Monarch Profile: Emperor Otto the Great

After the fall of the (western) Roman Empire, Europe descended into what is known as “the Dark Ages” when civilization, as everyone then knew it, broke down. Yet, for all of the Germanic tribal wars and Viking raids, progress was constantly being made to rebuild civilization and so the Dark Ages could also be called “the Recovery”. Latin civilization had been crushed by German invaders but those Germans who had once been dismissed as barbarians were increasingly looked to as a source of strength and thus of order. A great deal of order was restored to the chaos by the conquering armies of Charlemagne who established an empire stretching across modern day west-central Europe. He was a key figure in the recovery but after his death the empire he had forged began to fall apart, the largest parts dividing into what has since become France and Germany. After Charlemagne, the next great German monarch who would take up the cause of recovery was Kaiser Otto I, later known as Otto the Great, a towering figure in German history. That is significant for, if the French and Germans still argue today about which of them Charlemagne belonged to, there was no doubt about Emperor Otto. He was German and could be seen as something of a “founding father” for the German nation.

Otto was born on November 23, 912 to Duke Henry the Fowler of Saxony by his second wife Matilda of Westphalia. He grew up in the rough and tumble world of the small states ruled by the German nobility, fighting for power in the collapsing former empire of Charlemagne while also still fighting foreign powers on their frontiers. Whereas the Romans had once fought German barbarians, the Germans were now fighting new invaders they deemed barbarians such as the Slavs and Magyars to the east. In due course, Saxony became the most powerful of the German states and Prince Otto gained experience fighting the Slavs as well as an illegitimate son born of a Slavic noblewoman his knights had captured (this son would one day become the Archbishop of Mainz). As his father was making good progress in uniting the Germans under his rule, he sought an alliance with the distant cousins of his people in Saxon England and so married Otto to Princess Eadgyth, half-sister of King Aethelstan of England, in 930. Henry put all his hopes for the future on Otto, breaking with German tradition by naming him sole heir to his throne and, as it turned out, those hopes were not misplaced. He would prove a formidable monarch.

In 936, Henry the Fowler died and the Saxon nobles elected Otto, then 24, King of Germany. He was, of course, also Duke of Saxony by inheritance and, thanks to the efforts of his father, ruled in fact or at least in name over all the German people. Otto was also a great admirer of Charlemagne and demonstrated this from the very beginning. With the last heirs of the Frankish emperor having died out some years before, the new King of Germany sought to present himself as the successor of Charlemagne, the most successful and powerful figure in western history since the fall of Rome. Otto had many admirable qualities and all would be needed as he faced hostile Slavs to the northeast, Magyars to the east and rebellious nobles within his own domain. He immediately set to work with policies to centralize power in Germany. He forced the nobles to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him as king, placed churchmen in important positions to lessen the influence of the nobility and took other actions to ensure that he would be master and not only the first among equals as had previously been the case. He was mostly successful and his reign would set the pattern for subsequent German history in domestic as well as foreign policy for while he was reducing the power of the barons in the Kingdom of Germany, a call for help came from a damsel in distress in Italy.

The lovely, young Queen Adelaide of Burgundy or St Adelaide of Italy as she is known today, had been left a widow at only 19 and was being pressured to marry Berengar of Ivrea (King Berengar II of Italy), an ambitious man who wanted her lands for himself. She was taken captive for a time but escaped, managed to find refuge and sent a plea to King Otto of Germany for help in 951. It must have reminded the German monarch of the call for help from Pope Leo to Charlemagne but, in any event, it was an opportunity Otto would not pass up. He readied his army and was soon marching at the head of a column of German knights into northern Italy. Faced with such a fearsome sight, Berengar decided young Adelaide was not worth it after all and fled the scene without fighting a single battle. Like the storybook white knight riding to the rescue, Otto saved the lovely Adelaide and married her himself (his Anglo-Saxon bride had died about five years earlier). It could not have worked out any better as Otto had enhanced his reputation, extended his power and obtained a very pious and devoted wife with whom he would have a very happy marriage.

Domestic bliss could not deter Otto from his duty though and there were still plenty of challenges for him to deal with, one of the most pressing being the Magyars. These are the people of what is now Hungary but in those days they had yet to find religion and were pagan plunderers of lands as far west as Spain. It was on August 8, 955 that the Magyars attacked Augsberg. Bishop Ulrich organized the local populace to defend the city walls and they fought desperately, holding off the fierce Magyars until nightfall but exhausting themselves in the process. No one expected the city to hold out another day. Bishop Ulrich prayed that the Blessed Virgin would deliver them and his prayers were answered. When word reached the Magyar camp that King Otto and his German knights were marching to relieve Augsberg they hastily packed up and rode away. However, the Magyars were no cowards and a fight was still to be had. It came two days later at the Battle of Lechfeld when, after morning mass, King Otto led his troops into battle beneath a banner bearing the image of St Michael the Archangel. However, the fight did not go well. His troops began to break as the hard-hitting Magyar warriors attacked and counter-attacked. When another group of Magyars managed to outflank the Germans and circle around, coming in from behind, all seemed lost. To the surprise of his men, Otto ordered his son Conrad to lead the charge against these forces. It was surprising because Conrad, Otto’s son by his first wife, had previously led a rebellion against his father but, nonetheless, Otto trusted him. It proved to be the right move as Conrad led his men in a desperate charge that smashed the Magyars back, turned the tide and won the battle for the Germans.

In the wake of this victory, being King of Germany seemed insufficient to Otto’s bloodied but triumphant knights and they began hailing him as “Kaiser”. There was certainly no other single monarch in western Christendom to match him and later in 962 the Pope crowned Otto emperor of a restored Holy Roman Empire, which is to say what became known as the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” or First German Reich. Otto’s dream of emulating Charlemagne had come to full fruition with that coronation; he finally held the highest (secular) throne in Christendom. The Franks had had their hour of glory, now it was the turn of the Germans. Otto I was the sole master of the German people, had a firm hold on all his lands as well as the added prestige of the imperial title; he seemed to have reached his zenith. In those troubled times though, the work of any monarch was never done and soon Kaiser Otto had to lead his men to war again when his domains came under attack by the Slavs. He gathered his forces and marched off to meet them, the two sides coming together in Mecklenburg. Having fought so many enemies over the years, Otto was not eager for blood and sent the Slavic leader a proposal for peace and friendship but this was rejected. There would have to be a fight.

Emperor Otto decided on a bold move. The Slavs were confident that they would surely win the next day’s battle but Otto would not give them the chance. During the night, he took his knights across the Recknitz River that separated the two armies and as the morning dawned, launched a surprise attack that totally crushed the Slavic forces. Germany was saved, another pagan enemy had been defeated and another victory was added to the laurels of Emperor Otto. When not making war, Otto also continued his work consolidating his power over the German lands, encouraging art and learning as well as sending out missionaries to the surrounding pagan nations. After a reign of much success in domestic affairs and many victories on the battlefield Emperor Otto died on May 7, 973. Power passed without opposition into the hands of his 17-year old son Otto II. His dynasty would continue to hold power as kings of Germany and Holy Roman Emperors until 1024. Throughout the long history of the First Reich, a similar pattern would be followed. There would be decentralization of power, a growth in the power of local rulers and then a particularly strong-willed emperor would appear on the stage, unite the states under his leadership, centralize power, make war against the French in the west, Saracens in the south or the Slavs in the east, fight to subdue Italy and then, with his passing, the pattern would repeat.

Emperor Otto the Great fully deserves his lofty position in the history of the German-speaking people. He was one of the “great” emperors of the Saxon line, no others matching him until his descendent St Henry II before the next great emperor emerged in the person of Frederick Barbarossa of the Hohenstaufen dynasty. Yet, western civilization as a whole owes him a debt as well for he had an impact beyond the boundaries of Germany. The law and order he established provided the peace and stability necessary for the building of strong, central core for the forces of Christendom and those whom he met as enemies would later become allies. After their defeat at his hands, the Magyars retreated east and settled in what is now Hungary, establishing that kingdom and becoming Christian with the rise of their great patron saint King Stephen (who married a German princess). The Slavs, likewise, over a longer period of time, would also embrace Christianity in their turn. As the darkness of the Dark Ages receded and was replaced by the growing light and civilization of the Middle Ages, a key figure in making it all possible was Kaiser Otto. Everyone remembers Charlemagne, and rightly so, as the man who brought order out of chaos, the monarch who presided over the return to the ideal of “empire” in the west and, as such, one of the key figures in the establishment of Christendom. All of that is true but it is just as true that it did not long survive him. It was Kaiser Otto the Great who ensured that, under new leadership and largely focused on a new people, the legacy of Charlemagne would carry on into the future.

