The Emperor's Library (II): Emperor Augustus

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.

MM Video: King George III

Shameless Plug

Favorite Royal Images: Royal Allies

The first "Big Three": Czar Nicholas II of Russia, King George V of Great Britain and King Albert I of the Belgians.

Monarch Profile: King Leopold II of the Belgians

It is safe to say that no other Belgian monarch is as controversial as King Leopold II. He was born in Brussels on April 9, 1835 to King Leopold I and Queen Louise-Marie and named Louis Philippe Marie Victor. His childhood was not a very happy one. His mother thought his prominent nose made him look deformed and his father referred to him as “the little tyrant”. Whereas his brother Philippe was jovial and popular and his sister was the charming and studious favorite of their father, Leopold was shy, awkward and walked with a limp. He seemed to be always compared to his siblings and his widely respected father and never favorably. It is not surprising that much of his future reign would be devoted to succeeding in the task his father was never able to, namely making Belgium an imperial power.

In 1853 Prince Leopold entered the senate to begin gaining some experience at statecraft and on August 22 married the teenage Archduchess Marie-Henriette of Austria. The couple went on to have four children; Princess Louise-Marie, Prince Leopold, Princess Stephanie and Princess Clementine. However, their marriage was not a happy one. Some said Leopold could be charming when he wished but he seldom seemed to wish it in the domestic setting, he was an unfaithful husband and had a rather scandalous private life before and after the passing of his long suffering wife in 1902. It was on December 17, 1865, after the death of his father, that Leopold II took his oath as the new King of the Belgians but there were troubles from the very start. The delegation he sent to Mexico to announce his accession to his sister, Empress Carlota, was attacked by republican bandits and massacred. There was an uproar in Belgium and Leopold II closed the recruiting office for the Belgian Legion, which his sister naturally regarded as almost an act of betrayal; her brother leaving her high and dry in a distant and increasingly hostile land. When the Mexican adventure ended in disaster and Carlota returned home insane with grief over the loss of her husband and adopted country Leopold took relatively little notice of her.

Leopold II was obsessed with achieving international greatness for Belgium and in 1876 he convened an international conference on the exploration of central Africa. This led, the following year, to his sending out the intrepid Henry Morton Stanley to sign treaties with local chieftains and lay the foundations for colonial expansion. Stanley did his work well and in 1885 the Berlin Conference recognized Leopold II as King-Sovereign of the Congo Free State which was to be in personal union with the Crown of Belgium. This effectively made Leopold II private owner of a vast central African empire some 80x larger than his entire country. In 1890 King Leopold II organized a military campaign from the Congo Free State to eradicate the Arab slave trade in central Africa which was still booming at the time.

This expedition was a success but Leopold also set up a framework for the economic development of the Congo which eventually led to immense profits from the rubber trees there (which greatly took off after the invention of the bicycle and automobile) but also immense cruelties inflicted on the Congolese population. It is for this horror that Leopold II is most remembered these days but a few key facts should be kept in mind. First of all, a lot of the numbers that are tossed about as to the number of people who died are quite often simply absurd, at times ranging from 50% to the entire estimated population of the Congo. Obviously, if these extreme statistics are believed absolutely no one would have been making any profit at all. Perhaps most importantly though is that Leopold II was not inflicting these atrocities intentionally. That is often the image that is portrayed with the King being compared to Hitler. Undoubtedly the King was a hard man and often an unsavory character but it is an absolute lie that the horrors of the Congo were purposely carried out by him. Where he can be blamed is in setting up the system whereby his local officials were paid based on the amount of rubber they produced -which would have seemed to make economic sense but which provided an incentive for unscrupulous officials to brutalize the natives in order to enrich themselves. Also, contrary to what many believe, Leopold was troubled by the reports that began to circulate about the savagery going on in the Congo but, and he can be blamed for this, he was all too willing to believe advisors who assured him these were malicious lies.

Eventually, however, the reports and international criticism became too great to ignore and in 1904 (though he is seldom given credit for this) it was King Leopold who sent a commission to the Congo to investigate these reports. Many have dismissed these inquisitors as hand-picked “yes men” Leopold knew would never report anything negative. Again, this is untrue as the commission met with native people and leaders as well as colonial officials and returned with a very balanced report. They cited the advances made by the King’s investments; the roads, schools, hospitals and local infrastructure that had been created, the humanitarian work done by the often heroic missionaries but it also reported that a great many abuses were going on as well, many people had died, many mutilated and many more exploited. Once this was done King Leopold issued new regulations to correct this situation and in 1908 the Congo Free State became a colony, the Belgian Congo, under the control of the government rather than being the personal property of the King.

