The Battle of Adowa

The battle of Adowa is still one of the most famous battles ever fought on the continent of Africa. Songs, films and books are still made about it to this day and it ranks as one of the three biggest battles in which native African forces defeated European or at least European-led armies. It was the pivotal battle in the first war between the Ethiopian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy. Italy, united in 1861, was late to the colonial race and eager to carve out a place for herself on the world stage. Ethiopia was a complex network of tribes, often at war with each other and nominally under the rule of a “King of Kings” or Emperor but whose actual control over the country tended to be intermittent. In 1869 an Italian company purchased land for a coaling station in Assab Bay and in 1883 sold the territory to the Italian government. This area eventually became the colony of Eritrea. There were clashes with the religious rebels of Mohammed Ahmed, who claimed to be the “Mahdi” or Islamic messiah in the Sudan as well as clashes with Ethiopians as the Italians moved farther inland.

Emperor Menelik II

Ethiopian Emperor Yohannes IV clashed with the Italians but eventually came to terms with them. Meanwhile, one of his leading nobles, Menelik of Shewa, was building up his forces, making use of modern weapons sold to him by the Italians in return for his neutrality. When Emperor Yohannes IV was on his deathbed he named his nephew, Ras Mangasha -one of the most capable warriors in Ethiopia, as his heir in 1889. However, Menelik controlled the best land and the most men who had the most advanced weaponry. When Yohannes IV died he declared himself Emperor Menelik II and negotiated Italian support for his seizure of power. He signed the Treaty of Wuchale on May 2, 1889 with Italy by which the kingdom recognized Menelik as Emperor of Ethiopia in return for which he recognized Italian ownership of the land already under their control. Permanent friendship was pledged and trade agreements established, however, confusion over one clause in the treaty would ultimately lead to war.

Ras Mangasha

Article 17 was the cause of the trouble as it was different in the Italian and Ethiopian versions. According to the Italian version Menelik II had basically agreed that Ethiopia was an Italian protectorate. In the Ethiopian version the Emperor had the option to avail himself of Italian protection but no obligation. When Emperor Menelik II reached out to other European governments on his own the Italians objected. Emperor Menelik II objected to their objection and sent a letter of protest to King Umberto I of Italy. When the King failed to respond satisfactorily, Menelik II repudiated the Treaty of Wuchale, effectively declaring war on the Kingdom of Italy on February 27, 1893. After dealing with the forces of the Mahdi, who clashed with the Ethiopians and Italians alike, the focus shifted to the important province of Tigre. Menelik II, hoping to make an ally out of the man he had displaced, offered the province to Ras Mangasha if he could take it from the Italians. Ras Mangasha pretended to be friendly with the Italians and raised an army on the pretense of fighting the forces of the Mahdi. However, once gathered, he launched a surprise attack on the Italians. Mangasha was defeated but the fight resulted in Italy being drawn into a larger and more risky confrontation.

Generale Baratieri

Major General Oreste Baratieri was dispatched with a large Italian colonial army, most of the rank and file being native African troops under Italian command. He won a number of early victories which caused overconfidence while Emperor Menelik II spent his time gathering a massive army from across Ethiopia. Both armies fought a proxy war and played for time until they were each forced into a confrontation due to dwindling supplies. The feudal levies of the Ethiopian army could not be kept in the field, inactive for long and General Baratieri was being pushed by the government in Rome for a swift and decisive victory. The two armies moved and came together near the town of Adowa. Italian reinforcements had been dispatched to Africa but would not arrive in time and General Baratieri had no idea of how large an army was massed against him. He had expected, at most, about 60,000 men when in fact Menelik II was able to field over 100,000 warriors compared to only about 15,000 Italian colonial troops. Exact figures are not known but the Italians would be outnumbered at least 8 to 1 by most accounts.

Menelik II

Because of earlier victories over considerably larger forces, the Italian high command tended to underestimate the Ethiopians, causing them to be overconfident. Menelik II, however, was throwing everything he had into the upcoming battle. Contrary to popular belief, he was not ignorant of modern weaponry and many of his men carried rifles and his army even possessed some artillery. He had also made use of his support with the populace to confuse his enemy. Most of the scouts working for the Italians were actually in the employ of Menelik II and he used other means to fool the Italians into thinking his army was mostly dispersed. The Italians had also underestimated Menelik II himself. They had hoped to influence local chieftains against him or to at least secure their neutrality (as they had previously done with Menelik himself) but this time it didn’t work. Menelik II, upon taking the throne, enacted measures to ensure that the nobility would support him and the vast majority did exactly that. He moved his army forward while the Italians, unfamiliar with the terrain and being fed bad information by their native scouts, stumbled about in the dark and became separated.

Generale Albertone

As the Italian forces advanced on a night march the units became mixed up, setting back their timetable and a misunderstanding over the name of a certain hill caused General Matteo Albertone to advance far beyond the rest of the army. This caused something of a chain-reaction as the next brigade, told to take their place alongside Albertone, also became separated. By the time Emperor Menelik II sent his warriors charging against the enemy on the morning of March 1, 1896 the Italian forces were perfectly placed to be wiped out by the Ethiopians one piece at a time. In terms of the forces engaged, this was almost a purely African battle with the Italians involved being a minority. The African natives of the Italian army fought with remarkable discipline against tremendous odds, holding their positions and delivering devastating volleys of fire that took an immense toll on the attackers. Nonetheless, the Ethiopian warriors were just as determined in their ferocity and attacked again and again. As the day wore on the Ethiopians finally overwhelmed the Italians, destroying or routing the entire brigade. General Albertone himself was killed in the struggle.

Of the four Italian brigades, one was annihilated and another already close to the same fate when General Baratieri realized none of his messages had gotten through or if they had, lack of knowledge of terrain meant they had not been properly followed. He tried to organize a strong defensive position in the center of his intended battle line but, for the most part, by that time it was too little and too late. Fleeing troops overran these positions with Ethiopian warriors hot on their heels and despite some heroic stands the Italian position began to totally disintegrate. General Vittorio Dabormida, commanding the brigade sent to the relief of Albertone, was trapped and wiped out by Ethiopian forces, including the tough Oromo cavalry under Ras Mikael. Virtually the entire brigade was destroyed and again, the commanding general was among the dead.

General Baratieri tried to pull off a fighting withdrawal, and some units held off a few attacks, but this proved impossible and soon the entire army, or at least what was left of it, was in full flight. Emperor Menelik II called upon the local population to rise up against his enemies and many more Italians and colonial troops were killed after falling behind, collapsing from exhaustion or becoming lost during the retreat. In all the Italians had lost 6,133 men either killed in the battle or slaughtered during the retreat. Another 1,428 were wounded and all 56 pieces of artillery were captured by the Ethiopians. Emperor Menelik II lost about 7,000 men dead and 10,000 wounded; a much greater number certainly but representing only a fraction of his overall strength whereas the Italian losses counted for over half of their total force. Many of the Italian wounded also suffered a more horrific fate, some being killed, some being mutilated. The African colonial troops usually suffered worse than the Europeans as, depending on their origin, many of these men were considered traitors by the Ethiopians and had one hand and one foot cut off so as to make them permanently helpless and, in most cases, doomed to a slow, agonizing death from starvation.

