Caracalla and Geta would ever be able to agree on anything. During the final years of the late emperor the two brothers had already begun a rivalry and had attracted their own fiercely competitive respective followers.

Upon the death of Septimius Severus it was, not surprisingly, Emperor Caracalla who first tried to gain sole rule of the empire. Although often criticized for this since there is every indication to believe his father had intended it that way as he had granted Caracalla the title of “Augustus” quite a long time before extending the same honor to Geta. However, Roman mothers could be fairly formidable and the Empress Julia Domna took the side of her younger son and insisted that power be shared. So it was that joint-sovereigns, Emperor Caracalla and Emperor Geta, both returned from Britain with the ashes of their late father to the Eternal City of Rome. Such a system could never hope to be successful and one wonders how anyone could have ever thought it would be. They divided their palace on the Palatine Hill between them, walling themselves off from each other, but that was no real solution. Finally they seized on the idea of dividing the empire between them; Geta taking the east and Caracalla the west but their mother would have none of it.

Not surprisingly, 10 months into their joint reign Geta was dead, supposedly murdered by Caracalla himself in the very presence of their mother. Caracalla told the Praetorian Guard (who he gave a considerable increase in pay) and later the Senate that Geta had tried to murder him and he had only acted in self-defense. Some believed him but the many and powerful supporters of his brother certainly did not and to maintain himself on the throne Caracalla carried out an old-fashioned purge with some estimates as high as 20,000 as the number killed for being partisans of Geta or suspected of sympathy toward him. There was really no way around this sort of thing, it had happened before and was regarded as a necessary evil in such situations. However, relations with the Senate would never be smooth because of this if nothing else and the reign of Caracalla would forever have a somewhat sinister flavor because of the murder of Geta and its aftermath.

To escape this atmosphere of intrigue and resentment in Rome, in 213 Emperor Caracalla set off on a grand tour of the Roman Empire, first visiting the German frontier. He never forgot the advice of his father and was always comfortable in military surroundings. He took good care of his soldiers and his soldiers always adored him for it. Moreover, he impressed them with his own sort of humility. True, his rule was absolute and unquestioned and he would obviously tolerate no dissent from any quarter, but he did not live a pampered lifestyle. He marched on foot alongside his men, he ate the same coarse local food as they did and would even grind his own flour. There was a noticeable morale boost and in the summer of that year the Roman legions won a number of victories against the Germans in several areas, prompting the Senate (which was not of a temperament to heap undue praise on their emperor) to vote Caracalla the title “Germanicus Maximus”.

As he traveled east the Emperor became more and more obsessed with the figure of Alexander the Great, adopting him as his personal hero and role model. Caracalla even obtained some elephants to accompany him and became very harshly disposed toward the disciples of Aristotle after hearing that the philosopher may have been involved in the death of his hero. Beyond this though Emperor Caracalla had an appreciation for Greek history and culture in general and he enjoyed visiting the scenes of great events in Greek history and commemorating Greek heroes. Yet, this tour was not without controversy. The highlight, certainly for Caracalla, was visiting Alexandria where he went to pay his respects at the tomb of Alexander the Great, leaving his purple robe and imperial regalia as tribute to the revered conqueror. However, for some reason lost to history an incident was provoked that led to the Roman troops carrying out a massacre in Alexandria resulting in thousands of deaths. The cause will never be known but the most popular theory again goes back to Emperor Geta and that it was some criticism or accusation concerning the death of Geta that aroused Caracalla’s fury against the people of Alexandria. Whether true or a story invented later to fit pre-established prejudice we may never know.

In any event, while the Emperor was in the neighborhood of the east it would hardly be fitting not to carry on the tradition of waging a war against the Parthians. It had become almost a job requirement (I take power, II eliminate rivals, III celebrate, IV fight the Parthians…) and a recent civil war had left them particularly vulnerable. Emperor Caracalla took the side of one of the factions then turned against them and laid waste to the region east of the Tigris. After returning to northern Iraq and planning further campaigns disaster struck. A plot against the Emperor had been hatched but he could not be warned in time. Suffering from an upset stomach Emperor Caracalla had a rest stop on his way from Edessa to Carrhae on April 8, 217 when one of his guards, the disgruntled Julius Martialis, killed him with a thrust of his sword. The assassin was himself immediately killed and the 29-year-old emperor was cremated and his ashes taken back to Rome and placed in the Mausoleum of Hadrian by his mother. After her death both Empress Julia Domna and Emperor Caracalla were deified by the Emperor Elagabalus.

Today Emperor Caracalla is generally not thought very well of. Reasons why are easy to point to yet it all stems from one misdeed; the death of his brother and to be fair it must be said that so much would not have flowed from that if not for the fact that Caracalla felt so terribly guilty about it which a heartless man would not have done. It is also often forgotten that he was, personality aside, a good emperor. He always took time to hear appeals for justice, he reformed the currency and in the Antonine Constitution of 212 was the first emperor to extend Roman citizenship to all free men across the empire. Rome thus became less a collection of countries ruled by one favored people and more of a commonwealth based on shared laws and loyalties. His most lasting legacy, however, was undoubtedly his building programs and if any average person today recognizes the name of the late emperor it is probably because of the ruins of the magnificent Baths of Caracalla that remain standing to this day.

Italian Somaliland - A History

Prior to the era of Italian administration, Somalia did not exist as a single country. The region was divided between numerous small sultanates who had recognized various distant overlords throughout history such as the Ottoman Sultan. By the time Italy began to take a serious interest in the region much of it was under the nominal sovereignty of the Sultan of Zanzibar who had extensive holdings down the east African coast. Italians had explored the area of the Somali coast and a few had moved there over the years. In 1879 Italians in Somalia formed the “African Society of Italy” with private support from the home country. Italian involvement began with an alliance with the Sultan Kenadid of Hobyo, one of the major Somali local rulers. In 1888 he signed a treaty which made his domain a protectorate of the Kingdom of Italy. This gave him an advantage and other chieftains were anxious to keep up. In 1889 the Sultan of Majeerteen signed a protectorate treaty as well. Both used their special friendship with Italy to press their long-standing conflicts with the Sultan of Zanzibar and each other. The Italian government was mostly interested in the ports and guarding the sea lanes through the Gulf of Aden to the Suez Canal and not terribly concerned with the inland areas.