All of this is said in an effort to be fair -not to sugar coat the facts. One does not have to intentionally wipe out an entire population to be a ‘bad guy’. Whether it was his cold, autocratic nature toward his family or his scandalous private life there is no doubt King Leopold II would have been seen as an unsavory character regardless of what happened in Africa. The suffering was immense but the fact remains that his guilt lies in setting up a system which inadvertently encouraged exploitation rather than a deliberate campaign of genocide. Such accusations in that direction are certainly untrue. He was not a completely heartless man and was reluctant to have even criminals whose guilt had been proven put to death. He wanted Belgium to become an imperial power and to embellish his country and this he certainly did. Long known as the “Builder King” many of the most magnificent buildings and national monuments in Belgium, such as the Cinquantenaire were built by Leopold at his own expense.

However, on the international stage Leopold II was mostly unpopular among his peers. Part of this, it must be said, was due to jealousy over his success and the fact that many larger countries felt little Belgium had achieved a status out of proportion to her size. Much of it though was due to the King himself, because of the private scandals and the suffering in the Congo associated with him. In personal dealings the King put people off and made them uncomfortable, partly because of his own character and partly, no doubt, because of the image portrayed of him in the anti-monarchy and anti-colonial press. Nonetheless, he insisted that he cared nothing for popularity, though this may have been a defense mechanism rather than a genuine sentiment. One other thing Leopold II always stressed was his belief in a military policy of armed neutrality with defense based on military preparedness rather than simply trusting international agreements. As he was on his deathbed the conscription act he had long sought was finally passed. In this area too the coming Great War would prove the unpopular monarch to have been correct.

Also, five days before his death, Leopold II married his long-time paramour, a woman of ill-repute by whom he had two illegitimate children, in a religious ceremony (there was no civil marriage). He died on December 17, 1909. He said he wanted only a small, private funeral but he was given the full royal treatment though there was not exactly widespread grief at the passing of this man who seemed to have been unpopular since the day he was born. His own family was aware of how the reputation of the Belgian monarchy had suffered during his reign. When he came to the Belgian throne in 1865 King Leopold II declared that, “all that I desire is to leave Belgium larger, stronger and more beautiful”. If that was his only standard of success Leopold II was a successful monarch as he did do all of those things. However, his name will forever be tainted by the many scandals of his reign, paramount amongst them being the horror that existed in the Congo Free State. Thankfully, his successor would be a man of impeccable character, embodying everything that a good King should be.

MM Video: The May Queen

It was on this day in 1946 that Prince Umberto II and Princess Marie Jose of Belgium became the last King and Queen of Italy. Because of the short time of their reign Maria Jose has been known as "the May Queen".

A Message to all Mothers

Economic Crisis in Greece Continues

Consort Profile: Marie Henriette of Austria

The Archduchess Marie Henriette Anne of Austria was born in Budapest, Hungary on August 23, 1836 to the Archduke Joseph of Austria, Palatine of Hungary and his wife Maria Dorothea of Wurttemberg. Her grandfather was the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II and she had a happy life in Hungary where he father was very popular amongst the Magyar population. She loved horseback riding and the wide open spaces Hungary. However, she was just a teenager when her fate was sealed by a marriage arranged mostly by her mother and the Belgian King Leopold I. Leopold was a Protestant monarch in a Catholic country but he had his children raised Catholic and wanted the newly independent Belgium to be accepted into the community of established Catholic monarchies. There seemed no better way to accomplish this than to marry his son and heir to the granddaughter of a Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor. For the family of Archduchess Marie Henriette the match also offered the chance of their daughter becoming a Queen.

So it was that at the age of 17 she was married to the 18-year-old Prince Leopold, considered even at that age to be a rather cold and off-putting character. It was not to be a happy marriage and ill-omens seemed present from the very start. Leopold was taken ill and had to send a substitute to stand-in for him at his own wedding ceremony. The couple could not have been more mismatched. Marie Henriette was vivacious, boisterous and outgoing. Leopold was shy, aloof and grim. About the only thing they had in common was being short-tempered which naturally did not bode well for the future. One observer referred to the match as that of a stable boy and a nun (the princess being the stable boy and the prince being the nun). Leopold seemed willing to tolerate his bride only for the purpose of obtaining an heir and even that required some marriage counseling from his relatives Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Great Britain.