Menelik II triumphants

The results of the battle were immediate and dramatic. In Rome the government of Francesco Crispi immediately fell and General Baratieri was wrongly blamed of abandoning his men in disgrace. Fortunately, he was cleared by a court martial but his reputation had suffered irreparable harm. All Italian colonial expansion in Africa was halted for more than a decade and total Ethiopian independence was recognized. Emperor Menelik II wisely made this his only real demand. While others howled for more blood, he realized that provoking an all-out war might have resulted in the loss of his throne and the total ruination of his country. He had gained what he wanted, earned himself a place in African history and was content to leave well enough alone. Ethiopia gained a new respect on the world stage and foreign recognition poured in for Menelik II who attained a new mythic status because of his victory. However, not everything that resulted from the battle was good for Ethiopia. The Italians had gained a new respect for the fighting ability of the Ethiopians and would not underestimate them next time; and many were determined that there would be a next time when the defeat of Adowa would be avenged. When the next contest came it would be the Ethiopians who, remembering their victory at Adowa, would tend to underestimate the Italians with disastrous results.

Still, the most lasting effect of the battle of Adowa was in the symbolism of it. Not since the Zulu victory at Isandlwana in 1879 had a European army been so totally defeated by a force of African natives. Even after Italy evened the score in 1935-36, Africans never forgot the battle of Adowa and African nationalists invoked the memory of that victory to inspire a new generation in the decades after World War II to rally to the cause of overthrowing the European colonial governments and asserting independence for the nations of Africa.

Favorite Royal Images: A Future Queen

Like something out of a fairytale...

A Macabre Monarchist?

The question has been posed to your resident mad man whether my frequent use of the skull and crossbones (or variations thereof) has any sinister connotations. I have been asked about this before, though probably not as often as some might think (it is rather odd I suppose). I have heard a few odd suggestions over what I might be intending to convey in my use of such symbols. One suggested this was a subtle show of support for internet piracy (not true, I tend to view any piracy as something negative -like most people) but my personal favorite was the suggestion that this was some unconscious effort on my part to equate monarchy with poison -which shows that some people have way too much free time on their hands; unconscious or not, even I’m not that crazy-contradictory. So, since being asked about it again I thought I might explain it just for the sake of anyone who may be curious but has never been inclined to ask about it.

First of all, let me assure you there is no sinister intention behind it. I may be a touch on the creepy side but I am certainly not specifically trying to convey that. Nor am I a part of or intending to show support for any conspiratorial secret societies. I might point out that, although far from common, the skull and bones symbol has been used by monarchists around the world in the past. From the Whites in Russia to the Black Brunswickers in Germany to the Carlists in Spain various monarchist groups have made use of the image to symbolize their attitude of “death to traitors” in reference to those who took up arms against their sovereign. I could say that and that would be perfectly true and I have, in some of my doodling, incorporated the symbol in that sort of framework. However, that would not be the complete truth which is actually far less dramatic, deep or meaningful and just personal.

For some reason, members of my family have always had something unique associated with them. My mother, for example, always had a thing for monkeys so, over time, people sent her every sort of stuffed monkey imaginable. For my father it was pigs, because he always thought piglets were cute. For my sister it was Tweety Bird because of a nickname our Grandfather gave her and so, over time, she acquired a ton of stuff related to Tweety Bird. Our grandfather gave almost everyone a nickname, something special between him and the (originally) child in question. One couple who were friends of my grandparents had a son named Jackson and my historically minded Grandpa immediately nicknamed him “Stonewall Jackson” (after the famous Confederate general). This little tot eventually grew into a very, very large young man and was an accomplished football player. Guess what everyone still called him. Yep, “Stonewall”. The nicknames Grandpa gave usually drew on some aspect of the person in question, though not always. My sister got her nickname solely because Grandpa proved incapable of pronouncing her actual name.

Well, in my case, Grandpa gave me a nickname that was based on the rather skeletal appearance I’ve had pretty much ever since I lost my baby fat. My Grandma never liked it because she was afraid I would think I was being made fun of and develop a complex or something (oh, if only that were all…) but I knew my nickname was an affectionate term. As with the others, because of that nickname, skulls, bones and skeletons have just become associated with me over time. It was never anything sinister, though I raised quite a few eyebrows at my very strict, private Christian school with things like my keychain with a skeleton on it or my bone-carved necklace with a smiling skull on it. And it continues to this day. Not long ago my sister gave me a doormat with a skull and bones on it as a birthday present. As the years have gone by I have probably held a little more tightly to this (probably silly) personal symbol because the two people closest to me who always called me by the nickname that inspired this, my Grandfather and an uncle of mine, have since gone on to their eternal rewards. Only those people closest to me ever called me by my nickname and those people are almost all gone now so I’m sure I display it even more now than I used to just as a way of keeping their memory close at hand. Others may misunderstand it or simply not know what it means, but all that really matters to me is that I do.

It may seem morbid or creepy to a lot of people (and I can seem that way myself often enough I suppose) but the bones, skulls and skeletons are just images I have been associated with for most of my life because of the nickname given to me by my grandfather, the greatest, saintliest man I have ever known, (a very cheerful and funny man by the way who loved playing pranks and exchanging jokes) and whose memory I cherish. Grandpa was never very good at remembering names (nicknames were easier for him, again, because they were chosen because of something unique that stood out about that person) but though few call me by my nickname anymore, I still cling to it and, God willing, if by some miracle I am able to see my Grandfather again some day, I know exactly what he will call me. I cannot imagine anything better than the feeling of hearing his voice call me that again. So, again, rest assured, it's nothing sinister, just a personal thing.

I hope that clears up any confusion.
As ever,
The Mad Monarchist

Happy Accession Day!

It was 60 years ago today that HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and her other Realms and Territories acceded to the throne. So far, only one British monarch has reigned longer than she has and during her time on the throne the Queen has faced more and more rapid changes than probably any other British monarch in history. Think for a moment of what she has had to deal with; a system in which she is expected to be totally uninvolved yet display leadership at the same time. She is expected to embody values the majority of her people no longer consider important, preside over an established Church she has no real control over and which few attend, she is expected to address major national issues but without ever taking a side or giving the slightest hint of having an opinion. The Queen has presided over the loss of more countries formerly under the Crown than any other, yet no one would think of criticizing her for this. She is expected to accept that gracefully yet she has been criticized for seeming aloof and unfeeling.

This is rather unfair considering that the Britain she grew up in still valued the ‘stiff upper lip’ and wanted their royals to appear strong, focused and towers of strength. The Queen was of the “keep calm and carry on” generation yet she has reigned over the generation that encourages emotionalism, sharing absolutely every thought and feeling and even going on television to talk about your emotional problems. The Queen grew up in a time when Britain was the heart of the largest empire in history and every Briton as well as most every Canadian, South African, Australian and every subject of the Crown in between was justifiably proud of that fact. Yet, the Queen has spent most of her reign in a Britain that willingly tossed aside the British Empire and became, by and large, ashamed of it. The people are often asked in polls and ‘man on the street’ interviews, in Commonwealth Realms around the world, how they “relate” to the Queen but one might just as well ask the Queen how she relates to a public whose sentiments, values and opinions change so drastically and so rapidly.