The Ethiopian victory in 1895 confined Italian influence to Eritrea on the north coast of the Horn of Africa and this prompted Rome to look to other areas for immigration and development. Somalia was one of those areas. Land was purchased from the Sultan of Zanzibar and Italians were encouraged to settle there. Private companies held a tenuous hold on the area until the government in Rome began taking charge of administering the area. On April 5, 1908 a law was passed which formally united the region into the single colony of “Somalia Italiana”. Trade was established, agriculture where possible, local industries and conservation. The infrastructure began to be built up but the Italian influence remained limited to the coast due to the growing power of a renegade Muslim leader named Muhammad Abdullah Hassan. Better known as the “Mad Mullah” he was neither mad nor a mullah, simply a poet who inspired a following with ambitions to become the master of the entire region. When World War I broke out, the “Mad Mullah” saw his chance for a great victory.

Using weapons smuggled by the Turks from the southern end of the Arabian peninsula, and in cooperation with the Emperor of Abyssinia who had converted to Islam, the “Mad Mullah” began waging a war of conquest to drive out the Europeans and their Allies and take control of the whole of Somalia. Fighting broke out in 1914 before Italy entered World War I but escalated rapidly in 1915. In 1916 Turkey, Ethiopia and the “Mad Mullah” came together in an alliance against the Italians, French and British and Italy was forced to send reinforcements to the colonial corps in East Africa to deal with this problem. Not long after the Muslim Emperor of Abyssinia was deposed but civil war continued to rage in Abyssinia with those siding with the former Emperor still allied with the Somali rebels. In February of 1917 the rebels attacked Sultan Uthman of Obbia who was an Italian ally, however, they were ultimately defeated and in the summer the Sultan of Obbia launched his own attack against the “Mad Mullah”. British forces cooperated in the campaign against the “Mad Mullah” (who was just as opposed to their presence as he was the Italians) but when the Sultan of Hobyo refused the British permission to move through his territory Italy intervened to have him deposed and exiled. By the end of the war the Anglo-Italian forces (which included many indigenous troops) succeeded in suppressing the rebel forces and restoring peace to the region.

Duke of the Abruzzi in Mogadishu

Italian Somalia was further developed after the war with Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of the Abruzzi founding the Societa Agricola Italo-Somala to explore the country and study the prospects for agricultural development there. In 1923, a year after the “March on Rome” Fascism came to Italian Somalia with the appointment of Cesare Maria De Vecchi di Val Cismon as governor. He enacted a campaign of development and regimentation as well as subduing the last rebel holdouts in the south which was fully pacified by 1926 in no small part thanks to the Dubats, the indigenous Somalis fighting in the employ of Italy. Over the next decade more Italians moved to Mogadishu and the Somali tribes were catalogued and organized. Trade was built up, local industries were established, agriculture became a major part of the economy and new roads and railroads were built. Many Somalis were also enlisted in the colonial units of the Italian army and these, along with the armies of the local sultans, played a significant part in the southern front of the second war with Abyssinia. Following the successful conclusion of that war seven months later, Italian Somalia was developed even further as road and rail links were established all across Italian East Africa from Eritrea, through Ethiopia to Somalia.

The rule of Italy over Somalia was careful to respect existing native institutions. Friendly rulers maintained their traditional positions, the clan structure of native society was kept in place and Islam remained upheld as the dominant religion of the colony. Some Somali warriors earned great fame during this period and a unit served as the escort of the Italian Viceroy of East Africa. The Sultan of Olol Dinle, for example, led his Somali troops in several victories on the southern front in the war in Ethiopia. During World War II they were among the last Italian forces still holding out in Ethiopia against the Allied invasion and put up such a heroic fight against impossible odds that when finally forced to surrender the British received them with full military honors. They had earlier participated in the conquest of British Somaliland which was particularly important to them as it was the first time that all the Somali tribes became united under one flag. Of course, the war brought the end of the colonial period but in terms of the local economy and the standard of living of both the Somalis and the Italian settlers, Somalia under Italian rule had been one of the most advanced and successful parts of Africa.

Princess Maria in Mogadishu

At the end of the war, King Umberto II, like his father, had hoped that Italy would be able to retain those colonies, like Somalia, which she had gained prior to the Fascist era but the Allies would not allow this. Britain controlled the region until 1949 after which time Somalia became a United Nations Trust Territory, administered by Italy which had the most experience in the region from 1950 to 1960. In 1960 the country was united with the former British Somaliland to create the country which exists today. During the last period of Italian administration, Somalia continued to make rapid progress thanks to Italian supervision and the large amounts of money given to the region by the United Nations. The University of Rome set up schools in Mogadishu to prepare the people for independence by offering classes in economics, law and social studies. Even in the first couple of years after independence, Italian remained an official language in Somalia.

Unfortunately, since becoming totally independent as the Somali Republic in 1960 the condition of Somalia has deteriorated rapidly. Within a decade a brutal communist dictatorship seized power, erecting the “Somali Democratic Republic” which held power until 1991 when it was toppled in the Somali Civil War. The Italian Republic dispatched troops to try to keep the peace but the effort was minimal and the country has all but fallen apart completely. No government or faction has held control over the whole of Somalia since 1991 and the country has fractured with warlords fighting each other for power and position while the people starve, are murdered or forced into rival tribal gangs. In more recent years Somalia has also become known as a nest of piracy and a place of complete anarchy and chaos. Attempts by the international community to intervene have met with little to no success and, after such a promising start at development and modernization during the colonial period, since independence Somalia has become the classic definition of an utterly failed state.