Their relationship was strained from the very start but, nonetheless, children were eventually forthcoming. Princess Louise Marie Amelie was born in 1858 but a son was what was required. The next year the job was done with the birth of Prince Leopold Ferdinand, followed in 1864 by another girl; the Princess Stephanie. The next year Marie Henriette officially became Queen when her husband succeeded his father as King Leopold II of the Belgians. Now on the throne and with the succession secured it seemed that the royal couple could take a break from each other. However, disaster struck with the death of the little Prince Leopold in 1869. Marie Henriette was grief stricken and it seemed to many that Leopold II blamed her for the loss of his son. They tried the baby game one more time but when the result was another daughter, Princess Clementine, the two effectively gave up on their charade of a marriage.

The two lived apart from each other and Leopold could indulge his mistress while Queen Marie Henriette busied herself with the usual good causes and her lifelong love of Hungarian horses. She was something of a martinet with her daughters but, lest anyone be too harsh towards her, it must be remembered that she had been forced into a miserable life with a loveless marriage when she was only 17 and that could not have but had an impact on her. She also did a good deal of charity work, was a musical and artistic patron and she attentively cared for her tragic sister-in-law, Empress Carlota of Mexico, when she returned home mad with grief while her older brother would have little to do with her (which I will admit causes me to overlook other things). Marie Henriette had always been kept at something of a distance at court and soon even her title as Queen became mostly symbolic as she spent most of her time at her home in Spa while her daughter Princess Clementine looked after the King and provided the feminine presence at court functions. The unfortunate and unhappy Queen of the Belgians died on September 19, 1902 at her estate in Spa and was buried at the Royal Castle of Laeken.

Royal News Roundup

The royal news of this past week starts in the long suffering land of Cambodia where, on Sunday, King Norodom Sihamoni attended a special plowing ceremony for the new rice crop season. One of the oldest royal duties, a number of princes took part and the ceremony was held near the ancient Khmer ruins of Angkor Wat. The omens were for a good harvest this year.

In Spain the Bourbon Royal Family gathered to honor Spanish athletes. However, most of the royal news in Spain has been focused on rumors of marital problems and a possible split between HRH the Infanta Cristina and her husband Inaki Urdangarin. The couple have four children and we can only hope there is no basis for these murmurings. On a happier note Crown Princess Letizia was honored by the Spanish press. Other Spanish royals have received the same award before but none before Princess Letizia have actually worked in the news media.

In Belgium, Crown Princess Mathilde met with business leaders on behalf of her fund to help poor children. She urged the assembled professionals to remember these unfortunates. Belgians also had to endure news of yet another bizarre death-threat made against Dowager Queen Fabiola. A number of these threats have been made in the past and the police are still trying to track down their source. Fortunately, Queen Fabiola has not let fear get the better of her and so far has kept an admirable sense of humor about the whole business. Also in the Low Countries, there was a scare at a memorial for the war dead in the Netherlands when a deranged man frightened people in the crowd, knocking over a barricade which many took to be a gunshot. Fortunately, no one was harmed and HM Queen Beatrix soon returned to carry on with the ceremony.

On Tuesday Prince Henrik of Denmark, son of Prince Joachim and Princess Marie, celebrated his first birthday. Princess Martha Louise of Norway has been making the rounds plugging her latest book “Meet Your Guardian Angel” which is supposed to instruct readers on how to get in contact with their spiritual protectors. A fairly controversial figure in Norway the book has nonetheless reached #4 on the bestseller list and the Princess credits conversations with her angelic guardian with allowing her to come to terms with her part as a member of the Royal Family. Across the border in Sweden it was announced that the state of Washington will miss out on a visit from the lovely Princess Madeleine. She was to be guest of honor at “Sweden Week” in Seattle, Washington but with all the drama she has had to endure recently big-sister Crown Princess Victoria will help out by taking her place, so Seattle is certainly not going to be neglected.

The tiny Principality of Liechtenstein has been makings its presence more known to the international community. As part of the World Expo in Shanghai, China a replica of the Liechtenstein pavillion was put up in Vaduz so that Liechtenstein natives and visitors can get a taste of what is going on in Shanghai along with some Chinese cultural exhibitions. HSH Prince Hans-Adam II also met recently with the President of the Czech Republic at Prague Castle. The sovereign’s consort, Princess Marie, was born in what is now the Czech Republic and the two countries established diplomatic relations only about a week ago. There has been tension due to Liechtenstein family property being seized by the Czech government. Positions have not changed on that front though the Prince has said he will no longer make any effort to press for its return. The Prince of Liechtenstein brought several pieces from his impressive art collection to display in the Czech Senate.