That may be what I find the most impressive of all about the Queen. What would have been her empire as a girl suddenly became her country and then her countries and absolutely everything about them all has changed and yet the Queen manages to remain popular, beloved and able to accomplish the seemingly impossible; keeping up with the times while simultaneously representing timeless tradition. Her 60 years on the throne have seen none of the monumental challenges faced by her predecessors who reigned during the World Wars but I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that none of them have had to deal with the situation the Queen has had to deal with during her 60 years on the throne and, frankly, I cannot imagine even the great British monarchs of the past being able to do what Her Majesty does every day successfully. The Queen has had to invent a new sort of greatness for a new and constantly transforming age and yet she has and has mastered it. Much of this, I believe, is due simply to Her Majesty’s personal character and values. As has often been said, she has never put a foot wrong, and that is true. Today there are many who would love to see her stumble and be quick to take advantage, but the Queen, God save her, has never given them the opportunity. Not one misstep, not one unguarded word, not one scandal, not one public embarrassment and so the people love her and even her critics cannot touch her.

The Queen in Texas, 1991

In doing this she has come to symbolize the best of what a modern monarchy is all about. She may not reign over the vast array of territories her father did, but her image is known probably more than any other. I have often marveled at the fact that I hail from one of those very few parts of the globe over which the British flag has never waved. The monarchy with the longest association with my part of the world would be the Spanish and yet whenever anyone here says something about “the Queen” everyone automatically assumes they mean HM Queen Elizabeth II of the UK etc, etc. Many royals, even reigning monarchs have visited my part of the world over the years yet most are never even mentioned on the daily news save perhaps an article in the paper of the city being visited. Yet, on both occasions that “the Queen” came to visit it was a major event. The last, which I remember most, was in 1991 when the Queen arrived at the capital building in Austin to a crowd of cheering people waving the Lone Star and the Union Jack, the Texas National Guard artillery firing salutes and Governor Ann Richards rushing out to meet her (though being a good Democrat she refused to curtsy). I also remember Prince Philip being given a pair of cowboy boots with other pairs sent along to be handed out to the Prince of Wales and Princes William and Harry. The Queen’s every move, every visit and every word was on every TV station all across Texas.

I also cannot help but remember the idiots who get attention on every such occasion. One particularly ignorant legislator, after receiving his protocol advice card, rudely asked, “I thought we fought a war to get rid of this stuff?” (which someone will ask every time there is a royal visit without fail). It made me laugh of course considering that “we” (as in Texas) have never fought a war with Great Britain. He meant the American Revolution of course, but that was long before Texas joined the Union and when Texas fought its war of independence it was against, of all things, the elected President of a republic who had turned tyrannical. And yet, despite those who complained or made mocking jokes, not one sour note was heard after the Queen arrived and even the notoriously, adamantly, proudly uncouth and egalitarian Democrat Governor was beaming with pride upon meeting “THE Queen”. If anyone had told me then that there was even one person in Great Britain, or Canada or Australia who wanted to become a republic I honestly would not have believed it. And, again, I go back to her character, because even the most ardent republicans of today have a hard time swaying public opinion because even they have to admit that, she’s simply a great Queen. There are no flaws they can point out, no mistakes they can exploit and no way they can try to say she has not done her duty flawlessly.

HM Queen Elizabeth II has done her duty, to her many countries and peoples, for 60 years and we earnestly hope she continues for 60 more. A great deal has changed in all that time, but the Queen has not. The monarchy has changed of course and the Queen has adapted, but you can still see that same twinkle in her eye today that she had 60 years ago. Whether as a pretty young woman 60 years ago, or the genteel fine lady of today, the Queen has always been “majestic” and “regal”. Everyone of her subjects should be filled with pride on this special occasion, a pride that the citizens of republics cannot feel about their own heads of state (at least I cannot imagine any who could). All monarchists can also celebrate and be grateful that for 60 years a Queen has sat on the British and Commonwealth thrones that has, by her great character, virtue and devotion to duty, made the monarchy as unassailable as possible.

Congratulations to Her Majesty, congratulations to all her peoples and GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

MM Video: Queen Beatrix

MM Video: Gia Long

Royal News Roundup

Starting with the House of Windsor, HRH the Duke of Cambridge started a six week tour of duty this week on the South Atlantic British base on the Falkland Islands which has brought to the forefront of the news the growing tensions between the U.K. and Argentina over the islands. This is nothing new of course but the arrival of Prince William has simply caused the media to pay attention to what has been going on for some time -it was not, I repeat, NOT prompted by his arrival on the islands. If anything the upswing in rhetoric over the old dispute flared up some time ago when it was first suggested that large oil deposits might exist in the territorial waters of the islands. The Argentine press has taken to mockingly referring to the Duke as “William the Conqueror”. Argentina has recently increased their rhetoric demanding the islands be turned over to them, though they insist this will be done peacefully through international organizations. However, when certain British officials said that Argentina was simply trying to arouse nationalist sentiments to distract the Argentine people from an ailing economy, Argentine officials said the British attitude was “increasing the risk of more wars” -which is about as close as Argentina has come to suggesting they would actually fight for the islands. As we all know, in 1982 Argentine military forces invaded the islands only to be evicted by the British a short time later. So far there has been nothing worse than name calling going on with Argentine President Cristina Kirchner referring to Great Britain and David Cameron in terms most would consider beneath the dignity of a head of state -even a republic.

A potential tragedy was averted for the House of Savoy. In Italy it was recently announced that Prince Emanuele Filiberto of Venice and Piedmont underwent surgery not so long ago to remove a cancerous tumor from his nasal septum. Late last year apparently the son of Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Naples, grandson of the late King Umberto II of Italy, noticed his voice was sounding different and at the urging of his wife Princess Clotilde went to see a doctor. The news came back that he had cancer. Fortunately, so far, it seems they got to it in time, the surgery was successful and the Prince is cancer free. To one faction of Italian monarchists, the Prince of Venice is heir to the would-be throne as the son of the only son (who according to them should be King Vittorio Emanuele IV) of the last king. The other faction recognizes the Duke of Aosta as the legitimate claimant due to an unequal marriage on the part of the Prince of Naples (though of course each side has other reasons). The Duke of Aosta has certainly led a more traditional life and been more involved with the memory of the late monarchy and so on. However, few people even in Italy knows who he is whereas Prince Emanuele Filiberto, because of recent appearances on reality TV, is well known in Italy and actually quite popular. So far that has not translated into support for a royal restoration. The offspring of Italy’s last King were required to renounce monarchism and swear allegiance to the republic in order to return to their homeland though even the “celebrity” Prince of Venice has commented on the benefits monarchies provide which republics cannot.

