The life of the Roman emperor Gera is, in some ways, a tragic tale of brotherly rivalry and parental miscalculation. He was also an emperor for whom we have little reliable historical information. His story is told mostly through the histories of his father, the emperor Septimius Severus, and his brother, the emperor Caracalla. This is because, when his father died, pre-eminent power was passed to both Geta and his brother Caracalla; the latter, who saw his brother as a rival, assassinated Geta.   Geta: Child of Civil War Bust of Septimius Severus, Roman, c. 193-211 CE. Source: Glypothek Museum, Munich   Geta (born 189 CE) was the younger son of Emperor Septimius Severus, who, in addition to being the first African emperor of the Roman Empire, emerged as the eventual victor of a protracted and chaotic civil war. This conflict arose after the assassination of the megalomaniacal emperor Commodus in 192 CE, whose death brought the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty to an infamous end.   After Commodus’s death, a series of different statesmen vied for power and fought with one another while asserting their status as the legitimate emperor. This “Year of the Five Emperors” (192-193 CE), as it became known, saw Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, and Septimius Severus all acclaimed emperor by the senate or their troops, splitting the Empire and its armies between the rival claimants. It took Septimius until 197 CE to eventually unite the Empire again.   A notorious episode in this tumultuous period was the auctioning of the position of emperor by the Praetorian Guard. They declared for Didius Julianus after they had murdered the first incumbent, Pertinax. Thereafter, Septimius Severus championed himself as Pertinax’s rightful successor, defeating the other opponents who either proclaimed the same thing or argued that Pertinax should never have become emperor.   During this endeavor, Septimius had at one point allied himself with Clodius Albinus in an agreement that saw Albinus nominally established as (an albeit lower) co-emperor, administering several western provinces. This political cooperation of convenience allowed Septimius to focus his resources on defeating his rival in the east, Pescenniu Niger, while bringing some stability to the Empire.   A bust of Marcus Aurelius, who Septimius Severus absurdly claimed ancestry from, Roman, c. late 2nd century CE. Source: Louvre   However, when Septimius absurdly declared himself as the son of Marcus Aurelius, an esteemed Nerva-Antonine predecessor with whom he shared no relation, and named his elder son Caracalla as “Caesar,” a byword for heir and co-emperor, the proverbial writing was on the wall for Albinus.   Indeed, this series of events eventually led Septimus Severus to defeat Albinus at the Battle of Lugdunum in 197 CE. With all his rivals now dealt with, Septimius became the uncontested emperor of Rome. He was able to establish his own “Severan dynasty,” with his sons Caracalla and Geta as his chosen successors.   Son of the Emperor Bust of Geta, Roman, c. 208 CE. Source: Louvre   At just eight years old, Geta was designated as co-heir and named Caesar, along with his older brother Caracalla, in 198 CE. Part of the reason for such an early honor was that Septimius predicated his rule on the stability he had brought back to the Roman Empire with his new dynasty.   A key part of this stability was secure succession, which protected against the kind of chaotic infighting that had defined the Year of the Five Emperors. With these proclamations, Septimius was, therefore, making it clear that his stable “Severan” rule would continue after his death with his sons Caracalla and Geta.   To solidify these assertions of stability, Septimus even claimed ancestry from the Nerva-Antonines, particularly Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. As such, the Severans were presented, quite absurdly, as a continuation of the hallowed Nerva-Antonines. This even involved deifying the emperor Commodus to support these links, regardless of the fact that Commodus’s memory and reputation had been condemned due to his despotic and chaotic rule.   Therefore, Geta would have been brought up as co-heir, acutely aware of the precarious nature of emperorship and the need to work vigorously to reinforce one’s image. He also would perhaps have seen much of the Empire, as his father Septimius was a famously militaristic emperor, waging war with Rome’s perennial enemy in the east, Parthia, as well as various tribes and peoples in North Africa and Britain.   Remains of Leptis Magna, the birthplace of Septimius Severus. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Septimius also tried to ensure that both sons would be well educated, hiring the “sophist” Aelius Antipater to tutor the young heirs. This intellectual edification was complimented by experience in running the Empire, as Geta was made consul, along with his brother, on a number of occasions, and they accompanied their father on various provincial tours, particularly around their father’s place of origin, Leptis Magna.   Rivalry With Caracalla Caracalla and Geta, by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, 1907. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The sources make it apparent that from early on Caracalla and Geta were rivals, especially as far as the older brother Caracalla was concerned. Reminiscent of the brotherly rivalry between Romulus and Remus that led to the founding of Rome, there are stories in the dubious Historia Augusta that suggest Geta was always fated to die early at the hands of his older brother.   Although Caracalla was only born a year before Geta, in 188 CE, he was accorded greater honors and prestige. For example, Caracalla was named heir in 195 or 196 CE, and Geta in 198 CE. Caracalla was made co-emperor in 198 CE, while Geta had to wait until 209 CE to be made co-emperor with his brother and father.   Caracalla was also married at the age of 14 to the daughter of his highborn and apparently overbearing father-in-law, Plautianus, who was also a Praetorian Prefect. This did not stop Caracalla from framing his father-in-law and having him killed in front of his father, the emperor, leading to a purge of those associated with the deceased prefect.   The historian Cassius Dio tells us that Plautianus’ murder was a turning point, after which the young princes had free rein to act as they pleased. He remarks that “they outraged women and abused boys, they embezzled money, and made gladiators and charioteers their boon companions,” in all of which they were “full of strife in their rivalries.”   This meant always supporting rival teams at the chariot races or opposing gladiators in the arena. Witnessing this perverse rivalry and perhaps recognizing that Geta was surely in danger if Caracalla became emperor, Septimius abandoned what seemed to be an intentional policy and named Geta co-emperor with his brother in 204 CE. In addition, to teach them both discipline, he brought them along to Britain in 208 CE, where he had decided to wage war against the Caledonians in the north of the island.   Brothers in Britain Coin showing Geta on the obverse, Syria, c. 208-211 CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Cassius Dio tells us that Septimius wanted to surpass his predecessors by taking control of the whole island of Britain for Rome. Trying to do so, however, he was met by boggy terrain, untraversable forests, and an elusive enemy who would not meet him in open battle. While Septimus Severus was already advanced in age and suffering from declining health, he pushed on to a point where he forced the Britons to come to terms agreeable to Rome.   During this dreary campaigning, he was apparently alarmed at the idleness and excesses of Caracalla, who we are told was already plotting against both his brother and father. Nonetheless, an image of family harmony was promoted to the Empire during the campaign, which was completely contrary to reality.   From what we can gather, animosity between the two brothers, seemingly instigated principally by Caracalla, meant that they were kept apart. We are told that Geta took over much of the administrative and bureaucratic duties in the Roman-held parts of Britain, perhaps in York, while Caracalla was mostly on campaign with his father in the far north.   Unfortunately for Septimius, the Britons disregarded the terms made with Rome and broke out into rebellion, forcing Septimus and Caracalla to campaign against them again. Yet, it seemed this latest turn of events was too much for the infirm emperor, and after falling ill, Septimius passed away in Eboracum (York), which seems to have been his base of operations.   The Murder of Geta Bust of Caracalla, Roman, 212 CE. Source: Naples National Archaeological Museum   When Septimius died in 211 CE, he left his two sons as co-emperors, reportedly imploring them on his deathbed to “be harmonious” with each other in their joint rule. Both brothers soon left Britain, abandoning their father’s expansionist aims in the north and re-established Hadrian’s wall as the most northerly frontier of the Empire. This allowed them both to return to Rome to shore up their power. On the way back, they were said to argue incessantly, foreshadowing what was to come when they finally reached Rome.   Indeed, soon after arriving back, the palace was effectively split in two, with each brother isolating themselves against the other, carefully controlling access to their respective portions of the palace. In the midst of this domestic tension, their mother, Julia Domna, who elsewhere seems to have been an influential figure, tried in vain to reconcile the two brothers.   Spotting a perverse opportunity to get to his brother, Caracalla asked his mother to arrange a conciliatory meeting, unattended by any guards. Falling for the trap, Geta arrived alone, only to be stabbed by his brother’s agents and—like a scene out of Greek tragedy—die in his mother’s arms.   Geta Dying in his Mother’s Arms, by Jacques-Augustin-Catherine Pajou, c. 1766-1828. Source: Wikimedia Commons   With the deadly deed done, Caracalla assumed sole power and quickly aimed to erase all memory of his brother from architecture, art, sculpture and official records. This process, known as damnatio memoriae, had a long history going back to the Roman Republic or earlier and helps explain why so little reliable information survives about Geta.   Severan Family Portrait, with Geta’s face erased, Egypt, c. early 3rd century CE. Source: Altes Museum, Berlin   Any legacy that Geta may have left during his short reign was, therefore, eclipsed by his older brother Caracalla, who went on to rule for another six years, dying in 217 CE. During his reign, many Romans followed in Geta’s footsteps, falling victim to Caracalla’s cruelty, anger, and unpredictable temper.