In the English-speaking world the two major royal events have happened in just the last couple of days; the military advancement of Prince Harry and of course the hotly contested election. Prince Harry recently qualified for his “wings” by graduating from the pilot course in the British army. The insignia was pinned on his uniform by an obviously proud Prince of Wales while a similarly beaming girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, looked on. Talk has been that Prince Harry could now train to pilot the formidable Apache attack helicopters. A very noble undertaking as it takes the very best, brightest and toughest soldiers to be Apache pilots and the fact that one of my cousins has flown Apaches in both Gulf Wars has nothing to do with that opinion of course. The bigger news, however, is the recent elections which resulted it a hung Parliament with David Cameron of the Tories winning the most seats but not enough to form a solid majority. The last time this happened was in 1974 when Queen Elizabeth II intervened and asked the Labour Party to form a minority government. Whether that will happen this time remains to be seen. As has been previously stated The Mad Monarchist found all three candidates lacking and did not endorse anyone (where is the party that favors restoring the powers of the House of Lords, making them all-hereditary, allowing the Queen to actually exercise her own powers and favors a policy of withdrawal from the EU and restoring the British Empire?) and in all honesty nothing would make me happier than to see the Queen dissolve Parliament and rule in her own right -she could only do a better job than the current gaggle of incompetents in Westminster. But of course that is something totally unrealistic and the sort of thing only a mad man would say -or a Mad Monarchist.

Monarchist Profile: Adrian Woll

Adrian Woll was born on December 2, 1795 in St Germain-en-Laye near Paris and at an early age embarked on the military career that was to see him serve numerous governments in three countries on two continents. His first service was as a lieutenant in the Imperial Guard lancers of the Emperor Napoleon. After rising to the rank of captain he went to America when the Bourbon monarchy was restored in France. Introduced to famed General Winfield Scott of the US Army he served with a reduced rank for a short time before Scott pointed him in the direction of Mexico as being a place better suited to soldier of his background and ambition. So, in 1816 he joined the staff of the revolutionary Spanish General Francisco Xavier Mina with the rank of lieutenant colonel.

He went with Mina to Mexico and stayed after his expedition failed and joined the Mexican forces Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in the Mexican War of Independence. In time he became a Mexican citizen and married a local girl named Lucinda Vautrey Griggi. In 1828 he was promoted to colonel and served as an aid to Santa Anna at the capture of Tampico from the Spanish in 1829 -the act more than any other that secured Santa Anna’s rise to power. Woll’s star continued to rise and in 1832 was promoted to brigadier general and awarded the Cross of Tampico. That same year he participated in the coup against conservative president Anastasio Bustamante and his victory at Taxinastla helped place another general, M. Gomez Pedraza, in the presidency. When Santa Anna came to power he knew General Woll as a man he could trust and in 1835 he served as quartermaster-general in the army Santa Anna used to crush the federalist rebellion in Zacatecas.

General Woll held that same position the following year in the Mexican Army of Operations in Texas which Santa Anna organized to enforce his rule there. He was not present at the Alamo, reaching San Antonio two days after the mission-fortress had fallen. Santa Anna’s second-in-command, the Italian-born General Vicente Filisola, assigned Woll to General Joaquin Ramirez y Sesma who was to take 725 men, 2 cannon and 40 dragoons to pursue the Texas army and government that was retreating through the colonies toward the Louisiana border. Santa Anna went on to epic defeat at the battle of San Jacinto (blaming the absence of Filisola for the loss rather than his own inept overconfidence). Woll became chief-of-staff to Filisola who took command of the army following Santa Anna’s capture. Woll was taken prisoner by the Texans but later released at Goliad after which he rejoined the army on the retreat back to Mexico. Speaking of Goliad, General Woll claimed later that he had persuaded Santa Anna to rescind his order to execute the hundreds of Texan prisoners there but that the new instructions did not arrive until the massacre had been carried out.

In terms of the army Woll’s career had suffered something of a setback by the failed war in Texas and two years later when the “Pastry War” broke out with France Woll resigned rather than fight against his countrymen. However, the Mexican government refused to accept his resignation. Afterwards he joined his old chief Santa Anna again in the on-again-off-again war between the centralists and federalists. Later posted to the northern border he was ordered to lead another Mexican invasion of Texas in 1842. There had been other incursions into the Republic of Texas but not got so far as the forces of General Adrian Woll who captured San Antonio and marched along the Guadalupe River to Gonzales in a single month. He returned to San Antonio on September 11 but was defeated at the battle of Salado Creek on the 18th. Two days later he evacuated San Antonio and returned to Mexico. Texas celebrated the defeat of the Mexican invasion but in Mexico the campaign was termed a ‘punitive expedition’ and declared a victory as well with General Woll being wildly celebrated, given the Cross of Honor and promoted to major general. His fall from grace came only a few years later though in 1844 when he joined another military revolt, this time against Santa Anna, for which he spent the most of a year in prison.