On Thursday, in the Netherlands, TRH the Prince and Princess of Orange celebrated their tenth wedding anniversary. The couple met in Spain in 1999 and soon began keeping steady company. In 2002 they were married, not without some controversy due to the family ties of the bride (all rather silly if you ask me) and ten years later they are still going strong, the proud parents of three daughters. There have been numerous events, special reports and documentaries on the royal couple this week in honor of this occasion. There has also been talk that HM Queen Beatrix may soon abdicate, but personally I cannot see that happening any time in the very near future (though I could be wrong of course). When that day does come, Prince Willem-Alexander will be the first King of the Netherlands since the death of King Willem III in 1890. Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Maxima have both done a lot of good work during their time together, each have been very active and “hands-on” royals and they still seem as happy as they did 10 years ago. The time has flown by, I cannot believe it was 10 years ago that I was watching everyone in the Netherlands go nuts over the event, the whole country draped in orange, people wearing orange wigs, over-sized orange crowns and even the working girls of the red light district switched to orange light bulbs for the occasion. Only the Dutch. The Mad Monarchist sends the happy couple heartfelt congratulations on the occasion of such a milestone. Long live the Queen and long live the future King and Queen!

Finally, I wanted to say a few words about something not directly royal-related in the news this week but I think it is at least indirectly related and that is the election returns in Egypt. The two biggest winners were the Muslim Brotherhood (who are seen as being pretty bad in the non-Islamic world) and the Salafis (who are seen as being even worse in the non-Islamic world). Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis seem to want the same thing, the Salafis are just more blatant about wanting to use jihad to get it. Personally, I dislike this turn of events as I would have disliked any outcome other than a restoration of the Kingdom of Egypt. What prompted me to address this subject though is the reaction of so many in the media that, even now, democracy is still the answer, democracy is the cure-all and the way to stop these sorts of groups from gaining power is more democracy. Well, pardon me as I scoff, but isn’t it democracy that just now brought these groups to power? It amazes me that even those people who view the MB and the Salafis as evil can see them use the democratic process to gain power and still remain adamant that more democratic republics will solve the problem. Moreover, things look to be going in the same direction in Libya, Tunisia and other countries. I will not stop saying it because it remains true: monarchy is the answer. Like most religions, Islam endorses monarchy and leaves no room for republicanism. A monarch would also provide a check against extreme elements that would harm others and bring harm on themselves as a consequence. Instead of starting from scratch, when the illegal and illegitimate republican regimes in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt fell these countries should have reverted to their former monarchies and then gone from there in addressing what changes needed to be made. More republics will only make things worse, not better and comparing the monarchies and the republics of the Islamic world should leave no room for doubt as to which is the preferable system.

Consort Profile: Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg

Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg was born Victoria Eugenie Julia Ena on October 24, 1887 at Balmoral Castle in Scotland to Prince Henry of Battenberg and Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom. Her father was the third son Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine by his morganatic wife Countess Julia von Hauke, a fact which put Princess Victoria Eugenie on a rather lower rung of the social ladder than other royals. On the other hand, her mother was the youngest child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and royals did not come much more prestigious than that. She was named in honor of her grandmother, Queen Victoria, and her godmother the Spanish-born Empress Eugenie of France who was living in exile in Britain at the time after the downfall of the Second French Empire. She grew up at the court of Queen Victoria and Princess Ena (as she was called) grew to be a very lovely young lady, good natured but rather distant. Her mother, Princess Beatrice, considered her rather problematic as a youngster but she was well liked and her family, Queen Victoria included, were very protective of her.

Because her father came from a morganatic marriage many viewed Princess Ena as rather sub-standard. It was only by decree of Queen Victoria that she had been born “Her Highness, Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg” rather than the lower “Her Serene Highness”. Her mother had been allowed to marry only on the condition that she remain close to the Queen and few probably expected any great prospects for marriage for Princess Ena, no matter how striking her appearance might have been. However, her uncle, King Edward VII, to the joy of his sister, took it upon himself to throw her a lavish and popular “coming out” party in November of 1904. Just in the nick of time as it happened for in the summer of the following year Edward hosted a prominent visit by His Catholic Majesty King Alfonso XIII of Spain. The King of Spain was only nineteen-years-old but his love of sport, friendly and joking personality made him popular with King Edward and, after all, a king is a king. It was not, however, Princess Ena who first caught the eye of the young King of Spain; that was Princess Patricia, daughter of the Duke of Connaught. However, she was not fond of Latin temperaments and when visiting Spain and Portugal was disgusted by the national sport of bullfighting (silly girl). She would later marry a commoner and lose her royal status anyway.

It also cannot be denied that the Kingdom of Spain at that time was, sadly, far from being an attractive adopted homeland for marriage-minded royals. King Alfonso XIII presided over a country that had lost its last colonies in Asia and America in a disastrous war with the United States, his father had grown up in exile, regaining his throne only to die before the age of 30 and had just survived an assassination attempt. Social divisions were deep, rebellions and civil war near constant and the government was often corrupt and ineffective. In short, the Spanish monarchy had a reputation for being dangerously unstable and this was certainly not what most royal families wanted for their daughters of marrying age. Princess Patricia was certainly less than impressed, with Spain or King Alfonso, and was not too subtle in showing it. So, the young King looked elsewhere and finally his gaze fell on Princess Ena. Soon after their first meeting the smitten Spaniard was writing letter after letter and postcard after postcard to Princess Ena from Madrid, which went on for about a year as the Spanish court negotiated the terms of marriage with King Edward VII. It was all close to unprecedented for the two countries who had once been the most bitter rivals.

This was a bigger issue than most today would realize. Princess Ena, to become Queen of Spain, would have to convert to Catholicism. A number of high-ranking clerics in the Church of England objected to this, portraying the court of Alfonso XIII as a hot-bed of theocratic, ultramontane Catholic zealots (which no doubt would have surprised the Carlist rebels in Spain who considered the family of Alfonso XIII insufficiently Catholic). According to the Anglican prelates Madrid and Rome were hotbeds of corruption and pointed to the detrimental effects of Catholic rebellions in Portugal and Spain as proof that Catholic countries were dangerous and violent (presumably they ignored Catholic monarchies like Belgium or Italy because these were not confessional states). However, the Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury failed to de-rail the engagement and the wedding went ahead as planned. The Catholic Bishop of Nottingham presided when Princess Ena formally entered the Catholic Church in a low-key ceremony attended by most Spanish high officials and royals but boycotted by the British Royal Family. This is not to say that the British royals were in any way opposed to the match, indeed Princess Beatrice could not be dissuaded by any objections, however their attendance would have been problematic. Princess Ena lost her place in the British royal succession and, in fact, one could argue that the marriage would have been void in British law but it was stated that Princess Ena was of a “foreign” family and could slip through a legal loophole in the Royal Marriages Act.