Papal Profile: Pope Alexander III

During the period when the papacy and the German emperor (officially the Emperor-Elect of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) were in a state of near constant struggle, one of the most vociferous in defending the rights of the Pope and opposing the Emperor was Pope Alexander III, and it was no easy task as rarely has the Catholic Church been so divided as in his time. He was born Orlando Bandinelli around the year 1100 in Sienna. Originally a law professor, he was called to Rome in 1150 by Pope Eugene III. After that, he rose quite rapidly in the Church, being first created Cardinal Deacon and then the Cardinal Priest of St Mark and Papal Chancellor. As an advisor to Pope Hadrian IV he was prominent among the faction of cardinals who opposed the imperial-German influence on the Italian peninsula and favored an alliance with the Normans in Naples to free Italy from the German grip. In 1157 at the Diet of Besancon he earned the long-lasting wrath of the Germans for saying that the rank and title of emperor was a favor of the pope, a “papal beneficium” rather than something that came to the German rulers automatically or directly from God. Otto von Wittelsbach nearly separated his head from his shoulders then and there but Emperor Frederick I (the famous “Frederick Barbarossa”) prevented any bloodshed.

The stage was set for a showdown between pope and emperor as, in the final stage of his reign, Hadrian IV broke with the Hohenstaufen monarch and, as Cardinal Bandinelli had suggested, allied with the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. This prompted Emperor Frederick to clamp down and extend his imperial claim across northern Italy just before Hadrian IV died. When the cardinals met to elect a successor, the German Emperor dispatched two reliable figures to influence the Sacred College in his favor. They were not entirely successful. On September 7, 1159 Orlando Cardinal Bandinelli was elected to the See of Peter by a considerable margin, however, the atmosphere was extremely divided and hostile. Cardinal Octavian snatched the red mantle from Bandinelli and a scuffle ensued in which the garment was torn to pieces. However, finding another, Cardinal Octavian announced himself as pope to some priests gathered elsewhere in the Basilica of St Peter and the doors were flung open to let in a mob, hired with imperial funds, cheered him as the Bishop of Rome. The actual Pontiff, taking the name of Pope Alexander III, had to isolated himself for a time before escaping to the safety of Norman-held southern Italy. Meanwhile, Cardinal Octavian declared himself “Pope Victor IV” (though he was not the first “Victor IV”) and was consecrated at Farfa monastery on October 7. Alexander III had, by that time, already been crowned on September 20 in Nympha.

With Pope and anti-Pope opposing each other, Emperor Frederick had the perfect opportunity to intervene as the good imperial defender of the Church, rescuing it from division and disorder. However, the meeting he called at Pavia came to nothing as when he addressed the rivals as “Pope Victor IV” and “Cardinal Orlando” it was pretty clear that he was not an impartial or fair mediator. Pope Alexander III refused to recognize the gathering as having any validity which dutifully declared the anti-Pope Victor IV as the legitimate Successor of St Peter just as the Emperor wished. In the aftermath, Pope Alexander III excommunicated Emperor Frederick I and absolved all of his subjects of their allegiance to him. This led to open warfare between the Pope and the Emperor who had the support of some monarchs and the opposition of others depending on their situation while Pope Alexander III was in an extremely difficult position as all of Christendom was divided as to whether or not he was the legitimate pope. During his reign there appeared on the scene no less than three anti-popes to oppose him (Victor IV, Paschal III, Callistus III and Innocent III) which complicated the situation to no end.

However, ultimately, the schism did not work out to the benefit of the Emperor Frederick I who came marching down the Italian peninsula with an army of German knights. Pope Alexander III called for a pious and patriotic unity of Italians to oppose this invasion and the result was the formation of the Lombard League which included most of the cities of northern Italy, banding together to resist the German onslaught. This was certainly significant, even simply as an act of courage given the might and proven military abilities of the famous Frederick Barbarossa. The idea that an embattled Pontiff and a few Italian city-states would stand in defiance to one of the greatest German conquerors of all time must have astounded a great many people. Even more astonishing is that the German emperor was defeated. At the battle of Legnano in 1176 the forces of the Lombard League won one of the greatest victories in Italian military history. The Emperor himself was believed to have been killed for a time but, though wounded, he did survive and afterwards was obliged to withdraw from Italy and recognize Alexander III as the legitimate, validly elected Pontiff. In the early days of Lutheran Protestantism, it was popular to show Pope Alexander III putting his foot on the neck of a prostrate Frederick Barbarossa as a way to inflame popular opinion against the papacy for the defeat of a great German hero. In fact, of course, nothing of the sort ever happened.

In fact, Alexander III had gained some support in Germany. In his effort to get Christendom united behind him he tried to enlist the support of the Byzantine Empire but was turned away. Even after his triumph over Frederick Barbarossa there were plenty of troublesome heresies to deal with and the lingering tension over Church-State relations. With the Waldensians (the holier than thou crowd) and the Albigensians (the world is evil and everyone should die crowd) spreading their influence, Pope Alexander III called the Third Lateran Council where his immense talent as a canon lawyer was on full display. The council condemned the new rising heresies and called for a greater emphasis on education as a way to ensure that such unorthodox beliefs never develop and are rejected when they appear. He also always asserted Church independence from the secular powers and papal authority over the kings of Europe. Aside from his dramatic struggle with the German emperor this was seen in his support for St Thomas Becket in England in opposition to another great monarch; King Henry II. There were no invasions or bloody battles but, like Frederick, King Henry II did finally come around to accept the position of the Pope, doing penance and asking forgiveness for his part in the murder of Becket.

The prestige of the papacy rose somewhat during the time Alexander III was exiled to France and locked in combat with the German emperor. It often seems the papacy is never so popular as when under direct attack. Still, Alexander III attracted plenty of criticism, both for his determination in asserting the rights of the Church as being apart and above those of the state but also because of his cautious nature and his willingness to hear out both sides of an argument. Because of this, there were those, then as now, who accused the pontiff of being “shifty” and simply putting off taking a side until the victor was clear. He was not always the best diplomat but he was an unwavering defender of the rights of the Church. He died on August 30, 1181 at Civita Castellana after reigning for 21 years. At his burial a stone-throwing angry mob attacked his funeral procession which should be kept in context with the tumultuous and divisive events of his reign and only puts him in the lofty company of someone like Pope Pius IX.

Monarch Profile: Holy Roman Emperor Charles V

Emperor Charles V is an historical figure somewhat difficult to approach. His background was so diverse; a Spanish King and German Emperor born in Belgium of an Austrian family with Swiss roots and one could go on. He is a colossal figure in European history and a man with a rather colorful life story. Charles V was reflective of the Renaissance in his knowledge and tastes, he could discuss religion or art with the best of them. Charles V had several mistresses and a few illegitimate children, yet is still seen today as the Catholic champion of Europe. Hailed ever after as the most ardent defender of Christendom, he nonetheless made peace with the Protestants and waged war against the Pope. His was the first empire upon which it was said that “the sun never set”. In World War II he was featured on a special postage stamp by the Nazi SS as a German historical figure who dominated so much of the world and yet, at the end of his life, he willingly gave up his power and saw to it that no one member of the House of Hapsburg would hold such vast territories again. Charles V is a fascinating individual, probably not as well known in the English-speaking world as he should be, but throughout most of his lifetime practically every major event in Europe happened because of or in reaction to him. Emperor Charles V was, and is, a giant figure on the pages of history.