MM Movie Review: Gladiator

The 2000 Ridley Scott film “Gladiator” was a box office success that is widely credited with reviving the “sword and sandal” historical epics (though given some that came later one might be tempted to use the word “blame” rather than “credit” sometimes). What is the story? Well, as with so many movies these days “Gladiator” is a little light on story. It pretty much boils down to a quest for revenge though they try to spice it up with some other plot points but they really make no sense. Russell Crowe stars as General Maximus Decimus Meridius who we meet in the opening scenes leading his armies to victory over some German barbarians. I don’t know how accurate the battle sequence is, but it is certainly impressive. In almost any Roman-era movie the “barbarians”, be they Germans, Celts or anyone else are all portrayed the same way: very hairy, very primitive and wearing lots of animal skins. The battle is won by Maximus under the watchful eyes of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (played by veteran actor Richard Harris). His son and daughter arrive just as the fighting is over and we move on to my first really (*really*) big problem with this movie.

The great Emperor Marcus Aurelius, an old man about to die, says that he’s really not a fan of the whole “empire” thing and wants Rome to go back to being the ideal, virtuous republic that it once was. Yes, this tired line again. You know, that glorious Roman Republic ruled by a handful of feuding elite politicians which spent its last hundred years killing its own people in civil wars driven by men with more ego than brains and more vanity than patriotism…yes, that one. Of course that was so much better than the peace, prosperity and cultural revival that came with the establishment of the monarchy by Emperor Augustus. Now, considering the fact that Marcus Aurelius is a very old man by this time, one is tempted to ask why, if he so detested the empire, did he not immediately abdicate all his powers to the Senate long ago? Why wait till now when you know you are about to die and must know that this is going to cause sufficient upheaval that you want your best general to step in as military dictator to oversee the transition? Such questions are never answered. Roman film fans will remember that this was the set-up for the epic movie, “The Fall of the Roman Empire” which was also based around Marcus Aurelius wanting to deny the throne to his son in favor of handing power over to a trusted general. Were the makers of “Gladiator” really at such a loss for ideas that they had to rip off the falsities of past films?

So, Emperor Marcus Aurelius wants to be the last Roman Emperor and he wants Maximus to take charge in Rome during the transition back to being a republic. He says that his own son, Commodus, is pretty much an evil jerk and cannot be allowed to assume power. Maximus, humble and un-ambitious of course as all heroes are expected to be, does not want to take power but the Emperor tells him that is precisely why he is the only man for the job. Forgive me, but this really takes dramatic license way, way too far. Contrary to what they say, Rome was not “founded as a republic”. It had originally been a monarchy. That monarchy was overthrown and Rome became a republic. I am a fan of Roman civilization in general and I don’t like to bash the Roman Republic but I really get tired of the constant over-romanticism of the republic at the expense of the empire. The Roman Republic fell because it failed, it could no longer function and the Romans, who were a very practical people, by and large understood that when one thing doesn’t work you try something else. They also, even after the elevation of Augustus, considered themselves a republic -just a republic with an Emperor who held final authority. Moreover, we know that Marcus Aurelius was not the last Roman Emperor and that the Empire went on for a very long time after him so, who are they trying to fool? Additionally, not only did Marcus Aurelius not want to exclude his son from power he actually made Commodus a sort of partner alongside him some time before he died. The real Marcus Aurelius actually went above and beyond to make it known that his son would succeed him and that the succession would be peaceful.

Well, not in this movie, which in this early scene immediately takes on a decidedly anti-monarchist tone (which is a shame because it is such a well made, entertaining film for the most part). Marcus Aurelius is the “good Emperor” only because he doesn’t want to be Emperor at all (yet he kept the job all these years) and the goal is to see the monarchy abolished and senatorial rule restored. However, when he announces to his son Commodus (played with villainous excellence by Joaquin Phoenix) that he will not be emperor but instead his general will take charge and turn power over to the Senate, believe it or not, Commodus is rather unhappy with the news. In a fit of rage he kills his father and assumes power. Which, we know of course, is pure myth as in actual history Marcus Aurelius died of sickness. In any event, it is done here and other commanders are loyal to Commodus and Maximus is arrested and soldiers are sent to kill his wife and children. The general escapes but is captured by slave traders bound for Africa.

Maximus is bought by Proximo (played by the late great Oliver Reed) who makes him a gladiator, eventually instilling in him a will to live and to use his status as a gladiator to rise to fame, earn his way to fight in Rome and get close to the Emperor. In the meantime, Commodus returns triumphantly to Rome and promptly angers the Senate. He would like to do away with them entirely but his sister, Princess Lucilla (played marvelously by Danish actress Connie Nielsen) dissuades him on the grounds that the people need their traditions. Just to reiterate what a bad guy Commodus is we are quickly shown that he’d like nothing better than to crush his sister’s smokes (yep, a time-honored insult for Roman emperors if ever there was one -incest is best, everything’s relative! Oh boy…) and she also fears angering her brother for the sake of her son Lucius. Commodus decides to overcome the opposition of the Senate by winning over the public which he does with a campaign of generosity and 150 days of gladiatorial games in the Coliseum. I will add here that the soundtrack on the movie is pretty spectacular but my favorite musical note was the fanfare when the Emperor arrives in the ‘royal box’. And, although I couldn’t swear as to the accuracy, the costumes all look magnificent to me. I thought Rome itself was done well though I know some have complained about the CGI. All I can say to that is, if you think the CGI in this movie is terrible -I can only envy you as I have seen much, much, much worse.

Maximus (known as “the Spaniard” in gladiatorial circles) finally arrives in Rome but, being the proper, virtuous republican that he is, cannot resist denouncing the spectacle of blood sports. He says that Marcus Aurelius had a vision of Rome and that the blood sport of the coliseum was “not it”. Well, sorry to burst your bubble there general but gladiatorial combat had been going on in Rome for a very, very long time before Marcus Aurelius was ever a twinkle in his father’s eye. Just as with his condemnation of the empire and glorification of the idyllic republic that never existed, I say again, if the Emperor had a problem with gladiators fighting to the death he could have just stopped it. He was the Emperor. He would have been seen as a wussy, puritanical kill-joy by the Roman people but he could have done it. There are few things that turn me off more than people, real or fictitious, who gripe and moan about things that they have every power to change but for some reason never do so. For a real life example witness Thomas Jefferson and his numerous and vociferous condemnations of slavery and keep in mind that this man owned hundreds of slaves and never gave any of them their freedom. Sorry to digress, but that sort of thing just really annoys me.