Again, this did not mean the British Royal Family was in any way opposed to the match. In fact, King Edward VII raised Princess Ena to the status of “Her Royal Highness” prior to the marriage. The Prince and Princess of Wales (later King George V and Queen Mary) attended the wedding on May 31, 1906 at the Royal Monastery of San Geronimo in Madrid. The happy occasion was marred however as the royal newlyweds narrowly avoided death at the hands of a would-be assassin who hurled a bomb at the royal carriage as they were leaving the Church. It was a rather rude introduction to the new Queen of Spain about the level of violence and social unrest existed in the country she had just married into (during the Second Spanish Republic a street was actually named after the assassin by the Madrid city council). The newlyweds were happy enough but the marriage was not any more popular in Spain than it had been in Britain. Republicans hated all royals indiscriminately, Carlists did not consider Alfonso the true king anyway and would have disliked anyone he married as much as the King himself and among the supporters of the monarchy most were not thrilled with having a Queen from England who until recently had been a Protestant.

Things got better, for a while at least, when Queen Ena did her duty and produced an heir to the Spanish throne when Alfonso, Prince of the Asturias, was born on May 10, 1907. Everyone was thrilled, but the happiness was interrupted when the infant was circumcised and it was discovered that he had hemophilia. The bad blood of Queen Victoria had struck again and King Alfonso XIII was positively furious and blamed his wife for endangering the future of his family line (which was not resting on the most solid of foundations as it was). Ena was devastated and her marriage with Alfonso XIII was never the same again. Four more sons and two daughters were born to the couple but the King took a number of mistresses afterward and was never very close to the Queen again. For her part, Queen Ena did her best to carry on and do her duty as the Queen of Spain. She undertook numerous charitable activities to benefit the poor, education and especially nursing and hospital care. She took an active role in reforming the Spanish Red Cross and it can be said that the system of healthcare in Spain greatly improved because of her. In recognition of her great work Pope Pius XI awarded her the prestigious Golden Rose in 1923.

All the while, of course, things in Spain were spiraling out of control. While the moderate monarchists (supporting the King) and traditionalist monarchists (supporting the Carlist claimants) remained at odds the republicans became ever stronger and increasingly radical. In 1931 the republicans came to power as the feuding monarchists were sidelined by the communist and nationalist factions. Hoping to avoid a civil war, after the victorious leftists declared the birth of the Second Spanish Republic, King Alfonso XIII and his family left the country (without abdicating) and eventually settled in Rome. Queen Ena and the King eventually separated and the Queen returned to Great Britain. However, with monarchist supporters of King Alfonso backing the nationalists in the Spanish Civil War, the British (sympathetic to the republic oddly enough) encouraged her to leave the country and she settled in Switzerland. She saw her husband again in 1938 for the baptism of the baby boy who would one day become King Juan Carlos I. King Alfonso XIII died in 1941 and was succeeded by his son Don Juan, Count of Barcelona (the Prince of Asturias removed himself from the succession through an unequal marriage).

Queen Ena spent most of the rest of her life in Switzerland but remained a popular and active figure in royal circles. In 1968 she briefly returned to Spain (then under the rule of Generalissimo Francisco Franco) to stand as godmother for her great-grandson Prince Felipe (the current Prince of Asturias). She also took Princess Grace of Monaco under her wing when she was a new royal and still finding her footing. The Queen was also godmother of Prince Albert II of Monaco, Queen Fabiola of Belgium and the Duchess of Alba. Queen Ena died in Lausanne, Switzerland on April 15, 1969 at the age of 81, 38 years to the day that she had been forced to leave Spain. Her engagement was troublesome, her marriage often unhappy and her time as Queen of Spain was extremely tumultuous. That said, she did a lot of good in Spain while she was there and though she lost two sons to hemophilia, did her duty in ensuring that the Spanish Royal Family would go on and survive to see the monarchy in Spain restored. Originally buried in Spain, her grandson King Juan Carlos I had her moved to the Escorial in Madrid to rest alongside her husband and two sons, reuniting the family in death.

Monarch Profile: Emperor Napoleon III of France

Napoleon III, ruler of the Second French Empire, has most gone down in history for what he was not; namely his uncle the first Emperor Napoleon. His empire went down in somewhat ignominious defeat, lacking the sort of climactic clash his uncle had at Waterloo, he never personally led French forces to great victories on the battlefield, his foreign policy was somewhat erratic, his interventions not always successful and he was certainly no great military genius. However, in some ways, this portrayal is unfair. There are ways in which Napoleon III actually surpassed his more famous uncle and he accomplished some things that even first Napoleon had never been able to. True, he did not conquer Europe (and could not have were he to have tried) but he did expand French influence all around the world. In some areas it did not last but in others it did. He may not have struck fear into the hearts of the those in London, Berlin and Vienna but he did do something his uncle never accomplished; he made self-proclaimed Bonaparte emperor acceptable in the courts of Europe. This was no small feat. Napoleon I had so enraged the international community that his mere presence in France was deemed sufficient cause to go to war. Napoleon III, on the other hand, managed to become, more or less, one of the club, acceptable even in London. He may not have had a Jena or an Austerlitz but his armies did win victories that the world noticed. From the United States to Japan armies around the world adopted French military fashions and France became a player on the world stage under Napoleon III rather than a perceived menace.

The man who would be emperor was born Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte on April 20, 1808 in Paris to King Louis I of Holland (younger brother of Emperor Napoleon I) and Hortense de Beauharnais. When French defeats forced his father to quit Holland young Louis was brought up in Switzerland. He was educated in Bavaria and as a young man went to live with his brother in Italy where both became involved in the revolutionary secret society known as the carbonari (charcoal burners). They spent their time throwing bombs and spreading revolutionary literature aimed against the Austrian presence in northern Italy, papal rule in central Italy and calling for a united and republican Italian peninsula. Eventually his brother died (of measles) and when the Austrians started cracking down on the revolutionaries Louis fled to France where his activities, and probably his surname, quickly got him arrested. Not knowing what to do with him, the French authorities shrugged off the problem prince on England. Yet, during his absence a movement emerged in France that was nostalgic for the days of the empire and advocated the restoration of a Bonaparte to the throne. The twists and turns of the Bonaparte succession, suffice it to say, eventually left Louis holding the baton of leadership for the Napoleonic legacy.

At that time the “July Monarchy” held power under the “Citizen-King” Louis Philippe. Despite waving the revolutionary tricolor, republicans opposed him because they opposed monarchy on principle but the conservatives opposed him as well for trying to reach an accommodation with the legacy of the French Revolution. The Bonapartists saw this situation as an opportunity to advance their cause and Louis Napoleon returned to France hoping to recreate the triumphant return of his uncle from Elba. However, the first soldiers he encountered, rather than hailing him as emperor, arrested Louis and he was again shipped into exile, that time in Switzerland. Louis Napoleon left when the King demanded his extradition and the threat arose of a major diplomatic spat between France and Switzerland. He went to England again but only long enough to hire a handful of ragged mercenaries before returning to France again. Again, he was arrested and thrown into prison. While there he churned out literature promising a progressive, left-wing vaguely socialist utopia if he were ever to gain power. Finally, in 1846 he managed to escape and again returned to England.