He was the son of Philip the Handsome and Joanna the Mad, born on February 24, 1500 in Ghent, Belgium and, given the rather tragic fate of his parents, he was brought up in the “Low Countries” to a large extent, looked after by his aunt Margaret in Burgundy. It was only 1506 when he inherited the Burgundian lands of his father and this, combined with the upbringing of his aunt, impressed upon him the terrible responsibilities of power. Throughout his life, especially for a man of the Renaissance, he would have a very Medieval view of government and monarchy with limitations on power, important decisions made by councils and keeping power on the local level where possible. He had to grow up very fast as he was still only a youth when he began to inherit his most lofty crowns. On January 23, 1516 he became King of Spain and on June 28 1519 he became Holy Roman Emperor of the German nation. He had his German coronation at Aachen on October 26, 1520; was crowned King of Italy on February 22, 1530 in Bologna and on February 24, 1530 was crowned Emperor of the Romans by the Pope making him the last German Emperor to be crowned by the Pope and thus officially “Holy Roman Emperor” rather than “Holy Roman Emperor-Elect” as most actually were.

Religious matters would dominate a great deal of his reign and one of the first problems he had to address was the growing controversy over a certain man named Martin Luther. At the famous Diet of Worms the Emperor met Luther face to face and listened to him make his case. Needless to say, the Emperor was not impressed and gave a quite eloquent response based on history and tradition, saying, “For it is certain that a single monk must err if he stands against the opinion of all Christendom. Otherwise Christendom itself would have erred for more than a thousand years”. Luther, we now know, did not actually say, “Here I stand, I can do no other” but, in any event, he refused to recant his beliefs and the Emperor refused to break his word and have him arrested on the spot. So, Luther was free to go and continued to spread his new religious ideas, which would ultimately lead to the creation of the Lutheran church, the Protestant movement and the further splitting of Christendom. This was, obviously, a major concern for Charles V who, as Emperor, saw himself as the chief guardian of Christendom and while he did not try to rule everyone directly, he would take swift action against any threat to his authority. The spread of Protestantism was definitely such a threat and he wanted the Church to do something about it.

The problem with that was that the Catholic Church, which had been around for a while, had seen or thought they had seen people like Martin Luther before. They would rise up, preaching some novelty but eventually fade away and be forgotten. But Luther could point to very real problems and corruptions in the Church with simony, absentee bishops, the selling of indulgences and so on which were having a real impact. This was particularly true in Germany where nationalism was a useful tool as well. It was often easy to convince people to support a German church founded by a German man rather than to pay tithes to an Italian prince far away in Rome. To head-off this problem, Emperor Charles V wanted the Pope to call a council to sort these problems out. Today it seems obvious, especially in light of what happened later at the Council of Trent, and the Popes seem criminally uncaring or lazy not to heed the advice of the King of Spain and German Emperor. However, to be fair to the Pontiffs, history is always close at hand in Rome and throughout the history of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, when an Emperor started calling for a council of bishops it was usually intended to end in the forced removal of the Pope in favor of a more pliable candidate. After this happened several times, the Popes became rather reluctant to call councils together, especially when a German Emperor was the one pushing for it. It was certainly a mistake for the Catholic Church overall that the Emperor was not listened to but one can see why the Popes would have been inclined to put him off and wait for Lutheranism to fade away.

In 1522 pro-Lutheran nobles rose up in the Knights’ War which Charles V had to put down, followed by the even nastier Peasants’ Revolt in 1524 which even Luther was horrified by. To make matters worse, as far as the Emperor was concerned anyway, while Protestant rebellions were becoming a major problem in Germany, the Catholic south was coming under renewed attack by the Ottoman Turks who were never more effective than at that time under the skilled leadership of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. In 1522 they launched a massive attack on the island of Rhodes, defended by the Knights of St John. The island fell and Emperor Charles allowed the Knights to relocate to Malta. On land, by 1526 the Turkish armies had penetrated far into Europe, wiping out the Hungarian army and killing King Louis of Hungary at the battle of Mohacs. And if that was not enough bad news for Charles V, German possessions in northern Italy were attacked by the French under King Francis I in 1524. The Emperor moved to meet this threat in person, aware of the fact that Pope Clement VII had allied with the King of France in an effort to prevent the German domination of Italy. The result was the battle of Pavia which was a smashing success for Emperor Charles V who totally defeated the French army and took Francis I prisoner. He gave up claims to imperial territories while in captivity but, after being released, said he was not bound by agreements signed while he was a prisoner and renewed his campaign against Charles V in alliance with the Pope.

In 1526 Charles married Isabella of Portugal, daughter of King Manuel I, whom he loved and adored and had many children with. He was not a flawless man when it came to women but the illegitimate children he had were born before his marriage or after the death of Isabella who passed away after giving birth to their sixth child. The birth of Don John of Austria notwithstanding, Charles V was greatly saddened by her death and wore black for the rest of his life thereafter. However, all of that would come later. In 1527, only a year after his marriage, Charles V launched the invasion that would result in what must be the one really shameful mark on his reign, a horror almost unsurpassed in history. Gathering a motley force of Spanish and German troops (many of whom were Lutheran Protestants), Charles V launched an invasion of Italy aimed at destroying the alliance arranged by Pope Clement VII and bringing papal Rome firmly under his control. The Pope had counted on the King of France to come to his rescue but that did not happen and soon his other allies abandoned him as well. On the other side, because of the seemingly endless wars and the many rebellions in Germany, the Emperor was cash-strapped and when his troops approached Rome they were tired, hungry, impoverished and angry.

The result was the horrific “sack of Rome” in which the Swiss Guard were wiped out, fighting to the last man to defend the Pope, who was himself nearly killed. Clement VII barricaded himself inside Castel Sant Angelo with as many Roman refugees as could be fit in while the imperial troops went on the rampage, committing acts of destruction, pillage, murder and sacrilege that are truly too terrible to repeat. It was worse than anything the barbarian invaders of Imperial Rome had ever done and a witness who was a veteran of the wars against the Muslims remarked that no Muslim was ever so cruel or vicious toward an enemy as the imperial troops were toward the helpless Romans. It was sadism and bloodlust run rampant. Now, to be fair, it must be said that Charles V could not have known that such an infamy would have happened, he certainly did not order it and he was horrified in the aftermath when he learned of the details. However, as it was he who sent the army to conquer Rome in the first place, he must accept the ultimate and theoretic responsibility for that. Still, he was aghast at what happened but still enough of a man of the world to use it to his advantage and in the aftermath of such an atrocity Pope Clement VII agreed to all of his demands and was then released from captivity by the end of the year. His power was unquestioned but, that being so, he was able to be magnanimous and restored the Papal States to Clement VII and Florence to the Medici family. Some may say it was largely symbolic but it was something a vindictive man would never have done and something he did not have to do in light of his victory.

In the aftermath, things continued to go well for Charles V. He worked to make peace with the Protestants in Germany, ending finally in 1532 with the Peace of Nurnberg that granted freedom of religion to the Protestants. In 1535 the Emperor led an attack on the Muslim forces in North Africa, capturing Tunis and the following year defeating French forces in Italy and repelling a French attack on the Low Countries. And, in the meantime, the Emperor reformed the legal system, financed Ferdinand Magellan in his voyage to circumnavigate the globe and saw the Spanish empire in the Americas continue to expand. However, the religious divide in Germany continued to be a problem with war flaring up again in 1547. The Emperor was again victorious but allowed the Protestants to keep what lands they had gained and to continue their religious practices in the peace that followed. It was a short-lived peace though as rebellion broke out again under the leadership of Maurice of Saxony. After more fighting Charles V decided the best way to restore order would be to enact a new law called the Peace of Augsburg which stated that the land and people would adopt the religion of their local noble lord. If he were Catholic, his people would be Catholic and if Protestant the people would be Protestant.

With peace again secured in Germany in 1555, by the following year Charles V was weary of his crowns and decided to abdicate. However, rather than leave everything to his heir to carry on as he had done, Charles V decided to divide the responsibilities and left his German crown to his brother Ferdinand and his Spanish crown (including the Low Countries) to his son Philip. In giving up power, he advised his son to trust God, maintain the Catholic faith and to respect the rights of his subjects. That done, the most powerful man in the western world walked away from it all and retired to a palace-monastery in Spain, devoting himself to prayer and reflection, where he lived the rest of his life, passing away a few years later in 1558. To his son and heir King Philip II, he apologized for not being able to do better and handing him a Europe that was torn by division, however, were it not for his stamina and determination, Europe would have looked considerably different. He had faced constant threats on almost every side and while not always totally successfully (especially in Germany) he could at least say that he had never been totally defeated. Through victory on the battlefield or negotiated concessions, he had maintained all he had inherited, even expanded it a little and left behind a Spain that was riding high, expanding in the New World, allied to England and a Germany that, while divided, was still at peace, dominant in Italy and which had seen the Turkish threat driven back from the gates of Vienna. Truly, Emperor Charles V had left a mark on the pages of history that few others, before or since, could hope to match.