  Much of what we know about individual Roman emperors comes from what they chose to build. In the 1st century CE, Nero was vilified for his greed, hoovering up great tracts of the city to turn into a private palace, the infamous Domus Aurea. A decade later, Vespasian was lauded for his public beneficence, converting Nero’s palace into the Flavian Amphitheater, better known as the Colosseum, returning space and leisure back to the people of Rome. The baths of the emperor Caracalla are a curious case. A vast palace of leisure and culture for the people, they were built by one of Rome’s most reviled emperors!   A Steaming Tradition: Thermae in the Roman World View of the Interior of an Antique Roman Bath, by Charles-Louis Clerisseau, c. 18th century. Source: Sotheby’s   There was a rich tradition of bathing in the Roman world. Thermae were typically larger public venues for bathing, and balnae were smaller, often private, bathing facilities. In fact, by the end of the Late Antique period, it was said that there were some 956 balnae scattered across the imperial capital!   Bathing facilities became a defining feature of Roman civilization. As the Empire expanded around the ancient Mediterranean world, so did Roman bathing culture. Most cities in the Empire then had some form of bath building. Typically, these were built where natural hot springs made hot water readily available, such as at Bath in England. The thermae were multifunctional structures. They were not only venues for bathing and exercise but also spaces for socializing, learning, appreciating culture, and sometimes even worship.   View of the Baths of Caracalla, Rome, with Distinguished Visitors and a Coach, by Guilliam du Gardijn, c. 1625-30. Source: Rijksmuseum   Although the specific architectural form of the thermae varied considerably around the Empire, fundamentally, they were all built around three rooms. These were the tepidarium (the warm room), the caldarium (the hot room), and the frigidarium (the cold room). There would also be an apodyterium (changing room), and many would also have a palaestra, or exercise ground. In bathing culture, there was a prescribed order for visiting these various rooms, with the visitor finishing their trip to the thermae at the frigidarium to purify the skin of sweat and other impurities.   Many thermae were ornately decorated, with the baths used as venues for advertising the wealth and prestige of the builder. This was magnified in the imperial period, as emperors began building vast public baths in Rome. The construction of these public edifices should be considered ideological undertakings, material expressions of the emperor’s generosity and care for the people over whom he ruled. The first of these public baths was built on the Campus Martius by Agrippa, the trusted general of Augustus. Soon, a tradition of imperial thermae construction emerged, and not only from those emperors you might expect to be so generous: Nero, Titus, Trajan, Caracalla, Trajan Decius, Diocletian, and Constantine all ordered the construction of grand public baths in Rome.   Rebuilding Rome: Severan Construction Work Portrait of Septimius Severus, c. 200-206 CE. Source: Museo Arqueologico Nacional Madrid   In 197 CE, following a cataclysmic battle at Lugdunum in Gaul, the largest battle in Roman history, Septimius Severus was confirmed as the undisputed ruler of the Empire. Since 193, he had been engaged in a bloody civil war against three rivals. With his enemies dead and his power now indisputable, Severus returned to Rome and set about establishing what kind of emperor he wanted to be. Although he might have proclaimed himself to be an emperor in the vein of Marcus Aurelius—the philosopher emperor who he farcically claimed as his father—many elements of Severus’ reign reveal that Augustus, the first emperor, was a clear inspiration. In particular, this is seen in his attitude to restoring Rome.   Although Severus made no remark as pithy as Augustus’ claim to have found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble, the man from Leptis Magna was a prodigious builder. Across the city, he oversaw a spate of restoration work, including on the Pantheon, Agrippa’s architectural masterpiece, which still has the dedicatory inscription commemorating Severus’ work.   Alongside the restoration work, Severus was also responsible for several wholly new construction projects. Many of these were localized in the city’s southeastern corner. They included some thermae, the exact location of which remains unknown and debated by archaeologists, and the now-destroyed Septizodium. This vast nymphaeum, which looked like a theater, was positioned at the south-eastern base of the Palatine Hill, beneath the imperial palaces, which Severus had also revamped. This building work in the southeast of the city was a policy that would be continued by Severus’ eldest son Caracalla when he succeeded his father as princeps in 211.   Constructing the Baths of Caracalla Portrait of Caracalla, c. 212-217. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art New York   Unlike his father, Caracalla was not in the position of needing to be seen as a “restorer” of Rome. Thanks to Severus’ planning, power had passed smoothly to his sons upon his death. However, within a year of taking power, Caracalla had orchestrated the murder and condemnation of his brother and co-emperor, Geta, jeopardizing much of the stability that his father had worked to cultivate. The emperor removed himself from any potential political maelstrom by launching a campaign against the Germanic tribes on the Empire’s northern frontiers, which was in keeping with his desire to be viewed as a soldier-emperor. Even before leaving for the campaign, however, and perhaps during the reign of his father, work had begun on a vast new set of imperial thermae.   The land for these new thermae had formerly been the vast estate of Gaius Asinius Pollio, a politician from the Augustan era who was responsible for building the first public library in Rome. At the time of the inauguration of the baths in 216, they were the largest thermae in the Empire and would remain so until the Baths of Diocletian were completed in the late 3rd century. They were also one of the largest structures in the entire Empire. They were serviced by two of Rome’s aqueducts: the Aqua Marcia and the Aqua Antoniniana.   View of the Baths of Caracalla today with a visual reconstruction of the original form. Source: Romewise   The rectangular site encompassed approximately 25 hectares, with the thermae orientated northeast to southwest, which meant that the heat of the sun helped heat the premises. The structure of the thermae followed the same symmetrical plan as had been implemented in the construction of the Baths of Trajan, and would be followed in the Baths of Diocletian. The Great Bath building was symmetrical. The main central space was occupied by the tepidarium, with the great vaulted space of the frigidarium to the north and the circular caldarium with its seven pools to the south. The dome that topped the caldarium measured almost 36 meters in diameter, rivaling the Pantheon. It is thought—though not known for sure—that this vast domed space was the cella solearis, which is referred to by the Historia Augusta, describing it as a vault which was “of such a size” that the ancient architects said, “cannot be reproduced.”   A Palace for the People: Art and Wonder in the Baths of Caracalla Athlete Mosaic from the Baths of Caracalla, c. 4th century CE. Source: Vatican Museum   The great imperial thermae were venues where an emperor could demonstrate his beneficence to the people of Rome. Bestowing leisure and luxury on the people of the imperial capital was a way to keep unrest quelled while also ensuring the longevity of one’s name. The Baths of Caracalla were no exception. An extraordinary quantity of marble was used in the construction of these baths, including at least 252 marble columns in the main bath building. Modern visitors to Rome can still see details of these decorations, but only if they go to the Basilica of Santa Maria in Trastevere. There are 22 granite columns with a combination of Ionic and Corinthian capitals, and these were taken from the Baths of Caracalla to adorn the place of Christian worship. On closer inspection, one can still make out the distinctive elephant heads curved into a number of these capitals; elsewhere, the faces of ancient deities, such as Isis and Serapis, were chiseled off on the orders of Pope Pius IX in the late 19th century.   As well as places of leisure, the great public baths in Rome served the cultural interests of the city’s populace. They became places of learning, with the Baths of Caracalla being home to two libraries, which were incorporated into the structure’s symmetrical plan. There was one library for texts in Latin, and another for texts in Greek, providing a reminder of the polyglot, cosmopolitan diversity of the Roman Empire.   