When war with the United States broke out, General Woll served Santa Anna again until the final defeat after which he went to Europe and then to Cuba where he joined his old commander in returning to Mexico. Santa Anna made Woll a governor but when he again assumed dictatorial power, and was again overthrown, Woll had to go as well. Several years later though, he was back, this time supportive the young conservative (and future monarchist) Miguel Miramon in the so-called Wars of Reform. He won a number of victories, showing his old talent, taking Zacatecas and successfully defending Guadalajara from the liberals. However, the conservatives finally lost, Benito Juarez became president and Woll went home to France. His next chance for action came in 1862 when the French Emperor Napoleon III declared war on Benito Juarez and invaded Mexico. It must have seemed like his life had come full circle. Woll was again serving a French Emperor named Napoleon and going back to Mexico, this time with the French Imperial Army.

After the arrival of the French forces, who were joined and supported by the Mexican conservative-clerical party, General Woll was named commandant general of the state of Vera Cruz. In this capacity he had dealings with the local Confederate agent, A. Superviele, who urged the French to take the border city of Matamoros, across the river from Brownsville, Texas which would open up trade that would benefit the French cause in Mexico and the Confederacy. That job done, Woll also served on the Superior Junta organized by the French to organize the provisional government that would eventually call for the restoration of the Mexican monarchy. Adrian Woll was dispatched with the official delegation that invited Archduke Maximilian of Austria to become their Emperor and after Maximilian accepted he was asked by the young monarch to draw up plans for the organization of the Imperial Mexican Army.

When Emperor Maximilian arrived in Mexico he assigned Adrian Woll the post of adjutant general of the army and chief aide-de-camp. He was also decorated with the Legion of Honor. He carried on in this capacity until the fall of 1865 when Maximilian, who was frequently at odds with the French commander Francois Achille Bazaine, dispatched Woll to Paris to explain to Napoleon why his marshal needed to go. It was only upon arriving that General Woll learned that Napoleon III was abandoning Maximilian and preparing to evacuate all French troops from Mexico. Seeing no future for himself in his adopted country, and being a fairly old man by this point, Adrian Woll remained in France and never saw Mexico again. He died at Montauban, north of Toulouse in the south of France in February of 1875.

60 Years for the Lord of Life

Yesterday HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand made a rare public appearance during the celebration of his 60th anniversary as King of Thailand. Expressions of loyalty were great and widespread, from the streets to internet social networking sites. The King attended a Buddhist ceremony in the Royal Palace with top government officials and was given a 63 gun salute before returning to the hospital admist huge crowds of loyal Thais shouting 'long live the king'!

The occasion was an opportunity for red and yellow shirts to put aside their differences for a day and the red shirts were quick to express their loyalty and protest at the accusations made by others that their victory would imperil the Thai monarchy. That is really nothing new and I tend to think that 'they doth protest too much'. There is, after all, a reason why the red shirts are accused of disloyalty to the monarchy but the yellow shirts are not (see a short run-down on the differences here). It is worth noting that, around the world, it is the most anti-monarchy radical leftists and communists who speak with the most glowing support of the red shirts.

The red shirts, regardless of the feelings of the rank and file, are putting the monarchy in danger simply by their actions that are de-stabilizing the country. Should the situation get out of hand and lead to outright conflict it would mean that either the military puts down the reds and total power is held by a general or if the reds win it would mean that total power would be in the hands of a left-wing populist, either one of which could decide to discard the monarchy when the current king dies. Pol Pot pretended to be loyal to the King in Cambodia too but once firmly in control he abolished the monarchy. As I recently pointed out, in Mongolia the communists came to power professing loyalty to the Bogd Khan but upon his death ended the monarchy. So, no matter what most of the red-shirts in Thailand think about the monarchy, by causing chaos they are at the very least helping to create an opportunity for someone more extreme and more republican to step in, take power and destroy what has been (alongside Malaysia) the shining example of monarchial success in Southeast Asia.