Battlefield Royal: Prince Eugene of Savoy

In terms of nationality, categorizing Prince Eugene of Savoy can be a little complicated. He was an Italian by blood, born in France who gained a place in history as a general for the Hapsburgs of Austria. He was born in Paris on October 18, 1663 to Olympia Mancini (a niece of Cardinal Mazarin) and Eugene Maurice, Count of Soissons, Count of Dreux and Prince of Savoy (a grandson of Duke Carlo Emanuele I of Savoy) and son of the Prince of Carignano. At the time this was a collateral branch of the House of Savoy but it would eventually become the line that would make up the Kings of Italy. Eugene was the youngest of five sons who, along with their three sisters, saw little of their parents. His father was a dutiful soldier, usually off on campaign, and his mother was wrapped up in the petty politics of the French court surrounding King Louis XIV. Prince Eugene was not very old when his father died and scandal forced his mother to flee France across the Belgian border, then the territory of the House of Hapsburg. Prince Eugene, as a younger son, was expected to have a clerical occupation but the life of a priest did not appeal to the young Prince Eugene and he applied to King Louis XIV for a commission in the French army. Unfortunately (for France at least) the King refused, being rather unfavorable towards the family of the Prince and not terribly impressed by his, perhaps, over-confident attitude.

So it was that the Kingdom of France lost the chance to have as one of their own a man who would prove to be one of the greatest military leaders in history and certainly the most renowned captain of his age. Of course, throughout his childhood, no one expected Prince Eugene to pursue a military career at all. Considered to be something of a weakling and not at all attractive, the grandmother who mostly raised him pushed toward the Church but, as time would tell, the priesthood was not his calling. He went to Austria and joined the army of the Hapsburg Emperor, rising rapidly through the ranks, establishing his reputation early in the war to liberate Hungary from the Turks and the War of the Grand Alliance. His rise was based purely on merit; he won battles and was rewarded with promotion after each success so that by the time he was thirty he had already attained the position of field marshal.

Certain tactics would define the career of Prince Eugene of Savoy and win battle after battle for him; speed, mobility and clever use of the terrain to his own advantage. At these, Prince Eugene was a master and they proved a winning combination for him. During the War of the Spanish Succession he defeated the French at Carpi in 1701, joined with the British forces of the great Marlborough to defeat the French and Bavarians at Blenheim in 1704 and two years later led a victorious campaign that drove the French out of Italy. In 1708 he besieged and finally captured the French fortress at Lille, designed by the brilliant French military engineer Sebastien le Prestre de Vauban, which had previously been considered totally impregnable. That same year the Prince joined forced with Marlborough again to administer another victory over France in Flanders. Throughout his career, the Prince often made the supposedly impossible seem almost easy as he won battle after battle and campaign after campaign, rapidly gaining the reputation of one of the greatest military leaders of his time. Given that so many of his victories were over the armies of France, one cannot help but wonder if anyone in Paris cursed the seemingly inconsequential decision of King Louis XIV not to enlist the young Savoy in the French army as he had originally intended. One cannot help but wonder how history might have been changed if he had done so and if the Prince of Savoy had fought under the golden lilies instead of the double eagle.

Already a living legend in western Europe, Prince Eugene ended his career where he had first started it, fighting in the east against the Ottoman Turks. He fought his last major campaign in 1716 which saw a battle any observer would have expected to be his last. The Prince found himself totally surrounded by a massive Turkish army of 200,000 men with only a quarter as many in his own ranks. Anyone would have thought his fate was sealed. However, still true to character, the Prince kept his cool and would not even consider conceding the field and attempting to retreat. Instead, he targeted the Turkish artillery and launched a daring bayonet charge on the guns in the middle of the night, capturing the enemy position, throwing their army into confusion and snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. The entire situation was reversed and in the aftermath the Hapsburg armies marched triumphantly to liberate the city of Belgrade. After this campaign, the Prince retired from active duty in the field but continued to serve as a military advisor to Emperor Charles VI. Still, the Prince had always been drawn to the active and adventurous life of the soldier and that never went away so that he found it extremely difficult to remain behind a desk in Vienna. He could not resist joining the Austrian army in the field in the Rhine valley during the War of the Polish Succession. He died in Vienna two years later on April 21, 1736.

Still today Prince Eugene of Savoy stands as one of the most brilliant military leaders Europe has ever produced. He was a master at quick movements, assessing a situation and turning it to his advantage and he was never lacking in courage. In fact, he sustained many serious wounds throughout his career due to his habit of always leading from the front. He worked well with his allies and never seemed to have any prejudices against anyone other than the French against whom he remained quite bitter throughout his life. He abolished the custom of purchasing commissions in his army and promoted men based solely on their ability and his fondness for cavalry in scouting enemy positions and fighting in both mounted and dismounted roles would influence the Hapsburg armed forces for centuries. He also took great care to establish forward supply bases to keep his troops well fed and well equipped, proving the point that, as the old saying goes, ‘amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics’. His campaigns were brilliant and secured the place of Austria as the dominant power in the German-speaking world. Today he might not be as well remembered as some of the other great captains of history but the Comte de Saxe, Frederick the Great and Napoleon all studied his career and adopted his innovations. It says something that Napoleon, Emperor of the French, considered Prince Eugene of Savoy one of the most gifted and influential military leaders of all time. One cannot help but wonder what the Prince would have thought of such a compliment coming from such a quarter.

Still Explaining Joseph II

There are certain monarchs who I cannot help but having a great deal of mixed feelings about. More often than not, these involve monarchs from the “Enlightenment” era. In some cases, it is figures who I know I should like more for practical reasons yet I just cannot bring myself to do it. A perfect example of this is King Carlos III of Spain. He did a great deal of good for the Spanish empire, restoring it to some of its former glory, winning back some areas that had been lost, yet his “Enlightenment” policies of state centralization and restrictions on the Church put me off. Also, much of the gains he made for Spain was done by effectively allying with the American revolutionaries against Great Britain -understandable but a monarchist never enjoys seeing a monarchy side with republicans against another monarchy- and (faint-hearted hide your eyes) I will never be able to forgive the man for abolishing bullfighting. In somewhat the same way I have often described the great King Louis XIV of France as a monarch impossible to like but equally as impossible not to admire. Much of that, I will confess, simply comes down to style. The man exuded greatness and grandeur and glory. He was also a scheming, licentious libertine and part-time anti-clerical. But, at the same time, oh how glorious he was.

Another that comes up frequently, mostly because of his family name, is the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. I have noticed that, when compared to other royal houses, the Hapsburgs seem to have a larger number of extremely devoted adherents. Oftentimes these people are not even from any country over which the Hapsburgs ever held sway but they are always Catholic and usually devote much of their praise for the House of Hapsburg because of the (real, not simply perceived) devotion of that house to defending Catholicism. Yet, devotion to the Hapsburg monarchy often extends to such lengths that even on those occasions (not many but certainly numerous) that the Pope and the Hapsburg Emperor were at odds the defenders of the Hapsburgs will side with the Emperor rather than the Pope. As an example, there was the horrific sacking of Rome by the troops of Emperor Charles V in which Pope Clement VII was almost killed. The faithful will still defend the Emperor. It is true, he did not order the pillage, he was not present and he was horrified when he learned of it. However, it would be hard for me to imagine another monarch being extended the same benefit of these considerations rather than being castigated for having sent his armies against the Pope in the first place.

I point this out only because the reason often given for supporting the Emperor over the Pope (on the part of Catholics) is that, in these certain cases, they will argue that it was actually the Emperor who was looking out for the best interests of Christendom whereas the Pope had more narrow and self-serving interests. However, in spite of such attitudes, in my experience, the case of Emperor Joseph II is the one that is totally beyond the pale and even the most devoted admirers of the House of Hapsburg seldom have one good thing to say about the man. This is because, of course, of his rather anti-clerical policies and his “Enlightenment” effort to make religion more “reasonable”. Because of these attitudes I am often compelled to explain myself when it comes to my opinion of Emperor Joseph II because he is another one of those who manages to be on my “best” and “worst” lists at the same time. There are plenty of reasons for old fashioned Catholics (the best kind) to dislike the man, aside from the fact that he was not, personally, a very likeable fellow. All of these I would agree with and his religious policies are ones I cannot condone or overlook and would certainly never approve of. Yet, I also cannot help but think that some of the criticism of Joseph II goes a bit overboard and that there was also quite a bit to recommend him. As I said, I frequently feel the need to “explain” Joseph II.