Farnese Bull statue group, Roman copy of Greek original with heavy modern restorations, c. 3rd century CE. Source: Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli   The Baths of Caracalla also functioned as a vast gallery for the public display of artistic masterpieces. The surviving pieces include some of the most striking artworks to have survived from antiquity. This includes the so-called Farnese Bull. The largest single sculpture to have survived from antiquity, it depicts the myth of Dirce; the wife of Lykos, King of Thebes, who was tied to a wild bull as punishment for the ill-treatment of Antiope. The statue at the Baths of Caracalla is a Roman copy of an earlier Hellenistic original, which Pliny the Elder attributed to Apollonius of Tralles. Intriguingly, the original was brought back to Rome and ended up in the possession of Asinius Pollio, the same individual whose private land became the future site of the thermae.   The Farnese Hercules from “Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae,” by Jacob Bos, 1562. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   As well as this dramatic, dynamic representation of Dirce’s punishment, the Baths of Caracalla were home to the Farnese Hercules. A colossal version of the “weary Hercules” statue type, this nude statue depicts the Greek hero at rest; he leans against his club, while in his other hand, behind his back, he holds the apples of Hesperides. While these sculptures are currently on display in Naples, other artistic remains from the Baths of Caracalla can be seen throughout the city of Rome itself. In the Vatican Museums, one can see the colossal mosaic flooring from the baths, which depict a variety of athletes. In the city itself, two enormous granite basins from the thermae now adorn the Piazza Farnese.   Subterranean Secrets: The Mithraeum at the Baths of Caracalla Marble statue of Mithras, c. 2nd century CE. Source: British Museum   In part because of their provincial backgrounds from North Africa and Syria, previous histories of the Severan emperors have been influenced by Orientalist tropes. Amongst these, and perhaps fuelled by a special fascination with Elagabalus and his singular devotion to his native Syrian sun deity, the Severan dynasty has been characterized as one of religious transformation. These interpretations suggest an increasing prominence of monotheistic religions and religions from the Empire’s eastern provinces. While such interpretations have been challenged by historical research, it is nevertheless striking that one of the largest known gathering places for the worship of the god Mithras was uncovered beneath the thermae of Caracalla.   The Mithraeum, excavated in 1912, was the place for initiates into this mystery cult. The Mithraeum at the thermae followed the typical layout for Mithraea found across the Empire, including a vaulted ceiling and benches for the worshipers lining each side. No image of the tauroch—the scene of Mithras slaying the bull—has been found at this particular site. The place of worship is actually part of a vast network of subterranean structures at the Baths of Caracalla. The vast majority of these are service tunnels. Running for hundreds of meters, these allowed the slaves who worked at the thermae to access the furnaces that kept the water and rooms heated for the visitors above.   After Empire: Uses and Reuses of the Baths of Caracalla A View of the Baths of Caracalla, by Giovanni Battista Piranesi, 1765. Source: Wellesley College   Rome’s great public baths were victims of the slow decline of the Western imperial capital. While investment was funneled into the aggrandizement of Constantinople, including the construction of public baths, Rome found itself increasingly beleaguered and sacked by invaders several times over the course of the 5th century. However, it was not until Belisarius, under orders from the emperor Justinian, tried to retake the Italian peninsula for the Byzantine Empire in the mid-6th century that the public baths finally ended. During a siege of the city in 537 CE, the city’s aqueducts were cut. Starved of water, the vast imperial thermae fell into disuse, with the artworks neglected and the buildings themselves despoiled for building material in the medieval city.   Interior of the Baths of Caracalla, by Giovanni Volpato, 1780. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   Despite this, the Baths of Caracalla had an especially long-lasting legacy, both in Rome and beyond. In the immediate aftermath of their construction, the thermae served as a model for future attempts to build vast public edifices. The thermae of Caracalla influenced the architecture of not only other imperial baths—such as the thermae of Diocletian—but also other public edifices, notably the Basilica of Maxentius in the Forum Romanum. Centuries later, after the rediscovery and excavation of the remains, the thermae would influence a number of modern structures. Perhaps the most famous of these was the original Penn Station in New York. Demolished in 1963, the main halls of the train station were modeled on the vast vaulted spaces of the frigidarium in the baths of Caracalla.   Back in Rome, the thermae of Caracalla have enjoyed a rich afterlife. Intriguingly, they have stayed mostly true to their original purpose. Just as in antiquity, the remains of the ancient baths have been used as a space of cultural enrichment for modern visitors. In the 20th century, concerts were held in the ruins, and in 1960 the gymnastic events at the Olympic games were hosted in the thermae.

  In the 3rd century BCE, the Romans began using the silver denarius as their standard form of currency. As the Republic grew in size and stature, the denarius played an important role in the international economy, requiring more silver to mint the coins. The system continued to pay for itself until the Civil Wars and social problems of the 1st century BCE led to great change. As the political situation in Rome changed with the transformation of the Republic to the Empire, so too did the economic situation. Augustus required great funds to pay for his ambitious projects, and subsequent emperors followed suit with heavy spending on everything from construction to graft and personal vanity projects. The result was the devaluation of the denarius and extreme inflation cycles that played a role in the collapse of the Empire.   When Did the Romans Start Using Coins? Denarius with Julius Caesar on the obverse and Venus on the reverse, Roman, 44 BCE. Source: British Museum   In the modern world, currency as a medium of exchange is extremely important. Currencies have become a part of national identities, and their proper utilization ensures a country’s economic vitality. Ancient economics was no different. After the Lydians invented coinage as a medium of exchange and currency in the 7th century BCE, later peoples adopted the practice. The Romans adopted coinage directly from the Greeks, but instead of using the Greek drachma coin, they created their own coinage system.   When the denarius was introduced in the 3rd century BCE, it quickly became a simple to use and valuable currency. The coins were made of silver, which made them inherently valuable and subject to hoarding (Temin 2006). Because the denarius was not practical to carry all the time, smaller denominations were made. Four bronze sesterces, which were commonly used in everyday transactions, equaled one denarius. And four copper asses equaled one sesterces. These coins were all worth their weight in their respective metal, so they were not backed by government hordes of gold or silver. With that said, the Roman government usually held large reserves of gold as a policy.   Was There Inflation in the Ancient World? Bronze Coin of Ptolemy IV, Ptolemaic Egyptian, c. 222-205 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   Before moving forward, it is important to understand the concepts of inflation and devaluation as they relate to the denarius. The simplest definition of inflation is a process that refers to the rising costs of commodities. Connected to inflation is devaluation, which is the lowering of the value of a specific currency. Many economists argue that purposeful devaluation often leads to inflation. Governments sometimes purposefully devalue their currency so that the goods they export are cheaper to other countries and individuals. The easiest way for a government to do this is by printing, or in the case of the ancient world, minting more currency. Extra currency was also minted to pay for building projects and social programs. Both cases usually resulted in inflation. Even when Augustus made the decision to print more currency, he had recent precedents to know what the potential results could be.   Silver Coin of Ptolemy XII, Ptolemaic Egyptian, 23 BCE. Source: British Museum, London   Ptolemaic Egypt was a wealthy and powerful Hellenistic kingdom in the 3rd century BCE when things started to unravel economically. Due to economic problems caused by the Fourth Syrian War (219-217 BCE), Ptolemy IV (reigned 221-204 BCE) introduced the copper and bronze drachmas as the everyday currency of Egypt. Silver has traditionally had a higher value than copper or bronze, so minting copper and bronze coins was viewed as a cheap alternative. Ptolemy IV thought that he could recover silver drachmas in circulation to pay for the war and stabilize the economy. The policy had the opposite effect.   