The Sack of Rome

It was on this day in 1527 that one of the great disasters in modern European history occurred with the horrific sack of Rome by the out-of-control forces of the Holy Roman Empire. The violence was horrific, the cruelties committed were extreme and the desecrations unspeakable. It was certainly one of the most shameful episodes in the history of Europe and is generally considered as the end of the glorious Renaissance period. However, there was a shining example in this devastating atrocity and that was the immense heroism and sacrifice of the Papal Swiss Guard. All but a handful of these brave men were massacred, fighting to the death, overwhelmed and fighting up the very steps of St Peter’s Basilica; buying time with their lives for the handful that remained to escort Pope Clement VII to safety in Castel Sant’Angelo.

Even then, the safety of the Pope was very much in question and it was some time before the threat was removed as he remained besieged in the fortress (originally an Imperial Roman tomb) while the Imperial troops massacred people in the streets below. Many of the soldiers were German Lutherans but religious differences were of little consequence as others were German and Spanish Catholics. What is important to remember (and it often is not) is that the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was not responsible for this horror, he did not order it, he was not present when it happened and he was shocked, outraged and ridden with guilt when he found out about it. He had his political differences with the Pope from time to time, as most rulers did at one point or another, but Charles V was a very staunch Catholic and he was horrified by the violence that had been carried out by soldiers in his service.

So, when looking back on the sack of Rome, it is wrong to try to play the blame game. Charles V was certainly not at fault -the ones at fault were the ones who carried out the atrocities. Instead, the Catholic Church sets a better example by using the occasion to honor the sacrifice of the Swiss Guard by using May 6 as the unit holiday for the Swiss Guard, the day when new recruits are officially sworn in and pledge their lives to defending the Supreme Pontiff.

Cinco de Mayo - A Few Facts

Today the people of Mexico celebrate "Cinco de Mayo" -the holiday celebrated in honor of the republican victory over the French Imperial Army at Puebla on the 5th of May, 1862. Republican leader Benito Juarez had bet everything on holding Puebla even though up to that time the French had been everywhere victorious. When the Mexican republicans (there were Mexican conservatives fighting alongside the French) under General Ignacio Zaragoza (a Tejano born in Goliad, Texas) succeeded in defeating the French a jubilant President Juarez immediately declared May 5th a national holiday. For those who care to know what Cinco de Mayo is all about, most know at least that much.

However, what many may not know is that, traditionally, May 5th has not been that big of a deal in Mexico. It is moreso today but even that is mostly because it became so widely known that May 5th was being much more widely celebrated in places in the U.S. like Texas and California by Mexicans no longer living in Mexico. The popular image is of a tiny band of ragged but fierce Mexican soldiers driving back an immaculate army of French dandies. In fact, the odds were not grossly uneven with about 4,500 Mexican republicans facing 6,000 French Imperial troops. The French attack was not well planned, but even then it was a lack of ammunition that finally forced their retreat.

Most importantly however, and this is unpopular and so will probably never be accepted, is the fact that for all the celebrations of the battle of May 5th the whole thing was really pointless for the Mexican republicans. It only delayed the inevitable, Emperor Napoleon III sent reinforcements to Mexico, reorganized the army command and the following year on May 17 the city of Puebla surrendered to the French and shortly thereafter Juarez abandoned Mexico City and fled north, clearing the way for the organization of a new government which eventually established the II Mexican Empire under Maximilian. For the rest of the reign of Maximilian the city of Puebla was under French, Mexican Imperial and Austrian protection. It was not until the final days of the empire that Puebla was retaken by the Juaristas on April 2, 1866. So, in looking at the big picture, one has to wonder just how worth celebrating the 5th of May is, even for those on the republican side. It really only serves to show just how few and far between their victories were in open battle against the imperialist forces.

Happy Birthday Pauline!

Today Pauline Ducruet, the lovely daughter of HSH Princess Stephanie of Monaco, celebrates her 'Sweet Sixteen'. The Mad Monarchist wishes her a very happy birthday! For those interested, recent posts over at Mad for Monaco include such topics as the visit of Emperor Charles V to Monaco, the earliest history of the country (like Hercules and Julius Caesar early) and the occasion of Emperor Henry VI giving Monaco to the Republic of Genoa. Have a look if you like.