When it comes to the things I like about Emperor Joseph II, near the top of the list must be (and I’m not ashamed to admit it) his ambition. He wanted the Hapsburg lands, what eventually became the Austrian Empire, to be the most powerful European state. Given that the subsequent Hapsburg emperors were all pretty good and given how history turned out (and admitting that I like the Hapsburgs and Austria) I tend to think this would have been a good thing and worked out to the benefit of Europe as a whole. In pursuit of this goal (and it often seems to me that his Catholic critics tend to gloss over it) Emperor Joseph II was energetic in his military campaigns against the Prussians to the north and the Ottoman Turks to the south. Like his mother, of course, Joseph II had the misfortune to be up against the great Frederick of Prussia who was one of the greatest military leaders Europe has ever produced. He also shared much of the Emperor’s “Enlightenment” sympathies and, after meeting him on the battlefield, came to have a degree of healthy respect for Joseph II. His wars against the Turks were frustrating affairs, carried out to a large extent because of his friendship and admiration for Imperial Russia. Little was gained, but at least the Turkish threat, which had once threatened Vienna, was kept at a safe distance. His real ambition was in Germany and the hope of gaining Bavaria. He brought in Transylvania and did begin crucial developments in the south to the benefit of the Croats and Serbs.

Had the Hapsburg empire become the strongest in Europe, I think things may well have worked out for the better (who can ever know for sure) and part of this involved, for Joseph II, German consolidation. His court was a very cosmopolitan one as was usual for Hapsburg Vienna, but Joseph II considered Germany the core of strength for his empire and one of his more controversial ideas was his effort to make German the common language of the Hapsburg domain. This is something some people have a problem with and I can certainly understand the fear of losing ethnic languages and the encroachment of dull uniformity. However, lest we forget, the nominal “state” of which Joseph II was Emperor was the “Holy Roman Empire of the German People”. The Roman part was historical, the legacy of Charlemagne and all of that but there was never any doubt that the core lands of this empire was Germany, not the Italian peninsula and the people who made up the bulk of the population were Germans and not Latins who mostly spoke a variety of German dialects rather than a variety of Italian ones and, of course, no longer Latin though it remained fairly widespread amongst the educated class. Given all of that, it does not seem entirely unreasonable that German be enforced as a common language. Of the multitude of languages spoken in the Hapsburg lands, there would be a greater justification for making German the official language rather than any of the others. This would also not mean (necessarily) that other minority languages would be abolished, only that in addition to your ethnic language everyone would be required to know (probably) High German. The diverse nature of the empire, ethnically and linguistically, is appealing but it was also a detriment in terms of administration, trade and the military, as was seen increasingly in the future, when everything had to be written in such a vast array of different languages. I cling to the archaic idea that a common language is not always necessary for a successful state but I do recognize that it usually helps.

Another fact I have often noticed, particularly in reading Catholic history books which most strongly criticize Emperor Joseph II, is the allocation of credit to later (and more Church-friendly) monarchs for policies which originated under Joseph II. One of the best examples I have seen of this is the oft-reported tolerance shown to the Jewish minority in late Austria-Hungary by Emperor Francis Joseph I. All of which is completely true. They had special provision made for them, even in the military, to be exempt from labor on the Sabbath and to have kosher meals. It is also usually mentioned (and truthfully so) that the Jews referred to the Emperor as the “King of Jerusalem” because of their affection for him. This was one of the many titles claimed by the Austrian Emperor, though also by the heir of the Two-Sicilies, the King of Spain and the King of Italy. I would certainly never object to Emperor Francis Joseph being praised for his kindness (I have a soft spot for him as well) but the fact remains that the same books which credit him for his broad-minded attitude toward the Jews neglect to mention that there was not religious freedom for the Jews, or any other group, until Emperor Joseph II made it so (which I cannot imagine the Holy See being very happy about at the time). For myself, I have observed that granting religious freedom does not always work out well but it seems unfair to credit later monarchs for upholding the policy while criticizing the one who enacted it in the first place. All credit where credit is due.

In similar fashion I have seen Francis Joseph I credited for his humility, displayed by sleeping on an army cot and preferring to wear a uniform as his usual attire. Yet, Emperor Joseph II also normally wore an army uniform rather than an elaborate civilian costume and, despite his often disagreeable personality, was known for opening up the parks to the entire public rather than just the aristocracy who complained somewhat over having to share their afternoon walks with peasants. The Emperor famously remarked that if he insisted on associating only with those of equal rank to himself, as Emperor, he would have to spend all his time in the imperial crypt. There are also numerous stories of Joseph II and his comical interactions with commoners who he would pick up in his carriage and give a ride to, revealing his lofty identity only well into the trip. On one such occasion he picked up a peasant who, after traveling for a little while, sought to pass the time by asking the Emperor to guess his occupation. They played that little game and then Joseph II asked the man to guess his occupation. The man looked him over and guessed he was a soldier. The Emperor said no, but that he did have a connection with the army. He asked if he was a government worker and the Emperor said no, but that he did have a connection with the government. After several wrong guesses the man asked in exasperation, “Well, who are you then, the Emperor?!” to which Joseph II responded in the affirmative. The man was horrified, dropped to his knees and begged to be let out of the carriage but the Emperor persuaded him to stay, saying that each then knew who the other was and they could continue on just as friendly as they had been when they first met.

The objectionable aspect of Joseph II was, of course, his religious policies and there is no denying the fact that they were disastrous. Some, today, might not find them so outrageous but many did at the time and I certainly consider them outrageous myself. This is an explanation and not a defense by any means. He expelled the Jesuits (a very fashionable thing to do at the time), closed down many convents and monasteries, reallocated Church lands, suppressed many popular devotions, processions and such things and determined to make the Church subservient to the state. This was rather standard procedure in Protestant countries but in Catholic countries it was an entirely different story as it invariably brought about a question of whether the loyalty of clerics belonged to the Pope in Rome or to their monarch. It was, perhaps, because of the very loyal image of the House of Hapsburg toward the Catholic Church that the actions of Joseph II stand out more than they might otherwise. His attitude toward the Church was certainly considerably different from his extremely pious and devout mother Empress Maria Theresa. In fact, it led to some tension between the two when Francis I died and Joseph II succeeded him as Holy Roman Emperor. For instance, when Joseph II expelled the Jesuits from all his lands, his mother was quick to give them refuge on her own properties. However, the actions of Joseph II should be kept in context and the reasons behind his atrocious religious policies should at least be understood.

Some have tried to compare Joseph II to one of the previous Holy Roman Emperors, the “Wonder of the World” Frederick II of the House of Hohenstaufen. This is, all in all, rather unfair. Whereas Frederick II truly seemed to be something of a skeptic, keeping his own harem, incurring excommunication and at times being openly at war with the Pope and once so arousing the Roman nobles against him that the Pope was driven out of Rome. He also tried to gather a council to depose the Pontiff. Joseph II, on the other hand, had no desire to conquer Italy, never went to war against the Pope or sought to have him removed and, despite his occasional skeptical comments, heard mass every morning of every day of his life. To say he was a better Catholic than Frederick II is, of course, not saying much but it at least shows that his problems with the Church certainly did not rise to the level of Frederick II or even a number of his other predecessors on the imperial throne. His own Hapsburg ancestor Charles V, known as a champion of Catholic Europe, fought against the Pope and his troops (quite without imperial knowledge or approval) devastated Rome itself on a level more gruesome than any of the barbarians of ancient times had ever done. Things were, of course, different in the times when Popes were political figures and engaged in wars and alliances with and against various powers, usually shifting between Catholic France and Catholic Austria for fear of either one becoming too powerful and thus threatening Papal Rome. The actions of Joseph II could more justly be compared to those of King Louis XIV of France who also was at odds with the Pope over his effort to bring the Catholic Church in France under royal control. Where Joseph II differed from the “Sun King” was in the conduct of his personal life. In that regard, Joseph II was as far from the amorous, philandering Bourbon king as the east is from the west.