Silver all but disappeared from the land, as it was likely hoarded, while more copper was minted and circulated, creating an inflationary cycle. The inflationary cycle finally ended when Ptolemy VI (ruled 180-145 BCE) reintroduced silver into circulation. Inflationary cycles returned to Egypt when civil war from 130-128 BCE devalued copper coins, and a four-drachma silver coin was worth 2,000 copper drachmas. A final, major cycle of inflation and devaluation took place in 53-52 BCE when the purity of silver coins dropped from 90% to 33% (Chauveau 2000). The final round of Ptolemaic inflation and devaluation was largely the result of Ptolemy XII (reigned 80-51 BCE) purposely adding impurities to the currency to pay back debts he owed to Rome. The Romans would later devalue the denarius in much the same way as the Ptolemies did to their drachma.   When Did the Romans Start Devaluing Their Currency? Golden Coin of Augustus Showing the crocodile with the legend “Aegypto Capta” (Egypt Captured), Roman, 27 BCE. Source: British Museum   The denarius was truly the backbone of the Roman Republic’s economy and was a symbol of its strength and growth. The coin, though, was not without some inherent problems. Under fiscally responsible governments, the denarius held its value, but there was always a chance that less scrupulous leaders could manipulate the currency.   Adding impurities to the coins during the minting process or shaving small amounts off the coins were the most common ways that irresponsible leaders could purposely devalue the currency. The Ptolemies were masters at this, but the Roman emperors, too, would learn these methods. Counterfeiting could also be a problem, but much less so in the ancient world because it required specific skills and technology. In the wake of the civil wars of the 1st century BCE, as Rome transitioned from a Republic into an Empire, the emperors engaged in a more standard and less nefarious method of devaluation: increasing the money supply.   Forum of Augustus, Rome, built 27 BCE-14 CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   After Augustus became emperor, he embarked on an ambitious social reform and building program to rejuvenate Rome. The Forum was refaced in marble, and many new structures were built, including the original Pantheon. Augustus also instituted many ambitious social and infrastructure programs to feed the poor and refurbish temples that had fallen into neglect or were burned in the civil wars. According to the 2nd-century Roman biographer Suetonius, it cost 50 million sesterces alone to refurbish the Temple of Jupiter.   Augustus paid for these projects by having more silver coins minted, which economists cite as a potential cause of inflation. Still, if an economy is strong, inflation can be managed, and devaluation can even be beneficial if the nation in question is a major exporter of goods. Thankfully for Augustus, this was the case during his reign.   Augustus of Prima Porta, Roman, c. 1st century CE. Source: Vatican Museum   According to historian Peter Temin, the gross domestic product (GDP) of early Imperial Rome is estimated to have been similar to that of 1700 Spain. This was largely the result of an economic boom in the wake of the civil wars, as Augustus’s projects employed thousands of formerly unemployed Romans. The Pax Romana also saw Rome’s extensive road network transformed. Originally, the roads were used primarily for military purposes, but in the early Empire, they were used to link widespread markets (Boardman et al. 2000). This had the effect of keeping the currency flowing and dispersed, thereby mitigating the deleterious effects of inflation.   Head of Nero, Roman, c. 64-68 CE. Source: Glyptothek, Munich   The denarius specifically and the Roman economy generally stayed strong under most of Augustus’s Julio-Claudian successors. Tiberius and other early Julio-Claudians followed sound fiscal policies whereby they increased the money supply proportionately as trade increased. Because the money supply was increased this way, inflation was minimal. Taxes were also generally low, which contributed to the economic Pax Romana, but the era was not without some problems. Caligula and Nero demonstrated how much damage one man with nearly unlimited power can do to a country by disregarding the systems that made it strong.   Why Was the Roman Empire Losing Money? Fragment of a Statue of Diocletian, Roman, c. 295-300 CE. Source: J. Paul Getty Museum   The sound fiscal policies of the early emperors, which considered the military and geographic expansion of the Empire, began to unfold by the late 2nd century. A combination of corruption, bloated bureaucracy, economic myopia, and unforeseen events combined to send Rome into near-constant inflation and the devaluation of the denarius. Inflation was only about 1% in the first two centuries of the common era, but the black swan event of the Antonine Plague (165-175 CE) changed things.   Brought to Rome from the east by soldiers, the Antonine Plague killed millions and played a role in transforming Imperial Rome’s economy. According to Temin, the widespread devastation led to wage increases in some parts of the Empire, which meant more money was needed for circulation. More money was also needed to pay for growing expenses.   Rebuilding projects after the Antonine Plague required plenty of currency, but by the 3rd century, most of the newly minted coins were used to pay for the military (Malchow and Thiel 2011). Rome’s economic expansion could not keep up with its military-industrial complex, so emperors made the fateful decision to devalue the denarius. The emperors of the early 3rd century went beyond merely having more coins minted. They decided to debase the coins by adding impurities to them.   Marble Statue of the Emperor Constantine I, Roman, c. 325-370 CE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   Temin noted that, according to one source, the inflation rate in Rome was 15,000% between 200 and 300 CE. To put this into tangible perspective, one pound of gold was valued at 72,000 denarii in 301, which was near the end of the reign of Diocletian (ruled 284-306). Diocletian attempted to combat inflation by introducing price controls in 301 but did nothing about the debasement of the currency. The result was a massive increase in black markets, reducing the tax base and further harming the overall economic system. Diocletian’s successor, Constantine (306-337), is known for his many social and political reforms, though his greatest failure may have been following Diocletian’s failed economic policies.   Constantine was able to keep the Empire held together and revitalize it in many ways. But his successors were not nearly as successful as he was. None even remotely addressed the dire economic problems that were affecting every facet of Roman life.   When Did the Romans Start to Decline? Visigoth gold coin featuring Hermenegild, 584 CE. Source: British Museum   The immediate result of imperial Roman inflation and the devaluation of the denarius was increased taxes. Quite simply, as prices increased and the denarius was worth less, the government needed to raise taxes to keep pace. This led to Rome’s wealth being concentrated in fewer hands. Eventually, citizens in the provinces and even Italy itself began to identify less with the elites in Rome and more with their local communities.   Another result was that Rome was no longer able to pay for its large, standing army. This is somewhat ironic because a major reason for Rome’s inflation was the devaluation of the denarius to pay for the constantly growing military. By the late 4th century, Rome had come to rely on foreign auxiliaries and federate armies for defense. This proved to be another nail in Rome’s coffin.   The collapse of Rome was a complicated process with many determining factors. Often overlooked among those factors are economic processes, particularly inflation and the devaluation of the denarius. The denarius was the backbone of Rome’s economic vitality for centuries, but many of Augustus’s economic policies set a long-term process in motion. The process led to inflation and currency devaluation, which only worsened as the Empire faced many other problems.   Select Bibliography   Boardman, J., Griffin, J., and Murray, O. (2001) The Oxford History of the Roman World, Oxford University Press.   Chauveau, M. (2000) Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra, Cornell University Press.   Malchow, J. and Thiel P. (2011) “The Quantitative Easing (and Fall) of the Roman Empire,” Sovereignty, Technology, and Global Change, Winter 2011.   Temin, P. (2006) “The Economy of the Early Roman Empire,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 20.1:133-151.