Maximus triumphs in the arena against all odds and finally comes face to face with the Emperor. Commodus is shocked and horrified to find him alive but Maximus had won the crowd over and so the Emperor cannot kill him without angering the mob. Maximus, meanwhile, enters into a conspiracy with Lucilla and some senators to have the Emperor assassinated after which time Maximus will be able to carry out his last order and have his revenge against Commodus all at the same time. A great plan right? Well, it would have been except that for some reason some idiot seems to have let the little boy Lucius in on their plan to have Maximus “save” Rome and overthrow his uncle who just happens to be the most powerful man on earth and holds all of their lives in the palm of his hand. Again, Emperor Commodus is rather upset by this and in a very chilling scene lets his sister know that he is on to them and that if she does anything to displease him her son will be the first to die. Well done to whoever told the kid, brilliant move there.

The only other problem I have with this is that we are just supposed to take for granted that Emperor Commodus is an unpopular and terrible tyrant. Yet, we never actually see him do anything to the people to warrant that judgment. We see him be perfectly evil of course but only to his own family and to Maximus who was standing in the way of his inheritance and knew the truth about the fictional last wishes of his father. We never see him tyrannizing the people, being cruel to them or advancing himself in any undue way. The real Commodus was considered more odd than anything else, more of a nut job than anything else, naming months after himself and walking around wearing a lion skin and carrying a club -totally unlike the Commodus in this movie. On the contrary, as far as the Roman people are concerned all we ever see is the Emperor being good to them, feeding them, entertaining them and worrying over how well the people love him. From what we see on screen, so long as you did not cross him or were not related to him you would probably think he was a pretty great monarch. But that doesn’t seem to matter. He is the bad guy, Maximus is the good guy and Commodus has to find some way of getting rid of him without just executing him which would upset the public.

Finally, Emperor Commodus decides that the only way to deal with Maximus is to kill him himself in the arena in gladiatorial combat (after stabbing him in the side of course to ensure his victory). A wounded, bleeding to death Maximus against the wicked Emperor Commodus, yes, we all know how that is going to end. That’s right, they both die. Maximus kills the Emperor, has his revenge and then promptly drops dead. The Praetorian Guard does nothing, the crowd does not react -nothing. One would think this sort of thing happened every day. Someone just killed the Emperor of Rome in front of thousands of witnesses and absolutely no action is taken. Maximus is given all the honors of death while the Emperor is just left to lay there in the dirt. Did I miss something? Seriously, THAT was the end? That is what we have been building toward all this time; they both die, end of story, roll credits? Huh?!?

At the end of the day I could not figure out just exactly what the point of “Gladiator” was supposed to be. The hero does not really ‘win’ other than accomplishing the fact of killing the ‘bad guy’. However, as we have already seen, we never see the ‘bad guy’ do anything that bad in the grand scheme of things beyond how he ruined the lives of a few individuals. I know we are led to believe that the farcical last wish of Marcus Aurelius was fulfilled and the Roman Republic was restored -but we all know that did not happen. The Roman Empire marched on for a long, long time to come after the actual death of the real Emperor Commodus. So, again, I wonder what really was the point of it all? What is this movie supposed to be telling us? The only moral I could find was that if someone does you wrong, don’t give up, just be patient and wait until the time is right to take your revenge and even if it kills you it will still be worth it if your enemy dies with you. Not exactly uplifting I suppose. However, I will say again though that the movie is very entertaining, the fight scenes are realistic and exciting, I thought it looked spectacular, the actors all gave first rate performances (I loved the announcer by the way), the sound was good and it was pretty well paced. It was, on the other hand, very inaccurate, rather absurd at times regarding the story and did not really have any depth to it. That and it was very anti-monarchist from where I was sitting.

The Centrality of the Roman Empire

I have often been asked (usually by those quickly sorry they did) just what is so significant about the Roman Empire. Some monarchists have even argued (hard to believe I know) that the Roman Empire was not really a monarchy anyway and so is unworthy of much consideration. Perish the thought! The Roman Empire is, of course, significant to everyone in the western world and any part of the globe touched by western civilization. The legacy of Rome permeates modern society to this very day in everything from language to politics to architecture to sports to religion and on and on. However, restricting myself to addressing monarchists here, I could easily argue that, not only was the Roman Empire a monarchy but it was, in a way, the monarchy of the western world. Throughout the vast majority of the history of western civilization the central institution, in one form or another, has been the Roman Empire. Referring to Rome as the “Eternal City” is no idle boast.

Consider just how long the Roman Empire has endured. The Western Roman Empire came to an end in 476 AD when Emperor Romulus Augustus was deposed. At the same time, the Eastern Roman Empire managed to endure, even briefly retaking much of the west, until the fall of Constantinople and the death of Emperor Constantine XI in 1453. However, that was still not really the end. In 800 AD the Roman Empire in the west was revived as the Holy Roman Empire when Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was crowned Emperor of the Romans in the Eternal City by Pope St Leo III. This upset the East but, at the time, Constantinople had only an Empress and no Emperor and the West was going to have none of that. Besides which, the East Roman or Byzantine Empire simply could not be an effective force in the west. So, the Imperial Roman title fell to Charlemagne of the Franks, ruler of most of western Europe. After passing from his family the title went in a German direction, eventually settling on the Archdukes of Austria.

The Holy Roman Empire was the central core of western Christendom and the Holy Roman Emperor, though he certainly did not rule all of the west, was viewed as the preeminent monarch amongst the royal hierarchy of the Christian nations. Based out of Aachen originally, finally ending up in Vienna, the Holy Roman Emperors never ruled from Rome (which was the domain of the Pope) nor did they very frequently visit it. Focused largely on Germany the Emperors did rule much of Italy for lengthy periods of time but never permanently. Nonetheless, they represented the heirs of the Caesars of old and carried on the legacy of the Roman Empire. Otto the Great reestablished the empire that had broken up somewhat after the death of Charlemagne and he campaigned far into southern Italy. There was Emperor Henry II whose piety was so remarkable that he was later declared a saint and there was Emperor Frederick I who, for a time at least, forced the loose confederation of German states to become a more centralized empire. Emperor Charles V, also King of Spain, ruled the first empire upon which it was said that the sun never set.