It is also true, as was the case more often than one would think, that the Emperor got some of his first encouragement in asserting state control over the Church from a high-ranking cleric, the Auxiliary Bishop of Trier from whom the term “Febronianism” is derived, due to his pen-name. The intent of his work was to deny that the papacy is a monarchy (which most Catholics today seem to do anyway) in an effort to bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church by uniting around the secular monarch at the head of the state. As it happens, the actual Prince-Archbishop Elector of Trier (and the last) was a cousin of Joseph II. The Prince-Archbishop himself did not agree with everything the Emperor did but also himself suppressed certain traditional practices. The point behind everything he did, which justifies nothing but helps to understand why he did it, was “reason”. These religious policies, despicable as they were, and I think they were, did not, in my opinion, originate in any malice on the part of Joseph II. He wanted the Church to be practical and “reasonable” and he also wanted to centralize everything under his own control, in secular and spiritual matters. That was why he wanted all the bishops to take an oath of allegiance to him as Emperor. Today this is commonplace and expected but, at the time, it was very controversial for a bishop to swear allegiance to anyone other than the Pope. Even that was nothing new, but combined with government supervision of seminaries, the state deciding where tithe money would go and all the rest, it all served to infuriate the Catholic hierarchy against the Emperor.

Joseph II wanted things to be simple and practical. His closure of about a third of the monasteries and convents (not all of them) was because he saw no practical value in people living cloistered lives of contemplation. He closed churches but also built a great many of them (using the money from confiscated Church properties) so that parishes would be more evenly distributed throughout the empire rather than scattered about. So, we have the picture of a man who drastically cut down the number of holy days (since these reduced productivity by giving people so many days off work) but who also wanted all of his subjects to have to travel no more than about an hour to reach a church. This is why, as much as I oppose his religious policies, I cannot see him as having a malicious intent behind them in the way that the French Revolutionaries did later. Similarly, whereas they eventually invaded Rome and carried off the Pope as a prisoner, Pope Pius VI felt comfortable enough with Emperor Joseph II to leave Rome willingly to pay him a visit. The Emperor treated the Pontiff with all due respect and behaved in every way as a good Catholic should have toward him but, showing his famous single-mindedness and authoritarian nature, refused to change any of his policies after hearing the arguments of the Pope. An unfortunate thing to be sure, but two men meeting in a palace and stating their opposing cases is quite a far cry from troops besieging Castel Sant Angelo or someone standing barefoot in the snow for days on end. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, both before and after listing all the “problems” Joseph II had with the Church says that, “Joseph undertook his reforms with the best intentions”.

In the end, most of what he attempted ended up being more trouble than it was worth. As his contemporary and battlefield opponent Frederick the Great famously said, ‘he tries to take the second step before the first’. Despite the “Enlightenment” origins of many of his ideas, he was nonetheless and extremely ardent monarchial absolutist and was horrified by the growing French Revolution and determined to save his sister Marie Antoinette from their clutches, though he died too soon. His reforms created division and dissension rather than uniting the empire as he wished (or Austria at least) but many of his efforts would, I think, have been beneficial had they been fully carried out just as many others should never have been tried. People may have complained that his poor houses looked like army barracks but his court attracted some of the greatest artists and musicians in the world and he showed them sufficient favor to be known in artistic circles as the ‘musical Kaiser’. There was a great deal of cultural achievements alongside the drab government housing, there were some things he did that were entirely terrible and there were things he did or tried to do that would have been quite beneficial had they been carried out and continued. All of this is why I cannot give him unqualified praise but still cringe when he is harshly criticized and why he is one of those few monarchs who can appear on both my “best” and “worst” lists at the same time.

My Favorite Hapsburg Emperors

I - Emperor Charles V: Charles V was elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. His coronation by Pope Clement VII in Bologna in 1530 was the last ceremony of its kind to date. As the ruler of the lands around Austria, the Low Countries and Spain, with new explorations claiming territory in the Americas, his was the first empire upon which it was said that the sun never set. He was also a man beset by enemies but had a level of determination up to the task, fighting Protestant rebels in Germany, the French in northern Italy and the Turks in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. In 1525 he won a great victory of France at Pavia, after which the King of France and the Pope allied against him. Charles later made peace with the Protestants, captured Tunis in North Africa, reformed the law code, defeated a French attack on the Low Countries and sent Magellan on his historic voyage of circumnavigation. In 1556 he abdicated and retired to a life of prayer.

II - Empress Maria Theresa: After inheriting the throne of her father in 1740, Empress Maria Theresa was immediately attacked by a large alliance of nations who meant to prevent her succession including the great Frederick II of Prussia, the finest soldier in Europe. Though she was only 23, she refused to give in or show weakness and put up a spirited struggle, losing some territory but retaining her crown. She restored the Austrian economy by taxing the nobility and lowering taxes on the common people. She reformed the army, improved the legal system and made education available to everyone. Under her rule, the peasants gained their freedom and the right to own their own land. The Empress was a devout and pious Catholic woman and gave refuge to the Society of Jesus when others (even her own son) exiled them. In 1772 she gained territory for Austria in the first partition of Poland, perhaps the only regrettable decision she ever made.

III - Emperor Joseph II: Elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1765, Joseph II was an “Enlightened Despot” in every sense of the word. He was ambitious, not very personally charming, autocratic and at the same time extremely forward thinking. He was the first to grant (limited) freedom of religion in the Hapsburg lands, freed the serfs and tried to enforce German as the official common language of the empire. His dream was to make the Hapsburg Empire the most powerful in Europe, leading to clashes with Prussia and the Turks. Joseph II was a great patron of music, most famously commissioning work from Mozart. He built the first truly public parks and housing for the poor. Because of all he did to improve their lives the common folk adored him, hailing him as the “People’s Emperor”. Unfortunately, he brought religion under state control and so earned the wrath of the clergy and many nobles. Though he heard mass every morning of his life he was suspected of being a skeptic.

IV - Emperor Francis Joseph I: Not the most successful Hapsburg emperor in history by any means, Francis Joseph was nevertheless a monarch who refused to adjust his principles, a good and upright man who always sought to do his duty to the best of his ability and to serve the best interests of his people. He came to the throne in 1848, put down the revolutions and reestablished the House of Hapsburg as the great stabilizing force in central Europe. His personal life was beset by tragedy and the international situation for Austria (later Austria-Hungary) declined after a series of diplomatic and military disasters. Nonetheless, Francis Joseph held things together by his own integrity, work ethic and devotion to duty. The country was also developing rapidly and the prestige of the monarchy remained strong until the onset of the First World War in 1914, a conflict the Emperor had deep concerns over and which he had to be deceived into declaring.

V - Emperor Charles I: Coming to the throne in the midst of World War I in 1916, the new monarch already had a reputation as a brave soldier, devoted husband and father and a sincere man of God. He saw monarchy as a sacred duty and behaved accordingly. The Emperor viewed the alliance with Germany as a prison, distrusted the Germans and devoted himself to extricating Austria-Hungary from the First World War. He showed himself willing to sacrifice considerable territories if only he could gain peace but the Allies proved implacable. He agreed to reorganizing the Hapsburg empire into a confederation of autonomous national states but was never allowed the time to carry out such a plan. When the end came in 1918 he bowed to the inevitable but refused to abdicate, viewing such a thing as a renunciation of his responsibility to God. After being forced into exile he tried twice to regain his Hungarian throne but was loathe to shed the blood of his own people.

Not so favorites: Emperor Ferdinand I for not taking religion more into account and his son Maximilian II for not making up his mind on which faith he wanted to follow and, yes, Joseph II -who makes my best and worst lists at the same time for his needless religious antagonism.

What Is So Special About The Hapsburgs?

The Imperial House of Hapsburg, later the Imperial and Royal House of Hapsburg-Lorraine, occupies a giant place in world history. This is no exaggeration as there have been relatively few regions of the world in which the House of Hapsburg did not play some part in the past. Over the centuries members of this august and noble family have provided Archdukes of Austria, Holy Roman Emperors, Kings of Spain, Kings of Hungary, Kings of Bohemia, Emperors of Austria and even one Emperor of Mexico and one (nominal) King of England. Countries as diverse as Spain, Belgium and Austria reached their “Golden Ages” under Hapsburg rule. The name of the family originates from a castle in what is now Switzerland called Habsburg, which was the center of power for the family until 1276 when Rudolph of Hapsburg became Archduke of Austria, a title his family would hold from that time forward. In 1452 the Hapsburgs finally achieved the highest temporal place in Christendom when Frederick III was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Nicholas V, cementing the leading place the family had played in Germany and northern Italy for some time prior. Hapsburg power and influence expanded rapidly.