How Revolution Came to Mongolia

The Mongols are a people not often thought of in the west. For most the country is thought of only as the epitome of remote isolation with the very name of Outer Mongolia being synonymous with the middle of nowhere. Yet, is has fascinated me since I was a schoolboy reading about the one Mongol who is at least known to most everyone: Genghis Khan. I am often asked about the state of monarchism in Mongolia and there is more to this than a simple lack of information. When stepping back and looking at the situation it seems odd that Mongolia is not a monarchy considering that there are few if any countries today where it is a great founding monarch who is the most honored, commemorated and venerated figure in public life. It is no exaggeration to say that Genghis Khan, the founding Mongol Emperor, is more revered than Mao in China, Uncle Ho in Vietnam, Benito Juarez in Mexico or Washington and Lincoln in the United States. He is practically worshipped as a god in Mongolia and by Mongols in Chinese-ruled Inner Mongolia and other areas. So, given that, how is it that revolutionary republicanism came to the Mongols?

The short answer is Bolshevik Russia. Mongolia was actually the first country in the Far East to fall prey to communist aggression and although it is not often remembered, few if any countries suffered as much from communism. The first time republican rule came to Mongolia was when nationalist troops of the Republic of China marched in and forced the ruling Buddhist monarch, the Bogd Khan (Holy Emperor) to submit to them (he was later deposed and arrested). This situation was relieved in 1921 when the White Russian general Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg drove out the Chinese and restored the Bogd Khan to his throne. However, even by that time the Bolshevik-inspired Mongolian People’s Party had already been formed and one of the founders was Damdin Sukhbaatar. They worked with COMINTERN agents to form a communist front to take over the country.

Two Mongol communists, Danzan and Choibalsan immediately sought out Soviet agents and requested that the Red Army invade their country to ensure a communist victory. The Soviets had, at first, put off the Mongolian Reds but they were stirred to action by Ungern-Sternberg who, after defeating the Chinese and restoring the Bogd Khan openly planned to forge a pan-monarchist coalition to invade Russia and restore the Romanov monarchy. Toward the end of May the Baron was defeated by a Russo-Mongol communist army twice his size and the Reds seized power. Promising to leave religion alone they took over the government, forcing the Bogd Khan to hand over power to them. However, the Buddhist faith was so strong in the country that they dared not remove the Emperor himself and he remained symbolic head-of-state until his death in 1924. The Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party declared his incarnations to be at an end and announced the birth of the Mongolian People’s Republic.

The primary leader of the communist forces was Sukhbaatar, Minister of the Army, who oversaw numerous executions but died in 1923. In recognition of his leading role in the revolution the Mongolian capital was renamed Ulaanbaatar (Red Hero) in his honor. Free enterprise was banned, herds were collectivized and property of the nobles, princes and monasteries were seized. However, bad as things were they became much worse when the Soviet Red Army occupied the country in 1937 on the pretext of defending Mongolia from the Japanese. Choibalsan, surely one of the most ruthless communist dictators ever, was a fawning sycophant of Joseph Stalin and tried to mimic his rule in Mongolia.

The Mongol economy was reworked to simply serve the needs of the USSR and Choibalsan unleashed a reign of terror the likes of which had never been seen. Any potential rivals were murdered in a series of purges, virtually all of the monasteries were destroyed after the people had been pumped full of propaganda films portraying the monks as greedy and cruel. The youth especially were mobilized and countless works of art, priceless Buddhist scriptures and ancient temples were destroyed in an orgy of violence. Tens of thousands of nobles, monks and anyone suspected of being an enemy of the regime were massacred. Some estimates put the number of victims of the communist regime as high as 100,000. Choibalsan made himself the “mother, father and teacher” of the people and demanded religious-like veneration of himself.

The devastation may have reached its height under Choibalsan but it by no means started or ended with him. Mongolia became a part of the USSR in all but name and in just a few years went from being one of the most religious countries in the world to one with virtually no religion at all. All reminders of the glorious past and all traditional culture were stamped out. Families forgot their own names, Buddhist rites were forbidden until no one remembered how to perform them. Even the memory of Genghis Khan was almost erased. Streets were named after communists, new buildings were built in box-like Bolshevik style, the nomadic way of life the Mongols had lived for uncounted centuries was destroyed as the communists crowded everyone onto farm communes and smoke-belching factories in the capital. The old felt tents were destroyed and replaced by crude, boxy houses in the name of “progress”. Even to this day the Mongolian language is written in Russian rather than the Mongolian style. The memory of the last emperor, the Bogd Khan, was smeared at every opportunity and statues were erected of men like Sukhbaatar, Choibalsan and Stalin.