When the Revolutions of 1848 saw the downfall of King Louis Philippe and the establishment of another republic in France the ever-determined Bonaparte came back to France to throw his hat into the political ring. The republican authorities wanted nothing to do with him either and encouraged him to leave for England. Louis did for a while but was eventually able to cash-in on his family name to win election to the Constituent Assembly. He was a poor public speaker and insufficiently French for some people having spent most of his life abroad but he proved to be a clever politician. To those on the right he posed as the champion of order and stability, glory and greatness. To those on the left he posed as the champion of workers, a crusader against poverty and someone who would push the values of the revolution. He did a good enough job that a combination of his own political talents and the deep divisions among his opponents won him a massive electoral victory and Louis Napoleon Bonaparte became President of the Second French Republic. Republicans were drawn to his promises of a progressive future while those monarchists who deigned to participate in the elections considered him the lesser of the available evils. In any event, it was an historic moment with the highest political position in France once again in the hands of a Bonaparte.

Although he styled himself the “Prince-President” Louis faced considerable opposition in Parliament from the monarchists. Fortunately for him, the two monarchist factions were just as, if not more, opposed to each other than they were opposed to him. His efforts to appease both sides of the political spectrum resulted in a fairly moderate policy overall. Catholics were most concerned about the instability in Rome where papal rule had been upset by the establishment of a republic led by Giuseppe Mazzini with Pope Pius IX fleeing south across the border. Louis sent French troops to smash the republic and restore the Pope to power but he still managed to irritate the Holy See by urging them to enact liberal reforms. He took other measures to win the support of Catholics but, by and large, these efforts were wasted. At the end of the day the most Catholic bloc in France were the monarchist legitimists and nothing any Bonaparte did or could do would ever win their support. Louis was reminded of this when the legitimists refused to support his bid to amend the constitution so that he could run for a second term. The monarchists believed (rightly) that Louis intended to become a “President-for-life”, however, when they amended the constitution to restrict the franchise, Louis seized on this reduction in democracy to portray himself as the champion of the people. Whipping up a populist frenzy the President launched a coup on December 2, 1851 seizing all power for himself. A subsequent referendum came back with a vote of public support for his actions, allegedly on their behalf.

The Prince-President cracked down on the legitimists and angered the Orleanist monarchists by seizing all the property of the former Royal Family. He cast his lot firmly with the left, enacting universal male suffrage, but it had little practical effect as all power was in his own hands. One year later he took the final step of scrapping the Second Republic and restoring the French Empire taking the name of Emperor Napoleon III. The obvious intention was to rally the public behind an effort to restore the former glory and greatness of the First Empire. Again, his actions were confirmed by a referendum but he already possessed the authority to do as he pleased and his avowed enemies were forced to go into exile or face being sent to Devil’s Island. Nonetheless, his policies remained relatively moderate. His revolutionary youth continued to influence him but after becoming Emperor he naturally became more conservative as well and famously gave Paris her wide, picturesque boulevards, supposedly to beautify the city but actually to make it more difficult for rioting rebels to erect barricades in the streets. He also, in 1853, married the very conservative Spanish lady Eugenie de Montijo whose influence was responsible for most of his subsequent pro-Catholic policies.

Napoleon III encouraged economic planning, industrialization and free trade. Some grumbled but France, at least, obtained a lengthy period of stability under their new Emperor. However, despite his talk of peace, the shadow of his famous uncle pushed him toward an active foreign policy. Initially, these moves did earn France a great deal of new prestige around the world. Standing as the champion of the Christians in the Holy Land, Napoleon III took France to war against Russia alongside Great Britain and Piedmont-Sardinia in 1854 with combat focusing on the Crimean peninsula. Few would have ever thought that a Bonaparte emperor and Great Britain would become allies. Unprecedented or not, the Crimean War ended in victory for France and her allies and this helped raise the prestige of French arms. From the Americas to Japan countries all over the world adopted the fashions of the French army. In 1858, at the urging of his wife, Napoleon III sent troops into Vietnam to avenge the persecution of French missionaries there. Ultimately this would result in Cochinchina becoming a French colony and set the groundwork for eventual French rule over all of Indochina. In 1860 France also won a victory over China which had come to challenge their new influence in Vietnam, traditionally a vassal of Imperial China, even if in name only. In 1866 a punitive expedition was launched against Korea due to the persecution of missionaries there but the unauthorized strike ended badly and was soon forgotten.

Closer to home, his early political activities in Italy combined with a desire to humble the Austrian Empire that occupied most of northern Italy prompted Napoleon III to back the efforts toward Italian unification. He was also influenced by the latest in a string of mistresses, an Italian lady regarded by many as the most beautiful woman in Europe, who had been aimed at him for just that purpose by the Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia. In 1859 he went to war alongside Piedmont-Sardinia against Austria in northern Italy, it having proved rather easy to provoke Austria into making the first move. Again, French forces were mostly victorious but the bloody battles had a sobering effect on Napoleon III who led the armies in person. Forgetting some of his grander promises to the Italians he made peace with Austria. Piedmont-Sardinia gained Lombardy from Austria but no more and was obliged to give up Nice and Savoy to France in return. Left with a free hand, Piedmont-Sardinia had little trouble annexing the central Italian states into the new Kingdom of Italy which was proclaimed in 1861. Previously supportive, Napoleon III then became alarmed that what he had envisioned as a buffer state against Austria might turn into a rival for France as the dominant Mediterranean power. This, combined with growing outrage by French Catholics, prompted Napoleon III to do an about-face and send French troops to Rome to maintain papal rule at least over the Eternal City itself. The rest of the Italian peninsula was united under the Savoy monarchy but Rome remained the domain of the Pope so long as the French troops were present.

That same year the American Civil War broke out, quickly becoming the bloodiest war in history up to that time. The U.S. had previously declared the Americas “hands off” to Europe via the “Monroe Doctrine” but were now unable to enforce their claim to an exclusive sphere of influence. Mexico had recently defaulted on debts owed to all foreign countries which made many bankers in France call for intervention. The Mexican republican had also recently turned anti-clerical and this made Empress Eugenie a strong advocate of intervention as well. Napoleon III began to develop a grand vision for French power in the Americas. He envisioned an alliance with the rebel Confederate States to thwart the U.S. and would then install a pro-French regime in Mexico, extend French influence into Central America (even considering the building of a canal through Panama) and perhaps even into South America through the creation of a “Kingdom of the Andes” based out of Ecuador. There were problems though as Great Britain refused to join him in openly supporting the Confederacy, fearful that a wrathful United States would conquer Canada. Still, the war in America would allow the Emperor to have a free hand in Mexico. Hopefully his friendly regime could be well established before the fighting ended north of the Rio Grande and, even without foreign recognition, there was still the possibility of a Confederate victory.

So it was that, after a punitive expedition allegedly to recoup the debts owed to France, French Imperial troops crushed the Mexican forces, occupied Mexico City and established a friendly provisional government. This ruling junta invited Archduke Maximilian of Austria to assume the Mexican throne and in 1864 the Archduke and his beautiful Belgian bride arrived to become Emperor Maximilian and Empress Carlota of Mexico. However, grand as it all was, France was loosing a lot of money on the enterprise rather than profiting by it. The expedition also cost many lives as the defeated republican armies dispersed and began resorting to banditry and guerilla warfare. Still, wherever French forces met the Mexican rebels in combat French arms prevailed and the affair seemed to be on the verge of final success when diplomatic disaster struck. In 1865 the United States emerged victorious from her civil war and immediately began funneling maximum support to the republican rebels and threatening war with any European power that helped Emperor Maximilian. With the rebel forces rapidly strengthening and 50,000 victorious American troops on the border, combined with a weary public and depleted funds, Napoleon III decided to cut his losses and abandon Mexico. It was a fairly humiliating affair all around and the personal prestige of Napoleon III was greatly lowered by it. Realistically he probably had few other options but to the man on the street the public image was of the brave, noble Maximilian going to his death while that of Napoleon III was of the duplicitous puppet-master who had arranged the whole thing and then abandoned his ally to a horrific fate.