Although the ranks of the Hapsburgs included many able soldiers and sailors, most of the expansion of the family was not accomplished by conquest but by matrimonial alliances. This gave rise to the saying that, “Others make war, but thou, O happy Austria, only marry”. It may have been a slight exaggeration but for the most part this was true. Duke Albert V brought Bohemia and Hungary into the Hapsburg fold by marrying Elisabeth of Luxembourg, Emperor Maximilian I gained the Low Countries by marrying Mary of Burgundy and his son, Philip the Fair, married Joanna of Castile which ultimately brought the united Spain into the Hapsburg orbit. This finally united all the Hapsburg domains in the person of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who was also King Carlos I of Spain. His rule stretched over countries in Eastern Europe, Austria and Germany, northern Italy, the Low Countries, Spain and from Spain across the ocean to the New World. It was this Hapsburg empire about which it was first said that ‘the sun never set’.

It was also under Emperor Charles V that the House of Hapsburg first became the great Catholic champions of Europe. It was he who argued with Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms and fought Protestants in Germany, the French in Italy and the Muslims in the Mediterranean. The Hapsburg lands were divided at his abdication between the Spanish and the Austrian territories and it was his son, King Philip II of Spain, who fought the Protestants in France, expanded Spanish influence from Central America to The Philippines, lifted the siege of Malta, stung the Turks at Lepanto and sent his “Invincible Armada” on its doomed voyage against England. Later, in the other Hapsburg domain, it was the Holy Roman Emperors Ferdinand II and Ferdinand III who tried to stop the spread of Protestantism and return the German states entirely to the Catholic Church in the Thirty Years War. This might have been achieved were it not for the intervention of France which resulted in the war ending in a stalemate. The Hapsburg line died out in Spain but continued in Austria though as the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine when the Empress Maria Theresa married the Duke of Lorraine who became Emperor Francis I. Empress Maria Theresa continued the tradition of the Hapsburgs being a bulwark of Catholicism in Eastern Europe at a time of growing skepticism and secularism.

The Spanish Hapsburgs lost The Netherlands in a long war for independence which was also a front for the ongoing conflict between Catholics and Protestants. However, Belgium remained in Hapsburg hands and under the governorship of Infanta Isabella of Spain and Archduke Albert of Austria reached its “Golden Age” in terms of prosperity, art, religion and learning. However, after this period, Hapsburg influence in Germany, particularly northern Germany, began to decline. Still, the Hapsburg court remained world famous. Under Emperor Joseph II there was a turn toward the principles of the “Enlightenment” as well as patronage for some of the greatest musical geniuses of history, most notably Mozart and Beethoven. His policies made him extremely popular with the common people but often quite unpopular with the aristocracy and the clergy. The French Revolution had a dramatic impact on the House of Hapsburg, as it did most every great house in Europe.

The lovely tragic Queen of France, Marie Antoinette, who lost her life on the Paris guillotine was the sister of Emperor Joseph II (daughter of Empress Maria Theresa). Another sister was Maria Carolina, Queen of Naples who was displaced by the French invasion of Italy. After Napoleon Bonaparte ended the French Revolution and began his wars to dominate Europe, one of his most talented battlefield opponents was the Austrian Archduke Charles. When the Frenchman determined to make himself Emperor this brought about the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire with the Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor Francis II becoming Emperor Francis I of Austria in 1804. In fact, the Holy Roman Empire had long been a mostly nominal entity for some time prior to that. It was always little more than a confederation of minor German monarchies though under certain emperors it became more centralized and more like a formal German nation-state. However, decentralized power was an old tradition for the Hapsburgs. During their rule of Spain, a great deal of localism remained and there was not a great deal of centralization until after the Spanish Hapsburgs died out and were replaced by the French House of Bourbon. In Austria, there had not been much centralization of power under the Hapsburgs until the reign of Emperor Joseph II.

Francis I, ruler of the Austrian Empire, became related to the parvenu Bonaparte clan when Napoleon married his daughter Marie Louise who became Empress of the French and mother to the future “King of Rome” Napoleon II. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars had also caused a large surge in nationalism and this would have a large impact on the House of Hapsburg which remained the most influential (if not the most powerful) royal family in Germany while also reigning over Czechs, Slovaks, Magyars, Slovenians, Croatians, Italians, Serbs and Romanians among others. In 1815 Emperor Francis I became the first President of the German Confederation, a loose organization of German-speaking states which included mostly lands he did not rule and only those predominately German areas among the lands he did. The German Confederation survived until the reign of Emperor Francis Joseph I, after which it became the German Empire under the leadership of the House of Hohenzollern of the Kingdom of Prussia. The reign of Emperor Francis Joseph I was the twilight of the House of Hapsburg. He came to the throne amidst the tumultuous Revolutions of 1848 which was a near disaster for the Austrian Empire with a rebellion in Hungary being suppressed only with the aid of Russian troops sent by the “Gendarme of Europe” Tsar Nicholas I.

In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, the Austrian statesman Prince Metternich had played a leading role in re-drawing the map of Europe to maintain a balance of powers and uphold legitimate authority. However, as he passed from the scene a series of events worked in concert to upset that balance. Emperor Francis Joseph was a good man and a solid, stable monarch. Nonetheless, he was not immune from making mistakes and at times also faced situations in which he could only choose the lesser of two unfortunate options. Growing unrest in Hungary obliged the Emperor to agree to a dual monarchy in which power was shared between the Germans of Austria and the Magyars of Hungary, hence the Austrian Empire was replaced by the “Dual Empire” of Austria-Hungary in 1867. Politicians cut the military budget, weakening Austria at a time when innovations were changing the nature of war rapidly.

In 1859 Austria allowed herself to be provoked into a war with France which ultimately resulted in the loss of most of the Hapsburg possessions in Italy to the House of Savoy. In 1866 the Hapsburg-led German Confederation opposed the expansion of the Kingdom of Prussia in the north which resulted in a war between Austria and Prussia (and the allies of Prussia including most of the north German states and Italy) which saw Austria pushed out of German politics after which even the Catholic German states of the south moved into the orbit of Prussia. The friendly ties with the massive Russian Empire were ended when Emperor Francis Joseph refused to take sides in the Crimean War (seeing neither side as justified) which caused great offense in Russia in light of the aid they had given the Hapsburgs in maintaining their rule over Hungary. The expansion of Austria-Hungary southward, such as with the annexation of Bosnia, angered the Serbians in particular and soon Austria-Hungary was almost surrounded by powers who viewed her with suspicion if not outright hostility. This, along with the fact that the Austrians were not immune from feelings of nationalism either, meant that Austria-Hungary joined in a firm alliance with the new German Empire that had previously displaced her.

So it was that by the beginning of the XX Century Austria-Hungary was beset by problems. Romania, Serbia and Italy also longed to reclaim historic territories under Hapsburg rule. Russia also wished to block Austrian expansion into the Balkans at the expense of Slavic peoples and the division of power with Hungary caused other minorities within the Hapsburg realm to demand the same for their particular group. Nonetheless, Austria-Hungary was not, as some like to claim, a feeble patchwork doomed to inevitable collapse. In military terms, Austria-Hungary could mobilize three million troops and had some of the finest, most state-of-the-art artillery in the world. The brightest lights in art, architecture, music, medicine and other sciences still called Vienna home and industry was growing, railroads were expanding and the economic situation was strengthening. Between 1870 and 1913 the per capita GNP of Austria-Hungary grew at a higher rate than Great Britain, France of even Germany. Internal problems were a major concern, but there were many ideas for new models being considered and discussed, from changing from “dualism” to “trialism” to creating a federal “United States of Greater Austria”. Had it not been for the disaster that was the First World War the Hapsburg Empire may well have continued on, adapting when necessary, as it had for centuries.