In few, if any, other countries where communist purges occurred was the erasure of what had come before the red regime so complete. As the USSR deteriorated the Red Army withdrew its forces in the late 1980’s and early 90’s. In 1990 the first open elections were held in Mongolia but the work of decades had been done well and the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party still won by a wide margin. It was not until 1996 that they were voted out of office and even then, after a simple name change, they have continued to hold power more often than not ever since. None of the butchers of the communist era were ever brought to justice and though the statue of Stalin was taken down and packed away in the middle of the night, the monument to the tyrant Choibalsan remains standing, as does the huge statue of Sukhbaatar and the capital still carries his name. As for the Bogd Khan, the last Holy Emperor, his reincarnation was recognized by the Dalai Lama and he performed a belated enthronement for him in Mongolia but, thanks to the continued rule of the leftist elite, he still lives in exile in India.

MM Video: King Philip II of Spain

Shameless Plug

The Emperor's Library (I): Julius Caesar - The Threat of a Monarch

To start off this little 7-part series on some of the Emperors of Rome 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. 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.

Mad Rant: The Westernization of Asia

The news lately has seen a number of volatile developments in Asia. We have read about the increased tensions in Korea, the spreading influence of Communist China, the unrest in Thailand, the terrible situation in Nepal and the ongoing troubles with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and so on and so forth. There are a myriad of reasons for this in each individual case, however, overall I cannot help but lament the westernization of Asia. This does not mean that I (like many) am blaming “the West” for all the problems of modern Asia and it is certainly not a swipe at western civilization for those whom I hold to be at fault for this are enemies of western as well as eastern civilization -they are the enemies of civilization period. It only happens that the vile disease now infecting the Far East came from the west.

When I look at how western civilization dealt with the people of the east there are of course good and bad items to consider. However, for all we hear about the triumphalism and xenophobia of traditional western culture from modern-day liberals it was this same culture in Europe that was far more tolerant of traditional Asian culture than that of today. When the British took over India they did (justly) get rid of a number of unsavory groups and practices that were part of Indian culture. However, they kept the traditional local princes in place. When the French colonized Viet Nam there is much to criticize them for but they kept the local monarch in place, traditional values and styles and so on did not change. Yet, when the liberal revolutionary forces came to Asia, whether by Soviet puppets in Mongolia or leftist indoctrinated Chinese workers from France, they started a culture war against everything that had defined Asia for all her previous thousands of years of history.

One of the earliest examples was one of the worst and that was the communist takeover of Mongolia where the traditional culture and religion in particular was almost completely wiped out. It happened on the largest scale in China but just as fiercely in Indochina and other countries. We still see the sharp divide most vividly in Korea where the traditional form of government was pushed aside as north and south fought each other ferociously over which western form of republicanism would prevail in Korea, whether they would be capitalist or communist. Who would have ever imagined that half of Korea, Vietnam and even the massive “Middle Kingdom” of China, after thousands of years of history with their own systems of government, their own Confucian culture, would all be ruled by an ideology dreamed up by an anti-Semitic German Jew writing in London in the 19th Century?

What seems even more incredible is that most of these movements tried to wrap themselves in the cloak of nationalism. Both sides of the civil wars in places like China and Vietnam did this, despite the fact that they had overthrown their own traditional systems and embraced some form of government that was of foreign design and had absolutely no history in their own countries. In many ways they displayed more bigotry against their own culture than did the foreign imperialists who had ruled before them. Their leaders were almost invariably foreign-trained and in some cases spent most of their lives in the west. This was certainly the case with men like Sun Yat-sen and Ho Chi Minh. Contrast the cases in their countries during the “colonial period” when Great Britain lent assistance to the Qing Emperor in putting down the Taiping Rebellion or how even the French republic maintained the Vietnamese Emperors as nominal rulers and after 1948 even supported the return of the last Emperor who had been forced off the throne by the communists.

I reiterate that this is not then a matter of east vs. west or one culture against another. Western monarchists are only too aware of how their own culture has been sabotaged, suppressed and how the revolutionaries have and are using every means at their disposal to stamp it out. Yet, western monarchists (who are not bigots or Eurocentric) often have a hard time getting very emotionally involved in events on the other side of the world. This is for understandable reasons; the cultures are so different, the religions are very different and so on. However, I would ask western monarchists to keep in mind the anguish, the outrage and the frustration at how western traditions are being stamped on and then consider how you would feel if this revolutionary movement were something of totally foreign origin that had been imposed on you and poisoned the minds of your people. This is why traditional monarchists of all backgrounds should be able to understand and sympathize with each other and stand together in a united front against the plague that is out to destroy us all. I feel that I understand the sentiment very well and that is why I remain…The Mad Monarchist.