In 1806 the Holy Roman Empire officially came to an end when Emperor Francis II of the Romans became simply Emperor Francis I of Austria. Thus, with one major and one minor interruption, there had been a Roman Emperor from Augustus in 27 BC to Francis II in 1806 AD. And yet, once again, it did not totally end there. In the east, Imperial Russia, and later even Bulgaria and others, claimed to be the heirs of Constantinople, taking the title of “Tsar” or “Caesar” for their monarchs. Moscow was declared to be the “third Rome” (Constantinople itself being the second) but it was never quite the same with Constantinople being in the hands of a different people, a different culture and a different religion; a fact which remains unchanged. In the west, the Holy Roman Empire may have ended but others were still determined to carry on the legacy of Imperial Rome. Napoleon Bonaparte imitated ancient Rome in a big way in building up his Empire of the French. Classical styles were revived, imperial eagles topped French standards, Napoleon referred to his soldiers as his legions and even wore a laurel crown like the Caesars of old.

The centrality of the Roman Empire and the Roman imperial legacy is impossible to ignore. For Catholic monarchies it is absolutely central, for Orthodox monarchies probably even more so. In the west the empire was revived by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor was the special protector of the pontiff. There was, in fact, no Catholic monarchy that was not at some point a part of the Holy Roman Empire or in some lesser way united to it. Likewise, in Great Britain, which was not part of the Holy Roman Empire and eventually not Catholic, the legacy of the Roman Empire (of which Britain was a part) can still be seen today and the influence was extensive. It can be seen in everything from architecture to traditional Anglican vestments to the style of the monarchy and numerous symbols. The coronation, the sword, the orb and so many other symbols and traditions come down, ultimately, from the Roman Empire. Even monarchies in Scandinavia, which were never part of the Holy Roman Empire or even hardly known by the original Roman Empire, have still been heavily influenced by the Roman cultural legacy.

The ties may not always be direct or unbroken but there is a discernable line in western history from Augustus to Constantine to Charlemagne to Otto the Great to Charles V to Francis II and then from the successor states down to some extent to Archduke Otto of Austria today. Much of the importance of this for monarchists, and certainly Christian monarchists, is because of religion, whether Catholic or Orthodox and even, though to a much lesser extent, Protestant Christians. Christ was born in the Roman Empire (which we must accept as intentional), early Christians were commanded by the apostles to ‘honor the emperor’ and the Roman Empire was the vehicle by which Christianity spread throughout the entire known world of the time. It would seem to be quite impossible, certainly for Catholics and the Orthodox, for a Christian monarchist not to understand the significance of the Roman Empire and just how much we owe to that empire and to fail to honor that legacy. The whole idea of church-state relations and what eventually became the concept of cross and crown or throne and altar goes back to the teaching of Christ, in the Roman Empire, to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”. The Caesar spoken of, at that time, was the Emperor Tiberius and the role of Caesar, the Emperor, was always extremely important in the Latin Church and if anything even more important in the Eastern Church.

The whole concept of the social Kingship of Christ, of having a sacred monarchy, a society with Christ and Christian teaching at the center of it all goes back to when the Roman Empire first accepted Christianity (Emperor Constantine) and finally made Christianity the official religion of the empire (Emperor Theodosius). In fact, the first ecumenical councils of the Church, for a thousand years, were called by the Roman Emperor and presided over by the Roman Emperor. Many of these were in response to some divisive movement and it shows how, from the very beginning, in the Roman Empire, the Emperor was expected to defend the Church and defend the religion of the empire, just as later kings and princes were also expected to do.

It would be possible to go on at length but, again, the pervasiveness of the Roman legacy for all westerners and monarchists in particular (and certainly Christian monarchists) makes it rather hard to single out certain aspects from such a flood of possible examples. However, whether it was Emperor Justinian and his reform of Roman law which became the foundation of virtually all law in continental Europe up until the revolutionary era, or the inestimable significance of Charlemagne for Western Europe, the foundation of what became known as the Holy Roman Empire around which all Christian monarchies revolved (though not always closely or peacefully) we can see how central the Emperor of the Romans has always been from Augustus Caesar in 27 BC to the abdication of Francis II in 1806. You can still go and visit the Crown of Charlemagne in Vienna, based on the Roman imperial tradition and see paintings of the Holy Roman Emperors wearing their traditional vestments which were all Roman in origin. There is no getting away from it and that is why I say that, not only was the Roman Empire a monarchy, the Roman Empire was, in many ways, THE monarchy.

Vincenzo Gioberti

During the era of the unification of Italy, few people were so well known as Vincenzo Gioberti. Today, however, he is seldom remembered at all despite the fact that his writings were some of the most widely read in his own time. He had an exalted view of religion yet was often condemned by the religious authorities of the day. He was a member of revolutionary organizations but was a zealous monarchist. The plan he put forward for the unification of the Italian people, based on cooperation between Turin and Rome, was accepted by both the Pope and the King of Piedmont-Sardinia. The problem was that they were never able to accept it at the same time. When one embraced it, the other rejected it and when the other finally came around to accepting it as well the one had passed the point of such an agreement. It must have been maddeningly frustrating for Gioberti but he was a man who often found himself at odds with those who championed the most; his Church and his monarch. However, had his ideas been accepted, there is no doubt that the unification and early history of the united Italy would have been considerably different.