Unfortunately, that was not to be. Despite the last-ditch efforts of the last Emperor Charles I (later beatified as Blessed Charles I by Pope John Paul II) the alliance with Germany proved impossible to withdraw from and while Germany did well Austria-Hungary survived, the final defeat of Germany and the other Central Powers meant the total dissolution of the Hapsburg empire. Austria was reduced to a small, landlocked state, deprived of the ability to unite with Germany, Hungary was drastically reduced in size, Czechoslovakia was created, Yugoslavia was created (eventually) and other bits of territory were parceled out to Poland, Italy, Romania with most going to Serbia to create Yugoslavia. It was a dark time for the House of Hapsburg but, for a time, there was some hope for a restoration. Two attempts were made to restore Charles to the throne of Hungary but these ran afoul of the regent, Admiral Horthy, who would not give up power. The Allies also remained inexplicably hostile to a Hapsburg restoration. The last Emperor died and the family legacy was left to his son Archduke Otto. After the “Fatherland Front” came to power in Austria there was again talk of a restoration of the Hapsburg throne but the Nazis moved in to occupy and later annex Austria to prevent this from happening.

HIRH Archduke Otto von Hapsburg was an inveterate enemy of the Nazi regime and would remain opposed to nationalist movements throughout his life. After seeing so many of the countries that would have been part of his empire fall under communist rule, the Archduke became a leading advocate of European unity and the pan-European movement. A respected scholar and statesman, in a move whose circumstances he later expressed regret over, the Archduke renounced his claim to the Hapsburg throne in order to be involved on the political scene and he had an illustrious career as a member of the European Parliament. Such an effort could hardly have a better champion than a member of the House of Hapsburg since there is scarcely a country in Europe the family was not associated with to some degree at some point in history. Today the cosmopolitan nature of the family continues with different members of the Hapsburg family being socially or politically involved in numerous countries of the former Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. They occupy a unique place in world history and European history in particular. Their impact on the world, over the many centuries they held power, was significant to say the very least.

The Feast of Charlemagne

It would be hard to overestimate the impact on western history of Charlemagne, whose feast day falls on today (at least by those who recognize it). Considered something of a “founding father” by both the nations of France and Germany, Charlemagne brought a great deal of new “light” to the “Dark Ages” by defeating barbarian raiders, restoring law and order and stable government throughout much of western and central Europe. His reign would also see a restoration of Rome, in a way, as his coronation as “Emperor of the Romans” marks the birth of the Holy Roman Empire. Royals from France, Germany, Austria and Italy have attached themselves to his legacy, the Christendom of the old Roman Empire began to revive under his rule and no less a figure than HH Pope John Paul II referred to him as the “father of Europe”. He was an astute statesman, a fairly tolerant lawgiver and a bold warrior whose accomplishments would not be rivaled for centuries to come. No matter which way one looks at him, Charlemagne was quite a man.

Not much is known about his origins, his birth place being listed as various places, usually western Germany or Belgium. Charles (Charlemagne - Charles the Great - Carolus Magnus -we all know that right?) was a descendant of Charles Martel, “the Hammer” who defeated the Muslim invasion of France at Tours. His son was Pepin, King of the Franks, who was the father of Charlemagne and Carloman. When Pepin died in about 768 he divided his lands between his two sons but after Carloman died in 771 Charlemagne got it all, roughly what is now western Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. From the start, and certainly by the time of his death, no one had ruled more of western Europe since the days of the old Roman Emperors. However, there was no mistaking the fact that Charlemagne was what the Romans would have called a “barbarian” himself, meaning he was of the Germanic rather than the Latin branch of the European tree. His private life was not always exemplary, he was a Christian certainly but not above carrying out forced conversions, he was illiterate yet was not uneducated and was multi-lingual with a knowledge of many of the available scholarly works of his time even if he could not read them himself. In the tumultuous days of the Dark Ages, things like reading and writing were left to scribes and monks as the paramount duty of a king was to be a warrior, defending his land and people.

Right from the start he marched his knights into the eastern lands of Germany, where no Roman legions had ever tread, to take on the pagan Saxons who were still occasionally carrying out human sacrifices and eating each other -not exactly civilized behavior by any definition. Charlemagne and his mostly Frankish army gave the Saxons a sound thrashing, made them promise to be good little boys and girls and then marched off to their next adventure. That came when the Pope in Rome started having trouble with the Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. So, it was Charlemagne to the rescue, wiping out Lombardy and possibly having the Iron Crown placed on his head -that’s not definite but in any event he made himself King of the Lombards by conquest before going on to Rome to accept the thanks of a grateful Pope, see the sights and buy a few postcards for the wives. But, just as he was picking up coliseum t-shirt word came that the Saxons were running wild again and he had to round up his knights and march back to Germany. Once again, he gave them a good drubbing but this time decided that there would be no peace until the Saxons found Jesus. Being a man of action rather than words, Charlemagne had all the Saxons rounded up, pointed a few swords and lances at them and “encouraged” them to become good Catholics.

With that done and dusted, Charlemagne turned his attention to Spain which had been almost completely conquered by the Muslims. Unfortunately, the Muslims proved a much more formidable adversary than the northern barbarians had been and Charlemagne wasn’t exactly at the top of his game. To make a long story short, Charlemagne took a dusting and was forced to give up on the idea of liberating Spain and go back to France. Many mistakes were made and about the only good thing to come out of it was the famous tribute to suicidal bravery in the “Song of Roland”. Charlemagne was pretty bummed after this and devoted himself to more peaceful campaigns to develop his still strengthening Carolingian Empire. Combat was never too far off in those times though and soon, you guessed it, those naughty Saxons were causing problems again in 782.

It seems when everyone was swearing to be good Catholics some of the Saxon big-shots had their fingers crossed and it took a long, grueling war for Charlemagne to subdue them again. There were still armies in the field when Charlemagne and the Saxon king agreed to peace with Charlemagne leaving Saxony to the Saxons so long as the King was baptized. He did, Charlemagne loaded him down with gifts, the Pope sent him a pat on the back and there was much rejoicing. Charles then settled down in the town of Aachen, taking time out occasionally to thrash the Avars and punish heretics and corrupt clergymen. Although he did not take ‘sins of the flesh’ very seriously, at least concerning himself and his own family, Charlemagne was very conscious of being a Christian monarch and was determined to keep Church affairs orderly. He was, in this regard, not unlike the first Christian Emperor Constantine who was not without his personal flaws but who wanted a clearly understood and defined religion everyone could unite behind and he was willing to use his position to ensure that the Church was protected, its message was clear and its clergy upright.

All of this coincided with his efforts to increase defensive measures against the Vikings from the north, the pagans from the east and the Muslims to the south. Finally, the most triumphal moment for Charlemagne came on Christmas of 800 when he was crowned Emperor of the Romans at St Peter’s Basilica by Pope St Leo III. There is still some debate over whether this was planned, if Charlemagne knew it was going to happen or not but in any event it did happen and it was a pivotal moment in the history of western Europe. It marked the start of what would be known as the Holy Roman Empire (later the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), a revival of the Imperial Roman legacy in the west and, somewhat controversially, a sign that the Pope had more or less ‘given up’ on the Byzantine Empire of the east as the protector of the Latin Church in the west. The Great Schism was still some way off but squabbles and tensions had been going on for some time even at that point and by crowning Charlemagne the Pope was effectively saying that he felt it more prudent to trust the converted former barbarians than the remnant of the Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople.

Charlemagne died not too many years after in 814. His empire was divided up among his sons, none of whom could quite match his achievements and the Holy Roman Empire would have to wait until the reign of Otto the Great to see itself reformed and solidified into a major power again. Nonetheless, European history would certainly not have developed as it did without Charlemagne, King of Franks and Lombards and Emperor of the Romans. He had rescued Europe from the worst period of the Dark Ages and set the stage for the rebuilding of Christian civilization in the west. Much was left to be done but none of it would have happened without the giant historical figure of Charlemagne. In recognition of his great achievements he was locally beatified soon after his death as Blessed Charles the Great, his feast day being January 28 where it is celebrated. Pope Benedict XIV much later confirmed this beatification and though he was formally canonized by the anti-Pope Paschal III in 1166 this step was never taken by the official Church hierarchy. However, his great contributions cannot be denied, his influence is still felt and the Latin West lost its first Holy Roman Emperor 1,198 years ago today.