  Uniforms are used for identification as well as to provide a sense of unity during any conflict, and the American Civil War (1861-1865) was no exception. At their most basic level, Civil War uniforms distinguished Union troops from Confederate troops: Union troops wore blue while the Confederate troops wore gray. However, a number of distinct uniform variations were present on both sides, further differentiating soldiers by division and rank.   Civil War Uniforms: Beyond Blue and Gray Plate 172, containing illustrations of uniforms worn by Union and Confederate soldiers during the American Civil War, 1895. Source: Library of Congress   Taking a deep dive into the types of uniforms worn during the Civil War reveals outfits in a variety of styles and materials. A number of factors affected troop uniforms, such as resource availability, weather conditions, and cost. Most notably, uniforms differed between soldiers and officers on both sides, as well as between some divisions—cavalry and infantry, for example. And one key group of fighters initially didn’t have standard uniforms at all.   Civil War Militias: Volunteer Soldiers Two unidentified soldiers in Union uniforms and Ohio Volunteer belt buckles with bayoneted muskets, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   To discuss solely Union and Confederate Army uniforms would leave out a major portion of soldiers in the war: volunteers who came from local militia. Many militiamen volunteered for the cause early on in the war in battles like the First Battle of Bull Run and came with their own uniforms, not those issued by either side of the Civil War.   Volunteers were such a large portion of the Union Army that they were eventually provided a uniform of their own to distinguish them from the regular soldiers. The “official” volunteer uniform of the Union Army became a dark blue jacket and light blue trousers with no colored stripe.   The Union’s Standard Issue Uniform Unidentified young soldier in Union uniform with bayoneted musket, knapsack, and knife, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   When a soldier enlisted in the Union Army, he was issued a standard uniform for the duration of his service consisting of a cap, dark blue coat, blue wool trousers, and leather boots. Soldiers also carried a knapsack that slung around their backs to carry tents, sheets, a coat, and personal belongings. Families back home could get a peek at their service members’ uniforms through portrait photography that Alexander Gardner made popular.   Most Union uniforms—regardless of ranking or unit—were made of wool. Today, wool is considered essential for winter because it holds in warmth, something that the Union troops also valued in the cold winter months. What many do not realize is that wool regulates body temperature and wicks away moisture, making it appropriate for various kinds of weather, not just the freezing winter months. Of course, men would be sweating in nearly any type of fabric in the blazing sun of the summer months.   While this was the standard issue uniform, slight variations based on the unit the soldier served in were also found. The differences were not drastic but enough to differentiate men and, in the case of some units, support their unique roles on the battlefield.   Union Cavalry: Practical Considerations for Horseback Riding Unidentified soldier in Union cavalry uniform with cavalry saber, with Cavalry Company D Hardee hat, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   The uniform with the most notable difference was that worn by cavalry soldiers, which had a shorter, waist length coat, in contrast with the longer jackets of other units. A short coat allowed for a range of movement on horseback, which other units did not have to contend with. In depictions of the cavalry, many of the soldiers also wielded swords instead of guns, so the shorter, lighter coat was helpful.   Cavalry soldiers were also issued what was referred to as a “great coat” to use in the winter, since their standard-issue jacket was shorter than the coats other soldiers received. The great coat appeared uniform across all cavalry soldiers. The coat was a lighter blue than the traditional uniform and double-breasted. A rain cape fell over the shoulders and rested at about the top of the jacket’s cuffs. Again, the design of the coat lent itself to the movements needed to fight on horseback.   Pants and belts were relatively standard among all units, with minor differences. The stripe on the side of the cavalry’s pants was yellow. Their belt also doubled as a sword belt to hold their sword at their side.   Union Infantry: Take What You Get Seated from left to right: Captain George L. Remington, Lieutenant Colonel William H. Drew, and Captain Algar Monroe Wheeler. Standing left to right: Captain William C. Alberger, Captain Jeremiah P. Washburn, and Captain Allen M. Adams, c. 1861. Source: Library of Congress   Though most pictures and drawings of Civil War soldiers show well-fitting garments, infantry soldiers often had uniforms that were too large or too small. Garments were so ill-fitting that it became a joke among soldiers.   The standard issue coat for infantry soldiers was longer than that of the cavalry at just about knee length. Infantrymen were also provided an overcoat, though it was not as dramatic as the cavalry’s great coat. It was single-breasted and did not have a cape.   The pants for the Infantry, also in light blue, had a dark blue stripe down the side. Members of the infantry also had a standard issue black belt worn at the waist rather than around the hips.   Union Army: Artillery Unidentified young soldier in Union artillery uniform with artillery saber and revolver, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   Red was the name of the game for the men in the artillery unit during the Civil War. Members of the artillery units had coats that were similar in length to that of the infantry. Artillery uniforms were adorned with red piping to differentiate them from infantrymen. The stripe on their light blue trousers was the same red as on their uniforms.   Artillerymen, like the cavalry, were issued riding boots that went up to their calves. While boots served the cavalry well on horseback, they were also helpful for the artillerymen who drove artillery limbers, or carts. Though artillerymen were not fighting on horseback during battles, they did need to use horses to move large pieces of artillery.   Confederate Army: Standard Issue Uniform Portrait of a Confederate soldier, c. 1861. Source: Library of Congress   Compared with their Union Army counterparts, soldiers in the Confederate Army had fewer dress options. In fact, Confederate troops had one standard issue uniform consisting of a hat, gray wool jacket, gray or blue trousers, haversack and ankle boots known as brogans.   The South began with less money for uniforms than the North and, as the War progressed, had even less money to put toward outfitting its soldiers. Uniforms were gray in the beginning of the war in 1861—gray that often faded to a brownish color—but by the end of the War in 1865, uniforms were any number of colors.   One major difference between Confederate Army uniforms is the fabric of choice: cotton. Unlike the North that relied on wool, the South had access to more cotton because of its agricultural economy. In fact, the South produced so much cotton that it hoped Britain would support their war effort in order to continue its dependence on the South’s cotton production. This, for one, made uniforms cheaper to produce but also kept the troops cooler. There was no need for wool uniforms in the Southern heat.   Confederate Officers: Showcasing Status Confederate General Jubal Early, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing front, c. 1860-1870. Source: Library of Congress   While the Union Army uniforms had differences between units, Confederate uniforms were instead differentiated by rank. In general, officer uniforms were more ornate and tailored than an enlisted soldier’s uniform.   Confederate officers had dark blue uniform jackets that were ornate and tailored. Officers—those like Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson—purchased their own uniforms (and were required to until early 1864), so they had the opportunity to put more design effort into their attire. Many jackets worn by officers were longer than waist length and featured buttons, belts, tassels, high collars, and embroidery. Thanks to tailoring, officers’ uniform jackets were well-fitted, in contrast with standard issue uniforms that soldiers wore.   Standing Out: Badges, Buttons, and Insignia Unidentified soldier in Union uniform with engineer regiment insignia on collar and New York belt plate, c. 1860-1865. Source: Library of Congress   Both Union and Confederate troops used additional emblems to distinguish themselves, like badges, shoulder straps, collars, insignias, and even buttons. The Union Army, for instance, used shoulder straps on the uniform to distinguish ranks like Major, General, and Captain. The Confederate Army, on the other hand, used collars and sleeve badges to indicate rank. Both the Confederate and Union Armies used something as small as buttons to distinguish the unit; Union buttons were more elaborate than the simple Confederate buttons, which often simply used a letter to represent the unit.   Both sides of the Civil War used chevrons on the sleeve to denote lower ranks. There are some designs that overlap between both the Confederate and Union Armies, but they do not have a one-to-one meaning.   Unique to the Confederate Army was the use of different color hats for generals, colonels of the cavalry, captains of the infantry, and lieutenants of the artillery. Hats were more or less standard amongst the Union troops, regardless of rank or unit, but the Confederacy utilized navy, blue, yellow, and red hats for its highest-ranking officials.