Emperor Napoleon III was never quite the same again, though his worsening health probably had more to do with his increasingly lackluster performance. The Kingdom of Prussia was a growing threat to France as the Chancellor Bismarck sought to unite all the German states into a new, powerful empire under Prussian leadership. The Prussians first targeted the Austrians who had once been the enemy of Napoleon III but whose troops had fought alongside his own in Mexico. Nonetheless, the Emperor could not abide coming to the aid of the Austrians he had always disliked, as much for perceived Hapsburg snobbery as for their conservative policies. Austria was swiftly crushed by the Prussians and their allies in 1866 but Bismarck concluded that one more great victory would be needed before his new German Empire could be realized. The only possible target was France, still red in the face from the Mexican adventure and with an increasingly ailing Emperor. It is interesting to note that Italy had provoked a hot-headed Austria into striking the first blow in a war they could not win early in the career of the French Emperor and in 1870 it was Prussia that provoked a hot-headed Napoleon III into launching a similarly ill-conceived conflict. The primary difference was that Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria came through his mistake with his Crown still in place while Emperor Napoleon III would not.

It all started with a German prince being suggested as a potential monarch for Spain which had recently deposed their Queen. The Prussians had no interest in Spain and when France protested at the suggestion (as they naturally would do) King Wilhelm I of Prussia was not offended. However, Bismarck doctored the soon-to-be infamous “Ems Telegram” to make it as insulting toward the French as possible. Unfortunately for him, Napoleon III played right into his hands and in 1870 was outraged enough to go to war against Prussia. It could be argued, of course, that France needed to fight Prussia in order to forestall the threat of a united Germany becoming a rival on the continent too big for them to handle. However, even if that were the case, France needed more time for preparations and much more careful planning. A few allies wouldn’t have hurt either. As it was, the inconsistent foreign policy of Napoleon III meant that few in Europe were well disposed toward him, at least any who could have been of help. He had not helped the Austrians when Prussia attacked them so they felt no need to help France. The King of Italy was sympathetic but had only recently allied with Prussia against Austria so as to reclaim Venice and Italian nationalists were still annoyed by the French garrison that kept them from making Rome their capital city. Great Britain was sympathetic to a degree but in those days refrained from getting involved on the continent and, in any event, the British Princess Royal was married to the heir to the Prussian throne.

Napoleon had previously hoped to annex Belgium and Luxembourg, offering French neutrality toward Prussia if the Prussians would not object. However, by the time he proposed the move Prussia had no need of French neutrality and nothing came of it. So, in 1870, full of anger and over-confidence, Napoleon III sent his armies against Prussia. They were swiftly defeated and the southern German states rallied to the side of Prussia and France went down to crushing defeat. On September 2, the Emperor and his army were soundly beaten at Sedan, revolution began to break out across France, leading ultimately to the disastrous Paris Commune, and on September 4, 1870 Napoleon III gave up his throne and, once again, went into exile in England. The Prussians ultimately crushed the Paris Commune and in an historic gathering of princes at Versailles the German Empire was declared with the King of Prussia declared Kaiser Wilhelm I. Napoleon III, still as tenacious as ever, never gave up hope of eventually returning to power in France, either personally or through his only son the Prince Imperial. However, his failing health would not permit it and during an operation to remove a massive bladder stone the former Emperor of the French died on January 9, 1873. To date, his monarchy was the last to ever hold power in France.

It was inevitable that the empire of Napoleon III would be unfavorably compared to that of the first Napoleon and, in a way, Napoleon III was responsible for this since he tried so often to bank on nostalgia for the accomplishments of his uncle. Yet, Napoleon III accomplished some things his famous predecessor never did. Certainly he lacked the charisma and military genius of the first Napoleon but he was also the only Bonaparte to make himself acceptable to the international community. His foreign policies were inconsistent and ultimately contributed to his downfall and, though he almost certainly did not realize it at the time, he was playing with fire in the area of his domestic and economic policies. He did, however, surpass his uncle in making France a major power on the world stage. The republic that came after him could boast of having the second largest colonial empire in the world but it was built on a foundation that had been poured by Napoleon III. It can also be said that, if his foreign adventures were self-serving they also had more noble intentions that went along with them. In this way, he was a man who often did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Be that as it may, in many parts of the world he was a defender of Catholic Christianity even if it ultimately did him no good with the Catholics at home. Overall, his reign was not an unduly oppressive one, more moderate than extreme in any direction and did revive a bit of the old Napoleonic glory. As with many such figures, Napoleon proved unable to be all things to all people as he tried to portray himself, ultimately satisfying neither side. His Second Empire was no zenith of greatness for France but neither was it as totally disastrous as his critics claim.

Black History Month

February is "Black History Month" (in the United States at least) and I thought it an appropriate time to highlight some of the topics we have discussed so far relating to Black African royals and royalists. Of course, for more coverage; comments on historic dates, videos and so on, you can click on the Africa and Haiti labels at the bottom of this post. More will be coming this month but, for the moment, here are some of what we have talked about so far:

Colonel Tye, Black loyalist leader in the American Revolution

King Mutesa II of Buganda, better known as "King Freddie" of Uganda

Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia, the victor of Adowa

King Ovonramwen of Benin, leader of one of Africa's oldest nations

Queen Masenate of Lesotho, one of the most respected female royals in Africa

King Mutara III of Rwanda, a man who tried to avert disaster

Foreign Influence in the Mexican Empire

The foreign forces involved in Mexico during the period of the Second Empire were truly a diverse lot. Few people realize just how diverse. All too often the conflict is regarded as a contest between the Mexicans on one side and the French on the other. In fact, the armies fighting for Mexican President Benito Juarez and those fighting for Mexican Emperor Maximilian were each quite diverse, though those supporting Maximilian were infinitely more so. Most of the non-Mexican forces among the republicans of Benito Juarez were Americans, predominately former U.S. Army troops from north of the Mason-Dixon line who viewed the French Emperor Napoleon III as their enemy because of his perceived sympathy with the Confederacy of southern states. The establishment of a monarchy in Mexico was also seen by many in the northern states as a challenge to American republicanism and a threat to U.S. domination of North America. A large percentage of those Union troops who went to Mexico to fight for Juarez were African-Americans who tended to be even more sympathetic to Juarez than their other comrades in blue, seeing him, a Zapotec Indian, and his fight against the Austrian Maximilian as a struggle by a dark-skinned native against White, European domination. The only Union troops who, as a group, were most ill-disposed toward Juarez were the many Irish Catholics in the U.S. Army who objected to the anti-clericalism of Juarez.