Vincenzo Gioberti was born on April 5, 1801 in Turin, in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia and early in life he decided on a religious career. He trained for the priesthood with the fathers of the Oratory and in 1825 was ordained priest. As a young priest he was influenced by the writings of the revolutionary republican Giuseppe Mazzini. He rejected his anti-clericalism but embraced the idea of Italian unity wholeheartedly. While others in the revolutionary camp looked to Freemasonry and the Carbonari to create a “new religious synthesis” in Italy, Gioberti believed that it was the Catholic Church that was the pride and glory of Italy and that it was the Churchy, under the leadership of the Papacy, that was uniquely qualified to lead the Italian people to national unity, renewed vitality and renewed greatness. Since the fall of Imperial Rome it had, after all, been the great Pontiffs of the Italian Renaissance who had come the closest to forging a pan-Italian political unity, which was also a time of artistic and scientific flowering. As Gioberti saw it, the Church was uniquely qualified to bring about such a rejuvenation against and that the Papacy was the one focus of unity that everyone had in common and which could bring together all Italians in a common cause.

This was music to the ears of the Piedmontese monarch King Carlo Alberto and he made Gioberti his court chaplain. Many, however, opposed Gioberti from the start because of the influence he had with the King. Many at court opposed his political views, fearing any change to the status quo. The fact that Gioberti was known as an Italian nationalist and an acquaintance of Mazzini, well known in the Young Italy movement, caused many to consider him dangerous. He himself had done nothing wrong and he had not a disloyal bone in his body but fears were running high and simply being on speaking terms with members of the group that was plotting republican revolution in Piedmont and the other Italian states was enough to bring the police down on him. Gioberti was also a prolific writer and philosopher whose ideas sometimes got him into trouble. He was critical of Pope Gregory XVI and the Jesuits and his speculations caused some in the Church to doubt his orthodoxy and in response to all this pressure in 1833 he resigned from his post at court. Nonetheless, his enemies pounced and he was arrested for conspiracy, imprisoned for a short time and then banished without ever having been given a trial. He went to Paris but spent most of his time in Brussels where he published his famous work ‘The Moral and Civil Primacy of the Italians’ which was to become so widely read in 1843.

It was primarily this work by which Gioberti made the cause of Italian unification something that respectable, middle class people could get behind rather than being the exclusive domain of anti-clerical republicans and bomb-throwing revolutionaries. He recounted the glories of the civilization of the Italian people and in the cultural, non-political sphere, it was certainly the Papacy that was the most brilliant jewel of all. Gioberti envisioned a coming together of Rome and Turin, the spiritual greatness of the Holy See with the secular greatness of the Royal House of Savoy. He proposed that the princes of Italy grant representative government on their own local levels with consultative assemblies to advise but not govern the states. The states of Italy should then bind themselves together in a federation under the supra-national leadership of the Pope in order to have a common military, foreign policy, overseas colonies and a customs union while each state retained its own monarchy and unique local traditions. He rejected the republican nationalism of Mazzini which sought to weld all Italians from Turin to Naples into a single, uniform entity in favor of a more federal model of “consultative monarchies” which would be somewhat similar to what the German states eventually achieved several decades later.

Given how Italian history played out subsequently, many historians have dismissed the ideas of Gioberti as naively unrealistic. Yet, it was actually his vision which had the most history behind it. The last era of real Italian greatness had been the Renaissance period and during that time the Italian states were frequently united in a common cause by the leadership of the Pope. The most well known example was probably that of Pope Julius II who led Papal troops in person along with the other allied states to drive the “barbarians” out of Italy. However, even going back to the Middle Ages the Popes frequently arranged alliances of the Italian states toward a common goal or against a common threat. All Gioberti was really proposing was a more formalized and permanent version of what had existed at many points in the past throughout the course of Italian history. In that way, his vision was perhaps the most realistic of all. Gioberti embraced the cause of the Risorgimento whole-heartedly and he firmly believed that the Risorgimento could only truly flourish within the embrace of the Church. Second to the Papacy, his greatest loyalty and praise was reserved for his native ruler; the King of Piedmont-Sardinia who alone had the political and military muscle to see this plan brought to fruition. The Pope could make unity a fact and the Savoy could defend it.

Many people were won over by this argument, among them the future Pope Pius IX who read the book in which it was put forward in 1845. The next year, as Pope, it seemed to many that Pius IX was going perfectly step by step to put the vision of Gioberti into effect. He spoke of the Italian nation, authorized a consultative assembly for the Papal States and began encouraging greater unity and cooperation among the Italian princes. People across the peninsula cheered these moves and it seemed that Gioberti had truly shown the way for the best possible sort of unification. However, Gioberti had said that all depended on the alliance of Rome and Turin and it frustratingly seemed that when Turin favored his philosophy, Rome adamantly opposed it only to see Rome embrace the idea after Turin had discarded it. In 1848 Gioberti returned to his homeland and was warmly welcomed. King Carlo Alberto offered him a seat in the Piedmontese senate but, feeling unworthy, Gioberti turned it down. Still, he was elected to represent his home district in the Chamber of Deputies and eventually became Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia. Finally in a position to put his ideas into effect, Gioberti immediately began trying to reconcile the opposing sides of the revolution, sending an envoy to the Pope, who had fled to Gaeta, with orders that he talk to the leaders of the Roman Republic along the way.

Needless to say, Mazzini refused to be convinced. He had, in fact, promoted Gioberti to write his famous “Primacy” by urging him to a write a ’catechism for the Risorgimento’ but Mazzini was totally opposed to what Gioberti reduced, despising what he called the “ultra-Romanism” of it as well as the glowing tributes to King Carlo Alberto. Gioberti’s ambassador received no warm welcome in Gaeta either with the Pope at first refusing to meet with the man at all. Since Gioberti had dared to even speak with the revolutionaries, the Pope refused to give him any hearing. Many have since said that if only the moderate Pellegrino Rossi (the Minister of Justice and the Interior of the Papal States) had not been assassinated and still close to Pius IX, everything might have turned out differently. However, from that point on the Pope adopted a different political attitude and there would be no movement toward a federation of monarchies as a method of achieving Italian unity, only the single monarchy or the republic.

Gioberti left office not long after the accession of King Vittorio Emanuele II and after disagreements with the government he left politics. He was sent on a diplomatic mission to Paris and remained there for the rest of his life, refusing a government pension or any religious assistance. He died of an apoplexy on October 26, 1852.