  While much of the focus of World War I centers on the Western and Eastern Fronts where Germany is seen as having played the biggest role of the Central Powers, to the southeast, the Ottoman Empire, controlling half of the Middle East, played a vital role in combating the Entente. For almost the entire duration of the war, the Ottomans fought on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary.   Joining the Fight Map of the Ottoman Empire in 1914. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In late July 1914, European countries maneuvered into political positions, signaling the beginning of what would become known as the Great War. On one side was the Entente, a powerful alliance originally consisting of France, Great Britain, and Russia. Opposing them were the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire.   The Ottomans did not play any part in the developments that led to war and instead operated under the façade of neutrality, negotiating with both sides. At the time, the Ottoman Empire was lagging far behind the European powers in terms of industrialization, and aware of this, the Ottomans sought modernization with the help of Germany. The prospect of being dragged into a major war was not much of an issue, as most believed the conflict would be over by Christmas. On August 2, 1914, the Ottomans entered into an alliance with Germany, offering the Germans two dreadnoughts that the British were building for the Turks. The day before the alliance was signed, however, the British seized the ships, and the Germans never got their payment.   Later that month, two German ships were halted in the Dardanelles, under threat of being fired upon by the British navy. Technically, the Ottoman Empire was still neutral, and the Germans and the Ottomans decided to work their way around the problem by pretending to switch ownership of the vessels. Thus, two German ships, replete with their German crews, came under the control of the Turks.   The main battery of the SMS Goeben, a German battlecruiser transferred to Turkish control in 1914. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Ottomans didn’t immediately declare war. Many in government were reticent about entering the conflict. In concert with German Admiral Wilhelm Souchon, Ottoman War Minister Enver Pasha sought to pull his country into the war by getting the Entente to declare war on the Ottoman Empire.   The Ottoman entry into the conflict came on October 29 as a result of the Black Sea Raid, an attack conceived by Enver Pasha, Wilhelm Souchon, and various members of the German foreign ministry.   The German ships, flying Ottoman flags and with crew dressed as Ottomans, sailed into the Black Sea under the pretext of conducting maneuvers. The initial plan was to provoke Russia into attacking first. Instead, Souchon attacked Russian ports, and despite Ottoman leadership attributing the blame squarely on Souchon, Russia declared war on the Ottomans on November 2. Three days later, Britain and France joined their Russian ally in declaring war.   Enver and Souchon had managed to draw the Ottoman Empire into the First World War.   The Ottomans Go to War Ismail Enver Pasha, colorized by Cassowary Colorizations. Source: Wikimedia Commons   On November 11, Sultan Mehmed V, who only held nominal power in the empire, declared jihad against the Entente. The inadequate rail networks hampered mobilization and logistical efforts. Nevertheless, the Ottomans decided to launch a winter offensive against the Russians in the Caucasus. Enver Pasha traveled to the front to personally oversee the campaign, assuming command of the 3rd Army. He was a well-respected leader and an able officer, but he had little experience leading forces in conventional warfare.   The weather conditions, lack of artillery, and poor logistical support conspired to thwart the Ottoman plans, and after just two weeks, the offensive ground to a halt. The Russians seized the opportunity, launching a counteroffensive and making gains into Ottoman territory, capturing several cities in the process. Of note was the routing of the Ottomans at the Battle of Sarikamish in January 1915. According to Turkish and German sources, the Ottomans lost 60,000 to 78,000 killed, wounded, frostbitten, or captured. This figure was conceivably three times higher than the losses suffered by the Russians. The defeat was a scandal and was blamed on Armenian traitors, a predictable move that was part of a larger effort to isolate and eliminate Armenians from Ottoman society.   Armenians, wary of being targeted, took up arms, adding fuel to the propaganda against them as being disloyal. In the face of Ottoman hatred, many Armenians joined the Russians, provoking further Ottoman reprisals against the Armenian population.   To the south, the Ottoman Empire was under threat from British forces in Egypt, and to the west, an Indian Expeditionary Force (as part of the British Empire) occupied Basra, protecting its oilfields and threatening the Ottomans from Iraq.   British and Indian troops in Mesopotamia. Source: theobservationpost.com   The beginning of 1915 augured more disasters for the Turkish forces. To meet the threat on their southwestern flank, the Ottomans planned to invade Egypt. This began with a raid on the Suez Canal, a move the British expected and for which they had prepared sufficient defense.   With the Ottomans having little in the way of logistical abilities and having to cross the Sinai desert to reach their target, the raid was a disaster, and the Ottomans were forced to rethink their strategy. They lost 1,500 killed, wounded, and captured, while the British lost just 32 killed and around 300 wounded. Despite the failure, the Ottomans did succeed in forcing the British to keep significant numbers of troops in Egypt, thus diverting offensive and defensive power away from other theaters of conflict. Nevertheless, to the east, the British were pushing towards Baghdad from Basra.   To add to the worsening situation, conscription resulted in farms and fields being left untended. Crops withered, and the empire faced starvation.   From this point, the situation looked dire for the Ottomans, and it’s no surprise that the British felt confident they would be able to force their enemy out of the war. This confidence, however, was misplaced, and a series of mistakes by the British would turn the tide.   Reversal of Fortune Turkish soldiers at Gallipoli. Source: Wikimedia Commons   With the series of disasters befalling the Ottomans, and pressed on multiple fronts, the British decided that they had a real chance to go straight for Constantinople and force the Ottomans to surrender.   The Entente had plans to take the city of İskenderun (now Alexandretta in Turkey) in order to cut Constantinople off from Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. In so doing, the Ottoman Empire would have been split in two. However, disagreements between the French and the British led to the plan being shelved.   In a bid to open the Dardanelles, the Entente decided to attack Ottoman positions defending the strait. A fleet was gathered and sailed into the strait to suppress the Turkish defenses. Sea mines, however, played a devastating role, and the Entente fleet was forced to retreat with heavy casualties.   It was clear that the only way to neutralize Ottoman defenses and open the Dardanelles was via a land operation. To achieve this, the Gallipoli Peninsula would have to be taken. British, French, New Zealand, Australian, and Indian troops were chosen for the landings.   Diorama of Australian soldiers in the Gallipoli Gallery at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Source: Bidgee / Wikimedia Commons   Hopes for a quick victory were dashed by stubborn coastal defense, and when Entente troops did manage to gain a foothold on the peninsula, the fighting devolved into stagnant trench warfare.   Throughout 1915, almost a year of fighting failed to produce any sign of victory for the Entente, and the Gallipoli campaign ended in a complete defeat. Both sides had suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, but the Ottomans were able to claim victory, significantly boosting national morale.   For the Entente, the silver lining was that the Gallipoli campaign had forced the Ottomans to divert troops from the front against the Russians, and as a result, the Russians were able to make small gains in the Caucasus. Today, the Gallipoli disaster is well remembered and commemorated by Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) forces, which suffered terrible losses as a result of the ill-conceived plan.   At the end of 1915 and through April 1916, the British advance from Basra was also defeated. Besieged at Kut, the British garrison was forced to surrender.   The Entente Gains the Upper Hand Arab fighters. Source: Wikimedia Commons   By mid-1916, tensions had reached boiling point in various areas within the Ottoman Empire. On June 10, 1916, the Great Arab Revolt began, as Arabs in the Hejaz province on the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula took up arms against their Ottoman oppressors, and fought for independence.   These efforts gained widespread British support and created the legend of T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, a British officer who organized the Arabs and helped lead them to victory.   Portrait of T.E. Lawrence, artist unattributed. Source: The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence. Photo supplied by Greg Beyer   The year 1917 would herald significant challenges for the Entente as revolution in Russia forced the Russians to withdraw from the war in March. Their campaign against the Ottomans had been going well in the Caucasus, and with the withdrawal, significant pressure was taken off the Ottomans in the north.   Ottoman soldiers in World War I. Source: Library of Congress   With the pressure of the Arab Revolt and the renewed British offensive in Mesopotamia, the Ottoman Empire was in a desperate situation. The British took Baghdad in March 1917, and to the west, the British efforts in Palestine were gaining momentum. After several failed offensives, the British finally broke through the Ottoman defenses. Beersheba and Gaza fell after the British renewed their offensive on October 31, 1917. In December 1917, the British took control of Jerusalem.   