Although thousands of American veterans served with Juarez, the greatest support from the United States was not in men but in weapons, uniforms, equipment and the diplomatic pressure they brought to Paris to force Napoleon III to withdraw his support for Maximilian and his struggling empire. After 1865, when the Confederacy was firmly defeated, American support poured into northern Mexico without hindrance. It must have seemed a strange sight given the long history of antagonism between the United States and Mexico to see so many Mexican troops who could have been mistaken for U.S. Army regulars, wearing complete U.S. Army uniforms, carrying American rifles, complete with ammo boxes and belt buckles stamped “US”. Because of this support, in the days when the Mexican Imperial forces were at their weakest due to the withdrawal of the French, the Mexican republicans were at their peak with far superior weaponry and greater stores of supplies. While the troops of Maximilian fought with outdated muskets and antique artillery (some dating back to the Spanish army) many republicans carried the latest American-made Henry repeating rifles and state-of-the-art rifled artillery. When the final clash of arms came, despite popular perceptions, it was the republicans who were better armed, better equipped with more supplies and more money than the monarchists.

However, it was the forces fighting for and on behalf of Emperor Maximilian that were, by far, the most diverse. There were Mexicans, native Indians, French, Belgians, Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Poles and even a troop of Sudanese Africans sent by the Khedive of Egypt. The French also made use of colonial troops from their Caribbean islands, most of whom were of African origin. Americans also fought for Emperor Maximilian after 1865, almost invariably these were former Confederates who had no desire to live under ‘Yankee rule’ in their own homeland. They were not, however, anywhere near as numerous as the Americans who fought for Juarez, partly because U.S. forces moved quickly to seal off the border and prevent southerners fleeing to Mexico where they would doubtlessly aid the side that Washington was against (namely the Emperor).

General Tomas Mejia

The diversity of the Mexican Imperial Army was seen even at the highest levels. Among the top commanders were General Miguel Miramon, a Mexican of Spanish blood; General Raul Mendez, a Mexican of mixed blood and General Tomas Mejia, a Mexican of pure Indian blood. This shocked some in Mexican society but Emperor Maximilian was adamant that Mejia was a talented general who deserved a rank that reflected his achievements. He was also fond of saying that his Indian general most likely possessed an older bloodline than any of his European counterparts. There were also, of course, Marshal Achille de Bazaine and his French generals, the Austrian General Franz Count von Thun-Hohenstein (born in what is the Czech Republic today), the Belgian Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Baron Van der Smissen, the American General John B. Magruder, the German Prince Felix zu Salm-Salm and others. Some could even confuse those doing the classifying such as the eventual turncoat Colonel Miguel Lopez who was a Mexican born and raised but whose skin was so fair and hair so blonde many mistook him for a European officer.

The Sudanese Battalion

They may have lagged behind their republican enemies in state-of-the-art weaponry but the imperialists were certainly a much more colorful bunch. The Sudanese wore baggy white uniforms with red sashes and fezzes while their officers wore red uniforms almost totally covered in gold braid. They were quite a unique unit by themselves with Black African soldiers, led by Turkish or Egyptian officers sent by a Khedive whose family was Albanian and under the religious authority of a Sultan who was a quarter French and whose mother was Wallachian. The Hungarian hussars favored uniforms that resembled their national colors of green, red and white which was probably popular being the same as the national colors of Mexico. There were the Red Hussars who took their name from their bright outfits, the Belgians in their braided tunics and tall hats and French zouaves outfitted in the Algerian style which was very popular at the time. Their languages were equally diverse. The Mexicans spoke Spanish of course but some officers could speak French just as some French officers who had served in Spain could speak Spanish. The Belgian officers spoke French while many of their troops spoke Dutch and amongst the Austrian Corps the infantry spoke German, the lancers spoke Polish and the hussars spoke Hungarian. The Americans spoke English of course but luckily the families of southern plantation owners usually taught their children French, the language of “civilization”. Some veterans of the Mexican-American War had picked up at least a little Spanish as well during their service south of the border.

A totally foreign observer would be forgiven for thinking that Mexico was the scene of some sort of world conflict during the mid 1860’s. Of those European monarchies not represented on the battlefield, most were at least supportive of the Mexican Empire. The British Empire could make or break almost any overseas adventure, and Britain was not thrilled about anything that would rock the boat and possibly disrupt trade but they were not adamantly opposed either. Whatever was thought of the establishment of a monarchy, there was no doubt that the would-be emperor was popular. Queen Victoria was positively effusive in her praise of Maximilian when her uncle Leopold sent him to London for her inspection prior to Max marrying his daughter. After listing a number of his wonderful attributes, Queen Victoria bestowed upon him the greatest compliment possible for her, saying he seemed “so English”. When the couple were on their way to Mexico years later the British garrison at Gibraltar fired a thunderous salute as their vessel passed. The Spanish, as was becoming habitual, were too busy trying to see which faction could get rid of their own monarch first to worry much about Mexico. King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy, when Empress Carlota met him at Padua on her way to Rome, impressed on her his great admiration for Emperor Maximilian. According to the galantuomo he was ‘kind and good’ and Carlota proudly wrote to her husband, “He asked me to tell you how much he loved you, for, he added, ‘He has such good ideas…’” It is worth remembering that the Italians had only recently been given a drubbing by the Austrian fleet that Maximilian had prepared in his prior occupation as a Grand Admiral. However, regardless of politics, everyone seemed to adore Maximilian. Even his enemies in Mexico had a hard time hating the man himself.

Hungarian troops in Mexico

About the only foreign country solidly on the side of the Mexican republicans was the United States but, of course, that was the one country that mattered the most for Mexico. By 1865 the U.S. had the largest army and the largest navy in the world, the very latest weapons and freshly victorious, battle-hardened troops. No government in Mexico that failed to gain the approval of Washington DC could hope to survive. Perhaps more than all of the men and guns and supplies the U.S. sent to the rebels it was Secretary of State Seward who brought the full diplomatic weight of the U.S. against both the presence of French troops in Mexico and the sending of any other European forces to Mexico to aid Emperor Maximilian. Thousands of Austrian (not all “Austrians” of course) were ready to set sail when Seward threatened Vienna with war if they did so and the Kaiser backed down. Napoleon III did as well, recalling all of his forces just as they were on the cusp of victory and in spite of agreements signed with Maximilian. Seward invoked the “Monroe Doctrine” which claimed the western hemisphere as America’s exclusive sphere of influence and a “republics only club”. Ironically, this was the same man who had, earlier in his career, advocated that the United States annex Canada or Mexico or perhaps even both. From London to Paris to Vienna there were grumbles but no one would ever dare to challenge the might of the United States. This is important to remember since the conflict in Mexico is so often portrayed as “Mexico versus the foreigners” (which it was not, it was a Mexican civil war as much as anything). While it is true that the Empire of Maximilian had the most help from foreign countries it is no less true that the ultimate victory of the republic of Benito Juarez is owed entirely to the United States. Mexican patriots would do well to give that some serious thought even today.