Augustus Caesar - The First Emperor

While Julius Caesar had laid the foundation for the eclipse of the Roman Republic by the Roman Empire it was his nephew, adopted son and heir, Augustus Caesar, who oversaw the transition and made it a success. It was Augustus who managed to get the ardent Roman republicans on the side of an imperial monarchy and embrace it whole-heartedly. It was Augustus who, as the saying went, ‘found Rome brick and left it marble’ and it was Augustus Caesar who established the government framework for the Roman Empire that allowed it to continue for centuries, through the reigns of good and bad emperors alike, and rise to dominate the known world. He was, in every way, a colossal figure in European, western and world history.

He was born Gaius Octavius (aka Octavian) in Rome on September 23, 63 BC. His father had been a senator but died when he was only four. It was through his mother that his most prestigious family ties came as she was the daughter of Julius Caesar’s daughter Julia. When Julius Caesar adopted him as his heir on May 8, 44 BC he took the name Gaius Julius Caesar. He fought with his uncle in Spain and was in Albania preparing to lead the campaign against the Parthians when he learned that Caesar had been assassinated. He returned to Rome and began building his political power base, supported by senators who were fearful of Marc Antony in particular. In a political alliance Antony married Octavian’s sister and the prestige of the young man was increased further when the Roman senate declared Caesar a god in 42 BC.

Nonetheless, Octavian (now known officially as Caesar) broke with Antony after his marriage with Queen Cleopatra of Egypt. This made Antony unpopular in Rome and Octavian took advantage of this to gain public support for moving against Antony, a conflict he won at the pivotal battle of Actium in 31 BC. This left Octavian as the most powerful figure in the Roman world but he had to move carefully to establish the imperial system without offending the republican sensibilities of the Romans, especially the Roman elite. He declared that he was restoring the republic and handed power back to the senate which promptly gave most of it back again in act of political theatre. He was elected consul every year and was given the name “Augustus”, meaning “the Exalted”. He did away with nothing of the republican system but consolidated the powers held previously by numerous individuals into his own hands; thus becoming the first Roman Emperor.

Later, a second settlement brought more regularity and permanence to his position, making Augustus effectively a perpetual consul. His preferred title was “Princeps” or ‘First Citizen’ and although he held ultimate power he still treated the senate with respect. He tried to maintain a feeling of things going back to normal while ushering in a new era with extensive building programs including a number of temples as Augustus was very pious and through his own example and legislation he encouraged an emphasis on religion and a return to traditional Roman family values. These changes, along with public games and an attitude of openness and tolerance of criticism made him a very popular monarch. However, in his private life he was not free of all scandal. He liked to gamble and had a number of mistresses but his biggest embarrassment was his daughter who he finally had exiled because of her debauched behavior.

Emperor Augustus was no great scholar but he was a man of common sense and some literary talent. In the same way he was no military genius but presided over some great victories because he recognized this fact and was content to leave military affairs in the hands of the professionals. He led one campaign in Egypt but generally left the strategy and tactics to others. Still, his reign was an era of great successes for the Roman Empire including the conquest of Egypt, the Alpine frontier and the northern Balkans. His most ambitious military effort was a plan to conquer Germany. His stepson Drusus was put in command but upon his death the burden fell on another stepson (and future successor) Tiberius. The effort to conquer Germany ended in epic disaster however when 3 legions under Quintilius Varus were wiped out at the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Emperor Augustus mourned long and hard over this disaster and further plans for expansion were shelved and he even left instructions to his heir Tiberius to do the same and be content with the size of the Roman Empire as it was.

So, all in all, Emperor Augustus had been extremely successful. He had ended the civil wars and fierce partisanship of the late republic, accomplished the peaceful transition from republic to empire, restored and beautified Rome itself, set a new public tone, expanded and defended the empire and kept everyone on side by allowing the retention and maintaining at least outward respect for the republican traditions of Rome. Now, because of this last fact, and because Rome remained, at least on paper, a “republic” throughout the imperial period some have asked if not all the past centuries of the reading of history have been wrong and might Rome not have ever been a monarchy at all? I would find such an argument absurd, both based on the facts and because of my own attachment to the Roman Empire. It is not something I wish to surrender to republicans nor would any republicans I have ever met wish to accept it either. Perhaps the key element though that proves Rome did become a monarchy, and a monarchy of the sort most of us today would be familiar with, is the fact that a hereditary succession was established.

Part of what made Augustus so accepted as the natural leader of Rome was his status as the great-nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar. In the same way his family was viewed very much at the time as the ‘Imperial Family’. It was important to Augustus that the succession continue in his family; the Julian dynasty. However, he ran into problems in this area because he never had a male heir of his own. Therefore he was forced to turn to the husbands and children of his controversial daughter Julia. Her husband Marcellus was considered but such talk ended with his death. Therefore Augustus arranged a marriage between Julia and his most trusted lieutenant Agrippa. Their union produced two sons; Gaius and Lucius, whom Augustus adopted as his own but with Agrippa to be his heir in their minority. Yet, Agrippa died in 12 BC, leaving no one to look after the tots that Augustus trusted so he was forced to turn to the sons of his wife Livia by a previous marriage; the aforementioned Drusus and Tiberius. He had Tiberius marry Julia but he was still reluctant to embrace the future going to the Claudian dynasty and continued to indulge his grandsons Gaius and Lucius. However, when they both predeceased him Tiberius was left as the only viable choice.

Augustus began to slow down as his years caught up with him and his health began to decline. He died at Nola on August 19, 14 AD just a month before his 76th birthday. His body was taken back to Rome and his ashes placed in his magnificent imperial Mausoleum. As the first Roman Emperor he set the standard by which subsequent monarchs would be judged and it was a high standard. He was an astute statesman, moderate, tolerant, careful and yet adept at acting at crucial times to turn situations to his advantage. He successfully made the Roman Republic the Roman Empire peacefully and successfully by establishing the monarchy slowly, step by step over a period of time. At the time of his death his full name and titles were, “Imperator (Emperor) Caesar Divi Filius (son of a god) Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Consul XIII, Imperator XXI, Potestatis XXXVII, Pater Patriae (Father of the Country). He had known victory and some defeats but by any standard he left Rome stronger, more beautiful, more secure, more prosperous and with a more stable foundation for the future than he found it. The month of August was named in his honor and he was deified by the senate upon his death.