The War Ends The territorial losses of the Ottoman Empire over the last century of its existence. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica   By 1918, the Central Powers were sliding towards complete defeat. In the Ottoman sphere of influence, the Russians had pulled out, allowing the Turks to regain territory in the north. Conflict, however, continued as the vacuum left by the Russians was filled by Armenian volunteer units and irregular units that had been part of the Russian army. The Central Caspian Dictatorship and several other polities that existed in the wake of the collapse of the Russian Empire, supported by a British and Commonwealth force known as the Dunsterforce, continued to apply pressure in the north.   The British were also fighting to the south. While the Mesopotamian campaign had largely become static due to Britain consolidating its gains and choosing to take a defensive posture, in Palestine, the war continued, and the British slowly pushed northwards.   In September, the Entente launched an offensive in Southeast Europe and, seeing considerable success, forced Bulgaria, a member of the Central Powers, to capitulate. Without the support of its ally, the Ottomans were suddenly faced with the threat of an overland advance on Constantinople.   It was also clear that Germany’s situation in Europe had become unwinnable. On October 30, the Ottomans surrendered, signing the Armistice of Mudros.   Throughout the war, the Ottomans had fought in four major campaigns and had been victorious in only one of them. While Gallipoli had been a major setback for the Entente and a huge victory for the Ottomans, the Ottomans had suffered defeats in Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the Caucasus, and their forces had been pushed back to Anatolia.   Genocide Armenian victims of genocide. Photograph published in 1918. Source: Wikimedia Commons   During and after the First World War, the Ottoman Empire and its successor state, the Republic of Turkey, carried out systematic mass murder of ethnic minorities within its borders. These minorities largely represented Christianity within the Ottoman Empire and Turkey and thus contradicted the idea of a homogeneous state. Chief among the victims were the Armenians, of whom 1.5 million were exterminated. Greeks and Assyrians were also targeted by this same policy.   This genocide was carried out through massacres and forced marches through the desert, with the victims being deprived of food and water. Others died from atrocious conditions and forced labor. Rape and robbery were commonplace.   It is widely acknowledged that the horrific results of the Ottoman efforts constitute one of the first modern genocides in world history, as it was a systematic effort to wipe out certain ethnic groups.   As a result of the extermination, Armenians and other targeted groups fled the country en masse, which resulted in a wide Armenian diaspora around the world.   To this day, Turkey still denies that what happened was a genocide. The official reason for the genocide at the time was that the Armenians were supposedly in league with the Russians, and the Turks feared they would serve as a potential fifth column.   The Cost Turkish war graves. Source: tracesofwar.com   By the end of the war, the cost of human lives had been enormous for virtually everybody involved. It is estimated that the Ottomans lost 1.4 million soldiers killed and wounded, while the Entente lost the same number fighting them. Throughout the war, the Ottomans mobilized 3 million men. By the time of the armistice, only 323,000 soldiers were still in service, marking a drastic reduction of what the Ottoman Empire could field.   From a financial perspective, the empire was bankrupt. The war was a death knell for the Ottoman Empire, which was carved up and run as occupied territories under the control of various Allied powers. Many other polities were created out of the remains of the once powerful empire that had existed for six centuries.   Turkish nationalists, however, would fight against the harsh outcomes of the war and manage to establish the independent Republic of Turkey. In 1922, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the sultanate and put an official end to the Ottoman Empire.

  Due to a unique set of circumstances at the beginning of the 16th century, a teenage monarch inherited much of Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and parts of Italy. Throughout his reign, Emperor Charles V fought to keep his empire together against his French, Ottoman, and Protestant foes. Although he was largely successful in doing so, at the end of his life, he was forced to divide his vast empire between two branches of his family.   A Great Inheritance Emperor Maximilian I by Albrecht Durer, 1519. Source: Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna   When the future Charles V was born in Ghent on February 24, 1500, few expected that he would become the most powerful man in Europe less than two decades later. However, a unique set of circumstances made the young Charles of Ghent master of a vast empire that included territory on five continents.   Charles owed his destiny to his grandfather, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I. A member of the House of Habsburg, Maximilian had married Mary of Burgundy in 1477 as a young prince. Although the Burgundians lost control of their ancestral lands in eastern France, Burgundy controlled much of the Netherlands. Mary’s early death in 1482 saw Maximilian take over the Burgundian Netherlands as regent for their young son, Duke Philip IV of Burgundy.   After an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a marriage alliance with France, Maximilian turned to Spain, which had recently been united by the marriage of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile. In 1496, Philip married Infanta Juana, Ferdinand and Isabella’s eldest daughter. The couple would have seven children over the next decade.   While Philip and Juana began their married life in the Netherlands, they decided to move to Spain following the death of Queen Isabel in 1504. Philip fell ill on the journey and died in September 1506 at the age of 28. When Juana displayed signs of mental instability and refused to accept her husband’s death, she was declared unfit to rule and kept in confinement. In the meantime, Charles of Ghent became Charles II of Burgundy, though his aunt Magaret of Austria ruled as regent and was responsible for his upbringing.   King of Spain King Ferdinand of Aragon, c. 1470-1520. Source: The Royal Collections Trust   The future Charles V and his elder sister Eleanor spent most of their childhood at Margaret’s court at Malines near Brussels. Their younger siblings, who had accompanied their parents to Spain, were brought up at the Spanish court under the supervision of King Ferdinand of Aragon, who anticipated that he would leave his crown to his grandson and namesake, Prince Ferdinand.   However, Emperor Maximilian intended for Charles to become king in Spain and Ferdinand to take over the Habsburg hereditary lands in Austria. A marriage treaty signed with the King of Hungary in 1515 envisaged the marriage of Ferdinand and Princess Anne of Hungary, placing Ferdinand within reach of the thrones of Hungary and Bohemia.   Charles came of age in 1515 and assumed the reins of power in the Netherlands. The following January, his maternal grandfather Ferdinand of Aragon died and named him his successor. Charles’ succession did not go uncontested, and prior to his arrival in Spain in November 1517, the elderly Cardinal Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros served as regent and suppressed uprisings against Charles’ succession. In the meantime, Charles’ younger brother Ferdinand went to Margaret’s court in the Netherlands.   Emperor Charles V by Juan Pantoja de la Cruz, 1605. Source: Museo del Prado, Madrid   Although Charles was king of both Aragon and Castile, the two Spanish kingdoms maintained separate political institutions. The Crown of Aragon controlled territories in the eastern Mediterranean, including the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, while the Crown of Castile was responsible for the expanding Spanish empire in the Americas after Columbus’ expeditions.   Charles’ Spanish subjects resented the fact that he spoke no Spanish and was dependent on his Burgundian advisors. In 1520, he had to fight off a major popular uprising known as the Revolt of the Comuneros, who released Queen Juana from her captivity to install her as sole ruler. The queen did not wish to depose her son, and Charles was able to suppress the rebels by 1521. Over time, Charles centralized control over Castile, and the kingdom became an important source of wealth and manpower to support his European ambitions.   Holy Roman Emperor Emperor Charles V with his dog by Jacob Seisenegger, 1532. Source: Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna   On January 12, 1519, Charles’ grandfather Emperor Maximilian died. Although the imperial crown had now been held by the Habsburgs for a couple of generations, becoming emperor meant securing the unanimous support of the seven electors of the Imperial Electoral College. The electoral race in 1519 was particularly competitive: Charles’ rivals included King Francis I of France, Henry VIII of England, and his own younger brother Ferdinand.   While Charles persuaded his aunt Margaret to withdraw Ferdinand’s candidacy, the electoral campaign was an expensive business, and Charles secured the backing of the wealthy Fugger banking family from Augsburg to make donations to the electors. Despite having never visited Austria, his status as an Austrian archduke and his ability to speak German were central pillars of his campaign. Although King Francis also provided significant monetary gifts to the electors, on June 28, 1519, Charles was elected king of the Romans, though he would not become emperor until he could be crowned by the pope in Rome.   Although the Holy Roman Empire had no capital and its emperors were frequently itinerant, Charles’ position as the ruler of the Habsburg hereditary lands in Austria, the Burgundian Netherlands, and his kingdom of Spain pulled him in different directions. Charles was compelled to delegate his authority by leaving Margaret in charge of the Netherlands and transferred his brother Ferdinand to Vienna to rule Austria in 1522. Before returning to Spain, Charles strengthened his ties with England with a betrothal to Princess Mary, the daughter of King Henry VIII and his aunt Catherine of Aragon.   Italian Wars Tapestry depicting the capture of Francis I at the Battle of Pavia, Bernard van Orley, 1528-1531. Source: National Museum of Capodimonte, Naples, Wikimedia Commons   Under the influence of his Italian chancellor, Mercurino Gattinara, Charles saw himself as the ruler of a universal Christian Roman Empire. Gattinara encouraged Charles to take control of Italy, where imperial and French armies vied for control with the pope and independent princely states. Gattinara saw Italy as a springboard for a renewed crusade against the Ottoman Empire, which had been expanding into southeastern Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries.   The ambitious young emperor was keen to gain prestige by demonstrating his prowess on the battlefield. Charles’ main rival in Europe was King Francis I, having inherited dynastic disputes with France over Burgundy, Navarre in the Pyrénées, and Milan in northern Italy. Henry VIII of England sought to balance the interests of the two sides but often sided with Charles.   The Italian peninsula had been engulfed by war since King Charles VIII of France invaded Naples in 1496. Amid a conflict characterized by complex shifting alliances between the interest parties, as king of Spain, Charles was party to a pan-European treaty in 1518 that envisaged an attack on the Ottomans by a united European force. The crusade fell apart with the death of Emperor Maximilian, and by 1521, Charles formed an alliance with the pope to drive French forces out of Milan.   Although Francis managed to retake Milan in 1524, an imperial army under Charles de Lannoy defeated Francis and took him prisoner at the Battle of Pavia on February 24, 1525, the emperor’s 25th birthday. Charles imposed punitive conditions on Francis, but after being released in 1526, the latter made no effort to fulfill his obligations.   Maintaining European Hegemony King Francis I of France by Jean Clouet, 1525-1550. Source: Louvre Museum, Paris   After returning to France, Francis continued to be Charles V’s main rival for European hegemony. He was helped by King Henry VIII, who was infuriated by Charles’ decision to repudiate his betrothal to Princess Mary in favor of marriage to his cousin Isabel of Portugal, who gave him a son named Philip in May 1527. This was a factor that contributed to Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn in the quest for a male heir.   In May 1526, France, England, and Venice joined Pope Clement VII in the League of Cognac, designed to expel imperial forces from Italy. While Charles sought to put diplomatic pressure on the pope, mutinous imperial soldiers sacked Rome on May 6, 1527 and took the pope as prisoner. Although French forces marched down the Italian peninsula and laid siege to Naples, Charles received naval and financial support from Genoa, and imperial troops defeated the French army at Landriano on June 21, 1529.   The imperial victory at Landriano created the conditions for the Peace of Cambrai of October 1529, in which Francis withdrew from Italy and acknowledged Charles as ruler of the southern Netherlands in his own right but retained Burgundy. Relations between Francis and Charles were strengthened by Francis’ marriage to Charles’ widowed sister, Eleanor. The peace agreement gave the European powers an opportunity to face the growing Ottoman threat. More importantly for Charles, it allowed him to be formally crowned emperor by the Pope at Bologna on February 24, 1530, his 30th birthday.   The Ottoman Threat Sultan Suleiman I (the Magnificent) by Titian   While Charles and Francis were fighting over Italy, the Ottomans under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent captured Belgrade in 1521 and breached the defenses of the island bastion of Rhodes from the Knights of St John the following year. In August 1526, King Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia was killed, and his army was defeated by the Ottomans at Mohács. While Louis’ death saw Charles’ brother Ferdinand become king of Hungary and Bohemia, the Ottomans had conquered most of Hungary and were advancing towards Vienna.   In 1529, as the Ottoman army laid siege to Vienna, Charles received desperate calls from Ferdinand to come to his aid. The emperor was in no hurry to act and instead focused on restoring order in Italy, while the Ottomans withdrew from Vienna of their own accord. Charles signaled that the defense of the eastern frontier was Ferdinand’s responsibility, and in 1531, Charles gave his brother greater powers over imperial affairs after securing Ferdinand’s election as king of the Romans.   1530 marked the death of Gattinara and the end of Charles’ ambitions of being a universal ruler. His preference to remain on the defensive led to criticism that he was not an effective champion of Christendom. He was more active in confronting Ottoman-backed corsairs in the Mediterranean, who threatened trade routes between Spain and Italy.   Charles sought to undermine Ottoman ambitions in North Africa, and in July 1535, Charles led a campaign to conquer Tunis. However, an attempt to seize Algiers in October 1541 proved disastrous, as over 150 ships were lost in poor weather. Charles’ war effort was further undermined by tacit French support for the Ottoman fleet.   The Protestant Reformation Emperor Charles V at Mühlberg by Titian, 1548. Source: Museo del Prado, Madrid   Throughout his reign as emperor, Charles struggled to deal with the Protestant Reformation. Although he sympathized with some of Martin Luther’s criticisms of corruption in the Catholic Church, Charles asserted his position as a defender of the Roman Catholic faith in the Diet of Worms in 1521. Since many German princes accepted Luther’s teachings, the Reformation undermined Charles’ authority in Germany.   In 1530, the Lutheran princes formed the Schmalkaldic League to defend their collective interests. As he prioritized his rivalry with France and the Ottomans, Charles initially sought to be a peacemaker between the Catholics and Lutherans in order to encourage the latter to return to a reformed Catholic Church. While Henry VIII separated from Rome to marry Anne Boleyn in 1533, Charles recognized that Henry’s decision was motivated by politics rather than religion.   In 1543, Charles abandoned his policy of accommodation and moved aggressively against the Lutherans. Leaving his son Philip as regent in Spain, he went to the Netherlands and raised an army to defeat the Lutheran Duke William of Cleves (brother of Henry VIII’s divorced fourth wife Anne of Cleves). On April 24, 1547, Charles defeated Elector John Frederick of Saxony in battle at Mühlberg and installed his pro-imperial cousin Maurice of Saxony as elector.   Following his success on the battlefield, Charles sought to impose a punitive religious and political settlement on the Lutheran princes. This approach alienated both Catholics and Lutherans in Germany. In 1552, Maurice of Saxony defected from Charles and led a renewed military effort that forced the emperor to make political concessions.   Dividing the Empire Map of Habsburg lands at the time of Charles V’s abdication in 1556, 1912. Source: Cambridge Modern History Atlas, 1912 / Wikimedia Commons   Over the course of almost four decades, Emperor Charles V had proven that he was the most powerful ruler in Christian Europe, and he had been largely successful in keeping his vast empire together. However, his setbacks against the Ottomans and his failure to suppress Lutheranism caused him to sink into a deep depression.   During his reign, Charles recognized that his early dreams of a universal empire were unrealistic, and his prolonged absences led to the emergence of national bureaucratic institutions in Spain, the Netherlands, and the imperial territories. The effective division of the empire in 1530 between Charles and Ferdinand was formalized in 1555. In February, Ferdinand presided over the imperial diet at Augsburg to reach a peace settlement with the Lutherans recognizing the religious freedom of imperial princes, placing Lutheranism on an equal footing to Catholicism.   In April 1555, the death of his mother, Queen Juana, compounded Charles’ grief. In October 1555, he relinquished his powers in the Netherlands to his son Philip. In January 1556, Philip succeeded to the Spanish crown after Charles’ abdication. In September 1556, Charles abdicated from the imperial throne and transferred his power to Ferdinand, who was proclaimed emperor in March 1558. While the two branches regularly intermarried, this established separate branches of Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs.   After returning to Spain, Charles retired to the monastery of Yuste in Estremadura and died on September 21, 1558. Within a decade, Philip’s Dutch subjects launched a protracted but ultimately successful rebellion against Spanish rule. In a curious irony, a defining legacy of Charles V, the most powerful emperor in Europe between Charlemagne and Napoleon, was to facilitate the emergence of independent nation-states.

There is nothing more entertaining -- for a Republican, anyhow -- than watching two angry Democrats go at each other. It's particularly edifying when one's an old Democrat, the other is a younger one, and the topic is the future of the party. Usually, these fights happen in backrooms or...

It's difficult to call a drug safe and effective if it ends in the death of another human being's life 100 percent of the time -- and that's if it works correctly. But, as it turns it, it's even worse than that for mifepristone, the abortion pill that Democrats have been...

Democrats continue to beclown themselves by championing an alleged wife-beating illegal alien as disturbing new details reveal the reported MS-13 gangster and accused human trafficker is even more violent than originally reported. As a reminder, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is among a motley crew of Democrats diligently working...