Julius Caesar - The Threat of a Monarch

When speaking of the great and glorious Roman Empire there is no better place to start than with Julius Caesar. He was, as most know, never formally the “Emperor of Rome”, Augustus being the first Roman Emperor, but there is no doubt that he was the ‘founder of the feast’ so to speak. None of it would have happened without him, Augustus gained his position due to being the heir of Caesar and Caesar himself occupied much the same position only in a less formalized way. He laid the foundation and it was from him that the subsequent monarchs, of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and beyond, drew their ancestral legitimacy and inspiration. Julius Caesar is known as one of the great conquerors of history, one of the commanding, controversial “strong men” and also as an example, in a way, of republican extremism. Several times offered the crown of monarchial power, he declined it. Yet, he was assassinated out of fear that he would establish a monarchy by people who feared his power, his genius and his popularity.

Gaius Julius Caesar was born on July 13, 100 BC. Born into a patrician family he was also born into the intrigues and numerous civil wars that were overwhelming the late Roman Republic. The Social War, the invasions of Mithridates and the ongoing feud between the populares and optimates. This had a direct impact on Caesar as his uncle Marius (a popularis) fought a violent feud with his old protégé Sulla (an optimas). When Julius Caesar became head of his family at the age of 16 in 85 BC his family was targeted by Sulla and it was only through the influence of his mother’s relatives that he survived. He took refuge in the army where he began to gain a prestigious reputation which, not unusually, followed him into the political sphere as well. In time he was able to defy the regime of Sulla in certain symbolic ways while increasing his own power and influence.

Caesar held a number of offices and also began to gain more political enemies. An illustrative case came in 63 BC when he was accused of plotting against the republic. He was cleared of the charges but removed as praetor the following year over a piece of legislation but was reinstated when the people rose up in his favor. Regimes in decline (like the Roman Republic) often punish success and fear popularity (the Roman Empire would do the same in its final days) and Caesar had already demonstrated both attributes. This only increased following a successful military campaign in the Iberian Peninsula after which Caesar declined the honor of a triumph in order to continue his political career.

The result was the (informal) First Triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. Early on his political enemies attempted to limit his power as much as possible but they were unsuccessful and when his term ended Caesar went on to gain ever more prestige and popularity by waging, and writing about, a campaign of conquest in Gaul, fighting and subduing Gallic tribes, Spanish forces, Belgian forces and even raiding Britain. In his absence, in 50 BC, Pompey tried to thwart Caesar by passing laws aimed at him against standing for election in absentia which had always been allowed before. Ultimately, Caesar was forced to choose between losing his power in yet another coup or (as his old family foe Sulla had previously done) marching on Rome itself which was sure to spark civil war. As we all know Caesar decided to march on Rome and crossed the Rubicon famously saying, “the die is now cast”.

With only the XIII Legion Caesar was greatly outnumbered by Pompey but he had no desire to fight the famed conqueror of most of Western Europe and he fled. Leaving Lepidus and Marc Antony in charge in Rome, Caesar pursued Pompey all the way to Alexandria, Egypt where Pompey was killed by a Roman in the employ of King Ptolemy XIII. It was during the fighting and politicking in Egypt that Caesar famously fell victim to the charms of Queen Cleopatra. He installed her as the ruler of Egypt and the two were even married in the Egyptian religion (which had no validity in Rome) and the ambitious Cleopatra dreamed that her and Caesar would conquer the world and rule as divine monarchs in eastern style. How real these aspirations were and whether Caesar shared them is a matter of speculation but he did go on to defeat the remnants of Pompey’s forces and was showered with honors in Rome.

By that point, the success and popularity of Caesar meant that his enemies, though few, were prepared to go to even greater extremes to stop him, even if it meant assassination. These enemies, about 40 in all, were all senators and more than anything else they feared the establishment of a monarchy which would be a threat to them and possibly mean the death of the politician-class. Caesar had already been declared “Father of the Country”, Supreme Pontiff, Emperor (Imperator -a military title) and finally Dictator for life. All that was left was the title of King and given that Caesar had earlier adopted his nephew Octavian as his son and heir (to be replaced by Brutus -one of the plotters- if Octavian predeceased him) they were terrified that an imperial dynasty was being established and no matter how Caesar protested against the many honors bestowed on him or insisted he desired no crown, their fears were not allayed.

So it was that, on the Ides of March, 44 BC, Caesar was attacked at the portico of the Theatre of Pompey and stabbed 23 times. It is not known that his last words were, “And you too Brutus?” but according to at least one source he may have said something equivalent, shocked that the man he had befriended and benefited would betray him. Thus ended the life of Julius Caesar, hailed by many then and since as one of the greatest men to ever live. The assassins claimed to be acting on behalf of the people but the people were horrified and outraged by the murder and quickly turned on the plotters who had to flee for their lives. We all know the result. The Roman Republic fought one last civil war which ended in Octavian becoming the sole ruler of Rome, voted the title of Augustus (the Exalted) and thus the first Roman Emperor. In 42 BC the Senate voted to deify the fallen hero as ‘the Divine Julius’, which gave his heir Octavian the title of “son of the divine Caesar”.

It is difficult to summarize the life and legacy of so historically large a figure as Julius Caesar. He was immensely successful, immensely popular, a man of great ambition, great vision, great strength and determination. He was neither a republican nor was he ever actually a monarch. Yet, it can perhaps be said in summation of Julius Caesar that, intentionally or not, his life was the death of the decaying Roman Republic and his death was the birth of the Roman Empire that rose up, in Phoenix fashion, from the ashes of his funeral pyre to succeed and surpass what had come before it and it would be the heirs and successors of Julius Caesar who would dominate the known world as the Emperors of Rome.